scholarly journals Cenozoic incision history of the Little Colorado River: Its role in carving Grand Canyon and onset of rapid incision in the past ca. 2 Ma in the Colorado River System

Geosphere ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.E. Karlstrom ◽  
L.J. Crossey ◽  
E. Embid ◽  
R. Crow ◽  
M. Heizler ◽  
...  
Geosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse E. Robertson ◽  
Karl E. Karlstrom ◽  
Matthew T. Heizler ◽  
Laura J. Crossey

The Surprise Valley landslide complex is the name used here for a group of prominent river-damming landslides in Grand Canyon (Arizona, USA) that has shifted the path of the Colorado River several times in the past 2 m.y. We document a sequence of eight landslides. Three are Toreva-block landslides containing back-rotated but only mildly disrupted bedrock stratigraphy. The largest of these landslides, Surprise Valley landslide, is hypothesized to have dammed the Colorado River, cut off a meander loop through Surprise Valley, and rerouted the river 2.5 km south to near its present course at the Granite Narrows. Another bedrock landslide, Poncho’s runup, involved a mass detachment from the north side of the river that drove a kilometer-scale bedrock slab across the river and up the south canyon wall to a height of 823 m above the river. A lake behind this landslide is inferred from the presence of mainstem gravels atop the slide that represent the approximate spillway elevation. We postulate that this landslide lake facilitated the upriver 133 Mile slide detachment and Toreva block formation. The other five landslides are subsequent slides that consist of debris from the primary slides; these also partially blocked and diverted the Colorado River as well as the Deer Creek and Tapeats Creek tributaries into new bedrock gorges over the past 1 m.y. The sequence of landslides is reconstructed from inset relationships revealed by geologic mapping and restored cross-sections. Relative ages are estimated by measuring landslide base height above the modern river level in locations where landslides filled paleochannels of the Colorado River and its tributaries. We calculate an average bedrock incision rate of 138 m/m.y. as determined by a 0.674 ± 0.022 Ma detrital sanidine maximum depositional age of the paleoriver channel fill of the Piano slide, which has its base 70 m above the river level and ~93 m above bedrock level beneath the modern river channel. This date is within error of, and significantly refines, the prior cosmogenic burial date of 0.88 ± 0.44 Ma on paleochannel cobbles. Assuming steady incision at 138 m/m.y., the age of Surprise Valley landslide is estimated to be ca. 2.1 Ma; Poncho’s runup is estimated to be ca. 610 ka; and diversion of Deer Creek to form modern Deer Creek Falls is estimated to be ca. 400 ka. The age of the most recent slide, Backeddy slide, is estimated to be ca. 170 ka based on its near-river-level position. Our proposed triggering mechanism for Surprise Valley landslides involves groundwater saturation of a failure plane in the weak Bright Angel Formation resulting from large volumes of Grand Canyon north-rim groundwater recharge prior to establishment of the modern Deer, Thunder, and Tapeats springs. Poncho’s and Piano landslides may have been triggered by shale saturation caused by 600–650 ka lava dams that formed 45 river miles (73 river km; river miles are measured along the Colorado River downstream from Lees Ferry, with 1 river mile = 1.62 river kms) downstream near Lava Falls. We cannot rule out effects from seismic triggering along the nearby Sinyala fault. Each of the inferred landslide dams was quickly overtopped (tens of years), filled with sediment (hundreds of years), and removed (thousands of years) by the Colorado River, as is also the potential fate of modern dams.


Eos ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Morton

Living in Geologic Time: Rafting through the past, present, and future of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon.


Geosphere ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 1826-1845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan S. Crow ◽  
Keith A. Howard ◽  
L. Sue Beard ◽  
Philip A. Pearthree ◽  
P. Kyle House ◽  
...  

Abstract The spatial and temporal distribution of Pliocene to Holocene Colorado River deposits (southwestern USA and northwestern Mexico) form a primary data set that records the evolution of a continental-scale river system and helps to delineate and quantify the magnitude of regional deformation. We focus in particular on the age and distribution of ancestral Colorado River deposits from field observations, geologic mapping, and subsurface studies in the area downstream from Grand Canyon (Arizona, USA). A new 4.73 ± 0.17 Ma age is reported for a basalt that flowed down Grand Wash to near its confluence with the Colorado River at the eastern end of what is now Lake Mead (Arizona and Nevada). That basalt flow, which caps tributary gravels, another previously dated 4.49 ± 0.46 Ma basalt flow that caps Colorado River gravel nearby, and previously dated speleothems (2.17 ± 0.34 and 3.87 ± 0.1 Ma) in western Grand Canyon allow for the calculation of long-term incision rates. Those rates are ∼90 m/Ma in western Grand Canyon and ∼18–64 m/Ma in the eastern Lake Mead area. In western Lake Mead and downstream, the base of 4.5–3.5 Ma ancestral Colorado River deposits, called the Bullhead Alluvium, is generally preserved below river level, suggesting little if any bedrock incision since deposition. Paleoprofiles reconstructed using ancestral river deposits indicate that the lower Colorado River established a smooth profile that has been graded to near sea level since ca. 4.5 Ma. Steady incision rates in western Grand Canyon over the past 0.6–4 Ma also suggest that the lower Colorado River has remained in a quasi–steady state for millions of years with respect to bedrock incision. Differential incision between the lower Colorado River corridor and western Grand Canyon is best explained by differential uplift across the Lake Mead region, as the overall 4.5 Ma profile of the Colorado River remains graded to Pliocene sea level, suggesting little regional subsidence or uplift. Cumulative estimates of ca. 4 Ma offsets across faults in the Lake Mead region are similar in magnitude to the differential incision across the area during the same approximate time frame. This suggests that in the past ∼4 Ma, vertical deformation in the Lake Mead area has been localized along faults, which may be a surficial response to more deep-seated processes. Together these data sets suggest ∼140–370 m of uplift in the past 2–4 Ma across the Lake Mead region.


Geosphere ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1425-1456
Author(s):  
Karl E. Karlstrom ◽  
Carl E. Jacobson ◽  
Kurt E. Sundell ◽  
Athena Eyster ◽  
Ron Blakey ◽  
...  

Abstract The provocative hypothesis that the Shinumo Sandstone in the depths of Grand Canyon was the source for clasts of orthoquartzite in conglomerate of the Sespe Formation of coastal California, if verified, would indicate that a major river system flowed southwest from the Colorado Plateau to the Pacific Ocean prior to opening of the Gulf of California, and would imply that Grand Canyon had been carved to within a few hundred meters of its modern depth at the time of this drainage connection. The proposed Eocene Shinumo-Sespe connection, however, is not supported by detrital zircon nor paleomagnetic-inclination data and is refuted by thermochronology that shows that the Shinumo Sandstone of eastern Grand Canyon was >60 °C (∼1.8 km deep) and hence not incised at this time. A proposed 20 Ma (Miocene) Shinumo-Sespe drainage connection based on clasts in the Sespe Formation is also refuted. We point out numerous caveats and non-unique interpretations of paleomagnetic data from clasts. Further, our detrital zircon analysis requires diverse sources for Sespe clasts, with better statistical matches for the four “most-Shinumo-like” Sespe clasts with quartzites of the Big Bear Group and Ontario Ridge metasedimentary succession of the Transverse Ranges, Horse Thief Springs Formation from Death Valley, and Troy Quartzite of central Arizona. Diverse thermochronologic and geologic data also refute a Miocene river pathway through western Grand Canyon and Grand Wash trough. Thus, Sespe clasts do not require a drainage connection from Grand Canyon or the Colorado Plateau and provide no constraints for the history of carving of Grand Canyon. Instead, abundant evidence refutes the “old” (70–17 Ma) Grand Canyon models and supports a <6 Ma Grand Canyon.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
Andrew Cohen ◽  
Colleen Cassidy ◽  
Ryan Crow ◽  
Jordon Bright ◽  
Laura Crossey ◽  
...  

Abstract. Neogene deposits of the lower Colorado River valley, especially the Miocene(?) and early Pliocene Bouse Formation, have been the focus of intense debate regarding the early paleoenvironmental history of this important continental-scale river system in southwestern North America and its integration with the proto-Gulf of California. Fine-grained units within these Neogene deposits also hold a promising archive of Pliocene paleoclimate history for this part of the world. Because the depocenter deposits of the Bouse Formation and the deposits that overlie and underlie it are poorly exposed and highly weathered, the formation is ripe for study through collection of drill cores. A workshop was held 28 February–3 March 2019 in Parker, AZ, USA, to discuss how scientific drilling might be employed to help resolve the Bouse controversies and improve our understanding of paleoclimate history in the region.


Geosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.T. Steelquist ◽  
G.E. Hilley ◽  
I. Lucchitta ◽  
R.A. Young

The timing of integration of the Colorado River system is central to understanding the landscape evolution of much of the southwestern United States. However, the time at which the Colorado River started incising the westernmost Grand Canyon (Arizona) is still an unsettled question, with conflicting interpretations of both geologic and thermochronologic data from western Grand Canyon. Fluvial gravels on the Shivwits Plateau, north of the canyon, have been reported to contain clasts derived from south of the modern canyon, suggesting the absence of western Grand Canyon at the time of their deposition. In this study, we reassess these deposits using modern geochronologic measurements to determine the age of the deposits and the presence or absence of clasts from south of the Grand Canyon. We could not identify southerly derived clasts, so cannot rule out the existence of a major topographic barrier such as Grand Canyon prior to the age of deposition of the gravels. 40Ar/39Ar analysis of a basalt clast entrained in the upper deposit (in combination with prior data) supports a maximum age of deposition of ca. 5.4 Ma, limiting deposition to post-Miocene, a period from which very few diagnostic and dated fluvial deposits remain in the western Colorado Plateau. Analysis of detrital zircon composition of the sand matrix supports interpretation of the deposit as being locally derived and not part of a major throughgoing river. We suggest that the published constraint of <6 Ma timing of Grand Canyon incision may be removed, given that no clasts that must be sourced from south of Grand Canyon were found in the only known outcrop of gravels under the Shivwits Plateau basalts at Grassy Mountain north of Grand Canyon.


1998 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hereford ◽  
Kathryn S. Thompson ◽  
Kelly J. Burke

Carbonate boulders transported down steep tributary channels by debris flow came to rest on Holocene debris fans beside the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Weakly acidic rainfall and the metabolic activity of blue-green algae have produced roughly hemispheric dissolution pits as much as 2-cm deep on the initially smooth surfaces of the boulders. The average depth of dissolution pits increases with relative age of fan surfaces. The deepening rate averages 2.4 mm/1000 yr (standard error = 0.2 mm/1000 yr), as calculated from several radiometrically dated surfaces and an archeological structure. This linear rate, which appears constant over at least the past 3000 yr, is consistent with field relations limiting the maximum age of the fans and with the physical chemistry of limestone dissolution. Dissolution-pit measurements ( n= 6973) were made on 617 boulders on 71 fan surfaces at the 26 largest debris fans in Grand Canyon. Among these fan surfaces, the average pit depth ranges from 1.2 to 17.4 mm, and the resulting pit dissolution ages range from 500 to 7300 cal yr B.P. Most (75%) surfaces are younger than 3000 yr, probably because of removal of older debris fans by the Colorado River. Many of the ages are close to 800, 1600, 2300, 3100, or 4300 cal yr B.P. If not the result of differential preservation of fan surfaces, this clustering implies periods of heightened debris-flow activity and increased precipitation.


1961 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. W. Small

It is generally accepted that history is an element of culture and the historian a member of society, thus, in Croce's aphorism, that the only true history is contemporary history. It follows from this that when there occur great changes in the contemporary scene, there must also be great changes in historiography, that the vision not merely of the present but also of the past must change.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document