Rejection of the Lake Spillover Model for Initial Incision of the Grand Canyon, and Discussion of Alternatives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CRevolution 2: Origin and Evolution of the Colorado River System II themed issue Rejection of the lake spillover model for initial incision of the Grand Canyon, and discussion of alternatives William R. Dickinson* Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0077, USA ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION borough (1989, p. 522) initially envisioned that Hopi Lake was drained when headward erosion One hypothesis for the origin of the Grand The reason the Grand Canyon was cut by the upstream through the Grand Canyon breached Canyon is that a broad Hopi Lake, of which Colorado River is disputed (Lucchitta, 1984, the Kaibab-Coconino barrier that dammed lakebeds of the Miocene Bidahochi Forma- 1989, 1990; Young and Spamer, 2001; Ran- the lake basin on the west, but later suggested tion are a vestigial record, ponded to a depth ney, 2005; Flowers et al., 2008; Pelletier, 2010; that the lake level might have overtopped the great enough near the Miocene-Pliocene Wernicke, 2011; Beard et al., 2011; Douglass, Kaibab-Coconino barrier near a locale where time boundary to spill over the topographic 2011; Karlstrom et al., 2011). This paper evalu- previous Laramide erosion had cut a drainage barrier of the Kaibab-Coconino Plateau to ates the lake spillover model, which holds that notch through the confi ning uplands (Scarbor- initiate incision of the Grand Canyon below (1) the Miocene Bidahochi Formation of north- ough, 2001, p. 212). Meek and Douglass (2001) the lake outlet. Bidahochi paleogeography eastern Arizona contains lakebeds that are a took the postulate of lake spillover a logical step indicates that Hopi Lake was a playa sys- vestigial record of a once-deep Hopi Lake, fi lled further by inferring that incision of the Grand tem that never achieved appreciable depth. with waters from the Colorado River in Utah, Canyon was triggered when Hopi Lake spilled Topographic relations in northern Arizona that ponded east of the Kaibab-Coconino Pla- across the elevated Kaibab-Coconino tract with- show that the maximum elevation of Bida- teau until it spilled over the crest of the plateau out benefi t of a pre-existing paleocanyon as a hochi lakebeds is not compatible with lake dam; and (2) lake spillover near the Miocene- guide for water fl ow. spillover through the Grand Canyon unless Pliocene time boundary initiated incision of the Studies of sedimentation along the course post-Bidahochi deformation or pre-Bida- Grand Canyon below the lake outlet. Bidahochi of the lower Colorado River downstream from hochi canyon-cutting altered the landscape paleogeography does not support the lake spill- the Grand Canyon (Fig. 1) have documented in ways unsupported by geologic evidence, over model without ancillary paleotopographic that the Colorado River did not fl ow through or the surface of Hopi Lake rose transiently hypotheses that are diffi cult to sustain (Dick- the Grand Canyon until near the Miocene- to elevations unrecorded by any sediment. inson, 2011). Consideration of the upstream Pliocene time boundary (Spencer and Patchett, The implications of erosional episodes morphology of the Colorado River drainage 1997; Faulds et al., 2001a; Spencer et al., 2001; affecting the Colorado Plateau, the tim- system (Fig. 1) suggests constraints for alternate Patchett and Spencer, 2001; House et al., 2005; ing of drainage reversal across the central hypotheses. Roskowski et al., 2010). The inception of water Colorado Plateau, the spatial pattern of the fl ow through the canyon initially formed a chain Colorado River drainage system, and the BACKGROUND of downstream lakes within which the lacus- analogous confi gurations of multiple river trine Bouse Formation was deposited along the canyons cut into Precambrian basement Blackwelder (1934) rejected pre-Laramide modern river course (Fig. 1). The best current within the river basin also challenge the antecedence for the course of the Colorado estimate for the entry of Colorado River water Hopi Lake spillover model. A viable alter- River through Laramide uplifts like the Kai- into desert basins below the Grand Canyon is nate scenario for incision of the Grand Can- bab uplift transected by the Grand Canyon. He ca. 4.9 Ma (Early Pliocene) based on geochemi- yon is the concept of an ancestral Miocene suggested instead that the “haphazard” course cal correlation of distal ashfall tuff within the Colorado River that transited the Kaibab of the river through multiple Laramide uplifts Bouse Formation with the 4.83 Ma Lawlor Tuff uplift on the site of the eastern Grand Can- originated from successive spillover of waters (Sarna-Wojcicki et al., 2011) erupted near San yon, but exited the Colorado Plateau into from lake basins on a semiarid Colorado Pla- Francisco Bay, California (Spencer et al., 2011a, an ancestral Virgin River drainage before teau of low relief, before incision of the Grand 2011b). That tephrochronology is compatible capture near the site of the present central Canyon promoted dissection of the plateau sur- both with the age (5.6 Ma) of a sub-Bouse tuff Grand Canyon by a stream working head- face upstream by headward erosion. Scarbor- (House et al., 2005) and with the age (6 Ma) of ward through the western Grand Canyon ough (1989) concluded that lakebeds within the the youngest dated tuff interbedded with lacus- from the Grand Wash Cliffs. Miocene Bidahochi Formation were deposited trine Hualapai Limestone, which was deposited within Hopi Lake (Williams, 1936), which in before the arrival of Colorado River water to his view covered ~30 × 103 km2 in northeastern interconnected desert basins north of the Bouse Arizona east of the Kaibab-Coconino Plateau lake chain (Fig. 1) but still downstream from *Email: [email protected] transected by the modern Grand Canyon. Scar- the mouth of the Grand Canyon (Spencer et al., Geosphere; February 2013; v. 9; no. 1; p. 1–20; doi:10.1130/GES00839.1; 10 fi gures. Received 30 June 2012 ♦ Revision received 13 October 2012 ♦ Accepted 22 October 2012 ♦ Published online 13 December 2012 For permission to copy, contact [email protected] 1 © 2012 Geological Society of America Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/9/1/1/3341662/1.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 Dickinson Figure 1. The Colorado and 110° W 105° W Gila River drainages of the Colorado - Gila N drainage divides Colorado Plateau and adja- 0250 cent geologic provinces. The margin of Scale in km limit of the Colorado Plateau Colorado Plateau includes the faulted transition Great Divide Tb Bidahochi Formation Basin zone on the south and west, and (interior is marked by the south fl ank G drainage) Tc Chuska Sandstone ID re of the Uinta Mountains on the R e i Colorado UT v n north, the White River mono- e Mineral Oligocene laccoliths r RS cline on the northeast, and the Belt WY edge of the Rio Grande rift on Laramide laccoliths CO the southeast. Hualapai paleo- SLC lake (HL), the composite chain 115° W 40° N r of Bouse paleolakes (BL) along 40° N e NV UT i v R D the course of the lower Colo- r en e re rado River, and the restored (for v UT CO i Marysvale G San Andreas fault slip) position R o GJ volcanic d a of initial Colorado River del- field r o RMSJ l D San Juan taic deposits (Imperial Forma- o White MVW Belt o volcanic tion of the Salton Trough) after River C LS field Spencer and Patchett (1997), SM H Spencer et al. (2008a, 2008b, Ab 2011a), and Roskowski et al. Ccc SJ (2010). Mid-Cenozoic Reno– LP CO Vi UT U Marysvale–San Juan igneous NM AZ Pa C belt (RMSJ belt, in brown) NV HL CA n d Fig. 8 including Oligocene (Fig. 3) lac- r a C G y n LV coliths (Ab—Abajo; H—Henry; Tc Oligocene LS—La Sal) after Sullivan et al. Chuska L erg (1991) and Nelson and David- C son (1998). Laramide Colorado 35° N BL A 35° N Fig. 2 e Mineral Belt (in green) includ- V Tb d Bristol e n ing Cretaceous–Paleocene (Fig. basin C a o r l o G G 3) plateau laccoliths (C—Car- i l a rizo; LP—La Plata; SM—San PS o Miguel; U—Ute) after Chapin Sa i Mogollon- Ph R Datil (2012). Inferred extent of Oligo- volcanic Salton R i v e field cene Chuska erg after Dick- Sea r i l a inson et al. (2010) as modifi ed SD G Y from Cather et al. (2008). Key marine Imperial AZ NM features in Nevada: Ccc—Cali- P O a Formation ente caldera complex; MVW– c c EP e i (restored) f a i Meadow Valley Wash. Rivers c n Gulf of (in blue): Do—Dolores; LC— California interior Mexico drainage Little Colorado; Sa—Salt; SJ— San Juan; Ve—Verde; Vi—Vir- gin. Cities: A—Albuquerque; D—Denver; EP—El Paso; GJ—Grand Junction; LV—Las Vegas; Pa—Page; Ph—Phoenix; PS—Palm Springs; RS—Rock Springs; SD—San Diego; SLC—Salt Lake City; Y—Yuma. States: AZ—Arizona; CA—California; CO—Colorado; ID—Idaho; NM—New Mexico; NV—Nevada; UT—Utah; WY—Wyoming. 2001). Post-Bouse aggradation of lower Colo- The Bouse Formation records rapid inunda- sodic integration of the lower Colorado River by rado River deposits culminated during the Plio- tion of desert basins along the Bouse lake chain. progressive “spilldown” from successive Bouse cene interval of 4.1–3.3 Ma (House et al., 2005), The abrupt arrival of Colorado River water lake basins (Spencer et al., 2008b; House et al., but older Pliocene Colorado River gravels are downstream from the Grand Canyon has been 2011) is unable, however, to defi ne the mode interbedded with 4.7 Ma and 4.4 Ma basalts taken to support the model of Hopi Lake spill- of drainage evolution upstream from the Grand near the Grand Wash Cliffs farther north just over to initiate incision of the Grand Canyon Canyon that integrated upper and lower courses below the mouth of the Grand Canyon (Howard (Spencer and Pearthree, 2001, 2005; Spencer et of the Colorado River into a unifi ed trunk stream and Bohannon, 2001).