Petrographic Analyses of Late Pennsylvanian Limestones
PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES OF LATE PENNSYLVANIAN LIMESTONES
WITHIN THE NORTHERN APPALACHIAN BASIN, USA
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Christopher F. Cassle
June 2005
This thesis entitled
PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES OF LATE PENNSYLVANIAN LIMESTONES
WITHIN THE NORTHERN APPALACHIAN BASIN, USA
BY
CHRISTOPHER F. CASSLE
has been approved for
the Department of Geological Sciences
and the College of Arts and Sciences by
Elizabeth H. Gierlowski-Kordesch
Associate Professor of Geological Sciences
Leslie A. Flemming
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Cassle, Christopher F. M.S. June 2004. Geological Sciences
Petrographic Analyses of Late Pennsylvanian Limestones within the Northern
Appalachian Basin, USA (245p.)
Director of Thesis: Elizabeth H. Gierlowski-Kordesch
Marine influence in the Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks of the northern
Appalachian basin supposedly ended during the deposition of the mid-Conemaugh Group of the lower Upper Pennsylvanian (Missourian). However, evidence for marine influence extends up to the Permian Dunkard Group. It is difficult, however, to delineate the exact positions of land vs. ocean within cyclothemic sequences at outcrop scale. The cyclothemic rocks in this basin are interpreted as sediments from upper to lower deltaic plains, estuaries, and nearshore marine situated along an extensive lowland coast. The transition between marine and freshwater environments is blurred because of long-term sea level changes as well as short-term marine incursions of a daily, seasonal, or catastrophic nature along a coastal setting. To define freshwater, brackish, and marine paleoenvironments more precisely in an attempt to understand the coastal transition zone of Pennsylvanian age cyclothems, limestone samples from 52 localities in Ohio,
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania within the Conemaugh Group, as well as the overlying Monongahela Group, were collected for sedimentologic and paleontologic analyses. The brackish or marine influence in the cyclothems can be defined by the presence of the marine worm tube Spirorbis, which is restricted to cm-scale units within freshwater limestones. Their presence indicate episodic marine incursions on a time scale less then that of a cyclothemic cycle. A coastal zone similar to that of the tidally influenced coast at the mouths of the Amazon River in northern Brazil is envisioned where marine incursions occur on all time scales. Work needs to be done on the distribution of fossils within the associated siliciclastics in the cyclothems to better refine the pattern of marine influence throughout the Pennsylvanian to Permian in the northern
Appalachian basin.
Approved: Elizabeth H. Gierlowski-Kordesch
Associate Professor of Geological Sciences
This thesis is dedicated in loving memory to my stepfather Paul B. Pack, whose character and wisdom set the standard by which I strive to live my life.
Acknowledgments
I greatly appreciate the assistance and guidance of Beth Gierlowski-Kordesch,
Dave Schneider, Greg Nadon, and the rest of the geology department. Daphne Metts and
Vicky Tong also deserve my gratitude, without them this thesis would not have been
possible. Many thanks to Ron Martino of Marshall University, as well as Vik Skema and
John Harper of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey for assisting with locating sample
localities, Lisa Park of the University of Akron for ostracode analysis, and Jake Glascock
and Kevin Kallini for providing thin sections. I would also like to extend thanks to Zak
Wessel for his assistance with field reconnaissance, sample collection, and unconditional friendship. 7
Table of Contents
Page Abstract...... 3
Dedication...... 5
Acknowledgments...... 6
List of Figures...... 9
List of Tables ...... 10
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 11
Chapter 2: Geologic Background...... 13 2.1 Introduction...... 13 2.2 Pennsylvanian Cyclothems...... 19 2.3 General Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments...... 20 2.4 Lacustrine Limestones...... 22 2.5 Overview of Tropical vs. Temperate Lakes...... 24 2.6 Brackish Water Environment...... 31 2.7 Spirorbis ...... 34
Chapter 3:Methodology...... 38
Chapter 4: Facies Descriptions and Interpretations ...... 42 4.1 Introduction...... 42 4.2 Type 1: Micrite...... 44 4.3 Type 2: Ostracodal Wackestone to Packstone...... 47 4.4 Type 3: Intraclastic Microbreccia ...... 50 4.5 Type 4: Mottled Micrite and Microbreccia...... 53 4.6 Type 5: Spirorbis-bearing Biomicrite ...... 56 4.7 Type 6: Matrix-supported Siliciclastic Microbreccia...... 62 4.8 Type 7: Wackestone ...... 65 4.9 Type 8: Packstone ...... 68
Chapter 5: Ostracode Analysis ...... 71 8
Chapter 6: Depositional Environment Discussion...... 73 6.1 Marine Environment...... 73 6.2 Freshwater Environment...... 73 6.3 Brackish Environment...... 75 6.4 Modern Analog Environment ...... 77 6.5 Pennsylvanian/Permian Environment ...... 78
Chapter 7: Conclusions ...... 82
References ...... 84
Appendix A: Sample Localities...... 109
Appendix B: Photomicrographs of the 174 Studied Samples ...... 146
Appendix C: Facies Types and Characteristics of the 174 Studied Samples...... 233 9
List of Figures
Page 1. Late Pennsylvanian Paleogeography of North America ...... 14 2. Structural Architecture of the Northern Appalachian Basin...... 15 3. Outcrop Pattern of the Conemaugh Group and Monongahela Group...... 17 4. Generalized Stratigraphic Column of the Northern Appalachian Basin ...... 18 5. Photograph of Modern Spirorbis Worm Tubes ...... 35 6. Localities of Sampled Limestone Units ...... 41 7. Photomicrograph of Sample JG-1-24...... 44 8. Photomicrograph of Sample K-49B...... 45 9. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-5-B ...... 45 10. Photomicrograph of Sample R-32c-FP-23 ...... 46 11. Photomicrograph of Sample JG-1-26...... 47 12. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-6D-A ...... 48 13. Photomicrograph of Sample WV50-2T...... 48 14. Photomicrograph of Sample WV79-6B ...... 49 15. Photomicrograph of Sample WV79-6C ...... 50 16. Photomicrograph of Sample WV79-2M...... 51 17. Photomicrograph of Sample WV50-1D ...... 51 18. Photomicrograph of Sample JG-2-43C ...... 52 19. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-12-2 ...... 53 20. Photomicrograph of Sample WV50-1A ...... 54 21. Photomicrograph of Sample WV79-4-OOP...... 54 22. Photomicrograph of Sample WV50-3A ...... 55 23. Magnified Hand Sample Image of Sample K-49A...... 57 24. Magnified Hand Sample Image of Sample K-49A...... 57 25. Sample Locality PA-11 ...... 58 26. Photomicrograph of Sample K-44D...... 59 27. Photomicrograph of Sample L3A-2 ...... 59 28. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-11-3 ...... 60 29. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-12-4A ...... 60 30. Photomicrograph of Sample KY-21B-1...... 62 31. Photomicrograph of Sample KY-3A...... 63 32. Photomicrograph of Sample JG-1-8...... 63 33. Photomicrograph of Sample JG-1-10...... 64 34. Photomicrograph of Sample KY-31L ...... 65 35. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-21-1 ...... 66 36. Photomicrograph of Sample WV79-1...... 66 37. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-16-1 ...... 67 38. Photomicrograph of Sample KY-30...... 68 39. Photomicrograph of Sample PA-36 ...... 69 40. Photomicrograph of Sample KY-26...... 69 41. Photomicrograph of Sample KY-21A...... 70 10
List of Tables
Page 1. Identification Criteria and Interpretations for the Eight Lithofacies Types...... 43 2. Ostracode Identification ...... 72 11
Chapter 1: Introduction
The northern Appalachian basin contains a sequence of Pennsylvanian-Permian
rocks deposited in the distal reaches of a foreland basin during the Alleghanian orogeny
(Hatcher, 1989; Belt and Lyons, 1989; Eriksson et al., 2004). Sea level fluctuations from
tectonic and glacial/climatic perturbations (e.g. Klein, 1994; Crowell, 1999; Heckel,
2002) resulted in the deposition of an array of sediments, generally called cyclothems
(Wanless and Weller, 1932; Sturgeon et al., 1958; Ferm, 1975). During this deposition,
an overall increase in sea level occurred in the Early to Middle Pennsylvanian with a
decrease in the Late Pennsylvanian to Permian (Ross and Ross, 1987), allegedly causing
nonmarine conditions to prevail in the northern Appalachian Basin from the mid-
Missourian time (post Ames limestone deposition, mid Conemaugh Group until the
Permian Dunkard Group) with lacustrine limestones also occurring in the lower portion
of the Conemaugh Group as well as in the Allegheny group below (Donaldson, 1979;
Donaldson et al., 1985; Weedman, 1988; 1994). Exclusively nonmarine conditions are
interpreted for the sequence from the Skelley Limestone (above the Ames) in the
Conemaugh Group through the Monongahela and Dunkard Groups (Eager, 1975;
Edmunds et al., 1999). However, Lingula brachiopod shells have been identified in the
Elm Grove limestone and associated Washington coal zone (see Martin, 1998), which are in the upper portion of the Dunkard Group. The alleged nonmarine paleoconditions for the deposition of the Pennsylvanian to Permian cyclothems in the northern Appalachian basin (Dunkard Synclinorium) need to be re-evaluated. 12
To do this, sedimentologic differentiation between freshwater and marine in this
low coastal setting (Ferm, 1970; 1974; Donaldson, 1979; Donaldson et al., 1985) needs to
be directly applied at the outcrop scale. Geochemical and paleontologic work has been done on the Upper Freeport cyclothem (Allegheny Group, Valero-Garcés et al., 1994;
1997; Eagar and Belt, 2003) to substantiate a freshwater origin for its carbonates and siliciclastics. However, the recognition of possible tidal bundles in freshwater Upper
Freeport shales (Belt et al., 2002), as well as the identification of a brackish marine worm tube (Spirorbis) in the lacustrine limestones of the Allegheny through Dunkard Groups
(Eagar, 1975; Yochelson, 1975; Eggleston, 1994; Weedman, 1994; Petzold, 1989; 1990;
Martin, 1998), contribute uncertainty as to the exact nature of the coastal transition zone between freshwater and marine areas. The goal of this research is to enhance definition of the coastal transition zone during the Pennsylvanian by identifying the differences among brackish, freshwater, and marine paleoconditions within the limestones of the
Conemaugh and Monongahela Group cyclothems in the northern Appalachian basin.
13
Chapter 2: Geologic Background
2.1 Introduction
Mid- to Late Paleozoic Appalachian orogenic events resulted in the formation of the Appalachian foreland basin (Secor et al., 1986; Hatcher, 1989; Snoke and Mosher,
1989). During the Late Pennsylvanian, the northern part of this basin was located within
the equatorial zone approximately 10°S latitude, bounded to the southeast by the
Allegheny Range of the Central Pangean Mountains, opening toward an epeiric sea to the
west (Figure 1; Donaldson et al., 1985). The northern Appalachian basin can be divided
into two distinct depositional zones (Figure 2). To the east is the Pocahontas basin,
representing the most proximal trough of the foreland basin (Donaldson et al., 1985). In
the western portion of the basin resides the Dunkard synclinorium, representing a more
cratonic portion of the basin. Sediment fill within the Pocahontas basin and Dunkard
synclinorium is composed of cyclothems containing alternating siliciclastics, carbonates,
and coal. The cyclothems are interpreted as marine to nonmarine environments affected
by glacial eustatic, tectonic, and hydrologic conditions (e.g. Klein and Willard, 1989;
Cecil, 1990; Heckel, 1995; 2002). 14
Figure 1. Late Pennsylvanian paleogeography of North America. Yellow ellipse represents location of study area; modern day geopolitical boundaries are superimposed in approximate locations during the Late Pennsylvanian (with permission, Blakey, 2004).
15
Ohio River
Ohio West Virginia
Thrust Fault
NW SE
Dunkard Synclinorium
Pocahontas Basin Dunkard Group
Monongahela Group 0 100 miles Conemaugh Group 0 100 kilometers Allegheny Group/Charleston Formation
Pottsville Group/Kanawha Formation 00
New River Formation/Pocahontas Formation 300meters 1000 feet
Figure 2. Structural architecture of the Northern Appalachian Basin (adapted from Nadon et al., 1998)
16
The most distal portions of the Appalachian basin may have had a topographic gradient sufficiently low enough to produce an extensive alluvial-deltaic complex;
continually affected by sea level fluctuations resulting in the accumulation of the
Pennsylvanian cyclothemic sediments (Ferm, 1978; Donaldson et al., 1985).
Differentiation of marine versus nonmarine cyclothems in the northern Appalachian basin
is defined by the last significant marine transgression as represented by the Ames
Limestone in the Conemaugh Group, however marine units do exist above this horizon
(Petzold, 1990; Heckel, 1995).
Limestone units targeted for this study in the Conemaugh and Monongahela
Groups of the northern Appalachian basin outcrop in an elliptical pattern displaying the
basin architecture (Figure 3). All limestones stratigraphically above the Ames Limestone
have been interpreted exclusively as nonmarine in origin (Figure 4; Nadon et al., 1998)
though lacustrine limestones are present in some cyclothems lower in the section, within
the Allegheny Group (Weedman, 1994). Initially, limestones of continental cyclothems
were interpreted as being deposited in dry climates (Cecil, 1990). A more recent
interpretation juxtaposes lithologies of the cyclothems into many different
subenvironments within an anastomosed fluvial system, including lakes, swamps, bogs,
elongate lake deltas, and alluvial plains (paleosols), within a tropical seasonal climate
(Valero Garcés et al., 1994; 1997). 17
83° 82° 81° 80° 79°
Monongahela Group 42° Conemaugh Group 42°
PA
41° 41° OH
40° 40°
39° 39°
WV 0 10 20 30 40 miles 38° N 0 10 20 30 40 50 kilometers 38°
82° 81° 80° 79°
Figure 3. Outcrop pattern of the Conemaugh and Monongahela Groups (adapted from Carothers and Rollins, 1979). 18
Waynesburg Coal Gilboy SS Little Waynesburg Coal Waynesburg LS Uniontown SS Uniontown Shale Uniontown Coal Uniontown LS Arnoldsburg SS Fulton Green Shale Benwood Coal Benwood/Arnoldsburg LS Sewickley SS Sewickley Coal Lower Sewickley SS Fishpot Coal Fishpot LS Redstone Coal Redstone LS Pittsburgh SS Pittsburgh Coal Lower Pittsburgh SS Upper Pittsburgh LS Little Pittsburgh Coal Lower Pittsburgh LS Connellsville SS Little Clarksburg Coal Clarksburg LS Clarksburg Shale Morgantown SS Elk Lick Coal Elk Lick LS Upper Grafton SS Birmingham Shale Skelley LS (M) Duquesne Coal Lower Grafton SS Ames LS (M) Harlem Coal Pittsburgh Shale Saltsburg SS Upper Bakerstown Coal Ewing LS Portersville Shale (Woods Run LS-PA) (M) Lower Bakerstown Coal Cambridge (Nadine-PA) LS (M) Buffalo SS Two Mile LS (WV) (M) Upper Brush Creek (Pine Creek-PA) LS (M) Lower Brush Creek LS (M) Brush Creek Shale Brush Creek Coal Mahoning Coal Mahoning SS Figure 4. Generalized stratigraphic column of the Northern Appalachian Basin, (M) denotes marine interpretation (adapted from Condit, 1912; Lamborn, 1951; Sturgeon et al., 1958; Fedorko, 1979; Kovach, 1979; Rice et al., 1979; Rice, 1981; Busch and Rollins, 1984; Edmunds et al., 1999). 19
2.2 Pennsylvanian Cyclothems
Cyclothems are lithostratigraphic units consisting of a repetitive vertical succession of beds deposited in a single sedimentary cycle (Wanless and Weller, 1932).
A cyclothem based on units from western Illinois by Weller et al. (1942) consists of a sequence of ten units in the following ascending order: fine-grained micaceous sandstone residing unconformably atop underlying beds, sandy shale, freshwater limestone, underclay, coal, gray marine shale containing pyritic nodules, marine limestone, black laminated shale containing carbonate concretions or interbedded with thin carbonate layers, marine limestone, marine shale containing siderite concretions. Defined as the
‘ideal’ cyclothem, this suite represents the optimum succession during a complete sedimentary cycle in western Illinois; however, typical cyclothems rarely exhibit all ten facies.
‘Cyclothems’ occurring within separate basins are the result of varying degrees of sedimentation and subsidence rates (Heckel, 1984; 1994; Chesnut and Ettensohn,
1994), producing a variety of facies alternations. Controls on this cyclic sedimentation have been attributed to glacio-eustacy, tectonics, or a combination of the two (Wanless and Shepard, 1936; Weller, 1930; Heckel, 1983; 1986; 1995; Heckel et al., 1998). The most distal portions of the Appalachian basin had a topographic gradient sufficiently low enough to produce an extensive alluvial-deltaic complex. This region was continually affected by sea level fluctuations resulting in the deposition/formation of the
Pennsylvanian cyclothemic sediments (Ferm, 1978; Donaldson et al., 1985). 20
2.3 General Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments
The Pennsylvanian System of the northern Appalachian basin generally consists of a sequence of alternating siliciclastics, carbonates, and coal, which were deposited in a variety of shallow marine, lacustrine, and fluvial environments. These units lie unconformably atop Mississippian strata within two distinct depositional zones. To the east is the Pocahontas basin (Figure 2), representing the most proximal foredeep trough of the foreland basin (Donaldson et al., 1985). In the western portion of the basin resides the Dunkard synclinorium (Figure 2), representing a more cratonic portion of the basin.
Sediment fill within the Pocahontas basin comprises the Pocahontas through Kanawha
Formations (Lower through Middle Pennsylvanian), while fill within the Dunkard synclinorium comprises Pottsville through Dunkard Groups (Middle Pennsylvanian through Lower Permian). The Late Pennsylvanian units are subdivided into the following ascending order: Pottsville Group, Allegheny Group, Conemaugh Group, and
Monongahela Group, with the Dunkard Group bridging the Pennsylvanian/Permian transition. The intervals of interest for this study reside within the Conemaugh and
Monongahela Groups (Figure 4).
The Conemaugh Group is defined stratigraphically as the units from the
Mahoning Sandstone (above Upper Freeport Coal) to the Lower Pittsburgh Sandstone
(below Pittsburgh coal) (Condit, 1912; Edmunds, 1999; Fedorko, 1979; Kovach, 1979;
Lamborn, 1951; Rice et al., 1979; Rice, 1981; Sturgeon et al., 1958). The Conemaugh was further subdivided into the Glenshaw and Casselman Formations by Flint (1965).
The Glenshaw is noted by the presence of numerous, laterally extensive marine units, 21
most notably the Ames limestone. The Casselman Formation only contains one marine
unit (Skelley limestone), which is not laterally extensive. The top of the Glenshaw is
marked as the last significant marine incursion by the Ames limestone, which is easily
identifiable across much of the northern to central Appalachian basin. All limestones
above the Skelley limestone within the Casselman Formation have been interpreted as
exclusively freshwater in origin (Condit, 1912; Miller, 1934; Lamborn, 1951, Donaldson,
1985; Edmunds et al., 1999).
The Monongahela Group is defined stratigraphically as the units from the
Pittsburgh Coal to the Uniontown Limestone (Figure 4, Condit, 1912; Lamborn, 1951;
Sturgeon et al., 1958; Fedorko, 1979; Kovach, 1979; Rice, 1981; Rice et al., 1979; Busch and Rollins, 1984; Edmunds et al., 1999). The Monongahela Group has been interpreted as purely freshwater, dominated by limestones, dolostones, mudstones, shales, siltstones, and few persistent coals. 22
2.4 Lacustrine Limestones
The nonmarine limestones of the Allegheny through Dunkard Groups are
interpreted generally as freshwater to brackish in origin. Characteristics indicative of a
nonmarine origin for these carbonates include bedded ostracode carapace debris, red-
yellow mottling, charophytes, and pedogenic structures. These carbonates have recently
been re-evaluated as palustrine/lacustrine deposits on an anastomosing river floodplain
(Valero Garcés et al., 1994; 1997; Nadon et al., 1998). Reinterpretation of nonmarine
carbonates based on stable isotope geochemistry as well as petrography suggests that the
paleoclimate was mostly humid rather than predominately arid as previously postulated
(Cecil, 1990). Nonmarine carbonates can be deposited in any climate (Gierlowski-
Kordesch, 1998) and their textures reflect the extent of exposure (Platt and Wright,
1992).
The proximity of these carbonate lakes (whether brackish or freshwater) to the ocean is unclear. Weedman (1988, 1994) interpreted the Upper Freeport Limestone
(Allegheny Group) in western Pennsylvania as deposits of upper delta floodplain lakes.
However, she found Spirorbis worm tubes in the clastic to disturbed facies of these carbonate lakes. More recently, Belt and Lyons (1989) and Eager and Belt (2003) substantiated a freshwater interpretation for the roof shales of the Upper Freeport Coal in western Maryland, calling on a thrust model to shelter peat deposition. Petzold (1989,
1990) analyzed the facies of the Benwood Limestone (Monongahela Group) finding well- laminated carbonates as well as grainstones and wackestones, interpreting the limestones as lacustrine in origin. Spirorbis worm tubes were common to abundant in the Benwood 23
Limestone, mostly in grain-dominated limestones and calcareous shale and siltstone.
Eggleston (1992; 1994) described the Redstone limestone (Monongahela Group) as deposits of large shallow lakes and identified nonmarine fossils included bivalves, gastropods, and ostracodes; however, one photo of a questionable Spirorbis tube replaced by pyrite was documented. 24
2.5 Overview of Tropical vs. Temperate Lakes
Late Pennsylvanian lacustrine carbonates of the northern Appalachian Basin were deposited within an equatorial tropical environment. To accurately assess these units, it is necessary to understand the limnologic variation between shallow tropical lakes and more commonly understood temperate-based lakes. Differences between these two types of lakes can be characterized by their latitudinal separation; processes within these lakes consist of a complex interaction among the physical, chemical, and biologic activities.
This section will define common limnologic processes and terminology while illustrating the characteristics of lakes residing in temperate and tropical climates and focusing upon their primary differences. The shape, size and position of the basin directly affect the energy input and biologic processes, which in turn greatly affect the chemistry of a lake.
Chemical variations can also reflect regional bedrock-geology, structure, and hydrology.
However, these controls are not specific to a temperate or tropical climate.
Climate with respect to latitude is an important variable controlling both temperate and tropical lakes (Beadle, 1974; Kalff, 2002; Cohen, 2003). Global distribution of lakes with respect to latitude is skewed, with the temperate zones possessing the majority of lakes (Kalff, 2002). Fewer lakes exist in the tropics mainly due to the lack of glacially dominated terrains. Temperate zones are marked by an abundance of glacial lakes, which have been the focus of the majority of limnologic research to date. Shallow-tropical lake formation is primarily a result of fluvial, coastal and eolian processes, while deep-tropical lakes result from tectonic activity such as rifting (Herdendorf, 1990; Meybeck, 1995).
Climate variation is primarily controlled by solar irradiance variation between the 25 tropics and temperate zones. Irradiance contrasts are determined by the angle of incidence of sunlight to a lake’s surface, as well as regional variations in atmospheric density (attenuation coefficient). Regional variations in atmospheric density are governed by ephemeral phenomena in the atmosphere, such as clouds, dust, and fog (Horne and
Goldman, 1994). The time of highest irradiance contrast between temperate and tropical lakes is during hemispherical winter when the temperate zone experiences its greatest angle of incidence (minimal irradiance).
Solar radiation also contributes heat to drive Earth’s wind circulation, which transfers energy to a lake’s surface, initiating mixing. Heat produced by the transformation of light energy interacts with wind mixing to produce thermal stratification during hemispherical summer (Horne and Goldman, 1994). Lakes are often classified using thermal stratification characteristics, and are referred to as: amictic, monomictic, polymictic, or dimictic (Cole, 1994; Wetzel, 2001; Cohen, 2003).
Stratification types are highly latitude and altitude dependent. Amictic lakes are associated with high latitudes/elevations, and are permanently covered with ice preventing thermal stratification.
Monomictic lakes undergo a single mixing episode annually and are typically subdivided into cold monomictic and warm monomictic. Cold monomictic lakes are
Arctic or alpine lakes that experience ice cover and stratification during the majority of the year. During summer the ice cover melts and remains absent long enough for wind induced mixing to occur.
Warm-monomictic temperate lakes posses intermittent ice cover or lack thereof, 26 allowing stratification to occur during summer while remaining mixed during the remainder of the year. Warm-monomictic tropical lakes are a result of a cool season coincident with hemispheric winter. Temperature variation between the top and the bottom of the water column during this time is roughly 2°C, providing a density contrast sufficient to maintain seasonal stratification (Kalff, 2002; Wetzel, 2001).
Polymictic lakes undergo multiple mixing episodes annually, to the extent that they are mixed throughout the year and are typically subdivided into cold polymictic and warm polymictic. Cold polymictic lakes exist as shallow or highly wind influenced lakes.
These lakes undergo seasonal ice cover while remaining ice-free during hemispherical summer. During summer, shallower lakes will stratify daily with sufficient sunlight and turn over during heat loss at night. Deep lake stratification remains stable for days to weeks, requiring more energy to initiate mixing. Cold polymictic lakes occur from polar lowlands through upper temperate zones.
Warm polymictic lakes are typically shallow as well but lack ice-cover during hemispherical winter. Residing at high altitudes in tropical regions, these lakes are subject to frequent wind activity triggering daily to weekly turnover. Shallow lakes can also undergo nightly mixing initiated by surface cooling.
Dimictic lakes exhibit two annual mixing cycles per year corresponding with hemispherical spring and fall, as well as two periods of stratification corresponding with hemispherical summer and winter (Wetzel, 2001; Dodson, 2004). Full mixing occurs only in the brief periods between ice breakup and the onset of thermal stratification in spring and between the destruction of thermal stratification and subsequent formation of 27
ice cover in winter (Horne and Goldman, 1994). The presence of winter ice cover serves
two functions: first, it serves as a wind barrier preventing mixing, and second, it acts as
an insulator conserving some heat within the lake. The majority of temperate lakes act as
dimictic lakes.
Tropical lakes typically act as warm monomictic lakes; however, the shallower a
lake is, the more likely it is to act as a warm polymictic lake. These stratification models
assume that fluvial inputs do not significantly alter the thermal structure of the lake.
However, in some cases, a continuous source of cold river water may in fact stabilize
stratification, preventing seasonal mixing of the entire water column (Tundisi, 1994).
Despite the fact that tropical lakes are typically warm monomictic and stratify seasonally
given sufficient depth to prevent polymixis, they do posses significant variation from
temperate lakes with respect to the mixed layer during stratification. Stratification
stability in a temperate lake is much greater than that of a tropical lake, given similar
morphology (Talling, 2001). This characteristic is a result of periodic variability in the
heat content of lakes. During hemispherical summer (maximum heat content), thermocline dimensions stabilize in temperate lakes until seasonal heat loss begins during fall (Kalff, 2002; Dodson, 2004). In contrast, tropical lake thermoclines undergo periods
of thickening and thinning due to the alternation of heat loss and addition, resulting in the
formation of multiple thermal layers (Lewis, 1987). This alternation in the thickness of
the thermocline on a weekly scale may influence variation of phytoplankton abundance,
zooplankton abundance, and primary production (Lampert and Sommer, 1997).
Thermocline dimensional fluctuation amplifies the recycling of nutrients within tropical 28
lakes, promoting phytoplankton accumulation. The stabilized thermocline in temperate lakes prevents nutrients lost from the epilimnion to be made available for primary production until turnover in the fall (Ruttner, 1963; Hutchinson, 1967). Tropical lakes undergoing thermocline dimensional fluctuation are far more likely to be eutrophic than temperate lakes (Lewis, 1987).
Water temperature affects metabolic processes of organisms within lakes throughout the year. Temperatures within shallow or small, low-elevation temperate lakes
during summer come close to those of tropical lakes; however, annual average
thermocline temperatures are much lower in temperate lakes (Scheffer, 1998). As a
result, metabolic processes dependent on temperature remain stable in the upper mixed
layers of tropical lakes (Lewis, 1987). Nutrient cycling and photosynthesis will also occur
more rapidly in the upper mixed layers during stratification (Brönmark and Hansson,
1998). Hypolimnion temperatures display greater sensitivity with respect to latitude than
do those of the epilimnion. Hypolimnion temperatures in tropical lakes only drop as low
as the seasonal minimum air temperature, which is roughly 24°C within 10° of the
equator at low altitudes (Kalff, 2002). These high temperatures allow metabolism to
remain at high rates, and consequently higher rates for nutrient regeneration and oxygen
removal than in temperate lakes.
Primary production is influenced by solar irradiance and temperature, as well as
nutrient availability (Brönmark and Hansson, 1998). Significant nutrient loss could
overcome the effects of temperature and irradiance, allowing a nutrient-limited tropical
lake to maintain near equal primary production as a temperate lake with similar nutrient 29 limitation. Tropical lakes display greater primary productivity due to high solar irradiance and temperature, as well as nutrient recycling.
Tropical terrestrial environments display extremely high species diversity as compared to temperate terrestrial environments. This diversity is consistent for both aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates (Serruya and Pollingher, 1983). Lakes within the
African rift valley sustain varying fish species ranging into the hundreds, many of which are specific to individual lakes (Beadle, 1974). Conversely, many of the dominant species occupying tropical lakes are similar if not identical to organisms occupying temperate lakes (Hutchinson, 1967; Beadle, 1974). Phytoplankton diversity bears no significant latitudinal variability, with similar diversities occurring in both tropical and temperate lakes (Lewis, 1987). Blue-green algae does, however show latitudinal preference with greater diversity in the warm tropics, but lacustrine fauna diversity with exception of fish do not show significant variability with latitude (Lewis, 1987). Lack of benthic diversity in tropical lakes is likely an effect of anoxia due to high productivity.
Significant differences exist between temperate and tropical lakes. The majority of the contrasts are a function climate and solar irradiance. These features leave little evidence in the sediments of ancient lakes. Deeper lakes will exhibit seasonality contrasts, manifesting as varves in glacial lakes, and in some cases in tropical lakes
(Verschuren, 2002). Shallow lakes will not produce these features as a result of intense mixing and bioturbation (Sly, 1978; Håkanson and Jansson, 1983). Shallow lakes do however provide evidence of water table fluctuation due to hydrologic and climatic controls. Evidence such as marmorization, root colonization, pseudo-microkarstification, 30 and pedogenic features are indicative of lake margin environments and are apparent in shallow lake deposits within the rock record (Freytet and Plaziat, 1982; Freytet and
Verrecchia, 2002). These features are abundant in the lacustrine limestones of the northern Appalachian basin, supporting a shallow water depositional environment. 31
2.6 Brackish Water Environment
Marine and freshwater carbonate environments can be identified quite readily from fossil and sedimentologic features (e.g. Scholle et al., 1982; Freytet and Plaziat,
1982) while brackish conditions in general are more problematic. Brackish water environments are characterized by highly variable physical and chemical conditions, which impose considerable physiological demands on the associated fauna (Remane and
Schlieper, 1971; Cognetti and Maltagliati, 2000). Typical brackish environments occur as estuaries (Boyd et al., 1992; Reinson, 1992; Bird, 2000) and coastal lakes with a freshwater surplus relative to saline water input, producing salinity concentrations intermediate between normal fresh and marine water (>5º/oo to 30º/oo; Remane and
Schlieper, 1971; Barnes, 1989; Eby, 2004). Brief inundations of saline water into a fresh water coastal lake could result from catastrophic events (storms, tsunamis) breaching barrier bars, producing temporary brackish conditions (Staub and Cohen, 1979; Boyd et al., 1992; Minoura et al., 1994; Bondevik et al., 1997; Clague et al., 1999; 2000; Sawai,
2002; Donnelly et al., 2004). More sustained inundations are characterized by a permanent input of marine water as in typical estuaries or connected basins (Dalrymple et al., 1992; Croghan, 1983) or by highly periodic inputs produced by seasonal, bimonthly, or tidal cycles, such as in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana (Darnell, 1962; Manheim and
Hayes, 2002), the eastern portion of the Amazon River north of the Xingu River
(Goulding et al., 2003) or the Baixada Maranheuse in northern Brazil (Ibañez et al.,
2000). Mixing of freshwater with marginal to full marine species could easily occur along 32
these coastal transition zones, as especially seen in the tidal forests and floodplain lakes of northern Brazil.
The identification of brackish water paleoenvironments in the fossil record is problematic (Holmden et al., 1997). Some brackish indicators used include the interpretation of fossils, displaced marine fossils, ichnology, and presence of tidal sedimentary structures (Calver, 1965; Ferm and Williams, 1965; Hobday and Horne,
1977; Williams, 1979; Archer and Maples, 1984; Leckie and Singh, 1991; Dalrymple et al., 1992; Pemberton and Wightman, 1992; Shanley et al., 1992; Wightman et al., 1993;
Archer et al., 1995; Martino, 1996; Buatois et al., 1997; Dini et al, 1998; Hippensteel and
Martin, 1999; Knox and Gordon, 1999; Tibert and Scott, 1999; Goff, 2000; Süss et al.,
2002; Mángano and Buatois, 2004; Wehrmann et al., 2005). Unfortunately, the extent of
brackish water conditions, long- or short-term, is often difficult to assess (Barnes, 1989).
However, fossil evidence still remains a valuable way to assess marine influence, especially with carbonates because of good preservation potential (see Schopf, 1978).
Organisms commonly associated with a brackish environment include lingulid brachiopods, the feeding trace Spirophyton, microforaminifera Spirillinia, as well as
various species of diatoms, foraminifera, and ostracodes (Wightman et al., 1993; Archer
et al., 1995; Dini et al, 1998; Knox and Gordon, 1999; Tibert and Scott, 1999; Sawai,
2002). It is important to note that in coastal or marginal marine settings, short-term
changes in salinity can juxtapose marine and freshwater fossils through postmortem
transport (Wightman et al., 1993), movement of offshore organisms onshore during a
storm event (Minoura et al., 1994; Hippensteel and Martin, 1999; Sawai, 2002) or even 33 larval transport during storms. Researchers must understand the biology of the fossil organisms as well as the sedimentology of the deposit to interpret the paleoecology and paleosalinity correctly (e.g. Barnes, 1989).
All aquatic organisms posses a specific range of tolerance to salinity in which they can survive (Hammer, 1986). Organisms are commonly classified in relation to their range of tolerance. Stenohaline organisms exhibit a narrow range of tolerance, and are represented by the majority of marine and freshwater organisms. Euryhaline organisms exhibit a wide range of tolerance, and represent truly brackish water organisms. If introduced into a salinity regime outside their tolerance level, most organisms will either perish or exhibit sub-lethal effects including modification of metabolic rate, change in activity patterns, or alteration of growth rates (Remane and Schlieper, 1971). The species living in these environments will commonly display a gradient of resistance to the increasing environmental stress. Generally, at a critical salinity level between 5 and 8 ppt, there exists an extreme numerical drop in species diversity (Cognetti and Maltagliati,
2000).
Fossils within the limestones of the Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the northern
Appalachian basin may be the best way to identify the extent of marine influence because sedimentologic indicators appear to be rare (Martin, 1998; Belt et al., 2002). A fossil with marine affinities found in the lacustrine limestones of the Pennsylvanian cyclothems may be useful in assessing marine-influenced freshwater or temporary brackish water depositional environments. This fossil is the polychaete worm tube Spirorbis. 34
2.7 Spirorbis
Spirorbis sp. (Figure 5) is a member of the Family Serpulidae (polychaete worms)
which produces a preservable, mostly spiral, calcareous tube (Railsback, 1993; Rouse and
Pleijel, 2001). In thin section, tubes can range up to a few millimeters in diameter and several centimeters in length. Serpulid worm tubes are identified in thin section by a layered microstructure that appears in longitudinal section as an outer cone-in-cone pattern and a laminated or clear inner layer (Weedon, 1994; Flügel, 2004). Tubes cut tangentially consist of concentric-irregular rings (Flügel, 2004). Spirorbis sp. has been in existence since the Ordovician (Ruedemann, 1934; Moore, 1962; Peryt, 1974; Belokrys,
1984; Boardman et al., 1987; Railsback, 1993) living in the shallow marine (Harris,
1972), including saline coastal bays and lagoons, rarely extending into deeper shelf locales (Rouse and Pleijel, 2001; Ruppert et al., 2003; Scholle and Ulmer-Scholle, 2003;
Flügel, 2004). Very few species of polychaete worms can exist in freshwater and none of these produce calcareous tubes like Spirorbis. Polychaete worms that can tolerate lower salinities display a more intimate association of nephridia (kidneys) with blood vessels to maintain salt/water balances. In the modern, spirorbids are only known to occur along coastal transition zones which are continually marine-influenced, including coastal lakes with connections to the sea and even in subterranean caves linked to the marine (Foster,
1972; Klemm, 1985; Rouse and Pleijel, 2001; Ruppert et al., 2003).
Spirorbids, as many serpulid worms, secrete a carbonate tube around their body, commonly spiral in shape, and typically attach via an anchoring structure (Flügel, 2004) to a fixed object, such as a shell, rock, or plant (Figure 5), in colonial masses, or as 35 isolated encrustors. (Dana, 1880; Trueman, 1947; Bosence, 1979; Ten Hove, 1979;
Schwindt and Iribarne, 2000; Ruppert et al., 2003). These serpulid worms produce ciliated, swimming larvae called trophophores. The larvae develop quickly and become too large to support themselves in the water column so they sink to the sea floor to begin colonization (Rouse and Pleijel, 2001; Ruppert et al., 2003). Spirorbids have been observed initiating colonization in as little as three days after entering the swimming stage (Ushakova, 2003).
Figure 5. Photograph of modern Spirorbis worm tubes encrusting a bivalve shell; upper scale in inches. 36
The use of Spirorbis as a paleosalinity indicator began in the 19th and early 20th century. Dawson (1868), Dana (1880), Etheridge (1880), Price (1914), and Grabau
(1920) all supported a brackish-water interpretation in the fossil record for these serpulid worm tubes. Other workers found Spirorbis in association with land plants, spores, fish remains, lamellibranchs, and ostracodes, all of which were interpreted as freshwater fauna and flora (Barrois 1904; Cox, 1926; Davies, 1930; Trueman, 1942; 1947; Scott and
Summerson, 1943; Cooper, 1946; Beckmann, 1954; Weller, 1957; Strauch, 1966) and assigned Spirorbis as a freshwater organism. Later, at least, the lamellibranchs with encrusted Spirorbis tubes were re-interpreted as brackish fauna (Weir, 1945; Eagar,
1960). Interestingly enough, Spirorbis was also found in association with marine communities in the Pennsylvanian/Permian of the USA (Ruedemann, 1934; Condra and
Elias, 1944; Sturgeon et al., 1958; Stevens, 1966; Suchy and West, 1988; Kietzke and
Heckert, 1995; Fahrer, 1996; Maeda et al., 2003). This dichotomy of habitat lead Cox
(1926) and Trueman (1942) to propose a separate genus name (Microconchus) for the
“nonmarine worm tubes” but this was not generally accepted in the literature because there was no difference in the body form of the fossils from the two environments
(Calver, 1965). The most perplexing associations with Spirorbis for these workers was that with vascular plants (Grabau, 1920; Trueman, 1947; Weller, 1957; Strauch, 1966), amphibian footprints (Martino, 1991), stromatolites (Vasey and Zodrow, 1983), and freshwater ostracodes (Scott, 1944) from the Carboniferous as well as vascular plants
(Mamay, 1966; Stapf, 1971; Warth, 1982; Kelber, 1986; 1987; Mapes and Maples, 1988), eurypterids (Kues, 1988), and coal (Warth, 1982) from the Permian /Triassic, 37
encouraging, in some cases, an interpretation of brackish to strictly freshwater conditions
(or unusual depositional processes). Mixing of fauna in coastal transition zones through
post-mortem transport or short-term marine incursions was not always considered in
some of these environmental interpretations. Most assumptions of faunal and floral
mixing involve material from land going into the sea (e.g. Wehrmann et al., 2005) but not
vice versa.
In the northern Appalachian basin, Spirorbis sp. is found in the lacustrine
limestones of the Allegheny through Dunkard Groups (Eager, 1975; Yochelson, 1975;
Donaldson. 1979; Weedman, 1988; 1994; Petzold, 1989; 1990; Eggleston, 1994; Fahrer,
1996; Lewis and Dunagan, 2000). In many cases, the worm tube occurrences are in
association with facies containing carbonate clastic textures, implying transport, though
detailed sedimentologic logs are lacking. A more systematic look at a spectrum of
limestone facies interpreted as marine to brackish or freshwater in the northern
Appalachian basin may help clarify the exact conditions of preservation for the Spirorbis worm tubes in relation to fully freshwater and marine deposits in the Pennsylvanian. 38
Chapter 3: Methodology
The focus of this research was to determine whether the salinity of the
depositional environments of Late Pennsylvanian limestones of the northern Appalachian
basin could be ascertained through detailed petrography and sedimentology. Specifically
the aim was to recognize any textural/compositional ‘markers’ by which brackish and
freshwater carbonates could be differentiated from marine carbonates in the absence of stable isotopic data.
Significant limitations prevent application of stable isotope methods to the carbonates of the Appalachian basin. These techniques may not be an adequate tool to determine paleosalinity in marginal marine areas (Hendry and Kalin, 1997) because of the effects of hydrodynamic restriction, i.e. changing water salinities through evaporation, tides, etc. as well as vital effects in organic matter degradation. The latitude of the depositional environment limits 18O values, producing similar results for marine
and freshwaters in low latitude tropical settings (Keith and Weber, 1964; Holmden, et al.,
1997). Isotopic 13C results are also inconsistent if any marine carbonates are present within the watershed of the studied units, as is the case in the Appalachian basin (Keith and Weber, 1964; Holmden, et al., 1997). The determination of 87Sr/86Sr ratios of shells
may be more useful in determining the relative contributions of seawater and freshwater
into a coastal environment (Brand and Gibling, 1994; Holmden et al., 1997); however, a
simple, inexpensive petrographic technique to identify potential paleosalinity changes would aid in recognizing the proper sequences to sample geochemically. 39
Fieldwork was conducted during the winter of 2002 and the summer of 2003.
Limestone units of the Pennsylvanian cyclothems targeted for this study in the
Conemaugh and Monongahela Groups (Busch and Rollins, 1984) of the northern
Appalachian basin crop out in an elliptical pattern in Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia (Figure 3). Ten limestones units were targeted: Ames,
Benwood/Arnoldsburg, Clarksburg, Upper Brush Creek/Pine Creek, Lower Brush Creek,
Redstone, Cambridge/Nadine, Two Mile, Ewing, and Pittsburgh, stratigraphically
represented in Figure 4. These are limestones designated in the literature (Fedorko, 1979;
Fonner and Fedorko, 1985; Cecil and Eble, 1992; Edmunds et al., 1999) as marine,
freshwater, and freshwater to brackish (after Condit, 1912; Miller, 1934; Lamborn, 1951).
The distribution of sample localities was chosen to adequately represent the variation in depositional conditions with regards to the source area (orogen).
Sampling across the entire northern Appalachian basin was necessary to increase the likelihood of collecting freshwater, brackish, and marine limestones. Samples were
collected laterally within individual units on a local scale and on a basin wide scale in an
attempt to illuminate transitional phases within the depositional regime as well as the
possible resolution of a salinity gradient within a single lithology (see Figures 4 and 6).
Vertical sampling of limestones within a stratigraphic interval was also undertaken in order to illustrate the change in depositional environment, if present, over time at a single location. Individual locations were chosen based on quality of exposure and accessibility.
Sample locations of specific lithologies were provided for Kentucky and West Virginia
by Ronald Martino of Marshall University, and for Pennsylvania by John Harper and Vik 40
Skema of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. Additional locations were chosen from the literature based on quality of exposure and accessibility. A total of 52 locations in four states (Figure 6) were sampled to obtain a spectrum of limestone facies. See appendix for summary of sample numbers and locations. 174 thin sections were prepared from the collected samples and examined petrographically. Criteria used to evaluate textures included faunal content, sedimentary structures, textures, diagenetic fabrics, and mineralogic content. 41
83° 82° 81° 80° 79°
Kittanning PA-45 Beaver Falls 42° Butler Co. A Armstrong Co. Beaver Co. PA-46 42°
PA-12 PA-16 PA-38 Indiana Co. PA-47 PA-19 PA-35
Pittsburgh PA-23 PA-21 Blairsville PA-11 PA-22 Allegheny Co. PA-36 Westmoreland Co. PA PA-4 PA-6 PA-7 Greensburg Washington Co. 0 20 miles PA-5 PA-13 41° 0 20 kilometers 41° Inset A
OH Pittsburgh
Wheeling 40° Cambridge Somerset 40°
JG-1 JG-2 WV79-6R WV79-6P WV68-1 Morgantown B-31a CN-11/CN-5a Athens CN-16 R-32c WV50-2 WV50-3 WV79-5 CR-23 WV50-4 WV50-1 WV79-3E WV79-3 WV79-1 WV79-2 39° Ames Weston Benwood 39° Clarksburg U. Brush Creek/Pine Creek WV WV79-4 L. Brush Creek/Brush Creek Redstone K-48 Cambridge/Nadine KY-30 K-44 K-43 KY-27 K-50 Two Mile KY-26 Huntington K-49 KY-4 L-3 Ewing KY-31 L-7 Charleston Pittsburgh N
KY-3 0 10 20 30 40 miles 38° KY-21B KY-21A 0 10 20 30 40 50 kilometers 38°
82° 81° 80° 79°
Figure 6. Localities (52 total) of sampled limestone units from the Conemaugh and Monongahela Groups within the northern Appalachian basin. See appendix for details on localities as well as sample numbers and paleosalinity interpretations.
42
Chapter 4: Facies Descriptions and Interpretations
4.1 – Introduction
Detailed petrographic analysis of the ten studied limestone units from 174 thin sections, varying with respect to depositional environment from purely freshwater to open marine, provides the identification of eight basic lithofacies types:
• Type 1: Micrite
• Type 2: Ostracodal wackestone to packstone
• Type 3: Intraclastic microbreccia
• Type 4: Mottled micrite and microbreccia
• Type 5: Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite
• Type 6: a) Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia
b) Intraclastic, matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia
• Type 7: Wackestone
• Type 8: Packstone
A summary of facies types and their description and interpretation is found in Table 1.
*Note-A modification of the Folk and Dunham classification systems is necessary when describing freshwater limestones because these two classification systems were originally based only on marine limestones alone (e.g. Wright, 1993; Arp, 1995). 43
Facies Depositional Lithofacies Identification Criteria Type Environment Contains < 10% allochems in micrite matrix. Fossils Freshwater, Type 1 Micrite limited to ostracodes, gastropods, charophytes. Average lacustrine unit thickness ranges from cm- to m- scale. Ostracodal Consists of micritic matrix containing 10-50% ostracode Freshwater, Type 2 wackestone shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces). Average unit lacustrine to packstone thickness ranges from cm- to dm- scale. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to Intraclastic Freshwater, pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar void Type 3 microbreccia palustrine spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracodes, and peloidal structures. Average unit thickness ranges from mm- to dm- scale. Exhibits features of Type 1 and Type 3 facies overprinted Mottled Freshwater, by yellow-orange-red mottling. Samples contain Type 4 micrite & palustrine ostracode fragments and spar filled void spaces. Average microbreccia unit thickness ranges from cm- to dm- scale. Occurs as restricted layers (< 10cm) within Type 1 and Type 3 facies. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter Spirorbis– and length) float as fragments, individual tubes, or small Type 5 bearing Brackish clusters in a micritic matrix. Tubes are commonly filled biomicrite with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode and charophyte fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts. Consists of 40-80% regular to sub-angular quartz, chert, Matrix- microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic supported Type 6a Marine matrix. Siliciclastic grains range in size from very fine siliciclastic sand to very coarse sand. Glauconite is present. Average microbreccia unit thickness ranges from cm- to m- scale. Displays similar features as Type 6a, with siliciclastic Intraclastic mineral grains (matrix- or grain-supported) as high as matrix- 70%. This facies type differs from Type 6a with the Fresh / Type 6b supported additional presence of very fine sand to pebble-sized, brackish? siliciclastic angular to subangular-micritic intraclasts. No Glauconite microbreccia present. Average unit thickness ranges from cm- to m- scale. Contains >10% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content is highly varied: bryozoans, Type 7 Wackestone Marine brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, echinoderms, foraminifera, and trilobites. Average unit thickness ranges from cm- to m- scale. Only differs from Type 7 in allochems vs. micrite matrix abundance with less matrix and a self-supporting Type 8 Packstone Marine framework of fossils. Average unit thickness ranges from cm- to m- scale.
Table 1. Identification criteria and interpretations for the eight lithofacies types. 44
4.2 – Type 1: Micrite Description
This facies contains less than 10% allochems in a micrite matrix. Fossil content normally is limited to ostracodes, gastropods, charophytes, and rare plant debris. Rare fine-grained detrital quartz grains floating in micritic matrix can be observed. Isolated patches of void-filling spar cement occur as geopetal structures within disarticulated ostracode carapaces. Relict horizontal laminations can also be identified by millimeter- scale color alternations as well as sparsely-bedded ostracode carapaces. Thickness of units varied from cm-to-m scale. Figures 7-10 illustrate typical examples of Facies Type
1.
Figure 7. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample JG-1-24 (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 45
Figure 8. Photomicrograph (plane-polarized) of sample K-49B (unnamed limestone above the Two Mile Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 9. Photomicrograph (plane-polarized) of sample PA-5-B (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 46
Figure 10. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample R-32c-FP-23 (Pittsburgh Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Interpretation
The micrite facies is interpreted as open lacustrine in origin (after Freytet and
Plaziat, 1982; Freytet and Verrecchia, 2002). This facies lacks marine fossils and rarely contains freshwater fossils. Relict laminations and sparsely bedded ostracode carapaces are indicative of quiet water deposition. These units also lack any significant pedogenic alteration, also suggesting a more distal, open water environment (after Valero Garcés et al., 1994).
47
4.3 - Type 2: Ostracodal wackestone to packstone
Description
This facies type consists of micritic matrix containing between 10-50 % ostracode shells, occurring as intact body fossils or as detached carapaces. Detached carapaces commonly display horizontal layering interbedded with non-fossiliferous micrite.
Packstone samples are dominated by detached carapaces surrounded by minor micrite matrix and sparse fine-grained, detrital quartz grains. Articulated shells are commonly filled with void-filling spar cement and rarely micrite. Unit thickness varied from cm-to- dm scale. Figures 11-14 illustrate typical examples of Facies Type 2.
Figure 11. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample JG-1-26 (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg) Limestone, FOV = 5.5mm. 48
Figure 12. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample PA-6D-A (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 13. Photomicrograph (plane-polarized) of sample WV50-2T (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 49
Figure 14. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample WV79-6B (Pittsburgh Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Interpretation
The ostracodal wackestone to packstone facies only differs from the micrite facies in the percentage of allochems versus matrix present, and is also interpreted as open lacustrine (after Freytet and Plaziat, 1982; Valero Garcés et al., 1994; Freytet and
Verrecchia, 2002). These samples contain the same homogenous micrite matrix with varying amounts of exclusively ostracode remains. These samples contain no marine or brackish fossils.
50
4.4 - Type 3: Intraclastic microbreccia
Description
This facies consists of lithorelict intraclasts in varying degrees of diagenetic
alteration. Intraclasts float in micritic matrix of varying densities and can be recognized
by color variation from the matrix. Intraclast grain sizes range from very fine sand to
medium to coarse pebble. Common features within the intraclasts and the matrix include
spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracode fragments, and peloidal
structures. Samples with low densities of intraclasts show only minor alteration by
common features listed above. Samples with high densities of intraclasts display abundant spar-filled void spaces, with individual intraclasts rimmed by drusy calcite cement. Some specimens display curved planes of spar-filled circumgranular cracks.
Thicknesses of units in this facies are highly variable, from mm- to dm-scale. Figures 15-
18 illustrate typical examples of Facies Type 3.
Figure 15. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample WV79-6C (Pittsburgh Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 51
Figure 16. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample WV79-2M (Clarksburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 17. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample WV50-1D (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 52
Figure 18. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample JG-2-43C (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Interpretation
The intraclastic microbreccia facies is interpreted as lacustrine/palustrine in
origin. This intraclastic texture is indicative of marginal lacustrine environments constantly affected by water level fluctuations (Alonzo-Zarza and Calvo, 2000). Water table fluctuation causes desiccation to occur during dry times and swelling of hydrated
clays during wetter times (Grim, 1953; Weaver, 1989; Evans, 1992). The net effect is the
occurrence of in-situ brecciation and microkarstification (Freytet and Plaziat, 1982;
Alonzo-Zarza et al., 1992; Freytet and Verrecchia, 2002). Many of these samples also
contain clay-lined tubules (rhizoliths) produced by plant colonization in a marginal
environment. Plant colonization accelerates the pedogenic alteration due to water table
fluctuation, producing more severe intraclastic textures (Alonzo-Zarza, 2003).
53
4.5 - Type 4: Mottled micrite and microbreccia
Description
This facies exhibits features similar to the micrite facies (Type 1) and the intraclastic microbreccia facies (Type 3), except that it exhibits yellow-orange-red mottling. Micritic samples contain sparse ostracode fossils and rare spar-filled, planar void spaces. More brecciated samples also contain rare ostracode fragments and a higher density of spar-filled void spaces with linear, circumgranular, planar, and irregular shapes. The colored mottling overprints all these features. Thickness of units is generally on the cm- to dm-scale. Figures 19-22 illustrate typical examples of Facies Type 4.
Figure 19. Photomicrograph (plane-polarized) of sample PA-12-2 (Clarksburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 54
Figure 20. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample WV50-1A (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 21. Photomicrograph (plane-polarized) of sample WV79-4-OOP (Redstone Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 55
Figure 22. Photomicrograph (plane-polarized) of sample WV50-3A (Clarksburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Interpretation
Mottled micrites and microbreccias are interpreted as palustrine (marginal lacustrine) in origin. These facies only differ from the micrites (Type 1) and the intraclastic microbreccias (Type 3) with the presence of mottling. This mottling is indicative of iron remobilization due to water table fluctuation, common in palustrine environments, and is interpreted as marmorization (Schlichting and Schwertmann, 1973;
PiPujol and Buurman, 1994; Alonzo-Zarza, 2003). The common occurrence of in situ brecciation, rhizoliths, and microkarstification also support the palustrine interpretation
(Alonzo-Zarza et al., 1992; Alonzo-Zarza and Calvo, 2000).
56
4.6 - Type 5: Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite
Description
This facies occurs as single layers (<10cm) within units ranging from micrite
(Type 1) to intraclastic microbreccias (Type 3). Spirorbis worm tubes, just mm in diameter and length (Figures 23, 24), typically float as fragments, individual tubes, or as small clusters in the micritic matrix. Orientation of tubes varies showing the lack of symmetrical coiling. Tangential sections exhibit concentric rings with ropy texture.
Longitudinal sections at various angles show the irregularities of tube growth; however, a very well preserved specimen displays a cone-in-cone layering pattern. Cross-sectional views of worm tubes reveal ropy-undulating structure, containing spar void-filling cement, and rarely micrite. Relict laminations can also be observed within intraclasts in microbrecciated Spirorbis-bearing layers. Spirorbis fossils are commonly associated with ostracode fragments, charophytes, carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts, and isolated fine-grained detrital quartz grains. Vertical sampling through the limestone units at fourteen of the sampled localities (K-43, K-44, K-48, K-49, Ky-26B, L-3A, L-7, PA-11,
PA-12, WV50-1, WV50-3C, Wv79-2B, WV79-5. WV79-6, see appendix for locations) exhibited the restricted occurrence of Spirorbis to discrete cm-thick layers, see Figure 25 for detailed section of PA-12 as an example of this. Figures 26 – 29 illustrate typical examples of Facies Type 5. 57
1mm
Figure 23. Magnified hand sample image of a Spirorbis worm tube on the surface of limestone sample K-49A (unnamed limestone above Two Mile Limestone). Note lack of symmetry of the coiled tube.
1 mm
Figure 24. Magnified hand sample image of a Spirorbis worm tube internal cast on the surface of limestone sample K-49A (unnamed limestone above Two Mile Limestone). 58
1
PA-11-1, Facies Type 1, Freshwater
6.7m 2
PA-11-2, Facies Type 5, Brackish
5.6m
5.0m 3 1 4.9m 4.7m PA-11-3, Facies Type 5, Brackish
4.0m
4 2 3.3m 3.0m 3 PA-11-4, Facies Type 3, Freshwater 4
5 2.2m 5 6 1.4m PA-11-5, Facies Type 5, Brackish
6 0m PA-11-6, Facies Type 3, Freshwater
Figure 25. Sample locality PA-11 (Clarksburg limestone) located near Delmont, PA (see appendix for exact location). Exact sample layers are shown by numbers along with a photo and interpretation of thin section texture. Section legend: circle pattern = sandstone; lined pattern = calcic shale; brick pattern = limestone; crosshatch = cover. Thin section views: FOV = 5.5mm. 59
Figure 26. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample K-44D (Two Mile Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 27. Cross-polarized view of sample L3A-2 (Two Mile Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
60
Figure 28. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample PA-11-3 (Clarksburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 29. Photomicrograph (plane-polarized) of sample PA-12-4A (Clarksburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 61
Interpretation
The Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite facies is interpreted as a brackish water
environment. All Spirorbis occurrences are restricted to discrete layers within lacustrine carbonates. Rarely, Spirorbis is associated with unsorted quartz grains. These samples represent more proximal to barrier breach (washover) deposits, while samples occurring
in micritic matrix void of quartz represent more distal (inland deposits). The occurrence
of Spirorbis in a single discrete layer within a lacustrine carbonate unit fits within the
model of short-term marine incursion indicating brackish conditions (Morris, 1967;
Baker, 1975).
62
4.7 - Type 6: Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia
Description
6A – This facies (Figures 30, 31) is comprised of large populations of regular to
sub-angular clastic mineral grains floating in micritic matrix. The mineral grains include
quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase and comprise 40-80% of the texture. Sizes of
these siliciclastic grains range from very fine sand (<0.062mm) to very coarse sand (1.0-
2.0mm). Also present is glauconitic clay. Unit thickness is cm-m scale.
6B – This facies (Figures 32, 33) is similar to the intraclastic microbreccia facies
(Type 3), however the amount of siliciclastic mineral grains, as listed for Type 6A, floating or supported in the texture, can be as high as 70%. Size ranges for the carbonate intraclasts range from very fine sand to pebble size while siliciclastic grain sizes are similar to those in Type 6A.
Figure 30. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample KY-21B-1 (Upper Brush Creek Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 63
Figure 31. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample KY-3A (Upper Brush Creek Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 32. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample JG-1-8 (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 64
Figure 33. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample JG-1-10 (Benwood/ Arnoldsburg Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Interpretation
Facies Type 6a is interpreted as nearshore marine deposits because of the presence of glauconitic clay (Weaver, 1989). These carbonates display a continuous influence from the detrital regime, commonly containing coarse-grained feldspars that limit the deposits as proximal to the source.
The matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia facies type 6b is interpreted as a possible brackish washover deposit. Catastrophic deposition caused by storm surges and tsunamis commonly disturb underlying deposits while depositing allochthonous siliciclastic material from offshore and barrier locations (Staub and Cohen, 1979;
Minaura et al., 1994; Ritter et al., 2002; Sawai, 2002). Facies type 6b contains angular
rip-up clasts of micrite, intercalated with poorly sorted quartz grains and rare feldspar
grains floating within a micrite matrix. These textures suggest catastrophic deposition. 65
4.8 - Type 7: Wackestone
Description
This carbonate facies contains greater than 10% allochems surrounded by a micritic
matrix. Fossil content is highly varied: bryozoans, brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, echinoderms, foraminifera, and trilobites. Glauconite and quartz grains rarely float in the
matrix. Thickness of units ranges from cm-m scale. Figures 34-37 illustrate typical
examples of Facies Type 7.
Figure 34. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample KY-31L (Lower Brush Creek Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 66
Figure 35. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample PA-21-1 (Ames Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 36. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample WV79-1 (Ames Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 67
Figure 37. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample PA-16-1 (Ames Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Interpretation
The wackestone facies is interpreted as shallow marine in origin due to the abundance of exclusively marine fossils, glauconite, and rare detrital siliciclastics (after
Enos, 1983; Weaver, 1989).
68
4.9 Type 8: Packstone
Description
This facies type only differs from Facies Type 7 (wackestone) in allochem versus micrite matrix abundance. These samples contain less micritic matrix with fossil content displaying a self-supporting framework. The majority of grains are in contact with one another; however, small amounts of micrite and microspar matrix are present. Fossil content in this facies type is identical to Facies Type 7 and comprises: bryozoans, brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, echinoderms, foraminifera, and trilobites. Facies thickness ranges from cm-to-m scale. Figures 38-41 illustrate examples of Facies Type 8.
Figure 38. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample KY-30 (Lower Brush Creek Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 69
Figure 39. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample PA-36 (Nadine Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Figure 40. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample KY-26 (Cambridge Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm. 70
Figure 41. Photomicrograph (cross-polarized) of sample KY-21A (Lower Brush Creek Limestone), FOV = 5.5mm.
Interpretation
The packstone facies is interpreted as marine in origin due to the abundance of exclusively marine fossils and glauconite (after Enos, 1983; Weaver, 1989).
71
Chapter 5: Ostracode Analysis
Ostracodes from the Benwood, Clarksburg, Two Mile, and Pittsburgh limestones
were identified as Gutschickia sp., Darwinula stevensoni, Carbonita sp, Pruvostina sp.,
Whippela sp., and Candona bairdoides by Dr. Lisa Park of the University of Akron
(Table 2). In most cases, identification down to the species level was not possible because
only thin sections were provided for analysis. However, despite this, the assemblage is
freshwater in origin with additional brackish water affinities for Darwinula stevensoni
and Carbonita sp. (Swain, 1999). Since most of the limestones sampled had more than
one species present, the assemblages with the co-occurrence of D. stevensoni and
Carbonita sp. with Gutschickia sp., Pruvostina sp., Whippela sp. and Candona bairdoides indicate a probable freshwater paleoenvironment for facies types 1, 2, and 3.
Facies type 5 has both D. stevensoni and Gutschickia sp. and is interpreted as brackish, based upon the sedimentology and presence of the spirorbids. The ostracodes preserved in some of the samples of facies type 5 were few in number and extremely poorly preserved. When abundant, the ostracodes in these samples were found in a coquina of disarticulated carapaces in hydrodynamically stable positions, indicating significant transport (after Park et al., 2003).
Carbonita sp. is a common genus in Pennsylvanian-Permian cyclothems and has certain morphological affinities with Cypridopsis (Scott and Summerson, 1943).
Pruvostina sp. and Whippela sp. can also be confused, although there are prominent differences in the hinge structures that allow discrimination (Swain, 1999). The presence of these ostracodes indicates that the lakes in which they lived were most likely shallow 72 of no more than three meters depth. They most likely lived on algae in these permanent waters (Scott, 1944).
Comparative Material Age Formation Species Environment Reference Carbonita Freshwater lake or brackish marsh Sohn, 1985 Gutschickia Freshwater Sohn, 1985 Mississippian Bluestone Pruvostina Freshwater Sohn, 1985 Whipplella Freshwater Sohn, 1985 Darwinula Fresh or brackish water Sohn, 1985 Gutschickia Freshwater Sohn, 1977 Pennsylvanian Monongahela Darwinula Fresh or brackish water Sohn, 1977
Use the Treatise (Q) Athropoda 3 (p. Q234-248) to reference these. Limestone Sample Genus Environment Comments Unit Benwood/ Gutschickia Freshwater Coquina of ostracodes; PA6D-B Arnoldsburg Darwinula stevensoni Fresh or brackish water mostly disarticulated and in Carbonita Freshwater lake or brackish marsh Gutschickia Freshwater Far greater number of Benwood/ JG-1 (26) Pruvostina Freshwater species; many still Arnoldsburg Whipplela Freshwater articulated Darwinula stevensoni Fresh or brackish water Whipplela Freshwater Articulation is high, but Benwood/ JG-1 (15A) Gutschickia Freshwater evidence of transport; Arnoldsburg Carbonita Freshwater lake or brackish marsh valves internested within Benwood/ PA6D-A same as PA6D-A Fresh or brackish water Arnoldsburg Benwood/ WV50-1C Gutschickia Freshwater Very few preserved Arnoldsburg Coquina of ostracodes; Benwood/ mostly disarticulated and in WV50-4T Gutschickia Freshwater Arnoldsburg hydrodynamically stable positions PA11-1 Clarksburg same as JG-1 (15A) Fresh or brackish water Dissolution? Algal mats? Darwinula stevensoni Fresh or brackish water PA11-5 Clarksburg Preservation poor Gutschickia Freshwater Candona bairdoides Freshwater WV79-2T Clarksburg Gutschickia Freshwater Candona bairdoides Freshwater L3A-1 Two Mile Gutschickia Freshwater Coquina of ostracodes; mostly disarticulated and in WV79-6B Pittsburgh Gutschickia??? Freshwater hydrodynamically stable positions
Table 2. Ostracode identification from specific thin sections of the sampled limestones from the Conemaugh and Monongahela Groups of the northern Appalachian basin. See appendix for location of thin section samples. 73
Chapter 6: Depositional Environment Discussion
6.1 – Marine Environment
Fully marine carbonates are identified on the basis of abundant exclusively marine
fossils, including brachiopods and echinoderms, as well as the presence of glauconite
(Weaver, 1989). Here they are represented by matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia
with glauconite (Type 6A), wackestone (Type 7), and packstone (Type 8). The matrix-
supported siliciclastic microbreccia with glauconite is interpreted as a catastrophic influx of sand into a dominantly carbonate environment (Enos, 1983).
6.2 Freshwater Environment
Lacustrine to palustrine carbonates are distinguished by the presence of charophytes
and nonmarine ostracodes associated with aquatic to subaerial features of a continental carbonate environment (Freytet and Plaziat, 1982; Gierlowski-Kordesch et al., 1991;
Freytet and Verrecchia, 2002; Alonso-Zarza, 2003). No glauconitic clay or conodonts are present. Lacustrine features include thin and thick lamination, massive textures interpreted as bioturbated sediment, oncolites, and microbial textures. Palustrine carbonates are
shallow lake (marginal) sediments affected by water level fluctuations. Exposure and
pedogenic features characterize this paleoenvironment including spar-filled rhizoliths lined
with clay cutans, marmorization (mottling), intraformational brecciation, transported
intraclasts within other clasts or surrounded by circumgranular spar, oncolites, voids such
as curved, crazed, and skewed spar-filled planes, and microkarstic structures. Here the 74 freshwater facies are represented by micrite (Type 1), ostracodal wackestone to packstone
(Type 2), intraclastic microbreccias (Type 3) and mottled micrite/microbreccia (Type 4).
The micrite facies (Type 1) only differs from the ostracodal wackestone to packstone facies
(Type 2) in the percentage of allochems present. Both are interpreted as a shallow lacustrine environment (after Valero Garcés et al., 1994; 1997). The ostracodes are interpreted as nonmarine (see Table 2) with no marine fossils present. The intraclastic microbreccias and mottled micrite/microbreccia are interpreted as palustrine to pedogenically-altered lacustrine and palustrine sediments (after Freytet and Plaziat, 1982;
Freytet and Verrecchia, 2002). Water table fluctuations within these Pennsylvanian lakes caused subaerial exposure and soil processes to alter the carbonate sediments. Brecciation and intraclast formation proceeded through subaerial exposure and plant colonization
(Freytet and Plaziat, 1982; Alonzo-Zarza, 2003). Spar-filled tubules, circumgranular spar- filled cracks, as well as crazed, skewed, and curved spar-filled planes represent cement filling of root voids (rhizoliths) as well as cracks from brecciation processes. Mottling is interpreted as marmorization resulting from iron mobilization or gleying within sediment during water table fluctuations (Schlichting and Schwertmann, 1973; PiPujol and Buurman,
1994; Freytet and Verrecchia, 2002). 75
6.3 – Brackish Environment
The facies which represent brackish, or perhaps more correctly “marine influence”,
are the Spirorbis-bearing biomicrites (Type 5) and the matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia without glauconite (Type 6B) is interpreted as a deposit that could occur in freshwater to brackish conditions.
The matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia without glauconite is interpreted as a catastrophic influx of sand (washover deposit) into a dominantly continental carbonate environment. This could occur from seasonal, bimonthly, or tidal cycles as well as storm surges, hurricanes, and tsunamis bringing coarse sediment into coastal lakes. lagoons, or swamps (Darnell, 1962; Staub and Cohen, 1979; Minoura et al., 1994;
Bondevik et al., 1997; Hippensteel and Martin, 1999; Clague et al., 1999; 2000; Goff et al., 2000; Ibañez et al., 2000; Manheim and Hayes, 2002; Sawai, 2002; Goulding et al.,
2003).
In addition to bringing in sediment, such catastrophic inputs of marine waters can also bring in marine fauna, whether dead or alive (Darnell, 1962; Staub and Cohen, 1979;
Wightman et al., 1993; Minoura et al., 1994; Bondevik et al., 1997; Hippensteel and
Martin, 1999; Clague et al., 1999; 2000; Goff et al., 2000; Ibañez et al., 2000; Manheim and Hayes, 2002; Sawai, 2002; Goulding et al., 2003). The Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite is interpreted as a short-term, catastrophic marine incursion into Pennsylvanian coastal to floodplain lakes. Features of the facies supporting this interpretation include the following. (1) Spirorbis appears to be restricted to discrete layers within the lacustrine units (Figure 25). (2) The worm tubes are never found attached to a substrate or grouped 76
as a mass colonial reef. Mostly isolated tubes are found with no evidence of anchoring
structures, implying transport of the tubes or attachment to easily decayed material
(plants). (3) The worm tubes are only millimeters in length (Figures 23, 24) while modern
marine examples can be several centimeters long (Figure 5). This indicates easy transport
during a catastrophic event of a young animal that subsequently died as salinity decreases
after the event or larval transport and an attempt at colonization before death as
conditions freshened. Spirorbids can initiate colonization quickly from the larval stage
(Ushakova, 2003). Spirorbis worm tubes are commonly associated with clastic carbonate features in other lacustrine limestones of the Appalachian basin as well (Donaldson,
1974; 1979; Weedman, 1988; 1994; Petzold, 1989; 1990).
Spirorbis was strictly a marine animal throughout the Phanerozoic, especially during the Pennsylvanian (see Chapter 2.6: Morris, 1967; Baker, 1975). It is highly unlikely for this worm to adapt to a fully freshwater environment during Pennsylvanian time and then become strictly marine again. Morris (1967) collected evidence supporting a coastal gradient during the deposition of the Cambridge Limestone (Conemaugh
Group) in the northern Appalachian basin. In his paleogeographic reconstruction of the lower Conemaugh Group, using data from over 2800 control points across the northern portion of the basin, Morris showed how facies containing Spirorbis are found between fully marine and continental facies along a regional transect for Cambridge time. He concluded that Spirorbis must be a marginal marine animal that tolerates brackish water.
Its association with freshwater fauna and flora in the Pennsylvanian and the geologic record elsewhere in the world was likely due to the intermixing of freshwater and marine 77 organisms in lowland coastal areas affected by tidal exchange, storm surges, or tsunamis.
Such lowland coastal environments can be found today in northern Brazil.
6.4 - Modern Analog Environment
Coastal regions associated with river mouths can contain a wide variety of environments, including estuaries and deltas (Boyd et al., 1992; Bird, 2000). The area where the Amazon River enters the Atlantic Ocean in northern Brazil (referred to as
‘Mouths of the Amazon’) as well as the estuaries to the east (including the Baixada
Maranheuse) contain components of both a delta and an estuary (Daly and Mitchell,
2000; Ibañez, 2000; Zarin et al, 2001; Goulding et al., 2003), including anastomosing river channels (both fresh and brackish), floodplain lakes (várzea) affected by tides, levees, bays, brackish mangrove forests, tidal freshwater forests, terra firma forest, savannah, sand dunes, fresh and saltwater marshes, and tidal flats. Both estuary systems are affected by tides; however, the composition of the tidal water, whether saline or fresh, is controlled by the freshwater output from the mouth of the rivers. The Amazon River freshwater plume can reach up to 155km into the Atlantic Ocean during the wet season.
During the dry season or “low water period” of the Amazon, brackish water can reach up to 80km upstream and spread across the floodplain environments. Tidal effects raise the water level on the floodplain and its lakes twice a day all year round between 1.2-4 m near the coastline to over 300 km from the river mouth; at 800 km inland along the river, the tide is around 15cm in height (Anderson et al., 1999; Goulding et al., 2003). This is not unique to the Amazon - the tidal range is between 2.3-4m at the river mouth of the 78
Columbia River and can propagate upstream for nearly 300km during low river flows
(Dyer, 1973).
Lakes on the Amazonian floodplain experience small to significant changes in
water level between the dry and wet seasons (Lesack and Melack, 1995; Junk, 1997; Junk
and Piedade, 1997). On a time scale of 101 to 103 years, climate change is connected to
ocean-atmospheric processes and, in the case of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation cycle,
is represented by discrete 20-80cm thick sediment packages on the floodplains (Aalto et
al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004). Deposition on the Amazonian floodplain can range from
several cm to more than one meter per year, causing a succession of plant communities
over time as substrates change over time (Junk and Piedade, 1997; Worbes, 1997). Large-
scale erosional events, linked to tectonics, as well as sea level changes, are also part of
the Amazonian sediment record (Bigarella and Ferreira, 1985; Dickinson and Virji,
1987). Many features of the Amazon depositional system can be recognized in the
Pennsylvanian to Permian rocks of the northern Appalachian basin.
6.5 - Pennsylvanian/Permian Depositional Environment
The paleoenvironments of the Pennsylvanian/Permian cyclothems have been studied in detail by many workers, principally Ferm and Williams (1965), Donaldson
(1969; 1972; 1974; 1979); Ferm, 1970; Donaldson et al. (1985); Horne et al. (1978); and
as summarized by Martin (1998). The list of interpreted depositional environments covers
deltaic as well as estuarine types including: levees, crevasse splays, swamps, marshes,
lakes, channels (meandering, distributary), “river-dominated” bays or “sea lakes”/”bay 79
lakes” (estuaries?), distributary mouth bars, prodeltaic muds, paleosols, beaches, and
backbarrier lagoons.
The Conemaugh and Monongahela rocks are described as tide-dominated
delta/bay coastline (Donaldson, 1969; 1974) containing small lakes on the lower to upper
deltaic plain. Within the Allegheny Group, Ferm and Williams (1965) documented a marine invasion (transgression to “maximum inundation” to regression) within the lower portion of the Kittanning cyclothem across Ohio and Pennsylvania in a sequence- stratigraphic type of analysis. They postulated subsidence as the mechanism causing the transgression that formed a marine to brackish ‘embayment’, resembling an estuary, with its sediments interfingering with fluvio-lacustrine (deltaic) deposits.
Marine influence as storm deposits during the Pennsylvanian have been documented from back barrier lagoons within the Appalachian basin (Horne et al., 1978;
Staub and Cohen, 1979). Evidence for marine influence during tsunamis, storms, or tidal cycles within the nonmarine dominated cyclothems of the northern Appalachian basin is interpreted as the Spirorbis-bearing biomicrites/packstones within the Pennsylvanian lacustrine limestones (Eggleston, 1994; Weedman, 1994; Petzold, 1990; this study).
Other evidence includes eurypterids and Lingula brachiopods from the Dunkard Group
(Martin, 1998). Interestingly enough, detailed sedimentologic work on the depositional packages within the lacustrine limestones of the Alleghenian Upper Freeport cyclothem showed decimeter-scale packages of laminated micrites that are mudcracked to brecciated
(Weedman, 1988; 1994;Valero Garcés et al., 1994; 1997). This is similar in scale to the 80 sediment packages documented from the Amazonian floodplain based on the El
Niño/Southern Oscillation cycles.
Clearly, various sedimentary processes within a deltaic/estuarine complex are building cyclothemic sequences at different time scales as climate and tectonics change the configuration of the tidally-influenced Pennsylvanian coastline as well as the sea level through time. An important control defining freshwater to brackish to marine zones may have been the output of freshwater from the Carboniferous rivers. This is a significant factor controlling estuarine characteristics and evolution today (Schubel, 1971;
Dalrymple et al., 1992). Archer and Greb (1995) postulated an Amazon-scale drainage system for the Early Pennsylvanian in the US midcontinent based on the area covered by the paleodrainage of the Central Appalachian basin. An Amazon-like delta to estuary system is also likely for the Pennsylvanian rocks of the northern Appalachian basin based on similarities in the variety of preserved depositional environments through time. The restriction of marine Spirorbis worm tubes to specific layers within otherwise lacustrine units suggests that, similar to the Amazon River, episodic influx of brackish water onto the floodplain along the Pennsylvanian coast occurred.
The rocks of the upper Conemaugh and Monongahela Groups were mostly nonmarine in origin with episodic marine influence based on the presence of Spirorbis sp. layers as well as other brackish fossils, washover deposits (i.e., matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia in this study) and tidal sedimentary structures (Belt et al., 2002).
The major factors controlling the facies distribution of brackish to freshwater facies were 81 the freshwater output patterns of the Pennsylvanian rivers into the deltaic/estuarine coastal area, climate, and tectonic subsidence.
Further work is needed to further refine these marine incursion events in the limestones across the basin as well as in associated siliciclastic sequences. For example,
Spirorbis was found associated in clusters on large plant fragments and as isolated individuals within the freshwater shale of the lower Conemaugh Group in Ohio
(McComas and Mapes, 1988). Application of modern sedimentologic methods using estuarine and deltaic models as well as sequence stratigraphic analysis will clarify the coastal setting during the Pennsylvanian to Permian in the northern Appalachian basin. 82
Chapter 7: Conclusions
1. Eight facies were identified from the ten limestone units sampled at 52 localities
in the Conemaugh and Monongahela Groups of the northern Appalachian basin.
Facies types included: micrite (Type 1), ostracodal wackestone and packstone
(Type 2), intraclastic microbreccias (Type 3), mottled micrite/microbreccia (Type
4), Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite (Type 5), matrix-supported siliciciclastic
microbreccia with (Type 6A) and without (Type 6B) glauconite, wackestone
(Type 7), and packstone (Type 8). Types 6A, 7, and 8 were interpreted as marine
in origin. Types 1—4 were interpreted as freshwater facies. Types 5 and possibly
6B were interpreted as brackish or influenced by marine waters.
2. Spirorbis, worm tubes of a serpulid worm, is grown by a marine organism that
cannot live in freshwater. Their presence in discrete layers within lacustrine
limestones of the Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the northern Appalachian basin
indicate that marine incursions occurred on a time scale less than a cyclothemic
cycle. Probable mechanisms of deposition of worm tubes inland include tidal or
seasonal changes of seawater influx onto floodplains as well as catastrophic
deposition due to hurricanes or even tsunamis. These processes are corroborated
with modern depositional processes associated with estuaries, deltas, and coastal
lakes today. 83
3. Evidence for marine incursion into the sediments of the Pennsylvanian to Permian
cyclothems of the northern Appalachian basin is not limited to that of Spirorbis
within the limestones. Possible tidal bundles in the freshwater Upper Freeport
shales (Belt et al., 2002) of the Allegheny Group as well as the presence of
Lingula brachiopod shells and a eurypterid from the Dunkard Group (Scott, 1971;
Martin, 1998) indicate marine influence as well. More work is needed to better
refine the pattern of limestone facies across the basin as well as fossil distribution
within the associated siliciclastics of the cyclothems. 84
References
Aalto, R., Maurice-Bourgoin, L., Dunne, T., Montgomery, D.R., Nittrouer, C.A., and Guyot, J.L., 2003. Episodic sediment accumulation on Amazonian flood plains influenced by El Niño/Southern Oscillation. Nature, v. 425, p. 493-497.
Alonzo-Zarza, A.M., 2003. Paleoenvironmental significance of palustrine carbonates and calcretes in the geological record. Earth-Science Reviews, v. 60, p. 261-298.
Alonzo-Zarza, A.M. and Calvo, J.P., 2000. Palustrine sedimentation in an episodically subsiding basin: the Miocene of the northern Teruel Graben (Spain). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 160, p. 1-21.
Alonzo-Zarza, A.M., Calvo, J.P., and García del Cura, M.A., 1992. Palustrine sedimentation and associated features in the Middle Miocene (Intermediate Unit) of the Madrid Basin, Spain. Sedimentary Geology, v. 76, p. 43-61.
Anderson, S.D., Tavares Marques, F.L., Martins Nogueira, M.F., 1999. The usefulness of traditional technology for rural development: the case of tide energy near the mouth of the Amazon. In Padoch, C., Ayres, J.M., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., and Henderson, A. (editors), Várzea: Diversity, Development, and Conservation of Amazonia’s Whitewater Floodplains, New York Botanical Garden Press, New York, p. 329-344.
Archer, A.W. and Maples, C.G., 1984. Trace fossil distribution across a marine-to- nonmarine gradient in the Pennsylvanian of southwestern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, v. 58, p. 448-466.
Archer, A.W. and Greb, S.F., 1995. An Amazon-scale drainage system in the Early Pennsylvanian of central North America. Journal of Geology, v. 103, p. 611-628.
Archer, A.W., Calder, J.H., Gibling, M.R., Naylor, R.D., Reid, D.R., and Wightman, W.G., 1995. Invertebrate trace fossils and agglutinated foraminifera as indicators of marine influence within the classic Carboniferous section at Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, v. 32, p. 2027-2039. 85
Arp, G., 1995. Lacustrine bioherm, spring mounds, and marginal carbonates of the Ries- Impact-Crater (Miocene, southern Germany). Facies, v. 33, p. 35-90.
Baker, G.O., 1975. Paleoecology of the fauna and paleoenvironmental analysis of the Portersville Shale in Perry, Morgan, and Muskingum Counties, Ohio. Masters Thesis, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 143p.
Barnes, R.S.K., 1989. What, if anything, is a brackish water fauna? Transactions of the Royal Society, Edinburgh, v. 80, p. 235-240.
Barrois, C., 1904. Sur les Spirorbes du Terrain Houiller de Bruay. Ann. Soc. Géol du Nord, v. 33, p. 50-63.
Beadle, L.C., 1974. The inland waters of tropical Africa: An introduction to tropical limnology. Longman Group Limited, London, 365 p.
Beckmann, H., 1954. Zur Kenntnis der fossilien Spirorben. Senckenberg. Lethaia, v. 35, p. 107-113.
Belokrys, L.S., 1984. Miocene Spirorbinae of the Black Sea region. Paleontological Journal, v. 2, p. 22-23.
Belt, E.S. and Lyons, P.C., 1989. A thrust-ridge paleodepositional model for the Upper Freeport coal bed and associated clastic facies, Upper Potomac coal field, Appalachian Basin, USA. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 12, p. 293- 328.
Belt, E.S., Friedrichs, C.T., Heckel, P.H., Lyons, T.W., and Martino, R.L., 2002. Upper Freeport roof shales, Appalachian basin. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, p. 63.
Bigarella, J.J. and Ferreira, A.M.M., 1985. Amazonian geology and the Pleistocene and the Cenozoic environments and paleoclimates. In Prance, G.T. and Lovejoy, T.E., (editors), Amazonia, Pergamon Press, Oxford, p. 49-71. 86
Bird, E., 2000. Coastal Geomorphology. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 322p.
Blakey, R.C., 2004. Tectonics, Sedimentation, Paleogeography of North Atlantic Region. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/300NAt.jpg. Accessed 20 October, 2004.
Boardman, R.S., Cheetham, A.H., and Rowell, A.J., 1987. Fossil Invertebrates. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Palo Alto, 713 p.
Bondevik, S., Svendsen, J.I., and Mangerud, J., 1997. Tsunami sedimentary facies deposited by the Storegga tsunami in shallow marine basins and coastal lakes, western Norway. Sedimentology, v. 44, p. 1115-1131.
Bosence, D.W.J., 1979. The factors leading to aggregation and reef formation in Serpula vermicularis L. In Larwood, G. and Rosen, B.R. (editors), Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. Academic Press, London, Systematics Association Special Volume 11, p. 299-318.
Boyd, R., Dalrymple, R., and Zaitlin, B.A., 1992. Classification of clastic coastal depositional environments. Sedimentary Geology, v. 80, p. 139-150.
Brand, U. and Gibling, M.R., 1994. Continental hydrology and climatology of the Carboniferous Joggins Formation (lower Cumberland Group) at Joggins, Nova Scotia: evidence from the geochemistry of bivalves. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 106, p. 307-321.
Brönmark, C. and Hannsson, L., 1998. The Biology of Lakes and Ponds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 216 p.
Buatois, L.A., Mángano, M.G., Maples, C.G., and Lanier, W.P., 1997. The paradox of nonmarine ichnofauna in tidal rhythmites: intergrating sedimentologic and ichnologic data from the Late Carboniferous of eastern Kansas, USA. Palaios, v. 12, p. 467-481.
Busch, R.M. and Rollins, H.B., 1984. Correlation of Carboniferous strata using a hierarchy of transgressive-regressive units. Geology, v. 12, p. 471-474. 87
Calver, M.A., 1965. Coal measures invertebrate faunas. In Muchison, D. and Westoll, T.S. (editors), Coal and Coal-Bearing Strata, Elsevier, New York, p. 147-177.
Carothers, M.C. and Rollins, H.B., 1979. Depositional setting of the Cambridge Limestone (Conemaugh Group); an Upper Pennsylvanian marine transgression in the Appalachian Basin. In Rollins, H.B. (editor), Geology of the Northern Appalachian Coal Field. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 116 p.
Cecil, C.B., 1990. Paleoclimate controls on stratigraphic repetition of chemical and siliciclastic rocks. Geology, v. 18, p. 533-536.
Cecil, C.B. and Eble, C.F., 1992. Paleoclimate controls on Carboniferous sedimentation and cyclic stratigraphy in the Appalachian basin. US Geological Survey Open File Report 92-546, 187p.
Chesnut, D.R. and Ettensohn, F.R., 1994. Eustatic and tectonic control of deposition of the Lower and Middle Pennsylvanian strata of the Central Appalachian Basin. Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, Society for Sedimentary Geology, v. 4, p. 51-64.
Clague, J.J., Hutchinson, I., Mathewes, R.W., and Patterson, R.T., 1999. Evidence for late Holocene tsunamis at Catala Lake, British Columbia. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 15, p. 45-60.
Clague, J.J., Bobrowsky, P.T., and Hutchinson, I., 2000. A review of geological records of large tsunamis at Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and implications for hazard. Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 19, p. 849-863.
Cognetti, G. and Maltagliati, F., 2000. Biodiversity and Adaptive Mechanisms in Brackish Water Fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin, v. 40, p. 7-14.
Cohen, A.S., 2003. Paleolimnology: History and Evolution of Lake Systems. Oxford University Press, 500 p. 88
Cole, G.A., 1994. Textbook of Limnology, Fourth Edition. Waveland Press Inc., Prospect Heights, Illinois, 412 p.
Condit, D.D., 1912. Conemaugh Formation in Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin, no. 17, 363 p.
Condra, G.E. and Elias, M.K., 1944. Carboniferous and Permian ctenostomatous bryozoa. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 55, p. 517-568.
Cooper, C.L., 1946. Pennsylvanian ostracodes of Illinois. Illinois Geological Survey, no. 70, 177p.
Cox, L.R., 1926. Anthracopupa Britannica sp. nov., a land gastropod from the red beds of the uppermost coal measures of northern Worchestershire. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 82, p. 401-410.
Croghan, P.C., 1983. Osmotic regulation and the evolution of brackish and freshwater faunas. Journal of the Geological Society London, v. 140, p. 39-46.
Crowell, J.C., 1999. Pre-Mesozoic Ice Ages: Their Bearing on Understanding the Climate System. Geological Society of America Memoir 192, 106p.
Dalrymple, R.W., Zaitlin, B.A., and Boyd, R., 1992. Estuarine facies models: conceptual basis and stratigraphic implications. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p. 1130-1146.
Daly, D.C. and Mitchell, J.D., 2000. Lowland vegetation of tropical South America. In Lentz, D.L. (editor), Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformatons in the PreColumbian Americas, Columbia University Press, New York, p. 391-453.
Dana, J.D., 1880. Manual of Geology: Treating of the Principles of the Science, Third Edition. Ivison, Blakeman and Company, New York, 911 p. 89
Darnell, R.M., 1962. Ecological history of Lake Pontchartrain, an estuarine community. American Midland Naturalist, v. 68, Issue 2, p. 434-444.
Davies, J.H., 1930. Nonmarine shells of Upper Carboniferous rocks of North America. Proceedings and collections, Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, v. 21, p. 98-106.
Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology – the Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, Mac Millian and Co., 2nd Edition, London, 694p.
Dickinson, R.E. and Virji, H., 1987. Climate change in the humid tropics, especially Amazonia, over the last twenty thousand years. In Dickinson, R.E. (editor), The Geophysiology of Amazonia, Vegetation and Climate Interacations, John Willey and Sons, New York, p. 91-101.
Dini, M., Tunis, G., and Venturini, S., 1998. Continental, brackish and marine carbonates from the Lower Cretaceous of Kolone-Barbariga (Istria, Croatia): stratigraphy, sedimentology and geochemistry. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 140, p. 245-269.
Dodson, S.I., 2004. Introduction to Limnology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 400 p.
Donaldson, A.C., 1969. Ancient deltaic sedimentation (Pennsylvanian) and its control on the distribution, thickness, and quality of coals. In Donaldson, A.C. (editor), Some Appalachian Coals and Carbonates: Models of Ancient Shallow-water Deposition. Preconvention GSA Field Trip Guide, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, 384p.
Donaldson, A.C., 1972. Pennsylvanian deltas in Ohio and northern West Virginia. First Annual Meeting – Eastern Section, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Field Trip Guidebook. 33p. 90
Donaldson, A.C., 1974. Ancient deltaic depositional environments recognized in Pennsylvanian rocks of northern Ohio River Valley. In Donahue, J., and Rollins, H.B. (editors), Conemaugh (Glenshaw) Marine Events, Field Guidebook of 3rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern Section of AAPG and SEPM, Pittsburgh Geological Society, p. F1-F11.
Donaldson, A.C., 1979. Depositional environments of the Upper Pennsylvanian Series. In Englund, K.J., Arndt, H.A., and Henry, T.W. (editors), Proposed Pennsylvanian System Stratotype, Virginia and West Virginia. American Geological Institute Selected Guidebook Series No. 1, p. 123-131.
Donaldson, A.C., Renton, J.J., and Presley, M.W., 1985. Pennsylvanian Deposystems and Paleoclimates of the Appalachians. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 5, p. 167-193.
Donnelly, J.P., Butler, J., Roll, S., Wengren, M., and Webb III, T., 2004. A backbarrier overwash record of intense storms from Brigantine, New Jersey. Marine Geology, v. 210, p. 107-121.
Dyer, K.R., 1973. Estuaries: A Physical Introduction. John Wiley and Sons, London, 140p.
Eagar, R.M.C., 1960. A summary of the results of recent work on the palaeoecology of Carboniferous nonmarine lamellibranches. Compte Rendu du 4me. Congres avance etudes Strat. Et de Geol. Dur Carbonifere, Heerlen, v. 1, p. 137-149.
Eagar, R.M.C., 1975. Some nonmarine bivalve faunas from the Dunkard Group and underlying measures. In Barlow, J.A. (editor), The Age of the Dunkard – Proceedings of the First I.C. White Memorial Symposium, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, p. 23-67.
Eager, R.M.C. and Belt, E.S., 2003. Succession, palaeoecology, evolution, and speciation of Pennsylvanian non-marine bivalves, northern Appalachian Basin, USA. Geological Journal, v. 38, p. 109-143. 91
Eby, G.N., 2004. Principles of Environmental Geochemistry. Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, 514 p.
Edmunds, W.E., Skema, V.W., and Flint, N.K., 1999. Chapter 10, Pennsylvanian. In Schultz, C.H. (Editor), The Geology of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Special Publication, no. 1, p. 148-169.
Eggleston, J.R., 1992. Sedimentology of the Upper Pennsylvanian Redstone limestone, northern Appalachian Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, no. 92- 546, p. 120-128.
Eggleston, J.R., 1994. The facies and depositional environment of an upper Pennsylvanian limestone, northern Appalachian Basin. In Lomando, A.J., Schreiber, B.C. and Harris, P.M. (editors), Lacustrine Reservoirs and Depositional Systems. SEPM Core Workshop, no. 19, p. 297-319.
Enos, P., 1983. Shelf environment. In Scholle, P.A., Bebout, D.G., and Moore, C.H. (editors), Carbonate Depositional Environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 33, p. 267-295.
Eriksson, K.A., Campbell, I.H., Palin, M., Allen, C.M., and Bock, B., 2004. Evidence for multiple recycling in Neoproterozoic through Pennsylvanian rocks of the central Appalachian basin. Journal of Geology, v. 112, p. 261-276.
Etheridge, R., 1880. A contribution to the study of the British tubicolar Annelida. Geological Magazine, v. 7, p. 109-369.
Evans, L.J., 1992. Chapter 5. Alteration products at the Earth’s surface – the clay minerals. In Martini, I.P. and Chesworth, W. (editors), Weathering, Soils and Paleosols. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 618 p.
Fahrer, T.R., 1996. Stratigraphy, Petrography and Paleoecology of Marine Units within the Conemaugh Group (Upper Pennsylvanian) of the Appalachian Basin in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, 298 p. 92
Fedorko, N., McClelland, S.W., Norton, C.W., and Henry, T.W., 1979. Road Log – Sixth Day. In Englund, K.J., Arndt, H.H., and Henry, T.H. (editors). Proposed Pennsylvanian System Stratotype, Virginia and West Virginia. American Geological Institute Selected Guidebook Series, no. 1., p. 56.
Ferm, J.C., 1970. Allegheny deltaic deposits. In Morgan, J.P. (editor). Deltaic Sedimentation: Modern and Ancient, SEPM Special Publication, no. 15, p. 246- 255.
Ferm, J.C., 1974. Carboniferous environmental models in eastern United States and their significance. In Briggs, G. (editor). Carboniferous of the Southeastern United States, Geological Society of America Special Paper 148, p. 79-95.
Ferm, J.C., 1975. Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Appalachian Plateau; a retrospective view. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 853, p. 57-64.
Ferm, J.C., 1978. Allegheny deltaic deposits: A model for the coal-bearing strata. In Ferm, J.C. and Horne, J.C., (editors). Carboniferous Depositional Environments in the Appalachian Region. Carolina Coal Group, University of South Carolina, p. 291-294.
Ferm, J.C. and Williams, E.G., 1965. Characteristics of a Carboniferous marine invasion in western Pennsylvania. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 35, p. 319-330.
Flint, N.K., 1965. Geology and mineral resources of southern Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey County Report, C56A 267 p.
Flügel, E., 2004. Microfacies of Carbonate Rocks: Analysis, Interpretation, and Application. Springer, Berlin, 976p.
Fonner, R.F. and Fedorko, N., 1985. Geology along I-79 Harrison County, West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Publication MAP-WV18, 49p. 93
Foster, N., 1972. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual No. 4, Freshwater Polychaetes (Annelida) of North America. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 16 p.
Freytet, P. and Plaziat, J., 1982. Continental carbonate sedimentation and pedogenesis - Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary of southern France. Contributions to Sedimentology, v. 12, 213 p.
Freytet, P. and Verrecchia, E., 2002 Lacustrine and palustrine carbonate petrography; an overview. Journal of Paleolimnology, v. 27, p. 221-237.
Gierlowski-Kordesch, E.H., 1998. Carbonate deposition in an ephemeral siliciclastic alluvial system: Jurassic Shuttle Meadow Formation, Newark Supergroup, Hartford Basin, USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 140, p. 161-184.
Gierlowski-Kordesch, E., Gómez-Fernández, J.C., and Meléndez, N., 1991. Carbonate and coal deposition in an alluvial-lacustrine setting: Lower Cretaceous (Weald) in the Iberian Range (east-central Spain). In Anadón, P., Cabrera, Ll. And Kelts, K. (editors), Lacustrine Facies Analysis, International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication No. 13, p. 109-125.
Goff, J.R., Rouse, H.L., Jones, S.L., Hayward, B.W., Cochran, U., McLea, W., Dickinson, W.W., and Morley, M.S., 2000. Evidence for an earthquake and tsunami about 3100-3400 years ago, and other catastrophic saltwater inundations recorded in a coastal lagoon. New Zealand Marine Geology, v. 170, p. 231-249.
Goulding, M., Barthem, R., and Ferreira, E., 2003. The Smithsonian Atlas of the Amazon. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C., 255p.
Grabau, A.W., 1920. A new species of Eurypterus from the Permian (now considered Upper Carboniferous) of China. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of China, No. 2, p. 61-67.
Grim, R.E., 1953. Clay Mineralogy. McGraw-Hill, New York, 384p. 94
Hammer, U.T., 1986. Saline Lake Ecosystems of the World. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, 616 p.
Håkanson, L. and Jansson, M., 1983. Principles of Lake Sedimentology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 316 p.
Harris, T., 1972. Some observations upon methods of incubation in the genus Spirorbis and their possible zoogeographical significance. In Clark, R.B. and Wootton, R.J. (editors), Essays in Hydrobiology, James Townsend and Sons, Ltd., University of Exeter, p. 107-118.
Hatcher, R.D., Jr., 1989. Tectonic synthesis of the U.S. Appalachians. In Hatcher, R.D., Jr., Thomas, W.A., and Viele, G.W. (editors), The Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen in the United States (Geology of North America, v. F-2), Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, p. 511-535.
Heckel, P.H., 1983. Diagenetic model carbonate rocks in mid-continent Pennsylvanian eustatic cyclothems. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 53, p. 733-759.
Heckel, P.H., 1984. Changing concepts of mid-continent Pennsylvanian cyclothems, North America. In Belt, E.S., Macqueen, R.W., and Nassichuk, W.W. (editors), Compte Rendu – Congres International de Stratigraphie et de Deologie du Carbonifere (International Congress on Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology), v. 9, p. 535-553.
Heckel, P.H., 1986. Sea-level curve for Pennsylvanian eustatic marine transgressive- regressive depositional cycles along mid-continent outcrop belt, North America. Geology, v. 14, p. 330-334.
Heckel, P.H., 1994. Evaluation of evidence for glacio-eustatic control over marine Pennsylvanian cyclothems in North America and consideration of possible tectonic events. In Ettensohn, F.R. (editor), Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, v. 4., p. 65-87. 95
Heckel, P.H., 1995. Glacial-eustatic base level-climate model for late middle to late Pennsylvanian coal-bed formation in the Appalachian basin. Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. B65, p. 348-356.
Heckel, P.H., 2002. Overview of Pennsylvanian cyclothems in mid-continent North America and brief summary of those elsewhere in the world. In Henderson, C.M., and Bamber, E.W. (editors), Memoir – Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, v. 19, p. 79-98.
Heckel, P.H., Gibling, M.R. and King, N.R., 1998. Stratigraphic model for glacial- eustatic Pennsylvanian cyclothems in highstand nearshore detrital regimes. Journal of Geology, v. 106, p. 373-383.
Hendry, J.P. and Kalin, R.M., 1997. Are oxygen and carbon isotopes of mollusc shells reliable palaeosalinity indicators in marginal marine environments? A case study from the Middle Jurassic of England. Journal of the Geological Society, London, v. 154, p. 321-333.
Herdendorf, C.E., 1990. Distribution of the world’s large lakes. In Tilzer, M.M., and Serruya, C. (editors), Large Lakes. Springer, New York, p. 3-38.
Hippensteel, S.P. and Martin, R.E., 1999. Foraminifera as an indicator of overwash deposits, barrier island sediment supply, and barrier island evolution: Folly Island, South Carolina. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 149, p. 115-125.
Hobday, D.K. and Horne, J.C., 1977. Tidally influenced barrier island and estuarine sedimentation in the Upper Carboniferous of southern West Virginia. Sedimentary Geology, v. 18, p. 97-122.
Holmden, C., Creaser, R.A., and Muehlenbachs, K., 1997. Paleosalinities in ancient brackish water systems determined by 87Sr/86Sr ratios in carbonate fossils: A case study from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 61, p. 2105-2118.
Horne, A.J. and Goldman, C.R., 1994. Limnology, second edition. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 576 p. 96
Horne, J.C., Ferm, J.C., Caruccio, F.T., and Baganz, B.P., 1978. Depositional models in coal exploration and mine planning in Appalachian region. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 62, p. 2379-2411.
Hutchinson, G.E., 1967. A Treatise of Limnology Volume II – Introduction to Lake Biology and the Limnoplankton. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 1115 p.
Ibañez, M.S.R., Cavalcante, P.R.S., Costa Neto, J.P., Barbieri, R., Pontes, J.P., Santana, S.C.C., Serra, C.L.M., Nakamoto, N., and Mitamura, O., 2000. Limnological characteristics of three aquatic systems of the pre-amazonian floodplain, Baixada Maranhense (Maranhao, Brazil). Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, v. 3, p. 521-531.
Junk, W.J., 1997. General aspects of floodplain ecology with special reference to Amazonian floodplains. In Junk, W.J. (editor), The Central Amazonian Floodplain, Ecological Studies, v. 126, p. 3-46.
Junk, W.J. and Piedade, M.T. F., 1997. Plant life in the floodplain with special reference to herbaceous plants. In Junk, W.J. (editor), The Central Amazonian Floodplain, Ecological Studies, v. 126, p. 147-185.
Kalff, J., 2002. Limnology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 592 p.
Keith, M.L. and Weber, J.N., 1964. Carbon and oxygen isotopic composition of selected limestones and fossils. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 28, p. 1787-1816.
Kelber, K.P., 1986. Taphonomische Konsequenzen aus der Besiedelung terrestrischer Pflanzen durch Spirorbidae (Annelida, Polychaeta). Cour. Forsch. – Inst. Senckenberg, v. 86, p. 13-26.
Kelber, K.P., 1987. Spirorbidae (Polychaeta, Sedentaria) auf Pflanzen des unteren Keupers – ein Betrag zur Phyto-Taphonomie. Neues Jahrbuch Geol. Paläont. Abhandlung, v. 175, p. 261-294. 97
Kietzke, K. and Heckert, A.B., 1995. Some microfossils from the Robledo Mountains Member of the Heuco Formation, Dona Ana County, New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin, v. 6, p. 57-62.
Klein, G.D., 1994. Depth determination and quantitative distinction of the influence of tectonic subsidence and climate on changing sea level during deposition of mid- continent Pennsylvanian cyclothems, in Dennison, J.M. and Ettensohn, F.R. (editors), Tectonic and Eustatic Controls on Sedimentary Cycles. SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, v. 4, p. 35-50.
Klein, G. and Willard, D.A., 1989. Origin of the Pennsylvanian coal-bearing cyclothems of North America. Geology, v. 17, p. 152-155.
Klemm, D.J., 1985. A Guide too the Freshwater Annelida (Polychaeta, Naidid and Turbificid Oligochaeta, and Hirudinea) of North America. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, 198 p.
Knox, L.W. and Gordon, E. A., 1999. Ostracodes as indicators of brackish water environments in the Catskill Magnafacies (Devonian) of New York State. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 148, p. 9-22.
Kovach, J., 1979. Introduction to Upper Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of Eastern Ohio. In Ettensohn, F.R., and Dever, G.R. (editors), Carboniferous Geology from the Appalachian Basin to the Illinois Basin through Eastern Ohio and Kentucky, Ninth International Congress of Carboniferous Geology and Stratigraphy. Field Trip no. 4. University of Kentucky, Lexington, p. 19-29.
Kues, B.S., 1988. Observations on the Late Pennsylvanian eurypterids of the Hamilton quarries, Kansas. In Mapes, R.H. and Mapes, G. (editors), Regional Geology and Paleontology of upper Paleozoic Hamilton Quarry area in southeastern Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Guidebook Series 6, p. 95-104.
Lamborn, R.E., 1951. Limestones of Eastern Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin, no. 49, 43p. 98
Lampert, W. and Sommer, U., 1997. Limnoecology: The Ecology of Lakes and Streams. Oxford University Press, New York, 382 p.
Lesack, L.F.W. and Melack, J.M., 1995. Flooding hydrology and mixture dynamics of lake water derived from multiple sources in an Amazon floodplain lake. Water Resources Research, v. 31, p. 329-345.
Lewis, H.G. and Dunagan, S.P., 2000. Depositional environments and paleoclimate of the Upper Pennsylvanian lacustrine limestones of the Conemaugh Group (eastern Ohio). Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 32, p. 58.
Lewis, W.M., 1987. Tropical Limnology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 18, p. 159-184.
Maeda, H., Mapes, R.H., and Mapes, G., 2003. Taphonomic features of a Lower Permian beached cephalopod assemblage from central Texas. Palaios, v. 18, p. 421-434.
Mamay, S.H., 1966. Tinsleya, a new genus of seed-bearing callipterid plants from the Permian of north-central Texas. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 523- E, 14p.
Mángano, M.G. and Buatois, L.A., 2004. Ichnology of Carboniferous tide-influenced environments and tidal flat variability in the North American mid-continent in McIlroy, D. (editor), The Application of Ichnology to Palaeoenvironmental and Stratigraphic Analysis, Geological Society, London, Special Publication 228, p. 157-178.
Manheim, F.T. and Hayes, L., 2002. Lake Pontchartrain Basin: Bottom Sediments and Related Environmental Resources. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, no. 1634 (CD-ROM).
Mapes, R.H. and Maples, C.G., 1988. “Marine’ macroinvertebrates, Hamilton Quarry, Kansas. In Mapes, R.H. and Mapes, G., (editors), Regional Geology and Paleontology of upper Paleozoic Hamilton Quarry area in southeastern Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Guidebook Series 6, p. 67-75. 99
Martin, W.D., 1998. Geology of the Dunkard Group (Upper Pennsylvanian-Lower Permian) in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 73, 49p.
Martino, R.L., 1991. Limnopus trackways from the Conemaugh Group (Late Pennsylvanian), southern West Virgina. Journal of Paleontology, v. 65, p. 957- 972.
Martino, R.L., 1996. Stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Kanawha Formation (Middle Pennsylvania), southern West Virginia, USA. International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 31, p. 217-248.
McComas, G.A. and Mapes, R.H., 1988. Fauna associated with the Pennsylvanian floral zones of the 7-11 Mine, Columbiana County, northeastern Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 88, p. 53-55.
Meybeck, M. 1995. Global distribution of lakes. In Lerman, A., Imboda, D.M., and Gat, J. (editors), Physics and Chemistry of Lakes. Springer, p. 1-35.
Miller, B.L., 1934. Limestones of Pennsylvania Fourth Series. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Bulletin, M20, 729 p.
Minoura, K., Nakaya, S., and Uchida, M., 1994. Tsunami deposits in a lacustrine sequence of the Sanriku coast, northeast Japan. Sedimentary Geology, v. 89, p. 25-31.
Moore, R.C. (editor), 1962. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part W. Miscellanea (including Worms). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, New York, 259p.
Morris, D.A., 1967. Lower Conemaugh (Pennsylvanian) depositional environments and paleogeography in the Appalachian coal basin. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas, 521p. 100
Nadon, G.C., Gierlowski-Kordesch, E.H., and Smith, J.P., 1998. Sedimentology and provenance of Carboniferous and Permian rocks of Athens County, southeastern Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey Guidebook, no. 15, p. 1-23.
Park, L.E., Cohen, A.S., Martens, K., and Bralek, R., 2003. The impact of taphonomic processes on interpreting paleoecologic changes in large lake ecosystems: ostracodes in Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi. Journal of Paleolimnology, v. 30, p. 127-138.
Pemberton, S.G. and Wightman, D.M., 1992. Ichnological characteristics of brackish water deposits. SEPM Core Workshop 17, p. 141-167.
Peryt, T.M., 1974. Spirorbid – algal stromatolites. Nature, v. 249, p. 239-238.
Petzold, D.D., 1989. Nonglacial lacustrine varves from the Benwood limestone (Pennsylvanian) of West Virginia. Southeastern Geology, v. 30, p. 193-201.
Petzold, D. D., 1990. Depositional environments of the lacustrine Benwood Limestone (Pennsylvanian) and paleoecology of the Benwood and associated lacustrine rocks of Late Paleozoic age, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, p. 1-146.
PiPujol, M.D. and Buurman, P., 1994. The distinction between ground-water gley and surface-water gley phenomena in Tertiary paleosols of the Ebro Basin, NE Spain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoeclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 110, p. 103-113.
Platt, N.H. and Wright, V.P., 1992. Palustrine carbonates and the Florida Everglades: Towards an exposure index for the fresh-water environment? Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p. 1058-1071.
Price, W.A., 1914. Notes on the paleontology of Preston County. Preston County Report, West Virginia Geological Survey, p. 472-551. 101
Railsback, L.B., 1993. Original mineralogy of Carboniferous worm tubes: evidence for changing marine chemistry and biomineralization. Geology, v. 21, p. 107-706.
Remane, A. and Schlieper, C., 1971. Biology of Brackish Water. Wiley – Interscience, 372 p.
Renison, G.E., 1992. Chapter 10: Transgressive barrier island and estuarine systems. In Walker, R.G., and James, N.P. (editors), Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change. Geological Association of Canada, p. 179-194.
Rice, C.L., 1981. Introduction: The Stratigraphic Framework of the Pennsylvanian Rocks in Eastern Kentucky. In Cobb, J.C. (Field Trip Leader), Coal and Coal-Bearing Rocks of Eastern Kentucky – Geological Society of America, Coal Section Guidebook. Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington, p. 2-5.
Rice, C.L., Sable, E.G., Dever, G.R., and Kehn, T.M., 1979. The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) Systems in Kentucky. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, no. 1110-F, 32 p.
Ritter, D.F., Kochel, R.C., and Miller, J.R., 2002. Process Geomorphology, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 560 p.
Ross, C.A. and Ross, J.R., 1987. Late Paleozoic sea levels and depositional sequences, in Ross, C.A. and Haman, D. (editors), Timing and Depositional History of Eustatic Sequences – Constraints on Seismic Stratigraphy, Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Ressearch Special Publication No. 24, p. 137-149.
Rouse, G.W. and Pleijel, F., 2001. Polychaetes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 354 p.
Ruedemann, R., 1934. Paleozoic Plankton of North America. Geological Society of America Memoir 2, 141p.
Ruppert, E., Fox, R.S., and Barnes, R.D., 2003. Invertebrate Zoology: A Functional Evolutionary Approach, seventh edition. Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, 1008 p. 102
Ruttner, F., 1963. Fundamentals of Limnology. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, 294 p.
Sawai, Y., 2002. Evidence for 17th-century tsunamis generated on the Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone, Lake Tokotan, Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 20, p. 903-911.
Scheffer, M. 1998. Ecology of Shallow Lakes. Chapman and Hall, London, 357p.
Schlichting, E. and Schwertmann, U., 1973. Pseudogley and Gley. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, 771 p.
Scholle, P.A., Bebout, D.G., and Moore, C.H. (editors), 1982. Carbonate Depositional Environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 33, 708p.
Scholle, P.A. and Ulmer-Scholle, D.S. 2003. A Color Guide to the Petrography of Carbonate Rocks: Grains, Textures, Porosities, Diagenesis. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 77, 474 p.
Schopf, T.J.M., 1978. Fossilization potential of an intertidal fauna: Friday Harbor, Washington. Paleobiology, v. 4, p. 261-270.
Schubel, J.R. (editor), 1971. The Estuarine Environment: Estuaries and Estuarine Sedimentation. American Geological Institute Short Course Lecture Notes, 324p.
Schwindt, E. and Iribane, O.O., 2000. Settlement sites, survival, and effects on benthos of an introduced reef-building polychaete in a SW Atlantic coastal lagoon. Bulletin of Marine Science, v. 67, p.73-82.
Scott, H.W., 1944. Permian and Pennsylvanian freshwater ostracodes. Journal of Paleontology, v. 18, p. 141-147. 103
Scott, H.W. and Summerson, C.H., 1943. Non-marine Ostracoda from the Lower Pennsylvanian in the southern Appalachians, and their bearing on intercontinental correlation. American Journal of Science, v. 241, p. 654-675.
Scott, R.W., 1971. Eurypterid from the Dunkard Group (Pennsylvanian and Permian) of southwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Paleontology, v. 45, p. 833-837.
Secor, D.T., Dallmeyer, R.D., and Snoke, A.W., 1986. Character of the Alleghanian Orogeny in the Southern Appalachians; Part III, Regional tectonic relations. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 97, p. 1345-1353.
Serruya C. and Pollingher U., 1983. Lakes of the Warm Belt. Cambridge University Press, 569 p.
Shanley, K.W., McCabe, P.J., and Hettinger, R.D., 1992. Tidal influence in Cretaceous fluvial strata from Utah, USA: a key to sequence stratigraphic interpretation. Sedimentology, v. 39, p. 905-930.
Sly, P.G., 1978. Chapter 3, Sedimentary processes in lakes. In Lerman, A. (editor), Lakes: Chemistry, Geology, Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 363 p.
Snoke, A.W. and Mosher, S., 1989. The Alleghanian orogeny as manifested in the Appalachian internides, The Appalachian-Ouachita orogen in the United States: Boulder, Colorado. Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. F-2, p. 288-318.
Sohn, I.G., 1977. Muscle scars of late Paleozoic freshwater ostracodes from West Virginia. Journal of Research of the U.S. Geological Survey, v. 5, p. 135-141.
Sohn, I.G., 1985. Latest Mississippian (Namurian A) nonmarine ostracodes from West Virginia and Virginia. Journal of Paleontology, v. 59, p. 446-460.
Stapf, K.R.G., 1971. Röhrentragende Spirorben (Polychaeta, Vermes) als Zeugen des sessilien Benthos aus dem pfälzischen Rotliegenden. Abhandlung des Hessischen Landesamtes für Bodenforschung, v. 60, p. 167-173. 104
Staub, J.R. and Cohen, A.D., 1979. The Snuggedy Swamp of South Carolina: a back- barrier estuarine coal-forming environment. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 49, p. 133-144.
Stevens, C.H., 1966. Paleoecologic implications of Early Permian fossil communities in eastern Nevada and western Utah. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 77, p. 1121-1130.
Strauch, R., 1966. Zur Autökologie and über bemerkenswerte funde von Spirorbis Daudin 1800 (Polychaeta sedentaria) im Oberkarbon des Saargebietes. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 40, p. 269-273.
Sturgeon, M.T. and Associates, 1958. The Geology and Mineral Resources of Athens County, Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin, no. 57, p. 43-189.
Suchy, D.R. and West, R.R., 1988. A Pennsylvanian cryptic community associated with laminar chaetetid colonies. Palaios, v. 3, p. 404-412.
Süss, M.P., Drozdzewski, G., and Schäfer, A., 2002. The Ruhr and Aachen basins – sedimentary environments, sequence stratigraphic model, and synsedimentary tectonics of Variscan foreland basins (Namurian B/C to Westphalian C, W. Germany). In Hills, L.V., Henderson, C.M., and Bamber, E.W. (editors), Carboniferous and Permian of the World, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 19, p. 208-227.
Swain, F.M., 1999. Fossil Nonmarine Ostracoda of the United States. Development in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy, 16. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 401p.
Talling, J.F., 2001. Environmental controls on the functioning of shallow tropical lakes. Hydrobiologia, v. 458, p. 1-8.
Ten Hove, H.A., 1979. Different causes of mass occurrence in serpulids. In Larwood, G. and Rosen, B.R. (editors), Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. Academic Press, London, Systematics Association Special Volume 11, p. 281- 298. 105
Tibert, N.E. and Scott, D.B., 1999. Ostracodes and agglutinated foraminifera as indicators of paleoenvironmental change in an Early Carboniferous brackish bay, Atlantic Canada. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 14, p. 246-260.
Trueman, A.E., 1942. Supposed commensalisms of Carboniferous spirorbids and certain non-marine lamellibranches. Geological Magazine, v. 79, p. 312-320.
Trueman, A.E., 1947. Stratigraphical problems in the coal measures of Europe and North America. Quarterly Journal of the Geologic Society of London, v. 102, p. 65-104.
Tundisi J. G., 1994. Tropical South America: Present and Perspectives. In Margalef R., (editor), Limnology Now: A Paradigm of Planetary Problems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 353-324.
Ushakova, O.O., 2003. Combined effect of salinity and temperature on Spirorbis spirorbis L. and Circeus spirillum L. larvae from the White Sea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, v. 296, p. 23-33.
Valero Garcés, B.L., Gierlowski-Kordesch, E.H., and Bragonier, W.A., 1994. Lacustrine facies model for nonmarine limestone within cyclothems in the Pennsylvanian (Upper Freeport Formation, Appalachian Basin) and its implications. In Lomando, A.J., Schreiber, B.C., and Harris, P.M. (editors), Lacustrine Reservoirs and Depositional Systems, SEPM Core Workshop no. 19, p. 321-381.
Valero Garcés, B.L., Gierlowski-Kordesch, E.H., and Bragonier, W.A., 1997. Pennsylvanian continental cyclothem development: no evidence of direct climate control in the Upper Freeport Formation (Allegheny Group) of Pennsylvania (northern Appalachian Basin). Sedimentary Geology, v. 109, p. 305-319.
Vasey, G.M. and Zodrow, E.L., 1983. Environmental and correlative significance of a nonmarine algal limestone (Westphalian D), Sydney Coalfield, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. Maritime Sediments and Atlantic Geology, v. 19, p 1-10. 106
Verschuren, D., 2002. Climate Reconstruction from African Lake Sediments ESF– HOLIVAR workshop, Lammi Finland, April 17-20th 2002, p. 107-114.
Wang, X., Auler, A.S., Edwards, R.L., Cheng, H., Cristalli, P.S., Smart, P.L., Richards, D.A., and Shen, C.C., 2004. Wet periods in northeastern Brazil over the past 210 kyr linked to distant climate anomalies. Nature, v. 432, p. 740-743.
Wanless, H.R. and Weller, J.M., 1932. Correlation and extent of Pennsylvanian cyclothems. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 43, p. 1003-1016.
Wanless, H.R. and Shepard, F.P., 1936. Sea level and climatic changes related to late Paleozoic cycles. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 47, p. 1177-1206.
Warth M. 1982. Vorkommen von Spirorbis (Annelida, Polychaeta) im Lettenkeuper (Unterkeuper, Obere Trias) von Nordwürttenberg. Jahrshefte der Gesellschaft für Naturkunde im Württenberg, v. 137, p. 87-98.
Weaver, C.E., 1989. Clays, Muds, and Shales. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 819p.
Weedman, S.D., 1988. Depositional Environment and Petrography of the Upper Freeport Limestone in Indiana and Armstrong Counties, Pennsylvania. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvanian State University, 257 p.
Weedman, S.D., 1994. Upper Allegheny Group (Middle Pennsylvanian) lacustrine limestones of the Appalachian Basin, USA. In Gierlowski-Kordesch, E. and Kelts, K. (editors). Global Geological Record of Lake Basins, v. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p. 127-134.
Weedon, M.J., 1994. Tube microstructure of recent and Jurassic serpulid polychaetes and the question of the Paleozoic ‘spirorbids’. Acta Paleontologica Polonica, v. 39, p. 1-15. 107
Wehrmann, A., Hertweck, G., Brocke, R., Jansen, U., Königshof, P., Plodowski, G., Schindler, E., Wilde, V., Blieck, A., and Schultka, S., 2005. Paleoenvironment of an Early Devonian land-sea transition: a case study from the southern margin of the Old Red Continent (Mosel Valley, Germany). Palaios, v. 20, p. 101-120.
Weir, J., 1945. A review of recent work on Permian nonmarine lamellibranches and its bearing on the affinities of certain nonmarine genera of the Upper Paleozoic. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, v. 20, p. 291-339.
Weller, J.M., 1930. Cyclic sedimentation of the Pennsylvanian period and its significance. Journal of Geology, v. 38, p. 97-135.
Weller, J.M., 1957. Paleoecology of the Pennsylvanian Period in Illinois and adjacent states.in Ladd, H.S. (editor), Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology. Volume 2 Paleoecology, Geological Society of America Memoir 67, p. 325-364
Weller, J.M., Cline, L.M., Stookey, D.G. and Wanless, H.R., 1942. Interbasin Pennsylvanian correlations: Illinois and Iowa. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 26, p. 1585-1593.
Wetzel, R.G., 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Academic Press, San Diego, 1006 p.
Wightman, W.G., Scott, D.B., Medioli, F.S., and Gibling, M.R., 1993. Carboniferous marsh foraminifera from coal-bearing strata at the Sydney basin, Nova Scotia: a new tool for identifying paralic coal-forming environments. Geology, v. 21, p. 631-634.
Williams, E.G., 1979. Marine and freshwater fossiliferous beds in the Pottsville and Allegheny Groups of western Pennsylvania. In Horne, J.C. and Ferm, J.C. (editors), Carboniferous Depositional Environments in the Appalachian Region. Collected Papers and Guidebook, p. 35-49.
Worbes, M., 1997. The forest ecosystem of the floodplains. In Junk, W.J. ed., The Central Amazonian Floodplain, Ecological Studies, v. 126, p. 223-265. 108
Wright, V.P., 1992. A revised classification of limestones. Sedimentary Geology, v. 76, p. 177-185.
Yochelson, E.L., 1975. Monongahela and Dunkard nonmarine gastropods. In Barlow, J.A. (editor), The Age of the Dunkard – Proceedings of the First I.C. White Memorial Symposium, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, p.249- 261.
Zarin, D.J., Pereira, V.F.G., Raffles, H., Rabelo, F.G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., and Congalton, R.G., 2001. Landscape change in tidal floodplains near the mouth of the Amazon River. Forest Ecology and Management, v. 154, p. 383-393.
109
Appendix A – Sample Localities
WV50-1 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: Fedorko et al., 1979. p. 58, mileage total 86.1. Location: US-50 westbound lane, just past Smithburg, Doddridge County WV. GPS Reading: E5235842/N4348460 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel. Thin section samples were collected from three limestone beds separated by shales and paleosols. Sample 1A was collected from the lower limestone, 1B was collected from the middle limestone, and 1C (bottom) and 1D (top) were collected from the upper limestone.
110
WV50-2 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: Fedorko et al., 1979. p. 58, mileage total 101.1. Location: US-50 eastbound lane, at the junction with Wolfsummit Road and Sycamore Road. GPS Reading: E546140/N4347583 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples were collected from a 2m thick limestone bed, 7.5 m above road level. Sample 2T was collected from the top of the bed and 2B was collected from the bottom.
111
WV50-3 Unit: Clarksburg Limestone Source: Fedorko et al., 1979. p. 59, mileage total 105.0. Location: US-50 eastbound lane, 0.5 miles before intersection with Wilsonburg Road. GPS Reading: E552801/N4348418 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples were collected from three limestone beds separated by shales. The bottom limestone crops out 2m above road level. Sample 3A was collected from the base of the bottom bed, sample 3B was collected from the top of the bottom bed, sample 3C was collected from the middle bed, and sample 3D was collected from the top bed.
112
WV50-4
Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: Fedorko et al., 1979. p. 61, mileage total 114.3. Location: US-50 eastbound lane, 0.5 miles before I-79 exit. GPS Reading: E560545/N4347487 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples were collected from two limestone beds separated by shale. Sample 4T was collected from the top bed, sample 4M was collected from the bottom bed, and sample OOP was collected from float. 113
WV79-1 Unit: Ames Limestone Source: Fonner, R.F. and Fedorko, N., 1985. Section 12. Location: I-79 southbound lane, milepost 113.2-113.4. GPS Reading: E559423/N4339087 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample was collected from a 8cm thick limestone bed 2m above road level.
114
WV79-2 Unit: Clarksburg Limestone Source: Fonner, R.F. and Fedorko, N., 1985. Section 10. Location: I-70 northbound lane, milepost 112.4-112.5. GPS Reading: E558252/N4338144 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples were collected from a single limestone bed approximately 6m above road level. Sample T was collected from the top, sample m was collected from the middle, and sample B was collected from the bottom.
115
WV79-3 Unit: Ames Limestone and Ewing Limestone Source: Fonner, R.F. and Fedorko, N., 1985. Section 14. Location: I-79 northbound lane, milepost 115.6. GPS Reading: E560723/N4342355 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample A was collected from a massive limestone bed (Ames) approximately 12m above road level, and sample E was collected from a nodular layer (Ewing) within shale 3m above road level.
WV79-4 Unit: Redstone Limestone Source: Cecil, C.B. and Eble, C.E., 1992. Stop 6, p. 36. Location: I-79 southbound lane, milepost 72.8. GPS Reading: E528403/N4291965 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample OOP was collected from float due to poor exposure. 116
WV79-5 Unit: Clarksburg Limestone Source: Fonner, R.F. and Fedorko, N., 1985. Section 26. Location: I-79 northbound lane at the north end of Exit 125. GPS Reading: E567183/N4355069 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples were collected from a single limestone bed approximately 15m above road level. Sample T was collected from the top of the bed and sample B was collected from the bottom of the bed.
117
WVI68-1 Unit: Clarksburg Limestone Source: Cecil, C.B. and Eble, C.E., 1992. Stop 3, p. 17. Location: I-68 westbound lane, milepost 4.0 just west of Exit 4 (Sabraton). GPS Reading: E592176/N4384815 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample was collected from the base of a single limestone bed approximately 10m above road level.
118
WV79-6 Units: Redstone Limestone and Pittsburgh Limestone Source: Cecil, C.B. and Eble, C.E., 1992. Stop 4, p. 22. Location: North side of the Morgantown Mall complex near I-79, Exit 152. GPS Reading: E592176/N4384815 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples were collected from two separate limestone beds, the lower bed is at road level and the upper bed resides just below a coal approximately 30m above road level. Samples A (base), B (middle), and C (top) were collected from the lower bed (Pittsburgh). Samples L (base), M (middle), and T (top) were collected from the upper bed (Redstone).
119
PA-5
Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Along the west bank of Chartiers Creek southwest of the Washington Fairgrounds at Arden, Strabane Township, Washington County, PA. GPS Reading: E586234/N4386377 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples were collected from three limestone beds along the west bank of Chartiers Creek. Sample 2 was collected from the bottom bed at stream level. Sample 1 was collected from the middle bed, and samples B (base) and A (top) were collected from the upper bed.
120
PA-6 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Southwest corner of intersection between US-19 (Washington Road) and Gilkeson Road (Yellow Belt), behind the Ground Round restaurant in Mount Lebanon, PA. GPS Reading: E580585/N4467409 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample A was collected from a massive limestone bed 3m above road level. Sample B was collected from the next massive limestone, 1m above sample A. Samples C-B (base) and C-A (top) were collected from a limestone bed 10cm above sample B. Samples D-B (base) and D-A (top) were collected from a massive limestone 6cm above sample C-A.
121
PA-4 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Southeast side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at Bridgeville Exit. GPS Reading: E571746/N4465973 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample 2 was collected from a massive limestone directly beneath a 4m sandstone at the top of the outcrop. Samples 1A (top) and 1B (base) were collected from the next massive limestone beneath sample 2 (separated by 15cm of shale). Sample 3 was collected from the next massive limestone beneath sample 1 (separated by 2.5m shale). Samples 4A (top) and 4B (base) were collected from the next massive limestone beneath sample 3 (separated by 20cm of shale). Samples 5T-A (top), 5T-B (middle), and 5B (bottom) were collected from the next massive limestone beneath sample 4 (separated by 1m shale). Sample 6 was sampled from the next massive limestone beneath sample 5 (separated by 2m shale, directly above cover).
122
PA-7 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Northeast side of Old Clairton Road in Option, 0.3 miles northwest of the intersection with Streets Run Road, behind brickyard. GPS Reading: E586947/N4466920 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples B (base), M (middle), and T (top) were collected from a massive limestone bed above 2.5m of cover, behind brickyard.
123
PA-13 Unit: Clarksburg Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: East side of PA-906, 0.5 miles south of Webster, Westmoreland County PA (east side of Monongahela River). GPS Reading: E597787/N4446868 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples M (middle) and B (bottom) were collected from a single massive limestone bed approximately 20 meters above road level, within a 40-50m thick black shale bed.
124
PA-36 Unit: Nadine Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: North side of PA-48, 0.4 miles east of intersection with PA-148, McKeesport PA. GPS Reading: E599202/N4464169 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample was collected from a 5cm thick limestone bed, directly atop a 15cm coal bed (approximately 3m above road level).
125
PA-23 Unit: Ames Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: West side of Braddock Avenue, 0.35 miles south of intersection with Forbes Road, hillside behind Frick Park tennis courts, Edgewood/Wilkinsburg area of Pittsburgh PA. GPS Reading: E593533/N4476650 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample collected from a crinoidal limestone bed approximately 10m down hillside behind tennis courts.
126
PA-11 Unit: Clarksburg Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: South side of US-22, 3.3 miles east of Allegheny/Westmoreland County Line, between Murraysville and Delmont, PA. GPS Reading: E614928/N4474668 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel. See Figure 25, p. 58 for thin section collection sites.
127
PA-21 Unit: Ames Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: North side of US-22 in Monroeville, PA. Just east of the junction with PA-376 (across from Spitzer Auto). GPS Reading: E607088/N4477083 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples 1 (top) and 2 (bottom) were collected from a massive limestone bed 0.75m above road level.
128
PA-22 Unit: Ames Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: North side of PA-130, 1 mile west of Pitcairn, PA. GPS Reading: E602814/N4472493 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample 3 was collected from a massive limestone bed, 4m above road level. Sample 2 was collected from a massive limestone 45cm above sample 3 (separated by shale). Sample 1 was collected from a massive limestone directly above sample 2 (separated by a thin ~1-2cm thick shale).
129
PA-35 Unit: Nadine Limestone (Type Locality) Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Allegheny River Boulevard opposite Nadine Pumping Station, just before the intersection with Nadine Road on the south side of Allegheny River, approximately 1.5 miles east of Highland Park Bridge. GPS Reading: E595318/N4481590 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample collected from a 10-15cm nodular layer within a black shale, 0.5m above road level.
130
PA-19 Unit: Ames Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: North side of PA-28 west, at the Etna Exit. GPS Reading: E589942/N4483240 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample T (top), M-A (upper middle), M-B (lower middle), and B (base) were collected from a massive limestone approximately 10m above road level.
131
PA-38 Unit: Pinecreek Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Fall Run Park, Shaler Township, Allegheny County, PA. Fall Run Road intersects PA-8, 3 miles north of intersection between PA-8 and PA-28, at Etna. The outcrop is located 600 feet past the upper falls in the creek bed. GPS Reading: E589257/N4487268 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample U-2 was collected from a massive limestone beneath water level in the creek bed. Sample U-1 was collected directly above sample U-2, slightly out of water.
132
PA-47 Unit: Lower Brush Creek Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Fall Run Park, Shaler Township, Allegheny County, PA. Fall Run Road intersects PA-8, 3 miles north of intersection between PA-8 and PA-28, at Etna. The outcrop is located in the bed of Fall Run about 1200 feet northeast of the lower parking circle. GPS Reading: E589257/N4487268 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section samples L-2 (base) and L-1 (top) were collected from a massive limestone unit 1.5m above creek bed.
133
PA-16 Unit: Ames Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: East side of I-279, 2.2 miles north of the Camp Horn Road Exit. GPS Reading: E577520/N4489694 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample was collected from the top of a massive limestone, 3m above road level.
134
PA-12 Unit: Clarksburg Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: I-79 south, 1.5 miles south of the Wexford Exit and just north of the I-79/I-279 split. GPS Reading: E576340/N44993530 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample 5A (top) and 5B (base) were collected from a massive limestone approximately 2m above road level. Samples 3 (top), 4A (middle), and 4B (base) were collected from a 1m thick limestone directly atop sample 5. Sample 2 was collected from a 15cm thick limestone, 1m above sample 3 (separated by shale). Sample 1 was collected from a nodular layer within shale, 1.5-2m above sample 2.
135
PA-45 Unit: Pine Creek Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Along PA-28 bypass around Kittanning, Armstrong County, PA. Just past PA-28/PA-422E intersection. Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample 3 was collected from a massive limestone 2m above road level. Sample 2 was collected from a 1m nodular layer directly above sample 3. Sample 1 was collected from a 30cm massive limestone directly above the nodular layer.
136
PA-46 Unit: Pine Creek Limestone Source: John Harper, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, personal communication. Location: Outcrops on unnamed side road paralleling Crooked Creek, 700 feet from intersection with US-422, 0.5 miles northwest of Shelocta, Indiana County, PA. GPS Reading: E642819/N4502301 Sampled By: C. Cassle & Z. Wessel Thin section sample was collected from a massive limestone approximately 2m above road level.
137
K-44 Unit: Two Mile Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: WV-27 (Edens Fork Road) Charleston, WV. Just off I-77 Exit 106. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples A (lower 20cm), B (middle 60cm), and C (upper 10cm) were collected from a massive limestone just above a red paleosol. Samples D (lower 20cm) and E (upper 10cm) were sampled down the road from the same unit as samples A,B, and C.
K-43 Unit: Two Mile Limestone (Type Section) Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: WV-27 (Edens Fork Road) west of intersection with I-77, 0.5 miles west of Guthrie, WV. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples A-E were sampled in sequence (from base to top; A=bottom, E=top) from a massive limestone on top of a red paleosols, approximately 10m above road level..
K-50 Unit: Two Mile Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Southwest side of Route 622 (WV-21), 0.25 miles south of Guthrie, WV (by Allen’s Auto Recycling). Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section sample collected from a massive limestone beneath a nodular layer.
138
K-49
Unit: Unnamed limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Along I-77 southbound lane 1 mile south of Exit 106. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples A (bottom) and B (top) were sampled from a 50cm thick massive limestone, cropping out 24m above the Two Mile limestone.
K-48 Unit: Two Mile Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Along I-77 northbound lane, 1 mile north of I-77/I-79 split. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples 1 (bottom), 2 (40cm from top), and 3 (top), were collected from a 1.2 meter interval of interbedded claystone and massive limestone.
L-3 Unit: Two Mile Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: WV-119, 0.25 miles east of Priestly, Lincoln County, WV. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples A-1 (upper) and A-2 (lower) were sampled from a massive limestone bed approximately 10-15m above road level and samples A-3 (upper) and A-4 (lower ) were sampled from a massive limestone 0.75m above samples A-1 and A-2 (separated by mudstone).
139
L-7 Unit: Lower Brush Creek Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: WV-119, 0.8 miles south of Priestly, Lincoln County, WV. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples 1 (upper) and 2 (lower) were sampled from a 1m thick limestone.
KY-4 Unit: Lower Brush Creek Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Along west side of route 23 at milepost 9.5, 1 mile south of I-64, and 0.1 miles south of intersection with Campbell Run Road, Boyd County, KY. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section sample collected from a nodular layer within shales and mudstones, 1.5m above a coal.
140
KY-3 Unit: Upper Brush Creek Limestone Source: Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: KY-23 south, 246 feet north of Campbells Run Road. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E. H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples C (middle), B (bottom), and A (top) were collected from a siliceous-quartz silt limestone, approximately 25m above road level.
141
KY-21 Unit: Upper Brush Creek Limestone & Lower Brush Creek Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Along KY-23, 2 miles west of Louisa Kentucky, and just past intersection of KY-23 and KY-3. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples B1 (top), B2 (middle), and B3 (bottom) were collected from the Upper Brush Creek, and sample A was collected from the Lower Brush Creek.
KY-26 Unit: Cambridge Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Along the north side of I-64, east of exit 185. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section sample KY-26 was sampled from a massive limestone 5m above road level and samples B-1 (top) and B-2 (bottom) were sampled from an unnamed nodular unit above.
KY-27 Unit: Lower Brush Creek Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Along the north side of I-64, 0.25 miles east of exit 185. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section sample collected out of place due to slumping.
142
KY-30 Unit: Lower Brush Creek Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: Along KY-67 (Industrial Parkway), just off I-64 Exit 179. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section collected from a massive limestone approximately 30m above road level.
KY-31 Unit: Lower Brush Creek Limestone Source: Ron Martino, Marshall University, Geology Department, personal communication. Location: KY-180, 0.25 miles south of I-64 Exit 185, behind the Flying-J truck stop. Sampled By: C. Cassle, E.H. Gierlowski-Kordesch & R. Martino Thin section samples U (upper) and L (lower) were sampled from a massive limestone approximately 30m above road level.
143
JG-1 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: Jacob M. Glascock, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Senior Thesis. Location: Along Hook Lake loop road, just off OH-83 within the American Electric Power Recreation Land Park, Morgan County, OH. Sampled By: J. Glascock
JG-2 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: Jacob M. Glascock, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Senior Thesis. Location: Along T-944, 2 miles west of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow camping area, within the American Electric Power Recreation Land Park, Morgan County, OH. Sampled By: J. Glascock
R-32c Unit: Pittsburgh Limestone Source: Kevin D. Kallini, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Masters Thesis. Location: Along US-50, 1 mile east of OH-622 (at East Canaan Church), Rome Township, Athens County, Stewart OH, Quadrangle. Sampled By: K. Kallini
144
CN-16 Unit: Pittsburgh Limestone Source: Kevin D. Kallini, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Masters Thesis. Location: Along US-50, 1 mile east of OH-690. Canaan Township, Athens County, Stewart OH, Quadrangle. GPS Reading: E2112371.84/N482582.42 Sampled By: K. Kallini
CN-11 Unit: Pittsburgh Limestone Source: Kevin D. Kallini, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Masters Thesis. Location: Along the east side of OH-690, 1 mile south of Rt. 34 (Mush Run Road). GPS Reading: E2115472/N491554 Sampled By: K. Kallini
CN-5a Unit: Pittsburgh Limestone Source: Kevin D. Kallini, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Masters Thesis. Location: Along Canaan Township Road 221, 0.25 miles north of Rt. 34 (Mush Run Road). GPS Reading: E2120366.92/N493050.18 Sampled By: K. Kallini
145
CR-23 Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: Kevin D. Kallini, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Masters Thesis. Location: Along OH-42, 0.5 miles west of US-50. GPS Reading: E2136261.57/N456488.28 Sampled By: K. Kallini
B-31a Unit: Benwood/Arnoldsburg Limestone Source: Kevin D. Kallini, Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences, Masters Thesis. Location: Along the east side of Rt. 48, 1 mile north of the intersection with RT. 48, Bern Township, Athens County, OH. GPS Reading: E2127227.02/N499197.13 Sampled By: K. Kallini
146
Appendix B – Photomicrographs of the 174 studied limestone samples.
**Note: Instances where two numbers appear with one in parenthesis: the first number is the sample locality number, and the number in parenthesis is the sample (thin section) number. All sample localities are detailed in Appendix A.
B-31a (48), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sparse ostracode fossils and spar-filled and clay-lined tubules present.
CN-5a (T-221), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sparse pyritized ostracode fossils and spar-filled and clay-lined tubules present.
147
CN-11 (99-L-22), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sparse ostracode fossils, plant fragments, and spar-filled voids present.
CN-16 (690B/A), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sparse ostracode fossils, plant fragments, and pyrite present.
148
CN-16 (99-L-21), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sparse ostracode fossils and spar-filled voids present.
CR-23 (T-108/42), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in a micrite matrix. Planar spar-filled void spaces present. 149
JG-1 (2), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6b – Intraclastic matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of 40-80% regular to subangular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix, along with very fine sand- to pebble-sized, angular to subangular, micritic intraclasts.
JG-1 (7), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6B – Intraclastic matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of 40-80% regular to subangular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix, along with very fine sand- to pebble-sized, angular to subangular, micritic intraclasts. 150
JG-1 (8), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6B – Intraclastic matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~60% regular to subangular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix in addition to very fine sand- to pebble-sized, angular to subangular, micritic intraclasts.
JG-1 (9), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6B – Intraclastic matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~50% regular to subangular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix along with very fine sand- to pebble-sized, angular to subangular, micritic intraclasts. 151
JG-1 (10), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6B – Intraclastic matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~30% regular to subangular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix with very fine sand- to pebble-sized, angular to subangular, micritic intraclasts.
JG-1 (13B), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. 152
JG-1 (15A), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 & 3 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone and intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~20% ostracode fossils and lithorelict intraclasts floating in a micritic matrix.
JG-1 (18), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes. 153
JG-1 (21), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~25% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces).
JG-1 (23), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~30% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces)
154
JG-1 (24), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite.
JG-1 (25), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 & 3 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone and intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~15% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces) and lithorelict intraclasts floating in a micritic matrix.
155
JG-1 (26), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~30% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces)
JG-1 (27), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracodes, and peloidal structures.
156
JG-2 (40), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains sparse charophytes and spar-filled fractures.
JG-2 (42), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 3 – Micrite and Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists primarily of micritic matrix with some lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Features include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracodes, charophytes, and peloidal structures.
157
JG-2 (43C), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common feature include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracodes, and detrital quartz grains.
JG-2 (46), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common feature include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracodes, and peloidal structures.
158
JG-2 (50), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 3 – Micrite and intraclastic microbreccia. Consists primarily of micritic matrix with relict laminations, and some lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common feature include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracodes, and charophytes.
JG-2 (101), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common feature include: spar-filled, planar/circum-granular void spaces, clay-lined tubules, ostracodes, and peloidal structures.
159
JG-2 (102), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Some spar-filled voids, ostracodes, and charophytes present.
JG-2 (103), Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Some spar-filled voids, ostracodes, and charophytes present.
160
JP-KY-26, unnamed limestone above the Cambridge limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Rare spar-filled voids, ostracodes, and charophytes present.
K-43A, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments, individual tubes, or small clusters in a micritic matrix. Tubes are commonly filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode and charophyte fragments and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
161
K-43B, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments and individual tubes. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and associated with ostracode fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
K-43C, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 3 – Micrite and Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists primarily of micritic matrix with some lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Features include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
162
K-43D, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 3 – Micrite and Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists primarily of micritic matrix with some lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Features include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
K-43E, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tube (~1mm in diameter and length) floats in micritic matrix and filled with sparry cement. Tube is also associated with carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
163
K-44A-1, Two Mile limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia, Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar to circumgranular void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
K-44A-2, Two Mile limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
164
K-44A-3, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
K-44B, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and spar-filled ostracodes.
165
K-44C, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sparse ostracodes and spar-filled void spaces.
K-44D, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments and individual tubes, in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode fragments and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
166
K-48-1, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common feature include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
K-48-2, Two Mile limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tube is filled with sparry cement and with associated ostracode fragments and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
167
K-48-3, Two Mile limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite, Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode fragments.
K-49A, unnamed limestone above the Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments, individual tubes, or small clusters in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and associated with ostracode and charophyte fragments.
168
K-49B, unnamed limestone above the Two Mile limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sparse ostracodes, relict lamination, and pyrite present.
K-50, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Pyrite present.
169
KY-3A, Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6A – Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~40% regular to sub-angular quartz and chert grains floating in a micritic matrix. Siliciclastic grains range in size from very fine sand to very coarse sand. Glauconite is present.
KY-3B, Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 & 6A – Wackestone and matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Contains ~50% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Micritic matrix contains ~10% floating angular to subangular quartz grains. Fossil content is highly varied: brachiopods, bivalves, and echinoderms.
170
KY-3C, Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6A – Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~60% regular to sub-angular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix. Siliciclastic grains range in size from very fine sand to very coarse sand.
KY-4, Lower Brush Creek limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 to 8 – Wackestone to packstone. Contains varying amounts of allochems (surrounded by a micritic matrix grading into grain contact with little matrix). Fossil content is highly varied: brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, and foraminifera.
171
KY-21A, Lower Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 8 – Packstone. Contains a self supporting framework of fossils. Fossil content is highly varied: brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, and foraminifera.
KY-21B-1, Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6A – Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~80% regular to sub- angular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix. Siliciclastic grains range in size from very fine sand to very coarse sand. Very fine- grained glauconite is present. 172
KY-21B-2, Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 & 6A – Wackestone and matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Contains ~50% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Micrite matrix contains ~15% floating angular to subangular quartz grains. Fossil content primarily consists of echinoderms and bivalves.
KY-21B-3, Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6A – Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~70% regular to sub- angular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix. Siliciclastic grains range in size from very fine sand to very coarse sand.
173
KY-26, Cambridge limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 8 – Packstone. Consists of a self-supporting framework of fossils. Fossil content includes bivalves, echinoderms, and foraminifera. Some very fine quartz grains also present.
KY-26B-1, unnamed limestone above the Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments and individual tubes, in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement.
174
KY-26B-2, unnamed limestone above the Upper Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments, individual tubes, or small clusters in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and micrite, and are associated with ostracode fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
KY-27, Lower Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 8 – Packstone. Contains a self supporting framework of fossils. Fossil content is highly varied: bryozoans, bivalves, echinoderms, foraminifera, and trilobites.
175
KY-30, Lower Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 8 – Packstone. Contains a self-supporting framework of fossils. Fossil content is highly varied: brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, foraminifera, and trilobites.
KY-31L, Lower Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~50% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content is highly varied: bryozoans, bivalves, gastropods, echinoderms, foraminifera.
176
KY-31U, Lower Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~20% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content includes bryozoans and bivalves.
L3A-1, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~30% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces).
177
L3A-2, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes in cross section (~1mm in diameter) float in micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement.
L3A-3, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode fragments. 178
L3A-4, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as a small cluster in micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode fragments.
L7-1, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments and individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and micrite, and are associated with ostracode fragments.
179
L7-2, Two Mile limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis- bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments, individual tubes, or small clusters in a micritic matrix. Tubes are commonly filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode and charophyte fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
PA-4-1A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble.
180
PA-4-1B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with spar-filled void spaces, and ostracodes.
PA-4-2, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with spar-filled circumgranular void spaces.
181
PA-4-3, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with spar-filled planar void spaces and clay-lined tubules. Sample also exhibits red- orange-yellow mottling.
PA-4-4A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with spar-filled planar to circumgranular void spaces.
182
PA-4-4B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 3 – Micrite and Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists primarily of micrite with some lithorelict intraclasts floating in matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and a spar-filled ostracode.
PA-4-5B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with ostracodes.
183
PA-4-5T-A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with spar-filled void spaces, and ostracodes.
PA-4-5T-B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with ostracode fragments.
184
PA-4-6A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains some disarticulated ostracode carapaces.
PA-4-6B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 2 – Micrite and ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Sample transitions from micritic intervals with few fossils to dense ostracode layers.
185
PA-5-1, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled circumgranular voids and clay-lined tubules,.
PA-5-2, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: clay-lined tubules, ostracode fragments, and red-orange-yellow mottling.
186
PA-5-A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite.
PA-5-B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite.
187
PA-6-A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Some very fine quartz grains are present.
PA-6-B
PA-6-B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite.
188
PA-6C-A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite.
PA-6C-B
PA-6C-B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of micritic-peloidal intraclasts surrounded by spar-filled void spaces.
189
PA-6D-A, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~70% disarticulated ostracode carapaces.
PA-6D-B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 2 – Micrite and Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Sample transitions from mostly micrite to an ostracodal wackestone (~30% disarticulated carapaces).
190
PA-7B, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces and clay-lined tubules.
PA-7M, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains some ostracode shell fragments.
191
PA-7T, Benwood/Arnoldsburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains ostracode shells and floating lithorelict intraclasts.
PA-11-1, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 & 2 – Micrite and Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Contains alternating layers of micrite and ostracodal wackestone (~30% disarticulated carapaces).
192
PA-11-2, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode fragments.
PA-11-3, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments, individual tubes, in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode and charophyte fragments.
193
PA-11-4, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled circumgranular void spaces, and ostracode fragments.
PA-11-5, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as small clusters in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and micrite, and are associated with ostracode and charophyte fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
194
PA-11-6, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled circumgranular voids and clay-lined tubules.
PA-12-1, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite.
195
PA-12-2, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar void spaces and orange-red-yellow mottling.
PA-12-3, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 & 6B – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite and intraclastic matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix containing ~25% quartz grains. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and micrite, and are associated with ostracode fragments and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
196
PA-12-4A, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 & 6B – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite and intraclastic matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments and individual tubes, in a micritic matrix containing ~25% quartz grains. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracodes, carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
PA-12-4B, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as individual tubes or small clusters in a micritic matrix with rare quartz grains. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracodes and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
197
PA-12-5A, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains rare clay-lined tubules, spar-filled microfractures, and spar-filled charophyte fossils.
PA-12-5B, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
198
PA-13B, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains rare ostracode fossils and quartz grains.
PA-13M, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains rare ostracode fossils and quartz grains.
199
PA-16-1, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~25% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of echinoderms and trilobites.
PA-19B, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~40% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods, echinoderms, and foraminifera.
200
PA-19M-A, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~40% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content includes bivalves, echinoderms, and foraminifera.
PA-19M-B, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~30% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content includes brachiopods, foraminifera, and ostracodes.
201
PA-19T, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~35% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content includes brachiopods, bivalves, foraminifera, and trilobites.
PA-21-1, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~70% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods and trilobites.
202
PA-21-2, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~75% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods, bivalves, and foraminifera.
PA-22-1, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~50% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods and foraminifera.
203
PA-22-2, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~40% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods, echinoderms, and foraminifera.
PA-22-3, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains 30% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods, echinoderms, and foraminifera.
204
PA-23, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~45% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods and echinoderms.
PA-35, Nadine limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6A – Matrix- supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~40% regular to sub-angular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix. Siliciclastic grains range in size from very fine sand to very coarse sand. Glauconite is present.
205
PA-36, Nadine limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 8 – Packstone. Contains a self supporting framework of fossils. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods and echinoderms. Rare quartz grains present.
PA-38-U1, Pine Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~35% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of bivalves, echinoderms, and foraminifera. Rare quartz grains also present.
206
PA-38-U2, Pine Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 & 6A – Wackestone and matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Contains 60% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of bryozoans and brachiopods. Sample also contains ~20% quartz grains.
PA-45-1, Pine Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~20% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods, bivalves, and echinoderms.
207
PA-45-2, Pine Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~60% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of bivalves, echinoderms, and algae.
PA-45-3, Pine Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 6A – Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Consists of ~40% regular to sub-angular quartz, chert, microcline, and plagioclase grains floating in a micritic matrix. Siliciclastic grains range in size from very fine sand to very coarse sand.
208
PA-46, Pine Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~50% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods and echinoderms.
PA-47-L1, Lower Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 & 6A – Wackestone and Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Contains >10% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods, echinoderms, and foraminifera. Sample also contains ~10% fine-grained quartz grains.
209
PA-47-L2, Lower Brush Creek limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 & 6A – Wackestone and Matrix-supported siliciclastic microbreccia. Contains ~40% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of bryozoans, bivalves, echinoderms, and foraminifera. Sample also contains ~20% fine- grained quartz grains.
R-32c (FP-2), Pittsburgh limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Rare ostracode shell fragments present.
210
R-32c (FP-3), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Sample contains ostracode shell fragments and one spar-filled articulated ostracode.
R-32C (FP-4), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled circumgranular void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes.
211
R-32C (FP-5), Pittsburgh limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes. Red-orange-yellow mottling also present.
R-32C (FP-6A), Pittsburgh limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracodes. Red-orange-yellow mottling also present.
212
R-32C (FP-7), Pittsburgh limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments and individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with micrite and are associated with ostracode fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts
R-32C (FP-8), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~40% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces) with sparry cement.
213
R-32C (FP-9), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains clay-lined tubules with sparry cement.
R-32C (FP-10), Pittsburgh Limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains ostracode fragments and some floating lithoclasts.
214
R-32C (FP-11), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains some lithoclasts and ostracode shell fragments.
R-32C (FP-13L), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains rare ostracode shell fragments.
215
R-32C (FP-13U), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains some lithoclasts and ostracode shell fragments.
R-32C (FP-18), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracode shell fragments.
216
R-32C (FP-19), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains some lithorelict intraclasts and ostracode shell fragments.
R-32C (FP-20), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains some lithorelict intraclasts and ostracode shell fragments.
217
R-32C (FP-21), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracode shell fragments.
R-32C (FP-22), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains rare ostracode shell fragments.
218
R-32C (FP-23), Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Displays some relict laminations and pyritized ostracode carapaces.
WV50-1A, Benwood Limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar to circumgranular void spaces, and ostracode shell fragments. Also displays red-orange-yellow mottling.
219
WV50-1B, Benwood limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tube (~2mm in diameter) float as individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tube is filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
WV50-1C, Benwood limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains ostracode shell fragments and two spar-filled articulated ostracodes.
220
WV50-1D, Benwood limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar/circumgranular void spaces and ostracodes.
WV50-2B, Benwood limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, charophytes, and ostracodes.
221
WV50-2T, Benwood limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~30% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces).
WV50-3A, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of micrite containing spar-filled void spaces overprinted by red-orange-yellow mottling.
222
WV50-3B, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar/circumgranular void spaces, and spar-filled to fragmentary ostracode shells.
WV50-3C, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and micrite, and are associated with ostracode fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
223
WV50-3D, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments, individual tubes, or small clusters in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode and charophyte fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
WV50-4M, Benwood limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains of clay-lined tubules with sparry cement.
224
WV50-4-OOP, Benwood limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains spar-filled ostracode shells and spar-filled void spaces.
WV50-4T, Benwood limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~40% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces).
225
WV79-1, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~45% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of brachiopods and echinoderms.
WV79-2B, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with rare ostracode fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
226
WV79-2M, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble, and are associated with spar-filled planar/circumgranular void spaces.
WV79-2T, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~10% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces).
227
WV79-3A, Ames limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 7 – Wackestone. Contains ~20% allochems surrounded by a micritic matrix. Fossil content primarily consists of bryozoans, brachiopods, foraminifera.
WV79-3E, Ewing limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains lithorelict intraclasts and floating quartz grains.
228
WV79-4-OOP, Redstone limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracode shell fragments. Sample also displays red-yellow-orange mottling.
WV79-5B, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and micrite, and are associated with ostracode shell fragments, and carbonate microbreccia and intraclasts.
229
WV79-5T, Clarksburg limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 1 – Micrite. Contains spar-filled ostracode and charophyte fossils.
WV79-6A, Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Displays vague outlines of lithorelict intraclasts and disseminated pyrite.
230
WV79-6B, Pittsburgh limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 2 – Ostracodal wackestone to packstone. Consists of micritic matrix containing ~50% ostracode shells (intact or disarticulated carapaces).
WV79-6C, Pittsburgh limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar/circumgranular void spaces and clay-lined tubules.
231
WV79-6L, Redstone limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 3 – Intraclastic microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar- filled planar/circumgranular void spaces, clay-lined tubules, and ostracode shell fragments.
WV79-6M, Redstone limestone (cross polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 4 – Mottled micrite and microbreccia. Consists of lithorelict intraclasts floating in micritic matrix. Intraclasts range in size from very fine sand to pebble. Common features include: spar-filled planar void spaces and ostracode shell fragments. Also displays red-orange- yellow mottling.
232
WV79-6T, Redstone limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 – Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tube (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments in a micritic matrix and filled with sparry cement.
WVI68-1, Clarksburg limestone (plane polarized, FOV = 5.5mm). Facies Type 5 - Spirorbis-bearing biomicrite. Spirorbis worm tubes (~1mm in diameter and length) float as fragments or individual tubes in a micritic matrix. Tubes are filled with sparry cement and are associated with ostracode fragments.
233
Appendix C - Facies types, characteristics, and interpreted depositional salinity of the ten limestone units sampled from the Conemaugh and Monongahela Groups across the northern Appalachian basin from 52 localities and studied from 174 thin sections. Facies type descriptions appear in Table 1, on page 41.
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment Along E side of Rt. 48, 1 mile N of intersection with Rt. B-31a 48 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater 48, Athens Co. OH Along Canaan Twp. Rd. 221, 0.25 miles N of Rt. 34, CN-5a T-221 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Athens Co. OH Along E side of OH-690, 1 mile S of Rt. 34 (mush Run CN-11 99-L-22 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Rd., Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-690, Canaan Twp. Athens CN-16 690B/A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-690, Canaan Twp. Athens CN-16 99-L-21 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Co. OH CR-23 T-108/42 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Along OH-42, 0.5 miles of US-50, Athens Co. OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 2 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 6b Brackish? OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 7 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 6b Brackish? OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 8 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 6b Brackish? OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 9 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 6b Brackish? OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 10 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 6b Brackish? OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 13B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater OH
234
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 15A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 & 3 Freshwater OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 18 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 21 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 Freshwater OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 23 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 Freshwater OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 24 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 25 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 & 3 Freshwater OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 26 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 Freshwater OH Along Hook Lake loop Rd., just off OH-43, Morgan Co. JG-1 27 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater OH Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 40 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 42 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 & 3 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 43C Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 46 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 50 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 & 3 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 101 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH
235
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 102 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH Along T-944, 2 miles W of OH-83 near the Sand Hollow JG-2 103 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater camping area, Morgan Co. OH Unnamed, above JP-KY-26 JP-KY-26 Type 1 Freshwater Along N side of I-64, E of Exit 185 Cambridge WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) W of intersection with I-77, 0.5 K-43 A Two Mile Type 5 Brackish miles west of Guthrie, WV. WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) W of intersection with I-77, 0.5 K-43 B Two Mile Type 5 Brackish miles west of Guthrie, WV. WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) W of intersection with I-77, 0.5 K-43 C Two Mile Type 1 & 3 Freshwater miles west of Guthrie, WV. WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) W of intersection with I-77, 0.5 K-43 D Two Mile Type 1 & 3 Freshwater miles west of Guthrie, WV. WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) W of intersection with I-77, 0.5 K-43 E Two Mile Type 5 Brackish miles west of Guthrie, WV. WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) Charleston WV. Just off I-77 K-44 A-1 Two Mile Type 3 Freshwater Exit 106 WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) Charleston WV. Just off I-77 K-44 A-2 Two Mile Type 3 Freshwater Exit 106 WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) Charleston WV. Just off I-77 K-44 A-3 Two Mile Type 3 Freshwater Exit 106 WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) Charleston WV. Just off I-77 K-44 B Two Mile Type 3 Freshwater Exit 106 WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) Charleston WV. Just off I-77 K-44 C Two Mile Type 1 Freshwater Exit 106 WV-27 (Edens Fork Rd.) Charleston WV. Just off I-77 K-44 D Two Mile Type 5 Brackish Exit 106
236
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment
K-48 1 Two Mile Type 3 Freshwater Along I-77 north, 1 mile N of I-77/I-79 split
K-48 2 Two Mile Type 5 Brackish Along I-77 north, 1 mile N of I-77/I-79 split
K-48 3 Two Mile Type 5 Brackish Along I-77 north, 1 mile N of I-77/I-79 split
K-49 A Unnamed, above Two Mile Type 5 Brackish Along I-77 south, 1 mile S of Exit 106
K-49 B Unnamed, above Two Mile Type 1 Freshwater Along I-77 south, 1 mile S of Exit 106 SW side of Rt. 622 (WV-21), 0.25 miles S of Guthrie, K-50 K-50 Two Mile Type 1 Freshwater WV (by Allen’s Auto Recycling) KY-23 S, 246 feet N of Campbells Run Rd., Boyd Co. KY-3 A Upper Brush Creek Type 6a Marine KY KY-23 S, 246 feet N of Campbells Run Rd., Boyd Co. KY-3 B Upper Brush Creek Type 7 & 6a Marine KY KY-23 S, 246 feet N of Campbells Run Rd., Boyd Co. KY-3 C Upper Brush Creek Type 6a Marine KY Along W side of Rt. 23 at milepost 9.5, 1 mile S of I-64, KY-4 KY-4 Lower Brush Creek Type 7 to 8 Marine Boyd Co. KY KY-21 A Lower Brush Creek Type 8 Marine Along KY-23, 2 miles W of Louisa KY
KY-21 B-1 Upper Brush Creek Type 6a Marine Along KY-23, 2 miles W of Louisa KY
KY-21 B-2 Upper Brush Creek Type 7 & 6a Marine Along KY-23, 2 miles W of Louisa KY
KY-21 B-3 Upper Brush Creek Type 6a Marine Along KY-23, 2 miles W of Louisa KY
237
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment
KY-26 KY-26 Cambridge Type 8 Marine Along N side of I-64, E of Exit 185 Unnamed, above Upper KY-26 B-1 Type 5 Brackish Along N side of I-64, E of Exit 185 Brush Creek Unnamed, above Upper KY-26 B-2 Type 5 Brackish Along N side of I-64, E of Exit 185 Brush Creek KY-27 KY-27 Lower Brush Creek Type 8 Marine Along N side of I-64, 0.25 miles E of Exit 185
KY-30 KY-30 Lower Brush Creek Type 8 Marine Along KY-67 (industrial parkway), just off I-64 Exit 179 KY-180, 0.25 miles S of I-64 Exit 185, behind Flying J KY-31 L Lower Brush Creek Type 7 Marine truck stop KY-180, 0.25 miles S of I-64 Exit 185, behind Flying J KY-31 U Lower Brush Creek Type 7 Marine truck stop L3 A-1 Two Mile Type 2 Freshwater WV-119. 0.25 miles E of Priestly, Lincoln Co. WV
L3 A-2 Two Mile Type 5 Brackish WV-119. 0.25 miles E of Priestly, Lincoln Co. WV
L3 A-3 Two Mile Type 5 Brackish WV-119. 0.25 miles E of Priestly, Lincoln Co. WV
L3 A-4 Two Mile Type 5 Brackish WV-119. 0.25 miles E of Priestly, Lincoln Co. WV
L7 1 Two Mile Type 5 Brackish WV-119, 0.8 miles S of Priestly, Lincoln Co. WV
L7 2 Two Mile Type 5 Brackish WV-119, 0.8 miles S of Priestly, Lincoln Co. WV SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 1A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit
238
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 1B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 2 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 3 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 4 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 4A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 4B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 & 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 5B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 5T-A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 5T-B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 6A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit SE side of PA-50, 2 miles past intersection with I-79 at PA-4 6B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 & 2 Freshwater Bridgeville Exit West bank of Chartiers Creek, SW of fairgrounds at PA-5 1 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Arden, Washington Co. PA West bank of Chartiers Creek, SW of fairgrounds at PA-5 2 Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 4 Freshwater Arden, Washington Co. PA West bank of Chartiers Creek, SW of fairgrounds at PA-5 A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater Arden, Washington Co. PA West bank of Chartiers Creek, SW of fairgrounds at PA-5 B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater Arden, Washington Co. PA
239
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment SW corner of intersection between US-19 & Gilkeson PA-6 A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater Rd., Mount Lebanon, PA SW corner of intersection between US-19 & Gilkeson PA-6 B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater Rd., Mount Lebanon, PA SW corner of intersection between US-19 & Gilkeson PA-6 C-A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater Rd., Mount Lebanon, PA SW corner of intersection between US-19 & Gilkeson PA-6 C-B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Rd., Mount Lebanon, PA SW corner of intersection between US-19 & Gilkeson PA-6 D-A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 Freshwater Rd., Mount Lebanon, PA SW corner of intersection between US-19 & Gilkeson PA-6 D-B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 & 2 Freshwater Rd., Mount Lebanon, PA NE side of Old Clairton Rd. in Option, 0.3 miles NW of PA-7 B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater intersection with Streets Run Rd., Allegheny Co. PA NE side of Old Clairton Rd. in Option, 0.3 miles NW of PA-7 M Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater intersection with Streets Run Rd., Allegheny Co. PA NE side of Old Clairton Rd. in Option, 0.3 miles NW of PA-7 T Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater intersection with Streets Run Rd., Allegheny Co. PA S side of US-22, 3.3 miles east of PA-11 1 Clarksburg Type 1 & 2 Freshwater Allegheny/Westmoreland Co. Line, Delmont, PA. S side of US-22, 3.3 miles east of PA-11 2 Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish Allegheny/Westmoreland Co. Line, Delmont, PA. S side of US-22, 3.3 miles east of PA-11 3 Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish Allegheny/Westmoreland Co. Line, Delmont, PA. S side of US-22, 3.3 miles east of PA-11 4 Clarksburg Type 3 Freshwater Allegheny/Westmoreland Co. Line, Delmont, PA. S side of US-22, 3.3 miles east of PA-11 5 Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish Allegheny/Westmoreland Co. Line, Delmont, PA.
240
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment S side of US-22, 3.3 miles east of PA-11 6 Clarksburg Type 3 Freshwater Allegheny/Westmoreland Co. Line, Delmont, PA. I-79 south, 1.5 miles S of Wexford Exit & just N of PA-12 1 Clarksburg Type 1 Freshwater I-79/I-279 split I-79 south, 1.5 miles S of Wexford Exit & just N of PA-12 2 Clarksburg Type 4 Freshwater I-79/I-279 split I-79 south, 1.5 miles S of Wexford Exit & just N of PA-12 3 Clarksburg Type 5 & 6b Brackish I-79/I-279 split I-79 south, 1.5 miles S of Wexford Exit & just N of PA-12 4A Clarksburg Type 5 & 6b Brackish I-79/I-279 split I-79 south, 1.5 miles S of Wexford Exit & just N of PA-12 4B Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish I-79/I-279 split I-79 south, 1.5 miles S of Wexford Exit & just N of PA-12 5A Clarksburg Type 1 Freshwater I-79/I-279 split I-79 south, 1.5 miles S of Wexford Exit & just N of PA-12 5B Clarksburg Type 3 Freshwater I-79/I-279 split E side of PA-906, 0.5 miles S of Webster, Westmoreland PA-13 B Clarksburg Type 1 Freshwater Co. PA E side of PA-906, 0.5 miles S of Webster, Westmoreland PA-13 M Clarksburg Type 1 Freshwater Co. PA E side of I-279, 2.2 miles N of Camp Horn Rd. Exit, PA-16 1 Ames Type 7 Marine Allegheny Co. PA PA-19 B Ames Type 7 Marine N side of PA-28W at the Etna Exit
PA-19 M-A Ames Type 7 Marine N side of PA-28W at the Etna Exit
PA-19 M-B Ames Type 7 Marine N side of PA-28W at the Etna Exit
241
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment
PA-19 T Ames Type 7 Marine N side of PA-28W at the Etna Exit N side of US-22 in Monroeville, PA., just E of junction PA-21 1 Ames Type 7 Marine with PA-376 (across from Spitzer Auto) N side of US-22 in Monroeville, PA., just E of junction PA-21 2 Ames Type 7 Marine with PA-376 (across from Spitzer Auto) PA-22 1 Ames Type 7 Marine N side of PA-130, 1 mile W of Pitcairn, PA
PA-22 2 Ames Type 7 Marine N side of PA-130, 1 mile W of Pitcairn, PA
PA-22 3 Ames Type 7 Marine N side of PA-130, 1 mile W of Pitcairn, PA W side of Braddock Ave., 0.35 miles S of intersection PA-23 PA-23 Ames Type 7 Marine with Forbes Rd., behind Frick Park, Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River Blvd. opposite Nadine Pumping Station, PA-35 PA-35 Nadine Type 6a Marine 1.5 miles E of Highland Park Bridge N side of PA-48, 0.4 miles E of intersection with PA- PA-36 PA-36 Nadine Type 8 Marine 148, McKeesport, PA Fall Run Park, Shaler Twp. Allegheny Co. PA, 600 feet PA-38 U1 Pine Creek Type 7 Marine past upper falls in creek bed Fall Run Park, Shaler Twp. Allegheny Co. PA, 600 feet PA-38 U2 Pine Creek Type 7 & 6a Marine past upper falls in creek bed Just past PA-28/PA-422E intersection along PA-28 PA-45 1 Pine Creek Type 7 Marine bypass around Kittanning, Armstrong Co. PA Just past PA-28/PA-422E intersection along PA-28 PA-45 2 Pine Creek Type 7 Marine bypass around Kittanning, Armstrong Co. PA Just past PA-28/PA-422E intersection along PA-28 PA-45 3 Pine Creek Type 6a Marine bypass around Kittanning, Armstrong Co. PA
242
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment Along road next to Crooked Creek, 700 feet from US- PA-46 PA-46 Pine Creek Type 7 Marine 422, 0.5 miles NW of Shelocta, Indiana Co. PA Fall Run Park, Shaler Twp. Allegheny Co. PA, 1200 feet PA-47 L1 Lower Brush Creek Type 7 & 6a Marine NE of lower parking circle, in creek bed Fall Run Park, Shaler Twp. Allegheny Co. PA, 1200 feet PA-47 L2 Lower Brush Creek Type 7 & 6a Marine NE of lower parking circle, in creek bed Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-2 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-3 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-4 Pittsburgh Type 3 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-5 Pittsburgh Type 4 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-6A Pittsburgh Type 4 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-7 Pittsburgh Type 5 Brackish Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-8 Pittsburgh Type 2 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-9 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-10 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-11 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-13L Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH
243
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-13U Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-18 Pittsburgh Type 3 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-19 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-20 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-21 Pittsburgh Type 3 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-22 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH Along US-50, 1 mile E of OH-622 (at East Canaan R-32c FP-23 Pittsburgh Type 1 Freshwater Church), Rome Twp. Athens Co. OH WV50-1 A Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 4 Freshwater US-50 west, Just past Smithburg, Doddridge Co. WV
WV50-1 B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 5 Brackish US-50 west, Just past Smithburg, Doddridge Co. WV
WV50-1 C Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater US-50 west, Just past Smithburg, Doddridge Co. WV
WV50-1 D Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater US-50 west, Just past Smithburg, Doddridge Co. WV US-50 east, at the junction of Wolfsummit Rd. & WV50-2 B Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 3 Freshwater Sycamore Rd., Doddridge Co. WV US-50 east, at the junction of Wolfsummit Rd. & WV50-2 T Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 Freshwater Sycamore Rd., Doddridge Co. WV US-50 east, 0.5 miles before intersection with WV50-3 A Clarksburg Type 4 Freshwater Wilsonburg Rd., Doddridge Co. WV
244
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment US-50 east, 0.5 miles before intersection with WV50-3 B Clarksburg Type 3 Freshwater Wilsonburg Rd., Doddridge Co. WV US-50 east, 0.5 miles before intersection with WV50-3 C Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish Wilsonburg Rd., Doddridge Co. WV US-50 east, 0.5 miles before intersection with WV50-3 D Cambridge Type 5 Brackish Wilsonburg Rd., Doddridge Co. WV WV50-4 M Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater US-50 east, 0.5 miles before I-79 exit ramp
WV50-4 OOP Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 1 Freshwater US-50 east, 0.5 miles before I-79 exit ramp
WV50-4 T Benwood/Arnoldsburg Type 2 Freshwater US-50 east, 0.5 miles before I-79 exit ramp
WV79-1 WV79-1 Ames Type 7 Marine I-79 south, milepost 113.2-113.4
WV79-2 B Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish I-79 north, milepost 112.4-112.5
WV79-2 M Clarksburg Type 3 Freshwater I-79 north, milepost 112.4-112.5
WV79-2 T Clarksburg Type 2 Freshwater I-79 north, milepost 112.4-112.5
WV79-3 A Ames Type 7 Marine I-79 north, milepost 115.6
WV79-3 E Ewing Type 1 Freshwater I-79 north, milepost 115.6
WV79-4 OOP Redstone Type 4 Freshwater I-79 south, milepost 72.8
WV79-5 B Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish I-79 north, along Exit 125 ramp
245
Sample Interpretation Location ID Lithologic Unit Location Number Facies Type Environment
WV79-5 T Clarksburg Type 1 Freshwater I-79 north, along Exit 125 ramp North side of Morgantown Mall complex, near I-79 Exit WV79-6 A Pittsburgh Type 3 Freshwater 152 North side of Morgantown Mall complex, near I-79 Exit WV79-6 B Pittsburgh Type 2 Freshwater 152 North side of Morgantown Mall complex, near I-79 Exit WV79-6 C Pittsburgh Type 3 Freshwater 152 North side of Morgantown Mall complex, near I-79 Exit WV79-6 L Redstone Type 3 Freshwater 152 North side of Morgantown Mall complex, near I-79 Exit WV79-6 M Redstone Type 4 Freshwater 152 North side of Morgantown Mall complex, near I-79 Exit WV79-6 T Redstone Type 5 Brackish 152 WVI68-1 WVI68-1 Clarksburg Type 5 Brackish I-68 west, milepost 4.0, just west of Exit 4 (Sabraton)