Natural Bridges National Monument 

Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/003 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Bridges National Monument 

Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/003 

Geologic Resources Division 

Natural Resource Program Center 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

September 2004 

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: 

Thornberry-Ehrlich, T. 2004. Natural Bridges National Monument Geologic Resource 

Evaluation Report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/003. National 

Park Service, Denver, Colorado. 

NPS D-47, September 2004 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report iii

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

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

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

Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 6

Uranium and Mining Issues ........................................................................................................................................6

Slope Failures.............................................................................................................................................................7

Bridge Collapse ..........................................................................................................................................................7

Swelling Clays ............................................................................................................................................................7

Noise Pollution............................................................................................................................................................7

Water Issues...............................................................................................................................................................7

Streamflow, Channel Morphology and Sediment Load...............................................................................................8

Desert Surface Crusts (biological and physiochemical) and Desert Pavements ........................................................9

Wind Erosion and Deposition .....................................................................................................................................9

General Geology ........................................................................................................................................................9

Oil & Gas Issues.........................................................................................................................................................9

Air Issues..................................................................................................................................................................10

Geologic Features and Processes............................................................................. 11

Natural Bridge Formation .........................................................................................................................................11

Formation Properties.................................................................................................. 15

Formation Properties Table ......................................................................................................................................16

Geologic History.......................................................................................................... 17

References................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix A: Geologic Map and Cross Section Graphics........................................ 29

Appendix B: Scoping Summary................................................................................. 31

Appendix C: Geoindicators Report............................................................................ 38 

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

igure 7: Geologic Time Scale.....................................................................................................................................22

Figure B.1: Geologic map coverage, 1:48,000 scale and larger ..................................................................................37

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Location of Natural Bridges NM relative to Colorado Plateau physiographic features ...................................5

Figure 2: Interpreted evolution of Sipapu Bridge.........................................................................................................13

Figure 3: Interpreted evolution of Kachina Bridge .......................................................................................................13

Figure 4: Interpreted evolution of Owachomo Bridge..................................................................................................14

Figure 5: Major uplifts and basins of the Pennsylvanian age ......................................................................................20

Figure 6: Map showing geographic features in the Four-Corners region ....................................................................21

F
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 1

Executive Summary 

This report has been developed to accompany the digital geologic map derived from 

numerous published and unpublished geologic maps of the area covering Natural Bridges 

National Monument in Utah. It contains information directed towards resource 

management and scientific research. National Park Service Geologic Resources Evaluation 

staff have assembled the digital geologic map that accompanies this report. 

Geology provides the foundation of the entire 

ecosystem. One stratigraphic unit of rock dominates the 

geology of Natural Bridges, the sandstone of the Permian 

age Cedar Mesa Formation. Meandering streams have 

cut down through the Cedar Mesa Sandstone since the 

regional uplift of the Colorado Plateau, a geologic 

province of high plateaus and broad, rounded uplands 

separated by vast rangelands encompassing most of 

southern Utah and northern Arizona, northwest New 

Mexico, and western Colorado. In places these streams 

have cut through canyon walls at a sharp meander bend, 

forming the three natural bridges for which the park was 

designated. As the name suggests, Natural Bridges 

National Monument hosts some of the largest natural 

bridge geologic features on earth. It is not surprising then 

that some of the principal geologic issues and concerns 

pertain to protecting these features. 

The seven geologic units specifically associated with the 

monument include unconsolidated Quaternary age 

alluvium, Jurassic age Wingate Sandstone, Triassic age 

Chinle and Moenkopi Formations, Permian age Organ 

Rock and Cedar Mesa Formations and Permian to 

Pennsylvanian age Lower Cutler Beds (informal unit). 

These units are present at the monument in relatively flat 

lying, undisturbed layers. Erosion and weathering create 

the dramatic canyons, arches, and bridges. It is the 

interaction of the variety of rock types with the 

landscape created by uplift and erosion that must be 

understood to assess potential hazards and best protect 

the environment and the visitors to the monument. The 

Formation Properties section (see page 16) details the 

different units and potential resources, concerns and 

issues associated with each. 

Humans have modified the desert landscape 

surrounding Natural Bridges and consequently have 

modified its geologic system. This system is dynamic and 

capable of noticeable change within a human life span 

(less than a century). 

The following features, issues, and processes were 

identified as having the most geological importance and 

the highest level of management significance to the park: 

• Bridge collapse. The monument was created to 

preserve and protect some of the largest natural 

bridges in the world. In the dynamic desert system, 

these features are at risk. Owachomo Bridge in the 

monument is only 3 m (9 ft) thick at the crest of its long 

span. 

• The region around Natural Bridges National 

Monument is still seismically active making partial or 

total collapse a potential hazard. 

• Slope failures and surficial processes. Desert 

environments are especially susceptible to slumping 

and landslides due to the lack of stabilizing plant 

growth. Intense seasonal storms produce flash floods 

that dramatically alter the landscape, creating new 

hazard areas in the process. Road and trail 

construction also impacts the stability of a slope. 

Predominantly mudstone units such as the Moenkopi 

Formation typically form slopes which are prone to fail 

when saturated with water. In addition to this 

hazardous situation, the Moenkopi is overlain by the 

cliff forming Chinle Formation. When the Chinle is 

undercut by erosion, large blocks of the overlying 

jointed sandstone can collapse. Rockfalls and slope 

failure are likely almost anywhere these units are 

exposed. 

• Uranium and other mining issues. Copper and 

uranium mines dot the landscape around Natural 

Bridges National Monument, especially in White 

Canyon, Red Canyon and Deer Flats. Soil and water 

contamination associated with these abandoned mines 

are a serious hazard. Uranium also appears in the 

Triassic age Chinle Formation, exposed throughout 

the monument. 

• Streamflow and channel morphology. In the arid 

climate of southern Utah, intense, short duration, 

seasonal rainstorms and subsequent flash floods may 

impact channel morphology. These intense seasonal 

events also result in changes in the load and deposition 

of sediment in the canyons. These changes affect 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Sediment loading and 

aggradation of the stream can result in changes to 

channel morphology and overbank flooding 

frequency. The canyons are also discharge points for 

local groundwater flow systems. 
Water Issues. Southern Utah receives an average o

only 8 to 10 inches of precipitation per year. This 

defines the semi- arid to arid climate that makes water 

such an important resource. Water for the monument 

comes only from the Cedar Mesa Formation aquifer

Other available aquifers are too saline for drinking. 

The Cedar Mesa unit is exposed at the surf

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 2 

• f 

. 

ace making 

the aquifer susceptible to contamination. 

•

water resources at Natural Bridges very difficult. 

tical 

issues for Natural Bridges National 

onument. 

Scant data exists regarding the capacity and 

hydrogeology of the aquifer system. This lack of 

information and monitoring makes managing the 

Other geologic parameters and issues such as swelling 

clays, noise pollution, desert crusts, wind erosion and 

deposition, oil and gas exploration, and air pollution, 

were also identified during scoping sessions as cri

management 

M
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 3

Introduction 

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

Park Service Geologic Resources Evaluation program. 

Purpose of the Geologic Resources Evaluation Program 

Geologic features and processes serve as the foundation 

of park ecosystems and an understanding of geologic 

resources yields 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. Ultimately, the inventory and monitoring of 

natural resources will become integral parts of park 

planning, operation and maintenance, visitor protection, 

and interpretation. The geologic component is carried 

out by the Geologic Resource Evaluation (GRE) Program 

administered by the NPS Geologic Resource Division. 

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 is designed to be 

user friendly to non- geoscientists. 

The GRE teams hold scoping meetings at parks to review 

available data on the geology of a particular park and to 

discuss the specific geologic issues in the park. Park staff 

are afforded the opportunity to meet with the experts on 

the geology of their park. Scoping meetings are usually 

held at each park to expedite the process although some 

scoping meetings are multipark meetings for an entire 

Vital Signs Monitoring Network. 

Bedrock and surficial geologic maps and information 

provide the foundation for studies of groundwater, 

geomorphology, soils, and environmental hazards. 

Geologic maps describe the underlying physical habitat 

of many natural systems and are an integral component 

of the physical inventories stipulated by the National 

Park Service (NPS) in its Natural Resources Inventory 

and Monitoring Guideline (NPS- 75) and the 1997 NPS 

Strategic Plan. The NPS Geologic Resources Evaluation 

(GRE) is a cooperative implementation of a systematic, 

comprehensive inventory of the geologic resources in 

National Park System units by the Geologic Resources 

Division, the Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program 

of the Natural Resource Information Division, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and state geological surveys. 

For additional information regarding the content of this 

report please refer to the Geologic Resources Division of 

the National Park Service, located in Denver, Colorado 

with up- to- date contact information at the following 

website: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/grd 

Geologic Setting 

In 1904, National Geographic referred to the ‘Colossal 

Bridges of Utah’, grabbing the public interest in the first 

decade of the 20th Century. Theodore Roosevelt 

established Natural Bridges as Utah’s first National 

Monument on April 16, 1908, to protect both the natural 

bridges and the archaeological ruins in the area 

(Huntoon et al., 2000). The primary natural resources of 

the park are the bridges, cliffs, canyons, springs, and 

surface water. 

This park is part of the Geologic Resource Evaluation 

Program because of the unique geologic resources and 

human impacts to these resources. Information gathered 

at this park may also be used to represent other parks 

with similar resources or patterns of use, especially when 

the findings are evaluated for Servicewide implications 

At an average elevation of 2,000 m (6,500 ft) above sea 

level, the 7,636.49 acres of Natural Bridges National 

Monument are located on a high pinyon- juniper mesa 

bisected by deep canyons. The monument, located in 

southeastern Utah, is part of a geological feature called 

the Colorado Plateau Province (figure 1). Covering parts 

of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, the 

Colorado Plateau is a region of high plateaus and broad, 

rounded uplands separated by vast rangelands. The 

rangelands are underlain by large elliptical stratigraphic 

basins. 

The structural fabric of gently warped, rounded folds 

contrasts with the intense deformation and faulting of 

the terranes bordering the Colorado Plateau. Northeast 

and east of the Colorado Plateau are the jagged peaks of 

the Rocky Mountains. The Mesozoic- age overthrust belt 

marks the west- northwest edge of the Colorado Plateau 

(figure 1). The extensional, normal- faulted Basin and 

Range Province borders the Colorado Plateau to the west 

and south. The Rio Grande Rift, tearing a ragged scar in 

the landscape, forms the southeast border. 

The Colorado Plateau is also known for its laterally 

extensive monoclines that formed during the Late 

Cretaceous – Tertiary (figure 1). The basins adjacent to 

the steep limbs of the monoclines have been filled with 

sediment eroded from these folds. The La Sal Mountains 

and the Abajo Mountains lie north of Natural Bridges 

National Monument, the Ute Mountains lie to the east, 

and the Carrizo Mountains are south, across the border 

into Arizona. 
The bridges and other features present on the Colorado 

Plateau today were molded by the processes of erosion. 

The destructive forces of wind and rain, running water, 

and freezing temperatures attacked the uplifts as soon as 

all the tectonic havoc started in the Late Cretaceous

Colorado Plateau has been uplifted about 3,660 m 

(12,000 ft) since the end of the Cretaceous about 66 

million years ago (Fillmore, 200

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 4 

. The 

0). Some of this uplift 

n. 

ms 

 the 

e dismantled strata into the landscape we see 

day. 

occurred geologically rapidly. 

As the rate of uplift increased, so did the rate of erosio

The Colorado River, for example, carved its present 

course within the last 6 million years. With uplift, strea

throughout the Colorado Plateau began to dissect

topography into the landscape we see today with 

unprecedented vigor, carving the rocks and carrying 

away th

to
Figure 1: Location of Natural Bridges National Monument relative to Colorado Plateau physiographic features. Light gray area 

signifies the areal extent of the Colorado Plateau. Dark gray and black areas represent uplifts and mountains. 

 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 5
Geologic Issues 

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 6 

logic 

e 3-

fic research projects, and interpretive needs for 

al Monument. 

ed 

52 

uranium ore (Chenoweth, 1996). 

t 

g 

ted mining claims and opened several 

d, 

d feet 

count for 

roduced in the area 

Chenoweth, 1993, 1996). 

sed 

e Canyon area until it 

closed in 1965. 

r Moab mill. Atlas closed their mines in the area in 

82. 

y 

age the plant and animal life that 

ve on the soil. 

s 

ates in low 

ing areas like basements and mine shafts. 

•

nd Deer Flat 

are hotspots for uranium contamination. 

• ing 

ut and are accessible to the public, flora 

and fauna. 

•

ell as the 

ring stratigraphic units (Chinle 

Formation).

A Geologic Resources Evaluation (GRE) workshop was held for national park service 

units in the Southeast Utah Group (SEUG) from May 24- 27, 1999, to discuss the geo

resources, to address the status of geologic mapping by the Utah Geological Survey 

(UGS), and to assess resource management issues and needs. Additionally, from Jun

5, 2002, 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. The 

following pages synthesize the results of these meetings to address economic resources, 

potential geological issues, future scienti

Natural Bridges Nation

Uranium and Mining Issues 

The Paradox Basin has been the site of uranium mining 

for almost a century. A discovery of a large unoxidiz

ore deposit on the flank of Lisbon Valley anticline, 

southeast of the park, kindled public excitement in 19

(Chenoweth, 1996). The principal host rocks for the 

radium, vanadium, and uranium deposits exposed at

Natural Bridges National Monument is the Triassic 

Chinle Formation. In the Chinle, gray, poorly sorted,

fine- to coarse- grained, calcareous, arkosic, quartz 

sandstone contains the 

One principal mining area for uranium was White 

Canyon although the location of mining activity to 

Natural Bridges National Monument is not clear in the 

summary article by Chenoweth (1996). Copper was firs

discovered in White Canyon in the 1880s, and in 1920, 

uranium minerals were found to be associated with the 

copper (Chenoweth, 1996). From 1948- 1951, prospectin

was intense in White Canyon and nearby Red Canyon 

and Deer Flat. During this period prospectors located 

numerous unpaten

producing mines. 

During the period 1948- 1987, 2,259,822 tons of ore 

averaging 29% U3

O8 containing 11,069,032 pounds U3O8

were produced from 125 properties in the White Canyon 

mining district. Ore bodies in the White Canyon mining 

area are variable in size but are generally closely- space

lenticular ore pods that are concordant with bedding. 

The ore pods range from a few feet to a few hundre

in length and from less and 0.3 to 4 m (1 to 12 ft) in 

thickness. They are, on average, five to ten times as long 

as they are wide. In one mine, the ore is continuous for 

2,100 m (7,000 ft). The five largest properties ac

61% of the total uranium p

(

The Mexican Hat unit in Mexican Hat, Utah, proces

most of the ore from the Whit

The Atlas Corporation acquired the Mexican Hat mill in 

July, 1963, and when the mill closed, the ore was shipped 

to thei

19

Abandoned mines pose a serious potential threat to an

ecosystem. Even in arid environments, surface water, 

runoff, and groundwater can be contaminated with high

concentrations of heavy metals, leached from the mine 

tailings. Heavy metals may also contaminate nearby soils

which in turn can dam

li

Another threat specific to uranium mining is that of 

radon gas exposure. Radon is a daughter product of the 

radioactive decay of uranium. This tasteless, odorless ga

is a known carcinogen that usually concentr

ly

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

Conduct periodic water (surface and groundwater)

and soil sampling and testing to detect uranium in 

those resources. Drinking water is especially important 

to monitor. White Canyon, Red Canyon a

Investigate the natural occurrence of uranium- bear

rocks throughout the park including descriptions, 

uranium content tests, and locations, i.e. where the 

beds crop o

Complete inventory of the uranium content in the 

recent unconsolidated deposits and soils as w

uranium bea
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 7

Slope Failures 

The potential for landslide and rockfall exists along all 

roads and trails at Natural Bridges National Monument. 

These events cause road problems and closures on a 

continual basis at the monument. Certain cliff forming 

units such as the Wingate Formation, the Cedar Mesa 

Formation and units of the Organ Rock Formation are 

especially hazardous when undercut by a road or trail. 

Similarly, slumps and other forms of slope failure are 

common for units that are not necessarily associated 

with cliffs. Rocks rich in mudstone for instance, like the 

Moenkopi formation are especially vulnerable to failure 

when exposed on a slope. Precipitation necessary to 

produce flash flooding at Natural Bridges loosens rock 

and soil on slopes lacking stabilizing plant and tree roots 

The rock and soil, suddenly saturated with water, slip 

down the slope causing a huge slump or mudslide/flow. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

• Perform a comprehensive study of the 

erosion/weathering processes active at Natural Bridges 

National Monument, taking into account rock 

formations, slope aspects, location and likelihood of 

instability. 

• Create a rockfall susceptibility map using rock unit 

versus slope aspect in a GIS; use the map in 

determining future developments and current 

resource management including trails, buildings, and 

recreational use areas. 

Bridge Collapse 

Several years ago, Landscape Arch in Arches National 

Park collapsed in a few places and was recorded by a 

tourist. Potential bridge collapse is possible at Natural 

Bridges National Monument, especially along the span of 

Owachomo Bridge in Armstrong Canyon which is only 3 

m (9 ft) thick at the crest of its span. 

Earthquake potential is high along the Moab Fault in 

nearby Arches National Park, Southeast Utah Group 

(SEUG). While this and other faults in the Paradox Basin 

are associated with salt structures, the Colorado Plateau 

interior does possess a low level of seismic hazard (Wong 

et al., 1996). Ground shaking from earthquakes may 

impact the bridges at Natural Bridges National 

Monument causing catastrophic failure of one or more 

of the bridges. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

• Perform engineering studies using a strain meter to 

assess possible collapse hazards. 

• Use high resolution Global Positioning System (GPS) 

to detect moving, swelling, and collapse in areas of the 

monument. 

• Obtain access to regular seismic activity reports or a 

seismometer to measure activity in the area. 

• Perform a comprehensive, large scale, exhaustive map 

study of the bridges to determine minute points of 

weakness and to better understand the structures and 

their weaknesses. 

Swelling Clays 

Swelling soils associated with bentonitic shales of the 

Chinle, Morrison, and Mancos Formations may be a 

concern to existing and future developments at Natural 

Bridges National Monument. Bentonite, a clay- rich rock 

derived from altered volcanic ash deposits is responsible 

for the road failures at Mesa Verde National Park among 

others. This clay swells when wet, causing the ground 

surface to heave and buckle. Any structures, roads, trails, 

facilities, etc. found on soils with large concentrations of 

this mineral will be impacted and potentially destroyed. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

• Use GIS determine where trails, roads and buildings 

are present on bentonitic units. This method should 

also be employed to determine high risk areas where 

future development should be avoided. 

• Perform an exhaustive mapping study of where 

specific bentonitic beds are located in the units listed 

above (Morrison Formation and Mancos Shale) to 

allow for more precise hazard assessment. 

Noise Pollution 

Low flying military jet aircraft often cause sonic booms 

in areas of low population density, such as that of 

southern Utah. These events are significant contributors 

to noise pollution in addition to the threat posed by oil 

and gas development. Sonic booms are so powerful they 

pose an additional threat. They can affect geological 

features. Much like seismic waves, sound waves are 

transmitted through rock. In an area with delicate 

suspended geologic features such as those at Natural 

Bridges National Monument and Arches National Park, 

any disturbance is a concern to management. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

• Monitor decibel levels in the monument. 

• Contact local industries, military installments, etc. to 

establish a working relationship with which to help 

alleviate some of the noise pollution problems. 

• Conduct stress studies to determine effects of sound 

waves on the natural bridges. 

Water Issues 

The Cedar Mesa Sandstone is the only formation 

underlying the monument that contains fresh water 

(Martin, 2000). Salt water fills the pore space in the other 
formations. Thus, the Cedar Mesa Sandstone is th

primary aquifer unit at Natural Bridges National 

Monument. Aquifer tests were conducted on the two 

water supply wells for the monument, but data collected 

during the testing were not precise and thus, not suitabl

for computation of aquifer parameters: transmissivity, 

conductivity, or storage coefficient (Martin, 2000). No 

other wells exist within 8 km (5 mi) of the monumen

The lack of wells also inhibits 

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 8 

e 

e 

t. 

any determination of 

ow direction. 

 to 

e to 

and 

e 

). 

s, seeps, and 

s in nearby Arches National Park. 

t 

st 

quifer 

re 

 that 

l a spill 

pecially vulnerable to failure 

d on a slope. 

•

he 

 and transmissivity of the Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone. 

•

on should be paid 

to the high risk areas noted above. 

Install further wells for testing and drinking water. 

• ining 

and oil and gas development on park resources. 

•

quality impacts in parks, including those listed above. 

Install transducers and dataloggers in wells. 

• Investigate additional methods to characterize 

oad 

. In 

ort 

nal 

harge is sufficient, 

e plateaus may contain local groundwater systems that 

discharge as springs in the canyons. 

In

Monitor seasonal spring locations with regards to their 

•

intense seasonal flashfloods. Consult professional 

l processes. 

Inventory current channel morphological 

Monitor changes in morphology, especially in areas 

• rologic condition assessment to identify 

actual and potential “problem reaches” for prioritized 

Monitor identified “problem reaches” with repeat 

Research effects of land use and climatic variation on 

• o 

 except on the main stem of the Colorado 

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

• Measure sediment load on streams of high interest for 

groundwater fl

Water quality data indicate that the water quality in the 

Cedar Mesa aquifer is excellent. This unit is also open

the surface and therefore is extremely susceptibl

contamination. Contamination of the aquifer is 

especially possible from fuel tanks, from sewer lines 

the sewage lagoon, and from products stored in th

maintenance shop at the park. Another source of 

contamination is the effluent resulting from livestock 

that graze in or near the monument (incomplete fencing

This type of contamination impacts spring

stream

Regarding water quality, a Drinking Water Source 

Protection Plan for Natural Bridges National Monumen

prepared by the Water Resources Division found few 

potential contaminants in the park (Martin, 2000). A li

of possible potential contaminant sources include: 1) 

diesel fuel that may leak from a buried, 3,000- gallon 

storage tank, and 2) sewage that may seep into the a

from a broken sewage line that leads to the sewage 

lagoons, 3) solvents, degreasers, oil, and paint that a

stored in small quantities in maintenance. As these 

potential contaminants are stored on concrete floors

would provide short- term containment unti

could be cleaned up, the potential for water 

contamination from these sources is low., like the 

Moenkopi formation are es

when expose

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

Conduct hydrogeologic studies to define subsurface 

flow patterns, regional and local flow systems, and t

conductivity

Monitor water quality at multiple sample locations

within the monument, drinking water sources are 

especially important. Special attenti

•

Investigate the impacts of copper and uranium m

Identify and study potential sources for groundwater 

•

groundwater recharge areas and flow directions. 

Streamflow, Channel Morphology and Sediment L

Surface water drains from Natural Bridges National 

Monument by the rivers that flow through White

Canyon and Armstrong Canyon and their tributaries

the arid climate of southern Utah, intense, sh

duration, seasonal rainstorms and subsequent flash 

floods impact channel morphology and the 

creation/destruction of bridges. These intense seaso

events may periodically deposit thick layers of sediments. 

Sediment loads and distribution affect aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems, and can result in changes to channel

morphology and overbank flooding frequency. The 

canyons are also discharge points for local groundwater 

flow (Martin, 2000). The deep canyons dissect the region

into a discontinuous series of plateaus and canyons and 

disrupt local groundwater flow. If rec

th

ventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

•

location, water quality, and maximum flow. 

Perform channel morphology studies, with regards to 

geomorphologists with regards to erosiona

•

characteristics. 

•

surrounding the natural bridges. 

Conduct hyd

monitoring. 

•

aerial photography. 

•

streamflow. 

• Investigate paleoflood hydrology. 

Gage stream sediment storage and load. There are n

data available

River, Utah. 

comparative assessment. 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 9

n all 

oil 

 directly 

il stability, 

y, and 

d on 

functioning of other ecosystem processes associated with 

rotect soils 

perform other ecological functions of biological crusts 

• d distribution of biological soil 

crusts. 

• te connection between ecosystem function 

and biological crusts. 

Map crust communities in relation to environmental 

d susceptibility to change. 

s. 

, 

t 

oad travel, human impacts within the 

arily are associated with off- trail hiking in 

high- use areas. Where livestock grazing or trailing is still 

n can be 

ventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

• stem consequences of movement 

• Investigate natural range of variability of soil 

ation to landscape configuration and 

ral Bridges National 

onument lends itself to potential scientific research 

projects that address the Paleozoic and Mesozoic 

, and 

In

•

sitional 

systems present in the past. 

• re graphics and brochures emphasizing 

geology, targeting the average enthusiast. 

 geologist to handle geologic issues for 

s resulted 

hich 

st 

” 

nticline, and any oil and gas that may have migrated into 

sure or 

t 

s include: 

seismic exploration, construction of roads for drill pads, 

well drilling and completion, and production activities, 

such as construction and operation of pipe lines, 

separation facilities, storage tanks, etc. 

Desert Surface Crusts (biological and physiochemical) 

and Desert Pavements 

Biological soil crusts composed of varying proportions of 

cyanobacteria, lichens, and mosses are important and 

widespread components of terrestrial ecosystems i

four parks, and greatly benefit soil quality and ecosystem

function. These plants 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 s

temperatures by decreasing surface albedo. They

affect vegetation structure due to effects on so

seedbed characteristics, and safe- site availabilit

indirectly through effects on soil temperature an

water and nutrient availability. Decreases in the 

abundance of biological soil crusts relative to 

physicochemical crusts can indicate increased 

susceptibility of soils to erosion and decreased 

biological crusts. Physiochemical crusts can p

from wind erosion but not water erosion, and do not 

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

Inventory condition an

Investiga

•

factors. 

• Study crust recovery rates an

• 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 ecosystem

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. In addition, wind erosion and 

sediment transport may be strongly impacted by landuse 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 limi

or prohibit off- r

parks prim

permitted (e.g., CARE), accelerated soil erosio

more extensive. 

In

• Monitor movement of soil materials. 

Investigate ecosy

movement in rel

characteristics. 

General Geology 

The unique geology of Natu

M

stratigraphy, the regional and local hydrology

weathering/erosion rates. 

ventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

Perform rock color studies. 

• Identify unconformity- bounded stratigraphic 

packages in order to better define the depo

Develop mo

• Hire a full- time

the SEUG. 

Oil & Gas Issues 

The combination of salt, organic- rich shale, porous 

limestone and sandstone, pressure and time ha

in large accumulations of oil and gas in the Paradox 

Basin. Since the discovery of the giant Aneth Field in 

1956, the Paradox Basin has been a prolific producer of 

oil and gas (Baars et al., 1988). The oil fields in 

southeastern Utah lie east of the Monument Upwarp 

(Harr, 1996). Natural Bridges National Monument is 

located near the crest of the Monument Upwarp, w

is not prospective target for oil and gas exploration. 

Tertiary, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and uppermo

Permian strata have been stripped by erosion from the 

upwarp. The Monument Upwarp is a “breached

a

Pennsylvanian and younger reservoirs have already 

escaped to the surface either through direct expo

through fractures (Nuccio and Condon, 1996). 

At present there are no known oil and gas resources in 

the monument. However, development of these 

resources outside the monument could have a significan

impact on the ecosystem and viewshed of the 

monument. Oil and gas development activitie
Impacts include: noise, vibration and dust; scars from

roads and drill pads; oil spills; escape of natural gas, 

carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide; light pollution 

from drill rigs and production facilities; surface and 

groundwater contamination by drilling fluids and wat

disposal; and pollution fro

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 10 

er 

m abandoned equipment, 

trash and human wastes. 

• nd gas activity in the vicinity of the 

monument. 

•

potentially connected to park groundwater systems. 

these contaminants include the Navajo Power Plant, the 

rners Plant, the Emery Plant and the Huntington 

lant. 

pe 

ting 

in a greater frequency of rock falls and slope failure. 

Monitor rainwater pH, noting spikes or changes. 

• riate 

l of 

pollutants in the area over the monument. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

Monitor oil a

Acquire plugging records of oil and gas wells 

Air Issues 

Harmful chemicals and particulates are responsible for 

increased acid deposition in southern Utah. Sources of 

Four Co

P

Acid rain can dramatically affect the geologic landsca

by preferentially eroding and weathering carbonate 

layers, intergranular cements and entire rock units. This 

preferential erosion, accelerated by the increasing acidity 

of precipitation, can destabilize slopes and cliffs resul

Inventory, Monitoring, and/or Research Needs 

•

Establish a working relationship with the approp

industries in an attempt to decrease the leve
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 11

Geologic Features and Processes 

Natural Bridge Formation 

The three bridges in Natural Bridges National 

Monument, Sipapu, Kachina, and Owachomo, are 

among the ten largest in the world, and they are all 

developed in the Lower Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone. 

Hopi names were assigned to the bridges because 

modern- day Hopis are descendents of the people who 

occupied these remote canyons in ancient times 

(Huntoon et al., 2000). Sipapu means “the place of 

emergence,” an entryway through which the Hopi 

believe their ancestors came into this world. Kachina 

Bridge is named for the rock art symbols on the bridge 

that resemble symbols commonly used on Kachina dolls. 

Owachomo means, “rock mound,” and was named in 

honor of a feature atop the bridge’s east abutment 

(Huntoon et al., 2000). Although the Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone was deposited about 270 Ma, the bridges are 

likely less than 30,000 years old (Huntoon et al., 2000). 

When Eocene meandering rivers cut into the resistant 

Cedar Mesa Sandstone, the meandering patterns 

established in the overlying, non- resistant rocks were 

superimposed on the resistant sandstone. Because these 

rivers drained into the Colorado River and the Colorado 

River flowed to the sea, the Colorado River controlled 

the rate and degree of incision of these tributary streams. 

Until about 6 Ma, the Colorado River was about 1 km 

(0.6 mi) higher than it is today. There was no Grand 

Canyon. Then, for reasons related to tectonics (i.e., 

rearrangement of lithospheric plates) or climate or both, 

the baselevel (see glossary) of the Colorado River 

dropped. As the Colorado River began to cut the Grand 

Canyon, local baselevel for rivers throughout 

southeastern Utah also dropped. Rapid incision followed 

for all rivers that drained into the Colorado River. 

Vertical incision was more rapid than lateral erosion so 

that the rivers’ channels entrenched into the underlying 

bedrock, preserving their meandering channel patterns 

(Huntoon et al., 2000). 

The last ice age profoundly effected the formation of the 

natural bridges. During the Pleistocene Epoch of the 

Quaternary Period, the climate of Utah was wetter. Large 

floods were probably common in the wetter glacial 

period of the Pinedale Glacial, a period that lasted from 

about 30,000 to 12,000 years before present. Consistent 

with river dynamics, the cut- bank, or outer sides of the 

meander loops would erode until only thin canyon walls 

would separate one cut- bank from the next on the 

meander loop. Eventually, the river penetrates the 

canyon wall, shortens its course, and abandons the 

meander loop. The bridges in White Canyon and 

Armstrong Canyon are the remnants of thin canyon walls 

that were penetrated by the floods (Huntoon et al., 

2000). 

Sipapu Bridge 

At 67 m (220 ft) high and a span of 82 m (268 ft), Sipapu 

Bridge is the largest bridge in Natural Bridges National 

Monument and is second in size only to Rainbow Bridge 

located in Rainbow Bridge National Monument over 

Bridge Creek near Lake Powell (Huntoon et al., 2000). 

Sipapu is considered to be a “mature” bridge. Abutments 

that lie above the level of the present- day streambed 

edge the symmetrical shape with a smooth, rounded 

opening. 

The bridge developed when the stream in White Canyon 

cut off a meander bend (figure 2). The abandoned 

meander is visible from the Sipapu Bridge Trail. 

Kachina Bridge 

Kachina Bridge is a massive, youthful bridge that is still 

growing in size. Located near the confluence of White 

and Armstrong Canyons, Kachina is 64 m (210 ft) high 

with a span of 62 m (204 ft) (Huntoon et al., 2000). The 

sandstone making up the span is 28 m (93 ft) thick. In a 

dramatic display of the impermanence of landforms, an 

estimated 4,000 tons (3.6 x 106

 kg) of sandstone sloughed 

off the underside of the bridge on its west abutment in 

June 1992. Kachina Bridge formed when the stream in 

White Canyon broke through a thin canyon wall just 

upstream of its original junction with Armstrong Canyon 

(figure 3) (Huntoon et al., 2000 

Owachomo Bridge 

The oldest bridge in Natural Bridges National 

Monument is Owachomo Bridge, which is nearing 

collapse in Armstrong Canyon. Standing 32 m (106 ft) 

high with a span of 55 m (180 ft), Owachomo is only 3 m 

(9 ft) thick at the crest of its span. The bridge lies above 

and parallel to the present- day streambed. 

Owachomo Bridge formed when a stream in Tuwa 

Canyon eroded into Armstrong Canyon. The Tuwa 

stream twice cut through meander bends into Armstrong 

Canyon. A second cutting event resulted in 

abandonment of the part of Tuwa Canyon that passed 

under the bridge so that Owachomo Bridge is now 

isolated from the main channel (figure 4). 
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 12 

s and continues to have 

an effect on the landscape today. 

 in 

flow 

oods inherent to 

the desert landscape in southern Utah. 

Stream Channel Morphology Change 

Streams, especially in flash flood situations, are dynamic 

and can produce rapid changes in landforms. These 

landforms include channel shape, bedforms, stream

banks, bar deposits, terraces and meander bends. 

The extreme channel sinuosity at Natural Bridges played 

a major role in creating the bridge

 Future bridges are in the process of being formed

White, Armstrong, and Tuwa Canyons. Channel 

dimensions and patterns are affected by changes in 

rate and sediment discharge, as well as the ratio of 

suspended sediment to bed load. These parameters are 

all pushed to extremes during the flash fl
Figure 2: Interpreted evolution of the initial and final states of Sipapu Bridge. Initial stage corresponds to a time prior to bridge 

formation. Final stage corresponds to present-day conditions. From Huntoon and others (2000). 

Figure 3: Interpreted evolution of the initial stage to final stage of Kachina Bridge development. Initial stage corresponds to a time 

prior to bridge formation. Final stage corresponds to present-day conditions. From Huntoon and others (2000). 

 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 13
Figure 4: Interpreted evolution of Owachomo Bridge. The initial stage corresponds to the time prior to bridge formation and the final 

stage is present-day condition. From Huntoon and others (2000). 

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 14 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 15

Formation Properties 

This section serves as the critical link between resource managers and the geologic map 

of the park. Formation Tables are highly generalized and for informational purposes 

only. Ground disturbing activities should not be permitted or denied on the basis of 

information contained in these tables. More detailed unit descriptions can be found in 

the help files accompanying the digital geologic map or by contacting the Geologic 

Resources Division at 303- 969- 2090. 

Natural Bridges National Monument is underlain almost 

entirely by Lower Permian, clastic sedimentary rocks. 

Triassic and Jurassic rocks that overlie the Permian strata 

are exposed along the surrounding skyline that is visible 

from Natural Bridges National Monument and include 

the Lower Triassic Moenkopi Formation, the Upper 

Triassic Chinle Formation, and the Lower Jurassic 

Wingate Sandstone (Huntoon et al., 2000). 

The Organ Rock Formation, the Cedar Mesa Sandstone, 

and the lower Cutler beds are part of the Cutler Group. 

While a geologic “formation” is a mappable unit, distinct 

from overlying and underlying units, with recognizable 

upper and lower boundaries, a stratigraphic “group” 

consists of two or more formations that are distinct, yet 

lithologically similar. The informal, lower Cutler strata 

are the oldest Permian rocks exposed on Cedar Mesa. 

Toward the north and northeast, the Cutler Group 

grades into the coarser- grained rocks of the Cutler 

Formation. Because the Cutler Formation consists of a 

heterogeneous mixture of sandstones and conglomerates 

that were deposited in fluvial and alluvial fan 

environments adjacent to the Uncompahgre uplift, the 

formation has not been subdivided into individual units 

as in the Cutler Group. 

The following page presents a table view of the 

stratigraphic column and an itemized list of features per 

rock unit. This sheet includes several properties specific 

to each unit present in the stratigraphic column 

including: map symbol, name, description, resistance to 

erosion, suitability for development, hazards, potential 

paleontologic resources, cultural and mineral resources, 

potential karst issues, recreational use potential, and 

global significance. 
Formation Properties Table

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 16 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 17

Geologic History 

Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah’s first 

national monument, was established to protect three 

large natural bridges and ancient masonry structures 

constructed by ancestral Puebloan people. Unlike an 

arch, like those at Arches National Park, a natural bridge 

forms through the process of flowing water. The 

landscape of the monument stands as an elegant 

testimony to the power and splendor of geologic 

processes and the dynamic change that operate 

throughout geologic time (see Appendix 6). Although 

carved into Permian age Cedar Mesa Sandstone that was 

deposited about 270 million years ago, the bridges are 

probably less than 30,000 years old. 

Being part of the geological region known as the 

Colorado Plateau, the strata in the Monument region 

record the growth of the North American continent. In 

the continent’s infancy, an ocean bordered the Colorado 

Plateau. As land accreted to the western margin of the 

North American continent during the Paleozoic era, the 

region became part of a Western Interior Basin. Towards 

the end of the Paleozoic, as the crustal landmasses on the 

globe sutured together into one big supercontinent, 

Pangaea, the ancestral Rocky Mountains were uplifted 

and supplied sediment to the Natural Bridges area. 

The Uncompahgre Uplift was part of the Ancestral 

Rocky Mountains that formed as the last land masses 

sutured together to form the supercontinent, Pangaea, 

beginning in the Pennsylvanian Period. South America 

collided with the southern part of North America near 

Texas and Oklahoma, generating the Ouachita Orogeny. 

The Marathon- Ouachita- southern Appalachian 

mountain chain resulted from this collision. The effects 

were felt in the interior of the continent, as well, where 

jagged peaks split the skyline as the Ancestral Rocky 

Mountains were thrust from the plain. Two principal 

mountain ranges formed along northwest- southeast 

trending high- angle reverse faults: the Uncompahgre 

and Front Range uplifts (figure 6). 

Boulder conglomerates eroded from the fault- bounded 

Uncompahgre Highlands were deposited in the Paradox 

Basin and eventually became the Cutler Formation. Like 

today in the southwestern desert of the United States, 

Pennsylvanian – Permian age rivers flowing from the 

canyons cut in the Uncompahgre Mountains lost their 

momentum when they debouched from the mouth of the 

canyon onto the plain, and the coarse material was 

distributed in fan- shaped deposits called alluvial fans. 

The sediments became progressively finer- grained away 

from the fault so that feldspar- rich sandstone and silty 

sandstones were deposited in the distal portions of the 

fan. Fluvial systems transported sediment throughout the 

Paradox Basin. 

Isopach (thickness) maps showing the thickness of the 

Cutler Group or Formation and the lower Cutler beds 

illustrate the effect of the Uncompahgre Highland on the 

depositional patterns in the Paradox Basin during 

Pennsylvanian time (Condon, 1997). Within 40 km (25 

mi) of the fault that defines the southwestern border of 

the Uncompahgre Highland, over 2000 m (6500 ft) of 

Cutler Group or Formation was deposited in a trough 

that parallels the mountain front. A similar pattern is 

found in the lower Cutler beds although the trough is not 

as well defined. Rather, the lower Cutler beds form three, 

fan- shaped deposits over 300 m (1000 ft) thick next to 

the Uncompahgre front (Condon, 1997). The Monument 

Upwarp doesn’t appear to have influenced the 

depositional patterns, and thus, the upwarp had not yet 

developed. 

The Monument Upwarp formed on the southwestern 

edge of the Paradox basin during the Early Permian, 

however, and contributed sediments to the basin 

possibly into the Early Triassic (Huntoon et al., 2000). 

Extending from Monument Valley to about the 

confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers, the 

Monument Upwarp was a broad, elongate, topographic 

high during the Early Permian (figure 7). Blakey (1996) 

refers to the upwarp as the Monument “Bench”, 

suggesting a subtle feature in the Permian with subdued 

relief compared to the Uncompahgre Highlands. 

Natural Bridges National Monument lies near the crest 

of the Monument Upwarp, a broad, structural feature 

called the Monument Upwarp that extends from 

southern Utah into northern Arizona, so that the Lower 

Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone and Organ Rock 

Formation are relatively flat- lying strata with only a 

gentle dip to the southwest. During the Early Permian 

Period, three major paleotectonic elements influenced 

deposition in southeastern Utah (Huntoon et al., 2000). 

The Uncompahgre Mountains lie to the northeast (figure 

6). The Monument Upwarp was a north- south trending, 

positive feature crossing the Arizona/Utah border, and 

the Paradox Basin lay between the two highlands. 

Following burial and lithification, the Permian strata 

were deformed and molded into the present landscape 

by the Late Cretaceous Period to Tertiary Period 

Laramide Orogeny and subsequent Cenozoic uplift. 

Bordered by the Monument Upwarp and the 

Uncompahgre Highland, the Cedar Mesa Sandstone 

thins from the northwest, where it is over 365 m (1200 ft) 

thick, to the southeast, where it is about 122 m (400 ft) 

thick (Condon, 1997). Facies changes in the Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone seem to follow this thickness trend. 
To the northwest, the Cedar Mesa is a thick seq

cross- bedded sandstone, but southeast of the 

Monument Upwarp, the formation thins and becomes 

dominated by fine- grained sandstone, mudstone,

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 18 

uence of 

 and 

osits (Blakey, 1996; Condon, 1997). 

. 

onal 

western margin of the structure 

nesco et al., 2000). 

 of 

e 

ss 

 the 

ormations and the Jurassic Period Wingate 

ndstone. 

e result of a 

art 

ms, 

orth 

ca and South America rifted away 

e 

s 

est. 

r 

and 

ah, 

gion 

ide 

 area 

do 

iver and its tributaries cut down through the relatively 

d 

ns 

ins rose, 

el 

of glaciation, increased runoff, a rising 

olorado Plateau, and a subsequent lowering of the 

riod 

te of 

f the 

uch as frost 

edging, root growth, and groundwater seepage, caused 

f low 

na Bridge, and Owachomo Bridge, formed 

ithin White and Armstrong canyons in the Monument. 

evaporite dep

Depositional trends and isopach maps further document 

the effect of the Monument Upwarp on the Organ Rock 

Formation (Stanesco et al., 2000). In the Lower Permian,

the upward diverted fluvial channels in the Organ Rock 

to the northwest. Eolian deposits onlapped the structure 

from the west and thinned over the crest of the upwarp

During the Lower Permian, Natural Bridges Nati

Monument was on the southeastern edge of the 

Monument so that the Organ Rock facies are different 

from those on the north

(Sta

Permian Period strata, including the Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone, were deposited along the western margin

North America in a variety of terrestrial and marine 

environments. As the Mesozoic dawned, these nearshor

to marine environments changed as winds blew acro

the region, pushing sand into great dune fields that 

surpass today’s Sahara Desert. These dunes and other 

later deposits buried the Permian strata to a depth of 

1,500- 3,000 m (5,000 to 10,000 ft). Now exposed at

surface, the Cedar Mesa Sandstone, the dominant 

formation in Natural Bridges National Monument, is 

surrounded by the younger Triassic Period Moenkopi 

and Chinle F

Sa

The rocks exposed at the surface today are th

complex relationship between tectonics and 

sedimentation rates. As Pangaea began to break ap

and the landmasses began to drift to their present 

positions, the climate affecting Natural Bridges became 

more humid. Sand dunes transformed into river syste

swamps, beaches, and broad level plains. Dinosaurs 

roamed the region, and periodically, ash drifted into the

area from volcanoes far to the west. Rippling effects of

lithospheric plate collisions on the western margin of 

North America caused the Western Interior of N

America to be flexed into a shallow basin in the 

Cretaceous. This Western Interior Basin was flooded by

seawater from the Arctic region and from the ancestral 

Gulf of Mexico as Afri

from North America. 

By Late Cretaceous time, about 97 million years ago, th

Western Interior Seaway had drowned the previously 

continental deposits and the Natural Bridges region wa

an ocean basin, collecting fine- grained sediments that 

drifted far from the shoreline to the west and southw

Oscillations in the shoreline, either from increased 

sedimentation coming off the highlands to the west o

from tectonic response to collisions on the western 

continental margin, caused the shoreline to prograde 

recede several times during the next 13 million years. 

Thick sequences of shale, siltstone, and thin limestone 

beds accumulated on the margin. 

As the Cretaceous Period came to a close, compressive 

forces outside the borders of the Colorado Plateau, an 

extensive physiographic province covering parts of Ut

Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, caused the re

to bow upward as a relatively coherent unit during the 

Late Cretaceous to Mid- Tertiary Laramide Orogeny. 

The Monument Upwarp was a minor topographic 

feature in the late Paleozoic, but formed a broad, northsouth trending, regional anticline during the Laram

Orogeny in late Cretaceous to Tertiary time. Erosion 

stripped the Tertiary and Mesozoic strata from the

of Natural Bridges and left the older Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone exposed at the surface. Most of the erosion

occurred during the last 6 million years when the 

Colorado Plateau began to rise. The sea retreated from 

the continent and horizontal forces thrust the Rocky 

Mountains skyward. As the plateau rose, the Colora

R

soft sedimentary rocks and effectively entrenched their 

meandering patterns into the underlying bedrock. 

River channels incised into the underlying sediments an

filled with Tertiary gravels. Violent volcanic eruptio

soon followed as the San Juan Mountains exploded in 

the mid- Tertiary. Extensional tectonics resulted in the 

opening of the Rio Grande Rift near the southeast 

margin of the Colorado Plateau. As the mounta

the processes of weathering and erosion began to bev

the mountain front into a relatively flat landscape 

(peneplain) gently sloping to the southwest. A 

combination 

C

Colorado River’s baselevel, the carved the present- day 

topography. 

During the Pleistocene Epoch of the Quaternary Pe

(1.64 million – 10,000 years before present) the clima

southeastern Utah was wetter and cooler and runoff 

from nearby glaciers caused massive, catastrophic 

flooding in the canyons. The hydraulic force o

rivers, coupled with other erosion processes s

w

the canyon walls to thin on the upstream and 

downstream portions of the meander loops. 

Today, chunks of canyon walls spall off during flash 

floods as swirling, turbulent water pounds both sides of 

the narrow necks, making them even thinner, and this 

process probably occurred in the Pleistocene, as well. 

Percolation of water through the wall during times o

water would have weakened the base of the cliff even 

more. When the canyon walls were breached, natural 

bridges formed. Three large natural bridges, Sipapu 

Bridge, Kachi

w

These bridges are among the ten largest natural bridges 

in the world. 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 19

ectonics 

y 

t 

es of 

dges National Monument stand as 

monuments to the grand expression of deep time, that 

time that surpasses our understanding but reminds us 

that Earth is not static but is subject to change. 

The stratigraphic relationships, hydrology, and t

offer research projects that might benefit the park. The

also create some potential geological issues that need to 

be addressed. 

Large oil and gas fields have been developed in 

southeastern Utah as have uranium mines that may all 

pose potential environmental impacts to the Monumen

region. The effects of alternative energy development 

have not been addressed for the area. The bridg

Natural Bri
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 20 

 the southwestern United States. Sediment eroded from the 

 was deposited in the adjacent basins. Modified from Rigby, (1977). 

Figure 5: Major uplifts and basins present during the Pennsylvanian age in

uplifts
Figure 6: Map showing the geographic features in the Four-Corners region of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. Shaded area 

is the Monument Upwarp. Dark outline is the maximum extent of Pennsylvanian-age Paradox Formation salt in the Paradox Basin. 

Natural Bridges National Monument: Natural Bridges National Monument. CANY: Canyonlands National Park. Modified from Stanesco 

et al., 2000. 

 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 21
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 22 

Figure 7: 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. 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 23

References 

The following is a list of scientific literature references for the geologic resources 

evaluation of Natural Bridges National Monument, many of the authors are cited in this 

report, others are included for general reference purposes. 

Atwater, T., 1970, Implications of plate tectonics for the 

Cenozoic tectonic evolution of western North 

America: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, 

no. 12, p. 3513- 3535. 

Aubrey, W. M., 1991, Geologic framework and 

stratigraphy of Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks of the 

southern Ute Indian Reservation, southwestern 

Colorado: USGS Professional Paper 1505- B, 24 p. 

Baars, D. L., 1962, Permian System of Colorado Plateau: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 46, no. 2, p. 149- 218. 

Baars, D., 1975, The Permian System of Canyonlands 

country, in Canyonlands Country: Four Corners 

Geological Society Guidebook, 8th field Conference. 

Baars, D. L., 1995, Navajo Country: The University of 

New Mexico Press, 255 p. 

Baars, D. L., 2000, The Colorado Plateau: University of 

New Mexico press, Albuquerque, NM, 254 p. 

Baars, D.L., Bartleson, B.L., Chapin, C.E., Curtis, B.F., De 

Voto R.H., Everett, J.R., Johnson, R.C., Molenaar, 

D.M., Peterson, F., Schenk, C.J., Love, J.D., Merin, 

I;.S., Rose, P.R., Ryder, R.T., Waechter, N.B., and 

Woodward, L.A., 1988, Basins of the Rocky Mountain 

region, in L.L. Sloss, ed., Sedimentary Cover – North 

American Craton: U.S.: Geological Society of America, 

The Geology of North America, Volume D- 2, p. 109-

220. 

Baker, A.A., 1946, Geology of the Green River DesertCataract Canyon region, Emery, Wayne, and Garfield 

Counties, Utah: U.S.G.S. Bulletin 951, 121 p. 

Becker, L., Poreda, R. J., Hunt, A. G., Bunch, T. E., and 

Rampino, M., 2001, Impact event at the PermianTriassic boundary: Evidence from extraterrestrial 

noble gases in fullerenes, in Science, Feb. 23, p. 1530-

1533. 

Beus, S. S., 1980, Late Devonian (Frasnian) 

paleogeography and paleoenvironments in northern 

Arizona, in Thomas D. Fouch and Esther R. Magathan, 

eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the West- Central 

United States: Rocky Mountain Section, SEPM 

(Society for Sedimentary Geology), p. 55- 70. 

Blakey, R.C., 1996, Permian eolian deposits, sequences, 

and sequence boundaries, Colorado Plateau, in M.W. 

Longman and M.D. Sonnenfeld, eds., Paleozoic 

Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region: Rocky 

Mountain Section, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary 

Geology), p. 405- 426. 

Blakey, R.C., Basham, E.L., and Cook, M.J., 1993, Early 

and Middle Triassic paleogeography, Colorado 

Plateau and vicinity, in M. Morales, ed., Aspects of 

Mesozoic Geology and Paleontology of the Colorado 

Plateau: Flagstaff, Arizona, Museum of Northern 

Arizona Bulletin 59, p. 13- 26. 

Brookfield, M.E., 1992, Eolian systems, in R.G. Walker 

and N.P. James, eds., Facies Models: Response to Sea 

Level Change: Geological Association of Canada, p. 

143- 156. 

Busby- Spera, C.J., 1988, Speculative tectonic model for 

the early Mesozoic arc of the southwest Cordilleran 

United States: Geology, v. 16, no. 12, p. 1121- 1125. 

Busby- Spera, C.J., 1990, Reply on “Speculative tectonic 

model for the early Mesozoic arc of the southwest 

Cordilleran United States”: Geology, v. 18, no. 3, p. 

285- 286. 

Campbell, J.A., 1987, Stratigraphy and depositional facies; 

Elephant Canyon Formation, in J.A. Campbell, ed., 

Geology of Cataract Canyon and vicinity: Four 

Corners Geological Society 10th Field Conference, p. 

91- 98. 

Campbell, J.A., 1980, Lower Permian depositional 

systems and Wolfcampian paleogeography, 

Uncompahgre basin, eastern Utah and southwestern 

Colorado, in T.D. Fouch, E.R. Magathan, eds., 

Paleozoic Paleogeography of the West- Central United 

States: Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

Mineralogists (SEPM), Rocky Mountain Section, p. 

327- 340. 

Chapin, C., E. and Cather, S. M., 1983, Eocene tectonics 

and sedimentation in the Colorado Plateau – Rocky 

Mountain area, in J. Lowell, ed., Rocky Mountain 

Foreland Basins and Uplifts: Rocky Mountain 

Association of Geologists, Denver, CO., p. 33- 56. 

Chenoweth, W. L., 1996, The Uranium industry in the 

Paradox Basin, in A.C. Huffman, Jr., W.R. Lund, and 

L.H. Godwin, eds., Geology and Resources of the 

Paradox Basin: Utah Geological Association 

Guidebook 25, 1996 Field Symposium, p. 95- 108. 
henoweth, W. L., 1993, The geology and production 

history of the uranium deposits in the White C

mining district, San Juan County, Utah: U

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 24 

C

anyon 

tah 

Geological Survey Misc. Pub. 93- 3, 26 p. 

C rishnan, R., 1995, Geology, 

Worth Publishers, 593 p. 

C

ic ash 

rn 

K. J. 

for Sedimentary Geology), Denver, 

CO., p. 73- 94. 

C d 

ox 

nd 

 the 

gical Association 

Guidebook 25, p. 169- 178. 

C p 

New Mexico: USGS Map I- 2083, Scale: 1:100,000. 

C

mestone 

thwestern Colorado: U.S.G.S. Bulletin 2000- P, 46 

p. 

C m 

d P.B. 

ts: Utah Geological Association Publication 

28, p. 1- 6. 

D

. 

ky Mountain 

Association of Geologists, p. 57- 70. 

D

. 

y Mountain 

Association of Geologists, p. 71- 102. 

D of 

. 

s and 

Mineralogists, Pacific Section, p. 1- 13. 

D ics 

gical 

Society of America, Memoir 151, p. 355- 366. 

D

arks 

eological Association 

Publication 28, p. 11- 36. 

D

ndstones of 

.S.A.: 

D

SEPM (Society fro Sedimentary Geology), p. 133- 168. 

D

nd 

zoic 

Society for Sedimentary 

Geology), p. 427- 444. 

D l Bridges 

 L. 

Report, NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR98/01, p. 107- 108. 

D

m: 

 of American Geologists, 

Memoir 1, p. 108- 121. 

D

y, 

t of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C., pp. 47- 166. 

E

d 

r Sedimentary Geology), 

Denver, CO., p. 415- 440. 

hernicoff, S. and Venkatak

hristiansen, E. II, Kowallis, B. J., and Barton, M. D., 

1994, Temporal and spatial distribution of volcan

in Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of the Weste

Interior: an alternative record of Mesozoic 

magmatism, in M. V. Caputo, J. A. Peterson, and 

Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky 

Mountain Region, USA: Rocky Mountain Section, 

SEPM (Society 

ole, R.D., Moore, G.E., Trevena, A.S., Armin, R.A., an

Morton, M.P., 1996, Lithofacies definition in Cutler 

and Honaker Trail Formations, Northeastern Parad

Basin, by sedimentologic observations and spectral 

gamma- ray data, in A.C. Huffman, Jr., W.R. Lund, a

L.H. Godwin, eds., Geology and Resources of

Paradox Basin: Utah Geolo

ondon, S. M., 1991, Geologic and structure contour ma

of the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation and 

adjacent areas, southwest Colorado and northwest 

ondon, S. M., 1997, Geology of the Pennsylvanian and 

Permian Cutler Group and Permian Kaibab Li

in the Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah and 

Sou

onnors, T., 2000, Overview of the National Park Syste

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

Anderson, eds., Geology of Utah’s Parks and 

Monumen

e Voto, R. H., 1980A, Mississippian stratigraphy and 

history of Colorado, in Harry C. Kent and Karen W

Porter, eds., Colorado Geology: Roc

e Voto, R. H., 1980B, Pennsylvanian stratigraphy and 

history of Colorado, in Harry C. Kent and Karen W

Porter, eds., Colorado Geology: Rock

ickinson, W. R., 1979, Cenozoic plate tectonic setting

the Cordilleran region in the United States, in J. M

Armentrout, M. R. Cole, and H. Terbest, Jr., eds., 

Cenozoic Paleogeography of the Western United 

States: Society of Economic Paleontologist

ickinson, W. R., and Snyder, W.S., 1978, Plate tecton

of the Laramide Orogeny, in V. Matthews III, ed., 

Laramide folding associated with basement block 

faulting in the western United States: Geolo

oelling, H. H., 2000, Geology of Arches National Park,

Grand County, Utah, in D.A. Sprinkel, T.C. Chidsey, 

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

and Monuments: Utah G

ott, R.J., Jr., Byers, C.W., Fielder, G.W., Stenzel, S.R., 

and Winfree, K.E., 1986, Aeolian to marine transition 

in Cambro- Ordovician cratonic sheet sa

the northern Mississippi Valley, U

Sedimentology, v. 33, p. 345- 367. 

ubiel, R.F., 1994, Triassic deposystems, 

paleogeography, and paleoclimate of the Western

Interior, in M.V. Caputo, J.A. Peterson, and K.J. 

Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky 

Mountain Region, USA: Rocky Mountain Section 

ubiel, R. F., Huntoon, J. E., Condon, S. M., Stanesco, J. 

D., 1996, Permian deposystems, paleogeography, a

paleoclimate of the Paradox Basin and vicinity, in 

M.W. Longman and M.D. Sonnenfeld, eds., Paleo

Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region: Rocky 

Mountain Section, SEPM (

uffy, S., 1998, Permian root traces from Natura

National Monument, in V.L. Santucci and

McClelland, eds., National Park Service 

Paleontological Research Volume 3: National Park 

Service Technical 

unham, R.J., 1978, Classification of carbonate rocks 

according to depositional texture, in W.H. Ham, ed.,

Classification of Carbonate Rocks – A Symposiu

American Association

utton, C. E., 1882, The physical geology of the Grand 

Canyon district, in United States Geological Surve

2nd Annual Report: Departmen

lder, W. P. and Kirkland, J. I., 1994, Cretaceous 

paleogeography of the southern Western Interior 

Region, in Mario V. Caputo, James A. Peterson, an

Karen J. Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic Systems of the 

Rocky Mountain Region, USA: Rocky Mountain 

Section, SEPM (Society fo
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 25

Erslev, E. A., 1993, Thrusts, back- thrusts, and 

detachment of Rocky Mountain foreland arches, in C. 

J. Schmidt, R. B. Chase, and E. A. Erslev, eds., 

Laramide Basement Deformation in the Rocky 

Mountain Foreland of the Western United States: 

Geological Society of America, Special Paper 280, p. 

339- 358. 

Fassett, J. E., 1985, Early Tertiary paleogeography and 

paleotectonics of the San Juan Basin area, New Mexico 

and Colorado, in R.M. Flores and S.S. Kaplan, eds., 

Cenozoic Paleogeography of West- Central United 

States: Rocky Mountain Section, SEPM (Society for 

Sedimentary Geology), p. 317- 334. 

Fillmore, R., 2000, The Geology of the Parks, 

Monuments and Wildlands of Southern Utah: The 

University of Utah Press, 268 p. 

Folk, R.L., 1978, Spectral subdivision of limestone types, 

in W.H. Ham, ed., Classification of Carbonate Rocks – 

A Symposium: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, Memoir 1, p. 62- 84. 

Ginsburg, R.N., 1957, Early diagenesis and lithification of 

shallow- water carbonate sediments in south Florida, 

in R.J. LeBlanc and J.G. Breeding, eds., Regional 

Aspects of Carbonate Deposition: Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists (SEPM) 

Special Publications 5, p. 80- 99. 

Gregson, J., 1992, Geology and tectonics of the Ancestral 

Uncompahgre Uplift and the Colorado Orogeny, in 

Joe D. Gregson, ed., Uncompahgria Journal: Mesa 

State Geology Department, Grand Junction, Colorado, 

p. 19- 46. 

Gregson, J. D. and Chure, D. J., 2000, Geology and 

paleontology of Dinosaur National Monument, UtahColorado, in Douglas A. Sprinkel, Thomas C. Chidsey, 

Jr., and Paul B. Anderson, eds., Geology of Utah’s 

Parks and Monuments: Utah Geological Association, 

Publication 28, p. 61- 83. 

Gries, R., 1983, North- south compression of Rocky 

Mountain foreland structures, in James D. Lowell and 

Robbie Gries, eds., Rocky Mountain Foreland Basins 

and Uplifts: Rocky Mountain Association of 

Geologists, p. 9- 32. 

Griffitts, M. O., 1990, Guide to the Geology of Mesa 

Verde National Park, Mesa Verde Museum 

Association, Inc., Mesa Verde National Park, CO., 88 

p. 

Hamilton, W. B., 1988, Laramide crustal shortening, in 

C.J. Schmidt and W.J. Perry, Jr., eds., Interaction of the 

Rocky Mountain foreland and the Cordilleran thrust 

belt: Geological Society of America, Memoir 171, p. 27-

39. 

Hanson, W.R., 1975, The Geologic Story of the Uinta 

Mountains: U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1291, 144 p. 

Harr, C. L., 1996, Paradox oil and gas potential of the Ute 

Mountain Ute Indian Reservation, in A.C. Huffman, 

Jr., W.R. Lund, and L.H. Godwin, eds., Geology and 

Resources of the Paradox Basin: Utah Geological 

Association Guidebook 25, 1996 Field Symposium, p. 

13- 28. 

Hintze, L.F., 1988, Geologic history of Utah: Brigham 

Young University Studies Special Publication 7, 202 p. 

Hite, R.J., 1961, Potash- bearing evaporite cycles in the 

salt anticlines of the Paradox basin, Colorado and 

Utah: US.G.S. Professional Paper 424D, p. D136- D138. 

Hite, R.J., 1970, Shelf carbonate sedimentation controlled 

by salinity in the Paradox Basin, southeast Utah, in J.L. 

Rau and L.F. Dellwig, eds., Third Symposium on Salt, 

v. 1: Northern Ohio Geological Society, p. 48- 66. 

Hoffman, P.F., 1989, Precambrian geology and tectonic 

history of North America, in A.W. Bally and A.R. 

Palmer, eds., The Geology of North America; An 

Overview: Geological Society of America, The 

Geology of North America, v. A, p. 447- 512. 

Huber, B. T., Norris, R. D., MacLeod, K. G., 2002, Deepsea paleotemperature record of extreme warmth 

during the Cretaceous: Geological Society of America, 

Geology, v. 30, no. 2, p. 123- 126. 

Huntoon, J. E., Dolson, J. C., and Henry, B. M., 1994A, 

Seals and migration pathways in paleogeomorphically 

trapped petroleum occurrences: Permian White Rim 

Sandstone, Tar- Sand Triangle area, Utah: in J. C. 

Dolson, M. L. Hendricks, and W. A. Wescott, eds., 

Unconformity- Related Hydrocarbons in Sedimentary 

Sequences: Rocky Mountain Association of 

Geologists, p. 99- 118. 

Huntoon, J.E., Dubiel, R.F., and Stanesco, J.D., 1994B, 

Tectonic influence on development of the PermianTriassic unconformity and basal Triassic strata, 

Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah, in M.V. Caputo, 

J.A. Peterson, and K.J. Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic 

Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region, USA: Rocky 

Mountain Section SEPM (Society fro Sedimentary 

Geology), p. 109- 132. 

Huntoon, J. E., Stanesco, J. D., Dubiel, R. F., and Dougan, 

J., 2000, Geology of Natural Bridges National 

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

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

Monuments: Utah Geological Association Publication 

28, p. 233- 250. 
utchinson, R. M., 1976, Precambrian geochronology of 

western and central Colorado and southern W

in R. C. Epis and R. J. Weimer, eds., Studies in 

Colorado Field Geology: Professiona

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 26 

H

yoming, 

l Contributions, 

Colorado School of Mines, p. 73- 77. 

Jo 5, 

ogical Society of America Bulletin, v. 96, p. 567-

587. 

Jo

ates, 

tes – II: 

Mineralogists (SEPM), Pacific Section, p. 83- 106. 

K

us Basin: 

Mountain Geologist, v. 14, p. 75- 99. 

K

: 

e Wetists, Rocky Mountain 

Section, p. 403- 438. 

K

 of the 

dimentary Geology), 

Denver, CO., p. 101- 118. 

La nd 

 southeastern Utah: 

GSA bulletin, v. 100, p. 1541- 1549. 

La

ar 

ational 

Association of Sedimentologists, p. 109- 126. 

La

ntain Press Publishing 

Company, Missoula, 271 p. 

La

ited 

y for Sedimentary Geology), Denver, 

CO., p. 1- 26. 

L

ctonic evolution of the 

Sevier- Laramide Orogeny, western United States: 

Lohman, S. W., 1981, The geologic story of Colorado 

National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

Loope, D.B., 1984, Eolian origin of Upper Paleozoic 

sandstones, southeastern Utah: Journal of 

L 90, 

southeastern Utah: Physical and 

temporal implications: Mountain Geologist, v. 27, no. 

M

Plan, Natural Bridges National Monument: NPS 

M

 the early Mesozoic arc of the southwest 

Cordilleran United States”: Geology, v. 18, no. 3, p. 

M

Pleistocene dung deposits from the Colorado Plateau, 

M e 

do 

ice research abstract volume: National Park 

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

M

s: 

Rocky Mountain Section, SEPM (Society for 

N

n, 

es of the Paradox Basin: Utah Geological 

Association Guidebook 25, 1996 Field Symposium, p. 

arrish, J.T., 1993, Climate of the supercontinent 

Pangaea: Journal of Geology, v. 101, p. 215- 223. 

hnson, J.G., Klapper, G., and Sandberg, C.A., 198

Devonian eustatic fluctuations in Euramerica: 

Geol

hnson, J.G., Sandberg, Charles A., and Poole, Forrest 

G., 1991, Devonian lithofacies of western United St

in J. D. Cooper and C. H. Stevens, eds., Paleozoic 

Paleogeography of the Western United Sta

Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

auffman, E. G., 1977, Geological and biological 

overview: Western Interior Cretaceo

eith, S. B. and Wilt, J. C., 1985, Late Cretaceous and 

Cenozoic orogenesis of Arizona and adjacent regions

A strato- tectonic approach, in R. M. Flores and S. S.

Kaplan, eds., Cenozoic Paleogeography of th

Central United States: Society of Economic 

Paleontologists and Mineralog

ocurek, G. and Dott, R. H. Jr., 1983, Jurassic 

paleogeography and paleoclimate of the central and 

southern Rocky Mountain region, in M. W. Reynolds 

and E. D. Dolly, eds., Mesozoic Paleogeography

West- Central United States: Rocky Mountain 

Section, SEPM (Society for Se

ngford, R.P., and Chan, M.A., 1988, Flood surfaces a

deflation surfaces within the Cutler Formation and 

Cedar Mesa Sandstone (Permian),

ngford, R.P., and Chan, M.A., 1993, Downwind 

changes within an ancient dune sea, Permian Ced

Mesa Sandstone, southeast Utah, in Pye, K., and 

Lancaster, N., eds., Aeolian Sediments, Ancient and 

Modern: Special Publication 16 of the Intern

geson, D.R., and Spearing, D.R., 1988, Roadside 

Geology of Wyoming: Mou

wton, T. F., 1994, Tectonic setting of Mesozoic 

sedimentary basins, Rocky Mountain region, Un

States, in M. V. Caputo, J. A. Peterson, and K. J. 

Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky 

Mountain Region, USA: Rocky Mountain Section, 

SEPM (Societ

ivaccari, R. F., 1991, Role of crustal thickening and 

extensional collapse in the te

Geology, v. 19, p. 1104- 1107. 

1508, 142 p. 

Sedimentary Petrology, v. 54, no. 2, p. 563- 580. 

oope, D.B., Sanderson, G.A., and Verville, G.J., 19

Abandonment of the name Elephant Canyon 

Formation in 

4, p. 119- 130. 

artin, L., 2000, Drinking Water Source Protection 

Water Resources Division, Ft. Collins, CO., p. 1- 18. 

arzolf, J.E., 1990, Comment on “Speculative tectonic

model for

285- 286. 

ead, J.I., and Agenbroad, L.D., 1992, Isotope dating of

Arizona and Utah: Radiocarbon, v. 34, no. 1, p. 1- 19. 

ead, J.I., Agenbroad, L.D., and Stuart, A.J., 1993, Lat

Pleistocene vertebrates from Bechan Cave, Colora

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

Serv

69. 

olenaar, C. M., 1983, Major depositional cycles and 

regional correlations of Upper Cretaceous rocks, 

southern Colorado Plateau and adjacent areas, in M. 

W. Reynolds and E. D. Dolly, eds., Mesozoic 

Paleogeography of the West- Central United State

Sedimentary Geology), Denver, CO., p. 201- 224. 

uccio, V. F. and Condon, S. M., 1996, Burial and 

thermal history of the Paradox Basin, Utah and 

Colorado, and petroleum potential of the Middle 

Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation, in A.C. Huffma

Jr., W.R. Lund, and L.H. Godwin, eds., Geology and 

Resourc

57- 76. 

P
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 27

Parrish, J.T., and Peterson, F., 1988, Wind directions 

predicted from global circulation models and wind 

directions determined from eolian sandstones of the 

Colorado Plateau – a comparison: Sedimentary 

Geology, v. 56, p. 261- 282. 

Paull, R. K., and Paull, R. A., 1994, Lower Triassic 

transgressive- regressive sequences in the Rocky 

Mountains, eastern Great Basin, and Colorado 

Plateau, USA, in M. V. Caputo, J. A. Peterson, and K. J. 

Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky 

Mountain Region, USA: Rocky Mountain Section, 

SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Denver, 

CO., p. 169- 180. 

Peterson, F., 1994, Sand dunes, sabkhas, stream, and 

shallow seas: Jurassic paleogeography in the southern 

part of the Western Interior Basin, in M. V. Caputo, J. 

A. Peterson, and K. J. Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic 

Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region, USA: Rocky 

Mountain Section, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary 

Geology), Denver, CO., p. 233- 272. 

Peterson, J. A., 1980, Permian paleogeography and 

sedimentary provinces, west central United States, in 

T. D. Fouch and E. R. Magathan, eds., Paleozoic 

Paleogeography of the West- Central United States: 

Rocky Mountain Section, SEPM (Society for 

Sedimentary Geology), p. 271- 292. 

Peterson, J. A. and Smith, D. L., 1986, Rocky Mountain 

paleogeography through geologic time, in J. A. 

Peterson, ed., Paleotectonics and Sedimentation in the 

Rocky Mountain Region: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 41, p. 3- 19. 

Plummer, C. C., McGeary, D., and Carlson, D. H., 1996, 

Physical Geology: McGraw- Hill, 577 p. 

Poole, F.G., and Sandberg, C.A., 1991, Mississippian 

paleogeography and conodonts biostratigraphy of the 

western United States, in J. D. Cooper and C. H. 

Stevens, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the 

Western United States: Pacific Section, Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists (SEPM), 

v. 2, p. 107- 136. 

Poole, F.G., Stewart, John H., Palmer, A.R., Sandberg, 

C.A., Madrid, R.J., Ross, R.J., Jr., Hintze, L.F., Miller, 

M.M., and Wrucke, C.T., 1992, Latest Precambrian to 

latest Devonian time; Development of a continental 

margin, in B.C. Burchfiel, P.W. Lipman, and M.L. 

Zoback, eds., The Cordilleran Orogen: Conterminous 

U.S.: Geological Society of America, The Geology of 

North America, v. G- 3, p. 9- 56. 

Raup, D. M., 1991, Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?: 

W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 210 p. 

Reed, J. C., Jr., Bickford, M. E., Premo, W. R., Aleinikoff, 

J. N., and Pallister, J. S., 1987, Evolution of the Early 

Proterozoic Colorado province: Constraints from UPb geochronology: Geology, v. 15, p. 861- 865. 

Retallack, G.J., 1983, Late Eocene and Oligocene 

paleosols from Badlands National Park, South Dakota: 

GSA Special Paper 193, 82 p. 

Rice, D. D. and Shurr, G. W., 1983, Patterns of 

sedimentation and paleogeography across the Western 

Interior Seaway during time of deposition of Upper 

Cretaceous Eagle Sandstone and equivalent rocks, 

northern Great Plains, in M. W. Reynolds and E. D. 

Dolly, eds., Mesozoic Paleogeography of the WestCentral United States: Rocky Mountain Section, 

SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), p. 337- 358. 

Ross, R. J. and Tweto, O., 1980, Lower Paleozoic 

sediments and tectonics in Colorado, in Harry C. Kent 

and Karen W. Porter, eds., Colorado Geology: Rocky 

Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 47- 56. 

Rueger, B. F., 1996, Palynology and its relationship to 

climatically induced depositional cycles in the Middle 

Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation of 

Southeastern Utah: U.S.G.S. Bulletin 2000- K, 4 plates, 

22 p. 

Sageman, B. B. and Arthur, M. A., 1994, Early Turonian 

paleogeographic/paleobathymetric map, Western 

Interior, U.S., in M. V. Caputo, J. A. Peterson, and K. J. 

Franczyk, eds., Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky 

Mountain Region, USA: Rocky Mountain Section, 

SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Denver, 

CO., p. 457- 470. 

Sanderson, G.A. and Verville, G.J., 1990, Fusulinid 

zonation of the General Petroleum No. 45- 5- G core, 

Emery County, Utah: Mountain Geologist, v. 27, no. 4, 

p. 131- 136. 

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

resources from the National Parks and Monuments in 

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

Anderson, eds., Geology of Utah’s Parks and 

Monuments: Utah Geological Association Publication 

28, p. 535- 556. 

Scott, R. B., Harding, A. E., Hood, W. C., Cole, R. D., 

Livaccari, R. F., Johnson, J. B., Shroba, R. R., 

Dickerson, R. P., 2001, Geologic map of Colorado 

National Monument and adjacent areas, Mesa County, 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic 

Investigations Series I- 2740, 1:24,000 scale. 

Silberling, N. J. and Roberts, R. J., 1962, Pre- Tertiary 

stratigraphy and structure of northwestern Nevada: 

GSA Special Paper 72, 58 p. 

Sloss, L.L., 1963, Sequences in the cratonic interior of 

North America: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 74, p. 93- 114. 
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 28 

Sl

rica, Geology of North America, Vol. 

D- 2, p. 25- 52. 

Sp

L. 

gy: 

Petroleum Geologists 

Memoir 34, p. 457- 468. 

St

 Mesa 

southeastern Utah: U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1808- F, 13 p. 

St

tah Geological Association Publication 

28, p. 591- 606. 

St

econd Opening of the 

West: Penguin Books, 438 p. 

St u 

of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 4, 136 p. 

St

Plateau region: U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 691, 195 p. 

St

lateau region: 

U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 690, 336 p. 

St

w 

Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 19- 36. 

T : 

Physical Geology: Prentice- Hall, 

T

on 

ociation of Petroleum 

Geologists Memoir 41, p. 21- 39. 

T

ocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 

p. 37- 46. 

W

s, 

Change: 

Geological Association of Canada, p. 1- 14. 

W

nties, 

Colorado: USGS Bulletin 1072- M, p. 667- 721. 

W

Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, p. 11- 22. 

W

ountain Association of Geologists, Denver, p. 

23- 35. 

W ke 

es of the 

Guidebook 25, 1996 Field Symposium, p. 241- 250. 

W

ne 

: 

 Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 46, no. 11, p. 2057- 2070 

oss, L.L., 1988, Tectonic evolution of the craton in 

Phanerozoic time, in L.L. Sloss, ed., Sedimentary 

Cover – North American Craton: U.S.: Geological 

Society of Ame

eed, R.C., 1983, Evolution of the sialic margin in the 

central western United States, in J.S. Watkins and C.

Drake, eds., Studies in continental margin geolo

American Association of 

anesco, J.D., and Campbell, J.A., 1989, Eolian and 

noneolian facies of the Lower Permian Cedar

Sandstone member of the Cutler Formation, 

anesco, J. D., Dubiel, R. F., and Huntoon, J. E., 2000, 

Depositional environments and paleotectonics of the 

Organ Rock Formation of the Permian Cutler Group, 

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

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

Monuments: U

egner, W., 1954, Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: 

John Wesley Powell and the S

ewart, J. H., 1980, Geology of Nevada: Nevada Burea

ewart, J.H., Poole, F.G., and Wilson, R.F., 1972A, 

Stratigraphy and Origin of the Triassic Moenkopi 

Formation and related Triassic strata in the Colorado 

ewart, J.H., Poole, F.G., and Wilson, R.F., 1972B, 

Stratigraphy and Origin of the Chinle Formation and 

related Triassic strata in the Colorado P

one, D. S., 1986, Seismic and borehole evidence for 

important pre- Laramide faulting along the axial arch 

in northwest Colorado, in Donald S. Stone, ed., Ne

Interpretations of Northwest Colorado Geology: 

arbuck, E. J., Lutgens, F. K., and Dennis, T., 2001, Earth

An Introduction to 

7th edition, 688 p. 

onnsen, J. J., 1986, Influence of tectonic terranes 

adjacent to the Precambrian Wyoming province 

Phanerozoic stratigraphy, in J. A. Peterson, ed., 

Paleotectonics and Sedimentation in the Rocky 

Mountain Region: American Ass

weto, O., 1980, Precambrian geology of Colorado, in 

Harry C. Kent and Karen W. Porter, eds., Colorado 

Geology: R

alker, R. G., 1992, Facies, facies models and modern 

stratigraphic concepts, in R.G. Walker and N.P. Jame

eds., Facies Models: Response to Sea Level 

anek, A. A., 1959, Geology and fuel resources of the 

Mesa Verde area Montezuma and La Plata Cou

arner, L.A., 1980, The Colorado Lineament, in H.C. 

Kent and K.W. Porter, eds., Colorado Geology: Rocky 

eimer, R.J., 1980, Recurrent movement on basement 

faults, a tectonic style for Colorado and adjacent areas, 

in H.C. Kent and K.W. Porter, eds., Colorado Geology: 

Rocky M

ong, I. G., Olig, S. S., and Bott, J. D.J., 1996, Earthqua

potential and seismic hazards in the Paradox Basin, 

southeastern Utah, in A.C. Huffman, Jr., W.R. Lund, 

and L.H. Godwin, eds., Geology and Resourc

Paradox Basin: Utah Geological Association 

right, J.C., Shawe, D.R., and Lohman, S.W., 1962, 

Definition of members of Jurassic Entrada Sandsto

in east- central Utah and west- central Colorado

American Association of Petroleum
Appendix A: Geologic Map and Cross Section Graphics 

The original map digitized by NPS staff to create this product was: Huntoon, Jacqueline E., 2000, Geologic map of Natural Bridges 

National Monument and Vicinity, Utah, NPS, unpublished, 1:24000 scale. For a detailed digital geologic map and cross sections, see 

included CD.

 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 29
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 30 

Geologic Cross Section (A). From Huntoon et al., 2000. Note flat-lying stratigraphic units. 

Geologic Cross Section (B). This section shows the stratigraphic relationships of Permian strata in the Natural Bridges National 

Monument region. The north-south cross section line runs from the Arizona – Utah border to the Uncompahgre Highlands across the

Utah – Colorado border. DeC: De Chelly Sandstone; Hal: Halgaito Formation. Modified only slightly from Stanesco et al., 2000. 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 31

Appendix B: Scoping Summary 

The following excerpts are from the GRE Workshop Summary for the Southeast Utah 

Group (SEUG) National Park, Utah, with specific attention to Natural Bridges National 

Monument. This summary is included as a historical document and as such contact 

information and web addresses referred to herein may be outdated. 

Executive Summary 

An inventory workshop was held for national park 

service units in the Southeast Utah Group (Arches NP, 

Canyonlands NP, Hovenweep NM, and Natural Bridges 

NM) from May 24- 27, 1999 to view and discuss the 

geologic resources, to 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. 

Monday May 24th involved a field trip to Natural Bridges 

NM (NABR) led by Red Rocks College geologist Jack 

Stanesco with additions from Christine Turner and Pete 

Peterson (both of the USGS). 

Tuesday May 25th involved a field trip to Canyonlands 

NP (CANY) led by USGS geologist George Billingsley, 

again with additions from Christine Turner and Pete 

Peterson also of the USGS. 

Wednesday May 26th involved a field trip to Arches NP 

(ARCH) led by UGS geologist Hellmut Doelling with 

additions from Grant Willis (UGS) and Vince Santucci 

(NPS- GRD). 

An on- line slide show of the highlights of these field 

trips can be found at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/grd/geology/gri/ut/seug/field

_trip_seug 

 

Thursday May 27th 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 Evaluation (GRE) 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. Brief 

summaries of each follows. 

Overview of Geologic Resources Evaluation 

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. 

He also presented a demonstration of some of the main 

features of the digital geologic map for the Black Canyon 

of the Gunnison NM and Curecanti NRA areas 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, legend etc.) 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 (ex. A- A') are 

subsequently digitized as a shape file and are hyperlinked 

to the scanned images. 

For a recap on this process, go to: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/grd/geology/gri/blca_cure/ 

and view the various files in the directory. 

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 

to the NPS GRD group. 

Interpretation 

The GRE 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 NPS units in developing web- based 

geology interpretation themes, and should be considered 

as a source of assistance should the park desire. 

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 SE

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 32 

UG to find out what issues should be 

addressed. 

y and 

g 

terpretation of paleontologic resources and issues also. 

s tour 

al 

be able 

 skills are a highly desirable quality for 

ny applicant. 

se or 

uss further matters regarding 

eologic resources. 

k 

f 

 will 

ng 

 are as follows: 

S) 

s NM: Jackie Huntoon, Russell Dubiel, 

ck Stanesco 

s a 

y 

ke 

creased visitation (i.e. areas with crytptogamic soils). 

s 

ed 

. 

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 geolog

geologic processes upon this part of the world. A 

geologist would also certainly be active in establishing 

the most effective wayside exhibits aimed at informin

the public about the geologic wonders of the area. A 

geologist can certainly assist in the presentation and 

in

Such a position could act as a liaison among variou

groups, researchers, field camps and profession

organizations that visit the area because of the 

spectacular geology. Geologic hazards would also 

to be more fully understood. Obviously, effective 

communication

a

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 Hei

Tim Connors to disc

g

UGA Guidebook on Utah’s National and State Park Areas 

Doug Sprinkel of the UGA announced that a guideboo

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 o

what the GRE 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, classic viewing localities). Each author

be encouraged to get with NPS staff interpreters to 

develop a product that aims at a wide audience (the 

common visitor, the technical audience and the teachi

community). Authors for SEUG parks

Arches NP: Hellmut Doelling (UG

Canyonlands NP: Donald Baars 

Natural Bridge

Ja

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

featuring road and trail logs for specific parks as well a

photo glossary and gallery. Park authors are strongly 

encouraged to get with NPS staff to make sure that an

trail logs do follow maintained trails and do not ta

visitors into unauthorized areas, or places where 

resources are fragile and would be disturbed by 

in

The photo glossary will describe certain geologic feature

(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 fund

with state money, so it can be distributed widely and 

freely, which will also benefit the purposes of the GRE

Additional reprints are not a problem because of the 
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 33

 is 

cause 

rices for 

bsite for the guidebook is forthcoming 

ember 2000. Currently, 

, Canyonlands NP, Dead Horse Point State 

r Breaks NM, Snow 

ncurrently and Trips 3 and 

concurrently. 

cipated from this publication 

er 

s 

r state and its geologic features. 

lly 

on what they have learned to their 

dience. 

t will be very 

the educated geologist. 

 (in Utah). 

w the overall 

h geology has developed. 

D) heads the AML 

 and can also be contacted. 

ate 

inimize disturbances and potential theft or 

ism. 

paleontologist would surely be useful 

r this purpose 

ong 

urces within the 

outheast Utah Group area parks. 

 and 

y 

nd 

cality 

ations for protecting and preserving the 

sources. 

ellowstone Survey is already available on- line at: 

ature.nps.gov/grd/geology/paleo/yell_surve

/index.htm 

ttp://www.nature.nps.gov/grd/geology/paleo/yell.pdf 

e 

rk 

r 

cluding 

ome 

ften results in illegal 

ollecting from federal lands. 

n 

e utilized as much as possible in interpretive programs. 

ing Efforts for the SEUG 

noted that the following paper geologic 

digital nature of the publication and the UGA board

committed to additional printings as needed. UGA 

normally prints 1000 copies of their publications be

they become dated after about five years; that will 

probably not be an issue for this publication. P

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 we

in October 1999. 

Field Trips will be held in Sept

four field trips are scheduled: 

Arches NP

Park (SP) 

Antelope Island SP and Wasatch Mountain SP 

Southeast Utah Group NP, Ceda

Canyon SP and Quail Creek SP 

Dinosaur NM, Flaming Gorge NRA, and Red Fleet SP 

Note: Trips 1 and 2 will run co

4 will also run 

Many other benefits are anti

and are enumerated below: 

This type of project could serve as a model for oth

states to follow to bolster tourism and book sale

promoting thei

Sandy Eldredge (UGS) will be targeting teaching 

communities for involvement in the field trips; hopefu

teachers will pass 

young au

The language is intended to appeal to someone with a 

moderate background in geology and ye

informative to 

The publication may be able to serve as a textbook to 

colleges teaching Geology of National Parks

A welcomed by- product could be roadlogs between 

parks in Utah for those visiting multiple parks, perhaps 

with a regional synthesis summarizing ho

picture of Uta

Disturbed Lands 

GRD's John Burghardt 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 (GR

program

Paleontological Resources 

The field trip at Arches NP provided glimpses into the 

paleontological resources (dinosaur bones) near Delic

Arch. It has been suggested to keep this location low 

profile to m

vandal

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 

fo

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 am

the recognized paleontological reso

S

Similar surveys have been done for Yellowstone

Death Valley NP's and have shed valuable new 

information on previously unrecognized resources. 

These surveys involve a literature review/bibliograph

and recognition of type specimens, species lists, a

maps (which are unpublished to protect lo

information), and also make park specific 

recommend

re

The Death Valley Survey will be available soon. The

Y

http://www.n

y

and is also available as a downloadable PDF at 

h

Paleontological resource management plans should b

produced for Southeast Utah Group involving some 

inventory and monitoring to identify human and natural 

threats to these resources. Perhaps someone on the pa

staff could be assigned to coordinate paleontological 

resource management and incorporate any findings o

suggestions into the parks general management plan 

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

interpreters and law enforcement) in resource 

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

quite lucrative for sellers and o

c

Collections taken from this area that now reside i

outside repositories should be tracked down for 

inventory purposes. Fossils offer many interpretive 

themes and combine a geology/biology link and should 

b

Status of Geologic Mapp

Status of Existing Maps 

It should be 

maps exist: 

Arches NP ("Geologic Map of Arches National Park and

vicinity, Grand County, Utah" by Hellmut H. Doelling, 
1985) at 1:50,000. The area was mapped at 1:24,000 scale, 

but compiled at 1:50,000 scale. 

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 34 

ds NP ("Geologic Map of Canyonlands 

ds NP ("Bedrock Geologic Map of Upheaval 

nlands 

ent of 

el 

map area. He thinks 

entire area should be compiled at 1:24,000 

erage for Natural Bridges, but needs the 

ntour lines) to complete her work. 

that NRID has this coverage for are 

: 

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

le; Joe Gregson will look into it. 

rcInfo 

 is 

nknown however, and will be researched. NPS- GRE 

een 

ds Natural History Association has the 

 ArcInfo 

illingsley. It also contains cross sections 

or this work at: 

ly, the UGS is mapping in Utah at three different 

and State 

al 

as 

tioned that the UGS simply 

oes not have enough manpower and resources to do 

nal 

rant Willis talked about the status of UGS mapping 

0 x 60 sheets (at 1:100,000) for the area include the La 

Sal (greater Canyonlands area) and Moab (Arches NP) 

 SEUG 

tah. 

ibliography for 

umerous parks and monuments, including all parks in 

EUG GIS specialist showed a digitized version of 

should 

cialist 

al entries regarding abandoned mineral 

nd (AML) sites in their database that should be 

e contacted 

garding this 

iled a CD- ROM with well locations, 

eologic Hazards 

s in 

: 

andslide and rockfall potential along all roads that 

occasionally cause road closures; of special note was the 

Canyonlan

National Park and Vicinity, Utah" by George Billingsley, 

Peter Huntoon, and William J. Breed, 1982) at 1:62,500 

Canyonlan

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/fractures on the 

maps would improve the quality of the 1982 Canyo

map. There are also some issues regarding assignm

the Page Sandstone, and the controversy of the Dewey 

Bridge Member of the Entrada versus the Carm

Formation being within the 

eventually, the 

to better enhance features and add to resource 

management. 

Jackie Huntoon has told Bruce Heise that she is working 

on a digital cov

hypsography (co

Desired quadrangles 

the following

The Cheesebox 

Woodenshoe Buttes 

Kane Gulch 

Butte quadrang

Digitized Maps 

The 1985 Arches map has been digitized into an A

coverage by SEUG staff. The attribute quality

u

folks will work with SEUG GIS Specialist Gery 

Wakefield to learn more about this coverage 

The 1982 Canyonlands map is not known to have b

digitized at this point and hopefully can be done by the 

SEUG GIS staff. George Billingsley says that the

Canyonlan

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 an

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

from George B

and a report. A website exists f

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/dome/98seism

o/index.html. 

UGS Mapping Activities in SEUG area 

Current

scales: 

1:24,000 for high priority areas (i.e. National 

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 digit

products will be from "special interest" areas (i.e. are

such as Southeast Utah Group and growing metropolitan

St. George). Grant Willis men

d

more areas at this scale. He also reiterated that UGS 

mapping goals are coincident with those of the Natio

Geologic Mapping Program. 

G

activities within the Southeast Utah Group area (see 

Appendix C for reviewing specific index maps for each 

park). 

3

sheets, which are currently in progress (paper and digital 

format). 

Other Sources of Natural Resources Data for the

The UGS has a significant quadrangle database that they

have furnished to NRID for the entire state of U

NRID has compiled a geologic b

n

the Southeast Utah Group. Visit the website at: 

http://165.83.36.151/biblios/geobib.nsf; user id is "geobib

read", password is "anybody". 

S

Hellmut Doelling's 1985 map as and ArcInfo coverage; 

attribution needs to be checked; other coverage's 

be sought that may exist from the previous GIS spe

GRD has sever

la

checked for data validity and compared with park 

records; John Burghardt (GRD) should b

re

The Arches NP visitor center sells a publication that has 

an inventory of all the arches of Arches 

The UGS has comp

pipelines, etc. for the state of Utah; GRD should obtain a 

copy of this. Parks may also desire copies too. 

G

There are numerous issues related to geologic hazard

and around the Southeast Utah Group parks. Below is a 

brief list of some mentioned during the scoping session

L
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 35

l 

of the 

ith mine closures 

tential Research Topics for Southeast Utah Group NP 

hat are the connections between gypsiferous rocks and 

the crust healthier 

n the gypsum- bearing rocks? 

ll Delicate Arch stand? 

 GPS to detect moving, swelling, and 

ollapse in areas of the parks 

round 

Locate real unconformity between Entrada Moab 

utting formations 

up items were discussed during the course 

of the scoping session and are reiterated by category for 

e. 

d. If 

P needs assistance with these, 

t GRD's Jim Wood (jim_f._wood@nps.gov) 

the possibility of hiring a full- time geologist to 

c issues for the SEUG; in the absence of 

onsult with GRD for assistance in geologic matters 

problem with the main road in Arches, just above the 

visitor center 

Landscape Arch (arch) collapsed in a few places severa

years ago and was recorded by a tourist 

Swelling soils associated with bentonitic shale's 

Chinle, Morrison, and Mancos formations 

Radon potential associated w

Earthquake potential along the Moab Fault 

Po

A list of potential research topics includes studies of the 

following: 

W

cryptobiotic soils/crusts?; why were 

o

How long wi

Engineering studies to determine hazards to visitors; use 

strain meter 

Use High resolution

c

Rock color studies 

Subsurface seismic work for voids in the Needles a

synclines and salt dome structures

Tongue and ab

Action Items 

Many followquick referenc

Interpretation 

More graphics and brochures emphasizing geology and 

targeting the average enthusiast should be develope

Southeast Utah Group N

please consul

or Melanie Moreno at the USGS- Menlo Park, CA 

(mmoreno@usgs.gov). 

Consider 

handle geologi

this c

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 GRE 

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 collections taken 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 coverage's (like that of 

Doelling's 1985 Arches map) (see figure 5) 

Work closely with UGS to finish paper and digital 

coverage of SEUG area where maps are lacking 

Work with cooperators (NABR- Jackie Huntoon) to 

ensure there work could be incorporated into the master 

plan of the GRE 

Natural Resource Data Sources 

Examine GRD databases for AML and disturbed lands 

for data validity 

Attempt to locate other digital coverage's 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 NP 

Promote sensitivity to delicate resources (crusts, etc.) to 

researchers, and visiting park groups
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 36 

List of Scoping Meeting attendees with contact information 

NAME AFFILIATION PHONE E-MAIL 

Joe Gregson NPS, Natural s Information (970) 225-3559 Joe_Gregson@nps.gov Resource

Division 

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 (43 Craig_hauke@nps.gov 5) 259-3911

ext. 2132 

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 (43 Dave_Wood@nps.gov 5) 259-3911

ext. 2133 

Traci Kolc NPS, CANY (43 12 Traci_Kolc@nps.gov 5) 259-47

ext. 18 

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

Clay Parcels NPS, ARCH (43 61 Clay_Parcels@nps.gov 5) 259-81

ext. 245 

Alicia Lafever NPS, ARCH (43 61 Alicia_Lafever@nps.gov 5) 259-81

ext. 242 

Adrienne Gaughan NPS, ARCH (43 61 Adrienne_Gaughan@nps.gov 5) 259-81

ext. 286 

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

Murray Shoemaker NPS, ARCH (43 61 Murray_Shoemaker@nps.gov 5) 259-81

ext. 244 

Helmut Doelling UGS (435) 835-3652 None 

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

Jim Webster NPS, ARCH (43 61 Jim_Webster@nps.gov 5) 259-81

ext. 220 

Gery Wakefield NPS, SEUG GIS coordinator (43 Gery_Wakefield@nps.gov 5) 259-3911

ext. 2180 

Phil Brueck NPS, SEUG (43 Phil_Brueck@nps.gov 5) 259-3911

ext. 2102 

Bruce Rodgers NPS, SEUG (43 Bruce_Rodgers@nps.gov 5) 259-3911

ext. 2130 

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

Paul Henderson NPS, SEUG (43

ext. 2140 Paul_Henderson@nps.gov 5) 259-3911
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 37

Figure B.1: Shows map coverage of Natural Bridges National Monument at the scale of 1:48,000 and larger. From GRE Scoping Report. 
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 38 

k, 

the following link: 

d/geology/monitoring/ib4/index.htm. 

iversity, and 

. The 

), and Natural Bridges National 

k 

ctivities 

in conjunction with park Vital Signs 

g 

ping 

 during the meeting in the Vital Signs 

t 

ring projects, and research needed to fill data 

 Ib4 

 are 

med, 

ed decisions with regards to geologic 

resources. 

tures, or cause 

ritical imbalance in the ecosystem. 

f 

n 

ndings are evaluated for Servicewide implications. 

e natural 

o fulfill 

n and 

t 

ent, why it is happening, 

nd whether it is significant. 

ogic 

gs, 

; 

nd resilience of 

cosystems to human impacts. 

Appendix C: Geoindicators Report 

The following are excerpts (applicable to Natural Bridges National Monument) of the 

Geoindicators Scoping Report for Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Par

Capitol Reef National Park and Natural Bridges National Monument, compiled by 

Andy Pearce, 2002. A complete version of the report may be found at 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/gr

Introduction 

From June 3- 5, 2002, staff of the National Park Service, 

Utah Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau 

of Land Management, Northern Arizona Un

Brigham Young University participated in a 

geoindicators scoping meeting in Moab, Utah for four 

National Park Service units in southeastern Utah

four parks were Arches National Park (ARCH), 

Canyonlands National Park (CANY), Capitol Reef 

National Park (CARE

Monument (NABR). 

Purpose of meeting 

The purpose of the meeting was to bring together par

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 a

affecting those processes, and to develop 

recommendations for long- term monitoring of 

geoindicators

monitoring. 

In addition, the Northern Colorado Vital Signs Network 

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

its first funding for Vital Signs monitoring. The sco

meeting was timed so the Network could use the 

information gained

selection process. 

This report summarizes the group’s discussions and

provides recommendations for studies to suppor

resource management decisions, inventory and 

monito

gaps. 

Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA) Goal

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]

inventoried and human influences that affect those 

processes are identified.” The goal was designed to 

improve park managers’ capabilities to make infor

science- bas

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 fea

c

Because GPRA Goal Ib4 inventories only a sampling o

parks, information gathered at the four parks may be 

used to represent other parks with similar resources or 

human influences on those resources, especially whe

fi

Geoindicators background information 

An international Working Group of the International 

Union of Geological Sciences developed geoindicators as

an approach for identifying rapid changes in th

environment. The National Park Service uses 

geoindicators during scoping meetings as a tool t

GPRA Goal Ib4. Geoindicators are measurable, 

quantifiable tools for assessing rapid changes in earth 

system processes. Geoindicators evaluate 27 earth system

processes and phenomena 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. Geoindicators guide the discussio

field observations during scoping meetings. The 

geoindicators scoping process for the National Park 

Service was developed to help determine the studies 

necessary to answer management questions about wha

is happening to the environm

a

Aspects of ecosystem health and stability are evaluated 

during the geoindicators scoping process. The geol

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

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 a

e
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 39

Park Selection 

These parks were selected to represent the Northern 

Colorado Plateau Network (NPCN) of parks. The 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 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, 21 were recognized as on- going 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 issue 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). 

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 proposed during the meeting. 

Desert surface crusts (biological and physiochemical) and 

pavements 

Biological soil crusts composed 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 safe- site 

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 proh

off- road travel, human impacts within the parks 

primarily are associated with off- trail hiking in h

areas. Where livestock grazing or trailing is still 

permitted (e.g., C

 NPS Geologic Resources Division 40 

ibit 

igh- use 

ARE), accelerated soil erosion can be 

ore extensive. 

1. aterials (see 

2. f movement 

eff, 303- 236- 1306, 

3.

ntact: Jason Neff, 303- 236-

1306, jneff@usgs.gov)

quatic 

an ecosystems in these arid- land parks. 

ing 

ecies, 

nd impacts from flow regulation and diversion. 

1.

tial “problem reaches” for 

2. tified, monitor 

3. or 

ches 

national parks. (See Recommendations table). 

t 

channel morphology and 

ing frequency. 

nnels, 

ecies, and impacts from flow regulation and diversion. 

1.

, Utah, and the Green River at Green 

2. est 

information for making management decision. 

e of 

r 

ble, and affects water quality and erosion rates. 

great. 

s 

cies, and impacts from flow 

gulation and diversion. 

1.

r. 

sts 

ological Survey, Water 

2. nd use and climatic variation 

. Investigate paleoflood hydrology. 

ur 

orts cited in the report that 

re particularly pertinent. 

m

 

Recommendations 

Monitor movement of soil m

Recommendations table). 

Investigate ecosystem consequences o

(Contact: Jason N

jneff@usgs.gov)

Investigate natural range of variability of soil 

movement in relation to landscape configuration 

and characteristics. (Co

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 a

and ripari

Human Impacts 

Potential for human impact on stream channel 

morphology is great. These impacts include building 

parking lots and structures in or near channels, build

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

livestock grazing in uplands and stream channels, roads 

and trails up streambeds, introduction of exotic sp

a

Recommendations 

Conduct hydrologic condition assessment to 

identify actual and poten

prioritized monitoring. 

Once “problem reaches” are iden

with repeat aerial photographs. 

Once “problem reaches” are identified, monit

with repeated cross- sections. Some data are 

available for Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, and Ar

Stream sediment erosion, storage and load 

Participants added “erosion” in order to clarify and 

encompass the total geomorphic picture regarding 

stream function. The original title is “stream sediment 

storage and load.” This geoindicator is important to the 

ecosystem because sediment loads and distribution affec

aquatic and riparian ecosystems, and because sediment 

loading can result in changes to 

overbank flood

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 cha

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

floodplains, grazing in uplands and stream channels, 

roads and trails up streambeds, introduction of exotic 

sp

Recommendations 

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

River, Utah. 

Measure sediment load on streams of high inter

for comparative assessment. Data will provide 

Streamflow 

Streamflow is critical to the maintenance of aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems. Streamflow impacts the structur

the riparian corridor, affects the height of the wate

ta

Human impacts 

The potential for human impact on streamflow is 

These impacts include building parking lots and 

structures in or near channels, building structures (e.g., 

culverts and bridges) in floodplains, grazing in upland

and stream channels, roads and trails up streambeds, 

introduction of exotic spe

re

Recommendations 

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 Rive

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 exi

with the local U.S. Ge

Resources Division. 

Research effects of la

on streamflow. 

3

Surface water quality 

For detailed understanding of the issues and what has 

been done with regards to water quality data for the fo

NPS units, see the June, 2002, trip report prepared by 

Don Weeks in Appendix J. There are a number of parkspecific water resource rep

a
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 41

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). 

Human impacts in Natural Bridges National Park 

• Abandoned copper and uranium mines. 

Recommendation 

1. Obtain information about existing baseline water 

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

303- 987- 6640, don_weeks@nps.gov). Also see Don 

Weeks June, 2002, trip report in Appendix J. 

Wetlands extent, structure, and hydrology 

Wetlands are important ecosystems because they 

stabilize streambanks, act as filters to improve water 

quality, attenuate floodwaters, 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 impacts on wetlands is great. 

These impacts include building parking lots and 

structures in or near channels, building structures (e.g., 

culverts and bridges) in floodplains, 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 and populations of woody 

riparian plants in relation to land use history. 

5. Investigate links between amphibian health 

attributes and wetland health. 

Groundwater quality 

The quality of 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 plant species, and provide important wildlife habitat. 

Groundwater quality is also an issue for safety and health 

regarding water quality for human use. To further 

understand what the issues are and what has been done 

with regards to water quality data for the four NPS units, 

see Appendix J. 

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 in Natural Bridges National Monument 

• The impacts of copper and uranium 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). (See 

Appendix J.) 

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 ). 
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 42 

ling, 

il 

 certain ecosystem 

zing in the parks, nutrient 

ve not recovered. 

1. to 

tor of soil quality) and in 

2.

ion to 

exture, 

3. y in quality in 

4.

n 

oil 

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

6. e and resilience of soil to human 

disturbances. 

ants 

gradation of soil quality (see Soil quality 

e 

ational parks and Natural 

onal Monument. 

1. n 

ct: 

Bob v). 

rosion (e.g., 

ualitative hydrologic function). 

nt 

rphic processes is highly important to 

ark ecosystems. 

ent 

volved and/or the nature of geomorphic substrates. 

n 

s 

ic 

. 

isturbance that may 

Parnell, 928- 523- 3329, 

deric.parnell@nau.edu) 

1. nd 

nd geologic mapping varies 

2. nitor, where, and with what 

3. ng 

gic 

es. 

4. Assess change- detection methods 

Soil quality 

Soil quality affects moisture retention, nutrient cyc

soil- food webs, and aggregate structure. Soil also 

provides biogeochemical and hydrologic support for 

terrestrial productivity, especially vegetation growth. So

quality degradation results in loss of

functions, such as nutrient cycling. 

Human impacts 

Due to past and present gra

cycles ha

Recommendations 

Assess existing soil- crust conditions in relation 

potential (as an indica

relation to soil maps. 

Repeatedly measure soil quality in disturbed sites to

gain understanding of recovery rates in relat

environmental factors, such as soil t

topographic position, and climate. 

Quantify natural range of variabilit

relation to environmental factors. 

Develop predictive model for potential biological 

soil crust distribution/structure/function in relatio

to environmental factors, such as soil texture, s

chemistry, topographic position, and climate. 

Invest

UV). 

Study resistanc

Soil and sediment erosion and deposition by water 

During the discussion of this geoindicator, particip

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 de

geoindicator). 

Human impacts 

In general, past grazing practices has caused soil erosion 

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

in Arches and Canyonlands n

Brides Nati

Recommendations 

Investigate/develop methods for monitoring erosio

and deposition quantitatively and affordably, and 

determine the best locations to monitor (Conta

 Webb, 520- 670- 6671, rhwebb@usgs.go

2. Assess conditions of soil e

q

Ecosystem response to geomorphic processes 

Because many types of ecosystems are highly depende

on the geomorphic process and substrate, ecosystem 

response to geomo

p

Disturbance to ecosystems is inevitable, whether the 

disturbance is human or natural caused. Managem

actions that attempt to mitigate disturbances, and 

particularly restoration of disturbed areas, may be

influenced by the types of geomorphic processes 

in

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 restoratio

is chosen, this knowledge should determine what type

of species are suitable for the underlying geomorph

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 d

instigate a management response. 

(Contacts: Bob Webb, 520- 670- 6671, 

rhwebb@usgs.gov; and Rod

ro

Recommendations 

Acquire high quality surficial geology, soil, a

vegetation maps for all four parks. Current 

availability of soil a

among the parks. 

Determine what to mo

attributes/indicators. 

Research spatial and temporal relations amo

ecosystem structure and function, geolo

substrates, and geomorphic process
 NABR Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 43

List of Participants 

National Park Service 

Tom Clark, Capitol Reef National Park, Torrey, Utah 

Craig Hauke, Southeast Utah Group, Moab Utah 

Bob Higgins, Geologic Resources Division, Lakewood, 

Colorado 

Alison Koch, Fossil Butte National Monument, 

Kemmerer, Wyoming 

Greg McDonald, Geologic Resources Division, 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Mark Miller, Northern Colorado Plateau Network, 

Moab, Utah 

Mary Moran, Southeast Utah Group, Moab, Utah 

Andy Pearce, Aztec Ruins National Monument, Aztec, 

New Mexico 

Bruce Rodgers, Southeast Utah Group, Moab, Utah 

Vince Santucci, Fossil Butte National Monument, 

Kemmerer, Wyoming 

Charlie Schelz, Southeast Utah Group, Moab, Utah 

Dave Sharrow, Zion National Park, Kanab, Utah 

Gery Wakefield, Southeast Utah Group, Moab Utah 

Don Weeks, Water Resources Division, Lakewood, 

Colorado 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Jayne Belnap, Moab, Utah 

Jason Neff, Denver, Colorado 

Marith Reheis, Denver, Colorado 

Rich Reynolds, Denver, Colorado 

Bob Webb, Tucson, Arizona 

Other 

Charles Bishop, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, 

Utah 

Larry Coats, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 

Arizona 

Hugh Hurlow, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, 

Utah 

Lynn Jackson, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, 

Utah 

Katie KellerLynn, NPS Contractor, Estes Park, Colorado 

Dan Martin, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 

Tom Morris, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 

Rod Parnell, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 

Arizona 

Doug Powell, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah 

Mike Young, Westfield State College, Westfield, 

Massachusetts 
 NPS Geologic Resources Division 44 

Geoindicator table for Natural Bridges National Monument. 

Geoindicators 

Importance 

ecosystem 

Impacts 

Significance 

man

to park 

Human 

to natural 

resource 

agers 

ARID AND SEMIARID 

Soil crusts and pavements 5 5 5 

Dune formation and reactivation 1 1 1 

Dust storm magnitude, duration and frequency 1 5 3 

1 

Wind erosion (and de 5 5 position) 1 

SURFACE WATER 

Stream channel morphology 5 5 5 

Stream sediment storage and load 5 5 5 

Streamflow 5 5 5 

Surface water quality 5 5 5 

Wetlands extent, structure, hydrology 5 5 5 

GROUNDWATER 

Groundwater quality 5 U 4 

Groundwater level (and discharge) 5 5 5 

SOILS 

Soil quality 5 1 5 

5 

Soil and sediment erosion (and deposition by water) 4 1 4 

5 

Sediment sequence and composition 1 4 3 

HAZARDS 

Landslides, rockfalls, debris flows 2 1 1 

Seismicity 1 0 1 

Surface displacement (salt dissolution) 1 0 1 

Fire occurrence 1 5 1 

OTHER

Atmospheric deposition (N, SO4) 1 3 1 

Paleontological resources 1 3 3 

Climate 5 1 5 

Ecosystem structure and function characteristics as 

integrated indicators of geophysical (i) environments, (ii) 

/disturbances. 

5 5# 5 

processes, and (iii) changes

0 - Not Applicable (N/A) 

1 - LOW or no substantial influence on, or utility for 

3 - MODERATELY influenced by, or has some utility for

U - Unknown; may require study to determine applicability 

5 - HIGHLY influenced by, or with important utility for 
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. 

Natural Bridges National Monument 

Geologic Resource Evaluation Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/003 

NPS D-47, September 2004 

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 • Trista Thornberry-Ehrlich

Editing • Lisa Norby and Sid Covington 

Digital Map Production • 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