DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology of Castle Valley, Utah

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology of Castle Valley, Utah Geology of Castle Valley, Utah Kiri Wagstaff Geology 320 December 6, 2005 Where is Castle Valley? • Southeastern Utah • 20 miles east of Moab, UT along the Colorado River • Canyon Country Round Arches N.P. Mountain Colorado River Moab Valley 2 km Castle Valley (pop. 4,779) (pop. 349) Castle Creek Pace Hill Seventh-Day Adventists Porcupine Rim 500 m Castle Valley My house Cliffview Porcupine Rim Drive 100 m Geologic Map Utah Geological Survey, Geological Map 180 (2001) Honaker Trail Geologic History Formation Alluvial fan deposits Paradox Formation (salt deposits) QUATERNARY • Precambrian to Triassic: shallow seas, PENNSYLVANIAN Geyser Creek low coastal plains Unconformity Fanglomerate La Sal Mountains Large unconformity between Cambrian TERTIARY (igneous) • Leadville Limestone and late Devonian; Uncompahgre Uplift MISSISSIPIAN Ouray Limestone Mesa Verde Group Salt deposits (Paradox Formation) • Elbert Formation Mancos Shale DEVONIAN CRETACEOUS Cedar Mountain Formation Curtis Formation SILURIAN Unconformity Entrada Sandstone Carmel Formation JURASSIC Navajo Sandstone Kayenta Formation ORDOVICIAN Wingate Sandstone Lynch Dolomite Mauv Limestone Bright Angel Shale Tapeats Limestone Chinle Formation CAMBRIAN Nonconformity TRIASSIC Moenkopi Formation White Rim Precambrian Sandstone granite (igneous) Cutler Formation PERMIAN PRECAMBRIAN Honaker Trail Geologic History Formation Alluvial fan deposits Paradox Formation (salt deposits) QUATERNARY • Precambrian to Triassic: shallow seas, PENNSYLVANIAN Geyser Creek low coastal plains Fanglomerate La Sal Mountains Large unconformity between Cambrian TERTIARY (igneous) • Leadville Limestone and late Devonian; Uncompahgre Uplift MISSISSIPIAN Ouray Limestone Mesa Verde Group Salt deposits (Paradox Formation) • Elbert Formation Mancos Shale DEVONIAN • Late Triassic through Jurassic: vast CRETACEOUS Cedar Mountain arid desert of shifting sand dunes Formation Curtis Formation SILURIAN Entrada Sandstone Carmel Formation JURASSIC Navajo Sandstone Kayenta Formation ORDOVICIAN Wingate Sandstone Lynch Dolomite Mauv Limestone Bright Angel Shale Tapeats Limestone Chinle Formation CAMBRIAN TRIASSIC Moenkopi Formation White Rim Precambrian Sandstone granite (igneous) Cutler Formation PERMIAN PRECAMBRIAN Honaker Trail Geologic History Formation Alluvial fan deposits Paradox Formation (salt deposits) QUATERNARY • Precambrian to Triassic: shallow seas, PENNSYLVANIAN Geyser Creek low coastal plains Fanglomerate La Sal Mountains Large unconformity between Cambrian TERTIARY (igneous) • Leadville Limestone and late Devonian; Uncompahgre Uplift MISSISSIPIAN Ouray Limestone Mesa Verde Group Salt deposits (Paradox Formation) • Elbert Formation Mancos Shale DEVONIAN • Late Triassic through Jurassic: vast CRETACEOUS Cedar Mountain arid desert of shifting sand dunes Formation Curtis Formation SILURIAN Entrada Sandstone Late Cretaceous to late Tertiary: Carmel Formation • JURASSIC Navajo Sandstone violent crustal deformation (faults, Kayenta Formation ORDOVICIAN Wingate Sandstone Lynch Dolomite uplifts, mountains) Mauv Limestone Bright Angel Shale • Rockies created Tapeats Limestone Chinle Formation CAMBRIAN TRIASSIC Moenkopi Formation White Rim Precambrian Sandstone granite (igneous) Cutler Formation PERMIAN PRECAMBRIAN Honaker Trail Geologic History Formation Alluvial fan deposits Paradox Formation (salt deposits) QUATERNARY • Precambrian to Triassic: shallow seas, PENNSYLVANIAN Geyser Creek low coastal plains Fanglomerate La Sal Mountains Large unconformity between Cambrian TERTIARY (igneous) • Leadville Limestone and late Devonian; Uncompahgre Uplift MISSISSIPIAN Ouray Limestone Mesa Verde Group Salt deposits (Paradox Formation) • Elbert Formation Mancos Shale DEVONIAN • Late Triassic through Jurassic: vast CRETACEOUS Cedar Mountain arid desert of shifting sand dunes Formation Curtis Formation SILURIAN Entrada Sandstone Late Cretaceous to late Tertiary: Carmel Formation • JURASSIC Navajo Sandstone violent crustal deformation (faults, Kayenta Formation ORDOVICIAN Wingate Sandstone Lynch Dolomite uplifts, mountains) Mauv Limestone Bright Angel Shale • Rockies created Tapeats Limestone Chinle Formation CAMBRIAN Late Tertiary: gradual uplift (one TRIASSIC Moenkopi • Formation mile) White Rim Precambrian Sandstone Colorado River starts carving canyons granite (igneous) • Cutler Formation PERMIAN • Glaciers shaped La Sals PRECAMBRIAN Back to the Map Back to the Map Cutler (Permian) Back to the Map Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Back to the Map Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Back to the Map Navajo, Kayenta, Wingate (Jurassic) Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Back to the Map Navajo, Kayenta, Wingate Castle Rock Priest and Nuns (Jurassic) Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Photo by Louis James Maher, Jr. Alluvial channel! Back to the Map Granite (Tertiary intrusive) Navajo, Kayenta, Wingate (Jurassic) Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Back to the Map Granite (Tertiary intrusive) Navajo, Kayenta, Wingate (Jurassic) Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Photo by Louis James Maher, Jr. Back to the Map Granite (Tertiary intrusive) Navajo, Kayenta, Wingate (Jurassic) Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Alluvial deposits Back to the Map Granite (Tertiary intrusive) Navajo, Kayenta, Wingate (Jurassic) Chinle, Moenkopi (Triassic) Cutler (Permian) Alluvial deposits Castle Valley: A Salt Valley • How do salt valleys form? • Salt layers laid down in the Pennsylvanian, then buried • Weight of rock causes salt layers to flow (slowly) • Flows meet rock ridges, pile up and flow upward, forming salt domes (up to 4500 m thick) • Much later, in the Tertiary, gradual regional uplift caused Colorado River to start cutting its channel. It reached the salt layers, dissolved the top ones, and the caprock settled downward. • Further erosion by the Colorado River will likely cause valleys (all eight) to settle further in the future CITED AND SELECTED 2 Chitwood, J.P., 1994, Provisional geologic 7 Doelling, H.H., and Morgan, C.D., 1996, Gualtieri, J.L., 1982, Geologic map of McKnight, E.T., 1940, Geology of the Sable, V.H., 1955c, Photogeologic map Trimble, L. M., and Doelling, H. H., 110°00' 109°45' 109°30' 109°15' 109°00' TABLE 1. Wells shown on cross sections. PLATE 3 of 3 MAP REFERENCES map of the Hatch Mesa quadrangle, Interim geologic map of the Merrimac parts of Crescent Junction and Floy area between Green and Colorado of the Tidwell-8 (Green River SE) 1978, Geology and uranium-vanadium Map and Grand County, Utah: Utah Geological Butte quadrangle, Grand County, Utah: Canyon quadrangles, Utah, showing Rivers, Grand and San Juan Counties, quadrangle, Grand and Emery Counties, deposits of the San Rafael River mining Line Cross-Section Label More Complete Designation Location Utah Geological Survey Survey Map 152, 16 p., scale 1:24,000. Utah Geological Survey Open-File coal zones and adjacent rocks: U.S. Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin Utah: U.S. Geological Survey district, Emery County, Utah: UGMS Geologic Map 180 Cole, R.D., Young, R.G., and Willis, G.C., Report 338, 81 p., scale 1:24,000. Geological Survey Open-File Report 908, 147 p., plate 1, scale 1:62,500. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Bulletin 113, 122 p. 39°00' 39°00' A-A’ Texaco Smoot #2 Texaco Inc., No. 2 Government Smoot NW1/4 SE1/4 section 17, T. 23 S., R. 17 E. References, preceded by numbers and 1997, The Prairie Canyon Member, a 8 Doelling, H.H., and Ross, M.L., 1993, 82-584, scale 1:50,000. Miller, W.D., 1959, The general geology Map I-89, scale 1:24,000. White, M.A., and Jacobson, M.I., 1983, Crescent Thompson B-B’ McRae O&G #1 Fed McRae Oil and Gas Corp., No. 1 Federal SW1/4 SW1/4 section 10, T. 25 S., R. 18 E. Green Cisco River 1 Geologic Map of the shown with colors and patterns, new unit of the Upper Cretaceous Geologic map of the Big Bend Hackman, R.J., 1959a, Photogeologic of Moab Valley, Moab, Utah: Lubbock, Sable, V.H., 1955d, Photogeologic map Structures associated with the River 2 Junction 4 B-B’ Shell 1-21 MF-Fed Shell Oil, No. 1-21 Mountain Fuel Federal NW1/4 NW1/4 section 21, T. 23 S., R. 18 E. Moab and eastern part are those used in figure 4, Mancos Shale, west-central Colorado quadrangle, Grand County, Utah: Utah map of the Coach Creek NE (Marble Texas Technological University, M.S. of the Tidwell-7 (Horsebench East) southwest margin of the ancestral 70 B-B’ TGE #1 Salt Valley NW Texas Gas Exploration, No. 1 Salt Valley NW SE1/4 NW1/4 section 23, T. 21 S., R. 18 E. of the San Rafael Desert Sources of Geologic Data. and east-central Utah: Utah Geological Geological Survey Map 171, 29 p., Canyon) quadrangle, Grand County, thesis, 121 p., scale 1:12,000. quadrangle, Emery and Grand Counties, Uncompahgre uplift, in Averett, W.R., B-B’ & 30'x60' Quadrangles, Survey Miscellaneous Publication 97- scale 1:24,000. Utah and Mesa County, Colorado: U.S. Orkild, P.P., 1955, Photogeologic map Utah: U.S. Geological Survey editor, Northern Paradox basin- C-C’ Ladd 1-27 Ladd Petroleum, No. 1-27 U Federal SW1/4 NW1/4 section 27, T. 24 S., R. 18 E. Grand and Emery Counties, 4, 23 p. Doelling, H.H., Ross, M.L., and Mulvey, Geological Survey Miscellaneous of the Tidwell-16 (Bowknot Bend) Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Uncompahgre uplift: Grand Junction 9 4 C-C’ MFS KL3 Mountain Feul Supply Co., No. 3 Klondike SW1/4 SW1/4 section 31, T. 23 S., R. 19 E. Utah, and Mesa County, Colorado Baker, A.A., 1933, Geology and oil Colman, S.M., and Hawkins, F.F., 1985, W.E., 1995, Interim geologic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harvey Butchart's Hiking Log DETAILED HIKING LOGS (January
    Harvey Butchart’s Hiking Log DETAILED HIKING LOGS (January 22, 1965 - September 25, 1965) Mile 24.6 and Hot Na Na Wash [January 22, 1965 to January 23, 1965] My guest for this trip, Norvel Johnson, thought we were going for just the day. When I told him it was a two day trip, he brought in his sleeping bag, but since he had no knapsack, we decided to sleep at the Jeep. The idea was to see Hot Na Na from the rim on Friday and then go down it as far as possible on Saturday. We thought we were following the Tanner Wash Quad map carefully when we left the highway a little to the north of the middle of the bay formed by Curve Wash in the Echo Cliffs. What we didn't realize is that there is another turnoff only a quarter of a mile north of the one we used. This is the way we came out of the hinterland on Saturday. Our exit is marked by a large pile of rocks and it gives a more direct access to all the country we were interested in seeing. The way we went in goes west, south, and north and we got thoroughly confused before we headed toward the rim of Marble Canyon. The track we followed goes considerably past the end of the road which we finally identified as the one that is one and a half miles north of Pine Reservoir. It ended near a dam. We entered the draw beyond the dam and after looking down at the Colorado River, decided that we were on the north side of the bay at Mile 24.6.
    [Show full text]
  • GRAND CANYON GUIDE No. 6
    GRAND CANYON GUIDE no. 6 ... excerpted from Grand Canyon Explorer … Bob Ribokas AN AMATEUR'S REVIEW OF BACKPACKING TOPICS FOR THE T254 - EXPEDITION TO THE GRAND CANYON - MARCH 2007 Descriptions of Grand Canyon Layers Grand Canyon attracts the attention of the world for many reasons, but perhaps its greatest significance lies in the geologic record that is so beautifully preserved and exposed here. The rocks at Grand Canyon are not inherently unique; similar rocks are found throughout the world. What is unique about the geologic record at Grand Canyon is the great variety of rocks present, the clarity with which they're exposed, and the complex geologic story they tell. Paleozoic Strata: Kaibab depositional environment: Kaibab Limestone - This layer forms the surface of the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed primarily of a sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. In some places sandstone and shale also exists as its upper layer. The color ranges from cream to a greyish-white. When viewed from the rim this layer resembles a bathtub ring and is commonly referred to as the Canyon's bathtub ring. Fossils that can be found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth. Toroweap depositional environment Toroweap Formation - This layer is composed of pretty much the same material as the Kaibab Limestone above. It is darker in color, ranging from yellow to grey, and contains a similar fossil history. Coconino depositional environment: Coconino Sandstone - This layer is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon
    U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Investigations Series I–2688 14 Version 1.0 4 U.S. Geological Survey 167.5 1 BIG SPRINGS CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS LIST OF MAP UNITS 4 Pt Ph Pamphlet accompanies map .5 Ph SURFICIAL DEPOSITS Pk SURFICIAL DEPOSITS SUPAI MONOCLINE Pk Qr Holocene Qr Colorado River gravel deposits (Holocene) Qsb FAULT CRAZY JUG Pt Qtg Qa Qt Ql Pk Pt Ph MONOCLINE MONOCLINE 18 QUATERNARY Geologic Map of the Pleistocene Qtg Terrace gravel deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Pc Pk Pe 103.5 14 Qa Alluvial deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Pt Pc VOLCANIC ROCKS 45.5 SINYALA Qti Qi TAPEATS FAULT 7 Qhp Qsp Qt Travertine deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Grand Canyon ၧ DE MOTTE FAULT Pc Qtp M u Pt Pleistocene QUATERNARY Pc Qp Pe Qtb Qhb Qsb Ql Landslide deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Qsb 1 Qhp Ph 7 BIG SPRINGS FAULT ′ × ′ 2 VOLCANIC DEPOSITS Dtb Pk PALEOZOIC SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 30 60 Quadrangle, Mr Pc 61 Quaternary basalts (Pleistocene) Unconformity Qsp 49 Pk 6 MUAV FAULT Qhb Pt Lower Tuckup Canyon Basalt (Pleistocene) ၣm TRIASSIC 12 Triassic Qsb Ph Pk Mr Qti Intrusive dikes Coconino and Mohave Counties, Pe 4.5 7 Unconformity 2 3 Pc Qtp Pyroclastic deposits Mr 0.5 1.5 Mၧu EAST KAIBAB MONOCLINE Pk 24.5 Ph 1 222 Qtb Basalt flow Northwestern Arizona FISHTAIL FAULT 1.5 Pt Unconformity Dtb Pc Basalt of Hancock Knolls (Pleistocene) Pe Pe Mၧu Mr Pc Pk Pk Pk NOBLE Pt Qhp Qhb 1 Mၧu Pyroclastic deposits Qhp 5 Pe Pt FAULT Pc Ms 12 Pc 12 10.5 Lower Qhb Basalt flows 1 9 1 0.5 PERMIAN By George H.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS General Information Product
    Geologic Field Photograph Map of the Grand Canyon Region, 1967–2010 General Information Product 189 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Billingsley, G.H., Goodwin, G., Nagorsen, S.E., Erdman, M.E., and Sherba, J.T., 2019, Geologic field photograph map of the Grand Canyon region, 1967–2010: U.S. Geological Survey General Information Product 189, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/gip189. ISSN 2332-354X (online) Cover. Image EF69 of the photograph collection showing the view from the Tonto Trail (foreground) toward Indian Gardens (greenery), Bright Angel Fault, and Bright Angel Trail, which leads up to the south rim at Grand Canyon Village. Fault offset is down to the east (left) about 200 feet at the rim.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology of the Tapeats Amphitheater and Deer
    HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE TAPEATS AMPHITHEATER AND DEER BASIN, GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA : A STUDY IN KARST HYDROLOGY by Peter Wesley Huntoon A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 AC NOWLEDGEMENT The writer gratefully acknowledges Drs . John W . Harshbarger, Jerome J . Wright, Daniel D . Evans and Evans B . Mayo for their careful reading of the manuscript and their many helpful suggestions . t is with deepfelt appreciation that the writer acknowledges his wife, Susan, for the hours she spent in typing this thesis . An assistantship from the Museum of Northern Arizona and a fellowship from the National Defense Education Act, Title V, provided-the funds necessary to carry out this work . TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa aP L ST OF TABLES vii L ST OF LLUSTRAT ONS viii ABSTRACT x NTRODUCT ON 1 Location 1 Topography and Drainage 1 Climate and Vegetation 2 Topographic Maps 4 Accessibility 5 Objectives of the Thesis ' . , 6 Method of Study . 7 Previous Work , , , , , , , , , , , , 7 ROC UN TS : L THOLOG C AND WATER BEAR NG PROPERT ES , , 10 Definition of Permeability 11 Precambrian Rocks 12 Paleozoic Rocks 13 Tonto Group 15 Tapeats Sandstone 15 Bright Angel Shale , 16 Muav Limestone 17 Temple Butte Limestone 19 Redwall Limestone , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 20 Aubrey Group - ' - 22 Supai Formation 23 Hermit Shale 25 Coconino Sandstone , 25 Toroweap Formation 26 aibab Formation 27 Cenozoic
    [Show full text]
  • The Grand Canyon, Mules, and the Photographers for the National Park’S Most Controversial Trail, 1901-1936
    Unobtainable Elsewhere: The Grand Canyon, Mules, and the Photographers for the National Park’s Most Controversial Trail, 1901-1936 By Harris Abernathy A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in History Middle Tennessee State University May 2019 Thesis Committee: Dr. Carroll Van West, Chair Dr. Brenden Martin ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the faculty of the M.T.S.U Public History department for their support over the past two years. I would especially like to thank the staff of the Center for Historic Preservation, with a grateful recognition to Kelle Knight and Alex McMahan for their tireless devotion and for keeping the skids greased. A sincere appreciate is given to my chair, Dr. Van West for the liberties he gave to my research while guiding from the wings and whose keen eye for getting to the meat of the matter taught me the effectiveness of history. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife, Erin and son, Wyatt for their constant devotion and endless encouragement. ii ABSTRACT Over the past one hundred thirty years, tourism at the Grand Canyon has been associated with mules. With the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway’s arrival in 1901, canyon tourism was launched to a new level of popularity and with it the mule riding experience, both of which the railroad company intended to monopolize. One man more than any other sought to resist the railroad’s controlling attempts. Ralph Cameron used loosely interpreted mining laws to claim ownership over not only thousands of canyon acres, but also the Bright Angel Trail, which he charged a one-dollar toll for stock to pass over.
    [Show full text]
  • Kopk, -A- 3>T 3D
    KOpK, -A- 3>T 3D ORIGIN AND SCENERY By John H. Maxson GRAND CANYON ORIGIN and SCENERY IK- JOHN H. MAXSON, Ph. D. Fellow, Geological Society of America; Collab­ orator, Grand Canyon National Park; Formerly, Asst. Professor of Geology, California Institute of Technology and Research Associate, Carnegie Institution of Washington, D. C. Copyright 1961 by GRAND CANYON NATURAL HISTORY' ASSOCIATION Illustrations by the Author COVER ILLUSTRATION: THE GRAND CANYON - VIEW WESTWARD FROM LIPAN POINT PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY NORTHLAND PRESS FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA Bulletin No. 13 This booklet is one of a series published by the Grand Canyon Natural History Association to further visitor understanding and enjoyment of the scenic, scientif­ ic and historic values of Grand Canyon National Park. The Association cooperates with the National Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior and is recognized as an essential operating organization. It is primarily sponsored and operated by the Interpretation Division in Grand Canyon Na­ tional Park. Merrill D. Beal, Executive Secretary Grand Canyon Natural History Association Box 219, Grand Canyon, Arizona PUBLISHED IN COOPERATION WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Geographic Setting 2 Geologic Setting 7 Sequence of Development 8 Stage 1. The Ancestral Colorado Plain .... 8 Stage 2. Regional Uplift Initiates New Cycle of Erosion — The Ancestral Canyon . 9 Stage 3. Erosion of the Outer Canyon .... 13 Stage 4. Enlargement of Outer Canyon and Cutting of Inner Gorge 27 Conclusion 31 INTRODUCTION The great canyon cut by the Colorado River across north­ ern Arizona for a distance of more than 200 miles is one of the earth's most impressive sights.
    [Show full text]
  • Eology and Promising Areas for Ground-Water Development in the Hualapai 'Ndian Reservation, Arizona
    eology and Promising Areas for Ground-Water Development in the Hualapai 'ndian Reservation, Arizona ."?y F. R. TWENTER VATER SUPPLY OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1576-A Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs "JNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1962 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEW ART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract ___ _____________________________________________________ Al Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Location and extent of the area. ________________-__--_-_------__ 2 Physiography.________________________________________________ 4 Climate. _____________________________________________________ 6 Fieldwork and maps._-___-__-__________-_______-__-_-__-___--- 7 Previous investigations.________________________________________ 7 Acknowledgments- ____________________________________________ 8 Geology and its relation to ground water. ____________________________ 8 Precambrian granite, gneiss, and schist-__________________________ 8 Paleozoic rocks________________________________________________ 10 Tonto group (Cambrian)___________________________________ 10 Tapeats sandstone____________________________ __-_-___ 10 Bright Angel shale, ____________________________________ 11 Muav limestone.______________________________________ 11 Devonian limestone._______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • The Long and Extraordinary History of Life in Our Office Christa Sadler GTS 2006/March 25
    LIFE IN STONE: The Long and Extraordinary History of Life in Our Office Christa Sadler GTS 2006/March 25 PRECAMBRIAN (4.6 billion to 544 million years ago) • Life on Earth begins about 3.5 billion years ago: single-celled bacteria that often form stromatolites (later, when true algae evolves, it also form stromatolites). The earliest life in Grand Canyon is about 1.2 billion years old, in the Bass Formation of the GC Supergroup. Several of the Supergroup layers have stromatolites in them, most made of true algae. There are several species known in Grand Canyon, ranging in size from a few inches high to several tens of feet long. Multicellular life appeared about 700 million years ago, and may have been present in some of the later Chuar Group sediments, but the evidence is sketchy at best. PALEOZOIC Cambrian (544 to 490 million years ago) Tapeats, Bright Angel, Muav) • The “Cambrian Explosion” in the early part of the Cambrian saw the beginnings of all the major groups of animals alive today. This diversification of life may have taken as little as five million years, which is, trust me, a really short time, geologically speaking. • The Cambrian seas were dominated by animals that were filter feeders, that is, little bulldozers that dug food out of the sediment. We see evidence of this in the Tapeats Sandstone and Bright Angel Shale, where worm burrows and trilobite tracks are really common. There are some 40 species of trilobites in Grand Canyon, but none of them are all that well preserved. At the time of the Tapeats/BA/Muav, there was no life on land, although there are some things found in the Bright Angel that some researchers interpret as spores from land plants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shinumo Quadrangle, Grand Canyon District, Arizona
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY , ' ' ' *< ! !-" GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOB BULLETIN 549 THE SHINUMO QUADRANGLE GRAND CANYON DISTRICT ARIZONA BY L. F. NOBLE WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1914 CONTENTS. Preface, by F. L. Kansome................................................. Introduction.............................................................. Location and geography................................................ Field work............................................................ Literature............................................................ Acknowledgments.........................................."............ Physiography of the Grand Canyon district................................. 15 Topography of the Shinumo quadrangle...................................... 2l Climate. .........=...................................................... 25 Vegetation............................................................... 27 Indian ruins.............................................................. 28 Geology.................................................................. 29 Age and character of the rocks.......................................... 29 . Series of rocks discriminated........................................... 31 Proterozoic rocks..................................................... I 32 Archean system.................................................... 32 Vishnu schist.................................................. 32 Name...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes the Redwall Limestone Unique from Other Formations in The
    4/30/2014 The Redwall Limestone: • What makes the Redwall Limestone unique from other formations in the Grand Canyon? • What geologic events mark major aspects of this Canyon formation? • And how do each of these events play a role in the Redwall Limestone that we are a part of today? Guide Training Seminar, Feb. 8‐9, 2014 1 4/30/2014 Amazing Aspects of the Redwall Limestone: • Diverse and long history over the last 350 million years. • Magnificent cliffs and red walls. • Composed of ~99.5% pure limestone, ~95% of which is biologically formed in the presence of organisms. • Forms very chemically‐resistant cliffs, yet it is a very soft rock (slightly harder than a finger nail). • Has 1,000’s of miles of interconnected caverns spread out over the Colorado Plateau. • Has many caverns, some with ancient and modern speleothems. • Is the source of carbonate for the growth of abundant travertine deposits. • Provides precious minerals, trace metals and uranium in breccia pipes • Is a major source of high‐quality groundwater to numerous and voluminous springs in the canyon and region, consumed by most visitors to the canyon. • “Living in the Past” implies the past of the Redwall Limestone is living with us today. Guide Training Seminar, Feb. 8‐9, 2014 2 4/30/2014 Visualizing the base of the Redwall: • The Supergroup layers are faulted, tilted, and subsequently eroded to produce the Greatest Unconformity (lower yellow line). • The Tonto Group underlying the Redwall represents a worldwide sea level rise onto all continents from ~550 to 500 Ma. • A significant unconformity of ~100 million years (Ma) separates the Redwall Limestone and Tonto Group (upper yellow line).
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Proposal
    Request for Proposal Flagstone Marketing Study for Hualapai Tribe Funded by the Division of Energy and Mineral Development, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Bureau of Indian Affairs – DEMD/IEED/BIA Published by Hualapai Planning and Economic Development Department Issued: March 21, 2016 1 INTRODUCTION: The Hualapai Tribe of Arizona is soliciting a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Flagstone Marketing Study. The Hualapai Indian Tribe (Tribe) wishes to develop additional sources of flagstone to meet the future building construction needs on the Hualapai Reservation and other possible markets. The Hualapai Reservation contains approximately 998,000 acres of land held in Trust by the Federal government and is located in portions of Mohave, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona. Aside from on-Reservation use, the Tribe will seek to market the flagstone to other builders in Arizona, the Southwest, nationally and possibly internationally. A market analysis must be performed to determine the price point for this unique product and determine the best means to make the product available to the buyer. A contract geologist with experience in marketing flagstone products will be retained to conduct market studies. The contractor will combine this information into a final report to be presented to the Tribal Council at the completion of the grant. Technical Summary for Geologist Services: Market/Feasibility Studies This project will be a study of the current market conditions, and future demands, prices. This study is necessary to determine whether to proceed with the development of the flagstone resource and the subsequent mining operations plan. The feasibility study would look at specific needs of the Tribe as well as the broader construction industry in Arizona and California.
    [Show full text]