DOCSLIB.ORG

IC-29 Geology and Ground Water Resources of Walker County, Georgia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IC-29 Geology and Ground Water Resources of Walker County, Georgia IC 29 GEORGIA STATE DIVISION OF CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY GARLAND PEYTON, Director THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Information Circular 29 GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF WALKER COUNTY, GEORGIA By Charles W. Cressler U.S. Geological Survey Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey ATLANTA 1964 CONTENTS Page Abstract _______________________________________________ -··---------------------------- _____________________ ----------------·----- _____________ __________________________ __ 3 In trodu ction ------------------------------------------ ________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Purpose and scope ------------------------------"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Previous inv es tigati o ns ____ _____ ________ _______ __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Geo Io gy _________________________________________________________________ --- ___________________ -- ___________ ------------- __________________ ---- _________________ ---- _______ 5 Ph ys i ogr a p hy ______________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------- __________________ -------------------------------- 5 Geo Io gi c his tory __________________________ _ __ ___ ___ _______ _____________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------- 5 Stratigraphy -·· __________________ . --------------------------·------------------------------ _--------------------·---------------------------------------------- 5 Cambrian System __ _______ __ ____ _____________________ ______________ ____ __ _________________ ____________________________ _____ ___ ___ 5 Rome Formation _________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------- 5 Conasauga Formation __ __ _ ________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------- 5 Cambrian and Ordovician Systems --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ 7 Knox Group ______ ---·- ____________________ -------·--------------------- _________________________ ---------------------------------------------- 7 Copper Ridge Dolomite ___ _______________________ ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 7 Chepultepec Dolomite _______________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------- 7 Longview Limestone _________ ______________________ ____ _ ___________________ --------------------------------------- 7 Ordovician Sy stern __ _______ __________ __ ____ __________ ______________________________ ____ ____________ .---------------------------------------------- 7 Chickamauga Limestone _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------- 7 Silurian System _ _ _ _____ _________ _ _ ---------------- ___ _______ __ __ ___ __ __________ ____________ __ ___ 7 Red Mountain Formation ____________________________________________ _ 7 Devonian and Mississippian System __ __ ____ ___ _ ____ ___ ____________ _ 8 Chattanooga Shale ------- ---·- -------------------------------- 8 Mississippian System ___ _ -------------- -- -- ------------------------.---------------------------------------------- 8 Western facies _ ----------------- -----------··- -·- ----------------------------- 8 Fort Payne Chert ____ _ ----- ------- ·----------- 8 St. Louis Limestone ____ _____ _ ------------------------- 8 Ste. Genevieve Limestone _ 8 Gasper Limestone ____ _ ___ ___________ _ 8 Golconda Formation _ __ ______ _____ ________________________ _______ ________ __ ___ 8 Hartselle Sandstone ________ __ ---------------------------------- ____________________________________________ ----------- 8 Bangor Limestone (restricted) ____________________ ___________________ ______ ____ _ ___ _ _______ __ __ 8 Pennington Shale -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________ ------------------------------ 8 East ern facies ____ --------------------------- -· __________________________________________________________________________ --------------------- 8 Pennsy Ivanian S ystern _____________________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------- 9 Lookout Sandstone ______________ -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 9 Whitwell Shale ------------------------------------ ____________________________________ ·---------------------------------------------- 9 Bonair Sandstone ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Vandever Shale _____________ ·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Rockcastle Sandstone ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- 9 1 CONTENTS-Continued Page Geology - continued Structure ______________ ------------------------- ________________________________ ------------------ _________ _ 9 Ground Water ____________ ______________ _______________________ _ ___________________________________________ _ -- -- -------------------------------- ---- 9 Source and occurrence ________________________ _____ ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------ - 9 Chemical quality _ ______ __ _____ _________________ ---------------------------- _____________________________________________________ _ 10 Utilization _____________________________________ ---------------------------------------------- _______________________________ _ 10 Water-level fluctuations ___ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _________ _____ __________ _ __ _______ _ 10 Water-bearing character of the geologic formations_______ ________ _______ ___ 10 Rome Formation ______ --------------------------- ------------------------------- ___________________ -------------- 10 Conasauga Formation _______________________________ --------------- _____________ -------------------------------------------------- 11 Knox Group _______________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Chickamauga Limestone __________________________________ ------------------- ---------------- -------- ______ ----------------------- ________ 14 Red Mountain Formation _ __ --------------------------------------------------------------- _---------------------------------------------- 14 Chattan oo ga Shale _______________ ---------------------------------------------------------------. -- ----------------------------------------------- 14 Mississippian System-western facies ---------------------------------------- _______ _____ _____________ ________________ ______ __ 14 Mississippian System-eastern facies ------------------------------------------- __________ -------------------------------- ______ 15 Pennsylvanian System _ ____ __ __ __ _ ------------------------------------- __ -- __ -- ______ ____________ __________ _______ 15 Summary of ground water ______________________ ---------------------------------------------- _______ --------------------------------------- ___ __ 15 Selected references ___________________________________________ ----------------------------- ----------- _ -- -------------------------------- ___ -- 15 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map of Georgia showing Walker County and areas described in previous reports 4 2. Geology and well and spring locations, Walker County, Ga. __ _ __ _Pocket 3. Water-level fluctuations in well 237 and daily precipitation at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, 1959-60 ____________ _ ____________ _____ _ _______ _ _ _ 11 TABLES Page Table 1. Geologic formations and their water-bearing properties, Walker County, Ga. 6 2:--Chemkal analyses of ground water; Walker County, Ga. ______________________ _ 12 _ 3, __Spring flows in Walker County, Ga. 13 2 - GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF WALKER COUNTY, GEORGIA by Charles W. Cressler ABSTRACT Tennessee. The remainder of the county drains southward into the Coosa River. Walker County is in the Cumberland Plateau and the Valley and Ridge physiographic provinces of The principal industries of Walker County are Georgia. It is underlain by rocks ranging in age textile and furniture manufacturing, dairying and from Early Cambrian (Rome Formation) to Pen:t;l­ milk processing, poultry and egg raising, and sylvanian (Rockcastle Sandstone). All the geol~gic farming. Agriculture is mainly part-time and resi­ formations except the Chattanooga Shale yield dential farming. A major part of the agricultural sufficient water to wells for domestic and farm income is derived from poultry and poultry prod­ use. Most wells in the county are between 50 and ucts. The soils of the county are of medium pro­ 200 feet deep, but a few are deeper than 300 feet. ductivity. The valleys are used for growing cotton, corn, small grains, and pasture crops. The lower The largest sustained pumpage from a well was ridges are used for truck, hog, and pasture crops, 60 gpm (gallons per minute), but wells in the and the rougher terrane is used for growing Knox Group, the Conasauga Formation, the Chick­ timber. amauga Limestone
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fiscal Year 2015 Budget
    FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET CITY OF MARIETTA, GEORGIA JULY 2014 – JUNE 2015 WILLIAM F. BRUTON, JR. CITY MANAGER SAM LADY FINANCE DIRECTOR LORI DUNCAN BUDGET MANAGER DIANE SELLITTO BUDGET ANALYST MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL R. Steve Tumlin, Jr. Mayor Stuart Fleming Griffin “Grif” L. Chalfant, Jr. Councilmember, Ward 1 Councilmember, Ward 2 Johnny Walker G.A. (Andy) Morris Councilmember, Ward 3 Councilmember, Ward 4 Rev. Anthony C. Coleman Michelle Cooper Kelly Philip M. Goldstein Councilmember, Ward 5 Councilmember, Ward 6 Councilmember, Ward 7 ii OFFICIALS Mayor and City Council R. Steve Tumlin, Jr. Mayor Stuart Fleming Ward 1 Griffin “Grif” L. Chalfant, Jr. Ward 2 Johnny Walker Ward 3 G. A. “Andy” Morris Ward 4 Rev. Anthony C. Coleman Ward 5 Michelle Cooper Kelly Ward 6 Philip M. Goldstein Ward 7 Board of Lights and Water R. Steve Tumlin, Jr., Mayor Chairperson G. A. “Andy” Morris, Councilmember Board Member Bruce E. Coyle Board Member Terry G. Lee Board Member Alice R. Summerour Board Member J. Brian Torras Board Member Michael G. Wilson Board Member City / BLW Administration William F. Bruton, Jr. City Manager / Acting BLW General Manager Pamela Allen Municipal Court Administrator Ronald Barrett Information Technology Director Shannon Barrett Assistant to the City Manager Shannon Barrett Acting Human Resources and Risk Mgmt. Director Thomas Bell Electrical Director Brian Binzer Development Services Director Richard Buss Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director Daniel Conn Public Works Director Barry Echols Utility Marketing Director Daniel Flynn Police Chief Jackie Gibbs Fire Chief Stephanie Guy City Clerk Douglas R. Haynie City Attorney Sam Lady Finance Director J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Cement Stabilization on the Strength of the Bawen's Siltstone
    MATEC Web of Conferences 195, 03012 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819503012 ICRMCE 2018 The effect of cement stabilization on the strength of the Bawen’s siltstone Edi Hartono1,3, Sri Prabandiyani Retno Wardani2, and Agus Setyo Muntohar3,* 1 Ph.D Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia 2 Department of Civil Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia 3 Department of Civil Engineering, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia Abstract. Siltstones are predominantly found along the Bawen toll-road. Siltstone is degradable soil due to weather session. The soil is susceptible to the drying and wetting and the changes in moisture content. Thus, Siltstone is problematic soils in its bearing capacity when served as a subgrade or subbase. The main objective of this study was to investigate the effect of cement stabilization on the strength of Siltstone. The primary laboratory test to evaluate the strength was Unconfined Compression Strength (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The cement content was varied from 2 to 12 per cent by weight of the dry soil. The soils were collected from the Ungaran – Bawen toll road. The specimens were tested after seven days of moist-curing in controlled temperature room of 25oC. The CBR test was performed after soaking under water for four days to observe the swelling. The results show that the mudstones were less swelling after soaking. Cement-stabilized siltstone increased the CBR value and the UCS significantly. The addition of optimum cement content for siltstone stabilization was about 7 to 10 per cent. 1 Introduction Rock lithology that includes claystone, siltstone, mudstone and shale is also known as mudrocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic Evaluation of the St. Joe-Boone Boundary Interval
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2018 Stratigraphic Evaluation of the St. Joe-Boone Boundary Interval, Kinderhookian-Osagean Series, Lower Mississippian System, Tri-State Region, Southern Midcontinent Forrest Dalton McFarlin University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons, and the Stratigraphy Commons Recommended Citation McFarlin, Forrest Dalton, "Stratigraphic Evaluation of the St. Joe-Boone Boundary Interval, Kinderhookian-Osagean Series, Lower Mississippian System, Tri-State Region, Southern Midcontinent" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 2952. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2952 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Stratigraphic Evaluation of the St. Joe-Boone Boundary Interval, Kinderhookian-Osagean Series, Lower Mississippian System, Tri-State Region, Southern Midcontinent A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology by Forrest Dalton McFarlin Texas Christian University Bachelor of Science in Geology, 2015 August 2018 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. _____________________________________ Walter Manger, PhD Thesis Director _____________________________________ Adriana Potra, PhD Committee Member _____________________________________ Thomas McGilvery, PhD Committee Member ©2018 by Forrest Dalton McFarlin All Rights Reserved Abstract The Lower Mississippian interval comprises a single, third-order, eustatic cycle subdivided lithostratigraphically into the St. Joe Limestone (Hopkins 1893) and overlying Boone Formation (Branner 1891, Simonds 1891) with type areas in northern Arkansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedrock Geology of Altenburg Quadrangle, Jackson County
    BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF ALTENBURG QUADRANGLE Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability William W. Shilts, Executive Director JACKSON COUNTY, ILLINOIS AND PERRY COUNTY, MISSOURI STATEMAP Altenburg-BG ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY E. Donald McKay III, Interim Director Mary J. Seid, Joseph A. Devera, Allen L. Weedman, and Dewey H. Amos 2009 360 GEOLOGIC UNITS ) ) ) 14 Qal Alluvial deposits ) 13 18 Quaternary Pleistocene and Holocene 17 360 ) 15 360 16 14 0 36 ) 13 Qf Fan deposits ) Unconformity Qal ) & 350 tl Lower Tradewater Formation Atokan ) ) Pennsylvanian 360 ) &cv Caseyville Formation Morrowan 24 360 ) Unconformity ) 17 Upper Elviran undivided, Meu ) Waltersburg to top of Degonia 19 20 Qal 21 22 23 ) 24 ) Mv Vienna Limestone 360 o ) 3 Mts ) 350 Mts Tar Springs Sandstone ) 20 360 ) Mgd 360 30 ) Mgd Glen Dean Limestone ) 21 350 360 Mts 29 ) Qal Hardinsburg Sandstone and J N Mhg Chesterian ) Golconda Formations h Æ Qal Mav anc 28 27 Br ) N oJ 26 25 JN 85 N ) Cypress Sandstone through J Mcpc Dsl 500 Paint Creek Formation JN N ) J o Mts N 5 J s ) Dgt 600 J N 70 J N Mgd Yankeetown Formation s ) Myr Db 80 28 Æ and Renault Sandstone N J 29 N J N ) Sb J Mgd Mississippian o Dgt Ssc 25 Clines o N 25 Msg 27 ) Qal J 80 s 3 Mav Aux Vases Sandstone N J N Mts o MILL J MISSISSIPPI 34 ) Qal J N ) N J Dsl 35 N 26 J o N 25 J Mgd Mgd ) Msg Ste. Genevieve Limestone 500 o Db DITCH J 20 Mgd N N N ) J J o RIVER o N 600 J 80 N ) 10 o J Mav Æ Msl St.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial and Predictive Foraging Models for Gray Bats in Northwest Georgia and a Comparison of Two Acoustical Bat Survey Techniques
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2002 Spatial and predictive foraging models for gray bats in northwest Georgia and a comparison of two acoustical bat survey techniques Joshua Begg Johnson West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Johnson, Joshua Begg, "Spatial and predictive foraging models for gray bats in northwest Georgia and a comparison of two acoustical bat survey techniques" (2002). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 1476. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/1476 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPATIAL AND PREDICTIVE FORAGING MODELS FOR GRAY BATS IN NORTHWEST GEORGIA AND A COMPARISON OF TWO ACOUSTICAL BAT SURVEY TECHNIQUES Joshua B. Johnson Thesis submitted to the College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife and Fisheries Resources W.
    [Show full text]
  • A) Conglomerate B) Dolostone C) Siltstone D) Shale 1. Which
    1. Which sedimentary rock would be composed of 7. Which process could lead most directly to the particles ranging in size from 0.0004 centimeter to formation of a sedimentary rock? 0.006 centimeter? A) metamorphism of unmelted material A) conglomerate B) dolostone B) slow solidification of molten material C) siltstone D) shale C) sudden upwelling of lava at a mid-ocean ridge 2. Which sedimentary rock could form as a result of D) precipitation of minerals from evaporating evaporation? water A) conglomerate B) sandstone 8. Base your answer to the following question on the C) shale D) limestone diagram below. 3. Limestone is a sedimentary rock which may form as a result of A) melting B) recrystallization C) metamorphism D) biologic processes 4. The dot below is a true scale drawing of the smallest particle found in a sample of cemented sedimentary rock. Which sedimentary rock is shown in the diagram? What is this sedimentary rock? A) conglomerate B) sandstone C) siltstone D) shale A) conglomerate B) sandstone C) siltstone D) shale 9. Which statement about the formation of a rock is best supported by the rock cycle? 5. Which sequence of events occurs in the formation of a sedimentary rock? A) Magma must be weathered before it can change to metamorphic rock. A) B) Sediment must be compacted and cemented before it can change to sedimentary rock. B) C) Sedimentary rock must melt before it can change to metamorphic rock. C) D) Metamorphic rock must melt before it can change to sedimentary rock. D) 6. Which sedimentary rock formed from the compaction and cementation of fragments of the skeletons and shells of sea organisms? A) shale B) gypsum C) limestone D) conglomerate Base your answers to questions 10 and 11 on the diagram below, which is a geologic cross section of an area where a river has exposed a 300-meter cliff of sedimentary rock layers.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Resources Inventory Ancillary Map Information Document for Little River Canyon National Preserve
    U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate Geologic Resources Division Little River Canyon National Preserve GRI Ancillary Map Information Document Produced to accompany the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) Digital Geologic Data for Little River Canyon National Preserve liri_geology.pdf Version: 6/30/2020 I Little River Canyon National Preserve Geologic Resources Inventory Ancillary Map Information Document for Little River Canyon National Preserve Table of Contents Geologic Reso..u..r..c..e..s.. .I.n..v..e..n..t.o...r.y.. .M...a..p.. .D...o..c..u..m...e...n..t............................................................................ 1 About the NPS.. .G...e..o..l.o..g..i.c... .R..e..s..o..u...r.c..e..s.. .I.n..v..e..n...t.o..r.y.. .P...r.o..g...r.a..m............................................................... 3 GRI Digital Ma.p..s.. .a..n...d.. .S..o..u...r.c..e.. .M...a..p.. .C...i.t.a..t..i.o..n..s.................................................................................. 5 Index Ma..p........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Map Unit List ................................................................................................................................... 7 Map Unit Desc..r.i.p..t.i.o...n..s...................................................................................................................... 9 Qal - Allu..v..iu..m... .a..n..d.. .l.o..w... .t.e..r.r.a..c..e.. .d..e..p..o..s..i.t.s. .(..Q..u..a..t.e..r..n..a..r.y.)..................................................................................................... 9 Tal - Fluv..i.a..l. .d..e..p..o..s.i.t.s.. .(.T..e..r..t.ia..r..y.)........................................................................................................................................ 9 PNpv - P.o..t.t.s..v..i.l.le.. .F...o..r.m...a..t.i.o..n.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexington Quadrangle Virginia
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 Couuowwoer,rn op Vtncrwre DopenrupNr op Puncnesrs exo Supptv Rrculroxn 1960 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Richmond. Virginia MenvrN M. SurHnnr,eNn, Director BOARD Vrcron W. Stnwenr, Petersburg, Chairtnan G. Ar,vrn MessnNnunc, Hampton, Viee'Chairman A. Pr,urvrnr BmnNn, Orange C. S. Cenrnn, Bristol ANpnpw A. Fenr,pv, Danville WonrnrrvcroN FauLKNEn, Glasgow SvoNpv F. Slter,r,, Roanoke EnwrN H. Wrr,r,, Richmond Wrr,r,renr P. Wooor,nv. Norfolk CONTENTS Pece Abstract. '"*i"#:;;;;: . : ::: , : ::.:::::::::..::::::. :.::.::::::: ::,r Z Geography 8 Purpose. 4 Previous Work. Present Work and Acknowledgements. 5 Geologic Formations. 6 Introduction. 6 Precambrian System. 6 Pedlar formation 6 Precambrian and Cambrian Systems. 6 Discussion. 6 Swift Run formation 8 Catoctin greenstone. I Unieoiformation...... ......... I Hampton(Harpers)formation. .......... I Erwin (Antietam) quartzite. Cambrian System . I0 Shady (Tomstown) dolomite 10 Rome (Waynesboro) formation.... ll Elbrook formation. 12 Conococheague limestone. l3 Ordovician System. ......., 14 Chepultepeclimestone. .......... 14 Beekmantown formatron. 14 New Market limestone. 15 Lincolnshire limestone. 16 Edinburg formation. 16 Martinsburg shale... 17 SilurianSystem. ......... 18 Clinchsandstone..... .......... 18 Clinton formation.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Kenney Paleozoic Stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon
    Michael Kenney Paleozoic Stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon The Paleozoic Era spans about 250 Myrs of Earth History from 541 Ma to 254 Ma (Figure 1). Within Grand Canyon National Park, there is a fragmented record of this time, which has undergone little to no deformation. These still relatively flat-lying, stratified layers, have been the focus of over 100 years of geologic studies. Much of what we know today began with the work of famed naturalist and geologist, Edwin Mckee (Beus and Middleton, 2003). His work, in addition to those before and after, have led to a greater understanding of sedimentation processes, fossil preservation, the evolution of life, and the drastic changes to Earth’s climate during the Paleozoic. This paper seeks to summarize, generally, the Paleozoic strata, the environments in which they were deposited, and the sources from which the sediments were derived. Tapeats Sandstone (~525 Ma – 515 Ma) The Tapeats Sandstone is a buff colored, quartz-rich sandstone and conglomerate, deposited unconformably on the Grand Canyon Supergroup and Vishnu metamorphic basement (Middleton and Elliott, 2003). Thickness varies from ~100 m to ~350 m depending on the paleotopography of the basement rocks upon which the sandstone was deposited. The base of the unit contains the highest abundance of conglomerates. Cobbles and pebbles sourced from the underlying basement rocks are common in the basal unit. Grain size and bed thickness thins upwards (Middleton and Elliott, 2003). Common sedimentary structures include planar and trough cross-bedding, which both decrease in thickness up-sequence. Fossils are rare but within the upper part of the sequence, body fossils date to the early Cambrian (Middleton and Elliott, 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Cross Section C–C' Through the Appalachian Basin from Erie
    Geologic Cross Section C–C’ Through the Appalachian Basin From Erie County, North-Central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge Province, Bedford County, South-Central Pennsylvania By Robert T. Ryder, Michael H. Trippi, Christopher S. Swezey, Robert D. Crangle, Jr., Rebecca S. Hope, Elisabeth L. Rowan, and Erika E. Lentz Scientific Investigations Map 3172 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Ryder, R.T., Trippi, M.H., Swezey, C.S. Crangle, R.D., Jr., Hope, R.S., Rowan, E.L., and Lentz, E.E., 2012, Geologic cross section C–C’ through the Appalachian basin from Erie County, north-central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge province, Bedford County, south-central Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3172, 2 sheets, 70-p.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in The
    Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839-K Chapter K Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia By ROBERT T. RYDER, ANITA G. HARRIS, and JOHN E. REPETSKI Stratigraphic framework of the Cambrian and Ordovician sequence in part of the central Appalachian basin and the structure of underlying block-faulted basement rocks U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS-APPALACHIAN BASIN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, Jr., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 For sale by Book and Open-File Report Sales U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ryder, Robert T. Stratigraphic framework of Cambrian and Ordovician rocks in the central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through southwestern and south-central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia / by Robert T. Ryder, Anita C. Harris, and John E. Repetski. p. cm. (Evolution of sedimentary basins Appalachian Basin ; ch. K) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1839-K) Includes bibliographical references. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1839-K 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Cambrian.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Strategic and Structural Evolution of the Talladega Slate Belt, Alabama Appalachians
    fl d029-08 1st pgs page 1 The Geological Society of America Field Guide 29 2012 Overview of the stratigraphic and structural evolution of the Talladega slate belt, Alabama Appalachians James F. Tull* Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University Clinton I. Barineau* Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Columbus State University ABSTRACT The allochthonous Talladega belt of eastern-northeastern Alabama and north- western Georgia is a northeast striking, fault bounded block of lower greenschist facies metasedimentary and metaigneous rocks that formed along the margin of Lau- rentia at or outboard of the seaward edge of the Alabama promontory. Bounded by metamorphic rocks of the higher grade Neoproterozoic(?) to Carboniferous eastern Blue Ridge on the southeast and unmetamorphosed to anchimetamorphic Paleozoic rocks of the Appalachian foreland on the northwest, the Talladega belt includes shelf facies rocks of the latest Neoproterozoic/earliest Cambrian Kahatchee Mountain Group, Cambrian-Ordovician Sylacauga Marble Group, and the latest Silurian(?) to uppermost Devonian/earliest Mississippian Talladega Group. Along the southeast- ern fl ank of these metasedimentary sequences, a Middle Ordovician back-arc terrane (Hillabee Greenstone) was tectonically emplaced along a cryptic pre-metamorphic thrust fault (Hillabee thrust) and subsequently dismembered with units of the upper Talladega Group along the post-metamorphic Hollins Line fault system. Importantly, strata within the Talladega belt are critical for understanding the tectonic evolution of the southern Appalachian orogen when coupled with the geologic history of adjacent terranes. Rocks of the lower Talladega Group, the Lay Dam Formation, suggest latest Silurian-earliest Devonian tectonism that is only now being recognized in other areas of the southern Appalachians.
    [Show full text]