Xerox University Microfilms

Home , Glen Dean Limestone, Greenbrier Group, Maxville Limestone, Platycrinites, Waverly Group

INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some- pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75-11,438 UTTLEY, Joseph Scott, 1945- THE STRATIGRAPHY OF THE MAXVILLE GROUP OF OHIO AND CORRELATIVE STRATA IN ADJACENT AREAS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 Geology

Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

JOSEPH SCOTT UTTLEY

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE STRATIGRAPHY OF THE MAXVILLE GROUP OF OHIO AND CORRELATIVE STRATA IN ADJACENT AREAS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By J. Scott Uttley, A.B., M.A.

The Ohio State University

1974 '

Reading Committee: Approved by Professor Robert L. Bates Professor Stig M. Bergstrom Professor Garry D. McKenzie Adviser Department of Geology and Mineralogy ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer is indebted to Professor Robert L. Bates, for suggesting the study, for his aid, guidance, and en couragement during the course of the research and for his critical reading of several drafts of the manuscript.

The writer is also indebted to Horace Collins, State

Geologist, and to the staff of the Ohio Division of Geo logical Survey.for numerous courtesies; the survey pro vided space to examine well cuttings, allowed free ac cess to numerous data files and the sample library, and furnished numerous county base maps.

I extend my gratitude to William S. Lytle and the staff of the Pittsburgh office of the Pennsylvania Geo logical Survey for their hospitality during my brief visit to that office. Thanks also to the staff of the

West Virginia Geological Survey for field assistance and the use> of their sample library.

Special thanks goes to Saeed Jaffery of the

Geolog Co. of Pittsburgh, whose experience as a well sample logger was not lost on the writer. Thanks also to Professors Garry McKenzie, Charles Summerson, and

Stig Bergstrom of The Ohio State University for their ii critical reading of the manuscript. In addition, the writer acknowledges support granted through the Friends of Orton Fund of the Department of Geology and Minera- logy of The Ohio State University, which helped defray the costs of drafting and reproduction.

Finally, my wife, Hari, deserves special recog nition for her incredible patience, tolerance and under standing throughout the hectic years of my graduate studies and for her aid in typing and drafting portions of the manuscript.

iii VITA

October 21, 1945...... Born— Potts town, Penn.

1967...... A.B., Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1967-1969...... Teaching Assistant, Depart ment of Geology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

Summer, 1968...... Exploration geologist, Mo bil Oil Corp., New Orleans, Louisiana

1969...... M.A., Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

1969-1970 ...... Exploration geologist, Mo bil Oil Corp., New Orleans, Louisiana

1970-197 2 ...... Instructor of Geoscience, Jersey City State College, Jersey City, New Jersey

1972-1973...... Teaching Assistant, Depart ment of Geology and Minera logy, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FILEDS OF STUDY Major Field: Geology Studies in physical stratigraphy— Professor Robert L. Bates. Studies in biostratigraphy— Professors Stig M. Berg strom and Walter C. Sweet. v Studies in economic geology— Professor Robert L. Bates. Studies in environmental geology— Professor Garry D. McKenzie. Studies in sedimentation— Professor Charles H. Summer- son. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... •...... ii

VITA...... *...... iv

LIST OF TABLES...... viii

LIST OF PLATES...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES . x

INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER

I SOURCES OF DATA...... 5 Well Samples...... 5 Identification of the Maxville Interval in Well Samples . 6 Geophysical Logs ...... 10 Cores...... 11 Drillers1 Logs . 13 Outcrops..... 16 Paleontological Information...... 17

II PREVIOUS WORK...... 18 Maxville Limestone of Ohio...... 18 Meramecian and Chesterian Car bonates in Adjacent Areas...... 30 Northeastern Kentucky Section..... 30 West Virginia Section . 34 Section in Southwestern Pennsyl vania and Adjacent Maryland and West Virginia . 37

v CHAPTER PAGE III STRATIGRAPHY OF THE MAXVILLE GROUP 42 Introduction to the Problem...... 42 Distribution and Thickness...... 43 Nature and Significance of the Pre-Maxville Disconformity...... 44 Evidence of Disconformity.-...... 44 Topography and Relief...... 48 Tectonic Significance...... 56 Dillon Falls Formation of Ohio and Its Correlatives in Adjacent Areas.. 58 Physical Character and Distri bution...... 58 Identification in the Sub surface...... 65 Correlation with the St. Louis of Kentucky...... 65 Correlative Units in West Vir ginia and Pennsylvania...... 66 The Post—Dillon Falls—St. Louis Dis— conformity...... 68 Formations of Ste. Genevieve Age in • Ohio and Adjacent Areas...... 69 Relation to Type Section...... 69 Expanded Definition of the Max ville Group...... 70 The Ste. Genevieve Limestone of Ohio and Adjacent Northeastern Kentucky...1...... 71 Equivalents in West Virginia. 74 The Loyalhanna Limestone...... 76 Relation of Ste. Genevieve Lime stone to Loyalhanna Limestone in Ohio...... 82 Possible Ste. Genevieve Equi valent in Gallia County...... 88 Dispersal Patterns of Terrigen ous elastics...... 90 The Post-Ste. Genevieve Regional Disconformity...... 93 Chesterian Formations of the Max ville Group...... 95 Jonathan Creek Formation...... 95 Bluerock Creek Formation...... 106 vi CHAPTER PAGE

Correlation of Chesterian Units in Ohio...... 109 Correlatives of the Bluerock Creek Formation...... 129 Possible Disconformity at Base of Bluerock Creek and Regional Equivalents...... 133 Summary of Correlations...... 134 Paleogeography of Ohio in Middle Chesterian Time...... 137 The Maxville Group and Its Equi valents Synthesis and Correla tion...... 140 The Post-Maxville (Monday Creek) Disconformity...... 147 Compound Nature of Pre- Pennsylvanian Disconformity...... 149 Age of the Monday Creek Dis- conformity...... 151 Characteristics of the Monday Creek Surface...... 152

IV ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE MAXVILLE GROUP...... 171 Oil and Gas...... 171 Industrial Stone...... 173 Prospects in Muskingum County 177 Prospects in Perry County...... 178 Type C Prospects in Other Ohio Counties...... 182

V CONCLUSIONS...... 187

APPENDIX A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 193 B SUMMARY OF SAMPLE, CORE, AND GEO PHYSICAL DATA USED IN THIS STUDY 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 243 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Mississippian and Early Pennsylvanian Stratigraphic Column of Ohio?...... 7

2. Five Sample Descriptions of the Maxville Interval...... 8

3. Correlation of the Maxville Limestone from 1871 to 1948...... 24

4. Development of Upper Mississippian Nomenclature and Correlations in Northeastern Kentucky...... 32

5. Development of Upper Mississippian Nomenclature and Correlations in West Virginia...... 35

6. Development of Upper Mississippian Nomenclature and Correlations in Southwestern Pennsylvania, Western Maryland, and Northern West Virginia... 38

7. Revised Upper Mississippian Nomen- ' clature and Correlations for Ohio...... 135

8. Revised Upper Mississippian Nomen- \ clature and Correlation for the Northern Appalachian Basin...... 143

viii LIST OF PLATES

PLATE PAGE

I Index map of control points used in the construction of Plate III...... In Pocket

II Generalized isopach map of the Max ville Group of Ohio...... In Pocket

III Development of southeastern regional dip and progressive changes in topo graphy through Mississippian time in eastern Ohio...... 52 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Index map of study area ...... 2

2 Stratigraphic and topographic rela tionships between the Maxville Group and adjacent formations...*...... 47

. 3 Isopach map of the Cuyahoga-Logan- Rushville interval in early Ches terian time ...... 49

4 Inferred topography of pre-Maxville surface, central to southern Ohio...... 51

5 Restored Upper Mississippian car bonate sequence, Ohio to West Virginia...... 57

6 Sketch of quarry face at Sidwell Brothers quarry, showing Dillon Falls section...... 60

7 Dillon Falls section at Sidwell locality...... 62

8 Dillon Falls section at Sidwell locality...... 63

9 Map showing original ,and present dis tribution of the Ste. Benevieve Lime stone and equivalents in Ohio...... 72

10 Southern limit of the Loyalhanna Lime stone in West Virginia 78

11 Facies relationships among Late Mera- mecian and early Chesterian strata in northern West Virginia and south western Pennsylvania...... 83

x FIGURE PAGE

12 Inferred age relationships of Ste. Genevieve and Loyalhanna limestones in Ohio...... 85

13 Isopach map of Ste. Genevieve and Loyalhanna limestones in Ohio in early Chesterian time...... 87

14 Possible stratigraphic relationships among siliceous limestones of the Maxville Group...... 89

15 Paleogeography of Ohio and adjacent areas during late Meramecian time...... 92

16 Columnar section of lower member of Jonathan Creek Formation...... 97

17 Lower member of Jonathan Creek Formation...... 99

18 Nodular limestone...... 101

19 Lithostratigraphic units recognized in the Maxville section of east- central Ohio...... 104

20 Lithostratigraphic units recognized in the Maxville section of southern < Ohio...... 107

21 Representatave geophysical logs from the Maxville Group...... 115

22 Paleo—sinkhole...... 118

23 Lower Jonathan Creek breccia...... 120

24 Lower Jonathan Creek breccia...... 121

25 Correlation of the Maxville Group of east-central Ohio with the type Mississippian...... 123

26 Upper member of Jonathan Creek Formation...... 130 xi FIGURE PAGE

27 Paleogeography of Ohio during maxi mum Chesterian Transgression...... 138

28 Relationship between Waverly and Pottsville in absence of the Max ville groups...... 141

29 Location diagram for cross-sections.... 144

30 Stratigraphic relations among units of the Upper Mississippian section of the northern Appalachian Basin...... ,145

31 Monday Creek disconformity 148 '

32 Disconformities in the Upper Mississip pian section of Ohio...... 150

33 Stratigraphic relations of Mississip pian and lower Pottsville strata in Perry County...... 153

34 Typical southeastern Ohio landscape suring Early Pennsylvanian time...... 154

35 Solution channels in upper Jonathan Creek Formation...... 158

36 Paleodrainage map of the Monday Creek surface...... 159

37 Stratigraphic position of various types of economic deposits of the Maxville Group...... 175

38 Geologic section of typical core from the Ironton mine area, Lawrence County, southern Ohio...... 185

xii FIGURE PAGE

27 Paleogeography of Ohio during maxi mum Chesterian Transgression...... 138

28 Relationship between Waverly and Pottsville in absence of the Max ville groups...... 141

29 Location diagram for cross-sections.... 144

30 Stratigraphic relations among units of the Upper Mississippian section of the northern Appalachian Basin...... 145

31 Monday Creek disconformity...... 148

32 Disconformities in the Upper Mississip pian section of Ohio...... 150

33 Stratigraphic relations of Mississip pian and lower Pottsville strata in Perry County...... 153

34 Typical southeastern Ohio landscape suring Early Pennsylvanian time...... 154

35 Solution channels in upper Jonathan Creek Formation...... 158

36 Paleodrainage map of the Monday Creek surface...... 159

37 Stratigraphic position of various types of economic deposits of the Maxville Group*...... 175

38 Geologic section of typical core from the Ironton mine area, Lawrence County, southern Ohio...... 185

xii INTRODUCTION

The Maxville limestone of Ohio is a generally thin

discontinuous Upper Mississippian carbonate unit, which

occurs between thick sequences of Mississippian and

Pennsylvanian elastics. Most studies of the limestone

have been local in extent or confined to a small number

of scattered exposures along the line of outcrop of the

Mississippian-Pennsylvanian contact in Scioto, Jackson,

Vinton, Hocking, Perry, and Muskingum counties, Ohio

(Figure 1). Moreover, correlations between exposures

have generally been difficult to establish, as the Max ville does not contain a diagnostic macrofauna and is

lithologically variable. The patchy distribution of the

Maxville is largely a consequence of severe Late Missis sippian Early Pennsylvanian erosion of an originally widespread deposit.

In 1963, based on detailed lithologic study and conodont biostratigraphy, Scatterday recognized three distinct formations in the Maxville limestone at expo sures and cores in east-central Ohio, thereby elevating the Maxville to group status. Furthermore, he proposed that the name Maxville be restricted to "the distinctive succession presently known to occur only in east-central 1 Figure 1.-Index map of study area 3

Ohio." The present writer accepts the group designa

tion of the Maxville but substantially modifies Scatter—

day’s definition to include all Upper Mississippian stra

ta occurring in Ohio. He also maintains the older, .now

informal, term "Maxville limestone" for convenience of

discussion.

The Greenbrier and Mauch Chunk groups of West

Virginia, the Newman Limestone of Kentucky, and the

Loyalhanna and Wymps Gap limestones of Pennsylvania are

all Late Mississippian in age. Many workers have at

tempted to correlate all or parts of each of them with the Maxville limestone. However, correlation has gen erally been little more than guesswork as continuous sur

face outcrops do not exist from Ohio into adjacent states and study of the areal extent and physical char acter of the Maxville in the subsurface has been large ly ignored.

The purpose of the present study is to give a com prehensive and detailed picture of the stratigraphy of the Maxville Group, using subsurface data supplemented by field checks of active Maxville quarries and some classic exposures. The area of investigation is indi cated on Figure 1. Particular emphasis is placed on correlation of formations established in east-central

Ohio by Morse (1910) andScatterday (1963) at exposures 4 in southern Ohio. Also, the complex depositional and erosional history of the Maxville Group is determined from analysis of a number of prominent pre-, intra-, and post-Maxville regional disconformities.

The writer establishes the lithostratigraphic re lationships between the Maxville and equivalent units in northeastern Kentucky, West Virginia, southwestern Penn sylvania, and western Maryland. This involves a re definition of the regional nonmenclature and a synthesis of interstate correlations. CHAPTER I

SOURCES OF DATA

The writer did research for the study during 1974,

primarily at the offices of the Ohio Division of Geo

logical Survey. All available well samples from the Up

per Mississippian section of southeastern Ohio were exam

ined and described. In addition, the writer studied

relevant information from drillers' logs, geophysical

logs, and core records. A small number of well samples and geophysical logs from the section of West Virginia and Pennsylvania were studied at the geological surveys of those states. The Maxville Group and correlative units in West Virginia and Pennsylvania were visited in the field in the spring of 1974.

Well Samples

The writer described samples from 212 Ohio wells.

These samples constitute all those available for the

Upper Mississippian section of the study area at the Ohio

Geological Survey as of July 1, 1974. A number of re presentative sample descriptions by the Geolog Company of Pittsburgh and 11 by the staff of the Geological

Survey were made available at the Survey's offices. A 5 6

location map for all Ohio data points used in this study

is presented as Plate I, and an index to the locations

as Appendix B.

Identification of the Maxville Interval in Well

Samples.— The top of the Maxville is usually clearly

defined in samples and can be accurately picked in most

wells. Immediately below its upper contact, the Max

ville frequently possesses a heavy ferruginous stain,

shows signs of brecciation, and/or contains up to 5 per

cent of chert— all indicative of prolonged post-Maxville

subaerial weathering. The overlying basal Pennsylvanian

is variable, but is commonly either a thin cherty clay

ironstone (Harrison Formation), or a coarse quartz sand

stone or conglomerate (Sharon Formation) (Table 1).

The basal section of the Maxville Group is often

extremely sandy and can be confused with the underlying

Logan Formation (Table 1), which is commonly a quartzose

slightly greenish medium-gray siltstone or very fine grained sandstone. Thus, Ohio drillers sometimes mis take the basal Maxville for older Waverly sandstones and include it in the "Big Injun" sand.

Table 2 summarizes information relevant to the Max ville interval from five descriptions of the same set of samples. The differences of opinion as to the thickness Table 1.-Mississippian and Early Pennsylvanian Strati-^ graphic column of Ohio; no vertical scale system series group formation m e m b e r

Sharon PENN. POTTS POTTS VILLE VILLE H arriso n Bluerock Z < Creek ce ui i- Jonathan vt UI Creek X u Di 1 Ion MER AMEC IAN MAXVILLE F a lls

OSAGEAN R ushville

z < Vinton Ss Logan A 1 1 e n s y i 11 e Cg Cl . a. Byer Ss z Berne Cg V) < Black Hand Ss >■ tn o Cuyahoga Portsmouth Sh V) o oe. X UI Buena Vista Ss s a: UI > Henley Sh O < Sunbu ry Z £

. ^ Berea

Bedford 8

Table 2.-Five sample descriptions of the Maxville interval encountered in the Natural Gas Company of West Virginia-Mobley #8 well, NW% sec. 19, Smith Twp., Belmont Co., Ohio. Ohio Permit No. 108, Sample No. 40

Name of Logger Maxville Interval Thickness

J.H.C. Martens 1413-1439 26' (1945)

R.E. Lamborn O' (open file: Ohio Geol. Sur. )

Cross and Denton 1425(?)—1439 ( ?)14' (open file; Ohio Geol. Sur.)

Geolog O' (open file; Ohio Geol. Sur.)

J.S. Uttley 1420+_2 '-1439 19 + 2' 9

of the Maxville limestone expressed in these descrip

tions is an indication of the difficulty that sample

loggers have had with identification of the Maxville in

terval in areas where only the basal sandy section is

present.

In Monroe and Belmont counties, Ohio, and adjacent

parts of West Virginia, a variably colored quartz con

glomerate, averaging about one foot thick, is found with

in a foot or two of the top of the Logan Formation. The

writer examined parts of a core (West Virginia Geologi

cal Survey, Wetzel County P# 408) that contained several

inches of this conglomerate and found it to consist of

rounded sand grains and quartz pebbles in a calcium-

carbonate matrix. Detection of this conglomerate in

samples enables one to accurately locate the Maxville-

Logan boundary.

Where the Maxville Group is absent by erosion, it

is difficult to locate the boundary between Mississi

ppian and Pennsylvanian strata (Table 1). The presence of a ferruginous or quartz-conglomeratic zone cannot be

taken as prima facie evidence of the basal Pennsylvanian,

as several similar zones appear higher and lower in the

section. Several general criteria are helpful, however,

in recognizing the top of Lower Mississippian (Waverly) strata (Table 1), such as the abrupt downward loss of 10

coal in the shale samples, the change to a more homogen-

eous-looking sample, and the subtle color change to a

consistent slightly greenish medium gray. Where clean

basal Sharon sands ("Maxton" of the driller) rest on the

"Keener" or "Big Injun" sands of the Waverly Group, the

Mississippian-Pennsylvanian contact cannot usually be

identified.

Geophysical Logs

Several thousand geophysical logs from south eastern Ohio were examined to determine the presence or absence of the Maxville Group. A large proportion of these did not contain information on rocks above the

Berea Formation (Lower Mississippian) (Table 1) and were therefore useless. Others were incomplete, with only a gamma-ray track present at shallower (Maxville) depths.

Geophysical logs afforded 205 new control points.

In wells with geophysical logs, but no samples, it was necessary to establish whether the Maxville Group was present, and if so, how much was present. The initial step taken to this end was to locate the nearest sampled well deep enough to penetrate the Berea Formation. The interval between the top of the Berea and the bottom of the Maxville could then be established. It was found 11

that this interval varies only slightly over a consider-

i able geographical area and that it could in fact be mapped

(Figure 3, page 49 ), making it a valuable guide in lo cating the Maxville in new wells.

When the Berea, which has a very distinctive log character, was located on a given geophysical log and the above interval applied, a search was begun for lime stone. When only a gamma-ray track was availctble little could be done, because of the near identity of sandstone and limestone; however, if a neutron or density track was also present, the combination of a sand-like peak on the gamma-ray curve and a strong peak on the neutron or den sity curve usually indicated dense limestone. These logs were supplemented by a few sonic, resistivity, and/or spontaneous-potential logs, on which the presence of lime stone was easy to detect.

Cores

The amount of information on the Maxville Group available from core-holes in Ohio is disappointingly small. Only one complete Maxville core is available for inspection, that of Texas Eastern Gas Transmission Corp.—

Thomas #3 (L# 293, PI. I); it is stored in the Depart ment of Geology and Mineralogy at the Ohio State Univer ity. Another core (L# 111, PI. I), now reduced to chips, 12 and descriptions of nine additional cores, can be ex

amined at the Geological Survey.

Available core records for eastern Ohio from the

Army Corps of Engineers were studied, but none apparently penetrated the Maxville Group. Several Maxville cores used by Scatterday (1963) were apparently obtained from the Corps' Dillon Reservoir project in Muskingum County.

Unfortunately, Scatterday gave only the locations and brief descriptions of these cores. Their present where abouts is unknown.

Records from over 130 cores, drilled in a six- square mile area of southwestern Newton Township, Mus kingum County by the Columbia Cement Corporation, are summarized by Bruce (1974). Although useful in con structing an isopach map of the Maxville Group in Mus kingum County, these records are from core-holes that cover such a small area that their regional significance is limited.

Records from the Alpha Cement Company's Ironton mine, Lawrence County, Ohio (Figure 1) include drillers* and geologists' descriptive logs for 12 cores'drilled in

1961 and 29 cores drilled in 1964-1965. They are valu able because of the thickness of the section and the great distance between the core locations and the near est large outcrop area; thus, they add substantial re gional control to this study. 13 As no other cores of the Maxville Group are avail

able in southeastern Ohio, it was the hope of the writer

that a thick core of Upper Mississippian section might

be obtained from nearby Pennsylvania or West Virginia.

Although inquiries were made at the Pennsylvania and

West Virginia geological surveys, no suitable core was

located.

Drillers' Logs

A search for Maxville data was conducted through

tens of thousands of drillers' logs on open file at the

Ohio Geological Survey. Where the Maxville is present,

it is often identified as such on the driller's log;

but more often than not, it is described as "Jingle Rock,"

"Keener Lime," or "Big Lime and Little Lime." Other

drillers' terms less commonly encountered on the logs

include "Greenbrier," "Newtonville Lime," "Fultonham

Lime," "Mountain Limestone," and "Big Injun Sand." Al

though the "true Big Injun Sand" is considered by the

Ohio Geological Survey to be the subsurface equivalent of

the Black Hand Member of the Cuyahoga Formation (Table 1) which commonly occurs approximately 200 feet below the

Maxville interval, in practice sandy Maxville limestone

and the Logan Formation (Lower Mississippian) are some

times included in the "Big Injun" by the drillers. Also,

in some areas of Perry County and adjacent areas the 14

Maxville Group has been misidentified as the Cambridge lime, a widespread Comemaugh (Pennsylvanian) limestone.

A number of problems developed in using drillers* logs. Many sections, townships, and even counties have been little tested for oil and gas; therefore, there are large areas of little or no control and in such areas there is no way to evaluate a single driller's log. Many wells with useful Maxville data were drilled before lo cation permits were required and thus the wells cannot be located. Moreover, the quality of an individual driller*s log varies considerably. For example, a log may show only two or three entries per thousand feet of hole, or it may show many entries but fail to pick key units known in the area; neither of these types of logs is usable.

Drillers seem to have the greatest difficulty with identification of siliceous limestone and calcareous sandstone, an important part of the Maxville in many

Ohio counties. Such rocks are commonly called sandstone, but they may be correctly identified in areas around producing oil and gas fields.

The accuracy of drillers* logs for wells with Max ville samples and/or geophysical logs is usually good.

Most are close enough to the correct value to make them valuable tools in mapping the Maxville*s general 15

distribution and thickness. As early as 1903, Bownocker

commented that in Monroe County the "Big Lime" (Maxville)

was the "great guidepost" o£ the driller because of its

easy identification. Youse (1963) reported that the

Greenbrier Group in West Virginia was the only unit that

drillers consistently identified in the early days of

oil and gas exploration in the Appalachian area. Today,

drillers appear to be most accurate when the thickness

of limestone is somewhere between 50 and 75 feet, in

which case the driller*s call will typically be within

15 feet of the true thickness. However, he is likely to

miss the Maxville if less than 15 feet of section is pre

sent or if the well is in an area removed from areas of known Maxville occurrence.

In areas close to West Virginia, where the Maxville

Group is commonly over 100 feet thick, drillers' "picks"

are less accurate. This is perhaps in part because the

"Little Lime" (Reynolds Limestone of West Virginia) is

thin, dark, and argillaceous, and is therefore often missed by the driller. The "Little Lime" is generally present in Ohio as the uppermost part of the Maxville

Group if the total thickness of the limestone exceeds approximately 125 feet. Another factor affecting the accuracy of the driller's log is probably the abrupt change in Maxville thickness over short distances. 16

Drillers often rely on information from nearby wells in

order to anticipate key lithologic units. If the Max

ville thickness changes from 75 to 180 feet, the dril

ler’s identification may be in error.

Outcrops

Outcrops of the Maxville limestone are confined to

areas along the contact of the Mississippian and Penn

sylvanian systems in Scioto, Jackson, Vinton, Hocking,

Perry, and Muskingum counties (Figure. 1). Exposures of

the Maxville in Perry and Muskingum counties are of eco nomic significance. In these counties, limestone from

the Maxville Group has been continuously quarried for well over 100 years.

The writer visited all known active Maxville quar— ■< ries and several abandoned ones in Perry and Muskingum counties, in order to study the lithostratigraphic units

for subsurface comparison. Particular emphasis was placed on the correlation of numerous disconformities and breccia zones. The lithologic variability of the Max

ville Group at these exposures can be gleaned by study of measured sections detailed in Flint (1949), Merrill

(1950), Friedman (1952), Scatterday (1963), and Bruce

(1974). In addition, Upper Mississippian rocks were 17

studied at natural and quarry exposures near Greer,

West Virginia and in Westmoreland and Payette counties,

Pennsylvania (Figure 1).

Paleontological Information

Because this study primarily deals with the phy

sical aspects of the Maxville Group, the writer did not

study the Maxville fauna. Biostratigraphic work with conodonts by Scatterday (1963) established several faunal

zones in the Maxville Group that can be used to great

advantage in regional correlation. While at the Greer

quarry in West Virginia (Figure 1), the writer sampled an exposed section recently described by Richard Smosna of

the West Virginia Geological Survey (personal communi cation, 1974). Samples collected were disaggregated and processed for conodonts, with the hope of making bio stratigraphic correlations with exposures of the Max— ville in Ohio. W.C. Sweet of the Department of Geology and Mineralogy at Ohio State University studied the cono donts, but because of the sparsity of the fauna concluded only that the section belongs in the lower half of the

Chesterian Series. Professor Sweet stated that closer study of the specimens of Cavusqnathus might result in the identification of early Chesterian zones. CHAPTER II

PREVIOUS WORK

MAXVILLE LIMESTONE

Although noted as early as 1838 by Briggs, the Max

ville limestone was not formally studied until 1869, when

Andrews (1870) proposed the name for a group of nonper-

sistent limestone deposits between the Logan sandstone

and the "usual coal measure grit." The name was derived

from the village of Maxville in Monday Creek Township,

Perry County, Ohio. Andrews, citing the limestone*s

patchy distribution, thought that it was originally de

posited in isolated basins. He correlated the Maxville

with the "Sub-carboniferous limestone of Kentucky," and

stated, "the Maxville limestone will probably prove to be equivalent of the Chester limestones of the Illinois

reports." In 1871 Andrews published the localities of ad ditional Maxville exposures, together with parts of a

letter from Professor F.B. Meek, who was studying the

Maxville fauna (1871a). Meek confirmed Andrews' belief

that the "Maxville horizon" was equivalent to "the lower 18 19

Carboniferous limestone series of the Western states."

Meek concluded that the Maxville fauna was essentially

Chesterian in age, but that it contained a few forms representative of the St. Louis limestone (equivalent to the modern Meramecian Series).

In 1873, Andrews expanded the list of known Max ville localities, and stated that his earlier contention that the limestone was deposited in isolated basins was questionable. By 1878, having found Pennsylvanian rocks at elevations lower than the nearby Maxville,. he sug gested that the limestone areas could once have been con nected and later dissected by erosion.

Whitfield (1882, 1891) expanded the list of Maxville fossils, concurring with Meek on their equivalence with the "Chester limestone" or with the "Chester" and St.

Louis limestones. Herrick (1888) was of the same opin ion. He found Maxville fossils in silicified limestone pebbles in basal Pennsylvanian conglomerates in Licking

County.

Stevenson (1902) reported that Meek had made a study in 1870 of the fauna from the Lower Carboniferous limestones of northern West Virginia, wherein he coni - eluded that the fauna was identical to that of the Max ville. Because of the "Law of priority," Stevenson urged the adoption of Andrews’ term Maxville for all similar 20

units in southwestern Pennsylvania and adjacent West

Virginia and Maryland, then variously called the Mauch

Chunk, Greenbrier, and Umbral. In 1903, in an effort to

standardize "Lower Carboniferous" nomenclature in the

Applachian Basin, Stevenson swept away a panoply of older

names in favor of (from oldest to youngest) Pocono,

Tuscumbia, Maxville, and Shenango. The Maxville replaced

the Hartselle of Alabama, the greater part of the Ban

gor of Tennessee, the lower part of the "mountain lime

stone" of Tennessee, most of the upper Newman and upper

Greenbrier in Virginia, the upper Umbral and upper Mauch

Chunk limestones in Pennsylvania, and the upper St. Louis of Kentucky. In light of the present confusing state of

Mississippian nomenclature in these areas, it seems un

fortunate that Stevenson’s nomenclature was not applied by later workers.

Phalen (1908, 1912) assigned the name Maxville to strata in northeastern Kentucky, which were then infor mally called the Sub-carboniferous limestone. Phalen*s nomenclature, likewise, was not generally accepted. Beginning in 1878, Newberry and especially Orton disputed Andrews* claim that the Maxville was stratigra— phically lower than the base of the Coal Measures of

Ohio and that it was nonpersistent along the line of out crop. Eventually, Orton grudgingly admitted the truth 21

of Andrews’ statement, but not until 1906, 26 years af

ter the latter's death. A detailed account of the An-

drews-Orton controversy, along with a bibliography and

a summary of all pre-1910 work on the Maxville, appeared n

in a paper by Morse (1910).

Morse's own work (1910, 1911) was and remains a major contribution to Ohio geology. Making the first major field studies of the Maxville since Andrews, Morse located and described all previous known outcrops. He divided them geographically into the "Northern Area"

(White Cottage to Logan) and the "Southern Area" (Ham den to the Kentucky side of the Ohio River at Scioto- ville) (Figure 1).

The northern area contains by far the most exten sively preserved Maxville deposits. Here, along por tions of Jonathan Creek, Kent Run, Rush Creek, Little

Monday Creek, and Three Mile Run, Morse began to put to gether some of the pieces of the Maxville stratigraphic puzzle. He recognized the significance of, and docu mented the evidence for, the post—Maxville (Mississip— pian-Pennsylvanian) disconformity. He shared Andrews* belief (1878) that the limestone was originally contin uous but was later separated into patches by erosion.

Morse divided the Maxville of the northern area into the lower (impure) and upper (pure) zones, which 22

were separated by a thin fossiliferous zone of alterna

ting ’’small nodules, nodular-like layers of limestone,”

and dark shale. The middle zone he called the "Shale

nodular Zone.” This zone, which is thin and widespread,

enabled Morse to correlate most of the widely scattered remnants of Maxville limestone in the northern area.

After days of painstaking field search, Morse con cluded that the "Central Area” (Logan to Hamden) (Figure

1) was devoid of Maxville limestone, although he felt certain that at one time the unit must have been present.

In the southern area Morse could not find the shale nodular zone or any other key bed. Instead, in the few

thin, areally limited occurrences, he encountered lithologies different from those in the north. He found that the southern beds consisted primarily of frequently cross-bedded sandy limestone and calcareous sandstone.

Notwithstanding Morse's claim’that breccia zones are more common in the southern area, the occurrence of one such zone in the north led him .to suspect the pre sence of a disconformity between the Maxville and the underlying tiogan. Angular clasts in the northern breccia were lithologically different from normal Max ville limestone, prompting Morse to state, "Ohio must, have had a Mississippian limestone, other than the Max ville, of which they alone (the clasts) are the 23

representatives."

Morse's (1910) correlations with the Mississippian

formations of northeastern Kentucky are informative.

"There are certain features which suggest St. Louis age

for the whole of the Mississippian limestone as exposed at certain places in the Southern Area and for a small portion of the base of the limestone as exposed in a few places in the northern area. Using paleontological guidelines published by Ulrich (1905), Morse proposed that most of the Maxville limestone exposed in the nor-

i. them area correlated with the Ste. Genevieve limestone

(Lower Chester of Ulrich) (Table 3).

Ulrich (1911) agreed with Morse's Maxville cor relations, but later (1917) changed his mind and cor related the Maxville with the Chesterian Gasper oolite

(Table 3). Butts (1932) supported Ulrich's revision, and added, "If the Ste. Genevieve extended into Ohio, it is . either in areas detached from the main body of the Max ville...or if present in any Maxville areas it is a thin unfossiliferous basal layer and not represented in the Maxville fauna." Butts also believed that the Ste.

Genevieve extended beneath the surface of southern Ohio as a basal member of the Maxville and reappeared as the

Loyalhanna Limestone of Pennsylvania. Table 3.-Correlation of the Maxville limestone from 1871 to 1948

MEEK (IN MORSE ULRICH ULRICH BUTTS BUTTS WELLER ET AL- ANDREWS.1871) 1910 1911 1917 1922 1922 1948 AND WHITFIELD NO-AREA SO-AREA 1882,1891 OHIO BASIN" OUTCROP SUBSURFACE V) Ui ui cn Z £ < 1U £ h Ui <0 I- ui O M AXVILLE LS IA X MAXVILLE Ui M ( = G ASPER r o > OF BUTTS) LS X O MAXVILLE MAXVILLE s a l MAXVILLE s / si c tio iyi A XVILLE •(/) LS ui L/ LS LS LS £ui (A MAXVILLE (A O LS -i (A K .? — (A

1 25

Lamb (1916) stated that he had discovered outliers

of the Maxville in Coshocton and Holmes counties; how

ever, field studies by Meyers (1929), White (1949),

Lamborn (1954), and Scatterday (1963) did not support

this claim. Stout reviewed the stratigraphy and econo

mic geology of the Maxville in southern Ohio (1916) and

in Muskingum County (1918). Lockett (1927) cited the

Maxville as an oil- and gas-producing sand in several

southeastern Ohio counties. Reger (1927, 1931) cor

Virginia.

In 1945, Lamborn made the only major study of the

Maxville Group in the subsurface prior to the present

work. Using drillers' logs, he produced a map of the

Maxville limestone "below grainage," a table showing the

variations in thickness, average thickness, and depth to

the Maxville, and a written analysis of these data. Lam

born also reviewed the major outcrop localities and gave chemical analyses of the stone.

Weller ej: al. (1948) correlated the Maxville with

the Ste. Genevieve (Table 3) because of the similarity of the trilobite faunas, but acknowledged that a St.

Louis age for the Maxville is also possible. Rittenhouse

(1949) stated that the Greenbrier of West Virginia con tinues in the subsurface into Ohio where it becomes the 26

Maxville limestone. Wells (1950) reported that "it is possible the Maxville is equivalent or partially equi valent" to the Denmar Formation (Ste. Genevieve in age) of the Greenbrier Group of West Virginia.

On the basis of extensive field evidence, Flint

(1948) detailed the relief on the pre-Pennsylvanian sur face in parts of Perry County. He noted especially the locations of a number of "Logan hills," on which the Max ville limestone, found on neighboring pre-Pennsylvanian topographic highs, is not present. Merrill (1950), working in adjacent northern Hocking County, made simi lar observations. In a limited petrographic study of the Maxville in parts of Perry and Muskingum counties,

Friedman (1952) determined the quantitative differences in percentages of the detrital quartz between Morse’s

Lower and Upper Maxville zones.

Hyde’s work on the Mississippian formations of cen tral and southern Ohio, posthumously published in 1953, made only a few references to the Maxville but is an exceedingly valuable study. In addition to an erudite analysis of Mississippian stratigraphy, especially that of the Cuyahoga and Logan formations (Table 1), Hyde presented a detailed county-by-county discussion of the topography of the pre-Pennsylvanian surface and a summary of facts on the "post-Waverlian disconformity." 27

Bowen (1954) made a limited subsurface study of a

part of Muskingum County, based on one exploratory Max

ville core and on drillers' logs. He constructed maps

showing the amount of relief on the pre-Maxville and pre-

Pennsylvanian surfaces, a Maxville isopach map, and three

cross-sections. Although several of Bowen's basic as

sumptions are rather shaky, his work shows the irregu

lar nature of the Maxville in the subsurface.

In 1954, the Alpha Portland Cement Company com missioned a study of the Maxville limestone in their mine

at Ironton, Ohio. A written report was submitted to the company in January, 1955, by N.E. Chute, consulting geo logist. The closing of the Ironton mine in 1970 resulted in the release of the report to R.L. Bates, who made it available to the writer. Chute's report is considered in detail in later chapters. He discovered two disconformities within the Maxville section, and presented full de scriptions of.the various Maxville lithologic units in the Ironton mine. All early workers on the Maxville were to some de gree tied to macropaleontology for their correlations with similar units in adjacent states and with the Mis sissippian type section. However, because of uncertainty about the range and distribution of the various Maxville faunal elements, correlations based on these fossils are 28

subject to disparate interpretations. Bypassing the tra

ditional Maxville paleontological approach, Scatterday

(1963) successfully applied the methods of conodont

biostratigraphy to the Maxville problem.

Scatterday described and sampled the Maxville at

most of the significant exposures. He recognized in

Morse’s northern area three distinct lithologic units,

to which he assigned formational rank, elevating the Max

ville to group status. The oldest of the Maxville for

mations is the Dillon Falls, which is equivalent to the

St. Louis of the standard section. The two younger for

mations, the Jonathan Creek and the Bluerock Creek, are

Chesterian in age. The Bluerock Creek Formation does

not crop out in Ohio and is known with certainty only

from two wells in Muskingum County.

In Morse’s southern area, Scatterday maintained

that indentification of lithologic units equivalent to

those found in the northern area was not possible. He thereupon abandoned the name Maxville and adopted the prevailing Kentucky nomenclature as used by McFarlen

and Walker (1956). The southern area was found to con

sist largely of Ste. Genevieve Limestone, and, where the section is thick, of various Lower Chesterian units.

The St. Louis was found to be absent, although pebbles and cobbles of it occur in the basal Ste. Genevieve. 29 ✓

Finally, Scatterday summarized the depositional and erosional 'history of the Maxville Group in the northern area. He placed particular emphasis on the long hiatus between deposition of the Dillon Falls Formation and de position of the Jonathan Creek and Bluerock Creek for mations on the irregular post-Dillon Falls erosional surface.

Horowitz (1969) supported a Chesterian age for the

Jonathan Creek Formation, based on his study of its echinoderms, mollusks, and brachiopods. Careagea (1971) established the ’’magnetic stratigraphy” of the Chesterian

Maxville of the northern area, and stated that future paleomagnetic work in the Mississippian type section in conjunction with microfossil evidence will establish the capability "of resolving correlation to the subforma- tional level.” Until this difficult future work is under taken, however, the value of Careaga's work cannot be measured.

Bruce (1974) completed a study of the Maxville

Group in Newton Township, Nbskingum County. Although primarily concerned with the Maxville*s economic geology,

Bruce gave a good account of the local variation (facies changes) found in Newton Township quarries and in the large Jonathan mine of the Columbia Cement Corporation. 30

In addition, he presented several new described sections

and a new core description.

MERAMECIAN AND CHESTERIAN CARBONATES IN ADJACENT AREAS

Northeastern Kentucky Section.— Meramecian and/or

Chesterian carbonates are exposed at numerous locali

ties along the line of outcrop of the Mississippian-

Pennsylvanian contact in northeastern Kentucky. Prom

Greenup County.(Figure 1) the line of outcrop crosses

into Ohio, where exposures are rare. Southwest of ap

proximately Menifee County, Kentucky, which is located

just west of Morgan County on Figure 1, the carbonate

outcrop is more continuous and exposed sections are

thicker. To the east the carbonate section is present

into West Virginia and Virginia as a nearly continuous

sheet of variable thickness (Sonnenberg, 1949).

The carbonate section of northeastern Kentucky was

called the Subcarboniferous limestone in the earliest

publications of the Kentucky Geological Survey (Crandall,

1877) and in the Ohio reports of Andrews (1870, 1878).

Stevenson (1903) referred to the section as the "Saint

Louis Limestone" and suggested the name Maxville for the upper part and Tuscumbia for the lower part. Phalen

(1908, 1912) called the entire section the Maxville 31

limestone (Table 4).

Butts (1922) attempted to "set forth the classi

fication order, character, thickness, geographic extent,

and regional variations of the various stratigraphic

units" of the Upper Mississippian strata of eastern

Kentucky. The excellent earlier work of Butts and Ul

rich (1918) in western Kentucky provided the foundation by which the well-defined subdivisions of the Mississip

pian type section could be introduced into the eastern

part of the state.

The nomenclature and correlations of Butts were

generally accepted by Weller et al. (1948) (Table 4).

However, they correctly pointed out that the Gasper and

Ohara limestones as identified by Butts (1922), are not

fully equivalent to the formations of the same name at

their type sections. Butts (1918, 1922), and also UI— -4 rich (1918, 1922), considered the Ohara limestone to be entirely late Ste. Genevieve in age, whereas in reality, the upper Ohara correlates with the type Renault (lower

Gasper) (McFarlan and Walker, 1955).

McFarlan and Walker (1955) reviewed the correla tions of the Upper Mississippian Series of western Ken tucky. They modified several key correlations of Butts and Ulrich (1918) and adopted much of the Chesterian nomenclature of southern Indiana after Malott (1919). Table 4.-Development of Upper Mississippian nomenclature and correlations in northeastern Kentucky

Crandall, Phalen, Compiled from Butts, Standard Section Weller et al., 1948 After McFarlan after Sheppard, 1964 Weller et al., 1948 1922 ne. Ky. (Composite east-central Ky and Walker, 1956 Tygarta Valley quad ne. Ky Section Carter Co,) (Composite Section,no.Kv ne. Ky overlying s tra ta L. Penn L» Penn L. Penn. L. Penn* L, Penn, Post

Pennington Sh Pennington Fn.

Glen Dean Ls. Glen Dean Ls. Pennington Glen Dean Ls Hardinsburg Ss Golconda Fm Golconda Fm uoiconda Fm. Upper Beech Creek Cvprcas Ss. Ls. Member Gasper Ls Reelsville Paint Gasper (Break) Creek Fm. Beaver Bend Ls Oolite Bethel Sa. 6 HALE "MOORETOWN BREAK Renault La. Paoli Ls. Ohara Ls. Aux Vaaas (Break) (Bryantsvilie breccia) Ste. OHARA MEMBER Ste. Ste. Genevieve Gene - vieve FREDON1A Genevieve Ls Genevieve Genevieve MEMBER Ls Member (Break)? ST. LOUIS LS 57. LOUIS LS Q) CO ST. LOUIS LS. ST. LOUIS LS

SALEM LS. SALEM LS

Warsaw Ls. WARSAW LS

Underlying CO L. Miss. L. Miss. L. Miss. M 33

In 1956, the same writers carried the new terminology and correlations into eastern Kentucky.

The U.S. Geological Survey (Patterson and Hoster- man, 1962) applied McFarlan and Walker*s nomenclature to the carbonate section in the Haldeman and Wrigley quadrangles of northeastern Kentucky, but in 1964,

Sheppard (Tygarts Valley quadrangle) revived an old all- inclusive term, the Newman Limestone. This name, from

Newman Ridge, Hancock County, Tennessee (Wilmarth, 1938) was first used by Campbell of the U.S. Geological Survey in 1893 in Harlan County, southeastern Kentucky, and in adjacent areas of Virginia and Tennessee. However, ex cept in a few early Kentucky folios and in the southeastern counties, the term Newman Limestone was not widely used. Since 1964, however, it has been used by the U.S.

Geological Survey and has become popular with students of the Upper Mississippian sequence in northeastern Ken tucky. The widespread adoption of the term is presum ably a result of the difficulties with field identifi cation of the numerous thin and often discontinuous units described by McFarlan and Walker (1956).

In the subsurface of northeastern Kentucky, Upper

Mississippian carbonate rock (the "Big Lime" of the driller) was, until the recent re-introduction of the term Newman Limestone, generally called the Greenbrier 34

Limestone (Perry, 1926; Robinson et: al., 1928; Sonne- berg, 1948).

West Virginia Section.— Meramecian and Chesterian carbonates underlie most of West Virginia. The carbonate section crops out in the eastern part of the state in a generally narrow and irregular zone extending from Mer cer County in the south to Preston and Monongalia coun ties in the north (Figure 1); the outcrop continues south into Virginia and north into Pennsylvania.

The West--Virginia sequence was named the "Green brier Series" by Stevenson (1878), after the Greenbrier

River, Pocahontas County. In 1903, Stevenson unsuc- j cessfully urged abandonment of the term Greenbrier in favor of the Tuscumbia (lower Greenbrier) and the Max ville (upper Greenbrier).

In 1926, Reger subdivided the Greenbrier Series into a number of lithostratigraphic units (Table 5).

He traced the Greenbrier units "southwestward across

Virginia into Kentucky and Tennessee,” where he effected

"a connection...with the studies of Butts." This en abled Reger to establish correlations between the "mem bers" of the "Greenbrier Series" and units of the Mis sissippian type section. Reger's studies (1926, 1931) helped define the geographical distribution, thickness, Table 5.-Development of Upper Mississippian nomenclature and correlations in ______West Virginia______

STANDARD COMPILED FROM REOER(1926 WELLER ET Al- COMPILED FROM WELLS(19S0 W RAYI1951) OVERBEY 11967)

SECTION 50- W- VA- (>?<*) HICKMAN (1951) AND NO-W VA- 50- W VA WELLER ET At- (1946) SE- W-VA-______KANESI1957): SE-W VA- L- PENN L- PENN L- PENN L- PENN PENN L- PENN foot- x-yzc 1LVIWA ? MAUCH CHUNK MAUCH CHUNK MAUCH CHUNK MAUCH SERIES CHUNK MAUCH CHUNK SERIES SERIES SERIES UPPER CLIN OIAN LS MEMBER middlfupptr mbr* REYNOLDS IS HAROINSSUJtQ S I ALDERSON LS SERIES c o i c o No a fm lo«r*r mbr CYPRESS SS CRECNVIUC SH MIDDLE LILLYDALE SH

PA IN T CREEK FM MEMBER U t l l l t N it A M * (IIINViLLI IP U N IO N I * S t T H C l AS GASPER CYPRESS SS C A S F tt IS

R E N A U LT LS OASPCR LS PICKAWAY IS LOYALHANNA MBR OS II H A U I T IS AUX VASES SS TAGGARD FM CD r>RIOONIA") FRIOONIA 18 FREDONIA PATTON PICKAWAY PICKAWAY MEMBER IS

GENEVIEVE PICKAWAY £ TA 0 O A R O FM ot PATTON TAGGARD SINKS < GROVE S s____ PATTON PATTON Z “ ■! SINKS SINKS GROVE LU GROVE SINKS GROVE LS ? HILLSDALE HIL LS DALE HILLSDALE CD LS LS HILLSDALE CD LS LS IS SALEM LS MACCRADY MACCRADY MACCRADY WARSAW SERIES SH 15 MACCRADY SERIES SERIES U> under Ijr»no IIMI* I- MISS L- MISS LF1 L- MISS L- MISS L- MISS L- MISS 36

physical and paleontological character, and regional

variations of the Greenbrier units.

Lucke (1939) reviewed Reger's work and pointed

out the great difficulty in correlating the Union lime

stone of southern West Virginia with strata in the

northern part of the state. Weller et al. (1943) re

tained Reger's nomenclature but modified his correlations with the Mississippian type section (Table 5). Wells

(1950) studied the stratigraphy and paleontology of pre-

Union "members" of the Greenbrier Group, changed many of the earlier correlations of Reger and of Weller et

al., and condensed several of Reger's members into a new

formation, the Denmar.

Field studies by Wray (1951), Hickman (1951), Kanes

(1957), Wilpolt and Marden (1959), Adams (1964), and

Leonard (1968), and subsurface studies by Rittenhouse

(1949), Sprouse (1954), Flowers (1955), Wilpolt and Mar den (1959), Youse (1963), Adams (1964), Overbey (1967), and Henniger (1972) have enormously increased our know ledge of the geographical distribution, petrology, eco nomic geology, and geologic history of the Greenbrier

Group. However, as shown in Table 5, there is a lack of consensus among workers on the correlations and classi fication of the Greenbrier lithostratigraphic units.

This situation has been exacerbated by the tendency in 37

many later studies to combine Reger*s nomenclature with

the correlations of Weller et al. and to attribute them

both to Reger! The writer, in a later chapter, shows

that satisfactory correlations between units of the

Greenbrier Group and those of the Mississippian type

section do exist, but are not widely known or recognized.

Section in Southwestern Pennsylvania and Adjacent

Maryland and West Virginia.— Meramecian and Chesterian

cargonates and elastics are exposed along the flanks of

several anticlinal ridges in the Appalachian Plateau

of southwestern Pennsylvania, northern West Virginia, and western Maryland (Figure 1). They also crop out east of

the study area along the Allegheny Front and in two out liers, the Emmaville and Broadtop basins, in the Ridge and Valley of south-central Pennsylvania. Wells (1974) reported that the basal units of this carbonate-clastic sequence, the "Loyalhanna Member,*' appears to extend along the Allegheny Front from southwestern Pennsylvania into north-central and perhaps northeastern Pennsylvania.

The development of Meramecian and Chesterian no menclature in southwestern Pennsylvania and adjacent

Maryland and West Virginia is outlined in Table 6. Be cause most workers have been unable to correlate the southwestern Pennsylvania sequence with the Mississippian Table 6.-Development of Upper Mississippian nomenclature and correlations in south- ______western Pennsylvania, western Maryland, and northern West Virginia

Stevenson Stevenson 1877 K3 1903 Compiled from Amsden (1954) Ligonicr sw Pa., Flint (1965) Youse(1964) Wray (1951) Valley, v. Hd. Reger(l926,1931) W. Md. SW. Pa. W. Va. N-C W. Va. SW. Pa. sw. Pa. so. i se. V. Va. GARRETT Co. so. Somerset Co. Fqyelte Co. L. Penn. L. Penn. Standard L. Penn« L. Penn. Section L. Penn. After Wellor .194* Post. Filv- * co .ixa. Upper MAUCH UJ z MAUCH Shale MAUCH Upper o3 a! CHUNK 3 X • » CHUNK X CHUNK UJ h- - s c • o Member « • £ SERIES FM. CO u £ U SERIES a.0. « Green brier Ls. MQUN Wynpi Gap Li. TAIN co (of Pa.) LS. V) Alderson (Greenbrier of Pa.) UJ - - ? - ui Ls. Upper Alderson ft 2 2 x Lower - I ft E u. ui Ls. s u ui GREENVILLE Sn. Member Shales U H 0) Lower co 3 a E 5 « 5 2 Gasper UI X CC X Member CC La. E o 3 UJ Union y 5 ! CO I 3 z < x Loyal - •m Ls. Bethel Si. UI 2 Daef m 0 ui 'Valley Li. hanna e E z ui rrcdonla Li. LOYALHANNA MEMBER LOYALHANNA LIMESTONE LU Fm. O UI c X -?>- o PICKAWAY LS. Loyalhanna z 0 Ls. UI TAGGARD FH. ft UI PATTON PH. e 5 ® SINKS GROVE LS. a < (9 E « Ul HILLSDALE LS. 2 E < UI 13 E (A Maccrady UI co 2 L. Mill. L. Miss. L. Miss. L. Miss. L. Miss. 39 type section, they have usually correlated it with one or more of Reger*s lithostratigraphic units in West Vir ginia (Table 5). Thus there is some overlap between

Tables 5 and 6.

In 1877, Stevenson subdivided the Mauch Chunk Red

Shale, which was called the Umbral sequence by W.B.

Rogers, into four formal units (Table 6). Later (1903) he proposed a new set of regional "Lower Carboniferous" terms to eliminate the confusion generated by the great number of local names in use in the Appalachian Basin.

In Pennsylvania, he included the Siliceous Limestone

(Loyalhanna) in the Tuscumbia, the Lower Mauch Chunk

Shale and Mountain Limestone in the Maxville, and the

Upper Mauch Chunk Chale in the Shenango (Table 6). The early history of Mississippian nomenclature in Pennsyl vania was reviewed by Stevenson (1902, 1903) and more recently by Adams (1964).

In 1904, the Siliceous limestone of Stevenson (1877) was renamed the Loyalhanna Formation by Butts, after

Loyalhanna Creek in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania

(Figure 1). He was the first to seriously study the petrology and stratigraphy of this unit (1924), Butts concluded (as had Morse, 1910) that the Loyalhanna is the equivalent of the Ste. Genevieve limestone of Kentucky and the basal part of the Maxville limestone of Ohio. 40

Subsequent work on the formation has generally supported

the Ste. Genevieve age (Table 6), although Wray (1951)

stated that the Loyalhanna is early Chesterian in age.

Reger (1926, 1931) observed that the Loyalhanna is present in northern West Virginia, where he considered it to be a siliceous facies of the Fredonia member of the Union limestone (Table 5). The subsurface distri bution of the Loyalhanna in West Virginia is, however, a subject of great disagreement (Flowers, 1956: Adams, 1964);

Overbey, 1967). The problems of correlation on outcrop between the Loyalhanna in Pennsylvania and the Fredonia of northern and southeastern West Virginia are reviewed by Lucke (1939), Adams (1964), and Leonard (1968).

In northern West Virginia, western Maryland, and southwestern Pennsylvania the upper part of the Green brier Group and the lower part of the Mauch Chunk Group interfinger, and therefore the nomenclature of Upper Mis sissippian strata in these areas is confusing. In gen eral, the sequence above the Loyalhanna is the same as originally outlined by Stevenson (1877) (Table 6), and consists of a lower clastic unit, a middle carbonate unit (Stevenson's Mountain limestone), and an upper clastic unit. In northern West Virginia and western

Maryland the Loyalhanna, the lower clastic unit, and the middle carbonate unit are generally included in the 41

Greenbrier Group (Wray, 1951, Table 5 and Amsden, 1954,

Table 6). In Pennsylvania, all three post-Loyalhanna units are included in the Mauch Chunk Group (Flint,

1965, Table 6). Flint (1965), Adams (1964, 1970), and

Hoque (1965, 1968) detailed the stratigraphy and petro logy of the Mauch Chunk Group.

In Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and vicinity

(Figure 1), an areally restricted thin marine limestone, called the Deer Valley Limestone by Flint (1965), is the basal member of the lower Mauch Chunk clastic unit

(Table 6). In the subsurface west of Somerset County, this latter unit thins, so that in extreme southwestern

Pennsylvania, northwestern West Virginia, and adjacent

Ohio (Adams, 1964) it is absent, and the Wymps Gap car bonate unit rests directly on the Loyalhanna. The lower clastic unit also thins to the south; in northern West

Virginia, Reger (1926, 1931) thought that this unit is the equivalent of the Bethel Sandstone. CHAPTER III

STRATIGRAPHY OF THE MAXVILLE GROUP

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

Scattered patches of the Maxville Group occur throughout southeastern Ohio. Nearly all these patches, however, are located in the subsurface and have never been adequately mapped or studied. Moreover, the Max ville section in the subsurface has not been physically correlated with equivalent strata exposed along the Mis- sissippian-Pennsylvanian contact in east-central and southern Ohio or with equivalent strata in adjacent states. In addition, exposures of the Maxville in southern ' Ohio have never been physically correlated with those in east-central Ohio. The group status of the Maxville, as defined by

Scatterday (1963), is modified in this study to include all Upper Mississippian strata occurring in Ohio. This substantial revision of the original definition is ne cessary because the scattered patches of Upper Mississip pian section are essentially parts of an originally con tinuous deposit, and consequently they have a common depositional and erosional history. Moreover, the name

Maxville has historically been applied to all occurrences 42 43

of Upper Mississippian carbonate in Ohio (Andrews, 1870;

Bownocker, 1903; Morse, 1910; and others) and has prece dence over all other Upper Mississippian nomenclature de

fined in adjacent areas (Stevenson, 1902, 1903).

The present chapter is regional in scope and is intended to give a detailed picture of the stratigraphy of the Maxville Group. In addition, the relationship of the Maxville Group to the Greenbrier and Mauch Chunk groups, and to the Loyalhanna, Wymps Gap, and Newman limestones (Tables 4, 5, and 6) is established. Several changes are suggested in the regional nomenclature and a number of new regional correlations are given.

DISTRIBUTION AND THICKNESS

The distribution and generalized thickness of the

Maxville Group is presented on Plate II, which is a com pilation of thickness and location data for the Maxville from every source available to the writer.

Although the positions of many isopach lines are based on driller's data, and although the writer shares with others a general distrust of driller's logs, he found that collectively, in conjunction with other types of information, these logs are surprisingly accurate.

Areas with smooth contour lines, as in eastern Gallia 44

County, indicate a scarcity of control points. As new

samples and geophysical logs become available, they un

doubtedly will modify such lines and will outline yet-

undiscovered, but surely numerous, small.patches of the

Maxville limestone.

The most northerly occurrence of the Maxville Group

in Ohio is in eastern Jefferson County; the most north

westerly occurrence is in northwestern Perry County; and

the most southerly occurrence is in eastern Scioto Coun

ty (Figure 1). Most deposits of the Maxville in south

eastern Jefferson, Belmont, eastern Noble, Monroe, eas

tern Washington, southeastern Meigs, eastern Gallia, and

Lawrence counties are physically connected with the

Greebrier Group of West Virginia. All other occurrences of the group in Ohio are erosional remnants, or outliers.

NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRE—MAXVILLE DISCONFORMITY

Evidence of Disconformity

The presence of a disconformity at the base of the

Maxville Group was first established by Morse (1910).

At Jockey Hollow, in section 25, Reading Township, Perry

County, just east of Rushville (Figure 1), he found basal

Maxville limestone, consisting of coarse arenaceous 45

limestone breccia, resting unevenly on, and in some

places filling desiccation joints in, subjacent pre-

Maxville shale.

Exposures like that at Jockey Hollow, however, are

uncommon. Flint (1948) reported that of the six Max

ville exposures he studied in detail in Perry County,

"none shows an uneven surface at the base of the lime

stone," Scatterday (1963) cited a few exposures where the

contact was visible, and saw evidence of disconformity at

only two localities. The writer visited a number of Max

ville quarries, but because the basal beds of the lime

stone are not of commercial value and hence are not ex

posed by quarry operators, the basal contact was not

seen.

In those few places where the basal contact is ex

posed, but the strata appear conformable, thin arena

ceous limestone and/or brecciated limestone (with pebble-

and cobble-sized clasts) indicate reworking of older ma

terials by a transgressing Maxville sea. Morse (1910)

thought that the clasts in the breccia at Jockey Hollow were derived from an older nonextant limestone source.

Scatterday (1963) showed the St. Louis age of pebbles and cobbles found at several localities where the basal Max ville is of Chesterian age. 46

Hyde (1953) noticed that in some areas along the

present zone of outcrop (Figure 1) the Maxville is re

stricted to higher parts of the pre-Pennsylvanian topo

graphy. However, the very highest hills on that surface

are devoid of Maxville, and Hyde thought they represented

islands in the Maxville sea (Figure 2). Such islands

indicate the presence of a pre-Maxville disconformity.

Post-Maxville subaerial erosion then removed the limestone

from the lowlands, leaving the isolated masses of Maxville

in their present paleotopographic position (Figure 2).

The same explanation was offered by Flint (1948) for iso

lated occurrences of the Maxville in Perry County, and

by Merrill (1950) for those in northern Hocking County.

Flint (1948) pointed out that the Maxville overlies

strata of different lithologic character at different

places, and that this relation indicates disconformity.

However, it could also be explained by lateral facies changes in the underlying sequence. Flint also stated

that biostratigraphic (macrofaunal) evidence indicates

a significant hiatus between the time of deposition of

the subjacent strata and the Maxville.

Scatterday (1963) studied that conodont fauna of

the Maxville Group and concluded that the oldest formation

is St. Louis in age. Recent work by Manger (1969) on the crinoid, ammonoid, and conodont faunas of the underlying LOGAN ISLAND

MAXVILL E

T° LOG A N FORMAT ION

MAXVI LLE ' GROUP

original top of maxville grou GROUP

LOGAN FO R M A T I O N

Figure 2.-The topographic relationships between the Maxville Group and adjacent formations in areas near the Maxville strand in Middle Chesterian time (A) and at present (B) ^ •v l 48

pre-Maxville Mississippian sequence supports an early

Osagian age for the top of this sequence. Thompson et

a l . (1971) studied the conodont fauna of the Rushville,

the youngest pre-Maxville formation in Ohio, and corro

borated Manger's findings. Therefore, the basal Maxville

disconformity represent an early Osagean to middle Mer

amecian (St. Louis) hiatus, and since the Rushville and

oldest Maxville formations are rarely, if ever, present

together, the disconformity normally represents an even

greater hiatus.

Topography and Relief

On Figure 3, an isopach map of the Sunbury-Cuyahoga-

Logan-Rushville interval (top of Berea to base of Max ville) in early Chesterian time, various thick areas could be interpreted as representing depositional lows on the top of the Berea Sandstone. However, in areas where the Sunbury-Cuyahoga-Logan-Rushville sequence is exposed in central and southern Ohio, Hyde (1953) showed that thicker sections of this sequence contain stratigraphically younger units (mainly Logan) than are present in adjacent areas with thinner sections (Figure 4). This fact suggests that there is a strong relationship between the location of thick sections (Figure 3) and the Figure 3.-Isopach map of the Sunbury-Cuyahoga-Logan- Rushville sequence in early Chesterian time. Numerical data points represent thickness of sequence in wells where Maxville strata occur Contour lines inferred between areas with little control 50

location of topographic highs on the pre-Maxville surface.

Highs on the pre-Maxville surface also seem to coincide

with highs on the post-Maxville surface, which would in

dicate the existence of a recurring pattern of topogra

phy in Late Mississippian time in central and southern.

Ohio. However, post-Berea pre-Maxville warping of pre-

Maxville strata toward the southeast (Plate III) and the

presence of several intra-Maxville disconformities, in

which older Maxville limestone and some pre-Maxville

strata were removed, somewhat limit the value of Figure

3 as a paleotopographic indicator.

Relief on the pre-Maxville disconformity is subtle

and difficult to determine on a regional basis. Adams

(1964) noted that in Pennsylvania and adjacent West Vir ginia the disconformity at the top of the Pocono (equiva- < lent to the Waverly) is characterized by "negligible re lief and wide lateral extent." He thought that the ex treme flatness (less than one foot in 3,000 feet of la terally exposed section in one quarry) was a result of marine planation prior to the deposition of the Loyal hanna Limestone. Youse (1964) and Henniger (1972) have commented on the very low relief (averaging 20 to 40 feet) of the erosional surface separating the Greenbrier from the underlying Maccrady Formation in south-central 1

CENTRAL SOU T H ERN OHIO

OHIO Rushville Formation

100

200 LOGAN FORMAT ION

10 miles

Figure 4.-Inferred configuration of pre-Maxville surface from southern to central Ohio as determined from Figure 3. The effects of 're gional tilting are not considered, but may have been important in determining the pre-Maxville topography.

Ui Plate III (Figures A, B, C, D)

Inferred development of southeastern re gional dip and progressive dissection of the Sunbury-Cuyahoga-Logan-Rushville se quence during Mississippian time 53

Cen t ra I Southeastern Ohio Ohio ref e r e n c e)

’100 Cuya hoga and .200

3 0 0

to pre-Cuyahoga strata

top of Logan

hori zona I original possible reference flexure Logan point suface

Figure A Late Logan time Figure B Post-Logan pre-Maxville time 54

Cen t ra I Southeastern Ohio Ohio possi ble top of original f lexure top of Maxville Logan point Logan horizonal surface reference

■100 -200 Cuyahoga and Logan strata

1 -3 0 0

pre-Cuyahoga strata

top of original Maxvi lie Logan Logan Group surface possible flexure horizona I poi n t reference

Figure C Late Maxville time Figure D Post-Maxville pre-Pottsville time 55

and southwestern West Virginia. Bruce (1974) reported a

total of only 35 feet of relief on the pre-Maxville sur

face over a six-square-mile area of Newton Township, Mus

kingum County, Ohio (Figure 3). In south-central Mus

kingum County, Bowen (1954) studied the subsurface occur

rence of the Maxville Group, and indicated nearly 80

feet of relief on the basal disconformity. However,

Bowen*s estimate must be largely discounted, because of

his total reliance on drillers* logs. The writer be

lieves that these logs are regionally valuable but cannot

be used for such detailed analysis.

Over approximately a 100-square-mile area of Wash

ington, Noble, Monroe, and Belmont counties (Figure 3),

the writer, using the top of the siliceous Maxville lime

stone as a datum, was able to detect a maximum of only

60 feet of relief along the basal disconformity. Figure

3 indicates that with few exceptions, over any county- wide area, the Sunbury-Cuyahoga-Logan-Rushville interval changes very little, reinforcing the writer's belief in

only nominal relief on the pre-Maxville surface.

In summary, the erosional surface separating the

Maxville Group and subjacent strata represents a long hiatus and is characterized by monotonously low relief.

It is uncommonly broken (as in parts of Perry County) by 56 broad uplands displaying at most 75 to 100 feet of relief.

The overall relief of the surface indicates that all of eastern Ohio and adjacent areas must have been very close to regional base level for exceedingly long periods of time.

Tectonic Significance

The depositional axis of the Sunbury-Cuyahoga-

Logan-Rushville sequence appears to have been nearly north- south through east-central or central Ohio (Figure 3), approximating the location of the earlier Berea deposi tional axis (Pepper et al., 1954). However, thickness trends of various units in the Maxville and Greenbrier

Groups, and the position and geometry of the area of maximum Greenbrier deposition in southeastern West Virginia

(Figure 5), indicate that the Meramecian and Chesterian seas transgressed from the south and southeast over broad shelf areas that include all of eastern Ohio, western

Pennsylvania, and adjacent parts of West Virginia and Mar

Maryland. Therefore, the locus of deposition apparently shifted from central Ohio to southeastern West Virginia during the hiatus between the end of Logan and the be ginning of Maxville deposition. The development of a southeastern paleoslope and the progressive dissection Ohio bas i na1 nw GREENBRIER BASIN

Uppe. Mississippian Carbonate sequence

Lower Mississippian clastic sequence S ioo

Figure 5.-Highly diagrammatic cross-section of restored Upper Mississippian carbonate sequence showing the generally southeastern paleoslope of the shelf and basin areas UI ^4 58

of the surface through Mississippian time is summarized

in Plate III.

DILLON FALLS FORMATION OF OHIO AND ITS CORRELATIVES IN ADJACENT AREAS

Physical Character and Distribution

Scatterday (1963) proposed the name Dillon Falls

for the oldest formation of the Maxville Group. The type

section is located in the SW^SW^ sec. 24, Muskingum Twp.,

Muskingum County, Ohio. Unfortunately, it is now sub

merged beneath the waters of Dillon Reservoir.

The Dillon Falls Rxnmation was divided into two

members by Scatterday. The lower member is a massively

bedded pale greenish-yellow to gray yellowish-green ar

gillaceous dolomite. The upper member is typically a

light olive-gray to olive-black very fine to medium crys

talline partly fossiliferous cherty limestone. The chert

is commonly black and occurs as lenses, stringers, and nodules. The contact between the two members was re

ported by Scatterday to be sharp and crenulated, and

"may represent a disconformity— a relationship that is

also suggested by...abrupt change in conodont faunas at

this contact." 59

Both members are commonly brecciated along their

upper contacts. In addition, beds in the upper member

are in places contorted, as a result of plastic deforma

tion not long after deposition. This deformed sequence

coincides with a widespread upper zone fo breccia, and it

is difficult to determine whether the two features repre

sent synchronous or separate events. Maximum thickness

of the Dillon Palls is about 11 feet.

The Dillon Falls is present in a small area of

west-central, southwestern, and south-central Muskingum

County, and possible in adjacent parts of Perry and Mor

gan Counties (Figure 1). The writer could not locate all

of Scatterday's Dillon Falls sections, because many cure

now under water of the Dillon Reservoir or were in cores

that Scatterday disaggregated for conodonts. Only one

new possible exposure was discovered by the writer, be

low B.M. 798 in the SW% SW% sec. 15, Madison Twp., Per-

ty County. Rocks from this section, although similar

to the upper Dillon Falls member, cannot be confirmed as

such without, supporting paleontological evidence.

At this writing, the only accessible exposure of the

Dillon Falls Formation is in the Sidwell Brothers quarry

in the NW% sec. 16, Newton Twp., Muskingum County (Fig ures 6, 7, 8). When the quarry was first visited in the Figure 6

.Quarry face AB at west side of older workings, north of pre sent backfill (July, 1974); Sidwell Bros. Quarry, Sec. 16, Newton Twp., Muskingum Co., Ohio cl 350 FEET

u_ location of Figure Figure

disconformity-

lower member

disconformity —

upper member g ______u.

lower member Sidv/elI qua ry covered 62

Figure 7.—Dillon Falls and Jonathan Creek Formations— old work ings Sidwell quarry, New ton Twp., Muskingum Co.

E - Middle Jonathan Creek Formation (nodular limestone section) D - Middle Jonathan Creek Formation (shaly sec tion ) C - Lower Jonathan Creek Formation B - Upper Dillon Falls Formation A - Lower Dillon Falls Formation 63

Figure 8.-Dillon Falls and Jonathan Creek Formation, Sidwell quarry, New ton Twp., Muskingum Co.

E - middle member Jonathan Creek Formation (nodular limestone section D - middle member Jonathan Creek Formation (shaly section) C - lower member Jonathan Creek Formation B - upper member Dillon Falls Formation A - lower member Dillon Falls Formation 64

spring of 1973, a north-south longitudinal cut along an

intermittent stream valley exposed a long quarry face

with an extensive Dillon Falls section. Not only were the

two members clearly distinguishable, but they were sepa

rated from younger Maxville strata and from each other

by disconformities that in places displayed several feet

of relief. Although this area has been partially back

filled since the writer's initial visit, enough of the

quarry face remained exposed in the spring of 1974 to

allow further examination of the Dillon Falls section.

New quarry cuts at the Sidwell location are east-west, or approximately at a right angle to the older cut (Fig ure 6), and although part of the upper Dillon Falls mem ber is still exposed, the disconformable relationships cited above are not visible. In this latter area the

Dillon Falls is difficult to distinguish from the overlying Jonathan Creek Formation.

Scatterday (1963) stated that cobbles and pebbles of Dillon Falls can be found in the basal section of younger Maxville formations in scattered localities from

Muskingum County to northeastern Kentucky. He confirmed

Morse's idea (1910) that the clasts in the limestone breccia at Jockey Hollow were derived from an older lime stone; they are from the Dillon Falls Formation. 65

Identification in the Subsurface

In a core from south-central Muskingum County

(L# 293, PI. I), Scatterday found conodonts indicative of the Dillon Falls fauna. The writer examined the re maining half of this core and could easily distinguish the two Dillon Falls members on lithologic grounds, as they closely resemble the brecciated section exposed in the Sidwell quarry (Figure 6). However, in view of the formation's extraordinarily patchy distribution, it is not expected that the Dillon Falls would be found in many samples from the subsurface. Moreover, if present it would not be distinguishable in samples from younger Max ville formations. Nevertheless, from the above core and a written description of a nearby second core (L# 329,

PI. I), the writer was able to locate possible Dillon

Falls section in samples from three Muskingum County wells (L# 294, 284, and 285, PI. I).

Correlation with the St. Louis Limestone of Kentucky

The St. Louis Limestone is exposed in scattered patches in northeastern Kentucky, where it can be divided into two lithologic zones (members?): a lower one con taining yellow-weathering light-colored argillaceous limestone, and an upper one containing medium-to 66 thick-bedded fine-grained dark-gray to black cherty lime stone (Butts, 1922; McFarlan and Walker, 1956). The upper zone is further characterized by a thick breccia commonly superimposed on a section of highly contorted beds, and by the presence of a regional disconformity along its upper contact (Patterson and Hosterman, 1962; and others). The physical characteristics of the St. Louis Limestone in northeastern Kentucky are thus nearly identical to those of the Dillon Falls Formation in Ohio.

Using conodonts, Scatterday (1963) showed that the two formations are biostratigraphically equivalent. On the same basis, he also correlated the Dillon Falls For mation with the St. Louis Limestone of the Mississip— pian type section.

Correlative Units in.West Virginia and Pennsylvania

Strata of St. Louis age are also found in West Vir ginia. Wells (1950) described the Hillsdale Limestone of the Greenbrier Group as "primarily a massive, dark gray to black, medium- to fine-grained limestone with many irregular nodules, stringers or plates of black chert." Reger (1926), based on the common occurrence of

Lithostrotionella (a St. Louis guide fossel) in the

Hillsdale, correlated the formation with the St. Louis 67

Limestone of Kentucky. Reger (1931), Wells (1950) and

Leonard (1968) traced the Hillsdale on outcrop as far north as northern Pocahontas County (Figure 1), where it apparently wedges out.

Equivalents of the St. Louis Limestone are appar ently missing in Pennsylvania and Maryland, where the oldest Mississippian Limestone is the Loyalhanna. How ever, Adams (1964) reported the presence of a basal lime stone unit at Ogletown, Pennsylvania, and at Westerport,

Maryland (Figure 1), that is lithologically different from the overling Loyalhanna Limestone. He also cited the occurrence of pebbles and cobbles of distinctively different limestone in the lower few feet of the Loyal hanna at Lycippus (Figure 1) and several other localities in Pennsylvania, and concluded that these clasts and the basal limestone are "remnants of a relatively pure calcarenite deposited after Pocono deposition and prior to the deposition of the main body of the Loyalhanna Lime— sonte." Although these remnants are considered part of the lower Loyalhanna by Adams, the writer believes that they may represent the remains of a once persistent and widespread formation that was equivalent to the St. Louis

Limestone. 68

THE POST-DILLON FALLS-ST. LOUIS REGIONAL DISCONFORMITY

Subaerial erosion removed large tracts of St. Louis

Limestone and its equivalents in post-St. Louis time. A regional disconformity separates, for example, the St.

Louis from the overlying Ste. Genevieve Limestone at such disparate localities as Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, Jasper,

Tennessee, and Huntsville, Alabama (Ulrich, 1918). The erosional surface is well developed in northeastern

Kentucky and in Muskingum County, Ohio, where a widespread breccia zone beneath this horizon (Figure 6) was probably formed by simple karst solution and collapse or by solu tion and collapse associated with evaporites. Evaporites have not been reported from the St. Louis and equivalents in these areas but are known from correlative units in the Illinois Basin (Jorgensen and Carr, 1973).

In southeastern West Virginia, the Hillsdale Lime stone and the overlying Denmar (Ste. Genevieve equiva lent) Formation appear conformable, and that area may represent one of the few places in the eastern United

States where deposition was continuous through late Mer— amecian time. However, there is a noticeable lithologic and faunal break between the two units, which may repre sent a paraconformity. 69

FORMATIONS OF STE. GENEVIEVE AGE IN OHIO AND ADJACENT AREAS

Relation to Type Section

The Ste. Genevieve Limestone is a dominantly oolitic or bioclastic limestone found over wide areas of the cen tral and eastern United States. Its wide lateral extent and its limited thickness (rarely over 200 feet) indicate that it is a tabular or sheet deposit. In its type area, in the Mississippi River Bluff 1 to 4 miles southeast of

Ste. Genevieve, Missouri (Swamm, 1963), the Ste. Gene vieve Limestone is both a standard rock-stratigraphic and time-stratigraphic unit. The latter is defined by occur rences of Platycrinites penicillus (Swann, 1963).

The Ste. Genevieve Limestone is widely distributed across Kentucky, where it has been found to be lithologically and faunally nearly identical to the type section

(Ulrich, 1918; Butts, 1918, 1922; McFarlan and Walker,

1955, 1956). In northeastern Kentucky the formation lacks a diagnostic macrofauna, and has been defined solely on physical grounds. For example, the Bryantsville breccia, a widespread and conspicuous breccia zone up to several feet thick at the top of the Ste. Genevieve, which is developed nearly continuously from southern Indiana to \

70 southern Ohio (McFarlan and Walker, 1955, 1956; Scatter day, 1963), is an excellent marker zone for physical cor relation. The exact age of the Ste. Genevieve Limestone at occurrences lacking the diagnostic macrdfauna was not known until 1963, when Scatterday found conodonts indi- v cative of Ste. Genevieve age in exposures of the forma tion in southern Ohio and adjacent northeastern Kentucky.

Physical and biostratigraphic correlations thus seem to show that the Ste. Genevieve Limestone is present in

Ohio and northeastern Kentucky and that the section there is essentially equivalent to the Ste. Genevieve of the Mississippian type section.

Expanded Definition of Maxville Group

The writer substantially modifies Scatterday's

(1963) definition of the Maxville Group by extending it to include all Upper Mississippian strata occurring in

Ohio. Accordingly, rocks of probable Ste. Genevieve age

(late Meramecian), which are shown below to be represented in Ohio by the Ste. Genevieve and Loyalhanna Limestones, are herein included in the Maxville Group. The Ste. Gene vieve and Loyalhanna Limestones are homotaxial and appear to be full or partial lateral equivalents; nonetheless, because these units occur in two areas in Ohio and because each unit can be traced through the subsurface

to exposures bearing the formational name, the writer has

adopted the dual nomenclature.

The Ste. Genevieve Limestone in Ohio and Adjacent Northeastern Kentucky

In Ohio, there are only two significant natural

exposures of the Ste. Genevieve Limestone. These are an

irregularly shaped, limited area along Little Racoon

Creek, near Hamden, Clinton Township, Vinton County, and

the general area along a tributary of the Little Scioto

River in east-central Hamilton Township, Jackson County

(Plate II). The section exposed at both of these local ities is nowhere greater than 19 feet and usually less than 5 feet thick.

Cores from a limited area in and around the Iron- ton mine of the Alpha Portland Cement Company in Upper

Township, Lawrence County, and exposures in the mine it self show that the Ste. Genevieve is present there and may be as thick as 30 feet. The writer also found the formation in a number of sets of well samples of the Mis- issippian sequence in southern Ohio. The present distri bution of the Ste. Genevieve Limestone and its equiva lents in Ohio is depicted in Figure 9. 72

Figure 9.-Probable original distribution of Ste. Genevieve Limestone and equivalents in Ohioj shaded areas represent present distribution of these units 73

A thick section of the Ste. Genevieve is exposed near the tops of hills west of Limeville, Kentucky (Fig ure 1) and at a number of other localities in northeas tern Kentucky. The thickness of the Ste. Genevieve sec tion is about 45 feet at Limeville but is probably less at other exposures in the immediate area (Morse, 1910;

Butts, 1922; and others).

The Ste. Genevieve Limestone of Ohio and adjacent

Kentucky is composed of variable amounts of quartz sand, carbonate allochems, and carbonate cement. The quartz sand is ordinarily fine—to medium grained, well-rounded, and frosted, or very fine- to fine-grained, angular, and clear. Subordinate amounts of chert fragments may also be present. The types of carbonate grains differ con siderably from place to place but are commonly oolites, pseudo-oolites, and fragmented fossils. In gross litho— logy the Ste. Genevieve is a calcareous sandstone, an arenaceous calcarenite, or a pure calcarenite, depending on the proportions of the constituents. In well samples from southern Lawrence County (Figure 1) and in cores from the same area, the Ste. Genevieve also contains scattered thin interbeds of buff-colored crystalline lime stone (calcilutite) or dolomite, and a basal zone of arenaceous to pure vuggy dolomite. On outcrop it is fur ther distinguished by strong cross-bedded structure. 74

In areas where the Ste. Genevieve is a thin calcar

eous sandstone, it often becomes disaggregated in well

cuttings and resembles quartzone sands from older Mis

sissippian and younger Pennsylvanian units. Drillers are

likely to include these sands in the "Big Injun" or "Max-

ton". However, the almost white color, frosted grains,

coarseness, and extreme rounding, along with traces of

carbonate grains and cement, allow the sand to be pro

perly identified as Ste. Genevieve.

Equivalents in West Virginia

Strata considered to the Ste. Genevieve in age

exist throughout West Virginia, except where removed by post-Maxville erosion. However, exactly which Green brier lithostratigraphic units correlate with the Ste.

Genevieve Limestone of the type area has been a subject of disagreement (Table 4).

Swann (1963) reviewed the problem of defining the

Meramecian-Chesterian boundary in the Illinois Basin on physical and paleontological criteria, and concluded that it can best be distinguished in the eastern United States by locating the contact between the Platycrinites penicillus and Talarocrinus faunal zones. These two zones apparently do not overlap and can be found within a few 75

vertical feet of one another in most sections. The impor

tance of this boundary is widely recognized among students

of the Mississippian System (Butts, 1922, 1940; Weller

et al^., 1948; McFarlan and Walker, 1956).

Cooper (1944), Wells (1950), Hickman (1951), and

Kanes (1957) studied the fauna of the lower part of the

Greenbrier .Group and concluded that the Denmar Formation

(Sinks Grove and Patton of Reger, 1926; Table 5, page

35) is the sole equivalent of the Ste. Genevieve in south

eastern West Virginia; thus, the Taggard, Pickaway, Un

ion, and Alderson formations are all Chesterian in age.

The correlations established by the above workers are not widely recognized, even in West Virginia; however, it is the writer's opinion that the faunal evidence of

fered is irrefutable. Platycrinites penicillus is found

exclusively in the Denmar, and Talarocrinus in the over-

lying Taggard, Pickaway, and Union. In addition, Wells

(1950) and Hickman (1951) said the Ste. Genevieve of southwestern Virginia could be physically correlated with

the Denmar of southeastern West Virginia. Although lacking diagnostic fauna, the Loyalhanna Limestone of northern West Virginia is considered by many workers to be Ste. Genevieve in age (Table 6). The age and cor relation of the Loyalhanna is examined below. 76

The Loyalhanna Limestone

Composition and Distribution

On outcrop in southwestern Pennsylvania the Loyal hanna Limestone is an unfossiliferous cross-bedded cal careous sandstone and sandy calcarenite, composed essen tially of variable proportions of quartz grains, carbonate grains, and carbonate cement. The composition, texture, and internal structure of the Loyalhanna are known to be very similar to those of the Ste. Genevieve of north eastern Kentucky (Butts, 1922, 1924; Adams, 1964). In well -cuttings of the two formations from Ohio, Pennsyl vania, and West Virginia the writer could find no appar ent differences in their gross attributes.

Adams (1964) examined exposures and well samples 4 of the Loyalhanna in southwestern Pennsylvania and ad jacent areas, and mapped its distribution and thickness.

The writer re-traced much of Adams' subsurface strati- grphic work by means of published sample descriptions and his own sample studies in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and was able to carry the Loyalhanna into the subsurface of a number of areas in southeastern Ohio (Figure 9).

It is concluded that, where the Loyalhanna Limestone occurs in Ohio, it is the basal formation of the Maxville 77

Group. The only real lithologic difference between the

Loyalhanna in Ohio and in Pennsylvania is the higher pro portion of carbonate grains in the upper half of the Ohio section.

In West Virginia, there is little agreement among workers on the subsurface distribution of the Loyalhanna

Limestone. Adams (1964), for example, did not recognize the Loyalhanna south of an arcuate line connecting north eastern Tyler, southern Doddridge, and southern Preston counties (Figure 10). Flowers (1956), on the other hand, mapped the subsurface distribution of the "sandy lime stone" facies of the Greenbrier, which he called the

Loyalhanna, and found that it extends as far south as an arcuate line connecting southern Upshur, southern Roane, - and eastern Mason counties (Figure 10). On a generalized

Loyalhanna isopach map Overbey (1967) placed the zero thickness contour 20 to 30 miles farther south than did

Flowers (Figure 10).

Rittenhouse (1949) mapped the percentage of quartz in the Greenbrier Group, using insoluble-residue and heavy- mineral data from 28 control wells, nearly all in West

Virginia. The distribution of the sand, except in south western West Virginia, is similar to that of the Loyal hanna established by Flowers (1956) Rittenhouse noted a 78

[[agej ^0^^1964)

ason o an ei i\Q5° closets

abell Kanawh O Nicholas

Figure 10.-Southern limit of the Loyalhanna Limestone in West Virginia according to Adams (1964), Flowers (1956), and Overbey (1967) 79

sudden decrease in total quartz percentage in samples from

one well and one core in Gallia County, Ohio, as compared

with adjacent West Virginia. This area of decrease coin

cides with the western limit of the Loyalhanna Limestone

mapped by the writer in Ohio (Figure 9).

Part of the problem of establishing agreement on

the areal distribution of the Loyalhanna in West Virginia

is that Adams (1964) adopted an unnecessarily narrow de

finition for the formation. Although he could find no

important differences in the heavy-mineral suite, the

lime-sand types, and the terrigenous content, and although

he acknowledged the similarity in stratigraphic position

and bedding structure, Adams maintained that, because of differences in the tourmaline rounding and in the ratios of monocrystalline to polycrystalline quartz, the Loyal hanna is distinct from and does not correlate with the siliceous members of the Greenbrier Gro\p or with the Ste.

Genevieve Limestone of Kentucky.

Age and Correlation

Although the Loyalhanna contains abundant micro- fragments of fossil debris, mostly foraminiferas, cri— noids, and ostrocods, it is generally devoid of useful forms and therefore has not been adequately dated. 80

Wray (1951) reported a complete calyx of a Talarocrinus

(Chesterian) from the top of the Loyalhanna at Connel-

lsville, Pennsylvania (Figure 1), and Scatterday found

identical undescribed conodont—elements in the Loyalhanna

of northern West Virginia and in the Ste. Genevieve of

northeastern Kentucky (Meramecian) that are not known from

strata of any other age. The writer processed two sam

ples of Loyalhanna, approximately 5 kg each, taken from

separate localities along Chestnut Ridge in Westmoreland

County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1) for conodonts; but none

were found. Nevertheless, the writer believes it pro

bable that the formation contains an adequate conodont

fauna, perhaps in the thin interbeds of micrite and

pebbly arenite described by Adams (1964).

Most workers have assigned a Ste. Genevieve age

(Table 6) to the Loyalhanna, because of Reger*s state

ment (1926, 1931) that the Fredonia member of the Union

Limestone of West Virginia (Table 5) can be physically

traced from Monroe County, West Virginia, into the

Loyalhanna of southwestern Pennsylvania. The Fredonia was considered Ste. Genevieve in age by Reger and Girty

(Reger, 1926) on the basis of a single sepcimen of

Platycrinites penicillus (Platycrinus Huntsville of Reqer) which they found in the Fredonia at Stony Gap, Mercer 81

County (Figure 1), despite the fact that no examples of this species were found in the type section of the Union

Limestone in Monroe County (Figure 1). All later paleon tological studies of the Union have reported a Chesterian fauna, including abundant Talarocrinus (Well, 1950;

Hickman, 1951; Kanes, 1957). It seems probable that the isolated occurrence of Platycrinites reported by Reger represents a mislabeled or misidentified specimen, or came from a misidentified formation.

The writer reviewed the voluminous literature, r mostly unpublished, dealing with the Upper Mississippian carbonate sequence of West Vriginia in an attempt to find more recent evidence either supporting or refuting

Reger*s (1926, 1931) Fredonia-Loyalhanna lithostratigraphic correlation. Integration of key data from a number of important studies (Wray, 1951; Flowers, 1956;

Leonard, 1968) shows that Reger's correlation is no longer tenable. The writer suggests a comprehensive series of new correlations (Figure 11), which he believes demonstrates the probable physical relationship between the Greenbrier Group in northern West Virginia and the

Loyalhanna and lower Mauch Chunk of southwestern Pennsyl-r vania. The ages of the various non-siliceous carbonate and red-bed units in northern West Vriginia (Figure 11) are well documented; the close geographical proximity of 82

the undated Loyalhanna to equivalent dated units of the

Greenbrier suggests that both sequences are of the same

or nearly the same age. The writer therefore concludes

that the Loyalhanna Limestone in southwestern Pennsyl

vania is in part Ste. Genevieve (Denmar) in age and in

part Chesterian (Taggard and Pickaway) in age (Figure ll).

The meager faunal evidence of Scatterday (1963) and Wray

(1951) described above is, therefore, not contradictory.

The fact that the Loyalhanna is in part Ste. Genevieve in

age makes it probable that the basal limestone, and peb

bles and cobbles of purer limestone near the base, as

described by Adams (1964), are remnants of an equiva

lent of the St. Louis Limestone.

Relation of Ste. Genevieve Limestone to Loyalhanna Limestone in Ohio

Age and Correlation

By physical correlation along the zone of outcrop in eastern Kentucky, stratigraphic position under known

Chesterian strata, and the conodont work of Scatterday

(1963), the Ste. Genevieve Limestone of southern Ohio is clearly Ste. Genevieve in age. Although faunal evi dence is generally lacking, by physical correlation the

Loyalhanna appears to be in part Ste. Genevieve and in nomenclature no. W -V a. sw. Pa. nomenclature Alderson RED upper shale member Union NON-SI LICEOUS LIMESTONE y m p Bap

CO upper I ow e r BEDSRED shale Pickaway member

lower

Pickaway 1U

Taggard RED BEDS

upper and ui middle NON-SIUCEOUS LU Denmar CARBONATE

I ower Denmar

Pocon o SILICEOUS SANDSTONE Pocono

Figure 11.-Facies relationships among late Meraraecian and early Chesterian lithostratigraphic units from northern Randolph County, W. Va. (left) to northern Fayette County, Pa. (right).' Cross-section D-E on page 144 84 part early Chesterian in age at outcrops in northern

West Virginia and adjacent Pennsylvania and Maryland, and can easily be traced through the subsurface into south eastern Ohio to within 20 miles of known occurrences of the Ste. Genevieve (Figure 9). In Ohio, where complete sections are preserved, the Loyalhanna and Ste. Genevieve lie between Lower Mississippian elastics and rocks of known early Chesterian age; moreover, the siliceous unfossiliferous facies of the Ste. Genevieve and the Loyal hanna are lithologically, texturally, and structurally nearly identical. The above evidence indicates to the writer that the siliceous Ste. Genevieve-Loyalhanria unit is a time-transgressive sequence. The top of the sili ceous facies appears to be youngest in southwestern Penn sylvania and to increase in age towards Ohio, where it is probably all Ste. Genevieve in age except perhaps in ex treme eastern Ohio (Figure 12). That the siliceous facies is time-transgressive to only a minor degree, however, is demonstrated by Flowers (1956), who recognized in the

Greenbrier sequence in the subsurface of West Virginia a zone of Endothyroid foraminifera that in his opinion represents a time line. The interval between the base of the faunal zone and the top of the Loyalhanna is fairly constant and seems to indicate a rather constant time Lawrence Mon ro e Fayette County County County so* se* sw* Ohio Ohio Pa*

Wymps Jonathan Jonathan Gap Ls Creek Creek Lower Mauch Formation Formation Chunk Sh

CHESTERIAN Loyal' ME RAMECIAN hanna

Ste* Loyal hanna Genevieve Ls

Figure 12.-Inferred age relationships of the Ste. Genevieve and Loyalhanna limestones in Ohio and Pennsylvania 86

plane at the top of the formation.

Distribution

Surface and subsurface occurrences of the Maxville

Group in Muskingum County and adjacent areas were studied,

and the literature was carefully searched, for evidence

of the presence or former presence of carbonates physi

cally equivalent to the Ste. Genevieve-Loyalhanna Lime

stone, or of carbonates containing a Ste. Genevieve

fauna; none was found. Not even clasts of transported

Ste. Genevieve-Loyalhanna limestone appear in basal Ches-

terian strata. The absence of rocks of this age and lith-

ology in the area indicates that the northwest zero thick ness line in Noble, Morgan, and Hocking counties (Fig ure 13) must closely represent the strand position of the late Meramecian sea.

The thickness and location of outcrops, samples,

and cores containing Ste. Genevieve or Loyalhanna sec

tion in Ohio are indicated in Figure 13. The origin of the gap separating the Ste. Genevieve and Loyalhanna limestone in Figure 13, however, is difficult to explain.

Information from a considerable number of drillers' logs

from Meigs and Athens counties indicates the presence of patches of "sandy limestone" between the major subcrop p Present Figure 13.-Isopach map of s Suspected the Ste. Genevieve and Loy 'hr Bounday between alhanna limestones in Ohio siliceous & non- in early Chesterian time. siliceous zones Data points represent o = outcrop amount of Maxville section well samples preserved beneath Chester = core ian strata 88

areas of the two formations, suggesting that they were

once connected. These patches could represent isolated

shoal areas over minor topographic highs on the pre-Ste.

Genevieve disconformity (Figure 14a); but no such topo

graphic irregularities are indicated on Figure 3 (page

49). Moreover, this interpretation fails to explain how terrigenous sand could be transported over wide tracts of purer carbonate to isolated shoals.

The writer believes it more probable that the patches are remnants of a once continuous siliceous Ste.

Genevieve-Loyalhanna limestone sheet (Figure 14b), which was dissected by post-Ste. Genevieve erosion. No evi dence of thicker Chesterian accumulations in erosional lows in this area can be found, but it is probable that such evidence would have been removed by Late Mississip- pian-Early Pennsylvanian (post-Maxville) erosion.

Possible Ste. Genevieve Equivalent in Gallia County

The status of the Ste. Genevieve in the area south of Meigs County (Figure 13) is problematic. Study of well samples and core records of the Maxville section from Lawrence, Gallia, and Meigs counties reveals a pro bable southward facies change from siliceous to purer 89

Vinton Co*. Meigs Co Ohio Ohio

sandy limestone

non- Ste. Genevieve • I • Loyalhanna nice-. ous

OLDER MISSISSI PP I AN STRATA

vertical scale greatly exaggerated

sandy former top of imestone patches

Ste-GenevieVe o y a Ih a n na

OLDER MISSISSI PPI AN STRATA

Figure 14.-Possible stratigraphic relationships among siliceous limestones of the Maxville Group; earliest Chesterian time 90

limestones in the Ste. Genevieve interval. The entire

Ste. Genevieve section is highly siliceous in western

Lawrence County, moderately siliceous in Windsor Town

ship, Lawrence County (Figure 14), and only occasionally

siliceous in Union Township. In well cuttings from Gal

lia County, the basal Maxville is characteristically

crystalline to granular in texture, dolomitic to calcitic

in composition, and moderately quartzose to nearly

quartz-free. Quartz that does occur is angular, clear,

and silt-sized. It is inferred that at least the lower

parts of the Maxville section in Gallia County are equi

valent to the Ste. Genevieve Limestone.

Wells and cores in which Ste. Genevieve equivalent

is suspected but cannot be confirmed are designated on

Figure 13 with an S. The approximate boundary between

the siliceous and nonsiliceous facies, which is ob viously transitional in nature, is shown as a zig-zag

line.

Dispersal Patterns of Terrigenous elastics

Carbonates of Ste. Genevieve age in Ohio and ad

jacent areas are essentially divisible into two litho-

facies provinces, one composed of pure calcarenite and the other of sandy calcarenite. 91

The pure-calcarenite province is but a part of a remarkable Ste. Genevieve depositional system that

stretched from at least the western edge of the Illinois

Basin south to northern Alabama (Butts, 1918) and east

to southeastern West Virginia. In this system, limestones are composed mainly of carbonate allochems (especially oolites), scattered quartz grains, and sparry calcite cement— the typical Fredonia "Oolite." Numerous stratigraphic breaks of uncertain origin within this facies

(Knewtson and Hubert, 1969; McFarlan and Walker, 1956), the frequent presence of cross-bedding, and the composi tion of the limestone indicate that the facies was de posited on a highly agitated shallow marine shelf.

The sandy-calcarenite province borders the Ste.

Genevieve strand line (Figure 15). Study of its simple geometry shows that the terrigenous elastics in the car bonate of the study area owe their origin to northern sources. Rittenhouse (1949) concluded that the source area of the quartz in the Greenbrier Group lay to the north and northwest. Adams (1964) determined that the terrigenous elastics in the Loyalhanna of Pennsylvania were derived from a dominant northern sedimentary and crystalline source and a subordinate western sedimentary source (Cincinnati Arch?). The northern source area is Figure 15.-Paleogeography of Ohio and adjacent areas in Late Meramecian time; paleocurrent data from Adams, 1964 93

a recurrent feature of the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian

sedimentary system in the northern Appalachian Basin.

For example, Pepper et al. (1954) noted a northern source

area for the elastics in the Bedford and Berea Formations

in Ohio (Early Mississippian). A similar dispersal sys

tem has been recognized in the Illinois Basin (Potter and

Pryor, 1961; Potter, 1963; Swann, 1963).

Adams (1964) demonstrated northeasterly paleo—

currents in northeastern Kentucky and southwestern Penn

sylvania from his study of cross-bedding in both the Ste.

Genevieve and Loyalhanna Limestones. The northeasterly

trend in the Ohio area is another recurring pattern that

was first discerned by Pepper e_t al_. (1954) from his study

of the Bedford and Berea Formations.

THE POST-STE. GENEVIEVE REGIONAL DISCONFORMITY

A disconformity separates the Ste. Genevieve Lime

stone from younger Mississippian carbonates in north eastern Kentucky and southern Ohio. The few feet of sec tion immediately below the disconformity is usually marked by the Bryantsville breccia (page 69). Scatterday (1963) identified the breccia and the overlying disconformity in the Ironton mine and in several key northeastern 94

Kentucky exposures. Chute (1955) noted the continuous nature of the dis

conformity in the Ironton mine and the very low relief on

its surface. He observed that it is overlain by a coarse

quartz sandstone, a few inches to 1% feet thick, or more

commonly by a paleosol represented by a green sandy shale

2-6 inches thick. Except in the Ironton mine, the dis

conformity is nowhere exposed in Ohio, as post-Maxville

erosion almost completely removed the Ste. Genevieve

Limestone north of central Lawrence County (Figure 1).

In southeastern West Virginia, studies have indica

ted continuous deposition from St. Louis to at least middle Chesterian time. In northern West Virginia and

adjacent areas there is very little physical evidence of disconformity at the top of the Loyalhanna (Adams, L964).

Lack of detailed study of the paleontology of the Loyal hanna Limestone, lower Mauch Chunk Shale, and Wymps Gap

Limestone, precludes the faunal definition of possible paraconformities.

The conformity exhibited in the Greenbrier Basin between strata of Ste. Genevieve and of Chesterian age, and the disconformity found between the same units to the west along the flanks of the Cincinnati Arch, may be the end points of a depositional-erosional continuum, in which 95

case a paraconformable relationship might exist between

the Loyalhanna and superjacent formations in extreme

southeastern Ohio, parts of northern West Virginia, and

extreme southwestern Pennsylvania. The observation of

Hoque (1968), that the Mauch Chunk of southwestern Pen nsylvania and adjacent areas was deposited in a fluvial and prograding deltaic plain, lends credence to this idea; it indicates that the region was at or near base level, where minor fluctuations in the sediment load* or eustatic changes in sea-level, would be reflected in the depositional sequence.

CHESTERIAN FORMATIONS OF THE MAXVILLE GROUP 9

Jonathan Creek Formation

Scatterday (1963) proposed the name Jonathan Creek for all Maxville strata, except the Dillon Falls Forma tion, which are present in Morse’s "Northern Area." The three lithostratigraphic "zones" of Morse (1910) were assigned member status (lower, middle, and upper) in the new formation (Figure 19). The type section is in the

Chesterhill Stone Company quarry, sec. 24, Newton Twp.,

Muskingum County. 96

Lower Member

Of the three members, the lower one is lithologically the most variable. Moreover, it is bounded by re gional disconformities, a fact which causes it to thicken and thin erratically. Despite variable thickness and lithology, all lower Jonathan Creek sections can be sub divided into two, and locally into three, identifiable sequences (Figure 16).

The basal sequence of the lower member is composed of a series of thin interbedded limestones and shales up to 8% feet thick (Figure 16). The limestone is dark, dense to finely crystalline, and often argillaceous or arenaceous; the shale is paper-thin to one foot thick, calcareous, greenish-gray, and commonly laterally discon tinuous. In western and southern Perry County and nor thern Hocking County, a breccia is common at the top of the basal sequence.

The middle sequence of the lower member is as much as 14% feet thick, is diverse lithologically, and, except locally, is the most difficult to correlate.

It consists of a series of dense to crystalline, pure to clayey and/or sandy, calcareous to dolomitic limestone

(Figure 16). In areas around Fultonham the upper part of this unit is commonly a laminated vuggy dolomitic 97

0 LU “ U ui z Q . U J

ca 6

U i

8 UJ ui DC UJ

10-

a> «/> a> 12^ D£

16 LOGAN Fm 18* Figure 16.-Lower member of the Jonathan Creek Forma tion, showing the lower, middle, and upper sequences at the Chesterhill quarry, Mus kingum County, Ohio 98 limestone or dolomite, which locally is an excellent mar ker bed (Bruce, 1974). Greenish-gray or greenish-black shale can usually be found as streaks, patches, and sheets throughout the middle sequence and is especially common along bedding planes. A weathering profile and/or breccia zone is developed in the middle and at the top of this sequence in some areas, particularly west and south of Somerset, Perry County (Figure 1). The unit is always medium-bedded to massive (Figure 17), frequently breaks with noticeable subconchoidal fracture, contains several local stratigraphic breaks, and is in places bounded by a recognizable lower and upper sequence of more uniform lithology.

The upper sequence of the lower member of the Jon athan Creek Formation (Figure 16) is the most distinc tive of the three. It is composed of yellowish-gray ar gillaceous powdery dolomitic limestone or dolomite, which is never more than 43$ feet thick; it is also commonly brecciated or partially brecciated (Figure 16). This se quence is known to occur only in southwestern Muskingum

County; it was apparently removed by early Chesterian erosion, was never deposited, or more probably is lost by facies change in areas outside Muskingum County. The maximum thickness reported for the entire lower member 99

Figure 17.-Maxville Stone Co. quarryj Monday Creek Twp., Perry Co., Ohio New workings, near type section

B - middle sequence of lower Jona than Creek Formation A - lower sequence of Lower Jona than Creek Formation

Top of B is top of Mississip pian section— wavy contact between A and B, probable lo cal disconformity 100 of the Jonathan Creek Formation is 33 feet (Bruce, 1974 personal communication).

Middle Member

The middle member of the Jonathan Creek Formation

(Morse's shale-nodular zone) is bounded at the base by a regional disconformity. Hence the basal contact is ir regular and generally sharp; sandstone lenses and black fissile non-calcareous or slightly calcareous shale, with plant fossils (Bruce, 1974), fill in the irregular ities. The remainder of the unit is composed of indivi dual beds of pure to argillaceous sublithographic to finely crystalline limestone, or nodular limestone em bedded in relatively continuous, wavy, fissile, dark cal careous shale (Figure 18); such beds can generally be < traced for great distances along quarry faces. Most shale sections of the middle member contain an abundant macro-fauna described in detail by Morse (1911). Scat- terday (1963) reported that conodont-elements are more numerous in the shaly sections of the middle member than anywhere else in the Chesterian sequence of Ohio. Thick ness of the middle member varies from as little as one foot (Chesterhill Stone quarry) to as much as 6 feet

(abandoned Poverty Run quarry). Figure 18.-Nodular limestone of middle member of Jonathan Creek For mation . 102

Upper Member

The upper member of the Jonathan Creek Formation is

a uniform unit consisting mainly of high-calcium limestone

which is light olive-gray to light tan-gray, sublitho-

graphic to medium crystalline, thin- to medium-bedded,

and sparsely to moderately fossiliferous. Partings of

greenish-black calcareous shale along bedding planes are

common throughout. Where a thick section of the upper

member is preserved, the lower part of the section tends

to be more finely crystalline and less pure than the upper

part. Close inspection of the crystalline texture, es

pecially in stratigraphically higher beds, reveals evi

dence of partial recrystallization; styolites, obscure

oolites (?), pellets, and fossil debris are often visi le ble on polished surfaces and in thin sections. The maxi mum thickness reported for the upper member is about 40

feet (Bowen, 1954; Scatterday, 1963; Bruce, 1974).

Identification in the Subsurface

The Jonathan Creek Formation can ordinarily be properly identified in well cuttings because of its stratigraphic position between easily identifiable Ste.

Genevieve or Loyalhanna Limestone and the younger 103

Bluerock Creek Formation or basal Pennsylvanian section.

However, where the Jonathan Creek overlies the Dillon

Falls Formation (Figure 19), separation of the two is generally not possible; sample quality is usually too poor, the sample intervals are too large, and the lithologic differences are too subtle.

Individual members of the Jonathan Creek are often difficult to distinguish in well cuttings. The upper part of many subsurface Maxville sections is a light brownish-gray rather pure limestone that is probably the upper member of the Jonathan Creek Formation. The middle member, however, is too thin to be detected as a specific unit in samples taken at greater than 2- or 3-foot inter vals. The lower member is extremely variable and can be mistaken for the Dillon Falls Formation or even the up per member of the Jonathan Creek Formation. However, a widespread basal facies of the Maxville Group, in the subsurface of parts of Morgan, Athens, Perry, Meigs, and

Muskingum counties (Figure 1), composed of dolomitic and calcareous siltstone and silty dolomite and limestone, is probably the lower member of the Jonathan Creek and represents a basal transgressive facies of that forma tion. Figure 19

Lithostratigraphic units recognized in the Maxville Group of east- central Ohio. Unit names after Scat- terday (1963); contacts and thickness this study; Note position of marker zones 105

a u 10 - *5 o £ *_

3 0 ' \ upper zone U P PC R 40 middle zone

50 MEMBER low er zone

“ M ID D tE ■ 60 m arker MEMBER! zone tOW lR1 s. Dillon 7 0 - iiEWBE Fa I I s

80 MEMER

90 Logan

1004 fe e t 105

The writer examined samples from a number of wells in Pennsylvania that contained the Wymps Gap Limestone

(Table 6), and examined exposures of the formation in the

Wymps Gap region of Fayette County, Pennsylvania (Figure

1). In both instances, he noted that the Wymps Gap Lime stone is decidedly more argillaceous and darker gray than the Jonathan Creek Formation, its Ohio equivalent. As the Wymps Gap is a carbonate member of a dominantly clas tic sequence (Mauch Chunk), it is reasonable to assume that the decreasing amount of argillaceous material in the Wymps Gap and equivalents from east to west is an indication of an easterly Mauch Chunk source area; this is confirmed by Hoque (1968).

Bluerock Creek Formation

Scatterday (1963) discovered Mississippian strata in a core taken from a well in the SEJg SEJj sec. 19, Har rison Twp., Muskingum County (L# 293, PI. I), which are younger than the Jonathan Creek Formation (Figure 20).

He named the sequence the Bluerock Creek Formation, af ter nearby Bluerock Creek, and designated the core as the type section. The writer studied the type core and concludes that in lithologic aspect the formation dif fers considerably from the underlying Jonathan Creek 0

Beave r 2 0 Bend

30 .m a rk e r 1 ronton * - zone sh

Paoli 50 ui

6 0 -

7 0 -

8 0 -

Genevieve 9 0 -

1 1 0 -

Log a n

130 Fm

1401 feet Figure 20.-Lithostratigraphic units recognized in the Maxville Group in the Ironton mine area of southern Ohio; compiled by writer from data of Scatterday (1963) and Chute (1955) Note position of marker zone 108

Formation. It consists of 13% feet of alternating thin

beds of greenish shale and fairly pure fine-grained crys

talline limestone. Scatterday (1963) noted an abrupt

change in the conodont fauna at the contact between the

upper member of the Jonathan Creek and the Bluerock Creek

Formations and thought it likely that the contact was a

disconformity. Physical evidence of disconformity is,

however, not conclusive.

The Bluerock Creek was present in a nearby core

(sec. 29, Wayne Twyp., Muskingum County, L# 329, PI. I)

described by Bowen (1954). Unfortunately, the core was

discarded shortly after it was described in 1954. The

description indicates 28 feet 10 inches of alternating

shale and limestone at the top of the Maxville section;

this section is certainly the Bluerock Creek Formation,

and as Scatterday (1963) pointed out, would have made a

far better type core, because of its greater thickness

and higher proportion of shale.

The writer could identify the Bluerock Creek' For mation from only one set of well cuttings in Muskingum

County, in sec. 21 in Harrison Twp. (L# 294, PI. I),

approximately 1% miles due east of the type core. About

10 feet of the formation is present; it is only identifi able because there is a prominant shale break at its 109

base. The very small sample interval, 2 to 4 feet, is

undoubtedly the reason that the formation was detected

in this well and not elsewhere in the immediate vicinity,

such as Brush Creek Township (L# 285, PI. I).

Chesterian Formations in Southern Ohio

Scatterday (1963) restricted the name Maxville to

the "distinctive succession presently known to occur only

in the ’northern area* of Morse, 1910." He divided the

Upper Mississippian sequence of southern Ohio into units

that were correlated with equivalent strata in north

eastern Kentucky. Post-Ste. Genevieve units identified

by Scatterday in the Ironton mine in southern Ohio include

the Paoli Limestone, an unnamed unit at the position of

the Mooretown Sandstone, and the Beaver Bend Limestone

(Figure 20). Although formational names were not recog

nized by Chute (1955), his descriptions of the exposed

section in the Ironton mine are so clear that it is easy

to apply the formational names used by Scatterday to his

work. Most of the following descriptive material is

from Chute.

The Paoli Limestone in the Ironton mine is light

olive-gray uniformly fine-grained crystalline high- calcium limestone, except near the top where in places a 110 brecciated discontinuous dolomitic limestone and coarse ly crystalline dolomite unit is present. Discontinuous patches of green shale are abundant in the upper beds of the formation, and the topmost foot is nearly all green shale. However, this shale is generally not present where the dolomitic beds occur (Chute, 1955).

Disconformably overlying the Paoli in the Ironton mine is an unnamed unit at the position of the Mooretown

Sandstone (Scatterday, 1963) (Figure 20), which for con venience is here informally named the Ironton shale. The

Ironton shale is vertically divisible into two units of different composition. The lower unit is thin, but persistent, and is composed of dark green sandy shale that contains small residual fragments of limestone.

This unit fills depressions on the subjacent erosional surface. It "apparently consists to a large extent of more or less reworked residual soil that developed on the underlying erosion surface." (Chute, 1955) The upper unit of the Ironton shale is a very dark gray do lomitic and calcareous shale. The upper contact with the

Beaver Band Limestone is sharp, and is distinguished by a change in texture and color. The thickness of the Iron— ton shale, which averages 4 to 5 feet, is controlled by the configuration of the subjacent disconformity, being Ill thickest over lows and thinnest over highs.

Conformably overlying the Ironton shale is the

Beaver Bend Limestone (Figure 20). This unit is 14 to

16 feet thick in the Ironton mine (Scatterday, 1963), and consists of "alternating layers of medium to coarse grained salmon pink limestone and fine-grained light gray dolomitic limestone." (Chute, 1955) The formation is generally thin-bedded. Coarse-textured zones appear to owe their origin to the presence of numerous fossil frag ments.

Cores drilled by the Alpha Portland Cement Company in ad around the Ironton mine reveal variable amounts of

Maxville section above the roof of the mine. As much as

18 feet of section that is possibly younger than the .Bea ver Bend Limestone is, for example, present in hole 1-

61(5) in the NE% S E % S W % sec 25, Upper Twp., Lawrence

County. This section is different from the Beaver Bend

Limestone and consists of massively bedded medium crys talline cream-colored styolitic pure limestone; it is essentially the Gasper limestone of Butts (1922) and the

Reelsville-Beech Creek Limestone of McFarlan and Walker

(1956) (Table 4, page 32). The medium-grained texture is probably a result of partial recrystallization of abundant oolites and fossils. 112

Samples from wells in southeastern Lawrence County

usually indicate a thick Maxville section. Because of

the interfingering of siliceous and nonsiliceous strata

in the Ste. Genevieve Limestone (page 90), it is dif

ficult to ascertain the true thickness of that forma

tion in this area; it apparently ranges from 30 to 50

feet in most wells. It is equally difficult to estab

lish the true thickness of the post-Ste. Genevieve Mis-

sissippian section; the writer estimates this thickness

to average between 30 and 40 feet. If this estimate is

valid, the Chesterian section must consist mainly of the

Paoli, Ironton, and Beaver Bend formations. However,

the Maxville section in a well in section 14 of Union

Township, Lawrence County (L# 113, PI. I) is extraor

dinarily thick (168 feet) and probably contains Chester-

ian units that are younger than those exposed at the

Ironton mine.

Correlation of Chesterian Units in Ohio

The Chesterian age of the Maxville limestone ex

posed in east-central Ohio was established early, on macro-faunal evidence, by Meek (in Andrews, 1871a),

Whitfield (1882, 1891), Herrick (1888), and later by

Ulrich (1917) and Butts (1922). Nonetheless, Stockdale 113

(1939) and Weller jet ad. (1948) accepted the conclusion

of Morse (1910) that the Maxville limestone in the nor

thern area is largely Ste. Genevieve in age. Recent work

on conodonts (Scatterday, 1963) and on macrofossils

(Horowitz, 1969) has re-affirmed the Chesterian age of

all but a small proportion of the Maxville in this area.

Scatterday (1963) established biostratigraphic and

lithostratigraphic correlations between formations of

Chesterian age in northeastern Kentucky and southern

Ohio. However, he did not include the southern Ohio sec

tion in the Maxville Group, because the lithologies in

that area are somewhat different from -those found in the

type Maxville section 80 miles to the north, and because

there are no exposures between the two areas to aid phy

sical correlations. The present writer includes all Up- per Mississippian strata occurring in Ohio in the Max ville Group. A series of correlations that establishes the equivalence of the Maxville sections of southern and east-central Ohio is discussed below.

Identification of Key Beds

The writer studied geophysical logs, samples, core records, and outcrops of the Maxville section in order to define reliable correlation (marker) zones, 114 which would facilitate physical correlation between equi valent Maxville units occurring in the subsurface of southeastern Ohio and units exposed in southern and east-central Ohio.

Because of the widely recognized value of geophy sical logs for correlating subsurface units in the Ap palachian Basin it was anticipated that these logs would provide sufficient evidence for the desired correlation of

Maxville units; but after careful study of many geophy sical logs the writer concludes that no consistent log character, representing a mappable Maxville key bed, can be discerned. Because post-Maxville erosion has trunca ted the section in most Ohio wells, the top appears at stratigraphically different positions in different wells.

Moreover, in many Ohio counties the bottom part of the

Maxville section, the Ste. Genevieve and Loyalhanna Lime stones, is variable because of its high silica content and the apparent lensing of "sandy lime" units from well to well. Adams (1964) came to a similar conclusion for the Loyalhanna in Pennsylvania, from a study of geophy sical logs for which he had complete well samples. How ever, when logs with thick Maxville sections (Figure 21) are compared with each other and with a representative log of the Greenbrier of West Virginia, some similarities L#185 L#463 L# 143 L#T13 YOUSE (1964) 5 TOP

1350 TOP * 1360 ■ t 1400

1350 z • 1050 3 1400 B vt MUl x u X H

1450 t- uiZ utn i* ft. 1500 m m -C-m m . ite/i ■1450 caui *■1500 I Figure 21.-Representative gamma-ray logs of 3 the Maxville Group (#1-4), as com Z pared with a typical gamma-ray log of the Greenbrier Group (#5) from north- central S. Va., after Youse (1963); Line B represents a possible correlation horizon, location equivalent to the base of Youse*s "brown number zone." T Plate I h-> M UI

i 116

do appear; for example a diagnostic log character, called

by Youse (1964) the base of the "brown zone," seems to

appear on the Ohio logs (Figure 21). With the addition

of more geophysical logs and well samples, gross subsur

face correlations between thick sections of the Maxville

Group and the Greenbrier Group may be realized.

At exposures, the writer was able to recognize two key correlation zones in the Maxville Group. The lower dark shale section of the middle member of the Jonathan

Creek Formation (shale—nodular zone of Morse, 1910) is an excellent marker zone wherever present in east-central

Ohio (Figure 19). Likewise, the Ironton shale (Figure 20) is easily recognized where present in cores and in mine workings in southern Ohio and at exposures in adjacent

Kentucky.

In samples and cores, a thin olive-gray to olive- black shale unit, known to drillers in the Appalachian

Basin as the "Pencil Cave shale," commonly occurs at the top of the Maxville if the thickness of the section ex ceeds about 115 feet; however, this zone is less useful as a marker zone than the Jonathan Creek or Ironton units, because Maxville sections thicker than 100 feet are un common. Nonetheless, where present, this zone offers a degree of control in correlating the youngest Maxville 117 units with equivalent units in adjacent areas.

Jonathan Creek Shale Marker Zone

The Jonathan Creek shale marker zone (Figure 19) can generally be recognized without great difficulty in most areas of Maxville in east-central Ohio. Because of its thinness, averaging approximately two feet thick, it is a useful reference unit for county-wide correlations.

A disconformity underlies this section in northern

Hocking, Perry, and Muskingum counties. Evidence for the disconformity consists of physical irregularity in the contact surface, soft greenish-black, non-calcareous to slightly calcareous shale containing land plant fossils

(Bruce, 1974) in "lows" on the contact surface, abrupt lithologic and faunal changes across the contact, and brecciation, weathering profiles, and/or subaerial solu tion features at numerous localities in the upper part of the subjacent strata.

The marker zone's soft basal shale probably repre sents a residual soil left by ground-water solution of underlying carbonate. Figure 22 shows a paleo-sinkhole about one foot deep that was developed on the erosional sruface (top of the lower Jonathan Creek). Angular clasts of limestone up to six inches in length are 118

Figure 22.-Paleo-sinkhole at base of shaly section of middle member of Jonathan Creek Formation— Chesterhill quarry— unit highly brecciated below sinkhole 119

scattered in a matrix of dark soft shale along the bottom of the depression. The underlying beds are highly brecciated and show obvious signs of collapse. Thick brec cia zones are found at this horizon at scattered locali ties in east-central Ohio. At the Chesterhill quarry the breccia is about 4 feet thick (Figures 23, 24) and is superimposed on a zone of thick contorted plastically deformed limestone and dolomite. Possibly unconsolidated or semi-consolidated carbonate beds were subjected to shoaling conditions during regression of the sea, which caused "rip-ups'1 and slumping. It is also possible that evaporite deposits were once present in discontinuous se quences throughout the area, whose removal produced the brecciation, slumping, and collapse of overlying beds.

Evaporites have been reported from the Greenbrier Group

(Henniger, 1972) and are well known in certain Missis- sippian sequences in the Illinois and Michigan Basins; but as no hard evidence exist for their presence in the

Maxville, care must be exercised in attributing present physical structures to removal of evaporites.

In east-central Ohio conodont-elements from the middle member of the Jonathan Creek Formation, which contains the marker zone, are representives of wide- ranging Chesterian species (Scatterday, 1963), as are 120

Figure 23.-Lower member of Jonathan Creek Formation at Chesterhill Stone quarry. Top of hammer at con tact between lower and middle members; foot of man at base of breccia zone (A)

C - disconformity B - breccia zone Figure 24.-Close-up of breccia at top of lower member of Jonathan Creek Formation; Chesterhill Stone quarry; clasts are dark-gray to black chert, limestone, and dolomite. 122

representatives of the macro-fauna, and are of little use in correlating this member with units in southern

Ohio. However, Scatterday (1963) showed that conodonts

10 to 20 feet above the base of upper Jonathan Creek sections are nearly identical to those found in the

Haney Limestone of northeastern Kentucky (Figure 25)

(Table 4, page 32). His correlation established that the lower member, the middle member, and the basal 10 feet of the upper member of the Jonathan Creek Formation are older than the Haney and range somewhere between Paoli and Reelsville-Beech Creek in age.

Ironton Shale Marker Zone and Equivalents in Kentucky

The Bethel Sandstone is a thin clastic unit com— posed of sandstone and/or shale that occurs over a wide area of the Illinois Basin between the Paoli and the

Beaver Bend Limestones or their equivalents (Swann, 1963).

In western Kentucky, the Bethel is usually called the

Mooretown Sandstone and is a useful marker bed for cor relating lower Chesterian sections over long distances.

A well-developed conglomeratic or brecciated zone at the top of the underlying Paoli Limestone along the southern edge of the western coal field of Kentucky helps identi fy the Mooretown position (McFarlan and Walker, 1955). MAXVILLE GROUP OF EAST-CENTRAL OHIO MISSISSIPPI^ tN TYPE SECTIO N

Bluerock Creek F m ------— ______^ post -Golconda

y------upper zone^> 0* / (>20 feet above base)

r — upper member-^ ------middle zone—* upper Golconda / \ (10-20 feet above base) (Haney equivalent / . \ ------lower zone—4 lower Golconda J (basal 10 feet) S e r i e s e i r e S Jonathan Creek Fm/ middle member ------^pre-Golconda

\ -----lower member ------> Chesterian

t------upper member ■— ------> upper St* c Louis Ls 0 V, ' 3 a Dillon Falls F m ------( a> — lower St* E *- uo tO • \ ------lower member ------> Louis Ls 0)

I...... _ _ - - . . . Figure 25.-Correlation of the Maxville Group in east-central Ohio with the i—• rv> type Mississippian section, after Scatterday (1963) u> 124

McFarlan and Walker (1956) found a shale-conglomer-

ate-breccia "break" in the interval between the top of

the Ste. Genevieve and the top of the Beaver Bend, along

the western edge of the eastern coal field in Kentucky, which they regarded as the equivalent of the Mooretown

Sandstone (Table 4). This break is developed whereever

lower Chesterian strata occur in eastern Kentucky; the limestone below the Mooretown is the Paoli and that above it is the Beaver Bend. McFarlan and Walker (1956) also identified several other horizon markers ("breaks") in eastern Kentucky, which they correlated with clastic units of western Kentucky. They concluded that these stratigraphic breaks in the limestone sequence are the record of "breaking up in shoaling waters rather than subaerial erosion." •4 The Ironton shale marker zone which occurs between the Paoli and Beaver Bend Limestones in the Ironton mine

(Figure 20, page 107), is here correlated with the

Mooretown-Bethel interval of Kentucky and the Illinois

Basin. Chute (1955) carefully documented that the basal contact of the Ironton shale is a disconformity, citing nearly 10 feet of relief on this surface at one locality in the mine, the widespread brecciated dolomitized lime stone in the upper Paoli, and the thin residual soil of 125 green sandy shale with limestone fragments directly above the contact.

It is likely that the basal contact of the Moore town (Ironton shale) in northeastern Kentucky is also a disconformity, contrary to the conclusion of McFarlan and

Walker (1956) cited above. Widespread interruption of the upper Mississippian limestone depositional sequence by the Bethel-Mooretown-Ironton unit is an indication that this stratigraphic break is a result of minor re gional regression and not simply of a variation in the terrigenous sediment being delivered to the local basin.

The flank areas of the Cincinnati Arch would be the first to be affected by even minor regression, so that it is not i surprising that the northeastern Kentucky—southern Ohio area shows evidence of repeated shoaling and subaerial exposure during the Meramecian and Chesterian Epochs.

Correlations

The east-central Ohio area, like Southern Ohio, is located at the western edge of the Appalachian Basin and on the eastern flank of the Cincinnati Arch. Numerous depositional breaks, of the same magnitude as those de scribed in southern Ohio and adjacent Kentucky, are found within the Chesterian sequence in this area, and are probably also a reflection of the area’s prox

imity to the Cincinnati Arch. The most significant

break in the sequence is the regional disconformity

at the base of the middle member of the Jonathan Creek.

Below beds of Haney age (Table 4), there is only

one widespread prominent stratigraphic break in both east-

central Ohio (Figure 19) and the northeastern Kentucky-

southern Ohio area (Figure 20); this is the disconformity

underlying the Ironton and middle Jonathan Creek shales.

It is therefore concluded that the Ironton shale and the

shaly lower section of the middle Jonathan Creek Forma

tion are physically equivalent, and, along with that

portion of the Mooretown-Bethel sandstone-shale sequence

peripheral to the Cincinnati Arch, represent a basal

transgressive facies following a moderate period of early

Chesterian subaerial erosion.

Correlation of the Ironton shale with the shale

marker zone of the middle member of the Jonathan Creek

Formation clearly permits correlation of the subjacent

Paoli Limestone of southern Ohio with the entire lower member of the Jonathan Creek Formation (Figures 19, 20).

In the Jonathan mine area of Newton Township, Muskingum

County, the lower member averages about 18 feet thick

(Bruce, 1974, personal communication) and in the Ironton mine the Paoli averages about 22 feet thick (Chute, 1955). 127

Even though considerable differences in individual bed

thicknesses and lithology exist between these sections, they are believed to be equivalent.

Between the Mooretown "break” (Ironton shale) and the Haney Limestone (upper Golconda of the type section) of northeastern Kentucky are the Beaver Bend and Reels- ville-Beech Creek Limestones (Table 4, page 32). In the

Ironton mine the Beaver Bend is a thin-bedded sequence of limestone interbedded at the top with dolomitic limestone

(Figure 20). At the Poplar Ballast quarry, Carter County,

Kentucky (Figure 1), Scatterday (1963) noted that the lower 6 inches of the Beaver Bend is fossiliferous no dular limestone. Throughout northeastern Kentucky,

McFarlan and Walker (1956) noticed a stratigraphic break at the top of the Beaver Bend, which they equated with the Sample Sandstone (mid-Paint Creek of type section) of western Kentucky (Table 4).

In east-central Ohio, the lower zone of the upper member of the Jonathan Creek Formation (Figures 19, 25) is structurally and compositionally different from the

Beaver Bend Limestone; however, the upper zone of the thin middle member contains thin-bedded and nodular fossiliferous limestone similar to the lower part of the

Beaver Bend described by Scatterday at the Poplar Bal last quarry in northeastern Kentucky. The writer 128

believes that the upper part of the middle member, the V" shale nodular zone of Morse, probably represents a con

densed or truncated Beaver Bend sequence.

On the other hand, bedding characteristics, compo

sition, and texture of the lower zone of the upper mem

ber of the Jonathan Creek Formation (Figures 19, 25) are

similar to physical attributes of the Reelsville-Beech

Creek limestones. Patterson and Hosterman (1962) re

ported a maximum of ten feet of Beech Creek in the

Wrigley Quadrangle in northeastern Kentucky. Although

the thickness of this interval varies considerably across

northeastern Kentucky, the figure cited above is nearly

the same as that measured by Scatterday (1963) for the

pre-Haney part (lower Golconda equivalent) of the upper member of the Jonathan Creek Formation (Figure 25). The <, Reelsville-Beech Creek, like its upper Jonathan Creek

counterpart, is an especially pure and uniformly textured

limestone.

The Haney Limestone in northeastern Kentucky (Ta ble 4) is a variable unit of limestone and shale. It is separated from the subjacent Beech Creek Limestone by a stratigraphic break corresponding to the horizon of the Big Clifty Sandstone of Indiana and the Frailey Shale

(mid-Golconda) of the fluorspar district of western 129

Kentucky (McFarlan and Walker, 1956). Detailed study of the upper member of the Jonathan Creek Formation in east-central Ohio is difficult because of its high—wall position in Maxville quarries. Figure 26 shows the up per Jonathan Creek section as exposed in the Chesterhill quarry in Muskingum County; a subtle undulation in the beds approximately 10 feet above the base of the member is at the proper stratigraphic position of the "Big

Clifty" break described above. Whether this undulation truly represents a regional stratigraphic break or is simply a local depositional anomaly is not known. The uppermost five feet Of Maxville section in Figure 26 is the Haney Limestone equivalent (Figure 25), but unlike sections of the formation exposed in Kentucky, this sec tion contains no shale.

Bluerock Creek Formation and Its Correlatives

Nearly everywhere above the Haney Limestone in northeastern Kentucky (Table 4, page 32) and in the sub surface of eastern Kentucky and West Virginia (Table 5, page 35), a soft olive-gray to olive-black shale unit of variable thickness called the "Pencil Cave" (a drillers' term) is present. In southeastern West Virginia, where it is the basal member of the Mauch Chunk Group, the

"Pencil Cave" was named by Reger (1926) the Lillydale 130

Figure 26.-Quarried section at Chester hill Stone quarry, Newton Twp., Muskingum Co.

C - contact between Maxville Group and Pennsylvania strata B - gentle undulation separ ating beds of Haney age (above) and pre-Haney age (below)— possible re gional stratigraphic break A - middle Jonathan Creek mar ker beds' 131

Shale. Drillers usually identify the "Pencil Cave" correctly, and call the limestone immediately above the shale the "Little Lime" and the limestone just below it the "Big Lime."

The persistent limestone unit above the Lillydale, generally called by geologists the Reynolds Limestone, was correlated throughout West Virginia by Flowers (1956).

He showed that the unit is continuously present in the subsurface from southeastern West Virginia to eastern

Kentucky. The limestone averages between 20 and 40 feet thick and ranges from an argillaceous fossiliferous lime stone to a purer limestone resembling the upper Green brier.

When the subsurface distribution of the Lillydale

Shale and the Reynolds Limestone is studied, it is clear that the "Pencil Cave" is equivalent to the shale break seen at exposures in northeastern Kentucky between the

Haney and Glen Dean Limestones (Table 4), and that the

Reynolds Limestone is equivalent to the Glen Dean Lime stone. The writer supports Overbey (1967), who cor related the Lillydale Shale ("Pencil Cave") of West

Virginia with the post-Haney "Golconda" of Kentucky.

The Lillydale Shale is a key Chesterian marker zone. Although this unit and the overlying Glen Dean 132 equivalent occur only rarely in Ohio, the shale zone is very useful for regional correlation. Both formations are probably present in parts of southeastern Lawrence, eastern Gallia, southeastern Meigs, Monroe, and pos sibly eastern Washington counties (Figure 1), but the

Lillydale is difficult to recognize in samples if the sample interval is greater than 4 or 5 feet. In samples, the Glen Dean equivalent can be a fairly pure limestone but is characteristically darker and more argillaceous than older Maxville units of Chesterian age.

The writer concludes that the stratigraphic posi tion (Figure 19), post-Haney age (Figure 25), and lithology of the Bluerock Creek Formation in Muskingum Coun ty require that it be correlated with the Lillydale Shale and Glen Dean Limestone. The Bluerock Creek section in the Wayne Township core described by Bowen (1954) con sisted of a basal shale unit 4 feet 8 inches thick, com posed of thin greenish-gray to greenish-black soft cal careous shale beds (70 percent), interbedded with thin sublithographic argillaceous limestone (30 percent), whereas overlying beds were predominantly thicker-bedded limestone (13 feet 2 inches), and shales (11 feet) of similar composition to the basal unit (Bowen, 1954).

The basal shale section is the Lillydale Shale (Figure 19) 133

and the uppermost limestone section is the Glen Dean.

The middle shale-limestone sequence is difficult to place;

however, in the type Bluerock Creek core the section above

the basal shale is predominantly limestone and probably

equivalent to the Glen Dean Limestone. More detailed

correlations would be possible if large rock fragments

were available for paleontological study, as the shales

and limestones in the upper Haney through Glen Dean in

northeastern Kentucky contain an extensive fauna of bry-

ozoa, brachiopods, echinoderms, and corals (Patterson and

Hosterman, 1962).

Possible Disconformity at Base of Bluerock Creek and Regional Equivalents

Scatterday (1963) suspected a disconformity at the base of the Bluerock Creek because the "uppermost few

inches of the Jonathan Creek Formation in the type core

are dolomitized, and knobs on its upper surface project upward into greenish shales at the base of the overlying

Bluerock Creek Formation." Intraformational breccias

that occur at similar stratigraphic positions in the

Bluerock Creek Formation in the core described by Bowen

(1954) and in the type core may also represent signifi cant stratigraphic breaks in the depositional sequence. 134

In Lincoln and Wayne counties, West Virginia,

Henniger (1972) noted that the areal distribution of the Lillydale Shale is more limited than that of the overlying Reynolds (Glen Dean) Limestone. This fact suggested facies changes in the shale section or shale filling in minor irregularities in a pre-Lillydale erosional surface. If a disconformity exists at the base of the Lillydale, it would explain the great variability in the shale-to-limestone ratio in sections at this stra tigraphic position in northeastern Kentucky; however, this could equally be explained by facies changes re sulting from localized depositional environments. The writer cannot be certain whether the preceding evidence warrants his belief in a basal Lillydale disconformity; however, it is certain that an abrupt change in the depositional environment is indicated by the widespread shale break.

Summary of Correlations

The correlation and probable age of the Maxville strata of Chesterian age in Ohio are summarized in Table

7 and as follows:

(1) Paoli Limestone = lower Jonathan Creek

(2) Mooretown-Bethel = Ironton shale = lower part Table 7.-Revised Upper Mississippian nomenclature and correlations for Ohio

Standard Section After McFarlan & SO.Lawrence Co. SW.MuskingumCo W-C Monroe Co., Ohio, this report Ohio, this report Weller et al. ,1948 Walker, 1956 Oh to,this report (outcrop, subsurface (Subsurface only) [Composite Section.WE.Ky.iironton mine t subsurface) composite) Overlying L. Penn L. Penn. L. Penn. L. Penn. L. Penn. Post- 11 v* ira

Glen Dean Glen Dean Klen Dean Glen Dean Ls. PENNINGTON Member Member Member

Lillydale Lillydale Harainsburq Ss Lillydale Jlei^jer Meyfrey Member HANEY LS. C hester- Golconda Fid. (Break) ’Chester- ? hill ’ BEECH CREEK LS hill” Cypres, ss. Jonathan Member Member REELSVILLE LS Creek Creek (Break) Beaver Nodular BEAVER-BEND LS. "Newton Bend Ls "Newton Member "Ironton Member" Bethel Ss. Black MOORETOWN BREAK* Shale" Renault Ls. PAOLI LS Paoli Member Paoli Hember Aux Vases Ss (Break) (Bryantsville breccia! (Bryantsville Ste. breccia) Genevieve Ste. Loyalhanna Genevieve Ls. Genevieve Ls Ls. (Break)? ST. LOUIS LS Dillon upper ST.LOUIS LS Palls Pm lower 135 SALEM LS.

WARSAW LS.

Jnderlyinc L. Miss Miss. EUU1 Miss. L. Miss Miss. 136

of the middle Jonathan Creek

(3) Beaver Bend Limestone = upper part of middle

Jonathan Creek

(4) Reelsville-Beech Creek Limestone = lower 10

feet of upper Jonathan Creek

(5) Haney Limestone = upper Jonathan Creek 10-20

feet above the base

(6) Lillydale Shale = "Pencil Cave" = basal Blue-

rock Creek

(7) Glen Dean = "Little Lime" = Reynolds Limestone

= upper part of Bluerock Creek

An anomalous aspect of the correlations suggested above is the fact that the upper Jonathan Creek member is reported to be about 40 feet thick in the two Blue- rock Creek cores mentioned above and in one core from the

Jonathan mine area. If this is so, and the Haney equi valent defined by Scatterday always exists between 10 and 20 feet above the base of the upper member, then there is an additional 20 feet of Haney section in these cores. This is not likely; it is probable that the thick ness of the upper member has been in some places overesti mated, as in the case of the Bluerock Creek type core, where Scatterday erroneously called 10 feet of lower and middle Jonathan Creek part of the upper member. It is 137

also probable that the section (thickness) between the

Mooretown and Haney equivalents is commonly expanded, so

that the Haney is higher up in the sequence in the cored

sections.

PALEOGEOGRAPHY OF OHIO IN MIDDLE CHESTERIAN TIME

The inferred paleogeography of Ohio during the max

imum Chesterian transgression is depicted in Figure 27.

The limits defined in the figure are established on the

basis of the present distribution of Maxville outliers,

the distribution of pebbles and cobbles of silicified

Maxville limestone in the basal Pennsylvanian Harrison

Formation, and on the position of known regional struc

tural features.

Reported locations of clasts of Maxville Limestone

in the Harrison Formation are shown by large black dots in Plate II. These clasts are generally rounded but may be angular, as in Muskingum County (Stout, 1918) and

Vinton County (Stout, 1944), and are 8 inches long or more at several localities in Licking County (Franklin,

1961) and Holmes County (White, 1949). Presence of the clasts was first reported by Herrick (1888) in Licking

County. Later, Lamb (1916) identified Maxville clasts iue 7-nerd aegorpy fOi drn the during Ohio of paleogeography 27.-Inferred Figure C / N C I N N A T | aiu Cetra transgression Chesterian Maximum * O ** Islands T n a g o L 'T 138

139

in the Harrison Formation of Licking and Holmes counties.

Stout (1916) mentioned cherty Maxville pebbles in basal

Coal Measures of southern Ohio that in places directly

overlie residual Maxville deposits. Conrey (1921) col

lected a group of?silicified fossils from the Harrison

Formation in Wayne County and submitted them to Helen

Morningstar for identification; she found them all to be

Mississippian forms, most of which were already known

from Maxville occurrences in Perry and Muskingum counties.

Nearly all subsequent studies dealing with the Harrison

Formation in eastern Ohio, south of Wayne County, have

reported Maxville or presumed Maxville clasts.

North and northeast of Wayne County, Bowen (1952)

and Fuller (1955) reported Middle Devonian (Onondaga-

Hamilton) faunas from silicified pebbles and cobbles in

the Sharon Formation (lower Pottsville), which commonly

overlies the Harrison Formation (Table 1, page 8). Both

studies indicated a northerly source area for the quartz

sand and conglomerate in the Sharon Formation. It is

therefore unlikely that the Maxville Group was present in Early Pennsylvanian time in the extreme northeastern

Ohio counties. Fuller (1955) also discovered Devonian fossils in silicified limestone in the Sharon conglomer ate in Jackson County, southern Ohio. It thus 140 appears that occurrences of pebbles and cobbles of the

Maxville Group in the basal Pennsylvanian are restricted to the Harrison Formation, and that occurrences of clasts of Devonian carbonate are restricted to the Sharon.

Meyers (1929) and Lamb (1916) indicated that in

Coshocton and Holmes counties silicified clasts of Max ville limestone are found only at localities coincident with topographic highs on the pre-Pennsylvanian surface

(Figure 28). This evidence, combined with the probable

Early Pennsylvanian southward drainage indicated by Ful ler (1955) and the large size of the clasts, shows that the clasts were not transported far, if at all. It is probable that most of these pebbles and cobbles are in situ residual accumulations.

•4 THE MAXVILLE GROUP AND ITS EQUIVALENTS SYNTHESIS AND CORRELATION

Tables 7 and 8 and Figure 30 represent the wri ter's attempt to integrate the nomenclature and the fau— nal and physical correlations of the various Meramecian and Chesterian carbonate units in the northern Appala chian Basin. Several important nomenclatural changes are suggested:

(1) The Pickaway and Union Limestones are lithologically variable and are difficult to NW SE Pottsvil le Group

UPPER DATUM OF LAMBC1916)

i SILICIFIED CLASTS OF

MAXVILLE LS

Waverly Group

Figure 28.-Diagrammatic cross-section showing relationships between the Waverly and Pottsville groups in Coshocton, Holmes, Wayne, and Summit counties, Ohio and the position of Lamb’s upper datum. The locations of sili cified Maxville pebbles and cobbles lie approximately in a plane (upper datum) H

t 142

distinguish in the field (Hickman, 1951;

Kanes, 1957; Leonard, 1968). Faunally, however

they are nearly identical, so that the name

"Gasper" has been suggested, and is here adop

ted, for the combined Pickaway and Union lime

stones (Wells, 1950: Hickman, 1951; Kanes,

1957).

(2) The lower member of the Jonathan Creek Forma

tion of Ohio is herein formally recognized as

the Paoli Limestone, because of that unit*s

continuity in stratigraphic position from Ken

tucky to Ohio, between two regional disconfor-

mities near the base of the Chesterian section.

The middle member of the Jonathan Creek For-

mation is herein informally named the Newton

member because of the widespread development of

the unit in Newton Township, Muskingum County.

The Upper, member of the Jonathan Creek Forma

tion is informally named the Chesterhill lime

stone, after the excellent development of this

member in the Chesterhill Stone Company*s

quarry, Newton Township, Muskingum County

(described by Scatterday, 1963). Table 8.-Revised Upper Mississippian nomenclature and correlation for the northern ______Appalachian Basin______

Standard After McFarlan NE. KY. SE. OHIO SW. PA. SE. W VA. Section And Walker, 1956 this report rept.(composite sec.] this report this report Weller ct al., ]948 composite Section ME.Kv (composite section ) ______EAST WEST______EAST' Pocohantas Co. Overlyinq L. Penn. Strata L. Penn. L. Penn. L. Penn. L. Penn. L. Penn. Post i n fl. a Post Penninato 3 o Reynolds Fms. X o Upper X Glen Dean Ls Pennington 0 Glen o* ox DC Glen Glen Dean m e < Oean (3 Reynold =>§ Reynolds Ls « 0 S Ls. Hardinsbura Ss Pcncx Lillydale Sh n Shale Si. Save Sh Lillydale Sh. ---- ? “ — — Lillydale Sh. Haney Ls. M I Haney Ls! •5: Golconda Fm LPreaxj c 3 D. Alderson Beech Creek 1 C X Beech Creek Ls. Chester Ui 3 Cypress Ss. Ls UJ X UJ -hill" te Ls. u O o X DC Paint Reelsvllle Ls. o Member 8 Reelsville Ls u Wymps CD Creek Fm. (Break) z X a: e UNION Beaver < —?— o Beaver Bend Le. X »“§ Ls. Bond La 1— ■ n i 3 < Hew ton z Bethel Ss o < C/> o Mooretovn Break "Ironton Sh." UJ z Member n HALE ™ a: o 2 UJ < E Pickaway Renault Ls Paoll Ls. Paoli Ls ~ 3 Paoll DC Ls. Aux Vases Ss (Break) Loyalhanna at TAGGA r D stt (Bryantsvllie breccia) . Loyal- z Ste. Ste. { ’ UJ Gene- - tlBnnft Ls. DENMAR GenevieveG enevieve Genevieve UJ ViCVG DC Ls. I Ls. Is.- CD Fm. Break ? Billon St. Louis Ls Louis L& Palls Pm Hillsdale Ls. Salem Ls (MA c c !r a DY) Warsaw underly 21 H L. Hiss L. Miss L. Hiss L. Hiss L. Miss. rfSs ir.u st r LO Figure 29.-Index map for cross-sections; cross-section A-B-C-D (Figure 30) page 143; cross-section D-E (Figure 11) page 83 144 FEET 160 180" 170 0 0 1 150 140 0 3 1 120 110 0 6 20 0 3 70 40 90 BO" BO" 50 10 10 0*. * • ■ - * * * - * - - • - - - -

EC CREEK-—~T BEECH i BLUEROCK ELVLE |LS REELSVILLE LS Y E N A H iue 0-etrd eto soig relation showing section 30.-Restored Figure AL LS PAOLI CREEK O STE ln en ietn ad equivalen A, and Locations Limestone Dean Basin. Glen Appalachian LN DEAN GLEN LLYDALE SH E L A D Y L IL L SHALE GENEVIEVE

145

SHALE JLEYNOLDS

CHESTE tHILl MEMIER JONATHAN NEWTON MBft CREEK

PAOLi MEMBER m

LOYALHANNA WAVERLY GROUP

tions of various Upper—Mississipp-ian carbonate units in northern A, B, c, and D from Figure 29. Section "hung” from top of alents D

.REYNOLDS UPPER “ MAUCH’CHUNK FM — —

W Y M PS : G A P

JO N A T H A N I CREEK Fm LOWER MAUCH CHUNK

LOYALHANNA

POCONO ss pp.lan carbonate units in northern Section "hung” from top of I

146

(3) The name Bluerock Creek Formation (Scatterday,

1963) is maintained. The dominantly shaly

basal zone is recognized as the Lillydale

Shale member and the dominantly limestone

upper zone is recognized as the Glen Dean Lime

stone member.

(4) The Lillydale Shale is recognized in north

eastern Kentucky as the equivalent of McFar-

lan and Walker's (1956) informal "Pencil

Cave."

(5) The Newman Limestone is herein elevated to

group status; the St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve,

and Glen Dean limestones, as defined by Butts

(1922) and McFarlan and Walker (1956) are

considered formations in the Newman Group.

However, the thin lower Chesterian formations

occurring between the Ste. Genevieve and the

Lillydale Shale, described by McFarlan and

Walker (1956) and others in northeastern Ken

tucky, are difficult to distinguish in the

field; therefore, the writer introduces an

informal term, the Jonathan Creek limestone,

to describe this rather homogeneous sequence,

which includes the Paoli, Beaver Bend. 147

Reelsville-Beech Creek, and Haney limestones.

THE POST—MAXVILLE (MONDAY CREEK) DISCONFORMITY

In the study area (Figure 1), a disconformity is

everywhere present between the Maxville and overlying

Pennsylvanian strata. This surface is a part of the in

terregional unconformity described by Sloss (1963) between

the Kaskaskia and Absaroka sequences of the North American

craton.

A review of the literature pertaining to the post-

Maxville (Late Mississippian-Early Pennsylvanian) discon

formity in the eastern United States suggests that for

convenience of discussion an informal name should be

assigned to the erosional surface and the variable hia-

tus that it represents. The writer proposes the name

Monday Creek for this surface and its time interval.

The name is taken from Monday Creek Township, Perry Coun

ty, Ohio, where Andrews (1870) first described the Max ville limestone and where excellent exposures of the dis conformity between the Maxville and overlying strata are present (Figure 31).

The presence of the disconformity in Ohio was first

suspected by Andrews (1871), who reported that the con

tact between the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian systems 148

Figure 31.-The Monday Creek disconform ity: photo taken at location of type section of Maxville limestone in Monday Creek Twp., Perry Co. Ohio

B - Pennsylvania A - Maxville Group 149

a long the line of outcrop is irregular and wavy. The disconformable nature of the contact was later confirmed by Andrews (1878) and Read (1878). Morse (1910), Hyde

(1911), and Lamb (1911) furnished detailed information on the areal extent and various topographic characteris tics of the erosional surface in several areas of eas tern Ohio. Portions of a large number of more recent published and unpublished Ohio reports (Flint, 1949;

Merrill, 1950, Hall, 1951; and others) deal with various aspects of the paleodrainage, paleotopography, and/or history of development of the erosional surface.

Compound Nature of Pre- Pennsylvanian Disconformity

In much of eastern Ohio, the pre-Pennsylvanian ero sional surface is compound in nature, a fact which accord ing to Potter and Pryor (1963) is typical of unconfor mities occurring near stable cratonic areas, such as the

Cincinnati Arch and the Canadian Platform. Only where the youngest Maxville units are present is it certain that the disconformity represents a Late Mississippian-

Early Pennsylvanian hiatus (Figure 32).

The compound nature of this surface was recognized early by Hyde (1911, 1953), who preferred the designation POTTS- VILLE

POTTS BLUEROCK -VILLE CR-EEK

CHESTER

POTTS- ,f— ' "^11 VILLE NEWTON NEWTON

PAOLI PAOLI LOGAN GENEVIEVE

U* DILLON FALLS LOGAN L- DILLON FALLS RU SHVILLE

LOGAN

Figure 32.-Diagrammatic cross-section showing the disconformable relationships between a Logan-Pottsville section west of the Maxville strand in southern or central Ohio (A), a partially preserved Maxville section (B) 150 and an idealized fully preserved Maxville section (C) 151

"post-Waverlian" rather than post-Maxville in his de

scriptions. However, the writer agrees with Hyde (1953)

that only the final erosional event (Late Mississippian-

Early Pennsylvanian cycle) significantly affected the

relief and drainage of the pre-Pennsylvanian surface. It

is this hiatus that is recognized throughout the North

American craton by Sloss (1963) and in most parts of the

Appalachian Basin by Butts (1918, 1922), Reger (1926),

Weller et_ al. (1948) Sprouse (1954), and others.

Age of The Monday Creek Disconformity

In the northern Appalachian Basin the time inter

val represented by the disconformity increases to the

north, north-west, and west, away from the Late Missis-

sippian depocenter in southeastern West Virginia. In

that direction, therefore, progressively older Missis-

sippian strata are overlain by progressively younger

Pennsylvanian strata (Sprouse, 1954; Arkel, 1972).

In Ohio, hills on the pre-Pennsylvanian surface

were gradually buried by accumulating Pennsylvanian sedi ments, so that locally the length of the hiatus repre

sented by the disconformity varies considerably. Some hills survived into Early Pennsylvanian time as "islands"

in extensively developed coal swamps. Read (1876) 152

described a "Waverly Hill" in Holmes County that is sur

rounded by a section containing six coal seams. Flint

(1949) discovered several Logan hills in Perry County buried by the Early Pennsylvanian Massillon Sandstone, and adjacent valleys buried by the older Sharon Formation and several pre-Massillon coal seams (Figure 33). Mer rill (1951), Hyde (1953), and Multer (1955) noted similar occurrences in northern Hocking, Vinton, and Wayne coun ties respectively. As is evident from the above state ments, the post-Maxville disconformity is not everywhere pre-earliest Pennsylvanian in age; post-Maxville erosion and Early Pennsylvanian deposition occurred side by side in many eastern Ohio areas (Figure 34).

Characteristics of the Monday Creek Surface

Paleoslope

After detailed petrographic study, Potter and Pryor

(1963) concluded that the bulk of Mississippian and Pen nsylvanian dlastic sediments of the Illinois and Michi gan basins reflects contributions from a disperal center located in the northern half of the Appalachian geosyn clinal belt; large drainage systems headed in this area and drained southwestward to various intracratonic basins. Lower Mercer limestone

Middle" it Mercer coal

"Bo member :

~~Vandusen coal •~~

~~Rushvillei Harrison fo rm a tio n ^ e^Quakertown = Maxville =— = Eilimestone~~

~~; Huckleberrye =~ Anthony =z Sharon V ‘£e* • • 9 * Vinton sandstone~~

~~cn= f Vertical scale approx. 30 inch - - _ 2| _ 1j miles~~

~~Figure 33.-Diagrammatic sketch showing stratigraphic relations of Mississippian and Lower Pennsylvanian strata in Perry County, Ohio (from Flint, 1948)~~

~~H cn u> ZONE OF EROSION ZONE OF DEPOSITION~~

~~REGOL1TH (HARRISON FM)~~

~~• ••• • •~~

* • • .

~~Figure 34.-Cross-section of a typical landscape in southeastern Ohio during early Pennsylvanian time. Monday Creek erosion is shown to be contempor aneous with Pennsylvanian depostion 155~~

~~Swann (1963) named the complex regional drainage system~~

~~the Michigan River, and described details of its geogra~~

~~phic position during Ste. Genevieve and Chesterian time~~

~~in the Illinois Basin.~~

~~Pepper et: al^. (1954) established that the Ontario~~

River, a dispersal system similar to the Michigan River, existed in Ohio during the Bedford-Berea interval (Ear ly Mississippian). In western Pennsylvania, Adams (1964) recognized a dominant Late Mississippian northerly source

~~for the terrigenous elastics found in the Loyalhanna~~

~~Limestone.~~

~~Lamb (1911), Bowen (1952), and Puller (1955) de scribed major north-south trending drainage channels on the pre-Pennsylvanian surface in several northeastern~~

Ohio counties; Fuller (1955) summarized the evidence in dicating a northern source for the basal Pennsylvanian found in these channels. The location of a Pennsylvan- ian-Permian (?) depocenter, usually termed the Pitts- burgh-Huntington Basin, in northern West Virginia, just southeast of the present Ohio River Valley (Arkle, 1972) also indicates southerly paleoslope in adjacent Ohio in

~~Late Paleozoic time.~~

~~The above evidence shows that a long-term south erly paleoslope existed in Ohio and adjacent areas through 156~~

~~Carboniferous, if not most of Later Paleozoic, time* It~~

~~is concluded that in eastern Ohio the pre—Pennsylvanian~~

~~surface, during the Monday Creek interval, was charac~~

~~terized by southerly regional slope.~~

~~Karst Features~~

~~Numerous karst features were observed by Bruce~~

~~(1974) and the present writer along exposures of the uppermost beds of the Jonathan Creek Formation in east- central and south—central Ohio. For example, in the~~

~~Jonathan Mine, Bruce noted many steep-sided sinkholes and ’’shale channels" at the top of the Maxville section.~~

~~The channels are steep-sided meandering narrow solution channels incised into the top of the Maxville, which are filled with basal Pennsylvanian black shale and coal.~~

A channel in an old quarry of the Columbia Cement Corpor ation in Newton Township, Muskingum County, was repor tedly traceable for over a quarter of a mile at the time the stone was being quarried. Bruce described a sink hole that measured 75 feet in diameter and 15 feet deep, which is characterized by fractures in the limestone infilled with dark Pennsylvanian silt and mud.

Solution channels occur in blocks of the Maxville limestone quarried at the Somerset stone quarry, in 157 west-central Perry County (Figure 35). The channels are found on the underside of the uppermost two feet of the Maxville section, which is quarried for dimension stone, and are as much as 6 inches deep and 6 inches wide.

Contrary to the conclusion of Hyde (1911) that no remnants of "an old soil bed1' are found at the top of the Maxville limestone, cores from the Ironton mine area indicate that greenish shale with limestone fragments, or weathered limestone with cavities filled with green shale, are common in the upper 6 to 18 inches of the Maxville section. This thin zone represents the insoluble residue, or regolith, formed in a karst or karst-like subaerial environment. Moreover, the lithologic character of the basal Pennsylvanian Harrison Formation (page 168) appears to be a reworked and/or in situ lag deposit, derived from various Mississippian, and possibly older, formations.

~~Drainage System~~

A paleodrainage map of the Monday Creek erosional surface in eastern Ohio is presented in Figure 36. The primary source of information for this map was the wri ter's county isopach maps of the Maxville Group, which were constructed in the preparation of Plate II. Much essential information was also gleaned from published 158

Figure 35.-Block of upper member of Jon athan Creek Formation showing branching solution channels on underside of unit black lens cap 2" long gives scale Figure 36.-Map showing paleodrainage on the Mon Fig Creek disconformity 160

~~and unpublished studies of the areal and economic geo~~

~~logy of various eastern Ohio counties. Of lesser value~~

~~were isopach maps of the Greenbrier Group of West Vir~~

~~ginia by Martens (1948), Hall (1949), Sprouse (1954), and~~

~~Flowers (1956).~~

~~Two major river valleys and their tributaries dom~~

~~inated the drainage system in the eastern half of Ohio~~

~~during the Monday Creek interval. The larger valley can be followed discontinuously from Geauga County to south- central Washington County (Figure 36). Numerous tribu~~

~~tary channels in Wayne and Holmes counties can be traced discontinuously to the southeast, where they apparently~~

~~joined the trunk stream. Additional control on the lo cations of tributary streams is available in Licking~~

~~County (Franklin, 1961), and in nearby eastern Muskingum and northern Morgan counties (Figure 36) from Maxville isopach data of the writer. In the extreme southeastern~~

~~Ohio counties, Maxville isopach data indicate the pre sence of a complex dendritic pattern that apparently~~

~~drained’: to the west and southwest into the trunk stream, although some channels appear to have drained to the southeast into West Virginia (Figure 36).~~

~~The trunk stream occupied a nearly north-south valley, which in places was 20 or more miles wide. As 161~~

~~in any major river valley, the width of the stream itself~~

~~was probably quite narrow; through time, the river pro~~

~~bably migrated laterally over great distances. The over~~

~~all capacity and discharge of the river must have been~~

~~substantial— comparable to that of the Late Cenozoic Teays~~

~~system of the modern Ohio. The writer here names the major~~

~~valley and its tributaries the Sharon River System, af~~

~~ter the thick deposits of basal Pennsylvanian Sharon con~~

~~glomerate and sandstone that partially fill many of the~~

~~deeper valleys in the system.~~

~~Flowers (1956) constructed an isopach map of the~~

~~Greenbrier Group in West Virginia, on which he recognized a large "trough outlined by the 100—foot contour, which~~

~~appears to represent the course of a river flowing north~~

~~westward from central or southern West Virginia." Ear~~

~~lier maps by Martens (1948), Hall (1949), and Sprouse~~

~~(1954) show a similar but less detailed channel in the~~

~~same area. The channel or valley revealed on these maps~~

~~is the southern continuation of the main channel of the~~

~~Sharon River system described above. However, Flowers'~~

interpretation of a northwesterly paleoslope is not sup ported by any surface or subsurface data known to the writer; on the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly in dicates that the paleoslope of the entire region was to 162 the south throughout Late Mississippian and Pennsylvanian time.

As the main valley of the Sharon River can be traced for over 225 miles and appears to head north of north eastern Ohio, it seems certain that the Sharon River sys tem is closely related to the Michigan River system

~~(page 155) first described by Swann (1963). Moreover,~~

Fuller (1955) proved that the source of the Sharon con glomerate lay to the north of Ohio in a mixed sedimentary and metamorphic provenance. The northern Appalachian dispersal center discussed by Potter and Pryor (1961),

Swann (1963, 1964), and others, is probably identical with that of Fuller. It also seems probable that the northernmost segments of the Sharon River system existed during Meramecian and Chesterian time and supplied much of the terrigenous detritus found in the Maxville Group and related formations in adjacent areas. This same sys tem may be directly related to the Ontario River associa ted with Bedford and Berea deposition in Early Mississi ppian time, as described by Pepper et al. (1954).

~~The writer has found that a second major river sys tem was developed on the Monday Creek surface in Late~~

~~Mississippian-Early Pennsylvanian time; it is here named the Perry River, because of its widespread presence in 163~~

~~Perry County (Figure 36). The system is well-defined in~~

~~Licking County, where Franklin (1962) recognized a de~~

~~tailed dendritic pattern on the pre-Pennsylvanian surface.~~

~~Flint (1949) noticed a pronounced pre-Pennsylvanian chan nel in northeastern Perry County, which the present wri~~

~~ter can directly connect with the Licking County system.~~

~~The channel can then be traced southward through Perry~~

~~County into at least western Athens County (Figure 36).~~

~~Between southwestern Athens and southern Gallia counties information on the location of the valley is sparse.~~

~~The Perry River could have turned to the southeast and flowed from southwestern Athens County to southeastern~~

Meigs County, -where another well-defined channel is pre sent, which continues southeastward into West Virginia; it could have turned sharply to tie east, crossing south- <, ern Athens County and northern Meigs County into extreme southwestern Washington and southeastern Athens counties; or it could have continued nearly due south to eastern

~~Lawrence County, where a large generally north-south valley is present, which appears to slope southward into extreme northeastern Kentucky or adjacent West Virginia.~~

~~The last interpretation is the most probable, because it reflects a dominant southerly paleoslope and because the size of the valley found in eastern and southern Lawrence 164~~

~~County is indicative of a river system draining a large~~

~~basin. To the west, numerous well-documented southeast-~~

~~trending streams described by Hyde (1927, 1953), Stout~~

~~(1916), and others can be discontinuously traced into~~

~~the Lawrence County trunk stream.~~

~~Topography and Relief~~

Many of the data used in constructing Figure 36 were garnered from previous studies of the areal and eco nomic geology of various Ohio counties that included de tails of the relief and general configuration of the pre-

~~Pennsylvanian topography. For interested readers, a summary of topographic data is presented below; it in cludes the writer's observations of the relief on the~~

~~Monday Creek surface in most southeastern Ohio counties.~~

Multer (1955) constructed a structure contour map on the Monday Creek surface in Wayne County, and mea sured a maximum>of 269 feet between two outcrops 10 miles apart. He determined that the average slope of the disconformity ranges from 25 to 40 feet per anile to the southeast, and that a dendritic drainage system is pre sent on the surface.

~~Lamb (1911), Bowen (1952),and Fuller (1955) found~~

~~Sharon conglomerate in channels on the Monday Creek 165~~

~~surface in Geauga, Summit, and Portage counties; relief~~

~~along these channels was estimated to exceed 200 feet.~~

~~Delong and White (1963) found conglomeratic Sharon depo~~

~~sits more than 200 feet thick in several cores from cen~~

~~tral and southwest Stark County. White (1949) reported~~

~~over 200 feet of relief in Holmes County and noted that~~

~~even in local areas relief commonly exceeds 100 feet.~~

~~Meyers (1929) found nearly 150 feet of relief in Jeffer~~

~~son Township in adjacent Coshocton County. Root et al.~~

~~found 80 feet of relief on the limited segments of the~~

~~Monday Creek surface preserved in neighboring Knox County.~~

~~Hyde (1963) recognized a widespread pre-Pennsyl~~

~~vanian regional high, the central Ohio highland, in north~~

~~western Perry, south-central Licking, and northeastern~~

~~Fairfield counties (Figure 36); little local relief is 4~~

~~evident across this area. Downslope from this highland,~~

~~however, the amount of relief increases. Wolfe et al.~~

~~(1962), for example, found about 100 feet of relief in~~

~~eastern Fairfield County; and in eastern Licking County,~~

Franklin (1961) mapped a complex dendritic drainage sys tem on the Monday Creek surface, on which over 400 feet of relief can be detected. This latter figure probably represents the maximum amount of relif on the surface in central Ohio. 166

~~In Perry County, Flint (194Q) defined several~~

~~"Logan hills" on the Monday Creek surface, but on the~~

~~average thought that relief was rather subdued, ranging~~

~~between 50 and 75 feet. Merrill (1950) calculated a maxi~~

~~mum of 220 feet of relief on the same surface in adjacent~~

~~northern Hocking County. In d: least two places, Merrill~~

~~found channels cut through the Vinton member of the Logan~~

~~Formation and at least 30 feet into the underlying Allens-~~

~~ville member.~~

~~Hyde (1953) defined a large pre-Pennsylvanian valley~~

~~in eastern Pike and western Jackson counties (Figure 36).~~

~~The valley, which is 2 to 3 miles wide and 100 to 230~~

~~feet deep, trends northwest-southeast and in places has~~

~~cut entirely through the Logan Formation into the upper~~

~~Cuyahoga. The writer estimates that in this valley as 4~~

~~much as 300 feet of Logan and perhaps 125 feet of the~~

~~Maxville Group has been removed. Jessup (1951) described~~

~~local relief of nearly 350 feet along parts of the same valley in Jackson Township in eastern Pike County.~~

~~In extreme southeastern Ohio, maximum relief is~~

~~found:in Washington, Noble, and Guernsey counties, where~~

~~the Sharon River valley is developed on the Monday Creek~~

~~surface (Figure 36). Because of the great width of the valley, 13 to 20 miles, and the absence of the Maxville 167~~

Group across it, more than 500 feet of Mississippian sec tion must have been removed during the Monday Creek in terval. Local relief along the valley walls probably ex ceeds 200 feet. More than 125 feet of relief was detected by the writer in parts of Gallia, Meigs, and Lawrence counties, more than 100 feet in Monroe and locally in eastern Wash ington counties, and 50 to 75 feet in Perry, Muskingum,

~~Morgan, and Athens counties. All these figures are mini mum values, as-only the relief on top of the Maxville~~

~~Group was studied; in deep valleys an unknown, but pre sumably substantial, thickness of Early Mississippian strata was removed.~~

By far the greatest erosion of the Waverly-Maxville sequence took place in northeastern Ohio, near the infer red position of the Maxville strand. Lamb (1916) stated that in this area the Sharon conglomerate commonly lies only 300 to 400 feet above the Berea, and in a few places, but 100 feet above it. Hyde (1953) noticed a precipitous decrease in the thickness of the Cuyahoga-Logan sequence north of Killbuck, Holmes County and found only 200 feet of this section in the vicinity of Akron (figure 1) near the line of outcrop of the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian contact. Although the Maxville Group was probably never 168 deposited in extreme northeastern Ohio and was probably very thin in areas just south of its strand, the total amount of section removed by Monday Creek erosion was considerable and may have locally exceeded 700 feet.

~~Harrison Formation~~

The Harrison Formation is stratigraphically the oldest Pennsylvanian formation in Ohio. Although usu ally not more than a foot or two thick, it is a complex clastic unit that may include rounded quartz pebbles, silicified carbonate pebbles and cobbles (Maxville clasts) fragments of clay or weathered shale, weathered fine grained quartz sandstone, aid clay ironstone (Stout,1944;

Flint, 1948; Merrill, 1950; and others). The proportions of these constituents varies so greatly that at any one locality the Harrison may be properly called a ferrugin-^ ous sandstone or conglomerate and at another a slightly calcareous clay ironstone (with siderite, hematite, and/ or limonite). Wherever found, the formation is usually brecciated.

~~The Harrison Formation is comfor .able with the pre-~~

~~Pennsylvanian topography (Monday Creek surface) but is discordant with respect to both the Mississippian for mations below and the Pennsylvanian formations above 169~~

(.Figures 33, 34). It is apparent that, although ordin arily considered the basal Pennsylvanian formation, the unit may span Late Mississippian and Early Pennsylvanian time, and, like the disconformity itself, differ in age from place to place. For example, it is probably young— est over Logan or Maxville Hills and oldest in Logan or

~~Maxville valleys (Figure 34)., Whatever its exact age, the Harrison is always the oldest Pennsylvanian forma tion.~~

~~A brief study of the areal distribution of the~~

Harrison Formation at the outcrop and in the subsurface leads the writer to conclude that the formation is thin to absent over regional lows on the Monday Creek surface, and best developed over topographic highs. Figure 33 shows the continuous development of the formation in

~~Perry County, which is regionally topographically high on the Monday Creek surface.~~

Because of its distribution, conglomeratic and brecciated nature over many pre-Pennsylvanian highs, complex composition, and iron content, the Harrison in most occurrences represents iron-enriched Late Missis— sippian-Early Pennsylvanian residual deposits. Some transported materials are surely present and may predom inate in some areas, but overall the formation’s 170 character is that of a karst-related, lithified regolith.

~~Introduction of iron oxide was probably post—depositional, as the upper few inches of the underlying Maxville Group, where present, are also iron-stained and the Maxville-~~

~~Harrison contact is in places gradational. CHAPTER IV~~

~~ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE MAXVILLE GROUP~~

~~OIL AND GAS~~

Oil and gas production from the Maxville Group is very limited. Bownocker (1903) cited "Big Lime" (Max ville) production in Monroe County. Lockett (1927) de scribed the Maxville reservoirs in Belmont and Monroe counties as "very lenticular and unreliable" and stated that "very few wells are drilled on the possibility of

~~1 lime'production alone." The writer examined a number of drillers' logs from Monroe and Belmont counties, where oil and gas "shows" or completions in the Max ville section have been recorded.~~

Oil and gas have been obtained near the base of the Greenbrier Group in West Virginia, from oolite zones, dolomite zones, and mixed zones of oolites, dolomite, and sandy limestone (Youse, 1964). In both West Vir ginia and adjacent Kentucky, production from the Green brier section is concentrated in a northeast-southwest trending zone about 50 miles wide, which lies just northwest and west of the hingeline of the Greenbrier 171 172

Basin (Figure 1). Local Greenbrier reservoirs appear to follow original depositional patterns paralleling old shore lines (Overbey, 1967: Youse, 1963). This productive trend is entirely southeast of Ohio.

Because of the Maxville's limited thickness (usu ally less than 50 feet), discontinuous areal distribu tion, and location northwest of the main productive trend of equivalent strata in West Virginia and Kentucky, the oil and gas potential of the group in Ohio is limited.

Nearly all productive or formerly productive zones in the Maxville occur in the sandy limestone lenses of the basal part of the Maxville Group, the Loyalhanna Lime stone. The erratic nature of Loyalhanna porosity and permeability precludes a systematic exploratory investi gation of the formation's oil and gas potential. None- 4 theless, where thickness of the Loyalhanna exceeds 40 or

50 feet in suitable stratigraphic or structural traps, modest production from the formation is possible. Such areas are probable in parts of Jefferson, Belmont, Mon roe, Noble, and Washington counties (Figure 1). Spotty production is also possible from zones in the Ste. Gene vieve in southern Lawrence County. Younger Maxville for mations throughout southeastern Ohio appear to be too thin or too "tight" to be considered as potential 173

~~hydrocarbon reservoirs.~~

~~INDUSTRIAL STONE~~

~~The economic potential of deposits of the Max~~

~~ville Group can be evaluated using various geologic and non-gaologic criteria. Considering only the geologic~~

~~factors, the writer divided prospective Maxville depo~~

~~sits into three basic economic-geologic categories (Fig ure 37).~~

Type A deposits are located in areas along the present line of outcrop of the Mississippian-Pennsylvan- ian contact, where the ^axville Group commonly is exposed in a nqmber of small outliers. The quality (purity) of the stone is frequently poor, because only the gener ally impure basal Maxville units, such as the Ste.

Genevieve in southern Ohio and the Dillon Falls Forma tion and/or the Paoli member of the Jonathan Creek For mation in east-central Ohio, are commonly preserved. Ex ceptions can be found locally in Monday Creek and Read ing townships, Perry County, where the Paoli member is moderately pure and is quarried for aggregate. Type A deposits are usually less than 20 feet thick; overburden ranges from less than 25 feet to over 100 feet in thickness. Because of the limited areal extent of most 174

~~Type A deposits, the thin limestone section, and the commonly thick overburden, the overall economic poten tial of this zone is limited.~~

~~Type B deposits (Figure 37) are characterized by~~

~~20 to 50 feet of Maxville limestone, partial preserva tion of purer younger units, such as the Chesterhill mem ber of the Jonathan Creek Formation, and 25 to more than~~

~~100 feet of overburden. individual deposits can be followed laterally over greater distances than those in~~

~~Type A and therefore contain greater potential reserves.~~

~~Extraction can be done by quarrying or by drift or shaft mining. In a few places, the overburden may have been removed during the present erosional cycle, exposing limited areas of limestone.~~

~~Most occurrences of the Maxville Group are loca ted under substantial overburden and are considered as~~

~~Type C deposits. Only shaft mining will permit access to these frequently large deposits fo high-quality stone.~~

~~The limestone is more than 50 feet thick and the over burden ranges from about 100 to over 1,000 feet thick.~~

~~The only Zone C deposit to have been exploited in Ohio is at the Ironton mine area, Lawrence County.~~

~~Zone C accumulations offer the widest choice of composition and location for prospective developers, WESTEAST~~

~~Y EYETYPE TYPE TYPETYPE~~

~~m a x v il l e ' LOWER PENN^YL|/AN lAfjl FMS~~

~~iAXVILL LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN FMS~~

~~Figure 37.-West to east schematic cross-section through the line of outcrop of the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian contact in Ohio, showing the topographic po~~

sition of the Maxville Group with respect to the pre-Pennsylvanian sur 175 face and the present land surface, and the location of type A, B, and C deposits 176 but also entail the highest extractive costs. The eco

~~nomic feasibility of developing such deposits is ob~~

~~viously enhanced when other commerical limestones of good~~

~~quality and suitable thickness are not present in the same~~

~~area and the commercial demand for limestone is high.~~

~~Martens (1948) discussed the possibility of shaft mining the Greenbrier limestone in central and western~~

West Virginia, and cited a number of advantages of under ground mining over open-pit quarrying. These include independence of the mine operation from the vagaries of climate, the operator's ability to follow flat or in clined deposits irrespective of the surface topography, and the freedom to locate the mine in areas with the purest stone. Inasmuch as the unit value of limestone products is comparatively low and the capital invest ment needed to develop a moderately deep underground mine is high, only a high—volume operation could be ex pected to turn a reasonable profit. Martens (1948) computed that if only 30 feet of limestone is mined and if 30 percent is left in pillars, the recoverable re serves are 78.000 tons per acre or 50,000,000 tons per square mile. Certainly in many places at least 30 feet of good stone is present, and pillar robbing in areas with good roof stone would greatly increase the yield per acre. Such high yields per acre are not generally possible from Type A and Type B deposits. 177

~~Prospects in Muskingum County~~

~~Southwestern Muskingum County has historically ¥ been a center of the Maxville limestone industry. The present operations in this area are detailed by Bruce~~

~~(1974). Most of the region is a Type B area, because most occurrences of the Maxville are moderately thick, under thin overburden, and of good quality.~~

A few Type A deposits are found in southwestern and west-central Muskingum County; for example, occur rences of the Maxville Group in the Poverty Run outlier in northeastern Hopewell Township (Gratiot 7%' Quad.) are potentially exploitable for low-quality aggregate and other bulk uses, such as for the treatment of acid mine waters. The Maxville limestone has been quarried in the area from sections 12 and 13. Also, extreme southeastern Hopewell Township (PI. II) may contain 20 to 30 feet of the Maxville Group; however, an old quarry of the Forbes Construction company revealed only 6 feet of limestone (Lamborn, 1945).

~~Type B prospects are located in sections 29, 31,~~

32, (Crooksville 7%* Quad.) and 36 (Fultonham 7%* Quad.), where between 20 and 60 feet of Maxville limestone, un der. 25 to 100 feet of overburden, is probably present along a number of intermittent stream valleys, Two Mile 178

~~Run, Buckeye Fork, and Porter Run. Excellent pros~~

~~pects also lie to the north of Kent Run in areas along~~

~~various intermittent stream valleys and Thompson Run~~

~~in sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18 (Zanesville West~~

~~7%* Quad.), where 30 to 45 feet of Maxville limestone~~

~~probably commonly occurs under 10 to 30 feet of over~~

~~burden.~~

~~Widespread Zone C deposits appear to be present~~

~~in southeastern Brush Creek, west-central and southern~~

~~Harrison, southwestern Bluerock Creek, southeastern~~

~~Wayne, central and southwestern Salt Creek, and western~~

~~Clay townships (PI. II). In these area, 50 to 75 feet~~

~~of Maxville section is commonly present beneath over~~

~~burden that ranges from about 300 to 600 feet thick.~~

~~Thus, the thickness of and depths to the stone in south-~~

~~central Muskingum County are comparable to those in the~~

~~Ironton mine area.~~

~~Prospects in Perry County~~

~~After Muskingum County, Perry County is the most~~

~~important district producing Maxville limestone in Ohio.~~

~~All current production is from Type A deposits. The largest accumulation in the county is located in southern~~

~~Jackson Township and in parts of Monday Creek Township 179~~

~~(PI. II). This irregular deposit, which the writer calls~~

~~the Monday Creek outlier, contains the type section of~~

~~the Maxville limestone, as described by Andrews in 1870.~~

~~Several quarries owned by the Maxville Stone Com~~

~~pany are located in the Monday Creek outlier along the~~

~~valley of Little Monday Creek, and produce aggregate~~

~~from a thin Maxville section. The writer believes that~~

~~the company's accessible reserves are limited, because~~

~~the thickness of the overburden rapidly increases to~~

~~100 feet or more a short distance to the east and west of the central part of the valley.~~

~~However, pockets of small but economical reserves are still probably available along the Little Monday~~

~~Creek Valley and its tributaries in parts of sections 2,~~

~~3, and 10 (Junction City 7%' Quad.), where as much as~~

40 feet of Maxville section is indicated by drillers' logs and over 20 feet by geophysical logs. Furthermore recoverable stone is also probably available to the east of Temperance Hollow in extreme northeastern section 19 and adjacent areas (Sore 7%' Quad.), and in areas along

~~Turkey Run and its tributaries in the SE% of section 6~~

~~(Gore 7 h ' Quad.).~~

~~Extensive Type A deposits can be found in Read ing Township. Nearly all of section 26 above the 1,000 180~~

~~foot contour (Rushville 7^' Quad.) and much of sections~~

~~24, 25, and 35 (Somerset 7^' Quad.) contain modest~~

~~thicknesses of the Maxville Group (6 to 31 feet reported).~~

~~The overburden commonly does not exceed 50 to 60 feet,~~

~~and if a core—hole drilling program could prove a suf~~

~~ficient thickness of good-quality stone, the overburden~~

~~could economically be removed from the greater part of a~~

~~square mile.~~

~~Several Type A deposits occur in Hopewell and ad~~

~~jacent Thorn townships. Only one is currently being~~

~~exploited, in the west-central part of section 29 of~~

~~Hopewell Township (Somerset 7Jg' Quad.), where the Somer~~

~~set Stone Company produces aggregate and dimension stone.~~

~~The dimension stone is significant because no other Max~~

~~ville producer markets this product. The stone is ob~~

~~tained from the Chesterhill member of the Jonathan Creek~~

~~Formation (Table 7), which is only 3% feet thick at this locality. The stone occurs as irregularly shaped blocks,~~

3 to 5 feet square by 1 or 2 feet thick, separated above and below by shale partings and on the sides by shale-filled joints (Bruce, 1974). The stone takes a moderate polish and is sold as ashlar and decorative stone. The quality of the aggregate from the same quarry, is only moderate as the quarried section is from 181

~~the impure Paoli member of the Jonathan Creek Formation.~~

~~Moreover, reserves are limited to a narrow low ridge~~

~~less than a tenth of a square mile in area. In the im~~

~~mediate vicinity, however, substantial Type A reserves~~

~~are present; for example, a rather large accumulation~~

~~occurs in parts of sections 21, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of Hopewell Township and in parts of sections 25 and 36~~

~~in adjacent Thorn Township.~~

~~Type B areas in Perry County appear to be limited~~

~~to deposits along Jonathan Creek in section 15 and 16 of Madison Township (Fultonsham 7%’ Quad.), where Flint~~

(1948) found 41 feet of exposed Maxville section and where the present writer noted a number of exposures with sections greater than 20 feet thick. However, overburden is 100 to 200 feet thick, and this fact pro bably eliminates the area from economic consideration-

~~Type C prospects are common in Harrison and Bear- field Townships (PI. II). Prospective areas are found along Buckeye Creek and its tributaries in section 1,~~

~~11, 12, and 14 of Harrison Township and along Moxahala~~

~~Creek and its tributaries (Crooksville 7%' Quad.).~~

~~Overburden, particularly along Moxahala Creek, probably averages about 100 feet thick; the thickness of the~~

~~Maxville section itself averages between 40 and 50 feet. 182~~

~~Type C Prospects in Other Ohio Counties~~

~~Prospects in Morgan County are limited to areas in~~

~~York, Bloom, and Deerfield townships, where the thick-,~~

~~ness of the Maxville Group exceeds 50 feet. However,~~

~~the overburden is 300 to 600 feet thick and this fact~~

~~diminishes the attractiveness of this area for future~~

~~development.~~

~~Prospects in eastern Washington and western Mon~~

~~roe counties are limited to Maxville deposits greater~~

~~than 100 feet thick, which occur along the crest of the~~

~~Ohio segment of the Burning Springs anticline (Figure 1).~~

These deposits commonly lie between 1,000 and 1,200 feet below the present land surface in Ludlow, Liberty, In dependence, and Lawrence townships in Washington County and in Washington, Wayne, and Bethel townships in Monroe

County (PI. II). However, because of the presence of thick sections of the siliceous Loyalhanna Limestone at the base of the Maxville, the thickness of suitable stone in these areas probably does not anywhere exceed 80 or

90 feet. On the other hand, sample studies show that the upper stone is very pure and may be suitable for various chemical and metallurgical uses. If the thickness of high-calcium limestone is sufficient, a deep mining operation might be economically feasible. 183

~~In eastern Gallia County the Maxville Group is~~

~~generally thick, is continuous over wide areas, and lies~~

~~from 750 to 950 feet below the surface. Two Maxville~~

~~test-cores were drilled by the Jones & Laughlin Steel~~

~~Corporation in Addison Township in 1945. The upper 76~~

~~feet of Hole No. 2 (L#54, PI. II) was chemically analyzed~~

~~at 2 to 5 feet intervals, and all but one sample con~~

~~tained over 80 percent CaCO^. Although the writer has observed that the purity of the limestone in Addison~~

Township is lower than that of equivalent strata in eastern Washington and Monroe counties, the percentages of SK^and MgCO^ in the Gallia County cores are com parable to those of the same constituents in cores from

~~the Jonathan mine (Bruce, 1974) and the Ironton mine~~

~~(Chute, 1955). According to Martens (1948), the Jones and Laughlin"core does not show a minable thickness of limestone sufficiently pure to be very satisfactory for chemical or metallugical uses."~~

In Upper Township, Lawrence County, the Ironton mine produced limestone for the manufacture of cement from 1902 to 1970, when the plant and mine were closed for economic reasons. It seems to the writer that pro ven reserves in the mine area are large enough to war rant re-development of the old mine or development of 184 a new mine in a nearby area (Figure 38). A problem is that such a mine would have to be continuously pumped.

~~Type C deposits occur in most areas of Lawrence County east of the Ironton mine. The maximum thickness of pro' spective section occurs in eastern Windsor, Union, and~~

~~Rome townships (Plate II), where deposits ranging from~~

~~150 to 225 feet thick are common at depths ranging from~~

~~900 to 1300 feet.~~

~~Prospective section does not occur in Scioto,~~

~~Jackson, Vinton, Hocking, Athens, Noble, Guernsey, Bel mont, or Jefferson counties. 185~~

~~Figure 38~~

~~Geologic section of typical core from Iron ton mine area of Lawrence Co®, Ohio (data from records of the Alpha Portland Cement Company). 186~~

424-4 CoCQa Roof Beds Limestone, beds above the roof parting massive, medium grained, 89-4 5-9 430-1 light buff or cream colored stylo- litic. Shale bed which is taken as 1434-4 roof parting is not present hprp r ~r.T, \ i Upper Beds light brown, fine O Tl ii i grained, rel. pure limestone, in— i. , i-'i , Q terbedded with shaly, greenish 440- E = l brown, magnesian limestones, pure 81-9 7-6 LZL limestones dominant, prominant r ~ n fossil zones including large gas - r r n 445 I I tropods shown 1448-1 . 450 Black Bed upper contact transi 34-9 117 tional over limestone. >• 453-0 Tunnel Stone Breccia altered clay 78-7 3-5 456-5 and solution breccia______Tunnel Stone very light gray or brown, v.fn. gn. Is. Upper 4' is 460- solution breccia. 462-467 10% green clay. 473-474 solution breccia, with 50% green clay 465- 87-6 1-3

~~470 -~~

~~475 - 1477-0 Limestone light brown sandy, ap m F 1 480 - pears to be high quality. Cal V t • • T7 careous sandstone and sandy lime 75-2 8-5~~

~~t "" I stone. Limestone massive solution 485-5 _L T r and recemented at top______~~

~~.-p- 490- ' --J- T I '• Sandstone calcareous, light brown 'f.T.r*:-r •• 0-9 -’M- or buff colored. May be a sandy 65-8 495- nr. limestone in places.~~

~~500- * •» * * contact marked by 2" green shaly “s'iltstone . dolomite, gray brown, mud colored 505- r ‘? >// massive riddled with small solution cavities and vugs. -. 0,509 Z 7ZT CHAPTER V~~

~~CONCLUSIONS~~

The Maxville Group is a generally thin, dis continuous carbonate sequence that occurs in southeas tern Ohio. The scattered patches of the sequence are erosional remnants of a sheet deposit that was originally continuous with the Upper Mississippian sequence of north eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, and southwestern Penn sylvania.

The Maxville Group, as defined in this study, includes all deposits of Upper Mississippian strata oc curring in Ohio, five formations are recognized: in ascending order, the Dillon Falls, Ste. Genevieve and

~~Loyalhanna, Jonathan Creek, and Bluerock Creek forma tions. Plate II depicts the distribution and generali zed thickness of the group in Ohio.~~

~~Study of the basal Maxville disconformity indicates that this surface is characterized by low relief and a few broad regional highs.~~

~~Isopach data of the Cuyahoga-Logan-Rushville and~~

~~Maxville-Greenbrier intervals indicate that the locus of deposition apparently shifted from central Ohio to 187 188~~

~~southeastern West Virginia during the hiatus between the~~

~~end of Logan (lower Osagian) and the beginning of Max- ville (upper Meramecian) deposition.~~

~~The Dillon Falls Formation (Scatterday, 1963) is physically and faunally the equivalent of the St. Louis~~

~~Limestone of Kentucky and the type section; it is also~~

~~faunally the equivalent of the Hillsdale Limestone of~~

~~West Virginia.~~

~~A regional disconformity separates the Dillon Falls and its equivalents from younger Mississippian formations in Ohio and Kentucky.~~

~~The Ste. Genevieve Limestone is present in southern~~

~~Ohio. Exposures are rare, but thick sections are common in the subsurface of Lawrence County.~~

~~Based on occurrences of Platycrinites penicillus. -4 the Denmar is considered to be the sole equivalent of the~~

~~Ste. Genevieve Limestone in southeastern West Virginia.~~

~~The Loyalhanna Limestone of Pennsylvania can be physically traced in the subsurface from Pennsylvania into parts of southeastern Ohio (Figure 9, page 72).~~

~~The Loyalhanna of Pennsylvania is found to be the physical equivalent of tht. lower Pickaway, Taggard, and~~

~~Denmar formations of southeastern West Virginia. It is therefore inferred to be equivalent in part to the 189~~

~~Ste. Genevieve and in part to the lower Chesterian.~~

~~The physical equivalence of the Ste. Genevieve and~~

Loyalhanna limestones in Ohio is established; it is con cluded that the two formations were once connected as a continuous sheet of siliceous carbonate across south eastern Ohio (Figure 9, page 72). A nonsiliceous equi valent is thought to be present in eastern Gallia and southeastern Lawrence counties.

The Ste. Genevieve-Loyalhanna limestone is con sidered to be a time-transgressive sequence. The top appears to be youngest in southwestern Pennsylvania and progressively older towards Ohio, where it is probably all Ste. Genevieve in age, except possibly in the extreme southeastern part of the state (Figure 12, page 85).

The maximum position of the Ste. Genevieve-Loyal hanna strand can be mapped rather accurately through northern Hocking, southern Perry, and northwestern Mor gan counties, Ohio. The Ste. Genevieve and Loyalhanna limestones were deposited in two provinces, a sandy- calcarenite province bordering the strand, and a pure- calcarenite province further south (Figure 15, page 9 2).

~~The source of the terrigenous elastics in the Ste.~~

~~Genevieve sequence lay to the north. This northern source area is a recurrent feature of the Mississippian 190 depositional system in the northern Appalachian Basin.~~

A regional disconformity separates the Ste. Gene vieve Limestone in Ohio and northeastern Kentucky from younger Mississippian formations. The disconformity is not evident in equivalent strata in West Virginia and

~~Pennsylvania.~~

~~The Chesterian sequences of southern and east- central Ohio can be physically correlated using key marker beds. Table 7, page 138).~~

~~The Bluerock Creek Formation (Scatterday, 1963) is recognized as the youngest Maxville formation. It occurs in cores and samples in only a few places, in~~

Muskingum County. However, equivalents of this forma tion are recognized in scattered areas of Ohio border ing the Ohio River, where deposits of the Maxville may exceed 115 feet in thickness. The lower shaly section of the Bluerock Creek correlates with the "Pencil Cave" shale of the driller and the Lillydale Shale of Reger

~~(1926). The limestone section of the Bluerock Creek correlates with the Glen Dean Limestone of Kentucky and the Reynolds Limestone of West Virginia.~~

~~Biostratigraphic correlations by Scatterday (1963) of conodont zones in the Maxville Group with the Mis- sissipian type section and the northeast Kentucky section 191~~

~~support several of the physical correlations suggested.~~

~~A series of local and regional disconformities within the Maxville Group, and the regional disconformi~~

ties at the base and top of the group, indicate that the northwestern Kentucky-southern Ohio-east-central Ohio area was repeatedly subjected to periods of subaerial erosion following marine regression. These stratigraphic breaks are probably to a large degree a reflection of the area's proximity to the Cincinnati Arch.

~~The inferred paleogeography of Ohio during the maximum Chesterian transgression in depicted on Figure~~

18 (page 130). The limits defined are based on the pre sent distribution of Maxville outliers, pebbles and cob bles of silicified Maxville limestone in the basal Pen nsylvanian, and the position of known regional structural features.

~~The Maxville Group is correlated with equivalent formations in adjacent areas; several nomenclatural changes are suggested (Table 8, page 141).~~

The post-Maxville disconformity is informally named the Monday Creek disconformity. In general, the surface represents a Late Mississippian-Early Pennsylvanian erosional period; however, the specific time interval that the surface represents differs from place to place, 192

~~as post-Maxville erosion and early Pennsylvanian depo~~

~~sition occurred side by side in many Ohio areas (Figure~~

~~34, page 153). The Monday Creek surface is characterized~~

~~by southerly paleoslojbe, moderate relief, and Karst-~~

~~related topographic features.~~

~~Two large paleo-river systems occur on the Monday~~

~~Creek surface. The Perry River headed north of Licking~~

~~County and flowed south across Perry County and finally~~

~~to Lawrence County and adjacent areas. The Sharon River~~

~~headed in Canada and flowed nearly due south across eas~~

~~tern Ohio and eventually to the Greenbrier Basin of~~

~~southeastern West Virginia. The Sharon River is no doubt~~

~~related to the Michigan River of Swann (1963) and the~~

~~northern Appalachian dispersal system of Potter and~~

~~Pryor (1961).~~

~~The oil and gas potential of the Maxville Group is minor. The industrial-rock potential is excellent. An~~

~~evaluation system is suggested by which individual de~~

~~posits are classified as Type A, B, or C according to~~

~~a deposit's areal extent and the thickness of stone and of overburden. 193~~

~~APPENDIX A~~

~~REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS~~

~~1. Monroe Co., Washington Twp. sec. 7, P# 1721, S# 2189, L# 181 Sample Quality: Very Good.~~

~~Pottsville Group (23* plus)~~

~~1098-1105 100% shale; 50% dark-gray to blue-gray, 50% medium-gray with abundant siderite spherulites.~~

~~1105-1112 100% shale; dark-gray to blue-gray, some slightly silty muscovite flecks common.~~

~~1112-1118 100% shale; dark-gray to blue-gray, moder ately silty, muscovite flecks common.~~

~~1118-1124 50% shale; dark-gray, trace siderite nodules and authigenic pyrite.~~

~~Maxville Group (112')~~

~~Top 1121 50% limestone; medium brownish-gray, ar gillaceous, very finely crystalline.~~

~~1124-1134 35% shale; medium dark-gray, mixed calcar eous .~~

~~35% shale; medium green-gray and green, some slightly calcareous, slakes when wet.~~

~~30% limestone; light-gray, argillaceous, some silty, trace of clay ironstone.~~

~~1134-1139 25% shale; dark-gray to medium green-gray, mostly non-calcareous.~~

~~30% limestone; variable color— (medium- brown, light gray-brown, light-brown, 194~~

~~tan, off-white), very finely to finely crystalline, some silty.~~

~~45% chert; light-brown to light-yellow- brown, a little red-brown.~~

~~1139 1144 5% shale; dark-gray, possible cavings~~

~~45% chert; same as sample above.~~

~~50% limestone; medium green-gray to me dium brown-gray, very silty clastic texture, some with siderite spherulites.~~

~~1144' 1150 100% limestone; medium-gray brown to off- white, dense-very finely crystalline.~~

~~1150' 1156 10% shale; dark-gray, non-calcareous, some ciderite.~~

~~90% limestone; medium-brown to buff to off- white, dense-very finely crystalline, high Ca, some vary slightly silty.~~

~~1156' 1161 20% shale; dark-gray to green-gray, some gray shale nodules in clay matrix, non- calcareous, a little siderite.~~

~~80% limestone; colors as in sample above, mostly dense-very finely crystalline, some very slightly silty to very silty, all high Ca.~~

~~1161- 116 7 10% shale; dark-gray, a little siltstone, all non-calcareous, possibly cavings. 90% limestone; same as 1156-1161.~~

~~1167- 1174 10% shale; dark-gray, non-calcareous, pos sible cavings.~~

~~90% limestone; colors as in above sample, nearly all dense-very finely crystal line, high Ca.~~

~~1174- 1180 100% limestone; medium-gray-Brown, dense- very finely crystalline, a little very slightly silty, high Ca. 195~~

~~1180 -1185 15% limestone-shale; dark gray, very silty argillaceous limestone or calcareous silty shale.~~

~~20% limestone; medium dark-gray-brown, very finely crystalline and silty-sandy calcarenite (15-20% quartz grains).~~

20% limestone; light-brown to off-white, calcarenite, sandy-very sandy, many quartz grains floating in calcareous matrix, most quartz angular—subangular and clear, a few quartz grains rounded and frosted, all quartz very fine-fine sand. 45% sandstone; disaggregated quartz sand and carbonate allochems (oolites?), much quartz fine-medium grained rounded and frosted, some quartz sand very fine to fine grained angular-subangular and clear.

~~1185 -1190 100% limestone; very mixed, some medium- brown very finely crystalline, most sandy calcarenite, abundant sand as in sample above.~~

~~1190 -1200 15% limestone; medium-dark brown, very finely crystalline, some slightly silty.~~

~~20% sandstone; light greenish-gray, highly calcareous, quartz is very fine to fine, angular-subangular, and clear.~~

~~65% sandstone; disaggregated grains fo quartz and carbonate allochems (pro bably oolites).~~

~~1200 -1204 100% limestone; 40% medium brown, very fine ly crystalline, high Calcium; 60% cal carenite aggregate, sandy and oolitic? - some disaggregated.~~

~~1204 -1210 100% limestone; medium brown, dense to very finely crystalline grading to indis tinctly granular to distinctly granu lar with abundant oolites, low quartz percentage. 196~~

~~1210-1215 100% limestone; 15% light greenish-gray, silty; 85% very light brown to off-white oolitic to very finely crystalline-~~

~~1215-1220 100% limestone; sandy oolitic calcarenite, very fine-to medium-grained, moderate number of rounded frosted loose quartz grains from fine- to coarse-grained.~~

~~1220-1221 100% limestone; 10% same as above; 90% very light brown to off-white, disaggre gated sandy oolitic calcarenite.~~

~~1221-1226 100% limestone; same as above except fewer loose rounded frosted quartz grains.~~

~~1226-1230 100% limestone; mostly oolitic calcarenite, a few very rounded frosted medium- to coarse-grained quartz grains.~~

~~1230-1236 60% limestone; colors as above, disaggre gated very slightly sandy oolitic lime stone.~~

~~Btm. 1223~~

~~Waverly Group (12* plus)~~

~~30% sandstone; greenish-gray and reddish- brown, very slightly calcareous to sli ghtly calcareous in part, 100% quartz grains.~~

~~10% conglomerate; "milky" to yellow, broken quartz pebbles.~~

~~1236-1245 100% sandstone; medium greenish-gray, very fine- to fine-grained, aggregate and dis aggregate, 100% quartz with abundant flecks and spherulites of siderite.~~

~~2. Washington Co., Palmer Twp., sec. 32, P# 303, S# 481, L# 470 Sample Quality: Fair-Good Pottsville Group (40' plus)~~

~~1140-1150 100% shale; medium-dark gray, non-calcareous 197~~

~~1150 -1160 15% quartz sandstone; light gray-white, aggregate.~~

~~85% shale; medium-dark gray, some fragments silty, traces of coal.~~

~~1160.-1170 10% quartz sandstone; light gray, very fine grained, aggregate.~~

~~90% shale; medium-dark gray, traces of coal.~~

~~Maxville Group (36*)~~

~~1170--1180 100% limestone; light brown to light brown- gray, dense-very finely crystalline, high Ca.~~

~~1180--1190 25% siltstone; light brown-light brownish gray- light green-gray, dolomitic ce- - ment, slightly argillaceous.~~

~~70% siltstone; colors as above, dolomitic cement, white crystalline vuggy dolo mite, possibly once brecciated, slightly argillaceous.~~

~~5% shale, medium-gray, cavings?~~

~~1190--1200 20% same as above sample.~~

80% siltstone-sandstone; slightly greenish very light gray-cream-off-white, dolo mitic cement, mostly siltstone but a little silty very fine-grained sandstone, a few very fine-grained quartz grains floating within the siltstone.

~~1200- ■1208 75% siltstone; colors as in above sample, sandstone very fine-grained, a very few medium-coarse rounded frosted quartz grains. Btm. 1206 Waverly Group (19* plus)~~

~~25% shale-siltstone; medium green grey, mostly siltstone but some shale and silty shale, shale is non-calcareous and non-dolomitic, siltstone is very slightly dolomitic. 198~~

~~1208-1225 100% shale-siltstone; gray-slightly medium green-gray, mostly siltstone but some silty shale, siderite flacks very abun dant .~~

~~3. Athens Co., Rome Twp., sec. 29, P# 1539, S# 1634, L# 17. Sample Quality: Very Good Pottsville Group (21* plus)~~

~~834-843 70% shale; dark-gray to black, micaceous, coaly.~~

~~30% Sandstone, siderite, coal; very immature wilty sandstone.~~

~~843-854 60% siltstone; green-gray, sideritic spherulites, very immature, micaceous, some sandstone, a little black shale.~~

~~40% chert; orange to amber, some very light yellow.~~

~~853-859 10% clay ironstone; mainly sideritic grains floating in calcareous matrix, some 100% siderite.~~

~~15% chert; as above.~~

~~Maxville Group (78')~~

~~Top 885 70% limestone; off-white, crystalline to dense, very pure, cleavage faces on some grains.~~

~~859-870 100% limestone; light gray to off-white, some medium gray, very pure, very fine to finely crystalline.~~

870-878 100% sandstone; green-gray immature, mica ceous, some sideritic, cherty, some shale and siltstone (It is probable that this sample is mislabeled; in appearance it is nearly identical to 843-853).

~~878-882 100% limestone; medium gray-brown to light gray, dense to very finely crystalline, sparsely fossiliferous. 199~~

882 -888 100% limestone; mostly dark gray-, argilla ceous, slightly silty, some very finely crystalline or granular, in part recry stallized or recemented breccia, re crystallized crinoids segments pre sent

~~888 '-897 100% limestone; very light gray to off-white, silty, some calcareous siltstone, trace chert; dark gray to dark brownish-gray calcarenite, silty and sandy, argilla ceous .~~

~~897--906 70% siltstone; calcareous and dolomitic.~~

~~30% limestone; dark gray to dark brownish- gray, very finely crystalline,slightly silty, slightly argillaceous, some well developed crystal faces.~~

~~906--917 100% siltstone; dolomitic, light gray to me dium brownish-gray, a little light brown crystalline limestone that is pos sibly fracture fill.~~

~~917--927 100% siltstone and sandstone; high Mg-calcitic and dolomitic cement, some float ing sand grains, a few medium to coarse loose rounded and frosted quartz sand grains.~~

~~927--935 70% sandstone; dolomitic to slightly dolo mitic, disaggregated, rounded frosted quartz sand abundant. Btm. 933 Waverly Group (23'plus)~~

~~30% sandstone; greenish-gray, very fine grained non-dolomitic, non-calcareous.~~

~~935-•955 100% siltstone; greenish-gray, a little chert, non-calcareous.~~

~~4. Muskingum Co., Brush Creek Twp., sec. 8S, P# 2052, S# 2291 L# 284 Sample Quality: Fair-Good 200~~

~~Pottsville Group (21* plus)~~

~~510-524 25% shale; dark gray, silty.~~

~~25% sandstone; very immature siltstone to very fine sandstone.~~

~~50% sandstone; very fine to fine disaggre gated white quartz sandstone, angular to subrounded grains.~~

~~524-529 100% sandstone; disaggregated as above, me dium-grained.~~

~~529-533 50% sandstone; same as above.~~

~~Maxville Group (45')~~

~~Top 531 50% limestone; light brown to buff, very pure, a few silty grains, very finely to finely crystalline.~~

~~533-539 100% limestone; same as above.~~

539-545 100% limestone; medium to light brown and brownish-gray, darker grains more argil laceous and silty, traces of a few ooli tes, overall texture very finely to fine ly crystalline, mostly very pure.

~~545-554 100% limestone; sample not washed, grains ap pear to be high-calcium limestone.~~

~~554-558 100% limestone; dark to medium to light brown, very finely to finely crystalline, some recrystallized grains, sparsely fossiliferous, moderately silty and argillaceous.~~

558-562 100% limestone; mostly medium to dark brown high—calcium stone, dense to very finely crystalline, a few indistinctly granular, moderately silty and argillaceous, about 10% off-white and slightly silty.

~~562-569 100% limestone and dolomite; medium to dark gray, dolomite, .high Mg—limestone and high Ca-limestone mixed, mostly very finely crystalline, mostly silty to very silty 201~~

~~some dolomitic siltstone, microfossil hash in a few etched grains, a little pyrite.~~

~~569—576 100% siltstone; off-white dolomitic, a little crystalline limestone as above.~~

~~Btm. 576~~

~~Waverly Group (10' plus)~~

576-586 100% siltstone; greenish-gray, non-calcareous and non-dolomigic, a few grains with vuggy pink dolomite that is medium grained with crystal faces, (This zone is possi bly the Rushville Formation but cannot be confirmed as such).

~~5. Perry Co., Monday Creek Twp., sec. 8, P# 2380, S# 1573, L# 378 Sample Quality: Poor-Fair~~

~~Pottsville Group (9* plus)~~

~~200-208 85% sandstone; light gray, micaceous, silty, laminated, very immature.~~

~~15% shale; black coaly, a little coal.~~

~~208-210 50% sandstone; disaggregated, very fine to fine-grained, angular to rounded.~~

~~25% shale; black, carbonaceous, a little coal.~~

~~Maxville Group (27')~~

~~Top 209 25% limestone; off-white, moderately silty, dense to very finely crystalline, fairly pure.~~

~~210-219 85% limestone; same as above.~~

~~15% sandstone; white, quartzose, disaggre gated, a few large grains frosted and rounded.~~

~~219-224 missing sample.~~

~~224-230 75% siltstone; slightly pinkish medium brown, dolomitic. 202~~

~~25% sandstone; poorly sorted, very silty, dolomitic, somewhat argillaceous, quartz grains are mostly rounded and frosted, disaggregated, very fine- to medium- grained.~~

~~230-237 85% sandstone; dolomitic, disaggregated, quartzose, grains are rounded and frosted, fine to medium, a few coarse minor amount of dolomitic siltstone. Btm. 236~~

~~Waverly Group (7' plus)~~

~~15% sandstone; light greenish-gray, non-cal careous, non-dolomitic, very fine-grained, a few siderite spherulites.~~

~~237-243 100% sandstone; very fine-grained, very silty, some muscovite flakes, a few siderite spherulites.~~

~~6. Perry Co., Pike Twp., sec. 11, P# 2113, S# 967, L# 386, Sample Quality: Good~~

~~Pottsville Group (10' plus)~~

~~332-341 65% shale; dark gray, slightly silty, a lit tle coal~~

~~10% sandstone; disaggregated, quartzose, very fine- to fine-grained.~~

~~10% clay ironstone; massive siderite, a lit tle silt 5% shale; green, undercaly?~~

~~341-346 10% clay ironstone; sandy, silty, sideritic.~~

~~Maxville Group (28')~~

~~Top 342 70% siltstone; dolomitic, off-white to light brown to pinkish brown, argillaceous.~~

~~20% sandstone; calcareous and dolomitic, poorly sorted, very fine- to fine-grained, off-white to cream, a few medium -to coarse-grained rounded and frosted quartz 203~~

~~grains, (sandstone appears to be interbedded with the siltstone above).~~

346 -355 100% siltstone; dolomitic, off-white to cream, with gradations to dolomitic siltstone with floating sand grains to high Mg- limestone and dolomite, some limestone pyritiferous, sparsely fossiliferous.

~~355 -365 100% siltstone; same as above, predominantly dolomitic sandy siltstone, some shale caving:??~~

~~365--374 100% siltstone; same as above, except a few silty sandstone grains, a few rounded, frosted quartz grains, some green shale. Btm . 374~~

~~Waverly Group (15* plus)~~

~~374--381 75% siltstone; very slight greenish-gray, siderite spherulites and flecks common.~~

~~25% siltstone; reddish-brown, very slightly dolomitic.~~

~~381--389 100% siltstone; same as above.~~

~~7. Perry Co., Harrison Twp., sec. 13, P# 2178, S3 977, L # 361 Sample Quality: Good~~

~~Pottsville Group (7' plus)~~

~~211-■218 75% shale; medium gray to blue-gray, silty.~~

~~5% shale; black, coaly, some coal.~~

~~10% sandstone; greenish-gray to light gray, silty, micaeous, very immature, some siltstone~~

~~10% clay ironstone; ferruginous siltstone and mdustone, some broken siderite nodules. 204~~

~~Maxville Group (29*)~~

~~Top 218~~

~~218-226 95% limestone; off-white to very light tan, dense to very finely crystalline, very slightly silty, fairly pure, sparsely fossiliferous.~~

~~5% clay ironstone; siderite nodules and spherulites.~~

~~226-231 95% limestone; same as above.~~

~~5% sandstone; calcareous, very poorly sorted very fine- to coarse-grained, a very few rounded, frosted quartz grains.~~

~~231-238 100% limestone; off-white to buff to light grayish-brown, dense to very finely cry stalline, pure, a trace of very finely crystalline dolomite.~~

~~238-247 10% limestone; same as above.~~

~~15% dolomite; dense, silty, light buff.~~

~~5% sandstone; dolomitic, silty, light green ish-gray.~~

~~70% siltstone; light tan-gray to cream color, dolomitic. Btm 247~~

~~Waverly Group (8* plus)~~

~~247-255 100% siltstone; slightly greenish-gray, mi caceous, non-dolomitic, siderite spheru lites common.~~

~~8. Vinton Co., Brown Twp., lot 31, Lake Hope Dining Area, S# 809, L# 415 Sample Quality: Good~~

~~Pottsville Group (10' plus)~~

~~395-400 100% shale; dark gray to dark blue-gray, silty 205~~

~~400-405 80% sandstone; light gray to brown gray, im mature, quartzose.~~

~~10% shale; same as 400-405.~~

~~10% clay ironstone; ferruginous sandstone, cherty, abundant sideritic nodules.~~

~~Maxville Group (21')~~

~~Top 405~~

~~405-410 95% sandstone; quartzose, white, fine to coarse-grained, average is medium-crrained abundant medium-grained frosted rounded quartz sand, no cement remaining, totally disaggregated.~~

~~5% clay ironstone; massive siderite, no- ..dular~~

~~410-415 90% sandstone; same as above except average grain size sightly finer.~~

~~10% sandstone; aggregate, very light gray, white calcareous and dolomitic cement, (predominantly the latter), very abundant frosted rounded quartz grains.~~

~~415-420 50% sandstone; calcareous cement, aggregate, light gray to off-white, some dolomitic cement, variable amounts of cement to framework-some grains closely packed, others floating in matrix.~~

~~50% sandsonte; disaggregate, off-white, very fine- to coarse-grained, very abundant emdium to coarse-grained rounded and fros ted quartz grains.~~

~~420-425 90% sandstone; disaggregate as above.~~

~~10% siltstone and sandstone; dolomitic and calcareous cement, light tan to cream color, moderate to abundant rounded frosted quartz grains.~~

~~425-430 20% carbonate; dolomite and limestone, pink ish-gray, very silty, dense texture to very Btm. 426 finely crystalline. 206~~

~~Waverly Group (14' plus)~~

~~70% siltstone; greenish-gray, some very slightly dolomitic.~~

~~10% sandstone; ferruginous and quartzose, some fragments contain almost pure sid eritic granules.~~

~~430-435 90% siltstone and sandstone; very fine-grained greenish-gray, some grains very slightly dolomitic.~~

~~10% sandstone and siltstone; ferruginous and quartzose, some siderite nodules.~~

~~435-440 100% siltstone and sandstone; greenish-gray, very fine-grained, abundant siderite spherulites.~~

~~9. Gallia Co., Harrison Twp. sec. 30, P# 150, S# 2396, L# 63 Sample Quality: Fair~~

~~Pottsville Group (7* plus)~~

~~792-798 40% shale; light tannish-gray, silty.~~

~~15% shale; dark gray, silty.~~

~~15% coal.~~

~~30% clay ironstone; ferruginous sandstone with large clasts of massive siderite, clay matrix, some iron-stained chert, pebble sized quartz clasts.~~

~~798-803 50% mixed lithologies as in 792-798, mostly cavings.~~

~~Maxville Group (39')~~

Top 799 50% carbonate; 20% sandy oolitic calcarenite, 80% off-white to very light tan-gray silty dolomite and dolomitic siltstone, very argillaceous, a few percent sandy dolo mitic siltstone with carbonate clasts. 207

~~803-309 100% dolomite; off-white to cream color, very silty, some dolomitic siltstone.~~

~~809-818 100% dolomite; same as above~~

~~181-824 100% dolomite; same as above except some sandy dolomite.~~

824-832 50% sandstone and siltstone; dolomitic, gra dational a few grains of very finely cry stalline silty dolomite (the crystalline material appears to be recrystallized inclusions in the sandy section), the sand is very fine- to medium-grained.

~~832-383 100% sandstone and siltstone; same as above except higher proportion of sandstone and rounded frosted medium-grained quartz grains. Btm. 838~~

~~Waverly Group (9' plus)~~

~~838-847 100% siltstone; slightly greenish-gran, a few grains brownish-gray, a few grains slight ly dolomitic, a few large broken quartz pebbles.~~

~~10. Morgan Co., Bristol Twp., sec. 24, P# 619, S# 212, L# 202 Sample Quality: Poor-Fair~~

~~Pottsville Group (12' plus)~~

~~758-768 100% shale; silty, medium-gray, sample not washed~~

~~768-779 5% shale; same as above.~~

~~15% clay ironstone; ferruginous seltstone, siderite, nodules, some with calcite crystals in ferruginous argillaceous ma trix.~~

~~Maxville Group (75')~~

~~Top 770 80% limestone; off-white to very light gray, argillaceous, very silty, some argilla ceous siltstone. 208~~

~~779-820 100% limestone; slightly brownish gray to dark gray, silty, very argillaceous, some dolomitic, limestone is dense to very finely crystalline.~~

~~820-845 90% limestone; buff-off-white, calcarenite, sandy, oolitic, slightly argillaceous, silty.~~

~~10% sandstone; light greenish-gray to gray, very fine- to fine-grained, calcareous. Btm. 820 Waverly Group (170* plus)~~

~~845-1015 100% unwashed elastics; siltstones, shales.~~

~~11. Lawrence Co., Union Twp., sec. 14, P# 210, S# 2163 L# 113 Sample Quality: Good~~

~~Maxville Group (170' )~~

~~Top 1010~~

1010-1022 100% limestone; 60% very light brown-buff, very finely crystalline, high Calcium, slightly silty; 40% dark brownish-gray to medium brownish-gray of dark to me dium gray, very argillaceous, very sil ty limestone, much high Mg-Limestone.

~~1022-1035 30% shale; very slightly greenish medium gray to medium gray, some calcareous, some silty.~~

~~70% limestone; calcarenite and very finely crystalline limestone, slightly to mo derately silty, a very few rounded frosted quartz grains, abundant oolites.~~

~~1035-1041 5% shale; slightly greenish-gray to brown ish-gray to medium gray, some silty, non-calcareous.~~

95% limestone; mostly light tan, buff, or off-white, very finely to finely cry stalline, moderately silty, some obscure ly oolitic, small amount of amber shert, darker limestones more argillaceous, 209 sparsely fossiliferous.

1041-1047 100% limestone; all very light brown to off- white, high calcium, very finely crys talline, slightly to moderately silty, indistinct carbonate grains present upon etching by HC1, gradations between pure crystalline to moderately silty "granu lar " limestones.

~~1047—1055 100% limestone; very light brown, tan, or off-white, high Calcium, very finely - to finely crystalline, some medium crystalline, a few grains dark grayish- brown, sparsely fossiliferous.~~

~~1055-1061 5% shale; medium gray to greenish-gray, some silty.~~

~~5% siltstone; slightly greenish-brown-gray, calcareous.~~

~~90% limestone; buff to off-white, very sli ghtly silty, some slightly argillaceous, very finely to medium—crystalline tex ture, some obscurely oolitic.~~

~~1061-1067 100% limestone; medium to light grayish- brown, very finely to finely crystalline, slightly to moderately silty, trace of sand, possible shale cavings.~~

~~1067-1973 100% limestone; same as above.~~

~~1073-1079 100% limestone; medium grayish-brown to me dium brown, dense to medium crystalline, high-Calcium, slightly to moderately sil ty.~~

1079-1085 100% limestone; same as above, grading to dis tinctly oolitic limestone, slightly to moderately silty, trace of very fine sand, moderately fossiliferous (crinoids), fossil and oolitic hash apparen tly recrystallized to present predom inantly crystalline texture.

~~1085-1092 100%' limestone; very light grayish-tan to off-white, dense to very finely ' 210~~

~~crystalline, a very few scattered oolites, high-Calcium, some slightly silty or very slightly sandy.~~

1092-1098 100% limestone; 15% same as above; 85% me dium grayish-brown, dense to very finely crystalline, slightly to moderately sil ty, some very light tan to off-white calcarenite, all moderately high- Calcium.

1098-1104 100% limestone; complex mixture of limestone types described in previous three sam ples, also some calcareous sandstone or sandy calcarenite, quartz grains are very fine to fine, subangular to angu lar and clear.

1104-1110 100%llimestone and sandstone; medium grayish- brown, very finely crystalline limestone; mush sandy calcarenite or calcareous sandstone with rounded frosted floating very fine-grained quartz, some light brown oolitic and sandy calcarenite with very fine angular floating quartz.

~~1110-1117 100% limestone; medium brown, oolitic and sandy calcarenite, a moderate amount of rounded and frosted quartz grains, a few recrystallized? areas with well de veloped crystal? surfaces.~~

~~1117-1122 100% limestone; mixed calcarenite as above with dense to very finely crystalline limestone, most calcarenite totally dis aggregated.~~

~~1122-1128 100% limestone; same as above.~~

~~1128-1133 100% limestone; mostly off-white very finely crystalline silty limestone; some cream- colored very fine-grained calcareous sandstone, cement is high Mg.~~

~~1133-1138 100% limestone; cream-colored to off-white, sandy and oolitic calcarenite, abundant silt, calcareous cement. 211~~

~~1138-1143 100% limestone; same as above.~~

~~1143-1148 100% limestone; same as above.~~

~~1148-1155 75% limestone; same as above.~~

~~25% shale; medium gray.~~

~~1155-1162 100% sandstone-siltstone; off-white, some slightly greenish, mostly disaggregated, calcareous cement, possibly dolomitic cement in places, a few carbonate grains that are possibly cavings.~~

~~1162-1168 100% sandstone-siltstone; light brown to greenish brown-gray, dolomitic, mostly siltstone~~

~~1168-1175 100% sandstone-siltstone; same as above ex cept addition of abundant rounded fros ted loose quartz grains, fine to me dium-grained .~~

~~1175-1185 50% sandstone-siltstone; same as above. Btm. 1180~~

~~Waverly Group (11* plus)~~

~~50% siltstone; medium greenish-gray, non carbonate.~~

~~1185-1191 100% siltstone medium greenish-gray, abundant orange dolomitic crystals floating in siltstone~~

~~12. Lawrence Co., Decatur Twp., sec. 1, P# 116, S3 311, L# 106 Sample Quality: Fair~~

~~Pottsville Group (12' plus)~~

~~635-645 80% shale; reddish-brown, silty.~~

~~20% sandstone; light gray to off-white, disaggregated, angular to subangular, very fine- to fine-grained. 212~~

~~645-655 5% shale; medium green.~~

~~10% shale; reddish-brown, silty.~~

~~10% siltstone and sandstone; medium greenish- gray.~~

~~Maxville Group (27')~~

~~Top 647 25% dolomite and chert; light gray to slightly brownish-gray, somewhat brecciated and possibly conglomeratic; either top of Maxville or base of Har rison Formation.~~

~~50% sandstone; disaggregated, abundant roun ded and subrounded fine- to medium- grained, frosted to clear quartz grains, some aggregate calcareous sandstone; all calcareous cement.~~

~~655-660 100% siltstone and sandstone; light greenish- gray to light gray, dolomitic, some silty very finely crystalline limestone some dense dolomite, a little brownish- gray to pink chert.~~

~~660-668 50% siltstone and sandstone; same as above. Btm. 664~~

~~Waverlv Group (12* plus)~~

~~50% siltstone; light to medium greenish- gray, some sideritic spherulites, non- dolomitic.~~

~~668 100% siltstone-sandstone; light to medium greenish-gray, some with siderite flecks, spherulites, or small nodules, non- dolomitic. 213~~

~~APPENDIX B~~

~~SUMMARY OF SAMPLE, CORE, AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA USED IN THIS STUDY~~

~~ABBREVIATIONS:~~

C Core S Samples L Geophysical logs D Driller*s log WG Wymps Gap LO Loyalhanna L# Location number PI. I P# Ohio Geological Survey Permit Number F# Ohio Geological Survey Core File Number S# Ohio Geological Survey Sample Number A Alpha Portland Cement Co. B C.H. Bowen (1954) BR L.G. Bruce (1974) F R.R. Flowers (M.S., W. Va. U. , 1955) FL N.R. Flint (1965) FT C.R. Fettke (Pa. Geological Survey Bull., M28, 1946) G Geolog Company I A.I. Ingham (Pa. Geol. Survey Bull. M29, 1949) M J.H.C. Martens (1945) MC W.G. McGlade (Pa. Geol. Survey Bull. M54, 1967) MH Martens and Hoskins (W. Va. Geol. Survey Rpt. Inv. No. 4, 1948) MO W.C. Morse (1910) 0 Ohio Geol. Survey Open File OV W.R. Overbey (W. Va. Geol. Survey Bull. 23, 1961) SC J.W. Scatterday (1963) U J.S. Uttley (this report) SUMMARY OF SAMPLE, CORE, AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA USED IN THIS STUDY

~~Source Type Top of Maxville Thickness of of L# P# Location Berea Interval in Feet Data Data~~

~~Athens Co.~~

1 1404 sec. 26 Bern 1676 1134-1152 18 U S 2 1433 sec. 33 Bern 1357 733-744 11 ' u L 3 1477 sec. 32 Bern — 956-1012 56 u L 4 1565 sec. 25 Bern — 1129-1140 11 u L 5 1661 sec. 2 Canaan 1676 1134-1152 18 u S 6 1655 sec. 17 Canaan 1622 1105-1117 12 u S 7 1630 sec. 3 Canaan 1368 81 8 -8 3 4 16 u L 8 1698 sec. 19 Carthage 1612 — 0 u S 9 1432 sec. 29 Carthage 1604 — 0 u S 10 1681 sec. 4 Dover 1347 — 0 u S 11 1664 sec. 18 Dover 1038 — 0 . u S 12 1670 frac . 4 Dover —— 0 u L 13 1688 frac . 4 Dover —— 0 u L 14 1645 sec. 2 Lodi 1567 — 0 u S 214 15 1687 sec. 32 Lodi 1551 —— 0 u S 16 1366 frac .17 Rome 1435 876-910 34 U s 17 1539 sec. 29 Rome 1468 855-933 78 u s 18 1599 sec. 36 Rome 1617 1034-1087 53 u T. 19 1535 sec. 34 Rome 1544 944-1014 70 u L 20 1577 sec. 34 Rome 1484 908-944 36 u L 21 1395 sec. 35 Rome 1617 1052-1088 36 u L 22 1636 sec. 33 Rome 1609 1016-1080 64 u L 23 977 sec. 13 Troy 1861 — 0 u S 24 1548 sec. 17 Troy 1780 — 0 u s 25 1697 sec. 32 Troy 1792 — 0 G s 26 1426 sec. 4 Troy — — 0 u L 27 1431 sec. 16 Water1. 1283 — 0 u s 28 1656 frac .11--N York 962 — 0 u s

~~29 107 sec. 5 York — — 0 u L Belmont Co. 30 352-A- I sec. 30 Mead 1942 1312-1384 72 u L 31 169 sec. 30 Pultney 1578 958+-1005 47 0 S~~

~~32 2745 sec. 23--S Rich. 2136 — 0 u S 33 108 sec. 19 Smith 20056 1420-1439 19 u S~~

~~34 129 sec. 4 Union 1800 — 0 0 S 215~~

~~...... _...... - ...... ------.... —~~

~~______...... _ . . ------. ______Carroll Co. 35 212 sec. 24-■E Brown 995 — 0 G~~

~~36 286 sec. 36 Brown 1043 . — 0 G 37 363 sec. 6 Monroe 1005 — 0 G 38 620 sec. 31 Butler 810 — 0 G~~

~~39 607 sec. 7 Center — — 0 G 40 539 — Hanover 738 — 0 G 41 648 — Hanover 728 — 0 G~~

~~42 559 sec. 34 Hanover 740 — 0 G~~

~~43 592 sec. 12 Knox 545 — 0 G~~

~~— 44 541 sec. 35 Knox 660 . 0 G~~

~~45 665 sec. 33 Knox 650? — 0 G 46 668 sec. 30 Madison 762 — 0 G~~

~~47 656 sec. 31 Salem 799 mm M 0 • G Coshocton Co.~~

~~48 2139 sec. 2 Adams 883? — 0 G~~

~~49 2101 sec. 5 Bedford 858 — 0 G 50 1195 sec. 16 Crawford 868 0 G Gallia Co. 51 79 sec. 12 Addison 1495 806-930 122 U 52 133 sec. 12 Addison 1486 806-922 116 U~~

~~53 F# 381 sec. 20 Addison — 871-987 116 0~~

54 F# 380 sec. 15 Addison — 815-923 108 0 55 52 sec. 14 Addison — 990-1122 132 0 56 78 sec. 12 Addison 1489 813-935 122 U 57 137 sec. 12 Addison 1530 817-929 112 U 58 138 sec. 8 Cheshire — 895-952 57 U 59 139 sec. 7 Cheshire 1510 888-950 62 U

~~60 140 sec. 7 Cheshire — 826-933 107 U~~

~~61 55 sec. 18 Greenf. 1303 — 0 G 62 149 sec. 16 Harrisn. 1600 933-1016 83 U 63 150 sec. 30 Harrisn. — 799-838 39 U~~

~~64 87 sec. 16 Perry 1404 — 0 U~~

~~65 110 sec. 28 Perry 1355 — 0 u 66 112 sec. 34 Perry 1160 — 0 u~~

~~67 148 sec. 11 Perry 1338 — 0 u 69 107 sec. 9 Walnut 146 ---- 0 u Guernsey Co. 70 782 sec. 15 Adams 1230 — 0 G~~

~~71 334 sec. 2 Center — — 0 0~~

72 1456 sec. 13 Monroe 1237 — 0 G 73 867 3rd.Qtr. Westld. 1320 — 0 G 74 833 sec. 19 Westld. 1360 — 0 G 75 844 sec. 19 Wheelng. 1236 — 0 G Harrison Co 76 95 sec. 10 Frank. 1257 0 G S 77 15 sec. 23 German 1378 0 G S 78 27 sec. 20 Stock 1110 0 G S 79 .28 sec. 22 Stock9 1120 0 G S 80 39 sec. 32 Stock — 0 0 S 81 -1-2 sec. 2 Wash. 1431 0 G S 82 26 sec. 33 Wash. 1255 0 G S Holmes Co. 83 1609 sec. 18 Clark 980 0 G S 84 1288 sec. 34 Hardy 771 0 G s 85 1283 sec. 25 Salt Cr. 1050 0 G s 86 1351 sec. 5 Wal. Cr. 1020 0 G s Hocking Co. 87 611 sec. 33 Benton 842 0 u s 88 394 sec. 35 Falls 851 0 u s 89 1534 sec. 12 Green 938 0 u s 90 1252 sec. 27 Freen 742 0 0 s 91 1260 sec. 26 Freen 900 0 0 s 92 1485 sec. 20 Marion 837 0 G s 93 1315 sec. 27 Marion 843 0 u s

~~94 497 sec. 5 Starr 1043 0 u s 218 95 1530 sec. 30 Wash. 876 0 u s~~

~~t 96 946 sec. 36 Wash. 880? 0 U s Jackson Co. 97 79 sec. 31 Frank. 850 — 0 U s~~

~~98 32 sec. 27 Jeff. — — 0 0 s 99 72 sec. 19 Liberty 725? 100-105 5 u s~~

~~100 61 sec. 29 Milton 1000 — 0 u s 101 80 sec. 32-S Milton 994 — 0 G s~~

~~102 62 sec. 33-S Milton 1052 — — 0 U s Jefferson Co. 103 340 sec. 32 Salem 1315 — 0 G S 104 353 sec. 32 Salem 1265 — 0 G S~~

~~105 377 sec. 13 Sprfld. 1342 — 0 U S Lawrence Co. 106 116 sec. 1 Decatur 1450? 647-664 17 U S~~

~~107 222 sec. 24 Decatur 1490 — 0 U S~~

~~108 F#1779 sec. 31 Decatur 948 . — 0 0 C 109 162 sec. 4-E Eliz. 1053 — 0 U s 110 219 sec. 27 Eliz. 1262 566-505 40 U S,D 111 F#508 sec. 34 Eliz. — 516-540 24 U C~~

~~112 217 sec. 8 Symmes — — 0 u s 113 210 sec. 14 Union 1723 1010-1178 168 u s~~

~~114 Co#6- 219 219 64 sec. 25 Upper 443*5-533*5 90 A U 115 Co# 12-61 sec. 26 Upper 481-570 81 A C 116 Co#~~

~~8-64 sec. 26 Upper 5 3 2 *5- 615*5 83 A C~~

117 Co# • 13-64 sec. 22 Upper 521-594 73 A C 118 Co# 15-64 sec. 24 Perry 478-551+ 73 + A C 119 Co# 19-64 sec. 22 Upper 520*5-596*5 76 A C 120 Co# 23-64 sec. 31 Upper 557-617 60 A C 121 170 sec. 11 Wash 1225 465-488 28 U S ,L 122 220 sec. 1 Winds. 1737 980-1102 122 U S , L 123 221 sec. 1 Winds. 1810 1090-1161 71 U • S 124 206 sec. 7 Winds. 1538 0 U S 125 197 sec. 18 Winds. 1538 Meigs Co. 0 U S 126 1112 sec. 26 Bedfd. 1429 0 U SI 27 127 1313 sec. 11-'W Chest 1643 0 U S,D 128 •1417 sec. 11-:E Chest 1713 0 U S 129 1423 sec. 8 Leb. 2039 1450-1600 150 U S

~~130 1425 sec. 16 Leb. 1980 1422-1527 105 U S 220 131 1427 lot 179 Leb. 2105 1675-1782 107 U S 1648-1750 102 U L~~

\ 132 1422 lot 178 Leb. 2008 1470-1560 90 U S,L 133 1455 lot 191--N Leb. 2191 1660-1750 90 U L 134 1465 lot 185 Leb. 1980 1430-1530 100 U L 135 1429 lot 176 Leb. 2107 1560-1660 100 U L 136 1454 lot: 183 Leb. 2003 1453-1553 100 U L 137 1478 lot 189--E Leb. 2038 1408-15:90 122 U L 138 1447 sec. 16 Leb. — 1682-1760 78 U L 139 1469 sec. 16 Leb. 1957 1428-1518 90 U L 140 1469 lot 200 Leb. 2162 1670-1718 48 141 1461 lot 1171 Leb. 2023 1489-1572 83 U L 142 1430 lot Ill--S Leb. 2034 1492-1584 92 U L 143 1452 sec. 8-;N Leb. 1938 1362-1476 114 U L 144 991 lot 19 iOlive 2071 0 U S 145 442 lot 23 'Olive 1957 0 G S 146 1035 lot 107 Olive 1858 0 U S 147 882 lot 109 Olive 1966 0 U S 148 959 lot 12b-E Olive 1853 1357+-1367+ 10. U S 149 917 lot 122-E Olive 1961 1335-1373 38 U S 150 997 lot 127 Olive 1838 0 U S 151 927 lot 132 Olive 1816 0 U S 152 1448 lot 135 Olive 1900 0 U S

153 856 lot 1161 Olive 1901 0 U S 221 154 866 lot 1166 Olive 2081 0 U S 155 834 sec. 10 Olive 2040 — 0 u s 157 918 sec. 29-S Olive 1984 — 0 u s 158 836 sec. 5 Orange — — 0 u s 159 1477 sec. 23 Orange 1834 — 0 u s 160 1499 sec. 16 Orange —— 0 u L 161 sec. 29 Orange — — 0 u L 162 lot 30 Salisbury —— — 0 u L (no 163) Monroe County 164 1336 sec. 25 Adams — 1432-1482 50 UL 165 1434 sec. 2 Bethel 1765 1149-1195 46 U s 166 1870 sec. 5-S Bethel 2026 — 0 US 167 1752 sec. 5-N Bethel 2004 1381-1411 30 U S 168 1703 sec. 20-S Beth. 2160 — 0 U S 169 1689 sec. 35-N Beth. 1722 1090-1130 40 U L 170 290 sec. 6 Center 2110 1440-1516 76 O S 171 1270 sec. 21-S Cent. — 1539-1550 11 U s 172 1271 sec. 21-S Cent. — 1486-1503+ 17 U s 173 1800 sec. 27 Green 2130 1499-1554 55 U s 174 1797 sec. 33 Jack. 1890 — 0 U s 175 1594 sec. 18 Jack. 1987 — 0 G s

176 S# 285 sec. 28 Perry 1759 1066-1100+ 34+ O s 222 177 1785 sec. 16 Summit 2006 1369-1423 54 U s 178 F# 249 sec. 17 Summit 2134 1476-1548 71 0 c 179 434A2 sec. 21 Sunsby. 1896 1268-1302 34 U L,D 180 1845 sec. 36 Switz. 2330 1084-1756 72 U S 181 1721 sec. 7 Wash. 1800 1121-1233 112 U S 182 1757 sec. 7 Wash. — 1426-1526 100 U S 183 1664 sec. 11 Wash. — 1200-1235 35 U S 184 1744 sec. 15 Wash 2114 1414-1538 124 U S,L 185 1771 sec. 15 Wash. — 1400-1520 120 U L 186 1742 sec. 16 Wash. 2055 1374-1493 119 U S,L 187 1699 sec. 21 Wash. — 1389-1491 102 U s 188 1772 sec. 21 Wash. — 1380-1504 124 U L 189 1712 sec. 8 Wash. 1906 1250-1366 116 U L 190 1709 sec. 2 Wash. — 1490-1608 118 U L 191 1763 sec. 1 Wash. — 1502-1573 71 U L 192 1672 sec. 9 Wayne 1725 1094-1133 39 U S 193 1688 sec. 9 Wayne 1755 1126-1167 41 U S 194 1762 sec. 9 Wayne 1799 1154-1216 62 U s 195 1787 sec. 13 Wayne — 1154-1229 75 U s 196 1684 sec. 8 Wayne 1798 1167-1218 53 U L 197 1828 sec. 2 Wayne 1726 1122-1140 18 U L 198 1697 sec. 15 Wayne 2012 1386-1415 29 u L

Morqan Co. 223 I I 199 1324 sec. 24--N Bloom 1103 .378-426 48 u L i 200 995 sec. 17 Bloom 1110 398-448 50 U L 201 633 sec. 13 Bristol 1456 0 U S 202 619 sec. 24 Bristol 1450 770-845 75 U S 203 1344 sec. 11 Bristol 1529 844-880 36 U L 204 1398 sec. 11 Bristol. 1381 698-730 32 U L 205 1387 sec. 9 Bristol 1320 631-667 36 U L 206 1381 sec. 11 Bristol 1540 840-898 58 U L 207 1396 sec. 12 Bristol 1578 885-922 37 U L 208 1399 sec. 10 Bristol 1608 930-954 24 U L 209 1392 sec. 12 Bristol 1658 992-1003 11 U L 210 1394 sec. 14 Bristol 1690 108-1048 40 U L 211 1352 sec. 15 Bristol 1527 842-885 43 U L 212 1382 sec. 15 Bristol 1325 644-677 13 U L 213 1350 sec. 61 Bristol 1425 730-760 30 U L 214 1377 sec. 34 Bristol 1522 886-921 35 U L 216 1177 sec. 13 Bristol — 788-821 33 U L 217 1294 sec. 13 Bristol — 855-892 37 U L 218 1187 sec. 23 Bristol 1390 710-752 42 U L 219 1182 sec. 24 Bristol 1662 1006-1049 32 U L 220 946 sec. 9 Bristol! 1540 0 U L 221 1190 sec. 26 Bristol 1554 903-948 45 U L

~~222 1316 sec. 4 Bristol 1298 589-622 33 U L 224 223 1357 sec. 9 Bristol 1352 664-690 36 U L 224 1173 sec. 6 Center 1740 0 G S 225 1186 sec. 7 Center 1695 0 U S~~

226 1293 sec. 17 Center — 0 US 227 1362 sec. 22 Center — 0 U L 228 1193 sec. 5 Center 1668 1054-1060 6 U L 229 1221 sec. 10 Center 1764 0 U L 230 1199 sec. 22 Center 1710 0 U L 231 1282 sec. 19 Center 1672 0 U L 232 1345 sec. 27 Center 1630 0 U L 233 1297 sec. 17 Deerfd. 1343 608-653 45 U S 234 1100 sec. 19 Deerfd. 1314 616-662 46 U L 235 1108 sec. '21 Deerfd. 1300 610-650 40 U L 236 1106 sec. 30 Deerfd. 1215 525-570 45 U L 237 1098 sec. 30 Deerfd. 1314 636-670 34 U L 238 1300 sec. 4 Deerfd. 1302 603-651 48 U L 239 1321 sec. 17 Deerfd. 1328 623-668 36 U L 240 1206 sec. 3 Homer 1286 664-668 4 U S 241 1129 sec. 5 Homer 1546 0 G S 242 1215 lot 4 Homer 1204 590-604 12 U L 243 1238 lot 5 Homer 1295 0 U L

~~244 1247 sec. 3 Homer — 582-588 6 U L~~

245 1240 sec. 8 Homer — 582-584 2 U L 225 246 1260 sec. 17 Homer 1340 720-730 10 U L 247 1207 fr ac. 25 Homer — . — 0 U L 248 1249 frac. 32! Homer — ' 655-666 11 U L 249 1278 sec. 17 Homer 1468 848-858 10 u L 250 1287 sec. 31 Manch. 1650 1018-1033 15 u S,L 251 1127 sec. 33 Manch. 1615 — 0 GS 252 1191 sec. 4 Manch. 1770 — 0 U L 253 1184 sec. 32 Manch. 1708 — 00 U L 254 1010 sec. 16 Morgan 1635 — 00 U S 255 820 sec. 35 Morgan 1475 — 00 U S 256 1046 sec. 19 Marion 1518 — 00 UL 257 1245 sec. 31 Marion 1300 — 00 U L 258 602 sec. 12 Meigsv. 1615 — 00 U S 259 120 sec. 22 Meigsv. 1615 1027-1042+ 15+ US 260 1348 sec. 3 Meigsv. 1383 750-790 40 u L 261 1375 sec. 3 Meigsv. 1359 735-756 21 u L 262 1351 sec. 23 Meigsv. 1570 974-984 10 u L 263 1320 sec. 24 Meigsv. 1630 1012-1048 46 u L 264 957 sec. 5 Meigsv. 1530 915-932 17 u L 265 F#233 sec. 13 Morgan 1345 625-669 44 0 C 266 1203 sec. 1 Morgan 1580 920-965 45 u L 267 1118 sec. 28 Deerfd. 1333 640-686 46 u L

~~268 1204 sec. 5 Penn 1502 876-894 18 u L 226 i 269 1048 sec. 14 Penn 1565 965-995 30 U 270 1208 sec. 1 Union 1372 720-745 25 U~~

~~271 1302 lot 28 Windsor 1723 — 0 G 272 554 sec.26-W York 1175 455-500 45 U 273 1340 sec. 29 York 1293 576-624 48 U Muskinqum County~~

~~274 2814 sec. 12 Adams 1225 — 0 U~~

~~275 3080 sec. 16 Adams — — 0 U 275 3104 sec. 11 Blrk.Cr. 1490 774-792 18 U 277 906 sec. 16 Blrk.Cr. 1298 586-614 28 U 278 2046 sec. 34 Blrk.Cr. 1478 750-795 45 U~~

279 3099 sec. 15 Blrk.Cr. — 651-676 25 U 280 3014 sec. 16 BlrdkCr. 1388 665-704 39 U 281 3117 sec. 21 BlrdkCr. 1118 378-445 67 U 282 20189 sec. 29 Blrk.Cr. 1354 614-686 72 U 283 3092 sec. 35 Blrk.Cr. 1478 768-788 20 U_

~~284 2052 sec.8-S Br. Cr. — 531-576 45 u 285 2531 sec. 10 Br. Cr. 1286 524-590 64 u~~

~~286 2495 sec.l5-N Br.Cr. — 380-386 6 u~~

287 2565 lot 12 Cass 894 — 0 u 288 1465 lot 17-W Cass 989 0 u 289 unnum. sec. 15 Falls — Max.Pr. SC c 290 146 sec. 6 Harr. 1241 534+-553 19+ M S 291 F#772 sec. 19 Harr. — 376-425 49 0 c 292 S#883 sec. 19 Harr. — 52% 0 c 293 F#769 sec. 19 Harr. — 280-347 67 sc c 294 2027 sec. 21 Harr. 1057 303-365 62 u s 295 3152 sec. 5 Highld. — 00 u s 296 1599 sec. 24 Highld. 1327 0 u s 297 1611 sec. 25 Highld. 1267 0 u s 298 1559 sec. 3-S Hopewl. — (182-188)? 6? U L

299 unnum. sec. 10 Hopewl. — Max. Pr. sc c 300 2903 sec. 27 Miegs 1710 985-1030 45 U L 301 2929 sec. 33 Meigs 1545 848-873 25 U L 302 3108 sec. 6 Monroe — 0 U S 303 2892 lot 34 Monroe 1060 0 U S 304 unnum. lot20-21 Musk. — Max. Pr. SC C 305 1950 sec. 4 Newton 980 Trace/205 u s 306 F# 1929 sec. 20 Newton 202-251 49 0 c 307 1855 sec. 31 Newton 1028 200-235 35 U L 308 2050 sec.23-E Newtion 1075 310-338 28 U L 228 309 2059 sec.26-W Newt. 920 128-152 24 UL 210 C# 275 sec. 20 Newt. — 200-238 38 BR c

311 2155 sec. 18 Perry 1094 — 0 G s 312 1648 sec. 19 Perry 1253 — 0 G s 131 3059 lot 10 Salem — — 0 U s 314 945 sec. 22 Salt Cr. 1330 565-633 68 UL 315 2604 sec. 26 SaltCr. 1322 574-626 52 U L 316 1600 sec. 17 Sprfd. 836 — 0 U S 317 2592 sec. 21 Rich HI. 1370 — 0 UL 318 2915 sec. 36 Rich HI. 1475 — 0 U L 319 2028 lot 23 Union 1510 — 0 u S

320 2239 3rd Qtr Wash. 930 — 0 u S 321 2924 3rd Qtr Wash. 1055 331-337 6 u L 322 2795 3rd Qtr Wash 1053 — 0 u L 323 2861 3rd Qtr Wash. 1060? — 0 u L 324 2888 sec. 2 Wash. 1065 — 0 u L 325 2845 sec. 12 Wash. 1062 0 u L 326 2786 sec. 1 Wayne — 390-393 3 u S

~~327 2227 sec.7-E Wayne 1067 — 0 u S 328 2465 sec. 12 Wayne 1193 — 0 u S 229 329 F#232 sec. 29 Wayne — 302-378 76 B C~~

~~I 330 1674 sec. 9 Beav. 1588 904-942 40 u L~~

~~331 1312 sec. 10 Brkfd. 1453 — 0 G S~~

~~332 590 sec. 20 Brk fd. 1725 — 0 u S~~

~~333 1330 sec. 27 Brkfd. 1568 — 0 u S~~

~~334 2199 sec. 17 Buffalo — — 0 u S~~

~~335 1429 sec. 35 Buffalo 1485 — 0 u s~~

~~336 878 sec. 25 Center 1450 — 0 u s~~

~~337 917 sec. 15 Elk — — 0 u s~~

~~338 354-A sec. 21 Elk 1527 — 0 M s 339 1288 sec. 24-N Elk. 1626 — 0 u s~~

~~340 1278 sec. 31 Elk 1902 — 0 G s~~

~~341 1283 sec. 36-S Elk 1843 - 0 U s~~

~~342 939 sec. 10 Enoch 1905 - 0 u s~~

~~343 1420 sec. 10 Jacksn. 1688 — 0 G s~~

~~344 1336 sec. 31 Jacksn. 1688 — 0 U s~~

~~345 4188 sec. 19 Noble 1430 — 0 G s~~

~~346 1020 sec. 21 Noble 1442 — 0 U s~~

~~347 1428 sec. 16 Olive 1722 — 0 u s 348 1307 sec. 11 Sharon 1584 0 G s Perry Co. 349 896 sec. 10 Claytn. 1012 192-208 16 U s 230 350 ... 506 sec. 20 Claytn. 980 — 0 U s~~

I 351 352 sec. 32 Claytn. 975 — 0 0 s 352 2558 sec. 3 Claytn. 1011 — 0 U L 353 2604 sec. 10 Claytn. 1130 — 0 UL 354 1523 sec. 11 Claytn. 1000 194-200 6 UL 355 1195 sec. 11 Slaytn. 1020 — 0 U L 356 2635 sec. 11 Claytn. 1072 — 0 U L 357 2517 sec. 28 Claytn. 1056 278-293 15 U L 358 3351 sec. 26 Coal 1189 — 0 U S 359 3289 sec. 1 Bearfd. 1160 446-496 50 u L 360 3142 sec. 1 Bearfd. 1146 442-487 45 u L 361 2178 sec. 13 Harr i 1023 218-247 29 u S 362 2630 sec. 5 Harr. 1107 323-363 40 u L 363 2597 sec. 5 Harr. 916 125-172 47 u L 364 3119 sec. 23 Hopewl. 876 79-96 17 u L 365 40 sec. 31 Hopewl. 872 39-58 19 u L 366 1739 sec. 6 Jacksn. 889 — 0 u S 367 3301 sec. 24 Jacksn. 868 — 0 u s 368 . 3310 sec. 11 Jacksn. 898 — 0 u L 369 3237 sec. 13 Jacksn. 1056 — 0 u L

~~370 3141 sec. 24 Jacksn. 1100 .— 0 u L 371 2884 sec. 26 Jacksn. 934 — 0 u L~~

372 2890 sec. 27 Jacksn. 974 (233-237)? 4? u L 231 373 2919 sec. 27 Jacksn. 1000 __i 0 u L 374 3145 sec. 34 Jacksn. 944 — 0 U L 375 2918 sec. 35 Jacksn. 964 — 0 U L 376 2067 sec. 27 Madison 1010 — 0 U L 377 2580 sec. 34 Madison 984 — 0 U L 378 2380 sec. 8 Mon. Cr. 975 209-326 27 U S 379 3345 sec. 8 Mon. Cr. 945 200-225 25 u S 380 3064 sec. 2 Mon. Cr. 968 230-248 18 u L 381 3186 sec. 3 Mon. Cr. 880 141-148 7 u L

382 2928 sec. 8 Mon. Cr. 850 — 0 u L 383 2862 sec. 9 Mon. Cr. 825 88-110 22 u L 384 3167 sec. 11 Mon. Cr. — — 0 u L 385 2548 sec. 15 Monroe 975 — 0 u L 386 2113 sec. 11 Pike 1060 342-374 32 u S 387 3185 sec. 19 Pike 950 248-258 10 u L 388 3208 sec. 18 Pike — — 0 u L 389 3154 sec. 19 Pike — — 0 u L 390 3255 sec. 20 Pike 934 234-245 11 u L 391 3299 sec. 20 Pike 976 — 0 u L 392 2126 sec. 23 Pike — — 0 u L 393 2117 sec. 1 Pleasnt. 1135 — 0 u S 394 439 sec. 6 Pleasnt. 1160 — — 0 u S 232

~~I 395 513 sec. 6 Pleasnt. 1155 — 0 G S~~

~~396 514 sec. 31 Pleasnt. 1165 — 0 U S 397 3226 sec. 31 Pleasnt. 1114 — 0 U L~~

~~398 3192 sec.26E Readng. 975 — 0 U S 399 2981 sec. 6 Salt Lk. 1010 0 U S Scioto Co. 400 F#901 sec. 25 Bloom —— 0 0 C~~

~~401 — sec. 32 31oom — 164-; :2+ MO C,D~~

~~402 86 sec. 35 Bloom 816? — 0 U S~~

~~403 F#900 Sec. 23 Vernon — — 0 0 C Tuscarawas Co 404 101 sec. 9 Frank. 830 — 0 G S 405 1617 sec. 29 Mill 1277 — 0 G S 406 1030 sec.25-W Rush .1300 — 0 G S 407 1164 sec. 8 Salem 912 — 0 G S~~

~~408 1001 1st h Sandy 775? — 0 G S 409 851 sec. 32 Warren 1060 — 0 G S 410 1012 sec. 10 Warwick 1087 — 0 G S 411 1209 3rd % Wash. 1203 — 0 G S~~

~~412 1660 sec. 6 York 1109? —— 0 G S~~

lv> w OJ Vinton1 Co 413 61 sec. 36 Brown 830 0 U S 414 S#808 lOt 25 Brown 419-425 6 U S 415 S#809 lot 31 Brown — 405-426 21 U S 416 S#458 sec. 9 Clinton — 189200 11 U s 417 70 sec. 6 Swan 882 0 U s 418 73 sec. 7 Swan 840 0 U s 419 331 sec. 35 Vinton 1002 0 G s 420 338 sec. 35 Vinton 1182 0 U s 421 276 sec. 15 Wilksvl. 1192 0 G s 422 2560 lot 8 Big Adams 1597 0 U s Run Allot. 423 2372 lot 29 Al- Adams 1957 0 U lot. Rain Ck.& Watfd. 424 2581 lot 21 Cat'. Adamsl615 0 u s Ck Allot. 425 2531 lot 25 Cat.Adams 1883 0 u s Ck.Allot. 426 210 lot 49 BearAdams 1668 0 u s Ck Allot. 427 2734 lot 23 RainAdams — 0 u s bow Allot. rv> u>

I 428 3108 sec. 13 Barlow 1946 0 u s 429 1522 sec. 30 Belpre 1840 0 u s 430 3311 lot 66 Belpre 1807 0 G ' S 431 1703 lot 1028' Belpre 1770 0 u s 432 2821 sec. 16 Dunham 1781 0 u s 433 3029 sec. 29-E1 Dunham 1956 — ; 0 U S 434 2839 lot 83 Fearing 1593 0 u s 435 2653 sec. 6 Grandv. 2203 1582-1642 60 U S

436 S#326- sec. 18 Grandv. — 1192-1250 68 U S F 437 3171 sec. 29 Grandv. 2053 0 G S 438 3189 sec. 30 Grandv. 2284 1672-1708 36 U S 439 3165 sec. 35 Grandv. 2002 1400-1435+ 35 U S 440 3191 sec. 35 Grandv. 2050 0 U S

~~441 3198 sec. 35 Grandv. — 1580-1651 71 U S~~

442 3199 sec. 35 Gr andv. — 1290-1351 61 U S 443 3106 sec. 14 Indep. — 1534-1594 60 U L 444 3164 sec. 21 Indep. 2215 1589-1696 107 U S 445 2835 sec. 36 Indep. 2163 1532-1608 76 U S 446 1789 sec. 15 Indep. — 1366-1412 46 U L

~~447 1928 sec. 9 Indep. — 1213-1244 21 U L 448 3307 sec. 15 Lawr. 1684 1049-1150 101 U S,Lw * to tn 449 3310 sec. 15 Lawr. 1686 1047-1140 93 U L 450 359 sec. 25 Lawr. 1927 1391-1407 16 u s~~

451 3100 sec. 28 Lawr. 2068 — 0 u S,L 452 3127 sec. 2 Lib. 1874 1300+-1308 8+ u S 453 3168 sec. 4 Lib. 2072 1439+-1494 55 + u S 454 3192 sec. 10 Lib. 1985 — 0 u S 455 1914 sec. 20 Lib. 1834 — 0 G S 456 3206 sec. 20 Lib. 2014 — 0 US 457 3118 sec. 4 Lib. 1970 1334-1362 28 U L CO 3033 sec. 1 Ludlow 2136 — 0 U S 459 3156 sec. 25 Ludlow 1740 1058-1155 97 U S 460 3121 sec. 26 Ludlow — 1163-1240 77 US 461 3122 sec. 32 Ludlow — 1051-1138 87 u S 462 1314-2 sec. 28 Ludlow 2102 1448-1540 92 u L 463 3184 sec. 28 Ludlow — 1316-1433 117 u L 464 369 sec. 17 Mariet. 1995 — 0 u S 465 2572 lot 4 Musk. 1683 — 0 u S 466 2642 lot 4 Musk. 1723 — 0 u S

~~467 2824 sec. 2 1 - 1 E Newpt. — 1180-1250 70 u S~~

468 2887 sec. 31 Newpt. 1914 — 0 u S 469 2605 sec. 26 Palmer 1712 1125-1184 ' 59 u S,L sec. 32 Plamer 1743 36 u S 470 303 1170-1203 236 471 2630 sec. 26 Palmer — 11757-1340 65? U L 472 2586 sec. 26 Palmer 1761 1200-1237 37 U L 473 2663 sec. 14 Palmer 1797 1228-1283 55 U L

474 2625 sec. 12 Palmer — (1307-1322)7 15? U L 475 2512 sec. 25 Palmer — 12177-1252 35? U L 476 3097 lot 44 Salme 1718 0 U S 477 2760 lot 72 Salem 1824 0 U S 478 2766 lot 355 Warren 2023 0 U S 479 2763 sec. 14 Warren 1850 0 U S 480 2582 sec. 14 Warren 1876 0 U S 481 2880 sec. 16 Warren 2054 0 U S 482 2664 sec. 19 Warren 1947 0 U S 483 2999 sec. 25 Warren 1985 0 U S 484 2238 sec. 29 Warren 2052 0 U S 485 2761 lot 271 Warren 1831 0 G S 486 3366 lot 9, Watrfd. 1512 @920 trace US Olive Gn & Elk Run Allot. 487 2706 Allot. Watrfd. 1364-1388 24 0 L betw. Rain. & Watrfd. lot 13

488 2668 Rain. Watrfd. —— 0 U L Ck. lot 59 237 489 2723 R. Ck. Watrfd. ---- 0 U L lot 70 490 1697 R.Ck.lot 75Wtrfd .1933 1363-13817 18? U s 491 1530 R.Ck.lot 4 Wtrtn .1848 @ 1310 trace - US 492 2649 So. Br. Watertn. 1831 @ 1274 trace - US Allot, lot 19 493 2745 So.Br. Watertn. 1712 1130-1134 14 u S Allot, lot 21 494 2713 sec. 8 Watertn. 1932 1380-1404 24 u L 495 2600 sec. 20 Watertn. 1814 1230-1288 58 u L 496 2619 sec. 13 Watertn. 1724 1181-1199 18 u L

497 2811 So. Br. Watertn. — — 33 u L Allot. 498 2694 So.. Br. Watertn. — — 34 u L Allot. 499 2795 So. Br. Watertn. — —— 32 u L Allot. 500 2687 So. Br* Watertn. — — 30 u L Allot. 501 3289 sec. 7 Watertn. •— — 0 u L 502 2681 sec. 2 Wesley 1805 1228-1245 17 u S 503 3281 sec. 23 Wesley 1802 1230-1280? 50? u S H H • West Virqinia: All West Virqinia fiqures are for the Greenbrier Group and ex elude the Reynolds limestone and "Pencil Cave Shale." Brooke Co.

504 . Bro-16 Cross Ck. Dis. 1333 692-766 74 M S 238 505 Bro-22 Cross Ck. Dis. 1312 6667-765 99't M S,D 506 Bro-23 Cross Ck. Dis. 1328 680-770 90 U S Cabell Co. 507 Cab-369 McComas Dis. 2145 1334-1511 111 M S

508 Cab-434 Grant Dis. ——* 1545-1726 181 MH S Jackson Co. ‘ 509 Jac-101 Ravenswood 2664 2080-2202 122 M Marshall Co. 510 Mars-221 Clay — 1079-1123 44 U S 511 Mars-242 Clay — 1062-1106 44 U S 512 Mars-108 Meade — 2135-2157+ 221 u S,D 513 Mars-135 Franklin — 1365-1435 70 u S

~~514 ---- Franklin — 1352-1412 60 M S Mason Co. 515 Mas-69 Clendenin 1800 1123-1282 159 OV S 516 Mas-29 Union 2158 1513-1674 161 M S Pleasant Co.~~

~~517 Pleas-183 Grant — 1035-1044 11 M S~~

~~518 Pleas-478 Lafayette — 1565-1763 107 F S~~

~~519 Pleas-220 McKim — 1375-1410 35 M S 520 Pleas-224 McKim — 1713-1740 27 M S 239 521 Pleas-212 Union — 1265-1282 17 M S~~

* 522 Pleas-217 Washington 1634-1388 54 M S "" Ritchie Co. 523 Rit-945 Clay 1754-1866 112 M S

~~524 Rit-746 Grant — 1807-1845 38 M s 525 Rit-941 Grant 2150 1587-1655 68 M s 526 Rit-951 Gr ant —— 1722-1832 110 M s Tyler Co.~~

527 Tyl-141 Ellsworth — 1769-1899 130 M s 528 Tyl-228 Ellsworth — 1739-1825 86 U s 529 Tyl-231 Ellsworth — 1623-1735 112 F s 530 Tyl-234 Ellsworth — (1280-1350)7 70? U s 531 Tyl-364 Ellsworth —— 1598-1609+ 31 + U s Wayne Co. 532 Way-271 Union 2084 1244-1433 189 M s Wetzel Co. 533 Wet-408 — — 1964+-1982 18+ U c 534 Wet-231 Prator — 1892-1978 86 u s 5359 Wet-296 Center — 2378-2437 59 M s 536 Burning Springs 1492 950-1059 109 M s 537 Wir-171 Spring Creek 2300 0 M s Wood Co. s 538 Woo-123 Clay 2260 1740-1771 31 M 240 539 Harris 2012 1498-1531 36 MS 5400 Woo—180 Harris 1959 — 0 M S 541 Woo-115 Lubeck 1865 — 0 MS 542 Woo-118 Lubeck 1830 — 0 MS 543 Woo-136 Slate 2090 1542-1630 88 MS 544 Woo-137 Slate 2505 2013-2.057 44 M S

~~545 — Walker — 220-238 18 - C 546 Woo-128 Walker 2459 1926-1932 6 M S~~

~~547 Woo-129 Walker 2270 — 0 M S~~

~~548 Woo-169 Williams — 0 MS~~

~~III. Pennsylvania~~

~~Source Type Interval of Thickness .of of LiTF Well Name Maxwell Eqv. in Feet Data Data~~

~~Allegheny Co. 549 Livingstone-W.E. Snell 1316-1385 69 M S 550 Woodland Oil-S.B. Phillips #1 0 I S Butler Co.~~

~~551 Duff & Galey-Leheigh Portland 241 Cement Company #1 — M~~

6 552 Snee & Eberly-G. Gault #1 739-890 151 U S 553 Peoples Nat'l Gas-Sangston et al. 1582-1718 136 FS 554 Greensboro Gas Co.-Oravec 1217-1363 146 MS Greene! Co. 555 J. Galey-L.K. Allison8 1633-1735+ 102 + U S 556 Man. Lt. & Ht. Co.- Wiley #4 1893-1993 100 M S 557 J. Galey-Herrington #1 1573-1726+ 153 + US 558 Equitqble Gas-J.J. Huffman 1978-2103 125 M S

Somerset Co. 559 Peoples Nat'l Gas-Marker #1 314-381WG 67 FL s 483-529LO 46 ^ 560 F Nuss et al.-K Lusk 1569-1691 123 U s 561 Gulf Oil-Lone Pine Un. #1 1690-1820 130 MC s 562 Peoples Nat'l Gas-W.E. Redd #1 1940-2035 95 M s 563 N.P. Johnston et al.-A.T.MeBurney 1333-1418 85 M s #1 564 Peoples Nat'lGGas-M.W. Neill #1 1449-1520 71 FT s 565 Peoples Nat'l Gas-W. Hamilton, 1550-1607 57 FT s et al. #1 566 C.E. Young et_ al.-H Hatfield #1 1658-1770 112 MC s 567 Texas Co.-A. Scrabs #1 1075-1110 35 U s

~~— — 568 Man. Lt. & Ht.-P.V. Cantarel #1 0 MC s 242 243~~

~~LITERATURE CITED~~

~~Adams, R.W., 1964, Loyalhanna Limestone, cross-bedding, and provenance: Johns Hopkins University, Ph.D. dissert, (unpub.), 321 p.~~

~~Amaden, T.W., and others, 1954, Geology and water re sources of Garret County; Dept, of Geology, Mines, and Water Resources State of Maryland, Bull. 13, 349 p.~~

~~Andrews, E.B., 1870, Report of progress in the second district: Ohio Geol. Survey Report of Progress in 1869, Pt. 2,142 p.~~

~~------1871a, Lower Carboniferous Limestone in Ohio: Am. Jour. Sci., v. Cl, no. 2, p. 91-92-~~

~~------1871b, Report of labors in the second geologic district: Ohio Geol. Survey Report of Progress in 1870, p. 60-65.~~

~~------1873, Report of MUskingum County: Ohio Geol. Survey, p. 314-346.~~

~~------1878, Supplemental report on Perry County, and portions of Hocking and Athens counties: Ohio Geol. Survey, p. 817-824.~~

Arkle, Thomas, Jr., 1972, Appalachian structures and the deposition of strata of the Late Paleozoic in West Virginia, p. 227-255, in Lessing,Peter, and others, eds., Appalachian structures origin, evolution, and possible potential for new ex ploration frontiers, a seminar, W. Va. Geol. Survey, 322 p.

~~Bowen, C.H., 1952, The petrology and economic geology of the Sharon Conglomerate in Geauga and Portage counties, Ohio: Ohio State University, Ph.D. dissert, (unpub.), 188 p. 244~~

~~------1954, A subsurface study of the Maxville Limestone in the Muskingum Valley: Ohio State University Studies, Engineering Series, v. 23, no. 4, En gineering Exp. Station Bull., no. 154, 19 p.~~

~~Bownocker, J.A., 1903, Oil and gas: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., v. I, 325 p.~~

~~Bruce, L.G., 1974, Economic geology of the Maxville Lime stone Newton Township, Muskingum County, Ohio: Ohio State University, M.S. thesis (unpub.), 110 p.~~

~~Butts, Charles, 1905, U.S. Geological Survey Atlas Folio no. 133, Ebensburg, Pa.~~

~~------1917, Descriptions and correlation of the Missis- sippian Formations of western Kentucky: in Ky. Geol. Survey, 119 p.~~

~~------1922, Mississippian Series of eastern Kentucky: Ky. Geol. Survey, series XI, v. 7, 188 p.~~

~~------1924, The Loyalhanna Limestone of southwestern Pennsylvania especially with regard to its age and correlation: Am. Jour. Sci., series 5, v. 8, no. 45, p. 249-257.~~

~~------1940, Geology of the Appalachian Valley in Vir ginia: Va. Geol. Survey Bull. no. 52, Pt. I, 568 p.~~

~~Campbell, M.R., 1893, Geology of the Big Stone Gap Coal Field of Virginia and Kentucky: U.S Geological Survey Bull. Ill, p. 28-38.~~

~~Careaga, R.O., 1971, Paleomagnetism of part of the Jona than Creek Formation (Upper Mississippian) of east-central Ohio: Ohio State University M.S. thesis (unpub.), 222 p.~~

~~Chute, N.E., 1955, Geology of the limestone mine of the Alpha Portland Cement Company at Ironton, Ohio: unpublished company report.~~

~~Conrey, G.W., 1921, Geology of Wayne County: Ohio Geol. Survey, Bull. 24, 155 p. 245~~

~~Cooper, B.N., 1944, Geology and mineral resources of Burkes Garden Quadrangle, Virginia: Va. Geol. Survey Bull. 60, 299 p.~~

~~Crandall, A.R., 1877, Report on the geology of Greenup, Carter, and Boyd counties and a part of Laurence: Ky. Geol. Survey, second series, v.' 2, Pt I, 77 p.~~

~~Delong, R.M., and White, G.W., 1963, Geology of Stark County: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull. 61, 209 p.~~

~~Flint, N.K., 1948, The geology of Perry County: Ohio State University, Ph.D. dissert., published in 1951 as Bull. 48 of the Ohio Geol. Survey.~~

Flint, N.K., 1965, Geology and mineral resources of south ern Somerset.County^ Pennsylvania: Pa. Geol. Sur vey County Rept. C5 6A, 267 p. Flowers, R.R., "1956, A subsurface study of the Green brier Limestone in West Virginia: W. Va. Geol. Survey, Rept. Inv. no. 15, 17 p.

~~Franklin, G.J., 1961, Geology of Licking County, Ohio: Ohio State University, Ph. D. dissert. (unpub1) 482 p.~~

~~Friedman, S.A., 1952, Petrography and petrology of the Maxville Limestone from parts of Maskingum and Perry counties, Ohio: Ohio State University, M.S. thesis (unpub.), 56 p.~~

~~Fuller, J.O., 1955, Source of Sharon Conglomerate of northeastern Ohio: Am. Assoc. Petrolem Geolo gists Bull., v. 66, p. 159-176.~~

~~Hall, G.H., 1949, The Greenbrier Limestone (Big Lime) and its treatment, p. 329-341, in Appalachian Geol. Soc. Bull., v. 1.~~

~~Henniger, B.R., 1972, Petrology and stratigraphy of the Greenbrier limestone and Upper Pocono sandstone Wayne and Lincoln counties, West Virginia: W. Va. University, Ph. D. dissert, (unpub.).~~

~~Herrick, C.L., 1888, The geology of Licking County, Ohio Dennison University Bull. Sci. Labs., v. 3, 246~~

Hoque, M . 1 9 6 8 ,5edimentologic and paleocurrent study of Mauch Chunk sandstones (Mississippian), south- central and western Pennsylvaniat Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 52, no. 2, p. 246-263.

~~Horowitz, A.S., 1969, Some Chester correlations in the Appalachian region: Abstract for 1968, Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 121, p. 662.~~

~~Hyde, J.E., 1911, Notes on the absence of a soil bed at the base of the Pennsylvanian System in southern Ohio: Am. Jour. Sci., series 4, v. 31, p. 557- 560.~~

~~Hyde, J.E., 1927, The Mississippian System: p. 43-64, in Wilbur Stout, Geology of Vinton County, Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no. 31. 402 p.~~

~~------1953 (ed. by M.F. Marple), Mississippian forma tions of central and southern Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no 51, 355 p.~~

~~Jessup, D.E., 1951, The geology of a part of Jackson Township, Pike County, Ohio: Ohio State Uni versity, M.S. thesis (unpub.).~~

Jorgensen, D.B., and Carr, D.D., 1973, Influence of cyclic deposition, structural features, and hy drologic controls on evaporite deposits in the St. Louis Limestone in southwestern Indiana: reprinted from proceedings 8th Forum on Geology of Industrial Minerals, Iowa Geol. Survey, Inf. Circ. 5, p. 43-65.

~~Kanes, W.H., 1957, A study of the upper Middle Mississip pian of southeast West Virginia: W. Va. Univer sity, M.S. thesis (unpub.).~~

~~Knewtson, S.L., and Hubert, J.F., 1969, Dispersal pat terns and diagenesis of oolitic calcarenites in the Ste. Genevieve limestone (Mississippian) Missouri: J. Sed. Pet., v. 39, no. 3, p. 954—968.~~

~~Lamb, G.F., 1911, the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian uncon formity and the Sharon conglomerates: Jour. Geol., v. 19, no. 2, p. 104-109. 247~~

~~Lamb, G.F., 1916, Outliers of the Maxville Limestone in Ohio north of the Licking River: Ohio Jour. Sci. v. XVI, no. 4, p. 151-154.~~

~~Lamborn, R.E., 1945, Recent information on the Maxville Limestone: Ohio Geol. Survey, Inf. Circ. 3, 18 p.~~

~~------1954, Geology of Coshocton County: Ohio Geol. Sruvey Bull., no. 53, 245 p.~~

~~Leonard, A.D., 1968, The petrology and stratigraphy of Upper Mississippian Greenbrier Limestones of eastern West Virginia: W. Va. University, Ph.D. dissert, (unpub.).~~

~~Lockett, J.R., 1927, General structure of the producing sands in eastern Ohio: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 11, no. 10, p. 1023—1033.~~

Lucke, J.B., 1939, Geologic distribution: Mississip pian System, p. 27-55, in McCue, J.B., and others, Limestones of West Virginia, W. Va- Geol. Survey, v. XII, 560 p. McFarlan, A.C., and Walker, F.H., 1955, Some old Ches ter problems— correlations of lower and middle Chester formations of western Kentucky: Ky. Geol. Survey, Series IX, Bull. 16, 37 p.

~~------1956, Some old Chester problems— correlations along the eastern belt of outcrop: Ky. Geol. Survey, Series IX, Bull. 20, 36 p.~~

~~Malott, C.A., 1919, The "American Bottom" region of eastern Greene County, Indiana— a type unit in southern Indiana physiography: Indiana Univer sity Studies, v. 6, study no. 40, 61 p.~~

~~Manger, W.L., 1969, The stratigraphy of the Logan and adjacent formations (Mississippian) of Ohio: University of Iowa, M.S. thesis (unpub.), 188 p.~~

~~Martens, J.H.C., 1945, Well-sample records: W. Va. Geol. Survey, v. XVII, 889 p.~~

~~1948, Possibility of shaft mining of Greenbrier Limestone: W. Va. Geol. Survey, Rept. Inv. no. 6, 18 p. 248~~

~~Merrill, W.M., 1950, The geology of northern Hocking County: Ohio State University, Ph.D. dissert, (unpub.), 444 p.~~

~~Meyers, T.R., 1929, The geology of Jefferson and Bed- frod townships, Coshocton County, Ohio: Ohio State University, M.S. thesis (unpub.), 85 p.~~

~~Morse, W.C., 1910, The Maxville Limestone: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no. 13, 128 p.~~

~~------1911, The fauna of the Maxville Limestone: Pro- cedings Ohio State Academy Sci., v. V, Pt. 7, Spec. Paper no. 17, p. 357—420.~~

~~Multer, H.G., 1955, Stratigraphy, structure, and econo mic geology of Pennsylvanian rocks in Wayne County, Ohio: Ohio State University, Ph.D. dis sert. (unpub.), 198 p.~~

~~Overbey, W.K., Jr., 1967, Lithologies, environmenments, and reservoirs of the Middle Mississippian Green brier Group in West Virginia: Producers Monthly, Feb., 1967, p. 25-31.~~

~~Patterson, S.H. , and Hosterman, J.W., 1962, Geology and refractory clay deposits of the Haldeman and Wrigley quadrangles, Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1122-F, p. F-l to F-113.~~

~~Pepper, J.F., and others, 1954, Geology of the Bedford Shale and Berea Sandstone in the Appalachian Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 259, 111 p.~~

~~Perry, E.S., 1926, Oil and gas structural geologic map of Greenup County, Kentucky: reprinted 1949, Ky. Geol. Survey.~~

~~Phalen, W.C., 1908 Economic geology of the Kenova Quad rangle: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 349, 158 p.~~

~~------1912, U.S. Geological Survey Atlas Folio 184, Kenova, Ky-W. Va.-Ohio.~~

~~Potter, P.E., 1963, Late Paleozoic sandstones of the Illinois Basin: Illinois Geol. Survey, Rept. Inv. 217, 92 p. 249~~

~~Potber, P.E., and Pryor, W.A., 1961, Dispersal centers of Paleozoic and later elastics of the Upper Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas: Geol. Survey Am. Bull., v. 72, p. 1195-1250.~~

~~Read, M.C., 1878, Geology of Holmes County, p. 540-561, in Ohio Geol. Survey County Repts., 963 p.~~

~~------1931, Randolph County: W. Va. Geol. Survey Coun ty Repts., 989 p.~~

~~Rittenhouse, Gordon, 1949, Petrology and paleogeography of Greenbrier Formation: Am. Assoc. Petro leum Geologists Bull., v. 33, no. 10, p. 1704- 1730.~~

~~Robinson, L.C., and others, 1928, Reconnaissance struc tural map of Elliot County, Kentucky: reprinted 1950, Ky. Geol. Survey.~~

~~Root, S.I., and others, 1951, Geology of Knox County: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no. 59,. 282 p.~~

~~Scatterday, J.W., 1963, Stratigraphy and conodont faunas of the Maxville Group (Middle and Upper Missis— sippian) of Ohio: Ohio State University, Ph.D. dissert, (unpub.), 162 p.~~

~~Sheppard, R.A., 1964, U.S. Geological Survey GQ-289, Tygarbs quadrangle.~~

~~Sloss, L.L., 1963, Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 74, p. 93-114.~~

~~Sonnenberg, F.P., 1949, The Greenbrier Formation in east ern Kentucky, p. 342-346, in-Appalachian Geol. Soc. Bull. 1.~~

~~Sprouse, D.W., 1954, Subsurface Upper Mississippian rocks of West Virginia: University of Illinois, M.S. thesis (unpub.).~~

~~Stevenson, J.J., 1877, Report of progress in Fayette and Westmoreland District: Pt. I (Rept. KK), Pa., Geol. Survey, 436 p. 250~~

~~Stevenson, J.J., 1902, Notes on the Mauch Chunk of Pen nsylvania: Am. Geologist, v. XXIX, April, 1902, p. 242-249.~~

~~1903, Lower Carboniferous of the Appalachian Ba sin:-- Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 14, p. 15-96.~~

~~Stockdale, Paris, 1939, Lower Mississippian rocks of east- central interior: Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 22, 248 p.~~

~~Stout, Wilbur, 1916, Geology of southern Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no. 20,723 p.~~

~~------1918, Geology of Muskingum County: Ohio Geol. Sruvey Bull., no. 21, 351 p.~~

~~------1927, Geology of Vinton County: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no 31, 402 p.~~

~~------1944, The iron ore bearing formations of Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no. 45, 230 p.~~

~~Swann, D.H., 1963, Classification of Genevievian and Chesterian (Late Mississippian) rocks of Illi nois: 111.Geol. Survey Rept. Inv. 216, 91 p.~~

~~------1964, Late Mississippian rhythmic sediments of the Mississippian Valley: Am. Assoc Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 48, p. 637-658.~~

~~Thompson, T.L., and others, 1971, Conodonts from the Rushville Formation (Mississippian) of Ohio: Jour. Paleontology, v, 45, no. 4, p. 704-712.~~

~~Ulrich, E.O., 1905, The lead, zinc, and fluorspar de posits of western Kentucky, geology a n d general relations: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 36, Pt. 1, p. 7-107.~~

~~------1911 i Revision of the Paleozoic Systems: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 22, p. 281-680.~~

~~------1917, Formations of the Chester Series in western Kentucky and their correlates elsewhere: 271 p., in Mississippian Formations of western Kentucky, Ky. Geol. Survey. 251~~

~~Ulrich, E.O., 1922, Some new facts bearing on correla tions of Chester formations: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 33, p. 805-852.~~

~~Weller, J.M., and others, 1948, Correlation of the Mis sissippian Formations of North America: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 59, p. 91—196.~~

~~Wells, Dana, 1950, Lower Middle Mississippian of south eastern West Virginia: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 34, no. 5, p. 882-922.~~

~~Wells, R.B. 1973, Stratigraphy of the Loyalhanna member of the Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation in north-central Pennsylvania: preliminary copy, Open File Rept., Pa. Geol. Survey, June, 1973, 29 p.~~

~~Whitfield, R.P., 1882, Descriptions of new species of fossils from Ohio, with remarks on some of the geological formations in which they occur: An nals N.Y. Acad. Sci., v. II, p. 219-226.~~

------1891, Species from the Maxville Limestone, the equivalent of the St. Louis and Chester Limestones of the Mississippi Valley: Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci., v. 5, p. 576-596, reprinted iri Ohio Geol. Survey, v. 7, Pt. 2, p. 465—481.

~~Wilmarth, M.G., 1938, Lexicon of geologic names of the United States (including Alaska): U.S. Geologi cal Survey Bull. 896, Pt. I, p. 1-1245, Pt. II, p. 1245-2396.~~

Wiipolt, R.H., and Marden, D.W., 1959, Geology and oil and gas possibilities of Upper Mississippian rocks of southwestern Virginia, southern West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey Bull., no. 1072-K, p. 587—656.

~~Wolfe, E.W.j and others, 1962, Geology of Fairfield County: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull., no. 60, 230 p.~~

~~Wray, J.L., 1951, The Greenbrier Series in northern West Virginia and its correlates in southwestern Pennsylvania: W. Va. University, M.S. thesis (unpub.). 252~~

~~Youse, A.C., 1964, Gas producing zones of Greenbrier (Mississippian) Limestone, southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 48, no. 4, p. 465-486.~~

~~Supplemental Literature Cited~~

~~Hickman, P.R., 1951, The faunas of the Pickaway and Union limestones of southeast West.Virginia: W. Va. University, M.S. thesis (unpub.).~~

~~Hoque, M.U., 1965, Stratigraphy, petrology, and paleogeography of the Mauch Chunk Formation in south- central and western Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. dissert, (unpub.).~~

~~A l l~~

~~BLOOMING JACKSON CONGRESS CASS VC lear creek ' | 1 PLYMOUTH GROVE I~~

~~- + ■ 4 r I ! T “ “ CHESTER RAFNE g r e e t FRANKLIN | WELLE* | vilton j Montgomery | ptetn' SHARON JACKSON~~

W A Y N E K - i — j— i-4-— j T 1 I R I C J H LAND j V, | ASH l* M j ] AOOSTER ^ I I - ^ I T E A ST b * UAOISO*4 . MIFFLIN ■ i | VEWILLION | MOHICAN ( T PLAIN SPfUNGFlELO r ! i , I ’ 1 I L__ T-J r L rxir —i. r i i i t I C u v io FRANKIE j T H O t • ASHINGION I MONROE _ -L,---- . u . T "j WASHINGTON. | RIPLEY PERRY JEFFERSON ■ WORTHINGTON I HANOVER I H10 I if S I -1r - I i UNO* , M O N R O E *' H A R D T I BEI 1 -X- I i I 1— ------1------_ _ ! l r l I "1 Ml DOLE BURT BEILIN JEFFERSON I RICHLAND K IL L 0 U C K MECHANIC I______------1 I j ^ I

~~j « A m i~~

* MONROE I HORARO UNION I rTIVERTONT lV I MONROE j CLAW I----- 1 I I _ _ I

~~i * I LIBERTY CLINTON Jcolleg^ i ! BUTLER I MERC ASHE J_____ P L E A S W ~ J JEFFERSON I BETHLEHEM I KEENE I~~

- 4 — ______L COJ H OlC TO H 1 HIUIAR | MILFORD MIUER I \ MORGAN | CLAV [___ JACKSON PERRY BEDFORD JACKSON I \ 5 I | I " 1 _ _ v 1------* HARTFORD I KNNMGION *J*.ingtonS---V- i ■ASHINGTON I EDEN FALlSQUfff r » E ■ASHINGTON I VIRGINIA FRANKLIN | ~ - - 4 ------J I I I I I------1--- I MONROE | L!“Sn MCKEAN I I JEFFERSON A | NERTON I m a r t A W I m m JACKSON i . - ' r r ao am sY' jI- , J.------1 ____ I ' SP* / MADISON I I ! I 1 C 11 ■ c - f---- I JUST | ST. AlRAftt I GMNVIUI L A

HANOVER | LICKING I 1 - 1 I > touauNGUM _____ SALEM I- 1------1------pi ! . > N V I I I L_rJ | Lima ~ ~ 4 _ r ~ — i Y . MAARWON I i i HOfmu I fAas . ,L 1 J 'M*m 1 LICKING * I HQPCKU. | I W I ■ *” v, ^— --1 ______| E T N A | I rl i «* I J L ' V 33N3S oivjjra I • . I ~-L -=V- - u i l r — - L T* U33N34B | 31IH H3W I H * 3 j t 3 V S j j l _ _ J _ * k I m *~ ~ I | I '►«* V* J ai]lj!WMtW I I N 3B 9 9 M 3M 1 i (—)1 3NW*3N AV* I| * | I___ I J *V V ' J if i .r< T m n 9 x s n n / i . i i «t>ut » «.' ■ 7 I _L_J QNV 1H 3W ’ ! » J ^ I n o s io v t [ o n v i iSm nqinti | umu i A *s ****, * 1 I 1 s i I I I -OOO*™* I T ~ T T J 1 I I".---- 4 'r— --fr-— I— -J I ^ I I I smi 1 U31N33 | JOaiHWlVO smav J ------krotjinsoa | DNnon I m a o n v h I NOSKJv*

OKHIO I I I 1 L _ _ A Jik?LnlJ ^ v - - j u a . ----- 1 - --- ) r i—-~r1 t - - fix NOSKJVW 'Is* as | I • swvov jjj^ ssy3 j Nooovr I uetu | m m NOSlQVlH j fHOMMiV j IONS ' \ / Nosuur I ^ I AMU3CNO0M01 uron t T “ r ^ VINI3 NIA | ■ N019NIH»B | HM 1 U tn K T M N303 NOlONlHSV* j 30UN0M ONi133Hft I • I ■ 1WM33MJ *7“ ~T V t -' - *------!------^ ~ __l 1 I « { I I 1V33 ouojio O K H *0 | 3113 1V3Y1 j g ’ N0SK3VT j OWJQ3B IMid jT NOSmyr N O lO N lH S V B M j NOlONlHSV* | I S S *“ HOl^jTo M S 0 3 i -— |— Nosmnr HWIVS S313 3JIHB 1| 3N33* 1 j MH31H138 II NO»33J3r 331SV3B1N | MHO* AVID _ ! i | ______

* rfj i I I L— - N NOlblAll t- — —1 I I I NOS»l3333r I | OWMkTO I H33B311» I 3kW33 I 30UN0K NO NO c»v«o< ,“ w0" I * ^TvV,^v t2sn.i _ J ! j j j J __ L _____ — - -I NOiWl L|1 1 11 ■ T*,*01 A. I, Minan* I I- , j *yi3* I | DiN»H33fi | i 7 . onvihdm 30NTO0 NIHSOO NOSM3333r NftCM V--S— 1L 1 I I s * ^ _____“ l s' i I ------1 ( ~ J i ------’— i N 3 W M V * i i' HAOa « I .1 i I K M NOVI j___ --|_____ -J M3H3 muTTM | WN39 | 1QMVM j 3«N0»1 j totn I__ I I- 013I3UIV3 '— J . j «• I I I A I U» I I SjVl QlH - 3 * H3AOWH f ---- i - r • \ ”1 Wit NVMi 1 1NW*i N W l J “I * J T T-: i l l I xltdia ^ NOlpNlMSW \ Y13H3 11VS H M IV b d L ______IS<* u 10NVS 13NW»»1 iNlVd * I I I I I _ i U - T 1- N33MD I 3KV1 I T h “ I vVivm | nOivo ■ t I AlHllHire I | H31M3 PVS IMMB | AONVS ))4ld -L — I 1 - — r — r •rt T ------T‘ i N'»3d ■ NVDtHCW * MOin/lWA I j A3H3W0OS | NOIN0 1S»3 p _ j , I I svkwnrosm »JlSOO» DMO9VNS0 NOiNVJ | Uftjd I1 I 01 N V 1 HI I « a — _T___ * j h | i s ----- 1---- T iTia T m - - + ■ | I U&HCOiHO i ' I i NVAHOOVfl N33S10 I i ‘ i I j MOSWYf | 3jN3M«V I JIHSV* N*VU r ______l_ I ■ T I I NOSVDVr ^ 30NW< NVVNV3 | SS3M0 N03 NO 131A I L__ V « 3 « k i m 3 u»1 . I N,ffl9 I NPV1YH3 I 9Nnn ouos^vn I I ! • SPRINGFIELD GWEN U IH N G T O N * SMITH GOSHEN GREEN BEAVER

~~JACKSON rt A'N | \ ‘VISH»LLEN I WASHINGTON BUTLERSALEM FAIRFIELD~~

~~w M B IA H CAMQ\ I m i o o l e y o n OSNABURG F PARIS HANCVER CENTER j ELKHUN~~

~~I -+~~

* | I — T I WASHINGTON | ------• ~ 1 lA W R E N C f SANOI j HARRISON ,_J WASHINGTON J f0« | ______j VELl°" CWtl( a n k l i n I I ..J L _ . T CENTER BRUSH CKEK | ------] ______J ______J ' SALINE f AlRFItlO 1 1 •» 1C A fl R o ill

~~DOVER «*«(I ! UNION j~~

GOSHEN ORANGE LOUDON I .v r04 UNION _ I S A L E M use) Hl'wjll ISLAND CREEK I** 4 fE R^ S O N j l MWC< RUMIEY GETMAN J J f f fit I S 0 II___ j y------t L - 'l L_ r „ l i i g I tf* I A** I * , ' i * E R A N K L IN | j WAYNE 1 CROSS CREEK | SALEM a r c h e r RUSH I J 1 IF H A ! I SON | GREEN | • L I I WASHINGTON NOTTINGHAM CADIZ QKF07D I WASHINGTON In I I-______j I I ir I SMIIHEIELO L-• All

S H O W CREEK FREEPORT m o o r e e i e l o ATHENS MONROE WASHINGTON •n MOUNT PLEASANT *

~~ELUSHING •HEELING~~

~~LONDONDERRY COL ERA IN~~

~~j JE F F E R S O N J MAOISON~~

~~RICHLAND fifuE frSjTtr OIFORO CAWRiOGE j CENTER j WILLS i E Jl M 0 I T I PULTNEY~~

~~I » SMITH MILLWOOO~~

~~JACKSON~~

~~RICHLAND~~

~~VALLEY~~

WAYNE I WASHINGTON I '------\ .---- _L.-----l*__---- 1 Ip. i n T ’V r • ?r- I . I I j m • /— X* | U N IO N FftAMCLM ; HOPEWELL J 1 FALLS * W ! P W W MornruL I S i t I •»» * | / * y j Kjjj c jl*l J. - 3 . — T ■ O M . M G G R K N i m r . N « , a D I I

” 1 ------, | S A L ? tK a I RICH . 1 I r•“ x. _Jr:i ' - i • *•« * i V? I I I 1 ■ |f* " T T -^4i \ I mom I HonmijMI HoamijM j -oisoN { * * *ly * * ly*, ton **ton » , » ( l ^ - | * - _------^ H V tO U E T LIBERTY WALNUT *** 1 | w u SMCRh J I i r f * ! , r -Si— r__j~H|va*.,JiiJWa I „ ! j j s * s r « , » *j I 1,4 (mi I I I \ p 1 __ i RICHLAND I HEADING * I ‘ Q. AT TON , HAWWON U «— -'— L. 111^ — - “ 3 v i*" l ... *z» 1 1 I * * S r ■"'■W K " T — i * F A I B f* I E I 0 J t ------(.r T-^i H r.j % » / ( f ^ r s h r "

*CLEAH FALLS GOME h GOOO HOPE

~~FALLS "cmu+JL.~~

~~msiet~~

I WASHINGTON . DOVE***

~~salt crew A T ¥1 E II S |~~

~~SWAN WATERLOO~~

~~V I N | T 0 N LOOI |j t CARTHAGE \ MAOISON • .~~

~~C L IN T O N I COLUMiA KDfOftO~~

~~j*C*SON WASHINGTON~~

~~M E t 6 S CHESTER y~~

~~I wiiresullle S A lE V SAifiorfrr C — I . .' .~~

~~SUTTON~~

~~CHESHIRE SCIOTO~~

~~MADISON RACCOON SPRINGFIELD~~

~~JEFFERSON |~~

~~GREEN O^ I GRHNfltlO I L — i t ...__'j ^.j.— j , m i l l w o o d ! -i'r / I 1 i _Lr-J----r-‘ 1 fAas / y . iff ■ PHW I u n i o n I w e t l a n d | JACKSONj a c k s o n j _ J _~~

;.***iii « y i1 u » ii u i nf | I ” * * i p — — •“ "• J R,CHlAND I f ! /if il S K tin 6 U M I V • . i t - — •ATNE v r -,T~-"*r_- t---- | v a l l e t ■ATNE H .**» > • ' 5°**t,'S£T !

~ S r r * ~ ^ ? r ------1 I «-*» b u i e IB c k I m e i g s ; b r o o k f i e l o | j < j n o b l e I CENTER | ■ } | S U M t I T 1 ^ «r | I *> ! y* v* i *• i i— p . 'T | ;c e n te r “ I CLM l y & L ... * I ! L _ T — N - l * ; lATTON & HARRISON * S T O C K • i n j i s y I I I h u n k u n I , r * k > * • S J G t T f * ,•**»!I I *P TO* L ,, iS r S r I I , 1 1 9 E N O C H J— :--- Ll ------V i BW 1 ! s h a » n ; V A , v e ►- J nf• T***lsill s Z j I * 1 * h y* • V • JP~ m 5 * * r I *■ . A ^ I K A f l F i a D ; ^N 'u SALTLICK , 1 _ I i ------______, - i H ;l j - i — , T il , « « . o r e I %NROE UNION tr y ,£. f" | R E N N I j ' - 7 - 1 c o a l * [ JL0A5Sh I 1 *»" ^.^“"-1 I I RATERFORO J p * I I g r a n d I/I ------_^J NINDSOA 9 4 # [ » y » ‘I 1 I * a M t I M ~ v J ? x P " i « !r T' - ^ ? «AAD * W fw ro » N L “ j 5 i n A j « fEAR'Tio I la w w jc e | iNOtwjo«cgr. / ■ H O R M v m . « L * M A I « S n V-E. r--«AS" ^G,0»' » | .

~~j ~ r + - J r - !s 1— .~~

~~, V | I *1* i marieWa , i ■ * . ” „ ! «ESLEV — 1 4 «> s t t A f « £ N 1 TONC I DOV^*^fl AMES BERN I - I B A R L O M ) FAIRFIELD ’ I* '4nA I I A T ¥ 1 E N S | i — a t - DUNHAM 1 7~~

~~T E H . 0 0 • ______ATHENS CANAAN ROVE _~~

~~BELPRE L_ _J \ h •VA~~

~~A lE K A N O E R I L O O I CARTHAGE TROT lv V . L - I I I i ’X s i * v LMBIA SCIPIO I i BEDFORD IF* I______I o l i 'V 1 I I r~~

~~'ll Fl Ts ~ ! j 1 y 1 CHESTER y ^~~

~~LEV RUTLAND SAfifcuRT _ | „ , I >~~

~~SUTTON LEBANON ‘1 1 I JGAN | • CHESHIRE ._-L. I~~

~~I weio ADD IS~~

J-sr IN P l a t a I inHav man of control points used in J I Miumoo' I ! I ’ MEAD s _ _ r _ . _ l _ - - -!— — !- - r— 1 r r I i i r L-j I------— J b eA V IR j^ | SOMERSET * * * * * * I * ASHINGTON J ■ATNE YORK

! buffalo * I ■ MALAGA J SUN30URY I s r it z b ia n o L _ i _ - ,------1 I SENECA « OB1.1 E I 31 | " “ ' I 1 1 I M A R IO N — -1- ; n »Q ■roe . OKFIELD I HlNOAE I CENTER | ' .------!------SUMMIT I V ^ * * M S . . . . >4* ■ * SALEM v> ^ | _j~ P *->„ _ ctNTER - !_;__ _i uy 7"— s t o c k l V V F h w S C V ,n** ? , OHIO SHARON 1 C t-T--5,-rc_5---- — i-«f^ . r S 1 - *1 LEE ‘ • r - r h r 1 I ' 1 ££ BENTON | JACKSON —h I 1 **•! ' ', r

U tt lATERFOftO ! | Kw01. 4JY I GRANDVIEW ------«"JT “ T -4 a n J | t m i • I - t - y - J y w | I I MUSKINGUM FEARING « 3 « , ! .NDE^oeicr, Lt *W»rERTOWN l-t I £ ”* «t* ___WAS H I jd GTO N I t I------Elir.-J' "V- f- - - ~ t ------J ^ i4 I MAwrtIV 4i* nertort BAAOW . VAIMEN

~~b x map of control points usad in _____X ____ xl____.< D i n to II I ! r____ salt cm ~r~ [--ATinrrsT~~

~~t e - Sm t ATHENS I CANAAN SIM | a A K N . 0 0~~

~~JAO tO N | I______I------r a . I~~

~~alexanoer I 1001 , j v I «Tt o *ilK MADISON I KW N O T I | LEE~~

~~I HAIMSON M C H i A N O L ' I~~

~~/ “ . 1 I — H CLINTON SCIRIO I MDfORD . V I N T O N I COLUMBIA WASHINGTON j ^ U S O N~~

~~h - 'MEIGS , * — — "I ' M I-- i C tlAl I | MILTON I t RUTLAND . I SaW sUBT . ■f 1 * > i i J » C ? J 8 l | - “ ------1— ------1 ______~~

~~i- “ 1 ! I I BLOOM IUO I HUNTINGTONHUNTINGTON | j MORGANMORGAN CHESHIRE SCIOTO FRANKLIN | ( \ I~~

~~£'r ------1 I~~

~~AOOI T I MAOISON , RACCOON | SPRINGFIELD~~

~~JEFFERSON L V GREEN J TI V 2 T • GREENFIELD |' y* „ ! 1 L ______)_*--- I~~

~~| | 5IW»S I *lVi | ..a h r .sL, I . A l~~

~~k..LCATunLCAT u R M I~~

~~. 1 — —~~

~~I . A j . a n AID I VASUN I £ U / A n I \ FAMFIELD~~

~~A T Ml E I S |~~

~~tOOl u CARTHAGE~~

~~’MEIGS CHESTW~~

~~SUTTON~~

~~L H A m i~~

~~lELO~~

~~Plate I Index map of control points used in the construction of Plate II.~~

~~• lin p l* of iw h jtm i « Cora data~~

~~fiUMbara .alar lo location numbara~~

~~DUNHAM~~

~~Index map of control points used in the construction of Plate II.~~

~~• S a m p l e O f g a a p h y s i e a l d a i s ♦ Cora data~~

~~• u a b a n retar to location numbered-*) trbm Append!! ■~~

~~Ccala r I 1 I I CONGRESS CANAAN 3L00VING butler iclear creek GRANGE jA C ^ S O S I P ' _ t V O - r M GROVE I I I _l______L - X 1 I I I~~

~~r RAYNE GREEN P ( R m CHESTER -.t JACK50N I FRANKLIN | BEELER | MILTON MONTGOMERY~~

_ _ W A . * ' " ! i _ i T ___1___L_._4.__ A S H IA M'S T BOOSTER J r, . R I c | h I AN 0 I V T I EAST UNION VCHICAN P lA ^ N * I SPP'NGF.ElD I MAOlSON , MIFFLIN ^ VERMILLION I _ J i: . — — r 1 T I r - “V ! • • salt CREEK I L e i : CLINTON f r a n k l i n i I LAKE I CL 1 MONROE GREEN THOY I BASHINGTON i i I r ~ SALT CREEK r1 -L BASHINGTON 1 .L_ BORTHINGTON I HANOVER PERRY | JEFFERSON H|0 I M E S I I. I ^ A R O Y BERLIN i !______I d l_ _ _ J J_ l i rT UIDOLEBURY ) BERLIN , BROBN JEFFERSON i KILLBUCK MECHANIC I !__ J l i I - ^ M. I BAYNE I MORNS I UNION I I MONROE HOBARO rTIVERTON | MONROE . I CLAW | MILL CREEK | CRAB L ____ 1____ l I .i U - V i j _____ L 1 I LIBERTY I CLINTON L iX lEGeI I KEENE | BHITI I • I 1 HARRISON BUTLER I KfpCASTU JEFFERSON | BETHLEHEM ______J______J PLEASANT | - - 1 ' * I I i ' L_ L___ L t _ o j iLOicrpt _i_ _ I I MILFORD MILLER s t i I MORGAN CLAY JACKSON PERRY I I JACKSOR* ^ 3 I . «c* I I I I ) % I I T _ v ------! - ■ ------* 1 - ' HARTFORD I BENNINGTON .i BURLINGTONLr-- I

~~I 1 BASHINGTON I EDEN ' fallsburt . PIKE I BASHINGTON i VIRGINIA FRAMCLIN I | {. i i i I I I~~

r , i f ---- i — J______L. I 7 T MONROE | LIBERTY I MCKEAN I Jefferson NWTON I mary a w PERRY I JACKSON c a s s ADAMS MO I m I I - 1 i ____ s MADISON — ,— t. 1 II C £l ■ s f — 1 ! I JERSEY | ST ALBANS I GRANVILLE L ___ I MADISON LICKING | l . — 1 SALEM I I •I MUSKINGIM s' I ------J------(_ \ 1 I l . - 1 5 1- - O / z 1 ij LIMA 1 | HAMVSON ! | I / 1 HOPE BELL 5 FALLS I 9 PERRY I U * UNION LICKING 1 I I I , I J s 'm UJ K •' B U M I | e tn a iI I fT“ m m m c GBEEN J t I r I i I l f *)1 T i I I I MARLBOfO LEXINGTON . • I . FRANKLIN I GfiEtN ViLION j c h .p p e w a j I CONGRESJ CANAAN I |“r - i J.

~~I WASHINGTON L A M E N C E I JACKSON PLAIN NIMISHILLEN BAUGHMAN I CHESTER *A*NE~~

~~I 1 1 I PERRY CANTON OSNABURG PARIS W O O STE R | . I TUSCARAWAS | ' SUGAR CREEK I , )HICAN 1 EAST U N IO N I 1 I 1 ' - ______X~~

~~BROWN a u g u s t FRANKLIN SAiT CREEK | BETHLEHEM SANDY I CLINTON SUGAR CREEK I~~

PAINT lA S H IN G T Q N PRAIRIE SALT CREEK LAWRENCE I SANDY I FOSE ! HARRISON ,__I ? £ SHM ^ i _ r T - —|“----- | ' " “ “ UN 1______\ ______I I | CENTER I H K _ 1 ______| ______H|0 L M E S I I I I T i c a r b o l TI KNOX ! v x m ig t I Ta io i I irniri ^ walnut c h e t > ------’ (-* FAIRFIELD | | | | I I I I ^ J | | I MONROE UNION , *L-,--- 1--- r --- I----1--1 I SUGAR CREEK I *T I______I I I I ! 1 -I • r t r— i WCHLANO I KILU9UCX I MECHANIC CLAW J------■*!------r - ' - t f GOSHEN { P ------1 ^ | PERRY I I I * — ! H ! • 1 • j1 Jk —! _L_Y0" •----- p JT un,on j------1 ---- — r r " i l i I 7 TUSC] A R/’WAS j L. ! I TIVERTON | MONROE | CLAW | MILL CREEK I I c“ " ~ i ^ » s | s- i ! i i

~~_X -X' +■------1 i + FRANKLIN I * * T i STOCK T W C A S a t , JEFFERSON I BETHLEHEM I KEENE WHITE EYES | ADAMS I ' 1 ° I _ I j______1 CJJH_0jC^L° i~~

~~I 1 S 3 K | I i * WASHINGTON j J ' NOTTINGHAM J I PERRY I BEDFORD I JACKSON , J LAFAYETTE I O X F O R D I WASHINGTON I I } § - L v 1_ ------,_s— ! i i i FREEPORT J MOORE FIELD WHEUiNG~~

~~i I ■ ‘ j LONDONDERRY | i I • LIBERTY I ADAMS MONROE * KNOX I MAOlSON I ' | I t~~

~~! i ^ 1 LICKING I MUSKINGUM ^------h ig h la n d ! J CENTER | WILLS £ ! ' - J FALLS W E S T L A N D | I SPffNGftCID b e a v e r - GOSHEN GREEN LEXINGTON SMITH MARLBORO GIVEN~~

~~SALEM FAIRFIELD WASHINGTON . KNOX BUTLER JACKSON WMISHILIEN~~

~~M B I A N 'A S T |A fi K e uliu * ELKRUN ' MIDDLETON | CENTER HANOVER OSNABURG PARIS A B A S I PERRY CANTON I I~~

LAWRENCE SANDY ROSE HARRISON , I WASHINGTON ( I i I — I '-- 1 | — ~ i ' I F R A N K L IN | CENTER ' 1 | MUSH CREEK j L J SALINE I______T - - I 1 — I "T 1C A R R 0 LlL i i - ’ .. I ,-1 FAIRFIELD | I i LEE r ---- MONROE UNION I D O V:n E R y) ■ I ROSS i BARREN KNOX EEK _L______l _ T ■ i y - - ~ - I ------r — *"(? GOSHEN }>”*---- ORANGE PERRY LOUOON i i 1 I , I . J., SALEM t ISLAND CREEK " I Y O N t (L . ------j ------1 ^ U N IO N ’ | — - r 1- I _ . x n T s c] A R a 'w AS . S j uMONROE NORTH RUMLEY L _ j bsjl ■_ L _ _ r W a r w i c k I L ; JEfFERSON T I I ------I I .J. I> I I — ------I i I | I BAYNE ‘ I CROSS CREEK _ I FRANKLIN • STOCK I ARCHER | ✓ CLAY ^ I SALEM HUSH | 1 ~|______1 I

~~“I- 1 1 t WASHINGTON CAOI2 SMTHflELO OXFORD 1 WASHINGTON '~~

~~SHOUT CREEK~~

~~FREEPORT MOUNT PLEASANT 1 E E L IN G WASHINGTON~~

~~FLUSHING~~

~~LONDONDEIBN~~

~~JTue hhJsey~~

~~CENTER j BILLS~~

~~RICHLANO~~

VALLEY* NC*TO H i UA»r ANN \ r*mr I | I j I • I I | s y ***°,SON I r------1------j - ’------r — — — — - \ r 1* i ■ c ! i i - ■ . i V I . M l I ______I S A L a i i HIGHLANDh C M N V IU i I i 1 ftflM I MAOlSON I HANOVER "•I UOONG I MUSKINGLAI I I ' lf\ ' I I I- "!•*— — — — 1“ — -I— via--i j j— - r

~~Kim UNION HAJffflf.Jfi FRAMO.M HOKMlL FALLS I LICKING j______^ MU J i T “ "~~

~~BOM.1NG GKEN ma~~

~~I MCHLANO I RcAOJNG~~

~~Clf INFIELD PLEASANT FAIRFIELD~~

~~RUSH CAECA I~~

~~I PLEASANT HOCKING~~

~~S A L T L IC K~~

~~MADISON CLEAR CREEK I~~

~~h G O O D H O P E~~

~~FALLS _J 0 C Kil l 6~~

~~DOVER~~

~~S A L T CREEK~~

~~a t Th e n s~~

~~ATHENS~~

~~JACKSON e a g l e~~

~~V I NiTON. ^ MADISON ^ CARTHAGE HARRISON I • I tiCHLAND I o !“*% > " .~~

~~h ! o COLUMBIA SCIPIO J JACKSON~~

~~I— ----- 1 MEIGS CHESTER COAL HILTON ■MESVILLE SALISBURY IP~~

~~i ~ z~~

~~O L O O M F iiL O HUNTINGTON MORGAN S C iO T O~~

~~J'UT’AAT T I JEFFERSON-' ' MAOlSON~~

~~M A O lS O N~~

I — '6UEMSEY| _ . v — -*1 I | I I * • HIGHLAND . AO AMS 1 CAWRIDGE ' CBlTER I u c io n g I MUSKINGUM ■ILLS 1 1 i I -i L h--f 1 UNION WESTLAND | JACKSON . ' RICHLAND ------r^:§JLM — _L t — — !-r " ^ J J vAutr I .atne r L— ^

~~rich Nile 1 SPENCER l ~ | I I l L i " , BUFFALO 1 SENECA * * 1 ! I ! \— —I— ---1 I I 0 ■- I L I I / t <~~

~~b r o o k f i u d | n o b l e * I CENTER~~

~~ENOCH~~

~~MEIGSVILLE CENTER | JNWWWl ■ ^ j I auhelius I . •ALT LICK~~

~~A O AM S SALEM ± _~~

~~r ~ L r-‘• I I K I MUSKINGUM ’ FEARING I L A * * WASH I I G T O n ! -I.— j __ j - MARIETTA BARREN~~

~~moo ATHENS~~

~~;o ; • 1 ALEXANDER I CARTHAGE I~~

~~o . 0 —50 Feet~~

~~O O A ttlA SCJPIO OLIVE f c K I 50 - 100~~

~~' . _ V 5 1l ! M E I 6 S I | | j CHESTER 100-150 u _ J • I L-q. I RUTLAND SALISauRT W I ______I * P 150-200 I ° - T l 200 + MADISON~~

~~CENTER ■ILLS~~

~~JACKSON RICHLAND~~

~~VALLEY~~

~~BUFFALO~~

~~CENTER~~

~~OLIVE~~

~~I AURELIUS |~~

MUSKINGUM FEARING I LAI ASH I il G T 0 M *

~~| | 0 - 5 0 Feet~~

~~W r M 50-10Q~~

~~[v. ; [10 0-1 50~~

~~[ |i5 0 - 2 0 0~~

^ i , — rI o 1 T O N I : SCIPIOp g i 1 — — j / j ? " : • V IN JON COLUMBIA | ~ I WASHINGTON I V / JACKSON . o -1— - , - 3 “ I'MEIGS I. CHESTER M il ION ■ IL K lS V IlU | . . SALEM | RUTLAND r SALISBURY LIBERTY

~~L IL K I JACKSON} I BLOOMFIELD | HUNTINGTON ^ MORGAN j SCIOTO~~

~~T MADISON | RACCOON' I I HAWlUOf-! NJEfffRSON . , ‘ ^ ' _ _ i —~~

~~I greenfield | I / 7? 1G A i 11A - I - I . i~~

~~AALV. I I /^Awuso^i~~

~~OINO ASON~~

~~A A R f W f^ DOVER | YlL.» ¥ A T in E N I •AfERLOO I ATHENS I J ‘ eapfc • L_&_r* < • i — 1 — UNO* | LEF aleaanoer' Ii CARTHAGE I (P I | _ 1 0 —'50~~

~~I ! o o n f ^ ^ j p «*** | i COLUMBIA | SCIPIO {J | V^RbFOAO 'Jjr 5 0 -1 0 0 OLIVE~~

~~' ■' 1 V * ~ ~ ~ ~ 4I ! * I I G s CHESTER I jl0 0 -1 5 0 I----J~~

~~SALEM | RUTLAND ^ SALIS8URT y * — |l50—200~~

~~if TON~~

~~MORGAN 2 0 0 +~~

~~: U T A R T~~

~~GRS£\£ Plate II Generalized Isopach Map of the Maxville Group of Ohio~~

~~# = locations of pebbles and cobbles I H R R ( 5 ( p of Maxville Is. in basal Penn.~~

~~ScM« A J j R g k * Generalized tsopach Map of the Maxville Group of Ohio~~

~~• = locations of pebbles and cobbles of M axville Is. in basal Penn.~~