Carmel Formation of 

The Zion Park Region 

Southwestern Utah a Review

By W. B. CASHION

CONTRIBUTIONS TO STRATIGRAPHY

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1244-J
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

William T. Pecora, Director

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1967

For sale by the Saperlntendent of Docaments, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 10 cents
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract _________________________________________ Jl

Introduction _______________________________________ 1

Stratigraphy ________________________________________ 3

Section _________________________________________ 3

Lithologic subdivisions _______________________________ 6

Age ___________________________________________ 6

Summary of nomenclature _______________________________ 6

Establishment of the San Eafael Group ____________________ 6

Eevisions _______________________________________ 7

Eeferences cited _____________________________________ 8

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1. Index map showing location of Zion Park region, southwestern

Utah ______________________________________ J2

2. Chart showing stratigraphie nomenclature of the Carmel Formation and associated units, Zion Park region, Utah _____ 4

CONTRIBUTIONS TO STRATIGRAPHY

GARMEL FORMATION OF THE ZION PARK REGION, 

SOUTHWESTERN UTAH A REVIEW

By W. B. CASHION

Abstract

The name Carmel Formation was first applied to rocks of Jurassic age in the 

San Rafael Swell of east-central Utah, although the type locality is in the Zioii 

Park region of southwestern Utah. Subsequently, the Carmel Formation of the 

Zion Park region was modified as the use of other established names was extended and new names, such as the Winsor Formation, were introduced. As presently defined, the Carmel Formation of the Zion Park region includes all Jurassicstrata above the Navajo Sandstone. Because this sequence contains beds previously 

assigned to the Winsor Formation, the Winsor is reduced in rank to a member of 

the Carmel Formation.

INTRODUCTION

The accepted unit composition of the Carmel Formation (Jurassic) 

at the type locality in southwestern Utah has undergone several changes. 

These changes have also involved the Winsor Formation, a Jurassic 

rock sequence named by Gregory (1948) and associated with the Carmel 

Formation in southwestern Utah. Type localities for the Carmel and 

Winsor Formations are near Mount Carmel, about 10 miles east of 

Zion Park, Utah (fig. 1). WT hile mapping these units near Mount 

Carmel, the author recognized the need for a published summary of 

the nomenclature for these rocks, especially a chronological review of 

changes involving components of the Carmel Formation in the Zion 

Park region. The purpose of this report is to present such a summary. 

Boundaries of the Zion Park region of this report (fig. 1) conform to 

those delineated by Gregory (1950a, pi. 2) except that the part in 

Arizona is excluded because it contains no rocks assigned to the Carmel 

Formation.

Jl
J2 CONTEIBUTIONS TO STEATIGEAPHY

114° 112 C

20 40 60 80 1OO MILES

FIGURE 1. Location of the part of the Zion Park region (stippled) in Utah (from

Gregory, 1950a, pi. 2).
CAEMEL FOKMATION, SOUTHWESTEKN UTAH J3 

STRATIGRAPHY

SECTION

The stratigraphic section given below is an abbreviated version of 

one published in Gregory and Moore (1931, p. 73-74). It is a composite 

made up of five partial sections measured at the type locality of the 

Carmel Formation. Although this section was not designated as the type 

section, it has become the standard for comparison. Fossil listings 

have been omitted but fossiliferous beds are indicated. More recent 

and complete paleontologic information is given by Imlay (1964) and 

Sohl (1965). Unit numbers correspond to those shown on figure 2. 

The abbreviated descriptions, with bracketed entries by the author, are 

as follows:

Section of Carmel Formation between Virgin Biver bridge [approximately 8 miles

south-southwest of Mount Carmel] and a point about 2 miles

west of Mount Carmel village, Utah

[Adapted from Gregory and Moore (1931, p. 73-74. Section measured by Herbert E. Gregory)]

Feet

Morrison(?) Formation:

22. Sandstone, white; contains green shale _________________ 50 

Summerville (?) Formation :

21. Sandstone, banded alternately pale .red and white __________ 130 

Carmel Formation :

20. Limestone, gray, sandy, oolitic in part; fossiliferous _________ % 

19. Sandstone, banded pale red and white __________________ 13 

18. Gypsum, white, lumpy ____________________________ 3 

17. Sandstone, red and green, white-banded ________________ 12 

16. Gypsum, white-green ____________________________ 16 

15. Shale, white, gypsiferous and arenaceous ________________ 2 

14. Gypsum, white and green; pink lenses near top _____________ 4 

13. Unconformity.

12. Sandstone beds 4 in. to 6 ft. thick _____________________ 68 

[In a revised description of this section, Gregory (1950a, p. 127) 

showed thickness of this unit to be 168 ft. Later figure is more 

accurate.]

11. Limestone, light-gray to cream; fossiliferous _____________ 28 

10. Shale, gray to buff, calcareous _______________________ 10 

9. Limestone, cream, dense, hard, siliceous; contains thin lenses and

seams of chert ______________________________ 1% 

8. Shale like No. 6 _______________________________ 35 

7. Limestone, buff, earthy, one massive bed; top consists largely of

broken shells _________________________________ 2 

6. Shale, calcareous and arenaceous, and thin, earthy limestone, gray

to cream; fossiliferous __________________________ 22 

5. Sandstone, gray to buff, very calcareous, fossiliferous ________ 4 

4. Limestone and calcareous shale ______________________ 18 

3. Limestone, cream; earthy at bottom; few feet pink; very sandy in

cliff sections ________________________________ 20 

[As described here, the total thickness of units 3-11 is 140^ ft. In 

a revised description of this section, Gregory (1950a, p. 127) 

showed total thickness of same sequence (included in units 3-15) 

to be approximately 218 ft. Later figure is more accurate.] 

2. Shale, brick-red ________________________________ 5 

1. Sandstone, green-white; in places conglomerate with red quartz

grains, green mud pellets, and shale fragments ___________ 6

Total Carmel Formation ______________________ 269 +
J4 CONTEIBUTIONS TO STEATIGEAPHY

EXPLANATION

"rz~JT1 

~~I_ j

"Shaie"

Gypsum

FEET 

0

-50

L 100

Type locality of 

the Carmel formation 

(Gregory and Moore, 

1931, p. 73-74)

Lithology

:u

Unit

22

21

; , , ,', -U .-. .-- . v

^J-^^- r^

^E-jjH^I

-S^E^I

 d_^-c_n_zri i i i i i

' i i ' i T i

.'!'!'.'

X/'v^

^ < 

222^

14-20 

t

12

1-11

\

/

\ 

/

} 

Gregory and Moore 

(1931)

Mornson(?) 

formation

Summerville(?) 

formation

Carmel 

formation

Rafael Sangroup

Navajo 

sandstone

Gregory (1933)

Undifferentiated 

Jurassic(?)

Carmel 

formation

o

no

O£

a 

in

Navajo 

sandstone

FIGUKE 2. Stratigraphic nomenclature of the Carmel Formation and associated
CAEMEL FORMATION, SOUTHWESTERN UTAH J5

Baker, Dane, and 

Reeside (1936, pi. 4)

Curtis 

formation

Entrada 

sandstone

Carmel 

formation

o

ab

OO

Navajo sandstone

Gregory (1948, 1950a)

Winsor 

formation

Curtis 

formation

Entrada 

sandstone

Carmel 

formation

o 

o

z

O

3

Temple Cap 

Member 

(Not used in 

Gregory, 1948)

Wright and Dickey 

(1963a, b)

Carmel 

Formation

o

ts> 

o

z

o

Rafae San 

Temple Cap 

Member

Cashion (1967)

o

i

LL.

E 

cj

o 

 o

OO

p

z

Winsor 

Member

Gypsiferous 

member

Banded 

member

Limestone 

member

o

J

Temple Cap 

Member

units as applied by various workers in the Zion Park region, Utah.
,]fi CONTRIBUTIONS TO STEATIGEAPHY 

LITHOLOGIC SUBDIVISIONS

As a result of recent work (Wright and Dickey, 1963a,b) the upper 

boundary of the Carmel Formation has been moved stratigraphically 

higher and the formation now includes all beds in the measured section 

just presented. This sequence in the Zion Park region can be divided 

into four members which are recognizable throughout the region. The 

dominant lithologies are, in ascending order, (1) limestone and calcareous shale with argillaceous siltstone or sandstone at base, units 1- 

11 on figure 2; (2) red and gray banded sandstone, unit 12 on figure 

2; (3) massive gypsum and gypsiferous shale and sandstone, with limestone at top in most of the region, units 14-20 on figure 2; and (4) 

light-gray and pale-red sandstone, units 21-22 on figure 2.

AGE

Significant fossil collections have been taken from the limestone member and a few collections of poorly preserved nondiagnostic fossils 

from the limestone at the top of the gypsiferous member. The fossils 

indicate that the age of the limestone member is Middle Jurassic to 

possibly early Late Jurassic, and the stratigraphic position of the members above it indicates that they are probably early Late Jurassic 

(Imlay, 1964, p. C3-C5).

SUMMARY OF NOMENCLATURE 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL GROUP

Stratigraphic studies in eastern Utah, particularly in the area of the 

San Rafael Swell (Gilluly and Reeside, 1928), give the basis for subdividing that part of the Jurassic sequence assigned to the San Rafael 

Group. In the San Rafael Swell this group, composed of limestone, 

sandstone, shale, and gypsum, lies between the Navajo Sandstone and 

the Morrison Formation, Gilluly and Reeside named, in ascending 

order, the Carmel Formation, Entrada Sandstone, Curtis Formation, 

and Summerville Formation, and constituted them as the San Rafael 

Group. The name Carmel, from a locality near Mount Carmel, Utah, 

studied by H. E. Gregory and L. F. Noble, was adopted in 1926 at a 

conference of H. E. Gregory, R. C. Moore, James Gilluly, and J. B. 

Reeside, Jr. (U.S. Geol. Survey, Press Bull. 6064, March 30, 1926). 

Type sections for the other formations of the group were established 

in the northern part of the San Rafael Swell (Gilluly and Reeside, 

1928). Although the name Carmel was adopted in 1926, a section at 

the type locality was not described until 1931. At that time Gregory 

and Moore (p. 73, 74) placed the lower boundary at the top of the 

Navajo Sandstone and the upper boundary at the top of a thin fossilit'erous limestone (unit 20, fig. 2) and tentatively identified two units 

above it as Summerville (?) Formation and Morrison (?) Formation.
('ARMEL FORMATION, SOUTHWESTERN UTAH J7 

REVISIONS

Later, Gregory (1933, p. 15) restricted the Carmel Formation in the 

Zion Park region by placing the upper boundary at the top of the 

limestone and calcareous shale sequence (units 1-11, fig. 2). He assigned the beds above this sequence to "undifferentiated Jurassic(?)" 

and stated that they probably represent the rest of the San Eafael 

Group and the overlying Morrison Formation. Gregory (1950a, p. 91) 

explained that redefining the upper boundary of the Carmel was the 

result of reexamining numerous outcrops in southern Utah and concluding that the abrupt change in sedimentation at the top of the 

limestone and calcareous shale sequence marked a more appropriate 

position for the formation boundary.

Inasmuch as continuous tracing of the formations in question is impossible and satisfactory evidence had not been found for precise correlation between the Zion Park region and the San Eafael Swell, there 

\vas still doubt about the relation of the type Carmel to the Carmel of 

the San Rafael Swell. Additional information from studies in southcentral Utah led Gregory (1950a) to another revision in which part 

of the sequence that had previously been included in the Carmel was 

assigned to the Entrada Sandstone (unit 12, fig. 2) and the Curtis 

Formation (units 14-20, fig. 2). The beds of Jurassic age above unit 

20 were named Winsor Formation. First reference to the Winsor was 

made in a report describing the geology of central Kane County, Utah 

(Gregory, 1948, p. 235), but the source of the name was not explained 

until later (Gregory, 1950a, p. 98) and the type locality was designated 

in a separate paper (Gregory, 1950b, p. 42). The type locality is in 

Winsor Cove, an open area in the valley of Muddy Creek, just west 

of Mount Carmel.

During the ]950's, some authors who described the San Rafael 

Group in areas adjacent to the Zion Park region suggested revisions 

of correlation that involved the Carmel Formation. These authors are 

not cited here, however, because a review of the overall stratigraphy 

of the Carmel Formation is not within the scope of this report. Stokes 

and Holmes (1954) used the nomenclature of Gregory (1950a) in a 

fence diagram that includes the Zion Park region, but they pointed 

out that the Curtis Formation of southwestern Utah might be a facies 

of the Carmel of the San Rafael Swell.

Detailed mapping and regional stratigraphic studies by members of 

the U.S. Geological Survey have yielded new information and given a 

firmer basis for correlation of Jurassic rocks of the Colorado Plateau. 

Wright and Dickey (1963a, b), after studying the regional stratigraphy 

of the San Rafael Group, concluded that the Entrada Sandstone, Curtis 

Formation, and Winsor Formation of the Zion Park region should be
Jg CONTRIBUTIONS TO STEATIGEAPHY

included in the Carmel Formation because all Jurassic strata above 

the Navajo Sandstone near Mount Carmel are correlatives of beds 

within the Carmel Formation as it was first recognized in the San 

Rafael Swell.

Despite the Carmel problems in the Zion Park region, the name has 

been used logically and consistently in most other parts of the Colorado 

Plateau. Carmel is a well-established and useful name and its continued use in the Zion Park region seems appropriate. The author, 

in mapping near Mount Carmel, used those limits for the Carmel prescribed by Wright and Dickey (this report, fig. 2) and also divided 

the formation into four members. The boundaries of these members 

are the same as those for the four widespread lithologic subdivisions 

described earlier in this report. Informal descriptive member names 

are assigned to all except the one that has previously been called Winsor 

Formation (see fig. 2).

The Carmel Formation of the Zion Park region, as described by 

Wright and Dickey (1963a, b), includes Gregory's Winsor Formation. 

Consequently, several recent publications concerning these rocks do not 

use Winsor Formation, and a clarification of its status should be made. 

The author feels that it would be advantageous to retain the name 

Winsor in the Zion Park region and herein changes the rank of the 

Winsor to a member of the Carmel Formation. The name Winsor 

should not be used east of the Paunsaugunt fault (see fig. 1) where it 

has been applied to beds that are considerably younger than the beds 

included in the Winsor near Mount Carmel (J. C. Wright, written 

commun., 1966).

Although no type section was designated by Gregory, the description 

of the Winsor Formation in his section 13 (Gregory, 1950a, p. 126) 

might be considered as typical Winsor and it was measured in, or very 

near, Winsor Cove. Therefore Gregory's section is here designated as 

the typical section of the Winsor. The two units which comprise the 

Winsor described in section 13 are the same as units 21 and 22 in the 

section describing the type Carmel (Gregory and Moore, 1931, p. 73; 

this report, fig. 2).

REFERENCES CITED

Baker, A. A., Dane, C. H., and Keeside, J. B., Jr., 1936, Correlation of the Jurassic 

formations of parts of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 183, 66 p.

Cashion, W. B., 1967, Geology of the south flank of the Markagunt Plateau, northwest Kane County, Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol. Inv. Map T-494. (In 

press.)

Gilluly, James, and Reeside, J. B., Jr., 1928, Sedimentary rocks of the San Rafael 

Swell and some adjacent areas in eastern Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

150-D, p. 59-110.
CAEMEL FOEMATION, SOUTHWESTERN UTAH J9

Gregory, H. E., 1933, Colorado Plateau region: 16th Internat. Geol. Gong., Guidebook 18, 38 p.

 1948, Geology and geography of central Kane County, Utah: Geol. Soc. 

America Bull., v. 59, no. 3, p. 211-248.

 1950a, Geology and geography of the Zion Park region, Utah and Arizona: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 220, 200 p.

1950b, Geology of eastern Iron County, Utah: Utah Geol. and Mineralog.

Survey Bull. 37, 153 p. 

Gregory, H. E., and Moore, E. C., 1931, The Kaiparowits region, a geographic

and geologic reconnaissance of parts of Utah and Arizona: U.S. Geol. Survey

Prof. Paper 164, 161 p. 

Tmlay, E. W., 1964, Marine Jurassic pelecypods from central and southern Utah:

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 483-C, p. C1-C42, pis. 1-4. 

Sohl, N. F., 1965, Marine Jurassic gastropods, central and southern Utah: U.H.

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 503-D, p. D1-D29, pis. 1-5. 

Stokes, W. L., and Holmes, C. N., 1954, Jurassic rocks of south-central Utah, in

Geology of portions of the high plateaus and adjacent canyon lands, central

and south-central Utah, Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guidebook,

5th Ann. Field Conf., p. 34-41. 

Wright, J. C., and Dickey, D. D., 1963a, Relations of the Navajo and Carniol

Formations in southwest Utah and adjoining Arizona, in Short papers in

geology, hydrology, and topography: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 450-E,

p. E63-E67.

 1963b, Block diagram of the San Rafael Group and underlying strata in 

Utah and part of Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Oil and Gas Inv. Chart OC-63.

Contributions to 

Stratigraphy

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1244

This volume was published as 

separate chapters A-J
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

William T. Pecora, Director
CONTENTS

[Letters designate the separately published chapter®]

(A) Changes in stratigraphic nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 

1965, by George V. Cohee and Walter S. West

(B) Upper Ordovician formations in the Maysville area, Kentucky, by John 

H. Peck.

(C) Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks in the Gorozal quadrangle, northern 

Puerto Rico, by Arthur E. Nelson.

(D) Correlation of Upper Triassic and Triassic(?) formations between southwestern Utah and southern Nevada, by Richard F. Wilson and John 

H. Stewart.

(E) Permian rock units in the Glass Mountains, west Texas, by G. Arthur 

Cooper and Richard E. Grant.

(F) Otter Creek coral bed and its fauna, east central Kentucky, by George C. 

Simmons and William A. Oliver, Jr.

(G) Cambrian and Precambrian rocks of the Groom district, Nevada, southern 

Great Basin, by Harley Barnes and Robert L. Christiansen.

(H) The Martinsburg Formation (Middle and Upper Ordovician) in the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania-New Jersey, by A. A. Drake and J. B. 

Epstein.

(I) The Lincoln Creek Formation, Grays Harbor basin, southwestern Washington, by H. M. Beikman, W. W. Rau, and H. C. Wagner.

(J) Carmel Formation of the Zion Park region, southwestern Utah a review, 

by W. B. Cashion.

*U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 O - 257-578