ML18018A483
ML18018A483 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Harris |
Issue date: | 01/31/1983 |
From: | EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML18018A482 | List: |
References | |
NUDOCS 8304040247 | |
Download: ML18018A483 (181) | |
Text
. 83040y 47 830831 9DR ADOCK A 05000400 PDR REPORT ON THE PROPOSED "NEUSE PAULT" Prepared for CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY by EBASCO SERVICES, INCORPORATED January 31, 1983
l r
I 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.
- 5. Structural contours on top of basement and on top of Cretaceous units others, 1972) not show any evidence of movement
,i (Brown and do 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.
I I Y I R 0 IH I A
! -~ e-'o
~~+6 ., ~.. a ~ ~ CAPE HATTERAS gEc g5 8 RIV+R I r 0
++X CAPE I.OOKOVT
~HEW RY<R o" ~ '.
W(uVl I Ogrnr4 CAPE FEAR
%~les I +ossd + Nccc'ris cccxt Is-sgcadF~.e cAus CI97Va,is)'ame (ceps
+>>
Racsca
<<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
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 i 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 North Carolina, Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel i 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 grap hi c pro bl ems of thee Pl eistocene strata in the area from Neuse Rivere E s t uary to Ho fmann orest, North Carolina, Forest 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 astal Coas a 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 aro na li eo ogical Society and Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association:
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development:
men . Ral erg'~h pp. 19-29.
A ~
r Eocene E age b ase d on the calcareousus na nannoplank ton evidence. In a critique o f th e above s tudies Joness (19S2) has presented'vidence f"om planktonic foramini fera sugges su es ting that the Castle Hayne Fo matron xs o f Zone P 11-12 age ( mx ddlee Eocene, o Lutetxan Stage),
~Wile, in a reply, Harriss and Zullo (19S2) defend and retain their Ia te E oceene age interpretation.
Accur a te r ada.ome tr zc dates are importan t both as. calibration oints and consist'ency porn checks in tthee xn formulation of geological tame-scales. Of paramount impor tancee is prer ecis e bios tr a ti gr aph xc control on radiometrically 1 ate levels dated so that they ma y serve as internal consistency ~
checks cks uupon each other on eac o e as additional data are p iled over the years. T.n recent year s ther e have developed t~o s chools " of thougnt regarding the
~ ~
a e of he age o tthee Eocene/Oligocene o
bo'mdary, a so-ca lle d oorthodox r en, 1972; Hardenbol and school (Berggren,
~er os r n 1978) +ho believe that the boundary boundar has as an age of -bout 37 Ma I a vocal minority (Odin, 1978; Odin et al.,., 1978'lass Glass and Zvartt 1977. Harris and Zullo, 1 980 1982) believe the boundary
~ ~
xs considerably younger, n er ca. 33-33-34 Ma. A third group hasas taken an interm diate position +ith a ge estimates xn the 34-35 Ma range.
because o f the controversy surroun undinxng Paleogene a chronology xn general, E cene/Oligocene and the Eocene boundary xn in paar ticular, Me have decade d to make a commen t on this particular stud s u y and, -hat Me view, as sone -nomalous resu 1 t s. In or d er t o treat the problem xn
3 0 1 ts propere perspective p it is necessar necessary to b. ing in data from a variety of fx,eras an d to range over a spectrum rum of Paleogene s tra ti graphy. ver ~e Ho~ever, sshall a try, to the extent possib e, to confine the discussion, as much as ossible,e, to middle Focene and possi upper Eocene stratig.aphy. A comprehensive revie~ of Paleogene '0 o
Q and chr onos tr ati graphy, an and m mgneto-
~ne and radiochrcnology, and a thoroughly revise s d Paleogene a eo time scale zs in p re p-ared by M- A ~
b eing Ber ggren, Dennis Kent and John T. Flynn.
1 mn. Inn this paper we s>>all de onstrate t h-at the C as tie Hayne For-a tron:
- 1) s of late ~ac'dl e " ~o cene (late Lutetxan to ear "
earl y uartonian) age, ls no ol1 Ger -h-nt a plank tonic for mini fera eral zone P12, nor younger than Pl4, and is mos t lilcely correlative vit"h upp er Zone P12 u to Zcne P 13 ~
C
- 3) belongs to calcareous nannoplan'k nannop ~ ton Zones NP le (upper par t) to hP17 (lo-er part),
- 4) as a ruximum spans the in terv al r epr es en ted b 'a- netac polar i ties ZO to 18 (= 4e-42 Va, Laa.rec" ue et al ., 197 7. = 45-41 Ya, 1:ess et al., 1980), as a zn.mum spans ta e in re rv al.
bracice ting the base o f anom ly 18 (= 43-42.5; La Brecque et a 1977 = 42-41.5 Via, hes s et al ., 1980) .
Further ~e shall.1 s h o.~~ t a t ava tha ilable oa ta no'a su ppor t an ~ ge 3e.5-37 .'or the eocene!01 igoce cene boundary.
CUSSI0."
Ve shall address ourselves ro various oints raised in the points e "ss by Harr s and Zullo Zu {1980, 1982) and the cri tique by Jones 982) and present our c~n inter pretat ons andd ev evaluations of bl' d ra as sell "s our o.>>v inves tigations on moterial u-plied C to us of the Cas tie Hayne For .~tion.
e i os tr a tl gra phy h C" The '-
Castle rayne ~e E Calcareous Eor-ation
ÃannoplanP ron has been assi ne d to calcareous Jl lankton zones '1'19 YP d 20 b Tu co T et al . (3979) and Morsley andnd Turco Tur co (1979) based pri arily on tne basis of the presence o ol". s (eel Ãeococcclichrres) ouhius, Chia-~ no.oli thus r.r wdis and
- -'""'""s -h r tata. They ment on t'ne
'b 1 t h a t "the Castle
""'"'ossibility Ha)~e extencs doh n into tne Middle Eocene l f'f onee inncludes zn outlier of =ocene cch a lk on S r. a te Rou te 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 1 chrc,oli".hus recuruuc" ('ao:slay
-~d Turco, 1979: 72) ~
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 anges chat extend 'cocle into the cii dd le Eocene". In I
ch s he is corr ect. Harris and Zullo (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 i as-...ol i th 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~r tini (1976: 383) has indica ted that this -axon has its initial appearance in the Equatorial Pacific much 'earlier than in h i"h la ti tudes. This sp cies has been ob erved in Zone liP16 in several sites frc. the Atlant-c, Pacific and Indian oceans (L.ubr y, 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
=orson a tion is the genex al nature of the calcareous nannoflox'om a lis ted th is io-.cat'on. 1:eococcolith'es dub:us and Ch asnolrthus gr-~d s beca e extinct in the lates t r.;iodle r.ocene, g ithin or at the top of, 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 it from the upper middle ibcene of the Gulf Coas t, France, "exico exico, 3r a" il, the Indian Ocean, wd JOXD=S re nole 3 ~rom the 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 suppo ed (outcrop) equivalent of tne Castle il 1
yne r or,atio n. ln addition ~e have exa...ined several samples (222043- collllected by the U.S. Geological Sur~ey and C& . 1-2, fxom approximately the same stratigraphic level as R220~-E, collected by Gary Jones, Union Oil Co. of Calia forn ia) from the Comfort Hember of the Castle Hayne For-,.- tion {as des cr ibed b y Vard ar eet "l., 1978) at the lectostx'atotype 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, Sohenolithus ~in rer. S:x taxa are restricted to the middle Eocene ute tian-Bar tonian'): Mi cr an thol i thus cr enul a tus CI vci 'pia col i thus 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
~ciolacolxt1 h us d e 1 us became extinct within Zone hP17 ~ Altnough
~rl kno-n the last occurrence of C clococcolithus pse ooza~ation
-xtnxn tne upper er p-"t p 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 aracterize epicontnentzl sedx~ents belonging to e Zone hP17
{C '*""' P """'-henolithus celsus
--oi a oa others Aubry, cwork in progress), ve prefer an ass gnmen the Cas tie Hayne Forr, t'n to cane i,P16. The h ~
ackI:. off the "onal markers has no significance since Ch.'asmol1'-n . is~
soli tus as '-'ell as Chias-..olitnus rand s are absent, or very .are in s'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 occur entice I.. 1 t h" off Isl..oil "5 -ecurvus a form kr;oi~ to occur co"~only xn shal lo-. epicon tinen tel env xronmen ts.
lt is clear that tne stgatigrapnic overlla p 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 pi anI'on ev xoen ce suggcs ts that the Cas tie Hayne belongs to rhe interval of ~one hP i 1ch ls 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 f er 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 corelation..." s..."prove the iddle
- -ocene age of the Cas tie <<ayne (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 II co-.-letion of and in cr'i 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 ti cn.
s 10.
J ones (1981, 1982) has documen ted a taxonomically var "ed, if numerically poor in some cases, planktonic for iniferal 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)
Questions the aosence in Jones {1982) list of such taxa as Globo".otalia 1 r bullbrooki."-"pili, 11 ~ G. cr-s s a-ta, G. cr-ssu)a, a G. dense, ~
G. r c tundirar "-ina ta -" d G. s inulcin fla 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 planktonic fora= nz fera.~ e f e I
- a. Ac-:inina b 11bror:i is a sen'or s>won>.s of '.carinina dense (the holotypa of the l~itter taxon hav ng been los t (~ez ggr en, 1977-260, 261; Blo<<, 1979: 915-917). Jones (1981) describes it fr om theI Castle Hayne Forma tion and provides an excellent 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 tl cu tl on 0 f
~ ~
the n e sp'nuit a for those forms previously attributed to 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 d b y a c 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 1 . f t h e test". Its rance is fro= Zone P10 P13 (Slo<<1979:
Sl o-, 1017). Again,'orozovella splnul os@ ls 1is ted an illustrated by 3ones (1981: pl. 8, figs. 1 0--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 gyell 5"-A-T.-38, "aaufort a 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 f le el la tes 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) Bu jak 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 tr ati 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 o f th e C as tie Ha ime Forum ti on:
of Chits pl i thus ui-.h upper g
- 1. The L-'.0 grraud s is ass oui=-ted
="-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. Ve sugges,t that the .ost probable correlation is within
~l n tcrva1 b a eke ted by the top of anoc:aly 19 to the top o f anomaly
- 20. The chr onology derived fran 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 calibration points and a pal eon to 1 ogi ca 1 ly con tr ol 1 ed b iochr on ol ogi c 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 41.40 42.88 41.82 Ano= ly 20 44.85 43. &9 46.40 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 i f, 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 ~"
They ci te in support of their vie-point t.ne fact that "Od'n et al-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 (Hartini, 1971; Haq, 1972) -5ich brackets the Eocene/Oligocene bol~dary.
- 3. 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 difficult to determine, but they are certainly Iate Eocene in age and pos t Zoneq hp15-16.
- 4. 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 ma kalian biostratigraphy on continental sections of Chadronian land=am~1 "age" in >o key sections at Flags taf f 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 f f 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 planktonic bios tra t- graphic studies in 4
lze. Integrated calcareous
~ 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 wi th 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 tta aand do not prov ide age es tima tes of la te Eocene chronology.
23.
A C Y2(0'~ LEDG..EH TS Me would like'o thank an our colleagues co Joe Hazel, Lucy Edwards and Laurel Bybell, U.S. Geolo ical Survey, eo logical Res ton, Virginia, and Gary Jones, Union Oil i Cun cepany, an Brea, Cali fornia forr prov 1 d 1ng s~pl es for th is s tud u y, an d for' discuss ions, advice, ~ and eventually their critical review of t ~nuscript of o" the t~ is pa per. Their experience in Atlantic Coastal Plain stra i ratigraphy has proved a great aid to us u xn preparing this cr itigue.
The research of one of us ...B.) has (V.A.B. ha been sponsored by grant numbers OCE-80-19052 ( to g M A.B.. ) and OCE-80-08829 M. ( to Bruce Corlxss, hHOI) frcra thee Sub=- u -ar one Geolog and G eophysxcs Brach of the bational SS cience Foundation. a .s is This xs "Voods Hole Oceanographic I ns ti tu tiion on Contribu" ion ho. 5246.
24.
Bandy, O.L., 1949, Eocene and Oligocene fora ini fera 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 o f the genera Subbo tina, P lanorotalites, Mo ozovel1 a, Acar inina and Truncorotaloides: in Ramsay, A.T. S.,
ed ., Oce anic Micro paleontology, London, Academic Press, v. 1, p ~
205-299.
Blo~, V.H., 1979, The Caino oic Globiger n da.: Leiden, E. J.
Br ill, 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 Societe Geologique de France, Compte Rendu, N. 2, p. 49 51.
G Chateauneuf, J.-J., 1981, Palywos tratigraphie et Paleocli-atologie de 1'Eocene
./
superieur 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.
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.
~ I 4 , ~
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
~
Evernden, I J.P.,
I I ~
and
~ others, i 1964, 9 I I Pot v ssi~-argon dates III
~
and 4I 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 r s, J., 1980, Rb-Sr glau con te i ages, Claiborni'an and Jacksonian strata (Eocene), southeas te n Atlantic Coas tal Plain.: Geological Socie ty o f 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 i ben ton tes 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, 1:or th American micro tee ti tes, radiolar ian ex in~tions and the age of the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.: in S'-.a in, F.H., ed., Stra tigraphic nicropaleontology of Atlantic Basin and boroer lands: Develop.ants in paleontology and s tra tig. a phy 6: Am terd-~, Elsevier, p.
553-565.
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.
a r is)
Har 1x B n Zul o) V a.,d A ) 1 80) 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.
Hzrrr is, V."=. a .".'ul lo, 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. ~ini fera.:
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: Di s cuss ion and Re ply.
ozonic i Society of P~ericzn Bulletin, v. 93, p ~ 179-182
-'eological
~
Lair ecaue, J. L., Kent,. D.V., Cande, S.C., 1977, Revised magnetic polarity time-scale from Late Cretaceous and Ccn t one Geology, 5, p. 330-335.
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 ti on.: 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 f f ice.
Yul 1 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 Dr illi".: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 ti c ".nona ly
~
ti~e scales for the Cenozoic and La te Creraceous: a f
precis,
~
c r i t i q ue t a n d s >a h 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 applications Unite River Group wd its for Oligocene geochr onology.: Geological Society o f ~>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.
-applications Prothero, D.R., Denh ~, C. R., and Farmer, H.G., in press b, ~ia gneto-stratigraphy of the Unite river Group and its for 01 i gocene geochr onol ogy. Palaeogeogr., Palaeocli-atol.,
? alaeoecol.
Turco, K.P., Sequel, D. and Harris, V.B., 1979, Strati gr apn 1c reconnaissance. of the calcareous nannofoss ils from 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.
La~-ence 0. R., and B1 a ck>> el der, 5. k., l97S, vision oft the middle Strati graphic revisi =ocene, 0> i ocene, end lo-er l - t' c Miocene Atl~~ 'as tal oas a Plain of North Carolina. U. S.
Geological Survey Bulletin l457-F, 23 p.
Vorsley, T.R. and Turc o K P. 1979, Calcareous nannof oss' s ~r OGl the louer Tertiary of North Caro~ dna.: '
. xn ~aum, and 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 ti tus Coccolithus cope la gicus C oc col i thus pe la gi cus Cruci pla col i th us de'1 us Cyc lococcoli th 'na pr otoannula Cyclococcoli th us flor id anus X Cyc1ococcol i thus lumin is Cyclococcolithus pseudoga~a tion Discoaster barbadiensis X D'scoas ter saipanens is Ericsonia forwsa
- .ricsonia cf. s bdis ticha Eelicos phaera co=pa cta L~a ternithus -inu tus X
}lieran thol i thus cr enula tus Hi cr an th o'1 i th us v es per t.eococcol ithites ninutus P on tosphaera si gaoidalis.
Reticulofenes tra bisecta Re ticuI ofenes tr a hess1 and ii Re ti cu! o fen es tr a r et i cu1 a ta X Reticulofenes tra saaodurovi X
'hab dos phaer a s pinula Sphenolithus s pini ger .
'Vis eorhabdus inv er sus X Zygrh ab1'hus b i juga 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~ Li thol ogic sect on expo exposed at lectostratoot.yp e of Castle Hayne r or I"-a t I on s ~artin marietta Quarry, he ~ 'ev H anov er County, 1,'or th Caro lna ~
3 0 Kno~'n g 1 o b-1 a "anges of the calcareous eous nanno foss ils r epor ~edd free the ~as t>e Hague For=ation.
4 a -h' is triut on o~soeb'tratigraphic b ~ os tr a tx gr aph i ca 1ly
.-.."or tant taxa oi o f p lzr<
zr~ tonic
- c. for--'nixera.
--~ ~ "a.
1
t'ai",i~ Tttl-MA;,IETTih QUAHBY A
CASTLE HAY tJE 0 H 0
0 /
V 0 5
)A llE S
4 i N~ N ~ ~ \~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ iN ~ ~ ~ ~ N. ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~
I
~
' ~
UPPER CRETACEOUG MIDDL< FOCINNr=
PFFD:-E FOR'.1ATIO:.'0 CASTl L= hhYHE l"-Oi~lMATIOH rr, I ~
C M f= t.l "l'. IQ~
I "i",OTTS IIILL ;IrSV IIWNOVCn COMrOAT kIEMBER
/'IJ+ j H1 I i
.t 'J (
)
IN nf( (( I jk:
'3
~) Xl hl 0
hl fll IJ
. 1 p tl 0 0 n Qj A
. ~ l I IJ
~ ~
=1') .FEET D IV (8 l~
'.i
~
p
~
Ql 0 I IQ lA p n hl I.IETrilS
MIDDLE EOC E N E LATE EOCENE LUTETI AN 8AR TON lAN PR lABON AN1 N
CO I 0 fQ 0
Disccoster borbodiensis.~,"'>>
i Oiscoost r binodosus. ~'<:,~" "".
I Zy grhoblithc.s bjiugotus .'.".~.": I ",."j;. O
- >> A i%~ r >>
rl fornoso O O I
Eri csonio CA Oiscocster soiponensis l
h'coccolithiles dub!us: <-::~ ~ 'Z~~ CA O I I 27 Chicsn cli thus grondis .: "sf~~, ~,:@~I Vl O t
i "~~~ m Chicsmot! thus titus -c 0 I O l
,'~! ~,'~'.'; /i'eticuloI enes tro unbilicc O I i Pl Peticutoferestrc hiltoe O
%f4,., I C
g5 ~i'>>~~>> Wp ;".~;~'on 'nithus minutus Xl I i O Chiosnotithus ocncru. rsis 0 Sphenolithus predi stentus O
N/ crcntholilhus procerus Pl
~<>',:. <.',";)':~9: Sphenolithus pseuCorcdicns
<~<.:,~" .,"'. Cubius l2.Irecurvus CO A
ro sem
!'N. minutus J Helicosp I l
~s A
r ticuloto jr'o He/!cosphoerd
~4(! I
~~ Q Cyctococcotithus kingi D O
.p>p.'phenolithus furcotholithoides Pl Sphenoi/thus'cdio'ns:."g'>, i'!
m i
Phc'Cosphcero glodio'"..'w:
~, .'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
k 0 Ag z
O I-CL CO O
~ ~
s Figure 3. Correlation chart showing the position of Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province li;hcstratigraphic
! r units in a biostratigraphic, chronos!ratigraphic, chronometric, and s
magnetostratigraphic a model (after Hazel and others, in press). The maximum limit,
\
based on the fauna and flora, s
of the Comfort Member at the Castle Hayne 5.>0<<~ 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 t ta 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 gg pr~~a
~CT (7 dd, )957)
(.-nV.i'ir X
Chilo uembelina cubensis (Palmer, 1930) X C. martini (Pijpers, 1933)
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" P.
i, cf. sharkriverensis Berggren and Olson, 1967 P. wilcoxensis (Cushrnan 0 Ponton, 1932) s.l..
I Subbotina eocaena (Gu mbel, 1868)
~5. 5 ((', >>9) X 9
Testacarinata incons icua (l-lowe, 1939)- X
~T.;>>,
Truncorotaloides rohri Bronnimann
)9 5) dc Bermudez, 1963
TABLE 2 Species iVame R~S66 R2200D R2204E B f a 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 Dict ococcites bisectus (l-:ay, ivtohler, 2 Wade, 1966)
Bukry 2 Percival, 1971 5* v X X -. X Discoaster barbadie'nsis Tan Sin Hok, 1927
<<** i'd*I, 5 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 inversusr (Oeflandre, 1954) Bramlet e 6c Martini 1960 Micrantholithus sp. aff. Ma crenulatus Bramlettte 8(
Sullivan, 1961 P.
<<9 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) s Perch-Nielsen, 1971 .
Zv rhablirhus bi'ups-us (Def!andre, l95rr) 2 Sullivan, 1961 'ramlette
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
Magneto.
LJ Calcareous Plank tl c stratllgraphy
! no flagella t South Vir!Ilnia lg C C
Series Stages Hannofossll Foramlnl fera Alabama rel
- 0) Ig Zones Carolina hlaryland U E el Zones Zones n 0 4
41 Ofscoas I ec Oar, I ~ rreerel ~ ~ ele/ Ilhonlholnnfum ei I40 Ipsnensf O. cere ~ I ~ II IIcLeo 1 per" ~~ ~
Oloborotsl a Goe orl Fm 4 a D. Dirac pOmctOII42 4 Cross TE I$ 0 0 2.2 I9 C 4 Coccollfhus I. I ~ Nembcr 4 <<I 4 Ig sfsurlon ~
LI ebon Ptncy Point ~ ~
45 C ~r Cloborota)lp E i I 20 I 20 I 4 0 possagnocr ats Fofmhtton F ot m a I ton 0 rl Chfssmolffhus 4 pf ps ~ Ihhl I(Isa ~ IoyIa- 4 4
47 lg 4 N out isle I IO a Ig DIIco ~ II~ I coloothrypta C
4 TE vhl P sfrfcsus Globotolalla In Member 2I 2.1 49 Olscoesf ~ r Ironlos ~
I 00 I uhl 0 d 0 e 4 I I I Ta I I a h a I I a V
0 D. Iodoonsls A c ~ I ~ rlfne Fotma I ton p entre ~ In ~ rs I ~ v IC 22 5I 90 IJI JI. Lrs porlensf ~
Trlbrachlatus TE
, orthostylus htorosovolla C
'LVOOII s loch l.2 2$
0 0 I Iormo J a L = Ncmbcc Ig lu ~ I t ~ IH ~ Ife/ 4 4 DIL co pilaf urn 24 C
55 Dlscoa alar ht 0 I 0 J 0 v o IIn Ilalchcl Isbcc Ff ~ haleine Ilnl 4 0 Pola pa co TE Zone ~ I.I 50'0 dlastypus Jubbollns ~
Un J If le I e nl I ~ I e J Fotnlatlon eC ht e Inb c I Ig V) hf or 0 J o v o lls Tuscahoma Fm
~e4 re Tl'23 52 D. nl ul I lr s din I u J volsscocnsta A p o c I o din lum 0
~ e ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
PI e e<<e ~ ~
TP II, 25 If~ Il off I h 4 l I t ~ Ife II homo omorphum ttanatatta Fm plennrof ~ III~ ~ n P I~ C ~ I ~ vr ~ 's 2.2 59 ~~ CJ II. Af~ Inpeflf ps ~ uuqmsnsrdff lr E 'r ~ I 26 Corotlop Jls ~o Nemhet ~
Cel Fasclcullthus hf oco J 0 r alla Gtacll Ntngo u es C spaclosa Nahcola Fm TP C Ig I ympanllormls pu sill~
el Jfocosoreffa pl ~ I I << ~ w I Formation 2.I o re I ~ 8 ~ IA ~
0 Elllps olllhus ~ npufsf ~ V V vs uslnl e Cel mscollus hl. unclnE] LOIee I 63 o Ig S. Itlnldadonsls Pals ~ op orldlnlu a IlI ense ~ r TP ~
D Chlasmollthus S pyrophorum Il r I e h I ~ e ~ I 3
65
-20 0 danlcus Sub b o I In a psoudobulloldo s V
~ ~
/ ripe olin ~ lion p
l g<<ILJ JIIpntlf dip Q (A fel(
~ ~ I v a>v> I >>> veuc'acai sal>cf>les noes not prove wide distribution in the
~
F051
. 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 latvian Fercncxi of the relative intensity of basal reflections in thc sediments> Though 1511 22nd Streei, N. W., Washington 7, D. C. (r~g()
montmorilloniie has only I79> frequency in che Garaetts Creek source R has a higher average intensity than kaolinite. which, ar area )
far more prevalent than taontmorilloaite. Relative intensity by volume, ls of the cnin onc to another seems to carry over from chc source area to streams inercli ABSTRACT cept for montmorillonite and mixed-layer structures.
ex.
Near absence of xnixed-layer structures in the streara sediments The North Carolina Coastal Plain is noi a simple homoctirat struc-both basins is perplexing!or such small drainage nets. hfout authorities of do not believe a fresh wat er stream capable of significant alteration ture. The Great Carolina Ridge is an area of uplcfc and the Hactcras clay mineral structures. Certainly for such small streams alterationof Axis is onc subsidcncc, both are transverse io thc Appa.act>ien trend.
would not be cxpccted. The data reported here do aot permit a conclu- 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 sive stateinent la explanation of this relacionshlp. Chemical data oa suggest a fourth structural fcaturc. a to data unnamed fault xone with a waters could prove beneficial in the solution of this problem, but it isihe trend parallel to thc Appalachians. As a 1>ossiblc BRh feature, s felt that physical phenomena are perhaps the operacing rnechanlsms.
"xone'f subterranean disturbances". suggcstcd by Shulcr, 1871, but ar i proved Two processes could explain the situation in these basins. to date, is mcntioncd. In conclusion ii is suggcsied that the capes alung ential craasportatlon and deposition is one alternative and indeed Differ-may be the present shoreline have been controlled by the se structural (esture>>.
operative with ccrtaia tninerals such as montmorillonitc. However. oa The basement rock beneath th scdiracc.tery cover has tbc charac-
~
the basis of unpublished data fBrown, 1958) collected durlag a study of ter of pcncplained block mountain rather chan that of a folded mountain the entire York River tributary basin, it is felt that the apparent "un- chain.
rnlxiag" of mixed-layer structures may be a rehI physical unmixing.
An explanation of the reduced intensities given sediment relative to source sarnplcs ls not readily explained. byPossible c)ays tions may be an increase in percentages of amorphous materialsexplana- or finer INTRODUCTION sixcd sediment particles, thc latter being compatible with the physical unmixlng hypothesi ~ . 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 REFERENCES preparation of annotated bibliographies for the Hydrographic OHice. U. S.
Navy, on harbor approaches along chc Atlartic Coast. hly curiosity was Brown, Charles Q., 1958, Clay mineralogy of sediments aad source wakened by the peculiar surface features of thc subsca prolongattoa of hntcrlals In the York River tributary basin: Ph. D. dissertation, Cape Hatteras. Cape Lookout. and Cape Fear, by coastal arcs connecting Virginia Polytechnic Institute. them, by the fairly equal distances between chem. and by what relation-Brown. Charles Q. aad Ingrain, Roy L., 1954, The clay minerals of the ship they have co scructural features of ihe Coastal P>ain. During my Ncuse River sedimeatst Jour. Sed. Pet., v. 24, 196-199. following three years whh the North Carolina State College. Raleigh.
Brunton. George, 1955, Vapor pressure glycolation ofp.oriented clay N. C.. I becacne more familiar with che geology of chc Coastal Plain ol minerals: Am. hiin.. V. 40, p. 124-126. North Carolina.
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.
~ ~ ACKNOWLEDGhiENT Wentworth. Chester K., 1930. Sand and gravel resources of the Coastal Plain of Virginia: Va. Geol. Survey BulL 32. p. 146. 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, 104 105 15
- I rolnlenls ainu tile litVV tIVsll Vll I Vi Ia; ~ 'i ~
\pp alla ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ua ~ 01 ~ I V subsidence until the present" (p. 11). Thi>> location of tne axis vc tile I
-~ h 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 I the surface near the coast" (p. 892 and p. S89, fig. I).
0 a 0 hfacCarthy and his coauthors in a sliort abstract in 1933 describi:4 evidence that this area, especially rcfcrring to the southwest Aank uf ,f-I 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
'alaa r about 17 miles west of Conway, S. C. (p. 21).
Prouty used the name "Cape Fear Arch" instead of the forn er nalne
+
i Great Carolina Ridge, tnarking it as "an anticlinal fold (arch) tl.rough
~ a~ Wilmington running parallel with the Cape Fear River basin toward!hc
~~ <<Ir 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).
gl In 1936 Cooke dealt with the area between thc Santee River in South fl Carolina and the Cape Fear River in North Carolina.where "the present
\ land for a considerable distance inland from the present coast both north h 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 2 hOtmi CtttOUNA from an enlarged Gulf of Mexico, Florida being at thc time submerged" x (Xl&ftl 1'Ltig Sntt'tllItIS (p. 99). Jackson (Eocene) titnc began "with a crustal movement that 4 raised the region between the Cape Fear River in North Carolina and I the Sautes River in South Carolina, thus producing the Cireat Carolina Ri4gc an4 depressed the regions on both sides of it" (p. 156). Describing ai4%
i aa ~~~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I IV thc structural conditions of the South Carolina Coastal Plain. he stated that II
~~ I ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ I "only deposit ~ of thc Upper Cretaceous and Eocene formations are in av South Carolina conspicuously deformed on the west limb of the Great -~
ti t
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 Figure I (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-THE CREAT CAROLINA RIDGE (CAPE FEAR ARCH) west-southeast uplift near Wilmington has been obtained" whereas roughly parallel to the coast a "ntagnetically disturbed xone... consisting of Dali in 1892 described a structural feature a series of subparallel highs and lows, has been found". which has been Carolina Ridge" as "an elevated ridge of perhapsunder the name "Great traced from Myrtle Beach. S. C.. to the vicinity of Wilmlngton. N. C.,
whose extension may be seen in the contours oC thcvery ancient origin.
sea bottom Car off "with further evidence suggesting that it may continue through Burgaw the coast" (p. IS2). toward extrcme northeastern North Carolina", representing va folded ln 1926 Stephenson dealt with it again as "a broad upwa and perhaps fracture4 xone" (MacCarthy, 1936, p. 405). In 1937 hiacCarthy its ax'sI near the boundary between North p h i Carolina an4 South CaroHna", and Straley gave a more detailed picture of these magnetic disturbances and so indicated it un an accolnpanying sketch referring to the "Wilnlington anticline". They stated that "magnetic although well records. described by him in 1912 map (p. 468. and pl. I).
(p. 163-167, and p. 169- evldcnce for or against the existrnce of this uplift might bc expected but 171) suggested an axis farther northeast, because oC the nature of the country, observations have not been made" t'e
~
' In I 92 7 htansfield showed the existence of this elevat e d id b y cotll (p. 363). A short abstract by MacCarthy and Straley in I93tt gsve as paartn surfaces uf the bascnicnt rock~ as detertnincd urcsults to date: (I) a tnagnetically disturbed area in the neighborhood
- I.C.. Wttnntigton, N. C.. Fort CasweH, N. C. and Summcrville, in the Havelock,
<<IIHs. He runcludvd that this "seems to verify the ~ S. C.. of thc Wiltnington. N. C.. arch.... (3) a series of low magnetic highs ti.:lt flail course ni n oof S tep h enson opinion fc i.I thff Cape
~~ Ca Fear River acros ~ the Coastal Plain approxi-107
~ AC
i c ~ 2 '"
i-ccs A ai s c'i!i
~
gW sxteacling in nn inti rruptcd irrcgular linc from the latitude of that of Faycc'teville, where thc blosk joins thc: Piedmont. B "iccn thci burg,c 1.
<<'h
)Ieaccfnrt" (p. 1953). Johnson's remarks on magnetic disturbances In blocK arc smaller units separutcd by faults that run ut rigla .cagl<< to X
- i,Ag '~
northeastern North Carolina are published only in a short abstract thc northwest-southeast direction of the Grcst Caroliccu Ibdgc, t.u.,
c (p. 1951). parallel to the main trend of Appalachian structure. Structural elements Richards in 1945 dealing with well records of North Carolina Coastal of this type wcro proved by the magnetic investigations of htscCarthy j Plain wrote about a "conspicuous high... noted in the vicinhy of Cape and his associates. and more recently by the observations of LcGrand
,c Fear. North Carolina", which "has been recognised for a long titne and concerning brackish water areas in the sedimentary cover of thc Great Is known as the Great Carolina Ridge". indicated on three cross sections Carolina Ridge (LeGrand. 1955, p. 2036). f ccfc (p. 953 and p. 941-943, figs. 20-21). In 1947 Richards wrote: "Ia any The separate movemcnt of blocks in the Great Carolina Ridge is case the basement and all formations rise sharply near Cape Fear. Thl ~ >>very ancient", as was thought by its first describer, (Dail. 1892, p. '182). cc
+,
ls one of the most conspicuous structural features of the East Coast but it was proven by LeGrand that movcmcnts occurred also within Cre-and ls called the Great Carolina Ridge or the Cape Fear Arch. At Wil- taceous time. The absence of the Tuscaloosa Formation in lour deep
's crsct rnington, the basecnent rises to a depth of only I, 109 feet and then dlps wells between Conway, S. C., and Jacksonville, N. C., implies a land again toward South Carolina" (p. 47). The Ridge Is shown on a generalized barrier within the area of thc Great Carolina Ridge during Tusca'.oosa cross section from Fort hlonroe, Va., to Hllliard, Fla., (p. 46). A time. Likewlsc the apparent absence of the basal strata of the Black third paper in 1948 again reflects the elevated position of the Great CrcckForcnatlon in the Wilcnington. N. C., well indicated this barrier Carolina Ridge in a cross section from Fort Monroe, Va., to Paris was abuve the sea until the latter part of Black Creek tltne (LcGrand, Island, S. C.; (Richards. 1948, p. 55. Cig. 2). 1955, p. 2036).
Straley and Richards in 1950 gave thc same cross section, and with , The area was submerged in late Black Creek and Peedee tlcne, but reference to the Ridge stated that the "basement rises at Wilmington to this submergence was followed by an uplift ia Palebcene time, s!nce such iiv a within 425 meters" (correctly 338 meters
- I, 109 feet) "of the surface, sediments have not been reported in thc area. Submergcncadur ng Eocene ~
and extends north-westward toward the Piedmont at an equal or greater ticne only lowered the northeastern flarJc o( thc Great Carolina Ridge elevation" (p. 88, fig. 2). below the sea, as indicated by surface patches aad well data of Upper i Berry in 1951 described the "Carolina Ridge", as "one of the tnost Eocene limestone. The patches of hiiddlc Eocene (7) sediments near
~ i prominent features of the basement" oriented "roughly parallel with the Fayetteville and Raleigh. N. C., also are confined to this flank of the valley of Cape Fear River"(1951, p. 414). He also noted seaward change Ridge. On the southwest flank the Black Mingo Formation and overlying on the basement slope (1948, p. 87, fig. I, aad 1951, p. 412-413, fitt. 116). younger members of the Eocene series appear only at much greater Likewise Eardley described the "Cape Fear Arch" as "the most con- distances Crom the crestline of the Ridge.
spicuous feature of the Coastal Plain" (p. 131). Indicating it on thc Index Thc submergence during Eocene time was followed by an uplift of map (p. 70. Hg. 22) as a broad bulge of the Cretaceous forcnations. How- greater extent. Along thc length of thc Great Carolina Ridge the presence ever, he recnarked that "this structure is not truly an arch" as such a of Oligocene sedicnents has been suggested only by hicLean with a quest-structural feature was dcHned by him in chapter 2 of his book. Hc con- ionable reference by Richards (1948, p. 62), from the shallow well at cluded that "the uaconformities around the Cape Fear Arch indicate the Camp Lcjeune. Onslow Co., N. C. Oa thc southwest flank of thc Great principal times of upliR and erosion to have been at the close of thc Carolina Ridge no sediments have been definitely determined as of Oligo-Cretaceous and again at the close of the Early Miocene". cene age. The nearest area in South Carolina where such sediments (Flint LeGrand In 1955 referring to the Carolina Ridge stated that 'the River Furmation) occur lice far distant Crom the Great Carolina Ridge.
assumed single homoclinal structure of the Atlantic Coastal Plain be- near the Savaanah River. Also in case if the Cooper htarl of South ic cocnes complex" In its vicinity. Besides changes in the extension of Carolina repeatedly "shifted back and forth bctwccn tne Eocene and thc various Cretaceous formations covering the area, he mentioned a fault Oligocene" by subsequent authors, should be definitely verified as of linc with northeastward trend between Cape Fear River and Black River Oligocene age. as Cooke and hlacNeil wrote, the area covered by it i a few cniles frocn their confluence. and a broad dome-like area. based lies on thc southwestcrncnost flank of th>> Gireat Carolcaa Ridge (1952, p- 27).
~
on presence of brackish ground-water, west of Wilmington, N. C. Al- The total absence of Lower and hliddlc Miocene sediments i:i the though it had "received scant geological attention in the past, the Great area of the Great Carolina Ridge, as shown by Brown's recent study of Carolina Ridge contains complex structures" (p. 2036-Z037). well logs from the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (1958, figs. 7-9).
After this review of opinions, it may be stated that below the arcs ls good proof that the entire length of this Great Carolina Ri<lge during thc of thc Great Carolina Ridge there is a large block of pre-Cretaceous Early Miocene and Middle hfiocenc was still above sea level. A ncw basement rocks. which cnoved up or down either as a unit, or as smaller submergence in the liate hiiocene resulted in the southeastern psrt of blocks independent of adjoining areas of the Atlantic Coastal plain. the north flank of the Ridge being covered by Hce traasgressicn If the
~
This large bloc'k of the basement rock extends on its northeast side to Yorktocvn sea, while the northwestern portion of this flank remained Hsveluck. N. C., and on its southwest side to thc neighborhood of uncovered. Only during the youngest phase cf Upper h!iocc ne trans-burner ervills, S. C. At both places the surface of the basement rocks gression, thc time of the deposition of the f)upHnFurcnatiun. was tcie sus fc uacl at riel.ctivcly great depths, Z. 318 feet at Havelock. and 2. 450 whole area perhaps below sea lcvcl. except for an arcs on the south c Csst ut Sucnmerville. The crest line is in the vicinity of Wilmington, N. C bank of the Neusc River near Mt. Olive, N. C., which recccaiclccl as a i ~
where. this surface is at its least depth, I 109 Ceet, and extends northwest- peninsula.
Evidence ls lacking concerning movcmcnts in pest-Miucune time.
~
v:ard, approximately parallel to the course of the Cape'Fear River. toward 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. 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 THE HATTERAS AXIS 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 The first author who suggested thai "the projection of Cape Hatteras indicated a low la the basement surface in thc line of the hiorchcad City is due to subtcrrancan disturbances" was Shaler in 1871 (p, 112), when well (Richards, 1948, p. 55, fig. 2). On the other han4, he stated in he considerc4 the causes '>which have le4 co thc production of Cape Hat- the same paper that "a study of samples from the deep well at Cape teras". Although he did noc specify the direction of these disturbances, Hatteras shows a thickening of most for>nations. Also several formations the fact that hc linked them with a ridge between Rlchraond, Va., and have been recognixed in thc'well that do not crop out in North Carolina" We)don. N. C.. clearly reveals a northeast-southwest direccion parallel (p. 73).
with the Appalachian trend. A cross section in a 1950 paper by Straley and Richards is s milar In 1891 McGee twice referred to the "Hatteras Axis" - in neither
~ (p. 88, Cig. 2). However. they emphasized the "notable feature .
case specifying any direct>on - "as an axis of interruption or change in the basin between the Dismal Swamp and the Carolina Ridge at Cape epeirogenetlc movement during every geologic period since the Cretaceous' Fear" (p. 88).
(p. 403), and as "an axis of m)aimum subsidence and minimum uplift" The last cross section found was published by Spangler in 1950; he
( 5031. again indicated the lowest point on the basement surface as at th flat-
~
In 1894. Hayes and Campbell meationc4 the Hatteras Axis, and gave teras wc)i (25, p. 120-121, Cig. 7).
its direction as northwest-southeast, a transverse line to the Appalachian After this review of opinions, it may bc stated t)tat the Hatteras trend. This maybe deduced froa> their statement that if che direction of Axis represents a Hne where all formations are at their gre"test depth.
the Hatteras Axi~ is continued "across the Ohio River its direction will The line trends northwestward Crom the Hatteras we)l.
be found to coincide with that of the main or northwestward branch of the The southwest li>nit of thc Haueras Axis area.and che northeast Cincinnati Arch" (p. 81), whereas the "Charleston-Mecnphis axis". li>nit of thc Great CaroHna Ridge block is marked by the Cape Lookout-p)>exing Atlanta, Ga. Corms "a tangent to che great northwestward bend
~
Neuse Fault Zone (a third transverse structural feature to be discussed of the Tennessee River" (p. 82). Since then the Hatteras Axis has always Inter in this article). From this fault xone northeastward well records been considered as a structural feature transverse to the Appalachian trend. show the thickeniag of formations toward the Hatteras Axis. Likewise. ~
In )899, Glenn discussed the Hatceras axle pointing to its role in on che northeast ~ ide of the Hatteras Axis formations thicken southwest ~
sedimentatlon during the Triassic period and also in the Middle hHocene. ward toward the Axis. as already referred by several authors. e. g..
and referred to it being not "a narrow belt with a close approach to the by Berry (1951, p. 414).
idea oC a linc but rather a broad belt or region" (p. 379). The Lower Cretaceous series Cor example, shows this thickening.
~
In 1926> Stephenson, referring to major features in geology of the Although such sediments were distinguished in the Merrimon and hfore-Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain, indicate4 it on hi ~ sketch map as an axis. head City, N. C., wells, they are not known in surface outcrops t>or in in which two downwarped bascmcnt surfaces, - one dipping co the south- well records in the encire area of the Great Carolina Ridge. Upper Cre-west, the other to che northeast, - cross each other (pl. I). In the text, taceous formations thicken from both directions toward the llatteras Axis.
however, he only states: "North of Cape Hatteras the downwarping ia Paleocene sediments are limited mostly co the northeast flank of the late Tertiary and in Quaternary ticncs affected the Coastal Plain more Great Carolina Ridge, and are not knowa to occur south and wesc of Pitc completely than it did south of this poiat" (p. 472). In a second paper County. as stated by Brown ln his Correlation Chart (1958. table 1).
he shows another line more northward, crossing the shore line sorne- The gradually progressing Late Eocene transgression dcposlted sedi-wherc near the Virginia-North Carolina boundary (Stephcnson. )928, cnents in the area of the Hatteras Axis; such sediments are miss)ng ln
- p. 889. fig. I). In his text be referred to "a downwarp affecting che surface outcrops, and from the subsurface ir. an area north of the Neusi.
~>
North Atlantic Coastal Plain Crom hfaryland to northern North Caroliaa" River. If the thin unit questloaably indicated in Brown's cross section which "resulted in the transgression of the Upper Miocene sea inland as "uaaamed Ollgocenc" (1950, Cig. 4), is proved to be Oligocene, then to the inner edge of che Coastal Plain in North Carolina and Virglaia" thi ~ unit is likewise restricted to the Hatteras Axis area. It Is known (p. 891) ~ only ln the records of the Hatteras well and ln the Pamllco Sound well, Prouty, In general adopting the data from Stepehenson's 1928 sketch as described by Richards (1948, p. 61). and aot in surface outcrops.
map. does not refer to che "liatteras axis". but replaces it with a "sya- While the Great Carolina Ridge re>aained during the Early and hiiddle clinal fold (trough)" in the area of Norfolk. Virginia(p. 485-486, fig. I). hfiocene above sea level, probably continuous sedimentation occurred Later Gardner mentioned ii as a xone of transitfon, where northern I uaal clemente of the Upper hiiocene Yorktown formation 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-were replaced by southern types (p. 70, p. 131 etc.). ~
nese of nearly 400 lect in the Hatteras wc)i as "unnamed Lower hlioccae
~ + Richards in 1945 pubHshed two eros ~ sections showing subsurface ('?) unit" (Brown, 1958, table I and fig. 4). Brown indicates hiiddle conditio>is; both show a low ln the basement surface at the we)l at Havclock. Mlocenc sediments also by a question mark, and in his Correlation tf C (p 941-942. figs. 20-21). In 1947 hc stated that "the basement
~ Chare (table I) states that these phosphate sand sediments are "not known drops decide4ly between Fort hfonroe (2, Z46 feet) and Hatteras (9, 878 to occur in outcropping sections", but that their "subsurface distribution" I ~ "locallxed ln Beaufort. Washington. Gates and Hyde Counties", I. e.,
4 u
I x v V
)
4 x
+xv" *' C 4 A - Ak I
c(ie area of the llattcras Axle. stone, but became inundated by the Yorktown sea in thc Upper hiiocene Thc Late Mloccnc transgression of the Yorktown sca covered the xntire area of the Hatteras Axis and deposfti accuxnulat d to c hl b rW ic nesses. such as 325 fcct at Edenton, N. C., and more than 500 feet in the Hatteras weH. as shown in Brown's cross sectio (I' 4). h( STRUCTURAL FEATURES PARALI.EL TO APPALACHIANS over, faunal evidences prove, according to Gardncr (1944 p. 70 1. I ctc. ). that the ied)ments of the Yorktown formation north of the Neuse ln addition to the three structural features discussed in the (oregoing River were deposited in an cmbayment that was removed from the inRuenc of warmer oceanic waters. This cmbayment was prote t d b h paragraphs, two structural features xnay be mentioned which zvn llel co the Appalachian trend. The first para-o( these is the line o( "subterra-j w
..islay" su a which remained during the Late Miocene tline above sea level in the su) nean disturbances", as suggested by Shalcr (1872, p. 112). This fea-c"xe pre-
, Cist~ xxl.':(,i area of Mount Olive, N. C., on the south side of the Neuse River valley. tures. however. so far is only suggested by chc paxallelism of of sent coast line southwest of Cape Hacteras to the xaain tread the Appalachians.
The secoad feature, ln4lcated on tho sketch xaap as "Unnamed Fault THE CAPE LOOKOUT - NEVSE FAULT ZONE 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 Besides che two main structural features which have Just been dls- che basemenc surface becomes steeper (MacCaxthy, 1936, p. 399, fig. I).
cusscd, two others are indicated. Thc Cape Lookout-Neuse Fault Zone- the aorthwestern limit of the xaagnetically disturbed rene west of Wil- '.,'.f~~qx( "'
a third northwest-southeast direcced feaiure transvcrs to ch A I mlngtoa, N. C.. (h(acCaxthy, 1936, p. 399, fig. I), the location of the
- ls xaldway between the Great Carolina Ridge and the Hatteras Axis.
h'end fault near the con(luence of the Cape Fear and the Black River (LeGraad, Its existencc is indicated by the diHercnce in the depth of thc basement 1955, p. 2036), and the line along the eastern bouadary of h(arcin, Pitt.
rock surface, 2, 318 lect on the southwest side of the fault sons in thc and Lenoir counties (mentioned on page 12 as a line where thc Upper liavelock well and 4. 000 feet on the northeast side In the hierrixaoa test Miocene Yoxktown sediments overlie the Cretaceous forxaations whhout E
wells. as v:cll as in the Morchead City well. Nearer the Piedmont. Ia intervening Eocene sedixncncs). This data indicate a xone of movemcncs, which in its continuatlon. Is perhaps reflected in che xnagnetic anoxaalies
~
= "-
the area of Goldsboro. N. C.. the prcseacc of such a fault xone is sug-observed by Johason in northeastern Nc rth Carolina (1938, p. 1951).
(i-.cg gested in that che Upper Eocene Castle Hayne Ilxaestoae which 6 th xi M4( 'g t bank of the Ncuse River over)isa the eroded surface of thc Black This is also thc xone where the slope of the basement surface stecpens ~ 73 Creek aad Tuscaloosa Ibrmations. Is xaissing both in surface outcrops ln the North Carolina Coastal P)ain area. as i)lustrated by the cross *i "rg'g~-
and in well records from thc left bank area north of the Neuse River. sections of Berry (1951 p. 4)3, iig. 116).
~
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 h(ORPHOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS OF STRUCTURE r hiiocene Yorktown sediments directly overlie the Cretaceous forxnations, without intervening Ididd)e or Upper Eocene sediments. This elevated The morphology of the North Carolina Coastal Plain appeari to he block must have been above sea lev<<l until the end of hiiddle hUocenc connected with the structural features. The drainage areas of cee Neuse elms, but sank uith the oncoming transgression of the Late Miocene River and the Cape Fear River within the Coastal Plain have a A.e peculiar Yoxktown sea independently of che adJoining areaaouthof Neuse River, asymmetry. The left bank tributaries of the Ncusc River and steeper. Cape which remained above sea level during Lace hiioccne Yorktown time. Fear River arc longer. and the slopes on the north banks are vv I Thc "Cape Lookout-Neusc Fault Zone" is suggested al s o b ya line 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 I: c'I)-" x.'. '. Cx g w ch older sedixaents became silicified duriag exncrgence of Cbis area between Late Eocene and Late hiiocene times. 'The occurrences northeast turn of the Neuse River near Kinston, N. C. relates,o the
~ c,a v of silicificd older sediments in the Piedmont area, such Eocene deposits unnaxaed fault xone.
I in the railway cut at Garner, N.C. and at chc boundary of Wake aad lt woul4 seem to be not an accidental coincidence that the pecuhar Carolinas conHguration of the capes along the presx nt shore line u( both
~
JohnstonCounties on old Highway 70 between Clayton aad Auburn, N. C. ~
has deve)op<<d re)acing to chess structural fvaturesx Cape Ii<<ueras Zone.
(Richards, 1951, p. 14) the Eocene outcrop with silicified Bryosoan to xi
~
scocks southwest of Dudley, Wayne Co., I finally thc siliclfied sandstone thc Hatteras Axis. Cape Lookout to the Cape I.ookout-House Roniain }auh xn southeast of Kinstc n, N. C., (Stuckey, 1928, p. 22-23), Iic in an approxi- Cape Fear to the Great Carolina Ridge. axxd perhaps. Cape f.idge.
t aiate northwest-southeast line. coinciding whh thc Cape Lookouc-Neusc South Carolina at thc souchwesc boundary of the Greac Carolina liars wa>>
Fault Zone. This fault conc limits the block of older sedixnents on the Such a relation between Cape Canaveral, F)a.. and structur.a) structural soutrxwcsc s'de, which <<us not covered by che Eocene Castle Haynehime- reccncly dccerxn)ned by Whho (1958, p. 1718-1714). )low theve i features although di(fering in character, hay>> lcd to (urxxxation o(inthe individual capes needs more detailed studies. The coincidcnc<<. any
~ ~
4 ~
In(urination froxa Richard D. Pussy, U.S. GeoL Survey'. Ground Water case. is noteworthy. It should be even morc interesting if thc noxthcast-not Brach. Raleigh, N. C., and a)so personal observation. southwest "subterranean disturbances" suggested by Shaler (but 1 'k
9 2
ZA>> '4 49 pppoved to dare). as a cauNc leading to the "projection of Hatteras", could 2 )iaycs C W arLd Carrrpbell hi it lrt9 l Gcol53or)3hoiogy Apr tl5u
~ ~ ~ ~
~ br2 proven as a further structural feature of the Coastal Plain of the Caro. Southern Appalachians: Nat. Geog. Mrlg., v. 6, p.63-126.
lines. In this case tbe crossing of thc transverse structures with this Johnson, R. W.. 1938. Geomagnetic reconnaissance on the Coastal P)am northeast-southwest structure would provide another basis to thc idea of Northeastern North Carolina: Bull Geol. Soc. Arn., v, 49. p l95).
that the capes have not been formed accidentally at their locations, but I,cGrand, )f. E., 1955, Brackish water and its structural implications '4>>4 through thc influence of structural control. 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.
CONCLUSIONS MacCarthy, G.R., Prouty, W. F., and Alexander. T.A.. 1933. Some )L" A.>> '
rnagnetometcr observations in the Coastal P)ain of South Carolina:
The North Carolina Coastal Plain ls not a simple homoclinal struc- Jour. Ellsha Mitchell Scl. Soc., v. 49, p. 20-21.
~IL ture but is more cornplcx. The transverse structural features, the Great MacCarthy, G. R., and Stra)ay, H. W., lil. 1937. hiagnetic anom lies Carolina Ridge and the Ha'teras Axis. Influenced the transgression and near Wllmington, N. C.: Science, v. 85, p. 362-364. P regression of the seas ln diHerent geological times. The middle feature, and . 1938. Geomagnetic recent')seance 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-
~
0 G I. 5 . A ...49.
MacLean, J. D., 1947, Oligocene and lower Mioccnc microfossils from p.l953. ,;3-431 .),
llclisrn of the assumed northeast-southwest linc of Shaler to the main Onslow County, North Carolina: Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, trend of Appalachian structure, an unnamed xone of structural distur- Notulae Naturae. No. 200, p. 1-9.
bances is suggested. hiovemcnt along these features also influenced the McGee. W. J.. 1891, The Lafayette formatlonr 12th hnn. Rpt. of the morphology of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, and such an influence Director of the U. S. Geol. Surv., pt. I, p. 347-521.
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.
5 . A, 1892, The Gulf of Mexico as a measure of isostasy:
- 3. p. 50I-50 ~ .
Mansfield. W. C., 1927, Oil-prospecting well near Havclock, North I'3@
Former folds, lf they werc once present. have been obliterated by fault Carolina: N. C. Dept. of Conservation and Development, Economic systems developed since the Appalachian ltcvolution. Structural condi- Paper No. 58, p. 1-19. r-tions of the Atlantic Coastal P)ain, and gravity and other anomalies Prouty, W. F. 1936, Geology of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina:
~
indicated more recently by Skccls {)950, plates I-IV, figs. 1-2). can Jour. Arn. )Vatcr Works Assoc.. v. 28, p. 484-491.
perhaps be more easily interpreted by rcfcrring them to blocks in tbe ! Richards, H. G., 1945, Subsurface stratigraphy of Atlantic Coastal basement rock mass differing in position. 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
~ ',4 REFERENCES 1948. Studies on the subsurface geology and paleontology Berry. E. W., 1948, North Carolina Coastal Plain f)oorr Bull. Geol. delphia, v. 100, p. 39-76.
Soc. Am. ~ v. 59. p. 87-89.
l95I,N IAC
- 0. I, p. 4I2-4I5.
I: NI.A .A . Pl ~ G I..
1951, Geology of the Coastal Plain of North Caro)inst Shaler, N. S., 1872. On the causes which have lcd to thc production of 54.
0 . PLL. 4955, II III I IA 0 I IPI I IN IAC II Cape Hatterast Proceed. Boston Soc. Natural History, v. )A',
~I Dept. of Conservation and Dcvelopmcnt Div. of Mineral Resources,
~ p. 110-)23, (1870-7)).
Bull. 72. Skeels. D. C., 1950. Geophysical data on the North Carolina Coastal Cooke, C. W.. 1936, Geology of thc Coastal Plain of South Carolina: Plaint Geophysics, v. 15. p. 409-425.
V.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 867. Spangler, W. B., 1950, Subsurface geology of Atlantic Coastal Plain of Cooke. C. W. and MacNei). F.S.. 1952, Tertiary Stratigraphy of
~ North Carolina: Bull. Am.Assoc. Pct. Geol., v. 34 p. 100-)32.
~
South Carolina, U.S. Geol. Survey. Prof. Paper 243-B. Stephenson, L. W., 1912. The Cretaceous formations, in Clark, W. B.
A 45, 49 9 Dali, W. H.. and Harris. G. D., 1892, Correlation papers: Neocene., and others, Thc Coasta) Plain of North Carolina, N. C. Geot. and U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 84. Econ. Survey, v. 3, p. 258-266.
<9 Eardley. A. J.. 1951, Structural Geology of North Amerlcar New York, 1926, Major features in the geology of the Atlantic Harper and Brothers. 'I rrp 04 r rdner. J.. t944, Mo))usca from the Miocene and lower Pliocene of 1928. Structural features of the Atlantic and Gulf I Virginia and North Carolina: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper )99.
Glenn. L. C.. l899. The Hatteras Axis in Triassic and in Miocene timer Stralcy, H. W.. III, and Richards H. G. )950, The Atlantic Coastal
~ ~
Anr. Geol.. v. 23, p. 375-379. Plain: Int. GcoL Cong., Rpt. 18th Session. Great Britain. 1948.
Part VI, Proceed. Sec. E, The Geology of Petroleum. p. 86-91.
)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 cxplosions of the bacteria occur (PH 2, 35 C),
granite Mountain p)dtons; ard the Selavik Hills p)uton. severe expansion o'he Dholes have occu=red.
In conditions, as at White Pine, which thc bac-120. Con=urer Maeain of Surf ic!aI Cealeev near Ha))aran teria find hosti)e, m'neralogically similar S !.
JEFFREY v (C 111 ..:
v L. ZHRENZELLER
. I '-"Cl (Indiana I
.r.)~I State Un)vera! tty). RvBERT shales show no evidence for expansion due to the growth of secondary minerals.
E 2 C. HO>>'Ez (Indiana State University), S. VEN E A. S;ANLEY I
Indiana State University).
)23 Two I~e 3>so> ap 0 we Sv ~ s cg< a A recent trend Ln geo)ogfcal re..ote sensing has been to nap surf)cia) narerials using nu)tispectral data collected r by satellite and aircraft r scanners. Researcg by the authors tP ~ 'c a +v 1<'s e ' 0
at the Indiana State University Remote Seqsing Laboratory ces v'.-.'.c" ~ba"ed t".e sur.ace. S'xty percent (ISUPSL) Love)ved the production of a surficial urfaca rc"sists cf ".o cast, veat?.ar-of the Halloran SprLngs area fran ana)ysis of 12 geology nap o)'arl.'.".'s channels "laned 'erraces. " T'.".e """cr Terrace. cc=.prising of a rcraft nu)tispectral data collected by the Environnen- C;~ of tbs total area, rar."es abcu>> present sea tal Research Institute of MLchigan (ERIN) with he MLchigan 1 evel, Tl e ) oval arrace (sc e I es rise ) Ies M-I optica) cechanical scanner system. To produce the sur- c. =CfC =sl.ers ba)ow prasar,t sea level on tba ficia) geology ap, a correction vas cade for albedo. Then ocean floors. R)ver-cul, caryors and valleys run a rarioing r<<chnique, Ln v'hich rhe revised spectral :alues dcwr. o deltas srd alluv)al fans cn he Lever Ln a thercal band (channel ll) vere divided by the values Terrace.>> Tba Syr.'? esls re'ata t?ese features in a visible band (channel 6), vas used to produce an alpha- ard proposes ital, sll Arc"ate = svat1ons ( is-numeric printout dfsp)ayfng re)atfve differences in the ...al land arcs,,".Ountair. rances) on "..a Upper Terrace inertia. This =ap vas sin! lar to a large scale surficial ware for=.sd by .'ca-s'..eet tac'c..ics; o.".d 'va ice-geo)ogy =ap prepared by conventional field napping methods. @Lee'. dehy ral.1cr. of ccrtins:;tel sss grec'"'tates Tvo rock types, quartz conzcnite and basalt, which vere not separab)e Ln this area using conventional renote sersing pe rifles life forms ir. "ce presses. Petro)curn,
- .erhods, .vere separa ed on the thermal inertia nap. These ccal and "phosnhate rock" a~a 'arred si:.u'a-techniques, a)though still Ln the developnental stage, are ecusly. -slew tba Lower Terrace oceans are thar.
encouraging. 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 Eeccrdinz .Lns ra as and 'ha Srm-earth Linkaza, m)-.,erala ap" crgar.ic "aposils ay ba deduced ".rom v~LCOLv. HO.=qOH, U.S. Gov. Rat. Mesa factors.
Solar arargy input (SEI) varies daily. Data for daylight ""aL< "RTv qalrsh n"ar>'s" w' S'OS'iO'! con"-
and the night. folio<<ing (bafora the next SEI) mka a ratu- f ey an vo t?; r DL T A rT) Delacorl,e, lc77 ral 2L hour unit. Tma frames for local the and U.T. are p ~
nct congruent '<<Lth these limits; bol,h fran t"o
.~ obsa~etions SEI's, distorting averages, atc. Tha corpus of 124.
raccrdad data is contained in these tins fra. ss. Selec- Structural Control of Mesozoic-Cenozoic Deposition, North tion and regrcuping produce congruent data. The a, <<ith and South Carolina Coastal Plain. HARRIS, W. BURLEICH, an i=proved curve ccnparison technique, yield Lpc<ant "indh:Es; pr<~rily, eroof of a f'ina-structured sun-earth ZULLO, VICTOR A. (Univ. North Carolina at Wilnington, North Gage. Srtaspst (SS) variations produce a basic tarres- Carolina 28a03) and BALM, CERALD R. (College of Char)aston, ial chart pattern of mxi"um daily te=paralu. s (T mx) Charleston, South Carolina 2940)) .
..at is inversely correlated <<il,h tha SS cu~'a. Te=para-tura curves above the tropopause ara correlated inversely Abrupt changes Ln distriburion, facies, thickness and atti-
"il,h tha T rax curve, and directly with tha SS cuva tude of Cretaceous and Cenczoic sediments in the Carolina (Polar areas c&ttad for lack of data.) Local station
~
Coasral Plain ref)ect episodic and differential novevents c""ves ara variants of tha basic curve, nodu'atad pricar- a)ong three fault zones. "Sanrea fault", Cape Fear arch i'y by 'atituda and longitude. .ypical local T mx (fault) and Reuse !au)t are subparal)el, trend NW-SE, and curves "ove as a unit, tha configuration intact but for extend fran the Loner Coastal Plain ro the coast betveen systematic nod 'aticns, fran W to E about 15 daily. Georgia and Hatteras enbaynenrs. Pre-late Cretaceous nove-vamp)as of T nsx correlationsr (direct) sunshine, cal. nent along Cape Fear and Neuse faults Ls 'Indicated by off-cr2; ultra-violet radiation; water temperature in evap- set and changes in thickness of lover Cretaceous beds that oration pan; (inverse) atnospharic ozone, asp. with data are not reflected in overlying units. Paleogene activity from potassiu= papers; air pressure; (co=plex) gacmg- along Neuse fault is indicated by a shift in structural and nal,isn. Finally, there is a solar-based 27 day racu"- depositional strike in post-Paleocene units and abrupt ranca tendency in tha conformation of the T rax curve. 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-122. Heavinc Shale- Evidence for the Role of fornity between Cretaceous and overlying units and intra-Bacteria in its Develonment. E!IMY BOOY (Colorado for ational dfsconfornftfes and Dorag dolo itizationby in the niddle Eocene Castle Hayne Linestone. Post-nedial Eocene activity along "Sanree fault" is shovn by rapid thickening Shales in the areas around the cities of of upper Eocene beds southvest of the fault and their onlap Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Cleveland, Ohio. and of older units to the northvest. Plio-Pleistocene actLvity Ottawa, Ontario have expanded up to several inches along Cape Fear and Neuse faults is indicated by tilting of subsequent to buildings being built upon bedrock. coastal terraces, distribution of narfne sedinents and This oxnansion is caused by the growth of gypsum derangenent of drainage patterns.
and, frequently, jarosito between, layers of pyritiferous calcitic shale. Damage to the over-lying structures has been extensive, sometimes 125. Hydrogen)ecv and Ocve)ao"ane nf <crine Cave Colorado forcing their abandonmont- R ~ F~RK lsASLYN Consulting Ceo)ogist s OA iKS A P)SAROJICZ Similar shale in the White Pine Mine in (University of Denver) ~
Michigan has shown no evidence of such expansion in the mine openings. The major difference be- Spring Cave is developed vholly vitnfn the early lsizsissippian tween heaving and non-hcaving shale appears to be Laadvi)le Limestone. In this area the Loacvi)la is approxi the presence or absence of Thiobacillus ferrooxi- nately 62 n thLck and consists of tvo naLn divisions, an upper dans whosc mo"abolism t oonerates su urac aca massive cliff forning Line packztcne and a lover section of which reac s with the calcite present in the rock thinner )Lneatona and dolceite beds The cava entrance is fo."m gypsum. located at the head of a s=all drainage tributary to the Scuth Whore conditions favorable for population 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 VIAOINIA I I Gerald R. Baum W. 8 u r leigh Harris And Victor A. Zullo / I
)
k ~
. .-'APE HATTERAE O ~
~t+i
/
~
G~ g /'r'APE
'}g I.OOKOVT 1 +
o~g-~
CAPE FEATI Carolina Geological Society Field Trip Guidebook And October 19-21, 1979 Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association 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 Therefore, in have'ffected MesozoicWenozoic sediment deposition. 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
I VIACKAA I
-iA ~ g/0 AA
~
'~ g, l OP, ' i APPROXIMATE LlMIT
~
.~g 4g P AS CAAK LOOKOUT 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 " I) Caa'( ~
~ '8 g)j a'I(
Q)x>(().
i(e. .,e ~ ~ .w 4) .,I'( (a )>>r I ~ $ e,(l,. ~( I i, ll .ii ra .. 4a q. )w..>> 4 ( 49>a AII t t( e j I,y': eeet+(aa ((i'a ) '(ll
+)a>y) (qa r ~ I.a(.g.
~ C)a . C .' '+ err>i IX 'I) ~ (! C I')(aa ~ 4~~ '4e C( ~ . ~ yX( CC ~ C(
g l a, i, ' ~ )i c.'q((':
(""l ~ 'i,e,')iv(')g( "c"' ~ ~ ) ~ \j) el '" i ':~AC r(r ~ ~
". p'; 'err,)c'Q()cg( r .rect,c '("f(q~ "'-.>'
() jc, )I.l r r .,>(r errrr )t.. er((
<'cw I " (re rC (7 .x.wr>
rr I ag(III>r"I ay~(( "eew 4 ) i r(ca)I w
) I ',h (a
.: 'ay+~( i i~
. ~
.~ 4+ .Iey, c aw y(. gY>:e 1q. Xe. )~ .
cr V- Pg ~ (a (> . (>()
er ~ rl ~
. a
%ay>C ~ ~
e(a tj.'
.rr C
.r,"r
>ay r r 'I gy%X"
~ 'ag
"-",V."'>(:
(Xt ce (I ~+ c I~> '9'".,ga.
I, >Ce)': ( 4i a(".I aa".I l>Pre>r. ggya>~raiiy>',KI'!j))a' e(( a
~
((((
~
Crier rPr l (j<<(~b"" "4'j r :(.Ie,.
l ~
."q,~(;; f.c ",'I:(.~'.q err i
~'((i'i'I('.>> i/y rrr rr rrr ) rQ(',4Xg>'Cr
~
g ~
pic)>,"pbbs 6 ~ air
>ra
~icy ' ( t)a (i'r ~ ga> "
.I ga )
( l! )'>>ac >,ll.C Ij" ..y, ) .X<pa; '~,'.'.<.+ " 4 ie .g rr -r--r-r-;.0
' rrr i", ~ r r -
r .rapp grar cr 0r) rrra r rr rr r rr .rr i( ~( )I(('I a ~ p>L (),I I) Iea(( (
~ ~
CS (
hWI,Vi;q~.(sX ca ("I cic,"rcc: I))" I), rrI rrrr rrrr rrr,a r r('pr>,> r r r rr r rr r > Xh ~ ~ ~
rrrr C> C C ac) )
)c)as>ai,'c)i'>c'EI l ae( 'Ecac>a g(4cagg5cy(() (),4>a( 'cw') >ac)('5 (I(
c( .I>c>><a(e a'I).
~
l c,,
~ I~r)a )'paste
(. I "~aaa >q'e,el ~>>
c+g>i, .
rr /rrr r r rP r e
r r r rr ge '
c '( w(,"ac I '.~p'~-'.,
~ LQ * .
i" $ '(((g(.'A ~ ~ ~ '> .
((((a(>ace ~ ~
C
>q e e
~ '.IA
~i+)a((e;Xa(>>>(">>'>a""ay'r(! ., ' (ie ((Za+Ci'. ~ ie)ei (t; '.I'QC >'(C" h ' "(~a( 4') Wl yhba(ie Xa (y'a<i I((('%))qg~agCLXaC',L<(y
>), a'(> a((ii'.(i(,l> .~<(
(Cq'i'6'(a $ i )) )aa> WCg a>rag~a+a IiCIPm a((aa~,
~
.-.~. I'(rW>~ >(X>>
'aih i'X'>I )e(q aae((~$ I'I 4> r~tga
~ tY>
~
aC>ra ~, W Lqa((k (g I."0 'e,a)ag((g (Xq( ((C)
( 'i,a'. ',i>,' ..X )>C)~' t .'Ci( %'Vi (,
Zy
~
qxi',(CW'j((a,iii(Pj's,<XV )(('.i>('C q, (5 4( C,.().X'hcg4V4 ". i'X i (A~q~> CX r>'W ~>' () g(l ((
'" (,'(.; <,,
ert>y(~ a K'c pg 87 O
e V~
0
~
I;
~- i
~
I ~
VIAONIA I i~
I 00 100 00 l ~-
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF j It COASTAL PLAIN I I
~ p, 4p i
QCAtE HATTEAAE
<1 r
1 g 100 CAtE AOOKOOT Vga .+ ii 7 ISOPACH
++ CRETACEOUS UNIT F i E
.pp ~ 1tteiit ~ 1W titty ~ i il iltl
~
TA CATE TEAR ~ i H ~ i iNoo T0 TA I I 1
Pig ure 2. Isopachous map of Cretaceous Unit P (modified from Brown et al., 1972).
'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:
- 1) pre-depositional subsidence ri north of Neuse fault and south of Cape Fear fault, lA
- 2) syn-depositional subsidence north o' 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 SOUTHEAST
~1 10 C 11 C tl to
~0 JERICHO RUN SCARP 10 C St C't ~ C'tt lo tl C C t 00 t0 10 5 SEA LEVEL DATUM
, WRICHO RUN
\ASS>>SCSS~ I ullf
~
POST - PALEOCENE I All SCARP
~ lull THANETIAN$
PALEOCENE DANIAN CRETACEOUS
~ HIIAI Figure 3. Northwest-southwest section across Graingers Wrench Zone.
\
Ir CI l
. I
/
i oc e(O j+ v-- ~ Ql 00 APPROXIMATE UMIT OF ~,r > IITt l . i . ~i
- . ~
COASTAL PLAIN .. ++ r 5r /g'~vult ct ulut r>>
)
it ~ r>> V""'
- P.";ir'ri.,
C5
<a r0 Q' ~
.::, "Il;:I,:.,';;"', ~ CAPS IIAtlfAAS SS
~
i r5, . '-t":rr O(1r f ~+~
DISTRIBUTION NEW BERN FORMATION CAtf tfAA ~ l ~ ~ I rr ~~ Hl>>
~0 10 I I Figure 4. Distribution of the upper Eocene New Bern Formation.
~l!t'
sediments (Fig. 3), suggest t hatt these se faults au experienced episodic movement during the Paleocene(?) and the post-Paleocene. Except for a minor reen reentrantn 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 i"za ble mar ke r horizon overlying the Beaufort Formation circumvents estab-lishing the time of post-Paleocene movement. t owever, However offset of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone sug-gests post-Eocene deformation. B rown e t a 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 th e toe o f th e scarp. 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 of the New Bern Formation are confined to an area lying between the Neuse and Trent Rivers... (,Baum 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
Jr
!A gr +
xi Co APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF COASTAL PLAIN
'<<.Q, ~r'~+
0 0
Gg 0 t r I
CAPE HAIIEIIASI
't) 'L CAPE LOOKOVI t'SOPACH MIODLE MIOCENE
~ <<or>>rr ~ r<<O>> r<<O<<<< ~~ rr, rlr
~ ~
CAPE PEAII ~
~c .,
r ~
<<0 re
'L H00 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 G. R., and Powell, R. J., 1979, Correlation and tectonic framework of the middle and upper Eocene
'aum 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
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.
ne 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.
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.
al eol. 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.
Stephenson, L. W., 1923, The Cretaceous formations of North Carolina: N. C. Geol. and Econ. Survey, bs.): v. 5, 604 p.
Straley, H. W., III and Richards, H. G., 1950, The Atlantic Coastal Plain: 18th Internat. Geol. Congres.
9 p. 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.
Zoback, M. D., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Gohn, G. S., Higgans, B. B., 1978, Normal faulting and in in the South Carolina Coastal Plain near Charleston: Geology, v. 6, p. 147-152. si'tress lina:
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 For- 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 )r hvar ~
~
phosphate p< bblc biomicrudite; middle btvo)odn bl<iipaffi'Jliei and upper bfy ><A)rovcR nzoan-spoi>g>> biomicrudite. Thc relative ave of the (.'astte Hayne l.iinc:stone is )>OR fK CARO<.it 4 eq ivocal. Th>> planktic foraniiniferal buna and part of the molluscan fauna suggest th.ir the entire fora>ation sho<IIJ becorfe.
tlted Ivith thr.'ulf Coast 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 5r
~ ~ ~ v caus- of prohte<ns correlating the Castte Afoot.if<in.> ~ 4~ ~
Hayne Limestone to equivalent Culf Coast CAF: FEAR stages, the lecrostratnrype w;is datcJ hy application of the Rb-Sr glauconite is<)-
chron. Figurc I. L<N:;Itin<i ta<'ie<<a quarry, iVciv Hanover County, IVorth C" ruling.
Five hah<I-pickeJ glauconite concentrates S.iniple of Ca>>tl>> I.layiic Linics<<>nc was collected at this quarry.
analyzed for l{b, Sr, and Sr-isnrorf>ic corn.
position yield< J an isochron agc of 34.3 ~ H.lffis:>I><I 13otti<lo (1974). Harris (197<)), Gasstcr, 1920; Kellum, 1925, 1926; I m.v. (/IRh 87 = 1.42 x l(l oyr ') with an a<i<t H;irri>> and 8;ii>>ii (1977), and in Chectham, 1961; Copeland, 1964). Brown Initial {SC'r'SC"jra<i<i nf 0.70<3.3 ~ 0.0004. Eufop.'y I'rien> and <)ther>> (1975), Odin (195II) and Baum anJ others (1978) corre-I"he d<<terr>inc<I initial (Sf"/S<"")ratio i>> iii (1978), and 0<tin and <>ther>> (1978) has lated the unit with both the Jackson and
'i>r>J .>gree:i:e:it with previnus e>>timates of <Iei>I<>>>>tf >ted th;it'glauc<>i>itc.iges caii have Claiborne Stages; however, Brown and
- h<. Sr.is<>t<>pic composition of sca water direct Applic;iti<>>> to cnnversii>>i of thc stan- others (1972) and W'ard and others (197S)
Juriiig thc Eocene. Although the age is dard gc<>h>gic c<>lunin t<> a radioinctric tiine correlated the unit <vith the Ctaibvrne younger than the value of37 m.y. earlier >>cal>>. In addition, the accuracy <>f glauc<>- Stage. Therefore, because of problems in profi<iirJ for thc Eocene/Oligocene bounJ- nitc:iges has also deinonstratcJ thJ< they correlating the Castle Hayne Limestone
>ry, it agrees.with fission-track and K-Ar can ai J in rhe resolution of prnbte<ns ii> cor- with equivalenr stages in the Culf Coastal
)g:>> of tekti<cs and micr<itektite>>, aiid K-Ar rekiti<)n where faunal data differ. Plain or in Europe, the Iccrostratotype Ivas
>iges <>f beiitonites an J gl.iuco<iitrs in upper A>>;> result <>f these rccciit successful ap- c>>amined for diagnostic fauna and Ivas
'oceiie inari>>c an J n<>nm.>rinc ui>it>> plic.iti<>>i>> <if Rb-Sr aiid K-Ar Jati:ig radio<netrically da<eJ by application of the hf<iughour the worlJ. n>cthoJ>> I<) gl<iiicoili<c, thc Eoceiie C:lstte Rb.Sr isnchrun Air<bud to glauconites.
Hayiic I.i>>>est<>iic of the iV<>rth Carolina iVTROI)UC I IOIV Cows<.it I'I.iin <v.is selected f<>r radi<>>>>e<fic CFOI.OCIC SL>TTliVC aiirl f<<><>al study. The Castle H.i)iie I.i<>>e-R<. <>rk i>> ihc United States by st<>>ie h.is bcr:n <.'<>rrcla<e<J with the J.ickso- The Castte I-tayne Li<<iesiuiie occurs
~ ~ a<)sh 7 )~ ()w< I>s a<iI>iit e.istefn Yorth Car<>tina; Iiow-
- 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) BEO n.li <he unit (<>r exp<>sures i>> the vicinity n Haync, N<<iv I I.'ll'iov<'r (.<>>1>lty, 22 "i POS T- E OCENE arolina. Because Miller'illiint <lcs-ignatc a rypc section of tlic (:astlc H;>y>>c CC 20 I.imcsione, (gaum:>>><1 others (1978) desig-LLI nated the Iv(or>in.Marictt.> quarry, 4.5 k>>> ~
CL northeast of Castle H;iync, the lcctn- CL H IB stratorypc (Fig. I).
The Castle Haync Limestone co>>sists of 0 QJ (7 BRYOZOAN SPONGE BIOM>CRUDITE thrcc units: a In>vcr ph<>sphatc pchhlc C LLI biomicruditc, a middle bryozoan hinspar-O rudiie, and an upper hryozoan-sponge biomicrudiie (Baum and others, 1978). As LLI M
0 LLI 14 >>her of E BIOSPARRUO>TE Ward and others (!978).11>c phosphate pebble hiomicrudite (i4ew Hanover 10 BIOMICRUOITE 5 !ember i)fWard and others, 197S) forms a CQ disconrin>>ous conglomerate ar thc hase of the Castle Hayne Limestone thar does nnr 0 exceed 1.5 m in thickness. It is present I- SANDY along the outcrop belt and is I ickcst v'here (3 6 PELECYPOO-MOLD it overlies the Rocky Poinr Miembcr of thc 0 8 BIOSPARRUOITE Pied<<e For>>>atio>> of Late Cretac<ous agc. I 0 The biyozoan hiosparruditc unit discon- 4 foimably overlirs thc basal pebble hiomi- CC e of the Castle Hayne Limestone. It. O 0 r s isolaied patches in thc viciniry of 0 the ape Fear autt and thickens to the north<<ast to a maxinlum of 12.2 m, ><<herc 0 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 EX PLANATION 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 LIMESTONE DOLOMITE SAND MUO hryozoa>> biosparruditc and hryozoan-'ponge hiomicruditc lithofacics arc thc Comfort Mirmber of the Casrlc Hayne Limestone of C'ard and others (1978). PHOSPHATE BRYOZOANS BIVALVES CROSS At the lrctostsatotype, the Castle Haync BEDDED PEBBLES -SPONGES LIMESTONE Lii>>csionc is 11 m thick; it disconformahly overlics thc Cretaceous Rocky Point Member of the P<<<<dec Formation, and dis- Figurc '. Columnar section of the lcciostraiotype of thc Castle Hayne Limesione.
conformabfy underties post-Fnccne sand San>p!e d:i<ed in this s<iidy l<<as coll<ctcd (rom thc lo<ver part of the bryozoan-sponge and gravel or Pliocene(?) sediments (Fig. 2). binmicrudite. Bed 0 is thc Nc<v Hant>>er M<<mber.
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 separates the hryzoan biosparrudite PALEONTOLOCIC ANALYSES ihr<<e units of the Casile Hay>>e occur at thc lith>>facies (rom the overlying bryozoan- A<40 RESULTS
- lloi}'pct lh>'<<<e<<er, thc hr}'oznan- sp<>>>ge hioi>>icrudite lithofacies. The glau-bio<ni<.'ru<Iite (orms thc domina>>t co>>iic sarnpl<.'hat l<<as used for radi<>>nciric Thc fau>>a of the Castle Haync Limestone p thc section. It consists of l<>osc, un- ".ating in ibis study i<<as collec>ed frnin a l<<as considered <<quivalcnt to Jt>cksonian consolidated carbonate sediinent v hich 25-c>>>-thick glauconite-rich z<sne iin- Stage (late Focenc) flu>>'ls o(the Coif Coast contains a I ->n >hick dolomitized zone i>><<dial<<ly h<.I<>lv the dolon>itized z<>ne in thc until the publication of Cooke and Mac-about 1.5 m ah<>ve ihe dis;nnl'orillity'hat hryz<>a>>.s( >>>gc bin<>>icrudiie facies (Fig. 2). Ycil's (1952) r<.visinn of South Carolina
(: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 Nl'l8 z<>ne is considered basal Jacksonian and MacNcil c<>ncliulc<l <hat thc lower, part the xui>s<irf>cc in North Carolina. All suh- (Bybcll, 1975).
nl'h (:<>x<1>> Haync I.iincsinnc (thc basal xiirf>c< sediments associated with thc Cas Ic As noicd by both Chrciham (1961) and ph pchhfe hi<>n>icrudiic and thc Haync Limes<<>nc or the overlying 'rw Brown (!963), and as evidenced by the
<>v binxparrvdiic facirx) in the type Brr>> Vorn>ation werc considered Claihor- pal>>ontological discussion, the re'lative age area >vas>>quivalrnt to >hc Santce Limestone nian <<qiiivalcnts. Thcsc subsurface data of the Castle Hayne Lim>>stone is as much of So<i<h Car<>linn and thc middl>> Ciaih<>r- were not related to previously described disputed now as it has alN;ays bern. The nian Stage (niiddlc E<>>>cne) <>f the Gulf <>uter<>ps of thc Castle Ha>ne Liinrstone, lack ofco>>forrnity ol'opinion is a result ofa Coast. fhc iipprr part ofthe f<>rmati<>n (tl>c i><>r werc previous d>><crminati<>ns of sub- cuinplcx of factors. Thc Castle Hayne fauna bry<>zoan-sponge hiomicruditc) was corrc- surf>cc Jacksonian microfossil assemblages is highly endemic, although it has bern .
lated <vith newly discovered str;lta overlying (f<>r example, Brown, 1958; Copcland, suggestd that some so-called endemics may
'hc San<ec Limestone in South Carolina. 1964} discus~ed. bc conspecifi ivith Gulf Coast species (for Fossils from th>>se beds were c<>rrclaicd with Bauin and others (1978) and 'Zvllo and example, Ward and others, 1978). The ih>> fauna of the Cosporr Sand that is con- Baum (1979) also considered that most of value nf soine species that do appear to af-side>rdupperinos<Ck>ihornianinAlahama. thc Castle Hayne Limestone ivas Claihor- ford an opportunity for interregional corre-Cookc and'acNcil (1952) cited the fol- 'ian hi>i u~ggrstrd thar the u'I>>permost unit, lation is lessened brcause of doubts con-lowing fossils in the Castle Hayne <<s indic- thc hrynzuan-sponge biomicrudiie, might crrning their idrntificatio'n and strati-a<ive of Claih<>mian agc> late Claibornian: ex<cud into thr Jacksonian Stage. The over- graphic'ange both ir> the Atlantic and Gulf
<<rassarella <<>/ta; rniddle Claibornian: lying Ycw Bern Formation svas considered Coastal Plains, and because of the lack of Furhodia rat< neli (= E. rugosa), Hen>- Jacks<>nian. Ward and others (1978) re- updated systematic treatmrnts of the genera ipatagus subrostratus, a>id Ostrca garded the Castle Hayne Limestone and the or species groups ro which they are as-scil.>>fnrn>is. overlying Nrw Bern Formation as Claibor- signed. Another major factor contributing Speci>>s previously considered as Jackso- nian equivalents. They cited thc presence of to the dispute is thc overwhelming trndrttcy nian indicators >vere discovnted because (:ubitostrea scllaefor>nis in the basal phos- to include thc Santre Limestone (in the they werc th<>ught to have been misiden- phate pebble biomicrudite (their New broadest sense) of South Carolina in any ti.r<<<d, d or werc found only at localities far Han<>vcr Mrn>her), of Crassct>>lla alia, P>>>>- discussion of the age of the Castle H-yne removed from thc t>'pr atra of the Castle Icn clarleanus, and P. >nc>nbranosus in the Limestone.
> l.
.".:iyn>> I.imcstone, or >vere kn<><vn to occur overlying biosparrudite and biomicrudite Although depositional environments rep-as N.>>11 in Gulf Coast Claibornian units. Iithofacirs (thrir Comfort <<<<ember), and of resented by Paleogene srdimrnts in South L< and Brown (195.$ ) trcognizcd Crassatella alta, l<<Iacrocallista>>rus<<<ns>s Carolina are similar to those in 4>'orth
.'>nt ornian and Jacksonian fora- (Harris), and Batby(or>>>us PrvI<xrus (Con- Carolina, it is t>ot correct to pirsume that mini and osiracod assrn>blages from, rad) in the Yrw Bern Formation as rvid>>ncc similar sedim>>nt types in the rwo regions pr>>suined Castle Hayne Limrst one of Claibornian age. are contemporaneous. Ir has Iong b<<cn rec-
'.ocalities berw>>rn the Cape Fear and h'>>use Chrctham (1961) argued for a Jackso- ognized that Ctctacrous and Trr<<iary dep-Rivers. The single C!aihornian fauna listed nian agc for rhe Castle Hayne fauna. From osition in the Carolinas has bern influenced
's from the vicinity of Fort Barnwcll, Cra- a hios<ratigraphic analysis of 155 chrilos- by episodic'movctnent along the Ca>c Fear irn C<>unry. Microfaunal assrmh!ages de- tome hry<>z<>an species described by Canu fault (for examp!e, Stephrnson, 1912;
,crihcd from h>>>alitirs in the type area werc and B:ixslcr (1920) froin thc type area of the Richards, 1950; Baum and others, 1978).
onsidrr>>d of Jacksonian age. LcGrand and Castle Haynr I.imrstonr, Chrrtham con- More recently, it has bern demonstrated
'<<ro>vn concluded that the Castle Hayne eluded that a late Jacksonian age was indi- that additional structural rtrmrnts ("Santre
.imrs<one v as a time-transgressivr unit in ca>cd. He also suggested that such previ- fault," Yeuse fault, Graingers.svrrnch zone,
'hichdrpositionbeganinCIaihornian rime <>usly dctcrmincd Claibornian indicators, Carolina fault) have affected Cretacrous nd last>>d thr<>vgh Jacksonian time. Brown such as (:rassatella alia and (:ub>>osrrca and Cenozoic intrabasinal sedimentation in
>958), on the hopis of ostracod as- sclL>%rnus werc misidentifie, as these the Carolinas (Brown and others, 1972;
>>mblagrs fium well>> in thr North Carolina idrntitications werc based on molds, casts, Baum and others, 1978; Harris and othrrs,
- oastal Plain, recognized (:!aihornian and or juvrnile forms. Zvllo (1979}, in an 1979; Zullo and Harris, 1979). The net rc-vrstionable Jacksonian strata in presumed analysis of the barnacle fauna from the cult of these discoveries is to emphasize the vhsurfa<e <qvivalcnts of the Castle Haync bryozoan hiomicrudite facies,. conclud<<d fact that the stratigraphic column cannot
.in<<>>stone. In the southeastern counties of that thc majority of species, including Ar- be interpreted merely in tertns of evstatic
.nrih Carolina, in thc vicinit>'f thc t>'pe rosrall>cllu>n jackson>>use, Bus>>a!P>>lluni n. transgressive-regrrssive cycles on a passive
<ca, only Jacksonian(.) strata werc cn- sp., and S<>lidobalanus n. sp. A, werc in- fr reland. Rather, it is clear that the ef rcts auntcrcd. In the crmral counties, between dicative of Jacksonian age. The remaining of rustatic sra-level change >v>>rc specifically
<r <<Ncw a>>d Ncvsc Rivers and in the regin>> sp>>cirs werc <>ndiagnostic. Studies on cal- inodificd by trctonisrn.
here the N>>w P<ation <>f Baum care<>vi norm<>fossils from thc hryozoan- I.ithologic similariiirs bcnvrcn the Castle
>d others (19?8) ovrrli>>s thc Castle Hayne sp<>ngr hioinicrvditc unit of the l>>ctos- Hayne and San<re Lim>>stones rcfkct re-im>>stone, borh Jacks<>nian(?) and Clai- trat<>type hy Turco and others (1979) and gional palcngrography. The absence of
>tnia crof<>ssil asxrn>blages w<<rc rcc- by Worslry and Turco (1979) indi>>at>>d clastics and thc picvalrnce of calcareous
- ni h>> north>>ast, only Claihornian that this unit is axsigiiahl>> io zonrs NP.19 bank d>>posits suggest a broad, low-l>ing rata ncovnter'ed. and NI'-20,, or Jacksonian. Worstcy and fo<rland over v
- hich the sea transgressed Bro<vn and others (1972), ag.iin priv>ar- Ti>rc<>>; iso n<><cd thr pres>>ncc of z<>nr NP- rapidly, and an adjacent hinterland of low ..
- vn thc basis of ustracod i<>nati<>n, hut 18 nan>><>f<>siils I'rom an ii<>!a<>>d outciop relief.wh<>sc slvggish streams trans~mrtrd so utilizing foraminifrral >>vi<1>>nce, did nr.ir Ncwtoi> Cr<>ve, Sainpson County; the litt!e sedim>>nt to the sca. Individual d>>>msi-
(.'A'S'I'l.l'. ) IAYNI', I,)h'IESTONE NORTH (:AROI.INA 591' FAIII.E I. Rh.gr ANAI.'Vl'I(.'AI. I)A'I'A I>(>R I HI'. )'.()(:I'.NE (.'ASTI.E HAYNE in N<>rth A>>irrica a>>J East Africa place the Llhl)>STD:4F I.I (:T()c>"I RA'I'(yl'Yl'I:., NIAV ) IAN()VI'.R (:()(('VTY, NORl'H CAROLINA Eocene-Olig<>ccnc boundary bctwccn 33.9 Rh"'IS< " a>>d 37.5 in.y. (Ev<<r>>drn and others, 1964).
Rh lppm) Sc lpp>ll) -
(S<"'IS<')x ln >><)dition, Tarling and Mitchell (1976) h'I h r 202.0>( I 3.39 43.77 0.730) used i>otopic agc determinations of sedi-h(h( M )95.v). 6.85 2).)4 0.7182 incnts overlying oceanic magnetic h! h) I- ) 00HF I'JY.NI >I 6(> )9.52 0.7188 h(h1 ) -70HT ) 89.78 10 >5 )0.94 anomalies to suggest that the "probablc h'Ih1 I -70HF I Y6.96 I 9.48 29.31 0.7 I 35 0.7223 stratigraphic age ..." for the Eoccne-Oligocenc boundary is close to 35 m.y.
Several conclusions may bc drawn from pic '70a, K-feldspar, thc c>>>c-st:>>>clvrd- l)ISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS this study. An. abundance of published Jcviation experimental rrrc>rs are 4'.000$ radioinetric ages of glauconite, tektites and for ihe Sr">IS r'" and I.0%>> fnr thc Rb"'ISr"" Fv>>nell (1964), Berggrcn (1972), anJ microtektites, and volcanics indicates that
>a t Ios. Harcirnhc>I:>>>J Berggrei) (1978) placed the thc Eocene-Oligocrne boundary is closer to Thc Sr">IS<"0 values in 'I able I have been E<>cene-Oligc>cr>>e boundary between 37..$ 33 than to 37'm.y.; this age is supported by u>r>>>alize J (o Sr""IS("" = 0.1194. Thc value an J 37 m.y. i>n the basis of a coir,pibti<>n of the 34.8 m.y. isochron age of the Castle
>I><ainrd fron> the Massa'chusctts l>>stitutc v:if><>us agc types. Ho<vcvcr thc volcanic Hay>>e Limrstonc. Secondly, the glauconite
>I Tcchnolog': standard Eimrr a>>J Aincnd ages <>f Ever>>Jcn and others (1964), the isochron i>>c(hod can provide accurate ages
- arboraie sainple during rhe pcrio J of glauconite ages of Ch<>sh (1972) and of for conversion of the standard geologic col-
>nalyses >vms (S<"<IS<"")c = 0.7090. The Odin:ind others (1978), and the microiek- umn to a radiometric column. Although sochion age was calculated using the re- titc ages of Glass and others (1973) and many Rb-Sr glauconite ages may be young cnily propos'J decay constant ofARb"' Class and Zwart (1977) indicate a much because of the preferential loss of radi-1.42 >c 10 ") r 'Strigrr and Jager, 1978). younger agc for the boundary, bcrwecn 33 ogenic Sr rclaiive to Rb" (Tchompson and The Rb.Sr mass spec(rometry was pcr- and 35 m.y. Odin and others (197S) dc- Hower, 1973), thc agreement of the Rb-Sr oin>cd with a single-focusing, 12-in., tcrinined'lavconitc ages of marine se- isochron age of the Castle Haync Limestone riple-fifamcnl mass sprclromcter. Data quences in England (type Bart<>n beds) and with published ages from Europe, Africa, I
vere collrctccl and a>>alyzcJ with a Nuclide in Ccrmany and suggested that the age of and North America indicates thar this is not
)AICS-Ill auio:nation anil da(a-reduction thc I'.<>c<<>>r-Oligc>cene boundary was about a problem in this study.
'c>>'> puler sysirm. 33 m.y. In marine seqvcnccs in iNorth Th Its c>n the five glauco>>iic samples Anicrica, Cl;iss and others (1973) and Class ACK>~'0'c'VLEDChIEiNTS
~ ave alculated as an is>>chron age anJ Zwar( (1977) consideirJ;he Eocene-
- sing st-squares irgrrssion i iethod of Olig<>cene houn Jary less <han 34.2 <o 34.6 6'r thank Paul D. Fvllagar for reviewing
'ork (1966). Thc isochron plor for thc five m.y. on lhc hasis of inicrotck(i<c ages; this the rnanvccript and for allowing use of thc lauconiic sa:>>plrs indicates an agc of 34.8 cc>nclvsi<>n is si>pporirJ hy (he gbuo>nitc n>ass slwc(romc<er. John Howcr also rc-I m.y. f<>r thc Ence.ne Castle Haync ai>cl hrni<>ni(c ages of Chosh (1972) from vicwcJ thc manuscript and provided many
.imrstc>nc >c ith an initial (S<">ISr"") i>>urine 'exp<>surrs in Mississippi and helpful suggrs:ions. This study was par-
).70S3 4 0.0()l)4 (hg. 4). Al;>ha<na. D:>ta from>>onmarinc scdimrnts tially funded by grant no. S29 from thc Norih Carolina Board bf Science and Technology.
CASTLE HA YNE LIMESTONE REFERENCES CITED vv< >004> yW Books, R. S., )978, Slratiigraphy of the Lime><onc in three quarries of the Euccoc'an<re Coastal P)oin of Sooth CoioIinai South Ca<oIina CcoIogic Notes. v. 2), p. 85-
)49.
V 4\ >0NII Baum, C. R., Harris, W. B., and Zul)o, V. A
)978, Sir<>>igraphic revision of the cxm>cd vv> 100vf rniddle Ec>cene to lower hlioccnc fo<ma-v4l >00v4 tio'ns of Norih Caiolini>> Sou<hcasicrn Crology, v. 20, p. 1-)9.
,> ~
Baom, C. R., aod o:hers, )980, Co<<eh<ion of T" 34.8 + 1 ~.y. the Foc<<nc ><<a<a of the Co<oiinas> South vVI >04< Caiolina Geologic Noics, v. 24, p. )9-27.
(Sr 87~Sr 86) .7083 -.000'4 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-
~> 0> Su>>ic implico<ioos for ccgiooal gco)ngy and
$ ~ 0 ~ S >0 >$ >0 j> 40 ~S polrohiogcvgiaphy: Le<hola, v. 5, p. )95-Ro c >/Ss 00 2)5.
Brown, P. h1., )918, Wc)i logs fioin ihc coastal 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 pl.>in of Nui<h Cx<o)in>>>i Nvi<h Co<olioa i:>>ci<c>or. Ncw Hanc>vcr Cc>univ. Nc>r(h Cate>lii>a. Dcpoc<mcnt of Co>>~rvo<)oi> hand Dcvclop-
1 HnRRIS A(NI) /Ill.t.()
>>>Ci>t Iti>lla:ti>> 7 ~ S>II p h1.><<~sr><<h<>sn unit of I'cc:Jce Forw>ation s<<>>> c>>I yr<>chron<<la>gy. Cwnae<wi<>n a>n thc 8><<avn. P. M.. 19(,l. Thr gri>h>gy nf no<<he.Icier>> (U;>per Crr(acroust, Nor(h Csrolinl( (!cot- war (>f itrcsy c(>n>asms in gavchsonvlngy a<<<>sth (.ss<)tins: Yurth Ca((>'tins l)rp.>ri <)gy~ v. 4. p. 76 I -76 '. an J ciia>>>aichr<>note>gy. In Cobcc, C. V, ~ (IAJ It o( C()ncrrv:>ti(>n anil ')a'vrh>p>>>r>><, I4;)iris, %'. B.,'n J Baum. C. R., 1977, <<sl>rrs, rds:, Tbc gc<<la>gic time s<<ale(
A>>nusl I'irlal (:<<>>(r(a'wcr, Atl.>>>tic I'c>ra>>>>:>>frra and Rb Sr gboconiir ages A(a Amrr>c.aw Ac >>cia(inn of P<<tsc)lr>>m Grol.
s>st t'bin. I>)tr(>arne Hrsw((>n Formic<<>w (>>>I<<'rup iA <<giats, Si>>dies in Crnh>gy 6, p. 67-71.
8<(>w>>, P. h4., Miller, J. A.,:i>id Swsii>. I'. M., N<ir(h (:sr>>tins: Geol<<gical Society of Sirphr>>w>A, I W., 1912, Tbe C<r:sees)us for.
l I 972. St ruct <<r:it:> w<l s< r t iy r>t p hi<< America B>>llc.tin, v. 88, p. I>69-t>7s >nl(>u>>s c>f iN>>rth Csroli>>a,in Clark, V . B.,
(rsmcwc>rk anJ spa<i:>I alia(rib>><i(>>1 <>( prr- H:irri<<, 'tV. I'I.. a>>J Bo(<ino, M. L. 1974. Rb Sr :Ind c>thrrs. Thc Coastal Pbin of Nor(h mrabiliry <>f (hr Acb>>sic, Co:Is(s) I'bin, 'ti<<ly (>f Cretaceous Inbl>c gbwaunise pel ~ (:ss Ii as i<<>nh Csroli s (; 1<gic s d
~
>4osth (:ssolina to Yrw Y<>sk: (I.S. G<<>h>g. trts, N<>rth Csa>tins: Grnlogicsl So<<icty vf Fcm>nmic Siirvry. v. 3, p.73-170.
ical Survey I'rn(rsaiwn:>I Pst><<r 796, 79 p. An)csi<<'a Pauttrti>>, v. 85, p. 1475 1478. Tssling, I). H...>>>al hlitchrll, JG., 1976, Rcviccd B)bell, L M.,1975, h1iJJIc 'Eo<<r>>c c<>lcarrwws Harris, W. 8., Zullu, V. A., snJ 8:iu>n, C. R., (:ma>zi>>c polarity time scale( Ger~>>gy, v. 4 nannc>fossils at I.i((lc 5(ave (:rrrk, 1979, Trc(o>>ic c(frcrs on Cressrrous, p. 133-136.
Abbsma> T>>lane Siudies iw Gr<>h>gy snd Pstrogr>>c, s>>J carly Yc(>gene srJimenta- Thompson, G. R., snd Howcr, J., 1973, An cx-Palrvmc>logy, v. I I, nn. 4, p. 178-252. ti(>>), Y>>nh Carolina, in Bourn, G. R, .>nd pl.>nsti<>n (nr low radiomr(ric ages from Csnu, F., and Bssster, R. A., 1920, talos(h A>>>cri ~
<>(hers, rds., Structural snd straiigraphic glsuc<>>ii>c: Crvcbimics et Co<<ma>chimica csn carly Tertiary Brv<<zc>i>> U.S. Ylii<<n>>l framework for the Coastal Plain <>f North Ac(s, v. 37, p. 1473-1491.
Museum Bulletin 106, 879 p. ('ai<<>!i>>at Carolina Crotngi<<'al 5<>cicty Field Turco, K. I'., Sekel, D., and Harris, >>V. B., 1979, Cbrk, IX(. 8.,:909, Sosnc Iesuhs wfsn i>>v<<wtiga- Trip Guidrbasok, p. 17-29. S(rstigcspbic rcconnsissanrc of the calcare-t>osl if thc Coastal Pls>A fns>>>st)uA (If H.>>ct, J. I'... an J others, 1977, Bi<>>tratigssphy of ous nsnnofossils from ()>r Yorth Carolina
~
Coss(al Plain: ll Loavrr to enid.Cenozoic(
(bc'rea between hIsssschu>r<ts s>>J Y<>rth the alrcp a.occhotc (Clubba>vse Crossroads Carolina: Crotogicst Society of America C<<rrha>le I) near ('hsrlcston, South Geological Socirry of America Abstracts Bulle in, v. 20, p. 646-654.
1912, The cosccbtiun of the Cuss(sl Pk>in fosm:itions of Yonh Ca<nlina, in Cbrk, Carolina, in Rankin, D. W'., cd., Studies re-laird to rhe Charleston, South Carolina, csnhquskc vf 1886 A preliminary rc.
ivith Programs, v. 9, p. 216.
>)."srd, L <<V., Ll<<:scncc, D. R., an J Btsckavrtdrr, B. IV., 1978, Stratigraphic revision of thc
'aV. Bsnd others, The Coastat Plain of ports U.S. Crologicat Survey Professional sniddlc Eocene, Otigocenc, and lower Yoah Carolina: Yor(h Carolina Cculogicsl Paper I()28, p. 71-89. htio;cnc Atlantic Coastal Plain of North snd Economic Survey, v. 3, p. 304-330. Krllum, L B., 1925, The sge of thc Trent marl in ,
Carolina: U.S. Ccological Survey Bvttr<in Cher(harn. A. H., 1961, Agc of (bc Castle Hsync Nonh Carolina( Journal of Geology, v. 33, 1457-F, 23 p.
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
- p. 183-187.
1926, I'slenntology and s(raiiy<aphy of the (ex(le Hsync snd Trent marts in Noah C'ard, L W., snd others, 1979, 5(ra<igraphic re-vision of Eocene, Oligocene and lower h(incenc formarions of 5nurh Carolina(
st(at>graphy i>f Saiwth (:sr<
- p. 272-366.
- v. 40, 8 p. <<'sl 5(~ic<y Field Trip Cwialrbook, p.31-Pllrogrne nuwirsia'll rima ca'atc, in (:<>hn; k>>catt. (L S., I97)a, (I I'h. Rh Sr. snJ K-Ar 40.
- Amrric.>n Asaa><<'i >(i<<>> uf Pc (r<>lcm>i v<'I<
>)r>>t c>f
>it t>crmw(>st Appsla- htA>ctss( x)PT R) r(,)YL'(1 )IY TI<(, 5()c;((TY F(',8 ngists, Sti>dies in Gr<<l >yy 6, p. 213- chi.>>> (><<iyr>>. Abl>s(ns I I'h.l). <hesiat: Tai- Ru*RY 14, 1980 t(>b.)sa(x', H(>ric U>>ivrsairy. 196 p. Rhu)s).)) htA>cvsa x>( z R) e(.<v(,s) htAY 27, 1(780 Harris, W. 8.. 1976, Rh Sr gt.>>>a(>ni<c ica>chn>>>, Striyir, R. I4...>i>al J.>gir, I'., 1978, Sa>hcn>nmis- hIA'HUscx>I'r A<<('(,>'r(:u Jts>cs. I'. 1980
- 2) collected by me but not studied by ~Vorsley and Turco (1979) gr" phic ranges beginning above the middle Eocene have not been
- ! tolngical Comribucions, Article 62. p. 1~25.
- p. I"73-1491. hIAYVSCR>c'r RsCEsvsD BY TIIK Sc>CIETV hIAY 2l. I981 Upchusch, hl. L., l979, Sponge bracing hasdgcounds in thc Castle Haync hixit:scsvrr Acczrrzo Jvbv 7, 1981 lV. BURLEIGH HARRIS Deparrncessc of Earth Sciences, Uni>'ersirJ of h'onh Carolina ar H'ilmingron.
- hc vppcr Santcc Lintcs(one of Baum and others (1980) (= Cubi(<<Ps- Corchofc fC!ubhousc Crossroads Coicho!e I) near Char!<<stun, South (fee sr'icefcriiiis zone) of 36.7>> 0.6 m.y. and the Cross Formation 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-of 34.1>> 1.5 m.y. Thc Ics(tie(cd Santee Limestone of Baum and (08!Fal Survey Piofcssiooa! Paper I028f. p. 71-89.
- 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 hfxhi:sex(I r kcc rivao av r(ir Sc+I<<rv Junc 22, !981 bios'.ra(i-raphic da:a. If the complexity of Castle Haync facies is hfo Yvsciiii'r Acccvrrn JI:cv 7. !981
- 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.
- h 87Rb 3ones o concluded this was the more likely alternati ve. He also state d I
- oraminifers, f Z
- Rhombodinium draco Gocht, 1955, defines the base of Costa and Downie's overlying R.
- 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.
- sta L.~ l.,) and Downie, C., l976, Thee distribution of the dino 'noflaag ellate Wetzeliella in uro e: Palaeontology) v. 19, p.. 591-Rb-Sr Hayne Limestone, )Nor th Carolina: Geological Society 591-610.
- e, zel, J.E., Edwards, L.E., and Bybell L.M., in press, Applicationn of a biostratigraphic magnetostratigraphic moodel and a new time scale to t e e an y
- v. l3, p. 131-145.
- l. 29 p.. 469-472.
- 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
- -'~~)'c Eocene, with climatic zones expanding poleward (Berggren, 1978). Qgs Vs Two events took place 1 during the Eocene, however, that drastically reversed thus trend for the. Atlantic Ocean. During the late Early I
- ~ ~ ~ I ~
- wS~
- occurs only as erosional remnants. It is impossible to determine the xg4 I .~r ~
- l~L.;
- outcr o ps of Castte
- n. 4, p. 3.61-162.
- p. 59-60.
- p. 304-330.
- IN ~ ~ ~~ ~ s Cape Lookoul I
- :::I P LEISTOCEttE UNITS A
- p. 105-116.
- he>>< f>>r>>>:itioii>> arc, more likely, the pr<>d- A c(>>1'Ip<> Itc salnplc <>f thc gl:I>> o>>l<IC i>><>l<)pic (lilliliu>> pr<>ccd>>rcs. A teel>>>iquc lictb <>f >>>1r"lb.l>>>>I:il c>>vlf>>>>i>>C>lt'll (.(>>>JI '/(>>>c wl)i c()IIcctcd from thc Ice<>>'ilf'lt<)t>'pc I(!il>>g (,I I I (.'<,'I I I f; II e J C >> il>>J>>>> I.lII lOll tio>>s anal arc not indicators of contei>>- <>f thc Ca>>tlc Hayne Limcsto>>e, Ycw -cxcha>>gc <<ulumn>> also was emplo>'cd for porcncity. The time-transgrcbsivc>>at>>re of Hanover C<>ui>ty, North Carolina. Five separation o( Rb and Sr (Russell, 1978). In Santee-Ca>><le Hay>>c hiofacics vvas allu Jcd gbuconitc concentrates werc scp.iratcd on addition, Fe was scparatcd froril all Sr to by Cooke and MacNcil ((952, p. )4)t thc basis <>f grain size and cxtcrnal sainplcs using these small columns. The re-m<>rph<)1<> y into sa>>>pie>> dcsig>>a leJI sults arc shown in Table 1. Rb and Sr 1< is no< su(p(i>>i>>g that the bunas of ihe San. AM I -100HT; M ikt I - 100HM; M )vt I- blanks werc collected in order to monitor Iee, Castle Hayne, and Ocab lime>>lone>> are 100HF; ht M I -70HF; a>>d MM 1-70HT. contaminati<>>> c>>countered in handling and sumewha< simibr, for Ih(M th(ee f0<>>l:>>kin') The sample>> werc further p<cp:Ite J for preparing the samples for analysis. Analysis Iep(c>>ent simibr facie>>. Tbe S4n(ee and Ca>>t(e iiunas were nut cec<>gnired a>> (>I analysis:>c(.'<>rding I<> the prnccdurc dc- of thc blanks