Activity stages and tectonic division in the Kuznetsk Basin, Southern Siberia

www.elsevier.com/locate/rgg

Activity stages and tectonic division in the Kuznetsk Basin, Southern Siberia

I.S. Novikov a,*, O.V. Cherkas a, G.M. Mamedov a, Yu.G. Simonov b, T.Yu. Simonova b, V.G. Nastavko c

a V.S. Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,pr. Akademika Koptyuga 3, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

b Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119234, Russiac Kuzbassgiproshakht, ul. Ostrovskogo 34, Kemerovo, 650610, Russia

Received 15 April 2011; received in revised form 14 March 2012; accepted 14 August 2012

Abstract

The fault system reflected in the topography and structure of Cenozoic cover sediments in the Kuznetsk Basin is mostly recent. Thepositions of recent faults match those of Paleozoic and Mesozoic disjunctive dislocations only at the Kuznetsk Alatau and the Salair Rangeboundaries. These marginal features are associated with the greatest amplitudes of vertical movements in recent time: 80–100 m; less frequently,up to 250 m in the north and within 600 m in the south. The recent disjunctive dislocations are generally fractured zones from 300 to 2000 min width, which were occupied by watercourses during the formation of the erosion valley system. Except for marginal recent tectonic bodies,vertical movements along the majority of recent faults do not exceed 5–10 m, reaching 30–70 m at the boundaries of recent tectonic regionsand subregions. There is no reliable evidence of notable horizontal movements. For particular bodies, it is conjectured to be within 300–700 mby analogy with other regions of the Altai–Sayan folded area.

The recent fault pattern can be interpreted as a result of crushing by submeridional compression with a slight right slip. The types of recenttectonic activity are different in different areas of the depression. The smallest uplift is recorded in the north of the basin, where the elevationsof the Late Cretaceous peneplain are within 300 m, being within 230–250 m in the near-Salair subregion. This points to an insignificantdownwarping in this area. Vertical movements along recent faults within the region are small, and the most intense movements are at itsboundary. The central region is slightly elevated with reference to the northern one, and the elevation of its planation surface is within300–380 m. It is characterized by differentiated movements along block boundaries with amplitudes reaching 60–70 m. The maximum activityoccurred in the southern region. The elevations of its Late Cretaceous peneplain vary from 400 to 600 m. This region is characterized bynotable vertical movements along block boundaries in the form of straight tectonic scarps and valleys. The northern and central regionsconstitute the present-day Kuznetsk intermontane depression, whereas the southern region belongs to the periphery of the mountainous framingof the Kuznetsk Depression.© 2013, V.S. Sobolev IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: morphotectonics; recent tectonic blocks; Kuznetsk Basin; Kuznetsk Depression

Introduction

The Kuznetsk coal basin is located in northwestern Altai–Sayan Mountains, southern West Siberia. It is a trough filledby Late Carboniferous and Permian coal-bearing molasses.The Late Paleozoic trough is discordantly overlain by sepa-rated smaller Mesozoic depressions filled with Triassic vol-canosedimentary rocks (recently reported to be Late Permian–Triassic (Buslov et al., 2010; Nastavko et al., 2012) and

Jurassic coal-bearing molasses. The trough forms in plan arectangle with incurvate sides, running northwest. It is bor-dered on every side by uplifts of the folded basement, builtby Late Proterozoic, Early Paleozoic, and Middle Paleozoicrocks of Kuznetsk Alatau, Mountainous (Gornaya) Shoria,Salair, and the Kolyvan’–Tom’ region (Yavorskii, 1940,1948).

The region experienced three tectonic activation periodsafter the formation of Permian coal-bearing deposits. TheKuznetsk trough underwent severe horizontal compressionalong axes directed northwest and northeast at the Per-mian/Triassic and Jurassic/Cretaceous boundaries (Bogolepov,

Russian Geology and Geophysics 54 (2013) 324–334

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (I.S. Novikov)

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ed.

+1068-7971/$ - see front matter D 201 IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reservV.S. S bolevo

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgg.2013.02.0073,

1967). As a result, fold systems complicated by reverse faultsand thrusts appeared in the northwestern and southwesternmargins of the trough (Yuzvitskii, 2003). A planation surfaceconsisting of four planation levels differing in types ofweathering crust and overlying deposits formed in the Kuz-netsk trough and its framing in the Late Cretaceous and Earlyto Middle Paleogene (Dargevich and Loskutov, 2000; Kalininet al., 2006) against the background of weak sporadic tectonicmovements (Fainer, 1969). The tectonic activity that startedin the Oligocene and enhanced dramatically in the Quaternarygave rise to a system of tectonic blocks separated by fracturedzones, which were occupied by rivers in the beginning ofincision. Zones of recent disjunctive dislocations are evidentin the present-day topography from straight segments ofvalleys of permanent and ephemeral watercourses and longstraight scarps of divide surfaces. Recent tectonic movementsin the area of the Kuznetsk trough formed the KuznetskDepression, located in the same area but differently delineated.In the south, west, and east, the depression is framed by recentmountains, which replaced the planation surface formed infolded areas of Salair, Kuznetsk Alatau, and MountainousShoria (Fig. 1).

The Kuznetsk Depression and adjacent territories constituteone of the most densely inhabited and industrially developedregions in Siberia. It is the main site of coal mining and ironindustry east of the Urals. Although it is far from majorseismogenic regions of the Altai–Sayan area, its seismic ratingis extraordinarily high. Three earthquakes with observed effectcorresponding to degrees 6–7 of the MSK-64 scale occurredthere within the last 100 years (Lavrent’ev, 1971; Zhalkovskiiand Muchnaya, 1975). The Earth’s crust within the depressionis strained; therefore, accidents are common during mining,and local seismic events accompanied by surface fractureoccur in mining regions (Emanov et al., 2009; Ovsyuchenkoet al., 2010). Seismicity analysis shows that the industrialfactor causes stress relief in the form of minor seismic eventseries (Bryksin and Seleznev, 2012).

For numerous reasons, the system of recent faults in theKuznetsk Basin has been poorly understood. The crucial tasksof recent tectonics studies are: mapping of recent tectonicblocks in the basin with the detail level corresponding to1:500,000 scale, analysis of 3D properties of recent tectonicblocks, elucidation of the correlation of block boundaries withpre-Cenozoic faults, and tentative characterization of thegeometry of the main groups of boundaries between blocks.The solution of these tasks will provide grounds for adequateevaluation of seismic hazard in the Kuznetsk Depression andplanning of studies aimed at detection of regions most activein the current tectonic stage. It is essential for planningmeasures to reduce accident risk during deep coal mining.

The article presents the results of recent tectonics analysisof the Kuznetsk Depression and adjacent mountainous framingareas. It provides a pioneering detailed map of recent disjunc-tive dislocations, constructed according to the well-provenmethod based on the GIS and a large body of additionalinformation. We also analyze the spatial relationships betweenrecent disjunctive dislocations and the system of Late Paleo-

zoic–Mesozoic faults. Passive features formed by exposure ofdenudation-resistant bodies are considered. The region iszoned according to the intensity of recent tectonic movements.

Current knowledge of the geology and geomorphology of the Kuznetsk Depression

The geological knowledge of the Kuznetsk Depression islop-sided. The geology and tectonics of its pre-Cenozoicbodies have been studied more than anywhere else in Siberia.By 1980s, it had been nearly entirely covered by geologicsurvey in the 1:25,000 scale, supplemented with a largeamount of drilling. These studies were reported in detail in(Yuzvitskii, 2003). However, little is known about the geo-morphology, recent tectonics, and Cenozoic geology of theregion. The cause of this situation is that the geologic studieswere focused on coal-bearing deposits, whereas the Cenozoicrock cover was considered a mere obstruction. Exceptionswere rare. Polenov (1907) pioneered in solving severalgeomorphological problems. In particular, he showed that thepronounced ranges in the north of the central region of theKuznetsk Depression were associated with exposure of basal-tic bodies. He was first to associate the Taiba Mountaintopography in the near-Salair area of the depression with theoccurrence of combustion metamorphic rocks resistant todenudation. Yavorskii and Butov (1927) considered the for-mation of the Taiba Mountains topography and concluded thatin the early Quaternary enormous coal fires formed longbodies of burnt rocks. Their coming to the surface in thecourse of surface lowering gave rise to specific ridge topog-raphy. Yu.B. Fainer’s study (1969) is prominent amongchapters in monographs on Kuznetsk Basin history dedicatedto the geomorphology and topographic history of the KuznetskDepression. It has not become less valuable for the 40 yearselapsed since its publication. Moreover, its importance haseven increased, because it was based on compilation ofpredecessors’ works and geologic survey data that have notbeen published and are difficult to avail. Fainer analyzed thedistribution of Cenozoic deposits in the Kuznetsk Basin andwas first to come to the conclusion of recent tectonicmovements increasing from north to south within the basin.He also described in detail the structure of the area of themost recent downwarping at the Salair border and recon-structed the history of increasing recent tectonic activity in theregion on the base of lithostratigraphic data.

Most of the Kuznetsk Basin is covered by a 5 to 80 mthick continuous Neogene–Quaternary cover. The thickness ofthese deposits is up to 80 m near Salair and exceeds 100 min some lows. The spatial distribution of geologic bodies ofvarious ages in the Neogene–Quaternary deposits can providemuch for reconstruction of tectonic movements. However, theknowledge of this distribution and variation of stratigraphicunit thicknesses is insufficient, and recent tectonics studiescannot be supported by stratigraphic data (Zudin et al., 1982).

Few studies are dedicated directly to recent tectonic bodiesof the Kuznetsk Depression. They note the presence of tectonic

I.S. Novikov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 54 (2013) 324–334 325

scarps at its boundaries (Chernov, 1975; Gritsyuk, 1979,1986). These scarps are correctly interpreted as reverse faultsassociated with regional compression of the region, and themost prominent recent tectonic zones within the KuznetskBasin are recognized (Makeev, 1998, 2009). Nevertheless, theinterpretation of recent faults within the depression as a systemof intersecting lineaments (Gritsyuk, 1979, 1986; Makeev,

1998, 2009) or circular structures (Gritsyuk and Kholyavko,2010; Polkanov et al., 1980) appears to be groundless. Thereferred authors do not provide criteria for recognizing recenttectonic features. Moreover, they regard Mesozoic disjunctivedislocations as recent tectonic, and their reasoning is based onthe identity of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic structural plans.The cause of the difficulties encountered by students of recent

Fig. 1. (A) Location of the Kuznetsk Basin in the orographic structure of the region. Orographic structure: (B) LANDSAT image, (C) digitized model of the terrain.Plains: Ch, Chulym. Depressions: K, Kuznetsk; NCh, Nenya–Chumysh. Uplands: Yu, Yurga; BCh, Biya–Chumysh. Mountain structures: S, Salair; MSh, Mountain-ous Shoria, KA, Kuznetsk Alatau. 1, Orographic unit boundaries; 2, boundaries of the Kuznetsk coal basin; 3, absolute elevations, m.

326 I.S. Novikov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 54 (2013) 324–334

tectonics in the Kuznetsk Basin is obvious. It stems fromrelatively small vertical displacements along recent tectonicboundaries between blocks, presence of exposed geologicbodies in the topography of the depression, the system ofplanation surfaces of various elevations, and the cover depositsvarying in thickness. The elevation of denudation residualsover planation surfaces is commensurable with the variationamong the elevations of the surfaces of different ages andrecent tectonic blocks. Therefore, the inner recent tectonicstructure of the depression cannot be understood from merehypsometry. The situation is aggravated by the presence ofcover deposits variable in thickness, which conceals bounda-ries between blocks.

All these obstacles can be overcome by applying conven-tional methods of block delineation in combination with GIStechnologies, large-scale digital space images, and detailednumerical topography models.

Methods of delineating recent tectonic blocks

The reconstruction of the recent tectonic structure of theKuznetsk Basin encounters the same difficulties as in anyplatform region: small displacement amplitudes and absenceof reliable datum horizons. The conventional methods basedon detection of vertical deformations of an integer preorogenicplanation surface, which can be successfully applied tomountainous regions of Central Asia (Novikov, 2004) areoften of no use. The pre-Quaternary uplift of large blocks inthe Kuznetsk Basin and its mountainous framing was slowand occurred in several steps. This process gave enough timefor stairs of planation surfaces to form. The range of heightsin the topography is rather narrow. Thus, an uncommon taskarises in each particular case: whether we deal with planationsurfaces of different heights and different ages, an etchedlithological boundary, or fragments of a formerly unitedplanation surface separated in height along a recent fault.

Morphostructural analysis is the main method for recogniz-ing recent blocks. It appeared at the beginning of intensedevelopment of structural geomorphology and morphotecton-ics. Initially, the notion of morphostructures included largelandforms, whose development was governed by interactionof endogenous and exogenous processes dominated by tectonicmovements as an endogenous factor (Gerasimov, 1959).

Morphostructures of plains were analyzed in detail byMeshcheryakov (1965). He summarized his long-term studiesdedicated to the origin of major landforms of the EastEuropean Plain and relationships of topography and tectonicsin plain regions. He expanded the notion of morphostructureby adding relatively small forms generated mainly by tectonicsand reflected in the topography: domes, folds, anticlines,faults, and uplifted or lowered crustal blocks. Morphostructu-ral analysis of mountainous regions and its history aredescribed in detail in (Simonov, 1972). Morphostructuralstudies are based on the analysis of relationships betweenelongated and isometric bodies. The morphology of rivervalleys (pattern, density, depth, time of nascence, etc.) is of

special importance, because it can be used for reconstructionof the history of disjunctive dislocations.

Morphostructural analysis of a region involves recognitionof areas morphologically uniform in addition to the homoge-neity of their crustal structure. Therefore, it is necessary tomeasure homogeneity for each element. Recent tectonicfeatures differently manifest themselves in the topography.Different recent faults can appear as elements of the networkof valleys and gullies, lake chains, scarps, or something else.

Statistical methods increase the reliability of morphostruc-tural analysis and allow quantitative characterization of ob-jects. Two rules were put forward by Meshcheryakov (1965)for choice of traits for correlating topography and structuralbodies: (1) commensurability of structural and geomorphologi-cal features and (2) age correlation of landforms and tectonics.Simonov (1972) proposed that these rules be the base of theaxiomatics of morphostructural analysis. To correlate certainstructural and orographic elements, one should establish theircommensurability and their spatiotemporal relationship. Inparticular, the system of present-day valleys in the KuznetskBasin and the system of recent disjunctive dislocations areinterrelated in origin and location; they both formed in theLate Neogene–Early Quaternary. Thus, analysis of the drain-age network of a region allows reliable reconstruction of itssystem of recent disjunctive dislocations. The areal distributionof valleys indicates that disjunctive dislocations form a regularfault system. Statistically, the ratio of linear dimensions ofrecent tectonic blocks is 10 : 7 : 5. Their oblongness indicesin plan can be 10 : 7 = 7 : 5 = 1.4 or 10 : 5 = 2 (Simonov,1966). This statistical modal ratio of dimensions of morphotec-tonic blocks remains the same at any scales. It is physicallysubstantiated, being determined by ratios of elastic limits atvarious loads. Small-scale studies may provide other modalvalues owing to statistical incompleteness of a block set understudy rather than block boundary generalization. In addition,morphostructures of higher rank or their groups characterizedby certain strain types can often be mistaken for recent tectonicblocks.

The approach to the recognition of blocks on the base of3D topographic models involves deduction of the location oftopography-forming faults and displacement direction andamplitude from the said relationship and elevations of particu-lar sites of the surface. The general regularity is that the largeris the scale (within a certain limit), the less is the area ofcertain blocks, the more is their number, and the greater levelof detail can be achieved in the reconstruction of the formationof the structural relief. Therefore, it is important that the regionbe investigated in a uniform scale. The first step in therecognition of structural blocks having experienced relativevertical movements is the determination of the least heightdifference sufficient for neighboring areas to be assigned toblocks of different heights. This least height is important forsubsequent analysis. If this threshold is too large, blockscorresponding to the scale of study will not be detected, andthe region will be divided into few parts. If it is too small,the number of blocks will be so large that we will not be ableto correlate the movements determining the heights. The


minimum height should be chosen with regard to the range ofheights within the region under study. The optimum thresholdis one-tenth of the height range with the exception ofoccasional excursions (Simonov, 2003). In the KuznetskBasin, elevations vary within a 500-m range, and differencesin heights of adjacent blocks exceeding 50 m should beconsidered significant.

As a rule, the surface of a block is far from being a flatplane but is rather irregular. At this step of the analysis,changes of the structural relief related to denudation areneglected, and the elevation of the top point of a block istentatively ascribed to the entire block surface. Thus, initialtectonic landforms are reconstructed.

As a result of block recognition and delineation, the regionis divided into areas varying in shape, size, and elevation. Thelocation of boundaries between blocks and differences ofhypsometric elevations between neighboring blocks providegrounds for reconstruction of lines of topography-formingfaults and determination of the sign and magnitude of themovement for each fault. The age of faults affecting thetopography can be determined by correlation of their outlinewith the location of deposits coeval with the formation of thestructural relief.

Materials

Maps edited by the Directorate of Military Survey, Ministryof Defense, Soviet Union–Russian Federation, in 1966–1994(1:100,000 and 1:500,000) served as the topographic base ofthe study.

We also used digital space images of 30-m resolution fromthe SPOT and LANDSAT projects that covered the KuznetskBasin and adjacent areas. Key areas were checked withBirdsEye images of 2-m resolution and aerial images of scale1:17,000 done in 1952.

Data of the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)were used as an elevation model. They are the result of aninternational project done under the aegis of NASA, where adigital model of the Earth’s surface was constructed by radarinterferometry. Averaged elevation data with angular discrimi-nation 3 s (about 55 × 93 m at the latitude of the KuznetskBasin) and 1 m elevation intervals are available at http://dds.cr.usgs.gov/srtm/.

Our consideration of the system of pre-Cenozoic disjunc-tive dislocations was based on the 1:500,000 geological mapof the Kemerovo oblast compiled by G.A. Babin (Zapsib-geols’emka) in 2007. It was substantially refined with respectto 1:200,000 geological maps of the governmental geologicsurvey compiled in 1960s.

All materials were geocoded and integrated into a databasein ArcMap to construct a map of block division in theKuznetsk Basin. The detailedness of the resulting map corre-sponds to the 1:500,000 scale. If necessary, it can be adjustedto the 1:100,000 scale without invoking additional data bymeans of indicating less active boundaries within blocks.Tentative manipulations with local areas showed that the

number of recognized blocks increased five to tenfold. Pres-ently, such details are unnecessary, but they may be of use inpractical tasks related to sites of underground coal mining.

Recent block division in the Kuznetsk Depression and adjacent regions

The Late Cretaceous planation surface was taken as thedatum in determination of vertical movement amplitudes ofrecent tectonic blocks. We consider it to form the summit plainof all major blocks in both the Kuznetsk Depression itself,where its elevations are within 230–370 m and the mountain-ous border, with elevations varying from 430 to 1200 m oreven more. The Late Cretaceous planation surface formed inthe time of tectonic quiescence and crust formation thatfollowed the Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous tectonism. Thefact that there are no Cretaceous marine sediments theresuggests that it formed slightly above the Late Cretaceous baselevel of denudation. The variation of the World Ocean levelin the Cretaceous–Cenozoic is well known (Berggren et al.,1995). It was no more than 225–250 m in the Late Cretaceous,and the Late Cretaceous denudation surface formed at eleva-tions about 270–280 m.

Initially, the Late Cretaceous planation surface had localhighs and lows. It was overtopped by 20–30 m by table hillswith fragments of the Early Cretaceous planation surface ontheir tops and residual hills (monadnocks) (Fig. 2). They wereformed by exposure of rocks resistant to weathering anddenudation. In the Kuznetsk Basin, such rocks include EarlyTriassic basalts of the Maltsevo Formation, Early Jurassicbasal conglomerates of the Raspadskaya Formation, EarlyPermian horizons of sandstones of the Kuznetsk Subformation,Early Carboniferous limestones of the Mozzhukha Formation,and Quaternary assemblages of burnt rocks. In the foldedmargin of the Kuznetsk Basin, monadnocks are also formedby granitoid intrusions. Most often, residual hills overtop thepeneplain by 50–150 m. The only exception is the Saltymak-ovo Range. Its relative elevation over the plain base is350–400 m. The abnormal relative elevation, taken togetherwith the diamond shape, incomplete correlation with the rangeof occurrence of Triassic basalts, and large sizes (41 km longand 9 km wide) cast doubt upon the purely denudational originof this large landform. It is conceivable that further studieswill explain its geomorphology by the development of a recenttectonic horst, bulging under compression conditions.

Rocks of the weathering crust forming synchronously withthe Cretaceous peneplain were redeposited to lows that existedin that peneplain. Numerous minor depressions filled by LateCretaceous–Early Paleogene variegated clays and sands of theNeninka Formation are present in the Kuznetsk Basin. Lowsof the Neninka Depression and the area between Salair andthe Inya valley, often referred to as the Inya Bay (Fainer,1969), were significant in size. The thickness of the Creta-ceous–Paleogene deposits reaches 150 m the Neninka Depres-sion and is generally 40–50 m in the Inya Bay.


The framing of the Kuznetsk Basin experienced a slightuplift in the Paleogene and Neogene. In that period, regionalscarps (tyrgans), separating it from Salair and Kuznetsk Alatauemerged. Most of these scarps are 150 to 200 m high in themodern terrain. They are higher in the southeastern part of thebasin, sometimes reaching 350–550 m. In the Late Neogene–Early Quaternary, tectonism was still weak in most of theKuznetsk Basin. Clay rocks of the Kochki Formation werebroadly deposited within the basin.

It was not until the Quaternary that the recent tectonicactivity pervaded the Kuznetsk Basin and split it into blocks.According to the latest data obtained from pyrometamorphicindicators, intense tectonic movements started in the basin atthe beginning of the Pleistocene (Novikov and Sokol, 2007,2009; Novikov et al., 2008). The lowering of the localdenudation base and uplift of the southern portion of theKuznetsk Basin generated a system of valleys running alongrecent faults. In the Middle and Late Pleistocene, Aeolianprocesses produced loess loams of the KrasnodubrovskoeFormation and the Pleistocene assemblage of loess loamsremoved from valley sides and accumulated on flatteneddivides, overlying rocks of the Neninka and KochkovoFormations, which were preserved in lows of the divides. Inthe Quaternary, these processes formed a system of recenttectonic blocks with flat summits overlain by an irregular

series of Late Cretaceous, Early Paleogene, Late Neogene, andMiddle Quaternary rocks. A network of perennial water-courses occurs along the network of recent faults, cuts thecover to the Paleozoic basement, and incises into it. Thethickness of the cover assemblage is about 20 m in thenorthern Kuznetsk Basin, increases to 80 m near Salair (up to100 m in some lows), but is no more than 10 m in the southernKuznetsk Basin and on flattened divides of its borders. Therecent tectonic activity period formed the intermontane Kuz-netsk Depression in the northern and central parts but not inthe entire Kuznetsk Basin. In the north, the Kuznetsk Depres-sion is wider than the Kuznetsk Basin, because the near-Kuznetsk band of Salair 15 to 30 km in width was not upliftedbut remained within the intermontane depression. The eleva-tions of the Late Cretaceous planation surface (with removedcover and monadnocks disregarded) of the recent blocksindicate that notable movements differentiated in heightoccurred along recent faults only at Salair and KuznetskAlatau borders. The vertical amplitudes of recent faults areoften greater than the heights of tyrgans (particularly, at theSalair border, where the base of the tectonic scarp is buriedunder rocks of the cover assemblage), reaching 250 to 500 m.The relative movements of adjacent blocks are generally lessthan 50 m. Only in the southern Kuznetsk Basin, not belong-ing to the Kuznetsk intermontane depression, they reach

Fig. 2. Tectonic block division of the Kuznetsk Basin and neighboring regions. 1, major recent tectonic blocks and their divide elevations, m; 2, major tectonic scarps;3, outlines of exposed geologic bodies (monadnocks) built by denudation-resistant rocks; 4, boundary of the Kuznetsk coal basin.


150–300 m. The southeastern boundaries of the KuznetskDepression and the Kuznetsk Basin do not match, because thesouthern portion of the Kuznetsk Basin was involved in therecent uplift. In terms of orography, it is related to theperiphery of Salair, Mountainous Shoria, and Kuznetsk Alatau.

Correlation between the recent fault network and the system of pre-Cenozoic disjunctive dislocations

The perfect inheritance of the directions and locations ofpre-Cenozoic tectonic deformations by recent tectonic bodiesat the Kuznetsk Alatau border and in southeastern Salairseemingly suggests a decisive effect of structures of thepre-Cenozoic basement structures on the origin of recent faultsin the entire Kuznetsk Basin. Our comparison of the locationsof the ancient and modern fault networks in the region (Fig. 3)unambiguously refutes this suggestion. Even the ancientstructural suture separating the Kuznetsk Basin and Salair hasno analogs in the recent fault network in its northern half. Thelengths of inherited structures within the depression itself areno more than 10%. This mismatch can well be explained bytaking into account the fact that pre-Cenozoic faults gravitateto the northwestern and southwestern Kuznetsk Basin bounda-ries. They complicate the linear Late Paleozoic–Mesozoic

folding systems, closely consanguineous to them. The bulk ofthe Kuznetsk Basin is slightly dissected by pre-Cenozoicdisjunctions. The pre-Cenozoic fault system formed undercompression from northwest and southwest, when the Earth’scrust was not consolidated yet. The upper crust layers couldcollapse into linear folds, and the stress was not transducedinside the depression. Judging from the Cenozoic fault pattern,the recent tectonism resulted from compression in the sub-meridional direction with fairly consolidated crust. Thisresulted in brittle crushing of upper crust layers not only inthe Kuznetsk Basin but also in its folded framing. The recentborder with mountainous structures of Salair is an echelonsystem of recent reverse faults, which match the pre-CenozoicTyrgan reverse fault only in its southern part. In the north,recent faults dissect the Salair folded structures into 15–30 kmwide bands, to include them into the recent intermontanedepression. The northwestern thrust boundary of the KuznetskBasin is hardly seen in the topography of the Kuznetskintermontane depression. The northern boundary of the latteris tentatively drawn to connect the northwestern ends of Salairand Kuznetsk Alatau. The amplitudes of vertical movementsof pre-Cenozoic faults at boundaries can easily be calculatedfrom the differences in the stratigraphic location of rockassemblages occurring on opposite sides of the fault boundary.At the Salair and Kuznetsk Alatau borders, they are typically

Fig. 3. Correlation between the Late Paleozoic–Mesozoic and Cenozoic disjunctive dislocation systems in the Kuznetsk Basin. 1, recent faults forming boundaries offirst-order recent tectonic blocks; 2, Paleozoic and Mesozoic disjunctive dislocations according to geologic survey at scales 1:200,000 and 1:50,000; 3, location ofthe outcrop shown in Fig. 4; 4, elevations of the summit plains of recent tectonic blocks, m.


5–6 km. Of these lengths, the amplitudes of recent movementsin reactivated areas are 200–300 m, less frequently, up to600 m.1

Most of the recent fault zones are not exposed. They areoverlain by taluses in case of differentiated movements alongfaults or alluvial deposits with the absence of notable verticalmovements. Inheritance of the geometry of movements alongfaults can be observed in few cases, when recent faultsactivating pre-Cenozoic disjunctive movements of northwest-ern strike are exposed by mines (Fig. 4). As a rule, pre-Ce-nozoic fault zones of northeastern strike are not reactivated.

Height and size distribution of recent tectonic blocksin the Kuznetsk Basin

As the Kuznetsk Basin and the Kuznetsk Depression donot perfectly match in plan, we analyzed the regularities ofrecent block outlines including all blocks entirely or partially

belonging to either of them and excluding blocks of themountainous framing (Fig. 5). The lengths of blocks aredifferent in different parts of the region. Boundaries strikingnorthwest are longer in most of the region, whereas thosestriking northeast form short bridges. A different situation isobserved near the northern and southern boundaries of theregion, where short faults striking northwest form bridges. Theabsolute elevations of the Late Cretaceous peneplain inparticular recent tectonic blocks can be divided into fivegroups corresponding to height levels in the orography of theKuznetsk Basin. Geomorphologically, regions housing blockswith elevations above 400 m correspond to the mountainousframing, not belonging to the Kuznetsk Depression. Thelengths of recent tectonic blocks generally vary within 15–30 km, and widths, within 10–15 km. The length-to-widthratios of about 50% of the blocks are within 1.1–1.8, whichis consistent with statistical regularities in most regions. Otherblocks have ratios varying from 2 to 4, which is related to thescale of the study. The distribution of linear sizes andelevations of recent tectonic blocks proves the correctness oftheir recognition by the Simonov method even with inconven-ient geomorphology.

The Kuznetsk Depression is separated from KuznetskAlatau by a recent reverse fault, and an echelon-like systemof recent oblique-slip reverse faults occurs at the border withSalair. With regard to the submeridional regional compressionof the region, evidenced by seismology (Emanov et al., 2009;Ovsyuchenko et al., 2010), it is reasonable to conclude thatthe recent block structure of the Kuznetsk Basin formed owingto compression with a slip between the Salair and KuznetskAlatau blocks, the latter being a stop, whereas slip dislocationsoccur at the Salair border and are distributed over blockboundaries striking northwest. In this case, block boundariesstriking northeast are of expansion type. This model explainsthe poor height differentiation of blocks in the north andmiddle of the Kuznetsk Basin and allows tentative kinematicinterpretation of two major groups of recent faults in the regiondiffering in predominant strike.

Recent tectonic regions in the Kuznetsk Basin

The recent tectonic blocks recognized in the KuznetskBasin and Kuznetsk Depression are divided into groupsaccording to height distribution, shape, and geomorphology toprovide a base for morphotectonic subdivision of the territory(Fig. 6). The northern region is recognized in the northwestof the territory. It reaches beyond the Kuznetsk Basinboundaries in the north and west and corresponds to thenorthern half of the Kuznetsk Depression. The northern regionis subdivided into two subregions. The near-Salair subregionranges along the Salair boundary, passing along a 100–150 mhigh tectonic scarp. With account for the buried portion of thebase, the scarp height is 250 m. The subregion occupies thearea between Salair and the Inya valley and a small area onthe right Inya bank along the northern boundary of theKuznetsk Basin. Recent tectonic blocks are overlain in this

Fig. 4. Southern view of the edge of a pit exposing the Mesozoic reverse faultreactivated in the Cenozoic and bordering the Kuznetsk Basin in the southwest.1, Upper Devonian–Lower Carboniferous, Mozzhukha Formation: limestones,sandstones, and siltstones; 2, Lower Permian, Upper Balakhonka Subformation:sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, and coals; 3, reverse fault.

1The amplitudes of vertical and horizontal movements along both recent andpre-Cenozoic faults could have been compared with data from the Pod-nadvigovaya-1 deep (up to 5 km deep) offset well, planned to be drilled nearGur’evsk. The data from the pilot borehole (current depth 1.13 km) nearNovobachaty Village (Current Problems of the Geology and Minerageny ofSouthern Siberia [in Russian], 2001. Novosibirsk) and seismic data fromSibneftegeofizika OJSC indicate a more complicated, imbricate-thrust,structure of the Paleozoic section at the Salair Ridge–Kuznetsk Basinjunction than it is expected by the authors (Editor’s Note).


subregion by cover deposits 60–80 m in thickness and up to100 m in some depressions near the Salair base. The erosionaltrench depths are usually 60–80 m and up to 100 m nearSalair. They reduce to 40–50 m towards the Inya valley. Theabsolute elevations of divides in the subregion near Salair are280–300 m, and they lower to 180–200 m in the directiontoward the Inya River. This lowering is not related to thedeformation of the Late Cretaceous peneplain but results fromcutting of younger planation surfaces from the direction of theInya River. The Kemerovo subregion covers the area betweenthe Inya valley and Kuznetsk Alatau. It is separated from thelatter by a distinct 80–130 m high tectonic scarp. In the south,the near-Salair and Kemerovo subregions are separated fromthe higher portion of the Kuznetsk Basin by a profoundlysmoothed scarp 30–50 m in height. Tectonic valleys ofnortheastern strike occur along the base of the scarp. Theabsolute elevations of divides in the Kemerovo subregion arewithin 270–300 m in the north and about 250 m in the south.The thickness of the cover rocks is generally below 20 m. Thedepths of erosion valleys are 60–80 m, less often, 100–120 m.

The central recent tectonic region occupies the southernpart of the Kuznetsk intermontane depression and the centralpart of the Kuznetsk Basin. Numerous monadnocks are itsspecific morphological feature. It is subdivided into the Belovoand Prokop’evsk–Kiselevsk subregions. The Belovo subregion

stretches across the Kuznetsk Basin from Salair to KuznetskAlatau. It is bordered in the west and east by distinct tectonicscarps 170–180 m in height and in the north and south, bysmoothed scarps 30 m high in the north and 50–70 m in thesouth. Tectonic valleys occur along the bases of these scarps.The relative elevations of divides in the subregion are about300 m. The elevations of denudation residuals above thedivide plains are 20–100 m. The Saltymakovo Range reachesabsolute elevations 675–710 m in its flattened divide area. Thethicknesses of cover deposits in the divide plain vary within10–20 m. The depths of the block-dividing valleys vary from80 to 100–120 m. The Prokop’evsk–Kiselevsk subregion isbordered in the southeast by the Tom’ valley and in thesouthwest by the Tyrgan scarp, which matches there thepre-Cenozoic fault of the same name. This scarp is 100–150 mhigh. The depth of the Tom’ valley near the boundary is160–200 m. The heights of flattened divides are within360–380 m. The thickness of the cover deposits is usually nomore than 10–15 m. The depths of major block-dividingvalleys are 130–150 m.

The southern region is the southern margin of the KuznetskBasin, most affected by the recent tectonic uplift. Orographi-cally, it includes low-mountain areas of Salair, MountainousShoria, and Kuznetsk Alatau. The elevations of flatteneddivides in the region are within 400–600 m. The cover

Fig. 5. Linear size and elevation distributions of recent tectonic blocks in the Kuznetsk Basin and Kuznetsk Depression. (A) Block outlines. Block distributions by:(B) elevation, (C) length, (D) width, (E) length : width ratio. 1, block elevations in the map, m.


deposits are no thicker than 10 m. The region is characterizedby monadnocks, forming narrow ridges 10–20 km in length.They were formed by exposure of Early Jurassic and EarlyPermian basal conglomerates. The heights of the monadnocksover the summit tablelands are 200–250 m. The depths ofblock-dividing valleys in the southern region are 200–300 m.

Conclusions

In the Late Cretaceous, the Kuznetsk Basin differed littlefrom its folded framing in tectonics and morphology. Later,it experienced recent tectonic activation, and tectonic blocksformed there. The block-separating faults match Paleozoic andMesozoic disjunctive dislocations only in areas borderingKuznetsk Alatau and Salair. The Kuznetsk Alatau border wascompletely reactivated. The Tyrgan fault zone, separating theKuznetsk Basin and Salair structures, experienced partialreactivation in the south (50% of its length). The borderstructures are associated with the largest vertical movementsof recent time: 80–100 m, less often up to 250 m in the northand to 600 m in the south. Generally, recent disjunctivedislocations are fractured zones 300–2000 m in length, occu-pied by watercourses during formation of the erosion valleysystem. Except for recent tectonic bodies in areas borderingthe Salair and Kuznetsk Alatau, vertical displacements in themajority of recent faults do not exceed 5–10 m (or 30–70 mat boundaries between recent tectonic regions and subregions).There is no reliable evidence of significant horizontal move-

ments. On the premise that under compression horizontalmovement amplitudes are five to ten times as large as verticalones, we estimate them to be 300–700 m.

The pattern of the recent fault system points to breakageof the Earth’s crust into blocks by its regional compressionalong the submeridional strike axis. Different areas of thedepression experience different degrees of recent tectonism.Three regions are recognized there in this regard: northern,central, and southern. The northern region experienced theleast uplift. Elevations of its Late Cretaceous planation surfaceare no more than 300 m, and in the near-Salair subregion theyare 230–250 m, suggesting insignificant downwarping of itsblocks. Vertical movements along recent faults in the regionare small. The most intense movements occur in its margins.The central region is slightly uplifted with reference to thenorthern one. Its planation surface elevation is 300–380 m. Itis characterized by differentiated movements along blockboundaries with amplitudes reaching 60–70 m. These move-ments generated scarps dividing it into the Belovo andProkop’evsk–Kiselevsk subregions. Another feature of thecentral region is the presence of numerous residual highs. Thesouthern region was most activated. Its Late Cretaceousplanation surface elevations are within 400–600 m. It ischaracterized by pronounced vertical movements betweenblocks, manifesting themselves as straight tectonic scarps andvalleys. The northern and central regions constitute thepresent-day Kuznetsk intermontane depression, whereas thesouthern region belongs to the periphery of Kuznetsk Alatau,Mountainous Shoria, and Salair.

Fig. 6. Recent tectonic regions in the Kuznetsk Basin and Kuznetsk Depression. A, Northern region; Subregions: A1, Near-Salair; A2, Kemerovo. B, Central region;Subregions: B1, Belovo; B2, Prokop’evsk–Kiselevsk. C, Southern region. 1, boundaries of recent tectonic regions and subregions.


Our division into regions corresponds to the risk ofemergencies in mines associated with recent tectonic stresses.The greatest hazard is in the southern, intermediate in thecentral and least in the northern region. It increases atboundaries of tectonic blocks and decreases in their centers.Further studies in the recent tectonics of the region will bedirected to finer recent tectonic subdivision of the most activeareas and to the development of a kinematic model of recenttectonic breakage of the territory and classification of recenttectonic faults according to geometry. Analysis of frequenciesof seismic events and breakdowns in mines will allow recentfault zones to be classified according to their influence onseismicity and hazard for mining.

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation forBasic Research, project 09-05-610a. The study was conductedas a part of IGCP project no. 592 “Continental Constructionof the Altaids (Central Asian Orogenic Belt) Compared toActualistic Examples from the Western Pacific.”

References

Berggren, W.A., Kent, D.V., Swisher, C.C., Aubry, M.-P., 1995. A revisedCenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy, in: Berggren, W.A.,Kent, D.V., Hardenbol, J. (Eds.), Geochronology, Time Scales and GlobalStratigraphic Correlations: A Unified Temporal Framework for an His-torical Geology. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists,Vol. 54, pp. 129–212.

Bogolepov, K.V., 1967. Mesozoic Tectonics in Siberia [in Russian]. Nauka,Moscow.

Bryksin, A.A., Seleznev, V.S., 2012. The impact of technogenic factors onthe seismicity of the Kuznetsk Basin region and Lake Baikal. RussianGeology and Geophysics (Geologiya i Geofizika) 53 (3), 307–312(399–405).

Buslov, M.M., Safonova, I.Yu., Fedoseev, G.S., Reichow, M., Davies, K.,Babin, G.A., 2010. Permo-Triassic plume magmatism of the KuznetskBasin, Central Asia: geology, geochronology, and geochemistry. RussianGeology and Geophysics (Geologiya i Geofizika) 51 (9), 1021–1036(1310–1328).

Chernov, G.A., 1975. Modern structure of the Altai–Sayan region and itsseismic activity, in: Seismic Activity in the Altai–Sayan Region [inRussian]. Nauka, Novosibirsk, pp. 57–67.

Dargevich, V.A., Loskutov, Yu.I., 2000. Guidelines for Compilation ofMineragenic Maps for Forecasting Ilmenite–Zircon Placers by the Exam-ple of Siberia [in Russian]. SNIIGGiMS, Novosibirsk.

Emanov, A.F., Emanov, A.A., Leskova, E.V., Fateev, A.V., Semin, A.Yu.,2009. Seismic activations and coal mining in the Kuznetsk Basin.Fizicheskaya Mezomekhanika 12 (1), 37–43.

Fainer, Yu.B., 1969. The Kuznetsk Depression, in: Terrain History in Siberiaand Far East. Altai–Sayan Mountainous Region [in Russian]. Nauka,Moscow, pp. 157–204.

Gerasimov, I.P., 1959. Structural Topographic Features in the USSR and TheirOrigin [in Russian]. Izd. AN SSSR, Moscow.

Gritsyuk, Ya.M., 1979. Domal–block morphotectonics of the west of theAltai–Sayan mountainous region according to geologic interpretation ofspace images, in: Aerospace Studies of Natural Resources of Siberia andFar East [in Russian]. IGiG SO AN SSSR, Novosibirsk, pp. 57–72.

Gritsyuk, Ya.M., 1986. Recent tectonics and geodynamics of the west of theAltai–Sayan mountainous region, in: Methods of Remote Sensing forSolution of Natural History Tasks [in Russian]. Nauka, Novosibirsk,pp. 73–79.

Gritsyuk, Ya.M., Kholyavko, G.R., 2010. Seismogenic domal–ring and linearbodies in Central Asia, in: Geology and Minerageny of Siberia [inRussian]. SNIIGGiMS, Novosibirsk, pp. 149–160.

Kalinin, Yu.A., Roslyakov, N.A., Prudnikov, S.G., 2006. Gold-BearingWeathering Crusts in Southern Siberia [in Russian]. Akademicheskoe Izd.“Geo,” Novosibirsk.

Lavrent’ev, A.I., 1971. Recent tectonic structures and earthquakers nearNovokuznetsk. Geologiya i Geofizika, No. 9, 117–122.

Makeev, V.M., 1998. Recent crossover structural plan of the Kuznetskperiorogenic region and its influence on the mining and geologic settingsin Kuznetsk Basin deposits. Geologiya i Razvedka, No. 3, 10–23.

Makeev, V.M., 2009. Kuznetsk Periorogenic Region: Recent Tectonic Zoningand Geodynamic Settings of Formation [in Russian]. GEOS, Moscow.

Meshcheryakov, Yu.A., 1965. Structural Geomorphology of Plainlands [inRussian]. Nauka, Moscow.

Nastavko, A.V., Borodina, E.V., Izokh, A.E., 2012. Petrological and minera-logical features of volcanic rocks from the central Kuznetsk Basin(southern Siberia). Russian Geology and Geophysics (Geologiya i Geofiz-ika) 53 (4), 334–346 (425–449).

Novikov, I.S., 2004. Morphotectonics of Altai [in Russian]. Izd. SO RAN,Filial “Geo,” Novosibirsk.

Novikov, I.S., Sokol, E.V., 2007. Combustion metamorphic events as agemarkers of orogenic movements in Central Asia. Acta Petrologica Sinica23, 1561–1572.

Novikov, I.S., Sokol, E.V., 2009. Geochronometry of the Cenozoic orogenyin the Altai–Sayan region according to burnt rock assemblages: geologicsubstantiation. Geomorphologiya, No. 3, 77–93.

Novikov, I.S., Sokol, E.V., Travin, A.V., Novikova, S.A., 2008. Signature ofcenozoic orogenic movements in combustion metamorphic rocks: miner-alogy and geochronology (example of the Salair-Kuznetsk Basin transi-tion). Russian Geology and Geophysics (Geologiya i Geofizika) 49 (6),378–396 (503–526).

Ovsyuchenko, A.N., Rogozhin, E.A., Novikov, S.S., Marakhanov, A.V.,Lar’kov, A.S., Akbiev, R.T., Mogushkov, I.M., 2010. Paleogeological andtectonic studies of earthquake-prone areas in the southern Kuznetsk Basin.Seismostoikoe Stroitel’stvo. Bezopasnost’ Sooruzhenii, No. 6, 35–45.

Polenov, B.K., 1907. Geological description of the southwestern quarter ofsheet 15, column 8 of the inch-to-ten-verst map of the Tomsk Guberniya(Kuznetsk sheet) [in Russian], Vol. 4. St. Petersburg.

Polkanov, V.P., Batugina, I.M., Yuzvitskii, A.Z., 1980. Ring structures of theKuznetsk Basin and their relation to recent tectonic movements. Issle-dovanie Zemli iz Kosmosa, No. 6, 42–46.

Simonov, Yu.G., 1966. The main morphotectonic features of Eastern Transbai-kalia. Izv. Zabaikal’skogo Filiala Geogr. Obshch. SSSR 2 (2), 68–84.

Simonov, Yu.G., 1972. Regional Geomorphological Analysis [in Russian].Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow.

Simonov, Yu.G., 2003. Fundamentals of the modern concept of disjunctivemorphotectonics. Vestnik MGU, Ser. Geografiya, No. 4, 10–14.

Yavorskii, V.I. (Ed.), 1940. Geology of the USSR, Vol. 16: Kuznetsk Basin[in Russian]. Gos. Izd. Geol. Lit., Moscow, Leningrad.

Yavorskii, V.I. (Ed.), 1948. Geology of the USSR, Vol. 14: GeologicalDescription [in Russian]. Gos. Izd. Geol. Lit., Moscow, Leningrad.

Yavorskii, V.I., Butov, P.I., 1927. The Kuznetsk Coal Basin, Proceedings ofthe Geological Committee [in Russian], Vol. 177. Izd. Geol. Komiteta,Leningrad.

Yuzvitskii, A.S. (Ed.), 2003. The Coal Resources of Russia, Vol. 4: CoalBasins and Deposits in West Siberia [in Russian]. Geoinfotsentr, Moscow.

Zhalkovskii, N.D., Muchnaya, V.I., 1975. Some results of macroseismicstudies of severe earthquakes in the Altai–Sayan region, in: Seismicity ofthe Altai–Sayan Region [in Russian]. IGiG SO AN SSSR, Novosibirsk,pp. 28–41.

Zudin, A.N., Nikolaev, S.V., Galkina, L.I., Butkeeva, O.Yu., Efimova, L.I.,Panychev, V.A., Ponomareva, E.A., 1982. Substantiation of the strati-graphic chart of Neogene and Quaternary deposites in the KuznetskDepression, in: Problems of the Stratigraphy and Paleogeography of theSiberian Pleistocene [in Russian]. Nauka, Novosibirsk, pp. 133–149.

Editorial responsibility: A.E. Kontorovich


Documents

Activity stages and tectonic division in the Kuznetsk Basin, Southern Siberia