Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · pp1313

Studies related to the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886 — Tectonics and seismicity

Abstract

Since 1973, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), with support from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has conducted extensive investigations of the tectonic and seismic history of the Charleston, S.C., earthquake zone and surrounding areas. The goal of these investigations has been to discover the cause of the large intraplate Charleston earthquake of 1886, which dominates the record of seismicity in the Southeastern United States, through an understanding of the historic and modern seismicity at Charleston and of the tectonic setting of the seismicity. This goal is being pursued to evaluate the potential for additional large earthquakes in the Charleston area and surrounding regions and to determine whether the Charleston area differs tectonically in any significant fashion from other parts of the Southeastern United States. An understanding of the specific cause for the 1886 event and of the regional distribution of any structures that are generically related to or geometrically and mechanically similar to the source structure is essential for evaluation of seismic hazards throughout the Southeast. The results given herein represent significant progress toward understanding the tectonic setting of the Charleston-area seismicity. Several chapters in the volume address the distribution and origin of pre-Cretaceous rocks and structures beneath Coastal Plain sediments in the Charleston area and regionally beneath the southern Atlantic Coastal Plain and adjacent Continental Shelf. The modern seismicity at Charleston is occurring at depths equal to or greater than the known extent of these older structures, and rejuvenation of an older fault in the modern stress field is a possible cause of the seismicity. Accordingly, several chapters discuss the possible relationships of the various pre-Cretaceous structures to faults identified near Charleston that have a known Cretaceous and Cenozoic movement history and to the historic and instrumentally recorded seismicity. However, at the present time, none of the young structures can be related unequivocally to the seismicity because earthquake fault-plane solutions and hypocenter distributions do not agree with the locations and orientations of these structures. Therefore, a major emphasis of continuing USGS investigations near Charleston will be to identify additional faults, if any exist, to delineate fault movement histories, and to further refine earthquake locations, focal mechanisms, and related seismological interpretations.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 30° to 34° latitude; -83° to -78° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David Gottfried, C. S. Annell, G. R. Byerly, Marvin A. Lanphere, Jeffrey D. Phillips, Gregory S. Gohn, Brenda B. Houser, Ray R. Schneider, Hans D. Ackermann, B. R. Yantis, John K. Costain, F. Steve Schilt, Larry Brown, Jack E. Oliver, Sidney Kaufman, Robert Morrison Hamilton, John C. Behrendt, V. James Henry, Kenneth C. Bayer, David L. Daniels, Isidore Zietz, Peter Popenoe, T. M. Chowns, C. T. Williams, Robert E. Dooley, J. Wampler, William P. Dillon, Kim D. Klitgord, Charles K. Paull, Lyle D. McGinnis, James W. Dewey, Arthur C. Tarr, Susan Rhea, Carl M. Wentworth, Marcia Mergner-Keefer, G. A. Bollinger. 1983. Studies related to the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886 — Tectonics and seismicity. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1313

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗