A Flexural Model for the Paradox Basin: Implications for the Tectonics of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains
chemically precipitated rocks
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the Antevs Library, Department of Geosciences, and the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author or the department.
Collection InformationThis item is part of the Geosciences Theses collection. It was digitized from a physical copy provided by the Antevs Library, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please email the Antevs Library, email@example.com.
AbstractThe Paradox Basin is a large (200 km x 265 km) asymmetric basin that developed along the southwestern flank of the basement-involved Uncompahgre uplift during the Pennsylvanian-Permian (Desmoinesian-Wolfcampian) Ancestral Rocky Mountain (ARM) orogenic event. Traditionally interpreted as a pull-apart basin, the Paradox Basin more closely resembles intraforeland flexural basins such as those that developed between the basement-cored uplifts of the Late Cretaceous-Eocene Laramide orogeny. The width, shape, subsidence history, facies architecture, and structural relationships of the Uncompahgre-Paradox system are exemplary of typical 'immobile' foreland basin systems. Along the southwest-vergent Uncompahgre thrust, ~5 km of coarse-grained syntectonic Desmoinesian-Wolfcampian sediments were shed from the Uncompahgre uplift by alluvial fans and were reworked by fluvial megafan deposystems in the proximal Paradox Basin. The coeval rise of an uplift-parallel barrier ~250 km southwest of the Uncompahgre front restricted reflux from the open ocean south and west of the basin, and promoted deposition of thick evaporite-shale and biohermal carbonate facies in the medial and distal, submarine parts of the basin, respectively. Nearshore carbonate shoal and terrestrial siliciclastic deposystems overtopped the basin during the late stages of subsidence during the Missourian through Wolfcampian. Reconstruction of an end-Permian two-dimensional uplift-basin profile from seismic, borehole, and outcrop data depicts the relationship of these deposystems to the differential accommodation space (i.e., foreland basin depozones) generated by Pennsylvanian-Permian subsidence. Flexural modeling of the restored basin profile indicates that the Paradox Basin can be described by flexural loading of a fully broken continental crust (Te = 25 km; D = 10²³ N m) by a model Uncompahgre uplift (A(c-s) = 214 km², ρ = 2670 kg /m³) and accompanying synorogenic sediments (ρ = 2325 kg /m³). The Paradox Basin's lack of flexural interference by competing loads, its location on the relatively undeformed Colorado Plateau, and its well-exposed and well-studied basin-fill provide a rare glimpse into a Paleozoic intraforeland flexural basin. Other thrust-bounded basins of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains are not so optimal for study. However, similarities in basin profiles, structural relationships and facies architectures suggest that many ARM basins share a geodynamic and tectonic history similar to the Paradox Basin's. Therefore, plate tectonic models that attempt to explain the development of ARM uplifts need to also consider the province's intraforeland flexural basins.
Degree ProgramGraduate College
Degree GrantorUniversity of Arizona
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Determining Areal Precipitation in the Basin and Range Province of Southern Arizona - Sonoita Creek BasinBen-Asher, J.; Randall, J.; Resnick, S.; Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 (Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, 1976-05-01)A linear relationship between point precipitation and elevation in conjunction with a computer four-point interpolation technique was used to simulate areal rainfall over Sonoita Creek Basin, Arizona. The simulation's sensitivity and accuracy were checked against the official isohyetal map of Arizona (Univ. of Arizona, 1965) by changing the density of the interpolation nodes. The simulation was found to be in good agreement with the official map. The average areal-rainfall was calculated by integration. Cumulative rainfall amounts were assumed to be stochastically independent from one season to another. The seasonal precipitations of forty years (1932-1972) were subdivided into five groups. to check for binomial distribution. The binomial model fits the historical data adequately. The binomial model for cumulative seasonal areal-precipitation provides one way to compute the return period. This information will be necessary for decision-makers and hydrologists to predict the area's future water balance.
Public Participation in Water Planning in the Ebro River Basin (Spain) and Tucson Basin (U.S., Arizona): Impact on Water Policy and Adaptive Capacity BuildingBallester, Alba; Mott Lacroix, Kelly; Univ Arizona, Water Resources Res Ctr (MDPI AG, 2016-06-29)The benefits of public participation in water management are recognized by governments, scholars, and stakeholders. These benefits, however, do not result from all engagement endeavors. This leads to the question: What are the determinants for effective public participation? Given a list of criteria for achieving the transformational capacity of participation, we analyze the benefits (including the influence on public policies) gained through public participation and the determinant factors for obtaining these benefits in the Ebro River Basin in Spain and in the Tucson Basin in Arizona (U.S.). Furthermore, and considering that droughts and floods are major water management challenges in both case studies, we focus on the potential of participation to build adaptive capacity. Our analysis of these case studies concludes that influence on public policies is determined more by the context of the participatory process, i.e., legal framework, political leadership, and social awareness, whereas influence on adaptive capacity building depends more on the characteristics of the participatory process, particularly the existence of active on-site consultation and deliberation.