DOCSLIB.ORG

Paleogeomorphology and Evolution of the Early Colorado River Inferred from Relationships in Mohave and Cottonwood Valleys, Arizona, California, and Nevada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paleogeomorphology and Evolution of the Early Colorado River Inferred from Relationships in Mohave and Cottonwood Valleys, Arizona, California, and Nevada CRevolution 2: Origin and Evolution of the Colorado River System II themed issue Paleogeomorphology and evolution of the early Colorado River inferred from relationships in Mohave and Cottonwood valleys, Arizona, California, and Nevada Philip A. Pearthree1,* and P. Kyle House2 1Arizona Geological Survey, 416 W. Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, USA ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION relationships to the underlying paleolandscape and to the obvious Colorado River deposits Geologic investigations of late Miocene– Deposits of the latest Miocene or early Plio- that immediately succeeded them. The primary early Pliocene deposits in Mohave and Cotton- cene Bouse Formation and slightly younger, purposes of this paper are to (1) draw upon this wood valleys provide important insights into unequivocal deposits of a through-fl owing Colo- recent work to reconstruct the general character- the early evolution of the lower Colorado rado River provide critical evidence regarding istics of the landscape and depositional systems River system. In the latest Miocene these val- the inception and early evolution of the Colo- that existed in these valleys immediately prior leys were separate depocenters; the fl oor of rado River. Both sets of deposits are exposed to Bouse deposition; (2) describe the charac- Cottonwood Valley was ~200 m higher than throughout the lower Colorado River (LCR) ter and distribution of Bouse deposits in these the fl oor of Mohave Valley. When Colorado valley from the Chocolate Mountains of south- valleys, and how their characteristics vary with River water arrived from the north after eastern California northward to Cottonwood landscape position; (3) describe the Bullhead 5.6 Ma, a shallow lake in Cottonwood Val- Valley in Arizona and Nevada (Fig. 1). The fi ne- alluvium and summarize the stratigraphic and ley spilled into Mohave Valley, and the river grained sediments of the Bouse Formation were geomorphic relationships between Bouse and then fi lled both valleys to ~560 m above deposited on a landscape of bedrock hillslopes, Bullhead deposits; (4) consider the implications sea level (asl) and overtopped the bedrock alluvial fans, and axial valley deposits that was of this evidence for changing regional base level divide at the southern end of Mohave Valley. broadly similar to the one we see today, except through a scenario of lake and river evolution; Sediment-starved water spilling to the south that there is no evidence of a through-fl owing and (5) consider the competing hypotheses gradually eroded the outlet as silici clastic fl uvial system linking basins from north to south explaining Bouse deposition and LCR develop- Bouse deposits filled the lake upstream. prior to Bouse deposition. The interval of Bouse ment in the context of the current constraints on When sediment accumulation reached the deposition was succeeded by accumulation of the magnitude and timing of base-level changes elevation of the lowering outlet, continued a thick sequence of primarily quartz-rich sand in the LCR valley. erosion of the outlet resulted in recycling of and far-traveled rounded gravel deposits, the We use elevations relative to modern sea stored lacustrine sediment into downstream Bullhead alluvium (House et al., 2005, 2008b; level for the vertical positions of various out- basins; depth of erosion of the outlet and Howard et al., 2015). These deposits were clearly crops, paleovalleys, and paleo–water bodies in upstream basins was limited by the water transported and emplaced by the Colorado the modern landscape. This is not intended to levels in downstream basins. The water level River. These two sets of deposits record a dra- exclude the possibility that local deformation in the southern Bouse basin was ~300 m asl matic change in the geomorphology of this area, or regional uplift has changed absolute eleva- (modern elevation) at 4.8 Ma. It must have and they are intimately involved in the initial tions of various outcrops and landscape features drained and been eroded to a level <150 m development of the LCR. after Bouse and Bullhead deposition. By using asl soon after that to allow for deep erosion In this paper we focus on the latest Miocene this convention, we make no assumptions about of bedrock divides and basins upstream, and early Pliocene deposits and paleogeo- whether elevations of deposits and landscape leading to removal of large volumes of Bouse morphology of Mohave (MV) and Cottonwood features throughout the region have changed sediment prior to massive early Pliocene Valleys (CV), before, during, and after the relative to sea level or to each other since 5 Ma. Colo rado River aggradation. Abrupt lower- arrival of Colorado River water and sediment. ing of regional base level due to spilling of a Detailed geologic mapping and reconnais- PREVIOUS WORK southern Bouse lake to the Gulf of California sance investigations in the past 15 yr (Howard could have driven observed upstream river et al., 1999, 2013; Faulds et al., 2004; House The Bouse Formation was fi rst thoroughly incision without uplift. Rapid uplift of the et al., 2004, 2005, 2008a, 2008b; Pearthree and described and defi ned by seminal geohydrology entire region immediately after 4.8 Ma would House, 2005; Spencer et al., 2007; Pearthree, studies conducted in the 1960s (Metzger, 1968; have been required to drive upstream inci- 2007; House and Faulds, 2009; Malmon et al., Metzger et al., 1973; Metzger and Loeltz, 1973). sion if the southern Bouse was an estuary. 2009; Pearthree et al., 2009; Howard et al., The studies correlated Bouse outcrops within 2013) have greatly enhanced our understanding and between basins based on similar physi- *[email protected] of the distribution of Bouse deposits and their cal characteristics, including basal carbonate Geosphere; December 2014; v. 10; no. 6; p. 1139–1160; doi:10.1130/GES00988.1; 14 fi gures. Received 1 October 2013 ♦ Revision received 27 June 2014 ♦ Accepted 30 September 2014 ♦ Published online 12 November 2014 For permission to copy, contact [email protected] 1139 © 2014 Geological Society of America Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/10/6/1139/3335280/1139.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Pearthree and House 116° W 115° W 114° W ! Las Vegas Figure 1. Map showing regional setting of 36° N Mohave and Cottonwood Valleys in the 36° N lower Colorado River Valley. Inferred areas CALIFORNIA BlackBlack of paleolakes and modern water bodies are NEVADA shown with shades of blue. Heavy black lines show locations of inferred paleodams relevant to this paper. Fig. 2 ARIZONA PyramidPyramid ! Bullhead 35° N City 35° N ! Needles Explanaon ! TopockTopock Amboy ! Lake Havasu City River Reservoir AubreyAubrey Salton Sea BlackBlack Paleodivide 34° N Grand, 912 m ! Bouse CALIFORNIA Hualapai, 720 m Vegas, 650 m Blythe ! Coonwood, 400 m Mohave, 560 m Cibola Havasu, 360 m ! ARIZONA Blythe, 330 m Late Miocene to Pliocene Paleolakes Miocene to Late Modern Hydrology Locaon of study area 33° N ChocolateChocolate OR ID WY El Centro UT ! NV CO ! Yuma CA AZ NM MEXICO 50 km MEXICO PKH 116° W 115° W 114° W 1140 Geosphere, December 2014 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/10/6/1139/3335280/1139.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Paleogeomorphology of the early Colorado River (micritic limestone, marl, carbonate-cemented Spencer and Patchett (1997) and Meek and was also recognized (Unit B of Metzger et al., sandstone), tufa deposits, and much thicker Douglas (2001) revived the idea originally sug- 1973; Metzger and Loeltz, 1973). Based on out- clay, silt, and sand deposits of the interbedded gested by Blackwelder (1934) that the Bouse crops and well cuttings, Metzger et al. (1973) unit. Deposits interpreted to be Bouse Formation Formation records a series of lakes sequentially and Metzger and Loeltz (1973) described a range in elevation from ~200 m below sea level to fi lled by a downstream-developing LCR spilling suite of primarily quartz-rich sand and rounded, 330 m above sea level (asl) in the Parker-Blythe- through formerly closed basins, ultimately link- lithologically diverse river gravel in erosional Cibola (PBC) area (Fig. 1) (Metzger et al., 1973; ing to the upper end of the Gulf of California. contact with Bouse deposits; they interpreted Spencer et al., 2013), from ~100 to 370 m asl Strontium isotope ratios determined for Bouse these deposits as the earliest evidence for the in Chemehuevi Valley (Metzger and Loeltz, carbonate deposits throughout their latitudinal existence of the through-fl owing LCR. These 1973; our data), and from ~50 to 560 m asl in and elevation ranges are similar to one another deposits are found along the LCR from the the Mohave-Cottonwood area (Metzger and and to modern Colorado River values, but are mouth of the Grand Canyon to the modern delta; Loeltz, 1973; our data). The constraints on the not consistent with late Miocene marine water they are much coarser than Bouse deposits, and age of Bouse deposits were quite broad; it was (Spencer and Patchett, 1997; Poulson and John, have sedimentological characteristics consistent considered to be late Miocene to Pliocene in age 2003; Roskowski et al., 2010). As additional with subaerial deposition in a major river sys- (Metzger, 1968), ca. 5.5 Ma (Lucchitta, 1979), or Bouse outcrops have been discovered and docu- tem (Metzger and Loeltz, 1973; House et al., between 8 and 3 Ma (Buising, 1990). mented in more detail, it is apparent that their 2005, 2008b; Howard et al., 2015). Thus, Bull- Paleontological and sedimentologic investi- maximum elevations rise to the north in a step- head deposits represent the fi rst defi nitive evi- gations led many researchers to conclude that wise fashion mediated by bedrock divides, a dence of the existence of the continuous LCR all of the Bouse Formation was deposited in an pattern that is consistent with a north to south ending at the Gulf of California.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020-2021 Arizona Hunting Regulations
    Arizona Game and Fish Department 2020-2021 Arizona Hunting Regulations This publication includes the annual regulations for statewide hunting of deer, fall turkey, fall javelina, bighorn sheep, fall bison, fall bear, mountain lion, small game and other huntable wildlife. The hunt permit application deadline is Tuesday, June 9, 2020, at 11:59 p.m. Arizona time. Purchase Arizona hunting licenses and apply for the draw online at azgfd.gov. Report wildlife violations, call: 800-352-0700 Two other annual hunt draw booklets are published for the spring big game hunts and elk and pronghorn hunts. i Unforgettable Adventures. Feel-Good Savings. Heed the call of adventure with great insurance coverage. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on motorcycle insurance. geico.com | 1-800-442-9253 | Local Office Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states, in all GEICO companies, or in all situations. Motorcycle and ATV coverages are underwritten by GEICO Indemnity Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, DC 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2019 GEICO ii ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT — AZGFD.GOV AdPages2019.indd 4 4/20/2020 11:49:25 AM AdPages2019.indd 5 2020-2021 ARIZONA HUNTING4/20/2020 REGULATIONS 11:50:24 AM 1 Arizona Game and Fish Department Key Contacts MAIN NUMBER: 602-942-3000 Choose 1 for known extension or name Choose 2 for draw, bonus points, and hunting and fishing license information Choose 3 for watercraft Choose 4 for regional
    [Show full text]
  • People of Snowy Mountain, People of the River: a Multi-Agency Ethnographic Overview and Compendium Relating to Tribes Associated with Clark County, Nevada
    Portland State University PDXScholar Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations Anthropology 2012 People of Snowy Mountain, People of the River: A Multi-Agency Ethnographic Overview and Compendium Relating to Tribes Associated with Clark County, Nevada Douglas Deur Portland State University, [email protected] Deborah Confer University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac Part of the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Deur, Douglas and Confer, Deborah, "People of Snowy Mountain, People of the River: A Multi-Agency Ethnographic Overview and Compendium Relating to Tribes Associated with Clark County, Nevada" (2012). Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations. 98. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac/98 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Pacific West Region: Social Science Series National Park Service Publication Number 2012-01 U.S. Department of the Interior PEOPLE OF SNOWY MOUNTAIN, PEOPLE OF THE RIVER: A MULTI-AGENCY ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW AND COMPENDIUM RELATING TO TRIBES ASSOCIATED WITH CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA 2012 Douglas Deur, Ph.D. and Deborah Confer LAKE MEAD AND BLACK CANYON Doc Searls Photo, Courtesy Wikimedia Commons
    [Show full text]
  • November 17, 2017 David Beaver & Karen Summitt 8226 S Evergreen Dr Mohave Valley, AZ 86440 Re: Purchase and Sale Agreement F
    From: Karen Summitt To: Thomas Buschatzke; Sharon Scantlebury Subject: Fw: Objections to the MVIDD Water Transfer Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:24:42 PM Attachments: ADWR Letter.docx November 17, 2017 David Beaver & Karen Summitt 8226 S Evergreen Dr Mohave Valley, AZ 86440 Re: Purchase and Sale Agreement for CAWCD to Acquire Water Rights and Land in Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, Mohave County, Arizona Dear Thomas Buschatzkle, I write to advise you that I am opposed to the proposed Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) land and water purchase to move Colorado River water, prudently set aside for rural Arizona Colorado River mainstream users, to central Arizona for replenishment. As you may recall, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors passed two resolutions opposing the permanent transfer of any Colorado River Water Rights and Allocations to the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for use in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District – first as to the Quartzsite transfer and second as to the WPI-WAN transfer in the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District. Here is why I oppose this purchase and transfer of our water: First, as a matter of public policy, 4th Priority Colorado River water allocated to the users on the mainstream of the River, such as Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (“MVIDD”) in this case, should not be transferred away from mainstream of the River. This is part of the water that the State of Arizona requested be reserved for municipal and industrial uses along the River. Except for that small reservation of 4th Priority Colorado River water to the users on the mainstream, CAWCD received all of Arizona’s Colorado River entitlement remaining at the time that CAWCD and the United States entered into their initial agreement in 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Budgets for Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valleys, Mohave County, Arizona, 2007–08
    Prepared in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources Groundwater Budgets for Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valleys, Mohave County, Arizona, 2007–08 Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5159 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER: View of August 2010, monsoon thunderstorm over Hualapai Mountains, looking east from Sacramento Valley. Photo by Bradley D. Garner. Prepared in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources Groundwater Budgets for Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valleys, Mohave County, Arizona, 2007–08 By Bradley D. Garner and Margot Truini Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5159 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Garner, B.D., and Truini, Margot, 2011, Groundwater budgets for Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valleys, Mohave County, Arizona, 2007–08: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5159, 34 p.
    [Show full text]
  • 28 September 2020 Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group
    28 September 2020 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 6 Top Fencing Recommendations 14 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Desert tortoise population trends through 2014 are indicated for geographic areas covered by the range-wide monitoring program Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. Identification of existing culverts and underpasses needing maintenance or CA42 modification to facilitate desert tortoise movement under highways and $48,000 roads. Rd8 Fence I-40 north of Black Ridge, CA, both sides, 5.0 miles TBD Rd11 Fence I-40 near Old Dad Mountains, both sides, 9.4 miles TBD Rd13 Fence I-40 near Kalbaker Rd, 8.1 miles TBD California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemehuevi Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Hydrologic Region Colorado River California’s Groundwater Chemehuevi Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Chemehuevi Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-43 • County: San Bernardino • Surface Area: 273,000 acres (427 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This basin underlies Chemehuevi Valley in eastern San Bernardino County. The basin is bounded by Havasu Lake on the east and by nonwater-bearing rocks of the Sacramento Mountains on the north, of the Chemehuevi Mountains on the northeast, of the Whipple Mountains on the southeast, of the Turtle Mountains on the west and south (Bishop 1963). The valley is drained by Chemehuevi Wash to Havasu Lake. Annual average precipitation ranges from about 4 to 6 inches. Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Groundwater in the basin is found in alluvium and the Bouse Formation. Alluvium. Holocene age younger alluvium, which is found in washes and the floodplain of the Colorado River, is composed of sand, silt and gravel (Metzger and Loeltz 1973). Older alluvium consists of unconsolidated, fine- to coarse-grained sand, pebbles, and boulders with variable amounts of silt and clay. Bouse Formation. The Pliocene age Bouse Formation is composed of a basal limestone bed overlain by interbedded clay, silt, and sand. Thickness of the formation reaches 254 feet (Metzger and Loeltz 1973). The formation is underlain by locally derived fanglomerate and overlain by alluviums of the Colorado River and its tributaries. Restrictive Structures An unnamed fault crosses a portion of the southern side of the basin (Bishop 1963), but it is not known whether or not this fault impedes groundwater flow in the basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Newberry/Dead Mountains Scenic Backcountry Drive the 10-Mile One-Way Drive Is on Bureau of Land Management Public Lands
    Newberry/Dead Mountains Scenic Backcountry Drive The 10-mile one-way drive is on Bureau of Land Management public lands. However, it is better to take this as a loop trail (see directions) so you don’t have to backtrack and can see other attractions. Although the road is gravel, it is in good condition and can be navigated by 2-wheel drive sedan vehicles, although high clearance is preferable. This particular scenic drive offers a wide range of vistas. Looking north are the Newberry Mountains with the prominent and sacred Spirit Mountain looming above the horizon. Looking south are the Dead Moun- tains which are also sacred to the native Indian tribes in the area. To the west are the granitic crystal hills with interesting rock formations. To the east is the Colorado River Valley and the high peaks of the Hualapai Range in Arizona as backdrop. The green fields along the Colorado River in this area are part of the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation covers nearly 42,000 acres in the tri-state area of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The Mojave Indians are Pipa Aha Macav — “The People By The River.” Mojave culture traces the earthly origins of its people to Spirit Mountain. Newberry Mountains Newberry Mountains Prior to the arrival of white settler to the region, the Mojave Indians were prosperous farmers with well- established villages and trade networks that stretched as far away as the Pacific Ocean. In the 16th Century, the time the Spanish arrived in the territory, the Mojave’s were the largest concentration of people in the Southwest.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • Black Mountains Area (Hydrographic Basin 13-215)
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES JASON KING, P.E. STATE ENGINEER BLACK MOUNTAINS AREA (HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN 13-215) GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE INVENTORY CALENDAR YEAR 2014 Field Investigated by: John Guillory, P.E. Report Prepared by: John Guillory, P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 1 HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN SUMMARY ................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................................................................................. 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................. 3 GROUNDWATER LEVELS ....................................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 1. PHYSIOGRAPHIC MAP OF BLACK MOUNTAINS AREA, HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN 13-215. ..................................................................................................................................... 4 METHODS TO ESTIMATE PUMPAGE .................................................................................. 5 PUMPAGE BY MANNER OF USE ........................................................................................... 6 APPENDIX A. BLACK MOUNTAINS AREA HISTORICAL PUMPAGE. ......................... 7 APPENDIX B. BLACK MOUNTAINS AREA GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014 BY MANNER
    [Show full text]
  • Miocene Low-Angle Normal Faulting and Dike Emplacement, Homer Mountain and Surrounding Areas, Southeastern California and Southernmost Nevada
    Miocene low-angle normal faulting and dike emplacement, Homer Mountain and surrounding areas, southeastern California and southernmost Nevada JON E. SPENCER* U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefleld Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 ABSTRACT tions, differed radically from the state of that collectively accommodated as much as 50% stress in the upper plate, as inferred from to 100% extension of upper-plate rocks (Ander- Homer Mountain and surrounding regions fault geometry. Low-angle faulting and east- son, 1971). In many areas, normal faults within are within, or adjacent to, the western part of northeast-west-southwest distension of up- upper-plate rocks merge with, or are truncated a broad region of low-angle normal faults ex- per-plate rocks reflect regional reduction of by, a basal, subhorizontal fault often referred to posed within the lower Colorado River compression in the east-northeast-west- as a "detachment fault" (for example, see Davis trough. During middle Miocene time, upper- southwest direction and associated large- and others, 1980). The term "detachment fault" plate rocks in the Homer, Sacramento, Dead, scale east-northeast-west-southwest crustal is used here to indicate a low-angle normal fault and Newberry Mountains moved eastward or extension. In contrast, concave-upward flex- that formed at a low angle (for example, Wer- northeastward, relative to the lower plate, ure of the lower plate, in response to tectonic nicke and others, 1984; Reynolds and Spsncer, above single or multiple low-angle normal denudation and resultant isostatic uplift, is in- 1985). The interpretation that detachment faults faults. Deposition of coarse clastic sedimen- ferred to have produced local subhorizontal are rooted faults that accommodate crustal ex- tary rocks occurred during extensional fault- compression at shallow crustal levels in the tension (Wernicke, 1981; Howard and John, ing and was accompanied by, and closely lower plate that overwhelmed the regional 1983; Davis and others, 1983; Allmendinger followed by, eruption of basaltic volcanics.
    [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]
  • Mohave County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Mohave County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Background and Scope ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Assurances ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Plan Organization ........................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILES ................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Mohave County ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Bullhead City ................................................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Colorado City ................................................................................................................................ 19 2.4 Kingman ........................................................................................................................................ 21 2.5 Lake
    [Show full text]