Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Philip A. Pearthree

Publications and source records attributed to Philip A. Pearthree.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

The Colorado River and its deposits downstream from Grand Canyon in Arizona, California, and Nevada

Understanding the evolution of the Colorado River system has direct implications for (1) the processes and timing of continental-scale river system integration, (2) the formation of iconic landscapes like those in and around Grand Canyon, and (3) the availability of groundwater resources. Spatial patterns in the position and type of Colorado River deposits, only discernible through geologic mapping, can be used to test models related to Colorado River evolution. This is particularly true downstream from Grand Canyon where ancestral Colorado River deposits are well-exposed. We are principally interested in (1) regional patterns in the minimum and maximum elevation of each depositional unit, which are affected by depositional mechanism and postdepositional deformation; and (2) the volume of each unit, which reflects regional changes in erosion, transport efficiency, and accommodation space. The volume of Colorado River deposits below Grand Canyon has implications for groundwater resources, as the primary regional aquifer there is composed of those deposits. To this end, we are presently mapping Colorado River deposits and compiling and updating older mapping. This preliminary data release shows the current status of our mapping and compilation efforts. We plan to update it at regular intervals in conjunction with ongoing mapping.

Arizona, California, Nevada

Detrital zircon U-Pb provenance of the Colorado River: A 5 m.y. record of incision into cover strata overlying the Colorado Plateau and adjacent regions

New detrital zircon U-Pb age distributions from 49 late Cenozoic sandstones and Holocene sands (49 samples, n = 3922) record the arrival of extra-regional early Pliocene Colorado River sediment at Grand Wash (western USA) and downstream locations ca. 5.3 Ma and the subsequent evolution of the river’s provenance signature. We define reference age distributions for the early Pliocene Colorado River (n = 559) and Holocene Colorado River (n = 601). The early Pliocene river is distinguished from the Holocene river by (1) a higher proportion of Yavapai-Mazatzal zircon derived from Rocky Mountain basement uplifts relative to Grenville zircon from Mesozoic supra crustal rocks, and (2) distinctive (∼6%) late Eocene–Oligocene (40–23 Ma) zircon reworked from Cenozoic basins and volcanic fields in the southern Rocky Mountains and/or the eastern Green River catchment. Geologic relationships and interpretation of 135 published detrital zircon age distributions throughout the Colorado River catchment provide the interpretative basis for modeling evolution of the provenance signature. Mixture modeling based upon a modified formulation of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic indicate a subtle yet robust change in Colorado River provenance signature over the past 5 m.y. During this interval the contribution from Cenozoic strata decreased from ∼75% to 50% while pre-Cretaceous strata increased from ∼25% to 50%. We interpret this change to reflect progressive erosional incision into plateau cover strata. Our finding is consistent with geologic and thermochronologic studies that indicate that maximum post–10 Ma erosion of the Colorado River catchment was concentrated across the eastern Utah–western Colorado region.

Geosphere

Stratigraphy and depositional environments of the upper Pleistocene Chemehuevi Formation along the lower Colorado River

The Chemehuevi Formation forms a conspicuous, widespread, and correlative set of nonmarine sediments lining the valleys of the Colorado River and several of its larger tributaries in the Basin and Range geologic province. These sediments have been examined by geologists since J. S. Newberry visited the region in 1857 and are widely cited in the geologic literature; however their origin remains unresolved and their stratigraphic context has been confused by inconsistent nomenclature and by conflicting interpretations of their origin. This is one of the most prominent stratigraphic units along the river below the Grand Canyon, and the formation records an important event or set of events in the history of the Colorado River. Here we summarize what is known about these deposits throughout their range, present new stratigraphic, sedimentologic, topographic, and tephrochronologic data, and formally define them as a lithostratigraphic unit. The Chemehuevi Formation consists primarily of a bluff-forming mud facies, consisting of gypsum-bearing, horizontally bedded sand, silt, and clay, and a slope-forming sand facies containing poorly bedded, well sorted, quartz rich sand and scattered gravel. The sedimentary characteristics and fossil assemblages of the two facies types suggest that they were deposited in flood plain and channel environments, respectively. In addition to these two primary facies, we identify three other mappable facies in the formation: a thick-bedded rhythmite facies, now drowned by Lake Mead; a valley-margin facies containing abundant locally derived sediment; and several tributary facies consisting of mixed fluvial and lacustrine deposits in the lower parts of major tributary valleys. Observations from the subsurface and at outcrops near the elevation of the modern flood plain suggest that the formation also contains a regional basal gravel member. Surveys of numerous outcrops using high-precision GPS demonstrate that although the sand facies commonly overlies the mud facies where the two are found together, contacts between the two occur over a range in elevation, and as a consequence, the sand and mud facies are similarly distributed both horizontally and vertically throughout the valley. Collectively, the outcrops of the formation lie below a smooth elevation envelope that slopes 50 percent more steeply than the historic (pre-Hoover Dam) valley, from nearly 150 m above the historic flood plain near the mouth of the Grand Canyon to less than 30 m above the flood plain at the head of the flood plain near Yuma, Arizona. The steepness of the valley at the peak of aggradation probably represents a depositional slope. Layers of fine grained volcanic tephra have been found below and within the Chemehuevi Formation at five widely separated sites, one of which is now submerged beneath Lake Mead. Major element geochemistry of glass shards from the four accessible tephra sites were analyzed. Three of the sampled tephra layers are interbedded within the Chemehuevi Formation, and a fourth tephra conformably underlies the formation. The three interbedded tephra layers are similar enough to one another that they are probably from the same eruptive unit, hereafter referred to as the Monkey Rock tephra bed. The other sample, which locally underlies the formation, is similar enough to the Monkey Rock tephra bed to suggest it is from the same volcanic source area; however, it may not be from the same eruption, and thus may not be the same age. On the basis of the stratigraphic contexts of chemically similar tephra layers found elsewhere in the Basin and Range, we suspect that the source area is the Mammoth Mountain dome complex in Long Valley, east-central California. Two samples of proximal Mammoth Mountain pumice were analyzed and produced geochemical signatures similar to all four of the Chemehuevi Formation tephra, supporting Mammoth Mountain as a possible source area. The Mammoth Mountain volcanic center produced eruptions between about 111±2 and 57±2 ka and was most active in the later part of this time interval, during Marine Oxygen Isotope (MOI) stage 4 (between 74 and 59 ka ago). Chemically similar tephra in cores from Owens Lake and Walker Lake are approximately 70 and 74 ky old, based on age models of those cores. Other lines of stratigraphic evidence from nine tephra-containing sections in the Basin and Range are also consistent with an age assignment for the Monkey Rock tephra of ~72 ky, near the beginning of MOI stage 4. We propose to designate the Chemehuevi Formation as a formal lithostratigraphic unit, and propose as the type section a well exposed outcrop near the ranger station at Katherine Landing, Arizona, in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. This exposure shows the two dominant facies, an example of one of the four known tephra layers, and interbedded lenses of locally derived gravel. In the type section, as in many of the other examples of the formation, the sand facies overlies the mud facies on a conspicuous, abrupt erosional surface; however, nearby is a contiguous section demonstrating that the mud and sand facies interfinger. In addition to the type section, measured reference sections compiled here illustrate other important lithologic and stratigraphic features of the formation. Our preferred interpretation of the Chemehuevi Formation is that it contains the remnants of deposits formed during a single major episode of fluvial aggradation, during which the Colorado River filled its valley with a great volume of dominantly sand-size sediment. This would reflect an increase in the supply of sand-size sediment, and(or) a reduction in transport capacity below the mouth of Grand Canyon. The most likely cause for the aggradation is an extraordinary increase in sand supply, likely due to widespread climatic change. However, other explanations have not been ruled out. Other aggradation events predated the Chemehuevi Formation, and some smaller events may have postdated the formation. However, the Chemehuevi Formation contains the remnants of the most recent large magnitude (>100 m) aggradation of the Colorado River.

California;Nevada;Arizona

Displacement rates on the Toroweap and Hurricane faults: Implications for Quaternary downcutting in the Grand Canyon, Arizona

The Toroweap and Hurricane faults, considered to be the most active in Arizona, cross the Uinkaret volcanic field in the western Grand Canyon. These normal faults are downthrown to the west, and the Colorado River crosses these faults as it flows west in the Grand Canyon. Cosmogenic 3 He ( 3 He c ) dates on basalt flows and related landforms are used to calculate vertical displacement rates for these faults. The two faults cross unruptured alluvial fans dated as 3 ka (Toroweap) and 8 ka (Hurricane), and 10 other landforms that range in age from 30 to 400 ka are displaced. Middle and late Quaternary displacement rates of the Toroweap and Hurricane faults are 70–180 and 70–170 m/m.y., respectively. On the basis of these rates, the combined displacement of 580 m on these faults could have occurred in the past 3 to 5 m.y. All 3 He c dates are younger than existing K- Ar dates and are consistent with new 40 Ar/ 39 Ar dates and existing thermoluminescence (TL) dates on basalt flows. These different dating techniques may be combined in an analysis of displacement rates. Downcutting rates for the Colorado River in the eastern Grand Canyon (400 m/m.y.) are at least double the downcutting rates west of the faults (70–160 m/m.y.). Faulting probably increased downcutting in the eastern Grand Canyon relative to downcutting in the western Grand Canyon during the late Quaternary.

Arizona