-o‘ oja-L"I“' “‘°
‘15†... 3;. . . . -
THE PRAIRIE DU CHIEN GROUP or THE
MICHIGAN BASIN
Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSTTY
ROBERT M. SYRJAMAKI
1977
é:
MSU
LIBRARIES
RETURNING MATERIALS:
PTace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beTow.
0
0X ABA?
/
" iii/a9wqggi.
FW
OCT 0 6 1999
N
ABSTRACT
THE PRAIRIE DU CHIEN GROUP OF THE
MICHIGAN BASIN
BY
Robert M. Syrjamaki
The Lower Ordovician Prairie du Chien Group of the
Michigan Basin area has received little attention in the
past. Due to a lack of drilling information and outcrops
available for study in the Lower Peninsula only two
regional studies of this Group have previously been con-
ducted, by Cohee (1945, 1947, 1948) and E118 (1967).
Within the last 10 years, however, a number of deep wells
throughout the Basin have added greatly to the information
concerning this interval and, in some areas, subsurface
control.
The purpose of this study is to delineate the
boundary contacts of the Prairie du Chien Group as well
as define the extent, distribution and lithology of this
Group in the Southern Peninsula. It is hoped that such a
detailed examination will aid in interpreting and under-
standing the evolutionary history of the Michigan Basin
in Lower Ordovician time.
Robert M. Syrjamaki
The distribution of the Prairie du Chien Group
indicates that basinal subsidence was occurring during this
time and that it was complicated by a number of factors
including isostatic sinking, subaerial erosion (Post-Knox
Unconformity surface), subsurface solution, and post-
Prairie du Chien faulting and folding (Devonian and
Mississippian in age). The Prairie du Chien Group in the
standard section is subdivided into the Oneota, the New
Richmond and the Shakopee formations. In Michigan the
writer has combined the last two into the New Richmond-
Shakopee Interval. The Oneota can be subdivided into a
lower sandy dolomite unit and an upper argillaceous dolo-
mite unit. These Lower Ordovician formations indicate a
'series of transgressions and regressions culminating in the
Post-Knox Unconformity surface at the end of Prairie du
Chien time. Activity along the Findlay and Wisconsin
Arches, flanking the Basin, is problematical. Thick
sands in NW Michigan and erosion into Upper Cambrian for-
mations in SE Michigan indicate that if these arches were
not uplifted they were at least slightly positive features
exposed to erosion by regressions of the Prairie du Chien
seas.
A karst Prairie du Chien topography developed at
the disconformity is overlain by an impermeable Glenwood
Shale and may have acted as an avenue of updip oil migra-
tion. Post-Prairie du Chien faulting created channelways
Robert M. Syrjamaki
through the Glenwood which permitted dolomitizing fluids
to create dolomite porosity in the Black River-Trenton
Formations. These same channelways later permitted oil
migration into the Black River-Trenton porosity. Thus
some of the oil flushed from the Prairie du Chien karst
zone may have found its way into Middle Ordovician, and
higher traps along fault zones, the balance of the oil
perhaps being flushed from the region into structurally
higher traps nearer the rim of the Basin, as at Lima,
Ohio. Thus oil accumulations in the Michigan Prairie du
Chien appear rather questionable.
THE PRAIRIE DU CHIEN GROUP OF THE
MICHIGAN BASIN
BY
.Tï¬3c\
Robert MQLSyrjamaki
A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Geology
1977
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express his deepest appreci-
ation to Dr. C. E. Prouty, Chairman of the Guidance Com-
mittee, under whose general guidance and supervision this
study was undertaken, for his kindly suggestions and
never-ending assistance.
Thanks are also extended to Dr. James H. Fisher and
Dr. Duncan Sibley for their helpful suggestions and criti-
cal examination of the manuscript.
Gratitude is expressed to Mr. Ron Elowski of the
Michigan State Geological Survey for providing me with
many of the well samples and gamma ray logs used in this
study.
Sincerest gratitude is expressed to my parents,
Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Syrjamaki, for their encouragement
and financial support during the course of this study as
well as to Dr. Carole J. Taber for her clerical assistance,
encouragement and patience with me in finishing this
manuscript.
ii
General 0 O O O O O O O 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES O C O O O O O O O O O 0
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTRODUCT I ON 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 0
Purpose and Scope . . . . . . Z .
Procedure--Method of Study . . . .
Reliability of Data . . . . . . .
PREVIOUS WORK AND NOMENCLATURE . . . .
STRUCTURE . O O O O O O C O O O C O O
STMT IGRAPHY . O O O O O O O O O O O 0
General . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Upper Cambrian .
Lower Ordovician . . . . . . .
Middle Ordovician . . . . . .
Prairie du Chien Group . . . . . .
oneOta O O O C O O O O O O O O
Lithology . . . . . . . .
Correlation . . . . . . .
Distribution and Thick ess
New Richmond-Shakopee Interval
Li tho logy O O O O O O O 0
Correlation . . . . . . .
Distribution and Thickness
iii
Page
vi
9 mwNH H‘
INTERPRETATION . . . . . . .
Structural Framework . .
Stratigraphic Framework
Distribution Related to the Structural
Framework . . . . . .
Lithology . . .
Model for Prairie du Chie
PETROLEUM OCCURRENCE . . . .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . .
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . .
n
De
position
Appendix I--Sub-Prairie du Chien well
Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix II--Stratigraphic Succession
Chart in Michigan . . . . . . . . .
Appendix III--Well Listings, Locations,
FOOtage O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Appendix IV--Sample well Descriptions
iv
Page
62
62
69
75
85
92
96
101
102
109
109
110
111
125
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Wells Used in Stratigraphic Correlation . . . . 35
2. Well Listings, Locations, Footage
(Appendix III) C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 111
3. Sample Well Descriptions (Appendix IV) . . . . . 125
LIST OF FIGURES
Development of Lower Ordovician Nomen-
clature in Northern Michigan . . . .
Regional Structure Map of Michigan and
EnVironB O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Geologic Map Showing Prairie du Chien
Outcrop Locations in Michigan and
Eastern Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . .
Cross Section A-A'--Berrien Co. to
Charlevoix Co. . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross Section B-B'--Cass Co. to St.
Clair CO I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Cross Section C-C'--Berrien Co. to
Monroe CO C O O O O O O O O O O O I 0
Cross Section D-D'-—Cass Co. to Huron
CO. 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0
Cross Section E-E'--Charlevoix Co. to
Sanilac Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross Section F-F'--Cross Correlation
Around Ragin O O O O O O O O I O O 0
Regional Map of Lower Michigan Showing
Stratigraphic Correlation Lines A-A'
thru F"?‘ o o o s o o e o o o o o o 0
Typical Gamma Ray-Neutron Well Log . .
Generalized Column and Stratigraphic
Correlation Chart . . . . . . . . . .
Structure Contour of the Michigan Basin
on Top of the Glenwood . . . . . . .
vi
Page
10
18
19
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
43
52
63
Figure Page
9. Structure Contour of the Michigan Basin on
Top of the Prairie du Chien . . . . . . . . . 64
10. Structure Contour of the Michigan Basin on
Top of the Trempealeau . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11. Example of En Echelon Faulting Along the
Howell Anticline in Shiawassee County . . . . 67
12. Proposed Displacement Along a Left Lateral
Fault on a Typical Structural Contour
map 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 67
13. Total Isopach of the Prairie du Chien Group . . 76
14. Isopach of the New Richmond-Shakopee Interval . 81
15. Geologic Cross Section: Alger County,
Michigan--Walworth County, Wisconsin . . . . 87
16. Restored Section of the Prairie du Chien
Group Prior to Deposition of the Glen-
"00d Fm. O I O O O O O O O . O O O O O O O O O 91
17. Sub-Prairie du Chien well Locations
(Appendix I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
18. Stratigraphic Succession in Michigan
(Appendix II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
vii
INTRODUCTION
General
The Lower Ordovician of the Michigan Basin is a
little worked and poorly understood sequence of carbonates
and clastics that locally may be of interest in petroleum
exploration. In Ohio (Morrow County, etc.) Cambro-
Ordovician oil and gas has been found to be closely associ-
ated with the Post-Knox Unconformity, usually in erosional
remnants of the Upper Cambrian Copper Ridge (Trempealeau),
and in the Middle Ordovician Chazy (Glenwood) carbonates.
Little detailed work has been done in Michigan on
the Lower Ordovician Prairie du Chien Group for several
reasons: (1) deep wells into the Cambrian are scarce and
usually far apart geographically; (2) the Prairie du Chien
has been eroded to a surface of high relief by the Post-
Knox Unconformity and the overlying St. Peter Sandstone
is missiga from three quarters of the state; (3) the exact
contacts between the Glenwood and Prairie du Chien (Middle
Ordovician-Lower Ordovician), and the Prairie du Chien and
Trempealeau (Lower Ordovician-Upper Cambrian) have not
been established and are disputed by various workers in
the field; and (4) as no outcrops of the Prairie du Chien
or older rocks occur in the Lower Peninsula we are also
faced with problems in terminology of varying strati-
graphic units and criteria for correlating Lower Ordovician
and Upper Cambrian formations.
Purpose and Scope
The main purpose of this study is to delineate the
boundary contacts, extent and distribution of the Prairie
du Chien Group in Michigan and to correlate regionally
the Prairie du Chien (PdC) formations throughout Michigan.
Structural contour and isopach maps, as well as strati-
graphic cross sections, will be used to relate the strati-
graphy to the evolutionary develogment of the Michigan
Basin during Lower Ordovician time. The Prairie du Chien
crops out in the Upper Peninsula but there are few good
exposures for detailed studies and regional comparisons.
This study is confined exclusively to the Lower Peninsula
of Michigan. Because of a lack of well control and the
varying thicknesses of the Prairie du Chien Group as a
result of erosion it is inadvisable to attempt subdivision
into its standard classification, the Oneota, New Richmond,
and Shakopee formations. Likewise it is unfeasible to
attempt a detailed facies map of the Prairie du Chien
Group in the Basin because of the lack of well control,
unavailable and incomplete key well samples and the
erosional disconfonmity at the top.
It is hoped that the Michigan Prairie du Chien can
be tied in with the correlates in Illinois, Indiana, NW
Ohio and the standard section in Wisconsin as a result of
this study.
Procedure--Method of Study
A threefold approach was used in this study to
define and delineate the distribution and extent of the
Prairie du Chien Group in Lower Michigan.
(1) Gamma Ray/Neutron logs primarily were obtained
from the State Geological Survey in Lansing and the Michigan
State University Geology Department. All available logs
reaching the Lower Ordovician, Cambrian or Precambrian
were used. Because the Survey has regulations barring
removal of the logs from the premises special permission
was received to copy selected portions of the logs for
comparison and correlation. In all 105 mechanical logs
were copied and a total of 262 mechanical logs were used
to varying degrees in constructing the maps of this study
(Appendix I).
(2) Samples were used in conjunction with the logs
and were again obtained from the State Geological Survey
in Lansing and the Michigan State University Geology
Department. Most of the samples perused were rotary samples
although a few cable tool samples for shallower wells into
the Prairie du Chien were examined. The cuttings from only
43 wells were examined statewide, the majority of these
being deep wells containing the entire Prairie du Chien
interval (rotary samples). Special efforts were made to
establish the contacts between the Glenwood and Prairie
du Chien, and the Prairie du Chien and Trempealeau For-
mation. In both instances samples proved somewhat inade-
quate to the task, owing to the transitional nature of the
Lower Ordovician-Upper Cambrian lithologies, the high
degree of contamination in the sample, and the erratic
nature of the disconformity between the Middle and Lower
Ordovician. This will be discussed in detail later under
Stratigraphy. Several well samples were studied with no
mechanical logs available for comparison.
Samples were examined following the procedures
outlined in the Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines
("Examination of Well Cuttings,†Vol. 46, No. 4, 1951)
and Whiteside's Geologic Interpretations from Rotary well
Cuttings (1932). The description of samples were modified
to include:
Coarse Clastics (Sandstones)
size: fine (.125-.250 mm), medium (.25-.50 mm), coarse
(.50-l.0 mm), very coarse (1.0-2.0 mm).
shape: angular, sub angular, sub rounded, rounded, well
rounded.
surface luster: coated, pitted, frosted, clear, vitreous.
color: clear, white, gray, yellow, pink, red, brown, black.
texture: loose, cemented, porous, overgrowths, in chunks.
cement: calcareous, dolomitic, ferruginous, silicious
cherty, pyritic.
Fine Clastics (Siltstones and Shales)
size: very fine to â€invisible†grains (< .125 mm or < .1
mm .
shape: visible grains (siltstone), invisible grains-
lithified (shale).
luster: vitreous, clear, dull, opaque, earthy, resinous,
silky, waxy.
color: clear, white, red, green, gray, dk gray, brown,
black, mottled.
texture: loose, cemented (siltstone), massive, platy,
laminated, foliated, fissile, flaky, fractured.
cement: calcareous, dolomitic, ferruginous, pyritic,
silicious, cherty.
composition: sandy dolomitic, calcareous, pyritic,
micaceous, glauconitic cherty gypsiferous,
anhydritic, silty, argilaceous, ferruginous.
Carbonates (Limestones and Dolomites)
basic composition: dolomite, calcitic dolomite, dolomitic
limestone, limestone.
crystallinity: very fine (< .05 mm), fine (.05-.25 mm),
medium (.25-2.0 mm), coarse (> 2.0 mm),
lithographic, dense, rhombs.
texture: rhombic, sucrosic, microsucrosic, grainy, sub-
crystalline, oolitic, pelletal, fragmented
fossiliferous.
structure: stylolitic, fractured, laminse, banding, con-
cretious, whorls, brecciation.
color: white, buff, tan, brown, orange, red, green, purple,
black, mottled.
porosity: dense pinpoint interstitial, vuggy, cavernous,
intercrystalline.
composition: dolomitic, calcareous, argillaceous, sandy,
silicious, cherty, pyritic, anhydritic,
silty, gypsiferous.
Evaporites (Anhydrite and Gypsum)
shape: amorphous, tabular, sheet, fibrous, cleavage.
color: clear, white, gray, red, brown.
texture: soft, hard, brittle.
luster: translucent, sub vitreous, earthy, pearly, silky.
Chert
nature: primary, secondary.
color: white, gray, buff, orange, red, brown.
luster: porcelainous, earthy dull, sub vitreous.
texture: dense, banded, nodular, oolitic, vaggy.
composition: silicious, sandy, ferruginous.
Pyrite, glauconite, muscovite, vein quartz and other
'minor' minerals were recorded as they occurred.
All samples were examined under an Olympus
Binocular Microscope under a 10x combination of lenses with
maximum magnification up to 40x. Two light sources were
employed, a focused light source and a fluorescent lamp,
to accurately determine colors and details on the grains.
For identifying and differentiating carbonates a mixture
of 7 parts water to 1 part concentrated hydrochloric acid
was utilized.
(3) Along with the gamma ray logs and samples a
practical approach to assimilate the information was
employed. Comparisons of logs and samples were made
regionally and characteristic curves identified above,
below, and within the Prairie du Chien Group. A review of
the literature leads one to three assumptions:
(a) The Post-Knox Unconformity occurred at the end of
Prairie du Chien time. Thus the Prairie du Chien,
where present has an erosional surface:
(b) In Michigan, the Glenwood is transitional with.
the overlying Black River Formation: and
(c) Where the Prairie du Chien is missing, erosion
has occurred to the Trempealeau or Munising
formations.
Therefore, by starting in SE Michigan where it is well
established that the Prairie du Chien is entirely missing
a characteristic Glenwood gamma ray curve was found, and
thus the upper and lower limits of the Glenwood estab-
lished locally. Interestingly, this curve corresponds to
what Catacosinos (19733‘called the "Extra Section," sup-
posedly a basal limestone of the Black River Formation.
While it is possible to follow this curve north through
Huron County (and possibly Alpena and Presque Isle
Counties) and west along the edge of the Basin through
Lenawee, Hillsdale and Branch Counties, the curve loses
definition basinward with the increasing thickness of the
Prairie du Chien and questionable erosional contact. The
absence of a readily identifiable St. Peter Sandstone
throughout three quarters of the state (Dapples, 1955;
Balombin, 1974) also makes correlations difficult. Thus
at times the writer based local correlations on incomplete
logs and samples and believed it necessary to rely at
other times upon previous work (Cohee, 1948; Ells, 1967;
Balombin, 1974: Seyler, 1974).
Statewide correlation of the lower contact between
the Prairie du Chien and Trempealeau was established on
the basis of gamma ray-neutron logs (and samples). Again,
some difficulty occurred as a result of poor well control
and possible lateral facies changes, as well as the lack
of sufficient data on the Cambrian subsurface.
Reliability of Data
The main problems encountered in this study were
poor well coverage for the state and incomplete logs and
samples within and below the Prairie du Chien. As most
oil companies have been concerned with production from the
Trenton-Black River formations (Howell Anticline, North-
ville, Albion Scipio, Freedom fields) there are few logs
available for correlation deeper than 100 feet into the
Prairie du Chien. Therefore it was necessary at times to
correlate in complete yet discernible intervals with nearby
deep wells containing more complete Prairie du Chien
sections. At times it was deemed best to refer to the
previous work of Cohee (1948), Ells (1967), Balombin
(1974) and Seyler (1974).
In some wells sample (rotary) contamination from
overlying formations was heavy, approaching 70% in some
intervals.
PREVIOUS WORK AND NOMENCLATURE
The varying terminology employed for the Lower
Ordovician Prairie du Chien Group over the years is best
illustrated in Figure l. Sundry workers have proposed
different names for the Lower Ordovician rocks of the
Upper and Lower Peninsulas of Michigan relating them to
different type localities in nearby New York, Wisconsin
and the Upper Mississippi Valley. Confusion has resulted
from the terminology used; the difficulties encountered in
correlating stratigraphically to surrounding areas, as well
as in the Michigan Basin; the questionable age of these
rocks and the rocks below (Cambrian); the small isolated
outcrops available: and the poorly preserved fossils used
to date the formations. Therefore, important contributions
to the developmental evolution of the nomenclature in the
Michigan Basin (Upper and Lower Peninsulas) should be
briefly considered to recognize the rationale utilized by
geologists for the last 136(+) years.
In 1841 Houghton called the sandy dolomites over-
lying the Lake Superior Sandstones on the southern shore-
line of Lake Superior the "Sandy Lime Rock†(equivalent to
Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician). Subsequent workers
10
savanna: cuonuuoz cw ousunaocoaoz cm
linemae Housmamï¬m can assume
..mmmac meansum soummo
«00>oowo umSoq mo unoEQOHo>on
H ousoah
Q
m
_ .
0.0}; M
.m. use: __
. u:
.M C .08.! 1"
I .-
33.... [IL- .u
2:30 0:: :35 32â€. â€u 3.... 0:: :35 “on scat-92a cocoa-C coo-a!» 2.302930
. .u .2210: .-
_u 2....332. u
a
.25.... n . .nllll
0:333: ._ Jlj
. "H a .1
_
_
.1 It.
a. r C... 38.:
cos; .3 3.3332. n
2.3832. 2.3382. n 1
u u
1 0
u do you 3!...
1 t
u a IICIODG w n
o u
n 1 m
o
\ m o 2.2::- u s
3.5 .5 m m o o u n
\ M u Zions... m 3.50.... OIIJ â€
u u . I m l
23.33:. 2:593g m 2.2.2.: w .22..) w no.2: m m
03‘200'1 " ’.b..8. £94 I 'G. â€
2.5.23 you. .820 .00- Soogo w 3830 u
0:30.002.
1 m goo-.220 35.23.. a. o
u soon-o3 .3386 n n
m n o u
u n m an o u
m m a m :20 sou 3.52.9.3 H. a
62cc: 23.0 4.0:. T m m w u .525... .2293... n m :0... 3.2:
u I u M 05.00:! m w 60 no.0 '05:
3.30 will u c.0393 n n a 2.5.5....
lieu {0.1. 0 Scenes: M 2:01...-
23 Sean» 1.882.. 388......
. 2o .3 F. .1
EEOC!
632.3..- i .391. u M
a loo-sonic... m w.
I M
. .3!!: m s u a o n m .
9 O D I J m
m at: .1 m m is...— n n ole-cost: m 1.31.0.8: m 322.23 M 8.30308: 0 “nu.“ï¬o.†â€ï¬nance 3223.00 at...)
.81. a m m u m a m m
U D
m . m n u w
cola 3 that a
.310 3 {at u
0:030:35; .88320: 5338:
_Io_ :3 = ling: so»... 0.. (I: III... 33.00 .33 .282: 5:... t... «2.4 co...- 0 .3 3.... loo..." 2:»: 82....- uocile f 3.3.0:.
see. 58H! :2 3.. .oo. 3.. :2 on! o... 32 coo. 3.. 2... .3. .3. Y
11
such as Foster and Whitney (1851) described the same rock
sequence as the Calciferous (type section - Champlain
Valley at East Shoreham, Vermont). Rominger (1875) also
retained the term Calciferous, but on the basis of strati-
graphic position and similar lithologies included the
Chazy Limestone (from New York). Irving (1883), too,
called these sandy dolomites the Calciferous or the Lower
Magnesium (Upper Mississippi Valley terminology, Owen,
1852) referring loosely to the rock underlying the St.
Peter Sandstone and above the Cambrian strata (the Lake
Superior Sandstone - equivalent to the Potsdam Sandstone
of New York).
The name Hermansville Formation was proposed by
Van Rise and Bayley (1900) for strata in the Menominee
district of the Northern Peninsula. .They believed it to
be Lower Silurian or Ordovician in age and consist of a
coarse grained sandstone with abundant calcareous cement,
in alternation with pure dolomite or sometimes oolitic
beds. However, the authors did not give a good type
section in their report--only a general location. Lane
and Seaman (1907) retained the term Calciferous, however,
and believed the entire section to be Lower Ordovician in
age describing it as a buff-bluish dolomite, often sandy
with dolomitic white sandstone. They believed it to be
synchronous with the Lower Magnesium Limestone and thought
Bayley's (1900) Hermansville as part of this formation.
12
At Marinette County, Wisconsin, one well was described in
descending order as: Calciferous--dolomite, brown, 60 feet:
sandstone, white, 70 feet: and dolomite (Hermansville) 50
feet. They considered that this triple division may have
been equivalent (in places) to the Shakopee Dolomite, the
New Richmond Sandstone and the Oneota Dolomite of Minnesota,
respectively.
In 1936, Helen Martin, of the Michigan State
Geological Survey, compiled the â€Geologic Map of the
.Northern Peninsula of Michigan" and showed the Hermansville
to overly the St. Croixian. She considered the dolomitic
sandstones to be Ozarkian or Canadian in age. In her
â€Centennial Geologic Map of the Southern Peninsula" (1936)
she described the Canadian or Ozarkian as follows:
St. Peter
Greenish shale, red, pink,
purple, fine grained sandy
Prairie 6“ Chien magnesium limestone and
L. Magnesium
Ozarkian dolomite: white, pink, buff
oolite and dense chert.
or —————————
White dolomitic sandstone and
Canadian sandy dolomite, pure white
Hermansville sandstone, buff-red dolomite
locally very sandy, ferru-
ginous and glauconitic.
s - undifferentiated
In 1911 Ulrich proposed a controversial system
dividing the â€Eopaleozoic†era into the Cambrian, Ozarkian,
Canadian and Ordovician periods based upon unconformities
present, lithology, stratigraphic position, fauna and
13
fossil criteria, etc. His Ozarkian system included those
rocks overlying the Munising sandstones and contained
rocks of Cambro-Ordovician age. His Canadian extended
from the Ozarkian to the base of the Middle Ordovician
Chazy Formation. By Martin's time (1936) the Hermansville
was generally considered equivalent to the Ozarkian.
Berquist (1937) used the term Hermansville in his studies
of the Cambro-Ordovician contact in Alger County, Michigan,
and said it was separated from the Cambrian sandstones by
an unconformity and belonged to the Ozarkian. Thwaites
(1943) considered the term Hermansville to be equivalent
to the Trempealeau and Prairie du Chien of Wisconsin and
advised abandoning the term Hermansville because: (1) it
included both Cambrian and Ordovician rock equivalents,
and (2) the poor and incomplete description of VanHise
and Bayley (1900) for their type section did not facilitate
identification cf the formation. '
The term Au Train Formation was introduced by
Grabau in 1906 to Northern Michigan stratigraphy for the
considerable section exposed at Au Train Falls. He stated:
In the Iron Mountain region Upper Cambric fossils
are recorded from the basal sandstone but this does
not prove that the basal sandstone of Marquette and
the pictured rocks is of the same age. In fact, from
their position with reference to the transgressions
of the Cambric sea, these more northern sandstones
must be regarded as of later age than that of the
Menominee district. If the Hermansville limestone
(Auxtrains formation would be a better name from
more typical exposures on that stream) proves even-
tually to be Beekmantown rather than Chazy (that is,
14
Upper Stone River or Lowville), the late Cambric or
early Ordovician age of part of the Superior sandstone
must be conceded.
Cohee (1945) considered the Hermansville to be equivalent
to the Jordan, Trempealeau and Prairie du Chien formations
as a result of subsurface stratigraphic work in the
Michigan Basin that could be traced into northeast
Wisconsin. Cohee said the Jordan sandstone formed part
of the Hermansville with the Upper Hermansville equivalent
to the Oneota in the Northern Peninsula. He recognized
and subdivided the Prairie du Chien in the Lower Peninsula
(on the basis subsurface stratigraphy and lithology) into
the Oneota Dolomite, New Richmond Sandstone and Shakopee
Dolomite, being underlain by the Trempealeau Formation.
Cohee said the rock capping the Au Train Falls in the
Northern Peninsula is the St. Lawrence member of the
Trempealeau Formation.
Oetking (1951) studied the Lower Paleozoic rock
in the Munising area and ascribed the Au Train, on the
basis of fossils, to a Middle Ordovician age. He corre-
lated the Au Train (or Hermansville, Calciferous) to the
Platteville (Lower Middle Ordovician) of the Wisconsin
section. He attributed the missing formations to overlap
by the Black River Formation. Hamlin (1958) likewise put
the age of the Au Train as Middle Ordovician, basal Black
River, on the basis of gastropod and cephalopod fossils
and believed that a considerable unconformity separates
15
the Middle Cambrian Miners Castle and the overlying Middle
Ordovician Au Train. No angular discordance between the
Cambrian and Ordovician rock was found but he considered
that some evidence of a basal conglomerate is in the
lower units of the Au Train formation. Thus the Lower
Ordovician is missing in most of the Northern Peninsula
according to Hamlin. But according to the Michigan Basin
Geological Society (MBGS) Annual Field Excursion (1967)
certain fossil brachiopods found indicate that at least
the lower part of the Au Train Formation is Late Cambrian
supporting the contention of Thwaites and Cohee. Guldenzopf
(1969) assigned a Canadian age to the Au Train Formation
on the basis of conodont studies, relating them to the
Prairie du Chien formations in southwest Wisconsin.
Ells (1967) prepared a stratigraphic cross-section
of the Cambrian and Ordovician formations of the Upper and
Lower Peninsulas of Michigan on the basis of gamma ray logs
and similar lithologies for a limited number of wells.
Based upon a reference well in Illinois he subdivided the
Prairie du Chien Group into the Oneota, New Richmond and
Shakopee Formations. Fisher (1969) recognized the
absence of the Prairie du Chien from part of eastern
Michigan (SE) in his regional study of the "Early Paleo-
zoic History of the Michigan Basin," as did several earlier
workers, including Cohee (1945, 1948).
16
Today, as they have since 1964, the Michigan
State Geological Survey includes the Calciferous, Hermans-
ville, and Au Train in the Trempealeau (Upper Cambrian)
and the Prairie du Chien (Lower Ordovician),'for both the
Upper and Lower Peninsulas of Michigan. The Prairie du
Chien Group may be broken down into formations in places
but at this time subdivision into units regionally is not
considered practical.
Other terms less frequently used but still found
in the literature concerning the Michigan Basin are the
Beekmantown (equivalent to the Calciferous) whose type
section is Beekmantown, New York, and the Knox Sandstone
(type locality - Eastern Tennessee). Both cases represent
the introduction of terminology unsuitable for/and incon-
sistent with the present nomenclature of the Basin. Thus
the questionable age and nomenclature, especially for the
Upper Peninsula, remains a problem today, in correlating
the stratigraphy within Michigan and with the surrounding
states.
Lower Ordovician studies have been carried out: in
Wisconsin (standard section) by Thwaites (1923, 1927, 1935),
Trowbridge (1934), Kay (1935) and Ostrom (1966, 1967); in
Illinois by Workman and Bell (1943) and Buschbach (1964);
in Indiana by Gutstadt (1958): and in Ohio by Wasson
(1932), Fettke (1948), Shearrow (1959) and Calvert (1962,
1963a, 1963b, 1964). Lower Ordovician rocks are not
known to be present in southwest Ontario (Brigham, 1971).
STRUCTURE
The Michigan Basin is a roughly circular and sym-
metrical structural and sedimentary basin in the Central
Interior platform'of the United States. It encompasses
(Figure 2) the Southern Peninsula and the eastern part of
the Northern Peninsula of Michigan, Eastern Wisconsin, the
northeast corner of Illinois, Northern Indiana, Northwest
Ohio and parts of Ontario bordering Lake Huron, Lake St.
Clair and the western end of Lake Erie (Cohee and Landes,
1955). Bordering the Basin is the Algonquin Arch to the
east (Ontario), the Findlay Arch to the southeast (NW
Ohio), the Kankakee Arch to the southwest (N. Indiana),
the Wisconsin Arch to the west (C. Wisconsin) and the
Canadian Shield to the north and northeast (Canada).
Within the 122,000 square mile area of the Basin the only
exposures of the Prairie du Chien rocks are found in the
Northern Peninsula (Figure 3).
Over the years there has been much controversy
over the age and even the validity of the structures
flanking Michigan. It is generally agreed that the
Algonquin Arch was a "positive†feature in Paleozoic time.
Utilizing isopach maps, Sanford and Quillian (1959) stated
17
18
1'7
‘Wï¬ï¬OMflN
DOME
WISCONSUN
3
3
9
L AKE
SUPERIOR
UPPER
[LIMOUS m 3mm 1 OHIO
.... "E“ J?
E . .. '°° “9 .9
Figure 2
Regional Structure Map of Michigan and Environs
(After Cataogsinos (1944) and Prouty (1974))
1C»
19
- PRAlRIl'Z du CIIIEN OUTCHUI’
DOMINION
LAKE SUPERIOR 0?
CA NADA
W
\ \
\
WISCONSIN
.U
U: KP.
HURON
M
LAKE
MICHIGAN
MICI â€(M N
MW
‘ O
~—-,,.,.%.m{—— a
INDIANA I OHIO
Figure 3
Geologic Map Showing Prairie du Chien Outcrop Locations in Michigan and
Eastern Wisconsin (after Martin (1955), Hanson (1966))
20
that the transgressive overlap of Upper Cambrian units
onto the Arch indicates its presence in Upper Cambrian
time at least, while Sutterlin and Brigham (1967) give
evidence of an earlier age (Precambrian), based upon the
thinning of Upper Cambrian rocks over local Precambrian
highs, indicating that the highs were previous erosional
features prior to deposition. Cohee (1945, 1947), Kay
and Colbert (1965), and Brigham (1971) all believe that
the absence of Lower Ordovician rock from western Ontario
and southeastern Michigan was the result of intense ero—
sion at the end of Prairie du Chien time.
The presence and age of the Findlay Arch, however,
is another story. Pirtle (1932) thought the arch developed
largely in Cincinnatian time. Lockett (1947) tied the
Findlay to the Algonquin Arch but this was disputed by
Sanford (1961) who used isopach and lithologic data to
show this erroneous association, and said the Findlay Arch
was not prominent until Upper Ordovician or possibly late
Trenton time. From the apparent offlap of Upper Cambrian
units, the erosion of Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian
formations in northeast Ohio and southeast Michigan, and
the absence of Cambrian and Lower Ordovician rocks in
Ontario, Cohee (1948) inferred the presence of the Arch
in Upper Cambrian time. WOodward (1961) related the.
Findlay Arch origin to a Lower Ordovician or Upper Cambrian
age. Calvert (1964) considered the Findlay Arch to have
21
been formed in post-Lower Ordovician time by the westward
migration of the central Ohio arch or north central Ohio
arch. Others disagree to the mechanism but give a similar
age to the Arch. A Silurian origin to the Arch was given
by Janssens and Stieglitz (1974).
The Chatham Sag was thought to be a breach in the
older Findlay-Algonquin Arches (Lockett, 1947: Fettke,
1948) formed by the subsidence of the adjacent Michigan
and Appalachian Basins. Lockett and Green (1957) con-
sidered the Findlay and Algonquin Arches genetically
related and a continuation of the Cincinnati Arch. Sanford
(1961) said the arches were not tectonically related and
thought the Sag a faulted basement block along which the
Findlay Arch rose. The slight thickening of Middle
Ordovician sediments is possible evidence of an early
development of the Sag not found again until Upper Devonian
or Lower Mississippian time.
The Kankakee Arch was believed by Pirtle (1932) to
be a southwest continuation of the Wisconsin Arch of
Precambrian age. Isopachs by Cohee (1945) and Swann (1951)
indicated that the development of the Kankakee Arch did not
take place until after deposition of the Prairie du Chien
strata. This agreed with Ekblaw (1938), and later Busch-
bach (1964) who believed the broad regional structure
occurred in L-M Ordovician time. Both Pirtle and Ekblaw
believed the Arch not only separated the Michigan and
22
Illinois Basins but also connected the Wisconsin Arch to
the northwest to the Cincinnati Arch to the southeast.
Green (1957) related the structures of the Findlay and
Kankakee regions to subsidence of the surrounding basins
rather than to the uplift of the Arches. Since he saw
no arching he proposed the term Kankakee Arch be dropped.
A pre-St. Peter origin was postulated by Snyder (1968)
while Bell (1958) thought that even though the Lower
Ordovician isopachs are not very successful due to the
difficulties with the Cambro-Ordovician contact, they do
seem to show thinning.
The age of the Wisconsin Arch has been variously
assigned to Cambrian or Precambrian dates. workman (1935)
believed the Arch had a pre-St. Peter age and was dis-
sected so that formations as low as the Franconia were
removed. Cohee (1947) considered an Upper Cambrian
and Lower Ordovician age based upon: (1) the predominance
of sandstones of these ages in Eastern Wisconsin: (2) the
dolomite to sand ratio in rocks increased to the south
and east from Wisconsin: and (3) in Michigan the Eau
Clair, Trempealeau and Prairie du Chien formations were
more sandy on the west side of the Basin than on the east.
Road logs (1960, MBGS Annual Field Excursion, stops 7 and
8) from Mazomanie, Wisconsin show that the Wisconsin Arch
was positive by Jordan time due to:.(l) the thinning of
the Jordan sandstone to 18 feet over the Arch, a facies
23
change, and the presence of granules and pebbles of Baraboo
quartzite in the Jordan: and (2) the Oneota rests uncon-
formably on the thinned Jordan and 40 feet of Oneota is
overlapped along the crest of the Wisconsin Arch. Ekblaw
(1948) said the major movements of the Arch occurred in
post-Cambrian time with less movement in Cambrian time.
The origin of the Michigan Basin has been the
source of much debate since Houghton's study of the rocks
of the Northern Peninsula in 1814. Pirtle (1932) thought
that the Basin probably originated in Precambrian time.
The Wisconsin and Kankakee Arches, he believed, were the
cores of Precambrian mountains that stretched from central
Wisconsin into NW Indiana and that principle folds that
now exist in later sedimentary rocks were controlled by
trends of folding or lines of structural weakness that
existed in basement rocks. Folding by compression was
most intense in Mississippian time. Newcomb (1933) also
believed that the inherent structure of the Basin was of
Keweenawan (Precambrian) origin. He stated that the
present anticlinal trend (NW-SE) in the Basin was the
result of reactions of zones of weakness developed in the
basement during late Precambrian disturbances to the
northeast. Lockett (1947) said downwarping of the basin
was caused by sedimentary loading, causing block faulting
in the basement. The source of these sediments were
Precambrian mountains, the cores of which today are the
24
Algonquin and Findlay Arches. Cohee and Landes (1955)
were of the opinion that incipient folding of sedimentary
rocks (NW-SE) occurred intermittently in the Paleozoic
with the main diastrophic activity during the Lower
Mississippian-pre-Pennsylvanian emergence. Structural
traps were believed formed or sharpened at this time with
the greatest downwarping of the basin occurring during the
Late Salina and Middle Devonian. Green (1957) believed
that the Michigan and surrounding basins sank while the
present bordering structures remained stable, with the
age of the Michigan Basin being Niagaran. Hinze and
Merritt (1969) used geophysical as well as geological data
to state that:
The major rift zone (Mid-Michigan Gravity and Magnetic
High) is believed to have had a dominant role in the
development of the Michigan Basin. The Basin may have
originated from loading of the crust by the excess
mass of the mafic rock in the rift zone. Subsequent
deformation . . . has been associated with movements
along lines of basement weakness, apparently related
to the rift zone.
Fisher (1969), using Cambrian and Ordovician isopach maps
gave a Middle Ordovician age to the Basin. Seyler (1974)
considered a Middle Ordovician origin for the Michigan
Basin.
Prouty (1970) concludes that the basic structural
patterns of the Basin, including basement lineations and
bordering structures, was inherited from the Upper Pre-
cambrian. He relates crucial episodic events to the
â€overall picture,†and from structure and isopach maps used
25
in conjunction with facies studies indicates evidence of
the Kankakee Arch in Lower Ordovician (and later) time, the
Findlay Arch in Upper Cambrian (and later) time and the
Chathum Sag in Upper Cambrian (evidence in Middle and
Upper Ordovician). Cataqgsinos (192:9 believed a precursor
of the Michigan Basin existed back to Late Cambrian time,
at least.
A recent paper by Haxbe, Turcotte and Bird (1976)
presents a thermal contraction mechanism for the evolution
of the Michigan Basin. Their model involved mantle diapirs
rising to about the Moho, heating the lower crustal rocks,
causing their transformation from meta-stable gabbroic rocks
to eclogite. They state â€Initially the lighter mantle
rocks nearly balanced the heavier eclogite. As the mantle
rocks cool by conduction, the Basin subsided under the
load of the eclogite.â€
Structures within the Michigan Basin (Howell
Anticline, Lucas-Monroe Monocline, Albion-Scipio trend,
etc.) are generally thought to be fault controlled with
the faulting associated with the Precambrian basement
rocks (Ells, 1969: Fisher, 1969; Harding, 1974). Ells
(1962, 1969) has presented some excellent summaries on
the trends in the Basin while Prouty (1970) has summarized
notable trends within the Basin, including: (1) the NW-SE
and NE-SW folding with evident lateral faults: (2) fairly
definite radial-like fold patterns: (3) persistent joint
26
patterns at several rim locations; and (4) the shift in
the structural and isopach basin center in each system up
to the Mississippian--that must be explained in any model
of the origin of the Michigan Basin.
More recently Prouty (1976) has concluded on the
basis of LANDSAT imagery studies that lineaments gleaned
from the studies are shear faults, that most basin folds
are fault related, that the principle faulting and folding
was in pre Marshall-Mississippian time, and that the
causative shearing stresses are related to structural
activity in the east (Appalachians).
STRATIGRAPHY
General
In any consideration of the stratigraphic dis-
tribution of the Prairie du Chien Group in the Michigan
Basin the effects of the Post-Knox Unconformity (post Lower
Ordovician) upon its surface becomes of paramount impor-
tance. In southcentral Michigan erosional processes have
removed large sections of the Prairie du Chien Group while
in southeast Michigan not only is the Prairie du Chien
missing but also portions of the Upper Cambrian formations
as well (Figures 4b and 4c). Because many of the gamma
ray logs that were used in conjunction with the samples were
of limited extent beneath the unconformity surface, the
general lithology of the Upper Cambrian units must be
known and identified.
Upper Cambrian
The Munising sandstone (Figure 7) was named for
exposures at Munising, Michigan by Lane and Seaman (1907).
It included the later named (Hamlin, 1958) Chapel Rock
sandstone (equivalent to the Mt. Simon and Eau Claire
sandstone of the Southern Peninsula) and the Miners Castle
27
.—.. _._—_ is, .1
A
113,;
â€V5?
#214
v“...
:5} ve—e 34 H ties»
n, r..- r us... w-
33" P78
\ t
#70
Glenwood
Prairie
du
Chien
9
E;
A
ELLJMiga.é—-"¥Q bids:
{4" 1 A_
W :4
V
v“'l
‘r‘ ‘1
Trempealeau
Franconia
‘li
/
'YYr,‘. (i
I 'i.
" y, ., ‘1
J Q‘ ""
i
a
}‘>;,"J.
an s
, 4
4
‘ 1
:h.“ -..1.a’aA.J.41‘kij
r r fi'r‘I-TT}?
E'n’ " '
8
.0
.431
1W {'1}. 13??
‘Jlrk’o..!
T‘T
V
x
4.1... J
Trempealeau
5
8
-—-—- —_ <
P :33 ._
i
1
if}
# 20
.9 { 35.311 4-—————- 50 Miles .——+ Lug <——~ 44 Niles—’A {a a
i â€'5 >
-13.,“
iii"
11.11
)
ï¬tv v
i
â€mi
L...—
a
K - .
.
a
o
.'7,Ii'i'm
1.1.59.1}. .
/
at} yzj'vrx {“17 {v n . . ‘
t, . v. -
r "1
N
T . -
1’3““
T 7-7â€.
Q.
0‘ t
‘gi' r
1
11
11mm
ulrfdJif i quit!
‘5...)44‘11
\L
rm 97mm
x
Jo
5;}
that
11‘.
‘ T
' L
N.
4.} ’—
‘J'.|:.:.‘~Y‘J.'i', (‘4'. ‘\
.1WuhanAtaa_11{;1uitl_:n -‘ .
irjx (\T
/
Prairie
du
Chien
WWW
Trempealeau
datum
23
FIG. 4a
CROSS—SECTION A - A'
BERRIEN CO.
SCALE:
Vert.
to CHARLEVolI CO.
‘ T
# 7O
A!
L 1 l datum
WWW
/—
/
/
/
/
. ’/"
/
/ /"
/
/
/
i T
FIG. 4a
CROSS-SECTIGN fa - A'
BERRIELN CL). to CWXRLEVULY. CO.
SCALE:
ealeau Vert. Horz.
0 O T g
I'=83' 1â€: 18M
'g
datum
29
(S 3.55 â€/57: #jy7 as/g'o #3117 #252 :7 2.5“! # 232. #23,
k B +— 3] M I -—-) Mb: ‘ - L'I'T - ’ - , I
E] E5: is: LII? +175†4—— 2? H. ———> \ £935†41911194: (~27 M. ——> \ I «29“,, KL ‘______ 5-] "‘1†____, L 4—2.3MF) <5 8
G' enWOOd â€˜ï¬ 2."? ME“ ' "' ‘ WM 2‘ 4
_ , g? a; / rv-vw Glenwood ,
._..._ ï¬g) __ E3 Upper pr / d†_ .. _~ 4915“" ..
Prairie ; :3: at???" OHGOiO Ff“ Chlen \ Trempea'eau 3 H /
du a s is, \ T /
C h i en ‘5 if 39 r ' E7} \ l
. w» ,v r.-.
:1. .‘f #1,} \Eé\ \ ~+ ’ E ? I V921» hi,
£-.'.-. [11‘ \ , / ..—- r;
E :95? W†- \
:71: a†l
5 .2: “ â€m 1’ M i J
L, t". is I 1. I\ U n . .
‘ Lowe“) Trempealeau ISIng
)ugE‘, ’ . O T) e
' , w
E33 -- : /
, i E? «ct “A Ski."E 1T3 /
f a E; L E253 ?
Trempealeau {My :1 €1.53;
3 ~ Em
: . a:
.. n is .1 /
i f
i k l
i
i '3 32cc i so: Sm
FIG. 4b
CROSS SECTION 1; - 5'
53—: CASS CO. to ST. CLAIR CO
F . g SCALE:
rancoma :? / Vert. Horz
* ï¬x“ j..- o 4.5
1 \U /
WM}
III
93
:83,
Iâ€:
RMS
l3
I3Miics
ï¬r. an!“
.J'FA -44;-‘
3O
#33
I # m #700 :we? 3’7 73 a: 200
mu T‘ j> ? J \H . "
C 6_ é—l'f-> \__ E é——- 37 â€1‘55 -———> P 18’â€? fl, 5 4,921 ___> %\ L10» 3: “1‘. Q» l 23 M} \ .0 C!
x i},
Glenwood way“; W C i) < 5 Kdatum
3
(\ M‘ W My) -/
. ' M HM
U M4 / ‘2 \w ’ W
.-_. \ 33 Pper / 5—, é 4.
f \———-\ ,7le / Sm‘ 1†Raï¬ â€œ i†1:; . (2)
Prairie 3" \ \ \ / / /> ’ 3
d‘,’ \ \ \ Prairie . [ _ ~
Chien ; \ /d†e‘ é
: ‘ \ / Chien ’ I \Owo“) f
g x o“ 3 N “Z
i i n...» - 22> 3::
, 9
«<< * ! 0,0 \’ kg) S 3» ? 0)
§ 2 (EL—:> % H OTC "°°'* “
“f: “.3 S S :3.
u; "‘53:: g <6;
1 . m E
r ) ‘1 . ~-\\::4
e k 3
m 1 £40.30... “JP i. _
p g . Trempealeau g
3 27a 3 43
I
e
O
i
| â€be“ .. 3:}. 4C
‘ f 3 32.53:: — SECTION c - C'
E “a T 4_ hlf’ï¬iil.’ CO. 23 MONROE CO.
? b “Ert . Horz .
/ o a 4.5' 9
t:—
X I '_-. 52' / " = 9 Miles
52
RM;
l5:
3
m . , 4 m
.. w 1..
w .4 I WW H. M R
a L W Z 3
.. 7L. 0 l
d w ..., I 4.4 :
W44 t 3 6 fl
4 M. m m4. .. mu. run. . I
E 4.; 44.4 Z o
, mmamv m
D F 44 (w ,Qw H“
A:
m
m.
,4 4 x
w 44. 4 44 - .44/ 4A4 4 - \ .
4 444 , 4 4 u
44" c /
/\4 (52: Eéic/E
4 //
/
e O /
4 e 4 .4 .0
w. 9 en /
k 0.
S O / 0 O .m
1.. 4n. / m
.l 4 C
.d n
M m / / o w m
ow .m / m n / 444.44 06 h. F
.d .ru. H U m.» 0 «O O
m 4. p. / m.
e N. / r.
m 4 T
W . - .l!l L.
44/ . 4 4 4
.4 .2. E4< a-..»
,4: 4
4% ,. 44.45443. $44.44;... 444.....34 LEE:%& 4.444444444444424345444?
/ .4444 4
# -. \
9
4 m
U.
2
e
M! 14..
W4
44 .14 4
A, .
W /
4w .. ._ . .444... _...4.444444444.4444§444 >44 44444444444444.44444544 44.44. 44444444444444
# a; ,
4 4 \ 2
u
4 4 \ a
\ .m
i \ e n a
M .m u e \ e
l \ m .d ...m \ m.
3 P C \ e
4 \ r
\ T
14 4.4;. 44.14 m4â€; â€4... 44. 4 m4. 1 4.44
44 4. . . : _4 4
)4 ii: {(44,
4 \ .
w
[w
4. 2
. a. .4444
M .
4+ {4
M...
W.
44.4 4
$4 (he.-. .1...
4a 4 _
D d _ a
m e n Trempealeau .m
w m u m m
m a d .h n
I on C m
G F
4 4
1%? #77 #70 #220 #217 #5 > #/20 #225
* .4 4 W . Te3+4\ : “l-Jl [ 4"†57 Miles —-> K 921F119 I: 1*†~<-2:L —->_ 3... 1' 4——' /O7 Mi\es -—-—+ 54 4-1’7 —> L 4..
L Glenwood '31 3> 4 .4 __
32
I
K E
I I A f i 4. ’x (L. S4) M R'—
Writ.†. G|e"W°°d ‘ <3 “'f’i :32 Glenwood an. «444-» ’ d
:1 ‘ 0 h b <— -44 U
K m
Prairie
du
o 3 “
Chien
9.. VJH~
312.431.}
(1".
Hi:
{7
y},
’5
l
â€a
1
{W313
It {5.
I
1
1| ‘ ;
‘ L LIL
«mm "“_;2n':~<'4 44./~W ‘ 4
Ne .
w Richmond
.4 nun,“ -‘.l ..'1- .‘ \'.';'
l .. . . .... _ ‘ .- \-.-
x'-.‘ '(. _. ~".;'-;‘ - 7’“ .2.
I ~. ..'. x_-L". .‘. ..« _ .‘ I,
¢ :. '.
r .. . I...
. .m. _ .
u
H
d48h0kOPee /
New R‘Chmon / ml ‘>
ya
1
V.V."'7"_v ]
Shakopee
- H." J.‘
thi;;*;;
o 7 " ' ."
. Q [‘Li
â€3...
v v7- W, .1
y ‘ . .
. . «4' ,‘ ‘ ' /
Prairie j 4
? . s . . / K001 «-
du ' Pro I rue /
C h i e n ‘ 4, 0 r" f .. d U 744 F
Chien /
-â€â€”— ‘
u C“
\ .
\
W
.. W \ ‘ w
‘ El mï¬ï¬iï¬mï¬mï¬ï¬ï¬u
7'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3
IELMQ “him"
' -1.;.‘:J,1
r4-
.5. r'
l"‘f?\1' ‘I
\
WVâ€
1) x
.‘ f ‘
h» it ‘
[.1 l..J
3‘
1
Y
"Y.'.
“.3 V†v‘ ~' ‘r 1411‘.“ '1’?" ', ‘ :'
4.11.1311! '.~ 1. «N'DHniu‘r- '_'l.-‘ "" "
WWW
E. 4
l A
V
L A
I
Q
/
‘VF 4 ~‘: ..-"".
3° 43 SCALE:
~ r \Y.
4 -E' Vat.
A o
4 l
‘— fl .—— ’71:“
t ‘g ,4 L?“
. g m
2.... t":
5-:5 “.11
Trempealeau g; 4.5
. :ï¬' :2":
3'4â€: > 1 l ’71:; g :7:
_- 4,.
iv: a“. d.
‘1" r: a 43
~r! :W
3 %:.:3
42: 3. rempea eau .
. l v > :‘1'; ‘7’ .4.
4 ‘ :5 ix ’
2:1 a“:
—_ _ ~~ v.24
4, E:
é“: 7""
.4-
ï¬x:
J
4.44 C1:'-‘.;H
éLAI
q
C‘
L
‘ ‘ Trempealeau
Munising 1 1 No \H\
yr“. '0 I
I
M M
y W HWJH
' 1
‘MH. ’13
0 SU H
3‘) Y Q
2% 35?.
w r
N <m
Cb]
Hg
H
60
c4
c+tJ
O
m
E
E
o
O
o
3
' m
\
§
H
\
Lu
2..
0
m
x
\
33
um
F .d a ..m M
5 3 mm C R
é ...-.3 Ewing.- ,,,,, .‘ I ., M 1m -- W 1H H- 1 m .I Go.
I I I I I m r
# 1%.?28 égé-1ggg1ggxéiu u I Fm MW. "M N
M. // C .I m «I 1
ow .d R M m m m. 3
6 / DI TI m. U 0 n
T L t .-
rw .. M I (Mm . I/ I1 I I H . mm 0. o v.1. n
/ \gygggéxé I 3;? 22.7 M... s C C .. m Iâ€.
flu I f / . . MI S Y. E C
i / / s o. ....I m I. v
.m / / / m m m M NI
6 / /
//
II / J.
0 III... g1... 1.: ......1II IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII-aI Eggs. IIIIIIIIEW
oo I. I-I I ..IIIIIII I/mIMmeII I IIIMI Egg/)5
r. KrIwfli §§i}éé\> $111)?“
+-
.m
W
#1
MI
L
I. I.
M
U7
2
I I
am mII IIIIIIIIIIIIE. 55.1.1.1 ..
/ /. III-II,
.M. %I
o /
o
e
2 .w
2
00 I II I
III
I..—
G
r. 1M
2â€2} 3
m \
\-
\/111P.11\arVr\1)\l./\\1\J\51\.\r(\11.>)}21)\ (11((I\f\rl)\;(\...1\)\x
/03M3—+£:' .* 1 4.84,“; .1, ‘5
w .\
- I I
I... II I .
a
.m
71
0 a
I
2
w III-..-
4
m
71
w
JC.
5 ...-.1. -. ._IIIIII-IIIIWFizFLm-MHHHHIn.M-1_H,mI..Immm...“-13.4? ......II ....:II .IQIIII IIIIuI-ITII IIIIIIIIm111111-W. .....
III ...-I LEEEIEIEIIIIIIIEII IIIIII II ...-:1? :IIIII... Izzy-11H
9
.1 _
u I III
I-I. 111....I I I
7’ .mwï¬q H.111 J. 111 éddf 5:3. 4:4..341: EN", “:11 11111.111II.I11HH1H111I1|111“114 L1 1
I Eat. I I I < II. 25-4 2 . I
#2 I .II III-:23: .IIIIIIIII. €in III-IIIIII ..IIIII .
I
I1 I...“ I. R \ M
a G .I P \ T x
O - - 1 I 11.11% I H\
2 .. . 1. I1I\I._\1.|\ I .I I I I
III-...... {SQIIZIEIIIEI-Ezï¬fi;
I \ I
H \ \
7
I 1 . \
1! 1111.11.11.1111-H1111 11.4.5111 11 .../Aur- - 1 W1 11
MW! - (1\/\lr\/1M\(/\1Li\(111.111(15\1 1 11%) Aim/5561(1)» \d.>2/J1\\r /\m«1\)\f E129? (68;.
. S .
I I ..II,
R I w
1. N . .
â€0+ 1...... Emg..r1§IIImI-IIIIIIF111 FIIIII..III.IIII.II1IIIII IIIIEIII EIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIII. \
# A
H \ \\ \\ \\
II 1 x
M1 II _ . .EE ... Emma. w mg
2 I
..I. I I . ,
.1, I I
m I I
5 / ..IIII
I ,
7qu1. .Im Emu-1 III. .1I.1II....... .3 III-IIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIII II-III-IIIIIEIIIII ..I. ..IIIIIICIIIIIIIIIH111 I
I e r G 11
F w 4% mi m m 0 .1. m1)
.. mbï¬ ... I... 1U- I. w .. o R
U N1 0 N u 0 .m n (L. H )
G .m .11†1 o M
(\ R U /I\
e 1) a
d .I n C ..m. mu
0 .H U .m la 0 .I
o m d h W e .m
w P C P n
m m u
II. 9 M
r
G T
Q
Ho
34
.__.- _J ovum â€W" .l ' “ '
any
D
an .
. -' _—' ' â€WT ' -" '
- - lAtlASIA (.mogo 0x001 “CW.
17“" "mm
I . . I
r--- ____.___. rm--- .
' Into-o l usuum loam m.- uosco
1 __.'[._._'L 1 . '
U“ OSCIOU [ (“u I a." “In“
U
u!
N ~4»—-—~ :—-—4‘ . qL- ...... -— - .0 '
Ill-I'm "(05†ISANIU an ... 120
} uncut-1 " sum “ .l'
| --x - - 2 s
.._. -.._. ._._- ....-- . .. . M I
20“ I m . [- 'W‘C‘l' T onuo .1 °' .- . I :
. l . J . __ l ::
"r "l; '“"| 82 - _ __ Jun" ' I E,
‘ J— . . - '— ouuu / - , - -
_ __‘ ._ u u».
2
1 CODE NUMBER
0 WELL LOCATION
Figure 5
Regional Map of Lower Michigan Showing Stratigraphic Correlation
Lines A - A' thru F - F'
3S
mzmuuo on zmH zm H¢ .3.n cosmuooam ocuaaom «Hm
swammo mm mm zvm a. uwumom .umumonmum mau
commxmaz on and zwa Ha Humommwo anomaouucomso com
mouse: m mm mm Ha «aeronaucamanm4 oo~
comm: mu zmfl zha “Ha mmmflmunofluomam mad
coummcfl>wq Ha mm Zn aw ouoammozluwnoz «ma
coummafl>wq «a no ZN aw HouwxanoNoum oma
wm3mcmq on an mu Ha :uflMMfluo w somozu:0uï¬uom mhfl
wm3mcmq Hm ma mm Ha aaoo unaamuoooz moa
oonaeaaom ea add mm m* snowmoucnonma hma
nomxomn mN 3H mm H* noocmouxomam a maï¬aaoo and
coaxomn mm 3m mm H¢ mcoaummozlxmmaom sea
amnmsH on ad za Ha m>mmm-aflnoz «Na
cons: ow mma zma Ha mcwumaao>uaflnoz oNH
wamcmaaflm ow s« we Ha ouommmum .moï¬umnunomcxmmsom «ca
mamcmaaflm ma 3H mp Ha Hagan-»uuom ooa
uofluuuo m 3~ zed Qua. .Ha um mxummmumusauoz mm
gonna an an an Ha maflmxsaflnoz om
xflo>maumno am sad 2mm H¢ um>umm .umumusaooz as
aflo>mauano ma zoa 2pm Ha unmovoououaauoz op
xflo>maumno w 30H znm Na um>mmm .umamusaooz mo
mmmo m sad mp Ha amoooxumuumm mm
Guacamu ma 3m mm Ht maoomnunmochom mv
nocmum m 3m mm a: xumaolacmunwao a .U.m.o mm
cmfluumm OH aha mm H* causamnaumuwuaomm ma
muumm «a 3m za «a omu.oo muo xomuo mauumm p
«conga m mm sz muaa .00 mayo: cuomuommm m
mucaoo cowuuooq Bummauounummo .oz 0600
cofluuaouuoo ownmuumï¬uduum cw coma maaoz
H wanna
36
mcauz ad add mm H. .00 none: ouomnommm «mm
amamunmmz am up mm Ha .m.m ammamzuxmmsom «mm
zanmunmmz H« mm mm aw ummuaowsnamuocwsouuom .w.z nwu
mango .um «N and 25 Ha «Hanna a o Hosanna «mm
Hanan .um Ha med zm H¢ amcomu.o.m.o Hmm
unawcmm ow and zma o~:H* oomnm a uuwzmmu.m.z.z a musaooz mwm
mamH mavmmum aw aw zmm Ha ammmmuouac can ONN
mamH mavmmum ma um 2mm manaa ounumuoa Hamnmuaamnm FH~
mucnoo cowumooq annuluoumummo .oz @000
.vmacwu:00|u.a wanna
37
sandstone (comparable to the Dresbach and Franconia for-
mations of Southern Michigan).
The Mt. Simon (Figure 7) was named by Ulrich for
exposures at Mt. Simon near Eau Claire, Wisconsin (in
Walcott, 1914). In southeastern Michigan, Cohee (1948)
described the sandstone as 300 feet of medium to coarse
grained sandstone with angular to rounded grains, and a
few thin beds of dolomite and sandy dolomite occurring in
the upper part of the sandstone.
Wooster (1882) first used the term Eau Claire for
exposures along the Eau Claire River in Eau Claire County,
Wisconsin. In northern Michigan it is entirely sandstone
while in southeast Michigan it consists of around 250 feet
of sandstone, shale, and dolomite that is shaly, sandy and
glauconitic. The dolomite beds may be gray to dark gray,
pink, purple, and red to brown in color; and the shale
also is variously hued (Cohee, 1948). Catacgsinos (l9?t7)q?£>
recognized the "bi partite" character of the Eau Claire,
describing the lower portion as a sandstone, finer grained
than the underlying Mt. Simon, often light gray with
dolomite cement and glauconite, and the upper zone com-
prised of dolomitic\sandstones, sandy and silty dolomites
and often dark grey shale, which locally are glauconitic.
The Eau Claire becomes increasingly sandy in western
Michigan.
38
The term Dresbach was proposed by Winchell (1886)
for beds of grey micaceous sandstone of Upper Cambrian age
at Dresbach, Minnesota. In Michigan, Cohee (1947, 1948)
lithologically describes it as a fine to medium grained
sandstone with angular to rounded, frosted and pitted
quartz grains. Thin beds of white to buff dolomite are
found in parts of the sandstone, which is 100 feet thick
in southeastern Michigan.
Berkey (1897) named the Franconia Sandstone after
the section at the village of Franconia, Minnesota. The
Franconia is comprised of fine to medium grained, angular
to well rounded, frosted and pitted sandstone (possibly
derived in part from reworked Dresbach). Thin beds of
dolomite occur with the sandstones in places and both the
dolomite and especially the sandstones are glauconitic.
In southeastern Michigan it is from 10 to 20 feet thick
(Cohee, 1947, 1948). Pennington (1967) described the
Franconia of the Perry-Wooden #1 well in Cass County as a
sandy and glauconitic, dolomitic siltstone.
The Trempealeau Formation, proposed by Ulrich
(1924) is named for exposures at Trempealeau, Trempealeau
County, Wisconsin. It is a distinct lithologic unit pre-
dominantly of dolomite, somewhat sandy in part, and also
shaly dolomite, with dolomitic shale at the base. Small
amounts of oolitic chert is found, as well as glauconite
(Cohee, 1948). The Trempealeau is divided into three
39
members, the St. Lawrence, the Lodi and the Jordan Sand-
stone, in ascending order.
The St. Lawrence was named by Winchell (1874) for
outcroppings at St. Lawrence, Scott County, Minnesota. The
basal St. Lawrence consists of gray, sandy, very glau-
conitic dolomite overlain by dark gray to black dolomitic
shale and dolomite in southeast Michigan (Cohee, 1948).
Ulrich (1924) proposed the term Lodi for those
rocks found at Lodi, Columbia County, Wisconsin. In
Michigan they are described as a white to buff dolomite
that may be glauconitic and sandy in part. Some dolomite
is gray to dark gray, pink to purple and argillaceous with
the pink dolomite occurring locally (Cohee, 1948).
Exposures at Sand Creek near the town of Jordan,
Scott County, Minnesota were termed the Jordan Sandstone
by Winchell (1874). According to Cohee (1948) it consists
of well rounded, frosted and pitted quartz grains from 5
to 30 feet thick and is not present in southeastern
Michigan. Thwaites (1943) indicated that the Jordan
Sandstone was missing from the Northern Peninsula and that
the Cambro-Ordovician contact occurred at the top of the
prevailing red or pink, noncherty sandy dolomite (Upper
Cambrian) which was overlain by a gray cherty dolomite
(Lower Ordovician).
40
Lower Ordovician
The Prairie du Chien Group (Figure 7) was classified
as Lower Ordovician by the United States Geological Survey
and included the Oneota Dolomite, the New Richmond Sand-
stone and the Shakopee Dolomite, in ascending order. It
was named for exposures in the vicinity of Prairie du
Chien, Crawford County, Wisconsin by Bain in 1906.
The Oneota Dolomite (Figure 7) was named by
McGee (1891) for outcroppings on the Oneota River (Upper
Iowa River), Allamakee County, Iowa. Cohee (1948) described
the Oneota in Upper and Lower Michigan as a buff to brown
dolomite, very sandy and cherty in part, with the chert
commonly oolitic. Green shale also occurs locally.
WOoster (1878) named the New Richmond Sandstone
after the section at New Richmond, St. Croix County,
Wisconsin.. This formation is present in southwest Michigan
as a thin sandstone unit overlying the Oneota and under-
lying the Shakopee (Cohee, 1948). Thwaites (1943) reported
that in the Northern Peninsula there were at least two
fairly persistent sandstones in the Prairie du Chien and
that a three-fold subdivision should not be attempted.
The ShakOpee Dolomite was named for rocks at
Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota by Winchell (1874).
In southwestern Michigan it is a buff, brown and gray
dolomite, sandy in part with thin beds of green shale and
small amounts of chert (Cohee, 1948). The Shakopee
41
Formation has not been recognized in the Northern Penin-
sula of Michigan except by Dixon (1961).
Middle Ordovician
The St. Peter Sandstone (Figure 7) of Lower Middle
Ordovician age was named by Owen (1947) for exposures
along the Minnesota River (formerly the St. Peter River)
in southern Minnesota. It consists of a fine to medium
grained, white, friable sandstone locally stained brown,
orange or yellow. It is subrounded to well rounded,
frosted and pitted (most evident on larger grains), loose
and often loosely cemented with dolomite, silica or
calcite. It is commonly associated with chert and pyrite
at the base, and recognized by its properties of high
quartz content (99%+), uniform grain size distribution,
and high degree of rounding. The extent of the St. Peter
has been generally restricted to western Michigan, although
various authors have placed a more easternly boundary to
the sands (Dapples, 1955; Horowitz, 1961) or totally
eliminated it from the Michigan Basin (Catacosinos, 197:}.
The Glenwood was named for Glenwood Township,
Winneshick County, Iowa and was described by Calvin (1906).
In southwestern Michigan the Glenwood was described as a
fine grained sandstone and shaly dolomite ranging from
10 to 100 feet thick. In southeastern Michigan it was
described as a green, brown or gray shale, sandy and
pyritic in places. At the contact with the underlying
42
dolomite the shale is commonly sandy (Cohee, 1948). Seyler
(1974) characterizes the Glenwood in Michigan as:
an interval of green gray and black sandy shale and
limestone and dolomite . . . representing deposits
derived from the erosion of Upper Cambrian and Lower
Ordovician sediments and the marine transgression of
the Middle Ordovician sea."
Vanuxem (1838) named the Black River Formation
(Figure 7) from exposures along the Black River in New
York State. The Black River is a brown to gray, litho-
graphic to crystalline, fossiliferous limestone and dolo-
mite. The basal beds are often dark gray to black,
argillaceous limestone, or limestone, dolomite and shale.
Secondary dolomitization occurs locally, with the Black
River becoming generally more dolomitic to the west.
Prairie du Chien Group
In this study, one of the major problems encountered
was the determination of the contact of the Prairie du
Chien with the overlying St. Peter Sandstone and Glenwood
Shale (considered together as the Glenwood in this report).
From the gamma ray-neutron log (Figure 6) the top of the
Glenwood is obvious and characteristic. The basal contact,
however, often is difficult to choose, especially where
the St. Peter is developed, for there is no apparent char-
acteristic St. Peter kick on gamma ray-neutron logs
(Balombin, 1974). It is only when used in conjunction
with lithologic information that the logs can be used with
some degree of accuracy.
43
G/R N
Jr
Blk River
Glenwood
Taâ€.
Prairie
du
Chien
.g.
'71:? —
Trempealeau
2
«p8 ,.
Franconia
lg.
Figure 6
Typical Gamma Ray-Neutron Well Log
44
Previously, any sanstone found between the Glenwood
Shale and the Prairie du Chien Group in Michigan was termed
the St. Peter Sandstone. However, subsequent workers
(Horowitz, 1961; Ells, 1967; Balombin, 1974) who have
investigated these sands that occupy over two-thirds of
the state have assigned only a portion of them to the St.
Peter, the remainder belonging to the Prairie du Chien
Group, or the Jordan (Catacosinos, 1923). This subdivision
was based on lithologic criteria, including grain shape,
sorting, cementation and accessory constituents (chert,
etc.), due to the similarity of St. Peter, Prairie du
Chien and some Upper Cambrian sands. These sands range
from a thickness of zero feet to a maximum of 590 feet in
Well 8199 (Dow, Brazos-Taggert #1, Mason County) and their
distribution is roughly shown in Figure 14. Difficulties
result from both the poor well control and inexact strati-
graphic correlation of these sands to the interbedded
sands, sandy dolomites and shales farther south and east;
as well as the erosional unconformity developed upon its
surface. Cognizant of this, the general distribution,
thickness and relationship of these sands are related to
the Glenwood-Prairie du Chien erosional contact. It would
be best to first consider the sands, sandy dolomites and
shales occurring between the Glenwood Shale and the under-
lying Prairie du Chien dolomites as the result of some
combination of factors, including:
45
(1) the thick sands and sandy dolomites suggest expo-
sure or uplift of the Wisconsin Arch or environs
in upper Lower Ordovician time, with deposition
occurring in foredeeps offshore, and facies changes
across the Basin;
(2) that the section in some areas may be Glenwood
containing reworked St. Peter, Prairie du Chien
and Upper Cambrian sands;
(3) that in areas the St. Peter is part or all of the
section;
(4) the section may be in part a clastic zone at the
top of the Prairie du Chien where sand and silt
filled solution joints and vugs developed on a
karst terrain (as in the Sandhill Deep well, WOod
County, West Virginia where the thickness of the
zone was 122 feet (WOodward, 1959)); and/or
(5) where the lithologies of the rocks below the sands
are questionable, the section could possibly be
an Upper Cambrian sand exposed by the erosional
unconformity.
The Cambro-Ordovician boundary is not easily iden-
tified by lithology in the Michigan Basin because of the
gradational nature of the contact between the basal
Prairie du Chien Group and Trempealeau Formation. There-
fore, the contact was established utilizing the gamma ray
curve on the radioactivity log in conjunction with
46
lithologic information (Figures 4a to 4f). Using two
reference wells where the Cambro-Ordovician boundary had
previously been determined (Well #18, Security-Thalmann
#1, Berrien County and Well #65, Perry-WOoden #1, Cass
County) stratigraphic correlations were carried out for
the Michigan Basin. Ells (1967), Pennington (1967) and
Yettaw (1967) correlated the underlying Cambrian forma-
tions of the Security Thalman #1 and Perry-wooden #1 wells
with established wells in Indiana and northwest Illinois
closer to the type sections on the basis of gamma ray logs
and similar lithologies to establish the Trempealeau-
Prairie du Chien contact in southwest Michigan. It was
noted by Pennington (1967) that the Trempealeau has a
lower gamma radiation than the Oneota due to the shale
content of the Oneota. In southwestern and southern
Michigan the writer recognizes that this contact is often
characterized by the presence of green, red and mottled
shales that become increasingly grey to black basinward.
While these shales are more indicative of environmental
conditions the position of these shales coincide with
equivalent stratigraphic positions on the gamma ray logs.
The variability of the gamma ray contact basinwide is on
the order of plus or minus 10 to 15 feet with a maximum of
thirty-five feet and was subjectively established.
The Prairie du Chien Group (Figure 13) ranges in
thickness from zero feet in southeast Michigan to a
47
maximum thickness of 1080 feet in west central Michigan
(Well #207, Thunder Hollow-Thompson #1, Newaygo County).
A subdivision of the Prairie du Chien, while difficult,
was attempted at the gradational boundary between the thick
sands and underlying dolomite (Figures 4a, d, e, f). Both
Cohee (1948) and E118 (1967) placed these sands in the
Oneota formation, Cohee believing the Oneota becomes
increasingly sandy to the north from southwest Michigan.
On the basis of gross lithology and stratigraphic position
the writer deems it advisable to classify these sands and
associated sandy dolomites as equivalent to the New
Richmond (and possibly Shakopee) formation(s). The thick
sands are often fine to medium grained, frosted to slightly
frosted, subrounded to rounded and contain numerous over-
growths, similar to the descriptions of the New Richmond
in Wisconsin (Kay, 1935) and Illinois (Willman and Temple-
ton, 1952; Buschbach, 1964). The appearance of the sand
coincides with a marked decrease in gamma radiation on the
logs owing to the decreased shale content and the increased
sand content. Again, the boundary was subjectively
picked on the basis of: similar lithology with surrounding
areas; the appearance of the thick sands and/or interbedded
sands, shales and dolomites, over a well developed Oneota
Formation (in areas) at stratigraphically equivalent
positions on gamma ray logs basinwide; and the absence of
any well developed sand in the Oneota in surrounding states.
48
The variability of the exact contact is plus or minus
twenty to a maximum of 50 feet toward the center of the
Basin. From the gamma ray logs and lithologies a two-
fold subdivision (discussed below) of the Oneota also
occurs, similar in nature to the two members of the
Chepultepec Dolomite as proposed by Calvert (1962) for
northwest Ohio.
Oneota
Lithology.--The Oneota in the Michigan Basin is a
buff to brown, gray and tan, fine to coarsely crystalline
dolomite, locally stained pink to red. It is often sandy
to silty, anhydritic and oolitic in part, containing chert,
thin beds of sandstone and traces of glauconite, anhydrite
and gypsum. The chert is predominantly white, dense to
tripolitic, dolocastic and oolitic, and sandy in part;
but may be orange to red with sandy and oolitic chert.
Where argillaceous the dolomite is often interbedded with
thin beds of green, gray, red and black shale (Appendix II,
A-D).
The lower unit of the Oneota is a buff to brown,
fine to coarsely crystalline dolomite containing white
chert, floating sand grains (and some silt) becoming
increasingly argillaceous and sandy at the base where it
often is interbedded with green, red and gray, mottled
shales and sandstones. The dolomites are buff-gray to tan,
49
fine to medium crystalline, sandy and cherty, and locally
stained pink to red. The chert is white to red, dense to
tripolitic, and sandy and oolitic in part. The shales are
variously colored red, green, black and gray, and mottled
at times.
In the Upper Mississippi Valley and Wisconsin the
Oneota consists predominantly of fine to medium crystalline,
light brown, gray to buff, compact to vuggy, thin bedded
to massive dolomite (Keller, 1956). The lower part of the
member is commonly arenaceous with the basal few feet
grading into sandy dolomite and dolomitic sandstone.
White, pflgcelainous, oolitic, often fossiliferous chert
nodules are a common constituent of the Oneota; as are
greenish-gray shales containing algae (stromatolites).
Sandstone, glauconite and goethite are locally common
(Kay, 1935; Werkman, 1935; Heller, 1956; Davis, 1969).
The Oneota of northeast Illinois is made up of a basal,
light gray to brown, medium to coarsely crystalline dolo-
mite that is slightly glauconitic and very cherty, the
chert being White to yellow and partly oolitic. It is
overlain by a gray to pinkish gray, fine to medium crystal-
line, slightly glauconitic, partly sandy dolomite with
small amounts of oolitic chert and thin beds of green
shale (Buschbach, 1964). In northwest Indiana, Gutstadt
(1958) described the Oneota as a light tan to gray,
saccharoidal dolomite containing large amounts of chert
50
of assorted colors and textures but commonly oolitic and
some rounded and frosted sand. The Chepultepec Dolomite
of northwest Ohio (Calvert, 1962) is the equivalent of the
Oneota and consists of two members, a lower sandy member
and an upper argillaceous unit. The lower sandy member is
a light brown to light gray, sucrosic dolomite with inter-
bedded dolomitic sandstone and argillaceous dolomite. The
sandstones are white to gray, dolomitic, fine to medium
grained, partly feldspathic with scattered gray and green
shale and siltstone zones. The upper argillaceous member
is a white to gray to light brown, fine to very fine
crystalline dolomite. The upper member has more argil-
laceous dolomite and less chert than the lower member and
both contain embedded, rounded, frosted quartz grains,
oolitic chert and free silicious oolites.
An irregularly distributed basal sandstone has been
found in the Upper Mississippi Valley, western Wisconsin,
and northeast Illinois and northwest Indiana called the
Kasota Sandstone, the Hickory Ridge member and the Gunter
Sandstones, respectively (Buschbach, 1964). The Gunter
was described by Buschbach (1964) as a medium grained,
frosted, subrounded sandstone containing beds of light
gray, fine crystalline dolomite and minor amounts of light
green shale. The irregular distribution and sharp contacts
suggest minor disconformities at the base and top of the
Gunter.
51
Correlation.--The Oneota Formation of the Michigan
Basin (Figure 7) is essentially equivalent (on the basis
of? stratigraphic position, lithologic similarities and
art identifiable sequence of Cambrian and Middle Ordovician
ftxrmations) to the Oneota Formation of the Upper Mississippi
Valley, Wisconsin, northeast Illinois and northwest
Irudiana; the Chepultepec Dolomite of northwest Ohio,
tine Van Buren and Gasconade Formations of Missouri; the
Ikittle Falls of New York; and the Tanyard Formation of
central Texas. Between areas of questionable correlation
equivalent sections should be ascertained at the Series or
<3roup level. Thus, the Prairie du Chien Group of the
laichigan Basin is equivalent to the Upper Knox Dolomite
(of eastern Kentucky, the Chepultepec, Nittany, Kingsport
<and Mascot Formations of southwestern Virginia and eastern
frennessee, and the Beekmantown of West Virginia, Virginia,
IPennsylvania and New York on the bases of stratigraphic
Position and similar lithologies.
Distribution and Thickness.--The Prairie du Chien
<3roup crops out in northern Michigan, east and southwest
Vlisconsin, southeast Minnesota and northeast Iowa, often
<as the Oneota Formation. At the type area in southeast
.Allamakee County, Iowa the Oneota is about 170 feet thick,
thinning northward to about 120 feet east of Minneapolis,
Minnesota. In Wisconsin the dissected Oneota varies
from zero to 150 feet thick and thickens to the southwest.
52
END no MHmHSE
I 08
.m<mu< go ho
“EEO saga»
DESEHHEm a:
55.30 Raï¬â€”â€Ago
s a:
no.3“... zooms: Exams: gmiggw“
amuse on. E18 as I l (Elm—ml. Boa am So m \
88m E b D \ z
9
3.3533 .4
assumes Illa Goaéoo 8.56: Tao \ 8 <_
3.85% 428:3 ggi whom†monuï¬ mus \ u I
a a
mono— noï¬eoï¬ \ .— !
meow ..m 8.553 Boa 0
Sang l ..I II .I so m \
moans E8 552. 5581 n
.. .. I .. \ a
Home I Bongo .d eggs gonzo—N «gonzo .I K m z
â€A . ï¬\ 3 <
8836 Boo-.62 nag—Sm 98:62 O
on . one ï¬nale—11w _ an: E “ .— .U
muse—am espouse Bones ammonia I J
E .8 E on E S E as \ m >
0 a
g .38 g g g X . 0
65 “SE; 63 SEE 83m \ 1
58¢ _ 5.8a ,
g .5 m 2% EB. Egg; . ..
$5.55 mo
éraï¬ealé [LEE as; .o
53
In northeast Illinois the Prairie du Chien is missing by
erosion from the northern corner but underlies most of the
southern portion, increasing regularly southward into
southeast Illinois and southwest Indiana to a thickness in
excess of 400 feet. At Fayette County, central south
Illinois, the Oneota (Chepultepec) is 596 feet thick,
thinning to 116 feet northward to north central Illinois.
The Oneota of Indiana thickens from a few hundred feet in
northeast Indiana to 640 feet in south central Indiana to
960 feet at Lawrence County in central south Indiana.
In Ohio the thickness of the Chepultepec varies off of
structures (Northern Ohio Platform) and is not recognized
in central, north central and northeast Ohio where it was
truncated by erosion. In northwest Ohio the Chepultepec
Dolomite thickens from 120 feet to the south where it is
present as a 700 foot interval. The Chepultepec of Ohio
thickens to the east, south and west and attains thicknesses
of 797 feet in northwest West Virginia and 1210 feet in
south central Kentucky. In southwest Ontario there is no
Oneota, having been eroded away with much of the Upper
Cambrian prior to Middle Ordovician time.
Within the Michigan Basin the Oneota varies from
zero feet in the southeast to 615 feet in west central
Michigan (well #207, Thunder Hollow-Thompson #1, Newaygo
County). The Oneota reflects a gradual thickening into
the Basin off of the shelf areas with the depocenter
54
located in west central Michigan (Figure 4a-f). The
criteria utilized was gamma ray-neutron logs.
New Richmond-Shakopee Interval
Lithology.--The New Richmond Sandstone in the
Michigan Basin consists of a fine to medium grained, sub-
rounded to rounded, frosted to slightly frosted to clear
gray sandstone, often stained pink in part, with silica
and dolomite cement. Overgrowths commonly occur and at some
levels are abundant but decrease with depth as the amount
of dolomite cement increases. The sandstones are best
developed in northwest Michigan and basinwide are often
associated with white, tripolitic chert (oolitic in part),
green to gray shale, buff to tan siltstone, limestone and
dolomite. The dolomites are commonly buff to brown, very
fine to finely crystalline and sandy, and alternate with
sandstones and thin beds of shale. Whether these alter-
nating dolomites and sandstones are New Richmond or Shakopee
is as yet unclear and here will be included in the New
Richmond-Shakopee Interval. Some brown to tan, very finely
crystalline, silty and argillaceous limestone is found
basinward and also to the east alternating with dolo-
mites, sandstones and shales but are too limited to be
accurately mapped (Appendix II, A-D).
In Wisconsin and the Upper Mississippi Valley the
New Richmond is a fine to medium grained, buff, gray and
55
white well bedded sandstone with interbedded dolomite
and Cryptozoon structures (stromatolites). The dolomites
are light brown, gray to buff, fine to medium crystalline,
arenaceous and cherty. Secondary enlargement of sand
grains is very prominent and where the sandstones are well
developed ripple marks and cross bedding are often found.
The overlying Shakopee Formation (previously called Willow
River Formation) is often completely truncated by erosion
in this area and is typically described as a fine to
medium crystalline, light brown-gray to buff, thin to
thick bedded dolomite. When the New Richmond is mission th
the Shakopee is difficult to tell from the Oneota. The
dolomites of the Shakopee are usually more arenaceous and
oolitic, but the chert less common, as in the Oneota. In
the Shakopee thin beds of fine to medium sandstone and
green to gray shale are often interbedded with the dolo-
mite (Kay, 1935; Workman, 1935; Heller, 1956; Davis, 1969).
In northeast Illinois (Buschbach, 1964) the New Richmond
sandstone is composed of medium grained, moderately sorted,
rounded sandstone with some interbedded sandy dolomites
and shales. The dolomites are light colored, very finely
crystalline, sandy and cherty carbonate with the chert
white to gray and oolitic, and the shales gray, red and
blue. The New Richmond resembles the St. Peter Sandstone
but differs in being composed of more angular, less frosted,
thinner bedded, better cemented grains with more
56
overgrowths and containing free silicious oolites, chert,
and a higher proportion of heavy minerals. The Shakopee
is comprised of very finely crystalline, light gray to
light brown dolomite containing oolitic chert, some thin
beds of medium grained, rounded dolomitic sandstones and
some green to light gray shales. The Shakopee in north-
west Illinois is characterized by its highly variable beds
of argillaceous and pure dolomite distorted by lenses of
massive algae reef structures as much as 10 feet thick.
When the New Richmond is absent the Shakopee can often be
distinguished from the Oneota by the sandiness and fine
grain size of the Shakopee dolomite. In Ohio the Lambs
Chapel Dolomite is equivalent to both the New Richmond and
the Shakopee (Calvert, 1962). The Lambs Chapel is composed
of light colored, fine to coarsely crystalline, partly
saccharoidal dolomite containing beds and lenses of light
gray, banded chert, white oolitic chert, sand-centered
oolitic chert and thin chert matrix sandstones. Thin
green shale beds are common. Minor unconformities and
intraformational conglomerates containing rounded and
frosted quartz grains are present, as are zones of scattered
embedded sand grains. The Lambs Chapel may be equivalent
to the New Richmond-Shakopee Interval of the Michigan
Basin but it is inadvisable to use Calvert's terminology at
this time. In Indiana the New Richmond Sandstone is a
medium to coarse grained, rounded and frosted sandstone
57
containing interbedded tan to white, finely crystalline
to saccharoidal dolomite, and white to brown, sandy and
oolitic chert. The Shakopee is composed of tan to white,
saccharoidal to finely crystalline, partly sandy dolomite
containing white to blue, smooth to porous, oolitic and
sandy chert. Thin beds of sandstone and grayish green
shale are also found interbedded with this dolomite (Gut-
stadt, 1958). The New Richmond and Shakopee Formations,
like the Oneota, are missing from southwest Ontario.
Correlation.--The New Richmond and Shakopee for-
mations of the Michigan Basin (Figure 7) is equivalent on
the bases of stratigraphic position and similar lithol-
ogies to the: New Richmond and Shakopee Formations of the
Upper Mississippi Valley, Wisconsin, northwest Illinois
and northwest Indiana; the Lambs Chapel of northwest Ohio;
the Roubidoux, and the Jefferson City and Cotter Dolomite
of Missouri, respectively; the Tribes Hill and Beekmantown
of New York; and the Gorman and Honeycut Formations,
respectively, of central Texas. Again, the Prairie du
Chien must be compared as a Group or a Series (Canadian)
to surrounding areas where the correlations are question-
able, as in central Pennsylvania where the Prairie du
Chien Group is equivalent to the Stonehenge, Nittany,
Axemann and Bellefont Formations.
58
Distribution and Thickness.--When considering the
distribution and thickness of the New Richmond-Shakopee
Interval, two important points must be taken into account:
(1) the Shakopee, by virtue of its superposition, was sub-
jected to more pre-St. Peter erosion than the middle and
lower formations of the Prairie du Chien Group; and
(2) nondeposition or nonrecognition of a facies change of
the New Richmond occurred locally on the Upper Mississippi
Valley and in north Illinois, resulting in the Shakopee
overlying or appearing to overly the Oneota Dolomite
(Heller, 1956; Buschbach, 1964). The consensus of opinion
today is that the highly dissected topography underlying
the St. Peter Sandstone marks the contact of an erosional
disconformity. The evidence includes: (1) the high relief
at the contact; (2) the common occurrence of the basal
St. Peter unit, the Kress member, which is composed of a
chert conglomerate and sandstone. The appearance and
occurrence of the Kress suggests that it is a relatively
insoluble residuum developed on a karst surface and con-
centrated in local depressions by the transgressing St.
Peter seas (Buschbach, 1964); (3) the St. Peter Sandstone
is usually thickest where the Prairie du Chien is thinnest,
and conversely so; (4) the tap of the St. Peter Sandstone
does not reflect the relief on top of the Prairie du Chien;
and (5) the St. Peter sometimes unconformably (usually
disconformably) overlies the Upper Cambrian formations.
59
However, Flint (in Heller, 1956) studied the contact in
southwest Wisconsin and concluded the irregularity that
marks the contact is due to an initial irregularity caused
by the compaction of lime muds over relatively rigid
masses, probably biogenic, that form domal structures in
the Shakopee Dolomite. The preponderance of evidence
indicates a major erosional unconformity.
The irregular distribution and variable thickness
of the New Richmond and Shakopee Formations in the Upper
Mississippi Valley and Wisconsin reflect the effects of
erosion. The New Richmond Sandstone varies from zero feet
to 45 feet thick at Lanesboro, Minnesota, and thickens
southward continuously into southeast Iowa. The New
Richmond is generally very thin in Wisconsin, ranging from
zero feet to 25 feet. The only angular unconformity (at
the base of this formation) occurs near Eastman in Crawford
County, Wisconsin where the arched Oneota Formation is
truncated and a flat pebble conglomerate is present in the
basal New Richmond Sandstone. The arching was the result
of either mild tectonic movements or compaction over a
biohermal structure. The Shakopee Dolomite also reflects
this trend of thickening toward the southeast, when it is
present. Post-Shakopee erosion and the slumping of over-
lying St. Peter Sandstones make for few complete sections.
At Shakopee, Minnesota, the dolomite is around 50 feet
thick while in Grant and Iowa Counties, Wisconsin, the
60
Shakopee varies from 28 to 65 feet thick. In northeast
Illinois the New Richmond and Shakopee Formations are
missing from the northern section but increase to the
southwest. In LaSalle County in north central Illinois
the New Richmond attains a thickness of 147+ feet, thinning
in all directions except to the south where in southwest
Illinois it is a 190 foot section. The Shakopee too is
absent to the northeast and thickens to the south. It is
a 600 foot interval in south central Illinois and increases
somewhat to the southwest. In north Indiana the New
Richmond and Shakopee Formations are thinner and more
reflect the effects of erosion. In Johnson County, south
central Indiana, the New Richmond is 47 feet thick while
the Shakopee is a 154 foot interval. In Lawrence County,
central south Indiana, the equivalent Lambs Cahpel Dolo-
mite is only 105 feet thick. The Lambs Chapel is absent
from south central through north central, and northeast
Ohio but thickens to the east and southeast (into
Appalachian Basin) and to the southwest. In northwest
West Virginia the Lambs Chapel equivalent is 233 feet in
thickness while in west central Kentucky the Roubidoux
(New Richmond) is 138 feet thick and the Jefferson City-
Cotter Formations (Shakopee) interval is 405 feet thick.
The Roubidoux of south central Kentucky is 190 feet thick
and the Jefferson City-Cotter interval is 680 feet. No
New Richmond or Shakopee is found in southwest Ontario.
61
In the Michigan Basin the New Richmond-Shakopee
Interval was arbitrarily defined as the thick sands,
sandy dolomites and limestones overlying the Oneota
Formation and underlying the Glenwood (Figure 4a, d, e, f).
On gamma ray logs the contact is distinguished as a marked
decrease in gamma radiation accompanying the appearance of
a thick sand. The Shakopee Formation, if present, was
included in this interval, due to problems of correlation.
Since it is not known that a complete, original thickness
of the Shakopee has ever been measured it would be extremely
difficult (or impossible) to try to assign a few,
scattered, isolated sections to this formation at this
time.
The New Richmond-Shakopee Interval varies from
zero feet in southeast Michigan to 590 feet in northwest
Michigan (Well #199, Dow, Brazos-Taggert #1, Mason County).
INTERPRETATION
The evolution of the Michigan Basin has probably
been episodic through time. Prouty (1970) believed that
the basic structural pattern of the Basin was inherited
from the Precambrian. Catacosinos (1974) stated that a
precursor to the present Basin existed in Late Cambrian
time. Fisher (1969) and Seyler (1974) attributed the
Michigan Basin to a Middle Ordovician origin. Most
workers agree that the major deformations of the Basin
occurred in Salina (Silurian) time (Cohee, 1948) and late
Mississippian time (Kilbourne, 1947).
Structural Framework
From Figures 8, 9 and 10, the structure contours
at the tops of the Glenwood, the Prairie du Chien and the
Trempealeau, respectively, the broad structural form of the
Basin is obvious. Equally prominent are the three major
structural features of southern Lower Michigan, the Howell
Anticline, the Lucas-Monroe Monocline and its northwest
extension, and the slight folding in the region of the
Albion Scipio trend.
62
63
FIGURE
STRUCTURE MICHIGAN BASIN
ON TOP OF THE GLENWOOD
Contour Interval = 250 feet
Scale: 1" = 32 miles o! It if
64
STRUCTURE CONTOUR OF THE MICHIGAN BASIN
ON TOP OF THE PRAIRIE du CHIEN
- Contour Interval = 250 feet
Scale: 1" = 32 miles 0 It at“;
STRUCTURE CONTOUR OF THE MICHIGAN
ON TOP OF THE TREMPEALEAU
ontour Interval = 250
Scale: 1" = 32 miles
BASIN
66
The Howell-Northville Anticline trends NW-SE across
Livingston and northwest Washtenaw Counties. A northwest
extension of this trend into Shiawassee County is evident
from information provided by Wells #226, #227 and #228
(Figure 11). A southeastward continuation into Wayne and
Monroe Counties is postulated but is inconclusive as of
yet. The southwest flank of the Howell Anticline has been
downdropped more than 1000 feet in less than one mile and
is referred to as a fault, or possibly, an en echelon
series of faults (Newcombe, 1933). The fault probably has
been intermittently active through time and appears to have
offset in a left lateral sense a matter of about 17 miles.
Kilbourne (1947) regarded the Howell Anticline as the
result of normal, rotational faulting during Coldwater time
while Ells (1969) said the folding was mainly in Late
MisSissippian time (Meremecian). Many workers have mapped
the Howell Anticline as a steep flexure (Bloomer, 1969 and
others). Prouty (1976) proposed a left lateral en echelon
offset along the structure.
A second left lateral fault was postulated for the
Lucas-Monroe Monocline and its northwest extension through
western Washtenaw and central Ingham County into Clinton
County. Again the downdropped side appears to be to the
west with a maximum displacement of about 10 miles. The
amount of displacement in both cases may be deceiving due
to the poor well control on either side of the fault and
FIGURE H
EXAMPLE of EN ECHELON EAULTING along the
HOWELL ANTICLINE in SHIAWASSEE COUNTY
STRUCTURE CONTOUR on top of the GLENWOOD
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 250 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1" = 16 miles
‘ U
0 WELL LOCATION
\ FAULT
‘h500
\\ QUESTIONABLE FAULTING
FIGURE 12
PROPOSED DISPLACEMENT ALONG A LEFT LATERAL
FAULT on a TYPICAL STRUCTURAL CONTQIR MAP
(a) Contours previous to faulting
(b) Displacements along single fault
(c) Displacements along an en echelon
series of faults
N0 Scale Contour Interval = 100 feet
0 Ideal well control
GD Actual well control
«nun-Trace of original bedding
*- Zones of influence
\\\ Fault
F
68
may represent a minimum rather than a maximum value. A
hypothesized, idealized model is presented in Figure 12a
through Figure 12c. The drag on each side of the fault
would be most pronounced closer to the fault and reflected
in zone 1, and lessen outward to zone 3. As well control
is poor at the depth involved the problems of trying to
exactly deduce displacements, as well as the approximate
position of the fault itself, are extremely difficult.
When dealing with an en echelon series of faults (Figure
12c) the displacements would be further complicated by
differential movements and distortions along each fault.
A slight fold is observed in eastern Calhoun County
that correlates to the Albion-Scipio trend. This trend is
again believed to be fault controlled and, as in the cases
of the Howell Anticline and the Lucas-Monroe Monocline and
its northwest extension, may represent reactivated Pre-
cambrian weaknesses. Hinze and Merritt (1969) hypothesized
a basement fault-line scarp running from Hillsdale County
northwestward through Calhoun County that diminishes in
Barry County. Harding (1974) proposed "deep seated,
slight, left lateral strike-slip displacements along a
pre-existing basement fault" to account for the structure.
The unique sag overlying and following Middle Ordovician
production was attributed to contraction of the rocks during
dolomitization and subsidence of the overlying rock. The
69
Albion-Scipio area was contoured as a fold due to the poor
well control in the region.
To the north in Presque Isle County a slight
flexure is noted that may correspond to the Middle
Ordovician (Trenton) right lateral wrench faulting proposed
by Seyler (1974) for the area. Fisher (1969) stated that
the anomalous thinning of the Ordovician rocks in Alpena
and Presque Isle Counties, as well as its northwest trend,
conforms to the dominant northwest trend of major faults
and folds of the Lower Peninsula. Newhart (1976) showed
that "structural" dolomitization occurred in the area of
the proposed faulting within Middle Ordovician rocks.
Stratigraphic Framework
The Prairie du Chien Group was divided into the
Oneota Formation and the New Richmond-Shakopee Interval
on the basis of lithology and stratigraphic position.
Excellent correlations can be made throughout southern and
western Michigan by the utilization of gamma ray logs in
conjunction with lithology. In the northern eastern and
central portions of Lower Michigan, however, the corre-
lations become increasingly difficult (and sometimes
obscure) owing to the questionable nature of the Cambrian
topography, the poor well control and extreme distances
between wells, and the anomalous thicknesses of the gamma
ray intervals often found between correlatable points
within and between some wells. Therefore, the
70
Cambro-Ordovician contacts were ascertained from the
stratigraphic and lithologic results of this study in
conjunction with those tops determined by the Michigan
State Geological Survey in Lansing.
The Oneota Formation was divided into two members
or units, a lower basal sandy dolomite (L0) and an upper
argillaceous dolomite (UO) as shown in cross-sections A-
A' through F-F', Figures 4a-f. The correlation lines
across the Basin are shown in Figure 5 and the well loca-
tions are given in Table 1.
Cross section A-A', from Berrien to Charlevoix
County, illustrates the overall distribution of the two
Oneota members as well as that of the New Richmond-Shakopee
Interval. The basal (sandy) dolomite unit (L0) and upper
argillaceous dolomite unit (UO) exhibit a slight thickening
into the Basin (Well #198, Superior-Sippy #17, Mason County)
that appears to be associated with basin subsidence. To
the north in Charlevoix County (well #70, McClure-Goddard
#1) the units have markedly thinned and reflect convergence
more toward the northern limits of the Basin (perhaps on
the stable shelf). The thin upper Oneota unit exhibited
to the south (well #18, Security-Thalmann #1, Berrien
County) is more likely the result of erosion and nonde-
position on a stable shelf, rather than the complete
Prairie du Chien Group proposed by Yettaw (1967). The
New Richmond-Shakopee Interval also reflects a marked
71
basinal subsidence on the west side of the Basin. This
Interval becomes increasingly sandy to the north while to
the south it is an alternating sequence of sandy dolomites,
dolomites, sandstones and shales. Thus there appears to be
a definite facies change associated with the Interval
across the Michigan Basin.
Cross section B-B', from Cass to St. Clair County,
shows again a slight thickening of the Oneota units basin-
ward. These units thin slightly to the east and contain
an increasing amount of sandstones sands and silts (well
#247, N.Y. Petromineral-Widmayer #1, Washtenaw County)
that may reflect the nearby eastern shoreline of the
Basin, reworked sands from Cambrian formations exposed by
sea level fluctuations or convergence onto the Findlay
Arch. The truncation of the units in well #247 and Well
#252 (Rousek-Wabash R.R. #1, Washtenaw County) can best be
explained by an erosional unconformity probably in post-
Shakopee time. The truncation may be demonstrated by:
(1) the similarity of gamma ray sections at the base of the
Prairie du Chien as well as the similarity of lithologies
between wells; (2) the thicknesses of the sections remain
rather uniform between wells, and (3) progressively older
formations become exposed beneath the unconformity to the
southeast. No New Richmond-Shakopee Interval is present.
Cross section C-C' from Berrien to Monroe County,
is taken along the southern shelf of the Michigan Basin
72
and reflects again the erosional truncation of the Prairie
du Chien and older rocks. The Findlay Arch was inter-
mittently active during Upper Cambrian and probably Lower
Ordovician time as well. From all indications the Prairie
du Chien sediments were laid down in relatively shallow
waters, as inferred from the presence of angular to rounded
clasts, oolites and red shales. Minor fluctuations in sea
level would expose large areas of land to subaerial erosion.
and may have deposited the pebbles of dolomite, limestone,
chert and conglomerate sometimes found randomly scattered
along the edge of the Basin. It could be argued that the
thinning exhibited in different wells along C-C' could be
convergence onto the Findlay Arch or near-shore thinning
off the eastern shoreline of the Basin. Evidence, however,
indicates that the thinning or missing Prairie du Chien
formations are mainly the result of major erosional pro-
cesses, as seen from a comparison of Well #100 (Perry-
Rymal #1, Hillsdale County) and well #173 (Horizon-Meech &
Griffith #1, Lenawee County). Both wells, as do those
wells nearby, exhibit: similar lithologies of strati-
graphically equivalent sections; similar gamma ray logs
above and below the Cambro-Ordovician contact in regards
to thickness and characteristic curves of the individual
formations; abrupt truncations of the Prairie du Chien
formations to the southeast with no evidence of convergence;
and to the southeast the Upper Cambrian formations present
73
immediately below the unconformity occupy structurally
higher positions (not necessarily the result of basinal
subsidence but of uplift of the Findlay Arch). No New
Richmond-Shakopee Interval is present due to erosion or
nondeposition.
Cross section D-D', from Cass to Huron County,
illustrates that subsidence of the Michigan Basin was
occurring in at least late Prairie du Chien time. The
thickened sequence of Well #80 (Mobil-Kelly #1, Eaton
County) is mainly the result of an increased New Richmond-
Shakopee Interval (NR-S). The Prairie du Chien Group
thins eastward into Sanilac County (Well #225, McClure &
MNR-Hewitt & Shedd #1—20) and Huron County (Well #120,
Mobil-Volmering #1). This convergence is accompanied by a
facies change in Sanilac County where the entire sequence
is sandstone interbedded with a few shales and dolomites,
indicating an environment close to the eastern shoreline
of the Basin and subject to intermittent erosion with
minor sea level fluctuations. In Livingston County (wo11
#190, Brazos-Kizer #1; well #194 Mobil-Messmore #1) the
thinned Upper Cambrian formations reflect a structurally
high area until Middle-Trempealeau time. The overlying
Prairie du Chien Group's thickness coincides with the
regional thickness of the Oneota Formation and the New
Richmond-Shakopee Interval. The New Richmond-Shakopee
74
Interval is an alternating sequence of sands, dolomites
and shales that thicken into the Basin.
Cross section E-E', from Charlevoix to Sanilac
County, features an undifferentiated Oneota Formation over-
lain by a New Richmond-Shakopee Interval of varying thick-
nesses. The Oneota is analternating sequence of dolo-
mites, shales and sandstones in Charlevoix County (Well
#69, McClure-St. Beaver #2; Well #70, McClure-Goddard #1;
Well #71, McClure-St. Beaver #1) that thickens into an
interbedded sequence of sandy and argillaceous dolomites
and shales in Presque Isle County (Well #217, Shell-
Taratuta #1-13; Well #220, Pan Am-Dreysey #1) and Alpena
County (Well #5, P.E.P.C.-Ford Motor Co. #1-5). The New
Richmond-Shakopee Interval consists predominantly of thick
sands with interbedded dolomites at the base and limestones
at the top. -This Interval may reflect a combination of
basinal subsidence and isostatic sinking of the sediments,
as interpreted from Wells #220 and #217. The Oneota
thickens from Well #220 to Well #217 but the New Richmond-
Shakopee Interval remains the same between wells and even
slightly thickens in Well #220. Several alternate inter-
pretations exist, especially when the distance between
wells is considered (24 miles), but isostatic sinking due
to the accumulation of thick clastics in northern and
northwest Michigan is the most logical explanation to
date.
75
Cross section F-F' is a correlation encompassing,
in a roughly circular manner, the entire Michigan Basin
from Barry to Cass County. The purpose of this correlation
was to illustrate: the regional distribution of the Prairie
du Chien Group; the thickening and thinning of the individ-
ual formations; the available lithologies across the Basin;
and the correlation between wells, especially with the two
deep wells in Gratiot and Ogemaw Counties. In Gratiot
County (Well #82, McClure-Sparks et a1. #1-8) 1073 feet of
Prairie du Chien rock was penetrated, while in Ogemaw
County (Well #213, Brazos-St. Foster #1) 570 feet of
alternating dolomite, sandstone, siltstone, shale and
halite (at the base) were correlated with the Prairie du
Chien Group on the basis of gamma ray log comparisons
with Sanilac and Huron Counties (Wells #225 and #120) as
well as Barry and Eaton Counties (Wells #7 and #80).
Distribution Related to the Structural
Framework
The Total Isopach Map of the Prairie du Chien
Group (Figure 13) reveals a somewhat anomalous distribution
of Prairie du Chien rocks in the Michigan Basin. Diagram-
matic evidence for left lateral faulting along both the
Howell Anticline and the Lucas-Monroe Monocline and its
northwest extension is presented. The activation of the
faults, while episodic, were probably post Prairie du Chien
and most likely of Middle-Late Mississippian age--the time
.76
77
of the major folding in the central part of the Basin
(Fisher, 1969). In northeast Calhoun County a major NW-SE
linear depression corresponds to the Albion-Scipio trend.
The excellent lineation, continuity of the Trenton-Black
River oil pools, and the similarity of structures through-
out the major part of the trend suggests that this trend
is the result of slight lateral and intermittent shearing
movements along a pre-existing basement fault (Ells, 1962;
Bishop, 1967; Harding, 1974). Bishop (1967) proposed a
Devonian age for the structures and the dolomitization of
the Trenton-Black River formations, and stated that the
synclines developed as a result of solution, dolomitization,
volume reduction and the subsequent thinning of beds.
Sedimentation then filled the subsiding depressions which
were no longer present after Devonian time. The absence
of the Prairie du Chien Group along the northern parts of
the trend in northeast Calhoun County lends itself to a
brief discussion.
The Albion-Scipio trend is a narrow (1-2 miles),
linear (about 35 miles), en echelon fault-controlled field
producing from porosity traps in the Trenton-Black River
dolomites. Assuming normal sedimentation of the Prairie
du Chien formations (m 350 to 500 feet of Prairie du Chien
rock on the Total Isopach Map for the region) over 350
feet of rock was selectively removed at depth. Overlying
formations, from the Glenwood up to the Sunbury (Early
78
Mississippian), exhibit a slight thickening over synclines
and a thinning over anticlines, generally assumed to be
the result of solution activity, dolomitization, and volume
reductions of 8-9% for the Trenton-Black River dolomites
(Bishop, 1967). The selective removal of the Prairie du
Chien Group probably originated in post Shakopee time. A
karst topography developed at the unconformity surface may
have created a cavernous region along the trace of a pre-
existing fault but the study of Glenwood and Black River
isopachs precludes the possibility of total erosion of the
Prairie du Chien interval, as only a slight thickening in
the region is noted. The overlying formations were laid
down on a partially eroded Prairie du Chien surface that
had previously undergone dolomitization diagenetically, or
epigenetically (Kirschke, 1962) but prior to Glenwood
deposition owing to the total dolomitization of the
Prairie du Chien Group while the Glenwood may be dolomite,
limestone, shale, or some combination. Reactivation of the
fault and dolomitization of the Middle Ordovician forma-
tions occurred in Devonian time previous to which time the
Prairie du Chien Group had been continually eroded by sub-
surface solutions operating along the fault system. Cross
faulting (shear coupling), as evidenced in T38, R4W,
Section 10, Calhoun County (at N 31° E), further fractured
‘the rocks and increased activity on the Prairie du Chien
formations. The selectivity of erosion for the Prairie
79
du Chien Group may be the result of: (1) the Canadian
rocks had previously been eroded at the unconformity sur-
face (and developed a karst topography); (2) the uncon-
formity surface (and/or the Glenwood Shale) may have been
a crust of dense, erosional residuum preventing solutions
from penetrating overlying formations (until Devonian
time); (3) the Prairie du Chien was fractured (and vugular
due to the karst terrain) and had a high amount of solu-
tion activity; and (4) the lithographic texture of the
Black River Formation also may have offered a partial seal
to ascending waters until fracturing occurred. The
Prairie du Chien dolomites even may have acted as a source
of magnesium for the dolomitization of the overlying
formations, as may have the underlying Upper Cambrian
formations. The synclines, therefore, may have developed
primarily as a result of subsidence onto the continually
eroding Prairie du Chien surface, as well as from volume
reductions accompanying dolomitization of the Trenton and
Black River Formations. The Prairie du Chien Group was
thinned or eroded away as a result of: erosional processes
at the unconformity surface; differential compaction accom-
panying dolomitization; and subsurface solution activity.
The Total Isopach map (Figure 13) exhibits a regu-
lar thickening of sediments into the Michigan Basin, the
general distribution resembling a crescent open to the
east. The thickest Prairie du Chien interval is located
80
in west central Michigan (Newaygo County) from which two
elongate troughs radiate outward, one to the southeast
into Gratiot County and the other to the northeast into
Presque Isle and Alpena Counties. The Prairie du Chien
Group is missing from southeast Michigan because of erosion
along the Findlay Arch.
A comparison of Figure 13 with Figure 14, the
Regional Isopach of the New Richmond-Shakopee Interval,
demonstrates the same sweeping distribution of rocks within
the deeper portions of the Michigan Basin. The similarity
is striking, considering that the top of the New Richmond-
Shakopee Interval was the erosional surface. This suggests
that the general distribution of the Prairie du Chien Group
was greatly determined by New Richmond-Shakopee Interval
sedimentation, by Cambrian topography and by later erosion.
The absence of the Interval from the southern margin of the
Michigan Basin implies erosion and/or nondeposition in the
area. A comparison of the New Richmond-Shakopee Interval
lithologies reveals a change of facies across the Basin.
In northwestern Michigan, from Newaygo to Charlevoix
County, the interval is almost totally sandstone but of
varying thicknesses. In northeastern Michigan, from
Cheboygan to Alpena County, the lithology while predomi—
nantly sandstone contains interbedded dolomites at the
base and limestones at the top of the section. In Muskegon
County (Well #204, Dupont-Dupont Disposal #1) the lower 90
81
l—‘f—‘rlmFaWI “'31.“
.. +1
l
fl. :L
4:49.
FIGURE I:
ISOPACH OF CIH'IE NEH RICHMOND-SHAKOPEE INTERVA
Contour Interval = 100 feet
NE Calhoun county
Scale: 1" a 32 Miles E!!!
L
RMS 1977
82
feet of sandstone is overlain by 187 feet of sandy dolo-
mites, dolomites and a few interbedded sandstone units.
From Ottawa County (Well #214, Holland Suco—Suco D.W. #1)
southeast and eastward into Livingston County the New
Richmond-Shakopee Interval becomes an alternating sequence
of dolomites, sandstones and shales of decreasing pro-
portions. In central Michigan (Gratiot County Well #82
and Ogemaw County, Well #213) the lithology is an interval
of interbedded sandstones, dolomites, siltstones, shales,
and minor limestone near the top of the formations. Halite
is found at the base of the Interval in the State Foster
#1 well in Ogemaw County, and small amounts of gypsum,
anhydrite and glauconite are found scattered throughout
the interior of the Basin.
It appears that the overall distribution of the
Prairie du Chien Group in the Michigan Basin reflects many
factors acting in conjunction, including:
(1) the underlying Cambrian topography;
(2) gradual subsidence of the Basin centered more
toward central or west central Michigan;
(3) isostatic sinking associated with the thick sands
more in the western and northern portions of the
Lower Peninsula;
(4) the Post-Knox Unconformity;
(5) subsurface solution along pre-existing basement
faults;
83
(6) differential compaction accompanying dolomitization;
and
(7) major and minor fluctuations of the shallow seas
resulting in alternate erosion and deposition in
the same areas.
Lithology
Because of the poor well control and the almost
100% dolomitization of the Prairie du Chien carbonates no
facies maps were attempted. A few scattered limestones
were noted in the central and northeast portions of the
Basin at the top of the New Richmond-Shakopee Interval but
could not be accurately mapped.
The fine to coarsely crystalline, interlocking
dolomites contain scattered sand grains, silts, anhydritic
and argillaceous material, and in some cases, oolites and
oolite ghosts. No structures were found other than
stylolites and the only identifiable fossils discovered were
dolomitized crinoid stems. The oolites were usually dolo-
mitized and the crystal size remains constant from oolites
to matrix. Only a color variation outlines the oolite
ghosts. Based upon this criteria and the fact that the
dolomite crystals cut across oolitic boundaries, Kirschke
(1962) called the Prairie du Chien dolomites epigenetic.
Based upon the widespread, massive dolomitization, and the
fine to coarsely crystalline nature of the dolomite, the
main body is believed diagenetic in this study. The chert
84
I
is commonly oolitic and sandy, dolocastic, and dense to
tripolitic. In some cases the chert acted as a sand-
stone matrix. Chalcedony, vein quartz and quartz crystals
were sometimes associated with the chert but in small
amounts.
Sandstones were commonly fine to medium grained,
coarse grained, subrounded to rounded, frosted to clear
(with some iron staining) and cemented. Overgrowths were
common, and in some cases the sand grains were pyrite
coated. "Floating" sand grains in the dolomite indicate
possible wind transport to an offshore carbonate environ-
ment. The thin to thickly bedded sandstones were indicative
of subaqueous deposition, as near beaches and in foredeeps.
The source of the sand was primarily from the northwest off
of the craton and the Wisconsin Arch area as well as from
reworked Upper Cambrian deposits (and positive structures)
surrounding the Basin.
Vari-colored shales occurring toward the center of
the Basin may indicate alternating oxidizing and reducing
conditions associated with sea level fluctuations.
The presence of anhydrite was usually associated
with the dolomite in the deeper reducing waters of the
Basin. Some anhydrite, gypsum and halite were present in
samples toward the center of the Michigan Basin (Wells
#212 and #213, Ogemaw County) and may indicate:
85
(1) pockets of poor circulation on the Basin floor
(resulting from Cambrian topography) in which
supersaline conditions existed;
(2) a lagoonal or areally restricted bay character-
ized by shallow water and restricted circulation
in which high evaporation caused high concentra-
tions of brines, and thus precipitation of evapo-
rites; and
(3) sinking of the Basin in conjunction with (1)
(Kashfi, 1967).
Model for Prairie du Chien Deposition
In the Lower Peninsula the transition from Upper
Cambrian to Lower Ordovician time was one of continuous
deposition marked by a slight regression of the sea as
evidenced by the increased clastic content in the upper
Trempealeau-lower Oneota formations. In Northern Michigan,
Delta County, Dixon (1961) regarded the clastics as a
reworking or interfingering of Upper Cambrian sediments
with the basal Prairie du Chien units. A slight trans-
gression of the sea followed in which the basal dolomite
unit of the Oneota was deposited in a relatively shallow
sea (presence of clasts in dolomite and traces of glau-
conite throughout the interval in areas). The transgres-
sion of the Prairie du Chien sea continued with the
possible exposure or uplift of surrounding regions in
upper Oneota time. Increasingly argillaceous dolomite was
deposited throughout the Basin while along the shelf a
thinning of sedimentary deposits is apparent (Well #199,
Dow, Brazos-Taggert #1, Mason County; Well #225, McClure
and M.N.R.-Hewitt, Shedd #1-20, Sanilac County). During
86
this period the Michigan Basin had been subsiding as
gleaned from the regular thickening of sediments basinward.
Regression of the sea continued into New Richmond-
Shakopee time in an episodic manner resulting in the
initial deposition of thick sands in northwest Michigan.
These sands indicate a northwesternly source areas off of
the craton or the Wisconsin Arch which would have been
further exposed by the regression. Exposed Cambrian sedi-
ments would also have contributed sands to the thick
accumulation in northwest Michigan. It is interesting to
note that along the length of eastern Wisconsin from
Manitowoc County south to Walworth County (Figure 15) the
Prairie du Chien Group is missing along with several
Upper Cambrian formations as a result of erosion (Ostrom,
1967). The thickening and thinning of pre-St. Peter
formations over the irregular Precambrian surface indi-
cates that the basement was intermittently uplifted by
faulting or other tectonic uplift. In Manitowoc County
the St. Peter Formation thickens from 40 feet to 280 feet
in five miles. The rather linear nature of this eastern
Wisconsin belt has a geometry suggestive of fault control.
Subsequent drainage along fault traces may have developed
channels near linear highs. The formations overlying the
St. Peter Formation show no anomalous change in thickness
inferring that the St. Peter may have been deposited off of
a slightly positive arch into a subsequent stream channel
87
H3500 zawomï¬mw
M8280 oozoaHzï¬a
mHMm EH05
03m :63qu so avocado Janna
mono 22.28st so one \W
SEA
1!. H o â€INK. “a. 882
5335611 .5 ASHES, "35m :3
I“ a! u
1.10 a. 0 NM “K o wad. oon~ a‘
...Hï¬zoï¬mom ASHES, "35m 3
....
szzoomHz Ema zH mama Agbgm Amv
szzoowH3 £82200 0030st§ 2H onB<ZmOh mmsmm Hm EOE A5
Q
.owH3 goo amoas.» I 48H: £9,500 53¢ "ZOHBomw wwomo .HcdHoQHomo
brass
.ro 883242 _
:83 558 hots 3
Aims ESE auto :3
I
l
uranium rrm
which acted as a sediment trap. Manitowoc County is
roughly adjacent to Mason County, Michigan, across Lake
Michigan, where the greatest interval of New Richmond-
Shakopee sandstone is encountered (590 feet in Well #199).
Uplift or faulting may have occurred in late Upper Cambrian
or early Lower Ordovician time. By New Richmond-Shakopee
time, and as a result of sea level fluctuations (regres-
sions) the earlier Prairie du Chien and Upper Cambrian
sediments may have been undergoing erosion and transpor-
tation to the northeast into a shallow sea where the
sediments (sands) were being deposited by currents into
foredeeps. While it is more logical to consider the main
source of these sands as the craton and/or a positive
Wisconsin Arch, this nearer eastern Wisconsin area may
have a partial source.
The New Richmond-Shakopee Interval in the Michigan
Basin suggests an important source of sediments to the
northwest. It appears that the initial deposition of this
Interval was concentrated in a foredeep and that the sandy
phase migrated outwards with time. As the Wisconsin Arch
or craton weathered down and the amount of clastics dimin-
ished the sands again became more restricted to the
northwestern part of the state. Adjacent areas previously
receiving sands now were the depositional sites of dolo-
mite, sandy dolomite and a few thin beds of sand and shale.
The center of the Basin continued as a site of deeper water
89
sedimentation. During this Interval the slow subsidence of
the Basin was augmented to the north and northwest by iso-.
static sinking in response to the weight of the thick sands.
Whether the Shakopee is present in the Basin cannot be
ascertained directly. It may well be that in the Michigan
Basin the Shakopee cannot be distinguished from the New
Richmond because of the anomalously high quartz sand
incursion during Shakopee time in this area. After the
New Richmond-Shakopee Interval a major regression of the
sea occurred resulting in one of the most widespread erosion
periods of the Paleozoic Era. It is often referred to as
the Post-Knox Unconformity and is not only a widespread
stratigraphic break throughout the eastern United States
but over many other parts of the world as well. This
erosional event has obscured the relationship of the New
Richmond-Shakopee Formations in the Michigan Basin and
whether it is a facies relationship as proposed by Busch-
bach (1964) for northeast Illinois cannot'be determined
at this time. Likewise, the effects of the Findlay Arch
as well as its activity at this time are a matter of con-
jecture owing to the total erosion of the Prairie du Chien
Group in southeast Michigan and adjacent areas. The
absence of the New Richmond—ShakOpee Interval from most of
the Northern Peninsula and from the southern portions of
the Lower Peninsula connotes a major erosional event
especially in the shelve areas of the Michigan Basin.
90
Thus it appears that the distribution of the Prairie du
Chien Group in the Michigan Basin is generally the result
of basinal subsidence, isostatic sinking and erosional
events. A restored section of the Prairie du Chien Group
prior to deposition of the Glenwood Formation is presented
in Figure 16.
91
«Hr. m—&m—
uauauusnaa .opauuzna<
oapaaoo .mopaaoo o
guano ‘
accumocam ...
madam luv
maï¬aoaon uuuuuu Hawwh<
ouasoaon macaw n u
opï¬soaon
usabmosqq
.... MHWII.
moHHE mm u :H HM CON n :H
A<HZONHmom ul A<0Hamm> "mq<om
Accumuowmdxo haaaOHuuo>v
.oo mm3<zmq on xHo>MAM<mo 20mm wmm n 322
.zm nooszmqo on» no onHHmommn on MOHmm Abomo
zmHmo so NHmH<mm on» mo onaomm nmmoemmm
mv— mmDlo
. \w mRNNRma .
n .00 0:01...
Paubilvxusrn ... ..
\ a no O... t... not... . o o o o ‘ oHoO.OIOO
P. -u I o . o .o o. o . . o
.urï¬wwflflK‘Q ..
PETROLEUM OCCURRENCE
To date the Prairie du Chien Group has not proved
an oil and gas producer in the Michigan Basin. Previously,
two producing wells (Well #89, Bell and Gaunt Drilling
Company-Young #1, Hillsdale County; and Smith Petroleum
Company-Zaremba #1, Jackson County, T48, R3W, Sec. 28,
SESENE, Ph 21985) were attributed to the Prairie du Chien
Group on the basis of stratigraphic position below the
Glenwood Shale. It now appears that both are producing
out of Glenwood carbonates, the Smith-Zaremba #1 well
producing 40 BOPD from a porous limestone, and the Bell and
Gaunt-Young #1 well producing 5 BOPD from a porous dolo-
mite directly off the Albion-Scipio trend.
Random shows of oil and gas have been reported in
southern Lower Michigan where portions of the Prairie du
Chien Group (Oneota Formation generallY) have been pene-
trated. Overall the Prairie du Chien dolomites appear
tight with only a few scattered porosity zones present more
toward the edges of the Basin.
The Post-Knox Unconformity surface and directly
subjacent karst zone may have acted as an avenue for
movement of oil, gas and fluids up dip. The origin of this
92
93
gas and oil is problematical. Geologists have often looked
to the carbonaceous shales of the Utica as a potential
source. While the Utica shale is stratigraphically higher
than the Prairie du Chien Group it is structurally lower
basinward and oil and gas may have migrated generally up dip
passing stratigraphically lower along faults to trap '
beneath the erosional surface and the overlying Glenwood
shale. A couple of possible mechanisms for this movement
might be:
(1) the water migrated up dip upon lithification and
compaction of structurally deeper formations
flushing the hydrocarbons up dip until trapped by
tight and impermeable beds; and
(2) the water was also of artesian origin off of the
Wisconsin and Algonquin Arches that flowed down
the bedding planes and became trapped under the
unconformity along with connate waters.
The activation or uplift of the arches, basinal sinking,
and the pressure of compaction increased the lithostatic
pressures and hydraulic head of the waters, flushing hydro-
carbons up dip. The high magnesium rich waters of the
Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian formations may have
been forced upwards through fracture systems dolomitizing
Middle Ordovician rocks and later emplacing some oil within
these porosity traps.
94
The up dip migration of oil along the unconformity
may have continued into Ohio and Indiana and resulted in
the vast Lima-Indiana Field. This field produces from
erosional highs in the Copper Ridge Dolomite (Upper
Cambrian) and from secondary porosity associated with
dolomitization of the Trenton Limestone. It is interesting
to note that the field: is associated with faulting and
fracture zones and produces a relatively heavy oil con-
taining a large amount of sulfur compounds. The formations
beneath the unconformity in southern Lower Michigan are
usually filled with salt water or, as nearer the Ohio-
Michigan border, sulphuric waters.
Future petroleum possibilities seem limited for the
Prairie du Chien Group in Michigan at this time because
of the general lack of vugular porosity in the dolomites
and lack of exploration drilling and resulting data at this
depth in the Basin. The most likely places for potential
production would be: (1) porosity traps associated with
faulted structures in the Basin; (2) porous erosional rem-
nants underlying impermeable seals (unconformity surface
and Glenwood shale); and (3) wedge outs along the margins
of the Basin (porous sands or dolomites).
LANDSAT imagery showing the trends of lineaments
may be a major means of locating prospective areas of
petroleum production in the near future. Prouty (1976)
has plotted nearly 700 lineaments in the Basin, indicating
95
faulting. He (1976) has also noted the presence of cross-
lineaments in such producing structures as the Howell
Anticline and Albion-Scipio trend. Lineaments may play
an important role in the accumulation and distribution of
oil in the Michigan Basin and in the exploration of linear
fault traps of the Albion-Scipio type.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUS IONS
The Prairie du Chien Group in the Michigan Basin
is a far more extensive sequence of rocks than was pre-
viously believed. The thickness varies from zero feet in
southeastern Michigan to a maximum interval of 1,080 feet
in Newaygo County. The distribution of the Prairie du
Chien isopach highs is somewhat crescent shaped with the
two elongate troughs extending northeast into Presque
Isle and Alpena Counties, and southeast into Gratiot
County. The gradual thickening of the sediments basinward
indicates basinal subsidence in Lower Ordovician time.
It appears that general basinal subsidence was complicated
by the somewhat eccentric isostatic sinking caused by the
loading of the thick sands of the New Richmond-Shakopee
Interval.
'Faulting in the major structures of the southern
Lower Peninsula has been interpreted as left lateral in
nature with each of the major structures (the Howell
Anticline, the Lucas-Monroe Monocline and its northwest
extension and the Albion-Scipio trend) being a basement
controlled, en echelon series of faults. Major movements
of the faults are believed of Devonian and Mississippian
96
97
age. Evidence for earlier episodes of faulting is not
presented because of the lack of deep well control, except
as pointed out in Calhoun County.
The Prairie du Chien Group presents identifiable,
characteristic curves on gamma ray logs for southern Lower
Michigan. When used in conjunction with lithologic infor-
mation correlations can be made over the entire Basin.
Again, well control is a major problem but can be overcome
by detailed studies. The Prairie du Chien Group was
divided into the Oneota Formation and the New Richmond-
Shakopee Interval on the basis of gamma ray logs and
lithologic criteria. The Oneota Formation can be further
subdivided into a lower sandy dolomite and an upper
argillaceous dolomite unit. It is inadvisable to try to
subdivide the New Richmond-Shakopee Interval at this time.
The lithologies reveal the gradational nature of the
Trempealeau-Oneota-New Richmond-Shakopee Interval contacts
in the Michigan Basin. The New Richmond-ShakOpee Interval-
Glenwood contact is marked by a major unconformity--the
Post-Knox Unconformity, that has truncated not only the
Prairie du Chien Group in Michigan but also parts of the
Upper Cambrian formations as well, as evidenced in south-
east Michigan.
Lithologic information reveals that the Lower
Ordovician was a time of alternating transgressions and
regressions of the inland seas in Michigan. Following a
98
slight regression in Trempealeau time the lower Oneota
sea transgressed, depositing dolomites and reworked sands
into the shallow marine waters. The argillaceous dolomites
of the upper Oneota indicate a transgression possibly
accompanied by the exposure of surrounding land masses
during this time. The deposition of thick clastics in
northwestern Michigan during the New Richmond-Shakopee
Interval connotes either a continued regression from upper
Oneota time or an uplift to the northwest (the Wisconsin
Arch or the craton) or possibly both. As the source of
these sands wore down the seas stabilized or may have
slightly transgressed allowing for the continued deposition
of the Shakopee dolomites. There is no reason to believe
that the Shakopee was not deposited in the Michigan Basin.
The problem of differentiating the New Richmond and
Shakopee formations in the Basin may reflect the transi-
tional relationship between the two formations. A major
regression followed this Interval during which time the
sea retreated from most of the Michigan Basin and the
Prairie du Chien topography was subjected to a long period
of subaerial erosion entirely removing the upper formations
from the shelves of the Basin. The extent of the erosion
is unknown but judging from the absence of the New Richmond-
Shakopee Interval from most of northern and southern Lower
Michigan, the total absence of the Prairie du Chien Group
in southeast Michigan, and the highly dissected nature of
99
the Prairie du Chien Group in adjacent areas, must have
been of considerable magnitude. The severity of the
truncation varies but is probably greatest over the posi-
tive areas or the regional Precambrian â€highs" that frame
the Michigan Basin.
Dolomitization of the Prairie du Chien Group in the
Basin appears to have been stratigraphic and primarily
penecontemporaneous with sedimentation although some minor
epigenetic dolomite was noted in southern Lower Michigan
(Kirschke, 1962). As in Ohio it is likely that the
Prairie du Chien surface was suitable for the formation of
a karst topography, at least in areas along the rim of the
Basin. The soluble carbonate rock, probably fault and
joint patterns, possible channeling, and the long exposure
to subaerial erosion processes would facilitate the devel-
opment of a karst terrain.
Whether or not the Wisconsin and Findlay Arches
were active structures in Lower Ordovician time cannot be
determined with certainty. The presence of thick sands in
northwestern Michigan, and the absence of both Prairie du
Chien Group and several Upper Cambrian formations in south-
east Michigan indicates either uplifting structures or
positive features exposed to erosion by the regressions of
the Prairie du Chien seas.
Future petroleum possibilities for the Prairie
du Chien Group seem limited at this time.
100
This preliminary study of the Prairie du Chien
Group of the Michigan Basin was limited by the distribution
and number of wells that have penetrated the Group. It is
hoped that the information gleaned from this study will
enhance an understanding of the distribution, lithology,
history and relationships of the Canadian Series to that
of the surrounding areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
(1) A petrographic analysis and comparison of New
Richmond-Shakopee interval sands within Michigan
to the New Richmond Sandstones of surrounding
states to determine the lateral relationship of
the Michigan Basin New Richmond-Shakopee Interval.
(2) A detailed petrologic examination to differentiate
lithologically (if possible) the Oneota dolomite
from the Trempealeau dolomite.
(3) A detailed petrologic examination of well samples
to gain a better understanding of the major
deflections on the gamma ray logs.
101
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Badiozamani, K. 1973. The Dorag Dolomitization Model-
Application to the Middle Ordovician of Wisconsin.
J. of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.
965-984.
Bain, H. F. 1906. Zinc and Lead Deposits of the Upper
Mississippi Valley. U.S.G.S. Bull. 284.
Balombin, M. T. 1974. The St. Peter Sandstone in
Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University.
Benedict, E. N. 1967. A Subsurface Study of the Pre-
Knox Unconformity and Related Rock Units in the
State of Ohio. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State
University.
Bishop, W. C. 1967. Study of the Albion-Scipio Field of
Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University.
Brigham, R. J. 1971. Structural Geology of Southwestern
Ontario and Southeastern Michigan. Ontario Bureau
of Mines and Northern Affairs, Petroleum Resources
Section, Paper 71-2.
Buschbach, T. C. 1964. Cambrian and Ordovician Strata
of Northeastern Illinois. Rpt. of Inv. No. 218,
Illinois State Geol. Surv.
Calvert, W. L. 1962. Sub-Trenton Rocks from Lee County,
Virginia to Fayette County, Ohio. Rpt. of Inv.
No. 45, Ohio Geol. Surv.
Calvert, W. L. 1963a. A Cross Section of Sub-Trenton
Rocks from WOod County, West Virginia to Fayette
County, Illinois. Rpt. of Inv. No. 48, Ohio Geol.
Surv.
Calvert, W. L. 1963b. Sub-Trenton Rocks of Ohio in Cross
Sections from West Virginia and Pennsylvania to
Michigan. Rpt. of Inv. No. 49, Ohio Geol. Surv.
102
103
Calvert, W. L. 1964. Sub-Trenton Rocks from Fayette
County, Ohio to Brant County, Ontario. Rpt. of
Inv. No. 52, Ohio Geol. Surv.
Catacosinos, P. A. 1972. Cambrian Stratigraphy of the
Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan
State University.
Cline, L. M.; Tyler, S. A.; and Black, R. F. 1959. Guide-
book for the Twenty-third Annual Tri-State Geolog-
ical Field Conference, Southwestern Wisconsin.
University of Wisconsin.
Cohee, G. V. 1945. Lower Ordovician and Cambrian Rocks
in the Michigan Basin, Michigan and Adjoining
Areas. U.S. Geol. Surv. Oil and Gas Inv. (Prelim.)
Chart No. 9.
Cohee, G. V. 1947. Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in
Recent Wells in Southeastern Michigan. Bull. of
AvoPoGo' V01. 31' pp. 293-307.
Cohee, G. V. 1948. Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in
Michigan Basin and Adjoining Areas. Bull. of
AvoPoGo' V01. 32' pp. 1417-1448.
Cohee, G. V. 1965. Geologic History of the Michigan
Basin. J. of Wash. Acd. of Sci.
Dapples, E. C. 1955. General Lithofacies Relationship
of St. Peter Sandstone and Simpson Group. Bull.
Of AvoPoGo, V01. 39' NO. 4, pp. 444-4670
Deffeyes, K. S. 1965. Dolomitization of Recent and Plio-
- Pleistocene Sediments by Marine Evaporite Waters
on Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. Soc. of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Pub.
No. 13, pp. 71-88.
Dixon, R. A. 1961. Lithologic Study of a Cambro-Ordovician
Core, Delta County, Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan
State University.
Ekblaw, G. E. 1938. Kankakee Arch in Illinois. Bull. of
G.S.A., Vol. 49, p. 1428.
Ells, G. D. 1967. Correlation of Cambro-Ordovician Rocks
in Michigan. Michigan Basin Geol. Soc. Annual
Field Excursion, pp. 42-57.
104
Ells, G. D. 1969. Architecture of the Michigan Basin.
Michigan Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion,
pp. 60-88.
Fettke, C. R. 1948. Subsurface Trenton and Sub-Trenton
Rocks in Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. Bull. of A.A.P.G., Vol. 32, pp. 1457-
1492.
Fisher, J. H. 1969. Early Paleozoic History of the
Michigan Basin. Michigan Basin Geol. Soc. Annual
Field Excursion, pp. 89-93.
Grabau, A. W. 1906. Types of Sedimentary Overlap. Bull.
of G.S.A., Vol. 17.
Graham, W. A. P. 1933. Petrology of the Cambrian-
Ordovician Contact in Minnesota. J. of Geol.,
Vol. 41.
Green, D. A. 1957. Trenton Structure in Ohiq, Indiana
and Northern Illinois. Bull. of A.A.P.G., Vol. 41,
pp. 627-642.
Grim, R. E. 1968. Clay Mineralogy. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, New York, Second Edition.
Guldenzopf, E. C. 1967. Conodonts from the Prairie du
Chien of Northern Michigan. Preliminary Report,
Michigan Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion,
pp. 58-64.
Gutstadt, A. M. 1958. Cambrian and Ordovician Strati-
graphy and Oil and Gas Possibilities in Indiana.
Geol. Surv. Bull. No. 14.
Hamblin, W. K. 1958. Cambrian Sandstones of Northern
Michigan. Michigan State Geol. Surv. Pub. 51.
Hamil, D. F. 1961. A Detailed Chemical Analysis for
Calcium.and Magnesium of the Sun Oil Company,
Peterson-Howard Well #1 Core Sample. M.S. Thesis,
Michigan State University.
Heller, R. L. 1956. Status of the Prairie du Chien
Problem. G.S.A. Guidebook Ser.--Field Trip No. 2.
Hinze, W. J., and Merritt, D. W. 1969. Basement Rocks
of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan
Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion, pp. 28-59.
105
Horowitz, M. 1961. The St. Peter-Glenwood Problem in
Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University.
Hussey, R. C. 1950. The Ordovician Rocks of the Escanaba-
Stonington Area. Michigan Geol. Soc. Annual Field
Excursion.
Hussey, R. C. 1952. The Middle and Upper Ordovician Rocks
of Michigan. Michigan Geol. Surv. Pub. 46, G.
Ser. 39.
Kashfi, M. S. 1967. Lithologic Study of the Upper Cam-
brian of Foster Number 1 Well, Ogemaw County,
Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University.
Kay, G. M. 1935. Ordovician System in the Upper Mississippi
Valley. Kansas Geol. Soc. 9th Annual Field Con-
ference Guidebook.
Kilbourne, D. E. 1947.. The Origin and Development of the
Howell Anticline in Michigan. M.S. Thesis,
Michigan State University.
Kirschke, W. H. 1962. A Petrographic Core Analysis of the
Lower and Middle Ordovician Rocks, Pulaski Field,
Jackson County, Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan
State University.
Kraft, J. C. 1956. A Petrographic Study of the Oneota-
Jordan Contact Zone. G.S.A. Guidebook Serv.-Field
Trip No. 2.
Krumbein, W. C., and 81098, L. L. 1958. 'Stratigraphy and
Sedimentation. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Fran-
cisco, California.
Lane, A. C., and Seaman, A. E. 1907. Notes on the Geo-
logical Section of Michigan. J. of Geol., Vol. 15.
Lilienthal, R. 1974. Subsurface Geology of Barry County.
Geol. Surv. Dept. of Natural Resources, Rpt. of
Inv. 15.
Lockett, J. R. 1947. Development of Structures on Basin
Areas of Northeastern United States. Bull. of
A.A.P.G., V01. 31’ pp. 429-446.
Low, J. W. 1951. Examination of well Cuttings. Colorado
School of Mines Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 4.
106
Martin, H. M. 1936. The Centennial Geologic Map of
Southern and Northern Peninsulas of Michigan.
Michigan Geol. Surv. Pub. 39, No. 33.
Michigan State Geological Survey. 1964. Stratigraphic
Succession in Michigan. Michigan Geol. Surv.
Chart No. 1.
Michigan State Geological Survey. 1965. Tests Reported
to Have Penetrated Basement Rocks in the Southern
Peninsula of Michigan.
Newcomb, R. B. 1933. Oil and Gas Fields of Michigan.
Michigan Geological Survey, Pub. 38, G. Ser. 32.
Newhart, R. E. 1976. Carbonate Facies of the Middle
Ordovician Michigan Basin. M.S. Thesis, Michigan
State University.
O'Connell, J. F. 1958. Study of Ordovician Rocks from
Deep Wells in the Hillsdale, Northville and Adja-
cent Areas in Southeast Michigan. M.S. Thesis,
Michigan State University.
Ostrom, M. E. 1966. Cambrian Stratigraphy of Western
Wisconsin. Michigan Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field
Conf., Inf. Circ. No. 7.
Ostrom, M. E. 1967. Geologic Cross Section, Alger County,
Michigan--Wa1worth County, Wisconsin. Michigan
Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion.
Pennington, E. K. 1967. A Stratigraphic Study of the
Upper Cambrian of the Perry-WOoden No. 1 Deep
Test Well, Cass County, Michigan. M.S. Thesis,
Michigan State University.
Pirtle, G. W. 1932. Michigan Structural Basin and Its
Relationship to Surrounding Areas. Bull. of
A.A.P.G., Vol. 16, pp. 145-152.
Powers, E. H. 1935. Stratigraphy of the Prairie du Chien.
Kansas Geol. Soc. 9th Annual Field Conference
Guidebook.
Prouty, C. E. 1960. Lower Paleozoic and Pleistocene
Stratigraphy Across Central Wisconsin. Michigan
Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion.
Prouty, C. E. 1970. Michigan Basin-Paleozoic Evolutionary
Development. G.S.A. Abs., Vol. 2, Part 7, pp. 657-
58.
107
Prouty, C. E. 1972. Michigan Basin Development and the
Appalachian Foreland. XXIV Annual Session,
International Geological Congress, Montreal,
Canada, p. 72.
Prouty, C. E. 1976. Michigan Basin--A Wrenching Defor-
mation Model? Abs. with Prog., G.S.A., Vol. 8,
No. 4, p. 505.
Raasch, G. O. 1935. Stratigraphy of the Cambrian System
of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Kansas Geol.
Soc. 9th Annual Field Conf. Guidebook.
Rudman, A. J. et a1. 1965. Geology of Basement in Mid-
western United States. Bull. of A.A.P.G., Vol. 49,
pp. 894-904.
Seyler, D. J. 1974. Middle Ordovician of the Michigan
Basin. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University.
Shearrow, G. C. 1959. "Watch Ohio for Deep Drilling."
Oil and Gas Journal, March 23.
Slaughter, A. E., and Ostrom, M. E. 1967. Correlation
Problems of the Cambrian and Ordovician Outcrop
Areas of the Northern Peninsula of Michigan.
Michigan Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion,
pp. 1-35.
Stelzer, W. T. 1966. A Subsurface Study of the Middle
Ordovician Sequence in Ohio. M.S. Thesis,
Michigan State University.
Thwaites, F. T. 1923. The Paleozoic Rocks Found in Deep
Wells in Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. J. of
Geology, Vol. 31.
Thwaites, F. T. 1931. Buried Pre-Cambrian of Wisconsin.
Bull. of G.S.A., Vol. 42, pp. 719-750.
Trowbridge, A. C., and Atwater, G. I. 1934. Strati-
graphic Problems in the Upper Mississippi Valley.
Bull. of G.S.A., Vol. 45, pp. 21-80.
Twenhofel, W. H.; Raasch, G. 0.; and Thwaites, F. T. 1935.
Cambrian Strata of Wisconsin. Bull. of G.S.A.,
Vol. 46.
Ulrich, E. O. 1911. Revision of Paleozoic Systems. Pt.
I, G.S.A. Bu11., Vol. 22, No. 6.
108
Wasson, I. B. 1932. Sub Trenton Formations in Ohio.
J. of Geol., Vol. 40, pp. 673-687.
Whiteside, R. M. 1932. Geologic Interpretations from
Rotary Well Cuttings. Bull. of A.A.P.G., Vol. 16,
No. 7.
Whiting, W. M. 1965. A Subsurface Study of the Post-Knox
Unconformity and Related Rock Units in Morrow
County, Ohio. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State
University.
Winchell, N. H. 1886. The Geology of the Minnesota Valley,
Minnesota. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv., 2nd Annual
Rept.
Woodward, H. P. 1959. A Symposium on the Sandhill Deep
Well, Wood County, West Virginia. Rept. of Inv.
No. 18.
Workman, L. E., and Bell, A. H. 1948. Deep Drilling and
Deeper Oil Possibilities in Illinois. A.A.P.G.,
Bu11., Vol. 32, pp. 2041-2062.
Yettaw, G. A. 1967. Upper Cambrian and Older Rocks of
the Security-Thalmann No. 1 Well, Berrien County,
Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
SUB-PRAIRIE DU CHIEN WELL LOCATION MAP
APPENDIX 1
Figure 17
Sub-Prairie du Chien Well Location Map
109
LAN!
3L CLAIR
CAI...
Llll (ï¬ll
APPENDIX II
STRATIGRAPHIC SUCCESSION CHART IN MICHIGAN
APPENDIX II
.S‘I'RATIGRAPHIC SUCCESSION IN MICHIGAN
g mmzac m m
o .
3 "4‘
z ‘ ’
Ill
U
“nun-u
mm“ -m—
mnoulmal ...... ~- ——
â€*‘hinhdd‘ ml
Db“ ‘u.—_ï¬ oAa—AA— A~ hl\G.
*dbqu—nnn-ï¬n—WH—v‘dm-‘n
--udu‘pé~.. “' («w—de—u-
â€H‘Jï¬n—qd-ï¬wm-‘O
“tuba-*5...
hiwl~h~lflb
Widï¬m-‘H—uflu-h
“aw-mim-n-ï¬
m '
Iflllmm mm M
Nomi
huh-.. “I.-
thus-‘0' ‘zz
w III-co... .-
I u
C... -.__—&O~
has ha.-
â€..-!—
(afl-u-I ~d_.__.__|-
I'M—c
bus-and
“It be lull-“’_°l|~
bah , ____ ._h—-uu—o.~_alb
bhh_~.—’-h__~|~
W..." ‘hu-h—v
l-nnaun— No..— .Oh
MW ‘b-a‘u— a.“
*(‘Ill 9...
Huh onsc-
Hsh ‘ Luv:
â€durum .__._-4(~- 80h
~~QJ
‘0‘
.l—’ |._ ‘m—-—————¢Oh
...-M-
w;- ..h
UV-‘nol. my.
hut“. .M
mlW—_ _____....¢... .
bkuail?
(mm mun—- .-
VII ‘. I‘ll:-
AIC-lu- us.— an...
MID" .....n .
Hun-W ——.—_.‘o--n . “‘h
IA..."
4 b
Mdflq-rlao— l.-§§.
Iva-W much
“0 .uh-ï¬.’ ...
he...“ “.0“ .—
"o...-
a..." C
Figure 18
Stratigraphic Succession Chart in Michigan
110
APPENDIX III
WELL LISTINGS, LOCATIONS, FOOTAGE
I movoa womoa mam sewed m we zed Ha commuumImaso .nd
sum
I Hmmm maom «mm momma m 3m 24 H* cmaamaoozImuaHooz .oa
I mmom «mom «mm mnmmm ow as aw H¢ sananaomIousaooz .ma
I vomw mmwa one vomvu «a sea an as aqsumIHao cam .ea
I Homm eamm sum we 3m 2m «HIH* avocausIoooaa .ma
I avvvm «mum mom nmmam «a as an as usumI.oo Hï¬o noouaIsuumaom .NH
I ammsv mvsv mam «meow em 3m zm He vuonnamIonsaooz .HH
I avflam mmom mmm «momu on as zm H* «mosIo a o unasmcacom .oa
I I «mam mum woman - sh zm He uucusomI.oo .uauo cane: .m
I «vase Home mom Hmssm mm 3m 2H He camaHHAsI.moum.umdaaz .m
smmm vomv amps omm mma*om 4H 3m 2H me omI.oo moo xmmuo «Hausa .h
mundm
I seam mmmm ems Human em mm zmm «MIaa
aoumcflaams oumumIcooHaamIHHmrm .m
vooo mvmm mmmm «we omomm m mm zen mIH* .oo uouoz ouomI.o.m.m.m .m
mammac
I mvvmv vamw mew «moan mm sad z~ H* mummImxouum .v
I mmome emav omm mmmvm am sad zN at Hauamusznuaam .m
I I emu. smm mmomm oH sad zm Ht commsamI.oo ago Hauaoqausoo .m
I I made mmm Henna om sad zm H* ammuoI.oo Hao chanseom .H
csmmaad
gamma WWW mmw "on†* bashes sowumooa ausquousuomo Honmmmswwou
HHH XHDzmmmd
.ommuoom .msoï¬umooq .moswumaq HH03II.~ wands
111
112
I anon maov 0mm mommm he so me a. mw>soImHsHOoz .mm
I moon mmmm mam mnemm Hm Bo mv a. mouï¬mmIousaoo: .mm
I vmhm mhhm vom Hmmmm mm 35 mv at uusamI.o.H.: .hm
ssOSHnO
I omhm mohm mom. Hm 3m mm H* somHaBIawo case .om
I mean «mam «mm omonn m 3m mm as maauI.maaau «0 Hho cogs: .mm
I when even mom mmmsu ma 35 mm as uuoauummIamaouaI.o.H.z .em
mwmm vhmm mmmm mam mommm m 3m mm at xuoHUIussucwsa a .O.m.u .mm
nwmm hwmm pawn 0mm mhbmw 5 3m mm umuuoumomImssuswso .U.m.u .Nm
omov Nvmm Namm mmOH mahmm m 3m mm at hoxqulunomsxouso: .Hm
I mahm whom mhoa wheom on 3m mm a: mHOAmsumIHï¬no: .om
I oovm mmcm hued omwmw mm 3m mm H: msoomozI.ocH .com a Manon .mm
hvhm comm momm Neda mmhmw mm 3m me at sous2I.Houuom casusomam .mN
I mamn mhvm NNOH vommm ma :0 ms H* vacuumshdIousaooz .hm
I movm mwmm mam mommm VA 35 mm a. ssoumlw a o somosm .mm
I Hmvm bmvm omoa vemhn NH 35 me At HsmHUI.O.H.z .mu
I vmmm hvmm 0mm mmmam 0H 35 me at mouowmI.oo Hwo “madam .vw
I momm ohvm Vmoa vmmhm H 3h me a: mmsmusoZI.o.H.z .mu
mmmm oawm moan cam mmmow ma 3m ms aw smausoanomIawo .ummnfld .moa .m .Nm
I nmvm mmvm amoa ommmm v 3m mm H* manhoo>
I.muou .Houumm amuswpwooo .HN
nocmum
I mnmw mmmm mmn momvw on 3mH mm HIm* umuusUIummm .om
I ~¢Hm mmam vmo momvm h sad we HIH¢ unsanomI.U.m.o .mH
vmom omvm maem vow NHHmN 0H 3nd mm at camsHmnBIaflo wuwusomm .ma
coauumm
QMMMB MM“ mum "OM†e uflaumm s0ausooq summnuoumuomo umnmwmswwou
.ooscaucooII.~ manna
113
meme emme name one enema mm 3e ma ae .aaoo oxuaIcosoo .No
I heme meme «em ommwm an em ma ae euunecsmIaao cam .ao
I come meme one mama" ma 3m ma a. nouansIaoumaam .oo
I some «see mem emmmm m 3m ma ae eoozIaouaoua .mm
I come omme eem enema m 3m ma ae soamcmmIamamcom .em
omee mane sese mew enmem m so ma as cmeaomIaaao son a moneys .nm
I meme «nee amm mmoam en 3e mm as .aaao eonooaazIaash .mm
I meme eeme mmm mmoma mm 3e mm ae mauve aauozIousauo: .mm
oeae oese case mmm momma am 3e ma ae ma>mo a ma>unIcmaoo .em
knee mase amoe «mm mmemm au 3e mm ae aeauoumuzIamaoo .mm
amse «eke mane mmm mmmmm e 3e mm as pecoumIomsuoIauaesm .Nm
meme meme meme «mm mmmmm ma 3m mm ae eqsosIcoxoo .am
woke woke emme mam omoma «a 3m mm ae caeuasomImeqaaaso .om
I «same emee Neoa onmmm om 3e mm ae mmcaasI.ooune a uaoua .me
I mmme omme mom manna ma 36 mm as onussezIoaaomouuoa .me
I ooae mmoe mam Nmamw ma :5 mm ae noncommIomuao .ae
I emmm emmm mmm mmomm ma 3m mm ae eumaaomchxoooauem .ee
meee msoe meoe «mm ammwm ma 3m mm ae oaooqunmoacuom .me
I om~e eeae ouoa ammmm «a se me as umuaeaomIauaam
IueceunaauuaaI.oo .oaua manage .ee
I name «one mam scone ma se me ae quomIaaam .me
I ammee maee mmoa momma a 3e me ae umeaaaIeaoua .ae
I somee moee omoa a se me ae smeaueIcomxoms .ae
I swam moan mum enema an 3m me uoameaIucuunanaI.o.m.o .oe
Aflwflcwucoov gondmu
QMMMB WWW mum "mm“ * uaï¬uom COaDsooa shsmluousuogo aonmmmswwoo
.oOSCAHGOUII.N wands
114
I mmHOm mmom vmm aemnm ha 30 2a a. xosam
I.oo .mauo some a sousua .me
I whoam hwom aNm mmohu mN 30 2a a* nooMIcow a mason .mh
Gonna
memm mmme mmme aom Nmmom em 3a 2mm «Nuat haum>s3 .um
IsoauMHOHQXM .noaz suonuuoz .vh
commononu
I mmmm vwmm oema oaamm am 3e 2mm «Io .uu uo>swm .umlaao QOHGD .mn
muonssuo
I warn hemp new aawbm 9 3a 2h a* womIousaooz .Nh
soucaao
momm emam mmam owe mnemu hN 30a 2mm at uo>mum .umIoasanz .ah
hmhm ommm vonm aom awomm ma 30a 25m at vasomoOIoasaooz .on
Faun ommm oamm men mnemm m sea zhm m¢ uo>mom .vaaao ousaooz .mo
xao>oaumgo
I mmmmm mmmm emm mmmmw om sea mm at HammHHMMIuoanoM .mo
I ahmw memm owm mmomm ea sea mm at xoï¬ï¬sï¬MIsommsam .bo
I omen mmmm eom vaeha on Zea me a* usaauonswwlmuammm ss> .mo
mwmn when aeom mom mmmmm m sea ms aw swooozImsom a huuom .mo
I when amen mew ommmm on 3ma we a: axmswauMI.ocH «com a aaumm .eo
I momm hmem mew hvomm m Sea mm at conuoo
Iaao musaoozraao mamas: .mo
mono
mamas ova so mu uoassz ouoo
mos moa mos "00a * uwsuom coausooq shsmIaoumummo hussou
.omscaucooII.~ manna
115
I mean some moaa mmeme N 3e me ae xuaumIaaanmsonIeauonaa .mm
I omen mmom «moa eammu e se me ae coumaquaasz a em>oo .em
I meem emem eoaa oamam e se me ae eueomIousaooz a aao oaao .mm
I came meme amoa mmmau mm se me ae xooImmaaaaam a aoauuao .mm
muem aomm emmm emm mmemm on 3a mm ae aoeaeaIeuuonaa .am
memm comm omen mam memee ma 3a mm ae ammuaI.mauo pause a aaoa .om
comm meem emem oem ommmm aa 3a mm ae masoeI.eaua passe a aaoa .mm
emmm mmmm ommm owe eameu 0 3a mm ae aqoumIeuuonaa .mm
I amen meem amoa memme oa ze mm as «amoaIuoauanz .em
I eeem amen mem on se me as meson a comaaaquoauags .mm
omen momm omen aaoa meoee mm 3e mm at aaeuoI.oo aao o a .m.m .mm
mmmm meme eeem «mm emcee m 3a mm ae numsuomIeuuwnaa .em
moan aomm «men mam. mmoom m sa mm ae mzoaammIeuuwnaa .mm
mauemaaam
emom eaom meme Noe mneme m an zoa mIae aauuamaas
Homumaaosom .mxuommIousaooz .Nm
uoaueuo
I comm memm eae «anew mm 3e zen ae manna
a muaasIeaoaaa caucuaue .am
amass
ammo seem meem oem eaaam em 3m z~ ae eaamxIaanoz .om
I emmmm mamm eom eoeem m an za ae saunaaquaoua .me
I oeom maom oam ameon we 3m za mmIae socheasuuom .me
I eamam aoam mem ememm m as za ae umaaaz a umsaemIaasm .ee
nouns
QMWMB WW“ mmw "on†* uwsamm sOHHsooa EHMMIHoumuogo Honmwwswwoo
.ewsaauaooII.m manna
116
I name Nwae eeaa oweNN mm 3N mm at aaosomIsw>Maw .maa
I emme ewme eeaa wmmum ma 3N mm at hoHMoOOIxash .waa
I come «mme awoa Hemwm e 3N mm a* somuusu a amassMIamusopaooo .eaa
I mmwe amae wwaa ewamm mm 3m mm at Hummus:
a amocmme.oo .maua me>mo .waa
meme emaae «woe moaa wN 3m mm a: uaaau
w homsumI.moum aouuom sown: .maa
I meae mmae eoe emmem ew 3m mm a* somaanUIumsMQOQS a «season .eaa
I mwme wmme mmaa mweem ma 3m mm a* nuanou a suamwszxomsow .maa
I eaoe ewmm mwoa oemwm mN 3a ww ae maoudIousauoz .Naa
I Neoe eooe amaa meomm «a 3m mm at uuaszowIaouumm uoaucoum .aaa
I oeoe wooe meaa wN am no at xosamImmsuuooz a usaxsob .oaa
I weoe mace «maa emwem an 3N mm at amaashImmsuooos w mcaxsoh .moa
I wmoe omoe eeoa NmeN wa 3e mm at aunquzoosxmnsom .woa
I owoe mwoe mmaa mmowm wa 3w ww an umomlmusaouz .eoa
I oaae ceoe omaa mwemm m 3N mw at sasboowIawammsu .woa
I meae omae aeaa oammw w 3N mm at uoxHMwIausaooz .moa
I mwae wmae weaa meoem w 3N mm a# nousszusosmoao>uo m a w .eoa
I «owe eoae mmaa maeee m 3N mo ae umesmm .nuuozI.moum mcaaaoo .moa
wmmm ewem «men mwoa oomwm om 3e mm at chowusuonoaaqunoucxmmsow .Noa
I mmmm mmem wam wmomu mm 3a we a* EBHmIousaooz .aoa
mwwm wwem mmem mNoa wommm ma 3a we a* assamIsow a human .ooa
I mean eomm wwoa ammam N 3a me a: cmocouuauOIo a o sxousm .mm
I emem mmem «woa eomNN em Bu we aI¢*
muuwsww a mwaaszmauo H a a .wm
I mmwm wmem emoa weowm oa 3N we at mocoaquoosxua .em
I mmwm mowm emoa oeeaw oa 3N we a* moauonsaooz .wm
Aconcausoov oamumaaam
QMMMB mm“ mum "mm†* weaken soaumooa EHMMIaousuomo Honmwnswwoo
.uoaaauqooII.~ manna
117
I awee whee wwoa emmmm 0a an me He Housoo ssuaIxao> u xonsow .oea
I eoee mwme meaa amwmm mm 3m we ae ssoaIsuausw a ousaooz .mma
I wane wane ewoa ammNN em 3m we at sumowlxasm .wma
I name meme mmaa eww- em 3m we a: aaoa a xOOOGMMI.maHa mw>so .ema
I omee emee wmoa eemmm eN an we a* aunssoluua>oa .wma
I amNe meme aaoa «Nomu ma 3m we ae mmoIswsouuom .mma
I Heme mane maoa macaw ea an we a: pussomlsonnoummlaao cam .ema
I moee oeme wmoa wowNN w 3m we at gasMMIsuacsm .mma
I meee emee mmoa oawmm m 3m we a: .umu ousnnsmIoosmz .mma
somxomn
I I ewmm oew eemmm ma 3h 2m ae smacaasImusauoz .ama
I emewm mmwm waw wwemw wm 3w 2m aw amasuanHsauoz .oma
I emeww memo new ooeeu am am 2w at snowmomIaao usaussm .mma
I eooaw meow was mmomm e 3w 2w ae manusmIaao Honummsnsa .wma
I oeow eaow eww amoew e 3w so a# assumuoao .muoo sauna .ema
macaw
I mmem aeem eem oeeem am aw 2a a: caezuaao Honsumsnaa .wma
I ewmem omem New eowmm ma MN za at ouomswlsssoumu .mma
meaw amwm emwm eem Newmw on 3a 2a at o>oOMIaano= .ewa
I emmwm amwm mwm mm 3a 2a a* xoounmsmIaanoz .mma
I emmem eoem emm mmmmm mm 3N ZN a* maname.ou aao canned: .mma
I emmmm Namm waw wamem wa 3m ZN at mmosxusmlaao mush .ama
asnmsH
wmwe mome eeme aae amamm wm wma Zma at msauosao>Iaanoz .oma
soars
QMWMB WWW mnw "on“ * sesame soaumooa aauquousuogo Honmwmswwoo
.ewscaucooII.u manna
118
I mamm emmm aam mommm mm soa 2m ae umuoauumI.muoo conga .mma
I eemmm meem emm mmmem m 3m 2m ae m>mm nuaIaao nommmmenae .mma
I emmam moam mme mmam on sea ze ae mcauomeamI.aaoo mumoseoum .ama
yams
I I mmoe mam memom em zoa ma ae mmoaImuaaouz .oma
I mmem amen ome mmomm oa zma ma ae emmanmI.oo .maua «amuse .mma
I ommm meme eem momem am sea mm ae unnamemIaao ecuaaue .mma
mmmIeee
mmmm mamm eomm mmm Iema 3: ea saa mm me :aoemmIaaoema .ema
I mmmm memm mmm eoonm aa sea me ae ceaumzoqummamxoae .mma
OONMEMHQM
I omme emme oem memmm ma mm mm as :cmmIoomxoa .mma
I eame eome oaoa mmmem em 3m mm am sea m camcoaozI.o.a.z .ema
I mmee mmee aem momam mm 3m mm ae emaaooozr.moum uoaaaz .mma
memee meme mome «mm emmmm mm mm mm am uumnaaoIconunooumem aeoauoae .mma
mmmep. mmee amee mmm mmmam mm ma mm ae oncoquueo .ama
mmme amme meme emm memmm mm 3a mm ae “moamaIxoeam m maaaaoo .oma
I ooee meme oem meemm mm 3a mm ae aaameoaam m mcaaaoo .mea
I amme oeme eeoa ommmm an em mm ae uuuausmeao> a summon .mea
mome mmme meme meoa oemem me an mm ae mamaummozIammsom .eea
oeme mmee meee maoa emaem om am mm me muaamIoocmz .mea
I Nmee mmee mmm ammmm on an mm am auaamImuuaooz .mea
I eame mmme mmoa eemmm mm 3m mm ae moeoamImmcaaapu a “means .eea
I eemme mmme amoa mmmmm em mm me ae menus mcaaumsIaao oaao .mea
I eame mome emm eaomm m me me maaemmIemacoo m maaaamuuo .mea
I maee mmme aaaa omamm em 3m me am mauuemInom m euumm .aea
Avwadfluï¬onuv com whom—u
QMMMB MM“ mnw "mm†* sesame sOeumooa sMsquoumuflmo umnmwmswwoo
.vossaHGOUII.N manna
119
ammm ammm eamm mee emmmm ea mm mm ae .umeca m nooamochaao cammm
mmem mmem ammm emm maomm mm mm me ae nonuooIm m o umumaaumm
ammm ammm aeem ome eomem m um mm as noemoammIeoom m eooe .mma
mmmm eemm oamm mmm mmmmm m me mm ae moa>uomImmmaunamo .ema
mmmm ommm mamm mem mmmmm ea me mm ae :oaaeImusaoo: .mma
I amee emme mmoa oaomm ma ma mm at umesmquoummmunaa m muaaouz .mma
eaeem aeem maem mem mamem on mm mm ae unozI.oo macuomaamo .ama
e eeamm mmem mmm maamm ma mm mm ae uo>ooqmumImmmm am>mm .oma
emmem mmem emem omm mmmmm mm mm mm ae uuomsmIaouaomaooo .mea
I moem mmmm emm amemm mm mm mm am umezmunIcouzma .mea
I emoe omoe oaoa mmamm e mm mm ae maooumIaomummae .eea
I mmmm mmmm mem mmmmm om ma mm ae .am no maaaamm uaoua .mea
oamm oamm meme nae memmm em mm mm ae nanomaaaomIamuammaooo .mea
«man «man mmam eae mmmma ma me mm ae coauecoaoosraammm m ausm .eea
emem emem eaem mme memmm on an me ae auammauo m nommzraao couauom .mea
mmem mmem ommm oem enema em me me ae nomuuauIaonuoooumem .amaa .mea
amen mmem amen emm mmmam mm ea me ae muacaamsIumaaum .aea
emmmm oemm momm ome maemm om mm mm ae someaquumsom .oea
mmmm emmm ammm oem ammmm am ma mm ae .aaoo uaaamIoooz .mma
eomm ammm memm I mamam em ma mm ae magnum
a hawI.oo aao sauna w Moan .wwa
mmem mmmm aemm mem mmmmm ma ma mm ae uouamsIoooz .ema
mmem mmem ommm emm meoem e ma mm me ammmIaammm amoum uo>mm .mma
oeem emem mmmm amm mmoem n ma mm ae mmom ampmmI.oo .maua .<.z .mma
wmsmswq
I I mmmm mam emmmm m zaa zom ae uaaxIemmmcaa .ema
smcmewa
QMMMB WWW amm "on†* uasumm :Oausooa susquoumuogo awnmwmswwou
.moacaucooII.m manna
120
eeem eeem meam emm emmme ee me mm ae mmcaqcon
Ieooo a eooe m commaam .moe
mmem mmem mmem mmm ammme e we mm ae summmImaeus m aamm .eoe
mame mame meme omm emome oa we me as msuaaaasIousaooz .aoe
mmme mmme eame mmm eeeme m mm mm ae maoauazIeamaame .ooe
00:02
mmam ommm oemm eem mmeea ee sma zma at mummmuaImoeuum .3oa .mma
mmmm mmmmp. mmmm mee momma me zma zea eae emmamIeoaummsm .mma
Comm:
emmm emmm mmmm mme mmeee e .mma zm ae «mammI.o.m.m.m .ema
I eI mmme mmm moome me uma ze ae .aammIcomuoo m combo .mma
omam omam maam mmm eaeme a mma ze ae aoaaammI.o.m.o .mma
macaw:
mmem meem aoem omm mmmee aa mm zm ae .mmmsIaanoz .ema
I eommm mmmm com eemee me we ze am mammomImuags .mma
I ememm oomm mmm eemme e ,mm .zm at oasomIaao manasm .ema
I ememm mmmm oem amome a me 2e ae couamo
Incas: m amazes ..>mn commamsz .ama
mmem eeem eeem mmm mmmme ea me 2e ae umeaMIm m.o moemem .oma
I ememm mmmm omm ememe ea mm 2e ae umaaaomcamaMIaouumm aoauumm .mma
I eooem emmm mmm mmmme ea mm 2a at amasIooexma .mma
I eemm emem oam oeeee ma mm 2a am mummmumme .amaeIooexoe .ema
I eemm mmem mem aeeee ea mm za ae emmoaImxmuum .mma
soumwca>ea
mmwma mmm mmm "mm†* peshmm caeumooa seamleouseomo Honmwmswwou
.moscauaooII.e manna
121
I oeww omem eoe emm w 3nd am at oozraouumm savanna: .wam
maee comm mewm eaw on on 3ma am m* Ba: usemmIsan son .mae
mmee emmm eemm new on on 3ma 2m a* 3.9 ooswloosw ossaaom .eHN
«suave
eomoaa oweoa Naeoa eeea wwomm we we zen a¢ umumom .um
IuoeummsmIsszmonun .mam
I meeoa ewaeoa mom wmwwa mm we ZNN at nousscaomIaaO oeno .Nam
sasmwo
I eoomm mmem Hmw memea 0 Sea zwa mat HonsMAIaeo umuaso .HHN
I I euow ewm aowNN aa swa zwa aw oaoacexw
Iem>amm m aouumm mammm .oae
ssmooo
I memm wNmm omoa mmoma mm we 2a aw cssooIcaaaou .mom
I wwmw memo weoa wmmww mm aw ze He sooucsmIoomow .wom
wsmaxso
mwme mmem mmem mew NwwwN on sea Zma at commsonBIsoaaom newssna .eom
I I wwew «aw meanm oa sea 2aa usuao oumuwImaaumesommsew .wom
I I «mam eaw wamwm ma 3ma Zaa at susmowI.osH umaaez .mom
omwm3mz
mmem meme mmme mmm mm mm sma zea ae ammommao unomsmImcomso .eoe
sommxmsz
mamas use so we Humans mmoo
moa mos mos “won t weaken sceumooq sammIeousHmmO mussou
.oosseUGOOII.N manna
122
weee weee wmme mmm wmemm oa wma an aw sse>ma
.amnosmm .amcewIseaaou .mmm
eemem emem eeem mam emmme me mma ze ae oaean m o uoamama .eme
ooee ooee mmwe mew Noomu Ha mwa 2m He moGQMI.O.m.O .ama
wwee wwee omee waw mmaom Hm mma Ze mmea an.U.m.U .omN
mmmm mmmm oemm awm owemm ea wwa ZN at aaosuusmluvemnsnow .mNN
Hemau .um
I eemee eeee mom memme ee me zm nomaamean m o acumen .mee
I emmmw mmmw new eomew m mu 2m He meuuomemseaoo .Hano: .hmm
I ewmew waew wmw memen m we 2m ax meuumMImoa .wNN
mommmzsenw
name wwme eame mwh eemom on uma zNa omlaw .as we .m.z.z w musauuz .mNN
I ewee omen eee ememn an mea 2aa a* souamanoooad .emm
wmmw wmmw Nme oee aeeem em mwa 20H a¢ msoaI.Hoauom mmaaaenm .mmm
mwww meow meow men wmwmm m wma 20a at umusomIsOmmEem .NNN
ewmw ewmw mmaw mme owewm em wma 2w at Hoosomeo a O Haosaamm .ama
omaassw
eemm mwwe omwe mow mmaem we MN 2mm at awmmmeaI.E< sum .omm
I ewom meow eew wmwmw on Mm Zen a* oxaaowImmmnsea .wam
I ewmm oamm waw mmmem mm we 2mm at mmeszuouuomIcasm .waN
maow wmmm womm awe memmm ma Mm 2mm maIa* susumuma Hamswlaamnw .eau
mamH osvmmum
QMMMB mmm mwm â€mmm * awaken sceusooa ausmluousuwmo H ahunswwoo
.vossau:00II.e magma
123
I emme emme meoa ommme me me me ae eaoueI.oOmme m eaoua .eme
eemmm oamm emme emm ememe ee we me am .m.m ammnmsIammsmm .eme
I mmee mmee eooa mmoee ae me me ae emcoomIaao cam .ame
I eeee mmee eem eomme ma me me at HomozIaao cam .ome
I eeme mmme emm eeeee m me me ae smumIammsom .mee
eoam e emme omm ommme ae mm mm eae HaemamazIamumaaaauumm .e.z .mee
eaam emme emme mem mmmme ae mm mm ae ummmaeazIamuoqaaouumm .e.z .eee
I maee mmme mmm mmeee me we me ae mumooIaonumm «eemm .mee
emam emom mmom amm amaee ee we ma ae asooam
w Hmcmszmasw a commaem .mem
mmem emmem mmem mmm mmeme e me ma am :maaameumsom .eee
3mc0usmm3
eemm eoeom oeom mee moeme mm sea mm ae mommIeuasoo ans .mee
I eeaem mmem eme ommme ma sea ma ae usmooaaomI.moem umaaaz .eee
I emom oeom eem eemme em sea me cumsI.mauo manage .aee
I emme eeme mam aomee om sma me ae eamnImusaooz .oee
GmHaam §>
I meam mmom mee momme ma maa zma ae .mma mumo>ozIaommaam .mme
I eemm mmmm mem ommme m mm zma ae mumaamuummIaao cam m commaam .mme
MHOUMDH.
I mmom mmem emm mmmee ma 3m me ae mommIaommsam .eme
I mmme amme mem mmaae ee saa mm ae ummcsaeIaamamumz m mmaae .mme
I omom maom oem moome ea zaa mm ae aoooImmauumsmca amcoaumz .mme
omen mmem oeom mmm eeea e zaa mm am oaaaszmaaamz .eme
ammmom .um
QWMMB mmm mww new†* uasumm sceusooa BusmIHoumuomo Honmmmswwou
.UmsGHUGOUII.N manna
124
wwee wweep. neweep. cow . wwema ea ww ma aaIa.U.m.ov aeo somwoos .Nwe
oemm oemm 00mm. mmm cmeoa we mm me He .umm comamsal.as no se>aou .ame
mmem mmem eaam wow weaow «N moa we a* nmnsonusuuz .owm
eewm eewm erm wwm owmmm ma maa mm at Mono: cuomIUmmm .ame
oaks:
mewm mawm emem aww wwwwm ea mm we at osoosnomIaeo oussoma .wmm
mmwm mmem ween eww eaeem wa mm we HIUO* oxossoaovaooo a @000 .emm
wwem when omen mme ammmm ea am we aIUO¢ soeaszreooo a @009 .wmm
wean eomm oewm mam owmmm em me we at anoeumsocnom
Immbusm w .aouuom mason .mmN
«mmm eemm mmwm eww eomwm em me we Hume coaacIaouuom oxmom .eme
aomsseusoov susmunmsz
QMMMB mmm mwm new“ a nesuom coausooa Summluoumummo awnmmmswwou
.mmsaaunooII.e manna
APPENDIX IV
SAMPLE WELL DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX IV
Table 3.--Sample Well Descriptions.
(A)
C. A. Perry & Son, Inc. - Wooden #1, 78 14W 8 SENENW
Cass Co., Calvin Twp. Rotary PN #23289
Blk. River
2625-30 Dol, brn-buff, f-m xtal, few sdy (60%); 83,
2630-35
2635-40
vf-mgr, fr & pit to clr, dol cmt, arg, ss m-c
gr rd-wrd, lse, frostpit (38%); sh gn & blk,
some sdy (2%).
D01 buff-brn, f xtal, arg, tr sdy (92%); 38,
as above (3%); sh, gn-gn gy, brn, blk (5%).
X
Glenwood (and St. Peter)
2640-45
2645-50
2650-55
2655-60
2660-65
2665-70
Dol, buff-brn, f-m xtal, few sdy, some por,
dol rhmb (xtals) (80%); 83, a.a. (10%); sh,
a.a. (10%); tr LS.
Dol, buff, brn, buff wh, f-m xtal, sdy, some
por, poss cong? (90%); sh, a.a. (10%); tr Ls,
buff-buff wh, fxtal, tr pyr.
Dol, buff wh-brn, f-mxtal, sdy, rhmbs (80%),
sh, a.a. (10%); 83, f gr, subang-subrd, clr,
dol cement (10%).
SS, f-m gr, few c gr, frostpit, lse, rd-wrd,
dol cmt in pt, some arg, some overgrowths
(90%); dol, a.a. (5%); sh, gy, blk, gn, brn
(fis), (5%); tr Glau, gn.
Dol, buff-brn, f xtal, sdy, por in pt, arg,
tr 001, some pyr (85%); ss buff-wh to blk,
dol cmt, arg in pt, f-c gr subrd-wrd, clr to
fros & pit, some overgrowths, pyr in pt;
some lse (10%); sh blk, gy (5%); tr anhy wh,
sft.
Dol, buff to tan, f.xta1 to gran, sdy, s amt
pyr, por (100%); tr sh, gy, blk gn.
125
126
Table 3.--Continued.
2670-75
2675-80
Dol, a.a. (99%); sh gn, sdy, gy-blk (1%);
tr ss, tr pyr.
Dol, buff wh to tan, f gr, gran, por, sdy,
some pyr (99%); sh a.a., tan, fiss (1%); tr
ss; tr Cht, wh, trip.
Prairie du Chien at 2677 (G.R.)
2680-85
2685-90
2690-95
2695-2700
2700-2705
2705-10
2710-15
2715-20
2720-25
2725-30
2730-35
2735-40
2740-45
2745-50
Dol, buff wh-buff, f xtal, por in pt, sdy,
pyr (100%); tr sh; tr cht, wh, ool, chky,
vug; tr Glau., gn on dol; pyr.
Dol, a.a., (100%); tr sh; tr Cht, a.a.; tr
Glauc, a.a.
Dol, a.a., few 1t gy-brn (98%); sh, a.a., gn
sdy (2%); Cht wh, ool, sdy in pt; tr Glauc.;
tr pyr; tr ss; dol, gn slty fgr.
Dol, a.a., rhmb, (99%); sh, a.a. (1%); tr
Glauc.
Dol, a.a. (99%); sh gy, gn, brn (1%); tr
Glauc; tr 88.
D01, buff-buff wh, 1t gy, f xtal, por, rhmb,
pyr (98%); cht, wh, ool, gy wh, porc (2%);
sh, a.a.; tr ss; tr Glau.
Dol, a.a. (100%); sh, a.a.; tr ss; tr Glauc.
Dol, a.a. (100%); sh, a.a.; cht, wh, trip, gy,
pore/incl of 001 rhmbs.
Dol, buff-tan, f-m xtal, por, pyr, rhmb (97%);
cht, wh to buff, dnse to chk, sil/incl, cht
sec, some pyr (3%); tr pyr, tr sh.
D01, tan, buff brn, f-m xtal, rhmb, pyr in
pt (95%); cht, wh to buff, pore, dns, pt trip,
dol xtal incl (5%).
D01, buff-tan, f xtal, por, tr pyr (100%);
tr cht wh assoc/dol rhmbs, fill vug, tr sh,
gy blk.
Dol, a.a., dol, buff wh v f-f xtal por (80%);
cht, wh (chky & trip) to buff (porc, dns),
few vug, pt 001 (20%); tr sh, a.a.; sh, gn,
pyr; qtz xtals.
Dol, buff-buff gy, f-md xtal, rhmb, int xtal
por (98%); cht, chk, wh to buff, pt trip
(wthrd) (2%); tr sh, a.a.; tr sd gr.
Dol, buff-brn, f-m xtal, por, dol xtals
(80%); cht wh to buff, vug, trip in pt, sm to
chk, sil (17%); sh gy-blk (1%); tr vn qtz;
ss, f-fm gr, subang-rd, clr, overgrowths, thn
bd (1%); Anh, wh, sft, slky (1%).
127
Table 3.--Continued.
2750-55
2755-60
2760-65
2765-70
2770-75
2775-80
2780-85
2785-90
2790-95
2795-2800
2800-05
2805-10
2810-15
2815-20
2820-25
2825-30
2830-35
2835-40
Dol, buff-tan, f-m xtal, por in pt, rhombs,
clr xtals (94%); Cht, wh to buff, porc, dns,
relic ool, pyr, sil (6%); tr sh; tr Anhy.
Dol, buff-tan, f xtal, gran xtal in pt, some
por (90%); Cht buff to wh, porc to trip, sil,
col mot, incl, some vug (10%); sh, a.a.; tr
Anhy wh-tan.
Dol, a.a. (95%); Cht, wh, assoc/dol, pt
wthrd, pt Fe stn (reddish) (5%); sh, a.a.
Dol, a.a. (80%); Cht wh-buff, vug rhmb
dolocastic, sil, chk to pore, trip assoc/
rhmbs, geode, qtz xtals in vug (20%); sh a.a.
Dol, buff wh-buff, f-m xtal, por in pt, rhmb
(100%); sh high contamination.
Dol, buff wh-gy, f-m xtal some por, rhmb
(91%); Cht, wh-gy, ltl trip., porc, sil, mot,
assoc/rhmb, qtz (4%); sh, gy, gn, assoc/dol
(5%); pyr xtal.
Dol, buff wh-gy, f-m xtal, rhmb, some clr
xtal, por in pt, pyr in pt (100%); Cht, wh
chk assoc/rhmb, sh gy, gn.
Dol, a.a., inc rhmb, inc por (100%); Cht wh
(chk) to brn (dns), a.a.; sh, a.a.
Dol, buff-tan, m-c xtal, rhmb, int xtal por,
qtz filling in some (100%); sh, a.a.; tr Cht,
a.a.
Dol, tan, buff, brn, f-m xtal por in pt, few
rhmb, qtz xtal on dol (100%); sh, gy gn, gy;
tr sd.
Dol, tan-buff wh, m-c xtal, por, rhmb, clr
xtal, pyr (98%); sh, gn-gn gy spec (2%);
cht wh chk; PYr.
Dol buff-tan, m-c xtal por, looks jumbled like
c rhmb in f mtx (100%); tr pyr.
Dol buff, tan, 1t brn, m-c xtal, por, rhmb,
less jumbled (88%); Cht wh-brn, ool, dns to
por between 001, clr mot (brn) (12%); sh gy-
gn 9Y-
Dol, buff wh, buff-tan, f xtal, some por,
001 (001 surf pyr coated in pt) (100%); sh
a.a.
Dol, a.a., (100%); sh a.a.
Dol tan to buff, brn, c xtal some por, (Fe
stn or wthrd, tr arg on surf poor sample)
(100%); sh gy-blk.
Dol, buff-buff wh, f xtal, some por, (poor
sample) (100%).
Dol, buff-tan, brn, f-m xtal, rhmb some por,
tr pyr, sl arg (100%).
128
Table 3.--Continued.
2840-45
2845-50
2850-55
2855-60
2860-65
2865-70
2870-75
2875-80
2880-85
2885-90
Dol, buff-buff wh, brn, f-m xtal, some gran,
some por, tr pyr (100%).
Dol, buff wh, buff, gy, tan, f-m xtal, por,
rhmb (100%); tr Cht, wh, trip, assoc w/dol
rhmb.
Dol, a.a. (100%); tr Cht, a.a.; tr Gyp, wh,
sft.
Dol, buff-buff wh, m-c xtal, g por, rhmb, pyr
(100%); tr Cht.
Dol buff, buff wh-tan, vf-c xtal, few rhmb,
pyr (98%); sh gn, red (tr) (2%); tr sd, f gr,
subrd, fr, pit; tr pyr.
Dol, a.a. (97%); Cht, wh-buff, dns/few vug,
tr col (3%).
D01, buff-brn, f-c xtal, ltl por, few rhmb,
sl arg (brn) (100%).
Dol, buff, f-c xtal, few rhmb, some por, tr
ool, sl sil (97%); Cht, wh to buff, ool, dns,
mot 001 (31 Fe stn) (1%); sh red-brn, dol,
gry slty in pt (2%).
Dol, buff, f-c xtal, por in pt, few rhmb, some
sulfide (blk-silver) (95%); Cht, wh, ool, mot
(2%); sh red-brn, gry, tr gn (3%).
D01, a.a., arg (82%); Cht, wh-orng tan, 001
(3%); sh, red, brn gn brn (15%).
Trempealeau @ 2888 (G.R.)
2890-95
2895-2900
2900-05
2905-10
2910-15
Dol, buff wh-buff, f-m xtal, some por (98%);
sh, a.a. (2%); tr sd, f-c gr.
Dol, buff wh-wh, f-m xtal, no pyr, some por,
rhmb (100%); tr sh, a.a.; tr sd.
Dol, buff wh-wh, m-c xtal, some por, rhmb
(100%).
Dol, a.a. (100%).
Dol, a.a. (100%).
129
Table 3.--Continued.
(B)
Mobil-Kelly Unit #1 2N 3W 24 W/2 NENW
Eaton Co., Eaton Rapids Twp. Rotary PN #29117
Blk River
5730-40 Ls, brn-buff, blk, arg shy (100%).
5740-50
Ls, as above, few sdy, inc arg, pyr (82%);
sh, blk calc, pyr (15%); dol, calc, brn, f xtal
arg in pt, sil (3%); tr ss, mgr, fr, subrd-rd.
Glenwood @ 5745 a St. Peter
5750-60
5760-70
Dol, buff wh to gy, calc in pt, s1 sil, sdy in
pt, pyr (45%); Ls, wh v sdy (25%); ss, f-m
gr, sub rd-rd, overgrowths give ang-subang
look, clr to fr, tr ss m-c, stn yellow subrd
(20%); sh, a.a. (10%): PYr.
SS, a.a., dol.cmt (70%); dol, wh-tan, gy, f
xtal to gry sdy, pyr (30%).
Prairie du Chien @ 5766
5770-80
5780-90
5790-5800
5800-10
5810-20
5820-30
5830-40
Dol, buff wh-gy, dns to f xtal, sdy (77%);
ss, a.a. (20%); sh, gn, gy/sd, gn sl xtal
(2%); Cht, wh, trip/dol rhmb & sd gr incl
(1%).
SS, a.a. (60%); dol, a.a. (38%); sh, gn, a.a.
(2%); tr Cht, a.a.
Dol, buff wh, gy f xtal, few sd gr, tan sil
001, Cu stn (50%); ss, a.a., inc/se gr subrd-
rd, fr (49%); Cht, a.a. (1%); tr Glau, gn;
tr Cu stn blue.
Dol, buff-gy, f xtal to gny, suc, sly (75%);
ss, a.a. (25%); tr Cht trip wh; tr sh gn.
Dol a.a. (71%); as a.a., inc dol cmt wh-tan
(25%); Cht, wh, dns to chky, trip, tr orange
sil, dolocastic qtz replace (4%); tr sh, gn,
sl xtal.
Dol a.a., few gn sdy in pt (87%); ss a.a.
(5%); Cht, wh, dns, sdy (4%); sh, gn-gy
(4%).
D01, buff-tan dns-f xtal, gny, few sd gy
(90%); ss inc lse gr, f-m gn fr-sl fr-clr,
subrd-rd, dol cmt (10%); tr cht wh, chky, ool;
tr Cu stn on sh.
130
Table 3.--Continued.
5840-50
5850-60
5860-70
5870-80
5880-90
5890-5900
5900-10
5910-20
5920-30
5930-40
5940-50
5950-60
5960-70
5970-80
5980-90
5990-6000
6000-10
6010-20
6020-30
Dol, buff-tan f xtal, few sd gr (8%); ss, a.a.,
inc overgrowths, sil cmt (90%); sh gn sl xtal
(2%); tr pyr.
SS, a.a., ang from overgrowths (70%); dol,
a.a. (30%).
SS, a.a., most lse gr, some pyr (90%); dol,
a.a. (8%); cht, wh, trip (2%); tr sh, gy-gn,
tr Cu stn.
SS, a.a., dol cmt, pyr (65%); dol, buff wh to
tan, xtal, sdy (33%); sh, gn, dol, xtal, sdy
in pt (2%); tr pyr.
Dol buff wh-tan, f xtal, few red, gran, sdy
(82%); as a.a. (15%); sh gn, mot red (3%).
SS, f-c gr, 81 fr to fr, subrd-rd, uncons,
few overgrowths (65%); dol, a.a. (30%); sh
gn few sdy (5%); cht trip, wh.
Dol, a.a. (65%); ss, a.a. (35%).
D01, a.a. (90%); ss, a.a. (10%), tr Cht wh.
Dol, a.a. (40%); ss, a.a. (60%), tr sh.
Dol, a.a., to sue (10%); ss, a.a. (90%); tr
Cht, wh, trip; tr Glau, gn.
SS, a.a., to w rd (95%); dol, a.a. (5%);
tr cht, tr sh.
Dol buff-tan, gy, f xtal, v sdy in pt (76%);
ss, a.a.,/dol cmt, chty (15%); sh gn-gn mot/
red, gn sh, pyr & fis in pt (5%); cht, wh,
wthrd, assoc/dol rhmbs sdy in pt, tr col (4%).
D01, tan-buff, suc-f xtal, sdy, dol stn red
(50%); ss a.a.,/dol cmt (5%); sh, a.a. (20%);
cht, wh, trip, wh-buff, dns, tr ool, tan to
orng, ool, sil (25%).
Sh, blk, gy, purp, red gn, mot, dol in pt
(90%); dol, a.a., (8%); cht, buff-orng, sil
(2%).
Sh, a.a., f gr ad in gn & blk sh (81%); dol
a.a., arg (18%); cht a.a. (1%); tr Glau, gn.
Dol, a.a., few sd gr, few arg (50%); sh a.a.,
not sdy (30%); cht, wh, buff, orng, red, sil,
dns (20%).
D01, a.a. (50%); sh, a.a. (49%); cht a.a.,
orng to wh dns, col (1%); tr ss, m gr subrd-
rd, fr, a.a.
Dol, buff, gy, tan, suc-f xtal, gry few sd gr
(50%); sh, a.a. (48%); Cht, a.a. (2%); tr Glau,
gn.
Dol, a.a. (65%); sh, red, gy, gn (30%); cht,
orng to wh, sil, col (4%); ss, m-c gr, subrd-
rd, fr, Fe stn in pt (1%).
131
Table 3.--Continued.
6030-40
6040-50
6050-60
6060-70
6070-80
6080-90
6090-6100
6100-10
6110-20
6120-30
6130-40
6140-50
6150-80
6180-90
6190-6200
6200-10
6210-20
6220-30
6230-40
6240-50
6250-60
6260-70
Dol, a.a. (78%); sh, gn, red, gy (15%); cht
wh-tan, dns, ool, col (7%); tr ss, f-m gr.
Dol, buff, gy, vf xtal, to pink (63%); cht,
wh, dns to trip, ool, tr embd sd gr (20%);
sh, gn, red, mot, pyr (15%); ss m-c gr, fr,
pt Fe stn red, subrd-w rd (2%).
D01, a.a., inc pink col (70%); cht, a.a.,/dol
rhmb, some por, ool tr orng (25%); sh, red
gn (5%); tr Glau on dol.
Dol, buff-brn, f xtal, int xtal por (87%);
cht wh to buff, trip to dns, ool, sdy in pt,
dol rhmb, vug por (doloclas) tr orng, sil
(12%); sh, red, blk (1%); tr Glauc; tr sd.
Dol buff-brn, f-m xtal, gy dol ool, inc gy-brn
(96%); cht a.a., mot brn no orng (4%); tr sd.
Dol, a.a., arg in pt (83%); cht a.a. more dns,
001 (15%); sh blk dol, gn & red mot (2%).
D01, tan gy brn, suc-f-m xtal, few sil ool,
some par (96%); cht, wh-tan, pt wth rd, ool,
ss/dol rhmb (repl) vug (4%).
D01, a.a., vf-f xtal (100%).
Dol, a.a. (100%).
Dol, tan, 1t gy, brn, f xtal, ltl arg (100%);
tr sh, gy.
Dol tan brn gy f-m xtal slty, sdy in pt
(100%).
Dol gYI buff, tan, vf-f xtal, few sdy slty,
pyr, arg. ltl por (100%).
X
Dol, brn-gy, m xtal slty, few sd, ltl arg, tr
pyr, tr suc (100%).
Dol, a.a., to c xtal, arg (100%).
Dol, a.a., m xtal, arg, slty, clr rhmb (100%);
tr cht wh trip to dns, 001 in pt; tr Anh, clr,
tab.
Dol tan-brn, gy m xtal, few clr xtals, sl
arg, tr 001 (97%); cht, a.a. (3%); tr Anhy,
a.a. ‘
Dol, a.a., rhmb clr to brn (95%); cht, a.a.,
dol rhmb (4%); sh blk, gn gy (1%); tr Anhy
a.a.
Dol, a.a. (98%); Cht, a.a., ool, sil (2%);
tr Anhy.
Dol, a.a., f-m xtal (100%); tr cht wh wthrd
ool.
Dol a.a. (99%); cht, a.a., (1%).
D01, tan-buff, gy, brn, f-m xtal, few ool,
rhmb (100%); tr cht wh trip, to tr vug, sil
001 in pt.
132
Table 3.--Continued.
6270-80
6280-90
6290-6300
6300-10
6310-20
6320-30
6330-40
6340-50
6350-60
6360-70
6370-80
6380-90
Dol, a.a., (100%).
Dol, tan brn m xtal (98%); cht wh trip assoc/
dol rhmb, col (2%).
Dol a.a., some arg (98%); cht, a.a. (1%);
sh, blk (1%); tr Glau on cht.
Dol, a.a. (99%); cht, a.a., to dns (1%);
tr Glau, sh.
Dol, a.a., ool in pt (98%); cht, a.a., wh qtz
(2%).
D01, brn-tan, m-c xtal (100%); tr cht.
Dol, a.a., ltl por, rhmb (100%); tr cht wh
porc to trip/dol assoc.
Dol, tan, brn, buff f-m xtal, c xtal in pt
(100%); tr Cht, a.a.
Dol, buff-brn, f xtal tr sd, tr ool, pyr
(100%); tr cht; tr sh; tr sd.
Dol, buff-tan f xtal to gry, few sdy, pyr,
brn m-c xtal (93%); cht, wh trip ool, qtz,
sil orng col (3%); sh, gn, pyr, blk (4%);
tr anhy.
Dol a.a., dirty arg (79%); cht, a.a. (1%);
sh, a.a., gy brn (20%).
D01, buff-tan brn, f xtal to gran, arg, sdy,
rhmb dol clr (74%); cht, a.a., some dirty wh-
tan, col (1%), sh gy, gn, blk pyr orng
(25%); tr sd, f gr, fr, sub rd.
Trempealeau @ 6389
6390-6400
6400-10
6410-20
6420-30
6440-50
Dol, buff, tan to brn, vf-f xtal, few sdy,
pyr (84%); Cht wh-tan, gy dns, v ool, sil,
wh cht/tan ool, milky some vn qtz (12%);
sh, gy, gn (4%); tr sd.
Dol tan-brn, buff, uf-f xtal, few ool, sdy in
pt (96%); cht, a.a., (2%); sh, gn (2%); tr
sd.
Dol, a.a., few brn (98%); Cht, a.a., qtz (2%);
sd, m gr, tr c gr, fr, subang-subrd; tr sh.
Dol buff-gy, tan, f xtal, blk arg, sd in pt
(83%); Cht, a.a., to trip wh (2%), sh, gy,
blk, gn (15%), tr sd.
Dol buff-brn, vf-m xtal, arg in pt, sdy, pyr,
001 in pt (95%); sh, a.a. (2%); cht, a.a.,
not trip (2%); sd m-c gr, fr, subrd-rd (1%);
tr pyr.
133
Table 3.--Continued.
(C)
E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co.-Montagne, Dupont #1
Muskegon Co., White River Twp. 12N 18W 36 NWSWNE
Black River
4560-70
4570-80
4580-90
4590-4600
Rotary PN BD
LS, brn-buff, dk brn arg, lith-f xtal (100%).
LS, a.a. (100%).
LS, a.a., foss (Brach), inc arg, tr sd (98%);
sh, blk, gn-gy, gran in pt (2%); tr ss, f gr,
fr subrd-rd LS cmt,/pyr xtal coating on ad;
tr dol, wh-tan f xtal sdy.
LS, a.a., arg, v sdy in pt, H1 pyr (85%);
dol, tan-buff f xtal, sdy in pt (5%); ss, f-c
gr, rd-wrd, fr, dol cmt, pyr (5%); sh gy-blk,
gry, jumbled (5%).
Glenwood G 4595
4600-10
4610-20
4620-30
Sh, gr-gy, dol & calc, sdy, xtal (50%); as
f-m gr, fr, arg, few c gr, rd-wrd, dol & sil
cmt, pyr (80%); Ls, a.a., arg (15%), dol a.a.,
sdy, arg in pt (5%); tr vn qtz, clr.
Ss, a.a. (45%), sh gy, blk grainy, gn, pyr,
dol (30%); dol, brn, arg sdy, dol rhombs,
xtals clr (20%); Ls, a.a. (5%); halite, clr,
? contam (N 3%).
D01, buff-buff gy, gn, sil, tr sd, pyr (90%);
sh, gn, gy, dol, sdy in pt, pyr (10%); tr salt;
tr Glau on dol & sh.
Prairie du Chien @ 4623
4630-40
4640-50
4650-60
4660-70
4670-80
Dol, a.a., sue to f xtal, gn dol sil, sdy in
pt (95%); sh dk gy gn (5%); tr salt.
Dol, a.a., sdy in pt (93%); sh, a.a. (7%);
tr salt; tr cht, wh, trip, tr ool.
Dol, a.a. (100%); tr sh; tr salt; tr cht, all
a.a.
Dol, buff-tan, dns to vf xtal, sdy, ltl red
(86%); sh, gn, gy, sdy (10%); ss, f gr, fr,
subrd, dol cmt/sil col (2%); cht, a.a., tr
ool, few sd gr (2%); tr Glau; tr Anhy.
Dol, a.a., pt sil (gn dol) sdy (82%); sh a.a.,
sil pyr (7%); 83 f gr, subang (overgrowths) to
subrd, pyr in pt (10%); Cht wh, trip few sd gr
(1%); tr Glau; tr salt (? contain 7%).
134
Table 3.--Continued.
4680-90
sdy
4690-4700
4700-10
4710-20
4720-30
4730-40
4740-50
4750-60
4760-70
4770-80
4780-90
4790-4800
4800-10
4810-20
4820-30
4830-40
4840-50
4850-60
Dol, buff-brn, 1t gy-gn, m-c xtal-vf xtal,
sdy & sil in pt, mot (83%); sh, a.a. (10%);
ss, a.a. (6%); cht, a.a. (1%); tr Glau; salt
(? contam. 15%).
D01, a.a., sdy (85%); ss, a.a., few m gr
(10%); cht, a.a. (5%); tr sh; tr Glauc; salt
a.a.
Dol, a.a., to brn, tr pyr (80%); ss, f-m,
subrd-rd fr, overgrowths, pyr in pt (12%);
cht, a.a. (8%); sh a.a., tr Glauc on ss, dol,
salt (? contam. 18%).
D01, a.a., to mot, less gn dol (80%); ss,
a.a., few f-m gr rd sl yel stn (20%); cht wh
wthrd, tr sh, a.a., Glau, salt (? m 20%).
D01, a.a., (85%); ss, a.a. (15%); tr Glau,
tr sh, cht; salt (? 15%).
D01, a.a., not sdy (95%); ss, a.a. (5%); cht,
wh, trip; salt (? m 30%).
D01, a.a., gn few sdy, pyr (90%); ss, a.a.,
f-c gr (10%); Cht, a.a.; salt (? 35%).
D01, a.a. (97%); ss, a.a. (3%); cht; salt
(? m 60%).
D01, a.a. (95%); ss, a.a. (5%); cht; tr calc,
clr xtal; salt (? m 65%).
D01 a.a. (95%); ss, a.a. (5%); cht; tr calc
clr xtal; salt (? m 65%).
D01, a.a. (97%); ss, f-c gr, wrd, fr, lse gr
(3%); cht, trip; tr calc; salt (? 15%).
D01, a.a. (97%); ss, a.a. (3%); cht, trip;
tr calc; salt (2 m 7%).
D01, buff-brn, dk 9y (calc), m-c xtal-f xtal,
red, red brn Fe stn (95%); ss, f-c gr, subrd-
wrd, overgrowths on f-m gr, fr, C gr, fr & p,
rd-wrd, clr to yel stn to fr (5%); tr sh, red,
gn, dol.
SS, a.a., f-c gr, mainly m-c gr, subrd-wrd,
fr, few Fe stn yel-red, milky (78%); dol, buff
to dk gy, blk arg, sdy (20%); sh, gy gn, gn,
red, dol tr sd (2%); PYr.
SS, a.a.,/dol cmt (99%); dol, a.a.; few rd
pbl (1%).
SS, a.a. (75%): Pbl of ls, dol, cht, ang-
subrd (15%); poor sample; sh, blk, gy, red
(10%).
SS, m gr, f-c gr, subrd-rd, fr, few clr,
Fe stn in pt, some fr; some overgrowths (100%);
tr sh; tr pbl; tr dol.
SS, a.a., dol cmt in pt (100%); tr dol; tr
calc xtal.
135
Table 3.--Continued.
4860-70
4870-80
4880-90
4890-4900
4900-10
4910-20
4920-30
4930-40
4940-50
4950-60
4960-70
4970-80
4980-90
4990-5000
5000-10
5010-20
5020-30
5030-40
5040-50
5050-60
SS, a.a., few/blk incl (100%); dol a.a.
SS, a.a., overgrowths com, ltl dol cmt (99%);
col, a.a., (1%).
SS, a.a., inc dol cmt, dec overgrowths (100%);
dol, a.a.
SS, a.a. (97%); dol buff f xtal, sdy (3%).
SS, f-m gr, subrd-rd, fr, dol cmt (90%);
dol, buff f xtal (10%), tr calc xtal, clr.
SS, a.a. (15%); dol, buff-brn, f xtal, sdy,
blk arg (73%); sh, gy, dk gn, gn, red, fis in
pt (12%).
D01, a.a., some Fe stn red (53%); sh, red, gn,
gy, red & gn mot in pt, dol in pt (40%); ss,
a.a. (7%).
D01, buff, buff wk, tan, f xtal, sdy (70%);
ss, a.a. (20%); sh, a.a., no mot (10%).
D01, a.a., gn dol (55%); ss, a.a. (25%); sh,
a.a. (20%).
D01, a.a., sty (67%); ss, f-m gr, fr, subrd-
rd, inc f gr (7%); sh red, gn gy, blk dol to
gry (25%); cht, wh, ornge, red, dns, sil, 001
(1%); tr calc xtal clr; tr Glau.
Dol, a.a., 1t gy (44%); ss, a.a., to clr,
overgrowths (40%); sh, red, gn (15%); Cht,
a.a., mot, struc.
Dol, buff gy tan, red, vf gr, few sdy (50%);
ss, f-c gr, most f-m, fr to clr, few Fe stn
red, yel, subrd-rd, few overgrowths (40%);
sh, red, dk red, gy, gn dol to grainy (10%);
tr cht, a.a.
Dol, a.a. (84%); ss, a.a. (8%); sh, a.a.
(8%); cht, a.a.
Dol, a.a. (73%); ss, a.a. (15%); sh a.a.
(12%); tr cht a.a., trip wh ool.
Dol, a. a. (25%); ss, a. a., mostly clr (75%);
sh; tr Glau; tr Ls, dol tan.
Dol, a. a. (50%); ss, a. a., dol cmt (50%);
tr cht, dns buff; tr Glau.
Dol, buff-gy, vf xtal, s1 calc in pt, sdy in
pt (92%); ss, a.a. (8%); tr cht; tr calc xtal,
clr; sh, red.
Dol, a.a., 1/2 calc (94%); ss, a.a. (6%); sh
red blk; tr cht.
Dol, buff wh-gy-tan, vf xtal-crp x11, sl calc,
sdy in pt, xtals clr (100%); sh, a.a.; calc
clr-brn.
Dol, a.a., sty (100%); as a.a.; tr calc; tr
cht, a.a.; tr Glau.
136
Table 3.--Continued.
5060-70
5070-80
5080-90
5090-5100
5100-10
5110-20
5120-30
5130-40
5140-50
5150-60
5160-70
5170-80
5180-90
5190-5200
5200-10
5210-20
5220-30
5230-40
5240-50
5250-60
5260-70
5270-80
5280-90
Dol, a.a. (95%); ss, a.a. (4%); cht, wh-orng,
dns sil (1%); tr calc xtal, clr; tr sh, red,
9Y1 gn°
Dol, a.a. (97%); sh red gy gn (2%); tr Cht
wh sil; ss, a.a. (1%); tr calc, clr-brn xtal.
Dol, a.a. (95%); ss, a.a. (3%); sh, a.a.,
mot (2%); tr calc.
Dol, a.a. (94%); sh, a.a. (6%).
D01, a.a. (64%); sh dk gy-blk, gy, red, fis in
pt, pt dol, sdy in pt tr pyr (35%); ss, f-m,
subrd-rd, si & dol cmt (1%) tr cht, wh trip.
Dol, a.a. (87%); ss, a.a. (3%); sh gy blk red
gn (10%); tr calc.
Dol, buff-buff gy, vf xtal, sdy (35%); as f-c
gr, most m-c gr fr, rd-subrd-wrd, dol cmt
(50%); sh, a.a., mot, gn sdy (15%); tr calc.
Dol buff-buff wh, vfn-f xtal, rhmb chty
(97%); ss, a.a. (3%); tr sh, tr calc.
Dol buff-tan gy, vf-f xtal, few sdy (90%);
sh red gn, mot (10%); cht wh dns sil; tr clay
Dol, a.a. (94%); sh, a.a. (6%); tr calc xtal,
clr.
LS buff-buff gy f xtal, some int xtal por
(95%); cht, trip, wh/embd dol rhmb (5%); tr
sh.
Dol, buff-tan f-md xtal, xtals clr (94%);
cht, wh, sil, ool, few trip/embd rhmb (6%);
tr calc, clr; tr anhy clr, platy.
Dol, buff wh-buff, f-m xtal (96%); cht, a.a.
(4%) ; tr anhy.
Dol, a.a., some g int xtal por (88%); cht,
a.a., inc trip.embd rhmb (12%); tr anhy.
Dol buff wh-buff, vf-f xtal (88%); cht-wh-buff
sil/inc rhmb & sd incl, few trip, tr pyr
(12%).
D01, a.a. (92%); cht, a.a., tr wh-clr vn
qtz, chal (8%); tr pyr; tr anhy.
Dol, a.a., few sd gr (88%); Cht a.a. (12%).
D01, a.a. (93%), cht, a.a. (7%), sh.
Dol, a.a. (90%); cht, a.a., mot, 001 in pt
(10%); tr anhy.
Dol, a.a. (95%); cht, a.a. (5%); tr anhy; tr
calc.
Dol, a.a. (95%); cht, a.a., sil 001 (5%).
001, tan-buff, f xtal (96%); cht, a.a., sil
(4%).
D01, a.a., to red brn (94%); cht, a.a. (6%);
tr calc; tr sh.
137
Table 3.--Continued.
5290-5300
5300-10
5310-20
5320-30
5330-40
5340-50
5350-60
5360-70
Dol, a.a. (98%); Cht, a.a. (1%); sd f-m gn
clr-Fe stn subang-subrd (1%).
Dol, tan-buff, f-m xtal (90%); cht wh trip,
sil, wh/inc (10%); tr sh gn & red.
Dol, tan, buff, brn f-m xtal, rhmb, some por
(98%); cht, wh trip few/dol rhmb (2%); tr sd.
Dol. a.a. (98%); cht, dns, wh-buff, ool;
sil, trip in pt (2%).
D01, tan, brn, f-m xtal, rhmb, some por
(100%); cht, wh, trip.
Dol, a.a., arg in pt (85%); sh, gy, blk, red,
dol in pt, mic in pt, pyr (15%).
D01, a.a. (80%); sh, a.a. (20%); tr cht;
tr calc; tr Glau.
Dol, a.a., por, xtals, arg, sdy (60%); sh, gy,
red, blk, sdy; dol (40%); tr cht, dns, wh; tr
ss.
Trempealeau @ 5368
5370-80
5380-85
Dol, tan-brn, f-m xtal ool, sdy (64%); sh,
red, gn, gy (pyr), mot (30%); cht wh-buff
dns, sdy, ool, tr trip (6%); ss, f-m gr, fr,
dol cmt, c gr, subrd.
Dol buff-tan, f xtal, sdy, s1 Fe stn pink
(91%); sh, a.a. (7%) cht, a.a., tr orng cht,
chal (2%); tr sd, a.a.
138
Table 3.--Continued.
(D)
PEPC-Ford Motor Co. #1-5 31N 9E 5 C SE NE
Alpena County, Alpena Twp. Rotary PN 25690
Black River
5280-90
5290-5300
Ls, lith to vf xtal, brn to tan, foss, arg in
pt (92%); sh, blk, red (6%); slt st, buff,
tan, vf gr, dol, calc (2%).
Ls, brn, tan, 1t gy, lith to vf xtal, foss,
pel, arg (78%); sh, blk, red (12%); slt st,
buff, tan, vf gr, dol, calc (10%); tr salt.
Glenwood @ 5292
5300-10
5310-20
5320-30
5330-40
5340-50
Ls, a.a. (65%); sh, a.a., calc (15%); slt st,
a.a. (20%); tr salt.
Slt st, buff gy. vf gr, sl calc, few Fe stn
red (65%); salt, clr, wh, rd (35%), ? contam,
poor spl.
Ls, brn, gy, tan, lith to vf xtal, foss, v arg,
few sdy, sks in pt, (80%); sh, blk, red, tr
sdy (16%); slt st (4%); tr salt.
Ls, a.a., blk, v arg (70%); sh blk, few ad
(25%); slt st, a.a. (5%).
Ls, a.a. (75%); sh, a.a. (20%); slt st, a.a.
(5%).
Prairie du Chien @ 5348
5350-60
5360-70
5370-80
5380-90
5390-5400
5400-10
5410-20
Ls, a. a., buff, gry, slty (78%); sh, a. a.
(12%); sltst (10%)
Ls, a. a., pel (85%); sh, a.a. (10%); dol, brn-
tan f xtal (5%); ss, m gr, ang-subrd sl fr-fr;
tr cht wh trip.
Ls, a.a. (89%); sh, a.a. (5%); slt st or cly
st (4%); ss, a.a. (1%); cht, wh (1%); tr dol.
Ls, a.a. (73%); sh, a.a. (5%); dol, a.a.,
xtal (6%); Cht, wh, trip (10%); ss, f-m gr,
fr-clr, subang-subrd,/dol cmt (6%).
Ls, a.a. (90%); ss, a.a., sil cmt, aprs fr,
rd-subrd (6%); sh, a.a. (3%); cht, a.a. (1%).
Ls, a.a., much cly? (97%); sh, a.a. (1%);
ss, a.a. (1%); cht, a.a. (1%).
SS, f-m gr, wh, sl fr-fr, subrd-rd, v few
overgrowths, some dol cmt, few sph, fri (95%);
Cht, wh, trip (2%); Ls, gy brn (2%); sh blk
(1%); tr pyr.
139
Table 3.-—Continued.
5420-30
5430-40
5440-50
5450-60
5460-70
5470-80
5480-90
5490-5500
5500-10
5510-20
5520-30
5530-40
5540-50
5550-60
5560-70
5570-80
5580-90
5590-5600
5600-10
5610-20
5620-30
5630-40
5640-50
5650-60
5660-70
5670-80
SS, a.a., pyr in pt (99%); cht, a.a. (1%);
pyr coat on sd.
SS, f-m gr, rd, subrd, w rd, fr, a.a. (98%);
cht, a.a. (2%).
SS, f-m, few c gr, rd subrd, few overgrowths,
some Fe stn pink, sil & dol cmt (100%); tr
sh; tr ls; pyr.
SS, a.a., m-c gr mainly rd-wrd (100%).
SS, f-m gr, a.a., inc overgrowths (100%).
SS, f-m gr, subrd-rd, overgrowths, sil cmt,
clr to fr/sl Fe stn on some (98%); Cht, a.a.
(2%); tr musc.
Ss, a.a., many overgrowths, fri (97%); cht,
wh, trip (3%).
Ss, a.a., overgrowths give ang look (95%);
cht, a.a. (5%).
Ss, a.a. (100%); much contam (Ls 25%, sh 5%,
cht 25%). ‘
SS, a.a. (100%); contam (a.a. - 50%).
Ss, a.a. (100%); contam (a.a. - 50%).
Ss, a.a. (100%); contam (a.a. N 25%).
Ss, f-m gr, rd-wrd, fr, tr overgrowths (100%).
Ss, f-m gr, rd, subrd, wrd, fr, 81 Fe stn, dol
cmt (100%).
Ss, a.a., Fe stn red, brn, inc dol cmt (86%);
dol, gy-brn, f xtal, sdy, arg (4%); cht, a.a.
(10%).
SS, a.a. (96%); cht, a.a. (3%); dol, a.a.
(1%).
X
Ss, a.a. (90%); dol, buff tan gy brn, vf-f
xtal, sdy, Fe stn red (6%); cht wh, red mot,
sdy (4%).
Ss, a.a. (87%); dol, a.a. (7%); cht, a.a.,
wh (4%); sh, gy, gn, brn (2%).
Ss, a.a. (86%); dol, a.a. (6%); cht, a.a.
(7%); sh, a.a. (1%).
Ss, a.a., few c gr (83%); cht, wh, trip
(10%); dol, a.a., sdy in pt (6%); sh gy gn
(waxy), red (1%).
Ss, a.a. (98%); cht a.a. (2%); tr sh; tr glau
on ss.
Ss, a.a. (100%); tr cht; tr sh.
Ss, a.a. (100%); tr cht, a.a., tr sil, gy
Ss, a.a., ltl pink, gy (100%).
Ss, a.a. (100%).
140
Table 3.--Continued.
5680-90
5690-5700
5700-10
5710-20
5720-30
5730-40
5740-50
5750-60
5760-70
5770-80
5780-90
5790-5800
5800-10
5810-20
5820-30
From log:
5830-50
5850-70
5870-5900
5900-6010
6010-40
6040-6140
Ss, f-m gr, fr-sl fr, rd-subrd, dol cmt, red
col, few 0 gr (70%); dol, brn, red brn, f
xtal, sdy (6%); sh, red, gn gy, mot red &
gn (20%); cht, wh trip (4%).
Ss, a.a. (95%); sh, red, gn (4%); Cht, a.a.
(1%); tr cht wh sil dns.
Ss, a.a. (58%); sh, red, red blk, gn, mic,
mot (35%); dol red, sdy f xtal (5%); cht, wh,
trip (2%).
Ss, a.a. (54%); sh, a.a. (35%); dol, a.a.
(7%); cht, a.a. (4%). -
Ss, a.a. (80%); sh, a.a. (10%); dol, a.a.
(6%); cht a.a. (4%).
Ss, a.a., arg, reddish (73%); sh, a.a. (20%);
dol, a.a. (4%); cht, a.a. (3%).
Ss, a.a., gy, red, buff (80%); dol, a.a. (5%);
sh, a.a. (10%); cht, a.a. (5%).
Ss, a.a., arg (90%); dol, a.a. (5%); sh, a.a.
(4%); cht, a.a. (1%).
Ss, a.a., pink, gy, buff, v dol (98%); sh gn
(1%); cht, a.a. (1%).
D01, buff wh to tan, red, f-m xtal, v sdy
(90%); ss, a.a. (10%).
D01, a.a. (95%); ss, a.a., v dol (5%); tr sh,
gn.
Dol, a.a. (100%).
Dol, a.a., dirty gy (100%); tr sh, blk, dirty.
Dol, a.a. (50%); ss, gy-buff, f-m gr, subrd-
rd, fr, to blk arg ss (50%); tr cht, wh, trip.
Dol blk, arg, few sdy (100%); tr sh, red.
Dol buff-gy dns, hd; ss, mgr, rd, buff-tan/
dol cmt; sh, gy.
Dol buff-gy brn, dns; sh gy.
Dol, a.a.; ss wh, f-m gr, rd.
Dol, tan to brn, dns; sh gY; tr ss, a.a.
Dol, tan to red tan to brn, dns; sh, gy.
Dol, tan to brn, mot; sh gy-brn.
Trempealeau @ 6064 (S.J.)
"IIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII“