1989
DOI: 10.3133/b1861
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gigantic debris avalanche of Pleistocene age from ancestral Mount Shasta Volcano, California, and debris-avalanche hazard zonation

Abstract: Introduction 1. Topographic and geologic setting and age of the debris avalanche 3 Previous interpretations of the geology and topography of Shasta Valley Description of the debris-avalanche deposits 4 Matrix facies 6 Block facies 8 3 Fossils in the matrix facies 11 Distribution of the debris-avalanche deposits 11 Extent, thickness, and volume of the deposits 14 Origin of morphology and drainage on the deposits 16 Sources of water in the debris avalanche 19 Cause of the debris avalanche 19 Initiation of the de… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Toreva blocks are commonly composed of one or more blocks that slide and retain the original stratigraphic sequence, whereas hummocks are mound features composed of block material in the surface with a form of conical shape and have a height of tens to hundreds of meters (Ui, 1983;Stoopes and Sheridan, 1992). Hummock sizes in the Naga deposit field decrease in dimension away from the headscarp, consistent with the descriptions in other debris avalanche deposits (Reiche, 1937;Ui, 1983;Crandell et al, 1989;Thompson et al, 2010;de Vries and Delcamp, 2015). The high-resolution DEM also reveals that the highest elevation of the failure is at 255 masl, whereas the elevation at the toe in Lobes 1 and 2 is 50 and 70 masl, respectively.…”
Section: Morphologysupporting
confidence: 62%
“…Toreva blocks are commonly composed of one or more blocks that slide and retain the original stratigraphic sequence, whereas hummocks are mound features composed of block material in the surface with a form of conical shape and have a height of tens to hundreds of meters (Ui, 1983;Stoopes and Sheridan, 1992). Hummock sizes in the Naga deposit field decrease in dimension away from the headscarp, consistent with the descriptions in other debris avalanche deposits (Reiche, 1937;Ui, 1983;Crandell et al, 1989;Thompson et al, 2010;de Vries and Delcamp, 2015). The high-resolution DEM also reveals that the highest elevation of the failure is at 255 masl, whereas the elevation at the toe in Lobes 1 and 2 is 50 and 70 masl, respectively.…”
Section: Morphologysupporting
confidence: 62%
“…Hydrothermal alteration on other stratovolcanoes in the Quaternary Cascades arc generally is not well studied, and high-temperature hydrothermal-alteration assemblages have not been described on volcanoes that have been studied in more detail (e.g., Mounts Hood and Shasta, Bargar et al, 1993;Crowley et al, 2003;Zimbelman et al, 2005). Especially noteworthy is the near absence of hydrothermally altered rock in the ~45 km 3 debris-avalanche deposit formed by collapse of ancestral Mount Shasta (Crandell, 1989). The eroded Pliocene Yana and Dittmar stratovolcanoes near Lassen Peak (Fig.…”
Section: ■ Comparison To Hydrothermal Activity On Other Arc-related Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…430 and 320 ka, and little is known of its original constitution, vent(s), or form. The debris-avalanche deposit produced during the sector collapse has a volume of ~45 km 3 (Crandell et al, 1984;Crandell, 1989). Nevertheless, the remaining, largely buried edifice probably has a total volume of ~180 km 3 (Blakely et al, 2000), including part of the volcano that lies isostatically depressed beneath the level of the surrounding surface, perhaps as well as part of its intrusive core.…”
Section: ■ Brief Summary Of Mount Shasta's Volcanic Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%