ABSTRACT Two late Eocene impact spherule layers are known: the North America microtektite layer (from the Chesapeake Bay crater) and the slightly older clinopyroxene (cpx) spherule layer (from Popigai crater). Positive Ir anomalies occur at 5.61 m and 6.19 m above the base of a late Eocene section at Massignano, Italy. The age difference between the two anomalies is ~65 ± 20 k.y. The older Ir anomaly at 5.61 m appears to be associated with the cpx spherule layer. Although no impact spherules or shocked-mineral grains have been found associated with the upper Ir anomaly at 6.19 m, it has been proposed that it may be from the Chesapeake Bay impact. Comparison with other distal ejecta layers suggests that microtektites, but not shocked-mineral grains, from the Chesapeake Bay crater could have been thrown as far as Massignano. However, their absence neither supports nor disproves the hypothesis that the Ir anomaly at 6.19 m is from the Chesapeake Bay impact. On the other hand, the North American microtektite layer is not associated with an Ir anomaly. Furthermore, the average age difference between the cpx spherule layer and the North American microtektite layer appears to be ~18 ± 11 k.y., which is nearly one quarter the age difference between the two Ir anomalies at Massignano. This indicates that the Ir anomaly at 6.19 m is too young to be from the Chesapeake Bay impact, and thus is most likely not from the Chesapeake Bay impact.

ABSTRACT The late Eocene Chesapeake Bay impact structure was formed in a multilayered target of seawater underlain sequentially by a sediment layer and a rock layer in a continental-shelf environment. Impact effects in the “brim” (annular trough) surrounding and adjacent to the transient crater, between the transient crater rim and the outer margin, primarily were limited to the target-sediment layer. Analysis of published and new lithostratigraphic, biostratigraphic, sedimentologic, petrologic, and mineralogic studies of three core holes, and published studies of a fourth core hole, provided information for the interpretation of the impact processes, their interactions and relative timing, their resulting products, and sedimentation in the brim. Most studies of marine impact-crater materials have focused on those found in the central crater. There are relatively few large, complex marine craters, of which most display a wide brim around the central crater. However, most have been studied using minimal data sets. The large number of core holes and seismic profiles available for study of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure presents a special opportunity for research. The physical and chronologic records supplied by study of the sediment and rock cores of the Chesapeake Bay impact indicate that the effects of the initial, short-lived contact and compression and excavation stages of the impact event primarily were limited to the transient crater. Only secondary effects of these processes are evident in the brim. The preserved record of the brim was created primarily in the subsequent modification stage. In the brim, the records of early impact processes (e.g., outgoing tsunamis, overturned flap collapse) were modified or removed by later processes. Transported and rotated, large and small clasts of target sediments, and intervals of fluidized sands indicate that seismic shaking fractured and partially fluidized the Cretaceous and Paleogene target sediments, which led to their inward transport by collapse and lateral spreading toward the transient crater. The succeeding inward seawater-resurge flow quickly overtook and interacted with the lateral spreading, further facilitating sediment transport across the brim and into the transient crater. Variations in the cohesion and relative depth of the target sediments controlled their degree of disaggregation and redistribution during these events. Melt clasts and shocked and unshocked rock clasts in the resurge sediments indicate fallout from the ejecta curtain and plume. Basal parautochthonous remnant sections of target Cretaceous sediments in the brim thin toward the collapsed transient crater. Overlying seawater-resurge deposits consist primarily of diamictons that vary laterally in thickness, and vertically and laterally in maximum grain size. After cessation of resurge flow and re-establishment of pre-impact sea level, sandy sediment gravity flows moved from the margin to the center of the partially filled impact structure (shelf basin). The uppermost unit consists of stratified sediments deposited from suspension. Postimpact clayey silts cap the crater fill and record the return to shelf sedimentation at atypically large paleodepths within the shelf basin. An unresolved question involves a section of gravel and sand that overlies Neoproterozoic granite in the inner part of the brim in one core hole. This section may represent previously unrecognized, now parautochthonous Cretaceous sediments lying nonconformably above basement granite, or it may represent target sediments that were moved significant distances by lateral spreading above basement rocks or above a granite megaclast from the overturned flap. The Chesapeake Bay impact structure is perhaps the best documented example of the small group of multilayer, marine-target impacts formed in continental shelves or beneath epeiric seas. The restriction of most impact effects to the target-sediment layer in the area outside the transient cavity, herein called the brim, and the presence of seawater-resurge sediments are characteristic features of this group. Other examples include the Montagnais (offshore Nova Scotia, Canada) and Mjølnir (offshore Norway) impact structures.

Abstract The Salisbury embayment is a broad tectonic downwarp that is filled by generally seaward-thickening, wedge-shaped deposits of the central Atlantic Coastal Plain. Our two-day field trip will take us to the western side of this embayment from the Fall Zone in Washington, D.C., to some of the bluffs along Aquia Creek and the Potomac River in Virginia, and then to the Calvert Cliffs on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. We will see fluvial-deltaic Cretaceous deposits of the Potomac Formation. We will then focus on Cenozoic marine deposits. Transgressive and highstand deposits are stacked upon each other with unconformities separating them; rarely are regressive or lowstand deposits preserved. The Paleocene and Eocene shallow shelf deposits consist of glauconitic, silty sands that contain varying amounts of marine shells. The Miocene shallow shelf deposits consist of diatomaceous silts and silty and shelly sands. The lithology, thickness, dip, preservation, and distribution of the succession of coastal plain sediments that were deposited in our field-trip area are, to a great extent, structurally controlled. Surficial and subsurface mapping using numerous continuous cores, auger holes, water-well data, and seismic surveys has documented some folds and numerous high-angle reverse and normal faults that offset Cretaceous and Cenozoic deposits. Many of these structures are rooted in early Mesozoic and/or Paleozoic NE-trending regional tectonic fault systems that underlie the Atlantic Coastal Plain. On Day 1, we will focus on two fault systems (stops 1-2; Stafford fault system and the Skinkers Neck-Brandywine fault system and their constituent fault zones and faults). We will then see (stops 3-5) a few of the remaining exposures of largely unlithified marine Paleocene and Eocene strata along the Virginia side of the Potomac River including the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum boundary clay. These exposures are capped by fluvial-estuarine Pleistocene terrace deposits. On Day 2, we will see (stops 6-9) the classic Miocene section along the ~25 miles (~40 km) of Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, including a possible fault and structural warping. Cores from nearby test holes will also be shown to supplement outcrops.

Abstract The mid-Atlantic region and Chesapeake Bay watershed have been influenced by fluctuations in climate and sea level since the Cretaceous, and human alteration of the landscape began ~12,000 years ago, with greatest impacts since colonial times. Efforts to devise sustainable management strategies that maximize ecosystem services are integrating data from a range of scientific disciplines to understand how ecosystems and habitats respond to different climatic and environmental stressors. Palynology has played an important role in improving understanding of the impact of changing climate, sea level, and land use on local and regional vegetation. Additionally, palynological analyses have provided biostratigraphic control for surficial mapping efforts and documented agricultural activities of both Native American populations and European colonists. This field trip focuses on sites where palynological analyses have supported efforts to understand the impacts of changing climate and land use on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

Two cores at the outer margin of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure show significant structural and depositional variations that illuminate its history. Detailed stratigraphy of the Watkins School core reveals that this site is outside the disruption boundary of the crater with respect to its lower part (nonmarine Cretaceous Potomac Formation), but just inside the boundary with respect to its upper part (Exmore Formation and a succession of upper Eocene to Pleistocene postimpact deposits). The site of the U.S. Geological Survey–National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley core, 6.4 km to the east, lies wholly within the annular trough of the crater. The Potomac Formation in the Watkins School core is not noticeably impact disrupted. The lower part of crater unit A in the Langley core represents stratigraphically lower, but similarly undeformed material. The Exmore Formation is only 7.8 m thick in the Watkins School core, but it is over 200 m thick in the Langley core, where it contains blocks up to 24 m in intersected diameter. The upper part of the Exmore Formation in the two cores is a polymict diamicton with a stratified zone at the top. The postimpact sedimentary units in the two cores have similar late Eocene and late Miocene depositional histories and contrasting Oligocene, early Miocene, and middle Miocene histories. A paleochannel of the James River removed Pliocene deposits at the Watkins School site, to be filled later with thick Pleistocene deposits. At the Langley site, a thick Pliocene and thinner Pleistocene record is preserved.

Fifteen impactites from various intervals within the Eyreville cores of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure were sampled to measure siderophile element concentrations. The sampled intervals include basement-derived rocks with veins, polymict impact breccias and associated rocks, and crater-fill sediments. The platinum group element (PGE) concentrations obtained are generally low (e.g., iridium concentrations less than 0.1 ng/g) and are fractionated relative to chondrites. There is no clear distinction in concentration between the different impactite units. So far in the Chesapeake Bay material, only the impact melt rocks from the 823-m-deep Cape Charles test hole, drilled over the central uplift of the structure, have generated a bulk chondritic signature of 0.01–0.1 wt% meteoritic contribution based on a mixing model of 187 Os/ 188 Os isotopic ratios and Os concentrations. However, none of the samples studied shows PGE abundances that enable identification of the type of projectile responsible for the formation of the structure. Hence, it is at present not possible to link the Chesapeake Bay impact to the proposed ordinary chondrite falls by projectiles recorded for other late Eocene craters, namely the 100-km-diameter Popigai impact structure in Siberia and 7.5-km-diameter Wanapitei structure in Canada. The absence of a clear projectile signature hinders further discussions on the existence and the nature of the late Eocene shower event (asteroid versus comet).

The late Eocene Chesapeake Bay impact structure lies buried at moderate depths below Chesapeake Bay and surrounding landmasses in southeastern Virginia, USA. Numerous characteristics made this impact structure an inviting target for scientific drilling, including the location of the impact on the Eocene continental shelf, its three-layer target structure, its large size (~85 km diameter), its status as the source of the North American tektite strewn field, its temporal association with other late Eocene terrestrial impacts, its documented effects on the regional groundwater system, and its previously unstudied effects on the deep microbial biosphere. The Chesapeake Bay impact structure Deep Drilling Project was designed to drill a deep, continuously cored test hole into the central part of the structure. A project workshop, funding proposals, and the acceptance of those proposals occurred during 2003–2005. Initial drilling funds were provided by the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Supplementary funds were provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate, ICDP, and USGS. Field operations were conducted at Eyreville Farm, Northampton County, Virginia, by Drilling, Observation, and Sampling of the Earth's Continental Crust (DOSECC) and the project staff during September–December 2005, resulting in two continuously cored, deep holes. The USGS and Rutgers University cored a shallow hole to 140 m in April–May 2006 to complete the recovered section from land surface to 1766 m depth. The recovered section consists of 1322 m of crater materials and 444 m of overlying postimpact Eocene to Pleistocene sediments. The crater section consists of, from base to top: basement-derived blocks of crystalline rocks (215 m); a section of suevite, impact melt rock, lithic impact breccia, and cataclasites (154 m); a thin interval of quartz sand and lithic blocks (26 m); a granite megablock (275 m); and sediment blocks and boulders, polymict, sediment-clast–dominated sedimentary breccias, and a thin upper section of stratified sediments (652 m). The cored postimpact sediments provide insight into the effects of a large continental-margin impact on subsequent coastal-plain sedimentation. This volume contains the first results of multidisciplinary studies of the Eyreville cores and related topics. The volume is divided into these sections: geologic column; borehole geophysical studies; regional geophysical studies; crystalline rocks, impactites, and impact models; sedimentary breccias; postimpact sediments; hydrologic and geothermal studies; and microbiologic studies.

The International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP)–U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Eyreville drill cores from the Chesapeake Bay impact structure provide one of the most complete geologic sections ever obtained from an impact structure. This paper presents a series of geologic columns and descriptive lithologic information for the lower impactite and crystalline-rock sections in the cores. The lowermost cored section (1766–1551 m depth) is a complex assemblage of mica schists that commonly contain graphite and fibrolitic sillimanite, intrusive granite pegmatites that grade into coarse granite, and local zones of mylonitic deformation. This basement-derived section is variably overprinted by brittle cataclastic fabrics and locally cut by dikes of polymict impact breccia, including several suevite dikes. An overlying succession of suevites and lithic impact breccias (1551–1397 m) includes a lower section dominated by polymict lithic impact breccia with blocks (up to 17 m) and boulders of cataclastic gneiss and an upper section (above 1474 m) of suevites and clast-rich impact melt rocks. The uppermost suevite is overlain by 26 m (1397–1371 m) of gravelly quartz sand that contains an amphibolite block and boulders of cataclasite and suevite. Above the sand, a 275-m-thick allochthonous granite slab (1371–1096 m) includes gneissic biotite granite, fine- and medium-to-coarse–grained biotite granites, and red altered granite near the base. The granite slab is overlain by more gravelly sand, and both are attributed to debris-avalanche and/or rockslide deposition that slightly preceded or accompanied seawater-resurge into the collapsing transient crater.

The Eyreville A and B cores, recovered from the “moat” of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, provide a thick section of sediment-clast breccias and minor stratified sediments from 1095.74 to 443.90 m. This paper discusses the components of these breccias, presents a geologic column and descriptive lithologic framework for them, and formalizes the Exmore Formation. From 1095.74 to ~867 m, the cores consist of nonmarine sediment boulders and sand (rare blocks up to 15.3 m intersected diameter). A sharp contact in both cores at ~867 m marks the lowest clayey, silty, glauconitic quartz sand that constitutes the base of the Exmore Formation and its lower diamicton member. Here, material derived from the upper sediment target layers, as well as some impact ejecta, occurs. The block-dominated member of the Exmore Formation, from ~855–618.23 m, consists of nonmarine sediment blocks and boulders (up to 45.5 m) that are juxtaposed complexly. Blocks of oxidized clay are an important component. Above 618.23 m, which is the base of the informal upper diamicton member of the Exmore Formation, the glauconitic matrix is a consistent component in diamicton layers between nonmarine sediment clasts that decrease in size upward in the section. Crystalline-rock clasts are not randomly distributed but rather form local concentrations. The upper part of the Exmore Formation consists of crudely fining-upward sandy packages capped by laminated silt and clay. The overlap interval of Eyreville A and B (940–~760 m) allows recognition of local similarities and differences in the breccias.

A 443.9-m-thick, virtually undisturbed section of postimpact deposits in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure was recovered in the Eyreville A and C cores, Northampton County, Virginia, within the “moat” of the structure's central crater. Recovered sediments are mainly fine-grained marine siliciclastics, with the exception of Pleistocene sand, clay, and gravel. The lowest postimpact unit is the upper Eocene Chickahominy Formation (443.9–350.1 m). At 93.8 m, this is the maximum thickness yet recovered for deposits that represent the return to “normal marine” sedimentation. The Drummonds Corner beds (informal) and the Old Church Formation are thin Oligocene units present between 350.1 and 344.7 m. Above the Oligocene, there is a more typical Virginia coastal plain succession. The Calvert Formation (344.7–225.4 m) includes a thin lower Miocene part overlain by a much thicker middle Mio-cene part. From 225.4 to 206.0 m, sediments of the middle Miocene Choptank Formation, rarely reported in the Virginia coastal plain, are present. The thick upper Miocene St. Marys and Eastover Formations (206.0–57.8 m) appear to represent a more complete succession than in the type localities. Correlation with the nearby Kiptopeke core indicates that two Pliocene units are present: Yorktown (57.8–32.2 m) and Chowan River Formations (32.2–18.3 m). Sediments at the top of the section represent an upper Pleistocene channel-fill and are assigned to the Butlers Bluff and Occohannock Members of the Nassawadox Formation (18.3–0.6 m).

During 2005–2006, the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program and the U.S. Geological Survey drilled three continuous core holes into the Chesapeake Bay impact structure to a total depth of 1766.3 m. A collection of supplemental materials that presents a record of the core recovery and measurement data for the Eyreville cores is available on CD-ROM at the end of this volume and in the GSA Data Repository. The supplemental materials on the CD-ROM include digital photographs of each core box from the three core holes, tables of the three coring-run logs, as recorded on site, and a set of depth-conversion programs. In this chapter, the contents, purposes, and basic applications of the supplemental materials are briefly described. With this information, users can quickly decide if the materials will apply to their specific research needs.

Chesapeake is a 35-Ma-old shallow-marine, complex impact structure with a diameter of ~85 km. The structure is completely buried beneath several hundreds of meters of postimpact sediments. Therefore, subsurface information can be obtained only from geophysical surveys and drill holes. Recently, deep drilling into the inner crater zone, at Eyreville near Cape Charles, was carried out in order to provide constraints on geophysical modeling and cratering processes in a multilayered marine target. We analyzed samples of the Eyreville core including postimpact, impact- produced, and basement-derived units in order to clarify the magneto-mineralogy, to provide physical parameters for better understanding the influence of the impact on the petrophysical and rock-magnetic properties, and to provide rock-magnetic data for magnetic modeling. Results show a complex behavior of physical properties of the lithologies in the Eyreville core due to different lithologies having been affected by shock-induced changes. Our data suggest that pyrrhotite and magnetite carry the magnetic properties in most of the core samples, whereas hematite is present in oxidized clays from the uppermost impact-generated unit (Exmore beds) and related sediment megablocks. The granitic megablock appears to be undeformed based on lack of brittle deformation in magnetite and petrophysically appears as a single block. In contrast, the impactite sequence below the megablock shows brittle deformation and magnetic fabric randomization, and the pyrrhotite in the associated schist fragments is strongly fractured. Thus, the Chesapeake Bay deep core provides an extraordinary opportunity to study the effect of impact on magnetite and pyrrhotite, the two main magnetic minerals creating crustal magnetic anomalies.

The physical properties of rocks in drill core from impact structures can be used to distinguish individual nonimpact and impact-generated lithologies, and to investigate the effect of the impact process on the target rocks. Here, we present the results of laboratory measurements of porosity, density, velocity, and thermal properties on the densely sampled cores from the Eyreville borehole in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, USA. With increasing depth, the lithologies encountered (and porosities) are: postimpact sediments (40%–60%), Exmore breccia and sedimentary blocks (27%–44%), a large megablock of granitoids (<1%), suevite and polymict lithic impact breccia (1%–25%), and schist, granite, and pegmatite of the basement-derived section (1%–13%). The low bulk densities and thermal properties of the post-impact sediments show a good correlation with the high porosity values. The physical properties within the Exmore bed sequence overall display relatively small variation but are heterogeneous on the core sample scale. Physical properties along the impact-breccia sequence are highly variable on all scales, and they are interpreted to be controlled by the structural arrangement of particles as well as by the highly variable mineral and clast compositions of the samples. The physical properties of the rocks of the lowermost basement-derived section are also heterogeneous and are interpreted as having been influenced by both lithology and overprinting as a result of the impact process. These results are important for further lithological and petrophysical interpretation and for calibrating future geophysical models of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure.

The International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) drilled three core holes to a composite depth of 1766 m within the moat of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure. Core recovery rates from the drilling were high (~90%), but problems with core hole collapse limited the geophysical downhole logging to natural-gamma and temperature logs. To supplement the downhole logs, ~5% of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure cores was processed through the USGS GeoTek multisensor core logger (MSCL) located in Menlo Park, California. The measured physical properties included core thickness (cm), density (g cm −3 ), P-wave velocity (m s −1 ), P-wave amplitude (%), magnetic susceptibility (cgs), and resistivity (ohm-m). Fractional porosity was a secondary calculated property. The MSCL data-sampling interval for all core sections was 1 cm longitudinally. Photos of each MSCL sampled core section were imbedded with the physical property data for direct comparison. These data have been used in seismic, geologic, thermal history, magnetic, and gravity models of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure. Each physical property curve has a unique signature when viewed over the full depth of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure core holes. Variations in the measured properties reflect differences in pre-impact target-rock lithologies and spatial variations in impact-related deformation during late-stage crater collapse and ocean resurge.

The Chesapeake Bay impact structure is a complex impact crater, ~85 km in diameter, buried beneath postimpact sediments. Its main structural elements include a central uplift of crystalline bedrock, a surrounding inner crater filled with impact debris, and an annular faulted margin composed of block-faulted sediments. The gravity anomaly is consistent with that of a complex impact consisting of a central positive anomaly over the central uplift and an annular negative anomaly over the inner crater. An anomaly is not recognized as being associated with the faulted margin or the outer edge of the structure. Densities from the Eyreville drill core and modeling indicate a density contrast of ~0.3–0.6 g cm −3 between crystalline basement and the material that fills the inner crater (e.g., Exmore breccia and suevite). This density contrast is somewhat higher than for other impact structures, but it is a function of the manner in which the crater fill was deposited (as a marine resurge deposit). Modeling of the gravity data is consistent with a depth to basement of ~1600 m at the site of Eyreville drill hole and 800 m at the central uplift. Both depths are greater than the depth at which crystalline rocks were encountered in the cores, suggesting that the cored material is highly fractured para-allochthonous rock.