Ch1 BigHistory Garber - Latest News ·...

CHAPTER 1: PRECAMBRIAN ROCKS OF THE GRAND CANYON

JOSHUA GARBER

INTRODUCTION In his 1879 expedition through the Grand Canyon, John Wesley Powell identified and described a “Great Unconformity,” an angular unconformity separating tilted Precambrian rocks from nearly flat-‐lying Phanerozoic sediments. The Precambrian rocks below the unconformity are the igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic basement to the Colorado Plateau, a stable and quiescent tectonic block on the North American continent. The Grand Canyon provides a unique exposure into these rocks as the Colorado River erodes off the edge of the Colorado Plateau into the Basin and Range physiographic province.

Two important geologic stories are contained within the Precambrian section. The first is a record of the Paleoproterozoic assembly of the Laurentian craton, as various continental and arc fragments collided and amalgamated with an older continental nucleus. The second history is that of the sedimentary, deformational, climatic, and tectonic history during the assembly and subsequent break-‐up of the Rodinian supercontinent. Both stories suffer from a clear selection bias; much of the section is missing, and what is present is spatially and temporally limited, but decades of geologic research (including numerous recent studies) have helped to clarify them and place them in a global context. Here, I discuss the general geology of the Precambrian Grand Canyon section, its exposure, and its effect on the modern Grand Canyon.

THE GRAND CANYON METAMORPHIC SUITE The deepest and oldest part of the Grand Canyon section is referred to as the “Grand Canyon Metamorphic Suite” (GMCS) (after Ilg et al., 1996). The suite is confined to the Upper (mile 78-‐120), Middle (mile 127-‐137, discontinuously), and Lower (mile 207-‐261) Granite Gorges (Karlstrom et al., 2003). These rocks were built and accreted to the southern margin of the Wyoming craton; the tectonic setting prior to collision was likely similar to modern Indonesia, with crustal arcs, basins, and fragments being accreted to a “continental nucleus” during subduction (Karlstrom et al., 2003). In general, the Grand Canyon Metamorphic Suite records this subduction and accretion of arc-‐related units and its associated deformation in the middle crust, followed by a long period of stability and eventual uplift and erosion prior to later Precambrian sedimentary deposition. Lithologies. The GCMS is divided into a set of metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks penetrated by igneous intrusives. The metavolcanic rocks can be further subdivided into mafic (Fe, Mg-‐rich) hornblende-‐biotite schists and amphibolites termed the Brahma Schist, and felsic (Si, Al-‐rich) quartzo-‐feldspathic schists and gneisses termed the Rama Schist (Karlstrom et al., 2003). Both contain relict volcanic textures such as pillow structures, volcanic breccias, and lapilli (Karlstrom et al., 2003), and are thought to represent submarine, island-‐arc volcanic or intrusive deposits (e.g., Clark, 1979). The Brahma and Rama schists are complexly interlayered where they are exposed (Karlstom et al., 2003). The metasedimentary rocks associated with these metavolcanics are termed the Vishnu Schist; these quartz-‐mica pelitic schists are interpreted as metamorphosed submarine sandstones and mudstones with rhythmic and graded bedding (Karlstrom et al., 2003). U-‐Pb detrital zircon ages from the Vishnu Schist indicate a maximum depositional age (MDA) of 1749±19.5 Ma, and are dominated by influx from the older Laurentian basement (e.g., the Elves Chasm pluton, below) rather than the volcanic arc that produced the Rama and Brahma schists (Shufeldt et al., 2010). These schists are therefore representative of the units composing and fringing the volcanic arc prior to subduction.

Precambrian Rocks of the Grand Canyon

2

The igneous rocks in the GCMS can also be divided into three major categories: older basement intrusives (~1.84 Ga), arc plutons (1.74-‐1.71 Ga), and syn-‐orogenic intrusions (1.70-‐1.66 Ga) (Karlstrom et al., 2003, and references therein). These rocks were previously referred to as the “Zoroaster Granite,” “Zoroaster Gneiss,” or the “Zoroaster Plutonic Complex,” (e.g., Babcock et al, 1979) but these terms are unrepresentative because the igneous rocks are actually many unique units spanning a range from unfoliated (i.e., undeformed) to gneissic (i.e., highly deformed) (Karlstrom et al., 2003). The overall sequence represents a transition from lower-‐crust and mantle-‐derived to middle-‐crustal derived units, which corresponds to a thickening of the crustal section and increased anatexis (crustal melting and assimilation into the magma) with time (Babcock et al., 1979).

The oldest pluton in the suite, the 1.84 Ga Elves Chasm Pluton, is thought to represent older Laurentian basement prior to the collision of the allochthonous arc units (Karlstrom et al., 2003); the Vishnu Schist contains zircon derived either directly from this pluton or from other similar-‐aged but unexposed units (Shufeldt et al., 2010). Arc plutons, associated with the melting of the lower plate during subduction and acting as feeders for the arc volcanic system, are seen as a suite of 1.74-‐1.71 Ga granodiorites (Babcock, 1990; Karlstrom et al., 2003) that range from sheet-‐ to stock-‐like due to

the effect of later deformation (Karlstrom et al., 2003). Rare, tectonically-‐imbricated ultramafic slivers are thought to represent the base of these arc magma chambers (Karlstrom et al., 2003).

Igneous activity continued as

subduction gave way to accretion, with a suite of 1.70-‐1.66 Ga syn-‐orogenic plutons representing emplacement during high-‐strain deformation (Karlstrom et al., 2003). Lithologically, these rocks are mica granites and pegmatites that formed from partial melting of the lower crust (Babcock, 1990; Karlstom et al., 2003). These rocks rose along cracks and shear zones during deformation, forming dikes and plutons with a variety of different deformed and undeformed morphologies (Karlstrom

et al., 2003 and references therein). A final igneous pulse occurred significantly later at ~1.35 Ga, and is recorded in the Quartermaster Pluton and other pegmatites; these rocks clearly post-‐date the major deformation as indicated by cross-‐cutting relationships (Karlstrom et al., 2003).

Structural and Metamorphic Context. The lithologies discussed above contain important

structural and metamorphic relationships. The dominant foliation in the Grand Canyon is a subvertical D2 set of foliations, folds, and NE-‐oriented shear zones that refold and reorient an earlier set of subhorizontal D1 structures and original bedding (Brown et al., 1979; Karlstrom et al., 2003; Figure 1). There is evidence that this D2 deformation, though predominantly ductile, was synchronous with brittle deformation (Karlstrom et al., 2003, and references therein). Additionally,


3

the subhorizontal D1 fabric is preserved within lower-‐strain domains, and can be directly observed in various places along the canyon (Karlstrom et al., 2003).

Age and cross-‐cutting relationships suggest the following sequence of geologic events: (1)

deposition of units at the Earth’s surface (1.75-‐1.73 Ga), (2) burial to 20-‐25 km depth and coeval deformation (by 1.68 Ga), (3) exhumation of the section as a coherent block to ~10 km depth (by 1.68 Ga), (4) a long period of quiescence in the middle crust (until 1.4-‐1.35 Ga), and finally (5) another 10 km of exhumation prior to Grand Canyon Supergroup deposition by 1.1 Ga (Karlstrom et al., 2003; Dumond et al., 2007). The main phase of deformation is constrained to 1.70-‐1.68 Ga (Hawkins et al., 1996), but there is also evidence of later D3 deformation (e.g., Brown et al., 1979). However, I note that important differences are preserved between major exposures of the GCMS. The Upper Granite Gorge preserves a nearly isobaric (constant pressure) section (Williams et al., 2009), but there are numerous thermal variations that relate to the proximity of rocks to granitic melts, which produces major strength contrasts between cold/strong blocks and the hot/weak shear zones that separate them (Ilg et al., 1996; Dumond et al., 2007). In contrast, the Lower Granite Gorge has blocks of different pressures and therefore crustal levels that are structurally juxtaposed (Karlstrom et al., 2003).

THE GRAND CANYON SUPERGROUP The Grand Canyon Supergroup overlies the GCMS, and records the geologic and climatic history of the Laurentian continental margin from ~1100 – 750 Ma (with some major gaps) (Figure 2). These rocks are generally restricted to the Eastern Grand Canyon, and are correlative with other regional packages of similar age (e.g., Precambrian exposures in Death Valley). (Powell described these rocks on his journey but thought they were Silurian, or post-‐450 Ma.) From base to top, the rocks contained in the Supergroup are the Unkar Group, Nankoweap Formation, Chuar Group, and Sixtymile Formation. Prior to Unkar Group deposition, the GCMS was leveled to a smooth, low-‐relief “Vishnu” surface (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003), and initial deposition occurred between 1300-‐1250 Ma as indicated by basement cooling ages (from the GCMS) and air-‐fall tephra ages from the base of the Supergroup section (Timmons et al, 2005). Unkar Group. The Unkar Group records major sea level fluctuations representing an overall west to east transgressive sequence (i.e., deposition during rising sea level). The basal member of the Unkar, the Hotauta Conglomerate, represents the first deposition after the formation of the Vishnu surface; it generally infills low spots on basement rocks (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). However, the Hotauta Conglomerate is technically a member of the Bass Limestone (50-‐100m), which grades from the basal conglomerate to dolomite with variable sand, shale, and argillite layers (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). Fossils in the Bass Limestone include biohermal stromatolites (Nitecki, 1971), and the Bass is thought to record low-‐energy intertidal to supertidal deposition (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). Overlying the Bass Limestone is the Hakatai Shale (135-‐300m), a colorful, iron-‐rich, fractured set of slope-‐forming argillaceous shales with quartz sandstone cliff-‐forming units (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003); it represents a mud-‐flat to shallow marine


4

environment (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). Unconformably lying on the Hakatai is the Shinumo Quartzite (345-‐405m), a massive cliff-‐forming set of sandstones and quartzites (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003) that indicate shallow fluvial-‐deltaic deposition (Daneker, 1974). The highly-‐resistant nature of this quartzite allowed the formation of Shinumo-‐cored topographic highs in the pre-‐Tapeats erosional event (i.e., the Great Unconformity of Powell), and as a consequence there are locations where the Cambrian Tapeats sandstone is deposited directly on Shinumo quartzite (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). Continuing upsection, the Dox Formation (921-‐985m) is a thick set of four sedimentary members (Escalante Creek, Solomon Temple, Comanche Point, and Ochoa Point) that indicate a transition from subaqueous delta, to floodplain, to tidal flat depositional environments (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). Finally, the top member of the Unkar is the Cardenas Lava (240-‐300m), a group of basalt to basaltic andesite flows interbedded with sandstones (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). The Cardenas is conformable with the underlying Dox Formation, as indicated by soft-‐sediment deformation features that suggest lava flowing over unconsolidated sediments (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). The Cardenas transitions from a lower “bottle-‐green” member that rapidly quenched, to a middle laminated sandstone unit deposited during volcanic quiescence, before returning to an upper mixed basalt-‐sandstone unit (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003). Early work on geochronology in the Grand Canyon often focused on the Cardenas because of its volcanic nature (as opposed to sedimentary units that preserve significantly fewer dateable minerals); an Rb-‐Sr isochron age of 1.09±0.07 Ga and later K-‐Ar ages around ~800 Ma suggest deposition around 1100 Ma followed by later heating at or before 800 Ma (McKee and Noble, 1974). The Cardenas was also tilted to the NE prior to continued deposition, which could be associated with early activity along the Butte Fault (Elston and Scott, 1976). I also note that the entire Unkar section is littered with dikes and sills up to the base of the Cardenas (Hendricks and Stevenson, 2003); it is unclear if these intrusions are related to the Cardenas or to a different event, as Rb-‐Sr ages are similar (~1.07 Ga) but K-‐Ar reset ages are earlier (>900 Ma) (Elston and McKee, 1982). The Unkar also preserves structural and deformational features that change from the base to the top of the section. A set of NE-‐SW trending contractional faults (SE side up) occur towards the base of the section and die out by folding into bedding planes (Timmons et al., 2003); these faults are parallel to the local NE-‐trending metamorphic grain (Timmons et al., 2003) and are thought to represent syn-‐sedimentary NW-‐directed contraction at ~1250 Ma, perhaps coinciding with early Grenville shortening (Timmons et al., 2005). A later set of NW-‐SE trending listric extensional faults dip to the SW (west side down) and were active ca. 1100 Ma (Timmons et al., 2003; 2005). These later faults track the development of NW-‐striking extensional basins, perhaps as the Grenville event progressed (Timmons et al., 2005). Nankoweap Formation. The Nankoweap is a thin formation located between the thicker Unkar and Chuar Groups. It is broken out as a separate unit because it is bounded by unconformities at its base and top (Ford and Dehler, 2003). A lower “ferruginous” laminated member contains red quartz sandstone, siltstone, and volcanic clasts from the underlying Cardenas Lava, and indicates a shallow pond or lake environment (Elston and Scott, 1976; Ford and Dehler, 2003). The ferruginous member grades into an upper quartz sandstone unit with minor siltstones and shales, suggestive of moderate to low energy shallow-‐water deposition (Ford and Dehler, 2003). Extensional growth faults within the Nankoweap often penetrate the lower member and the Cardenas Lava, but not the upper member (Timmons et al., 2003), while others penetrate the entire unit (Elston and Scott, 1976; Ford and Dehler, 2003). These faults have been identified as syn-‐growth structures but their timing is unclear (Elston and Scott, 1976; Ford and Dehler, 2003). The Nankoweap is thought to have been deposited between ~1070-‐~950 Ma (Ford and Dehler, 2003, and references therein).


5

Chuar Group. The Chuar Group contains generally repeating cycles of carbonate and shale, with some later facies changes and structurally-‐controlled thickness variations coincident with activity on the Butte Fault (Ford and Dehler, 2003; Figure 3). In general, the Chuar records the rifting of the Rodinian supercontinent, major isotopic carbon fluctuations, and associated low-‐oxygen, ferrous-‐iron rich waters (Karlstrom et al., 2000; Johnston et al., 2010). Competing processes during Chuar time include balances between glacioeustacy, climate, basin subsidence, and tectonic rifting (Ford and Dehler, 2003).

Two formations with numerous members are preserved in the Chuar Group. The four members of the lower Galeros Formation (~900m) preserve a series of carbonate to shale transitions that contain increasing siliciclastic input (Ford and Dehler, 2003). The overlying Kwagunt Formation (~625m) is more variable; the basal Carbon Butte member contains thick red sandstones at the base, which grade up into biohermal stromatolies, dolomites, and carbonates with variable siliciclastic input (Ford and Dehler, 2003). An ash bed from the top of the Kwagunt contains zircons with a U-‐Pb age of 742±6 Ma (Karlstrom et al., 2000), dating the final phase of deposition. Fossils within the section are generally algal or stromatolitic (Ford and Dehler, 2003), though “vase-‐shaped” microfossils are thought to represent testate amoebae that indicate heterotrophic protists (Karlstrom et al., 2000). The depositional setting for the Chuar is likely a tidal and wave-‐affected continental shelf edge (Ford and Dehler, 2003), with shallow subtidal to supratidal deposition (Karlstrom et al., 2000), though a lake setting has also been suggested (Ford and Dehler, 2003). Paleomagnetic data indicate that the Chuar occupied a near-‐equatorial position during deposition (Karlstrom et al., 2000).

With the overlying Sixtymile Formation, the Chuar records deposition synchronous with

normal-‐sense activity on the Butte Fault and folding into the Chuar Syncline, which can be mapped out using thickness variations (Timmons et al., 2003). Parallel, synthetic and antithetic normal faults contained within the section provide further evidence of E-‐W extension and clear interaction between sedimentation and deformation (Timmons et al., 2003). The Chuar Syncline is not preserved in the Paleozoic cover, even though the Butte Fault was reactivated as a thrust fault during the Cretaceous – Tertiary Laramide Orogeny (Timmons et al., 2003).

Sixtymile Formation. The Sixtymile is a set of locally-‐derived breccias, conglomerates,

sandstones, and siltstones developed on top of the Chuar Group (Elston, 1979; Ford and Dehler, 2003). The unit contains slump folds, landslide blocks, and locally-‐derived detritus, with the top member filling paleochannels in the middle member (Ford and Dehler, 2003). Channels within the Sixtymile are parallel to the trace of the Butte Fault (Ford and Dehler, 2003). The major change in depositional style represented by this unit is likely controlled by folding of the Chuar Syncline and normal-‐sense activity along the Butte Fault, which would have produced kilometer-‐scale structural relief (Ellston, 1979). However, this transition was probably also controlled by sea level base changes (Karlstrom et al., 2000).

THE PRECAMBRIAN SECTION AND THE MODERN GRAND CANYON The rocks and structures preserved within the Grand Canyon Metamorphic Suite and the Grand Canyon Supergroup have had a significant effect on the development of the Grand Canyon, from Paleozoic to recent time. The Precambrian rocks were eroded and redeposited to form many of the lithologies upsection (Gehrels, 2011); as a corollary, apatite still preserved within the Precambrian section is used to constrain modern rates of rock uplift (e.g., Flowers et al., 2008). Many of the locations and orientations of both Paleozoic and modern structures are controlled by basement faults and shear zones, which exert a long-‐lived control on rock deformation in the Grand


6

Canyon and its surroundings (Timmons et al., 2001; Brumbaugh, 2005); an example is the Kaibab monocline, which formed due to thrust-‐sense activity along the reactivated Butte Fault. Finally, these basement faults also have an important effect on water quality; basement faults transmit CO2-‐enriched waters derived from the upper mantle, and are responsible for travertine deposition and salinity/trace element concentrations at the surface (Crossey et al., 2006). For example, 87Sr/86Sr values show interaction with Precambrian basement where the Colorado River crosses basement faults (Crossey et al., 2006).

REFERENCES Babcock, R.S., 1990. Precambrian Crystalline Core, in Grand Canyon Geology, eds. S.S. Beus and M. Morales. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 11-‐

28. Babcock, R.S., Brown, E.H., Clark, M.D., and Livingston, D.E., 1979. Geology of the Older Precambrian Rocks of the Grand Canyon, Part II: The Zoroaster

Plutonic Complex and Related Rocks. Precambrian Research 8, 243-‐275. Brown, E.H., Babcock, R.S., Clark, M.D., and Livingston, D.E., 1979. Geology of the Older Precambrian Rocks of the Grand Canyon, Part I: Petrology and

Structure of the Vishnu Complex. Precambrian Research 8, 219-‐241. Brumbaugh, D.S., 2005. Active Faulting and Seismicity in a Prefractured Terrane: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of

America 95 (4), 1561-‐1566. Clark, M.D., 1979. Geology of the Older Precambrian Rocks of the Grand Canyon, Part III: Petrology of Mafic Schists and Amphibolites. Precambrian

Research 8, 277-‐302. Crossey, L.J., Fischer, T.P., Patchett, J., Karlstrom, K.E., Hilton, D.R., Newell, D.L., Huntoon, P., Reynolds, A.C., and de Leeuw, G.A.M., 2006. Dissected

hydrologic system at the Grand Canyon: Interaction between deeply derived fluids and plateau aquifer waters in modern springs and travertine. Geology 34, 25-‐28.

Daneker, T.M., 1974. Sedimentology of the Precambrian Shinumo Quartzite, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program 6, 438.

Dumond, G., Mahan, K.H., Williams, M.L., and Karlstrom, K.E., 2007. Crustal segmentation, composite looping pressure-‐temperature paths, and magma-‐enhanced metamorphic field gradients: Upper Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon, USA. Geological Society of America Bulletin 119 (1-‐2), 202-‐220.

Elston, D.P., 1979. Late Precambrian Sixtymile Fromation and Orogeny at Top of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, Northern Arizona. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1092, 20 pp.

Elston, D.P., and McKee, E.H., 1982. Age and correlation of the late Proterozoic Grand Canyon disturbance, northern Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin 93, 681-‐699.

Elston, D.P., and Scott, G.R., 1976. Unconformity at the Cardenas-‐Nankoweap contact (Precambrian), Grand Canyon Supergroup, northern Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin 87, 1763-‐1772.

Flowers, R.M., Wernicke, B.P., and Farley, K.A., 2008. Unroofing, incision, and uplift history of the southwestern Colorado Plateau from apatite (U-‐Th)/He thermochronometry. Geological Society of America Bulletin 120 (5-‐6), 571-‐587.

Ford, T.D., and Dehler, C.M., 2003. Grand Canyon Supergroup: Nankoweap Formation, Chuar Group, and Sixtymile Formation, in Grand Canyon Geology, eds. S.S. Beus and M. Morales. New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, pp. 53-‐75.

Gehrels, G.E., Blakey, R., Karlstrom, K.E., Timmons, J.M., Dickinson, B., and Pecha, M., 2011. Detrital zircon U-‐Pb geochronology of Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Lithosphere 3 (3), 183-‐200.

Hendricks, J.D., and Stevenson, G.M., 2003. Grand Canyon Supergroup: Unkar Group, in Grand Canyon Geology, eds. S.S. Beus and M. Morales. New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, pp. 39-‐52.

Hawkins, D.P., Bowring, S.A., Ilg, B.R., Karlstrom, K.E., and Williams, M.L., 1996. U-‐Pb geochronologic constraints on the Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Upper Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin 108 (9), 1167-‐1181.

Ilg, B.R., Karlstrom, K.E., Hawkins, D.P., and Williams, M.L., 1996. Tectonic evolution of Paleoproterozoic rocks in the Grand Canyon: Insights into middle-‐crustal processes. Geological Society of America Bulletin 108 (9), 1149-‐1166.

Johnston, D.T., Poulton, S.W., Dehler, C., Porter, S., Husson, J., Canfield, D.E., and Knoll, A.H., 2010. An emergin picture of Neoproterozoic ocean chemistry: Insights from the Chuar Group, Grand Canyon, USA. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290, 64-‐73.

Karlstrom, K.E., Bowring, S.A., Dehler, C.M., Knoll, A.H., Porter, S.M., Des Marais, D.J., Weil, A.B., Sharp, Z.D., Geissman, J.W., Elrick, M.B., Timmons, J.M., Crossey, L.J., and Davidek, K.L., 2000. Chuar Group of the Grand Canyon: Record of breakup of Rodinia, associated change in the global carbon cycle, and ecosystem expansion by 740 Ma. Geology 28, 619-‐622.

Karlstrom, K.E., Ilg, B.R., Williams, M.L., Hawkins, D.P., Bowring, S.A., and Seaman, S.J., 2003. Paleoproterozoic Rocks of the Granite Gorges, in Grand Canyon Geology, eds. S.S. Beus and M. Morales. New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, pp. 9-‐38.

McKee, E.H., and Noble, D.C., 1974. Age of the Cardenas Lavas, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin 87, 1188-‐1190. Shufeldt, O.P., Karlstrom, K.E., Gehrels, G.E., and Howard, K.E., 2010. Archean detrital zircons in the Proterozoic Vishnu Schist of the Grand Canyon,

Arizona: implications for crustal architecture and Nuna supercontinent reconstructions. Geology 38, 1099-‐1102. Timmons, J.M., Karlstrom, K.E., Dehler, C.M., Geissman, J.W., and Heizler, M.T., 2001. Proterozoic multistage (ca. 1.1 and 0.8 Ga) extension recorded in

the Grand Canyon Supergroup and establishment of northwest and north-‐trending tectonic grains in the southwestern United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin 113 (2), 163-‐181.

Timmons, J.M., Karlstrom, K.E., and Sears, J.W., 2003. Geologic Structure of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, in Grand Canyon Geology, eds. S.S. Beus and M. Morales. New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, pp. 76-‐89.

Timmons, J.M., Karlstrom, K.E., Heizler, M.T., Bowring, S.A., Gehrels, G.E., and Crossey, L.J., 2005. Tectonic inferences from the ca. 1255-‐1100 Ma Unkar Group and Nankoweap Formation, Grand Canyon: Intracratonic deformation and basin formation during protracted Grenville orogenesis. Geological Society of America Bulletin 117 (11-‐12), 1573-‐1595.

Williams, M.L., Karlstrom, K.E., Dumond, G., and Mahan, K.H., 2009. Perspectives on the architecture of continental crust from integrated field studies of exposed isobaric sections, in Crustal Cross Sections from the Western North American Cordillera and Elsewhere: Implications for Tectonic and Petrology Processes, eds. R.B. Miller and A.W. Snoke, Geological Society of America Special Papers 456, 219-‐241.

Ch1 BigHistory Garber - Latest News ·...

Documents

Transcript of Ch1 BigHistory Garber - Latest News ·...