DOCSLIB.ORG

Tomstown Dolomite (Lower Cambrian), Central Appalachian Mountains, and the Habitat of Salterella Conulata

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tomstown Dolomite (Lower Cambrian), Central Appalachian Mountains, and the Habitat of Salterella Conulata Tomstown Dolomite (Lower Cambrian), central Appalachian Mountains, and the habitat of Salterella conulata JUERGEN REINHARDT* Maryland Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 EDWARD WALL* Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 ABSTRACT o ro o Measured sections in the Tomstown Dolomite, Washington f- County, Maryland, indicate a considerably thinner section of car- c- bonate rocks than in Virginia. Salterella conulata Clark, found at PENNSYLVANI A three previously undescribed localities, is confined to a narrow MARYLAND stratigraphic interval and may have biostratigraphic value. S. con- ulata is a faunal component in the lagoon-bay portion of an Early Cambrian tidal flat complex. Key words: Lower Cambrian stratig- raphy, carbonate sedimentology, biostratigraphy, paleoecology. INTRODUCTION The stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Great Valley section in the central Appalachian Mountains has been summarized by Colton (1970), and more specifically for the Cambrian rocks by Palmer (1971). Byrd (1973), Byrd and others (1973), and Root (1968) have expanded our knowledge of the Tomstown (Shady) Dolomite beyond the original work of Stose (1909) and Butts (1940). The Tomstown and the overlying mixed carbonate and clastic rocks of the Waynesboro Formation mark the transition from upper Precambrian—Lower Cambrian clastic alluvial and marine sediments of the Chilhowee Group (Schwab, 1970, 1971) to the Middle Cambrian—Middle Ordovician carbonate platform section (Elbrook Limestone to St. Paul Group) described in part by Sando (1957), Matter (1967), Root (1968), and others. This report is a description of the Tomstown Dolomite, new localities for Salterella conulata Clark, and a paleogeographic scheme for late Early Cambrian time. Conclusions are based on detailed measured sections in the Tomstown Dolomite from Washington County, Maryland (Fig. 1). STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING The formational names for the Lower Cambrian rocks in the central Appalachians are shown in Table 1. The thickness estimates for the Tomstown in Pennsylvania (300 m) are based on the width of the outcrop belt (Root, 1968). Butts (1940) estimated the thick- ness of the Shady Dolomite to be between 485 to 600 m in Virginia. In the Austinville, Virginia, area it is 600 m thick (Brown and Weinberg, 1968). A composite stratigraphic section for the Toms- town Dolomite 150 m thick is based on three well-exposed localities in Washington County, Maryland (Fig. 2). * Present address: (Reinhardt) U.S. Geological Survey, National Center Stop 928, Reston, Virginia 22092; (Wall) U.S. Geological Survey, Conservation Division, Metairie, Louisiana 70011. • Figure 1. Location map of measured sections (shaded). Salterella con- ulata collection sites are lettered: A. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad cut immediately northwest and southeast of Maryland Rt. 34, Keedysville, Maryland (USGS 7947-CO). B. McCoy Farm 1.38 km (0.85 mi) southeast of Porters ville Bridge (520 contour) (USGS 7948-CO). C. Mill Farm pas- ture, 0.4 km (0.22 mi) southeast of Harpers Ferry-Mill Farm Road intersec- tion (460 contour) (USGS 8075-CQ). Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1377-1380, 7 figs., October 1975, Doc. no. 51006. 1377 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/86/10/1377/3418215/i0016-7606-86-10-1377.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 1378 REINHARDT AND WALL The fundamental question is whether our measured thicknesses are the same as the postlithification but pretectonic thicknesses or whether the Tomstown's involvement in the South Mountain fold is responsible for the observed thicknesses (Cloos, 1951). We have concluded that these observed thicknesses are approximately the same as the original thicknesses. In particular, the carbonate strata show only moderate recrystallization; ooids, peloids, and fossils are barely distorted (Figs. 4, 5). The exposure is sufficiently good to demonstrate that the measured sections are not repeated by thrust faults or thinned by normal faults. Salterella conulata, a problematic cone-shaped fossil, occurs in the two complete measured sections used to construct Figure 2. The fossil occurs approximately 30 m above the base of the Tomstown Dolomite in a zone less than 3 m thick. Yochelson (1970) suggested that S. conulata might be important for stratigraphie correlation. Our observations are at odds with his conclusion that S. conulata possibly occurs close to the top of the Tomstown Dolomite (Yochelson, 1970, Fig. 2). LITHOLOGY Salterella conulata occurs in a lithofacies that consists of irregu- lar clots and pods of granular dolomite within a fine to medium crystalline, granular-weathering limestone matrix (Fig. 3). Fossils are more abundant in the dolomite than in the limestone matrix. Fossils are moderately recrystallized at all three localities (Fig. 4). The mottled limestone is generally thick and poorly bedded, al- though irregular thin beds are present in some outcrops. This poorly bedded limestone contrasts sharply with the two well- bedded lithologies mentioned below. Throughout the Tomstown Dolomite, two additional lithofacies are also prevalent: (1) peloidal or granular limestone, containing small- to large-scale sedimentary structures (Fig. 5); and (2) lami- nated dolomite, containing planar, irregular, and cross-laminations (Fig. 6). The mottled limestone lithofacies is less abundant in the upper half than in the lower half of the Tomstown section; it is absent from the section of the upper Tomstown at the Cavetown quarry (Fig. 2). Cyclicity is demonstrable only at some of the well- exposed localities; the arrangement of lithologies is shown in Figure 7. DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS The Tomstown rock types and their arrangement strongly argue for a stable carbonate platform complex. Each of the three Figure 2. Composite section for the Tomstown Dolomite. Data for lower portions of section rely most heavily on the Keedysville section; TABLE 1. LOWER CAMBRIAN STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE IN THE CENTRAL APPALACHIANS upper third of the section is based on the section at Cavetown. GREAT VALLEY SECTION C0NEST0GA VALLEY PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND-PENNSYLVANIA VIRGINIA lithofacies has a modern analogue on the Bahama-Florida plat- Cloos (1951); Root (1968) Butts (1940) Stose & Stose (1944) forms. The cross-bedded peloidal limestone corresponds to marginal carbonate sand bodies described by Ball (1967). The mot- WAYNESBORO ROME LEDGERÎ FORMATION FORMATION FORMATION tled limestone resembles the bioturbated pelmicrite (pellet mud and grapestone) in the lagoon-bay portions of the complex; this zone is KINZERSÎ spatially the most important in the modern analogues (Ginsburg, TOMSTOWN* SHADY FORMATION 1956; Newell and others, 1959). The laminated dolomite contains DOLOMITE DOLOMITE VINTAGE a variety of sedimentary structures that probably occurred in sev- FORMATION eral subenvironments. The crinkled laminations, which contain sparse vertical disruptions, suggest supratidal levee-crest to levee- ANTIETAM ERWIN ANTIETAM backslope subzones of an algally dominated tidal flat (Ginsburg FORMATION FORMATION FORMATION and others, 1970). The planar and cross-laminated structures could result either from storm-swash deposits on the levee crest or low- energy strandline sedimentation. * Tomstown Formation in Pennsylvania (Root, 1968). 5 At least part of the unit 1s of Middle Cambrian age 1n the Lancaster, Salterella conulata is associated with the lagoon-bay lithofacies. Pennsylvania, area (Campbell, 1969). The fossils are concentrated in the dolomitic pods and clots of the Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/86/10/1377/3418215/i0016-7606-86-10-1377.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 TOMSTOWN DOLOMITE, CENTRAL APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS 1379 Figure 4. A complete longitudinal section and two cross sections of Figure 3. Weathered clots of Salterella conulata Clark (arrows) in mot- Salterella conulata. Stylotization has modified the original fossil margins tled limestone, locality C (Mill Farm). (arrows). Mill Farm pasture, locality C. Bar = 1.0 mm. Figure 5. Coarse peloidal limestone composed of limestone, dolomite, and quartz granules. This lithology is typically planar tabular to high-angle, Figure 6. Planar and ripple cross-laminated dolomite. Laminae are de- planar cross-bedded. Specimen from base of section in Cavetown quarry. lineated by detrital limestone particles. Top of section at Cavetown quarry. mottled limestone. The geometry of these dolomitic pods suggests (Newell and others, 1959; Garrett, 1971) and in the Persian Gulf that they were shallow burrows or at least small depressions. The (Friedman and others, 1973). We suggest that Salterella may have shells are oriented in a random manner and show no abrasion. occupied a similar niche in Early Cambrian tidal flat complexes. These observations suggest in situ settling of shells post mortem. Possible life habits of Salterella are either planktonic-nektonic or CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER SPECULATION benthonic. We concur with Yochelson (1970) that the growth laminae were laid down layer by layer with no chambers present. We suggest that the Tomstown Dolomite thickens and increases There is no hint of any buoyancy structure within the massive in lithologic variability from north to south and that it was depos- calcareous shell. This is perhaps the strongest evidence for a ben- ited on a stable carbonate platform. thonic life mode. Rodgers (1968) suggested that the platform margin during Cam- In modern carbonate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lexington Quadrangle Virginia
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 Couuowwoer,rn op Vtncrwre DopenrupNr op Puncnesrs exo Supptv Rrculroxn 1960 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Richmond. Virginia MenvrN M. SurHnnr,eNn, Director BOARD Vrcron W. Stnwenr, Petersburg, Chairtnan G. Ar,vrn MessnNnunc, Hampton, Viee'Chairman A. Pr,urvrnr BmnNn, Orange C. S. Cenrnn, Bristol ANpnpw A. Fenr,pv, Danville WonrnrrvcroN FauLKNEn, Glasgow SvoNpv F. Slter,r,, Roanoke EnwrN H. Wrr,r,, Richmond Wrr,r,renr P. Wooor,nv. Norfolk CONTENTS Pece Abstract. '"*i"#:;;;;: . : ::: , : ::.:::::::::..::::::. :.::.::::::: ::,r Z Geography 8 Purpose. 4 Previous Work. Present Work and Acknowledgements. 5 Geologic Formations. 6 Introduction. 6 Precambrian System. 6 Pedlar formation 6 Precambrian and Cambrian Systems. 6 Discussion. 6 Swift Run formation 8 Catoctin greenstone. I Unieoiformation...... ......... I Hampton(Harpers)formation. .......... I Erwin (Antietam) quartzite. Cambrian System . I0 Shady (Tomstown) dolomite 10 Rome (Waynesboro) formation.... ll Elbrook formation. 12 Conococheague limestone. l3 Ordovician System. ......., 14 Chepultepeclimestone. .......... 14 Beekmantown formatron. 14 New Market limestone. 15 Lincolnshire limestone. 16 Edinburg formation. 16 Martinsburg shale... 17 SilurianSystem. ......... 18 Clinchsandstone..... .......... 18 Clinton formation.
    [Show full text]
  • PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN of Central Pennsylvania
    PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN of Central Pennsylvania _____________________________________________________________________*Ridge Makers System & Series Formation and Members General Description Llewellyn Formation Cycles of conglomerate or sandstone; underclay coal, shale Pnn. L & N 2000’+ Pottsville Formation* Cycles of conglomerate or sandstone; underclay coal, shale L & M 1400’ Mauch Chunk Grayish red and gray shale M 5000’ Miss. Pocono* Mount Carbon Gray to buff, medium grained, cross-bedded sandstone 1600’ 940’ Beckville Gray to buff, medium grained, cross-bedded sandstone Lower 225’ Spechty Kopf Gray, fine and medium grained sandstone conglomerate 435’ near middle and base Catskill Duncannon Asymmetric, upward-fining fluvial cycles, basal nonred, locally 7250’ 2000’ conglomeratic sandstone is overlain by grayish red sandstone and siltstones Sherman Creek Interbedded grayish red claystone and fine grained, cross- 2400’ bedded sandstone Upper Irish Valley Interbedded, grayish red and olive gray sandstone, siltstone, 2850’ shale, overlain upward-fining cyclic deposits of gray sandstone and red siltstone Trimmers Rock Medium gray siltstone and shale, with fine grained sandstone in 2000’ upper part; graded bedding common Harrell Olive and medium light gray shale 200’ Mahantango Sherman Ridge* Olive gray, fossiliferous, claystone with interbedded fine 1600’ 600’ sandstones which coarsen upward Montebello Olive gray, medium grained, locally conglomeratic, fossiliferous 600’ sandstone, interbedded with siltstone and claystone in upward-
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 3A. Major Geologic Formations in West Virginia. Allegheney And
    82° 81° 80° 79° 78° EXPLANATION West Virginia county boundaries A West Virginia Geology by map unit Quaternary Modern Reservoirs Qal Alluvium Permian or Pennsylvanian Period LTP d Dunkard Group LTP c Conemaugh Group LTP m Monongahela Group 0 25 50 MILES LTP a Allegheny Formation PENNSYLVANIA LTP pv Pottsville Group 0 25 50 KILOMETERS LTP k Kanawha Formation 40° LTP nr New River Formation LTP p Pocahontas Formation Mississippian Period Mmc Mauch Chunk Group Mbp Bluestone and Princeton Formations Ce Obrr Omc Mh Hinton Formation Obps Dmn Bluefield Formation Dbh Otbr Mbf MARYLAND LTP pv Osp Mg Greenbrier Group Smc Axis of Obs Mmp Maccrady and Pocono, undivided Burning Springs LTP a Mmc St Ce Mmcc Maccrady Formation anticline LTP d Om Dh Cwy Mp Pocono Group Qal Dhs Ch Devonian Period Mp Dohl LTP c Dmu Middle and Upper Devonian, undivided Obps Cw Dhs Hampshire Formation LTP m Dmn OHIO Ct Dch Chemung Group Omc Obs Dch Dbh Dbh Brailler and Harrell, undivided Stw Cwy LTP pv Ca Db Brallier Formation Obrr Cc 39° CPCc Dh Harrell Shale St Dmb Millboro Shale Mmc Dhs Dmt Mahantango Formation Do LTP d Ojo Dm Marcellus Formation Dmn Onondaga Group Om Lower Devonian, undivided LTP k Dhl Dohl Do Oriskany Sandstone Dmt Ot Dhl Helderberg Group LTP m VIRGINIA Qal Obr Silurian Period Dch Smc Om Stw Tonoloway, Wills Creek, and Williamsport Formations LTP c Dmb Sct Lower Silurian, undivided LTP a Smc McKenzie Formation and Clinton Group Dhl Stw Ojo Mbf Db St Tuscarora Sandstone Ordovician Period Ojo Juniata and Oswego Formations Dohl Mg Om Martinsburg Formation LTP nr Otbr Ordovician--Trenton and Black River, undivided 38° Mmcc Ot Trenton Group LTP k WEST VIRGINIA Obr Black River Group Omc Ordovician, middle calcareous units Mp Db Osp St.
    [Show full text]
  • Valley of Virginia with Explanatory Text
    Plcase retum this publication to the Virsinia Gcological Sungy when you have no furthcr uac for it. Petase will be refuuded. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ST.ATE COMMISSION ON CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ARTHUR BEVAN, State Geologist Bulletin 42 Map of the Appalachian $'., Geologic Ti.l Valley of Virginia with Explanatory Text BY CHARLES BUTTS PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVBY Q.E 113 ne UNIVERSITY, VIRGINIA ho, {a 1933 C 3 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE COMMISSION ON CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT VIRGINIA, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ttl l I ARTHUR BEVAN, State Geologist Bulletin 42 Geologic Map of the Appalachian Valley of Virginia with Explanatory Text BY CHARLES BUTTS PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THtr UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNIVERSITY, VIRGINIA 1933 F.::t' :.'tFF F. Q r t7t hz, uo, $2" aopl 3 , RICHMOND: , Drwsrox or Puncrrasr ewo Pnrnrrwc 1933 .r...' .'..'. .', :".;ii':.J..1 ; i,1,'.- .li i : -. i ::: i"i 1 . : ..: :.3 -". ". I .i I i aa"..: a a-r-'ro t' a a".3 at!-i t a . .: . r o aa ? r. I a a a a -. , a a -a . 't ': STATE COMMISSION ON CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Wrr,r,rau E. CansoN, Chai,rrnqn, Riverton Cor-BuaN Wonrne w, V i,c e -C hai,rman, Richmond E. Gnrprrrs DoosoN, Norfolk Tnoues L. Fennan, Charlottesville . Jumrus P. FrsneunN, Roanoke LsB LoNc, Dante Rurus G. Rosnnrs, Culpeper Rrcneno A. Grr,r-raiu t Erecwti,ve Secretary and Treaswrer. Richmond * t- .h. ,1r ill J .g i 5 s LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ColrruomwrAlTrr oF VrncrNra VrncrNre GBor,ocrcer, Sunvev IJxrvnnsrry op VrncrNre Cnanr,orrpsvrr,r,e, Ve., March 15, 1933.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin 19 of the Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources
    COMMISSION OF MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY S. JAMES CAMPBELL Towson RICHARD W. COOPER Salisbury JOHN C. GEYER Baltimore ROBERT C. HARVEY Frostburg M. GORDON WOLMAN Baltimore PREFACE In 1906 the Maryland Geological Survey published a report on "The Physical Features of Maryland", which was mainly an account of the geology and min- eral resources of the State. It included a brief outline of the geography, a more extended description of the physiography, and chapters on the soils, climate, hydrography, terrestrial magnetism and forestry. In 1918 the Survey published a report on "The Geography of Maryland", which covered the same fields as the earlier report, but gave only a brief outline of the geology and added chap- ters on the economic geography of the State. Both of these reports are now out of print. Because of the close relationship of geography and geology and the overlap in subject matter, the two reports were revised and combined into a single volume and published in 1957 as Bulletin 19 of the Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources. The Bulletin has been subsequently reprinted in 1961 and 1966. Some revisions in statistical data were made in the 1961 and 1968 reprints. Certain sections of the Bulletin were extensively revised by Dr. Jona- than Edwards in this 1974 reprint. The Introduction, Mineral Resources, Soils and Agriculture, Seafood Industries, Commerce and Transportation and Manu- facturing chapters of the book have received the most revision and updating. The chapter on Geology and Physiography was not revised. This report has been used extensively in the schools of the State, and the combination of Geology and Geography in one volume allows greater latitude in adapting it to use as a reference or textbook at various school levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Italic Page Numbers Indicate Major References]
    Index [Italic page numbers indicate major references] Abbott Formation, 411 379 Bear River Formation, 163 Abo Formation, 281, 282, 286, 302 seismicity, 22 Bear Springs Formation, 315 Absaroka Mountains, 111 Appalachian Orogen, 5, 9, 13, 28 Bearpaw cyclothem, 80 Absaroka sequence, 37, 44, 50, 186, Appalachian Plateau, 9, 427 Bearpaw Mountains, 111 191,233,251, 275, 377, 378, Appalachian Province, 28 Beartooth Mountains, 201, 203 383, 409 Appalachian Ridge, 427 Beartooth shelf, 92, 94 Absaroka thrust fault, 158, 159 Appalachian Shelf, 32 Beartooth uplift, 92, 110, 114 Acadian orogen, 403, 452 Appalachian Trough, 460 Beaver Creek thrust fault, 157 Adaville Formation, 164 Appalachian Valley, 427 Beaver Island, 366 Adirondack Mountains, 6, 433 Araby Formation, 435 Beaverhead Group, 101, 104 Admire Group, 325 Arapahoe Formation, 189 Bedford Shale, 376 Agate Creek fault, 123, 182 Arapien Shale, 71, 73, 74 Beekmantown Group, 440, 445 Alabama, 36, 427,471 Arbuckle anticline, 327, 329, 331 Belden Shale, 57, 123, 127 Alacran Mountain Formation, 283 Arbuckle Group, 186, 269 Bell Canyon Formation, 287 Alamosa Formation, 169, 170 Arbuckle Mountains, 309, 310, 312, Bell Creek oil field, Montana, 81 Alaska Bench Limestone, 93 328 Bell Ranch Formation, 72, 73 Alberta shelf, 92, 94 Arbuckle Uplift, 11, 37, 318, 324 Bell Shale, 375 Albion-Scioio oil field, Michigan, Archean rocks, 5, 49, 225 Belle Fourche River, 207 373 Archeolithoporella, 283 Belt Island complex, 97, 98 Albuquerque Basin, 111, 165, 167, Ardmore Basin, 11, 37, 307, 308, Belt Supergroup, 28, 53 168, 169 309, 317, 318, 326, 347 Bend Arch, 262, 275, 277, 290, 346, Algonquin Arch, 361 Arikaree Formation, 165, 190 347 Alibates Bed, 326 Arizona, 19, 43, 44, S3, 67.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambrian Hydrocarbon Potential Indicated in Kentucky's Rome Trough David C
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Kentucky Geological Survey Information Circular Kentucky Geological Survey 1996 Cambrian Hydrocarbon Potential Indicated in Kentucky's Rome Trough David C. Harris University of Kentucky James A. Drahovzal University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kgs_ic Part of the Geology Commons Repository Citation Harris, David C. and Drahovzal, James A., "Cambrian Hydrocarbon Potential Indicated in Kentucky's Rome Trough" (1996). Kentucky Geological Survey Information Circular. 58. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kgs_ic/58 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Kentucky Geological Survey at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Geological Survey Information Circular by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0075-5583 Kentucky Geological Survey Donald C. Haney, State Geologist and Director UN IVERSITY O F KENTU C K Y Cambrian Hydrocarbon Potential Indicated in Kentucky's Rome Trough David C. Harris and James A. Drahovzal Information Circular 54 Series XI, 1996 https://doi.org/10.13023/kgs.ic54.11 KENTUCKY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON SERIES XI, 1996 Donald C. Haney, State Geologist and Director CAMBRIAN HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL INDICATED IN KENTUCKY'S ROME TROUGH David C. Harris and James A. Drahovzal INFORMATION CIRCULAR 54 ISSN 0075-5583 https://doi.org/10.13023/kgs.ic54.11 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY Theola L. Evans, Staff Assistant IV Charles T.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Elkton Area Virginia
    Geology of the Elkton area Virginia GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 230 Geology of the Elkton area Virginia By PHILIP B. KING GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 230 A detailed report on an area containing interesting problems of stratigraphy', structure, geomorphology, and economic geology UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1950 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price $1.75 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract-- _ ________________________________________ 1 Stratigraphy—Continued Introduction. ______________________________________ 1 Cambrian system—Continued Previous work. _ ____________________________________ 2 Elbrook dolomite.________-_____._--_-__-__. 32 Present work. ______________________________________ 3 Name._ _____________-_-_-____---_____- 32 Acknowledgments. _________________________________ 3 Outcrop.____-___-------_--___----.-___ 32 Geography.. _ ______________________________________ 4 Character, _____________________________ 32 Stratigraphy _______________________________________ 6 Age_.____-_..-__-_---_--___------_-_._ 32 Pre-Cambrian rocks__ . __________________________ 7 Residuum of Elbrook dolomite ___________ 33 Injection complex. __________________________ 8 Stratigraphic relations-__________________ 33 Name. _ ----_-______----________-_-_-__ 8 Conococheague limestone.___________________ 33 Outcrop. ______________________________
    [Show full text]
  • 14 S. Friedman and J. S. Gots, J. Biol. Chem., 201, 125-135, 1953
    8:44 GEOLOGY: E. CLOOS PROC. N'. A. S. 12 P R. Whitefeld, Arch. Biochem. and Biophys., 65, 585-586, 1956; C. W. H. Partridge and N. H. Giles, Arch. Biochem. and Biophys., 67, 237-238, 1957. 13 B. Magasanik, personal communication. 14 S. Friedman and J. S. Gots, J. Biol. Chem., 201, 125-135, 1953. BLUE RIDGE TECTONICS BETWEEN HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA AND ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA BY ERNST CLOOS* DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY Communicated July 15, 1957 The boundary between crystalline rocks to the southeast, and largely nonmeta- morphic rocks to the northwest, of the Blue Ridge has been variously interpreted as a major dislocation zone, a series of abrupt flexures,' or a normal sequence in asymmetrical folds.2-5 The northern half of the zone shows no important thrusts, few reverse faults, but mostly folded normal sequences. As one proceeds south- ward, especially south of the James River, reverse faults are numerous and thrust- ing becomes prevalent. The boundary between "basement" and sedimentary cover is not only an important surface of demarcation between rocks of different types and ages, probably a major break in the geologic history, but also an out- standing structural zone with distinct structures which are limited to it. Figure 1 is a map of the area between Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Asheville, North Carolina, showing, much generalized, the boundary between the crystallines to the southeast and the Paleozoic folds to the northwest.6 A distinct lineation7 occurs along this boundary, predominantly in the older rocks, but in northern Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the Paleozoics up to the Beekmantown2' 8 are also lineated.
    [Show full text]
  • Appalachian Basin Geothermal Play
    To: Appalachian Basin Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis Group From: Jared Smith, Terry Jordan, and Zachary Frone Date: July 31, 2015 Subject: Assignment of conductivity stratigraphy for individual wells using COSUNA columns Applicability: The method described here was used to compute the conductivity stratigraphy for use in creating thermal maps of heat flow, temperatures at depth, and depth to temperatures of interest. Definitions Unit A member, formation, or group. These are nested ranks. In general, the uniformity of lithology is greatest at the rank of member and decreases progressively through formation and group. Group (Gp.) A sequence of formations and/or members within a single named unit. Formation (Fm.) A sequence of members in a single named unit. Member (Mbr.) A layer, named or unnamed, in a group or formation. COSUNA column Generalized representation of a vertical sequence of units in the subsurface, identified by general lithology and correlated to geologic age. COSUNA section Geographic area in which the COSUNA column was defined by AAPG (1985a; 1985b). Introduction The Appalachian Basin Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis team needs to have a method for assigning lithologic unit thicknesses and corresponding thermal conductivities to locations of wells that have BHT measurements in order to calculate the geotherm using the 1-D thermal model. The AAPG (1985a; 1985b) COSUNA column thicknesses have been used in previous studies in the Appalachian Basin (Aguirre, 2014; Shope, 2012; Stutz, 2012; Frone and Blackwell, 2010) as a generalized approach to assign a representative geology to broad sub- regions of the basin, within which the geology is fairly consistent (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Cogenetic Iron and Clay Deposits in the Central Appalachian Region
    DISTRIBUTION OF COGENETIC IRON AND CLAY DEPOSITS IN THE CENTRAL APPALACHIAN REGION by Mary Karandosovski McGuire B.S. Geology, The Pennsylvania State University, 1973 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Pittsburgh 2012 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This thesis was presented by Mary Karandosovski McGuire It was defended on March 30, 2012 and approved by Daniel Bain, Associate Professor, Faculty Charles Jones, Lecturer, Faculty Thesis Director: Thomas H. Anderson, Professor Emeritus, Faculty ii Copyright © by Mary K. McGuire 2012 iii DISTRIBUTION OF COGENETIC IRON AND CLAY DEPOSITS IN THE CENTRAL APPALACHIAN REGION Mary K. McGuire, M.S. University of Pittsburgh, 2012 Maps of more than 500 abandoned iron mines, 350 early iron furnaces, and numerous clay mines in the central part of the Appalachian region reveal the distribution and close association of siderite-limonite bearing ores and clay deposits. The deposits crop out from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania to Scioto County, Ohio, a distance of more than 300 miles. The geologic settings of the deposits are diverse. In the Valley and Ridge Province and Piedmont Province, mineralization follows structures such as major sub-horizontal thrust faults (e.g. Martic) and steep thrust faults, (e. g. Path Valley), that juxtapose carbonate units against other rocks. Carbonate units within the Plateau Province also contain economic deposits of iron ores and clay. The ores are commonly siderite and limonite principally in the form of nodules and other irregular masses in clayey, calcareous beds.
    [Show full text]
  • Along-Axis Segmentation and Growth History of the Rome Trough in the Central Appalachian Basin1
    Along-Axis Segmentation and Growth History of the Rome Trough in the Central Appalachian Basin1 Dengliang Gao,2 Robert C. Shumaker,3 and Thomas H. Wilson3 ABSTRACT Computer-aided interpretation of seismic data and subsurface geologic mapping indicate that the The Rome trough, a northeast-trending graben, is Rome trough experienced several major phases of that part of the Cambrian interior rift system that deformation throughout the Paleozoic. From the extends into the central Appalachian foreland basin Early(?)–Middle Cambrian (pre-Copper Ridge deposi- in eastern North America. On the basis of changes tion), rapid extension and rifting occurred in associ- in graben polarity and rock thickness shown from ation with the opening of the Iapetus-Theic Ocean exploration and production wells, seismic lines, and at the continental margin. The Late Cambrian– gravity and magnetic intensity maps, we divide the Middle Ordovician phase (Copper Ridge to Black trough into the eastern Kentucky, southern West River deposition) was dominated by slow differen- Virginia, and northern West Virginia segments. In tial subsidence, forming a successor sag basin that eastern Kentucky, the master synthetic fault zone may have been caused by postrift thermal contrac- consists of several major faults on the northwestern tion on the passive continental margin. Faults of side of the trough where the most significant thick- the Rome trough were less active from the Late ness and facies changes occur. In southern West Ordovician–Pennsylvanian (post-Trenton deposi- Virginia, however, a single master synthetic fault, tion), but low-relief inversion structures began to called the East-Margin fault, is located on the south- form as the Appalachian foreland started to devel- eastern side of the trough.
    [Show full text]