Abstract Sir Archibald Geikie (1835–1924), one of the towering figures in the history of British geology, maintained a long professional relationship and correspondence with pioneering American geologists of the nineteenth century, including James Dwight Dana, Clarence Dutton, Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden and Grove Karl Gilbert. Geikie made two trips to the USA. Geikie’s first trip, accompanied by his former student at Edinburgh Henry Drummond, took place in August–November 1879 for field excursions in the American ‘Far West’, including Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, where he could find ample evidence for the dominant role of fluvial erosion in the denudation of continents (a school of thought called ‘fluvialism’ or ‘erosionalism’). These geological excursions also resulted in nine articles by Geikie published during 1880–82 as well as a large number of landscape paintings and sketches now preserved at the Haslemere Educational Museum in England. Geikie’s second trip from April to May 1897 was due to an invitation to deliver a series of lectures on ‘The Founders of Geology’ at Johns Hopkins University; these lectures became the basis for his classic book of the same title. Geikie kept an active interest in geological mapping and discoveries in the USA, as evident from his numerous references to American geology in his 1882 Text-book of Geology . Geikie’s American connections demonstrate that geology, although primarily a field-based regional science, did not evolve in isolation in various countries during the nineteenth century, but that there was lively exchange and synergy in geological research and findings among geologists working in Europe, the Americas and Asia.

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.

Groundwater is the source of drinking water for ~1.4 million people in the Coastal Plain Province of Maryland (USA). In addition, groundwater is essential for commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. Approximately 0.757 × 10 9 L d ‒1 (200 million gallons/d) were withdrawn in 2010. As a result of decades of withdrawals from the coastal plain confined aquifers, groundwater levels have declined by as much as 70 m (230 ft) from estimated prepumping levels. Other issues posing challenges to long-term groundwater sustainability include degraded water quality from both man-made and natural sources, reduced stream base flow, land subsidence, and changing recharge patterns (drought) caused by climate change. In Maryland, groundwater supply is managed primarily by the Maryland Department of the Environment, which seeks to balance reasonable use of the resource with long-term sustainability. The chief goal of groundwater management in Maryland is to ensure safe and adequate supplies for all current and future users through the implementation of appropriate usage, planning, and conservation policies. To assist in that effort, the geographic information system (GIS)–based Maryland Coastal Plain Aquifer Information System was developed as a tool to help water managers access and visualize groundwater data for use in the evaluation of groundwater allocation and use permits. The system, contained within an ESRI ArcMap desktop environment, includes both interpreted and basic data for 16 aquifers and 14 confining units. Data map layers include aquifer and confining unit layer surfaces, aquifer extents, borehole information, hydraulic properties, time-series groundwater-level data, well records, and geophysical and lithologic logs. The aquifer and confining unit layer surfaces were generated specifically for the GIS system. The system also contains select groundwater-quality data and map layers that quantify groundwater and surface-water withdrawals. The aquifer information system can serve as a pre- and postprocessing environment for groundwater-flow models for use in water-supply planning, development, and management. The system also can be expanded to include features that evaluate constraints to groundwater development, such as insufficient available drawdown, degraded groundwater quality, insufficient aquifer yields, and well-field interference. Ultimately, the aquifer information system is intended to function as an interactive Web-based utility that provides a broad array of information related to groundwater resources in Maryland’s coastal plain to a wide-ranging audience, including well drillers, consultants, academia, and the general public.

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 Miocene strata exposed in the Calvert Cliffs, along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, have a long history of study owing to their rich fossil record, including a series of spectacular shell and bone beds. Owing to increasingly refined biostratigraphic age control, these outcrops continue to serve as important references for geological and paleontological analyses. The canonical Calvert, Choptank, and St. Marys Formations, first described by Shattuck (1904), are generally interpreted as shallowing-up, from a fully marine open shelf to a variety of marginal marine, coastal environments. More detailed paleoenvironmental interpretation is challenging, however, owing to pervasive bioturbation, which largely obliterates diagnostic physical sedimentary structures and mixes grain populations; most lithologic contacts, including regional unconformities, are burrowed firmgrounds at the scale of a single outcrop. This field trip will visit a series of classic localities in the Calvert Cliffs to discuss the use of sedimentologic, ichnologic, taphonomic, and faunal evidence to infer environments under these challenging conditions, which are common to Cretaceous and Cenozoic strata throughout the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains. We will examine all of Shattuck‚s (1904) original lithologic “zones” within the Plum Point Member of the Calvert Formation, the Choptank Formation, and the Little Cove Point Member of the St. Marys Formation, as well as view the channelized “upland gravel” that are probably the estuarine and fluvial equivalents of the marine upper Miocene Eastover Formation in Virginia. The physical stratigraphic discussion will focus on the most controversial intervals within the succession, namely the unconformities that define the bases of the Choptank and St. Marys Formations, where misunderstanding would mislead historical analysis.

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.

Water resurge into newly excavated impact craters causes both erosion and conspicuous graded deposits in those cases where the water is deep enough to overrun the elevated crater rim. We compare published information on resurge deposits from mainly the Lockne, Tvären, and Chesapeake Bay structures with new results from low-velocity impact experiments and numerical simulations. Notwithstanding the limitations of each of the analytical methods (observation, experiment, and simulation), we can visualize the resurge process for various initial impact-target configurations, for which one single method would have been insufficient. The focus is on the ways in which variations in impact angle and target water depth affect water-cavity collapse, the initiation and continuation of the resurge, its transformation into a central water plume, and subsequent antiresurge, as well as tsunami generation. We show that (1) the resurge at oblique impacts, as well as impacts into a target with a varied water depth, becomes strongly asymmetrical, which greatly influences the development of the central water plume and sediment deposition; (2) the resurge may cause a central peak–like debris cumulate at the location of the collapsing central water plume; (3) at relatively deep target waters, the resurge proper is eventually prevented from reaching the crater center by the force of the antiresurge; (4) the antiresurge is separated into an upper and a lower component; (5) the resurge from the deep-water side at an impact into water of varied depth may overcome the resurge from the shallow-water side and push it back out of the crater; and (6) contrary to rim-wave tsunamis, a collapse-wave tsunami requires deeper relative water depth than that of Lockne, the crater-forming impact event with the currently deepest known target water depth.

This study is a first attempt to compile sedimentological features of synimpact to postimpact marine sedimentary successions from marine-target impact craters utilizing six well-studied examples (Chesapeake Bay, Gardnos, Kärdla, Lockne, Mjølnir, and Wetumpka). The sedimentary formations succeed autochthonous breccias and, in some cases, allochthonous suevites. These late synimpact and early postimpact depositional successions (on top of the suevites) appear to be in comparable stratigraphic developments and facies in marine-impact craters. Their composition reflects common mechanisms of sedimentation; they were developed from avalanches/scree, slides, and slumps through sequences of mass-flow–dominated deposition before ending with density currents and fine-grained sedimentation from fluidal flow and suspension. With detailed study, it may be possible to separate the late synimpact and early postimpact successions based on their clast composition relative to target stratigraphy. The process-related comparisons presented here are highly simplified, including characteristics of moat, central peak, and marginal basin sedimentation of both simple and complex craters.

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.

The late Eocene Chesapeake Bay impact structure, located on the Atlantic margin of Virginia, may be Earth's best-preserved large impact structure formed in a shallow marine, siliciclastic, continental-shelf environment. It has the form of an inverted sombrero in which a central crater ∼40 km in diameter is surrounded by a shallower brim, the annular trough, that extends the diameter to ∼85 km. The annular trough is interpreted to have formed largely by the collapse and mobilization of weak sediments. Crystalline-clast suevite, found only in the central crater, contains clasts and blocks of shocked gneiss that likely were derived from the fragmentation of the central-uplift basement. The suevite and entrained megablocks are interpreted to have formed from impact-melt particles and crystalline-rock debris that never left the central crater, rather than as a fallback deposit. Impact-modified sediments in the annular trough include megablocks of Cretaceous nonmarine sediment disrupted by faults, fluidized sands, fractured clays, and mixed-sediment intercalations. These impact-modified sediments could have formed by a combination of processes, including ejection into and mixing of sediments in the water column, rarefaction-induced fragmentation and clastic injection, liquefaction and fluidization of sand in response to acousticwave vibrations, gravitational collapse, and inward lateral spreading. The Exmore beds, which blanket the entire crater and nearby areas, consist of a lower diamicton member overlain by an upper stratified member. They are interpreted as unstratified ocean-resurge deposits, having depositional cycles that may represent stages of inward resurge or outward anti-resurge flow, overlain by stratified fallout of suspended sediment from the water column.