ML18018A483

Rept on Proposed Neuse Fault

ML18018A483
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/31/1983
From:	EBASCO SERVICES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML18018A482	List: ML18018A481 ML18018A483
References
NUDOCS 8304040247
Download: ML18018A483 (181)

Text

9DR 47 830831

. 83040y A

ADOCK 05000400 PDR REPORT ON THE PROPOSED "NEUSE PAULT" Prepared for CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY by EBASCO SERVICES, INCORPORATED January 31, 1983

l I

r 1 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Ferenczi (1959) was first to suggest the existence of a fault in the region of the Neuse River.

He referred to it as the "Cape Lookout-Neuse River Fault Zone".

His evidence was based on the following arguments:

1)

The Castle Hayne Formation (of Eocene age) was not deposited north of the Neuse River.

However, since then Castle Hayne outcrops have been mapped north of the Neuse River (Brown and others, 1972;

Baum, 1981 and Otte, 1981).

2)

The occurrence of silicified zones along the strike of the "fault zone".

More recently,

however, Otte (1981) has shown that the silicified zones are not restricted to the alignment of the postulated fault.

Silicification resulted from the diagenetic alteration of siliceous sponges (Otte, 1981).

3)

The abrupt change in depth to basement as recorded from two wells 24 kms apart (at Havelock and Moorehead City).

More detailed work on depth to basement maps in this region shows that the change in depth is not oriented perpendicular to the trend of the postulated fault and bears no relation to it (Brown and others, 1972).

Independently, and without reference to Ferenczi (1959),

Gibson (1967 and 1970) suggested the existence of a "northwest-southeast positive element" parallel to the Neuse River.

Evidence for this positive element was based on isopachous mapping and structural contouring of the Yorktown Formation (of Miocene age).

More recent work by Baum

(1981) indicates that if a "Neuse Fault" exists, it had no discernible effect on the deposition of the Trent Formation (of Oligocene age).

The Trent Formation is equivalent to the River Bend Formation of (Card and others (1978) and both are older than the Yorktown Formation (Miocene).

Baum and others (1978) citing the work of Ferenczi (1959) and Gibson (1967 and 1970) espoused the existence of a "Neuse Fault" (equivalent to the Cape Lookout-Neuse River fault zone).

In later 'publications Harris and others (1979a and b) proposed a change in the location and orientation of the Cape Lookout-Neuse River fault zone (the Neuse fault).

In so doing, they invalidated the third argument of Ferenczi (1959) for the existence of a fault.

The new position resulted in having the two deep wells to basement on the same (north side) of the fault (Figure 1).

To date, the literature does not advance any evidence of observed faulting, displacement, recognizable surface expression or associated seismicity that is directly or indirectly attributable to movement on a "Neuse fault".

The postulated evidence for faulting so far was either disproved or is presently disputed by experts in Coastal Plain geology of North Carolina (Brown and others, 1972; Otte, 1981; Jones, 1982; Berggen and Aubry, preprint on file; Hazel and others, preprint on file).

Therefore, in Ebasco's

opinion, the indirect arguments that have been presented so far do not in any manner support the existence of a "Neuse Fault" in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.

The evidence for and against the existence of a "Neuse Fault" is summarized below and discussed in greater detail in the remainder of this report.

1 1 POSTULATED EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A NEUSE FAULT l.

Abrupt change in depth to basement between Havelock and Horehead City, N. C. (Ferenczi, 1959).

2.

The restricted spatial distribution of the Castle Hayne Formation (Eocene) to the south side of the Neuse River (Ferenczi, 1959).

3.

The occurrence of silicified zones along the alignment of the Neuse Fault (Ferenczi, 1959).

4 ~

The spatial distribution, petrology, and correlation of units of Eocene age (Baum and others, 1978 and Harris and others, 1979b).

5.

The thickening of Cretaceous units north of the Neuse Fault (Harris and others, 1979b).

6.

The present tilted attitudes of the Dupin Plain of early Pliocene age (9

m in 60 km), the Wacamaw-Canepatch Plain of Plio-Pleistocene age (2

m in 60 km), and the Socastee Plain, approximately 32,000 years old (4.6 m in 12 km) between the New River and Wilmington, N.C. (Zullo and Harris, 1979).

EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF A NEUSE FAULT 1.

The change in depth to basement between Havelock and Morehead City, in light of additional well data, is neither coincident nor associated with the Neuse Fault (Brown and others 1972).

2.

The Castle Hayne limestone has been shown to occur north of the limits known to Ferenczi (Brown and others, 1972 and Otte, 1981).

3.

Silicified zones are not restricted to the alignment of the postulated zone and are the result of diagenetic alteration of silicious sponges (Otte, 1981).

4.

Many stratigraphic experts dispute the stratigraphic subdivisions of the Castle Hayne and the Upper Eocene age assigned to its upper units by Baum, Harris, and Zullo (1978, 1979b) and Harris and Zullo, (1980)

~

Brown and others (1972),

Hard and others (1978),

Jones (1982),

Berggen and Aubry (preprint on file), Hazel and others (preprint on file) consider the entire formation to be Middle Eocene.

Facies changes and age relationships are not well enough agreed upon to define the specific depositional basins which Baum, Harris and Zullo infer were created by movement along the Neuse Fault.

Even if Baum, Harris and Zullo's stratigraphic and age interpretations are accepted the spatial disposition of their units do not require movement along the postulated Neuse Fault to explain the prevalent depositional environment.

,i 5.

Structural contours on top of basement and on top of Cretaceous units (Brown and others, 1972) do not show any evidence of movement along the postulated Neuse Fault.

6.

The original slopes of the Plio-Pleistocene Coastal Plain terraces are not shown to have been initially horizontal.

Given the extremely low tilts that are invoked the original attitudes of the plains must be demonstrated first in order to validate the conclusions that are reached.

7.

The region of the postulated Neuse Fault is aseismic.

(Figura 2.5.2-1 -2, SHNPP FSAR)

~

2.0 DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF THE TERM NEUSE FAULT The first person to propose a northwest trending fault parallel to the Neuse River in the Coastal Plain was Ferenczi (1959).

Ferenczi called the feature the Cape Lookout-Neuse Fault and gave three lines of evidence to support his conclusions:

l.

A difference in depth to basement across the fault based on 2 wells 24 km apart, one at Havelock and the other near Morehead City.

Brown and others (1972) using additional well data generated a top of basement contour map which show the maximum slope change perpendicular to a north-south axis and not perpendicular to the proposed trend of the Neuse Fault.

He interpreted the change in basement surface elevation to a steepening of slope away from the Cape Fear Arch.

2.

Ferenczi also thought that the Castle Hayne Formation was not deposited north of the Neuse River and that the Neuse Fault provided a structural boundary limiting the basin of deposition, Brown and others (1972) and Otte (1981) both refer to outliers of the Castle Hayne beyond this boundary.

3.

Finally, Ferenczi interpreted the occurrence of silicified Eocene outcrops aligned along his fault zone as evidence of faulting.

Otte (1981) showed that the IJayne County outcrops are silicified because of the presence of silicious sponges which provided a ready source of silica.

He also observed that the silicified sediments are more widespread than Ferenczi realized and are not restricted to his fault alginment.

The next published reference to the "Neuse Fault" occurs in Baum and others (1978).

This is primarily a biostratigraphic paper.

However, the authors by referring to the work of Gibson (1967),

who identified a positive element trending parallel to the Neuse River, and the work of Ferenczi (1959), consider this sufficient evidence to use the term Neuse Fault without providing any additional supporting evidence.

Baum and others (1978) use the postulated Neuse Fault as part of a model to explain the distribution of the Eocene to 1fiocene strata and facies changes in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.

It is important to distinguish here the difference between postulating a fault to create a model which will explain the deposition of the strata and proving the existence of a fault based upon stratigraphic evidence.

At no point have any strata been shown to be offset by the Neuse Fault.

The problems with the Ferenczi's work are discussed above and Gibson (1967, 1970) does not invoke faulting as an explanation for his "positive element".

Thus the use of the term fault by Baum, Harris and Zullo (1978), Harris and others (1979a and b) and Harris (1982) should not be regarded as proof of its existence but merely as one convenient explanation of the distribution of Tertiary sediments in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.

At this point it should also be noted that there are alternate models which explain the distribution of Eocene and KEocene formations in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, without recourse to faulting along the Neuse Fault.

Brown and others (1972) propose that the stratigraphic framework and spacial distribution of the Atlantic Coastal Plain is controlled by northeast and north/south trending hinge zones.

Gibson (1967, 1970) postulates a

positive element north of the Neuse Fault, during the deposition of Miocene strata, however he does not attribute this positive element to a northwest trending fault.

Otte (1979, 1981) attributes the facies distribution and thi'ckness of the exposed Eocene Castle Hayne Formation to structural control by the Cape Fear Arch and pre-existing topography.

The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) in its Phase I Report on Earthquake Design Analysis of Philpott Dam (1982) refers to papers on the subject published in the Field Trip Guidebook of the Carolina Geological Society and Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association

(Baum, Harris, and Zullo, 1979, editors).

The USCOE reports and

adopts, without discussion, the position espoused by Ferenczi (1959),

Baum and others (1978), Harris and others (1979) and Baum and others (1979).

Within the guidebook are two papers which discuss postulated tectonic movements along the Neuse Fault.

hese papers are:

1) Harris and others (1979b), Tectonic effects on Cretaceous, Paleogene, and early Neogene sedimentation, North Carolina, and 2) Zullo and Harris (1979),

Plio-Pleistocene Crustal Warping in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina.

These are the papers which label all the lines on the.map (Figure 1) as "faults".

The 'second paper by Zullo and Harris (1979) proposes that the Neuse Fault moved in the Quaternary.

As will be

.discussed below, the conclusions of these papers are in conflict with those of other workers and their evidence for movement along the proposed Neuse Fault is not sufficient to substantiate faulting.

Discussion of paper by Harris, Zullo and Baum (1979b).

This paper (Harris an'd others, 1979b) is controversial with respect to the Eocene, Oligocene and Miocene stratigraphy.

Ward and others (1978) and Brown and others (1972) are a few of the workers who had previously published their versions of the stratigraphic correlation between the same rock units.

Since the publication of the guidebook, the controversy has continued with publications by Baum (1981), Harris and Zullo (1980, 1982) and Harris (1982) on one side and Jones (1982),

Berggen and Aubry (preprint, on file) and Hazel and others (preprint, on file) ~

Harris and others

(.1979b) major evidence for movement of a "Neuse Fault" in the Paleogene is the distribution of the New Bern Formation (as defined by Baum and others, 1978), which is restricted to the area north of the Neuse Fault.

Harris and others (1979b) consider the New Bern Formation to be latest Eocene (Jacksonian in age) and younger than the Castle Hayne Limestone as they define it.

Harris and others (1979b) also state that these strata represent "a major lithologic change from a carbonate dominated regime to a clastic dominated regime",

a change they interpret as caused by faulting of the Late Eocene Castle Hayne during the latest Eocene and the'deposition qf the latest Eocene New Bern Formation in the resulting structural low north of the "Neuse Fault".

Ward and others (1978) do not recognize the New Bern Formation as being a separate formation from the Castle Hayne and call it the Spring Garden Member (Middle Eocene) of the (Middle Eocene)

Castle Hayne Formation.

Although Harris and others (1979b) use the Neuse Fault as an explanation for the restricted distribution of the rock they call the New Bern (upper Eocene),

the distribution of the New Bern Formation itself is not primary evidence of faulting and such a

conclusion is especially tenuous if the age relationships (middle or late Eocene) are in question.

Cook and Macneil (1952),

Brown and others (1972),

Ward and others (1978),

Jones (1982),

Berggen and Aubry (preprint on file) and Hazel and others (preprint on file) consider the Castle Hayne, which includes the "New Bern" of Baum and others (1978),

to be middle Eocene in age.

If this interpretation is accepted the shallow water facies of the Castle Hayne, north of the postulated fault, is only a facies of the Castle Hayne limestone south of the

postulated fault.

As a result, no intervening fault needs to be evoked to explain what is a normal stratigraphic transition.

Harris and others (1979b) also state that the restriction of the middle Miocene Pungo River Formation to the area north of the fault indicates that the "Neuse Fault" was active in the middle Miocene.

The distribution of the Pungo River Formation is limited not only to the north of the proposed Neuse Fault, but the western boundary of the formation strikes north-south and is entirely east of the proposed Neuse Fault (Gibson, 1967) (Miller, 1982).

Although Gibson (1967) proposes a positive feature north of the "Neuse Fault" as being responsible for the restricted deposition of the Pungo River Formation, he does not call it a fault.

Miller (1982) attributes the restricted deposition of the Pungo River Formation to the north-south hinge line of Brown and others (1972) which is parallel to the strike of the formation and coincident with its western boundary.

1n light of the detailed work done by Miller (1982) the conclusions of Harris and p

others (1979b) and Harris (1982) cannot be considered evidence of movement along the "Neuse Fault" in the middle Miocene.

The Oligocene Trent, Silverdale and Belgrade Formations (River Bend and Belgrade Formations of Ward and others 1978) are older than the Pungo River Formation and closer to the "Neuse Fault" than the Pungo River Formation.

The Oligocene Formations do not appear to be related to tectonic activity according to Harris and others (1979b).

Elsewhere in their paper Harris and others (1979b) discuss Cretaceous movement of the "Neuse Fault".

Their conclusions are based upon a 10-

structural contour map of the top of Cretaceous unit F and on an isopach map of the same unit F which immediately overlies the basement in North Carolina.

Both maps were generated by Brown and others, (1972).

Harris and others (1979b) propose that since unit F thickens considerably north of the Neuse Fault and south of the Cape Fear Arch, which they also call a fault, the area between the two features was positive between these two proposed faults during deposition of unit F, resulting in thicker deposits in the basins to the north and south.

They believe that the movement was syn-depositional because the structural contour map of the top of unit F does not exhibit any structural relief in the vicinity of the Neuse Fault.

The absence of structural relief on the top of unit F is not only good evidence that there was no movement immediately after deposition of unit F in the region of the proposed Neuse Fault but that there was no movement ever along the proposed Neuse Fault after the deposition of unit F.

Brown and others (1972) also prepared a structural contour map of the top of basement rocks which immediately underlie unit F.

Although this map is not mentioned by Harris and others (1979b), it does not show any structural relief along the alignment of the Neuse Fault either, implying that there has been no movement along the Neuse Fault since the Cretaceous.

In comparing the fi'gures from both papers, Harris and others (1979b) have apparently mislabeled a contour line on the isopach map of unit F.

A contour line north of the "Neuse Fault", which should be labeled 500 m, is labeled 1000 m on the figure of Harris and others (1979b).

Although Cretaceous unit F does thicken north of the proposed Neuse Fault, the Neuse Fault does not coincide with the greatest change in thickness of the unit.

>fost workers consider the Cape Fear Arch to have exerted a major structural control over Cretaceous and younger deposition in the Carolina Coastal Plain.

The theory that a proposed Neuse Fault was also active in the Cretaceous and Tertiary appears to be both unsubstantiated and unnecessary.

2.2 Discussion of paper by Zullo and Harris (1979)

Zullo and Harris (1979) submit that the proposed Neuse Fault was ac'tive throughout the Tertiary and Pleistocene.

The arguments of the authors are based upon the identification of Plio-Pleistocene marine scarps and terraces in the area between the New River and Wilmington, N.C. (see Figure 1) and the measurement of the elevation of the marine terraces at points that are distant from each others.

They conclude that because the terraces are not at present, uniformly horizontal plains, but rather, are slightly tilted along a northeast-southwest

axis, perpendicular to the proposed Neuse Fault, they were tilted by tectonic activity, specifically by movement along the proposed Neuse Fault in the last 32,000 years.

In order to discuss the ramifications of Zullo and Harris'aper a

brief digression on Coastal Plain scarps and terraces is presented below:

Numerous workers (for example:

Flint, 1940 and 1941;

Cooke, 1941; Daniels and others, 1966 and Oakes and Dubar, 1974) have described erosional marine scarps and associated shoreline features which record former higher sea level stands on the North Carolina Coastal Plain.

A series of at least three marine scarps are found between the modern coast and the edge of the Coastal Plain, up to elevations of about 90 m.

They can be most easily identified on topographic maps and areal photographs.

The terraces or plains (with slopes that are less than one meter per kilometer) are interconnected by scarp faces (with slopes on the order of 15 m per kilometer).

These scarps are difficult to recognize in the field, but are fairly obvious when compared to the average slope of the North Carolina Coastal Plain (with slopes that are less than one meter per kilometer) (Daniels and others, 1966).

Evidence for a marine erosional origin of the scarps by wave action, during relatively stable sea level stands, includes their arcuate nature, the persistence of the scarps over tens and even hundreds of kms, the consistency of the scarp toe elevations over these distances, and the deposition of marine units seaward of these scarps.

Although the toe elevations of the scarps are generally remarkably uniform, the height of the scarps may not be /Reeler and others, 1979)

~

The terraces or plains between the scarps are commonly formed by either erosional or depositional processes and thus may be underlain by deposits laid down during the occupation or retreat of the sea level stand which cut the scarp.

Also, they may be 13-

underlain by older sediments which were modified by the transgressing or regressing sea.

In either case,

.both shoreline features such as dunes, bars and channels and subaerial/fluvial processes such as stream erosion may modify the surfaces.

Some of these features are beautifully shown on the aerial photographs in Mixon and Pilkey (1976) and on Landsat imagery.

The underlying assumption of Zullo and Harris'aper is that the "Duplin" plain, the "Waccamaw-Canepatch" plain and the "Socastee" plain were formed as horizontal surfaces.

They conclude that the presently observable slopes and slope directions on the plains indicate that episodic and differential uplift have occurred in the region.

However, the assumption of original horizontality of the plains is not substantiated.

Topography along the present day Atlantic margin slopes offshore and is modified by bars and channels, only the actual contact of the shoreline and the sea may represent a near horizontal surface (toe of the scarp).

Furthermore, Zullo and Harris (1979) do not define how they measured the average slope of their plains.

A cursory examination of 7 1/2 minute topographic maps of the area confirms the existence of fairly uniform and slightly sloping plains, but does not indicate that the north-south elevation changes are of sufficient magnitude to represent the top of initially level horizontal planes which have been tilted by tectonic activity (see Sections 1.1 and 1.2).

The tilt of the plains can also be explained by primary depositional slopes of an offshore marine area, and/or subaerial or subaqueous post depositional modifications, since the area is incised by tributaries of the New and Cape Fear Rivers.

In addition to the issues discussed

above, other assumptions and conclusions of the authors remain unsubstantiated.

For example:

The authors attr'ibute the tilt of the plains to movement of a block bounded by the Cape Fear Arch (or proposed Fault) on the south and by the proposed Neuse Fault on the north.

Yet the data presented in their paper is restricted to the area between central New Hanover County and the south side of the New River.

The New River is south of the trace of the proposed Neuse Fault.

No explanation is given as to why the proposed Neuse Fault was chosen as the northern boundary of the block as no data on either the area between the New River and the "Neuse Fault" or the area north of the "Neuse Fault" is provided to show that there is a structural boundary there.

Even if the concept of tilting is adopted, it represents a regional tilt; it does not constitute proof of sharp displacement across a fault boundary.

Zullo and Harris (1979) state that the Waccamaw Sea transgressed only as far inland as the Hanover Scarp (top of scarp elevation less than 10 m, or 35 ft) in the study area while the same sea occupied the Surry Scarp (toe elevation 30 m, or 94 ft) north of the New River and south of the Cape Fear River (Harris and others p. 38).

This they say is evidence that the study area was structurally higher relative to the adjacent areas in the early Pleistocene than at presents

However, their Figure 4 p. 36 shows Vaccamaw-Canepatch equivalents as having been deposited inland from the Hanover Scarp, illustrating that the Hanover Scarp was not the landward limit of the tfaccamaw Sea, and that there is no evidence to indicate that the study area was uplifted

relative to adjacent areas at this time.

Furthermore, the Surry Scarp appears to cross the proposed trace of the "Neuse Fault" without disturbance (Daniels and others, 1966).

In a recently published paper (Harris, 1982), Harris again refers to the "Neuse Fault" and reiterates his previous conclusions presented in Harris and others (1979a and 1979b) and Harris and Zullo (1979),

stating that the Neuse Fault was active in the latest Cretaceous and intermittently throughout the Tertiary as well as in the quaternary.

However, Harris (1982) does not present any new data as evidence for the "Neuse Fault" or movement along it.

2.3 Conclusion In conclusion, no evidence has been presented that proves either the existence of the proposed Neuse Fault or that it has moved in the last 32,000 years.

In addition, the seismicity of the area around the proposed Neuse Fault is discuss'ed in Section 2.S.2 of the SHNPP FSAR.

As shown on Figure 2.5.2-1 of the FSAR there is no seismicity associated with the alignment of the proposed Neuse Fault, and no seismic evidence suggest that the proposed Neuse Fault exists.

YI R0 IHIA I

I

! -~ e-'o

~~+6., ~..

a

~

~ CAPE HATTERAS gEc g5 8 RIV+R I

r 0

++X CAPE I.OOKOVT

~HEW RY<R o" ~ '.

W(uVlIOgrnr4 CAPE FEAR

%~les I +ossd +

Nccc'ris cccxt cAus CI97Va,is)'ame Racsca (ceps Is-sgcadF~.e

+>>

<<sccsrLs~s~v$

4ck-sos (coeds)

REFERENCES Ba>>m, G.R., Harris, W.B., and V.A. Zullo, 1978, Stratigraphic revision of the exposed Middle Eocene to Lower Miocene formations of North

Carolina, Southeastern

Geology,

v. 20, no. 1,, pp. 1-19.

Baum, G. R., Harris, W.B., and Zullo, V.A., 1979, Historical Review of Eocene to Early Miocene Stratigraphy, North Carolina in Baum, Harris and Zullo, (ed.)

Structural and stratigraphic framework for the coastal plain of North Carolina, Field Trip Guidebook, October 19-21,

1979, Carolina Geological 'Society and Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association:

N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community

~ Development:

Raleigh.

pp. 1-16.

Berggren, W.A. and Aubry, M.P., in press, Rb-Sr Glauconite isochron of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, 4~orth Carolina:

Further discussion, Geol.

Soc.

Am. Bull.

Brown, P.M., Miller, J.A. and Swain, F.M., 1972, Structural and stratigraphic framework and spacial distribution of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina to New York, U.S. Geol.

Survey Prof..

Paper

796, 79 p.

Carolina Power

& Light Company, Fi,nal Safety Analysis Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 1-4.

Cooke, C.W., 1941, Two shorelines or seven,:

a discussion:

Am. Jour.

~

~

~

~

~

~

Science,

v. 239, pp. 457-458.

Dali, W.H., and Harris, G.D., 1892, The Neocene of North Carolina:

U.ST Geol. Survey Bull. 84, 349 p.

Daniels, R.B., Gamble, E.E.-,

and Nettleton, W.D., 1966, The Surry Scarp from Fountain to Potters Hill, North Carolina, Southeastern Geology Vol. 7, No ~ 2, pp. 41-50.

Ferenczi, I., 1959.

Structuial Control of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, Southeastern Geology, v. 1, No. 3, pp. 105-116.

Flint, R.F.,

1940, Pleistocene features of the North Carolina coastal plain:

Am. Jour.

Science,

v. 238, pp. 757-787.

Flint, R.F.,

1941, Pleistocene strandlines:

A rejoinder:

Am. Jour.

Science,

v. 239, pp. 459-462.

Gibson, T.G., 1970, Late Mesozoic-Cenozoic tectonic aspects of the Atlantic Coastal Margin:

Geol.

Soc

~ America Bull., vol. 81, pp.

1813-1822.

Gibson, T.G., 1967, Phosphatic Miocene Strata of North Carolina, Geological Soc.

America Bull. v. 78, no.

5

i Harris, W.B., 1982, Geology and mineral resources of the Florence,

Beaufort, Rocky Mount and Norfolk lo x 2o NTMS quadrangles:

National Uranium Resource Evaluation:

Dupont, Savannah River Laboratory:

Aiken, South

Carolina, 88 p.

Harris, W.B., Zullo, V.A., and Baum, G.R.,

1979a, Structural control of Mesozoic-Cenozoic deposition, North and South Carolina Coastal Plain (abs.)

Am. Assoc.

Adv. Science, Abs. of Papers,

p. 106.

Harris, W.B., Zullo, V.A., and Baum, G.R.,

1979b, Tectonic effects on Cretaceous, Paleogene, and early Neogene sedimentation, North Carolina, in Baum, Harris and Zullo, (ed.) Structural and stratigraphic framework for the coastal plain of North Carolina, Field Trip Guidebook, October 19-21, 1979, Carolina Geological Society and Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association:

N.CD Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development:

Raleigh, pp. 19-29.

Harris, W.B. and Zullo, V.A., 1980, Rb-Sr gauconite isochron of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, North Carolina, Geol.

Soc.

Am. Bull. Part I, v.

91, pp. 587-592.

Harris, W.B. and Zullo, V.A., 1982, Rb-Sr glauconite isochron of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, North Carolina:

Discussion and reply, Geol.

Soc.

Am. Bull. v. 93, pp. 182-183.

Hazel, J.E., Bybell, L.M., Edwards, L.E., Jones, G.D., and Ward, L.W., in

press, Age of the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne Formation (Eocene) of North Carolina.

Jones, G.D., 1982, Pb-Sr glauconite isochron of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, North Carolina:

Discussion, Geol. Society America Bull. v.

93, pp. 179-182.

Miller, J.A.,

1982, Stratigraphy, structure and phosphate deposits of the Pungo River Formation of North Carolina, North Carolina Dept. of Nat.

Resources and Com. Development, Division of Land Resources - Geol.

Survey Section Bull. 87, 32 p.

Mixon, R.B. and Pilkey, O.H., 1976, Reconnaissance geology of the submerged and emerged Coastal Plain Province, Cape Lookout area, North Carolina:

U.S. Geol.

Survey Prof. Paper

859, 45 p.

Oaks, R.g.,

and Dubar, J.R. (ed),

1974, Post-Miocene Stratigraphy, central and southern Atlantic Coastal Plain:

Logan, Utah, Utah State Univ. Press, 275po Otte, L.J., 1979, Origin of an outlier of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone in Duplin County, North Carolina, in Baum, Harris and Zullo, (ed.)

Structural and stratigraphic framework for the coastal plain of North Carolina, Field Trip Guidebook, October 19-21, 1979, Carolina Geological Society and Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association:

N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development:

Raleigh.

pp. 51-58.

Otte, L. J.,

1981, Petrology of the exposed Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone of i

North Carolina, Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 166p

~

Stephenson, L. W., 1923, The Cretaceous formations of North Carolina:

N.C. Geol.

and Econ.

Survey, v. 5, 604p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, 1982, Earthquake Design

Analysis, Phase I report:

Philpott Dam, (Wilmington, N.C., March 1982).

Ward, L.W., Lawrence, D.R., and Blackwelder, B.W., 1978, Stratigraphic revision of the middle Eocene, Oligocene, and lower i~fiocene-Atlantic Coastal, Plain of North Carolina:

U.S. Geol.

Survey Bull. 1457-F, 23

Wheeler, W.H., Daniels, and Gamble, E.E.

1979 Some strati hi bl the Pl grap c pro ems of Forest e

eistocene strata in the area from Neuse River E t H f e

s uary to o mann

orest, North Carolina, in Baum, Harris and Zullo, Structural and stratigraphic framework for the coastal plain of North Carolina, Field Trip Guidebook, October 19-21, 1979, Carolina Geological Society and Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association:

N. C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development:

Raleigh.

pp. 41-50.

Zullo U.A.

an d Harris, W.B., 1979, Plio-Pleistocene Crustal war in in h

outer Coas a

astal Plain of North Carolina, in Baum, Harris and Zullo, (ed.)

Structural and stratigraphic framework for the coastal plain of North Carolina, Field Trip Guidebook, October 19021 1979 C li aro na eo ogical Society and Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association:

N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development:

Ral '~h pp. 19-29.

men erg

r A ~

E us nannoplank ton evidence.

In a Eocene age ase b

d on the calcareous na s

(19S2) has presented'vidence critique o

t e

f h

above s tudies Jones su es ting that the Castle Hayne f"om planktonic foramini fera sugges ting

(

ddle Eocene, Lutetxan Stage),

Fo matron xs of Zone P 11-12 age mx e

o s

and Zullo (19S2) defend and retain their

~Wile, in a reply, Harris and Zullo Ia te oce E

ene age interpretation.

t both as. calibration dates are importan Accur a te r ada.ome tr zc checks in the formulation of geological porn oints and consist'ency checks xn t e tame-scales.

1 dated levels so that they y

ma serve as control on radiometrically ate cks u on each other as additional data are internal consistency checks upon eac o

e

~

~

~

piled over the years.

he a

e of the Eocene/Oligocene

" of thougnt regarding the age o

t e

o e is recis e bios tr atigr aph xc Of paramount impor tance is pre ther e have developed t~o T.n recent year s

~er os Ma a vocal minority (Odin, 1978; Glass and Odin et al., 1978'lass and I

~

~

980 1982) believe the boundary xs Zvartt 1977. Harris and Zullo, 1

s chools r

en, 1972; Hardenbol and ll d orthodox school (Berggren, bo'mdary, a so-ca e

o boundar has an age of -bout 37 r n 1978) +ho believe that the boundary as an as taken an n er ca.

33-34 Ma.

A third group has considerably

younger, ca.

33-the 34-35 Ma range.

h a

e estimates xn interm diate position +it g

undin Paleogene chronology xn because o f the controversy surroun xng a

in ar ticular, Me have E cene/Oligocene boundary xn pa

general, and the Eocene stud

and,

-hat Me t on this particular s

u y d to make a

commen on decade 1 s.

In or er o

d t

treat the problem xn

view, as sone sone

-nomalous resu t

3 0 necessar to b. ing in data from a 1 ts proper p

e perspective it is necessary to rum of Paleogene variety of fx,eras an d to range over a spectrum to ver

~e shall try, to the extent possib e, s tra ti graphy.

Ho~ever,

~e s

a

try, as

ossible, to middle Focene and confine the discussion, as much as possi e,

upper Eocene stratig.aphy.

'0 Q A comprehensive revie~ of Paleogene o

and mgneto-and radiochrcnology, and a

and chr onos tr ati graphy, an m ~ne b in re ared by M-A ~

s d Paleogene time scale zs eing p

p-thoroughly revise a

eo 1 mn.

In this paper we s>>all Dennis Kent and John T. Flynn.

n Ber ggren, de onstrate t at h-the C as tie Hayne For-a tron:

earl uartonian)

age, 1) s of late

~ac e

~o

'dl

" cene (late Lutetxan to ear y "

eral zone P12, nor younger ls no ol Ger t a

1

-h-n plank tonic forminifera "h

u er Zone P12 to t lilcely correlative vit upp than Pl4, and is mos C

Zcne P 13

~

nannoplan'k ton Zones NP le (upper par t) to 3) belongs to calcareous nannop

~

hP17 (lo-er part),

4) the interv al r epr es en ted b 'a-netac as a ruximum spans 7.

= 45-41 ZO to 18 (= 4e-42 Va, Laa.rec" ue et al.,

197 polar i ties Ya, 1:ess et al., 1980),

bracice ting the base o f 1977

= 42-41.5 Via, hes as a

zn.mum spans ta e in re rval.

anom ly 18 (= 43-42.5; La Brecque et a

s et al., 1980).

1 h

~ tha t ava ilable oa ta no'a su ppor t an

~ ge Further

~e shall.

s o.~ t a

3e.5-37.'or the eocene!01 igocecene boundary.

CUSSI0."

Ve shall address ourselves ro various points oints raised in the "s by Harr s

and Zullo {1980, 1982) and the cri tique by Jones e

s by Harr s

and Zu 982) and present our c~n inter pretat ons and ev d evaluations of bl' d

ra as sell "s our o.>>v inves tigations on moterial u-plied to us of the Cas tie Hayne For.~tion.

C e

ios tr a tlgra phy Calcareous

ÃannoplanP ron d to calcareous The Castle rayne E

h C" '- ~e Eor-ation has been assi ne Jl lankton zones YP'1'19 d 20 b

Tu co et al. (3979) and Morsley T

and Tur co nd Turco (1979) based pri arily on tne basis of the presence o

ol".

s (eel Ãeococcclichrres)

ouhius, Chia no

-~.oli thus r.r wdis and

-h r tata.

They ment on t'ne

• -'""'""s

""'"'ossibility t

a

'b 1

h t "the Castle Ha)~e extencs doh n into tne Middle ch a lk on S r. a te Rou te Eocene lf one in f'

e ncludes zn outlier of =ocene c

701, which belcn"s to Zone...

. Y~>8 (considered of late Eocene age) on adians

-'ith a form "inca".neoiace he;ueen Z. Iohsus and

-~d Turco, 1979:

72) ~

1 chrc,oli".hus recuruuc" ('ao:slay Jones

{1982: 180) observed that all the calcareous nannoplanr ton cava ce". tioned by Vorsley aad Turco (1979: 71) from the ectos tr atoty pe Cas rle Hayne Fere cion "have;or ld vide 5 tratl graphic r

ch s he is corr anges chat extend

'cocle I

ect.

Harris and Zullo into the cii dd le Eocene".

In (198":

182) r epl y cha t ther e

5.

are th. ee taxa 1 is ted by Vorsley and Turco (1979)

-erich "unequivocally have ranges beginning above the niddle Eocene

[ Ch ias-...ol ith us Helicos ~haer a reticula tz (T.R. Vorsley, personal co~un.) "].

shou> d be borne in ind here that these species names are derived fry a list of tax-identified in liorth Carolina Coastal Plain ~ella

('L>orsley and Turco, 1979: 70),

tuo of i~ich penetrated strata assigned to the Cas tie Hayne Forration.

Let us look closer at these thr ee taxa:

a.

Chiasnolithus oa-..aruensis is listed only as a "?" in a single sa=ple (230'elo~

the sur ace) in the Evans il nell."

.li-..es tone in both ~elis (Evans 81 and 1-0 core) and in the upper part of the outcrop lectostratot;pe.

This taxon has been

'I recorded in several tropical sites in Zone

',i?16 (Huller, 1976:

612),

and Y~rtini (1976:

383) has indica ted that this

-axon has its initial appearance in the Equatorial Pacific much 'earlier than in h i"h la titudes.

This s p cies has been ob erved in Zone liP16 in several sites frc.

the Atlant-c, Pacific and Indian oceans (L.ubry, vc:k in pr ogr es s ).

c.

Helicos~haera re ticulata is not 1 is ted in either of the too

<elis that penetrated t?>e Cas tie Hayne For ~tion fry which 4'orsley and Turco (1979:

70) lis ted taxa, but it appears on a

char t oi co=.posite ranges of

. aleogene calcareous nannoplankton taxa to be res trio<ed to Zo ies t P 19 and 20 (i'orsley nd Turco,

6.

1979:

69) 1'ave ro vay of evaluating the stratz~~aphr.c dis tribution of this taxa relative to the Cas tie hayne rorma ~ion.

Nore pe. tinent to the problem of the ages of the C stle ha>ee a lis ted a=orson tion is the genex al nature of the calcareous nannoflox'om th gr-~d s

top of, is io-.cat'on.

1:eococcolith'es dub:us and Ch asnolrthus beca e extinct in the lates t r.;iodle r.ocene, g ithin or at the Zone VP17.

The latter taxon has its LAD close to the top of Zone hP17, appz'oximately coincident uith the FM) of Chias olithus oamar uens is and,

indeed, the LCD of C. gr-",dis is often used -to denote the hp17/18 boundary in ins tances g:here C. oa-.~ruensis is ox'bsent'.

c:

n their rbus "rocerus has been

-ugge seed to be a

~

~

~

ful r ".ker form for d stingueshing middle and upper rocene strata

{3ukry and 3ra-lette, 1959),

~ad 3ybell and Garine.

((1972) recorded "exico it from the upper middle ibcene of the Gulf Coas t, France,

exico, 3r a" il, the Indian Ocean, wd JOXD=S nole 3

~rom t re he 31-ie Plateau.

Tn figure 3

g-e have listed rhe %no;-n global ranges oi the var 'ous calcareous nannoplan'on taxa men tione

~

d b Vorsley and Turco (1979) from the Cas tie.Hayne Eorcaation and by Jon. es (1982) from a 1

r n.

ln suppo ed (outcrop) equivalent of tne Castle il yne or,atio llected b

the addition ~e have exa...ined several samples (222043-coll y

U.S. Geological Sur~ey and C&

. 1-2, fxom approximately the same stratigraphic level as R220~-E, collected by Gary Jones, Union Oil a

i Co. of Cali forn a) from For-,.- tion {as des cr ibed the Comfort Hember of the Castle Hayne b

Vard et "l., 1978) at the lectostx'atotype y

ar e

locali ty of Bsc~ et al.

(1978) in the Bar tin arietta Company

~

~

7.

trry, Nev Hanover County, North Carolina

{see Fig. 2).

Xn p-~4

.'ition,.c-ards et al. (in press) list the nannoflora and no flagella tes from. the Co-fort Me&er at this locality.

The Rb-Sr

-uconite isochron date of 34.8+1 Ma ~as obtained from a

=ra tig aphic level between samples R2204C and D (Harris, 1979; ullagar and others, 1980; Harris and Zullo, 1980).

Samples R2204B

,Ne~ Hanover Member of Nard et al.,

1978),

and C from the lo'-er c fort Member are virtually barren; hob:ever, samples R2204D and E ~

nd Ch~-2 cont in a numerically scarce but rather diversified, "derately well preserved calcareous "annoflora.

venty-six taxa have been ioentified in samples R2204D and E and ss from the Castle Hay~e Formtion (see Table 1).

Nine of these have their

.FAD in the early middle.ocene (NP14,'hP15) or 'earlier and range into the late Eocene or younger (Discoaster barbadiensis, D. saioanensis Z.thablithus b~i:,u atua, Ericsonia fo~osa, C clococcolithus

luminus, Chi smlithus titus, Coccolithus

~el" ricus, hicranrholithus vesper and Lanrernithus inntuu)s.

A further nine have their FAD in the late middle Eocene (Zone NP16) and extend into the late Eocene or younger:

Reticulofenestra

bisecta, Helicosohaera

~con scca, Cvciococcoiithus florid-.nus, Coccolithus eopelaaicus, Reticulofenestra reticulata, R.

samodurovx, S:x taxa are restricted to the middle Eocene Sohenolithus ~in rer.

u t e tian-Bar tonian'):

Micr an thol ithus cr enul a tus CI vci 'pia col ithus

delus, Viseorhsbdus i ra~use, C clococcoiirhus oseudoco='ron,

8.

tos~haera

~i moidalis and RNabdosphaera spxnula.

iculofenes t=a reticulata first appears in Zone hP16 and

~ciolacolxt us e

us 1

h d

1 became extinct within Zone hP17

~

Altnough

~rl kno-n the last occurrence of C clococcolithus pse ooza~ation

-xtnxn tne upper p

er p-"t of "one hP16 or lc-er part of Zone P.D.

asequently it appears that the Cas tie Hayne ro =tron can e

si~~ed e'ther to tne upper part of Zone hP16 or to tne lo-er part f Zone hP17.

On the asis of the absence of the species vnxch

{C e

aracterize epicontnentzl sedx~ents belonging to Zone hP17 P

"""'-henolithus celsus a

oa

--oi others Aubry, cwork in progress),

ve prefer an ass gnmen the Cas tie Hayne Forr, t'n to cane i,P16.

The ack f

h

~

I:. of the "onal markers has no significance since Ch.'asmol

. is 1'-n

~

soli tus as '-'ell as Chias-..olitnus rand s are

absent, or very.are in s' in shally-iater sedi-enrs

~ the other hand, if the Castle Hayne Porm tion had been of late Eocene age

{hp19-20), one could have expected the f I..

1 h"

-ecurvus a form kr;oi~ to occur co"~only xn occur entice of Isl..oilt "5 shal lo-. epicon tinen tel env xronmen ts.

lt is clear that tne stgatigrapnic overl p

la o f taxa sh oiv zn Fig.

3 occurs in the interval of the upper part of Zone hP16 and the lo'-'er part, of Zone hP17.

The calcareous nanno pianI'on ev xoen ce suggcs ts i 1ch ls that the Cas tie Hayne belongs to rhe interval of ~one hP of la te Lu te r ian to ""ar tonian Age

{la te.ixdd xe

octane, C vel ier and Po;.orol, 19i6; Her denbol and Parggren; r n.

1978).

P 3 ank t oni c For amini fer a Jones (19S2) has dra<<n attention to the fact that Harris and Zullo (19SO) in~ica te that planktonic for actini feral evidence sugges ts that the Cas tie Hayne Forms tion is of =iddle Eocene (Claibornian) age but do not ci te the evidence.

ne then cites data Li ra his o"n detail ed Ph.D. studies (Jones

}98 1 ) <<hich clearly indic-te a -'dle =ocene age for the Czs tie Hayne =cr= tion-In their reply Harr s

and Zullo (}982: 182) dis-iss Jones'1982) evidence <<ith the state'ent that "a list of species

<<.Lich are not fi red does not..."

as Jones (1982:

181) stat s..."prove the iddle

-ocene age of the Cas tie <<ayne corelation..."

(The same can be said for the calcareous nannoplank ton lists provided by Vcrsley and

Turco, 1979 upon <<erich Harris ud Zullo relied so heavily for their paleo>-.tological cal ibr ation but the authors conveniently overlook this point.)

i a ris, and Zullo (19S2:

}S2) dismiss Jones'vidence on the basis that evidence presented based on data from a Ph.D-dissertation in progress is a preconceived conclusion made prior to co-.-letion of and in cr'i II tical revie~ of the <<ork".

Ho'-'ev er, th ey could have ava i1 ed the> >s elves

) in preparing their reply (:=.arris and Zullo, 1982) to Jones'1952) critique, of Jones'1981)

Ph.D.

t'nes is and the evidence con tained therein.

This ~e ha'e done, in addi tion to e>am n

'n Q ter ial fro~ samples

.rom the Cast? e Hayne For-.a ticn.

s 10.

J ones (1981, 1982) has documen ted a taxonomically var "ed, if numerically poor in some

cases, planktonic foriniferal fauna (l~ich he assigns to upper Zones Pll and P12) in the lectostrato-f type(s) and other outcrops of the Castle'Hague Eormation and core samples from nine counties in North Carolina.

The taxonomic co-position (low-conical moro ovellids, non-carinate acarininids and Truncorotaloides i.al.) is typical of the iddle Eocene.

We have examined the same sa'mples mentioned above (under the Calcareous Nanno plank ton).

Foramini fera are present in all samples and we have verified essentially the same planktonic foramini feral fauna as that cited by Jones (1981, 1982) although not all the tzxa he mentions have been obs erv ed owing to small sample s i-es.

Never tnel ess the presence of Acarinina bullbrooki, Truncorotaloides collactea, T.

rotnri, planorotalites rant i...oro=ovella ~sinulosa-coronata troop represent a typical'iddle Eocene fauna similar to that repor ted by J ones (198 1, 1982).

In Fig.

0 we have plotted the stratigrap;iic ranges (Berggren, 1977; Blow, 1979) of some of the stratigraphically diagnostic taxa documented by Jones (1981, 1982) from the Castle Hayne Forr~tion.

The presence of Acarinina, Trcncorotaloides and Horozovella precludes an age assignment of the Castle Hayne Formation younger than Zone F 14 or basal P15 (Blow, 1979; figs. 50, 53, 58-61; p..

290-292).

The overlap of diagnostic taxa occurs within the interval of Zones P12 and F13.

However, there are several indica tions that

11.-

h s

can be narrowed do<<rn to the, interval of Zone P13, na-ely the o."esence of flanorocalires ".eoti, Yore-ore>la 1ehneri,

>>. coronara, G

!ubique;ansis h-sleri, Acarinina bullb:oohi all of uwich have

\\

s s

e

<<mich has its FAD in this Zone (Blm, 1979).

H rr is and Zullo (1982:

182) note that Huddles tun (in a personal co-municat:on, 1981) attributes the Castle Hague For=ation to Zone P13 based on an examination of numerous fora-iniferal samples from this unit.

At the same t me they observe that Huddles tun has some misgivings about some of the species or their rages

{Jones, 1982) 1 r

1 1

~

s a a

~

Questions the aosence in Jones

{1982) list of such taxa as Globo".otalia bullbrooki."-"pili, G. cr-s -ta, G. cr-ssu)a, G. dense, G. r c tundirar "-ina ta

-" d G.

s inulcinfla ta, <<bich are co.mon to I

abundant in

.iddle>>ocene deposits.

They then conclude that this "indicates a problem in the planktic for~~iniferal data".

Does it really.

Ve harply think so, if one is familiar <<eith the taxonomy of

~

e f e

planktonic fora= nz fera.

I a.

Ac-:inina b 11bror:i is holotypa of the l~itter a sen'or s>won>.s of '.carinina dense (the taxon hav ng been los t (~ez ggr en, 1977-

260, 261; Blo<<, 1979: 915-917).

Jones (1981) describes it from the Castle Hayne Forma tion and provides an excellent I

illustration (pl. 7, figs. 15-17) from core CR-C2-79, 57 ft. 8

'n., Craven Coun ty ~

12.

Globorotakia crassata is best considered normen non conservancum

{Blo<<', 1979:

1013) because of the loss of the lectotype selected by Bandy (1964) for Gush-an's

(}925) taxon.

The re~xnxng sy~typic se.ies of speci=ens do not appear to be synonymous

<<'xth r

Bandy's (1964) lee totype.

0n the other hand, observations xn 1967 by Berggren and Slo<<'see Per"gren, 1977:

247) have sho<<n thar. eras. ata Cushman,

!9Z5 = ~sinulosa Cu 'h'zn'927.

Th is is confiraod by subsequent studies in 1970 on tne type materxal of these taxa (31o-,

1977:

1012-1013) except that the holo type o f crassata had been los t in the inter'.

Blo~ {1979: 1012-1013) gges 'ts sobs tlcu tlon 0 f

~

~

~

previously attributed to the ne sp'nuit a for those forms crassata as ";ell as form subsequently xdentxzled as solnulosa in the literature.

A ne~ subspecses spinulosa corcnata (BToi, 1979:

1016-1017)

<<as described for

~

~

fo ms <<ith a "core Midely open (not closed) u-bxllcus <<bien xs surrounoe y a c

d b oronet of muricae borrse on t'ne ventral

t"c-.it'es of th u bilical shoulders of the cha-bers of the last convolution.o t

e 1

. f h

test".

Its rance is fro= Zone P10 P13 (Slo<<1979:

1017).

Again,'orozovella splnul os@ ls 1is ted an Sl o-,

illustrated by 3ones (1981: pl. 8, figs.

0-

)

1 -12) fro~ the Castle Hayne Por=ation, <<!ell CR-A40-62, and from reuse

River, Stop 1, Cr-uen County.

!ts morpho!ogy is t>pica!! of N. coron-"a

( nd it is lis ted as sucn in Fig. 3).

~

13.

Acar inina rotuncimar~ina ta Subbo ina, 1953 xs conspecx fxc vxth Globorotalia szinuloinflata iolli, 1957 (non Bandy, 1949) and both are synonymous ~ith Globorotal ia {vel Truncorotaloides) col laccaa

'Finlay, 1939 (3ank na, 1971:

134; gecggcen, 1977:

261-262; Blo'~, 1979: 919)..carinina (vel Truncorotaloides) rotundi-.arzinata

= T. col lactea is present in Castle Hayne s-mples c:e have exa ined frere tne a.artin Harietta Quarry m

{Subbotina) by Jones (1981: pl. 7, figs. 12-14) from the Ideal Ce, ent Company guarryg bee Hanover County, North Carolxna and a

gyell 5"-A-T.-38, "aaufort County, !'orth Carol na.

Globorotal ia crassula Cush=n and Ste'-'art is 'a Ul d-P liocene-P 1 eis tocere taxon and its p

es ence xn the C as tie Hayne Forration -ould b0 cause for considerable alarm.

Xn su= ary, the bios trz tigraphic evioence of calcareous nannoplankton (tiP16-17) and planktonic foraminifera {P12-P13) are xn close agreement in as igning the Castle Hayne to the late mxddle Eocene (la te Lute tian to early "-ar ton ian..ge).

0

~,

14.

Dino fle el la tes f

Dinof'.agellate biostratigraphy of the Comfort ember of the Cas tie Hayne Formation lee tostra totype is treated

'n greater detail by Lucy Ed.-ards in ~~'el et al. (this volume).

Suffice to observe here that the microflora indicate correlation Mith the upper part of 7

/

turn, sugges ts an ~ge ass ig.sment no older than the Areosphaeridium l".

arcuatus (B-4) Assemblage Zone nor younger than the C clone helium intricatum (B-5) Assemblage Zone

( aton, 1976)

Bujak et al. )

1980) of the upper Bracklesham Beds of the Isle of. Right.

These latter tg-o zones are only slightly lo~er (older) than the basal Bar tonian He e:aul cac s

a ~prose (sar-1)

Asse-blage Zone (guzzk er al.,

9$ 0) g~ich is equivalent to the lo-er part of the Rhombodinium draco Zone (Cos ta and Do-nie, 1976).

.The Bracklesham Beds correspond pre-dominantly to the Lutet an S age of the Par.s Basin:

the uppermost part corresponds to the basal part of the Auversian (Chateauneuf and Gruas-Cavagne t to, 1978:

72,76; Cha teauneuf, 1980: fig. 45).

The upper part of the stratotype Lutetian belongs to Zone NP16 (Aubry, in prep.),

and it and the lo~er part of the Auversian beds are placed in the Vetzeliella aff. articulata Zone by Chateauneuf and Gruas-Cavagne tto (1978, 1980).

The overlying Auvers ian beds (upper HPl6, Aubry, in prep.;

and equivalent to the log'er Bar tonian) are placed in the Rhobodinium draco Zone (!oc. cit. ).

Thus the dino-flagellate stratigraphy sugges ts a latest Lutetian or earliest Bar tonian age assignment for the Comfort 8'ember of the Castle Hayne For m t i on.

15.

Ya cne tob iochr onology Recent corr e1a tio~, between calcareous plankton bios trati gr aphy and r"gnetostra tigraphy in tne Con tessa section(s),

Gubbio, italy (Lo'-rie, A varez et zl., 1982) provide additional constraints on the cnr onolo gy of th e C as tie Ha ime Forum tion:

g 1.

The L-'.0 of Chits pl i thus grraud s is ass oui=-ted ui-.h upper

="-gnetic anomaly 18 (LoT<ie, Alvarez et al.,

1982)-

2.

The T'AD of Horozovella lenne-i (Zone Pll/12 boundary) is I

associated with ~id-ano=aly 20, the LAD of Tr g~cor'otaloides

'/

t bou cary) is associated with the top of anocaly 18, and the e> t ~ e ely brief Zone.F13 xs sho-n to br~c~et the base of anc-e

~

~

~

18 (Lo=.ie) Alvare'z et al.,

1982).

I ~

The h'os ratigr-ph'io data 'reuie-ed

-hove suggest] that the Cas tie riayne r or-a tion't an outside -=xi,m could s pan, or be located within the interval between, ano alies 20 and 18.

At a

.. nz=.~a, 1t is correl~tive with an interval bracketing the base o f anc-sly }8.

~l n tcrva1 20.

The chr Ve sugges,t that the b

a eke ted by the top onology derived fran

.ost probable correlation is within of anoc:aly 19 to the top o f anomaly a purely magnetic stratigraphy..

(La"=recque et al e

e 1977) or an integrated bios tra tigraphically calibrated

. gnetos tratigraphy (loess et al.,

1980) are quite s irilar, the former h-'v ing bean based on lateral or downward (ol der) linear extr polaticn based on the assu...ption of constant rates of

16.

sea-floor s pr ea ding from radiometric ca libra tion points between 0

time and the 1a te

Heogene, the 1at ter scale having been prepared by inter po'.ation between the same'ate

>'eogene pal eon to 1 ogi ca 1 ly con trol 1 ed b iochr on ologi c calibration points and a

age es ti-a te near ano-aly 24 and the Paleocene/:-ocene.

bo~wdary.

The values of these two scales (in '~a) are shown below in Table 2.

'ZA3LE 2.

LaBreccu et al.

Ness et al..

zno~aly tiu'ciber (le77)

(1980)

Ano.".aly 18 42.44 42.88 41.40 41.82 Ano= ly 20 44.85 46.40

43. &9 45.18 Table 2

~ Estimated

..agnetic chronology of ano;,alies lS and 20 (top and bottoa valUes sho-n in proper vertical order) in Pa.

18.

Table 2

sho.-s tQat the Cas tie Hayne Forration has an age range o f = 45 41 Via (-a xi~un), but if, as the bros tr at> graphic evidence presented he e suggests, it is essentially corre a tive with an interval bracketed by ano;.alies 19 and 20, its age should be ~ore properly in the 43 45 Ha range.

This value should be co=pared

~ith the Bb-Sr isochron date of 34.,=.+1 Ya ob ained on the Castle Hayne ror-ation (Pullager, 1979; Harris and Zullo, 1980).

AGE OP THE EOCENE/OLIGOCENE BOL~lDPDY Harris and Zullo (1980:

591) indicate that tne "volcanic ages of Eve nden and others (1964) the glauconite ages of Ghcsh (1972) and of 0 in and others (1978),

and the ~i>-otektite ages of G ass and others (1973 ) and Glass and Z~'ar t (1977 ) ind ca a ra ch younger age f than the 37-37.5

..a suggested by Funnell, 1964;

Berggren, 1972; and Hardenbol and Ber algren, 1978] for the boundary, beti'een 33-35

..a ~"

"Od'n et al-They ci te in support of their vie-point t.ne fact that 4

(1978) deternined glauconite ages of rarine sequences in'England (type Bar ton Beds) [apparently unaware that he Bar tonian is of late c'idcle Eocene age, bios tratigraphically apprc>:irately equivalent to Zones P13-P14 and>>P16-NP17-Hardenbol and Bergg" en, 1978]

and in Gerr" ny and sugges ted that the age of the boundary

~'as about 33 n.y."

19.

It is i=possible to enter into a detailed analysis of the prob le s associa ted ~i'th the var ious age es tima tes made on the Eocene/Oligocene boundary.

This is currently being done by

Berggren, Kent and Flynn and vill be presented elsewhere.

Suffice at this point to make several observa tions.

The (revised) glauconite deter-'-.',ations made by Odin et al.

(1978: 487) on the type Barton Beds (ca.

39-40 ~w) are vie'~ed as anomalous in the light of other evidence dis'cussed belo~.

2.

A K-Ar (glauconite) date of 37.5+0.5

..a has been obtained (Gr~nn et al.,

1975) on the Siberberg Beds at Helms tedt, NW s

G=r ary l-ith a calcareous nannoflora assigned to Zone

<<P21 3.

(Hartini, 1971; Haq, 1972) -5ich brackets the Eocene/Oligocene bol~dary.

A ".'-ber of K-Ar (glauconite) dates have been obtained from the underlying Gehlberg Beds at Helms tedt ranging in age from 37.4 39.6+0.7 ?a.

The biostratigraphic position of these beds is 4.

difficult to determine, but they are certainly Iate Eocene in age and pos t Zoneq hp15-16.

K-Ar (glauconite) dates of 36.4+0.7 Ye and of 39.4+0.9 Yx and 39

~ 6+0.6 Mw, have been obtained (Gramann et al.,

1975) on the

upper, aod lover, part, respectively of the Ostres oueteleti Beds at Lehrte, east of Hannover, ~ith a similar HP21 flora

(..ar tini, 1971;

Haq, 1972).

20.

5.

Ghosh (1972) has obtained si ilar V,-Ar (g!auconi e) dates.of 37.6 Ha on the Pachuta He ber (Jackson Formtion), 37.9 Ha on I

the Shubuta He'ber (Jackson Formation),

38.2 Ha on the Hoodys Branch Formation, and 39

~u and 39.4 Ha on the Yahoo Formtion all of ~Sich are of late Eocene (Priabonian) a'ge.

The Pachuta and Shubuta P~bers of the Jackson Formation contain a latest Eocene P16-P17 fauna and a hP19/20 and hp21 flora, respectively (Bybell, 1982).

The da tes of Ghosh (1972) support those obtained in NW Ger=any and the age estiazte of 37 Ha =ade for the Eocene/Oligocene boundary by Hardenbol and Berggren (1978)

~

In fact it ias prirarily on the basis of Ghosh's (1972) deter-'ra tions that Hardenbol and Berggren (1978: 228, fig. 6) chose the value of 37.0 in esti-a ing the age of th s 'boundary.

The statement by Harris and Zullo (1980: 591) that the ages of Ghosh (1972) support a younger age estimate is surprising in this con text.

6.

The volcanic ages of Evernden et al. (1964) do not, zs Harris and Zullo contend. (1980: 591), support a signi ficantly younger (ca.

33-35 Ha) age for the Eocene/Oligocene boundary.

Cabined

'\\

studies on ~agnetostratigraphy and makalian biostratigraphy on continental sections of Chadronian land=am~1 "age" in >o key sections at Flags taff Rim, Na troma County and

.oads tool Park, Sioux County, liebraska and the integration of four high te pera ture K-Ar da tes

( vernden et al.,

1954) on ash-beds in the Flags ta ff Rin section have recently provided iapor tant and

21.

much needed calibration points for, and constraints

upon, mad-Ter tx ary ma gne to geo chr onol ogi cal scales (P rothero and

Denham, 1981; Prothero et. al., in press a,b).

ihe radio-and magnetochronologic relationships are as follows (Proth'ero et al., in press a,b).

The top of anomaly 12 is dated at 32.4 Ha, the top of anomaly 13 at 34.6 Pa, a level in the reversed polarity interval bet. een anomalies 12 and 13 at 33.5 Ma, and the 1

base of anomaly

13. at 36.1 Ma.

Recalibration of the radiometric ates (37.4. and 37.7 Pa) an the Sracks Rhyolite'~Sich lies strati-graphically below the Ash Spring and Airstrip local faunas

(=

Chadronzan land -.~r-al "age")

~ of the Capote Mountain Formation,

'-ega Group, South.>>est Texas nd reinterpretation of the m" gnetic polarity stratigraphy of Testar~ta and Gose (1979)

~'mich suggests" that the Bracks Rhyolite may be associated

.-i h the anomaly 15-16 interval provides limiting dates on a late Eocene level.

Thus the anomaly 12 (top) to 15-16 interval is bracketed by high temperature K-Ar dates of ca.

32.4 37.7 Ha

~

Vhere, in this sequence, does the Eocene/Oligocene boundary 4

lze.

Integrated calcareous planktonic bios tra t-graphic studies in

~

8

~

the Mediterranean (Lo~rie, Alvarez et al.,

1982) and on hydraulic piston cores ta'r en by the Glomar Challenger for the Deep Sea Drilling Project in the South Atlantic (Poore, personal cor=.unication, 1982) have sho-a that the Eocene/Oligocene

boundary, determined by the LAD's of Turborotalia cocoaensis-cerroazu1ensis

22.

group, Hantkenina, and the rosette shaped discoas ters D.

~

~

~

~

~

~

the interval of reversed polarity between anomalies 13 and 15.

In terms of he radiometrically calibrated magnetostratigraphy cited above the Eocene/Oligocene boundary would be constrained by the limiting values of ca.

36.1 (near the base of anomaly 13) and 37.4 and 37.1.w (within the anomaly 15-16 interval).

A nu-erical value of about 37 Yw is suggested by the radiometric data, which the K-Ar (glauconite) dates cited above appear to support.

Alternatively a magnetochronologic age es timate can be made based upon -Rich time-scale is used.

That of LaBrecque et al.

(1977) yields an age estimate closer to 36.5 Ha, that of Ness et al. (1980) an estimate of about 35.7 Ha, clearly too young.

Ve disagree wi th the conclusion expressed by rullager and others (1980,

p. 430) that t'e C

iborne/3ac'..son boundary is between 35-37 Ha and that the Eocene/Oligocene boundary is less than 34 Ma based on their K-Ar (glauconite) date of 34:8+1 Mu on the Castle Hayne Limestone, 36.7+0.6

~u on the Santee Limestone of South Carolina

(=

Cubi tcstrea lisbcnensis and C. sellaeformis assemblage zones

= Zone NP16-17

= Zone P12-L3) and 34.1+1.5 Ma also on the Santee Limestone of South Carolina.

The Santee Limestone is essentially correlative with the Cas tie Hayne For=a tion, and is of la te kidd le Eocene (Lutetian-Bartonian) age.

The dates cited by P'ullagar and others (1980) and Harr is and Zullo (1980) are from upper

'ddle Eocene s tra ta and do not prov ide age es tima tes of la te Eocene chronology.

t a

23.

A C Y2(0'~ LEDG..EHTS Me would like'o thank our co an our colleagues Joe Hazel, Lucy Edwards and Laurel Bybell, U.S.

Geolo ical eo logical Survey, Res ton, Virginia, and Gary Jones, Union Oil Cun an i

cepany, Brea, Cali fornia f r d

or prov 1 1ng s~pl es for th is s tud d

u y, an for discuss u

ions, advice,

~ and eventually their critical review o" t of the ~nuscript of t~ is pa per.

Their experience in Atlantic aid to u

to us xn preparing Coastal Plain stra i ratigraphy has proved a great this cr itigue.

eophysxcs Brach of the bational SScience Foundation.

This is "

a

.s xs Voods Hole Oceanographic ion Contribu" ion ho.

5246.

I ns titution The research of one of us (V.A.B.

ha

...B.) has been sponsored by grant numbers OCE-80-19052 to M

( to M. A.B. ) and OCE-80-08829

(

to g

to Bruce Corlxss, hHOI) frcra the Sub=-

e u -ar one Geolog and G

24.

Bandy, O.L., 1949, Eocene and Oligocene fora inifera from Little Stave Creek, Clarke County, Alabama.. Bulletin of American Pal eon to 1 ogy, v. 32, no.

131.

Berggren, W.A., 1972, A Cenozoic time-scale some impl ica tions for regional geology md paleobiogeography.:

Lethaia, v. 5, p.

195-215.

Berggren, W.A., 1977, Atlas of Paleogene planktonic foraminifera:

Some species Mo ozovel1 a, ed.,

Oce anic 205-299.

o f the genera Subbo tina, P lanorotalites, Acar inina and Truncorotaloides:

in Ramsay, A.T. S.,

Micropaleontology,

London, Academic Press,

v. 1, p ~

Blo~, V.H., 1979, The Caino oic Globiger n da.:

Leiden, E. J.

Brill, part 2, p. 753-1413.

Bujak, J.P., Do"nie,';, Eaton, G.L. and Willia s, G.L.,

1980, Dino-flagellate cysts and acritarchs from the Eocene of southern England.

'Special Paper Palaeon tology, Ho. 24, p. 1-100

~

Bukry, D.,

and Bramlet te, M.H., 1969, Some new and s tratigraphically useful calcareous nannofossils of the Cenozoic..

Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, v. 7, no. 3, p.

131-142

~

Bybell, L., 1982, Late Eocene to early Oligocene calcareous nanno-fossils in Alabama and Mississippi.

T. ans. Gulf Coast Assoc.

Geol.

Soc.

Bybell, L. and Gartner, S.,

1972, Provincialism among mid-Eocene calcareous nanno fossils.: Micropaleontology, v.

l8 i no.

3a P ~

3 19-336.

25.

~

~

Cavelier, C.

and Ponerol, C.,

1976, Les rapports entre le Bartonian et le Pr abon an. 'nc dence sur la position de la 1'c:i e Eocene

-oyen-.ocene superieur

Rendu, N. 2, p.

49 51.

Societe Geologique de France, Compte G

Chateauneuf, J.-J.,

1981,

./

de 1'Eocene superieur Palywos tratigraphie et Paleocli-atologie et ae 1'Oligocene du Bassin de Par's.

l Men. B.R.G.M.,

No. 116, 360 p.

Cha teauneuf, J.J.

and Gruas-Cavagnetto, C.,

1978, Les zones de I

'~'etzeliellaceae (Dinophyceae) du Bassin de Paris "Bulletin du Bureau Recherche Geologique Miniere (deuxieue serie),

Sect-4, No.

2 (1978),

p. 59-93.

Cos ta, L.I. and Dominie, C.,

1976, The distribution of the dinoflagellate 4'etzeliella in the Palaeogene of north-~'es tern Europe.

Palaeon tology, v. 19, p. 591-614.

~I 4

, ~

Eaton, G.L.,

1976, Dinoflagellate cysts fraa the Bracklesham (Eocene) of the Isle of 'Right, South rn England.

=Bull. Mus.

8 Nat. Hist. (Geol. ), 26(2),

277-332.

edwards, L.

Ha-el,

. E.,

Bybel 1, L.M., Jones, G. D.,

and Pard,

198,

. >e of the Co~fort Me.Der of the Castle Hayne Formation (Eocene)'f North Carolina.

Geol. Society of Ewer 1 ca

~

I I

I I

~

~

~

i 9

I I v

III

~

~

4I Evernden, J.P.,

and others,

1964, Pot ssi~-argon dates and the Cenozoic su=.-'.ian chronolo~~ of horth America.:

A-erican Journal of Science,

v. 262,

p. 145-198.

rullager, P.D., Harris, M.B. an d Pin te rs, J.,

1980, Rb-Sr glau con ite

ages, Claiborni'an and Jacksonian strata (Eocene),

southeas te n Atlantic Coas tal Plain.: Geological Socie ty of Amer ica Abs tracts

@1th Programs

) vs 12, F. 430.

runnell, B.Yi., 1964, The Tertiary period.:

in Harland, W.B., and

others, eds.,

The Phanero oic time-scale.

A S)=posium.

Geological Society of London Quarterly Journ 1, v. 1205, p.

17 1-191.

Ghosh

~

P. K., 1972, Use of ben ton ites and glauconi tes in potassium.

40/argon 40 dating in Gulf Coast Stratigraphy (Ph.D. Thesis):

Houston, Texas, Rice University, 136 p.

G lass, B-P ~

and Z~ar t, Yi.J.

q

1977, radiolar ian ex in~tions and the boundary.:

in S'-.a in, F.H., ed.,

1:or th American micro tee tites, age of the Eocene-Oligocene Stra tigraphic nicropaleontology of Atlantic Basin and boroer lands:

Develop.ants in paleontology and s tra tig. a phy 6:

553-565.

Am terd-~, Elsevier, p.

I, 27

~

~

~

Glass, B.P.

and others, 1973

~

North American cikrotektites fry the Car ibbean Sea and their fission trackage.:

Earth and Planetary

, Science Let ters

~ v.

19, p.

184-192

~

Gr--ann, F., Harre, M., Kreuzer, H.

~

and Mattiat, E.-R.,

1975, K-Ar ages of =ocene to.Oligocene glauconitic sand frere Hel-s teat nd Lehrte (north-es tern Gert'any).:

')le-slet ters in Stratigraphy, v-4, no. 2,

p. 71-86.

B.,

1972, Paleogene calcareous nannoflora, pt. 2: Oligocene of

'western Geraany.:

Stockholm Contributions in Geology, V.

25 p-57-97.

Hardenbol, J.

and Berggren,

'~.A.,

1978, A net, Palaeogene nu-.erical tire scale.:

in Cohee, G.V., Glaessner

~ H.F-,

nd Hedb<<g)

H-D., eds.,

The Geologic Tine Scale, American Association of Petrole~~ Geologists)

Studies in Geology, ro. 6, p-213-234-

Harris,

~- B.,

= 1979, Rb-Sr glauconite ages and revisions of the Eocene ti-e-scale, Southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain.:

Geological Society of.~re ica Abstracts

) ith Progra=s,

v. ll, p.

439.

Har is) 1x B

a.,d Zul o)

V A

)

1 80) a r n

Fb-Sr glauconite isochr cn of the Eocene Cas t le Hayne.Li=.es tone, North Carolina.:

Geo1ogical Soc)ety of Arcrica Bulletin, part

1) v 91) p 587 59--

28.

Hzrr is, V."=.

a.".'ullo, r

a

/

V:A., 1982, Rb-Sr glauconi 'e isochr on o f t'ne Eocene Czs tel H >ne Limestone, North Carolina: Discussion and Be ply.:

Geological Society of ~erica Bulletin, v. 93, p ~

182-183.

Jenk'ns, D.G.,'971, t:ev Zealand Ceno.-.oic planktonic fo. ~inifera.:

he~ Zealand Geologiczl Survey, Paleontological Bulletin, no. 42, 278 p.

Jones.,

G.D., 1981,:-orzmini feral paleontology znd geology of 1ouer Cla bornian rocks of inner Coastal Plain of North Carol'na

[Ph.D. disser t.]:

Ne>>ark, Delaware, University of Delaware.

Jones, G.D.,

1982, Bb-Sr gizuconite isochron of the Eocene Cas tie a) ne Limes tone, 'Nor th Carol:na:

Dis cuss ion and Re ply.

-'eological i Society of P~ericzn Bulletin, v. 93, p

~ 179-182

~

Lair ecaue, J.

polarity

Geology, L., Kent,. D.V., Cande, S.C.,

1977, time-scale from Late Cretaceous and 5,

p. 330-335.

Revised magnetic Ccn ozonic t one Lo"r ie, M., Alvar ez, V.,

ha pol cone, G.,

Perch-3>iels en, K., Prc~ol i-Silva, T.,

znd Toumarkineg p

198",

Paleogene

magnetic, stratigraphy in L brian pelagic carbonate rocks:

The Contessa Sect ions, Gubbio.:

Geological Society of america Bule tin, v.

93,

p. 414-432.

C

29.

Far tini, E.,

19 "9, t'annoplankton aus den Latdorf (loc s t)picus) und ~el t.-cite Parallelisierungen ia oberen Eolian und unteren Oligozanen.:

Senkenbergiana

Lethaea,

v. 50, nos.

2/3, p.

117-159.

Bar ti.ni, E.,

197 1, Standard Tertiary and guatera ary calcar eous nanno p ank ton "ona tion.:

in: ar ina cci, A., ed., Proceedings o f the 2nd 'Planktonic Conference, Ro-..a,

1970,

p. 739-785.

Nartini, E.,

1976, Cretaceous to Pecent calcareous nannoplankton rca the centr'al Pacific Ocean (DSDP Leg 33).:

in Schlanger, S.O., Jackson, E.D. et al., Tnitial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Pr oject, Uoluae 33: 383-423.

Vashington,

.C.:

U. S.

Gov em-,en t Pr in t ing 0 ffice.

Yul1 er, C.,

197,9, Calcareous ranoplankton fry the tlorth Atlantic (DSDP Leg 48).

in <oat-de-t L

Roberts D

G et al initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilli".:g Project, Volure 48: 589-639.

washington, D. C.: U.S. Govern-ent Prin" ng Office.

loess, G., Levi, S.,'nd

Couch, R., 1980, Mar ine =a gne tic ".nona ly

~

~

ti~e scales for the Cenozoic and La te Creraceous:

a precis, f

cr i ti q ue a n d s >a th es is.:

Review of Geophysics and Space Physics, v. 18(4),

p. 753-770.

Odin, G.S.,

~

~

~ Curry, D.,

and Hunziker, J.C.,

1978, Radiometric dates frca t ~ European glauconites and the ?alaeogene time-scale.

Journal of the geolog cal.Society of London, v.

135,

p. 481-497-

Prothero, D.R.

and

Denham, C.R.,

19'80, Magnetos tratigraphy of the Unite River Group wd its applications for Oligocene geochr onology.:

Geological Society of ~>er ica, Abstracts vith Program, v. 13, no. 7, p.'34.

Prothero, D.R.,

Denhaa, C.R.;

and

.=arm r, H.G., in press a,

Oligocene cali ra tion of the==gnetic polarity timescale.:

Geol ogy.

Prothero, D.R.,

Denh ~,

C. R.,

and Farmer, H.G., in press b,

~ia gneto-stratigraphy of the Unite river Group and its

-applications for 01 igocene geochr onol ogy.

Palaeogeogr.,

Palaeocli-atol.,

? alaeoecol.

Turco, K.P.,

Sequel, D. and Harris, V.B., 1979, Strati reconnaissance.

of the calcareous nannofoss ils from gr apn 1c the thor th Car ol ina Coas ta 1

? la in: EI Lc~ er to uid-Cenozoi c.:

Geological ociety of American Abs t.acts -ith Programs, v. 9, p.

2 16.

31.

Strati lo-er

l97S, La~-ence

0. R.,

and B1 a ck>> el der,

5. k.,

t 0> i ocene, end graphic revisi vision of the middle =ocene, l -

'as tal Plain of North Carolina.

U. S.

Miocene Atl~~t c oas a

Geological Survey Bulletin l457-F, 23 p.

Vorsley, T.R.

and Turco K P.

1979, the louer Tertiary of North Caro~

Calcareous nannof oss' s

dna.:

. xn ~aum, and

~r OGl

others, eds.,

Structural and stra tigraphic f-~ego-K for t e

\\

Coastal Plain of North Carolina, Carolina Geological Society Pield Trip Guidebook,

p. 65-72.

32.

R R

R R

2204K 2204D 2204C 2204B C:">> f2 R

R RR R

Chiasaol i thus titus Coccolithus cope la gicus C oc col ithus pe la gi cus Cruci pla col i th us de'1 us Cyc lococcoli th 'na pr otoannula Cyclococcoli th us florid anus Cyc1ococcol ithus luminis Cyclococcolithus pseudoga~a tion Discoaster barbadiensis D'scoas ter saipanens is Ericsonia forwsa

.ricsonia cf.

s bdis ticha Eelicos phaera co=pa cta L~a ternithus -inu tus

}lieran tholithus cr enula tus Hicr an th o'1 ith us v es per t.eococcol ithites ninutus X

X X

P on tosphaera si gaoidalis.

Reticulofenes tra bisecta Re ticuIofenes tr a hess1 and ii Re ticu! o fen es tr a r et icu1 a ta X

Reticulofenes tra saaodurovi

'hab dos phaer a s pinula Sphenolithus s pini ger.

'Vis eorhabdus inv er sus X

X Zygrh ab1'hus b ijuga tus Ta le 1.

Stra i-raphic distr bution of calcareous nannoplanktcn tata xn the Cc= fort ver her, Castle

."layne r oration, var tin,'large tta Quarry, i ev Ha~<'ver County,,':or th C rol ina.

33

~

Xi P1CL'~:-S 1.

Location of maps.

2 ~

Lithol ogic r or I"-atIon s sect on expo exposed at lectostrato yp ot.

e of Castle Hayne

~

'ev Hanov er County, 1,'or th

~artin marietta Quarry, he H

Caro lna ~

3 0 d

eous nanno foss ils r epor ~ed Kno~'n g o a

1 b-1 "anges of the calcareous 4

free the ~as t>e Hague For=ation.

b ~ os tr a tx gr aph i ca 1ly a

-h' triut on o~soeb'tratigraphic is o f lzr< tonic for--'nixera.

.-.."or tant taxa oi p zr~

c.

--~

~

"a.

1

t'ai",i~Tttl-MA;,IETTih QUAHBY A

CASTLE HAYtJE 00 0

V H/

0 5

)AllE S

~

~

~

a

~

4

~

~i

~ ~ ~

~ N ~ ~ ~ N

~

I '

~

\\ ~

~

~

~

~

I ~

~

I

~

~ ~ iN

~

~ ~

~

N.

~

~

i

~

~

~

UPPER CRETACEOUG PFFD:-E FOR'.1ATIO:.'0 "i",OTTS IIILL MIDDL< FOCINNr=

M f= t.l"l'. IQ~

IrSV IIWNOVCn COMrOAT kIEMBER CASTl L= hhYHE l"-Oi~lMATIOH C

rr, I

~

I

.t

'J 0

. ~ l I

1 n Qj nf( ((

/'IJ+ jH1 tl A

IJ I

(

) i IN I

'3

~)

Xl hlIJp 0

hl 0

fll jk:

~

~

=1')

'.i l~

D

~

IV

~

p Ql

.FEET (80 Ip lA IQ n

hl I.IETrilS

MIDDLE EOC E N E LATE EOCENE LUTETIAN 8AR TON lAN PR lABON 1 AN Disccoster borbodiensis.~,"'>>

i Oiscoost r binodosus.

~'<:,~" "".

CO IfQ0 N0 I

Zygrhoblithc.s bjiugotus

.'.".~.": I ",."j;.

A i%~ r Ericsonio fornoso Oiscocster soiponensis h'coccolithiles dub!us:

<-::~

~ 'Z~~

I Chicsn clithus grondis

.: "sf~~, ~,:@~I Chicsmot! thus titus i"~~~

I

,'~!~,'~'.'; /i'eticuloIenes tro unbilicc I

i Peticutoferestrc hiltoe

%f4,.,

g5 ~i'>>~~>> Wp I

".~;~'on 'nithus minutus I

i Chiosnotithus ocncru. rsis Sphenolithus predi stentus N/ crcntholilhus procerus

~<>',:. <.',";)':~9: Sphenolithus pseuCorcdicns

<~<.:,~".,"'. Cubius l2. recurvus I

!'N. minutus J jr'o ro sem Helicosp He/!cosphoerd r ticuloto

~4(!

I

~~ Q Cyctococcotithus kingi

.p>p.'phenolithus furcotholithoides Sphenoi/thus'cdio'ns:."g'>, i'!

i Phc'Cosphcero glodio'"..'w:

OrlO CAI l

CA O

27 Vl m

t

-c 0O O

PlO C

Xl O 0 Pl CO l

~s D

Pl m

O IO l

O A

IA O

~,.'2 J

u

P PLANKTOil I C FORAM l N I F E R A (BEPGGREN, l977; BLO'iV, I 979) l7.

O l5 O

0 k

Ag zOI-CL CO O

s

~ ~

Figure 3. Correlation chart showing the position of Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province 5.>0<<~

r a

li;hcstratigraphic units in a biostratigraphic, chronos!ratigraphic, chronometric, and s

magnetostratigraphic model (after Hazel and others, in press).

The maximum limit,

\\

based on the fauna and flora, of the Comfort Member at the Castle Hayne s

Formation is indicated by the shaded band.

Time is expressed in megaannums (Ma) before present.

The "unit" column contains the composite unit scale values derived from Graphic Correlation model!ing of numerous measured sect!ons (see Shawt 1 6</

Miller, 1977; Murphy and Edwards, 1977).

The calcareous nannofossil zones are s

based on those of Martini (1971) or Bukry (1978); the sterisk in the lower block of the nannofossil column stands for the Z odiscus si moides Zone.

The dinoflagellate zonation is from Costa and Downie (1976).

The foraminifer zonat!on is a.'ter Stainforth and others (1975) except for the middle Eocene which follows Toumarkine ih?i",

and Bolli (L~), and for the definition of the Planorotalites seudomenardii

Zone, which follows Blow (1979).

The "cycle" column indicates our estimate of the position of the coastal onlap cycles of Yail and tVtitcNum (1979).

The cal!brat.'on of the magnetic an%aty sequence to he ona;iona is based on Gr phic Correia:ion modelling of fcssiliferous measured sections with magnetics presented in Lowrie and others (1982) and Poore and others (in press).

In the "ser!es" column, the numbers 1

through 0 indicate the possible positions of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary (see Pomerol, 1977).

t

~

s

Table l. Planktic foraminifers from the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne Formation at the Martir,-Marietta quarry.

Table 2. Calcareous nannofossils from the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne Formation at the Martin-Marietta quarry.

Table 3. Dinocysts from the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne Fot mation at the Martin-Marie tta quarry.

r CHMM-3 CHMM-giauc, CHMM-t>

CHMM-I CHMM-2 r( carinina cf. A. builbrooki (Boili; 1957)

(9 97)

.4 A. sp. A

~CT (7 dd, )957)

Chilo uembelina cubensis (Palmer, 1930)

C. martini (Pijpers, 1933) gg pr~~a

(.-nV.i'ir X

X Globi erinatheka ku leri (Bolli, Loeblich, R Tappan, 1957)

G. mexicana mexicana (Cushman, 1925)

Globorotalia

f. T. frontosa (Subbotina, 1953)

,i',orozoveila s inulosa coronata (Blow, 1979)

Planorotalites renzi (Bolli, 1957)

Pscudohasti erina micra (Cole, 1927)

P. sharkrivercnsis Berggren and Olsson, 1967 I"

i, P. cf. sharkriverensis Berggren and Olson, 1967 P. wilcoxensis (Cushrnan 0 Ponton, 1932) s.l..

I Subbotina eocaena (Gu mbel, 1868)

~5.

5

((', >>9)

Testacarinata incons icua (l-lowe, 1939)-

X 9

X Truncorotaloides rohri Bronnimann dc Bermudez, 1963

~T.;>>,

)9 5)

TABLE 2 Species iVame R~S66 R2200D R2204E B fa ck i tes sp.

Braarudos haera bi elowi (Gran 2 Braarud, 1935)

Deflandre, 1907 Cam vlos haera dela (Bramlette 2 Sullivan, 1961)

Hay 2 Mohler 1967 Chiasmohthus randis (Bramlette 2 Riedel, 1950)

Hay, l'i<ohler 8c Wade, 1966 C. solitus (Bramlette 2 Sullivan, 1961)

Hay, Mohler, Wade, 1966 C. utus Cartner, 1970 Coccolithus eo ela icus (Bramlet e 6c Riedel, 1954)

Bramlette'2 Sullivan, 1961

~C.

I I

)

Ih, >>)I I*,I'I C clococcolithus formosus Kamptner, 1963 X

Bukry 2 Percival, 1971 v

5*

Discoaster barbadie'nsis Tan Sin Hok, 1927

<<** i'd*I, 5

Dict ococcites bisectus (l-:ay, ivtohler, 2 Wade, 1966)

X X

X Helices haera com acta Bramlette 2 Wilcoxon, 1967 H. lo Nota (Bramlette 2 Wilcoxon, 1967)

Locker, 1973 17

H. reticulata Brafnlette 6c 'Il'ilcoxon, l967 Markalius inversus (Oeflandre, 1954) Bramlet e 6c r

Martini 1960 Micrantholithus sp. aff. Ma crenulatus Bramlettte 8(

Sullivan, 1961>>*,<<9 P.

Pedinoc clus larvalis (Bukry 2 Bramlette, 1969)

Bukry <k Bramlette 1971 Reticulofenestra floridana (Roth 2 Hay, 1967)

Bybell, 1982 R. hillae Bukry 2 Percival, 1971 R. reticulata (t armer 2 Smith, 1967)

Roth <k Thierstein, 1972 R. umbilica (Levin, 1965) Martini 2 Ritzkov,ski, 1968

~Shenolithus morUormis (Broennimann 2 Stradner, 1960)

Bramlette 2 Wilcoxon, 1967

~S.

i I: !

Transverso ontis ulcheroides (Sullivan, 1960)

Perch-Nielsen, 1971.

Zv rhablirhus bi'ups-us (Def!andre, l95rr)

'ramlette 2 Sullivan, 1961 s

TABLE 3 Species R 2866 B R 2200 D Areoli era coronata (Wetzel, 1933) l.ejeune-Carpentier, 1938 Areos haeridium dic ost lum (Menedez, 1965) Sarjcant, 1981 Cordos haeridium racile (Eisenack, 9150)

Davey 2 Williams, 1966b Oi h es colli erum (Deflandre 2 Cookson, 1955) Cookson, 1965 Oino ter ium cladoides sensu Morgenroth, 1966 Homotr bliurn tenuis inosum Davey 2 Williams, 1966b X

H strichokol orna ri audiae Deflandre 6c Cookson, 1955 X

Lin ulodinium rnachaero horum (Def!andre 6c Cookson, 1955)

X Wall, 1967 4<eiouro ononvaulax sp. l oi Vanum 1976 Vie!itas haeridium seudorecurvatum (Morgenroth, 1966)

Bujak, 1980)-

Millioudodinium cf. M.

iuse

, l96@

X Stover 6c Evitt, 1.978 Pentadinium ~oniferum Edwards, 1982 X

C *,,

p Cocht, 1969 P ntadinium ol odum Edwards, 1982 Rhombodinium labrum (Cookson 1956) Vozzhennikova, 1967 Samlandia chlam do hora Eisenack, 1950 X

Samlandia reticu!ifera Cookson Cx Eisenack, 1965 19

'L ~

~ ~

S iniferites seudofurcatus

{Klumpp, 1953) Sarjeant, 1970 S iniferites ramosus (Ehrenberg, 1838) Loeblich 6 Loci!ich, 1966, subspecies gracilis Davey 4 VVilliam S stematoohora lacacantha

('Deflandre 6c Cookson, 1955)

Davey, Dov:nie, Sarjeant, 6( %'il}iams, 1969 Thalassi hora ela ica {Eisenack, 1950) Eisenack k Gocht, 1960 VVetzeliella'? sp.

Gla hroc sta intricata (Eaton, 1971) Stover R Evitt, 1978 Gla hro sta undula~w (Eaton, 1976) Stover 2 Evitt, 1978 H strichokol orna salacium Eaton, 1976 H strichostrog ion membrani horurn Agelopoulos, 1960 Pool s haer!Cium zohar i (Rossignol, 1962) Bujak, Dominie, Eaton, R Wil}iams, 1980

~'0

LJ C

lg C

0) Ig el Calcareous Series Stages Hannofossll Zones Plank tlc Foramlnl fera Zones

!no flagella t Zones Alabama South Carolina Vir!Ilnia hlaryland rel U

n E04 Magneto.

stratllgraphy 41 45 47 49 5I 55 52 59 63 65 I40 I$ 0 I 20 I IO I 00 90 50'0

-20 lga V

0 IJI es C

elo0 Cel Ig D

~ ~

30 a

CJ Cel C

Ig C

Ig CI0 Ig Ig Ig V) per" Ofscoas Iec

~ ~ Ipsnensf ~

D. Dirac 44

~r4 0 rl 44 Coccollfhus sfsurlon Chfssmolffhus pfps ~

DIIco~ II~I sfrfcsus Olscoesf ~ r Iuhl0 d 0 e 4 III D. Iodoonsls Trlbrachlatus

, orthostylus I

Dlscoa alar dlastypus Elllps olllhus mscollus Chlasmollthus danlcus D. nlulIlrs din I u J If~ Il off Ih 4 l It ~ Ife II II. Af~Inpeflf Fasclcullthus Iympanllormls Oar, I ~rreerel ~ ~ ele/

O. cere ~ I~ II Oloborotsl a pOmctOII42 I. I ~

~

<<I Cloborota)lp possagnocr ats Ihhl Globotolalla Ironlos ~

A c ~I ~ rlfne p entre ~ In ~ rs I ~

JI. Lrs porlensf ~

htorosovolla Iormo J a ht 0I0 J 0 v o IIn Jubbollns

~

hf or 0 J o v o lls volsscocnsta plennrof ~ III~ ~

ps ~ uuqmsnsrdff hfoco J 0 ralla pusill~

Jfocosoreffa

~ npufsf ~

hl. unclnE]

S. Itlnldadonsls S

Sub b o IIna psoudobulloldo s Ilhonlholnnfum IIcLeo I(Isa ~ IoyIa-coloothrypta lu~ It ~ IH~Ife/

DILco pilaf urn Zone

~

Un J If le I e nl I ~ I e J Ap o c I o dinlum homo omorphum Corotlop Jls spaclosa Pals ~ op orldlnlu pyrophorum 1

Goe orl Fm LI ebon Fofmhtton Ta I I a h a II a Fotma I ton IlalchclIsbcc Fotnlatlon ttanatatta Fm Nahcola Fm re V

Vvs o

a

~ ~

V pl ~ I I << ~ w I I ~ 8 ~ IA ~

uslnl e LOIee I IlI ense

~ r

/

ripe Tuscahoma Fm 4

40 4

E Cross Nembcr 44 C4 In N out isle Member Gtacll Ntngo Formation Ff ~ haleine Ilnl Ptncy Point F ot m a I ton C

0 0

L =

4 4

C4 0

eC~e 40 n

lr E

~o u

re

~ e ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

PI e e<<e ~ ~

P I ~ C ~ I ~ vr ~ 's Nemhet Ilr I e h I ~ e ~ I olin ~ lion

'LVOOIIs loch Ncmbcc Pola pa co ht e Inb c I ei TE 2.2 I9

~ ~

i I 20 TE 2.1 vhl P 2I v IC 22 TE l.2 2$

TE I.I Tl'23 TP 2.2 24 II, 25 TP 2.I

'r ~

~ I 26 TP

~ '

l p

g<<ILJ JIIpntlf dip Q (A fel(

~

~I v

~ a>v> I >>> veuc'acai sal>cf>les noes not prove wide distribution in the

. source area.

as thc montmorilloniie occurrence in the Ni Basin indicates.

r

, -NcitL,r is an evaluation of provenance on safe grounds from a conslderai'st of the relative intensity of basal reflections in thc sediments>

Though montmorilloniie has only I79> frequency in che Garaetts Creek source ar R has a higher average intensity than kaolinite. which, by volume, ls area inercli far more prevalent than taontmorilloaite.

Relative intensity of the cnin onc to another seems to carry over from chc source area to streams ex.

cept for montmorillonite and mixed-layer structures.

Near absence of xnixed-layer structures in the streara sediments of both basins is perplexing!or such small drainage nets.

hfout authorities do not believe a fresh wat er stream capable of significant alteration of clay mineral structures.

Certainly for such small streams alteration

< would not be cxpccted.

The data reported here do aot permit a conclu-sive stateinent la explanation of this relacionshlp.

Chemical data oa ihe waters could prove beneficial in the solution of this problem, but it is felt that physical phenomena are perhaps the operacing rnechanlsms.

Two processes could explain the situation in these basins.

Differ-ential craasportatlon and deposition is one alternative and indeed may be operative with ccrtaia tninerals such as montmorillonitc.

However. oa the basis of unpublished data fBrown, 1958) collected durlag a study of the entire York River tributary basin, it is felt that the apparent "un-rnlxiag" of mixed-layer structures may be a rehI physical unmixing.

An explanation of the reduced intensities given by sediment c)ays relative to source sarnplcs ls not readily explained.

Possible explana-tions may be an increase in percentages of amorphous materials or finer sixcd sediment particles, thc latter being compatible with the physical unmixlng hypothesi ~.

REFERENCES Brown, Charles Q.,

1958, Clay mineralogy of sediments aad source hntcrlals In the York River tributary basin:

Ph. D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Brown. Charles Q. aad Ingrain, Roy L., 1954, The clay minerals of the Ncuse River sedimeatst Jour.

Sed. Pet., v. 24, p. 196-199.

Brunton. George, 1955, Vapor pressure glycolation of oriented clay minerals:

Am. hiin.. V. 40, p.

124-126.

Rich, C.S.

and Obenshain.

S.S..

1955, Chemical and clay mineral pro-perties of a red-yellow podxollc soil derived from muscovite schisct Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.,

p. 334-339.

Stose, G. W.

ec al.

~

1928 ~ Geologic map of Virginia, Va. Geol, Survey.

Wentworth. Chester K., 1930. Sand and gravel resources of the Coastal Plain of Virginia: Va. Geol. Survey BulL 32. p.

146.

latvian Fercncxi 1511 22nd Streei, N. W., Washington 7, D. C.

F051 (r~g())

ABSTRACT The North Carolina Coastal Plain is noi a simple homoctirat struc-ture.

The Great Carolina Ridge is an area of uplcfc and the Hactcras Axis is onc subsidcncc, both are transverse io thc Appa.act>ien trend.

htidway between those two fcaturcs is thc Cape IAekout->1Icusc Fault Zone, also transverse to thc App.>l.>chi,Lns.

Several data m ihe literature suggest a fourth structural fcaturc. a to data unnamed fault xone with a trend parallel to thc Appalachians.

As a 1>ossiblc BRh feature, s

"xone'f subterranean disturbances".

suggcstcd by Shulcr, 1871, but ar i proved to date, is mcntioncd.

In conclusion ii is suggcsied that the capes alung the present shoreline have been controlled by the se structural (esture>>.

The basement rock beneath th

~ scdiracc.tery cover has tbc charac-ter of pcncplained block mountain rather chan that of a folded mountain chain.

INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGhiENT The valuable assistance of A. C. hlason.

U. S. Geol. Survey.

Wauhingcon, D. C., in the preparation aad review of the paper for thc publishing i~ gratefully acknowledged, This paper attempts to collect and evaluate opinions about the struc-tural conditions of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. especially in North Caro-lina.

Consideration ol this problem developed during studies in che Uni-versity ol Virginia. Charlottesville, Va., 1954-55.

in coi>nection with preparation of annotated bibliographies for the Hydrographic OHice.

U. S.

Navy, on harbor approaches along chc Atlartic Coast.

hly curiosity was wakened by the peculiar surface features of thc subsca prolongattoa of Cape Hatteras.

Cape Lookout. and Cape Fear, by coastal arcs connecting them, by the fairly equal distances between chem.

and by what relation-ship they have co scructural features of ihe Coastal P>ain.

During my following three years whh the North Carolina State College.

Raleigh.

N. C.. I becacne more familiar with che geology of chc Coastal Plain ol North Carolina.

104 105 15

I

- ~

~ ~

~ ~

h

<<Ir glfl

\\

h 2x 4

I i

0 I

I a

0

'alaa r

+

i

~ a~

hOtmi CtttOUNA (Xl&ftl1'LtigSntt'tllItIS aa II ai4%

~ ~ ~I ~ I ~I~I IV

~ ~I ~ ~ 00 ~ ~I av Figure I THE CREAT CAROLINARIDGE (CAPE FEAR ARCH)

Dali in 1892 described a structural feature under the name "Great Carolina Ridge" as "an elevated ridge of perhaps very ancient origin.

whose extension may be seen in the contours oC thc sea bottom Car off the coast" (p.

IS2).

its I

ln 1926 Stephenson dealt with it again as "a broad upwa p

h i

ax's near the boundary between North Carolina an4 South CaroHna",

and so indicated it un an accolnpanying sketch map (p. 468. and pl. I).

although well records. described by him in 1912 (p.

163-167, and p.

169-171) suggested an axis farther northeast,

~

In I 7

artn 92 htansfield showed the existence of this elevat d

id b

e t'e y cotll pa '

surfaces uf the bascnicnt rock~ as detertnincd in the Havelock,

I.C.. Wttnntigton, N. C.. Fort CasweH, N. C.

~ and Summcrville, S. C..

<<IIHs.

He runcludvd that this "seems to verify the opinion of S h

ti.:lt flail course

~.I thf Ca ni n o tep enson fc i~

f Cape Fear River acros ~ the Coastal Plain approxi-rolnlenls ainu tile alla ~litVV tIVsll Vll I Vi

~Ia; ~'i~

~

~

~

~

~ I ua ~

01 ~I V subsidence until the present" (p.

11).

Thi>> location of tne axis vc tile Great Carolina Ridge was accepted by Stcphenson in a sketch map in bis 1928 paper in which hc described it as a "broad upwarp in the Cape Fear rcglon in Eocene time" which "raised Upper Cretaceous beds to the surface near the coast" (p. 892 and p.

S89, fig. I).

hfacCarthy and his coauthors in a sliort abstract in 1933 describi:4 evidence that this area, especially rcfcrring to the southwest Aank uf the Great Carolina Ridge. reflects diHercnc<<s in the dip of the basvincnt rock surface.

a relatively steeper dip towaral the coast line than tnl.ind.

They interpreted this as two erosional surfaces with their intersection about 17 miles west of Conway, S. C. (p. 21).

Prouty used the name "Cape Fear Arch" instead of the forn er nalne Great Carolina Ridge, tnarking it as "an anticlinal fold (arch) tl.rough Wilmington running parallel with the Cape Fear River basin toward!hc north-west0 n He indicated it also on his sketch map adapted from Stephenson.

as well as on his diagram (Prouty, 1936, p.

485 ~ ih 486, fig. I and p

487, Cig. 2).

In 1936 Cooke dealt with the area between thc Santee River in South Carolina and the Cape Fear River in North Carolina.where "the present land for a considerable distance inland from the present coast both north and south of that area was submerged.

This old land area; the Great Carolina Ridge of DaH, may have projected for many miles into the Atlantic as a peninsula.

separating an enlarged Chesapeake embayment from an enlarged Gulf of Mexico, Florida being at thc time submerged" (p. 99).

Jackson (Eocene) titnc began "with a crustal movement that raised the region between the Cape Fear River in North Carolina and the Sautes River in South Carolina, thus producing the Cireat Carolina Ri4gc an4 depressed the regions on both sides of it" (p.

156).

Describing thc structural conditions of the South Carolina Coastal Plain. he stated that "only deposit ~ of thc Upper Cretaceous and Eocene formations are in South Carolina conspicuously deformed on the west limb of the Great Carolina Ridge. whose crest or axis lies not Car from the North Carolina-South Carolina state line and nearly parallel to it and v:hose northeast limb is in North Carolina" (Cooke.

1938, p.

158).

"Upon the beveled surface lie thin patches of nearly horixontal marine Miocene forlnations (remnants separated by erosion)" (p.

159).

As a result of further lnagnctornetcr investigations, hiacC.rthy mentioned that "evidence supporting Stevenson's suggestion of a north-west-southeast uplift near Wilmington has been obtained" whereas roughly parallel to the coast a "ntagnetically disturbed xone...

consisting of a series of subparallel highs and lows, has been found". which has been traced from Myrtle Beach.

S. C.. to the vicinity of Wilmlngton. N. C.,

"with further evidence suggesting that it may continue through Burgaw toward extrcme northeastern North Carolina", representing va folded and perhaps fracture4 xone" (MacCarthy,

1936,

p. 405).

In 1937 hiacCarthy and Straley gave a more detailed picture of these magnetic disturbances referring to the "Wilnlingtonanticline".

They stated that "magnetic evldcnce for or against the existrnce of this uplift might bc expected but because oC the nature of the country, observations have not been made" (p. 363).

A short abstract by MacCarthy and Straley in I93tt gsve as urcsults to date:

(I) a tnagnetically disturbed area in the neighborhood of thc Wiltnington. N. C.. arch....

(3) a series of low magnetic highs 107 pp

\\

I

,f-

~-

ti

- ~ t

~ AC

c i

~ 2

i,Ag'~

c j

,c

's crsct iiv a i

~i ic ci

~i sxteacling in nn inti rruptcd irrcgular linc from the latitude of that of

)Ieaccfnrt" (p.

1953). Johnson's remarks on magnetic disturbances In northeastern North Carolina are published only in a short abstract (p.

1951).

Richards in 1945 dealing with well records of North Carolina Coastal Plain wrote about a "conspicuous high... noted in the vicinhy of Cape Fear.

North Carolina", which "has been recognised for a long titne and Is known as the Great Carolina Ridge". indicated on three cross sections (p. 953 and p. 941-943, figs. 20-21).

In 1947 Richards wrote: "Ia any case the basement and all formations rise sharply near Cape Fear.

Thl~

ls one of the most conspicuous structural features of the East Coast and ls called the Great Carolina Ridge or the Cape Fear Arch.

At Wil-rnington, the basecnent rises to a depth of only I, 109 feet and then dlps again toward South Carolina" (p. 47). The Ridge Is shown on a generalized cross section from Fort hlonroe, Va., to Hllliard, Fla.,

(p. 46).

A third paper in 1948 again reflects the elevated position of the Great Carolina Ridge in a cross section from Fort Monroe, Va., to Paris

Island, S. C.; (Richards.

1948, p.

55.

Cig. 2).

Straley and Richards in 1950 gave thc same cross section, and with reference to the Ridge stated that the "basement rises at Wilmington to within 425 meters" (correctly 338 meters

• I, 109 feet) "of the surface, and extends north-westward toward the Piedmont at an equal or greater elevation" (p. 88, fig. 2).

Berry in 1951 described the "Carolina Ridge", as "one of the tnost prominent features of the basement" oriented "roughly parallel with the valley of Cape Fear River"(1951, p. 414).

He also noted seaward change on the basement slope (1948,

p. 87, fig. I, aad 1951, p. 412-413, fitt.

116).

Likewise Eardley described the "Cape Fear Arch" as "the most con-spicuous feature of the Coastal Plain" (p.

131). Indicating it on thc Index map (p. 70. Hg.

22) as a broad bulge of the Cretaceous forcnations.

How-ever, he recnarked that "this structure is not truly an arch" as such a structural feature was dcHned by him in chapter 2 of his book.

Hc con-cluded that "the uaconformities around the Cape Fear Arch indicate the principal times of upliR and erosion to have been at the close of thc Cretaceous and again at the close of the Early Miocene".

LeGrand In 1955 referring to the Carolina Ridge stated that 'the assumed single homoclinal structure of the Atlantic Coastal Plain be-cocnes complex" In its vicinity. Besides changes in the extension of various Cretaceous formations covering the area, he mentioned a fault linc with northeastward trend between Cape Fear River and Black River a few cniles frocn their confluence.

and a broad dome-like area.

based on presence of brackish ground-water, west of Wilmington, N. C.

Al-though it had "received scant geological attention in the past, the Great Carolina Ridge contains complex structures" (p. 2036-Z037).

After this review of opinions, it may be stated that below the arcs of thc Great Carolina Ridge there is a large block of pre-Cretaceous basement rocks. which cnoved up or down either as a unit, or as smaller blocks independent of adjoining areas of the Atlantic Coastal plain.

This large bloc'k of the basement rock extends on its northeast side to Hsveluck.

N. C., and on its southwest side to thc neighborhood of burner ervills, S. C.

At both places the surface of the basement rocks sus fc uacl at riel.ctivcly great depths, Z. 318 feet at Havelock. and 2. 450 Csst ut Sucnmerville.

The crest line is in the vicinity of Wilmington, N. C

~

where. this surface is at its least depth, I ~ 109 Ceet, and extends northwest-v:ard, approximately parallel to the course of the Cape'Fear River. toward i-ccs A ai s

Faycc'teville, where thc blosk joins thc: Piedmont.

B "iccn thci burg,c blocK arc smaller units separutcd by faults that run ut rigla.cagl<< to thc northwest-southeast direction of the Grcst Caroliccu Ibdgc, t.u.,

parallel to the main trend of Appalachian structure.

Structural elements of this type wcro proved by the magnetic investigations of htscCarthy and his associates.

and more recently by the observations of LcGrand concerning brackish water areas in the sedimentary cover of thc Great Carolina Ridge (LeGrand.

1955,

p. 2036).

The separate movemcnt of blocks in the Great Carolina Ridge is

>>very ancient", as was thought by its first describer, (Dail. 1892, p.

'182).

but it was proven by LeGrand that movcmcnts occurred also within Cre-taceous time.

The absence of the Tuscaloosa Formation in lour deep wells between Conway, S. C., and Jacksonville, N. C., implies a land barrier within the area of thc Great Carolina Ridge during Tusca'.oosa time.

Likewlsc the apparent absence of the basal strata of the Black CrcckForcnatlon in the Wilcnington. N. C., well indicated this barrier was abuve the sea until the latter part of Black Creek tltne (LcGrand, 1955, p. 2036).

, The area was submerged in late Black Creek and Peedee tlcne, but this submergence was followed by an uplift ia Palebcene time, s!nce such sediments have not been reported in thc area.

Submergcncadur ng Eocene

~

ticne only lowered the northeastern flarJc o( thc Great Carolina Ridge below the sea, as indicated by surface patches aad well data of Upper Eocene limestone.

The patches of hiiddlc Eocene (7) sediments near Fayetteville and Raleigh.

N. C., also are confined to this flank of the Ridge.

On the southwest flank the Black Mingo Formation and overlying younger members of the Eocene series appear only at much greater distances Crom the crestline of the Ridge.

Thc submergence during Eocene time was followed by an uplift of greater extent.

Along thc length of thc Great Carolina Ridge the presence of Oligocene sedicnents has been suggested only by hicLean with a quest-ionable reference by Richards (1948,

p. 62), from the shallow well at Camp Lcjeune. Onslow Co., N. C.

Oa thc southwest flank of thc Great Carolina Ridge no sediments have been definitely determined as of Oligo-cene age.

The nearest area in South Carolina where such sediments (Flint River Furmation) occur lice far distant Crom the Great Carolina Ridge.

near the Savaanah River.

Also in case if the Cooper htarl of South Carolina repeatedly "shifted back and forth bctwccn tne Eocene and thc Oligocene" by subsequent

authors, should be definitely verified as of Oligocene age.

as Cooke and hlacNeil wrote, the area covered by it lies on thc southwestcrncnost flank of th>> Gireat Carolcaa Ridge (1952, p-27).

The total absence of Lower and hliddlc Miocene sediments i:i the area of the Great Carolina Ridge, as shown by Brown's recent study of well logs from the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (1958, figs. 7-9).

ls good proof that the entire length of this Great Carolina Ri<lge during thc Early Miocene and Middle hfiocenc was still above sea level.

A ncw submergence in the liate hiiocene resulted in the southeastern psrt of the north flank of the Ridge being covered by Hce traasgressicn

~If the Yorktocvn sea, while the northwestern portion of this flank remained uncovered.

Only during the youngest phase cf Upper h!iocc ne trans-

gression, thc time of the deposition of the f)upHnFurcnatiun.

was tcie whole area perhaps below sea lcvcl. except for an arcs on the south bank of the Neusc River near Mt. Olive, N. C., which recccaiclccl as a peninsula.

Evidence ls lacking concerning movcmcnts in pest-Miucune time.

c'i!i..

~ gW 1.

<<'h X

fccfc cc+,

cnn

'i

• ~

~ +

~ >

(>>i)>x(>s c. so>>(hcos)csr>

')r>C> a(orrj Ihc. shocc )>oa>>ax c ovc> e>f by (1>c>-

conc and Pleistocene seas.

THE HATTERAS AXIS The first author who suggested thai "the projection of Cape Hatteras is due to subtcrrancan disturbances" was Shaler in 1871 (p, 112), when he considerc4 the causes

'>which have le4 co thc production of Cape Hat-teras".

Although he did noc specify the direction of these disturbances, the fact that hc linked them with a ridge between Rlchraond, Va., and We)don. N. C.. clearly reveals a northeast-southwest direccion parallel with the Appalachian trend.

In 1891 ~ McGee twice referred to the "Hatteras Axis" - in neither case specifying any direct>on - "as an axis of interruption or change in epeirogenetlc movement during every geologic period since the Cretaceous' (p. 403), and as "an axis of m)aimum subsidence and minimum uplift"

(

5031.

In 1894. Hayes and Campbell meationc4 the Hatteras Axis, and gave its direction as northwest-southeast, a transverse line to the Appalachian trend.

This maybe deduced froa> their statement that if che direction of the Hatteras Axi~ is continued "across the Ohio River its direction will be found to coincide with that of the main or northwestward branch of the Cincinnati Arch" (p. 81), whereas the "Charleston-Mecnphis axis".

p)>exing Atlanta, Ga.

~ Corms "a tangent to che great northwestward bend of the Tennessee River" (p. 82).

Since then the Hatteras Axis has always been considered as a structural feature transverse to the Appalachian trend.

In )899, Glenn discussed the Hatceras axle pointing to its role in sedimentatlon during the Triassic period and also in the Middle hHocene.

and referred to it being not "a narrow belt with a close approach to the idea oC a linc but rather a broad belt or region" (p.

379).

In 1926> Stephenson, referring to major features in geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain, indicate4 it on hi ~ sketch map as an axis.

in which two downwarped bascmcnt surfaces,

- one dipping co the south-west, the other to che northeast,

- cross each other (pl. I).

In the text, however, he only states:

"North of Cape Hatteras the downwarping ia late Tertiary and in Quaternary ticncs affected the Coastal Plain more completely than it did south of this poiat" (p. 472).

In a second paper he shows another line more northward, crossing the shore line sorne-wherc near the Virginia-North Carolina boundary (Stephcnson.

)928,

p. 889. fig. I).

In his text be referred to "a downwarp affecting che North Atlantic Coastal Plain Crom hfaryland to northern North Caroliaa" which "resulted in the transgression of the Upper Miocene sea inland to the inner edge of che Coastal Plain in North Carolina and Virglaia" (p. 891) ~

Prouty, In general adopting the data from Stepehenson's 1928 sketch map.

does not refer to che "liatteras axis". but replaces it with a "sya-clinal fold (trough)" in the area of Norfolk. Virginia(p. 485-486, fig. I).

Later Gardner mentioned ii as a xone of transitfon, where northern I uaal clemente of the Upper hiiocene Yorktown formation were replaced by southern types (p. 70, p.

131 ~ etc.).

Richards in 1945 pubHshed two eros ~ sections showing subsurface conditio>is; both show a low ln the basement surface at the we)l at Havclock.

tf C

~ (p 941-942. figs. 20-21).

In 1947 hc stated that "the basement drops decide4ly between Fort hfonroe (2, Z46 feet) and Hatteras (9, 878 Ccct).

However

~ the north-south slo:>. ix noi.>s g-c.s >ai-6> nc >t!>-

cated since llatteras is well out to sca...

If wc werc to contrart Fort hionroe (Z, 246 feei), with Havelock, tl. C. (2, 318 feet) or Morehead City, N. C. (4,036 feet). the slopo shou)d not bc as great- (p. 47).

Itis generalized cross section in thi ~ case indicated the "))atteras I.ow" in thc line of the hiorehead City well (p. 46).

Similarly in a )948 paper he indicated a low la the basement surface in thc line of the hiorchcad City well (Richards, 1948, p. 55, fig. 2).

On the other han4, he stated in the same paper that "a study of samples from the deep well at Cape Hatteras shows a thickening of most for>nations.

Also several formations have been recognixed in thc'well that do not crop out in North Carolina" (p. 73).

A cross section in a 1950 paper by Straley and Richards is s milar (p. 88, Cig. 2).

However. they emphasized the "notable feature the basin between the Dismal Swamp and the Carolina Ridge at Cape Fear" (p. 88).

The last cross section found was published by Spangler in 1950; he again indicated the lowest point on the basement surface as at th

~ flat-teras wc)i (25, p.

120-121, Cig. 7).

After this review of opinions, it may bc stated t)tat the Hatteras Axis represents a Hne where all formations are at their gre"test depth.

The line trends northwestward Crom the Hatteras we)l.

The southwest li>nit of thc Haueras Axis area.and che northeast li>nit of thc Great CaroHna Ridge block is marked by the Cape Lookout-Neuse Fault Zone (a third transverse structural feature to be discussed Inter in this article).

From this fault xone northeastward well records show the thickeniag of formations toward the Hatteras Axis.

Likewise. ~

on che northeast

~ ide of the Hatteras Axis formations thicken southwest

~

ward toward the Axis. as already referred by several authors.

e. g..

by Berry (1951,

p. 414).

The Lower Cretaceous series

~ Cor example, shows this thickening.

Although such sediments were distinguished in the Merrimon and hfore-head City, N. C., wells, they are not known in surface outcrops t>or in well records in the encire area of the Great Carolina Ridge.

Upper Cre-taceous formations thicken from both directions toward the llatteras Axis.

Paleocene sediments are limited mostly co the northeast flank of the Great Carolina Ridge, and are not knowa to occur south and wesc of Pitc County. as stated by Brown ln his Correlation Chart (1958. table 1).

The gradually progressing Late Eocene transgression dcposlted sedi-cnents in the area of the Hatteras Axis; such sediments are miss)ng ln surface outcrops, and from the subsurface ir. an area north of the Neusi.

River. Ifthe thin unit questloaably indicated in Brown's cross section as "uaaamed Ollgocenc" (1950, Cig. 4), is proved to be Oligocene, then thi~ unit is likewise restricted to the Hatteras Axis area.

It Is known only ln the records of the Hatteras well and ln the Pamllco Sound well, as described by Richards (1948,

p. 61). and aot in surface outcrops.

While the Great Carolina Ridge re>aained during the Early and hiiddle hfiocene above sea level, probably continuous sedimentation occurred ln the area of the Hatceras Axi~.'n his Correlacion Chart Brown docs not show proved sediments of Lower Miocene age, but indicates a thick-nese of nearly 400 lect in the Hatteras wc)i as "unnamed Lower hlioccae

('?) unit" (Brown, 1958, table I and fig. 4).

Brown indicates hiiddle Mlocenc sediments also by a question mark, and in his Correlation Chare (table I) states that these phosphate sand sediments are "not known to occur in outcropping sections",

but that their "subsurface distribution" I~ "locallxed ln Beaufort. Washington.

Gates and Hyde Counties",

I. e.,

4 v

+xv"

, Cist~

xxl.':(,i

~ E (i-.cg -

=

xiM4(

I I: c'I)-" x.'. '.

Cx I

xi t

i ~

4 ~

V I

4 4

A Ak I

c(ie area of the llattcras Axle.

Thc Late Mloccnc transgression of the Yorktown sca covered the xntire area of the Hatteras Axis and deposfti accuxnulat d to c hl b

ic nesses.

such as 325 fcct at Edenton, N. C., and more than 500 feet f

in the Hatteras weH. as shown in Brown's cross sectio (I'

4).

h(

over, aunal evidences prove, according to Gardncr (1944

p. 70

1. I ctc. ). that the ied)ments of the Yorktown formation north of the Neuse River were deposited in an cmbayment that was removed from the inRuenc of warmer oceanic waters.

This cmbayment was prote t d b h

su) su a which remained during the Late Miocene tline above sea level in the area of Mount Olive, N. C., on the south side of the Neuse River valley.

THE CAPE LOOKOUT - NEVSE FAULT ZONE Besides che two main structural features which have Just been dls-

cusscd, two others are indicated.

Thc Cape Lookout-Neuse Fault Zone-a third northwest-southeast direcced feaiure transvcrs to ch A

I h'end

- ls xaldway between the Great Carolina Ridge and the Hatteras Axis.

Its existencc is indicated by the diHercnce in the depth of thc basement rock surface, 2, 318 lect on the southwest side of the fault sons in thc liavelock well and 4. 000 feet on the northeast side In the hierrixaoa test wells. as v:cll as in the Morchead City well.

Nearer the Piedmont.

Ia the area of Goldsboro.

N. C.. the prcseacc of such a fault xone is sug-gested in that che Upper Eocene Castle Hayne Ilxaestoae which 6 th

'g t bank of the Ncuse River over)isa the eroded surface of thc Black Creek aad Tuscaloosa Ibrmations. Is xaissing both in surface outcrops and in well records from thc left bank area north of the Neuse River.

hforeover, the well data and cross sections of Brown (1958. (igs. 2-9) indicate Chat north of the Neuse River there is an area, bouaded approxi-mately oa chc south by the Neusc and on the ease by a line drawn along t e eastern boundaries of Martin, Pitt. and Lenoir counties, where the hiiocene Yorktown sediments directly overlie the Cretaceous forxnations, without intervening Ididd)e or Upper Eocene sediments.

This elevated block must have been above sea lev<<l until the end of hiiddle hUocenc elms, but sank uith the oncoming transgression of the Late Miocene Yoxktown sea independently of che adJoining areaaouthof Neuse River, which remained above sea level during Lace hiioccne Yorktown time.

Thc "Cape Lookout-Neusc Fault Zone" is suggested al o b li g w ch older sedixaents became silicified duriag exncrgence of Cbis s

ya ne area between Late Eocene and Late hiiocene times.

'The occurrences of silicificd older sediments in the Piedmont area, such Eocene deposits in the railway cut at Garner, N.C.

~ and at chc boundary of Wake aad JohnstonCounties on old Highway 70 between Clayton aad Auburn, N. C. ~

(Richards, 1951, p.

14) ~ the Eocene outcrop with silicified Bryosoan scocks southwest of Dudley, Wayne Co., I finally thc siliclfied sandstone southeast of Kinstc n, N. C., (Stuckey, 1928, p. 22-23), Iic in an approxi-aiate northwest-southeast line. coinciding whh thc Cape Lookouc-Neusc Fault Zone.

This fault conc limits the block of older sedixnents on the soutrxwcsc s'de, which <<us not covered by che Eocene Castle Haynehime-In(urination froxa Richard D. Pussy, U.S.

GeoL Survey'. Ground Water Brach. Raleigh, N. C., and a)so personal observation.

u x

x stone, but became inundated by the Yorktown sea in thc Upper hiiocene STRUCTURAL FEATURES PARALI.ELTO APPALACHIANS ln addition to the three structural features discussed in the (oregoing paragraphs, two structural features xnay be mentioned which zvn para-llel co the Appalachian trend.

The first o( these is the line o( "subterra-nean disturbances",

as suggested by Shalcr (1872, p.

112).

This fea-tures. however.

so far is only suggested by chc paxallelism of c"xe pre-sent coast line southwest of Cape Hacteras to the xaain tread of the Appalachians.

The secoad feature, ln4lcated on tho sketch xaap as "Unnamed Fault Zone" is xnore evident.

Its southwest-xxxxtheaxt trend is indicated at the area about 17 miles west of Conway.

S. C., where the seaward slope of che basemenc surface becomes steeper (MacCaxthy, 1936, p. 399, fig. I).

the aorthwestern limit of the xaagnetically disturbed rene west of Wil-mlngtoa, N. C.. (h(acCaxthy,

1936,

p. 399, fig. I), the location of the fault near the con(luence of the Cape Fear and the Black River (LeGraad, 1955, p. 2036), and the line along the eastern bouadary of h(arcin, Pitt.

and Lenoir counties (mentioned on page 12 as a line where thc Upper Miocene Yoxktown sediments overlie the Cretaceous forxaations whhout intervening Eocene sedixncncs).

This data indicate a xone of movemcncs, which in its continuatlon.

Is perhaps reflected in che xnagnetic anoxaalies observed by Johason in northeastern Nc rth Carolina (1938, p.

1951).

This is also thc xone where the slope of the basement surface stecpens ln the North Carolina Coastal P)ain area.

as i)lustrated by the cross sections of Berry (1951

~ p. 4)3, iig. 116).

h(ORPHOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS OF STRUCTURE The morphology of the North Carolina Coastal Plain appeari to he connected with the structural features.

The drainage areas of cee Neuse River and the Cape Fear River within the Coastal Plain have a peculiar asymmetry.

The left bank tributaries of the Ncusc River and A.e Cape Fear River arc longer. and the slopes on the north banks are steeper.

in part, almost escarpment-like.

The course of che Roaaoke River follows, at least in part, the direction of the Hatteras Ax'is.

The sharp northeast turn of the Neuse River near Kinston, N. C.

~ relates,o the unnaxaed fault xone.

lt woul4 seem to be not an accidental coincidence that the pecuhar conHguration of the capes along the presx nt shore line u( both Carolinas has deve)op<<d re)acing to chess structural fvaturesx Cape Ii<<ueras to thc Hatteras Axis. Cape Lookout to the Cape I.ookout-House }auh Zone.

Cape Fear to the Great Carolina Ridge.

axxd perhaps.

Cape Roniain xn South Carolina at thc souchwesc boundary of the Greac Carolina f.idge.

Such a relation between Cape Canaveral, F)a.. and structur.a) liars wa>>

reccncly dccerxn)ned by Whho (1958, p.

1718-1714).

)low theve structural features

~ although di(fering in character, hay>> lcd to (urxxxation o( the individual capes needs more detailed studies.

The coincidcnc<<. in any case.

is noteworthy.

It should be even morc interesting if thc noxthcast-southwest "subterranean disturbances" suggested by Shaler (but not

)

C r W j..islay" w

'.,'.f~~qx("'

~ 73

• i "rg'g~-

r vv c,a v

1

'k

9 2

A 9

45, 49

<9

~I ZA>>

49 pppoved to dare).

as a cauNc leading to the "projection of Hatteras",

could 2

~

br2 proven as a further structural feature of the Coastal Plain of the Caro.

lines.

In this case tbe crossing of thc transverse structures with this northeast-southwest structure would provide another basis to thc idea that the capes have not been formed accidentally at their locations, but through thc influence of structural control.

CONCLUSIONS The North Carolina Coastal Plain ls not a simple homoclinal struc-ture but is more cornplcx.

The transverse structural features, the Great Carolina Ridge and the Ha'teras Axis. Influenced the transgression and regression of the seas ln diHerent geological times.

The middle feature, thc Capo Lookout-Ncusc Fault Zone had a similar role. but the movements along this xone affcctcd sn;aller areas of deposition.

Besides the para-llclisrn of the assumed northeast-southwest linc of Shaler to the main trend of Appalachian structure, an unnamed xone of structural distur-bances is suggested.

hiovemcnt along these features also influenced the morphology of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, and such an influence may be suggested for the whole extent of thc Atlantic Coastal Plain.

The basement rock beneath the sedimentary cover has the character of a pr.neplained block mountain rather than that of a folded mountain chain.

Former folds, lf they werc once present.

have been obliterated by fault systems developed since the Appalachian ltcvolution.

Structural condi-tions of the Atlantic Coastal P)ain, and gravity and other anomalies indicated more recently by Skccls {)950, plates I-IV, figs. 1-2). can perhaps be more easily interpreted by rcfcrring them to blocks in tbe basement rock mass differing in position.

REFERENCES Berry. E. W., 1948, North Carolina Coastal Plain f)oorr Bull. Geol.

Soc. Am. ~ v. 59. p. 87-89.

l95I,N IAC I: NI.A.A

. Pl ~

G I..

0. I, p. 4I2-4I5.

0

. PLL. 4955, II III I IA 0 I IPI I IN IAC II Dept. of Conservation and Dcvelopmcnt ~ Div. of Mineral Resources, Bull. 72.

Cooke, C. W.. 1936, Geology of thc Coastal Plain of South Carolina:

V.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 867.

Cooke.

C. W. ~ and MacNei). F.S..

1952, Tertiary Stratigraphy of South Carolina, U.S. Geol. Survey. Prof. Paper 243-B.

Dali, W. H.. and Harris.

G. D., 1892, Correlation papers:

Neocene.,

U. S.

Geol. Surv. Bull. 84.

Eardley. A. J..

1951, Structural Geology of North Amerlcar New York, Harper and Brothers.

r rdner. J..

t944, Mo))usca from the Miocene and lower Pliocene of Virginia and North Carolina:

U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper

)99.

Glenn. L. C.. l899. The Hatteras Axis in Triassic and in Miocene timer Anr. Geol.. v. 23, p. 375-379.

)iaycs

~ C W

~ arLd Carrrpbell ~ hi it

~ lrt9 l Gcol53or)3hoiogy Apr tl5u Southern Appalachians:

Nat. Geog.

Mrlg., v. 6, p.63-126.

Johnson, R. W.. 1938. Geomagnetic reconnaissance on the Coastal P)am of Northeastern North Carolina:

Bull Geol. Soc. Arn., v, 49. p l95).

I,cGrand, )f. E.,

1955, Brackish water and its structural implications in Great Carolina Ridge, North Carolina: Bull. Am. Assoc.

Pet.

Geol., v. 39, p. 2020 2037.

MacCarthy, G. R.,

1936, Magnetic anomalies and geologic structures of the North Carolina Coasta) Plain: Jour. Geol., v. 44, p.

396-406.

MacCarthy, G.R., Prouty, W. F., and Alexander. T.A.. 1933. Some rnagnetometcr observations in the Coastal P)ain of South Carolina:

Jour. Ellsha Mitchell Scl. Soc., v. 49, p. 20-21.

MacCarthy, G. R., and Stra)ay, H. W., lil. 1937. hiagnetic anom lies near Wllmington, N. C.: Science,

v. 85,

p. 362-364.

~ and

. 1938. Geomagnetic recent')seance 0 ~ILG I. 5

. A...49. p.l953.

MacLean, J. D., 1947, Oligocene and lower Mioccnc microfossils from Onslow County, North Carolina:

Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Notulae Naturae.

No. 200, p. 1-9.

McGee.

W. J..

1891, The Lafayette formatlonr 12th hnn. Rpt. of the Director of the U. S. Geol. Surv., pt. I, p. 347-521.

1892, The Gulf of Mexico as a measure of isostasy:

5

. A,

3. p. 50I-50 ~.

Mansfield. W. C.,

1927, Oil-prospecting well near Havclock, North Carolina:

N. C. Dept. of Conservation and Development, Economic Paper No. 58, p. 1-19.

Prouty, W. F.

~ 1936, Geology of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina:

Jour. Arn. )Vatcr Works Assoc.. v. 28, p. 484-491.

! Richards, H. G.,

1945, Subsurface stratigraphy of Atlantic Coastal Plain between New Jersey and Gcorgta:

Bull. Arn. Assoc.

Pet.

Geol., v. 29, p. 855-955.

1947, The Atlantic Coastal Plain, its geology and oil 1948. Studies on the subsurface geology and paleontology

delphia, v.

100, p. 39-76.

1951, Geology of the Coastal Plain of North Caro)inst

Shaler, N. S.,

1872.

On the causes which have lcd to thc production of Cape Hatterast Proceed.

Boston Soc. Natural History, v.

)A',

p. 110-)23, (1870-7)).

Skeels.

D. C.,

1950. Geophysical data on the North Carolina Coastal Plaint Geophysics, v.

15. p. 409-425.

Spangler, W. B., 1950, Subsurface geology of Atlantic Coastal Plain of North Carolina: Bull. Am.Assoc.

Pct. Geol., v.

34 ~ p. 100-)32.

Stephenson, L. W., 1912. The Cretaceous formations, in Clark, W. B.

and others, Thc Coasta) Plain of North Carolina, N. C. Geot. and Econ. Survey, v.

3, p. 258-266.

1926, Major features in the geology of the Atlantic 1928. Structural features of the Atlantic and Gulf Stralcy, H. W.. III, and Richards

~ H. G.

~ )950, The Atlantic Coastal Plain: Int. GcoL Cong., Rpt.

18th Session.

Great Britain. 1948.

Part VI, Proceed.

Sec.

E, The Geology of Petroleum.

p. 86-91.

'4

'4>>4

)L"A.>> '

P

,;3-431.),

I'3@

r-

~ ',4 54.

'I rrp 04 I

)0

~t

~

Stuckey.

J. L., l928. A Cretaceous sandstone quarry near Ktnston, North Carolina: Jour.

Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.,

v. 44, p. 22-23.

White. W. A., t958.

Cape Canaveral and the Cross-Peninsular Dividet Bull. Geol. Soc. Atn., v. 69. p. l7IS-l7l9.

406 Bande)eb>>n, and Windy Creek p)uteri; 'he Hunter Creek and granite Mountain p)dtons; ard the Selavik Hills p)uton.

120.

Con=urer Maeain of Surf ic!aI Cealeev near Ha))aran S

(C 111

. I

'-"Cl.r.)~I JEFFREY L. ZHRENZELLER (Indiana State Un)vera! ty). RvBERT I

v z

v r

I E

t r

E 2 C.

HO>>'E (Indiana State University), S.

VEN A. S;ANLEY Indiana State University).

A recent trend Ln geo)ogfcal re..ote sensing has been to nap surf)cia) narerials using nu)tispectral data collected by satellite and aircraft scanners.

Researcg by the authors at the Indiana State University Remote Seqsing Laboratory (ISUPSL)

Love)ved the production of a surficial geology nap of the Halloran SprLngs area fran ana)ysis of 12 channels of a rcraft nu)tispectral data collected by the Environnen-tal Research Institute of MLchigan (ERIN) with he MLchigan M-I optica) cechanical scanner system.

To produce the sur-ficia) geology ap, a correction vas cade for albedo.

Then a rarioing r<<chnique, Ln v'hich rhe revised spectral

alues Ln a thercal band (channel ll) vere divided by the values in a visible band (channel 6), vas used to produce an alpha-numeric printout dfsp)ayfng re)atfve differences in the...al inertia.

This =ap vas sin! lar to a large scale surficial geo)ogy

=ap prepared by conventional field napping methods.

Tvo rock types, quartz conzcnite and basalt, which vere not separab)e Ln this area using conventional renote sersing

.erhods,.vere separa ed on the thermal inertia nap.

These techniques, a)though still Ln the developnental

stage, are encouraging.

Eeccrdinz

.Lns ra as and 'ha Srm-earth Linkaza, v~LCOLv. HO.=qOH, U.S. Gov. Rat.

Solar arargy input (SEI) varies daily.

Data for daylight and the night. folio<<ing (bafora the next SEI) mka a ratu-ral 2L hour unit.

Tma frames for local the and U.T. are nct congruent '<<Lth these limits; bol,h.~ obsa~etions fran t"o SEI's, distorting averages, atc.

Tha corpus of raccrdad data is contained in these tins fra. ss.

Selec-tion and regrcuping produce congruent data.

The a, <<ith an i=proved curve ccnparison technique, yield Lpc<ant "indh:Es; pr<~rily, eroof of a f'ina-structured sun-earth Gage.

Srtaspst (SS) variations produce a basic tarres-ial chart pattern of mxi"um daily te=paralu.

s (T mx)

..at is inversely correlated <<il,h tha SS cu~'a.

Te=para-tura curves above the tropopause ara correlated inversely "il,h tha T rax curve, and directly with tha SS cuva

~

(Polar areas c&ttad for lack of data.)

Local station c""ves ara variants of tha basic curve, nodu'atad pricar-i'y by 'atituda and longitude.

.ypical local T mx curves "ove as a unit, tha configuration intact but for systematic nod 'aticns, fran W to E about 15 daily.

vamp)as of T nsx correlationsr (direct) sunshine, cal.

cr2; ultra-violet radiation; water temperature in evap-oration pan; (inverse) atnospharic

ozone, asp. with data from potassiu=

papers; air pressure; (co=plex) gacmg-nal,isn.

Finally, there is a solar-based 27 day racu"-

ranca tendency in tha conformation of the T rax curve.

122.

Heavinc Shale-Evidence for the Role of Bacteria in its Develonment.

E!IMY BOOY (Colorado Shales in the areas around the cities of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Cleveland, Ohio.

and Ottawa, Ontario have expanded up to several inches subsequent to buildings being built upon bedrock.

This oxnansion is caused by the growth of gypsum and, frequently, jarosito between, layers of pyritiferous calcitic shale.

Damage to the over-lying structures has been extensive, sometimes forcing their abandonmont-Similar shale in the White Pine Mine in Michigan has shown no evidence of such expansion in the mine openings.

The major difference be-tween heaving and non-hcaving shale appears to be the presence or absence of Thiobacillus ferrooxi-dans whosc mo"abolism oonerates su urac aca which reac s with the calcite present in the rock t

fo."m gypsum.

Whore conditions favorable for population cxplosions of the bacteria occur (PH 2, 35 C),

severe expansion o'he Dholes have occu=red.

In conditions, as at White Pine, which thc bac-teria find hosti)e, m'neralogically similar shales show no evidence for expansion due to the growth of secondary minerals.

)23 Two I~e 3>so>

ap 0 we Sv

~ s cg< a tP

~ 'c a

+v 1<'s e

0 ces v'.-.'.c" ~ba"ed t".e sur.ace.

S'xty percent o)'arl.'.".'s urfaca rc"sists cf ".o cast, veat?.ar-

"laned 'erraces.

T'.".e """cr Terrace.

cc=.prising C;~ of tbs total area, rar."es abcu>> present sea 1 evel, Tl e

) oval arrace (sc e I es rise

)

Ies c.

=CfC =sl.ers ba)ow prasar,t sea level on tba ocean floors.

R)ver-cul, caryors and valleys run dcwr.

o deltas srd alluv)al fans cn he Lever Terrace.>>

Tba Syr.'? esls re'ata t?ese features ard proposes ital, sll Arc"ate = svat1ons

( is-land arcs,,".Ountair.

rances) on

"..a Upper Terrace ware for=.sd by.'ca-s'..eet tac'c..ics; o.".d 'va ice-

@Lee'. dehy ral.1cr. of ccrtins:;tel sss grec'"'tates pe rifles life forms ir. "ce presses.

Petro)curn, ccal and "phosnhate rock" a~a 'arred si:.u'a-ecusly.

-slew tba Lower Terrace oceans are thar.

da?:ydratad by avapcra

, resu irc 1n prac!"-

Its

!c.". cf I,?;e ss"~ ='".erals cr. cesar. floors, but vilhcul,. ca.".Lcs.

Tb f r:.et)

.". I ca 1ons of m)-.,erala ap" crgar.ic "aposils

-. ay ba deduced

".rom Mesa factors.

""aL< "RTv qalrsh n"ar>'s" w' S'OS'iO'!

con"-

f ey an vo t?; r DL T

A rT) p Delacorl,e, lc77 ~

124.

Structural Control of Mesozoic-Cenozoic Deposition, North and South Carolina Coastal Plain.

HARRIS, W.

BURLEICH, ZULLO, VICTOR A. (Univ. North Carolina at Wilnington, North Carolina 28a03) and BALM, CERALD R. (College of Char)aston, Charleston, South Carolina 2940)).

Abrupt changes Ln distriburion, facies, thickness and atti-tude of Cretaceous and Cenczoic sediments in the Carolina Coasral Plain ref)ect episodic and differential novevents a)ong three fault zones.

"Sanrea fault", Cape Fear arch (fault) and Reuse !au)t are subparal)el, trend NW-SE, and extend fran the Loner Coastal Plain ro the coast betveen Georgia and Hatteras enbaynenrs.

Pre-late Cretaceous nove-nent along Cape Fear and Neuse faults Ls 'Indicated by off-set and changes in thickness of lover Cretaceous beds that are not reflected in overlying units.

Paleogene activity along Neuse fault is indicated by a shift in structural and depositional strike in post-Paleocene units and abrupt thickening of upper Eocene through lover Miocene units north of the fault.

Sporadic Paleogene uplift of the south side of Cape Fear fault is suggested by the angular uncon-fornity between Cretaceous and overlying units and by intra-for ational dfsconfornftfes and Dorag dolo itization in the niddle Eocene Castle Hayne Linestone.

Post-nedial Eocene activity along "Sanree fault" is shovn by rapid thickening of upper Eocene beds southvest of the fault and their onlap of older units to the northvest.

Plio-Pleistocene actLvity along Cape Fear and Neuse faults is indicated by tilting of coastal terraces, distribution of narfne sedinents and derangenent of drainage patterns.

125. Hydrogen)ecv and Ocve)ao"ane nf <crine Cave Colorado R ~ F~RK lsASLYN Consulting Ceo)ogist s

OA iKS A P)SAROJICZ (University of Denver) ~

Spring Cave is developed vholly vitnfn the early lsizsissippian Laadvi)le Limestone.

In this area the Loacvi)la is approxi nately 62 n thLck and consists of tvo naLn divisions, an upper massive cliff forning Line packztcne and a lover section of thinner )Lneatona and dolceite beds The cava entrance is located at the head of a s=all drainage tributary to the Scuth Fork of tha Unite RLve: at an elevation of 2380 m, This

SbfP.C S.0 P.ACi of the <45th Natt'onal Meeting 3-8 JAnua+ <979 Houston, Texas Edited by Arthur Herschtnan Qn American Association for the Ad vancemteonf Science

<5<5 A&ssach<<setts'Avenue, NW, Wishinyto>>, DC 2oao~

STRUCTURAL AND STRATICRAPHIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE COASTAL PLAIN OF NORTH CAROLINA Edited By Gerald R. Baum W. 8 u r leigh Harris And Victor A. Zullo VIAOINIA I

I

/

I

)

k

~

.-'APE HATTERAE

/

G~ g/'r'APE I.OOKOVT O

~

~

'}g

~t+i 1

+

o~g-~

CAPE FEATI Carolina Geological Society And Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association Field Trip Guidebook October 19-21, 1979 Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

TECTONIC EFFECTS ON CRETACEOUS, PALEOGENE, AND EARLY NEOGENE SEDINENTATION, NORTH CAROLINA by W. Burleigh Harris, Victor A. Zullo Department of Earth Sciences and Program for Marine Science Research University of North Carolina at Wilmington Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Gerald R.

Baum Department of Geology College of Charleston Charleston, South Carolina 29401 Contribution no.

907 of the Marine Sciences Program, University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

17

INTRODUCTION V

The Atlantic Coastal Plain Province is an oceanward thickening wedge of SE dipping Mesozoic-Cenozoic sediments and sedimentary rocks that unconformably overlie an oceanward dipping pre-Cretaceous basement.

Three major structural features modify the general oceanward slope of the basement:

Cape Fear fault in North Carolina, Ft. Monroe uplift (Norfolk arch) in Virginia, and Normandy arch in New Jersey.

Traditionally, the Atlantic Coastal Plain has been considered the stable western limb of an offshore geosyncline that has experienced little or no fault activity, only gravity induced subsidence and con-comittant uplift (Murray, 1961).

Consequently, most geologic interpretations of Coastal Plain geology have been governed by this tradition, with most workers not considering that tectonic activity may have'ffected MesozoicWenozoic sediment deposition.

Therefore, in many cases, the lack of recognition and consideration of the effects of tectonic activity have lead to a general misunderstanding and misinter-pretation of Coastal'lain geology.

Hobbs (1904) recognized major lineaments along the Atlantic border region and suggested that the lineaments were the result of a crustal fracture field.

Brown et al.

(1972) in a study based on subsur-face data established a regional tectonic framework for the Atlantic Coastal Plain and found that many

~ their structural axes coincided with those of Hobbs.

Recently other workers have suggested Cretaceous

/or Tertiary deformation in the Coastal Plain of Maryland (Jacobeen, 1972), Virginia (Mixon and Newell, 1977; Dischinger, 1979), North Carolina (Brown et al.,

1977; Baum et al., 1978);

South Carolina (Inden and Zupan, 1975; Zupan and Abbott, 1975; Higgins et al., 1978; Rankin et al., 1978; Zoback et al., 1978; Baum and Powell, 1979),

and Georgia (Prowell et al., 1975; Cramer and Arden, 1978; Cramer, 1979).

The main purpose of this study is to refine and detail the basement-rooted tectonic framework intro-duced by Brown et al.

(1972) for the Atlantic Coastal Plain and to show its sequential effect on Creta-

ceous, Paleogene, and early Neogene sedimentation in North Carolina.

Tectonic activity also has affected Plio-Pleistocene sedimentation, drainage and geomorphology, and is discussed by Zullo and Harris in the following paper.

GEOLOGIC SETTING The emerged North Carolina Coastal Plain is underlain by Lower Cretaceous to Quaternary sediments and sedimentary rocks that extend from a feather-edge along the Fall Line to a maximum thickness greater than 3 km at Cape Hatteras.

The area represents a typical belted Coastal Plain with younger beds pro-gressively cropping out closer to the coast.

Structurally, four major features rooted in the pre-Coastal ain basement have periodically affected Mesozoic-Cenozoic sedimentation:

Cape Fear fault, Neuse fault, rolina fault, and Graingers wrench zone (Fig. 1).

Interpretations of the times of tectonic activity are discussed later in this paper.

19

CAAK LOOKOUT I

VIACKAA I

~

-iA

~ g/0 AA APPROXIMATE

~ LlMIT OP, '

i'~ g,

.~g l

4g P

AS p~ j CAP% KCAK TA I

'Figure 1.

Ma)or structural features of the North Carolina Coastal Plain.

Cape Pear Fault Dell and Harris (1892) originaUy recognized a ma)or positive feature (Cape Fear arch) along the Cape Fear River; however, Stephenson (1923) is usually given credit for first delineating the structure.

Since then many workers have documented the presence of a structure along the Cape Fear River that has undergone periodic movement (MacCarthy, 1936; Mansfield, 1937; Richards, 1945; Straley and Richards, 1950; Baum et al., 1977; Harris et al.,

1977)

~

Harris et al.

(1979) suggested that the Cape Pear arch represents a

basement fault that has experienced episodic and differential movement from Lower Cretaceous through the Quaternary.

Cape Fear fault trends NW"SE and can be traced from about Fayetteville, Cumberland County, to Carolina

Beach, New Hanover County.

The approximate location of the fault is NE of the line separating the Peedee drainage basin from the Cape Fear drainage basin.

The direction of relative movements along Cape Fear fault has periodically reversed.

Neuse Fault Perenczi (1959) postulated that a fault occurred along the Neuse River and called the feature the Cape Lookout-Neuse River fault zone.

Baum et al.

(1978) also recognized the feature and shortened the name to Neuse fault.

Subsequently, Harris et al.

(1979) changed the trend of Neuse fault.

Neuse fault trends

-SE parallel to Cape Fear fault and can be traced from about Smithfield, Jolinston County, to Bogue Inlet

.20

at the mouth of the White Oak River, Onslow-Carteret County line.

The fault is probably part. of a series of basement faults that occur between the Neuse and New Rivers that have a sense of relative movement with the north side down.

Movement along Neuse fault has occurred periodically from Lower Cretaceous ough the Quaternary.

Carolina Fault LeGrand (1955) and Ferenczi (1959) postulated a fault zone trending NE-SW, parallel to the coast, that could be traced through the vicinity of Kinston, Lenoir County.

The unnamed fault was suggested by the occurrence of saltwater incursion near the confluence of the Cape Fear and Black Rivers.

Baum et al.

(1978) named the feature Carolina fault and showed that the fault'an be traced from the confluence of the Cape Fear and Black Rivers, Pender County, to Kinston, Lenoir County.

Recent work suggests that the trace of the fault passes through Cove City, Craven County.

Graingers Wrench Zone Graingers wrench zone was proposed by Brown et al.

(1977) to explain surface topography and anomalous exposures of the Paleocene Beaufort Formation in the Kinston area, Lenoir County.

The wrench zone trends NE-SW (parallel to the Carolina fault) and can be traced through the town of Graingers, Lenoir County.

Because the pro)ected trace of Graingers wrench zone corresponds to gravity anomalies identified by Johnson (1975),

and to geomorphic and stratigraphic features in southeast Virginia, Graingers wrench zone y extend for 250 km.

Brown et al.

(1977) interpret that the most recent movement along the fault zone resulted from wrenching along a pre-Coastal Plain basement fault.

Graingers wrench zone consists of a series of en echelon faults that extend north from Neuse fault.

Although the sense of relative movement on each individual fault varies within the zone, there is an overall sense of downward movement progressively toward the east.

Won et al.

(1979) suggest that the Graingers wrench zone coincides with a Triassic Basin border fault and have identified the width and length of the basin from gravity data.

The 20 km wide basin occupies the areas bounded by the Graingers wrench zone and Carolina fault.

The Graingers fault was active as early as the Triassic (pre-Coastal.

Plain sedimeaCation),

but wrench movement probably occurred during the Paleocene and maybe as recently as the Quatenfary.

DISCUSSION Cretaceous Clastic sediments of the Fredericksburg and Washita Stages (Cretaceous Unit F of Brown et al.,

1972) represent the earliest widespread deposition of Mesozoic sediments in North Carolina.

Unit F only crops out south of the Neuse fault, along the Fall Line, but is widespread throughout the Coastal Plain (Fig.

).

The distribution, thickness, and attitude of Cretaceous Unit F suggests that syn-depositional tec-tonic activity affected Fredericksburg and Washita deposition.

21

(() AI a'I(

" I)

Caa'( ~

~ '8 g)j Q)x>(().

e AIIt t(

i(e.

~.,e

~.w 4)

.,I'( (a

)>>r I

~

e,(l,. ~(

I i,

ll

.ii ra

.. 4a q.

)w..>>

4

(

49>a

+)a>y) I,y eeet+(aa (qa r ~ I.a(.g.

~ C)aj. ':

C.'

'+

err>i ((i'a ) IX 'I)

~ (!

C I')(aa

~ 4 ~ ~ '4e '(ll C( ~.

~ yX( CC

~ C(

(""lc.'q((':

- v(')g( "c"'

". ':~AC r(r p'; 'err,)c'Q()cg( r.rect,c

<'cw w

'("f(q~ "'-.>'

g l a,

i, '

~

)i

~'i,e,

~

~

)

~

\\j) el i

~ ~

tj.'.:.r,"r r gy%X" "-",V."'>(: I~>

'9'".,ga. a(".I aa".I

.rr C

>ay r

'I

~ 'ag (Xt ce (I ~+

c I,

>Ce)': ( 4i l>Pre>r.

ggya>~raiiy>',KI'!j))a' e(( a

~((((

~ Crier l (j<<(~b"""4'j r

~

rPr pic)>,"pbbs

>ra l ga

)

."q,~(;; f.c ",'I:(.~'.q err ii/y rrr

) rr rrr rQ(',4Xg>'Cr

(.Ie,. ~'((i'i'I('.>>

~ 6

~icy air.I ( t)a ( ( l! )'>>ac ga> >,ll.'

> i", rrr

~

rr -

.ra cr grar rrra r rr rr r rr.rr i( ~( )I(('I

~ g

~

i'r

~

" 'C r pp 0r)

Ij"..y,

)

~ ~.X<pa; '~,'.'.<. " 4 ie.g rr-r--r-r-;.0 a ~

p>L (),I I) Iea(( (

C>

X CS

( +

C C

I),

rr rrrr r

r r

r rr r rr r

> Xh

~

~

~

hWI,Vi;q~.(s ca ("I cic,"rcc: I))"

I rrrr rrr,a r('pr>,>

ac) ) >ai,'c)i'>c'EI g(4cagg5cy 'cw') >ac)('5 ~ (I( ~ I~r)a

)'paste c+g>i,

. rrrr /rrrr e r r rP

)c)as ~ l ae(

c>a LQ

(()

c( ~ a'I).

l ~c,, ~

~ ~ '>

e,el

>q r r e r e

r r

rr

. ge

'Eca ((((a(>ace (),4>a(.I>c>><a(e

(.

I "~aaa

>q' C ~>>

i"~ '(((g(.'A c '( w(,"ac I '.~p'~-'., '.IA

~i+)a((e;Xa(>>>(">>'>a""ay'r(!.,

(ie ((Za+Ci'.

~ ie)ei (t; '.I'QC >'(C" I((('%))qg~agCLXaC',L<(y h '

"(~a( 4')

Wl yhba(ie Xa ~ (y'a), a'(>

a((ii'.(i(,l>

.~<( IiCIPm a((aa~,

.-.~. I'(rW>~ >(X>>

(Cq'i'6'(a

) $i )) )aa> WCg a>rag~a+a aae((~$

~ I'I 4> r~tga tY>

'aih Zy

~i'X'>I e(q aC>ra ~, W Lqa((k (g I."0

'e,a)ag((g (Xq( ((C)

( 'i,a'. ',i>,'..X

)>C)~'

t

.'Ci( %'Vi ~ (,

qxi',(CW'j((a,iii(Pj's,<XV)(('.i>('C q, (5 4( C,.().X'hcg4V4 ". i'Xi (A~q~> CXr>'W~>'

()g(l((

'" (,'(.; <,,

ert>y(~ a K'c pg 87 O

e V~

rr er

. ~ 4+.Iey, r"I ay~(( y(.

gY>:e

~

1q. X jc,

)I. r r.,

rl err

~

cr V-Pg

. I" a (re (7 %ay>C

~

~ 'ay+~( i i~ (>() I ', (a e(a

. ~ I ag(III>

c aw "eew ')i 4

) i () e.

) ~

l

>(r rr )t.. er((

r(ca)I rC

.x.wr> ~

(a

(>

)

h

0

~

~

~-

i I;

I

~

ure 2.

j It I

~

p, i

<1 i E 1

Pig VIAONIA I

100 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF ~-

COASTAL PLAIN I l

4p r

1 g

100 Vga

.+

ii7

++

.pp I

i ~

00 00 QCAtE HATTEAAE CAtE AOOKOOT ISOPACH CRETACEOUS UNIT F

~1tteiit ~1W titty ~i il

~iltl TA T0I CATE TEAR TA I

~i H

~i iNoo Brown et al., 1972).

Isopachous map of Cretaceous Unit P (modified from

'1 "

Isopachous mapping of Cretaceous Unit F (Fig. 2) reveals that the unit attains a thickness of about 100'30 m) between the traces of Cape Fear and Neuse faults.

South and north of the faults, respec-tively, Cretaceous Unit P obtains a thickness of about 500'150 m).

Because-isopachous.relationships are related to basin configurations, as well as t:ectonism, three possible interpretations can explain the isopach map of Cretaceous. Unit: P:

lA

1) pre-depositional subsidence north of ri

2) syn-depositional subsidence north o' Neuse fault and south of Cape Fear fault, Neuse fault and so1Ith of Cape Fear fault, with sediment, deposition equaling subsidence,')

post-depositional uplift of the area between Neuse and Cape Fear faults.

Comparison of structure contours on top of Cretaceous Unit P (see Brown et al., 1972, Plate 9) with the isopach map of the unit favors interpret'ation 2.

If pre-depositional uplift elevated the block between Cape Pear and Neuse faults, consequently con-trolling sedimentationt structure contours on top of Cretaceous Unit P should indicate a stru tural nose or positive area between the faults that mimics.the thinning of the unit.illustrated by the isopachous map.

Because no high or structura3 positive is present, pre-depositional uplift probably was not im-portant.

22.

By the same line of reasoning, if post-depositional uplift elevated the block between Cape Fear and Neuse faults, structure contours on top of Cretaceous Unit P should also indicate a positive area between the faults.

In addition, if the assumption is made that post-depositional uplift occurred prior to depo-sition of overlying Cretaceous Unit E, then an isopach of Unit E should mimic the isopach of Unit F by indicating thick areas north arid south of Neuse and Cape Pear faults, respectively.

Also, lithofacies distributions of Cretaceous Unit E would indicate that the uplifted area had served as a source area during deposition.

Because the isopachs of Cretaceous Unit E and Unit P are dissimilar in pattern and because available evidence suggests that Unit E did not serve as a source area, post-depositional uplift of the area between Cape Pear and Neuse faults probably is not responsible for the distribut'ion and thick-ness of Cretaceous Uni.t P.

We 'suggest then that isopachous mapping and structure contours on top of Cretaceous Unit P support syn-depositional subsidence south and. north of basement-rooted Cape Pear and Neuse faults, respectively, with sediment deposition balancing subsidence.

Regardless of whether syn-depositional subsidence occurred independent of pre-or post-depositional uplift, isopachous mapping of Cretaceous Unit P documents that faulting was active in controlling deposition of the unit.

Differences in the amount of dip on Cretaceous Unit F north and south of Neuse fault and the position and outcrop pattern of the unit along the Fall Line suggests some post-depositional shifting or read)ustment of the block north of Neuse fault.

Available data suggests that Carolina and Graingers faults were not active during the Lower Cretaceous.

There is no evidence of movement along Cape Fear and Neuse faults and Graingers and Carolina faults during the Upper Cretaceous.

Paleogene Paleocene.

The Paleocene Beaufort Formation crops out in Lenoir and Craven Counties and contains Danian (Brown et al.,

1977) and Thanetian equivalents (Harris and Baum, 1977)

~

Danian beds are referred to as the Jericho Run Member and are locally present as a silicified 'mudstone assigned to the Pl planktic foraminifera zone (Brown et al.,

1977)

~

Thanetian beds are unnamed and disconformably overlie the Jericho Run Member of the Cretaceous Peedee Formation.

These beds consist of consolidated sandy, glauconitic foraminiferal biomicrosparite and unconsolidated

sandy, foraminiferal biomicrite.

They correlate with the P4 planktic foraminiferal zone of Berggren (1971).

Authigenic glauconites from the Thanetian beds have been dated by Harris and Baum (1977) at 55.7 and 57.8 m.y.

Outcrops of the Beaufort Formation occur near the intersection of Neuse fault and Graingers wrench zone and are related to a structural mosaic of horst,

graben, and half grabens with the faults trending NE-SW (Brown et al., 1977)

(Fig. 3).

These en echelon faults overlie a buried Triassic Basin (Won et al.,

979).

Uariations in thickness and sudden lateral terminations of the Jericho Run Member and Thanetian 23

NORTHWEST

~ 1 SOUTHEAST 10

~ 0 10 lo 00 t0 10 C

11 SEA LEVEL DATUM C St C tl JERICHO RUN SCARP C tl C t 5

C't ~

C'tt to POST - PALEOCENE THANETIAN$

PALEOCENE DANIAN CRETACEOUS

\\ASS>>SCSS~

I ullf I All

~HIIAI

,~

WRICHO RUN SCARP

~lull

\\

Ir Figure 3.

Northwest-southwest section across Graingers Wrench Zone.

CIl I/

i e(O 00 oc j+ v--~ Ql APPROXIMATE UMIT OF ~,r IITt l

~ i. ~i COASTAL PLAIN..

++

r 5r

/g'~vult ct ulut r>>

)

i~

r>>

V""' ',

t r0

P.";ir'ri.,

C5 Q'

~

.::, "Il;:I,:.,';;"', ~ CAPS IIAtlfAAS

<a SS

~

i r5,

. '-t":rr O(1r f DISTRIBUTION

~+~

NEW BERN FORMATION CAtf tfAA

~0I

~l

~

~I rr

~ ~

Hl>>

10 I

Figure 4.

Distribution of the upper Eocene New Bern Formation.

~l!t'

sediments (Fig. 3), suggest t t

ese au hat th se faults experienced episodic movement during the Paleocene(?)

and the post-Paleocene.

Except or a or reen n

f min reentrant of Paleocene beds along the Pender-Onslow County line (see Brown et alef 1972, Plate 15), the Beaufort Formation is restricted to'he area north of Neuse fault.

The lack of a regionally recogn za e mar e i" bl k r horizon overlying the Beaufort Formation circumvents estab-lishing the time of post-Paleocene movement.

owever, t

However offset of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone sug-gests post-Eocene deformation.

rown e a

B t

1 (1978) recognize the following features that are associated with a NE-SW trending scarp that borders Jericho Run:

1) an uplifted stratigraphic marker horizon,

2) triangular faceting of the scarp,

3) extensive parallel ravinement normal to the scarp, and 4) the presence of breccias along t e toe o

t e scarp.

h f

h rp The excellent preservation of these features in a humid environment suggests some Quaternary movement along the Graingers wrench zone.

Eocene.

One of the most extensive transgressions of the Cenozoic in North Carolina occurred during the middle to upper Eocene.

Eocene seas transgressed most of the Coastal Plain reaching the Fall Line, depositing tropical marine carbonates'"atypical of other Cenozoic sedimentary units in North Carolina.

The middle to upper Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone consists of three prominent facies:

lower phos-phate-pebble conglomerate, middle bryozoan biosparrudite, and upper bryozoan-sponge biomicrudite.

Bryo-zoan biosparrudite and bryozoan biomicrudite are the two dominant facies of the Castle Hayne Limestone.

Numerous diastems and Dorag dolomitization in the bryozoan biomicrudite in the lower Cape Fear area (Brunswick and New Hanover Counties),

suggests movement of Cape Fear fault during middle and upper Eocene.l The upper Eocene New Bern Formation consists of sandy, pelecypod-mold biomicrosparrudite and repre-sents the youngest outcropping Eocene strata in North Carolina (see Baum et al.

this volume).

"Outcrops

,Baum of the New Bern Formation are confined to an area lying between the Neuse and Trent Rivers...

(

et al., 1978).

The New Bern Formation is restricted to the area north of the Neuse fault and east of Carolina fault (Fig. 4).

Because of this restriction, and because the New Bern Formation represents a

ma5or lithologic change from a carbonate dominated regime (Castle Hayne Limestone) to a clastic dominated regime (New Bern Formation),

the area north of Neuse fault was downdropped during latest Eocene.

Move-ment on Neuse fault appears to coincide with movement along "Santee" fault, in the Charleston area of South Carolina (Harris et al., 1979; Baum and Powell, 1979; Baum et alef this volume).

Oli coons.

The Oliiocene Trent Fortution is restricted to the area north of Neu River, Onslou

County, east of Carolina fault Howev.erthe di,strihution. thickness, and ifthofacdis of rha Trent For mation do not suggest Oligocene movement of Neuse and Carolina faults.

Neogene Miocene.

The lower Miocene Belgrade and Silverdale Formations (and the Crassostrea beds) are re-stricted to the area east of the Trent Formation and do not appear to be related to tectonic activity Depositional strike of these units is N-SF consequently, because of the orientat ion of the North Carolin 25

coast, they do not crop out south. of New Rfver.

Fossils assignable to the lower Miocene have been found Onslow and Topsail beaches, suggesting that these units are exposed on the continental shelf south of River.

The middle Miocene Pungo River Formation is restricted to the area north of Neuse fault and east(?)

of Graingers and Carolina faults (Fig. 5).

Miller (1971) suggested that deposition of this unit was controlled by NE-SW trending faults.

Deep-water deposits (100-200 m) of phosphate, diatomite, and car-bonate suggest that the rate of subsidence exceeded the slow supply of terrigenous sediments (Gibson, 1967).

SUMMARY

Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposition in the North Carolina Coastal Plain was affected by. four basement-rooted structural elements:

Cape Fear fault, Neuse fault, Carolina fault, and Graingers wrench zone.

2.

During the lower Cretaceous

{Fredericksburg and Washita stages),

syn-depositional tectonism along Cape Fear and Neuse faults resulted in elevation of the area between the faults.

Consequently, iso-pachous mapping of Fredericksburg and Washita sediments reflect thick areas south and north of Cape Fear and Neuse faults, respectively, with an intervening thin area.

Structure contours on top of Fredericksburg and Washita sediments do not reflect this uplift, therefore, sediment supply and deposition kept pace with the rate of uplift.

3.

The Paleocene Beaufort Formation is restricted to the area north of Neuse fault, and appears to be related to reactivated Triassic faults.

Graingers wrench zone and Carolina fault bound and limit Paleocene deposits and reflect movement during the Paleocene.

The distribution, thickness and lithofacies of Danian and Thanetian beds support Paleocene movement.

The excellent surface preser-vation of a surface scarp coincident with Graingers wrench zone suggests Quaternary movement.

4 ~

Middle to upper Eocene sediments (Castle Hayne Limestone) support Eocene tectonism in the Coastal Plain.

Numerous diastems and Dorag dolomitization in the upper biomicrudite in the lower Cape Fear region suggests late Eocene movement along Cape Fear fault.

The restricted occurrence of the upper Eocene New Bern Formation to the east of Carolina fault and north of Neuse fault suggests latest Eocene activity along Carolina and Neuse faults.

S.

The distribution, thickness, and lithofacies of Oligocene sediments (Trent Formation) suggests no tectonic activity during that epoch.

6.

The distribution of Belgrade and Silvordale Formations and the Crassostrea beds do not suggest tec-tonism during the lower Miocene.

The restriction of the middle Miocene Pungo River Formation to the area north of Neuse fault suggests that Neuse fault was active with the north side down.

26

LIUII Ot I

yIQQIHIA UIOOLE UIOCEHE i

0 0

I CAPE HAIIEIIASI CAPE LOOKOVI

~<<or>>rr ~ r<<O>> r<<O<<<<

~ ~ rr,

~ ~rlr Jr

!A gr +

xiCo APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF.

COASTAL PLAIN

'<<.Q,

~r'~+

0 Gg t

r

't) 'L t'SOPACH MIODLE MIOCENE

~c., <<0

'L H00 <<~

CAPE PEAII

~r

~

re re re I~

I~

Figure 5.

Distribution and thickness of the middle Miocene Pungo River Formation (modified from BrOWn et air I 1972).

hL'7

REFERENCES CITED um G. R., Harris, W. B., and Zullo, V. A., 1977, Stratigraphic revision and structural setting of the Eocene to lower Miocene strata of= North Carolina (abs.):

Geol.

Soc. America,,Abs. with Programs,

v. 9, n. 2, p. 117.

Baum, G. R., Harris, W. B., and Zullo, V. A., 1978, Stratigraphic revision of the exposed middle Eocene to lower Miocene formations of North Carolina:

Southeastern

Geology,

v. 20, n. 1, p. 1-19

'aum G. R.,

and Powell, R. J.,

1979, Correlation and tectonic framework of the middle and upper Eocene strata of the Carolinas (abs.):

Geol.

Soc. America, Abs. with Programs,

v. 11, n. 4, p. 170.

Berggren, W. A., 1971, A Cenozoic time-scale some implications for regional geology and paleobiogeog-raphy:

Lethaia, v. 5, n. 2, p. 196-215.

Brown, P. H., Miller, J. A., and Swain, F. M., 1972, Structural and stratigraphic framework and spatial distribution of permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina to New York:

U. S. Geol.

Survey Prof. Paper

796, 79 p.

Brown, P. H., Brown D. L., Shufflebarger, T. E.,

and Sampair, J. L., 1977, Wrench-style deformation in rocks of Cretaceous and Paleocene

age, North Carolina Coastal Plain:

N. C. Dept. Natural Res.,

Div. Earth Sciences, Special Pub. 5, 47 p-

Cramer, H. R., 1979, Sabine (Wilcox) rocks and structure, Coastal Plain of Georgia (abs.):

Geol.

Soc.

America, Abs. with Programs,

v. 11, n. 4, p. 175.

Cramer, H. R.,

and Arden, D. D., Jr.,

1978, Faults in Oligocene rocks of the Georgia Coastal Plain (abs.):

Geol.

Soc. America, Abs. with Programs,

v. 10, n. 4, p. 166.

Dell, W. H., and Harris, G. D., 1892, The Neocene of North Carolina:

U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 84, 349 p.

ischinger, J. B., 1979, Stratigraphy and structure of the faulted Coastal Plain near Hopewell, Virginia (abs.):

Geol. Soc. America, Abs. with Programs,

v. 11, n. 4, p. 177.

4 erenczi, I., 1959, Structural control of the North Carolina Coastal Plain:

Southeastern Geology, v. 1,

p. 105-116.

Gibson, T. G., 1967, Stratigraphy and paleoenvironment of the phosphatic Miocene strata of North Carolina:

Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 78, p. 631-650.

Harris, W. B., and Baum, G. R., 1977, Foraminifera and Rb-Sr glauconite ages of a Paleocene Beaufort For-mation outcrop in North Carolina:

Geol. Soc.

America Bull., v. 88, p. 869-872.

Harris, W. B.,

Baum, G. R., Wheeler, W. H., and Textoris, D. A., 1977, Lithofacies and structural frame-work of the middle Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, North Carolina (abs.):

Geol. Soc. America, Abs.

with Programs,

v. 9, n. 2, p. 144-145.

Harris, W. B., Zullo, V. A., and Baum, G. R., 1979, Structural control of Mesozoic-Cenozoic deposition, North and South Carolina Coastal Plain (abs.):

Am. Assoc. Adv. Science, Abs. of Papers,

p. 106.

Higgins, B. B., Gohn, G. S.,

and Bybell, L. M., 1978, Subsurface geologic evidence for normal faults in the South Carolina Coastal Plain near Chaileston (abs.):

Geol.

Soc.

America, Abs. with Programs,

v. 10, n. 4, p.

171.

Hobbs, W. H., 1904, Lineaments of the Atlantic border region:

Geol.

Soc. America Bull., v. 15, p. 483-506.

Inden, R. F., and Zupan, A. -J. W., 1975, Normal faulting of upper Coastal Plain sediments, Ideal Kaolin mine, Langley, South Carolina:

South Carolina Div. Geology Geol. Notes, v. 19, n. 4, p. 160-165.

Jacobeen, F. H., Jr.,

1972, Seismic evidence for high angle reverse faulting in the Coastal Plain of Prince Georges and Charles County, Maryland:

Maryland Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 13, 21 p.

I

ohnson, S. S.,

1975, Bouger gravity in southeastern Virginia: Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Rept. Inv. 39, 42 p-I

LeGrand, H. E.>

1955, Brackish water and its structural implications in Great Carolina ridge, North Caro-lina:

Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 39, p. 2020-2037.

28

ne MacCarthy, G. R., 1936, Magnetic anomalies and geologic structures of the Carolina Coastal Plain:

Jour.

Geology, v. 44, p. 396-406.

Mansfield, W. C., 1937, Some deep wells near the Atlantic Coastal Plain in Virginia and the Carolinas:

~ U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 186-I, p. 159-161.

Miller, J. A., 1971, Stratigraphic and structural setting of the middle Miocene Pungo River Formation of North Carolina (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation):

Chapel Hill, N. C., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 82 p.

al eol.

Mixon, R'. B., and Newell, W. L., 1977, Stafford fault system:

structures documenting Cretaceous and Tertiary deformation along the Fall Line in northeastern Virginia:

Geology, v. 5, p. 437-440.

Murray, G. E., 1961, Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province of North America:

N. Y., Harper and Row Publ., Inc, 692 p.

Prowell, D. C., O'onnor, B. J.,

and Rubin, M., 1975, Preliminary evidence for Holocene movement along the Belair fault zone near Augusta, Georgia:

U. S. Geol.

Survey Open-File Rept.,75-680, 12 p.

Rankin, D. W., Popenoe, P.,

and Klitgord, K. D. 1978, The tectonic setting of Charleston, South Carolina (abs.):

Geol.

Soc. America, Abs. with Programs,

v. 10, n. 4, p. 195.

Richards, H. G., 1945, Subsurface stratigraphy of Atlantic Coastal Plain between New Jersey and Georgia:

Am. Assoc.

Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 29, p. 885-955.

bs.):

Stephenson, L. W., 1923, The Cretaceous formations of North Carolina:

N. C. Geol.

and Econ. Survey,

v. 5, 604 p.

9 p.

Straley, H. W., III and Richards, H. G., 1950, The Atlantic Coastal Plain:

18th Internat.

Geol.

Congres.

Rept., pt. 6, p. 86-91.

Won, I. J., Leith, C. J.,

and Washburn, D. S.,

1979, Geophysical investigation of a possible Triassic Basin in the North Carolina Coastal Plain (abs.):

Geol.

Soc. America, Abs. with Programs,

v. 11,

n. 4, p. 218.

lina:

For-

Zoback, M. D., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C.,

Gohn, G. S., Higgans, B. B., 1978, Normal faulting and in si'tress in the South Carolina Coastal Plain near Charleston:

Geology, v. 6, p. 147-152.

Zupan, A. -J., W., and Abbott, W. H., 1975, Clastic dikes:

evidence for post-Eocene(7) tectonics in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina:

South Carolina Div. Geology Geol. Notes, v. 19, n. 1, p.

14 23.

-506.

ro-29.

0

r glal.tco11ite isoc/iron of th('e Castle Hayne Limestone, North Caro1ina ii IX'. 13URLEIGH HARRIS

)

/)<<f>(<r(>>r<<>>(

<>/ L)rir(l>.'><<i<>r<<<<s, U>>iu<<rsi(v ~)f Nr)r(l> C<n>lirrrl ri( {alii>>>irrg(<>>r, 5'il>u>rg(or>, Nor(h Vt{':FOR A. HULLO I

(~r<>lir>r( )i'l4(/ I ABSTRACT M>,RTI>>.)AARI=TT> CU>RRY The I l-m.<hick lect<>stratotype of the Castte Hayne Limes onc in Ncw Hanover County, Yof<II Carnlina, consists of lower phosphate p< bblc biomicrudite; middle btvo)odn bl<iipaffi'Jliei and upper bfy nzoan-spoi>g>>

biomicrudite. Thc relative ave of the

(.'astte Hayne l.iinc:stone is eq ivocal. Th>> planktic foraniiniferal buna and part of the molluscan fauna suggest th.ir the entire fora>ation sho<IIJ becorfe.

tlted Iviththr.'ulfCoast CI:libornian St.lge

(:>IIJ oceAc) ~ whcfca>> <.';Ilcafevus flan AUf

ryozoans, barnacles, and s<>rnc mol nJicate that rhe upper bryozoan-spungc bioinicrudite is a Gulf Coast Jack.

suntan Stage (tipper Eocene) cquivaleAf Bc caus-of prohte<ns correlating the Castte Hayne Limestone to equivalent Culf Coast

stages, the lecrostratnrype w;is datcJ hy application of the Rb-Sr glauconite is<)-

chron.

Five hah<I-pickeJ glauconite concentrates analyzed for l{b, Sr, and Sr-isnrorf>ic corn.

position yield< J an isochron agc of 34.3 ~

I m.v. (/IRh 87 = 1.42 x l(l oyr ') with an Initial {SC'r'SC"jra<i<i nf 0.70<3.3 ~ 0.0004.

I"he d<<terr>inc<I initial (Sf"/S<"")ratio i>> iii

'i>r>J.>gree:i:e:it with previnus e>>timates of

h<.

Sr.is<>t<>pic composition of sca water Juriiig thc Eocene.

Although the age is younger than the value of37 m.y. earlier profi<iirJ for thc Eocene/Oligocene bounJ-

>ry, it agrees.with fission-track and K-Ar

)g:>> of tekti<cs and micr<itektite>>, aiid K-Ar

>iges <>f beiitonites an J gl.iuco<iitrs in upper

'oceiie inari>>c an J n<>nm.>rinc ui>it>>

hf<iughour the worlJ.

iVTROI)UC I IOIV R<.

<>rk i>> ihc United States by

~ ~ a<)sh 7

)~ ()w< I>s a<i<A)rovcR

)>OR fK CARO<.it 4 5r CAF: FEAR

~

~

~

v

~4~

~

H.lffis:>I><I 13otti<lo (1974). Harris (197<)),

a<i<t H;irri>> and 8;ii>>ii (1977),

and in Eufop.'y I'rien> and <)ther>> (1975), Odin (1978), and 0<tin and

<>ther>> (1978) has

<Iei>I<>>>>tf >ted th;it'glauc<>i>itc.iges caii have direct Applic;iti<>>> to cnnversii>>i of thc stan-dard gc<>h>gic c<>lunin t<> a radioinctric tiine

>>cal>>. In addition, the accuracy

<>f glauc<>-

nitc:iges has also deinonstratcJ thJ< they can aiJ in rhe resolution of prnbte<ns ii> cor-rekiti<)n where faunal data differ.

A>>;> result <>f these rccciit successful ap-plic.iti<>>i>> <if Rb-Sr aiid K-Ar Jati:ig n>cthoJ>>

I<) gl<iiicoili<c, thc Eoceiie C:lstte Hayiic I.i>>>est<>iic of the iV<>rth Carolina Cows<.it I'I.iin <v.is selected f<>r radi<>>>>e<fic aiirl f<<><>al study. The Castle H.i)iie I.i<>>e-st<>>ie h.is bcr:n <.'<>rrcla<e<J with the J.ickso-ni;In St.lgC (Clark, 19{I /; 191); C;liln a>I<I

Gasstcr, 1920;

Kellum, 1925, 1926;

Chectham, 1961; Copeland, 1964). Brown (195II) and Baum anJ others (1978) corre-lated the unit with both the Jackson and Claiborne Stages;

however, Brown and others (1972) and W'ard and others (197S) correlated the unit <vith the Ctaibvrne Stage. Therefore, because of problems in correlating the Castle Hayne Limestone with equivalenr stages in the Culf Coastal Plain or in Europe, the Iccrostratotype Ivas c>>amined for diagnostic fauna and Ivas radio<netrically da<eJ by application of the Rb.Sr isnchrun Air<bud to glauconites.

CFOI.OCIC SL>TTliVC The Castte I-tayne Li<<iesiuiie occurs through>>iit e.istefn Yorth Car<>tina; Iiow-Figurc I.

L<N:;Itin<i Afoot.if<in.>

ta<'ie<<a quarry, iVciv Hanover County, IVorth C"ruling.

S.iniple of Ca>>tl>> I.layiic Linics<<>nc was collected at this quarry.

c~l>>sicct 5 ~ic<y rr(.>i<<icri,.i i<>>t!<<i<i, ti>i< t, v, Y<. t. %><z-tY I

4 :i.,

> IsMc, Oiii>>deci lY80, Dix, rii>, o>o<)<.

SN7

~

~

588 IHARRIS A<%1} XllLI.O

< vcr, thc unit cri>ps oiit i>>lly i>cr>veen thc Reuse and C.>pc Fear Ri<<ere. Miller (.1912) n.li

<he unit (<>r exp<>sures i>> the vicinity n

Haync, N<<iv I I.'ll'iov<'r (.<>>1>lty, arolina. Because Miller'illiint <lcs-ignatc a rypc section of tlic (:astlc H;>y>>c I.imcsione, (gaum:>>><1 others (1978) desig-nated the Iv(or>in.Marictt.> quarry, 4.5 k>>>

northeast of Castle H;iync, the lcctn-stratorypc (Fig. I).

The Castle Haync Limestone co>>sists of thrcc units:

a In>vcr ph<>sphatc pchhlc biomicruditc, a middle bryozoan hinspar-

rudiie, and an upper hryozoan-sponge biomicrudiie (Baum and others, 1978). As defined by Baum and others (1978), thc Castle Hayne Linlestone does nnr include thc overlying Spring Garden Mc>>>her of Ward and others

(!978).11>c phosphate pebble hiomicrudite (i4ew Hanover 5 !ember i)fWard and others, 197S) forms a disconrin>>ous conglomerate ar thc hase of the Castle Hayne Limestone thar does nnr exceed 1.5 m in thickness.

It is present along the outcrop belt and is I ickcst v'here it overlies the Rocky Poinr Miembcr of thc Pied<<e For>>>atio>> of Late Cretac<ous agc.

The biyozoan hiosparruditc unit discon-foimably overlirs thc basal pebble hiomi-e of the Castle Hayne Limestone.

It.

r s isolaied patches in thc viciniryof the ape Fear autt and thickens to the north<<ast to a maxinlum of 12.2 m, ><<herc it interfingers svith the overlying bryozoan-s ponge biomicrudiie.

Bryozoan-sponge biomicruditc'ccurs throughout rhe a<ca hetN:ecn thc Cape Fear and Yeusc Rivers and is thc dominant unit exposed in out-crop. In ihe area of the Cape Fear fault, it contains>>umerous diasicms and is locally dnlomitizcd (Baum a>>d others, 1978). Thc hryozoa>>

biosparruditc and hryozoan-'ponge hiomicruditc lithofacics arc thc Comfort Mirmber of the Casrlc Hayne Limestone of C'ard and others (1978).

At the lrctostsatotype, the Castle Haync Lii>>csionc is 11 m thick; it disconformahly overlics thc Cretaceous Rocky Point Member of the P<<<<dec Formation, and dis-conformabfy underties post-Fnccne sand and gravel or Pliocene(?) sediments (Fig. 2).

The louver contact of the Castle Hayne is the C<cta<<eot>s-Tertiary ho>>>>dary and is a i<<gional discon(ormity characierizcd by so-liition pits, phosphate, and glauconite. All ihr<<e units of the Casile Hay>>e occur at thc

lloi}'pct lh>'<<<e<<er, thc hr}'oznan-bio<ni<.'ru<Iite (orms thc domina>>t p

thc section. It consists of l<>osc, un-consolidated carbonate sediinent v hich contains a

I ->n >hick dolomitized zone about 1.5 m ah<>ve ihe dis;nnl'orillity'hat BEO CC LLI

~ CL CL0 QJ C

LLI O

LLI0 M LLI C3 C5 CQ 0

(3 I

CCO I-00 00 22 "i 20 H

IB (7

14

CRUDITE BRYOZOAN BIOSPARRUO>TE BIOMICRUOITE SANDY PELECYPOO-MOLD BIOSPARRUOITE 0

EX PLANATION SAND MUO LIMESTONE DOLOMITE PHOSPHATE PEBBLES BRYOZOANS BIVALVES

-SPONGES CROSS BEDDED LIMESTONE separates the hryzoan biosparrudite lith>>facies (rom the overlying bryozoan-sp<>>>ge hioi>>icrudite lithofacies. The glau-co>>iic sarnpl<.'hat l<<as used for radi<>>nciric

".ating in ibis study i<<as collec>ed frnin a 25-c>>>-thick glauconite-rich z<sne iin-i>><<dial<<ly h<.I<>lv the dolon>itized z<>ne in thc hryz<>a>>.s(

>>>gc bin<>>icrudiie facies (Fig. 2).

PALEONTOLOCIC ANALYSES A<40 RESULTS Thc fau>>a of the Castle Haync Limestone l<<as considered

<<quivalcnt to Jt>cksonian Stage (late Focenc) flu>>'ls o(the CoifCoast until the publication of Cooke and Mac-Ycil's (1952) r<.visinn of South Carolina Figurc '.

Columnar section of the lcciostraiotype of thc Castle Hayne Limesione.

San>p!e d:i<ed in this s<iidy l<<as coll<ctcd (rom thc lo<ver part of the bryozoan-sponge binmicrudite. Bed 0 is thc Nc<v Hant>>er M<<mber.

(:A5TLB HAY<XI LIMBSTON<<4, NORTH ( AROLl<<XA Tertiary s<r;itigr:>phy. In that p:>per, (:<><>kc nut r<<c<>guin'ny unit of Jacksonian agc in and MacNcil c<>ncliulc<l <hat thc lower, part the xui>s<irf>cc in North Carolina. All suh-nl'h

(:<>x<1>> Haync I.iincsinnc (thc basal xiirf>c< sediments associated with thc Cas Ic ph pchhfe hi<>n>icrudiic and thc Haync Limes<<>nc or the overlying'rw

<>v binxparrvdiic facirx) in the type Brr>> Vorn>ation werc considered Claihor-area >vas>>quivalrnt to >hc Santce Limestone nian

<<qiiivalcnts.

Thcsc subsurface data of So<i<h Car<>linn and thc middl>> Ciaih<>r-were not related to previously described nian Stage (niiddlc E<>>>cne)

<>f the Gulf

<>uter<>ps of thc Castle Ha>ne Liinrstone, Coast. fhc iipprr part ofthe f<>rmati<>n (tl>c i><>r werc previous d>><crminati<>ns of sub-bry<>zoan-sponge hiomicruditc) was corrc-surf>cc Jacksonian microfossil assemblages

lated <vith newly discovered str;lta overlying (f<>r example,

Brown, 1958;

Copcland,

'hc San<ec Limestone in South Carolina.

1964} discus~ed.

Fossils from th>>se beds were c<>rrclaicd with Bauin and others (1978) and 'Zvllo and ih>> fauna of the Cosporr Sand that is con-Baum (1979) also considered that most of side>rdupperinos<Ck>ihornianinAlahama.

thc Castle Hayne Limestone ivas Claihor-Cookc and'acNcil (1952) cited the fol-'ian hi>i u~ggrstrd thar the u'I>>permost unit, lowing fossils in the Castle Hayne

<<s indic-thc hrynzuan-sponge biomicrudiie, might a<ive of Claih<>mian agc> late Claibornian:

ex<cud into thr Jacksonian Stage. The over-

<<rassarella

<<>/ta; rniddle Claibornian:

lying Ycw Bern Formation svas considered Furhodia rat< neli (= E. rugosa),

Hen>-

Jacks<>nian.

Ward and others (1978) re-ipatagus subrostratus, a>id Ostrca garded the Castle Hayne Limestone and the scil.>>fnrn>is.

overlying Nrw Bern Formation as Claibor-Speci>>s previously considered as Jackso-nian equivalents. They cited thc presence of nian indicators

>vere discovnted because

(:ubitostrea scllaefor>nis in the basal phos-they werc th<>ught to have been misiden-phate pebble biomicrudite (their New

.r d ti <<<d, or werc found only at localities far Han<>vcr Mrn>her), ofCrassct>>lla alia, P>>>>-

removed from thc t>'pr atra of the Castle Icn clarleanus, and P. >nc>nbranosus in the

.".:iyn>> I.imcstone, or >vere kn<><vn to occur overlying biosparrudite and biomicrudite

> l.

as N.>>11 in Gulf Coast Claibornian units.

Iithofacirs (thrir Comfort <<<<ember), and of L<

and Brown (195.$ ) trcognizcd Crassatella

alta, l<<Iacrocallista>>rus<<<ns>s

.'>nt ornian and Jacksonian fora-(Harris), and Batby(or>>>us PrvI<xrus (Con-mini and osiracod assrn>blages

from, rad) in the Yrw Bern Formation as rvid>>ncc pr>>suined Castle Hayne Limrst one of Claibornian age.

'.ocalities berw>>rn the Cape Fear and h'>>use Chrctham (1961) argued for a Jackso-Rivers. The single C!aihornian fauna listed nian agc for rhe Castle Hayne fauna. From

's from the vicinity of Fort Barnwcll, Cra-a hios<ratigraphic analysis of 155 chrilos-irn C<>unry. Microfaunal assrmh!ages de-tome hry<>z<>an species described by Canu

,crihcd from h>>>alitirs in the type area werc and B:ixslcr (1920) froin thc type area of the onsidrr>>d ofJacksonian age. LcGrand and Castle Haynr I.imrstonr, Chrrtham con-

'<<ro>vn concluded that the Castle Hayne eluded that a late Jacksonian age was indi-

.imrs<one v as a time-transgressivr unit in ca>cd.

He also suggested that such previ-

'hichdrpositionbeganinCIaihornian rime

<>usly dctcrmincd Claibornian indicators, nd last>>d thr<>vgh Jacksonian time. Brown such as (:rassatella alia and (:ub>>osrrca

>958),

on the hopis of ostracod as-sclL>%rnus werc misidentifie, as these

>>mblagrs fium well>> in thr North Carolina idrntitications werc based on molds, casts,

oastal Plain, recognized (:!aihornian and or juvrnile forms. Zvllo (1979}, in an vrstionable Jacksonian strata in presumed analysis of the barnacle fauna from the vhsurfa<e <qvivalcnts of the Castle Haync bryozoan hiomicrudite facies,. conclud<<d

.in<<>>stone.

In the southeastern counties of that thc majority of species, including Ar-

<<.nrih Carolina, in thc vicinit>'fthc t>'pe rosrall>cllu>n jackson>>use, Bus>>a!P>>lluni n.

<ca, only Jacksonian(.)

strata werc cn-sp., and S<>lidobalanus

n. sp. A, werc in-auntcrcd. In the crmral counties, between dicative of Jacksonian age. The remaining

<r <<Ncw a>>d Ncvsc Rivers and in the regin>>

sp>>cirs werc <>ndiagnostic. Studies on cal-here the N>>w P<ation

<>f Baum care<>vi norm<>fossils from thc hryozoan-

>d others (19?8) ovrrli>>s thc Castle Hayne sp<>ngr hioinicrvditc unit of the l>>ctos-im>>stone, borh Jacks<>nian(?)

and Clai-trat<>type hy Turco and others (1979) and

>tnia crof<>ssil asxrn>blages w<<rc rcc-by Worslry and Turco (1979) indi>>at>>d

ni h>> north>>ast, only Claihornian that this unit is axsigiiahl>> io zonrs NP.19 rata ncovnter'ed.

and NI'-20,, or Jacksonian.

Worstcy and Bro<vn and others (1972), ag.iin priv>ar-Ti>rc<>>; iso n<><cd thr pres>>ncc of z<>nr NP-

vn thc basis of ustracod i<>nati<>n, hut 18 nan>><>f<>siils I'rom an ii<>!a<>>d outciop so utilizing foraminifrral >>vi<1>>nce, did nr.ir Ncwtoi> Cr<>ve, Sainpson County; the Nl'l8 z<>ne is considered basal Jacksonian (Bybcll, 1975).

As noicd by both Chrciham (1961) and Brown (!963), and as evidenced by the pal>>ontological discussion, the re'lative age of the Castle Hayne Lim>>stone is as much disputed now as it has alN;ays bern. The lack ofco>>forrnity ol'opinion is a result ofa cuinplcx of factors. Thc Castle Hayne fauna is highly endemic, although it has bern suggestd that some so-called endemics may bc conspecifi ivith Gulf Coast species (for

example, Ward and

others, 1978).

The value nf soine species that do appear to af-ford an opportunity for interregional corre-lation is lessened brcause of doubts con-crrning their idrntificatio'n and strati-graphic'ange both ir> the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, and because of the lack of updated systematic treatmrnts of the genera or species groups ro which they are as-signed. Another major factor contributing to the dispute is thc overwhelming trndrttcy to include thc Santre Limestone (in the broadest sense) of South Carolina in any discussion of the age of the Castle H-yne Limestone.

Although depositional environments rep-resented by Paleogene srdimrnts in South Carolina are similar to those in 4>'orth Carolina, it is t>ot correct to pirsume that similar sedim>>nt types in the rwo regions are contemporaneous.

Ir has Iong b<<cn rec-ognized that Ctctacrous and Trr<<iary dep-osition in the Carolinas has bern influenced by episodic'movctnent along the Ca>c Fear fault (for examp!e, Stephrnson, 1912;

Richards, 1950; Baum and others, 1978).

More recently, it has bern demonstrated that additional structural rtrmrnts ("Santre fault," Yeuse fault, Graingers.svrrnch

zone, Carolina fault) have affected Cretacrous and Cenozoic intrabasinal sedimentation in the Carolinas (Brown and others, 1972; Baum and others, 1978; Harris and othrrs, 1979; Zullo and Harris, 1979). The net rc-cult of these discoveries is to emphasize the fact that the stratigraphic column cannot be interpreted merely in tertns of evstatic transgressive-regrrssive cycles on a passive fr reland. Rather, it is clear that the ef rcts of rustatic sra-level change >v>>rc specifically inodificd by trctonisrn.

I.ithologic similariiirs bcnvrcn the Castle Hayne and San<re Lim>>stones rcfkct re-gional palcngrography.

The absence of clastics and thc picvalrnce of calcareous bank d>>posits suggest a broad, low-l>ing fo<rland over v:hich the sea transgressed rapidly, and an adjacent hinterland of low..

relief.wh<>sc slvggish streams trans~mrtrd litt!e sedim>>nt to the sca. Individual d>>>msi-

(.'A'S'I'l.l'. ) IAYNI', I,)h'IESTONE NORTH (:AROI.INA 591' Rh lppm)

Sc lpp>ll)

Rh"'IS< "

(S<"'IS<')x h'I h r

h(h(

M h!h) I- ) 00HF h(h1 ) -70HT h'Ih1 I -70HF 202.0>(

)95.v).

I'JY.NI

) 89.78 I Y6.96 I3.39 6.85

>I 6(>

10 >5 I9.48 43.77 2).)4

)9.52

)0.94 29.31 0.730) 0.7182 0.7188 0.7 I35 0.7223 pic '70a, K-feldspar, thc c>>>c-st:>>>clvrd-Jcviation experimental rrrc>rs are 4'.000$

for ihe Sr">ISr'" and I.0%>> fnr thc Rb"'ISr""

>a t Ios.

Thc Sr">IS<"0 values in 'I able I have been u>r>>>alize J (o Sr""IS("" = 0.1194. Thc value

>I><ainrd fron> the Massa'chusctts l>>stitutc

>I Tcchnolog': standard Eimrr a>>J Aincnd

arboraie sainple during rhe pcrioJ of

>nalyses

>vms (S<"<IS<"")c = 0.7090.

The sochion age was calculated using the re-cnily propos'J decay constant ofARb"'

1.42

>c 10 ")r 'Strigrr and Jager, 1978).

The Rb.Sr mass spec(rometry was pcr-oin>cd with a

single-focusing, 12-in.,

riple-fifamcnl mass sprclromcter.

Data Ivere collrctccl and a>>alyzcJ with a Nuclide

)AICS-Ill auio:nation anil da(a-reduction

'c>>'> puler sysirm.

Th Its c>n the five glauco>>iic samples

~ave alculated as an is>>chron age

sing st-squares irgrrssion i iethod of

'ork (1966). Thc isochron plor for thc five lauconiic sa:>>plrs indicates an agc of 34.8 I m.y.

f<>r thc Ence.ne Castle Haync

.imrstc>nc

>c ith an initial (S<">ISr"")

).70S3 4 0.0()l)4 (hg. 4).

l)ISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Fv>>nell (1964),

Berggrcn (1972),

anJ Harcirnhc>I:>>>J Berggrei) (1978) placed the E<>cene-Oligc>cr>>e boundary between 37..$

an J 37 m.y. i>n the basis of a coir,pibti<>n of v:if><>us agc types.

Ho<vcvcr thc volcanic ages

<>f Ever>>Jcn and others (1964), the glauconite ages of Ch<>sh (1972) and of Odin:ind others (1978), and the microiek-titc ages of Glass and others (1973) and Class and Zwart (1977) indicate a much younger agc for the boundary, bcrwecn 33 and 35 m.y. Odin and others (197S) dc-tcrinined'lavconitc ages of marine se-quences in England (type Bart<>n beds) and in Ccrmany and suggested that the age of thc I'.<>c<<>>r-Oligc>cene boundary was about 33 m.y.

In marine seqvcnccs in iNorth Anicrica, Cl;iss and others (1973) and Class anJ Zwar( (1977) consideirJ;he Eocene-Olig<>cene houn Jary less <han 34.2 <o 34.6 m.y. on lhc hasis of inicrotck(i<c ages; this cc>nclvsi<>n is si>pporirJ hy (he gbuo>nitc ai>cl hrni<>ni(c ages of Chosh (1972) from i>>urine 'exp<>surrs in Mississippi and Al;>ha<na. D:>ta from>>onmarinc scdimrnts FAIII.E I.

Rh.gr ANAI.'Vl'I(.'AI.I)A'I'A I>(>R I HI'. )'.()(:I'.NE (.'ASTI.E HAYNE Llhl)>STD:4F I.I (:T()c>"IRA'I'(yl'Yl'I:., NIAV ) IAN()VI'.R (:()(('VTY, NORl'H CAROLINA in N<>rth A>>irrica a>>J East Africa place the Eocene-Olig<>ccnc boundary bctwccn 33.9 a>>d 37.5 in.y. (Ev<<r>>drn and others, 1964).

ln >><)dition, Tarling and Mitchell (1976) used i>otopic agc determinations of sedi-incnts overlying oceanic magnetic anomalies to suggest that the "probablc stratigraphic age..." for the Eoccne-Oligocenc boundary is close to 35 m.y.

Several conclusions may bc drawn from this study.

An. abundance of published radioinetric ages of glauconite, tektites and microtektites, and volcanics indicates that thc Eocene-Oligocrne boundary is closer to 33 than to 37'm.y.; this age is supported by the 34.8 m.y. isochron age of the Castle Hay>>e Limrstonc. Secondly, the glauconite isochron i>>c(hod can provide accurate ages for conversion of the standard geologic col-umn to a radiometric column. Although many Rb-Sr glauconite ages may be young because of the preferential loss of radi-ogenic Sr rclaiive to Rb" (Tchompson and Hower, 1973), thc agreement of the Rb-Sr isochron age of the Castle Haync Limestone with published ages from Europe, Africa, and North America indicates thar this is not a problem in this study.

ACK>~'0'c'VLEDChIEiNTS 6'r thank Paul D. Fvllagar for reviewing the rnanvccript and for allowing use of thc n>ass slwc(romc<er.

John Howcr also rc-vicwcJ thc manuscript and provided many helpful suggrs:ions.

This study was par-tially funded by grant no.

S29 from thc Norih Carolina Board bf Science and Technology.

CASTLE HAYNE LIMESTONE vv< >004> yW REFERENCES CITED V 4\\

>0NII vv> 100vf v4l >00v4

,> ~

,> ~

vVI >04<

T" 34.8

+

1 ~.y.

(Sr 87~Sr 86)

.7083 -.000'4

~0

~ S

~> 0>

>0

>0 j>

40

~ S Ro c >/Ss 00 I.>gore 4.

Plc>t

<>f (Sr">)Sr""')

versus Rh"ISr "'c>r gl.>i> 'c>i>i<rs frc>m <hc Cas<IC 14<>) nr i:>>ci<c>or. Ncw Hanc>vcr Cc>univ. Nc>r(h Cate>lii>a.

Books, R. S., )978, Slratiigraphy of the Euccoc'an<re Lime><onc in three quarries of the Coastal P)oin of Sooth CoioIinai South Ca<oIina CcoIogic Notes.

v. 2), p. 85-

)49.

Baum, C. R., Harris, W. B., and Zul)o, V. A

)978, Sir<>>igraphic revision of the cxm>cd rniddle Ec>cene to lower hlioccnc fo<ma-tio'ns of Norih Caiolini>> Sou<hcasicrn Crology, v. 20, p. 1-)9.

Baom, C. R., aod o:hers,

)980, Co<<eh<ion of the Foc<<nc ><<a<a of the Co<oiinas> South Caiolina Geologic Noics, v. 24, p. )9-27.

Ben<or, Y. K., ood Vasiocr, h1., )965, Notes on ihc ninc<ology and origin of g)oucooiici Journal of Scdimcoiary Pc<iology, v. 35,

p. )55-)66.

Pc iggico, W. A., )972, A Cc>>ocoic <imc.>ca)c-Su>>ic implico<ioos for ccgiooal gco)ngy and polrohiogcvgiaphy:

Le<hola, v. 5, p. )95-2)5.

Brown, P. h1., )918, Wc)i logs fioin ihc coastal pl.>in of Nui<h Cx<o)in>>>i Nvi<h Co<olioa Dcpoc<mcnt of Co>>~rvo<)oi> hand Dcvclop-

1

HnRRIS A(NI) /Ill.t.()

>>>Ci>t Iti>lla:ti>> 7

~ S>II p 8><<avn. P. M.. 19(,l. Thr gri>h>gy nf no<<he.Icier>>

a<<<>sth (.ss<)tins:

Yurth Ca((>'tins l)rp.>ri It o( C()ncrrv:>ti(>n anil ')a'vrh>p>>>r>><,

A>>nusl I'irlal (:<<>>(r(a'wcr, Atl.>>>tic s>st t'bin.

8<(>w>>, P. h4., Miller, J. A.,:i>id Swsii>. I'. M.,

I 972.

St ruct <<r:it:>w<l s< rlt iyr>t p hi<<

(rsmcwc>rk anJ spa<i:>I alia(rib>><i(>>1 <>( prr-mrabiliry

<>f (hr Acb>>sic, Co:Is(s) I'bin,

>4osth (:ssolina to Yrw Y<>sk: (I.S. G<<>h>g.

ical Survey I'rn(rsaiwn:>I Pst><<r 796, 79 p.

B)bell, L M.,1975, h1iJJIc 'Eo<<r>>c c<>lcarrwws nannc>fossils at I.i((lc 5(ave (:rrrk, Abbsma> T>>lane Siudies iw Gr<>h>gy snd Palrvmc>logy, v. I I, nn. 4, p. 178-252.

Csnu, F., and Bssster, R. A., 1920, talos(h A>>>cri~

csn carly Tertiary Brv<<zc>i>> U.S. Ylii<<n>>l Museum Bulletin 106, 879 p.

Cbrk, IX(. 8.,:909, Sosnc Iesuhs wfsn i>>v<<wtiga-t>osl

~if thc Coastal Pls>A fns>>>st)uA (If (bc'rea between hIsssschu>r<ts s>>J Y<>rth Carolina:

Crotogicst Society of America Bulle in, v. 20, p. 646-654.

1912, The cosccbtiun of the Cuss(sl Pk>in fosm:itions of Yonh Ca<nlina, in Cbrk,

'aV. Bsnd others, The Coastat Plain of Yoah Carolina: Yor(h Carolina Cculogicsl snd Economic Survey, v. 3, p. 304-330.

Cher(harn. A. H., 1961, Agc of (bc Castle Hsync fauna (Eocene) of Yvrth Carolina( Jc>urnsl of Pal<<ontology. v. 35, p. 394-396.

C(<<1k r, C. <<V., an J ht ac>Neil, F. 5., 1952, Ter:isry st(at>graphy i>f Saiwth (:sr<

>s: U.S. Crutogicsl Survey Pr()(rs. i<>>i:>I P.)prr -B, 29 p. C, C. ')('.. I964, E<>erne snd h'Ii(w'cwc minifera (rom rwo localities in l)uplin vnty, Yorth Carotins: Butaca>zc)ic A)sn>malisn chronology of Yoah Ainrricas An>rsirsn Journal of Scienrr, v. 26>

p. 145-198.

Funnrll, B. M. 1964, Thc Trrtiary peri<<J, in

Hsrbnd, B., snd

<<th<<rs, <<J>>., Thc Phanc rozoic time-srslrs A s)'mposi>>mr Crolnyical S<>cirty c>f L>>>>J>>n ()a>snrrly Jour>>a,

v. 12OS. p. 171-191.

Chosh, P. h.,

1972, Use

<if bent<>>>i(<<~ snd gbuconiirs in pots>sin>n 40!argon 40 dat-ing in Gulf (:<>sst stratigraphy ll'h.l). (ha~ sis): Hous>on, Texas, Ri<<e Univrrsiry, 136

Cbss, B. P., snd 7wan M, J 1977 aY>nnh American n>ic<<)trkti<es, ra Jinlsrian cxtinr-(ions snd

> sgc-c>f thc Eocene.Olig<<a'cnc t>oundsry. in Swain, F. h4., eJ.. Sirsti-g<sphic rnicropllroninlwgy of Atb>>tic basin snd bordcrklnds: Drvrt<>pmr)1(s in patron>otngy'nd strstigc phy 6( Ainstrr-Jlm, Elsevirr, p. 5U-565. Glacs, B. P., snJ others, 1973, N>>r(h Ai>>eric.>n sniccotrktite<< from the Cacihbrsn Srs:>nd <heir Fssivn tssc'k ages I-Acth s>>J Pb>>rtary Science Lct(rrs, v. I'). p. Ih4-192. Hsrdrnbol, J., and Pa rggcrn, C'. A.. 1978. A n<<w Pllrogrne nuwirsia'll rima ca'atc, in (:<>hn; >. V., s>>J <>>hrrs, rd<<., 'Il>r ga~>ta>gi<< time

Amrric.>n Asaa><<'i >(i<<>> uf Pc (r<>lcm>i ngists, Sti>dies in Gr<<l >yy 6, p. 213-Harris, W. 8.. 1976, Rh Sr gt.>>>a(>ni<c ica>chn>>>,

(~ h1.><<~sr><<h<>sn unit of I'cc:Jce Forw>ation (U;>per Crr(acroust, Nor(h Csrolinl( (!cot- <)gy~ v. 4. p. 76 I -76 '. I4;)iris, %'. B.,'n J Baum. C. R.,

1977, I'c>ra>>>>:>>frra and Rb Sr gboconiir ages A(a I>)tr(>arne Hrsw((>n Formic<<>w (>>>I<<'rup iA N<ir(h (:sr>>tins:

Geol<<gical Society of America B>>llc.tin, v. 88, p. I>69-t>7s H:irri<<, 'tV. I'I.. a>>J Bo(<ino, M. L. 1974. Rb Sr 'ti<<ly (>f Cretaceous Inbl>c gbwaunise pel ~ trts, N<>rth Csa>tins: Grnlogicsl So<<icty vf An)csi<<'a Pauttrti>>, v. 85, p. 1475 1478. Harris, W. 8., Zullu, V. A., snJ 8:iu>n, C. R., 1979, Trc(o>>ic c(frcrs on Cressrrous, Pstrogr>>c, s>>J carly Yc(>gene srJimenta-ti(>>), Y>>nh Carolina, in Bourn, G. R,.>nd <>(hers, rds., Structural snd straiigraphic framework for the Coastal Plain <>f North ('ai<<>!i>>at Carolina Crotngi<<'al 5<>cicty Field Trip Guidrbasok, p. 17-29. H.>>ct, J. I'... an J others, 1977, Bi<>>tratigssphy of the alrcp a.occhotc (Clubba>vse Crossroads C<<rrha>le I) near ('hsrlcston, South Carolina, in Rankin, D. W'., cd., Studies re-laird to rhe Charleston, South Carolina, csnhquskc vf 1886 A preliminary rc. ports U.S. Crologicat Survey Professional Paper I()28, p. 71-89. Krllum,L B., 1925, The sge ofthc Trent marl in Nonh Carolina( Journal of Geology, v. 33,

p. 183-187.

1926, I'slenntology and s(raiiy<aphy of the (ex(le Hsync snd Trent marts in Noah (:;>i<>tins( U.!i. Crola>yicsl Survey Profcs-sii>>>al P.>per 143, 56 p. IA(isa>>IJ, H. I'... and Br<>wn,'. M 1955. (:>>latch<<>c>k of rscursh>n in the Coastal I'bin of iN<irth Carolina( iNorth Carolina (.C()tug>cst So.iety, 43 p. Miller, 8. I, 1912, The Traisry formations, in (:lark. W. B., an J v(hers, Thc Cuss(al Pbin of N<irth Carolina( INcirth Carolina (:c<<t<>gie snJ f<<onc>rnic 5>>rvey,

v. 3,

p. 272-366.

()(tin. (!. S., 1978, RraulIr(>gri>c srJI(ncA(s ~ Europe, >n Cohrc, C. V., cii><l c>(bar.'. Cats., Thc gri>1<<gic time c<<';>Ict A>>><<iran Ass<<ci.>(ion c>f Petroleum (:r<<ta>gis(s. Studia> in Gn>l(>gy 6, p. 127-141. ()al>>>, (L !i., Ciicry. I)., snJ Hunzikcr. J. C, 1978, PI>Jiomrtric Jst<<s f<<>m tat. 'O'. Furo-pean glswr(ini(cs and <he Paleogene time. sa';>ir< (!col<igical Soc>r(y of IA)nJun Jnuf-i)al, <<. 13. p. 41(1-497. ()wcws, J. V.. s>>J 5<)hl. Y. F. ~ 1973, Glsuconi<cs fn>>>> thc Yrw Jersey-htsrybnd Coastal I'bin( Keir K-Ar ages and spplicstinn in stratiyralphic studies( Gax>logical Sc>cirty of - A>nrsics Butte(in, v. 84, p. 2811-28.18. I'ria>>> H.>4.A, a>>J a)(hers 197$ tia>>()pic dating c>fgta>>cc>>iitcs (rom thc'pper (:<c'ts<'cous in Nc(he(lands lnd Brlyium limburg, Ir (!<<<<I<<gic <<>> Mijnboa>w, v. 54, p. 05- 07. Rich;irals, tt. (i., 1950, Gac)l<vgy a)f ihc C<<>stat l'lsi>> <>( Y<<rch (zsc>tins( A>ncri<<'sn I'hit- <>ac>phia'st ba>a'ia'ty Tr;>>I<<:>ai<anc. v. 40, 8l p. k>>catt. (L S., I97)a, (I I'h. Rh Sr. snJ K-Ar ica)t(>pi<<'t>>ah<<~ brarh>y, c>n Ih>> tectonic Jc-v<'I<

>)r>>t c>f

---

>it t>crmw(>st Appsla-chi.>>> (><<iyr>>. Abl>s(ns I I'h.l). <hesiat: Tai-t(>b.)sa(x', H(>ric U>>ivrsairy. 196 p.

Striyir, R. I4...>i>al J.>gir, I'., 1978, Sa>hcn>nmis-s<<>>> c>>I yr<>chron<<la>gy. Cwnae<wi<>n a>n thc war (>f itrcsy c(>n>asms in gavchsonvlngy an J ciia>>>aichr<>note>gy. In Cobcc, C. V,~ (IAJ

<<sl>rrs, rds:,

Tbc gc<<la>gic time s<<ale(

Amrr>c.aw Ac >>cia(inn of P<<tsc)lr>>m Grol.

<<giats, Si>>dies in Crnh>gy 6, p. 67-71.

Sirphr>>w>A, I

W., 1912, Tbe C<r:sees)us for.

>nl(>u>>s c>f iN>>rth Csroli>>a,in Clark, V. B.,

Ind c>thrrs. Thc Coastal Pbin of Nor(h

(:ss Ii as i<<>nh Csroli s (;

~ 1<gic s

d Fcm>nmic Siirvry. v. 3, p.73-170.

Tssling, I). H...>>>al hlitchrll,JG., 1976, Rcviccd

(:ma>zi>>c polarity time scale( Ger~>>gy, v. 4

p. 133-136.

Thompson, G. R., snd Howcr, J., 1973, An cx-pl.>nsti<>n (nr low radiomr(ric ages from glsuc<>>ii>c: Crvcbimics et Co<<ma>chimica Ac(s, v. 37, p. 1473-1491.

Turco, K. I'., Sekel, D., and Harris, >>V. B., 1979, S(rstigcspbic rcconnsissanrc of the calcare-ous nsnnofossils from ()>r Yorth Carolina Coss(al Plain: llLoavrr to enid.Cenozoic(

Geological Socirry of America Abstracts ivith Programs, v. 9, p. 216.

>)."srd, L <<V., Ll<<:scncc, D. R., an J Btsckavrtdrr, B. IV., 1978, Stratigraphic revision of thc sniddlc

Eocene, Otigocenc, and lower htio;cnc Atlantic Coastal Plain of North

, Carolina:

U.S. Ccological Survey Bvttr<in 1457-F, 23 p.

C'ard, L W., snd others, 1979, 5(ra<igraphic re-vision of Eocene, Oligocene and lower h(incenc formarions of 5nurh Carolina(

South Carolina Crologic Notrs,

v. 23, p

)

'I )

, >V<>(airy. T. R., an J Turco, K. P., 1979, Calcare-ous nlnwv(A(sits from (hc tnaarr Tc aiary of Yoah Carolina,ir. Bsvm, C. R., and others, rds.,

5(ruc(ural and stra(igraphic frame-work (or tbc Coas:al P!sin o(<<os(h Csroli ~

na: Czinlins Cent<>gicst So ict)'ield Trip Guiatrb i)k, p. 65-7s

)'. D., 1966, Lr st-s(tu

r. Ss:bing f

s:

. ight li:Iet Csrldizn Journal o( >Pbycics, v. 44,

p. 1079-1086.

Zlhringcr. J., 19(3, K Ar.mes(i>(cmrnts of tek-

'(iics. in Radioac(ive a!sting, P(nrcedings 5y>npusium, A(hens) International Atomic Fnc rgy Agency, Vienna, p. 289-305.

Zullo, V. A., 1979. Biostratigraphy of Eo'me tb<ovgh htivcene Cirriprdia. Yorth Carolina Coss(at Plain, in Baum, C. R., an J others.

rds.,

5(ci>na>rsl In(i >!ratigs.>pbir fisn>cwork for thc Coastal Pbin ol'nr<h Cacnlins: Carolina Gro'logical Society Field Trip Guidebook, p. 73-85.

Ziillo,V. A.. lnd Baum, Ca. R., 1979. Paleogene barnacles fsnrn the Cons(at Pbin of Yor<h Carolina (Cirriprdia. Tbnrlcicl)t Sooth-e.>c(cr>> (>rntngye v 0~ p.

9 46 Z<illo, V. A...>nil 14.1(ric,

'W'. B., 1979.

Plin-t>telic<(aa'mr <<rvstal aa'scping in rhc ou(rr

(.oastsl I'lain oa~North Csivlina, in Bsum, Gi. k...>>>J o(hrss, rdc., 5(swc<<>rat snJ stratigraphic frame>York fvr the C<>le<at Pbin c>f Yonh Csrnlins< Clsulina Gnilogi-

<<'sl 5(~ic<y Field Trip Cwialrbook, p.31-40.

htA>ctss( x)PT R) r(,)YL'(1 )IY TI<(, 5()c;((TY F(',8 Ru*RY 14, 1980 Rhu)s).)) htA>cvsa x>( z R) e(.<v(,s) htAY 27, 1(780 hIA'HUscx>I'r A<<('(,>'r(:u Jts>cs. I'. 1980 Ra~w n <<) 5 A'

Rb-Sr glauconite isochron of the Focene Castle Hayne estone, North Carolina: Discussion and reply Discussion GARRY D. JOY>ES'ro/ugJ Drportnirnt, UnivrrsitJ'nf Dr/a>rorr. h>r>cork. Drlo>rarr /97/l Harris and Zullo's (1980) recent paper is an important step in the collection of evidence nccdcd for correct positioning of the Castle Haync Limestone within thc Cenozoic time scale.

Thc authors mention in the abstract that thc "planktic foraminifcral fauna...

suggest(s) that the entire formation should bc correlated with the Gulf Coast Claibornian Stage (middle Eocene)." Yowherc in the text do Haiiis and Zullo cite cithcr thc planktic foraminifcral c vidcnce or a refcicnce to such evidence. This discussion is an effort

'd discucs thc: pianktic foraminifeial evidence based on data Ph.D. dissrr>ation (Jones, 1981) on the lower Claibornian rni.s of the Ynrth Carolina Coastal Plain.

In addition, thc calcareous nannoplankton ages cited by Wnislcy a>>d Tur co (1979) for the Castle Hayne Limestone s de"tned by Baum and others (1978) are discussed.

Sainples of thc bryozoan biosparrudite and bryozoan-sponge biomicruditc facirs of the Castle Hayne Limestnne

(= Comfort h>cmbcr of W"id and others, 197S) urre collected from thc lccto-stratotypc of Baum and others (1978) at thc h!artin h>arietta Quarry, Castle Haync, >North Carolina (Figs. I, 2). In addition, samples of the saine tuo facies wet e cnllected froin thc Irctostrato-type of the Castle Hayne Limestone of Ward and others (197S) at thc ldral Crmcnt Company Quarry (Figs. I, 2). All samp>les fiom both lcctostratotypes yielded diverse populations of planktic I'ora-mirifrra. Collectively, the species idcntilied include: Trunrorota-lu>drs topi/rnsis (Cushman, 1925);

T. rohri Bronnimann and

Bermudez, 1953; Globigerinatlirka mrxirona mrxirana (Cush-

man, 1925);

G. mrxirano /cvgleri (Bolli, Lncblich, and Tappan, 1957); G. mrxirono batri (Bronnimann, 1952); hlora:our/la spinu-losa (Cushman, 1927); hf. /rhnrri (Cushman and Jarvis, 1929);

Tvtboiotolia rrrroo=v/rnsis fiontosa (Subbotina, 1953);

T. rrr-roasv/rnsis pomrroli (Tourt.arkine and Bolli, 1970); Subbotina

/inaprrta (Finlay, 1939); S. eororna (Gumbcl, I S6S) s.l.; Psrudo-hostigrrina mirra (Cole, 1927);

P. sliarl rivrtrnsis Berggrcn and

Olsson, 1967; rlratinina prritoronierata (Subbotina, 1947); and ie. cnt address: Union oil C'n>>>puny of C'alifoinia. P.O. Rox 7G, Rica.

la 92e21.

.>e artiete discussed appraised in the Buttriin. Port I. v. 91, p. 587-592 Plonorotolites rrn:i (Bolli, 1957). The overlapping rangrs of thesc-spccics provide the evidence for placing the entire Castle Haync section above the phosphate pebble biomicrudite (=Yew Hanover

>Member of Ward and others, 1978) at both lectostratotype locali-ties u'ithin the upper Globigrrinathrko subronglobata Zone, P 11, and thc hloro=ovrlla lrhnrri Zone, P 12 (Stainforth and others, 1975; Hardenbol and Berggren, 197S). In addition, a split of thc sample used in Harris and Zullo's Rb-Sr analysis uas kindly pro-vided by the authors (Fig. I). It yielded the same upper P I I and P 12 zone determination. Furthetmnre, nutctop and cote samples of the bryozoan-sponge biomicruditc and bryozoan biosparruditc facies collected from nine counties in North Carolina have all yielded middle Eocene ages that include thc upper P

11 and P 12 zones (Fig. 2). A few samples with low numbers ofplanl'tic forami-nifcral species yicldcd age dcterininations consisting of all or roost of the zones in the middle Enccne (P 10 through P 14). h!ost sam-ples, however, have divcrsc planktic assemblages and yirlded upper P I I and P 12 zonal dctrrminations, thus correlative uith the lower part of thc Claibornian Stage of thc Gulf Coast which is equivalent to zones P I I, 12, 13, 14 (Hudd>eston and others, 1974).

As discussed by Harris and Zullo, IVorslry and Turco (1979) analyzed loucr Tertiary calcareous nannofcssils from various loca-tions in thc N>'orth Carolina Coastal Plain. Rare ZJ golithus dvbius and Cliiasniolithvs grondis I'iom the lower half of the lectostrato-typc ol'he Castle Haync Limestone ol'aum and others (1978) suggested correlation uith zone YP 20. A nannoflora similar to that froin the Iectostratotype u as identified from Yatural Well, Duplin County, and suggested correlation uith thc upper YP 19 and lower NP 20 zones. In the Evans no. I u ell, Onslow County, Worsley and Turco (1979) reported the consccutivc, local cxtinctions ol'. gran-dis, Disroostersoiponrnsis, CJ'c/ororro/ithinoforniosa, and Rrtiru-

/ofenrstra'umbi%'ra as suggestive of a continuous scquencc of zones NP 19-23, although thc presence of Sph>'.nolithvs pseudorodions suggested the base of thc section i>>ay be as young as zone

>4 P 20.

An outlirr of Castle Hayne Liinestone in Sampson County yicldcd S. psrvdurorlions and a I'orm intcimediatc between Z. dvbius and Isthmolitlius rrrurvus. uhich suggested coriclation uith zone YP

18. Thc local extinctions ol'hese inarkcr species could bc duc to Grotngieal Sne>eiy of America Rultctn, v. 93. p.

I 79-183, 2 figs., February 1982.

179

180 G. D. JO>4BS IECTOSTBATOTYPE OF 8AUM ET AL (1978/

LECTOSTRATOT)'PE OF t4ARO ET AL (1978]

O 0

W Pl

)

ca cJa ca ru 0

CJ EZl 8

0 tt O

O 5

0 t7 O

0 CL b

JJr rl res IJ W

W CD W

W CL r

4

~

~

'r

~

0 P

J

~ 4

~

r MARTIN MARIETTA QUARRY, CASTI.E HAYNE J

u W

C)

W C

% ~

Q J ~

~

~

~

~

~ ~ ~

IDEAL CEIL'EHT COMPANY QUARRY JJirlrrs gQJ::

SAND gg LIMESTONE t:,UD Eg DOLOMITE EXPLANA T!ON 0 1l SPONGTS BRYOZOANS BIVALVES PHOSPHATE PFBBLES gg CROSS BEOO!0 LIMESTONE PBB PHOSPrlATE PBL BIOIilCRUOITE FACIES BB BRYOZO'N BIOSPJRRUOITE FACIES NHM I,'!TN HAI;OV!Rt:,!MBER SAMPLE I.OCATION SECTION I.MODIFIED FROM HARRIS ANO ZULLO {1980)

S! CTION I'IOOIFIEO FROM UPCHURCK {I9791 Figure 1. Simpli red composite sections of the le'ctostratot) pes of the Castle Hayne Limestone as proposed by Baum <<nd others (1978)

<<nd YV<<rd and others (1978). Arrows indicate sample locations ol'his study.

changing environments or dissolution rather than a result ofevolu-tionary events. Furthermore, all of the calcareous nannofossil spe-cies listed above have world-wide stratigraphic ranges that extend down into thc middle Eoccnc (hlartini, 1971; Haq, 1978; T. R.

KVorsley, 1981, personal commun.). Although some of the calcare-ous nannofossil evidence suggests, to IVorsely and Turco, an upper

~

~

~

~

cene age for some localities ofthc Castle Hayne Limestone, their ta do not include species whose wor!d-wide stratigra phic ranges egin above thc middle Eocene.

A sample of bryozoan-sponge biomicrudite facies (PC-3, Fig.

2) collected by me but not studied by ~Vorsley and Turco (1979)

) icldcd a divcrsc nannnflora, including S. rodions. Rhoh<lospiroero glodius, and S.turcorolirhoides. suggestive of zone NJ'P 15, middle Eoccnc (T. R. Worslcy, 1981, personal commun.). Thi>> facies may not be contiguous with the lectostratotypes in Yew Hanover County.

As stared above, an upper P

1 I and P 12 zonal determination has been obtained for widely spaced samples ol'he Castle Hayne Limcstonc lrom both outcrop and subsurface sections, throughout the cnorth Carolina Coastal Plain. The zonal dctrrminationis based partly on species whose world-~ide stratigraphic ranges arc re-stricted to thc middle Eocene.

Planktic foraminifcra with strati-gr"phic ranges beginning above the middle Eocene have not been identified from thc Castle Hayne Limestone (Jones, 1981). Thus,

DISCUSSION AND REPLY 1 8l BEA'UFORT

)

/

/

/

~

'OHNSTON GREENE

/

I

~

ARNETT O

0

.l

/

0 0

gg I

LEHOIR 8's-o~

i g

p J.

) (.'",> '- '

PAMLICO<

o 0

j

',.JONES:.

5,'A]APSON, g.y '. '.'

i 0

(...:::..'~"":.:,

~ l 0 UPLIN W

~

. o c p

/ ~

"+...

4 "+i X

CARTERET

/

<:.f::-.::.

ONSLOW

~

~ J 35o PENOER

.iR

/

PC3 I

X/

Ie';AP I,IOOIIIT0 fROtA:

c AUNOFRS ) I o58) 5RGYYIt. tllILER ANO SY'i-Itt (1972)

BAUI'T AL {1975) r CH "~M ICC

.... ~~,:.'i" 0/

STUOY AREA f

'RU)s'SM/ICK i

.J g

X(

79o 78o OCa>"

p 0

KM 50 77o c Ii'LAN*1 ION

-COUNTY LINE

-STATE LINE

~

C STLE H YNE LI::..STONE OUTCROP 4

Ski',PLE LOCATION CHIAI1 C STLE HAYItE I ARTIN h ARILTTA OU;RRY ICC IOEAL CKI'cNT COI'PANY OUARRY PC 3 PfttOER COUNTY OUTCROP 340 Figurc 2. Areal distribution ol'outcrops and near-surface outcrops of the Castle Hayne Limestone and sample locations of this study.

the planktic foraminifera prove the middle Eocene age of the Cast)e Hayne Limestone, and the calcareous rannofossil data can be interpreted as being corsistcnt with such an age.

Harris and Zullo's (1980) Rb-Sr age for the Castle Hayne Limestone, therefore, appears to be too young and does not support their conclusion that the glauconite isochron method can provide accurate ages for conversion ol'he standard geologic column.

Rather, their data support Thompson and Hower (1973) who pre-sented evidence indicating that Rb-Sr g)auconitc ages may bc young t cca ce ol'prcfcrential loss of radiogenic Sr rclativc to Rb".

R iiCES CITED Raum, G. R., Harris, W. B., and Zullo, V. A.. 1978. Stratigraphic icvi>ion of ihe expo~cd rniddle Eocene to louer Miocene formations of North Caiotina: Southeastern Geology, v. 20, p. 1-19.

Brown, P. M., hlillcr,J. A., and Suain, F. M.. 1972, Structural and strati-graphic frameuork, and spatial distribution of permeability ol'he Atlantic Coastal Phin, iv'orth Carolina to New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional paper 796, 79 p.

Hardcnbol, J., and Bcrggren, W. A., 1978, A'ew Paleogene numerical time scale, in Cohee. G. V., and others, eds.. Th>> geologic time scale:

American Assneiation of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 6,

p. 213-234.

Harris, W. B.. and Zullo, V. A., 1930, Rb-Sr glauconite isocbron of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, North Carolina: Geological Society of American Bulletin, v. 91. p. 587-592.

Haq, B, U.. 1978, Calcareous rannop!ankionin Haq. B. U., and Bncrsma, A., cds.,

Introduction to marine micrnpatcontotogy:

New York, Elievier. p.79-108.

Huddlcston, P. F., htarsalis, W. E., and Pickering. S. h{.. 1974. Tertiary stiaiigraphy of ihe central Geoigia Co sial Plain: Gcoigia Geological Survey Guidcbonk 12, Field Trip 2. 35 p.

Jones, G. D., 1981, Foraminifcral patconiotngy and geology of tower Clai-

182 HARRIS Ai<D ZULLO boss>lan

>ncks of chc inner Coastal Ptain of bosch Casolina: (Ph.D.

dis>ccc.): Ycuack, Dcl'v asc. I'nivcssity of Dclauarc.

hi F... I97I. Ssas>dacd Tertiary and Quaternary calcareous nanno.

~

~

con zonation:

Planktonic Cnnfcccncc.

Roma, Psocccdic>gs II.

9-777.

Saunders, W. P., and Scuckcy.J. L.. I958, Geologic mal> af Yocch Carolina:

nsch Casnlina Dcpaccrncnt of Conscsvation ac>d'evelopment.

Di-vision oi hiicicrai Rcsousccsi Scainforch, R. htu La>nb, J. L. Lucccbachcr. H.. Beard. J, H.. and Jcffords, R. ht., 1975, Ccnocoic planktonic loraminifcral zonation and charac-teristics of index forms: Lawccncc. Kansas, Kansas University Patcon-tolngical Comribucions, Article 62. p. 1~25.

Thompson, G. R., and Howcr.J., 1973. An explanation for lou radiometric ages (som glauconite:

Gcnchimira ct Cosmochimica Acta.

v. 37.

p. I"73-1491.

Upchusch, hl. L., l979, Sponge bracing hasdgcounds in thc Castle Haync I.imcsconc, in Baum. G. R., llasris, N, B.. an4 Zulto, V. A., cds.,

Scsuccural and s'.cacigraphic framework for ti>c Cnas:at Plain of I'neth Cacolina: Carolina Gcniogicai Sncicty Fictd Trip Guidcboc>k. 1>..59-64.

~Vacd, L, IV., Lauccncc, D. R.. and Blackucidcr. B. W., t978, Sccatigraphic scvision ol'he middle Eoccnc.

Oiignccnc.

and lower htioccnc-Aclancic Coastal Plain of Yoccb Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Bul-Ictin 1457-F, 23 p.

'tVncslcy, T. Rand Tusco. K. P., l979. Calcareous nannofessib from shc loucr Tertiary of North Carolina, in Baum, G. R., and o:herc, cds.,

Stsuccusal and stratigraphic fcamcv ork for thc Coastal Plain of I'orth Cacoiina: Carolina Geological Society Field Trip Guidebook, p. 65-72, hIAYVSCR>c'r RsCEsvsD BY TIIKSc>CIETV hIAY 2l. I981 hixit:scsvrr Acczrrzo Jvbv 7, 1981 lV. BURLEIGH HARRIS Deparrncessc ofEarth Sciences, Uni>'ersirJ ofh'onh Carolina ar H'ilmingron.

VICTOR A. ZULLO H'ilnsingson, l>'orch Carolina 28403

>>Vc thank Garry D. Jones for his recent discussion of our paper (Harris and Zullo, 1980), and v c are pleased that it further empha-sizes onc of our major statements from biostratigraphic data, the relative agc of:he Castle Haync Limestone is equivocal. The major purpose of our paper u s to provide an ahcrnativ>>

method for relative correlation of the Castle Hayne Limestone to the standard Gulf Coast Eocene sections, and to determine thc feasibility of the Rb-Sr glauconite isochron in solving corcciation problems uhere faunal data are in conflict. Ne have achieved this purpose as turther indicated by the Discussion of Jones.

Jones suggested that we should have fullydiscussed and devel-oprd thc planLtic foraminiferal evidrnc>> u'hich indicates that thc.

Castle Haync Limestone correlates with thc GulfCoast Claibornian stage.

As this information has not been published and was only made aware to thc authors through p<<rsonal communications with Jones, Paul Hvddlcston, and other workers, it was not our purpose to discuss uc.published bios:ratigraphic data.

Rather, interested readers wcse nade aware of'he pvblished foraminifrral evidence through rcfcrcncc to LcGrand and Brown (1955) and Brown and others (1972).

Jones provided a collrctivc list of the planktic I'oraminifcra that hc has identilsrd from the Castle Haync I.irnestone; however, a list of species which arc not figured does not "prove th>> middle Eocene age of the Cast tr Haync Limcstoor." In addition, a discus-of "thc planktic foraminifcral cvidchce based on data from a

. dissertation in progcess...

on the lower CIaibosnian rocks e Yorth Carolina Coastal Plain-is a prcconceivrd conclvsion n dc prior to compictioo of and critical rcvicw of the v:ork. Paul Huddlrstun (1981, personal commun.)

has cxacnined oumcrous planktic foraminifcral sediments fs om thc Castle 11ayne Limestone and has placed the unit approximately in Blow's P13 zone (upper Claiboroian). Hr has further suggested that some ol the species or their ranges prcscntrd by Jones (scc his Discussion above) as ir;dica-tivc ofzones P I I-P12, asc problematical. For exan;plr, Hvddfestun svggeste4 that Turbororalia cerroa=ulensis fianrosa (Subbotina, 1953) and Globigcrinashcka mcxicana ncrxiccnc (Cvshnan, 1925) do not occur together in the standard Gulf Coast Claibornian strat-otypcs. Rather, T. cerroazulcnsis francosa occurs in thc T llahatta Formation (PIO-Pl I?), and G. n>cxicana s>sexicasca occurs in the Lisbon Formation (P13= Cubisoscrea scllacfornsis zone). As Hud-dlcstun has never rccognizc4 T. rerroa=ulensisfiuniosa or A<arin-ina penracac>>erasa (Subbotina, 1947) in the Castle Hayne Lime-stone, Bc also questions their occurrence there. He further suggests that thr absence in Jones'1981) species list of Globorosalia bull-brooki Bolli, G. crassaca, G. crassula.

G. densa, G. rocundimasgi-nara~and G. spinuloinflaia (Stainfoah and others, 1975) which are common to abundant in middle Eocene deposits, in4icates a prob-lem in the planktic foraminifcral data. This further emphasizes the conflicting biostratigraphy ol'he Castle Hayne Limestone de-scribed in our paper.

The argument that Worslcy's and Turco's (19/9) nanoofossil stu4y of the Castle Hayne Limestone does -not include species whose world-wi4e stratigraphic ranges begin above the middle Eocene" is incorrect. IVorslcy and Turco (1979) rcportcd 19 sriccte'd lower Tertiary nannofossits fsom the Castle Haync Limestone.

1 hrce of their listed spccirs acc world-widr stratigraphic indicators which uoeqvivocally have ranges beginning above thc middle Eocene [Chiasnsolishus oamarucnsis.

Sphcnoliihus pseudoradians, aod lie lie'oponrosphacra resiculasa, (T. R. IVorsley, 1981, personal commun.)]. Of'he seven species discussed by Jones, all but one

DISCUSSION AND RI'.I'LY 183 (vphfi>ciliiiiospxi'iirlarIIriiiins)do have ran-cs hcginning helnu'he Ii!'!lI: Fo c" ",

> ~ I ~ vec "f cvhcii nilly s" '.Ccl: p vice nfc dt'vc'uvscl aod not entire.Iiccnib!agc's. an>'onclvsinn ahou( age c n hc diavvn, I

xddition. Jones su gcsts that hccavcc many Eocene nannnfossil arc on!y liically recognizable, selective dissolution or local onincntal conditions have negated thc usefulness of'nannofvs-sil biostratigraphy in ibad Noi(h Carolina Coastal Plain. It appears that Jones believes tha( pl nktic forariinifcra arc thc only reliable biostratigr" phic tool, ulicicas it is possible to advance thc same arguments to explain thc discrepancies in thc planl:tic foraminifcral evidence.

According to T. R. IVoi!sey (1981

~ pcisonal commun.).

in(he nannofossil asccmb!ages arc pirscrved consistently in their proper cvolu(ionary sequence, therefore, Jones'rgument that the p ucity of these niarkcr cpfcies is iclatcd to local cxtinctions oi selective disso!ution is not suppor(cd by thc data. Calcareous nan-nofossil data support an upper Eoccnc age for the Castle Hayne I.(mes(one at:lic Icc(ostratotype and arc not cvnsisten( with a mid-dle Eocene age.

Suggesting that the Rb-Sr isochron age of thc Castle Haync Limestone is too young because of preferential toss of radiogenic Sr87 svggests unfamiliarity wi(h the literature, particularly in light of the numerovs agc determinations on units from other parts ofthe wc:ld which suppoix thc agc (see diccussion in Harris and Zullo, 1980, p. 591). Ir. addition, recent R b-Sr glauconite isochron ages of Eocene strata I'rom South Carolina support the agc of the Castle Haync Limes'.one. Full gar and others (1980) icportcd ages from

hc vppcr Santcc Lintcs(one of Baum and others (1980) (= Cubi(<<Ps-(fee sr'icefcriiiis zone) of 36.7>> 0.6 m.y. and the Cross Formation of 34.1>>

1.5 m.y. Thc Ics(tie(cd Santee Limestone of Baum and ot (1980) is considered to rcprcsen(

calcareous nannofossil

'P16 "nd NP17 (Hazel and others, 1977), and the Cross ion of 0'm and o(leis (f980) rannofossil zones

iNP18, YP19, and YI'20 (L. hf. Bybell, 1978, personal corn(.vn.). Thcrc-ioic, icccn'I Eocene agc detcrminativns fioin other parts of the southcas(em A(l:ntic Coastal Plain support thc age of the Castle Hayne Limestone reported by Harris and Zullo (1980) and provide fur(hcr evidence that the Rb-Sr glauconite isochron method <<an provide accurate ages for conversion of'he standard geologic Cvluir.n.

Numerous!ithofacies that transgress time have been included in the Castle Haync Limestone, each with their own distinctive.

faunal and floral asscmb!ages.

Until de:ailed lithostratigraphic rcla-

ionchips of':ill facies assigned to the Cactle Hayn Limes(on as vc" as the Eiic' e have hcc1 Cctcf"I:ned, iofvblcnts wii.'x st in the bios'.ra(i-raphic da:a. Ifthe complexity of Castle Haync facies is not ice(I nizcd. th n any cvncl<<sinnc about co(re!a(i<in of seili-iilvn!s CI>llsic efcd (el hc I.ijuioil "nt tli I( a ivc Iillics oancf tail tile

!cetus(rvtotyp>>. aic Premature.

For chan(PIC, Jones (1981) appar-ently docc not icc'ogrizc (hat,thc lcctostratcitype of thc Castle II:Iync Liincstnnc liiopnscd by Gaum and others (1978) contains dif(ercnt lithofacies than thc lcc:ostiatotypc proposed by K'Vard and v('hers (1978). Also, with no dc(oiled information on thc exact local-ity or horizon in uhich Jones col!ected samples f'r study. col'lcctivc licts of fauna I'iom differeiit localities are useless.

REFERENCES CITED gaum, G. R., Collins, J. S.. Jones.

R. hf.. hfaCliogcf. B. A., and Pow Il, R. J., t980. Correlation of ih>> Eocene s(ra(as of thc C.io!ioas: South Ca iolina Geo! ogy. v. " '. p. 19-27.

Brown, P. ht.. hfi!!Cr.J. A.. and Suain, F. hf.. 1972, Structural and s(iati-8<<aphie Iiameuoik aod spatial distiibvtion of pcimcabi!i(y of'he Atlantic Coaxial Plaiii, North Caro!ina to Ncw York: U.S. Gco!ogical Survey Piofcsslooal Paper 796, 79 p.

Fu!(a8ar, P. D., Haiiis, 'cV. B., and (Vintcrs.J., 1980, Rb-Sr 8!auconiic ages, Claiboro!ao and Jacksonian strata (Eocene),

southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain: Gcologi<<al Society of Amcnca Abstracts with Piogiams,

v. !2. p. 430.

Harris, cV. B., aod Zullo, V. A., !980, Pb.Sr g(aucooitc isochrun of the Eoccnc Cas(!c Haync Limestone, North C~rohoai Gco!ogical Society of America Bu!I<<tin, v. 9!, p. 587-592.

Hazel, J. E., Bybcll. L. hf., Christopher, R. A., Ficdcrickscn, N. O., hfay.

F. E., hfcLcan, D. hf., Poorc, R. Z.. Smith, C. C.. Sohl, N. F.,

Valentine, P. C., and XX~I(mcr. R. J., 1977, BI<<stratigraphy of'thc Deep Corchofc fC!ubhousc Crossroads Coicho!e I) near Char!<<stun, South Carolina, in Rankin. D. 5'.. cd., Stud!:s ic! Icd to the Charleston, South Caiolina carttiquakc of 1886-A pic!iminaiy icpoa: U.S. Gco-(08!Fal Survey Piofcssiooa! Paper I028f. p. 71-89.

LCG<<zod, H. E., "nd Brnun. P. hf.. 1955, Guidebook of excursion io the Coastal Plain of Yoah Caco!ina: Noah Caio!ioa Gco!ogical Society, 43 p.

Staiofoah, R. hf.. Lamb, J. I... Lvicibachcr. H.. B:aid, J. H:, and.(cffoids, R. hf., 1975. Cenozoic p!ar.ktonic foi r.inifcial roo

~iiun and charac-iciiciics of index I'o.mc: Kansas University Patconiofog!cal Con(iibu-tioos. Artie!c 62, p. I '25.

XVard, L. (V., Lau fence, D. R., and B!acku elder, B. (V., !978, Stratigraphic revision of thc mid41c

Eocene, Oligocene.

and tower'fioccne-Atfaniic Coas(al pfaio of Yorih Carolina: U.S. Gcologica! Survey Bu!-

le(in I457-F, 23 p.

V'ors!cy. T. R., and Tu(co, K. P., !979, Ca(caicous oannofossils from tbe lowir Tcr(iary of Yonh Carolina. in Baum, G. R., aod others, cds.,

Structural aod stra(igmphic fram<<work for Ihc Coasia! Pain of Yoith Ca<<olio(a Caro(ina Gco(o".ca( Soc!cty Field Trip Guidebook, p. 65-72.

hfxhi:sex(I r kcc rivao av r(ir Sc+I<<rv Junc 22, !981 hfoYvsciiii'rAcccvrrn JI:cv 7. !981

i'i ~

AGE OF THE CO(i'EFFORT iAEh'iBER OF THE CASTLE HAYNE FORb(ATION (EOCENE) OF NORTH CAROLINA 3.E. Hazel, U.S. Geological Survey 970 National Center, Reston, VA 22092 L.M. Bybell, U.S. Geological 970 National Center, Reston, VA 22092 L.E. Edv:ards, U.S. Geological Survey 970 National Center, Reston, VA 22092 G.D. Jones, Union Oil Comp-ny, California, P.O. Box 76, Brea, CA 9262l L.W. Ward, U.S. Geological Survey "970 National Center, Reston, VA 22092

~

)

ABSTRACT The biostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic position of the Comfort Member of

~

~

~

.he Castle Hayne Formation has been the subject of much debate.

At the Martin-Marietta quarry at Castle Hayne, New Hanover County, North Carolina, the planktic I

foraminifers indicate an age no older than the Globorotalia ossa noensis Zone of I

Toumarkine and Bolli (1970) (which approximates the upper part of the Globo erinat

~a I

b Cl i I,i 5 if 8

h

{975))

d no younger than the l loborotaiia omeroli Zone (which approximates the Orbulinoides beckrnanni Zone).

The calcareous nannofossils indicate an age no older than the Coccolithus staurion Subzone of the Nannotetrina uadrata Zone of Bukry (197$ ) and no younger than Bukry's Discoaster bifax Subzone of the Reticulofenestra umbilica Zone.

The dinocyst data indicate placement in the upper part of the Kisselovia coleothr ta Zone of Costa and Downie (1976). All of these zonal units are considered to be,within

~

~

the middle Eocene and, based on the time scale used in the present model, indicate placement in the time interval between 02.1 and 05.3 megaannums (Ma.). The samples in this study bracket the bed from which Harris and Zullo (1980) obtained a Rb/Sr isochron age of 30.S

+ 1.0 Ma. This date is clearly in error and cannot be used to date the Cornfort Member.

~

I

INTROD UCTION Mil)er (l9I2) named the Castle Hayne Formation for the limestone exposures near astle Hayne in New Hanover County, North Carolina, but did not designate a type

~

~

locality. Recently, in nearly simultaneous publications, Ward and others (197S) and Baum and others (197S) sought to correct this deficiency.

Ward and others (197S) designated

~

the exposure at the Ideal Cement Co. quarry at Castle I-Iayne as the Iectostratotype and divided the formation into three members:

the New Hanover Member, a phosphatic lithocaJcirudite; the Comfort Member, a bryozoan-echinoid calcirudite; and.he Spring Garden Member, a molluscan-mold biocalcirudite.

Baum and others (1978) chose the exposure at the Martin-Marietta quarry near Castle Hayne (hereafter referred to as the Vartifl-Marietta quarry) as the lectostratotype and divided it into three informal units, a k

biomicrudite (the New Hanover Member of Ward and others, 197S), a bryozoan blosparrudite, and a bryozoan-sponge biomicrudite.

The latter two Iithologies constitute the Comfort AIember of V.'ard and others (1978).

Baum and others (1978) considered the pring Garden Member of Ward and others (197S) to be a separate formation, the New Bern Formation.

Figures 1 and 2 give the location and section at the Martin-Mariet.a quarry; the nomenclature follows V'ard and others (1978).

The biostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic position of what is now referred to as the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne Formation has been the subject of much debate.

Traditionally, it has been considered correlative with Gulf Coast units assigned to the provincial 3acksonian Stage, which is generally equated with the late Eocene

~

~

P (Clark, 1909; 1912; Canu and gassier, 1920; Kellum, 1925; 1926; Cheetham, 1961;

Copeland, 1960).

However, Cooke and MacNeil (1952) and later, Brown and others (1972) concluded that beds now included in the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne are entirely of Claibornian age, which is generally equated with the middle Eocene.

Recently, Baum and others (1978) and Zullo and Baum (1979) suggested that the ppermost bryozoan-sponge biomicrudite of the Comfort Member may extend into the 2

Hayne Formation, i

Stage.

V"ard and others'l978) considered the entire Cast c Qni ta c ~

a'born'an Turco an o'hers S

Garden Member, to bc Claibornian.

Turco an o.

~in ir uppermost Spring ar m calcareous nannofossils to (l979) resented evidence from ca care

) and V/orsley and Turco (

pr a

e determination of late Eocene.

ort an age e

arris and Zullo (1980).

They 4

dded to the controversy by Harris.and Zullo A new dimension was a e

the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne at the d

lauconite samples from t e

~ ine ount

.. a the Rb-Sr ount N.C. and dated these using t

quarry, Ncw Hanover County, a

-tin-Marietta qua f 3ii 8+

< a was obtained.

In view of f 3ii.8+1.0 Ma {megaannums) was obtaine n

i n technique.

An isochron of 3ii.8+

i a su est a late Eocene esults they used this isochron to suggest a

conflicting paleontological results, t ey u d a so a that the Eocene-Oligocene d also advance the hypot esis for the Comfort Member and a so a undar is close to 33 Ma.

f h

Harris and Zullo {1980) paper, 3ones In a discussion of the Harris an tic o

e inconsistent with a late ktic foraminiferal assemblage

'on

~

~

Member contains a plan tic o

man Rb-Sr (1980) themselves stated that m y

ocene aoe.

Because Harris and Zullo ocene age.

ec radiogenic Sr lauconite ages may be to y

g o

oun because of the preferential loss of d

was the more likely alternati

was, ve.

He also state 87Rb 3ones concluded this was elative to, o

't with a middle

h the nannofossil data of I y

'orsle and Turco {1979) {could be consistent) wi

=ocene age.

~

~

~

~

d on the examination of micro~

d on e

fossils ( lanktic The resent study is based on e

e pr d d Qagellates) from the Com an ino ag mfort Member of f

calcareous nannofossils, an ino ag

oraminifers, c uarr ot a

o izon of i e i 'arr both above and below the hori t the Martin-Marietta quarry, ot a

o Fi. 2). The purpose of this paper is to Z

'1980) glauconite material {Fig..

a er is to f the Comfort Member at this locality.

e a

letermine t e ag o;

f e the Rb-Sr isochron age there is of mi e

o ddl Eocene age; therefore the how that the Comfort i

t b aring on 1980) is about 10 Ma too young and has no direc e

ii.8 Ma (Harris and Zullo, for the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.

iding an age estimate or e

Planktic Foraminifera Table 1 shows the distribution of planktic foraminfers in five samples from the

~

~

omfort s'member at the Mtartin-Marietta quarry.

The lowest foraminiferal sample (h

5.5 I '"PI

"P"'*' 'P"'*"""~

mexicana mexicana (Cushman, 1925) indicates a chronostratigraphic placement no older than the Globorotalia ossa noensis Zone of Toumarkine and Bolli (1970) and the presence of Globorotalia frontosa (Subbotina, 1953), which defines the top of the G.

, p(

Sample CHMM-Clau. was taken from the bed that Harris and Zullo (19SO) obtained the glauconite for their analysis.

The presence of Planorotalites renzi (Bolli, 1957),

Truncorotalites to ilensis (Cushman, 1925), T. rohri Bronnimann and Bermurdez,

1953, and Morozovella s inulosa coronata (Blow, 1979) indicates a middle Eocene age.

According to Blow (1979, p. 1017) M. s inulosta coronata does not occur as high as the youngest middle Eocene.

The asemMage at it m (CH)ptM-I) is vit uaiiy the same;:he

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Tee g(t: rc> t tat'4R.

esence of~~~~ incons icua (Howe, 1939) is further evidence of a middle Eocene age.

The highest foraminiferal sample, CHMM-2 at 15.2 m cont !ns virtually the same assemblage as CHMM-I.

The foraminiferal data indicate that the Comfort Member at this quarry is of middle Eocene age. It is no older than the Globorotalia ossa noensis Zone of I':I I

I()5

),

Ih pp

• I 5

pp* ~hi*i k

h

~

5 I

5'<<

'h

(

5)

The lower sample examined represents the Globorotalia ossa noensis Zone, the remainder of the Comfort could represent this zone or the younger Globorotalia omeroli Zone.

The presence of Worozovella s inulosa coronata precludes an age assignment younger than the Globorotalia omeroli Zone, which approximates the ObuUnoides beckmanni Zone as used by Stainforth and others (1975) {see Toumarkine and Bolli, 1970;

, 1979).

Ca lca re ous Nanno fossils Table 2 is a list of the calcareous nannofossils found in the Comfort Member.

The lower sample contains Chiasmolithus solitus (Bramlette and Sullivan, 1961)

Locker, 1968, whose last appearance defines the boundary between the Discoaster 5

~

fi* **

ii f

Bukry (1978).

Also present is Cam los haera dela (Bramlette and Sullivan, 1961) Hay and Mohler (1967), which last appears shortly before the last Chiasmolithus solitus.

Dict ococcites seri sae Bukry and Percival, 197I, also occurs in this sample; this species has its first appearance datum at or very close to the last appearance datum of Chiasmolithus i as (Bramlette and Sullivan, 1961) Hay, Mohler, V'ode, 1966, which defines the top of the Chiasmolithus i as Subzone of Bukry (1978).

Thus, the lower 4

Co~nfort represents the middle part of the middle Eocene and the Coccolithus staurion '.

Subzone of the >Nannotetrina uadrata Zone and/or the Oiscoaster bifax Subzone of the eticulofenestra umbilica Zone of Bukry (1978).

Bukry (1978, p. 56) considers these two subzones as correlative with the upper part of the Yannotetrina alata Zone (>NP15) through Discoaster tani nodifer Zone (NP16) of Martini (1971).

Calcareous nannofossils are less diverse and more poorly preserved in the upper part of the Comfort. However, the presence of Cam los haera dela in R2200E, I

~

indicates an age no younger than middle Eocene, probably no younger than the Discoaster bifax Subzone of Bukry (1978).

The nannoflora in the Comfort at the study site provide >evidence that the unit is of middle Eocene age and can be assigned to the chronozone of the Coccolithus staurion and/or Discoaster bifax Subzones of the middle part of the middle Eocene.

Dino flagella tes phd g{':,~/~

Table 3 lists the occurrence of dinoflagellate cysts in<Comfort at the study

=ali The flora indicates biostratigraphic placement in the upper (middle Eocene)

>rt f Costa and Downie's (1976) Kisselovia coleothr ta Zone. -The first appearance

Rhombodinium draco Gocht, 1955, defines the base of Costa and Downie's overlying R.

raco Zone; this species is notably absent in the Comfort.

On the basis of the dinocyst evidence, the Comfort correlates with the upper

~racklesham in England.

The presence of Areos haeridium dict ostilum (Menendez, 1965) Sarjeant, 1981, senior synonym of A. arcuatum Eaton, 1971, indicates that the

omfort is no older than the upper Bracklesham B-0 assemblage of Eaton (1976) and Bujak and others {1980). The Comfort does not appear to be as young as the basal Barton, in which the base of the R. draco is found.

The joint occurrence of Pentadinium oniferum Edwards, 1982 and Pentadinium oi odum Edwards, i982 suggest corre)ation.

with the upper part of the Lisbon Formation or the Gosport Sand of the Gulf Coast. (lt is in ting to note that the coleothr ta/draco zone'oundary occurs in the upper part of the sport Formation of Alabama.)

The dinoflora compares favorably with the flora cited by Chateauneuf (1980) from the upper Lutetian/lower Auversian of the Paris Basin; Biostra tigraphic Conclusion The combined microfossil data lead to the conclusion that the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne Formation at the Martin-Marietta quarry, at a maximum, is no older than the Coccolithus staurion Subzone of the Nannotetrina uadrata Zone or the upper

~

Globorotalia ossa noensis Zone.

Further, the unit in not younger than the Discoaster bifax Subzone of the Reticulofenestra umbilica Zone or the Globorotalia omeroli Zone.

Figure 3 (modified from Hazel and others, in press) is a chart. showing the correlation of Midwayan, Sabinian, and Claibornian strata from three areas in the.

a astal Province.

The chart is based on a biostratigraphic, magnetostratigraphic, and

'metric model developed by us in which first appearance and last appearance datums for calcareous nannofossils, planktic foraminifers, and dinoflagellates are

calibrated to each other, to Paleogene rn'agnetic anomalies, and to time. Insufficient data are available at the present time to present an entire column for southeastern North arolina; however, the maximum'biostra tigraphic and magne tostra tigraphic position of

~

~

~

the Comfort Member is indicated by the shaded band.

The model indicates that the Coccolithus staurion Subzone to Discoaster bifax Subzone interval correlates with the reversed interval between'magnetic anomalies 18 and 19 to the lower part of anomaly 20.

Ness and others (1980) give an age for the base of anomaly 18 of 01.82 Ma and an age of 05.I8 for the base of anomaly 20.

On the time scale developed for the USGS model this interval is between 42.1 and 05.3 Ma.

The combined dinoflagellate (tab. 3) and molluscan assemblages (which!ncludes Crassatella texanus Heilprin, 1890 Pholadom a claibornensis Aldrich, 1886 and Pecten membranosus Morton 1830) of the Comfort at the Martin-Marietta quarry strongly suggest correlat!on of the Comfort with the uppermost part of the Lisbon Formation of

'labama.

This in turn suggests that the Comfort falls in the chronozone of the lower t

art of the Discoaster bifax Subzone and the lower part of the Globorotalia omeroli Zone.

This level is calibrated to time at about 03.0 Ma.

The 30.8 ~1.0 Ma isockron age f'r the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne Formation (Harris and Zullo, 1980) is clearly in error. It has no bearing even on the age E

of the middle Eocene-upper Eocene boundary (39.6 to 00.0 Ma depending on paleontologic

~,

r'efinition),

much less the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.

1

References aum, G. R., Harris, W. B., and Zullo, Y. A., 197S, Stratigraphic revision of the exposed

~

~

~

~

~

~

middle Eocene to lower Miocene formations of North Carolina:

Southeastern Geology, v. 20, p. 1-19.

Blow, W. H., 1969, Late middle Eocene to Recent planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy, in Bro nnimann, P., and Renz, H. H., eds., Proceedings of the first international conference on planktonic microfossils, I: Leiden, E. j. Brill, p. 199-022.

, I979, The Cainozoic Globigerinida:

Leiden, E. 3. Brili, v. I-3, p. I-ISI3, pls. I-260.

s Brown, P. M., Miller, J. A., and Swain, F. M., 1972, Structural and stratigraphic framework and spatial distribution of permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina to New York: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 796, 79p.

~

~

~

ujak, 3. P., Downie, C., Eaton, G. L., and Williams, G. L., 1930, Dinoflagellate cysts and acritarchs from the Eocene of southern England:

Special Paper Palaeontology, No.

20, p. 1-100.

Bukry9 D 9 197S, Biostratigraphy of Cenozoic marine sediment by calcareous nannofossils:

Micropaleontology, v. 20, p. 00-60.

C~u, F., and Bassler, R. A., 1920, North American early Tertiary Bryozoa:

U. S.

National Museum Bulletin 106, 879p.

Cheetham, A. H., 1961, Age of the Castle Hayne fauna (Eocene) of North Carolina:

~

~

Journal of Paleontology, v. 35, p. 390-396.

Clark, W. B., 1909, Some results of an investigation of the Coastal Plain formation of the area between Massachusetts and North Carolina:

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 20, p. 606-650.

, 1912, The correlation of the Coastal Plain formations of North Carolina, in Clark,

f No th C roii la North Carol'n iina Geoio ical W

and others, The Coa st a I Plain o or

~

)

onomic Survey, v. 3, p.. 30~-330."

1952, Tertiary stratigraphy of So South Carolina:

U. S.

C W.

and MacNei}, F.S,,

e n:e)..)

is, W. B., and u I, iet of America Bulletin, v. 91, p.

th Carolina:

Geological Society o Hayne Limestone, )Nor Geological Survey Professiona p

I Pa er 203-B, 29p.

oraminifera, from two localities in Dupiin

. W.

1960) Eocene and Miocene foramini era, ro u iin Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 07, p, County, North Carolina:

Bu etins o e

'nofla ellate Wetzeliella in l976, The distribution of the dino ag

sta L. l., and Downie, C., I, e

usta)

~

~ )

uroe,

. 591-610.

uro e:

Palaeontology) v. 19, p. 591-the Palaeogene of north-western Europe:,

. 591-n of the Eocene Castle lo V.A.

)

o 198Q Rb-Sr glauconite isochron o arr 587-592.

bell L.M., in press, Application of n of a biostratigraphic

zel, J.E., Edwards, L.E., and By e, odel and a new time scale to t e y

magnetostratigraphic mo e

an ni ic=n

~

h A'ltantic and Gulf Coastal "es in three areas o t e

-nific=-nt Paleogene unconformi ci I Pa er.

iation Petroleum Geologists, Specia p

Province:

American Association e.r n of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, 1982 Rb-Sr glauconite isochron of the ocene Jones, G. D.,I,

- r North Carolina: Discussion P

93, p. 179-182.-

Kenum, L. B., 1925, The age of and Reply: Geological Society of Ammerica Bulletin, v.

~ t I '

th Carolina:

Journal of Geology, v.

the Trent mar in or ra h of the Castle Hayne and Trent marls in Nort

, 1926, Paleontology and stratigraphy o t e t maria tn hiort I Survey Professional Paper 103, 56p.

Carolina:

U. S. Gooiogica urve Prernoli Silva, f.) Toumarkine, Na oleone, G., Perch-Nielsen, K., cern,,

rkine M,, aeo

, 1982 Paleogene magnetic stratigraphy in m ria ks:

e erica Bulletin, vol 93, p.

eri,

. 010-ubbio: Geological Society fo Ameri Contessa sections, Cu io:

)

nannopfankton zonation, 032.

d uaternary calcareous nan Martini, Ee) 1971, Standard Tertiary and Q I

nan 9

nference Roma 1970-f inc second plan~tonic con e

.r inacci, A ed.

Proceedings 0

aI Edizioni Tecnoscienza,

p. 73i-

. 739-785.

.e, ii

)

stal k

W B. and o:hers, The Coas~

B L.

1912, The Tertiary.ormaations in Clar,

!lier,

)

. 272-Economic Survey, v., p.

North Carolina Geologic and E Plain of North Carolina:

or 366.

T method, in Ka'uf'man, E.G., and Haze,

.')!lier) F.X-,

) T 1977 The graphic correlation met o, in trati raphy: Stroudsburg, Pa., Dowden, eds., Concep d., C cepts and methods in biostratigrap y:

.ro Ame Contribution vol. ii, p. 183-189.

~

omal time scales for the 1980 M)arine magnetic anomaly i

~

~

~

~

~

G., Levi) S ) and Couch, R,,

)

)

'mal iti ue and synthesis:

Review of d

1 t Cretaceous:

a. precis, ccitique an Cenozoic an a e r

Hutchir.son and Ross, inc., p.. 165-186..

n boundary in central L E 1 977) The Silurian-Devonian bo phy M.A., and Edwards, L.E,,

e M)urp y, Berr...

eds.

Western North Berr, W.B.N.) and Sandberg, C.S., eds.,

Nevada, in Murphy, M.A., Berry, us:

Museum rica-, 'fCalifornia, Riverside Campus:

rica-Devonian) University o a io, us.

v. 18,

. 753-770.

Geophysics and Space Physics).. p.

uro occidentale:

Bulletin de la L

ite Paleocene-Eocene en Europe occi ~:

'e la Pomerol, C., 1977, La irni e om te Rendu Sommaire des Seances,

v. 19, p.

Societe Geologique de France, Compte en u

202.

ht R

Petecsen, N P,

, R 1

S F. 3r. La Brecque, 3.L., Wrig

, R 7 T-uxe L. Perciva...

Wri Poof e) v"- )

~

r

~ )

. in

ress, a e ic.

, L t Cretaceous-Cenozoic Smith, C.C., Tucker, P., and Hsu, K.3., p, ic an ios ns of.the South Atlantic Ocean, m

and biostratigraphic correlations o e

an h

eds. initial Reports Deep Sea DrillingProject, in hsu, h

K and LaSreque, 3.L., eds., initia ep U.S. Government Printing Office.

Washington) D C cGraw-Hill Book Co., 365 p.

e in Stratigraphy:

New York, McGraw-Shaw, A.B., 1960, Time in ra':

cGraw-1975 d 3. H., and 3effords, R. M.,

b 3. L., i uterbacher, H., Beard, 3.

ainfocth R. M., Larn 7

k c

o d characteristics of index k

forms:

k c focaminiferal zonation an c

Cenozoic plank tonic o

rticle 62, p. 1-025.

s Paleontological Contributions, Art', p-University of. Kansas a eon o 10

1970, Evolution de Globorotalia cerrrroazulensis (Cole) ma 'ne,

<V., and Bolli, H. M.,

e Possa no (ftalie): Revue de Micropaleontologie,

'Eocene moyen et superieur de Possagno ta 'e:

e rolin~.

U om the lower Tertiary 1979..Calcareous nannofossils xrom

%or.ey, T. R., and Turco, K. P.,

o <<~,

. R. and others, eds., Structural and stratigraphic of North Caroiir>a, in Baum, G, an o

1 Plain of North Carolina:

Carolina Geological Society framework for the Coastal Plain o or

v. l3, p. 131-145.

1979 Stratigraphical reconnaissance of

~rco, K. P., Sekel, D., and Harris, W.S,,

r the North Carolina Coastal Plain: ll - L

- Lo~er to mid calcareous r,annofossils from t e or with Pro rams, v., p. 216.

G l

~

l Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v., p.

Cenozoic:

Geologica ocie 1979 Global cycles of relative cha g

an es of sea level

'ail, P.R., and Mitchum, R.M., 3r.)

f i

ra h in i,", '

d Dickersong P W.p eds.,

ra <<

in VVatkins, J.S., Montaoer t,

. an from seismic stratigrap<<y, in mar ins: American h

I investigations of continental m Geological and geop ysica in

l. 29

. 469-472.

Association o e ro f P t leum Geologists Memoir vo., p.

'elder B. %'., 1978, Stratigraphic revision of the V'ard, L. V/., Lawrence, D. R., and Blackwelder, B. %',,

r n of the wer Miocene - Atlantic Coastal Plain of Nort middle Eocene, Oligocene, and lower Miocene-

. S. Geoiogical Survey Bulletin 1457-F, 23p.

Field Trip Guidebook, p. 65-72.

the Coastal Plain of North 1979, Paleogene barnacles from the Co Zullo, Y. A., and Saum, G. R.>>

a e olo v 20, p. 229-246.

CaroLina (Cirripe ia,

(:

d Thoracica):

Southeastern

Geology,

ation of the Martin-

%orth Carolina sho~ing the loca i

Locality map of eas tern i or t etta quarry near ast e C

l Hayne New Hanover, County.

12

MARTIN-MARIETTAQUARRY A

8

. CASTLE HAYNE EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA':.::: WILMINGTON NEW HANOVER COUNTY (J

a I

s Ol Q

0 o

N 0

0 h,

h, 0

6 MILES

~

~

~

~ ~

(/(x<qe;rt (D~w4f ~

ure 2. Section at the Martin-Marietta quarry>~ Lithostratigraphic nomenclature is after Vi'ard and'others (1978).

Location of samples used in this study is indicated by arrows.

R coded samples were examined for calcareous nannofossils and

~

~

dinoflagellates.

CHMM samples were examined for foraminifers.

P

~

13

55 PLEIST 16 50 15 R2204 E, CHMM-2 45 13 LUz LU00 UJ UJ CJ C) 0I-K0 U

UJz

'X UJ l-CC0 0O m R2204D, CHMM-1

-c CHMM-4

) Rb/Sr, CHMM-glau i0 35 30 25 12 10 g

CO 8~.

K

~e)0 2:

'x

~e

~ R2886B 20

~ R2204C, CHMM-3 15 (0D0 O

I-K O

K 0I-K0 UJ UJO UJ UJ V)l-l-0 O

~

~

I 10 5

p/p r.i~+.+

c&g pthglrfl M cL4 2:. /

/5 gyp

\\

+uGyrs

/4 p(c~

E2 R PHOSPHATE 8,

CROSS GLAUCONITE GLAUCOHITE BEDDED COATED CLASTS LIMESTONE PEBBLES 4 COBBL'ES

~

LEE

>A"ES OTTE-P trology of the e>:posed Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone of North Carolina (under the d irection of DANIEL A. TWTORIS)

ABSTRACT The Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone crops out on the southern half of the 'cnorth Carolina Coastal Plain.

The major outcrop belt, marking t:he updip limit of continuous rock, is 160 km long and up to 20 km wide, striking sou"n-. stward through southern Pitt, western and central Craven, western Jones, central Onslow, cen'tral Pender, northwestern New

Hanover, and possibly southern Brunswick Counties.

Outliers, erosional re:.nants preserved in preCastle Hayne stream valleys, are found in

~ ~

~

Dupl~n, - nop.r, Sam@son, and Vttp'ne Counties.

Outliers of rolluscan-rich,;:1astic-do~mnated sediments in,Harnett,. Hoke, Johnston,

."moore,

~

and 4'ake Counties are tentatively dated as Eocene.

Xf these ediments l

correlate with the Castle Hayne Limestone, the marine transgression that initiated deposition of this formation extended to the eastern edge of the Piedmont Province of the Appalachian Highlands, a full 200 km west of the present coast.

The Castle Hague fauna contains a mixed Hiddle and Upper Eocene assembl ge.

Correlation with regional tectonics and depositional history of tne North Atlantic suggests a Hiddle Eocene age for the Castle H yne Limestone.

Sixty-three outcrops of the Castle Hayne have been reported in the literature dur'ng the past 145 years.

These are divided into five major lithofacies:

(1) a shallow-water, low-energy, phosphate-pebble

~

l..v.*~

~J'

~.Ci

~

r~gl t',

.<v s S '"

't.Ww',

4 4

p'a~ ~g

~

~

~,

~ s4

-C

~ ~

r *

'rW C,

'.t

,- ~

Pg,4

~

~ 4

~ g'I a

biomicrudite; (2) a shallow-water, high-energy, bryozoan biosparrudite;

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

(3) an intermediate-depth, low-energy,

sandy, sponge-spicule-bearing iomicrite; (4) an intermediate-depth, low-energy, sandy, foraminiferal, echinoderm biomicrite; and (5) a deep water, low-energy, bryozoan biomicrudite.

Three minor, locally occurring lithofacies are also recognized:

(1) a dolomitized biomicrite; (2) a molluscan-mold, bryozoan biomicrudite; and (3) a bryozoan, foraminiferal biomicrite.

Najor diagenesis of the Castle 1myne Limestone occurred in four environments:

(1) shallo~ marine, represented by authigenic glauconite; (2) mixed shallow marine and fresh-water vadose, represented by phosphate precipitation and development of calcitic drusy rim cement, in association with diastemic surfaces; (3) fresh-water vadose, represented by dissolution of aragonite and leaching of Hg from

~

~

~

~

~

high-ifg calcite bioclasts; and (4) fresh-water phreatic, represented y development of syntaxial overgrowths on echinoderm fragments and recrystallization of micrite.. Additional diagenetic alterations

/

include scattered occurrences of silica in the form of chalcedony, iron oxides, and iron sulfides.

A local zone of dolomitized biomicrite in New Hanover County is attributed to the Dorag model of diagenesis.

Distribution of sponges, foraminifera, and bryozoans, plus the

~

~ '0

~

lack. of,benthonic algae, suggests water depths of more than 100 m

during deposition of the bryozoan biomicrudite facies and 30 to 45 m

'or the sandy, sponge spicule-bearing biomicrite facies.

The sandy, foraminiferal, echinoderm.biomicrite facies, with. its..high micrite

~

/

content and occasional zones of winnowed sediment, suggests deposition in a water environment that experienced occasional periods of high

~

~

~

~

~

ergy.

Reverse cross-bedding and bimodal grain alignment in the 4 ~

~

~ ~

\\

V..ii

~

~

~

'f FC Q% ~

,ie~>(i

~-: Qr~

~

very%

>eC. r.t

~ Qy;A,'r..

~(~ Mi, g i.

, ~

j WWh 2~~% 4

')~%c,'-."

Xp

bryozoan biosparrudite facies indicate'idal influence and deposition above wave base.

The above four facies were deposited in a transgres-I sive episode..

The basal phosphate pebble biomicrudite facies, separated I

from the other lithofacies by a prominent erosion surface that developed during a significant marine regression, was deposited during an earlier-

~ transgression.

Thick sections of Castle Hayne-like sediments, found beneath typical Castle Hayne Limestone in numerous outliers in Duplin,

Sampson, and h'ayne Counties, may also belong to this earlier episode..

~

~

~

~

~

~

Except for the bxyozoan biosparrudite facies,, typical shallow water to supratidal carbonates are lacking in the Castle Hayne I

I Limestone; The environments. in which these sediments formed were possibly situated on the Cape Pear Arch, a structural high extending along the southwestern edge of the Castle Hayne Embayment.

The 'lack of terrigenous detritus in outcrops closest to the Arch suggests'

'"'that du'iong Castle Hayne tinm the Arch was under water and perhaps I

1 covered with a veneer of carbonate sediments.

The overall distributional pattern of sediment types and faunal components suggests deposition in a coastal embayment, open to the ocean on the southeast side, but surrounded by either land or very shallow water on the other three sides.

24 Paleogeography, Paleocirculation, and Paleocliraate I

The North American continent has drifted westward since its separa-tion from Africa and Europe (Smith and Briden, 1977; Fig.

7) and has wandered both northward and southward during that time.

Sixty million years ago the North Carolina coast was situated at about 33 N, but by the beginning of the late Eocene (40 roi11ion years ago) it had shifted to about 29 N.

By 20 million years ago, however, the North Carolina coast had reverted to about 32 N.

The portion of the North Carolina Coastal Plain on which the Castle Hayne Limestone is now located lies between 34 N and 35 N.

During time of deposition the O

0 r Eocene coastline was positioned at approximately 30 N, the latitude in which north Florida is presently located.

~

~

~

~

~

'uring the Late Cretaceous, a widespread marine regression F

astically reduced the size of the North Atlantic epicontinental I

seas and altered the major circulation pattern in the North Atlantic (Berggren, 1978).

Vithin the Gulf of iNexico, a maj or wind-driven current with a clockwise circulation pattern similar to the current Gulf Stream circulation developed.

The out'flowing water from this current contributed to the generation of the Gulf Stream and the North P

Atlantic Drift (Berggren, 1978).

This surface circulation of ~armer waters from low latitudes to high latitudes has continued since that time.

Consequently, during Eocene time, a maj or northward-flowing current somewhere off the North Carolina coast brought warm water and possibly some tropical faunal elements into the area..

\\

Through the Cenozoic Era, from about 63 million years ago up to present,.the earth's surface has changed from largely tropical I

Outcrop area of the Castle Hayne Limestone

-- Present day30'N tatitude 30'N 20 million years earfy Miocene

~ 90o O'

40 million years fate Eocene 90'W 30'N 60 millionyears Paleocene 90'W Change in paleolatitude and paleolongitude of North America during the Ceno zoic Era, based on Smi th and Hriden (l977).

s 4c

~+!fs 26 r

~g gg

-'~~)'c Qgs Vs p

P 4

ag I

~ l

<<.~. 5" v) s:

as Pl l '-;;":~g

>.'p

~~fi

'c

%~1>>~

~,.'iA,'

r<

and subtropical to temperate (Berggren, 1978),

though this trend has not been uniform.

Ha or j

climata.c changes progressed at different r tes zn dz*ferent parts of the world.'or instance, in the North Atlantic a warm t"end xs recorded for the Paleocene and the Lower By the middle Late Eocene (about 40 mya) Antarctica, which had earlier split 'off from South America, moved into the high southern latitudes over the south pole and caus d f d

1 e

un amenta changes in anic circulation and world climate (Berggren, 1978).

Direct r

xmentological evidence exists for Antarctic gla t

1 d

'cta

@on already having occurred in the Hiddle Eoce h

?

ocene, t ough it was closer to the Eocene, with climatic zones expanding poleward (Berggren, 1978).

Two events took 1

place during the Eocene, however, that drastically reversed thus trend for the. Atlantic Ocean.

During the late Early I

~.

Eocene (about 50 m a) h y ) t e final opening of the northern perimeter of s

e Atlantic Ocean occurred when Gree 1

d d E n an an urope separated (Berggren-1978).

Th

).

The 'development of a deep ocean basin in the northern lptitudes'llowed; 1

colder Arete.c bottom waters'to flow into the North Atlantic and sink> thereb y generating a deep cold-water circula-tion pattern.'ool suryaf ce waters, also began to push down-from the " ".'

Arctic.

This influx of cooler water started a slow but steady cooling'f the North Atlanticic,. aided zn the gradual development of a boreal faunal realm, and increased the differentiation of temperate and.

tropical realms.

Eocene-Oligocene border (about 38 h

h mya t at the glacier~

hI ~~

van

/'J, Q~~IW7 7.:-

,~(

• ~

~ '

~ 4" I

~ WA ~%h'* V A wN H~% ~. ~,

y

~ VW k

O'C

~ 1%

I ~ ~

Q.('7.-'c. ~

/(<( ~

' i Q

'\\ r)

+f f'.' 4-'~( c7

(~

I p: ( Ra'o,>i 5 $ 77 I ~

O'Cij C: pc/

c~ (=-<

C~/le ~~-~~( C':(4 global sea level during the Late Eocene.

Late in the Cretaceous, sea level reached a maximum of more than 300 m higher than present-day sea level (Vail and Hardenbol, 1979).

The Tertiary was marked by a great number of fluctuations in'ea level, although the overall trend had been a gradual lowering of sea level since the Cretaceous high.

The regressions appear to have been very rapid, having occurred over a period of a million years or so, and many of them seem to have been a magnitude of more than 100 m

(Vail and Hardenbol, 1979).

During the Eocene two major sea level falls are recorded, one at about 49.5 million years ago and one at 40 million years ago (Vail and Hardenbol, 1979), "in rough correlation with the opening of t:he. North Atlantic and the beginning of major Eo'cene'ediments from large portions of the Atlantic Coastal Plain.

A major transgression in the Middle Eocene, during which the Eocene seas reached their maximum extent on'ost continental shelves.

One of the sion is seen at, this time is on the Gulf (Hallam, 1963), is found r

few places where a regres-Coast of North America (Hallam, 1963).

The transgression is well documented for the western "Antarctic glaciation,. respectively.

Paleontologic evidence supports

~

~

major drop in sea level of up to 300 to 400 m from 50 to 49 million years ago (the Upper Cretaceous-Middle Eocene break on the North I

Carolina. Coastal-Plain) (Vail -and Hardenbol, 1979)."

Pitman (1979).

~

~

~

reported' major Paleocene to Middle Eocene regression from 65'o 45 million years ago that moved the western Atlantic shoreline rapidly seaward.

This event could explain the'ack of Paleocene and Lower t

9

.~,('-'":

'eA'"~:

'~'-s.

'.tm, r

wS~

"5Cgl Xantic Ocean and the Atlantic Coastal Plain, and is the result of a ombination of factors.

During'he Middle Eocene the rate of sea level

~

~

28 fall decreased we11 below the Cenozoic average for the western Atlantic, to about 0.37 cm/1000 years (Rona, 1973).

The post-Cretaceous sub-sidence rate at the shelf edge east of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, has averaged about 2.5 cm/1000 years (Rona, 1973).

Linen rate of subsidence exceeded the rate of sea level fall, a transgression occur-red (Rona, 1973; Pitman, 1979).

Based on microfossil assemblages of Eocene sediments in New Jersey, Olsson (1978) also recognized a major Eocene trasgression in which increase in water depth on the shelf was significant.

The relative rise in sea level during the Hiddle Eocene, accom-panied by a cessation of terrigenous sediment influx from the continent U

(Gibson, 1970), set the stage for the development of carbonate units along the Atlantic Coastal Plain.

Sheridan et al.

(1978) found so little terrigenous sediment reaching the Atlantic shelf during Eocene time that subsidence exceeded accumulation and waters on the outer

'" shelf deepened to bathyal depths.

Deep-sea Eocene sediments in the western North Atlantic consist of calcareous and siliceous oozes with almost no detrital component (Gibson, 1970).

The shallow-C'ater Eocene strata. on the Coastal Plains of Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey primarily consist of glauconitic units'several hundred feet thick (Gibson, 1970).

Eocene strata in North Carolina and to the south consist mostly of carbonate sediments.

Sea level fell once more at the end of the Hiddle Eocene, then rose again during Late Eocene (Vail and Hardenbol; 1979),

though the Late Eocene transgression was not nearly as extensive as the one during the Hiddle Eocene (Hallam, 1963).

An additional large-scale all in sea level at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (Vail and Hardenbol,

29 1979) caused the erosion of a substantial proportion of the Eocene sediments.

'i d

'iiddle Eocene time apparently repr'esents a period of major transgression on the Atlantic Coastal Plain, accompanied by m:nimal influx of terrigenous sediments from the Appalachian Highlands.

The North Atlantic Ocean was gradually cooling because of inflow of sur-face and deep, cold-water currents, yet, like today, a Gulf Stream-type current flowed northward, possibly at or near the edge of the continental shelf, providing an insulating effect on water temperatures.

Age Assignment Numerous geologisti have dated the Castle Hayne Limestone as 1

i~faddle and/or Upper Eocene.

Recently, Brown et al.

(1972) reco~nized I

recognize o Upper Eocene (Jackson) sediment in>>orth Carolina,

and, except for a small amount of Lower Eocene beneath the outer counties in northeast-em North Ca em cnorth,Carolina,. concluded that all the remaining Eocene is Claibor-nian (Hiddle).

Baum et al.

(1978), however, named the Eocene New Bern Formation and placed it in the Upper Eocene, with this new formation resting disconformably on their Middle Eocene Castle.Hayne.

They cited the occurrence of several typical Upper Eocene fossils in the New Bern Formation and used this to defend the Jackson age.

However they also stated that typical Claibornian fossils were found in the New,Bern Formation and, likewise, that typical Jacksonian fossils were found in their Claibornian Castle Hayne Limestone.

'Nard et al.

(1978),

on the other hand, call the New Bern Formation of Baum et al. the i

i Spring Garden,'fember of the Castle Hayne Formation, making it the 1

ermost facies of their Hiddle Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone.

35 Upchurch (1973).

Textoris presented a general survey of the Castle Hayne Limestone, wh'ile Cunliffe and Upchurch concentrated their works n individual quarries, Cunliffe the Hartin Harietta quarry and Upchurch

~

~

the Ideal Cement quarry, beth near the town of Castle Hayne in New Hanover County.

Through these investigations an unexpected variety of microfacies was found within the Castle Hayne Limestone.

The recogni-tion of these and the correlation with,modern carbonate environments provided a very important beginning in deciphering the Castle Hayne.

Baum (1977) and Baum et al.

(1978) continued this study on a larger, though nore generalized scale throughout the major outcrop belt of ll the Castle Hayne Limestone.

Structure f

=

~

~

~

~

. Brown et al.

(1972) r'ecognized three levels of tectonic control long.the Atlantic Coast of North America that help form the geologic I

features seen currently on the. North Carolina Coastal Plain.

Their research

. indicates that the coastal margin is a margin --here the principal mobility takes the form of block faulting or flexing, I

accompanied by a rotational realignment of the axes of positive and negative structures in the region" (Brown et al. 1972).

Phase one of Brown et al.'s deformation is aligned northeast-southwest and is composed of parallel series of positive structural features (fault-block anticlines) and of adjacent negative structural features (half-graben's)

This phase is associated with t'e major structural alignment of the Appalachian Highlands and appears to be the controlling factor in the overall positioning of the Atlantic

36 Continental Shelf.

The axes of their phase two deformations are aligned northwest-southeast and are composed of parallel positive tructural features (compressional anticlines) and of adjacent negative features (compressional synclines).

In phase three positive 4

features (compressional anticlines) and adjacent negative features (grabens) diverge with the axes of the positive features aligned I

northwest-southeast and the axes of the adjacent negative features variously aligned either north-south or north to northwest-south to southeast.

Along the North Carolina segment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain four structural features have been proposed to aid in control over the deposition and erosion of Cenozoic and Mesozoic strata (Fig. 8):

(1) the Cape Fear Arch, corresponding to the phase two deformation of

~

~

Brown et al.

(1972),

(2) the Neuse Fault, which may correspond to the

,, ase three deformation of Brown et al.

(1972),

(3) the Carolina Fault, and (Ci) the Graingers t rench Zone, which does correspond to the phase I

three deformation.

These structural features, active at various times during the Cenozoic Era and at least the Cretaceous Period of the Mesozoic Era, produced different topographic highs and lows, resulting in changing depositional basins and centers of erosion on the North Carolina

. Coastal Plain.

Several geologists, most noticeably Ferenczi (1959),

1 Baum et al.

(1978), and Harris et al.

(1979) have attempted to show I

that these features controlled the deposition of the Castle Hayne I'imestone.

The Cape Fear Arch definitely controls the depositional and erosional history of the Castle Hayne Limestone.

The Graingers 4rench

~

~

~

rie may not have been active until post-Eocene time, and, as will be:.

outcrops of the Castle

//

Hayne Limestone

~/

~/

. ~/

Cg Cl o/

c/

~]

q8+ 0]

~N ~(p

~y

~ ~

~ ~ y

~

V~

)w

& +r'

.~r.-i>(

n

~

4M 40 miles 40 kilometers Figure 8.

e Hajor structural features on the southern portion of the Yorth Carolina Coastal Plain, after Harris et al.

(1979). '

discussed, no evidence is available that actually proves the existence of the Reuse and Carolina Faults, much less their control over the astle Hayne Limestone.

Ca e Fear Arch.

This positive, northwest-southeast trending I

arch; part of the phase two deformation of Brown et al.. (1972) and first recognized by Dali and Harris (1892),

has been shown by numerous geologists to have periodically'controlled deposition and erosion of Hesozoic and Cenozoic sediments found adjacent to and on the Arch.-

The arch represents a basement high with crystalline rock rising to within 335 m of ground surface..

4'ithin North Carolina, between Hilmington in New Hanover County and Cape Hatteras in Dare County, the 1

basement surface drops from 338 m to 3012 m below ground surface into the Chesapeake'-Delaware Embayment, a difference of 2763 m in 250 km.

Xn North Carolina most sedimentary units either become thin over the ch and grade into shallower water or ronmarine facies or are completely-absent due to nondeposition or erosion.

I

\\

Yeuse Fault.

This fault, originally described as the Cape Lookout-Neuse-,Fault Zone (Ferenczi, 1959), later shortened to the Neuse Fault (Baum et al;, 1978) corresponds to phase three of Brown et al.

(1972).

Ferenczi (1959) recognized the fault on three lines 'of evidence.

Further study, however, indicated that his three criteria were not proof of a fault zone.

Ferenczi (1959) suggested that a difference in depth to basement between a well at Havelock (707 m) and a well in Norehead City (1220 m),

both in Carteret County and separated by about 24 km, was caused by a basement fault.

Bromi'et al.

(1972), however, with the aid of additional lls to the basement, interpreted change in basement surface as a

~ '4'y I t

IP~

'r ~

jE Vc E,$%'~

-'gc'wc Q

C:

0 c'~'Wc; p4 w~>~ a

\\

~ ~

Q~p' C

tw 4p tg g~'S

~

i--'t T'

39 i steepening of slope from the Cape Fear Arch toward the Chesapeake-

", Delaware E...bayment.

Vest of the above mentioned

area, Ferenczi used the presence of

, the Castle Payne Linestone on the south bank of the Neuse River and i

i its absence in both outcr'op and wells north of the Neuse River, in the

- vicinity of Goldsboro in Vayne County, as evidence for the existence

, of the fault in this area.

In h'ayne County, however, the Castle Hayne l

)

occurs only as erosional remnants.

It is impossible to determine the I

'riginal geographical extent of the Castle Hayne in this area.

Ferenczi's third line of evidence consisted of a number of Eocene W'>>r g>>>>

~t outcrops aligned along his fault zone which had undergone silicifica-C)V and are not just along the fault.

Carolina Fault.

This fault zone strikes northeast-southwest (Fig. 8) parallel to the present day coast and does not appear to Ferenczi (1959) originally suggested the presence of this fault.

Baum could trace 'it from the confluence of the Cape Pear and. Black River+

in Pender County to'inston in Lenoir County.

Several geologic features (Ferenczi, 1959) suggest the existence of this fault:

(1) the north-

)4 xg4

.~r~

~.S tion.

This diagenetic alteration, he argued, resulted from emergence Detween late Eocene and late Hiocene times, due to the novement along I the fault.

However', several of the hayne County outcrops are silicified 1

.r.>

~ because the presence of siliceous sponge spicules provided a ready source-of silica.

Silicified sediments along the fall-line segment of Ferenczi.'s fault are much.more widespread than he originally thought

~ correspond to any of the deformational phases of Brown et al.

(1972).

z>ca A

>>'t '>>

r't al.

(1978) named this feature the Carolina Fault and believed they

~

~>>>>

'est limit of a magnetically disturbed zone west of Nilmington (HacCarthy,

~P 4'>>

E

'Q ~j>

~ W

>>>> ~~QW,,~-.N.l.,>>>>>>>>~

'..,>>,->>-,'P.

40 1936);

(2) the location of a zone of subsurface brackish water at the confluence of the Cape Fear and Black Rivers (LeGrand, 1955);

(3) a line along the eastern boundary of Martin, Pitt, and Lenoir Counties, where the Upper Miocene 'gorktown sediments overlie Cretaceous sediments I

I without xntervening Eocene sediments; and (4) a zone where the slope of the basement surface steepens under the North Carolina Coastal Plain, as illustrated by Berry (1951)-

Again, as with the Neuse Fault, all of these criteria provide evidence for possible faulting, but none proves conclusively th'at a fault exists.

i~facCarthy (1936) reported a parallel series of magnetic highs running from South Carolina across the Cape Fear Arch into North I

Carolina.

However, all his'work is south of the Cape Fear River, whereas the Carolina Fault is extended well north of the Arch (Fig. 6)-

MacCarthy only postulated that the magnetic-highs continue northeast-

~

~

~

ward beyond the Cape Fear River.

He suggested several possible causes for the highs, but not a fault zone.. The salt-water, incursion, documented P

I by LeGrand (1955), is good evidence for some type of subsurface structural disturbance but this phenomenon is found only in New Hanover County and small portions of Pender and Brunswick Counties.'nterestingly Ferenczi (1959) indirectly suggested that the northwest boundary of the Castle Payne was controlled by Lhe Carolina Fault; yet the western I

limit of continuous Castle Hayne in Duplin County is '16 to 32 km east l

of the proposed fault and north of this area, in Jones and Craven

Counties, the western limit is 16 to 32 km west of the proposed fault.

C

'hese limits are based on the western boundary of the Castle Hayne Limestone as illustrated by Brown et al.

(1972) and by the position of known outcrops.

The position of the. fault zone is based on Ferenczi L

(1959) and Harris )

Zu 110 ) and Baum (1979)

Grain ers 1 rench Zone.

This fault zone (Fig. 8) is better docu-ented than any other on the North Carolina Coastal Plain.

Brown et al.

(19?7) have found in C'raven and Lenoir Counties "tilted and partially exposed blocks of Navarroan,

Hidwayan, and Claibornian sedimentary rocks" that comprise a "structural mosaic of horst,

graben, and half-graben that are arranged in a right-banded, en echelon pattern-"

The zone cnaracterized by a set of relative left-lateral displacements.

Brown et al.

(1977) figured that this zone coincided with the phase three deformation of Brown et al.

(1972).

The zone is about 24 km wide, but its length is presently unkno~m.

The axis of the zone strikes about N25 to 30 E.

Harris et al.

(1979),

based on gravity anomalies in Virginia (Johnson, 1975) and on geomorphic and structural features in southeast Virginia, extended the wrench zone I

ore than 250 km through the northern part of the North Carolina Coastal Plain and,into Virginia (Fig. 8)-

C) c 0

C)

..C PIiC C'"

l.

JM

~ Vcc.

v&"

~ Q+t

\\ ~ ~

4

~M~

r 1'+/

A 4~

A,'s.r

<ji;

~ +'I'j pi2 1 VW't~

'Lv,.

L~1.p g%g I=

))a A'I

.'4 a C

W '*

~,

I'I.

I l

overgrowths are most abundant in the high-energy sediments and are I

P nearly absent in the low-energy, micrite-r'ch sediments.

100 Xn the nigh porosity sediments the overgrowchs have frequently grown large enough to contact adjacent allochems, thus helping to hold the sediment together.

Xn micrite-poor sediment, especially in the bryozoan biosparrudite facies, this type of cement is the major sediment binding agent.

Dolomite Dolomite was found only in the ifartin 1farietta quarry (NH-4) in New Hanover County, where an extensive Iense of highly dolomitized bicmicrite is located.

The dolomitization was confined to a micrite-dominated layer, overlain and underlain by a less micritic bryozoan F

biomicrudite.

Dolomite reaches a maximum of 100% replacement in the thicker parts of the altered zone (Fig, 24A), whereas a maximum of I

56% occurs in thinner portions (Fig. 24B) closer to the outer dges of the lense.

Throughout the lense maximum alteration lies close to the vertical center of the lense and decreases both up-and down-section though decrease is less rapid upsection (Fig. 15).

Eaum (1977) and Baum et al.

(1978a; 1978b) proposed the Dorag I

model of dolomitization (Badiozamani, 1973) as the most likely way I

to develop this lense.

They envisioned positive movement on the Cape Fear Arch to initiate a relative, local drop in sea level in the vicinity of the quarry's a way to develop the fresh water lense needed for the generation of a fresh water-salt water interface along which maximum dolomitization occurs.

DEPOSlTIONAL EliVIRON'iEt<TS Based on all the information gathered during the course of this investigation, a geologically reasonable depositional model for the Castle Payne Limestone can be developed.

This model makes use of distinctive geographical and stratigraphical patterns in lithofacies I

distribution and in patterns of sediment component and sediment texture variation throughout the formation.

The only word of caution concerning this model is the fact that most of the information was gathered from surface outcrops.

Uery little subsurface control is available.

The small amount of subsurface data that are available, including thick-nesses and general lithologies, supports the model proposed below.

a is believed that, with the overall abundance of surface data used to define the model, the use of additional subsurface data would result in a refinement and not a major change in the model.

Embayment Model The Castle Hayne Limestone, as defined in this report (p. 22) was deposited in an embayment on the southeastern portion of the North Carolina Coastal Plain (Pig. 35).

The remaining, uneroded portion of this embayment has a maximum northeast-southwest width of 160 km and h

is at least 120 km deep from the present coast northwestward.

Based on regional stratigraphy and the depositional history of the western North Atlantic. Ocean the Eocene terrigenous clastic-dominated outliers

20 miles 20 k ilom e ter s influx of terrigcnous sediments g+r Qo~

9

/

f DHP-D

?

7 svbacrtally 7

y$-; Q. p P.

7 possible

>ntcrt<ngcr>ng with the Spring Garden Member

?

?

exposed

~ ~p 7/

D p D f

p Outcrops ot Castle Haync Limestone D Diastcmic surfaces Phosphate Deep, quiet water Shallow water, high energy Rcla.ivcly shallow, quiet water, occasionally high energy Relatively shallow, quiet water Possible preCastle Haync stream channels, now tilled wit Cas tle. Hay ne Limes tone Figure 35.

Depositional environments of the Eocene Castle Hayne Eubayment on the lower southeastern North Carolina Coastal Plain.

%50 in Hoke, Harneet,

Johnston, Noore, and hake Couneies should be Castle

.".ayne in age.

he west.

If so, the embayment extended an dditional 90 km to The outcrops in New Hanover,

Pender, Onslow, Jones, and Craven Counties mark the present updip limit of continuous Castle Hayne seoiment.

The outcrops in the western half of the embayment, in Duplin,

Lenoir, Sampson, and h'ayne Counties, are.isolated outliers of what was probably a continuous sheet of carbonate sediment.

The upper slopes of the northeast flank of the noxthwest-southeast trending Cape Fear Arch serves as the southwestern limit of the embay-

ment, though it is possible that during Castle Hayne time the arch was submerged and covered.with a thin veneer of carbonate sediment (long since eroded away).

In the hew Hanover and Brunswick County area (Fig. 35), farther oue on the oceanward end of the arch, the Castle Payne Limestone actually wraps around the crest of the arch.

Sediments along the western and northern sides of.the embayment become more enriched in texrigenous clastics, suggesting the original shoreline in thes'e areas was not too distant.

To the southeast the embayment opens to the ocean and the continental shelf, where Eocene sediments

're dominated by deep water foraminiferal biomicrites and diatomites.

No barrier of any type is known to isolate the embayment from the open ocean.

The abundant marine fauna found throughout the eastern half of the embayment~implies a normal marine environment.

The limestone in the center of the embayment is relatively thick.

e

~

For a northeast-'southwest distance of 100 to l30 km through northern

Pender, Onslow, and southern Jones Counties up to 70 m of limestone can be found (Fig. 28), with thickness increasing oceanward.

To both the

151 nortn (Craven and northern Jones Counties) and the south (western 4ew nover and southern Pender Counties) the limestone rapidly thins to less than 15 m and extends thus for 30 to 50 km around the edge of the embayment (Fig. 28}.

In the western half of the embayment, the V

"~

l.'imestone is found only as scattered outliers where the. rock occupies low spots in the Pre-Castle Payne topography. (Figs.

19, 20; and 28).

I During Castle Hayne time the area occupied by the embayment was topographically, the lowest part of the coastal plain.

Numerous geologists (p.

35.) have postulated structural control of the deposition of the Castle Hayne Limestone, suggesting that down-dropped blocks were the primary method of producing an area below sea level in which the deposition of carbonate

.sediment occurred.

The data gathered for this report suggests a geomorphic control rather than a structural control.

s discussed on pages 24 through 29, prior to the deposition of the Castle Hayne Limestone, the Atlantic Coastal P3ain experienced a major

.marine regression, with sea level perhaps'as low as several.

hundred

\\

meters below present sea level.

The absence of Paleocene and Lower Eocene sediments beneath the Castle Hayne Embayment (most of the Castle Hayne lies disconformably on Cretaceous sediment) confirms a major erosional

'event in this area.

Three dimensional reconstruction of the D-5 outlier (Figs.

19 and 20) shows deposition of limestone in an I

elongate, branching depression.

Hany of the other outliers are restricted I ~ I

~ ~

in size but are relatively deep (many are greater than 30 m).

'r Xt is here proposed that these outliers occupy remnants of a major Pre-Castle

~

Payne drainage system (Fig. 35).

This drainage system produced a series of relatively deep stream valleys and also lowered the overall elevation n the embayment.area.'his stream system possibly fed from the outlier

~ x l%

.152 area (Duplin, S"mpson, and bayne Counties) into the deeper part of the eastern half of the embayment

{southern Jones,

Onslow, and northern

~

~

Pender Counties) through southern Lenoir County and southwestern Jones Cou..ty.

Site J-6, in southwestern Jones County contains at least 30 m

I of limestone.

As seen in photographs of southern Lenoir County, an area up to 10 km wide, running eastward into Jones County, contains a high concentration of sinkholes, signifying a well developed unit of under-lying limestone.

Just east of this area (Qnslow County),

based on well logs, is the deepest portion of the embayment.

r Based on the distribution of premanent diastems exposed around the present-day geographical edge of the formation (Fig. 35) especially in New Hanover, Duplin,.Liayne, and Sampson Counties, at least two episodes of transgression and limestone deposition are recognizable.

These two episodes are separated by a prominent erosion surface, marking a significant marine regression.

In the eastern section of the outcrop belt the lower depositional cycle is represented by the phosphate I

pebble biomicrudite facie's.

In the outlier belt, at sites D-5 and'I D-8 the two depositional cycles are separated by a prominent erosion surface that displays local relief of up to 12 meters.

Samples collected

'from the lower cycle show an increase in quartz sands upsection, sug-gesting the regression allowed terrigenous clastics to feed'nto the area of these particular sites before development of the erosion surface.

P Sediments accumulated during the second episode of deposition dominate the formation.

Within this episode the terrigenous sediment component decreases upsection (Fig. 37) and laterally turned the center of the embayment (Fig. 36).

Lithofacies around the edge of the basin z

C average from 10 to 20 percent quartzsand, while the bryozoan biomicrudite

153 WATER DEPTH ENERGY LEVEL (I.

sJ

t

~l l

~ ~

4)

'I II~

2O il" I

I I I I I NWg cP+

o~

I.

'~

Iow r

rr&r shallow high Q.UARTZ SEDIMENT CONTENT MACROFOSSIL DIVERSITY 4

l~L.;

ITi~:

,IIIIII

. %F8 low g1 0 ~

~

. I' X

-.z.

I

outcr o ps of Castte Hayne Ls.

I llllll high high Figure 36.

Geographical distribution of selected environmental features within the Castle Hayne Embayment.

SITE NH"4, SITE NH"5 SITE 0"5 I

SITE W-1 SITE D-8 l

I

~

I I

l I

I II I

10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 30 40 50 POINT COUNT PERCENTAGE Figure 37.

t Decrease in quartz sand and silt content upsection at five selected sites.

Site NH-4 and NH-5 are in the major outcrop belt and sites 9-5, D-S, and U-1 are outliers.

I

~ ~ <<<<vi-.lii'va ~ vtvi.',~ ti.,hi.<< 4...)4 ii'ti <<i vl; "p I Nitt:/ J i1irti"ii

~ is iri; i ~i'V~ ~, Pii.t.'.V:.Ih.<<,o'/1t'g

155 facies in the center of the embayment averages about two percent quartz sand.

In compar.son with the terrigenous strata above and below the Cast1e Hayne even the 20% terrigenous content of the peripheral facies is minor.

The relatively 1ow, overall terrigenous

content, the presence of reworked clasts composed of rock from the underlying Paleocene and Cretaceous formations, the lack of unstable terrigenous grains (feld-

spars, micas, clays, and other common minerals),

and the dominance of quartz grains favor a local reworking of underlying and surrounding 1

noncarbonate sediments rather than an influx of sediment from the crystalline Appalachians to the west as a source of the terrigenous component of the Castle Hayne sediments.

The. various components

.of the different lithofacies provide ample information for deciphering the depositional environments within the 1

r

~

~

~

~

embayment.

Generally, a shallow-water, high-energy bryozoan biosparrudite facies extends along most of the western edge of the embayment (Fig.

31 and 35).

The northern and northwestein.portion of the embayment is I

I' filled with micrite dominated sediments deposited in a relatively shallow, low-energy environment, including the sandy, sponge spicule-bearing biomicr.'te facies to the northwest and the sandy, foraminiferal, echinoderm biomicrite to the north.

The center and oceanward portion of the embayment is dominated by the deep, relatively quiet ~ater bryozoan biomicrudite facies.

The bryozoan biomicrudite facies contains an abundant normal marine fauna and is the most fossiliferous unit in the embayment (Fig. 36).

Tne growth forms of the bryozoans (p. 141) and the types of siliceous sponges;(p.

139) in this facies suggests water depths in excess of 100 m.

The high energy bryozoan biosparrudite facies also contains

156 n abundant marine fauna, though it does appear as though a large po'rtion of the bioclastic debris may have been washed in from deeper waters.

The overall faunal content of 'the sandy, foraminiferal, echinoderm biomicrite and the sandy, sponge spicule-bearing biomicrite facies is much more restricted (Fig. 36).

It is possible that the high micrite content in these two facies may have kept a large number of the filter-feeding organis:.s out of this part of the embayment.

The distribution of high versus low energy environments (Fig. 36) and of macrofossil diversity (Fig. 36) suggests that the center of the embayment and the southwestern edge of the embayment were more open to the ocean that the northern half of the embayment.

It is possible that normal wind driven. marine currents flowed into the more open end of the embayment and

v. shed against the eastern edge of the Cape Fear Arch, where the high energy bryozoan biosparrudite facies is found.

The concentration of phosphate mineralization in this area relative to the northern half of the

e. bayment (Fig. 26') also suggests deeper water currents flowing i-.to'he lower part of the embayment.

The northern half of the embayment appears to have been more restricted, perhaps a

function of the shape of the embayment and of the direction of current movement within the embayment.

The faunaI, variety and faunal abundance in the Castle Hayne Lime-stone imply normaI. narine environments, but not necessarily tropical environments.

Ample documentation now shows that carbonate sediments accumulate in all climatic region...

Organisms that produce carbonate skeletons inhabit continental shelves at every latitude (Chave, 1967).

Skeletal debris can accumulate to form carbonate-dominated sediments wherever the influx'f terrigenous clastics is insufficient to dilute

157 the carbonate

~ raction.

Rivers, the major suppliers of terrigenous debris to the continental shelves, and not climate, apparently control the distribution of carbonate sediments (Chave, 1967).

Based on extensive sampling of shelf sediments carbonates are found to dominate hundreds and even thousands of square kilometers of temperate shelves (Lees and Buller, 1972).

Table 6 presents data sum~rized in extensive surveys of mid-.latitude, temperate water carbonates and low latitude, tropical carbonates (Lees and Buller, 1972; Nelson, 1978).

Vhen compared with data characterizing the Castle Hayne Limestone, it is seen that the Castle Hayne shares characteris~ics of both tropical and temperate carbonates (Table 6).

This mixing suggests that Lhe limest.one was deposited in a subtropical to warm temperate cl>>mate.

~

~

~

~

~

~

The benthic fauna of the Castle Hayne Limestone displays a high degree of endemism (Canu and Bassler, 1920; Kellum, 1926;

Cheetbam, 1951; Fallow, 1962; Kier, 1980; Rigby., 1980-per.

corn.)

The fauna is most similar to the fauna of the Eocene of South Carolina, but is very different from the Eocene of the remainder of the Atlantic Coastal Plain or the Gulf Coastal Plain.

This endemism suggests some form of barrier between the North Carolina embayment and the more southern shelf environments.

Several features could have produced this isolation.

The Cape Pear Arch, whether subaerially exposed or submerged under shallow marine water" during Castle Hayne tine, could have acted as an effective migratory barrier.

The strong, north-flowing offshore Gulf Stream, already active during the Eocene (p.

24 ) could have prevented any southward drift of benthonic species that possessed planktonic or nekt'onic larvae.

Southerly species,

however, could have

159 become introduced by way of the Gulf Stream into the North Carolina region.

Once introduce,

however, they would have had to successfully compete with an already well established fauna.

If successrul they were incorporated into the Castle Hayne ecosystem.

It is evident, though, that few species were able to do so.

A combination of the Cape Fear Arch, a north-flowing offshore

current, the deep water conditions of the Eocene North American Atlantic shelf (p.

27) and the fact tnat the limestone was deposited in an e<baywent served to isolate the Castle Hayne endemic fauna.

It is probably this endemism and produce a highly and a resultant difficulty in correlating with other Eocene faunas that has caused problems with biostratigraphically dating the exact age of the Castle Hayne Limestone.

161 intermediate-depth, low-energy, sandy, foraminiferal, echinoderm biomicrite; and (5) a deep water, low-energy, bryozoan biomicrudite.

>~ree minor lithofacies, representing localized changes in depositional environment, are also recognized:

(1) a dolomitized biomicrite; (2) a

(

~,

~

\\

molluscan;mold, bryozoan bionicrudite; and (3) a bryozoan, foraminiferal biomicrite.

Distribution of sponges, Foraminifera, and bryozoans, plus the lack of calcareous

algae, suggest water deptns of more than 100 m

(328 ft) during deposition of t'e bryozoan biomicrudite facies, the easternmost facies in the outcrop area, and 30 to 45 m

for the sandy, sponge-spicule-bearing biomicrite facies, the western-most facies in the outcrop area.

The sandy, foraminiferal, echinoderm

facies, bearing characteristics of both of the above-mentioned litho-types, is considered to be intermediate in depth.

The bryozoan

~

~

~

~

~

biosparrudite facies, bearing evidence of tidal influence, was deposited above whve base.

The above four facies were deposited in

'J

~

L a transgressive environment.

The basal phosphate-pebble biomicrudite

facies, separated from the other lithologies by a prominent erosion surface that developed during a significant marine regression, was deposited during an earlier transgressive episode.

Thick sections of Castle Hayne-like sediments, found beneath typical Castle Hayne Lime-stone in numerous outliers in Duplin,

Sampson, and Wayne Counties, may also belong to this earlier transgressive episode.

1 Except for the Echinoidea, the Foraminifera, and. the Bryozoa, the Castle Hayne fauna is still poorly understood, both taxonomically and paleoecologically.

A large portion of the known Castle Hayne fauna is endemic, thus posing a problem when trying to biostratigraphically

~

~

~

~

~ ~

V 162 correlate the formation with other Eocene strata.

This endemism is possib1y the reason why paleontologists disagree on the age of the limestone, some placing it in the Hiddle Eocene, others in the Upper

Eocene, and still others in both the Hiddle and Upper Eocene.

The history of the North Atlantic Ocean, accompanied by the pattern of sea level fluctuation and marine deposition of deep sea sediments suggests that the Castle Hayne is Hiddle Eocene, a time of major transgression in the north Atlantic coastal regions, and abundant

~I evidence for such a transgression is available for the Atlantic North American continental shelf.

Diagenesis of the Castle Hayne environment occurred in four ma-'or environments:

(1) shallow marine, represented by glauconite formation; (2).."ixed shallow marine and fresh

- ater vadose, associated with hard-grounds and.ncluding phosphate precipitation, development of drusy t

rim cements, and microkarstic features, (3) fresh-water vadcse, represented by di sol ution of aragonite and leaching of Hg from I

high-Hg calcite bioclasts; and (4) fresh-water phreatic, represented by development of syntaxial overgrowths on echinoderm fragments.

One l

additional minor diagenetic alteration is the dolomitization of a biomicrite lense, exposed in the Hartin Harietta quarry in New Hanovex County.

This diagenetic process occurred alorig a zone of marine and fresh-water mixing in a near-shore subaerial environment associated with the Cape Fear Arch.

The depressions in which the limestone is preserved in Duplin,

Lenoir, Sampson, and 4ayne Counties are interpreted as preCastle Payne stream valleys.

The exact dimensions of these outliers are not known.

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

It is possible that some of these outliers, although separated by many kilometers on the surface, may be continuous in the shallow subsurface.

S

~ ~

REFERENCES CITED

Askern, L. T., Jr.,

1968, Bryozoan paleoecology from the Tertiary of t

Alabama:

Southeastern Geology, v. 9, p.

157-163.

Badiozamani, K., 1973, The Dorag dolomitization model application to the Middle Ordovician of Wisconsin:

Jour.

Sed. Petrology, v. 43, 965-984

Bartlett, C. S., Jr.,

1967, Geology of the Southern Pines Quadrangle:

Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Dept. Geology, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Heron, S. D., Jr.,

and Johnson, H. S., Jr.,

1969, Eocene age aluminum phosphates in the Carolinas:

South Carolina Diu. Geology, Geol. Notes, v. 14, p. 1-13.

Bathurst, R.

G. C.,

1975, Carbonate sediments and their diagenesis, 2nd edition:

Elsevier Pub. Co.,

New York, 658 p.

Baum, G-R.,

1977, Stratigraphic framework of the Middle Eocene to Lower Miocene formations of North Carolina:

Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Dept. Geology, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 139 p.

Harris, W. B., and Drez, P.

E

1978a, Dorag dolomitization of the Middle Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, New Hanover County,

~

~

~

~

~

North Carolina:

Geol.

Soc.

America Abs. with Programs,

v. 10,

n. 4, p. 3.61-162.

1978b, Dolomitization of the Middle Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone, North Carolina, U.S.A.:

(abs.)

InternationalAssoc.

Sedimentologists, 10th International Congress, Jerusalem,

v. 1,

p. 59-60.

Baum, G. R., Harris, We B., and Zullo, V. A., 1978, Stratigraphic revision of the exposed Middle Eocene to Lower Miocene formations of North Carolina:

Southeastern Geology, v. 20, p.

1-19.

Berggren, W. A., 1978, Recent advances in Cenozoic planktonic foramini-feral biostratigraphy, biochronology, and biogeography:

Atlantic.

Ocean:

Micropaleontology, v. 24, p. 337-370.

and Hollister, C. D., 1974, Paleogeography, paleobiogeography, and the history of circulation in the Atlantic Ocean in Hay W.

tTl., ed.,

Studies in paleo-oceanography:

Soc.

Econ. Paleontologists Mineralogists Spec.

Pub.

20, p.

126-186.

Berry, E. W., 1947, Marls and limestones of eastern North Carolina:

North Carolina Div. Mineral Resources Bull., v. 54, 16 p.

~ ~

~tI I I 164 Blankenship, R. R.,

1965, Reconnaissance of tne ground-water resources of the Southport Elizabethtown area, North Carolina:

North Carolina Dept. of Water Resources, Div. of Ground Water, Groundwater BuH.. 6, 47 p.

Bromley, R. G.,

1978, Hardground diagenesis, in Fairbridge, R.

W.

and Bourgeois, J., eds.,

The encyclopedia of sedimentology:

Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg,, Pennsylvania, 397-400.

Brown, P. M., Hiller, J. A., and

Swain, F. M., 1972, Str'uctural and stratigraphic framework, and spatial distribution of permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina to New York:

U.S.

Geol. Survey.Professional Paper

796, 79 p.

t Brown, D. L., Shuf flebarger, T. E., Jr.,

and Sa-,pair, J. L.,

1977, Wrench style deformation in rocks of Cretaceous and Paleocene

age, North Carolina Coastal Plain:

North Carolina Dept. of Nat.

and Econ.

Resources, Div. of Earth Resources, Geology and Mineral Resources Section Spec.

Pub.

5, 47 p.

I

Canu, F, and Rassler, R. S.,

1920, North American early Tertiary Bryozoa:

U.S. N"ticna3, Museum Bull. 106, 879 p.

Caulet; J. P.,

1972,.Recent biogenic calcareous sedimentation on the Algerian continenta'1 shelf, in Stanley, D. J., ed.,

The Mediter-ranean Sea:

a natural sedimentation laboratory:

Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Publ. Co., Penrsylvania,

p. 261-277.

Chave, K. E-,

1967, Recent carbonate sediments an unconventional view:

Jour. of Geological Education, v. 15, p. 200-204.

I

Cheetham, A. H., 1961, Age of the Castle Hayne fauna (Eocene) of North Carolina:

Jour. Paleontology,

v. 35, p.'94-396.

1963, Late Eocene zoogeography of the eastern Gulf Coast region:

Geol.

Soc. America Mem. 91, 113 p.

Clark, W. B., 1890, On the Tertiary deposits of the Cape Fear River region:

Geol.

Soc.

America Bull., v. 1, p. 537-540.

1909, Some results of an investigation of the Coasta" Plain formations of the area between Massachusetts and North Carolina:

Geol.

Soc. America Bull., v. 20, p. 646-654.

1912, The correlation of the Coastal Plain formations of North Carolina, in Clark, W. B., Miller, B. L., Stepherson, L. W.,

Johnson, B. L., and Parker, H. N., eds.,

The Coastal Plain of North Carolina:

North Carolina Geol.

and Econ.

Survey, v. 3,

p. 304-330.

.ti

~+I t

p

~

'~

I 4

~

~

t

~

~tt

Cooke, C. W., 1916, The -age of the Ocala Limestone:

U.S. Geol.

Survey Professional Paper 95, p.

107-117.

CAROLIHA GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY AHD ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN GEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION October 19-21, 1979 STRUCTURAL AHD STRATIGRAPHIC FBI'iERORK FOR THE COASTAL PLAIN OF NORTH CAROLINA Edited by Gerald R.

Baum Department of Geology

,College of Charleston Charleston, South Carolina 29401 W. Burleigh Harris and Victo>> A. Zullo Department of Earth Sciences University of North Carolina, Wilmington Wilmington, North Carolina 28403

~

PL I0-PLE ISTOCENE CRUSTAL HARP ING IN THE OUTER COASTAL PLAIN OF NORTH CAROLINA by Victor A. Zullo and W. Burleigh Harris DePartment of Earth Sciences University of North Carolina at Wilmington Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Contribution no.

908 of the Marine Sciences Program, University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

INTRODUCTION Hany landforms and associated sedimentary deposits in the southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain pre-ser've a record of repeated in'undations and withdrawals of tne sea during the Pliocene and Pleistocene.

onal interpretations of the origins of these features presume that the Coastal Plain was a stable crustal region during and after their forwtion.

Periodic glacio-eustatic transgressions and regressions e

of the sea are corre'ted with interglacial and glacial stages, respectively, of the Pleistocene (e.g Oaks and DuBar, 1974), or with earlier displacements of ocean basin waters onto the land dur'ing episodes

~,

+f in'creased sea floor spreading (Le Pichon, 1968).

I'eliance on a stable crust model for the explanation of Plio-Pleistocene events is in marked contrast 1'o the conclusions derived from studies of older Tertiary.and Cretaceous Coastal Plain sediments, whose II distribution and character are kno w to have been influenced by episodic activity along m5or structural features (e.gep Saum et al.,

1978; Brown et al.,

1972, 1977; Ferenczip 1959; Harris et al.,

1979; Rich-

ards, 1950).

Few studies have suggested that tectonic activity in the Coastal Plain might have played a

role in modifying the effects of eustatic sea level change during the Pliocene and Pleistocene.

Doering (1960) concluded that upwarping of the Cape Fear arch (fault) in southeastern North Carolina, together with regional uplift of the Appalachian Highlands and inner Piedmont, preceded Pleistocene glacio-eustatic oscillations.

Vinker and Howard (1977),

based on a re-interpretati.on of relict shoreline sequences in the y ic Coastal Plain south of the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, arrived at similar conclusions, and ided tentative evidence for Pleistocene uplift along the, Cape Fear fault.

Direct evidence of Pleistocene tectonic activity in the Coastal Plain is difficult to obtain.

Faulting of units in subsurface is obscured because of the minor amounts of displacement

involved, and because of the thinness, lithologic similarity, and discontinuity of Plei.stocene sediments.

Surface fault scarps are rapidly obliterated by fluvial erosion of the unconsolidated surficial sediments.

Instead, reliance must be placed upon recognition of the secondary effects of tectonic activity on regional geology and geomorphology.

CAPE>>FEAR NEW RIVER COASTAL PLAIN, NORTH CAROLINA'he geology of Plio-Pleistocene deposits in the outer Coastal Plain between the Cape Fear and New Rivers, North Carolina (Fig. 1) has not been studied in detail.

The region is a structural and geomorphic entity bounded to the southwest by tha ear fault", whose axis~a approximated since Aptian-Albian time and has had a

Cape Fear fault, and to the. northeast by the Neuse fault.

The Cape by the course of the Cape Fear River, has been active periodically profound inf1'uence on the distribution and thickness of Cretaceous and Tertiary units on either side o its axis.

nitial movement along the Neuse fault, which can be traced

~

~

the vicinity of Smithfield, North Carolina southeast to the coast between New and Neuse Rivers, also~

occurred during Aptim-Albian time.

Changes in structural and depositional strike and thickness of 33 e

Qa j

f

)

THO Mn I

'l ~

~~e~.

g/APP APPROXIMATE LIIIIT OF r

I~

ill.

~pir.. ~

). ~cf-~P r

p P

care coocoor

'I~

~+

9 g

+

ss CAN IIAR

'I~

SHORKLIHE SCARFS SUFFoLK aoove SURAY HAHOVKA QSPprp ORAHOCSURO I~

I~

Figure 1.

Relation of scarps to Tea)or structural Features, North Carolina Coastal Plain.

lror fn Carolirr a G

SOVTHERN E

SWof Cope Feor R CENT RAE Cope Fear-New NQRT HE RN NE of New R mop oroo Socos lee Fm.

Cherry Point v nil n0 CI Honoitrr Scorp.r y,r'WSoffolE Sc or p t

CI 3c Alfie tor Soy Scorp

\\

oo qo 0

I Conepolch Fm.

Wocca maw Fm.

0I:

CF0 LJ L0

?

a "Woodside fauna Flonner 6each Fm.

lames Cily Fm.

Cape Fear Z

V0 8eor 8lvff Fm.

Dvp fin Fm Dvplin FAL Y

Duplin p

r Fm e

~

I' wn

)

e 2.

Location of scarps and plains, outer Coastal Plain, Yorth Carolina.

, (right)

~

Figure 3.

Stratigraphic-relationships of upper Cenozoic units, Carolina'oastal Plain.

34

Tertiary units crossing the fault indicate periodic movement in the Paleogene and early Neogene (see Harris et ale p this volume).

nlike adjacent sections, this part of the Coastal plain is characterized by a dearth of either la scale relict shoreline features or Pleistocene marine deposits.

In aadition, drainage development and direction of flow differ =arkedl>'rom those seen in adjacent Coastal. Plain sections.

Detailed geo-morphic analysis, utilizing recently completed 7.5'opographic quadrangles with 5-foot (1.5 m) contours,

~coupled with field zapping and analysis of subsurface data have been used to delimit relict shorelines.

d associated marine deposits in the region.

The data obtained from these varying lines of evidence indicate that the unusual geologic and geomorphic features of the Cape Fear-New River region are the result of episodic tectonic activity during the Pliocene and Pleistocene.

SHORELIttE SC~S A'.hD ASSOCIATED ".BRINE DEPOSITS An erosional scarp, here designated Hanover Scarp, with an average relief of 5 m can be traced from central New Hanover County northeastward to the west side of New River, Onslow County (Fig. 2).

At this point, Hanover Scarp turns abruptly north and is traced for 20 km along the west side of New River.

A second

scarp, located seaward of Hanover Scarp and essentially delimiting the modern mainland coastline, parallels Panover Scarp between central New Hanover County and New River.

This scarp, as predicted by Y

and Pi'key (1976), is the southwesterly continuation of their Bogue Scarp.

Bogue Scarp as mapped l xon and Pilkey (1976) ccntinues northeastward past New River and parallels the shoreline into central Carteret County where it connects with ele"ants of the north-trending Suffolk Scarp of southeastern Vir-ginia (..'xon and Pilkey, 1976; Oaks and DuB'ar, 1974).

A third scarp, here designated. Alligator Bay Scarp, occurs seaward of Suffolk Scarp between Spicer and Alligator Bays west of New River.'his minor scarp is e

submerged south~est of Spicer

Bay, and has not been mapped northeast of New River, although M.xon and

'Pilkey (1976) indicate the presence of what is presumed to be this scarp along part of the Bogue Sound shoreline.

these three scatps fora the sea-.ard borders of tilted plains.

These pi'aine are icnedi telp undarlaia by venee f nonmarine.deposits that overlie fossiliferous marine sediment~s and are regarded as sub-aerially modified sea floors of former marine transgressions.

The surface landward of Hanover Scarp is an extensive, moderately dissected,)west to northwest sloping plain.

This plain is continuous inland to the seaward edge of the inner Coastal Plain (Orangeburg Scarp),

and is characterized by the development of Carolina Bays.

In the Early PLiocene the outer and middle southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain was inundated by the Duplin sea to Orangeburg Scarp.

The youngest fossiliferous marine deposits underlying plain between Orangeburg and Hanover Scarps are outliers of the Duplin Forration (Figs.

3 and 4).

The dissected plain between Hanover and Suffolk Scarps is underlain by younger marine deposits in-eluding equivalents of the Vaccamaw and overlying Canepatch formations of South Carolina (Figs.

3 and 4).

35

t

~

r A

A n

~

P LEISTOCEttE UNITS MIO WISCONSIN l

OCAS'TEE EOUITALENTS 5 A N CAMO II

~

CANE PA 1 Ctt F M.

LOWEA PLEIStOCEtIE WACCAMAW FM VNDIFFEAENTIATED D

CANEPATCH WACCAMAW E OUI V A L E N 1 S PLIOCENE UNIT S O

'OUPLIN FM.

Qv I:

C'j

~

III'r

,r' TLANTIC OCEAN 34

~ '

0 N

@Cape Fear r

~

~

SUAAT.I<ANOvEA SCAnP SVFFOLX'DOOVE SCAtlP ALLIOATOA SAY SCAIIP Norfh Caroline

.1'I'r..',",'..',"....".,'. 'P.

:::::;::::::::::;::;:::::. " P J.'".

I r

.. ~f~

a'~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ;

N

~ ~ ~ ~ ~" s I

Cape Lookoul I::::I A

I

,r."

~

F,.L.r.

~

~ er

~ r

'r'tr~ ls TO km 77 Figure 4.

Geology of Plio-pleistocene

deposits, outer Coastal Plain, North Carolina (modified from DuBnr et al.,

1974; Nixon and Pilkey, 1976).

The age of these uni s is not established conclusively, but the -ar'ne transgressions responsible for their deposition appear to have occurred between the beginning of the Pleistocene (Calabrian) and the end of the an"amen Interglacial (Campbell et a.,

1975; DuBar et al., 1974).

Subsurface strati raphy of the plain between Alligator Bay and Suffolk Sc rps 's not known.

Richards (1 50) reports fossils from this area that may be related to the Socastee fauna.

The Socastee Formation overlies the Canepa ch Fo.-ation 'n South Carolina and is considered to represent a minor transgression during the mid-'4'isconsin Interstadial (Figs.

3 and

4).

Socastee equivalents are known east of Suffolk

'carp farther to the north in the Neuse River region, North Carolina (Yaxon and Pilkey, 1976; Oaks and

Dubar,

'974).

DISCUSSION Assum=ng that the Duplin plain, the Vaccamaw-Canepatch

plain, and the "Socastee" plain were for-ed as nearly boric,ontal surfaces, the presently observable slopes and slope directions on the plains indicate that episodic and differential uplift have occurred in the region (Fig.

5C).

The Duplin plain is at an elevation of 12.2 m in central New Hanover County, but to the northeast, over a distance of 60 km, its elevation gradually increases by nearly 9

m to 21 m on the west side of New River.

The Vaccazaw-Canepatch plain r'ses less than 2 m~ etween central New Hanover County and New River, and the "Socastee" plain, al-though on'y traceable for about 12 km southwest of New River, rises from sea level to 4.6 m at New River.

ugh all three plains presently dip west or southwest from an axis alo..g New River, the observed dif-ences in slopes of these plains are indicative of at least three periods of tectonic activity. between the time of withdrawal of the Duplin sea and the present.

The divergence of slopes of the Duplin and Vaccamaw-Canepatch plains towards New River indicates up-lift along the Neuse fault after withdrawal of the Duplin sea and prior to Canepatch transgression (be-.

tween three million and 75,000 years ago).

The divergence of slopes of the haccamaw-Canepatch and "Socas-tee" plains toward the Cape Fear fault indicates uplift of the fault after Canepatch sea withdrawal and prior to transgression of the Socastee sea (between 75,000 and 32,000 years ago).

The divergence of I

slopes of the "Socastee" plain and the modern sea level plain towards New River indicates uplift along the Neuse fault n the past 30,000 years that resulted in the present attitude of the plains (Figs. 5A-C).

Post-h'accamaw-Canepatch uplift along the Cape Fear fault also is recorded by regional anomalies in distribution and elevations of these fort~tions.

The Cape Fear River,. whose course wpproxi~tes the trend of the Cape Fear fault, forms the boundary between two distinct geologic regions.

Northeast of the river the Wacca~w and Canepatch formations are restricted to the narrow coastal strip seaward of Hanover Scarp, and are not found above

+5 m elevation.

South~est of the river the Vaccamaw Formation extends about 80 km d to the sea-ard edge of the middle Coastal Plain (Surry Scarp),

and its base is found at elevations I

up to +28 m (DuBar et al.,

1974; Howard, 1974).

The Canepatch For~tion extends about 20 km inland, and I

its base occurs at elevations up to +13.7 m (DuBar et al.,

1974).

37

The widespread cistribution and highez elevations of Pleistocene for-ations southwest of the Cape Fear River indicate that:

(1) prior to 'Vaccamaw-Canepatch deposition the region south-est of the ".'ver was lower than the region 'to the northeast; and (2) after Vaccamaw-Canepatch deposition the southwestern

'on was uplifted with respect to the noz he stern region.

This uplift is tenrativcly correlated with init-'al "reverse" tilting of the Vaccamaw-Canepatch plain between Cape Fear and New Rivers.

Late Pleistocene uplift along the Cape Fear fault is further suggested by modern drainage patterns (rig. 1).

The Cape Fear drainage basin is narrow and exhibits a parallel pattern with dominant southeast-

~ erly flow.

Inland the Cape Fear P-'ver flows at the base of a high, northeastward-facing bluff that forms an extremely narrow divide with tne Lumber-Big Swamp drainage basin to the southwest.

This bluff actu-t ally a receding fault line scarp, loses elevation seaward, and is not distinguishable in the outermost Coas al P'a n.

Here the divide between the Cape Fear and Vaccamaw drainage basins is broad and low, and no abrupt change in elevation marks the divide.

Drainage patterns in the Lumber-Big Swa-p and Maccanaw basins are dendritic, and flow predominantly to the south~est.

The Lumber-Big Swamp and Vaccamaw drainage systems are characterized by underfit, poorly integrated, complexly meandering streams occupying very 1 arge floodplains, whereas the Cape Fear drainage system is well.integrated and composed of streams in accord with their floodplains.

'V'4e propose that the Cape Fear system is younger than drainage systems to the southwest, and developed a

result of uplift of the Coastal Plain southwest of the Cape Fear fault.

Prior to uplift, runoff from 1

~

~

a

.ner Coastal Plain and Pied one flowed southwesterly across what is now the Cape Fear drainage basin, and deposited the sequence of progzaded fluviodeltaic sedi ents described by DuBar et al.

(1974) as over-1ying marine Plio-Pleistocene deposits sou hwest of the Cape Fear River.

Uplift resulted in the beheading of these major drainage systems, causing the formation of underfit streams downstream, and in the deflec-tion of upstream runoff to the southeast, forming the Cape Pear drainage system.

0 On the basis of the data presented; we propose the following sequence of geologic events:.

In the early Pliocene the Duplin sea transgressed over the outer and middle Coastal Plain, cutting and occupying Orangeburg Scarp.

(2)

Uplift along the Neuse fault parallel to the modern course of New River occurred after with-drawal of the Duplin sea from the Coastal Plain (circa three million years ago),

and resulted

-in -arping of the Duplin plain and a general westward dip to t'e surface between Cape Fear and New Rivers (Fig. 5A).

(3)

Xn the (?early) Pleistocene, the Vaccamaw sea transgressed over unelevated regions of the Coastal Plain southwest of Cape Fear River and northeast of New River, cutting and occupying Surry Scarp.

The Vaccamaw transgression was insufficient to inundate the uplifted region be-(4) tween Cape Fear and New Rivers, and was limited to the cutting and occupation of Hanover Scarp.

Withdrawal of the Vaccamaw sea from the Coastal Plain was followed by the less extensive Cane-38

CAPE FEAR ARCH OIIPLIN p API IIEw RIYER AXIS WACCAMAWCAIIEPATCH PI.

PRESENT MOOERN SEA OLIPLIN P< AIN

~

I ~

Figure 5.

Diagr~atic SW-NE profiles of plains be veen Cape Fear and New Rivers.

(A) Slope of Duplin plain during occupation of Hanover Scarp by Canepatch sea.

(B) Slope of Duplin and Waccaww-Canepatch plains during occupation of Suffolk Scarp by Socastee sea.

(C) Present slopes of Duplin, Wacca=aw-Canepatch, and "Socastee" plains during modern (Holocene) transgression.

Arrovs below profiles indicate area of preceding tec-tonic activity.

tm CC'W'CANEPATCNPLAIN SOCASTEE SEA OLIPLIN PLAIN CANEPATCN SEA 32 000 YEARS *GO TS 000 YEARS AGO patch transgression that ze-occupied pazt of the unelevated outer Coastal Plain and Hanover Scarp during the Sangamon Interglacial.

(5) hithdrawal of the Canepatch

sea, presumably at the end of the Sangamon (circa 75,000 years ago) was accompanied by uplift along the Cape Fear fault that resulted in elevation of the region southwest of the Cape Fear River, the development of the Cape Feaz drainage 'system, reduction in tne general westward slope of the Duplin plain, and the initial "reverse" or eastvard slope of the newly formed Wacca aw-Canepatch plain (Fig. 5B).

(6)

The Socastee transgression during the h'isconsin Interstadial (circa 32,000 years ago) occupied coastal regions on both sides of the Cape Fear River and cut and occupied Suffolk Scarp north-east of the river.

Further uplift along the Neuse fault occurred after withdrawal of the Socastee sea and resulted in presently observed plain slopes and elevations in the region between Cape Fear and New Rivers (Fig. 5C).

LPLICATIONS Recognition of tectonic activity during periods of eustatic sea level change significantly alters interpre'tations of Plio-Pleistocene history of the North Carolina Coastal Plain.

Some determinations of Pleistocene sea level are based on localities now known to have undergone ppreciable post-depositional uplift.

Regional correlation of scarps and associated relict shoreline features zequires re-examination, as it is based on overestimates of maTcLT3um sea level and on assumed crustal stability.

Furthermore, doc-umentation of Plio-Pleistocene crustal instability in one 'part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain suggests t

ossibility that other areas were sini,larly affected.

We offer the suggestion that at least some of roblems encountered in the elucidation of Plio-Pleistocene geologic history of the Coastal Plain may best be solved through abandonment of the stable. crust model.

39

R-."ERENCES CiTED

Baum, G. R., Harris, V ~ B, and Zullo V ~

A ~

ro lower Ni 1978, Stratigraphic revision of the exposed middle Eocene ro o"er Miocene for..ations of North Carolina:

Southeastern Geol., v. 20, p. 1-'9 P

~ N., Bro w, D. L., Shuf flebarger T. E.

J g

~,

r., and Sa,pair, J. L. 1977, Vrench-style deformation in rocks of Cretaceous and Paleocene

age, North Carolina Coastal Plain:

North Carolina De t. Nat.

and Econ.

Resources, Spec.

Publ, 5, p. 1-47.

na oasta a n:

ort Carolina Dept. Nat.

Hiller, J. A., and Swain, F. lf., 1972 Structural a

d i

h' ura an stratigraphic framework, and spatial dis-tribution of permeability of the Atlantic Coastal plain North Ca a

a n, 'orth Carolina to New York:

U. S. Geol..

campbell, L.', Campbell, S.,

Colouhoun D.

and o

an

others, 1975, Plio-Pleistocene faunas of the central no.

3, p. 50-124.

arolina Coastal Plain:

South Carolina Develop..e t B

d D'

l.,

p..en oar

, Div. Geol., Geologic Notes, v. 19, Doering, J.'.

1,960 Quatern Geol., v. 68, p. 182-202.

. g,.',,

Quaternary surface formation of southern part of Atl 1

P o

antic oasta la n:

Jour.

DuBar, J. R., Johnson, H. S.,

Thorn B.

and Hat an

Hatchell, W. O., 1974, Neogene stratigraphy and morphology, ed'outh flank of the Cape Fear arch, North and South Carolina in Oaks R.

~, Post-Hiocene stratigraphy central and southern Atlantic Coastal P

na, n

a.s,

. Q.,

and DuBar, J: R.,

Press, Logan,

p. 139-173.

ant c oasta lain:

Utah State Univ.

y.

d o-ard, J.

F ~, 1974, Stratigraphy and morphology of Neo ene d

o Sollida J.

R.

and H-River estuary, North Carolina, in Oaks R.

Q.

d n

a s,

. Q.,

an DuBar, J. R., eds.,

Post-Hiocene strati ra h central and southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Ut h S

U i.

P a

tate niv. Press, Logan, p. 102-122.

1959

p. 105-116.

Ferenczi, I., 1.59, Structural control of the North Carolina Coastal Pl i S

h s a a n:

outheastern Geol., v. 1, Harris, V.

'orth 5th B., Zullo, V. A., and

Baum, G. R.

1979 Struc u" and South Ca ructural control of Hesozoic-Cenozoic deposition, an

.outh Carol na Coastal Plain:

Amer. Assoc.

Advancement of S i.

Ab o

c.,

stracts of Papers, Ho-ard, J.

eds.,

Press, R.

19741,

'eogene microfaunas in the Cape Fear arch area in Oaks R.

Post-Ydocene strati n

a s,

. Q.,

and DuBar, J.

R. f Logan, p. 123-l38.

a graphy central and southern Atl~tic Coastal Plai Ut h S

U i a n:

ta tate niv.

Le Pichon, X., 1968, Sea floor s readin and con p

g and continental drift:

Jour.

Geophys.

Res., v. 73, p. 3661-3697.

YJxon, R. B., and Pilkey, 0. H.

1976 Re o~

P y.

econnaissance geology of the submerged and emer ed Coastal Plai

rovince, Cape Lookout area, North Carolina:

U S

G 1

eo

. Survey Prof. Paper 859, p. 1-45.

Oaks R. Q.

. Q., and.DuBar, J. R., 1974, Tentative correlation of ost-Niece Atlantic Coastal Plain in Oaks R

n o pos -

ocene units, central and southern and southern Atlanti C

1 Pl i a n, n

a

. Q.,

and DuBar, J. R.

eds.

Post-fi c c

oasta a n:

Utah State Univ. Press,

Logan,

p. 232-245.

-Aiocene stratigraphy central

Coch, N. K., Sanders, J. E.,

and Flint, R. F.

1974 Pos-Coch ost-Hiocene shorelines and sea levels, Bar, J. R., eds.,PPost~+oocen stratigraphy central rg n a, in Oaks, R. Q.

and DuBa J

an sout em Atlantic Coastal Plain:

Utah State Univ. Press, Logan, p. 53-&7.

Fwchards, H.

G.

,1950 Ge ology of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina:

Amer. Philo S

new ser.,

v'. 40, p. 1, p. 1-83

~.i r.

os.

oc. Trans.,

t'inker, C. D., and Howard, J. D., 1977, Correlation of tectonicall t

as a

a n:

Geology. v. 5, p. 123-127.

ACKNOWLEDGHENTS Ve thank the Harine Sciences Council of the U

Sc

~

~

~

~

e niversity of North Carolina and the Program in Mmrine of the Universit of N t

y

.'or h Carolina at Milmington for their financial support of this study.

40

4'

590 HARRIS Ai'4)> ~ /UI.I.(>

<io(>al c>>vir(>>l<>>c>>t>>

(vithi>> thc Silii<ce Lii>>c>>t<>>>c reflect thc>>y>>dcp<>>>it!<>>i.>l-ie'c hint()r> w ithi>>.i>>(lab>>lit thc.'i:>>>>CC

>n;il b:i>>iil; th(>>>c

(>f thc

(:.)>>II>>

ii>>c>>t<)i)e rc(l(<ct the hi>>t<)ry <>f its ha>>in. Thus, thc initi;iti(>nof dcp<>>>i<i<>>) <>f

he>>< f>>r>>>:itioii>>arc, more likely, the pr<>d-lictb <>f >>>1r"lb.l>>>>I:il c>>vlf>>>>i>>C>lt'll (.(>>>JI tio>>s anal arc not indicators of contei>>-

porcncity. The time-transgrcbsivc>>at>>re of Santee-Ca>><le Hay>>c hiofacics vvas alluJcd to by Cooke and MacNcil ((952, p. )4)t 1< is no< su(p(i>>i>>g that the bunas of ihe San.

Iee, Castle Hayne, and Ocab lime>>lone>> are sumewha< simibr, for Ih(M th(ee f0<>>l:>>kin')

Iep(c>>ent simibr facie>>. Tbe S4n(ee and Ca>>t(e

'( Hayne iiunas were nut cec<>gnired a>>

(>I Cbiborni age because>>usimibrbryoz>>a>>-

'earing limestone facies occurs in ihe Cbiborni west of <he Caro(inas.

'<Ve may not agree with their age as-

>>c>>>>>>lc>>t>>, hilt (vc Iigrc<. fully with their ph>l()>>>>phlcal appfo'lch (I Ig. 3)

AYALYTICALI'ROCEI)URES AND RAI)IQh4E'I RIC RESULTS A c(>>1'Ip<> Itc salnplc

<>f thc gl:I>> o>>l<IC

'/(>>>c wl)i c()IIcctcd from thc Ice<>>'ilf'lt<)t>'pc

<>f thc Ca>>tlc Hayne Limcsto>>e, Ycw Hanover C<>ui>ty, North Carolina.

Five gbuconitc concentrates werc scp.iratcd on thc basis

<>f grain size and cxtcrnal m<>rph<)1<>

y into sa>>>pie>>

dcsig>>a leJI AM I -100HT; M ikt I - 100HM; M )vt I-100HF; ht M I-70HF; a>>d MM1-70HT.

The sample>>

werc further p<cp:Ite J for analysis:>c(.'<>rding I<> the prnccdurc dc-

>>of)bed hy Harris:ll)d B<)tll>>o (1974). Thc cnncc>>traleJ samples c<>ntain<<<l less than 1% impurities of pyrite and

<Inlomite.

X-ray diffra(..<ion a>>a!ysis of the glauconite samples confirmed that the samples con-

>>i>>ted of the well.orJcrcd to di>>ordered glauconite def>>cd by Bc>>t<>r and Kastncr (1965).

The five glauconite 5:lmplcs were analyzed for'b, Sr, a>>d Sr-isotopic com-po>>itin>>

iising standard chc>>)ical and i>><>l<)pic (lilliliu>> pr<>ccd>>rcs.

A teel>>>iquc I(!il>>g

(,I I > I(.'<,'IIIf;IIeJ

> il>>J>>>> I.lII lOll

-cxcha>>gc <<ulumn>> also was emplo>'cd for separation o( Rb and Sr (Russell, 1978). In

addition, Fe was scparatcd froril all Sr sainplcs using these small columns. The re-sults arc shown in Table

1. Rb and Sr blanks werc collected in order to monitor contaminati<>>> c>>countered in handling and preparing the samples for analysis. Analysis of thc blanks lias shown that procedural cv>>lamination for thc Rb and Sr v"as neg!i-giblc. Therefore, no correction for the blanks has been tnade on the values given in Table I. On thc basis of analyses of the Na-tional Bureau of Standards Standard Sam-8 0 UTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA COOKE 4

L!AC RE IL 1952

>>X2EL 4 OT)(ERS 1977 BA iKS

>978

.5 AAQ 4 OT>(ERS 1979 9 AUM 4 OTHERS 19() 0 THIS PAPER WARO OT>(ERS

'978 B*uM SRO>vt<

OTHERS 4 OTHERS 1976 1972 COOKE 4 MAC>(EIL 52 K0 CO0U Castle Hayne Ls.

Cooooi Fm.

7.8 Santee

)

7-9 Lower Cooper Cioss

'E Mombo(

Cross 8.9 Lowo(

6 Coo

~ ( Fm.

Cross Santee

><ew Bein Fm c.=

e>

e) u Liu 0

2 o

c(d0 O

(9a (no Soim C

Coidon M~iilboiI Com(o((

Mombo(

Bern Fm.

b(ro(osh biomic Castle Hayne Ls.

~<O IL!P I-0i

<Ou 0Lu t- <

O~

~<O

(

<O I-Z>>

~l Santee Ls.

Vi'ar Icy Ls.

Santee Ls.

8.9 Mooliiio c

(9

<O Mombo(

Santee Ls.

War Icy i

O o

e>

c o

<d sanlee-Iamipas

beds, 2.3.5 Honors(

Mombor iildi(o 2 Clai-(udi(~

3,5 Units Dhospnoio Aobbi~

b(Zoiosh bornian b(osss(

Santee Ls.

3.4 Miarl Mart Duplin County 5

biomio ivdiio 4 1

5 Figur(o 3.

Sugge)ti>>>> c(>r<ctati<)n (>f E(>cc>>e >>>rata (if ik(>rth.>nd S(ii>lh Ca((ilina. Yumbcrs i>>die;1<e <<quivatcnt rock units.