The Grand Canyon and the Southern Colorado Plateau Network

Geology ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 447 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. Flowers ◽  
D.L. Shuster ◽  
B.P. Wernicke ◽  
K.A. Farley

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.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Martin ◽  
Rachel A. Martin ◽  
Jim I. Mead

Fossils of Bison (bison) are scarce on the Colorado Plateau, especially in and around the Greater Grand Canyon Region. Because of poor preservation and collection biases in the region, various resource managers have erroneously designated bison a nonnative and human-(re)introduced species. This decision directly impacts an extant herd of approximately 400 bison that periodically meander onto Grand Canyon National Park lands from neighboring U.S. Forest Service and State of Arizona lands. We re-examined and verified paleozoological museum specimens of this large mammal confirming a prehistoric and early historic presence of Bison on the Colorado Plateau. Our findings indicate that Bison bison should be considered a native species on the Colorado Plateau because they have a nearly continuous record of inhabitance in the region. This record is supported by 74 Bison-bearing fossil, subfossil, and historical localities since the latest Pleistocene.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.E. Karlstrom ◽  
et al.

Table S1: Rotations of measured paleomagnetic paleopoles to test the error introduced by measuring inclinations relative to cross bedding of different orientations instead of horizontal bedding. Table S2: Detrital zircon data used in this study. Table S3: Quantitative comparison results from DZstats.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.E. Karlstrom ◽  
et al.

Table S1: Rotations of measured paleomagnetic paleopoles to test the error introduced by measuring inclinations relative to cross bedding of different orientations instead of horizontal bedding. Table S2: Detrital zircon data used in this study. Table S3: Quantitative comparison results from DZstats.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Tweet ◽  
Holley Flora ◽  
Summer Weeks ◽  
Eathan McIntyre ◽  
Vincent Santucci

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument (PARA) in northwestern Arizona has significant paleontological resources, which are recognized in the establishing presidential proclamation. Because of the challenges of working in this remote area, there has been little documentation of these resources over the years. PARA also has an unusual management situation which complicates resource management. The majority of PARA is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM; this land is described here as PARA-BLM), while about 20% of the monument is administered by the National Park Service (NPS; this land is described here as PARA-NPS) in conjunction with Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LAKE). Parcels of state and private land are scattered throughout the monument. Reports of fossils within what is now PARA go back to at least 1914. Geologic and paleontologic reports have been sporadic over the past century. Much of what was known of the paleontology before the 2020 field inventory was documented by geologists focused on nearby Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) and LAKE, or by students working on graduate projects; in either case, paleontology was a secondary topic of interest. The historical record of fossil discoveries in PARA is dominated by Edwin McKee, who reported fossils from localities in PARA-NPS and PARA-BLM as part of larger regional projects published from the 1930s to the 1980s. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has mapped the geology of PARA in a series of publications since the early 1980s. Unpublished reports by researchers from regional institutions have documented paleontological resources in Quaternary caves and rock shelters. From September to December 2020, a field inventory was conducted to better understand the scope and distribution of paleontological resources at PARA. Thirty-eight localities distributed across the monument and throughout its numerous geologic units were documented extensively, including more than 420 GPS points and 1,300 photos, and a small number of fossil specimens were collected and catalogued under 38 numbers. In addition, interviews were conducted with staff to document the status of paleontology at PARA, and potential directions for future management, research, protection, and interpretation. In geologic terms, PARA is located on the boundary of the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range provinces. Before the uplift of the Colorado Plateau near the end of the Cretaceous 66 million years ago, this area was much lower in elevation and subject to flooding by shallow continental seas. This led to prolonged episodes of marine deposition as well as complex stratigraphic intervals of alternating terrestrial and marine strata. Most of the rock formations that are exposed in the monument belong to the Paleozoic part of the Grand Canyon section, deposited between approximately 510 and 270 million years ago in mostly shallow marine settings. These rocks have abundant fossils of marine invertebrates such as sponges, corals, bryozoans, brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, crinoids, and echinoids. The Cambrian–Devonian portion of the Grand Canyon Paleozoic section is represented in only a few areas of PARA. The bulk of the Paleozoic rocks at PARA are Mississippian to Permian in age, approximately 360 to 270 million years old, and belong to the Redwall Limestone through the Kaibab Formation. While the Grand Canyon section has only small remnants of younger Mesozoic rocks, several Mesozoic formations are exposed within PARA, mostly ranging in age from the Early Triassic to the Early Jurassic (approximately 252 to 175 million years ago), as well as some middle Cretaceous rocks deposited approximately 100 million years ago. Mesozoic fossils in PARA include marine fossils in the Moenkopi Formation and petrified wood and invertebrate trace fossils in the Chinle Formation and undivided Moenave and Kayenta Formations.


2006 ◽  
Vol 70 (18) ◽  
pp. A178 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. Flowers ◽  
D.L. Shuster ◽  
K.A. Farley ◽  
B.P. Wernicke

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document