DOCSLIB.ORG

The Muddy Creek Formation at Colorado River in Grand Wash: the Dilemma of the Immovable Object

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Muddy Creek Formation at Colorado River in Grand Wash: the Dilemma of the Immovable Object Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 177 The Muddy Creek Formation at Colorado River in Grand Wash: The Dilemma of the Immovable Object by Earl M. P. Lovejoy1 Abstract It has previously been noted that the Colorado River could not have flowed west through Grand Wash contemporaneously with deposition of the Muddy Creek fanglomerates. This paper suggests that the Colorado River turned sharply south in Grand Wash and flowed into Red Lake Valley in "Muddy Creek time." Sandstones in Grand Wash at the mouth of Grand Canyon are considered here to be gravel-deficient river sands, gradational with the contemporaneous fanglomerate laterally and with the younger and higher Hualapai limestone vertically . If this is correct, then the earlier course of the Colorado River could have been through Grand Canyon to Grand Wash throughout Cenozoic time, following its Paleogene origin as an obsequent stream; thus, the Muddy Creek Formation in Grand Wash need not be considered the "immovable object" that Hunt considered it to represent, and the evi­ dence upstream of an early origin for the river system, Hunt's "irresistible force," becomes compatible with the evidence at Grand Wash. Introduction Solution of this problem would throw a flood of light on regional Tertiary events Hunt (1956) summarized evidence from the and relationships that are now obscure Colorado Plateau that indicates a great span [po 817]. [And] it is not possible to out­ for the period of post-uplift erosion, Hunt's line a full history of the Colorado River "irresistible force." The Muddy Creek Forma­ without resort to speculation [p. 834]. tion, a Pliocene fanglomerate, lies athwart the course of the Colorado River at Grand Wash Neither Blackwelder (1934) nor Longwell (Fig. 1) in a position believed by Blackwelder (1946) believed that the Colorado River could (1934), Longwell (1946), and Lucchitta (1966) have flowed through Grand Wash before or dur­ to imply that the river could not have flowed ing deposition of the Muddy Creek Formation. through Grand Wash prior to or during deposi­ Lucchitta (1966, 1967, 1972) and Goetz and oth­ tion of the Muddy Creek fanglomerates, the "im­ ers (1975) have accepted their interpretations movable object" of Hunt (1956). The dilemma of and have presented a hypothesis for an alterna­ the "irresistible force" and the "immovable object" tive course for the Colorado River north of its has led many to seek either alternative courses present position. Shoemaker (1975) has ex­ for the Colorado River, either to the south tended this concept and hypothesized a course through the Peach Springs and Truxton Val­ all the way to the Pacific Ocean across Nevada leys, or to the north near St. George, Utah, prior to development of basin-and-range struc­ or alternatives to the fluvial process, prior to ture. Thus, the hypothesis conceived by deposition of the Muddy Creek sediments Blackwelder (1934) and fortified by Longwell (Hunt, 1969; Goetz and others, 1975). ( 1946) remains with us. Longwell (1946) wrote: Nevertheless, on the baSis of regional studies in the Basin and Range and Colorado One of the major unresolved problems of Plateau provinces, I believe that an alternative the region is the date of the origin of hypothesis based on the available evidence the Colorado River itself as a through­ might provide a reasonable and alternative an­ flowing stream in its present course swer to some of the "major unsolved problems" of the region . If the alternative interpretation of the evidence at Grand Wash offered here is IDepartment of Geological Sciences, The reasonable, the Grand Wash dilemma may not University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas exist because the "immovable object," the Mud­ 79968. dy Creek Formation at Grand Wash, would then 178 Earl M. P. Lovejoy NEVA DA UTA H 0 20 40 60 80 /00 A R / Z 0 NA - *Till 0 /0 20 30 40 50 0 laJ 2(X) 300 ill) $CALE SC ALE km UTA H W E 8 A SIN and COLORADO S RAN G £ N E V A D A Uinkarflf Plaff/au PLATEAU aNA Fig. 1. Index map of study area. be shown not to have been "immovable" after Time of Uplift of the all. Colorado Plateau As Blackwelder (1934, p. 564) noted: Solution of the problem at Grand Wash de ­ "Science advances not only by the discovery pends greatly on the determination of the period of facts but also by the proposal and consider­ of relative uplift of the Colorado Plateau with ation of hypothesis . II respect to the Basin and Range province along Earl M. P. Lovejoy 179 its great boundary faults, the Grand Wash and The Muddy Creek Formation fills a deposi­ Hurricane faults. Longwell (1945) believed that tional trough west of the Grand Wash Cliffs. the Grand Wash fault was of Laramide age. The plateau block was uplifted with respect to Shoemaker (1975) is the latest in a long list of the Basin and Range province to the west along workers beginning with Gardner (1941) who the Grand Wash fault prior to "Muddy Creek have presented substantial and cogent evidence time," because as Longwell (1945) showed, the that the Colorado Plateau uplift began as late fault lies buried beneath the unfaulted Muddy as Miocene time. Certainly, a Pliocene uplift Creek Formation in Grand Wash. Along the (McKee and others, 1967) after deposition of west side of Grand Wash is Wheeler Ridge, the Muddy Creek deposits at Grand Wash is not composed of Paleozoic strata, which dip up to possible because the Muddy Creek Formation 70° E. in an excellent example of reverse drag has not been displaced in Grand Wash along (cL Longwell, 1945). On the west side of the Grand Wash fault (cL McKee and McKee, Wheeler Ridge is Wheeler fault, which has dis­ 1972, and Lovejoy, 1973b). Indeed, Anderson placed Muddy Creek strata down on the west and Mehnert (1979) have concluded that most side only 500 to 1,200 feet (150 to 360 m) if not all of the Colorado Plateau uplift on the (Lucchitta, 1966, p. 140-142), several kilo­ Hurricane fault occurred in the Quaternary. meters west of the buried Grand Wash fault. However, there is excellent evidence along Stratigraphic separation on Grand Wash fault the only place in the Hurricane fault zone where is unknown, although Longwell (1945, p. 114) the date of faulting can be clearly demonstrated suggested that it might be as much as "20,000 that 85 percent of the stratigraphic separation ft" (6,100 m). Thus, at Grand Wash, post­ on the Hurricane fault occurred in pre-Miocene Muddy Creek throw represents less than 6 per­ time and that faulting had begun in Paleocene cent of the Cenozoic fault throw . time (Lovejoy, 1964, 1973a, 1978b). Further, evidence along the northern extension of the The pertinent late Neogene stratigraphy in Grand Wash fault (Moore, 1972), which Dobbin Grand Wash includes, among others, three (1939) termed the "Cedar Pocket Canyon fault," units important in this analysis; (1) the fan­ indicates a pre-Miocene period for most of the glomerate facies of the Muddy Creek Formation stratigraphic separation on that fault (Lovejoy , noted by Blackwelder (1934), (2) "the sand­ 1976a). Evidence supplied by Young and Bren­ stone-siltstone facies" of the Muddy Creek nan (1974) is interpreted to indicate major fault Formation noted by Lucchitta (1966, p. 99-105), movement· prior to 17 m. y. ago . and (3) the Hualapai lacustrine limestone noted by Longwell (1946) . I suggest that a Laramide age for the Colo­ rado Plateau uplift ought to be considered as The Fanglomerate Facies of a basis for further geomorphic analysis . the Muddy Creek Formation Therefore, alternative explanations for the genesis of the Colorado River, tied to the tec­ The fanglomerate facies or piedmont depos­ tonics of the region, as noted by Longwell its described by Blackwelder (1934) and Long­ (1946), perhaps might be considered in addi­ well (1946) consist of a sequence of fanglomer­ tion to those of McKee and others (1968) ; but ates up to 90 m thick, which contains clasts of compare Hunt (1968), Lucchitta (1972), and Rapakivi granite and schists derived from the Hamblin (1970) and other contributors to the west. The bulk of the deposit consists of cob­ literature on the subject. bles and small boulders of schist and granite derived from the Precambrian terrane 8- 10 km west of Grand Wash. Lake Mead now locally covers its base in Grand Wash. Where it lies Late Neogene Stratigraphy on the Kaibab Formation east of Wheeler Ridge at Grand Wash local accumulations of Paleozoic carbonate cob­ bles and boulders occur, but nowhere are they Blackwelder (1934) and Longwell (1946) con­ stratigraphically higher than 10 m above their Sidered the Muddy Creek Formation to repre­ contact with the limestone; these cobbles were sent a great amount of boulder gravel trans­ locally derived from the Kaibab formation of ported east from the vicinity of Bonelli Peak Wheeler Ridge as it was being buried by Muddy (Figs. 2 and 3) to the foot of the Grand Wash Creek boulders from the west. The Rapakivi Cliffs. Boulders up to 6 m long of Rapakivi granite boulders were probably carried in mud granite (Volborth, 1962) traceable to Bonelli flows down the old (now deeply dissected) pedi­ Peak moved east down a piedmont slope . They ment surface between Bonelli Peak and Grand­ lie on both sides of the west-flowing Colorado Grapevine Wash . This facies can be followed River east of Wheeler Ridge; the surface lag south 40 km from the Colorado River along the boulders represent a disproportionately large west flank of Grapevine Wash. Thus, condi­ part of the clasts on the present surface (Figs .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I2628 Pamphlet
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I–2628 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Version 1.0 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LITTLEFIELD 30' × 60' QUADRANGLE, MOHAVE COUNTY, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA By George H. Billingsley and Jeremiah B. Workman INTRODUCTION 10 km north of the north-central part of the map and are the largest settlements near the map area. This map is one result of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Interstate Highway 15 and U.S. Highway 91 provide intent to provide geologic map coverage and a better under- access to the northwest corner of the map area, and Arizona standing of the transition in regional geology between the State Highway 389 provides access to the northeast corner. Basin and Range and Colorado Plateaus in southeastern Ne- Access to the rest of the map area is by dirt roads maintained vada, southwestern Utah, and northwestern Arizona. Infor- by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip Dis- mation gained from this regional study provides a better trict, St. George, Utah. The area is largely managed by the understanding of the tectonic and magmatic evolution of an U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Arizona Strip Dis- area of extreme contrasts in late Mesozoic-early Tertiary trict, which includes sections of land controlled by the State compression, Cenozoic magmatism, and Cenozoic extension. of Arizona. There are several isolated sections of privately This map is a synthesis of 32 new geologic maps encom- owned lands, mainly near the communities of Littlefield, passing the Littlefield 30' x 60' quadrangle, Arizona. Geo- Beaver Dam, and Colorado City.
    [Show full text]
  • Yanawant: Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip
    Yanawant Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip Volume Two OfOfOf The Arizona Strip Landscapes and Place Name Study Prepared by Diane Austin Erin Dean Justin Gaines December 12, 2005 Yanawant Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip Volume Two Of The Arizona Strip Landscapes and Place Name Study Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip Field Office St. George, Utah Prepared by: Diane Austin Erin Dean Justin Gaines Report of work carried out under contract number #AAA000011TOAAF030023 2 Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………ii i Chapter One: Southern Paiute History on the Arizona Strip………………………………...1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Early Southern Paiute Contact with Europeans and Euroamericans ........................... 5 1.2 Southern Paiutes and Mormons ........................................................................................ 8 1.3 The Second Powell Expedition......................................................................................... 13 1.4 An Onslaught of Cattle and Further Mormon Expansion............................................ 16 1.5 Interactions in the First Half of the 20 th Century ......................................................... 26 Chapter Two: Southern Paiute Place Names On and Near the Arizona Strip 37 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Geological Association Publication 30.Pub
    Utah Geological Association Publication 30 - Pacific Section American Association of Petroleum Geologists Publication GB78 239 CENOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO RIVER EXTEN- SIONAL CORRIDOR, SOUTHERN NEVADA AND NORTHWEST ARIZONA JAMES E. FAULDS1, DANIEL L. FEUERBACH2*, CALVIN F. MILLER3, 4 AND EUGENE I. SMITH 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Mail Stop 178, Reno, NV 89557 2Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 *Now at Exxon Mobil Development Company, 16825 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060 3Department of Geology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 4Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 ABSTRACT The northern Colorado River extensional corridor is a 70- to 100-km-wide region of moderately to highly extended crust along the eastern margin of the Basin and Range province in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona. It has occupied a criti- cal structural position in the western Cordillera since Mesozoic time. In the Cretaceous through early Tertiary, it stood just east and north of major fold and thrust belts and also marked the northern end of a broad, gently (~15o) north-plunging uplift (Kingman arch) that extended southeastward through much of central Arizona. Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata were stripped from the arch by northeast-flowing streams. Peraluminous 65 to 73 Ma granites were emplaced at depths of at least 10 km and exposed in the core of the arch by earliest Miocene time. Calc-alkaline magmatism swept northward through the northern Colorado River extensional corridor during early to middle Miocene time, beginning at ~22 Ma in the south and ~12 Ma in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Wash Cliffs G-E-M Resources Area (GRA No. AZ-02) Covers Approximately 200,000 Acres (811 Sq Km) and Includes the Following Wilderness Study Areas (WSA)
    GRAND WASH CLIFFS G-E-M Denver, CO 80225.QO4 f RESOURCES AREA (GRA NO. AZ-02) TECHNICAL REPORT (WSAs AZ 020-014 and 020-015) Contract YA-553-RFP2-1054 Prepared By Great Basin GEM Joint Venture 251 Ralston Street Reno, Nevada 89503 For Bureau of Land Management Denver Service Center Building 50, Mailroom Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Final Report April 22, 1983 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I INTRODUCTION 3 II. GEOLOGY 10 1. PHYSIOGRAPHY 1° 2 ROCK UNITS 10 3 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS H 4. PALEONTOLOGY 12 5 HISTORICAL GEOLOGY 12 III ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 14 A. METALLIC MINERAL RESOURCES 14 1 Known Mineral Deposits 14 2. Known Prospects, Mineral Occurrences and Mineralized Areas • • 14 3 Mining Claims • 15 4. Mineral Deposit Types 15 5 • Mineral Economics 16 B NONMETALLIC MINERAL RESOURCES 17 1 Known Mineral Deposits 17 2. Known Prospects, Mineral Occurrences and Mineralized Areas 17 3. Mining Claims, Leases and Material Sites 17 4. Mineral Deposit Types 17 5 • Mineral Economics ••• 17 . .. .. Table of Contents cont Page C. ENERGY RESOURCES 18 Uranium and Thorium Resources 18 1. Known Mineral Deposits • 18 2. Known Prospects, Mineral Occurrences and Mineralized Areas 18 3 Mining Claims • 18 4. Mineral Deposit Types 18 5 Mineral Economics 18 Oil and Gas Resources 19 Geothermal Resources 20 D. OTHER GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 20 E. STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS AND METALS 21 IV. LAND CLASSIFICATION FOR G-E-M RESOURCES POTENTIAL ... 22 1 LOCATABLE RESOURCES 23 a. Metallic Minerals 23 b. Uranium and Thorium 24 c. Nonmetallic Minerals • 25 2 LEASABLE RESOURCES 26 a.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Wilderness Recommendation
    Final Wilderness Recommendation 2010 Update Grand Canyon National Park Arizona National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NOTE: This document is a draft update to the park’s 1980 Final Wilderness Recommendation submitted to the Department of Interior in September 1980. The 1980 recommendation has never been forwarded to the president and Congress for legislative action. The 2010 draft update is to reconcile facts on the ground and incorporate modern mapping tools (Geographical Information Systems), but it does not alter the substance of the original recommendation. In 1993, the park also completed an update that served as a resource for the 2010 draft update. The official wilderness recommendation map remains the map #113-40, 047B, submitted to the Department of Interior in 1980. FINAL WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATION 2010 Update GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ARIZONA THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RECOMMENDS THAT WILDERNESS OF 1,143,918 ACRES WITHIN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA, AS DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT, BE DESIGNATED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS. OF THIS TOTAL, 1,117,457 ACRES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR IMMEDIATE DESIGNATION, AND 26,461 ACRES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR DESIGNATION AS POTENTIAL WILDERNESS PENDING RESOLUTION OF BOUNDARY AND MOTORIZED RIVER ISSUES. 2 Table of Contents I. Requirement for Study 4 II. Wilderness Recommendation 4 III. Wilderness Summary 4 IV. Description of the Wilderness Units 5 Unit 1: Grand Wash Cliffs 5 Unit 2: Western Park 5 (a) Havasupai Traditional Use Lands 6 (b) Sanup Plateau 7 (c) Uinkaret Mountains 7 (d) Toroweap Valley 8 (e) Kanab Plateau 8 - Tuckup Point 8 - SB Point 8 (f) North Rim 8 (g) Esplanade 9 (h) Tonto Platform 9 (i) Inner Canyon 9 (j) South Rim (west of Hermits Rest) 9 (k) Recommended Potential wilderness 9 - Colorado River 9 - Curtis-Lee Tracts 9 (l) Non-wilderness 9 - Great Thumb 9 - North Rim Primitive Roads 10 - Kanab Plateau Primitive Roads 10 Unit 3: Eastern Park 10 (a) Potential Wilderness 11 - Private Lands 11 - Colorado River 12 (b) Non-wilderness: North Rim Paved Roads 12 Unit 4: The Navajo Indian Properties 12 VI.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water - Surface Water Interactions in the Lower Virgin River Area, Arizona and Nevada
    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-1995 Ground water - surface water interactions in the lower Virgin River area, Arizona and Nevada Lynn Metcalf University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Metcalf, Lynn, "Ground water - surface water interactions in the lower Virgin River area, Arizona and Nevada" (1995). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 502. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/z90f-mtsv This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Kane County, Utah Resource Management Plan
    Kane County Resource Management Plan Adopted 28 November 2011 KANE COUNTY, UTAH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN For the Physical Development of the Unincorporated Area Pursuant to Section 17-27-301 of the Utah Code ADOPTED 28 NOVEMBER 2011 Should any part of the Kane County Resource Management Plan be determined invalid, no longer applicable or need modification, those changes shall affect only those parts of the Plan that are deleted, invalidated or modified and shall have no effect on the remainder of the Resource Management Plan. This document was prepared by the Division of Community and Economic Development of the Five County Association of Governments under the guidance and direction of the Kane County Resource Development Committee, Kane County Land Use Authority and the Board of County Commissioners. Funding used to prepare this document came from Kane County contributions, a Regional Planning grant from the Utah Permanent Community Impact Board and a Planning and Technical Assistance Grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. - 1 - Kane County Resource Management Plan Adopted 28 November 2011 Acknowledgments Every effective planning process includes a multitude of individuals if it is to be successful. This effort is no different. Many individuals have had an impact upon the preparation and adoption of this Plan. However, most important are the residents of Kane County, who have responded to surveys, interviews, and attended public meetings and hearings. All who did so should be commended for their desire to be a participant in determining the future of Kane County. Some specific individuals and groups have had intensive involvement in the Kane County planning process, and are acknowledged below: Kane County Commission Kane County Land Use Authority Doug Heaton, Chairman Shannon McBride, Land Use Administrator Dirk Clayson Tony Chelewski, Chairman Jim Matson Roger Chamberlain Wade Heaton Kane County Staff Robert Houston Verjean Caruso, Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Geologic Map of the Las Vegas I°X2° Quadrangle, Nevada
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Preliminary Geologic Map of the Las Vegas I°x2° quadrangle, Nevada, Arizona and California Compiled by Robert G. Bohannon Open-File Report 78-670 -f. 1978 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards and nomenclature. V'OKK:-::.AT IO.N c:- ? UNITS [^»1 VP Ploiiitoc:one{?) QUATERNARY Ql and Pleistocene Cm Qrci SOUTH­ QUATERNARY AND QTal V^ESTERN EASTERN TERTIARY AREA AREA Pliocene and Tra _. Tb 1 Ipli i! !(Mir Miocene Ths Tppv Thv Thl Tmdvl STrvi 1 Thb Miocene TERTIARY Tht Tsu -\ Upper Kb Cretaceous Lower - CRETACEOUS Kwt Cretaceous J-Ra " JURASSIC TRIASSIC(?) "Bine I Middle (?) and h TRIASSIC *« *\ Lower Triassic< Pkt PERMIAN PC P1M P ENXS YLV AN I AN MISSISSIPPIAN Mni Dms Dmp jFzuj DEVONIAN SI SIL'JRIAN -C-D ORDOVICIAN ^^ Cdl -Cu pCsj - PRECAM8RIAN I pCgn pCrg INSCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS Qal ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS (KOLOCENE AND PLEISTOCENE?) Various types of young alluvial deposits; mostly dissected alluvial cover, terrace deposits, and channel fill; also includes sand dunes, talus, gypsiferous terrace deposits, and tufa. Predominately unconsolidated, caliche horizons common Qp PLAYA DEPOSITS (HOLOCENE AND PLEISTOCENE?) Fine-grained, unconsolidated to poorly consolidated sand, silt, and clay; locally interfinger with alluvial deposits Qc CHEMEHUEVI FORMATION (PLEISTOCENE) Light-colored poorly consolidated sand, silt, and clay. Probably depos­ ited in large lake that once covered area of Lake Mead and Colorado River Ql LAS VEGAS FORMATION (PLEISTOCENE) Light-colored, poorly consolidated clay and silt; abundant mollusk frag­ ments and some vertebrate remains occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide
    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
    [Show full text]
  • Paiute & Beaver Dam Mountains
    The Virgin River Gorge along Interstate 15 from dirt roads that surrounhd the areas (see Wilderness displays 500 million years of geologic history. map on reverse). Trailheads for the Paiute area at Cougar Springs on Black Rock Road and the The Paiute and Beaver Dam Mountains Tilted layers of sandstone and limestone form Paiute & Wilderness Areas are special places where nature vertical cliffs and rugged side canyons. Virgin River Canyon Recreation Area. Other comes first and humans are just visitors. The Recrentionists enjoy sightseeing, hiking and access points occur along the boundiy roads of early settlers in this region rarely entered these backpacking, photography, hunting, technical both areas. areas because of their wild and rugged nature. rockclimbing and river running during certain Beaver Dam Today, visitors enjoy the opportunities for times of the year. Leave No Trace solitude and unconfined, non-mechanized recreation. Access People enter wilderness to escape civilization Mountains The Paiute Wilderness, located in and commune with nature. The Bureau of Land northwestern Arizona, contains 84,700 acres. Travel in the wilderness areas is on foot or Management (BLM) requires your help as a The Virgin Mountains dominate the Paiute, horseback only. Motorized vehicles and wilderness visitor to maintain an untrammeled WlMerness Areas producing a wide range of climatic zones and mechanized equipment are prohibited. Permits setting and preserve the wilderness ecological communities. are not required for non-commerical hiking, characteristics. The 19,600-acre Beaver Dam Mountains horse packing or overnight trips. Arizona Strip Field Office wilderness lies in northwestern Arizona and Portions of both wilderness areas may be seen For Your Safety southwestern Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Citation Information Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law 401 UCB Boulder, Colorado 80309-0401 2004 Table of Contents SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION ........................................................... 1 I. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Specific Special Use Provisions............................................................................................. 1 A. Water Rights ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tectonic Geomorphology of the Toroweap Fault, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona: Implications for Transgression of Faulting on the Colorado Plateau
    Tectonic Geomorphology of the Toroweap Fault, western Grand Canyon, Arizona: Implications for Transgression of Faulting on the Colorado Plateau by Garrett Jackson Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-4 1990 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ ABSTRACT 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. PREVIOUS WORK 3 III. STUDY AREA 4 Geologic setting 4 Climatic setting 5 Quaternary geology and geomorphology 6 IV. SURFACE CLASSIFICATION 7 V. SOILS 9 Carbonate accumulation 9 Total carbonate content 11 VI. MORPHOLOGIC SCARP DATING 13 VII. ESCARPMENT SINUOSITY 17 VIII. BEHAVIOR OF THE TOROWEAP FAULT 20 Spatial variations 20 Segmentation 20 Whitmore Wash Scarps 22 Temporal variations 22 Earthquake magnitude 23 IX. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSGRESSION OF FAULTING 25 REFERENCES 27 APPENDIX 1. Soil profile descriptions 32 APPENDIX 2. Summary of carbonate data 34 1 ABSTRACT The Toroweap fault is a major normal fault in Northwestern Arizona. Along its southern end are four displaced Quaternary surfaces, three of which have measurable displacements that are multiples of about 2.2 m. Soil carbonate analysis was carried out to estimate ages for the three surfaces. An extrapolated carbonate accumulation was used to estimate an age for the oldest surface of between 26 and 54 ka; the youngest displaced surface is between 4 and 11 ka. Oldest undisplaced surface is 2 ± 1 ka. Diffusion modelling determined the most recent surface rupture to be 3 ± 1 ka. An aid in determining degree of tectonic activity where displaced materials are not present is the escarpment sinuosity index (Es).
    [Show full text]