Canyonlands National Park 

Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2005/003 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Canyonlands National Park 

Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2005/003 

Geologic Resources Division 

Natural Resource Program Center 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

September 2005 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Washington, D.C.
The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest 

and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the 

management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS 

conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that 

the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the 

intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. 

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current 

natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a 

general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive 

issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this 

series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; 

proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource 

programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact 

sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. 

Views and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect 

policies of the National Park Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does 

not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are 

only available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Geologic 

Resource Evaluation Program website (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/

gre_publications) on the internet, or by sending a request to the address on the back cover. 

Please cite this publication as: 

KellerLynn, K. 2005. Canyonlands National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report. 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2005/003 . National Park Service, Denver, 

Colorado. 

NPS D-167, September 2005 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report iii 

Table of Contents 

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3

Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3

Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 5

Abandoned Mine Land Sites.......................................................................................................................................5

Biological and Physical Soil Crusts.............................................................................................................................6

Problem Soils .............................................................................................................................................................6

Earthquake Potential ..................................................................................................................................................6

Flooding......................................................................................................................................................................7

Groundwater Level .....................................................................................................................................................8

Groundwater Quality...................................................................................................................................................8

Mass Wasting.............................................................................................................................................................8

Mineral and Rock Resources......................................................................................................................................9

Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................................11

Wind Erosion ............................................................................................................................................................11

Geologic Features and Processes............................................................................. 14

Colorado (or Cataract) Lineament ............................................................................................................................14

Colorado and Green Rivers......................................................................................................................................14

Desert Colors............................................................................................................................................................14

Elaterite ....................................................................................................................................................................15

Entrenchment Meanders ..........................................................................................................................................15

Erosional Landforms.................................................................................................................................................15

The Grabens.............................................................................................................................................................17

Groundwater.............................................................................................................................................................18

Laramide Orogeny....................................................................................................................................................18

Late Cenozoic Uplift .................................................................................................................................................19

Paleontological Resources .......................................................................................................................................19

Salt Beds ..................................................................................................................................................................20

Upheaval Dome........................................................................................................................................................20

Unconformities..........................................................................................................................................................20

Wind Erosion ............................................................................................................................................................21

Map Unit Properties .................................................................................................... 22 

Map Unit Properties Table........................................................................................................................................23

Geologic History.......................................................................................................... 25

References................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A: Geologic Map Graphic .......................................................................... 32

Appendix B: SEUG Scoping Summary...................................................................... 33

Appendix C: Geoindicators Scoping Summary........................................................ 41 

Attachment 1: Digital Geologic Map CD 
iv NPS Geologic Resources Division 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Map of the Colorado Plateau Province............................................................................................................4 

Figure 2. Index Map of Canyonlands National Park.....................................................................................................12 

Figure 3. GeneralizedStratigraphic Column for Canyonlands National Park................................................................13 

Figure 4. Map of the Northern Part of Canyonlands National Park. .............................................................................26 

Figure 5. Geologic Time Scale.....................................................................................................................................26 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 1 

Executive Summary 

This report has been developed to accompany the digital geologic map of Canyonlands 

National Park produced by Geologic Resource Evaluation staff. It contains information 

relevant to resource management and scientific research. 

Each year the geologic resources of Canyonlands 

National Park draw thousands of visitors to the Moab 

area. The magnificent scenery, character, and beauty of 

Canyonlands National Park are the result of geologic 

processes, including erosion and mass wasting. In 

addition, structural features, seen at the surface today, 

are a consequence of Laramide and younger 

rejuvenation of preexisting fracture patterns of 

Precambrian age. The presence of salt at shallow 

depths—from the Middle Pennsylvanian Paradox 

Formation, the oldest rocks in the park—adds 

complexity to these landforms. 

The primary audience for this report is resource 

managers. This report was compiled with the objective to 

present a description of geologic resources in the park in 

such a way as to provide information for making 

management decisions. The geologic setting and history 

are summarized in the introduction and geologic history 

sections. Map unit properties are organized into a table 

to facilitate access to the information and provide a link 

to the park’s geologic map. Significant and interesting 

geologic features and processes are highlighted, which 

may be of use not only to resource managers but also 

interpretation and resource- protection staffs. Lastly, 

geologic resources that may warrant the attention of 

resource managers are a primary focus. 

The following issues have been identified as having the 

most geological importance and the highest level of 

management significance: 

• Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Sites—Closures of 

AML sites in the park have been performed on a 

priority basis, with funding being the primary 

constraint. Eight mines (10 openings) were closed in 

Lathrop Canyon in February 1990. Since that time, 

park managers have closed six openings around 

Airport Tower and Upper Lathrop Canyon 

(November 1996), and in April 1998, seven openings 

were closed with bat gates: Upper Lathrop #9 and #12, 

Airport Tower #1 and #2, Musselman adit, and Shafer 

#1 and #2. District rangers have completed initial 

inventories for other remote sites. These inventories 

indicate that several other sites merit closure. 

• Biological and Physical Soil Crusts—Biological soil 

crusts—composed primarily of cyanobacteria, lichens, 

and mosses—are important and widespread 

components of ecosystems in the park, namely in 

greatly benefiting soil quality. In some areas of the 

park, continued off- trail use by visitors and past 

trampling by cattle have significantly damaged soil 

crusts. Soil nutrient cycles, as well as most other 

benefits of biological soil crusts, have been 

compromised in these areas. 

• Earthquake Potential—The Paradox basin contains 

complex structures and a number of faults known or 

suspected to have had Quaternary movement. Major 

Quaternary (?) faults that appear to extend below the 

evaporite sequence or that intersect the trend of the 

salt- anticline belt along preexisting structures can be 

regarded as potentially active faults that may 

experience significant tectonic displacements. 

Microseismic activity is not felt and has little potential 

for causing damage. During 1989, 421 events occurred 

within 2.5 miles (4 km) of the original underground 

potash mine workings. Some of these seismic events 

were human caused during mine dewatering. 

However, slightly stronger events have been recorded 

along the Colorado River to the south. 

• Flooding—Flooding, erosion, and deposition by 

running water are the most active and potentially 

damaging hazards in the Canyonlands area. Torrential 

summer rains occasionally fill washes with runoff. 

Rock and earth debris that has collected in the washes 

for many seasons is then transported toward the 

Colorado River. Floodwaters in washes have been 

observed to move boulders larger than automobiles. 

Where floods cross roads and trails, damage occurs to 

infrastructure. 

• Debris Flows—Investigators have linked debris flows 

in drainage basins to the presence and topographic 

position of shales within the watersheds in 

Canyonlands National Park. The presence of 

terrestrial shales, such as the Halgaito Shale, greatly 

increases the frequency of debris flows. The presence 

of shales in steep terrain is also critical. 

• Landslides—Landslide deposits in Canyonlands 

National Park are associated with the Triassic- age 

Chinle Formation. However, landsliding is not 

considered a serious hazard unless a long series of wet 

years occurs. 

• Rockfalls—Rockfalls occur sporadically along cliff 

walls as a natural process of erosional cliff retreat. 

Rock fragments from the Honaker Trail, Cutler, 

Moenkopi, Chinle, and Glen Canyon Group produce 

rockfall debris. In most cases, blocks of sandstone fall 

from the canyon rims and break up harmlessly on the 

slope below, but damage to highways and railroad 

tracks has occurred. Therefore, danger is possible in 

transportation corridors and to those using the area 

for recreational purposes. 
2 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

• Decorative Stone—Rocks found in the vicinity of 

Canyonlands National Park have been used in the 

region as decorative stone for building facing, 

pavements, and gardens. Ripple- marked sandstone 

from the Moenkopi Formation; rounded metamorphic 

and igneous cobbles from Quaternary- age, higherlevel terraces; and flat slabs of fossiliferous limestone 

from the Honaker Trail Formation have been collected 

for such purposes. 

• Gold—Gravels of the Colorado River and terrace 

alluvium contain “flour” gold and rare flakes and small 

nuggets. Some of the gravels disturbed in the process 

of gold extraction have subsequently been exploited 

for sand and gravel. 

• Sand and Gravel—Colorado River alluvium and 

terrace alluvium contain sand and gravel suitable for 

construction of highways. As of 1994, no attempt had 

been made to calculate the reserves, but they are 

expected to be large. 

• Oil and Gas—The area surrounding Canyonlands 

National Park has been the site of widespread oil and 

gas exploration. Production in these fields has been 

from the Cane Creek zone of the Paradox Formation 

and from the Mississippian Leadville Formation. Oil 

shows also have been encountered in other layers of 

dolomite, shale, and anhydrite within the Paradox 

Formation. 

• Salts—The most common salt minerals in the Paradox 

Formation are halite, carnallite, and sylvite. Because of 

its low potash content, carnallite is not considered 

commercial at present, but it remains a potentially 

valuable source of magnesium. Sylvite is the 

commercial potash mineral, which is used 

internationally as fertilizer. Carbonate, anhydrite, and 

black shale are potentially commercial brines. The 

Moab Salt Company currently operates the Cane 

Creek mine near the park, which produces potash and 

rock salt using solution mining and evaporation ponds. 

• Uranium—The Chinle Formation in the Canyonlands 

area contains major deposits of uranium. Significant 

deposits also occur in the Morrison and Cutler 

Formations. 

• Problem Soils—Building houses or constructing 

roadways over clay- bearing units of the Chinle 

Formation should be avoided on account of the 

presence of expanding and shrinking clay. Bentonite 

also makes dirt roads dangerous (slippery and 

unstable) when wet. In addition, piping is common in 

arid and semi- arid climates where fine- grained, noncemented, Holocene- age alluvium is incised by 

ephemeral stream channels. Piping involves the 

removal of fine particles increasing void space and 

thereby producing a “pipe” and promoting enhanced 

erosion. 

• Wetlands—Wetlands are important ecosystems 

because they stabilize stream banks, act as filters to 

improve water quality, attenuate flood waters, and 

enhance biodiversity (i.e., provide habitat for 

amphibians, reptiles, birds, including threatened and 

endangered species). They also are highly productive 

in terms of biomass and nutrient productivity, and are 

valuable water sources for wildlife and recreationists. 

Human impacts to wetlands include building parking 

lots and structures in or near stream channels, building 

structures in floodplains (e.g., culverts and bridges), 

grazing in uplands and stream channels, roads and 

trails in streambeds, introduction of exotic species, 

and impacts from flow regulation and diversion. In 

addition, agricultural activities and past extirpation of 

beaver have affected wetlands. 

• Wind Erosion—Eolian dust (windblown silt and clay) 

is important in desert ecosystems as a source of 

nutrients and as a substrate for biological soil crusts, 

which stabilize arid surfaces and cycle nitrogen. On the 

other hand, the presence of eolian dust in arid- land 

surficial deposits and soils renders these deposits 

vulnerable to wind erosion. Sand blowing across and 

accumulating on roads occasionally causes problems. 

More commonly, motorists using back roads should 

be cautious when proceeding into areas of sheet or 

dune sands. Loss of traction in sandy areas becomes 

more pronounced during the hot summer months 

when even gentle slopes of sand cannot be traversed in 

a motor vehicle. Trampling and vegetation alteration 

by prior livestock grazing within the park, and human 

recreational activities (e.g., hiking, biking, and driving, 

especially off established trails and roads) can 

destabilize soils and increase soil susceptibility to wind 

erosion. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 3 

Introduction 

The following section briefly describes the regional geologic setting and the National 

Park Service Geologic Resource Evaluation Program. 

Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program 

Geologic resources serve as the foundation of park 

ecosystems and yield important information needed for 

park decision making. The National Park Service Natural 

Resource Challenge, an action plan to advance the 

management and protection of park resources, has 

focused efforts to inventory the natural resources of 

parks. The Geologic Resource Evaluation (GRE) 

Program, administered by the NPS Geologic Resources 

Division, carries out the geologic component of the 

inventory. The goal of the GRE Program is to provide 

each of the identified 274 “natural area” parks with a 

digital geologic map, a geologic resource evaluation 

report, and a geologic bibliography. Each product is a 

tool to support the stewardship of park resources and 

each is designed to be user friendly to non- geoscientists. 

In preparing products the GRE team works closely with 

park staff and partners (e.g., USGS, state geologic 

surveys, and academics). 

The GRE teams hold scoping meetings at parks to review 

available data on the geology of a particular park and to 

discuss the geologic issues in the park. Park staff is 

afforded the opportunity to meet with the experts on the 

geology of its park. Scoping meetings are usually held in 

each park individually to expedite the process although 

some scoping meetings are multi- park meetings for an 

entire Vital Signs Monitoring Network. 

Geologic Setting 

Sparsely vegetated plateaus, mesas, deep canyons, and 

barren badlands characterize the scenic beauty of the 

Colorado Plateau, which encompasses an area of 

approximately 140,000 square miles (36,260 km2

) in the 

Four Corners region of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and 

New Mexico. The Colorado Plateau includes the area 

drained by the Colorado River and its tributaries: Green, 

San Juan, and Little Colorado Rivers. 

The combination of high relief and an arid climate over 

most of the plateau has resulted in limited plant cover. 

The products of weathering are easily eroded by fast 

moving streams leaving behind bare rocks that produce 

the dramatic scenery and excellent rock exposures of the 

area. 

Elevations on the plateau range from 3,000 to 14,000 feet 

(914 to 4,267 m) with an average of 5,200 feet (1,585 m). 

The range of elevation causes climate extremes—

Sonoran desert to alpine; however, semiarid conditions 

prevail. The high Sierra Nevada to the west prevents 

Pacific moisture- laden air from reaching the 

southwestern states. As a result of this rain shadow 

effect, annual precipitation on the Colorado Plateau is 

low, averaging about 10 inches (25.4 cm) per year. 

General Physiography 

The Colorado Plateau is a high- standing crustal block of 

relatively undeformed rocks surrounded by the highly 

deformed Rocky Mountains and Basin and Range. The 

Uinta Mountains of Utah and the Rocky Mountains of 

Colorado define the northern and northeastern 

boundaries of the plateau. The Rio Grande Rift Valley in 

New Mexico defines the eastern boundary. The 

southern boundary is marked by the Mogollon Rim, an 

erosional cuesta that separates the Colorado Plateau 

from the extensively faulted Basin and Range Province. A 

broad transition zone, where geologic features range 

between those typical of Colorado Plateau and Basin and 

Range, lies to the west. The margins of the Colorado 

Plateau are marked by major volcanic accumulations. 

Geophysical studies indicate Earth’s crust is relatively 

thick below the province and heat flow (geothermal 

gradient) is relatively low. The plateau also has distinct 

gravity and magnetic signatures. 

Rigby (1977) divided the Colorado Plateau into six 

sections: (1) Grand Canyon section—structurally the 

highest part of the Colorado Plateau province; (2) High 

Plateaus section—characterized by high, north- trending 

plateaus, separated from each other by faults; (3) Uinta 

Basin—structurally the lowest part of the Colorado 

Plateau; (4) Canyonlands section—deeply incised 

canyons, large monoclines, and laccolithic mountains; (5) 

Navajo section—scarped plateaus, less dissected than in 

the Canyonlands section; and 6) Datil section—largely 

volcanic in origin (fig. 1). 

Geologic Structures 

The major structures of the plateau include broad 

flexures, monoclines, vertical faults, and salt tectonic 

features, as well as igneous laccoliths and volcanics. 

Moreover, rather than the tight folds characteristic of 

orogenic belts, folds of the Colorado Plateau are broad 

open folds or flexures. As an example, the Kaibab Uplift 

forms a great arch 100 miles (160 km) long and 25 miles 

(40 km) wide. 

Wide areas of nearly flat- lying sedimentary rocks are 

separated by abrupt bends of strata along monoclinal 

(one- sided) folds. Monoclines form where sedimentary 

rocks are draped over deep- seated basement faults. 

Classic examples of monoclines on the Colorado Plateau 

include the north- south trending Comb Ridge 

monocline on the east flank of the Monument uplift, the 

San Rafael Reef, and the Waterpocket Fold at Capitol 

Reef National Park. 

A number of long north- south trending normal faults 

dissect the plateau. A normal fault forms by tensional 
4 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

forces and is defined as a fault where the foot wall has 

moved up relative to the hanging wall. The Hurricane 

Cliffs west of Zion National Park are an impressive westfacing scarp that is the surface expression of one of these 

faults. In Grand Canyon, the Bright Angel fault defines 

the orientation of Bright Angel Canyon. 

The Colorado Plateau is actually a series of plateaus 

separated by north- south trending faults or monoclines. 

The faults are more prevalent to the west and 

monoclines tend to occur to the east. Formation of faults 

and monoclines is due to movement of crustal blocks in 

the Precambrian basement rocks. Differential movement 

of these blocks is responsible for the differences in 

elevation across the plateau. 

Two types of igneous features occur on the plateau: 

intrusive laccoliths and extrusive volcanics. Laccoliths 

are concordant igneous bodies, which form when magma 

is injected at shallow depths along the bedding planes of 

sedimentary rocks that results in doming of overlying 

strata. Examples of laccoliths include the Henry, La Sal, 

Abajo, Ute, La Plata, and Carrizo Ranges. The Henry 

Mountains, where G. K. Gilbert first described laccoliths 

and proposed their name, can be viewed at Capitol Reef 

National Park, and the La Sal Mountains at Arches 

National Park. The laccoliths are Oligocene to Miocene 

in age and have an intermediate composition. The 

volcanics on the plateau were deposited less than 6 

million years ago and are as young as 1,200 years old. The 

older volcanics are andesitic, whereas the younger 

volcanics are dominantly basaltic in composition and 

occur as lava flows and cinder cones. In some areas, lava 

flowed down preexisting valleys; the softer sedimentary 

rocks that once formed the sides of the valley have been 

eroded away leaving the lava flows exposed as a ridge or 

inverted topography. 

Thick accumulations of salt deposits occur in the 

subsurface of the Paradox basin of the eastern Colorado 

Plateau. Because salt has a low density and is very ductile, 

it flows under pressure and rises toward the surface, 

deforming overlying strata as it moves. Excellent 

examples of salt anticlines and salt domes can be 

observed at Canyonlands National Park. 

Figure 1. Map of the Colorado Plateau Province. The Colorado Plateau, of which Canyonlands National Park is a part, can be divided 

into six sections. This map shows the major drainage and section boundaries. Source: Hunt (1956). 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 5 

Geologic Issues 

Scoping sessions were held for Canyonlands National Park on May 24–27, 1999, and 

June 3–6, 2002, to discuss geologic resources, address the status of geologic mapping, and 

assess resource management issues and needs (see appendices). The following section 

synthesizes the scoping results, in particular, those issues that may require attention 

from resource managers. 

Included in this section are recommendations for 

potential research, inventory, and monitoring projects, 

which participants discussed at the geoindicators 

scoping meeting in June 2002. The scoping summary for 

the Southeast Utah Group geologic resources inventory 

workshop is included as Appendix B. The scoping 

summary for the geoindicators meeting is included as 

Appendix C; the complete report and meeting notes can 

be found on the included CD (Attachment 1). 

Readers are referred to figure 2 (at the end of this 

section) for an index map that shows localities discussed 

in this report and figure 3 (at the end of this section) for a 

generalized stratigraphic column for rock units discussed 

in this report. 

Abandoned Mine Land Sites 

Thirty- one abandoned mine land (AML) openings at 10 

sites exist within the boundaries of Canyonlands 

National Park (table 1). Investigators identified the 

openings located in Lathrop Canyon, in the northeastern 

section of Island in the Sky, as highest priority for 

mitigation because of easy access and the presence of 

hazards to park visitors. The mines were connected by a 

service road and cattle trail, which today, though washed 

out and overgrown in places, serves as a popular hiking 

trail. The mines were not extensively developed 

(maximum depth of 280 feet [85 m]), attesting to the low 

grade of uranium ore at this location. All workings are 

essentially horizontal because they are developed on 

outcrops of the flat- lying Shinarump Member of the 

Chinle Formation, which is typically no more than 10 feet 

(3 m) thick. Average mine drift dimensions are 6 feet (1.8 

m) wide by 7 feet (2.1 m) high, while some chambers open 

to a maximum of 25 feet (7.6 m) wide by 11 feet (3.4 m) 

high. 

Old campfire rings and footprints indicate that visitors 

have been accessing the mines despite general warning 

signs posted by park managers. Alpha radiation levels 

inside the deeper mines approaches and exceeds 

occupational limits for entry in the mine without 

breathing protection. Radiation in the mines precludes 

camping, which may have been more tempting inside the 

mines because they provide cool retreat from the hot 

desert sun and serve as a refuge from the torrential rains 

which occasionally drench the area. Additional hazards 

include explosives that have been found in the area, and 

clayey areas of the mines that become very slick when 

wet, adding to the potential for serious injury from rusty 

scrap steel and nails. Although rock in the area is 

generally stable, some loose slabs were found and 

rockfalls could occur. 

Table 1. AML sites in Canyonlands National Park 

Name Location Adits Shafts Total 

Lathrop 

Canyon 

T27S, 

R19E, 

s34,35 

12 0 12 

Airport 

Tower 

T28S, 

R19E, s2,3 

6 0 6 

Musselman T24S, 

R21E, s3 

1 0 1 

Shafer UTM, 

603000E, 

4255000N 

2 0 2 

Buck 

Canyon 

T28S, 

R19E, 

s29,29 

3 1 4 

Taylor 

Canyon 

Campground 

UTM 

593000E, 

4258000N 

2 0 2 

Woodruf 

Bottom 

UTM 

585000E, 

4263000N 

1 0 1 

Saddle 

Horse 

Bottom 

UTM 

578000E, 

4261000N 

1 0 1 

Salt Creek 

(Needles) 

T31S, 

R20E, s7 

1 0 1 

Cathedral 

Point Mesa 

(Needles) 

T32S, 

R20E, s28 

1 0 1 

 Total 31 

Source: John Burghardt, NPS Geologic Resources Division, 

unpublished data, April 21, 1998. 

In the early years of the park, the Lathrop Canyon 

mining area did not attract many visitors. However, 

visitation to the area eventually began to increase, and in 

1988, at the request of park managers and the NPS Rocky 

Mountain regional director, staff from the Geologic 

Resources Division (formerly known as the NPS Mining 

and Minerals Branch) inventoried the mines. They 

determined that the potential for rockfall from the mine 

roofs in eight of the mines posed a safety hazard that 

required physical closure. Several of the deeper adits had 

significantly elevated alpha radiation readings (from 

radon gas and its progeny), although radiation at mine 

portals was within acceptable levels due to dilution with 

uncontaminated outside air. These eight mines (10 

openings) were closed with cable nets in February 1990 
6 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

(Craig Hauke, Southeast Utah Group, unpublished 

environmental assessment, August 1996). In addition, a 

French drain system was installed at mine #7, an opening 

with water drainage. 

Special signs warning of elevated radiation levels, 

contaminated water, and camping prohibitions were 

developed for this project, and installed just inside the 

cable net closures. These signs have been very effective at 

deterring vandalism of the closures and keeping visitors 

from remaining in the area long enough to receive a 

significant dose of radiation. Furthermore, other 

National Park System units and agencies have since used 

the sign design at their uranium AML sites. 

Since 1990, park managers have closed six openings 

around Airport Tower and Upper Lathrop Canyon using 

earthen hand- backfills. In April 1998, seven openings 

were closed with bat gates, which allow bat but not 

human entry: Upper Lathrop #9 and #12, Airport Tower 

#1 and #2, Musselman adit, and Shafer #1 and #2. 

The NPS Geologic Resources Division arranged all the 

work to close the abandoned mines through the 

engineering, contracting, and project management 

assistance of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Oil, Gas and Mining’s Abandoned Mine 

Land Reclamation Program. This partnership between 

the National Park Service and the Utah Department of 

Natural Resources has proven to be very successful for 

addressing AML sites in all of the National Park System 

units in Utah (John Burghardt, NPS Geologic Resources 

Division, written communication, January 2004). 

Mine closures in the park have been performed on a 

priority basis, with funding being the primary constraint. 

District rangers have completed initial inventories for 

remote sites. From these inventories it appears that 

several other sites merit closure (John Burghardt, NPS 

Geologic Resources Division, written communication, 

January 2004). 

Biological and Physical Soil Crusts 

Biological soil crusts—composed primarily of 

cyanobacteria, lichens, and mosses—are important and 

widespread components of the ecosystems in the park, 

namely in benefiting soil quality. Soil crusts increase 

water infiltration in some soil types, stabilize the soils, fix 

atmospheric nitrogen for vascular plants, provide carbon 

to the interspaces between vegetation, secrete metals that 

stimulate plant growth, capture nutrient- carrying dust, 

and increase soil temperatures by decreasing surface 

albedo. They affect vegetation structure directly due to 

effects on soil stability, seedbed characteristics, and safesite availability, and indirectly through effects on soil 

temperature and on water and nutrient availability. 

Decreases in the abundance of biological soil crusts 

relative to physicochemical crusts—which can protect 

soils from wind erosion but not water erosion, and do 

not perform other ecological functions of biological 

crusts—can indicate increased susceptibility of soils to 

erosion and decreased function of other ecosystem 

processes associated with biological crusts. 

Continued off- trail use by visitors and past trampling by 

cattle have significantly damaged soil crusts in some 

areas of the park. Soil nutrient cycles, as well as most 

other benefits of biological soil crusts, have been 

compromised in these areas. 

Recommendations 

1. Map biological soil crust communities and inventory 

condition and distribution of biological soil crusts. 

2. Investigate connection between ecosystem function 

and biological crusts. 

3. Study crust recovery rates and susceptibility to change. 

4. Study crust population dynamics and conditions. 

Problem Soils 

Swelling Clays 

Because of potential for expanding and shrinking, 

building houses or constructing roadways over claybearing units of the Chinle Formation should be avoided 

(Doelling and others, 1994). The Petrified Forest 

Member of the Chinle Formation contains bentonite, 

which makes dirt roads dangerous when wet (Baars, 

2000). 

Piping 

Piping is subsurface erosion by groundwater that flows 

into permeable, non- cohesive layers in unconsolidated 

sediments. During piping, water removes fine sediments 

and exits at a spot where the layer intersects the surface. 

The removal of fine particles increases void space 

thereby producing a “pipe” and enhancing erosion. 

Fine- grained soils and surficial deposits are prone to 

piping and gullying. Piping is common in arid and 

semiarid climates where fine- grained, non- cemented, 

Holocene- age alluvium is incised by ephemeral stream 

channels (Doelling and Morgan, 2000). Floods caused by 

cloudburst storms can quickly remove large volumes of 

material. 

Earthquake Potential 

In a broad sense, the interior of the Colorado Plateau is 

tectonically stable and has simple crustal structure. Much 

of the region shows little or no evidence of tectonism 

during the Quaternary. However, the 1988 ML 5.3 San 

Rafael Swell earthquake, which occurred on a buried 

fault, demonstrates a potential for moderate- size 

earthquakes in the Colorado Plateau (Nava and others, 

1988). 

Unlike the regional picture, the Paradox basin contains 

complex structural relations and a number of faults 

known or suspected to have had Quaternary movement. 

A conspicuous group of high- angle, northwesttrending, valley- bounding faults is associated with 

dissolutional collapse along the crests of large salt 

anticlines, cored by evaporite- rich strata of the 

Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation. These normal faults 

may be favorably oriented with respect to the regional 

stress field, which on the basis of low- level seismicity 

appears to be characterized by northeast- oriented 

extension (Wong and Humphrey, 1989; Zoback and 

Zoback, 1989). From a study of relative fluvial- incision 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 7 

rates during the late Cenozoic, Ely (1988) recognized a 

regional northwest- trending downward axis between 

Castle- Sinbad- Paradox Valleys and the Uncompahgre 

uplift, which he attributed to extensional reactivation of 

deep- seated faults beneath the Paradox basin. Major 

Quaternary (?) faults that appear to extend below the 

evaporite sequence (for example, the Moab fault and 

possibly the Lisbon Valley fault zone) or that intersect 

the trend of the salt- anticline belt along preexisting 

structures (for example, the Shay graben) can be 

regarded as potentially active faults that may experience 

significant tectonic displacements (Woodward- Clyde 

Consultants, 1982). 

Surface faulting related strictly to salt dissolution and 

collapse represents an unknown (probably low) seismic 

hazard. Youthful salt- related deformation along the 

Colorado River (in particular, the Needles graben and 

Meander anticline) is a local, shallow- seated response to 

canyon cutting and associated topographic relief and 

thus probably does not occur seismically. Much of the 

most recent deformation in the Paradox basin is due to 

continued collapse of salt- cored valleys and is expressed 

as tilted and warped surficial deposits, rather than as 

discrete surface fault ruptures. This type of deformation 

may occur gradually and not as a succession of 

instantaneous events (Hecker, 1993). 

Wong (1984) and Wong and Humphrey (1989) studied 

seismicity in the Paradox basin from 1979 to 1987 in 

connection with nuclear waste- disposal investigations. 

Very low- level earthquake activity was noted along the 

Colorado River from its confluence with the Green River 

northward to Amasa Back. The strongest recorded event 

(Richter magnitude 3.8) occurred February 1, 1967, with 

its epicenter near Upheaval Dome (Woodward- Clyde 

Consultants, 1980). Most of the events occurring in the 

region are microearthquakes having Richter magnitudes 

of less than 1.0. 

During 1989, 421 seismic events occurred within 2.5 miles 

(4 km) of underground potash mine workings outside 

the park(Wong and Humphrey, 1989). The old workings 

are generally flooded with water, which hydrostatically 

supports the roof. The mine is periodically dewatered 

(about once a year) for brine extraction, during which 

time earthquake events increase. However, slightly 

stronger events have been recorded along the river to the 

south. Microseismic activity is not felt and has little 

potential for causing damage (Doelling and others, 1994). 

Flooding 

According to Doelling and Morgan (2000), flooding, 

erosion, and deposition by running water are the most 

active and potentially damaging hazards in the Merrimac 

Butte quadrangle (northeast of the park). Sparsely 

vegetated, steep fan slopes and deep, narrow washes are 

subject to flooding and to rapid erosion from waters 

generated by cloudbursts. Debris flows and floods 

generally remain confined to stream channels in highrelief areas, but may exit channels and deposit debris 

where slope gradients decrease or channels are shallow 

along their travel paths. Easily erodible bedrock and 

abundant unstable slope debris provide ample material 

for debris flows. Debris flows and stream floods have 

damaged roads in the Merrimac Butte quadrangle 

(Doelling and Morgan, 2000). 

Torrential summer rains occasionally fill washes with 

runoff. Rock and earth debris that has collected in the 

washes for many seasons is then transported toward the 

Colorado River. Floodwaters in washes have been 

observed to move boulders larger than automobiles. 

Damage occurs where floods cross roads and trails. 

Motorists should not attempt to cross washes in flood 

stages, and hikers should stay out of narrow canyons 

when thunderstorms are imminent (Doelling and others, 

1994). 

Three geohydrologic processes are related to flooding: 

(1) stream channel morphology, (2) streamflow, and (3) 

stream sediment storage and load. Participants at the 

geoindicators scoping meeting in June 2002 identified 

these three processes as highly important to the park’s 

ecosystem and highly significant for natural resources 

managers. They also were interpreted as being 

significantly impacted by (or having high potential for) 

impacts by human activities, including parking lots and 

structures in or near channels, structures in floodplains 

(e.g., culverts and bridges), livestock grazing in uplands 

and stream channels, roads and trails in streambeds, 

introduction of exotic species, and impacts from flow 

regulation and diversion (Geoindicator scoping meeting, 

unpublished report, June 2002). 

Stream Channel Morphology 

Stream channels are vital components of aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems in arid- land parks. The morphology 

of stream channels impacts the vegetative structure of 

riparian corridors, affects the height of the water table, 

and affects the energy of water flow downstream (which 

affects erosion rates and water quality). 

Recommendation 

1. Conduct hydrologic condition assessment to identify 

actual and potential “problem reaches” of streams and 

prioritize for monitoring, including repeat aerial 

photographs and cross sections. Some data are 

available for the park (e.g., cross sections for Salt Creek 

in the Needles district) (Geoindicators scoping 

meeting, unpublished report, June 2002). 

Streamflow 

Streamflow is critical to the maintenance of aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems. Streamflow impacts the structure of 

the riparian corridor and affects the height of the water 

table, water quality, and erosion rates. 

Existing gauging stations are located on the Green River 

(Green River, Utah), San Rafael River (near Green River, 

Utah.), Fremont River (at Cainville, Utah, and above 

Park at Pine Creek), and on the Muddy River. Many 

other gauging stations exist (see 

http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/progdocs/factsheets/clrdfa

ct/clrdfact.html). Other relevant data may be obtained 
8 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

from local U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Division. 

Recommendations 

1. Identify important hydrologic systems that would 

benefit from knowledge of streamflow. 

2. Research effects of land use and climatic variation on 

streamflow. 

3. Investigate paleoflood hydrology. 

Stream Sediment Storage and Load 

Stream sediment storage and load is an important 

indicator of ecosystem health because sediment loads 

and distribution affect aquatic and riparian habitats, and 

because sediment loading can result in changes to 

channel morphology and frequency of overbank 

flooding. 

Recommendations 

1. Conduct research concerning ungauged stream 

sediment storage and load. No data are available 

except on the main stem of the Colorado River at 

Cisco, Utah, and the Green River at Green River, Utah. 

2. Measure sediment load on streams of high- interest for 

comparative assessment. Data will provide 

information for making management decisions. 

Groundwater Level 

Groundwater is a limited resource, and the potential for 

depleting the resource is significant, although current 

human impacts have not been quantified. Outside the 

river corridors in Canyonlands National Park, 

groundwater supplies much of the water available for 

wildlife, and supplies 100% of the park’s water supply for 

human use (Geoindicators scoping meeting, unpublished 

report, June 2002). 

Recommendations 

1. Inventory and research groundwater quality, level, and 

discharge. 

2. Install transducers and data- loggers in wells. 

3. Develop methods for measuring water discharge from 

seeps and hanging gardens. 

4. Investigate additional methods to characterize 

groundwater recharge areas and flow directions. 

Groundwater Quality 

The quality of the groundwater at Canyonlands National 

Park impacts hanging gardens—features that contain rare 

and unique plant species—and provide important 

wildlife habitat. The quality of groundwater is also a 

safety and health issue with respect to human use 

(Geoindicators scoping meeting, unpublished report, 

June 2002). 

The potential for negative effects on groundwater by 

human activity is significant. For example, in 

Canyonlands National Park an old landfill in the Needles 

district (about 1 mile [1.6 km] from the visitor center and 

3,000 feet [914 m] from a domestic well) had unregulated 

dumping from 1966 to 1987, and oil- well sites had on site 

disposal of drilling waste. The effects of mining and oil 

and gas drilling are unknown. However, inadequately 

abandoned oil and gas wells within and close to the 

park’s boundaries may result in saline waters infiltrating 

into groundwater supplies. Other potential impacts 

include: (1) herbicide use to decrease tamarisk 

populations, (2) trespass cattle at springs, (3) impacts 

from recreational uses (these have not been quantified), 

and (4) the Moab Salt Company potash mine located on 

the Colorado River at Potash, Utah. 

Recommendations 

1. Locate and inventory all seeps, springs, and hanging 

gardens. 

2. Prioritize seeps, springs, and hanging gardens for 

assessment of water quality. 

3. Acquire oil and gas well records potentially connected 

to the park’s groundwater systems. Assess quality of 

groundwater isolation. 

4. Use geochemical indicators to investigate groundwater 

flow areas, flow directions and recharge area, and 

groundwater age. 

5. Identify and study potential sources for groundwater 

quality impacts. 

Mass Wasting 

Debris Flows 

Investigators have linked debris flows in drainage basins 

less than 347 square miles (900 km2

) to the presence and 

topographic position of shales within the watersheds in 

Grand Canyon and Canyonlands National Parks. The 

presence of terrestrial shales, such as the Hermit Shale in 

Grand Canyon and Halgaito Shale in Canyonlands, 

greatly increases the frequency of debris flows. The 

presence of shales in steep terrain is also critical. 

Previous research in these parks indicates that kaolinite 

and illite are the dominant clay minerals in debris- flow 

producing shales, whereas smectites and sodium cations 

are high in shales that do not produce significant debris 

flows (Griffiths and others, 1997). 

Investigators hypothesize that the frequency of debris 

flows from sedimentary terrane on the Colorado Plateau 

is related to the mineralogy and cation chemistry of 

shales. Using 1:250,000 geology maps, they identified 33 

geologic formations in this region that contain shale 

units. They sampled 26 of these formations (35 units), 

associated colluvial wedges (24 samples), and debrisflow deposits (16 samples) for clay mineralogy and major 

cations. In general, shales of terrestrial origin—either 

lacustrine or fluvial—produce debris flows, whereas 

marine shales rarely produce debris flows that travel 

significant distances beyond the initiation point. Debrisflow producing shales generally contain greater than 

50% illite and kaolinite and less than 10% smectites and 

relatively high concentrations of exchangeable potassium 

(K) (2–15%) and magnesium (Mg) (5–20%) and less than 

15% sodium (Na) (exceptions: Straight Cliffs Formation 

and one unit of the Chinle Formation). Shales that rarely 

produce debris flows contain less than 40% smectite, 

generally greater than 20% Na, and only small 

concentrations of K and Mg. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 9 

Factor analysis of the mineralogy and cation data clearly 

differentiates the two types of shales. Colluvial wedges 

have similar mineralogies to the parent shale units, 

except many contain significant amounts of smectites 

and Na, possibly owing to pedogenesis and eolian 

deposition. The mineralogy and cation chemistry of 

debris- flow hazards on the Colorado Plateau may be 

mostly explained by the location and topographic 

position of terrestrial shales (Griffiths and others, 1997). 

Landslides 

Landslide deposits in Canyonlands National Park are 

associated with the Triassic- age Chinle Formation (e.g., 

around Upheaval Dome and Grand View Point, and 

northeast of Red Sea Flat in the northeast corner of the 

park) (Huntoon and others, 1982). Landsliding is not 

considered a serious hazard on the nearby Gold Bar 

Canyon quadrangle and should not be unless a long 

series of wet years occurs (Doelling and others, 1994). 

The close proximity and similar terrain makes this 

information an acceptable analog for Canyonlands 

National Park. 

Only two significant landslide deposits are present in the 

Gold Bar Canyon quadrangle: (1) on the northeast side of 

Moab Canyon and (2) in a tributary of Little Canyon. 

First, a block of the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison 

Formation, which is a rock unit not present in the park, 

detached along a clayey redbed and moved across the 

trace of the Moab fault and over the top of the Cutler 

Formation (present in the park). The landslide is 

considered inactive (Doelling and others, 1994). Second, 

a jumbled mass of ledgy sandstone and fine- grained 

clayey horizons from the Chinle Formation (present in 

the park) has oozed over the Moenkopi Formation 

(present in the park) like a viscous debris flow. This 

landslide is considered stable (Doelling and others, 1994). 

Rockfalls 

Rockfalls occur sporadically along cliff walls (generally 

Wingate Sandstone) as a natural process of erosional cliff 

retreat. Rock fragments from the Honaker Trail, Cutler, 

Moenkopi, Chinle, and Glen Canyon Group (including 

Wingate Sandstone) produce rockfall debris (Doelling 

and Morgan, 2000). In most cases, blocks of sandstone 

fall from the canyon rims and break up harmlessly on the 

slope below, but damage to highways and railroad tracks 

has occurred (Doelling and others, 1994). The most 

susceptible cliffs are those broken by fractures that run 

subparallel to cliff faces (Doelling and Morgan, 2000). 

The high cliffs southwest of the Moab fault are active 

rockfall areas (Doelling and Morgan, 2000). Rockfall 

debris may travel great distances downslope during 

rockfall events. Because Canyonlands National Park is 

uninhabited, hazards to human life only occur in 

transportation corridors and to those using the area for 

recreational purposes. 

Evidence for recent rockfall events includes the lack of 

desert varnish on cliff faces, where blocks have detached, 

and fresh rubble on the slopes below cliff faces. Rockfalls 

occur more regularly where joints parallel the cliff face. 

Generally, soft underlying units, which provide support 

for hard rocks of the cliffs, are eroded back under cliff 

faces by groundwater moving laterally to the cliff edges 

above less permeable slope formers. The undercutting 

removes support from beneath the massive sandstone 

cliffs and promotes rockfalls (Doelling and others, 1994). 

Serving as an example for Canyonlands National Park, 

rockfalls near Dead Horse Point State Park in 1984 and in 

Castle Valley is 1985 were recorded by a 17- station 

microearthquake network that was monitoring the 

seismicity of the Canyonlands region. The two events 

were the largest rockfalls recorded in the eight years of 

network operation, although they were not triggered by 

earthquakes. Both rockfalls occurred in Wingate 

Sandstone above soft shale at its contact with the Chinle 

Formation and had volumes of approximately 240,113 

cubic feet (6,800 m3

). The duration of the Dead Horse 

rockfall was approximately 64 seconds, equivalent to a 

Richter magnitude ML 1.8. The duration of approximately 

140 seconds of the Castle Valley rockfall suggests an 

equivalent ML 2.8 (Wong, 1989). 

Mineral Resources 

The extraction of energy resources and the collection of 

mineral specimens within Canyonlands National Park is 

strictly prohibited. 

Decorative Stone 

Rocks found in the vicinity of Canyonlands National 

Park have been used in the region as decorative stone for 

building facing, pavements, and gardens. Ripple- marked 

sandstone from the Moenkopi Formation; rounded 

metamorphic and igneous cobbles from Quaternary- age, 

higher- level terraces; and flat slabs of fossiliferous 

limestone from the Honaker Trail Formation have been 

collected for such purposes (Doelling and others, 1994). 

Gold 

The gravels of the Colorado River and terrace alluvium 

contain “flour” gold and rare flakes and small nuggets. A 

small, but unknown quantity of gold was recovered in 

the Gold Bar Canyon quadrangle from past operations 

carried out adjacent to Gold Bar and Jackson Bottom. 

The gold occurs in black, magnetite- bearing, coarse 

sandy lenses in river gravels. The gold content is 

generally uniform vertically in the individual gravel bars. 

The upstream ends of bars and higher- level terraces may 

be slightly richer (Butler, 1920). Some of the gravels 

disturbed in the process of gold extraction have 

subsequently been exploited for sand and gravel 

(Doelling and others, 1994). 

Oil and Gas 

The area immediately surrounding Canyonlands 

National Park, in particular the Gold Bar Canyon 

quadrangle, has been the site of widespread exploration 

with production of oil and gas in the Long Canyon, Cane 

Creek, Big Flat, and Bartlett Flat fields. Production in 

these fields has been from the Cane Creek zone of the 

Paradox Formation and from the Mississippian Leadville 

Formation. Oil shows have also been encountered in 
10 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

other intervals of dolomite, shale, and anhydrite within 

the Paradox Formation (Doelling and others, 1994). In 

addition, oil and gas production occurs in the vicinity of 

the park from the Dakota, Morrison (Salt Wash 

Member), Entrada, and Wingate Formations. 

As of December 1992, 948,000 barrels of oil had been 

produced from the Long Canyon field in the vicinity of 

Canyonlands National Park. No wells had been 

successfully completed in the Cane Creek field. The Big 

Flat and Bartlett Flat fields were abandoned in 1988 and 

1965 respectively. However, the successful completion of 

the Kane Springs Federal 27- 1 well in the Bartlett Flat 

field, by Columbia Gas and Development Corporation in 

April 1991, renewed interest in oil and gas development in 

the area (Doelling and others, 1994). 

Salts 

The Paradox Formation, estimated at 3,300 to 7,000 feet 

(1,005 to 2, 134 m) thick, underlies Canyonlands National 

Park. The thicker sections may be due to complex 

flowage and folding of salt layers. In the deepest parts of 

the Paradox Formation, investigators have identified 29 

cycles of halite (common salt) precipitation and 

associated clastic deposition (Hite, 1960). Seventeen of 

the 29 cycles contain potash salts, but only 10 are rich or 

thick enough to be potentially commercial (Gwynn, 

1984). Thickness of individual cycles was controlled by 

the supply of water from the sea, evaporation rates, 

climatic changes, position in the basin, and tectonic 

activity. A cycle began with a rise in sea level and a 

freshening of water in the basin (Peterson and Hite, 

1969). The depositional sequence commenced with the 

precipitation of anhydrite followed by dolomite and 

finally deposition of calcareous black shale. Thereafter, 

the gradual return to restricted conditions deposited 

anhydrite again with black shale and salt. The end of the 

cycle was marked by a disconformity produced at the 

beginning of the next cycle as the water again freshened. 

The 29 cycles, which are numbered in descending order, 

are rarely all present in one geographic area, and 

generally individual cycles are incomplete. 

According to Baars (2000), thickness of the gross salt 

section varies from zero at the Four Corners area and 

mouth of Gypsum Canyon in Cataract Canyon to well 

over 4,000 feet (1,219 m) in the heart of the basin., 

Because salt had begun to flow into salt piercement 

anticlines along the large, rejuvenated basement fault 

blocks, resulting thicknesses vary widely, making 

estimates of the depositional thickness of salt that may 

have accumulated in the eastern, deepest part of the 

Paradox basin prior to Late Pennsylvanian time difficult. 

The most common salt minerals in the Paradox 

Formation are halite, carnallite, and sylvite (Ritzma, 

1969). Because of its low potash content, carnallite (KCl • 

MgCl2

 • 6H2O) is presently not considered commercial, 

but it remains a potentially valuable source of 

magnesium. Sylvite (KCl) is the commercial potash 

mineral, which is used internationally as fertilizer. 

Carbonate, anhydrite, and black shale are commonly 

lumped together and identified as marker beds, which 

are potentially commercial brines. The unusually high 

quality of the formation could be due to secondary 

enrichment caused by local reconcentration of an earlier, 

more widespread lower- grade deposit prior to the 

deposition of the overlying marker bed (R.R. Norman, 

Buttes Gas and Oil Company, written communication, 

1970). 

Texas Gulf Sulphur, Inc. started development at the 

Cane Creek potash mine in 1963, including sinking shafts 

and constructing roads, railroads, and the beneficiation 

plant. On August 28, 1963, the company suffered a 

devastating methane gas explosion in the incline shaft—

going from the bottom of the vertical shaft at 2,850 feet 

(869 m) to the ore deposit at about 4,000 feet (1,219 m). 

The contract miners—all from hard- rock mining and 

not familiar with methane, which is common in coal 

mining—ignored the methane- gas occurrences until too 

late and 18 contract miners were killed during the 

explosion (Phil Cloues, NPS Geologic Resources 

Division, written communication, January 2004). 

The mine reopened with limited production in 1964. 

During the early to mid 1970s the whole mine was closed 

and converted to a solution mine with no underground 

mining. The now- Texas Gulf, Inc. (a name change 

occurred in the late 1970s) was then absorbed into 

Societe Nationale Elf Aquitaine, Inc., and Williams 

Acquisition Holding Company, Inc., which included the 

solution mine near Moab (about 25 miles [40 km] down 

the Colorado River but almost due west of Moab as the 

crow flies). In April 1996 Texas Gulf, Inc. sold the mine 

to Moab Salt, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Potash 

Corporation of Saskatchewan, the largest fertilizer 

company in the world. Potash Corporation of 

Saskatchewan sold the company in April 2001 to Intrepid 

Oil and Gas (Denver, Colorado). The Moab Salt 

Company, now a subsidiary of Intrepid Oil and Gas, 

currently operates the mine, which produces potash 

(KCl and K2

SO4) and rock salt (NaCl) using solution 

mining and evaporation ponds along the Colorado River 

(Phil Cloues, NPS Geologic Resources Division, written 

communication, January 2004). 

Sand and Gravel 

Colorado River alluvium and terrace alluvium contain 

sand and gravel suitable for construction of highways. 

The Utah Department of Transportation conducted tests 

on the deposits in two localities: Gold Bar and Jackson 

Bottom, and found them suitable for use as roadbase and 

surfacing materials. The quality of the sand and gravel in 

the terraces and alluvium along the river is not expected 

to vary. No attempt was made to calculate the quantity of 

sand and gravel, but they are expected to be large. Such 

sand and gravel was put to use in the construction of 

Utah Highway 279 that connects Moab and Potash 

(Doelling and others, 1994). 

Uranium 

The Chinle Formation in the Canyonlands area contains 

major deposits of uranium. Significant deposits also 

occur in the Morrison and Cutler Formations. As of 

January 1, 1975, nearly 76.5 million pounds of uranium 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 11 

oxide (U3O8) had been produced from the area, 

representing 14% of the total U.S. production. Lisbon 

Valley, the most important uranium district in the 

Canyonlands area, has produced slightly more than 60 

million pounds of U3

O8 or 78% of the area’s total 

(Chenoweth, 1975). 

The abandoned Lathrop Canyon mines inside 

Canyonlands National Park are located in the Chinle 

Formation. The Chinle Formation dates from the 

Triassic Period (205.1 to 250 million years ago) and is 

made up of rock consisting of coarse sandstone, 

conglomerate, and limestone interbedded with 

varicolored shales of red, brown, purple, gray, and green. 

This formation weathers to a talus slope under the more 

resistant cliff- forming Wingate Formation. The Chinle 

Formation was stream- deposited as point bars and 

includes many fossil plants and animals. During the later 

Tertiary Period (about 70 million years ago), 

groundwater deposited uranium in some of these organic 

remains. Decay of organic material from the plant 

remains created micro- reducing environment, which 

caused the uranium to precipitate. Mineralization 

significantly postdates the deposition of the sediments, 

occurring during the Tertiary (Foos, 1999). 

Wetlands 

Wetlands stabilize stream banks, act as filters to improve 

water quality, attenuate flood waters, and enhance 

biodiversity (i.e., provide habitat for amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, including threatened and endangered species). 

Wetlands also are highly productive in terms of biomass 

and nutrient productivity, and are valuable water sources 

for wildlife and recreationists. 

The potential for human impact on wetlands is great 

(Geoindicators scoping meeting, unpublished report, 

June 2002). Parking lots and structures in or near stream 

channels, structures in floodplains (e.g., culverts and 

bridges), grazing in uplands and stream channels, roads 

and trails in streambeds, introduction of exotic species, 

and flow regulation and diversion can all cause 

significant impacts to wetlands. Agricultural activities 

and past extirpation of beaver have also affected 

wetlands. 

Recommendations 

1. Inventory location, character, and conditions of 

wetlands in the park. 

2. Inventory distribution of exotic species in wetlands. 

3. Monitor groundwater levels and surface elevations. 

4. Investigate age- structure of woody riparian plants in 

relation to land use. 

5. Investigate linkages between amphibian parameters 

and wetland health. 

Wind Erosion 

Eolian (windblown) dust is important in desert 

ecosystems as a source of nutrients and as a substrate for 

biological soil crusts, which stabilize arid surfaces and 

cycle nitrogen. On the other hand, the presence of eolian 

dust in arid- land surficial deposits and soils renders 

these deposits vulnerable to wind erosion (Reynolds, 

1999). Geologic and geochemical considerations imply 

dust transport over many tens of hundreds of miles, and 

magnetic and petrologic results confirm an eolian origin 

for much of the silt in Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial 

surfaces (Reynolds, 1999). 

Wind is a major force that can redistribute soil resources 

(e.g., litter, organic matter, and nutrients), and sediment 

within and among ecosystems. Accelerated losses of soil 

and sediment by erosion can indicate degradation of 

arid- land ecosystems because ecosystem health is 

dependent on these resources. Investigators found that 

while undisturbed soil crusts are almost never impacted 

by typical winds found in these regions, disturbance of 

the soils left them vulnerable to wind erosion for up to 10 

years. Examination of crustal microstructure showed 

that both biomass and photosynthetic activity was 

concentrated in the top (0.12 inches; 3 mm) of the soil 

surface, thereby potentially removing much of the 

cyanobacteria biomass concentrated there. As these 

crusts contribute substantial nitrogen and carbon to 

desert region, erosion of these surfaces can result in 

greatly reduced site productivity and fertility (Belnap and 

others, 1997). 

Sand blowing across and accumulating on roads 

occasionally causes problems. More commonly, 

motorists using back roads should be cautious when 

proceeding into areas of sheet or dune sands. Loss of 

traction in sandy areas becomes more pronounced 

during the hot summer months when even gentle slopes 

of sand cannot be traversed in a motor vehicle (Doelling 

and others, 1994). 

Wind erosion and deposition of dust and sand can be 

accelerated by human activities. Trampling and 

vegetation alteration by livestock, and human 

recreational activities (e.g., hiking, biking, and driving, 

especially off established trails and roads) can destabilize 

soils and increase soil susceptibility to wind erosion. 

Some localized heavy visitation areas have seen crust 

death by burial from windblown sands when nearby 

crusts have been trampled (Geoindicators scoping 

meeting, unpublished report, June 2002). In addition, 

wind erosion and sediment transport may be strongly 

impacted by land- use practices outside the park. Eolian 

sand from disturbed surfaces may move via saltation 

onto undisturbed ground, burying and killing vegetation 

or biological soil crusts, or breaking biological soil crusts 

to expose more soil to erosion. Because park 

management practices limit or prohibit off- road travel, 

human impacts within the parks are associated primarily 

with off- trail hiking in high- use areas. 

Recommendations 

1. Monitor movement of soils and sediments. Some data 

are available from the Needles district (Geoindicators 

scoping meeting, unpublished report, June 2002). 

2. Investigate ecosystem consequences of movement of 

soils and sediment. 

3. Investigate natural range of variability of soil and 

sediment movement in relation to landscape 

configuration and characteristics.
12 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Figure 2. Generalized map of Canyonlands National Park. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 13 

Figure 3. Generalized Stratigraphic Column for Canyonlands National Park. This figure shows the rock units discussed in this report. 

Source: USGS (http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/canyonlands_strat.htm). 
14 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Geologic Features and Processes 

This section provides descriptions of the most prominent and distinctive geologic features 

and processes in Canyonlands National Park. 

The magnificent scenery, character, and beauty of 

Canyonlands National Park are the result of geologic 

processes, including erosion and mass wasting. In 

addition, structural features, seen at the surface today, 

result from Laramide and younger rejuvenation of 

preexisting fracture patterns of Precambrian age. These 

features are complicated by the presence of salt of the 

Middle Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation at shallow 

depth. 

Colorado (or Cataract) Lineament 

According to Baars (2000), an important northeasttrending fault zone underlies the general course of the 

Colorado River from near Grand Junction, Colorado, to 

eastern Grand Canyon. Case and Joesting (1972) 

recognized the basement fault zone as a result of 

geophysical studies of the region by the U.S. Geological 

Survey. They called it the “Colorado lineament” for its 

position beneath the general course of the river. Later, 

Warner (1978) included the basement fault with 

numerous other northeasterly basement faults that occur 

in a broad band some 50 miles (80 km) wide, and called 

the entire fault zone the “Colorado lineament.” Because 

of the possible confusion resulting from these 

designations, Stevenson and Baars (1987) renamed the 

feature the “Cataract lineament.” Regardless of the name, 

in a general way the Colorado River follows the fractured 

zone in surface rocks above the basement fault zone 

across Canyonlands. In search for suitable waste disposal 

sites in the Paradox basin, Wong and others (1987) 

documented minor recurrent seismic activity along the 

basement fracture zone in their study of earthquake 

activity along the Meander anticline. 

Colorado and Green Rivers 

The Colorado River flows through an impressive string 

of outstanding National Park System areas: starting in the 

high country of Rocky Mountain National Park 

(Colorado) then flowing past Colorado National 

Monument (Colorado) to Canyonlands where it joins 

the Green River. Below Canyonlands, the river flows 

through the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

(Utah), which extends some 115 miles (185 km) 

downstream through Lake Powell to Glen Canyon Dam 

in Arizona. From there it runs through Grand Canyon 

National Park (Arizona) and into Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area (Nevada). 

In Canyonlands, the Colorado River flows south through 

a spectacular, deep, narrow- walled gorge, where it is 

joined by its largest tributary, the Green River, which 

also has a deep narrow canyon. Together they flow for 

about 3 miles (5 km) through a generally rapid- free reach 

until they enter Cataract Canyon at Spanish Bottom. The 

turbulent water in Cataract Canyon, which flows at a rate 

of around 40 million gallons (151,400,000 L) per minute, 

is largely “white water.” Changes in the stream channel’s 

bedrock, slumping of the lower beds in the canyon walls, 

and blocks of rock falling from the cliffs into the stream 

create the rapids. 

The Colorado River follows a course through Cataract 

Canyon along the edge of a basement faulted zone (see 

Colorado Lineament, this section). The large faults on 

the east wall of the canyon do not appear on the west 

wall—nor do the intricate fracture patterns in the rocks 

on the southeast side of the river like the lines of needles 

and their intervening, north- south “racetrack” valleys 

across the river (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). 

The bed loads of both the Green and Colorado Rivers 

are extremely abrasive, a significant factor in their ability 

to cut channels and form incised (or entrenchment) 

meanders (see “Entrenchment Meanders,” this section). 

These two rivers have meandered back and forth on a 

fairly low, flat surface in the geologic past, and may have 

retained their meandering pattern as the region was 

uplifted. However, some geologists believe that during 

uplift (see “Late Cenozoic Uplift,” this section), as base 

level lowered, the streams began downcutting their 

floodplains so rapidly by headward erosion that they 

could do very little lateral eroding (Harris and Tuttle, 

1990). 

The water in the Green and Colorado Rivers is not 

potable at Canyonlands because of the saline 

groundwater that seeps into the rivers from the 

underlying salt beds (see “Salt Beds,” this section). 

People and animals in the park use water in potholes (see 

“Erosional Landforms,” this section) in the White River 

Sandstone and Cedar Mesa Sandstone or depend on 

groundwater from seeps and springs along the contacts 

between the Organ Rock Shale and the White Rim 

Sandstone. 

Desert Colors 

An often- asked question is: why are the rocks in 

Canyonlands red? Various oxides of iron, some including 

water, produce not only brick red but also pink, salmon, 

brown, buff, yellow, and even green or bluish green that 

contribute to the varicolored rocks in the park. This does 

not imply that the rocks could be considered as sources 

of iron ore because the merest traces of iron, generally 

only 1 to 3%, is enough to produce even the darkest 

shades of red. The only rocks in the park that contain 

virtually no iron are white sandstones (i.e., the White 

Rim Sandstone Member of the Cutler Formation and 

Navajo Sandstone) (Lohman, 1974). 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 15 

Microscopic examination of colored grains of quartz and 

other minerals shows the pigment to be a thin coating on 

and between white or colorless particles. Sand or silt 

particles weathered from such rocks soon lose their 

color by the scouring action of wind (see “Wind 

Erosion,” this section) or water, so most of the sand 

dunes and sand bars are white or nearly so (Lohman, 

1974). 

Another type of coating on rocks is desert varnish, which 

is lustrous and smooth, and ranges in color from light 

brown to black, depending on how much has 

accumulated. Desert varnish forms on all types of 

surfaces, from pebbles to canyon walls, though it seems 

to form best on harder rocks with high silica content. 

Varnish is thicker and darker on the upper surfaces of 

pebbles and on rock walls facing the sun; therefore, high 

temperatures from exposure seem to be helpful for 

providing a good “tan” of desert varnish. In addition, 

observations after storms indicate that water is necessary 

to the formation of desert varnish: the dark stripes on 

canyon walls are the areas that are wetted by downward 

moving films of water. Desert varnish consists of clay (up 

to about 70%) and iron and manganese oxide (up to 

about 30%), often with some silica (Wyckoff, 1999). 

Many observers think that the “varnish” gets splashed or 

dripped onto rocks during storms, and as the water 

evaporates, the mineral matter stays behind, little by little 

forming a smooth coat. Other observers interpret dust as 

playing a role. Additionally, bacteria living on the hot 

rock surfaces may concentrate the necessary minerals 

and ensure that they are not washed away or dissolved 

(Stokes, 1969). 

Prehistoric peoples (Fremont Culture or Anasazis) used 

desert varnish to make pictures on rocks by scratching 

through the coating to the lighter- colored, unweathered 

rock underneath (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). Pictographs 

by these early people can be seen in numerous places 

throughout the park. 

Elaterite 

In Elaterite basin along the park’s western boundary, the 

White Rim Sandstone displays a “fossil” offshore bar that 

may have been a barrier island late in Permian time. This 

structure contains petroleum that seeps out of 

hydrocarbon source rocks as a dark- brown, tarry 

substance called “elaterite.” This oil probably migrated 

into the sandstone and became trapped by the 

impermeable red shale beds along the east side of the 

sandbar. Because the structure has been exhumed by 

erosion and the gas has escaped, the oil is not 

recoverable (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). 

Entrenchment Meanders 

A peculiar feature along the Colorado and Green Rivers 

(best illustrated on a park map or seen at Dead Horse 

Point) is the anomalous tight meander bends enclosed by 

deep canyons. Typically, meanders are features found in 

more gently flowing rivers on broad floodplains. 

Entrenchment meanders in an area where the river 

descends steeply downstream in canyons seem 

contradictory. The likely explanation is that the 

meanders are at least partly inherited from ancestral 

streams that flowed across the area before the most 

recent uplift (Harden, 1990). Rivers perhaps established 

their meanders when thick, relatively weak Tertiary- age 

strata still covered the area. When erosion lowered the 

streambeds to the base of the Tertiary sediments, some 

of the stream sediments continued to maintain their 

meander pattern and erode their way into the resistant 

Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata forming entrenchment 

meanders. The stream’s energy, supplied by increased 

velocity, cut its channel deeper but could not widen it 

until encountering a zone of weak or easily erodible rock, 

such as at Spanish Bottom, where gypsum beds have 

been eroded (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). 

Just as river meanders experience cutoff when water 

flows across narrow necks of land in unconsolidated 

basins, so do entrenched meanders experience cutoffs as 

rock walls separating nearby channel segments are 

eventually worn away—enabling the stream to take a 

short cut. The abandoned river channel is called a 

“rincon” in the southwestern United States and is 

analogous to an abandoned oxbow in a meandering 

stream (Kiver and Harris, 1999). 

Erosional Landforms 

Alcoves and Caves 

Alcoves and caves in sandstone form through differential 

weathering along shale- sandstone contacts. Massive, 

cliff- forming sandstone can contain soft, erodible beds 

of shale. Water readily percolates down through 

sandstone but is trapped and cannot pass through shale 

beds because their pore spaces are so small. The 

groundwater is forced to move laterally along the contact 

between the two rock units until it seeps out on the face 

of the canyon wall or at the back of an alcove, creating a 

spring or seep. The prolonged flow of water along these 

spring and seep zones ultimately dissolves calciumcarbonate cement and loosens individual sand particles 

and blocks of sandstone, thus forming a void that 

enlarges with time. 

Arches 

The formation of natural arches begins with a narrow 

wall through which an opening appears. Parallel, 

smooth- walled cracks—joints—that cut steeply inward 

through rock create these thin walls of rock (Stokes, 

1969). Joints provide passageways for water and roots 

and tend to form wider cracks as erosion progresses. If 

two joints grow and widen within a few feet or yards of 

each other, the thin wall of stone that is necessary for the 

formation of an arch (or window) will be present. If the 

narrow wall is exposed to weathering, formation of an 

arch is even more favorable. If these conditions are met, 

the wall may be broken through before it wears away 

entirely. This opening may be widened or lengthened 

rather easily because erosion can now work on all 

exposed edges with gravity helping the process. 

It is not an accident that nearby Arches National Park 

has extensive jointing, with literally thousands of parallel 

cracks that ultimately form arches and other unusual 
16 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

rock formations (Stokes, 1969). In Arches, the upper part 

of the sandstone is generally harder than the lower part, 

so arches form in profusion because perforating the 

lower part is comparatively easy. More than 300 arches 

have developed in the Jurassic Entrada Sandstone in 

Arches National Park. Canyonlands has 25 arches, mostly 

sculpted in Permian Cutler Group sandstone, which is 

actually more likely to form standing rocks (see 

“Monuments,” this section) than arches (Harris and 

Tuttle, 1990). Nevertheless, outstanding examples, such 

as Angel Arch and Druid Arch, occur within 

Canyonlands National Park. 

Natural arches, some of the distinctive landmarks in the 

Needles district, may form from fins (see “Fins,” this 

section). As the joint spaces widen and deepen, beds at 

the base of the fins are exposed. If the lower beds are 

slightly softer, they are removed more rapidly than the 

higher beds. Because the fins are narrow, a hole (or 

window) appears where the rock is worn completely 

through. Sand blown by wind (sand blasting) polishes 

and rounds off the window edges (see “Wind Erosion,” 

this section). Snow, rain, and ice continue to attack the 

rock, dislodge fragments, and cause rockfalls until a 

window is enlarged to form a natural arch (Harris and 

Tuttle, 1990). 

Buttes and Mesas 

Buttes and mesas stand isolated on broad, nearly level 

terrains, far from valley walls. Buttes are generally higher 

than wide; mesas, wider than high. One definition says a 

feature is a butte if its top surface covers less that a square 

mile; if more, it is a mesa. Mesas and buttes may be 

remnants of divides mostly eroded away (Wyckoff, 1999). 

When a butte becomes very slender with practically no 

area on its top, it may be called a monument of spire 

(Stokes, 1969) (see “Erosional Landforms,” this section). 

A mesa provides a perfect example of hard rock being 

undermined by less resistant softer rock underneath. The 

cap or top of a mesa may be one of several hard types of 

rock such as sandstone or basalt. Strangely enough, it 

also may be nothing more than gravel, which we might 

not ordinarily consider to be a “hard rock” (Stokes, 

1969). 

Since there are great numbers of alternating sandstone 

and shale beds in the Southwest, conditions are favorable 

for mesas to form with caps of sandstones and bases of 

shale. These common types may cover hundreds of 

square miles, such as Mesa Verde in southwestern 

Colorado, or they may be only a few acres in extent. 

They are flat on top because the capping layers are still in 

the relatively horizontal position in which they were laid 

down and because erosion has removed the softer rocks 

that were once above the cap rock. The “rim” which 

surrounds the level surface may be high or low 

depending on the thickness of the protecting bed. If the 

rim is high, it may not be easy to cross or climb. The 

slopes around a mesa are almost always covered with 

blocks broken from the rims, which proves that mesas, 

like other high- standing features, get smaller and 

eventually disappear (Stokes, 1969). 

A large proportion of mesas are capped by hard layers of 

sandstone or conglomerate. A hard layer is essential but 

at one time an overlying soft layer, which forms the 

slopes and most of the mesa itself, was probably present. 

The arrangement of alternating hard and soft layers is 

common enough in the great piles of sedimentary rocks 

that exist, and only erosion is required to carve them into 

final form. A mesa does not start as a mesa, it begins to 

emerge when a succession of hard and soft layers is cut 

into by a river or exposed by faulting. Then the etching 

out of the hard layer by the stripping away of 

surrounding material begins. Soon a bench or terrace is 

formed as the surface on top of the hard layer gets wider 

and wider. This cliff surface is still attached to the canyon 

wall. Erosion wears away the projecting shelf or terrace 

so that a number of points or headlands begin to 

protrude. These are free on two or three sides, and 

eventually the remaining side is cut through to create a 

true mesa. 

Canyons 

Landslides, rockfalls, debris flows, and flash floods all 

play roles in canyon formation by causing canyon walls 

to recede. All of these processes are active within 

Cataract Canyon in Canyonlands National Park. The 

rocks of the inner gorge are very hard and resist the 

widening processes. The massive Cedar Mesa Sandstone 

caps the canyon rim, but softer rocks above the Cedar 

Mesa—the Organ Rock, Moenkopi, and Chinle 

Formations—have been eroded back for 5 to 15 miles (8 

to 24 km) from the inner canyon to the prominent 

Wingate- Kayenta cliffs beyond. The sharp inner 

canyons are being cut into older, much more resistant 

limestones, where canyon- widening processes are very 

slow in comparison (Baars, 1993). 

The forms of canyons vary from sharp V- shaped to 

straight- walled slits. Others have step- like sides, with 

slopes and cliffs alternating upward towards the edge or 

“rim rock.” The reason for these differences lies in 

alternating soft and hard layers. 

The Grand Canyon is the world’s best example of the 

stair- step type of canyon, but there are hundreds of 

others formed wherever the sides are made of alternating 

hard and soft layers. Another good place to view steplike river sides is from Dead Horse Point near Moab, 

Utah. 

Narrow “slot” canyons have vertical or even overhanging 

walls, formed in harder rocks that are of the same 

composition from top to bottom. There are no steps in 

the walls and are extremely hazardous for park visitors 

during cloudburst storms and flash floods. This type of 

canyon is cut chiefly by the stream that runs through the 

canyon. Rapidly flowing water in slot canyons carries 

grains of sand and larger rocks of all sizes and literally 

wears its way downward through the rock. Since there is 

no opportunity to undermine one part of the canyon wall 

more than another, the canyon remains narrow and of 

uniform width as erosion progresses. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 17 

Box canyons form when a major stream cuts down faster 

than its tributaries. Somewhere along its course the side 

walls of a box canyon abruptly close and an impassable 

wall is formed. The streambed continues upstream on a 

higher level, and any water running over the cliff creates 

a temporary waterfall. Since tributaries cannot keep up 

with the downcutting stream, they lag behind and enter it 

by falling from a higher level. However, the tributary can 

cut backward away from the major stream so that the 

original fall or step moves away to form short, highwalled, box- like canyons. 

Cliff- vs. Slope-Forming Rocks 

Differences in the composition, hardness, distribution, 

and thickness of rock layers determine their ability to 

withstand the forces of fracturing and erosion and hence 

their tendency to form cliffs, ledges, or slopes (table 2). 

Most of the cliff- or ledge- forming rocks are sandstones 

consisting of sand grains deposited by wind of water and 

later cemented together by silica (SiO2

), calcium 

carbonate (CaCO3

), or one of the iron oxides (such as 

Fe2

O3). Some hard, resistant ledges are made of limestone 

(calcium carbonate). 

The nearly vertical cliffs supporting the highest mesas 

consist of the well- cemented Wingate Sandstone 

protected above by the even harder sandstone of the 

Kayenta Formation. Even a few feet of the Kayenta 

protect the rock beneath (Lohman, 1965). In some places, 

remnants of the overlying Navajo Sandstone make up the 

topmost unit of cliffs. 

Table 2. Erosional forms of rocks in Canyonlands 

National Park 

Age Rock name Erosional forms 

Triassic Navajo 

Sandstone 

Forms residual rounded 

patches on highest 

mesas; sometimes 

makes up topmost unit 

of cliffs 

Triassic Kayenta 

Formation 

Caps most high mesas 

and tops of highest cliffs 

Triassic Wingate 

Sandstone 

Forms highest cliffs 

(many of which are 

coated with desert 

varnish) 

Triassic Chinle 

Formation 

Forms steep slopes at 

bases of highest cliffs 

Triassic Moenkopi 

Formation 

Forms slopes broken by 

thin ledges 

Permian Cutler Group Forms needles, arches, 

and other erosional 

features 

Permian Honaker Trail 

Formation 

Forms steep canyon 

walls 

Source: Lohman (1974). 

Fins 

The Fins in the Maze district are narrow sandstone 

ridges, or walls, that are eroding along parallel joints. 

Cracks between closely spaced vertical joints become 

enlarged by chemical and physical weathering as water 

seeps down, dissolving iron- oxide cement and loosening 

sand grains. Frost action, with its alternate freezing, 

expanding, and thawing, also breaks up sandstone. Loose 

sediment is removed by wind and runoff. The joint 

spaces gradually enlarge into narrow valleys that separate 

the narrow wall, called fins (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). 

Monuments 

The east side of the Colorado River is an area of great 

diversity, including color and forms (e.g., spires, 

columns, needles, and toadstool pedestals). The Needles 

themselves are similar to fins but have more crisscross 

fractures. Needles, like fins, are the result of weathering 

and erosion along joint and fault lines, some of which are 

quite close together, a feature characteristic of the Cedar 

Mesa Sandstone. The Joint Trail, which goes through a 

crack in this formation, is only a couple of feet wide. 

Needles and pillars develop when two intersecting joint 

sets are spaced closely together. The second set of joints, 

which is at an angle to the first set, prevents fins from 

developing. Instead, pointed needles or rounded pillars 

evolve as weathering and erosion sculpt the rock. Some 

pillars are capped by resistant material that makes 

balancing rocks. Where fins have developed, they tend to 

evolve into a line of pillars as weathering attacks cross 

joints (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). 

Potholes and Tanks 

Potholes form in the Cedar Mesa Sandstone because 

calcium carbonate that cements its sand grains is soluble 

in natural carbonic acid (carbon dioxide plus water). 

Carbonic acid attacks any weak spot or zone in the 

sandstone. Loosened sand grains fall and are washed or 

blown away. Once a slight depression is started, more 

and more of the sandstone is exposed to the processes of 

weathering and erosion. Potholes, caves, and sometimes 

arches develop in this way (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). Paul 

Bunyan’s Potty is a well know example. 

The hollows where water collects—locally referred to as 

“tanks” or “charcos”—are formed by the combined 

process of solution of calcium carbonate cement and the 

removal of loose rock grains by wind (deflation). Tanks 

are found by Junction Butte near Grand View Point in 

the central portion of the park and also in the Needles 

district near Chesler Park (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). 

The Grabens 

The Grabens, which parallel Cataract Canyon, is an area 

of elongate collapse valleys including a series of arcuate 

fault blocks. Great thicknesses of salt accumulated in 

subsiding, elongate, down- faulted valleys parallel to the 

rising, up- faulted ranges of the Uncompahgre uplift. As 

the weight of sedimentary overburden (washed down 

from the mountains) became ever greater, the salt began 

to flow toward the southwest, away from the source and 

greatest weight of sediment. When the flowing salt came 

against the fault- block ridges, it was deflected upward, 

forming salt walls and plugs that penetrated the overlying 

beds. In this way, the salt took the path of least resistance 

to reach areas where the pressure of overburden was 

lower (Harris and Tuttle, 1990). 
18 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

The underlying salt deposits of the Paradox Formation 

acted as an unstable platform for the millions of tons of 

overlying shales and sandstones. The rocks here are on 

the northwest flank of the Monument upwarp and are 

gently inclined about 4° toward the Colorado River. 

When the river cut through the sandstone layers into the 

mechanically weak mudstone and evaporite layers 

below, the lateral support for the brittle sandstone layers 

was removed. The brittle sandstone slowly glided toward 

Cataract Canyon on top of the evaporite layers below, 

breaking into a series of parallel fault blocks. 

Groundwater slowly dissolved the evaporite minerals 

further encouraging collapse, lateral sliding, and faulting 

of the sandstones. The process is very recent and began 

perhaps 300,000–500,000 years ago when Cataract 

Canyon was deep enough to remove lateral support. 

Thus, collapse and lateral movement of the brittle block 

formed the unique structures and topography of The 

Grabens (Kiver and Harris, 1999). 

Fault scarps along the sides of The Grabens are 

untouched by weathering and erosion; moreover, 

streams have not had sufficient time to completely adjust 

to the newly formed fault- block topography and often 

flow into depressions lacking outlets. The process 

continues today as the newest tensional fault is 

producing “baby graben” near Devil’s Kitchen. As the 

rock continues to split and crack, loose soil and desert 

plants fall into the opening abyss—about 40 feet (12 m) 

deep. Another indicator that salt is still being dissolved is 

that river water in and downstream from Cataract 

Canyon is undrinkable because of the high salt content 

(Kiver and Harris, 1999). 

Groundwater 

Three groundwater regimes are present in the vicinity of 

Canyonlands National Park. The first involves bedrock 

aquifers and aquicludes above the level of the Moenkopi 

Formation, the second involves those below the 

Moenkopi or the deep groundwater regime, and the 

third involves unconsolidated units. 

Bedrock Aquifers above the Moenkopi Formation 

Aquifers of the first regime are isolated from significant 

recharge by the deep canyons of the Colorado and Green 

Rivers. Even though excellent aquifers are present, 

discharge from springs is small, and wells are expected to 

have small yields because of low discharge. Snow 

accumulating and melting on the warped tableland 

provides the only significant, but limited, recharge to the 

upper aquifers. Precipitation varies annually, but 

averages 8–10 inches (20–25 cm) per year (Doelling and 

others, 1994). 

The best groundwater aquifers include Wingate 

Sandstone, Navajo Sandstone, and the Moab and Slick 

Rock Members of the Entrada Sandstone. Springs issue 

locally from all of these units. Most of these units are 

replete with joints and fractures, which favors recharge. 

These springs rarely produce more than 10 gallons per 

minute (37.8 L/min), but are adequate for livestock 

(Doelling and Morgan, 2000). 

Deep Groundwater Regime 

The deep groundwater regime may be subdivided into 

three hydrostratigraphic units (U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1984). The upper unit consists of Permian rocks 

and the upper two- thirds of the Pennsylvanian Honaker 

Trail Formation. The middle unit includes the remainder 

of the Honaker Trail Formation and the Paradox 

Formation. The lower unit includes all the carbonate 

units below the Paradox Formation. The recharge area 

for the upper unit probably includes the La Sal and Abajo 

Mountains. The transmissivity of the upper 

hydrostratigraphic unit is largely unknown and untested, 

but permeabilities of Permian strata are low and largely 

controlled by the presence of local faults and joints 

(Huntoon, 1985). The amount of water is expected to be 

small and probably not good in quality. Known seeps in 

the Permian Cutler Formation are from perched waters 

and are largely salty and not potable (Huntoon, 1977). 

Permian and Pennsylvanian strata below the level of the 

Colorado River are generally saturated with sodiumchloride brines in the Potash amphitheater area. The 

middle unit consists of horizons acting as aquicludes 

alternating with horizons of variable water- bearing 

capacity. Where water is found, it is generally very salty 

(Doelling and others, 1994). 

The lower hydrostratigraphic unit consists of carbonates 

with good porosity and permeability. Oil- well data 

generally indicate large quantities of salty, connate water. 

The saltiness may reflect original seawater or mixing with 

the middle hydrostratigraphic unit salines. Factors that 

control permeabilities, listed in order of decreasing 

importance, include faults, joints and bedding planes, 

intergranular porosity, and intercrystalline porosity 

(Huntoon, 1977). 

Unconsolidated Aquifers 

Water also may be present in surficial deposits that 

overlie bedrock discharge areas (Doelling and Morgan, 

2000). The larger, unconsolidated sand patches that fill 

the hollows on the plateau offer opportunity for 

groundwater development above the cliffs. Yields are 

expected to be small, but possibly enough for watering 

livestock. Wells with larger yields might be developed in 

the Colorado River alluvium (Doelling and others, 1994). 

Phreatophytes, such as willow and tamarisk, generally 

grow in profusion in areas of shallow groundwater where 

discharge from springs occurs (Doelling and Morgan, 

2000). 

Laramide Orogeny 

Many geologists working on the Colorado Plateau credit 

the origin of structures with the Laramide orogeny 

because, in general, that is what is seen at the surface. 

This interpretation, however, does not take into account 

what happened prior to this mountain- building event. 

Numerous geologists have shown that Precambrian 

structural basement fabric, which has been repeatedly 

rejuvenated throughout Phanerozoic time, directs the 

peculiar orientation of regional structures in the 

province, and that the Laramide orogeny merely 

rejuvenated and enhanced basement fault patterns 

(Baars, 2000). 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 19 

The Laramide orogeny, the mountain- building event 

that closed out the Mesozoic Era and lasted into Tertiary 

time, elevated the Canyonlands region thousands of feet 

but left the sedimentary rock units essentially horizontal. 

The dip of the beds is so slight as to appear flat. 

However, the tectonic compressive forces that pushed 

up the surrounding mountains also produced (or 

rejuvenated) joint systems and fractures that strongly 

influenced patterns of landform development in 

Canyonlands. Erosional processes, intensified by uplift, 

tended to follow the joint patterns while dissecting the 

flat- lying rocks. 

Late Cenozoic Uplift 

The Colorado Plateau serves as a classic example of the 

interaction between uplift and erosion. The region was at 

sea level during the Late Cretaceous, but now the deeply 

eroded land surface is at about 1.2 miles (2 km) in 

elevation. The path of the landscape between these two 

endpoints is not clear, however, and geologists have long 

debated the mechanisms, amounts, and timing of uplift 

and erosion. 

Recent studies using geographic information system 

(GIS) to map, interpolate, and calculate rock uplift and 

erosional exhumation of the Colorado Plateau during the 

Cenozoic Era provide insight into the landscape’s 

development through time (Pederson and others, 2002). 

Initial results indicate uplift and erosion are highly 

spatially variable with mean values of 6,946 feet (2,117 m) 

for rock uplift and 1,332 feet (406 m) for net erosional 

exhumation since the Late Cretaceous coastal 

sandstones were deposited. Investigators estimate 2,766 

feet (843 m) of erosion since 30 million years ago, which 

can account for 2,096 feet (639 m) of post- Laramide 

rock uplift by isostatic processes. 

Based on initial results, investigators suggest two endmember scenarios for uplift of the Colorado Plateau. 

First, all rock uplift on the Colorado Plateau has been 

provided by only about 1.2 miles (2 km) of Laramide 

uplift and subsequent erosional isostasy, with no other 

sources of later Cenozoic uplift. Second, proposed 

mantle sources of middle- late Cenozoic uplift are valid, 

but then with isostatic rebound from erosion included, 

Laramide uplift of the Colorado Plateau must be minor 

(less than 1,640 feet [500 m]). 

In either scenario, Laramide uplift of the Colorado 

Plateau is much less than that in the neighboring Rocky 

Mountains, which may be expected considering the 

plateau contains the Unita, Piceance, and San Juan 

sedimentary basins that have subsided, not uplifted, since 

the Cretaceous. Ironically, the problem with the 

Colorado Plateau is that investigators have proposed 

sources for more uplift than there is actual uplift. Initial 

data from Pederson and others (2002) support a 

resolution wherein early Cenozoic events provided the 

bulk of uplift (by whatever mechanism) with little passive 

erosional isostasy in the later Cenozoic. 

Paleontological Resources 

Honaker Trail Formation 

The Honaker Trail Formation is a very fossiliferous, 

Pennsylvanian- age limestone exposed in Canyonlands 

National Park. This unit contains rugose corals, 

bryozoans, brachiopods, gastropods, a few trilobites, and 

crinoids (Santucci, 2000). 

Cedar Mesa Sandstone 

A fossil- rich locality within the Permian Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone has been reported from the Indian Creek 

drainage just east of Canyonlands National Park 

(Stanesco and Campbell, 1989; Sumida and others, 1999). 

Cranial and vertebral remains identified as the 

temnospondyl amphibian Eryops were collected from 

within a petrified log jam. The logs at this locality have 

been identified as conifers and reach a few feet in 

diameter. This site was completely destroyed by 

vandalism in 1995 (Sumida and others, 1999). Some tracks 

in Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone may exist in the park, 

accessible by river (Adrian Hunt, oral communication, 

1998). 

Moenkopi Formation 

A few poorly preserved steinkerns and gastropods 

impressions were reported from the Lower Triassic 

Sinbad Limestone Member of the Moenkopi Formation 

in the park (Lucas, 1995). These specimens were first 

reported by McKnight (1940) and are dominated by the 

following taxa: the brachiopod Lingula sp., Monotis 

thaynesiana, unidentified viviparoid gastropods, and the 

ammonite Meekoceras sp. (Santucci, 2000). 

Chinle Formation 

The Upper Triassic Chinle Formation is well exposed in 

the park and contains diverse faunal, floral, and 

ichnofossil assemblages. Vertebrate body fossils reported 

from the park include the remains of semionotid and 

turseodid fish, metoposaurs, phytosaurs, and the 

aetosaur Stagonolepis (Hasiotis, 1993; Lucas and others, 

1997; Heckert and others, 1999). Also, within this unit are 

fresh water gastropods, bivalves, conchostrachans, and 

the earliest known crayfish. An abundance of fossil 

plants occur in the Owl Rock Member of the Chinle 

Formation including Neocalamites sp. and Pagiophyllum

sp. 

Burrows produced by lungfish, crayfish, worms, and 

insects are common in the Chinle Formation in 

Canyonlands National Park (Hasiotis and Mitchell, 1989; 

Hasitotis, 1993, 1995). Hasiotis (1993) also reported a 

horseshoe- crab resting trace from the park. A single 

well- preserved impression of a tridactyl dinosaur 

footprint (Grallator sp.) was found in the Rock Pont 

Member of the Chinle Formation near Upheaval Dome 

(Hunt and others, 1993; Lucas and others, 1995). Another 

Chinle tracksite contains impressions of a tetrapod with 

four- toed manus (hand) and a five- toed pes (foot). 

These tracks have blunt toes, lack claw impressions, and 

have been identified as Brachychirotherium sp. There are 

also two types of large five- toed tracks. One set is 
20 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

associated with an aetosaur- like reptile and the other is 

attributed to a dicynodont reptile (Santucci and others, 

1998). 

Kayenta Formation 

Fossil vertebrate tracks also are known from the upper 

part of the Kayenta Formation just below the overlying 

Navajo Sandstone in Canyonlands National Park 

(Lockley and Hunt, 1993; Santucci and others, 1998). 

Salt Beds 

The presence of the Paradox Formation’s salt beds 

complicates fracturing and jointing in the Canyonlands 

area. Consequently, they affected the ways in which 

landforms evolved, especially in the northwestern and 

southeastern sections of the park. Sometime after uplift 

began, and as erosion stripped off the younger beds, 

groundwater began to reach the buried salt beds. Some 

of the upper salt layers were dissolved, but the less 

soluble gypsum was left in place. In places where salt 

dissolution occurred—as it was under the salt valleys and 

grabens—the overlying sedimentary beds collapsed. 

Upheaval Dome 

Upheaval Dome may be the most spectacular and 

intriguing topographic feature in Canyonlands National 

Park. Geologists have debated the origin of the 

distinctive structure for generations, and the controversy 

continues today. In the 1920s and 1930s, studies 

attributed its origin to various mechanisms: salt 

penetration (Harrison, 1927), cryptovolcanic activity 

(Bucher, 1936), and meteorite impact (Boone and 

Albritton, 1938). In the 1950s, scientists for the U.S. 

Geological Survey mapped the feature and interpreted it 

as a classic salt dome, which seemed a reasonable 

interpretation as salt occurs at depth regionally and other 

salt- intruded anticlines are in the vicinity of the park. 

Then in the 1980s, the earlier notion of a meteorite 

impact resurfaced (Shoemaker and Herkenhoff, 1983, 

1984). Additionally, papers published in 1999 and 2000 

revealed the results of detailed mapping that showed 

convincing evidence of Upheaval Dome being an impact 

structure (Kreins and others, 1999) and interpreted 

seismic reflection data as favoring an impact origin 

(Kanbur and others, 2000). Investigators identified 

features within the images typical of impact structures. In 

addition, images show less than 30 feet (100 m) of relief in 

the Paradox Formation, which is contrary to salt 

diapirism hypotheses, and deformation occurring only 

above the Hermosa Formation (in the upper 262 feet [80 

m] of the structure). The images also suggest limited 

fracturing of the Hermosa and salt flow in the Paradox 

Formation, perhaps due to gravitational relaxation of the 

crater form (Kanbur and others, 2000). 

Also in the late 1990s, other geologists presented 

convincing data, again using detailed mapping, that the 

fracture patterns and continued growth of the structure, 

at least through Jurassic time, required long- term, 

continuous growth from salt rising from depth. To 

explain the lack of salt beneath the structure today, they 

postulate that the diaper flowed salt onto the surface in 

the Chinle Formation through Triassic (Navajo 

Sandstone) time, and then the salt blob was pinched off, 

the flowed salt having since been eroded away. Another 

mechanism to cause a salt pinch- off would be that the 

mother source of salt was depleted in the late 

development of the structure (Jackson and others, 1998). 

Unconformities 

Unconformities are “gaps in the rock record” during 

which time no rocks were deposited or subsequently 

were eroded away. Although none of the unconformities 

that occur in Canyonlands National Park rival the 

angular unconformity in Colorado National Monument 

to the east, the park has three unconformities worth 

noting. 

First, a regional erosional (Pennsylvanian- Permian) 

unconformity occurs at the top of the Honaker Trail 

Formation that extends from Canyonlands 

northwestward onto the San Rafael Swell, and beyond. 

Some angular discordance occurs at the erosional surface 

near the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in 

the heart of the park. As the unconformity is difficult to 

visualize from vertical air photos, some scientists have 

disputed its existence. Nevertheless, the widespread 

nature of the erosional surface and the distribution of the 

largely marine rock sequence above indicate that the 

rocks were deposited in a separate basin that formed to 

the northwest of the Paradox basin (Baars, 1987). 

Second, an unconformity between the Paleozoic and 

Mesozoic (Permian and Triassic) beds represents 

withdrawal of seas and a lengthy period of erosion when 

the continent was relatively high. No rocks of Late 

Permian age are known to occur anywhere on the 

Colorado Plateau (Baars, 2000). The Colorado Plateau 

was left high and dry to the east and north of seaways at 

this time. Any continental sediment that may have been 

deposited on the plateau did not survive the severe 

erosion that formed the post- Permian regional 

unconformity (Baars, 2000). 

The Triassic units in the Canyonlands area are red beds 

consisting of shallow- water clastic sediments deposited 

by streams throughout a broad lowland that sloped 

gently toward a western ocean. The red beds are 

truncated by an angular unconformity, apparently 

beneath the Triassic Moenkopi Formation—mudstones 

that accumulated on tidal flats. As the rippled bedding at 

the top of the Permian White Rim Sandstone is 

beautifully preserved, the red beds must have been 

deposited shortly after the sea withdrew to the west. The 

red beds are stripped from the top of the sand bars by the 

erosional surface. The relationships indicate that the red 

beds are of Permian age, and should not be considered 

basal Moenkopi (Baars, 2000). 

Third, an unconformity separates Moenkopi beds from 

varicolored, overlying Chinle beds, which are mostly 

slope- forming shales. The top of the Moenkopi 

Formation is scarred by erosional features, especially 

channels, sometimes cut rather deeply into the upper 

surface. Stream sand and gravel of the Moss Back 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 21 

Member of the Chinle Formation commonly fill in the 

paleotopography on the eroded surface throughout 

Canyonlands. Because of the sporadic nature of the 

erosional depressions, the distribution of the Moss Back 

Member is irregular and spotty (Baars, 2000). 

Wind Erosion 

The erosional capacity of wind is limited by a number of 

factors, and on a global scale it is a far less potent 

erosional agent than fluvial activity. Compared with 

water, air has a low density and viscosity so only very fine 

particles can be carried in suspension, except at very high 

wind speeds near the ground, and together with moisture 

it tends to bind surface particles and prevent them from 

being entrained by the wind. Consequently eolian 

activity is only effective in areas that lack a relatively 

complete vegetation cover and where the surface 

material dries out at least occasionally (Summerfield, 

1991). 

Blowing dust, however, can substantially sculpt rock 

over long periods; blowing sand is even more effective. 

Although material of sand size (0.01 to 0.25 inches [0.25 

to 6.4 mm] in diameter) cannot be lifted except by very 

strong winds, sand is moved along the ground by creep 

and saltation, leaving depressions where it has been 

removed and piling up as ripples and dunes elsewhere. 

Even relatively fine sand grains are too heavy for all but 

very strong winds to lift more than a few feet. Thus the 

belief that mesas, natural arches, and other sizeable 

landforms have been created by natural “sandblasting” is 

incorrect. Experiments conducted in deserts indicate 

that maximum abrasion by blowing sand on level ground 

occurs at a height of between 6 and 10 inches (15 to 25 

cm), and the highest reach of abrasion is 4 to 5 feet (1.2 to 

1.5 m). High- standing rock can be significantly abraded 

only if sand particles have a gentle slope, or ramp, up 

which they can move in stages by a process called 

saltation. For the most part, natural sandblasting is 

limited to the base of cliffs, low outcrops, and scattered 

stones. For example, rocks lying on the ground can be 

pointed, fluted, and pitted by blowing sand. Over lengthy 

periods, however, wind can move enormous amounts of 

sand over long distances, leaving depressions behind and 

piling up sand against highlands (Wyckoff, 1999) 
22 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Map Unit Properties 

This section provides a description for and identifies many characteristics of the map 

units that appear on the digital geologic map of Canyonlands National Park. The table is 

highly generalized and is provided for informational purposes only. Ground disturbing 

activities should not be permitted or denied on the basis of information contained in this 

table. More detailed unit descriptions can be found in the help files that accompany the 

digital geologic map or by contacting the NPS Geologic Resources Division. 

This section provides readily available information about 

the rock formations and deposits in Canyonlands 

National Park, including age, unit name and symbol, 

significant features, depositional setting, resource 

potential, resistance to erosion and development 

potential. Names and map symbols used in the table are 

from Huntoon and others (1982). The descriptions and 

significant features were prepared using primarily 

Huntoon and others (1982), Billingsley and others (2002), 

and Baars (2000). 
Map Unit Properties Table 

Age Unit Name (map symbol) Description Significant Features Depositional Setting 

Alluvium and terrace gravel (Qal) 

Gray, light- red, and light- brown, poorly sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel; partly consolidated; inter- tongues with or is overlapped by intermediate or old alluvial terrace deposits; thickness is 10 to 40 feet (3 to 12 m) 

Supports moderate to thick growth of sagebrush, grass, cactus, and tall shrubs 

Along streams and rivers; includes talus, alluvial fans, and sand depos

Dune sand (Qd) White, reddish- brown, and pink unconsolidated windblown, fine- to coarse- grained sand 

Active dunes in large open valley areas; a few minor barchan dunes, but no parabolic dunes; stabilized by grassy and shrubby vegetation or by biological soil crusts 

Forms climbing dunes [12 to 30 feeto 9 m)] that ramp upward toward 

steep, downslope topography 

Quaternary 

Landslide deposits (Qs) Includes large rotational slides composed of jostled strata and disaggregated rock falls Associated with the Triassic- age Chinle Formation 

Jurassic 

San Rafael 

Group Entrada Sandstone (Je) 

Consists of lower Slickrock Member and the Moab Tongue; light- colored (often pale- orange) sandstone with minor 

cross- bedding occurring above a prominent horizontal bedding plane; fine- grained, massive, and friable; thicknesses: 225 - 350 feet (69 and 107 m) 

Forms near vertical cliffs and hummocky knobs; Slickrock Member forms arches in nearby Arches National Park 

Coastal—tidal flats, beaches, low islands, and dunes 

Navajo Sandstone (JTRn) 

Buff to pale- orange, well- sorted, fine- to medium- grained, massive, sandy limestone and stringers of red chert; intertongues with underlying Kayenta Formation; thickness 250 - 450 feet (76 - 137 m) 

Spectacular, large- scale cross- beds Eolian sand accumulations 

Kayenta Formation (TRk) 

Reddish- brown, massive, cross- bedded, fine- grained, wellsorted sandstone; thickness 30 - 435 feet (9 - 133 m) Fluvial—outcrops almost universa

display classic cut- and- fill depositypical of river deposition 

Wingate Sandstone (TRw)*

Reddish- brown, massive, cross- bedded, fine- grained, wellsorted sandstone; thickness 30 - 435 feet (9 and 133 m) Forms prominent, near- vertical cliffs Generally eolian with some fluvial bedding 

Chinle Formation (TRc) 

Bentonitic clayey sandstones and siltstones; members in ascending order: Monitor Butte, Moss Back (stream sand and gravel), Petrified Forest (mudstone), Owl Rock (including the “black ledge member”), and Church Rock (upper siltstone); locally contains scattered ledges of conglomeratic sandstones; 

thickness between 330 and 660 feet (101 and 201 m) 

Pastel colors: variegated red, purple, green, yellow slopes; fine- grained siltstone and sandstone cliffs of the “black ledge member,” heavily stained with desert varnish 

Streams and deltas 

Triassic 

Glen Canyon Group 

Moenkopi Formation (TRm) 

Reddish- brown, evenly- bedded, ripple- marked, crosslaminated siltstones and fine- grained sandstones; members include in ascending order: Hoskinnini, Lower slope- forming, Sinbad Limestone, Ledge- forming, and Upper slope- forming; averages 600 feet (183 m) thick. 

Tidal mud flat deposition (i.e., streand deltas); grades westward into marine deposits along the W bordColorado Plateau 

White Rim Sandstone (Pw) 

Light- gray to yellowish- gray (dark- gray in the vicinity of the park), fine- grained, cross- bedded sandstone; thickness 0–250 feet (76 m) 

Considered by many to be entirely eolian, but may represent the landmigration of a marine facies 

Permian 

Cutler Group Organ Rock Shale (Po) Dark- red, fine- to coarse- grained, arkosic, thin- bedded, sandstone and siltstone; includes dark- red conglomeratic sandstone lenses that form ledges in upper part. Huntoon and others (1982): reddish- brown siltstones and sandy shales 250 to 400 feet (76 to 122 m) thick. Billingsly and others (2002): 

incomplete section about 60 feet (18 m) thick in NE quarter of map; forms red caprock, less than 30 feet (9 m) thick, on small, unnamed mesas in southern part of map area. 

Oxidized mud; gradational SW facchange from coarse- grained arkossequence to alternating fine- grainsandstone, siltstone, and mudstonsequence 
Age Unit Name (map symbol) Description Significant Features Depositional Setting 

Undivided Cutler Group–Organ Rock Shale transition (Puo) 

Inter- tongues with underlying Cedar Mesa Sandstone forming a gradational and arbitrary vertical and lateral contact marked by a color contrast from dark- red Organ Rock Shale to white (or light- red) Cedar Mesa Sandstone 

Displays lateral inter- tonguing anfacies change between Organ Rock Shale and undivided Cutler Group 

Cedar Mesa Sandstone (Pc) 

Light- red to white, slope- and cliff- forming, medium- to thick- bedded sandstone and siltstone interbedded with darkred, coarse- grained, arkosic gravel, sandstone, siltstone, and 

mudstone; ; thickness as much as 1,500 feet (457 m) (Billingsley 

and others, 2002). Huntoon and others (1982): white to palereddish- brown, salmon, massive, cross- bedded sandstones interbedded with lenses of red, gray, green, and brown sandstones; includes thin- bedded, blue- gray limestone beds as channel lenses interbedded within dark- red siltstone and arkosic gravel in lower slope—red, thin- bedded siltstone, sandstone, and interbedded blue- gray, thin- bedded limestone and calcareous sandstone; 200 to 1,200 feet (61 and 366 m) 

Interpretation controversial (eoliashallow marine), probably a coastaaccumulation at or near a fluctuatishoreline 

Undivided Cutler–Cedar Mesa Sandstone transition (Puc) 

Light- red, fine- to coarse- grained, well- sorted, cliff- forming 

sandstone and interbedded dark- red, coarse- grained, slopeforming gravel, sandstone, and mudstone beds; includes minor 

beds of white, fine- to coarse- grained sandstone and bluegray, thin- bedded, fossiliferous limestone; thickness averages 800 feet (244 m) 

Dramatic and colorful rock sculptures 

Shallow marine and eolian; two typof sedimentation shifted back and forth; displays lateral inter- tonguiand facies change between Cedar MSandstone and undivided Cutler Group 

Permian 

Cutler Group undivided (Pu) 

Red, arkosic sandstones and white marine sandstones, with interbedded red shales; thickness is between 1,800 and 2,200 

feet (549 and 671 m) 

 Fluvial, alluvial- fan origin 

Elephant Canyon Formation (Pe) 

Blue- gray, thin- to medium- bedded, cliff- and slope- forming fossiliferous limestone, calcareous sandstone, and interbedded red and gray- red calcareous siltstone and mudstone. According to Huntoon and others (1982), unit is gray, cherty, chalky limestone and dolomite interbedded with pale- red sandstones, blue- gray siltstones, and thin beds of anhydrite with thickness of between 400 and 1,500 feet (122 and 457 m). 

“Type locality” near confluence of Green and Colorado Rivers 

Coastal lowlands; limestone beds thicken and thin locally and pinch laterally; grades southward into rebeds of the Halgaito Formation jusof the map area, and NE into the arkosic rocks of the Cutler Formatjust N of the map area 

Halgaito Shale–Elephant Canyon Formation transition (Phe)**

Displays lateral inter- tonguing and facies change between Halgaito Shale and Elephant Canyon Formation Advancing seas 

Cutler Group 

Halgaito Shale (Ph)**

Reddish- brown and purple arkosic sandstones, red siltstones, claystones, and conglomerates with thin marine limestone beds; thickness between 400 and 700 feet (122 and 213 m) 

Deposited in shallow seas and coaplains (limestone beds); fluvial deposition and some eolian depos

Honaker Trail (IPh) 

Blue- gray, thick- bedded, cliff- forming limestone, thinbedded calcareous sandstone, and interbedded, thin- bedded siltstone (Billingsley et al., 2002). Huntoon and others (1982): dark- gray, thick- bedded limestones interbedded with gray cherty limestones; blue, red, and gray shales and sandstones. Thickness 1,050 to 1,500 feet (320 and 457 m); incomplete section (600 to 800 feet [183 to 244 m]) exposed in the map area (Billingsley and others, 2002). 

Forms a sequence of cyclic alternating limestone, sandstone, and siltstone beds that comprise the bulk of the canyon walls along the Colorado River 

Warm, tropical seas 

Pennsylvanian 

Hermosa Group 

Paradox Formation (IPp) 

Salt, anhydrite, and gypsum interbedded with euxinic (deposited under restricted circulation) black shales and limestones 

Salt beds deposited in relatively dehighly saline seawaters in a closed basin; includes 29 cycles of halite (common salt) precipitation and associated clastic deposition; salt flowage bulged overlying strata to anticlinal structures and domes 

* Although the Wingate Sandstone was originally believed to be of Late Triassic age, palynological studies and regional stratigraphic relationships reveal that it is of Early Jurassic age (

**Two of the units included in the Cutler Group (Elephant Canyon Formation and Halgaito Shale) are now considered to be Pennsylvanian, not Permian, in age. Baars (1962) originally a Pennsylvanian age (Baars, 2000). 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 25 

Geologic History 

This section highlights the map units (i.e., rocks and unconsolidated deposits) that occur 

in Canyonlands National Park and puts them in a geologic context in terms of the 

environment in which they were deposited and the timing of geologic events that created 

the present landscape. 

Canyonlands, Utah’s largest national park, is a geologic 

wonderland of spires and mesas rising to more than 

7,800 feet (2,377 m). A large triangular plateau, called 

Island in the Sky, stands high above the confluence of the 

Green and Colorado Rivers (fig. 4). In the heart of the 

park, the two rivers come together through deep, sheerwalled, meandering canyons; below their confluence is 

Cataract Canyon, a 14- mile (23- km) long stretch of 

white- water rapids that challenge the most daring riverrunners in the world. The Maze, an almost inaccessible 

jumble of canyons, lies west of the rivers; beyond are the 

red towers and walls of Land of Standing Rocks. 

Upheaval Dome, a spectacular topographic feature 

located in Island in the Sky, exposes rings of colorful 

Mesozoic rocks. On the Colorado River’s southeast side 

are the strange, sculpted landforms of the Needles 

district, a natural exhibit of arches, fins, spires, grabens, 

canyons, and potholes. 

The oldest rocks exposed in Canyonlands National Park 

are the Paradox Formation in the bottom of Cataract 

Canyon. The exposures of gypsum and interbedded 

black shale are less soluble than the halite salt beds 

underneath Upheaval Dome and the Needles district. 

The thousands of feet of evaporites that make up the 

Paradox Formation began to accumulate in Middle 

Pennsylvanian time when the Paradox basin subsided 

and the Ancestral Rocky Mountains of western Colorado 

began to rise. 

A widely accepted interpretation of the environmental 

setting during deposition of the Paradox Formation is 

that individual salt beds were formed in relatively deep, 

highly saline seawater. During highstands of sea level, 

normal marine water could enter the Paradox basin 

across the shallow structural margins of the basin, 

depositing widespread black shale beds. As sea level 

lowered, seawater in the basin stagnated and intense 

evaporation occurred in the highly arid climate. Brine 

formed at the surface of the stagnant sea and sank to the 

bottom as intense evaporation progressed. The resulting 

dense brine could not pass across the basin thresholds, as 

in- flowing seawater created a hydrodynamic barrier. In 

the closed basin, water escaped only by evaporation, and 

because the climate was hot and dry, water evaporated 

rapidly, concentrating salts and mineral matter in 

shallow lagoons. 

Toward the end of Pennsylvanian time, a warm tropical 

sea spread over the region. About 1,500 feet (457 m) of 

fossiliferous limestone, shales, and sandstones blanketed 

the salt basin. These are the gray beds of the Honaker 

Trail Formation that crop out at lower elevations in the 

deep canyons of the park, especially along the Colorado 

River. The dominantly marine section contains 

numerous fossil brachiopods, crinoids, bryozoa, corals, 

pelecypods, and gastropods. 

Presumably, the weight of the accumulating overburden 

caused the salt beds of the Paradox Formation to begin 

flowing plastically before the close of the Pennsylvanian 

Period, and this process continued throughout the 

Permian Period and well into Mesozoic time. The 

migration of salt beds had probably stopped by the end 

of the Jurassic Period. 

Early in Permian time, advancing seas deposited the 

Halgaito Shale, which grades into the Elephant Canyon 

Formation, a rock unit deposited in coastal lowlands. 

Also during Permian time, the Uncompahgre Mountains 

to the east were being severely eroded. Sediments shed 

from of the mountains enlarged the alluvial fans that 

gradually filled the basin at the foot of the range. The 

material in the fans lithified into iron- rich, red, arkosic, 

sandstones that are mapped as “undivided” rock units of 

the Cutler Group. 

Inter- fingering with the undivided Cutler red beds are 

layers of white Cedar Mesa Sandstone, also of the Cutler 

Group, which were deposited in a coastal environmental 

setting (e.g., shallow marine and eolian deposits). The 

facies change between these continental and marine rock 

units occurs as a 4- to 5- mile (6.4- to 8- km) wide belt 

across Canyonlands National Park from south of the 

Needles through the Maze and into the Elaterite basin 

along the park’s western boundary. Many of 

Canyonlands’ most dramatic and colorful rocks are in 

this area where the two depositional facies shifted back 

and forth. 

Also part of the Cutler Group is the Organ Rock Shale—

oxidized muds which were laid down over the white 

sands of the Cedar Mesa Sandstone. The Organ Rock 

beds make up brightly colored red, orange, and brown 

slopes that separate cliff- forming units above and below. 

The White Rim Sandstone that forms the striking cliffs 

between undivided Cutler Group and Organ Rock red 

beds includes ancient sand dunes and large marine sand 

bars. 

An unconformity between Paleozoic and Mesozoic beds 

represents withdrawal of seas and a lengthy period of 

erosion when the continent was relatively high. The 

record of the Mesozoic Era in the Canyonlands area 

begins with Triassic- age red beds consisting of shallowwater, clastic sediments deposited by streams throughout 
26 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

a broad lowland that sloped gently toward a western 

ocean. Mudstones of the Moenkopi Formation, which 

accumulated on tidal mudflats, are exposed in the 

northern and western sections of the park. 

An unconformity separated the Moenkopi beds from the 

varicolored, overlying Chinle Formation, which consists 

of mostly slope- forming shales. The Chinle beds have 

been described as showing up on canyon walls like “a 

brilliant ring of fire” (Baars, 1983). In some places, pieces 

of petrified wood from the Petrified Forest Member of 

the Chinle Formation have weathered out of cliffs and 

accumulated around the base of the slopes. Also, 

bentonite in the Moss Back Member of the Chinle 

Formation produces dangerous conditions when wet 

along roads and trails. 

As the Triassic climate became drier, sand dunes 

migrated across the region, burying the rivers and their 

floodplains. The dunes became the Wingate Sandstone, 

which is several hundred feet thick throughout 

Canyonlands and extends nearly continuously for 

hundreds of miles. In Canyonlands, the prominent cliffs 

of the Wingate Sandstone, the cliffs and slopes of the 

Kayenta Formation, and the cliffs, knobs, and rounded 

monoliths of the Navajo Sandstone characterize the 

rocks of the Triassic- age Glen Canyon Group. Much of 

the beauty and uniqueness of the Colorado Plateau is due 

to these rock units, which are well exposed in 

Canyonlands National Park. 

Rock units of the Jurassic- age San Rafael Group 

unconformably overlie the Glen Canyon Group in the 

Canyonlands area, mainly scattered patches east and 

west of the park. For example, the massive Entrada 

Sandstone forms vertical cliffs and hummocky knobs 

that can be seen as one approaches Canyonlands 

National Park (e.g., Monitor and Merrimac Buttes). 

However, erosion stripped off most of the San Rafael 

beds in this area, as well as younger Jurassic and 

Cretaceous rocks from the park. 

The periods of cold and increased moisture that 

characterize Pleistocene climates on the Colorado 

Plateau greatly increased the dissection and deepening of 

canyons, especially the incising of the canyons of the 

Green and Colorado Rivers. Increased runoff from 

glaciers in the Rocky Mountains and other highlands 

drained by these streams augmented the volume of these 

two rivers. Some of the dune deposits, landslide deposits, 

alluvial fans, and terrace gravels accumulated—or at least 

began to form—during Pleistocene time. Uplift and 

erosion, which started in Tertiary time, continues today, 

though at a somewhat slower rate in Utah’s current drier 

climate. 

Figure 4. Map of the Northern Part of Canyonlands National Park. Among other geographic features, this figure shows Island in the Sky, a 

large triangular plateau that stands high above the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 27 

Figure 5: Geologic Time Scale - Red lines indicate major unconformities between eras. Included are major events in life history and tectonic 

events occurring North American continent. Absolute ages shown are in millions of years and are from the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) time scale found at: http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/gtime/timescale.html. 
28 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

References 

This section provides a listing of references cited in this report. A more complete geologic 

bibliography is available and can be obtained through the NPS Geologic Resources 

Division. 

Baars, D.L., 1962, Permian system of the Colorado 

Plateau: American Association of Petroleum Geologist 

Bulletin, v. 46, p. 149–218. 

Baars, D.L., 1987, The Elephant Canyon Formation, 

revisited, in Campbell, J.A., ed., Geology of Cataract 

Canyon and vicinity: Four Corners Geological Society 

Guidebook, p. 81–90. 

Baars, D.L., 1993, Canyonlands country: Salt Lake City, 

Utah, University of Utah Press, 138 p. 

Baars, D.L., 2000, Geology of Canyonlands National 

Park, Utah, in Sprinkel, D.A., Chidsey, T.C., Jr., and 

Anderson, P.B., eds., Geology of Utah’s parks and 

monuments: Salt Lake City, Utah Geological 

Association Publication 28, p. 61–83. 

Baars, D.L., and Seager, W.R., 1970, Stratigraphic control 

of petroleum in the White River Sandstone (Permian) 

in and near Canyonlands National Park, Utah: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 54, p. 709–718. 

Belnap, J., Pichel- Garcia, F., and Gillette, D., 1997, 

Stabilization of aridland soils—role of biological soil 

crusts [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts 

with Programs, v. 29, no. 6, p. A- 140. 

Billingsley, G.H., Block, D.L., and Felger, T.J., 2002, 

Surficial geologic map of the Loop and Druid Arch 

quadrangles, Canyonlands National Park, Utah: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF- 2411, scale 1:24,000. 

Boone, J.D., and Albritton, C.C., Jr., 1938, Established and 

supposed examples of meteoritic craters and 

structures: Field and Laboratory, v. 6, p. 44–56. 

Bucher, W.H., 1936, Cryptovolcanic structures in the 

United States, 16th International Geological Congress, 

volume 2: Washington, D.C., p. 1055–1084. 

Butler, B.S., 1920, Ore deposits of Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 111, 672 p. 

Campbell, J.A., 1979, Lower Permian depositional system, 

northern Uncompahgre basin in Baars, D.L., ed., 

Permian land: Four Corners Geological Society, 9th 

Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 13–21. 

Case, J.E., and Joesting, H.R., 1972, Regional geophysical 

investigations in the central Colorado Plateau: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 736, 31 p. 

Chenoweth, W.L., 1975, Uranium deposits of the 

Canyonlands area: Four Corners Geological Society 

Guidebook, 8th Field Conference, p. 253–259. 

Doelling, H.H., and Morgan, C.D., 2000, Geologic map 

of the Merrimac Butte quadrangle, Grand County, 

Utah: Utah Geological Survey Map 178, scale 1:24,000, 

and pamphlet, 22 p. 

Doelling, H.H., Yonkee, W.A., and Hand, J.S., 1994, 

Geological map of the Gold Bar Canyon quadrangle, 

Grand County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Map 155, 

scale 1:24,000, and pamphlet, 26 p. 

Ely, R.W., 1988, Late Cenozoic crustal warping in the 

central Colorado Plateau [abs.]: Geological Society of 

America Abstracts with Programs, v. 20, no. 7, p. A233. 

Foos, A., 1999, Geology of the Colorado Plateau: Akron, 

Ohio, Geology Department, University of Akron, 

http://www.newarkcolleges.com/Professional/dleavell

/Class%20pages/GS%20105/Readings/Adobe%20files/

Colorado%20Plateau.pdf. 

Griffiths, P.G., Webb, R.H., and Melis, T.S., 1997, Shales 

and debris- flow frequency on the Colorado Plateau, 

USA [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts 

with Programs, v. 29, no. 6, p. A- 139. 

Gwynn, J.W., 1984, Mining conditions and problems 

encountered within the Texasgulf- Cane Creek potash 

mine near Moab, Utah (Grand County): Utah 

Geological and Mineral Survey Report of 

Investigations 184, 12 p. 

Harden, D.R., 1990, Controlling factors in the 

distribution and development of incised meanders in 

the central Colorado Plateau: Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 102, p. 233–242. 

Harris, A.G., and Tuttle, E., 1990, Geology of national 

parks, 4th ed.: Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt 

Publishing Company, 652 p. 

Harrison, T.S., 1927, Stratigraphic results of a 

reconnaissance in western Colorado and eastern Utah: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 11, p. 111–133. 

Hunt, C.B., 1956, Cenozoic geology of the Colorado 

Plateau: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

279, 99 p. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 29 

Hasiotis, S.T., 1993, Paleontological, sedimentologic, and 

paleoecologic examination of Canyonlands National 

Park vicinity, Utah, in Santucci, V.L., ed., National 

Park Service research abstracts volume: National Park 

Service Technical Report, NPS/NRPO/NRTR- 93/11, p. 

28. 

Hasiotis, S.T., 1995, Crayfish fossils and burrows from the 

Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Canyonlands 

National Park, Utah, in Santucci, V.L., and 

McClelland, L., eds., National Park Service research 

volume 2: National Park Service Technical Report, 

NPS/NRPO/NRTR- 95/16, p. 49–53. 

Hasiotis, S.T., and Mitchell, C.E., 1989, Lungfish burrows 

in the Upper Triassic Chinle and Dolores Formations, 

Colorado Plateau—new evidence suggests origin by 

burrowing decapod crustaceans: Journal of 

Sedimentary Petrology, v. 59, no. 5, p. 871–875. 

Hecker, S., 1993, Quaternary tectonics of Utah with 

emphasis on earthquake- hazard characterization: 

Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 127, 37 p. 

Heckert, A.B., Lucas, S.G., and Harris, J.D., 1999, An 

aetosaur (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Upper 

Triassic Chinle Group, Canyonlands National Park, 

Utah, in Santucci, V.L., and McClelland, L., eds., 

National Park Service paleontological research volume 

4: National Park Service Geologic Resources Division 

Technical Report, NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR- 99/03, p. 

23–26. 

Hite, R.J., 1960, Stratigraphy of the saline facies of the 

Paradox Member of the Hermosa Formation of 

southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado, in

Geology of Paradox basin fold and fault belt: Four 

Corners Geology Society, 3rd Field Conference 

Guidebook, p. 86–89. 

Hunt, A.P., Lockley, M.G., and Lucas, S.G., 1993, New 

Late Triassic dinosaur tracksite discoveries from 

Colorado National Monument and Canyonlands 

National Park, in Santucci, V.L., ed., National Park 

Service research abstracts volume: National Park 

Service Technical Report, NPS/NRPO/NRTR- 93/11, p. 

38. 

Hunt, C.B., 1956, Cenozoic geology of the Colorado 

Plateau: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

279, 99 p. 

Huntoon, P.W., 1977, Hydrologic feasibility of 

developing ground water in northern Canyonlands: 

Wyoming Resources Research Institute Report, 

Contract CY 1200- 7- Bo20, 24 p. 

Huntoon, P.W., 1985, Geology and ground- water 

hydrology in the vicinity of the Texas Gulf Chemicals 

Company potash solution mine, Grand and San Juan 

Counties, Utah [unpublished report]: Texas Gulf 

Chemicals Company for submission to the 

Underground Injection Control Program, State of 

Utah, Department of Health, Bureau of Water 

Pollution Control, 54 p. 

Huntoon, P.W., Billingsley, G.H., and Breed, W.J., 1982, 

Geologic map of Canyonlands National Park and 

vicinity, Utah: Moab, Utah, Canyonlands Natural 

History Association, scale 1:62,500. 

Jackson, M.P.A., Schultz- Ela, D.D., Hudec, M.R., 

Watson, L.A., and Porter, M.L., 1998, Structure and 

evolution of Upheaval Dome—a pinched- off salt 

diaper: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 110, 

p. 1547–1573. 

Kiver, E.P., and Harris, D.V., 1999, Canyonlands 

National Park in Geology of U.S. parklands, 5th ed.: 

New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 441–454. 

Kanbur, Z., Louie, J.N., Chávez- Pérez, S., Plank, G., and 

Morey, D., 2000, Seismic reflection study of Upheaval 

Dome, Canyonlands National Park, Utah: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 105, no. E4, p. 9489–9505. 

Kreins, B.J., Shoemaker, E.M., and Herkenhoff, K.E., 

1999, Geology of Upheaval Dome impact structure: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 104, no. E8, p. 

18,867–18,887. 

Lockley, M.G., and Hunt, A.P., 1993, Fossil footprints—a 

previously overlooked paleontological resource in 

Utah’s national parks, in Santucci, V.L., ed., National 

Park Service research abstracts volume: National Park 

Service Technical Report, NPS/NRPO/NRTR- 93/11, p. 

29. 

Lohman, S.W., 1965, The geologic story of Colorado 

National Monument: Colorado and Black Canyon 

Nature Association, 56 p. 

Lohman, S.W., 1974, The geologic story of Canyonlands 

National Park: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1327, 

126 p. 

Lucas, S.G., 1995, The Triassic Sinbad Formation and 

correlation of the Moenkopi Group, Canyonlands 

National Park, Utah, in Santucci, V.L., and 

McClelland, L., eds., National Park Service research 

volume 2: National Park Service Technical Report, 

NPS/NRPO/NRTR- 95/16, p. 54–57. 

Lucas, S.G., Heckert, A.B., Estep, J.W., and Anderson, 

O.J., 1997, Stratigraphy of the Upper Triassic Chinle 

Group, Four Corners region: New Mexico Geological 

Society Guidebook, 48th field conference, p. 81–107. 
30 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Lucas, S.G., Hunt, A.P., and Lockley, M.G., 1995, 

Dinosaur footprints from Upper Triassic Rock Point 

Formation of the Chinle Group, Canyonlands 

National Park, in Santucci, V.L., and McClelland, L., 

eds., National Park Service research volume 2: 

National Park Service Technical Report, 

NPS/NRPO/NRTR- 95/16, p. 58–59. 

McKnight, E.T., 1940, Geology of the area between 

Green and Colorado Rivers, Grand and San Juan 

Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 908, 

147 p. 

Nava, S.J., Pechmann, J.C., and Arabasz, W.J., 1988, The 

magnitude 5.3 San Rafael Swell, Utah, earthquake of 

August 14, 1988—a preliminary seismological summary: 

Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Survey Notes, v. 

22, no., 1, 2, p. 16–19. 

Peterson, F., and Pipiringos, G.N., 1979, Stratigraphic 

relations of the Navajo Sandstone in Middle Jurassic 

formations, southern Utah and northern Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1035- B, 43 p. 

Pederson, J.L., Mackley, R.D., and Eddleman, J.L., 2002, 

Colorado Plateau uplift and erosion evaluated using 

GIS: GSA Today, v. 12, no. 8, p. 4–10. 

Peterson, J.A., and Hite, R.J., 1969, Pennsylvanian 

evaporite- carbonate cycles and their relation to 

petroleum occurrence, southern Rocky Mountains: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 53, no. 4, p. 884–908. 

Reynolds, R.L., 1999, Rapid detection of eolian in desert 

soils—applications to ecosystem studies [abs.]: 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A- 483. 

Ritzma, H.R., 1969, Potash in the San Juan project area, 

Utah and Colorado, in Mineral resources, San Juan 

County, Utah, and adjacent areas: Utah Geological and 

Mineral Survey Special Studies 24, part I, p. 17–33. 

Santucci, V.L., 2000, A survey of the paleontological 

resources form the national parks and monuments in 

Utah, in Sprinkel, D.A., Chidsey, T.C., Jr., and 

Anderson, P.B., eds., Geology of Utah’s parks and 

monuments: Salt Lake City, Utah Geological 

Association Publication 28, p. 535–556. 

Santucci, V.L., Hunt, A.P., and Lockley, M.G., 1998, 

Fossil vertebrate tracks in National Park Service areas: 

Dakoterra, v. 5, p. 107–114. 

Shoemaker E.M., and Herkenhoff, K.E., 1983, Impact 

origin of Upheaval Dome, Utah [abs.]: Eos 

(Transactions American Geophysical Union), v. 44, p. 

747. 

Shoemaker E.M., and Herkenhoff, K.E., 1984, Upheaval 

Dome impact structure, Houston Lunar and Planetary 

Science XV, 15th Lunar and Planetary Institute, 

Abstracts, part 2: Houston, p. 778–779. 

Stanesco, J.D., and Campbell, J.A., 1989, Eolian and noneolian facies of the Lower Permian Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone Member of the Cutler Formation, 

southeastern Utah: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1808, p. F1–F13. 

Stevenson, G.M., and Baars, D.L., 1987, The Paradox, a 

pull- apart basin of Pennsylvanian age, in Campbell, 

J.A., ed., Geology of Cataract Canyon and vicinity: 

Four Corners Geological Society Guidebook, p. 31–50. 

Stokes, W.L., 1969 (19th printing, 1997), Scenes of the 

plateau lands and how they came to be: Salt Lake City, 

Publishers Press, 66 p. 

Sumida, S.S., Wallister, J.B., and Lombard, R.E., 1999, 

Late Paleozoic amphibian- grade tetrapods of Utah, in

Gillette, D.D., ed., Vertebrate paleontology in Utah: 

Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 

99- 1, p. 21–30. 

Summerfield, M.A., 1991, Global geomorphology—an 

introduction to the study of landforms: Essex England, 

Longman Scientific and Technical, 537 p. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1984, Draft environmental 

assessment, Davis Canyon site, Utah: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Radioactive Waste Management, 872 p. 

Warner, L.A., 1978, The Colorado lineament—a middle 

Precambrian wrench fault system: Geological Society 

of America Bulletin, v. 89, p. 161–171. 

Wong, I.G., 1984, Seismicity of the Paradox basin and the 

Colorado Plateau interior: Columbus, Ohio, Office of 

Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle Memorial Institute, 

125 p. 

Wong, I.G., 1989, Seismic observations of rock falls in the 

Canyonlands of southeastern Utah [abs.]: Geological 

Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 

Cordilleran/Rocky Mountain Section, v. 21, no. 5, p. 

161. 

Wong, I.G., and Humphrey, J.R., 1989, Contemporary 

seismicity, faulting, and the state of stress in the 

Colorado Plateau: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 101, p. 1127–1146. 

Wong, I.G., Humphrey, J.R., Kollmann, A.C., Munden, 

B.B., and Wright, D.D., 1987, Earthquake activity in 

and around Canyonlands National Park, Utah: Four 

Corners Geological Society 10th Field Conference 

Guidebook, p. 51–58. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 31 

Woodward- Clyde Consultants, 1980, Overview of the 

regional geology of the Paradox basin study region: 

San Francisco, California, Woodward- Clyde 

Consultants, 165 p. 

Woodward- Clyde Consultants, 1982, Geologic 

characterization report for the Paradox basin study 

region, Utah study areas, volumes I- IV [unpublished 

consultants report for Battelle Memorial Institute, 

Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI- 290]: 

Walnut Creek, California, Woodward- Clyde 

Consultants, variously paginated. 

Wyckoff, J., 1999, Reading the Earth—landforms in the 

making: Mahwah, New Jersey, Adastra West, Inc., 352 

p. 

Zoback, M.L., and Zoback, M.D., 1989, Tectonic stress of 

the continental United States, in Pakiser, L.C., and 

Mooney. W.D., eds., Geophysical framework of the 

continental United States: Geological Society of 

America Memoir 172, p. 523–539. 
32 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Appendix A: Geologic Map Graphic 

This image provides a preview or “snapshot” of the geologic map for Canyonlands 

National Park. For a detailed digital geologic map, see included CD. 

The original map digitized by NPS staff to create this product was: Billingsley, George H., Block, Debra L and Felgar, Tracey J., 2002, 

Surficial geologic map of The Loop and Druid Arch Quadrangles, Canyonlands National Park, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey, MF-2411, 

1:24000 scale. For a detailed digital geologic map and cross sections, see included CD. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 33 

Appendix B: SEUG Scoping Summary 

The following scoping summary highlights a workshop that was held for National Park 

System units in the Southeast Utah Group (SEUG) including Arches National Park, 

Canyonlands National Park, Hovenweep National Monument, and Natural Bridges 

National Monument from May 24–27, 1999 

An inventory workshop was held for National Park 

System units in the Southeast Utah Group (SEUG) 

including Arches National Park, Canyonlands National 

Park, Hovenweep National Monument, and Natural 

Bridges National Monument from May 24–27, 1999, to 

view and discuss the geologic resources, address the 

status of geologic mapping by the Utah Geological 

Survey (UGS) for compiling both paper and digital maps, 

and to assess resource management issues and needs. 

Cooperators from the NPS Geologic Resources Division 

(GRD), Natural Resources Information Division 

(NRID), Southeast Utah Group NPS staff 

(interpretation, natural resources, deputy 

superintendents), UGS, United States Geological Survey 

(USGS), and Utah Geological Association (UGA) were 

present for the two day workshop (See Attachment A).

Monday, May 24, involved a field trip to Natural Bridges 

National Monument (NABR) led by Red Rocks College 

geologist Jack Stanesco with additions from Christine 

Turner and Pete Peterson (both of the USGS). 

Tuesday, May 25, involved a field trip to Canyonlands 

National Park (CANY) led by USGS geologist George 

Billingsley, again with additions from Christine Turner 

and Pete Peterson also of the USGS. 

Wednesday, May 26, involved a field trip to Arches 

National Park (ARCH) led by UGS geologist Hellmut 

Doelling with additions from Grant Willis (UGS) and 

Vince Santucci (NPS- GRD). 

Thursday, May 27, involved a scoping session to present 

overviews of the NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) 

Program, the Geologic Resources Division, and the 

ongoing Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) for 

Colorado and Utah. Round table discussions involving 

geologic issues for the Southeast Utah Group included 

interpretation, the UGA Millennium 2000 guidebook 

featuring the geology of Utah's National and State parks, 

paleontological resources, the status of cooperative 

geologic mapping efforts, sources of available data, 

geologic hazards, potential future research topics, and 

action items generated from this meeting. 

Overview of Geologic Resources Inventory 

After introductions by the participants, Joe Gregson 

(NPS- NRID) presented an overview of the NPS I&M 

Program, the status of the natural resource inventories, 

and the geological resources inventory. 

The NPS geologic resources inventory is a collaborative 

effort of the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD) 

and Inventory and Monitoring Program (I&M) with 

assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

American Association of State Geologists (AASG), and 

numerous individual volunteers and cooperators at 

National Park System units, colleges, and universities. 

From the perspective of the Servicewide I&M Program, 

the primary focus (Level 1) of the geological inventory is 

1. Assemble a bibliography of associated geological 

resources for National Park System units with 

significant natural resources, 

2. Compile and evaluate a list of existing geologic maps 

for each unit, 

3. Develop digital geologic map products, and 

4. Complete a geological report that synthesizes much of 

the existing geologic knowledge about each park. The 

emphasis of the inventory is not to routinely initiate 

new geologic mapping projects, but to aggregate 

existing information and identify where serious 

geologic data needs and issues exist in the National 

Park System. 

The NPS Geologic Resources Division is an active 

participant in the I&M Program and has provided 

guidance and funding in the development of inventory 

goals and activities. Geologic Resources Division 

administers the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) and 

Geoscientists- in- the- Parks (GIP) programs which 

contribute to the inventory. National Park Service 

paleontologists, geologists, and other natural resource 

professionals also contribute to inventory planning and 

data. A major goal of the collaborative effort is to provide 

a broad baseline of geologic data and scientific support 

to assist park managers with earth resource issues that 

may arise. 

For each National Park System unit, a cooperative group 

of geologists and NPS personnel (the “park team”) will 

be assembled to advise and assist with the inventory. 

Park Teams will meet at the each National Park System 

unit to discuss and scope the geologic resources and 

inventory, which is the subject of this report. If needed, a 

second meeting will be held at a central office to evaluate 

available geologic maps for digital production. After the 

two meetings, digital geologic map products and a 

geologic report will be produced. The report will 

summarize the geologic inventory activities and basic 

geology topics for each park unit. Due to the variety of 

geologic settings throughout the National Park System, 

each report will vary in subject matter covered, and 
34 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

section topics will be adapted as needed to describe the 

geologic resources of each unit. Whenever possible the 

scientific sections of the report will be written by 

knowledgeable cooperators and peer reviewed for 

accuracy and validity. 

Gregson also presented a demonstration of some of the 

main features of the digital geologic map for the Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument and 

Curecanti National Recreation Area in Colorado. This 

has become the prototype for the NPS digital geologic 

map model as it ideally reproduces all aspects of a paper 

map (i.e., it incorporates the map notes, cross sections, 

and legend) with the added benefit of being a GIS 

component. It is displayed in ESRI ArcView shape files 

and features a built- in help file system to identify the 

map units. It can also display scanned JPG or GIF images 

of the geologic cross sections supplied with the map. The 

cross section lines (e.g., A–A') are subsequently digitized 

as a shape file and are hyperlinked to the scanned images. 

The geologists at the workshop familiar with GIS 

methods were quite impressed with this method of 

displaying geologic maps digitally; Gregson is to be 

commended for his accomplishments. 

Bruce Heise (NPS- GRD) followed with an introduction 

about the NPS Geologic Resources Division. 

Interpretation 

The GRI also aims to help promote geologic resource 

interpretation within the parks and GRD has staff and 

technology to assist in preparation of useful materials 

including developing site bulletins and resource 

management proposal (RMP) statements appropriate to 

promoting geology. Jim Wood (GRD) and Melanie 

Moreno (USGS–Menlo Park, CA) have worked with 

several other National Park System units in developing 

Web- based geology interpretation themes, and should 

be considered as a source of assistance should park staffs 

desire it. 

Along the lines of interpretation of geology for the 

SEUG, it was suggested that they consider hiring a fulltime geologist to be on staff to evaluate research 

proposals and generally assist all interpretive areas 

within the SEUG to find out what issues should be 

addressed. A geologist could add greatly to NABR, 

CANY, and ARCH because the primary theme of these 

parks is geologic; there would be no bridges, arches, or 

canyon (lands) without the underlying influence of 

geology and geologic processes upon this part of the 

world. A geologist would also certainly be active in 

establishing the most effective wayside exhibits aimed at 

informing the public about the geologic wonders of the 

area. A geologist can certainly assist in the presentation 

and interpretation of paleontologic resources and issues 

also. 

Such a position could act as a liaison among various tour 

groups, researchers, field camps, and professional 

organizations that visit the area because of the 

spectacular geology. Geologic hazards would also be able 

to be more fully understood. Obviously, effective 

communication skills are a highly desirable quality for 

any applicant. 

In the absence of such a position, the GRD is most 

willing to assist the SEUG in any geologic matters and 

issues should they desire. Please contact Bruce Heise or 

Tim Connors to discuss further matters regarding 

geologic resources. 

UGA Guidebook on Utah’s National and State Park 

Areas 

Doug Sprinkel of the UGA announced that a guidebook 

treating the geology of 27 of Utah’s national and state 

parks and monuments will be compiled for publication 

in September 2000. This compilation will be a snapshot 

into the geology of each park and covers most facets of 

what the GRI is trying to develop for each park for a final 

report (i.e., cross sections, simplified geologic map, 

general discussions of rocks, structure, unique aspects of 

park geology, and classic viewing localities). Each author 

will be encouraged to get with NPS staff interpreters to 

develop a product that aims at a wide audience (general 

public, technical audiences, and the teaching 

community). Authors for SEUG parks are as follows: 

• Arches NP: Hellmut Doelling (UGS) 

• Canyonlands NP: Donald Baars 

• Natural Bridges NM: Jackie Huntoon, Russell Dubiel, 

Jack Stanesco 

Also, a CD- ROM will be distributed with the publication 

featuring road and trail logs for specific parks as well as a 

photo glossary and gallery. Park authors are strongly 

encouraged to get with NPS staff to make sure that any 

trail logs do follow maintained trails and do not take 

visitors into unauthorized areas, or places where 

resources are fragile and would be disturbed by 

increased visitation (i.e., areas with crytptogamic soils). 

The photo glossary will describe certain geologic features 

(i.e., what is crossbedding?). These will also be available 

as Web- downloadable Adobe Acrobat PDF files. The 

UGA cannot copyright this material because it is funded 

with state money, so it can be distributed widely and 

freely, which will also benefit the purposes of the GRI 

program. Additional reprints are not a problem because 

of the digital nature of the publication and the UGA 

board is committed to additional printings as needed. 

UGA normally prints 1,000 copies of their publications 

because they become dated after about five years; that 

will probably not be an issue for this publication. Prices 

for the full- color guidebook are estimated to be 

approximately $25/copy, and sales are expected to be 

high (exact estimates for Capitol Reef NM were 125 

copies/year). A website for the guidebook is forthcoming 

in October 1999. 

Field trips will be held in September 2000. Currently, 

four field trips are scheduled: 

1. Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, 

Dead Horse Point State Park 

2. Antelope Island State Park and Wasatch Mountain 

State Park 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 35 

3. Southeast Utah Group National Park, Cedar Breaks 

National Monument, Snow Canyon State Park, and 

Quail Creek State Park 

4. Dinosaur National Monument, Flaming Gorge 

National Recreation Area, and Red Fleet State Park 

Note: Trips 1 and 2 will run concurrently and Trips 3 and 4 

will also run concurrently. 

Many other benefits are anticipated from this publication 

and are enumerated below: 

• This type of project could serve as a model for other 

states to follow to bolster tourism and book sales 

promoting their state and its geologic features. 

• Sandy Eldredge (UGS) will be targeting teaching 

communities for involvement in the field trips; 

hopefully teachers will pass on what they have learned 

to their young audience. 

• The language is intended to appeal to someone with a 

moderate background in geology and yet will be very 

informative to the educated geologist. 

• The publication may be able to serve as a textbook to 

colleges teaching courses about the geology of national 

parks (in Utah). 

• A welcomed by- product could be roadlogs between 

parks in Utah for those visiting multiple parks, perhaps 

with a regional synthesis summarizing how the overall 

picture of Utah geology has developed. 

Disturbed Lands 

John Burghardt (GRD) has done work in Lathrop 

Canyon on reclaiming abandoned mineral lands (AML). 

His reports should be studied as a significant source of 

data for this area to determine if additional work needs 

to be performed. Dave Steensen (GRD) heads the AML 

Program and can also be contacted. 

Paleontological Resources 

The field trip at Arches National Park provided glimpses 

into the paleontological resources (dinosaur bones) near 

Delicate Arch. It has been suggested to keep this location 

low profile to minimize disturbances and potential theft 

or vandalism. 

During the scoping session, the importance of a 

paleontological resource inventory for the Cedar 

Mountain and Morrison Formations near the Dalton 

Wells Quarry was discussed as being a priority. The 

important resources are likely to be dinosaur bones. A 

staff geologist or paleontologist would surely be useful 

for this purpose 

Vince Santucci (NPS- GRD Paleontologist) will be coauthoring a paleontological survey of Arches National 

Park and detailing findings of resources within the park. 

Plants, invertebrates, and vertebrate tracksites are among 

the recognized paleontological resources within the 

Southeast Utah Group area parks. 

Similar surveys have been done for Yellowstone and 

Death Valley National Parks and have shed valuable new 

information on previously unrecognized resources. 

These surveys involve a literature review; creation of a 

bibliography; recognition of type specimens, species lists, 

and maps (which are unpublished to protect locality 

information); and specific recommendations for 

protecting and preserving the resources. 

Paleontological survey reports for Death Valley and 

Yellowstone National Parks are available at 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/surve

ys/surveys.htm. 

Paleontological resource management plans should be 

produced for Southeast Utah Group involving some 

inventory and monitoring to identify human and natural 

threats to these resources. Perhaps someone on the park 

staff could be assigned to coordinate paleontological 

resource management and incorporate any findings or 

suggestions into the parks general management plan 

(GMP). It would be useful to train park staff (including 

interpreters and law enforcement) in resource 

protection, as the fossil trade "black market" has become 

quite lucrative for sellers and often results in illegal 

collecting from federal lands. 

Collections taken from this area that now reside in 

outside repositories should be tracked down for 

inventory purposes. Fossils offer many interpretive 

themes and combine a geology- biology link and should 

be utilized as much as possible in interpretive programs. 

Status of Geologic Mapping Efforts for the SEUG 

Status of Existing Maps 

It should be noted that the following paper geologic 

maps exist: 

• Arches National Park (Geologic Map of Arches National 

Park and vicinity, Grand County, Utah by Hellmut H. 

Doelling, 1985, scale 1:50,000). The area was mapped at

1:24,000 scale, but compiled at 1:50,000 scale. 

• Canyonlands National Park (Geologic Map of 

Canyonlands National Park and Vicinity, Utah by 

George Billingsley, Peter Huntoon, and William J. 

Breed, 1982, scale 1:62,500). 

• Canyonlands National Park (Bedrock Geologic Map of 

Upheaval Dome, Canyonlands NP, Utah by Gene 

Shoemaker, Herkenhoff and Kriens, 1997, scale 

unknown).

George Billingsley noted that when he worked on the 

Canyonlands map, he mostly compiled previous 

material. He thought several additions to the Quaternary 

deposits and the placement of joints and fractures on the 

maps would improve the quality of the 1982 Canyonlands 

map. There are also some issues regarding assignment of 

the Page Sandstone, and the controversy of the Dewey 

Bridge Member of the Entrada versus the Carmel 

Formation being within the map area. He thinks 

eventually, the entire area should be compiled at 1:24,000

to better enhance features and add to resource 

management. 

Jackie Huntoon has told Bruce Heise that she is working 

on a digital coverage for Natural Bridges, but needs the 

hypsography (contour lines) to complete her work. 
36 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Desired quadrangles that NRID has this coverage for are 

the following: 

• The Cheesebox 

• Woodenshoe Buttes 

• Kane Gulch 

• It is not sure if the coverage exists for the Moss Back 

Butte quadrangle; Joe Gregson will look into it. 

Digitized Maps 

The 1985 Arches map has been digitized into ArcInfo 

coverage by SEUG staff. The attribute quality is 

unknown however, and will be researched. NPS- GRI 

folks will work with SEUG GIS Specialist Gery 

Wakefield to learn more about this coverage 

The 1982 Canyonlands map is not known to have been 

digitized at this point and hopefully can be done by the 

SEUG GIS staff. George Billingsley says that the 

Canyonlands Natural History Association has the 

original line work and mylars; Diane Allen said she will 

contact them to see if they still have this work. 

The 1997 Upheaval Dome map is digitized as ArcInfo 

coverage and a copy was given to Craig Hauke (CANY) 

from George Billingsley. It also contains cross sections 

and a report. 

UGS Mapping Activities in SEUG Area 

Currently, the UGS is mapping in Utah at three different 

scales: 

• 1:24,000 for high priority areas (i.e., national and state 

parks) 

• 1:100,000 for the rest of the state 

• 1:500,000 for a compiled state geologic map 

The UGS plans to complete mapping for the entire state 

of Utah within 10–15 years at 1:100,000 scale. For 1:100,000 

scale maps, their goal is to produce both paper and 

digital maps; for 1:24,000 scale maps, the only digital 

products will be from “special interest” areas (i.e., areas 

such as Southeast Utah Group and growing metropolitan 

Saint George). Grant Willis mentioned that the UGS 

simply does not have enough human or financial 

resources to do more areas at this scale. He also 

reiterated that UGS mapping goals are coincident with 

those of the National Geologic Mapping Program. 

Grant Willis talked about the status of UGS mapping 

activities within the Southeast Utah Group area (see 

Attachment B). 

30 × 60 sheets (at 1:100,000) for the area include the La 

Sal (greater Canyonlands area) and Moab (Arches 

National Park) sheets, which are currently in progress 

(paper and digital format). 

Here is a brief summary of various mapping projects for 

SEUG parks from the UGS: 

Park Quadrangle Status 

Klondike Bluffs UGS (Doelling) 

mapping in progress 

Mollie Hogans UGS (Doelling) 

mapping in progress 

Cisco SW Slated for future work 

Big Bend Paper map published 

1998; not digitized 

The Windows 

Section 

UGS (Doelling) 

mapping in progress 

Merrimac Butte In publication 

Gold Bar 

Canyon 

Published 

Moab- 16 Ready for press 

ARCH 

Moab (30 × 60) Digital and printed map 

in progress 

Hanksville Nothing currently; 

hopefully in a few years CANY La Sal Digital and printed map 

in progress 

NABR Hite Crossing 

Blanding 

Nothing slated at this 

time 

Other Sources of Natural Resources Data for SEUG 

• The UGS has a significant quadrangle database that 

they have furnished to NRID for the entire state of 

Utah. 

• NRID has compiled a geologic bibliography for 

numerous parks and monuments, including all parks in 

the Southeast Utah Group. 

• SEUG GIS specialist showed a digitized version of 

Hellmut Doelling’s 1985 map as and ArcInfo coverage; 

attribution needs to be checked; other coverages 

should be sought that may exist from the previous GIS 

specialist. 

• GRD has several entries regarding abandoned mineral 

land (AML) sites in their database that should be 

checked for data validity and compared with park 

records; John Burghardt (GRD) should be contacted 

regarding this. 

• The Arches National Park visitor center sells a 

publication that has an inventory of all the arches at 

the park. 

• The UGS has compiled a CD- ROM with well 

locations, pipelines, etc. for the state of Utah; GRD 

should obtain a copy of this. Park staffs may also desire 

copies. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 37 

Geologic Hazards 

Numerous issues relate to geologic hazards in and 

around the Southeast Utah Group parks. A brief list of 

some hazards mentioned during the scoping session 

follow: 

• Landslide and rockfall potential along all roads that 

occasionally cause road closures; of special note was 

the problem with the main road in Arches, just above 

the visitor center. 

• Landscape Arch (ARCH) collapsed in a few places 

several years ago and was recorded by a tourist. 

• Swelling soils associated with bentonitic shales of the 

Chinle, Morrison, and Mancos Formations 

• Radon potential associated with mine closures 

• Earthquake potential along the Moab Fault 

Potential Research Topics for Southeast Utah Group 

A list of potential research topics includes studies of the 

following: 

• What are the connections between gypsiferous rocks 

and cryptobiotic soils/crusts? Why are the crusts 

healthier on the gypsum- bearing rocks? 

• How long will Delicate Arch stand? 

• Engineering studies to determine hazards to visitors; 

use strain meter 

• Use High resolution GPS to detect moving, swelling, 

and collapse in areas of the parks 

• Rock color studies 

• Subsurface seismic work for voids in the Needles 

around synclines and salt dome structures 

• Locate real unconformity between Entrada Moab 

Tongue and abutting formations 

Action Items 

Many follow- up items were discussed during the course 

of the scoping session and are reiterated by category for 

quick reference. 

Interpretation 

More graphics and brochures emphasizing geology and 

targeting the average enthusiast should be developed. If 

Southeast Utah Group needs assistance with these, 

please consult Jim Wood (GRD) (jim_f._wood@nps.gov) 

or Melanie Moreno (USGS–Menlo Park) 

(mmoreno@usgs.gov). 

• Consider the possibility of hiring a full- time geologist 

to handle geologic issues for the SEUG; in the absence 

of this consult with GRD for assistance in geologic 

matters. 

UGA Guidebook 

• Attempt to plant the seeds of this concept to other 

states for similar publications involving local area 

geology. Such publications are especially useful for the 

geologic resources inventory. 

• Have authors prepare logs that are “sensitive” to 

delicate areas in the park (i.e., where less user impact is 

desired). 

Paleontological Resources 

• For now, try to minimize location disclosure of 

vertebrate sites to minimize disturbances and the 

potential for theft or vandalism. 

• Develop an in- house plan to inventory, monitor, and 

protect significant paleontological resources from 

threats; assign staff to oversee especially in regard to 

the Dalton Wells area. 

• Locate fossils collected from the park residing in 

outside repositories. 

Geologic Mapping 

• Attempt to complete digital coverage for the entire 

SEUG area from existing maps 

• Locate already existing digital coverages (e.g., 

Doelling's 1985 Arches map). 

• Work closely with UGS to finish paper and digital 

coverage of SEUG area where maps are lacking. 

• Work with cooperators (e.g., NABR–Jackie Huntoon) 

to ensure there work could be incorporated into the 

master plan of the geologic resources inventory 

program. 

Natural Resource Data Sources 

• Examine GRD databases for AML sites and disturbed 

lands for data validity. 

• Attempt to locate other digital coverages from the 

previous SEUG GIS specialist (Eric) for Gery 

Wakefield’s (current SEUG GIS specialist) inventory. 

Miscellaneous 

• Review proposed research topics for future studies 

within Southeast Utah Group parks. 

• Promote sensitivity of delicate resources (e.g., crusts) 

to researchers, and visiting park groups. 
38 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Attachment A: Southeast Utah Group Geological Resources Inventory Workshop Participants 

Name Affiliation Phone E-Mail 

Joe Gregson NPS, Natural Resources 

Information Division (970) 225- 3559 Joe_Gregson@nps.gov 

Tim Connors NPS, Geologic Resources Division (303) 969- 2093 Tim_Connors@nps.gov 

Bruce Heise NPS, Geologic Resources Division (303) 969- 2017 Bruce_Heise@nps.gov 

Christine Turner USGS (303) 236- 1561 Cturner@usgs.gov 

Fred Peterson USGS (303) 236- 1546 Fpeterson@usgs.gov 

Jack Stanesco Red Rocks CC (303) 914- 6290 Jack.Stanesco@rrcc.cccoes.edu 

Craig Hauke NPS, CANY (435) 259- 3911 

ext. 2132 Craig_hauke@nps.gov 

Grant Willis Utah Geological Survey (801) 537- 3355 Nrugs.gwillis@state.ut.us 

George 

Billingsley USGS- Flagstaff, AZ (520) 556- 7198 Gbillingsley@usgs.gov 

Vince Santucci NPS, Geologic Resources Division (307) 877- 4455 Vince_Santucci@nps.gov 

Jim Dougan NPS, NABR (435) 692- 1234 Jim_Dougan@nps.gov 

Al Echevarria Red Rocks CC (303) 985- 5996 Ale44@juno.com 

Dave Wood NPS, CANY (435) 259- 3911 

ext. 2133 Dave_Wood@nps.gov 

Traci Kolc NPS, CANY (435) 259- 4712 

ext. 18 Traci_Kolc@nps.gov 

Margaret 

Boettcher NPS, ARCH SCA (435) 259- 1963 Margaret_arches@hotmail.com 

Clay Parcels NPS, ARCH (435) 259- 8161 

ext. 245 Clay_Parcels@nps.gov 

Alicia Lafever NPS, ARCH (435) 259- 8161 

ext. 242 Alicia_Lafever@nps.gov 

Adrienne 

Gaughan NPS, ARCH (435) 259- 8161 ext. 286 Adrienne_Gaughan@nps.gov 

Shawn Duffy NPS, ARCH (435) 259- 7223 Shawn_Duffy@nps.gov 

Murray 

Shoemaker NPS, ARCH (435) 259- 8161 ext. 244 Murray_Shoemaker@nps.gov 

Helmut Doelling UGS (435) 835- 3652 None 

Doug Sprinkel UGS / UGA (801) 782- 3398 Sprinkel@vii.com 

Jim Webster NPS, ARCH (435) 259- 8161 

ext. 220 Jim_Webster@nps.gov 

Gery Wakefield NPS, SEUG GIS coordinator (435) 259- 3911 

ext. 2180 Gery_Wakefield@nps.gov 

Phil Brueck NPS, SEUG (435) 259- 3911 

ext. 2102 Phil_Brueck@nps.gov 

Bruce Rodgers NPS, SEUG (435) 259- 3911 

ext. 2130 Bruce_Rodgers@nps.gov 

Diane Allen NPS, ARCH (435) 259- 8161 Diane_Allen@nps.gov 

Paul Henderson NPS, SEUG (435) 259- 3911 

ext. 2140 Paul_Henderson@nps.gov 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 39 

Attachment B: Quadrangle Maps for Southeastern Utah Group Parks 
40 NPS Geologic Resources Division 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 41 

Appendix C: Geoindicators Scoping Summary 

The following excerpt is from the geoindicators scoping summary for four National 

Park Service units in southeastern Utah, including Canyonlands National Park. The 

scoping meeting occurred on June 3- 6, 2002, therefore, the contact information and Web 

addresses referred to herein may be outdated. Please contact to the Geologic Resources 

Division for current information. Also, please refer to the included CD for the complete 

geoindicators report. 

Staff of the National Park Service, Utah Geological 

Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land 

Management, Northern Arizona University, and 

Brigham Young University participated in a 

geoindicators scoping meeting in Moab, Utah, for four 

National Park Service units in southeastern Utah. The 

four parks were Arches National Park (ARCH), 

Canyonlands National Park (CANY), Capitol Reef 

National Park (CARE), and Natural Bridges National 

Monument (NABR). 

Purpose of Meeting 

The purpose of the meeting was to bring together park 

staff, geoscientists, and other resource specialists to 

address the issue of human influences on geologic 

processes in the four park areas. The group used 

collective knowledge of the four parks’ geology and 

natural resources to identify the geologic processes 

active in the parks, to identify the human activities 

affecting those processes, and to develop 

recommendations for long- term monitoring of 

geoindicators in conjunction with park Vital Signs 

monitoring. 

In addition, the Northern Colorado Vital Signs Network 

is coming on- line in fiscal year 2002 and will be receiving 

its first funding for Vital Signs monitoring. The scoping 

meeting was timed so the Network could use the 

information gained during the meeting in the Vital Signs 

selection process. 

This report summarizes the group’s discussions and 

provides recommendations for studies to support 

resource management decisions, inventory and 

monitoring projects, and research needed to fill data 

gaps. 

Government Performance and Results Act Goal Ib4 

This meeting satisfies the requirements of the GPRA 

Goal Ib4, which is a knowledge- based goal that states, 

“Geological processes in 53 parks (20% of 265 parks) are 

inventoried and human influences that affect those 

processes are identified.” The goal was designed to 

improve park managers’ capabilities to make informed, 

science- based decisions with regards to geologic 

resources. It is the intention of the goal to be the first step 

in a process that will eventually lead to the mitigation or 

elimination of human activities that severely impact 

geologic processes, harm geologic features, or cause 

critical imbalance in the ecosystem. 

Because GPRA Goal Ib4 inventories only a sampling of 

parks, information gathered at the four parks may be 

used to represent other parks with similar resources or 

human influences on those resources, especially when 

findings are evaluated for Servicewide implications. 

Geoindicator Background Information 

An international Working Group of the International 

Union of Geological Sciences developed geoindicators as 

an approach for identifying rapid changes in the natural 

environment. The National Park Service uses 

geoindicators during scoping meetings as a tool to fulfill 

GPRA Goal Ib4. Geoindicators are measurable, 

quantifiable tools for assessing rapid changes in earth 

system processes. Geoindicators evaluate 27 earth system 

processes and phenomena (Appendix A) that may 

undergo significant change in magnitude, frequency, 

trend, or rates over periods of 100 years or less and may 

be affected by human actions (Appendix B). 

Geoindicators guide the discussion and field 

observations during scoping meetings (Appendix C). The 

geoindicators scoping process for the National Park 

Service was developed to help determine the studies 

necessary to answer management questions about what 

is happening to the environment, why it is happening, 

and whether it is significant. 

Aspects of ecosystem health and stability are evaluated 

during the geoindicators scoping process. The geologic 

resources of a park—soils, caves, streams, springs, 

beaches, volcanoes, etc.—provide the physical 

foundation required to sustain the biological system. 

Geological processes create topographic highs and lows; 

affect water and soil chemistries; influence soil fertility 

and water- holding capacities, hillside stability, and the 

flow regimes of surface water and groundwater. These 

factors, in turn, determine where and when biological 

processes occur, such as the timing of species 

reproduction, the distribution and structure of 

ecosystems, and the resistance and resilience of 

ecosystems to human impacts (Appendix D). 

Park Selection 

These parks were selected for a number of reasons, 

including the fact that the parks represent the four of the 

five parks in the Northern Colorado Plateau Prototype 

Cluster. These prototype parks will be the foci of 

research and development for protocols associated with 

vital- signs monitoring at NCPN parks and monuments. 

Geologic resources and processes found in these four 

parks are generally representative of those found 
42 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

throughout the rest of the NCPN, and considerable 

geologic research has been conducted in them 

previously. 

Summary of Results and Recommendations 

During the scoping meeting, geoindicators appropriate 

to Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, 

Capitol Reef National Park, and Natural Bridges 

National Monument were addressed. Of the 27 

geoindicators (Appendix A), 21 were recognized as ongoing processes to varying degrees in the four parks. An 

additional four geologic issues that are not part of the 

original geoindicators were also discussed (i.e., fire 

occurrence, atmospheric deposition, paleontological 

resources, and climate), as was an issued called 

“ecosystem response to geomorphic processes.” The 

issues surrounding each geoindicator were identified, 

and participants rated the geoindicator with respect to 

the importance to the ecosystem, human impacts, and 

significance for resource managers (Geoindicators table). 

A compilation of the notes taken during the scoping 

session (Appendix G) and field trip (Appendix H) are 

included in the appendices. These notes may highlight 

additional information regarding geoindicators that may 

be useful to resource managers. 

During the geoindicators scoping meeting, participants 

identified studies to support resource management 

decisions, inventory and monitoring projects, and 

research to fill data gaps at all four parks. The 

recommendations that follow are not listed in any order 

of priority, but are intended to help guide park managers 

when making decisions regarding natural resource 

management needs. The recommendations that are listed 

are by no means inclusive of all possible geological 

research and monitoring. 

Significant Geoindicators 

The following is a summary of the results for the 11 

geoindicators that rated the highest in all three 

categories, as well as the recommendations for these 

geoindicators that were developed during the meeting. A 

summary of the scoping session discussion and the field 

trip are included in Appendix G and H, respectively. 

These notes highlight additional information regarding 

geoindicators that may be useful to resource managers. 

Desert Surface Crusts (Biological and Physiochemical) and 

Pavements 

Biological soil crusts composed primarily of varying 

proportions of cyanobacteria, lichens, and mosses are 

important and widespread components of terrestrial 

ecosystems in all four parks, and greatly benefit soil 

quality and ecosystem function. They increase water 

infiltration in some soil types, stabilize soils, fix 

atmospheric nitrogen for vascular plants, provide carbon 

to the interspaces between vegetation, secrete metals that 

stimulate plant growth, capture nutrient- carrying dust, 

and increase soil temperatures by decreasing surface 

albedo. They affect vegetation structure directly due to 

effects on soil stability, seedbed characteristics, and safesite availability, and indirectly through effects on soil 

temperature and on water and nutrient availability. 

Decreases in the abundance of biological soil crusts 

relative to physicochemical crusts (which can protect 

soils from wind erosion but not water erosion, and do 

not perform other ecological functions of biological 

crusts) can indicate increased susceptibility of soils to 

erosion and decreased functioning of other ecosystem 

processes associated with biological crusts. 

Human Impacts 

Off- trail use by visitors, past trampling by cattle in 

Arches and Canyonlands national parks, and present 

trampling by cattle in Capitol Reef National Park have 

damaged soil crusts significantly in some areas . Soil 

nutrient cycles, as well as most other benefits of 

biological soil crusts, have been compromised in these 

areas. 

Recommendations 

1. Inventory condition and distribution of biological soil 

crusts. 

2. Investigate connection between ecosystem function 

and biological crusts. 

3. Map crust communities in relation to environmental 

factors. 

4. Study crust recovery rates and susceptibility to change. 

5. Study crust population dynamics and conditions. 

Wind Erosion and Deposition 

In addition to water, wind is a major force that can 

redistribute soil and soil resources (e.g., litter, organic 

matter, and nutrients) within and among ecosystems. 

Erosion and deposition by wind is important in all four 

parks and can be accelerated by human activities. 

Accelerated losses of soil and soil resources by erosion 

can indicate degradation of arid- land ecosystems 

because ecosystem health is dependent on the retention 

of these resources. 

Human Impacts 

Trampling and vegetation alteration by livestock as well 

as human recreational activities such as hiking, biking, 

and driving off of established trails and roads can 

destabilize soils and increase soil susceptibility to wind 

erosion. Some localized heavy visitation areas within 

parks have seen crust death by burial from windblown 

sands when nearby crusts have been trampled, such as in 

the Windows area of Arches National Park 

In addition, wind erosion and sediment transport may be 

strongly impacted by land- use practices outside the 

parks. Eolian sand from disturbed surfaces may saltate 

onto undisturbed ground, burying and killing vegetation 

and/or biological soil crusts, or breaking biological soil 

crusts to expose more soil to erosion. Because park 

management practices limit or prohibit off- road travel, 

human impacts within the parks primarily are associated 

with off- trail hiking in high- use areas. Where livestock 

grazing or trailing is still permitted (e.g., CARE), 

accelerated soil erosion can be more extensive. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 43 

Recommendations 

1. Monitor movement of soil materials (see 

Recommendations table). 

2. Investigate ecosystem consequences of movement 

(Contact: Jason Neff, 303- 236- 1306, jneff@usgs.gov) 

3. Investigate natural range of variability of soil 

movement in relation to landscape configuration and 

characteristics. (Contact: Jason Neff, 303- 236- 1306, 

jneff@usgs.gov) 

Stream Channel Morphology 

The morphology of stream channels impacts the 

vegetative structure of the riparian corridor, affects the 

height of the water table, and affects the energy of water 

flow downstream (which affects erosion rate and water 

quality). Stream channels are vital components of aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems in these arid- land parks. 

Human Impacts 

Potential for human impact on stream channel 

morphology is great. These impacts include building 

parking lots and structures in or near channels, building 

structures in floodplains (e.g., culverts and bridges), 

livestock grazing in uplands and stream channels, roads 

and trails up streambeds, introduction of exotic species, 

and impacts from flow regulation and diversion. 

Recommendations 

1. Conduct hydrologic condition assessment to identify 

actual and potential “problem reaches” for prioritized 

monitoring. 

2. Monitor “problem reaches” [?] with repeat aerial 

photographs. 

3. Monitor “problem reaches” [?] with repeated crosssections. Some data are available for Capitol Reef, 

Canyonlands, and Arches national parks (see 

Recommendations table). 

Stream Sediment Erosion, Storage and Load 

Participants added “erosion” to this geoindicator in 

order to clarify and encompass the total geomorphic 

picture regarding stream function. Stream sediment 

erosion, storage, and load is important to the ecosystem 

because sediment loads and distribution affect aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems, and because sediment loading 

can result in changes to channel morphology and 

overbank flooding frequency. 

Human Impacts 

The potential for human impact to stream sediment 

erosion, storage, and load is great. These impacts include 

building parking lots and structures in or near channels, 

building structures in floodplains structures (e.g., 

culverts and bridges), grazing in uplands and stream 

channels, roads and trails up streambeds, introduction of 

exotic species, and impacts from flow regulation and 

diversion. 

Recommendations 

1. Conduct research concerning ungaged stream 

sediment storage and load. There are no data available 

except on the main stem of the Colorado River at 

Cisco, Utah, and the Green River at Green River, 

Utah). 

2. Measure sediment load on streams of high- interest 

streams for comparative assessment. Data will provide 

information for making management decision. 

Streamflow 

Streamflow is critical to the maintenance of aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems. Streamflow impacts the structure of 

the riparian corridor, affects the height of the water 

table, and affects water quality and erosion rates. 

Human Impacts 

The potential for human impact on streamflow is great. 

These impacts include building parking lots and 

structures in or near channels, building structures in 

floodplains (e.g., culverts and bridges), grazing in 

uplands and stream channels, roads and trails up 

streambeds, introduction of exotic species, and impacts 

from flow regulation and diversion. 

Recommendations 

1. Identify important hydrologic systems that would 

benefit from knowledge of streamflow. Existing 

gauging stations are located on the Green River (Green 

River, Utah), San Rafael River (near Green River, 

Utah.), Fremont River (at Cainville, Utah, and above 

Park at Pine Creek.), and on the Muddy River. Many 

other gauging stations exist (see USGS Web site). 

Additional data exists for streams in Capitol Reef 

National Park and for Courthouse Wash in Arches 

National Park. Other relevant data exists with the local 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. 

2. Research effects of land- use and climatic variation on 

streamflow. 

3. Investigate paleoflood hydrology. 

Surface Water Quality 

A detailed understanding of the issues and what has been 

done with regards to water quality data for the four NPS 

units, see Don Weeks June, 2002, trip report in Appendix 

J. There are a number of park- specific water resource 

reports cited in the report that are particularly pertinent. 

Human Impacts 

The potential for negative affects on groundwater quality 

by human activity is significant. The following are 

specific issues that could impact groundwater quality: 

• Herbicide use to decrease tamarisk populations. 

• Trespass cattle at springs. 

• Abandoned oil and gas wells within and close to NPS 

boundaries may result in saline waters infiltrating into 

groundwater supplies. Abandoned uranium mines and 

mills. 

• Impacts from recreational uses (these have not been 

quantified). 
44 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Human Impacts 

• Old landfill in Needles District (approx. 1 mile from 

Visitor Center, and 3000 ft from a domestic well) of 

CANY had unregulated dumping from 1966- 1987. 

• Texas Gulf Potash Mine located downriver from 

Moab on the Colorado River. 

Recommendation 

1. Obtain information about existing baseline water 

quality data for all four parks (Contact: Don Weeks, 

303- 987- 6640, don_weeks@nps.gov). 

Wetlands Extent, Structure, and Hydrology 

Wetlands are important ecosystems because they 

stabilize stream banks, act as filters to improve water 

quality, attenuate flood waters, enhance biodiversity 

(important habitat for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and 

Threatened and Endangered Species), are highly 

productive in terms of biomass and nutrient 

productivity, and are valuable water sources for wildlife 

and recreationists. 

Human Impacts 

The potential for human impact on wetlands is great. 

These impacts include building parking lots and 

structures in or near channels, building structures in 

floodplains (e.g., culverts and bridges), grazing in 

uplands and stream channels, roads and trails up 

streambeds, introduction of exotic species, and impacts 

from flow regulation and diversion. In addition, 

agricultural activities and past extirpation of beaver have 

affected wetlands. 

Recommendations 

1. Inventory location, character, and conditions of 

wetlands in all four parks. 

2. Inventory distribution of exotic species in wetlands. 

3. Monitor groundwater levels and surface elevations. 

4. Investigate age- structure of woody riparian plants in 

relation to land use. 

5. Investigate linkages between amphibian parameters 

and wetland health. 

Groundwater Quality 

The quality of the groundwater in the parks has a high 

impact on hanging gardens, which are located in all four 

parks. Hanging gardens are unique features that contain 

rare and unique plant species, and provide important 

wildlife habitat. Groundwater quality is also a safety and 

health issue regarding water quality for human use. 

Human Impacts 

The potential for negative affects on groundwater by 

human activity is significant. All four parks identified 

specific issues that could impact groundwater quality. 

Human Impacts 

• Old landfill in the Needles District had unregulated 

dumping from 1966- 1987. 

• Oil well sites had improper dewatering. 

• The effects of mining and oil and gas drilling are 

unknown. 

Recommendations 

1. Locate and inventory all seeps, springs, and hanging 

gardens. 

2. Prioritize seeps, springs, and hanging gardens for 

assessment of water quality. 

3. Acquire plugging records of oil and gas wells 

potentially connected to park groundwater systems 

(Contact: Bob Higgins, 303- 969- 2018, 

bob_higgins@nps.gov). 

4. Use geochemical indicators to investigate groundwater 

flow areas, flow directions and recharge area, and 

groundwater age. 

5. Identify and study potential sources for groundwater 

quality impacts at all four parks, including those listed 

above (Contact: Don Weeks, 303- 987- 6640, 

don_weeks@nps.gov). 

Groundwater Level and Discharge 

Outside the river corridors in Canyonlands and Capitol 

Reef national parks, groundwater supplies much of the 

water available for wildlife, and supplies 100% of the 

park’s water supply for human use. 

Human Impacts 

Groundwater is a limited resource, and the potential for 

human impact is great. Current human impacts are 

poorly understood. 

Recommendations 

1. Inventory and research are needed concerning 

groundwater quality, level, and discharge. 

2. Install transducers and dataloggers in wells. 

3. Develop methods for measuring water discharge from 

seeps and hanging gardens (Contact: Bob Webb, 520-

670- 6671, rhwebb@usgs.gov). 

4. Investigate additional methods to characterize 

groundwater recharge areas and flow directions 

(Contacts: Charlie Schelz, 435- 719- 2135, 

charlie_schelz@nps.gov and Rod Parnell, 928- 523-

3329, roderic.parnell@nau.edu ). 

Soil Quality 

Soil quality affects moisture retention, nutrient cycling, 

soil- food webs, and aggregate structure. Soil also 

provides biogeochemical and hydrologic support for 

terrestrial productivity, especially vegetation growth. Soil 

quality degradation results in loss of certain ecosystem 

functions. 

Human Impacts 

Due to past and present grazing in the parks, nutrient 

cycles have not recovered. 

Recommendations 

1. Assess existing soil- crust conditions in relation to 

potential (as an indicator of soil quality) and in relation 

to soil maps. 

2. Repeatedly measure soil quality in disturbed sites to 

gain understanding of recovery rates in relation to 

environmental factors. 

3. Quantify natural range of variability in quality in 

relation to environmental factors. 
CANY Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 45 

4. Develop predictive model for potential biological soil 

crust distribution/structure/function in relation to 

environmental factors. 

5. Investigate susceptibility to change (e.g., climate and 

UV). 

6. Study resistance and resilience of soil to disturbances. 

Soil and Sediment Erosion and Deposition by Water 

During the discussion of this geoindicator, participants 

chose to focus on water transport and deposition, 

therefore the words, “and deposition by water” were 

added to this geoindicator. Transport and/or loss of soil 

may result in degradation of soil quality (see Soil quality 

geoindicator). 

Human Impacts 

In general, past grazing practices has caused soil erosion 

in all four parks. There is still occasional trespass of cattle 

in Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Natural 

Brides National Monument. 

Recommendations 

1. Investigate/develop methods for monitoring erosion 

and deposition quantitatively and affordably, and 

determine the best locations to monitor (Contact: Bob 

Webb, 520- 670- 6671, rhwebb@usgs.gov). 

2. Assess conditions of soil erosion. (e.g., qualitative 

hydrologic function). 

Ecosystem Response to Geomorphic Processes 

Because many types of ecosystems are highly dependent 

on the geomorphic process and substrate, ecosystem 

response to geomorphic processes is highly important to 

park ecosystems. Disturbance to ecosystems is inevitable, 

whether the disturbance is human or natural caused. 

Management actions that attempt to mitigate 

disturbances, and particularly restoration of disturbed 

areas, may be influenced by the types of geomorphic 

processes involved and/or the nature of geomorphic 

substrates. Knowledge of predicted ecosystem responses 

to disturbances may affect the decision of whether to 

actively rehabilitate a disturbed site or whether to allow it 

to recover naturally. If active rehabilitation or restoration 

is chosen, this knowledge should determine what types 

of species are suitable for the underlying geomorphic 

conditions. Land- use practices, as well as climatic 

fluctuations may have an impact on ecosystem response. 

The perceived significance by managers depends upon 

need in the wake of an important disturbance that may 

instigate a management response. 

(Contacts: Bob Webb, 520- 670- 6671 and Rod Parnell, 

928- 523- 3329, roderic.parnell@nau.edu) 

Recommendations 

1. Acquire high quality surficial geology, soil, and 

vegetation maps for all four parks. Current availability 

of soil and geologic mapping varies among the parks. 

2. Determine what to monitor, where, and with what 

attributes/indicators. 

3. Research spatial and temporal relations among 

ecosystem structure and function, geologic substrates, 

and geomorphic processes. 

4. Assess change- detection methods. 
46 NPS Geologic Resources Division 

Geoindicator table for Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef National Parks and Natural Bridges National 

Monument 

Importance to 

park ecosystem 

*Human Impact **Significance to 

natural 

resource 

managers 

Geoindicators 

CANY ARCH NABR CARE CANY ARCH NABR CARE CANY ARCH NABR CARE 

ARID AND SEMIARID 

Soil crusts and pavements 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Dune formation and reactivation 3 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 4 

Dust storm magnitude, duration and frequency 1 1 1 1 5 

1 

5 

2 

5 

1 

5 

3 

3 3 3 3 

Wind erosion (and deposition) 5 5 5 5 5 

1 

5 

2 

5 

1 

5 

3 

 

SURFACE WATER 

Stream channel morphology 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Stream sediment storage and load 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Streamflow 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Surface water quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Wetlands extent, structure, hydrology 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

GROUNDWATER 

Groundwater quality 5 5 5 5 U 4 U 4 4 4 4 3 

Groundwater level (and discharge) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

SOILS 

Soil quality 5 5 5 5 1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

5 5 5 5 

Soil and sediment erosion (and deposition by 

water) 

4 4 4 5 3 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

3 

5 

4 4 4 5 

Sediment sequence and composition 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 

HAZARDS 

Landslides, rockfalls, debris flows 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 

Seismicity 2 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 

Surface displacement (salt dissolution) 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 

Fire occurrence 2 2 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 

OTHER 

Atmospheric deposition (N, SO4) 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 

Paleontological resources 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 

Climate 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 

Ecosystem structure and function 

characteristics as integrated indicators of 

geophysical (i) environments, (ii) processes, 

and (iii) changes/disturbances. 

5 5 5 5 5# 5# 5# 5# 5 5 5 5 

0 - Not Applicable (N/A) 

1 - LOW or no substantial influence on, or 

utility for 

3 - MODERATELY influenced by, or has some 

utility for 

5 - HIGHLY influenced by, or with important 

utility for 

U - Unknown; may require study to determine 

applicability 

*Includes current and potential impacts. If 2 rows, top = impacts 

of out- of- park activities on within- park condition; 

bottom = impacts of within- park activities. 

**Synthesis of first two columns and other miscellaneous factors

#process specificity 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other 

information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island 

Communities. 

Canyonlands National Park 

Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2005/003 

NPS D-167, September 2005 

National Park Service 

Director • Fran P. Mainella 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Associate Director • Michael A. Soukup 

Natural Resource Program Center 

The Natural Resource Program Center (NRPC) is the core of the NPS Natural Resource Stewardship and 

Science Directorate. The Center Director is located in Fort Collins, with staff located principally in 

Lakewood and Fort Collins, Colorado and in Washington, D.C. The NRPC has five divisions: Air 

Resources Division, Biological Resource Management Division, Environmental Quality Division, Geologic 

Resources Division, and Water Resources Division. NRPC also includes three offices: The Office of 

Education and Outreach, the Office of Inventory, Monitoring and Evaluation, and the Office of Natural 

Resource Information Systems. In addition, Natural Resource Web Management and Partnership 

Coordination are cross-cutting disciplines under the Center Director. The multidisciplinary staff of NRPC 

is dedicated to resolving park resource management challenges originating in and outside units of the 

national park system. 

Geologic Resources Division 

Chief • David B. Shaver 

Planning Evaluation and Permits Branch Chief • Carol McCoy 

Credits 

Author • Katie KellerLynn

Editing • Lisa Norby and Sid Covington 

Digital Map Production • Sara Kane, Victor DeWolfe, and Stephanie O’Meara 

Map Layout Design • Melanie Ransmeier
Geologic Resources Division 

Natural Resource Program Center 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/ 

(303) 969-2090 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior