San Pitch River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

San Pitch River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan SSaann PPiittcchh RRiivveerr WWaatteerrsshheedd Water Quality Management Plan Prepared by Millennium Science and Engineering Prepared for Utah Department of Environmental Quality/Division of Water Quality James A. Harris Harry Lewis Judd Project Manager Project Supervisor EPA Approval: November 18th , 2003 SAN PITCH RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The TMDL Process ........................................................................................ 2 1.2 Utah’s Watershed Approach .......................................................................... 3 2.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 5 2.1 Historic Perspective ....................................................................................... 5 2.2 Climate........................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Geology / Soils............................................................................................... 7 2.4 Land Use / Land Cover ................................................................................ 11 2.5 Surface Water Hydrology ............................................................................. 13 2.5.1 Middle San Pitch River - Water Budget for Typical Year................. 14 2.5.2 Lower San Pitch River - Water Budget for Typical Year.................. 16 2.6 Groundwater Hydrology ............................................................................... 17 3.0 CURRENT MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................ 20 3.1 STORET Locations ...................................................................................... 21 3.2 STORET Sampling Frequency..................................................................... 24 3.3 STORET Sampling Parameters ................................................................... 26 3.4 USGS gage stations..................................................................................... 26 4.0 WATER QUALITY................................................................................................ 27 4.1 Designated Segments and Beneficial Uses ................................................. 27 4.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards............................................................. 27 4.3 303(d) Listing Criteria................................................................................... 29 4.4 Water Quality Assessment........................................................................... 30 4.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 30 4.4.2 Groundwater ................................................................................... 34 4.5 Flow Characterization .................................................................................. 36 4.5.1 Surface Water and the San Pitch River........................................... 36 4.6 Pollutant Sources and Linkages................................................................... 39 4.6.1 Point Sources.................................................................................. 39 4.6.2 Nonpoint Sources............................................................................ 40 4.7 Load Calculations......................................................................................... 42 4.7.1 TMDL Equations and Terminology.................................................. 42 4.7.2 Approach and Assumptions ............................................................ 42 Load Calculation Alternatives...................................................... 43 Selection of STORET Stations.................................................... 44 TMDL Measurement Points ........................................................ 46 Critical Period.............................................................................. 46 Water Quality Target................................................................... 47 i 4.7.3 Middle San Pitch River.................................................................... 47 Point Source Load (Waste Load Allocation) ............................... 47 Nonpoint Source and Background Load (Load Allocation) ......... 47 Target Load................................................................................. 50 TMDL Load ................................................................................. 52 4.7.4 Lower San Pitch River..................................................................... 53 Point Source Load (Waste Load Allocation) ............................... 53 Nonpoint Source and Background Load (Load Allocation) ......... 53 Target Load................................................................................. 54 TMDL Load ................................................................................. 56 4.8 Source Loads and Load Allocation............................................................... 57 4.8.1 Middle San Pitch River Watershed.................................................. 57 4.8.2 Lower San Pitch River Watershed .................................................. 58 Natural Sources of TDS .............................................................. 58 Site-Specific Criteria ................................................................... 59 4.9 Best Management Practices ........................................................................ 61 5.0 TMDL.................................................................................................................... 64 6.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS .............................................................. 82 6.1 Statement of Need ....................................................................................... 82 6.1.1 Project Water Quality Priority .......................................................... 82 6.1.2 Project Goals................................................................................... 83 6.1.3 Objectives and Tasks...................................................................... 84 6.1.4 Permits............................................................................................ 87 6.1.5 Lead Sponsor.................................................................................. 87 6.1.6 Assurance of Project Operation and Maintenance .......................... 87 6.2 Coordination Plan......................................................................................... 88 6.2.1 Lead Project Sponsor...................................................................... 88 6.2.2 Local Support .................................................................................. 88 6.2.3 Coordination and Linkages.............................................................. 88 6.3 Evaluation and Monitoring Plan ................................................................... 89 6.3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan............................................................ 89 6.3.2 General Design and Parameters..................................................... 91 6.3.3 Data Management, Storage, and Reporting.................................... 92 6.3.4 Models used.................................................................................... 92 6.3.5 Long-Term Funding Plans for Operation and Maintenance............. 92 6.4 Public Involvement....................................................................................... 93 7.0 FUTURE LAND USE............................................................................................ 94 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 95 9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 98 ii SAN PITCH RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Climate and Precipitation............................................................................. 6 Table 2.2 Climatic Zones............................................................................................. 7 Table 2.3 Division of Water Rights Diversions .......................................................... 14 Table 2.4 Source of Groundwater Recharge............................................................. 18 Table 2.5 Sources of Groundwater Discharge .......................................................... 18 Table 3.1 STORET Sites in the San Pitch River Watershed ..................................... 21 Table 3.2 STORET Sites Without TDS or Specific Conductivity Data....................... 22 Table 3.3 Summary of TDS Data Available in the San Pitch River Database ........... 23 Table 3.4 STORET Sampling Frequency .................................................................. 25 Table 3.5 USGS Stream Gaging Stations in the San Pitch River Watershed............ 26 Table 4.1 Utah Water Quality Criteria for Class 4 Waters ......................................... 28 Table 4.2 303 (d) Criteria for Assessing Agricultural Beneficial Use Support............ 29 Table 4.3 Summary of TDS Data Available for the Upper San Pitch River (1995 - 2000) ............................................................................................ 31 Table 4.4 Summary of TDS Data Available for the Middle San Pitch River (1995 - 2000) ...........................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Distribution of the Native Trees of Utah Kimball S
    Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series Volume 11 | Number 3 Article 1 9-1970 Distribution of the native trees of Utah Kimball S. Erdman Department of Biology, Slippery Rock State College, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib Part of the Anatomy Commons, Botany Commons, Physiology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Erdman, Kimball S. (1970) "Distribution of the native trees of Utah," Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series: Vol. 11 : No. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib/vol11/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. MU3. CCy.P. ZOOL. LIBRARY DEC 41970 Brigham Young University HARVARD Science Bulletin UNIVERSITY) DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIVE TREES OF UTAH by Kimball S. Erdman BIOLOGICAL SERIES—VOLUME XI, NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 1970 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN BIOLOGICAL SERIES Editor: Stanley L. Welsh, Department of Botany, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Members of the Editorial Board: Tipton, Zoology Vernon J. Feeeon L. Anderson, Zoology Joseph R. Murdock, Botany WiLMER W. Tanner, Zoology Ex officio Members: A. Lester Allen, Dean, College of Biological and Agricultural Sciences Ernest L. Olson, Chairman, University Publications The Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series, publishes acceptable papers, particularly large manuscripts, on all phases of biology. Separate numbers and back volumes can be purchased from Pubhcation Sales, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Juab County, Utah Centennial County History Series
    A HISTORY OF fjuab County Pearl D. Wilson with June McNulty and David Hampshire UTAH CENTENNIAL COUNTY HISTORY SERIES A HISTORY OF JuaB County Pearl D. Wilson with June McNulty and David Hampshire luab County, one of Utah's earliest created counties, sits along the strategic north-south corridor of the state. Prehistoric and Native American Indian cultures roamed there, as did early Spanish priests and explorers, who left an important record of the area. Trappers and traders wandered the mountains and deserts that create stark contrasts in this geo­ graphically diverse county. Mark Twain, an early traveler through parts of luab, penned interesting insights of the county, which contained portions of the Pony Express and Overland Stage routes. Mormon pioneers arrived to establish farms and ranches. This was followed by the build­ ing of railroads and mineral exploration. Rail traffic for a vast region centered in Nephi, labeled "Little Chicago." To the west, the Tintic Mining District rose as one of Utah's richest gold and silver mining areas, attract­ ing a more ethnically diverse population. From majestic Mount Nebo to streams and lakes and the vast sand dunes of west Juab, the county contains many recreational possibili­ ties. Juab County is rich in history, geogra­ phy, and tradition; this book tells its story. ISBN: 0-913738-20-4 A HISTORY OF Juab County A HISTORY OF ffuaB County Pearl D. Wilson with June McNulty and David Hampshire 1999 Utah State Historical Society Juab County Commission Copyright © 1999 by Juab County Commission
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Forest Insect and Disease Conditons Report 2002-2004
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, The Bark Beetles, Fuels, and Fire Bibliography S.J. and Jessie E. 2005 Utah Forest Insect and Disease Conditons Report 2002-2004 K Matthews V DeBlander L Pederson P Mocettini D Halsey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/barkbeetles Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, Forest Biology Commons, Forest Management Commons, and the Wood Science and Pulp, Paper Technology Commons Recommended Citation Matthews, K., DeBlander, V., Pederson, L., Mocettini, P. and Halsey, D. (2005). Utah forest insect and disease conditons report 2002-2004. USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Intermountain Region, R4-OFO-TR-05012, 58 pp. This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, S.J. and Jessie E. at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Bark Beetles, Fuels, and Fire Bibliography by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Utah State and Private Forestry Forest Health Forest Insect and Disease Protection Intermountain Region Conditions Report R4-OFO-TR-05-12 2002 - 2004 State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands Butterfly Lake, Mirror Lake Highway Darren Blackford, USFS. FOREST HEALTH SPECIALISTS Forest Health Protection
    [Show full text]
  • County Grants Easement to Transwest After Concerns Are Allayed
    Serving East Juab County - A Nice Place To Live! Volume 117, No. 13 March 27, 2019 Single Copy Price $100 Water from aquifers in Nephi and Mona most likely mix underground By Myrna Trauntvein Times-News Correspondent Does the water from the aquifers in Nephi and Mona mix underground? It is likely that they do be- cause of data from a 1996 study entitled: “Hydrology and Simu- lation of Ground-Water Flow in Juab Valley, Juab County, Utah.” The study was filed with the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources as Techni- cal Publication No. 114 and was written by Susan A. Thi- ros, Bernard J. Stolp, Heidi K. Hadley and Judy I. Steiger and was prepared by the Unit- ed States Geological Survey in cooperation with the Central Utah Water Conservancy Dis- trict and the East Juab Water Conservancy District and is 113 pages long including maps and charts. MONA RESERVOIR ON THE FIRST DAY OF SPRING • This photo taken last Wednesday, the fi rst day of Spring, shows Mount Nebo in “Water discharging from a all it’s winter glory. refl ected in the water of Mona Reservoir as it fi lls during the runoff from this winter’s storms. Photo Mike Davis spring at Burraston Ponds is a mixture of about 70 percent ground water from a hypoth- esized flow path that extends Mona City offi cials want questions answered about down gradient from where Salt Creek enters Juab Valley and 30 percent from a hypothesized Houweling’s operations and plans for the future flow path from the base of the By Myrna Trauntvein man camp and not single fam- toes is projected to pay in the dressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Commemorative Booklet
    SEVENTY YEARS OF OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY GEOLOGY IN SANPETE VALLEY, UTAH Ohio State University School of Earth Sciences Columbus, Ohio June 2017 View to northwest from edge of Wasatch Plateau, showing Ephraim, Sanpete Valley, San Pitch Mountains, with Mt Nebo in the distance. [T. Wilson] SEVENTY YEARS OF OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY GEOLOGY IN SANPETE VALLEY, UTAH Ohio State University School of Earth Sciences 70th Geology Field Camp Commemorative Booklet Columbus, Ohio June 2017 [Recall] the fable of Antaeus, the famous giant of antiquity, who was invincible, as long as he had his feet on the ground. But let him be lifted ever so little off the ground, as he was later by Hercules, and his strength vanished, and he was helpless. We geologists, my friends, are exactly in the position of Antaeus. The only thing that has not changed one iota, not only in the sixty years of my own observation, but in the whole nearly 200 years of geology itself, is the vital necessity for field work. … As we push forward, let us ever keep it in mind, like Antaeus, we must forever keep our feet firmly planted on the ground! Edmund M. Spieker, March 20, 1972, addressing faculty and graduating students on the occasion of the departmental celebration of his receiving an honorary Doctor of Science degree from The Ohio State University Ed Spieker, Summer 1963. Photo courtesy S. Zahoni i CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 History Significant Dates for Ohio State University Summer Field Geology Courses (1947-2017)………………………………..4
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Water Resources of Northern Juab Valley, Utah
    UTAH STATE ENOI'NEER Technical Publication No. 11 GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF NORTHERN JUAB VALLEY, UTAH by L. J. Bjorklund Hydrologist, U. S. Geological Survey Prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with The Utah State Engineer 1967 CONTENTS Page Abstract _ 7 Introduction 8 Purpose and scope of the investigation 8 Location, extent, and population of the area __ _ 8 Previous investigations___ 10 Methods of investigation __ 10 Well- and spring-numbering system 11 Acknowledgments __ 11 Physical setting _ 11 Physiography and drainage_______________ __ 11 Climate 13 Geology _ _ 15 Rocks exposed in the area __ 15 Selected geologic formations and their water-bearing properties 15 Rocks of Paleozoic age __ 15 Arapien Shale 17 Indianola Group _ _ 17 Rocks of Tertiary age 17 Valley fill 18 Generalized structure of the valley 19 Ground water_______________________________________ 19 Source and recharge __ _ 19 Infiltration from streams 19 Salt Creek 20 Other perennial streams __ 21 Ephemeral and intermittent streams . ... 22 Infiltration from irrigation systems and water applied to fields 22 Subsurface inflow 22 Potential artificial recharge 23 -1- CONTENTS - (Continued) Page Ground water (continued) Occurrence 24 The valley fill______________ 24 Water-table conditions 24 Artesian conditions_ __ 24 Perched water-table conditions __ 25 Quantity of water in the valley fill 25 Configuration of the water surface __ . 26 Fluctuations of water levels .. 2:7 Long-term fluctuations_____ ..__ .. .. .. 2:7 Seasonal fluctuations __ ...__ 30 Movement . ._ _ _ ...._.... .... __ .. 34 Aquifer tests .. .. .. 35 Discharge ._____ _ . _ .. __ .. __ .. 37 Wells _.__ _ .
    [Show full text]
  • Current Manti-La Sal Land and Resource Management Plan
    PREFACE This Land and Resource Management Plan has been developed for the Manti-LaSal National Forest. For information pertaining to the development of this Forest Plan, details can be provided by: Forest Supervisor Manti-LaSal National Forest 599 West Price River Drive Price, Utah 84501 Applicable Laws and Regulations The principal acts providing direction in developing this Land and Resource Management Plan are: 1. Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 3. Forest Rangeland Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 4. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 RPA requires the Forest Service to conduct an assessment or inventory of the Nation's renewable resources and develop a program for use of the resources. The assessment includes the determination of the capability of all National Forest System lands to provide various goods and services. It also includes an estimation of future demands for those goods and services. Public Review and Appeal If any particular provision of this proposed action, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the proposed action and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The right to request an administrative appeal of the Regional decision to approve a forest plan is contained in 36 CFR 211.18 (d), which describes the appeal process. The appeal is limited to the issues raised during the planning process. Intermediate decisions made during the planning process prior to the approval or disapproval decisions are not reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Sevier River Basin
    June 1999 # # ! > Section 3 I .\ L ., Foreword I- , / l j\ .’ j_ 2 - Executive Summary ’ ” ’ _ ’ T ’ Introduction s Demographics and Economic Future ! ‘,_ “I I Water Supply and Use Management , /’ 7 Regulation/Institutional Considerations I ’ ’ T, 8 Water Funding Programs \\ 9 Water Planning and Development _I 10 Agricultural Water _ j , /! 11 Drinking Water -1 ,’ 12 ’ Water Quality % 13 Disaster and Emergency Response 14 Fisheries and Water-Related Wildlife : 15 Water-Related Recreation 16 ’ Federal Water Planning and Development 17 Water Conservation / 18 Industrial Water _, 19 Groundwater b / A Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions B Bibliography ’ I , / / : \ .’ / \ / I \ I i / : ! / ‘L -, State Water Plan Sevier River Basin Utah Board of Water Resources 1594 West North Temple, Suite 3 10 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6201 June 1999 Section One Sevier River Basin- State Water Plan Foreword The State Water Plan (1990) was prepared to again. Water users repeat this process along the provide a foundation for establishment of state entire length of the Sevier River. The water policy. Within the framework of water groundwater reservoirs are used for storage with policy planning, the state meets its obligation to recharge and discharge continually occurring, plan and implement programs to best serve the thus maintaining the downstream river flows. needs of the people. A complex management and distribution In addition to the State Water Plan, more system based on judicially decreed water rights detailed plans have been prepared for the Bear defines and protects the use and reuse of the river River, Cedar/Beaver, Kanab Creek/Virgin River, as it flows downstream.
    [Show full text]
  • San Pitch River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan
    SSSaaannn PPPiiitttccchhh RRRiiivvveeerrr WWWaaattteeerrrssshhheeeddd Water Quality Management Plan Developed under the leadership of the San Pitch River Watershed Stewardship Group January 2006 Sanpete County Soil Conservation District Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………….1-4 1.1 Purpose of the plan 1.2 Existing situation 1.3 Water Quality issues 1.4 Objectives/ Action Items/ Results 1.5 Expected results 2.0 PREFACE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5-6 2.1 Authority 2.1.1 Watershed Planning 2.1.2 TMDL’s Water Quality Standards 3.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7-11 3.1 Background on watershed planning process 3.2 Critical issue- water quality 3.3 Water quality issue resolution –TMDL 3.3.1 TMDL Process 3.3.2 Utah’s Watershed Approach 3.4 Current Projects/ Outreach 3.5 Nine Elements of 319 funded projects 3.6 Watershed Boundary 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED……………………………………………………………………………………….11-52 4.1 Location 4.2 Historic Perspective 4.3 Physical environment 4.3.1 Terrain 4.3.2 Geology/ Soils 4.3.3 Water 4.3.4 Climate 4.4 Water Quality Analysis 4.4.1 303(d) Listing Criteria 4.4.2 TMDL Analysis for total dissolved solids 4.4.3 Groundwater 4.4.4 Surface water and the San Pitch River 4.4.5 Point sources 4.4.6 Non point sources 4.4.7 TMDL load allocation and calculations 4.4.8 Total Phosphorus sources 4.4.9 Stream Habitat – SVAP 4.4.10 Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) Methods 4.4.11 Total Phosphorous Sources 4.5 Biological environment 4.5.1 Aquatic life 4.5.2
    [Show full text]
  • Yuba State Park Resource Management Plan May 2009
    Yuba State Park Resource Management Plan May 2009 Utah State Parks Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Planning Section 1594 West North Temple, Ste. 116 P.O. Box 146001 Salt Lake City, UT 84116-6001 (877) UT-PARKS stateparks.utah.gov i This page intentionally left blank ii Acknowledgements Yuba State Park Resource Management Planning Team Jay Christianson – NW Region Manager, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Neil Cook – Nephi, Utah Chris Evans – Assistant Park Manager, Yuba State Park Glenn Greenhalgh – Citizen Member, Board of Utah State Parks and Recreation Micki Bailey – Assistant Field Manager, Fillmore Field Office, USDI Bureau of Land Management Barry Monroe – Scipio, Utah Doug Neilson – Fillmore, Utah Jeff Rasmussen – Park Manager, Yuba State Park Dale Roper – Delta, Utah Jeff Sanders – Nephi, Utah Ray Schelble – Holladay, Utah Don Wiley – Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Other Participants Pete Wilson – Construction Operations Specialist, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Dan Clark – Planning and Development Manager, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Deena Loyola – Public Affairs Coordinator, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Shannon Peterson – Planner, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Rock Smith – Research Consultant, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Edie Trimmer – Planner, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Administration Mary Tullius – Director, Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation Bruce Hamilton – Deputy Director for Operations, Division
    [Show full text]
  • Class G Tables of Geographic Cutter Numbers
    G4212 PACIFIC AND MOUNTAIN STATES. REGIONS, G4212 NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. .G7 Great Basin [geological basin] .I3 Idaho and California Stage Road 1502 G4222 ROCKY MOUNTAIN STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G4222 FEATURES, ETC. .B4 Bear River [ID, UT & WY] .B6 Bonneville, Lake .C3 Caribou National Forest .C35 Caribou-Targhee National Forest .C65 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail .G7 Green River .G72 Green River Formation .M3 Mancos Shale .R6 Rocky Mountains 1503 G4232 PACIFIC STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, G4232 ETC. .C3 Cascade Range .C55 Coast Ranges .C6 Coasts .I5 Interstate 5 .P3 Pacific Crest Trail 1504 G4242 PACIFIC NORTHWEST. REGIONS, NATURAL G4242 FEATURES, ETC. .B45 Belt Supergroup .C62 Columbia River .I5 Inland Empire .K3 Kaniksu National Forest .K6 Kootenai River .N4 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .P46 Pend Oreille River .S6 Snake River [Wyo.-Wash.] .S62 Snake River [wild & scenic river] 1505 G4252 MONTANA. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. G4252 .A2 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness [MT & WY] .A23 Absaroka Range [MT & WY] .A6 Anaconda Pintler Wilderness .A63 Andesite Mountain .A8 Ashley Lake State Recreation Area .B12 Baker, Lake [Fallon County] .B126 Baker Watershed Dam .B13 Bannack State Park .B17 Bannock Pass .B2 Bearpaw Mountains .B25 Bearpaw Ski Area .B28 Bearpaw State Recreation Area .B29 Beartooth Mountains [MT & WY] .B3 Beartooth Plateau .B35 Beartooth State Recreation Area .B4 Beaverhead National Forest .B42 Beaverhead River .B423 Beavertail Hill State Recreation Area .B425 Beef Trail Ski Area .B432 Benton Lake National
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Society of America; Field
    BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GEOJ (3GY GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 1997 ANNUAL MEETING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH PART2 TWO EDITED BY PAUL KARL LINK AND BART J. KOWALLIS VOLUME 42 1997 MESOZOIC TO RECENT GEOLOGY OF UTAH Edited by Paul Karl Link and Bart J. Kowallis BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GEOLOGY STUDIES Volume 42, Part 11, 1997 CONTENTS Triassic and Jurassic Macroinvertebrate Faunas of Utah: Field Relationships and Paleobiologic Significance ........................................ Carol M. Tang and David J. Bottjer Part 2: Trace fossils, hardgrounds and ostreoliths in the Carmel Formation (Middle Jurassic) of southwestern Utah ...........................................Mark A. Wilson Part 3: Low-diversity faunas of the Middle Jurassic Carmel Formation and their paleobiological implications ................................Carol M. Tang and David J. Bottjer Part 4: Paleoecology of Lower Triassic marine carbonates in the southwestern USA ....................... ......................................................David J. Bottjer and Jennifer K. Schubert Structure and Kinematics of a Complex Impact Crater, Upheaval Dome, Southeast Utah .........................Bryan J. Kriens, Eugene M. Shoemaker, and Ken E. Herkenhoff Stratigraphy, and structure of the Sevier thrust belt, and proximal foreland-basin system in central Utah: A transect from the Sevier Desert to the Wasatch Plateau ...................T. E Lawton, D. A. Sprinkel, F! G. DeCelles, G. Mitra, A. J. Sussman,, and M. l? Weiss Lower to Middle Cretaceous Dinosaur Faunas of the Central Colorado Plateau: A Key to Understanding 35 Million Years of Tectonics, Sedimentology, Evolution, and Biogeography ..................... James I. Kirkland, Brooks Britt, Donald L. Burge, Ken Carpenter, Richard Cifelli, Frank DeCourten, Jeffrey Eaton, Steve Hasiotis, and Tim Lawton Sequence Architecture, and Stacking Patterns in the Cretaceous Foreland Basin, Utah: Tectonism versus Eustasy ........................................
    [Show full text]