Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

D.S. Powars

Publications and source records attributed to D.S. Powars.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2009

Petrographic observations on the Exmore breccia, ICDP-USGS drilling at Eyreville, Chesapeake Bay impact structure, USA

The International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP)-U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Eyreville A and B drill cores sampled crater fill in the region of the crater moat, ??9 km to the NE of the center of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, Virginia, USA. They provide a 953 m section (444-1397 m depth) of sedimentary clast breccia and intercalated sedimentary and crystalline megablocks knownas Exmore beds, deposited on top of the impactite sequence between 1397 and 1551 m depth. We petrographically investigated the sandy-clayey groundmass-dominated breccia, which resembles a diamictite ("Exmore breccia"), and which, in its lower parts, carries sedimentary and crystalline blocks. The entire breccia interval is characterizedby the presence of glauconite and bioclastic carbonate, which distinguishes the Exmore breccia from other sandy facies above and below in the stratigraphy. The sediment-clast breccia exhibits strong heterogeneity from sample to sample with respect to groundmass nature, e.g., clay versus sand content, as well as clast content, in general, and shocked clast content, in particular. There is a consistently signifi cantly larger macroscopic sedimentary to crystalline clast content. On the microscopic scale, the intersample sediment to crystalline clast ratios are quite variable. A very small component of shocked material, in the form of shock-deformed quartz, and to an even lesser degree feldspar, and somewhat more abundant but still relatively scarce shardshaped,altered melt particles, is present throughout the section. However, between ??458 and 469 m, and between 514 and 527 m depths, the abundance of such melt particlesis notably enhanced. These sections are also chemically distinct and relatively more mafic than the other parts of the Exmore breccia. It appears that from the time of deposition of the 527 m material, calming of the ocean occurred over the crater area as a result of abatement of resurge activity, so that ejecta from the plume abovethe crater could accumulate within the crater area to a larger degree. Deposition ofejecta fallout from the collapsing ejecta plume was terminated by the time of deposition of the 458 m material. This raises questions about the positioning of the exact upper contact of Exmore breccia to post-Exmore sediment (Chickahominy Formation), which is currently placed at 444 m depth and which possibly should be revisedto 458 m depth. Based on a signifi cant record of granite-derived material with shocked minerals, the shocked debris component seems to be largely derived from crystalline target rocks. This provides further evidence that the basement-derived material of the basal section of the Eyreville drill cores, which is essentially unshocked, is likely of an allochthonous nature and that the drilling did not intersect the actual crater floor. 76??W. ?? 2009 Geological Society of America.

Special Paper of the Geological Society of America↗
USGS2009

Pore-water chemistry from the ICDP-USGS coer hole in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure--Implications for paleohydrology, microbial habitat, and water resources

We investigated the groundwater system of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure by analyzing the pore-water chemistry in cores taken from a 1766-m-deep drill hole 10 km north of Cape Charles, Virginia. Pore water was extracted using high-speed centrifuges from over 100 cores sampled from a 1300 m section of the drill hole. The pore-water samples were analyzed for major cations and anions, stable isotopes of water and sulfate, dissolved and total carbon, and bioavailable iron. The results reveal a broad transition between fresh and saline water from 100 to 500 m depth in the post-impact sediment section, and an underlying syn-impact section that is almost entirely filled with brine. The presence of brine in the lowermost post-impact section and the trend in the dissolved chloride with depth suggest a transport process dominated by molecular diffusion and slow, compaction-driven, upward flow. Major ion results indicate residual effects of diagenesis from heating, and a pre-impact origin for the brine. High levels of dissolved organic carbon (6-95 mg/L) and the distribution of electron acceptors indicate an environment that may be favorable for microbial activity throughout the drilled section. The concentration and extent of the brine is much greater than had previously been observed, suggesting its occurrence may be common in the inner crater. However, groundwater flow conditions in the structure may reduce the salt-water-intrusion hazard associated with the brine.

Special Paper of the Geological Society of America↗
USGS2008

Deep drilling into the Chesapeake Bay impact structure

Samples from a 1.76-kilometer-deep corehole drilled near the center of the late Eocene Chesapeake Bay impact structure (Virginia, USA) reveal its geologic, hydrologic, and biologic history. We conducted stratigraphic and petrologic analyses of the cores to elucidate the timing and results of impact-melt creation and distribution, transient-cavity collapse, and ocean-water resurge. Comparison of post-impact sedimentary sequences inside and outside the structure indicates that compaction of the crater fill influenced long-term sedimentation patterns in the mid-Atlantic region. Salty connate water of the target remains in the crater fill today, where it poses a potential threat to the regional groundwater resource. Observed depth variations in microbial abundance indicate a complex history of impact-related thermal sterilization and habitat modification, and subsequent post-impact repopulation.

Science↗
USGS2006

Chesapeake Bay impact structure: Morphology, crater fill, and relevance for impact structures on Mars

The late Eocene Chesapeake Bay impact structure (CBIS) on the Atlantic margin of Virginia is one of the largest and best-preserved "wet-target" craters on Earth. It provides an accessible analog for studying impact processes in layered and wet targets on volatile-rich planets. The CBIS formed in a layered target of water, weak clastic sediments, and hard crystalline rock. The buried structure consists of a deep, filled central crater, 38 km in width, surrounded by a shallower brim known as the annular trough. The annular trough formed partly by collapse of weak sediments, which expanded the structure to ???85 km in diameter. Such extensive collapse, in addition to excavation processes, can explain the "inverted sombrero" morphology observed at some craters in layered targets. The distribution of crater-fill materials i n the CBIS is related to the morphology. Suevitic breccia, including pre-resurge fallback deposits, is found in the central crater. Impact-modified sediments, formed by fluidization and collapse of water-saturated sand and silt-clay, occur in the annular trough. Allogenic sediment-clast breccia, interpreted as ocean-resurge deposits, overlies the other impactites and covers the entire crater beneath a blanket of postimpact sediments. The formation of chaotic terrains on Mars is attributed to collapse due to the release of volatiles from thick layered deposits. Some flat-floored rimless depressions with chaotic infill in these terrains are impact craters that expanded by collapse farther than expected for similar-sized complex craters in solid targets. Studies of crater materials in the CBIS provide insights into processes of crater expansion on Mars and their links to volatiles. ?? The Meteoritical Society, 2006.

Meteoritics and Planetary Science↗
USGS2001

High-resolution seismic reflection/refraction images near the outer margin of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater, York-James Peninsula, southeastern Virginia

Powars and Bruce (1999) showed that the Chesapeake Bay region of southeastern Virginia was the site of an asteroid or comet impact during the late Eocene, approximately 35 million years ago (Fig. 1). Initial borehole and marine seismic-reflection data revealed a 90-km-diameter impact structure, referred to as the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater (CBIC), that lies buried beneath the southern Chesapeake Bay and surrounding Virginia Coastal Plain (Powars and Bruce, Figs. 1b). Stratigraphic correlations among a series of boreholes suggest that the impact disrupted basement rock and the overlying Cretaceous through middle Eocene deltaic and marine sediments. The CBIC truncates important regional sedimentary aquifer systems and possibly caused differential flushing of connate seawater. Therefore, the CBIC affects the present-day ground-water quantity and quality in the rapidly growing Hampton Roads region of southeastern Virginia. Impact-generated faults in the basement rock may be the sources of small-to-moderate earthquakes that have been occurred around the perimeter of the impact structure over the past few hundred years (Johnson et al., 1998). Powars and Bruce (1999) suggest that 150 m to 490 m of relatively undisturbed, post-impact Coastal-Plain sediments overlie the impact-disrupted sediments and basement rocks west of Chesapeake Bay. Their interpretation of marine seismic data, released from Texaco and Exxon, revealed a central 38-km-wide, 1.6-km-deep disrupted zone in the basement rocks (inner basin), which is surrounded by a 21- to 31-km-wide, 1- km-deep annular trough. Steep rim escarpments surround these features, which they mapped regionally as the outer and inner margins (rims) of the CBIC (Fig. 1b). The outer margin is a slumped terrace zone that has a 120- to 305-m-high gullied escarpment and varies in width from 0.8 to 3.2 km. However, the geographic bounds of the CBIC, its effects on the regional aquifer systems, and the distribution of impact generated faults and fractures in basement are not well determined. To better determine some of the unknowns associated with the CBIC, we conducted a 350-m-long, high-resolution seismic reflection and refraction survey, referred to here as the CBIC-1 seismic survey, on the York-James Peninsula in June 1999. In particular, we attempted to: better define the outer margin of the CBIC, understand lateral variations in the stratigraphic sequence, help assess potential hazards associated with regional seismicity, and determine acquisition parameters needed for shallow-depth seismic imaging in the Chesapeake Bay area.

Virginia↗
USGS1998

Postimpact deformation associated with the late Eocene Chesapeake Bay impact structure in southeastern Virginia

Upper Cenozoic strata covering the Chesapeake Bay impact structure in southeastern Virginia record intermittent differential movement around its buried rim. Miocene strata in a graben detected by seismic surveys on the York River exhibit variable thickness and are deformed above the crater rim. Fan-like interformational and intraformational angular unconformities within Pliocene–Pleistocene strata, which strike parallel to the crater rim and dip 2°–3° away from the crater center, indicate that deformation and deposition were synchronous. Concentric, large-scale crossbedded, bioclastic sand bodies of Pliocene age within ∼20 km of the buried crater rim formed on offshore shoals, presumably as subsiding listric slump blocks rotated near the crater rim.

Geology↗
USGS1997

Stratigraphy and geophysical logs from a corehole drilled to bedrock at Robins Point, J-Field, Edgewood area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

A continuous core was recovered from a 961-foot- deep stratigraphic corehole at Robins Point, located at the southeastern tip of the Gunpowder Neck Peninsula, Harford County, Maryland. A 2-inch- diameter ground-water-quality observation well was installed with the screen set at a depth of 392 to 402 feet (ft). Geophysical logs obtained from thecorehole include: natural gamma, multipoint normal resistivity (16-inch and 64-inch), 4-ft-guard focused resistivity, acoustic (sonic) velocity, and caliper. Pollen analysis of 34 samples provided relativestratigraphic ages. Lithologies encountered in ascending order (surface elevation 4 ft above mean sea level), include: 72.4 ft of weatheredmetamorphic rock and saprolie, 711.4 ft of lower and upper Cretaceous fluvio-deltaic deposits, and 145.9 ft of Pleistocene and 31.3 ft of Holocene(?) fluvial and estuarine deposits. Aquifers and confining units identified include, in descending order: 41.8 ft of surficial aquifer, 90.9 ft of upper paleochannel confining unit, 28.8 ft of paleochannel confined aquifer, 15.7 ft of lower paleochannel confining unit, 123.7 ft of Upper Patapsco aquifer, 44.6 ft of Upper Patapsco confining unit, 92.8 ft of Middle Patapsco aquifer, 57.3 ft of Lower Patapsco confining unit, 151.7 ft of Lower Patapsco aquifer, 115.4 ft of Potomac confining unit, 126.4 ft of Patuxent aquifer, an aquifer of 23.4 ft of saprolite, and 48.7 ft of weathered-rock/saprolite confining unit.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1994

Meteoroid mayhem in Ole Virginny: Source of the North American tektite strewn field

New seismic reflection data from Chesapeake Bay reveal a buried, 85-km-wide, 1.5-2.0-km-deep, peak-ring impact crater, carved through upper Eocene to Lower Cretaceous sedimentary strata and into underlying pre-Mesozoic crystalline basement rocks. A polymictic, late Eocene impact breccia, composed mainly of locally derived sedimentary debris (determined from four continuous cores), surrounds and partly fills the crater. Structural and sedimentary characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay crater closely resemble those of the Miocene Ries peakring crater in southern Germany. We speculate that the Chesapeake Bay crater is the source of the North American tektite strewn field.

Geology↗
USGS1990

Earthquake-induced liquefaction features in the coastal setting of South Carolina and in the fluvial setting of the New Madrid seismic zone

Many types of liquefaction-related features (sand blows, fissures, lateral spreads, dikes, and sills) have been induced by earthquakes in coastal South Carolina and in the New Madrid seismic zone in the Central United States. In addition, abundant features of unknown and nonseismic origin are present. Geologic criteria for interpreting an earthquake origin in these areas are illustrated in practical applications; these criteria can be used to determine the origin of liquefaction features in many other geographic and geologic settings. In both coastal South Carolina and the New Madrid seismic zone, the earthquake-induced liquefaction features generally originated in clean sand deposits that contain no or few intercalated silt or clay-rich strata. The local geologic setting is a major influence on both development and surface expression of sand blows. Major factors controlling sand-blow formation include the thickness and physical properties of the deposits above the source sands, and these relationships are illustrated by comparing sand blows found in coastal South Carolina (in marine deposits) with sand blows found in the New Madrid seismic zone (in fluvial deposits). In coastal South Carolina, the surface stratum is typically a thin (about 1 m) soil that is weakly cemented with humate, and the sand blows are expressed as craters surrounded by a thin sheet of sand; in the New Madrid seismic zone the surface stratum generally is a clay-rich deposit ranging in thickness from 2 to 10 m, in which case sand blows characteristically are expressed as sand mounded above the original ground surface. Recognition of the various features described in this paper, and identification of the most probable origin for each, provides a set of important tools for understanding paleoseismicity in areas such as the Central and Eastern United States where faults are not exposed for study and strong seismic activity is infrequent.

Professional Paper↗
USGS1986

HOLOCENE AND LATE PLEISTOCENE(? ) EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED SAND BLOWS IN COASTAL SOUTH CAROLINA.

Multiple generations of prehistoric sand blows, interpreted as earthquake induced, have been discovered throughout coastal South Carolina. These sand blows extend far beyond 1886 earthquake induced sand blows, in sediments having approximately the same liquefaction susceptibility. The seismic source zone for the prehistoric sand blows is unknown. The different distributions of prehistoric and 1886 sand blows have two possible explanations: (1) moderate to strong earthquakes originated in different seismic source locations through time or (2) at least one earthquake much stronger than the 1886 event also originated from the same seismic source as the 1886 earthquake.

Conference Paper↗