U T A H G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y

Vo l u m e 3 7 , N u m b e r 3 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 5

Utah’sGeologicHazards

the director’s perspective

contents

This issue of Survey Notes has astrong emphasis on geologichazards. As last winter pro-

gressed, and the snow pack in mostparts of Utah accumulated at anabove-average rate, our HazardsProgram became concerned about theincreased risk of landslides once thespring snowmelt began. Warningswere sent out to city and county offi-cials to be on the watch for evidenceof ground movement, which could bea precursor to damaging landslides.The concerns were justified, because85 landslides were documented thisspring. This compares with onlythree during spring of 2003 followinga winter with below-normal snowaccumulation. In addition, severallarge debris flows and rock falls alsooccurred this spring. Some of thenotable hazard events are reviewedin this issue. The total cost of theproperty damage and repair is diffi-cult to estimate, but it probablyexceeds $5 million, in addition to onefatality.The Cedar Hills landslide (page 6)highlights a recurring challengecaused by the rapid urban growth inUtah and development pressure tobuild on more hazardous land. Atownhouse was built on a portion ofa landslide that reactivated duringthe very wet spring of 1983. Thislandslide was shown on geologic-hazard maps, but unfortunately thisinformation was not adequatelytaken into account prior to construc-tion. It is not uncommon for UGSconcerns about slope instability to be

downplayed by developers or evencontested as not a relevant factorpotentially limiting a proposed sub-division. It is during times like therecent spring that local governmentplanning departments, and hopefullymost developers, realize that the riskof geological hazards is real, requir-ing either avoidance or special miti-gation measures.On May 15, Utah's State EnergyProgram (SEP) formally joined theUGS (see page 10). This was theresult of Governor Huntsman's initia-tive to restructure the Utah EnergyOffice, and to appoint an EnergyAdvisory position to help shapeUtah's energy future. The focus ofthe SEP is to provide support andinformation for energy efficiency,energy conservation, and renewableenergy initiatives in Utah. There aresynergies with the activities of ourEnergy and Minerals Program. Oneimmediate initiative is an enhancedenergy and minerals informationbase on the UGS web site. This is anongoing project, with the goal of hav-ing the latest production and con-sumption summaries, along with his-torical trends, immediately accessiblethrough the UGS web site. With therecent climate of high energy andmineral prices, growing interest inexpanded use of Utah's traditionaland new energy resources such as oilshale and tar sands, and increasinginterest in ways to save energy anduse renewable energy resources, theSEP is rapidly become an importantpart of the UGS.

State of UtahJon Huntsman, Jr., Governor

Department of Natural ResourcesMichael Styler, Executive Director

UGS BoardCharles Semborski, ChairGeoff Bedell Jack HamiltonKathleen Ochsenbein Robert RobisonSteve Church David SimonKevin Carter (Trust Lands Administration-ex officio)

UGS StaffAdministration

Richard G. Allis, DirectorKimm Harty, Deputy DirectorJohn Kingsley, Assoc. DirectorDaniel Kelly, Acct. OfficerJenifer Baker, Secretary/ReceptionistJo Lynn Campbell, Admin. SecretaryLinda Bennett, Accounting Tech. Michael Hylland, Tech. Reviewer

Editorial Staff Jim Stringfellow, Vicky Clarke, Sharon Hamre, James Parker, Lori Douglas

Geologic Hazards Gary ChristensonWilliam Lund, Barry Solomon, Francis Ashland, Richard Giraud, Greg McDonald, Lucas Shaw, Chris DuRoss, Garrett Vice

Energy and Mineral Resources David TabetRobert Blackett, Roger Bon, Thomas Chidsey,Mike Laine, Bryce Tripp, Craig Morgan, Jeff Quick,J. Wallace Gwynn, Kevin McClure, Sharon Wakefield, Cheryl Gustin, Tom Dempster, Brigitte Hucka, Taylor Boden, Ken Krahulec

Geologic Mapping Grant WillisJon King, Douglas Sprinkel, Janice Hayden, Kent Brown, Bob Biek, Basia Matyjasik, Lisa Brown, Don Clark, Darryl Greer

Geologic Information and OutreachSandra Eldredge, William Case, Mage Yonetani,Christine Wilkerson, Patricia Stokes, Mark Milligan, Carl Ege, Rob Nielson, Jeff Campbell, Nancy Carruthers

Ground Water and Paleontology Michael LoweJames Kirkland, Charles Bishop, Janae Wallace, Martha Hayden, Hugh Hurlow, Juliette Lucy,Don DeBlieux, Neil Burk, Kim Nay, Stefan Kirby,Justin Johnson, Kevin Thomas, Rebecca Medina, Jennifer Cavin

State Energy Program Denise Beaudoin, Mike Vanden Berg, Kim Mellin, Nykole Littleboy

Survey Notes is published three times yearly by Utah Geological Survey, 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110, Salt Lake City, Utah84116; (801) 537-3300. The UGS is an applied scientific agency that creates, evaluates, and distributes information about Utah’sgeologic environment, resources, and hazards to promote safe, beneficial, and wise use of land. The UGS is a division of theDepartment of Natural Resources. Single copies of Survey Notes are distributed free of charge within the United States and Canadaand reproduction is encouraged with recognition of source. Copies are available at http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes

ISSN 1061-7930

Protecting Utah Homes . . . . . . . . . 1Geologic Hazard Publications . . 3, 7Landslides keep Hazards Program

busy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Escalante earth fissures . . . . . . . . . .8Survey News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9State Energy Program . . . . . . . . . 10GeoSights: Rozel Point’s bubblin’

crude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Glad You Asked: Uinta names . . . 14New Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Design: Vicky ClarkeCover: Townhouse damaged by a landslidein Cedar Hills, northern Utah County,April 28, 2005.

1S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

Dby Gary E. Christenson

Damage to homes in Utah this yearfrom landslides, rock falls, and floodshighlights the importance of consider-ing geologic hazards in residentialdevelopment. Land-use regulation tohelp ensure safe development is aresponsibility granted to Utah's localgovernments (cities, towns, and coun-ties) by the state. Some state agenciesoffer technical assistance to encourageresponsible land use, and the UtahGeological Survey (UGS) is one suchagency that provides geologic assis-tance to help local governments dealwith geologic hazards. This technicalassistance includes helping to writeordinances, preparing generalized

geologic hazards maps, reviewinggeologic reports by developers andtheir consultants, and responding togeologic-hazards-related emergenciesand disasters. Many of the geologic processes thathave shaped Utah's rugged and sceniclandscapes over the past few millionyears remain active today. Uplift ofthe Wasatch and other mountainranges in central and western Utah isepisodic and accompanied by largeearthquakes. The resulting steepmountainsides and high elevations areprone to rapid erosion and landslides,and are a source of floodwaters.These are all natural geologic process-es, but they are termed geologic haz-ards when they damage structures orthreaten lives.

Earthquakes: Earthquakes havethe potential to inflict a greater loss oflife and property in a single eventthan all other hazards in Utah.Damaging geologic effects of earth-quakes include ground shaking, sur-face faulting, soil liquefaction, andearthquake-induced landslides andflooding. Strong ground shaking rep-resents the greatest hazard during anearthquake because it affects largeareas, causes the most damage, andinduces many of the secondary effectssuch as liquefaction, landsliding, andflooding. Estimated losses from amagnitude 7 earthquake in the SaltLake City area could exceed 1500 liveslost and $15 billion in damages tobuildings, including private resi-dences.

The 2001 Heather DriveThe 2001 Heather Drivelandslide in Laytonlandslide in Laytondamaged six homes;damaged six homes;the damage to thisthe damage to thishome was so severhome was so severe ite itwas condemned andwas condemned andlater demolished.later demolished.

PROTECTING UTAH HOMES FROM GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Landslides: The land-slide hazard in Utah wasdramatically demonstratedin 1983 when the Thistlelandslide blocked theSpanish Fork River, causingflooding that inundated thesmall town of Thistle andsevered highway and railconnections between theWasatch Front and areas tothe south and east.Although the Thistle land-slide was spectacular andcost the state over $200 mil-lion, many smaller land-slides regularly damagehomes. Damages have gen-erally been greatest duringperiods of abnormally highprecipitation such as in1983, 1984, 1997, 1998, and2005. Landslides occasion-ally cause injuries anddeaths; the most recentdeath was in March of thisyear when a young boy wasburied by a slide from asteep stream cut in Kanab.Utah experiences a widevariety of landslide types,from Thistle-type slides todebris flows (slurries ofmud and rocks generatedby cloudburst floods andrapid spring snowmelt), torock slides and rock falls inareas of steep, barren rockoutcrop. Snow avalanchesalso present hazards tohomes built along mountainfronts.

Problem Soil and RockConditions: Severaltypes of naturally occurringmaterials may damage foundationsand pose a threat to permanent struc-tures. Two of the most damaging areexpansive and collapsible soils.Expansive clayey soils can swell andgenerate forces sufficient to crackwalls and foundations of relativelylight residential structures.Collapsible soils undergo a volumedecrease when wet, inducing subsi-dence that may cause structural dam-

age. Subsidence may also result fromdecomposition of organic soil materi-als and collapse due to piping (sub-surface erosion) and dissolution ofgypsum, salt, and limestone causingsinkholes. Subsidence and groundcracks caused by ground-water with-drawal have recently been recognizedin southwestern Utah (see accompa-nying article). Shifting wind-blownsands in the more arid parts of thestate also present hazards, most

recently in the EscalanteDesert where shiftingsands have encroached onresidences and buriedyards.

Flooding: Stream flood-ing is a widely distributedand frequently occurringgeologic hazard in Utah, asdemonstrated by theJanuary 2005 floods insouthwestern Utah. Springsnowmelt is responsiblefor much flooding alongUtah's streams, and is tosome extent predictable.Cloudburst storms gener-ate more localized butoften very destructiveflooding and can occurwith little warning.Cloudburst storms alsocause alluvial-fan flooding,including debris flows,which may affect largeareas and cause damage bysediment burial. Anothertype of flooding that hascaused considerable dam-age in Utah is the rise oflake levels, particularlyGreat Salt Lake. Floodingmay also result from a risein the shallow water tablein response to high streamand lake levels, heavy pre-cipitation, and excess irri-gation. Flooding of topo-graphically low areas andsubsurface structures suchas basements and septic-tank soil-absorption fieldsis the major hazard to pri-vate residences from a ris-ing water table.

ORDINANCESFor residential development, localgovernments in Utah address geologichazards in geologic or natural-haz-ards, critical-environmental, sensitive-area, and/or hillside-protection ordi-nances. The purpose of these ordi-nances is to encourage prudent sitedevelopment in areas of geologic haz-ards. The overall approach in

2 S U RV E Y N O T E S

This 2002 rock fall in Rockville occurred at night and barely missedthe resident as the boulder came to rest in the bedroom.

Following a fire which burned the west side of Dry Mountain in2001, a storm in 2002 generated ten separate debris flows, one ofwhich caused extensive damage to this subdivision in Santaquin.

addressing geologic hazardsconsists of requiring devel-opers to perform geologic-hazards studies to assesshazards and recommendrisk-reduction measuresprior to subdivisionapproval. This approach isoutlined in the UGS PublicInformation Series 75brochure, Using Geologic-Hazards Information to ReduceRisks and Losses - a Guide forLocal Governments(http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-75.pdf ). An important step inaddressing geologic hazardsin an ordinance is to identifyhazard areas. Generalizedmaps typically delineatespecial-study areas wheregeologic hazards may exist. The ordi-nance then requires that developersand their consultants perform geolog-ic hazards investigations to addresssite-specific hazards and recommendappropriate action prior to develop-ment in such areas. One outcomemay be that no hazards are found atthe site and no action is necessary. Ifhazards exist, detailed site investiga-

tions are performed to determine aprudent course of action.Recommended actions may includesetbacks from faults and landslides,slope stabilization, placement of engi-neered structures such as debrisbasins, special foundation designs,and disclosure of hazards to potentialbuyers. In some cases, site abandon-ment is necessary where risks from

geologic hazards cannot beadequately reduced or aretoo costly to reduce andare best avoided. In the final step, reports ofthese investigations alongwith recommendations foraction to reduce risks aresubmitted to the local gov-ernment and reviewed byqualified engineering geol-ogists, such as the UGS,and geotechnical engineersacting on behalf of thelocal government andfuture homebuyers.Reviewers then eitherdetermine that the investi-gations are sufficient andrisk-reduction measuressatisfactory, or recommendfurther work to resolve

remaining issues.

AVAILABILITY OF GEOLOGICHAZARDS INFORMATIONGeneralized maps (1:24,000 scale orlarger) are used in ordinances todelineate areas where geologic haz-ards should be considered and site-specific studies are needed. The UGS

Guidelines for evaluating geologic hazards forgeologists

Guidelines for preparing engineering geologic reports inUtah, by Utah Section of the Association of EngineeringGeologists; 2 p., 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FREE

Guidelines for evaluating surface-fault-rupture hazards inUtah, by Gary E. Christenson, L. Darlene Batatian, andCraig V Nelson, 14 p., 8/03, MP-03-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.50

Guidelines for the geologic evaluation of debris-flow haz-ards on alluvial fans in Utah, by Richard E. Giraud, 16 p.,6/05, MP-05-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.00

Guidelines for evaluating landslide hazards in Utah, editedby M.D. Hylland, 16 p., 1996, ISBN 1-55791-392-7C-92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$5.50

Geologic hazards information for homeowners

Homebuyers guide to earthquake hazards in Utah, by S.N.Eldredge, 27 p., 11/96, PI-38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3.00

The Wasatch fault, by S.N. Eldredge, 17 p. , 12/96PI-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.00

Earthquakes & Utah, by S.N. Eldredge, 6 p., 8/97PI-48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free

Homeowner’s guide to recognizing and reducing landslidedamage on their property, by GES staff, 4 p., 7/98PI-58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free

Rock-fall hazards, by W.F. Case, 2 p. color flyer, PI-69 . . Free

Debris-flow hazards, by W.F. Case, 2 p. color flyer, 10/00,PI-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free

Landslides: What they are, why they occur, by W. F. Case,color flyer, 11/01, PI-74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free

For more information

UGS (http://ugs.utah.gov/, 801-537-3300, fax 801-537-3400; Geologic Information and Geologic Hazards Programs), DNR Mapand Bookstore (http://mapstore.utah.gov/, 801-537-3320, fax 801-537-3995), and Utah Automated Geographic ReferenceCenter (for digital map data) (http://agrc.its.state.ut.us/, 801-538-3665, fax 801-538-3317)

3S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

Over 30 homes were damaged by the January 2005 floods insouthern Utah. These homes are along the Santa Clara River inSanta Clara.

produces such maps, and most of theurbanizing areas along the WasatchFront now have generalized mapsspecifically prepared for use in localgovernment ordinances. Maps areavailable to the public from countyplanning offices along the urbanizedWasatch Front portions of Salt Lake,Davis, Weber, and Utah Counties.Similar maps are available from theDepartment of Natural Resources(DNR) bookstore and library for west-ern Wasatch County, Tooele Valley,Moab-Spanish Valley and CastleValley in Grand County, and Monroein Sevier County. Preparation of gen-eralized geologic hazards maps is alsounderway by the UGS for the St.George basin, Cache Valley, andOgden Valley.

In much of the remainder of the state,however, appropriate-scale hazardsmaps for local government ordinancesare generally not available. To deter-mine the likelihood of hazards, gener-alized information is available for theentire state on small-scale statewidegeologic hazards maps. These mapsdepict the following:

ll Shallow ground water and relatedhazards (1:750,000 scale)

ll Flood hazard from lakes and fail-ure of dams (1:750,000 scale)

ll Landslides (1:500,000 scale, alsoavailable for each 30 X 60 minutequadrangle at 1:100,000 scale)

ll Soil and rock causing engineeringgeologic problems (1:500,000scale)

ll Quaternary faults and folds(1:500,000 scale)

ll Radon (1:1,000,000 scale)These maps are not suited for use inlocal government hazards ordinancesexcept as preliminary guides to poten-tial hazards in areas where moredetailed maps are not yet available.The maps are available in hard copyat the DNR bookstore and library, andin digital form in the State GeographicInformation Database from the UtahAutomated Geographic ReferenceCenter.

ROLE OF THE UGSThe UGS assists local governments byhelping write ordinances and prepar-ing generalized geologic hazardsmaps. To help local governments anddevelopers' consultants ensure thatadequate investigations are per-formed, the UGS has publishedguidelines for (1) the preparation andreview of engineering geologicreports, (2) evaluating landslide haz-ards, (3) evaluating surface-fault-rup-ture hazards, and (4) evaluatingdebris-flow hazards. Geologic hazards reports must be pre-pared and reviewed by qualified engi-neering geologists licensed in Utah,generally in conjunction with alicensed geotechnical engineer. Toadminister an ordinance, local gov-ernments should have access to quali-fied geologists and engineers to per-form reviews and to represent theirinterest in contacts with developersand their consultants. The Salt LakeCounty geologist provides geologicreview services for unincorporatedSalt Lake County, and the UGS pro-vides such services for other localgovernments in the state. Some localgovernments retain qualified engi-neering geologists and geotechnicalengineers under contract to representtheir interests, as is commonly donewith the city/county engineer posi-tion.

ADVICE TO HOMEBUYERS

The extent to which local govern-ments consider geologic hazards inresidential development varies widelyamong jurisdictions, and has changedover time as well. Check with yourlocal government planning depart-ment to find out what ordinances theyhave adopted and whether they werein force when your house was built.Also, ask how ordinances are enforcedand the extent to which geologic haz-ards reports are reviewed prior toapproval. In general, adoption andenforcement is improving with time,particularly in larger communities, asis the technology used in assessinghazards and reducing risks. New sub-

divisions typically undergo closerscrutiny than many of the older exist-ing subdivisions did.

However, homebuyers should notassume that local governmentapproval of a subdivision or buildingpermit guarantees safety from geolog-ic hazards. Also, losses due to geolog-ic hazards are generally not coveredby standard homeowners' insurancepolicies. A wise homebuyer shouldcheck generalized geologic hazardsmaps and ask the local government tosee geologic hazards reports for a sub-division, particularly when contem-plating purchase of a home in a haz-ardous hillside or mountain-frontlocation, to aid in their decision mak-ing. If questions arise, homebuyersmay wish to have a consulting geolo-gist and/or engineer help evaluate theinformation and provide advice. TheUGS publishes helpful guides forhomebuyers and can also help finduseful information to aid homebuyersin making a wise choice.

4 S U RV E Y N O T E S

Areas where 1:24,000-scale geologic-hazards maps are either completed or inprogress by the UGS (WDHIA-WestDesert Hazardous Industries Area).

5S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

Rby Geologic Hazards Program Staff

Record precipitation throughout muchof Utah beginning in October 2004,and record snow packs, particularly insouthwestern Utah, brought us anactive spring landslide season in 2005.The UGS has documented over 85landslides in 2005, and this is proba-bly only a small percentage of thetotal in the state. Most of the docu-mented landsides were reactivationsof existing landslides, both naturaland human-caused. Landslide typesincluded rock falls, debris flows, andboth rapid and slow-moving slides.Here we discuss a few of the notable

landslides of 2005 that the UGS inves-tigated to assist local governments inemergency response; for more infor-mation on these landslides, visit theUGS Web site at http://ugs.utah.gov/utahgeo/hazards/landslide/index.htm#recent.On February 20, a landslide in SouthWeber, Davis County, moved acrossand blocked South Weber Drive. Thelandslide destroyed a barn south ofthe highway and flowed into a fieldnorth of the highway. The landslidewas just below the Davis-Weber Canaland likely started as a rotational slidein the canal embankment, but quickly

Locations of notable 2005 landslides in (1)South Weber, (2) Kanab, (3) Cedar Hills, (4)Provo, and (5) Cedar Canyon.

6 S U RV E Y N O T E S

transformed into a rapid earth flow about midway downs-lope and ran out 150 feet beyond the toe of the slope in aperiod of about a minute. The landslide occurred in one ofthe steeper parts of the slide-prone north-facing slopealong the Weber River underlain by sand, silt, and clay ofthe Pleistocene Lake Bonneville Weber River delta. Otherlandslides occurred on February 20 and again on May 11about 3 miles to the east in a similar slope above a subdivi-sion in South Weber.On March 12, a 10-year-old boy was killed when a verticalstream cut along Kanab Creek in Kanab, Kane County, col-lapsed in an earth-fall-type landslide, burying the boy andpartially burying two girls. The girls, one covered by land-slide material to her waist and the other to her knees, wereable to free themselves and began searching for the boy,but were forced to flee when a second section of the streamcut collapsed. The landslide involved about a 100-foot-long portion of the approximately 60-foot-high verticalstream cut in Holocene-age sandy Kanab Creek alluvium.The landslide resulted in a pile of material at the base ofthe cut up to 20 feet thick. Workers using heavy equip-ment required 15 hours to recover the boy’s body. Deep,vertical cracks parallel to the face of the cut served as thefailure plane for the landslide as material detached and fellon the children.On April 28, a landslide that had moved in 1983 reactivat-ed above a Cedar Hills subdivision in Utah County andslid against the back wall of a four-unit townhouse.Residents of the townhouse evacuated as the slow-movinglandslide crushed vinyl fencing, air conditioners, and decksupports at the back of the units and days later pushedthrough the back wall and foundation, destroying thestructure. The landslide is on a southwest-facing slopeand is part of a larger prehistoric landslide complex associ-ated with the Manning Canyon Shale, a highly slide-pronegeologic unit commonly found in the east bench of north-ern Utah County. The UGS placed stakes on and adjacent

to the landslide, and the Utah County Surveyor’s office,using high-resolution Global Positioning System (GPS)techniques, monitored movement by resurveying thestakes periodically. Movement rates increased immediate-ly following significant rainstorms, and then slowed orsuspended during subsequent dry periods. The landslidehas largely stopped moving but remains unstable, and asmaller, new landslide forming above the head of the mainslide may one day be incorporated into it. On May 12, a large rock fall from a cliff high on “Y”Mountain above Provo spawned many individual fallingrocks, some of which ran out nearly a mile from thesource. One of the rocks impacted the southwest corner ofa guest house on the east bench of Provo. No one was

Stream cut along Kanab Creek similar to that which collapsedand killed a 10-year-old boy (note vertical cracks).

Damaged townhouse and disrupted toe and main scarp of thelandslide in Cedar Hills.

The rock fall from “Y” Mountain in Provo clipped the corner ofthis guest house and came to rest at the base of the treebehind the trash can on the left.

7S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

home at the time; the structure is likely a total loss. Thesource of the rocks was a cliff in the Mississippian DeseretLimestone about 2600 vertical feet above the guest house.The rock that impacted the guest house measured approxi-mately 7 x 5 x 4.5 feet and weighed about 13 tons. Manyrocks from the rock fall left impact craters (bounce marks)and trails of flattened oak brush on slopes at the base ofthe cliff and on the slope just above the damaged house. On June 3, following a period of rapid snowmelt and aday-long rainstorm, a large debris flow from BlackMountain above Cedar Canyon in Iron County inundatedState Route 14 between Cedar City and Long ValleyJunction, resulting in the highway being closed for a week.The source of the debris flow was a landslide from a cliff inCretaceous sedimentary rocks at an elevation of about 9800feet, just above the retreating snow line as the recordsouthwestern Utah snow pack rapidly melted. The land-slide material liquefied, transformed into a debris flow,and flowed 1.5 miles before emptying into Crow Creek,which flows along State Route 14 in Cedar Canyon. Thedebris flow dumped mud, rocks, and logs into CrowCreek, which then caused flooding, plugged culverts withdebris, and both undercut and buried the highway for sev-eral miles downstream along Crow Creek. This was one ofthe few debris flows of the 2005 spring season, but wasperhaps the largest since 1983.The UGS continues to study these landslides to betterunderstand their triggering mechanisms, movement char-acteristics, and implications for future development. Weworked closely with each of the local governments affectedby the landslides to assist them in responding to the emer-gency and subsequently to monitor movement and assessthe longer-term hazard. Landslides are a relatively com-mon occurrence in Utah, particularly during periods ofincreased precipitation and rapid snowmelt, and we mustadequately plan for them as we develop our hillsides andcanyons.

Damage to State Route 14 in Cedar Canyon caused by theJune 3 debris flow (photo by David Excel, Utah Highway Patrol).

The origin and extent of earth fissures in EscalanteValley, southern Escalante Desert, Iron County,Utah, by William R. Lund, Christopher B.DuRoss, Stefan M. Kirby, Greg N. McDonald,Gary Hunt, and Garrett S. Vice, CD (30 p., 37-photo appendix), 7/05, MP-05-7 . . . . . . . $19.95

Consensus preferred recurrence-interval and verticalslip-rate estimates: review of Utah paleoseismic-trenching data by the Utah Quaternary FaultParameters Working Group, by William R. Lund,CD (109 p.), 6/05, B-134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.95

Proceedings volume, Basin and Range ProvinceSeismic-Hazards Summit II, edited by William R.Lund, CD (20 papers, 64 abstracts, 10 posters),5/05, MP-05-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.95

Reconnaissance investigation of ground cracks alongthe western margin of Parowan Valley, IronCounty, Utah, by Christopher B. DuRoss andStefan M. Kirby, CD (17 p.), 10/04RI-253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14.95

Liquefaction potential maps for Utah, CD in pdf for-mat (463 p., 81 plates) (reprints of CR-94-1 to CR-94-10), Liquefaction potential maps for: northernWasatch Front, central Utah, and for Davis, SaltLake, and Utah Counties, 8/04OFR-433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.95

Earthquake-hazards scenario for a M7 earthquake onthe Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch faultzone, Utah, by Barry J. Solomon, Neil Storey,Ivan Wong, Walter Silva, Nick Gregor, DouglasWright, and Greg McDonald, CD-ROM (59 p., 6pl. scale 1:250.000), 5/04, SS-111DM [CD containsGIS data] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $24.95

Geologic hazards of Monroe City, Sevier County,Utah, by Richard E. Giraud, digital compilationby Justin P. Johnson, 51 p + CD-ROM [CD con-tains GIS data], 5/04, SS-110 . . . . . . . . . . . $13.95

Ground-water-level fluctuations in Wasatch Frontlandslides and adjacent slopes, northern Utah,by Francis. X. Ashland, Richard E. Giraud, andGreg N. McDonald, 22 p., 5/05OFR-448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00

Recent GeologicHazards Publications

8 S U RV E Y N O T E S

n January 8-12, 2005, a warm winter stormmoved into southwestern Utah from southern

California, causing widespread flooding and damage. Theflooding extended northward into Escalante Valley inwestern Iron County about 35 miles west of Cedar City.Erosion by floodwaters revealed five earth fissures in west-ern Escalante Valley. The fissures range in length fromabout 330 feet to more than 1300 feet, and form a discon-tinuous, nearly 6-mile long, generally north-trending zoneroughly centered on the community of Beryl Junction.Locally the fissures show as much as 12 inches of down-to-the-east displacement. Where unaffected by flooding, thefissures were an inch or less wide, but were quicklyenlarged as floodwater drained into them. In places, thefloodwater eroded gullies along the fissures up to 10 feetwide and 7 feet deep. Local residents reported that flood-water flowed into the fissures for a period of a day or moreduring the peak of flooding, and that a vortex formed inthe floodwater over at least one fissure.Escalante Valley is a sediment-filled basin, the deepest partof which lies between Beryl Junction and Newcastle.Escalante Valley is an agricultural area, and ground-waterpumping from the basin-fill aquifer began in the 1920s.Measurements in wells indicate that ground-water levelshave declined steadily since the late 1940s and show norecovery during periods of above-average precipitation.The area of greatest ground-water decline (95 to 105 feet)extends from near Beryl Junction to Enterprise.Earth fissures are commonly associated with ground subsi-dence caused by aquifer compaction, which results fromthe permanent reduction in volume of fine-graineddeposits (silt and clay) within the aquifer followingground-water withdrawal. Fissures up to 10 miles longhave been reported in Arizona, and the Las Vegas Valleyalso has experienced earth fissuring as a result of ground-water pumping. Our investigation showed that theEscalante Valley earth fissures are similar to those thathave formed in other western states as a result of ground-water pumping and water-level decline. The Escalante

Valley earth fissures extend for considerable distances in amostly linear fashion across a variety of material types,locally exhibit vertical displacement, and likely extend toconsiderable depths (perhaps to the ground-water table)based on the volume of floodwater that entered the fis-sures. Additionally, the fissures coincide with an area ofmeasured ground subsidence (2 to 4 feet between 1941-1972 and 2005 based on Global Positioning System survey-ing) and significant ground-water-level decline near BerylJunction. Other possible causes for the fissures (desicca-tion cracking, hydrocompaction, surface faulting) typicallyproduce cracks having different characteristics, are limitedto clay-rich deposits, or require a large (magnitude 6.5 orgreater) earthquake to form. Ground subsidence and earth fissuring may cause a vari-ety of problems including (1) changes in elevation andslope of the ground surface, possibly affecting streams,canals, and drains, (2) damage to roads, buildings, rail-roads, and underground utilities, and (3) failure of wellcasings from forces generated by compaction of the valley-fill alluvium. Additionally, surface water diverted intoearth fissures may reach the water table and cause ground-

E A R T H F I S S U R E Sin Escalante Valley, Iron County, Utah

by William R. Lund, Christopher B. DuRoss, Stefan M. Kirby, Greg N. McDonald, Gary Hunt, and Garrett S. Vice

Op

Aerial view showing the January 2005 flooding north of Beryl Junction.

9S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

water contamination. The landownerat the southern end of the longestearth fissure, which extends into analfalfa field at its south end, noticedthat slopes in his field have changedrecently, altering surface-water flowdirections and causing water to pondin areas where it formerly drained.

He also reported that the casing in awell in the southwest corner of hisfield sheared and failed during thesummer of 2004. Floodwater thatinfiltrated and enlarged one of theearth fissures flowed through a cattlefeedlot prior to encountering the fis-sure, and contaminated surface waterlikely reached the water table in thatarea.Based on current evidence, the bestexplanation for the formation of earthfissures in Escalante Valley is long-term ground-water withdrawal, whichhas caused a significant drop in theground-water level, permanent com-paction of fine-grained deposits in theEscalante Valley aquifer, and groundsubsidence near Beryl Junction. Weinfer that the earth fissures are thesurface expression of horizontal ten-sion in the Escalante Valley aquiferformed in response to differential

aquifer compaction and ground subsi-dence in Escalante Valley.For more information on these earthfissures, visit the UGS Web site athttp://ugs.utah.gov/utahgeo/hazards/pdf/ss-115.pdf.

Regional map of the Escalante Valley areashowing the general location (red zone) ofthe earth fissures.

Earth fissure enlarged by infiltrating flood-water adjacent to State Route 56 near BerylJunction.

UGS Board

We had to cancel the Spring Board meet-ing because the UGS Board did not havea quorum. At the Special Legislativesession, the Senate approved the fournominations from the Governor for theUGS Board:

Steve Church (Sinclair Oil) reap-pointed for his second four-year term(Minerals-oil & gas); Geoff Bedell(Kennecott) reappointed for a secondfour-year term (Minerals – metals);Dave Simon (Simon-Bymaster Inc.)appointed for a four-year term(Engineering Geology); JackHamilton (U of U Engineering Expt.Research Station) appointed for afour-year term (Academia)

Terms also expired for Craig Nelsonand Ron Bruhn. Both have served uswell as members of the UGS Board andwe thank them for their efforts.

UGS personnel are scanning approxi-mately 30,000 well logs from Oil, Gas &Mining that are currently stored in the

Natural Resources Library. This is partof a project to provide all Utah well logson the internet. There are currently15,779 logs on our web site, representing5,923 wells. OG&M contracted withA2D, a private company, to scan all logsreceived since March 2005. A2D andUGS are continuing to scan logs. Accessto the well-log files is available on theweb at http://utstnrogmsql3.state.ut.us/UtahRBDMSWeb/main_menu.htm.

The Utah Automated GeographicReference Center (AGRC) providedfunding for the project and will providean Internet Map Service link to the filesin the near future.

PDF files of all the publications pro-duced by the UGS are available throughthe Natural Resources Library onlinecard catalog. This represents over 1600 publicationssince the UGS began publishing. Plansare underway to make many of the U.S.Geological Survey publications andmaps concerning Utah also available inpdf form. Stay tuned.

Welcome to Kevin Thomas, who is ourlatest addition (replacing JakeUmbriaco) to the Ground Water andPaleontology section. Kevin has an M.S.from the Geology Department at USU,specializing in structural geology anddownhole geophysics.

Jennifer Cavin has recently joined us asa paleontologist. Jennifer has an M.S.from the South Dakota School of Minesand Technology.

Jenifer Baker is our new receptionist,while Dallas Rippy has left theEconomic group. Robert Ressetar joinsus part time as a technical reviewer. Hehas degrees in geology and law.

The Hazards Program bids farewell toMike Kirshbaum who will be workingacross the valley with Kennecott. Wewish you well in your new position,Mike.

Mark Hale, has begun working part-time with the Hazards Program.

Glade Sowards moved from head ofour new SEP unit to the Department ofEnvironmental Quality.

10 S U RV E Y N O T E S

IntroductionThere is another energy section intown at the Utah Geological Survey!The State Energy Program (SEP) wasrecently relocated to the Survey and,after a brief transition period, is readyto provide funding and support forenergy efficiency, energyconservation, and renew-able energy efforts in thestate of Utah. We are excit-ed to be a part of the Surveyand to continue to promoteclean and efficient energyoptions for Utahns.

History of SEPDuring the 2005 GeneralSession of the Utah StateLegislature, S.B. 199 dis-solved the Utah EnergyOffice and divided its func-tions across a handful ofstate agencies. The legislation relocated theSEP and the RenewableEnergy Tax Credit programto the Utah GeologicalSurvey. S.B. 199 also trans-ferred the Clean FuelVehicle Grant and LoanProgram to the Division of Air Qualityin the Department of EnvironmentalQuality. In separate administrativeactions, the State Building EnergyEfficiency Program was moved to theDivision of Facilities Construction and

Management, and an energy policyposition was established directly with-in the Governor's office.SEP is the state interface with the U.S.Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)State Energy Program and provides afunding opportunity for energy effi-

ciency, energy conservation, andrenewable energy initiatives in Utah.The SEP typically receives between$425,000 and $450,000 in formulagrant funding annually. This amountis determined by the level of SEP

funding that U.S. DOE receives fromCongress, and by the population andenergy consumption of each partici-pating state. To qualify for federalsupport, the SEP also receives match-ing funds from the State of Utah.Some of this funding is made avail-

able to energy conservation-and renewable energy-relat-ed organizations through acompetitive bid process atthe beginning of each calen-dar year. In addition, SEPserves as the point of con-tact for businesses andorganizations to receivefunding for a variety of spe-cial energy projects that areselected and supported byU.S. DOE each year.

Mission and ProgramsThe mission of the SEP is toprovide direct support andaccess to federal funding forenergy efficiency, energyconservation, and renew-able energy programs andprojects in the state of Utah.To accomplish this mission,SEP administers severalprograms either directly or

with the assistance of its valued com-munity partners.

Renewable Energy ProgramIn 2004, renewable sources constitutedonly 1.6 percent of energy production

State Energy Program Comes to UGSby SEP Staff

Energy News

A new 665 kilowatt turbine is installed next to the original 225 kilowattturbine at Camp Williams. Photo by Mike Vanden Berg.

11S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

in Utah. The SEP works through avariety of programs to help diversifyUtah's energy resource mix and toencourage the development of renew-able energy in the state.The SEP works with Utah CleanEnergy to sponsor the Wind,Geothermal, and Solar WorkingGroups. These groups provideforums for parties interested in theadvancement of renewable energyresources in Utah and focus on waysto eliminate or reduce regulatory,institutional, and market barriers torenewable energy development in thestate.The SEP also administers the UtahAnemometer Loan Program, whichprovides interested land owners with20- and 50-meter meteorological tow-ers with which to assess the windresource on their land. The anemome-ter data can be compared with theprojected wind resource informationused to develop the Utah WindResource Map. This comparisonestablishes a better understanding ofUtah's wind energy potential and,ultimately, can help encourage windpower development in the state.

Energy Efficiency and EnergyConservation Program

Energy efficiency and conservationmeasures have been identified byUtah Power and others as one of themost cost-effective sources of “new”

power for the state of Utah. The SEPworks with several partners toencourage the adoption of energy effi-ciency and conservation strategies inall sectors of Utah's economy.In the spring of 2005, the SEP - in con-junction with partner Utah CleanEnergy - initiated the Utah EnergyEfficiency Working Group (EEWG) toserve as a focal point for energy effi-ciency and conservation efforts in thestate. The EEWG includes representa-tives from utilities, large energy users,non-profit organizations, and otherentities interested in “doing morewith less” energy in Utah.The SEP partners with the NationalEnergy Foundation to sponsor theUtah Energy Smart program, whichprovides K-12 teachers and their stu-dents with energy education materi-als. The program goals also focus onbuilding strong alliances and partner-ships, conducting and participating inevents for teachers and their students,maintaining strong implementationprograms in school districts with ener-gy management action plans in place,and conducting large-scale energyawareness activities and energy edu-cation efforts for the general public.According to U.S. DOE's EnergyInformation Administration, the trans-portation sector consumes over 29percent of all energy used in Utah.The SEP works with its partners,including the Utah Transit Authority

and the Utah Clean Cities Coalition, toprovide ride sharing, alternative fuelvehicles, advanced vehicle technology,idle reduction, and energy efficiencyprograms in Utah. These options canhelp reduce the amount of energyused in transportation and can helpreduce the impacts of increasing fuelprices on Utah's citizens and businesses.

Energy and Mineral Data

The SEP also maintains an energy andminerals trends Web site, which pro-vides detailed information onreserves, production, consumption,and prices for Utah's citizens and poli-cy-makers. The data are available foreasy viewing and download on theInternet using common file formats atwww.energy.utah.gov. This informa-tion helps SEP understand the needfor and impacts of various energy effi-ciency, energy conservation, andrenewable energy initiatives.

Contacts

The SEP staff consists of DeniseBeaudoin, Partner Coordinator;Nykole Littleboy, Renewable EnergySpecialist; Michael Vanden Berg,Geologist/Energy Data Specialist; andKim Mellin, Web and database spe-cialist. For more information on theUGS SEP and its programs, pleasecontact us at 801-538-4798 .

A solar photovoltaic (PV) system located at GoblinValley State Park. Additional PV work is anticipatedat the park over the coming year. Photo by DaveLochtefeld.

An example of energy trends compiled by SEP and made available on the UGS Web site.(Source: UGS Web site.) Geothermal and biomass are too small to show on this graph.

12 S U RV E Y N O T E S

Geologic Information: “An' upthrough the ground came a bubblin'crude. Oil that is, black gold, Texastea.” A crude oil-seep made JedClampett of the 1960s TV sitcomThe Beverly Hillbillies a millionaire.In Utah you can see, smell, and feelnatural crude oil-seeps at RozelPoint when Great Salt Lake levelsare low. Miocene to Pliocene (24 to 1.8 mil-lion years old) organic-rich lake sed-iments probably generated the oil atRozel Point. From these sourcebeds, the oil migrated upwardalong faults and fractures to an 80-foot-deep, 2- to 3-foot-thick porousbasalt layer that comprises the mainreservoir. Some of the oil inthis basalt reservoir leaks tothe surface through faultsand fractures, emerging asthick, sticky, tar-like oil.Rozel Point is one of the old-est (if not the oldest) fieldsto produce oil in Utah. Theseeps have been knownsince the late 1800s and pro-duction attempts began in1904. The field produced anestimated 10,000 barrels ofoil from 30 to 50 wells, buthas been inactive since themid-1980s due to extremelydifficult production, veryhigh refining costs, and ris-ing lake levels.

Rozel Point may not be the place totake a first date. In the August1995 issue of Survey Notes,Thomas Chidsey writes of “crudeoil dripping from abandoned well-heads, tar on rocks and beachsands, and dead pelicans along thebeach…” The wellheads havesince been capped, but rustingindustrial debris remains. Thesweet perfume or retched stench ofcrude fills your nose. And, youcan occasionally see, hear, and feelthe U.S. Air Force test weapons inthe Lakeside Mountains acrossGunnison Bay to the west. On theother hand, graceful flocks of peli-cans flying by and distal views ofthe lake and mountains can inspire

awe and wonder. The redbrine, white salt, and blackbasalt impart an other-worldly feel. And the eco-nomic potential seepingfrom the ground creates anair of excitement. Perhapsit is because of, not in spiteof, these dichotomies thatartist Robert Smithsonchose to locate his SpiralJetty earthwork in this area,just a few hundred yards tothe northwest of RozelPoint. The oil seeps at Rozel Pointappear when the lake leveldrops below an elevation of

“Bubblin' Crude” at Rozel Point, Box Elder County, Utah

by Mark Milligan

GeoSightsGeoSights

Rozel Point in May of 2005. North arm of Great Salt Lake is about4196 feet above sea level.

Location map for Rozel Point.

13S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

approximately 4198 feet, roughly the elevation at whichthe Spiral Jetty emerges. The U.S. Geological Survey Website (http://ut.water.usgs.gov/infores/gsl.intro.html) pro-vides current lake-level information.

How to get there: Drive to the Golden Spike NationalHistoric Site (GSNHS), 30 miles west of Brigham City, Utahby following signs on Utah State Route 83 throughCorinne. From the GSNHS Visitor Center follow the smallwhite signs toward the Spiral Jetty, about 16 miles. Whenyou see a rusted military amphibious vehicle, you arealmost to Rozel Point. The oil seeps can best be seen fromthe long linear jetty found a few hundred yards southeastof the Spiral Jetty. Detailed directions can be found in theJanuary 2003 edition of Survey Notes (http://ugs.utah.gov/surveynotes/geosights/spiraljetty.htm).For more information see the article on the Rozel Point oilfield in Great Salt Lake, an Overview of Change (2002) editedby J. Wallace Gwynn.

A crude oil seep flowing over salt (key for scale).

A miniature La Brea Tar Pits in the making; thick and sticky crudeoil is slowly encrusting ladybugs and other debris.

Crude oil floating on Great Salt Lake.

Capped and abandonedoil well.

Desolation, rusted industrial debris, and stinking crude oil seeps.This may not be a site for the faint of heart.

The U.S. Air Force testingweapons across GunnisonBay. Westward view ofthe Lakeside Mountains,which rise more than2000 feet above the lake.

14 S U RV E Y N O T E S

Many geographic features in Utahare named in honor of explor-ers, trappers, ranchers, and pio-

neers who were important to thestate's history. However, there is onemountain range that commemoratesearly 19th century geologists andtopographers who were influentialfigures in the geoscience field: theUinta Mountains. More than 20 majorgeographic features in this mountainrange (lakes, streams, and mountainsummits and passes) bear the namesof these important geoscientists. Many of these early geoscientistsdeveloped the basic framework of thecurrent understanding of geologicconcepts we now study and practice.Some of these geoscientists were alsoresponsible for organizing and/orparticipating in the first scientific sur-veys for the United States govern-ment, exploring regions of Utah andthroughout the American West.Known as the four “Great Surveys,”

the main objectives were to investi-gate, map, and study the naturalresources and geology of theAmerican West. The first was theGeological Survey of the 40th Parallelled by Clarence King from 1867 to1878. The survey was successful inmapping the topography and geologyin the Sierra Nevada, Great Basin,Uinta Mountains, and RockyMountains along the latitude of 40degrees north. This was closely fol-lowed by Ferdinand Hayden's survey(known as the Geological andGeographical Survey of theTerritories) of Nebraska, Utah,Wyoming (Yellowstone area and TetonRange), Colorado, and Idaho from1867 to 1879; John Wesley Powell'ssurvey (known as the Geographicaland Geological Survey of the RockyMountain Region) of the Green andColorado Rivers and through theGrand Canyon from 1869 to 1879; andGeorge Wheeler's survey of the U.S.

territory west of the 100th meridian(Nevada, Utah, California, Arizona,Idaho, and New Mexico) from 1871 to1879. (Just across Utah's border, thesecond-highest peak in Nevada isnamed after Wheeler.) All these gov-ernment surveys were important inproviding geologic information thathelped “open up” the American Westto frontier settlement and led to pre-serving geological areas, such asYellowstone National Park, for futuregenerations.

Three of the four “Great Surveys”(King's, Hayden's, and Powell's)investigated the Uinta Mountainsregion, and these geoscientists wereresponsible for naming the newly dis-covered geographic features in theUinta Mountains.

Listed on the following page are theUinta Mountains' geographic featuresnamed for geoscientists.

What Utah mountain range honorsprominent geoscientists of the

19th century and who were they?by Carl Ege

Hayden PHayden Peak (12,479 feet)eak (12,479 feet)viewed from the Hayden Pviewed from the Hayden Peakeakoverlook on State Route 150.overlook on State Route 150.

15S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5

Geologic map of the Delta 30' x 60' quadrangle and part of theLynndyl 30' x 60' quadrangle, northeast Millard Countyand parts of Juab, Sanpete, and Sevier Counties, Utah, byLehi F. Hintze and Fitzhugh D. Davis, CD (1:100,000),6/05, M-206DM [CD contains GIS data] . . . . . . . $19.95

Geologic map of the Jordan Narrows quadrangle, Salt Lakeand Utah Counties, Utah, by Robert F. Biek, 2 pl. 1:24,000,6/05, M-208 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00

Geologic map of the Lehi quadrangle and part of theTimpanogos Cave quadrangle, Salt Lake and UtahCounties, Utah, by Robert F. Biek, 2 pl. 1:24,000, 6/05M-210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00

Geologic map of the Lynndyl 30' x 60' quadrangle, west-cen-tral Utah. 2005, digitized from USGS MiscellaneousInvestigations Map I-1830 by E.H. Pampeyan, 1:100,000,1989, CD [CD contains GIS data], 6/05M-211DM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.95

Uranium and vanadium map of Utah, by Robert W. Gloyn,Roger L. Bon, Sharon Wakefield, and Ken Krahulec, CD (1plate 1:750,000), 7/05,[CD contains GIS data]M-215DM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $24.95

Geologic map of the Roy 7.5' quadrangle, Weber and DavisCounties, Utah, by Dorothy Sack, 22 p., 2 pl., 1:24,000,6/05, MP-05-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00

Geologic map of the Clearfield 7.5' quadrangle, Davis County,

Utah, by Dorothy Sack, 14 p., 2 pl., 1:24,000, 6/05MP-05-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00

Selected mining districts of Utah, by Carl L. Ege, 59 p., 6/05,MP-05-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11.49

Guidelines for the geologic evaluation of debris-flow hazardson alluvial fans in Utah, by Richard E. Giraud, 16 p.,6/05, MP-05-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.00

Ground-water sensitivity and vulnerability to pesticides, SaltLake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah, by Mike Lowe, JanaeWallace, Neil Burk, Justin Johnson, Anne Johnson, andRich Riding, CD (24 p., 2 pl., 1:120,000 ), 7/05MP-05-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.95

The available coal resource for nine 7.5-minute quadrangles inthe southern Wasatch Plateau Coalfield, Emery, Sanpete,and Sevier Counties, Utah, by Jeffrey C. Quick, David E.Tabet, Brigitte P. Hucka, and Sharon I. Wakefield, CD (41p.), 8/05, SS-114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.95

Water resources of Millard County, Utah, by Fitzhugh D.Davis, 27 p., 5/05, OFR-447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00

North Horn Mountain area coal drill-hole data: WasatchPlateau coalfield, Emery County, Utah, CD, 6/05,OFR-449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.95

Provisional geologic map of the Deseret Peak East quadran-gle, Tooele County, Utah, by Torrey J. Copfer and James P.Evans, CD (31 p., 3 pl., 1:24,000), 9/05, OFR-450 . $14.95

Geologic Feature Geoscientist featureis named after

Who were these geoscientists?

The Wasatch Range, grandly overlooking the Salt Lake Valley, is a product offascinating geologic activity. Now a new comprehensive geologic guide to sixmajor Wasatch Range canyons is available. This 5" x 8" fold-out publicationis fun and informative for people interested in geology, for tourists, and forgeologists as well.

Colorful paleoscenes and a generalized stratigraphic column accompany back-ground information on the regional geologic history. Good illustrations anddescriptions interpret local geologic features and processes, such as LakeBonneville, glaciers, faults, landslides, and mining history.

The Utah Geological Survey is pleased to make this colorful and informativebooklet available through the Natural Resources Bookstore at a Pretty GoodPrice. Please contact them:

Utah Geological Survey1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110Box 146100Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100Address service requestedSurvey Notes

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage

PAIDSalt Lake City, UTPermit No. 4728

There are geologic maps for: City Creek CanyonEmigration CanyonLower Parleys CanyonMill Creek CanyonBig Cottonwood CanyonLittle Cottonwood Canyon

Each includes mileage at points ofinterest, photos, and illustrations.

Natural Resources Map & Bookstore1594 W. North TempleSalt Lake City, UT 84106801-537-3320 or 1-800-UTAHMAPhttp://mapstore.utah.gov