DOCSLIB.ORG

Geologic Resource Evaluation Report, Antietam National

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geologic Resource Evaluation Report, Antietam National National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Antietam National Battlefield, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, & Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2005/006 Antietam National Battlefield, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, & Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2005/006 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 January 2005 U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating 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. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. Views and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the National Park Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program website (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/ gre_publications) on the internet, or by sending a request to the address on the back cover. Please cite this publication as: Thornberry-Ehrlich, T. 2005. Antietam National Battlefield, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, & Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, Geologic Resource Evaluation Report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2005/006. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. NPS D-310, January 2005 Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 5 Erosion and Slope Processes.....................................................................................................................................5 Stream Flow, Channel Morphology, and Sediment Load ...........................................................................................6 Historical Landscapes ................................................................................................................................................7 Paleontologic Potential ...............................................................................................................................................8 Water Issues...............................................................................................................................................................8 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................................9 Karst Related Issues ..................................................................................................................................................9 General Geology and Ecosystem Concerns.............................................................................................................10 Geologic Features and Processes............................................................................. 15 Antietam National Battlefield ....................................................................................................................................15 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park .................................................................................................15 Harpers Ferry National Historical Park .....................................................................................................................16 Map Unit Properties .................................................................................................... 23 Formation Properties Table ......................................................................................................................................24 Geologic History.......................................................................................................... 27 References Cited......................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Geologic Map Graphics ........................................................................ 33 Appendix B: Scoping Summary................................................................................. 36 ANTI-CHOH-HAFE Geologic Resource Evaluation Report iii List of Figures Figure 1: High water damage at Antietam National Battlefield. ....................................................................................11 Figure 2: Historic structure losing ground to Shenandoah River ..................................................................................12 Figure 3: Slope processes at Harpers Ferry ................................................................................................................13 Figure 4: Slopes along Antietam Creek........................................................................................................................14 Figure 5: High ground at Antietam National Battlefield.................................................................................................18 Figure 6: Low ground at Antietam National Battlefield. ................................................................................................19 Figure 7: Wall rock geology of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal ..........................................................................................20 Figure 8: Lock 30 of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal ....................................................................................................21 Figure 9: View of Harpers Ferry. ..................................................................................................................................22 Figure 10: Rock units at Harpers Ferry. .......................................................................................................................29 Figure 11: Geologic Time Scale..................................................................................................................................30 iv NPS Geologic Resources Division Executive Summary This report has been developed to accompany the digital geologic maps produced by Geologic Resource Evaluation staff for Antietam National Battlefield, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park, and Harpers Ferry National Historical Park in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia. It contains information relevant to resource management and scientific research. The story of the three parks featured in this report, • Erosion and Slope Processes. The relatively wet Antietam National Battlefield, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal climate of the eastern U.S., combined with the steep National Historical Park, and Harpers Ferry National slopes of the Potomac and Shenandoah River valleys, Historical Park is one of the interaction between man and the Antietam Creek basin, creates a setting which and geology. Each park preserves this story in different is especially susceptible to slumping and landslide ways. The experience of the parks begins with the problems. This is due to a lack of stabilizing plant geology, with the processes that established the growth combined with substantial seasonal runoff and groundwork from which today’s environments, history, frequent occurrence of intense seasonal rainstorms. and scenery arise. Knowledge of the geologic resources Runoff can dramatically alter the landscape, creating should directly impact resource management decisions new hazard areas in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province
    Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 Open-File Report 2012–1194 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 By Catherine B. Enomoto1, James L. Coleman, Jr.1, John T. Haynes2, Steven J. Whitmeyer2, Ronald R. McDowell3, J. Eric Lewis3, Tyler P. Spear3, and Christopher S. Swezey1 1U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192 2 James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807 3 West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV 26508 Open-File Report 2012–1194 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 product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 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 material contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin
    DOE/NETL-2011/1478 A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors greatly thank Daniel J. Soeder (U.S. Department of Energy) who kindly reviewed the manuscript. His criticisms, suggestions, and support significantly improved the content, and we are deeply grateful. Cover. Top left: The Barnett Shale exposed on the Llano uplift near San Saba, Texas. Top right: The Marcellus Shale exposed in the Valley and Ridge Province near Keyser, West Virginia. Photographs by Kathy R. Bruner, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Bottom: Horizontal Marcellus Shale well in Greene County, Pennsylvania producing gas at 10 million cubic feet per day at about 3,000 pounds per square inch.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Paleomagnetic Evidence for Oroclinal Rotation in the Central Folded Appalachians from the Bloomsburg and the Mauch Chunk Formations
    TECTONICS, VOL. 7, NO. 4, PAGES 749-759, AUGUST 1988 FURTHER PALEOMAGNETIC EVIDENCE FOR OROCLINAL ROTATION IN THE CENTRAL FOLDED APPALACHIANS FROM THE BLOOMSBURG AND THE MAUCH CHUNK FORMATIONS Dennis V. Kent Lamont-DohertyGeological Observatory and Departmentof GeologicalSciences ColumbiaUniversity, Palisades, New York Abstract.Renewed paleomagnetic investigations of red fromthe Bloomsburg, Mauch Chunk, and revised results bedsof theUpper Silurian Bloomsburg and the Lower recentlyreported for theUpper Devonian Catskill Formation Carboniferous Mauch Chunk Formations were undertaken togetherindicate 22.8•>+_11.9 oof relativerotation, accounting with theobjective of obtainingevidence regarding the for approximatelyhalf thepresent change in structuraltrend possibilityof oroclinalbending as contributing to thearcuate aroundthe Pennsylvania salient. The oroclinalrotation can be structuraltrend of thePennsylvania salient. These formations regardedas a tightenS.*'.3 o/'a lessarcuate depositional package cropout on both limbs of thesalient and earlier, but less thatdeveloped across a basementreentrant, to achievea definitivepaleomagnetic studies on these units indicate that curvaturecloser to that of the earlierzigzag continental margin earlyacquired magnetizations can be recovered. Oriented outline. sampleswere obtained from nine sites on the southern limb of thesalient and eight sites from the northern limb in the INTRODUCTION Bloomsburg.The naturalremanent magnetizations are multivectorial,dominated by a component(B) with a A testof the oroclinehypothesis
    [Show full text]
  • MARCH 29 2007 Frederick County Mills ACCOMMODATION FACTORY
    MARCH 29 2007 Frederick County Mills ACCOMMODATION FACTORY ( ) David Foute advertised wool carding at Accommodation Factory, Dumb Quarter extended, Frederick-Town Herald, June 23, 1827. ADAMS FULLING MILL (9) Frederick Brown advertised wool carding at 6-1/4 cents per pound at the old establishment of Mr. Adams, about 2 miles south of New Market, Frederick-Town Herald, May 11, 1831, p. 4. He had offered fulling and dyeing there (Mrs. Adams’), Ibid., August 20, 1825. This was presumably the fulling mill shown on the 1808 Charles Varlé map on Bush Creek, 0.33 mile north of the present Weller Road, SE of Monrovia. The 1860 Bond map showed the Mrs. H. Norris wool factory, while the 1878 atlas showed Mrs. Norris with a grist and sawmill. ADLER ROPEWALK (F) A ropewalk operated by John Adler in 1819 was on South Market Street, Frederick. The building was occupied in 1976 by Federated Charities (See, Ralph F. Martz, “Richard Potts,” Frederick Post, May 11, 1976, p. A-7). ADELSPERGER MILL CO (5) This steam foundry and machine shop was listed in the 1860 census of manufactures with $14,000 capital investment and 25 employees; annual output was $5000 in castings and $25,000 in machinery. ADLUM STILL ( ) John Adlum advertised to sell two stills, 106-gallon and 49-gallon, Frederick-Town Herald, August 14, 1802. AETNA GLASS WORKS (7) Thomas Johnson purchased some of Amelung’s machinery and built a new Aetna Glass Works on Bush Creek, hauling sand from Ellicott City in empty wheat wagons. He later built another works on Tuscarora Creek, The Potomac, p.
    [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]
  • Figure 3A. Major Geologic Formations in West Virginia. Allegheney And
    82° 81° 80° 79° 78° EXPLANATION West Virginia county boundaries A West Virginia Geology by map unit Quaternary Modern Reservoirs Qal Alluvium Permian or Pennsylvanian Period LTP d Dunkard Group LTP c Conemaugh Group LTP m Monongahela Group 0 25 50 MILES LTP a Allegheny Formation PENNSYLVANIA LTP pv Pottsville Group 0 25 50 KILOMETERS LTP k Kanawha Formation 40° LTP nr New River Formation LTP p Pocahontas Formation Mississippian Period Mmc Mauch Chunk Group Mbp Bluestone and Princeton Formations Ce Obrr Omc Mh Hinton Formation Obps Dmn Bluefield Formation Dbh Otbr Mbf MARYLAND LTP pv Osp Mg Greenbrier Group Smc Axis of Obs Mmp Maccrady and Pocono, undivided Burning Springs LTP a Mmc St Ce Mmcc Maccrady Formation anticline LTP d Om Dh Cwy Mp Pocono Group Qal Dhs Ch Devonian Period Mp Dohl LTP c Dmu Middle and Upper Devonian, undivided Obps Cw Dhs Hampshire Formation LTP m Dmn OHIO Ct Dch Chemung Group Omc Obs Dch Dbh Dbh Brailler and Harrell, undivided Stw Cwy LTP pv Ca Db Brallier Formation Obrr Cc 39° CPCc Dh Harrell Shale St Dmb Millboro Shale Mmc Dhs Dmt Mahantango Formation Do LTP d Ojo Dm Marcellus Formation Dmn Onondaga Group Om Lower Devonian, undivided LTP k Dhl Dohl Do Oriskany Sandstone Dmt Ot Dhl Helderberg Group LTP m VIRGINIA Qal Obr Silurian Period Dch Smc Om Stw Tonoloway, Wills Creek, and Williamsport Formations LTP c Dmb Sct Lower Silurian, undivided LTP a Smc McKenzie Formation and Clinton Group Dhl Stw Ojo Mbf Db St Tuscarora Sandstone Ordovician Period Ojo Juniata and Oswego Formations Dohl Mg Om Martinsburg Formation LTP nr Otbr Ordovician--Trenton and Black River, undivided 38° Mmcc Ot Trenton Group LTP k WEST VIRGINIA Obr Black River Group Omc Ordovician, middle calcareous units Mp Db Osp St.
    [Show full text]
  • A2 and B2: Upper Devonian Kellwasser Extinction Events in New York and Pennsylvania: Offshore to Onshore Transect Across the F
    A2 AND B2: UPPER DEVONIAN KELLWASSER EXTINCTION EVENTS IN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA: OFFSHORE TO ONSHORE TRANSECT ACROSS THE FRASNIAN-FAMENNIAN BOUNDARY ON THE EASTERN MARGIN OF THE APPALACHIAN BASIN ANDREW M. BUSH AND J. ANDREW BEARD Geosciences & Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269 GORDON BAIRD Department of Geosciences, SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY 14063 D. JEFFREY OVER Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY Geneseo, Geneseo, NY 14454 with contributions by KATHERINE TUSKES Department of Geological Sciences, Atmospheric, Ocean, and Earth Science, George Mason University, Manassas, VA 20110 SARAH K. BRISSON AND JALEIGH Q. PIER Geosciences & Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269 INTRODUCTION Earth-system perturbations caused a series of mass extinction events during the Devonian Period, including the Taghanic event in the Givetian, the Lower and Upper Kellwasser events in the Frasnian, and the Hangenberg event in the Famennian (House, 2002; Bambach, 2006). These extinctions occurred against the backdrop of orbitally forced sea-level fluctuations, the Acadian Orogeny (Averbuch et al., 2005), the expansion of plants and animals on land (Algeo et al., 1995), and ecological changes in the marine biosphere (Signor and Brett, 1984; Bambach, 1999). The Frasnian-Famennian boundary in particular represents a significant global crisis, considered one of the “big five” mass extinctions (Raup and Sepkoski, 1982) that led to the demise of the widespread and diverse Devonian
    [Show full text]
  • (Late Devonian) Boundary Within the Foreknobs Formation, Maryland and West Virginia
    The Frasnian-Famennian (Late Devonian) boundary within the Foreknobs Formation, Maryland and West Virginia GEORGE R. McGHEE, JR. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627 ABSTRACT The approximate position of the Frasnian-Famennian (Late De- vonian) boundary is determined within the Foreknobs Formation along the Allegheny Front in Maryland and West Virginia by utiliz- ing the time ranges of the articulate brachiopods Athryis angelica Hall, Cyrtospirifer sulcifer (Hall), and members of the Atrypidae. INTRODUCTION The age of strata previously called the "Chemung Formation" along the Allegheny Front in Maryland and West Virginia (Fig. 1) has been of interest to Devonian wokers for some time. Recent at- tempts to resolve this problem include the works of Dennison (1970, 1971) and Curry (1975). New paleontological contribu- tions to the resolution of time relations within the Greenland Gap Group ("Chemung Formation") are the object of this paper, which is an outgrowth of a much larger ecological analysis of Late Devo- nian benthic marine fauna as preserved in the central Appalachians (McGhee, 1975, 1976). STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING The following is a condensation and summary of the evolution of Upper Devonian stratigraphic nomenclatural usage in the study Figure 1. Location map of study area, showing positions of the mea- area; for a more complete and thorough discussion, the reader is sured sections used in this study (after Dennison, 1970). referred to Dennison (1970) and Kirchgessner (1973). The Chemung Formation was originally designated by James lower Cohocton Stage." Elsewhere, concerning the upper limit of Hall (1839) from Chemung Narrows in south-central New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleomagnetism of the Upper Ordovician Juniata Formation of the Central Appalachians Revisited Again
    JOURNALOF GEOPHYSICALRESEARCH, VOL. 94, NO. B2, PAGES1843-1849, FEBRUARY10, 1989 PALEOMAGNETISM OF THE UPPER ORDOVICIAN JUNIATA FORMATION OF THE CENTRAL APPALACHIANS REVISITED AGAIN JohnD. Miller1 andDennis V. Kent Lamont-DohertyGeological Observatol 3, and Department of GeologicalSciences, ColumbiaUniversity, Palisades, New York Abstract.Two componentsof magnetizationwere isolated demagnetizationin thestudy of red beds.During this time in theUpper Ordovician Juniata Formation sampled in the area periodall of themajor Appalachian red beds were studied or of the Pennsylvaniasalient. The thermallydistributed, restudiedusing modem paleomagnetic techniques. The revised reversedpolarity B componentwas most likely acquired resultsfrom the Juniatawere reported by Van der Voo and duringAlleghenian deformation, and although it is poorly French[ 1977], andwere incorporatedinto the analysisof grouped,it is similarto otherAppalachian synfolding Schwartzand Van der Voo [ 1983], which concludedthat there magnetizations.The pre-Alleghenianage C magnetizationis was no oroclinal rotation involved in the formation of the entirelyof normalpolarity and showsa differencein Pennsylvaniasalient, a majorstructural feature of thecentral declinationsbetween the meanmagnetizations isolated on the Appalachians. northern and southern limbs of the salient of 24 ø _+23 ø. This Recentcontroversy regarding the Paleozoic reference poles anomalyis consistentwith the senseand magnitude of for North Americaand their tectonic implications [Kent and declinationanomalies observed
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of Trilobites from National Park Service Areas
    Sullivan, R.M. and Lucas, S.G., eds., 2016, Fossil Record 5. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 74. 179 AN INVENTORY OF TRILOBITES FROM NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AREAS MEGAN R. NORR¹, VINCENT L. SANTUCCI1 and JUSTIN S. TWEET2 1National Park Service. 1201 Eye Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005; -email: [email protected]; 2Tweet Paleo-Consulting. 9149 79th St. S. Cottage Grove. MN 55016; Abstract—Trilobites represent an extinct group of Paleozoic marine invertebrate fossils that have great scientific interest and public appeal. Trilobites exhibit wide taxonomic diversity and are contained within nine orders of the Class Trilobita. A wealth of scientific literature exists regarding trilobites, their morphology, biostratigraphy, indicators of paleoenvironments, behavior, and other research themes. An inventory of National Park Service areas reveals that fossilized remains of trilobites are documented from within at least 33 NPS units, including Death Valley National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Yellowstone National Park, and Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. More than 120 trilobite hototype specimens are known from National Park Service areas. INTRODUCTION Of the 262 National Park Service areas identified with paleontological resources, 33 of those units have documented trilobite fossils (Fig. 1). More than 120 holotype specimens of trilobites have been found within National Park Service (NPS) units. Once thriving during the Paleozoic Era (between ~520 and 250 million years ago) and becoming extinct at the end of the Permian Period, trilobites were prone to fossilization due to their hard exoskeletons and the sedimentary marine environments they inhabited. While parks such as Death Valley National Park and Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve have reported a great abundance of fossilized trilobites, many other national parks also contain a diverse trilobite fauna.
    [Show full text]
  • MAGNETIC STRATIGRAPHY This Is Volume 64 in the INTERNATIONAL GEOPHYSICS SERIES a Series of Monographs and Textbooks Edited by RENATA DMOWSKA and JAMES R
    MAGNETIC STRATIGRAPHY This is Volume 64 in the INTERNATIONAL GEOPHYSICS SERIES A series of monographs and textbooks Edited by RENATA DMOWSKA and JAMES R. HOLTON A complete list of books in this series appears at the end of this volume. MAGNETIC STRATIGRAPHY NElL D. OPDYKE AND JAMES E. T. CHANNELL Department of Geology University of Florida Gainesville, Florida ACADEMIC PRESS San Diego London Boston New York Sydney Tokyo Toronto This book is printed on acid-free paper. (~ Copyright 9 1996 by ACADEMIC PRESS All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Academic Press, Inc. 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495, USA http ://w w w. apne t. com Academic Press Limited 24-28 Oval Road, London NWI 7DX, UK http://www.hbuk.co.uk/ap/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Opdyke, N. D. Magnetic stratigraphy / by N.D. Opdyke, J.E.T. Channell. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-12-527470-X (alk. paper) 1. Paleomagnetism. 2. Stratigraphic correlation. I. Channell, J. E.T. II. Title. QE501.4.P35063 1996 551.7'01--dc20 96-5925 CIP PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 96 97 98 99 00 01 BC 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 In memory of S. K. Runcorn 1922-1995 a This Page Intentionally Left Blank Contents Preface xi Table Key xiii 1 Introduction and History 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Early Developments 1.3 Evidence for Field Reversal
    [Show full text]
  • Xsec A-A Sht1of2 Layout FINAL V
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 3425 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (SHEET 1 OF 2) Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map A Ontario Allegheny Lowlands Plateau province province SEVERNE WATKINS-BEAVER LODI POINT FIRTREE DAMS ALPINE VAN ETTEN ANTICLINE ANTICLINE ANTICLINE ANTICLINE ANTICLINE ANTICLINE GLENORA SYNCLINE UNNAMED COHOCTON CORBETT POINT ENFIELD CAYUTA SYNCLINE SYNCLINE SYNCLINE SYNCLINE SYNCLINE Bend in section Bend in section Bend in section New York W SE Oatka Genesee NW SE Canisteo NW SW Pennsylvania Black Creek River Canaseraga River Tuscarora Creek Creek Creek FEET MILES 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 3,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 William Duchscherer, Jr. E.F. Blair and Associates NYS Natural Gas Company E.F. Blair and Associates Bowdoin Storage Service Inc. NYS Natural Gas Company No. 1 J. Klotzbach No. 1 L. Tyler No. 1 Albert McClurg No. 1 Arthur N. Kennedy No. 1 Hubbard No. 1 Robert Olin API No. 31-037-05117 API No. 31-037-04593 API No. 31-051-04552 API No. 31-051-04630 API No. 31-101-21496 API No. 31-101-03924 Genesee Co., New York Genesee Co., New York Livingston Co., New York Livingston Co., New York Steuben Co., New York Steuben Co., New York Perrysburg Formation Dunkirk Dunkirk Shale Shale 2,000 Member Wiscoy Sandstone Member Java Perrysburg West River Shale, Nunda Wiscoy Sandstone Member Formation Formation Genundewa Sandstone Member unnamed Pipe Creek 0 Pipe Creek shale member Limestone, Penn Member Shale Member Shale Member Perrysburg Yan Shale, and rmation Formation 0 Dun West River Shale, Java Fo kirk
    [Show full text]