Empress Catherine II Saint-Petersburg Mining University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

M. G. Tsinkoburova, Associate Professor, Candidate of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences, maschek@mail.ru
L. P. Norova, Engineer, Candidate of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences
D. M. Smirnov, Post-Graduate Student
M. L. Baranovskaya, Student

Objects of geoheritage include natural (rock outcrops, landforms) and artificial (some quarries and artificial caves) objects that are valuable from a geological point of view; a special group among geoheritage is the key stratigraphic sections that clearly reflect the stages of geological development of the area. The authors make a revision of the state of stratotypes and a number of key sections of the Lower and Middle Frasnian of the eastern Main Devonian Field (MDF), many of which are the objects of geoheritage, having the status of both approved and unapproved geological monuments. Among the objects of regional geoheritage with the environmental status, there are stratigraphic (stratotypes of some subregional stratigraphic units), geomorphological, hydrogeological and complex geological monuments. For the second half of the 20^th century and to this day, there has been a significant reduction in the number of objects of regional geoheritage, clearly visible as the loss of many key and stratotype sections of the Lower and Middle Frasnian deposits. In addition to anthropogenic factors (mineral mining, agricultural and land reclamation works, deforestation and timber rafting), which represent the main danger to geoheritage, a key role is played by the lithological and facies features of the Lower and Middle Frasnian rocks, which determine the nature and dynamics of the development of hazardous geological processes. For the east of MDF, two structural-facies zones (SFZ) are distinguished—the Baltic–Ladoga and Izbor–Ilmen zones. The first zone in the Early and Middle Frasnian corresponded to the area of the internal depression of the marine basin (clay–carbonate nature of the section) and the marginal part of the sea (essentially carbonate nature of the section). In the Baltic–Ladoga SFZ in the Early and Middle Frasnian, there were conditions of coastal–marine and coastal–continental sedimentation (carbonate–clayey–terrigenous sections). The maximum loss of objects of geoheritage occurs in the areas of distribution of clayey–carbonate (the Shelon basin) and terrigenous–clayey–carbonate (the Syas basin) Frasnian rocks.

1. Lapo A. V. Problems of conservation and rationak usage of the geological heritage. Regionalnaya geologiya i metallogeniya. 2005. No. 23. pp. 51–59.
2. Tsinkoburova M. G., Norova L. P. On the allocation of regional geological monuments of the Main Devonian Field. Regional Research of Russia. 2023. Vol. 155, No. 1. pp. 73–88.
3. Chakraborty A., Gray M. A call for mainstreaming geodiversity in nature conservation research and praxis. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2020. Vol. 56. ID 125862.
4. Alahuhta J., Toivanen M., Hjort J. Geodiversity–biodiversity relationship needs more empirical evidence. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2020. Vol. 4, Iss. 1. pp. 2–3.
5. Boothroyd A., McHenry M. Old processes, new movements: The inclusion of geodiversity in biological and ecological discourse. Diversity. 2019. Vol. 11, Iss. 11. ID 216.
6. Verbitskiy V. R., Yanovskiy A. S., Berbitskiy I. V. et al. State Geological Map of the Russian Federation. Scale 1:1 000 000. Third Generation. Central European Series. Geological Map of Pre-Quaternary Sediments. Sheet О-35 (Pskov), (N-35), О-36 (Saint-Petersburg). Moscow : VSEGEI, 2010.
7. Ziegler W., Sandberg C. A. The late Devonian Standard Conodont Zonation. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg. 1990. Vol. 121. 115 p.
8. Zhuravlev A. V., Sokiran E. V., Evdokimova I. O., Dorofeeva L. A., Rusetskaya G. A. et al. Faunal and facies changes at the Early–Middle Frasnian boundary in the north−western East European Platform. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 2006. Vol. 51(4). pp. 747–758.
9. Becker R. T., Marshall J. E. A., Da Silva A.-C., Agterberg F. P., Gradstein F. M. et al. The Devonian Period. Geologic Time Scale 2020. Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2020. Vol. 2. pp. 733–810.
10. Evdokimova I. O. About the problem of the Middle-Upper Devonian boundary in the East European Platform. Vestnik geonauk. 2023. No. 1(337). pp. 4–15.
11. Telnova O. P. About Middle–Upper Devonian boundary. Vestnik geonauk. 2023. No. 1(337). pp. 52–54.
12. Ivanov A. O. Assemblages of vertebrates and zones from the Upper Givetian and Lower Frasnian of the East European Platform and Urals. Vestnik geonauk. 2023. No. 1(337). pp. 23–29.
13. Kolodyazhny S. Yu., Poleshchuk A. V., Zykov D. S. Latent tectonics of the Central Russian Deformation Belt of the East European Platform. Geotectonics. 2021. Vol. 55, No. 4. pp. 473–501.
14. Sorokin V. S. The Frasnian-Age Development Stages in the Northwest of the Russian Platform. Riga : Zinatne, 1978. 282 p.
15. Venyukova P. Devonian Sediments of European Russia. Experience of Subdividing and Parallelization. Saint-Petersburg : Tipografiya V. Demakova, 1884. 303 p.
16. Strangways W. T. H. F. An outline of the Geology of Russia. Transactions of the Geological Society of London. 2nd series. London, 1822. Vol. 1. pp. 1–39.
17. Gekker R. F. Taphonomic and Economic Features of Flora and Fauna in the Main Devonian Field. Moscow : Nauka, 1983. 141 p.
18. Bulakh A. G., Popov G. N., Yanson S. Yu., Ivanov M. A. New data on the granite pedestal of the monument to Peter the Great “The Bronze Horseman” in Saint Petersburg. Journal of Mining Institute. 2021. Vol. 248. pp. 180–189.
19. Antipov I., Antonov A., Jolshin D., Savchenok A., Tarasenko A. et al. Natural stone in the 14th–15th-century secular buildings of the Novgorod Kremlin. Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2021. Vol. 48. pp. 312–318.
20. Dashko R. E., Lokhmatikov G. A. The Upper Kotlin clays of the Saint Petersburg region as a foundation and medium for unique facilities: An engineering-geological and geotechnical analysis. Journal of Mining Institute. 2022. Vol. 254. pp. 180–190.
21. Nabatov V. V., Voznesenskii A. S. Geomechanical analysis of the impact of the new tunnels construction in the vicinity of existing underground subway structures on the state of the soil massif. Journal of Mining Institute. 2023. Vol. 264. pp. 926–936.
22. Ponomarev A. B., Zakharov A. V., Tatyannikov D. A., Shalamova E. A. Geotechnical monitoring in the urban construction environment. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 2023. Vol. 60, No. 5. pp. 452–458.
23. Ponomarenko M. R., Kutepov Yu. I., Volkov M. A., Grinyuk A. P. Satellite methods within integrated land surface deformation monitoring in a mine field. MIAB. 2020. No. 12. pp. 103–113.
24. Glazunov V. V., Burlutsky S. B., Shuvalova R. A., Zhdanov S. V. Improving the reliability of 3D modelling of a landslide slope based on engineering geophysics data. Journal of Mining Institute. 2022. Vol. 257. pp. 771–782.
25. Akmatov D. Zh., Manevich A. I., Tatarinov V. N., Shevchuk R. V., Zabrodin S. M. Assessment of rock massif sustainability in the area of the underground research laboratory (Nizhnekanskii Massif, Enisei site). Journal of Mining Institute. 2024. Vol. 266. pp. 167–178.
26. Danilev S. M., Sekerina D. D., Danileva N. A. Localization of sites for the development of geomechanical processes in underground workings based on the results of the transformation and classification analysis of seismic data. Journal of Mining Institute. 2024. Vol. 266. pp. 260–271.
27. Azancheev Yu. Stone Pits and Simple Mineral Mining in Russia. Saint-Petersburg : Gornyi Departament, 1894. 346 p.
28. Khrushchov I. Notes about Russian residents on the Oyat river-sides. Notes of the Emperor Russian Geographic Society. Saint-Petersburg : tipografiya V. N., Maykova, 1869. Vol. II. pp. 51–75.
29. Tsvylev S. A. Native stone in architecture of ancient Pskov : Historical summery of annalistic and new exposed archival data. Series : Regional Ethnographer S. V. Tsvylev’s Heritage. Pskov, 2015. Vol. 1. 60 p.