Soil development, morphometry, and scrap morphology of fluvial terraces at Jack Creek, Southwestern
Montana
by James Paul Bearzi
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Earth Sciences
Montana State University
© Copyright by James Paul Bearzi (1987)
Abstract:
Analysis of exceptionally well-displayed fluvial terraces and pediments along lower Jack Creek, a
modest gradient (0.020) tributary of the Madison River in southwestern Montana, reveals a Late
Quaternary chronology of terrace development. Soil stratigraphy of the surfaces reveals two distinct
populations. "Higher Group" surfaces (2 terraces and 1 pediment, 40 to 60 m above Jack Creek) are
mantled by a loess cap, contain stage III carbonate morphology, and were formed during pre-Pinedale
time. All lower surfaces (7 terraces and 1 pediment), termed "Lower Group" surfaces, lack a loess cap,
have remarkably similar weakly developed soils with stage I to stage II carbonate morphology, and
were formed during late Pinedale and early post-glacial time. Deglaciation of the Madison Range,
15-12 ka (ka = thousand years) ago, initiated downcutting from the late Pinedale (highest Lower
Group) terrace.
Mountain front tectonism was not responsible for Lower Group terrace formation; it may have
contributed to the formation of Higher Group terraces. Post-glacial climate changes may have
influenced the development of steep (~0.030 gradient) Lower Group terraces. Uplift of the Norris Hills
throughout Quaternary time has resulted in intermittent damming and subsequent aggradation and
degradation of the Madison River. Thus, base level fluctuation has been the primary terrace forming
factor at Jack Creek. Jack Creek has been aggrading to the modern floodplain for several thousand
years.
Morphologic dating of terrace scarps at Jack Creek shows that slope processes that have operated on
the scarps at Jack Creek are much more complex than can be modeled with the diffusion equation.
Discriminant function scores define Lower Group scarps as Holocene and Late Pleistocene in age.
Linear regression of scarp slope versus scarp height for individual scarps and for aspect groups reveals
that scarp morphology at Jack Creek is greatly dependent on height' and aspect.
Jack Creek exhibits a detailed post-glacial terrace flight primarily because the Madison Valley is
tectonically active and the Madison River still aggrading. Terraced landscapes in less tectonically
active basins are usually of Pleistocene age.
SOI L DEVELOPMENT, MORPHOMETRY, AND SCARP MORPHOLOGY
OF FLUVIAL TERRACES AT JACK CREEK,
SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA
by
James P aul
Bearzi
vA t h e s i s ' s u b m i t t e d i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
of th e requirem ents fo r the degree
of
M aster of
Science
in
■ Earth
- .
Sciences
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
D e ce m be r 1987
ii
APPROVAL
of a th e s is
s u b m i t t e d by
James P aul
Bearzi
T h i s t h e s i s h a s b e e n r e a d b y e a c h me m b e r o f t h e t h e s i s
c o m m i t t e e an d has b een found t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y r e g a r d i n g
content, English u s a g e , fo rm at, c i t a t i o n s , b i b l io g r a p h i c
s t y l e , and c o n s i s t e n c y , and i s r e a d y f o r s u b m is s io n t o t h e
C ollege of Graduate S t u d i e s .
^
Date
G raduate Committee
Approved f o r th e Major D epartm ent
H
LcL f y
Date
Approved f o r t h e
t'-'H-t'1
Date
—
=
Heacjy M a j o r D e p a r t m e n t
C ollege of Graduate S tu d ie s
W niJ pjl-
G r a d u a t e Dean
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s
requirem ents
for
a
thesis
in p a r ti a l
m a ste r's
degree
U n iv e rs ity , I agree th a t the Library
to
borrowers
from t h i s
under
thesis
rules
are
of
f u l f i l l m e n t of th e
at
s h a l l ma ke i t
th e •Library.
allowable
M ontana
without
Brief
special
State
available
quotations
p e r m i s s i o n ,'
p ro v id e d t h a t a c c u r a t e acknowledgement of s o u r c e
is made.
P e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e q u o t a t i o n from o r r e p r o d u c t i o n •
of
his
this
thesis
may b e g r a n t e d
a b s e n c e , by t h e
Dean o f
by my m a j o r
Libraries
when,
of e i t h e r , th e proposed use of th e m a te r ia l
purposes.
for
Signature
in
is
Any c o p y i n g o r u s e o f t h e . m a t e r i a l
financial
perm ission.
p r o f e s s o r , or
gain
shall
not
be
the
in
opinion
for scholarly
in th is
thesis
a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The members
Locke,
Dr.
provided
helpful
of
the
sounding
board
Jim
w h i c h was
provided
with
able
B earzi,
assistance
soil
and
excavation
of
com pleted
w ith
our
Marta,
son,
project.
for
Jack
Creek
in
Locke,
Lindsay
soil
of
the
the
A lex,
and
the
I
was
I t h a n k my p a r e n t s ,
me
project
to
was
scarp
achieve
partially
on
an
Sciences,
soil
pit
John
w ith
the
profiling
was
T urnquist.
My
support,
w orking
most of
N icholas
assisted
Lindsay
encouragement,
Stock
surveying.
M ontagne,
all
of
Soil
a
this
through
including
scarp
C lifford
of
area,
Plant
first
in
Horse
S ieler,
and
Most
field
the
provided
included
David
field,
assistance
w hile
Finally,
the
Turnquist
pits.
provided
encouraging
land.
description,
W illiam
Schneider,
to
Locke
Jumping
W.
Schm itt,
throughout
chairm an,
the
access
G.
Dr.
ideas
of
W illiam
James
project.
Department
Dr.
guidance
the
manager
Horse
Dr.
committee
of
unlim ited
the
and
as
many
A llison,
excavation,
w ife,
for
and
Creek
and,
on J u m p i n g
internship
com m ittee,
M ontagne,
Jack
topic
provided
thesis
criticism
the
suggested
Ranch,
the
C lifford
com pletion
thesis.
of
and
the
care
Jack
for
Creek
John and Joan B e a r z i ,
my f u l l e s t
funded
by
potential .
the
D.L.
S c h o la rs h ip through th e Department of E a rth S cie n c e s.
The
Sm ith
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................
I
T h e P r o b l e m ................................................................................................................ I
P r e v i o u s Wor k ............................................................
...5
T h e S t u d y A r e a ........................................................................................................7
G e o l o g i c H i s t o r y .....................
7
C l i m a t i c H i s t o r y .................................................
13
F l u v i a l R e s p o n s e t o T e r r a c e F o r m i n g F a c t o r s .......................... 17
T e c t o n i c A c t i v i t y .................................................* ........................19
C l i m a t e C h a n g e ..............
20
Base Level F l u c t u a t i o n
............................................................. 22
METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 25
T e r r a c e M o r p h o l o g y .......................................................................
25
S o i l A n a l y s i s o f T r e a d s .........................................
27
P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s o f S c a r p s .........................
30
T h e o r y o f M o r p h o l o g i c D a t i n g .................................................. 30
M o r p h o l o g i c D a t i n g M e t h o d s .....................
...39
RESULTS ...................................................
43
T e r r a c e M o r p h o l o g y ...........................................................................................43
S o i l A n a l y s i s o f T r e a d s ................................... •...................................... 45
P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s o f S c a r p s .....................................................................52
Summa r y ..........................
55
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 62
T i m i n g o f D o w n c u t t i n g .................................................................................. 62
C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f S o i l F o r m i n g F a c t o r s ................ ..
62
L o e s s C a p .....................................................................................................64
B H o r i z o n T h i c k n e s s .......................................................................... 65
C a l c i u m C a r b o n a t e C o n t e n t .......................................................... 66
S c a r p A n a l y s i s ........................................................................................70
C a u s e s o f D o w n c u t t i n g ...................................... ..........................................7 5
T e c t o n i c A c t i v i t y ................................................................................75
C l i m a t e C h a n g e ....................................................
.76
B a s e L e v e l F l u c t u a t i o n .................................................................8 0 .
T e r r a c e C o r r e l a t i o n ........................................................................................82
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - -
continued
Page
CONCLUSIONS .........................................................
88
H i s t o r y o f T e r r a c e D e v e l o p m e n t a t J a c k C r e e k .................... 88
S u g g e s t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r S t u d y ............................................................ 92
Hornblende E tching
.....................................................................92
U r a n i u m S e r i e s D a t i n g ■.................................................: ................9.2
N u m e r i c a l Age D a t i n g ......................................................................9 3
S e d i m e n t o l o g y ................................................... .. . .............................. 94
REFERENCES CITED .................
APPENDICES
................
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
A
B
C
D
E
95
106
------
F i e l d D e s c r i p t i o n s o f S o i l s ....................... 107
L a b o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s o f S o i l s .....................113'
L i t h o l o g y o f P a r e n t M a t e r i a l .............
1 20..
A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e . ................................. ' . . 1 2 3
A n a l y s i s o f T e r r a c e S c a r p s .......... ............... 125
viii
L I S T OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
C v a l u e s ’ and c o r r e s p o n d in g age e s t i m a t e s
2.
G radients
3.
Summa r y o f m o r p h o l o g i c a n a l y s i s
4.
Regression equations
5.
M o r p h o l o g i c a g e s , " c " , a n d age. f o r s t u d i e s i n .
t h e M a d i s o n V a l l e y a r e a r e f e r r e d t o i n t e x t ......................73
6.
Field
7.
Laboratory a n aly sis
of s o i l s
8.
A nalysis of te rra c e
scarps
of th e 'te r r a c e s
descriptions
for
a t Jack Creek
.......................... . . . . 4 5
of s c a r p s
scarp analysis
of s o i l s
............................. . 4 2
............................ 54
.......................... . . . 5 8
..............................................................1 0 8
..........................................
............................................................
114
126
ix
L I S T OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Geographic s e t t i n g of Jack Creek in
s o u t h w e s t e r n M o n t a n a . ...................................................................... ............ 3
2.
G eneralized
3.
The s t u d y a r e a a t J a c k C r e e k
4.
G e n e r a l i z e d g e o lo g y and s t r u c t u r e
C r e e k a r e a ..............
5.
6.
longitudinal
profile
of a pediment
............... 4
................... ............................................ 8
of the
Jack
10
G e n e r a l i z e d s u r f i c i a l map o f t h e J a c k C r e e k
a r e a ..............................................................................
H ypothetical tr ib u ta r y response to base level
c h a n g e o f t h e m a s t e r s t r e a m ................................
14
...22
7.
H ypothetical tr ib u ta r y response to la te r a l
m i g r a t i o n o f t h e m a s t e r s t r e a m .................................................. . . . 2 3
8.
Map o f t h e
9.
Locations of excavations
d e s c r i p t i o n s anda n a l y s e s
terraces
a t Jack Creek
.................................................26
for soil p ro file
... ......................
..29
10.
R e g r e s s i o n l i n e s and e q u a t i o n s f o r f a u l t s c a r p
m e a s u r e m e n t f r o m t h r e e s i t e s i n U t a h ................................... . . 3 1
11.
Stages in the ev o lu tio n of a d iffusion-m odeled
t e r r a c e s c a r p ........................................................................... ............. ............. 3 2
\
12.
Mo d e l f o r a p a r a l l e l - r e t r e a t i n g , l o o s e n i n g l i m i t e d s c a r p . . . .............................. ........................ '....................................3 3
13.
Model f o r t h e d e g r a d a t i o n o f a t r a n s p o r t l i m i t e d h i l l s l o p e ...................................... ................................ ................
34
D e p e n d e n c e of . t h e d i f f u s i v i t y c o e f f i c i e n t ( c )
o n s c a r p h e i g h t (H) f o r 15 k a o l d w e s t - f a c i n g
s c a r p s , i n c e n t r a l I d a h o a n d 15 k a o l d L a k e
B o n n e v i l l e s h o r e l i n e s c a r p s o f e a s t and w e s t aspects
37
14.
X
L I S T OF FIGURES - -
continued
Figure
Page
15.
R e l a t i o n b e t w e e n maxi mum s c a r p a n g l e ( a ) a n d
s c a r p h e i g h t (H) f o r 15 k a o l d n o r t h - , s o u t h - ,
a n d w e s t - f a c i n g s c a r p s i n c e n t r a l I d a h o ......................... . . . 3 8
16.
Locations of surveyed p r o f il e s
fo r morphologic d a tin g in t h i s
17.
Longitudinal
pediments a t
18.
Grouping of s u r f a c e s a t Jack Creek i n t o Higher
an d Lower G r o u p s b a s e d on l o e s s ca p
d i s t r i b u t i o n ...........................................................................................................46
19.
Loess cap d i s t r i b u t i o n
20.
A v e r a g e t h i c k n e s s o f t h e B h o r i z o n i n s o i l s on
each s u r f a c e as a fu n c tio n of approxim ate
s u r f a c e h e i g h t a b o v e J a c k C r e e k ...................................................... 50
21.
A v e r a g e c a l c i u m c a r b o n a t e c o n t e n t i n s o i l s on
each s u rfa c e as a f u n c tio n of approxim ate
s u r f a c e h e i g h t a b o v e J a c k C r e e k ....................................................... 51
22.
S c a t te r p lo t of scarp h e ig h t as a fu n ctio n of
maxi mum s c a r p - s l o p e a n g l e a t J a c k C r e e k .............
of scarp s used
s t u d y .........................................40
p r o f i l e s o f t h e t e r r a c e s and
J a c k C r e e k ........................ ................................................... .44
lines
of the
at
Jack Creek
scarps
.........................................47
profiled
56
23.
Regression
..................................57
24.
S c a t t e r p l o t by a s p e c t o f s c a r p h e i g h t a s a
f u n c t i o n o f maxi mum s c a r p - s l o p e a n g l e ....................................... 59
25.
Regression lin e s of n o rth e a st-fa c in g
f a c i n g s c a r p s ................................
and
60
26.
G eneralized landscape-soil re la tio n s h ip s a t
J a c k C r e e k ........... . . ............................................................................................61
27.
L ith o lo g y of p a r e n t m a t e r i a l f o r sample s i t e s
1 - 1 2 ............................................................................................................................121
28.
L ith o lo g y of p a r e n t m a t e r i a l f o r sample s i t e s
1 3 - 2 2 ......................................................................................................
122
xi
ABSTRACT
A n aly sis of e x c e p tio n a lly w e l l - d i s p l a y e d f l u v i a l
t e r r a c e s and p e d im e n ts a lo n g lo w er J a c k C reek, a modest
gradient
(0.020)
trib u tary
of th e M adison R iv e r in
s o u t h w e s t e r n Montana, r e v e a l s a L ate Q u a te rn a ry chronology
of te rr a c e developm ent.
Soil stra tig ra p h y of the surfaces
r e v e a l s two d i s t i n c t p o p u l a t i o n s .
" H ig h e r Group" s u r f a c e s
(2 t e r r a c e s a n d I p e d i m e n t , 40 t o 60 m a b o v e J a c k C r e e k ) a r e
m a n t l e d by a l o e s s c a p , c o n t a i n s t a g e I I I
carbonate
morphology, and were formed d u r in g p r e - P i n e d a l e tim e.
Al I
l o w e r s u r f a c e s (7 t e r r a c e s a n d I p e d i m e n t ) , t e r m e d " L o w e r
Group" s u r f a c e s , l a c k a l o e s s c ap , have r e m a r k a b ly s i m i l a r
w eakly developed s o ils w ith stage I to stage II carbonate
m orp h o lo g y , and were formed d u r i n g l a t e P i n e d a l e and e a r l y
p o s t- g la c ia l tim e.
D e g l a c i a t i o n of th e Madison Range, 15-12
ka (ka = th o u s a n d y e a r s ) ago, i n i t i a t e d d o w n c u tt in g from t h e
l a t e P i n e d a l e (h i g h e s t Lower G r o u p ) t e r r a c e .
M o u n t a i n f r o n t t e c t o n i s m was n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r Lower
G r o u p t e r r a c e f o r m a t i o n ; i t may h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e
f o r m a t i o n o f H i g h e r Group t e r r a c e s .
P o st-g lac ial clim ate
c h a n g e s may h a v e i n f l u e n c e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s t e e p ( " 0 . 0 3 0
g r a d i e n t ) Lower G ro up t e r r a c e s .
U p lift of th e N orris H ills
th ro u g h o u t Q uaternary tim e has r e s u lt e d in in te rm itte n t
damming a n d s u b s e q u e n t a g g r a d a t i o n a n d d e g r a d a t i o n o f t h e
M adison R iv e r.
T h u s, base le v e l f l u c t u a t i o n has been th e
prim ary t e r r a c e forming f a c t o r a t Jack Creek.
Jack Creek
has been a g g r a d in g to th e modern f l o o d p l a i n fo r sev eral
t h o u s a n d y e a r s .,
M o rp h o lo g ic d a t i n g o f t e r r a c e s c a r p s a t Jack Creek
shows t h a t s l o p e p r o c e s s e s t h a t h a v e o p e r a t e d on t h e s c a r p s
a t J a c k C r e e k a r e mu c h m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n c a n b e m o d e l e d w i t h
the d iffu sio n e q u atio n .
D iscrim inant function scores define
Lower Group s c a r p s a s H o l o c e n e an d L a t e P l e i s t o c e n e i n a g e .
Linear reg ressio n of scarp s lo p e v e rs u s s c a r p h e ig h t f o r
i n d i v i d u a l s c a r p s and f o r a s p e c t groups r e v e a l s t h a t s c a r p
m o rp h o lo g y a t J a c k C re e k i s g r e a t l y d e p e n d e n t on h e i g h t ' and
aspect.
Jack Creek e x h i b i t s a d e t a i l e d p o s t- g la c ia l te rra c e
f l i g h t p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e t h e Madison V a ll e y i s t e c t o n i c a l l y
a c t i v e and th e M adison R iv e r s t i l l a g g r a d i n g .
Terraced
lan d scap es in le s s t e c t o n i c a l l y a c t i v e b a s in s are u s u a lly of
P le isto c e n e age.
I
INTRODUCTION
The P r o b l e m
Fluvial
are
c o m mo n
terraces
along
and m o u n t a i n - f r o n t
b o th 'the
trib u taries
in
floodplains
abandoned
southw estern
formed d u rin g p e r io d s
of
the
used
parent
to
a
chronology as well
the
Madison
1914;
M ackin,
analysis
proven
of
1948 ;
of sev eral
R eheis ,
in
large
1 984.,
exceptionally
pedim ents
along
of
the
The
As
the
shed
of
such,
of
conditions
they
can
of
this
controlling
are
and were
evolution
considerable
its
terraces
downcutting
understanding
factors
ma n y
or threshold
1979).
of
and
surfaces
be
the
kind
of
downcutting in
light
on t h e
Late
the area.
graded
Leopold
in c lim a tic a lly
useful
tributary
An
w ill
Cenozoic e v o lu tio n of
stream
chronology
as the
V alley
A pplication
through
(Bull,
landscape.
River
M ontana.
of e q u ilib riu m
stream
decipher
terraced
M adison
pediment
stream
and
concepts
B ull,'
and t e c t o n i c a l l y
reconstructing
the
Late
1 97 9)
1 987 ;
B ull
low er
Jack
flig h t
terrace
evolution
P a l m q u i s t , 1983 ;
Knuepf er ,
Creek
Madison R i v e r , i s
and
Cenozoic
( e . g . , R i t t e r , 1967;
w ell-displayed
G ilbert,
d iv e r s e a re a s have
basins
and
(e . g .,
of
1 98 7 ).
An
terraces
and
(F ig u re
amenable t o
I) ,
this
a
m ajor
type
of
2
analysis.
Since
developed
of
flight
the
in
the
landscape ev o lu tio n
this
is
Jack
terraces
Madison 'V a lle y ,
a
are
the
detailed
can be p ie c e d t o g e t h e r
at
best
history
Jack Creek;
probably not p o ssib le elsewhere.
The p r i m a r y p u r p o s e s
tim in g and c au ses
E stablishm ent
terrace
of
a
relative
w ill
form ation
(e . g . ,
stream
can
be
form ation
(i . e .,
fluctuation)
The
Jack
su b ject
to
obtained
by
of
with
increasing
of
potential
that
clim ate
terrace
on
terrace
height
above
The c a u s e s o f t e r r a c e
change,
the
tim ing
terrace
and
of
forming
base
level
Jack Creek a r e a .
of
pedim ents
stability
surfaces
is
of
reactiv atio n
terraces
their
than
are
pediments
gradients
more
and th u s
flu v ial
differ
decrease
(Figure
2).
Fluvial
terraces
subparallel
stream
throughout
concave-up
profile.
have
Pediments
from
fluvial
zone
zone t o
and
terraces.
the
th e pediment
length
a r e more
from
zone t o
th eir
during
dram atically
th e mountain
are
com plex.
transport
(M a b b u t t , 1 9 7 7 )
range-front
pronounced
of
developm ent
com paring
essentially
that
(tim ing)
Soil
by
M orphologically,
in
a t Jack Creek.
be
determ ined
tectonism ,
periods of basin
can
1984).
in the
are
Creek
(Birkeland,
w ith
determine the
c h a ra c te ristic s
increase
interpretation
Pedim ents
study are to
chronosequence
soils).
generally
the present
activity
at
tim e-dependent
developm ent
terrace
of t h i s
of major dow ncutting ev en ts
developm ent
analyzing
treads
Creek
also
alluvial
to
a
the master
much
lack
less
a w ell-
3
defined
to
drainage
basin
nearby ephemeral
upslope
and
or perennial
are
not
streams
directly
related
(J o h n s o n , 1932).
30 mi
50 km
TRM
MONTANA
YNP
WYOMI n 6
IDAHO
Figure I .
G eographic s e t t i n g of Jack Creek in so u th w estern
M ontana.
S o l i d l i n e s bound m ou n tain r a n g e s ; dashed l i n e s
bound v a l l e y s .
J C = J a c k C r e e k ; MRi = M a d i s o n R i v e r ; MV =
M a d i s o n V a l l e y ; MRa = M a d i s o n R a n g e ; EL = E n n i s L a k e ; CR =
G r a v e l l y R a n g e ; TRM = T o b a c c o R o o t M o u n t a i n s ; TF = T h r e e
F o r k s ; GV = G a l l a t i n V a l l e y ; YNP = Y e l l o w s t o n e N a t i o n a l
Park.
4
MOUNTAIN
ZONE
PEDIMENT
ZONE
ALLUVIAL
ZONE
F i g u r e 2.
G eneralized lo n g itu d in al p r o f ile of a pedim ent.
D e g r a d a t i o n , t r a n s p o r t , and a g g r a d a tio n c h a ra c te riz e the
m o u n ta in , p e d im e n t, and a l l u v i a l z o n e s ,
respectively .
M odified from Mabbutt (1977).
G enetically,
they
are
system.
not
pedim ents
caused
by
W eathering w ith
(Bryan,
1925;
Davis,
(Bryan,
1922;
Howard,
pedim ent
pedim entation
as
an
interrupted
and
planation,
transport,
soils
sim ple
soils
from
and
1942)
lateral
are
S ince
the
truncated
by
d e v e l o p e d on p e d i m e n t s
on
of
fluvial
flow
stream s
sim ilar
of
invokes
may b e
s h e e t f Iood
pediments.
of
that
explanations
pedogenesis
periods
and t e r r a c e s
be m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y d i s s i m i l a r .
of
hypothesis
process,
deposition
a
in
work and s h e e t
primary
eith er
of
planation
episodic
and
terraces
dow ncutting
subsequent r i l l
1938)
form ation.
d iffer
or
Thus,
a g e may
5
P r e v i o u s Work
Fluvial
by
Peale
Forks
terraces
(1896)
(Montana)
terraces
in
Cameron
Bench
erosional
that
during
initial
area.
Most
concerns
surface
the
the
has
been
and
is
as
as
1960) .
old
Pinedale
in
based
in
suggested
the
th a t
transgressive,
occurring
aggradation
the
the
or
of
and
stands
of
Lyons
the
Bench
entrenchm ent
still-stand
g r o u p e d by A lden
Paul
Cameron
of
part
was
of
s till
V alley
fluvial
The
depositional
Lake
to
and
is
w hile
but
Bull
pre-
Lake
R itter
the
(?)
(1987)
actually
the
and
suggested
P leistocene
post-B ull
Schneider
Three
Bench.
( 1 9 5 3)
relationship
northern
southern p a rt of the
A flight
its
valley.
w ith
in
on
both
noted
the
M adison
Cameron
Early
to
of
prom inent
Alden
as
it
on
most
described
constrained
deposits
the
the
(1960)
fan
work
V alley,
Montagne
age
of
Lyons,'
surface
reconnaissance
later
age
M adison
(Paul
this
i n t h e Madison V a l l e y w ere f i r s t
tim e
M adison
R iver
valley
w hile
occurring
in
the
valley.
lower
(1953)
terraces
and
(1960).
Madison
in
termed
These
River
and
the
Madison
Interm ediate
terraces
its
Valley
was
terraces
represent
tributaries
by
still-
after
they
have
been
c u t t h r o u g h t h e Cameron B en ch .
D etailed
restricted
Burke
to
(1985)
studies
the
south
of
Interm ediate
part
identified
of
three
the
terraces
valley.
levels
of
Lundstrom
paired
and
glacial
6
outw ash
terraces
floodplain.
Bull
They a r e
Lake
ages
w eathering,
the
of
same
carbonate
height
three
in
glaciation
thicker
and
the
different
as
loess
km i n
the
due t o
changes
south
of
Canyon,
100
from
Ennis
the
feet
( 30
floodplain
River has
part
is
cut in
not
the
M inor
correlated
of
the
to
gross
in
increasing
With
terrace
w ith
thicker
the
increases
60 m
Bull
loess
Lake
cap
and
called
the
1960),
is
valley
but widens to over
Further
a
alluvium ,
Creek.
of
braided
to
Madison R i v e r ,
Jack
cutting
to
the
due
An u n p a i r e d
is
near
returns
m) o f
m above
correlation
Lyons,
lateral
river
45
coatings.
and
Lake.
and
suggested
stades.
in
reinterpretation
correlatives
significant! y
single
m,
work
stream
southern p a r t of the
increased
detailed
loess
w ith
a
northern
L a k e , and p r e -
thickness
due
(Paul
Mo r e
30
m odern
cap
floodplain
clast
Bull
suggested
m,
modern
surface
wide i n t h e
buildup.
the
thicknesses,
developm ent.
The m od e rn f l o o d p l a i n
Lower
cap
Pinedale
Pinedale
carbonate
m above
Pinedale,
1986)
modern
to
35
loess
3-15
soil
coating
the
on
at
channel
above
above
assigned
(L u n d s tr o m ,
s im ila ritie s
and
carbonate
terraces
river
18,
based
and
area
paired
modern
'3 ,
the
channel
recent past
This
level
(Paul
is
1.5
in
morphology
dow nstream ,
single
than
Madison R iv e r
channel
suggesting
low est
less
to
that
in
the
and Lyons,
3
part
as
it
20
km
B eartrap
but
which
km
the
flows
on
present
Madison
1960).
I
The S t u d y A r e a
The
terraces
equivalents
terrace
the
seven
extremes.
bounded
the
on
the
by
north
the
Creek
Range
(Figure
the
Cameron Bench)
The s t u d y a r e a
west
Creek
interm ediate
Cedar
all
Jack
range
(b a s e d on p r o j e c t i o n
to
least
at
Madison
alluvial
3).
fan,
are
one
on
however,
manually
excavated
pits,
cuts.
basin
is
Like
good
lower
since
Madison
Range
and
private
tim bering
Jack
it
is
these
these
surfaces
and i s
Jourdain
the
by
good
since
poor
irrigation
lies
alm ost
owned by
the
south
by
in
of
exposure
of
lim ited
to
the
entirely
Madison
parts
ditches,
federal
on
the
and
access
Creek,
the
property;
is
Creek,
on
east
reasonably
stratig rap h y ,
road
between
and
landow ner's
At
exist
floodplain,
terrace
soil
all
Lake
and
is
Bench
t h e modern f l o o d p l a i n .
terraces
River
Access
terraces
to
Ennis
Cameron
from th e h i g h e s t Jack Creek
includes
by
from
and a few
Jack
Creek
w ithin
the
government
and
concerns.
Geologic H istory
The M a d i s o n
Basin
and
normal
R ange-style
faulting
and a s s o c i a t e d
were
Valley
and
sim ilar
to
that
of
a result
by
high
Early
to d ay 's
p o s t - L a r amide
controlled
by
of b a s in
of
subsidence
(Fields
Madison
and
Valley
listric
fault
stages
rates
drainage
of
characterized
structurally
depressions.
internal
as
extension,
w ith
characterized
blocked
formed
blocks
formation
causing
others,
near
Ennis
1985)
Lake
8
(see
F igure
sedim entation
1971;
3) .
during
Rasmussen
and
Madison
C ontem poraneous
early
Fields,
Valley
development
1 98 3)
basins.
The
was
sediment
d e p o c e n t e r by m id -E o c e n e
subsidence
(Kuenzi
created
probably
time
and
broad,
Fields,
shallow
recognizable
(Schmidt
and
and
as
a
others,
1984 ) .
STUDY
J
:
/
F i g u r e 3.
The s t u d y a r e a a t J a c k C re e k .
lo c a tio n s mentioned in th e t e x t a re la b e le d .
Im portant
9
T ertiary
consist
the
of
sedim ents
Bozeman G r o u p
Bozeman
throughout
Group,
the
conglom erate
(Kuenzi
(2,200
until
began
by
(Kuenzi
of B e a r t r a p Canyon.
Spanish
basin
Peaks
(T y s d a l ,
for the
at
deeper
Range
when
(1983)
and
ft
separates
provides
these
local
stream s
period
indicate
south,
m)
two
ft
north
the b asin
or more).
parts
base
of
data
7,100
Valley
(4,500
out
sedim ents
a
Madison
of
coarse
G ravity
influence
features
Jack
in
Creek
the
level
w estern
(Figure
j u n c t i o n o f t h e Madison Range and t h e
V alley,
System.
This
echelon
Cenozoic
Tysdal,
Jack
fault
Creek
system
normal
1986;
th e Madison Range.
bounding
fault
Phanerozoic
crosses
is
Tysdal
rocks
of
the
control
series
4).
of
F irst,
piedmont in th e
Madison
of n o rth
(Swanson,
part
1950;
1986)
Range
Fault
trending
en
Schneider,
which c o n t r o l s
of th e w estern mountain f r o n t of
exceeds
and
the
and o t h e r s ,
Structural
system
a
faults
t h e to p o g r a p h y and p o s i t i o n
and
Creek
1971).
the
of
braided
tim e
(15,000
crops
co nsists
F ields,
in
me mb e r
Formation,
S ixm ile
sediment
upper
energy
Fields
structural
Madison
1985;
and
probably
u p p e r Madison R i v e r .
Madison
the
high
and
The
and
P liocene
fault
1986)
Three major
the
by
V alley
From E n n i s L a k e t o t h e
becomes p r o g r e s s i v e l y
The
V alley
late
Cenozoic
M adison
Creek
19 7 1 ) .
Rasmussen
m) of
Sixm ile
M adison
F ields,
accum ulated
exhumation
the
the
equivalents.
deposited
and
reported
of
relief
3,000
associated
p r o v i d e d by t h i s
m.
Thus,
structures
range
Precam brian
exposed
in
10
the
Madison
M adison
Range
V alley
probably
covered
by
exist
beneath
hundreds
of
the
floor
m eters
of
of
the
T ertiary
sedim ent.
I
F i g u r e 4.
G e n e r a l i z e d g e o l o g y and s t r u c t u r e
Creek a r e a .
S o u r c e s : S w a n s o n (1 9 5 0 ) , G r a b b
Tysdal (1986).
The s e c o n d s t r u c t u r a l
the
Spanish
Peaks
fault
feature
(see
influencing
Figure
4).
of the Jack
(1 9 7 7 ) , a n d
Jack Creek i s
This
prom inent
11
dow n-to-the-south
Precam brian
crystalline
Phanerozoic
Creek
cover
to
drainage.
relative
area
(M o n ta g n e ,
local
Ennis
Lake.
level
for
fault
(i . e . ,
the
causes
Jack
uplift
R iver.
S panish
Peaks
Precambrian
ancestry
reactivation
during
quite
possibly
earthquake
111°36.19'W
and
(i . e
the
the Q uaternary.
(in
of
the
the
to
fluctuation
of
for
/
for
the
Canyon
Valley
local
base
M adison
thought
to
1983)
level
R iver
1986)
21,
Scale
base
in
Peaks
the
level
in
4 5 °2 9 .2 2 'N
Canyon a r e a )
Spanish
and
1987 , a n
occurred
was
a
later
r u p t u r e was r e p o r t e d ,
the
at
base
have
with
(T y s d a l ,
Beartrap
tectonism
the
Jack
J a c k Creek..
epicenter
near
active
the
Richter
H ills
the
S p a n is h . Peaks
I n d e e d , on J u l y
Its
epicenter
the
changes
Orogeny
on t h e
N orris
is
G arihan,
A l t h o u g h no s u r f a c e
testim ony
recent
and
Laramide
M ontana.
. 3 9 km d e p t h .
eloquent
(Schmidt
thick
topography
Madison
the
of
is
a
B eartrap
turn
changes
in
uplifted
H ills)
fa u lt
r e g i s t e r i n g .4.5
southw estern
location
level
/
the
A djustm ent
with
responsible
along
N orris
juxtaposes
1986)
of
for
R i v e r ■i n
the
concom itant base
The
area
Movement
of
north
H ills
control
Madison
the
probably
N orris
level
structure
(T y s d a l ,
This
Creek.
Madison
is
the
1 96 0 ) .
The
to
south
also
of
base
trending
rocks
the
It
upwarping
provides
for
northw est
fault
Norris
for
Jack
at
the
is
H ills
Creek
, t h e Madison R i v e r ) .
F inally,
system
(T y s d a l ,
Laram ide-age
1986),
thrust
k n own a s
the
faults
of
Jack Creek
the
fault
H ilgard
in
the
12
Jack
Creek
area
(Swanson,
1950),
Paleozoic
strata
evolution
was
structural
w eaknesses and l i t h o l o g i e s
As
eastw ard
thrust
influenced
a r e s u l t , most
along
the
strike.
basin
(see
rocks
and
Figure
of
since
features
Creek
discussed
In
the
rocks,
schist,
out
part
northern
drainage
relative
upward movement o f
divide.
on
to
the
control
in
the
Jack Creek
four
groups
c ry sta llin e
of
rocks,
intrusive
rocks,
and i n t e n s e l y
of
Jack
Their
Creek b a s in
presence
about
s h e a r e d rock's
is
the
4,900 m a lo n g
along
result
the
the
of
Spanish
( T y s d a l , 1986 ; Tys.dal a n d o t h e r s , 1 9 8 6 ) .
A large w est-trending
Peaks
fault
is
syncline
a drag
fold
im mediately
south of the
genetically
related
L a r a m id e movement a l o n g t h e S p a n i s h P e a k s f a u l t
1983).
The s y n c l i n e
P aleozoic
and
sandstone,
shale,
Jack
fully
sedim ents.
northern
the
developed
exist
present
Phanerozoic
Precambrian g n e is s ,
others,
over
resistance.
have
above
Madison R a n g e ,
P recam brian
and Q u a te r n a r y and T e r t i a r y
Spanish
developm ent
nickpoints
4).
sedim entary
Peaks f a u l t
no
Stream
have a d j u s t e d
lithologies
Phanerozoic
the
to
of
exposed :
in
Jack
M iddle
rocks.
of varying
types
are
crop
drainage
and
drainage b a s in .
structural
distribution
M esozoic
Creek ap p ea rs
lithologies
stream w ithin th e
The
by
tributaries
Jack
different
over
Lower
Creek
M esozoic
lim estone,
fault
crops
consists
of
sedim entary
and
out
in
(G arihan and
a thick
rocks
dolom ite .
J a c k . Creek
to
section
of
in clu d in g
A dditionally,
basin
and
is
I
13
d e f o r m e d by d r a g
folding
age
deformation
of
Laramide
younger
than
that
o t h e r s , 1983;
Th e
of
Tysdal
w ere
stru ctu res
the
Spanish
rocks
in
intruded
related
to
by
the
and p o r p h y r i t i c d a c i t e s
Q uaternary
basin
(F i g u r e
deposits
5).
movement
processes
T ills
both
of
identified
in
the
both
all
Pinedale
(H all,
and
Bull
have
caused
mass
glacial
Q uaternary record
and
Fan and Lone
rocks
a fte r
were
formed
are
m ainly
rocks
Tysdal
much
of
to
upper
Jack
alluvial,
and
their
1977).
deposition.
Dip
movement
have
Periglacial
and g e l i f l u c t i o n
slopes
to
been
deposits
lobes e x is t
of
dom inate
in Jack Creek b a s i n
Creek
and mass
Lake g l a c i a t i o n s
M ountains.
shales
is
undeformed.
1960a; Grabb,
Lone
of
(Swanson, 1950;
contributed
and
fault
(G a r i h a n
system
periglacial,
form o f r o c k g l a c i e r s
Fan
vicinity
These
m antle
G lacial,
fault
H ilgard
1 9 7 0) .
largely
Creek
la cco lith ic
andesites
and a r e
Jack
Peaks
the
and
1986)
the
The
1986).
(B e c r a f t
others,
others,
Spanish Peaks f a u l t .
along
and o t h e r s ,
sedim entary
M ountains
along the
on
C retaceous
the
(H all,
post­
1960b).
Clim atic H istory
C lim ate
dow ncutting
equivalent
change
of
sediments
is
wet
( Thompson
Middle
Pliocene
la te st
Pliocene
basins
through
southwest
Montana.
T ertiary
dow ncutting
clim ate
in
in
thought
time.
to
be
related
and o t h e r s ,
The
onset
to
1982)
of
a
tim e
initiated
Bozeman
This
Group
episode
relatively
compared t o
Pleistocene
of
warm
that
of
glaciation
14
in
North
America,
downcutting
however,
by u s h e r i n g
interspersed
probably
in
ended
this
a c o o le r, possibly
with r e l a t i v e l y
w a r m,
period
of
humid c l i m a t e
possibly dry
interglacial
periods.
LEG EN D
V rJj i
F i g u r e 5.
G eneralized
S o u r c e : G rabb (1977 ) .
At
least
southwestern
three
Montana
surficial
map o f t h e J a c k C r e e k a r e a .
Pleistocene glacial
have
been
clim atic
identified
on
episodes
the
basis
in
of
15
moraine
and outwash d e p o s i t s .
identified
in
1976),
Madison
the
basin
( G rabb ,
ago
with
(Porter
(Barry,
Lake
possibly
drier
episode,
1972).
the
The
1976)
deposits
(see
Mountains
thought
and
Laurentide
starting
the
that
but
125-118
pos-t- I l l i n o i a n
of
by a w arm er,
glacial
Richmond
tim es
(1986)
pre-W isconsin
has
(1979 )
the
has
glacial
as
an
1960a;
another
Pinedale
Pierce
w ithin
Bull
exception) .
and
Lake
Pinedale
of
Pleistocene
D eglaciation
of
the
15-12
w ith
ka
ago
much
of
( Colman
th e range has been i c e - f r e e
the
in
episode
synchronous
approxim ately
of
for
nested
episode
through
(Hall,
final
America.
glacial
identified
found
North
clim ate
been
generally
probably
of
to
deposits
1986; M a d o le , 1 9 86);
The
occurred
the
characterized
ka o ld )
Pierce
in
--
with
P leisto cen e
represents
was
period
Yellowstone Park,
M ontana
others,
Range
Creek
y e a r s ) ago
advance of
was
compared
recent
(35-30
glaciation
Jack
E o w i s c o n s i n , 120-110 ka and 90-80 ka ago.
southw estern
glaciation
stage,
In
and o t h e r s ,
in
of
been
1983).
post-Sangam on
most
equivalent
Illinoian
have
advance
= thousands
correlative
clim ate
(Pierce
m ajor
interglacial
1983),
a
(k a
and o t h e r s ,
interglacial
identified
deposits
1960a),. and
This
ka
the
Sangamon
(E m i l i a n i ,
(H all,
1977) .
A p o s t - BuI I
ka
Range
150-140
correlative
i c e mass
Lake
t h e West Y e l l o w s t o n e b a s i n
approxim ately
is
Bull
Holocene
Epoch
interglacial
(the
period
last
Madison
the
and
Rocky
Pierce,
since.
10
sim ilar
ka)
to
is
the
16
Sangamon
interglacial
glacial
clim ates.
centered
around
called
based
the
(Barry,
D escriptions
the
idea
of
Hypsithermal ,
on t h e
probable
com m unities
1983)
-of
warmer
Holocene
a post-glacial
A ltitherm al ,
former
extent
or
of
areas
now
(Deevey and F l i n t ,
1957;
H opkins, 1975).
global
and
warming,
sim ilar
of
me a n
small
Thus,
was
M iller
annual
change
in
however,
suggest
of
(e . g . ,
the
the
total
sm all
otherw ise
prior
to
1 9 8 3) .
are
during
precipitation.
advances
grouped
1983;
Burke
and
term ed
i n t h e Rocky M o u n t a i n s o c c u r r e d
1983) .
and
H opkins,
D enton,
frequency
s u mme r
Pollen
ka
ago
1967;
during
9-8
and
occurred
advances
(P orter
1967;
having
w ithout
occurred
and
ago
D enton,
as
in the
occurred
w hich
together
probable
A ltitherm al .
7.5-4.5
One
(Beget,
and
a
data
in
1983 ) .
advances
H olocene.
of
cutting)
occurred
( R ., B a k e r ,
(1951)
The
the
amount
Park
communities
period
convective storms
of
vegetation
Leopold
today.
(P orter
1 ka
optimum,
A ltitherm al,
as
less
clim atic
arroyo
dry
tw o
the
have
optimum,
forest
this
of
therm al
increased
A ltitherm al
The
A ltitherm al
large
glacial
warm,
the
was
A ltitherm al
Yellowstone N ational
Three
called
precipitation
influence
increased
envision
hereafter
rains,
the
(1954)
containing
that
clim ate
grassland
into
Leopold
than
ka
the
ago,
B irkeland,
after
the
N eoglaciation
1975).
N eoglacial
4.5-3
ka ago and 2-
Burke
and
Birkeland,
17
The
terraces
supported
19 7 1 ) .
a
side
forest
were
types
clim ate
dominate
orders:
low er
the
modern
precipitation
annual
tem perature
storms
Most
in
that
types
soil
Today,
Creek
the
are
floodplain.
sensitive
not
in
(Soil
as
valley
vegetation
Woody p l a n t s
soils
( 29
the
are
of
three
E ntisols.
to
36
cm)
Mean
a n d mean
Conservation S e rv ic e ,
a
result
of
convective
R esponse t o T e r r a c e Forming F a c t o r s
activity
stream
and
only
by
the
aseism ic
change
equilibrium
(Leopold
influenced
by
an
in
offset
load
clim ate
stability
variations
C lim ate
affecting
14
severely
s u m m e r ..
gradual
1986).
is
11 t o
falls
on
to
is
on
dominant
The
H olocene
to
grasses.
never
(S in d e la r,
caused
or
precipitation
the
influences
by
tim e
enough
(7°C )
Tectonic
also
H olocene
extreme
44°F
Fluvial
caused
probably
A r i d i s o l s , Moll i s o l s , and f l o o d p l a i n
,annual
1987).
not
front.
Jack
have
changes
com m unities
th e mountain
along
G reek
during
apparently
vegetation
of
Jack
cover
Thus, ' the
glaciation
alter
at
and
change
(Bull,
valley
along
deform ation
influences
discharge
and Maddock,
indirect
two
1984).
floor
faults
are
slope
Rivers
are
w hich
are
1967)
but
(W allace,
(O u c h i,
channel
1985;
m anifestation
of
Streams
of
Schumm,
morphology
param eters
1953).
prim ary
by
stream
are
tectonic
also
or
18
clim ate
stream
change:
can
be
intrabasinal
The
base
level
established
tectonic
response
is
of
Stream
potential
energy
discharge
threshold
w ill
carry
of
threshold
decrease
to
in
its
as
work
1987).
water
The
(Bull,
the
as
for
well
the
to
a
as
tim e
level
of
be
the.
rate
downsI ope
the
w ill
stim ulus
power
d irectly
stream
'a
or base
the
flows
is
of
in
a
capacity
of
related
to
able
to
more
power e x c e e d s a c r i t i c a l
1977).
stream
power below t h e
by
refers
and
to
change,
as
load once th e
allow
Any p o w e r
to
critical
beyond
that
downcut.
Sim ilarly,
threshold
of
a
transport
cause aggradation.
V ariations
changes
as
defined
Power
do
transport
w ill
system
controlled
is
1987).
(Rhoads,
effectively
fluvial
expenditure
w ater
level
extrabasinal
a c t i v i t y , clim ate
power
(Rhoads,
flow ing
the
ultim ately
stream .
channel
through
Base
or c lim a tic v a ria tio n .
p r o v i d e d by t e c t o n i c
fluctuation
fluctuation.
a
in
the
1973).
Since
record
the
terrace
stream
stream g ra d ie n t
m easure
product of
in
of
stream
channel
level,
terrace
competence of th e
(Hack,
power,,
s lo p e and
terraces
gradient
power
are
of
w ill
1973) .
is
length along
river
gradient
riv er before
concom itant
Stream competence,
directly
abandoned
the
cause
related
a reach
floodplains
when
it
is.sim ilarly
abandonment.
flow ed
related
to
the
(Hack,
and
so
at
the
to
the
19
Tectonic A c tiv ity
R elative
u p lift
of
fault-generated
movement a l o n g r a n g e b o u n d i n g n o r m a l
adjustm ents
in
the
fluvial
1973).
These
w ithin
m ountains,
degradation
and
fault
m ountains
obscuring
tectonic
piedmont
along
front
at
along
all
H ighly
or
and
a
terraces
(Bull,
piedm ont
downcutting
of
range bounding
dow ncutting
in
(Bull,
can
be
range-bounding
betw een
mountain
part
active
sinuosity
the
combined
(Bull,
Net
in
dow ncutting
degradation
relatio n sh ip s
facets,
(U-shaped in
surfaces
than
of
triangular
bedrock
of
tectonism
assem blage.
1986),
channel
them
by
the
1984).,
deformed
fault,
thus
fluvial
and
systems.
presence
mountain
cross
stream
1977).
piedm ont
activity
original
A ctive
the
to
m anifested
aggradation,
McFadden,
increased
profiles
subsequent
is
e i t h e r q u iescen ce of th e
relative
Longitudinal
by
or
which
include
piedm ont
th e piedmont im p lie s
normal
systems
m anifestations,
(Bull
faults
landscapes
and
a
is
revealed
ty p ical
fronts
McFadden,
V-shaped
alluvium ),
channel
of
m ountain
(Bull
piedmont.
fronts
landform
exhibit
1977 ;
cross-valley
by
low
M ayer,
profiles
in
and u n e n tre n c h e d a g g r a d a tio n
R elative
downcutting
uplift
and
would be g r e a t e r
piedmont
aggradation
1984).
M o d e r a t e l y a c t i v e m o u n t a i n f r o n t s may s h o w c r o s s - v a l l e y
profiles
However,
sim ilar
to
that
of
embayed m o u n t a i n f r o n t s ,
active
m ountain
fro n ts.
degraded t r i a n g u l a r
facets
20
(Mayer,
1986),
piedm ont
and
distinguish
active
areas
in
mountains
the
entrenched
(Bull
this
embayments
is
and
greater
however,
assem blage
and McFadden,
(Bull,
piedmont
surfaces.
be p r e s e n t
(Bull,
of
more
downcutting
relative
generally
If
of
show
piedmont
dow ncutting
ma n y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
the
uplift
1984).
fronts
channel
both
on
that
Channel
than
m ountain
than
surfaces
from
1977).
would be g r e a t e r
and piedmont d e g ra d a tio n
Inactive
aggradation
and
active
dissected
degradation
relative
mountain
uplift,
fronts
may
1984).
C l i m a t e Change
W hile
stream
uplift
power,
discharge
causes
clim ate
change
load
of
fundamentally
affects
the
affects
critical
bedload
the
or
and
the
transport).
result
of
increased
increase
capacity
in
of
systems
available
w ill
stream
power
in
drainage
result
slope
and
thus
influ en ces
the
system .
(i .e . ,
in
the
basin.
in
D ischarge
power
discharge
precipitation
the
in
load
threshold
are
of
generally
drainage
The
greater
while
basin
associated
competence
and
stream .
G laciatio n
increasing
flu v ial
Increases
power
of th e
a
changes
prim arily
stream
increased
size
local
g re a tly
bedload
relative
(Chorley
and
generally
occur
( V.
su rfaces
form
as
influences
stream
power
to
in
m eltw ater
discharge
others,
Baker,
p la in s,
1984).
1983).
valley
the
A ggradation
Aggrading
tra in s,
by
will
outwash
or
fans.
21
G laciofluvial
systems
developm ent
of
braided
steep e r than
their
also
is
(Thompson
Jones,
affects
to
beyond th e
experiences
by g l a c i a l
needed to
cover
is
c ommon
(B r a c k e n r i d g e ,
tend
be
attaining
a
also
characterized
are
needed
basin
to
(Knox,
aggradation
is
changes
greater
1980 ;
1983).
common.
and
effectively
the
(Pierce,
humid
increased
the
stream
and
1979).
influence
is
high.
out
stream
Thus,
of
adjust
( Sc humm,
arid
Steeper
the
power
is
gradients
channels
systems in
the
where
dow ncutting
Stream
s tre a m power.
excess
relative
climates
stream
loads
so
it
systems are a ffe c te d
morphology
Fluvial
sim ilar
No
load
1983).
1973)
systems,
discharge
discharge
channel
lower
transport
fluvial
similarly
Knox,
1957,
level.
by
is
non-glacial
quickly
extent
extreme,
(Hack,
given co n stan t base
power
moderately
m eandering
are
the
relativ ely
Large f l u v i a l
not
power
lower
transport
system.
increasing
a minimal
In
stream
to
is
to
gradients
fluvial
small
transport
clim ate
system.
vegetation
and
and
the
occur
In
by
Stream
m eltw ater to
N on-glacial
fluvial
reaches
degradation.
glacial
to
1986) .
load.
point
counterparts
affects
thought
downstream
sedim ent
morphologies
betw een
g re a tly
Deglaciation
and
channel
by
( L e o p o l d a n d M a d d o c k / 1953 ) .
tran sitio n
clim ates
fu rth e r. characterized
non-glacial
in creased bedload
The
are
by
1977)
clim ates
gradients
drainage
exists
so
22
Base Level
The
Fluctuation
third
primary
is
of
adjustm ent
types
of
that
base
level
factor
base
change
that
level
that
influences
change.
affect
The
stream s
stream
two
are
major
vertical
and h o r i z o n t a l .
V ertical
changes
in
fluctuation
(absolute
degradation
of
6).
in
Absolute
sea
uplift
base
factors
such as
local
level
occur
level)
or
stream
and
Local
stream or the
master
level
level
tectonic
base
base
scale.
and
a
base
is
level
controlled
that
tributary
to
sea
level
aggradation
base
by
and
level)
(Figure
eustatic
changes
and
subsidence
on
a
is
controlled
by
extrabasinal
d a m mi n g o f
factors
(local
due
plate-w ide
a master stream or c lim a tic
directly
influence
the
m aster
in q u estio n .
MOUNTAIN FRONT.
LOCAL
BASE
LEVEL
A
(MASTER
v
STREAM!
F ig u re 6.
H ypothetical t r i b u t a r y
change of th e m aster stream .
H orizontal
changes
th e c o n flu e n c e of
in
base
a tributary
response
level
cause
to
base
level
undercutting
of
stream with th e m aster s tre a m .
23
Channel
m igration
undercut
level
tributary
(Figure
direction
while
ma y
response
develop
stream
near
w ill
gradients
responding to
be
the
relaxation
changes
base
fluvial
in
tim e
its
in
can
lowers
base
the
level,
in
opposite
creating
since
hydraulic
level
the
however,
base
appreciably
base
an
V ertical
surfaces,
A dditionally,
after
stream
system .
abandoned
may n o t .
and
m aster
effectively
raise
reflected
before
a
m igration
paired
changes
not
com plete
in
of
This
Channel
effectively
horizontal
changes
avulsion
stream s.
I ) .
can
aggradational
changes
or
level
different
change
stream
given
is
not
regimen.
MOUNTAIN FR O N TS
LOCAL BASE LEVEL
!MASTER STREAM)
F i g u r e 7.
H ypothetical trib u ta ry
m ig ratio n of the m aster stream .
The
stream
clim ate
presence
has
responded
change,
downcutting.
of
terraces
to
and/or
at
Jack
external
base
response
Creek
stim uli
level
The t i m i n g o f a s t i m u l u s
to
shows
--
lateral
that
the
tectonism ,
fluctuation
--
can be e s t a b l i s h e d
by
by
determ ining the
floodplain
reflects
tim ing of th e
abandonm ent.
this
relationship
stream re sp o n se , in
The
m ethodology
between
stim ulus
of
this
this
case,
study
and resp o n se.
25
METHODS
The u s e
w ell
of
established.
dow ncutting
the
of
the
terrace
processes.
The
analyzing
presence
parent
treads
in
stream
and
terrace
longitudinal
(tr e a d
of
at
terraces
fluvial
of
terraces
to
im plies
net
exposure
pedogenic
is
of
and
slope
stu d y were chosen to
reveal
morphology
(height
gradient)
soil
landscapes
and. s u b s e q u e n t
scarps
terrace
characteristics
the
in
Methods u s e d i n t h i s
differences
and
terraces
above
and
Jack
Creek
age-dependent
developm ent and s c a r p e v o l u tio n )
Jack Creek.
T e rra c e Morphology
I
Mu c h
can
terrace
form ing
discussion
at
Jack
about
processes
by
Terrace
Creek
were
su rfaces
maps
was
Longitudinal
=
+_4 0
determined
profiles
I earned
of
topographic
error
be
first
la te r
profiles
using
reflect
defined
8).
fie ld
and
by
error
interpretation.
channel
slope
(Hack,
and
morphology
(see
The t e r r a c e s
interpreting
of
checked
terrace
developm ent
above).
Presence
v ertical
ma p
observing
Forming F a c t o r s
(F i g u r e
ft;
terrace
the
and
gradients
=
+_2 0
1957,
interpreted
confirm ed.
(horizontal
ft)
These
1:24,000-
were
also
longitudinal
1973)
when J a c k
26
Creek
was
respective
at
s t i l l -stand
terrace
level
(i .e . ,
(B ull,
equilibrium )
at
each
1984 ) .
F i g u r e 8.
Map o f t h e t e r r a c e s a t J a c k C r e e k .
Tl i s t h e
h i g h e s t t e r r a c e a b o v e J a c k C r e e k , Tl O t h e l o w e s t .
Pl and P 2
a r e t h e h i g h and low p e d i m e n t s u r f a c e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
27
S o ils A nalysis
A relative
often
be
(e.g.,
Harden,
begin to
to
Two
soil
surface
deep
in
terrace
degree
were
S taff
c rite ria
lith o lo g y of
better
inhibited
of
(1985).
on
form ation
using
30 t o
40 c l a s t s
the
treads
is
pedogenic
processes
Barring
subsequent
is
directly
(B i r k e l a n d , 1984).
with
pick
and
shovel
the
soil
profile.
the
soil
stage
can
floodplain
Each
pit
was
was
In
on
I
m
The s o i l
taxonomy
(1 9 8 4) .
of
Soil
described
using
addition,
the
f r o m t h e C h o r i z o n was r e c o r d e d
nature
developm ent
carbonate
a
9).
Carbonate
B irkeland
terrace
developm ent
(Figure
of
to
soil
developm ent
Whe n
fo rm e d ),
excavated
Creek
described
rind
due
is
expose most of
understand
W eathering
analyses
1 9 8 4) .
terrace
were
Jack
to
terrace
floodplain m aterial.
pits
at
order
profiles
to
the
of
soil
R eheis,
the time of
each
the
a
a c t on t h e
related
using
1982 ;
(i . e .,
subm ergence,
Survey
chronosequence
determ ined
abandoned
of Treads
of
of
clast
the
parent
andesitic
coatings
m aterial .
clasts
(Grim,
was
1968)
and
s o was n o t r e c o r d e d .
Bulk
density
was
determined
in
the
field
using
e x c a v a t i o n method m o d ifie d from McLintock
(1959)
(1981).
obtain
sand
size-range
w eights
the
Sub-rounded
of
field.
sand
Small
and
were
sand
its
was
bulk
then
sieved
to
density
placed
in
e x c a v a t i o n s w e r e ma d e i n
the
sand
and C a s s id y
the
determ ined.
containers
a
for
field
medium
K n o wn
use
in
of each
28
major
soil
textural
class
found.
20 cm d i a m e t e r h o l e c u t i n
it
measured
and
a
hole
hole
the
plate.
in
the
20
cm d e e p
This
minimized
variation
m aterial
was
placed
weighed.
The h o l e was f i l l e d
in' a
hole
m aterial.
and
thus
This
is
container
to
the
sand.
c o n t a i n e r was w e i g h e d t o
the
ex ca v atio n s'.
of
The
The
w eight
rem aining
bulk -d e n sity
summarized in
the
and
sand
in
of
the
the
fill
excavated
equation:
Irie BDs
BDe = _________
m0 - mr
where
BDe
is
the
bulk
the weight of the
the
sand,
m0
container.
It
the
is
excavated
is
original
w eight
s o i l , me
necessary
to
the bulk d en sity of
of
know b u l k
of the p r o f il e
is
the
sand
for
the
sand in th e
density
but also
in
not
only
analysis
of
a c r o s s . 15
cm
Coarse fragment
(>
carbonate content.
Samples
o.f
depth in te r v a ls
2 mm)
w eight-per
fraction
gm,
the
the weight of the remaining
for ch aracterizatio n
soil
of
(I.)
e x c a v a t e d s o i l , BDs i s
is
c o n t a i n e r , a n d mr
density
in
of the p le x ig la s s
d e t e r m i n e t h e volume n eed ed t o
the
the
excavated
known
level
a
t o be
procedure
the
sieved
site
through
shape
the
was p l a c e d o v e r t h e
with
excavated
and
w ith
plate
was
size
plate
of
A plexiglass
for
was
profile
laboratory
cent
(< 2 mm) w a s
each
sample
each
precisely
determined
was
were
analysis.
determ ined
split
collected
to
obtain
by
sieving.
lab
samples
The
of
w eighed.
Carbonate
content
using
C hittick
apparatus
the
fine
I to
of
3
each
( AOAC,
29
1950;
square
1978,
D reim anis,
centim eter
1985).
1962)
and
column
Between
five
then
through
and
ten
s a m p l e t o o b t a i n maxi mum p r e c i s i o n .
variability
of
calcium carbonate
converted
the
splits
to
profile
were
grams
(M achette,
analyzed
A c c u r a c y was
content w ithin
per
per
l i m i t e d by
surfaces.
10000 ft
contour interval 100 ft
dashed contours 20 ft
map location
•
soil pit location
i / *°7
,K m
,
S > )
F ig u r e 9. L o c a tio n s of
d e s c r i p t i o n s and a n a l y s e s .
excavations
for
soil
profile
30
P ro file A nalysis
The d e g r a d a t i o n
recognized.
(G i l b e r t ,
wave-cut
of
Early
18 9 0 )
of Scarps
escarpm ents
studies
revealed
of
with
Lake
that
the
Bucknam a n d
Anderson
present
older
(1979)
of
vertical
distance
survey
line)
be r e l a t e d
cut
(Nash,
1977,
quantify
tim e.
( RDj
This
the
1980;
Pierce
of
1984;
Nash,
has
scarps
related
terraces
1984),
between
scarp
to
the
the
a
may
of wavefaulted
and f l u v i a l
have
attem pted
morphology
relative
scarp-form ing
as
line
1980b),
scarps
been used
to
to
along
Other s t u d i e s
Mayer,
of
first
defined
1986)
and
the
regression
Nash,
1980a;
relationship
is
the
10).
and Colman,
ma n y Q u a t e r n a r y
is
adjacent
(Figure
relationship
RD t e c h n i q u e
two
slope
others,
the
height
shorelines
s l o p e s a r e more
were
(scarp
between
s c a rp age
and
1984;
height
and t h a t
to
(Hanks
(W allace,
to
scarp
long been
morphology
s h o w t h a t ma xi mum s c a r p a n g l e , ma y b e d i r e c t l y
logarithm
has
Bonneville
l a n d f o r m s wa s t i m e - d e p e n d e n t ;
degraded.
time
and
age-date
events:.
This
known a s m o r p h o l o g i c d a t i n g .
Theory of M orphologic D ating
M orphologic
assumptions
scarp
and
since
its
m ethod,
dating
regarding
of
both
s c a r p s . involves
the
dom inant
processes
form ation.
These
and
assum ptions.
care
must
be
in itial
acting
taken
to
several
m orphology
to
assumptions
making
modify
severely
clearly
of
the
the
slope
lim it
the
identify
the
31
SCARP HEIGHT (m|
F i g u r e 10.
R e g re s s io n l i n e s and e q u a t io n s f o r f a u l t s c a r p
m easurem ents from t h r e e s i t e s in U tah.
F i s h S p r in g s and
Drum M o u n t a i n s s c a r p s a r e < 1 1 . 8 k a o l d ; P a n g u i t c h s c a r p s
a r e mu c h o l d e r b u t < 500 k a o l d .
M o d i f i e d f r o m Bu c kna m a n d
A n d e r s o n (1979 ) .
The
on
the
of
fault
initial
processes
scarps
the
fault
m aterials
to
of
a
that
to
form
is
This morphology i s
of
morphology
acted
usually
about
controlled
p la n e, but
tensionaI
not
rather
cracking
h i l !slope
it.
60°
from
depends
The
the
largely
initial
upper
slope
block.
s o much b y t h e o r i e n t a t i o n
by t h e
response
(Wallace,
of
1977).
surficial
Wave-cut
32
platform s
have
a
seaward
segment
form
fluvial
of
prim arily
(Nash,
by
of
cutbanks,
angle
scarps
the
1984)
(Pierce
and Colman,
A
and
or
and
repose
of
scarps
1986)
occur
(Figure
scarps,
the
than
of
a
and
the
more
gentle
Th e
initial
1976).
is
controlled
underlying m aterial
although
convexity
ravelling
and
Griggs,
terrace
steeper
crestal
(Nash,
of t e r r a c e
of
segment
commonly a l l u v i u m ,
report
Rounding
inshore
(Bradley
the
1986),
(1986)
steep
the
Pierce
angle
the
and
of
basal
Colman
repose.
concavity
oversteepened
immediately
after
slope
formation
11).
angle of repose^
undercut scarp
“starting form”
profile resulting from
diffusion modeling
F i g u r e 11.
Stages in the e v o lu tio n of a diffusion-m odeled
te rra ce scarp.
A scarp s te e p e r than the angle of repose is
commonly f o r m e d by l a t e r a l u n d e r c u t t i n g by a s t r e a m .
The
o v e r s te e p e n e d slo p e ra v e ls quick ly , y ie ld in g the angle of
r e p o s e " s t a r t i n g form" f o r d i f f u s i o n m odeling ( d i s c u s s e d i n
text).
C r e s t a l ro u n d in g and b a s a l d e p o s i t i o n y ie ld the
diffusion-m odeled p r o f ile .
H = scarp height.
M odified from
P i e r c e and Colman ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
33
H illslopes
types
can be c a t e g o r i z e d
depending
(G ilbert,
on
1 877 ;
the
dominant
Nash,
h ig h downsi ope t r a n s p o r t
the
rate
that
w eathering).
crestal
Such
convexity
concavity
because
from
own
slope
its
changes
(Figure
12).
the r e t r e a t
the
slopes
is
the
free
is
modify
through
relative
buried
The
time
slopes
by
to
(i .e . ,
slopewash.
compared t o
becomes
them
slopes
available
by
1986) .
Loosening-lim ited
rate
that
m aterial
made
small
face
(Nash,
position
of
dominated
relatively
surface
in
rates
are
two f u n d a m e n t a l
"Loosening- I i m i ted"
m aterial
is
processes
1980a) .
have
as one of
the
with
midpoint
The
basal
debris
of
parallel
the
retreat
can be d a te d
only
if
known.
F i g u r e 12.
Model f o r a p a r a l l e l - r e t r e a t i n g ,
looseninglim ited scarp.
The r e t r e a t i n g f a c e i s p r o g r e s s i v e l y b u r i e d
by a n a p r o n o f d e b r i s s h e d f r o m i t s s u r f a c e .
M odified from
Nash ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
"Transport-lim ited"
surface
and
M odification
m aterial
to
are
of
be
slopes
dom inated
the
by
h i l !slope
deposited
at
have
loosened
creep
involves
the
base
and
debris
rain
removal
w ith
the
of
at
the
splash.
crestal
m aterial
34
removed a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l
to
forces
slope
time
the
midpoint
while
basal
the
lateral
concavity
slope
is
Culling,
the
extent
increases
modeled
1965;
of
using
that
to
of
be
the
(Figures
the
found a t
the base.
fixed
in
crestal
13 a n d
space
with
convexity
11).
diffusion
This
and
This type of
equation
(e.g. ,
Nash, 1984).
SLOPE MIDPOINT
F i g u r e 13.
Model f o r t h e d e g r a d a t i o n o f a t r a n s p o r t - l i m i t e d
h i l !slope.
The c r e s t a l c o n v e x i t y a n d t h e b a s a l c o n c a v i t y
become more r o u n d e d and t h e m i d s e c t i o n r e c l i n e s .
Modified
from Nash ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
Use
new.
of
diffusion
However ,
using
technique
is
method
prim arily
is
diffusion
to
the
relatively
of h i l !slopes
model
h il !slope
diffu sio n
new.
its
The
evolution
equation
as
attractiveness
sim plicity.
is
not
a
of
can be e x p r e s s e d a s :
dt
the
x and
y as
diffusivity
equation
states
Cartesian
dx^
(2)
coordinates,
coefficient.
that
the
M a th e m a tic a l Iy ,
dy =C^v
with
RD
downs I ope
In
t
as
time,
essence,
movement
of
the
and
c as
diffusion
m aterial
is
35
directly
is
proportional
convex-up,
acts
as
on t h e
"c"
at
one
calculated
other
new,
c
scarp
value
is
been
not
known
--
It
by
a
The
cannot
depends, on
clim ate,
w ould
then
would be o b t a i n e d
be
be
c must
solved
used
to
dating
of
be
estim ated,
the
scarps
even
t
scarps
the
is
so
Thus,
1984) .
temporal
though
The
for
morphologic
relative
for
for.
find
be
it
If
dating
spacing
num erical
ages
,
only
that
morphologic, d a tin g
applicable
to
These ty p e s
of
debris
piles
in the
slopes
upslope
s o me
slopes
same l o c a t i o n
can be i d e n t i f i e d
of
obstructions,
and g u l l y i n g .
must
scarps
of
has
transport-lim ited
slope m idpoint remains
tim e.
W ave-cut
age-date
determ ine
1984).
scarp
h il l slope
as
(Nash,
slump f e a t u r e s ,
--
such
area
(Nash,
lack
turn
f o r e a c h new f i e l d
noted
through
the
areas.
or
because the
in
topography
a RD t e c h n i q u e ,
morphologic
be
is
which
of
ma ny
cannot be o b ta in e d .
lim itations
change
for
be used t o
should
concave-up,
factors
calculated
diffusion-m odeled
It
as
c
would
has
can s t i l l
of
and
Because
m ust be d e t e r m in e d
c
specific
a numerical
not
of
curvature
diffusion
scarps.
c
is
When t o p o g r a p h y
and g e o lo g y .
scarp
Ideally,
least
When i t
of
site
aspect,
To u s e
known.
on
gradient.
The r a t e
degree
depends
vegetation,
surface
erodes.
a depocenter.
depends
c.
it
to
have
and
a
sim ple
fluvial
in itia l
cutbanks
as
m orphology.
well
as
s o me
36
fault
scarps
are
ideal.
M ultiple
sc a rp s have m orphologies t h a t
--
The
scarp
to
the
scarp
processes
crest
must
trend
that
be
composite
are d i f f i c u l t
straight.
im plies
cannot
and
be
the
t o model.
G ullying
presence
modeled
w ith
fault
of
the
normal
fluvial
diffusion
equation.
--
The
scarp
initial
repose
such
scarp
of
as
the
clays
repose
and
equation.
is
scarp
m aterial.
and
so
fine
of the
soil
processes.
so t h i s
maxi mum
the
angle
with
have
by
horizons
c
is
clim ate
a
clim ate
Holocene
lim itations
(1986).
m orphology
the
The
an
the
of
cohesion
angle
of
diffusion
sim ilarly
inhibit
to
work
largely
best
w ith.
dependent
changes p robably a l t e r
scarp
to
(i .e . ,
clim ate
a
great
changes
were
the
degree
p e r i g l a c i a l ,)
less
on
by
slope
severe
p r o b l e m may b e m i t i g a t e d .
Further
Colman
do n o t
appears
(t c ) of
cold
be
modeled
Since
clim ate, Pleistocene
introducing
be
to
M aterials
silts
dating
age
cohesion l e s s .
technique.
scarps.
m orphologic
be
estim ated
cannot
M orphologic
H olocene
must
angle
Cemented
application
--
m aterial
They
'(e . g . ,
slope
angle
diffusion
Their stu d ie s
have
contradict
Nash,
1984)
( Bu c k n a m
coefficient
in
been
southern
and
are
discussed
earlier
by
Anderspn,
Idaho in d ic a te
Pierce
studies
showing
related
by
to
that
of
and
scarp
that
not
only
1 97 9 )
but
also
scarp
height.
c. may i n c r e a s e
37
by
1.5
x
(Figure
I O~ 3 m 2 wi t h
an
14).
Also
south
facing
scarps
times
th a t of n o rth -fac in g
age
may h a v e
very
increase
disquieting
have
unlike
the
methodology
(1979)
and
Nash
scarps
both of
(1984),
sim ilar
is
diffusion
scarps
different
in
scarp
their
and t h a t
Pierce
aspect
by
of
conclusion
coefficients
morphologies
suggested
height
that
up
to
of
sim ilar
scarps
(F ig u re
15).
five
Thus,
and
Anderson
a n d Colman s u g g e s t
comparing
and of
Bucknam
Im
sim ilar
scarp height.
BONNEVILLE SCARPS
C = 1.35H+3.03
IDAHO SCARPS
C--1.54H + 0.90
H IN METERS
F i g u r e 14.
D ependence o f t h e d i f f u s i v i t y c o e f f i c i e n t (c) on
s c a r p h e i g h t (H) f o r 15 k a o l d w e s t - f a c i n g s c a r p s i n c e n t r a l
I d a h o a n d 15 k a o l d L a k e B o n n e v i l l e s h o r e l i n e s c a r p s o f e a s t
and w e s t a s p e c t s .
M o d i f i e d from P i e r c e and Colman ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
38
N-FACING SCARPS
a=20.8logH +9.2
S-FACING SCARPS
a=12.9logH+7.2
W-FACING SCARPS
a = 16.6 IogH+ 8.1
H IN METERS
F i g u r e 15.
R e l a t i o n b e t w e e n maximum s c a r p a n g l e ( a ) a n d
s c a r p h e i g h t ( H) f o r 15 k a o l d n o r t h - , s o u t h - , a n d w e s t ­
facing scarps in cen tral Idaho.
M odified from P i e r c e and
Colman ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
Another
it
assumes
creep)
include
major
that
a
operates
rock
involving
fall
w ater
problem w ith
constant
over
w hile
diffusion
continuous
tim e.
later
transport.
the
slope
In itial
processes
In
slope
may
addition,
model
process
is
that
(i .e .,
processes
include
the
may
those
processes
39
associated
with
creep
(and more
a r e p o o r ly u n d e r s t o o d , so i t
is
diffusion
the
equation
D espite
diffusion
to
te st
these
model,
the
inapplicable
can model
generally,
far
m ethod
w here
evolution)
from c o n c l u s i v e t h a t
evolution of
lim itatio n s
morphologic
slope
to
the
any h i l ! s l o p e .
application
dating
wa s
used
in
other
RD
techniques
of
the
this
study
ma y
be
or undesirable.
M o rp h o lo g ic D a tin g Methods
F ifteen
to
thirty
and 2 n o r t h - f a c i n g
s c a r p s were
and Abney hand l e v e l
100m t o
300 m a p a r t
extended
beyond
c o n c a v i t y ..
profiles
(Figure
on
each
16).
c re sta l
Evidence of
slope
4 south-facing
surveyed using
Profiles
d e p e n d i n g on s c a r p
the
of
a ta p e measure
were spaced from
length
convexity
and
and
w a s h wa s n o t e d
as
generally
the
well
basal
as
the
p r e s e n c e o f human l a n d s c a p e m o d i f i c a t i o n .
The p r o f i l e s
degrees
of
slope
converted to
by
the
diffusion
a
include
m aterial),
crestal
repose
angle
for
of
very
adjacent
SLOPEAGE p l o t s
of
angle
young
so they
SLOPEAGE
initial
profile
( D. B .
the
with
it.
basal
concavity,
m idsection
and
treads
the
were
Nash,
scarp
angle
of
data
(angle
then
w ritten
profile
and
U ser-defined
of
repose
for
m idsection,
and
(generally
nature
(equal,
a nd.
c o u ld be a n a ly z e d
slope
scarps),
terrace
slope distance
numerical
coordinates
diffusion
extent
convexity,
These
program
1987).
predicted
param eters
the
gradient.
Cartesian
communication,
fits
w e re r e c o r d e d ,in m e t e r s
of
unequal,
angle
of
the
slope
or
equal
40
to
zero).
The
program
profile
superim posed
includes
morphologic
removed
from
kappa
"t c " i s
(Andrews
crest,
and
then
on
provides
the
param eters
m aterial
Hanks,
field
of
as
output
profile.
scarp
and
termed th e m orphologic age of
tc
the
Other
o ffse t,
deposited
19 8 5 ) ,
the
model
output
m aterial
at
the
base,
of
Nash
tau
( 1984) .
scarp.
F i g u r e 16.
Locations of surveyed p r o f ile s
fo r morphologic d a tin g in t h i s s tu d y .
of
scarps
used
41
The
p ro file
diffusion-based
where
is
H is
in
ka.
MAX =' I G ( H / e x p ( 0 . 09 9 a - 0 . 8 0 4 ) ) 2
(5)
height,
a
is
were
w ith
morphology i s
function
the
for
states
that
and
H is
function
so
these
yield
and
Pleistocene
age
estim ates
be
scarps
regressions
constrained
by
(C) .
of
with
ages.
M ayer's
(1984)
The d i s c r i m i n a n t
scarp
M athem atically,
at
the
scarps
height
Linear
function
m orphologies.
the
scarp
Scarp
logarithm
discrim inant
Utah,
and
Lake
is:
a
that
ages.
shown
linear
Drum M o u n t a i n s ,
and
C values
are
can
t h a t d e f i n e s maxi mum s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n
shoreline
yields
a scarp
equations
b a s e d o n maxi mum s c a r p a n g l e a n d t h e
scarp
assume
on
C = 5 . 3371ogH + 0 . 4 8 5 a where
sim ple age e s tim a te ,
a sem i-arid,
d iffere n t
scarps
MIN
cobbly alluvium in
analyzed
score
angle,
These e q u a tio n s
(1980b)
based
also
height.
Bonneville
maxi mum s l o p e
Nash
and t i g h t l y
function
groups
scarp
are
function
a linear
two
the
MLE i s
formed in
they
data
of
(1984)
scarps
discrim inant
of
(4)
properties
The
the
MLE = 1 0 ( H / e x p ( 0 . I 0 9 a - 0 . 6 2 3 ) ) 2
Mayer
since
using
( 19 84) :
t h e ma xi mum a g e e s t i m a t e .
used to date
these
analyzed
. (3)
x I 0~4 m ^ y r - l
clim ate
also
MIN = 1 0 ( H / e x p ( 0 . 1 1 9 a - 0 . 4 4 2 ) ) 2
t h e mi n i mu m a g e e s t i m a t e ,
c = 4.4
is
w ere
e q u a t i o n s o f Mayer
scarp
a n d MAX i s
age
data
is
(6)
maxi mum s c a r p
discrim inate
"C"
in
1.639
values
Table
I.
angle.
The
between Holocene
and
The
corresponding
discrim inant
42
function
score
coefficient)
a g e s , however,
is
advantageous
need
not
be
in
estim ated.
can n o t be c a lc u la te d .,
Table I.
C values
Mayer, 1984).
C Value
C > 6.5
6.5 > C > 0
0 > C > -5
and
that
c
(the
Specific
diffusion
morphologic
only ranges.
corresponding
age
estim ates
Age i n Y e a r s
102
103
104
( from
43
RESULTS
The t e r r a c e s
at
Jack Creek reco rd
n et dow ncutting sin ce occupation
Since
at
occupation
various
channel
of
A)
w ith
N either
B)
heights
Tl,
Jack
above
the
gradients.
(Appendix
those
of
a
field
soils
Moreover,
present
stream
observation
two
distinct
loess
cap
and
those
nor
laboratory
data
further
of
at
Jack
post-glacial
It
surfaces:
loess
cap.
(Appendix
between
surfaces.
capped s u rfa c e s
dem onstrable,
Creek have p re s e rv e d
of
a
various
profiles
analysis
distinguish
is
at
soil
w ithout
Tl.
still-stand
and
populations
morphologic d a tin g of n o n -lo ess
inconclusive a t b est.
terraces
experienced
reveals
observation
60 m o f
of th e h ig h e s t t e r r a c e ,
Creek
Field
approxim ately
however,
a record
of
that
is
the
prim arily
dow ncutting.
T e r r a c e Morphology
Longitudinal
Jack Creek
(Figure
pedim ents
in
terraces
cases
are
th e ir
significantly
2).
profiles
17)
addition
of
the
reveal
to
subparallel
at
the
to
terraces
m odern
Jack
from
surfaces
T6 a n d T 8 a r e
and
although
appear
to
Jack
Creek
significantly
at
and two
flo o d p lain .
Creek,
gradients
Specifically,
pediments
le a s t nine te r r a c e s
lon g itu d in al
adjacent
and
A ll
in
s o me
d iffer
(Table
steeper
than-
44
all
other
surfaces.
d istin c tly
steeper
pedim entation
origin.
The p e d i m e n t
origin
T2 h a s
significantly
s u r f a c e s , Pl
concave-up
(see Figure
a kinked
steeper
2)
profile,
than the
p rofiles,
rather
with
P2, have
reflecting
than
the
and
a
a floodplain
upper
part
being
lower p a r t .
■ 5 500
■5400
5300 -
-5 3 0 0
f
■ 5200
"VP2
5200 -
5100 -
■5100
1500 m
SCALE
"iooo ft
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
5000 -
28 X
F ig u r e 17.
L o n g itu d in a l p r o f i l e s of the te r r a c e s (s o lid
lines)
and p e d im e n ts
(dashed
lines)
a t Jack C reek.
A p p r o x im a t e p o s i t i o n and r e l a t i v e m otion of r a n g e - b o u n d i n g
n o rm al f a u l t i s shown.
See T a b l e 2 f o r t e r r a c e g r a d i e n t s .
The d i f f e r e n c e
shows
distinct
vertical
T4
( 21
m)
variation
separation
while
in h e ig h t between a d ja c e n t
the
(see
between
Figure
surfaces
vertical
17).
exists
separation
surfaces
The
also
greatest
between
T3
approaches
and
zero
between
surfaces
surfaces
(e . g .,
T a b le 2.
that
T4,
are
T5,
G radients
t r u n c a t e d • by
of the te r r a c e s
a t J a c k Creek.,
G radient
Tl
0.019 +0.003
( lower p a r t )
(upper p a r t)
T2
0.026+0.003
T4
0.021 +0.006
T5
0.022+0.004
T6
0.030+0.003
T7
0.026+0.003
T8
0.031+0.002
T9
0.021+0.002
(Jack Creek)
TlO
Soil
of
(relative
above,
Jack
Group"
modern
floodplain,
prim ary
and
Group
is
used
surfaces
of Treads
data
(F igure
includes
criterion
Lower
soils
Creek)
"Lower
0.020+0.001
A nalysis
surfaces
to
0.024 +0.002
0.029 +0.001
T3
As s t a t e d
steeper
and T 6 ).
Terrace
groups
low er,
of
The
T l ,T2,
through
distin ct
to
T9
from
distinguish
in
the
terraces
18).
includes
T3
the
field
"H igher
and
and
both
the
two
Group"
Pl
w hile
the
P 2 .,
TlO ,
the
groups.
between
is
reveal
Higher
presence
The
Group
of
a
46
loess
cap.
pediment
This
an
A loess
surface
loess
cap
otherw ise
poor
and
ranges
cobbly
parent m aterial
a gravelly
skeletal
cap
the
i s ' found
two
from
40
skeletal
highest
to
on
the
terraces
>1 0 0
profile
(A p p e n d ix C ).
texture
only
(Figure
cm t h i c k
texture
Al I
lower
throughout the
highest
of
and
19).
mantles
carbonate-
surfaces
have
profile.
F i g u r e 18.
Grouping of s u r f a c e s a t Jack Creek i n t o
a n d L o w e r G r o u p s b a s e d on l o e s s c a p d i s t r i b u t i o n .
Higher
47
10000 ft
1000
2000
contour interval 100 ft
dashed contours 20 ft
Montana
map location
%,.YZSi
r
; CS
Figure
19.
Loess cap d i s t r i b u t i o n
One-way
group
means
calcium
analysis
of
that
the
group
are
equal
analyzing
effects
of
(ANOVA)
thickness
content
thicknesses
the
variance
B horizon
carbonate
hypothesis
of
a t Jack C reek.
( Appendix
means
for
the
are
so ils
was
and
group
D).
independent
means
ANOVA t e s t s
equal
on
performed
(e . g . ,
all
of
the
B horizon
surfaces)
variable
on
(time)
by
on
48
the
dependent
carbonate
above
content)
Jack
higher
variable
horizon
is
are
used
is
B H orizon
the
the
factor
to
if
the
com paring
values
less
(factor
the
level
means
means
Type I
are
error
null
by
same).
the
than
v a l u e ) ..
risk.
The
the
hypothesis
than
is
or
one
that
Tl
another.
T2
Sim ilarly,
F*
the
F-test
same
by
F*
hypothesis
greater
hypothesis
of
than
(factor
com m itting
0.05.
size.
Gr oup-
sta tistic .
values
risk
as
under
the
null
equal
are
F
is
is
a
true)
Accepting
Finally,
B
tested
Lower
the
( T y p e TI e r r o r )
compared
supported i f
and
are
(e . g .,
be
h y p o t h e s i s when i t
the
to
not
T3
the
to
null
the
the
lessened
ANOVA g i v e s
hypothesis
specified
hypothesis
'a lp h a ';
P-value is
ANOVA o f B h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s
shows
on
because
s a m p l e o u tc o m e w o u l d have- b e e n m or e
is
support
the
The
false
one o b s e r v e d
P-value
The d a t a
greater
the
means
alternative
sample
to
support the n u ll
selected
is
tim e
ANOVA u t i l i z e s
the n u ll
'a lp h a ',
that
and
same).
not
increasing
the p ro b a b ility
extreme
the
the
at
H igher
w ith
support
h y p o t h e s i s when i t
prim arily
is
are
for
groups
level
calcium
Surface height
the
levels.
F statistic
(rejecting
controlled
on
F* value
than the
analog
factor;
factor
derived
F statistic
level
is
a
an
1985).
or
The d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
thickness
surfaces ) are
determ ine
as
older.
thickness)
(e . g . ,
thickness
(N eter and o t h e r s
Creek
surfaces
(B h o riz o n
(Figure
the
the
less
'alpha '
P-value
alternative
than
'alp h a '.
20 a n d A p p e n d i x D )
significantly
through
if
(P-
T9 a s
different
well
as
the
from
two
49
pedim ent
surfaces
different
from one a n o t h e r .
that
these
two
(Pi
groups
and
are
P 2)
are
not
sig n ifican tly
The i m p o r t a n t p o i n t
significantly
different
a n o t h e r i n B t h i c k n e s s . ' In a d d i t i o n , B h o r iz o n
Pl
soils
H igher
is
Group
affinity
as
far
significantly
so ils.
different
Put
w i t h Lower Group s o i l s
as B horizon th ick n ess
floodplain,
is
from
another
to
way,
from
of
has
is
one
thickness
that
Pl
note
of
other
greater
t h a n w i t h H i g h e r Group s o i l s
is
significantly
concerned.
T lO , t h e modern
d ifferent
from
all
other
surfaces.
ANOVA o f
(Figure
of
21
Tl,
and
Pl
is
and
different
t h a t T2 i s
into
in
a
soil
carbonate
the
significantly
different
profile,
in
the
sim ilar
that
to
one
soil
carbonate
in
a
soil
(lim estone
or
dolom ite
must
profile.
from a l l
is
usually
sedim ents
Lower
TlO
further
other
the
or
suggest
terraces.
from p r im a r y
m aterial)
source
source
from
Group
is 'a g a in
from p a r e n t
The
level
carbonate
from
Th e d a t a
determ ine
that
different
calcium
Group .
derived
to
show s i g n i f i c a n t
pedogenic calcium carbonate
(i . e .,
profile
95% c o n f i d e n c e
different
H igher
soil
significantly
regards
surfaces.
carbonate
the
are
other
To d i s t i n g u i s h
calcium
W ith
significantly
from a l l
the
T3 t h r o u g h T9 d o n o t
PI.
falls
in
a pattern
A gain, a t
from one a n o t h e r b u t
T2,
content,
soils
= 0.05),
content
D) shows
thickness.
alpha
differences
from
carbonate
and Appendix
B horizon
(i . e .,
calcium
of
parent
bedrock) ,
of
the
calcium
m aterial
calcium
50
cations
in
r a i n f a l l , or
1985).
C last
counts
from
from m a t e r i a l
(see Appendix C) i n d i c a t e
is
negligible.
calcium
Hence,
carbonate
is
that
the
probably
"I
I
LOWER
GROUP
b
UJ
40
O
^
HIGHER
calcium
and
contribution
cations
eolian
for
m aterial.
GROUP
•
|
I
|
of
pits
•
|
| #P2
from s o i l
m aterial
rainfall
I
epi
excavated
1978,
CM
I
I
source
(M a c h e t t e ,
i—
[
influx
parent
T
I
I
I
I
I
QC
eolian
.4
CO
<
•5
I
£
UJ
#6
|
I
|
H
Ul
S
I
I
#7
I
I
I
I
#8
I
I
•9
•10
I
I
I
I
I
100
THICKNESS OF B HORIZON Iin cm)
F i g u r e 20.
A v e r a g e t h i c k n e s s o f t h e B h o r i z o n i n s o i l s on
each su rface as a fu n ctio n of a p p ro x im a te s u r f a c e h e i g h t
above Jack Creek.
Pediments a r e p l o t t e d as h e i g h t of sample
s i t e above Jack Creek.
Dashed l i n e s s e p a r a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d b y ANOVA.
51
I
I
I
I
I
LOWER GROUP
HIGHER
GROUP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I»P1
I
SS
I
•1 I
I
•P2
CC
(Z)
I
I
LU
§40
<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
#3
•4
I
II
I
I
\
•5
(J)
QC
LU
I
h*
LU
*6
I
I
I
I
|
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• 7
I
I
I
|
•10
#9
•2
I
I
#8 I
I
I
|
I
I
I
I
I|
9/cm2
CaCOg
F i g u r e 21.
Average c a lc iu m c a r b o n a t e c o n t e n t i n s o i l s on
each s u r f a c e as a f u n c t i o n o f approximate s u rfa c e h eig h t
above Jack C re e k .
Pediments a re p l o t t e d as h e i g h t of sample
s i t e above Jack Creek.
Dashed l i n e s s e p a r a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d b y ANOVA.
Since
the
profile
also
shows no c a r b o n a t e
w ith
application
carbonate
content
of
exam ined
development
dilute
may b e
on
Tl O
(it
hydrochloric
used
as
an
is
does
an
Entisol
not
acid),
estim ator
and
effervesce
its
of
calcium
carbonate
52
contribution
through
is
the
from
soil
probably
parent
profile.
not
devoid
(e.g. ,
in
the
eolian
prim ary
contributors
is
the
and
of
calcium
slig h tly
carbonate
in
2
the
scoured
rainfall
calcium
carbonate
( ~2
are
since
area
at
least
lim estone bedrock
For t h e s e
thought
cations
content
gm /cm 2 )
column
g /cm 2
Jack Creek
carbonate
ic e masses
influx
total
only
calcium
some
G r a v e l l y Range and Madison Range)..
reasons,
Thus,
The l o e s s
of
s o me n e a r b y P l e i s t o c e n e
m aterial,
at
be
Jack
used
greater
to
in
than
the
Creek.
the
ANOVA
pedogenic
content.
P r o f i l e A nalysis of Scarps
The Lower Group t e r r a c e s
appear
to
be
reasons.
to
m orphologic
No e v i d e n c e
of
slopewash,
of
bushes
fluvial
erosion,
are
separate
their
straight
so
be
may
be
some
fluvial
of
the
cohesion
is
to
scarps
The
though
the
of
pedogenesis
m aterial.
they
T9)
several
debris
piles
features.,
' Thus,
the
or
the
scarps
were
in itially
probably
relatively
are
rela tiv e ly
profiles
terraces
repose
for
Because
wa s
and
through
field.
profiled
m inim al
so an a n g le
even
the
surfaces,
morphology
compared.
alluvium ,
in
as
slump
transport-lim ited.
gullying
estim ated,
observed
( T3
dating
such
obstructions,
initial
C rests
cobbly
was
adjacent
sim ple.
aspect
and
probably
cutbanks;
Jack Creek
am enable
ups lope
scarps
at
are
for
Finally,
sim ilar
developed
the
tends
of
m aterial
to
the
on
can
introduce
Lower
Group
53
terraces
along
Jack
Creek
a n o t h e r by r e l a t i v e
degree of
SLOPEAGE a n a l y s i s
Creek
(Table
morphologic
Creek)
of
(tc)
south-facing
defined param eters
scarp
in
sm allest
scarps,
but
is
(i . e . ,
the
youngest).
this
not
low)
the
or
either
the
scarp
that
t
greater
for
of
borne out a t
Jack Creek.
of
sim ilar
exists.
A gain,
estim ate
scarp
of
8-9
all
does
height
is
all
in
the
aspect
since
is
all
above
scarp
8 - 8a
follow
the
(tc
high)
is
does
exhibit
sample
size
lim its
c
scarps
is
mu c h
Also,
C o l man
to
scarp
Jack
the
either
than
4/5-7
Thus,
that
height
Mayer
above
trend.
less
(1 98 6)
of
suggests
scarp.
scarp
yields
scarps,
Creek
also
scarps.
8-8a
Jack
scarps
other
that
height
user-
The l a r g e v a l u e o f t c
estim ates
w ith
Jack
Scarp 8-8a
anomalously
related
age
south-facing
not
and
for
in
south-facing
scarp
small
or
other
P ierce
coefficient
scarps
of
s c a r p h e i g h t t h a n any o t h e r
d iffusivity
increase
3).
scarps.
compared t o
mu c h
values
conclusion
An
the
south-facing
is
(see Table
age
Jack
(above
values
either
(tc
one
increase
highest
N ortheast-facing
4/5-7
respective
8-9
although
h a s a mu c h g r e a t e r
the
scarp
from
lower
certain
in
Thus ,
along
a general
to
assuming
lowest
trend.
c o r r e la tio n with
for
scarps
m orphologic
the
relationship,
(371)
distinguished
development.
low est
th e program
the
follow
soil
terrace
from
yields
not
be
3 and Appendix E ) r e v e a l s
age
anomalously
cannot
the
may b e
(1984)
Creek
for
also
sm allest
scarp
8 - 8a
age
or
N ortheast-facing
54
scarps,
although
scarp s,
have
higher
m arkedly
discrim inant function
1.0
to
0.1
ka old
even though
above
score
range
Jack
Creek
sm aller
age
(C) d e f i n e s
(compare
th e m orphologic age
than
C in
south-facing
estim ates.
all
scarps as in
Table
estim ators
3 w ith Table
are
The
the
I)
mu c h g r e a t e r
in m agnitude.
T a b le 3.
Summa r y o f m o r p h o l o g i c a n a l y s i s
of .scarps
tc^f 4
tau kappa2 r2
m ean/s.d .
m ean/s.d .
MLE5
m ean/s.d .
C6
m ean/s.d .
12
48.0/21.8
47.1/21.9
77.3/36.0
21.2/3.2
S
14
39.4/13.3
31.1/12.5
49.9/19.3
6.3/4.0
S
7-8
27
73.8/26.7
54.8/22.6
113.7/48.9
10.1/1.2
S
4-7
7
560.4/38.7
413.1/77.6
706.2/291.3
22.6/1.0
SW
5-7
10
349.4/78.3
342.7/90.4
750.7/188.6
18.4/2.1
SW
436.2/122.7
371.9/92.3
732.4/241.6
20.1/2.7
SW
5.2/1.6
■NE
10.5/2.1
NE
Scarp
Label
I
&
0 0
CO
8-9
n
4 / 5 - 7 .17
4-5
10
23.9/6.9
19.1/6.3
5-6
13
61.7/16.7
48.0/13.3
32.8/8.8
105.1/31.2
A
?
U s e r - d e f i n e d p a r a m e t e r s f o r SLOPEAGE a r e : i n i t i a l s l o p e
an g le = 33°; a n g le of m id s e c tio n = 33°; n a tu re of
a d ja c e n t tr e a d s - - both s lo p e a t 0°;
e x te n t of basal
c o n c a v i t y , c r e s t a l c o n v e x i t y , and. m i d s e c t i o n d e t e r m i n e d
fo r each r u n .
C a l c u l a t e d u s i n g BASIC c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m SLOPEAGE ( N a s h ,
w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 19 87) .
I n v e r s e s o l u t i o n f o r ag e o f Andrews and Hanks ( 1 9 8 5 ) .
"t c " o f Nash ( 1984).
Simple age e s t i m a t e o f Mayer (1984) i n I
years.
D i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n s c o r e o f Mayer ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
A spect.
55
Maximum
scarp
height
between th e
< 10 m) .
(H >
12
(Figure
plotted
22)
for
R egression
4 )^
regression
line
a
slope
steeper
south-facing
difference
(m = 1 . 1 )
not
close
relatio n sh ip
(scarp height
exist
of
for
higher
performed
on
(H)
scarps.
each
scarp
slopes
g e n e r a lly between 3
7-8
shows
a
while
the
line
gently
for
Regression
(F igures
between the
logarithm
line
10.0) .
scarps
the
scarps
analysis
Scarp
(m =
a
small
does
shows r e g r e s s i o n
(Table
against
reveals
The r e l a t i o n s h i p
m> .
I
angle
two v a r i a b l e s
(F i g u r e 23)
and
slope
24
two g r o u p s
and
in
scarp
of
4/5-7
has
northeast-
and
25)
terms
sloping
shows
of
l i t t l e
line
slope
or
intercept=
S u mma r y
Terrace
groups
of
s u r f a c e s ..
exhibit
a
presence
of
T9
and
TlO.,
analysis
P2)
greater
a
degree
cap.
less
soil
t h e modern f l o o d p l a i n ,
although
lacks
it
is
a loess
relationships
Group
degree
terrace
than
estim ators
sim ilar
cap.
at
Jack
Creek, c l e a r l y
H ig h e r Group s u r f a c e s
loess
show
at
to
Figure
Jack
of
can
and
fall
26 i l l u s t r a t e s
Morphologic
distinguish
RD c r i t e r i a .
increase
with
height
that
the
cap..
it
also
landscape-soil
dating
surfaces
Jack
and
e i t h e r group,
Morphologic
above
and P i)
loess
in
the
two
(T3 t h r o u g h
no
into
Lower Group s o i l s
can s o i l
T2,
surfaces
developm ent
does not
(Tl,
developm ent
Lower Group
Creek.
scarps
soil
defines
of
to
ages
Creek
Lower
a
finpr
and age
for
both
56
norththe
and s o u t h - f a c i n g
two
1986).
aspect
The
s c a r p s , although c o rre la tio n
groups
discrim inant
is
problem atic
function
score
(Pierce
defines
and
all
between
Colman,
scarps
as Holocene.
2
3
4 5
10
20
30
SCARP HEIGHT IN METERS
F ig u r e 22.
S c a t t e r p l o t o f s c a r p h e i g h t (on l o g a r i t h m i c
s c a l e ) a s a f u n c t i o n o f maxi mum s c a r p - s l o p e a n g l e a t J a c k
Creek.
The p o s t u l a t e d l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o
v a r i a b l e s d o e s n o t e x i s t f o r s c a r p s o f g r e a t e r h e i g h t (> 12
m).
Numbers r e f e r t o t h e l o w e r t r e a d a d j a c e n t t o t h e s c a r p ,
"a" = 8a.
57
hi
25
Z 15
x
5*
2 3 4 5
10
SCARP HEIGHT IN METERS
F ig u r e 23.
Regression lin e s of the
Table 4 fo r re g re s s io n e q u atio n s.
scale.
20
30
scarps p r o f i l e d .
See
X axis is logarithm ic
58
T a b le 4.
Regression equations
Scarp Label
,
for
scarp a n a ly s is .
R egression Equation!
r^
a
- 5 . 9 Ol ogH + 5 . 0 7
. 61
00
I
CO
a = 4 . 8 5 1 ogH + 2 . 6 5
.71
7-8
a = I . 1 2 IogH + 6 . 6 2
.23
a = 10 .'0 7 I o g H -
.60
rti
8-9
■4/5-7
1.53
.57
a = 4 . 3 IlogH + 3.59
.42
NE-facing
a = 3 . 4 7 IogH + 3 . 8 3
.59
S -facing
a = 4 . 7 0 1 ogH + 2 . 3 2
.57
5-6
a = 6 . 9 2 IogH -
16.20
I
m
a = maxi mum s c a r p - s l o p e
an g le; H = scarp h e ig h t.
59
LU
25
»*"
2
3
*
4 5
10
20
30
SCARP HEIGHT IN METERS
F ig u re 24.
S c a t t e r p l o t by a s p e c t o f s c a r p h e i g h t
(on
l o g a r i t h m i c s c a l e ) a s a f u n c t i o n o f maximum s c a r p - s l o p e
angle.
"e" = n o r t h e a s t - f a c i n g s c a r p s ; " s " = s o u t h - f a c i n g
scarps.
60
EAST-FACING
SOUTH-FACING
2
3
4 5
10
SCARP HEIGHT IN METERS
20
30
F i g u r e 25.
R e g r e s s i o n l i n e s o f n o r t h e a s t - f a c i n g and s o u t h ­
facing scarps.
See Table 4 fo r re g re s s io n eq u atio n s.
X
axis is logarithm ic scale.
61
.*,«,**“ ''S S 1*""" »
10Y R 6/3,
C F - 25%
stage H
(II
2
m pr
stage m
F i g u r e 26.
G eneralized landscape-soil re la tio n s h ip s at Jack
Creek.
M a r k s o n p r o f i l e s i n d i c a t e d e p t h i n cm.
Codes f o r
s o i l s t r u c t u r e : I = weak; 2 = m o d e ra te ; f = f i n e ; m =
m edium ; g r = g r a n u l a r ;
sbk = s u b a n g u la r b lo c k y ; p r =
prism atic.
CF = c o a r s e f r a g m e n t w e i g h t - p e r c e n t .
Carbonate
s t a g e a t bottom of p r o f i l e u ses term inology of B irkeland
(1984 ) .
62
DISCUSSION
Timing o f D ow ncuttihg
S tatistical
that
most
of
relatively
of
establish
shows
scarp
tim e.
presence
tim ing
which
response
The
and
that
Jack
occurred
of
calcium
a
in
at
Creek..
Jack
b y ANOVA o f
soils
the
the
fluvial
data,
problem atic
content
of
evoked
a
scarp, a n a ly sis
Group
although
since
a
cap,
tim ing
system
Lower
in
morphology can
Terrace
between
loess
carbonate
constrain
stim uli
is
Creek
combined w ith t e r r a c e
differences
results
d a t a u s i n g ANOVA s u g g e s t s
at
B horizon,
significant
identified
soils
down c u t t i n g
groupings
This
downcutting
of
the
distinct
incision.
help
the
short
thickness
show
grouping, of
surfaces
interpretation
the
d iffu siv ity
c o e f f i c i e n t must be e s ti m a t e d r a t h e r th a n c a l c u l a t e d .
C onsideration of Soil
Any d i f f e r e n c e
be
the
result
forming
factors
topography,
The
poorly
Group
indurated
in
a
soil
activity,
cobbly
a
in
19 4 1 ) :
m aterial
having
development
difference
(Jenny,
biotic
parent
soils
of
Forming F a c t o r s
one
or
parent
Jack
more
Creek
of
m aterial ,
the
must
soil
clim ate,
and ti m e .
of
both
and b o u l d e r y
loess
at
cap
groups
of
terraces
sedim ents,
m antling
the
with
is
Higher
sedim ents .
A
63
difference
grained
the
in
parent
m aterial
sedim ents)
can
(e . g . ,
create
loess
differences
B horizon given constancy of th e o th e r
factors
(B i r k e l a n d ,
is
Pl
that
is
distribution
in
1984).
the
and
The
Higher
calcium
in
to
capped)
carbonate
coarse
character
four
exception
(loess
versus
soil
forming
this
grouping
in
loess
in
the
Lower
v ariable
in
soil
p its
w ere
content
Group
of
but
Group i n B h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s .
Topography
form ation
on
was
the
m inim ized
surfaces
e x c a v a t e d away f r o m r i s e r s
this
way
the
identical
profiles
area
minimized
area.
as
and
the
Thus,
at
both
and
extreme
and b i o t i c
Jack
soil
topographic
settings.
developed
in
In
nearly
and
has
been
affected
A lso,
for
activity
activity
development w ith in
probably
part.
biotic
(75 m) o f t h e
at
has
the
the
least
been
entire
entire
10
the
the
ka
to
be
study
study
area
is
(S i n d e l a r ,
same t h r o u g h o u t
l e a s t d u rin g Holocene t i m e .
clim ate
compared
activity
unknown more t h a n
at
soil
one
biotic
Pre-H olocene
activity
flat
clim ate
in
changes
just
today
area,
were
in
all
investigated
variables
not
grassland
1971).
because
(60 k m ^ ) a n d m i n i m a l r e l i e f
allowed
Climate
area
a
topographic s e t t i n g s .
The s m a l l n e s s
study
as
could
Creek.
to
changes
those
of
(glacial
the
Changes
indeed have g r e a t l y
This
would
inhibit
interglacial)
H olocene,
in s o fa r as v eg e ta tio n
10 k a a g o .
\
in
is
the
concerned i s
clim ate
affected
however,
soil
an
and b i o t i c
development
establishm ent
of
a
64
chronofunction
for
the only fa c to r
soil
development
significantly
since
affecting
time
would
not
be
loess
on
pedogenesis.
L o e s s Ca p
Two p h e n o m e n a
the
terraces
loess
at
could
today.
Jack
have
only
and f l o o d p l a i n
distance
from th e
however, is
evolution
The
source
most
recent
of the
Yellowstone ic e
a
have
it
is
been
stream
deposited
downcutting
that
second
s ilt­
thins
B irkeland,
The
the
found
(wind d e p o s i t e d
blanket
1983;
im portant
episode
with
1984),
the
possibility,
im plications
for
Pleistocene
cap
origin
ice
C o rd illeran
deposition
major
loess
deposition
the
la st
1983),
(R uhe, 1976,
landscape
ice
glacial
debris
masses
(Ruhe,
1 9 8 3) ,
sheets
shortly
although
1983).
(H all,
1960a;
(W aitt- and
probably
after
reworking
an d o u t w a s h was l i k e l y .
1976;
Since th e
derived
such
from
as
Pierce,
Thor son,
no e x c e p t i o n .
by wind o f
Loess d e p o site d
of
and
1 983 ),
Most
ice
the
1979),
G r a b b , 1977)
deglaciation
in
(W isconsin)
in
(P ie r c e and o t h e r s ,
M o n t a n a was
ceased
of
during
i n t h e Madison Range
southwestern
till
(R u h e ,
occurred
Pinedal e-age
(R u h e ,
as
F irst,
where
by
loess
untenable.
l o e s s p r o b a b l y had i t s
the
later
of
19).
only
could
Since
deposited
is
Figure
loess
removed
n o t and has
A m erica
glaciers
(see
distribution
a t Jack Creek.
glaciation
local
the
be
is
the
deposited
form ation.
hypothesis
N orth
Creek
been
to
m aterial)
first
explain
A lternatively,
everywhere
sized
can
loess
masses
newly d e p o s it e d
in unglaciated
65
areas
like
existing
that
Jack
C r e e k wa s e r o d e d
stream .
lacks
a
Thus,
loess
cap
flo o d p la in as re c e n tly
Based on
form ation
at
deglaciation
Jack
Creek
older
than
(e .g . ,
age.
loess
Jack
T3 w a s
glaciation
to
Tl
soils)
forming p r i o r
to
form ation
all
loess
last
and
lower
deposition
absence
and th u s
the
and
of
final
Creek
terrace
the
last
19 8 3 ) ,
both
terraces
loess
stratigraphy
a
more
throes
are
specific
of
Pinedale
P l wa s a l s o
A b a n d o n m e n t o f T3 a n d
occurred
the
of
others,
Pinedale age.
T3 t i m e .
after
the
active
Before
assigning
surfaces
the
tim ing
Hence,
a late
and d u r in g
the
(Porter
precludes
assigned
Jack
probably
emerge.
T2.
during
at
by
Pinedale g la c ia tio n .
to
ago)
P in e d a le ; the
and i s
was
begins
12 k a
occupied
of
( T 3)
occupied
terrace
cap d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
occupied
buried
highest
as the
Creek
(15
late
the
from a r e a s
after
significant
last
deglaciation
reveals
groupings
15 t o
12 k a a g o .
B Horizon Thickness
ANOVA o f
to
that
of
thickness
Higher
( T3
Group
fluvaquent
w ell
in
thickness
d istribution.
significantly
(Tl
T9
and
and
(S o i l
developed
affinity
Group
loess
is
through
B horizon
P2).
than
in
TlO,
C onservation
B horizon.
loess
surfaces
T2 )
greater
cap
in
In
general,
in
soil
those
the
Service,
PI,
B horizon
the
is
1987)
more
thickness.
of
Lower
of
and
is
a
lacks
a
Higher
akin
the
Group
floodplain,
although
distribution,
B horizon
profiles
of
modern
sim ilar
to
Group
Lower
Pedim ents
are
66
subject to
reactivation
frequently
soil
than
terraces
development
form ation
horizon
of
on
on
the
Pl
b y p e d i m e n t a t i o n p r o c e s s e s mu c h m o r e
Pl
are
by
probably
was
s u r f a c e . ■ This
compared
to
fluvial
interrupted
would
other
processes.
lead
H igher
to
Group
Thus,
since
a
the
thinner- B
surfaces
of
s im ila r age.
Calcium C arbonate C ontent
As w i t h
ANOVA o f
H igher
loess
calcium
( T l , T2 ,
G roups.
TlO
content.
Since
increases
1966),
cap. d i s t r i b u t i o n
in
carbonate
and
Pi)
has
amount
soil
tim e
content
those
results
of
form ation
of
loess
s i g n i f i c a n t Iy
spacing, of
small
and
T3 a n d T9
pedogenic
calcium
carbonate
w ith
Put
(i . e . , the
calcium
further
While
the
divided
entire
into
(G ile
carbonate
form ation
and
can be
if
the
others,
used
as
prim ary
(B i r k e l a n d , 1984).
carbonate
ages
The H i g h e r G r o u p i n
groups.
tim e
This
ANOVA i n d i c a t i n g
in s o il
is
P2)
of
t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e
PI)
and
carbonate
calcium
different.
T9,
calcium
calcium
the
through
into
gm/cm^)
d i s t r i b u t i o n ..
concerned,
grouping
(<2
soil
of
forces
( T3
can be d e t e r m i n e d
B thickness
is
of
of
ANOVA g r o u p i n g s
with
Lower
profile
amounts
of
content
and
little
the
a
relative
estim ators
carbonate
and B h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s ,
of
T3
coincide
corroborates
that
as
through
another
time
content
way,
factor
far
as
soil
T9
are
not
the
of
the
temporal
Jenny)
is
so
development e x i s t s .
carbonate
content
two s i g n i f i c a n t l y
H igher
Group
is
(Tl,
T2,,
different
significantly
67
different
from
d iffere n t
carbonate
the
from
or
Pl
in
content
because
of
fan.
compared
to
by
man
by
anom alously
surface
loss
of
large
then
or
been documented i n
pedogenic
clim atically
of
past
of
the
due
to
leaching,
the
study
soil
sensitive
soil
Creek
fan-form ing
on
Tl ,
the
This
surface.
calcium
carbonate
cultivation
A lliso n ,
have
The
personal
no
doubt
would
although
been
ap p aren tly
carbonate
application
that
would
uninterrupted
experienced
calcium
to
carbonate
Cedar
unaltered
(Jim
due
of
on
this
alkaline
decrease
the
this
has
not
at. w h i c h
area.
a major f a c t o r
calcium
in filtra tio n ,
be
has
carbonate
encroached
a c tiv ity .
content
to
than
intro d u cin g
properties
of
Jack
other
p o st-P in e d a Ie
to
T2
soil
greater
above
calcium
experiencing
years
type
plowing
carbonate
Climate is
80
less
pedogenic
Also,
19 8 6 ) ;
the
could
fe rtiliz e r
T2.
much
factor
adjacent
by
of
significantly
height
may h a v e
surfaces
nearly
com m unication,
affected
of
like
for
fan
loess
developm ent
that
pedogenesis
have
pedogenesis
and rew orked
in
form ing
and
the
itself
p ro p e rty because of sampling
location
on
is
low er
may
P inedale
in te rru p tin g
the
by
soil
Tl
its
operating
in h ib it
exhibiting
one
A lternatively,
fanglom erate
Tl
T2 ma y h a v e t h i s
tim e.
processes
T2
A lthough
variation
allu v ial
Group,
and
content.
Greek th a n T l,
bias
Lower
influencing
the
rate
accum ulates
in
soils.
tem perature,
and
param eters
that
so il-air
influence
Water
pCOg
are.
calcium
68
carbonate
G lacial
the
accum ulation
to
rate
interglacial
and
clim atic
pattern
changes
can
carbonate
1985).
be
clim ate
of
accum ulation
Since th e
for
is
greatly
1985 ) .
influence
sm all
concerned
compared
that
a
as
far
Holocene
(M c F a d d e n
"constant"
as
and
calcium
Tinsley,
Creek i n d i c a t e s
t h a t T3 t h r o u g h Tl O a r e p o s t - g l a c i a l
in a g e ,
it
be
assumed
affected
carbonate
probable
cooler
less
and
leaching
Pleistocene
during
soil
clim ates
Increased
leaching
carbonate.
Hence,
g la c ia l
T2 t o T3 i s
p o s s i b l y wa s
Since
Creek
soil
carbonate
carbonate
probably
ma y
then
to
that
of
rates
than
in
the
soil
during
that
transition
contributed
H igher
be
due
Group
to
H igher
of
1 9 8 5 )..
accum ulation
less
A
cause
of
from
t o be g l a c i a l - i n t e r g l a c i a l , th e r a t e
than th a t of the
in
not
content
T insley,
clim atic
of
Group
quite
loess
cap a t
Lower G r o u p .
C arbonate-rich eolian m aterial
Jack
moisture
accum ulation
the
would
compared
probably
accum ulation
less
soil
have
surfaces .
however,
and
the
changes
these
form ation
(M cFadden
w ere
inferred
carbonate
greater
carbonate
e p i s o d e s .,
on
clim ate,
in h ib its
e p iso d e 's
interglacial
clim ate
accum ulation
e v a p o tra n s p ira tio n , thus
in terg lacial
soil
that
of th e
to
a t Jack
safely
distribution
Holocene
terraces
can
loess
so
changes
the
T insley,
accum ulation.
apparently
clim ate
assumed
and
changes
carbonate
were
glacial-interglacial
clim ate
(M cFadden
forming th e
a
significant
soils.
parent
Much
m aterial
of
portion
the
(i.e.,
of
soil
loess)
69
contribution
rather
surfaces
pre-Pinedale
spans
ka
are
than pedogenesis.
a mu c h g r e a t e r
old).
Since
have
mu c h
that
soil
time
soil
carbonate
age
carbonate
c o n t e n t ) of
(older
accum ulation
on
locations
barring
the
is
small
the
variation
tim e.
carbonate
between
mu c h
it
a
reliable
have
so ils
at
existence
surfaces
are
content,
is
terraces
not
(<15-12
older
is
and
concluded
estim ator
w ith
Jack Creek,
influenced
all
at
site s
scarps
activity
size
area,
the
horizon
is
Group
of
greater
regardless
of
the
calcium
Jack
Creek
have
sim ilar
of
not
just
carbonate
in
the
flat,
sim ilarly
has
a l s o been s p a t i a l l y
study area;
parts
of
vegetated
vegetation
it.
sample
topographic
in
those a sso c ia te d with c u ltiv a t io n ,
The
that
age; their
surfaces
carbonate
terraces
from
B iotic
entire
this
the
( away
the
Group
surfaces
has
because
locations).
due t o
Lower
H ig h e r Group
in parent m a te ria l.
Topography
locations
than
content
relative
differences
(> 70 k a ) i n
H igher
greater
However,
sim ilar
changes,
probably a ffe c te d
The
exception
to
p r e s e n c e o f t h e Ap h o r i z o n f o u n d o n s u r f a c e T 2 .
close
correlation
thickness,
soil
in
and
form ing
carbonate
The
lack
content
between
calcium
factor
content
of
between
any
loess
carbonate
most
between
d istrib u tio n ,
content
responsible
form ation
was
sig n ifican t
significant!y
different
soil
not
suggests
for
the
Lower Group s u r f a c e s
difference
T3 a n d T9 i n d i c a t e s
their
B
sufficient
profiles.
In
that
to
the
in
time
develop
addition,
Tl O
70
shows
little
horizonation
from
T9
both
in
suggesting th a t
glacial
long
carbonate
origin
for
This
enough
to
between
all
the
in
morphology
terraces
(T3 t h r o u g h
rely
soil
surfaces
is
carbonate
show
of
horizonation
in the
between
T9).
of
a
probable
Jack
T3
(15-12
weak
and
post­
C r e e k below T3,
time
and
B horizon
k a ) was
structure
T9 b y
in
Th e s h o r t
Jack
Creek,
lack of d isc e rn a b le d iffe re n c e s
soils
Thus,
developm ent
probably
content,
26 a n d A p p e n d i x A ) .
abandonment
reflected
different
distribution,
content,
(see Figure
is
on
loess
dow ncutting
develop
however,
soil
and
amount o f p o s t - g l a c i a l
Lower Gro up s o i l s
tim e
significantly
mu c h y o u n g e r t h a n T 9 .
d a ta , including
and
s o me 48 m .
is
thickness
Tl 0 i s
The s o i l s
thickness,
B
and
to
developed
the
on
use of
Lower
Group
RD m e t h o d s
discrim inate
between
that
these
futile.
Scarp A nalysis
M orphologic
Jack
by
Creek a re
Nash
Since
for
for
ages
the
the
use
of
than
p o st-g lacial
Valley
of
post-glacial
mu c h g r e a t e r
assigned
terraced
t h e West Y e ll o w s to n e B a s in a r e
either
the
B a s i n .and by L u n d s t r o m
Madison
the
(tc)
generally
(1984)
Yellowstone
southern
ages
N ash's
a
for
Pinedale
landscapes
sim ilar
d iffusivity
those
scarps
(1986)
scarps
at
at
calculated
of
the
scarps
age
Jack
W est
in
the
(Table
5).
Creek
and
(i.e.,. post-glacial),
coefficient
(c)
may b e
X-""
inappropriate
cannot
for
accurately
Jack
model
Creek
slope
or
the
evolution
diffusion
of
the
equation
scarps
at
71
Jack Creek.
Indeed,
m2 )
in
the
West
the
diffusion
extrem ely
substrate
exhibits
uniform
at
Jack
is
Creek
Jack Creek,
th a t
of
Basin
very
p article
is
c o h e s i o n due t o
application
be
Yellowstone
m odel,
A ssum ing
may
t h e O b s i d i a n Sand P l a i n
size
soil
variable
estim ated.
that
no
cohesion.
model
coefficient
S im ilarity
do
to
slope
for scarps
in
suggests
that
they
formed w i t h i n
short
time,
probably
soon
after
deglaciation
Lower
Group
8-8a,
an
scarps
th e value of
8-9,
on
at
c for
7-8),
south-facing
age
estim ate
Jack
Creek,
= 25
scarps
to
(i .e . ,
35
at
general
does
increase
scarp
less
unused
the
8 - 8a
increasing
because
mu c h
The
and
c
15
at
all
Lower
a
relatively
of
t h e Madison
ka
6 x
for
all.
I O - 3 m2 i s
scarps
(i . e .,
scarps
m2 f o r
older/
higher
4/5-7),
scarps
at
Jack Creek
of
t o . 10
= 2 to
IO- 3
preclude
and
c
= I
(i . e . , s c a rp s
to
5
x
5-6 and 4-
Jack Creek.
Scarp
with
x
scarp
I O - 3 m2 f o r n o r t h e a s t - f a c i n g
5)
of
younger s o u th -fa c in g
c
an
evolution
morphology
soils
Based
has
size
not
Group
Range.
it
tested
in
particle
problem s
diffusion
a diffusion
and
(1984)
form ation.
th ese
the
where Nash
unusual
of
(c = 2 . 0 x IO-3'
than
in
seem
morphologic
height
above
to
fit
age
of
Jack
into
the
other
ditches
scarps.
and
one
the
trend
south-facing
Creek.
This
8 - 8 a i s mu c h m o r e s u b d u e d a n d i t s
irrigation
scarp,
not
is
of
scarp
probably
scarp height
Also,
scarp
8 -8 a had f i v e
road
along
the
making s u rv e y in g o f u n a l t e r e d
profiles
trend
of
difficult.
72
As - a l l u d e d
morphologic
to
age
above,
(Colman
aspect
and
measured n o r t h e a s t - f a c i n g
than
the
yielded
south-facing
vegetated
scarps
and
even
c
is
though
more.
C ol man
c
less
scarps of
(1 9 8 6)
concerning
problem
for
the
with
F irst,
evolution
apply
m odeled
processes
may n o t
processes
that
scarp
height
that
the
dictated
to
Probably
and
the
Jack
all
Jack Creek.
Jack
slow er
rates
(i . e . ,
aspect
the
Creek
here
older,
the
they
did. s o u t h - f a c i n g
Creek
than
are
more
south-facing
regression
Table
lines
4 and
are
Figure
scarps
25).
than
for
s c a r p h e i g h t by a f a c t o r o f
the
conclusions
aspect
and
combined
Jack
with
diffusion
Jack
Creek.
creep)
Indeed,
the
of
would
prohibitively
to
the
ma ke
three
model
scarp
of
diffusion-
be
the
only
Finally,
a n ■e x t e n t
diffusion
application
to
this
suggests
unw ieldy
exist
and
ranges
not
c
2
wide
a t Jack Creek.
influence
possibilities
Pierce
Second,
may
scarps
of
c.
Creek
m odifications
results
three
may
influences
A lthough
be
north-facing
the
to
of
(see
at
have m odified
needed
by
at
aspect
scarps
must
scarps
sim ilar
p o ssib ilitie s.
model
thus
than
for
corroborates
1 9 8 6) .
ages
d ifferent
also
a re h ig h e r above Jack Creek
and
slopes
This
apparent
in-
at
the
probably
south-facing
or
scarps
degrade
significantly
Thus
scarps
N ortheast - facing
scarps
P ierce,
mu c h y o u n g e r m o r p h o l o g i c
scarps.
not
of
and
some
such
model
of
the
complex.
degree
at
73
T a b le 5.
M o rp h o lo g ic a g e s , "c ", and age
Madison V a lle y a r e a r e f e r r e d t o i n t e x t .
Nash
Scarp Label
for
studies
in
the
(1984)
T2
T3
T4
T6
tc^
23.2
19.3
14.2
45.6
60.1
5.6
C^
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
t^
11.6
9.6
22.8
30.0
2.8
7.I4
Lundstrom
Scarp Label
Qta
h5
3-15
T6 '
Fl
(1986)
Qtb
Qtc
30
45
tc^-
34-50
50-80
77-116
C^
2.1
2.1
2.1
t3
20
30 67
Bearzi
tc-*c2
t3,7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
study)
8- 8a
7-8
4
14
16
22
30
33.
47
31
55
372
19
48
3.1-4.7
2 .1-3.1
3.7-5.5
25-37
I. 3-1.9
3.2-4.8
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
Scarp •Label
h5
(t h i s
36-55
8-9
4/5-7
5-6
4-5
t c i n m^.
c in m2yr- l .
t in ka.
mi n i mu m a g e o f t e r r a c e b a s e d o n r a d i o c a r b o n d a t i n g ,
Data n o t
h e i g h t o f b ase of s c a r p above stre a m ( i n m).
a v a i l a b l e f o r Nash ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
e s t i m a t e d a g e b a s e d on o b s i d i a n h y d r a t i o n .
a g e e s t i m a t e s b a s e d on p o s t - g l a c i a l a g e o f t e r r a c e s .
" >4
Regression
linear
the
of
scarps.
has
a
of
(see
significant
be
however,
have
(see
23
angles
for
to
relative
above
Jack
sim ilar
scarp
than
angle
the
at
Table
of
and
scarp
8-9
the
for
the
scarps
than
those
This
scarps.
than
of
sim ilar
scarp
even though
line
for
the
all
scarp
height,
height
sm aller
lie
4/5-7
other
scarp
has
they
regions
at
are
of
is
due
higher
scarps
of
( e,. g . ,
scarp
a much
lower
is
height
at
> 12
scarps
relationship
occurred
4/5-7
not
they
Scarp
older
scarps
is
(scarp
of
< 10
result
confidence
by
and
height
regression
high
has
angle
a
south-facing
This
that
height.
those
so
that
separated
degradation
8-9
shows
northeast-facing
4) ,. a l t h o u g h
thus
even
More
scarp
than
slopes
ages
aspect,
8-9).
of
same s c a r p
Creek
23)
(scarp
4).
great
• Wh e n
lines
and
than
Table
so
established.
Figure
Figure
small
for
about
is
greater
line
and
scatter
regression
(see
for
slope
25
scarps
much
the
height
sm aller
Figure
south-facing
cannot
scarp
since
data
b e t w e e n maxi mum s c a r p - s l o p e
The r e g r e s s i o n
slightly
scarps
m)
profile
relationship
logarithm
m)
the
4/5-7-
lower
scarp
sim ilar
scarp
height.
Of a l l
function
the
analyses
score,
c o rro b o ra tio n
investigated
6.5;
age.
have
see Table
3);
That C does
C
of
of scarp p r o f i l e s , the
(M ayer,
the
Holocene
all
so il
or
1984),
Pleistocene
associated treads
n o t ma k e u s e
provides
g ro u p in g s.
Late
of
discrim inant
the
A ll
ages
best
scarps
( C ~>
are p o st-g la cial
the d iffu s io n
equation
in
is
75
com pelling
evidence
that
scarps
at
Jack
can n o t be modeled u s in g th e d i f f u s i o n
Creek
probably
equation.
Causes of Downcutting
As d i s c u s s e d
the
to
result
at
" Which
factors
Jack
have
in
of
of
can
Creek
area
terrace
Jack
floodplain
determ ine
form ation
and
Q uaternary.
and
which
w ith
base
which
if
have
or base
level
or
secondary
system ?"
events
are
The
from
inferred
activity
have
have
The q u e s t i o n
determ ined
kno wn
is
system
stim uli
been
fluvial
events
these
form ation a t
forming
abandonment
and
change,
the
Creek
combined
clim atic,
to
for terrace
the
now b e
tectonic,
prim ary
terrace
form ation
fluvial
a c t i v i t y , clim ate
Creek d u rin g
been
terrace
(d o w n c u t t i n g ) o f t h e
Al I t h r e e
driving
chronology
criteria
introduction,
(tectonic
f l u c t u a t i o n ).
occurred
is:
the
of a response
s o me s t i m u l u s
level
in
in
tim ing
the
Jack
coincided
plausible
RD
w ith
stim uli
Jack Creek.
Tectonic A c tiv ity
The
feature
normal
(Kuenzi
range
form ation
is
fault
and
the
is
the
part
bounding
1971;
As
Creek
of Bull
Madison
the
the
testam ent
fault.
Jack
deposition
large
Fields,
front
along, t h e
in
in
of
result
west
to
has
of
side
Schneider,
the
discussed
area
Valley
Lake m o r a i n e s
the
1985)..
relatively
topographic
along
Madison
The
the
Range •
straight
recent
however,
inactive
in the
a
movement
of
earlier,
been
as
the
since
motion
fault
before
southern p a rt of the
Madison
terraces
Valley
(S c h n e id e r,
at
Creek
Jack
reflect
m ountain-front
tecto.nism
factor
form ation.
in th e ir
A lthough
fault
it
could
have
Since T l,
T3
tectonic
might
indeed
concave-up
suggests
level.
a
the
have
range
part
in
form ation
Creek
been
a
barring
the
during
T2
aggradation
achieve
grade
S till-stand
or
prim ary
normal
post-glacial
of
older
last
time,
terraces.
glacial
( i . e ..,
response
to
range-front
clim ate
of
Jack
the
a
a
bounding
T2
aggradation
Tl
The
indicates
it
fault.
' This
may
have
C reek
range-bounding
constantly
of
change.
bounding normal
of
w ith
as
level
tim e,
west
dow ncutting,
the
profile
range
Group
between
any
kinked
Lower
elim inated
the
play
Jack
and
into
that
experienced
to
of
quiescence,
be warped
order
not
influenced
incision
could
slightly
did
the
post-glacial
be
along
Since
T 2 , a n d T3 a r e n o y o u n g e r t h a n
Pinedale) ,
and
can
tectonism
apparently
1985).
fault
I ow ering
in
base
o f H ig h e r Group s u r f a c e s
could have been a resp o n se to v ary in g
rates
of u p l i f t .
C l i m a t e Change
D uring
Jack Creek,
The
the
clim ate
tran sitio n s
glacial
developm ent
of
the
terraced
landscape
change h as b een b o th ex tre m e and s u b t l e .
from
interglacial
to
glacial
c l i m a t e were marked by g l a c i a l - i n t e r g l a c i a l
(H i g h e r Group - Lower G r o u p ) .
changes
no d o u b t
glacial
terrace
at
occurred
(T3).
post­
terraces
Less extreme Holocene c lim a te
since
In
to
all
the
form ation
likelihood-,
of
both
the
late-
types
of
77
clim ate
changes
have
influenced
terrace
form ation
at
Jack
Creek to v a ry in g d e g re e s.
The
g reatest
chronosequence
differentiate
of
problem
terrace
in
establishing
development
H i g h e r Group s u r f a c e s .
Jack
Creek). Lower Group s u r f a c e ,
thus
the
hydraulic
regimes
is
than
possibility
alluvial
T2
of
fan
operating
Tl
is
is
in
less
very
on
some
occupation
of
by
interglacial
(Sangamon
Eow i s con's i n ,
during
also
the
reflects
bounding
Lake ti m e
Tl
age
tim e.
last
normal
Tl
cases
gentle,
minimum
processes
of
the
last
fault,
( e ..g . ,
(>150 k a ) .
to
to
is
low
(above
T' 2,
respective
a gentler
to
Cedar
its
the
Creek
abandonment
o l d e r t h a n T2
not
appreciably
calcium
load
to
Due
Furtherm ore,
Creek
is
the
post-Eow isconsin
prer-late
carbonate
the
/
gradient
high
power
glacial
pre-P ineda I e
e q u i v a l e n t }.
P inedale ,
the
level
episode.
significant
Tl
T2 .
related
Tl
T3 r e f l e c t s
Pinedale
their
to
c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e mi n i mu m a g e f o r
Jack
or
by
is
highest
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y
suggesting
is
Creek
parallel
for
subsequent
on
relative
however, has
cut
t h a n t h a t o f T2.
It
a
is
the
roughly
Tl,
developm ent
stream c o n d itio n s.
has
and
could s t i l l
soil
and
content)
of
Tl
though
greater
T3
fan-forming
by J a c k C reek ,
even
or
Jack
T3,
responsible
g r a d ie n ts were p ro b a b ly s i m i l a r .
gradient
at
^a
p o ssib ly
Jack
Since
activity
a n d T2 may b e a s
of
of
old
T2
T2
the
as
Creek
tim e
range-
pre-Bull
78
The
period
presence
of
stability
1977).
so
P2
reflects
than
with
sm all
period
does
cap
of
Pi.
the
on
of
past
Pl
more
fluvial
Pl
recent
that
c u t b y P2
stability
pedim ents
in
a
(M a b b u t t ,
is
terraces,
stability
than
suggests
T3 t i m e .
Because
w ith
periods
fluvial
fluvial
dow ncutting
between
due
age.
in
Jack
and
cannot
be
P2 cannot
be
except
that
it
post-glacial
stream
Creek
not
had
of
only
was
(Lower
basin
but
sedim ents
T 3 a n d T4
the
This re la x a tio n
in
discharge
likely
that
greatest
is
rapid
was
to
power t o
piedmont.
system
an
to
the
Th e
indicator
the
and
last-
entirely
post­
of
to
the
the
drastically
carry
rapid
the
m elting
post-glacial
had t h e
is
of
T3,
discharge
also
in
height difference
between
terrace
increased
power
the
time is
increase
first
( 21 m)
fluvial
in itial
the
also
on
of
m)
immediate
deglaciation
one
the
( 21
power
the
complete
probably
Creek b a s in
from
between
near
drastic
is
recovery
existing
a
an d T4,
after
the
is
terraces
It
critical
of
to
At Jack Creek,
terrace,
glacial
that
to
adjacent
glacial
masses
response
system s
s tream power.
tim e
loess
in
more
time.
The
out
sometime
little
a n y Lower Group s u r f a c e s
during
Group)
a
correlated
correlated
formed
the
reveals
c e a s e d on P l by l a t e
pediment a t ion
directly
pediments
existed
H ow ever,
pedim entation
and
of
point
increased
bedloads.
glacial
cut
ice
Jack
sediment
through
pre­
height
difference
of
relaxation
the
deglaciation
stim ulus.
e i t h e r mu c h g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t o f a n y
79
other
stim ulus
Creek
(the
resulting
next
in
greatest
terraces
is
14 m b e t w e e n
response
to
deglaciation
associated
concluded
w ith
that
deglaciatioh
P ost-glacial
responses
clim ate
warm
have
period
pronounced
in
the
Yellowstone
this
could
clim ate
have
fluvial
had
these
decreased
discharge
A ggradation
would
terraces
and
than
any
(T6
other
floodplain.
If
dry,
occur.
have
possibly
two
warm
and
those
of
level
o f J a c k C r e e k when i t
today,
the
case ,
a
that
it
is
by
dryer
higher
1985).
ago
a
At
A relatively
have
an
terraces
clim atic
surface
was a t
identified
are
absolute
sense,
the
a
steeper
equilibrate
two
including
fact
could
a
load.
post-glacial
steeper
conditions
( T6)
Jack Creek
constant
in
the
28 c m ) ,
tim e s. to
Creek,
less
Because
m aintain
significantly
a
-
for
re la tiv e ly
surfaces
been
1983).
in
w ould
Jack
and
precipitation
small
fluvial
glacial-interglacial
Baker,
warm
post-glacial
these
as
than
associated
ram ifications
Creek
w ith
T8 )
either
and
( me a n a n n u a l
significant
during
adjacent
f r o m T3 w a s t r i g g e r e d
than
ka
(R .
although
Jack
rate
(A ltitherm al)
9.5-9.0
system .
gradient
In
two
Jack
dow ncutting
greater
Tinsley,
ago
Plateau
change,
mu c h
subtle
ka
sem i-arid
or
Tl)
changes
(McFadden a n d
7.5-4.5
is
a
between
at
ice masses.
more
war m p e r i o d
study area
and
downcutting
clim ate
been
changes
T6
stim uli.
of upstream
abandonment
difference
has
other
initial
floodplain
gradients
the
recent
reflecting
compared
represent
eq uilibrium with the
to
the
pre-
80
A ltitherm al
clim ate
represent
7 . 5 - 4.5
the
level
ka ago.
9.5-9.0
of
This
experienced a ll
of
of
but
post-glacial
ka ago.
Jack
being
12 t o
Creek
the
14m
down c u t t i n g
Sim ilarly,
during
case,
(70 t o
in
the
Jack
50%
A ltitherm al
C reek would have
75%) o f
about
T8 c o u l d
its
of
45 t o
47 m
post-glacial
tim e.
An
alternative
Holocene
this
glaciation
scenario,
advance
9-8
4 . 5 - 3 ka
ka
ago
or
the
Holocene
glacial
to
system s
Holocene c l i m a t e s
Base
in
the
level
to
level
of
as
great
not
affect
extent
as
By
glacial
advance
is
optim a
P leistocene
did
an
hypothesis
Rocky M o u n t a i n s
the
probably
(e.g.,
not
as
because
were
very
(Burke
and
pro-glacial
did
warm,
dry
A l t i t h e r m a l ).
the
fluctuation
system
low ering.
The
and
m igration of
its
at
is
Jack
the
most
Creek
Cameron Bench c l e a r l y
fo r Jack Creek,
morphology
of
optim a.
a N eoglacial
clim atic
the
T8 r e f l e c t
Fluctuation
fluvial
presence
in
and
pre-A ltitherm al
This
of
T6
clim atic
reflect
one
those
and
a
ago.
advances
19 8 3 )
Base Level
ka
that
Holocene
T8 c o u l d
2-1
is
reflect
previous
compared
fluvial
not
could
ago.
as
B irkeland,
and
T6
tenable
m inor
hypothesis
to
therefore
R iver
also
experiences
channels a t
The t i m i n g o f d o w n c u t t i h g a t
its
stim ulus
establish.
shows
th e Madison R iv e r,
M adison
difficult
that
local
The
base
has ex p erien ced n e t
has
a
braided
avulsion
and
channel
lateral
confluence w ith Jack Creek.
Jack Creek i s
inextricably
tied
81
to
that
of
the
Madison
River.
Indeed ,
p r o b a b l y r e s p o n d e d t o ma n y o f t h e
the
M adison
s a me s t i m u l i
R iver
that affected
Jack C reek.
Since
local
base
at.
B eartrap
controlled
dow ncutting
fluvial
of
movement
responsible
1960).
for
Lake,
aggradation.
clim atic
(stream
power
quiescence
of
along
conditions
are
downcutting
Ennis
Lake
upstream
is
breached.
base
level
for
Jack
Jack
Creek
not
significantly
along
changes
the
Spanish
as
the
Creek.
are
probably
Peaks
Fault
be
(M o n t a g n e ,
Madison R iv e r
are
formed
stream
of
incision
transport);
B eartrap
through
portions
of
the
of
post-glacial
M adison
it
is
low ers
terraces
m ajor
at
Holocend
episodic
subsequent
Canyon
terraces
dow ncuts,
by
Canyon
Beartrap
A flight
and
ma y
River
at
by
a
causes
threshold
caused
by
and
for
affected
3.) ,
level,
Madison
Thus,
and
fault
H ills
base
Madison
I
is
As d i s c u s s e d
Peaks
fault
River
controlled
da ms t h e
optim al
of
formed.
clim ate
the
Downcutting
Finally,
part
raises
Peaks
then
F igures
N orris
critical
Spanish
triggers
as
the
effect.
the
or
along
this
in
structure
Terraces
the
(see
Spanish
of
the
upper Madison
B e a rtra p Canyon.
the
stabilizes
exceeds
the
is
at
along
enhances
River
M adison
upwarping
A ctivity
Ennis
when
the.
for
Canyon
response trig g ered
e a rlie r,
at
level
activity
adjustment
of
t h e Madison R i v e r .
L ateral
effectively
m igration
lower base
of
level
the
for
M adison
R iver
can
Jack Creek
(see
Figure
also
9).
82
U nfortunately,
fluvial
is
stim ulus
dow ncutting
other
it
of
from
the
tributary
Greek i n
this
im possible
to
absolute
distinguish
base
Madison) w ith o u t
drainages
level
to
type
lowering
analysis
sim ilar
this
of
(i .e .,
terraces
the
analysis
at
Jack
of
at
in
Jack
study.
Terrace C orrelation
C orrelation
problem atic
region
since
exist.
( 19 8 6 )
of
few
Lake a g e s
V alley,
55
m odern
w ith
paired
morphology
was
w ith
Creek
and
on
the
soils
shades)
to
found
the
those
the
in
soils
Cameron
T 2)
and
different
(Lundstrom ,
found
in
the
Lower
end of
They
m,
and
cap
in
This
the
lack of
loess
carbonate
river
gravels
is
probably
levels
at
M adison
clay
the
increasing
III
level
equivalent
in
three
3 5 m above
thickness,
film s
Jack
V alley.
in
soils
d i f f e r e n c e s " between
(attributed
Group
reported
Stage
properties
soils
at
to
three
the
Pinedale
remarkably
Jack
and
u pper Madison
cobble c o atin g s
"m i n o r
are
the
developed
and
surfaces
1986)
Lake,
terraces.
weak s t r u c t u r e
and
Bull
18
elsew here
the
Pinedale,
terrace.
Bench
in
Lundstrom
loess
of
landforms
is
and
Creek.
3 m,
C reek
(1985)
southern
Jack
highest
terraces
on
the
w ith
age
their
equivalent
However,
Burke
and calciu m c a r b o n a te
above
(Tl
terraced
assigned
of
flo o d p la in
of
and
terraces
increasing
found
in
km s o u t h
w eathering,
studies
terraces
pre-B ull
of
te rra c e s
Lundstrom
studied
levels
the
Creek.
sim ilar
A lso,
J
83
the
amount
of
P in ed a Ie
age
identical
the
to
highest
unusual
incision
in
the
that
of
Lower
that
from
southern
the
age
when
upstream
(West
in
highest
terrace
Madison
V alley
incision
Group t e r r a c e
terraces
P inedale
the
the
from
(see
Y ellow stone
B asin)
alm ost
Creek,
and
Jack
Table
5).
It
p o st-glacial
and
a
is
T3
s o u t h e r n Madison
m ostly
assigned
is
Valley
also
are
of
terraces
exist
downstream
(Jack
C r e e k ).
Since
through
TlO)
southern
glacial
Group
most
of
is
the
post-glacial
M adison
rather
in
V alley
at
the
cannot
chronology
however,
be
directly
established
in
age,
age.
If
Creek
southern
reinterpretation,
Creek
Jack
form ation
for
this
M adison
Jack
te.rr aces
in
terrace
correlated
in
the
post­
case,
Lower
correlative
w ith
is
be
(T3
of
the
V alley.
terraces
Creek
dow ncutting
would
the
at
the
may r e f l e c t
than g la c ia l
terraces
terraces
terrace
B arring
chronology
w ith,
the
this
at
the
Jack
g lacial
southern
end
of
t h e Madison V a l l e y .
Nash
(1984)
used
Yellowstone Basin
the
method
study
the
was
of
of p o s s i b l e
judges
all
Holocene
( 8 0 km s o u t h e a s t
morphologic
designed
landscape
post-glacial
to
evolution
test
of
dating
dates
as
Jack
of
scarps.
area,
Holocene m orphologic
other
of
a method
the
age
suspect
(morphology and r e l a t i v e
terraces
in
the
Creek)
rather
to
refine
Although
than
Nash f o u n d
to
position
the
deduce
one t e r r a c e
( 9 . 6 +_ 5 . 6 k a o l d ) .
because
West
they
suggests
are
He
pre-
that all
84
terraces
of
are
early
questionable
interglacial
H olocene.
post-glacial).
accuracy
clim ate
It
is
because
change
clear
this
of
between
that
no
Jack Greek t e r r a c e s w ith t h o s e
c a n b e made a t
Their
morphologic
the
the
dram atic
in
of
is
glacial-
Pleistocene
correlation
age
and th e
Lower
Group
t h e West Y e l l o w s t o n e B a s i n
p o i n t , except th a t both are p o s t- g la c ia l
in age.
A detailed
for
the
(Hall
the
and H e i n y , 1983)
advances
cannot
been
were
be
t h a t has been e s t a b l i s h e d
at
correlated
w ith
distinguished),
Since
investigated
in
the
Jack
terraces
at
Jack
Creek.
Three
Pinedale
associated
outwash
glacial
basin
Jack
( see
Creek
is
ice
advances
and ^Neoglacial
deposits
been
1977),
not
major
(stadial
deposits
Grabb,
o n RD c r i t e r i a
c o rre la tio n with
pre-A ltitherm al ,
nor have
Creek
based
pro v id es promise fo r
established
advances.
detail
w ith
chronology
e a s t e r n Tobacco Root M ountains
chronology
ice
glacial
have
not
studied
in
correlation
possible
at
this
Valley
have
time.
O ther
been
studies
of
terraces
reconnaissance
in
nature
1960);
they
detailed
most
as
other
possible
at
have
not pieced
that
reported
geomorphic
this
time
in
the
(e . g .,
together
here.
features
simply
a re a have not been documented.
In
in
Madison
Peale,
1896;
a landscape
fact,
Montague,
history
C orrelation
th e Madison V a lle y
because
other
system s
as
with
is
not
in
the
85
O ther
parts
of
workers
have
studied
the
northern
(1954)
found
that
three
fill
Bighorn
and
Laramie
Range
fronts
terrace
(the
Pleistocene
what
is
lower
Rocky M o u n t a i n s .
Kaycee
moraines
the
as
were
p o s t - A l t i t h e r ma I
prim arily
on
in the
terrace
R itter
(1983),
and
valleys
Range,
direct
Reheis
the
terrace
M ontana
The
( 1 9 6 7) ,
and
Me s a
of
weakly
(1984,
the
1987)
that
relate
change
Pinedale
moraines
is
finds
it
Pinedale
a
sim ilar
prim arily
to
a
the
M ountains,
two
m in o r .but
and
based
soils
in
and Mesa
the
and
in
is
found
between th e
south-central
dated
Mountains.
from
about
of H u c k le b e rry Ridge a s h .
sequence
the
in
Absaroka
(1967)
Beartooth
surfaces
and s t r e a m
sequence
the
in
Kauffman
terraces
R itter
stream s
highest
com plex
1987)
R itter
and m o r p h o lo g ic c o r r e l a t i o n
several
(R e h e i s ,
Th e
buried
studied
M ountains.
along
to
contains
variations
developed
have
B eartooth
Bighorn
terrace
the
youngest
and
reflecting
(1983),
2 , 0 0 0 k a a g o b a s e d on t h e p r e s e n c e
Between
the
the
highest
paleosol .
clim atic
Palm quist
stratigraphic
low est
as
M iller
along
The
Mountains
other
deposits.
draining
and
Wy o mi n g .
in
and
exist
postdates
interpreted
presence
Leopold
A ltitherm al
regional
the
in
Bighorn
an
flights
terraces
terrace)
in
interpreted
terraces
terrace
of
are
surfaces,
Pleistocene
capture.
Bighorn
four
Palm quist
Basin,
P le is to c e n e mountain g l a c i a t i o n .
but
clim ate
(1983)
relates
86
It
at
has
Jack
been
Creek
constraints
is
of
shown
is
Cameron
possible
Bench
Lower Group t e r r a c e
p o st-g la c ia l.
on H i g h e r
last-glacial
that
Group t e r r a c e
(Pinedale)
Lake
w ith
Pinedale-age
lack
of
age-date
age.
outw ash
control
terrace
w ell
basis
chronologies
because
Creek
exists
and
of
the
Jack
other
study
control
of
Lower
inhibits
correlation.
Two f a c t o r s
of
Jack
Creek
Creek
is
studies
stim ulus
detailed
sm all
makes
clim atic
it
second
tectonic
factor
settings
km)
and
The
those
to
H olocene
Jack
in
to
compared
age-date
Creek
fu rth er
correlation
F irst,
same
Creek
part
in
Jack
other
regional
exhibits
because
relatively
to
Jack
of
involved
the
1954 ) a s
between
lack
elsewhere.
sensitive
larger
a
its
m inor
streams
sequences.
appears
the
(th e
further
M iller,
Jack
sequence
terrace
of
w ith
the
at
change).
more
T 3.
correlative
precludes
( ~1 ,000
differently
terrace
T2
elsewhere.
and
Again,
fluctuations
show o n l y g l a c i a l
and
fundam entally i n h i b i t
clim ate
that
chronologies.
compared t o
respond
post-glacial
size
The
The
may
found
Leopold
those
tem poral
pre-Pinedale
correlation
surfaces
w ith
stream
(e .g . ,
(Holocene)
that
Group
Tl
T3 may b e
Creek
distance
appear to
a small
and
for
areas.
terraces
certain
terrace
(e . g . ,
great
of
terraces
c o r r e la tio n with P leisto c e n e
L ittle
and t h a t
Thus,
at
only
development a re
age,
equ iv alen ts) are
pre-Bull
The
development
to
be
the
Madison V a lle y
more
im portant.
and o th e r
areas
87
in
the
region
in
Bighorn B asin,
Madison
along
terraces
have
B earto o th Mountains)
V alley
the
which
is
tectonically
Spanish
Peaks
fault
the
level
N orris
for
terrace
active.
causes
forming
stim ulus
Other a re a s
tectonically
im portant
terrace
in
tectonically
terraces
chronologies
are
that
P leisto cen e, glacial
tectonically
active
to
in
a
clim ate
and
of
(i.e.,
the
uplift
fluctuating
in
have
change
these
base
been
front
studied
may b e
a more
regions.
Thus,
p r e s e r v a t i o n ma y b e common
T ertiary
buried
or
greater
activity
change o r range
active
span
The
b e a mu c h m o r e p o w e r f u l
clim ate
basins;
destroyed.
lengths
c h r o n o l o g i e s ) may b e
most
Less
of
tim e
the
rule
pre-
detailed
(i.e . ,
in
less
areas.
The p r o b l e m s o f c o r r e l a t i o n
summarized n i c e l y
Ennis Lake
stim ulus
development
(e . g .
aggradation
in which t e r r a c e s
forming
terrace
H olocene
than
quiescent;
Holocene
many
proves
Recent
net
This, r e s u l t s
Jack Creek t h a t
tectonism .
are
H ills).
studied
are very d i f f e r e n t .
M a d i s o n R i v e r b e c a u s e o f damming a t
of
been
b y V. B a k e r
between f l u v i a l
(1983,
p.
systems a re
126):
C l a s s i c a l models o f r i v e r i n c i s i o n and a g g r a d a t i o n
a r e mu c h t o o s i m p l e f o r u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n .
A l t h o u g h d e t a i l e d f l u v i a l c h r o n o l o g i e s ma y b e
u s e f u lly developed in
some l o c a l
settin g s,
regional c o rre la tio n req u ire s great, c a u tio n . ■
88
CONCLUSIONS
Terraces
in -fie ld
Higher
last
be
and
Group
is
T9
used
in age.
are
modern
to
Creek f a l l
sta tistic a l
and
the
Jack
surfaces
glacial
through
Tl O
at
into
three
-analysis
include
Tl,
of
T2,
soil
and
Pl
Lower G ro up s u r f a c e s
late
Pinedale
floodplain.
determ ine
and
based
and
are
pre­
i n c l u d e P2 a n d T3
age
terrace
on
properties.
post-glacial
These
probable
groups
in
age.
relationships
form ing
can
factors
at
Jack Creek.
H is to r y of T e rra c e Development a t Jack Creek
The
highest
equivalent to
length
of
highest
and
may h a v e
H ills,
upper
fill
preserved
Jack
Creek.
been
drainage
of
and
Loess th ic k n e s s
lack
of
a
surface
Madison
at
Jack
V alley.
level
caused
of
inhibit
still-stand
extended
by
slow
clim ate
both.
This
period
over
(Tl)
dow ncutting
Cameron
Bench
stratigraphy
is
the
stream
in excess
on
H igher
the
equilibrium
of
period
the
is
Madison R iv e r
the
of
or
a
blocked
M adison
of
N orris
time,
would m a i n t a i n
of
is
f o r most o f th e
uplift
a great
situation
of
of
gradual
on T l i n p l a c e s
loess
The
Creek
o f p r e - P l e i s t o c e n e age and r e p r e s e n t s
This
a constant
combination
oldest
t h e Cameron Bench w h ic h e x i s t s
the
c u t on v a l l e y
and
R iver.
I m, b u t t h e
Group
surfaces
89
precludes
as
"Bull
age..
in
characterization
Lake",
of th e
"Edwisconsin",
The Cameron Bench i s
the
Jack
Creek,
interglacial
and th u s
"Pinedale",
interpreted
area
(80-75
loess
of
ka).
the
of
the
the
northern
R iver.
C ritical
d eglaciation
interglacial
occurring
The
was
most r a p id
as
local
in
w ell
(t h u s
base
occurred a t
the
of
T3.
recorded
Jack
as
Creek
by
for
at
abandonment
the
M adison
increase
of
Jack
due
to
p re-P in ed a le
of
Pl
was
t h r o u g h e a r l i e s t T3 t i m e .
clim atic
episode.
was
extreme
during
glaciation.
inh ib ited
of
late
during
by
Pinedale
dow ncutting
Incision
of
this
Jack
period
C r e e k a n d was c a u s e d b y
(thus
Jack' C reek).
increasing
in
Madison
T 4 , s o me 21 m b e l o w t h e
Lower G r o u p
conditions
Pinedale
surface
Jack
to
O c c u p a t i o n o f T3 b y
latest
basin
the
T2 a t
' Pedim entation
deglaciation
downcutting
level
the
initially
abandonment
by
w ould
Final • d e g lacia tio n
triggered
deglaciation
drainage
on
Bench
Group s u r f a c e s
the
to
initial
onset
upvalley.
during
form ation.
and
power)
the
due t o
accum ulation
the
to
interstadial
occurred
masses
Creek
power
from H igher
was p r o b a b l y
floodplain
ice
stream
Cameron
i n t e r m i t t e n t ! y d u r i n g Tl
Creek
Loess
the
conditions
l a s t Pinedale
Jack
of
related
incision
surfaces
the
part
in
pre-P inedale
from Tl
Creek p ro b a b ly o c c u rre d as a re sp o n se to
of
" Sangamon"
t o h a v e a mi n i mu m a g e
end
Downcutting
or
the surface
the
R iver
The
level
M adison
and
next
of T3.
stream
R iver
low ering
still-stand
90
Th e
is
form ation
entirely
of
(T5
terraces
post-glacial
a n d T5 b y T 6 a n d
neighbors
of
the
and
age.
lower
the
T4 through
Tl O a s
Both t h e
elevation
pediments )
of
well
as
P2
truncation
of
T4
T6 compared
suggests
that
tim e Jack Creek had a narrow f l o o d p l a i n t h a t
near
entirety
today
o f T 6 may i n d i c a t e
Creek
was
or
rule
of
conditions,
although
the
no
this
the
Madison R iv e r
The
course
T7
was
Madison
Peaks
Thus ,
exposures
substantiate
existing
the
Spanish
transition.
although
of
T6
conclusion.
north
of
short-lived,
base
to
Creek
cu t between
fill
the
terrace,
exist
issued
does
T5 a n d
of
continued
have marked
new c o u r s e
Jack
Jack
low ering
stratigraphy
Th e
gradient
than th a t
due
a
in
discharge;
level
could
T 6'
so
to
into
today.
T6 tim e
and
o n l y d u r i n g T6 t i m e .
tim e
saw
conditions
northerly
T6 c o u r s e .
As w i t h
was
a
to
again
w ith
The
difference
was
a
T6-T7
in
probably
more t e m p e r a t e
return
abandonment
response
change.
stim ulus
steep
less
probably
where
tim e,
height
is
during
preserved
flashy
was
fault
its
wa r m p e r i o d .
River)
terrace
Holocene
level
by
discharge
of
the
dry,
as
dow ncutting
inactivity
In a d d itio n ,
characterized
the
post-T6
(i .e . ,
T5-T6
was
T6 .
a p r e - A ltithermal
probably
aggradation
pre-
in
is
to
clim ate
the
to
of
the
adjacent
of
of
clim ate
the
second
surfaces
( 14
m ),
drastic.
caused Jack Creek t o
more
this
marks
correspondingly
pre-T 6
steeper,
T3-T4 c h a n g e ,
combination
change
those
change
and
and
base
greatest
so
the
Return to
still-stand
at
a
a
91
lower
gradient
Creek
from
T6 to
dow ncutting
stim uli
than
in
during
T7,
of
T6
the
by
M adison
Jack
level
was
gradient,
steeper
conditions
rule
7.5-4.5
during
T8
time
return
to
tectonic
to
due
of
Jack
c a u s e d more by
by
any
clim atic
system.
was
also
Still-stand
perhaps
As w i t h
to
been
than
T8
change.
ka ago.
power o f J a c k C reek .
a
R iver
Creek
Madison R iv e r b ase
a
D ow ncutting
h o w e v e r , may h a v e
th e Jack Creek f l u v i a l
Incision
at
tim e.
due
caused
by
a
d u r i n g T8 t i m e
to
A ltitherm al
T 6 , a g g r a d a t i o n wa s t h e
decreased
discharge
and
stream
D o w n c u t t i n g t o T9 e i t h e r wa s c a u s e d b y
a more
tem perate
quiescence
at
clim ate
B eartrap
or
was
that
a
response
coincided
to
w ith
a
tem perate clim ate.
T9 h a s
and
the
same g r a d i e n t a s t h e modern f l o o d p l a i n
so p r o b a b l y
represents
discharge-load
The
degree
however,
of
is
different
conditions
soil
so
different
tim es
of
and
probable
the
of
M adison
alluvium
(Paul
significantly
Jack
Creek
Downcutting
soil
R iver
has
and
from
T9
between
they
development
in
early
1960)
f r o m Tl O
aggrading
to
the
Jack
T9
to
lower
of
the
two
terraces,
to
age
flow s
pre-TlO
T8
Because
on
T9
is
T l0 level
through
well..
because
very
sig n ifican t
T3
as
soils, it
today.
represent
no
compared
and
during
that
has
Canyon
Creek
to
probably
Holocene
B eartrap
Lyons,
different
been
that
of
sim ilar
form ation.
in
is
very
development
differences
so
still-stand
(TlO)
30
m of
soils
are
probable
that
for
level
s o me
tim e.
occurred
on
92
the
order
of
several
Group s u r f a c e s
were formed in
may m e a n t h a t
since
at
T9
it
current
t i m e ; no
is
the
soil's
probable
floodplain
dominate th e
ago.
fault
scarps
Today,
Jack
evolution
Suggestions
for
Lower
tim e.
have been
This
uplift
reported
in te rm itte n t flooding
and i n h i b i t s
that
all
experienced gradual
pedogenesis.
Creek
s o me d a y a n d t e r r a c e
fluvial
Thus,
early post-glacial
Spanish Peaks f a u l t .
o f Tl O t r u n c a t e s
case,
years
B e a r t r a p Canyon h a s
least
along the
thousand
of the
w ill
In any
abandon
form ation w ill
its
again
area,
Further
Study
Hornblende E tching
Observation
grains
in
method
(Locke,
the
lend i t s e l f
Root
tills
to
an e t c h i n g
etching
to
glacial
Creek
terraces
basis
upon
Uranium
to
to
be
of
a
hornblende
valuable
The a b u n d a n c e o f m a f i c r o c k s
of
soils
Hall
successfully
Regional
possible.
make
terrace
at
Jack
and Heiny
in
d iffe re n tia te
may b e
influencing
degradation
proven
study.
s t a d e s .,
w hich
Uranium S e r i e s
has
of
parent m aterial
M ountains
stim uli
degree
197 9 , 1 9 8 6 ) .
hornblende
Holocene
the
glacial
sedim entary
used
of
the
Late
Creek
(1983)
nearby
in
may
have
Tobacco
P leistocene
correlation
RD
w ith
and
Jack
This
would
give
a
firm er
statem ents
about
any
clim atic
form ation a t Jack Creek.
Dating
series
dating
has been used s u c c e s s f u l l y
(Schwarcz
and
Blackwell ,
on p e d o g e n i c c a r b o n a t e s
1985)
developed
in
soils
those
at
samples
the
of
sim ilar
Jack
at
texture
Creek
Jack
and
(Ku a n d
Creek
were
others,
of
study.
sam ples
1986) .
com bined
reported
in
carbonate,
accum ulation
ma k e
this
pedogenic
are
Th e
w ith
and
pending
(A ppendix
rates
carbonate
then
in
precisely
B) w ill
an
help
this
these
content
determ ine
Montana
even more
to
w ritten
from
carbonate
as
soil
delivered
obtained
southwest
analysis
fact,
( S .. L e w i s ,
inform ation
w hole-profile
study
In
and Geology f o r
The r e s u l t s
communication,,
developm ent
1979) .
collected
Montana Bureau o f Mines
type
carbonate
and
thus
powerful
RD
method.
N u m e r i c a l Age D a t i n g
In
that
developm ent
numerical
in
begin
of
not
age
several
study
and
chronology
adm ittedly
th is
terrace
very
dates
emerge
because
occurs,
rates
M orphologic
because
tim e
is
the
of
w ell
F irs t,
rates
surfaces
pedogenesis
d iffusivity
then
also
of
are
w ill
and
or
be
be
(e .g . ,
is
A cquisition
of
RD s t u d i e s
developm ent
by
the
w eathering
a more
can
a
chronology
be
calculated
w ill
radiocarbon,
radiom etric
all
soil
e stab lish
other
dated
become
can
and
soil
coefficient
tim e
the
this
palynological,
may
to
constrained.
RD m e t h o d s
dating
known;
form ation,
benefit
as
m ethods
dating)
w ill
tephrachronological,
When t h i s
RD
m orphologic
ways.
to
uses
methods.
more p o w e rfu l
w ill
be
known.
powerful
method
calculated
for
all
if
other
94
non-num erically
age-dated
surfaces
modeled by
the
diffusion
equation.
S e d i m e n t o l oqy
A rigorous
at
Jack
Creek
determ ining
strath
study
are
the
surfaces
transport
direction
known.
w hile
suggest
the
case
(developed
the
in
which
a
long
terraces.
if
m aterial .
the
the
a
that
the
nature
would
Mo r e r i g o r o u s
provenance
of
the
d e p o site d them.
stratigraphy
(cut
and
of
show t h e
component
the
terrace
south
would
m a t e r i a l .,
were
while
in
counts
the
The
fill-top
the
latter
pre-existing
of
lithologies
h e r e would s h e d more l i g h t
deposits
Due t o
a t Jack Creek,
only with th e
the
terraces
clast
reported
the
terraces
fill-s tra th
than th a t
would be p o s s i b l e
deposited
own d e p o s i t s )
indicate
size
medium t h a t
R iver
tow ard
fill,
A strong
from
terraces
way
Cut,
studies
component
indicate
their
and c l a s t
fluvial
the
go
identifiable
strong
would
origin.
the
w ould
Im brication
of
M adison
in
would
a
alluvium )
on
of
m aterial
e a s t would s u g g e s t J a c k Creek d e p o s i t e d
m aterial
case
form ed
would be
were
former
the
nature
deposits
from t h e
of
and
the
power
of
the
the poor exposure of th e
a sedim entoIo g ical
use of a back h o e.
study
REFERENCES CITED
96
A l d e n , W .C., 1953, P h y s io g r a p h y and g l a c i a l g e o lo g y o f
w e s t e r n M o n ta n a a n d a d j a c e n t a r e a s : U. S . G e o lo g i c a l
S u r v e y P r o f e s s i o n a l P a p e r 2 3 1 , 90 p .
Andrews, D . J . , and Hanks, T . C ., 1985, S c a rp degraded
lin e a r d if f u s io n : inverse so lu tio n for a g e : Journal
G eoph y sical R e s e a rc h , v. 90, p. 10193-10208.
by
of
A ssociation of O ffic ia l A g r ic u ltu r a l C h em ists,
1950,
O f f i c i a l M e t h o d s o f A n a l y s i s : W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , 910 p .
B a k e r , R . G. , 1983 , H o l o c e n e v e g e t a t i o n a l h i s t o r y o f t h e
w e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s , i n W r i g h t , H . E . , e d . , The
H o l o c e n e , V o l u me 2 o f L a t e - Q u a t e r n a r y E n v i r o n m e n t s o f
th e U n ite d S ta te s : U n iv e rs ity of M innesota P re ss,
M in n eap o lis, p. 109-127.
B a k e r , V . R . , 1983 , L a t e - P l e i s t o c e n e f l u v i a l s y s t e m s , i n
P o r t e r , S . C . , e d . , Th e L a t e - P l e i s t o c e n e , V o l u m e I o f
L a te -Q u a te rn a ry Environm ents of th e U nited S t a t e s :
U n iv e r s it y of M innesota P r e s s , M in n eap o lis, p. 115-129.
B a r r y , R .G ., 1983, L a t e - P l e i s t o c e n e c l i m a t o l o g y , i n P o r t e r ,
S . C . , e d . , The L a t e - P l e i s t o c e n e , Volume I o f L a t e Q uaternary
E n v iro n m en ts of the U nited S ta te s :
U n iv e r s it y of M innesota P r e s s , M in n eap o lis, p. 390-407.
B e c r a f t , G . E . , K i i l s g a a r d , T . H . , a n d Van N o y , R . M . , 1 9 7 0 ,
M ineral r e s o u r c e s of th e J a c k C reek b a s i n : U. S .
G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y B u l l e t i n 1 3 1 9 - B , 24 p .
B e g e t, J . E . , 1983, R a d i o c a r b o n - d a t e d e v i d e n c e o f w o r l d w i d e
e a r l y H olocene c l i m a t e c h a n g e : Geology, v . 11, p. 389393 . .
B i r k e l a n d , P .W ., 1984, S o i l s and Geomorpholo g y :
O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 3 72 p .
New Y o r k ,
B r a c k e n r id g e , G .R ., 1980, W idespread e p is o d e s of
e r o s i o n d u r i n g t h e Holocene and t h e i r c l i m a t i c
N a t u r e , v . 283, p. 655-656.
stream
cause:.
B r a d l e y , W . C . , a n d G r i g g s , G . B . , 1976 , F o r m , g e n e s i s , a n d
d e fo rm a tio n of c e n tra l C a lifo rn ia wave-cut platform s:
G e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y o f A m erica B u l l e t i n , v . 87, p. 4334 49 .
B r y a n , K . , 1922 , E r o s i o n a n d s e d i m e n t a t i o n i n t h e Papago
C o u n tr y , A r i z o n a : U. S . G e o l o g i c a l Survey B u l l e t i n , v .
7 3 OB, p . 1 9 - 9 0 .
97
______ , 1 9 2 5 , T h e P a p a g o C o u n t r y , A r i z o n a :
Survey W a t e r - S u p p ly P a p e r 499.
U. S .
B u c k n a m , R . C . , a n d A n d e r s o n , R . E . , 1979 ,
f a u l t - s c a r p ag e s from a s c a r p - h e i g h t
r e l a t i o n s h i p : Geology, v. 7, p. 11-14.
B ull,
E stim ation of
— slope-angle
W .B ., 1979, T h re sh o ld o f c r i t i c a l power
G e o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty of America B u l l e t i n , v.
46 4 .
_______, 1 9 8 4 , T e c t o n i c g e o m o r p h o l o g y :
E d u c a t i o n , v . 32, p. 310 -3 2 4 .
■Bull,
G eological
Journal
in stream s:
90, p. 453-
of
Geological
W . B . , an d K n e u p f e r , P . L . K . , 1987, A d j u s t m e n t s by t h e
C h a r w e l I R i v e r , New Z e a l a n d , t o u p l i f t a n d c l i m a t i c
changes: Geomorphology, v . I , p. 15-32.
B u l l , W . B . , a n d M c F a d d e n , ' L . D. , 1977 , T e c t o n i c g e o m o r p h o l o g y
n o r t h and s o u th of th e Garlock f a u l t , C a l if o r n ia , in
D o e h r i n g , D. 0 . , e d . , G e o m o r p h o lo g y i n A r i d R e g i o n s :
P r o c e e d i n g s , E i g h t h A n n u a l G e o m o r p h o l o g y Sympos i um. ,
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New Y o r k B i n g h a m t o n , p . 1 1 5 - 1 3 8 .
B u r k e , R.M., and B i r k e l a n d , P.W ., 1983, H olocene g l a c i a t i o n
i n t h e m o u n t a i n r a n g e s o f t h e w e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s , in.
W r ig h t , H . E . , e d . , The H o l o c e n e , Volume 2 o f L a t e Q uaternary
E nvironm ents
of the U nited S t a t e s :
U n iv e r s ity of M innesota P r e s s , M inneapolis, p. 3-11.
C a s s i d y , E . W . , J r . , 1981, The e f f e c t s o f m e c h a n i z e d s l a s h
p i l i n g on s o i l b u l k d e n s i t y and i n f i l t r a t i o n r a t e s a t
f i v e f o r e s t e d s i t e s i n n o r t h w e s t e r n M o n t a n a ( M. S .
t h e s i s ) : Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B o zem an, M o n ta n a ,
185 p .
C hor l e y , R . J . , Schumm, S . A . , and Sugden ,
G e o m o r p h o l o g y : M e t h u e n , L o n d o n , 605 p .
D .E.,
1984 ,
Colman, S.M ., and P i e r c e , K .L . , 1986, G l a c i a l s e q u en ce n e a r
M cCall, I d a h o : w e a th e rin g r i n d s , s o i l d evelopm ent,
m orphology, and o t h e r r e l a t i v e - a g e c r i t e r i a : Q u a te r n a ry
R e s e a rc h , v. 25, p. 25-42.
C u l l i n g , W.E.H.,
of Geology,
1960, A n a l y t i c a l t h e o r y o f e r o s i o n :
v. 6 8 , p. 336-344.
Journal
_______, 19 6 3 , S o i l c r e e p a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f h i l l s i d e
s l o p e s : J o u r n a l o f Geology, v . 71, p. 127 -1 6 1 .
_______, 1 9 6 5 , T h e o r y o f e r o s i o n o n s o i l - c o v e r e d
J o u r n a l o f Geology, v. 73, p. 230-254.
slopes:
98
D a v i s , W.M., 1938 , S h e e t f l o o d s and s t r e a m f l o o d s : G e o l o g i c a l
S o c i e t y o f A m erica B u l l e t i n , v . 49, p . 1337 -1 4 1 6 .
D eevey, E . S . , and F l i n t ,
R . F . , 1957 , P o s tg la c ia l
h y p s i t h e r m a l i n t e r v a l : S c i e n c e , v . 125, p . 182-184.
D r e i m a n i s , A ., 1962, Q u a n t i t a t i v e g a s o m e t r i c d e t e r m i n a t i o n
o f c a l c i t e a n d d o l o m i t e by u s i n g C h i t t i c k a p p a r a t u s :
J o u r n a l o f S e d im e n ta r y P e t r o l o g y , v. 32, p . 520-529.
E m i l i a n i , C . , 1972 , Q u a t e r n a r y
R e s e a r c h , v. 2, p. 270-273.
hypsi therm als:
Quaternary
F i e l d s , R .W ., R a s s m u s s e n , D .L ., Tabrum, A . R . , and N i c h o l s ,
R ., 1985, C en o zo ic r o c k s o f t h e i n t e r m o n t a n e b a s i n s o f
w e s t e r n M o n ta n a a n d E a s t e r n I d a h o : a summary, in
F lores,
R .M .,
and K ap lan ,
S . S . , e d s . , C enozoic
P a l e o g e o g r a p h y o f W e s t - C e n t r a l U n i t e d S t a t e s : Rocky
M ountain P a l e o g e o g r a p h y Sym posium 3, ,S o c ie ty o f
E c o n o m i c P a l e o n t o l o g i s t s a n d M i n e r a l o g i s t s - - Rocky
Mountain S e c t i o n , p. 9-36.
G i l b e r t , G .K .,
G eological
160 p .
1877, Geology o f t h e Henry M o u n tain s: U. S .
and G e o g r a p h ic a l S u r v e y , W a s h in g t o n , D . C . ,
_______ ,
18 90 , Lake B o n n e v ille :
M o n o g r a p h I , 4 38 p .
U.S.
G eological
Survey
______ ,, 1 9 1 4 , T h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f d e b r i s b y r u n n i n g w a t e r :
U . S . G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y P r o f e s s i o n a l P a p e r 8 6 , 263 p .
Gi I e , L . H . , P e t e r s o n , F . F . , an d G r o s s m a n , R . B . , 1966 ,
M o rp h o lo g ic a l and g e n e t i c s e q u e n c e s o f c a r b o n a t e
a c c u m u l a t i o n i n d e s e r t s o i l s : S o i l S c i e n c e , v . 101, p .
347-360.
G r a b b , R . F . , 1977, Geology f o r l a n d use p l a n n i n g , J a c k Creek
b a s i n , M a d i s o n C o u n t y , M o n t a n a ( M. S . t h e s i s ) : M o n t a n a
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a , 90 p .
Grim,
R .E.,
596 p .
1968 ,
Clay
m ineralogy:
M cGraw-Hill,
New Y o r k ,
H ack, J . T . , 1957, S t u d i e s o f l o n g i t u d i n a l s t r e a m p r o f i l e s i n
V irginia
and M aryland:
U. S . G e o lo g ic a l
Survey
P r o f e s s i o n a l P a p e r 2 9 4 - B , 97 p .
______ , 1 9 7 3 , S t r e a m p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s a n d s t r e a m g r a d i e n t
in d e x : U. S . G e o l o g i c a l Survey J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h , v . l ,
p. 421-429.
99
H all,
R . D . , and H e i n y , J . S . , 1983, G l a c i a l and p o s t g l a c i a l
p h y s i c a l s t r a t i g r a p h y and c h ro n o lo g y . N orth W illow
C reek and C a t a r a c t Creek d r a in a g e b a s i n s , e a s t e r n
T obacco Root Range, so u th w e ste rn M ontana, U .S .A .:
A r c t i c and A l p i n e R e s e a r c h , v. 15, p . 1 9 - 5 2 .
H all,
W. B . , 1 9 6 0 a , M u l t i p l e g l a c i a t i o n i n t h e M a d i s o n a n d
G a l l a t i n R anges, s o u th w e s te rn M ontana, in Campeau,
D. E . , a n d A n i s g a r d , H . W . , e d s . , W e s t Y e l l o w s t o n e - E a rth q u a k e A rea: B illin g s G eological Society I Ith
Annual F i e l d C o n fe re n c e G u id e b o o k , p. 191-199.
_______, 19 6 0 b , M a s s - g r a v i t y m o v e m e n t s i n t h e M a d i s o n a n d
G a l l a t i n R anges, s o u th w e s te r n M ontana, in Campeau,
D. E . , a n d A n i s g a r d , H . W . , e d s . , W e s t Y e l l o w s t o n e - E arth q u a k e . A rea: B illin g s G eological Society I lt h
Annual F i e l d C o n fe re n c e Guidebook, p . 200-206.
Hanks, T . C . , Bucknam, R . C . , L a j o l e , K .R ., and W a lla c e , R . E . ,
1984 , M o d i f i c a t i o n o f w a v e - c u t a n d f a u l t i n g - c o n t r o l l e d
l a n d f o r m s : J o u r n a l o f G e o p h y s i c a l R e s e a r c h , v . 89, p .
5771-5790 .
H a r d e n , J . W . , 1 9 8 2 , A. q u a n t i t a t i v e i n d e x o f s o i l d e v e l o p m e n t
from f i e l d d e s c r i p t i o n s : exam ples from a c h ro n o s e q u e n c e
i n c e n t r a l C a l i f o r n i a : Geoderma, v. 28, p. 1-28.
H o p k i n s , D.M., 1975,
Holocene epoch:
Howard, A .D ., 1942,
problem Journal
T im e -s tra tig ra p h ic nom enclature fo r
G e o l o g y , v . 3, p . 10.
Pedim ent p a s s e s and
of Geomorphology, v. 5,
J e n n y , H ., 1941, F a c t o r s
Y o r k , 281 p .
Johnson,
D .W .,
1932,
G eo g rap h ic al Review,
of
soil
formation:
the
the pedim ent
p. 3-31.
McGraw-Hill,
Rock p l a n e s o f a r i d
v. 22, p. 656-665.
New
regions:
Knox,
J . C . , 1983 , R e s p o n s e s o f r i v e r s y s te m s t o Holocene
c l i m a t e s , i n W r i g h t , H . E . , e d . , The H o l o c e n e , Volume 2
o f L a te -Q u a te rn a ry Environments of th e U nited S t a t e s :
U n iv e r s ity of Minnesota P r e s s , M inneapolis, p. 26-41.
Ku,
T . L . , B u l l , W. B . , F r e e m a n , S . T . , a n d K n a u s s , K . G . , 1 9 7 9 ,
Th230_u234 g a t i n g of pedogenic ca rb o n a te s in g r a v e lly
d e s e r t s o i l s of Vidal V a lle y , s o u th e a s t e r n C a l i f o r n i a :
G e o lo g ic a l S o c i e t y of America B u l l e t i n , v. 90, p. 10631073 .
100
K u e n z i , W.D., and F i e l d s , R .W ., 1971, T e r t i a r y s t r a t i g r a p h y ,
s t r u c t u r e and g e o lo g ic h is to r y , J e ffe rs o n b a sin ,
M ontana: G e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y o f America B u l l e t i n , v . 82,
p. 115-120.
L e o p o l d , L . B . , 1951, R a i n f a l l f r e q u e n c y , an a s p e c t o f
c lim a tic
change:
A m erican
G eophysical
U nion
T r a n s a c t i o n s , v. 32, p . 347 -3 5 7 .
Leopold,
L .B.,
and B u ll,
W .B .,
1979,
Base
le v e l,
a g g r a d a t i o n , and g r a d e : P r o c e e d i n g s o f th e American
P h i l o s o p h i c a l S o c ie ty , v . 123, p . 168-202.
L e o p o l d , L . B . , a n d M a d d o c k , T . , 1 9 5 3 , The h y d r a u l i c g e o m e t r y
o f s t r e a m c h a n n e l s a n d s o me p h y s i o g r a p h i c i m p l i c a t i o n s :
U . S . G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y P r o f e s s i o n a l P a p e r 2 5 2 , 57 p .
L eopold, L . B., and M i l l e r , J . P . ,
1954, A p o s t - g l a c i a l
c h r o n o l o g y f o r s o me a l l u v i a l ' v a l l e y s i n Wyomi ng: U . S .
G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y W a t e r - S u p p l y P a p e r 1261 , 90 p .
L o c k e , W. W. , 1 979 , E t c h i n g o f h o r n b l e n d e g r a i n s i n a r c t i c
s o i l s : an i n d i c a t o r o f r e l a t i v e age and p a l e o c l i m a t e :
Q u a t e r n a r y R e s e a r c h , v . 11, p . 197-212.
______ , 1986 , R a t e s o f h o r n b l e n d e e t c h i n g i n s o i l s o n g l a c i a l
d e p o s i t s , B a f f i n I s l a n d , Canada, i n Colman, S.M., and
D e t h i e r , D -P., e d s ., R ates of Chemical W e a th e r in g o f
R o ck s and M i n e r a l s : Academic P r e s s , O r la n d o , F l o r i d a ,
p. 129-145.
Lunds from , S .C .,
1 9 86 , S o i l
stratigraphy
and s c a r p
morphology s tu d ie s a p p lie d to th e Q uaternary geology of
t h e s o u t h e r n M a d i s o n V a l l e y , M o n t a n a (M.S. t h e s i s ) :
H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , A r e a t a , C a l i f o r n i a , 53 p .
L u n d s t r o m , S . C . , and B u r k e , R.M ., 1985, A f a u l t e d f l u v i a l
t e r r a c e se q u e n c e i n t h e u p p e r Madison V a l l e y , Montana,
and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to Late Quaternary g l a c i a t i o n s :
G e o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty of America A b s t r a c t s w ith Programs,
v . 17, p . 253.
M a b b u t t , J . A . , 1 9 7 7 , D e s e r t L a n d f o r m s : MIT P r e s s ,
M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 340 p .
Cambridge,
M a c h e t t e , M . N . , 19 7 8 , D a t i n g Q u a t e r n a r y f a u l t s i n t h e
s o u t h w e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s by u s i n g b u r i e d c a l c i c
p a l e o s o l s : U. S . G e o l o g i c a l Survey J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h ,
v. 6 , p . 369-381.
•101
_____ 1 9 8 5 , C a l c i c s o i l s o f t h e s o u t h w e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
i n W e i d e , D . L . , e d . , S o i l s and Q u a t e r n a r y Geology
th e Southw estern United S t a t e s : G eological Society
America S p e c ia l Paper 203, p. 1-21.
of
of
M a c k in , J . H . , 1948, C oncept o f t h e graded' r i v e r : G e o l o g i c a l
S o c i e t y o f A merica B u l l e t i n , v. 59, p . 463-511 .
Mado I e , R . F . , 1 986 , L a k e D e v l i n and P i n e d a l e g l a c i a l
h i s t o r y , F ro n t Range, Colorado: Q uaternary R esearch, v.
25, p. 4 3 -5 4 .
M a y e r , L . , 19 8 4 , D a t i n g • Q u a t e r n a r y f a u l t s c a r p s f o r m e d i n
alluvium using m orphologic p a ra m e te rs: Q u a te rn a ry
R e s e a r c h , v . 22, p. 300-313.
_______,
1986, T e c to n ic geom orphology of escarp m en ts and
m o u n ta in f r o n t s , in N a t i o n a l R esearc h Council, ed. ,
A c tiv e T e c to n ic s - - S tu d ie s in G eophysics: National
Academy P r e s s , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , p . 1 2 5 - 1 3 5 .
M cFadden, L . D . , and T i n s l e y , J . C . , 1985, R a t e and d e p t h o f
pedogenic-carbonate accum ulation in s o i l s : form ulation
and t e s t i n g o f a c o m p a rtm e n t model. In W eide, D .L .,
e d . , S o i l s and Q u a te rn a ry Geology of t h e S o u th w e s te rn
U n i t e d S t a t e s : G e o l o g i c a l S o c ie ty o f America S p e c ia l
Paper 203, p. 21-41.
M c L i n t o c k , T . F . , 1959 , A m e t h o d f o r o b t a i n i n g s o i l - s a m p l e
volumes i n s to n y s o i l s : J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y , v. 57, p.
832-834.
M o n t a g n e , J . . , 1 96 0 , G e o m o r p h i c p r o b l e m s i n t h e M a d i s o n
V a l l e y , M ontana: an i n t r o d u c t i o n and s y n t h e s i s , in
Campeau, D .E .,
and A n is g a rd ,
H .W .,
e d s . , W est
Yel I o w s t o n e - E a r t h q u a k e a r e a : B i l l i n g s G eo lo g ical
S o c i e t y G u id e b o o k , I l t h Annual C o n f e r e n c e , p. 165-173.
Nash,
D. B . , 1 98 0 a, M o r p h o lo g ic d a tin g of degraded normal
f a u l t s c a r p s : J o u rn a l of Geology, v. 8 8 . , p. 353-360.
______ , 1 9 8 0 b , F o r m s o f b l u f f s d e g r a d e d f o r d i f f e r e n t
o f t i m e i n Emmet C o u n t y , M i c h i g a n , U . S . A . :
S u r f a c e P r o c e s s e s , v. 5, p. 331-345.
length
E arth
______ , 1 9 8 4 , M o r p h o l o g i c d a t i n g o f f l u v i a l t e r r a c e s c a r p s
and f a u l t s c a r p s n e a r West Y e llo w s to n e , M ontana:
G e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y of A m eric a B u l l e t i n , v . 95, p. 14131424.
102
______ , 1 9 8 6 , M o r p h o l o g i c d a t i n g a n d m o d e l i n g d e g r a d a t i o n o f
f a u l t s c a r p s , in N ational Research C ouncil, e d ., A ctive
t e c t o n i c s - - S t u d i e s i n G e o p h y s i c s : N a t i o n a l Academy
P r e s s , W ashington, D .C., p . 181-194.
N e t e r , J . , W a s s e r m a n , W. , a n d K u t n e r , M . H . ,
L i n e a r S t a t i s t i c a l Models:. R ic h a r d D.
Ho me w o o d , I l l i n o i s , 1 1 2 7 p .
1985 , A p p l i e d
Irw in, In c .,
O u c h i, S . , 1985, R esponse o f a l l u v i a l r i v e r s t o
t e c t o n i c movement : G e o lo g ic a l S o ciety
B u l l e t i n , v . 96, p. 5 0 4 - 5 1 5 .
slow a c t i v e
of A merica
P a l m q u i s t , R . C . , 1983, T e r r a c e c h r o n o l o g i e s i n t h e B ig h o rn
B asin,
W y o m i n g : . Wyoming G e o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n
G u id e b o o k , 3 4 th Annual F i e l d C o n f e r e n c e , p . •217-231.
P a u l , H. P . , a n d L y o n s , L . A . , 1960 , Q u a t e r n a r y s u r f a c e s a l o n g
t h e M a d i s o n V a l l e y f l o o r f r o m E nnis Lake t o E n g l i s h
G orge C reek , Montana, i n Campeau, D . E . , and A n i s g a r d ,
H.W ., e d s . , West Y e l l o w s t o n e - E a r t h q u a k e A rea: B i l l i n g s
G e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y G u id e b o o k , I l t h Annual C o n f e r e n c e ,
p. 165-169.
P e a l e , A . C . , 18 9 6 , D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e T h r e e . F o r k s S h e e t ,
M o n t a n a : U . S .. G e o l o g i c S u r v e y G e o l o g i c A t l a s F o l i o 2 4 ,
. 5 p.
P i e r c e , K . L . , 1979 , H i s t o r y a n d d y n a m i c s o f g l a c i a t i o n i n
t h e n o r t h e r n Y e l l o w s t o n e N a t i o n a l P a r k a r e a : U ..S .
G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y P r o f e s s i o n a l P a p e r 7 2 9 - F , 90 p .
P i e r c e , K . L . , a n d C o l m a n , S -M1. , 1986 , E f f e c t o f h e i g h t a n d
orientation
( m i c r o c l i m a t e ) on g e o m o r p h i c d e g r a d a t i o n
r a t e s and p r o c e s s e s , l a t e - g l a c i a l t e r r a c e s c a r p s i n
c e n t r a l I d a h o : G eological S o c ie ty of America B u l l e t i n ,
v . 97, p . 869 -8 8 5 .
P i e r c e , K . L . , O b r a d o v i c h , J . D . , an d F r i e d m a n , I . , 1976,
O b s i d i a n h y d r a t i o n d a t i n g and c o r r e l a t i o n o f B u l l Lake
and P in e d a le g l a c i a t i o n s
n e a r W est Y ello w sto n e,
Montana: G e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y of America B u l l e t i n , v . 87,
p. 703-710 ,
P orter,
S . C .. , a n d D e n t o n , G . H . , 1 9 6 7 , C h r o n o l o g y o f
n e o g la c ia tio n in th e N orth A m erican C o r d i l l e r a :
American J o u r n a l o f S c i e n c e , v . 265, p . 177-210.
103
P o r t e r , S . C . , P i e r c e , K . L . , and H a m i l t o n , T . D . , 1983, L a t e
W isco n sin m o u n tain g l a c i a t i o n in th e w estern United
S t a t e s , i n P o r t e r , S . C . > e d . , The L a te P l e i s t o c e n e ,
Volume 2 o f L a t e - Q u a t e r n a r y E n v i r o n m e n t s o f t h e U n i t e d
• S t a t e s : U n iv e rs ity of M innesota P re s s, M inneapolis, p .
71-110.
R a s m u s s e n , D . L . , a n d F i e l d s , R . W. , 1 9 8 3 , S t r u c t u r a l a n d
d e p o s itio n a l h i s t o r y , J e f f e r s o n and M adison B a s in s ,
s o u t h w e s t e r n Montana ( a b s t r a c t ) : A merican A s s o c i a t i o n
o f P e tr o l e u m G e o l o g i s t s B u l l e t i n , v .6 7 , p . 1352.
R e h e i s , M . C . , 1 9 8 4 , C h r o n o l o g i c a n d c l i m a t i c c o n t r o l on s o i l
d e v e l o p m e n t , n o r t h e r n B i g h o r n B a s i n , Wyoming a n d
M ontana (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ) : U n iv e r s ity of Colorado,
B o u l d e r , C o l o r a d o , 346 p .
_______, 1 9 8 7 , C l i m a t i c i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a l t e r n a t i n g c l a y a n d
carbonate form ation in sem iarid s o ils of so u th -cen tral
Montana: Q u a te r n a r y R e s e a r c h , v. 27, p. 270-282.
Rhoads, B. L . , 1987, S tream power t e r m i n o l o g y :
G e o g ra p h e r, v . 39, p. 189-195 .
Professional
R ichm ond, G.M., 1986, S t r a t i g r a p h y a n d c h r o n o l o g y o f
g l a c i a t i o n in Y ellow stone N ational P a rk , in S ib ra v a ,
V'.,, B o w e n , D . Q. , a n d R i c h m o n d , G.M. , e d s . , Q u a t e r n a r y
G la c ia tio n s in the N o rth ern Hem isphere: Q uaternary
S c ie n c e Reviews, v. 5, p. 83-98 .
R i t t e r , D . F . , 1967, T e r r a c e d ev elo p m en t a l o n g t h e f r o n t o f
t h e B e a r t o o th M ountains, s o u th e r n Montana: G e o l o g i c a l
S o c i e t y o f A m e r ic a B u l l e t i n , v . 78, p . 467-48.4.
R i t t e r , D. F . , and K auffm an, M . E . , 1983, T e r r a c e dev elo p m en t
i n t h e S h o s h o n e R i v e r v a l l e y n e a r P o w e l l Wyoming- a n d
s p e c u l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e s u b - P o w e l l t e r r a c e : Wyomi ng
G e o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n G u i d e b o o k , 3 4 t h Annual F i e l d
C onference, p. 197-203.
Ruhe,
R . V . , 1976 , S t r a t i g r a p h y o f m i d - c o n t i n e n t l o e s s ,
U .S .A ., i n Mahaney, W.C., e d . , Q u a te r n a r y S t r a t i g r a p h y
o f N o r t h A m e r ic a : D o w d e n , H u t c h i n s o n , and R o s s ,
S tr o u d s b u r g , P e n n s y lv a n ia , p. 197-212.
_______, 1 9 8 3 , D e p o s i t i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t s o f L a t e W i s c o n s i n
lo e s s in th e m id c o n tin e n ta l United S t a t e s , in P o r te r ,
S . C . , e d . , The L a t e P l e i s t o c e n e , Volume 2 o f L a t e Q uaternary
E nvironm ents
of th e U n ited S ta te s :
U n iv e r s ity of M innesota P r e s s , M in n eap o lis, p. 130-137.
104
S c h m i d t , C . J . , a n d G a r i h a n , J . M , 1983 , L a r a m i d e t e c t o n i c
developm ent of
th e Rocky M ountain f o r e la n d
of
s o u th w e s te r n Montana, in Low ell, J . D . , and G r i e s , R .,
e d s . , Rocky M ountain F o r e l a n d s and U p l i f t s : Rocky
Mountain A s s o c i a t i o n of G e o l o g i s t s , Denver, C o l o r a d o ,
p. 271-294.
S c h m i d t , C . J . , S h e e d l o , M., and Werkeme, M., 1984, C o n t r o l
o f r a n g e - b o u n d a r y norm al f a u l t s by e a r l i e r s t r u c t u r e ,
s o u t h w e s t e r n M o n t a n a : G e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y of America
A b s t r a c t s w i t h P r o g r a m s , v . 16, p. 253.
S c h n e i d e r , N . P . , 1985, M orphology o f t h e M adison Range f a u l t
scarp , southw est M ontana: i m p l i c a t i o n s
for fa u lt
h is to ry
and
segm entation
( M. S . t h e s i s ) :
M iami
U n i v e r s i t y , O x f o r d , O h i o , 131 p .
S c h n e i d e r , N . P . , and R i t t e r , D. F . , 1987, L a t e P l e i s t o c e n e
r e s p o n s e of t h e Madison R i v e r t o r e g i o n a l b a s e l e v e l
c h a n g e f o r th e M adison V a lle y , s o u th w e s t M ontana:
G e o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty of America A b s t r a c t s w ith Programs,
v . 1 9 , p . 3 32 .
S c h u mm, S . A . , 1 9 7 7 , T h e F l u v i a l
a n d S o n s , 3 38 p .
System:
New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y
______ , 198 6 ,. A l l u v i a l r i v e r r e s p o n s e t o a c t i v e t e c t o n i c s , i_n
N ational R esearch C ouncil, e d ., A ctive te c to n ic s - S tudies
in G eophysics:
N a t i o n a l Academy P r e s s ,
W ashington, D .C ., p. 80-94 .
S c h w a r c z , H . P . , a n d B l a c k w e l l , B . , 19 8 5 , U r a n i u m s e r i e s
d i s e q u i l i b r i u m d a t i n g , i n R u t t e r , N.W., e d . , D a ti n g
Methods o f P l e i s t o c e n e D e p o s i t s and T h e i r P r o b l e m s :
G e o s c ie n c e Canada R e p r i n t S e r i e s 2, p. 9 - 1 7 .
S i n d e l a r , B.W., 1971, D o u g l a s - f i r
M ontana (P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ) :
M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a , 130 p .
invasion of
U n iv e rsity of
w estern
Montana,
S oil
C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e , 1987, M adison County A r e a ,
Montana, S o i l Survey R e p o r t ( d r a f t ) : Bozeman, Montana.
Soil
S u r v e y S t a f f , 1975 , S o i l T a x o n o m y : A B a s i c S y s t e m o f
S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r Making and I n t e r p r e t i n g S o i l
S u rv e y : U nited S ta t e s Department of A g r ic u lt u r e , S o il
C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e , A g r i c u l t u r e H a n d b o o k No. 4 3 6 ,
U n i t e d S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , W ash in g to n ,
D . C . , 7 54 p .
105
S w a n s o n , R . W. , 1 9 5 0 , G e o l o g y o f a p a r t o f t h e V i r g i n i a C i t y
and E l d r i d g e q u a d r a n g l e s , M ontana: U.S. G e o lo g i c a l
S u r v e y O p e n - F i l e R e p o r t , S p o k a n e , W a s h i n g t o n , 12 p .
T h o m p s o n , A . , a n d J o n e s . , A,., 1 986 , R a t e s a n d c a u s e s o f
proglacial riv e r te rra c e
fo rm atio n in s o u th e a s t
Iceland:
an a p p l i c a t i o n of l i c h e n o m e t r i c d a tin g
t e c h n i q u e s : B o r e a s , v . 15, p . 231-2 4 6 .
T h o m p s o n , G ..R. , F i e l d s , R . W . , a n d A l t , D . , 1 9 8 2 , L a n d - b a s e d
e v i d e n c e f o r T e r t i a r y c l i m a t i c v a r i a t i o n s :- n o r t h e r n
R o c k i e s : G e o lo g y , v. 10, p . 413-4 1 7 .
T y s d a l , R .G ., 1986, T h ru s t f a u l t s and back t h r u s t s
in
M adison Range of s o u th w e s te r n M ontana f o r e la n d :
A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n . of P e t r o l e u m G e o l o g i s t s B u l l e t i n ,
v . 70, p . 3 6 0 -3 7 6 .
T y s d a l , R . G . , , M a r v i n , R . , F . , a n d D e W i t t , E . , 1 986 , L a t e
C re ta c e o u s s t r a t i g r a p h y , d e fo rm a tio n , and i n t r u s i o n in
t h e M ad iso n Range of s o u t h w e s t e r n M o n ta n a : G e o l o g i c a l
S o c i e t y o f A m e r i c a B u l l e t i n , v . 97., p . 8 5 9 - 8 6 8 .
W a i t t , R . B . , J r . , a n d T h o r s o n , R . M . , 1983 , The C o r d i l l e r a n
i c e s h e e t i n W a s h in g t o n , I d a h o , and M ontana, i n P o r t e r ,
S . C . , e d . , The L a t e P l e i s t o c e n e , Volume 2 o f L a t e Q uaternary
E nvironm ents
of the U nited S t a t e s :
U n i v e r s i t y ■o f M i n n e s o t a P r e s s , M i n n e a p o l i s , p . 5 3 - 7 0 .
W a l l a c e , R . E . , 1977, P r o f i l e s and a g e s o f young f a u l t
scarps, n o rth -c e n tra l N evada: G eological Society of
America B u l l e t i n , v. 8 8 , p . 1267-1281.
______ , 19 8 0 , D e g r a d a t i o n o f t h e H e b g e n L a k e
1959: G eology, v . 8 , p . 225 -2 2 9 .
fault
scarps
of
106
APPENDICES
107
APPENDIX A
FI ELD DESCRIPTIONS OF SOILS'
108
Table
Sample
N u mb e r
6.
Field
Surface
Nu mb e r
(carbonate
JCl 5
Tl
Tl
(III)
JC8
T2
(III)
J C2 1
T3
(II)
JCl 8
Lower
Boundary
M oist
Color
Dry,
Color
A
0-11
Bk l
Bk 2
Ck
c,S
g,w
g»i
———
10YR3/2
11-32
32-65
65-100t
1 0 YR5 / 3
1 0 YR4 / 3
—
1 0 YR5 / 3
1 0 YR7 / 2
1 0 YR5 / 3
—
A
0-20
Bk
Ck
20-56
56 —10 Ot
C ,W
g/i
—---
10YR3/3
1 0 YR5 / 2
—-------
I 0YR4 / 3
1 0 YR8 / 2
--- ----—
Ap
Bk l
Bk 2
0-18
18-85
8 5 - 1 0 Ot
va, s
g, ,w
—---
10YR4/2
I 0YR5/ 3
1 0 YR4 / 3
1 0 YR6 / 3
------- —
Bk
Ck
0-19
19-47
47-100t
a,s
g,w
--- —
10YR3/3
10YR6/3
—
1 0 YR5 / 3
1 0 YR7 / 2
---- ------
0-2 4
2 4 —1 0 Ot
g ri
--- —
10YR3/3
10YR4/2
1 0 YR4 / 4
1 0 YR6 / 2
0-30
30-45
4 5 - 1 0 Ot
a,w
Bk
Ck
I 0YR3 / 3
10YR5/2
—
1 0 YR4 / 3
IOYR8 / 1
------- --
A
0 —1 9
c,w
Bk
Ck
19-64
6 4 - 1 0 Ot
d, i
—
10YR3/2
I 0YR5 / 3
----- ——
1 0 YR4 / 3
1 0 YR6 / 2
--- ------
A
0-16
16-43
43-100t
10YR3/4
10YR5/2
—
10YR4/4
g,b
--- —
0-14
14-52
5 2 - 1 0 Ot
a,s
g,w
—
10YR3/2
I 0YR5 / 3
—
1 0 YR5 / 3
1 0 YR7 / 2
------- —
Bk
Ck
0-15
15-38
38-90t
a, s
g,w
—
I 0YR3 / 3
I 0YR5 / 3
—----- —
10YR4/4
1 0 YR7 / 2
—
A
0-10
a,s
Bk
Ck
10-39
3 9 - 1 0 Ot
I 0 YR3 / 2
10YR4/3
" 1 0YR4/ 3
1 0 YR6 / 3
A
Bk
T3
(ID
JC13
(II)
T4
JCl
(II)
T5
JCl 4
( 1 1 +)
T5
JC 2
(lit)
T6
JCl 2
. T6
(ID
soils.
Depth,
cm
Horizon
T2
(III)
JC 6
of
stage!)
(III)
JC22
descriptions
A
Bk
Ck
A
Bk
Ck
A
c,i
—
C
C
, W
, W
—
10YR6/1
—
109
Table
Sample
Nu mb e r
6.
'(continued).
Surface
Nu mb e r
(carbonate
JC 3
T7
0-14
14-49
49-100+
a ,w
9,i
———
10YR3/4
I 0YR5 / 3
1 0 YR4 / 2
1 0 YR6 / 2
T8
A
Bk
Ck
0 - 20'
g,w
d,i
10YR3/2
10YR5/4
----- ----
1 0 YR4 / 3
10YR7/2
A
Bk
Ck
0-17
17-56
56-100+
d,i
10YR3/3
I OYR4 / 2
1 0 YR4 / 3
1 0 YR6 / 3
A
Bk
Ck
0-3 9
39-60
60-100+
d,b
A
Bk
Ck
0-27
27-64
6 4 —10 0+
C
T9
A
Bk
Ck
0-26
26-58
58-100+
Tl O
A
B
C
T8
■T9
T9
(II)
JC 9
(I+)
JCll
(— )
10YR3/2
1 0 YR4 / 3
7 . 5YR4 / 2 7 . 5 YR7 / 2
—-------
A
Bk
Ck
(ID
JClO
a ,s
d,b
---—
Dry
Color
T7
(I+)
J C4
0-22
Moist
Color
22-50
50-100+
(ID
JCl 7
Lower
Boundary
A
Bk
Ck
(II)
JC 7
Depth,
cm
stage)
(II)
JCl 6
Horizon
20-50
50-100+
—
—
—
—
C
, W
10YR3/4
1 0 YR4 / 6
7 . 5 Y R 3 / 2 7 . 5YR5 / 2
—
10YR3/3
I 0YR5 / 3
—-------
1 0 YR4 / 2
10YR8/2
------- —
g,w
d,i
---- —
10YR3/3
1 0 YR4 / 1
10YR4/3
1 0 YR5 / 2
0-4
4-13
13-100+
a ,S
c, i
10YR2/2
1 0 YR3 / 1
10YR3/2
10YR3/2
1 0 YR4 / 2
1 0 YR4 / 2
, W
d,i
—---
—
J C2 0
( 1 1 +)
Pl
A
Bk
Ck
0-14
14-46
46-100+
c,w
c ,i
—
10YR3/3
10YR6/3
------- —
1 0 YR5 / 3
10YR8/2
------- —
JC 5
( 1 1 +)
Pl
A
Bk
Ck
0-19
19-54
54-100+
g,s
c ,i
---- —
10YR3/2
10YR5/3
10YR3/3
10YR8/2
JCl 9
P2
A
Bk
Ck
0-17
17-37
37-100+
c,w
c ,i
—
10YR3/2
I 0YR4 / 3
—
1 0 YR4 / 3
1 0 YR6 / 3
—
(ID
H O
Table
6.
Sample
N u mb e r
(c o n t i n u e d ).
Horizon Texture S tr u c tu r e
Consistence
D r y M o i s t Wet
pH
Clay
Films
A
Bkl
Bk 2
Ck
2 m
sil
2 m
sil
I m
sil
fragmental
A
Bk
Ck
I m sbk
sh
I
vfr" s o , ps
8.0
----' 2 f gr
s o , po
sil
Io
8.0
----Io
f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e l l y loam - - no s t r u c t u r e
Ap
Bk I
Bk 2
sil
sil
sil
J C2 1
Ap
Bk
Ck
sh' f r
s o , ps
8.0
----I
I f sbk
Io
so ,po
8.0
----2 f pi
Io
sil
f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e l l y loam - - no s t r u c t u r e
JC 6
A
Ck
2 m sbk
so v f r
I
f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e l l y loam
JCl 8
A
Bk
Ck
fr
S S , ps
8.5
----2 c sbk
h
I
I m gr
Io
Io
s o , po
8.0
----si
f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e l l y loam - - no s t r u c t u r e
JCl 3
A
Bk
Ck
s s ,ps
2 f gr
Io
Io
8.0
----si
s o ,po- 8 . 0
fr
----I C sbk
sh
si
f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e I l y l o a m - - n o ;s t r u c t u r e
JCl
A
Bk
Ck
JCl 4
A
Bk
Ck
so,po
I f sbk
sh v f r
8.5
----I
2 c sbk
h
fi
so ,po
8.0
----si
f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e l l y I oam — n o s t r u c t u r e
JC 2
A
Bk
Ck
s ,ps
2 f sbk
so
fi
8 .0
----sol
fr
ss ,ps
I f sbk
sh
8.5
----si
f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e l l y loam - - no s t r u c t u r e
JCl 2
A
Bk
Ck
s s , ps
8.5
----sil
2 m pr
h vfr
s o , po
I
I m pr
sh v f r
8 . 0'
----f r a g m e n t a l g r a v e l l y loam — no s t r u c t u r e
JCl 5
JC22
JC8
'
s s , ps
sbk
sh
vfr
8 . O ----so,po
sbk ' so
vf r
8.0
Inpf
sbk
sh
fr
s o , ps
8 ..O ----c o b b l y g r a v e l ■— n o s t r u c t u r e
2 m sbk
2 m pi
m
m
■ I
m
Is
fragmental
h
h
Io
vfi
fi
ho
s s , ps
ss ,ps
s o , po
8.0
8 -. O
8.0
----In pf
-----
s ,ps
8.5
----- n o ;s t r u c t u r e
Io
Io
ss ,ps
8 . 5 -------Io
Io
s o . po
8.0
----g r a v e l I y s a n d - - n o .s t r u c t u r e
Ill
Table
Sample
Nu mb e r
6.
(continued).
Horizon Texture S tr u c tu r e
Consistence
D r y M o i s t Wet
pH
Clay
Films
J C3
A
Bk
Ck
I
Im
si
I f
fragmental
sbk
so
s s , ps
vf r
8.0
----Io
so ,po
sbk
so
8.0
----g r a v e l l y sand - - no s t r u c t u r e
JCl 6
A
Bk
Ck
I
Im
si
Im
fragm ental
sbk
sh
SS , p s
vf r
8.0
----gr
Io
Io
s o , po
8.5
----g r a v e l l y s a n d - - no s t r u c t u r e
JC 7
A
Bk
Ck
h
sil
3 c sbk
sh
I
2 m sbk
fragm ental g ra v e lly
JCl 7
A
Bk
Ck
I
Im
I
m
fragm ental
JC 4
A
sil
cos
Bk
f
r
a
g
m
ental
Ck
J Cl O
A
Bk
Ck
I
m
s
m
fragm ental
SS , ps
sh
vf r
8.5
-----Io
Io
8.0
----s o , po
g r a v e l Iy sand — no s t r u c t u r e
JC 9
A
Bk
Ck
si
m
si
m
fragm ental
s o , po
Io
8.0
----Io
Io
so ,po
Io
8.5
----g r a v e l l y s a n d - - no s t r u c t u r e
JCll
A
B
C
I
I
si
J C2 0
A
Bk
Ck
sil
Im
I
m
fragmental
so
vf r
s o , po
8.0
----Io
Io
s o , po
8.0
----g r a v e l l y loam — no s t r u c t u r e
JC 5
A
Bk
Ck
sil
Im
I
I f
fragmental
s s , po
gr
Io
8.0
----vf r
Io
so,po
8.0
----gr
so
g r a v e l l y loam — no s t r u c t u r e
JCl 9
A
Bk
Ck
sh
sil
I m sbk
I
2 f gr
Io
fragmental g ra v e lly
fi
S ,p
8.0
----fi
SS , p s
8.5
----loam — no s t r u c t u r e
s o , po
Io
Io
8.0
----Io
s o , po
Io
8.0
----g r a v e l l y loam — no s t r u c t u r e
sbk
fi
SS , p s
pr
h
8.5
----gr
Io
Io
so,po
8.0
----g r a v e l l y c o a r s e s a n d - no s t r u c t u r e
2 f
2 c
2 f pi
2 m sbk
I f
sbk
h
h
so
fi
fi
vf r
ss,p
SS , p s
so,po
8.5
8.5
8 .5
-------------
sbk
s o , ps
8.0
----vf r
Io
so,po
8.0
----loam - - no s t r u c t u r e
112
Table
6.'
(c o n t i n u e d ).
Key t o S o i l
Soil
Structure,
Grade
Size
m - - massive
I — weak
2 — moderate
3 - - strong
Soil
gr -- granular
pi - - p Iaty
pr -- prism atic
sbk - - subangular blocky
Texture
s - - sand
I — loam
sol
sil
---
sandy clay
s i l t loam
loam
Consistence
Dr y
Io
so
sh
h
Type
f -- fine/thin
m - - medium
c — coarse (thick)
co — c o a r s e
s I - - san d y loam
Soil
D escriptions^
— loose
— soft
-- slightly
-- hard
Moist
Io
vfr
fr
fi
hard
- loose
- - Very f r i a b l e
- friable
- - firm
Wet
so - - n o n - s t i c k y
(
ss -- s lig h tly sticky
s
— sticky
po - - n o n - p l a s t i c
ps - - s l i g h t l y p la s tic .
p
— plastic
Horizon Boundaries
va
a
c
g
d
------
s
w
i
b
very abrupt
abrupt
clear
gradual
diffuse
-—
-—
smooth
wavy
irregular
broken
Clay Film s
Frequency
I --
1
2
few
Morphology
Thickness
n
--
thin
T erm in o lo g y a f t e r B i r k e l a n d , 1984.
F o r more d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n , see
1975 .
pf
Soil
-~ ped fa c e
coatings
Survey S ta f f
113
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SOILS
114
T a b le 7.
L aboratory a n a ly s is of soils-.
Z = d e p t h (m) ; d =
t h i c k n e s s ( c m ) ; C 3 = CaCOg c o n t e n t ( g Ca COg/ l OO g s o i l ) ; Pg
- oven-dry bulk d e n s ity
( g / c m ^ ) ; C t = t o t a l CaCOg ( g
CaCOg/ c m 2 - s o i l c o l u m n ) ; Cg = e s t i m a t e d p r i m a r y CaCOg c o n t e n t
( g C a C O g / 1 00 g s o i l ) ; Pg = e s t i m a t e d o r i g i n a l o v e n - d r y b u l k
d e n s i t y ( g / c m / ) ; Cp = e s t i m a t e d p r i m a r y CaCOg ( g CaC 0 g / c m 2 s o i I c o l u m n ) ; C s = s e c o n d a r y CaCOg (. g C a C O g / c m ^ - s o i l
c o l u m n ) ; Ciy = t o t a l o f a l l C t v a l u e s ; Cp = t o t a l o f a l l Cp
v a l u e s ; Cg = t o t a l o f a l l Cs v a l u e s .
22
.19
16
15
. 47
.22
.17
.16
.36
.34
.26
.16
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.8
11.1
65
. 07
.57
2.2
48.2
20
.20
I .4
1.3
I .3
0 - 22
2 2 - 38
3 8 - 53
53-100
22
.19
.55
.51
.27
I .4
1 .3
1 .5
1.9
5.9
11.4
1 1 .5
24 . I
.03
.03
.02
.01
1.4
1 .4
1.4
1.7
0 - 22
2 2 - 38
3 8 - 53
53-100
22
16
15
47
. 05
.15
. 09
.09
1.7
1 .7
I .9
I .9
4.1
1.8
7.6
.01
.01
.01
.01
I .7
I .7
1.7
1.7
22
22
.01
I .7
38
16
15
47
.16
0.4
4.6
3.4
5.9
..01
1.8
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1 .7
1.7
1.7
3.0
6.4
4.0
4.2
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1 .7
1.7
1 .7
0 - 22
2 2 - 38
3 8 - 53
53-100
22-15
22-30
22-45
22-60
0 - 22
2 2 - 38
3 8 - 53
53-100
8-15
8-80
0 - 22
1 5 - 80
80-100
22
21-15
21-30
21-45
21-60
6-15
6-30
6-45
6-60
18-15
18-30
18-45
18-60
13-15
13-30
13-45
13-60
Pl
I .4
1.3
1.3
I .7
15-15
15-30
15-45
15-60
8-100
P3
F— I
Cg
u.
d
-P
U
Z
I— I
Sample
N u mb e r
0-
22-
3 8 - 53
53-100
22
16
15
47
16
15
47
.12
1.9
.07
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.9
0-
22
22
.08
22-
38
16
15
47
.21
3 8 - 53
53-100
'
.14
.05
1.8
■
5.9
4.6
3.3
12.8
7.1
5.1
13.5
5.2
2.6
’
.03
,03
.03
. 02
1.4
I .4
I .4
I .6
.03
.03
.03
.01
I .4
1 .4
1.4
1.7
.03
.03
.03
1.4
I . ..4
1.4
115
Table
7.
(c o n t i n u e d ).
Sample
Nu mb e r
Z
d
1-15
1-30
1-45
1-60
0 - 22
2 2 - 38
3 8 - 53
53-100
22
.04
16
15
47
.20
C3
.05
.05
P3
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.8
Ct1
Cl
Pl
1.5
.01
6.1
:01
.01
1.7
1.7
I .7
1.7
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1 .7
1.7
1.7
1.4'
4.2
14-15
14-30
14-45
14-60
0-
22
22
2238-
38
53
16
15
47
.18
.13
.0-4
.04
I ..7
1.9
I .9
6.7
4.0
1.8
3..4
2-15
2-30
2-45
0-
22
22
.07
38
16
15
47
.14
■ .04
.03
1.7
1.9
I .8
2.6
22-
1.8
.21
.11
1.8
. 05
.04
1.8
1.8
. 12
. 16
. 08
.09
1 .7
1.9 ■
I .9
22
.16
1.8
16
15
47
.10
1.9
1.9
.16
.16
2-6 0
12-15
12-30
12-45
12-60
3-15
3-30
3-45
3-60
16-15
16-30
16-45
16-60
7-15
7-30
7-45
7-60
17-15
17-30
17-45
17-60
4-15
4-30
4-45
4-60
53-100
38- 53
53-100
0-
22
22
22-
38
16
15
47
3 8 - 53
53-100
0-
22
22
22-
38
16
15
47
3 8 - 53
53-100
022-
22
38
3 8 - 53
53-100
■
I .7
1 .7
1.7
1.7
4.5
4.9
2.3
7.6
.01
.01
.01
.01
6.3,
3.0
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1.7
I .7
1 .7
.01
.01
.01
.01
I .7
1 .7
I .7
1 .7
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1 .7
1.7
1.7
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1 .7
1.7
I .7
2.6
.11
.07
1.8
22
16
15
47
. 12
.13
.09
.08
I .7
1.9
1.9
4.5
4.0
1.8
6.8
.03 '
.13
1.1
.12
I .7
1 .7
1.9
.06
1.8
16
15
47
0-
22
22
22-
38
16
15
47
3 8 - 53
53-100
.01
.01
.01
.01
6.0
22
38
3 8 - 53
53-100
8.3
3.3
1.4
3.4
1.1
1.7
1.9
I .9
22
22
38
1.7
1 .7
I .7
1.7
3.4
0-
022-
1.8
.
2.5
.01
.01
.01
.01
4.3
1.8
22-
3 8 - 53
53-100
.09
.04
1.9
1.1
- .01
•
4.9
3.1
5.9
2.6
3.5
3.4
5.1
1.7
1 .7
1.7
1.7
116
T a b l e 7..
(c o n tin u e d ) .
Sample
N u mb e r
Z
10-15
10-30
10-45
10-60
9-15 '
9-30
9-45
9-60
11-15
11-30
11-45
11-60
5-15
5-30
5-45
5-6 0
20-15
20-30
20-45
20-60
19-15
19-30
19-45
19-60
0 - 2 2
22-
38
3 8 - 53
53-100
0 - 22
2 2 - 38
3 8 - 53
53-100
0 - 22
2 2 - 38
■ 3 8 - 53
53-100
d
C3
22
.03
.15
.15
. 07
1 .7
I .8
.09
.16
. 09
.09
1.7
1.9
I .9
3 ..4
4.9
1.8
7.6
.02
.01
.01
.01
I .7
1.7
I .7
I'. 7
0 .7
I .4
1.3
I .6
16
15
47
22
16
15
47
22
16
15
47
P3
1.9
1.8
Ct1
Cl
Pl
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
I .7
1 .7
1.7
.01
.01
.01
.01
I .7
1 .7
I .7
1 .7
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1.7
1.7
I . .7
5.9
6 .4
6.5
7.6
.03
I .4
1.4
I .7
1.7
7.4
4.6
3.3
5.1
.03
I ..4
.01
.01
.01
I .7
1.7
.01
.01
.01
.01
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.1
4.3
4.3
5.9
2.6
0.3
0.3
0.8
0-
22
22
22-
38
16
15
47
.19
.31
.27
.09
22
.24
16
15
47
.22
.21
.10
I .7
1.9
7.9
. 04
.04
1.8
1.8
1.1
3 8 - 53
53-100
022-
22
38
3 8 - 53
53-100
0-
22
22
22-
38
16
15
47
3 8 - 5.3
53-100
.17
i06
. 1.8
1.4
1.3
1 .3
1.8
3.0
3.4
.02
.01
.01
.
1.6
117
Table
7.
(c o n t i n u e d ).
Sample
Nu mb e r
Cp2
Cs3
c T4
15-15
15-30
15-45
15-60
0 .9
5.0
26.6
0.7
3.9
0.6
1.5
2.7
11.3
20.7
16.1
22-15
22-30
22-45
22-60
0.9
10.2
0.7
0 .7
6.4
4.4
12.7
8-15
8-80
0 .9
2 .7
8-100
0.8
0.8
21-15
21-30
21-45
21-60
0 ..9
0.7
0.4
6-15
6-30
6-45
6-60
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.8
18-15
18-30
18-45
18-60
0.4
0.3
0.3
13-15
0.4
0 .3
0.3
13-30
13-45
13-60
0.8
33.7
23.5
1 .5
■ 0.8
17.1
1 2 .7
55.6
5 3.4
5.2
4.4
3.5
51.2
0.8
4. 4
49.9
1.9
1.2
50.0
45 ..0
34.3
23.2
0.8
23.2
14.4.
12.9
9.1
1.5
16.2.
1.8
3.8
14.3
1.4
2.3
6 .8
10.2
1.1
0.8
0.0
14.3
. 13.9
9.3
5.9
7.6
'
1.8
1 .4
6.8
12.4
12.4
I .I
8.2
0.8
5 .1
2.6
6.1
17.6
14.6
3.7
3.4
8.2
I. 8
1 .4
I .I
4 .2
0.8
15.8
13.2
7.1
3.4
1.1
13.2
11.7
5.6
4.2
I .8
1.4
1 . 1.
0 . 8
11.4
1 0 .3
4.5
3.4
15.2
8.5
4.5
3.4
I .8
1.4
13.4
7.1
3.4
. 1-15
1-30
1-45
1-60
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.8
3.4
14-15
14-30
14-45
14-60
0.4
0.3
0.3
6.3
3.7
0.8
2.6
5.8
'
3.1
2.2
2.8
4.3
3.1
5.1
0.8
36.8
25.7
22.9
52.9
11.1
0.8
12.8
17.9
14.0
1 1 .3
47.0
35.6
24.1
5.0
10.7
■
Cs ^
4.5
3.5'
2.5
I „5
18.6
13.5'
1.3
45.5
4.4
Cp5
1.1
0.8
1.1
0.8
2.6
118'
Table
7.
(continued).
Sample
Nu mb e r
Cp2
Cs3
2-15
2-30
2-45
2-60
0.4
0.3
0.3
2 . 2.
0.8
0.8
1.7
12-15
12-30
12-45
'12-60
0 .4
0.3
0.3
7.I
3.0
I .I
0.8
2.6
3-15
3-30
3-45
3-60
0 .4
4.. I
4.6
16-15
16-30
16-45
16-60
0 .4
7-15
7-30
7-45
.7-60
0.3
0.3
0.8
-
4.0
2.0
6.8
Cp5
Cs6
10.5
7.9
3.6
2.5
1.8
1.4
I .I
0 .8
8 .7
16.4
1.8
8.1
1.4
I .I
0 .8
13.8
6.7
3.7
4.8
3.4
19.3
14.8
9.9
7.6
0.3
0.3
5.9
2.7
2.3
15.3
9.0
0.8
2.6
0 .4
5.6
4.6
0.3
0.3
0 .8
'
6.5
2.5
I .7
2.6
1.8
1.4
I .I
17.5
13.4
8.8
6 .8
0.8
1.8
6.0
1.4
I .I
13.5
7.6
4.9
3.4
0.8
2.6
19.9
1.8
1.4
19.1
13.5
3.8
13.9
. 9.0
5.1
5.9
4.1
3.7
2.3
17.9
1.8
16.1
0.3
0.3
■ 13.4
1.4
I ..I
12.0
0.8
6.0
1.1
0.8
8.9
'
5.1
17-15
17-30
17-45
17-60
0.4
0.8
6.0
9.4
6 .8
4-15
4-30
4-45
4-60
0 .4
0.7
13.1
1.8
11.3
0.3
0 .3
3.2
12.0
10.6
0.8
3.1
4.3
8.5
5.1
1.4
I .I
10-15
10-30
10-45
10-60
0 .4
0 .7
0.3
0 .3
4.0
15.6
14.5
10.2
0.8
4.0
.5.1
1.4
I .I
5.9
0.8
9-15
9-30
9-45
9-60
0.4
0.3
0 .3
3.0
4.6
2.3
18.5
15.1
1.8
0.8
6.8
7.6
10.2
0.8
1.8
1.4
I .I
0 .8
8.3
7.4
4.3
13.8
13.1
9.1
5.1
16.7
13.7
9.1
6 .8
119
I
2
3
4
5
b
7.
(c o n t i n u e d ).
O
1P
to
Table
Cs-3
CT 4
0. 4
0.3
0 .3
0.3
2.1
1.8
0.3
0.0
0.0
0 .0
1.4
1.1
0.8
1.4
I .I
0 .8
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
5.0
6.0
6.2
6 .8
26.4
20.5
14.1
7.6
2.4
1.5
I .I
24.0
19.0
13.0
0.8
6.8
6.5
4.3
3.0
4.3
20.4
13.0
8.4
5.1
2.3
1.4
I .I
18.1
7.5
2.7
15.4
7.5
4.5
3.4
Sample
Nu mb e r
11-15
11-30
11-45
11-60
5-15
5-30
5-45
5-60
0 .9
20-15
20-30
20-45
20-60
0 .9
19-15
19-30
19-45
19-60
0.4
0.3
0 .3
Ct
Cp
Cs
Ct
Cp
Cs
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.3
0 .8 .
0.8
0.8
2.6
= d • C3 * P3
= d • Cl ■ P l
= C t - Cp
summed u p w a r d s f r o m b a s e o f p r o f i l e •
summed u p w a r d s f r o m b a s e o f p r o f i l e •
summed u p w a r d s f r o m b a s e c) f p r o f i l e •
Cp 5
0.8
1.8
1.4
CgG
11.6
7.3
4.3
13.6
6.1
■1 .1
3.4
0.8
2.6
120
APPENDIX C
LITHOLOGY OF PARENT MATERIAL
121
G G
A G
A i
Pi
T C
n = 3 0
n = 3 1
n = 3 0
L S
G G
G G
A G
A G
A i
4 T 9
n = 3 0
n = 3 4
n = 3 5
C
G G
A G
A i
Pi
G G
T C
A G
A i
A G
A i
G G
A G
A i
G
A G
A i
u.
O
n = 3 6
at
G G
A G
A i
1 0 T 9
n = 3 5
n = 3 5
G G
A G
1 2 T 6
n = 3 5
1 1 T 1 0
L S
G G
A G
A i
L IT H O L O G Y
L S
G G
A G
T C
L S
F i g u r e 27.
L ith o lo g y of p a r e n t m a te r ia l f o r sample s i t e s I 12 ( s e e F i g u r e 9 f o r l o c a t i o n s ) .
G G =granitic g n e i s s ;
A G^am phibolite; A i^ a p h a n itic igneous rocks; P i = p o r p h y r i t i c
igneous r o c k s ; TC=terrigenous c l a s t i c ro ck s; LS=Iim estone.
122
1 3 T 4
1 4 T 5
1 5 T 1
n = 3 5
n = 3 5
n = 3 5
uL Lll JL
G G
G G
A G
A G
A i
A i
P i
T C
L S
G G
A G
A i
Pi
T C
L S
G G
A G
A i
Pi
T C
1 6 T 7
1 7 T 8
1 8 T 3
n = 4 0
n = 3 5
n = 3 5
P i
T C
L S
eJL ,
G G
A G
A i
P i
T C
L S
G G
A G
ll.
A i
T C
L S
2 1 T 2
2 0 P 1
1 9 P 2
n = 3 5
Pi
L S
n = 3 5
n = 3 5
Lu_ I ■I , - LlL
G G
A G
A i
Pi
T C
L S
G G
A G
A i
Pi
T C
L S
G G
A G
A i
Pi
T C
L S
2 2 T 1
7 5
n = 3 5
4 5
15
UL
G G
A G
A i
Pi
L IT H O L O G Y
T C
L S
F ig u r e 28.
L ith o lo g y of p a r e n t m a t e r i a l f o r sample s i t e s
13-22 ( s e e F i g u r e 9 f o r l o c a t i o n s ) .
G G =granitic g n e iss ;
AG=amphiboli t e ; A i= aphanitic igneous r o c k s ; P i= p o rp h y ritic
i g n e o u s r o c k s ; TC=t e r r i g e n o u s c l a s t i c r o c k s ; L S = I i m e s t o n e .
123
APPENDIX, D
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE1
124
ANOVA
Tables
and
Decisions
for
Soil
ANOVA T a b l e (B H o r i z o n T h i c k n e s s )
Source of V a ria tio n
d.f.
SS
between tre a tm e n ts
I
5 52
w ithin treatm ents
10
7 29
total
11
1281
Data
MS
552
73
F*
7.57
p value
. 025<p<. 0 1
H y p o t h e s i s : Does B h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s v a r y d e p e n d i n g on t h e
p re s e n c e or absence of a lo e ss cap?
"alpha
= 0.05
H0 : F a c t o r l e v e l m e a n s a r e e q u a l .
Ha : F a c t o r l e v e l m e a n s a r e u n e q u a l .
If
If
F* < F ( . 9 5 ; 1 , 1 0 ) ,
F* > F ( . 9 5 ; I , 1 0 ) ,
t h e - d a t a d o n o t c o n t r a d i c t H0 ..
t h e d a t a c o n t r a d i c t H0 .
F* = MSTR/MSE = 5 5 2 / 7 3
F ( . 9 5 ; 1 , 1 0 ) •= 4 . 9 6
= 7.57-
S i n c e 7 . 5 7 > 4 . 9 6 , F* > F ( . 9 5 ; I , 10)
t h e d a t a c o n t r a d i c t H0 .
and i t
is
concluded t h a t
Th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t F ( . 9 5 ; I , 1 0 ) > F* ( p v a l u e ) i s
. 02.5 a n d . 0 1 , t h e r e f o r e t h e d a t a c o n t r a d i c t H0 .
ANOVA T a b l e ( C a l c i u m C a r b o n a t e C o n t e n t )
d.f.
SS
MS
Source of V a r ia tio n
Between. t r e a t m e n t s
I
823
823
W ithin tre a tm e n ts
9
50 8
56
1331 .
Total
10
F*
14.7
between
p value
. OOKpC. OOS
Hypothesis: Does carbonate content vary with the presence or
absence of a loess Cap?,
"alpha" = 0.05
H0 : Factor level means are equal.
Ha : Factor level means are unequal.
If
If
F* < F ( . 9 5 ; 1 , 9) t h e d a t a d o n o t c o n t r a d i c t H0 .
F* > F ( . 9 5 ; I , 9) t h e d a t a c o n t r a d i c t H0 .
F* = MSTR/MSE = 8 2 3 / 5 6
F ( . 9 5 ; l , 9 ) = 5.12
= 14.7
S i n c e 1 4 . 7 > 5 . 1 2 , F* > F ( . 9 5 ; I , 1 0 )
t h e d a t a c o n t r a d i c t H0 .
and i t
is
concluded t h a t
Th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t F ( . 9 5 ; I , 1 0) > F* ( p v a l u e ) i s
. 0 0 1 a n d . 0 0 5 , t h e r e f o r e t h e d a t a c o n t r a d i c t H0 .
between
125
APPENDIX E
ANALYSIS OF TERRACE SCARPS
126
Table
8.
Profile
Label
8-9,1
8-9,2
8-9,3
8-9,4
8-9,5
8-9,6
8-9,7
8-9,8
8-9,9
8-9,10
8-9,11
8-9,12
me a n
s .d .
8888-
8a
8a
8a
8a
,1
,2
Analysis
Scarp
Offset
(m)
9.5
8 .7
6 .4
6.7
9.2
12.0
15.2
16.8
14.9
18.8
17.8
21.. 3
12.9
4.7
5.7
2.8
,3
,4
8-8a,5
8- 8a , 6
8 - 8 a ,. 7
8- 8a , 8
8 - 8 a ,9
8 - 8 a , 10
8- 8a , II
8 - 8 a , 12
8- 8a , 13
8 - 8 a , 14
me a n
s .d .
4.2
2.5
3.2
7-8,1
7-8,2
7-8,4
7-8,5
7-8,6
7-8,7
7-8,8
7-8,9
7-8,10
7-8,11
7-8,12
2.2
2.3
2.5
0 .8
1.9 .
0 .9
3.3
of
terrace
scarps.
Observed Angle
of Scarp F a c e ■
(d e g r e e s )
t a u kappa^ r 3
34
14
41
32
32
18.0
21.5
14.0
17.6
18.0
15.7
21.9
tc^ t 4
26
22.7
60
23.2
89
19.8
48
16
41
25
34
85
46
47
53
72
54
87
47
2.9
22
22
14.5
7.0
10.7
7.8
24
45
41
24
37
35
25
42
45
54
23
83
19.8
41
45
64
21.8
66
23.4
38
8.2
5.4
4.0
7.0
4.0
5.0
■
46
54
69
31
19 .
36
6
32
2.9
22
2.7
2.7
7.0
5.4
6 .6
6.8
1.2
2.9
52
30
44
39
13
13
42
24
34
31
13
5.I
5.0
6.3
5.4
5.5
5.3
4.4
4.2
8.8
83 ■
78
64
69
2.1
3.8
3.8
4.3
8.4
7.7
7.6
8.1
7.6
10.0
9.3
6 .8
10.8
7.0
100
HO
130
100
120
63
88
87
HO
97
91
88
80
51
39
58
13
84
r2
.98
. 98
. 99
. 97
. 97
.98
.98
.98
.98
. 98
.96
. 95
.96
. 95
.94
. 78
.89
. 90
.89
. 98
.99
.97
.91
. 93
.91
. 89
.98
' . 97
.92
. 94
.91
.89
.83
. 90
.83
. 89
. 97
127
Table
8.
Profile
Label
7-8,13
7-8,14
7-8,15
7-8,16
7-8,17
7-8,18
7-8,19
7-8,20
7-8,21
7-8,22
7-8,23
7-8,24
7-8,25
7-8,26
7-8,27
me a n
s .d .
(continued).
Scarp
Offset
(m)
5.0
3.0
3.7
4.2
3.8
3.1
4.I
4.0
5.3
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.2
4.5
1 .0
120
100
44
56
52
38
8.39.1
7.9
6.9
7.3
7.9
10.5
8.1
10.7
8.9
7.6
9.4
6.6
8.2
1.2
2.1
2.2
16.5
15.7
19.9
18.1
13.7
18.4
13.0
14.7
10.8
2 1 .9
4-7,3
24.7
21.1
4-7,5
4-7,6
4-7,7
mean
s .d .
21.2
5-7,1
5-7,2
5-7,3
5-7,4
5-7,5
5-7,6
5-7,7
5-7,8
5-7,9
5-7,10
me a n
s .d .
22.8
21.6
t c 2 ,4
6.0
22.9
27.1
4-7,2
ta u kappa2'3
7.4
13.9
15.0
15.9
20.7
14.6
14.1
14.1
15.5
4-7,1
4-7,4
Observed Angle
of Scarp Face
(d e g r e e s )
66
41
55
56
71
52
42
40
56
44
96
74
27
523
520
524
598
580
553
626
560
39
42
42
45
35
44
41
55
43
28
37
51
31
74
52
23
456
4 73
3 95
304
2 94
493
477
413
78
. 93
. 94
. 95
. 97
. 95
.89
. 92
.94
. 97
.98
. 98
.98
.88
. 94
. 71
.68
. 42
.85
. 81.
.92
309
456
.83
. 98
12.6
13.5
337
303
.92
8.4
440
460
.97
16.2
10.9
242
239
.99
244
330
340
217
.87
. 74
. 91
.81
15.6
15.6
11.4
11.2
282
349
2.6
2.5
78
90
12.9
436
123
372
9.9
6.8
.
.92
472
320
380
266
343
4-7 + 5- 7
mean
18.6
s .d .
4.3
.97
. 97
480
372
434
11.3
10.6
r2
3.2
92
128
Table 8 .
.
kappa.2
17
25
31
19
6.2
21
2 .1
5.2
8.4
7.3
1.4
6.1
2.2
31
26
26
13
17
24
7
1.5
2.8
mean
s .d .
2.1
7.9
6.4
0.5
1.2
5-6,1
5-6,2
5-6,3
5-6,4
5-6,5
5-6,6
5-6,7
5-6,8
5-6,9
5-6,10
5-6,11
5-6,12
5-6,13
6.2
9.6
6.5
4.6
5.0
3.0
4.4
3.3
5.3
3.8
5.2
13.6
11.0
10.9
7.5
7.8
7.7
9.0
7.7
9.3
3.9
6.9
3.9
7.0
3.8
5.8
72
48
76
38
38
67
46
72
45
63
70
72
96
4.5
8.7
62
1.0
2.0
17
mean
s .d .
i
3
tc^ t 4
15
21
25
13
17
17
23
20
11
15
19
.99
.99
.97
.98
.99
.98
.98
.96
.99
.99
6
62
40
34
35
27
56
32
58
38
61
59
56
66
48
13
.98
.96
.83
.98
.99
.98
. 97
.95
.97
.97
.96
.96
.95
LO
1 .9
1.8
1 .9
7.2
5.2
4.5
5.9
tau
CM
1.9
2.0
Observed Angle
o f Scarp Face
(d e g r e e s )
U
4-5,1
4-5,2
4-5,3
4-5,4
4-5,5
4-5,6
4-5,7
4-5,8
4-5,9
4-5,10
Scarp
O ffset
(m)
CN
P rofile
Label
(c o n t i n u e d ).
129
Table
8.
Profile
Label
8-9,1
8-9,2
8-9,3
8-9,4
8-9,5
8-9,6
8-9,7
8-9,8
8-9,9
8 -9 ,10
8-9,11
8-9,12
me a n
s .d .
(continued).
MIN 6
(IO3 y r s )
30
11
36
16
28
84
31
26
48
48
35
44
36
18
MLE7
(IO3 y rs )
62
24
68
34
58
160
MAX8
(IO3 y r s )
130
53
130
69
15
17
20
19
19
24
25
25
25
26
61
100
220
HO
78
77
36
240
180
230
160
74
100
19
20
120
320
150
140
68
C9
21
3
48
93
59
60
39
61
51
78
98
15
7
HO
11
66
,7
25
36
34
23
36
32
50
, 8
29
49
,9
5
26
8
10
48
41
16
80
8 -8 a , 13
8 - 8 a , 14
me a n
s .d .
30
48
65
24
30
78
7
9
5
5
7
-I
4
-I
36
60
50
19
98
83
32
6
7-8,1
7-8,2
7-8,3
7-8,4
7-8,5
7-8,6
7-8,7.
7-8,8
7-8,9
7-8,10
7-8,11
7-8,12
7-8,13
79
80
140
140
230
230
150
260
430
120
320
300
320
100.
190
180
190
76
83 •
HO
47
140
170
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
290
11
10
11
50
82
130
7
888888888888-
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
8a
,I
,2
,3
,4
,5
,6
, 10
, 11
, 12
10
30
12
HO
HO
43
48
69
27
84
100
81
120
80
130
140
190
84
230
8
5
7
4
9
130
Table
8.
(c o n t i n u e d ).
Profile
Label
7-8,14
7-8,15
7-8,16
7-8,17
7-8,18
7-8,19
7-8,20
7-8,21
7-8,22
7-8,23
7-8,24
7-8,25
MIN 6
(IO8 y r s )
47
48
52
44
70
58
55
56
29
... 5 0
c :
7-8,26
7-8,27
me a n
s .d .
4-7,1
4-7,2
4-7,3
4-7,4
4-7,5
4-7,6
4-7,7
me a n
s .d .
5-7,1
5-7,2
5-7,3
5-7,4
5-7,5
5-7,6
5-7,7
5-7,8 '
5-7,9
5-7,10
me a n
s .d .
4-7 + 5- 7
me a n
s .d .
38
63
48
79
89
30
650
329
MLE7
(IO8 y r s )
88
72
120
8
120
190
170
170
160
9
10
12
10
90
H
150
HO
180
140
10
10
83
98
97
95
51
85
66
HO
82
9
9
150
15 0
49
220
240
81
9
I
1230
637
' 2340
1230
1310
373
1240
1600
1.430
1360
540
504
409
473
321
610
171
30 4
497
545
899
400
141
9
10
10
10
662
124
C9
130
140
150
80
335
79
337
442
395
367
160
393
422
MAX8
(IO8 y r s )
172
647
841
752
706
290
737
875
60 3
1040
340
542
869
895
708
751
189
732
242
23
22
23
25
22
22
22
23
I
1600
1330
19
19
1620
1130
1760
20
20
20
676
969
22
16
1520
1470
128 0
13 40
317
17
17
19
18
1350
422
20
2
3
131
Table
8.
(c o n t i n u e d ).
Profile
Label
MIN 6
(IO3 y r s )
4-5,1
4-5,2
4-5,3
4-5,4
4-5,5
4-5,6
4-5,7
4-5,8
4-5,9
4-5,10
mean
s d
.
16
27
30
20
20
15
26 .
18
11
18
.
5-6,1
5-6,2
5-6,3
5-6,4
5-6,5
5-6,6
5-6,7
5-6,8
5-6,9
5-6,10
5-6,11
5-6,12
5-6,13
me a n
s.d.
MLE7
(IO3 y rs )
33
95
40
37
46
37
73
42
79
56
70
69
69
160
76
62
19
44
26
43
47
32
33
24
43
31
18
31
20
6
88
• MAX'8
(103 yrs)
66
82
62
120
5
4
4
4
5•
3
68
74
51
53
38.
9
74
51
29
52
54
14
8
6
8
290
13
15
3
5
2
140
12
12
. 8
10
8
12
120
150
•
-
C9
100
210
120
71
140
94
230
120
210
HO
HO
140
105
31
190
190
9
9
230
8
10
2
9
160
179
52
■
12
i
CU
W
to
I— I
d e fin e d p aram eters a re : i n i t i a l s lo p e angle = 33°;
angle of m id se ctio n = 33°; n a tu re of a d ja c e n t t r e a d s - both s lo p e a t 0°; ex ten t of basal concavity, c re s ta l
c o n v e x i t y , and m id s e c tio n d eterm in e d f o r each r u n .
C a l c u l a t e d u s i n g . BASIC c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m ' SLO-PEAGE ( N a s h ,
w r i t t e n communication, 1987).
I n v e r s e s o l u t i o n f o r a g e o f A n d r e w s a n d Hanks, ( 1 9 8 5 ) .
" t c " o f Nash (1984) .
E x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e / t o t a l v a r i a n c e ( f o r t c of Nash
(1984) o n l y ) . . .
Mi n i mu m a g e e s t i m a t e o f M a y e r ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
S im p l e a g e e s t i m a t e o f Mayer (1984 ) .
Maximum a g e e s t i m a t e o f M a y e r ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
D i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n s c o r e o f Mayer ( 1 9 8 4 ) .