Sevier Plateau was uplifted along <strong>the</strong> Sevier fault zone at least 6000 feet (2000m). Anderson (1987) provided evidence that basin-fill deposits once filled <strong>the</strong>ancestral Sevier Valley to a depth at least 1000 feet (300 m) above <strong>the</strong> modernriver where it cuts through Circleville Canyon, immediately north <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> map area,showing that Circleville Canyon was cut by superposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sevier Riveracross <strong>the</strong> resistant Spry intrusion and vent-facies rocks <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mount DuttonFormation.TvfUpper Tertiary fine-grained basin fill (Miocene) – Light-brown, pinkish-gray,and white tuffaceous mudstone, siltstone, fine-grained sandstone, and localdiatomite; moderately to poorly consolidated; laminated to thick beds, locallywith small gastropods; contains few thin beds <strong>of</strong> peloidal micritic limestone;exposed along Sevier Valley sou<strong>the</strong>ast <strong>of</strong> Panguitch; likely deposited in smalllake basins and floodplains (Moore and Straub, 1995); exposed thickness about100 feet (30 m).unconformityMarkagunt megabreccia (lower Miocene) – Structurally chaotic assemblage <strong>of</strong>Miocene and Oligocene regional ash-flow tuff, local volcanic rock, and lessersedimentary strata that covers much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> central and nor<strong>the</strong>rn Markagunt Plateau;mapping and stratigraphic studies during <strong>the</strong> 1970s to 1990s show how understanding <strong>of</strong>this complex unit has evolved and continues to be controversial, as summarized byMaldonado and o<strong>the</strong>rs (1992), Anderson (1993), Moore and Nealey (1993), Sable andMaldonado (1997a), Hatfield and o<strong>the</strong>rs (2003, 2004), Moore and o<strong>the</strong>rs (2004), andRowley and o<strong>the</strong>rs (in preparation). Sable and Maldonado (1997a) noted that fourseparate rock units have been termed <strong>the</strong> megabreccia, including (1) primary volcanicmudflow deposits, (2) megabreccia that resulted from collapse <strong>of</strong> high-angle fault scarps,(3) megabreccia associated with <strong>the</strong> Red Hills shear zone (Maldonado and o<strong>the</strong>rs, 1989,1992; Maldonado, 1995), and (4) <strong>the</strong> principal mass <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Markagunt megabreccia thatcovers much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> central and nor<strong>the</strong>rn Markagunt Plateau; to this we add a fifth unit,namely unconsolidated megabreccia rubble. Sable and Maldonado (1997a) restricted <strong>the</strong>term to unit (4), with which we concur, noting that unit 1 consists <strong>of</strong> primary volcanosedimentarybreccia, likely <strong>the</strong> alluvial facies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 22-32 Ma Mount Dutton Formation;that unit 2 is now known to be a large, modern landslide complex below Black Ledge(Maldonado and o<strong>the</strong>rs, 1997; Rowley and o<strong>the</strong>rs, in preparation); and that unit 3 isgeographically separate from, but may be a dismembered part <strong>of</strong>, <strong>the</strong> main mass <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Markagunt megabreccia. We interpret <strong>the</strong> unconsolidated rubble breccia (<strong>the</strong> fifth unit),located south <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main mass <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Markagunt megabreccia, to be simply <strong>the</strong>wea<strong>the</strong>ring product <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Markagunt megabreccia – residuum, colluvium, landslide andcollapse material, and alluvium, here collectively mapped as QTbx – that is commonlypresent at a lower structural level along its distal sou<strong>the</strong>rn margin (such rubble is alsopresent on <strong>the</strong> main mass <strong>of</strong> megabreccia, but it is not practical to differentiate such lateTertiary and Quaternary wea<strong>the</strong>ring products where <strong>the</strong>y overlie <strong>the</strong> rubble <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Miocene megabreccia itself). Hatfield and o<strong>the</strong>rs (2003, 2004), Moore and o<strong>the</strong>rs (2004),27
and Rowley and o<strong>the</strong>rs (in preparation) mapped or called this rubble (here mapped asQTbx) “Markagunt megabreccia,” although <strong>the</strong>y noted its unconsolidated nature.Most reports describe <strong>the</strong> megabreccia as consisting <strong>of</strong> house-size to city-blocksizeblocks, or even blocks that are as much as one square mile (2.5 km 2 ) in size, but inthis map area (which covers only <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> megabreccia outcrop belt), wesee <strong>the</strong> megabreccia principally as a large sheet, tens <strong>of</strong> square miles in extent, <strong>of</strong> mostlyintact Isom Formation and comparatively minor amounts <strong>of</strong> thin underlying Wah WahSprings and Brian Head Formations and overlying mafic block and ash-flow tuff, BearValley Formation, and Mount Dutton Formation that has moved more or less as acoherent mass and remained in proper stratigraphic order. Exposures <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> megabrecciaare limited so it is difficult to ascertain attitudes <strong>of</strong> individual units, but outcrop patternssuggest that most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> strata within <strong>the</strong> megabreccia, and <strong>the</strong> megabreccia as a whole,dips gently east following <strong>the</strong> regional dip <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> plateau. Only in a few locations in <strong>the</strong>map area, as northwest <strong>of</strong> Castle Valley and north <strong>of</strong> Bunker Creek in <strong>the</strong> SW1/4 section35, T. 35 S., R. 8 W., are strata seen to dip moderately 20° to 25° nor<strong>the</strong>ast. Clearly <strong>the</strong>remust be faults within <strong>the</strong> megabreccia that bound isolated tilted blocks such as <strong>the</strong>se, but<strong>the</strong>y are not readily discernable on aerial photographs and are thus impractical to map at1:100,000 scale.The basal slip surface <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Markagunt megabreccia generally dips gently east(mimicking <strong>the</strong> regional dip <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> plateau because it was tilted with underlying stratafollowing its emplacement) and south (because <strong>the</strong> inferred source <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> megabrecciawas to <strong>the</strong> north; Sable and Maldonado, 1997a; Anderson, 2001), but at HaycockMountain <strong>the</strong> basal slip surface dips north. The northward-dipping Isom Formation (caprock <strong>of</strong> Haycock Mountain) was interpreted by Anderson (1993) and Sable andMaldonado (1997a) as autochthonous, and <strong>the</strong>y also interpreted autochthonous IsomFormation at <strong>the</strong> type area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> megabreccia along Highway 143 east <strong>of</strong> PanguitchLake. However, we identified a previously unreported basal conglomerate and associatedclastic dikes exposed at <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> megabreccia on <strong>the</strong> south side <strong>of</strong> HaycockMountain (figures 1a, 1b; 2a, 2b, and 2c). These exposures show that <strong>the</strong> entire Isomsection is likely part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gravity slide. If true, <strong>the</strong> northward dip likely reflectsthrusting and folding in <strong>the</strong> toe <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gravity slide, not post-megabreccia tilting andfolding. Moderately nor<strong>the</strong>ast-dipping blocks near Castle Valley and Bunker Creek,described above, may also reflect thrusting and folding in <strong>the</strong> toe area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Markaguntmegabreccia gravity slide. Just south <strong>of</strong> Panguitch Lake, Claron and Brian Head stratadip moderately to <strong>the</strong> northwest, and this may reflect folding above a structurally deeperlevel <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gravity slide. Several previous workers reported slickenlines on <strong>the</strong> basal slipsurface <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> megabreccia, as well as roche-moutonnée-like features and tilted beds, thatcollectively suggest southward transport. Slickenlines at <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> megabrecciaexposed on <strong>the</strong> south side <strong>of</strong> Haycock Mountain, as well as clastic dikes, alsodemonstrate south-sou<strong>the</strong>ast transport, as well as catastrophic emplacement by gravitysliding.Among <strong>the</strong> authors <strong>of</strong> this map, <strong>the</strong>re remains disagreement as to <strong>the</strong> age <strong>of</strong>emplacement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Markagunt megabreccia; Anderson (2001) described <strong>the</strong> key points<strong>of</strong> this disagreement, and an additional complication is described below. The resolution<strong>of</strong> this problem involves, among o<strong>the</strong>r issues, <strong>the</strong> Haycock Mountain Tuff in <strong>the</strong> type area<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Markagunt megabreccia, first described in detail by Anderson (1993). He reasoned28
- Page 1 and 2: ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !
- Page 3 and 4: MAP UNIT DESCRIPTIONSQUATERNARYAllu
- Page 5 and 6: Qafc Coalesced fan alluvium of Paro
- Page 7 and 8: glacial deposits and features that
- Page 9 and 10: (Tbhv) and Dakota (Kd and Ktd) Form
- Page 11 and 12: typically mapped where lava flows d
- Page 13 and 14: that range in age from Miocene to H
- Page 15 and 16: fronts (except at Dry Valley, immed
- Page 17 and 18: the quadrangle; no fault that postd
- Page 19 and 20: Qbw, QbwcWater Canyon lava flow and
- Page 21 and 22: others, 2007); lava flow is typical
- Page 23 and 24: Mahogany Hill, about 500 feet (150
- Page 25 and 26: lava flow (Tbbm) that conceal the u
- Page 27: TERTIARYpreserved in down-dropped b
- Page 31 and 32: field (or possibly coeval batholith
- Page 33 and 34: hidden by shadow; we tentatively as
- Page 35 and 36: esistant crystal-poor rhyolite tuff
- Page 37 and 38: thickness uncertain but outcrop pat
- Page 39 and 40: divide between Red Creek and Little
- Page 41 and 42: pyroxene (5%), and sanidine (trace)
- Page 43 and 44: unconformityThe Leach Canyon Format
- Page 45 and 46: unconformityMa (Best and others, 19
- Page 47 and 48: interval, and a lower limestone int
- Page 49 and 50: Figure 3. View northwest to North V
- Page 51 and 52: dark-yellowish-orange, grayish-pink
- Page 53 and 54: TKgc Grand Castle Formation, undivi
- Page 55 and 56: track (the latter found by Eric Rob
- Page 57 and 58: noted by Moore and Straub (2001) an
- Page 59 and 60: shoreface, beach, lagoonal, and est
- Page 61 and 62: water deposits of Cenomanian age (N
- Page 63 and 64: 62Figure 7. Cedar Mountain Formatio
- Page 65 and 66: leached white under the Cretaceous
- Page 67 and 68: ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis geologic map is
- Page 69 and 70: Anderson, R.E., and Christenson, G.
- Page 71 and 72: Biek, R.F., Rowley, P.D., Hayden, J
- Page 73 and 74: field guide (The Mackin Volume): Ut
- Page 75 and 76: 2001, Cretaceous and early Tertiary
- Page 77 and 78: Hacker, D.B., Rowley, P.D., Blank,
- Page 79 and 80:
Kurlich, R.A., III, 1990, Geology o
- Page 81 and 82:
Maldonado, F., and Moore, R.C., 199
- Page 83 and 84:
Flagstaff-Green River basins [abs.]
- Page 85 and 86:
elation to other igneous centers in
- Page 87 and 88:
Schulman, E., 1956, Dendroclimatic
- Page 89:
Van Kooten, G.K., 1988, Structure a
- Page 92:
113°00'112°00'15BV20R i v e rCCNP