SUBSURFACE FACIES ANALYSIS OF THE DEVONIAN BEREA SANDSTONE IN SOUTHEASTERN OHIO

William T. Garnes

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

December 2014

Committee:

James Evans, Advisor

Jeffrey Snyder

Charles Onasch

ii

ABSTRACT

James Evans, Advisor

The Devonian Berea Sandstone is an internally complex, heterogeneous unit that appears prominently both in outcrop and subsurface in Ohio. While the unit is clearly deltaic in outcrops in northeastern Ohio, its depositional setting is more problematic in southeastern Ohio where it is only found in the subsurface. The goal of this project was to search for evidence of a barrier island/inlet channel depositional environment for the Berea Sandstone to assess whether the

Berea Sandstone was deposited under conditions in southeastern Ohio unique from northeastern

Ohio. This project involved looking at cores from 5 wells: 3426 (Athens Co.), 3425 (Meigs

Co.), 3253 (Athens Co.), 3252 (Athens Co.), and 3251 (Athens Co.) In cores, the Berea

Sandstone ranges from 2 to 10 m (8-32 ft) thick, with an average thickness of 6.3 m (20.7 ft).

Core descriptions involved hand specimens, thin section descriptions, and core photography. In addition to these 5 wells, the gamma ray logs from 13 wells were used to interpret the architecture and lithologies of the Berea Sandstone in Athens Co. and Meigs Co. as well as surrounding Vinton, Washington, and Morgan counties.

Analysis from this study shows evidence of deltaic lobe progradation, abandonment, and re-working. Evidence of interdistributary bays with shallow sub-tidal environments, as well as large sand bodies, is also present. A prominent sequence of climbing ripples ≤ 6 cm give evidence for distributary mouth bars. Frequently appearing massive bedding, sparse bioturbation, and a sequence of massive bedding to planar lamination overlying convoluted bedding provides evidence that high sedimentation rates were common during the deposition of the Berea Sandstone. Turbulent debris flows are interpreted based on the presence of a 10 cm iii incomplete turbidite lithofacies assemblage. Tidal processes can be inferred from tidal rhythmite sequences approximately 5 m thick, and clear storm activity is apparent from the presence of a

16 cm tempestite lithofacies assemblage. Geophysical log analysis allowed for the interpretation of the subsurface architecture of the formation. Combined, these features provide strong evidence for the interpretation that, in southeastern Ohio, the Berea Sandstone was deposited in a tidally-influenced, deltaic environment.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank the Graduate College, and entire Geology Department of

Bowling Green State University. I am greatly indebted to Dr. James E. Evans for his candid honesty, advice, and constant support throughout my time at Bowling Green State University. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Ohio Geological Survey, specifically Mr. Greg

Schumacher, Mr. Aaron Evelsizor, Ms. Madge Fitak, and Mr. Mark Baranoski for the help with collecting core and geophysical log data.

I’m obliged to thank Mr. Michael J. Carroll and the National Association of Black

Geoscientists for giving me an opportunity to present my thesis proposal, and reinvigorating my passion for the geosciences. To my Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity brothers Jeremy Stewart, Titus

Austin, Malcom McIver, Bernard White, and my best friend Aaron Ruth I am indebted for their constant financial, spiritual, and emotional support.

Of course I must graciously thank my parents Harold and Sharon Garnes for their constant love and encouragement. I’m grateful to my brothers Harold and Randolph for providing me with a car, my cousin Frank Sawyer for always being there to help, my girlfriend

Ashley for all her love and support, and my uncles Thomas Sawyer and Craig Sawyer and aunts

Neida Sawyer and Allison Currie for taking such an interest in my future.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Deltaic Environments...... 1

Subaerial Delta Plains ...... 1

Interdistributary Bays...... 2

Delta Front ...... 5

Prodelta ...... 6

Barrier Island Complexes ...... 7

Beach Zonation ...... 9

Barrier Islands ...... 11

Estuaries ...... 14

Lagoons ...... 15

Tidal Inlets ...... 17

Purpose and Goals...... 18

GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND ...... 20

Regional Geologic Setting ...... 20 vi

Regional Stratigraphy ...... 20

Pre-Cambrian ...... 20

Cambrian ...... 22

Ordovician...... 22

Silurian ...... 23

Devonian ...... 23

Berea Sandstone ...... 24

Lithology ...... 27

Stratigraphy & Age ...... 28

Geologic History ...... 30

Economic Geology...... 31

METHODS ...... 34

Drill Core ...... 34

Core Analysis ...... 34

Geophysical Log Analysis ...... 35

Gamma-ray logs ...... 37

Structure Contour Maps ...... 37 vii

Isopach Maps ...... 38

Outcrop Analysis ...... 38

RESULTS ...... 42

Core Descriptions...... 42

Core 3426 ...... 42

Core 3425 ...... 44

Core 3253 ...... 46

Core 3252 ...... 46

Core 3251 ...... 49

Lithology and Thin Section Analysis ...... 51

Sandstone ...... 51

Siltstone...... 53

Mudstone...... 53

Lithofacies Analysis...... 59

Massive sandstone (Lithofacies Sm) ...... 59

Planar laminated sandstone (Lithofacies Sl) ...... 61

Trough cross-bedded sandstone (Lithofacies St) ...... 63 viii

Hummocky stratified sandstone (Lithofacies Sh) ...... 63

Planar tabular cross-bedded sandstone (Lithofacies Sp) ...... 65

Ripple laminated sandstone (Lithofacies Sr) ...... 65

Intraclasts in sandstone (Lithofacies Se) ...... 67

Convolute bedded Massive Sandstone (Lithofacies Smc) ...... 67

Lenticular bedded heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMk) ...... 69

Wavy bedded heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMw) ...... 70

Flaser bedded heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMf) ...... 70

Planar laminated heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMl) ...... 71

Massive siltstone (Lithofacies SSm) ...... 73

Planar laminated siltstone (Lithofacies SSl) ...... 73

Massive mudstone (Lithofacies Mm) ...... 75

Planar laminated mudstone (Lithofacies Ml) ...... 77

Lithofacies Assemblages ...... 77

Tidalites...... 77

Tempestite Assemblage ...... 80

Turbidite Assemblage ...... 82 ix

Interdistributary Bay ...... 84

Prograding Distributary Channel ...... 86

Mapping Results ...... 88

Lithocorrelation Profile ...... 88

North-South Profile ...... 93

West-East Profile ...... 95

Structure Contour Maps ...... 97

Isopach Maps ...... 101

Outcrop Analysis ...... 105

DISCUSSION ...... 107

Depositional Environments ...... 107

Architecture...... 109

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 115

REFERENCES ...... 118

APPENDIX-A...... 136

APPENDIX-B ...... 149

APPENDIX-C ...... 158 x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Generalized diagram of a deltaic system with associated sub-environments

(Bhattacharya, 2006) ...... 3

2 Generalized diagram of the evolution and sedimentation of an interdistributary bay

(Elliot, 1974) ...... 4

3 Generalized diagram of a transgressive barrier island complex with associated sub-

environments (Reinson, 1979) ...... 8

4 Generalized model showing offshore marine to foreshore transition with associated

sub-environments and beach zonation of a foreshore environment ...... 10

5 Generalized stratigraphic column of a barrier island facies sequence (Reinson,

1979) ...... 13

6 Generalized stratigraphic column of a back barrier lagoon facies sequence (Reinson,

1979) ...... 16

7 Geologic bedrock map of Ohio with corresponding cross section ...... 21

8 Late Devonian paleogeographic map of North America (Blakey, 2011) ...... 25

9 Stratigraphic column of the Berea Sandstone and its associated formations in

northeastern and southeastern Ohio ...... 29 xi

10 Photograph of the Berea Sandstone being quarried from Buckeye Quarry in South

Amherst, Lorain County, Ohio (De Witt Jr., 1954) ...... 33

11 Enlarged image of the distribution of cores and wells used within the study area in

southeastern Ohio ...... 36

12 Core log of core 3426 ...... 43

13 Core log of core 3425 ...... 45

14 Core log of core 3253 ...... 47

15 Core log of core 3252 ...... 48

16 Core log of core 3251 ...... 50

17 Photomicrograph of sandstone (sample 21) in the Berea Sandstone showing a

quartz grain and matrix ...... 54

18 Photomicrograph of sandstone (sample 20) in the Berea Sandstone showing a

quartz grain, quartz overgrowth, rock fragment, and matrix ...... 55

19 Photomicrograph of sandstone (sample 6) in the Berea Sandstone showing a quartz

grain and calcite cement ...... 56

20 Photomicrograph of siltstone in the Berea Sandstone ...... 57

21 Photomicrograph of mudstone in the Berea Sandstone ...... 58

22 Core photograph of massive bedding in sandstone ...... 62

23 Core photograph of planar lamination in sandstone ...... 62 xii

24 Core photograph of trough cross-bedding in sandstone ...... 64

25 Core photograph of hummocky cross-stratification in sandstone ...... 64

26 Core photograph of planar tabular cross-bedding in sandstone ...... 66

27 Core photograph of ripple lamination in sandstone ...... 66

28 Core photograph of intraclasts in sandstone ...... 68

29 Core photograph of convolute bedding in sandstone...... 68

30 Core photograph of flaser, wavy, and lenticular bedding in heterolithic sandstone

and mudstone ...... 72

31 Core photograph of planar lamination in heterolithic sandstone and mudstone ...... 72

32 Core photograph of massive bedding in siltstone ...... 74

33 Core photograph of planar lamination in siltstone...... 74

34 Core photograph of massive bedding in mudstone ...... 76

35 Core photograph of planar lamination in mudstone ...... 76

36 Core photograph of a tidalite lithofacies assemblage ...... 79

37 Core photograph of multiple tempestite lithofacies assemblages ...... 81

38 Core photograph of a turbidite lithofacies assemblage ...... 83

39 Core photograph showing an interdistributary bay depositional environment ...... 85 xiii

40 Core photographs of selected samples showing a prograding distributary channel

depositional environment experiencing abandonment ...... 87

41 Location of wells used in construction of lithocorrelation profiles ...... 90

42 Geophysical log-core correlation for well # 6 ...... 91

43 Geophysical log-core correlation for well # 4 ...... 92

44 North-South lithocorrelation profile ...... 94

45 West-East lithocorrelation profile ...... 96

46 Location of wells in the study area showing depth to the top of the Berea

Sandstone ...... 98

47 Structure contour map of the Berea Sandstone in the study with 20 m contour

interval ...... 99

48 3-D structure contour map of the Berea Sandstone in the study area with 20 m

contour interval ...... 100

49 Location of wells in the study area and their respective isopach value (in m) ...... 102

50 Isopach map of the Berea Sandstone in the study area with 1 m contour interval ...... 103

51 3-D isopach map of the Berea Sandstone in the study area with 2 m contour

interval ...... 104

52 Outcrop of the Berea Sandstone at Quarry Rock Picnic Area ...... 106 xiv

53 Isopach map of the Berea Sandstone with intepreted paleogeography of the study

area ...... 112

54 3-D isopach map of the Berea Sandstone with intepreted paleogeography of the study

area ...... 113

55 Paleogeographic map displaying the geographic location of the Cincinnati Arch

during the Late Devonian (modified from de Witt Jr. et al., 1954) ...... 114

xv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Details of well logs from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources ...... 39

2 Data used to create structure contour maps ...... 40

3 Data used to create isopach maps ...... 41

4 Summary of point count data ...... 52

5 Summary of lithofacies in the Berea Sandstone ...... 60

1

INTRODUCTION

Facies analysis is defined as the study and interpretation of the textures, sedimentary structures, fossils, and lithologic associations of sedimentary rocks on the scale of an outcrop, well section, or small segment of a basin. The construction of a facies model is imperative to the success of facies analysis (Miall, 1984). Facies models utilize lithofacies and lithofacies assemblages to enable geoscientists to make scientific interpretations of ancient depositional environments. A detailed subsurface facies analysis of the Berea Sandstone in southeastern Ohio was the focus of this research.

Deltaic Environments

Deltas are broadly defined as subaerial landforms and their submarine extensions associated with and/or built by rivers that feed into an ocean, lake, or any other standing body of water (Bhattacharya, 2010). Any definition of a delta must be broad because of the high level of diversity seen in them throughout the world. Differing wave, tidal, and fluvial influences have been interpreted as important factors in this diversity (Galloway, 1975) as well as sediment type

(Orton and Reading, 1993). Despite the diversity of deltas, most can be broken into 3 main sub- environments: the subaerial delta plain, the delta front, and the prodelta (Figure 1). Each of these environments creates their own unique facies and facies successions. A better understanding of modern deltaic facies and the environments that create them, allows for stronger interpretations of ancient deltaic environments as they appear in the geologic record.

Subaerial Delta Plains

Distributary channels and their associated environments are the most diagnostic features of subaerial delta plains (Figure 1) (Bhattacharya, 2010). In the lower subaerial delta plain, these 2

channels are usually more influenced by the receiving body of water, while in the upper subaerial delta plain these influences are greatly reduced. The position of a distributary channel in a subaerial delta plain also has a large effect on the channel’s depth and width, which can vary

greatly (Bhattacharya and Olariu, 2006). Bhattacharya and Olariu (2006) classify distributary

channels into 3 types: the main “stem” river channel, main distributary channels, and terminal

distributary channels. The apex point of a main stem channel is the location where it first splits

into distributary channels. Distributary channels often change dramatically in size and direction

as they approach the receiving body of water. This is due to the combination of high

sedimentation rates and low slope gradients on the subaerial delta plain, which allow relatively

small changes in aggradation or subsidence to cause significant changes in the position of the

distributary channel. One common result is numerous bifurcations or confluences which result

from a general trend of the distributary channels to divide into smaller channels and then

recombine. Distributary channels ultimately end in terminal distributary channels, at which point

the channel enters the standing body of water. These are usually smaller and shallower than the

initial distributary channel. Depending on the size of a delta, dozens if not hundreds of terminal

distributary channels can exist in a single deltaic system (Bhattacharya and Olariu 2006).

Interdistributary Bays

Interdistributary bays are components of deltaic environments that occur between several

distributary channels on the subaerial delta plain (Coleman et al., 1964). Elliot (1974) developed

a model for the formation of interdistributary bays (Figure 2). The model consists of 4 phases.

In phase 1, over bank deposits from deltaic distributary channels create natural levees. In phase

2, these natural levees are then breached during floods in some areas, creating crevasse splays.

During phase 3, these crevasse splays become a network of channels that extend and enlarge 3

Figure 1. Generalized diagram showing the various components of a deltaic system (modified from Bhattacharya, 2010).

4

Figure 2. Generalized diagram of the evolution and sedimentation of an interdistributary bay

(modified from Elliot, 1974).

5

until they reach the corresponding bay, where they deposit distributary mouth bars. Finally, in

phase 4, crevasse channels become permanent, causing the original distributary channel to be abandoned and the crevasse channels to become new distributary channel themselves.

Recent studies recognize the importance of interdistributary bays and their associated facies in the rock record. For example, in the Tarim Basin in western China, Qin et al. (2008)

interpreted bioturbated siltstones and silty mudstones that were interbedded with flood deposits

to be indicative of interdistributary bay environments. The flood deposits consist of fine-grained

sandstone with graded bedding, current ripples, and small-scale climbing ripples. Other features

include bioturbation and scattered shell fragments. Other studies recognized the importance of

crevasse splays and levees as diagnostic of interdistributary bay environments in the rock record.

For example, lenticular channel sandstone facies that grade laterally into fine-grained sheet

sandstones lacking marine fossils have been interpreted to be crevasse splay deposits associated

with interdistributary bays (Craddock and Kylander-Clark, 2013). Fiorillo et al. (2011)

interpreted sheet sandstones and siltstones that thicken and grade into channel deposits to be

levee deposits in a lower delta plain setting.

Delta Front

The delta front environment is composed of the intertidal portion of the shoreline and its

adjacent gently dipping sub-tidal platform. Delta fronts are typically dominated by sand or

mixed sand and gravel, with silt and mud playing more of an accessory role (Bhattacharya, 2010)

(Figure 1). Studies of the continental shelf near the Nile River interpreted cross-bedded and

planar laminated fine-grained sands, silt, and silty mud to represent former positions of the Nile

River delta front (Frihy and Stanley, 1987; Frihy and Gamai, 1991). In a similar manner, cross- 6

bedded, planar laminated, and current ripple laminated fine-grained sand and silt have been

interpreted as former positions of the delta front of the Mekong River (Kobayashi et al., 2002).

Prodelta

The prodelta is the offshore portion of a deltaic environment (Figure 1) that is typically

defined by silt and mud deposits. Prodelta deposits are subject to erosion and resedimentation.

Evidence for this in the rock record has been interpreted by the presence of turbidites,

tempestites, and debrites. For example, Pattison (2005) interpreted thick bedded, fine-grained

sandstones, with a repetition of cross-bedded and ripple laminated sandstone overlying planar

laminated sandstone, encased by mudstone in the Book Cliffs to be turbidites and related

deposits in a storm-influenced prodelta complex. Budillon et al. (2005) interpreted tempestite

event beds containing normal grading with matured and well fractionated sand grains off the

coast of southern Italy to be a part of a prodelta complex. They interpreted the cause of this

normal grading to be the result of the waning strength of a large storm, and the mudstone caps on

these sandstone packages represented a return to normal depositional conditions. Chough and

Kim (2000) interpreted debrite facies to be part of a prodelta complex in the Miocene Doumsan

delta of southeast Korea. Their study interpreted a coarse-grained gravel lobe in the prodelta

complex to be the result of a catastrophic slope failure that created a subaqueous debris flow

during the late stage of deltaic development.

Interpretations of prodelta sediment deposition have changed as a better understanding of

this environment has emerged. An early study by Pettijohn (1975) interpreted that prodelta deposits were mainly the result of slow fall out from suspension in a relatively calm environment. Recent studies have reinterpreted deposition in this environment to actually occur 7

very rapidly from homopycnal, hypopycnal, or hyperpycnal flows (Bhattacharya and

MacEachern, 2009). Homopycnal flows are where inflows are rapidly dispersed in the receiving body of water, and produce Gilbert-style deltas (Ariztegui et al., 2007). Hypopycnal plumes are buoyant sediment plumes that carry diluted sediment loads of low density; these suspended sediments can be rapidly deposited as floccules and ultimately these types of flows produce wide mud aprons. Hyperpycnal flows are density underflows that produce turbidity currents and related deposits (turbidites) carrying a higher than normal concentration of sediment that is quickly deposited (Lee et al., 2008).

Barrier Island Complexes

Barrier island complexes are coastal marine environments that normally occur along the margin of coastal plains (Hayes, 1979). Generally, barrier island complexes involve 3 distinct components: the barrier island itself, the lagoon or estuary immediately behind it, and the tidal inlet channel that cuts through the barrier island and connects the lagoon or estuary to the ocean

(Figure 3). Each of these three sub-environments has unique features. The barrier island is a sandy deposit with various shoreward zones terminating in the beach, and is therefore heavily influenced by progradational and retrogradational processes. Lagoons and estuaries behind barrier islands are generally muddy deposits composed of overlapping sub-environments. Tidal inlet channels are sandy deposits characterized by floodtide and ebb tide deltas (Reinson, 1979).

McCubbin (1982) described in detail the deposit architecture, facies, and lithofacies assemblages associated with barrier islands and tidal inlets. Because barrier island complexes are known to be preserved in the geologic record, understanding modern examples of their depositional architecture and associated facies is important to their identification in the rock record. 8

Figure 3. Generalized diagram of a transgressive Barrier Island Complex with associated sub- environments (Modified from Reinson, 1979).

9

Beach Zonation

Marine offshore to shoreline environments have 3 main morphological elements: the offshore transition zone, shoreface zone, and foreshore (beachface) zone environments (Figure

4). The boundary between environments is caused by different wave processes, and these have been interpreted in the rock record as unique facies assemblages. The boundaries between these zones are affected by the storm-weather wave base, fair-weather wave base, the breaker zone, and the swash zone (Plint, 2010). Storm-weather wave base is interpreted as the mean depth at which sea floor sediment is affected by waves created by storm-induced waves, while fair- weather wave base is the mean depth at which normal wave processes affect the sea floor. The shoreface is above the fair-weather wave base, and the shoreface to offshore transitional zone is in between fair-weather wave base and storm-weather wave base (Loss and Peters, 2012). The shoreface is divided by the breaker zone into the upper shoreface and the lower shoreface. This wave boundary zone is interpreted as the area where waves break due to the dissipation of sea depth as they get closer to the shoreline (Allen et al., 2000). The swash zone acts as a transition between land and sea, and divides the shoreface from the beachface. The swash zone experiences dramatic variations in water depth, sediment load, and turbulence (Blenkinsopp et al., 2014).

The offshore environment has been interpreted as being predominately composed of mud, with fine-grained sand introduced during large storm events (Plint, 2010), and as having abundant bioturbation (Dashtgard et al., 2012). The shoreface zone is highly active, and is composed of the lower shoreface, breaker zone, and upper shoreface (de Vriend and Stive,

1995). Dashgard et al. (2012) provided interpretations for facies typically associated with these environments. The lower shoreface is dominated by heavily bioturbated mudstones and 10

Figure 4. Generalized diagram displaying a marine offshore to foreshore transition with associated sub-environments (modified from Plint, 2010).

11

sandstones interpreted to represent fair-weather deposition, with interbedded hummocky

stratified sandstone, interpreted as a tempestite sequence. Breaker zone facies are very similar to

lower shoreface facies, displaying intense bioturbation and tempestites, but differ by having fair weather deposits that are interpreted as siltier and less muddy than those in the lower shoreface.

The surf zone is dominated by fine to coarse grained sands that display planar lamination, small- scale cross-bedding, festoon cross-bedding, and less bioturbation than that found in the lower and mid shoreface.

The swash zone has the most uniform deposits, normally consisting of fine to coarse grained sediment with gravel sized clasts occasionally being introduced by storms. Planar laminated beds are inclined and contain alternating beds of quartz and heavy minerals such as magnetite. This is due to hydraulic equivalency, in which layers of larger, lower density minerals such as quartz alternate with smaller, higher density minerals like magnetite. Swash cross stratification is also seen in the swash zone, and both of these facies are interpreted to be deposited by the normal swash and backwash actions of waves (Dashgard et al. 2012).

Barrier Islands

Barrier islands are the accumulation of wave-, wind-, and/or tide-deposited sediments between two active tidal inlet channels (Figure 5). Barrier islands are active environments that change position due to changes in the rate of sediment supply versus rate of sea level change.

This produces aggradation, progradation, and retrogradation of clastic sediments. Aggrading barrier islands build vertical during periods when sediment supply and sea-level rise are in relative equilibrium. Prograding barrier islands build seaward when sediment supply exceeds the rate of sea level change. In this case, shallow water facies overlie deeper water facies. In 12 contrast, retrograding barrier islands move landward through over wash processes during storms, because the rate of sea level change exceeds the rate of sediment supply. They are indicative of transgressive successions, and the shallow marine facies are underlain by mainland, marsh, and or estuarine sediments (McCubbin, 1982).

Barrier islands have been studied for decades, with classic examples being Galveston

Island, Texas (Bernard et al., 1962), Sapelo Island, Georgia (Hoyt, 1967), and Kiawah Island,

South Carolina (Colquhoun and Moslow, 1981). A more recent study completed by Davis et al.

(2003) analyzed the stratigraphy of Holocene barrier islands off the coast of west-central Florida.

Davis et al. (2003) interpreted the aggradation and retrogradation of several barrier islands through the use of stratigraphic and facies analysis. On Casey Island, evidence of retrogradation included a transition from organic mud and muddy sand, indicative of a back barrier lagoon environment, to well sorted sand indicative of beach and dune environments. Evidence for the aggradational phase of Casey Island’s development included the “layered cake” stratigraphy of fine-grained sands that stabilized the island into its current form. Retrogradational barrier island development was also interpreted by Ito and Nishikawa (2000) in Pleistocene sediments in

Tokyo Bay, Japan. Their study interpreted fine-grained sands indicative of beach environments, overlaying lagoonal back barrier deposits such as heavily bioturbated sandy mud, to be indicative of a retrogradational barrier island. Progradational barrier islands deposited during the Holocene were interpreted by Lindfors-Kearns et al. (1991) in southwest Florida. Their study interpreted that beach ridges on multiple barrier islands in southwest Florida were supplied by the erosion of sediment from nearshore and shoreline deposits. They hypothesized that fluctuations in sea-level episodically drove sand onshore, causing island progradation.

13

Figure 5. Stratigraphic column displaying the generalized facies sequence of a barrier island.

Notice the prominent trough cross beds in the upper shoreface, and the gently dipping planar laminated bedding in the foreshore (Modified from Reinson, 1979).

14

Estuaries

An estuary is the seaward portion of a drowned incised valley that acts as a transitional region between terrestrial and marine environments (Tessier, 2012). Boyd et al. (1992) interpreted estuaries as either wave dominated or tide dominated. A wave-dominated estuary is separated from the marine environment by a barrier island, and is heavily influenced by fluvial processes. Bay head deltas are evidence of these fluvial processes supplying large amounts of sediment into the estuary. Marine sediments are introduced into a wave dominated estuary by tide, wave, and eolian processes. These create flood-tidal deltas and wash over lobes. In contrast, tide dominated estuaries are less influenced by fluvial sediments, as evidenced by the lack of bay head deltas. In these situations, sediment input is more related to the migration of tidal sand bars onshore.

Barkooky et al. (2012) completed a study in Western Desert, Egypt in which they interpreted a tide-dominated estuary in a transgressive facies succession. Their study interpreted a succession from the proximal reaches of an estuary to the distal reaches, near the corresponding marine environment. Proximal deposits were identified by the remains of fossilized tree trunks and vertebrate bones. Mid-estuary deposits were interpreted by the presence of the diagnostic trace fossils Ophiomorpha and Thalassinoides. Individual tidal sand bars were interpreted from fining-upward, cross-bedded sands, and were interpreted as distal estuary deposits. These were followed by well bioturbated, marine sands. Note that they interpreted the estuary in this study to contain abundant animal and plant life as evidenced by the presence of various bones and teeth from turtles, sharks, rays, and fishes in addition to bioturbation, and plant roots, leaves, and tree trunks. 15

A study involving the transition of a wave-dominated estuary into a wave-dominated

delta was completed on the late Quaternary deltaic deposits of the Tiber River in Italy by Belloti

et al. (2013). A wave-dominated estuary was interpreted from facies successions that indicated a

transition from an estuary to a marine environment. The facies successions were divided into

three segments with the first facies being interpreted as a fresh-water marsh environment due to

the presence of peat and mud. These muddy and peaty deposits also contained thin layers of

coarse-grained sand, gravel, and rare shell debris. The mid-estuary deposits were interpreted as a

brackish marsh environment. It was marked by silty clay and clay deposits containing abundant

organic matter, and thin layers marked by shell debris. Finally the distal estuary environment

was interpreted from brackish marine facies located adjacent to the estuary’s corresponding

marine environment. Clay deposits containing silt layers, abundant shell debris, and wood

fragments were the dominate deposits in this area.

Lagoons

A lagoon separates the barrier island from the terrestrial environment (Figure 6)

(Reinson, 1979). This position as a transitional area between marine and terrestrial environments

causes lagoons to develop under the influence of local wind-driven waves, sea waves, refracted

swells, and tidal variations. Sediment supply into a lagoon is controlled by storm surges across the barrier, by the migration of aeolian dunes, and by flood tide currents through inlet channels

(Fornari et al., 2012). A lagoon is typically composed of several different sub-environments, including 3 types of tidal flat environments (mudflat, mixed flat, and sand flat), and by coastal wetlands (marshes and swamps) (Allard et al., 2009). Tidal flats are heavily affected by tidal cycles and display tidal rhythmites, flaser-, wavy-, and lenticular bedding (Gao et al., 2011). The position of the tidal flat in relation to the shoreline will determine if it is a sandy flat, mixed flat, 16

Figure 6. Stratigraphic column displaying the generalized facies sequence of a back barrier lagoon (from Reinson, 1979).

17

or muddy flat (Dalrymple, 1992). Coastal wetland facies are composed of primarily organic matter, and thin layers of fine sands introduced from either barrier beach overwash or aeolian dunes (Anderson et al., 2013). An overall transgressive sequence involving lagoon facies was interpreted by Fornari et al. (2012) in Holocene deposits along the coast of Santa Catarina,

Brazil. In their model, transgressive sheet sand deposits overlie lagoon facies. The lagoon facies consist of well sorted fine-grained sands that contained abundant whole shells and shell fragments, overlain by fine-grained sands, with abundant organic plant matter including roots, leaves, and stalks.

Tidal Inlets

Tidal inlet channels are passages that cut through barrier islands that allow tidal exchange between lagoons and the open ocean (Figure 3). The depth of tidal inlets can vary widely, but generally range from a few m to a few 10’s of m. The frequency and spacing of tidal inlets largely depends on the tidal range present on a particular barrier island. Ebb-tidal deltas or flood-tidal deltas are depositional features that form at the seaward or landward mouths

(respectively) of the tidal inlet channel. Tidal inlet channels can migrate parallel to the coastline, or onshore-offshore. Facies models of modern tidal inlet channels have enabled them to be identified in the rock record (McCubbin, 1982). A lateral migration model for tidal inlet facies was developed by Arche et al. (1988) during their work on the Currubedo tidal inlet in Galicia,

Spain. Their model divided tidal inlet facies into four parts: channel floor facies, point bar facies, beach lobe facies, and aeolian flat facies. Channel floor facies displayed coarse grain size, shell lag, and large scale trough cross-bedding. Because the tidal inlet was meandering, point bars were developed. These are characterized by large-scale, trough cross-bedded, medium-grained sandstone with lateral accretion surfaces. Beach lobe facies consisted of low-angle planar cross- 18

bedded and ripple cross-bedded sandstone. Finally, aeolian flat facies displayed planar laminated sandstone with marine shells. Faugéres and Fenies (1998) interpreted a vertical facies succession of a tidal inlet channel in their study of Arcachon Lagoon in southwestern France.

Their facies model described an erosive bed dominated by coarse shell debris and mud pebbles.

This transitioned into the subtidal zone of the inlet characterized by trough cross-bedded

medium-grained sandstone with rare interbedded mud drapes. The subtidal zone transitioned

into the intertidal zone, and also was composed of medium-grained trough cross-bedded sandstone. However the intertidal zone differed from the subtidal zone in that it also contained prominent ripple laminated sandstone. Finally, they interpreted the abandonment of the tidal inlet channel from overlying tidal flat sand-mud rhythmites.

Purpose and Goals

The Berea Sandstone has been extensively studied in northeastern Ohio, where it appears prominently in outcrop in several different locations. One of the earliest major studies of the

Berea Sandstone, completed by de Witt Jr. et al. (1954), interpreted that the unit was deposited by fluvial channel infill. However it is now understood to have been deposited in a deltaic environment (Ettensohn and Pashin, 1995). While the Berea Sandstone in northeastern Ohio is well understood, there have been few studies of the unit in southeastern Ohio, where it is found in the subsurface. Because of this, a level of uncertainty exists in regards to the Berea

Sandstone’s depositional system and its evolution. It is not clear whether the Berea Sandstone was deposited in a similar deltaic setting as interpreted in its northeastern expanses, or if it was deposited in a shallow marine environment such as a barrier island complex. A previous study, based on interpretations from geophysical log data, proposed that barrier islands were predominantly responsible for the deposition of the Berea Sandstone in southeastern Ohio, but 19

also stated that a prograding delta could possibly have been responsible as well (de Witt Jr. et

al., 1954). The goals of this study provided clarity to this matter and included: 1) complete a detailed subsurface facies analysis of the Berea Sandstone in southeastern Ohio 2) look for evidence of a shallow marine deltaic depositional environment 3) look for lithofacies assemblages consistent with a barrier island complex 4) look for evidence of tidal inlet channels.

This project proposed that lithofacies analysis of the Berea Sandstone would provide evidence that the Berea Sandstone in southeastern Ohio was deposited as a part of a Barrier Island

Complex depositional environment. This is based off of gamma ray analysis, and

paleogeographic diagrams of de Witt Jr. et al. (1954) in southeastern Ohio that suggested that the

Berea Sandstone was predominantly deposited in a barrier island depositional environment in

that region.

20

GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND

Regional Geologic Setting

The Appalachian Foreland Basin is a major geologic feature that extends across North

America on its long access from northern Alabama and Georgia, in a northwestern direction, to

the Canadian Shield in Quebec and Ontario, Canada, and is the major regional geologic feature

of this study (de Witt Jr. and Millici, 1988; McIntosh and Osborn, 2010). The earliest deposits

of the Appalachian Basin were deposited on top of Precambrian basement rock in the Late

Precambrian to Early Cambrian. Sedimentation would continue throughout the Paleozoic, until

finally concluding with the uplift of the basin in the Permian (de Witt Jr. and Millici, 1988).

Throughout its development, the area that is now the Appalachian Basin has experienced

multiple major tectonic events, including the Grenville, Taconic, Acadian, and Alleghanian

orogenies (de Witt Jr., and Milici, 1988; Brett and Ettensohn, 2002; Engelder and Lash, 2007;

Bartholomew and Hatcher Jr., 2010). Along its western edge, the Appalachian Basin has

experienced little tectonic deformation (McIntosh and Osborn, 2010), however in its eastern

reaches it has experienced extensive faulting and folding as a result of the aforementioned

orogenies. Along its northwestern margin, the Cincinnati Arch separates the Appalachian Basin

from the Illinois and Michigan Basins (Onasch and Root, 1999).

Regional Stratigraphy

Pre-Cambrian

The earliest part of the geologic history of Ohio consists of intervals of Precambrian

granite and rhyolite found in western Ohio (Figure 7) (Hansen, 1997a). The area where these are found is referred to as the Granite Rhyolite Province. Faulting and lithospheric subsidence 21

Figure 7. Geologic bedrock map of Ohio with a corresponding cross section (modified from

Ohio Division of the Geological Survey, 2006). 22 caused by the crustal doming associated with the intrusion led to the development of the East

Continental Rift Basin (Baranoski et al., 1992). In eastern Ohio, the Grenville Province consists of the Coshocton Zone (a suture zone) and the Grenville Mountains, which both formed during the amalgamation of Rodinia (Rivers, 2009). The late Precambrian in Ohio saw the erosion of the Grenville Mountains, and the inundation of Ohio by epeiric seas that would continue into the early Cambrian.

Cambrian

The Early Cambrian saw the opening of the Iapetus Ocean and the subsidence and submergence of the North American Craton by a warm shallow water sea (Dostal et al., 2010). In

Ohio, the Mt. Simon Sandstone is the oldest Cambrian formation, and was deposited due to the transgression of the shallow water Cambrian Sea (Saeed, 2002). This subsidence and subsequent transgression was halted in the Mid Cambrian by regional uplift that forced an eastward regression, and caused the formation of the Rome Trough Aulacogen (de Witt Jr. and

Milici, 1988). The deposition of the Consauga Group and Knox Group in the Middle and Late

Cambrian indicate a return to a transgressive shallow sea (Janssens, 1973).

Ordovician

As in the Cambrian, during Ordovician time Ohio was still covered by a warm, shallow ocean. This ocean contained life as evidenced by the abundant Ordovician fossil finds in southwest Ohio (Hansen, 1997b). In Late Ordovician, the closing of the Iapetus Ocean and the onset of the Taconic Orogeny affected Ohio geology (Brett and Ettensohn, 2002). The Taconic

Mountains served as a major sediment source into the Appalachian foreland basin in eastern

Ohio (Hansen, 1997b). The Taconic Orogeny appears responsible for the development of the 23

Cincinnati Arch, which served as the westward boundary for the Appalachian foreland basin (de

Witt Jr. and Millici, 1988).

Hansen (1997b) summarized the stratigraphy of the Ordovician formations. In the early

Ordovician, deposition continued from the Late Cambrian until the Knox unconformity was

formed. The Wells Creek Formation and the Black River Group overlie the Knox unconformity,

and are followed by the Trenton Limestone. The overlying Cincinnatian Group, which is

comprised of interbedded shale and limestone, contains an abundance of shallow marine fossils.

Finally, a major unconformity in Ohio separates the Ordovician strata from early Silurian strata.

Silurian

The Late Ordovician – Early Silurian erosive interval marked the end of the Taconic

Orogeny (Brett and Ettensohn, 2002). During the Silurian, the area that is now Ohio remained a

warm, shallow ocean. The region was starved of clastic sediment, and the resulting rocks were

predominately composed of limestones, dolostones, and evaporites. Silurian fossils in Ohio are dominated by invertebrates, with evidence of some of the earliest forms of terrestrial plant life also being present (Hansen, 1998).

In Ohio, the basal Silurian unit varies geographically, with the Brassfield Formation found in the southern, eastern, and western regions of the state (Ausich and Schneider, 2002), and the Manitoulin Dolomite found in the northwestern region (Hansen, 1998). Regional differences in formations and unconformities continue throughout the early and middle Silurian.

Late Silurian rocks are largely undifferentiated and are almost entirely encompassed within the

Salina Group, with the exception of the Bass Islands Dolomite in eastern Ohio (Hansen, 1998).

Devonian 24

During the lower and middle Devonian an abundance of carbonate rocks were deposited

in Ohio (Figure 8). These include the Delaware and Columbus Limestone in central and eastern

Ohio, and the Detroit River Group and Dundee Formation in western Ohio (Ehlers et al., 1951).

During the late middle Devonian there was a large shift in the sedimentation of Ohio from

predominately carbonate deposition to clastic deposition. This shift was due to the introduction

of clastic sediments that were related to the Acadian Orogeny. The Acadian Orogeny began in

the early Devonian; however the collision of the Avalonia Terrane with the proto-North America

plate in the Late/Middle Devonian was the Orogeny’s most prominent event (Albaugh et al.,

1979). The subsequent erosion of the Acadian Mountains caused the deposition of an enormous

amount of clastic sediment called the Catskill Wedge to be deposited in the Appalachian

Foreland Basin. In Ohio, the organic black Ohio Shale Formation was deposited as a result of

this sedimentation (Alshahrani, 2013). The Ohio Shale is divided into three members: the

Huron Shale, Chagrin Shale, and Cleveland Shale in ascending order. The formation reaches a

thickness of 200 m in some areas of the state, giving evidence that during the upper Devonian

environmental conditions in Ohio were conducive for the accumulation of large amounts of

organic matter (Hansen, 1999). The Bedford Shale Formation overlies the Ohio Shale, and

marks a halt of organic rich black shale deposits. This formation is closely associated with the

overlying Berea Sandstone, and Ettensohn and Pashin (1995) found evidence that the two

formations have similar depositional histories that were affected by the same paleogeographic

and tectonic processes.

Berea Sandstone

Originally named by Newberry (1874) after the village of Berea in Cuyahoga County,

Ohio, the Berea Sandstone is a major geologic unit in the state of Ohio. Covering about half of 25

Figure 8. Late Devonian paleogeographic position of North America with Ohio denoted by a red star (from Blakey, 2011).

26 the state, the Berea Sandstone stretches from the Ohio-Pennsylvania border in the east, to Erie

Co. in the north, and Scioto Co. in the south. The unit is heterogeneous, and experiences pronounced regional changes in grain size, color, bedding thickness, surface exposure, and fossil content (de Witt Jr., 1951; de Witt Jr. et al., 1954; Ettensohn and Pashin, 1995). The Berea

Sandstone has been studied in Ohio for well over a century, with one of the earliest geologic descriptions of the formation being made by Whittlesey (1838) decades before it was formally named. In the ensuing decades after the Berea Sandstone was named by Newberry (1874), multiple studies were completed on the formation with many focusing on its economic implications as a quarry rock as well as its implications as an oil and gas producer (Orton, 1888;

Burroughs, 1913). Later studies of the Berea Sandstone in Ohio focused more on its geologic features. Ver Steeg (1940) used well records to complete a study on the thickness and geologic structure of the Berea Sandstone and Clinton Sandstone in Wooster, Ohio. Cooper (1943) completed a study on mass movements within the Berea Sandstone and Bedford Shale, focusing on interpreted flow structures within the units. The first comprehensive study on the Berea

Sandstone was completed by de Witt Jr. et al. (1954). Their work was made possible due to the wealth of recent data gathered on the formation through the work of the United States Geological

Survey during and immediately after World War II (de Witt Jr. et al., 1954; Ettensohn and

Pashin, 1995). This influx of interest in the Berea Sandstone was inspired by the United States

Congress recognizing a need for greater research into oil and gas producing formations within the United States. De Witt Jr., et al. (1954) analyzed and organized this data in order to interpret the depositional environment of the Berea Sandstone and Bedford Shale, as well as to create paleogeographic maps of Ohio. Based on their interpretations, de Witt Jr., et al. (1954) created a 27 model in which the Berea Sandstone was deposited in fluvial channels by rivers that scoured into underlying sediment and deposited large sand bodies.

The comprehensive work on the depositional environment of the Berea Sandstone by de

Witt Jr., et al. (1954), provided a framework on which most of the work in the formation operated for the next five decades. Lené and Owen (1969) completed work on the grain orientation of the Berea Sandstone in Northern Ohio. Their study found evidence that the grain orientation in the Berea Sandstone matched the direction of paleocurrents as indicated by the direction of cross bedding in their study area of South Amherst, Ohio. Their study interpreted this as evidence that grain orientation is a reliable indicator of paleocurrents in sandstone.

DeReamer et al. (1983), also working in South Amherst, Ohio, completed a study on the Berea

Sandstone in which gamma ray logs, and paleocurrents were used to interpret the depositional environment of the Berea Sandstone. Their interpretations supported the previous interpretations of de Witt Jr. et al. that the Berea Sandstone was deposited in fluvial channels. Ettensohn and

Pashin (1995) reevaluated the classic interpretations of the Berea Sandstone, and found evidence that plate tectonics played a major role in the deposition of the Berea Sandstone. Flexural tectonism caused by the reactivation of basement structures in the Appalachian Basin, relict topography, and the enhanced compaction of the organic rich Ohio Shale in relation to the less organic rich Chagrin Shale combined to create an eastern platform with a corresponding western basin. Ettensohn and Pashin (1995) interpreted that the deposition of the Berea Sandstone could be divided into two phases, basin filling time and delta destruction time.

Lithology 28

The lithology of the Berea Sandstone has been described by numerous studies

(Burroughs, 1913; Ver Steeg, 1940; Foreman and Thomsen, 1940; Cooper, 1943; de Witt Jr. et

al, 1954; Lewis, 1988). A more recent evaluation of the Berea Sandstone was made by

Ettenshon and Pashin (1995), which gave a detailed lithofacies analysis of the formation. They

interpreted the Berea Sandstone to be composed of 3 distinct lithologies: pebbly sandstone, fine-

grained sandstone, and silty sandstone. The pebbly sandstone is yellowish-brown, friable, and contains poorly sorted coarse grain granules, pebbles, and cobbles. The sandstone is a yellowish-brown, fine- to medium-grained, friable quartz arenite to sublithic arenite. The silty

sandstone is a light to medium gray, very fine-grained, well sorted quartz arenite. 5 lithofacies

were identified within these three lithologies: pebbly sandstone, quarry stone, deformed silty-

sandstone, low angle cross-bedding, and solitary-cross-bedding.

Stratigraphy & Age

In Ohio, the Berea Sandstone overlies the Bedford Shale and underlies between the

Sunbury Shale (Figure 9) (de Witt, 1951; Ettensohn and Pashin, 1995). There has been a controversy about the age of the Berea Sandstone. Early studies placed the unit in the early

Mississippian (Burroughs, 1913; de Witt Jr., 1951; de Witt Jr., 1970), based on stratigraphic studies of de Witt Jr. (1951), biostratigraphy studies of Hass (1947), and the presence of

Mississippian fossil plants and spores found in underlying units (de Witt Jr., 1970). The current view is that the Berea Sandstone is Late Devonian (Figure 9) (Ettensohn and Pashin, 1995), established by Eames (1974) in his work on the palynology of the Berea Sandstone and

Cuyahoga Group. Generally, the unit is not known to be a particularly fossiliferous unit, but has been found to contain small amounts of brachiopod, plant, and fish fossils in northeastern Ohio

(Schuchert, 1943; de Witt Jr., 1951). 29

Figure 9. Generalized stratigraphic column of the Berea Sandstone, and its associated formations in northeastern and southeastern Ohio (modified from Ettensohn and Pashin 1995).

30

Geologic History

The concept of the “Berea Delta” was described in detail by de Witt Jr. et al. (1954).

This study defined the Berea Delta as a large deltaic system that stretched from southern Ontario, to northern Ohio, incorporating the “Ontario” and “Ashtabula” rivers, and various smaller streams, and draining into the ancient “Ohio Bay”. The depositional model explained the evolution of the Berea Delta in 3 main stages. In its first stage, the Berea Delta was thought to infill paleovalleys previously cut into the underlying Bedford Shale. De Witt Jr. et al. (1954) claimed that these paleovalleys were predominantly filled by medium-grained sandstone, and represent the initial deposition of the Berea Sandstone in north central and northeastern Ohio.

The second stage was said by to commence after the paleotopography was infilled. De Witt Jr. et al. (1954) described this stage as a 6 to 11m thick sheet sandstone that formed from meandering streams flowing over infilled fluvial channels. During this second stage, the Berea

Delta was also affected by the slowly transgressing waters of the Ohio Bay in response to the subsidence of the Appalachian Basin. This subsidence-generated transgression, coinciding with the decrease in sediment loads from the Ontario River, caused the marine or final stage of the

Berea Delta. De Witt Jr. et al. (1954) attributed the thin bedded, fine- to medium-grained sandstone portion of the unit in north central and northeastern to be the result of this final stage of the delta. Ultimately, de Witt Jr. et al. (1954) allege the Berea Delta was completely drowned by the expansion of Ohio Bay setting the stage for the deposition of the overlying Sunbury Shale

Formation.

A major reinterpretation of the Berea Sandstone, by Ettensohn and Pashin (1995), considered the role that dynamic tectonic activity in the Appalachian Basin had in the deposition of the Berea Sandstone. An eastern platform and a western basin with a salient dividing line 31

running north south in the state of Ohio was a major structural identification. Deposits in the

eastern platform were thinner (75ft/23m,) and were interpreted to mainly consist of

aggradational, transgressive valley-fill depositional sequences. The deposits of the western basin

were thicker (125ft/38m), and were interpreted as the result of progradational, regressive delta, and shelf sequences. Relict topography and considerable differences in the compaction of the

Cleveland Shale muds of the western basin and the mud and silts of the Chagrin Shale in the eastern platform, in addition to flexural tectonsim were interpreted as the reason for this regional subsidence.

Ettensohn and Pashin (1995) divided the deposition of the Berea Sandstone into 2 distinct episodes: basin filling and delta destruction. During the basin filling episode, the Catskill Delta

was drowned by a regional transgression. The following regression led to the creation of 3

structurally influenced paleo incised valleys caused by the paleo-Cussewago, Gay-Fink, and

Cabin Creek fluvial systems. These fluvial systems eroded the sediment of the Catskill wedge, and the corresponding deltas began infilling the adjacent basin with sediment. The Cussewago

Delta was most responsible for the deposition of the northern Appalachian Basin, and thus much of eastern Ohio. It is in this context that the Berea Sandstone was interpreted to have formed in a proximal delta front environment. Following this period of basin filling, the Cussewago Delta was interpreted to have been destroyed by a regional transgression caused by the migration of a peripheral bulge westward, away from the Acadian orogenic belt. This transgression resulted in

the reworking of Cussewago deltaic deposits, and the deposition of the Berea Sandstone’s

siltstone facies.

Economic Geology 32

The economic value of the Berea Sandstone has been recognized for over a century,

predominately in the quarry (Figure 10), and oil and gas industries (Ettensohn and Pashin, 1995).

The quarrying of the Berea Sandstone began in the 1850’s in northwest Ohio (Mote, 2004). The use of the quarried Berea Sandstone was initially for the production of grind stones for water mills, at one point providing stone for approximately 80% of the grindstones in the United States

(Knepper, 2003). The Berea Sandstone was also used extensively in the construction of government buildings and universities etc., at one point being one of the most popular building stones in the United States (Bownocker, 1915). By the 1950’s, much of the large scale quarrying operations in the Berea Sandstone had dramatically decreased or completely halted, and many of the abandoned quarries had been converted into public parks (Mote, 2004).

Much of the geologic research on the Berea Sandstone coincided with the birth and development of the oil and gas industry in Ohio (de Witt Jr. et al., 1954; Ettenson and Pashin,

1995). Oil and gas operations in the Berea Sandstone began in the 1860’s when the first recorded well was drilled in Columbiana County, Ohio (Collins, 1979). From the 1860’s to the

1970’s dozens of commercial gas fields were discovered throughout Ohio, with most production occurring in southeastern Ohio (Tomastik, 1996). This led to thousands of wells being drilled into or through the formation, making it traditionally one of the largest oil and gas producing units in the state (Stout, 1944; de Witt Jr. et al., 1954). Since the 1970’s, discoveries of new oil

and gas fields in the Berea Sandstone have slowed. Still, the USGS estimated that there remains

a combined 6,800 billion cubic feet of technically recoverable oil and gas within the Berea

Sandstone in Ohio, West Virgina, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky (Milici and Swezey, 2006).

33

Figure 10. Classic photograph of the Berea Sandstone being quarried on the south wall of the Buckeye Quarry in South Amherst, Lorain County, Ohio ( from de Witt Jr., 1954).

34

METHODS

The project evaluated 5 cores, 2 of which had corresponding gamma ray logs, and 11 additional gamma ray logs from wells within the Berea Sandstone (Figure 11). The study area, in southeastern Ohio, is approximately 59 km (E-W) by 89 km (N-S), or 5251 km2 in area. The cores and geophysical logs were made available by the Horace R. Collins Lab and Core

Repository in Delaware, Ohio.

Drill Core

Core Analysis

Work on 5 cores involved detailed stratigraphy, facies analysis, digital core photography, and sampling for thin sections. Facies analysis involved a detailed cm by cm examination of each core. Individual lithofacies were identified, assigned a code, and grouped into assemblages.

This was done in an attempt to notice patterns and lateral changes in the composition of the cores. From these lithofacies assemblages, a facies model was constructed to enable an interpretation of the depositional environment, and to correlate facies between each core. Digital core photography involved photographing each core in its entirety to aid in the identification of individual lithofacies and facies assemblages.

Samples taken from cores, to be turned into thin sections, were from specific points with lithofacies deemed important with a total of 14 thin sections made. Petrofacies analyses were conducted on selected thin sections with the use of an optical microscope. Point counting of selected thin sections was utilized in petrofacies analysis to better identify the mineralogical composition of the Berea Sandstone using the Gazzi-Dickinson method (Dickinson and Suczek, 35

1979). Roughly 300 point counts were made on each slide, and porosity percentage was estimated from voids between mineral grains.

Geophysical Log Analysis

Geophysical logs, specifically gamma ray logs, were utilized from 13 wells in Athens

Co., Meigs Co., Vinton Co., Washington Co. and Morgan Co (Figure 11). These geophysical logs were obtained from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources courtesy of Ms. Madge Fitak and Mr. Mark T. Baranoski. Geophysical logs are valuable because they allow for the identification of the different lithologies from drill wells that don’t have available cores. Gamma ray logs from wells #4 and #6 were correlated to core stratigraphy in order to calibrate geophysical logs from wells without cores (Figures 42 and 43). This allowed for interpretations of the lithology of the Berea Sandstone from wells throughout the study area that were effectively correlated. Table 1 shows information on the wells utilized in this study.

Geophysical log data was used for the construction of lithocorrelation profiles, structure contour maps, subsurface isopach maps, and 3-D architectures models of the Berea Sandstone.

Surfer® (version 8) was used to complete all three of these tasks (Golden Software, 2002).

Geophysical logs were correlated to cores from well #4 and well #6. These wells were the only

in the study with both geophysical log and core data available. After correlating well #4 and

well #6 it was possible to interpret the peaks of the remaining geophysical logs, and construct

lithocorrelation profiles. Lithocorrelation profiles were used to interpret the internal complexity of sandstone packages, as well as to interpret their continuity across the study area. Structure contour maps were used to visualize the upper contact of the formation. Isopach maps were used to visualize the spatial distribution of the thickness of the Berea Sandstone in the study area. 3-D 36

Figure 11. Enlarged image of southeastern Ohio displaying the distribution of wells and cores along with their corresponding well numbers in the study area (Table 1). Squares indicate cores used, and circles indicate wells used without cores.

37 modeling was used to better visualize the architecture of the formation.

Gamma-ray logs

Gamma-ray logs (Appendix B) were utilized to effectively differentiate between sandstone and shale. Gamma-ray logs use differing levels of radioactivity emitted by strata to identify lithologies down a well. Shale is rich in radioactive minerals such as 238U, 40K, and

232Th. This causes it to register a strong gamma-ray log reading. In contrast, sandstone typically will show a weaker gamma-ray reading (Boggs, 2006). This distinction is important because the

Berea Sandstone is overlain by the Sunbury Shale and underlain by the Bedford Shale. A clear shift from strong gamma-ray readings to weak gamma-ray reading is seen where the Berea

Sandstone is present. Gamma-ray readings also display complexity within the Berea Sandstone.

This makes it possible to identify shale layers within the formation, and reveal changes in the continuity of sandstone packages.

Structure Contour Maps

Both 2-D and 3-D structure contour maps were created from the elevation of the upper contact of the Berea Sandstone with respect to mean sea level. By subtracting the ground level elevation (GLE) from the depth of the core (DC), and factoring in the elevation of the well head

(WH), the elevation of the upper contact of the Berea Sandstone was able to be accurately calculated (GLE + WH – DC).

Data for these calculations was obtained from well completion reports, made available by the Ohio Geological Survey at www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey. The data set used in creation of the structure contour map is seen in Table 2. The structure contour maps are presented later

(Figures 46, 47, and 48). 38

Isopach Maps

Isopach maps were created to show trends in the total thickness of the Berea Sandstone.

These maps were created by utilizing the elevation of the upper contact of the formation

(identified in the structure contour map), and subtracting this from the elevation of the bottom contact of the formation. Data from 13 wells and 3 drill cores was utilized to create these maps.

The data table used in their construction is seen in Table 3. The isopach maps are presented later

(Figures 49, 50, and 51).

Outcrop Analysis

The final stage of the project involved comparing the results of the subsurface study of the Berea Sandstone in southeastern Ohio to surface outcrops of the Berea Sandstone in the

Quarry Rock Picnic Area in Bentleyville, Ohio (Figure 52). The purpose of the comparison was to see if features from the subsurface analysis in southeastern Ohio matched larger-scale features seen in outcrops in northeastern Ohio.

39

Table 1. Details of well logs from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Assigned Well OGS Logging Logging API Well Number County Township Longitude Latitude Core Total Total Number in the Number (feet) (meters) Study 1 34009222870000 Athens Canaan -81.960673 39.357175 3252 1668 508 2 34009218940000 Athens Canaan -81.957518 39.362624 3253 1573 479 3 3400922429000 Athens Bern -81.915136 39.399856 3251 1656 505 4 34009228550000 Athens Bern -81.919133 39.402196 3426 1715 523 3883 5 34105214990000 Meigs Orange -81.900087 39.153008 None 1184 (DTD) 6 34105234850000 Meigs Bedford -81.976257 39.112575 3425 1745 532 7 34105220570000 Meigs Chester -81.862124 39.091025 None 3478 1060 8 34105220780000 Meigs Lebanon -81.788656 38.9524 None 3997 1218 6521 9 34115212490000 Morgan Homer -82.019424 39.492655 2923 1988 (DTD) 1397 10 34115218260000 Morgan Deerfield -81.971006 39.675024 None 426 (DTD) 1816 11 34115218560000 Morgan Center -81.626136 39.632731 None 554 (DTD) 1377 12 34115218900000 Morgan York -81.988091 39.743243 None 420 (DTD) 13 34163206140000 Vinton Knox -82.319768 39.236928 None 1236 377 1270 14 34163204780000 Vinton Knox -82.317669 39.229374 None 387 (DTD) 15 34167234220000 Washington Watertown -81.704264 39.506909 None 5563 1696 16 34167234120000 Washington Belpre -81.6306 39.279914 None 5900 1798

Note: Drilling Total Depth (DTD) is used where logging total depth (LTD) is not available.

40

Table 2. Data used to create structure contour maps.

Assigned Core Depth to Upper Elevation of Ground Elevation of Upper Well API Well Contact of the Berea Level + Well Head Contact of the Berea Number in Number Sandstone Height Sandstone the Study Feet Meters Feet Meters Feet Meters 1 34009222870000 -1558 -475 877 267 -681 -208 2 34009218940000 -1560 -475 810 247 -750 -228 3 3400922429000 -1542 -470 860 262 -682 -208 4 34009228550000 -1588 -484 874 266 -714 -218 5 34105214990000 -1847 -563 856 261 -991 -302 6 34105234850000 -1686 -514 756 230 -930 -284 7 34105220570000 -1880 -573 771 235 -1109 -338 8 34105220780000 -2087 -636 720 219 -1367 -417 9 34115212490000 -1283 -391 862 263 -421 -128 10 34115218260000 -1355 -413 1000 305 -355 -108 11 34115218560000 -1782 -543 967 295 -815 -248 12 34115218900000 -1312 -400 1055 322 -257 -78 13 34163206140000 -1073 -327 744 227 -329 -100 14 34163204780000 -1171 -357 845 258 -326 -99 15 34167234220000 -1841 -561 931 284 -910 -277 16 34167234120000 -1857 -566 644 196 -1213 -370

Note: Negative elevation values mean depth below mean sea level (MSL).

41

Table 3. Data used to create isopach maps.

Assigned Elevation of Elevation of Well Upper Contact Bottom Contact Total Berea Sandstone API Well Number of the Berea of the Berea Thickness Number in the Sandstone Sandstone Study Feet Meters Feet Meters Feet Meters 1 34009222870000 -681 -208 -715 -218 34 10 2 34009218940000 -748 -228 -762 -232 14 4 3 3400922429000 -682 -208 -705 -215 23 7 4 34009228550000 -714 -218 -789 -241 75 23 5 34105214990000 -991 -302 -998 -304 7 2 6 34105234850000 -930 -284 -947 -289 17 5 7 34105220570000 -1109 -338 -1116 -340 7 2 8 34105220780000 -1367 -417 -1373 -419 6 2 9 34115212490000 -421 -128 -503 -153 82 25 10 34115218260000 -355 -108 -375 -114 20 6 11 34115218560000 -815 -248 -831 -253 16 5 12 34115218900000 -257 -78 -284 -86 27 8 13 34163206140000 -329 -100 -358 -109 29 9 14 34163204780000 -326 -99 -366 -111 40 12 15 34167234220000 -910 -277 -916 -279 6 2 16 34167234120000 -1213 -370 -1216 -371 3 1

Note: Negative elevation values mean depth below mean sea level (MSL).

42

RESULTS

Core Descriptions

The core sections from 5 wells were analyzed, with emphasis on lithology, texture, sedimentary structures and lithofacies. In total, 16 lithofacies and 3 lithologies and were identified in the formation, all of which were siliciclastic.

Core 3426

Core 3426 contains a sequence of the Berea Sandstone that is approximately 10 m thick from 484 m deep to approximately 494 m deep (Figure 12). It consists of fine-grained sandstone, tidal rhythmites, and mudstone. Numerous missing intervals in the core are interpreted as shale intervals, representing a considerable amount of absent sample data. These missing intervals were interpreted as shale from geophysical log analysis. Despite this, a clear trend transition from mudstone, to heterolithic sandstone and mudstone bedding, to massive fine- grained sandstone is present. The base of core 3426 displays approximately 1 m of massive mudstone, which is interpreted as the Bedford Shale. Following this are, flaser-, wavy-, and lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone, which are interpreted as tidal rhythmites, for approximately 4 m from 494 m in depth to 490 m in depth. From 490 m to approximately 487 m are massive fine-grained sandstone, with interbedded hummocky stratification, flaser bedded heterolithic sandstone and mudstone, convoluted bedding, planar lamination, and trough cross bedding. Multiple missing intervals are interpreted as shale layers. A short sequence of wavy- and flaser heterolithic sandstone and mudstone follows this at 486 m which itself is overlain by 2 m of massive fine-grained sandstone. The last m of the Berea Sandstone in core 3426 between

43

Figure 12. Core log of core 3426 measured in m below the top of the core.

44

485 m to 484 m, contains a short sequence of wavy heterolithic sandstone and mudstone overlain by fine-grained massive sandstone. A 19 cm segment of flaser-, wavy-, and lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone follows this with approximately 18 cm of fine- grained massive sandstone as the last deposits of the Berea Sandstone in core 3426. Finally, the upper contact of the Berea Sandstone with the Sunbury Shale is seen at the top of the core.

Core 3425

A segment of the Berea Sandstone approximately 5 m thick from 519 m deep to 514 m deep is present in core 3425 (Figure 13). Fine-grained sandstone is the dominant lithology seen in this core with thin layers of siltstone and mudstone also being present. The lower contact of the Berea Sandstone with the Bedford Shale is seen at the bottom of the core. From 519 m to

517 m core 3425 is almost entirely fine-grained massive sandstone. A relatively short section of fine-grained planar laminated sandstone is seen just below 518 m overlain by several small intraclasts. At 517 m a 16 cm thick sequence of hummocky stratification is present, with intraclasts spread throughout the sequence. This is followed by a short interval of fine-grained massive sandstone that then transitions into a short sequence of ripple laminations with intraclasts present throughout. About 29 cm of fine-grained massive sandstone follows this until just less than 516 m deep, lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone with relatively intense bioturbation begins. This intensely bioturbated lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone alternates back and forth with the fine-grained massive sandstone for approximately half a meter before a returning to predominately fine-grained massive sandstone. A short interval of trough cross-bedding is seen between 516 m and 515 m followed by bioturbated sandstone. The upper most section of the Berea Sandstone in core 3425 is composed of planar laminated fine-grained sandstone. Finally, the Sunbury Shale is seen overlying the Berea Sandstone. 45

Figure 13. Core log of core 3425 measured in m below the top of the core. 46

Core 3253

Core 3253 contains an interval of the Berea Sandstone approximately 4 m in thickness from 475 m in depth to 479 m in depth with the Bedford Shale underlying the formation, and the

Sunbury Shale overlying it (Figure 14). It is predominantly composed of fine-grained sandstone; however it also contains two relatively short intervals of mudstone. Between 479 m and 477 m most of core 3253 is missing, and is interpreted as mudstone beds. What is present displays fine- grained sandstone containing intraclasts and a prominent cross cutting layer of mud. Between

477 m and 476 m fine-grained sandstone transitions into a thin layer of mudstone, followed by flaser bedding and hummocky stratified sandstone. Massive sandstone follows, that abruptly transitions into another sequence of mudstone. At 477 m to 476 m massive fine-grained sandstone transitions into a tempestite assemblage which itself is overlain by more massive fine- grained sandstone.

Core 3252

Core 3252 contains an interval of the Berea Sandstone approximately 9 m thick from about 485 m deep to 475 m deep (Figure 15). The core is incomplete, with about 5 m of the sample being absent that is interpreted to be sandstone. At the base of the core about 1 meter of the underlying Bedford Shale is seen. Overlying this, approximately 49 cm of massive siltstone is present. Following this interval is the 5 m missing interval of the core mentioned above.

Massive sandstone is seen from 479 m to 476 m, with the exception of several intraclasts, shale partings, and a cross cutting mudstone streak. A 19 cm tempestite sequence is seen following this, with approximately the last half m of the core being composed of massive fine-grained sandstone and a short interval of 47

Figure 14. Core log of core 3253 measured in m below the top of the core. 48

Figure 15. Core log of core 3252 measured in m below the top of the core.

49

massive mudstone. Finally, approximately 1 m of the overlying Sunbury Shale is present at the

top of the core.

Core 3251

Core 3251 contains a segment of the Berea Sandstone that is approximately 10 m thick

spanning from over 479 m deep to 470 m deep (Figure 16). A significant interval of about 1 m is

absent from 473 m deep to 472 m deep that is interpreted to mudstone. Core 3251 is the most

lithologically diverse of this study with 5 lithologies present including: coarse-grained sandstone,

medium-grained sandstone, fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. The core begins

with a 67 cm sequence of mudstone interpreted to be the underlying Bedford Shale, displaying

both massive bedding and planar lamination. A 14 cm segment of planar laminated siltstone

follows this. Overlaying this is a 15 cm sequence of coarse-grained sandstone that is normally

graded and overlain by a sequence of medium-grained sandstone that is also normally graded.

Nearly 1 m of fine-grained sandstone overlies this, which itself is overlain by a 32 cm sequence of siltstone displaying convoluted bedding. Multiple turbidites are seen next, with fine-grained sandstone displaying both massive bedding and ripple lamination. Short sequences of lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone with bioturbation are seen next. Following this, at 475 m deep, hummocky stratified fine-grained sandstone is present with lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone. Fine-grained sandstone is intersected by a thin sequence of wavy bedding, until a relatively thick section of wavy and lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone is seen. Hummocky stratification is seen overlying this, followed by approximately 21 cm of massive siltstone. Another sequence of massive sandstone follows before the missing interval mentioned above occurs. Immediately following the missing interval is an 18 cm

sequence of mudstone. After this approximately a m and half of core 3251 is composed almost 50

Figure 16. Core log of core 3251 measured in m below the top of the core. 51

entirely of massive fine-grained sandstone with the exception of short instances of planar

laminated sandstone and hummocky stratified fine-grained sandstone. The last m of the core is composed of the overlying Sunbury Shale.

Lithology and Thin Section Analysis

Three lithologies were identified in the Berea Sandstone including: sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. Analysis on 3 thin sections from sandstone samples was conducted.

Photomicrographs were generated from these 3 thin sections as well (Figure 17, 18, & 19).

Photomicrographs of a siltstone thin section (Figure 20) and a mudstone (Figure 21) thin section were also generated.

Sandstone

Fine- to coarse-grained, moderately to well sorted, sub rounded to rounded, siliceous quartz arenite is the dominate lithology in the Berea Sandstone. The most common sedimentary structure that appears in the Berea Sandstone is massive bedding; however, numerous others appear prominently as well. These include: planar lamination, trough cross-bedding, hummocky stratification, planar tabular cross-bedding, ripple lamination, lenticular-, and wavy-, and flaser- bedding. Thin shale partings or shale baffles between sandstones occur in each of the cores.

These occur infrequently however, and are minor in comparison to the overall composition of the sandstone.

Thin section samples (Table 4) were point counted in this study, revealing that the most common framework minerals of the Berea Sandstone are monocrystalline quartz (49%) and polycrystalline quartz (25%). Cryptocrystalline quartz is also present, but at a less significant rate (4%). Both plagioclase feldspar (2%) and potassium feldspar (1%) are rare in the Berea 52

Table 4. Summary of point count data with QFL percentage for samples 21, 6 and, 20.

21 6 20 Mean QFL Point Point Point % % % % % Count Count Count Monocrystalline 109 35 194 63 151 48 49 Quartz Polycrystalline 114 37 46 15 73 23 25 91% Cryptocrystalline 11 4 16 5 8 3 4 Plagioclase 2 1 7 2 8 3 2 Feldspar 3% Potassium 3 1 2 1 5 2 1 Sedimentary 22 7 4 1 17 5 4 Lithics Volcanic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6% Metamorphic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accessories 5 2 2 1 3 1 1

Voids 5 2 4 1 7 2 2 Quartz cement 11 4 0 0 13 4 3 Calcite cement 0 0 31 10 3 1 4

Matrix 23 7 0 0 26 8 5

Total 305 100 306 100 314 100

53

Sandstone. Lithics are also seldom seen in the samples, and were identified at a mean rate of

4%. Of this 4% only sedimentary lithics were seen, with metamorphic lithics and igneous lithics

being completely absent. Accessory minerals (1%) are relatively insignificant constituents of the

samples. Voids (2%) in the Berea Sandstone aren’t common, indicating low porosity in the

formation. Quartz cement appears in samples 21 and 20 at a mean of about 3%, and is the result

of quartz overgrowths. Calcite cement (6%) appears in both samples 20 and 6. In sample 20 it is

minor only making up 1% of its constituents. Sample 6 contains a significant amount of calcite

cement (10%), which is clearly visible by its high birefringence colors. A relatively significant

amount of sample 20 (8%) and sample 21 (7%) are composed of matrix, which is absent in

sample 6 and has a mean of (5%). Photomicrographs of each sandstone sample are seen in

Figures (17, 18, & 19).

Siltstone

Siltstone is the least abundant lithology seen in the Berea Sandstone, only being present

in 2 of the 5 cores seen in the study. Intervals of siltstone in the Berea Sandstone are relatively

brief, and none are thicker than 1 m. Siltstone intervals are mostly massive in nature, but also

display planar lamination in one instance. It appears mainly as dark gray or tan in color. A

photomicrograph of siltstone is seen in figure 20.

Mudstone

Mudstone is not an abundant lithology in the Berea Sandstone, and is present in 4 of the 5 cores analyzed in this study. It appears in cm scale intervals, with one exception, where it is

nearly 1.5 m in thickness. Cores 3426, 3253, and 3251 each contain significant missing intervals that are interpreted as mudstone. It is either massive or planar laminated. Where massive, the 54

Figure 17. Photomicrograph of sample 21 displaying fine-grained, rounded to subrounded, well sorted sandstone. Key: QG = Quartz Grain, M = Matrix. Scale bar = 1mm.

55

Figure 18. Photomicrograph of sample 20 displaying fine- to medium-grained, rounded to subrounded, moderately sorted sandstone. Key: QG = Quartz Grain, M = Matrix, RF = Rock

Fragment, and QO = Quartz Overgrowth. Scale bar = 1mm.

56

Figure 19. Photomicrograph of sample 6 displaying fine- to medium-grained, rounded, moderately sorted sandstone. Key: QG = Quartz Grain and CC = Calcite Cement. Scale bar =

1mm.

57

Figure 20. Photomicrograph displaying well rounded, fine- to very fine-grained, rounded siltstone composed of 100% quartz in the Berea Sandstone. Scale = 1mm.

58

Figure 21. Photomicrograph displaying mudstone in the Berea Sandstone composed of 65% mud and clay sized clasts, and 35% silt sized clasts. Scale = 1mm.

59

mudstone is either black or dark gray. Where planar laminated siltstone occurs, it is dark gray,

light gray, and maroon red in color. In these instances it is interpreted as shale. A

photomicrograph of mudstone is seen in figure 21.

Lithofacies Analysis

Sixteen siliciclastic lithofacies (Table 4) were identified in the Berea Sandstone based on composition, texture, and sedimentary structures present in the formation. First, a description and interpretation of each lithofacies was completed to determine the process responsible for its creation. Then, individual lithofacies were grouped into assemblages in order to identify the environment that produced them. These lithofacies assemblages are sequences of genetically

related facies. Finally, after describing the each lithofacies, interpreting their depositional

processes, and grouping them into assemblages, an interpretation of the Berea Sandstone’s

depositional environment was possible. A lithofacies scheme was created and tabulated in order

to classify each lithofacies in an organized and logical manner. This scheme involved the

creation of a code in which a capital letter was used to denote lithology, and a lower case letter

was used to denote sedimentary structures (Table 5).

Massive sandstone (Lithofacies Sm)

Massive sandstone is the most common lithofacies identified in the Berea Sandstone,

occurring in all 5 cores (Figure 22). Lithofacies Sm is a fine- to coarse-grained, round to

subrounded, well to moderately sorted siliceous quartz arenite. Calcareous cement is seen in an

approximately 20 cm thick sequence of coarse grain massive sandstone. Massive sandstone also

displays light to moderate bioturbation in core 3251 and core 3425. In general, massive

sandstone sequences vary from 15 cm to 153 cm in thickness. 60

Table 5. Summary of lithofacies in the Berea Sandstone.

Lithofacies Lithology Sed. Structures Interpretation Fine/Medium/Coarse Rapid deposition or Sm Massive grained sandstone destratified Upper flow regime plane Sl Fine grained sandstone Planar lamination bed Trough cross- St Fine grained sandstone Dune migration bedding Hummocky Sh Fine grained sandstone Storm event stratification Planar tabular cross- Sp Fine grained sandstone Sand wave migration bedding Sr Fine grained sandstone Ripple lamination Ripples

Se Fine grained sandstone Intraclasts Mud rip-ups Convoluted Smc Fine grained sandstone Slump bedding, massive Heterolithic sandstone Tidal Rhythmite with SMf Flaser Bedding and mudstone ripples

Heterolithic sandstone Tidal Rhythmite with SMw Wavy Bedding and mudstone ripples

Heterolithic sandstone Tidal Rhythmite with SMk Lenticular Bedding and mudstone ripples

Heterolithic sandstone SMl Planar lamination Tidal Rhythmite and mudstone Rapid deposition or SSm Siltstone Massive destratified Upper flow regime plane SSl Siltstone Planar lamination bed Mm Mudstone Massive Rapid deposition Ml Mudstone Planar Lamination Tidal Rhythmite 61

Massive sandstones are distinct sand bodies that lack internal structure. Padogenesis,

bioturbation, diagenesis, as well as seismically induced liquefaction of unconsolidated sand

grains are interpreted as post-depositional causes of massive sandstones (Martin and Turner,

1998; Egenhoff and Hildebrandt, 2007). Rapid sedimentation by debris flows and turbidity

currents are also interpreted to cause the deposition of massive sandstone (Baas, 2004). The lack

of evidence for fluid escape structures makes seismically induced liquefaction an unlikely cause

for the presence of massive sandstone in this study. In the Berea Sandstone, rapid deposition

(Baas, 2004) or destratification by bioturbation (Martin and Turner, 1998) are interpreted as the

cause of lithofacies Sm.

Planar laminated sandstone (Lithofacies Sl)

Lithofacies Sl is a planar laminated, fine-grained, rounded, well sorted quartz arenite

(Figure 23). It appears in sequences ranging from 1 cm to 31 cm in thickness. Lithofacies Sl is

most commonly associated with lithofacies Sh and lithofacies Sm.

Planar laminated sandstone can be deposited by multiple environments and processes. In

clastic foreshore beach environments, seaward dipping planar laminated sandstone is caused by

the swash-back mechanism of waves (Reinson, 1979). Alternating laminations of higher density dark colored minerals, such as magnetite and quartz grains, is a common feature of planar laminated sandstone that is caused by hydraulic equivalency (Dashgard et al., 2012). Planar laminated sandstone has also been interpreted to be a part of both turbidite facies sequences

(Bouma, 1962; Shanmugam, 1997) and tempestite facies sequences (Bian et al., 2012). In the

Berea Sandstone, planar laminated sandstone is interpreted to have been deposited in a foreshore 62

Figure 22. Massive Sandstone (lithofacies Sm) in core # 3426. Rapid deposition or destratification by intense bioturbation are interpreted as the causes for lithofacies Sm. Scale bar

= 3 cm.

Figure 23. Planar Laminated Sandstone (lithofacies Sl) in core #3425. Laminations are on a mm scale, and are slightly tilted. Scale bar = 3 cm.

63 environment, as well as in turbidite and tempestite facies sequences.

Trough cross-bedded sandstone (Lithofacies St)

Lithofacies St is a trough cross-bedded, fine-grained, rounded, well sorted, quartz arenite

(Figure 24). It appears in sequences ranging from 3 cm to 13 cm in thickness. In the Berea

Sandstone lithofacies St is overlain and underlain by lithofacies Sm.

Trough cross-bedding is defined as cross-beds that have a curved bounding surface

(Boggs, 2009). They form by the migration of lunate and sinuous (3-D) dunes, and are deposited in fluvial, tidal marine, and aeolian environments (Khadkikar, 1999). In the Berea Sandstone, lithofacies St is found in core 3425, and is interpreted to have been deposited in a subtidal marine environment.

Hummocky stratified sandstone (Lithofacies Sh)

Lithofacies Sh is a hummocky cross stratified, fine-grained, rounded, well sorted, quartz arenite (Figure 25). It appears in sequences ranging from 2 cm to 15 cm in thickness.

Lithofacies Sh is overlain by lithofacies SMw and underlain by lithofacies Sl (Figure 23).

The deposition of hummocky stratification is caused by unidirectional and oscillatory combined flow, with oscillatory flow being dominant, produced by large storms (Arnot and

Dumas, 2006). Hummocky stratifications is not a form of cross-bedding, forming from the infill of hummocks and swales eroded from the seabed by sediment falling out of suspension, and not from the migration of subaqueous dunes (Bourgeois & Dott, 1982; Boggs, 2006). According to

Arnot and Dumas (2006), hummocky cross-stratified sandstone is typically deposited in shallow 64

Figure 24. Trough Cross-Bedded Sandstone (lithofacies St) in core #3425. The horizontal lineations are an artifact of the coring process, and not sedimentary structures. Scale bar = 3 cm.

Figure 25. Hummocky Stratified Sandstone (lithofacies Sh) in core #3252. Hummocky stratification is not crossing bedding, but is the infill of hummocks and swales eroded during storm events. Scale bar = 3 cm.

65 marine environments, ranging in depth from 13 m to 50 m above storm weather wave base. In the Berea Sandstone, lithofacies Sh is interpreted to have been deposited during a storm event in a shallow marine subtidal environment.

Planar tabular cross-bedded sandstone (Lithofacies Sp)

Lithofacies Sp is a planar tabular cross-bedded, fine-grained, rounded, well sorted quartz arenite (Figure 26). In the Berea Sandstone it occurs in sequences that range from 1 cm to 3 cm.

It is commonly overlain and underlain by lithofacies Sm, but is also underlain by lithofacies

SMl.

Planar tabular cross-bedding is cross-bedding containing planar bounding surfaces. It is formed by the down current movement of straight crested subaqeous (2-D) dunes moved by water or wind processes (Tucker, 2001) . According to Boggs (2009), cross-bedding can form in eolian, fluvial, and marine environments, and the orgin can be difficult to differentiate in the ancient rock record. In the Berea Sandstone, lithofacies Sp is underlain by lithofacies SMl, showing evidence that it is unlikely to have been deposited in an eolian or fluvial environent. It also displays multiple cross-bed sets giving evidence for the migration of multiple subaqueous dunes. Lithofacies Sp is interpreted to have formed in a marine intertidal to subtidal environment.

Ripple laminated sandstone (Lithofacies Sr)

Lithofacies Sr is a ripple laminated, fine-grained, rounded, well sorted quartz arenite

(Figure 27). Lithofacies Sr was identified in only 1 sequence with a thickness of 4 cm. It is overlain and underlain by lithofacies Sm. 66

Figure 26. Planar tabular cross-bedded sandstone (lithofacies Sp) displaying multiple cross-bed sets giving evidence for the migration of multiple subaqueous dunes in core # 3426. Scale bar =

3 cm.

Figure 27. Ripple laminated sandstone (lithofacies Sr) in core # 3251. Multiple climbing ripples are seen that are separated by low angle bounding surfaces. Scale bar = 3 cm. 67

Ripple lamination is a sedimentary structure composed of small scale ripples generally

less than a few tens of cm in length, and a few cm in height. They are asymmetrical structures

with a steeper downstream side, and a more gently sloped upstream side that most commonly form in fine-grained sand (Jobe et al., 2012). According to Chaudhuri (2005), ripple lamination occurs in multiple environments including river flood plains, deltas, esker or glacial out-wash plains, and submarine fans. The processes necessary for the formation of ripple lamination have been established in recent experiments as strong unidirectional flow in addition to concurrent deposition from traction and suspension (Boggs, 2009). In the Berea Sandstone, ripple lamination is interpreted to have formed from the development of distributary mouth bars in a subtidal marine environment.

Intraclasts in sandstone (Lithofacies Se)

Lithofacies Se consists of fine-grained, rounded, well sorted quartz arenite with intraclasts (Figure 28). Mudstone intraclasts are brown, white, or gray in color, and measure no more than 2 cm in diameter. The vast majority of the intraclasts present are found associated with lithofacies Sh.

Intraclasts or “rip-up clasts” are redeposited fragments of cohesive mud. According to

Flügel (2004), they are common in subtidal environments where storm waves scour and undermine laminated mud layers. Intraclasts are commonly redeposited within close proximity of where they were produced. In the Berea Sandstone, most of the occurrences of lithofacies Se are associated with lithofacies Sh. Based on this evidence, lithofacies Se is interpreted to have been deposited by result of storm activity in a subtidal marine environment.

Convolute bedded Massive Sandstone (Lithofacies Smc) 68

Figure 28. Intraclasts in sandstone (lithofacies Se) in core # 3425. Intraclasts were seen within a sequence of lithofacies Sh. Scale bar = 3 cm.

Figure 29. Convolute bedded sandstone (lithofacies Smc) in core # 3426. Convoluted bedding was seen within a sequence of lithofacies Sm. Scale bar = 3 cm.

69

Lithofacies Smc is a convolute bedded, massive, fine-grained, rounded, well sorted

quartz arenite (Figure 29). It is overlain by lithofacies Sl and underlain by lithofacies Sm, and

was rarely seen.

Convoluted bedding refers to strata displaying asymmetric highly contorted and or

irregular folds (Tucker, 2001). It occurs when sediment is disturbed during or after deposition

by small scale liquefaction. Convoluted bedding is asymmetric with one side of its anticline like

shape pointing in the direction of flow. Nichols (2009) stated that this type of bedding can be

caused by two processes: sediment that is deposited rapidly on a slight slope causing slump, or as

a result of shear stress on the sediment from the effect of fluid flowing over it. In the Berea

Sandstone, lithofacies Smc is interpreted to be the result of slump. Evidence for this is the thin

layer of mudstone separating the convoluted bedding from underlying massive sandstone.

Lenticular bedded heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMk)

Lithofacies SMk is a lenticular bedded fine-grained, rounded, and well sorted quartz

arenite and interbedded mudstone (Figure 30). Typically, the interbedded sand layers in

lithofacies SMk are <1 cm in thickness. Lithofacies SMk is typically overlain and underlain by

either lithofacies SMf or lithofacies SMw. The color of lithofacies SMk shifts from dark gray

(mud) to light gray (sand), and it occurs as no more than 7 cm in thickness.

According to Reineck and Wunderlich (1968), lithofacies SMk is the mud dominant form of heterolithic bedding. Its presence represents a fining upward sequence in relation to lithofacies SMw and SMf. This is due to the increased amount of mud deposits, indicating a decrease in depositional energy. The formation of lithofacies SMk is caused by the fallout of mud during slack water conditions, in a distributary channel (Nakajo, 1998). This can occurs 70 during flood tide conditions in a subtidal environment. Therefore, in the Berea Sandstone lithofacies SMk is interpreted to have been deposited in a subtidal environment during a period of decreased tidal current energy.

Wavy bedded heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMw)

Lithofacies SMw is a wavy bedded, fine-grained, rounded, and well sorted quartz arenite and interbedded mudstone (Figure 30). On average, the interbedded mud layers in lithofacies

SMw are <1 cm in thickness. Lithofacies SMw is typically overlain and underlain by either lithofacies SMf or lithofacies SMk. The color of lithofacies SMw shifts from dark gray to light gray, and it occurs in sequences no more than 5 cm in thickness.

According to Chakraborty et al. (2003), the deposition of heterolithic bedding is caused by the alteration of tidal energy from ebb tide to slack water conditions. Rising and falling tidal conditions cause higher energy flow conditions that transport and deposit sand. In contrast, slack water conditions allow for mud floccules to fall out from suspension forming mud layers.

Lithofacies SMw represents a shift from the more mud dominated lithofacies SMk. This is due to a net decrease in current speed, and an increase in the deposition and preservation of mud

(Buynevich et. al, 2011). In relation to lithofacies SMf, this results in a fining upward sequence with sand becoming less abundant. In other words, lithofacies SMk represents an equal mixture of sand and mud sediment. This indicates an increase in depositional energy from lenticular bedding, and a decrease in depositional energy from flaser bedding. Thus lithofacies SMw is interpreted to have been deposited in a subtidal environment under rising and falling tidal conditions as well as during slack water tidal periods.

Flaser bedded heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMf) 71

Lithofacies SMf is a flaser bedded, fine-grained, rounded, and well sorted quartz arenite and interbedded mudstone (Figure 30). The interbedded mud layers in lithofacies SMf are <1 cm in thickness. Lithofacies SMf is typically overlain or underlain by lithofacies SMk, lithofacies

SMw, or lithofacies Sm. In one instance it is also underlain by lithofacies Mm. The color of lithofacies SMf shifts from dark to light gray, and it occurs in thickness no more than 7 cm in thickness.

Lithofacies SMf is a form of heterolithic bedding in which sand is dominant and minor mud layers are thin. In relation to lithofacies SMk and lithofacies SMw, it is more coarse- grained, and fines upward into the aforementioned deposits (Prothero and Schwab, 2004).

According to Martin (2000), lithofacies SMf forms during oscillating intervals of relatively intense flow depositing rippled sand deposits, and slack water conditions during which mud is deposited. Heterolithic bedding can occur in a distributary channel that is being influenced by tides (Nakajo, 1998). Lithofacies SMf is interpreted to have been deposited in a subtidal environment during higher energy rising and falling tidal periods.

Planar laminated heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (Lithofacies SMl)

Lithofacies SMl is a planar laminated, fine-grained, well sorted, rounded, quartz arenite interbedded with mud (Figure 31). Typically the mud layers present in lithofacies SMl are <1 cm thick. It is typically overlain by lithofacies SMk and is underlain by lithofacies SMf.

Lithofacies SMl is the least common form of heterolithic bedding present in this study.

Lithofacies SMl, similar to the other types of heterolithic bedding seen in this study, is a tidal rhythmite deposit. Tidal rhythmites are stacked sets laterally and/or vertically accreted, thin bedded or laminated, medium- to fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and mudstone (Arima and 72

Figure 30. Flaser-, wavy-, and lenticular-bedded sandstone and mudstone (lithofacies SMk) in core # 3426. Sandstone is dominate in flaser bedding, sandstone and mudstone appear in relative balance in wavy bedding, and mudstone is dominant in lenticular bedding. Scale bar = 3 cm.

Figure 31. Planar laminated heterolithic sandstone and mudstone (lithofacies SMl) in core #

3426. Lamination are typically ≤ 1 cm. Scale bar = 3 cm. 73

Mazumder, 2005). Evidence for strong tidal influence on these deposits is indicated by the

rhythmitic pattern and regular progressive thickening and thinning of individually accreted

packages or bundles, in response to changing current velocities associated with lunar cycles

(Archer et al., 1999). The alternating mud and sand deposits of lithofacies SMl are controlled by tidal processes in which mud falls out from suspension during slack water periods, and sand is deposited during periods of higher energy (Buynevich et al., 2011). In the Berea Sandstone, lithofacies SMl is interpreted to have been deposited in a subtidal environment.

Massive siltstone (Lithofacies SSm)

Lithofacies SSm is a massive siltstone (Figure 32). It is overlain and underlain by lithofacies Sm and overlain by lithofacies Mm. It appears in sequences ranging from <1 to approximately 18 cm. Overall, it was not a commonly encountered lithofacies in this study.

Siltstone is a type of sedimentary rock in which ≥ 50% of its clasts are silt sized grains.

Massive siltstones are homogenous silt bodies that lack internal structure. According to Jaworski

(2013), massive siltstones are deposited by silt debris flows, turbidity currents, or silt debris flows giving way to turbidity flows. Post-depositional bioturbation may also produce massive siltstone by destroying its original lamination. In the Berea sandstone, lithofacies SSm appears in multiple turbidite sequences. This provides strong evidence for the interpretation that lithofacies SSm was deposited by turbidity currents.

Planar laminated siltstone (Lithofacies SSl)

Lithofacies SSl is a planar laminated siltstone (Figure 33). It is overlain by lithofacies

Sm, which is itself the basal section of a coarse grained turbidite, and underlain by lithofacies 74

Figure 32. Massive Siltstone (lithofacies SSm) in core # 3251. Silt debris flows or post- depositional bioturbation are interpreted as being responsible for lithofacies SSm. Scale bar = 3 cm.

Figure 33. Planar laminated siltstone (lithofacies SSl) in core # 3251. Laminations seen in lithofacies SSl were typically on a mm scale. Scale bar = 3 cm. 75

Mm. It appears in only one sequence that is approximately 16 cm thick, making it a relatively rare lithofacies in the Berea Sandstone.

Laminated siltstone can suggest both a high energy depositional environment and a low energy environment. Archer et al. (1989) interpreted laminated siltstones to have been deposited in an intertidal to subtidal environment, based on the presence of marine conodont and terrestrial plant fossils. They further cited the cyclicity of the laminations to be consistent with the lunar cycle. An alternate interpretation of laminated siltstone was proposed by Handford (1981). He interpreted finely laminated siltstones to be deposited in submarine turbidity flows. In the Berea

Sandstone, lithofacies SSl lacks a strong rhythmic pattern, and is interpreted to be deposited by submarine turbidity flows.

Massive mudstone (Lithofacies Mm)

Lithofacies Mm is a massive mudstone (Figure 34) that is most commonly overlain by lithofacies SSl and lithofacies SMf, and is underlain by lithofacies Ml and lithofacies Sm. It ranges in thickness from approximately 40 cm to 1 cm, and is black to dark gray in color. Both the long term isolation of the location of mud deposition or the compaction of mud can both be responsible for the development of thick monotonous mudstone sequences. Evidence for multiple potential depositional processes exists for lithofacies Mm. Intense bioturbation, as well as slow sedimentation rates are both common causes for the absence of lamination in massive mudstones (Prothero and Schwab, 2004). Massive mudstone that is black in color may also be evidence that deposition occurred under anoxic bottom-water conditions (Mason et al., 2008). In the Berea Sandstone, lithofacies Mm is interpreted to have been deposited in a marine offshore or offshore-transitional environment. 76

Figure 34. Massive Mudstone (lithofacies Mm) in core 3251. The massive nature of lithofacies is interpreted to be the result of either intense bioturbation or slow sedimentation. Scale bar = 3 cm.

Figure 35. Planar laminated mudstone (lithofacies Ml) in core # 3251. Lines were added to help accentuate laminations. Scale bar = 3 cm.

77

Planar laminated mudstone (Lithofacies Ml)

Lithofacies Ml is a planar laminated mudstone (Figure 35) that is overlain and underlain

by lithofacies Mm. It is uncommon in the Berea Sandstone, and only appears in one sequence

that is approximately 13 cm in length. The lineation’s in lithofacies Ml are only visible because

of color variations from maroon red to dark gray and light gray. Each lineation is no more than 2

cm thick with most being <1 cm thick.

Laminated mudstone typically reflects long periods of low energy deposition. According to Caplan and Rustin (2001), laminated mudstone is deposited in or below the offshore-transition

environment. Occasional thin sand lenses and scour marks provide evidence of periodic storm

events. In the Berea Sandstone, lithofacies Ml is interpreted to have been deposited in a marine

offshore or offshore-transitional environment.

Lithofacies Assemblages

The uses of individual lithofacies are limited in their ability to identify depositional

environments. This is due to the fact that individual lithofacies can be formed by multiple

depositional processes, and often aren’t unique in their creation. It is because of this that the

development of facies associations, composed of multiple individual lithofacies is necessary.

According to Dalrymple and James (2010), facies associations can be described as groups of

facies genetically related to one another that have environmental significance. By grouping

individual lithofacies into lithofacies assemblages an interpretation of a depositional environment

can be made. In the Berea Sandstone, 5 lithofacies assemblages were identified.

Tidalites 78

A prominent tidalite lithofacies assemblage, approximately 5 m thick, is seen in core

3426. In no particular order, tidalite lithofacies assemblages are composed of heterolithic

lenticular bedded sandstone and mudstone (lithofacies SMk), heterolithic wavy bedded

sandstone and mudstone (lithofacies SMw), heterolithic flaser bedded sandstone and mudstone

(lithofacies SMf), and heterolithic planar laminated sandstone and mudstone (lithofacies SMl). A

segment of the tidalite lithofacies assemblage from core 3426 can be seen in Figure 36.

Tidalites are all sedimentary structures that have formed under the influence of tides

(Davis, 2012). In marine environments, tidalites form in both the intertidal zone (Davis, 2012),

and the subtidal zone (Nakajo, 1998). In the intertidal zone, tidalites form in 3 sub-

environments, sand flats, mixed flats, and mud flats (Davis, 2012). The type of sub-environment

that develops is controlled by the relative supply of mud and sand sediments. Sedimentation in

the intertidal zone and its related sub-environments is predominately affected by ebb and flood tidal currents, and their slack water transitional periods. These sub-environments are characterized by lenticular-, wavy-, and flaser bedding. Lenticular bedding is evidence for lower energy depositional periods of mud in mud flats during slack water intervals. In contrast, flaser bedding can be cited as evidence of higher energy deposition during rising and falling tidal conditions (Martin, 2000). Due to the tidal cycle, the intertidal zone is in regular flux between high tide and low tide. This results in the deposition of each type of heterolithic bedding being mixed within the same tidalite sequence (Boggs, 2006). Tidalites can also be deposited in the subtidal zone, in association with distributary channels (Nakajo, 1998). Alterations in tidal energy have an effect on channel flow velocity. This has an effect on the sediment deposited in the subtidal zone, and can cause flaser-, wavy-, and lenticular bedding. Deposition during times of higher energy from both distributary current flow and ebb tidal currents produce flaser 79

Figure 36. Tidalite lithofacies assemblage displaying lithofacies SMf, SMk, and SMl as a collectively deepening tidal sequence. Note the lack of exposure surfaces. Scale Bar = 2 cm.

80

heterolithic bedding. Wavy heterolithic bedding and lenticular heterolithic bedding are the result

of flood tide currents interacting with distributary channel current flow and causing slack water

conditions. During these slack water conditions an increase in mud deposition occurs (Dashtgard

and Johnson, 2014).

Tempestite Assemblage

Tempestites are deposits displaying evidence of ancient storm events in the geologic

record. In his classic work on these deposits, Ager (1974) interpreted tempestites as storm

deposits showing evidence of violent disturbance of preexisting sediments, followed by rapid re-

deposition in shallow environments. Multiple facies models have been developed for tempestites

(Bourgeois and Dott, 1982; Bian et al., 2012). The model developed by Bourgeois and Dott

(1982) is the most widely accepted tempestite facies model, and is divided into 4 divisions in

much the same manner Bouma sequences are used to describe turbidites. First, in division H, a

zone displaying hummocky stratification in fine-grained sandstone is seen. Noted in the generalized model is that the base of this division may or may not contain an erosional contact.

This is overlain by division F that is characterized by flat laminae in fine-grained sandstone, and in the generalized model is much thinner than division H. Next, division X is composed of fine- grained sand displaying cross lamination. Finally, in division M mudstone is seen. Bourgeois and Dott (1982) included in their model that bioturbation may or may not be seen in tempestite facies assemblages. In the case of the tempestite interpreted in this study, the latter is true.

It is important to note that many tempestite assemblages do not contain all of divisions H-

M. In the Berea sandstone, 2 tempestite assemblages were interpreted in core 3253 (Figure 37). 81

Figure 37. Core section displaying one complete tempestite lithofacies assemblage overlying one incomplete tempestite lithofacies assemblage displaying amalgamated hummocky stratification

(Sh). The presence of amalgamated Sh is typical of the lower shoreface. A generalized tempestite sequence modified from Bourgeois and Dott (1982) is displayed to the right. 82

First, a sequence of fine-grained hummocky stratified sandstone and siltstone (division H) is

seen. Overlying this is a relatively thin sequence of flat laminae (division F). Another sequence

of fine-grained hummocky stratified sandstone and siltstone (division H) overlies this, follow by

a thin sequence of flat laminae (division F). Finally, a sequence of cross laminae (division X) is

seen. Bioturbation was completely absent from the tempestite sequence interpreted in this study.

Overall, the total thickness of the core in which the tempestites occur is approximately 18 cm.

Turbidite Assemblage

A turbidite is a depositional sequence deposited by turbulent debris flows of varying

velocities (Shanmugam, 2002). Although the sequence of sedimentary structures that make up

turbidites was first identified by Sheldon (1928), a vertical facies model would not be developed

for decades. Bouma (1962), created a turbidite facies model which would become known as the

Bouma Sequence, while working on the Annot Sandstone in SE France. In this widely utilized

facies model, Bouma (1962) divided turbidites into 5 divisions: A,B,C,D, and E. Division A is

characterized by graded bedding ranging from coarse to fine-grained sand, and is the thickest

division in the Bouma Sequence. Next, division B contains fine-grained planar laminated sandstone, followed by division C showing fine-grained sandstone and silt in wave ripples and

convoluted laminations. Division D is thinnest in the Bouma Sequence, and shows upper parallel

laminae. Finally, division E is the last division in the Bouma Sequence, and is characterized by

massive and laminated mudstone (Shanmugam, 1997).

A turbidite was interpreted in the Berea Sandstone in core 3251. Figure 38 is an

incomplete turbidite containing divisions B,C,D, and E that is approximately 13 cm thick.

Division B is composed of planar laminated fine-grained sandstone, and is approximately 4 cm 83

Figure 38. Incomplete turbidite lithofacies assemblage displaying Bouma divisions Tbcde. Note that division Ta was not interpreted. A generalized turbidite sequence modified from Bouma

(1962) is displayed to the right.

84

thick. Following this, approximately 6 cm of wavy lamination is seen representing division C.

Next division D shows an approximately 2 cm thick sequence of upper parallel laminae. Finally

division E is approximately 1 cm thick, and displays homogenous mudstone. This incomplete

turbidite is interpreted as evidence for turbidity currents occurring during the deposition of the

Berea Sandstone.

Interdistributary Bay

An interdistributary bay is a deltaic sub-environment that occurs between distributary

channels (Figure 2) (Elliot 1974). In their study, of the Tilje Formation off the coast of Norway,

Dalyrmple and Ichaso (2014) interpreted an interdistributary bay environment. Their study

interpreted mudstone, siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone as the dominant lithologies consistent

with a clastic interdistributary bay environment. Dalyrmple and Ichaso (2014) then identified

flaser heterolithic sandstone and mudstone bedding containing cross-bedding and cross ripple

lamination. This was interpreted to indicate periods of higher energy deposition that occurred

during the overbank flooding of distributary channel levees. Lenticular heterolithic sandstone

and mudstone that contained the trace fossils Cruziana and Skilithos was also identified,

indicating lower energy deposition in between times of overbank flooding.

An interdistributary bay depositional environment is interpreted in core 3425 (Figure 39).

Fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone lithologies were identified. Approximately 20

cm of interbedded sequences of lenticular-, wavy-, and flaser heterolithic mudstone and

sandstone bedding were prominent lithofacies, indicating interdistributary bay environments.

Massive bedded sandstone provided evidence for multiple storm/flood events indicating periods

of rapid sedimentation. The heterolithic sandstone, mudstone and massive sandstone both display 85

Figure 39. Interdistributary bay depositional environment interpreted from alternating massive sandstone and bioturbated mudstone. This is interpreted as evidence for for multiple flood and storm events into an interdistributary bay.

86

bioturbation, evidence of rich biologic activity. These features, along with the stacked and

alternating nature of the deposits, as well as their similarities to interpretations of

interdistributary bay depositional environments made by both Elliot (1974) and Dalyrmple and

Ichaso (2014) are cited as strong evidence for the interpretation of an interdistributary bay

environment in the Berea Sandstone.

Prograding Distributary Channel

In the Berea Sandstone, facies analysis identified a prograding distributary channel

depositional environment (Figure 40). Distributary channels are constituents of a delta that act as primary corridors for the transport and dispersal of sediment from a river to the delta front and prodelta environments (Baker et al., 2004). Prograding distributary channel deposits in the Berea

Sandstone were identified from lithofacies Sm, lithofacies St, lithofacies Sp, lithofacies Smc, lithofacies SMl, lithofacies SMw, lithofacies SMf, and lithofacies Mm. In a study on distributary channels deposits in southwestern Japan, Nakajo (1998) identified and interpreted similar lithofacies to be indicative of distributary channels. These lithofacies included: massive sandstone, planar cross stratification, trough cross stratification, convoluted bedding, lenticular-, wavy-, and flaser heterolithic bedding, and massive mudstone. The distributary channel identified in the Berea Sandstone is based on the interpretation of an active distributary channel, distributary mouth bars, and tidalites.

According to Nakajo (1998), massive sandstone overlying cross-bedded sandstones followed by a sequence of flaser-, wavy-, and lenticular heterolithic bedding is indicative of a

prograding distributary channel experiencing a decrease in depositional energy and abandonment. This type of facies sequence is seen in core 3246 (Figure 40). Massive sandstone, 87

A B C

Figure 40. Selected samples of core #3426 interpreted to display evidence for a prograding distributary channel environment experiencing a decrease in depositional energy and eventual abandonment. A) Massive sandstone is interpreted to show evidence of an active distributary channel. B) Tidalites are interpreted to display evidence for strong tidal influence on the distributary channel, indicating both slack water and current flow conditions. C) Massive mudstone is interpreted as evidence for the abandonment of the distributary channel.

88 tens of cm in scale, is interpreted to be the deposits of an active distributary channel. Cross- bedded sandstone with thin interbedded mud drapes follows this, and is interpreted as distributary mouth bars. These distributary mouth bars and their associated sedimentary structures are caused by the vertical accretion of sediment from migrating dunes and sand waves.

Interbedded mud drapes represent pauses in the migration of these dunes and sand waves, and the settling of mud during slack water conditions. Underlying the distributary mouth bar deposits are sequences of flaser-, way-, and lenticular heterolithic sandstone and mudstone approximately 5 m thick. These sequences are interpreted to be the result of intermittent current flow and slack water conditions depositing sand and mud in intervals. The nature of these deposits suggests evidence for strong tidal influence, and they are thus interpreted as tidalites.

Massive mudstone deposits underlying these tidalites are interpreted as abandonment of the distributary channel. In general, the data from core 3246 displays a transition from higher energy channel deposits in the delta plain to lower energy deposits in the delta front and prodelta, as the distributary channel is eventually abandoned.

Mapping Results

Mapping results of the Berea Sandstone were completed by analyzing geophysical logs from 13 wells and cores from 3 wells to better understand the internal architecture, structure, and distribution of the unit within the study area. Gamma ray logs were the primary data source for this study. Lithocorrelation profiles, 2-D and 3-D structure contour maps, and 2-D and 3-D isopach maps were created using gamma ray logs.

Lithocorrelation Profile 89

Individual lithologies have unique geophysical log signatures. This allows for

geophysical logs to be used to effectively identify and correlate distinct lithologies when

physical specimens aren’t available. Gamma ray logs were chosen as an effective geophysical

log type for this study, due to their ability to measure radiation emitted from rocks. Shale

naturally emits radiation due to potassium present in its clay components, giving it a strong

gamma ray signature in relation to other rocks. In regards to the Berea Sandstone, this proved

valuable, due to its stratigraphic position between the overlying Sunbury Shale and underlying

Bedford Shale, and made its relatively weak gamma ray signature more apparent. Gamma ray

logs also revealed multiple shale layers within the Berea Sandstone, helping to display internal

complexity within the formation.

Two lithocorrelation profiles, with respective north-south and west-east orientations,

were created using gamma ray logs from 8 wells. Wells creating a cross like pattern were

intentionally chosen to allow better visualization of formation architecture across the study area

(Figure 41). These lithocorrelation profiles were used to better identify variations in the

thickness and elevation of the Berea Sandstone throughout the study area. Initial correlations

and diagrams were made on well #6 (Figure 42), and well #4 (Figure 43) to set a precedence for identifying the gamma ray signature of the Berea Sandstone in the subsequent wells. This diagram displays a core log of core #3425 correlated to its corresponding gamma ray log. The correlation was made by utilizing data from well cards provided from the Ohio Geological

Survey, as well as the identification of large gamma ray signature changes. The drastic change seen in the gamma ray signature of well #6 is more or less typical of the Berea Sandstone in each of the other 11 gamma ray logs utilized in this study. Simplified core logs diagrams were used in the creation of the lithocorrelation profiles. 90

Figure 41. Map showing the location of wells used in construction of lithocorrelation profiles. A cross like shape was purposely used in order to use wells across the entire study area. Note that well #3 was not used in the construction of the lithocorrelation profiles.

91

Figure 42. Geophysical log-core correlation for well # 6 displaying the gamma ray signature for the contacts of the Berea Sandstone with the overlying Sunbury Shale and underlying Bedford

Shale. A small peak in the gamma ray signature within the Berea Sandstone was interpreted as a fining upward sequence within the core. The core is measure in m, and the gamma ray log is measured in ft. 92

Figure 43. Geophysical log-core correlation for well # 4 displaying the gamma ray signature for the contacts of the Berea Sandstone with the overlying Sunbury Shale and underlying Bedford.

Missing intervals in the core are interpreted as shale, and correlated to peaks on the gamma ray log. Intervals of heterolithic sandstone and mudstone are also interpreted as peaks on the gamma ray log signature. The core is measure in m, and the gamma ray log is measured in ft. 93

North-South Profile

A north-south profile was constructed from 5 wells (Figure 44). This profile can be interpreted to display considerable variations in the thickness and depth of the Berea Sandstone within the study area. Well #10 is the northernmost well in the profile, and has a thickness of approximately 20 ft (12 m) with a core depth of approximately -1375 ft (-419 m). In well #9 an increase in thickness to approximately 82 ft (25 m), and decrease in depth to approximately -

1365 ft (-416 m) occurs. Following this, in well #4, a slight decrease in thickness to approximately 75 ft (23 m) is seen. A large increase in the depth of the formation occurs in well

#4, dropping by approximately 298 ft (91 m) to approximately -1663 ft (-507 m) in depth.

Another major drop in depth occurs between well #4 and well #7, with well #7 having a depth of approximately -1887 ft (575 m). Well #7 is about 7 ft (2 m) thick, displaying considerable thinning of the formation between well #4 and well #7. Finally, the final and southern most well in the north-south lithocorrelation profile is well #8. Well #8 has a depth of approximately -2093 ft (638 m), displaying a deepening of over 200 ft (61 m) between well #7 and well #8. The thickness of well #8 is 6 ft (2 m), displaying continuity in the thickness of the Berea Sandstone between well #7 and well #8. In general, the north-south lithocorrelation profile of the Berea

Sandstone displays evidence that the formation dramatically thins and deepens in a southward direction.

Trends in gamma ray log signatures that were correlated from well #6 and well #4 allowed for an interpretation of signature trends seen in the wells used in construction of the north-south lithocorrelation profile (Figure 44). Both a fining upward and coarsening upward sequence was interpreted in well #10. A fining upward transition from fine-grained sandstone, registering a lower gamma ray signature, to heterolithic sandstone and mudstone, displaying a 94

Figure 44. North-South lithocorrelation profile created from gamma ray logs from 5 wells,

interpreted to show variation in thickness, elevation, and the complexity of sand bodies within

the Berea Sandstone. Area’s highlighted in yellow are interpreted as fine-grained sand bodies, and area’s highlighted in green are interpreted as fining upward sequences indicative of mudstone beds and heterolithic mudstone and sandstone. The red lines show the interpreted contacts of the Berea Sandstone with the overlying Sunbury Shale and underlying Bedford Shale. 95

higher gamma ray signature, was interpreted. Following this, a coarsening upward sequence

showing a slightly lower gamma ray signature is seen, and was interpreted to be fine-grained sandstone with interbedded mudstone. Well # 9 is interpreted to display a similar sequence of fine-grained sandstone fining upward into heterolithic sandstone and mudstone, and then coarsening upward into fine-grained sandstone. Well #4, which is correlated to core 3426, also displays this general trend of fine-grained sandstone fining upward into heterolithic sandstone and mudstone, and then coarsening upward into fine-grained sandstone. Well #7 and well #8 both are interpreted to display single sand bodies, with an overall lower level of complexity than the previous 3 wells.

West-East Profile

Three wells were used to create a west-east lithocorrelation profile (Figure 45). Both thickness and depth variations were significant across the west-east lithocorrelation profile of the

study area; however they were not as dramatic as the variation seen in the north-south

lithocorrelation profile. First, in well #14 the Berea Sandstone has a depth of about -1211 ft (-

369 m), and a thickness of approximately 40 ft (12 m). From well #14 to well #4 the formation

deepens to approximately -1663 ft (-507 m), but thickens to about 75 ft (23 m). Finally, in well

#16 the depth of the formation increases to about -1860 ft (-567 m). In addition to this, the Berea

Sandstone thins to approximately 3 ft (1 m) in thickness, making the formation thinner in well

#16 than in any other well. This lithocorrelation profile provides evidence that the Berea

Sandstone both deepens and becomes thinner in an easterly direction across the study area.

The construction of the west-east lithocorrelation profile also utilized trends seen in

gamma ray log signatures from well #6 and well #4 for correlations in well #14 and well #16 96

Figure 45. West-east lithocorrelation profile created from gamma ray logs from 3 wells, interpreted to show variation in thickness, elevation, and the complexity of sand bodies within the Berea Sandstone. Area’s highlighted in yellow are interpreted as fine-grained sand bodies, and area’s highlighted in green are interpreted as mudstone beds and heterolithic sandstone and mudstone. The red lines show the interpreted contacts of the Berea Sandstone with the overlying

Sunbury Shale and underlying Bedford Shale. 97

(Figure 45). In well #14 a fine-grained sand body is interpreted to fine upward into a shale layer.

This shale layer then coarsens upward into another fine-grained sand body. Well #4 was also used in the construction of the west-east lithocorrelation profile. In well #4, a sequence of fine- grained sandstone is interpreted to fine upward into heterolithic sandstone and mudstone. This was followed by the interpretation of a coarsening upward sequence from heterolithic sandstone and mudstone to fine-grained sandstone. Finally in well #16, a single sand body was interpreted to show a fining upward sequence into the overlying Sunbury Shale.

Structure Contour Maps

Structure contour maps were constructed to show the orientation of the top of the Berea

Sandstone within the study area (Figure 46, 47, & 48). These maps were created in accordance with the elevation of mean sea level, and each well was at depths well below mean sea level. On average the elevation of the Berea is 226 m. The deepest well is located in the southeast corner of the study with a depth of -417 m, and the shallowest well in the study is -78 m deep almost directly in the middle of the northern most section of the study area. Vertical relief occurs in both an east west orientation, and a north-south orientation. Vertical relief of approximately 4.6 m/km is seen in an east-west orientation, indicating that relief is relatively smooth and tabular laterally across the study area. Vertical relief across the study area in a north-south orientation is also relatively smooth and tabular, showing a change of just 3.8 m/km. Across the east-west orientation an elevation change of 271 m occurs, displaying an overall significant amount of relief. The north-south orientation displays even more relief with a change in elevation of 339 m. Several wells positions are in close proximity to each other in the middle of the study area, and display abrupt changes in depth. 98

Figure 46. Locations of wells in the study area showing depth to the top of the Berea Sandstone.

99

Figure 47. Structure contour map of the top of the Berea Sandstone in the study area. Contour interval is 20 m.

100

Figure 48. 3-D structure contour map showing the surface architecture of the Berea Sandstone in the study area. The map displays that the Berea Sandstone tilts to the east. Contour interval is

20 m.

101

The results of the structure contour map display a planar surface of the Berea Sandstone

in the study area. This planar surface dips in an eastern direction, and also displays a level

complexity in regards to small depressions in its surface from dramatic relief over short

distances. The tectonic tilt of the Appalachian Basin is apparent, and occurs in a diagonal

southwest to northeast orientation. Figure 48 clearly displays this tectonic tilt in a 3-D architecture model of the formation in the study area.

Isopach Maps

Isopach maps are used to show variations in thickness of geologic formations (Figure 49,

50, & 51). A 2-D and 3-D isopach map was created for the Berea Sandstone in the study area

using gamma-ray logs from 13 wells and cores from 3 wells (Figure 50 and 51). The average

thickness for the Berea Sandstone in the study area is approximately 8 m. The thickness of the

Berea Sandstone ranges from 25 m to 1 m.

The Berea Sandstone is thinnest in the eastern area of the study area, with thicknesses as

low as 1 m. Moving west across the study area, the Berea Sandstone gradually thickens by

several m. In the middle of the study area the Berea Sandstone displays dramatic local variation

especially to the northwest, increasing to over 20 m in thickness in well #4 and well #9. Both of

these wells were interpreted as prograding distributary channels from lithofacies and geophysical

analyses, providing an explanation for their thickness. Towards the southwest the formation also

thickens, but in a more gradual fashion increasing to approximately 12 m at well #14, and 9 m at

well #13. In general, the Berea Sandstone thickens in the study from the east to the west.

The isopach maps of the Berea Sandstone in the study area visually display the local

variation of thicknesses in the formation. Across the entire study area a large change in the 102

Figure 49. Location of wells in the study area and their respective isopach value (in m).

103

Figure 50. 2-D isopach map showing thickness variations of the Berea Sandstone in the study area. Map displays that the thickness of the Berea Sandstone decreases to the east. Contour interval is 1 m. Map scale is 20 km.

104

Figure 51. 3-D isopach map showing thickness variations of the Berea Sandstone in the study area. Map displays that the thickness of the Berea Sandstone decreases to the east. Contour interval is 2 m. Map scale is 20 km.

. 105 thickness of the unit occurs (Figures 50 and 51). Local variation however is relatively gradual.

In an east-west orientation the thickness variation of the Berea Sandstone is approximately 1 m per 5.4 km. Across the north-south orientation of the study area a thickness variation of 1 m per

14.8 km is observed. Thickness variation in the Berea Sandstone occurs gradually, but still indicates evidence for an increase in sediment supply afforded the formation in the western region of the study area. This matches the location of the interpreted prograding distributary channels. The isopach maps of the formation also seem to indicate that the formation has an irregular base. This is possible due to irregular underlying relict topography causing differences in accommodation space.

Outcrop Analysis

An outcrop of the Berea Sandstone was analyzed at Quarry Rock Picnic Area in

Bentleyville, Ohio (Figure 52). Five formations were present at the outcrop: the Ohio Shale,

Bedford Shale, Berea Sandstone, Cuyahoga Formation, and Sharon Formation. An erosional base formed the basal boundary between the Bedford Shale and the overlying Berea Sandstone.

Within the Berea Sandstone, a sequence of trough cross-bedding followed by a sequence of planar tabular cross-bedding with an overlying sequence of large foresets is seen. This lithofacies assemblage displayed evidence active prograding distributary channels that were deposited in a delta front environment. The Cuyahoga Formation follows the Berea Sandstone, and displays predominately mudstone facies, showing evidence of delta lobe abandonment.

Overlying this, and also within the Cuyahoga Formation, are reworked shelf deposits displaying hummocky stratification from multiple storm events.

106

Figure 52. Outcrop of the Berea Sandstone at Quarry Rock Picnic Area in Bentleyville, Ohio.

The Bedford Shale is at the base of the outcrop, and is interpreted as prodelta deposits.

Overlying the Bedford Shale is the Berea Sandstone which displays large foreset beds, and is interpreted to have been deposited in a delta front environment. Finally the Cuyahoga Formation overlies the Berea Sandstone, and is interpreted to show deltaic lobe abandonment and hummocky stratified (H.S.) reworked shelf deposits. 107

DISCUSSION

Depositional Environment

Delta progradation is the accumulation of sediment into a corresponding depositional

basin. Progradation can be caused by 3 distinct processes: high sediment influx into a basin, sea

level fall, tectonic subsidence, or a combination of each of these processes (Coleman, 1981).

Progradational deltas can be 1) river-dominated, 2) wave-dominated, and 3) tide-dominated

(Bhattacharya and Olariu, 2006; Kobayashi et al., 2002). According to Choi and Dalrymple

(2007), a progradational tidally influenced delta can be interpreted by the presence of distributary

channel facies, distributary mouth bars facies, and delta front facies with strong tidal influence.

Evidence for the presence of interdistributary bays in a prograding tidally influenced delta was interpreted by Buatois et al. (2012). The Berea Sandstone displays evidence for each of these environments, and is thus interpreted to be a tidally influenced prograding delta environment in southeastern Ohio.

Multiple paleoenvironments have been interpreted in the Berea Sandstone (Ettensohn and Pashin, 1995). Most of the research on the Berea Sandstone has been focused in northeastern Ohio where the formation appears prominently in outcrop. In northeastern Ohio, the Berea Sandstone appears as both relatively thin deposits, and thicker more pronounced deposits. De Witt Jr. et al. (1954) interpreted the depositional environment of the Berea

Sandstone to have been deposited in a series of distributary channels that had scoured through the underlying Bedford Shale, and infilled with sand. In southeastern Ohio, de Witt Jr. et al.

(1954) interpreted that the Berea Sandstone was predominately deposited in a barrier island sand bar similar to the modern barrier island seen in Galveston, TX. They did however note a 108 westward bulge in the formation from geophysical data in Ames Township, Athens County.

They interpreted that this could possibly be a tidal delta built from currents flowing through an inlet in the sand bar. Lené and Owen (1969) also interpreted the Berea Sandstone in northeastern

Ohio to be deposited in distributary channels. Lewis (1976) broke from the classic distributary channel depositional interpretation established by de Witt Jr. et al. (1954), and interpreted that the “distributary channel” deposits of the Berea Sandstone were actually synsedimentary slumps in a marine distributary system. Lewis (1988) followed this research with the interpretation that thin deposits of the formation were the result of sheet sand deposits sourced from distal delta front sediments from prograding distributary bodies. Ettensohn and Pashin (1995) interpreted that deposition of the Berea Sandstone was affected by a salient dividing line with a north-south orientation, created by tectonic activity, relict topography, and differential compaction of underlying mud. They interpreted this salient dividing line to have separated an eastern platform from a western basin. In the eastern platform a transgressive valley-fill/estuarine depositional environment was interpreted. In the western basin progradational regressive delta deposits were interpreted. Lithofacies analysis in this study were used to interpreted two sub-environments, 1) an interdistributary bay, and 2) a prograding distributary channel with associated distributary mouth bars and tidalites experiencing abandonment.

Deltaic environments can be composed of an assortment of sub-environments including the subareal delta plain, distributary channel, interdistributary bay, delta front, and prodelta

(Bhattacharya, 2010). Sediment supply, eustasy, and tectonic activity all influence the spatial and distal relationship of these sub-environments. For instance, an increase in sediment supply in addition to a drop in sea level would result in a regression and distal progradation of a delta 109 from the shoreline. In another example, a decrease in sediment supply in addition to a rise in sea level would result in a transgression and retrogradation.

Facies analysis of drill cores provided a greater level of clarity on the depositional environment of the Berea Sandstone in southeastern Ohio. The results of this project provided evidence for an interpretation of a tidally influenced prograding delta depositional environment.

This is based off of the interpretation of an interdistributary bay depositional environment, a tidally influenced prograding distributary channel depositional environment, and geophysical log analysis interpreted to show a prograding distributary channel lobe. Previous studies, such as those mentioned above, only vaguely touched on the depositional environment of the Berea

Sandstone in southeastern Ohio. Evidence from this study seems to confirm an interpretation made by de Witt Jr. et al. (1954) that a prograding delta environment was present in southeastern

Ohio during the Devonian. This study differs from de Witt Jr. et al. (1954) in 2 ways: 1)

Evidence from facies analysis of cores was utilized, and this provides a heightened level of confidence in the interpretations that were made. 2) This study provided evidence that the prograding distributary channel that de Witt Jr. et al. (1954) interpreted was more widespread than just Athens Co., and stretched into neighboring Vinton Co. and Morgan Co.

Architecture

Gamma-ray logs were used to reveal the subsurface 3-D architecture of the Berea

Sandstone. In their reinterpretation of the Berea Sandstone, Ettensohn and Pashin (1995) found evidence of a major change in the architecture of the Berea Sandstone. They found evidence of major regional changes in the thickness of the formation in Ohio. These thickness changes were most pronounced along an east-west dividing line. They found a general trend in which the 110

Berea Sandstone was thinner on the eastern side of the dividing line, and thicker on the western

side. This evidence was used in their interpretation of the paleogeography of Late Devonian

Ohio. Tectonics, differential compaction, and relict topography combined to create an eastern

platform with thinner deposits, and a western basin with thicker deposits.

The 3-D architecture revealed by gamma-ray log analysis in this study displays the orientation and shape of the upper contact of the Berea Sandstone, as well as local variation in the thickness of the formation (Figure 50 & 51). The formation becomes thicker in the northwest direction of the study area, and thins to the south and east. Combined with the lithofacies association interpretation of a tidally influenced prograding distributary channel lobe, and the correlation of cores to gamma ray logs, an interpretation of the architecture of the depositional environment was possible. This study interpreted a distributary channel lobe that prograded from the northwestern region of the study area in a southwestern direction. Figures 53 and 54 display a 2-D and 3-D isopach map of the Berea Sandstone with the interpreted geometry of the prograding distributary channel lobe. Evidence for this interpretation is based off of the location

of well #4 and well #9, both of which were interpreted as displaying evidence for a prograding

distributary channel, in relation to the other wells in the study. Wells displaying thin, generally

uncomplicated, sand bodies are in a distal position to wells displaying evidence for a prograding

distributary channel lobe. This allowed for the interpretation of the paleogeography of the study

area (Figure 53 and 54).

The sediment for this distributary lobe is interpreted to have been sourced from the

Cincinnati Arch, a forebulge in western Ohio separating the Appalachian Basin from the Illinois

Basin and Michigan Basin (Figure 55) (Onasch and Root, 1999). Figures 53 and 54 are both

interpreted to display this distributary channel lobe as it occurred within a wider deltaic 111

environment. This interpretation is based off of the fact that the study area is 5, 251 km2, and is

most likely too small to encompass an entire delta plain. To provide context for this

interpretation, the Nile River Delta plain of Egypt is approximately 22,000 km2 (Hamza, 2009),

and the Mississippi River Delta plain of the United States is approximately 30,000 km2

(Coleman et al., 1998).

112

Figure 53. 2-D isopach map of the study area displaying changes in thickness of the Berea

Sandstone within the study area. An interpretation of the size and geometry of the prograding distributary channel lobe is also shown in order to better visualize the paleogeography of the study area. Scale bar = 20km.

113

Figure 54. 3-D isopach map of the study area displaying changes in thickness of the Berea

Sandstone within the study area. An interpretation of the size and geometry of the prograding distributary channel lobe and interdistributary bays is also shown in order to better visualize the paleogeography of the study area. Scale bar = 20km.

114

Figure 55. Paleogeographic map displaying the geographic location of the Cincinnati Arch during the Late Devonian (modified from de Witt Jr. et al., 1954) in relation to the study area

(shown in the red box). The sediment for the distributary channel lobe in this study is interpreted to have been sourced from the Cincinnati Arch. 115

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study involved lithofacies analysis from 5 cores, petrofacies analysis from 3 thin

sections, and geophysical log analysis from 13 well logs, to interpret the sedimentology, depositional environment, and architecture of the Berea Sandstone. Siliciclastic facies were observed in all 5 cores analyzed from the Berea Sandstone. Three lithologies identified in the

Berea Sandstone include sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. In total, 16 lithofacies were identified in the Berea Sandstone, evidence that it was deposited in a heterogeneous environment. Twelve sedimentary structures were found in the sandstone: massive bedding, planar lamination, planar tabular cross-bedding, trough cross-bedding, hummocky stratification,

ripple laminated sandstone, convoluted bedding, intraclasts, and lenticular-, wavy-, flaser-, and

planar laminated heterolithic bedding. The siltstone and mudstone both contained 2 sedimentary

structures, massive bedding and planar lamination. Five lithofacies assemblages including

tempestites, tidalites, turbidites, an interdistributary bay, and a prograding distributary channel

were interpreted in this study. Multiple tempestite lithofacies assemblages were interpreted in an

approximately 16 cm thick section of core #3253. A complete tempestite composed of divisions

X, F, and H was interpreted as well as an incomplete tempestite composed of divisions F and H.

Tidalites interpreted in this study appeared in a sequence that was approximately 5 m thick. An

incomplete turbidite approximately 10 cm thick and composed of divisions B, C, D, and E was

also interpreted. Lithofacies assemblages consistent with interdistributary bay and prograding

distributary channel depositional environments were interpreted. The interdistributary bay

lithofacies association measured approximately 20 cm. The prograding distributary channel

lithofacies association was interpreted to compose all of Core #3426, and approximately 11 m in

thickness. Distributary mouth bar sequences, no thicker than 6 cm, the aforementioned tidalite 116 lithofacies assemblage, massive sandstone, and massive mudstone provided evidence for this interpretation. Petrofacies analysis from 3 thin sections provided evidence that the Berea

Sandstone is a quartz arenite with 2% porosity.

Geophysical analysis consisted of gamma-ray logs from 13 wells. 2-D and 3-D structure contour maps, isopach maps, and lithocorrelation profiles were constructed from this gamma-ray data. The structure contour maps displayed that the Berea Sandstone has a planar surface that subsides from the northwest to the southeast across the study area. The elevation of the formation in the study area ranges from -417 m (-1367 ft) to -78 m (-257 ft). Vertical relief in the elevation of the formation is seen at a rate of approximately 4.6 m/km in an east-west orientation, and 3.8 m/km in a north-south orientation. Isopach maps displayed the local variation in the thickness of the Berea Sandstone. The thickness of the Berea Sandstone ranges from 25 m (82 ft) to 1 m (3 ft), and becomes thicker from the eastern region of the study area to the western region. It experiences thickness variation at a rate of 1 m per 5.4 km in an east-west orientation across the study area, and a thickness variation of 1 m per 14.8 km in a north-south orientation. In general, the formation becomes thicker from the eastern region of the study area to the western region. It is thickest in the northwest region of the study area, due to the presence of a prograding distributary channel lobe. This distributary channel lobe indicates an increase in sediment supply and accommodation space. Lithocorrelation profiles of the Berea Sandstone revealed complexity within the sand bodies of the formation, and also provided evidence that the formation displays major changes in thickness.

Previous facies analyses of the Berea Sandstone have predominately focused on the formation in outcrop, and not in the subsurface. Using geophysical log analysis, de Witt Jr. et al.

(1954) interpreted a barrier island sand bar depositional environment for the Berea Sandstone in 117

southeastern Ohio. Their study also briefly touched on the possibility of evidence for a tidal

delta in Ames Township, Athens County. Ettensohn and Pashin (1995) also relied on

geophysical logs, and also interpreted barrier island beach deposits. Facies analysis on available

drill cores completed in this study allowed for stronger interpretations of the depositional

environment of the Berea Sandstone in southeastern Ohio. Evidence for a tidally influenced

prograding delta was found in this study based on interpreted lithofacies and lithofacies

assemblages. Geophysical log analysis provided subsurface architecture evidence for a distributary channel lobe. When combined, facies analysis and geophysical log analysis allowed for the interpretation of the paleogeography of the study area during the Late Devonian. An interpretation of the direction in which the distributary channel lobe prograded was possible, as well as its general geometry and size. Facies consistent with a barrier island complex were not interpreted in this study. This implies that during the Late Devonian, deltaic environments in

southeastern Ohio were more widespread than previously interpreted.

118

REFERENCES

Ager, D. V., 1974, Storm deposits in the Jurassic of the Moroccan High Atlas. Palaeogeography,

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 15, p. 83-93.

Albaugh, D.S., Brown, L.D., Cook, F.A., Hatcher, R.D., Kaufman S., & Oliver, J.E., 1979, Thin-

skinned tectonics in the crystalline southern Appalachians: COCORP seismic reflection

profiling of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont. Geology, v. 7, p. 563-567.

Allard, J., Chaumillon, E., & Féniès, H., 2009, A synthesis of morphological evolutions and

Holocene stratigraphy of a wave-dominated estuary: The Arcachon lagoon, SW France.

Continental Shelf Research, v. 29, p. 957-969.

Allen, J.S., Beach, R.A., Holman, R.A., & Puleo, J.A., 2000, Swash zone sediment suspension

and transport and the importance of bore‐generated turbulence. Journal of Geophysical

Research: Oceans (1978–2012), v. 105, p. 17021-17044.

Alshahrani, S.S., 2013, Depositional environment, history, diagenesis, and petroleum geology of

the Cleveland Shale Member, northeastern Ohio. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Bowling

Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, 180 p.

Anderson, N., Fegley, S.R., Ridge, J.T., Rodriguez, A.B., & VanDusen, B.M., 2013,

Contribution of aeolian sand to backbarrier marsh sedimentation. Estuarine, Coastal and

Shelf Science, v. 117, p. 248-259.

119

Arche, A., Nombela, M.A., Ramos, A., Rey, L., Sopena, A., & Vilas, F., 1988, The Corrubedo

tidal inlet, Galicia, NW Spain: Sedimentary processes and facies, in de Boer, P., van

Gelder, A., & Nio, S., eds., Tide-Influenced Sedimentary Environments and Facies:

Dordrecht, NL, Springer, p. 183-200.

Archer, A.W., Johnson, H.R., & Kvale, E. P., 1989, Daily, monthly, and yearly tidal cycles

within laminated siltstones of the Mansfield Formation (Pennsylvanian) of

Indiana. Geology, v. 17, p. 365-368.

Archer, A.W., Johnson, H.W., Kvale, E.P., Sonett, C. P., & Zawistoski, A., 1999, Calculating

lunar retreat rates using tidal rhythmites. Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 69, p.

1154-1168.

Arima, M., & Mazumder, R., 2005, Tidal rhythmites and their implications. Earth-Science

Reviews, v. 69, p. 79-95.

Ariztegui, D., Bertrand, S., Chapron, E., Chapron, O., Juvigné, Magand, O., Mulsow, S., & Pino,

M., 2007, Recent clastic sedimentation processes in Lake Puyehue (Chilean Lake

District, 40.5 S). Sedimentary Geology, v. 201, p. 365-385.

Arnott, R.W.C., & Dumas, S., 2006, Origin of hummocky and swaley cross-stratification-the

controlling influence of unidirectional current strength and aggradation rate. Geology, v.

34, p. 1073-1076.

Ausich, W.I. & Scheider, K.A., 2002, Paleoecology of framebuilders in early Silurian reefs

(Brassfield Formation, Southwestern Ohio). Palaios, v. 17, p. 237-248. 120

Baas, J. H., 2004, Conditions for formation of massive turbiditic sandstones by primary

depositional processes. Sedimentary Geology, v. 166, p. 293-310.

Baker, E.K., Dalrymple, R.W., Harris, P.T., Hughes, M.G., & Keene, J.B., 2004, Sediment

transport in distributary channels and its export to the pro-deltaic environment in a tidally

dominated delta: Fly River, Papua New Guinea. Continental Shelf Research, v. 24, p.

2431-2454.

Baranoski, M.T., Drahovzal, J.A., Furer, L., Harris, D.C., Keith, B., Walker, D., & Wickstrom,

L.H., 1992, The east continent rift basin: A new discovery. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio

Division of Geological Survey, Information Circular 57, 25 p.

Barkooky, A.E., Hamdan, M., Hassan, S.M., Helper M.A., Olariu, C., and Steel, R.J., 2012,

Stacked, Lower Miocene tide-dominated estuary deposits in a transgressive succession,

Western Desert, Egypt. Sedimentology Geology, v. 282, p. 241–255.

Bartholomew, M.J., & Hatcher Jr, R.D., 2010, The Grenville orogenic cycle of southern

Laurentia: Unraveling sutures, rifts, and shear zones as potential piercing points for

Amazonia. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, v. 29, p. 4-20.

Belloti, P., Calderoni, G., Carboni, M.G., Celant, A., D’Ambrogi, C., Di Bella, L., Di Rita, F.,

Frezza, V., Magri, D., Milli, S., Pichezzi, R.M., and Ricci, V., 2013, The transition from

wave-dominated estuary to wave-dominated delta: the Late Quaternary stratigraphic

architecture of Tiber River deltaic succession (Italy). Sedimentary Geology,v. 284, p.

159-180. 121

Bernard, H.A., LeBlanc, R.J., & Major, C.F., 1962, Recent and Pleistocene geology of southwest

Texas, in Rainwater, E.H., & Zingula, R.P., eds., Geology of the Gulf Coast and Central

Texas and Guidebook of Excursions: Houston, TX, Houston Geological Society, p. 175-

224.

Bhattacharya, J.P., & Olariu, C., 2006, Terminal Distributary Channels and Delta Front

Architecture of River-Dominated Delta Systems. Journal of Sedimentology, v. 76, p. 212-

233.

Bhattacharya, J.P., & MacEachern, J.A., 2009, Hyperpycnal rivers and prodeltaic shelves in the

Cretaceous seaway of North America. Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 79, p. 184-

209.

Bhattacharya, J.P., 2010, Deltas. in James, N. P. & Dalrymple, R. W., eds., Facies models 4: St.

John’s, NL, Geological Association of Canada, p. 233-264.

Bian, S., Grapes, R., Liang, C., Liu, X., & Zhong, J., 2012, Late Cretaceous tempestite in

northern Songliao Basin, China. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 56, p. 33-41.

Blakey, R., 2011, Paleogeography of North America. DVD Series, Colorado Plateau

Geosystems, Inc.

Blenkinsopp, C., Lanckriet, T., & Puleo, J.A., 2014, Bed level fluctuations in the inner surf and

swash zone of a dissipative beach. Marine Geology, v. 349, p. 99-112.

Boggs, S., 2006, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, (fourth edition): Upper Saddle

River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 662 p. 122

Boggs, S., 2009, Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks, (second edition): Cambridge, UK, Cambridge

University Press, 607 p.

Bownocker, J.A.,1915, Building stones of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Geologic Survey, Bulletin 18, 160 p.

Bouma, A. H. (1962). Sedimentology of Some Flysch Deposits: A Graphic Approach to Facies

Interpretation: Amsterdam, NL, Elsevier, 168 p.

Bourgeois, J., & Dott, R.H., 1982, Hummocky stratification: significance of its variable bedding

sequences. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, p. 663-680.

Boyd, R., Dalrymple, R., & Zaitlin, B.A., 1992, Classification of clastic coastal depositional

environments. Sedimentary Geology, v. 80, p. 139-150.

Brett, C.E. & Ettensohn, F.R., 2002, Stratigraphic evidence from the Appalachian Basin for

continuation of the Taconian Orogeny into Early Silurian time. Physics and Chemistry of

the Earth, v. 27, p. 279-288.

Buatois, L. A., Espin, M., Herrera, M., Parra, K., Plink‐Björklund, P., Santiago, N., & Steel, M.,

2012, Sedimentological and ichnological signatures of changes in wave, river and tidal

influence along a Neogene tropical deltaic shoreline. Sedimentology, v. 59, p. 1568-1612.

Budillon, F., Conforti, A., Espositio, E., Insinga, D., Iorio, M., Porfido, S., & Violante, C., 2005,

Event beds in the recent prodelta stratigraphic record of the small flood-prone Bonea

Stream (Amalfi Coast, Southern Italy). Marine geology, v. 222, p. 419-441.

Burroughs, W. G., 1913, Economic Geology of the Berea Sandstone Formation of Northern

Ohio. Economic Geology, v. 8, p. 469-481. 123

Buynevich, I., FitzGerald, D., & Hein, C., 2011, Morphodynamics and Facies Architecture of

Tidal Inlets and Tidal Deltas, in Dalrymple, R.W. & Davis, R.A., eds., Principles of Tidal

Sedimentology: New York, NY, Springer, p. 301-334.

Caplan, M.L., & Marc Bustin, R., 2001, Palaeoenvironmental and palaeoceanographic controls

on black, laminated mudrock deposition: example from Devonian–Carboniferous strata,

Alberta, Canada. Sedimentary Geology, v. 145, p. 45-72.

Chakraborty, C., Chakraborty, G., & Kumar, S., 2003, Depositional record of tidal-flat

sedimentation in the Permian coal measures of central India: Barakar Formation,

Mohpani Coalfield, Satpura Gondwana Basin. Gondwana Research, v. 6, p. 817-827.

Chaudhuri, A. K., 2005, Climbing ripple structure and associated storm-lamination from a

Proterozoic carbonate platform succession: Their environmental and petrogenetic

significance. Journal of earth system science, v. 114, p. 199-209.

Chough, S.K. & Kim, J.W., 2000, A gravel lobe deposit in the prodelta of the Doumsan fan delta

(Miocene), SE Korea. Sedimentary Geology, v. 130, p. 183-203.

Choi, K. & Dalrymple, R.W., 2007, Morphologic and facies trends through the fluvial–marine

transition in tide-dominated depositional systems: a schematic framework for

environmental and sequence-stratigraphic interpretation. Earth-Science Reviews, v. 81, p.

135-174.

Coleman, J.M., Gagliano, S.M., & Webb, J.E., 1964, Minor sedimentary structures in a

prograding distributary. Marine Geology, v. 1, p. 240-258. 124

Coleman, J.M., 1981, Deltas: Processes of Deposition and Models for Exploration. Minneapolis,

MN, Burgess Publishing, 124 p.

Coleman, J.M., Stone, G.W., & Roberts, H.H., 1998, Mississippi River delta: an overview.

Journal of Coastal Research, v. 14, p. 699-716.

Collins, H.R., 1979, The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Systems of the United States

(Carboniferous)-Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 100-A-L, p. E-1 to E-

21.

Colquhoun, D. J. & Moslow, T. F., 1981, Influence of sea-level change on barrier island

evolution. Oceanis, v. 7, p. 439-454.

Cooper, J. R., 1943, Flow structures in the Berea Sandstone and Bedford Shale of central Ohio.

Journal of Geology, v. 51, p. 190-203.

Craddock, W.H., & Kylander-Clark, A.R.C., 2013, U-Pb ages of detrital zircons from the

Tertiary Mississippi River Delta in central Louisiana: Insights into sediment provenance.

Geosphere, v. 9, p. 1832-1851.

Dalrymple, R. W., 1992, Tidal depositional systems. in Walker, R.G., James, N.P., eds., Facies

models: Response to sea level change: St. John’s, NL, Geological Association of Canada,

p. 195-218.

Dalrymple, R.W. and James, N.P., 2010, Facies Model 4: St. John’s, NL, Geological

Association of Canada, 586 p. 125

Dalrymple, R.W., & Ichaso, A. A., 2014, Eustatic, tectonic and climatic controls on an early

synrift mixed-energy delta, Tilje Formation (early Jurassic, Smørbukk Field, offshore

mid-Norway). in Howell, J.A., Martinius, A.W., Ravnås, R., Steel, R.J., and Wonham,

J.P., eds., From Depositional Systems to Sedimentary Successions on the Norwegian

Continental Shelf. International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 46,

p. 339-388.

Dashtgard, S. E., Frey, S.E., Gingras, M.K., & MacEachern, J. A., 2012, Tidal effects on the

shoreface: Towards a conceptual framework. Sedimentary Geology, v. 279, p. 42-61.

Dashtgard, S.E., & Johnson, S.M., 2014, Inclined heterolithic stratification in a mixed tidal–

fluvial channel: Differentiating tidal versus fluvial controls on sedimentation.

Sedimentary Geology, v. 301, p. 41-53.

Davis Jr, R. A., Hamilton, M. V., Pekala, J. M. & Yale, K. E., 2003, Barrier island stratigraphy

and Holocene history of west-central Florida. Marine Geology, v. 200, p. 103-123.

Davis Jr, R.A., 2012, Tidal signatures and their preservation potential in stratigraphic sequences.

in Principles of Tidal Sedimentology: Dordrecht, NL, Springer, pp. 35-55.

DeReamer, J.H, Jackson, D.S., Maynard, J.B., & Potter, P.E., 1983, Lithologic and

paleoenvironmental atlas of the Berea Sandstone in the Appalachian Basin. Appalachian

Geological Society, Special Publication 1, 157 p. de Vriend, H. J., & Stive, M. J., 1995, Modelling shoreface profile evolution. Marine Geology, v.

126, p. 235-248. 126

de Witt Jr., W., 1951, Stratigraphy of the Berea Sandstone and associated rocks in northeastern

Ohio and northwestern Pennsylvania. Geologial Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p.

1347-1370. de Witt Jr., W., Demarest, D. F., & Pepper, J. F., 1954, Geology of the Bedford Shale and Berea

Sandstone in the Appalachian Basin. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 259, 111

p. de Witt Jr., W., 1970, Age of the Bedford Shale, Berea Sandstone, and Sunbury Shale in the

Appalachian and Michigan Basins, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. U.S. Geological

Survey Bulletin, v. 1294-G, p. G1-G11. de Witt Jr., W, & Milici, R.C., 1988, The Appalachian Basin. in Sloss, L.L., ed., Sedimentary

cover the North American craton; US.: Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America, The

Geology of North America, v. D-2, p. 427-469.

Dickinson, W.R., & Suczek, C.A., 1979. Plate tectonics and sandstone compositions. American

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 63, p. 2164-2182.

Dostal, J., Keppie, J.D., Murphy, J.B., & Nance, R.D., 2010, Comparative evolution of the

Iapetus and Rheic Oceans: a North America perspective. Gondwana Research, v. 17, p.

482-499.

Eames, L.E., 1974, Palynology of the Berea sandstone and Cuyahoga group of northeastern

Ohio. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 253 p. 127

Ehlers, G.M., Kesling, R.V., Stumm, E.C., 1951, Devonian Rocks of Southeastern Michigan and

Northwestern Ohio. Field Guide for Geological Society of America, Detroit Meeting, 40

p.

Elliot, T., 1974, Interdistributary bay sequences and their genesis. Sedimentology, v. 21, p. 611-

622.

Egenhoff, S., & Hildebrandt, C., 2007, Shallow-marine massive sandstone sheets as indicators of

palaeoseismic liquefaction: An example from the Ordovician shelf of Central Bolivia.

Sedimentary Geology, v. 202, p. 581-595.

Engelder, T., & Lash, G.G., 2007, Jointing within the outer arc of a forebulge at the onset of the

Alleghanian Orogeny. Journal of Structural Geology, v. 29, p. 774-786.

Ettensohn, F.R., & Pashin, J.C., 1995, Reevaluation of the Bedford-Berea sequence in Ohio and

adjacent states: forced regression in a foreland basin. Geological Society of America,

Special Papers 298, 69 p.

Faugères, J. C., & Fenies, H., 1998, Facies and geometry of tidal channel-fill deposits (Arcachon

Lagoon, SW France). Marine Geology, v. 150, p. 131-148.

Fiorillo, A.R., Flaig, P.P., & McCarthy, P.J., 2011, A tidally influenced, high-latitude coastal

plain: the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Prince Creek Formation, North Slope,

Alaska. From River to Rock Record. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Special

Publication 97, p. 233-264.

Flügel, E., 2004, Microfacies of carbonate rocks: Berlin, DE, Springer, 976 p. 128

Foreman, F. & Thomsen, H., 1940, Textural and shape variation in the Berea Sandstone of Ohio.

Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 10, p. 47-57.

Fornari, M., Giannini, P. C. F., & Nascimento Junior, D. R., 2012, Facies associations and

controls on the evolution from a coastal bay to a lagoon system, Santa Catarina Coast,

Brazil. Marine Geology, v. 323, p. 56-68.

Frihy, O.E. & Stanley, D.J., 1987, Texture and coarse fraction composition of Nile Delta

deposits: facies analysis and stratigraphic correlation. Journal of African Earth Sciences,

v. 7, p. 237-255.

Frihy, O.E. & Gamai, I.H., 1991, Facies analysis of Nile Delta continental shelf sediments off

Egypt. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, v. 27, p. 165-171.

Galloway, W.E., 1975, Process framework for describing the morphologic and stratigraphic

evolution of deltaic depositional system. in Broussard, M.L., ed., Deltas: Models for

Exploration: Houston, TX, Houston Geological Society, p. 87–98.

Gao, S., Liu, X.J., & Wang, Y.P., 2011,. Modeling profile shape evolution for accreting tidal

flats composed of mud and sand: A case study of the central Jiangsu coast, China.

Continental Shelf Research, v. 31, p. 1750-1760.

Golden Software, 2002 Surfer® 8: A contouring and 3D surface mapping program: Golden

Software Inc., Golden, CO.

Hamza, W., 2009, The Nile Delta. in Dumont, H.J., ed., The Nile: orgin, environments,

limnology, and human use: Dordrecht, NL, Springer, p. 75-94. 129

Handford, C.R., 1981: Deep-water facies of the Spraberry Formation (Permian), Regan County,

Texas, in Siemers, C.T., Tillman, R.W., and Williamson, C.R., eds., Deep-water clastic

sediments-a core workshop. Society of Economic Paleontologists Mineralogists, Core

Workshop No. 2, p. 375–395.

Hansen, M.C., 1997a, The Geology of Ohio-the Precambrian. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Geological

Survey, Geofacts No. 13, p. 1-2.

Hansen, M.C., 1997b, The geology of Ohio-the Ordovician. Ohio Geology, v. 4, 8 p.

Hansen, M.C., 1998, The geology of Ohio-the Silurian. Ohio Geology, v. 2, 8 p.

Hansen, M.C., 1999, The geology of Ohio-the Devonian. Ohio Geology, v. 1, 8 p.

Hass, W.H., 1947, Conodont zones in Upper Devonian and Lower Mississippian formations of

Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, v. 21, p. 131-141.

Hayes, M.O., 1979, Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime. in

Leatherman, S.P., ed., Barrier Islands from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of

Mexico: New York, NY, Academic Press Inc., p 1-27.

Hoyt, J.H., 1967, Barrier island formation. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 78, p.

1125-1136.

Khadkikar, A.S., 1999, Trough cross-bedded conglomerate facies. Sedimentary Geology, v. 128,

p. 39-49.

Knepper, G.W., 2003, Ohio and its People (third edition): Kent, OH, Kent State University Press,

521 p. 130

Kobayashi, I., Nguyen, V.L, Ta, T.K.O., Tanabe, S., Tateishi, M., & Saito, Y., 2002, Holocene

delta evolution and sediment discharge of the Mekong River, southern Vietnam.

Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 21, p. 1807-1819.

Ito, M & Nishikawa, T., 2000, Late Pleistocene barrier-island development reconstructed from

genetic classification and timing of erosional surfaces, paleo-Tokyo Bay, Japan.

Sedimentary Geology, v. 137, p. 25-42.

Janssens, A., 1973, Stratigraphy of the Cambrian and lower Ordovician rocks of Ohio. Columbus

OH: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 64,

197 p.

Jaworowski, K., 2013, Facies analysis of the Silurian shale-siltstone succession in Pomerania

(northern Poland). Geological Quarterly, v. 44, p. 297-315.

Jobe, Z.R., Lowe, D.R., & Morris, W.R., 2012, Climbing‐ripple successions in turbidite systems:

depositional environments, sedimentation rates and accumulation times. Sedimentology,

v. 59, p. 867-898.

Lee, H.J., Noble, M.A., Warrick, J. A., & Xu, J., 2008, Rapid formation of hyperpycnal sediment

gravity currents offshore of a semi-arid California river. Continental Shelf Research, v.

28, p. 991-1009.

Lené, G.W., & Owen, D.E., 1969, Grain orientation in a Berea sandstone channel at south

Amherst, Ohio. Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 39, p. 737-743.

Lewis, T.L., 1976, Late Devonian and Early Mississippian paleoenvironments, northern Ohio.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 8, p. 220. 131

Lewis, T.L., 1988, Late Devonian and Early Mississippian distal basin-margin sedimentation of

northern Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science, v. 88, p. 23-39.

Lindfors-Kearns, F.E., Mathews, T.D., & Stapor Jr, F. W., 1991, Barrier-island progradation and

Holocene sea-level history in southwest Florida. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 7, p.

815-838.

Loss, D.P., & Peters, S.E., 2012, Storm and fair-weather wave base: A relevant distinction?.

Geology, v. 40, p. 511-514.

Martin, A.J., 2000, Flaser and wavy bedding in ephemeral streams: a modern and an ancient

example. Sedimentary Geology, v. 136, p. 1-5.

Martin, C.A., & Turner, B.R., 1998, Origins of massive-type sandstones in braided river systems.

Earth-Science Reviews, v. 44, p. 15-38.

Mason, C.E., Perkins, R.B., & Piper, D.Z., 2008, Trace-element budgets in the Ohio/Sunbury

shales of Kentucky: constraints on ocean circulation and primary productivity in the

Devonian–Mississippian Appalachian Basin. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,

Palaeoecology, v. 265, p. 14-29.

McCubbin, D.G., 1982, Barrier-Island and Strand-Plain Facies. in Scholle, P. & Spearing, D.,

eds., Sandstone depositional environments: Tulsa, OK, The American Association of

Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 31, p. 247-279.

McIntosh, J.C., & Osborn, S.G., 2010, Chemical and isotopic tracers of the contribution of

microbial gas in Devonian organic-rich shales and reservoir sandstones, northern

Appalachian Basin. Applied Geochemistry, v. 25, p. 456-471. 132

Miall, A., 1984, Principles of Sedimentary Basin Analysis: New York, NY, Springer-Verlag

New York Inc., 409 p.

Milici, R.C., & Swezey, C.S., 2006, Assessment of Appalachian basin oil and gas resources

Devonian shale-Middle and Upper Paleozoic total petroleum system: U.S. Geological

Survey Open File Report 2006–1237, 70 p.

Mote, P. M., 2004, Berea: Charleston, SC, Arcadia Publishing, 128 p.

Nakajo, T., 1998, Tidal influences on distributary-channel sedimentation of the tertiary delta in

the Taishu group Tsushima islands southwestern Japan. Journal of geosciences, v. 41, p.

37-46.

Newberry, J.S., 1874, Geology of Ohio: Surface Geology. Ohio Geological Survey Report 2, p.

1-80.

Nichols, G., 2009, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (second edition): Oxford, UK, Wiley-

Blackwell, 432 p.

Ohio Division of the Geological Survey, 2006, Geologic map and cross section of Ohio: Ohio

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, page-size map, 1 p.,

scale 1:2,000,000.

Onasch, C.M., & Root, S., 1999, Structure and tectonic evolution of the transitional region

between the central Appalachian foreland and interior cratonic basins. Tectonophysics, v.

305, p. 205-223.

Orton, E, 1888, The Geology of Ohio considered in its relation to petroleum and natural gas.

Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio, v. 6, p. 1-59. 133

Orton, G.J., & Reading, H.G., 1993, Variability of deltaic processes in terms of sediment supply,

with particular emphasis on grain size. Sedimentology, v. 40, p. 475-512.

Pattison, S.A., 2005, Storm-influenced prodelta turbidite complex in the Lower Kenilworth

Member at Hatch Mesa, Book Cliffs, Utah, USA: implications for shallow marine facies

models. Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p. 420-439.

Pettijohn, F.J., 1975, Sedimentary Rocks (third edition). New York, NY: Harper and Row, 628 p.

Plint, A.G., 2010, Wave-and storm-dominated shoreline and shallow-marine systems. in James,

N.P. & Dalrymple, R.W., eds., Facies models 4: St. John’s, NL, Geological Association

of Canada, p. 167-199.

Prothero, D. R., & Schwab, F., 2004, Sedimentary Geology (second edition): New York, NY,

W.H. & Freeman Company, 574 p.

Qin, L., Zhang, J., & Zhang, Z., 2008, Depositional facies, diagenesis and their impact on the

reservoir quality of Silurian sandstones from Tazhong area in central Tarim Basin,

western China. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 33, p. 42-98.

Reineck, H.E., Wunderlich, F., 1968, Classification and origin of flaser and lenticular bedding.

Sedimentology, v. 11, p. 99–104.

Reinson, G. E., 1979, Facies models 6: Barrier island systems. Geoscience Canada, v. 6, p. 51-

68.

Rivers, T., 2009, The Grenville Province as a large hot long-duration collisional orogen–insights

from the spatial and thermal evolution of its orogenic fronts. Geological Society of

London Special Publications 327, p. 405-444. 134

Saeed, A., 2002, Subsurface facies analysis of the Cambrian Mt. Simon sandstone in western

Ohio. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH,

167 p.

Schuchert, C., 1943, Stratigraphy of the eastern and central United States: New York, NY, J.

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1013 p.

Shanmugam, G., 1997, The Bouma sequence and the turbidite mind set. Earth-Science Reviews,

v. 42, p. 201-229.

Shanmugam, G., 2002, Ten turbidite myths. Earth-Science Reviews, v. 58, p. 311-341.

Sheldon, P.G., 1928, Some sedimentation conditions in Middle Portage rocks. American Journal

of Science, v. 15, p. 243-252.

Stout, W., 1944, Sandstones and conglomerates in Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science, v.44, p. 75-88.

Tessier, B., 2012, Stratigraphy of tide-dominated estuaries. in James, N.P. and Dalrymple, R.W.,

eds., Principles of Tidal Sedimentology: Dordrecht, NL, Springer, p. 109-128.

Tomastik, T., 1996, Play Mde; Lower Mississippian–Upper Devonian Berea and equivalent

sandstones. in Roen, J.B., Walker, B.J., eds., The atlas of major Appalachian gas plays:

Morgantown, WV, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, v. 25, p. 56-62.

Tucker, M. E., 2001, Sedimentary Petrology: An Introduction to the Origin of Sedimentary

Rocks (third edition): Malden, MA, Blackwell, 271 p.

Ver Steeg, K., 1940, Structure and thickness of the Clinton and Berea Formations in the vicinity

of Wooster, OH. Ohio Journal of Science, v. 40, p. 25-30. 135

Whittlesey, C., 1838, Mr. Whittlesey’s Report. Columbus, First Annual Report of the Geological

Survey of Ohio, p. 41-71.

136

APPENDIX-A

Figure A1. Well log for well no. 4 137

Figure A2. Well log for well no. 5

138

Figure A3. Well log for well no. 6

139

Figure A4. Well log for well no. 7

140

Figure A5. Well log for well no. 8

141

Figure A6. Well log for well no. 9

142

Figure A7. Well log for well no. 10

143

Figure A8. Well log for well no. 11

144

Figure A9. Well log for well no. 12

145

Figure A10. Well log for well no. 13

146

Figure A11. Well log for well no. 14 147

Figure A12. Well log for well no. 15

148

Figure A13. Well log for well no. 16

149

APPENDIX-B

150

Figure B1. Core log of core 3251 151

Figure B1 (con’t.). Core log of core 3251 152

Figure B2. Core log of core 3252 153

Figure B2 (con’t.). Core log of core 3252

154

Figure B3. Core log of core 3253 155

Figure B4. Core log of core 3425 156

Figure B5. Core log of core 3426 157

Figure B5 (con’t.). Core log of core 3426 158

APPENDIX-C

21 6 20 Mean QFL Point Point Point % % % % % Count Count Count Monocrystalline 109 35 194 63 151 48 49 Quartz Polycrystalline 114 37 46 15 73 23 25 91% Cryptocrystalline 11 4 16 5 8 3 4 Plagioclase 2 1 7 2 8 3 2 Feldspar 3% Potassium 3 1 2 1 5 2 1 Sedimentary 22 7 4 1 17 5 4 Lithics Volcanic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6% Metamorphic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accessories 5 2 2 1 3 1 1

Voids 5 2 4 1 7 2 2 Quartz cement 11 4 0 0 13 4 3 Calcite cement 0 0 31 10 3 1 4

Matrix 23 7 0 0 26 8 5

Total 305 100 306 100 314 100

Table C1. Summary of point count data with QFL percentage for samples 21, 6 and, 20.