SEARCH · USGS Science
Results for “Tectonics”
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The East Range, northwestern Nevada: A neglected key to the tectonic history of the region
The East Range occupies a strategic position at the western edge of the exposed western facies terrane near the Paleozoic continental margin. There a Cambrian and Ordovician deep-water sequence including the Preble and Valmy Formations is overlain by middle to upper Paleozoic strata that are assigned to three separate stratigraphic sequences on published geologic maps of the range. The three sequences, which include the Havallah sequence, the Inskip Formation, and the Harmony Formation, originally were perceived to be of different ages and lithic composition. The strata assigned to the Havallah are now known to contain conodonts of Late Devonian to Permian ages, and fusulinids of Permian age; those assigned to the Inskip contain conodonts of Early Mississippian and Permian ages and corals of Mississippian age. Strata assigned to the Harmony are undated paleontologically. All three are composed mainly of siliceous deep-water sedimentary deposits. Lower beds of the Havallah and Inskip totalling hundreds of meters in thickness are composed of arkosic sandstone and conglomerate identical to that composing most of the Harmony. The Havallah and Inskip lie disconformably on the quartzitic, middle part of the Valmy Formation. The Harmony lies concordantly on distinctive chert beds at the top of the Valmy Formation. Assuming the latter contact is disconformable rather than a bedding-parallel fault, the East Range displays the stratigraphic bases of all three arkosic map units. The disconformable relation of the Havallah and Inskip to the Valmy Formation indicates elevation of deep-water deposits, subaerial erosion down to Middle Ordovician, and in Late Devonian a return to deep immersion. There is no evidence here of Late Devonian to Early Mississippian folding. Major folds in the East Range must be of Jurassic or younger age because Upper Triassic strata are involved. Evidence of large-scale thrust-faulting is notably scarce. The existence of the Willow Creek thrust shown on published maps of the East Range was based on the mistaken belief that strata below the Valmy Formation are of Triassic age whereas they are actually of Cambrian and earliest Ordovician age.
Tectonic transition zone in the northeastern Caribbean
Seismic reflection data indicate that the Atlantic plate has been underthrust beneath the Caribbean plate east of the Lesser Antilles. The data further reveal that the transition from underthrust to strike-slip plate motion occurs near lat 19.3° N. and long 62° W. in alinement with the Anegada Trough. Oceanic basement and reflectors above basement have not been detected beneath the landward wall of the Puerto Rico Trench west of the transition zone. Southeast of the zone, the horizontal distance over which the reflectors and basement can be traced beneath the landward wall (outer part of the Lesser Antilles rise) systematically increases from a few kilometers in the north to as much as 37 km near lat 16.5° N. If a thrust fault emerges at the landward trench wall, the data suggest that a decollement exists between reflectors above basement and an overlying acoustically transparent zone. Gravity and seismic refraction data indicate a thick accumulation of low-density, low-velocity material beneath the Lesser Antilles rise, possibly sediments scraped off the underthrusting Atlantic plate, although massive slumping might cause a similar low-density configuration. The magmatic history of the Lesser Antilles arc suggests two periods of underthrusting, one in the Mesozoic or early Cenozoic and a second in the late Cenozoic. Although the magmatic history of the Lesser Antilles apparently began in the Mesozoic, its Cenozoic history is remarkably similar to the Cenozoic histories of circum-Pacific arcs. Magmatic histories in both areas suggest that island arc evolution in the Cenozoic may have worldwide synchroneity.
Paleozoic tectonics in the Edna Mountain quadrangle, Nevada
Geologic mapping at scale 1:24,000 of the Edna Mountain 15-minute quadrangle, Humboldt County, Nev., revealed two episodes of pre-Mesozoic deformation that are difficult to reconcile with either the Antler or the Sonoma orogeny. We believe that the older episode predated the Antler orogeny and may be as old as Late Cambrian. The younger episode may have been more localized, predated the Sonoma orogeny, and was probably Late Pennsylvanian to Permian in age. Deformation related to Antler and Sonoma orogenies also occurred. These four episodes suggest that cycles of uplift, folding, faulting, and erosion began early in the development of the southern Cordillera and continued intermittently throughout Paleozoic time. West of the continental shelf was a broad subsiding basin marked by narrow troughs and elongate structural highs which emerged, matured, and diminished at different times. Waxing and waning deformation in various parts of the geosyncline acting upon local "highs" and troughs can explain the seemingly erratic distribution in north-central Nevada of different fades of time-correlative stratigraphic units and structural blocks of Paleozoic age. Telescoping of facies by thrust faulting certainly took place, but large displacements within brief periods are not essential to the validity of the explanation.
Thin-skinned tectonics and potential hydrocarbon traps: Illustrated by a seismic profile in the Valley and Ridge province of Tennessee
Seismic data, although limited to a small part of the western half of the Valley and Ridge province in Tennessee, confirm that the structural style is thin-skinned and that there is a fundamental change from west to east in both the total section preserved and the structural complexities that exist in the subsurface. Cambrian to Upper Ordovician rocks in the Valley and Ridge province have been thrust westward over a 4-mile (6.4-km) projection of Cambrian through Mississippian rocks of the Appalachian Plateau. Structure within the plateau projection is characterized by splay anticlines, whereas structure in the Valley and Ridge is dominated by a series of imbricate thrust sheets containing isolated fault-bound masses of Cambrian sandstone and shale. Both splay anticlines and large fault-bound masses of rocks preserved in the subsurface in east Tennessee may be favorable fracture-porosity traps for the accumulation of hydrocarbons.
Age and tectonic setting of lower Paleozoic alkalic and mafic rocks, carbonatites, and thorium veins in South-central Colorado
Alkalic igneous rocks were emplaced into heterogeneous terrane of Precambrian X and Precambrian Y rocks about 570 m.y. ago (Cambrian or upper Precambrian) in the Powderhorn area in Gunnison County and about 520 m.y. ago (Cambrian) in the McClure Mountain, Gem Park, and Democrat Creek areas in the northern Wet Mountains, Fremont and Custer Counties. The radiometric ages are based upon studies by K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and fission-track methods. Associated with these alkalic rock complexes are numerous thorium-bearing veins and red syenite dikes; some, if not all, in the northern Wet Mountains were formed about 495 m.y. ago. Diabase, gabbro, and other mafic dikes appear to be slightly younger than the thorium veins in the Powderhorn area and both older and younger in the Wet Mountains region. In the Powderhorn district, an older group of syenites also intruded Precambrian rocks as plugs or small stocks about 1350-1400 m.y. ago. The various dike rocks and the thorium veins were formed in extensive, deep fractures, indicating a condition of tension or shear in this part of the crust during Cambrian or very late Precambrian to Ordovician time. The localized alkalic magmatisin may reflect melting spots in the mantle. In the two principal areas, 135 km apart, the episodes of alkalic magmatism differ in age by about 50 m.y., the younger toward the east. The age relations might be explained by migration of the sites of localized melting or volatile enrichment in the mantle or westward movement of the continent above a single site.
Appendix A: Description of the Northeast Asia Project and Associated Products
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Appendix B: Description of Map Units for Northeast Asia Summary Geodynamics Map
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Appendix C: Summary of Major Metallogenic Belts in Northeast Asia (the Russian Far East, Yakutia, Siberia, Transbaikalia, Northern China, Mongolia, South Korea, and Japan)
The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.
Circum-North Pacific tectonostratigraphic terrane map
The companion tectonostratigraphic terrane and overlap assemblage of map the Circum-North Pacific presents a modern description of the major geologic and tectonic units of the region. The map illustrates both the onshore terranes and overlap volcanic assemblages of the region, and the major offshore geologic features. The map is the first collaborative compilation of the geology of the region at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by geologists of the Russian Far East, Japanese, Alaskan, Canadian, and U.S.A. Pacific Northwest. The map is designed to be a source of geologic information for all scientists interested in the region, and is designed to be used for several purposes, including regional tectonic analyses, mineral resource and metallogenic analyses (Nokleberg and others, 1993, 1994a), petroleum analyses, neotectonic analyses, and analyses of seismic hazards and volcanic hazards. This text contains an introduction, tectonic definitions, acknowledgments, descriptions of postaccretion stratified rock units, descriptions and stratigraphic columns for tectonostratigraphic terranes in onshore areas, and references for the companion map (Sheets 1 to 5). This map is the result of extensive geologic mapping and associated tectonic studies in the Russian Far East, Hokkaido Island of Japan, Alaska, the Canadian Cordillera, and the U.S.A. Pacific Northwest in the last few decades. Geologic mapping suggests that most of this region can be interpreted as a collage of fault-bounded tectonostratigraphic terranes that were accreted onto continental margins around the Circum- . orth Pacific mainly during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic (Fujita and ewberry, 1983; 1987; Parfenov, 1984, 1991; Howell, 1985; Watson and Fujita, 1985; Parfenov and Natal'in, 1984; Jones and others. 1987; Monger and Berg, 1987, Fujita and Cook. 1990; Zonenshain and others. 1990; Natal'in, 1991, 1993; Moore and others, 1992; Silberling and others, 1992; Nokleberg and others. 1992, 1993, 1994a; Parfenov and others. 1993; Plaflcer and Berg, 1994; Tabor, 1994). This map is the result of extensive geologic mapping and associated tectonic studies in the Russian Far East, Hokkaido Island of Japan, Alaska, the Canadian Cordillera, and the U.S.A. Pacific Northwest in the last few decades. Geologic mapping suggests that most of this region can be interpreted as a collage of fault-bounded tectonostratigraphic terranes that were accreted onto continental margins around the Circum- . orth Pacific mainly during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic (Fujita and ewberry, 1983; 1987; Parfenov, 1984, 1991; Howell, 1985; Watson and Fujita, 1985; Parfenov and Natal'in, 1984; Jones and others. 1987; Monger and Berg, 1987, Fujita and Cook. 1990; Zonenshain and others. 1990; Natal'in, 1991, 1993; Moore and others, 1992; Silberling and others, 1992; Nokleberg and others. 1992, 1993, 1994a; Parfenov and others. 1993; Plaflcer and Berg, 1994; Tabor, 1994). On the companion map and in the descriptions bel?w· terranes are interpreted according to inferred tectonic environments. These environments are (I) cratonai; (2) passive continental margin; (3) metamorphosed continental margin; (4) continental-margin arc; (5) island arc; (6) oceanic crust, seamount, and ophiolite; (7) accretionary wedge and subduction zone: (8) turbidite basin; and (9) metamorphic for terranes that are too highly-deformed and metamorphosed to de~ermine the original tectonic environment. For terranes with complex geologic histories, the chosen color indicates the tectonic environment most prevalent during this history of the terrane. The tectonic environments inf~rred for igneous rocks are both temporal and genetic. The temporal environments are preaccretion and postaccretion. The genetic environments are subduction-related, rift-related, and collisional (anatectic)- related. In addition to terranes, the map also depicts postaccretion units that include: (I) Cenozoic and Mesozoic overlap assemblages of sedimentary and volcanic rocks that are deposited across two or more terranes that formed generally after accretion of most terranes in the region; (2) Cenozoic and Mesozoic basinal deposits that occur within a terrane or on the craton; (3) plutonic rocks. The postaccretion igneous units are identified by age-lithologic abbreviations and by name. These overlap assemblages and basinal deposits formed mainly during sedimentation and magmatism that occurred after accretion of terranes to each other or to a continental margin. Overlap assemblages provide minimum ages on the timing of accretion of terranes. Some Cenozoic and Mesozoic overlap assemblages and basinal deposits, as well as fragments of terranes, are extensively offset by movement along postaccretion faults. In addition, in onshore areas, the map depicts major preaccretion plutonic rocks that are limited to individual terranes. and in offshore areas. the map depicts major oceanic plates,-ocean floor magnetic lineations. oceanic spreading ridges, and seamounts. The map consists of five sheets. Sheets I and 2 depict, at a scale of I :5.000.000. the tectonostratigraphic terranes. preaccretion plutonic rocks, and postaccretion Cenozoic and Mesozoic overlap sedimentary, volcanic. and plutonic assemblages, and basinal deposits for the Circum- orth Pacific including the Russian Far East, northern Hokkaido Island of Japan, Alaska. the Canadian Cordillera, part of the U.S.A. Pacific Northwest. and adjacent offshore areas. Sheet 3 provides the list of map units for Sheets I and 2. Sheet 4 is a index map showing generalized onshore terranes and overlap assemblages for onshore parts of the Circum-North Pacific at a scale of I: I 0,000,000. Sheet 4 is a guide to the more complicated onshore features depicted on Sheets I and 2. Sheet 5 is an index map showing the major geographic regions for the Circum-North Pacific. Significant differences exist between the representation of onshore and offshore geology on Sheets I and 2. These are: (I) compared to the onshore part of the map, the offshore part is depicted in a more schematic fashion because of more limited data and because the offshore terranes and early Cenozoic and older overlap assemblages generally are obscured by extensive late Cenozoic sedimentary cover that is not shown unless thicker than two kilometers; (2) marginal contacts of offshore Cenozoic and Cretaceous sedimentary basins do not match contacts of onshore Cenozoic and Cretaceous sedimentary units because offshore basins are limited to those regions with sediment thicknesses greater than two kilometers; (3) stratigraphic columns, included at the end of this explanation. are provided only for onshore terranes because the geology of offshore terranes is generally less well-known; and (4) for simplicity, the major onshore Cenozoic sedimentary basins are generally not defined and described separately because the onshore part of the map is designed to emphasize terranes and overlap volcanic assemblages that are crucial for both for tectonic and metallogenic analyses published elsewhere (Nokleberg and others, 1993, 1994a). Several key geologic sources were used in the compilation of the map. For Alaska. the basic outcrop pattern for the map is from Beikman (1980), Gehrels and Berg (1992, 1994). Barker and others ( 1994). Brew (1994), and Moli-Stalcup and others ( 1994b). The distribution of terranes is from Jones and others (1987) and Monger and Berg (1987), with modification by Grantz and other (1991 ). Worall (199 1 ), okleberg and others (1993, 1994a), the cited references, and the Alaskan co-authors of this report. For the Canadian Cordillera. the basic outcrop pattern is from Monger and Berg ( 1987), Wheeler and other (1988). and Wheeler and McFeeley ( 1991) with modifications by the Canadian authors. For the northern part of the Russian Far East. the basic outcrop pattern is from So unov (1985) with modifications by the Russian authors. For the outhern part of the Russian Far East, the basic outcrop pattern is from Krasny (1991) and Bazhanov and Oleinik ( 1986) with modification by the Russian authors. The Russian Far East part of the map is the first attempt to define and delineate terranes in that region. In their compilation. the Russian authors utilized the methodology of U.S.A. and Canadian geologists. Because this map is the first attempt to display the terranes. Cenozoic and Mesozoic overlap assemblages. basinal deposit , and plutonic belts of the Russian Far East. the Russian author will appreciate constructive sugge tions for improving the map.
Effects of the earthquake of March 27, 1964 on the communities of Kodiak and nearby islands
The great earthquake (Richter magnitude of 8.4–8.5) that struck south-central Alaska at 5:36 p.m., Alaska standard time, on March 27, 1964 (03:36, March 28, Greenwich mean time), was felt in every community on Kodiak Island and the nearby islands. It was the most severe earthquake to strike this part of Alaska in modern time, and took the lives of 18 persons in the area by drowning; this includes two in Kodiak and three at Kaguyak. Property damage and loss of income to the communities is estimated at more than $45 million. The largest community, Kodiak, had the greatest loss from the earthquake. Damage was caused chiefly by 5.6 feet of tectonic subsidence and a train of 10 seismic sea waves that inundated the low-lying areas of the town. The seismic sea waves destroyed all but one of the docking facilities and more than 215 structures; many other structures were severely damaged. The waves struck the town during the evening hours of March 27 and early morning hours of March 28. They moved from the southwest and northeast: and reached their maximum height of 20–30 feet above mean lower low water at Shahafka Cove between 11:00 and 11:45 p.m., March 27. The violently destructive seismic sea waves not only severely damaged homes, shops, and naval-station structures but also temporarily crippled the fishing industry in Kodiak by destroying the processing plants and most of the fishing vessels. The waves scoured out 10 feet of sediments in the channel between Kodiak Island and Near Island and exposed bedrock. This bedrock presented a major post-earthquake construction problem because no sediments remained into which piles could be driven for foundations of waterfront facilities. Because of tectonic subsidence, high tides now flood Mission and Potatopatch Lakes which, before the earthquake, had not been subject to tidal action. The subsidence also accelerated erosion of the unconsolidated sediments along the shoreline in the city of Kodiak. Seismic shaking lasted 4½–5½ minutes at Kodiak and had a rolling motion. Inasmuch as most of Kodiak is underlain by bedrock or by only a thin veneer of unconsolidated sediments, very little if any damage occurred from ground motion or seismic shaking. The ground motion, however, did cause a massive short circuit and power failure at Kodiak. The Kodiak Naval Station, 5 miles southwest of Kodiak, was also severely damaged by the earthquake. The station was inundated by at least 10 seismic sea waves which reached a maximum height of 25 feet above post-earthquake mean lower low water between 11:16 and 11:34 p.m. on March 27, 1964. The first seismic sea wave that inundated the station did not do severe damage because it behaved much like a rapid rise of tide, but the subsequent and more violent waves destroyed most of the docking facilities and several other shoreline structures. The waves struck the station from the southwest and from the east. The shoreline structures that were not destroyed required rehabilitation because the 5.6 feet of tectonic subsidence put them under water during the highest tides. Furthermore the subsidence accelerated erosion during high tide of the soft unconsolidated sediments and fill in the low-lying areas of the station. Seismic shaking did little damage to the station housing facility, but it was responsible for compaction of sediments, lateral displacement of a seawall, and the development of fissures in the aircraft parking area. The ground motion was as south-southeast–north-northwest to north-south in direction. An unusual case of radioactive contamination was reported at the naval station. The inundating seismic sea waves entered a building in which radionuclides were stored. The contamination was restricted to the building only, however, and did not spread throughout the station. Afognak was abandoned because of the extensive damage incurred from tectonic subsistence and seismic sea waves. The seismic effects, estimated Mercalli intensity VI-VII, did not directly cause any significant property damage at Afognak Serious long-term damage, however, resulted from tectonic subsidence estimated to be from 3½ to 5½ feet. The subsidence has resulted in rapid erosion of the coast, landward shift and building up of bench berms to the new higher sea levels, and flooding of extensive low-lying areas behind the barrier beaches. Inundation of low-lying parts of the village by a train of seismic sea waves having maximum heights of 10.8 feet above post-earthquake tide level (14.5 ft above post-earthquake mean lower low water) caused losses of about half a million dollars to homes, vehicles, bridges, and personal possessions. Uzinki was damaged by tectonic subsidence and seismic sea waves. No significant damage resulted from the ground motion during the earthquake; the Mercalli intensity was about VI. However, tectonic subsidence, estimated to be 5 feet, caused inundation of a narrow zone along the waterfront. Structures and vessels were damaged as a result of the seismic sea waves that repeatedly flooded the waterfront area after the earthquake. Old Harbor was damaged by seismic shock, subsidence, and seismic sea waves. The tremors, which had a Mercalli intensity estimated at VII-VIII, toppled two concrete-block chimneys, cracked interior walls, and caused minor breakage of personal property in the homes. Regional tectonic subsidence and superficial subsidence of the unconsolidated deposits on which the village is situated apparently caused incursion of salt water into the school well. A quarter of million yards of fill was required to raise the waterfront areas to their pre-earthquake elevations relative to sea level. Seismic sea waves having a maximum runup of about 12 feet above tide level (16 ft above post-earthquake mean lower low water) destroyed 34 of the 35 residences in the village and presumably drowned one man who lived immediately across the strait from Old Harbor. At Kaguyak, seismic sea waves having a maximum runup of about 25 feet above mean lower low water carried away all 10 buildings in the village, took three lives, and damaged an unknown number of fishing vessels. The village site has been abandoned. The communities of Akhiok, Karluk, and Larsen Bay were virtually undamaged by the earthquake tremors, which had estimated Mercalli intensities of VI-VII, but tectonic subsidence of about 2–2½ feet at Larsen Bay made it necessary to raise the cannery dock level at an estimated cost of $80,000.
Comparison of deep structure along three transects of the western North American continental margin
Similarities in geology and potential field data that have in the past been noted among the regions of southern Alaska, southern Vancouver Island, and central California are now seen to be accompanied by similarities in deep crustal structure. A number of tectonic elements have been identified in the deep structure along transects in these three regions, although not all elements are present along each transect. These elements are (A) an actively subducting oceanic plate and (B) an overriding continental plate that consists of (1) a Cenozoic accretionary prism, (2) a Mesozoic accretionary prism, (3) a backstop to the Mesozoic prism, (4) a tectonically underplated body of oceanic rocks, and (5) a crustal root. The Mesozoic prism is in some cases an underthrust body (type 2a) but in other cases forms the principal component of a landward verging tectonic wedge (type 2b). The technically underplated body of oceanic rocks extends landward from the fault contact between the Cenozoic and Mesozoic prisms to a point beneath the backstop. The crustal root lies beneath the backstop and landward of the underplated body. All of these elements are interpreted to be present along the Alaskan and Vancouver Island transects. In Alaska the underplated body is interpreted to be fragments of the Kula plate; the same may be true at Vancouver Island. These two transects appear to differ in that, in Alaska, the Mesozoic prism, in one interpretation, is the principal component of a tectonic wedge (type 2b), whereas at Vancouver Island, it is an underthrust body (type 2a). Along the central California transect, active subduction is no longer taking place, and the San Andreas fault has removed the Cenozoic prism from this region of the North American plate. On the North American plate (i.e., east of the San Andreas fault), the Mesozoic prism, interpreted as the main component of a tectonic wedge (type 2b), and the backstop to the Mesozoic prism are present. There is, however, no clear evidence of tectonically underplated oceanic rocks, and the crust is thin (no root). In both Alaska and Vancouver Island, the Mesozoic prisms above the underplated bodies experienced low-pressure/high-temperature metamorphism at about the time of tectonic underplating; no such metamorphism is currently exposed in California. The metamorphism may have been caused by the underplating of young, hot oceanic crust, or, alternatively, by subduction of an oceanic ridge. The presence of a tectonic wedge (type 2b) in Alaska and California and the absence of such a wedge at Vancouver Island could arise either from the fact that in the former two locations the Mesozoic prisms were more voluminous, owing to either more rapid trench sedimentation or more rapid convergence, or to the possibility that at the latter location the Mesozoic prism was juxtaposed with the backstop primarily by strike-slip faulting.
Evolution of deep structure along the trans-Alaska crustal transect, Chugach Mountains and Copper River Basin, southern Alaska
One of the most important results of the Trans-Alaska Crustal Transect investigations is the discovery that more than one third of the North American plate in southern Alaska (Chugach Mountains and Copper River basin) consists of tectonically underplated oceanic lithosphere. In southern Alaska, exposed accreted tectonostratigraphic terranes, include, from south to north along the transect, the Prince William, Chugach, Peninsular, and Wrangellia terranes. Chief results from seismic refraction data include the following: (1) A sequence of layers of low and high velocity (5.7–7.8 km/s), more than 10 km thick, dips gently northward, with its top at the surface in the southernmost Chugach terrane and at more than 20-km depth beneath the southern Peninsular terrane. A high-velocity layer at the top of this sequence corresponds to metabasalt in the southernmost Chugach terrane. This sequence is interpreted to be tectonically underplated fragments of the Kula plate and its sedimentary overburden. (2) An intermediate-velocity layer (6.35–6.5 km/s) at 9-km depth beneath both the northern Chugach and southern Peninsular terranes appears to extend without offset across the deep projection of the suture between these two terranes, the Border Ranges fault system. (3) A crustal “root” between depths of 19 and 57 km beneath the northern Peninsular and Wrangellia terranes appears to extend without offset across the deep projection of the suture between these two terranes, the West Fork fault system. This crustal root also appears to abut the tectonically underplated sequence to the south. Unfortunately, in results 2 and 3 the apparent crosscutting and abutting relationships can not be unambiguously resolved. Three scenarios, A, B, and C, have been offered to explain the evolution of this structure. Scenarios A and B differ in interpretation of the depth extent of the northern Chugach and southern Peninsular terranes. In scenario A these terranes extend to only 9-km depth, where they rest on an unknown middle crust, interpreted as a deeper part of the Peninsular terrane. In this scenario, the northern Chugach and southern Peninsular terrenes moved landward as a tectonic wedge, during tectonic underplating in the latest Cretaceous or early Tertiary, and uplifted the upper crust of the Peninsular terrane to the north. In scenario B, the northern Chugach and southern Peninsular terranes extend to 20-km depth. In this scenario, they were compressed but not detached and displaced during accretion. Scenarios A, B, and C differ in interpretation of the deep crustal root that appears to abut the tectonically underplated sequence. Since the Peninsular and Wrangellia terranes were at or below sea level prior to the mid-Cretaceous, the root was probably emplaced in mid-Cretaceous or younger times. In scenario A the root is lower crust of North America that moved southward during tectonic underplating of the Kula plate. In scenario B the root is, in part, tectonically underplated rocks similar to the Kula plate sequence to the south. In scenario C the root is, in part, magmatically underplated rocks.
Slope failure and mass transport processes along the Queen Charlotte Fault, southeastern Alaska
The Queen Charlotte Fault defines the Pacific–North America transform plate boundary in western Canada and southeastern Alaska for c. 900 km. The entire length of the fault is submerged along a continental margin dominated by Quaternary glacial processes, yet the geomorphology along the margin has never been systematically examined due to the absence of high-resolution seafloor mapping data. Hence the geological processes that influence the distribution, character and timing of mass transport events and their associated hazards remain poorly understood. Here we develop a classification of the first-order shape of the continental shelf, slope and rise to examine potential relationships between form and process dominance. We found that the margin can be split into six geomorphic groups that vary smoothly from north to south between two basic end-members. The northernmost group (west of Chichagof Island, Alaska) is characterized by concave-upwards slope profiles, gentle slope gradients (<6°) and relatively low along-strike variance, all features characteristic of sediment-dominated siliciclastic margins. Dendritic submarine canyon/channel networks and retrogressive failure complexes along relatively gentle slope gradients are observed throughout the region, suggesting that high rates of Quaternary sediment delivery and accumulation played a fundamental part in mass transport processes. Individual failures range in area from 0.02 to 70 km2 and display scarp heights between 10 and 250 m. Transpression along the Queen Charlotte Fault increases southwards and the slope physiography is thus progressively more influenced by regional-scale tectonic deformation. The southernmost group (west of Haida Gwaii, British Columbia) defines the tectonically dominated end-member: the continental slope is characterized by steep gradients (>20°) along the flanks of broad, margin-parallel ridges and valleys. Mass transport features in the tectonically dominated areas are mostly observed along steep escarpments and the larger slides (up to 10 km2) appear to be failures of consolidated material along the flanks of tectonic features. Overall, these observations highlight the role of first-order margin physiography on the distribution and type of submarine landslides expected to occur in particular morphological settings. The sediment-dominated end-member allows for the accumulation of under-consolidated Quaternary sediments and shows larger, more frequent slides; the rugged physiography of the tectonically dominated end-member leads to sediment bypass and the collapse of uplifted tectonic features. The maximum and average dimensions of slides are an order of magnitude smaller than those of slides observed along other (passive) glaciated margins. We propose that the general patterns observed in slide distribution are caused by the interplay between tectonic activity (long- and short-term) and sediment delivery. The recurrence (<100 years) of M > 7 earthquakes along the Queen Charlotte Fault may generate small, but frequent, failures of under-consolidated Quaternary sediments within the sediment-dominated regions. By contrast, the tectonically dominated regions are characterized by the bypass of Quaternary sediments to the continental rise and the less frequent collapse of steep, uplifted and consolidated sediments.
A geologic history of the north-central Appalachians. Part 1. Orogenesis from the Mesoproterozoic through the Taconic orogeny
The north-central Appalachians lie just southwest of the boundary between the central/southern and northern Appalachians, occupying a critical position within the 3000+ km-long Appalachian orogen. The history of tectonic activity in the north-central Appalachians spans more than one billion years, from the assembly and breakup of a Neoproterozoic supercontinent, through active orogenesis during Laurentia's Paleozoic northward journey off the western margin of West Gondwana, to the Mesozoic transformation of the active orogen into a passive margin during Pangea's disassembly. The major tectonic events include five compressional orogenies and two extensional episodes: 1. The late Mesoproterozoic Grenville orogeny assembled several continental masses into the Neoproterozoic supercontinent, Rodinia. It was the most widespread but now least exposed tectonism, and rocks involved in this event underlie as basement most of the exposed north-central Appalachians. Large fragments of Laurentian Grenville rock were subsequently broken off and incorporated in later Appalachian orogenesis. 2. Crustal extension and rifting late in the Neoproterozoic and into the earliest Cambrian separated Laurentia from West Gondwana, thereby forming the intervening Theic ocean and two continental rifts on Laurentia's eastern margin, the Catoctin rift and, later in the Middle? to Late Cambrian, the so-called "Rome" trough. The initial siliciclastic sedimentation on the margin migrated westward through time onto the craton, supplanted by a thick and increasingly wide carbonate shelf on Laurentia's eastern margin. Two microcontinents of Grenville-age, non-Laurentian(?) continental rock became positioned east of Laurentia, thereby creating the Octoraro sea as an arm of Theia. 3. In Theia, east of the two microcontinents, magmatic arcs developed over a subduction zone late in the Cambrian. Convergence within Theia caused the Potomac orogeny, which obduced the arcs (Wilmington Complex, Cecil Amalgamate) over the microcontinents and associated Theic deposits (including accretionary wedge sediments). 4. Continued westward convergence collapsed the Octoraro sea, producing the Middle to Late Ordovician Taconic orogeny in which the Potomac-deformed magmatic arcs and associated Theic elements were obduced onto the Laurentian continental margin. This obduction: drowned the carbonate shelf with siliciclastic sediments (Martinsburg Formation); drove continental rise and basinal deposits over the carbonate shelf on the Martic thrust; slid the Hamburg klippe onto the shelf; and accreted the Potomac package of microcontinent/arc/basinal-sediments onto the Laurentian margin. This orogeny transformed the broad Early Paleozoic carbonate shelf into the Appalachian basin that persisted throughout the Middle and Late Paleozoic. 5. The Middle Devonian Acadian orogeny ended the largely paralic environment that dominated the Appalachian basin during the Late Silurian. Active orogenesis in New England probably extended southward to the north-central Appalachians, because a vast amount of terrigenous sediment was introduced into the Appalachian basin to form the Catskill delta; however, evidence of actual Acadian deformation and metamorphism is lacking at this latitude. These presumed internal Acadides have yet to be found. 6. The convergence of West Gondwana and Laurentia during the Late Carboniferous and earliest Permian produced the Permian Alleghany orogeny in the north-central Appalachians. This widespread decollement tectonism directly affected a larger area of the presently exposed central and southern Appalachians than any earlier Paleozoic tectonic event. An early layer-parallel shortening phase gave way to a fold-thrust development above a basal decollement. This Alleghany fold-and-thrust tectonism created long, arcuate folds in the Appalachian basin. Late in the Alleghany orogeny, rock thrust northward over the Carboniferous rocks in the Anthracite region of northeastern Pennsylvania caused anthracitization of the underlying coals. The internal Alleghanides are not presently exposed. 7. Crustal extension in the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic produced numerous local, closed basins along eastern North America. Igneous intrusions and effusions marked the beginning of the Jurassic. By the end of the Early Jurassic, horizontal crustal rebound in response to opening of the Atlantic Ocean rotated the basins by crustal inversion, which folded some within-basin rocks and produced a prominent topographic ridge along the Piedmont, up-dip of the basins. Subsequent erosion of this Piedmont ridge and other parts of the Appalachian orogen fed large volumes of sediment to offshore basins during the remainder of the Mesozoic and throughout the Cenozoic. Each of these orogenies affected most of the Appalachian orogen. The tectonic expression of each orogeny varied along and across the orogen. The elements and structural bodies involved in each also varied along strike. However, many common elements persist from one part of the orogen to another; only a few features are singular in time and space. The tectonic boundary between the central and northern Appalachians is one of these singular features-it is solely an Alleghanian artifact.
Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected
A major question for the hazard posed by injection-induced seismicity is how large induced earthquakes can be. Are their maximum magnitudes determined by injection parameters or by tectonics? Deterministic limits on induced earthquake magnitudes have been proposed based on the size of the reservoir or the volume of fluid injected. However, if induced earthquakes occur on tectonic faults oriented favorably with respect to the tectonic stress field, then they may be limited only by the regional tectonics and connectivity of the fault network. In this study, we show that the largest magnitudes observed at fluid injection sites are consistent with the sampling statistics of the Gutenberg-Richter distribution for tectonic earthquakes, assuming no upper magnitude bound. The data pass three specific tests: (1) the largest observed earthquake at each site scales with the log of the total number of induced earthquakes, (2) the order of occurrence of the largest event is random within the induced sequence, and (3) the injected volume controls the total number of earthquakes rather than the total seismic moment. All three tests point to an injection control on earthquake nucleation but a tectonic control on earthquake magnitude. Given that the largest observed earthquakes are exactly as large as expected from the sampling statistics, we should not conclude that these are the largest earthquakes possible. Instead, the results imply that induced earthquake magnitudes should be treated with the same maximum magnitude bound that is currently used to treat seismic hazard from tectonic earthquakes.