DOCSLIB.ORG

The Seismic Characterization of Meteorite Impact Structures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Seismic Characterization of Meteorite Impact Structures University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies Legacy Theses 2000 The seismic characterization of meteorite impact structures Mazur, Michael James Mazur, M. J. (2000). The seismic characterization of meteorite impact structures (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/18283 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/39754 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY The Seismic Characterization of Meteorite Impact Structures by Michael James Mazur A THESIS SUBMITIED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AM)GEOPHYSICS CALGARY, ALBERTA AUGUST, 1999 O Michael James Mazur 1999 National Library BiMioth&que nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographques 395 Wellingtorr Street 395. nm WdlingtOrr Ottawa ON KIA ON4 -ON KYAON4 carlada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, pr&ter,distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la fonne de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent &re imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autoriation. University of Calgary Abstract The Seismic Characterization of Impact Structures by Michael James Mzur This thesis examines the seismic characteristics of three possible impact craters and one confirmed impact structure. Using established seismic methods and impact crater scaling relations, an investigation of these features is undertaken. The largest structure examined here is the 24-km diameter Steen River impact feature in northwestern Alberta, Canada This astrobleme has been imaged by more than 130 seismic lines to date. The second largest structure studied in this thesis is the 3.5-km Hotchkiss structure located approximately 300-km south of the Steen River impact structure. The three seismic lines imaging this feature clearly show many of the diagnostic features of a complex impact feature. The Muskingum structure in Ohio, USA is approximateIy 1.3 krn across and possibly represents an impact crater within the simple-tocomplex transition zone. The 2- km diameter Puffin structure is apparent on a 3-D seismic dataset acquired in the Timor Sea off the coast of northwestern Australia. Interpretation of this structure is inherently complex and indefinite due to extensive faulting in the area and due to the proximity of several kimberlite pipes to the study area. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES.......)... .......... .... ............... ............... .....-............. ....Hn.H-- ..............H....H......l...mH........ W LIST OF TABLES...... ,...~....~.~..H......~-m..m.~.n-........H..n~n........ ..........&..*.. ...................................... .-.OH ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....,. .........., ..)......n...m.....H-......).................. ....... )................ X GLOSSARY .................,...,............................................)......................... INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF IMPACT STRUCTURES...... .,..-. ..... .......................- ..... 1 1.1 THE HISTORY OF IMPACT CRATER STUDIES .................................................................................................. 1 f .2 TERRESTRIALIMPACT CRATER STUDIES ...................................................................................................... 3 I .3 IMPAC~CRATER TYPES ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.4 ECONOMIC[MPORTANCE OF IMPACT STRUCIWRES ...................................................................................... 8 1 -5 OTHER CRATER-LLKEFEATURES .................................................................................................................. 9 PHYSICS OF IMPACT CRATERJNG... ). ...... .. .....,....... .., ................................................................. ..,.. 11 2.1 STRESSES.LIMITS. AND HUGONIOTCURVES ............................................................................................ 11 2.2 THE THREE STAGES OF IMPAn.................................................................................................................. 15 2.3 VERTICALAND OBLIQUE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 16 2.4 STRUCIURED TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 18 2.5 SCALINGOF CRATER DIMENSIONS........................................................................................................... 20 SIMPLE IMPACT STRUCTURES ....................................................... ....................... 23 3.1 PUFFIN3.D. NW AUSTRALIA.................................................................................................................... 23 3.1. I Geological Setting ......................................................................................................... .. .................. 23 3.1.2 Seismic Data /nterpretation .................................................................................. ,. ....................... 21 3.1.3 Impact Crater Morphomerry ............................................................................................................. 25 3.1.4 Other Possible Eiplanatiom ............................................................................................................. 28 3.1.5 Concluding Remarks ..................... ,... ........................................................................................ 29 3.2 MUSKBGWM.OHIO .................................................................................................................................... 46 3.2.1 Geological Setting ............................................................................................................................. 46 3.2.2 Geopl~ysicalCha racte risrics .................................................................. ... .. 47 3.2.3 Seismic Data Interpretatiorr ....................... ,. ................................................................................. 47 3.2.4 Morphometry .................................................................................................................................... 48 3.2.5 Other Possible Explanations ............................ ............................................................................... 51 3.2.6 Age of the Muskingum Strucurre ..................................................................................................... 52 3.2.7 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................................... 53 COMPLEX IMPACT STRUCTURES ...,me. ). ...ere. ......~..~.......................................... 0.G 4.1 HOTCHKISS.ALBERTA ............................................................................................................................. 65 3.1.I Geological Setting ............................................................................................................................. 65 4.1.2 Geophysical Characteristics .................................... ,... ..................................................................... 66 4.1.3 Seismic Data Interpretation .............................................................................................................. 68 4.1.4 Morphomerry ..................................................................................................................................... 70 4.1.5 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................................... 72 4.2 STEEN RIVER, ALBERTA ............................................................................................................................ 84 4.1.1 Geological Setting ........................................................................................................................... 84 ... 4.1.2 Interpretation of the Sersmrc Time Sections...................................................................................... 85 4.1.3 Observations..................................................................................................................................... 86 4.1.4 Time-to-depth Conversion using Petrosys ........................................................................................ 87 4.1.5 Depth Conversion using GeoStat .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3-D Seismic Characterization of a Cryptoexplosion Structure
    Cryptoexplosion structure 3-D seismic characterization of a eryptoexplosion structure J. Helen Isaac and Robert R. Stewart ABSTRACT Three-quarters of a circular structure is observed on three-dimensional (3-D) seismic data from James River, Alberta. The structure has an outer diameter of 4.8 km and a raised central uplift surrounded by a rim synform. The central uplift has a diameter of 2.4 km and its crest appears to be uplifted about 400 m above regional levels. The structure is at a depth of about 4500 m. This is below the zone of economic interest and the feature has not been penetrated by any wells. The disturbed sediments are interpreted to be Cambrian. We infer that the structure was formed in Late Cambrian to Middle Devonian time and suffered erosion before the deposition of the overlying Middle Devonian carbonates. Rim faults, probably caused by slumping of material into the depression, are observed on the outside limb of the synform. Reverse faults are evident underneath the feature and the central uplift appears to have coherent internal reflections. The amount of uplift decreases with increasing depth in the section. The entire feature is interpreted to be a cryptoexplosion structure, possibly caused by a meteorite impact. INTRODUCTION Several enigmatic circular structures, of different sizes and ages, have been observed on seismic data from the Western Canadian sedimentary basin (WCSB) (e.g., Sawatzky, 1976; Isaac and Stewart, 1993) and other parts of Canada (Scott and Hajnal, 1988; Jansa et al., 1989). The structures present startling interruptions in otherwise planar seismic features.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Impact Structures Provide the Only Ground Truth Against Which Computational and Experimental Results Can Be Com­ Pared
    Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1987. 15:245-70 Copyright([;; /987 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved TERRESTRIAL IMI!ACT STRUCTURES ··- Richard A. F. Grieve Geophysics Division, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA OY3, Canada INTRODUCTION Impact structures are the dominant landform on planets that have retained portions of their earliest crust. The present surface of the Earth, however, has comparatively few recognized impact structures. This is due to its relative youthfulness and the dynamic nature of the terrestrial geosphere, both of which serve to obscure and remove the impact record. Although not generally viewed as an important terrestrial (as opposed to planetary) geologic process, the role of impact in Earth evolution is now receiving mounting consideration. For example, large-scale impact events may hav~~ been responsible for such phenomena as the formation of the Earth's moon and certain mass extinctions in the biologic record. The importance of the terrestrial impact record is greater than the relatively small number of known structures would indicate. Impact is a highly transient, high-energy event. It is inherently difficult to study through experimentation because of the problem of scale. In addition, sophisticated finite-element code calculations of impact cratering are gen­ erally limited to relatively early-time phenomena as a result of high com­ putational costs. Terrestrial impact structures provide the only ground truth against which computational and experimental results can be com­ pared. These structures provide information on aspects of the third dimen­ sion, the pre- and postimpact distribution of target lithologies, and the nature of the lithologic and mineralogic changes produced by the passage of a shock wave.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Brushy Creek Feature, Saint Helena Parish, Louisiana Andrew Schedl
    Open-File Series No. 18-01 Fall 2018 A Study of the Brushy Creek Feature, Saint Helena Parish, Louisiana Andrew Schedl Abstract This study was unable to determine the origin of the Brushy Creek feature. New¯ thin sections were made and new and old thin sections were examined using the opti- cal and scanning electron microscope (SEM). Powdered samples from the center of Brushy Creek were examined using X-ray diffraction (XRD). In sample 16SHPA, a half dozen new grains with probable planar deformation features (PDF) were found with orientations of {1012} and {1011}. Preliminary SEM studies of zircons showed no evidence for PDFs or reidite. Only one grain from the center of Brushy Creek structure showed possible rectangular fracture. XRD analysis found no evidence for high-pressure forms of quartz, coesite and stishovite. Suggestions for further study are included. Introduction North-south oriented ridges and ravines dominate the landscape in this part of Louisiana. The Brushy Creek is a “noticeable circular hole” in the ridge/ravine topography (Heinrich, 2003). The feature is about 2 kilometers in diameter and has a relief of 15 meters and Brushy Creek breeches the southeast rim of this feature. Exposed in the rim is the poorly lithified and highly fractured Pliocene Citronelle Formation. Near the Brushy Creek feature, the Citronelle formation consists of cross-bedded, massive, poorly sorted fine to coarse sand 9-12 meters thick underlain by 6 meters of laminated clay and silt. The Kentwood Brick and Tile Company has drilled the center of the feature and have found that the laminated clay and silt is absent.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia
    Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia Chapter 6 Catastrophic mass failure of a Middle Cambrian platform margin, the Lawn Hill Megabreccia, Queensland, Australia Leonardo Feltrin 6-1 Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia Acknowledgement of Contributions N.H.S. Oliver – normal supervisory contributions Leonardo Feltrin 6-2 Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia Abstract Megabreccia and related folds are two of the most spectacular features of the Lawn Hill Outlier, a small carbonate platform of Middle Cambrian age, situated in the northeastern part of the Georgina Basin, Australia. The megabreccia is a thick unit (over 200 m) composed of chaotic structures and containing matrix-supported clasts up to 260 m across. The breccia also influenced a Mesoproterozoic basement, which hosts the world class Zn-Pb-Ag Century Deposit. Field-studies (undertaken in the mine area), structural 3D modelling and stable isotopic data were used to assess the origin and timing of the megabreccia, and its relationship to the tectonic framework. Previous workers proposed the possible linkage of the structural disruption to an asteroid impact, to justify the extremely large clasts and the conspicuous basement interaction. However, the megabreccia has comparable clast size to some of the largest examples of sedimentary breccias and synsedimentary dyke intrusions in the world. Together with our field and isotope data, the reconstruction of the sequence of events that led to the cratonization of the Centralian Superbasin supports a synsedimentary origin for the Lawn Hill Megabreccia. However, later brittle faulting and veining accompanying strain localisation within the Thorntonia Limestones may represent post-sedimentary, syntectonic deformation, possibly linked to the late Devonian Alice Springs Orogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Cratering
    6 Impact cratering The dominant surface features of the Moon are approximately circular depressions, which may be designated by the general term craters … Solution of the origin of the lunar craters is fundamental to the unravel- ing of the history of the Moon and may shed much light on the history of the terrestrial planets as well. E. M. Shoemaker (1962) Impact craters are the dominant landform on the surface of the Moon, Mercury, and many satellites of the giant planets in the outer Solar System. The southern hemisphere of Mars is heavily affected by impact cratering. From a planetary perspective, the rarity or absence of impact craters on a planet’s surface is the exceptional state, one that needs further explanation, such as on the Earth, Io, or Europa. The process of impact cratering has touched every aspect of planetary evolution, from planetary accretion out of dust or planetesimals, to the course of biological evolution. The importance of impact cratering has been recognized only recently. E. M. Shoemaker (1928–1997), a geologist, was one of the irst to recognize the importance of this process and a major contributor to its elucidation. A few older geologists still resist the notion that important changes in the Earth’s structure and history are the consequences of extraterres- trial impact events. The decades of lunar and planetary exploration since 1970 have, how- ever, brought a new perspective into view, one in which it is clear that high-velocity impacts have, at one time or another, affected nearly every atom that is part of our planetary system.
    [Show full text]
  • A PROTEROZOIC 40Ar/39Ar AGE for the SUVASVESI SOUTH STRUCTURE (FINLAND)
    72nd Annual Meteoritical Society Meeting (2009) 5076.pdf A PROTEROZOIC 40Ar/39Ar AGE FOR THE SUVASVESI SOUTH STRUCTURE (FINLAND). E. Buchner1, M. Schmieder1, W. H. Schwarz2, M. Trieloff2, J. Moilanen3, T. Öhman4 and H. Stehlik5. 1Institut für Planetologie, Universität Stuttgart, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany. Email: [email protected]. 2Institut für Geowissenschaften, Universität Heidelberg, D-69120 Heidelberg. 3Pinkelikatu 6 B 48, FI-90520 Oulu, Finland. 4Department of Geosciences, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland. 5Hagedornweg 2/2/12, A-1220 Vienna, Austria Introduction: The Suvasvesi North (diameter ~3.5 km) and South (diameter ~4.0 km) structures [1-3] in Finland are thought to represent a double impact crater system, similar to the Clearwater lakes in Canada [4]. As no isotopic data have so far been available, only the age of the ~1.88 Ga Paleoproterozoic (and some ~2.7 Ga Archean) crystalline target rocks of the Baltic Shield [1] is cited as the maximum impact age. Paleomagnetic data suggested either a Permo-Triassic (~230-280 Ma) or a Neoproterozoic (770-790 Ma) age for the Suvasvesi North impact structure [4,5]. We here present the first 40Ar/39Ar age for the Suvasvesi South structure. Samples and analytical procedure: Clast-poor particles of impact melt rock (87.1 mg) recovered by one of the authors (J. M.) from the Mannamäki area were chosen for 40Ar/39Ar dat- ing at the University of Heidelberg [6,7]. Results and interpretation: 40Ar/39Ar step-heating analysis yielded no plateau within a perturbed, hump-shaped [8] age spectrum with younger apparent ages (~100-450 Ma) within the low-temperature (T) heating steps (~13% of 39Ar released), older apparent ages (~820 Ma) in the mid-T fractions (~47% of 39Ar), and intermediate apparent ages (~715-710) Ma in the four final high-T steps (~40% of 39Ar).
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers National Park Service 1994 Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region Peter J. P. Gogan Yellowstone National Park Jean Fitts Cochrane USFWS, Anchorage, AL Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Gogan, Peter J. P. and Cochrane, Jean Fitts, "Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region" (1994). U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers. 11. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the National Park Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 9 Restoration of woodland caribou to the Lake Superior region PETER J. P. GOGAN AND JEAN FITTS COCHRANE Introduction Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) historically occupied the boreal forest zone across the North American continent. The distribution and abun­ dance of the species has declined in the past century. In particular, it has been extirpated from much of the southern limits of its historical range on both sides of the boundary between Canada and the United States (Bergerud 1974). Translocation of animals from extant populations may be used to reestablish populations in portions of the species' former range. Recently, wildlife biolo­ gists in Ontario have translocated woodland caribou to a number of sites in or adjacent to Lake Superior. While it is too soon to evaluate their long-term suc­ cess, these restoration efforts do provide useful insights into factors likely to influence the outcome of woodland caribou translocations elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Fluvial Reworking of Impact Ejecta—A Case Study from the Ries Crater, Southern Germany
    Multiple fluvial reworking of impact ejecta--A case study from the Ries crater, southern Germany Item Type Article; text Authors Buchner, E.; Schmieder, M. Citation Buchner, E., & Schmieder, M. (2009). Multiple fluvial reworking of impact ejecta—A case study from the Ries crater, southern Germany. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 44(7), 1051-1060. DOI 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.tb00787.x Publisher The Meteoritical Society Journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science Rights Copyright © The Meteoritical Society Download date 06/10/2021 20:56:07 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/656594 Meteoritics & Planetary Science 44, Nr 7, 1051–1060 (2009) Abstract available online at http://meteoritics.org Multiple fluvial reworking of impact ejecta—A case study from the Ries crater, southern Germany Elmar BUCHNER* and Martin SCHMIEDER Institut für Planetologie, Universität Stuttgart, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 21 July 2008; revision accepted 12 May 2009) Abstract–Impact ejecta eroded and transported by gravity flows, tsunamis, or glaciers have been reported from a number of impact structures on Earth. Impact ejecta reworked by fluvial processes, however, are sparsely mentioned in the literature. This suggests that shocked mineral grains and impact glasses are unstable when eroded and transported in a fluvial system. As a case study, we here present a report of impact ejecta affected by multiple fluvial reworking including rounded quartz grains with planar deformation features and diaplectic quartz and feldspar glass in pebbles of fluvial sandstones from the “Monheimer Höhensande” ~10 km east of the Ries crater in southern Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouses – Clippings
    GREAT LAKES MARINE COLLECTION MILWAUKEE PUBLIC LIBRARY/WISCONSIN MARINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY MARINE SUBJECT FILES LIGHTHOUSE CLIPPINGS Current as of November 7, 2018 LIGHTHOUSE NAME – STATE - LAKE – FILE LOCATION Algoma Pierhead Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan - Algoma Alpena Light – Michigan – Lake Huron - Alpena Apostle Islands Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Apostle Islands Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Ashland Ashtabula Harbor Light – Ohio – Lake Erie - Ashtabula Badgeley Island – Ontario – Georgian Bay, Lake Huron – Badgeley Island Bailey’s Harbor Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bailey’s Harbor Range Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bala Light – Ontario – Lake Muskoka – Muskoka Lakes Bar Point Shoal Light – Michigan – Lake Erie – Detroit River Baraga (Escanaba) (Sand Point) Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Sand Point Barber’s Point Light (Old) – New York – Lake Champlain – Barber’s Point Barcelona Light – New York – Lake Erie – Barcelona Lighthouse Battle Island Lightstation – Ontario – Lake Superior – Battle Island Light Beaver Head Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Beaver Island Beaver Island Harbor Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – St. James (Beaver Island Harbor) Belle Isle Lighthouse – Michigan – Lake St. Clair – Belle Isle Bellevue Park Old Range Light – Michigan/Ontario – St. Mary’s River – Bellevue Park Bete Grise Light – Michigan – Lake Superior – Mendota (Bete Grise) Bete Grise Bay Light – Michigan – Lake Superior
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Structures and Events – a Nordic Perspective
    107 by Henning Dypvik1, Jüri Plado2, Claus Heinberg3, Eckart Håkansson4, Lauri J. Pesonen5, Birger Schmitz6, and Selen Raiskila5 Impact structures and events – a Nordic perspective 1 Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047, Blindern, NO 0316 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Geology, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, 51014 Tartu, Estonia. 3 Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark. 4 Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen, Denmark. 5 Division of Geophysics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 64, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. 6 Department of Geology, University of Lund, Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden. Impact cratering is one of the fundamental processes in are the main reason that the Nordic countries are generally well- the formation of the Earth and our planetary system, as mapped. reflected, for example in the surfaces of Mars and the Impact craters came into the focus about 20 years ago and the interest among the Nordic communities has increased during recent Moon. The Earth has been covered by a comparable years. The small Kaalijärv structure of Estonia was the first impact number of impact scars, but due to active geological structure to be confirmed in northern Europe (Table 1; Figures 1 and processes, weathering, sea floor spreading etc, the num- 7). First described in 1794 (Rauch), the meteorite origin of the crater ber of preserved and recognized impact craters on the field (presently 9 craters) was proposed much later in 1919 (Kalju- Earth are limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocks, Soils and Surfaces: Teacher Guide
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration ROCKS, SOILS, AND SURFACES Planetary Sample and Impact Cratering Unit Teacher Guide Goal: This activity is designed to introduce students to rocks, “soils”, and surfaces on planetary worlds, through the exploration of lunar samples collected by Apollo astronauts and the study of the most dominant geologic process across the Solar System, the impact process. Students will gain an understanding of how the study of collected samples and impact craters can help improve our understanding of the history of the Moon, Earth, and our Solar System. Additionally, this activity will enable students to gain experience with scientific practices and the nature of science as they model skills and practices used by professional scientists. Objectives: Students will: 1. Make observations of rocks, “soil”, and surface features 2. Gain background information on rocks, “soil”, and surface features on Earth and the Moon 3. Apply background knowledge related to rocks, soils, and surfaces on Earth toward gaining a better understanding of these aspects of the Moon. This includes having students: a. Identify common lunar surface features b. Create a model lunar surface c. Identify the three classifications of lunar rocks d. Simulate the development of lunar regolith e. Identify the causes and formation of impact craters 4. Design and conduct an experiment on impact craters 5. Create a plan to investigate craters on Earth and on the Moon 6. Gain an understanding of the nature of science and scientific practices by: a. Making initial observations b. Asking preliminary questions c. Applying background knowledge d. Displaying data e. Analyzing and interpreting data Grade Level: 6 – 8* *Grade Level Adaptations: This activity can also be used with students in grades 5 and 9-12.
    [Show full text]
  • LAND by the LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems
    State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background Paper THE LAND BY THE LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems Ron Reid Bobolink Enterprises Washago, Ontario Canada Karen Holland U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. October 1997 ISBN 0-662-26033-3 EPA 905-R-97-015c Cat. No. En40-11/35-3-1997E ii The Land by the Lakes—SOLEC 96 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................. v 1. Overview of the Land by the Lakes .................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................ 1 1.2 Report Structure ......................................................... 2 1.3 Conclusion ............................................................. 2 1.4 Key Observations ........................................................ 3 1.5 Moving Forward ......................................................... 5 2. The Ecoregional Context .......................................................... 6 2.1 Why Consider Ecoregional Context? .......................................... 6 2.2 Classification Systems for Great Lakes Ecoregions ............................... 7 3. Where Land and Water Meet ....................................................... 9 3.1 Changing Shapes and Structures ............................................. 9 3.1.1 Crustal Tilting ................................................. 10 3.1.2 Climate ....................................................... 10 3.1.3 Erosion ......................................................
    [Show full text]