Megablocks and melt pockets in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure constrained by magnetic field measurements and properties of the Eyreville and Cape Charles cores

A. K. Shah; D. L. Daniels; A. Kontny; J. Brozena

doi:10.1130/2009.2458(10)

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70035249

Megablocks and melt pockets in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure constrained by magnetic field measurements and properties of the Eyreville and Cape Charles cores

A. K. Shah·D. L. Daniels·A. Kontny·J. Brozena

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We use magnetic susceptibility and remanent magnetization measurements of the Eyreville and Cape Charles cores in combination with new and previously collected magnetic field data in order to constrain structural features within the inner basin of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure. The Eyreville core shows the first evidence of several-hundred-meter-thick basement-derived megablocks that have been transported possibly kilometers from their pre-impact location. The magnetic anomaly map of the structure exhibits numerous short-wavelength (<2 km) variations that indicate the presence of magnetic sources within the crater fill. With core magnetic properties and seismic reflection and refraction results as constraints, forward models of the magnetic field show that these sources may represent basementderived megablocks that are a few hundred meters thick or melt bodies that are a few dozen meters thick. Larger-scale magnetic field properties suggest that these bodies overlie deeper, pre-impact basement contacts between materials with different magnetic properties such as gneiss and schist or gneiss and granite. The distribution of the short-wavelength magnetic anomalies in combination with observations of small-scale (1-2 mGal) gravity field variations suggest that basement-derived megablocks are preferentially distributed on the eastern side of the inner crater, not far from the Eyreville core, at depths of around 1-2 km. A scenario where additional basement-derived blocks between 2 and 3 km depth are distributed throughout the inner basin-and are composed of more magnetic materials, such as granite and schist, toward the east over a large-scale magnetic anomaly high and less magnetic materials, such as gneiss, toward the west where the magnetic anomaly is lower-provides a good model fi t to the observed magnetic anomalies in a manner that is consistent with both gravity and seismic-refraction data. ?? 2009 The Geological Society of America.

Explore related subjects

Special Paper of the Geological Society of America Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

A. K. Shah, D. L. Daniels, A. Kontny, J. Brozena. 2009. Megablocks and melt pockets in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure constrained by magnetic field measurements and properties of the Eyreville and Cape Charles cores. https://doi.org/10.1130/2009.2458(10)

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2016

The Maryland Coastal Plain Aquifer Information System: A GIS-based tool for assessing groundwater resources

Groundwater is the source of drinking water for &sim;1.4 million people in the Coastal Plain Province of Maryland (USA). In addition, groundwater is essential for commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. Approximately 0.757 × 109 L d –1 (200 million gallons/d) were withdrawn in 2010. As a result of decades of withdrawals from the coastal plain confined aquifers, groundwater levels have declined by as much as 70 m (230 ft) from estimated prepumping levels. Other issues posing challenges to long-term groundwater sustainability include degraded water quality from both man-made and natural sources, reduced stream base flow, land subsidence, and changing recharge patterns (drought) caused by climate change. In Maryland, groundwater supply is managed primarily by the Maryland Department of the Environment, which seeks to balance reasonable use of the resource with long-term sustainability. The chief goal of groundwater management in Maryland is to ensure safe and adequate supplies for all current and future users through the implementation of appropriate usage, planning, and conservation policies. To assist in that effort, the geographic information system (GIS)–based Maryland Coastal Plain Aquifer Information System was developed as a tool to help water managers access and visualize groundwater data for use in the evaluation of groundwater allocation and use permits. The system, contained within an ESRI ArcMap desktop environment, includes both interpreted and basic data for 16 aquifers and 14 confining units. Data map layers include aquifer and confining unit layer surfaces, aquifer extents, borehole information, hydraulic properties, time-series groundwater-level data, well records, and geophysical and lithologic logs. The aquifer and confining unit layer surfaces were generated specifically for the GIS system. The system also contains select groundwater-quality data and map layers that quantify groundwater and surface-water withdrawals. The aquifer information system can serve as a pre- and postprocessing environment for groundwater-flow models for use in water-supply planning, development, and management. The system also can be expanded to include features that evaluate constraints to groundwater development, such as insufficient available drawdown, degraded groundwater quality, insufficient aquifer yields, and well-field interference. Ultimately, the aquifer information system is intended to function as an interactive Web-based utility that provides a broad array of information related to groundwater resources in Maryland’s coastal plain to a wide-ranging audience, including well drillers, consultants, academia, and the general public.

Special Paper of the Geological Society of America↗

USGS2015

The 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake and its significance for seismic hazards in eastern North America: overview and synthesis

The 23 August 2011 M w (moment magnitude) 5.7 ± 0.1, Mineral, Virginia, earthquake was the largest and most damaging in the central and eastern United States since the 1886 M w 6.8–7.0, Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. Seismic data indicate that the earthquake rupture occurred on a southeast-dipping reverse fault and consisted of three subevents that progressed northeastward and updip. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) "Did You Feel It?" intensity reports from across the eastern United States and southeastern Canada, rockfalls triggered at distances to 245 km, and regional groundwater-level changes are all consistent with efficient propagation of high-frequency seismic waves (&sim;1 Hz and higher) in eastern North America due to low attenuation. Reported damage included cracked or shifted foundations and broken walls or chimneys, notably in unreinforced masonry, and indicated intensities up to VIII in the epicentral area based on USGS "Did You Feel It?" reports. The earthquake triggered the first automatic shutdown of a U.S. nuclear power plant, located &sim;23 km northeast of the main shock epicenter. Although shaking exceeded the plant's design basis earthquake, the actual damage to safety-related structures, systems, and components was superficial. Damage to relatively tall masonry structures 130 km to the northeast in Washington, D.C., was consistent with source directivity, soft-soil ground-motion amplification, and anisotropic wave propagation with lower attenuation parallel to the northeast-trending Appalachian tectonic fabric. The earthquake and aftershocks occurred in crystalline rocks within Paleozoic thrust sheets of the Chopawamsic terrane. The main shock and majority of aftershocks delineated the newly named Quail fault zone in the subsurface, and shallow aftershocks defined outlying faults. The earthquake induced minor liquefaction sand boils, but notably there was no evidence of a surface fault rupture. Recurrence intervals, and evidence for larger earthquakes in the Quaternary in this area, remain important unknowns. This event, along with similar events during historical time, is a reminder that earthquakes of similar or larger magnitude pose a real hazard in eastern North America.

Virginia↗

USGS2015

Aftershocks illuminate the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake causative fault zone and nearby active faults

Deployment of temporary seismic stations after the 2011 Mineral, Virginia (USA), earthquake produced a well-recorded aftershock sequence. The majority of aftershocks are in a tabular cluster that delineates the previously unknown Quail fault zone. Quail fault zone aftershocks range from ~3 to 8 km in depth and are in a 1-km-thick zone striking ~036° and dipping ~50°SE, consistent with a 028°, 50°SE main-shock nodal plane having mostly reverse slip. This cluster extends ~10 km along strike. The Quail fault zone projects to the surface in gneiss of the Ordovician Chopawamsic Formation just southeast of the Ordovician–Silurian Ellisville Granodiorite pluton tail. The following three clusters of shallow (<3 km) aftershocks illuminate other faults. (1) An elongate cluster of early aftershocks, ~10 km east of the Quail fault zone, extends 8 km from Fredericks Hall, strikes ~035°–039°, and appears to be roughly vertical. The Fredericks Hall fault may be a strand or splay of the older Lakeside fault zone, which to the south spans a width of several kilometers. (2) A cluster of later aftershocks ~3 km northeast of Cuckoo delineates a fault near the eastern contact of the Ordovician Quantico Formation. (3) An elongate cluster of late aftershocks ~1 km northwest of the Quail fault zone aftershock cluster delineates the northwest fault (described herein), which is temporally distinct, dips more steeply, and has a more northeastward strike. Some aftershock-illuminated faults coincide with preexisting units or structures evident from radiometric anomalies, suggesting tectonic inheritance or reactivation.

Virginia↗