Issue Overview

The purpose of this section is to provide information and boilerplate language that will help to provide a basic understanding of the issue by factually describing the issue, its scope, and dimensions.

Land-use planning for urban development is a critical part of long-term management of land resources. One consideration in land-use planning is the reduction or avoidance of geologic hazards to protect the health and safety of residents.

Authority for land-use planning and regulation is granted to local governments (cities and counties) under the State Code. However, no state or federal laws require consideration of geologic hazards in such planning. Although not required, many local governments in Utah consider geologic hazards in their land-use planning and regulation. For building construction, the State has adopted the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) statewide, so local governments are required (at a minimum) to implement the IBC. The IBC contains provisions for construction to resist earthquake ground shaking, as well as other grading and site-investigation requirements. Also, various State and Federal programs exist to encourage responsible land use with respect to geologic hazards. One such program is the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, which provides guidelines and insurance for development in flood hazard areas. Participation in the program isn't mandatory, however, and local governments may choose whether they wish to participate or not.

The various Utah Associations of Governments (AOGs) have recently developed plans that address hazards under the federal Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program. These plans were developed for counties within each AOG in cooperation with the Utah Division of Emergency Services using funding from FEMA. The plans identify natural hazards, assess vulnerability, and develop strategies and objectives to eliminate and/or minimize the effects of the hazards. The plans form the basis for prioritizing future projects for funding under the Federal PDM grant program. These plans provide information regarding geologic and other natural and technological hazards in each county and AOG area, and may provide much of the information needed for considering geologic hazards in the county resource management planning process.

Some of the most significant geologic hazards are described below:

Earthquakes: Earthquakes have the potential to inflict a greater loss of life and property in a single event than all other hazards in Utah . Damaging geologic effects of earthquakes include ground shaking, surface faulting, soil liquefaction, and earthquake-induced landslides and flooding. Severe ground shaking represents the greatest hazard during an earthquake because it affects large areas, causes the most damage, and induces many of the secondary effects such as liquefaction, landsliding, and flooding. Flooding may result from increased spring discharge, disruption of surface drainage, dam failure, tectonic subsidence near lakes or in shallow ground-water areas, and/or seiches generated in standing bodies of water.

Landslides: The landslide hazard in Utah was dramatically demonstrated in 1983 when the Thistle landslide blocked Spanish Fork Canyon and severed highway and rail connections between the Wasatch Front and areas to the east. Thistle was an old landslide with documented previous movement and was one of several old landslides, chiefly slumps and earth flows, which were reactivated by a period of abnormally high precipitation and rapid snowmelt in 1983 and 1984. Debris flows are slurries of mud and rocks generated by cloudburst floods, particularly following wildfires, and rapid spring snowmelt. Debris flows may travel down drainages and onto alluvial fans at canyon mouths, causing damage by sediment burial, flooding, and direct impact. Other types of landslides found in Utah include rock slides and rock falls common to areas of steep, barren rock outcrop.

Problem Soil and Rock Conditions: Several types of naturally occurring materials are deleterious to foundations and pose a threat to permanent structures. These materials include expansive, collapsible, and gypsiferous soils. Expansive soils are those containing a high percentage of clays that expand and contract when wetted and dried. Forces generated during expansion and contraction are sufficient to crack walls and foundations of some structures. Subsidence causing structural damage may also occur in collapsible soils that undergo a volume decrease when wet. Subsidence may also accompany dissolution of salt, gypsum, and limestone.

Flooding: Stream flooding is probably the most widely distributed and frequently occurring of Utah 's geologic hazards. Spring snowmelt is responsible for most flooding along Utah 's streams, and is to some extent predictable. Cloudburst floods account for more localized but often very destructive flooding and can occur with little warning. Cloudbursts also cause alluvial-fan flooding, including debris flows, that may affect large areas and cause damage by sediment burial. Another type of flooding that has caused considerable damage in Utah is the rise of lake levels, particularly Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake . Flooding may also result from a rise in the shallow water table in response to high stream and lake levels, heavy precipitation, and excess irrigation. Flooding of topographically low areas and subsurface structures such as basements and septic-tank soil-absorption fields is the major impact of rising water tables.

Other Hazards: Subsidence and ground cracking may potentially occur in areas where underground fluids (ground water, oil, gas) are "mined." Collapse of underground caverns and mines and the failure of plugs in vertical shafts have caused local surface subsidence. Subsidence due to compression and decomposition of organic materials in bog or swamp areas and the natural production of methane from such deposits may pose hazards to structures. Soils subject to piping (subsurface erosion) are common in Utah . Soil erosion and stream downcutting threaten agricultural and range land by removing topsoil and lowering water tables. Shifting wind-blown sands in the more arid parts of the state may also present hazards. Snow avalanches also present hazards to structures and corridors (highway, pipelines). Although no active volcanoes are found in Utah , lava flows less than 1000 years old are found and periodic episodes of volcanism have occurred during the Quaternary period in Utah . A more significant volcanic hazard is presented by airborne ash from explosive volcanic activity in neighboring states to the west.

Options & Trade-Offs

When considering how to address geologic hazards in the local government land-use planning and regulation process, concerns may include:

• What geologic hazards exist in the area, and what is their extent and severity?
• What is the risk to life and property from construction in hazard areas?
• Do present ordinances consider geologic hazards?
• Can the risks be economically reduced to an acceptable level?
• Does the local government have the administrative procedures, staff, and technical expertise to enforce a geologic-hazards ordinance?

Potential for Conflict

Issues of potential conflict or concern include:

• What is the extent of a local government's responsibility to protect public safety?
• What is a local government's liability and potential responsibility for costs for emergency response and recovery in the event of a damaging geologic hazard?
• Is the burden placed on private landowners and developers to reduce risks acceptable?
• Will consideration of hazards reduce property values and impede development?
• If land is determined to be unsuitable for development based on geologic hazards, will the private property owner consider it a government “takings” issue and request compensation?
• Is the political climate conducive to local government regulation of the use of private property?

Range of Alternatives

The purpose of considering geologic hazards in land-use management is to encourage prudent land uses in areas of geologic hazards to protect the health, safety, and property of citizens. Geologic hazards can be considered at various points during planning and development, but in general are best considered early in the process.

In general, local governments address geologic hazards in subdivision, hillside, sensitive lands, or geologic hazards ordinances. Few alternative methods other than ordinances exist, although the types of ordinances and level of enforcement may vary. Some geologic hazards cannot be reduced or are too costly to reduce and are best avoided. Other hazards are easily reduced and need not influence land use significantly as long as the hazard is identified. Because of this, geologic-hazards information should be used in developing ordinances so that land use can then take into account geologic hazards. Identification of hillside protection zones, critical environmental zones, and sensitive land zones are common ways of addressing hazards in ordinances. Development in such zones is either prohibited or restricted unless certain requirements are met prior to development.

The overall approach of local governments in addressing geologic hazards in ordinances consists of requiring geologic-hazards studies in known hazard areas to be submitted for review in the approval and permitting process. The principal differences in ordinances are in the method by which hazard areas are determined, the level of specific requirements in the scope of geotechnical studies, and the extent of technical review and enforcement. References to model ordinances that can provide language for new or revised ordinances are given in the last section of this report Sources and Resources to Assist.

top

Existing Condition

The purpose of this section is to provide information and boilerplate language that will help to describe the existing condition.

Data Review

The approach to geologic hazards in local government ordinances will depend on the availability of hazards information. Where available, detailed (1:24,000 scale or larger) hazards maps are of great value in ordinances to delineate areas where hazards must be considered. If such maps are not available, smaller scale (1:500,000 to 1:1,000,000 scale) statewide hazard maps and other sources of information (published literature, geologic maps, consulting reports) may be used to assess the location and severity of hazards and perhaps to produce maps at usable scales. References are cited below that are available at the UGS; the information needed to retrieve the publication is given in the References list at the end of this report. Some of these publications are available at the UGS Web site ( geology.utah.gov )

In Utah , the availability of geologic-hazards maps and information varies, but many of the urbanized areas along the Wasatch Front have detailed hazards maps specifically prepared for use in local government ordinances. Maps (1:24,000 scale) originally prepared by the Wasatch Front County Hazards Geologists in the late 1980s are available at county planning offices for the urbanized Wasatch Front portions of:

• Salt Lake County (Planning and Development Services, 801-468-2070)
• Davis County (Community and Economic Development, 801-451-3278)
• Weber County (Planning Commission, 801-399-8791)
• Utah County (Community Development, 801-851-8344)

Similar maps from the UGS are available for:

• western Wasatch County (Hylland and others, 1995)
• Tooele Valley , Tooele County (Solomon and Black, 1995; Black and others, 1999)
• Moab-Spanish Valley , Grand County (Hylland and Mulvey, 2003)
• Castle Valley , Grand County (Mulvey, 1992a)
• Monroe , Sevier County (Giraud, 2004)
• Perry, Box Elder County ( Lund , 1981)
• Ballard, Uintah County (Christenson, 1981)
• St. George area, Washington County (Christenson and Deen, 1983)
• Smithfield , Cache County (Christenson, 1983)
• Park City , Summit County (Gill and Lund, 1984)

The UGS includes discussions of geologic hazards in many of its 1:24,000 geologic quadrangle maps, and includes geologic-hazards descriptions in its county maps for Kane and Millard Counties . A county-wide study addressing hazards was completed for Morgan County (Kaliser, 1972), and is scheduled to be updated beginning in 2005. Preparation of detailed (1:24,000 scale) geologic-hazards maps is also underway by the UGS in the St. George basin, Cache Valley , and Ogden Valley .

In much of the remainder of the state, however, detailed hazards maps are not available. However, generalized information is available for the entire state on small-scale geologic hazard maps that depict:

• Shallow ground water and related hazards (Hecker and others, 1988; 1:750,000 scale)
• Flood hazard from lakes and failure of dams (Harty and Christenson, 1988; 1:750,000 scale)
• Landslides (Harty, 1991; 1:500,000 scale; also available for each 30 X 60 minute quadrangle at 1:100,000 scale)
• Soil and rock causing engineering geologic problems (Mulvey, 1992b; 1:500,000 scale)
• Quaternary faults and folds (Hecker, 1993; Black and others, 2003; 1:500,000 scale)
• Radon (Black, 1996; 1:1,000,000 scale; larger scale studies are also available from UGS for the southern Cache Valley, Ogden Valley, Beaver, St. George, western Salt Lake Valley, Davis County, and central Sevier Valley areas)

Each statewide hazards map explains how the map was compiled and how best to use it in planning. The maps are not suited for use in local government ordinances except as preliminary guides to potential hazards in areas where more detailed maps are not yet available. These maps are available in digital form in the State Geographic Information Database from the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center ( http://agrc.utah.gov ).

In addition to the comprehensive folios of hazards maps listed above, many technical reports addressing various hazards and specific hazards maps for certain areas in the state by the UGS and other authors are available. A statewide bibliographic listing of these and other geologic-hazards information (HAZBIB) is available at the UGS (public access computer in UGS Library; Harty and others, 1992). References from this bibliography can be used with basic geologic mapping to prepare detailed geologic-hazards maps. However, the data must be interpreted and translated to derive usable hazards maps, and geologic expertise is required to make these interpretations.

To aid in defining the types of work an ordinance should require, the UGS has published guidelines for the preparation and review of engineering geologic reports (Utah Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, 1986), evaluating landslide hazards (Hylland, 1996), and evaluating surface fault rupture hazards (Christenson and others, 2003). Guidelines for evaluating debris-flow hazards are nearing completion. These guidelines can be cited in the ordinance.

The earthquake ground-shaking hazard is addressed in the IBC rather than in an ordinance. Earthquake-resistant design levels are calculated using methods defined in the 2003 IBC, adopted statewide in 2004. All local governments must enforce the 2003 IBC at a minimum, but may adopt stricter standards if approved by the State Uniform Building Code Commission.

Items to Consider

The following issues should be considered in establishing the existing condition:

• What geologic hazards affect the area?
• What geologic-hazards information exists for the area?
• What ordinances do local governments presently have on record?
• Are new ordinances needed?
• Are existing ordinances being enforced?

Boilerplate Language

Boilerplate plan language for geologic hazards planning can not be provided in a toolkit because the issue will vary greatly from place to place. Examples of language used in describing existing hazards in an area can be found in the Predisaster Mitigation Plans developed by Utah Associations of Governments (AOGs) under the direction of the Utah Division of Emergency Services. Refer to the appropriate plan by the AOG in which the county resides.

top

Desired Future Condition

The purpose of this section is to provide information and boilerplate language that will help to describe the improvements and changes that need to be made to the existing condition in order to achieve the desired future condition. It also provides the basis for the development of policy statements that support the desired future condition.

Catastrophic geologic events and widespread conditions can not be avoided. However, geologic hazards should be considered in a local government ordinance. The principal goal of a geologic-hazards ordinance should be to provide a means for the local government to require site-specific geologic-hazards investigations where necessary to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the proposed use or to recommend measures necessary to make the land suitable. The responsibility for providing these investigations lies with the landowner or person requesting a permit from the local government.

Determining where such investigations should be required can be based on special-study area maps depicting potential hazard areas. Once the possible existence of a hazard(s) is determined, the ordinance should include a means of requiring geotechnical investigations performed by qualified engineering geologists and engineers to address hazards and recommend appropriate action prior to development. These investigations may find that no hazards exist at the site and recommend that no action is necessary. If the hazard is found to exist and development is still proposed, recommended actions may include site abandonment, land-use restrictions such as setbacks from faults, mandatory disclosure of hazards to potential buyers, reduced density, placement of engineered structures, and/or recommendations for further studies. Once such reports are submitted, they should be reviewed by qualified engineering geologists and engineers. If reviewers believe the investigations are sufficient and hazard-reduction measures satisfactory, they should recommend approval of the development. If the investigation does not adequately or accurately address hazards or if recommended hazard-reduction measures are thought to be inadequate, the reviewers should not recommend approval of the plans and recommend that either discussions be initiated to solve problems or that further study be performed. If the report shows the hazards cannot be adequately reduced for the proposed land use, reviewers should recommend disapproval. Both the report and review comments should be presented to local government authorities for a decision. If development is to proceed, local government should provide a means to ensure report recommendations are implemented.

These steps are summarized in a guide for local governments in using geologic-hazards information to reduce risks and losses (Solomon, 2001). The guide is a free brochure published by the UGS, and is available on-line at: http://ugs.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-75.pdf

Range of Alternatives

The purpose of considering geologic hazards in land-use management is to encourage prudent land uses in areas of geologic hazards to protect the health, safety, and property of citizens. Geologic hazards can be considered at various points during planning and development, but in general are best considered early in the process.

In general, local governments address geologic hazards in subdivision, hillside, sensitive lands, or geologic-hazards ordinances. Few alternative methods other than ordinances exist, although the types of ordinances and level of enforcement may vary. Some geologic hazards cannot be reduced or are too costly to reduce and are best avoided. Other hazards are easily reduced and need not influence land use significantly as long as the hazard is identified. Because of this, geologic-hazards information should be used in developing ordinances so that land use can then take into account geologic hazards. Identification of hillside protection zones, critical environmental zones, and sensitive land zones are common ways of addressing hazards in ordinances. Development in such zones is either prohibited or restricted unless certain requirements are met prior to development.

The overall approach of local governments in addressing geologic hazards in ordinances consists of requiring geologic-hazards studies in known hazard areas to be submitted for review in the approval and permitting process. The principal differences in ordinances are in the method by which hazard areas are determined, the level of specific requirements in the scope of geotechnical studies, and the extent of technical review and enforcement. References to model ordinances that can provide language for new or revised ordinances are given in the last section of this report Sources and Resources to Assist.

Boilerplate Language

Examples of language used in describing desired future conditions in an area can be found in the Predisaster Mitigation Plans developed by Utah Associations of Governments (AOGs) under the direction of the Utah Division of Emergency Services. Refer to the appropriate plan by the AOG in which the county resides. Individual counties will need to individually assess: 1) geologic hazards information available for the area, 2) existing county and city ordinances and therefore what new ordinances are needed, and 2) the status of enforcement of existing ordinances by each jurisdiction. References to model ordinances that can provide language for new or revised ordinances are given in the last section of this report Sources and Resources to Assist.

top

Policy and Position Statements

The purpose of this section is to provide boilerplate policy statement language that will support the desired future conditions. A range of possible conditions is provided here.

Boilerplate Language

A range of possible conditions may exist, from strict enforcement of modern geologic hazards ordinances, to lax enforcement of outdated ordinances, to a total lack of involvement by local governments in land-use regulation.

Because geologic hazards pose a threat to public safety and a community's economic well being, the State encourages all local governments to prudently and responsibly address geologic hazards in regulating land use. Geologic hazards are best considered early in the planning process, and local governments are encouraged to adopt and enforce ordinances that provide for identification, assessment, and reduction of geologic hazards to acceptable levels.

top

Goals, Objectives, and/or Action Items

The purpose of this section is to provide boilerplate examples of the types of improvements or changes that typically would be needed to reach the desired future condition. “Goal” is the desired condition. “Objectives” are improvements or changes that need to be made to reach the goal. “Action Items” are specific actions that can be taken in order to achieve the objective.

The principal goal is to adopt a new or revise an existing ordinance and enforce it to effectively address geologic hazards in the county and incorporated cities within the county. Objectives and action items therefore are to:

Objective 1. Identify and assess existing ordinances and information needs

Action item 1. Collect existing ordinances that address geologic hazards

Action item 2. Evaluate their adequacy under guidelines provided herein

Action item 3. Identify available geologic-hazards information and maps

Action item 4. Provide a means to acquire information and maps if needed

Objective 2. Adopt new and/or revise existing ordinances as needed

Action item 1. Draft new or revise existing ordinance based on model ordinances

Action item 2. Officially adopt or amend ordinance

Objective 3. Establish/ensure administrative procedures to enforce ordinance

Action item 1. Evaluate administrative enforcement capabilities

Action item 2. Identify staff/expertise needed to enforce ordinance

Action item 3. Establish administrative procedures as needed

Action item 4. Obtain needed expertise under contract or through cooperative agreements

Objective 4. Assess building code enforcement of IBC seismic/grading provisions

Action item 1. Building inspectors assess adequacy of code enforcement

Action item 2. Improve training and enforcement as needed

Sources of recently adopted model ordinances are listed in the last section Sources and Resources to Assist.

top

Monitoring Methods and Mechanisms

The purpose of this section is to provide suggested techniques and methods for monitoring progress towards the desired condition.

Identifying and assessing ordinances can be done by county staff and monitored through existing local government employee management and supervisory channels and procedures. Political bodies (County Commission , Planning Commission) will be responsible for adoption or revision of ordinances; progress can be monitored by these bodies and facilitated by staff. Adoption of ordinances generally requires public hearings as well. Following adoption, enforcement can be performed through internal staff management and supervisory procedures.

top

Sources and Resources to Assist

This section is intended to be a reference guide to help locate any sources of assistance.

Only geologists and engineers licensed in Utah that specialize in engineering geology and geotechnical engineering, respectively, should prepare and review geologic-hazard reports. To administer an ordinance, local governments should have access to licensed and qualified professionals to perform reviews and to represent their interest in contacts with developers and their consultants. The Salt Lake County geologist provides geological services for Salt Lake County and its associated cities. The UGS provides geological review services for all other local governments in the state upon request. Local governments without a need for full-time reviewers may either request help from the UGS or retain qualified reviewers under contract to represent their interests, as is commonly done with the city/county engineer position. The ordinance can provide that the cost of retaining such expertise be passed on to developers and applicants.

Sources of information and assistance include:

State:

Utah Geological Survey
1594 West North Temple , Suite 3110
P.O. Box 146100
Salt Lake City , UT 84114-6100
(801) 537-3300

Geologic Hazards Program
Gary E. Christenson, (801) 537-3304
http://geology.utah.gov

Utah Geological Survey
Southern Utah Regional Office
P.O. Box 9053
Southern Utah University
Cedar City , UT 84720

Geologic Hazards Program
William R. Lund, (435) 865-8126

Utah Division of Emergency Services
1110 State Office Building
Salt Lake City , UT 84114
(801) 538-3400

State Earthquake Program Manager
Bob Carey, (801) 538-3784

National Flood Insurance Program
Judy Watanabe, (801) 538-3750
http://cem.utah.gov

University of Utah Seismograph Stations
705 William Browning Building
135 S. 1460 E.
University of Utah
Salt Lake City , UT 84112
(801) 581-6274
http://seis.utah.edu

Utah Division of Water Rights, Dam Safety
1594 West North Temple , Suite 220
Salt Lake City , UT 84114
(801) 538-7240

Assistant State Engineer
Richard Hall, (801) 538-7373
http://waterrights.utah.gov

Federal:

Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA Region VIII
Denver Federal Center
Building 710, Box 25267
Denver , CO 80225-0267
(303) 235-4830
http://fema.gov

U. S. Geological Survey
Denver Federal Center
P.O. Box 54046
Denver , CO 80225
(303) 236-5900
http://usgs.gov

Local government:
Examples of recently adopted model ordinances are available from:

Layton City
437 N. Wasatch Dr .
Layton , UT 84041-3169
Community Development Director
Scott Carter, (801) 546-8500

Salt Lake County
2001 S. State, Building N3700
Salt Lake City , UT 84190
Salt Lake County Geologist
L. Darlene Batatian, (801) 468-2070

Weber County
Weber Center
2380 Washington Blvd.
Ogden , UT 84401
Weber County Planning
Kelly Grier, (801) 399-8401

Draper City
12441 S. 900 E.
Draper, UT 84020
(801) 576-6500

Organizations:

Utah Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, http://aegweb.org

Utah Geotechnical Group, American Society of Civil Engineers. http://asce.org

Utah Geological Association, http://utahgeology.org

References:

Black, B.D., 1993, Radon-hazard-potential map of Utah : Utah Geological Survey Map 149, 12 p., scale 1:1,000,000.

Black, B.D., Hecker, Suzanne, Hylland, M. D., Christenson, G.E., and McDonald, G.N., 2003, Quaternary fault and fold database and map of Utah: Utah Geological Survey Map 193DM, 1:500,000.

Black, B.D., Solomon, B.J., and Harty, K.M., 1999, Geology and geologic hazards of Tooele Valley and the West Desert Hazardous Industry Area, Tooele County , Utah : Utah Geological Survey Special Study 96, 65 p., scale 1:100,000.

Christenson, G.E., 1981, Engineering geology for land-use planning, Ballard , Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Report of Investigation 167, 13 p.

--- 1983, Engineering geology for land-use planning, Smithfield , Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Report of Investigation 181, 37 p.

--- 1987, Suggested approach to geologic hazards ordinances in Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Circular 79, 16 p.

Christenson, G.E., Batatian, L.D., and Nelson, C.V, 2003, Guidelines for evaluating surface-fault-rupture hazards in Utah : Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 03-06, 14 p.

Christenson, G.E., and Deen, R.D., 1983, Engineering geology of the St. George area, Washington County , Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies 58, 32 p.

Gill, H.E., and Lund , W.R., 1984, Engineering geology of Park City , Summit County , Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies 66, 42 p.

Harty, K.M., 1991, Landslide map of Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Map 111, 8 p., 1:500,000.

Harty, K.M., and Christenson, G.E., 1988, Flood hazard from lakes and failure of dams in Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Map 111, 8 p., scale 1:750,000.

Harty, K.M., Hecker, Suzanne, and Jarva, J.L., 1992, Geologic hazards bibliography of Utah : Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 264-DF, 1 disk.

Hecker, Suzanne, 1993, Quaternary tectonics of Utah with emphasis on earthquake-hazard characterization: Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 127, 157 p., scale 1:500,000.

Hecker, Suzanne, Harty, K.M., and Christenson, G.E., 1988, Shallow ground water and related hazards in Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Map 110, 17 p., scale 1:750,000.

Hylland, M.D., editor, 1996, Guidelines for evaluating landslide hazards in Utah : Utah Geological Survey Circular 92, 16 p.

Hylland, M.D., and Mulvey, W.E., 2003, Geologic hazards of Moab-Spanish Valley , Grand County , Utah : Utah Geological Survey Special Study 107, 25 p.

Hylland, M.D., Lowe, Mike, and Bishop, C.E., 1995, Engineering geologic map folio western Wasatch County , Utah : Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 319, scale 1:24,000.

Gill, H.E., and Lund , W.R., 1984, Engineering geology of Park City , Summit County , Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies 66, 42 p.

Giraud, R.E., 2004, Geologic hazards of Monroe City , Sevier County , Utah : Utah Geological Survey Special Study 110, 51 p.

Kaliser, B.N., 1972, Geologic hazards in Morgan County with applications to planning: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Bulletin 93, 45 p.

Lund , W.R., 1981, Engineering geology for land-use planning, Perry , Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Report of Investigation 165, 12 p.

Mulvey, W.W., 1992a, Geologic hazards of Castle Valley , Grand County , Utah : Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 238, 31 p.

--- 1992b, Soil and rock causing engineering geologic problems in Utah : Utah Geological Survey Special Study 80, 23 p., scale 1:500,000.

Solomon, B.J., 2001, Using geologic-hazards information to reduce risks and losses – a guide for local governments: Utah Geological Survey Public Information Series 75.

Solomon, B.J., and Black, B.D., 1995, Geologic hazards and land-use planning for Tooele Valley and the West Desert Hazardous Industry Area, Tooele County , Utah : Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 318, 56 p., scale 1:24,000.

Utah Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, 1986, Guidelines for preparing engineering geologic reports in Utah : Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Publication M, 2 p.

top