Sedimentologic Analysis of Cores from the 

Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and the 

Lower Permian Cutler Formation, 

Lisbon Valley, Utah

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2000-E

r
On the Front Cover: View south toward La Sal Mountains along Colorado River between Cisco and Moab, Utah. Fisher Towers 

in center are composed of Permian Cutler Formation and capped by Triassic Moenkopi Formation. Prominent mesa at left center 

is capped by Jurassic Kayenta Formation and Wingate Sandstone and underlain by slope-forming Triassic Chinle and Moenkopi 

Formations. The Chinle-Moenkopi contact is marked by a thin white ledge-forming gritstone. Valley between Fisher Towers and 

Fisher Mesa in background is part of Richardson Amphitheater part of Professor Valley. Photograph by Omer B. Raup, U.S. Geological Survey.
Sedimentologic Analysis of Cores from the 

Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and the 

Lower Permian Cutler Formation, 

Lisbon Valley, Utah

By Russell F. Dubiel and Janet L. Brown

EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN 

A.C. Huffman, Jr., Project Coordinator

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 200Q-E

A multidisciplinary approach to research studies of 

sedimentary rocks and their constituents and the 

evolution of sedimentary basins, both ancient and modern

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1993
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Robert M. Hirsch, Acting Director

For sale by

USGS Map Distribution

Box 25286, Building 810

Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and 

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Dubiel, Russell F.

Sedimentologic analysis of cores from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and the Lower Permian Cutler Formation, 

Lisbon Valley, Utah / by Russell F. Dubiel and Janet L. Brown.

p. cm. (Evolution of sedimentary basins Paradox Basin ; ch. E) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 2000E) 

Includes bibliographical references. 

Supt. of Docs, no.: 119.3 : 2000E

1. Sedimentation and deposition Utah Lisbon Valley. 2. Geology, Stratigraphic Triassic. 3. Geology, Stratigraphic 

Permian. 4. Geology Utah Lisbon Valley. I. Brown, Janet L. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: U.S. Geological Survey 

bulletin ; 2000-E 

QE75.B9 no. 2000-E 

[QE571] 

557.3 s dc20

[551.7'62'09792] 93-25449

CIP
CONTENTS

Abstract................................................................................................................................. El

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1

Regional Setting.................................................................................................................... 4

Stratigraphy........................................................................................................................... 5

Sedimentology...................................................................................................................... 6

Lithofacies and Depositional Environments of the Cutler Formation........................ 6

Fluvial................................................................................................................... 16

Eolian Dune.......................................................................................................... 18

Interdune............................................................................................................... 18

Eolian Sand Sheet................................................................................................. 19

Sabkha................................................................................................................... 20

Lithofacies and Depositional Environments of the Chinle Formation....................... 20

Fluvial Channel..................................................................................................... 20

Crevasse Splay...................................................................................................... 21

Floodplain............................................................................................................. 22

Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 22

References Cited................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix Description of Slabbed Cores ........................................................................... 25

FIGURES

1,2. Maps showing:

1. Major structural and cultural features, Paradox Basin, Utah ......................................................................... E2

2. Locations of core holes and measured sections, Lisbon Valley, Utah........................................................... 4

3. Schematic stratigraphic section showing Permian and Triassic nomenclature in southeastern Utah ..................... 5

4. Photographs of slabbed core D729.......................................................................................................................... 7

5, 6. Measured stratigraphic sections:

5. Upper part of Cutler Formation...................................................................................................................... 16

6. Chinle Fonriation............................................................................................................................................ 17

7-14. Photographs of core showing:

7. High-angle cross stratification in eolian dune in Cutler Formation............................................................... 18

8. Interdune pond deposit in Cutler Formation .................................................................................................. 18

9. Bioturbation in eolian sand-sheet deposit of Cutler Formation ..................................................................... 19

10. Rhizocretion in Cutler Formation................................................................................................................... 19

11. Sabkha deposit in Cutler Formation............................................................................................................... 20

12. Carbonate-clast conglomerate in Chinle Formation....................................................................................... 21

13. Ripple cross-laminated sandstone in Chinle Formation................................................................................. 21

14. Plant fragments in Chinle Formation ............................................................................................................. 22

TABLE

1. Location and length of cores used in study, Lisbon Valley, San Juan County, Utah.................................................... E6

in
IV

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

Multiply By To obtain

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Miles 1.609 Kilometers
Sedimentologic Analysis of Cores from the

Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and the

Lower Permian Cutler Formation,

Lisbon Valley, Utah

By Russell F. Dubiel and Janet L. Brown

ABSTRACT

Five uranium exploration cores from Lisbon Valley in 

the Paradox Basin of southeastern Utah provide examples of 

sedimentary structures and lithofacies from the Lower 

Permian Cutler Formation and the overlying Moss Back 

Member of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation. The Cutler 

Formation consists of reddish-brown to purple, arkosic sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone of fluvial and floodplain 

origin interbedded with reddish-orange sandstone and mudstone deposited in sabkha, eolian dune, and sand-sheet 

settings. The colors are indicative of the respective depositional settings. An erosional unconformity separates the top 

of the Cutler from the overlying Moss Back Member of the 

Chinle Formation. The Moss Back consists of greenish- to 

bluish-gray limestone-nodule conglomerate, siliciclastic 

sandstone, and siltstone deposited in high-energy fluvial 

channels and crevasse splays and on adjacent levees and 

floodplains. The drab colors of the Moss Back reflect the 

high organic-carbon content of strata deposited and preserved below the water table. These five cores record eolian 

and fluvial sedimentary structures and lithofacies sequences 

not well preserved in outcrops, they provide the basis for 

interpretation and comparison of depositional environments 

from lithofacies analysis in core and outcrop studies, and 

they establish the sedimentologic background for future petrographic and geochemical research on cores and outcrops 

from the Lisbon Valley area.

INTRODUCTION

The Paradox Basin (fig. 1) is a tectonic depression of 

late Paleozoic age, the boundaries of which are generally 

defined by the geographic extent of halite deposited within 

the Paradox Formation during Middle Pennsylvanian time 

(Kite, 1968; Hite and others, 1972; Baars and Stevenson, 

1981; Stevenson and Baars, 1987). The Paradox Basin was

formed in Middle Pennsylvanian time and continued as a 

major site of deposition through and after Permian time. 

Prior to formation of the ancestral Rocky Mountains, the 

region was on the trailing edge of the North American craton 

and was the site of marine shelf deposition. During uplift of 

the ancestral Rockies, the basin subsided rapidly, accumulating as much as 9,000 ft of Middle and Upper Pennsylvanian 

evaporite, shale, and limestone, and about 6,000 ft of Permian marine and continental strata. Triassic and Jurassic 

deposition in the Paradox Basin was dominated by continental lacustrine, fluvial, and eolian systems.

Lisbon Valley is in the Paradox fold and fault belt, a 

tectonic region on the northeast side of the Paradox Basin 

dominated by northwest-trending folds and faults (fig. 1) 

(Kelley, 1955). Lisbon Valley encompasses the Lisbon Valley anticline and the Disappointment Valley syncline. The 

Lisbon Valley fault strikes northwest along the crest of the 

Lisbon Valley anticline and dips about 60° NE. The fault is 

a single plane in the central part of Lisbon Valley and is a 

fault zone near the northwest- and southeast-plunging noses 

of the anticline (Lekas and Dahl, 1956).

Continental deposits in the Paradox Basin are host to 

abundant energy and mineral resources. Uranium and vanadium, important energy and industrial resources abundant in 

sedimentary strata of the Paradox Basin, are present locally 

in Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic continental sandstones; 

major production is from the Lisbon Valley, Paradox Valley, 

and Sinbad Valley (fig. 1) structural area (the Uravan mineral belt) (Chenoweth, 1975, 1989). The Lisbon Valley uranium district is about 30 mi southeast of Moab, Utah.

Many previous reports discuss the occurrence and 

origin of the uranium-vanadium deposits of the Paradox 

Basin, especially the large deposits in Lisbon Valley (for 

example, Gross, 1956; Lekas and Dahl, 1956; Williams, 

1964; Wood, 1968; Chenoweth, 1975, 1989; Campbell and 

Steele, 1976; Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979a; Huber, 

1979, 1980, 1981; Campbell, 1980; Weir and Puffett, 

1981; Reynolds and others, 1985; and references therein).

El
E2 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

110° 109°

39°

Limit of evaporite

in Paradox Formation

(Pennsylvanian)

38°

37 C

iCOLORADO

NATIONAL 

MONUMENT.

141

ARCHES , NATIONAL) 

PARK

CAN YONLANDS

RATIONAL 

ANYON

NATURAL BRIDGES 

NAT. MON.

MESA VERDE 

NAT. PARK

\\ 

20 40 Km

NEW MEXICO

 

La Plata

A

Figure 1 (above and facing page). Major structural and cultural features of the Paradox Basin, Utah. A, Study area 

(shaded), cultural features, and maximum limit of evaporite (halite, anhydrite, and gypsum) deposition in the Middle 

Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation. Modified from Baars and Stevenson (1981); evaporite limit from Kite and others 

(1972). B, Major structural lineaments (thin parallel lines), salt anticlines (axis and anticline symbols), and maximum 

limit of evaporite (heavy line) in the Paradox Basin, Utah.

Several reports describe outcrop studies of the depositional 

setting of continental strata of both the ore-bearing Lower 

Permian Cutler Formation (Campbell, 1979, 1980; Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979a, b; Reynolds and others, 

1985) and the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation (Huber, 

1979, 1980, 1981), and a few reports describe studies of 

drill-hole geophysical logs, cutting samples, and petrography of core samples (Bohn, 1977; Huber, 1979, 1980)

from Lisbon Valley. Other research has focused on petrography and diagenesis of uranium-vanadium ores in the 

Cutler and Chinle Formations from both surface and 

subsurface samples (Campbell, 1979; Campbell and 

Steele-Mallory, 1979a, b; Weir and Puffett, 1981); however, to our knowledge, few, if any, published reports 

describe continuous sequences of sedimentary structures 

and lithofacies in core from either the Cutler or the Chinle
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E3

110° 109°

39C

38°

37C

Fishe 

Valley

Castle 

Moab Valley

Limit of evaporite

in Paradox Formation

(Pennsylvanian)

La Sal 

Mtns

yj_ockhart La Sal 

Rustler Dome

Sleeping 

Ute Mtn.

NEW

MEXICO

40 Km

B

within Lisbon Valley or from any other area of the Paradox Basin.

Uranium exploration drill cores from the Cutler and 

Chinle Formations in Lisbon Valley, which are reposited at 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Core Research Library 

at the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, Colorado, were 

originally drilled as part of a uranium exploration program 

conducted by Kerr-McGee Corporation in the late 1960's 

and early 1970's (William L. Chenoweth, written commun., 

1990). The cores contain excellent examples of sedimentary 

structures and lithofacies sequences formed in fluvial and 

eolian depositional environments. This report describes 

sedimentary structures and lithofacies sequences in five 

cores from Lisbon Valley (fig. 2) to provide the basis for 

recognizing small-scale features in core that are critical to

interpreting depositional environments in the Cutler and 

Chinle Formations. These features and interpretations can 

be compared to outcrops and measured stratigraphic sections that, due to weathering, may not preserve details of 

fine-grained units. Measured stratigraphic sections of outcrops of the Chinle and Cutler Formations from Lisbon 

Valley are presented for comparison with the cores. These 

core descriptions provide initial interpretations of depositional environments in the subsurface and, combined with 

outcrop exposures, detail important lateral facies changes in 

both the Cutler and the Chinle Formation. This study is part 

of ongoing core and outcrop studies of the Cutler and 

Chinle Formations related to stratigraphy, sedimentology, 

uranium-ore geochemistry and paragenesis, basinal fluid 

movement, and salt anticline history. Each of these research
E4 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

109°15' 1090 7'30"

38°15

38°05' -

Forma

0123 4 Miles

123456 Kilometers

Figure 2. Locations of core holes (solid circles) and measured 

sections (triangles) of this report, general geologic structure, and 

approximate locations of uranium ore bodies (solid) in the Chinle 

Formation (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1959, and Chenoweth, 1989), Lisbon Valley, Utah. Detailed location information 

for core holes is given in table 1.

efforts is part of a multidisciplinary project examining the 

Paradox Basin as part of the Evolution of Sedimentary 

Basins Program of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Acknowledgments. We thank Steve Condon, Paula 

Hansley, and Jack Stanesco of the U.S. Geological Survey 

for reviews and comments to improve this manuscript. Tom 

Michalski and Gene Gay of the U.S. Geological Survey Core 

Research Library provided laboratory research space and 

superb core preparation that facilitated study of the cores 

described in this report. William L. Chenoweth, Grand 

Junction, Colorado, was instrumental in suggesting leads to 

information on and the localities of the cores from Lisbon 

Valley, and he provided additional comments and references 

for the manuscript. Lee Fairchild, Exxon Production 

Research, Houston, Texas, provided insightful lectures on 

extensional tectonics and salt anticline mechanics in the 

Paradox Basin.

REGIONAL SETTING

The Paradox Basin is a major northwest-trending structural depression that formed during Middle Pennsylvanian 

time in association with uplift of the adjacent ancestral 

Uncompahgre highlands of the ancestral Rocky Mountains 

in southwestern Colorado (fig. 1). Vertical tectonism created

a major structural and topographic high adjacent to a deep, 

asymmetrical subsiding basin. The major locus of subsidence and associated clastic deposition in the Pennsylvanian 

was on the northeast flank of the basin adjacent to the 

Uncompahgre uplift. Evaporite and limestone deposited in 

the central part of the basin interfmger with coarse clastic 

material shed from the highland source on the northeast. The 

clastic rocks are generally restricted to a narrow belt adjacent 

to the basin-bounding fault on the northeast edge of the 

basin, although turbidite beds may extend farther into the 

basin. In the Late Pennsylvanian, coarse clastic systems 

prograded into the basin and buried the evaporites under a 

wedge of interbedded carbonate and clastic strata that thickened toward the Uncompahgre uplift. As clastic sediments 

accumulated, a density inversion was established, and salt 

within the evaporite beds rose toward the surface as diapiric 

domes, anticlines, and walls (Lee Fairchild, oral commun., 

1990). The location and orientation of many of the diapiric 

structures were controlled by preexisting basement faults, 

lineaments, and structural features (fig. 1) (Szabo and 

Wengerd, 1975; Campbell, 1979; Baars and Stevenson, 

1981).

Clastic sedimentation to the southwest into the Paradox 

Basin from the ancestral Uncompahgre highlands continued 

into the Permian, maintaining growth of the salt anticlines. 

During the Triassic, marginal-marine to continental red beds 

of the Lower and Middle(?) Triassic Moenkopi Formation 

and variegated continental strata of the Upper Triassic 

Chinle Formation filled the basin. Angular unconformities 

within Permian and Triassic rocks attest to continued salt 

diapirism and movement on the salt anticlines through the 

Triassic and into the Jurassic (Weir and Puffett, 1981; 

Goydas, 1989).

The Lisbon Valley anticline is one of the prominent salt 

anticlines of the Paradox Basin, and it differs from several 

others in that Pennsylvanian salts did not breach the surface 

(Cater, 1970). The northeast side of the anticline has been 

dropped along the Lisbon fault approximately 4,000 ft at the 

crest, juxtaposing Cretaceous rocks northeast of the fault 

against Pennsylvanian strata on the southwest. The absence 

of the upper part of the Cutler Formation and the Moenkopi 

Formation (Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979a; Weir and 

Puffett, 1981) from the central part of the Lisbon Valley anticline, the presence of the Moenkopi between Cutler and 

Chinle strata in adjacent synclinal areas (Budd, 1960; Wood, 

1968), and the slight disparity in structural strike and dip 

between the Chinle and the Cutler (Campbell and SteeleMallory, 1979a; Weir and Puffett, 1981) all suggest that salt 

diapirism within the Lisbon Valley structure was active during the Triassic. Sedimentologic studies of fluvial systems in 

the Chinle Formation in and around Canyonlands National 

Park near Moab, Utah (Blakey and Gubitosa, 1983), and in 

Lisbon Valley (Huber, 1979) propose that Late Triassic 

fluvial systems were affected by active movement on salt 

anticlines.
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E5

STRATIGRAPHY

Limestone and sandstone of the Middle and Upper 

Pennsylvanian Hermosa Formation are the oldest rocks 

exposed in Lisbon Valley, cropping out along the axis of 

the Lisbon Valley anticline (Weir and Puffett, 1981). 

The Hermosa is overlain by Permian rocks that in the 

Lisbon Valley area have previously been mapped as 

Cutler Formation undifferentiated (Williams, 1964). The 

beds at the base of the Cutler section in Lisbon Valley 

and other areas contain marine sandstone and limestone 

and have been referred to by various authors as Elephant 

Canyon Formation (Baars, 1962, 1987), part of the 

marine facies of the Cedar Mesa Sandstone (Campbell, 

1979; Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979b), Rico Formation (Stanesco and Campbell, 1989), and lower Cutler 

beds (Loope and others, 1990). Other subdivisions of 

Permian rocks recognized elsewhere in southeastern 

Utah have not been used or mapped in Lisbon Valley, 

although rock types representing facies of those units are 

present in southeastern Utah (Campbell and SteeleMallory, 1979a; Stanesco and Campbell, 1989). The 

present report follows the Permian terminology proposed 

by Baars (1962) and subsequently adopted in Campbell 

and Steele-Mallory (1979a), Weir and Puffett (1981), 

and Stanesco and Campbell (1989) (fig. 3). The age of 

the Cutler Formation in Lisbon Valley is thought to be 

Wolfcampian (Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979a, b), 

although Baars (1962) and McKee and others (1967) 

suggested that the upper part of the Cutler, which may 

not be preserved in Lisbon Valley, may be Leonardian.

The upper contact of the Cutler Formation in Lisbon 

Valley is a regional unconformity. Above the unconformity, 

the Lower and Middle(?) Triassic Moenkopi Formation, 

present in adjacent areas of southeastern Utah, is missing in 

Lisbon Valley due to either nondeposition or erosion, and the 

Upper Triassic Chinle Formation rests directly on the Cutler 

Formation (Campbell and Steel-Mallory, 1979a, b; Weir and 

Puffett, 1981). Weir and Puffett (1981) and Huber (1980) 

reported less than a 5° angularity between the Cutler and the 

Chinle, and Campbell and Steele-Mallory (1979a, b) 

described the Cutler as having a steeper and more southerly 

dip than the overlying Chinle; both observations suggest that 

at least slight tectonic movement occurred on the Lisbon 

Valley anticline prior to Chinle deposition.

The Upper Triassic Chinle Formation is present 

throughout southeastern Utah, where seven formal members 

and several stratigraphically equivalent informal members 

are recognized. The seven formal members, in ascending 

order, are the Temple Mountain, Shinarump, Monitor Butte, 

Moss Back, Petrified Forest, Owl Rock, and Church Rock 

(Stewart and others, 1972). The Shinarump and Monitor

Canyonlands

WEST

Junction of Green and 

Colorado Rivers

1 of the Cutler Formation

"Also called Elephant Canyon Formation (Baars, 1962)

3 Also called "lower Cutler Beds" (Loope and others, 1990)

Figure 3. Schematic stratigraphic section showing Permian 

and Triassic nomenclature in southeastern Utah between 

Canyonlands and Lisbon Valley. Modified from Stanesco and 

Campbell (1989).

Butte Members are thought to be absent in Lisbon Valley 

(Stewart, 1969). The basal sandstone of the Chinle in Lisbon 

Valley is generally assigned to the Moss Back Member, and 

the remaining part of the Chinle is referred to the Church 

Rock Member (Stewart and others, 1972; Weir and Puffett, 

1981); however, Stewart and others (1972) also suggested 

that the lower sandstone unit of the Chinle in Lisbon Valley 

may be younger than the type Moss Back. In addition, 

O'Sullivan (1970) contended that the Church Rock in southeastern Utah, as used by Stewart (1957), Stewart and others 

(1959), and subsequently by both Stewart and others (1972) 

and Weir and Puffett (1981), is older than the type Church 

Rock Member farther south along Comb Ridge in Arizona. 

O'Sullivan and MacLachlan (1975) did not use formal 

nomenclature for the Chinle because of the marked facies 

changes recognized in southeastern Utah. They used instead 

an informal lithologic terminology that included the claystone, limy, and siltstone members, in ascending order. 

Huber (1979, 1980) referred to the sandstone at the base of 

the Chinle in Lisbon Valley as the Moss Back Member and 

termed the remaining overlying units the upper part of the 

Chinle. The sandstone units of the Chinle in the cores 

described in the present study are all at the base of the formation and are considered to be part of the Moss Back Member 

as used by Stewart and others (1972), Weir and Puffett 

(1981), and Huber (1979, 1980). Reconciliation of the 

nomenclature of the upper part of the Chinle, not present in 

these cores, is deferred pending further field investigations.
E6 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

SEDIMENTOLOGY

Five cores from the northwest end of Lisbon Valley 

(fig. 2, table 1) were slabbed at the USGS Core Research 

Library prior to examination. The cores provide superb 

examples of sedimentary structures and lithofacies 

sequences that support interpretations of continental depositional systems in the Cutler and Chinle Formations. The 

depositional environments in these cores include fluvial 

and eolian facies. Both of these general facies have been 

recognized from outcrop studies in Lisbon Valley 

(Campbell, 1979, 1980, 1981; Campbell and SteeleMallory, 1979a, b; Huber, 1979, 1980), and additional 

lithofacies not recognized from outcrop studies are well 

preserved in the cores. Depositional environments in the 

cores were interpreted on the basis of lithology, sedimentary structures, lithofacies sequences, and comparison 

with previously published descriptions of fluvial and 

eolian facies in the Cutler and in other units, from both 

outcrop, laboratory, and core examples (for example, 

Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979a, b; Fryberger and 

others, 1979; Fryberger and Schenk, 1981, 1988; Ahlbrandt and Fryberger, 1982; Cant, 1982; Kocurek and 

Nielson, 1986; Fryberger and others, 1990; Schenk, 1990; 

Fryberger, 1991).

The five cores are referred to herein by their USGS 

Core Research Library number: D729, D742, D892, D769, 

and D788 (table 1). Each of the cored intervals begins in the 

lower part of the Chinle Formation and extends down 

through the Cutler-Chinle contact into the uppermost part of 

the Cutler Formation. The cores are archived at the U.S. 

Geological Survey Core Research Library, Building 810, 

Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado, 80225. A 

sequence of photographs (fig. 4) depicts the entire cored 

interval in D729, which contains examples of each of the 

depositional environments in the other cores. A stratigraphic 

section of both the Chinle and Cutler Formations was measured just north of Big Indian Rock on the west side of 

Lisbon Valley and about 5 mi south of the core locations 

(fig. 2). The outcrop section and the sedimentary structures 

and lithofacies within it provide an insightful comparison 

with features preserved in the cores.

The following sections describe sedimentary features 

and lithofacies in the cores and in the measured stratigraphic 

sections. The complete core descriptions (appendix), measured sections (figs. 5, 6), and associated data were recorded 

on standardized forms and as field notes that include descriptions of lithology, grain size, color (Goddard and others, 

1948), sedimentary structures, and other parameters.

Table 1. Location and length of cores used in study, Lisbon 

Valley, San Juan County, Utah.

USGS core 

number

D729

D742

D769

D788

D892

Location

Sec. 26, T. 29 S., R. 24 E.

Sec. 16, T. 29 S., R. 24 E.

Sec. 6, T. 30 S., R. 25 E.

Sec. 25, T. 29 S. } R. 24 E.

Sec. 32, T. 29 S., R. 25 E.

Length of core 

(infect)

174

130

61

231

290

LITHOFACIES AND DEPOSITIONAL

ENVIRONMENTS OF THE CUTLER

FORMATION

In the cores, the Cutler Formation consists primarily of 

arkosic sandstone, siltstone, shale, and mudstone; the cores 

apparently did not extend deep enough to intercept marine 

limestone and sandstone identified in the lower part of the 

Cutler from outcrop studies in Lisbon Valley (Campbell and 

Steele-Mallory, 1979a, b; Campbell, 1980). Similar to the 

measured outcrop sections in this and previous studies, the 

reddish-brown and orange strata of the Cutler in the cores 

distinguish it from the overlying greenish-gray rocks of the 

Moss Back Member at the base of the Chinle Formation 

(fig. 4). The upper part of the Chinle Formation, as seen at 

the measured section in outcrop in Lisbon Valley, is

Figure 4 (following page). Whole-core photographs of 

sequence of slabbed core D729 (Kerr-McGee Corp., sec. 26, T. 29 

S., R. 24 E., Lisbon Valley, Utah) of the Lower Permian Cutler 

Formation (undifferentiated) and the overlying Moss Back 

Member of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation. The photographs 

start at the top of the cored sequence within the Moss Back 

Member in box 01 and proceed to the base of the cored interval in 

the Cutler Formation in box 18. Scale and color bars are on each 

photograph. Specific features and explanations for the entire cored 

interval can be compared to the core descriptions in subsequent 

figures. Selected examples of sedimentary structures and 

environments labeled on the photographs. AV, avalanche grainfall laminae in dune facies; BB, animal burrow or zone of intense 

bioturbation; CC, clay-chip conglomerate; CL, coarse fluvialchannel lag deposit; CR, climbing ripple lamination; M, massive 

or structureless sediment; OS, oversteepened cross sets; PF, plant 

fragments and organic material; PL, planar cross laminae; RN, 

rooted zone with or without secondary carbonate nodules; SF, 

slump feature from failure and nontransport of sediment blocks; 

SK, sabkha deposit; SS, soft-sediment deformation; SY, stylolite. 

The interval from 2,685 to 2,767.5 ft shows drab-colored fluvial 

channel fill and crevasse splay deposits of the Chinle Formation. 

The Cutler Formation below 2,767.5 ft is characterized by its red 

to orange color and represents interbedded fluvial and eolian deposition. See appendix for details of depositional environments. 

Location of core hole is shown in figure 2. Color negatives of the 

photographs are available for use at the USGS Core Research 

Library, Denver Federal Center, Lakewood, Colorado 80225.
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E7
E8 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN 

[2705-2714

X.H O^^^^HKERR MCGO COHP^^^K R AV^lY V/ W ^^^^^^^^ 90.9/t. >£. > i icurtM^^^^^^HI D VX/V V/
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH

11-27421

E9
E10 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH Ell

 ft 07 29-h 

KERR MCGEE CORP 

29-24-26-2 LISBON
E12 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

I* ' 00-2 lj| ,1 ^^^ ^^^ ^ HI I i 7991
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E13

KERB MCGF.E CORP 

2^-24-26-2. LISBON
E14 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

KERB MCGEE CORP 

-24-26-2 LISBON
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E15

^072 

KERR MCGEI CORP 

21 24-26-2 LISBON
E16 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

EXPLANATION

(D(D

A A

Limestone

Conglomerate

Sandstone

Siltstone

Mudstone

Carbonate nodules

Crossbedding 

Rhizoliths 

Bioturbation 

Covered interval

DEPOSITIONAL 

ENVIRONMENT

P Paleosol

S Sabkha

F Floodplain-overbank

E Eolian dune

L Interdune pond, 

limestone

C Fluvial channel

Figure 5. Measured stratigraphic section of the upper part of the Cutler Formation in Lisbon Valley, Utah, just north of Big Indian Rock. 

About 20 ft of outcrop is depicted below the base of the measured section, which begins at 0 ft. An undetermined thickness of the Cutler 

exists below that shown on the section. The Chinle Formation unconformably overlies the Cutler at 845 ft. Location of measured section 

is shown in figure 2.

composed of the Church Rock Member, which is dark reddish brown, but everywhere in Lisbon Valley the greenish 

Moss Back Member separates the Church Rock Member 

from the underlying Cutler Formation. None of the cores 

described to date extends high enough in the Chinle to 

include the reddish-brown Church Rock Member.

Within the Cutler Formation, five distinct lithofacies 

can be recognized on the basis of color, grain size, bedding, 

and sedimentary structures. The suite of sedimentary

structures within each lithofacies compares well with those 

described in the literature for distinct fluvial and eolian 

depositional environments, including fluvial channel, eolian 

dune, interdune, eolian sand sheet, and sabkha.

FLUVIAL

Fluvial channel deposits in the Cutler consist of coarseto fine-grained, poorly sorted, subrounded to subangular,
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E17

328-1

unconformity

300

Pt

Pt

EXPLANATION

Limestone 

Conglomerate

Rhizoliths 

Bioturbation 

Covered interval

DEPOSITIONAL 

ENVIRONMENT

P Paleosol

S Sabkha

F Floodplain-overbank

E Eolian dune

L Pond

C Fluvial channel

Pt Point bars

Figure 6. Measured stratigraphic section of the entire Chinle 

Formation in Lisbon Valley, Utah, just north of Big Indian 

Rock. The Chinle Formation unconformably overlies the Cutler 

Formation at 0 ft at the base of the measured section. The 

Wingate Sandstone unconformably overlies the Chinle at 328 

ft. The Moss Back (0-80 ft) and Church Rock Members (80- 

328 ft) of the Chinle Formation are present at this outcrop locality. Location of measured section is shown in figure 2.

thin- to thick-bedded, arkosic sandstone that generally fines 

upward within individual beds. High-angle crossbeds indicative of either large-scale trough or planar cross stratification 

are abundant, and low-angle to horizontal laminations are 

common. The scale of the sedimentary structures decreases 

in size upward in the beds. The fluvial channel deposits have 

sharp scoured bases and transitional upper contacts. Clay 

and mudstone clasts are common at the bases of the units. 

The grain size of the sandstone, the scoured lower contacts, 

and the trough and planar crossbeds indicate high-energy, 

channelized flow, probably in fluvial environments. Campbell and Steele-Mallory (1979a, b) attributed this lithofacies 

on outcrops in Lisbon Valley to meandering stream deposits 

on the basis of lenticular outcrop pattern and lateral facies 

relations.

Associated with the fluvial sandstone are dark- to 

moderate-reddish-brown siltstone, shale, and mudstone. 

Sedimentary structures within these units are well preserved in the cores, in contrast to the measured section of 

this report and other outcrop studies. Campbell and SteeleMallory (1979a) noted poor preservation and limited interpretation of fine-grained red-bed units in the Cutler of 

Lisbon Valley due to outcrop weathering. The fine-grained 

strata are structureless to laminated, and they commonly 

are contorted or bioturbated. Siltstone and mudstone 

locally exhibit carbonate nodules arranged in downwardbifurcating patterns, and they locally contain climbing 

ripples. Interpretation of these units as fluvial floodplain 

deposits is based on their sedimentary structures and comparison with similar features described in other studies (for 

example, Cant, 1982) and on the vertical association in the 

cores with adjacent lithofacies. However, the units contain 

some characteristics also common to the eolian sand-sheet 

and sabkha deposits, and an unequivocal interpretation 

based on core exposures is commonly impossible.

The downward-bifurcating nodules are interpreted as 

rhizocretions formed around the traces of former plant roots 

(Klappa, 1980) The gradation upward from coarse fluvial 

channel deposits into these fine-grained strata suggests a 

spatial association of fluvial and floodplain settings; however, unlike outcrop exposures in which lateral facies associations can commonly be observed, only the vertical 

lithofacies associations of these units can be seen in the 

cores.

Color is the most notable feature distinguishing fluvial 

strata from eolian rocks within the Cutler Formation in the 

cores. Fluvial deposits are grayish red and purple to dark 

reddish brown, whereas eolian strata are generally moderate 

reddish orange to light brown or white. This distinction 

between reddish-brown and purple fluvial rocks and orange 

eolian strata has also been recognized in the Chinle Formation (Dubiel and Skipp, 1989; Dubiel, 1992) and in the 

Middle Pennsylvania to Lower Permian Maroon Formation 

of the Eagle Basin in western Colorado (Johnson and
E18 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

Figure 7. Photograph of core D729 at 2,833 ft showing oblique 

cut through high-angle cross stratification in an eolian dune in the 

Cutler Formation. The coarsening upward in each lamination 

(small arrows) and the preserved ripple cross lamination (large 

arrow) in the center of the photograph are characteristic of eolian 

wind-ripple deposition. Location of core hole is shown in figure 2.

others, 1988; Dubiel, unpublished data). On the outcrop, the 

color distinction between orange eolian and reddish-purple 

fluvial deposits is striking.

Both the measured section for this report and previous 

studies (Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979a, b) show that 

the fluvial channel beds on the outcrop are lenticular in cross 

section and grade laterally into finer grained clastic deposits.

EOLIAN DUNE

Eolian deposits of the Cutler Formation in the cores 

are distinguished in part by their light-reddish-orange 

color (fig. 4, 2,825-2,835 ft). The eolian strata are well 

sorted, fine to very fine grained sandstone interbedded 

with minor siltstone. Abundant sedimentary structures 

indicate eolian deposition, and the included sedimentary 

structures distinguish eolian dune from eolian sand-sheet 

deposits. Steeply to moderately dipping, concave-upward 

crossbeds in medium to thick beds are indicative of large 

bedforms and are interpreted as deposits from migrating 

eolian dunes. Internally, the crossbedded units contain 

upward-coarsening laminations, pinstripe laminations, and 

high-index ripple laminations that are diagnostic of 

migrating wind ripple origin (fig. 7) (Hunter, 1970; Fryberger and others, 1979; Fryberger and Schenk, 1981, 

1988; Ahbrandt and Fryberger, 1982). Locally, the ripple 

form can be recognized within the pinstripe lamination 

(fig. 7). Oversteepened and slumped crossbeds are rare 

features (fig. 4, 2,830 ft). The eolian dune deposits are 

commonly several feet thick (fig. 4, 2,825-2,835 ft) and

are bounded above and below by eolian sand-sheet and 

interdune deposits. The thicker crossbed sets distinguish 

the eolian dune environments from smaller eolian bedforms on the eolian sand sheets.

On the outcrop this facies is well exposed as thick, 

light-orange to white beds that show large-scale crossbedding. Units can be traced for long distances on the west 

rim of Lisbon Valley. Eolian dune deposits are one of the 

most distinctive (Campbell and Steel-Mallory, 1979a, b) and 

easily recognizable facies within outcrops of the Cutler 

Formation in Lisbon Valley (fig. 5).

INTERDUNE

Interbedded with eolian dune strata are rare, darkreddish-brown, very thin bedded to thin-bedded, finely 

laminated to locally bioturbated mudstone, claystone, and 

siltstone (fig. 8). These units have sharp upper and lower 

contacts with bounding eolian deposits. Internally they contain small-scale soft-sediment deformation, probably due to 

water saturation and loading by overlying sediment. These 

fine-grained laminated mudstone and claystone units are 

interpreted as wet interdune deposits and probably represent 

small interdune ponds (Ahlbrandt and Fryberger, 1982).

Figure 8. Photograph of core D788 at 2,806 ft showing finely 

laminated claystone and mudstone of an interdune pond deposit in 

the Cutler Formation. Location of core hole is shown in figure 2.
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E19

CM

Figure 9. Photograph of core D729 at 2,820 ft showing extensively bioturbated sandstone of an eolian sand-sheet deposit in the 

Cutler Formation. Location of core hole is shown in figure 2.

Eolian dune, sand-sheet, and sabkha strata are commonly bleached white for several inches adjacent to interdune pond mudstone, possibly as a result of the removal of 

iron due to reducing fluids generated in the pond mudstone.

On the outcrop, interdune pond deposits are rare. 

Because of destruction by weathering of primary depositional structures and fabrics inherent to specific facies, 

fine-grained deposits of interdune ponds are difficult to distinguish from floodplain, sand-sheet, and sabkha deposits. 

Previous studies grouped by association on the outcrop 

these fine-grained shale, siltstone, and mudstone deposits 

into overbank, floodplain, levee, and lacustrine environments. The preservation of depositional structures and fabrics in the cores affords the potential to define and 

recognize several specific facies within these fine-grained 

rocks.

EOLIAN SAND SHEET

The eolian sand-sheet deposits in the Cutler Formation 

contain sedimentary features similar to those of the eolian

dune deposits, but the sand-sheet deposits commonly contain thinner bedding and smaller scale crossbedding. The 

eolian sand sheets comprise moderate-reddish-orange to 

pale-reddish-brown, very fine grained to fine-grained sandstone. Locally abundant, small lenses of coarse-grained 

sand are probably deflationary lag grains. Sand sheets contain small-scale, low-angle crossbeds and wavy parallel 

laminations that are commonly disrupted by extensive bioturbation (fig. 9). Meniscate backfilled burrows are common and were formed by arthropods. Two kinds of 

bioturbation were formed by roots. Vertically stacked carbonate nodules probably formed as carbonate precipitates 

along root traces (fig. 10), and downward-bifurcating, 

purple and white mottled root alteration haloes formed from 

alteration of iron oxide minerals along decomposing roots. 

The low-angle crossbedding, the abundant root traces, and 

extensive bioturbation indicate deposition on low-relief 

eolian sand sheets (Fryberger and others, 1979; Ahlbrandt 

and Fryberger, 1982; Kocurek and Nielson, 1986).

On the outcrop, sand-sheet deposits are recognized by 

their light-orange to white color, small-scale crossbedding, 

and laterally persistent thin to medium beds. The beds pinch 

out laterally over large distances. Sand-sheet deposits

Figure 10. Photograph of core D742 at 2,757 ft showing vertically stacked and downward-bifurcating carbonate nodules. This 

is a rhizocretion, a carbonate precipitation around a former plant 

root in a floodplain deposit of the Cutler Formation. Location of 

core hole is shown in figure 2.
E20 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

Figure 11. Photograph of core D729 at 2,856 ft showing sabkha 

deposit in the Cutler Formation. Note the evaporite nodules and the 

deformed bedding. Location of core hole is shown in figure 2.

contain more sandstone and less mudstone than floodplain 

deposits, and they are distinguished from sabkha deposits by 

the lack of evaporite minerals, by their fabric, and by disrupted bedding caused by mineral growth and dissolution.

SABKHA

Sabkha deposits within the Cutler Formation are composed of deformed and planar laminated, light- to darkreddish-brown, very fine grained to fine-grained sandstone 

and siltstone beds that have silty mudstone drapes (fig. 11). 

The beds are thin to thick. Internally the deposits are commonly disturbed by wavy parallel, wavy nonparallel, and 

wavy discontinuous laminations. The disruption of laminae 

is commonly centered about small nodules and coalesced 

mosaics of small nodules. Some beds are only moderately 

disturbed and others are extremely disrupted, exhibiting 

small, randomly oriented remnants of the original laminae. 

Nodules in the beds are present as small displacive growths 

and as nodular-mosaic thin beds and wavy mudstone interbeds. The nodules are primarily gypsum and minor anhydrite. In addition, the cores contain deformed beds that do 

not contain visible nodules.

These beds were deposited on siliciclastic-dominated 

sabkhas and are distinguished by extensive haloturbation 

that has destroyed primary depositional fabric (fig. 11) 

(Ahlbrandt and Fryberger, 1982; Schreiber and others, 

1982; Mazzullo and others, 1991). Both the displacive 

growth of evaporites in the original depositional environment and the subsequent replacement or removal of evaporites by dissolution probably account for the varying degrees 

of disruption in the beds. The displaced laminae that contain no apparent nodules argue for the complete dissolution 

of some former evaporite mineral.

The sabkha beds, although well represented in the 

cores, were difficult to discern on the outcrop measured section. The fine-grained lithology of the beds probably results 

in extensive destruction of small-scale features and nodules 

on the outcrop, making identification of this facies very difficult in the field. Reports of previous outcrop studies in 

Lisbon Valley (Campbell and Steele-Mallory, 1979a, b) do 

not mention sabkha deposits. Weathering may have made 

the sabkha deposits indistinguishable from other finegrained units, or the sabkha facies may only be present north 

of Lisbon Valley, where it is present in the subsurface.

LITHOFACIES AND DEPOSITIONAL

ENVIRONMENTS OF THE

CHINLE FORMATION

The Moss Back Member is the only unit of the Chinle 

Formation present in the cores. The Moss Back Member 

unconformably overlies the reddish-brown and orange 

Cutler Formation. The contact is easily distinguished 

because the Moss Back in the cores, as on the outcrop, is 

generally very pale green to light greenish gray and light 

bluish gray, in contrast to the reddish-brown upper part of 

the Chinle and the underlying Cutler. The drab colors of the 

Moss Back Member are thought to reflect a lack of oxidation 

of iron to red-colored hematite due to the abundant detrital 

organic matter preserved in the unit. The preservation of this 

abundant organic matter is thought to reflect rapid sedimentation, high water tables, and subaqueous deposition within 

the Chinle (Dubiel, 1989). In several of the cores, the base of 

the Moss Back Member contains abundant sulfide mineralization and minor uranium mineralization.

The Moss Back Member in the cores and on the outcrop 

can be divided into three dominant facies: fluvial channel, 

crevasse splay, and overbank floodplain.

FLUVIAL CHANNEL

Fluvial deposits in the cores of the Moss Back Member 

are dominated by conglomerate and sandstone and minor 

siltstone and mudstone. The conglomerate in the cores contains few siliciclastic pebbles and is composed primarily of 

rounded to subrounded clay intraclasts and intrabasinal carbonate nodules (fig. 12), presumably reworked from older 

Chinle and possibly Moenkopi and Cutler deposits. Clay 

clasts were reworked from mudstone within the Moss Back 

Member. Carbonate clasts are common in nodule-bearing 

paleosols in Chinle floodplain deposits that were proximal to 

the ancestral Uncompahgre highland source area (Dubiel 

and Skipp, 1989; Dubiel, 1992) and in the underlying Cutler 

Formation floodplain and sabkha deposits. Huber (1980) 

reported quartz-pebble conglomerate at several outcrop 

localities in Lisbon Valley, however, only carbonate 

conglomerate and claystone conglomerate are present in the 

cores.
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E21

Figure 12. Photograph of core D742 at 2,726 ft showing 

carbonate-clast conglomerate in the fluvial channel facies of the 

Chinle Formation. Location of core hole is shown in figure 2.

Figure 13. Photograph of core D729 at 2,716 ft showing ripple 

cross-laminated sandstone in the Chinle Formation. Location of 

core hole is shown in figure 2.

The carbonate-clast conglomerate is medium to thick 

beddded and exhibits crude crossbedding and fining-upward 

sequences into low- to moderate-angle, crossbedded siliciclastic and carbonate sandstone. The sandstone fines upward 

into thick beds of ripple-cross-laminated sandstone and siltstone (fig. 13). The abundant ripple sets, some having high 

angles of climb, indicate rapid sedimentation. Many of the 

ripple laminae are defined by finely comminuted organic 

matter and plant fragments.

The scoured, lag-filled channel bases, thick beds, and 

upward succession of grain size and structures indicate 

deposition in fluvial channels. Despite the abundance of 

conglomerate in the basal channel fills, these strata are 

interpreted as high-sinuosity fluvial deposits on the basis of 

sedimentary structures such as climbing ripples, high 

suspended-sediment load, and comparison with modern 

and ancient meandering stream systems (Cant, 1982). In 

addition, the outcrop pattern of sandstone in the measured 

section and interpretations in previous studies (Huber, 

1979, 1980) suggest a meandering fluvial system.

CREVASSE SPLAY

Crevasse splay deposits in the Moss Back are similar in 

lithology and sedimentary structures to the fluvial channel

deposits but are distinguished by their thinner bedding, 

smaller grain size in conglomeratic beds, and rapid transition 

between beds of differing sedimentary structures. The similarity in color, lithology, and grain size of crevasse splay 

deposits to the fluvial channel deposits and the lack of observation of lateral persistence of beds and facies changes in the 

cores makes some interpretations of crevasse splay environments equivocal. In general, the crevasse splay deposits have 

a greater percentage of fine-grained, suspended load deposition and commonly contain abundant plant fragments 

(fig. 14), whole plant fossils, and laminations of finely comminuted plant material on bedding planes in the siltstone and 

mudstone. Rare carbonized logs and sticks are present in the 

fine-grained units (fig. 4, 2,740.5 ft), as are rare reworked 

unionid bivalves.

The crevasse splays represent overbank or through-thebank deposition during flood events. Both coarse-grained 

bed-load and fine-grained suspended-load sediment were 

deposited from the main channel or channel system. Crevasse splay deposits may coarsen or fine upward depending 

on whether the splay was prograding or was being abandoned. Crevasse splay deposits are complexly interbedded 

with the fluvial channel deposits.

On the outcrop, crevasse splay deposits are more easily 

distinguished from the channel deposits than in the cores.
E22 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

Figure 14. Photograph of core D729 at 2,724 ft showing terrestrial plant fragments in the Chinle Formation. Location of core 

hole is shown in figure 2.

Lateral relations commonly reveal the thin but persistent 

splay units and their association with a channel deposit. 

Small-scale features such as ripple lamination are more visible in core than in outcrop, presumably due to weathering of 

fine-grained clastic material and clay on outcrop. Tn addition, 

oxidation due to weathering may have removed sulfide mineralization and uranium mineralization, which were not 

noted in the measured section of the Chinle.

FLOODPLAIN

Fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone are a 

minor part of the Moss Back Member in the cores. The units 

are drab colored and thin bedded to very thin bedded. Planar 

horizontal laminations and rare ripple cross lamination are 

marked by clay drapes and organic-matter fragments. 

Locally these units contain root traces and small, isolated 

carbonate nodules.

These units are interpreted as floodplain deposits 

formed from suspended-load deposition out of the main 

channels and crevasse splays during flood events. The carbonate nodules represent incipient paleosol development 

during periods of nondeposition.

On the outcrop, fine-grained units in the Moss Back 

generally weather to a debris-covered slope, and details of 

the facies are not generally visible. In the upper part of the 

Chinle, fine-grained mudstone lateral to lenticular channel

sandstone is thicker and more common than in the Moss 

Back, and paleosol development is more pronounced, suggesting more time between flood events.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedimentologic analysis of five cores from the northwest part of Lisbon Valley that penetrate the lower part of 

the Chinle Formation and the upper part of the Cutler Formation provides excellent examples of sedimentary structures in the two units. The Cutler contains reddish-brown to 

purple-gray fluvial deposits interbedded with reddishbrown floodplain strata. These fluvial units alternate with 

reddish-orange to white eolian dune and sand-sheet strata 

and dark-reddish-brown sabkha deposits. The sand-sheet 

and sabkha deposits contain thin interdune pond deposits. 

The contrast in colors between the fluvial and eolian rocks 

is characteristic of the depositional environment and can be 

applied both in the cores and on the outcrop.

The Moss Back Member of the Chinle Formation 

unconformably overlies the Cutler Formation. The Moss 

Back is composed of greenish- to bluish-gray limestone nodule conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone. Deposition was 

in high-sinuosity fluvial channel systems and crevasse 

splays on adjacent floodplains. The drab colors of the Moss 

Back reflect the high organic-carbon content of strata deposited and preserved below the water table. The color contrast 

between the Cutler Formation and the Moss Back Member 

of the Chinle is also distinctive, both on the outcrop and in 

the cores.

These cores from Lisbon Valley provide excellent 

examples of sedimentary structures and lithofacies 

sequences from several fluvial and eolian components of 

continental systems. Several of the fine-grained facies are 

better represented in the cores because of weathering of the 

facies on the outcrop. Many details of the sedimentary fabric 

in the Cutler, especially within fine-grained sabkha and 

interdune pond deposits, are visible in the cores but are not 

well preserved at the outcrop section. The cores, although 

lacking the advantage of lateral facies analysis, allow a vertical sequence analysis that includes details of fine-grained 

sabkha and sand-sheet environments that are poorly represented on the outcrop. The descriptions and interpretation of 

these depositional environments also provide a stratigraphic 

and environmental basis for future petrographic and 

geochemical studies of these units, both in outcrop and in the 

subsurface.

REFERENCES CITED

Ahlhrandt, T.S., and Frybcrger, S.G., 1982, Eolian deposits, in 

Scholle, P.A., and Spearing, Darwin, cds.. Sandstone depositional environments: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Memoir 31, p. 11-47.
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E23

Baars, D.L., 1962, Permian System of the Colorado Plateau: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 46, 

p. 149-218.

 1987, The Elephant Canyon Formation revisited, in Campbell, J.A., ed., Geology of Cataract Canyon and vicinity: Four 

Corners Geological Society Field Conference, 10th, Guidebook, p. 81-90.

Baars, D.L., and Stevenson, G.M., 1981, Tectonic evolution of 

the Paradox Basin, Utah and Colorado, in Wiegand, D.L., 

ed., 1981, Geology of the Paradox Basin: Rocky Mountain 

Association of Geologists Field Conference, 1981, Guidebook, p. 23-31.

Blakey, R.C., and Gubitosa, Richard, 1983, Late Triassic paleogeography and depositional history of the Chinle Formation, 

southern Utah and northern Arizona, in Reynolds, M.W., and 

Dolly, E.D., eds., Mesozoic paleogeography of the westcentral United States: Rocky Mountain Section, Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain 

Paleogeography Symposium 2, p. 57-76.

Bohn, R.T., 1977, A subsurface correlation of Permian-Triassic 

strata in Lisbon Valley, Utah: Brigham Young University 

Geology Studies, v. 24, p. 103-116.

Budd, Harrell, 1960, Notes on the Pure Oil discovery at northwest 

Lisbon, in Geology of the Paradox fold and fault belt: Four 

Corners Geological Society Field Conference, 3rd, Guidebook, 

p. 121-124.

Campbell, J.A., 1979, Lower Permian depositional system, northern Uncompahgre basin, in Baars, D.L., ed., Permianland: Four 

Corners Geological Society Field Conference, 9th, Guidebook, 

p. 13-21.

 1980, Lower Permian depositional systems and Wolfcampian paleogeography, Uncompahgre basin, eastern Utah 

and southwestern Colorado, in Fouch, T.D., and Magathan, 

E.R., eds.. Paleozoic paleogeography of west-central United 

States: Rocky Mountain Section, Society of Economic Mineralogists and Paleontologists, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography 

Symposium 1, p. 327-340.

-1981, Uranium mineralization and depositional facies in the

Permian rocks of the northern Paradox basin, Utah and Colorado, in Wiegand, D.L., ed., Geology of the Paradox Basin: 

Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Field Conference, 

1981, Guidebook, p. 187-194.

Campbell, J.A., and Steele, B.A., 1976, Uranium potential of Permian rocks in the southwestern United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 76-529, 26 p.

Campbell, J.A., and Steele-Mallory, B.A., 1979a, Uranium in the 

Cutler Formation, Lisbon Valley, Utah, in Baars, D.L., ed., 

Permianland: Four Corners Geological Society Field Conference, 9th, Guidebook, p. 23-32.

 1979b, Depositional environments of the uranium-bearing 

Cutler Formation, Lisbon Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 79-994, 39 p.

Cant, D.J., 1982, Fluvial facies models, in Scholle, P.A., and Spearing, Darwin, eds., Sandstone depositional environments: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 31, 

p. 115-137.

Cater, F.W., 1970, Geology of the salt anticline region in southwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

637, 75 p.

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

area, in Fassett, I.E., ed., Canyonlands: Four Corners Geological Society Field Conference, 8th, Guidebook, p. 253-260.

 1989, Lisbon Valley, Utah's premier uranium area, a summary of exploration and ore production: Utah Geological and 

Mineral Survey Open-File Report 188, 45 p.

Dubiel, R.F., 1989, Depositional and climatic setting of the Upper 

Triassic Chinle Formation, Colorado Plateau, in Lucas, S.G., 

and Hunt, A.P., eds., Dawn of the age of dinosaurs in the 

American Southwest: New Mexico Museum of Natural History Spring Field Conference, Guidebook, p. 171-187.

 1992, Sedimentology and depositional history of the Upper 

Triassic Chinle Formation in the Uinta-Piceance and Eagle 

basins, northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah: U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 1787-W, 39 p.

Dubiel, R.F., and Skipp, Gary, 1989, Stratigraphic and sedimentologic studies of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, western 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-2, 

26 p.

Fryberger, S.G., 1991, Unusual sedimentary structures in the 

Oregon coastal dunes: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 21, 

p. 131-150.

Fryberger, S.G., Ahlbrandt, T.S., and Andrews, Sarah, 1979, 

Origin, sedimentary features, and significance of low-angle 

eolian "sand sheet" deposits, Great Sand Dunes National 

Monument and vicinity, Colorado: Journal of Sedimentary 

Petrology, v. 49, p. 733-746.

Fryberger, S.G., Krystinik, L.F., and Schenk, C.J., 1990, Modern 

and ancient eolian deposits Petroleum exploration and production: Rocky Mountain Section, Society of Economic 

Mineralogists and Paleontologists, 234 p.

Fryberger, S.G., and Schenk, C.J., 1981, Wind sedimentation 

tunnel experiments on the origins of aeolian strata: Sedimentology, v. 28, p. 805-821.

 1988, Pin stripe lamination A distinctive feature of modern and ancient eolian sediments: Sedimentary Geology, v. 55, 

p. 1-15.

Goddard, E.N., Trask, P.D., DeFord, R.K., Rove, O.N., Singewald, 

J.T., Jr., and Overbeck, R.M., 1948, Rock color chart: Geological Society of America.

Goydas, M.J., 1989, Stratigraphy, structure, and holokinetic history 

of Fisher Valley quadrangle, Grand Vounty, Utah: Manhattan, 

Kansas State University, M.S. thesis, 190 p.

Gross, E.B., 1956, Mineralogy and paragenesis of the uranium ore, 

Mi Vida mine, San Juan County, Utah: Economic Geology, 

v. 51, p. 632-648.

Hite, R.J., 1968, Salt deposits of the Paradox basin, southeast Utah 

and southwest Colorado: Geological Society of America 

Special Paper 88, p. 319-330.

Hite, R.J., Cater, F., and Liming, J.A., 1972, Pennsylvanian rocks 

and salt anticlines, Paradox Basin, Utah, in Mallory, W.W., 

ed.. Geologic atlas of the Rocky Mountain region: Rocky 

Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 133-138.

Huber, G.C., 1979, Stratigraphy and uranium deposits of the Lisbon 

Valley district, San Juan County, Utah: Golden, Colorado 

School of Mines, Ph.D. dissertation, 210 p.

 1980, Stratigraphy and uranium deposits, Lisbon Valley 

district, San Juan County, Utah: Quarterly of the Colorado 

School of Mines, v. 75, p. 1-45.
E24 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS PARADOX BASIN

 1981, Geology of the Lisbon Valley uranium district, southeastern Utah, in Epis, R.C., and Callender, J.F., eds., Western 

Slope Colorado: New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 

32nd, p. 177-182.

Hunter, R.E., 1977, Basic types of stratification in small eolian 

dunes: Sedimentology, v. 29, p. 361-387.

Johnson, S.Y., Schenk, C.J., and Karachewski, J.A., 1988, Pennsylvanian and Permian depositional systems and cycles in the 

Eagle Basin, northwest Colorado, in Holden, G.S., ed., Geological Society of America field trip guidebook: Golden, 

Colorado, Professional Contributions of the Colorado School 

of Mines, no. 12, p. 156-175.

Kelley, V.C., 1955, Regional tectonics of the Colorado Plateau and 

relationship to the origin and distribution of uranium: University of New Mexico Publications in Geology 5, 120 p.

Klappa, C.F., 1980, Rhizoliths in terrestrial carbonates 

Classification, recognition, genesis, and significance: Sedimentology, v. 27, p. 613-629.

Kocurek, Gary, and Nielson, Jamie, 1986, Conditions favourable 

for the formation of warm-climate aeolian sand sheets: Sedimentology, v. 33, p. 795-816.

Lekas, M.A., and Dahl, H.M., 1956, The geology and uranium 

deposits of the Lisbon Valley anticline, San Juan County, Utah, 

in Geology and economic deposits of east-central Utah: International Association of Petroleum Geologists Field Conference, 7th, Guidebook, p. 161-168.

Loope, D.B., Sanderson, G.A., and Verville, G.J., 1990, Abandonment of the name "Elephant Canyon Formation" in southeastern Utah Physical and temporal implications: The Mountain 

Geologist, v. 27, p. 119-130.

Mazzulo, Jim, Malicse, Ariel, and Siegel, Joel, 1991, Facies and 

depositional environments of the Shattuck Sandstone of the 

northwest shelf of the Permian basin: Journal of Sedimentary 

Petrology, v. 61, p. 940-958.

McKee, E.D., Oriel, S.S., and others, 1967, Paleotectonic investigations of the Permian System in the United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 515, 271 p.

O'Sullivan, R.B., 1970, The upper part of the Upper Triassic Chinle 

Formation and related rocks, southeastern Utah and adjacent 

areas: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 644-E, 22 p.

O'Sullivan, R.B., and MacLachlan, M.E., 1975, Triassic rocks of 

the Moab-White Canyon area, southeastern Utah, in Fassett, 

J.E., ed., Canyonlands: Four Corners Geological Society Field 

Conference, 8th Guidebook, p. 129-142.

Reynolds, R.L., Hudson, M.R., Fishman, N.S., and Campbell, J.A., 

1985, Paleomagnetic and petrologic evidence bearing on the 

age and origin of uranium deposits in the permian Cutler Formation, Lisbon Valley, Utah: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 96, p. 719-730.

Schenk, C.J., 1990, Evolution of porosity in "deep" sandstones of 

the Permian upper part of the Minnelusa Formation, Powder

River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 90-78, 25 p.

Schreiber, B.C., Roth, M.S., and Helma, M. L., 1982, Recognition 

of primary facies characteristics of evaporites and the differentiation of these forms from diagenetic overprint, in Hanford, 

C.R., Louks, R.G., and Davies, E.R., Spectra of evaporites A 

core workshop: Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

Mineralogists Core Workshop, 3rd, Calgary, Canada, 395 p.

Stanesco, J.D., and Campbell, J.A., 1989, Eolian and noneolian 

facies of the Lower Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone Member 

of the Cutler Formation, Southeastern Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1808-F, 13 p.

Stevenson, G.M., and Barrs, D.L., 1987, The Paradox A pullapart basin of Pennsylvanian age, in Campbell, J.A., ed., Cataract Canyon and vicinity: Four Corners Geological Society 

Field Conference, 10th, Guidebook, p. 31-50.

Stewart, J.H., 1957, Proposed nomenclature of part of Upper Triassic strata in southestern Utah: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 41, p. 441^165.

 1969, Major Upper Triassic lithogenetic sequences in the 

Colorado Plateau region: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin., v. 53, p. 1866-1879.

Stewart, J.H., Poole, F.G., and Wilson, R.W., 1972, Stratigraphy 

and origin of the Chinle Formation and related Upper Triassic 

strata in the Colorado Plateau region: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 690, 336 p.

Stewart, J.H., Williams, G.A., Albee, H.F., and Raup, O.B., 1959, 

Stratigraphy of Triassic and associated formations in a part of 

the Colorado Plateau region: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

1046-Q, p. 487-586.

Szabo, Ernest, and Wengerd, S.A., 1975, Stratigraphy and tectogenesis of the Paradox basin, in Fassett, J.E., ed., Canyonlands 

country: Four Corners Geological Society Field Conference, 

8th, Guidebook, p. 193-210.

United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1959, Guidebook to the 

uranium deposits of western United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report RME-141 (1966), p. (2)-30.

Wier, G.W., and Puffett, W.P., 1981, Incomplete manuscript on the 

stratigraphy, structural geology, and uranium-vanadium and 

copper deposits of the Lisbon Valley area, Utah and Colorado: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-39, 296 p.

Williams, P.L., 1964, Geology, structure, and uranium deposits of 

the Moab quadrangle, Colorado and Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map 1-360, scale 

1:2,500,000.

Wood, H.B., 1968, Geology and exploitation of uranium deposits 

in the Lisbon Valley area, Utah, in Ridge, J.D., ed.. Ore deposits of the United States, 1933-1967: American Institute of 

Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, p. 771-790.

Published in the Central Region, Denver, Colorado

Manuscript approved for publication April 30, 1993

Edited by Judith Stoeser

Line graphics prepared by George Garcia: modifications by Gayle Dumonceaux

Photographs prepared by Gayle Dumonceaux

Type composed by Marie Melone

Cover prepared by Art Isom
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH

APPENDIX DESCRIPTION OF SLABBED CORES

E25

Core descriptions of the Lower Permian Cutler Formation, undifferentiated, and the overlying Upper Triassic Chinle Formation were recorded onto standardized 

forms that are reproduced here. The forms are divided 

into vertical columns that contain different types of 

information.

Thickness/Sample no. This column is used to indicate 

thickness of the measured units in feet.

Box no. Box numbers are given in this section.

Formation/Member Formation and member names 

are shown in this column.

Rock type Schematic representation of weathering 

profile of the outcrop, a lithologic symbol for rock 

type (symbols explained below), and sketches of sedimentary structures within the units are shown in this 

column.

Color Both of these columns indicate color of units. 

Colors were estimated by a comparison with the Geological 

Society of America rock-color chart (Goddard and others, 

1948). Where possible, colors were estimated from fresh, 

dry outcrops.

Dominant grain size This column shows a continuous line chart of the dominant grain size of the measured unit. Grain size was estimated by a comparison to 

a standard grain size chart. Class divisions line indicate 

variations from the norm. V, very; Fn, fine; Sd, sand; 

Med, medium; Cse, coarse; Pbl, pebble.

Bedding Bedding refers to set thickness of sedimentary units. VTK, very thick; TK, thick; MED, medium; TN, 

thin; VTN, very thin; MASS, massive.

Sedimentary structures This column indicates the 

type of sedimentary structure that is shown graphically in the 

rock type column. CLL, curved, parallel laminations (trough 

or wedge-planar crossbeds); TAB. PLANAR, tabular-planar 

crossbeds; WLL, wavy lamination (flatbedding); ELL, even, 

parallel laminations (horizontal laminations); STRLESS, 

structureless.

Biology/Organics This column indicates the presence 

of organic material, burrows, or bioturbation.

Sorting/Roundness Sorting: VWS, very well sorted; 

WS, well sorted; MWS, moderately well sorted; FS, fairly 

well sorted. Roundness: A, angular; SA, subangular; SR, 

subrounded; R, rounded.

Cement This column indicates the presence of calcite 

cement. VC, very calcareous; MC, moderately calcareous; 

SC, slightly calcareous; NC, noncalcareous.

Accessory minerals or fragments Colors of unidentified accessory minerals or rock fragments are indicated in 

this column: BLK, black; GRN, green; GY, gray; WHT, 

white.

Notes Additional comments and descriptions are 

given; circled abbreviations refer to sedimentary structures 

labeled on photographs in figure 4.

Inferred environment of deposition Interpreted environments of deposition of the rock unit are shown in this 

column.

Sedimentary structures

Small

EXPLANATION

Lithology

\ Trough crossbeds 

Large J

Ripple laminations 

Wavy laminations 

Parallel laminations 

Tabular-planar crossbeds 

Soft-sediment deformation

C5D

Sandstone 

Siltstone 

Mudstone 

Conglomerate 

Mud chips

Miscellaneous

Burrows 

Rooted zones 

Carbonate nodules 

Plant fragments 

Stylolites 

Bioturbation 

Mottles 

Mudcracks 

Unconformity
I I I . . I 

THICKNESS 

NO. SAMPLE 

0 

o

D 

-j

l-O

O 

o 

r3

CL

5'

re 

P

o'

"7 r*

OT5

Bi 

OQ

cr 

o

of

B* 

on

O

o

§CL

NO BOX CORE 

FM/MBR FORMATION CHINLE TRIASSIC UPPER 

COLOR

GRAIN 

SIZE

BEDDING

i?3:

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

NOiimoAa do A^viNawiaas xoavwd SNISVS Nisva 
(undivided) FORMATION CUTLER: PERMIAN 

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

0 

o

3

3to

o

O

O.

o

c

CD 

CL

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

rr o c o _ 

: £ l< 

CQ

Q. CD 

% " 

= Q- a 

CD CD f^' CD 

g- CT <Q CT CD 

CD I < § § 

l-ltl"!

zr m cn 0) CD _ 

S-irlg^q- ^ 

3 |- CD " IQ O 

I S ° S « 

° Q S3 4 

£

! Q.S CD 

! §"§ § 

S- CD 10. 

cT O 

o =5 

O CD 

CQ 2+ 

o 2 

5T 3 

00 ^ <£, 

go;

aiNino QNV ^anno 'SNOLLVW^OJ Noasn 'AanvA Hvin 
THICKNESS 

NO. SAMPLE o

o

to

I

o

NO BOX :ORE 

FM/MBR (undivided) FORMATION PERMIAN;CUTLER 

COLOR

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

<J) 00 

CD 3 QQ_ CD [/) 

sff

c/) CD 

: 3 CD (D C 

, £ A A -a 

1^5

CD Q CQ ^ 

xoav^vd SNisva Nisva 
B. Core D742. Cored interval is 130 ft thick.

m 

THICKNESS SAMPLE NO

ft

2710- 

Top

-2720-

-

-2740-

-

-2750-

2760-

_2770-

2780-

CORE BOX NO.

1

2

3

4

5 

6

7 

8

FM/MBR

LL.

UJ 

_J

I

o

o 

-co

CO

DC

Icc

LU 

Q_ 

Q_

ID

AN CUTLER FORMATION (undivided)

cc

LU 

Q_

LL.

LU 

_J

X

o 

o

CO 

CO

cc

I 

cc

LU

CL 

Cu

ROCK 

TYPE

- ' -^-^\

'-^^~^

D-^Sr^J"

©C^? £/©(-

TTX""^ - 

Jj^/jy\

 ©.' I

ix )^>*> 'c^' I - ^ ,u-

^~-^~,.~^-~~r

1

ffl^

'-

/ 

\

/ -

COLOR

5GY 

7/1

N7

5G 

8/1

5GY 

6/1 

5Y 

8/1

5Y 

8/1

5B 

7/1 

2B 

5G6/1

5R4/2

5R 

4/2

5R 

4/2

BG 

8/1

BR 

6/2

5R 

6/2

BR 

6/2

5R 

6/2 

5R 

4/2

10R 

4/2

5R 

6/2

N7 

5YR 

6/1

5YR 

6/1

10R 

6/2

^ < M

O ° 

Q

\

<

BEDDING

Thin 

bed

Thick 

bed

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

Soft-sed 

deform 

Ripple 

lamination

lamination 

Ripple 

lamination

Massive

Bioturbated 

ripple

Soft-sed 

Bioturbated

Bioturbated 

horizontal

Soft-sed 

deform

Massive 

Ripple 

animation

Ripple

Highangle 

crossbed

BIOLOGY/ ORGANICS

Claychips

Organic 

fragments

Organic 

laminae

Rootlets 

Burrows 

RootSORTING/ ROUNDNESS

MS 

SA 

SR 

WS

SA 

MS

SA 

MS

SA 

MS

CEMENT

Med 

calc

Very

Very 

calc

SA 

MS 

SA

SA 

MS

MS 

SA

SA

Slightly 

calc

ACCESSORY MINERALS O

FRAGMENTS

Bioturbed 

Bioturbed

Jioturbatec 

Muscovite

Muscovite

NOTES. (ALTERATION, ATTITUDE, CLASTS, 

MINERALIZATION, & MISC. INFO.)

. Light-gray, sandstone 

. Moderate greenish gray, sandstone

- Light-greenish-gray, sandstone 

Greenish-gray, siltstone and sandstone pebble cgl

_ Yellowish-gray, sandstone 

Yellowish-gray, sandstone 

- Light-bluish-gray, sandstone 

- Greenish-gray, conglomerate, carbonate pebbles (3cm) 

Grayish-red, vf sandy siltstone

Grayish-red siltstone 

- 2mm carbonate nodules

- Light-greenish-gray

- Pale-red

- Pale-red, sandstone 

- Pale-red, sandstone 

- Grayish-red, siltstone

 Grayish-red, sandstone

- Pale-red, sandstone

 Light-brownish-gray, sandstone

. Pale-red, sandstone
THICKNESS

NO. SAMPLE 

o ft________

o 

3 

O

NO BOX CORE 

FM/MBR FORMATION CHINLE TRIASSIC UPPER (undivided) FORMATION CUTLER PERMIAN 

COLOR

DOMINANT gll" 

GRAIN d 

MedSd

CseSd

Pbl

SIZE

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

^ IQ 

S CD 

^ CD 

IQ IQ 

oen NOiimoAa jo Awusiawicras xoav^vd SNisva NISVH 
NO SAMPLE 

ft_______

n

o

o

Ooo

£

FM/MBR FORMATION CHINLE TRIASSIC UPPER 

COLOR

N)

O

f*

5; o'

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

QNV ^anno 'SNOLLVW^OJ Noasn AanvA 4 Hvin en i 
THICKNESS

NO. SAMPLE 

o ft____

o

O 

oo 

\o 

to

NO BOX CORE 

FM/MBR FORMATION CUTLER TRIASSIC UPPER 

COLOR

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

XOdVHVd SNISV9 NISV9 
THICKNESS 

NO. SAMPLE 

n

n

o

O

oo

FM/MBR FORMATION CHINLE TRIASSIC UPPER 

§

3' 

c

a

COLOR

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

/ BIOLOGY 

ORGAN1CS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

O 

CD 00 

o 3 

-i oo o 

O T3 O en

t»

00 "01 

' Noasn 'AanvA Hvin een
I I . I . I I . I 

THICKNESS 

n NO SAMPLE 

o1-1 

o

a

NO BOX CORE 

(undivided) FORMATION CUTLER PERMIAN 

TRIASSIC UPPER 

FORMATION CHINLE 

FM/MBR

COLOR

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

§"5-

3 2 

cr< 

§3

CD => 

5 ° 

o P m 

n ^ 

> 8 

CO 

H 

in

<. ^ tQ 

SL ffl 

NOIimOAS dO A^VlNHWiaHS SNISV9 NISV9
CHINLE AND CUTLER FORMATIONS, LISBON VALLEY, UTAH E35

Continued. 

a\

00

Q 

£

0

U

U

i 

Z 2

u_ £ 2 

~ Z Q

LU

oo~

00

3 0 O Li-

^l O 

3 00

1 2

1 

1 g

cc K]

tj <

<f cc

it LU

LU 2

1 

O

SlN3IAI9VHd

HO S1VH3NIW

AHOSS333V

1N3W33

SS3NQNnoa

/9NLLHOS

SDINV9HO

/A9010I9

S3ani3nais

AdVlN3Wia3S

ONiaasa

iqd

3ZIS PSPSIAJ

NIVH9 p^ujA

aoioo

^

or iaaw/^d

ON X09 3H03

ON 31dWVS

SS3N>I3IH1

LU

O3 

-C

_Q 

O3 

CO

<o 

c 

o

T3

ID

"

3 C

-§ 1

"S "a 

"a -t-^

T3 CL

i*

|!

lr " s

>.2^

Ijl

.E

gg

^ ^'.

V/vVlh, ',- ,' ',:'

O) O 

CN CO

. i i i | i i ,

5S u CN CO o

3 3 °
(undivided) FORMATION CUTLER PERMIAN 

COLOR

n

o

O

ON

n

D.

5'

I

CT o'

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

r i i i 

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

D" CD 

9 cp Q. 3 

3 W 

I : I _ 

J__I

NOiimoAH do A^VINHWIQHS xoavwd SNISVS Nisva 
THICKNESS

NO SAMPLE n ft_______ o 

3

g

oo 

po

n

o

3

CL

CT o'

NO BOX CORE en

FM/MBR FORMATION CHINLE TRI.ASSIC UPPER 

COLOR

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

11

> 2° 

31NIHD QNV ^SlIHD 'SNOLLVWHOd NOHSH 'A311VA HVin 
I I . . 

NO. SAMPLE 

n 

o

3

oo 

oo

NO BOX CORE 

FM/MBR FORMATION CHINLE TRIASSIC UPPER 

D.

COLOR

BEDDING

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

1 § 

> 2° 

 I ? 

o

CD W 

sen A^VINHWIQHS xoavwd SNisva Nisva 
THICKNESS 

NO. SAMPLE 

tn 

n

o 

n

O 

<1

oo

NO :OREBOX 

FM/MBR (undivided) FORMATION CUTLER PERMIAN 

COLOR

SEDIMENTARY 

STRUCTURES

BIOLOGY/ 

ORGANICS

SORTING/ 

ROUNDNESS

CEMENT

ACCESSORY 

OR MINERALS 

FRAGMENTS

3 I 

V g. CL 

O

HINIHD ONV ^aiinD 'SNOILVWHCM Noasn 'AanvA Hvin 
E. Core D788 Continued. 

co d

CO Z

2 ij

^ Q_

£ I CO ^

2815 -

_

2820-

-

-

"

2830-

-

-

-

2840-

o

z

o

CO 

LU

cc 

O 

0

23

24

25

cc

CO

i

u_

ROCK

TYPE

-

IT \ s^Fro :

t7%l^-\

<- 6". 'y-i ^S\. . / 

. m . I

 y^-- i » J /

rfV/ 7\ -

 "^gj^^ -

Tfr ^^ 1

cc

O

O 

u

5R6/2

1 OR4/6

1 0R5/6

10R5/4

IOR5/4

1 0R4/6 

1 OR4/2

BR4/B

~Z. 5

O °

Q

li^li

s

fig

r

CD

Z

Q

Q

CO

Med

Mass

Med

Thin

Thin

< CC

Z jE!

2 3

00 °°

Parallel

laminae

Horizontal

burrows

Calc roots 

burrows

Very fine

Calc root

casts

Disrupted

Ripples

~^ 00

>- o

CD ^

5 <

O cc

CQ o

Small

burrows

Jioturbated

burrows

co "~- oo 

CD LU

p § £ 2

0 g 

oo O

cc

SA/MS

SA/MS

SA/MS

SA/MS 

SA/MS

SA/MS

1 

LU

LU

CJ

Very

slightly

calc

Slightly

calc

Slightly

calc 

Atey

calc

& 0 H?

oo < 5

o £ °

U ? cc

Muscovite

biotite

Very fine

NOTES: (ALTERATION, ATTITUDE, CLASTS,

MINERALIZATION, & MISC INFO)

Pale-red, low-angle, horizontal laminated sandstone

-

] Mud, reddish-brown, laminated mudstone "

-

 Pale-reddish-brown, bioturbated sandstone

"

- Pale-reddish-brown, bioturbated sandstone,

green reduction halos

- Moderate reddish brown, disrupted fine sandstone

' Grayish-red, sandstone

Moderate red. clavev sandstone

Bottom of core