only one of these, the CLF, was regularly acknow-ledged. There were indications that this low number of faults might not be a true representation, based onthe lineaments recognized byIsachsen and McKen-dree (1977), but the standard belief was that essen-tially little faulting characterized the AppalachianBasin of NYS. Nevertheless, the northern tier of theAppalachian Basin in NYS did exhibit sporadic seis-micity(Fig. 1). The question then becomes: are theseseismic events associated with faults that have not been recognized, or are the seismic events essentiallyspatially random, with no predictive structural con-trol?In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several studies innearby regions of assumed flat-lying units began todemonstrate that basement faults did exist in muchgreater numbers than previously suspected, and that these faults had been repeatedly reactivated. For exam- ple, in the Illinois Basin and bordering areas, faults that penetrate the Precambrian basement appeared to have been active for much of the geological record that can be observed (e.g.,Kolata and Nelson, 1991; Nelsonand Marshak, 1996). In eastern Ohio, the NW-strikingHighlandtown Fault experienced episodic motion fromCambrian to Pennsylvanian(Root, 1992; Riley et al.,1993; Root and Onasch, 1999), and may follow a Precambrian fault (Root and Onasch, 1999). Other faults in Ohio (e.g., the N-striking Bowling GreenFault) also show a long-lived, complex fault motionhistory (e.g.,Onasch and Kahle, 1991). In Pennsylva-nia, NW-striking structures that are orthogonal to theAppalachian orogen [‘‘cross-strike discontinuities’’(CSDs)] are assumed to be Precambrian faults that were reactivated in the Phanerozoic (e.g.,Harper,1989). These CSDs were the continental extension of transform faults during Iapetan rifting; later, theyexerted control on sedimentation patterns, and theCSDs completed their Paleozoic history as guides for tear faults during the development of Alleghanianthrusting (e.g.,Kowalik and Gold, 1976; Shumaker and Wilson, 1996; Gold, 1999). In northwestern Penn-sylvania, NW-striking CSDs were proposed to inter-sect Cambrian Rome Trough faults, resulting in a kaleidoscope of fault blocks that have reactivatedepisodically (e.g.,Harper, 1989; Riley et al., 1993;Beardsley et al., 1999; Harper et al. 1999). A similar scenario offault blocks was proposed for western NYS(Fakundiny et al., 1978).Sanford et al. (1985)also
proposed that the Paleozoic Platform rocks in Ontariowere chopped by numerous faults. More recent work in Ontario has supported their original premise of multiple faults and faulting events (e.g.,Sanford,1993; Eyles et al., 1993; Thomas et al., 1993; Mohajer,1993; Wallach et al., 1998). In 1989,Jacobi andFountain (1996, 2002)began detailed multidiscipli-nary investigations on the CLF in western NYS. Theytoo found evidence for multiple faults with a longhistory of semi-independent fault motion through theearly Paleozoic (e.g.,Jacobi and Fountain, 1993, 1996,2002).Part of the CLF multidisciplinary approach devel-oped byJacobi and Fountain (1996)was the identi-fication of fracture intensification domains (FIDs; e.g.,Jacobi and Xu, 1998; Jacobi and Fountain, 2001,2002). The FIDs are characterized by closely spacedfractures, the strike of which defines the trend of theFID. The closely spaced fractures are also commonlythe master fractures, even though they may character-istically abut other fracture sets in regions outside theFID. In interbedded shales and thin sandstones in NYS, fractures within the FID that parallel the FIDcharacteristically have a fracture frequency greater than 2/m, and commonly the frequency is an order of magnitude greater than in the region surroundingthe FID.Certain sets of FIDs are marked by soil gasanomalies commonly less than 50 m wide(Jacobiand Fountain, 1993, 1996; Fountain and Jacobi,
Fig. 1. Index map with seismic events. Shaded areas indicate where the UB Rock Fracture Group has conducted research. 1=unpublished data;2=Jacobi and Baudo (1999),Baudo and Jacobi (1999, 2000); 3=Tober and Jacobi (2000); 4=Jacobi and Fountain (1993, 1996, this volume);
5=Harper and Jacobi (2000); 6=unpublished data (Akzo–Nobel Salt); 7=Paquette et al. (1998); 8=Lugert et al. (2001, 2002),Jacobi et al.
(2002b); 9=Jacobi (1981),Jacobi et al. (1996);Jacobi and Mitchell (2002); 10=Jacobi and Smith (2000). CLF=Clarendon–Linden Fault
System, generalized fault trace fromVan Tyne (1975). Bass Island Trend trace modified fromVan Tyne and Foster (1979). Remainder of the
faults (with hachures) are faults (after Rickard, 1973) that were assumed to be Ordovician-aged [Saukian Sequence of Rickard (1973)]. For
faults in the Mohawk Valley, D=Dolgeville Fault; E=Ephrata Fault; HE=Herkimer Fault; LF=Little Falls Fault; MC=Mothers Creek Fault; N=Noses Fault; P=Prospect Fault; S=Sprakers Fault. Epicenters are fromJacobi and Fountain (1996). Labeled epicenters are discussed inthe text.
R.D. Jacobi / Tectonophysics 353 (2002) 75–113