• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-1997 The Greenbrier and Hayesville Faults in Central- Western North Carolina Camilo Montes University of Tennessee - Knoxville Recommended Citation Montes, Camilo, "The Greenbrier and Hayesville Faults in Central-Western North Carolina. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1997. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1485 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Camilo Montes entitled "The Greenbrier and Hayesville Faults in Central-Western North Carolina." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Geology. Robert D. Hatcher, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Harry Y. McSween, William M. Dunne Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Camilo Montes entitled "The Greenbrier and Hayesville faults in central-western North Carolina" I have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a colo(. We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Accepted for the Council: Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of The Graduate School THE GREENBRIER AND HAYESVILLE FAULTS IN CENTRAL-WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA A Thesis Pre sented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Camilo Montes May, 1997 This thesis is dedicated in memory of Fabio Chaparro professor, mentor, and friend ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who helped me in the course of this work. My advisor's revisions improved and shaped up this manuscript, and discussions in the field with him made me understand Appalachian geology. Valuable comments by my committee members Dr. William M. Dunne and Harry Y. McSween were are thanked. This work also benefited from discussions with Dr. William Thomas from the University of Kentucky; Mark Carter, Leonard Wiener, and Carl Merschat from the North Carolina Geological Survey, and Prof. Kauko Laajoki from the University of Oulu, Finland. I would also like to thank Donald Geddes and Steve Martin who helped me with rather important tasks when doing field work in the Appalachians: driving a car and speaking English. The motherly care of Nancy Meadows is greatly appreciated. Sarita's support, infinite patience, and hiking skills were fundamental during this work. This work was funded by the University of Tennessee Science Alliance Center of Excellence Distinguished Scientist Stipend, by the Geological Society of America research grant 5664-95, and by the Swingle Fellowship offered by the Department of Geological Sciences of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. iii ABSTRACT Detailed mapping in the easternmost western Blue Ridge of central-western North Carolina revealed that the premetamorphic Greenbrier fault separates the Snowbird Group from Great Smoky Group, and the Hayesville fault separates eastern Blue Ridge assemblages from the Ocoee Supergroup units and western Blue Ridge basement. The faulted nature of the Snowbird-Great Smoky Groups contact suggests that the Great Smoky Group may have been transported northwestward farther than previously thought along the Greenbrier fault, and permitted the reinterpretation of changes in Snowbird Group stratigraphy within the fo otwall of Greenbrier fault previously associated with lateral facies changes later telescoped by Paleozoic thrusts. Those changes can be explained now as the result of active normal faulting during the time of accumulation of the Snowbird Group. Compositional changes in the Snowbird Group suggest that Snowbird Group strata pinchout to the SE represents a distal downlap with a northwestern clastic provenance, and with an original depositional dip to the southeast. Thus, the granitic rocks beneath the Ocoee Supergroup in the eastern edge of the Western Blue Ridge did not contribute significantly to the sedimentary budget of the Late Proterozoic rifted margin of Laurentia. The concept of a sediment trap and a sediment-starved basin can be derived from asymmetrical rifting models that predict the sequential abandonment of cratonward rift basins as the upper mantle is elevated, and normal faults have to sequentially migrate basinward. The deformation history after the end of the Late Proterozoic rifting includes three periods of deformation. The oldest period of deformation is early Taconic (Penobscottian?), recorded by the premetamorphic emplacement of the Greenbrier and Hayesville thrust sheets; the Greenbrier fault transported Great Smoky Group rocks northwestward over Snowbird Group and basement rocks; the Hayesville fault carried eastern Blue Ridge assemblages over iv the Greenbrier thrust sheet, and produced mylonite zones within the Middle Proterozoic basement orthogneiss. The tectonostratigraphic package was metamorphosed to sillimanite grade during the Taconic orogeny. NNE-trending, steeply SW-dipping faults and related flexural folds folded early structures during the Alleghanian orogeny; favorably oriented segments of premetamorphic growth and thrust faults were reactivated during this deformation. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I .......................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION.......... ................................................ ..................... 1 LOCATION................................................... ..................................... 1 REGIONAL SETTING .......................................................................... 2 THE GREENBRIER AND HAYESVILLE FAULTS ...................................... 4 Greenbrier fault ........ ............ ......... ............................................... 5 Hayesville fault ....... ........................................................................ 6 CHAPTER II ......................................................................... 8 REEVALUATION OF THE EASTERNMOST FACIES OF THE OCOEE SUPER- GROUP IN CENTRAL-WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA .............................. 8 ABSTRACT .................................................. ...................................... 8 INTRODUCTION.............................. .......... ....................................... 9 SNOWBIRD GROUP LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY .......................................... 9 Wading Branch Formation ......................................................... ...... 13 Long arm Quartzite .................................................................... ..... 18 Stratigraphic relationships ....................................................... ...... 2 4 GREAT SMOKY GROUP LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY .................................... 2 5 Elkmont Sandstone ....................................................................... .. 2 5 Thunderhead Sandstone ......................................... ....................... 2 7 OCOEE SUPERGROUP: NORTHWESTERN PROVENANCE .. ....... .............3 5 Snowbird Group paleoenvironments ...............................................3 6 Longarm Quartzite sandstone composition ...................................... 3 9 Snowbird Group stratigraphic relationships: A distal downlap ........3 9 Longarm Quartzite thickness changes: Evidence for a synrift fault . .40 Thunderhead Sandstone: Northwe st provenance ............................. 43 STARVED BASIN RIFTED MARGIN SEQUENCE ................................... .44 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 4 7 vi CHAPTER III ..... ................................................ ....................... .. 49 THE GREENBRIER AND HAYESVILLE FAULTS IN WESTERN NORTH CARO- LINA ........................................................ .......................................49 ABSTRACT........................................ .............. ...............................49 INTRODUCTION.......................................... ..................................... 50 DEFORMATION FABRICS .................................................................. 52 Premetamorphic fabrics ........................... ...................................... 52 Premetamorphic fa ults ................................................................................................. 52 Greenbrier fault ............................................................................................................ 54 Hayesville fault and shear zones ...................................................... ........................... 55 Synmetamorphic fabrics ................................................................. 6 0 Me tamorphic textures ...................................... ............................................................ 66 Ocoee Supergroup ....................................................................................... .................

Load more

  164

Copy Link