DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah and Southwestern Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah and Southwestern Colorado Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah and Southwestern Colorado By Steven M. Condon EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS—PARADOX BASIN A.C. Huffman, Jr., Project Coordinator U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2000–P A multidisciplinary approach to research studies of sedimentary rocks and their constituents and the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Condon, , Steven M. Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kiabab Lime- stone in the Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado / by Steven M. Condon. p. cm. — (Evolution of sedimentary basins—Paradox Basin ; P) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 2000) Includes bibliographical references. Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:2000–P 1. Geology, Stratigraphic—Pennsylvanian. 2. Geology, Stratigraphic—Permian. 3. Cutler Group. I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: Evolution of sedimentary ba- sins—Paradox Basin ; ch. P. QE75.B9 no. 2000–P [QE673] 557.3 s—dc21 [551′.7′52′09792] 97–9764 CIP CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................... P1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Geographic and Structural Setting .......................................................................... 1 Previous Studies and Nomenclature ....................................................................... 2 Methods................................................................................................................... 5 Data ................................................................................................................. 5 Contour Maps.................................................................................................. 5 Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................................... 6 Underlying Rocks ................................................................................................... 7 Honaker Trail Formation ................................................................................ 7 Rico Formation and Elephant Canyon Formation .......................................... 11 Cutler Group ........................................................................................................... 12 Cutler Formation, Undivided .......................................................................... 12 Lower Cutler Beds .......................................................................................... 13 Contacts................................................................................................... 13 Lithology and Depositional Environments ............................................. 13 Correlations............................................................................................. 18 Age .......................................................................................................... 20 Cedar Mesa Sandstone .................................................................................... 20 Organ Rock Formation.................................................................................... 23 White Rim Sandstone...................................................................................... 23 De Chelly Sandstone....................................................................................... 25 Kaibab Limestone ................................................................................................... 27 Overlying Rocks ..................................................................................................... 27 Paleogeography............................................................................................................... 28 References Cited ............................................................................................................. 32 Appendix 1. Drill holes used as control points for maps and cross sections .................. 39 Appendix 2. Measured sections used as control points for maps and cross sections ..... 44 FIGURES 1. Map showing geographic features of Paradox Basin and adjacent areas.................................................................. P3 2. Map showing structural elements of Paradox Basin and adjacent areas................................................................... 4 3. Cross sections showing stratigraphic relationships and nomenclature used in Paradox Basin................................. 8 4. Cross section of rocks at Pennsylvanian-Permian boundary..................................................................................... 10 5–7. Photographs showing: 5. Undivided Cutler Formation at Indian Creek....................................................................................................... 14 6. Honaker Trail Formation, lower Cutler beds, and upper part of Cutler Formation at Shafer dome .................... 14 7. Honaker Trail Formation, lower Cutler beds, and Cedar Mesa Sandstone at the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers.................................................................................................................................................... 15 8. Well log showing the lower part of the Moenkopi Formation, Organ Rock Formation, Cedar Mesa Sandstone, lower Cutler beds, and the upper part of the Honaker Trail Formation at Elk Ridge................................................ 16 9–10. Photographs showing: 9. Honaker Trail Formation, lower Cutler beds, and Cedar Mesa Sandstone near Mexican Hat, Utah .................. 17 10. Petrified wood in lower Cutler beds..................................................................................................................... 17 11. North-south cross section showing correlation of lower Cutler beds and Cedar Mesa Sandstone........................... 19 III IV CONTENTS 12–14. Photographs showing: 12. Interbedded sandstone, silty sandstone, and siltstone of the Cedar Mesa Sandstone near the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers ........................................................................................................................ 22 13. Cedar Mesa Sandstone and lower Cutler beds in Gypsum Canyon ..................................................................... 22 14. Organ Rock Formation near Hite, Utah ............................................................................................................... 24 15. Well log showing lower part of the Moenkopi Formation, Kaibab Limestone, White Rim Sandstone, Organ Rock Formation, and the top of the Cedar Mesa Sandstone in the Henry Basin ............................................ 25 16–18. Photographs showing: 16. White Rim Sandstone, Organ Rock Formation, and top of Cedar Mesa Sandstone in Elaterite Basin ............... 26 17. Tar seep in White Rim Sandstone in Elaterite Basin............................................................................................ 27 18. De Chelly Sandstone at Monument Valley........................................................................................................... 28 19. Well log showing the lower part of the Chinle Formation, De Chelly Sandstone, Organ Rock Formation, and the top of the Cedar Mesa Sandstone in northeastern Arizona........................................................................... 29 20. Late Paleozoic structural elements in the Southwestern United States ..................................................................... 30 21. Paleogeography of the Paradox Basin in Early Permian (Wolfcampian) time.......................................................... 31 22. Paleogeography of the Paradox Basin in Early to Late Permian (Leonardian to Guadalupian) time ....................... 32 PLATES 1. Map of Paradox Basin and adjacent areas showing locations of drill holes and outcrops used for this study, and lines of section shown in figures 3, 4, and 11 2. Map of Paradox Basin and adjacent areas showing structure contours drawn on the base of the Cutler Group or Formation 3–9. Maps of Paradox Basin and adjacent areas showing thickness of: 3. Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group or Formation 4. Pennsylvanian and Permian lower Cutler beds 5. Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone 6. Permian Organ Rock Formation 7. Permian White Rim Sandstone 8. Permian De Chelly Sandstone 9. Permian Kaibab Limestone Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah and Southwestern Colorado By Steven M. Condon ABSTRACT Southwestern United States. The canyons and mesas of Can- yonlands National Park and the spires and monoliths of The Cutler Formation is composed of thick, arkosic, Monument Valley are associated with Permian rocks, the alluvial sandstones shed southwestward from the Cutler Group in particular. Some reports, such as Wengerd Uncompahgre highlands into the Paradox Basin. Salt tec- and Matheny (1958)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Uranium Deposits of Northeastern Arizona William L
    New Mexico Geological Society Downloaded from: http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/24 The uranium deposits of northeastern Arizona William L. Chenoweth and Roger C. Malan, 1973, pp. 139-149 in: Monument Valley (Arizona, Utah and New Mexico), James, H. L.; [ed.], New Mexico Geological Society 24th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 232 p. This is one of many related papers that were included in the 1973 NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Annual NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebooks Every fall since 1950, the New Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) has held an annual Fall Field Conference that explores some region of New Mexico (or surrounding states). Always well attended, these conferences provide a guidebook to participants. Besides detailed road logs, the guidebooks contain many well written, edited, and peer-reviewed geoscience papers. These books have set the national standard for geologic guidebooks and are an essential geologic reference for anyone working in or around New Mexico. Free Downloads NMGS has decided to make peer-reviewed papers from our Fall Field Conference guidebooks available for free download. Non-members will have access to guidebook papers two years after publication. Members have access to all papers. This is in keeping with our mission of promoting interest, research, and cooperation regarding geology in New Mexico. However, guidebook sales represent a significant proportion of our operating budget. Therefore, only research papers are available for download. Road logs, mini-papers, maps, stratigraphic charts, and other selected content are available only in the printed guidebooks. Copyright Information Publications of the New Mexico Geological Society, printed and electronic, are protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of Sierra Nacimiento and Vicinity, New
    iv Contents ABSTRACT 7 TERTIARY-QUATERNARY 47 INTRODUCTION 7 QUATERNARY 48 LOCATION 7 Bandelier Tuff 48 PHYSIOGRAPHY 9 Surficial deposits 48 PREVIOUS WORK 9 PALEOTECTONIC SETTING 48 ROCKS AND FORMATIONS 9 REGIONAL TECTONIC SETTING 49 PRECAMBRIAN 9 STRUCTURE 49 Northern Nacimiento area 9 NACIMIENTO UPLIFT 49 Southern Nacimiento area 15 Nacimiento fault 51 CAMBRIAN-ORDOVICIAN (?) 20 Pajarito fault 52 MISSISSIPPIAN 20 Synthetic reverse faults 52 Arroyo Peñasco Formation 20 Eastward-trending faults 53 Log Springs Formation 21 Trail Creek fault 53 PENNSYLVANIAN 21 Antithetic reverse faults 53 Osha Canyon Formation 23 Normal faults 53 Sandia Formation 23 Folds 54 Madera Formation 23 SAN JUAN BASIN 55 Paleotectonic interpretation 25 En echelon folds 55 PERMIAN 25 Northeast-trending faults 55 Abo Formation 25 Synclinal bend 56 Yeso Formation 27 Northerly trending normal faults 56 Glorieta Sandstone 30 Antithetic reverse faults 56 Bernal Formation 30 GALLINA-ARCHULETA ARCH 56 TRIASSIC 30 CHAMA BASIN 57 Chinle Formation 30 RIΟ GRANDE RIFT 57 JURASSIC 34 JEMEZ VOLCANIC FIELD 59 Entrada Sandstone 34 TECTONIC EVOLUTION 60 Todilto Formation 34 MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES 63 Morrison Formation 34 COPPER 63 Depositional environments 37 Mineralization 63 CRETACEOUS 37 Origin 67 Dakota Formation 37 AGGREGATE 69 Mancos Shale 39 TRAVERTINE 70 Mesaverde Group 40 GYPSUM 70 Lewis Shale 41 COAL 70 Pictured Cliffs Sandstone 41 ΗUMΑTE 70 Fruitland Formation and Kirtland Shale URANIUM 70 undivided 42 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY 72 TERTIARY 42 OIL AND GAS 72 Ojo Alamo Sandstone
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Paleozoic Stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon
    CHAPTER 2 PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY OF THE GRAND CANYON PAIGE KERCHER INTRODUCTION The Paleozoic Era of the Phanerozoic Eon is defined as the time between 542 and 251 million years before the present (ICS 2010). The Paleozoic Era began with the evolution of most major animal phyla present today, sparked by the novel adaptation of skeletal hard parts. Organisms continued to diversify throughout the Paleozoic into increasingly adaptive and complex life forms, including the first vertebrates, terrestrial plants and animals, forests and seed plants, reptiles, and flying insects. Vast coal swamps covered much of mid- to low-latitude continental environments in the late Paleozoic as the supercontinent Pangaea began to amalgamate. The hardiest taxa survived the multiple global glaciations and mass extinctions that have come to define major time boundaries of this era. Paleozoic North America existed primarily at mid to low latitudes and experienced multiple major orogenies and continental collisions. For much of the Paleozoic, North America’s southwestern margin ran through Nevada and Arizona – California did not yet exist (Appendix B). The flat-lying Paleozoic rocks of the Grand Canyon, though incomplete, form a record of a continental margin repeatedly inundated and vacated by shallow seas (Appendix A). IMPORTANT STRATIGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS • Principle of Original Horizontality – In most cases, depositional processes produce flat-lying sedimentary layers. Notable exceptions include blanketing ash sheets, and cross-stratification developed on sloped surfaces. • Principle of Superposition – In an undisturbed sequence, older strata lie below younger strata; a package of sedimentary layers youngs upward. • Principle of Lateral Continuity – A layer of sediment extends laterally in all directions until it naturally pinches out or abuts the walls of its confining basin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin of Comb Ridge
    THE ZEPHYR/ JUNE-JULY 2011 THE ORIGIN OF COMB RIDGE Robert Fillmore, Western State College of Colorado in Gunnison, CO (An excerpt and images from his new book: Geological Evolution of the Colorado Plateau) Comb Ridge is a lofty sinuous spine of red sandstone that stretch- ramp of Comb Ridge. Another notable result of this uplift is the es over 80 miles across northern Arizona and southeast Utah. This ensuing deep incision into the uplift by energized rivers as their monocline, as these structures are called, begins near Kayenta and runoff seeks a path to lower elevations. The deep narrow canyons snakes northward to fade away near the west flank of the Abajo of Cedar Mesa owe their existence to Monument Upwarp. Mountains. Monoclines are a peculiar component of the Colorado Plateau, with their long ridges of steeply tilted strata in a region otherwise known for its miles of flat-lying sedimentary rocks. They Monoclines are a peculiar component are hard to miss. Although not confined to the Colorado Plateau, of the Colorado Plateau, with their long ridges their concentration here is unique. Similar structures make up the of steeply tilted strata in a region San Rafael Swell, Capitol reef, and Colorado National monument otherwise known for its miles of near Grand Junction. All are closely related in origin and timing. flat-lying sedimentary rocks. They are hard to miss. The term monocline refers to a single-limbed fold; in simple geometric terms, a gargantuan ramp. The ramp of steeply tilted strata separates uplifted regions from those that have dropped The monoclines formed at the same time as the jagged Rocky downwards, relatively speaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization and Hydraulic Behaviour of the Complex Karst of the Kaibab Plateau and Grand Canyon National Park, USA
    Characterization and hydraulic behaviour of the complex karst of the Kaibab Plateau and Grand Canyon National Park, USA CASEY J. R. JONES1, ABRAHAM E. SPRINGER1*, BENJAMIN W. TOBIN2, SARAH J. ZAPPITELLO2 & NATALIE A. JONES2 1School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, NAU Box 4099, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA 2Grand Canyon National Park, National Park Service, 1824 South Thompson Street, Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The Kaibab Plateau and Grand Canyon National Park in the USA contain both shallow and deep karst systems, which interact in ways that are not well known, although recent studies have allowed better interpretations of this unique system. Detailed characterization of sinkholes and their distribution on the surface using geographical information system and LiDAR data can be used to relate the infiltration points to the overall hydrogeological system. Flow paths through the deep regional geological structure were delineated using non-toxic fluorescent dyes. The flow character- istics of the coupled aquifer system were evaluated using hydrograph recession curve analysis via discharge data from Roaring Springs, the sole source of the water supply for the Grand Canyon National Park. The interactions between these coupled surface and deep karst systems are complex and challenging to understand. Although the surface karst behaves in much the same way as karst in other similar regions, the deep karst has a base flow recession coefficient an order of magnitude lower than many other karst aquifers throughout the world. Dye trace analysis reveals rapid, con- duit-dominated flow that demonstrates fracture connectivity along faults between the surface and deep karst.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Towers Select
    Topo Excerpted From: Desert Towers Select The world’s best guidebook for The Deserts most classic climbs. Available at the SuperTopo store: www.supertopo.com/topostore Also available from SuperTopo: check out these guideboks and more at the SuperTopo store: www.supertopo.com/topostore v 1.0 Desert Towers Select Dougald MacDonald and Chris McNamara Desert Towers Select SUPERTOPOS Version 1.0 May 2002 If you received a bootleg copy of this eGuide, Published by please visit the SuperTopo web site and buy the SuperTopo latest version for yourself: 2 Bradford Way www.supertopo.com/climbingareas/towers.html Mill Valley, CA 94941 We are a tiny company that barely scrapes by www.supertopo.com and your honesty means we can continue creating SuperTopos for you and your friends. Copyright 2002 by SuperTopo LLC No part of this file or guide may be duplicated in any form, or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, without the permission in writing from the publisher. Topos and text by Dougald MacDonald, Chris McNamara, and Austin Archer. History by Chris McNamara, Huntley Ingalls, and Ed Webster. Managing Editor: Sarah Felchlin. Designers: Sarah Felchlin, David Safanda, and Chris McNamara. Acknowledgements The idea for Desert Towers Select was conceived when Mick Ryan showed Chris McNamara some nearly published desert topos he had worked on with Dougald MacDonald. Mick and Dougald kindly let SuperTopo use their work as the starting point and backbone of the current guide. From there, Chris McNamara and Sarah Felchlin climbed additional routes, researched first ascent histories and ate at all the restaurants that Corey Rich and Men’s Journal would pay for.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Tetrapod Relationships Revisited
    Biol. Rev. (2003), 78, pp. 251–345. f Cambridge Philosophical Society 251 DOI: 10.1017/S1464793102006103 Printed in the United Kingdom Early tetrapod relationships revisited MARCELLO RUTA1*, MICHAEL I. COATES1 and DONALD L. J. QUICKE2 1 The Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, The University of Chicago, 1027 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637-1508, USA ([email protected]; [email protected]) 2 Department of Biology, Imperial College at Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire SL57PY, UK and Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW75BD, UK ([email protected]) (Received 29 November 2001; revised 28 August 2002; accepted 2 September 2002) ABSTRACT In an attempt to investigate differences between the most widely discussed hypotheses of early tetrapod relation- ships, we assembled a new data matrix including 90 taxa coded for 319 cranial and postcranial characters. We have incorporated, where possible, original observations of numerous taxa spread throughout the major tetrapod clades. A stem-based (total-group) definition of Tetrapoda is preferred over apomorphy- and node-based (crown-group) definitions. This definition is operational, since it is based on a formal character analysis. A PAUP* search using a recently implemented version of the parsimony ratchet method yields 64 shortest trees. Differ- ences between these trees concern: (1) the internal relationships of aı¨stopods, the three selected species of which form a trichotomy; (2) the internal relationships of embolomeres, with Archeria
    [Show full text]
  • Castleton Tower, Kor-Ingalls Route Mixture of Anticipation and Anxiety
    v 1.0 Desert Towers Select Dougald MacDonald and Chris McNamara Desert Towers Select SUPERTOPOS Version 1.0 May 2002 If you received a bootleg copy of this eGuide, Published by please visit the SuperTopo web site and buy the SuperTopo latest version for yourself: 2 Bradford Way www.supertopo.com/climbingareas/towers.html Mill Valley, CA 94941 We are a tiny company that barely scrapes by www.supertopo.com and your honesty means we can continue creating SuperTopos for you and your friends. Copyright 2002 by SuperTopo LLC No part of this file or guide may be duplicated in any form, or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, without the permission in writing from the publisher. Topos and text by Dougald MacDonald, Chris McNamara, and Austin Archer. History by Chris McNamara, Huntley Ingalls, and Ed Webster. Managing Editor: Sarah Felchlin. Designers: Sarah Felchlin, David Safanda, and Chris McNamara. Acknowledgements The idea for Desert Towers Select was conceived when Mick Ryan showed Chris McNamara some nearly published desert topos he had worked on with Dougald MacDonald. Mick and Dougald kindly let SuperTopo use their work as the starting point and backbone of the current guide. From there, Chris McNamara and Sarah Felchlin climbed additional routes, researched first ascent histories and ate at all the restaurants that Corey Rich and Men’s Journal would pay for. Austin Archer offered the topos and text for Ancient Art and Owl Rock, Laurie Goodgame gave great restaurant beta, and Brian Jonas from Pagan Mountaineering pitched in additional traveler info. When you pass through Moab, visit his excellent climbing shop, Pagan Mountaineering, for gear, friendly service, and route recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • How Great Were Cedar Mesa Great House Communities, A.D
    HOW GREAT WERE CEDAR MESA GREAT HOUSE COMMUNITIES, A.D. 1060-1270? By NATALIE ROCHELLE FAST A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ANTHROPOLOGY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology MAY 2012 To the Facultyof WashingtonState University: The membersof the Committeeappointed to examinethe thesisof NATALIE ROCHELLE FAST flnd it satisfactoryand recommendthat it be accepted. WilliamD. Lipe,Ph.D. *p,a/2/a R.G.Matson. Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe many thanks to the numerous people and organizations who assisted and supported my work on the Cedar Mesa Cultural Landscapes Survey and this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis committee, Drs. Andrew Duff, Bill Lipe, and R.G. Matson. Their thoughtful guidance and time spent discussing ideas with me has been invaluable. I thank Andrew for his consistent encouragement, and Bill and R.G. for sharing their immense knowledge of all things Cedar Mesa with me. Allowing me to tap into the 40-plus years of their work on Cedar Mesa is an honor. Many years have led me to this point, and I cannot forget to thank the people who guided me here. First, to Drs. Ruth Van Dyke and Richard Wilshusen, who showed me the wonderful world of archaeology in the Southwest, and especially to Rich, who gently turned me toward work in the Mesa Verde region. At the Anasazi Heritage Center and Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, I would like to thank Tracy Murphy and Linda Farnsworth, who gave me my first real jobs in curation and archaeology- their wisdom has shaped my knowledge of archaeology in the Four Corners to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 August 26, 2019 Sent Via E-Planning and Overnight Mail
    August 26, 2019 Sent via e-Planning and overnight mail Director (210) Attention Protest Coordinator, WO-210 P.O. Box 71383 Washington D.C. 20024-1383 Re: Protest of the Bears Ears National Monument Indian Creek and Shash Jáa Units Proposed Monument Management Plans and Final Environmental Impact Statement Please accept this protest of the Bureau of Land Management’s Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) Indian Creek and Shash Jáa Units Proposed Monument Management Plans and Final Environmental Impact Statement (MMP/FEIS), submitted by the Access Fund, Archaeology Southwest, Conservation Lands Foundation, Friends of Cedar Mesa, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Society for Vertebrate Paleontology and Utah Diné Bikéyah (Protesting Parties or Protestors). The Protesting Parties incorporate by reference the points and arguments raised in the protests filed by the Wilderness Society (and their partners), as well as by any tribes or tribally affiliated organizations. INTERESTS AND INVOLVEMENT OF THE PARTIES The Access Fund is a national advocacy organization whose mission keeps climbing areas open and conserves the climbing environment. A 501(c)(3) non-profit supporting and representing over 7 million climbers nationwide in all forms of climbing—rock climbing, ice climbing, mountaineering, and bouldering—the Access Fund is the largest US climbing organization with nearly 20,000 members and 120 affiliates. We currently hold memorandums of understanding1 with the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Forest Service to work together regarding how climbing is managed on federal land. The Access Fund provides climbing management expertise, stewardship, project specific funding, and educational outreach for climbing areas across the country including the BENM region, and Utah is one of our largest member states.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Geology: Making Utah's Geology More Accessible. View South-East
    5/28/13 Utah Geology: Geologic Road Guides Utah Geology: Making Utah's geology more accessible. View south-east over St. George, Utah Road Guide Quick Select. Selection Map HW-160, 163 & 191 Tuba City to Kayenta, Bluff & Montecello, Utah (through Monument Valley) 0.0 Junction of U.S. Highways 160 and 89 , HW-160 Road Guide. follows U.S. Highway 160 east toward Tuba city and Kayenta. U.S. Highway 89 leads south toward the entrance to Grand Canyon National Park and Flagstaff. For a route description along U.S. Highway 89 northward from here see HW-89A Road Guide.. The road junction is in the Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation. The member is composed of interbedded stream channel sandstone and varicolored shale and mudstone. This member erodes moderately easily and forms the strike valley to the north and south. From here the route of this guide leads upsection into younger and younger beds of the Chinle Formation. 0.7 Cross Hamblin Wash and rise from the Petrified Forest Member into the pinkish banded Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation. The upper member forms pronounced laminated pinkish gray and green badlands, distinctly unlike the rounded Painted Desert-type massive badlands of the underlying member. 1.6 Road rises up through the upper part of the Chinle Formation, a typical wavy to hummocky road. Highway construction is easy across the slope-forming parts of the formation, but holding the road after construction is difficult because the soft volcanic ash-bearing shales heave under load or after wetting and drying.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesozoic Stratigraphy at Durango, Colorado
    160 New Mexico Geological Society, 56th Field Conference Guidebook, Geology of the Chama Basin, 2005, p. 160-169. LUCAS AND HECKERT MESOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY AT DURANGO, COLORADO SPENCER G. LUCAS AND ANDREW B. HECKERT New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, 1801 Mountain Rd. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104 ABSTRACT.—A nearly 3-km-thick section of Mesozoic sedimentary rocks is exposed at Durango, Colorado. This section con- sists of Upper Triassic, Middle-Upper Jurassic and Cretaceous strata that well record the geological history of southwestern Colorado during much of the Mesozoic. At Durango, Upper Triassic strata of the Chinle Group are ~ 300 m of red beds deposited in mostly fluvial paleoenvironments. Overlying Middle-Upper Jurassic strata of the San Rafael Group are ~ 300 m thick and consist of eolian sandstone, salina limestone and siltstone/sandstone deposited on an arid coastal plain. The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation is ~ 187 m thick and consists of sandstone and mudstone deposited in fluvial environments. The only Lower Cretaceous strata at Durango are fluvial sandstone and conglomerate of the Burro Canyon Formation. Most of the overlying Upper Cretaceous section (Dakota, Mancos, Mesaverde, Lewis, Fruitland and Kirtland units) represents deposition in and along the western margin of the Western Interior seaway during Cenomanian-Campanian time. Volcaniclastic strata of the overlying McDermott Formation are the youngest Mesozoic strata at Durango. INTRODUCTION Durango, Colorado, sits in the Animas River Valley on the northern flank of the San Juan Basin and in the southern foothills of the San Juan and La Plata Mountains. Beginning at the northern end of the city, and extending to the southern end of town (from north of Animas City Mountain to just south of Smelter Moun- tain), the Animas River cuts in an essentially downdip direction through a homoclinal Mesozoic section of sedimentary rocks about 3 km thick (Figs.
    [Show full text]