Basin and Range Structure

JOHN H.
STEWART
U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
Basin and Range Structure: A System of Horsts

and Grabens Produced by Deep-Seated Extension
ABSTRACT
Basin and Range structure can be interpreted as a system of horsts and grabens produced by the fragmentation of a crustal slab
above a plastically extending substratum. According to this view, the extension of the
substratum causes the basal part of the slab
to be pulled apart along narrow, systematically spaced zones which in turn cause the
downdropping of complex horizontal prisms
(grabens) in the brittle upper crust. The
grabens form valleys at the surface; the intervening areas are horsts, or tilted horsts.
Not all geologists have agreed, however,
that Basin and Range structure consists of a
system of horsts and grabens. Instead, the
structure is commonly considered to consist
of tilted blocks in which the upslope part of
an individual block forms a mountain and
the downslope part a valley. Recent detailed
studies, including geophysical work, suggest
that the horst and graben model may be more
generally applicable. Many of the valleys in
the Great Basin are bounded on both sides
by faults that drop the valley block down;
these faults are exposed at the surface or can
be inferred from steep gravity gradients indicative of steep faulted subsurface bedrock
slopes. Some areas that were thought to
represent a typical series of tilted blocks may
be a series of highly asymmetrical grabens in
which one side of a valley is marked by a
master fault and the other side by valleyward
tilt. With present knowledge, most, or perhaps all, of the major valleys in the Great
Basin can plausibly be considered to be
grabens, and most or all of the mountains
can be considered to be horsts or tilted horsts.
The grabens, and the underlying inferred
deep zones of extension that cause them, are
systematically distributed in the Great Basin.
They are generally north-trending features
spaced 15 to 20 mi apart. Locally, the pattern
is more complex, and individual grabens
divide and trend away from each other at
acute or high angles. In a few places, the pattern may even be roughly polygonal. The
distribution pattern of the grabens and the
related deep zones of extension resemble
crack patterns in small-scale tensional systems, and both patterns may be mechanically
related. By analogy with the small-scale systems, the areas of generally north-trending
and parallel grabens require east-west extension, whereas the areas with a possible polygonal pattern of grabens must extend radially.
The geometry of block faulting related to
Basin and Range structure requires sizable
east-west extension, estimated at about 1.5
mi on the average for each major valley and
at about 30 to 60 mi across the entire Great
Basin. Most of this extension has taken place
in the last 17 m.y., or perhaps even in the
last 7 to 11 m.y., indicating a rate of extension in the range of 0.3 to 1.5 cm/yr.
INTRODUCTION
Many theories have been proposed to explain Basin and Range structure; the historical development of these ideas has been summarized by Nolan (1943, p. 178-186) and
more recently by Roberts (1968). Most of
the theories discussed in the last 15 yrs can
be grouped loosely into three main categories: (l) Basin and Range structure is similar
to that produced in landslides and related
either to removal of lateral support or to
sliding off of regional highs (Mackin, 1960a,
1960b, 1969; Moore, I960); (2) Basin and
Range structure is related to strike-slip deformation and, in part at least, to a conjugate
system of strike-slip faults (Shawe, 1965;
Slemmons, 1957); and (3) Basin and Range
structure is related to deep-seated extension
and resulting fragmentation of the overlying
crust (Thompson, 1959, 1966; Hamilton and
Myers, 1966; Cook, 1966; Roberts, 1968;
Hamilton, 1969). This paper considers the
last theory. It relates Basin and Range structure to the fragmentation of the brittle upper
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p. 1019-1044, 13 figs., April 1971

1019
1020
J. STEWARTBASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE
Development of these concepts is depencrust over a plastically extending substratum.

The upper crust can be considered to be a dent on detailed knowledge of the surface
"slab" fragmenting along narrow zones at and subsurface structure of the basins and
its base. A structurally complex horizontal ranges of the Great Basin. During the last 10
prism (graben) is downdropped over each of yrs, new geologic and geophysical data, inthese deep zones of extension, producing cluding geologic maps at a scale of 1:250,000
valleys at the surface. The intervening moun- or larger, and detailed gravity and aeromagnetic surveys, have been published of much
tains are horsts.
UTAHARIZONA
Generalized and slightly modified from Tectonic Map of United

States. U.S. Geol. Survey and The American Association of
Petroleum Geologists. 1961
Figure 1. Index map of Great Basin showing mountains, major Basin and Range faults,
and localities mentioned in text. Mountain areas
are shaded. Hachures indicate downthrown side

of fault. Localities: (A) Dixie Valley, (B) Shoshone Range, and (C) Cortez Mountains.
BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE
of the Great Basin of California, Nevada, and

Utah. These data provide the basis for most
of this article, which starts with a discussion
of the geometry of Basin and Range structures and ends with more general interpretations.
1021
stratum and collapse of the upper crust is

dependent on showing that the horst and
graben type of block faulting is the more important and that tilting is mostly a secondary
feature related to the formation of the horsts
and grabens. If the configuration of basins
and ranges is primarily due to tilting of blocks
along downward-flattening faults, and not to
the formation of horsts and grabens, then
some other theory, or a considerable modification of the present theory, would be
necessary to explain the distribution and
origin of the basins and ranges.

Gilbert (1874, 1875) proposed that the
ranges of the Great Basin (Fig. l) originated
by block faulting, a theory generally accepted
by geologists today. This theory relates ranges
to vertical movements along profound faults
on one or both sides of the mountain block
and has been corroborated by detailed map- Dixie Valley
Dixie Valley, the site of large earthquakes
ping in many parts of the Great Basin. Gilbert, and later geologists, recognized two and surface faulting in 1903 and 1954 (Slemdistinct types of block faulting: (l) tilted mons and others, 1959; Slemmons, 1957;
blocks in which the upslope part of an indi- Romney, 1957; Whitten, 1957; Byerly and
vidual block forms a mountain and the others, 1956; Shawe, 1965), is in western
downslope part a valley (Fig. 2A); (2) down- Nevada, about 75 mi east of Reno (Fig. 3).
dropped blocks (grabens), which form val- It trends north-northeast, is about 30 mi long
leys, and relatively upthrown blocks (horsts and 10 mi wide, and is bounded by the Stillor tilted horsts), which form mountains (Fig.
2B). Most geologists, although they have
recognized that valley blocks were in places
downdropped relative to mountain blocks,
have emphasized tilting as dominant in the
formation of Basin and Range structure
(Gilbert, 1874, 1875, 1928; I. C. Russell,
1884; Louderback, 1904, 1923, 1924, 1926;
Davis, 1903, 1905, 1925; Sharp, 1939;
Osmond, I960). A few geologists have implied that the tilting of blocks is virtually the
only manner in which Basin and Range structure can be formed (Gilluly, 1928; Longwell,
1945; Eardley, 1951, Fig. 281; Moore, I960;
Mackin, 1960b, 1969, Fig. 3; Gilluly and
Masursky, 1965; Gilluly and Gates, 1965).
Other geologists have stressed the horst and
graben concept (R. J. Russell, 1928; Fuller
and Waters, 1929; Cook and Berg, 1961;
Cook and others, 1964; Cook, 1966; Thompson, 1959, 1966; Shawe, 1965, p. 1362).
A discussion of the two types of Basin and
Range structure is presented by describing
the geology of two areas. The first is Dixie
\
Valley, where the horst and graben model fits
well with the observed geology, and the
Figure 2. Tilted block and horst and graben
other is the Shoshone Range and Cortez
Mountains, where the tilted block model models of Basin and Range structure. Upper
(A) is tilted block model (from
agrees with the observed surface geology. A illustration
Moore, I960, Fig. 188.1). Lower illustration
modified horst and graben model also seems (B) is horst and graben model (from Thompto be possible. Development of the idea that son, 1966, Fig. 3). In model B, the underlying
Basin and Range structure is related to deep dike is hypothetical and "e" is horizontal exzones of extension over an expanding sub- tension on one fault.
1022
J. STEWART-BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE
water Range on the west and the Clan Alpine

Mountains on the east. It is of particular
interest not only because of historic faulting
but because detailed information is available
on the surface geology (Page, 1965; Burke,
1967; Willden and Speed, 1968) and on the
subsurface structure from gravity, aeromagnetic, and seismic refraction surveys (Thomp-
son, 1959, 1967; Meister, 1967; Herring,

1967a, 1967b; Smith, 1967).
The Stillwater Range to the west of Dixie
Valley and the Clan Alpine Mountains to the
east consist of complexly folded and faulted
Triassic and Jurassic siltstone, limestone, and
volcanic clastic sediments overlain by Tertiary
rhyolitic to dacitic tuffs, welded tuffs, and
Geology from Page (1965), Webb and Wilson (1962),

Willden and Speed (1968) and Stewart and McKee
(1970). Contours on magnetic basement from
Smith (1967, fie 4)
High-angle fault
Dashed where approximately located;
dotted where concealed. Ball on
downthrown side
Pre-Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks
Figure 3. Generalized geologic map of the

Dixie Valley area with contours on top of
Contours on top of magnetic rocks

Hachures indicate closed basins.
Datum is 1100 meters. Contour
interval 300 meters
magnetic basement rocks.

flows, andesite and basalt flows, and tuffaceous sediments. The Stillwater Range is
bounded on both the east and west by highangle faults with valley side down; the range
is clearly a horst (Page, 1965), and at one
place where the range is only 5 mi wide, the
crest is over 3000 ft above flanking alluvial
fans. Minor normal faulting has sliced the
range into many narrow north-south-trending
blocks, some of which have been tilted. Page
(1965) suggests that many of these minor
blocks were sloughed off by gravity sliding
during or after the uplift of the range. Minor
valleyward faulting on either side of the Clan
Alpine Mountains suggests that it too is a
horst.
The subsurface structure of Dixie Valley
has been clearly defined as a complex asymmetrical graben (Fig. 4) on the basis of
gravity, seismic refraction, and aeromagnetic
studies (Thompson, 1959, 1967; Herring,
1967a, 1967b; Meister, 1967; Smith, 1967).
Steep faults on each side of the valley drop
Tertiary and pre-Tertiary rocks down toward
a narrow trough ("graben-in-graben") centered under the west side of the valley. At its
narrowest, this inner trough is only 5 mi wide
and contains a maximum thickness of 10,500
ft of Cenozoic volcanic and sedimentary
rocks, on the basis of seismic refraction data
(Meister, 1967). The average thickness of
Cenozoic rocks in this inner trough is about
6500 ft, on the basis of aeromagnetic data
Figure 4. Generalized block diagram of bedrock surface of central and northern Dixie
Valley (redrawn from Burke, 1967, Fig. 6).
Alluvium is removed and eroded bedrock is
restored.
1023
(Herring, 1967a, 1967b). To the north, the

width of Dixie Valley and the thickness of
Cenozoic fill decrease because of progressively less displacement along faults (Fig. 4).
Steep faults on the west side of Dixie
Valley dip 55 to 70 E., as determined by
side refraction studies by Herring (I967a).
At a different locality, Meister (1967) measured dips of 35 to 45. (He assumed that
only one fault occurs and noted that if the
fault zone is actually composed of several
steep faults, the dip of individual faults would
be greater.) The faults do not flatten at
depths of about 3000 ft, the attainable limit
of the method. The surface trace of the fault
along the west side of Dixie Valley is irregular and locally curves as much as 90. Meister
(1967, p. 68) found from seismic reflection
studies that these irregularities on the fault
surfaces extend to depths of at least 2500 ft;
thus, large strike-slip movement could not
have occurred on these faults.
In 1954, a series of earthquakes that caused
surface breakage occurred in and near the
Dixie Valley area. The first two were at Rainbow Mountain, directly southwest of the
Stillwater Range, and consisted of shocks
with magnitudes of 6.6 and 6.8. They produced several northerly aligned fault scarps,
with a maximum of about 1.5 ft of dip-slip
displacement. On December 16, a third earthquake (magnitude 7.4) produced an impressive series of scarps near Fairview Peak; 4
min later a fourth earthquake (magnitude
7.1) produced scarps along the west side of
Dixie Valley. First-motion studies and retriangulation in the area both indicate a considerable right-lateral strike-slip component
of fault movement amounting to a maximum
of nearly 10 ft on faults near Fairview Peak.
Such movement is commonly cited as evidence of strike-slip control of Basin and
Range structure (Shawe, 1965), although the
work of Meister (1967, p. 68), indicating
major irregularities on faults on the west side
of Dixie Valley, seems to preclude a large
component of strike-slip movement on at
least some of the faults in the Dixie Valley
area.
Dixie Valley is, therefore, a complex asymmetrical graben downdropped on a complex
series of high-angle faults on both sides of
the valley. The width and subsurface depth
of the valley decreases to the north because
there is progressively less displacement on
the faults in that direction.
1024
Jurassic and Tertiary granitic rocks, and Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks, mostly
The Shoshone Range and Cortez Moun- basaltic andesite flows dipping 5 to 8 SE.
tains are both considered typical Basin and A southeastern tilt of the ranges is suggested
Range tilted blocks (Gilluly and Gates, 1965, by the dip of the Tertiary volcanic rocks and
p. 126-127; Gilluly and Masursky, 1965, p. by the shape of the ranges, which are dis95-97; Muffler, 1964, p. 71-77; Wallace, tinctly asymmetrical with steep northwest
1964, p. 37; Moore> I960, Table 188.1). flanks 2000 to 3000 ft high, with long, gentle
They are composed of highly faulted and southeastern slopes. Important Basin and
folded lower Paleozoic sedimentary and vol- Range high-angle faults bound the northcanic rocks, less deformed upper Paleozoic western sides of both ranges (Fig. 5), but no
and Triassic sedimentary and volcanic rocks, such faulting is evident on the southeastern
Shoshone Range and Cortez Mountains
Geology from Gilluly and Masursky (1965); Gilluly and Gates (1965);
Muffler (1964); Roberts and others (1967, pi. 3); and Stewart and
McKee (1970). Gravity contours after Mabey (1964)
Quaternary alluvium
Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks
High-angle fault
dotted where concealed. Ball on
downthrown side
Tertiary to Jurassic granitic rocks

Gravity contours
Contour intervals 5 milligals
Hachures indicate closed basins
Pre-Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks
Figure 5. Generalized geologic and gravity

map of Shoshone Range and Cortez Mountains
area,
sides, where the mountains are embayed by

long tongues of alluvium. The surface expression of the mountains clearly fits a model
of tilted blocks like that illustrated in Figure
2A.
An alternate model of the Shoshone Range
and Cortez Mountains structure seems equally
likely, however, and is more closely allied
with the inferred structure of Dixie Valley.
Cloos (1968, Figs. 16 and 18, reproduced
here as Figure 6) has produced highly asymmetrical grabens in clay models in which one
side of the structure is bent downward with
synthetic and antithetic faults and the other
side is a master fault dipping toward the
graben. The layers on the downbent side
(left-hand side of the models) have been
rotated about 20. This asymmetrical graben
produced in the clay model experiments has
many of the same structural features as the
Shoshone Range and Cortez Mountains, including a master fault on one side of the
Figure 6. Clay models of highly asymmetrical grabens. Thickness of clay slab about 2.5 to
3 in. Upper illustration (A) is a drawing from
Coney (1969, Fig. 1) based on model of Cloos
(1968, Fig. 16, p. 428). Lower illustration (B)
is a drawing based on model by Cloos (1968,
Fig. 18). Reprinted through the courtesy of
Ernst Cloos (1968) and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin.
1025
valley, and tilting, but no major faulting, on

the other side. The graben structure in the
Shoshone Range and Cortez Mountains area
may be an end member in a series of types
that range from symmetrical to highly asymmetrical.
With available evidence, choosing which
model (tilted block or asymmetrical graben)
is the best to apply to the Shoshone Range
and Cortez Mountains area, is difficult. Gravity data is, however, perhaps more suggestive
of the graben model than the tilted block.
The gravity maps of both Crescent Valley and
Pine Valley show relatively steep gravity gradients on each side of their respective valleys
(this relationship is more evident in Pine
Valley) and low gradients in the central part.
The high gradients may represent steep slopes
on pre-Tertiary rocks, due either to downbending or downfaulting of rocks. The gravity data is thus suggestive of a graben structure with faulting or increased valleyward
slope on either side of a relatively flat (but in
places narrow) central basin.
The amount of Cenozoic fill in Crescent
Valley and Pine Valley is large and perhaps
more easily accounted for by a graben structure than by simple tilting of range blocks.
Estimates of the amount of Cenozoic fill in
Crescent Valley have ranged from 7000 ft
(Mabey, 1964, in Gilluly and Masursky,
1965, p. 108) to 12,000 ft (Donald Plouff, in
Gilluly and Gates, 1965, p. 129). A simple
tilted block model like that shown in Figure
7 would account for only about 4000 to 5000
ft of fill, assuming that the tilt of the range is
5 (the slope of a large cuesta developed on
Tertiary lava flows in the Shoshone Range;
Gilluly and Gates, 1965, p. 127). In Pine
Valley, Cenozoic fill may be about 10,000 ft
(Mabey, 1964) and only about 5000 ft of
this can be accounted for in a simple tilted
block model, assuming, as indicated by Gilluly and Masursky (1965, p. 97), that the
tilt of the range is 5 to 8. Perhaps the tilt
of the ranges has been underestimated; a
higher tilt would account for a greater thickness of Cenozoic fill, but simple tilt seems
inadequate to account for all the Cenozoic
fill indicated by the gravity data. A history
of progressive tilting in the Cortez and Shoshone Mountains, however, could account
for the observed thicknesses of Cenozoic fill
in the valleys. According to this idea, tilting
adequate to account for the deep subsurface
trough could have occurred before the lava
1026
flows capping the ranges were extruded. No

evidence, however, of progressive tilting has
been noted in the Shoshone Range or Cortez
Mountains.
Thus, gravity data is suggestive of a graben
structure below both Crescent Valley and
Pine Valley, although other explanations of
the structure are possible and interpretation
of the gravity data itself is subject to considerable uncertainty. The grabens may be
highly asymmetrical and complex and the
observed tilting of the ranges may be due, in
part at least, to graben formation rather than
to simple tilting of an entire range.
General Characteristics of Basin
and Range Structure
As envisioned here, Basin and Range structure consists of mountain horsts and valley
grabens. Two examples of Basin and Range
structure have been described; both can apparently be explained by the theory. The
problem remaining is to see if the horst and
graben interpretation can be applied more
generally.
B
0
10
20 Miles
Scale
Figure 7. Diagrammatic cross section comparing tilted block (A) and asymmetrical graben (B) models of Shoshone Range and Cortez
Mountains area. Stippled areas indicate Cenozoic valley fill. Small arrows indicate relative
movement on faults. Large opposed arrows
(model B) indicate deep zone of extension.
The following discussion focuses mainly

on the valley structure, the inferred graben.
If Basin and Range structure is related to
deep zones of extension, as proposed originally by Thompson (1959, 1966), then the
graben structures produced by this extension
are the active elements in the system. Also, if
each of the major valleys can be shown to be
a graben, the intervening mountains are obviously horsts.
Table 1 lists areas where geologic and geophysical evidence indicates a valley underlain
by a graben. Evidence of the existence of the
graben consists mostly of maps which show
a valley bounded by faults that drop the
valleyward block down, and gravity maps
that show relatively steep gradients and thus,
by inference, steep subsurface bedrock slopes,
on either side of a valley. In a few places,
other types of evidence also contribute to the
structural interpretation. The table illustrates
that many of the valleys in the Great Basin
can be considered grabens on the basis of
direct geologic and geophysical evidence.
The graben theory of valley formation also
explains some characteristics of Basin and
Range structure that are difficult to explain by
the tilted block theory. The mountains on
either side of a valley, for example, commonly have "matched" shapes; an indentation in a mountain on one side of a valley
corresponds to a promontory on the other
side. The mountains appear to be pieces in a
giant jigsaw puzzle that has been pulled
slightly apart. Thus, the mountain fronts on
either side of the valley commonly have a
similar curving and irregular pattern, and
such a pattern could be related to graben
formation over similarly curving and irregular zones of extension at depth. A further
characteristic more easily explained by the
graben theory is that the gravity trough of
some of the valleys is symmetrical and the
low is at the midline of the valley; the deepest
part of the bedrock floor is thus probably
below the midline of the valley. Such a symmetrical bedrock trough fits better with an
interpretation of a symmetrical graben than
with that of tilted blocks where the deepest
part of the bedrock floor is depicted in most
illustrations as distinctly to one side of the
centerline.
In summary, many of the valleys in the
Great Basin appear to be underlain by a
graben, and such an origin appears to explain
some general characteristics of Basin and
1027
TILTING OF RANGES
Range structure. With present knowledge, it
seems plausible that each of the major valleys
in the Great Basin is a graben.
The horst and graben model of Basin and
Range structure described here applies to the
gross structure of the major valleys and
mountain ranges, but is not intended as a
model of smaller scale block faulting within
mountain masses. These smaller scale structures consist in places of a series of tilted
blocks bounded by high-angle faults, similar
to the model of Basin and Range structure
shown by Moore (i960, Fig. 188.1, shown
here as Fig. 2A). The tilting of these smaller
blocks as well as the tilting of the entire
mountain horst, may be due to rotational
gravity sliding related to the release of lateral
pressure during the development of a graben.
TILTING OF RANGES
The ranges of the Great Basin classically
have been considered to be tilted blocks and,
as Mackin (I960b, p. 110) stated, any theory
of Basin and Range structure must take tilting into account. Does the horst and graben
theory discussed here conflict with the observed tilting ?
The clay model studies of Cloos (1968,
Figs. 16 and 18, reproduced here in Fig. 6)
indicate that tilting goes hand in hand with
the formation of grabens. The upper surface
of the clay model in the upper part of Figure
6 has rotated about 20 (Cloos, 1968, p. 424),
much more than that required in such typical
"tilted blocks" as the Shoshone Range and
Cortez Mountains, where Tertiary volcanic
rocks are tilted 5 to 8 (Gilluly and Gates,
1965, p. 127; Gilluly and Masursky, 1965,
p. 97). A series of tilted slices also occurs in
the lower half of the clay model in Figure 6
(upper illustration), and the analogous structure could be exposed in the Great Basin.
Some of the observed tilting in the Great
Basin, however, could be due to rotational
gravity sliding. Page (1965), for example,
suggested that large tilted blocks bounded
by normal faults slid off the Stillwater Range.
Mackin (I960a, 1960b, and 1969) and Moore
(I960) related tilting to rotation of entire
ranges along downward-flattening faults and
suggested that this structure is analogous to
that in rotational landslides. Moore (in Wallace, 1964, p. 37, and 1969, oral commun.)
suggested that many of the blocks are tilted
toward regional topographic highs and that
they may have been tilted by sliding off these
highs. Mackin (I960a; 1960b, p. 127-128)

suggested that this structure results from the
withdrawal of lateral support due to eruption
of large volumes of volcanic material along
certain belts and slump-creep movement of
segments of the crust toward the "free-side."
Rotational gravity sliding of large blocks
or entire ranges in the manner envisioned by
Mackin and Moore seems to be a likely explanation for some of the tilting in the Great
Basin. The release of lateral pressure, as described by Mackin (1960a, 196ob), could be
related to the development of grabens above
deep zones of extension rather than to the
eruptive process he suggests. Once lateral
pressure has been released, rotational gravity
sliding could develop off regional highs.
A model showing simple rotational tilting
of blocks, similar to that envisioned by
Mackin (I960b and 1969) and Moore (I960),
is diagrammatically compared in Figure 8,
with a model showing complex grabens and
rotational tilting. In both models, valley b is
considered a graben. In model A, valleys a,
c, and e are considered to be simple tilted
blocks, whereas these valleys in model B are
complex asymmetrical grabens. In model A,
valley d is considered a simple rotated block,
whereas in model B it is a complex rotated
block considered to have originally formed
as an asymmetrical graben and later to have
developed into a rotational block. The structures in model A are related primarily to the
release of lateral pressure and are similar to
tilted blocks in landslides. The structures in
model B are related to crustal fragmentation
along narrow deep zones of extension. Model
Plastically
extending
substratum
Figure 8. Diagrammatic cross section comparing tilted block (A) and horst and graben
(B) models of Basin and Range structure. Valley
d shows rotational tilting of the mountain block
in both models. Stippled areas indicate Cenozoic valley fill. Small arrows indicate relative
movement on faults. Large opposed arrows
(model B) indicate deep zones of extension.
TABLE 1.
SELECTED GRABENS IN THE BASIN AND RANGE PROVINCE

Army Map
Service Sheet
Area
Evidence of graben
Source of information*
Surprise Valley,
California and
Nevada
Alturas and Vya
Faults along much of

both sides of valley;
valley block down
Death Valley,
California
Death Valley
Faults along part of both

sides of valley;
valley block down
Faults on both sides of
Walker, 1963; Fuller and
valley; valley block down Waters, 1929
Klamath Falls
Goose Lake,
Klamath Falls,
Oregon
Summer Lake,
Klamath Falls
Oregon
Warner Lake Valley, Adel
Oregon
Guano Valley,
Oregon
Adel
Alvord Lake Valley, Adel

Oregon
Catlow Valley,
Oregon
Adel
McDermitt Valley,
Oregon
Jordan Valley
Long Valley,
Nevada
Vya
Northern part
Winnemucca
Reese River Valley,
Nevada
Boulder Valley,
Nevada
Crescent Valley,
Nevada
Winnemucca
Pine Valley,
Nevada
Winnemucca
Diamond Valley,
Nevada
Winnemucca
Ruby Valley,
Nevada
Elko
Humboldt Sink,
Nevada
Reno and Lovelock
Dixie Valley,
Nevada
Reno
Winnemucca

valley; valley block down
valley block down
valley block down
Faults along both sides of
Gay and Aune, 1958; H. F.

Bonham, 1968, written
commun.; Russell, 1928,
p. 486-487
Hunt and Mabey, 1966,
PI. 1
Walker, 1963; Fuller and

Waters, 1929
Walker and Repenning,
1965; Fuller and Waters,
1929; Russell, 1884
1929; Russell, 1884
1929; Russell, 1884
Faults along both sides of Walker and Repenning,
southern part of valley;
valley block down
1929
Faults along part of both Walker and Repenning,
sides of valley;
valley block down
1929
Faults along part of both H. F. Bonham, 1968,
sides of valley;
written commun.
valley block down
Steep gravity gradients on Erwin, 1967
both sides of valley indicate
faults dropping valley
block down
Faults along both sides of Stewart and McKee, 1970
Steep gravity gradients
Donald Plouff, Fig. 40, in
indicate faults on both
Gilluly and Gates, 1965
sides of valley dropping
valley block down
Mabey, 1964
valley block down
Mabey, 1964
valley block down
Gibbs and others, 1968
valley block down
Wah!, 1965
valley block down
Faults along both sides of Thompson, 1967; Meister,
valley; valley block down. 1967; Herring, 1967a;
Seismic refraction, aeroSmith, 1967; Burke, 1967
magnetic, gravity, and
surface mapping indicate
"graben-in-graben"
structure
TABLE 1.
Army Map
Service Sheet
Area
Smith Creek Valley, Millet
Nevada
Big Smoky Valley
(near Kingston
Canyon), Nevada
Millet
Steptoe Valley,
Nevada
Ely
lone Valley, Nevada Tonopah

Big Smoky Valley
(near Manhattan),
Nevada
Little Fish Lake
Valley, Nevada
Tonopah
(Continued)
Evidence of graben
Source of Information*
Faults along part of both

sides of valley;
valley block down
Faults on west side of
valley have valley side
down. Steep gravity
gradient on east side
indicates fault with valley
side down
valley block down
Quaternary faults on both
sides of valley;
valley block down
Stewart and McKee, 1970;

Herring, 1967b, Fig. 1

valley; valley block down.
valley block down
Lund
Railroad Valley,
Nevada
valley block down
Yucca Flat, Nevada Goldfield and Death Valley Steep gravity gradients
valley block down
Kawich Valley,
Goldfield
Nevada
valley block down
Brigham City
Junction Valley,
Utah
valley block down
Lucin graben
Brigham City
valley block down
Pilot Valley, Utah
Brigham City and Tooele Steep gravity gradients
valley block down
West Newfoundland Brigham City
graben, Utah
valley block down
East Newfoundland Brigham City and Tooele Steep gravity gradients
graben, Utah
valley block down
Ogden
Wasatch trench,
Seismic refraction profiles
Utah
and surface mapping
indicate valley block down
Wendover graben, Tooele
Steep gravity gradient
Utah
indicates faults on both
valley block down
Tonopah
Kleinhampl and Ziony,

1967; Stewart and McKee,
1970; D. L. Healey, 1967,
written commun.
Carlson and Mabey, 1963

1967
1967
1967; D. L. Healey, 1967,
written commun.
D. L. Healey, 1967,
written commun.; Osmond,
I960, Fig. 2
Healey and Miller, 1962
Healey and Miller, 1962
Cook and others, 1964, PI.

1, and Fig. 2
1, and Fig. 8
1, and Fig. 7
1, and Fig. 5
1, and Fig. 5
Cook, 1966, Fig. 9
1, and Fig. 6
1030
TABLE 1.
Army Map
Service Sheet
Area
Jordan Valley, Utah Salt Lake City
Utah Valley, Utah
Salt Lake City
Tintic Valley, Utah
Delta
Juab Valley, Utah
Price
Upper Raft River

Valley, Idaho
Pocatello
Curlew Valley,
Idaho
Pocatello
(Continued)
Evidence of graben
Steep gravity gradient

indicates faults on both
valley block down
valley block down
valley block down
valley block down
valley block down
valley block down
Source of Information*
Cook and Berg, 1961, PI. 13,
and p. 79-80
13, and p. 81-82
Mabey and Morris, 1967;
Cook and Berg, 1961, PI.
13 and p. 85
Cook and Berg, 1961, PI. 13,
and p. 82
1, and Fig. 3
1, and Fig. 4
*Graben interpretation not necessarily that of authors indicated.
B seems to best fit much of the information

about the deep structure in the valleys of the
Great Basin and, as will be discussed later,
leads to the conclusion that fragmentation
took place along rather uniformly spaced
deep zones of extension analogous in some
respects to tension cracks in small-scale tensional systems.
DISTRIBUTION OF GRABENS
IN THE GREAT BASIN
Figures 9 and 10 show the distribution of
known and inferred major grabens in the
Great Basin. Each line is the inferred structurally lowest part of a graben. Relatively
small-scale grabens which have been recognized within mountain masses in a few areas
are not shown on this figure.
The position of the major grabens was
determined from detailed gravity surveys
where the results of such surveys, which
cover about a third of the Great Basin, are
available. Large negative anomalies extend
along the trend of most of the valleys in the
Great Basin, and a line along the axis of the
gravity trough, as illustrated in Figure 11,
should approximate the position of the structurally lowest part of the inferred graben.
Such a structural interpretation is correct provided that most of the gravity low is produced by downdropped blocks of low-density
Tertiary rocks and by thick deposits of lowdensity alluvial fill in topographic and structural depressions above the grabens. The
gravity anomalies associated with some of the
valleys consist of a series of aligned gravity
basins and intervening saddles, rather than a
well-defined trough. Gravity values in both
the basins and saddles, however, are significantly lower than that of adjacent mountains,
and such valleys can be considered as complex grabens with local deep sags.
Outside of the areas of detailed gravity
surveys, grabens can be inferred to underlie
major valleys, and the midline of the valley
can be inferred to be near the position of the
structurally lowest part of the underlying
graben. In parts of the Great Basin, such as
in the region near Winnemucca (A in Fig. 9)
in northwestern Nevada and near Dugway
Valley (B in Fig. 9) in west-central Utah, the
mountain ranges are isolated, irregular, circular or elliptical masses, surrounded by alluvium. The shape and spacing of these mountains might be partially due to erosion which
destroyed more typical elongate ranges, but
DISTRIBUTION OF GRABENS IN THE GREAT BASIN
1031
Structuralty lowest part ot a graben or the

mldline of a graben, based on gravity
surveys Dotted where uncertain
Structurally lowest part of a graben or the

midline of a graben, inferred from
topography. Corresponds approximately
with fnidline of a valley
Asymmetrical graben. Arrows point

away from side with master fault
Figure 9. Distribution and symmetry of grabens in Great Basin. (A) Winnemucca region,
north-central Nevada; (B) Dugway Valley region, west-central Utah.
I favor the view that much of this pattern

results from a complex structure setting that
has broken the crust into irregularly shaped
and, in part, equidimensional blocks separated by structural sags. A structural, rather
than an erosional, interpretation of the shape
and distribution of these isolated ranges is

favored because faulting clearly seems to be
responsible for the distribution of mountains
of similar relief, but of more typical Basin
and Range shape, elsewhere in the Great
Basin. If the structural interpretation is ac-
1032
Figure 10. Sources of information used in

Figure 9. (1) Chapman and Bishop, 1968; (2)
Cook and others, 1964; (3) Gimlett, 1967; (4)
Thompson and Sandberg, 1958; (5) Wahl,
1965; (6) Erwin, 1967; (7) Mabey, 1964; (8)
Gibbs and others, 1968; (9) Mabey and Morris,
1967; (10) Cook and Berg, 1961; (11) Pakiser
and others, I960; (12) D. L. Peterson, 1968,
written commun.; (13) Erwin, 1968; (14) D.
L. Healey, 1967, written commun.; (15) Carlson and Mabey, 1963; (16) Petersen, 1966;
(17) Pakiser and others, 1964; (18) Mabey,
1963; (19) Healey and Miller, 1962; and (20)
Kane and Carlson, 1964.
cepted, the distribution of sags, or grabens,

between the mountains may be roughly
polygonal.
More detailed gravity surveys, particularly
in areas of seemingly unusual Basin and
Range structure, are needed for the accurate
location of grabens; nonetheless, if most or
all of the major valleys in the Great Basin are
grabens, as I proposed earlier, then the distribution shown on Figure 9 must be approximately correct. Less certainly known, however, is the structure where two grabens
converge and join. On this figure, the lines
showing the inferred structurally lowest part
of a graben are generally shown as intersecting at a high angle. As discussed later (see
"Similarity of the Great Basin graben system
to small-scale tensional cracks"), high-angle
(orthogonal) intersections might be expected
in Basin and Range structure, although in
most places the nature of the intersection
cannot be determined from present gravity

or geologic information.
The distribution of grabens in the central
part of the Great Basin is fairly systematic.
They are generally spaced 15 to 20 mi apart
and are aligned north-south. Locally, the
graben pattern is more complex, and individual grabens divide and trend away from
each other at acute or high angles and, as
mentioned above, the pattern may even be
polygonal in places.
In a belt about 50 to 100 mi wide along the
western border of the Great Basin in eastern
California and western Nevada, major grabens are widely spaced and many trend northwest, in contrast to the general north-south
trend elsewhere. The uniqueness of this area
was first pointed out by Gianella and Callaghan (1934, p. 21), who noted that the
ranges in this western border area of the
Great Basin have a general northwest trend,
in contrast to the general north or northnortheast trend of the ranges in its central
part. The topographic lineament between the
two areas was called "Walker Lane" by Locke
and others (1940) who, along with Gianella
and Callaghan (1934), suggested that the
lineament might be the physiographic expression of a structural line characterized by
right-lateral displacement. Recent work
(Longwell, I960; Nielsen, 1965; Albers, 1967;
Stewart, 1967; Stewart and others, 1968) has
outlined evidence of right-lateral displacement along several fault zones in the western
part of the Great Basin, and Albers (1967)
has outlined evidence that a sizable amount
of right-lateral offset has occurred in this
region by a pervasive right-lateral drag (oroflexural bending), in addition to offset along
the faults themselves. The different graben
pattern in the western part of the Great Basin
seems to be due to the interaction of the
right-lateral strain and the more general eastwest extension that has led to the development of Basin and Range structure elsewhere.
The spacing and distribution of grabens in
the Great Basin are not entirely uniform, even
in areas outside of the Walker Lane, These
local irregularities may result from slightly
different stresses, or the same stresses producing different results because of buttressing
effects, volcanism, different time-sequences
of stress application, or other factors. These
less typical or modified stress fields probably
are most important along the margins of the
116-00'
40'30'
39-30'
EXPLANATION
.
200
Gravity contour
Contour interval 5 milligals
Figure 11. Gravity data, distribution of

mountains, and inferred position of structurally
lowest part of grabens in Eureka County, northcentral Nevada (gravity data/row/ Mabey, 1964).
1034
province, where the effects of tectonism in

adjoining areas are felt.
Range south of Austin, and the Ruby Range

are such ridge-like mountains.
DEEP ZONES OF EXTENSION

SYMMETRY OF GRABENS
Grabens in clay model studies can be proThe symmetry of the grabens in the Great
Basin is shown on Figure 9 by arrows that duced by a pulling apart of material at depth
point away from the steep, highly faulted and downdropping of the overlying blocks
side of a graben, toward the gently sloping, and slices along steeply dipping and conless faulted side. Such a symbol was adopted verging faults. Several slightly different methbecause it suggests a slope; perhaps the ods were used by Hans Cloos (1936) and
asymmetry of the grabens is related to a slope Ernst Cloos (1968, Figs. 12-18; also, in
in the crustal slab. The part of the graben on Badgley, 1965, Figs. 4-17 and 5-17) to prothe upslope side of the crustal slab might be duce grabens in clay, but the simplest is to
expected to be defined by a more conspicu- place one side of a clay slab directly on a
ous fault than that part on the downslope table and the other side on a sheet of metal.
side. Thus, the arrow points in the inferred When the sheet of metal is pulled to one side,
the part of the clay slab resting on it is also
slope direction of the crustal slab.
The symmetry of grabens was determined pulled aside and a wedge-shaped graben
from both gravity and geologic data. Asym- forms. The area of extension at the bottom of
metrical grabens are shown where (l) a grav- the slab is small in relation to the surface
ity trough is distinctly on one side of a valley width of the graben. A similar narrow basal
(as in Crescent Valley and Pine Valley, Fig. zone of extension also can be seen in the clay
5), and (2) the mountains on one side of a models of highly asymmetrical grabens (Fig.
valley have a steep valleyward front and/or a 6)master range-front fault that drops the valley
The relationship of grabens to deep zones
block down, and the mountains on the other of extension can be shown in another type of
side of the valley are tilted and slope gently model (Fig. 12). In this model, a piece of
toward the valley. In a few areas, an asym- tissue paper was cut into segments along
metrical graben is shown where the character lines that had a pattern similar to the axial
of faulting and tilting is consistent with such traces of some of the grabens shown on
an interpretation, even though gravity data Figure 9. The segmented pieces of tissue
suggest a symmetrical or nearly symmetrical paper were then laid on a one-eighth-in. sheet
graben.
of rubber, and a 2-inch.-thick, 13.5 by 16-in.
Over half the grabens in the Great Basin rectangle of dry mortar was shaped on top of
show no conspicuous asymmetry. Of those it. The rubber was assembled so that it could
that are asymmetrical, 2.5 times as many are be stretched in one direction using hydraulic
asymmetrical toward the east (the trough is jacks. After stretching, the dry mortar slab
on the east side of the valley, and the arrows had dimensions of 13.5 by 17.5 in. (a 10.7
on Figure 9 point west) as toward the west. percent extension), and a series of prismIn Utah, all but two of the grabens shown as shaped grabens had developed directly over
asymmetrical are asymmetrical toward the the cuts in the tissue paper. In this model,
east. In Nevada, however, the direction of the cuts in the tissue paper correspond to the
asymmetry is less consistent, although groups deep zones of extension.
of grabens within certain parts of Nevada
Grabens in model studies can thus be recommonly have the same direction of asym- lated to a pulling apart of material along
metry. For example, in the southern part of narrow zones of extension at depth and downcentral Nevada, four side-by-side grabens are dropping of an overlying wedge of material.
all asymmetrical toward the west, whereas in The grabens of the Great Basin probably
the northern part of central Nevada a series formed in a similar way, as has already been
of grabens are all asymmetrical toward the suggested by Thompson (1959, 1966). The
east. Where the steep sides of two adjacent deep zones of extension should, if the analogy
grabens are toward each other, both flanks to small-scale models is correct, be located
of the intervening mountain should be steep approximately below the structurally lowest
and characterized by conspicuous master part of the grabens. Thus, Figure 9, which
faults. The Stillwater Range, the Toiyabe shows the position of the structurally lowest
DEEP ZONES OF EXTENSION
1035
sect at a depth of less than 9.5 mi (15 km);

Thompson (1967, p. 9) suggested that the
outer bounding faults of Dixie Valley should
intersect at about 11 mi (17 km). Thus, if the
analogy to clay models is correct, a slab
about 9 to 11 mi thick is being pulled apart,
forming grabens.
Figure 12. Dry mortar models of systems of

horsts and grabens. See text for explanation of
methods used in making models. Scale is in
inches.
part of the grabens, is also a distribution map

of the deep zones of extension.
The depth at which the converging faults
on the sides of a graben intersect is the depth
of the deep zones of extension, if the analogy
to small-scale models is correct. The bounding faults of Basin and Range structure dip
40 to 80 basin-ward, according to Gilluly
(1928). Thompson (1967, p. 9) and Hamilton
and Myers (1966, p. 527) have used 60 as an
average figure of the dip of bounding faults.
The average width of the valleys in the Great
Basin may be about 10 mi, in which case the
bounding faults would intersect at a depth of
about 9 mi (14 km). Hamilton and Myers
(1966, p. 527) came to about the same conclusion, noting that the faults should inter-
AMOUNT OF EXTENSION
The importance of regional extension in
the formation of Basin and Range structure
has been emphasized by Carey (1958), Thompson (1959,1966), Hamilton and Myers (1966,
p. 527-528), and Wright and Troxel (1968).
A fault that dips 60, which is perhaps an
average figure for the faults bounding many
of the ranges in the Great Basin, requires 1
mi of lateral extension for each 2 mi of dip
slip. From the number of major faults along
the 40th Parallel across the Great Basin, and
an estimate of the average displacement on
these faults, Hamilton and Myers estimated
that the total extension amounted to 30 to
60 mi (50 to 100 km) in the late Tertiary.
Thompson (1959) estimated 1.5 mi of extension across Dixie Valley to account for
the observed structure and, using that area as
a sample of the Great Basin, suggested a total
extension of about 30 mi (48 km).
A similar figure can be obtained for the
total extension across the Great Basin by
using the "graben rule" devised by Hansen
(1965, p. A4l) for grabens developed by
translatory slides during the Alaskan earthquake of 1964. This rule relates the lateral
displacement producing the graben, 1, to the
cross sectional area of the surface trough of
the graben, A, and the depth of failure, D, by
the following formula:
1 = A_
D
This relationship follows because the cross
sectional area of the surface trough of the
graben approximates the cross sectional area
voided behind the block as the block moves
outward. An average area of a graben trough
in the Great Basin, including that buried
under alluvium, may be about 15 sq mi (a
trapezohedron averaging 10 mi across and
1.5 mi high), and the depth of failure (the
depth of the deep zones of extension), as
described above, may be about 10 mi. If these
figures are correct, the "graben rule" indicates that an average Great Basin graben re-
1036
quires 1.5 mi of extension. About 30 such most Basin and Range structure in central
grabens occur across the width of the Great Nevada is also late Cenozoic in age and
Basin at the 40th Parallel, thus indicating probably younger than 17 m.y.
Much of the Basin and Range structure in
about 45 mi of total extension.
the Great Basin may therefore have formed
in 17 m.y. or less. This date and a total exTIME AND RATE OF EXTENSION
tension of 50 to 100 km across the entire
Most of the extension related to forming Great Basin (see section on amount of extenBasin and Range structure has occurred in sion), give a rate of extension of about 0.3
the late Cenozoic, starting no more than 17 to 0.6 cm/yr across the region. If most of the
m.y. ago and culminating in the last 7 to 11 movement has occurred in the last 7 to 11
m.y. Dating is based primarily on the rela- m.y., as suggested by Ekren and others
tionship of Basin and Range faulting to (1968), the rate of extension would be on
radiometrically dated silicic ash-flow sheets the order of 0.5 to 1.5 cm/yr.
that cover large parts of central and southern
SIMILARITY OF THE GREAT BASIN
Nevada and adjacent parts of Utah.
Ekren and others (1968) have concluded GRABEN SYSTEM TO
that north-trending faults related to the pres- SMALL-SCALE TENSIONAL CRACKS
ent north-trending basins and ranges began
As envisioned here, Basin and Range structo form between 14 and 17 m.y. ago in ture is produced by fragmentation of a crustal
southern Nevada. They noted two systems slab above a plastically extending substratum.
of faults in the area: an older one of both The pattern and spacing of the zones of exnortheast- and northwest-striking faults, and tension may be related in some respects to
a younger system of north-striking faults, the the mechanisms that control the pattern and
latter being related to Basin and Range struc- spacing of cracks in small-scale tensional
ture. The older set occurs in rocks as young systems. In both systems, widespread tensile
as 17 m.y., but not in 14 m.y. old rocks, stress is relieved by failure and pulling apart
which are cut only by the younger set. Rhyo- of material along narrow zones. In the Basin
lite, intruded into the younger north-trending and Range province, this pulling apart occurs
faults and truncating the older set, can also along deep zones of extension and results in
be dated as 14 to 17 m.y. old. Ekren and graben formation; in small-scale tensional
others (1968) also noted that an 11 m.y. old features it results in vertical cracks.
tuff, which must have been deposited on a
Although the mechanisms that control the
fairly flat surface, occurs high on mountains, pattern and spacing of the zones of failure in
in places over 4000 ft above valleys. A 7 m.y. the crustal slab and in the small-scale tenold tuff, on the other hand, seems to have sional systems may be similar, the manner of
been extruded into an area with a topographic failure along these zones is different in the
grain similar to that of today. They con- two cases. In the crustal slab, extension occluded, therefore, that although Basin and curs along narrow zones at the base of the
Range structure started to form from 14 to slab, and failure of the overlying material
17 m.y. ago in the southern Great Basin, occurs along normal faults. These normal
most of the structural movement has occur- faults are shears with a vertical axis of maxired in the last 11 m.y.
mum principal stress (maintained by gravity)
Volcanic rocks 17 to 34 m.y. old are ex- and a horizontal axis of least principal stress
tensively faulted in much of central Nevada perpendicular to the strike of the normal
(Kleinhampl and Ziony, 1967; Anderson and fault. In small-scale tensional systems, failure
Ekren, 1968; Stewart and McKee, 1970). is along vertical cracks. In spite of these
Most of these volcanic units are sheet-like different details of failure, both systems fail
ash-flow tuffs, and individual units commonly along narrow zones and the failure is the
occur in several ranges and at many different result of widespread tensile stress. Study of
elevations along the flanks and tops of indi- the characteristics of small-scale tensional
vidual ranges. As these units formed as crack systems, therefore, may provide insight
highly mobile ash flows which tend to fill into what controls the pattern and spacing of
troughs much like water, their position high the zones of extension in the crustal slab.
on mountains and at diverse structural levels
The pattern of failure in small-scale tencan only be explained by faulting. Thus, sional systems depends on the stress distribu-
GREAT BASIN SYSTEM AND TENSIONAL CRACKS
tion. In a system in which the stress is virtually radial, a roughly polygonal pattern forms
(Fig. 13), such as in mud cracks and in contraction cracks in permafrost (Lachenbruch,
1961, 1962, 1966). Polygonal patterns also
were seen in ground cracks related to the
Alaskan earthquake of 1964 where a surface
layer was under stress due to dilation of the
underlying material (McCulloch and Bonilla,
1967, p. 98-99, and Fig. 96). The size of the
polygons within a particular stress field tends,
to be similar, and the cracks join at right
angles (orthogonal intersections of Lachenbruch, 1962).
In a system in which the stress is virtually
unidirectional, the cracks formed are evenly
spaced, generally parallel, and straight and
gently curved (Fig. 13). Crack intersections,
although sparse in this sytem, are also orthogonal. This system of generally parallel cracks
was seen in ground cracks produced by the
Alaskan earthquake where brittle failure of a
surface layer occurred in response to stress
created by the downslope displacement of
more plastic underlying sediment (McCulloch and Bonilla, 1967, p. 98-99 and Fig. 96).
The straight and slightly curved inferred
deep zones of extension (similar to the pattern of graben axes shown in Figure 9),
typical of Basin and Range structure in the
Great Basin, correspond to small-scale tension cracks produced by unidirectional movement. Locally, in the Great Basin, roughly
polygonal patterns appear to occur, perhaps
as a response to radial movements. In these
Figure 13. Crack

patterns of typical
small-scale tensional
systems. Upper illustration (A) shows
cracks developed by
radial dilation. Lower
illustration (B) shows
cracks developed by
east-west extension.
1037
areas, the mountains are irregular, circular, or

elliptical masses surrounded by alluvium.
Alternately, these irregular, circular, or elliptical mountains could be related to a change
in the direction of extension with time or to
the buttressing effect of plutons or rigid
blocks, factors that would complicate a simple
pattern related to east-west extension.
A characteristic of both Basin and Range
structure and of small-scale tensional features
is an even spacing of zones of failure. In the
Great Basin, the deep zones of extension are
spaced generally 15 to 20 mi apart. In smallscale tensional features, the spacing ofcracks
is similar throughout a particular system
(Fig. 13). As discussed by Lachenbruch (1961,
1962, 1966, p. 67-68), this even spacing is
related to a zone of stress relief near a crack
that inhibits the formation of another crack
close by. Outward from the crack the stress
increases, and at some distance away from it
the stress is large enough to exceed a certain
threshold value of failure and a new crack
forms. Thus, a crack tends to occur at a
specific distance from another, and have a
uniform spacing.
The uniform spacing of the zones of extension in the Great Basin may be related to
stress relief associated with each zone, in a
manner similar to that described for smallscale tensional features. The nature of stress
relief, however, may be different in the two
systems because, as Hubbert (1951) and
Lachenbruch (1961, p. 4286) have discussed,
tensional failure similar to that in the smallscale systems can occur only within about
1000 ft of the surface, unless the rock is subjected to high fluid pressures.
If the concept of stress relief adjacent to
each of the zones of extension is valid in the
Great Basin, then intersections of these zones
should be orthogonal. Lachenbruch (1961,
1962, 1966, p. 68) has described the mechanism that produces orthogonal intersections
of small-scale tensional cracks and relates it
to an anisotropy of tensional stress in the
zone of stress relief. Tensional stress is least
in the direction perpendicular to the crack,
greatest in the direction parallel to the crack.
A second crack entering the field of stress
release of the first would, as stated by Lachenbruch (1966, p. 68) " . . . tend to alter its
path in such a way that it trended perpendicular to the greatest tension, hence, would
tend to intersect the first crack at right angles.''
Field evidence that intersections of the zones
1038
of extension are orthogonal is equivocal;

locally, this type of intersection is suggested
by a high-angle intersection of converging
gravity anomalies under valleys, but in most
places the nature of the intersection cannot
be determined exactly from present information.
RELATIONSHIP OF BASIN AND
RANGE STRUCTURE TO PLATE
TECTONICS
One of the first attempts to relate Basin and
Range structure to large oceanic and continental crustal features was by Menard (1964).
He suggested that Basin and Range structure
was related to convection currents and lateral
spreading on the flanks of the East Pacific
Rise which he, among others, suggested extended in to the Basin and Range province.
In support of this view, the crustal structure
of the Basin and Range province is different
from that of other parts of the conterminous
United States and similar to that of the East
Pacific Rise. Both have thin crust, low uppermantle velocities, and high heat flow
(Menard, 1964; Pakiser and Zietz, 1965;
James and Steinhart, 1966; Hill and Pakiser,
1966; Pakiser and Robinson, 1966; Woollard, 1966; Lee and Uyeda, 1965; Blackwell,
1967). In addition, Menard (1964) has pointed
out that ridges and troughs analogous to the
basins and ranges also occur on the ocean
bottom on the flanks of the East Pacific Rise.
More recent interpretations, however, suggest that the East Pacific Rise extends into
the Gulf of California, where it is offset along
many transform faults, and finally along the
San Andreas fault, and does not reappear
again until off the northern coast of California (Morgan, 1968; Menard, 1969, p. 134).
According to these interpretations, the Basin
and Range province lies entirely within the
North American plate and not along the extension of the East Pacific Rise.
More recent ideas relate Basin and Range
structure to oblique tensional fragmentation
within a broad belt of right-lateral movement
along the west side of the North American
crustal plate. This theory is based on concepts developed by Carey (1958), Wise (1963),
and Hamilton and Myers (1966), and has
been put in terms of plate tectonics theory by
Atwater (1970). According to this view,
western North America is within a broad belt
of right lateral movement related to differential motion between the North American
and Pacific plates. Some of the right lateral

movement is taken up on the San Andreas
and related faults. The movement is also
thought to produce distributed extension and
tensional crustal fragmentation (including
basin and range structure) along trends oriented obliquely to the trend of the San Andreas
fault.
Evidence supporting a relationship between
Basin and Range structure and oceanic structures has been described by Christiansen and
Lipman (1970) and Lipman, Prostka, and
Christiansen (1970). They have indicated
that the initiation of extension faulting in the
western United States corresponds with a
change in the dominant type of volcanism
from largely an intermediate-composition
calc-alkaline to alkali-calcic suite to a bimodal basalt-rhyolite suite. They suggest
that this change coincides with the intersection of North America with the East Pacific
Rise (McKenzie and Morgan, 1969; Atwater,
1970) which apparently is the time of the
initiation of transform faulting and right
lateral movement in the western United States.
CONCLUSIONS
The interpretation of Basin and Range
structure presented here emphasizes a complex basin structure consisting of many downdropped slices and small blocks ("graben-ingraben" structure). This type of structure
seems to be in accord with what is known
from geophysical studies of subsurface bedrock configuration and is similar to structures
produced in some small-scale clay models of
grabens. The data permit the interpretation
that the grabens underlying valleys are complex collapse zones over narrow zones of
extension at depth and that these zones of
extension are related to fragmentation of a
crustal slab above a plastically extended substratum. The zones of extension are generally
systematically spaced about 15 to 20 mi apart
and have a regional pattern similar to crack
patterns in small-scale tensional systems. Extension across individual grabens may average about 1.5 mi, and the total extension
across the Great Basin may be 30 to 60 mi.
The rate of extension is probably in the range
of 0.3 to 1.5 cm/yr over the last 17 m.y.
or less.
In most parts of the Great Basin, the
north-south trend of the zone of extension
indicates an east-west pulling apart of the
crust. A more complex pattern of failure,
REFERENCES CITED
polygonal pattern of fracturing is suggested
by the distribution of mountains and valleys.
These areas, if analogous to polygonal cracking in small-scale features, would require a
local radial spreading. In the western part of
the Great Basin, the grabens commonly trend
northwest and are more widely spaced and
less systematically distributed than elsewhere
in the Great Basin. This pattern seems to be
due to the interaction of right-lateral displacement and the more general east-west
extension.
As envisioned here, considerable variety of
movement is possible in the plastically deforming layer oelow the brittle upper crust.
The dominant east-west extension could have
been interrupted at times by local radial
spreading and at other times by strike-slip
displacement. Such a variety of movement
could account for the local complexity of
Basin and Range structure such as the complex system of faults noted by Donath (1962)
in south-central Oregon and interpreted by
him to indicate original strike-slip movement
followed by dip-slip movement, and by Pease
(1969) in northeastern California and interpreted by him as due to deep-seated shear
related to the Walker Lane. Strike-slip movement along historic faults in Nevada (Slemmons, 1957, 1967; Whitten, 1957; Shawe,
1965) can be considered either as a shortterm interruption, or as a permanent change
from the dominant east-west extension.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ideas presented here have benefited
from discussions with many geologists, including D. S. McCulloch, J. G. Moore, R.
W. Kopf, and J. I. Ziony of the U.S. Geological Survey, and from thoughtful comments and reviews of the manuscript by G.
A. Thompson of Stanford University and
A. H. Lachenbruch, D. R. Shawe, and G. W.
Walker of the U.S. Geological Survey.
REFERENCES CITED
Albers, J. P. Belt of sigmoidal bending and
right-lateral faulting in the western Great
Basin: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 78,
p. 143-156, 1967.
Anderson, R. E.; and Ekren, E. B. Widespread Miocene igneous rocks of intermediate composition, southern Nye
County, Nevada: In Nevada test site (E. B.
Eckel, ed.), Geol. Soc. Amer., Mem. 110,
p. 57-63, 1968.
1039
Atwater, Tanya. Implications of plate tectonics for the Cenozoic tectonic evolution
of western North America: Geol. Soc.
Amer., Bull., Vol. 81, p. 3513-3536, 1970.
Badgley, P. C. Structural and tectonic principles: Harper and Row, 521 p., New York,
1965.
Blackwell, D. D. Heat flow determinations
and crustal structure in the northwestern
United States [abstr.]: Amer. Geophys.
Union, Trans., Vol. 48, p. 209-210, 1967.
Burke, D. B. Aerial photograph survey of
Dixie Valley, Nevada: in Geophysical study
of Dixie Valley region, Nevada (G. A.
Thompson; and others), U.S. Air Force,
Cambridge Res. Labs., Final Sci. Rep.
AFCRL-66-848, Part IV, 36 p., 1967.
Byerly, Perry; and others. The Fallon-Stillwater (Nev.) earthquakes of July 6, 1954,
and August 23, 1954: Seismol. Soc. Amer.,
Bull., Vol. 46, p. 1-40, 1956.
Carey, S. W. The tectonic approach to continental drift: in Continental drift, a symposium (S. W. Carey, ed.), Tasmania
Univ., Geol. Dept., p. 177-355, Hobart,
Tasmania, 1958.
Carlson, J. E.; and Mabey, D. R. Gravity and
aeromagnetic maps ot the Ely area, White
Pine County, Nevada: U.S. Geol. Surv.,
Geophys. Inv. Map GP-392, 1963.
Chapman, R. H.; and Bishop, C. C. Bouguer
gravity map of California, Alturas sheet,
Alturas gravity: Calif., Div. Mines Geol.,
1968.
Christiansen, R. L.; and Lipman, P. W.
Cenozoic volcanism and tectonism in the
western United States and adjacent part of
the spreading ocean floor. Part 2, Late
Cenozoic [abstr.]: Geol. Soc. Amer., Abstr.
1970 (Cordilleran Sect.), p. 81-82, 1970.
Cloos, Ernst. Experimental analysis of Gulf
Coast fracture patterns: Amer. Ass. Petrol.
Geol., Bull., Vol. 52, p. 420-444, 1968.
Cloos, Hans. Einfiihrung in die Geologie; Bin
Lehrbuch der innon Dynamik: Gabriider
Borntraeger, 503 p., Berlin, 1936.
Coney, P. J. Gravitational tensional faulting
and tectonic denudation: discussion: Amer.
Ass. Petrol. Geol., Vol. 53, No. 2, p. 433435, 1969.
Cook, K. L. Rift system in the Basin and Range
province: in The world rift systemInternational Upper Mantle Commission symposium, Ottawa, 1965; Can. Geol. Surv.,
Pap. 66-14, p. 246-279, 1966.
Cook, K. L.; and Berg, J. W., Jr. Regional
gravity survey along the central and southern
Wasatch Front, Utah: U.S. Geol. Surv.,
Prof. Pap. 216-E, p. 75-89, 1961.
Cook, K. L.; Halvorson, M. O.; Stepp, J. C.;
and Berg, J. W., Jr. Regional gravity
survey of the northern Great Salt Lake
1040
Desert and adjacent areas in Utah, Nevada,

and Idaho: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol.
75, p. 715-740, 1964.
Davis, W. M. The mountain ranges of the
Great Basin: Harvard Univ., Mus. Comp.
Zool, Bull., Vol. 42, p. 129-177, 1903.
Davis, W. M. The Wasatch, Canyon, and House
Ranges, Utah: Harvard Univ., Mus. Comp.
Zool., Bull, Vol. 49, p. 17-56, 1905.
Davis, W. M. The Basin-Range problem: Nat.
Acad. Sci., Proc, Vol. 11, p. 387-392,
1925.
Donath, F. A. Analysis of Basin-Range structure, south-central Oregon: Geol. Soc.
Amer., Bull., Vol. 73, No. 1, p. 1-16, 1962.
Eardley, A. J. Structural geology of North
America: Harper and Bros., 624 p., New
York, 1951.
Ekren, E. B.; Rogers, O.L.; Anderson, R. E.;
and Orkild, P. P. Age of Basin and Range
normal faults in Nevada test site and Nellis
Air Force Range, Nevada: in Nevada test
site (E. B. Eckel, ed.), Geol. Soc. Amer.,
Mem. 110, p. 247-250, 1968.
Erwin, J. W. Gravity map of Battle Mountain
and adjacent areas, Lander, Pershing, and
Humboldt Counties, Nevada: Nev., Bur.
Mines, Map 31, 1967.
Erwin, J. W. Gravity map of the Tonopah,
Baxter Spring, Lone Mountain, and San
Antonio Ranch quadrangles, Nevada: Nev.,
Bur. Mines, Map 36, 1968.
Fuller, R. E.; and Waters, A. C. The nature
and origin of the horst and gtaben structute of southern Oregon: J. Geol., Vol. 37,
p. 204-238, 1929.
Gay, T. E., Jr.; and Aune, Q. A. Geologic
map of California, Altura sheet, Olaf P.
Jenkins Edition: Calif., Div. Mines, 1958.
Gianella, V. P.; and Callaghan, Eugene.
The earthquake of December 20, 1932, at
Cedar Mountain, Nevada, and its bearing
on the genesis of Basin-Range structute: J.
Geol., Vol. 42, p. 1-22, 1934.
Gibbs, J. F.; Willden, Ronald; and Carlson,
J. E. Gravity anomalies in the Ruby Mountains, northeastern Nevada: in Geological
Survey research, 1968, U.S. Geol. Surv.,
Prof. Pap. 600-B, p. B88-B94, 1968.
Gilbert, G. K., Preliminary geological report,
expedition of 1872: U.S. Geol., Geog. Surv.,
West of 100th Meridian Prog. Rep.
(Wheeler), p. 48-52, 1874.
Gilbert, G. K., Report of the geology of portions of Nevada, Utah, California, and
Arizona examined in the years 1871 and
1872: U.S. Geog., Geol. Explor. Surv.,
W. 100th Meridian (Wheeler), Vol. 3,
Part 1, p. 17-187, 1875.
Gilbert, G. K., Studies of Basin-Rangestructure:
U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap. 153,92p., 1928.
Gilluly, James. Basin-Range faulting along the
Oquirrh Range, Utah: Geol. Soc. Amer.,

Bull., Vol. 39, p. 1103-1130, 1928.
Gilluly, James; and Gates, Olcott. Tectonic
and igneous geology of the northern Shoshone Range, Nevada, with sections on
Gravity in Crescent Valley (by Donald
Plouff), and Economic geology (by K. B.
Ketner): U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap. 465,
153 p., 1965.
Gilluly, James; and Masursky, Harold. Geology of the Cortez quadrangle, Nevada,
with a section on Gravity and aeromagnetic
sutveys (by Don R. Mabey): U.S. Geol.
Surv., Bull. 1175, 117 p., 1965.
Gimlett, J. I. Gravity study of Warm Springs
Valley, Washoe County, Nevada: Nev., Bur.
Mines, Rep. 15, 31 p., 1967.
Hamilton, Warren. Mesozoic California and
the underflow of Pacific mantle: Geol. Soc.
Amer., Bull., Vol. 80, No. 12, p. 2409-2430,
1969.
Hamilton, Warren; and Myers, W. B. Cenozoic tectonics of the western United States:
Rev. Geophys., Vol. 5, p. 509-549, 1966.
Hansen, W. R. Effects of the earthquake of
March 27, 1964, at Anchorage, Alaska:
U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap. 542-A, p.
A1-A68, 1965.
Healey, D. L.; and Miller, C. H. Gravity
survey of the Nevada test site and vicinity,
Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, Nevada
interim report: U.S. Geol. Surv., TEI-827,
36 p., 1962.
Herring, A. T. Seismic refraction study of a
fault zone in Dixie Valley, Nevada: in
Geophysical study of Basin-Rangestructure,
Dixie Valley region, Nevada (G. A. Thompson; and others), U.S. Air Force, Cambridge
Res. Labs., Final Sci. Rep. AFCRL-66-848,
Part II, 27 p., 1967a.
Herring, A. T. Seismic refraction study of
Smith Creek Valley, Nevada: in Geophysical
study of Basin-Rangestructure, Dixie Valley
region, Nevada (G. A. Thompson; and
others), U.S. Air Force, Cambridge Res.
Labs., Final Sci. Rep. AFCRL-66-848, Part
VI, 12 p., 1967b.
Hill, D. P.; and Pakiser, L. C. Crustal structure
between the Nevada test site and Boise,
Idaho, from seismic-refraction measurements: in The earth beneath the continents
a volume of geophysical studies in honor
of Merle A. Tuve (J. S. Steinhart; and
T. J. Smith, ed.), Amer. Geophys. Union,
Geophys. Monogr., Ser., No. 10 (NASNRC Publ. 1467), p. 391-419, 1966.
Hubbert, M. K. Mechanical basis for certain
familiar geologic structures: Geol. Soc.
Amer., Bull., Vol. 62, No. 4, p. 355-372,
1951.
Hunt, C. B.; and Mabey, D. R. Stratigraphy
andstructure, Death Valley, California: U.S.
REFERENCES CITED
Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap. 494-A, 162 p., 1966.
James, D. E.; and Steinhart, J. S. Structure
beneath continentsa critical review of explosion studies 1960-1965: in The earth
beneath the continentsa volume of geophysical studies in honor of Merle A. Tuve
(J. S. Steinhart; and T. J. Smith, ed.),
Amer. Geophys. U n i o n , G e o p h y s .
Monogr., Ser., No. 10, p. 293-333, 1966.
Kane, M. F.; and Carlson, J. E. Gravity observations and Bouguer anomaly values for
Clark County, Nevada: U.S. Geol. Surv.,
open-file rep., 34 p., 1964.
Kleinhampl, F. J.; and Ziony, J. I. Preliminary geologic map of northern Nye County,
Nevada: U.S. Geol. Surv., open-file map,
1967.
Lachenbruch, A. H. Depth and spacing of tension cracks: J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 66, p.
4273-4291, 1961.
Lachenbruch, A. H. Mechanics of thermal
contraction cracks and ice-wedge polygons
in permafrost: Geol. Soc. Amer., Spec. Pap.
70, 69 p., 1962.
Lachenbruch, A. H. Contraction theory of
ice-wedge polygonsa qualitative discussion: in PermafrostInt. Conf., Lafayette,
Indiana, November 1963, Proc., Nat. Acad.
Sci., Nat. Res. Council Publ. 1287, p. 6371, 1966.
Lee, W. H. K.; and Uyeda, Seiya. Review of
heat flow data, Chap. 6: in Terrestrial heat
flow (W. H. K. Lee, ed.), Amer. Geophys. Union, Geophys. Monogr., Ser., No.
8, p. 87-190, 1965.
Lipman, P. W.; Prostka, H. J.; and Christiansen, R. L. Cenozoic volcanism and
tectonism in the western United States and
adjacent parts of the spreading ocean floor.
Part 1, Early and middle Tertiary [abstr.]:
Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstr. 1970 (Cordilleran
Sect.), p. 112-113.
Locke, Augustus; Billingsley, P. R.; and
Mayo, E. B. Sierra Nevada tectonic patterns: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 51,
p. 513-540, 1940.
Longwell, C. R. Low-angle normal faults in
the Basin and Range province: Amer.
Geophys. Union, Trans., Vol. 26, Part 1,
p. 107-118, 1945.
Longwell, C. R. Possible explanation of diverse structural patterns in southern Nevada:
Amer. J. Sci., Vol. 258-A (Bradley volume),
p. 192-203, I960.
Louderback, G. D. Basin-Range structure of
the Humboldt region: Geol. Soc. Amer.,
Bull., Vol. 15, p. 289-346, 1904.
Louderback, G. D. Basin-Range structure in
the Great Basin: Calif., Univ., Publ. Geol.
Sci., Vol. 14, p. 329-376, 1923.
Louderback, G. D. Period of scarp production
in the Great Basin: Calif., Univ., Publ.
1041
Geol. Sci., Vol. 15, p. 1-44, 1924.

Louderback, G. D. Morphologic features of
the Basin-Range displacements in the Great
Basin: Calif., Univ., Publ. Geol. Sci., Vol.
16, No. 1, p. 1-42, 1926.
Mabey, D. R. Complete Bouguer anomaly map
of the Death Valley region, California:
U.S. Geol. Surv., Geophys. Inv. Map
GP-305, 1963.
Mabey, D. R. Gravity map of Eureka County
and adjoining areas, Nevada: U.S. Geol.
Surv., Geophys. Inv. Map GP-415, 1964.
Mabey, D. R.; and Morris, H. T. Geologic
interpretation of gravity and aeromagnetic
maps of Tintic Valley and adjacent areas,
Tooele and Juab Counties, Utah: U.S.
Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap. 516-D, p. Dl-DlO,
1967.
Mackin, J. H. Eruptive tectonic hypothesis for
origin of Basin-Range structure [abstr.]:
Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 71, No. 12,
Part 2, p. 1921, 1960a.
Mackin, J. H. Structural significance of Tertiary volcanic rocks in southwestern Utah:
Amer. J. Sci., Vol. 258, No. 2, p. 81-131,
1960b.
Mackin, J. H. Origin of lunar maria: Geol.
Soc. Amer., Vol. 80, No. 5, p. 735-748,
1969.
McCulloch, D. S.; and Bonilla, M. G. Railroad damage in the Alaska earthquake:
Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Soil Mech., Found.
Div., Proc., 5423, SM 5, p. 89-100, 1967.
McKenzie, D. P.; and Morgan, W. J. Evolution of triple junctions: Nature, Vol. 224,
p. 125-133, 1969.
Meister, L. J. Seismic refraction study of Dixie
Valley, Nevada: in Geophysical study of
Basin-Range structure, Dixie Valley region,
Nevada (G. A. Thompson; and others),
U.S. Air Force, Cambridge Res. Labs.,
Final Sci. Rep. AFCRL-66-848, Part I, 72
p., 1967.
Menard, H. W. Marine geology of the Pacific:
McGraw-Hill, 271 p., New York, 1964.
Menard, H. W. The deep-ocean floor: Sci.
Amer., Vol. 221, No. 3, 126-142, 1969.
Moore, J. G. Curvature of normal faults in the
Basin and Range province of the western
United States: in Geological Survey research, I960; U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap.
400-B, p. B409-B411, I960.
Morgan, W. J. Rises, trenches, great faults, and
crustal blocks: J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 73,
No. 6, p. 1959-1982, 1968.
Muffler, L. J. P. Geology of the Frenchie Creek
quadrangle, north-central Nevada: U.S.
Geol. Surv., Bull. 1179, 99 p., 1964.
Nielsen, R. L. Right-lateral strike-slip faulting
in the Walker Lane, west-central Nevada:
Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 76, p. 13011308, 1965.
1042
Nolan, T. B. The Basin and Range province

in Utah, Nevada, and California: U.S.
Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap. 197-D, p. 141-196,
1943.
Osmond, J. C. Tectonic history of the Basin
and Range province in Utah and Nevada:
Mining Eng., Vol. 12, p. 251-265, I960.
Page, B. M. Preliminary geologic map of a
part of the Stillwater Range, Churchill
County, Nevada: Nev., Bur. Mines, Map
28, 1965.
Pakiser, L. C.; Kane, M. F.; and Jackson,
W. H. Structural geology and volcanism
of Owens Valley region, Californiaa
geophysical study: U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof.
Pap. 438, 68 p., 1964.
Pakiser, L. C.; Press, Frank; and Kane,
M. F. Geophysical investigation of Mono
Basin, California: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull.,
Vol. 71, p. 415-448, I960.
Pakiser, L. C.; and Robinson, Rhoda. Composition of the continental crust as estimated from seismic observations: in The
earth beneath the continentsa volume of
geophysical studies in honor of Merle A.
Tuve (J. S. Steinhart; and T. J. Smith,
eds.), Amer. Geophys. Union, Geophys.
Monogr., Ser., No. 10, p. 620-626, 1966.
Pakiser, L. C.; and Zietz, Isidore. Transcontinental crustal and upper mantle structure: Rev. Geophys., Vol. 3, p. 505-520,
1965.
Pease, R. W. Normal faulting and lateral shear
in northeastern California: Geol. Soc. Amer.,
Bull., Vol. 80, No. 4, p. 715-720, 1969.
Peterson, D. L. Complete Bouguer gravity
anomaly map of the San Francisco Mountains vicinity, Beaver and Millard Counties,
Utah: U.S. Geol. Surv., open-file map,
1966.
Roberts, R. J. Tectonic framework of the
Great Basin: Mo. Univ., Res. J., p. 101119, 1968.
Roberts, R. J.; Montgomery, K. M.; and
Lehner, R. E. Geology and mineral resources of Eureka County, Nevada: Nev.,
Bur. Mines, Bull. 64, 152 p., 1967.
Romney, C. F. Seismic waves from the Dixie
Valley-Fairview Peak earthquakes: in The
Dixie Valley-Fairview Peak earthquakes of
December 16, 1954 (Don Tocher; and
others), Seismol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol.
47, p. 301-319, 1957.
Russell, I. C. A geological reconnaissance in
southern Oregon: U.S. Geol. Surv., 4th
Ann. Rep., p. 435-464, 1884.
Russell, R. J. Basin-Range structure and stratigraphy of the Warner Range, northeastern
California: Calif., Univ., Publ. Geol. Sci.,
Vol. 17, p. 387-496, 1928.
Sharp, R. P. Basin-Range structure of the RubyEast H u m b o l d t Range, northeastern
Nevada: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull, Vol. 50,

p. 881-919, 1939.
Shawe, D. R. Strike-slip control of BasinRangestructureindicated by historical faults
in western Nevada: Geol. Soc. Amer.,
Bull., Vol. 76, p. 1361-1378, 1965.
Slemmons, D. B. Geological effects of the
Dixie Valley-Fairview Peak, Nevada, earthquakes of December 16, 1954: in The Dixie
Valley-Fairview Peak earthquakes of
December 16, 1954 (Don Tocher; and
others), Seismol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol.
47, p. 353-375,. 1957.
Slemmons, D. B. Pliocene and Quaternary
crustal movements of Basin and Range
province, USA: J. Geosci., Osaka City
Univ., Vol. 10, Art. 1-11, p. 91-103, 1967.
Slemmons, D. B.; and others. Wonder,
Nevada, earthquakes of 1903: Seismol.
Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 49, p. 251-265,
1959.
Smith, T. E. Aeromagnetic measurements in
Dixie Valley, Nevada: Implications regarding Basin-Range structure: in Geophysical
study of Dixie Valley region, Nevada (G.
A. Thompson; and others), U.S. Air Force,
Cambridge Res. Labs., Final Sci. Rep.
AFCRL-66-848, Part III, 24 p.; also J.
Geophys. Res., Vol. 73, p. 1321-1331,
1967.
Stewart, J. H. Possible large right-lateral displacement along fault and shear zones in
the Death Valley-Las Vegas area, California
and Nevada: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol.
78, p. 131-142, 1967.
Stewart, J. H.; Albers, J. P.; and Poole,
F. G. Summary of regional evidence for
right-lateral displacement in the western
Great Basin: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol.
79, p. 1407-1414, 1968.
Stewart, J. H.; and McKee, E. H. Geologic
map of Lander County, Nevada: U.S.
Geol. Surv., open-file map, 1970.
Thompson, G. A. Gravity measurements between Hazen and Austin, Nevada, a study
of Basin-Range structure: J. Geophys. Res.,
Vol. 64, p. 217-230, 1959.
Thompson, G. A. The rift system of the western
United States: in The world rift system
International Upper Mantle Commission
Symposium, Ottawa, 1965, Can. Geol. Surv.,
Pap. 66-14, p. 280-290, 1966.
Thompson, G. A. Background and results:
in Geophysical study of Basin-Range structure, Dixie Valley region, Nevada (G. A.
Thompson; and others), U.S. Air Force,
Cambridge Res. Labs., Final Rep. AFCRL66-848, p. 1-13, 1967.
Thompson, G. A.; and Sandberg, C. H.
Structural significance of gravity surveys
in the Virginia City-Mount Rose area,
Nevada and California: Geol. Soc. Amer.,
REFERENCES CITED
Bull., Vol. 69, p. 1269-1282, 1958.
U.S. Geological Survey; and The American
Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Tectonic map of the United States: Prepared by a committee, G. V. Cohee, Chairman, 1961.
Wahl, R. R. An interpretation of gravity data
ftom the Carson Sink area, Nevada: Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., M.S. Res.
Proj. Rep., 1965.
Walker, G. W. Reconnaissance geologic map
of the eastern half of the Klamath Falls
(AMS) quadrangle, Lake and Klamath
Counties, Oregon: U.S. Geol. Surv., Min.
Inv. Field Studies, Map MF-260, 1963.
Walker, G. W.; and Repenning, C. A. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Adel
quadrangle, Lake, Harney, and Malheur
Counties, Oregon: U.S. Geol. Surv., Misc.
Geol. Inv., Map 1-446, 1965.
Walker, G. W.; and Repenning, C. A. Reconnaissance geologic map of the west half
of the Jordan Valley quadrangle, Malheur
County, Oregon: U.S. Geol. Surv., Misc.
Geol. Inv., Map 1-457, 1966.
Wallace, R. E. Structural evolution: in Mineral
and water resources of Nevada, U.S. 88th
Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Doc. 87, p. 32-39;
also Nev., Bur. Mines, Bull. 65, 314 p.,
1964.
Webb, Barbara; and Wilson, R. V. Progress
geologic map of Nevada: Nev., Bur. Mines,
Map 16, 1962.
Whitten, C. A. Geodetic measutements in the
1043
Dixie Valley atea: in The Dixie Valley Fairview Peak earthquakes of December
16, 1954 (Don Tocher; and others), Seismol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 47, p. 321325, 1957.
Willden, C. R.; and Speed, R. C. Geology
and mineral deposits of Churchill County,
Nevada: U.S. Geol. Surv., open-file rep.,
1968.
Wise, D. U. An outrageous hypothesis for the
tectonic pattern of the North American
Cordillera: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol.
74, p. 357-362, 1963.
Woollard, G. P. Regional isostatic relations in
the United States: in The earth beneath the
continentsavolumeofgeophysicalstudies
in honor of Merle A. Tuve (J. S. Steinhart;
and T. J. Smith, eds.), Amer. Geophys.
Union, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., No. 10,
p. 557-594, 1966.
Wright, L. A.; and Troxel, B. W. Evidence
of northwestward crustal spreading and
transform faulting in the southwestern
part of the Great Basin, California and
Nevada [abstr.]: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstr.
1968 (Pacific Coast Sect.), p. 131-132,
1968.
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY APRIL
3, 1970
REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED OCTOBER 5,
1970
PUBLICATION AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR,
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Basin and Range Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Basin and Range Structure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basin and Range Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOHN H.

Basin and Range Structure: A System of Horsts

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p. 1019-1044, 13 figs., April 1971

J. STEWARTBASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

Development of these concepts is depencrust over a plastically extending substratum.

Generalized and slightly modified from Tectonic Map of United

are shaded. Hachures indicate downthrown side

BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

of the Great Basin of California, Nevada, and

stratum and collapse of the upper crust is

BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

J. STEWART-BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

water Range on the west and the Clan Alpine

son, 1959, 1967; Meister, 1967; Herring,

Geology from Page (1965), Webb and Wilson (1962),

Pre-Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks

Figure 3. Generalized geologic map of the

Contours on top of magnetic rocks

magnetic basement rocks.

BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

(Herring, 1967a, 1967b). To the north, the

J. STEWART-BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks

Tertiary to Jurassic granitic rocks

Figure 5. Generalized geologic and gravity

BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

sides, where the mountains are embayed by

valley, and tilting, but no major faulting, on

J. STEWART-BASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

flows capping the ranges were extruded. No

The following discussion focuses mainly

highs. Mackin (I960a; 1960b, p. 127-128)

SELECTED GRABENS IN THE BASIN AND RANGE PROVINCE

Alturas and Vya

Faults along much of

Faults along part of both

Alvord Lake Valley, Adel

Reno and Lovelock

Faults on both sides of

Gay and Aune, 1958; H. F.

Walker, 1963; Fuller and

lone Valley, Nevada Tonopah

Faults along part of both

Stewart and McKee, 1970;

Faults on both sides of

Kleinhampl and Ziony,

Kleinhampl and Ziony,

Healey and Miller, 1962

Cook and others, 1964, PI.

J. STEWARTBASIN AND RANGE STRUCTURE

Jordan Valley, Utah Salt Lake City

Utah Valley, Utah

Salt Lake City

Tintic Valley, Utah

Juab Valley, Utah

Upper Raft River

Steep gravity gradient

*Graben interpretation not necessarily that of authors indicated.

B seems to best fit much of the information