Guidebook for field trips in Connecticut: New England Intercollegiate Geological Conference 60th annual meeting, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, October 25-27, 1968: Trip D-

Stanley, Rolfe S.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository NEIGC Trips New England Intercollegiate Geological Excursion Collection 1-1-1968 Bedrock Geology of Western Connecticut Stanley, Rolfe S. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/neigc_trips Recommended Citation Stanley, Rolfe S., "Bedrock Geology of Western Connecticut" (1968). NEIGC Trips. 99. https://scholars.unh.edu/neigc_trips/99 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the New England Intercollegiate Geological Excursion Collection at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in NEIGC Trips by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu. D-01BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF WESTERN CONNECTICUTbyRolfe S. Stanley University of VermontGeologically western Connecticut is divided into two major strike belts which extend northward into western Massachusetts and Vermont.The western belt is bordered on the east by "Cameron's line" and con­sists of metamorphosed Cambrian and Ordovician rocks that represent the miogeosynclinal facies of western New England. Such massifs as the Housatonic and Berkshire Highlands are present in this belt and represent, along with the Fordham Gneiss in the southwestern portion of the state, the Precambrian basement of western Connecticut. The eastern belt between "Cameron's line" and the central Triassic basin of Connecticut contains eugeosynclinal rocks that are stratigraphically equivalent to rocks of Cambrian through Lower Devonian age of eastern Vermont. Rocks of Triassic age are found in the Pomperaug and Cherry Brook valleys and also border the crystalline rocks of western Connecti­cut on the east.In the miogeosynclinal belt north of the Housatonic Highlands,Zen (1966, 1967) has shown that the Taconic allochthon is present over- lying the characteristic autochthonous sequence of western Vermont andMassachusetts. Recent work by Hall (1965, 1968) in the White Plainsarea just west of the extreme southwestern portion of Connecticut has correlated subdivisions of the Inwood Marble and Manhattan Schist with the stratigraphy north of the Housatonic Highlands. Hall suggests that the Taconic allochthon may be present in the Manhattan Schist. If his interpretation is correct, then the stratigraphy and structure is similar through the miogeosynclinal belt although the details still must be work­ed out between the Hudson and Housatonic Highlands.Detailed mapping since 1956 east of "Cameron's line" has uncovered a variety of major structures whose configuration and sequential history is best understood, at present, along the eastern portion of the eugeo­synclinal belt where elliptical domes expose several regionally persistant formations (for example, The Straits Schist). The studies of Crowley (1968) and Dieterich (1968, Trip D-2) in south-central Connecticut,Gates and Martin (1967, Trip D-5) in central Connecticut and Stanley (1964, Trip D-4) in north-central Connecticut, suggest that The Straits Schist and the Collinsville Formation outline a series of east-facing,> stacked nappes which have been redeformed by the upward movement of the lighter, metavolcanic core in the lowest nappe. This configuration is further complicated by post-metamorphic, high angle faults which are known to be of Upper Triassic age where they border the arkose and basalt in the Pomeraug and Cherry Brook valleys and along the eastern border of the crystalline rocks of western Connecticut.MAS S A C HUS E T T S10 M I L E SEXPLANATIONU ppe r  T r iP = P o m e r a u g  C= C h e r r y  B r o o kM iogeo s yn c l in a l  fac ies Eugeosynclinal fac iesCamb r ia n  t h r o u g h  Camb r ian  t h r o u g hMidd le  O rd o v i c ia n  L. D e v o n i a nP r e c a m b r i a n  o f  th e1 B e r k s h i r e  H i g h l a n d s  Z H o u s a t o n i c  H i g h l a n d s  3  N e w  M i l f o r d  H i g h l a n d s  H H u d s o n  H i g h l a n d sVSD 1968Figure 1. Geologic map of western Connecticut.D-The origin and significance of "Cameron's line" is unknown, al­though it has been recognized for some time (Agar, 1927, and Cameron,1951) as a convenient boundary separating the miogeosyncline facies and the eugeosynclinal facies. Clarke (1958) interpreted "Cameron's line" in the Danbury and Bethel quadrangles as a thrust along which the Manhattan was displaced eastward over the Hartland. Gates and Christen­sen (1965) in the West Torrington quadrangle showed that some of their units of the Hartland were truncated by Cameron's line and thus support a fault interpretation. Rodgers (1965) suggests that the line may repre­sent a zone of intense downward movement that may have once contained the Taconic slate and, hence, may be the root zone for the allochthon. Whatever interpretation one may favor, "Cameron's line" is a fundamentally important feature of western Connecticut and its significance presents one of the more important problems to be solved in the future.The post-Precambrian geological history of western Connecticut begins with deposition during the Cambrian and the Lower Ordovician of quartz sandstones, dolostones and limestones in the miogeosyncline west of Cameron's line and shales, graywackes and volcanics in the eugeosyn- cline to the east. The unconformity at the base of the Walloomsac Formation in northwestern Connecticut (Zen, 1966,1967) and the Manhattan Schist in the Manhattan Prong (Hall, 1965, 1968) indicates that the miogeosyncline was structurally active during the Middle Ordovician How far this activity extended eastward into the eugeosyncline is un­certain as convincing evidence for the Middle Ordovician unconformity has not been discovered as yet. The Taconic Orogeny, which is well documented in western New England, certainly affected the eugeosyncline in western Connecticut, but the unconformity that separates the Cambrian - Ordovician rocks from the Silurian - Devonian rocks in Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire has not been demonstrated to date.In western Connecticut the most intense deformation and metamor­phism occurred during the Acadian Orogeny, when the lower and middle Paleozoic rocks were deformed into regionally persistent folds and nappes which, in places, were redeformed into domes. Metamorphism attained the sillimanite and kyanite zones over much of the area except in the southeastern part of western Connecticut where the garnet and biotite zones are present.The structural history of the area closes with high-angle faulting in the Upper Triassio and broad uplift during the remaining portion of Mesozoic and, possibly, Cenozoic time.The field trips are designed to sample the diverse geology of western Connecticut. Trip D-6 in the Southwesternmost portion of Connecticut will study both the miogeosynclinal and eugeosynclinal sequence adjacent to "Cameron's line", whereas all the other trips will concentrate on the eastern portion of the eugeosynclinal belt.Trip D-l, will cover the progressive metamorphism in the southeasternO CMpart of western Connecticut where rocks of the Wepawaug Schist, supposed­ly the youngest metasedimentary unit in western Connecticut, are found in a complexly deformed north-plunging synform. Trips D-4 and D-5 will cover the Collinsville, Bristol, and Waterbury domes and include parts of the folds west of the domes. Trip D-2 will cover the area to the south along the strike of the gneiss domes where similar rocks are in­volved in several generations of folds.Agar, W. M., 1927, The geology of the Shepaug Aqueduct Tunnel, Litch­field County, Connecticut: Connecticut Geol. Nat. History Survey,Bull. 40, 38 p.Cameron, E. N., 1951, Preliminary report on the geology of the Mt.Prospect complex: Connecticut Geol. Nat. History Survey, Bull.76, 44 p.Clarke, J. W., 1958, The bedrock geology of the Danbury quadrangle:Connecticut Geo. Nat. History Survey, Quad. Rept. 7, 47 p.Crowley, W. P., 1968, The bedrock geology of the Long Hill and Bridge­port quadrangles: Conne ticut Geol. Nat. History Survey, Quad.Rept. 24, p.Dieterich, J. H.,ms., 1968, Sequence and mechanics of folding in thearea of New Haven, Westport, and Naugatuck, Connecticut: Ph.Ddissertation, Yale University.Gates, R. M. and Christensen, N. I., 1965, The bedrock geology ofthe West Torrington quadrangle: Connecticut Geol. Nat. HistorySurvey Quad. Rept. 17, 38 p.Gates, R. M. and Martin, C. W., 1967, The bedrock geology of the Water­bury quadrangle: Connecticut J2eol. Nat. History Survey, Quad.Rept. 22, 36 p.Hall, L. M., 1965, Some stratigraphic relationships within the New YorkCity Group in Westchester County, New York (abs.): Geol. Soc.America, Program for the 1965 Annual Meeting, p. 69._____ , 1968, Bedrock geology in the vicinity of White Plains, New York:in Guidebook to the 40th New York State Geological Association, p. 7-Rodgers, John, 1965, Geologic problems on the border between New Yorkand Connecticut: The Empire State Geogram, v. 4, p. 1-4.Stanley, R. S., 1964, The bedrock geology of the Collinsville quadrangle:Connecticut Geol. Nat. History Survey, Quad. Rept. 16, 99 p.Zen,Zen,D-E-an, 1967, Time and space relationships of the Taconic allochthon and autochthon: Geol. Soc. America Special Paper 97, 107 p.E-an and Hartshorn, J. H., 1966, Geologic map of the Bashbish quadrangle, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York: U. S.Geological Survey, Quad. Map GQ-507.

Bedrock Geology of Western Connecticut

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=neigc_trips

Bedrock Geology of Western Connecticut

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository