Utah Survey Notes, January 2016

8/20/2019 Utah Survey Notes, January 2016

1/16

January 2016Volume 48, Number 1

HUNDREDS OFMAPS & COUNTING

OVER 20 YEARSOF MAPPING

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


2/16

The Utah Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) cel-ebrates its 50th anniversaryduring 2016. In 1966 the UtahGeological and Mineralogi-cal Survey (UGMS, as we werethen called) was part of theState School of Mines and Min-eral Industries at the Universityof Utah, and it was not until1973 that the UGMS was trans-ferred to the DNR. The early history of theUGMS from 1964 to 1975 is recorded inthe Quarterly Review , the predecessorof Survey Notes , and these newslettersmake interesting reading (go to http:// geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/ past_survey_notes/). Some articles in theQuarterly Review could have been writ-ten today, having such timely topics as theimportance of geological commoditiesto Utah’s economic development, beingaware of geologic hazards when planningfor growth, and discussion about whetherthe State would be a better manager thanthe federal government of its resourcepotential. One notable change of UGMSresponsibilities from 50 years ago com-pared to the UGS today was its early focuson Great Salt Lake. In 1965, the UGMSin partnership with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey planned to produce 47 new quad-rangle maps of the bathymetry of the lake.An article in the November 1965 QuarterlyReview titled “The Great Salt Lake Navy”described the UGMS as having a fleet ofthree amphibious “ducks” (essentially6 x 6 army trucks with a hull anda propeller), a motor dory, and aflagship vessel that was a 42-foot,16-ton, dual jet-engine boat appro-priately named the G.K. Gilbert.The ducks were not well suited tothe lake, being heavy and slow,and frequently were “mired inthe lake ooze and sand.” Even theG.K. Gilbert had problems, requir-ing redesign and facelifts in 1968,1972, and 1978 to make it fasterand more suitable for the researchrequired on the lake. By the mid-

1970s, the UGS had installed a12-foot tower in the middle ofGreat Salt Lake for continuousmonitoring of meteorologicaland hydrological conditions,published navigational chartsof the lake, studied the saltcrust beneath the lake’s northarm, and had been samplingand analyzing the brine chem-istry four times a year since

1966. The February 1980 issue of SurveyNotes records the end of the UGS fleet onGreat Salt Lake. Ownership of the G.K.Gilbert was transferred to the DNR Divi-sion of Parks and Recreation in 1979, andthe subsequent fate of the boat is notknown. Although the UGS now has novessels, it is still active on the lake, moni-toring brine chemistry and less frequentlythe salt deposits. The UGS now maintainsthe sampling and water analysis programas a sub-contract to the DNR Division ofForestry, Fire and State Lands. The mostrecent release of water chemistry data,which includes all the historic sample data,can be found at http://files.geology.utah.gov/databases/index.htm—see Great SaltLake brine chemistry database. As futurealterations to the railroad causeway, sepa-rating the north and south arms of thelake, are considered and implemented,this database will be an important recordof salinity, which can function as a toolto understand and interpret past salinitychanges and help in predicting future lakeresponses.

THE DIRECTOR'S PERSPECTIVE

by Richard G. AllisState of Utah Gary R. Herbert, Governor

Department of Natural Resources Michael Styler, Executive Director

UGS Board Tom Tripp, Chair

William Loughlin, Marc Eckels, Pete Kilbourne,Ken Fleck, Sam Quigley, Elissa RichardsKevin Carter (Trust Lands Administration-ex ofcio)

UGS STAFFAdministration Richard G. Allis, Director Pam Perri, Administrative Secretary

Starr Soliz, Secretary/ReceptionistCheryl Gustin, Secretary/Receptionist

Jodi Patterson, Financial Manager Linda Bennett, Accounting Technician

Michael Hylland, Technical Reviewer Stephanie Carney, Technical Reviewer Editorial Staff | Vicky Clarke Lori Steadman, Jay Hill, Nikki Simon, John Good

Geologic Hazards|

Steve Bowman Richard Giraud, Jessica Castleton, Gregg Beukelman,Tyler Knudsen, Greg McDonald, Adam McKean,Ben Erickson, Adam Hiscock, Gordon Douglass

Geologic Information and Outreach | Michael Hylland

Christine Wilkerson, Mark Milligan, Lance Weaver,Gentry Hammerschmid, Jim Davis, Marshall Robinson,Brian Butler, Robyn Keeling, Andrew Cvar

Geologic Mapping | Grant Willis Jon King, Douglas Sprinkel, Kent Brown, Basia Matyjasik,

Donald Clark, Bob Biek, Zach Anderson

Energy and Minerals | David Tabet Craig Morgan, Jeff Quick, Taylor Boden,

Thomas Chidsey, Tom Dempster, Stephanie Carney,Ken Krahulec, Mike Vanden Berg, Andrew Rupke,Mark Gwynn, Christian Hardwick, Peter Nielsen,Rebekah Stimpson

Groundwater and Paleontology | Mike LoweJames Kirkland, Janae Wallace, Martha Hayden,Hugh Hurlow, Don DeBlieux, Paul Inkenbrandt,Lucy Jordan, Rich Emerson, Stefan Kirby,Diane Menuz, Brittany Dame, Nathan Payne

ContentsMapping Utah's Geology ..........................1The New Ogden

30' x 60' Geologic Map .......................2Update on the

Markagunt Gravity Slide .....................5Energy News .............................................6Teacher's Corner .......................................7Glad You Asked ........................................8GeoSights ................................................10Survey News ............................................12New Publications ....................................13

Design | Nikki Simon

Cover | Map of Utah showing all completed geologicmapping in 30' x 60' series.

Survey Notes is published three times yearly by the UtahGeological Survey, 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110, Salt LakeCity, Utah 84116; (801) 537-3300. The UGS provides timelyscientic information about Utah’s geologic environment,resources, and hazards. The UGS is a division of the Departmentof Natural Resources. Single copies of Survey Notes aredistributed free of charge within the United States andreproduction is encouraged with recognition of source. Copiesare available at geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/ .ISSN 1061-7930


3/16

MAPPING

UTAH’SGEOLOGY

B Y GRANT WILLIS

In the 1980s geologic mapping was in serious decline—ofmuch concern to oil and gas companies, geologic hazardsgeologists, and many others. The U.S. Geological Survey(USGS), long the bastion of geologic mapping, had sufferedseveral major budget cuts; many senior mappers retired andyounger mappers were laid off—few were ever replaced.Accurate, detailed geologic maps that meet modernstandards are essential for land-use, resource-development,and geologic-hazard planning. Some states, recognizing thelarge negative impact a lack of up-to-date geologic mapscould have on their economies, stepped in and created their

own mapping programs—Utah created one of the rst.In addition, many state geologists, industry leaders, andothers lobbied Congress to fund new geologic mapping.The result was the National Cooperative Geologic MappingProgram, with three parts: FEDMAP—USGS, STATEMAP—state geological surveys, and EDMAP—students and theirprofessors. Now, 23 years later, the results are impressive.Nearly every state and many universities have participated,and the act is reapproved with nearly unanimous supportevery 10 years. In Utah, this 50:50-match program hasfunded 168 geologic maps covering about 75 percent of thestate (7.5' and 30' x 60' quadrangles and GIS databases).

Soon after STATEMAP started, Utah’s State (geologic)Mapping Advisory Committee (SMAC) recognized that Utahhas a unique situation—over 90 percent of our populationand growth is concentrated in two areas: the Wasatch Frontarea and southwest Utah. Of course, these high-growthareas, with their hazard, resource, water, and other geology-related issues, have great need for up-to-date geologicmaps. But if all mapping was in these growth areas, then therest of the state, with equally pressing economic-resourceand land-management issues, would go without modernmapping for decades. SMAC found a compromise—half ofthe budget would fund detailed (1:24,000 scale) mappingin high-growth areas; the other half would map large ruralareas at intermediate detail (1:62,500 to 1:100,000 scale).While not suitable for geologic-hazard technical studies, theintermediate-scale maps meet most resource, recreational,and land-management needs. Now, two decades later, thebenets are clear. We just passed a major milepost in which75 percent of the state is now covered by intermediate-scalegeologic maps. These maps are produced in printed (plot-on-demand) and digital (GIS-geographic information system)formats and are purchased and downloaded by individuals,small companies, large corporations, professors, students,and many government agencies. Perhaps of greatest use,these maps are posted on an interactive web page (http:// geology.utah.gov/apps/intgeomap/) in which the user canquickly view and zoom into hundreds of maps at severalscales. Linked GIS data from the 30' x 60' series provides adetailed description of the geologic unit. With the additionof our latest 30' x 60' map, the Ogden quadrangle, we now

Up until the early 1960s, the rststep in detailed geologic mappingwas usually to make your owntopographic base map, which could squander half of youreld time before you even drew a geologic line! Fortunately,

we now have quality USGS topographic maps on whichwe build our geologic maps. The USGS produced crudetopographic maps of most of the state as early as the1880s, but it soon shifted to the “series” concept—standardquadrangles at standard scales with standard features(quadrangles follow lines of latitude and longitude and arenot rectangles). The rst reasonably accurate topographicmaps were the 30' x 30' series (1:125,000 scale) producedfrom the 1890s to early 1920s. Following World War II,partially driven by the Cold War, they went on a topographicmapping blitzkrieg! Over the next 40 years they producedalmost 2,000 Utah topographic maps, rst mainly in the 15'(1:62,500) and 1° x 2° (1:250,000) series, but gradually shiftingto the 7.5’ (1:24,000) series.

The 7.5' series is now the base for most modern detailedgeologic mapping. Utah is divided into 1,512 7.5' quadrangles(plus a thin sliver of 40 more along the Nevada border);each is about 58 square miles (2 square miles larger nearArizona/smaller near Idaho). Geologic maps have beencompleted for about 40 percent of these (the rst batch in1952). Unfortunately, we struggle to keep up—methods andexpectations have changed so much that fewer than halfmeet modern standards. Our primary regional maps are donein the 30' x 60' series (about 1,850 square miles each); about34 of 46 quadrangles have a reasonable geologic map, witha few more covered by older “temporary” maps. Today, withnearly all map assembly being done on computers, we canmap at any scale appropriate for the area of interest. We alsoinclude as much detail as possible even if at “normal” scalethe map looks too busy (yes—many map users zoom in farbeyond the intended scale!).

In an ironic twist, we have now almost come full circle—justlike in the old days, we now often make our own topographicbase maps! But now we use USGS digital les of topographicmap components, including a ground elevation model. In amatter of minutes we can create a customized topographicmap of any area at any scale, with elevation contours at anyspacing—in a way, the concept of “scale” has almost becomeobsolete. Base maps continue to improve—we eagerly awaitLiDAR (laser-sourced) ground control for our next base maps,which will allow production of even better geologic maps(but, unfortunately, make old maps seem even less accurate).

have a continuous strip of intermediate-scale maps from St.George to Logan, plus much of the Uinta Basin, ColoradoPlateau, and western Utah. In these areas, with the click ofa mouse you can get a description of the geology of yourneighborhood, work site, research area, or favorite hikingarea.

This Survey Notes issue features two of our recent 30' x 60'quadrangle maps. The Ogden article tells how someof its complex geology was deciphered, and about thecontributions of the new map. The Markagunt gravity slide

article adds another chapter to one of the most fascinatinggeologic discoveries in Utah in several decades—the world’slargest known land-based landslide. This story was unraveledthrough probing investigations conducted during thePanguitch 30' x 60' quadrangle mapping project.

THE TOPOGRAPHICQUADRANGLE SERIES

JANUARY 2016 1


4/16


5/16

created the complex geology in the western and centralparts of the Ogden 30' x 60' map area, including thrust-stacking of Precambrian rocks, and the gas and oil eldsnear the Utah-Wyoming border. Typically, in the Idaho-Utah-Wyoming area the numerous thrust faults get younger tothe east, but the timing is more complicated in the Ogdenmap area. Huge alluvial fans that are now Cretaceousconglomeratic rocks were shed off the mountains builtduring the folding and thrusting (a mountain-building eventis known as an orogeny). Smaller early Tertiary alluvialfans (now sedimentary rocks) were shed from mountainremnants during waning stages of the orogeny and areconglomeratic in the central part of the map area. LaterCenozoic rocks and surcial deposits are in valleys thatformed during normal faulting. As demonstrated by normalfaults that break the ground surface (form scarps), morerecent (Quaternary) faulting has occurred in at least a dozenroughly north-south trending valleys throughout the maparea, and may present a serious earthquake risk.

metamorphosed middle Precambrian (~1.7 billion years old)crystalline rocks of the Wasatch Range, (2) miles-thick latestPrecambrian metasedimentary rocks in the northwest partof the map area, (3) marine Paleozoic mostly carbonatesedimentary rocks exposed in the west half of the maparea that thin to the east, (4) mostly marine Mesozoicsedimentary rocks that are exposed in the central part of themap area, (5) mostly non-marine late Mesozoic (Cretaceous)conglomeratic sedimentary rocks in the central part of thequadrangle that cover the older rock packages, (6) non-marine early Cenozoic (early Tertiary) sedimentary rocksin the central and east parts of the quadrangle that coverolder rocks, and (7) later Cenozoic non-marine sedimentaryrocks and surcial deposits in valleys scattered across themap area. The Cretaceous and early Tertiary rocks weredeposited when the rst four rock groups were deformedinto a fold and thrust-fault (or overthrust) belt that is partof the Cordilleran mountain chain that spans western NorthAmerica from Alaska to Mexico. The folding and thrusting

History of thrusting in the Idaho-Utah-Wyoming fold-thrust belt (modied from previous work). (A) Ages of thrusting and fossil pollen inconglomerates from the Ogden project. Fission-track ages (red dots) and 40 Ar/ 39 Ar ages (red lines with arrows) from previous work.

(B) Thicknesses and names of strata related to major thrusts in Utah and southwest Wyoming. Note that conglomeratic intervals(ellipses) are east and west of associated thrusts. Lower Cretaceous strata (Kl) are thickest in the foredeep associated with the Willard(Paris, Laketown-Meade) thrusts. Middle Cretaceous strata (Km) record movement on the Crawford thrust and regional subsidence,

indicated by thick shales. Upper Cretaceous strata (Ku) record two episodes of movement on the Absaroka thrusts, with uplift of anderosion over the Moxa arch. Lower Tertiary strata (Tl) record movement on the Darby (Hogsback) thrust.

Fort Union Fm

?

Kelvin Fm (Gannett Gp ID-WY)

Weber Canyon-Echo CanyonConglomerate

Hams Fork Cong

Wasatch Fm

Cra w fo rd

Late

Early

Darby (Hogsback)

Aspen Shale

Frontier Fm

Clover ly Fm

Hilliard (Baxter) Shale (WY)

Adaville Fm (WY)

Cody Shale

Little MuddyCreek Cong (WY)

eroded

Moxaarch

approximate scale

30 km

1 km

Idaho-Utah-Wyoming fold-thrust belt Wyoming foreland

?

?

Kl

Km

Ku

Tl

Mesaverde Group

Green River Fm

Eocene

Paleocene

Maastricht-ian

Campanian

Santonian/Coniacian

Turo nia n

Albian

Aptian

W i l l a r d

W a s a t c h A n t i c l i n o r i u m ( W A )

C r a w f o r d

L o s t C r e e k

A b s a r o k a

D a r b y

H o g s b a c k 50

60

70

80

100

110

120

130

T i m e

( M a )

e a r

l y s h e a r

z o n e s

West East

4 0 A r /

3 9 A r m u s c o v i t e

West East

F o r e l a n d

u p l i f t s

Cenoma-nian

A.

B.

O g d e n t h r u s t s , l a r g e - s c a l e i m b r i c a t i o n

M e d i c i n e B u t t e t h r u s t

Wasatch Formation conglomerates, in west from WA

Hams Fork Mbr Evanston Formation conglomerates, in west from WA

Weber Canyon Conglomerate(s) from WA

upper Echo Canyon Conglomeratelower Echo Canyon Conglomerate (from WA)Henefer Formation conglomerates

Dry Hollow Mbr Frontier Formation conglomerates

Chalk Creek Mbr Frontier Formation conglomerates

Kelvin Formation (conglomerates mostly in basal portion)

?

?

Henefer Fm

Willard (Paris)

Willard(Laketown-Meade)

?

Absaroka

unconformity in Utah

Frontier-Mowr y- Thermopolis Fms

Ev a n s t o n Fm

S t e v e n s o n

s y n c l i n e

?

?

C r a w f o r d r e a c t i v a t i o n

r e a c t i v a .

Bear River Fm

JANUARY 2016 3


6/16

Jon King has been a geologist in the Geologic Mapping Program at theUtah Geological Survey since 1992. He is a co-author on the Ogden 30’ x 60’geologic map, 14 detailed geologic maps within the quadrangle, and 2 detailedgeologic maps adjacent to the quadrangle. Prior to 1992, Jon worked forthe Wyoming State Geological Survey for seven years investigating industrialminerals, construction materials, uranium, thorium, rare earth elements, andeven gold, and generating about 30 publications.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

As a major contribution to the geology of Utah, this is therst regional map of the Utah-Idaho-Wyoming fold andthrust belt to use extensive fossil pollen data (palynology),removing the earlier speculation and assumptions aboutnon-marine Cretaceous and Tertiary synorogenic (depositedduring orogeny) rocks. Through our painstaking mappingof angular unconformities, our sampling for and analysisof fossil pollen by Gerry Waanders, and previous work bythe U.S. Geological Survey and Chevron on fossil pollen,we now know the outcrop patterns and geologic ages

of the numerous synorogenic conglomerates (and thrustdeformations) in the Ogden map area. These conglomerateswere dated by identication of the age-specic fossil pollenthey contain, with previous isotopic and ssion-track datingproviding age control in uplifted areas. With previous studiesand our own work, these conglomerates have been tied tospecic thrust sheets by being on or near the thrust sheets,and by rock types in the conglomerate clasts being fromformations on the related thrust sheet.

As with many geologic maps, the references cited in thesupporting materials for the new Ogden map can be asimportant as the map itself for people who want moredetailed geologic information. Specically during the Ogdenproject, the UGS has or will publish detailed geologic mapsfor nearly half of the 32 7.5-minute quadrangles within the30' x 60' quadrangle. These detailed maps show Quaternarydeposits that were removed from the 30' x 60' map tobetter show the bedrock geology.

The Ogden 30' x 60' geologic map and many of thedetailed 7.5-minute quadrangle geologic maps were partiallyfunded through U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP awardnumbers 96HQAG01521, 97HQAG01797, 98HQAG2067,00HQAG109, 03HQAG0096, 04HQAG0040, G10AC00386,and G11AC20249.

The Ogden 30' x 60' geologic map is expected to bereleased later this year. Please check the UGS website(geology.utah.gov) for a notice of availability.

Index to detailed geologic mapping of the Ogden 30' x 60' quadrangle, with U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle names. Green

areas are mapping completed for this project. Blue areas are other mapping in project area. All Maps, Miscellaneous Publications (MP), andOpen-File Reports (OFR) shown have detailed Quaternary mapping and are published by the Utah Geological Survey.

4 SURVEY NOTES


7/16

U p d a t e o n th e M a r k a g u n t g r a v i t y s l i d e UTAH’S LARGEST LANDS LIDE JUS T GOT BI GGER—

A LOT BIGGERB Y ROBERT F. BIEK 1 , DAVID B. HACKER 2 , AND PETER D. ROWLEY 3

In the May 2013 issue of Survey Notes , weintroduced the Markagunt Megabreccia, theeroded remains of a 21- to 22-million-year-old landslide that blankets the MarkaguntPlateau northeast of Cedar City. At that time,we understood this enigmatic deposit to beUtah’s largest landslide, which we thoughtwas about 500 square miles in extent—considerably larger than all of Salt Lake Valleyand a bit more than three-times the size ofUtah Lake.

Since then, new geologic mapping betweenCedar City and Beaver shows that thislandslide is much, much larger. We call it theMarkagunt gravity slide (gravity slides are a

special class of extremely large landslides).We summarized this new discovery in theNovember 2014 issue of Geology . At aboutthe same time, we also published a eldguide, sharing the history of its discoveryand 17 exceptionally instructive exposures, inGeology of Utah’s Far South , Utah GeologicalAssociation Publication 43. In both reports, wehypothesized its size to be about 1,300 squaremiles. Ongoing research in 2014 and 2015enabled us to identify the eastern ankingfault, which bounds the east margin of thegravity slide near the western edge of theSevier Plateau, and the western anking fault,which bounds the west margin in the central

Black Mountains. Additional exposures ofdeformed rocks in the southern and westernTushar Mountains, eastern Black Mountains,and Mineral Mountains further expands theknown extent of rocks involved in this giganticlandslide.

In fact, we now estimate the Markaguntgravity slide is at least 2,000 square miles inextent and thus similar in size to the newlyredened 2,000-square-mile Heart Mountaingravity slide in northwestern Wyoming; bothnow vie for the title of Earth’s largest knownterrestrial landslide (larger submarine landslidesare known in ocean basins and formersubmarine basins on Mars). Additionally,the discovery in 2015 of intensely deformedrocks in the nearby southern Sevier Plateaushows that those volcanic rocks also movedcatastrophically, likely as a large (at least 500square miles) gravity slide somewhat olderthan the Markagunt gravity slide. The ultimateslide plane of both landslide masses is a gentlysouth-tilted volcaniclastic unit of incompetent(greasy) tuffaceous mudstone and sandstonebeneath the volcanic rocks.

The Markagunt gravity slide consists ofMiocene and Oligocene (about 20 to 30million years old) volcanic mudow deposits,lava ows, and volcaniclastic sedimentaryrocks derived from the Marysvale volcanic

eld, and intertonguing ash-ow tuffs mostly derived fromthe Indian Peak and Calientecaldera complexes (locatednear the present-day Utah-Nevada border). A basal slipsurface with striations, grooves,and distinctive fractures, abasal zone of crushed andsheared rock and associatedclastic dikes, and pulverizedrock (ultracataclasite) andfriction-generated melt rock(pseudotachylyte) on shearplanes and in dikes emanatingfrom these shear planesprovide strong evidence ofcatastrophic emplacementfrom the north as part ofa gigantic landslide. This isthe rst reported occurrenceof landslide-generatedpseudotachylyte in NorthAmerica and is among only ahandful of examples knownthroughout the world.

From its breakaway zone in thesouthern Tushar Mountains tothe southern limit of its debris-avalanche deposits near CedarBreaks National Monument,

the Markagunt gravity slide isnearly 65 miles long and locallyat least 40 miles wide. Wedocument southward transportof at least 20 miles over theformer early Miocene landsurface, and suggest that thismovement was extremely rapid,possibly approaching speeds of 200 miles perhour. We suggest that the slide representscatastrophic gravitationally induced collapseof the southwestern part of the Marysvalevolcanic eld.

The Markagunt gravity slide exhibits the fullrange of structural features commonly seen in

modern landslides, including compression andresultant thrust faulting in the gravity slide’stoe area, simple translational movement ofthe main body of the slide, and extensionalfaulting in the upper parts (breakaway zone) ofthe slide. These facts, coupled with its giganticsize, illustrate why the gravity slide remainedundiscovered for so long and why earlyinterpretations were incomplete and oft-timesapparently conicting. In addition, basin-rangetectonism that eventually created the presenttopography followed the gravity slide to addconfusion to the age of gravity-slide structures.

Understanding the Markagunt gravity slideis important because it opens the door to

re-evaluation of other large volcanic centersthat may conceal exceptionally large, as-yet unrecognized landslides. It represents anew class of low-frequency but high-impacthazards associated with catastrophic collapseof large volcanic elds containing multiplevolcanoes, and it serves as an analog tobetter understand these rare, extreme events.Magmatic doming and resultant lateralspreading of modern volcanic elds—whichprecedes catastrophic collapse and is knownin many places around the world, includingthe Big Island of Hawaii, Mount Etna in Sicily,and the Canary Islands—could have importantimplications for hazard assessment of potentialgigantic landslide events from collapsingvolcanic elds.

Extent of the Markagunt gravity slide, now unders tood to beone of the largest terrestrial landslides known on Earth. The slideresulted from catastrophic collapse of the southwestern part ofthe Marysvale volcanic eld about 21 to 22 million years ago.The ramp fault is where the slide mass moved up and over theformer land surface. Insets show size of slide in relation to the

state of Rhode Island and location with respect to the Marysvalevolcanic eld.

1Utah Geological Survey2Kent State University

3Geologic Mapping Inc.

JANUARY 2016 5


8/16

B Y DAVID E. TABET

Some impacts of low oilprices on Utah

For the past year or so Utah drivers havebeen enjoying low gasoline prices at thepump as a result of the dramatically lowerprice paid per barrel of oil (1 barrel = 42gallons). While the average driver andthe transportation sector of the Utaheconomy may be beneting from loweroil prices, those benets are coming atthe expense of the oil-producing sector,whose revenues and prots have fallen.Utah, as the 11th largest oil-producingstate in the U.S., will have some negativeimpacts to its economy as a result of the

current low prices paid per barrel of oil.Because oil is an internationally tradedcommodity, Utah oil prices are affectedby changes in the world market. Utah oilprices dropped from about $86 per barrelin July 2014 to about $33 per barrel inJanuary 2015. Over the past 30 years, thetrend of Utah’s oil prices has uctuated,trading in a mostly at range from 1985to 1998, and since 1999 on a generallyupward, but volatile, trend. Besides the40 percent drop in the average annualoil price per barrel in 2015, there haveonly been three other times in the past

30 years when the average annual oilprice has dropped by more than 30percent from the previous year: 1986 (44percent drop), 1998 (32 percent drop),and 2009 (42 percent drop) when therewas a major economic recession. The2015 drop in Utah’s average annual oilprice harkens back to the 44 percent oilprice drop in 1986 when, like today, SaudiArabia sought to regain market share byincreasing production to lower prices anddrive higher-cost suppliers, such as thosein Utah with difcult-to-handle waxycrude, from the market.

Although full-year numbers are not yetin for 2015, it appears that Utah, as oneof the higher-cost petroleum-producingstates, will see its oil production fall from40.9 million barrels in 2014 to 38.5 millionbarrels in 2015, or about a 6 percentdecrease. This production decline willresult from a dramatic drop in drillingactivity in the state. The annual rig countfor Utah is forecast to plunge from anaverage of 25 operating rigs in 2014 to aprojected annual average of about 8 rigs

for 2015. In a similar fashion, applicationsto drill and well starts (spuds) for 2015 inUtah are expected to be at low levels notseen since 2002.Economically, this recent decline inpetroleum exploration and productionactivities signicantly affects the grossvalue of Utah’s produced oil and gas.The value of oil and gas production isanticipated to drop from $5.6 billionin 2014 to about $3.0 billion in 2015.The decrease in petroleum explorationand production activity over a year’speriod ending March 2015 led to a lossof 791 energy-related jobs in Duchesneand Uintah Counties according torecently released statistics from the UtahDepartment of Workforce Services,and petroleum development activity inUtah has decreased further since thattime. In addition to lower income taxrevenues from laid-off petroleum andservice-company workers, Utah’s GeneralFund will likely lose about $38 million inseverance tax revenue related to oil andgas, since these taxes are estimated todecline from over $89 million in 2014 toabout $51 million in 2015. The State ofUtah will also see its 48 percent share

of oil and gas royalties from petroleumproduction on federal lands in Utahshrink by another $50 million. Theroyalties collected for energy productionfrom federal lands in Utah by the U.S.Ofce of Natural Resources Revenueand returned to the state will decreasefrom over $167 million in 2014 to anestimated $116 million for 2015. TheState of Utah also collects a 0.2 percentconservation fee on the net productionvalue of oil and gas produced from stateand private lands to help with public

education about oil and gas and to plugorphaned and abandoned petroleumwells. In 2014 about 20.4 million barrelsof oil and 177.6 billion cubic feet ofnatural gas were produced from stateand fee lands with an estimated value of$2.5 billion that would generate about$5 million for the conservation fund. For2015, the conservation fee collectionswill likely be reduced 40 percent toabout $3 million.This reduction of over $85 millionin petroleum-related revenue to theState of Utah from 2014 to 2015only amounts to a 1.3 percent dropin overall state revenue, but certain

ENERGY NEWS

Utah average annual oil price per barrel and production from 1985 through 2015 (2015full-year data are estimated). Sources: UGS les and Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining.

6 SURVEY NOTES


9/16

T E AC H E R ' S C O R N E RIn October, the Utah Geological Survey held its 14th annualEarth Science Week (ESW) celebration at the Utah CoreResearch Center. Over 700 students from 10 schools came tolearn about geology and paleontology through fun hands-on activities. In addition, 51 volunteers from professionalassociations, universities (professors and students), public-and private-sector institutions, and individual geologyenthusiasts helped make the week a total success. A greattime was had by all! We are truly grateful for all the supportand extend a big thank you to our volunteers.

Since its creation in 1998 by the American GeosciencesInstitute, ESW has encouraged people everywhereto explore the natural world; promote Earth scienceunderstanding, application, and relevance in our daily lives;and encourage stewardship of the planet.

One of our favorite parts of ESW is receiving notesfrom students recounting their experiences at the vegeoscience stations: Rock Talk, Mineral Room, Stream Table,Paleontology Lab, and Gold Panning. We have includedsome here from ESW 2015.

parts of state government and severalcounty governments will be moreseverely affected than others. Since itis difcult to predict when oil pricesand industry activity will pick up in thefuture, these impacts could continuefor several more years. At the time ofwriting, many nancial forecasters arepredicting a slow, gradual increase in

oil prices through 2016 to an averageannual Utah price of about $31 perbarrel from around $39 per barrelin 2015. Hopefully growth in othersectors of Utah’s economy will benetfrom lower oil prices and offset lossesin revenue and employment in Utah’spetroleum sector that have been causedby the plunge in oil prices, activity, andultimately production.

Annual permits to drill and wells started (spudded) from 2001 through 2015 (2015full-year data are estimated). Source: Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining.

JANUARY 2016 7


10/16

Utah’s Colorado Plateau is home to the densest concentrations ofnatural arches found anywhere in the world. Arches National Parkalone claims to be home to over 2,000 documented natural sandstonearches with diameters of at least 3 feet. At least 800 signicant archeshave been photographed and identied elsewhere in the state andthousands of others are estimated to exist. Six of the world’s fteenlargest known natural arches are found in Utah. Such impressivestatistics often give rise to the question, “What is it about Utah and

the Colorado Plateau that makes natural arches so prevalent?”

CLIMATE AND SUBSTRATE MATERIAL Natural arches formin a variety of rock types such as limestone, shale, granite, or even

basalt. However, in Utah, sandstone is the most common geologicalsubstrate for their formation. Several of Utah’s sandstone bedrockunits meet the favorable conditions of being strong enough tosupport the weight of large natural arches, yet soft enough to beeasily eroded by the natural processes of wind, water, and gravity.The region’s semiarid climate also plays an important role in formingand maintaining the needed exposures of these sandstone units.Because of sandstone’s unique permeability and porosity (the ability

of water to ow through its pore spaces), a climate that is toowet tends to destroy sandstone’s ability to form cliffs by allowinggroundwater to leach out too much of the mineral cement thatholds the sand grains together. On the other hand, a climate that

BY LANCE WEAVER

Oblique aerial view of the parallel joint pattern formed in the Entrada Sandstone near Arches National Park in southeastern Utah. The axis ofthe Moab Valley anticline runs along the left side of the image. GoogleEarth imagery ©2015 Google Inc., Landsat. Used with permission.

GladYou

Asked

W H Y A

R E T H E R E

N A T U

R A L A R

C H E S

S O M

A N Y

8 SURVEY NOTES


11/16

is too dry will not sustain the perennial streams responsible for theeffective development of cliffs and canyons where arches mostoften form.

REGIONAL, PARALLEL JOINT SYSTEMS Arch formationin Utah is also facilitated by an abundance of regional, parallel

joint sys tems or sequences of bedrock fractures. These jointsystems tend to be located on the anks of broad, gently slopinguplifts or folds. Many of the arches found in iconic places suchas Arches, Capitol Reef, Canyonlands,and Zion National Parks, for instance,

formed along deeply eroded fracturesystems bordering folds created duringcompressional tectonic events. In someareas, such as Arches National Park,subsurface salt migration played a rolein creating these elongated domedstructures. In other areas, such as ZionNational Park, more recent extensionaltectonics played a role in enlargingpreexisting joint systems. Over time,these joints and fractures becomeexposed at the surface and erode into anetwork of canyons and rock ns idealfor the formation of arches.

Joint systems can also form independentof regional fold or fault zones. In manyparts of Utah, arches form along jointsthat develop parallel to the walls of deepcanyons. As streams carve canyons intothe bedrock, lateral pressure is removed,allowing the bedrock to fracture as itrelaxes and expands into the newly createdspace. Expansion of ice in these fracturesgreatly accelerates this process. In many ofUtah’s sandstone alcoves, “sheeting” ofthe rock is evidence of this slow relaxingand expansion of rock once under greatpressure.

ENTRENCHED MEANDERS Utah isalso unique in its abundance of entrenchedriver systems, which often form spectacularnatural bridges. A natural bridge is asubtype of natural arch that is primarily

water-formed and often spans a waterway such as a stream. Manyof Utah’s natural bridges, such as those found at Natural BridgesNational Monument, were formed as the gentle uplift of theColorado Plateau caused the region’s rivers and streams to becomeentrenched in deep canyons, while maintaining their originalmeandering courses. As these entrenched meanders deepened andwidened over time, erosion and undercutting of the canyon walls onthe outside of meander bends eventually allowed the river to breakthrough, rerouting the river to ow along the shorter course under

the newly formed natural bridge. RainbowBridge near Lake Powell, Coyote NaturalBridge, and the three large bridges atNatural Bridges National Monument are afew of Utah’s best examples of this typeof arch.

IRREGULARITIES IN CEMENTATION Variability in the mineral cements ofmany of Utah’s exposed sandstonelayers is another important factor in theformation of arches in the state. Smallarches and alcoves tend to be morecommon in regions where groundwatermovement and other processes havecreated abundant irregularities in thehardness of the supporting sedimentaryunits. These regions of poorly cementedsand or variable hardness can be createdas the sandstone is being depositedand cemented or by post-depositionalprocesses, such as mineral leaching,surface evaporation, or groundwatermovement. When a sandstone layer isexposed, irregularly cemented areas oftendifferentially erode in ways more likely tocreate arches and alcoves. In Utah thesetypes of irregularities in cementation areresponsible for hundreds of small archesand windows in places like Goblin Valleyand Snow Canyon State Parks.

It is the various combinations of these arch-forming components which have madeUtah’s Colorado Plateau region one of theworld’s densest concentrations of arches.

Rainbow Bridge, near Lake Powell in southern Utah, is an exampleof an arch formed in an entrenched meander within the Navajo

Sandstone.

Kolob Arch, in Zion National Park, is an example of an arch formedalong parallel joint systems in the Navajo Sandstone. Photo courtesy

of the National Park Service.

Arches form because the shape isnature’s most effective geometryfor holding up overlying strata.

The semicircular shape of an archis actually the most effective load-bearing form in nature because ofthe manner in which it distributes

the compressional stresses andeliminates the extensional stresses

in the surrounding rock. It is theshape that most effectively follows

nature’s rule of getting the bestnatural stability with the least

amount of effort.

The Natural Arch and BridgeSociety defines a natural arch as“a rock exposure that has a holecompletely through it formed bythe natural, selective erosion ofrock, leaving a relatively intact

frame.” In a colloquial sense,a natural arch is often defined

more loosely as a rock formationcomposed of a curved or vaultedrock structure which supports itsown weight without necessarily

being a free-standing bridge.

JANUARY 2016 9


12/16

BY MARSHALL ROBINSON

Smoky Mountain, Kane County

Geologic column of rock formations of the Moore Cutoff area (modied from Doelling and Kuehne, 2013, UGS Map255DM, and Doelling, 2002, UGS Open-File Report 404).

Nobody denies southern Utah can be blazing hot. An area

north of western Lake Powell is even dotted with heat-related place names: Warm Creek, Burning Hills, SmokyHollow, and Blackburn Canyon to name a few. These placenames actually signify underlying heat sources that havenothing to do with the air temperature. One place hasactually been burning hot for hundreds and maybe eventhousands of years. Atop the appropriately named SmokyMountain, you will nd… no ames whatsoever. A bitanticlimactic yes, but there truly is a re (known as the BigSmokey Fire), although it is burning (or at least smoldering)underground. Large ssures or cracks in the ground feedoxygen to this underground re. Expec tations may be highto see the gaseous fumes from this re venting from thecracks, but realize this is only possible when temperaturesare near or below freezing. The ex tra time required tobundle up for cold temperatures shouldn’t dissuade yourvisit though, as you will be rewarded with a scene similarto a volcanic area such as Yellowstone National Park.However, an underground coal seam (or seams), ratherthan a volcanic hotspot, fuels the re beneath SmokyMountain.Smoky Mountain’s numerous coal seams are interbeddedamong 1,000 feet of Cretaceous-aged mudstone andsandstone known as the Straight Cliffs Formation. TheStraight Cliffs Formation was deposited approximately

80 to 90 million years ago when the area was encroached

upon by a uctuating body of water called the WesternInterior Seaway. The uctuating sea level causeddeposition of the alternating layers of mudstone,sandstone, and coal you nd in the cliffs and ledges ofSmoky Mountain. A thick layer of sandstone dominates theuppermost cliffs of Smoky Mountain and overlies a poorfoundation of soft mudstone.In the area of the Big Smokey Fire, numerous long ssures ,or ground cracks, run parallel to the cliff edge. The cracksnear the cliff are likely due to the erosional underminingof the cliff’s mudstone base. Other cracks developed asthe underlying coal seams burned out and reduced to ash,leaving little to no support for the overlying sandstone.These cracks eventually propagate to the surface, allowingadditional oxygen to reach the re, so it is unlikely that alack of oxygen will naturally lead to the re’s demise.You may be wondering, “How did this re star t in therst place?” Spontaneous combustion or a lightning-sparked wildre are the two probable candidates. Coal issusceptible to spontaneous combustion due to its abilityto self-heat in the presence of oxygen and moisturecoupled with minimal ventilation for cooling. In the caseof a lightning-sparked wildre, hot embers may fall intopreexisting ssures, igniting any exposed coal. Once coal

View to the northeast of a fuming ground ssure atop Smoky Mountain. Photo: David Rankin (used with permission).

10 SURVEY NOTES


13/16

coal re is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it will likely

continue to smolder until the coal is gone as this location isnow part of Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument,which preserves the land within its boundaries for non-destructive scientic studies.Underground res may seem like an anomaly local to SmokyMountain, but there are actually thousands of these blazesburning uncontrolled throughout the world. China is hometo a majority of coal seam res with an estimated 20 to 200million tons of coal burned each year. Utah has had elevenuncontrolled coal seam res concentrated in Kane, Emery, andCarbon Counties. Between 1958 and 1976, the U.S. Bureauof Mines attempted to smother eight of Utah’s active coalseam res at an ination-adjusted cost of over $4.1 million.The Zion Fire, located between Mt. Carmel Junction and theeastern entrance to Zion National Park, was successfullyextinguished, but the remaining seven actively burn today.

The cracks and ssures atop Smoky Mountain are locatedapproximately 245 miles south of Salt Lake City. From Kanab, driveeast on U.S. Highway 89 for approximately 57 miles to Big Water. Turnleft (north) onto Ethan Allen Road for 0.3 miles and turn right (east)onto National Park Service (NPS) Road 230. Continue for 12.7 miles and

HOW TO GET THERE

$0 1 2 3 Miles

W a r m

C r e e k

N P S 2 3 0Big Water

•

S m o k y

M t n. R

o a d

B L M 3

0 0

Coal Seam

Fire •

S m o k y H o l l o w

UTAH

Smoky Mountain

W a r

m C r e

e k B a

B u r n i n g H i l l s

T o K a n a b

begins burning, it often burns until there is none left, or theoxygen source is cut of f.

On two separate at tempts (1967 and 1968), the U.S. Bureauof Mines tried to extinguish the Big Smokey Fire with waterand other re retardants to no avail. Additionally, bulldozersand excavators lled the cracks with rocks and dirt hopingto smother it; however, the unyielding coal re continuesto smolder to this day. A visit to the site today reveals thesehuman disturbances as many of the ssures are moundedover with boulders and crushed rock. As proof that the restill burns, new cracks have since propagated to the surface

since the ’67–‘68 extinguishing attempts. Because this

FISSURES

COAL SEAM

make a slight right to stay on NPS 230. After this junction, NPS 230 isalso known as Smoky Mountain Road. Continue for 1 mile and stayleft to stay on Smoky Mountain Road (also known as Bureau of LandManagement [BLM] Road 300). Stay on Smoky Mountain Road for thenext 7.6 miles as it winds up 1,000 feet of elevation to the top of SmokyMountain. As the road levels out at the top of the climb, continue pastthe viewpoint pullout for an additional 1.4 miles to an unmarked roadon the right. Turn at this unmarked road and continue for 0.6 miles toanother junction on the right. Turn at this junction and continue for 0.2

miles to where you will park. Upon exploring the vicinity, you will seethe numerous ground ssures. Remember though—if it is smoke youare looking for, then you will need to visit on a very cold day.Note: A high-clearance vehicle is advisable for travel in the Smoky Mountainarea. Also, NPS 230 and Smoky Mountain Road (BLM 330) are generallyimpassible during and shortly after wet weather conditions and cross numerouswashes that can be subject to ash oods. Please research weather androad conditions before planning a trip. A helpful website that provides roadconditions for Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument is www.nps.

gov/glca/learn/news/road-conditions.htm. Also, be advised that web-basedmapping services as well as paper maps/atlases from various sources tendto disagree as to what names are given to the roads to Smoky Mountain, so

please research your route thoroughly before starting your journey.

The existing ssures atop Smoky Mountain slowly grow as the underlying coal seams continue to burn and reduce to ash. The scenery is ever changing, as this

ongoing process will undoubtedly create new ssures as time progresses.

Coal is not the only fuel for undergroundres; natural gas res also burn in a few places

across the planet. For example, the “Doorto Hell” in central Turkmenistan is a blaze

that began as an exploratory oil well in 1971.

Drilling operations encountered natural gas,which subsequently destabilized the land andcaused the drill rig and camp to be swallowed

up by a 66-foot-deep crater approximatelythe size of two basketball courts. Estimating

the noxious fumes would burn off in a coupleweeks, the escaping natural gas was ignited.

As it goes with many estimates, it was wrong,and the re still burns 44 years later.

ON A SIDE NOTE

JANUARY 2016 11


14/16

BILL LUNDretired in September after 36 years with the UGS,including 7 years as Deputy Director and 18 years as Senior Scientistand Southern Utah Regional Of fice Manager. Bill began his career withthe UGS in what is now the Geologic Hazards Program, concentratingon engineering geology investigations. He then worked on some of thefirst paleoseismic investigations and research in Utah, and became oneof the foremost expert s on seismic hazards in the Intermountain West.He started the UGS Paleoseismology of Utah publication series in 1991containing paleoseismic investigation research report s from Utah projects,and continues as editor. Bill received the 2009 Utah Governor’s Medalfor Science and Technology, along with numerous other awards andhonors for his work. Bill’s varied knowledge and strong commitment to

investigating hazards will be missed.

KIMM HARTY retired in January after 31 years with the UGS,including nearly 20 years as Deputy Director. Kimm began her career with theUGS in what is now the Geologic Hazards Program, where she concentratedon investigating, mapping, and reporting on landslides. Kimm later becamethe UGS’ rst technical reviewer, and rst manager of the GeologicInformation and Outreach Program. Highlights of Kimm’s career while DeputyDirector include overseeing the construction of the on-campus Utah CoreResearch Center in 1998, and serving as UGS Acting Director for 15 months(1999–2000). She was named DNR Manager of the Year in 2006. LastDecember, at the annual DNR Employee Awards Ceremony, Kimm receiveda Distinguished Service Award in recognition of her outstanding career.Despite these accomplishments, Kimm always insisted that her greatestlegacy was to nally get water coolers installed at the UGS!

DIAN NE DAVIS retired in January after 15 years with theState of Utah. Dianne spent the first seven years of her career with FleetOperations and the last eight years with the UGS, as the AdministrativeAssistant to both divisions. Dianne is looking forward to spending hertime between her elderly mother, grandkids and family, and doing sometraveling.

The Utah Department of Natural Resources (DNR) opened its new Southwest Regional Complex in Cedar City with an official ribbon cuttingceremony in September. The new complex houses employees from four DNR divisions, including the Utah Geological Survey. “Building apermanent regional office reaffirms our commitment to Iron County and the entire southwest region of Utah,” said DNR Executive DirectorMike Styler. “By centralizing our services at one facility, we increase convenience for the public, save money long-term, and improvefunctionality and collaboration between our divisions and regional partners.” The new Cedar City office is located at 646 North Main Street.

Don R. Mabey , former UGS Deputy Director, passed away on October 10, 2015, in Salt LakeCity. Don’s career included working for the U.S. Geological Survey (1951–80) and the UGS(1982–86). He received the U.S. Department of the Interior's Superior Per formance Award in1958 and 1961, Meritorious Service Award in 1970, and Distinguished Service Award in 1979"in recognition of his outstanding contributions to solid-Ear th geophysics and the exceptionalleadership he provided scientific research programs." Before he was UGS Deputy Director, Donmanaged the Applied Geology Program (now the Geologic Hazards Program). In retirement heprovided technical expertise and inspiration to Earth Science Education, a small not-for-profitthat teaches Utah teachers about local Earth science. He is survived by his wife, GenevieveAtwood, former UGS Director and State Geologist.

IN MEMORIAM

NEW UGS CEDAR CITY OFFICE

12 SURVEY NOTES


15/16

Geologic map of the Goshen quadrangle, Utahand Juab Counties, Utah, by Adam P. McKean,Barry J. Solomon, and Stefan M. Kirby, CD (16 p.,2 pl. [contains GIS data]), scale 1:24,000, ISBN 978-1-55791-915-1,Map 272DM....................$24.95

Proceedings volume, Basin and RangeProvince Seismic Hazards Summit III,edited by William R. Lund, DVD (7 technicalsessions [47 presentations], 14 posters), ISBN

978-1-55791-916-8,Miscellaneous Publication 15-5.....$19.95

Interim geologic map of the western Loa30' x 60' quadrangle, Garfeld, Piute, andWayne Counties, Utah, (year 2), by RobertF. Biek, Jeffrey G. Eaton, Peter D. Rowley, andStephen R. Mattox, CD (20 p., 2 pl.),Open-File Report 648.......................$14.95

Interim geologic map of the east part of theDuchesne 30' x 60' quadrangle, Duchesneand Wasatch Counties, Utah (year 3), byDouglas A. Sprinkel, CD (18 p., 1 pl.),Open-File Report 647......................$14.95

Geologic map of the San Rafael Desert 30' x60' quadrangle, Emery and Grand Counties,Utah, by Hellmut H. Doelling, Paul A. Kuehne,Grant C. Willis, and J. Buck Ehler, DVD (15 p., 2 pl.[contains GIS data]), scale 1:62,500, ISBN 978-1-55791-888-8,Map 267DM..................$24.95

The Utah Geological Association (UGA) and the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) presentedthe 2015 Lehi Hintze Award to Douglas A. Sprinkel, for his outstanding contributions toUtah geology. Doug’s geologic contributions over his 40-year career include (1) petroleumexploration, (2) management, mapping, and conducting studies with the UGS, (3) volunteeractivities for the UGA, American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), and otherorganizations, and (4) geologic maps and publications about the geology of Utah based on hisresearch.

In his 10 years with Placid Oil Company, Doug was both an exploration geologist and manager(District Geologist in Salt Lake City). His work in the central Utah thrust belt greatly added tothe understanding of this geologically complex region. Since joining the UGS in 1986, Doughas served as Geologic Hazards Program Manager, UGS Deputy Director, and presently is aSenior Geologist in the Geologic Mapping Program. Doug has published 71 technical papersor articles on Utah geology, 40 for which he was the senior author. He also has published 15geologic maps of Utah, with another 6 in press or preparation. His current principal projectsare geologic mapping in the Uinta Mountains-Uinta Basin and a regional stratigraphic study tocorrelate Middle Jurassic marine to uvial formations in Utah and surrounding states.

Doug served as UGA President in 1984–85 and was the editor/co-editor of ve UGAguidebooks, including senior editor of the popular UGA guidebooks Geology of Utah Parks

and Monuments and Road, Trail, and Lake Guides to Utah’s Parks and Monuments ; he is currently the lead editor for UGA’s online journalGeology of the Intermountain West . He has led/co-led nearly 20 eld trips for the UGA, AAPG, universities, middle and high school earthscience teachers, and the UGS using Utah geology to educate both the current and future generation of geologists. Finally, Doug has provided

technical expertise for geologic displays for the Utah Field House and Museum of Natural History in Vernal, for Ashley National Forest, and forthe Uinta-Flaming Gorge National Scenic Byway.

Named for the rst recipient, the late Dr. Lehi F. Hintze of Brigham Young University, the Lehi Hintze Award was established in 2003 by theUGA and UGS to recognize outstanding contributions to the understanding of Utah geology. When Dr. Hintze accepted that rst award, hestated, “There are two geologists that I have the greatest respect for their contributions to Utah geology. The rst is Hellmut Doelling (retiredUGS geologist and second winner of the Lehi Hintze Award), and the other is Doug Sprinkel.”

NEW PUBLICATIONS

2015 Lehi Hintze Award | DOUG SPRINKEL

JANUARY 2016 13


16/16

FOLLOW US!

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage

PAIDSalt Lake City, UTPermit No. 4728

UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1594 W North Temp le, Sui te 3110PO Box 146100Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100

Address service requested Survey Notes

Mon–Fri 8 AM –5 PM | 801-537-3320 OR 1-888-UTAHMAP | [email protected] | mapstore.utah.gov

Natural ResourcesMap & Bookstore

1594 W North TempleSalt Lake City, UT 84116|

UGS Blog UGS TwitterUGS Facebook

Did you know that the Utah Geological Survey has an

O N L I N E S T O R Ewhere you can discover Utah geology, mapping,rockhounding, history, and more?

VISIT MAPSTORE.UTAH.GOV

Utah Survey Notes, January 2016

Documents

Transcript of Utah Survey Notes, January 2016