Upper Cretaceous sequences and sea-level history, New Jersey Coastal … · 2006-10-25 · Coastal...

For permission to copy, contact [email protected] 2004 Geological Society of America368

GSA Bulletin; March/April 2004; v. 116; no. 3/4; p. 368–393; doi: 10.1130/B25279.1; 13 figures; 1 table; Data Repository item 2004043.

Upper Cretaceous sequences and sea-level history, New JerseyCoastal Plain

Kenneth G. Miller†

Department of Geological Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA

Peter J. SugarmanNew Jersey Geological Survey, P.O. Box 427, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, USA

James V. BrowningDepartment of Geological Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA

Michelle A. KominzDepartment of Geosciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008-5150, USA

Richard K. OlssonMark D. FeigensonJohn C. HernandezDepartment of Geological Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA

ABSTRACT

We developed a Late Cretaceous sea-level estimate from Upper Cretaceous se-quences at Bass River and Ancora, NewJersey (ODP [Ocean Drilling Program] Leg174AX). We dated 11–14 sequences by in-tegrating Sr isotope and biostratigraphy(age resolution 60.5 m.y.) and then esti-mated paleoenvironmental changes withinthe sequences from lithofacies and biofaciesanalyses. Sequences generally shallow up-section from middle-neritic to inner-neriticpaleodepths, as shown by the transitionfrom thin basal glauconite shelf sands(transgressive systems tracts [TST]), tomedial-prodelta silty clays (highstand sys-tems tracts [HST]), and finally to upper–delta-front quartz sands (HST). Sea-levelestimates obtained by backstripping (ac-counting for paleodepth variations, sedi-ment loading, compaction, and basin sub-sidence) indicate that large (.25 m) andrapid (K1 m.y.) sea-level variations oc-curred during the Late Cretaceous green-house world. The fact that the timing of Up-per Cretaceous sequence boundaries inNew Jersey is similar to the sea-level low-ering records of Exxon Production Re-search Company (EPR), northwest Euro-

†E-mail: [email protected].

pean sections, and Russian platformoutcrops points to a global cause. Becausebackstripping, seismicity, seismic strati-graphic data, and sediment-distributionpatterns all indicate minimal tectonic ef-fects on the New Jersey Coastal Plain, weinterpret that we have isolated a eustaticsignature. The only known mechanismthat can explain such global changes—glacio-eustasy—is consistent with forami-niferal d18O data. Either continental icesheets paced sea-level changes during theLate Cretaceous, or our understanding ofcausal mechanisms for global sea-levelchange is fundamentally flawed. Compari-son of our eustatic history with publishedice-sheet models and Milankovitch predic-tions suggests that small (5–10 3 106 km3),ephemeral, and areally restricted Antarcticice sheets paced the Late Cretaceous globalsea-level change. New Jersey and Russianeustatic estimates are typically one-half ofthe EPR amplitudes, though this differencevaries through time, yielding markedly dif-ferent eustatic curves. We conclude thatNew Jersey provides the best available es-timate for Late Cretaceous sea-levelvariations.

Keywords: eustasy, sequence stratigraphy,sea-level history, New Jersey Coastal Plain,Late Cretaceous, backstripping.

BACKGROUND

Predictable, recurring sequences bracketedby unconformities comprise the buildingblocks of the stratigraphic record. Exxon Pro-duction Research Company (EPR) defined adepositional sequence as a ‘‘stratigraphic unitcomposed of a relatively conformable succes-sion of genetically related strata and boundedat its top and base by unconformities or theircorrelative conformities’’ (Mitchum et al.,1977, p. 53); by implication, ‘‘genetically re-lated’’ refers to global changes in sea level(Vail et al., 1977). Christie-Blick and Driscoll(1995) clarified the genetic connotation byrecognizing sequence boundaries as unconfor-mities associated with lowering of base level,including eustatic and tectonic mechanisms.

Sequences have been recognized in diversestratigraphic environments (e.g., ranging fromsiliciclastic to carbonate settings; see exam-ples in Wilgus et al., 1988; de Graciansky etal., 1998) from the Proterozoic (e.g., Christie-Blick et al., 1988) to the Holocene (e.g., Lock-er et al., 1996) and have been related to globalsea-level (eustatic) variations (Vail et al.,1977; Haq et al., 1987; Posamentier et al.,1988). However, differences in accommoda-tion (the sum of subsidence and eustaticchange) and sediment supply control sequencearchitecture, including the nature and signifi-cance of surfaces bounding and within se-

Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2004 369

UPPER CRETACEOUS SEQUENCES AND SEA-LEVEL HISTORY, NEW JERSEY COASTAL PLAIN

Figure 1. Map showing the New Jersey Coastal Plain, the limit of Miocene and youngeroutcrop that approximates strike, and sites discussed here.

quences (e.g., flooding surfaces, transgressivesurfaces). In addition, accommodation andsediment supply control the stacking patternsof facies successions within sequences (e.g.,systems tracts of Vail et al., 1977, and Posa-mentier et al., 1988) and the general three-dimensional arrangement of sequences (Rey-nolds et al., 1991).

A clear relationship between sequenceboundaries and glacio-eustatic sea-level low-erings has been demonstrated for the ‘‘ice-house world’’ of the past 42 m.y. (Miller etal., 1996, 1998a). Comparing onshore and off-shore New Jersey sequences with d18O records

shows that sequence boundaries from 42 to 8Ma correlate with global d18O increases, link-ing them with glacio-eustatic sea-level low-erings (Miller et al., 1996, 1998a). However,such a relationship has not been establishedfor the ‘‘greenhouse world’’ of the pre–middleEocene, in part reflecting the greater difficultyin obtaining and dating sequences older than42 Ma from passive margins throughout theworld.

Mechanisms for sea-level change during thegreenhouse world are poorly understood.Though most investigators have assumed thatEarth was largely ice free prior to the late mid-

dle Eocene (Barron, 1983; Huber et al., 2002),the only known mechanism for producing thelarge (k10 m), rapid (,1 m.y.) global sea-level changes reported for this time (e.g., Haqet al., 1987; Hallam, 1992) is glacio-eustasy(see Donovan and Jones, 1979; Pitman andGolovchenko, 1983). Studies have begun toquestion the assumption of a completely ice-free world during the Cretaceous (e.g., Stolland Schrag, 1996; Miller et al., 1999a, 2002;Price, 1999), suggesting that ice-volumechanges may have been an important controlon greenhouse sea-level changes.

Evaluation of mechanisms of sea-levelchange requires a firm chronology and ameans of extracting rates of change. Severalpassive-margin and epicontinental sea regionsprovide relatively high-resolution sequence-stratigraphic records for the Late Cretaceous.Deposits of the U.S. Western Interior Seawayprovide a tephrochronology of sequences(Kauffman, 1977; Dean and Arthur, 1998),though these sections are complicated by com-pressional tectonics. The epicontinental andpassive-margin sections of northwest Europeand the Russian platform provide excellentrecords of transgressive-regressive sequences(Hancock, 1993; de Graciansky et al., 1998;Sahagian et al., 1996). However, differing bio-zonal schemes complicate interregional cor-relations, and a firm global record of UpperCretaceous sequences has proved to be elu-sive. Though workers at EPR produced a LateCretaceous eustatic record (Haq et al., 1987),the database on which it is published is largelyproprietary. De Graciansky et al. (1998) haveprovided public documentation of EPR’s Me-sozoic sequences in northwest Europe. Where-as their Lower Cretaceous and older sequenc-es are reasonably well documented, the UpperCretaceous sequences are poorly constrainedin age. Pieces of the Upper Cretaceoussequence-stratigraphic puzzle are falling intoplace with publication of detailed studies ofparts of the section (e.g., Gale et al. [2002] forthe Cenomanian–early Turonian), but theoverall picture of Upper Cretaceous sequencesand rates of sea-level change is still blurry.

The New Jersey passive margin, particular-ly the onshore coastal plain (Fig. 1), has pro-vided a reference for Cenozoic sequences(Miller et al., 1996, 1998a) and potentially canprovide similar records of Upper Cretaceoussequences. The development of Late Creta-ceous Sr isotope stratigraphy (Fig. 2; Burke etal., 1982; Sugarman et al., 1995; McArthur etal., 1992, 1993, 1994; Howarth and McArthur,1997) together with the application of Creta-ceous nannoplankton biostratigraphy (e.g.,Bralower et al., 1995) provides the means of

370 Geological Society of America Bulletin, March/April 2004

MILLER et al.

Figure 2. Later Cretaceous Sr isotope age calibration for ODP (Ocean Drilling Program) Site 525 (open circles), U.S. Western Interior(open squares), and Kronsmoor, Germany (closed circles). A fifth-order polynomial (thin gray line) and two linear fits (thick black lines)are shown.

Figure 3. (A) Navesink–Mount Laurel for-mational boundary and sequence bound-ary, Route 34, Matawan, New Jersey. SB—sequence boundary; TS—transgressivesurface; LST—highstand systems tract;TST—transgressive systems tract; HST—highstand systems tract. Paleodepth fromMiller et al. (1999a). (B) Sequence bound-aries observed in cores from Ancora, NewJersey. Wavy lines indicate sequenceboundaries (unconformities). Depths infeet; cores generally represent 2 ftsegments.

M

reconciling correlations among regions andevaluating the global significance of regionalsequences.

UPPER CRETACEOUS SEQUENCES INTHE NEW JERSEY COASTAL PLAIN

Geologists have long noted cyclicity in Up-per Cretaceous strata of the New Jersey Coast-al Plain (e.g., Lyell, 1845). Prominent middle-to outer-neritic glauconite beds (Figs. 3–5;Merchantville, Marshalltown, and NavesinkFormations) provide a visual key to recogniz-ing transgressive-regressive cycles (e.g., Wel-ler, 1907). Upper Cretaceous facies in NewJersey are generally deltaically influencedmarine-shelf facies (Fig. 4) with transgressiveshelf glauconite beds overlain by regressiveprodelta silts and delta-front sands (Owensand Sohl, 1969; Sugarman et al., 1995). Thewave-dominated Niger Delta (Allen, 1970)provides a useful analogue for these Late Cre-taceous environments (Fig. 4), as it is com-posed of delta-front sands (inner neritic, ,20

m paleodepth), prodelta silts (20–60 m), andouter-neritic glauconite sands (60–200 m).

Previous studies have documented at leastfive to eight Late Cretaceous cycles. Olsson(1963, 1975) recognized five Late Cretaceoustransgressive-regressive cycles in the New Jer-sey Coastal Plain, whereas in the same area,Owens and Sohl (1969) mapped five to sixLate Cretaceous cycles but inferred a tectoniccontrol on sedimentation. Owens and Gohn(1985) recognized similar cycles throughoutthe U.S. Atlantic Coastal Plain outcrops. Byusing outcrops and discontinuously sampledwells and boreholes, Olsson and coauthors(Olsson and Wise, 1987; Olsson et al., 1988; andOlsson, 1991) recognized eight transgressive-regressive cycles in New Jersey, identifiedthem as sequences, and related them to sea-level change. Sugarman et al. (1995) integrat-ed New Jersey Coastal Plain Sr isotope stra-tigraphy with nannofossil biostratigraphy toprovide improved age estimates for these se-quences. Still, these previous studies werelimited by poorly fossiliferous outcrops, reli-

ance on cuttings or discontinuous cores, or thefar updip locations of boreholes.

Continuous coring and logging by onshoreODP Leg 174AX at Bass River and Ancora,New Jersey, yielded thick, downdip UpperCretaceous sections (Fig. 1) that allow datingof Upper Cretaceous (99–65 Ma) sequences(Fig. 5). For the Upper Cretaceous sediments




MILLER et al.

Figure 4. Anatomy of a New Jersey Upper Cretaceous sequence. Shown at top is the facies model for the modern Niger River delta(Allen, 1970). On left is a diagrammatic model for a typical Upper Cretaceous marine sequence and gamma log (modified after Sugarmanet al., 1995). Pictures correspond to the three major facies observed in Upper Cretaceous marine sequences at Bass River (depths infeet are core depths); corresponding locations on modern facies model are indicated.

of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, this paperpresents sequence stratigraphy based on theseboreholes that has million-year–scale age res-olution (Fig. 1). We provide (1) lithostrati-graphic, facies, biostratigraphic, and Srisotope data for identifying sequences, docu-menting paleoenvironmental changes withinsequences (e.g., systems tracts), and correlat-ing sequences, and (2) age vs. depth diagramsdelineating the chronology of the Upper Cre-taceous sequences as well as Late Cretaceoussedimentation rates. We use this sequence-stratigraphic framework to evaluate the con-trolling mechanisms for the Upper Cretaceoussequences in New Jersey and global sea level.

METHODS

Sequence boundaries are recognized incores on the basis of physical stratigraphy in-cluding irregular contacts (Figs. 3A and 3B),reworking, bioturbation, major lithofacieschanges (Fig. 5), gamma-ray patterns (Figs. 4and 6–10), and age breaks (Fig. 11). ElevenUpper Cretaceous to lowermost Tertiary se-quences were identified in the Bass River and

Ancora boreholes in the site reports (Miller etal., 1998b, 1999b). On the basis of the datapresented here (Figs. 5–11), we tentativelyrecognize three additional Upper Cretaceoussequences for a total of 14. We informallyterm sequences after their prominent basal(usually glauconite) lithostratigraphic unitslargely named by Weller (1907) and recentlyupdated by Owens et al. (1998). We discussthe Aptian to lowermost Cenomanian PotomacFormation (undifferentiated), Cenomanian–lower Turonian Bass River sequences (BassRiver I, II, and III), upper Turonian–ConiacianMagothy sequences (tentatively divided intoMagothy I–III), Santonian Cheesequake se-quence, uppermost Santonian–middle Cam-panian Merchantville sequences (tentativelydivided into three sequences, Merchantville I–III), the upper Campanian Marshalltownsequence, and the Maastrichtian–lower Paleo-cene Navesink sequence(s) (tentatively divid-ed into Navesink I and II).

Paleodepth and paleoenvironmental esti-mates are constrained by benthic foraminiferalbiofacies (assemblages) and lithofacies (see

Table 1 in Van Sickel et al. [2003] and TableDR1 data for the Cenozoic are included be-cause they were used in backstripping; see be-low).1 For the neritic sections (primarily thePaleogene and Santonian–Maastrichtian), ben-thic foraminiferal biofacies studies provide theprimary means of interpreting paleodepth andrecognizing inner (0–30 m; Fig. 4), middle(30–100 m), and outer neritic (100–200 m)environments. Prodelta environments gener-ally represent deposition in outer inner-neriticto inner middle-neritic (20–60 m) paleodepths(Fig. 4), and glauconite sands represent outermiddle-neritic to outer-neritic paleodepths(generally 60–200 m). The best-dated sections(e.g., outer neritic) often have the greatest er-rors on absolute paleodepth (650 m). How-ever, relative water-depth changes are better

1GSA Data Repository item 2004043, sequence,age, paleodepth, paleodepth criteria for Ancora andBass River for conservative age models and pre-ferred age models, and Sr isotope data, is availableon the Web at http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/ft2004.htm. Requests may also be sent [email protected].



Figure 5. Updip (Ancora) to downdip (Bass River) comparison of lithostratigraphic units and sequences for the Upper Cretaceoussections. Wavy lines indicate unconformities. Shown are cumulative percent of clay-silt, fine sand, medium to coarse sand, glauconite,shells, and mica. Legend given in Figure 6.

constrained within sequences. For example,paleodepths clearly shoal up-section in se-quences above maximum-flooding surfaces.The paleodepth estimates were used to modeleustatic variations by using backstripping(see below); however, paleodepth remains thegreatest uncertainty in the backstripping pro-

cedure. Errors range from a few meters innearshore sections, to 615 m as is typical forinner middle-neritic zones), to 650 m forouter-neritic zones (see Data Repository).Two-dimensional flexural backstripping pro-vides a means for refining water-depth esti-mates by using paleoslope modeling of the

benthic foraminiferal biofacies (Kominz andPekar, 2001; Pekar and Kominz, 2001), andfuture drilling in the coastal plain is designedto allow two-dimensional backstripping.

Lithofacies were recognized by using grainsize, general lithology, bedding, and sedimen-tary structures. Cumulative-percent plots of


MILLER et al.



Figure 6. Potomac and Bass River sequences in the Ancora and Bass River boreholes. Shown are core depth in feet; generalized lithologicdescription; downhole gamma log; core depth in meters; cumulative percent of clay-silt, fine sand, medium to coarse sand, glauconite,shells, and mica; biostratigraphic age control; sequence boundaries (wavy lines); and paleoenvironments. FS—flooding surface. Thickgray lines between sites indicate correlation of sequences.N

the sediments in the cores were computedfrom samples taken at ;5 ft (;1.5 m) inter-vals. Each sample was dried and weighed be-fore washing, and the dry weight was used tocompute the percentage of sand vs. silt andclay. The sand fraction was dry sieved througha 250 mm sieve, and the fractions wereweighed to obtain the percent of very fine andfine vs. medium and coarse sand. The sandfractions were examined by using a micro-scope, and a visual estimate was made of therelative percentages of quartz, glauconite, car-bonate (foraminifers and other shells), mica,and other materials contained in the sample.

As discussed above, Upper Cretaceous lith-ofacies at Bass River and Ancora generallyfollow a predictable, repetitive transgressive-regressive sequence pattern (Fig. 4): (1) basalunconformities (lower sequence boundaries);(2) generally thin, lower, in situ glauconitesands that are assigned to the TST of Posa-mentier et al. (1988); basal glauconite sandsare often absent in marginal- to shallow-marine sequences; (3) a coarsening-upwardsuccession of regressive medial silts depositedin prodelta environments (lower HST); (4)further regressive upper quartz sands of theupper HST; and (5) the upper sequence bound-ary. The upper HST often includes reworked,detrital glauconite recognized by covariancewith quartz and brown to yellow-green glau-conite grains. Sequences often yield a distinc-tive gamma log signature with a hot zone atsequence boundaries, high values in glauco-nite sands, moderate values in silty clays, andlow values in the quartz sands (Fig. 4). Be-cause the TSTs are thin, the maximum-flooding surfaces (MFS) are difficult to dif-ferentiate from unconformities; both are oftenassociated with shell beds and gamma-raypeaks. Flooding surfaces, particularly MFSs,may be differentiated from sequence bound-aries by the association of erosion and rip-upclasts, age breaks discerned from Sr isotopestratigraphy and biostratigraphy, lithofaciessuccessions, and benthic foraminiferal biofa-cies. The transgressive surface (TS), markingthe top of the LST, represents a change fromgenerally regressive to transgressive facies;because LSTs are generally absent, these sur-faces are generally merged with the sequenceboundaries. Notable exceptions include thebase of the Navesink Formation, seen in out-

crop (Fig. 3A), and the lower Marshalltownsequence described here.

Age control for the Upper Cretaceous se-quences is provided by integration of Sr iso-tope stratigraphy and biostratigraphy. Calcar-eous nannoplankton data provided by D.Bukry for Bass River and L. de Romero forAncora (Miller et al., 1998b, 1999b) yield ex-cellent biostratigraphic control, aided by sev-eral key planktonic foraminiferal datum levels(R.K. Olsson, this study). Pollen biostrati-graphic data provided by G.J. Brenner (inMiller et al., 1998b, 1999b; and 2002, person-al commun.) yield age constraints on the non-marine to marginal-marine Magothy and Po-tomac Formations.

Sr isotope–based age estimates were ob-tained from mollusk and foraminiferal shells(Table DR2). Approximately 4–6 mg of shellor foraminiferal tests were cleaned ultrasoni-cally and dissolved in 1.5N HCl. Sr was sep-arated by using standard ion-exchange tech-niques (Hart and Brooks, 1974) and analyzedon a VG sector mass spectrometer at RutgersUniversity. Internal precision on the sector forthe data set averaged 0.000009, and the exter-nal precision is approximately 60.000020(Oslick et al., 1994). NBS 987 is measured forthese analyses at 0.710255 (2s standard de-viation 5 0.000008, n 5 22) normalized to86Sr/88Sr of 0.1194.

Late Cretaceous ages (Tables DR2A–D)were assigned by using two new linear re-gressions developed for upper Coniacianthrough Maastrichtian sections (Fig. 2). Weconstructed this new reference section by us-ing Sr isotope age data for sections in the U.S.Western Interior (McArthur et al., 1994),Kronsmoor, Germany (McArthur et al., 1992),and South Atlantic ODP Site 525 (Sugarmanet al., 1995). Sr isotope ratios were plotted vs.age to determine the evolution of seawater87Sr/ 86Sr through time (Fig. 2). As in previousstudies that follow linear-regression tech-niques developed for radiocarbon calibration(Draper and Smith, 1981), 87Sr/ 86Sr ratiosmeasured at each depth are dependent vari-ables and age estimates (based upon magne-tochronology at Site 525; based on biostratig-raphy and radiometric dates in the WesternInterior and Kronsmoor) are independent var-iables (Miller et al., 1991; Oslick et al., 1994).Sr isotope ratios were plotted on the abscissa,

though age is the independent variable (Fig.2). A fifth-order polynomial was fit to the 87Sr/86Sr data under the assumption that age is theindependent variable (Fig. 2). On the basis ofan inflection seen in the fifth-order fit, the dataset was then broken into two groups, and twolinear regressions were fit to the data (t 5age): t 5 31,908.531372—(87Sr/ 86Sr 344,984.801888), applicable from 73.5 to 65Ma and t 5 39,104.339163—(87Sr/ 86Sr 355,154.82511), applicable from 86.0 to 73.5Ma.

By using a similar late Campanian–Maastrichtian regression, Sugarman et al.(1995) conservatively estimated age errors of61.9 m.y. at the 95% confidence interval forone Sr isotope analysis; age errors for this in-terval are purportedly one order of magnitudebetter according to Howarth and McArthur(1997). We estimate that the maximum ageresolution using Sr isotope ratios for this in-terval is 61 m.y. (i.e., the external precisionof ;0.000020 divided by the slopes of the re-gressions of ;0.000020/m.y.)

We integrated biostratigraphic and Sr iso-tope ages on age vs. depth diagrams (Fig. 11).We used biostratigraphic time-scale correla-tions of Bralower et al. (1995) and Erba et al.(1999) tied to the Gradstein et al. (1994) geo-magnetic polarity time scale to obtain a firmchronology. We derived ages of sequencesfrom these plots and discuss them to one sig-nificant decimal place (e.g., 71.2 Ma) to main-tain consistency within and between sites,though resolution is typically no better than60.5 m.y.

We estimated eustatic amplitudes by usingone-dimensional inverse models termed‘‘backstripping’’ (Watts and Steckler, 1979;Bond and Kominz, 1984; Bond et al., 1989).Backstripping removes the effect of sedimentloading from observed basin subsidence.Backstripping studies have shown that simplethermal subsidence, sediment loading, andcompaction are the dominant causes of sub-sidence in the New Jersey Coastal Plain(Kominz et al., 1998; Van Sickel et al., 2003).By assuming thermal subsidence on a passivemargin, the tectonic part of subsidence can beremoved and a eustatic estimate obtained. Byusing forward modeling, Steckler (1981) dem-onstrated that accommodation in the New Jer-sey Coastal Plain is dominated by the flexural


MILLER et al.

Fig

ure

7.M

agot

hyse

quen

ces.

Cap

tion

and

lege

ndas

inF

igur

e6.



Fig

ure

8.Sa

nton

ian

and

mid

dle

tolo

wer

Cam

pani

anse

quen

ces.

Cap

tion

and

lege

ndas

inF

igur

e6.


MILLER et al.

Fig

ure

9.U

pper

Cam

pani

anse

quen

ces.

Cap

tion

and

lege

ndas

inF

igur

e6.



Fig

ure

10.

Maa

stri

chti

anse

quen

ces.

Cap

tion

and

lege

ndas

inF

igur

e6.

response to sediment loading of the stretchedcrust seaward of the basement hinge zone (i.e.,offshore beneath the modern shelf). Steckler(1981) also showed that coastal-plain subsi-dence is thermal in form beginning 15–20m.y. after rifting. Our data set begins at 100Ma, ;25 to 50 m.y. after subsidence beganbeneath the coastal plain (Olsson et al., 1988)and ;70 m.y. after rifting ceased (Klitgord etal., 1988); therefore, the subsidence generatedby flexure in the coastal plain is thermal inform (Kominz et al., 1998; Van Sickel et al.,2003). Bond and Kominz (1984) showed thatAiry backstripping of sediment loaded on rig-id lithosphere, such as beneath the New JerseyCoastal Plain, will exhibit a curvature that isidentical to that of the true tectonic subsi-dence. Thus, the difference between observedsubsidence and a best-fit theoretical thermalcurve (termed R2 for second reduction; Bondand Kominz, 1984) is the result of either sea-level change or any subsidence unrelated totwo-dimensional passive-margin subsidence(Kominz et al., 1998).

RESULTS

Rifting and thermal subsidence began off-shore in the Baltimore Canyon Trough be-tween 180 and 165 Ma, but deposition did notbegin onshore until ca. 120–110 Ma whensufficient plate rigidity was attained, initiatingthermoflexural subsidence in the coastal plain(Sheridan and Grow, 1988). The Potomac For-mation is the basal unit of the northern Atlan-tic Coastal Plain and comprises largely non-marine clays, silty clays, sands, and gravel(Glaser, 1969). This group is poorly exposedin outcrop in New Jersey and was only sam-pled in Leg 174AX boreholes at Ancora (Fig.6). The Potomac Formation has been datedprimarily by using pollen (generally pollenZone III and older; lowermost Cenomanian–Albian; Doyle and Robbins, 1977). Age con-trol on the Potomac Formation is otherwiselacking except for marine intercalations at An-cora that yield nannofossil assignment to ZoneCC9 (upper Albian to lower Cenomanian; deRomero in Miller et al., 1999b) and a pollenassignment to the pollen Zone III/IV transition(older than 97 Ma; lowermost Cenomanian;G.J. Brenner in Miller et al., 1999b). At leasttwo apparent unconformities occur in the up-permost Potomac Formation at Ancora (Fig.6), and there are numerous erosional surfacesfound deeper in the Potomac Formation(Doyle and Robbins, 1977). The regional andglobal significance of erosional surfaces (un-conformities vs. autocyclical shifts) in thedominantly nonmarine Potomac Formation is


MILLER et al.

Figure 11. Late Cretaceous age vs. depth plots for sequences at Bass River (top) andAncora (bottom). Sr isotope ages are from Table DR2 with 61 m.y. error bars; opencircles are diagenetically altered samples. Conservative age models indicated in thick blackline; preferred age models indicated in gray. Horizontal thin lines indicate sequenceboundaries. CC—nannofossil zones—open triangles; X—planktonic foraminiferal age es-timates. Gray-shaded blocks at bottom indicate time represented in each borehole. Thinvertical dashed lines are drawn at 5 m.y. increments.

generally uncertain. The Potomac Formationis overlain by a series of primarily marine Up-per Cretaceous units; we provide sea-level es-timates by analyzing the sequence stratigraphyand paleo–water depths for these units.

Sequences, Facies, Paleoenvironments

Bass River Sequences (Cenomanian–EarlyTuronian)

Cenomanian to lower Turonian sequencesin New Jersey are part of the Bass River For-mation (Petters, 1976). In the downdip BassRiver borehole, this formation (1806.4 ft tototal depth of 1956.5 ft [550.59–596.34 m])consists of one sequence of gray, shelly, fos-siliferous, micaceous (chloritic), clayey siltand silty clay with occasional sandy silts,which becomes slightly sandy at the top (Fig.6). The base of the sequence (Bass River III;see below) was not sampled at Bass River andthe sequence shallows up-section from middleto inner neritic.

Three middle Cenomanian–lower Turoniansequences (Bass River I, II, and III) are foundat Ancora, with sequence boundaries at1061.9, 1082.5, 1110.9, and 1148.1 ft (323.67,329.95, 338.60, and 349.94 m; Fig. 3). Thelower Bass River I sequence at Ancora has abasal neritic glauconite sand (TST), medial-prodelta silt and clay (lower HST), and upper-prodelta shelly clays and silts with thin sands(upper HST). The medial Bass River II se-quence consists of (1) neritic glauconitic clayto clayey glauconite sand (TST); (2) sandy,micaceous clay deposited in a prodelta envi-ronment (lower HST); and (3) a fine quartzsand that coarsens up-section and was depos-ited in a delta-front environment (upper HST).The upper Bass River III sequence consists ofmicaceous silty clay deposited in a prodeltaenvironment; it is slightly glauconitic at thebase, reflecting interfingering between open-shelf and prodelta environments, with micaand shells near the top. Lithostratigraphic andbiostratigraphic correlations show that onlythe upper of the three sequences (Bass RiverIII, uppermost Cenomanian–lower Turonian)is represented in the Bass River borehole (Fig.6) and that the lower sequences were not pen-etrated at this site (i.e., the hole bottomed inthe Bass River III).

The Bass River sequences at Bass Riverand Ancora were deposited in inner- tomiddle-neritic paleodepths, although somesiltier, less shelly laminated intervals are in-terpreted as prodelta and sands as delta front/nearshore deposits. Benthic foraminifera in-dicate that the Bass River sequences at BassRiver and Ancora were deposited predomi-



TA

BLE

1.A

GE

SO

FS

EQ

UE

NC

ES

AT

BA

SS

RIV

ER

AN

DA

NC

OR

AC

OM

PA

RE

DT

OE

PR

AN

DE

UR

OP

EA

NE

ST

IMA

TE

S

New

Jers

eyB

ass

Riv

erA

ncor

aH

iatu

sag

eE

PR

Seq

.E

PR

old/

NW

Rus

sian

Mat

thew

san

dS

eque

nce

Age

(Ma)

Dep

th(f

t)D

epth

(m)

Thi

ckne

ss(m

)S

ed.

rate

(m/m

.y.)

Age

(Ma)

Dep

th(f

t)D

epth

(m)

Thi

ckne

ss(m

)S

ed.

rate

(m/m

.y.)

(Ma)

new

age

Eur

ope

plat

form

Fro

hlic

h(2

002)

Pal

eoce

ne12

5938

3.8

612.

518

6.7

Nav

esin

kII?

64.5

–66

1270

387.

23.

42.

364

.5–6

663

419

3.3

6.6

4.4

66–6

7T

A1.

168

/67

66–6

7N

R67

.45

Nav

esin

kI

67.1

–69

1295

394.

77.

53.

767

–68.

765

1.3

198.

65.

33.

169

–73

UZ

A4.

571

/70.

571

.2–7

4N

R70

.69

Nav

I–II

(alt.

)64

.5–6

912

9539

4.7

10.9

2.4

64.5

–68.

765

1.3

198.

611

.82.

869

–71.

2M

arsh

allto

wn

71.2

–75.

714

4143

9.2

44.5

9.7

73–7

575

7.4

230.

932

.316

.275

–76

UZ

A4.

475

/75

75.5

–79

NR

75.5

4M

arsh

allto

wn

(alt.

)71

.8–7

675

7.4

230.

932

.37.

776

Eng

lisht

own

75.8

–76.

714

7344

9.0

9.8

10.9

76–7

6.7

792.

324

1.6

10.6

15.2

76.7

–77.

8U

ZA

4.3

77.5

/78.

5N

RN

R77

.15

Eng

lisht

own

(alt.

)76

–77.

879

2.3

241.

610

.65.

977

.8M

erch

antv

ille

III?

77.8

–81

1653

503.

854

.817

.177

.8–8

0.8

909

277.

135

.611

.581

.0–8

3.1

UZ

A4.

179

/80

NR

NR

79.9

8M

erch

antv

ille

II?83

.1–8

3.7

1674

510.

46.

613

.183

.2–8

3.5

928

282.

95.

819

.383

.5U

ZA

3.5

80/8

2.5

NR

NR

82M

erch

antv

ille

I83

.7–8

3.9

1683

513.

22.

814

.083

.5–8

3.8

945.

328

8.2

5.3

17.6

84–8

4.3

UZ

A3.

485

/84

82–8

384

84.8

3M

erch

I–III

(alt.

)76

.9–8

3.9

1683

513.

264

.29.

277

.8–8

3.8

945.

328

8.2

46.6

7.8

83.9

–84.

3C

hees

equa

ke84

.3–8

5.2

1709

521.

17.

98.

884

.3–8

5.2

957.

429

1.9

3.7

4.1

85.2

–86.

7U

ZA

3.3

87.5

/85.

585

–85.

585

.586

.85

Mag

othy

III86

.7–8

7.8

1749

533.

212

.111

.086

.7–8

7.8

987

300.

99.

08.

287

.8–8

8.3

UZ

A3.

288

.5/8

7.5

NR

87.5

88.8

7M

agot

hyII

NR

88.3

–89.

810

6332

3.9

23.0

15.3

89.8

–90

UZ

A3.

190

/90.

5N

R89

.8M

agot

hyI

90–9

1.4

1806

550.

717

.512

.5N

R91

.4–9

2.1

UZ

A2.

790

.5/9

1N

R92

91.7

Bas

sR

iver

III92

.1–9

3.5

1950

594.

543

.831

.392

.8–9

3.5

1083

330.

06.

17.

693

.5?U

ZA

2.6

91/9

2N

RN

R93

.72

Bas

sR

iver

IIN

R93

.5–9

4.6

1109

338.

18.

17.

394

.6U

ZA

2.5

93/9

5N

RN

RB

ass

Riv

erI

NR

94.6

–95.

811

4835

0.0

11.9

9.9

95.8

–97

UZ

A2.

494

/97

NR

96.6

95.7

4P

otom

acN

R97

–98.

3.

98.3

UZ

A2.

395

.5/9

9.5

NR

99.7

Ave

rage

11.2

Ave

rage

9.6

Not

e:N

R—

not

reso

lved

/rec

over

ed;

alt.—

alte

rnat

e(c

onse

rvat

ive)

age

mod

el(in

gray

inF

ig.

11w

here

only

one

num

ber

isgi

ven

for

hiat

usag

e,th

ere

isno

disc

erni

ble

time

gap,

and

this

isth

ebe

stag

ees

timat

eof

the

unco

nfor

mity

).

nantly in inner-neritic paleodepths (Epistomina-biofacies), with deeper water (middle neritic)at flooding surfaces (Fig. 6). A higher-ordercyclicity is apparent in the benthic foraminif-eral biofacies that show several distinct para-sequences bounded by flooding surfaces with-in the Bass River III sequence at Bass River(Fig. 6; Sugarman et al., 1999). Total water-depth variation within this sequence was rel-atively small (;20 m).

Nannofossils and planktonic foraminiferaindicate that the Bass River sequences at BassRiver and Ancora are Cenomanian to lowerTuronian. The Cenomanian/Turonian bound-ary (CC10/CC11) at Bass River is placed at;1935.5 ft (589.94 m; Sugarman et al., 1999).This placement is consistent with the highestoccurrence of the planktonic foraminiferal ge-nus Rotalipora at 1945 ft (592.84 m) (Sugar-man et al., 1999) and an assignment to pollenZone IV (upper Cenomanian to Turonian; G.J.Brenner in Miller et al., 1998b). At Ancora,nannofossils indicate that the section below1074.5 ft (327.51 m) is Cenomanian; the sec-tion above this is barren of nannofossils.Planktonic foraminifers tentatively suggestthat the section above 1074.5 ft (327.51 m) isthe lower Turonian Whiteinella archeocreta-cea Zone. The Bass River II sequence is as-signed to Subzones CC10b and CC10a partim,whereas the Bass River I sequence is assignedto CC10a partim and CC9 (Fig. 6).

Previous studies only recognized oneCenomanian–lower Turonian sequence inNew Jersey in the coeval outcropping RaritanFormation (Owens and Gohn, 1985; Olsson,1991). The Bass River I–III sequences areequivalent to depositional sequence 2 ofOwens and Gohn (1985) and KCE1 of Olsson(1991).

Magothy Sequences (Late Turonian–Coniacian)

Two upper Turonian–Coniacian sequencesat Bass River are assigned to the MagothyFormation (Fig. 7). The lower sequence (Ma-gothy I; 1749.0–1806.4 ft [533.10–550.59 m])consists of (1) a basal micaceous, lignitic, siltyclay deposited in a prodelta environment (TSTand lower HST), and (2) an upper lignitic siltysand and fine sand deposited in a delta-frontenvironment that coarsens up-section to a peb-bly, moderately sorted sand deposited in a flu-vial setting (upper HST). A sequence bound-ary occurs in an interval of no recoverybetween 1745 and 1749.0 ft (531.88–533.10m). The upper sequence (Magothy III;1709.5–1745 ft [521.06–531.88 m]) consistsof (1) a kaolinitic white and red clay with redsandstone pebbles that was deposited in a del-


MILLER et al.

ta plain/interfluvial environment; (2) an over-lying coarser unit, consisting of well-sorted,lignitic interbedded sandy silty clay and clay-ey very fine sand that coarsens up-section tomedium to fine quartz sand; these sands weredeposited in a delta-front environment; and (3)micaceous laminated clay and interbeddedclay and clayey, pebbly medium to coarsequartz sand deposited in marginal-marine en-vironments (as indicated by the presence ofmarine nannofossils). This retrogradationalsuccession is unusual for coastal-plain se-quences because they otherwise invariablyshallow up-section; the Magothy III situationsuggests only the TST is represented and theHST is truncated.

Two upper Turonian–Coniacian sequences(Magothy II and III) are also identified at An-cora (Fig. 7). The lower sequence, Magothy II(990–1062.5 ft [301.75–323.85 m]), is a mas-sive, lignitic, medium to coarse sand with afew silty clay interbeds within fining-upwardsuccessions. The lower sequence boundary(1062.5 ft [323.85 m]) is a sharp contact be-tween coarse sediments of the Magothy aboveBass River Formation clays, whereas the up-per sequence boundary occurs in a coring gap(985–990 ft [300.23–301.75 m]), and the se-quence boundary is placed at the gamma loginflection (987 ft [300.84 m]; Figs. 3 and 7).The environment of the Magothy II could befluvial or marginal marine (e.g., tidal delta);the paucity of fine sediments and extensiveburrowing suggests deposition in a nearshore-marine setting. The upper sequence, MagothyIII (957.4–987 ft [291.82–300.84 m]), consistsof (1) interbedded slightly sandy silty clay andlignitic sand deposited in a delta-front or es-tuarine setting that comprises the TST and (2)poorly sorted coarse to very coarse quartzsand deposited in a fluvial environment (HST;Fig. 7).

The Magothy sequences at Ancora are bothassigned to upper Turonian–Santonian pollenZone V of Christopher (1982), correlatingwith the upper Magothy sequence at Bass Riv-er (pollen Zone V) and parts of the MagothyFormation in outcrop (pollen Zone V; Chris-topher, 1982). The upper Magothy sequence(III) at Bass River is tentatively assigned tonannofossil Zone CC14 (late Coniacian to ear-ly Santonian) and pollen Zone V. The lowerMagothy sequence at Bass River is assignedto pollen Zone IV (upper Cenomanian to Tu-ronian), suggesting that it is older than the se-quences at Ancora or in outcrop; it may ac-tually correlate with the Raritan Formation inoutcrop. The simplest interpretation is to cor-relate the two Magothy sequences at Ancorawith the two at Bass River; however, this cor-

relation does not agree with pollen data (Fig.7). On the basis of the pollen data, we tenta-tively suggest that there are three Magothy se-quences; Magothy I (pollen Zone IV, Turoni-an) and Magothy III (pollen Zone V, upperConiacian) are represented at Bass River,and Magothy II (pollen Zone V, uppermostTuronian–lower Coniacian) and Magothy IIIare represented at Ancora (Fig. 7).

The Magothy Formation in outcrop consistsof sands and silty clays deposited in complexnonmarine to marginal-marine environments(Owens and Gohn, 1985). Regionally, thisunit thickens to over 300 m toward the LongIsland platform and thins toward Delawarewhere it all but disappears (Perry et al., 1975;Olsson et al., 1988). Previous chronostrati-graphic correlations of the Magothy Forma-tion have proved to be challenging. Olsson(1991) noted a Coniacian KCE1 sequence inoffshore wells, but was not able to date theMagothy Formation onshore as equivalent.Owens and Gohn (1985) identified the Ma-gothy Formation as their depositional se-quence 3, though they correlated it as Conia-cian, Santonian, and lower Campanian; ourstudies establish the Magothy as older than theSantonian, and we assign it to the upperTuronian–Coniacian.

Cheesequake Sequence (Santonian)A distinct sequence at Bass River and An-

cora lies between unconformities at the top ofthe Magothy and the base of the MerchantvilleFormations. This sequence is tentatively cor-related with the Cheesequake Formation andsequence in outcrop. At Bass River, theCheesequake sequence (1683.2–1709.2 ft[513.04–520.96 m]) consists of glauconiteclay (TST) that coarsens up-section to clayeyglauconite-quartz sand (HST). At Ancora, theCheesequake Formation and sequence (957.4–945.3 ft [291.82–288.13 m]) consists of slight-ly micaceous, slightly glauconitic, clayey,silty quartz sand (TST) that coarsens up-section above an MFS (953.2 ft [290.54 m])to lignitic, silty, fine to medium, slightly peb-bly quartz sand (HST).

At Ancora, the Cheesequake sequence wasdeposited in inner-neritic environments; clay,mica, and glauconite decrease up-section, in-dicating shallowing up-section. At Bass River,a glauconite clay at the base of the unit isinterpreted as a thin TST; mixed glauconiteand quartz at the top result from reworking ofglauconite in the HST.

The Cheesequake at the Bass River bore-hole is Santonian (calcareous nannoplanktonZones CC15 and CC16) with a late Santonianhiatus associated with the unconformity be-

tween the Cheesequake and MerchantvilleFormations. Pollen (pollen Zone VI at 955.1ft [291.11 m]; G.J. Brenner, 2002, personalcommun.) provides the only age-diagnosticfossils for the Cheesequake sequence at An-cora, which is correlated with the Cheese-quake sequence at Bass River on the basis ofstratigraphic position and lithologic similarity.

The Cheesequake Formation was describedin outcrop by Litwin et al. (1993) and for-mally named by Owens et al. (1998) as aslightly glauconitic clayey silt assigned toSantonian to lowermost Campanian pollenZone VI, similar to Ancora. Owens et al.(1998) noted that the Cheesequake Formationin the Toms River and Freehold boreholes(Fig. 1) is late Santonian (nannoplanktonZones CC16–CC17) at the base to earliestCampanian at the top, spanning the Santonian/Campanian boundary within the formation. Incontrast, we note it to be slightly older(CC15–CC16) at Bass River. It is thus uncer-tain whether the sequences identified at theBass River and Ancora boreholes correlatewith the Cheesequake Formation previouslyidentified by Owens et al. (1998) and Litwinet al. (1993). Nevertheless, the data from BassRiver and Ancora establish that there is onelower to middle Santonian sequence downdip,and it is likely that this is equivalent to thepoorly dated Cheesequake Formation updip.

Merchantville Sequences (LatestSantonian–Middle Campanian)

A thick lower Campanian sequence in out-crop consists of glauconite sand at the base(Merchantville Formation), a medial, verythick micaceous clay (Woodbury Formation),and an upper clayey sand (lower EnglishtownFormation). At Ancora (Fig. 8), clayey glau-conite sands to glauconitic (40%–60%) claysassigned to the Merchantville Formation ap-pear above a distinct, irregular sequenceboundary at 945.3 ft (288.13 m; Fig. 3B).Carbonate-rich glauconitic clay near the top ofthe Merchantville Formation represents theMFS (Fig. 8; 904.4 ft [275.66 m]). The con-tact with the glauconitic clays of the lower-most Woodbury is gradational; glauconite de-creases up-section. The thick (;106 ft [32.31m]) Woodbury Formation consists of laminat-ed to slightly burrowed, very micaceous, lig-nitic, slightly shelly, very dark gray clay withoccasional pyrite nodules. An indurated zonebetween 797.6 and 797.7 ft (243.11 and243.14 m) marks the contact with the shelly,micaceous, glauconitic quartzose silty sandsof the lower Englishtown Formation. A se-quence boundary at 792.3 ft (241.49 m; Fig.8) separates the lower Englishtown Formation



from glauconitic silty clay above (upper En-glishtown sequence).

At Bass River (Fig. 8), the MerchantvilleFormation appears above a disconformity at1683.2 ft (513.04 m) and consists of biotur-bated, shelly, lower glauconitic clays andclayey glauconite sands (up to 70% glauco-nite) and upper glauconitic foraminiferalclays. Peak abundances of foraminifers markan MFS (1660 ft [505.97 m]). The thick(;166 ft [50.60 m]) Woodbury Formation ap-pears above this MFS and consists of mica-ceous, fossiliferous, bioturbated, lignitic siltyclay to clay that becomes slightly sandy up-section. The contact of the Woodbury For-mation with the overlying lower EnglishtownFormation is gradational. The lower English-town Formation (1490–1472.6 ft [454.15–448.85 m]) consists of micaceous, very lig-nitic, cross-bedded, silty fine sand. The uppercontact separating the lower and upper En-glishtown Formation is a sequence boundary(1472.6 ft [448.85 m]; Fig. 8).

Overall the Merchantville–Woodbury–lower Englishtown section comprises atransgressive-regressive succession, thoughwe tentatively break the Merchantville For-mation into two additional sequences (see be-low). The Merchantville Formation was de-posited in middle- to outer-neritic paleodepthsand represents the TST; carbonate-rich glau-conitic clay near the top represents the MFS.Benthic foraminifers indicate that the Wood-bury Formation was deposited primarily in in-ner middle-neritic paleodepths (;40–80 m);the laminated, lignitic, very micaceous claysindicate a prodelta environment. Clean, cross-bedded sands of the lower Englishtown For-mation were deposited in inner-neritic paleo-depths (,30 m). The mixture of glauconiteand quartz sand in the upper Englishtown For-mation (Fig. 8) is typical of reworking ofglauconite in HSTs.

The Merchantville sequence(s) are upper-most Santonian to lower Campanian. This se-quence has been widely recognized both inNew Jersey (the KC1/Merchantville–Woodbury–Englishtown sequence of Olsson(1991) and elsewhere in the Atlantic CoastalPlain (depositional sequence 4 of Owens andGohn, 1985). The Woodbury and lower En-glishtown Formations are assigned to calcar-eous nannoplankton Zone CC19 at Ancoraand Zone CC19 to CC20 undifferentiated atBass River. The Merchantville Formation isassigned to calcareous nannoplankton ZonesCC16, CC17, and CC18 at both holes. It wasoriginally assumed that the Merchantville For-mation represented a concatenation of thesezones (e.g., the conservative age model, Fig.

11). However, assuming that the base of ZoneCC19 is correct (Fig. 11), then Merchantvillesedimentation rates would have been excru-ciatingly slow (0.25 cm/k.y. at Bass River and0.35 cm/k.y. at Ancora, under the assumptionof a duration of 3.5 m.y. for these threezones). This unreasonably slow rate promptedus to reexamine the Merchantville glauconitesand.

An alternative interpretation of the bio-stratigraphic, limited Sr isotope, and gammalog data suggests that the Merchantville glau-conite sand consists of two sequences and theTST of a third sequence. An unconformity istentatively placed at a sharp gamma log in-crease at 928 ft (282.85 m; within ZoneCC17) at Ancora. The lithologic expression ofthis sequence boundary is reasonably clear:black, clayey, glauconite sand overlies an in-terval of yellowish-green glauconite sand thatcomprises the HST of the underlying sequenc-es. A similar gamma increase at Bass River at1674 ft (510.24 m; between Zones CC16 andCC17) appears to correlate well with the 928ft (282.85 m) gamma-ray peak at Ancora. Asecond unconformity within the MerchantvilleFormation at Ancora is tentatively placed at;909 ft (277.06 m) at a sharp gamma log kickwithin Zone CC18. The lithologic expressionof this sequence boundary is subtle: slightlyclayey, black glauconite (.50%) sand overliesa sulfur-rich interval, with more clay-rich,slightly quartzose glauconite sand below. Avery similar gamma log pattern occurs at1652.5 ft (503.68 m) at Bass River also withinZone CC18, and we are reasonably confidentthat this is a regional unconformity containedwithin the cryptic Merchantville glauconitesands. These sequences are difficult to recog-nize by using lithology alone because theyconsist of TST glauconite overlying HST re-worked glauconite sands.

Thus, we interpret that the thick (40.9 ft[12.47 m] at Ancora; 29.2 ft [8.90 m] at BassRiver) Merchantville glauconites are com-posed of two thin sequences (Merchantville Iand II) as well as being the transgressive sys-tems tract of the thick Merchantville–Woodbury–lower Englishtown (5 Merchant-ville III sequence; Fig. 8). Further studies atadditional locations are needed to test our in-terpretation of three sequence boundaries as-sociated with the Merchantville Formation.

Englishtown Sequence (Middle Campanian)The upper Englishtown Formation at An-

cora and Bass River is a sequence that consistsof a lower glauconite sand or glauconitic clay,medial silt, and upper sand (Fig. 8). Above asequence boundary at Ancora (792.3 ft

[241.49 m]; Fig. 3), glauconitic silty clay de-posited in inner middle-neritic paleodepthscontinues up-section to an MFS (789.5 ft[240.64 m]) associated with a minor gamma-ray peak (Fig. 8). Here, there is an abrupt fa-cies change to shelly, slightly sandy, mica-ceous, laminated silts deposited in a prodeltaenvironment. These grade up-section to un-consolidated, poorly sorted, lignitic, fine tomedium quartz and (reworked) glauconitesand deposited in a nearshore environment.The upper sequence boundary is at 757.2 ft(230.79 m).

At Bass River, shelly glauconite sand andoverlying burrowed glauconitic clays depos-ited in middle-neritic paleodepths comprisethe TST between the sequence boundary(1472.6 ft [448.85 m]) and the MFS (1467.4ft [447.26 m]). Glauconite progressively de-creases up-section above the MFS, where thesection consists of sandy, clayey silt and siltyclay deposited in a prodelta environment (low-er HST) at inner-neritic paleodepths. Clay de-creases up-section to very micaceous, slightlyglauconitic, bioturbated, in some placesshelly, clayey fine sand deposited in a delta-front environment (upper HST).

A sample near the top of the EnglishtownFormation (758.5 ft [231.19 m]) at Ancora istentatively assigned to Zone CC20 on the ba-sis of the occurrence of Ceratolithoides acu-leus. On the basis of the absence of Cerato-lithoides aculeus, the interval from 763.5 to792.2 ft (232.71–241.46 m) was tentativelyassigned to Zone CC19 (Miller et al., 1998b),though the absence of this taxon may be dueto scarce and poorly preserved nannofossils.The assignment to Zone CC19 is contradictedby three Sr isotope age estimates that suggestcorrelation to Biochron CC20 (see below). AtBass River, neither nannofossils nor plankton-ic foraminifera yield diagnostic zonal assign-ments from this sequence; the underlying se-quence is assigned to undifferentiated ZonesCC19 to CC20 and the overlying sequence toCC21a.

In outcrop, the Englishtown Formation con-sists of a lignitic, slightly glauconitic, cross-bedded sand deposited in a delta-front envi-ronment (Owens and Sohl, 1969; Owens et al.,1998). Owens et al. (1998) informally dividedthe subsurface Englishtown Formation intoupper and lower lithologic successions; theirlower Englishtown is the upper HST of theMerchantville III sequence at Bass River andAncora, whereas their upper Englishtownforms a complete sequence (Fig. 8) at bothsites. The relative thinness of the upper En-glishtown sequence (35.1 ft [10.70 m] at An-cora; 32.1 ft [9.78 m] at Bass River) has rel-


MILLER et al.

egated it to obscurity (e.g., it was notdifferentiated from the lower Englishtown byOlsson [1991] or Owens and Gohn [1985]),though it is certainly a distinct and importantmiddle Campanian sequence. It was mappedas the Kwc2 cycle of Owens et al. (1998) andKs3 of Gohn (1992).

Marshalltown Sequence (Late Campanian)The Marshalltown is a thick upper Cam-

panian sequence consisting of glauconite sandat the base (Marshalltown Formation), a me-dial silty clay (Wenonah Formation), and anupper fine to coarse quartz sand (Mount Lau-rel Formation) at the top. At Ancora, the En-glishtown/Marshalltown contact is a distinctsequence boundary (Figs. 3B and 9; 757.2 ft[230.79 m]) with a shelly, micaceous glauco-nitic clay above (Fig. 3B). We interpret a sur-face and sharp facies change from glauconiticclay below to glauconite sand above (752.7 ft[229.42 m]) as a transgressive surface (TS)and the basal Marshalltown Formation as anLST; this is one of the few lowstand depositsrecognized in the coastal plain (see Discus-sion). Burrowed clayey glauconite sands typ-ify the Marshalltown Formation; a peak incarbonate represents the MFS (746 ft [227.38m]). The contact between the Wenonah andthe Marshalltown Formations is gradational.The Wenonah Formation consists of slightlyglauconitic, micaceous, shelly, woody, clayeysilty sand to sandy clayey prodelta silts, withdecreasing glauconite up-section (Fig. 9). Thecontact with the Mount Laurel Formation isalso gradational, with silty clay and mica de-creasing up-section in the transitional interval.The Mount Laurel Formation generally coars-ens up-section from glauconitic silty fine sandto a slightly clayey, glauconitic (;20%) fineto medium quartz sand, with common ovoidphosphate grains near the top of the formation.A major disconformity caps the sequence(651.3 ft [198.52 m]; Figs. 3B and 9).

At Bass River, a sequence boundary occursat the base of the Marshalltown Formation(1440.5 ft [439.06 m]; Fig. 9). The Marshall-town Formation at Bass River comprises fos-siliferous, clayey, shelly, glauconite sands andglauconitic clays. A peak in foraminiferalabundances represents the MFS (1430 ft[435.86 m]). Glauconite decreases graduallyup-section above this level, and the sectionfines to micaceous silts of the Wenonah For-mation. The contact with the overlying MountLaurel Formation is also gradational; sandysilt, fine sand, and medium to coarse quartzsand become successively dominant up-section. Phosphate grains are common at thetop of the formation, similar to the Ancora

sediments, yielding a hot gamma-ray signaturefor these sands. The sequence boundary withthe overlying Navesink Formation (1294.5 ft[394.56 m]; Fig. 3) is a disconformity withextensive reworking.

Benthic foraminifers indicate deposition ofthe Marshalltown and Wenonah Formations inmiddle-neritic paleodepths and the MountLaurel Formation in inner middle-neritic pa-leodepths (Fig. 9). Detailed benthic foraminif-eral paleobathymetric estimates from BassRiver (Fig. 9; Skinner, 2001) show only ;35m of shallowing within the Marshalltown se-quence at Bass River (from ;75 m in theMarshalltown to 60 m in the Wenonah andlower Mount Laurel, to 40 m in the upperMount Laurel). This modest shallowing re-sulted in distinct facies changes.

The Marshalltown–Wenonah–Mount Laurelsequence has been widely recognized both inNew Jersey (the KC2 sequence of Olsson,1991) and elsewhere in the Atlantic CoastalPlain (depositional sequence 5 of Owens andGohn, 1985). In other New Jersey boreholesit has been dated as late Campanian by usingcalcareous nannofossils (CC20 to CC21 [un-differentiated] in the Marshalltown CC22b inthe Mount Laurel) and Sr isotope stratigraphy(Sugarman et al., 1995). At Bass River, theMarshalltown Formation is assigned to ZoneCC21a, the Wenonah Formation to ZonesCC21 to CC22 [undifferentiated], and theMount Laurel Formation to Zones CC21 toCC22 [undifferentiated] at the base to CC23aat the top. Previous assignments of this se-quence to the early Maastrichtian (Olsson,1991) resulted from differences in time scales.This sequence is late Campanian according tothe Gradstein et al. (1994) time scale; the hi-atus associated with the Navesink/Mount Lau-rel contact spans the Campanian/Maastrichtianboundary.

Navesink Sequence(s) (Maastrichtian)The Maastrichtian at Ancora and Bass Riv-

er consists of at least one, and possibly two,sequences, and deposition was continuousacross the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) bound-ary. At Ancora, a sequence boundary (651.3ft [198.52 m]; Fig. 3B) associated with a layerof phosphate pebbles separates carbonate-rich,foraminiferal glauconitic clay of the NavesinkFormation from underlying quartz sand of theMount Laurel Formation. Carbonate contentincreases in the lower Navesink, peaking atthe MFS (647 ft [197.21 m]) and decreasingup-section. Quartz sand decreases up-sectionto the MFS, suggesting deepening up-sectionin the TST (i.e., no LST is preserved, unlikethe situation present in outcrop; see below).

At Bass River, the Navesink/Mount Laurelunconformity (1294.5 ft [394.56 m]) is over-lain by a 0.3-m-thick contact zone, with re-worked Mount Laurel sands and phosphoritepellets mixed with Navesink clayey glauconitesand. Quartzose, slightly clayey glauconitesand at the base of the sequence becomesmore clay rich and less quartzose up-sectionto an MFS associated with a gamma log in-crease (1288 ft [392.58 m]) and a change toglauconitic, carbonate-rich, clay. Carbonatedecreases and clayey, fossiliferous, very bio-turbated glauconite sands continue to a gra-dational contact, marking the top of the Na-vesink Formation. The overlying New EgyptFormation consists of brownish-gray shellyclay that continues to a 6-cm-thick spherulelayer, the base of which marks the K/T bound-ary (1260.4 ft [384.17 m]; Olsson et al.,1997). Above the spherule layer, a return toglauconitic clay or clayey glauconite sandmarks the Paleocene Hornerstown Formation.

The extremely slow sedimentation rates forthe Maastrichtian (Table 1) Navesink se-quence (,0.3 cm/k.y. at both sites) promptedus to reconsider the continuity of this section.We tentatively identify an additional sequenceboundary within the Maastrichtian section atboth Ancora and Bass River. At Ancora, wetentatively place a sequence boundary (634 ft[193.24 m]) just above a peak in clay and be-low a maximum in glauconite expressed as anincrease in downhole gamma-ray values (Fig.10); this sequence boundary separates the Na-vesink I from the overlying Navesink II se-quence. At Bass River, we tentatively place asequence boundary at the Navesink/NewEgypt Formation contact (1270 ft [387.10 m]).These inferred sequence boundaries requireverification from other locations.

The Maastrichtian Navesink sequence(s) atboth boreholes were deposited primarily inmiddle-neritic paleodepths. Maximum paleo-depths were ;80 m at Bass River and ;60 mat Ancora; the deposits sampled in both bore-holes shallow up-section to paleodepths of;30–50 m (Olsson et al., 2002). There waslittle paleodepth change across the K/T bound-ary; only general shallowing occurred in thelast 0.5 m.y. of the Cretaceous and the first0.5 m.y. of the Tertiary (Olsson et al., 2002).

The Navesink I sequence is dated as earlyto middle Maastrichtian. At Ancora and BassRiver, it is assigned to Zone CC25 and lowerZone CC26. The Navesink II at Bass River isassignable to the uppermost Maastrichtian(calcareous nannofossil M. prinsii Subzone ofCC26; the last 0.5 m.y. of the Cretaceous) tolowermost Danian (Zones P0, Pa, P1a, andP1b partim). The Navesink II continues across



the K/T boundary into the lower Paleocenewhere there is an unconformity: Zone P1b isnot represented at Bass River, and a break oc-curs within this zone at Ancora.

The basal Navesink unconformity is foundthroughout the eastern United States at thebase of Owens and Gohn’s (1985) deposition-al sequence 6. The unconformity in the out-crop on Route 34 in Matawan, New Jersey, isparticularly interesting (Fig. 3A): (1) the un-derlying Mount Laurel Formation is a well-sorted medium sand with Ophiomorpha andAsterosoma burrows and tabular planar cross-bedding, indicating onshore-offshore currentdirections on the lower shoreface (Martinoand Curran, 1990); (2) the sequence boundaryis marked by a distinct erosional surface anda phosphorite layer that is commonly iron ce-mented at its base (Miller et al., 1999b); (3) aheterolithic lag unit consists of sand pods ofreworked Mount Laurel sands (some of whichis cemented into calcarenitic clasts), rip-upclasts, and shelf silts; this unit shows a re-gressive facies pattern up-section and is inter-preted as an LST [Miller et al., 1999b]); (4) acemented erosional surface at the top of thelowstand section is interpreted as a TS (Milleret al., 1999b); and (5) a clayey glauconite sand(the Navesink Formation) deposited in ;60 mpaleodepth (Olsson, 1991).

In outcrop, the Navesink Formation is over-lain by silts and sands of the Red Bank For-mation (HST; Sugarman et al., 1995). In thesubsurface, the HST sands largely disappear,and the Maastrichtian section is dominated inupdip locations such as Ancora by clayeyglauconite sands assigned to the NavesinkFormation (Fig. 10). Farther downdip at BassRiver, the Navesink lithology is overlain byglauconitic clay assigned to the New EgyptFormation (Olsson, 1960).

Chronology and Sedimentation Rates

Integration of Sr isotope stratigraphy andbiostratigraphy on age vs. depth diagrams(e.g., Fig. 11) provides age resolution of about60.5 m.y. for the middle Campanian to ear-liest Tertiary (ca. 80–64.5 Ma). The chronol-ogy is less certain for the Santonian–earlyCampanian (ca. 85.7–80 Ma), as illustrated byone of two possible age models for this inter-val at both sites (Fig. 11). We prefer the lesscontinuous age models for each site (graylines, Fig. 11; Table 1) to the more conser-vative age models that assume no hiatusesacross major unconformities. Biostratigraphyalone provides age control on the early Cam-panian and older sequences at Bass River be-cause of diagenetic alteration of Sr isotopes

below ;1470 ft (;450 m) at Bass River (Fig.11). Nannofossil biostratigraphy constrainsthe age of the Magothy III sequence to the lateConiacian. At both sites, the upper Turonian–Santonian nonmarine Magothy I and II se-quences are dated with pollen biostratigraphyto the stage level. Moderate (61 m.y.) reso-lution is provided by biostratigraphy alone forthe Cenomanian–lower Turonian sections atboth sites. The ages of the sequences at BassRiver agree with Ancora within better than 1m.y. (Fig. 11).

The break between the lower Cenomanianupper Potomac Formation (pollen Zone III/IVtransition and nannofossil Zone CC9) and theCenomanian–lower Turonian Bass River se-quence I is a regional unconformity (Owensand Gohn, 1985) with a hiatus of at least ;1m.y. in duration (97.0–95.8 Ma). This se-quence boundary correlates with the majormiddle Cenomanian sea-level lowering ofGale et al. (2002) and the UAZ2.4/2.3 se-quence boundary of EPR (Haq et al., 1987).

Three middle to late Cenomanian (BassRiver I–III) sequences have been identified atAncora; the basal sequence boundaries forBass River II and III are dated as 94.6 and93.5 Ma, respectively (hiatuses are not dis-cernible). The Bass River I and II sequencesare below the TD at Bass River, but three ofus (Sugarman, Miller, and Browning) haveidentified these sequences at the boreholedrilled in 2002 at Millville, New Jersey, sug-gesting that they are regional in extent. Sedi-mentation rates for the middle Cenomanian tolower Turonian sequences at Ancora (7–10 m/m.y.) are about average for the Late Creta-ceous (9.6 and 11.2 m/m.y. at Ancora andBass River, respectively). However, the BassRiver III sequence is expanded at Bass Riverwhere sedimentation rates exceeded 31 m/m.y., the most rapid of any Upper Cretaceoussequence in New Jersey (Table 1; Fig. 12).The Bass River I, II, and III sequences cor-relate with the UZA2.4, UZA2.5, and UZA2.6sequences of EPR (Haq et al., 1987),respectively.

A major middle Turonian sequence bound-ary (hiatus 92.1–91.4 Ma) separates the Ma-gothy I sequence from the lower TuronianBass River III sequence. The upper Turonian–Coniacian Magothy Formation appears to rep-resent three sequences, though differentiationof the Magothy II sequence at Ancora fromthe Magothy I at Bass River relies solely onpollen correlations (pollen Zone IV for theformer, V for the latter). Limited data indicatethat sedimentation rates were at least 12 m/m.y. for the Magothy I and III and 15 and 8m/m.y. for the Magothy II and III, respective-

ly, at Ancora (Fig. 13, Table 1). The ages ofthe Magothy II and Magothy III sequenceboundaries are estimated as 90–89.8 and88.3–87.8 Ma, respectively. The Magothy I,Magothy II, and Magothy III sequences ap-pear to correlate with the UZA 2.7, UZA3.1,and UZA3.2 sequences of EPR (Haq et al.,1987), respectively.

The lower to middle Santonian Cheese-quake sequence is separated from the Mago-thy III sequence by an unconformity and a 1.5m.y. hiatus (86.7–85.2 Ma). It is separatedfrom the overlying Merchantville sequencesby a short hiatus (84.3–83.9 Ma). The Cheese-quake sequence appears to correlate with theUZA3.3 sequence of Haq et al. (1987).

The upper Santonian Merchantville I (84.3–84.0 Ma), uppermost Santonian to lower Cam-panian Merchantville II (84.0–83.5 Ma), andlower Campanian Merchantville III (81.0–77.8 Ma) sequences had moderate to high sed-imentation rates (13–17 m/m.y. at Bass River,12–19 m/m.y. at Ancora). There is no discern-ible hiatus between the Merchantville I and IIsequences (83.5 Ma) and an ;2 m.y. hiatus(83.1–81 Ma) between the Merchantville IIand Merchantville III sequences. The Mer-chantville I, II, and III sequences appear tocorrelate with the UZA3.4, UZA3.5, andUZA4.1 sequences of EPR (Haq et al., 1987),respectively.

The age of the middle Campanian English-town sequence is poorly constrained (ca.76.8–76 Ma). The hiatuses between the En-glishtown and underlying Merchantville(77.8–76.7 Ma) and overlying Marshalltownsequences (76–75 Ma) are poorly resolved.The Englishtown sequence appears to corre-late with the UZA4.3 sequence of EPR (Haqet al., 1987); we do not see evidence for theUZA4.2 sequence.

The upper Campanian Marshalltown se-quence (;75.7–71.2 Ma) had high sedimen-tation rates at Ancora (16.2 m/m.y.) and av-erage sedimentation rates at Bass River (9.7m/m.y.). The Marshalltown sequence appearsto correlate with the UZA4.4 sequence of Haqet al. (1987). A major hiatus (;2.2 m.y.) sep-arates the Marshalltown sequence from theMaastrichtian Navesink I sequence (69–67Ma). The Navesink I sequence appears to cor-relate with the UZA4.5 sequence of EPR (Haqet al., 1987).

The inferred sequence boundary betweenthe Navesink I and II sequences may be as-sociated with an ;1 m.y. late Maastrichtianhiatus (67–66 Ma). This hiatus requires veri-fication; it may correlate with the TA1.1/UZA4.6 sequence boundary of Haq et al.(1987). No matter which age model is used


MILLER et al.



Figure 12. Comparison of Late Cretaceous data. Thin horizontal dashed lines are drawn at 5 m.y. increments (Sant.—Santonian). (A)Deep-sea benthic foraminiferal d18O records (ODP [Ocean Drilling Program] Site 463, Barrera and Savin, 1999; Site 690, Barrera andSavin, 1999; Site 511, Huber et al., 1995; Sites 1049, 1050, Huber et al., 2002) and planktonic foraminiferal d18O records (Site 463,Barrera and Savin, 1999). Arrows are drawn through the inflection points of the isotopic records. Temperatures are computed byassuming an ice-free world (dw 5 21.2‰ with respect to PDB [Peedee belemnite]; Shackleton and Kennett, 1975), with Nuttallides valuesof20.76‰ relative to equilibrium (Pak and Miller, 1992), and the paleotemperature equation in Barrera and Savin (1999). (B) NewJersey composite sequences (derived from Fig. 1). Gray boxes—time represented; white areas—hiatuses; and thin white lines—inferredhiatuses. (C) Backstripped R2 eustatic estimates for Bass River (black, thin discontinuous lines) and Ancora (gray, thick discontinuouslines) for both the conservative and preferred age models. (D) Our best estimate of eustatic changes for the New Jersey Coastal Plainderived from the R2 curves (black continuous lines indicates parts of the curve constrained by data, dashed lines indicate parts inferred).(E) The relative sea-level curve from northwest Europe (gray continuous line; Hancock, 1993) and the backstripped record from theRussian platform (black continuous heavy line; Sahagian et al., 1996). Arrows indicate positive d18O inflections (inferred cooling and/or ice-volume increases). (F) The EPR eustatic estimate (Haq et al., 1987). TA and UZA and numbers on the left side of the panel referto sequences defined by EPR (Haq et al., 1987).N

(continuous or discontinuous; Fig. 11), it isclear that there was a dramatic drop in sedi-mentation rates between the Campanian andthe Maastrichtian (Fig. 13).

At both sites, deposition was continuousacross the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) bound-ary, within sequence Navesink II (66–64.5Ma). A sequence boundary is associated withan early Danian hiatus (Biochron P1b; 64.5–63.0 Ma).

The sequence boundaries at the bases of theBass River I, Magothy I, Magothy III, Cheese-quake, Merchantville I, upper Englishtown,Marshalltown, and Navesink sequences are re-gional in extent, occurring not only in bothboreholes (Fig. 11), but also in other New Jer-sey sites (these are equivalent to the eight se-quences of Olsson, 1991) and throughout theAtlantic Coastal Plain (e.g., Owens and Gohn,1985). The Bass River I, Bass River II, Mer-chantville II, and Merchantville III sequencealso appear to be regional, whereas the re-gional significance of the Magothy II and Na-vesink II sequences is uncertain.

Sedimentation rates were high during atleast three periods during which the MagothyII (ca. 89–88 Ma), Merchantville/Woodbury(ca. 81–78 Ma), and Mount Laurel (ca. 75–72Ma) units were deposited (Fig. 13). High sed-imentation rates may also have been associ-ated with deposition of the upper Englishtownunit (ca. 77–76 Ma; Fig. 13). These periodsreflect times of increased influx of siliciclasticinput.

DISCUSSION

Facies Changes Within Sequences

Continuous cores through the thick UpperCretaceous sections at Ancora and Bass Riverprovide insights about models for sedimenta-tion within sequences. The basic deltaically

influenced shoreline model for Upper Creta-ceous facies styles in the New Jersey CoastalPlain developed by Owens and Sohl (1969),Owens and Gohn (1985), and Sugarman et al.(1995) is valid in these downdip locations,and the systems tracts of Posamentier et al.(1988) are applicable to the coastal plain bothupdip (Sugarman et al., 1995) and downdip asshown here. HSTs are sandy and thick, where-as TSTs are thin and generally composed ofglauconite in the deeper marine sequences.Lowstand deposits are rare in the coastalplain; Upper Cretaceous LSTs are only pre-served in the Marshalltown sequences at An-cora and the outcrop of the Navesink Forma-tion in Matawan (Miller et al., 1999b).Lowstand deposits are not expected landwardof prograding clinoform inflection points ex-cept in incised valleys. Available seismic pro-files have not revealed a clinoform geometryfor the Upper Cretaceous section of New Jer-sey, though progradation can be inferred bycomparing the timing of appearance of medi-um to coarse sands within the Mount LaurelFormation at Ancora (74 Ma) to the downdipoccurrence at Bass River (72.5 Ma). Thus, weinfer that the preservation of LSTs in the Up-per Cretaceous section was restricted to in-cised valleys in regions behind clinoform in-flection points.

The deltaically influenced shoreline model(Fig. 4) predicts sandy HSTs in most sequenc-es, a prediction that is generally upheld in Up-per Cretaceous sequences at Ancora and BassRiver. However the major aquifers (MountLaurel and Magothy Formations) are thicksand accumulations that thicken and thin clos-er and farther away from point sources, re-spectively. For example, the Magothy sandsthicken dramatically toward the Long Islandplatform, but thin along strike to the southeastof the Ancora–Bass River dip profile (Owensand Gohn, 1985), indicating a primary source

to the northeast. In the case of the Magothy Isequence, the high supply of sand and low sealevel overwhelms the sequence-stratigraphicsignature. The Magothy II and III sequencesshow a predicted pattern of upper HST sands.This difference suggests peak delivery of sandto the Ancora–Bass River transect during thelate Turonian deposition of the Magothy I se-quence and reduced supply thereafter. Sandsupply also increased in the late Campanianduring deposition of the Mount Laurel For-mation. Comparisons with outcrop and othersubsurface data suggest multiple sources ofsand during deposition of the Mount Laurelsequence because the formation shows a dis-tinct along-strike pattern of thickening andthinning of sands (Owens et al., 1970; Martinoand Curran, 1990).

Comparison of the Ancora and Bass Riversequences provides insights into updip vs.downdip patterns of sedimentation. The An-cora and Bass River cores constitute a dip pro-file (Fig. 1). These sites are 33 km apart,which translates into ;66 m of paleodepthvariation under the assumption of a gradientof 1:500 (Steckler et al., 1999). Every Creta-ceous sequence found at the downdip BassRiver site is also represented at the updip An-cora site, and the facies pattern persists updipto downdip (Fig. 5). This depositional style isunexpected because Miocene sequences inNew Jersey show a distinct pattern in whichmore sequences are preserved in downdipboreholes (Miller et al., 1997). We attributethis contrast in depositional styles to deposi-tion on a ramp during the Cretaceous com-pared to deposition of thick (hundreds of me-ters), prograding clinoforms on the Mioceneshelf (Steckler et al., 1999). The updip Ancorasite has higher amounts of medium to coarsequartz sand than the downdip Bass River site,as expected because Ancora is more proximalto the source. Glauconite is also more com-


MILLER et al.

Figure 13. Average sedimentation rates within sequences for Ancora (black) and BassRiver (thick gray lines) derived from Table 1. The Bass River III sequence at Bass Riveris not shown (off scale, 31 m/m.y.). K—Cretaceous; San.—Santonian; Con.—Coniacian.

mon at the updip site, suggesting peak glau-conite deposition on the middle shelf andsmothering by clay deposition on the outershelf. Recycling of glauconite (shown byweathered brown to yellow-green grains com-pared to in situ, authigenic green-black glau-conite) is indicated by the covariance of glau-conite and quartz sands in the HST. Recyclingof glauconite in the HSTs is common in bothUpper Cretaceous sections, though more re-cycling occurred at the updip site. Mica ismore common at the updip site, but it is still

common in the Bass River, Magothy, andWoodbury Formations downdip (Fig. 5).

Sea level and sediment supply were impor-tant constraints on sequence development.Thick, nonmarine to marginal-marine depositsof the upper Turonian–Coniacian MagothyFormation were influenced by high sedimentsupply and a generally lower sea level (;30m lower than the Bass River sequences). TheMerchantville Formation was deposited dur-ing a general peak in sea level during the latestSantonian–early Campanian (Fig. 12). The

greater thickness of the Merchantville For-mation compared with other glauconite sandscan be explained by the fact that this forma-tion is at least two or three different sequencesconcatenated together. It is clear that the highabundance of glauconite throughout the Na-vesink sequence(s) at Ancora is due to a verylow siliciclastic input in the central part of theNew Jersey Coastal Plain where the Navesinklithology is dominant (e.g., at Ancora). In thenorthern part of the coastal plain, local sandsdeveloped from small point sources (e.g., theShrewsbury Member of the Red Bank For-mation; the Tinton Formation). Downdip atBass River, a slowly accumulated clay pre-dominates (New Egypt Formation). The up-permost Cretaceous–lower Paleocene green-sands (the Hornerstown cycle of Olsson(1991); the Navesink II sequence here) reflectvery little siliciclastic input, and depositionwas almost exclusively of authigenic glauco-nite. These facies relationships can be ex-plained by high late Campanian siliciclasticinput, its reduction during the Maastrichtian,and its virtual shutdown during the early Pa-leocene. This pattern is widespread, occurringthroughout the New Jersey Coastal Plain, andmust be ascribed to regional changes in sedi-ment supply.

Olsson et al. (2002) showed that depositionwas continuous across the K/T boundary atBass River and that there was a minimalchange in sea level associated with the K/Tboundary. In the subsurface we show that theK/T boundary occurred during deposition ofthe Navesink II sequence (ca. 66–64.5 Ma;Figs. 11 and 12). The sequence shallows up-section during the last 0.5 m.y. of the Creta-ceous, culminating in a shallowing beginningin the last 100 k.y. of the Cretaceous (Olssonet al., 2002). However, there is no sequenceboundary associated with the K/T boundary;a sequence boundary occurs in Biochron P1bwith a hiatus from ca. 64.5 to 63 Ma (Figs.11 and 12).

Sequences and Sea Level

The Ancora and Bass River boreholes ex-tend the dated record of sequences on the NewJersey Margin from the Cenozoic (Miller etal., 1996, 1998a) back to nearly 100 Ma. Pi-oneering work of Olsson (1963, 1975), Owensand Sohl (1969), and Owens and Gohn (1985)established that there were at least five UpperCretaceous sequences in the New JerseyCoastal Plain. Here we not only document theages of these sequences fully, but also rec-ognize and date six to eight additionalsequences.



The ages of the New Jersey sequences areremarkably similar to the global compilationof EPR (Haq et al., 1987) and of Late Creta-ceous events in northwest Europe (Hancock,1993) and Russia (Fig. 12; Sahagian et al.,1996). Of 16 eustatic lowerings reported byEPR (Haq et al., 1987), 14 show correlativeevents (within 60.5 m.y.) in New Jersey (Fig.12). As noted by Hancock (1993), five to sixlater Cretaceous (85–65 Ma) sequences innorthwest Europe appear to correlate with se-quences in New Jersey (Fig. 12); limited agecontrol, time-scale problems, and the lack ofbackstripping in the northwest European datapreclude closer comparison. An early LateCretaceous eustatic estimate from the Russianplatform (Sahagian et al., 1996) provides anexcellent comparison; six events correlatewith New Jersey, but the Bass River II and IIIevents are not discernible in the Russian plat-form record. The correspondence among theserecords indicates a global control on UpperCretaceous sequence boundaries: eustaticchange.

Backstripping of coastal-plain boreholesprovides eustatic estimates that can be com-pared from site to site to evaluate internal con-sistency. Van Sickel et al. (2003) and Milleret al. (2003) used the Ancora and Bass Riverrecords to provide the first fully backstrippedeustatic estimate for the entire Upper Creta-ceous section in New Jersey (Fig. 12). Back-stripping of Upper Cretaceous onshore NewJersey sequences yields sea-level amplitudechanges of greater than 25 m in less than 1m.y. (Fig. 12). We do not capture the full eu-static amplitude across major hiatuses (dashedlines, Fig. 12) because mostly TSTs and HSTsare preserved and LSTs are largely missing;therefore, the actual lowstands may be lowerthan our estimates. The most prominent fea-ture of our eustatic estimate are three majorrises at ca. 69, 76, and 84 Ma; these representmajor flooding events expressed by the devel-opment of widespread glauconite depositionon this and other passive margins (e.g., north-west Europe).

Backstripping often yields results that arecounterintuitive because water-depth varia-tions do not necessarily equate to sea-levelchanges. Backstripping of the Ancora andBass River sections shows that major marinetransgressions associated with the Merchant-ville, Marshalltown, and Navesink Formationglauconites are all eustatic highstands (Fig.12). Although relative water depths weregreater during the deposition of the glauco-nites than during the Cenomanian–Turoniansequences, backstripping shows the Bass Riv-er I middle Cenomanian sequence actually has

virtually the same (if not slightly higher) eu-static estimate than the Merchantville (182 mfor the Bass River I vs. 80–78 m for the Mer-chantville) even though the water depths weremuch less (inner-neritic vs. middle neritic).This result is consistent with observations onother margins that show peak sea level in theCenomanian–Turonian (e.g., the Russian plat-form, Fig. 12; Sahagian et al., 1996).

Backstripping of the Ancora and Bass Riversections confirms that Late Cretaceous sea-level changes were large (tens of meters) andrapid (,1 m.y.), as purported by Haq et al.(1987) and documented for the early Late Cre-taceous by backstripping of Russian platformsections (Fig. 12; Sahagian et al., 1996). Suchlarge, rapid changes in global sea level canonly be explained by glacio-eustasy (Donovanand Jones, 1979; Pitman and Golovchenko,1983). However, noneustatic mechanisms—such as large, rapid variations in subsidence—could explain the patterns we observe; rapidvariations of in-plane stress could account forlarge, rapid variations in subsidence (e.g.,Saurborn et al., 2000). Karner (1986) modeledthe impact of in-plane stress on passive mar-gins. Excess subsidence can generate an ap-parent sea-level highstand, such as we ob-serve. In his model, Karner (1986) found thatfor an old plate (in our case, 70–100 m.y.postrifting), subsidence landward of the hingezone is generated by compressive stress anddecreases landward. Thus, the Ancora R2 es-timates would be expected to be lower thanthe Bass River R2 estimates. In general, thefact that we see the opposite situation (Fig.12) suggests that these events were not causedby in-plane stress.

Active normal and reverse faulting has alsobeen cited in the Atlantic coastal regions(Prowell, 1988). In particular, broad (40–300km), Tertiary, tectonic uplift and subsidenceof the South Carolina Coastal Plain has beenmapped by Weems and Lewis (2002). Wethink that Late Cretaceous–Tertiary tectonicsis an unlikely cause for our R2 events for anumber of reasons:

1. Backstripping documents that the onlydiscernible tectonic effect during the past 100m.y. on coastal-plain subsidence is thermo-flexural (Kominz et al., 1998; Van Sickel etal., 2003).

2. Southern New Jersey has not been thesite of the large number or magnitude of earth-quakes seen near Charleston, South Carolina,and other areas of active faulting in the Atlan-tic Coastal Plain (Seeber and Armbruster,1988).

3. Seismic lines from southern New Jerseyimage faults in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

(Sheridan et al., 1991); however, there is noevidence of faulting younger than the Ceno-manian Potomac Formation (Olsson, 1991).

4. Our drilling results (e.g., Miller et al.,1997) document that Cretaceous to middleMiocene sedimentation in New Jersey wasmore continuous than in many other coastal-plain regions such as the Cape Fear Arch andthe South Carolina Coastal Plain (e.g., Brownet al., 1972; Sohl and Owens, 1991).

5. Sedimentation in the New Jersey CoastalPlain displays a simple pattern of increasingpreservation of sequences downdip for theNeogene (Miller et al., 1997) and widespreadsequences from the Late Cretaceous (Olsson,1991, this study) to Eocene (Miller et al.,1997). Both patterns argue against major tec-tonic changes in the coastal plain.

Thus, our backstripping results combinedwith seismicity, seismic stratigraphic data, anddistribution patterns of sediments all indicateminimal tectonic effects on the Late Creta-ceous to Tertiary New Jersey Coastal Plain.Having eliminated horizontal and vertical tec-tonics as a source of these events, the remain-ing mechanism is glacio-eustasy.

Although the timing of EPR eustatic low-erings may be more or less correct, both theNew Jersey and Russian results show that theEPR curve cannot be used as a valid Late Cre-taceous eustatic record because the amplitudesof the major EPR eustatic lowerings were toohigh by a factor of at least two (Fig. 12). Al-though we do not capture the full amplitudeof change, this limitation is not sufficient toexplain the very large differences in amplitudebetween EPR and New Jersey/Russian esti-mates (Fig. 12). In addition, the amplitude dif-ferences between New Jersey and EPR varythrough time, yielding markedly different-looking eustatic curves (Fig. 12). For exam-ple, the extremely large middle Turonian andmiddle Maastrichtian events reported by EPRare muted in both backstripped records,whereas the major flooding events at 69, 76,and 84 Ma in New Jersey are less importantin the EPR record (Fig. 12). We conclude thatit is time to abandon the use of the EPR recordfor the Late Cretaceous and suggest that theNew Jersey and Russian platform back-stripped records provide the best substitute.

Having eliminated tectonics as a cause forour sea-level estimates, the only mechanismthat can explain the size and rapidity of oureustatic estimates is glacial growth and decay.If ice-volume changes drove Late Cretaceoussea-level changes, then foraminiferal d18O rec-ords should show increases associated with se-quence boundaries. Such a link has been es-tablished for the late middle Eocene to


MILLER et al.

Miocene (Miller et al., 1996, 1998a; Brown-ing et al., 1996; Pekar et al., 2001). However,Late Cretaceous d18O records have not at-tained the resolution needed to test their re-lationship with sequence boundaries. Previousstudies have linked the ca. 71 Ma basal Na-vesink I sequence boundary with d18O increas-es in deep-sea benthic and low-latitude plank-tonic foraminifera; on this basis, Miller et al.(1999a) suggested that the 20–40 m eustaticlowering of sea level at 71 Ma resulted fromthe growth of a transitory ice cap equivalentto 25%–40% of the volume of the present-dayEast Antarctic ice cap. Scarce d18O data havelimited previous comparison of links betweenLate Cretaceous global d18O records andsequences.

New benthic foraminiferal d18O data (Huberet al., 2002) allow preliminary comparisonsbetween Upper Cretaceous sequence stratig-raphy and d18O records (Fig. 12). Coverage forthe Coniacian–lower Campanian is still lim-ited to the deeply buried records from ODPSite 511, and there are large data gaps in thelower to middle Campanian and upper Turon-ian to Coniacian. Despite these limitations,d18O comparisons are intriguing (Fig. 12), fur-ther suggesting the presence of small icesheets in this alleged greenhouse world: (1) Amajor middle Cenomanian sequence boundary(see also Gale et al., 2002) between the Po-tomac and Bass River I sequences (hiatus atca. 97–95.8 Ma) correlates with a major(.1‰) d18O increase (Fig. 12), and (2) a mid-dle Turonian sea-level lowering associatedwith the Bass River III/Magothy contact (92–91.5 Ma) may correlate with a major increasein benthic foraminiferal d18O values (;1.0‰),though additional data are needed to deter-mine the precise timing of the increase (Fig.12). Several other Coniacian–Campanian d18Oincreases (dashed arrows, Fig. 12) may be re-lated to sequence boundaries, but the data aretoo sparse to provide a firm correlation.

Our comparisons link several Upper Creta-ceous sequence boundaries to d18O increasesthat are major deep-water (hence high-latitude) cooling events and possibly ice vol-ume events; the increases must be ascribedprimarily to cooling because the ;1‰ in-creases cannot be totally due to ice-volume orsalinity variations. Nevertheless, the link be-tween d18O increases and eustatic lowerings(Fig. 12) implies that at least a part of the LateCretaceous d18O signature was due to devel-opment of ice sheets.

Miller et al. (2003) explained the presenceof ice sheets in the greenhouse world of theLate Cretaceous by proposing that the icesheets were restricted in area in Antarctica,

ephemeral, and paced by Milankovitch forc-ing. Modeling evidence (DeConto and Pol-lard, 2003) indicates that a 5–10 3 106 km3

ice sheet (Fig. 3B of DeConto and Pollard,2003, shows a 10 3 106 km3 ice-sheet sce-nario) could have developed when atmospher-ic CO2 fell below a threshold. For the Oligo-cene continental configurations, this thresholdwas estimated as three times that of the pres-ent; Cretaceous thresholds would have dif-fered, but the modeling results illustrategreenhouse ice-sheet and sea-level dynamics.This ice sheet would not have reached theAntarctic coast, hence explaining the relativewarmth in coastal Antarctica, but it wouldhave significantly influenced sea level by asmuch as ;25 m and global d18O by as muchas 0.25‰. Application of modeling resultssuggests that a maximum of 25% of the ;1‰d18O increases at ca. 96, 93–92, and 71.2 Mamay be attributed to ice (;25 m of eustaticlowering); ;75% would be attributed to deep-water cooling of 3–4 8C (which by itselfwould cause only 3–4 m of eustatic lowering;Jacobs and Sahagian, 1993). Unlike the Oli-gocene and younger icehouse world, theseLate Cretaceous ice sheets probably only ex-isted during short intervals of peak Milankov-itch forcing, and the continent was ice freeduring much of the greenhouse Late Creta-ceous to middle Eocene.

Milankovitch forcing paced the develop-ment of the ephemeral ice sheets in Antarcti-ca. Modeling studies of Matthews and Froh-lich (2002) predicted glacio-eustatic falls fromMilankovitch orbital solutions that are similarto those we obtained from the New Jerseymargin (Table 1). This convergence of modelpredictions (Matthews and Frohlich, 2002)with our sea-level history is remarkable (Table1). The alternative to invoking Late Creta-ceous ice sheets is that global sea-level chang-es were paced by as-yet-undefined mecha-nisms, because none of the other hypothesizedmechanisms (temperature effects, storage inlakes, deep-water changes, groundwater, orsea ice; Jacobs and Sahagian, 1993) can ex-plain the observed 20–30 m changes in ,1m.y.

With the exception of the ca. 71 Ma andperhaps 96 Ma events, Late Cretaceous com-parisons between sequence boundaries andd18O increases are not compelling, and futurework must generate more detailed d18O rec-ords for the Late Cretaceous. Nevertheless,our backstripping results require that large,rapid sea-level variations occurred in the LateCretaceous greenhouse world, and we mustconclude that either small- to medium-sized(5–10 3 106 km3) ice sheets paced sea-level

changes during this time or our understandingof causal mechanisms for global sea-levelchange is fundamentally flawed.

SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK

We dated 11–14 Upper Cretaceous sequenc-es at the Bass River and Ancora sites and cor-related the sequence boundaries with sea-levellowerings of EPR, northwest European, andRussian sections, establishing a global cause.Backstripping of the Bass River and Ancorarecords provides a eustatic estimate for theLate Cretaceous that differs in amplitude andshape from the EPR record but agrees withbackstripped records from the Russian plat-form. The large, rapid eustatic changes requireeither growth and decay of ice sheets ;25%–50% of the size of the modern East Antarcticaice sheet during the supposedly ice-free LateCretaceous or an unidentified mechanism thatcontrolled sea-level change at this time. Stableisotope data suggest a glacio-eustatic cause forthe Campanian/Maastrichtian boundary (ca.71.2 Ma) lowering and are consistent with aglacio-eustatic cause for older lowerings.However, additional stable isotope data fromdeep-sea and onshore sections are needed totest this link.

We integrate our interpretation of sea level,ages, environments, and sedimentation ratesinto an overview of Late Cretaceous sedimen-tation in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. TheNew Jersey Coastal Plain formed as a resultof thermoflexural subsidence some 50 m.y. af-ter rifting. Though accommodation was large-ly due to flexural subsidence of the coastalplain, the form of onshore subsidence is ther-mal (Kominz et al., 1998). From ca. 120 to 97Ma, deposition was largely fluvial and/oralluvial-plain clays (interfluves and overbankenvironments) and sands (channel, point-bar,crevasse-splay, and fluvial-lacustrine environ-ments) of the Potomac Formation. Pollen pro-vides the primary age control for these redbeds that span the Early Cretaceous/Late Cre-taceous boundary. Coring downdip at Ancorarecovered marine intercalations in the Poto-mac Formation. Future drilling may yield suf-ficient marine beds and improved pollen stra-tigraphy that may allow deciphering of thePotomac Formation.

Following a major middle Cenomanian eu-static lowstand (97–95.8 Ma), marine deposi-tion predominated in downdip locations (theBass River Formation at Bass River and An-cora). This major marine incursion occurredin response to a general rise of sea level of;20 m, punctuated by two eustatic lowerings(94.6 and 93.5 Ma). A major middle Turonian



eustatic lowering (92.1–91.4 Ma) separateddeposition of the Bass River Formation fromthat of the thick, nonmarine to marginal-marine Magothy Formation.

High rates of sediment supply from a north-east source and a generally lower sea levelcharacterized late Turonian to Coniacian Ma-gothy deposition, punctuated by two eustaticlowerings (90–89.8 and 88.3–87.8 Ma). Peakdelivery of sand to the Ancora–Bass Rivertransect occurred during late Turonian Mago-thy I deposition; the sand supply was reducedthereafter, as shown by the fact that the sandsof the Magothy II and III sequences are re-stricted to the HSTs.

A Coniacian eustatic lowering (86.7–85.2Ma) was followed by deposition of the thinlower to middle Santonian marine Cheese-quake sequence and a subsequent late Santon-ian eustatic lowering (84.3–83.9 Ma). Perva-sive glauconite deposition during a peak in sealevel began in the latest Santonian to earlyCampanian with the Merchantville Formation.The greater thickness of the MerchantvilleFormation vs. other glauconite sands is the re-sult of concatenation of three different se-quences; eustatic lowerings occurred acrossthe Santonian/Campanian boundary (83.5 Ma)and in the early Campanian (83.1–81 Ma).High sedimentation rates (.17 cm/k.y.) dur-ing the middle Campanian deposition of theWoodbury–lower Englishtown units representhigh deltaic input. Following a middle Cam-panian eustatic lowering (77.8–76.7 Ma) anddeposition of a thin, neritic glauconite sand(now the lower part of the upper English-town), siliciclastic input continued to be highduring deposition of the middle CampanianEnglishtown sequence. A late Campanian eu-static lowering (76–75 Ma) was followed bydeposition of the glauconite sand bodies nowforming the late Campanian Marshalltown se-quence; quartz sand input continued to be highduring the deposition of the HST of this se-quence (in the Mount Laurel Formation).

A eustatic lowering spanning the Campan-ian/Maastrichtian boundary (71.2–69 Ma) wasfollowed by a secondary peak in sea level anda return to glauconite deposition in the Maas-trichtian Navesink Formation. Siliciclastic in-put was greatly reduced as glauconite depo-sition reigned during the Maastrichtian inmany parts of the state, whereas local sandsof the Red Bank Formation constitute theHSTs in other parts. There may have been alate Maastrichtian eustatic lowering (67–66Ma), but there was minimal change in sea lev-el and no sequence boundary associated withthe K/T boundary at Bass River and Ancora.Siliciclastic input was minimal from the latest

Cretaceous into the early Paleocene. The LateCretaceous Epoch ended in New Jersey withthe delivery of impact-related spherules fromChicxulub, Mexico (Olsson et al., 1997).

Thick, continuously cored sections at An-cora and Bass River have provided new in-sights into Late Cretaceous facies and sea-level history, though important issues remainunresolved by drilling only two holes. Thenumber and significance of Magothy, Mer-chantville, and Navesink sequences requireverification and have global implications ifour eustatic estimate is to be used in place ofthe EPR record. The Magothy issue of two vs.three sequences (and attendant aquifer sands)has local and regional hydrogeologic impor-tance. Though outcrop-subsurface correlationsand chronology of sequences are both greatlyimproved, uncertainties remain about the re-lationship and age of critical units (e.g., ageof the Englishtown sequence). Drilling atMillville, New Jersey (Fig. 1), provides a Cre-taceous section intermediate in dip positionbetween Ancora and Bass River, though theUpper Cretaceous section thins toward thesoutheast. Future drilling between Ancora andBass River is needed to resolve the Magothyissue, whereas drilling in the northwest adja-cent to the coast is needed to penetrate thethickest marine Upper Cretaceous section pos-sible while allowing correlation to offshoreseismic profiles. Drilling was scheduled alongthe coast in fall 2003 near Sea Girt, New Jer-sey (Fig. 1).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is dedicated to the memory of the lateJames Owens, who was committed to understandingthe New Jersey Coastal Plain; this paper is a testa-ment to his support of onshore drilling and coastal-plain studies. We thank W. Harris, M.E. Katz, andG. Karner for reviews and the members of theCoastal Plain Drilling Project who are not listedhere, especially those who supplied critical pub-lished Late Cretaceous data sets for nannofossils (D.Bukry, L. de Romero) and pollen (G.J. Brenner).The New Jersey Geological Survey (H. Kasabach,K. Muessig, and R. Dalton) supplied materials, per-sonnel, and logging support, funded all drillingcosts for Bass River, and provided partial supportfor drilling costs at Ancora. Supported by NationalScience Foundation grants OCE 0084032, EAR97–08664, EAR99–09179 (all to Miller), and EAR98–14025 (to Kominz), the New Jersey Geological Sur-vey, and the Ocean Drilling Program.

REFERENCES CITED

Allen, J.L.R., 1970, Sediments of the modern Niger delta:A summary and review: Society of Economic Pale-ontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 15,p. 138–151.

Barrera, E., and Savin, S.M., 1999, Evolution of lateCampanian–Maastrichtian marine climates and

oceans, in Johnson, C.C., and Barrera, E., eds., Evo-lution of the Cretaceous ocean-climate system: Boul-der, Colorado, Geological Society of America SpecialPaper v. 332, p. 245–282.

Barron, E.J., 1983, A warm equable Cretaceous: The natureof the problem: Earth Science Reviews, v. 19,p. 305–338.

Bond, G.C., and Kominz, M.A., 1984, Construction of tec-tonic subsidence curves for the early Paleozoic mio-geocline, southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: Im-plications for the subsidence mechanisms, age ofbreakup, and crustal thinning: Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin, v. 95, p. 155–173.

Bond, G.C., Kominz, M.A., Steckler, M.S., and Grotzinger,J.P., 1989, Role of thermal subsidence, flexure andeustasy in the evolution of early Paleozoic passive-margin carbonate platforms: Society of Economic Pa-leontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication,v. 44, p. 39–61.

Bralower, T.J., Leckie, R.M., Sliter, W.V., and Thierstein,H.R., 1995, An integrated Cretaceous microfossilsbiostratigraphy: Society of Economic Paleontologistsand Mineralogists Special Publication 54, p. 65–79.

Brown, P.M., Miller, J.A., and Swain, F.M., 1972, Structuraland stratigraphic framework, and spatial distributionof permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, NorthCarolina to New York: U.S. Geological Survey Pro-fessional Paper 796, 79 p., 59 plates.

Browning, J.V., Miller, K.G., and Pak, D.K., 1996, Globalimplications of Eocene greenhouse and doubthousesequences on the New Jersey Coastal Plain: The ice-house cometh: Geology, v. 24, p. 639–642.

Burke, W.H., Denison, R.E., Hetherington, E.A., Koepnick,R.B., Nelson, H.F., and Otto, J.B., 1982, Variation ofseawater 87Sr/86Sr throughout Phanerozoic time: Ge-ology, v. 10, p. 516–519.

Christie-Blick, N., and Driscoll, N.W., 1995, Sequence stra-tigraphy: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sci-ences, v. 23, p. 451–478.

Christie-Blick, N., Grotzinger, J.P., and von der Borch,C.C., 1988, Sequence stratigraphy in Proterozoic suc-cessions: Geology, v. 16, p. 100–104.

Christopher, R.A., 1982, The occurrence of theComplexiopollis-Atlantopolis Zone (palynomorphs) inthe Eagle Ford Group (Upper Cretaceous) of Texas:Journal of Paleontology, v. 56, p. 525–541.

Dean, W.E., and Arthur, M.A., eds., 1998, Stratigraphy andpaleoenvironments of the Cretaceous Western InteriorSeaway, USA: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Ge-ology), Concepts in Sedimentology and PaleontologySeries, no. 6, 255 p.

DeConto, R.M., and Pollard, D., 2003, Rapid Cenozoic gla-ciation of Antarctica induced by declining atmospher-ic CO2: Nature, v. 421, p. 245–249.

de Graciansky, P.C., Hardenbol, J., Jacquin, T., Farley, M.,and Vail, P. R., eds.,1998, Mesozoic–Cenozoic se-quence stratigraphy of European basins: SEPM (So-ciety for Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication,786 p.

Donovan, D.T., and Jones, E.J.W., 1979, Causes of world-wide changes in sea level: Geological Society [Lon-don] Journal, v. 136, p. 187–192.

Doyle, J.A., and Robbins, E.I., 1977, Angiosperm pollenzonation of the continental Cretaceous of the AtlanticCoastal Plain and its application to deep wells in theSalisbury Embayment: Palynology, v. 1, p. 43–78.

Draper, N.R., and Smith, H., 1981, Applied regression anal-ysis (2nd edition): New York, Wiley, 407 p.

Erba, E., Premoli Silva, I., Wilson, P.A., Pringle, M.S., Sli-ter, W.V., Watkins, D.K., Arnaud Vanneau, A., Bra-lower, T.J., Budd, A.F., Camoin, G.F., Masse, J.-P.,Mutterlose, J., and Sager, W.W., 1999, Synthesis ofstratigraphies from shallow-water sequences at Sites871 through 879 in the western Pacific Ocean, in Hag-gerty, J.A., Premoli Silva, I., Rack, F., and McNutt,M.K., eds., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Pro-gram, Scientific results, Volume 144: College Station,Texas, Ocean Drilling Program, p. 873–885.

Gale, A.S., Hardenbol, J., Hathaway, B., Kennedy, W.J.,Young, J.R., and Phansalkar, V., 2002, Global corre-lation of Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) sequences:


MILLER et al.

Evidence for Milankovitch control on sea level: Ge-ology, v. 30, p. 291–294.

Glaser, J.D., 1969, Petrology and origin of Potomac andMagothy (Cretaceous) sediments, middle AtlanticCoastal Plain: Maryland Geological Survey Report ofInvestigations, no. 11, 101 p.

Gohn, G.S., 1992, Preliminary ostracode biostratigraphy ofsubsurface Campanian and Maastrichtian section ofthe New Jersey Coastal Plain, in Gohn, G.S., ed., Pro-ceedings of the 1988 U.S. Geological Survey work-shop on the geology and geohydrology of the AtlanticCoastal Plain, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1059,p. 15–21.

Gradstein, F.M., Agterberg, F.P., Ogg, J.G., Hardenbol, J.,Van Veen, P., Thierry, J., and Huang, Z., 1994, A Me-sozoic time scale: Journal of Geophysical Research,v. 99, p. 24,051–24,074.

Hallam, A., 1992, Phanerozoic sea-level changes: NewYork, Columbia University Press, 266 p.

Hancock, J.M., 1993, Transatlantic correlations in theCampanian–Maastrichtian stages by eustatic changesof sea-level: Geological Society [London] SpecialPublication 70, p. 241–256.

Haq, B.U., Hardenbol, J., and Vail, P.R., 1987, Chronologyof fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic (250 millionyears ago to present): Science, v. 235, p. 1156–1167.

Hart, S.R., and Brooks, C., 1974, Clinopyroxene-matrixpartitioning of K, Rb, Cs, and Ba: Geochimica et Cos-mochimica Acta, v. 38, p. 1799–1806.

Howarth, R.J., and McArthur, J.M., 1997, Statistics forstrontium isotope stratigraphy: A robust LOWESS fitto the marine Sr-isotope curve for 0–206 Ma, withlook-up table for the derivation of numerical age:Journal of Geology, v. 105, p. 441–456.

Huber, B.T., Hodell, D.A., and Hamilton, C.P., 1995, Mid-to Late Cretaceous climate of the southern high lati-tudes: Stable isotopic evidence for minimal equator-to-pole thermal gradients: Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin, v. 107, p. 392–417.

Huber, B.T., Norris, R.D., and MacLeod, K.G., 2002, Deepsea paleotemperature record of extreme warmth dur-ing the Cretaceous: Geology, v. 30, p. 123–126.

Jacobs, D.K., and Sahagian, D.L., 1993, Climate-inducedfluctuations in sea level during non-glacial times: Na-ture, v. 361, p. 710–712.

Karner, G.D., 1986, Effects of lithospheric in-plane stresson sedimentary basin stratigraphy: Tectonics, v. 5,p. 573–588.

Kauffman, E.G., 1977, Geological and biological overview:Western Interior Cretaceous basin: Mountain Geolo-gist, v. 14, p. 75–99.

Klitgord, K.D., Hutchinson, D.R., and Schouten, H., 1988,U.S. Atlantic continental margin: Structural and tec-tonic framework, in Sheridan, R.E., and Grow, J.A.,eds., The Atlantic Continental Margin, U.S.: Boulder,Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology ofNorth America, v. I-2, p. 19–55.

Kominz, M.A., and Pekar, S.F., 2001, Oligocene eustasyfrom two-dimensional sequence stratigraphic back-stripping: Geological Society of America Bulletin,v. 113, p. 291–304.

Kominz, M.A., Miller, K.G., and Browning, J.V., 1998,Long-term and short-term global Cenozoic sea-levelestimates: Geology, v. 26, p. 311–314.

Litwin, R.J., Sohl, N.F., Owens, J.P., and Sugarman, P.J.,1993, Palynological analysis of a newly recognizedUpper Cretaceous marine unit at Cheesequake, NewJersey: Palynology, v. 17, p. 123–135.

Locker, S.D., Hine, A.C., Tedesco, L.P., and Shinn, E.A.,1996, Magnitude and timing of episodic sea-level riseduring the last deglaciation: Geology, v. 24,p. 827–830.

Lyell, C., 1845, Notes on the Cretaceous strata of NewJersey, and other parts of the United States borderingthe Atlantic: Quarterly Journal of the Geological So-ciety of London, v. 1, p. 55–60.

Martino, R.L., and Curran, H.A., 1990, Sedimentology, ich-nology, and paleoenvironments of the Upper Creta-ceous Wenonah and Mt. Laurel Formations, New Jer-sey: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 60,p. 125–144.

Matthews, R.K., and Frohlich, C., 2002, Maximum flooding

surfaces and sequence boundaries: Comparisons be-tween observations and orbital forcing in the Creta-ceous and Jurassic (65–190 Ma): GeoArabia, v. 7,p. 503–538.

McArthur, J.M., Kennedy, W.J., Gale, A.S., Thirlwall, M.F.,Chen, M., Bunett, J., and Hancock, J.M., 1992, Stron-tium isotope stratigraphy in the Late Cretaceous: In-tercontinental correlation of the Campanian/Maas-trichtian boundary: Terra Nova, v. 4, p. 385–393.

McArthur, J.M., Thirlwall, M.F., Gale, A.S., Chen, M., andKennedy, W.J., 1993, Strontium isotope stratigraphyin the Late Cretaceous: Numerical calibration of theSr isotope curve and intercontinental correlation forthe Campanian: Paleoceanography, v. 8, p. 859–873.

McArthur, J.M., Kennedy, W.J., Chen, M., Thirlwall, M.F.,and Gale, A.S., 1994, Strontium isotope stratigraphyfor the Late Cretaceous: Direct numeric calibration ofthe Sr isotope curve for the U.S. Western Interior Sea-way: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoe-cology, v. 108, p. 95–119.

Miller, K.G., Wright, J.D., and Fairbanks, R.G., 1991, Un-locking the ice house: Oligocene–Miocene oxygenisotopes, eustasy, and margin erosion: Journal of Geo-physical Research, v. 96, p. 6829–6848.

Miller, K.G., Mountain, G.S., the Leg 150 Shipboard Party,and Members of the New Jersey Coastal Plain DrillingProject, 1996, Drilling and dating New JerseyOligocene–Miocene sequences: Ice volume, global sealevel, and Exxon records: Science, v. 271,p. 1092 –1094.

Miller, K.G., Browning, J.V., Pekar, S.F., and Sugarman,P.J., 1997, Cenozoic evolution of the New JerseyCoastal Plain: Changes in sea level, tectonics, and sed-iment supply, in Miller, K.G., and Snyder, S.W., eds.,Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientificresults, Volume 150X: College Station, Texas, OceanDrilling Program, p. 361–373.

Miller, K.G., Mountain, G.S., Browning, J.V., Kominz, M.,Sugarman, P.J., Christie-Blick, N., Katz, M.E., andWright, J.D., 1998a, Cenozoic global sea-level, se-quences, and the New Jersey transect: Results fromcoastal plain and slope drilling: Reviews of Geophys-ics, v. 36, p. 569–601.

Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Browning, J.V., Olsson, R.K.,Pekar, S.F., Reilly, T.J., Cramer, B.S., Aubry, M.-P.,Lawrence, R.P., Curran, J., Stewart, M., Metzger, J.M.,Uptegrove, J., Bukry, D., Burckle, L.H., Wright, J.D.,Feigenson, M.D., Brenner, G.J., and Dalton, R.F.,1998b, Bass River Site, in Miller, K.G., Sugarman,P.J., Browning, J.V., et al., Proceedings of the OceanDrilling Program, Scientific results, Volume 174AX:College Station, Texas, Ocean Drilling Program,p. 5–43.

Miller, K.G., Barrera, E., Olsson, R.K., Sugarman, P.J., andSavin, S.M., 1999a, Does ice drive early Maastrichtianeustasy? Global d18O and New Jersey sequences: Ge-ology, v. 27, p. 783–786.

Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Browning, J.V., Cramer, B.S.,Olsson, R.K., de Romero, L., Aubry, M.-P., Pekar,S.F., Georgescu, M.D., Metzger, K.T., Monteverde,D.H., Skinner, E.S., Uptegrove, J., Mullikin, L.G.,Muller, F.L., Feigenson, M.D., Reilly, T.J., Brenner,G.J., and Queen, D., 1999b, Ancora Site, in Miller,K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Browning, J.V., et al., Proceed-ings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific results,Volume 174AX (supplement): College Station,Texas, Ocean Drilling Program, p. 1–65 [online]:http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/174AXSIR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/174AXSp1.PDF.

Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Browning, J.V., Kominz,M.A., Hernandez, J.C., Olsson, R.K., Wright, J.D.,Feigenson, M.D., and Van Sickel, W., 2003, Late Cre-taceous chronology of large, rapid sea-level changes:Glacioeustacy during the greenhouse world: Geology,v. 31, p. 585–588.

Mitchum, R.M., Vail, P.R., and Thompson, S., 1977, Thedepositional sequence as a basic unit for stratigraphicanalysis: American Association of Petroleum Geolo-gists Memoir, v. 26, p. 53–62.

Olsson, R.K., 1960, Foraminifera of latest Cretaceous andearliest Tertiary age in the New Jersey Coastal Plain:Journal of Paleontology, v. 34, p. 1–58.

Olsson, R.K., 1963, Latest Cretaceous and earliest Tertiarystratigraphy of New Jersey Coastal Plain: AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 47,p. 643–665.

Olsson, R.K., 1975, Upper Cretaceous and lower Tertiarystratigraphy of New Jersey Coastal Plain: New York,Petroleum Exploration Society of New York, SecondAnnual Field Trip Guidebook, 49 p.

Olsson, R.K., 1991, Cretaceous to Eocene sea-level fluc-tuations on the New Jersey margin: Sedimentary Ge-ology, v. 70, p. 195–208.

Olsson, R.K., and Wise, S.W., 1987, Upper Paleocene tomiddle Eocene depositional sequences and hiatuses inthe New Jersey Atlantic Margin: Cushman Foundationfor Foraminiferal Research Special Publication 24,p. 99–112.

Olsson, R.K., Gibson, T.G., Hansen, H.J., and Owens, J.P.,1988, Geology of the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain:Long Island to Virginia, in Sheridan, R.E., and Grow,J.A., eds., The Atlantic Continental Margin, U.S.:Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America,Geology of North America, v. I-2, p. 87–105.

Olsson, R.K., Miller, K.G., Browning, J.V., Habib, D., andSugarman, P.J., 1997, Ejecta layer at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, Bass River, New Jersey (OceanDrilling Program Leg 174AX): Geology, v. 25,p. 759–762.

Olsson, R.K., Miller, K.G., Browning, J.V., Wright, J.D.,and Cramer, B.S., 2002, Sequence stratigraphy and sealevel change across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundaryon the New Jersey passive margin, in Koeberl, C., andMacLeod, K.G., eds., Catastrophic events and massextinctions: Impacts and beyond: Boulder, Colorado,Geological Society of America Special Paper 356,p. 97–108.

Oslick, J.S., Miller, K.G., Feigenson, M.D., and Wright,J.D., 1994, Oligocene–Miocene strontium isotopes:Stratigraphic revisions and correlations to an inferredglacioeustatic record: Paleoceanography, v. 9,p. 427–443.

Owens, J.P., and Gohn, G.S., 1985, Depositional history ofthe Cretaceous series in the U.S. Atlantic CoastalPlain: Stratigraphy, paleoenvironments, and tectoniccontrols of sedimentation, in Poag, C.W., ed., Geolog-ic evolution of the United States Atlantic Margin:New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 25–86.

Owens, J.P., and Sohl, N., 1969, Shelf and deltaic paleoen-vironments in the Cretaceous–Tertiary formations ofthe New Jersey Coastal Plain, in Subitsky, S., ed., Ge-ology of selected areas in New Jersey and easternPennsylvania and guidebook of excursion: NewBrunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press,p. 235–278.

Owens, J.P., Minard, J.P., Sohl, N.F., and Mello, J.F., 1970,Stratigraphy of the outcropping post-Magothy UpperCretaceous formations in southern New Jersey andnorthern Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware and Mary-land: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 674,60 p.

Owens, J.P., Sugarman, P.J., Sohl, N.F., Parker, R., Hough-ton, H.H., Volkert, R.V., Drake, A.A., and Orndorff,R.C., 1998, Bedrock geologic map of central andsouthern New Jersey: U.S. Geological Society Mis-cellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2540-b, scale1:100,000, 4 sheets.

Pak, D.K., and Miller, K.G., 1992, Paleocene to Eocenebenthic foraminiferal isotopes and assemblages: Im-plications for deepwater circulation: Paleoceanogra-phy, v. 7, p. 405–422.

Pekar, S.F., and Kominz, M.A., 2001, Two-dimensional pa-leoslope modeling: A new method for estimating wa-ter depths for benthic foraminiferal biofacies and pa-leo shelf margins: Journal of Sedimentary Research,v. 71, p. 608–620.

Pekar, S.F., Christie-Blick, N., Kominz, M.A., and Miller,K.G., 2001, Evaluating the stratigraphic response toeustasy from Oligocene strata in New Jersey: Geolo-gy, v. 29, p. 55–58.

Perry, W.J., Jr., Minard, J.P., Weed, E.G.A., Robbins, E.I.,and Rhodehamel, E.C., 1975, Stratigraphy of AtlanticCoastal Margin of United States north of Cape



Hatteras—Brief survey: American Association of Pe-troleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 59, p. 1529–1548.

Petters, S.W., 1976, Upper Cretaceous subsurface stratig-raphy of Atlantic Coastal Plain of New Jersey: Amer-ican Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,v. 60, p. 87–107.

Pitman, W.C., III, and Golovchenko, X., 1983, The effectof sea-level change on the shelf edge and slope ofpassive margins: Society of Economic Paleontologistsand Mineralogists Special Publication, v. 33,p. 41–58.

Posamentier, H.W., Jervey, M.T., and Vail, P.R., 1988, Eu-static controls on clastic deposition I—Conceptualframework: Society of Economic Paleontologists andMineralogists Special Publication, v. 42, p. 109–124.

Price, E.D., 1999, The evidence and implication of polarice during the Mesozoic: Earth Science Reviews,v. 48, p. 183–210.

Prowell, D.C., 1988, Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonismon the Atlantic Coastal Margin, in Sheridan, R.E., andGrow, J.A., eds., The Atlantic Continental Margin,U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of Amer-ica, Geology of North America, v. I-2, p. 557–564.

Reynolds, D.J., Steckler, M.S., and Coakley, B.J., 1991,The role of the sediment load in sequence stratigra-phy: The influence of flexural isostasy and compac-tion: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 96,p. 6931–6949.

Sahagian, D., Pinous, O., Olferiev, A., Zakaharov, V., andBeisel, A., 1996, Eustatic curve for the MiddleJurassic–Cretaceous based on Russian platform andSiberian stratigraphy: Zonal resolution: American As-sociation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 80,p. 1433–1458.

Saurborn, M.J., Karner, Garry, D., Christie-Blick, N., Plint,A.G., and Scholz, C.H., 2000, Accommodation chang-es in Upper Cretaceous sediments of the Alberta fore-land basin: Implications for the role of changes in in-plane force on unconformity development: GeologicalSociety of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 32,no. 7, p. 156.

Seeber, L., and Armbruster, G., 1988, Seismicity along the

Atlantic seaboard of the U.S.: Intraplate neotectonicsand earthquake hazard, in Sheridan, R.E., and Grow,J.A., eds., The Atlantic Continental Margin, U.S.:Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America,Geology of North America, v. I-2, p. 565–582.

Shackleton, N.J., and Kennett, J.P., 1975, Paleotemperaturehistory of the Cenozoic and the initiation of Antarcticglaciation: Oxygen and carbon isotope analysis inDSDP Sites 277, 279, and 281, in Kennett, J.P., Houtz,R.E., eds., Initial reports of the Deep Sea DrillingProject, Volume 29: Washington, D.C., U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, p. 743–755.

Sheridan, R.E., and Grow, J.A., eds., 1988, The AtlanticContinental Margin, U.S.: Boulder, Colorado, Geolog-ical Society of America, Geology of North America,v. I-2, 610 p.

Sheridan, R.E., Olsson, R.K., and Miller, J.J., 1991, Seismicreflection and gravity study of proposed Taconic su-ture under the New Jersey Coastal Plain: Implicationsfor continental growth: Geological Society of AmericaBulletin, v. 103, p. 402–414.

Skinner, E.S., 2001, The upper Campanian Marshalltownsequence of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, Bass Riverand Ancora Boreholes [M.S. thesis]: New Brunswick,New Jersey, Rutgers University, 83 p.

Sohl, N.F., and Owens, J.P., 1991, Cretaceous stratigraphyof the Carolina Coastal Plain, in Horton, J.W., Jr., andZullo, V.A., eds., The geology of the Carolinas: Car-olina Geological Society fiftieth anniversary volume:Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press, p. 191–220.

Steckler, M.S., 1981, Thermal and mechanical evolution ofAtlantic-type margins [Ph.D. thesis]: New York, Co-lumbia University, 261 p.

Steckler, M.S., Mountain, G.S., Miller, K.G., and Christie-Blick, N., 1999, Reconstruction of Tertiary prograda-tion and clinoform development on the New Jerseypassive margin by 2-D backstripping: Marine Geolo-gy, v. 154, p. 399–420.

Stoll, H.M., and Schrag, D.P., 1996, Evidence for glacialcontrol of rapid sea level changes in the Early Cre-taceous: Science, v. 272, p. 1771–1774.

Sugarman, P.J., Miller, K.G., Bukry, D., and Feigenson,

M.D., 1995, Uppermost Campanian–Maestrichtianstrontium isotopic, biostratigraphic, and sequencestratigraphic framework of the New Jersey CoastalPlain: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107,p. 19–37.

Sugarman, P.J., Miller, K.G., Olsson, R.K., Browning, J.V.,Wright, J.D., de Romero, L.M., White, T.S., Muller,F.L., and Uptegrove, J., 1999, The Cenomanian/Tu-ronian carbon burial event, Bass River, NJ, USA: Geo-chemical, paleoecological, and sea-level changes:Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 29, p. 438–452.

Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M., Jr., Todd, R.G., Widmier, J.M.,Thompson, S., III, Sangree, J.B., Bubb, J.N., and Ha-tlelid, W.G., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and globalchanges of sea level: American Association of Petro-leum Geologists Memoir, v. 26, p. 49–212.

Van Sickel, W.A., Kominz, M.A., Miller, K.G., and Brown-ing, J.V., 2004, Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic sea-level estimates: Backstripping analysis of boreholedata, onshore, New Jersey: (in press).

Watts, A.B., and Steckler, M.S., 1979, Subsidence and eus-tasy at the continental margin of eastern North Amer-ica: American Geophysical Union Maurice Ewing Se-ries, v. 3, p. 218–234.

Weems, R.E., and Lewis, W.C., 2002, Structural and tec-tonic setting of the Charleston, South Carolina, region:Evidence from the Tertiary stratigraphic record: Geo-logical Society of America Bulletin, v. 114, p. 24–42.

Weller, S., 1907, A report on the Cretaceous paleontologyof New Jersey: Trenton, New Jersey, Geological Sur-vey of New Jersey Paleontology Series, v. 4, 871 p.

Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamen-tier, H.W., Ross, C.A., Van Wagoner, J.C., 1988, Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: Society ofEconomic Paleontologists and Mineralogists SpecialPublication, v. 42, 407 p.

MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY 17 OCTOBER 2002REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 29 MAY 2003MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED 31 JULY 2003

Printed in the USA

Date post:	18-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Upper Cretaceous sequences and sea-level history, New Jersey Coastal … · 2006-10-25 · Coastal...

Documents