DOCSLIB.ORG

Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2248 ;.<^1^^h^% Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado By Walter F. Holmes and Briant A. Kimball U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2248 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1987 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Holmes, Walter F. Ground water in the southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado (Water-supply paper ; 2248) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs. No.: I 19.13:2248 1. Water, Underground-Uinta Basin (Utah and Colo.). I. Kimball, Briant A. II. Title. III. Series: U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper ; 2248. GB1027.U38H64 1985 553.7'9'09792 86-600366 CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Physical setting 2 Physiography 2 Climate 2 General geology 4 Ground water 6 Alluvial aquifers 6 Recharge 7 Leakage from consolidated-rock aquifers 7 Infiltration from streamflow 7 Movement 8 Storage 8 Discharge 8 Springs 8 Evapotranspiration 9 Wells 11 Subsurface flow to consolidated-rock aquifers 11 Quality 12 Chemical and physical characteristics 12 Mass-transfer model 15 BirdVnest aquifer 21 Recharge 22 Infiltration from Evacuation Creek 22 Downward leakage from the Uinta Formation 22 Movement 22 Storage 22 Discharge 22 White River 22 Upward leakage to Bitter Creek 22 Digital-computer model of flow system 22 Design 23 Calibration 26 Simulated effects of oil-shale development 26 Dewatering 26 Reservoir construction 26 Water supply 27 Quality 30 Chemical and physical characteristics 30 Mass-transfer model 32 Douglas Creek aquifer 33 Recharge 34 Precipitation 34 Infiltration from streams 35 Movement 35 Storage 35 Discharge 35 Springs in the outcrop area of the aquifer 35 Seepage to the White and Green Rivers and major tributaries 35 Wells 35 Contents III Ground water Continued Douglas Creek aquifer Continued Digital-computer model of flow system 35 Design 35 Calibration 37 Simulated effects of oil-shale development 37 Quality 37 Chemical and physical characteristics 37 Mass-transfer model 44 Summary 44 References cited 46 PLATE 1. Map showing ground-water and surface-water monitoring sites in the south­ eastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado (in pocket) FIGURES 1. Map showing location of study area and proposed areas of oil-shale mining, 1979 3 2. Diagrams showing well- and spring-numbering systems used in Utah and Colorado 4 3. Diagrammatic geohydrologic section of part of the southeastern Uinta Basin showing direction of ground-water movement 6 4. Hydrographs showing fluctuations of water levels in three observation wells completed in alluvial aquifers 9 5. Map and diagrams showing variation in mean dissolved-solids concentrations and chemical character of water in the alluvial aquifers 14 6-10. Graphs showing: 6. Variation of sodium with chloride in water from the Bitter Creek alluvial aquifer 16 7. Variation of calcium with chloride in water from the Bitter Creek alluvial aquifer 17 8. Variation of alkalinity with chloride in water from the Bitter Creek alluvial aquifer 18 9. Variation of magnesium with chloride in water from the Bitter Creek alluvial aquifer 18 10. Variation of sulfate with chloride in water from the Bitter Creek alluvial aquifer 19 11. Hydrographs showing relation of water levels in wells (D-10-24) 20add-2 and (D-10-24)12cda-l, corrected for changes in barometric pres­ sure, to discharge of the White River at gaging station 09306500 23 12-17. Maps showing: 12. Aquifer boundaries, grid size, constant-head nodes, and leak­ age nodes used in the digital-computer model of the bird's-nest aquifer 24 13. Hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient of the birds'-nest aquifer used in the digital-computer model 25 14. Potentiometric-surface contours of the bird's-nest aquifer computed by the digital-computer model 27 15. Distribution of recharge and discharge, computed by the digital- computer model for the bird's-nest aquifer 28 16. Drawdown in bird's-nest aquifer after 20 years of simulated with­ drawals, computed by the digital-computer model 29 17. Variation in mean dissolved-solids concentrations and chemical character of water in part of the bird's-nest aquifer 31 IV Contents 18. Graph showing a plot of alkalinity versus sulfate in water from the bird's- nest aquifer showing the reaction path calculated by the mass- transfer model 34 19. Graph showing plot of pH versus chloride in the bird's-nest aquifer showing the reaction path calculated by the mass-transfer model 34 20-25. Maps showing: 20. Aquifer boundaries, grid size, and leakage nodes used in the digital- computer model of the Douglas Creek aquifer 36 21. Transmissivity of the Douglas Creek aquifer used in the digital- computer model 38 22. Potentiometric-surface contours of the Douglas Creek aquifer, computed by the digital-computer model 39 23. Distribution of recharge and discharge, computed by the digital- computer model for the Douglas Creek aquifer 40 24. Drawdown in the Douglas Creek aquifer after 20 years of simulated withdrawals, computed by the digital-computer model 41 25. Variation in mean dissolved-solids concentrations and chemical character of water in the Douglas Creek aquifer 42 26. Graph showing a plot of alkalinity versus sulfate in the Douglas Creek aquifer showing the reaction path calculated by the mass-transfer model 45 TABLES 1. General lithologic character and water-bearing properties of exposed geologic units 5 2. Summary of ground-water budget for alluvial aquifers 7 3. Summary of estimated ground-water storage and recoverable water in storage in alluvial aquifers 8 4. Summary of evapotranspiration by phreatophytes from alluvial aquifers 11 5. Summary of chemical quality of water in the major alluvial aquifers 12 6. Summary of mass-transfer model of the Bitter Creek alluvial aquifer 20 7. Summary of ground-water budget for the bird's-nest aquifer 21 8. Summary of chemical quality of water in the bird's-nest aquifer 32 9. Summary of mass-transfer model of the bird's-nest aquifer 33 10. Summary of ground-water budget for the Douglas Creek aquifer 35 11. Summary of chemical quality of water in the Douglas Creek aquifer 43 12. Summary of mass-transfer model of the Douglas Creek aquifer 45 Contents Metric Conversion Factors Most values in this report are given in inch-pound units. Conversion factors to metric units are shown below. Multiply By To obtain Acre 0.4047 Square hectometer 0.004047 Square kilometer Acre-foot 0.001233 Cubic hectometer 1233 Cubic meter Barrel 0.1590 Cubic meter Cubic foot 0.02832 Cubic meter per second per second Foot 0.3048 Meter Foot per day 0.3048 Meter per day Foot per mile 0.1894 Meter per kilometer Foot per second 0.3048 Meter per second Foot squared 0.0929 Meter squared per day per day Gallon 3.785 Liter 0.003785 Cubic meter Gallon per 0.06309 Liter per minute second Inch 25.40 Millimeter 2.540 Centimeter Mile 1.609 Kilometer Micromhos per 1.000 Microsiemens per centimeter at centimeter at 25° 25° Celsius Celsius Square mile 2.590 Square kilometer Chemical concentration is given only in metric units; milligrams per liter or micrograms per liter. Milligrams per liter is a unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of constituent per unit volume (liter) of water. One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to 1 milligram per liter. For concentrations less than 7,000 milligrams per liter, the numerical value is about the same as for concentrations in parts per million. Chemical concentration in terms of ionic interaction values is given in milliequivalents per liter. Milliequivalents per liter is numerically equal to equivalents per million. Water temperature is given in degrees Celsius (°C), which can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit I°F) by the following equation: °F = 1.8(°C) + 32. National Geodetic Vertical Datum of l'>2(> (NGVD of l ()2<)): a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called mean sea level. VI Conversion Factors Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado £y Walter F. Holmes and Briant A. Kimball Abstract supply about 10,000 acre-feet of water per year at that site, for a period of 20 years. Downdraw after 20 years of pump­ The potential for developing oil-shale resources in the ing would exceed 250 feet near the simulated well field. southeastern Uinta Basin of Utah and Colorado has created Based on the results of the model simulation, it is estimated the need for information on the quantity and quality of that the aquifer could simultaneously supply another 10,000 water available in the area. This report describes the avail­ acre-feet of water per year in the northern part of the ability and chemical quality of ground water, which might study area, but some interference between well fields could provide a source or supplement of water supply for an be expected. oil-shale industry. The Douglas Creek aquifer is recharged by precipita­ Ground water in the southeastern Uinta Basin occurs tion and stream infiltration at an average rate of about in three major aquifers. Alluvial aquifers of small areal 20.000 acre-feet per year. Discharge is estimated to be about extent are present i n val ley-f i 11 deposits of six major drai nages. the same and is primarily through springs and diffuse seepage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Threatened, Endangered, Candidate & Proposed Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 MARCH 2011 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE & PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. Review your county list of threatened and endangered species and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Conservation Data Center (CDC) GIS T&E database to see if any of these species have been identified in your area of work. Additional information on these listed species can be found on the USDI FWS web site under “endangered species”. Consideration of these species during the planning process and determination of potential impacts related to scheduled work will help in the conservation of these rare plants. Contact your Plant Material Specialist, Plant Materials Center, State Biologist and Area Biologist for additional guidance on identification of these plants and NRCS responsibilities related to the Endangered Species Act. 2 Table of Contents Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 4 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 6 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 8 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 10 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 12 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 14 Astragalus limnocharis var.
    [Show full text]
  • Newell C. Remington
    A HISTORY OF THE GILSONITE INDUSTRY by NEWELL C. REMINGTON m A HISTORY OF THE GILSONITE INDUSTRY by Newell C. Remington This paper was submitted by the author in unpublished form in April, 1959, to the Department of History, University of Utah, in partial fulfillment of the re­ quirements for a Master of Science Degree. Typed by Pauline Love and Lithographed by Robert L. Jensen Salt Lake City, Utah Digital Im age©2006, Newell C. Remington. All rights reserved. Copyright Newell C. Remington 1959 Manufactured in the United States of America Digital Im age©2006, Newell C. Remington. All rights reserved. DEDICATION --To the Indomitable miners who, with crude imple­ ments and disregard for hazards and physical discomfort, helped to develop a prosperous, modern gilsonite industry. Digital Im age©2006, Newell C. Remington. All rights reserved. PREFACE In 1957 the American Gilsonite Company opened a revolu­ tionary refinery near Grand Junction, Colorado, which had cost them $16,000,000 to build, and began reducing the gilsonite--a solid hydrocarbon--to high-grade gasoline and pure carbon-coke at the rate of about 700 tons per day. Just as incredible is the fact that gilsonite was and is conveyed from Bonanza, Utah, across the precipitous Book Cliffs to the refinery through a pipeline. The opening of this magnificent plant was eighty-eight years removed from the year 1869 when the blacksmith of the Whiterocks Indian Agency attempted to b u m gilsonite as coal in his forge with rather dreadful results. During the interval so many human events occurred in relation to gilsonite--a rare bitumen closely related to grahamite and glance pitch--that it was felt to be an adequate and deserving topic for thorough historical treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Petroleum Exploration Plays and Resource Estimates, 1989, Onshore United States-­ Region 3, Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Petroleum Exploration Plays and Resource Estimates, 1989, Onshore United States-­ Region 3, Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range By Richard B. Powers, Editor1 Open-File Report 93-248 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Denver, Colorado 1993 CONTENTS Introduction Richard B. Powers................................................................................................ 1 Commodities assessed.................................................................................................. 2 Areas of study.............................................................................................................. 2 Play discussion format................................................................................................. 5 Assessment procedures and methods........................................................................... 5 References cited........................................................................................................... 7 Glossary....................................................................................................................... 8 Region 3, Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range................................................................... 9 Geologic Framework
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Proprietary Resume -- 1993
    PROFESSIONAL VITAE REX D. COLE, Ph.D., P.G. Professor of Geology Colorado Mesa University February, 2014 EDUCATION Ph.D. in Geology (1975) University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Advisors: Dr. M.D. Picard and Dr. M.L. Jensen B.S. in Geology (1970) Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO A.S. in Geology (1968) Mesa College, Grand Junction, CO High School Diploma (1966) Delta High School, Delta, CO PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Registered Professional Geologist (Wyoming) since 1992; Number PG-463 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2011- Professor of Geology; Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Colorado Mesa University, Grand Junction, CO; also Geology Program Coordinator from 2009-2013. 1999-11 Professor of Geology; Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Mesa State College, Grand Junction, CO; also Geology Program Coordinator. 1995-99 Associate Professor of Geology; Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Mesa State College, Grand Junction, CO. 1983-95 Sr. Advising Geologist; Unocal Corp., Production and Development Technology Group, Brea, CA. 1982- Consulting Geologist; R.D. Cole and Associates, Grand Junction, CO. 1980-82 Manager of Geotechnical Operations; Multi Mineral Corp., Grand Junction, CO. 1978-80 Staff Geoscientist IV; Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, Grand Junction, CO. 1975-77 Assistant Professor of Geology; Department of Geology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. 1973-75 Exploration Geologist; American Smelting and Refining Company, Salt Lake City, UT (part time). 1970-73 Teaching Fellow and Research Assistant; Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (academic months). 1971 Exploration Geologist; Inspiration Development Company, Spokane, WA (summer). 1970 Exploration Geologist; Duval Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT (summer).
    [Show full text]
  • UINTA-PICEANCE BASIN PROVINCE (020) by Charles W
    UINTA-PICEANCE BASIN PROVINCE (020) By Charles W. Spencer INTRODUCTION This province trends west-east, extending from the thrust belt in north-central Utah, on the west, to the southern Park Range and Sawatch Uplift in northwestern Colorado on the east. The northern boundary is defined roughly by the Uinta Mountain Uplift, and the southern boundary is located along a line north of the axis of the Uncompahgre Uplift. The province covers an area of about 40,000 sq mi and encompasses the Uinta, Piceance, and Eagle Basins. Sedimentary rocks in the basin range in age from Cambrian to Tertiary. Spencer and Wilson (1988) provided a summary of the stratigraphy and petroleum geology of the province. The Uinta and Piceance Basins were formed mainly in Tertiary time. The Eagle Basin is a structural feature east of the Piceance Basin and coincides in part with the Pennsylvanian-age Eagle Evaporite Basin, although the present-day Eagle Basin is much smaller than the paleodepositional basin. Numerous oil and gas fields have been discovered in the Uinta and Piceance basins; however, there have been no fields discovered in the Eagle structural basin. The lack of exploration success in the Eagle Basin is attributed to very thermal maturity levels in source rocks (Johnson and Nuccio, 1993) and the generally poor quality of reservoirs, and although gas might be present, the expected volume is small. The Uinta Basin of Utah is about 120 mi long and is bounded on the west by the thrust belt and on the east by the Douglas Creek Arch. It is nearly 100 mi wide and bounded on the north side by the Uinta Mountains Uplift.
    [Show full text]
  • Tectonic Evolution of Western Colorado and Eastern Utah D
    New Mexico Geological Society Downloaded from: http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/32 Tectonic evolution of western Colorado and eastern Utah D. L. Baars and G. M. Stevenson, 1981, pp. 105-112 in: Western Slope (Western Colorado), Epis, R. C.; Callender, J. F.; [eds.], New Mexico Geological Society 32nd Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 337 p. This is one of many related papers that were included in the 1981 NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Annual NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebooks Every fall since 1950, the New Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) has held an annual Fall Field Conference that explores some region of New Mexico (or surrounding states). Always well attended, these conferences provide a guidebook to participants. Besides detailed road logs, the guidebooks contain many well written, edited, and peer-reviewed geoscience papers. These books have set the national standard for geologic guidebooks and are an essential geologic reference for anyone working in or around New Mexico. Free Downloads NMGS has decided to make peer-reviewed papers from our Fall Field Conference guidebooks available for free download. Non-members will have access to guidebook papers two years after publication. Members have access to all papers. This is in keeping with our mission of promoting interest, research, and cooperation regarding geology in New Mexico. However, guidebook sales represent a significant proportion of our operating budget. Therefore, only research papers are available for download. Road logs, mini-papers, maps, stratigraphic charts, and other selected content are available only in the printed guidebooks. Copyright Information Publications of the New Mexico Geological Society, printed and electronic, are protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the Upper Colorado River Basin
    Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series Volume 9 Number 2 Article 1 12-1967 Birds of the Upper Colorado River Basin C. Lynn Hayward Department of Zoology and Entomology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 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 Hayward, C. Lynn (1967) "Birds of the Upper Colorado River Basin," Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series: Vol. 9 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib/vol9/iss2/1 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]. $ NA-<p£< °1 Brigham Young University Science Bulletin BIRDS OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN US. COM P. ZOGL. LIBRARY MAR2 2«J*8 "Y HARV£ UNIVEh C. LYNN HAYWARD BIOLOGICAL SERIES — VOLUME IX, NUMBER 2 DECEMBER, 1967 BRSGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN BIOLOGICAL SERIES Editor: Dohald M. Allred, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Si Associate Editor: Earl M. Chbistensen, Department of Botany, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Members of the Editorial Board: David L. Hanks, Botany J. V. Beck, Bacteriology Wilmer W. Tanner, Zoology, Chairman of the Board Stanley Welsh, Botany W. Derby Laws, Agronomy C. Lynn Hayward, Zoology Ex officio Members: Rudger H. Walker,1 Dean, College of Biological and Agricultural ScienceSciences Ernest L.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Recovery at Six Prehistoric Sites, Uinta Basin Replacement
    DATA RECOVERY AT SIX PREHISTORIC SITES, UINTA BASIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT BONNEVILLE UNIT, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH By: Monique M. Pomerleau and Heather M. Weymouth Prepared for: TEC, Inc. 2496 Old Ivy Road, Suite 300 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 On behalf of: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission 102 West 500 South, #315 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Prepared by: Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C. 3670 Quincy Avenue, Suite 203 Ogden, Utah 84403 SFS Special Use Permit DCN993904 Cultural Resource Report No. 1588 March 02, 2009 Freedom of Information Act Exception Notice This document has been modified from its original form. Information concerning the location of archaeological resources has been concealed or removed to satisfy requirements of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended (16 U.S.C 470hh(a); 43 CFR 7.18). Such information may not be made available to the public and is excepted under the Freedom of Information Act. This document, in its current form is available for release to the public without further restrictions. ABSTRACT In Fall 2006, the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (URMCC) requested that Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C. (Sagebrush), as a partner company with TEC, Inc., of Charlottesville, Virginia, conduct data recovery at six prehistoric sites. This work is part of ongoing mitigation efforts associated with completion of the High Mountain Lakes Stabilization Project, an element of the Uinta Basin Replacement Project (UBRP) of the Central Utah Project (CUP), located in northwestern Duchesne County, Utah. This stabilization project is associated with the transfer of water storage rights from 13 high mountain lakes to a downstream reservoir that was enlarged as part of the UBRP.
    [Show full text]
  • UINT a M OUNTAINS Green River Basin Washakie Basin Uinta Basin
    112°W 111°W 110°W 109°W 108°W 107°W 15 Iona C Copper National Forest Ammon A Jackson Mountain R National Park System Idaho Falls IB O Doubletop Peak U Oil Shale Basin 89 26 R Pavillion Shoshoni A WIND RIVER RANGE Tar Sands Area N G E 189 Gannett Peak 20 Grays Etna SHOSHONE Fort Washakie 43°N 43°N Lake Riverton 89 BASIN Blackfoot Pinedale Milford Reservoir Hudson Daniel Garfield Peak Bancroft Afton Wind River Peak Fairview Smoot Wyoming Peak Atlantic Peak GRANITE MTN Lava Hot S Springs Meade Peak Big Piney Jeffrey City Downey Georgetown 91 Whiskey Peak E 30 ID WY G La Barge Bairoil N Saint Preston A Charles GREAT R Fontenelle Eden Franklin Reservoir DIVIDE 42°N ID R 42°N Bridger Peak Fossil Butte 287 y UT E National d Bear n BASIN Richmond V a I S Smithfield Lake Monument Big R Frontier Laketown Sinclair Kemmerer Superior 30 Garland R Green River Logan Diamondville A Monument Peak Randolph Reliance HoneyvilleHyrum E Basin 80 Wamsutter B Corinne Granger Brigham City Rock Springs Perry Green River Willard North Ogden Evanston Lyman Washakie Ogden Fort Bridger Mountain Flaming Bridger Peak South Ogden View Basin Roy 189 Aspen Gorge Layton Reservoir Henefer WY 41°N 41°N Morgan WY Manila Hiawatha CO Centerville Coalville UT Bountiful ELKHEAD CO 89 Kings Peak 191 UT MTNS 215 Park City T A I N S Kamas M O U N Salt Lake U I N T A City Midway Craig Hayden Riverton Maeser Dinosaur National Monument Neola Vernal D Lehi YAMPA A Pleasant Grove N American Roosevelt H F Orem PLATEAU I O Fork 40 L Oak Creek Utah Provo L R S T Lake Springville H Yampa
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Geologic Evolution of the Colorado Plateau
    Geological Society of America 3300 Penrose Place P.O. Box 9140 Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 357-1000 • fax 303-357-1073 www.geosociety.org This PDF file is subject to the following conditions and restrictions: Copyright © 2009, The Geological Society of America, Inc. (GSA). All rights reserved. Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in other subsequent works and to make unlimited copies for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science. For any other use, contact Copyright Permissions, GSA, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA, fax 303-357-1073, [email protected]. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society. This file may not be posted on the Internet. The Geological Society of America Memoir 204 2009 Structural geologic evolution of the Colorado Plateau George H. Davis Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA Alex P. Bump BP Exploration and Production Technology, Houston, Texas 77079, USA ABSTRACT The Colorado Plateau is composed of Neoproterozoic, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks overlying mechanically heterogeneous latest Paleoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic crystalline basement containing shear zones. The structure of the plateau is dominated by ten major basement-cored uplifts and associated mono- clines, which were constructed during the Late Cretaceous through early Tertiary Laramide orogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Uintah Basin Planning for the Future
    UINTAH BASIN PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE November 2016 By: Utah Division of Water Resources With input from other State of Utah water agencies (See inside-back cover for participating agencies) U T A H S T A T E W A T E R P L A N This document and other state water plans are available online at: www.water.utah.gov ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Board of Water Resources acknowledges the following staff members of the Utah Division of Water Resources for their dedication and valuable contribution to this document: Eric Millis - Director Todd Adams - Deputy Director Bill Leeflang - Assistant Director Todd Stonely - Section Chief, River Basin Planning (Project Manager) Mike Suflita - Senior Engineer, River Basin Planning (Primary Author) Ken Short - Senior Engineer, River Basin Planning Russ Barrus - Engineer, River Basin Planning Eric Klotz - Section Chief, Water Conservation, Education and Use Dave Cole - Section Chief, Hydrology and Computer Applications (Retired) John Holman - Section Chief, Technical Services Adam Clark - Senior GIS Analyst, Technical Services The board also extends its gratitude to individual reviewers from other state agencies (see inside back cover) and members of the Uintah Basin Planning Advisory Group, who helped review the document for accuracy, provided insight and data, or otherwise lent their support. Many of these people provided the division with valuable written and oral comments, all of which have been carefully considered and incorporated where possible. Without all these contributions, the product before you would be incomplete. James A. Lemmon, Chair Steve Farrell, Vice Chair N. Gawain Snow Norman L. Johnson David S. Humphreys Charles Holmgren H.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation
    Chapter 2: Biogeographic, Cultural, and Historical Setting Hanna K. Olson and Don W. Fallon Introduction businesses and development that affect socioeconomic and natural environments. Climate, biogeography, natural resource conditions, The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) and management issues differ considerably from Idaho to encompasses unique landscapes within the Intermountain Nevada, and from western Wyoming to the southern border Region of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), from rugged of Utah. To capture how these differences influence poten- mountains to deep canyons, from alpine snowfields to tial climate change effects and adaptation strategies, the wild and scenic rivers (fig. 1.1). The area defined by the IAP region was divided into six subregions that are detailed boundaries of the Intermountain Region contains both in this assessment: the Middle Rockies, Southern Greater private and Federally owned lands, including 12 national Yellowstone, Uintas and Wasatch Front, Plateaus Great forests and 22 national parks. Before Euro-Americans Basin and Semi Desert, and Intermountain Semi Desert sub- settled this area, Native American tribes occupied the land regions (fig. 1.1, table 2.1). The Intermountain Semi Desert for thousands of years. With Euro-American settlement contains no national forests, but is identified as a discrete came timber extraction, mining, grazing, water extraction, area that may be of interest to those outside the USFS. Each and increased recreation to the region. Urban growth has subregion is briefly characterized in the next section. increased significantly during recent decades, bringing new Table 2.1—Subregions within national forests and national forests within subregions of the Intermountain Adaptation Partnership region.
    [Show full text]