Geology topics

John F. Taylor

Publications and source records attributed to John F. Taylor.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Poplar Island: Understanding the development of a beneficial use restoration site

Poplar Island, like many other islands throughout the Chesapeake Bay, eroded from 460 hectares in 1847 to only 1.5 hectares by the 1990’s. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland Department of Transportation, and numerous other state and federal agencies selected this site as the location of a beneficial use project aimed at restoring remote island habitat in the Chesapeake Bay using clean dredge material. While monitoring efforts since the beginning of restoration efforts have documented extensive use of Poplar Island by numerous species across multiple taxa, these efforts have previously lacked context regarding underlying habitat patterns. However, such information is especially important on a site like Poplar Island where habitat distribution and availability can change dramatically between years due to ongoing construction efforts. To address this information gap we digitized annual aerial imagery of Poplar Island from 2006-2017 into 20 habitat classes. The resulting data layers demonstrate the transition of cells along the eastern side of the island from undeveloped cells to planted marsh cells, which matches trends seen in avian monitoring data. Similarly, our data display changes in the distribution of specific resources such as sand across the island, and how individual locations of interest such as constructed habitat islands have evolved over time. We believe that these data will provide critical insight into the factors influencing wildlife distribution patterns on Poplar Island, and will allow for the identification of management actions that may either be targeted or avoided in the planning of future beneficial use projects.

Maryland↗

USGS2016

Proposed Auxiliary Boundary Stratigraphic Section and Point (ASSP) for the base of the Ordovician System at Lawson Cove, Utah, USA

T he Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the base of the Ordovician System is at the First Appearance Datum (FAD) of the conodont Iapetognathus fluctivagus at Green Point in Newfoundland, Canada. Strata there are typical graptolitic facies that were deposited near the base of the continental slope.We propose establishing an Auxiliary boundary Stratotype Section and Point (ASSP) at the FAD of I. fluctivagus at the Lawson Cove section in the Ibex area of Millard County, Utah, USA. There, strata consist of typical shelly facies limestones that were deposited on a tropical carbonate platform and contain abundant conodonts, trilobites, brachiopods, and other fossil groups. Cambrian and Ordovician strata in this area are ~5300m thick, with the Lawson Cove section spanning 243m in three overlapping segments. Six other measured and studied sections in the area show stratigraphic relationships similar to those at Lawson Cove. Faunas have been used to divide these strata into 14 conodont and 7 trilobite zonal units. The widespread olenid trilobite Jujuyaspis occurs ~90cm above the proposed boundary at Lawson Cove; this genus is generally regarded as earliest Ordovician. Rhynchonelliform and linguliform brachiopods are common to abundant and are useful for correlation. The FAD of Iapetognathus fluctivagus and occurrences of Jujuyaspis and the Lower Ordovician planktonic graptolite Anisograptus matanensis all occur within a 2.4m interval of strata at a nearby section. Non-biological correlation tools include a detailed sequence stratigraphic classification and a detailed carbon-isotope profile. Especially useful for correlation is a positive 13C excursion peak ~15cm below the proposed boundary horizon. All of these correlation tools form an integrated framework that makes the Lawson Cove section especially useful as an ASSP for global correlation of strata with faunas typical of shallow, warm-water, shelly facies.

Utah↗

USGS2015

Cambrian–Ordovician of the central Appalachians:Correlations and event stratigraphy of carbonate platform andadjacent deep-water deposits

This trip seeks to illustrate the succession of Cambrian and Ordovician facies deposited within the Pennsylvania and Maryland portion of the Great American Carbonate Bank. From the Early Cambrian (Dyeran) through Late Ordovician (Turinan), the Laurentian paleocontinent was rimmed by an extensive carbonate platform. During this protracted period of time, a succession of carbonate rock, more than two miles thick, was deposited in Maryland and Pennsylvania. These strata are now exposed in the Nittany arch of central Pennsylvania; the Great Valley of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; and the Conestoga and Frederick Valleys of eastern Pennsylvania and Maryland. This fi eld trip will visit key outcrops that illustrate the varied depositional styles and environmental settings that prevailed at different times within the Pennsylvania reentrant portion of the Great American Carbonate Bank. In particular, we will contrast the timing and pattern of sedimentation in off-shelf (Frederick Valley), outer-shelf (Great Valley), and inner-shelf (Nittany arch) deposits. The deposition was controlled primarily by eustasy through the Cambrian and Early Ordovician (within the Sauk megasequence), but was strongly infl uenced later by the onset of Taconic orogenesis during deposition of the Tippecanoe megasequence.

Pennsylvania, Maryland↗

USGS2015

Field trip guidebook for the post-meeting field trip: The Central Appalachians

The lower Paleozoic rocks to be examined on this trip through the central Appalachians represent an extreme range of depositional environments. The lithofacies we will examine range from pelagic radiolarian chert and interbedded mudstone that originated on the deep floor of the Iapetus Ocean, through mud cracked supratidal dolomitic laminites that formed during episodes of emergence of the long-lived Laurentian carbonate platform, to meandering fluvial conglomerate and interstratified overbank mudstone packages deposited in the latest stages of infilling of the Taconic foredeep. In many ways this field trip is about contrasts. The Upper Cambrian (Furongian) and Lower Ordovician deposits of the Sauk megasequence record deposition controlled primarily by eustatic sea level sea level fluctuations that influenced deposition along the passive, southern (Appalachian) margin of the paleocontinent of Laurentia. The only tectonic influence apparent in these passive margin deposits is the expected thickening of the carbonate stack toward the platform margin as compared to the thinner (and typically shallower) facies that formed farther in toward the paleoshoreline. Carbonates overwhelmingly dominate the passive margin succession. Clastic influx was minimal and consisted largely of eastward transport of clean cratonic sands across the platform from the adjacent inner detrital belt to the west during higher order (2nd and 3rd order) regressions. In contrast, Middle and Upper Ordovician deposits of the Tippecanoe megasequence record the strong influence of tectonics, specifically Iapetus closure. The first signal of this tectonic transformation was the arrival of arc-related ash beds that abound in the active margin carbonates. Subsequent intensification of Taconic orogenesis resulted in the foundering of the carbonate platform under the onslaught of fine siliciclastics arriving from offshore tectonic sources to the east, creating a deep marine flysch basin where graptolitic shale and sandstone turbidites accumulated. The foreland basin thus created would fill with progressively coarser and more shallow/proximal clastic facies through the Upper Ordovician, culminating in deposition of fluvial redbeds that cap the Taconic clastic wedge. Arguably the most controversial rocks within the Tippecanoe Sequence in this area are unusual, Lower Ordovician deep marine facies that are associated with the much younger flysch of the Martinsburg Formation in the Great Valley of eastern Pennsylvania. Long considered the erosional remnants of a Taconic-style thrust sheet, and referred to as the Hamburg Klippe, these deep marine deposits have recently been reinterpreted as olistostromal deposits that were introduced by gravity sliding into the flysch basin contemporaneous with Martinsburg deposition. Besides their constituent lithofacies, rocks of the Sauk and Tippecanoe megasequences also present a stark contrast in faunas. Cambrian and Lower Ordovician faunas predate the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE), a global event that saw unprecedented diversification within many major invertebrate groups (mollusks, corals, and bryozoans to name a few) that previously were only minor components of the marine fauna. Unfortunately, the much higher diversity of Middle and Upper Ordovician faunas wrought by the GOBE is somewhat muted in this region by the stresses introduced by conversion of the Appalachian shelf into a flysch basin. Another noteworthy difference between the Cambrian and Ordovician biota related to the paleogeographic setting of the rocks to be examined on this trip derives from their evolution in the shallow marine environments of Laurentia. Several shelf-wide extinctions decimated the shallow marine faunas of the Laurentian shelf through the late Cambrian producing stage-level biostratigraphic units known as biomeres. The biomere phenomenon is discussed in this guidebook and a few stops to examine Cambrian faunas and one biomere boundary extinction are included to provide contrast with stage boundary extinctions that occurred later, in the Ordovician, that lack the defining attributes of the biomere boundary extinctions. Again, it’s all about contrast.

Central Appalachians↗

USGS2012

Biostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy of the Cambrian-Ordovician great American carbonate bank

The carbonate strata of the great American carbonate bank (GACB) have been subdivided and correlated with ever-increasing precision and accuracy during the past half century through use of the dominant organisms that evolved on the Laurentian platform through the Cambrian and the Ordovician. Trilobites and conodonts remain the primary groups used for this purpose, although brachiopods, both calcareous and phosphatic, and graptolites are very important in certain facies and intervals. A series of charts show the chronostratigraphic units (series and stages) currently in use for deposits of the GACB and the biostratigraphic units (zones, subzones, and biomeres) whose boundaries delineate them. Older and, in some cases obsolete, stages and faunal units are included in the figures to allow users to relate information from previous publications and/or industry databases to modern units. This chapter also provides a brief discussion on the use of biostratigraphy in the recognition and interregional correlation of supersequence boundaries within the Sauk and Tippecanoe megasequences, and the varied perspectives on the nature of biostratigraphic units and their defining taxa during the past half century. Also included are a concise update on the biomere concept, and an explanation of the biostratigraphic consequences of a profound change in the dynamics of extinction and replacement that occurred on the GACB in the Early Ordovician when the factors responsible for platformwide biomere-type extinctions faded and ultimately disappeared. A final section addresses recent and pending refinements in the genus and species taxonomy of biostratigraphically significant fossil groups, the potential they hold for greatly improved correlation, and the obstacles to be overcome for that potential to be realized.

AAPG Memoir↗

USGS2012

Sequential development of platform to off-platform facies of the great American carbonate bank in the central Appalachians

In the central Appalachians, carbonate deposition of the great American carbonate bank began during the Early Cambrian with the creation of initial ramp facies of the Vintage Formation and lower members of the Tomstown Formation. Vertical stacking of bioturbated subtidal ramp deposits (Bolivar Heights Member) and dolomitized microbial boundtsone (Fort Duncan Member) preceded the initiation of platform sedimentation and creation of sand shoal facies (Benevola Member) that was followed by the development of peritidal cyclicity (Daragan Member). Initiation of peritidal deposition coincided with the development of a rimmed platform that would persist throughout much of the Cambrian and Early Odrovician. At the end of deposition of the Waynesboro Formation, the platform became subaerially exposed because of the Hawke Bay regression, bringing the Sauk I supersequence to and end. In the Conestoga Valley of eastern Pennsylvania, Early Cambrian ramp deposition was succeeded by deposition of platform-margin and periplatfrom facies of the Kinzers Formation. The basal Sauk II transgression during the early Middle Cambrian submerged the platform and reinitiated the pertidal cyclicity that had characterized the pre-Hawke Bay deposition, This thick stack of meter-scale cycles is preserved as the Pleasant Hill and Warrior Formations of the Nittany arch, the Elbrook Formation of the Great Valley, and the Zooks Corner Formations of the Conestoga Valley. Deposition of peritidal cycles was interrupted during deposition of the Glossopleura and Bathuriscus-Elrathina Biozones by third-order deepening episodes that submerged the platform with subtidal facies. Regressive facies of the Sauk II supersequence produced platform-wide restrictions and the deposition of the lower sandy member of the Gatesburg Formation, the Big Spring Station Member of the Conococheague Formation, and the Snitz Creek Formation. Submergence of the platform was initiated during the late Steptoean ( Elvinia Zone) with the epansion of extensive subtidal thrombotic boundstone facies. Vertical stacking of no fewer than four of these thrombolite-dominated intervals records third-order deepening episodes separated by intervening shallowing episodes that produced peritidal ribbony and laminated mudcracked dolostone. The maximum deepening of the Sauk III transgression produced the Stonehenge Formation in two separate and distinct third-order submergences. Circulation restriction during the Sauk III regression produced a thick stack of meter-scale cycles of the Rockdale Run Formation, and the lower Bellefonte Dolomite of the Nittany arch (central Pennsylvania). This regressive phase was interrupted by a third-order deepening event that produced the oolitic member of the lower Rockdale Run and the Woodsboro Member of the Grove Formation in the Frederick Valley. Restricted circulation continued into the Whiterockian, with deposition of the upper Rockdale Run and the Pinesberg Station Dolomite in the Great Valley and the missile and upper parts of the Bellefonte Dolomore and the Nittany Arch region. This deposition was continuous from the Ibexian into the Whiterockian; the succession lacks significant unconformities and there are no missing biozones through this interval, the top of which marks the end of the Sauk megasequence. During deposition of the Tippecanoe megasequence, the peritidal shelf cycles were reestablished during deposition of the St. Paul Group. The vertical stacking of lithologies in the Row Park and New Market Limestones represents transgressive and regressice facies of a third-order deepening event. This submergence reached its maximum deepening within the lower Row Park Limestone and extended with the Nittany arch region with deposition of equivalent Loysburg Formation.. Shallow tidal-flat deposits were bordered to the south and east by deep-water ramp deposits of the Lincolnshire Formation. The St. Paul Group is succeeded upsection by ramp facies of the Chamersberg and the Edinburg Formations in the Great Valley, whereas shallow-shelf sedimentation continued in the Nittany-arch area with the depostion of the Hatter Limestoen and the Snyder and Linden Hall Formations. Carbonate deposition on the great American carbonate bank was brought to an end when it was buried beneath clastic flysch deposits of the Martinsberg Formation. Foundering of the bamk was diachronus, and the flysch seidments prograded from east to west.

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia↗

USGS2008

The record of time in cratonic interior strata: Does exceptionally slow subsidence necessarily result in exceptionally poor stratigraphic completeness?

A newly constructed a high-resolution chronostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic framework for the Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician Sauk Sequence in the cratonic interior of North America provides insight into the long-standing question of how time is recorded in sedimentary packages deposited in shallow epeiric seas across regions with exceptionally slow subsidence. It reveals that time is recorded in these strata in a manner fundamentally similar to the way it is in a number of nearshore marine-dominated sedimentary packages that were deposited under conditions of markedly higher subsidence rates. The principal consequence of slow subsidence in the cratonic interior appears largely to be a pronounced shingling of chronostratigraphic units perpendicular to depositional strike. An evaluation of relative stratigraphic completeness of the Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician of this region suggests that a number of routine interpretations and assumptions must be re-evaluated. Our results are inconsistent with the common interpretation that: (1) cratonic interior sedimentary packages are exceptionally stratigraphically incomplete; and (2) that conditions of very slow subsidence and a bathymetrically shallow shelf by themselves preclude deposition of a relatively complete record of time. In refuting these conventional assumptions, our conclusions have implications for a variety of approaches that require a fundamental understanding of the stratigraphic record of time, such as efforts to construct eustatic sea level curves and evaluations of the fossil record of evolution.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2007

High-resolution sequence stratigraphy of lower Paleozoic sheet sandstones in central North America: The role of special conditions of cratonic interiors in development of stratal architecture

Well-known difficulties in applying sequence stratigraphic concepts to deposits that accumulated across slowly subsiding cratonic interior regions have limited our ability to interpret the history of continental-scale tectonism, oceanographic dynamics of epeiric seas, and eustasy. We used a multi-disciplinary approach to construct a high-resolution stratigraphic framework for lower Paleozoic strata in the cratonic interior of North America. Within this framework, these strata proved readily amenable to modern sequence stratigraphic techniques that were formulated based on successions along passive margins and in foreland basins, settings markedly different from the cratonic interior. Parasequences, parasequence stacking patterns, systems tracts, maximum flooding intervals, and sequence-bounding unconformities can be confidently recognized in the cratonic interior using mostly standard criteria for identification. The similarity of cratonic interior and foreland basin successions in size, geometry, constituent facies, and local stacking patterns of nearshore parasequences is especially striking. This similarity indicates that the fundamental processes that establish shoreface morphology and determine the stratal expression of retreat and progradation were likewise generally the same, despite marked differences in tectonism, physiography, and bathymetry between the two settings. Our results do not support the widespread perception that Paleozoic cratonic interior successions are so anomalous in stratal geometries, and constitute such a poor record of time, that they are poorly suited for modern sequence stratigraphic analyses. The particular arrangement of stratal elements in the cratonic interior succession we studied is no more anomalous or enigmatic than the variability in architecture that sets all sedimentary successions apart from one another. Thus, Paleozoic strata of the cratonic interior are most appropriately considered as a package that belongs in a continuum of variable stratigraphic packages reflecting variable controls such as subsidence and shelf physiography. Special conditions of exceptionally slow subsidence rate, shallow bathymetry, and nearly flat regional shelf gradient are manifest mostly by the presence of individual systems tracts of relatively long duration that extend for much greater distances across depositional strike than those that characterize successions deposited in more dynamic tectonic and physiographic settings. These results suggest that if other cratonic interior successions are as anomalous as reported, a low sediment supply may have played a primary role in development of their apparently condensed stratal architecture. The results also lead us to suggest that a nonvegetated lower Paleozoic landscape played a relatively insignificant role in the development of what are commonly perceived to be enigmatic stratigraphic features of sheet sandstones, particularly their widespread yet thin geometry, and a scarcity of shale and siltstone. ?? 2007 Geological Society of America.

Geological Society of America Bulletin↗