DOCSLIB.ORG

Geophysical Investigations of Proposed Interpretative Garden at the Second Fort Smith Site, Fort Smith National Historic Site (3Sb79), Sebastian County, Arkansas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geophysical Investigations of Proposed Interpretative Garden at the Second Fort Smith Site, Fort Smith National Historic Site (3Sb79), Sebastian County, Arkansas GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF PROPOSED INTERPRETATIVE GARDEN AT THE SECOND FORT SMITH SITE, FORT SMITH NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE (3SB79), SEBASTIAN COUNTY, ARKANSAS By Steven L. De Vore Midwest Archeological Center Technical Report No. 114 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Midwest Archeological Center GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF PROPOSED INTERPRETATIVE GARDEN AT THE SECOND FORT SMITH SITE, FORT SMITH NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE (3SB79), SEBASTIAN COUNTY, ARKANSAS By Steven L. De Vore Midwest Archeological Center Technical Report No. 114 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Midwest Archeological Center United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center Lincoln, Nebraska 2009 This report has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 (a) (1) and, upon recommendation of the Midwest Regional Office and the Midwest Archeological Center, has been classified as Available Making the report available meets the criteria of 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 (a) (1). ABSTRACT During July 16 to 19, 2007, the Midwest Archeological Center and Fort Smith National Historic Site staffs conducted geophysical investigations at the second Fort Smith site within the Fort Smith National Historic Site (3SB79) in the City of Fort Smith in Sebastian County, Arkansas. The project was conducted in response to the park’s request for the non-destructive and non-invasive investigations of a triangular area between the Officers Quarters location and the modern railroad tracks in response to a proposed plan to construct interpretative heirloom garden plots and place some fruit trees behind the concrete slabs marking the locations of the two Officers Quarters. The project location coincided with the backyards of the Officers Quarters on the west side of the second Fort Smith enclosure. During the investigations, 1,140 square meters or 0.28 acres were surveyed with a fluxgate gradiometer, a resistance meter and twin probe array, a ground-penetrating radar cart system and 400 mHz antenna, and an electromagnetic induction meter in the conductivity mode. The magnetic gradient, resistance, and ground conductivity data collected at the cemetery site provided information of the physical properties (magnetic, resistance, conductance, and ground-penetrating radar reflections) of the subsurface materials. Several small scale magnetic gradient, conductivity, resistance, and ground-penetrating radar anomalies were identified. A series of linear magnetic, resistance, conductivity and ground-penetrating radar anomalies appear to represent the remnants of the Coca-Cola security fence, the garage, rubble from the second Fort Smith, and buried utility lines. Based on the evaluation of the geophysical anomalies, the majority of the anomalies appear to be associated with the 20th century Coca-Cola bottling plant, especially the garage. Due to the high impact of the construction and demolition of the Coca-Cola bottling works, this portion of the Fort Smith National Historic Site (3SB79) apparently lacks intact historic features associated with the second Fort Smith site. It is still possible that historic features associated with the prehistoric or fort period may exist at a depth beyond the range of the ability of the geophysical instruments to detect. Since the plans for the interpretative heirloom gardens call for the use of raised garden plots, there is no further need for archeological investigations of the project area in the proposed garden plot locations. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was completed with the support and assistance from the Fort Smith National Historic Site staff. Sincere appreciation is extended to FOSM Superintendent William Black and FOSM Facility Manager Gary Smith for their support and insight into the park history and previous cultural resource investigations. FOSM Museum Technician Emily Lovick and FOSM Park Guide Jeremy Lynch assisted in the geophysical project by helping set up the geophysical grid units and laying out, moving, and packing the geophysical survey ropes, as well as helping with the mapping of the project area and participating in the resistance and ground penetrating radar survey efforts. All of the FOSM park staff went out of their way to make me feel welcome and provided assistance in getting the work done efficiently, safely, and as comfortably as possible during the geophysical investigations of the proposed interpretative heirloom garden construction during mid-summer in northwestern Arkansas. At the Midwest Archeological Center, I would like to thank Archeological Assistance and Partnership Program Manager Dr. Ralph Hartley and Park Archeology Program Manager Jeff Richner for their direction and leadership throughout the course of this project. I am also grateful for the support that Manager Dr. Mark Lynott, Administrative Officers Bonnie Farkas and Jill Lewis, and the rest of the MWAC staff provided, for without their help this project would not have been completed as smoothly or efficiently as it was. Linda Clarke, Darin Schlake, and Sara Vestecka provided logistical, computer, transportation, and personnel support during the project, which was much appreciated. Finally, I’d like to thank Allan Weber and Anna Loach for their editing and report preparation in the publishing of this document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .............................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................iii List of Tables .....................................................................................................................v List of Figures ..................................................................................................................vi 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 2. Environmental Setting .................................................................................................3 3. Cultural History of the Arkansas Valley Region ..........................................................7 Paleoindian ................................................................................................................8 Dalton ........................................................................................................................8 Archaic ......................................................................................................................9 Woodland ..................................................................................................................9 Mississippian.............................................................................................................9 Protohistoric/Contact ...............................................................................................10 European Encounters ...............................................................................................10 Early American Migration and Settlement ..............................................................11 Civil War ..................................................................................................................12 Homesteading and Industry .....................................................................................13 Modern Development and Recreation .....................................................................15 4. Previous Archeological Investigations at Fort Smith National Historic Site ..............17 5. Geophysical Prospection Techniques ..........................................................................19 Passive Geophysical Prospection Techniques ..........................................................19 Active Geophysical Prospection Techniques ...........................................................21 6. Geophysical Survey Methodology ..............................................................................29 Magnetic Survey Methodology ................................................................................31 Soil Resistance Survey Methodology ......................................................................32 iii Vertical Electrical Sounding Methodology ..............................................................33 Ground Conductivity Survey Methodology .............................................................33 Ground-penetrating Radar Survey Methodology .....................................................34 7. Data Processing ...........................................................................................................37 Processing Magnetic Data ........................................................................................37 Processing Soil Resistivity Data ..............................................................................41 Processing Vertical Electrical Sounding Data ..........................................................43 Processing Ground Conductivity Data .....................................................................44 Processing Ground-penetrating Radar Data .............................................................44 8. Data Interpretation ......................................................................................................47 Interpretation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geology of the Saline County Xenolith and Surrounding Area
    A.G.E.S. Brochure Series 005 State of Arkansas Arkansas Geological Survey Bekki White, State Geologist Geology of the Saline County Xenolith and surrounding area By J. Michael Howard Illustrations and photos by Angela Chandler _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Xenolith – “ a foreign inclusion in an igneous rock.” Glossary of Geology American Geological Institute 1987 (from the Greek words Xenos, meaning guest or stranger, and Lithos, meaning stone.) _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Introduction Located in Saline County, Arkansas, at the south edge of the community of Bauxite, this natural outcrop of nepheline syenite contains several geologically interesting features, including a xenolith. Sloping west, the outcrop encompasses about one-quarter acre near the center of section 21, Township 2 South, Range 14 West. In early 1990, the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) donated the outcrop along with approximately five surrounding acres of land to the Arkansas Geological Commission so that the site can be preserved for educational purposes. Outcrop of nepheline syenite at xenolith locality. History of the site The outcrop and its geologic features were first described by J. Francis Williams in 1891 in The Igneous Rocks of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Survey Annual Report for 1890, Volume II. Williams discussed the outcrop and xenolith in some detail and included a sketch of the xenolith (see title page). However, for many years the outcrop location remained unknown to most scientists. In the late 2 1960’s employees in the mining division of ALCOA, suspecting that the site was on their property, began a concerted search. Soon afterward the outcrop was rediscovered and was visited by a staff member of the Arkansas Geological Commission, who in turn told Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • AGS Strategic Plan FY 2018-19
    ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FY 2018 – FY 2019 STRATEGIC PLAN MISSION: The Arkansas Geological Survey (AGS) is a non-regulatory agency that is responsible for the collection and dissemination of unbiased and sound geologic data and information pertaining to the State of Arkansas for the public, private industry, academia, and government agencies as well as local, municipal, county, state, and federal officials, regulators, and decision makers for over 160 years. VISION: The AGS’s vision is to educate the citizens of Arkansas about the importance of geology and how it affects their everyday lives by providing accurate geological information by cost-effective methods to promote the development and effective management of the state’s rock, mineral, fossil fuel, and water resources while protecting the environment; all in a transparent manner. CORE VALUES: In order to achieve the AGS’s mission and vison statements of serving the geologic needs of the citizens of Arkansas, the AGS’s geologic staff and support personnel prescribe to the following core values: Results: research and provide our customers with geological information pertaining to the State’s groundwater, mineral, and energy resources in an efficient and responsive manner; Education: educate and provide geological expertise to the public, private industry and government agencies, identify rocks, minerals and fossils for the public, give educational and outreach presentations; Efficiency: provide in the most efficient and cost effective manner to the public and private industry
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Arkansas Arkansas Geology Commission
    Geology of Arkansas Arkansas Geology Commission Rocks are generally placed into 1 of 3 major categories: igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary. Igneous rocks have solidified from molten or partly molten mineral matter. Metamorphic rocks have been altered in the solid state from some pre-existing condition in response to significant changes in temperature, pressure, or chemical environment. Sedimentary rocks are composed of particles of sediment, which are derived by the weathering and/or the erosion of pre-existing rock. Most surficial rocks in Arkansas are sedimentary, but there are some igneous rocks (with adjacent contact metamorphic rocks) and very low grade regional metamorphic rocks in Arkansas also. A sedimentary rock consists of two components: the particles and the cement that holds them together. However, the unconsolidated sediments of eastern Arkansas are considered sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks are classified as clastic (rocks made up of grains of sand, silt, and clay) or chemical (rocks made up of shell fragments, saline water deposits, and other materials that are deposited from solution). The most common clastic sedimentary rocks are shales, siltstones, and sandstones. The most common chemical sedimentary rocks are limestone and dolostone. To understand how sedimentary rocks form, we must account for the processes that create the original particles of sediment, the mechanisms of sediment transport, the processes of deposition or precipitation of a given sediment, and what has happened to the sediment over time. By studying rocks and depositional systems (the processes by which sediments are deposited), geologists recognize that most of the sedimentary rocks in the Paleozoic Highlands of Arkansas are marine.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Atoka Rocks of Northern Arkansas
    Pre-Atoka Rocks of Northern Arkansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 314-H Pre-Atoka Rocks of Northern Arkansas By SHERWOOD E. FREZON and ERNEST E. CLICK SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 314-H Thickness, lithofacies, and geologic history of potential oil and gas producing rocks of Paleozoic age in northern Arkansas UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U. S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Frezon, Sherwood Earl, 1921- Pre-Atoka rocks of northern Arkansas, by Sherwood E. Frezon and Ernest E. Glick. Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959. iii, 171-189 p. maps, diagrs., table. 30 cm. (U. S. Geological Sur­ vey. Professional paper 314-H. Shorter contributions to general geology) Part of illustrative matter fold, col., in pocket. Bibliography: p. 186-187. 1. Geology Arkansas. 2. Rocks, Sedimentary. 3. Geology, Strati- graphic Paleozoic. i. Glick, Ernest Earwood, 1922- joint author, n. Title. (Series: U. S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 314-H. Series: U. S. Geological Survey. Shorter contribu­ tions to general geology) 551.7209767 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract .__----_ ---_-_._--._---__-_-____ 171 Stratigraphy Continued Page Introduction. ___ ___________________________________ 171 Probable latest Mississippian and early
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoecological Analysis of the Clayton Formation (Paleocene) Near Malvern, Arkansas
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Honors Theses Honors College Spring 5-2017 Paleoecological Analysis of the Clayton Formation (Paleocene) near Malvern, Arkansas Brenna J. Hart University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses Part of the Paleontology Commons Recommended Citation Hart, Brenna J., "Paleoecological Analysis of the Clayton Formation (Paleocene) near Malvern, Arkansas" (2017). Honors Theses. 513. https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses/513 This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi Paleoecological Analysis of the Clayton Formation (Paleocene) near Malvern, Arkansas by Brenna Hart A Thesis Submitted to the Honors College of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Geography and Geology May 2017 II Approved by ________________________________ Franklin Heitmuller, Ph.D., Associate Professor Department of Geography and Geology ________________________________ Mark Puckett, Ph.D., Chair Department of Geography and Geology ________________________________ Ellen Weinauer, Ph.D., Dean Honors College III Abstract The Clayton Formation is a section of the Midway Group immediately above the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary that contains marine fossils from the Paleocene Epoch. The formation is composed of glauconitic sand, clay, marl, and limestone. Fossils within the formation commonly occur in clay or are concentrated in conglomeratic lag lenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Resources Inventory Report, Hot Springs National Park
    National Park Service US Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Hot Springs National Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2013/741 ON THE COVER View from the top of the display spring down to the Arlington Lawn within Hot Springs National Park. THIS PAGE Gulpha Creek flows over Stanley Shale downstream from the Gulpha Gorge Campground. Photographs by Trista L. Thornberry-Ehrlich (Colorado State University) Hot Springs National Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2013/741 National Park Service Geologic Resources Division PO Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 December 2013 US Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Crater of Diamonds State Park and Vicinity, Pike County, Arkansas
    SPS-03 STATE OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bekki White, State Geologist and Director STATE PARK SERIES 03 GEOLOGY OF THE CRATER OF DIAMONDS STATE PARK AND VICINITY, PIKE COUNTY, ARKANSAS by J. M. Howard and W. D. Hanson Little Rock, Arkansas 2008 STATE OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bekki White, State Geologist and Director STATE PARK SERIES 03 GEOLOGY OF THE CRATER OF DIAMONDS STATE PARK AND VICINITY, PIKE COUNTY, ARKANSAS by J. M. Howard and W. D. Hanson Little Rock, Arkansas 2008 STATE OF ARKANSAS Mike Beebe, Governor ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bekki White, State Geologist and Director COMMISSIONERS Dr. Richard Cohoon, Chairman………………………………………....Russellville William Willis, Vice Chairman…………………………………...…….Hot Springs David J. Baumgardner………………………………………….………..Little Rock Brad DeVazier…………………………………………………………..Forrest City Keith DuPriest………………………………………………………….….Magnolia Becky Keogh……………………………………………………...……..Little Rock David Lumbert…………………………………………………...………Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas 2008 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..................... 1 Geology…………………………………………………………………………………………... 1 Prairie Creek Diatreme Rock Types……………………………….…………...……...………… 3 Mineralogy of Diamonds…………………….……………………………………………..……. 6 Typical shapes of Arkansas diamonds…………………………………………………………… 6 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions……………..……………………………….....……… 7 Definition of Rock Types……………………………………………………………………… 7 Formation Processes.…...…………………………………………………………….....…….. 8 Search Efforts……………...……………………………...……………………...………..….
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Provenance of Upper Jackfork Sandstone, Southern Ouachita Mountains: Cathodoluminescence Petrology
    Southern provenance of upper Jackfork Sandstone, southern Ouachita Mountains: Cathodoluminescence petrology MICHAEL R. OWEN* \ Department of Geology, University'of Illinois, 245 Natural History Building, 1301 W. Green St, Urbana, ALBERT V. CAROZZI ) Illinois 61801 ABSTRACT Graham and others (1976) compared lithic fragments from sand- stones of the entire Ouachita sequence with those of the Carboniferous of The source ¡irea of the upper Jackfork Sandstone of the southern the Black Warrior basin, and they concluded that both were derived from Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas has been located by means of cath- a source area to the east, in the southern Appalachians. Their study, odoluminescence (CL) of quartz in conjunction with standard however, relied upon 24 selected lithic-rich samples, only three of which petrography. Comparison of frequency distributions of quartz CL col- were from the upper Jackfork. Furthermore, regional stratigraphic studies ors between the Jackfork and approximately coeval sandstones of the (Thomas, 1974; Mack and others, 1981; Mack, 1982) have cast doubt on Black Warrior basin detected genetically based affinities which were a major detrital-sediment-dispersal system linking the southern Appala- not apparent by ¡inspection of gross petrology. chians with the Black Warrior and Ouachita basins. The upper Jackfork was derived from the same source area as The objective of this study was to determine if the upper Jack fork of the Parkwood Formation of the Black Warrior basin of Alabama. The the southern Ouachita Mountains is genetically related to any of the Parkwood is kno wn to have come from the south, and so the Jackfork approximately coeval sandstone units of adjacent basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Diamond Evaluation of the Prairie Creek Lamproite Province, Arkansas, Usa
    DIAMOND EVALUATION OF THE PRAIRIE CREEK LAMPROITE PROVINCE, ARKANSAS, USA Dennis Dunn, University of Texas at Austin, USA REGIONAL GEOLOGY from the 105 tonnes of material from the Twin Knobs 2 lamproite (Figure 2). The calculated diamond grade The Prairie Creek lamproite province consists of seven throughout the Twin Knobs 2 lamproite was known diamondiferous lamproite vents within a belt that approximately 0.04 carats per 100 tonnes. The calculated extends for 5 km, in a northeasterly direction from the average diamond content of both intrusions was an order largest of the vents, Prairie Creek (Figure 1). The Prairie of magnitude less that that observed at the Prairie Creek Creek lamproite has a K-Ar age of ~106 Ma (Gogineni lamproite which yielded an average diamond grade of and others, 1978). The northeast alignment is sub-parallel 0.57 carats per 100 tonnes (Morgan Worldwide Mining to the northeast-trending Reelfoot Rift located ~100 km Consultants, 1997), and for the Twin Knobs 1 lamproite east of the intrusions. The lamproite province straddles which yielded a grade of 0.17 carats per 100 tonnes the geologic and physiographic boundary between the (Waldman and others, 1987). Cenozoic Gulf Coastal Plain and the Paleozoic Ouachita Mountains. It is widely believed that the lamproite province lies near the southern margin of the North American craton which consists of 1.3 to 1.5 Ga granite- rhyolite terrane (Van Schmus and others, 1986). Three previously unexplored Arkansas lamproites were delineated and evaluated during the 1980’s. The three vents – Black Lick (10 hectares), Twin Knobs 2 (2 hectares) and Timberlands (<1 hectare) -- were intruded into the Lower Cretaceous Trinity Group and are overlain unconformably by the Late Cretaceous Tokio Formation rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadside Geology Series 01
    STATE OF ARKANSAS Mike Beebe, Governor Arkansas Geological Survey Bekki White, State Geologist and Director COMMISSIONERS Dr. Richard Cohoon, Chairman…………………………Russellville William Willis, Vice Chairman…………………………...Hot Springs Gus Ludwig…….…………………………………...........Quitman Ken Fritsche………………………………………………Greenwood William Cains………………………………………………Altus Quin Baber…………………………………………………Benton David Lumbert……………………………………………..Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas 2013 Acknowledgements The research time, travel expenses, and publication costs required for the preparation of this road guide were funded by a faculty research grant from Arkansas Tech University. I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Board of Trustees, Dr. Robert Brown, President, and Dr. John Watson, Vice President for Academic Affairs for their support. The encouragement and cooperation of Ms. Bekki White, State Geologist and Director of the Arkansas Geological Survey (AGC) made the road guide concept a reality. Many of the maps and publications that served as a basis for this publication were provided by the AGC. The AGC’s professional staff members were particularly helpful by reviewing various drafts of the text. Their geological and editorial expertise served to greatly improve the final product. Ms. Lea Nondorf and Mr. Jason Tipton, also of the AGC staff, prepared many of the route and geological maps. All photography was done by me except where credited to another person. A special thank you goes to Ms. Angela Chandler, Geological Supervisor, AGC, who also prepared route and geological maps, and made a major contribution to the preparation of the publication by serving as technical editor and supervisor of the AGC’s participation in the project. Also, two other geologists were helpful in reviewing the first drafts of the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis of Middle Atoka Formation in Aetna Gas Field, Franklin, Johnson and Logan Counties, Arkans
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2015 Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis of Middle Atoka Formation in Aetna Gas Field, Franklin, Johnson and Logan Counties, Arkansas Ikramuddin Bahram University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Stratigraphy Commons Recommended Citation Bahram, Ikramuddin, "Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis of Middle Atoka Formation in Aetna Gas Field, Franklin, Johnson and Logan Counties, Arkansas" (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 1396. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1396 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 and Structural Analysis of Middle Atoka Formation in Aetna Gas Field, Franklin, Johnson and Logan Counties, Arkansas A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology By Ikramuddin Bahram University of Peshawar Bachelor of Science in Geology, 2010 December 2015 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. _____________________________________ Dr. Doy L. Zachry Thesis Director ______________________________________ ______________________________ Dr. Ralph K. Davis Dr. Gregory Dumond Committee Member Committee Member Abstract Arkoma basin is a prolific natural gas basin. The defining feature of this basin is the Atoka Formation that was deposited in the early-middle Pennsylvanian. The Atoka is held equivalent to the tectonic and structural evolution of the basin. This study focuses on one of the many gas fields in the Arkoma Basin in Arkansas to assess the stratigraphic and structural evolution that the strata in this particular field display.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Natural Divisions Study Guide 2020 Revision
    A Study Guide for the Six Main Natural Divisions of Arkansas Ozark Mountains Arkansas Valley Ouachita Mountains Coastal Plain Mississippi Alluvial Plain Crowley’s Ridge The study of Arkansas’s natural divisions is multi-disciplinary, combining biology, geology, natural history, and social studies. This guide highlights major components and unique characteristics of each natural division, and it provides resources for further learning. Words in bold type can be found in the Glossary of Terms. This document is used in conjunction with the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission’s educational program “Arkansas Ecoregions.” For more information or to schedule a program, contact Leslie Patrick, [email protected]. ARKANSAS NATURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION 1 A natural division or ecoregion (ecological region) is a geographical area occupied by a distinctive ecosystem. An ecosystem can be defined as an environment made up of interrelated living and non-living components. The six main ecoregions of Arkansas are labeled in black in the map above. These can be further divided into smaller ecoregions, a few of which are labeled in red. Ecoregions are not bound by state boundary lines, and most extend into adjoining states. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ecoregion maps for all of North America available for viewing and downloading at www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions. ARKANSAS NATURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION 2 Levels III and IV Ecoregions of Arkansas, available at www.epa.gov/ eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-6#pane-03 ARKANSAS NATURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION 3 Six Major Components of an Ecoregion GEOLOGY: landforms, geologic history, rock type CLIMATE: temperature, precipitation, winds SOIL: type, formation PLANTS: flora, plant communities, vegetative cover ANIMALS: fauna, animal communities PEOPLE: land use, culture, history Relationships Between the Components Every place on the earth has a distinctive geology and climate; these are the two basic components of any ecosystem.
    [Show full text]