GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATING GEOLOGIC

HAZARDS AND PREPARING ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY

REPORTS, WITH ASUGGESTED APPROACH TO
GEOLOGIC-HAZARD ORDINANCES IN UTAH
Steve D. Bowman and William R. Lund, editors

CIRCULAR 122
UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
a division of
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
2016
 GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATING GEOLOGIC
HAZARDS AND PREPARING ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY
REPORTS, WITH A SUGGESTED APPROACH TO
GEOLOGIC-HAZARD ORDINANCES IN UTAH
Steve D. Bowman and William R. Lund, editors

ISBN: 978-1-55791-929-8

Cover photo: August 2014 Parkway Drive landslide, North Salt Lake. The landslide damaged the Eagle Ridge
Tennis and Swim Club (white tent structure), severely damaged a house (directly above the tent structure),
and removed part of the backyard of a second home. This landslide illustrates the significant impact geologic
hazards can have on individuals, property owners, local governments, and the community.
Photo credit: Gregg Beukelman, August 14, 2014.

CIRCULAR 122
UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
a division of
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
2016
 STATE OF UTAH
Gary R. Herbert, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Michael Styler, Executive Director

UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Richard G. Allis, Director

PUBLICATIONS
contact
Natural Resources Map & Bookstore
1594 W. North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
telephone: 801-537-3320
toll-free: 1-888-UTAH MAP
website: mapstore.utah.gov
email: geostore@utah.gov

UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

contact
1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
telephone: 801-537-3300
website: geology.utah.gov

Although this product represents the work of professional scientists, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah
Geological Survey, makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding its suitability for a particular use. The Utah
Department of Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct,
indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to claims by users of this product. The Utah Geological
Survey does not endorse any products or manufacturers. Reference to any specific commercial product, process, service,
or company by trade name, trademark, or otherwise, does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Utah
Geological Survey.
 CONTENTS
PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 1
OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
COSTS OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..................................................................................................................................... 4
Landslide Hazards............................................................................................................................................................... 4
Landslides......................................................................................................................................................................4
Rockfall......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Debris Flows ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Snow Avalanches........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Earthquake Hazards............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Flooding Hazards................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Floods and Flash Floods................................................................................................................................................ 7
Debris Flows ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Dam and Water Conveyance Structure Failure............................................................................................................. 7
Problem Soil and Rock Hazards........................................................................................................................................ 10
Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures............................................................................................................................ 10
UGS GEOLOGIC-HAZARD GUIDELINES BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 12
Radon Gas....................................................................................................................................................................10

CURRENT UGS GEOLOGIC-HAZARD GUIDELINES................................................................................................... 13

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2: GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS AND PREPARING
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY REPORTS IN UTAH.................................................................................................................. 15
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................. 17
When Geologic-Hazard Special Study Maps Are Not Available...................................................................................... 18
International Building/Residential Code and Local Requirements................................................................................... 18
Investigator Qualifications................................................................................................................................................ 19
Literature Searches and Information Resources................................................................................................................ 19
Available UGS Information ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Aerial Photography ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Lidar Data ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Excavation Safety.............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Site Characterization ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Geologic Mapping............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Geochronology ..................................................................................................................................................................24
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY REPORTS............................................................................................................................. 26

General Information.......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Descriptions of Geologic Materials, Features, and Conditions......................................................................................... 27
Assessment of Geologic Hazards and Project Suitability................................................................................................. 28
Identification and Extent of Geologic Hazards........................................................................................................... 28
Suitability of Proposed Development in Relation to Geologic Conditions and Hazards........................................... 28
Report Structure and Content............................................................................................................................................ 28
FIELD REVIEW................................................................................................................................................................... 29
REPORT REVIEW............................................................................................................................................................... 29
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 30
DISCLOSURE......................................................................................................................................................................30

CHAPTER 3: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING SURFACE-FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARDS IN UTAH .......................... 31

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Purpose..............................................................................................................................................................................33
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34

CHARACTERIZING FAULT ACTIVITY........................................................................................................................... 37

Rupture Complexity .......................................................................................................................................................... 37
Earthquake Timing and Recurrence.................................................................................................................................. 37
Displacement.....................................................................................................................................................................39
 Slip Rate............................................................................................................................................................................ 39
SOURCES OF PALEOSEISMIC INFORMATION............................................................................................................. 41
SURFACE-FAULTING-HAZARD INVESTIGATION....................................................................................................... 42
When to Perform a Surface-Faulting-Hazard Investigation.............................................................................................. 42
Minimum Qualifications of the Investigator..................................................................................................................... 42
Investigation Methods....................................................................................................................................................... 42
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Remote Sensing Data .......................................................................................... 42
Fault Mapping............................................................................................................................................................... 44
Trenching...................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Trench number and location...................................................................................................................................... 44
Trench depth.............................................................................................................................................................. 46
Trench logging and interpretation............................................................................................................................. 46
Geochronology.......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Other Subsurface Investigation Methods ...................................................................................................................... 47
Cone penetrometer test soundings............................................................................................................................ 47
Boreholes.................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Geophysical investigation......................................................................................................................................... 47
Special Case ‒ Sub-Lacustrine Faults........................................................................................................................... 47
SURFACE-FAULTING MITIGATION................................................................................................................................ 48
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Surface-Faulting Special-Study Maps............................................................................................................................... 48
Hazardous Fault Avoidance............................................................................................................................................... 49
Fault Activity Classes................................................................................................................................................... 49
Investigation Recommendations................................................................................................................................... 50
Fault Setbacks............................................................................................................................................................... 50
Downthrown block.................................................................................................................................................... 51
Upthrown block ........................................................................................................................................................ 51
Example of a fault setback calculation ..................................................................................................................... 51
Surface Deformation from Slip on a Buried Fault........................................................................................................ 52
Paleoseismic Data Required for Engineering-Design Mitigation of Surface Faulting................................................. 52
HAZARDOUS FAULTCRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................... 53
SURFACE-FAULTING-INVESTIGATION REPORT ........................................................................................................ 55
FIELD REVIEW................................................................................................................................................................... 58
REPORT REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................... 58
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 58
DISCLOSURE......................................................................................................................................................................58

CHAPTER 4: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING LANDSLIDE HAZARDS IN UTAH ...................................................... 59

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 61
Purpose.............................................................................................................................................................................. 61
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Landslide Causes............................................................................................................................................................... 63
Landslide Hazards............................................................................................................................................................. 64
LANDSLIDE-HAZARD INVESTIGATION....................................................................................................................... 64
When to Perform a Landslide-Hazard Investigation......................................................................................................... 64
Minimum Qualifications of Investigator........................................................................................................................... 65
Investigation Methods....................................................................................................................................................... 65
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................................... 65
Analysis of Remote-Sensing Data ................................................................................................................................ 66
Geologic Investigations..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Geotechnical-Engineering Investigations.......................................................................................................................... 68
Slope-Stability Analysis.................................................................................................................................................... 68
Static Slope-Stability Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 68
Seismic Slope-Stability Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 69
Estimation of Displacement.............................................................................................................................................. 69
Other Investigation Methods............................................................................................................................................. 69
LANDSLIDE-HAZARD MITIGATION.............................................................................................................................. 70
 LANDSLIDE-INVESTIGATION REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 70
FIELD REVIEW................................................................................................................................................................... 72
REPORT REVIEW............................................................................................................................................................... 72
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 72
DISCLOSURE......................................................................................................................................................................72

CHAPTER 5: GUIDELINES FOR THE GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARDS ON ALLUVIAL

FANS IN UTAH.......................................................................................................................................................................... 75
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 77
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 77
Purpose.............................................................................................................................................................................. 78
SOURCES OF DEBRIS-FLOW INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 78
DEBRIS-FLOW-HAZARD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................. 80
When to Perform a Debris-Flow-Hazard Investigation .................................................................................................... 80
Minimum Qualifications of Investigator........................................................................................................................... 80
Alluvial-Fan Evaluation.................................................................................................................................................... 80
Defining the Active-Fan Area ....................................................................................................................................... 80
Mapping Alluvial-Fan and Debris-Flow Deposits........................................................................................................ 81
Determining the Age of Debris-Flow Deposits ............................................................................................................ 83
Subsurface Exploration................................................................................................................................................. 83
Drainage-Basin and Channel Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 84
Debris-Flow Initiation................................................................................................................................................... 84
Debris-Flow Susceptibility of the Basin....................................................................................................................... 84
Channel Sediment Bulking and Flow-Volume Estimation ........................................................................................... 85
DEBRIS-FLOW-RISK REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 86
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR RISK REDUCTION.................................................................................................. 87
Considering Frequency and Magnitude in Design............................................................................................................ 87
Debris-Flow-Hazard Zones............................................................................................................................................... 88
Estimating Geologic Parameters for Engineering Design................................................................................................. 88
DEBRIS-FLOW-INVESTIGATION REPORT .................................................................................................................... 89
FIELD REVIEW................................................................................................................................................................... 91
REPORT REVIEW............................................................................................................................................................... 91
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 91
DISCLOSURE......................................................................................................................................................................91

CHAPTER 6: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE HAZARDS IN UTAH...... 93

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 95
Purpose.............................................................................................................................................................................. 95
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 96
Land-Subsidence and Earth-Fissure Formation................................................................................................................ 96
Land-Subsidence Hazards................................................................................................................................................. 96
Earth-Fissure Hazards....................................................................................................................................................... 98
SOURCES OF LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE INFORMATION........................................................... 99
LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................... 101
Disclaimer....................................................................................................................................................................... 101
When to Perform a Land-Subsidence and Earth-Fissure-Hazard Investigation.............................................................. 102
Minimum Qualifications of Investigator......................................................................................................................... 102
Basin-Wide Investigation Guidelines.............................................................................................................................. 102
Remote Sensing .......................................................................................................................................................... 102
Aerial photographs.................................................................................................................................................. 102
InSAR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 103
High-Precision GPS/GNSS Survey Network............................................................................................................. 103
Lidar........................................................................................................................................................................103

Site-Specific Investigation Guidelines............................................................................................................................ 104

Literature Review........................................................................................................................................................ 104
Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Remote Sensing Data ........................................................................................ 104
Surface Investigation .................................................................................................................................................. 104
Subsurface Investigation............................................................................................................................................. 104
Other Investigation Methods....................................................................................................................................... 106
 LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE MITIGATION...................................................................................... 106
LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE INVESTIGATION REPORT ............................................................... 107
FIELD REVIEW................................................................................................................................................................. 109
REPORT REVIEW............................................................................................................................................................. 109
DISCLOSURE.................................................................................................................................................................... 110
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 110
CHAPTER 7: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING ROCKFALL HAZARDS IN UTAH ...................................................... 111
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 113
Purpose............................................................................................................................................................................ 113
Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 113
SOURCES OF ROCKFALL INFORMATION .................................................................................................................. 114
ROCKFALL-HAZARD INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 114
When to Perform a Rockfall-Hazard Investigation......................................................................................................... 114
Minimum Qualifications of Investigator......................................................................................................................... 115
Investigation Methods..................................................................................................................................................... 115
Literature Review........................................................................................................................................................ 115
Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Remote-Sensing Data........................................................................................ 116
Site Characterization................................................................................................................................................... 116
Rockfall shadow angle............................................................................................................................................ 117
Rockfall modeling software.................................................................................................................................... 118
Rockfall probability ................................................................................................................................................ 118
Other Investigation Methods....................................................................................................................................... 118
ROCKFALL MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................................... 119
ROCKFALL-INVESTIGATION REPORT........................................................................................................................ 120
FIELD REVIEW................................................................................................................................................................. 122
REPORT REVIEW............................................................................................................................................................. 123
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 123
DISCLOSURE....................................................................................................................................................................123

CHAPTER 8: SUGGESTED APPROACH TO GEOLOGIC-HAZARD ORDINANCES IN UTAH .................................... 125

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 127
ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................................................... 128
PURPOSE...........................................................................................................................................................................127

When to Perform a Geologic-Hazard Investigation........................................................................................................ 128

Minimum Qualifications of the Investigator................................................................................................................... 128
Geologic-Hazard Special Study Maps............................................................................................................................ 128
Utah Geological Survey Geologic-Hazard Maps ....................................................................................................... 128
Where Geologic-Hazard Maps Are Not Available...................................................................................................... 129
Scoping Meeting ............................................................................................................................................................. 129
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS ............................................................................... 129
PROJECT REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................... 129
Field Review ................................................................................................................................................................... 129
Report Review................................................................................................................................................................. 129
Report Archiving............................................................................................................................................................. 130
CHAPTER
ENFORCEMENT 9: ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY INVESTIGATION AND REPORT GUIDELINES FOR NEW UTAH
DISCLOSURE....................................................................................................................................................................130
...............................................................................................................................................................130

PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS (UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION)..................................................................... 133

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 135
SCHOOL SITE GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 135
UGS SCHOOL SITE GEOLOGIC-HAZARD REPORT REVIEW .................................................................................. 135
CONTACTS........................................................................................................................................................................ 136
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 137
APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................................................................... 157
APPENDIX A – REPORT REVIEW CHECKLISTS......................................................................................................... 159
APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGIC-HAZARD AND OTHER TERMS......................................................... 181
APPENDIX C – LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING (LIDAR) BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION................ 189
APPENDIX D – INTERFEROMETRIC SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR (INSAR) BACKGROUND AND
APPLICATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 197
 FIGURES
Figure 1. August 2014 Parkway Drive landslide, North Salt Lake .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. House on Springhill Drive, North Salt Lake City, Utah, severely damaged by the Springhill landslide...................... 5
Figure 3. House in Rockville, Utah, destroyed by a rockfall on December 12, 2013, that resulted in the death of the two
house occupants............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4. September 12, 2002, Santaquin, Utah, fire-related debris flow..................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Comparison of 2006 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 1-meter color orthophoto imagery and 2006
2-meter airborne lidar imagery in the Snowbasin area, Weber County, Utah............................................................. 22
Figure Comparison of 2009 High-Resolution Orthophotography (HRO) 1-foot color imagery and 2006 2-meter airborne
6.
lidar imagery in the International Center area, Salt Lake City, Utah .......................................................................... 22
Figure Scarp caused by surface faulting on the Nephi segment of the Wasatch fault zone.................................................... 34
7.
Figure 8. Normal fault diagram and excavation photograph...................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9. Normal fault surface-faulting damage to a building, 1959 Hebgen Lake, Montana, M 7.3 earthquake..................... 35
Figure 10. Example of a surface-faulting special-study-area map along the Hurricane fault zone in southwestern Utah......... 36
Figure 11. Map view of rupture complexity along part of the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone.................... 38
Figure 12. Surface faulting associated with the 1934 Hansel Valley, Utah, M 6.6 earthquake.................................................. 39
Figure 13. Schematic cross section through a normal fault zone ............................................................................................... 40
Figure 14. Thrust fault exhibiting several feet of displacement at a complex bend in an otherwise normal-slip fault zone ..... 40
Figure 15. Fault trench length and orientation to investigate a building footprint..................................................................... 44
Figure 16. Three possible fault configurations from fault exposures in only two trenches........................................................ 45
Figure 17. Potential problems caused by improper trench locations.......................................................................................... 45
Figure 18. Schematic diagram illustrating fault setback calculation.......................................................................................... 51
Figure 19. Distribution of probability density functions showing timing of single segment surface-faulting earthquakes on
the five central segments of the Wasatch fault zone for the past ~6500 years.......................................................... 54
Figure 20. August 2014 Parkway Drive landslide, North Salt Lake, Utah................................................................................. 62
Figure 21. Diagram of an idealized landslide showing commonly used nomenclature for its parts.......................................... 62
Figure 22. The 1983 Thistle, Utah, landslide buried parts of two State highways and the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad....... 63
Figure 23. The 2005 landslide below the Davis-Weber Canal in South Weber, Davis County, that demolished a barn and
covered part of State Route 60.................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 24. Cross section of typical rotational landslide.............................................................................................................. 69
Figure 25. Example of a drainage basin and alluvial fan at Kotter Canyon, north of Brigham City, Utah................................ 78
Figure 26. Active and inactive alluvial fans, feeder channel, and intersection point ................................................................. 81
Figure 27. Approximate proximal, medial, and distal fan areas on the Kotter Canyon alluvial fan, north of Brigham City, Utah......... 82
Figure 28. Channel sediment and cross section used to estimate sediment volume available for bulking ................................ 86
Figure 29. Schematic cross section of a typical Utah alluvial basin showing the effect of groundwater-level decline on the
compaction of fine-grained horizons and resulting ground subsidence within the alluvial basin-fill aquifer........... 97
Figure 30. Schematic section of a valley basin showing how buried bedrock topography affects the formation and location
of earth fissures and initiation of earth fissures at depth due to horizontal tensional stress, and development of
fissures expressed at the surface as hairline cracks, aligned sinkholes, and erosional gullies .................................. 97
Figure 31. Earth fissure in Cedar Valley expressed as an uneroded primary ground crack........................................................ 98
Figure 32. Sinkholes aligned along an earth fissure in Cedar Valley.......................................................................................... 98
Figure 33. Earth fissure in Escalante Valley eroded after intercepting surface water runoff...................................................... 99
Figure 34. Damage to street pavement by an earth fissure in Cedar Valley across which differential displacement is occurring
at a rate of about 2 inches per year............................................................................................................................ 99
Figure 35. Earth-fissure scarp in Cedar Valley blocking an ephemeral drainage and causing water to pond along the fissure
in a feed lot.............................................................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 36. Earth fissure in a subdivision near Phoenix, Arizona, enhanced by erosion during a cloudburst storm................. 100
Figure 37. Earth fissure intersecting an irrigation canal embankment near Phoenix, Arizona................................................. 101
Figure 38. Remains of a home severely damaged by an earth fissure and eventually torn down in the Windsor Park
subdivision, Las Vegas, Nevada .............................................................................................................................. 101
Figure 39. Bare-earth lidar image of earth fissures in Cedar Valley, Utah ............................................................................... 103
Figure 40. Protruding well head due to land subsidence resulting from groundwater mining................................................. 105
Figure 41. Vertical earth fissure in Cedar Valley exposed in the end of an erosional gully formed along the fissure by
infiltration of surface runoff.................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 42. Rockfall damage to a house in southern Utah......................................................................................................... 114
Figure 43. Site showing rockfall source, acceleration zone, and runout zone.......................................................................... 114
Figure 44. Unreinforced rockery wall typical of many constructed in recent years in Utah.................................................... 115
Figure 45. Dust clouds created by numerous rockfalls during the 1988 M5.3 San Rafael Swell earthquake......................... 115
Figure 46. Typical rockfall path profile and components of a rockfall shadow angle.............................................................. 117
Figure 47. Weathered rockfall boulder with subsequent erosion of soil from around the boulder base indicating that this
rockfall occurred in the distant past and the area may no longer be in an active rockfall-hazard area................... 117
Figure 48. Rockfall-hazard zones mapped by the UGS, and historical rockfalls and their travel paths in the Town of
Rockville, Utah........................................................................................................................................................ 119
Figure 49. House in Rockville, Utah, in September 2010 and destroyed by a large rockfall in December 2013 .................... 120
Figure 50. Rockfall in 1947 through the roof of a maintenance building in Zion National Park and in 2010 through the roof
of the same maintenance building........................................................................................................................... 120
Figure 51. Rockfall fence installed to mitigate the rockfall hazard and protect the Zion National Park maintenance building....... 121

TABLES
Table 1. Summary of known geologic-hazard fatalities in Utah................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Utah landslide fatalities since 1850................................................................................................................................. 5
Table 3. Utah rockfall fatalities since 1850................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 4. Utah debris-flow fatalities since 1847............................................................................................................................. 7
Table 5. Utah snow avalanche fatalities since 1847...................................................................................................................... 8
Table 6. Utah earthquake fatalities since 1847 ........................................................................................................................... 10
Table 7. Utah flood fatalities since 1847..................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 8. Utah dam and water conveyance structure failure fatalities since 1847 ....................................................................... 12
Table 9. Potential information sources for engineering-geology investigations in Utah............................................................ 20
Table 10. Recommended minimum subsurface exploration frequency and depth for constructed features .............................. 23
Table 11. Classification of geochronologic methods potentially applicable to geologic-hazard investigations......................... 26
Table 12. Fault setback recommendations and criticality factors for modified IBC risk category of buildings and other
structures ..................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 13. Unified Landslide Classification System .................................................................................................................... 67
Table 14. Summary of landslide mitigation approaches............................................................................................................. 71
Table 15. Geomorphic and sedimentologic criteria for differentiating water and sediment flows............................................. 83
 xixi

PREFACE
The purpose of these guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, is to provide
recommendations for appropriate, minimum investigative techniques, standards, and report content to ensure adequate geologic
site characterization and geologic-hazard investigations to protect public safety and facilitate risk reduction. Such investiga
tions provide important information on site geologic conditions that may affect or be affected by development, as well as the
type and severity of geologic hazards at a site, and recommend solutions to mitigate the effects and the cost of the hazards, both
at the time of construction and over the life of the development. The accompanying suggested approach to geologic-hazard
ordinances and school-site investigation guidelines are intended as an aid for land-use planning and regulation by local Utah
jurisdictions and school districts, respectively. Geologic hazards that are not accounted for in project planning and design often
result in additional unforeseen construction and/or future maintenance costs, and possible injury or death.

These guidelines are chiefly intended for engineering geologists performing geologic site investigations and for preparing en
gineering-geology reports on behalf of owners/developers seeking approval for site-specific development projects. The guide
lines also provide a technical (scientific) basis for geologic-hazard ordinances and land-use regulations implemented by local
jurisdictions. The guidelines and accompanying investigation checklists (appendix A) will be helpful to regulatory-authority
engineering geologists conducting technical reviews of engineering-geology/geologic-hazard reports in support of the planning
and development permit process.

Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 update and revise the following Utah Geological Survey (UGS) guidelines, which were previously
individually published as:
• Guidelines for Evaluating Landslide Hazards in Utah (1996), Utah Geological Survey Circular 92
• Guidelines for Evaluating Surface-Fault-Rupture Hazards in Utah (2003), Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Pub
lication 03-6
• Guidelines for Preparing Geologic Reports in Utah (1986), Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Publica
tion M
• Guidelines for the Geologic Evaluation of Debris-Flow Hazards on Alluvial Fans in Utah (2005), Utah Geological Sur
vey Miscellaneous Publication 05-06
• Suggested Approaches to Geologic Hazards Ordinances in Utah (1987), Utah Geological Survey Circular 79
• Utah State Office of Education – Geologic-Hazard Report Guidelines and Review Checklist for New Utah Public School
Buildings (2012), http://geology.utah.gov/ghp/school-site_review/pdf/ssr_checklist.pdf

Chapters 6 and 7 provide new guidelines for investigating land-subsidence and earth-fissure hazards, and rockfall hazards,
respectively. We combined all of the UGS geologic-hazard-related guidelines into one volume to ensure users have easy and
convenient access to all of the guidelines in one document, and to facilitate future updates. As the UGS develops additional
geologic-hazard investigation guidelines, this publication will be updated as necessary. Users should refer to the UGS web
page for the most current information and guidelines: http://geology.utah.gov/about-us/geologic-programs/geologic-hazards
program/for-consultants-and-design-professionals/recommended-report-guidelines/

Guideline Editors
Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., Geologic Hazards Program (GHP) Manager
William R. Lund, P.G., GHP Senior Scientist Emeritus
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
by
Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.

Dump truck crushed by rockfall on November 23, 1947, in Zion National Park (photo courtesy of the National Park Service).

Suggested citation: Bowman, S.D., 2016, Introduction, in Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating
geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah:
Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 1–13.
2 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 1 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
by Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.

OVERVIEW • Landslide Hazards, including

◦ Landslides
Geologic hazards affect Utah, negatively impacting life safety,
health, property, and the state’s economy. While many geolog ◦ Rockfall
ic hazards are not life threatening, they are often costly when ◦ Debris flows
not recognized and properly accommodated in project plan
◦ Snow avalanches
ning and design, and may result in additional, significant con
struction and/or future maintenance costs and injury or death. • Earthquake Hazards, including
To ensure that future development within Utah is protected ◦ Ground shaking
from geologic hazards, the Utah Geological Survey (UGS)
recommends that a comprehensive engineering-geology in ◦ Surface fault rupture
vestigation be performed for all development subject to local ◦ Liquefaction
permitting. Such investigations provide valuable information ◦ Tectonic deformation
on site geologic conditions that may affect or be affected by
development, as well as the type and severity of geologic haz • Flooding Hazards, including
ards at a site, and recommend solutions to mitigate the effects ◦ River, lake, or sheet flooding
and the cost of the hazards, both at the time of construction
◦ Debris flows
and over the life of the development. Engineering-geology in
vestigations and accompanying geologic-hazard evaluations ◦ Dam and water conveyance structure failure
may be performed independently, or be included as part of a
◦ Seiches
more broadly based geotechnical investigation before project
engineering design. ◦ Tsunamis
• Problem Soil and Rock Hazards, including
The guidelines presented herein provide recommenda
◦ Collapsible soils
tions for appropriate, minimum investigative techniques,
standards, and report content to ensure adequate geologic ◦ Expansive soil and rock
site characterization and geologic-hazard investigations to ◦ Shallow bedrock
protect public safety and facilitate risk reduction. Chapter
◦ Corrosive soil and rock
2 presents guidelines for conducting engineering-geology
investigations and preparing engineering-geology reports; ◦ Wind-blown sand
chapters 3 through 7 provide guidance for evaluating sur ◦ Breccia pipes and karst
face-fault-rupture, landslide, debris-flow, land-subsidence
and earth-fissure, and rockfall hazards. These guidelines are ◦ Piping and erosion
intended to ensure effective site investigations and geologic ◦ Land subsidence and earth fissures
hazard recognition and mitigation at the municipal or county
◦ Caliche
level. Chapter 8 provides a suggested approach to geolog
ic-hazard ordinances and effective review of engineering ◦ Gypsiferous soil and rock
geology reports in Utah. Chapter 9 provides guidance on ◦ Radon gas
reviewing Utah school-site engineering-geology reports and
the UGS review of these reports. • Shallow Groundwater
• Volcanic Hazards, including
Geologic hazards are defined in Utah Code as a “geo ◦ Volcanic eruption
logic condition that presents a risk to life, of substantial ◦ Lava flows
loss of real property, or of substantial damage to real prop
erty” (Title 17, Chapter 27a, Section 103, http://le.utah.gov/
xcode/Title17/Chapter27A/17-27a-S103.html?v=C17-27a
S103_2015051220150512). Geologic hazards commonly en
countered in Utah include, but are not limited to:
4 Utah Geological Survey

COSTS OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Table 1. Summary of known geologic-hazard fatalities in Utah.

Geologic Hazard Fatalities

Geologic hazards that are not accounted for in project planning
Landslide Hazards
and design often result in additional unforeseen construction
and/or future maintenance costs, and possible injury or death. Landslides1 4 1.2%
There is only limited information on the direct and indirect Rockfall 15 4.5%
337 5.7%
economic costs of geologic hazards in the United States, in Debris Flows2 15 4.5%
cluding Utah; however, some information is available for large Snow Avalanches3 303 89.8%
landslide events. For example, landslides in the United States Earthquake Hazards
cause between $1.6 and $3.2 billion (2013 dollars) in damages
Ground Shaking 2 100% 2 <0.1%
each year (Committee on Ground Failure Hazards, 1985).
Flooding Hazards
Flooding 81 80.1%
Since 1847, approximately 5797 fatalities from geologic haz
ards have been documented in Utah (table 1), as well as a Debris Flows2 15 14.9%
101 1.7%
significantly larger, but undetermined number of injuries. Ra DamandWaterConveyanceStructureFailure1 5 5.0%
don gas exposure (lung cancer) has been Utah’s most deadly
geologic hazard, with over 5372 fatalities (data only avail Problem Soils
able from 1973 to 2012), followed by landslide hazards with
337 documented fatalities, and then flooding hazards with 101 2002–2011
2012 38166
965 5372
Radon Gas4 1973–2001 14605 – 92.6%
documented fatalities. As debris flows are both a landslide and
flooding hazard, fatalities are listed in both hazard categories.
Using the economic value of a statistical life of $11.6 mil Total: 5797
lion (2016 dollars; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014), 1 Because of uncertainty in event initiation, three fatalities are listed in both the
the 5797 fatalities are valued at $67.2 trillion. The estimated “Landslides” and “Dam and Water Conveyance Structure Failure” categories.
2 Debris flows are both a landslide and flooding hazard.
economic value of human life is not considered in the hazard
3 The majority of post-1950 snow avalanche fatalities are in the backcountry
economic costs given below. from human-induced avalanches; however, many have occurred near or in
developed areas where appropriate mitigation measures should be used.
In almost all cases, it is more cost effective to perform a com 4 Limited data are available and contain various assumptions; exact number
of fatalities is unknown.
prehensive engineering-geology investigation to identify and 5 Based on World Health Organization general estimate that 14% of lung
characterize geologic hazards and implement appropriate mit cancer cases are attributable to radon gas (Sasha Zaharoff, Utah Depart
igation in project design and construction, rather than relying ment of Health, written communication, 2015) and data from http://epht.
on additional maintenance over the life of the project or to health.utah.gov/epht-view/query/result/ucr/UCRCntyICDO2/Count.html.
6 Utah Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (2015).
incur costly change orders during construction.

Landslide Hazards
Parkway Drive landslide in North Salt Lake severely dam
aged a house and tennis and swim club, and threatens other
Landslide hazards have resulted in at least 337 fatalities in
houses and nearby regional natural gas pipelines (figure 1;
Utah since 1850, with 89.8% of deaths from snow avalanches
Bowman, 2015); remediation is expected to cost $2 million
and 10.2% of deaths from landslides (rock and soil), rockfall, (KSL, 2015), not including emergency response or homeown
and debris flows (table 2). While nearly all the recorded snow
er relocation costs.
avalanche deaths since 1950 have been caused by human-trig
gered avalanches, many of these events have occurred at or
The Springhill landslide in North Salt Lake resulted in de
near developed areas where appropriate mitigation measures
should be employed. molition of 18 homes since movement began around the late
1990s. Due to ongoing movement and subsequent public safe
ty hazards, the City of North Salt Lake applied for a Federal
Landslides
Emergency Management Agency grant in 2011, to mitigate
The 1983 Thistle landslide, Utah’s largest natural (non-min landslide hazards by purchasing 11 affected homes and de
molishing them at a cost of $2.5 million (City of North Salt
ing related) historical landslide, resulted in direct costs of
$200 million, including $81 million in lost revenue by the Lake, 2011). Figure 2 shows one of the affected homes.
Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (now Union Pa
cific Railroad; University of Utah, 1984). The Utah Depart Rockfall
ment of Transportation estimates that repairs from damage to
Utah State Highway 14 from a major 2011 landslide cost be Rockfall has caused significant damage to structures and prop
tween $13 and $15 million (Dave Fadling, Utah Department erty and resulted in at least 15 deaths in Utah since 1850 (table
of Transportation, verbal communication, 2012). The 2014 3). Many of these fatalities were recreation related, and there
Chapter 1 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 5

Table 2. Utah landslide fatalities since 1850, based on newspaper, report, and scientific descriptions of events.

Date Location Fatalities Notes References1

3/12/2005 Kanab Creek, Kanab 1 Stream bank collapse UGS RI 269, p. 17–24
7/11/2009 Logan Bluffs, Logan 3 with three occupants2
Canal/landslide failure, home destroyed UGS, Survey Notes, 2009, v. 41,
no. 3, p. 10
Total: 4

1 RI (Report of Investigation), UGS (Utah Geological Survey).

2It is unknown if a landslide initially caused the canal failure or
if the canal failure caused the landslide; therefore, the three fatalities are included in both the
“Landslides” and “Dam and Water Conveyance Structure Failure” categories.

Figure 1. August 2014 Parkway Drive landslide, North Salt Lake. The landslide damaged the Eagle Ridge Tennis and Swim Club (white tent
structure), severely damaged a house (directly above the tent structure), and removed part of the backyard of a second home. Photo credit:
Gregg Beukelman, August, 14, 2014.

fore, the hazard outside of developed areas should not be dis

counted. Utah’s most recent rockfall-related fatalities are from
the December 12, 2013, rockfall in Rockville, Utah (Lund and
others, 2014), where two people died when numerous large
rockfall boulders struck their home (figure 3), completely de
stroying two buildings. Seven major rockfalls have been docu
mented in Rockville since 1976 (Knudsen, 2011).

Debris Flows

Debris flows have caused significant damage to structures and

property and resulted in at least 15 deaths in Utah since 1847
(table 4). Damage to 29 homes and two businesses from the
September 12, 2002, Santaquin, Utah, fire-related debris flow
(figure 4) totaled about $500,000 (Brad Bartholomew, Utah
Division of Emergency Management, verbal communication, Figure 2. House on Springhill Drive, North Salt Lake City, Utah,
2012). As debris flows are both a landslide and flooding haz severely damaged by the Springhill landslide. This home had been
ard, fatalities are listed in both hazard categories. “red tagged” by the city building official as unsafe to enter. Photo
credit: Gregg Beukelman, February 29, 2012.
6 Utah Geological Survey

Table 3. Utah rockfall fatalities since 1850, based on newspaper, report, and scientific descriptions of events.

Date Location Fatalities Notes References1

4/25/1874 Hyrum Canyon, Hyrum 2 Broken ledge UGS OFR 514
10/20/1892 Ogden Canyon, near Kilns 1 – UGS OFR 514
5/5/1895 Weber Canyon 1 Railroad engineer UGS OFR 514
2/7/1909 Ruby-Westwater 1 Railroad
in Colorado
worker, possibly
UGS OFR 514

7/29/1937 Price 2 Occurred after rain storm UGS OFR 514

1960s–1970s? Timpanogos Cave National Monument ? – NPS communication
7/25/1994 Hanging
Fork Canyon
Rock Picnic Area, American
1 – USGS OFR 1229

1/14/1995 Big Cottonwood Canyon 1 – UGS RI 228

Hanging
7/29/1995 Fork Canyon
Rock Picnic Area, American UGS OFR 373, USGS OFR 1229
1 –

8/2/1999 Lake
GlenPowell,
CanyonGoosenecks
National Recreation
of San Juan
Area
Arm, 1 Camper
boulderstruck
rolledononto
head,
tent UGS OFR 373, PI 94; NPS Geo
logic Hazard Events
10/1/2007 Lake
National
Powell,
Recreation
Lake Canyon,
Area Glen Canyon 2 Rock
boat from
alcove
slab
roof
collapse
overhanging
onto NPS Geologic Hazard Events;
http://www.ksl.
com/?nid=148&sid=1897666
12/12/2013 368 West Main Street, Rockville 2 Home destroyed UGS RI 273
Total: 15
1NPS (National Park Service), OFR (Open-File Report), PI (Public Information series), RI (Report of Investigation), UGS (Utah Geological Survey), USGS
(U.S. Geological Survey).

Earthquake Hazards

Although only two fatalities (ground shaking related) from

earthquakes have occurred in Utah since 1847 (table 6), sce
nario modeling predicts 2000 to 2500 fatalities, 7400 to 9300
life-threatening injuries, 55,400 buildings completely dam
aged, 21 billion tons of debris, and $33.2 billion in estimated
short-term, direct economic losses from a major (magnitude
[M] 7.0) earthquake on the Salt Lake City segment of the
Wasatch fault zone (Earthquake Engineering Research In
stitute [EERI], 2015). About 90,200 unreinforced masonry
buildings (URM), or over 61% of the total number of build
ings in the 12-county area, will be moderately damaged or
totally destroyed (EERI, 2015). Such an event will likely take
decades to recover from and will be the single-most costly
geologic hazard event to affect Utah.
Figure 3. House in Rockville, Utah, destroyed by a rockfall on
December 12, 2013, that resulted in the death of the two house Damage from the 2008 Wells (population 1657), Nevada,
occupants. Photo credit: Tyler Knudsen, December 13, 2013. earthquake (M 6.0), the most recent damaging earthquake near
Utah, totaled approximately $10.6 million, with nearly half of
Snow Avalanches the approximately 80 non-residential buildings damaged and
10 severely damaged (dePolo, 2011). The Wells earthquake
is an important analog for rural Utah towns and cities, with
Snow avalanches have resulted in at least 303 fatalities in Utah
since 1847, with 193 from avalanches in developed areas and similar URM building stock and fragile economic conditions.
110 from winter sports-related avalanches (table 5). Whereas
most of the winter sports-related fatalities were caused by Flooding Hazards
human-triggered avalanches, many occurred at or near devel
oped areas, where appropriate mitigation measures should be Flooding hazards have caused significant damage to struc
employed to protect from avalanches triggered within or adja tures and property and resulted in at least 101 fatalities in Utah
cent to developed areas. since 1847, with 80.1% of deaths from floods and flash floods,
Chapter 1 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 7

Table 4. Utah debris-flow fatalities since 1847, based on newspaper, report, and scientific descriptions of events.

Date Location Fatalities Notes References1

8/13/1923 Farmington Creek, Farmington 6 Campers UGS files
Gorge National
6/11/1965 Sheep Creek,
Recreation Area
Flaming
7 Campers UGA Publication 28

5/13/1984 Clear Creek, Carbon County 1 Slope above house UGS files
5/14/1984 Middle County
Tooele Fork Canyon, Carr Fork mine,
1 Dozer operator UGS files, Brough and others (1987)

Total: 15
1 UGA (Utah Geological Association), UGS (Utah Geological Survey).

Figure 4. September 12, 2002, Santaquin, Utah, fire-related debris flow. This debris flow moved and partially buried several vehicles, broke
through a house wall, and entered other houses through broken basement windows and doors. Photo taken September 12, 2002.

14.9% from debris flows, and 5.0% from dam and water con single-event geologic hazard (20 fatalities), when on September
veyance structure failures. Sixteen major flood events since 14, 2015, seven canyoneers in Keyhole Canyon in Zion Na
1923 have caused over $1.3 trillion in damage (Utah Division tional Park and 13 people in two vehicles in Hildale drowned
of Emergency Management, 2014), and to date, flooding is in flash flooding resulting from a single summer thunderstorm.
Utah’s most economically costly geologic hazard. As debris
flows are both a landslide and flood hazard, fatalities are listed Debris Flows
in both hazard categories.
See debris-flow hazards in the Landslide Hazards section above.
Floods and Flash Floods
Dam and Water Conveyance Structure Failure
Floods and flash floods have caused significant damage to struc
tures and property and resulted in at least 81 fatalities in Utah Dam and water conveyance structure failures have caused sig
since 1847 (table 7). Flash floods produced Utah’s most deadly, nificant damage to structures and property and resulted in five
8 Utah Geological Survey

Table 5. Utah snow avalanche fatalities since 1847, based on newspaper, report, and scientific descriptions of events.

Date Location1 Fatalities Notes References2

Sports Other
1847–1949 Various3 118 – Brough
2/13/1885 Emma mine, Alta – 16 Covered 3/4th of town Brough
1/1903 Near Park City – 3 Miners Brough
1/31/1911 Alta – 4 Miners Brough
3/1920 Canyons around Salt Lake Valley – 9 Also first few days of April Brough
2/17/1926 Bingham Canyon – 394 Homes destroyed Deseret News
1950–1957 Various 1 Brough
3/9/1958 Snowbasin 2 – Rescuers NWS/UAC
3/29/1964 Snowbasin – 1 Worker NWS/UAC
2/12/1967 Pharaohs Glen 2 – Climbers NWS/UAC
2/19/1968 Rock Canyon 1 – Hiker NWS/UAC
1/29/1970 Alta 1 – In-bounds skier NWS/UAC
1/29/1970 Park West 1 – In-bounds skier NWS/UAC
1/6/1976 Alta 1 – Out-of-bounds skier NWS/UAC
3/3/1976 Snowbird 1 – In-bounds skier NWS/UAC
1/19/1979 Helper – 1 Worker NWS/UAC
4/2/1979 Lake Desolation 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
1/11/1980 Evergreen Ridge 1 – Out-of-bounds skier NWS/UAC
2/1/1981 Cardiff 1 – Hiker NWS/UAC
3/1/1981 Millcreek 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
3/22/1982 Near Park West 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
1/2/1984 Superior Peak 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
2/22/1985 Powder Mountain 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
3/19/1985 Park City 1 – In-bounds wet slide NWS/UAC
11/13/1985 Sunset Peak 2 – Backcountry skiers NWS/UAC
1/6/1986 Provo Canyon 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
2/17/1986 BCC 1 – Backcountry snowboarder NWS/UAC
2/19/1986 Alta 1 – In-bounds skier NWS/UAC
11/20/1986 Sugarloaf, Alta 1 – Hiker, unopened area NWS/UAC
2/15/1987 Twin Lakes Reservoir 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
11/25/1989 Tony Grove Lake 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
2/12/1992 Gold Basin, La Sal Mountains 4 – Backcountry skiers NWS/UAC
4/1/1992 Mineral Basin, Snowbird 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
1/16/1993 Sundance 1 – Backcountry skier, closed area NWS/UAC
2/25/1993 Pinecrest, Emigration Canyon 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
4/3/1993 Wolverine Cirque 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
2/18/1994 10,420' Peak, BCC 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
11/7/1994 Snowbird 1 – Backcountry skier, pre-season NWS/UAC
1/14/1995 Ben Lomond Peak 2 – Snowmobilers NWS/UAC
1/23/1995 Midway – 1 Resident in roof slide. NWS/UAC
2/12/1995 Gobblers Knob, BCC 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
2/2/1996 Solitude 1 – Patroller NWS/UAC
3/27/1996 Maybird Gulch, LCC 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
12/7/1996 Bountiful Peak 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
12/26/1996 Flagstaff Peak 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
Chapter 1 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 9

Table 5. Continued

Date Location1 Fatalities Notes References2

Sports Other
1/11/1997 Logan Peak 3 – Campers NWS/UAC
1/25/1997 Provo Canyon 1 – Climber NWS/UAC
1/17/1998 Near Coalville 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
1/18/1998 Sanpete County 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
2/26/1998 Near Weber State 1 – Hiker (possible suicide) NWS/UAC
11/7/1998 Snowbird 1 – Snowboarder, pre-season NWS/UAC
1/2/1999 Wasatch Plateau 2 – Snowboarders NWS/UAC
1/29/1999 Mt. Nebo 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
2/6/1999 Little Willow Canyon 1 – Hiker NWS/UAC
1/11/2000 Squaretop, Canyons 2 – Out-of-bounds skiers NWS/UAC
2/27/2001 Near Canyons 1 – Out-of-bounds skier NWS/UAC
3/10/2001 Oakley, Uinta Mountains 2 – Snowmobilers NWS/UAC
4/28/2001 Stairs Gulch, BCC 2 – Climbers NWS/UAC
12/14/2001 Willard Basin 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
1/31/2002 Windy Ridge, Uinta Mountains 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
3/16/2002 Pioneer Ridge, Brighton 2 – Out-of-bounds snowboarders NWS/UAC
2/15/2003 Gobblers Knob, BCC 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
12/26/2003 Aspen Grove, Timpanogos 3 – Backcountry snowboarders NWS/UAC
2/26/2004 Empire Canyon, Park City 1 – Snowshoer NWS/UAC
12/10/2004 Twin Lakes Pass, SLC 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
Trout Creek, Strawberry 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
12/11/2004
Mineral Fork, SLC 2 – Snowshoers NWS/UAC
1/8/2005 Choke Cherry, Mt. Pleasant 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
Ephraim Canyon 1 – Snowboarder NWS/UAC
1/14/2005 Dutch Draw, Park City 1 – Snowboarder NWS/UAC
3/31/2005 Whiskey Hill 1 – Snowboarder NWS/UAC
12/31/2005 Emerald Lake, Timpanogos 1 – Snowshoer NWS/UAC
3/11/2006 Taylor Canyon, Ogden 1 – Snowboarder NWS/UAC
4/3/2006 Pioneer Ridge, Brighton 1 – Out-of-bounds snowboarder NWS/UAC
Signal Peak 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
2/17/2007
Tower Mountain 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
2/18/2007 Hells Canyon, Snowbasin 1 – Out-of-bounds skier NWS/UAC
2/21/2007 Gobblers Knob, BCC 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
12/23/2007 Canyons 1 – Skier NWS/UAC
12/25/2007 Thousand Peaks 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
12/31/2007 Co-op Creek 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
12/14/2008 Mt. Baldy, Snowbird 1 – In-bounds skier NWS/UAC
12/24/2008 Providence Canyon 2 – Snowmobilers NWS/UAC
12/29/2008 Windy Ridge-Moffit Basin 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
1/24/2010 Hells Canyon, Snowbasin 1 – Out-of-bounds skier NWS/UAC
1/27/2010 Silver Fork, BCC 1 – Out-of-bounds skier NWS/UAC
1/29/2010 Grandview Peak 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
4/4/2010 Francis Peak 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
3/26/2011 Big Horseshoe Bowl 1 – Backcountry skier NWS/UAC
11/13/2011 Gad Valley, Snowbird 1 – Skier, pre-season NWS/UAC
10 Utah Geological Survey

Table 5. Continued

Date Location1 Fatalities Notes References2

Sports Other
1/28/2012 Kesler Ridge 1 – Backcountry snowboarder NWS/UAC
2/5/2012 Fish Lake 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
2/23/2012 Dutch Canyon, Canyons 1 – Out-of-bounds snowboarder NWS/UAC
3/3/2012 Beaver Basin 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
2/8/2014 Tibble Fork Reservoir 1 – Snowshoer NWS/UAC
2/9/2014 Huntington Reservoir 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
3/7/2014 Whitney Reservoir 1 – Snowmobiler NWS/UAC
1/21/2015 Gobblers Knob 1 – Backcountry skier http://www.sltrib.com/
news/3446097-155/1-person-rescued-from-

utah-avalanche
1/31/2016 Shale Shot, Summit County 1 – Backcountry skier http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38367916

Totals: 108 192

300
1 BCC (Big Cottonwood Canyon), LCC (Little Cottonwood Canyon), SLC (Salt Lake City).
2Brough (Brough and others, 1987), Deseret News (1986); NWS (National Weather Service, Salt Lake City Weather Forecast Office, 2015a), UAC (Utah
Avalanche Center, 2015).
3 Most of these fatalities occurred in the early mining days of Utah.
4 Brough and others (1987) indicate 36 fatalities.

Table 6. Utah earthquake fatalities since 1847, based on newspaper, report, and scientific descriptions of events.

Date Location Fatalities Notes References1

3/12/1934 Hansel Valley fault zone (M6.6) 2 Trench collapse (1) and death of sick woman (1) UUSS
Total: 2
1UUSS (University of Utah Seismograph Stations).

fatalities in Utah since 1847 (table 8). The failure of Quail Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures
Creek dam on December 31, 1988, resulted in approximately
$12 million in damage and cost $8 million to rebuild (UDEM, Land subsidence and earth fissures due to groundwater mining
2014). Most Utah dam and canal failures have resulted from have caused significant damage in Utah, including in the Es
piping, erosion, and other soil or rock problems. calante (Lund and others, 2005), Cedar (Kaliser, 1978; Knud
sen and others, 2014), and Parowan (DuRoss and Kirby, 2004)
Problem Soil and Rock Hazards Valleys. While damage cost estimates for Utah are not avail
able, between 1990 and 2000, the federal government and the
Problem soils, such as expansive, compressible, and/or col State of Nevada spent over $7.5 million to move residents
lapsible soils, can cause extensive damage to structures and from and demolish the Windsor Park Subdivision in North
foundations. Problem soils may also damage pavements after Las Vegas due to earth fissures from groundwater withdrawal
in the Las Vegas Valley (Harris, 2001).
construction, resulting in high maintenance and/or replace
ment costs, along with increased legal and financial liability
from pavement separation and/or gaps causing tripping haz Radon Gas
ards. In addition, future maintenance may disrupt business
activities, resulting in increased costs and/or lost revenue. Between 1973 and 2012, there were approximately 5372 fa
While no deaths have been reported in Utah from problem talities in Utah attributable to lung cancer caused by radon gas,
soil hazards, they have caused an undetermined, but very sig having an estimated total first-year treatment cost of $2.7 to
nificant, amount of infrastructure damage and resulting eco $3.6 million (based on World Health Organization general esti
nomic impact. mate that 14% of lung cancer cases are attributable to radon gas
[Sasha Zaharoff, Utah Department of Health, written communi
Chapter 1 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 11

Table 7. Utah flood fatalities since 1847, based on newspaper, report, and scientific descriptions of events.

Date Location Fatalities1 Notes References2

7/17/1863 Pine Creek, Iron County 4 CloudburstsfloodPineCreektoalevelof20feet. NWS

7/23/1878 Skull Valley 2 A cloudburst at Johnson’s settlement. NWS

8/16/1889 Wood Canyon, Mayfield 1 Flash flood NWS
7/14/1896 Eureka 3 Torrential rain flooded town. NWS, Brough
7/28/1896 Eureka 4 Raging torrent down Main Street. NWS
8/22/1896 Clear Creek Canyon, Joseph 1 Wagonloadoflaborers
floodedstream. caught in a NWS

10/7/1896 Mill Creek, Moab 1 Man drowned attempting to cross. NWS

10/16/1889 Mayfield 1 Boy drowned in flash flood. Brough
8/4/1900 Orangeville 1 Creek flooded by heavy rain. NWS
8/4/1901 Coyote (La Sal) 1 Girl drowned in flood.
swimming Brough
8/5/1901 Gorge 15 miles below Escalante 1 Boydrowned
camedown gully. when freshet NWS

8/6/1901 Winter Quarters, Scofield 2 – NWS

8/10/1903 Dry Creek, Toquerville 1 Man trapped in flash flood. NWS
driving
9/1/1909 Ashley River, Vernal 1 Mandrownedinflash
awagonacross. flood while NWS

6/19/1918 Pleasant Creek, Mount Pleasant 1 Intense cloudburst causing extensive flooding. NWS
8/2/1922 Magna 1 Boy drowned in flood. NWS
8/13/1923 Willard 2 Fatalities in home damaged by flood. Brough
Five Mile Creek, Vernal by a flood. from
7/4/1925 1 Child
mobile
drowned when swept auto
NWS

8/16/1928 Nine Mile Canyon, Price 1 coveredhisautomobile. flooding that

Mandrownedfromheavy NWS

8/13/1930 Mona 1 Mud on highway, boy killed. Brough

8/1931 Cisco 1 Woman swept to death. Brough
7/21/1934 Lost Creek, Salina 1 Boy drowned in a sudden flood. NWS
7/29/1936 Ferron 1 Woman
down adrywash.
drownedin cloudburst flood NWS

7/30/1936 Minersville 1 Cloudburst flood. NWS

7/29/1937 Price 1 Flood rolled boulders into a home. Brough
8/31/1939 Diamond Creek, Book Cliffs 1 Woman swept to death by flood waters. NWS
8/5/1948 Sunnyside 1 Body in debris after flash flood. NWS
8/26/1952 Buckhorn Wash Proving Ground, Castle Dale 1 Mandrownedintunnel
floodedthetunnel. when cloudburst NWS

9/17/1961 Virgin River Narrows, Zion NP 5 Partyof26caughtin

floodcrestinsome locations.
flashflood, 14 foot NWS

Wahweap Creek, Glen Canyon City 1 Girl drowned in flash flood. NWS
9/5/1970 Four Corners area 2 Drove car off washed-out bridge. NWS
2/18/1980 Kolob Creek, Virgin 1 Cardrivingacrosscreek
stream,drowning. carried down NWS

2/18/1986 Box Elder County 1 Boy drowned in rain-swollen canal. NWS

9/14/1996 White Canyon, Blanding 1 Hiking party of 13 caught in flash flood. NWS
7/27/1998 Virgin River Narrows, Zion NP 2 Flash flood.
Girlsweptawayfrom NWS
9/5/1998 Ice Cream Canyon, Glen Canyon NRA 1 wallgaveaway. flash flood, canyon NWS

5/13/2001 Washington County 1 Boy swept off cliff by flash flood. NWS
12 Utah Geological Survey

Table 7. Continued

Date Location Fatalities1 Notes References2

of in dry wash in
1/10/2005 Red Cliff Recreation Area 1 Party
their vehicle
2 caught flood
NWS

7/30/2006 Garleys Wash, Carbon County 2 Family offroading vehicle was hit with
flash flood
NWS

9/10/2008 Slot Canyon in Garfield County 2 Party of 8 caught in slot canyon flash flood. NWS
10/1/2012 La Verkin Creek, Washington County 1 Girl
flash flood in backyard swept away by
playing
NWS

9/27/2014 Virgin River Narrows, Zion NP 1 Man killed from flash flood NWS
9/14/2015 Keyhole Canyon, Zion NP 7 Hiking party of 7 caught in flash flood UGS files, http://www.
ksl.com/?sid=
36545005&nid=148
Short Creek, Hildale 13 Sixteen
in flashindividuals
flood in two vehicles caught UGS files,
http://www.ksl.com/?
sid=36545005
&nid=148
Total: 81
1Not including vehicular fatalities (crashes, skidding, etc.) caused by flooding.
2 Brough (Brough and others, 1987), NWS (National Weather Service, Salt Lake City Weather Forecast Office, 2015b), UGS (Utah Geological Survey).

Table 8. Utah dam and water conveyance structure failure fatalities since 1847, based on newspaper, report, and scientific descriptions
of events.

Date Location Fatalities Notes References1

5/16/1963 Little Deer Creek Dam, Uinta Mountains 1 Dam failure, four year old boy died UDEM
6/24/1983 DMAD Dam, Delta 1 Dam failure, man drowned from flash flood NWS, UDEM
home
7/11/2009 Logan Bluffs, Logan 3 with three occupants2
Canal/landslide failure, destroyed UGS, Survey Notes,
2009, v. 41, no. 3,
p. 10
Total: 5

1NWS (National Weather Service, Salt Lake City Weather Forecast Office, 2015b), UDEM (Utah Division of Emergency Management, 2014), UGS (Utah
Geological Survey).
2It is unknown if a landslide initially caused the canal failure or if the canal failure caused the landslide; therefore, the three fatalities are included in both the
“Landslides” and “Dam and Water Conveyance Structure Failure” categories.

cation, 2015], data from http://epht.health.utah.gov/epht-view/ Utah citizens, the UGS began developing and/or collaborat
query/result/ucr/UCRCntyICDO2/Count.html, and Utah Envi ing on guidelines starting in the 1980s and continuing into
ronmental Public Health Tracking Network, 2015). Thousands the 2000s for (1) conducting engineering-geology investiga
of fatalities before 1973 from radon gas are likely. To date, lung tions and preparing engineering-geology reports, (2) evaluat
cancer fatalities caused by radon gas are Utah’s most deadly ing landslide, surface-fault-rupture, and debris-flow hazards,
geologic hazard. Geologic conditions directly affect indoor ra and (3) developing geologic-hazard ordinances. Full citations
don gas concentrations; however, indoor radon gas concentra for those documents are presented below; this publication up
tions are highly dependent on building construction methods; dates and supersedes these guidelines:
see chapter 2, section on International Building/Residential
Code and Local Requirements for more information. • Engineering Geology Reports – Association of Engi
neering Geologists (Utah Section), 1986, Guidelines
for preparing engineering geologic reports in Utah:
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous
UGS GEOLOGIC-HAZARD GUIDELINES Publication M, 2 p.
BACKGROUND • Geologic Hazard Ordinances – Christenson, G.E.,
1987, Suggested approach to geologic hazards ordi
Recognizing Utah’s susceptibility to geologic hazards, as nances in Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey
evidenced by damage to infrastructure and injury or death to Circular 79, 16 p.
Chapter 1 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 13

• Landslides – Hylland, M.D., 1996, Guidelines for cases. The engineering geologist in charge of a geologic-haz
evaluating landslide hazards in Utah: Utah Geological ard investigation is responsible for understanding the appropri
Survey Circular 92, 16 p. ateness of the various methods and where they apply.
• Surface Fault Rupture – Christenson, G.E., Batatian,
As the UGS revises existing or develops new geologic-hazard
L.D., and Nelson, C.V., 2003, Guidelines for evaluat
ing surface-fault-rupture hazards in Utah: Utah Geo guidelines, this publication will be updated as appropriate.
logical Survey Miscellaneous Publication 03-6, 14 p. Users should refer to the UGS web page for the most current
information and guidelines: http://geology.utah.gov/about-us/
• Debris Flows – Giraud, R.E., 2005, Guidelines for the geologic-programs/geologic-hazards-program/for-consultants
geologic evaluation of debris-flow hazards on alluvial and-design-professionals/recommended-report-guidelines/.
fans in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Publication 05-6, 16 p.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• Utah School-Site Reports – Bowman, S.D., Giraud,
R.E., and Lund, W.R., 2012, Utah State Office of The Intermountain Section of the Association of Environmen
Education—geologic-hazard report guidelines and re tal and Engineering Geologists (AEG), the Utah Section of the
view checklist for new Utah public school buildings: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and Robert Te
Utah Geological Survey, online, http://geology.utah. pel provided reviews of this document. The AEG review team
gov/ghp/school-site_review/pdf/ssr_checklist.pdf. consisted of Douglas Hawkes, Jonathan Hermance, and Peter
Doumit. The ASCE review team consisted of Ryan Cole and
Ryan Maw. Gregg Beukelman, Rich Giraud, Michael Hyl
land, and Adam McKean (Utah Geological Survey) provided
CURRENT UGS GEOLOGIC-HAZARD insightful comments that substantially improved this docu
GUIDELINES ment. Each individual chapter contains an acknowledgments
section recognizing individual reviewers of that chapter.
This publication provides revised and updated guidelines for
conducting engineering-geology investigations and prepar
ing engineering-geology reports (chapter 2); for investigating
surface-fault-rupture (chapter 3), landslide (chapter 4), and
debris-flow (chapter 5) hazards; for implementing geologic
hazard ordinances (chapter 8); and for preparing and reviewing
engineering-geology reports for school sites (chapter 9). Addi
tionally, the UGS has prepared new investigation guidelines for
evaluating land-subsidence and earth-fissure hazards (chapter
6) and rockfall hazards (chapter 7). All of the current guidelines
are now combined into one publication to reduce duplication
of topics, form a more complete reference, and facilitate easier
updates and additions to the guidelines in the future.

These guidelines represent the recommended minimum ac

ceptable level of effort for conducting geologic-hazard inves
tigations and preparing engineering-geology reports in Utah.
These guidelines identify important issues and general meth
ods for investigating geologic hazards; they do not discuss all
methods and are not a step-by-step primer for hazard investi
gations. The level of detail appropriate for a particular inves
tigation depends on several factors, including the type, nature,
and location of proposed development; the geology and physi
cal characteristics of the site; and the level of risk acceptable
to property owners, users, and land-use regulators.

The state-of-practice of geologic-hazard investigations contin

ues to evolve as new or improved techniques become available
and are incorporated into hazard investigations. The methods
outlined in these guidelines are considered to be practical and
reasonable methods for obtaining planning, design, and risk
reduction information, but these methods may not apply in all
14 Utah Geological Survey
 CHAPTER 2
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING ENGINEERING
GEOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS AND PREPARING
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY REPORTS IN UTAH
by
Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., and William R. Lund, P.G.

Excavation of a test pit for a geotechnical investigation in Utah.

Suggested citation: Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., 2016, Guidelines for conducting engineering-geology investigations and
preparing engineering-geology reports in Utah, in Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geo
logic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah:
Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 15–30.
16 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 2| Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 17

CHAPTER 2: GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING

ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS AND
PREPARING ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY REPORTS IN UTAH
by Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., and William R. Lund, P.G.

INTRODUCTION published by the UGS. The 1986 guidelines were based on a

series of guidelines developed in California since 1973, by
The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) recommends that for all the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, now
development subject to local permitting, a comprehensive California Geological Survey) (CDMG, 1973, 1975a, 1975b,
engineering-geology investigation be performed to ensure 1975c, 2011a; Slosson, 1984). Those guidelines were sub
that site geologic conditions are adequately characterized and sequently updated and modified by the California Board for
accommodated in project design, and that the project is pro Geologists and Geophysicists (CBGG, now California Board
for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists)
tected from geologic hazards. Investigation results should be
presented in an engineering-geology report, which depending (CBGG, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1998d).
on project type and scope, may be a stand-alone document,
or if conducted concurrently with a geotechnical-engineering
investigation, may be part of a more comprehensive geotech
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY
nical report. In many, if not most, instances, engineering-ge
ology investigations focus on geologic hazards, and the in INVESTIGATIONS
vestigations and subsequent reports are often termed “geolog
ic-hazard” investigations and reports. Engineering-geology The engineering-geology investigation required for a devel
investigations provide valuable information on site geologic opment depends on site geologic conditions, geologic haz
conditions and the nature of geologic hazards present, and ards present, and the nature of the proposed development
provide recommendations for accommodating geologic con (structure type, size, placement, and occupancy; required
ditions in project design and for solutions to mitigate geologic cuts, fills, and other grading; groundwater conditions; and the
hazards, both at the time of construction and over the life of specific purpose and use of the development). An engineer
ing-geology investigation must address all pertinent geologic
the development.
conditions that could affect, or be affected by, the proposed
development. This can only be accomplished through proper
Chapter 1 of this publication identifies the numerous geologic identification and interpretation of site-specific geologic con
hazards in Utah that may affect present and future develop ditions and processes, and nearby features that may affect the
ment. Engineering-geology investigations should be com site and/or development.
prehensive and address all geologic hazards at a site. As the
UGS continues to develop guidance for investigating other The scope of investigation and specific investigation methods
geologic hazards, those guidelines will be available on the will vary depending on project requirements and the regula
UGS website (see chapter 1), and this publication will be pe tory agency that reviews and approves the project. However,
riodically updated. The UGS website contains links to other the UGS considers these engineering-geology investigation
guidance documents for investigating geologic hazards not guidelines and the geologic-hazard investigation guidelines
currently covered by UGS guidelines; those guidance docu in later chapters to represent the minimum acceptable level
ments should be consulted as necessary by geologists con of effort in conducting engineering-geology/geologic-hazard
ducting geologic-hazard investigations (http://geology.utah. investigations in Utah. Additionally, while withdrawn, ASTM
gov/about-us/geologic-programs/geologic-hazards-program/ International (ASTM) Standard D420 Standard Guide to
for-consultants-and-design-professionals/useful-websites/). Site Characterization for Engineering Design and Construc
tion Purposes (ASTM, 2003) contains valuable information
The UGS Geologic Hazards Program developed these engi about performing geotechnical investigations. If soil and/or
neering-geology investigation and report preparation guide rock testing is part of the investigation, the organization per
lines based on current engineering-geology state-of-practice, forming the testing should meet the requirements of ASTM
and previous guidelines prepared by the Utah Section of the Standard D3740 Standard Practice for Agencies Engaged in
Association of Engineering Geologists (1986; see chapter 1) the Testing and/or Inspection of Soil and Rock as Used in En
18 Utah Geological Survey

gineering Design and Construction (ASTM, 2012a) and the Specifically, the 2015 IBC (Section 1803.5.11) requires an
Laboratory Testing section below. These standards are not investigation for all structures in Seismic Design Categories
meant to be inflexible descriptions of requirements and do not C, D, E, or F to include an evaluation of slope instability, liq
address all concerns. uefaction, differential settlement, and surface displacement
due to faulting or lateral spreading. Although the 2015 IRC
When Geologic-Hazard Special Study Maps does not specifically mention liquefaction and other seismic
hazards, IRC Section R401.4 leaves the need for soil tests up
Are Not Available to the local building official in areas likely to have expansive,
compressive, shifting, or other questionable soil characteris
Where geologic-hazard special study maps are not available,
tics; however, investigators conducting engineering-geology
the first step in a geologic-hazard investigation is to deter or geotechnical investigations should always provide an eval
mine if the site is near mapped or otherwise known geologic
uation of these hazards, and if present, provide recommenda
hazards. If so, larger scale maps (if available) should be ex tions to mitigate the hazard and/or risk.
amined, aerial photograph and other remote sensing imagery
interpreted, and a field investigation performed to produce a For flooding, the 2015 IBC (Section 1612.1) and IRC (Section
detailed geologic map (see below) to determine if a geologic
R301.1) state that construction of new buildings and struc
hazard(s) is present that will affect the site. If evidence for a
tures and additions to existing buildings and structures must
hazard(s) is found, the UGS recommends that a site investiga be designed and constructed to resist the effects of flood haz
tion be performed in accordance with the guidelines presented
in this chapter and chapters 3 through 7 as applicable. ards and flood loads. These requirements apply to construc
tion in flood-hazard areas (Zone A and other zones identified
by the local jurisdiction) identified on Flood Insurance Rate
International Building/Residential Code Maps by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
and Local Requirements
The 2015 IBC/IRC addresses issues related to problem soil
The 2015 International Building and Residential Codes and rock in Chapter 18, Soils and Foundations, and Chapter
(IBC/IRC; International Code Council, 2014a, 2014b), ad 4, Foundations, respectively. IBC Section 1803.5.3 and IRC
opted statewide in Utah after July 1, 2016 (Title 15A, http:// Section R401.4 contain requirements for soil investigations in
le.utah.gov/xcode/Title15A/15A.html), specify require areas where expansive soil may be present.
ments for geotechnical investigations that also include eval
uation of some geologic hazards. Local governments (Utah For shallow groundwater, the 2015 IBC Section 1805 and
cities, counties, and special service districts) may also adopt IRC Section R406 contain dampproofing and waterproofing
ordinances related to geologic hazards that must be followed requirements for structures built in wet areas. IBC Section
for development projects. These ordinances may include 1803.5.4 contains requirements for soil investigations in areas
hillside development regulations. Existing ordinances vary of shallow groundwater.
significantly throughout the state, and it is the responsibility
of the investigator to know the requirements and ordinances The 2015 IBC does not address radon hazards; however, in
that apply to a site. A comprehensive geologic-hazard inves vestigators should always evaluate radon potential, and if
tigation will almost always exceed IBC/IRC and local mini present, provide recommendations to mitigate the risk from
mum requirements. radon exposure. Appendix F, Radon Control Methods of the
2015 IRC and ASTM Standard E1465-08a Standard Practice
The 2015 IBC/IRC specify seismic provisions for earthquake for Radon Control Options for the Design and Construction of
hazards. Section 1613.1 of the IBC states, ”Every structure, New Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASTM, 2009) describe
and portion thereof…shall be designed and constructed to re radon-resistant construction techniques. The adoption of 2015
sist the effects of earthquake motions…” and Section R301.1 IRC appendix F and implementation of its construction tech
of the IRC states, “Buildings and structures, and all parts niques is at the discretion of local jurisdictions, but radon haz
thereof, shall be constructed to safely support all loads, includ ard should be evaluated during a comprehensive engineering
ing…seismic loads as prescribed by this code.” Both the IBC geology investigation regardless.
and IRC assign structures, with some exceptions, to a Seis
mic Design Category (IBC Section 1613.3.5 and IRC Section For tsunami-generated flood hazards, the 2015 IBC appendix
R301.2.2.1). Engineering-geology and geotechnical investi M contains brief tsunami regulatory criteria. No tsunami haz
gations are often needed to properly determine the seismic de ard maps have been developed for Utah (Great Salt Lake or
sign parameters required to implement the code requirements. Utah Lake, where sub-lacustrine faults exist). The adoption
Seismic provisions of the IBC and IRC are intended to mini of 2015 IBC appendix M is at the discretion of local jurisdic
mize injury and loss of life by ensuring the structural integrity tions, but tsunami hazard should be evaluated during a com
of a building, but do not ensure that a structure or its contents prehensive engineering-geology investigation regardless for
will not be damaged during an earthquake. areas near Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake. The potential for
Chapter 2| Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 19

ground-shaking-related seiche waves on these lakes and on should be performed soon after the initiation of an investiga
Bear Lake should also be evaluated as appropriate. tion to collect geologic and other data to develop an appropri
ate investigation scope and to discover geologic conditions and
Investigator Qualifications other hazards that may impact a site.

Engineering-geology investigations and accompanying geo Published and unpublished geologic and engineering litera
logic-hazard evaluations often are interdisciplinary in nature, ture, maps, and other records (such as aerial photography and
and in Utah, must be performed by qualified, experienced, other remote sensing imagery) relevant to the site and the site
Utah licensed Professional Geologists (PG, specializing in region’s geology, geologic hazards, soils, hydrology, and land
engineering geology) and Professional Engineers (PE, spe use should be reviewed as part of the engineering-geology
cializing in geological and/or geotechnical engineering) often investigation. These materials are available from a wide va
working as a team. The Utah Division of Occupational and riety of sources (table 9), including the UGS; UGS Library
Professional Licensing (DOPL, http://dopl.utah.gov/) defines (http://geology.utah.gov/library/); U.S. Geological Survey;
a Professional Geologist as a person licensed to engage in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; city, county, state, and univer
practice of geology before the public, but does not define or li sity libraries; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Fed
cense geologic specialists, such as engineering geologists. The eral Emergency Management Agency; and city and county
DOPL issues Professional Geologist (http://dopl.utah.gov/li governments (typically planning and community development
censing/geology.html) and Professional Engineer (http://dopl. departments). Additional information on seismic hazards and
utah.gov/licensing/engineer_land_surveying.html) licenses in risk is available from the Utah Seismic Safety Commission at
Utah, based on approved education and experience criteria, https://ussc.utah.gov.
and also performs enforcement actions against licensees and
others as necessary to protect Utah citizens and organizations. Available UGS Information

Accordingly, engineering-geology investigations shall be per The UGS Geologic Hazards Program has a web page for
formed by or under the direct supervision of a Utah licensed consultants and design professionals (http://geology.utah.
Professional Geologist, who must stamp and sign the final re gov/about-us/geologic-programs/geologic-hazards-program/
port. The evaluation of geologic hazards is a specialized area for-consultants-and-design-professionals/). In addition to the
within the practice of engineering geology, requiring technical recommended guidelines in this document, the page includes
expertise and knowledge of techniques not commonly used in geologic-hazard reports relevant to surface-fault-rupture,
other geologic disciplines. In addition to meeting the qualifica landslide, debris-flow, land-subsidence and earth-fissure, and
tions for geologist licensure in Utah, minimum recommended rockfall hazards in Utah; published UGS geologic-hazard
qualifications of the engineering geologist in charge of a geo maps, reports, and site-specific studies; geologic maps; hydro
logic-hazards investigation include five full years of experi geology publications; historical aerial photography; ground
ence in a responsible position directly in the field of engineer water data; relevant non-UGS publications; and links to exter
ing geology. This experience should include familiarity with nal geologic-hazard-related websites.
local geology and hydrology, and knowledge of appropriate
techniques for evaluating and mitigating geologic hazards. The UGS Geologic Hazards Program Geologic Hazards Map
ping Initiative develops modern, comprehensive geologic-haz
Geologists performing engineering-geology investigations ard map sets on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000-scale
are ethically bound first and foremost to protect public safety quadrangles in urban areas of Utah (Bowman and others, 2009;
and property, and as such must adhere to the highest ethical Castleton and McKean, 2012) as PDFs and full GIS products.
and professional standards in their investigations. Conclu These map sets typically include 10 or more individual geo
sions, drawn from information gained during the investiga logic-hazard maps (liquefaction, surface-fault rupture, flood
tion, should be consistent, objective, and unbiased. Relevant ing, landslides, rockfall, debris flow, radon, collapsible soils,
information gained during an investigation may not be with expansive soil and rock, shallow bedrock, and shallow ground
held. Differences in opinion regarding conclusions and recom water). Some quadrangles may have more maps if additional
mendations and perceived levels of acceptable risk may arise geologic hazards are identified within the mapped area. The
between geologists performing investigations and regulatory Magna and Copperton quadrangle map sets (Castleton and
authority geologists working as reviewers for a public agency. others, 2011, 2014) within Salt Lake Valley have been pub
Adherence to these minimum guidelines should reduce differ lished, with mapping continuing in Salt Lake and Utah Valleys.
ences of opinion and simplify the review process. Similar UGS geologic-hazard map sets are available for the St.
George–Hurricane metropolitan area (Lund and others, 2008),
Literature Searches and Information Resources high-visitation areas in Zion National Park (Lund and others,
2010), and the State Route 9 corridor between La Verkin and
A thorough literature search is an important part of engineer Springdale (Knudsen and Lund, 2013). Detailed surface-fault
ing-geology investigations and subsequent reports. The search rupture-hazard maps have been published for the southern half
20 Utah Geological Survey

Table 9. Potential information sources for engineering-geology investigations in Utah.

Maps Publications and Reports

y
h
d d la p
a
r la r ci s d re gr
ic a
z y
g
molo ci
a
z n n
o
n
a t ra
h
p
ra c
ologi a g
odin y
olog a
H h i
tigat a
ndw o
t
H sil n ce y
log o d
h -c t h i
g ci o ce i
log o P L
o e
G g
eolo lo e
G S si t e se o Gro
dr
Hy u l
p
o F e o
e
G G v a
ir
T S o
e d n e
n I A
G G a
Source
Utah Geological Survey1 x x x x x x x x x
City or county planning and community development departments x x x x x
City, county, and university libraries x x x x x x x x
Federal Emergency Management Agency2 x
Natural Resources Conservation Service3 x x
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)4 x x x x x x x
University of Utah Seismograph Stations5 x
USDA Aerial Photography Field Office6 x
USGS EROS Data Center7 x x
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center8 x x x x x
Utah Division of Water Rights – Dam Safety Program9 x
OpenTopography10 x

1http://geology.utah.gov/ 6http://www.apfo.usda.gov/
2http://msc.fema.gov/ 7 http://eros.usgs.gov/

3 http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/state.asp?state=Utah&abbr=UT 8http://gis.utah.gov/
4http://www.usgs.gov/ 9http://waterrights.utah.gov/daminfo/default.asp
5http://www.seis.utah.edu/ 10http://opentopography.org/

of the Collinston, and the Levan, and Fayette segments of the While the UGS website provides a source of much current,
Wasatch fault zone (Harty and McKean, 2015; Hiscock and published information on Utah’s geology and geologic haz
Hylland, 2015). The UGS routinely partners with local govern ards, it is not a complete source for all available geologic-haz
ments to expedite the publication of geologic-hazard special ard information, and investigators should search and review
study maps in critical areas. other relevant literature and data as necessary.

The UGS GeoData Archive System (http://geodata.geology. Aerial Photography

utah.gov) contains unpublished Utah geology-related scanned
documents, photographs (except aerial), and other digital ma Aerial photography can provide an important historical view
terials from our files and from other agencies or organizations of a site to determine geomorphic activity, such as landslides
in one easy-to-use web-based system. Resources available to and debris flows; document past land use and land cover; and
the public are in the public domain/record and may contain re provide a means to map in urbanized areas with significant to
ports (such as geologic-hazard and geotechnical reports) sub complete contemporary land-surface disturbance (as shown in
mitted to state and local governments as part of their permit Bowman, 2008). In Utah, the earliest known aerial photogra
review process. Reports for nearby developments can provide phy dates from 1935, covering the Navajo Indian Reservation.
valuable insight into local geologic conditions and help devel The earliest known aerial photography along the Wasatch
op appropriate and adequate investigations. Metadata describ Front dates from 1936, and much subsequent aerial photog
ing each resource are searchable, along with spatial searching raphy was acquired by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
for resources that are local in nature. Reports within the sys (USDA) Agricultural Adjustment Administration (now the
tem may be downloaded as text-searchable PDF files. Not all Farm Service Agency) for use in national programs in con
resources are available to all users due to end-user, copyright, servation, land-use planning, and ensuring compliance with
and/or distribution restrictions. Users are also encouraged to farm output (Monmonier, 2002). An extensive collection of
search the UGS Library (http://geology.utah.gov/library/) for public-domain aerial photography of Utah is available from
books and similar materials. the UGS (as of August 2016, over 96,000 images are available
Chapter 2| Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 21

at http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/publications/aerial-pho sition, processing, and analysis is presented in appendix C and

tographs/, and described in Bowman, 2012) and the USDA in Bowman and others (2015a).
Aerial Photography Field Office (http://www.apfo.usda.gov)
in Salt Lake City, Utah. Avery and Berlin (1992) discuss the
Excavation Safety
acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of aerial photography
in detail. Excavation safety is of utmost importance when digging test
pits and trenches, and performing other subsurface explora
Low-sun-angle aerial photography, pioneered by Slemmons tion. Two workers are killed every month in the United States
(1969), can be a valuable tool to identify geomorphic features from trench collapses (Occupational Safety and Health Ad
related to geologic hazards, including fault scarps, earth fis ministration [OSHA], 2011). Proper excavation methods, in
sures, landslide scarps, and other features. The UGS recently cluding following allowable minimum trench widths and max
published two compilations of low-sun-angle aerial photog imum vertical slope heights, are necessary for all excavations.
raphy obtained by others in the 1970s and 1980s—one along Excavations are regulated under federal code (29 CFR 1926
the Wasatch fault zone and West and East Cache fault zones Subpart P – Excavations; https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
in northern Utah and southern Idaho (Bowman and others, owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=STANDARDS&p_toc_
2015b), and the other along the Hurricane and Washington level=1&p_keyvalue=1926). More information on excavation
fault zones in southern Utah (Bowman and others, 2011). safety is available online from OSHA (https://www.osha.gov/
SLTC/trenchingexcavation/index.html) and the State of Utah
Lidar Data Labor Commission (http://www.laborcommission.utah.gov/
divisions/UOSH/OutreachMaterials.html).
Light detection and ranging (lidar) is a technique of transmit
ting laser pulses and measuring the reflected returns to mea Site Characterization
sure the distance to an object or surface. Lidar is commonly
used to determine ground surface elevations to create highly The Utah Department of Transportation (2011), Federal
accurate, bare-earth digital elevation models of the ground Highway Administration (2003), National Highway Institute
surface where the effects of vegetation have been removed. A (2002), U.S. Department of Defense (2004), U.S. Bureau of
lidar instrument can send pulses at a rapid rate, making a high Reclamation (1998a, 1998b, 2001), and the guidelines con
point-spacing density (for example, several returns per square tained in this publication provide information regarding site
meter) possible, much denser than would be possible by tradi characterization methods and techniques.
tional surveying methods. Lidar can measure the ground sur
face with accuracies of a few inches horizontally and a few As part of site characterization, an adequate number, spacing,
tenths of an inch vertically (Carter and others, 2001). Land and location of subsurface exploration and subsequent labora
slides, fault scarps, and other features that are difficult to de tory testing are necessary, and will depend upon the specific
tect visually because of vegetation, access, or other issues, are project and local ordinances and requirements. Table 10 con
often clearly visible in lidar data (figures 5 and 6). First devel tains recommended minimum spacing and depth of subsur
oped in the 1960s with early laser components (Miller, 1965; face exploration for a variety of constructed features. Often,
Shepherd, 1965), lidar has evolved from simple electronic engineering-geology investigations will require additional
distance measurement systems used in surveying (Shan and subsurface exploration (including increased depths) due to
Toth, 2009) into a sophisticated surface mapping technique complex structural configurations; complex and/or variable
on multiple platforms including airplanes, helicopters, ground geologic conditions; complex or large structural, seismic, or
vehicles, stationary tripods, etc. other loading; and other conditions. It is imperative that sub
surface exploration extends to sufficient depths to adequately
In 2011, the UGS acquired approximately 1902 square miles characterize geologic conditions and provide input data to en
of 1-meter (ground cell size) lidar data including parts of Ce gineering analysis, design, and mitigation of geologic hazards.
dar and Parowan Valleys, Great Salt Lake shoreline/wetland
areas, the Hurricane fault zone, the Lowry Water area, Ogden Extensive professional engineering geology and geotechnical
Valley, and North Ogden, Utah, and in 2013, acquired approx experience and judgement are required to design an appropri
imately 1352 square miles of 0.5-meter lidar data for all of the ate engineering-geologic site investigation. Reliance on input
Wasatch fault zone (Utah and Idaho) and Salt Lake and Utah values from other projects, published general ranges or val
Valleys, Utah. The UGS data are available at http://geology. ues, and data not directly acquired from the site should not be
utah.gov/resources/data-databases/lidar-elevation-data/. Pub used for final reports and design. Review and acceptance of
lic domain lidar data in Utah are also available from the Utah engineering-geology investigation proposals should strongly
Automated Geographic Reference Center (http://gis.utah.gov/ consider the frequency, spacing, and depth of subsurface ex
elevation), OpenTopography (http://opentopography.org/), ploration to ensure the proposed investigation will adequately
and may also be available from city and county governments. characterize the site; cost should not be a significant proposal
Additional information on lidar, including background, acqui selection factor. Proposals submitted to local governments
22 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 5. Comparison of 2006 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 1-meter color orthophoto imagery (left) and 2006 2-meter
airborne LiDAR imagery (right) in the Snowbasin area, Weber County, Utah. Red lines outline the Green Pond and Bear Wallow landslides
that are clearly visible in the lidar imagery, but barely visible to undetectable in the NAIP imagery. Data from the Utah Automated Geographic
Reference Center (2006a, 2006b).

Figure 6. Comparison of 2009 High-Resolution Orthophotography (HRO) 1-foot color imagery (left) and 2011 1-meter airborne lidar
imagery (middle and right) in the International Center area, Salt Lake City, Utah. Fault scarps indicated by red lines show traces of the
Granger fault, West Valley fault zone, that are clearly visible in the lidar imagery, but barely visible to undetectable in the HRO imagery.
Salt Lake International Airport visible to the right on each image. Data from Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (2009, 2011).
Chapter 2| Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 23

Table 10. Recommended minimum subsurface exploration frequency and depth for constructed features (modified from Utah Department of
Transportation, 2011, 2014; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2014).

Constructed Feature1 Frequency and Location2 Minimum Depth2

Pavements Roadway Pavements to
200 1000 feet ≥10 feet below pavement bottom elevation
Slopes Cut Slopes Every cutto≥15
every200 600feet in minimum
feet, depth of one for ≥15 feet below base of cut and into competent
soil or rock
Embankments Every 200 to 600 feet ≥2x embankment height
Structures Buried Structures One or more at each location ≥15 feet below foundation bottom elevation
Shallow Foundations Maximum 70 foot spacing ≥10 feet below foundation bottom or fully
penetrating unsuitable soils, whichever is deeper
walls,ofofand
the with to
inalternating
the
for in
Retaining Walls 100
height
zone;
locations
front
to 200
and
additional
feet
behind
forbehind
wall,
soil-nail
at
locations
all
locations
athe
distance
100
walls,
wall; 200
additional
1–1.5x
anchored
anchorage
foot the
spaced. To a depth below wall bottom where stress
increase is < 10 percent of existing overburden
stress and between 1 to 2x the wall height, or
fully penetrating unsuitable soils, whichever
is deeper

SoundandOtherFreestandingWalls Every 250 to 500 feet ≥10 feet below foundation bottom elevation

1 Seechapter 3 for surface-fault-rupture, chapter 4 for landslide, chapter 5 for debris-flow, chapter 6 for land-subsidence and earth-fissure, and chapter 7 for
rockfall hazard investigation subsurface exploration recommendations.
2Additional subsurface exploration (borings, test pits, etc.) and/or increased depths will often be needed, due to complex and/or variable geology; structural,
seismic, and other loads; and/or other conditions. Extensive professional engineering geology and geotechnical experience and judgement is needed.

should be reviewed by the regulatory-authority engineering ficient detail. In certain cases where detailed topographic base
geologist as defined below in the Field Review and Report maps at scales larger than 1:24,000 (U.S. Geological Survey
Review sections. Poorly developed engineering-geology in (USGS) 7-1/2 minute quadrangles) are not available, geologic
vestigations will result in inadequate input data for subsequent mapping may be performed on aerial photography of suitable
engineering analysis, design, and mitigation of geologic haz scale to document pertinent features. On small-scale maps, one
ards; may result in cost overruns/change orders, decreased inch commonly equals 2000 feet (1:24,000) or more, where
project performance, and increased maintenance costs; and as on large-scale maps, one inch commonly equals 500 feet
may increase potential costs to local governments, and ulti (1:6000) or less. The base map should also include locations of
mately, the taxpayer. proposed structures, pavements, and utilities.

Geologic Mapping The geologist performing the geologic mapping and prepar
ing the final map should pay particular attention to the nature
Site geologic mapping should be performed in sufficient de of bedrock and surficial materials, structural features and re
tail to define the geologic conditions present at and adjacent lations, three-dimensional distribution of earth materials ex
to the site. For most purposes, published geologic maps lack posed and inferred in and adjacent to the site shown on a cross
the necessary detail to provide a basis for understanding site section(s), and potential geologic hazards (such as landslides,
specific geologic conditions, and new, larger scale, indepen rock-fall and debris-flow deposits, springs/seeps, aligned veg
dent geologic mapping is required. If suitable geologic maps etation possibly indicative of a fault, and problem soil and
are available, they must be updated to reflect topographic and rock). A clear distinction should be made between observed
geologic changes that have occurred since map publication. and inferred features and relations. Doelling and Willis (1995)
Extending mapping into adjacent areas will likely be neces provide guidelines for geologic maps submitted to the UGS
sary to define geologic conditions impacting the project area. for publication that may also be applied to mapping for engi
Often, geologic mapping will be more useful to the project if neering-geology/geologic-hazard investigations.
performed with the intent of creating an engineering-geologic
map that specifically focuses on site geologic conditions and Engineering-geology mapping may be performed using the
geologic hazards as they affect the proposed development. Genesis-Lithology-Qualifier (GLQ) system, which promotes
communication of geologic information to non-geologists
Mapping should be performed on a suitable topographic base (Keaton, 1984). The GLQ system incorporates the Unified
map at an appropriate scale and accuracy applicable to the proj Soil Classification System (USCS; ASTM, 2002), which has
ect. The type, date, and source of the base map should be indi been used for many years in geotechnical and civil engineer
cated on each map. Mapping for most projects should be at a ing, rather than the conventional time-rock system employed
scale of 1:10,000 or larger to show pertinent features with suf on most geologic maps. An import aspect when mapping for
24 Utah Geological Survey

engineering-geology purposes is to map units having distinc hazard events. This is particularly true for characterizing earth
tive engineering-geology/geologic-hazard characteristics. The quake hazards, which includes the investigation of surface
USDA system of soil classification for agriculture is generally fault-rupture hazard (chapter 3). However, determining the tim
inappropriate for engineering-geology mapping and delineat ing and rate at which other geologic hazards occur is also useful
ing geologic hazards. The Unified Rock Classification System for many kinds of geologic-hazard investigations. Therefore,
(Williamson, 1984) provides a systematic and reproducible engineering geologists conducting geologic-hazard investiga
method of describing rock weathering, strength, discontinui tions in Utah should have a good working knowledge of the
ties, and density in a manner directly usable by engineering more useful and commonly applied geochronologic methods.
geologists and engineers. The Geological Strength Index (GSI)
provides a system to describe rock mass characteristics and es When applying geochronologic methods to geologic-hazard
timate strength (Marinos and Hoek, 2000; Marinos and others, investigations, investigators should keep certain conven
2005; Hoek and others, 2013). For altered materials, Watters tions of terminology in mind. By definition, a “date” is a
and Delahaut (1995) provide a system for classification that specific point in time, whereas an “age” is an interval of time
can be incorporated into overall rock classification. measured backward from the present. It is generally accept
ed to use the word “date” as a verb to describe the process
Laboratory Testing of producing age estimates (e.g., dating organic sediments
using 14C). However, when used as a noun, “date” carries
An appropriate suite of samples should be tested to determine the implication of calendar years and a high degree of ac
curacy that is generally not appropriate (Colman and Pierce,
site soil and/or rock properties that match the scope and re
2000). Most “dates” are more accurately described as “age
quirements of the project. Too often soil classification testing
estimates” or “ages,” exceptions being dates derived from
is incomplete in that testing is performed on one sample for
the historical record, and some dates derived from tree rings,
moisture content, another for plasticity index (PI), and perhaps
glacial varves, or coral growth bands (Colman and Pierce,
a third sample for fines content (-#200 mesh percent). An ac
2000). The North American Stratigraphic Code (NASC)
curate soil classification cannot be determined from these tests
(North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomencla
performed independently of each other. An adequate number
of samples should be tested to determine the laboratory-based ture, 2005) makes a distinction between ages determined by
chronologic methods and intervals of time. The NASC rec
soil classification (PI and gradation) as a check on field-de
ommends that the International System of Units (SI [metric
rived (visual-manual) soil classification to reduce error.
system]) symbols ka and Ma (kilo-annum and mega-annum,
or thousands and millions of years ago, respectively, mea
Laboratory testing of geologic samples collected as part of an sured from the present) be used for ages, and informal ab
engineering-geology investigation should conform to current
ASTM and/or American Association of State Highway and breviations such as kyr and myr be used for time intervals
(e.g., 1.9 ± 0.3 ka for the age of an earthquake, but 1.9 kyr to
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, as appropriate describe the interval of elapsed time since that earthquake).
to the specific project. In addition, testing laboratories should
be accredited by the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory Radiocarbon ages are typically reported with the abbrevia
tion yr B.P. (years before present; by convention radiocar
(AMRL, http://www.amrl.net/AmrlSitefinity/default/aap.aspx) bon ages are measured from A.D. 1950). Because radiocar
and may also be validated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi bon ages depart from true calendar ages due to variations
neers Materials Testing Center (http://www.erdc.usace.army. in atmospheric production of radiocarbon, radiocarbon ages
mil/Media/FactSheets/FactSheetArticleView/tabid/9254/Arti
must be calibrated to account for the variation. When calen
cle/476661/materials-testing-center.aspx) to ensure compliance dar-calibrated radiocarbon ages are reported, the designation
with current laboratory testing standards and quality control “cal” is included (e.g., 9560 ± 450 cal yr B.P.). By conven
procedures. Most ASTM engineering-geology-related test stan tion, the abbreviations yr B.P. and cal yr B.P. are restricted to
dards are contained in Volumes 4.08 and 4.09 (Soil and Rock). radiocarbon ages (Colman and Pierce, 2000).

Complete laboratory test results should be placed in an ap

pendix with a summary of results in the report text as needed. Many geochronologic methods are available to engineering
Test results should clearly state the laboratory identification, geologists conducting engineering-geology investigations.
The methods typically fall into one of two general categories:
sample identification and location, test method standard used,
date of testing, equipment identification (if applicable), labo well established and experimental (Noller and others, 2000).
ratory technician performing the test, test data, and note any Well-established methods are widely accepted and applied by
irregularity or changes from the standardized test method. the geologic community, and importantly, are usually com
mercially available. Experimental methods are new, usually
still under development, not fully tested, and not widely ac
Geochronology cepted or applied. Experimental methods commonly are in the
“research phase” of development, and as such are not usu
Evaluating geologic hazards frequently requires determining ally available for most engineering-geology investigations.
the timing (age), rate, and recurrence of past (paleo) geologic Colman and Pierce (2000) classified geochronologic methods
Chapter 2| Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 25

according to their shared assumptions, mechanisms, or appli Evaluating uncertainty associated with an age, numerical or
cations as follows. otherwise, is critical to constraining the timing and recurrence
1. Sidereal (calendar or annual) methods, which deter of past geologic-hazard events. Many numerical ages are re
mine calendar dates or count annual events. ported with a laboratory estimate of the precision (analytical
reproducibility) of the age, commonly expressed as one or two
2. Isotopic methods, which measure changes in isotopic
standard deviations (σ or 2σ) around a mean. Frequently the
composition due to radioactive decay and/or growth. largest source of error in paleoevent dating is sample context
3. Radiogenic methods, which measure cumulative ef error, or the error involved in inferring the time of an event
fects of radioactive decay, such as crystal damage and from the age of an accurately dated (how closely a reported
electron energy traps. age corresponds to the actual age) sample (McCalpin and Nel
son, 2009). Sample context error is often much larger than the
4. Chemical and biological methods, which measure the re 2σ deviation laboratory precision estimate, and must be care
sults of time-dependent chemical or biological processes.
fully evaluated and explicitly acknowledged when calculat
5. Geomorphic methods, which measure the cumulative ing paleo-hazard event timing and recurrence. Where accurate
results of complex, interrelated, physical, chemical, information on earthquake timing and recurrence are of criti
and biological processes on the landscape. cal importance (e.g., where development is proposed directly
6. Correlation methods, which establish age equivalence across an active fault trace), it is recommended that timing
using time-independent properties. and recurrence be modeled using OxCal 14C calibration and
analysis software (Bronk Ramsey, 1995, 2001, 2010), which
Geochronologic methods may also be categorized by the re probabilistically models the time distributions of undated
sults they produce. Colman and Pierce (2000) further iden events by incorporating stratigraphic ordering information for
tified four general result-based categories: numerical-age, numerical (e.g., 14C and luminescence) ages (Bronk Ramsey,
calibrated-age, correlated-age, and relative-age methods. The 2008, 2009). See Lienkaemper and Bronk Ramsey (2009) and
DuRoss and others (2011) for additional discussions on the
methods are described here in order of decreasing precision.
use of OxCal in paleoseismic investigations.
1. Numerical-age methods produce quantitative esti
mates of age and uncertainty and are sometimes called Evaluating paleo-hazard event timing and recurrence from
“absolute ages,” but are more appropriately referred available age estimates, which may be limited by a lack of
to as “numerical” ages.
datable material or by time or budget constraints, is often a
2. Calibrated-age methods provide approximate numeri difficult task. However, given the often critical nature of de
cal ages, and are based on systematic changes that de termining geologic-hazard activity, the engineering geologist
pend on environmental variables such as temperature conducting a geologic-hazard investigation is responsible for
or lithology and must be calibrated using independent evaluating the geologic conditions at the site, and for select
numerical ages (McCalpin and Nelson, 2009). These ing the dating methods best suited to constrain paleo-hazard
methods should not be confused with “calibrated” ra timing and associated uncertainty. Rarely can a single analysis
diocarbon ages. of a single sample by any dating method provide a definitive
3. Correlated-age methods do not directly measure age age for a paleo-hazard event (McCalpin and Nelson, 2009).
and produce age estimates by demonstrating equiva Multiple samples evaluated by multiple techniques provide
an improved basis for determining paleo-hazard timing and
lence to independently dated deposits or events.
recurrence, and in instances where such data are critical to
4. Relative-age methods provide an ordinal ranking hazard evaluation and project design, the analysis will benefit
(first, second, third, etc.) of an age sequence, and may from retaining an expert in the application and interpretation
provide an estimate of the magnitude of the age differ of geochronologic methodologies.
ence between members of the sequence.
Critical, but often overlooked, aspects of geochronologic dat
Table 11 is modified from Colman and Pierce (2000) and ing, particularly numerical dating, are proper sample collec
McCalpin and Nelson (2009), and classifies the more com tion and handling prior to delivery to the laboratory. Most
monly applied geochronologic methods by result and method.
commercial dating laboratories post sample collection and
All of the methods in table 10 are potentially applicable to
handling instructions on their websites (e.g., Beta Analytic
engineering-geology investigations. Methods shown in italic Radiocarbon Dating, 2014; Utah State University Lumines
type are known to have been used in Utah; methods shown cence Laboratory, 2014). Improper sample collection and
in bold italic type are commonly employed in Utah. Geolo
handling may result in incorrect ages, ages that are difficult to
gists conducting engineering-geology investigations in Utah interpret, or no useful age information at all. Where samples
should develop a working knowledge of those commonly ap are collected from trenches that are then closed, or from other
plied techniques, both for potential use on future projects, and ephemeral or hard-to-access sample locations, it may not be
to develop an understanding of the nature and limitations of
possible to resample if the original samples are compromised
the different kinds of age estimates reported in the literature. by bad sampling and handling techniques.
26 Utah Geological Survey

Table 11. Classification of geochronologic methods potentially applicable to geologic-hazard investigations (after Colman and Pierce [2000]
and McCalpin and Nelson [2009]).

TYPE OF RESULT1
Numerical Age Calibrated Age Correlated Age Relative Age
TYPE OF METHOD2
Calendar Year Isotopic Radiogenic Biological
Chemical/
Correlation Geomorphic

Historical records Radiocarbon (14C) Fission track racemization

Amino-acid Stratigraphy Soil-profile development

K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar and and

Dendrochronology Thermoluminescence Obsidian
tephra hydration Paleomagnetism Rock mineral
weathering
Varve chronology Uranium series Optically
luminescence
stimulated Lichenometry Tephrochronology Scarp morphology and
other progressive
Infrared landform modification
Cosmogenic
other
26Al, 36Cl, 14C;
than 10Be, e.g.,
isotopes
3He luminescence
stimulated Soil chemistry Paleontology Rate of deposition

U-Pb, Th-Pb resonance

Electron-spin Rockvarnishchemistry Archeology Rate of deformation

Stable isotopes Relative geomorphic

position
Stone coatings (CaCO3)
Precariously balanced
rocks

1Boundaries between “Type of Result” categories are dashed to show that results produced by geochronologic methods in one category may in some
instances contribute to results typical of another category; i.e., boundaries between the categories are not sharply defined.
2 Geochronologic methods shown in italic type are known to have been applied to geologic-hazard investigations in Utah. Methods shown in bold italic type
are commonly employed for geologic-hazard investigations in Utah.

ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY REPORTS general use: reconnaissance, preliminary investigation, and

final investigation/design.
Engineering-geology reports will be prepared for projects at • Reconnaissance Reports – Present summary geologic
sites where geologic conditions range from relatively simple information on a particular project based on a lim
to complex; with some, many, or no geologic hazards pres ited literature review and site visit, but without sub
ent; and with varying types of development (structures, pave surface exploration. Often used for real-estate due
ments, underground facilities, site grading, landscaping, etc.) diligence activities and in preparation for in-depth
and uses. As a result, the format and scope of an engineer investigations and subsequent final design reports.
ing-geology report should reflect project and regulatory re These reports should present only general conclu
quirements, and succinctly and clearly inform the reader of sions, recommend additional investigation as neces
the geologic conditions present at and adjacent to the project sary, and users should be clearly informed about re
site, and procedures and recommendations to mitigate geo port limitations. These reports should not be used for
logic hazards Reports should include a discussion of geologic final design or construction.
conditions and hazards present that were not investigated, and
why they were not investigated (e.g., limited scope and/or • Preliminary Investigation Reports – Present incomplete
budget), and provide recommendations for future, more com geologic information during an investigation, including
prehensive investigation if necessary. All reports, addenda, preliminary results of subsurface exploration, laboratory
and related materials should be dated and properly referenced testing, and other activities. Often used during a project
or numbered, so that any revisions and a report timeline may to inform other project professionals (such as engineers
be clearly determined. and architects) of geologic issues and preliminary con
clusions and recommendations prior to the completion
The type and nature of the report should be clear to the end of a final investigation report. Users should be clearly
user and reviewer so the report will be used for its intended informed about report limitations. These reports should
not be used for final design or construction.
purpose. Three types of engineering-geology reports are in
Chapter 2| Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 27

• Final Investigation/Design Reports – Present the re in and adjacent to the project site. The following is a general
sults of a completed geologic investigation of a project, list; however, it is not a complete guide to geologic descrip
including literature review results, aerial photograph tions and additional information may be necessary.
and other remote sensing interpretation, subsurface ex • Soils (unconsolidated alluvial, colluvial, eolian, gla
ploration, laboratory testing, geologic analysis, cross cial, lacustrine, marine, residual, mass movement, vol
sections, and final geologic conclusions and recom canic, or fill [uncontrolled or engineered] deposits).
mendations. These reports are suitable for permit re
view and approval, final project design, and decision ◦ Identification of material, relative age, and degree of
making related to the project. activity of originating process.
◦ Distribution, dimensional characteristics, thickness
General Information and variations, degree of pedogenic soil develop
ment, and surface expression.
Each report should include sufficient background information to ◦ Physical characteristics (color, grain size, lithology,
inform the reader (client, reviewing agency, etc.) of the general particle angularity and shape, density or consistency,
site setting, proposed land use, and the purpose, scope, and limi moisture condition, cementation, strength).
tations of the geologic investigation. Reports should address: ◦ Special physical or chemical features (indications of
• Location and size of the project site, and its general shrink/swell, gypsum, corrosive soils, etc.).
setting with respect to major or regional geologic and
◦ Special engineering characteristics or concerns.
geomorphic features, including a detailed location map
indicating the site. • Rock
• Purpose and scope of the geologic investigation and report. ◦ Identification of rock type/lithology.
• Name(s) of geologist(s) who performed the geologic ◦ Relative age and formation.
investigation, developed interpretations and conclu ◦ Surface expression, areal distribution, and thickness.
sions, and wrote the report. In addition, the name(s) of
◦ Physical characteristics (color, grain size, stratifica
others who were involved with recording field obser
tion, strength, variability).
vations and/or performing laboratory testing should be
clearly stated on all results. ◦ Special physical or chemical features (voids, gyp
sum, corrosive nature, etc.).
• Topography and drainage conditions within and adja
cent to the project site. ◦ Distribution and extent of weathering and/or alteration.
• General nature, distribution, and abundance of soil and ◦ Special engineering characteristics or concerns.
rock within the project site. • Structural Features (faults, fractures, folds, and dis
• Basis of interpretations and conclusions regarding the continuities)
project site geology. Nature and source of available ◦ Occurrence, distribution, dimensions, orientation, and
subsurface information and geologic publications, re variability; include projections into the project area or site.
ports, and maps. Suitable explanations of the available
data should provide a regulatory-authority reviewer ◦ Relative ages, where applicable.
with the means of evaluating the reliability and accu ◦ Special features of faults (topographic expression,
racy of the data. Reference to cited publications and zones of gouge and breccia, nature of offsets, move
field observations must be made to substantiate opin ment timing, youngest and oldest faulted units).
ions and conclusions. ◦ Special engineering characteristics or concerns.
• Building setbacks and areas designated to avoid geo
• Hydrologic Conditions
logic hazards.
◦ Distribution, occurrence, and variations of drainage
• Disclosure of known or suspected geologic hazards af courses (rivers, streams, ephemeral and dry drain
fecting the project site, including information on past per ages), ponds, lakes, swamps, springs, and seeps.
formance of existing facilities (such as buildings, utilities,
pavements, etc.) in the immediate vicinity of the site. ◦ Identification and characterization of aquifers, depth
to groundwater, and seasonal fluctuations.

Descriptions of Geologic Materials, Features, ◦ Relations to topographic and geologic features and units.
and Conditions ◦ Evidence for earlier occurrence of water at locations
now dry (vegetation changes, peat deposits, mineral
Engineering-geology reports should contain detailed descrip deposits, historical records, etc.).
tions of geologic materials (soil, intermediate geomaterials, ◦ Special engineering characteristics or concerns (such
and rock), structural features, and hydrologic conditions with as a fluctuating water table).
28 Utah Geological Survey

• Seismic Conditions ◦ Seiches

◦ Description of the seismotectonic setting of the proj ◦ Tsunamis – see 2015 IBC appendix M
ect area or site (earthquake size, frequency, and loca • Problem Soil and Rock, including
tion of significant historical earthquakes).
◦ Collapsible soils
◦ Current IBC/IRC seismic design parameters.
◦ Expansive soil and rock
Assessment of Geologic Hazards and ◦ Shallow bedrock
Project Suitability ◦ Corrosive soil and rock
◦ Wind-blown sand
The evaluation of geologic hazards in relation to a proposed
development is a major focus of most engineering-geology ◦ Breccia pipes and karst
investigations. This involves (1) the effects of the geologic ◦ Piping and erosion
features and hazards on the proposed development (grading;
◦ Ground subsidence and earth fissures – chapter 6
construction of buildings, utilities, etc.; and land use), and (2)
the effects of the proposed development on future geologic ◦ Caliche
processes within and adjacent to the site (such as constructed ◦ Gypsiferous soil and rock
cut slopes causing slope instability and/or erosion problems).
◦ Radon – see 2015 IRC appendix F, Radon Control
A clear understanding of all geologic hazards that may affect
Methods and ASTM Standard E1465-08a
the construction, use, and maintenance of a proposed devel
opment is required to ensure development proceeds in a cost • Shallow Groundwater – see 2015 IBC Section 1805
effective and safe manner for the design professional, owner, and IRC Section R406
contractor, user, community, and environment. • Volcanic Hazards, including
◦ Volcanic eruption and ash clouds
Identification and Extent of Geologic Hazards
◦ Lava flows
Common geologic hazards encountered in Utah and that
should be addressed in a comprehensive geologic-hazards Suitability of Proposed Development in Relation to
investigation are listed below, along with specific guidelines Geologic Conditions and Hazards
contained in this publication as separate chapters or available
elsewhere as short references. Once the geologic conditions and hazards at a site have been
• Earthquake Hazards, including identified and investigated, the suitability of a proposed de
velopment in relation to these conditions and hazards must
◦ Surface-fault-rupture – chapter 3 be determined. A proposed development may be found to
◦ Ground shaking – see 2015 IBC Section 1613.1 and be incompatible with one or more geologic conditions and/
IRC Section R301.1 or hazards, resulting in development design changes. If these
◦ Liquefaction changes can be made early in the design process, significant
cost savings may be realized.
◦ Lateral spreading
◦ Tectonic deformation Report Structure and Content
• Landslide Hazards, including
Engineering-geology reports should generally follow the rec
◦ Landslides – chapter 4
ommended report format presented below; however, the con
◦ Debris flows – chapter 5 tent and scope of these reports should reflect applicable proj
◦ Rockfall – chapter 7 ect and regulatory requirements, and may be combined with
geotechnical investigation reports as appropriate. Relevant
◦ Snow avalanches – see Mears (1992) for guidance and well-drafted figures and/or tables should be included in
◦ Earthquake-induced landslides – chapter 4 the report as needed. Subcontractor reports, such as geophysi
• Flooding Hazards, including cal reports, should be included as an appendix and referenced
in the text.
◦ River, lake, or sheet flooding – see 2015 IBC appen
dix G, and commonly addressed in locally adopted 1. Introduction
FEMA regulations • Description of project and location
◦ Debris flows – chapter 5 • Investigation purpose
◦ Dam and water conveyance structure failure • Investigation scope
Chapter 2| Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 29

2. Geology method should never be used with site maps and drawings
in locating site features and proposed development. Appro
• Description of regional geologic setting
priate explanation information, including symbol definitions
• Description of site-specific geology, including cross and north arrow, should be used as appropriate. Figure sizes
section(s) should not exceed one page, preferably tabloid (11 x 17 inch
3. Geologic Investigation es) maximum page size. Plate sizes should generally not ex
ceed 24 x 36 inches (Architectural D size) for ease of use and
• Results of literature reviews and prior work
printing on commonly available large-format printers.
• Description of aerial photography and other imag
ery analysis Summaries of data and/or condensed conclusions at the front of
• Description of geologic mapping and surface inves reports should be used with caution, as results are often used by
tigation readers without understanding the background information nec
essary to effectively interpret the data and/or recommendations.
• Description of geophysical investigation
• Description of subsurface investigation Engineering-geology reports must be stamped, signed, and
◦ Test pits dated by the engineering geologist who conducted the investi
gation. In addition, any oversize plates should also be stamped,
◦ Trenches
signed, and dated. The geologist must be licensed to practice
◦ Drilling geology in Utah. If a geotechnical report or other engineering
• Description of laboratory testing analysis and/or recommendations are included with the engi
neering-geology report, an engineer licensed to practice in Utah
• Description of other work or investigation must also stamp, sign, and date the report or pertinent sections.
4. Investigation Results and Interpretations
• Geologic hazards
• Geologic conditions that could affect the site and/or FIELD REVIEW
development.
• Avoidance and/or mitigation options Once an engineering-geology site investigation is complete,
the UGS strongly recommends a technical field review of the
5. Conclusions and Recommendations site by the regulatory-authority engineering geologist. Field
• Conclusions and recommendations should be clear reviews are critical to ensuring that site geologic conditions
and concise, and be supported by investigation-de are adequately characterized and that geologic hazards are
rived observations, data, and external references. identified and evaluated. The field review should take place
after trenches or test pits are logged, but before they are closed
• Limitations of the investigation and data. so subsurface site conditions can be directly observed and
• Recommendations for future investigation, if needed. evaluated. In general, adequate site characterization is seldom
6. References possible by opening, logging, reviewing, and closing trenches
or test pits in one day; however, the UGS recognizes that for
• Reports must provide complete references for all
safety or other reasons, it may be necessary in some instances
cited literature and data not collected as part of the to open and close such excavations in a single day.
investigation.
• For aerial photography and other imagery, report Although not required, the UGS appreciates being af
project code, project name, acquisition date, scale, forded the opportunity to participate in field reviews of
and frame identification for all frames used. proposed development sites. The UGS is particularly inter
7. Appendices ested in obtaining earthquake timing, recurrence, and dis
placement data for Utah Quaternary faults, and informa
• Supporting laboratory test results and data, separated
tion on land subsidence and earth fissures associated with
as necessary into individual appendices or sections.
groundwater mining. Contact the UGS Geologic Hazards
8. Plates Program in Salt Lake City at 801-537-3300, or the UGS
• Oversize maps, drawings, or other figures related Southern Regional Office in Cedar City at 435-865-9036.
to the report and properly named, numbered, and
referenced within the report.
REPORT REVIEW
Figures and plates should use clear, high-quality graphics and
commonly accepted scale values so users may make measure The UGS recommends regulatory review of all reports by a
ments with commercially available engineering scales. Fig
Utah licensed Professional Geologist experienced in engineer
ures and plates should rarely be drawn not-to-scale, and this
30 Utah Geological Survey

ing-geology investigations (see Investigator Qualifications

section) and acting on behalf of local governments to protect
public health, safety, and welfare, and to reduce risks to future
property owners (Larson, 1992, 2015). The reviewer should
evaluate the technical content, conclusions, and recommenda
tions presented in a report, in relation to the geology of the
site, the proposed development, and the recommended hazard
mitigation method(s). The reviewer should always participate
in the field review of the site, and should advise the local gov
ernment regarding the need for additional work, if warranted.

DISCLOSURE
The UGS recommends disclosure during real-estate transac
tions whenever an engineering-geology investigation has been
performed for a property to ensure that prospective property
owners are made aware of geologic hazards present on the
property, and can make their own informed decision regarding
risk. Disclosure should include a Disclosure and Acknowl
edgment Form provided by the jurisdiction, which indicates
an engineering-geology report was prepared and is available
for public inspection.

Additionally, prior to approval of any development, subdivi

sion, or parcel, the UGS recommends that the regulating juris
diction require the owner to record a restrictive covenant with
the land identifying any geologic hazard(s) present. Where geo
logic hazards are identified on a property, the UGS recommends
that the jurisdiction require the owner to delineate the hazards
on the development plat prior to receiving final plat approval.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Intermountain Section of the Association of Environmen

tal and Engineering Geologists, the Utah Section of the Amer
ican Society of Civil Engineers, Robert Tepel, and Gregg Beu
kelman, Rich Giraud, and Adam McKean (Utah Geological
Survey) provided insightful comments and additional data
that substantially improved the utility of these guidelines.
 CHAPTER 3
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING
SURFACE-FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARDS IN UTAH
by
R.
William Lund, P.G., Gary E. Christenson, P.G. (UGS, retired), L. Darlene Batatian, P.G. (Terracon, Inc.),
and Craig V. Nelson, P.G. (Western Geologic, LLC)

Airport East paleoseismic trench on the Taylorsville fault, West Valley fault zone, Salt Lake County, Utah, on September 4, 2015.
Photo credit: Adam Hiscock.

Suggested citation: Lund, W.R., Christenson, G.E., Batatian, L.D., and Nelson, C.V., 2016, Guidelines for evaluating surface
fault-rupture hazards in Utah, in Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and
preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological
Survey Circular 122, p. 31–58.
32 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 33

CHAPTER 3: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING SURFACE

FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARDS IN UTAH
by William R. Lund, P.G., Gary E. Christenson, P.G. (UGS, retired), L. Darlene Batatian, P.G. (Terracon, Inc.), and
Craig V. Nelson, P.G. (Western Geologic, LLC)

INTRODUCTION site. As required by Utah state law (Utah Code, 2011), surface
faulting investigation reports and supporting documents must
These guidelines update and revise Utah Geological Survey be signed and stamped by the licensed Utah Professional Ge
Miscellaneous Publication 03-6—Guidelines for Evaluating ologist in responsible charge of the investigation.
Surface-Fault-Rupture Hazards in Utah (Christenson and oth
ers, 2003). The intent of these guidelines is to provide engi Purpose
neering geologists with standardized minimum recommended
criteria for performing surface-faulting investigations for new A surface-faulting investigation uses the characteristics of
buildings for human occupancy and for International Building past surface faulting at a site as a scientific basis for provid
Code (IBC) Risk Category II, III, and IV facilities (Interna ing recommendations to reduce the risk for damage, injury, or
tional Code Council [ICC], 2014a) to reduce risk from future death from future, presumably similar, surface faulting. The
surface faulting. However, performing a surface-faulting in purpose of these guidelines is to provide appropriate mini
vestigation and adherence to the investigation recommenda mum surface-faulting investigation and report criteria to:
tions in these guidelines does not guarantee safety. Signifi
• protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public by
cant uncertainty often remains due to limited paleoseismic minimizing the potentially adverse effects of surface
data related to the practical limitations of conducting such faulting;
investigations (epistemic uncertainty), and natural variability
in the location, recurrence, and displacement of successive • assist local governments in regulating land use in haz
surface-faulting earthquakes (aleatory variability). Aleatory ardous areas and provide standards for ordinances;
variability in fault behavior cannot be reduced; therefore, pre • assist property owners and developers in conducting rea
dicting exactly when, where, and how much ground rupture sonable and adequate surface-faulting investigations;
will occur during future surface-faulting earthquakes is not
• provide engineering geologists with a common basis
possible. New faults may form, existing faults may propagate for preparing proposals, conducting investigations,
beyond their present lengths, elapsed time between individual
and recommending surface-faulting risk-mitigation
surface-faulting earthquakes can vary by hundreds or thou
strategies; and
sands of years and be affected by clustering, triggering, and
multi- or partial-segment ruptures. For those reasons, devel • provide an objective framework for preparation and re
oping property in the vicinity of hazardous faults will always view of surface-faulting reports.
involve a level of irreducible, inherent risk.
These guidelines pertain only to new buildings for human oc
These guidelines outline (1) appropriate investigation methods, cupancy and high-risk-category facilities. These guidelines
(2) report content, (3) map, trench log, and illustration criteria are not intended for siting linear lifelines (highways, utilities,
and scales, (4) mitigation recommendations, (5) minimum cri pipelines), which commonly must cross faults; large water
teria for review of reports, and (6) recommendations for geolog impoundments (dams, dikes, lagoons); hazardous waste fa
ic-hazard disclosure. However, these guidelines do not include cilities; or nuclear power generation or repository facilities.
systematic descriptions of all available investigative techniques Surface-faulting investigation methods are similar for these
or topics, nor does the UGS suggest that all techniques or topics facilities (e.g., Hanson and others, 1999; American National
are appropriate for every hazard investigation. Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society, 2008), but due
to their potential for catastrophic failure, hazard investiga
Considering the complexity of evaluating surface and near-sur tions, including surface-faulting hazard, are typically con
face faults, additional effort beyond the minimum criteria rec trolled by regulations promulgated by a regulating/permitting
ommended in these guidelines may be required at some sites authority (e.g., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2011).
to adequately address surface-faulting hazard. The information
presented in these guidelines does not relieve engineering ge These guidelines only address surface-fault rupture, which
ologists of their duty to perform additional geologic investiga is displacement of the ground surface along a tectonic fault
tions necessary to fully assess the surface-faulting hazard at a during an earthquake (figure 7). These guidelines do not ad
34 Utah Geological Survey

capable of causing surface faulting are chiefly normal faults

along which fault displacement at the ground surface is pri
marily vertical, with one side dropping down relative to the
other along a fault plane dipping beneath the downthrown
fault block (figure 8). Surface faulting commonly recurs along
existing fault traces (Bonilla, 1970; McCalpin, 1987, 2009;
Kerr and others, 2003) for earthquakes ≥ M 6.75 (Working
Group on Utah Earthquake Probabilities [WGUEP], 2016).
Past major earthquakes on the central five most active seg
ments of the Wasatch fault zone have generated average dis
placements for individual surface-faulting earthquakes of
about 6.6 feet (DuRoss, 2008; DuRoss and Hylland, 2015).
However, single-event displacements more than twice that
large have been documented on the Weber (14.8 feet; Nelson
and others, 2006) and Provo (15.4 feet; Olig, 2011 [compiled
in Bowman and Lund, 2013]) segments.

Displacements during surface-faulting earthquakes on other

Utah normal faults are less well documented, but limited
available data indicate that for comparable rupture lengths,
displacements are similar to the central Wasatch fault zone
segments. Consequently, if a normal fault were to displace the
ground surface beneath a building or critical structure (e.g.,
large water or petroleum storage tanks, telecommunications
tower, electrical switching station), significant structural dam
age or collapse may occur (figure 9), possibly causing inju
ries and loss of life. Therefore, site-specific investigations are
required to accurately locate faults that present a potential
surface-faulting hazard, determine their level of activity and
displacement characteristics, and implement appropriate risk
reduction measures prior to development.
Figure 7. Scarp caused by surface faulting on the Nephi segment of
the Wasatch fault zone (photo credit F.B. Weeks, USGS). Note man
sitting on horse for scale. Consideration of surface faulting in land-use planning and
regulation in Utah began in earnest in the early 1970s when
Cluff and others (1970, 1973, 1974; compiled in Bowman and
dress (1) ground-surface displacements caused by non-tectonic others, 2015b) completed their investigations and maps of
faults as defined by Hanson and others (1999), including those major faults along the Wasatch Front in northern Utah. These
resulting from landsliding (described in chapter 4), (2) non-tec aerial-photograph-based maps presented the first comprehen
tonic fault creep or post-seismic slip, (3) earth fissures caused sive compilation of fault locations available to local govern
by land subsidence due to groundwater mining (Knudsen and ments, and increased awareness of the hazard posed by the
others, 2014; chapter 6), or (4) other earthquake hazards and Wasatch, East Cache, and West Cache fault zones. Early pa
non-earthquake geologic hazards that displace the ground sur leoseismic trenching investigations (Swan and others, 1980,
face, which should be addressed as part of a comprehensive 1981a, 1981b; compiled in Bowman and Lund, 2013) further
geologic-hazards site investigation (see chapters 1 and 2). highlighted the hazard by documenting multiple, large, geo
logically recent surface-faulting earthquakes on the central
These guidelines do not supersede pre-existing state or federal part of the Wasatch fault zone.
regulations or local geologic-hazard ordinances, but provide
useful information to supplement adopted ordinances/regula In subsequent years, maps designating special-study areas
tions, and assist in preparation of new ordinances. The UGS be within which surface-faulting investigations are recommend
lieves adherence to these guidelines will help ensure adequate, ed, have been prepared by or with the assistance of the Utah
cost-effective investigations and minimize report review time. Geological Survey (UGS) at varying levels of detail for Cache,
Davis, Iron, Salt Lake, eastern Tooele, Utah, western Wasatch,
Background and Weber Counties (adopted by and on file with the respec
tive county planning departments). More recently, the UGS
Earthquakes produce a variety of hazards, including strong has prepared similar maps for the St. George-Hurricane met
ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, as well as sur ropolitan area (figure 10; Lund and others, 2008), high-visita
face faulting (e.g., Smith and Petley, 2009). In Utah, faults tion areas of Zion National Park (Lund and others, 2010), and
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 35

A Recognizing the risk from earthquakes, some local govern

ments began adopting rudimentary ordinances requiring fault
and other geologic-hazard investigations prior to develop
ment in the 1970s. Guided by publication of UGS Circular 79,
Suggested Approach to Geologic Hazard Ordinances in Utah
(Christenson, 1987) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Professional Paper 1519, Applications of Research from the
U.S. Geological Survey Program, Assessment of Regional
Earthquake Hazards and RiskAlong the Wasatch Front, Utah
(Gori, 1993), some Wasatch Front counties and municipalities
had adopted and were enforcing modern hazard ordinances
by the mid-1990s. Local government staff relied heavily on
developers’ consultants as professional experts responsible
B for evaluating the hazards and recommending risk-reduction
measures for proposed developments. Consultants’ reports
would sometimes be sent to the UGS for review, but in gen
eral, technical regulatory reviews were not systematically per
formed prior to 1985.

This informal review process lasted until June 1985, when

the UGS initiated the Wasatch Front County Hazards Geolo
gist Program, funded through the USGS National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (Christenson, 1993). Geologists
hired by Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Juab Counties
began preparing surface-faulting and other geologic-hazard
maps and assisting city and county planning departments in
requiring and reviewing site-specific hazard investigations.
This program directly resulted in or spurred development of
Figure 8. Normal fault: (A) schematic diagram, (B) exposed in an various published guidelines for surface-faulting investiga
excavation (photo courtesy of David Simon). tions in Utah including those of the Association of Engineer
ing Geologists, Utah Section (1987); Nelson and Christen
son (1992); Robison (1993); Christenson and Bryant (1998);
Batatian and Nelson (1999); Salt Lake County (2002b); and
Christenson and others (2003). The county geologist program
came to an end in Weber, Davis, Utah, and Juab Counties in
the late 1980s after USGS funding expired. The county geolo
gist program in Salt Lake County persisted with local funding
until 2006.

Most Wasatch Front and other urban counties and munici

palities now have hazard ordinances that require geologic
hazards investigations prior to approving new development.
Several of these ordinances adopt surface-faulting-hazard
special-study maps (Christenson and Shaw, 2008), which
define areas where site-specific investigations are required
prior to approval of new development to protect life, safety,
Figure 9. Normal fault surface-faulting damage to a building, 1959 and welfare from surface faulting (figure 10). Most geolog
Hebgen Lake, Montana, M 7.3 earthquake. (Photograph by I.J. ic-hazard ordinances in Utah mitigate surface faulting by
Witkind, USGS.) prohibiting construction of habitable structures and high
risk-category facilities across “active” faults (hazard avoid
the State Route 9 corridor between La Verkin and Springdale ance). The ordinances typically define “active” (hazardous)
(Knudsen and Lund, 2013) in Washington County. Addition faults as faults having evidence for displacement during the
ally, the UGS is preparing geologic-hazard-map sets for se Holocene Epoch (the period of time extending from the pres
lect 7.5-minute quadrangles in Utah (see http://geology.utah. ent back to about 10,000 radiocarbon years before present
gov/maps/geohazmap/index.htm). Where Quaternary faults [14C yr B.P.], or about 11,700 calibrated years before pres
are present in the quadrangles, the hazard-map sets contain a ent [cal yr B.P.]). Presently, a few municipalities and coun
surface-faulting-hazard map (e.g., Castleton and others, 2011). ties with geologic-hazard ordinances retain consultants to
36 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 10. Example of a surface-faulting special-study-area map along the Hurricane fault zone in southwestern Utah (from Lund and others,
2008). Site-specific investigations are required within the shaded areas to address surface-faulting hazard prior to approval of new development.
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 37

review surface-faulting investigations, while others rely on permit. Under the review protocol, Draper has approved con
non-technical staff to make the reviews. struction of structures across Holocene-active faults exhibit
ing as much as 6 feet of vertical displacement (David Dob
Designing a building to withstand surface faulting has gener bins, City of Draper Manager, verbal communication, 2015).
ally been considered impractical for economic, engineering,
and architectural reasons, and it is only within the relatively
recent past that the geotechnical community has begun a seri
ous discussion regarding using engineering design to mitigate CHARACTERIZING FAULT ACTIVITY
surface-faulting risk (e.g., Bray, 2015). Therefore, avoiding
In Utah, minimum requirements for surface-faulting investiga
active fault traces that pose a surface-faulting hazard has been
the risk-reduction measure most often applied in Utah. A typi tions and implementing hazard-mitigation measures are predi
cal surface-faulting investigation in Utah documents the pres cated on the ability of the engineering geologist to characterize
ence or absence of faults determined to be active at a site. a fault’s physical characteristics and recent earthquake history
When active faults are present, a fault setback is recommend (strike, dip, sense of displacement, rupture complexity, and
ed based on the width of the deformation zone and the amount timing and displacement of the most recent surface-faulting
and direction of displacement along the fault. earthquake). Where site geologic conditions are favorable and
time and budget permit, it also may be possible to determine
the timing and displacement for multiple paleoearthquakes,
However, hazard ordinances adopted by the cities of Draper,
from which earthquake recurrence and fault slip rate can be
Holladay, and Cottonwood Heights, and Salt Lake, Morgan,
calculated. Engineering geologists conducting surface-faulting
and Wasatch Counties allow exceptions to this norm, and per
mit construction across active faults expected to have ≤4 inch investigations should be thoroughly familiar with the tech
niques of paleoseismic investigations (e.g., McCalpin, 2009;
es of future displacement, their reasoning being that a “nor
DuRoss, 2015; see also Investigator Qualifications section in
mal” residential foundation system can withstand 4 inches of
chapter 2). Parameters required to fully characterize fault ac
vertical displacement without catastrophic collapse. The Drap
tivity are briefly described in the following sections.
er and Morgan County ordinances do not categorically exempt
small-displacement faults from fault setback requirements. In
those ordinances, if engineering-design surface-faulting miti Rupture Complexity
gation is proposed for small displacement faults, the following
criteria must be addressed: (1) reasonable geologic data must Rupture complexity refers to the width and distribution of de
be available indicating that future surface displacement along formed land around a fault trace (Kerr and others, 2003; Trei
the fault will not exceed 4 inches, (2) a structural engineer must man, 2010). Normal faults are by far the most common type
provide an appropriate design to minimize structural damage, of Quaternary fault in Utah; patterns of ground deformation
and (3) the design must receive adequate review. resulting from past surface faulting are highly variable, and in
some cases change significantly over short distances along the
Under a special City of Draper (2005) “Review Protocol” strike of the fault (figure 11). Geologic mapping and trench
regulating issuance of building permits for structures astride exposures across zones of surface-fault deformation show that
active faults in subdivisions approved prior to adoption of common patterns of normal-slip faulting range from (1) very
Draper’s geologic-hazard ordinance in 2003, it is permissible narrow zones where virtually all deformation takes place on a
under specified conditions to construct “super-engineered” single master fault (e.g., DuRoss and others, 2014), (2) broad
er shear zones up to several feet wide with a master fault and
structures across subsequently discovered active faults within
previously approved building lots. To obtain approval for a several smaller, usually sympathetic, subsidiary faults (e.g.,
Lund and others, 2015), (3) grabens that range from a few
super-engineered structure, Draper requires (1) a statement
from a Utah licensed geologist describing the most suitable to tens of feet wide and contain a few to numerous antithetic
location on the lot for the proposed structure, (2) a statement and sympathetic faults of variable displacement (e.g., Lund
from a Utah licensed geotechnical engineer describing the and others, 1991; Olig, 2011 [compiled in Bowman and Lund,
suitability and constructability of the proposed structure at 2013]), (4) bifurcated fault zones tens to hundreds of feet wide
the location described by the geologist, and (3) a statement consisting of several individually prominent strands, not all
from a Utah licensed structural engineer stating that the geo of which may be active in every surface-faulting earthquake
logic and geotechnical reports have been reviewed, and that (e.g., Black and others, 1996; DuRoss and others, 2009), and
(5) zones of folding, warping, and flexure that lack discrete
the proposed structure is designed in accordance with their
recommendations and accounts for the identified hazards in fault rupture (e.g., Hylland and others, 2014).
accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) (Inter
national Code Council [ICC], 2014a). When Draper approves Earthquake Timing and Recurrence
construction of a structure astride an active fault pursuant to
the review protocol, a disclosure of the geologic condition Minimum data necessary to characterize past fault activity
at the site must be recorded with the County Recorder on a and estimate the probability of surface faulting within a future
form approved by the City as a condition of issuing a building time frame of interest include (1) timing of the most recent
38 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 11. Map view of rupture complexity along part of the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone (from Personius and Scott, 1992).
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 39

surface-faulting earthquake, (2) a well-constrained average

recurrence interval based on a recommended minimum of
three closed earthquake cycles (four paleoearthquakes; more
is better), and (3) the variability (uncertainty) associated with
the timing of each paleoearthquake and resulting average re
currence interval. Paleoseismic trenching investigations show
that individual recurrence intervals (time between two sur
face-faulting earthquakes) for Utah Quaternary faults range
from several hundred to multiple thousands of years, and may
exhibit uniform, quasi-uniform, or non-uniform recurrence.

The greater the number of past surface-faulting earthquakes

identified and dated, the greater the confidence that the result
ing average recurrence interval accurately reflects the fault’s
long-term activity level (Coppersmith and Youngs, 2000;
DuRoss and others, 2011). Additionally, the greater the under
standing of variability in recurrence intervals, the greater the
confidence that the elapsed time since the most recent surface
faulting earthquake is a reliable indicator of where the fault
lies in its current earthquake cycle. However, for fault-avoid
ance (fault setback) mitigation, it is only necessary to deter
mine the timing of the most recent surface-faulting earthquake
(see Hazardous Fault Avoidance section below).

Displacement Figure 12. Surface faulting associated with the 1934 Hansel Valley,
Utah, M 6.6 earthquake (photograph from the University of Utah
Seismograph Stations photo archive).
Utah’s Quaternary faults typically exhibit normal-slip dis
placement with the master fault dipping at moderate to high
angles (50° ± 15°; Lund, 2012; WGUEP, 2016) beneath the [compiled in Bowman and Lund, 2013]; Crone and others,
downthrown (hanging wall) block (figure 8). Single-event dis 2014; Simon and others, 2015). Such faults commonly have
placements from past Utah surface-faulting earthquakes range small displacements (tens of inches or less); however, a low
from about 20 inches (1934 Hansel Valley earthquake—Utah’s angle thrust fault formed at a complex bend in the otherwise
only historical surface-faulting earthquake; Walter, 1934; fig normal-slip Washington fault zone exhibited multiple feet of re
ure 12) to > 15 feet (Olig, 2011 [compiled in Bowman and verse-fault displacement placing Mesozoic bedrock over Qua
Lund, 2013]) on the five central, Holocene-active segments of ternary basin-fill deposits (Simon and others, 2015; figure 14).
the Wasatch fault zone. Single-earthquake displacements on
other Utah Quaternary faults for which paleoseismic trench Slip Rate
ing data are available typically range from < 3 to about 10 feet
(see UGS Paleoseismology of Utah series and Lund, 2005). Quaternary normal faults in the Basin and Range Province
The 1983 M 6.9 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake showed that typically produce large, infrequent, nearly instantaneous dis
normal-slip displacement can vary significantly along strike placements during earthquakes that are separated by recur
(Crone and others, 1987), and Lund and others (2015) report rence intervals (time between two successive earthquakes)
ed an approximately 50 percent variation in displacement at ranging from hundreds to thousands of years. A slip rate nor
a point in successive earthquakes on the Fort Pearce section malizes fault displacement over time by dividing a known
of the Washington fault zone in southern Utah. Wesnousky per-event displacement by the known length of the previous
(2008) discussed displacement and geometrical characteristics recurrence interval. Slip rates are typically reported in mm/yr
of earthquake surface faulting using a worldwide data set of or m/kyr, and for a normal fault may either be calculated ver
historical surface-faulting earthquakes. His analysis showed tically, or in a down-dip direction (net slip) if a fault’s dip at
that earthquake epicenters do not appear to have a systematic depth is known. A slip rate may be “open” or “closed” (Chang
correlation with the maximum slip observed on a fault. and Smith, 2002; McCalpin, 2009). A closed slip rate is deter
mined by dividing a known per-event vertical displacement
Displacements on sympathetic and antithetic faults in shear by the known length of the previous recurrence interval. It
zones and grabens produced by surface-faulting earthquakes is implicit in a closed slip rate that the time interval of inter
(figure 13) are generally less than 3 feet, but may be larger. est is bracketed (closed) by surface-faulting earthquakes of
Fault trenching investigations show that low-angle thrust faults known age. Accurately characterizing a fault’s long-term slip
and high-angle reverse faults may form in grabens along nor rate requires calculating a composite slip rate across multiple
mal-slip master faults (e.g., Lund and others, 1991; Olig, 2011 closed recurrence intervals to obtain a long-term average of
40 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 13. Schematic cross section through a normal fault zone.

Bedrock

Basin Fill

Figure 14. Thrust fault exhibiting several feet of displacement at a complex bend in an otherwise normal-slip fault zone. The fault places
Mesozoic bedrock on top of Quaternary basin-fill deposits. Photo taken in January 2012.
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 41

fault activity. Generally, the higher the slip rate, the more ac series (http://geology.utah.gov/hazards/technical-information/
tive (hazardous) the fault. paleoseismology-of-utah-series/). The Paleoseismology of
Utah series also includes compilations of early and now hard
Open-interval slip rates span the time and displacement be to-find, “legacy” investigations and aerial photograph sets
tween the oldest dated displaced deposit and the present. by Woodward-Lundgren and Associates (Bowman and oth
Open-interval slip rates are less precise than closed-interval ers, 2015), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Lund and oth
slip rates because they typically include one partial earth ers, 2011), the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Bowman and
quake cycle prior to the earliest fault displacement of the de others, 2011), and researchers funded through the National
posit, and a second partial cycle from the time of the most Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Bowman and Lund,
recent earthquake to the present. Information on earthquake 2013). Additionally, the Utah Quaternary Fault Parameters
timing and per-event displacement is not available for most Working Group (UQFPWG, http://geology.utah.gov/hazards/
of Utah’s more than 200 known Quaternary faults/fault seg earthquakes-faults/utah-earthquake-working-groups/quaterna
ments, but it may be possible in some instances to calculate ry-fault-parameters/) posts the results of their annual review
an open slip rate from a displaced geologic feature or unit of of paleoseismic research conducted in Utah on the UGS web
known or estimated age (e.g., geomorphic surfaces related to site. Lund (2005) reported the results of the UQFPWG’s ini
Lake Bonneville). Some slip rates determined in this manner tial evaluation of Utah paleoseismic trench data, and provided
may be very long term and incorporate very broad estimates consensus recurrence-interval and vertical slip-rate parameters
of displacement (sometimes thousands of feet) over very long for Utah Quaternary faults with trenching data through 2004.
time intervals (sometimes millions of years). In those instanc Although superseded in some cases, the data for many faults
es, the resulting open slip rates may represent a reasonable in this compilation remain the best currently available. Lund
estimate of long-term slip on a fault, but most open slip rates (2014) revises and expands the Utah Hazus fault database to
contain large time and displacement uncertainties that make provide parameters for scenario earthquakes on all known Late
them broadly constrained estimates at best, and of question Quaternary and younger faults/fault segments in Utah (82)
able value for surface-faulting investigations. thought capable of generating a ≥ M 6.75 earthquake.

As discussed above, there are numerous caveats to consider The Utah Quaternary Fault and Fold Database (UGS, 2016)
when using slip rate to characterize fault activity. If the slip and the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United
rate comes from the geologic literature (see Sources of Paleo States (USGS, 2015) contain summary paleoseismic informa
seismic Information section below), questions when evaluat tion for Utah’s known Quaternary faults. Both databases are
ing the applicability of the slip rate for use in a surface-fault periodically updated, although the national database may be
ing investigation include: (1) Is the slip rate a vertical or net updated less frequently than the Utah database. Therefore,
slip rate? (2) Is the slip rate open or closed? (3) If closed, over engineering geologists conducting surface-faulting investiga
what period of time and how many closed recurrence intervals tions should always search for the most recent paleoseismic
does the slip rate characterize fault activity? (4) If open, how information available for a Quaternary fault of interest. The
well constrained are the timing and displacement data used to paleoseismic data in the databases are reported as published
calculate the rate? (5) If open, does the slip rate reflect rele in the geologic literature and are of variable quality—users
vant (late Quaternary) fault activity (a slip rate calculated over must make their own evaluation of the data’s suitability for
several millions of years, as is sometimes done, may incorpo their intended purpose. Additionally, the databases are limited
rate changes in a region’s tectonic setting and be of little value to Utah’s “known” Quaternary faults—other, as yet unrecog
when characterizing contemporary surface-faulting hazard)? nized, potentially hazardous faults may exist in Utah (e.g.,
Additionally, because displacement typically varies along a McKean and Kirby, 2014), and engineering geologists per
rupture, slip rate depends on where along the fault displace forming surface-faulting investigations or hazard investiga
ment is measured (i.e., lower slip rate at fault tips compared tions for high-risk-category facilities regardless of location,
to center). Where available, average displacement based on should consider the possibility that an unrecognized fault may
multiple site displacements is preferred when calculating a be present at or close to the site.
slip rate (e.g., DuRoss, 2008).
See the Literature Search and Information Resources section
in chapter 2 for information on other geologic-hazard reports,
maps, archives, and databases maintained by the UGS and others
SOURCES OF PALEOSEISMIC that may be relevant to surface-faulting-hazard investigations,
INFORMATION as well as information on the UGS’ extensive aerial photograph
and light detection and ranging (lidar) imagery collections.
Detailed paleoseismic investigations of Utah Quaternary faults
began in the 1970s and continue to the present day. The UGS Finally, Paleoseismology (McCalpin, 2009) is a widely rec
has performed or assisted with numerous research paleoseis ognized general reference for conducting paleoseismic in
mic investigations in Utah, and has published the results of vestigations and evaluating seismic risk. Much information
many of those investigations in its Paleoseismology of Utah contained in that publication is applicable to conducting site
42 Utah Geological Survey

specific, surface-faulting investigations for human-occupied nilla, 1970; McCalpin, 1987, 2009; Kerr and others, 2003)
structures and high-risk infrastructure. in a manner generally consistent with past displacements
(Schwartz and Coppersmith, 1984; Crone and others, 1987;
DuRoss and others, 2014). In Utah, minimum requirements
for an investigation designed to mitigate surface-faulting haz
SURFACE-FAULTING-HAZARD ard by setting back from active (hazardous) faults are (1) de
INVESTIGATION termine whether a Quaternary fault(s) is present at a site, (2)
map fault complexity, (3) determine the timing of the most
When to Perform a Surface-Faulting-Hazard recent surface-faulting earthquake, and (4) determine the
Investigation amount and direction (dip) of past displacement. Where site
geologic conditions and time and budget permit, the UGS rec
ommends determining the timing and displacement of mul
Geologic hazards are best addressed prior to land develop
tiple paleoearthquakes so average earthquake recurrence and
ment. In areas of known or suspected Quaternary faulting, the
UGS recommends that a surface-faulting-hazard investigation associated variability, and a fault slip rate can be calculated
to better characterize fault activity. Fully characterizing past
be made for all new buildings for human occupancy and for
modified IBC Risk Category II(a), II(b), III, and IV facilities fault activity in this manner is a necessary requirement for
(table 12, modified from IBC table 1604.5 [ICC, 2014a]). engineering-design mitigation of surface faulting (see Paleo
Utah jurisdictions that have adopted surface-faulting special seismic Data Required for Engineering-Design Mitigation of
study maps identify zones along known hazardous faults Surface Faulting section below).
within which they require a site-specific investigation. At a
minimum, the UGS recommends that investigations as out A site-specific surface-faulting investigation typically in
lined in chapter 2 be conducted for all IBC Risk Category III cludes at a minimum (1) literature review, (2) analysis of ste
and IV facilities, whether near a mapped Quaternary fault or reoscopic aerial photographs and other remote-sensing data,
not, to ensure that previously unknown faults are not present. and (3) field investigation, usually including surficial geologic
If a hazard is found, the UGS recommends a comprehensive mapping and subsurface investigations typically consisting of
investigation be conducted. Additionally, in some instances an excavating and logging trenches (see chapter 2).
investigation may become necessary when existing infrastruc
ture is discovered to be on or adjacent to a Quaternary fault. Literature Review

The level of investigation conducted for a particular project Prior to the start of field investigations, an engineering geolo
depends on several factors, including (1) site-specific geolog gist conducting a surface-faulting investigation should review
ic conditions, (2) type of proposed or existing development, published and unpublished (if available) geologic literature,
(3) level of acceptable risk, and (4) governmental permitting geologic and topographic maps, consultant’s reports, and re
requirements, or regulatory agency rules and regulations. A cords relevant to the site and region’s geology (see also the
surface-faulting-hazard investigation may be conducted sepa Literature Searches and Information Resources section in
rately, or as part of a comprehensive geologic-hazard and/or chapter 2), with particular emphasis on information pertain
geotechnical site investigation (see chapter 2). ing to the presence and activity level of Quaternary faults. The
Sources of Paleoseismic Information section in this chapter
Minimum Qualifications of the Investigator presents numerous sources of information on Utah’s Quater
nary faults; however, the list of sources is not exhaustive, and
Surface-faulting related engineering-geology investigations engineering geologists should identify and review all avail
and accompanying geologic-hazard evaluations performed able information relevant to their site of interest.
before the public shall be conducted by or under the direct
supervision of a Utah licensed Professional Geologist (Utah Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Remote
Code, Title 58-76) who must sign and seal the final report. Sensing Data
Often these investigations are interdisciplinary in nature, and
where required, must be performed by qualified, experienced, A surface-faulting investigation should include interpreta
Utah licensed Professional Geologists (PG, specializing in en tion of stereoscopic aerial photographs (from multiple years
gineering geology) and Professional Engineers (PE, specializ if available), lidar imagery (appendix C—Lidar Background
ing in geological and/or geotechnical engineering) working as and Application), and other remotely sensed data (e.g., Bunds
a team. See Investigator Qualifications section in chapter 2. and others, 2015) for evidence of past surface faulting includ
ing fault scarps, other fault-related geomorphic features, and
Investigation Methods fault-related lineaments, including vegetation lineaments, gul
lies, vegetation/soil contrasts, and aligned springs and seeps
Inherent in surface-faulting investigations is the assumption (see also the Literature Searches and Information Resources
that future faulting will recur along pre-existing faults (Bo section of chapter 2). Where possible, the analysis should in
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 43

Table 12. Fault setback recommendations and criticality factors (U) for modified IBC risk category of buildings and other structures (modified
from ICC, 2014a, IBC table 1604.5)1.

Study and Fault Setback Recommendations3

IBC Risk Category2 Fault Activity Classes Criticality4 U4 MinimumSetback5
Holocene Late Quaternary Quaternary
I—Buildings and other structures that
represent
in a low
the event hazard to human life
of failure Optional Optional Optional 4 – ‒

II(a)— Single family dwellings,

and
condominiums
apartment complexes and units)
(<10 dwelling Recommended Prudent Optional 3 1.5 15 feet

II(b)—Buildings and other structures

I, II(a),those
except listed
III, and IV in Risk Categories Recommended Recommended Prudent 2 2 20 feet

III—Buildings and other structures

that represent a substantial hazard to Recommended Recommended Recommended6 1 3 50 feet
human lives in the event of failure
IV—Buildings and other structures
Recommended Recommended Recommended6 1 3 50 feet
designated as essential facilities

1 See ICC (2014a) chapter 3, Use and Occupancy Classification (p. 41) and chapter 16, Structural Design, table 1604.5 (p. 336) for a complete list of
structures/facilities included in each IBC Risk Category. Check table 1604.5 if a question exists regarding which Risk Category a structure falls under.
2 For purposes of these guidelines, Risk Category II has been divided into subcategories II(a) and II(b) to reflect the lower hazard associated with single
family dwellings and apartment complexes and condominiums with <10 dwelling units.
Risk Category I—includes but not limited to agricultural facilities, certain temporary facilities, and minor storage facilities.
Risk Category II(a)—single family dwellings, apartment complexes, condominiums (<10 dwelling units);
Risk Category II(b)—buildings and other structures except those listed in Risk Categories I, II(a), III, and IV; includes but not limited to:
a. many business, factory/industrial, and mercantile facilities;
b. public assembly facilities with an occupant load ≤ 300 (e.g., theaters, concert halls, banquet halls, restaurants, community halls);
c. adult education facilities such as colleges and universities with an occupant load ≤ 500;
d. other residential facilities (e.g., boarding houses, hotels, motels, care facilities, dormitories with >10 dwelling units).
Risk Category III—includes but not limited to:
a. public assembly facilities with an occupant load > 300, schools (elementary, secondary, day care);
b. adult education facilities such as colleges and universities with an occupant load > 500;
c. Group I-2 occupancies (medical facilities without surgery or emergency treatment facilities) with an occupant load > 50;
d. Group I-3 occupancies (detention facilities for example jails, prisons, reformatories) with an occupant load > 5;
e. any other occupancy with an occupant load > 5000;
f. power-generating stations, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment facilities and other public utility functions not included in risk category IV;
g. buildings and other structures not included in risk category IV that contain quantities of toxic or explosive materials.
Risk Category IV—includes but not limited to:
a. Group I-2 occupancies having surgery or emergency treatment facilities;
b. fire, rescue, ambulance, and police stations and emergency vehicle garages;
c. designated emergency shelters; emergency preparedness, communication, and operations centers and other facilities required for emergency
response;
d. power-generating stations and other public utility facilities required as emergency backup facilities for Risk Category IV structures;
e. buildings and other structures containing quantities of highly toxic materials;
f. aviation control towers, air traffic control centers, and emergency aircraft hangars;
g. buildings and other structures having critical national defense functions;
h. water storage facilities and pump structures required to maintain water pressure for fire suppression.
3 Study and setback or other risk-reduction measure:
a. Recommended;
b. Prudent, but decision should be based on risk assessment; or
c. Optional, but need not be required by local government based on the low likelihood of surface faulting.
Appropriate disclosure is recommended in all cases.
4 Criticality is a factor based on relative importance and risk posed by a building; lower numbers indicate more critical facilities. Criticality is included in
fault-setback equations by the factor U. U is inversely proportional to criticality to increase fault setbacks for more critical facilities.
5 Use minimum fault setback or the calculated fault setback, whichever is greater.
6 Study recommended; fault setback or other risk-reduction measure considered prudent, but decision should be based on risk assessment; appropriate
disclosure recommended.
44 Utah Geological Survey

clude both low-sun-angle and normal high-sun-angle stereo Trenching

scopic aerial photography. Examination of the oldest available
aerial photographs may show evidence of surface faulting Trenching is generally required for surface-faulting investiga
subsequently obscured by later development or other ground tions to accurately locate faults, determine paleoearthquake
disturbance. The area interpreted should extend beyond the timing, document the nature and extent of rupture complex
site boundaries to identify faults that might affect the site and ity, and measure fault displacements and orientations (Taylor
to adequately characterize patterns of surface faulting. and Cluff, 1973: Hathaway and Leighton, 1979; Slemmons
and dePolo, 1992; Price, 1998; California Geological Sur
Google Earth and Bing Maps, among other providers of In vey, 2002; McCalpin, 2009; DuRoss, 2015). Trenches across
ternet-based, free aerial imagery, are becoming increasing normal faults are usually excavated perpendicular to the fault
ly valuable as rapid site reconnaissance tools, and provide scarp. Because fault displacement may vary along strike, the
high-resolution, often color, non-stereoscopic aerial ortho investigation should determine the maximum displacement(s)
photography of the entire state of Utah. For most locations, along the fault trace(s) within the part of the site to be devel
Google Earth also includes a historical imagery archive that oped, and at least one trench should be excavated across the
permits evaluation of site conditions several years to de highest part of each scarp.
cades before present.
Zones of deformation are common along major normal fault
Fault Mapping traces (figure 11). Such deformation typically consists of a
graben or multiple discrete displacements on secondary faults.
The trench investigation should define the width of the de
Surface faulting can be a complex phenomenon involv
formation zone, and for sites in a graben, trenches should be
ing both brittle fracture and plastic deformation (Treiman,
excavated perpendicular to the bounding faults across the en
2010). The most direct surface method for locating faults
tire part of the site within the graben to investigate for faults
and evaluating fault activity is to map fault scarps and surfi
and/or shears in the graben floor. Ground deformation in the
cial geology. Faults may be identified by examining geologic absence of surface faulting may occur above buried normal
maps, aerial photographs and other remote-sensing imagery, faults. In those instances, trenching should extend across the
and by directly observing fault-related geomorphic features. entire deformation zone such that the deformation can be ad
Topographic profiling of fault scarps can aid in estimating equately documented and characterized.
the number, age, and displacement of past surface-faulting
earthquakes (Bucknam and Anderson, 1979; Andrews and Trench number and location: The purpose of a trenching
Bucknam, 1987; Hanks and Andrews, 1989; Machette, investigation and objectives in locating trenches may vary de
1989; Hylland, 2007; McCalpin, 2009). Detailed mapping pending on the type of development and project design phase
helps identify fault scarps and other fault-related features during which the investigation is performed. When investiga
such as sag ponds, springs, aligned or disrupted drainages, tions are performed prior to site design, such as for multi-unit
faceted spurs, grabens, and displaced landforms (e.g., terrac subdivisions, commercial development, etc., trenches are used
es, shorelines) and/or geologic units. Site-specific surficial to locate faults and recommend risk-mitigation measures to
geologic mapping depicts relations between faults and geo aid in project design. When investigations are performed after
logic units to help determine the location and age of faults, building locations have been laid out or structures already con
and is necessary to identify potential trench locations. The structed and subsequently found to be on or near a hazardous
area mapped should extend beyond the site boundaries as fault, trenches may be used to identify faults trending through
necessary to locate and evaluate evidence of other faults that building footprints (figure 15). Trenches should be oriented
may affect the site. perpendicular, or as close to perpendicular as possible, to the

Special care is required when investigating faults that cross

landslides. Geomorphic and subsurface features in fault zones
and landslides may be similar, and investigations may be in
conclusive regarding the origin of such features (e.g., Hart
and others, 2012; Crone and others, 2014; Hoopes and others,
2014). Therefore, report conclusions should address uncer
tainties in the investigation, and recommendations for hazard
reduction should consider both fault and landslide hazards
when present.

See the Geologic Mapping section of chapter 2 for additional Figure 15. Fault trench length and orientation to investigate a building
footprint. Trenching must extend beyond the footprint of at least the
discussion on geologic mapping as it applies to geologic-haz expected setback distance for the IBC Building Risk Category class
ard investigations. (from Christenson and others, 2003).
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 45

trend of the mapped fault trace at or near the site, and be of

adequate length to intercept faults projecting toward proposed
or existing structures and potential setback areas. In some in
stances, placing trenches off-site on adjacent or nearby proper
ties may be necessary to adequately characterize the hazard.

More than one trench may be necessary to investigate a site

or building footprint, particularly when the proposed develop
ment is large, involves more than one building, and/or is char
acterized by complex faulting (figure 16). Trenches should
provide continuous coverage across a site (one trench or over
lapping trenches; figure 17). Geologic mapping (figure 11) and
paleoseismic trenching (see publications in the UGS Paleo
seismology of Utah series) have shown that patterns of ground
deformation resulting from past surface faulting on normal
faults in Utah are highly variable, and may change significant
ly over short distances along the strike of the fault. While a
single trench provides data at a specific fault location, multiple
trenches are often required to characterize along-strike vari
ability of the fault and provide a more comprehensive under
standing of faulting at the site. For that reason, the UGS rec
ommends that subsurface data generally not be extrapolated
more than 300 feet without additional subsurface information.
Complex fault zones may require closer trench spacing. When
trenches must be offset to accommodate site conditions, suf
ficient overlap should be provided to avoid gaps in trench cov
erage. Tightly spaced trenches may only need minor (a few
tens of feet) overlap; however, more widely spaced trenches
require greater overlap to ensure continuous site coverage.
Care should be taken not to offset trenches at a common surfi
cial feature that could be related to prehistoric surface faulting
(e.g., a change in surface slope across the site).

Figure 16. Three possible fault configurations (dashed lines) from

Test pits may provide some useful information regarding sub
fault exposures (x) in only two trenches (A and B) showing the need
surface site conditions; however, they are not an acceptable to measure fault orientation and excavate additional trenches (C) to
alternative to trenches for evaluating surface-faulting hazard. clarify fault-trend geometry, particularly when fault traces are not
A series of aligned test pits perpendicular to the fault trend may mappable at the surface (from Christenson and others, 2003).

Figure 17. Potential problems caused by improper trench locations: (A) gap between trenches, (B) trenches without adequate overlap, and (C)
trench does not fully cover building footprint given fault trend. Dashed lines indicate additional trench length needed (from Christenson and
others, 2003).
46 Utah Geological Survey

help locate a main fault trace, but cannot conclusively demon rect supervision of an experienced Utah licensed Professional
strate the presence or absence of faulting because faults trend Geologist. Vertical and horizontal logging control should be
ing between test pits would not be exposed. used and shown on the log. The logs should not be generalized
or diagrammatic, and may be on a rectified photomosaic base.
Trenches and faults should be accurately located on site plans The log should document all pertinent information from the
and fault maps. The UGS recommends that trenches and faults trench (e.g., Birkeland and others, 1991; U.S. Bureau of Rec
(projected to the ground surface) be surveyed rather than lo lamation, 1998b; Walker and Cohen, 2006; McCalpin, 2009;
cated using a hand-held GPS device. DuRoss, 2015), including:
• Trench and test-pit orientation and indication of which
Trench depth: Trenches should at a minimum be deep enough wall was logged
to expose (1) native, undisturbed geologic units, (2) evidence
of the most recent surface faulting, and (3) all relevant aspects • Horizontal and vertical control
of fault geometry (dip, width of shear zones and grabens, and • Top and bottom of trench wall(s)
subsidiary hanging-wall and footwall faults). Ideally, to dem • Stratigraphic contacts
onstrate a lack of faulting, trenches should extend to the base
of Holocene deposits (for Holocene faults), late Quaternary de • Detailed lithology and soil classification and descriptions
posits (for late Quaternary faults), and Quaternary deposits (for • Contact descriptions
Quaternary faults). Each site and fault is unique and exceptions • Pedogenic soil horizons
are possible, but in general, one recurrence interval (time be
tween the most recent and penultimate surface-faulting earth • Marker beds
quakes) is not sufficient to characterize surface-faulting recur • Fissures and faults
rence or estimate the probability of the next surface-faulting
• Fissure and fault orientations and geometry (strike and dip)
earthquake. Therefore, where engineering-design is proposed
to mitigate surface faulting and additional information on past • Fault displacement
earthquake displacement and timing is required for design pur • Sample locations
poses, deeper trenches may be necessary to adequately charac
terize the fault’s earthquake history. Geochronology: The engineering geologist interprets the
ages of sediments exposed in a trench to determine the timing
Where the maximum trench depth achievable, generally 15 to of past surface faulting. In the Bonneville basin of northwest
20 feet, is not sufficient to adequately characterize past fault
ern Utah, the relation of deposits to latest Pleistocene Bonn
activity, and a potentially hazardous fault may be concealed eville lake-cycle chronology (Gilbert, 1890; Currey, 1982,
by unfaulted younger deposits, the practical limitations of
1990; Currey and others, 1988; Oviatt and others, 1992; God
trenching should be acknowledged in the report and uncertain sey and others, 2005, 2011; Benson and others, 2011; Janecke
ties should be reflected in report conclusions and recommen and Oaks, 2011; Hylland and others, 2012; Miller and others,
dations. In cases where an otherwise well-defined hazardous 2013; Oviatt, 2015) is commonly used to infer ages of sedi
fault is buried too deeply at a particular site to be exposed in ments, and thus estimate the timing of surface faulting. The
trenches, the uncertainty in its location can be addressed by same is also true for Pleistocene-age glacial deposits found
increasing fault setback distances along a projected trace (see at the mouths of some Wasatch Range canyons. For example,
Hazardous Fault Avoidance section below). unfaulted Lake Bonneville highstand sediments or glacial de
posits in a trench provide evidence that faulting has not oc
Trench investigations should be performed in compliance curred at that site since the latest Pleistocene (past ~14 to 18
with current Occupational Safety and Health Administration kyr). However, outside the Lake Bonneville basin, and within
(OSHA) excavation safety regulations and standards (http:// the basin above the highest lake shoreline, determining the
www.osha.gov/SLTC/trenchingexcavation/construction. age of surficial deposits is less straightforward and commonly
html) (see chapter 2, Excavation Safety section). Additional requires advanced knowledge of local Quaternary stratigra
ly, for some projects, the design engineer may want trenches phy and geomorphology, and familiarity with geochronologic
to be backfilled as engineered (compacted) fill to avoid future dating methods.
soil settlement.
At sites lacking deposits of known age, a variety of geochro
Trench logging and interpretation: In preparation for log nologic methods are available to determine the age of de
ging, trench walls should be carefully cleaned to permit direct posits and constrain the timing of past surface faulting (see
observation of the geology. Trenches should be logged at a Geochronology section, chapter 2). Engineering geologists
minimum scale of 1 inch equals 5 feet (1:60); in some in conducting surface-faulting investigations in Utah should
stances, small but important features may be best documented have a proficient working knowledge of useful and commonly
with local detailed logs at larger scale (e.g., 1 inch = 1 foot applied geochronologic techniques (see chapter 2, table 4).
[1:12]). All logs should be prepared in the field under the di That knowledge must extend to evaluating sources of age
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 47

uncertainty, in particular sample context uncertainty, and the Geophysical investigations: Geophysical investigations are
proper protocols for collecting and handling samples to pre indirect, non-destructive methods that can be reliably inter
serve sample integrity and prevent contamination. In instanc preted when site-specific surface and subsurface geologic
es where geochronologic data are critical to surface-faulting conditions are known. Geophysical methods should seldom
investigation and project design, the investigation may benefit be employed without knowledge of site geology; however,
from retaining an expert in the application and interpretation where no other subsurface geologic information is available,
of geochronologic methodologies. geophysical methods may provide the only economically vi
able means to perform deep geologic reconnaissance (e.g.,
Numerical dating methods may include, but are not limited Chase and Chapman, 1976; Telford and others, 1990; Sharma,
to, radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence and other 1998; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2001; Milsom and Erik
luminescence techniques, 39Ar/40Ar, K-Ar, tephrochronology, sen, 2011; Reynolds, 2011).
dendrochronology, and cosmogenic isotopes (Curtis, 1981;
Forman, 1989; Noller and others, 2000; McCalpin, 2009; Gray Although geophysical methods may detect the presence and
and others, 2015). Relative dating techniques may be applied location of shallow fault planes, such methods alone never
(but not limited) to, soil (pedogenic) profile development, prove the absence of a fault at depth or the time (age) of fault
slope morphometric dating, stratigraphic relations, relative ing. Geophysical methods can provide critical stratigraphic
geomorphic position, and fossils (Forman, 1989; Birkeland information on both basin-fill and bedrock units that may not
and others, 1991; Noller and others, 2000; McCalpin, 2009). otherwise be available. Geophysical techniques used may in
clude, but are not limited to, high-resolution seismic reflec
Other Subsurface Investigation Methods tion, high-resolution seismic tomography, ground penetrating
radar, seismic refraction, magnetic profiling, electrical resis
Other investigation methods, such as cone penetrometer test tivity, and gravity.
soundings, boreholes, and geophysical techniques, can sup
plement trenching and extend the depth of investigation. The Special Case ‒ Sub-Lacustrine Faults
same depth relations for Holocene, late Quaternary, and Qua
ternary faults as described for trenching also apply to these Quaternary-active normal faults are present beneath Great Salt
other subsurface investigation methods. Lake (Great Salt Lake fault zone and Carrington fault) and
Utah Lake (Utah Lake faults). There are currently no known
Cone penetrometer test soundings: Although an indirect subaerial exposures of these faults. The faults are identified
investigation method, cone penetrometer test (CPT) sound and their lengths and segmentation defined based on seismic
ings are in some circumstances an applicable investigative reflection and other geophysical studies (Mikulich and Smith,
method for evaluating the presence of faults where trenching 1974; Cook and others, 1980; Viveiros, 1986; Mohapatra and
is either not possible, or the deposits of interest are too thick Johnson, 1998; Dinter and Pechmann, 2000, 2005, 2015; Col
to investigate with a trench. CPT soundings permit collec man and others, 2002; Dinter, 2015).
tion of data on geologic units and groundwater, and in some
instances, can identify offset in geologic units indicative of Paleoseismic evidence (including stratigraphic displace
faulting. The number and spacing of CPT soundings should ments, subsidiary fault terminations, and differential tilting)
be sufficient to reliably interpret site stratigraphy, correla interpreted from high-resolution seismic reflection profiles
tions, and interpretations. show that the Great Salt Lake fault zone consists of four
seismically independent segments. Radiocarbon ages from
Boreholes: Boreholes are useful for general characterization event horizons sampled in drill cores indicate at least three
of subsurface site conditions (e.g., geologic units, groundwa large surface-faulting earthquakes have occurred on each of
ter) where Quaternary faults are present, particularly where these segments in the past 12 kyr (Dinter and Pechmann,
trenching is not possible. However, vertical boreholes gener 2000, 2005, 2014, 2015). The Carrington fault is less well
ally do not provide sufficient resolution to confidently identify studied, but is ~19 miles long with scarps as high as 5 feet.
and characterize subsurface faults, and seldom can prove the Earthquake times are unconstrained on the Carrington fault,
presence or absence of a fault or determine the time of fault but based on similarities of other lakebed scarps, the slip rate
ing. Better results identifying faults may be obtained where and recurrence interval of the Carrington fault are thought to
directional drilling and sampling are possible. However, con be similar to the segments of the Great Salt Lake fault zone
tinuous core and other sampling methods rarely yield 100 (WGUEP, 2016).
percent recovery, and may miss faults. Therefore, boreholes
should only be used to supplement other subsurface investiga The Utah Lake faults are a complex system of east- and west
tion methods, or be utilized when no other method of subsur dipping normal faults. Seismic reflection profiles suggest that as
face investigation is feasible. When used, boreholes should be many as eight surface-rupturing, north-striking faults displace
sufficient in number and adequately spaced to permit reliable very young lake sediments 3 to 10 feet (Dinter, 2015). Because
correlations and interpretations. these faults occupy a similar hanging-wall position in relation
48 Utah Geological Survey

to the Provo segment of the Wasatch fault zone as does the West that permit construction across active faults that show ≤ 4
Valley fault zone to the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch inches of displacement. Additionally, under a special “Review
fault zone, best available information for the West Valley fault Protocol” the City of Draper (2005) permits “super-engineer
zone is currently used as an analog for the Utah Lake faults. ing” of foundations under limited circumstances (Dobbins
and Simon, 2015) to mitigate surface-faulting displacements
Based on available evidence, faults beneath Great Salt Lake that are greater than the 4 inches permitted in the city’s current
and Utah Lake are potential sources of future large earth geologic-hazard ordinance. Super-engineered foundations de
quakes. With no known subaerial exposures, the likelihood signed to accommodate as much as 6 feet of vertical displace
of surface-faulting displacement on any of these faults hav ment have been approved by the City of Draper (David Dob
ing a direct impact on the health, safety, or welfare of Utah bins, Draper City Manager, verbal communication, 2015).
citizens is low. Although subaerial fault exposures have not
yet been identified, careful investigation for evidence of sur Considering the limited paleoseismic data available for most
face faulting remains prudent for projects proposed where Utah Quaternary faults, and the length of their surface-faulting
faults beneath Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake project to the recurrence intervals (typically hundreds to thousands of years),
shoreline. If evidence of surface faulting is found, a subsur the UGS considers fault setback and avoidance the safest and
face investigation should be conducted to fully character most effective surface-faulting-mitigation option for most
ize the surface-faulting hazard. Additionally, future surface Utah faults. However, recognizing that engineering-design
faulting on these faults could generate a tsunami (surface mitigation of surface faulting is now permitted by some Utah
faulting induced water wave) that may damage facilities jurisdictions, these guidelines include a review of the fault
along the shores of the lake, causing an indirect negative parameter data required to fully characterize past fault activ
impact from surface faulting. ity, and recommendations regarding the kind and amount of
paleoseismic data necessary for engineering-design mitigation
of surface faulting (see Paleoseismic Data Required for Engi
SURFACE-FAULTING MITIGATION neering-Design Mitigation of Surface Faulting section below).

Background Additionally, discussion has begun in Utah (UQFPWG, 2013;

Lund, 2015) and elsewhere (e.g., Shlemon, 2010, 2015; Gath,
Municipal and county geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah 2015) regarding the appropriateness of using the long time
use the term “active” fault as a synonym for “hazardous,” interval represented by the Holocene for evaluating surface
and typically define activity (relative hazard) by applying an faulting hazard. The Hazardous Fault Criteria section below
age criterion: “active” faults have evidence of displacement discusses this issue relative to Utah’s normal-slip faults, and
during the Holocene (approximately the past 11,700 years). provides recommendations for the kind of information on past
The Holocene criterion has precedence, principally from past earthquake timing necessary for implementing data-driven
application in California for implementing the Alquist-Priolo decisions regarding surface-faulting mitigation.
Earthquake Zoning Act (Bryant, 2010; Tepel, 2010; California
Geological Survey, 2011b, 2013), and in the Western States Surface-Faulting Special-Study Maps
Seismic Policy Council’s (WSSPC) definitions of fault ac
tivity categories in the Basin and Range Province (WSSPC, As a critical first step to ensure that surface-faulting haz
2011). However, several historical surface-faulting earth ard is adequately addressed in land-use planning and regu
quakes in the Basin and Range Province occurred on normal lation, local governments should prepare surface-faulting
faults with no evidence of previous Holocene activity (Wal special-study maps which define areas within which a sur
ter, 1934; Bull and Pearthree, 1988; Bell and Katzer, 1990; face-faulting investigation is required prior to development
Pearthree, 1990; Bell and others, 2004; Caskey and others, (figure 10). The UGS has prepared or assisted with prepara
2004; Suter, 2006; Wesnousky, 2008). Those earthquakes tion of surface-faulting special-study maps for Cache, Davis,
demonstrate that a single Holocene criterion is not sufficient Iron, Salt Lake, eastern Tooele, Utah, western Wasatch, and
to identify potentially hazardous faults in the interior western
Weber Counties (on file with the respective municipal and
United States that may produce future surface faulting in a county planning departments). Similar UGS special-study
time frame relevant to land-use management and regulation. area maps are available for the St. George-Hurricane metro
politan area (Lund and others, 2008), high-visitation areas in
Until recently (e.g., Bray 2001, 2009a, 2009b, 2015), design Zion National Park (Lund and others, 2010), the Magna and
ing a structure to withstand fault displacement at the ground Copperton 7.5-minute quadrangle areas in Salt Lake Valley
surface was generally considered impractical. For that reason, (Castleton and others, 2011, 2014), and the State Route 9
the standard of practice in Utah has been to avoid construction corridor between La Verkin and Springdale (Knudsen and
on active faults by locating the fault and setting back a pre Lund, 2013). The UGS is conducting a long-term, geologic
scribed distance from it (Christenson and others, 2003). How hazard-mapping initiative to prepare geologic-hazard-map
ever, since the release of the Christenson and others (2003) sets for select 7.5-minute quadrangles in Utah (Castleton and
guidelines, some Utah jurisdictions have adopted ordinances McKean, 2012). Where Quaternary faults are present, these
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 49

hazard-map sets will include surface-faulting special-study to mitigate surface faulting should be based on a risk assess
maps (e.g., Castleton and others, 2011). ment that considers the time of the most recent surface faulting
and the average recurrence interval between previous surface
When preparing a surface-faulting special-study map, the faulting earthquakes to determine the probability of surface
UGS recommends that the width of special-study areas de faulting within a future time frame of interest (see Character
fined along faults vary depending upon whether a fault is well izing Fault Activity section above). However, with the possi
defined (Bryant and Hart, 2007), approximately located, or ble exception of the five central, Holocene-active segments of
buried. The trace of a well-defined fault is clearly detectable the Wasatch fault zone (DuRoss and Hylland, 2015; DuRoss
as a physical feature at the ground surface (typically shown and others, 2016; WGUEP, 2016), available paleoseismic data
as a solid line on a geologic map) by a geologist qualified for faults in Utah are generally insufficient to make such data
to conduct surface-faulting investigations. For a well-defined based risk determinations, and the ability to acquire the new
fault, the UGS recommends that special-study areas extend earthquake timing, recurrence, and displacement data nec
horizontally 500 feet on the downthrown side and 250 feet essary to do so may be limited by site geologic conditions,
on the upthrown side of mapped fault traces or the outermost property access, and/or budget and time constraints. Addi
faults in a fault zone (figure 10; e.g., Lund and others, 2008, tionally, the natural variability of fault behavior (aleatory vari
2010; Castleton and others, 2011, 2014; Knudsen and Lund, ability) and the uncertainty resulting from lack of necessary
2013). In areas of high scarps where 250 feet on the upthrown data to characterize fault activity (epistemic uncertainty) may
side does not extend to the top of the scarp, the UGS recom combine to preclude the confident determination of the prob
mends that the special-study area increase to 500 feet on the ability of future earthquake timing, displacement, and rupture
upthrown side (Robison, 1993). An approximately located complexity at a site. Therefore, setting back from and thereby
or buried fault is not evident at the ground surface for a sig avoiding potentially hazardous faults is often the most techni
nificant distance, and is typically shown as a dashed line for cally feasible and effective method to mitigate surface fault
approximately located faults and as a dotted line for buried ing. It is also the most satisfactory and safest (conservative)
faults on a geologic map. The UGS recommends that special long-term solution for both current and future land owners,
study areas for approximately located or buried faults extend since the hazard is avoided regardless of the timing of the next
horizontally 1000 feet on either side of the estimated fault lo surface-faulting earthquake. For those reasons, avoidance is
cation (e.g., Lund and others, 2008, 2010; Castleton and oth the principal surface-faulting risk-mitigation technique speci
ers, 2011, 2014; Knudsen and Lund, 2013). fied by geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah, and the UGS con
siders avoidance the safest long-term surface-faulting mitiga
tion option presently available.
Where special-study-area maps are not available, the first step
in a surface-faulting investigation is to determine if the site is
Fault Activity Classes
near a mapped Quaternary fault (see discussion of the Quater
nary Fault and Fold Database of the United States [USGS,
2015] and Utah Quaternary Fault and Fold Database [UGS, A fault avoidance mitigation strategy relies on a “time-of
2016] in the Sources of Paleoseismic Information section most-recent-rupture” fault activity classification to identify
above). If so, existing larger scale maps (if available) should active (hazardous) faults for which avoidance is deemed nec
be examined, aerial photographs and other remote-sensing essary. The previous version of these guidelines (Christen
data interpreted, and field investigations performed to produce son and others, 2003) adopted the then-current fault activity
detailed geologic maps as outlined in these guidelines to deter class definitions for the Basin and Range Province proposed
mine whether the fault is within 500 feet of the site if the fault by WSSPC (http://www.wsspc.org/). Those definitions were
is well defined, or within 1000 feet if the fault is approximately first adopted by WSSPC in 1997, and evolved through subse
located or buried. If faults are found or suspected within these quent revisions in 2005, 2008, and 2011. Beginning in 2011,
distances, the UGS recommends trenching or other subsurface the policy recommendation included a substantial change to
investigations as outlined in these guidelines. Also, investiga the fault activity class definition for the Quaternary to comply
tions as outlined in the Surface-Faulting-Hazard Investigation with revisions to the Global Chronostratigraphical Correla
section should be conducted for all IBC Risk Category III and tion Table for the Last 2.7 Million Years, v. 2010 (Internation
IV facilities (ICC, 2014a), whether near a mapped Quaternary al Commission on Stratigraphy, 2009; Cohen and Gibbard,
fault or not, to ensure that previously unknown faults are not 2010). These revisions redefined the lower boundary of the
present. If evidence for a fault is found, the UGS recommends Quaternary from 1.8 to ~2.6 (actual 2.588) Ma. In compli
a subsurface investigation. See also the Engineering-Geology ance with the new standard (now generally accepted within
Investigations section of chapter 2 for additional information the international geologic community), the UGS adopted 2.6
on performing geologic-hazard field investigations. Ma as the lower boundary for the Quaternary for the Utah
Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Conversely, the USGS
for purposes of seismic-hazard analysis continues to define
Hazardous Fault Avoidance the base of the Quaternary as 1.6 Ma in the Quaternary Fault
and Fold Database of the United States (the USGS has ad
Utah’s Quaternary faults exhibit a wide range of recurrence opted 2.6 Ma for other purposes). It is beyond the scope of
intervals and slip rates. Ideally, decisions regarding the need these guidelines to resolve this discrepancy; the UGS recom
50 Utah Geological Survey

mends that both fault databases be consulted when performing • Late Quaternary faults – recommended for all IBC
a surface-faulting investigation. Risk Category II(b), III, and IV structures. Investi
gations for IBC Risk Category II(a) and other struc
For the purpose of these guidelines, the UGS follows the tures for human occupancy remain prudent, but local
WSSPC (2011) definitions of fault activity classes: governments should base decisions on an assessment
of whether risk-reduction measures are justified by
• Holocene fault – a fault whose movement in the past
weighing the probability of occurrence against the
11,700 years before present [10,000 14C yr B.P.] has
risk to lives and potential economic loss. Earthquake
been large enough to break the ground surface.
risk-assessment techniques are summarized by Reiter
• Late Quaternary fault – a fault whose movement in (1990), Yeats and others (1997), and McCalpin (2009).
the past 130,000 years before present has been large
• Quaternary faults – studies are recommended for all
enough to break the ground surface.
IBC Risk Category III and IV structures. Investigations
• Quaternary fault – a fault whose movement in the past for IBC Risk Category II(b) structures and other struc
2.6 million years before present has been large enough tures for human occupancy remain prudent because a
to break the ground surface. low likelihood of surface faulting still exists.
As noted above, the UGS recommends that in the absence of
The last two classes are inclusive; that is, Holocene faults
information to the contrary, all Quaternary faults be consid
are included within the definition of Late Quaternary faults, ered Holocene unless there are data to confidently assign them
and both Holocene and Late Quaternary faults are included in to a Late Quaternary or Quaternary activity class.
Quaternary faults. The activity class of a fault is the youngest
class based on the demonstrated age of most recent surface
Fault Setbacks
faulting. The UGS recommends that in the absence of infor
mation to the contrary, all Quaternary faults be considered
The UGS recommends that Salt Lake County’s formulas for
Holocene unless there are adequate data to confidently assign
them to the Late Quaternary or Quaternary activity class. calculating fault setbacks for normal faults (Batatian and Nel
son, 1999; Salt Lake County, 2002b; Christenson and others,
The Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States 2003) as presented below be used throughout Utah. Unlike a
(USGS, 2015) and the Utah Quaternary Fault and Fold Da simple “one setback distance fits all” approach (i.e., McCalpin,
1987), the Salt Lake County setback formulas adjust setback
tabase (UGS, 2016) summarize existing fault data for known
distances based on maximum anticipated fault displacements
Utah Quaternary faults, and estimate the timing of most re
(greater setbacks for greater displacements), and also account
cent surface faulting. However, neither fault compilation was
for deep foundations and basements in structures close to a
prepared for use in assigning activity classes for land-use
fault trace on the downthrown side of the fault. The method
planning and regulation. The timing reported for the most re
should be used to calculate the recommended fault setback
cent surface faulting represents best (non-conservative) age
distance for structures, depending on their IBC Risk Category
estimates based on data in existing studies. These estimates,
(ICC, 2014a) and fault activity class, as shown in table 12. Ta
particularly for many pre-Holocene faults, typically are based
on limited reconnaissance studies and are not adequate to ble 12 is a revision of table 1 in Christenson and others (2003),
and replaces IBC Building Occupancy Classes with IBC Risk
determine activity classes to assess the need for site-specific
Categories (ICC, 2014a), thus tying setback distances directly
surface-faulting investigations. Additionally, while the data
to risk. Variables used in the equations are shown on figure
bases are periodically updated, new information for a fault
may become available that has not yet been incorporated into 18, and an example of a fault setback calculation is given be
low. Note that where an antithetic fault(s) is present at a site, a
the databases. It is the responsibility of the engineering geolo
fault setback distance must be determined for it as well. This
gist performing a surface-faulting investigation to ensure that
calculation method is for use with normal faults only. If re
all sources of paleoseismic data available for a site have been
verse, thrust, or strike-slip faults are present (e.g., figure 14),
identified and reviewed.
the engineering geologist should provide the geologic justifi
cation in the report for the fault setback determination method
Investigation Recommendations used. Faults and fault setbacks should be clearly identified on
the site-specific geology or fault map (see Surface-Faulting
When avoidance using fault setback is the risk-mitigation op Investigation Report Guidelines section below).
tion selected, the UGS recommends that surface-faulting in
vestigations be performed based on the modified IBC Risk Table 12 presents minimum fault setback recommendations
Categories shown in table 12 and the following WSSPC for IBC Risk Categories (Risk Category II subdivided into
(2011) fault activity classes: categories II(a) and II(b) for purposes of these guidelines).
• Holocene faults – recommended for all structures for The calculated fault setback using the formulas presented be
human occupancy and all IBC Risk Category II(a), low is compared to the minimum fault setback in table 12,
II(b), III, and IV structures. and the greater of the two is used. Minimum fault setbacks in
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 51

Fault setback distances on the downthrown block are measured

from where the fault intersects the final grade level for the build
ing (figure 18). For dipping faults, if the fault trace daylights in
the face of a scarp above final building(s) grade, the fault setback
is taken from where the fault would intersect the final grade level
for the building(s), rather than where it daylights in the scarp.

Upthrown block: Because the fault setback is measured from

the portion of the building closest to the fault, whether sub
grade or at grade, the dip of the fault and depth of the subgrade
portion of the structure are irrelevant in calculating the fault
setback on the upthrown block. The fault setback for the up
thrown side of the fault is calculated as:

Figure 18. Schematic diagram illustrating fault setback calculation S = U * (2D)

(modified from Christenson and others, 2003).
Fault setback distances on the upthrown block are measured
table 12 apply to both the downthrown and upthrown blocks. from where the fault trace daylights at the surface, com
These fault setbacks apply only to surface faulting; greater monly in a scarp. Minimum fault setback distances apply as
setbacks may be necessary for slope, property boundary, or discussed above. Note that S and D are measured in feet for
other considerations. comparison to minimum fault setbacks in table 12.

Downthrown block: The fault setback for the downthrown Example of a fault setback calculation: Here, we consider
block is calculated using the formula: a hypothetical example where trenching along the Wasatch
fault zone in southern Salt Lake County identified the main
Ftanθ trace of the fault and an antithetic fault crossing a property.
S=U2D
* +
[ (]) Maximum displacement (D) on the main fault for the most
recent surface-faulting earthquake at the site was 8.5 feet. The
main fault dipped 70 degrees (θ) to the west. Displacement on
where:
the antithetic fault was 2 feet, dipping 50 degrees to the east.
S= Fault setback distance within which buildings Development plans call for a 250-seat theater (Risk Catego
are not permitted (feet). ry II(b); criticality factor [U] = 2) with basements requiring
U = Criticality factor, based on IBC Risk Category 8-foot foundation depths (F). The setback from the main fault
(table 12). is calculated as follows:
D = Expected maximum fault displacement per earth
Downthrown (western) block
quake (maximum vertical displacement) (feet).
= 2D+ Ftanθ
F = Maximum depth of footing or subgrade portion U*
of the building (feet).
θ = Fault dip (degrees).
[[ ( ])]8feettan70◦()
= 2 * (2)(8.5 feet) +

= 2 * (17 feet +3 feet)

Fault displacement is the maximum vertical displacement
measured for an individual surface-faulting earthquake at = 40 feet
the site (not necessarily the displacement of the most recent
surface-faulting event). If a range of displacements is possible Upthrown (eastern) block
(e.g., because of uncertainty in how geologic layers or con = U * (2D)
tacts are correlated or projected into the fault zone), the largest
= 2 * (2) * (8.5 feet)
possible displacement value should be used. If per-earthquake
displacements cannot be measured on site, the maximum dis = 34 feet
placement based on paleoseismic data from nearby paleoseis
mic investigations on the fault or segment may be used. In the The 40- and 34-foot calculated setback distances are to be ap
absence of nearby data, consult DuRoss (2008) and DuRoss plied respectively, because they are greater than the 20-foot
and Hylland (2015) for the range of displacements measured minimum fault setback (see table 12).
on the central segments of the Wasatch fault zone. Lund (2005)
reports limited displacement information for some other Utah We do not know whether the 2-foot displacement on the an
Quaternary faults. tithetic fault represents cumulative displacements from mul
52 Utah Geological Survey

tiple surface-faulting earthquakes, or resulted from a single without surface faulting, or if future rupture will extend to the
surface-faulting earthquake; therefore, we must assume all surface and create a surface-faulting hazard.
displacement occurred during a single earthquake. The set
back from the antithetic fault is calculated as follows: Surface deformation caused by slip on a buried fault lacks a
discrete zone of displacement and in some cases may be many
Downthrown (eastern) block feet wide. Therefore, with the possible exception of the axis of
a tight kink fold, establishing standard fault setback distances
[[ ( ])
= U * 2D +
Ftanθ
] or implementing a standardized method for calculating fault
2 * (2)(2feet) + 8feettan50◦() setbacks for surface deformation as is done for surface fault
= ing is generally not possible (see Hazardous Fault Avoidance
section above). Past mitigation measures employed in Utah for
= 2 * (4 feet +7 feet) structures built in surface deformation zones have consisted
= 22 feet of engineering-design techniques such as reinforced slab-on
grade foundations and flexible utility lines and hookups (Bill
Upthrown (western) block Black, Western GeoLogic, written communication, 2014).
= U * (2D)
Quantifying the future effects of surface faulting at a site with
= 2 * (2) * (2 feet) in a surface deformation zone may not be possible even after
= 8 feet a careful investigation, because tectonic surface deformation
may expand over time, or future rupture on the causative fault
The 22-foot calculated fault setback is greater than the 20-foot may eventually extend to the ground surface. Therefore, the
minimum setback (see table 12); therefore, the fault setback UGS does not make a standard recommendation formitigating
on the downthrown block is 22 feet. Because 8 feet is less than tectonic surface deformation in the absence of discrete fault
the 20-foot minimum fault setback, the fault setback on the ing, but rather recommends that the engineering geologist in
upthrown block is 20 feet. responsible charge of the surface-faulting investigation make
and justify an appropriate mitigation recommendation based
on the results of a site-specific hazard investigation. Whether
Surface Deformation from Slip on a Buried Fault
that recommendation is to set back from a narrow deformation
zone or to implement engineering-design mitigation methods
Surface deformation (folding, warping, monoclinal flexures)
from slip on a buried fault that did not produce discrete fault will depend on individual site conditions and project consider
ations. Barrell (2010) provides an example from New Zealand
rupture at the ground surface has occurred along some Utah of the classification and proposed mitigation of tectonic sur
Quaternary faults (e.g., Keaton, 1986; Keaton and others,
face deformation in the absence of surface faulting.
1987b; Hylland and others, 2014). Zones of surface deforma
tion can be narrow (a few feet to tens of feet) resulting from
localized extensional or compressional strain at the axis of a Paleoseismic Data Required for Engineering
fold or warp, or broad zones (tens to hundreds of feet) of tilt Design Mitigation of Surface Faulting
ing or rotation (Erslev, 1991; Kelson and others, 2001; Chen
and others, 2007). Narrow zones of deformation may produce Most geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah limit surface-fault
scarp-like geomorphic features (Keaton and others, 1987b; ing mitigation to setting back a prescribed distance from an
Hylland and others, 2014); broad zones may be subtle and dif active (hazardous) fault (see Hazardous Fault Avoidance sec
ficult to detect at the ground surface. In some instances (typi tion above). However, some Utah jurisdictions now permit
cally trenches with well-defined stratigraphy), it is possible to construction across Holocene-active faults having ≤ 4 inches
determine net displacement across a fold or warp. Keaton and of displacement. Some of these ordinances specify that rea
others (1987b) measured 3.9–4.9 feet of vertical displacement sonable geologic data must be available to show that future
in a fold resulting from what they interpreted as a single earth surface displacement along the fault will not exceed 4 inches,
quake on the central part of the Taylorsville fault. Hylland and require that a structural engineer provide an appropriate
and others (2014) measured 1.6 feet of vertical displacement engineering design to minimize structural damage. Addition
across a 26-foot-wide zone of broad warping on the Granger ally, under a special “Review Protocol” the City of Draper
fault. Both the Taylorsville and Granger faults are part of the (2005) has permitted “super-engineered” foundations de
West Valley fault zone in Salt Lake Valley. signed to accommodate surface-faulting displacements of as
much as 6 feet (David Dobbins, Draper City Manager, verbal
The potential surface-faulting hazard presented by tectonic communication, 2015).
surface deformation in the absence of discrete faulting is dif
ficult to assess because past rupture on the causative fault did Utah’s engineering-design surface-faulting mitigation ap
not extend to the ground surface. It is unknown whether future proaches are based on the assumptions that (1) a small
rupture on the fault will continue to deform the ground surface displacement (≤ 4 inches) on a fault would not cause cata
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 53

strophic structural collapse, and therefore does not represent ing appropriate displacement uncertainty limits. Because dis
a life-safety hazard to building occupants, and (2) a super-en placement during a surface-faulting earthquake can vary sig
gineered foundation will provide life-safety protection in the nificantly along fault strike (Crone and others, 1987; DuRoss,
event of much larger (multiple feet) displacements beneath an 2008; Hecker and others, 2013), displacement data used for
inhabited structure. Common to both approaches is the need to engineering-design mitigation should be site specific; use of
characterize past surface-faulting displacement to establish a an offsite displacement value introduces an unacceptable level
reliable design displacement value for engineering-mitigation of uncertainty in the displacement design parameter.
design. The design displacement value must be such that it
will not be significantly exceeded (within 2σ uncertainty lim Given the limited paleoseismic information available for most
its) during future surface-faulting earthquakes. Utah Quaternary faults (the five central, Holocene-active
segments of the Wasatch fault zone excepted), acquiring the
Displacement data for normal-slip faults in Utah (DuRoss, detailed displacement data necessary for engineering mitiga
2008), as well as worldwide datasets (e.g., Wesnousky, 2008; tion of surface faulting will likely require a more detailed and
Hecker and others, 2013) show that considerable variation in costly (both in terms of time and money) paleoseismic inves
displacement at a point may occur between successive earth tigation than is necessary to simply locate and setback from
quakes on a fault. Therefore, the displacement at a point pro a potentially hazardous fault. Additionally, many sites will
duced by the most recent surface-faulting earthquake may not not possess the geologic conditions necessary to identify and
be a good predictor of future surface-faulting displacement characterize displacement for a minimum of three paleoearth
at the same location. DuRoss (2008) documents as much as quakes. For those reasons, the UGS believes fault setback and
6.9 feet difference in displacement at a point between succes avoidance will remain the surface-faulting-mitigation option
sive surface-faulting earthquakes on the five central segments most frequently employed in Utah.
of the Wasatch fault zone. Lund and others (2015) reported
~50% variation in displacement at a point between the two
most recent surface-faulting earthquakes on the Fort Pearce
section of the Washington fault zone in northwestern Arizona.
HAZARDOUS FAULT CRITERIA
Hecker and others (2013) evaluated a worldwide dataset of
faults having displacement information from multiple earth Some geologists and engineers, chiefly in California, are re
quakes, and determined that the coefficient of variation (stan evaluating what constitutes a hazardous fault with regard to
dard deviation divided by the mean) for slip at a point is ~0.5, public health, safety, and welfare (e.g., Shlemon, 2010, 2015;
indicating significant displacement variability between earth Gath, 2015). As a result, the Holocene criterion used in Cali
quakes. McCalpin (1987) acknowledged the possible variabil fornia to define an “active” (hazardous) fault has been called
ity of displacement on secondary faults between earthquakes, into question as being unreasonably long when compared to the
and recommended that human-occupied structures not be sit time intervals used to mitigate other kinds of natural hazards.
ed across small-displacement faults (≤ 12 in) without careful Those geologists argue that no specific deterministic recurrence
subsurface documentation of the location and past displace number should be used to define a hazardous fault, but rath
ment styles (direction and amount) of the faults. er mitigating surface faulting should be data driven, and rely
on professional judgment, cost, available technology, and so
cial constraints (acceptable risk) (Shlemon, 2010, 2015; Gath,
A review of possible engineering-design methods to mitigate 2015). Some Utah geologists have similarly begun discussing
surface faulting is beyond the scope of these guidelines (see the appropriateness of the Holocene active-fault criterion as
Bray, 2015, for a review of design techniques); however, all commonly applied in Utah (UQFPWG, 2013; Lund, 2015), and
such methods rely on the ability of the engineering geologist likewise advocate data-based decisions regarding surface-fault
to estimate within reasonable uncertainty limits (2σ) displace ing mitigation when sufficient paleoseismic data are available.
ment at a point from future surface-faulting earthquakes. As
discussed above, this is not a simple task, and can only be reli
Characterizing fault activity for engineering mitigation of sur
ably achieved where site geology permits evaluating the fault’s
face faulting requires determining the fault’s average surface
displacement history over multiple paleoearthquakes. Displace faulting recurrence and variability over multiple paleoearth
ment data for a single paleoearthquake (most recent event) at a quake cycles, as well as the time of most recent surface fault
site does not provide a statistically significant basis for estimat ing. By comparing elapsed time since the most recent surface
ing probable future maximum earthquake displacement. faulting earthquake with a well-constrained average recur
rence interval, it is possible to estimate the probability that
For engineering mitigation of surface faulting on normal-slip the fault will generate a future surface-faulting earthquake in
faults in Utah, the UGS recommends that displacements be a time interval of interest, although uncertainties may remain
determined for a minimum of three surface-faulting earth high, particularly for long-recurrence faults. Only when such
quakes at the site of interest (more if site geology permits), detailed paleoseismic data are available can decisions regard
and that engineering-design mitigation be based on the maxi ing surface-faulting mitigation be reliably data driven. The
mum displacement observed on the fault in question includ following examples illustrate this point.
54 Utah Geological Survey

On the central Wasatch fault zone where earthquake timing Hylland, 2015). Conversely, the elapsed time since the most
and surface-faulting recurrence and variability are well con recent surface faulting on the Nephi segment is 200± 70 years
strained (figure 19), the average recurrence interval for sur (Crone and others, 2014; DuRoss and others, 2016), and the
face faulting on the Salt Lake City segment for the past four average recurrence for the past two earthquake cycles (three
surface-faulting earthquakes (three closed earthquake cycles) earthquakes) is 1100 ± 200 years, indicating that the Nephi
is 1300± 100 years, and the elapsed time since the most recent segment may not generate another surface-faulting earth
surface faulting is 1300 ± 200 years (DuRoss and Hylland, quake for several hundred years. Available paleoseismic data
2015; DuRoss and others, 2016), indicating that the Salt Lake show that on average the Salt Lake City segment is more haz
City segment has met or exceeded its average recurrence in ardous than the Nephi segment, even though both segments
terval and may produce a surface-faulting earthquake at any have experienced multiple Holocene earthquakes, and as such
time. A note of caution: when evaluating average surface would be treated in the same manner when implementing a
faulting recurrence, “at any time” may range from now to fault avoidance strategy to mitigate surface faulting (see Haz
hundreds of years from now. Individual recurrence intervals ardous Fault Avoidance section above). Whether mitigating
for the four most recent Salt Lake City segment earthquakes surface faulting differently on the Nephi and Salt Lake City
range from 800 ± 300 years to 1900 ± 300 years (DuRoss and segments based on available paleoseismic data is advisable,

Figure 19. Distribution of probability density functions showing timing of single segment surface-faulting earthquakes on the five central
segments of the Wasatch fault zone for the past ~6500 years (from WGUEP, 2016).
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 55

and what form different mitigation strategies might take, de structure out of harm’s way regardless of future earthquake
pends on society’s ability to accept seismic risk, and remains timing or displacement.
a matter for future policy discussion.

Conversely, trenching by Olig and others (1999, 2000, 2001

[compiled in Bowman and Lund, 2013]) on the Mercur fault SURFACE-FAULTING-INVESTIGATION
(Southern Oquirrh Mountains fault zone) identified a Ho REPORT
locene earthquake between 1500 and 4000 years ago, thus
placing the Mercur fault in the Holocene activity class (see The report prepared for a site-specific surface-faulting in
Hazardous Fault Avoidance section above). However, aver vestigation in Utah should, at a minimum, address the topics
age surface-faulting recurrence on the Mercurfault is 13,000– below. Site conditions may require that additional items be
19,000 years over the past 90,000 years. Therefore, even included; these guidelines do not relieve engineering geolo
though the uncertainty in average recurrence is high (intervals gists from their duty to perform additional geologic inves
vary from 2000 to 40,000 years), the likelihood of future rup tigations as necessary to adequately assess surface-faulting
ture in a planning time frame is probably low on the Mercur hazard at a site. The report presenting the investigation re
fault, possibly lower than for many Late Quaternary faults that sults must be prepared, stamped, and signed by a Utah li
lack Holocene surface faulting. censed Professional Geologist (Utah Code, 2011) with expe
rience in conducting surface-faulting investigations. Reports
These examples illustrate that fully characterizing surface co-prepared by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer must
faulting hazard requires more paleoseismic information than include the engineer’s stamp and signature. The guidelines
simply determining the timing and displacement of the most below pertain specifically to surface-faulting investigations,
recent surface-faulting earthquake. Timing and displacement and expand on the general guidance provided in the Engi
data for multiple surface-faulting earthquakes (recommend neering-Geology Investigations and Engineering-Geology
a minimum of three closed earthquake cycles [four earth Reports sections of chapter 2.
quakes]) is necessary to (1) compare the elapsed time since
A. Text
the most recent surface-faulting earthquake with an even min
imally statistically relevant average recurrence, and (2) esti a. Purpose and scope of investigation. Describe the
mate the probability of future surface faulting within a time location and size of the site and proposed type and
frame of interest. A Late Quaternary fault with a recurrence number of buildings if known.
interval ≥ 10,000 years may be approaching or have exceeded b. Geologic and tectonic setting. The report should
its average recurrence, and be potentially more hazardous contain a clear and concise statement of the general
than either the Nephi segment, which has experienced mul geologic and tectonic setting of the site vicinity. The
tiple Holocene surface-faulting earthquakes, or the Mercur section should include a discussion of active faults
fault, which experienced surface faulting ~1500–4000 years in the area, paleoseismicity of the relevant fault
ago, but has highly non-uniform earthquake recurrence. Con system(s), historical seismicity, geodetic measure
sequently, the Holocene-activity criterion as currently applied ments where pertinent, and should reference rele
in Utah to implement fault setback requirements may result
vant published and unpublished geologic literature.
in overly conservative risk-mitigation measures in some in
c. Site description and conditions. Include informa
stances, and in other cases contribute to ignoring possible
hazardous Late Quaternary faults that are near or beyond their tion on geologic and soil units, geomorphic fea
average recurrence interval. tures, graded and filled areas, vegetation, existing
structures, and other factors that may affect fault
The UGS recommends that where sufficient paleoseismic recognition, choice of investigative methods, and
interpretation of data.
data are available to characterize earthquake timing and
displacement over multiple earthquake cycles (see recom d. Methods and results of investigation.
mendation above), those data may be used in conjunction
1. Literature Review. Summarize published and
with good professional judgment to replace the Holocene
unpublished maps, literature, and records con
activity criterion for a hazardous fault, and be used to deter
cerning geologic and soil units, faults, surface
mine which faults require surface-faulting risk mitigation,
water and groundwater, topography, and other
and which may require lesser or no mitigation, regardless
relevant factors pertinent to the site.
of activity class. Where paleoseismic data are lacking or
are insufficient to fully characterize earthquake activity as 2. Interpretation of Remote-Sensing Imagery. De
described above, the UGS recommends that those faults be scribe the results of remote-sensing-imagery
treated as Holocene active and appropriate fault setbacks interpretation, including stereoscopic aerial
determined and applied (see Hazardous Fault Avoidance photographs, lidar, and other remote-sensing
section above). We reiterate that the safest form of surface data (e.g., Bunds and others, 2015) as avail
faulting mitigation remains avoidance, which places a able, conducted to identify fault-related topog
56 Utah Geological Survey

raphy, vegetation or soil contrasts, and other and unfaulted geologic units and surfaces.
lineaments of possible fault origin. List source, If engineering mitigation of surface faulting
date, flight-line numbers, and scale of aerial is proposed, the UGS recommends that pa
photos or other imagery used. leoearthquake displacement information be ob
3. Surface Investigations. Describe pertinent sur tained for a minimum of the three most recent
face features, both onsite and offsite, including surface-faulting earthquakes at the site, and
mapping of geologic units; geomorphic fea that engineering design be based on the larg
tures such as scarps, springs and seeps (aligned est displacement observed and account for any
or not), faceted spurs, and disrupted drainages; uncertainty in the displacement measurement.
and geologic structures. Describe and assign 3. Degree of confidence in, and limitations of, the
ages to features associated with earthquake data and conclusions.
induced strong ground shaking such as sand
f. Recommendations.
blows, lateral spreads, and other evidence of
liquefaction and ground settlement. Describe 1. Recommendations must be supported by the
the results of scarp profiling including age report conclusions and be presented in a clear
and displacement estimates for past surface and concise manner.
faulting earthquakes. Landslides, although 2. Fault setback recommendations should include
they may not be conclusively associated with justification for the fault setback distance cho
an earthquake cause, should be identified and sen with supporting data.
described, particularly if they affect fault rec
ognition and mapping. 3. When engineering-design mitigation of sur
face faulting is recommended, design recom
4. Subsurface Investigations. Describe fault mendations must be data driven and based on
trenching and other subsurface investigations sufficient paleoseismic information that epis
conducted to evaluate surface faulting at the temic uncertainty regarding the fault’s past and
site. The strike, dip, and vertical displacement probable future displacement is minimized and
(or minimum displacement if total displace aleatory variability is adequately characterized
ment cannot be determined) of faults should be
(see Paleoseismic Data Required for Engineer
recorded. Trench logs should be included with ing-Design Mitigation of Surface Faulting and
the report and should be prepared in the field Hazardous Fault Criteria sections above).
at a scale of 1 inch = 5 feet or larger. Describe
the criteria used to determine the age and geo 4. Other recommended building restrictions, use
logic origin of the deposits in the trenches, and limitations, or risk-reduction measures such as
clearly evaluate the evidence for the presence placement of detached garages or other non
or absence of Holocene, Late Quaternary, or habitable structures in fault zones, or use of
Quaternary faults. engineering-design mitigation for small-dis
placement faults.
5. Other Investigation Methods. When special
conditions or requirements for critical facili 5. Limitations on the investigation and recom
ties demand a more intensive investigation, mendations for additional investigation to bet
describe the methods used to supplement the ter quantify the hazard if necessary.
trenching program and the purpose/result of B. References
those methods. These may include, but are not a. Literature and records cited or reviewed; citations
limited to: (a) boreholes and test pits, (b) CPT
should be complete (see References section of this
soundings, (c) geophysical investigations, and
publication for examples).
(d) geochronology (see Other Subsurface In
vestigation Methods section above). b. Remote-sensing images interpreted including type,
date, project identification codes, scale, source,
e. Conclusions.
and photo index numbers.
1. Conclusions must be supported by adequate c. Other sources of information used, including well
data, and the report should present those data
records, personal communication, and other data
in a clear and concise manner.
sources.
2. Data provided should include evidence estab
C. Illustrations. Should include at a minimum:
lishing the presence or absence of faulting,
fault location(s), fault geometry, earthquake a. Location map. A general location map should show
timing, and displacement (at a minimum the the site and significant physiographic and cultural
most recent surface-faulting earthquake), in features, generally at 1:24,000 scale or larger and
cluding ages and geologic origin of faulted indicating the Public Land Survey System ¼-sec
Chapter 3 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 57

tion, township, and range; and the site latitude and tailed lithology and soil classification and descrip
longitude to four decimal places with datum. tions, (6) contact descriptions, (7) pedogenic soil
b. Site development map. The development map horizons, (8) marker beds, (9) faults and fissures,
should show site boundaries, existing and proposed (10) fault orientation and geometry (strike and
structures, graded and filled areas (including engi dip), (11) fault displacement, and (12) sample lo
neered and non-engineered fill), and streets. The cations (e.g., Birkeland and others, 1991; Bonilla
map scale may vary depending on the size of the and Lienkaemper, 1991; U.S. Bureau of Reclama
site and area covered by the study; the minimum tion, 1998b; Walker and Cohen, 2006; McCalpin,
recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) 2009; DuRoss, 2015).
or larger when necessary. The site development Other features of tectonic significance should be
map may be combined with the site-specific geol shown, including but not limited to (1) open or in
ogy map (below). filled fissures, (2) colluvial wedges, (3) drag folds,
c. Regional geology map. A regional-scale (1:24,000 (4) rotated clasts, (5) lineations, and (6) liquefac
to 1:50,000) map should show the geologic set tion features including sand dikes and blows (e.g.,
ting, including geologic units, Quaternary and DuRoss and others, 2014; DuRoss, 2015).
other faults, and general geologic structures within Logs should include interpretations and evidence
a 10-mile radius of the site. for the age and origin of geologic units. Study lim
d. Site-specific geology map. A site-scale geologic itations should be clearly stated for suspected Ho
map should show (1) geologic units, (2) faults, (3) locene faults where unfaulted Holocene deposits
seeps or springs, (4) landslides, (5) lineaments in are deeper than practical excavation depths.
vestigated for evidence of faulting, (6) other geo g. Borehole and CPT logs. Boreholes and CPT logs
logic features existing on and near the site, and should include the geologic interpretation of de
(7) locations of trenches, test pits, boreholes, CPT posit genesis for all layers and whether or not evi
soundings, and geophysical lines as appropriate. dence of faulting was encountered. Logs should
Scale of site geologic maps will vary depending not be generalized or diagrammatic. Because bore
on the size of the site and area of study; minimum holes are typically multipurpose, borehole logs
recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) may also contain standard geotechnical, geologic,
or larger when necessary. If site-specific investiga and groundwater data.
tions reveal the presence of a hazardous Quaterna h. Geophysical data and interpretations.
ry fault and fault avoidance is the mitigation strat
i. Photographs that enhance understanding of site
egy employed, an appropriate fault setback should
be shown either on the site-specific geology map, surface and subsurface (trench and test pit walls)
or on a separate surface-fault-rupture-hazard map conditions with applicable metadata.
depending on site scale and complexity. D. Authentication
e. Geologic/topographic cross sections. Site geologic The report must be stamped and signed by a Utah
cross sections should be included as needed to il licensed Professional Geologist in principal charge
lustrate three-dimensional geologic relations. of the investigation (Title 58-76-10 ‒ Professional
f. Trench and test pit log(s). Logs are required for Geologists Licensing Act [Utah Code, 2011]). Final
each trench and test pit excavated as part of the in geologic maps, trench logs, cross sections, sketches,
vestigation whether faults are encountered or not. drawings, and plans prepared by, or under the su
Logs are hand- or computer-drawn maps of exca pervision of, a professional geologist also must bear
the stamp of the professional geologist (Utah Code,
vation walls that show details of geologic units and
structures. Logs should be to scale and not gener 2011). Reports co-prepared by a Utah licensed Pro
alized or diagrammatic, and may be on a rectified fessional Engineer and/or Utah licensed Professional
Land Surveyor must include the engineer’s and/or
photomosaic base. The scale (horizontal and verti
surveyor’s stamp and signature.
cal) should be 1 inch = 5 feet (1:60) or larger as
necessary and with no vertical exaggeration. Logs E. Appendices
should be prepared in the field and accurately re Include supporting data relevant to the investigation
flect the features observed in the excavation, as not given in the text such as maps; trench, test pit,
noted below. Photographs are not a substitute for and borehole logs; cross sections; conceptual mod
trench logs. els; fence diagrams; survey data; water-well data;
Logs should include (1) trench and test-pit orienta geochronology laboratory reports; and qualifications
tion and indication of which wall was logged, (2) statements/resume.
horizontal and vertical control, (3) top and bottom
of trench wall(s), (4) stratigraphic contacts, (5) de
58 Utah Geological Survey

FIELD REVIEW

The UGS recommends a field review of trenches and trench

logs by the regulatory-authority geologist once a surface-fault
ing hazard investigation is complete. The field review should
take place after trenches or test pits are logged, but before they
are closed so subsurface site conditions can be directly ob
served and evaluated. See Field Review section in chapter 2.

REPORT REVIEW
The UGS recommends regulatory review of all reports by
a Utah licensed Professional Geologist experienced in sur
face-faulting hazard investigations and acting on behalf of
local governments to protect public health, safety, and wel
fare, and to reduce risks to future property owners (Lar
son, 1992, 2015). See Report Review section in chapter 2.

DISCLOSURE
The UGS recommends disclosure during real-estate trans
actions whenever an engineering-geology investigation
has been performed. See Disclosure section in chapter 2.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Bill Black (Western GeoLogic, LLC), Gary Christenson (UGS

retired), Robert Larson (Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works), Jim McCalpin (GEOHAZ, Inc.), Pete Rowley
(Geologic Mapping, Inc.), David Simon (Simon Associates,
LLC), Robert Tepel (independent consultant), Chris Wills
(California Geological Survey), and Steve Bowman, Gregg
Beukelman, Chris DuRoss, Rich Giraud, Mike Hylland, Ty
ler Knudsen, and Adam McKean (UGS) provided insightful
comments and/or additional data that substantially improved
the utility of these guidelines.
 CHAPTER 4
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING LANDSLIDE
HAZARDS IN UTAH
by
Gregg S. Beukelman, P.G., and Michael D. Hylland, P.G.

Landslide near 4785 Brentwood Circle, Provo. Photo date: March 30, 2011.

Suggested citation: Beukelman, G.S., and Hylland, M.D., 2016, Guidelines for evaluating landslide hazards in Utah, in Bowman,
S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a
suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 59–73.
60 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 4 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 61

CHAPTER 4: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING LANDSLIDE

HAZARDS IN UTAH
by Gregg S. Beukelman, P.G., and Michael D. Hylland, P.G.

INTRODUCTION • provide engineering geologists with a common basis

for preparing proposals, conducting investigations, and
These guidelines outline the recommended minimum accept recommending landslide-mitigation strategies; and
able level of effort for evaluating landslide hazards in Utah. • provide an objective framework for preparation and re
Guidelines for landslide-hazard investigations in Utah were view of reports.
first published by the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) in 1996
as Guidelines for Evaluating Landslide Hazards in Utah (Hyl These guidelines do not supersede pre-existing state or federal
land, 1996) and are updated here. The objective of these guide regulations or local geologic-hazard ordinances, but provide
lines is to promote uniform and effective statewide implemen useful information to (1) supplement adopted ordinances/
tation of landslide investigation and mitigation measures to re regulations, and (2) assist in preparation of new ordinances.
duce risk. These guidelines do not include systematic descrip If study or risk-mitigation requirements in a local government
tions of all available investigative or mitigation techniques or ordinance exceed recommendations given here, ordinance re
topics, nor is it suggested that all techniques or topics are ap quirements take precedence.
propriate for every project. Variations in site conditions, proj
ect scope, economics, and level of acceptable risk may require
that some topics be addressed in greater detail than is outlined
Background
in these guidelines. However, all elements of these guidelines
should be considered in landslide-hazard investigations, and A landslide can be defined as a downslope movement of rock,
may be applied to any project site, large or small. soil, or both, in which much of the material moves as a co
herent or semi-coherent mass with little internal deformation,
Purpose and movement occurs on either a curved (rotational slide)
or planar (translational slide) rupture surface (Highland and
Bobrowsky, 2008). Occasionally, individual landslides may
These guidelines were developed by the UGS to assist geolo
involve multiple types of movement if conditions change as
gists and geotechnical engineers performing landslide-hazard the displaced material moves downslope. For example, a land
investigations, and to help technical reviewers rigorously as slide may initiate as a rotational slide and then become a trans
sess the conclusions and recommendations in landslide-haz lational slide as it progresses downslope. These guidelines
ard-investigation reports. These guidelines are applicable to address evaluating the potential for new or reactivated rota
both natural and development-induced landslide hazards, and tional and translational slides, but do not address liquefaction
are limited to evaluating the potential for rotational and trans induced landslides such as lateral spreads. Snow avalanches
lational slides (classification after Cruden and Varnes, 1996). and ice falls are likewise not discussed. Figure 21 shows the
The guidelines do not address other types of mass movement
position and terms used for the different parts of a landslide.
such as debris flows or rockfalls, or phenomena such as land These and other relevant terms are defined in the glossary in
subsidence and earth fissures. Debris-flow-hazard investi appendix B.
gations are addressed in chapter 5 of this publication, land
subsidence and earth-fissure investigations in chapter 6, and
Landslides include both natural and human-induced variables,
rockfall-hazard investigations in chapter 7.
making landslide-hazard investigation a complex task. Slope
instability can result from many factors, including geomor
These landslide guidelines are intended to:
phic, hydrologic, and geologic conditions, and modification of
• protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public these conditions by human activity; the frequency and inten
by minimizing the potentially adverse effects of land sity of precipitation; and seismicity. Existing landslides can
slides (figure 20 shows examples of damage from a re represent either marginally stable slopes or unstable slopes
cent urban landslide); that are actively moving. Site conditions must be evaluated in
• assist local governments in regulating land use in haz terms of proposed site modifications associated with structure
ardous areas and provide standards for ordinances; size and placement, slope modification by cutting and filling,
and changes to groundwater conditions.
• assist property owners and developers in conducting
reasonable and adequate landslide investigations;
62 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 20. August 2014 Parkway Drive landslide, North Salt Lake, Utah. The effects of this landslide illustrate how damage can occur at various
parts of the slide. The landslide severely damaged the Eagle Ridge Tennis and Swim Club (white tent structure), and one house (directly above
the tent structure) at its toe, partially destroyed a home’s backyard along its left flank (behind orange fencing near center of photograph), and
threatened streets and pipelines near the crown. Photo date August 14, 2014.

Main  Scarp  

Minor  Scarp  

Slide  Surface  

Tension  
Cracks  
Toe  

Figure 21. Diagram of an idealized landslide showing commonly used nomenclature for its parts.
Chapter 4 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 63

Many Utah landslides are considered dormant, but recent slope ous landsliding, failed and rapidly inundated a neighborhood
failures are commonly reactivations of pre-existing landslides, claiming the lives of 43 people, making it the deadliest land
suggesting that even so-called dormant landslides may con slide in United States history (Keaton and others, 2014).
tinue to exhibit slow creep or are capable of renewed move
ment if stability thresholds are exceeded (Ashland, 2003). Past Annual losses from landslide damage in Utah vary, but are
slope failures can be used to identify the geologic, hydrologic, often in the millions of dollars. For example, during the wet
and topographic conditions that may reactivate existing land year of 1983, Utah landslides had a total estimated direct cost
slides and initiate new landslides. In addition to natural condi exceeding $250 million dollars (Anderson and others, 1984).
tions that contribute to landsliding, human-induced conditions, The 1983 Thistle landslide (figure 22), Utah’s single most de
such as modification of slopes by grading or a human-caused structive failure of a natural slope, is recognized in terms of
change in hydrologic conditions, can create or increase an direct and indirect costs as one of the most expensive individ
area’s susceptibility to landsliding. Investigation of landslide ual landslides in United States history with damage costs over
hazards should be based on the identification and understand $688 million in 2000 dollars (Highland and Schuster, 2000).
ing of conditions and processes that promote instability. Although landslide losses in Utah are poorly documented,
Ashland (2003) estimated losses from damaging landslides in
Slope steepness is an important factor in slope stability. In 2001 exceeded $3 million including the costs to repair and
Salt Lake County, 56 percent of all slope failures occurred stabilize hillsides along state and federal highways. This es
on hillsides where slopes range between 31 and 60 percent timate remains the most recent landslide damage estimate for
which prompted Salt Lake County to lower the maximum Utah; however, total losses during that year are unknown be
allowable buildable slope from 40 percent to 30 percent in cause of incomplete cost documentation of landslide activity.
1986 (Lund, 1986).
Landslide Causes
Landslides occur in all 50 states; however, the coastal states
and the Intermountain West are the primary regions of land Landslides can have several contributing causes, but only one
slide activity. Nationally, landslides result in 25 to 50 deaths trigger (Varnes, 1978; Cruden and Varnes, 1996). Contrib
annually, and cause approximately $3.5 billion (2001 dol uting causes may include, but are not limited to, geological
lars) in damage (Highland, 2004). In 2014, an approximately conditions such as weak, weathered, or sheared rock or sedi
650-foot-high slope near Oso, Washington, underlain by gla ment; morphologic modification processes like tectonic uplift
cial till and lacustrine deposits and having a history of previ or fluvial erosion at the toe of a slope; physical processes such

Figure 22. The 1983 Thistle, Utah, landslide buried parts of two State highways and the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. The landslide also
dammed two streams, resulting in a 3-mile-long and 200-foot-deep lake that inundated the town of Thistle and posed a flooding hazard to
communities downstream. Aerial photograph provided by the USGS National Landslide Information Center.
64 Utah Geological Survey

as earthquakes; or human-related causes such as grading of a tress or complete destruction. Landslides can also do indirect
slope or modification of groundwater conditions. By defini damage to dwellings or businesses by affecting common utili
tion, a trigger is an external force that causes a near-imme ties such as sewer, water, and storm drain pipes, electrical and
diate response in the form of slope deformation by rapidly gas lines, and roadways.
increasing the stresses or reducing the strength of slope mate
rials (Wieczorek, 1996). Engineering geologists investigating Fast-moving landslides are typically the most destructive,
existing landslides should look for dominant causes and the particularly if they move so rapidly that they overwhelm
trigger of the landslide to ensure that the cause of the slope pre-slide mitigation measures or move too fast for mitigation
failure will be corrected by any proposed mitigation. measures to be designed and implemented (see figure 23).
Whereas a fast-moving landslide may completely destroy a
In Utah, natural landslides are primarily triggered by intense structure, a slower landslide may only slightly damage it,
rainfall, rapid snowmelt, rapid stream erosion, water level and may provide time to implement mitigation measures.
change or, to a much lesser degree, seismic activity. Slopes However, left unchecked, even a slow landslide can destroy
can become unstable as they are saturated by intense rainfall, structures over time. In North Salt Lake City, Utah, the very
snowmelt, and changes in groundwater levels. Rapid erosion slow moving Springhill landslide affected a residential de
due to surface-water changes along earth dams and in the banks velopment from 1998 to 2014, until a total of 18 houses on
of lakes, reservoirs, canals, and rivers can undercut banks and the slide were either destroyed by landslide movement or
increase the possibility of landsliding. Earthquakes in steep deemed unfit for occupancy and demolished. An open-space
landslide-prone areas, such as northern Utah, greatly increase geologic park has now been constructed on the landslide
the likelihood of landslides because of ground shaking, liq footprint (Beukelman, 2012). Landslides often continue to
uefaction of susceptible deposits, or dilation of soil, which move for days, weeks, months, or years, and may become
allows rapid infiltration of water. Utah’s best-documented dormant for a time only to reactivate again later. It is there
earthquake-induced landslide is the Springdale landslide in fore prudent not to rebuild on a landslide unless effective
the southwestern part of the state which was triggered by the mitigation measures are implemented; even then, such ef
1992 magnitude 5.8 St. George earthquake (Jibson and Harp, forts may not guarantee future stability.
1995). The potential for earthquake-triggered landslides along
the Wasatch Front has long been recognized (Keaton and oth
ers, 1987a; Solomon and others, 2004; Ashland, 2008), but no
mapped landslide in this area, excluding liquefaction-induced LANDSLIDE-HAZARD INVESTIGATION
lateral spreads (Hylland and Lowe, 1998; Harty and Lowe,
2003), has been documented as having been conclusively trig When to Perform a Landslide-Hazard
gered by a major earthquake. Investigation
Humans can contribute to landslides by improper grading, Geologic hazards are best addressed prior to land develop
such as undercutting the bottom or loading the top of a slope, ment. The UGS recommends that a landslide-hazard investi
disturbing drainage patterns, changing groundwater condi gation be made for all new buildings for human occupancy and
tions, and removing vegetation during development. In ad for modified International Building Code (IBC) Risk Catego
dition, landscape irrigation, on-site wastewater disposal sys ry II(a), II(b), III, and IV facilities (table 1604.5 [International
tems, or leaking pipes can promote landsliding in once-stable Code Council (ICC), 2014a]) that are proposed on slopes.
areas. Identification of a site’s susceptibility to landsliding Utah jurisdictions that have adopted landslide-special-study
followed by proper engineering and hazard mitigation can im maps identify zones of known landslide susceptibility within
prove the long-term stability of the site and reduce risk from which they require a site-specific investigation. The UGS rec
future slope failures. ommends that investigations as outlined in these guidelines be
conducted in slope areas for all IBC Risk Category III and IV
Landslide Hazards facilities, whether near a mapped landslide-susceptible area
or not, to ensure that previously unknown landslides are not
Landslides account for considerable property damage and a present. If a hazard is found, the UGS recommends a compre
potential loss of life in areas having steep slopes and abundant hensive investigation be conducted. Additionally, in some in
rainfall. The potential benefit of landslide-hazard investiga stances an investigation may become necessary when existing
tions is achieving a meaningful reduction in losses through infrastructure is discovered to be on or adjacent to a landslide.
awareness and avoidance. Landslides may affect developed
areas whether the development is directly on or only near a The level of investigation conducted for a particular project
landslide. Landslides can occur either over a wide area where depends on several factors, including (1) site-specific geolog
many homes, businesses, or entire developments are involved, ic conditions, (2) type of proposed or existing development,
or on a local scale where a single structure or part of a struc (3) level of acceptable risk, and (4) governmental permitting
ture is affected. Buildings constructed on landslides without requirements, or regulatory agency rules and regulations. A
proper engineering and hazard mitigation can experience dis landslide-hazard investigation may be conducted separately,
Chapter 4 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 65

Figure 23. The 2005 landslide below the Davis-Weber Canal in South Weber, Davis County, that demolished a barn and covered part of State
Route 60. The landslide occurred in one of the steeper parts of the slope composed of prehistoric landslide deposits that reactivated.

or as part of a comprehensive geologic-hazard and/or geotech Caution is required, however, as the absence of past landslides
nical site investigation (see chapter 2). does not rule out the possibility of future landslides, particu
larly those resulting from human-induced changes such as site
Minimum Qualifications of Investigator grading or changes in groundwater conditions.

Landslide-related engineering-geology investigations and ac These guidelines present two levels of landslide-hazard in
companying geologic-hazard evaluations performed before vestigation: (1) geologic and (2) geotechnical engineering.
the public shall be conducted by or under the direct supervi In general, a geologic investigation is performed by an engi
sion of a Utah licensed Professional Geologist (Utah Code, neering geologist. A geotechnical-engineering investigation is
Title 58-76) who must sign and seal the final report. Often an extension of the geologic investigation and is primarily a
these investigations are interdisciplinary in nature, and where quantitative slope-stability analysis. This analysis is generally
required, must be performed by qualified, experienced, Utah performed by a geotechnical engineer with input from an engi
licensed Professional Geologists (PG, specializing in engi neering geologist. All levels of investigation require an initial
neering geology) and Professional Engineers (PE, specializ in-depth review of existing information including published
ing in geological and/or geotechnical engineering) working as and unpublished literature and available remote-sensing data.
a team. See Investigator Qualifications section in chapter 2.
Literature Review
Investigation Methods
Existing maps and reports are important sources of back
In evaluating landslide hazards the geologic principle of “the ground information for landslide-hazard investigations. Pub
past is the key to the future” proves useful. This principle lished and unpublished geologic and engineering literature,
maps, cross sections, and records relevant to the site and site
means that future landslides are most likely to result from the
same geologic, geomorphic, and hydrologic conditions that region’s topography, geology, hydrology, and past history
of landslide activity should be reviewed in preparation for
produced landslides in the past. Estimating the types, extent,
frequency, and perhaps even consequences of future landslides landslide-hazard investigations. The objective of a literature
is often possible by a careful analysis of existing landslides. review is to obtain information that will aid in the identifica
66 Utah Geological Survey

tion of potential landslide hazards, and to help in planning the studies. In general, a geologic investigation should address
most efficient and effective surface mapping and subsurface site geologic conditions that relate to slope stability such as
exploration program. topography, the nature and distribution of soil and rock, land
forms, vegetation patterns, hydrology, and existing landslides.
The UGS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provideuse The study should extend beyond the site boundaries as neces
ful resources for landslide-hazard investigations. UGS maps sary to adequately characterize the hazard. Comprehensive in
show known landslides at a statewide scale (1:500,000; Harty, formation for landslide identification and investigation is pro
1991) and at 30 x 60-minute quadrangle scale (1:100,000; El vided by Hall and others (1994), Turner and Schuster (1996),
liott and Harty, 2010). However, these small-scale maps may and Cornforth (2005).
not be suitable as the only resource for landslide locations for
a site- or even development-scale investigation. Additionally, A geologic-hazard investigation must include a site visit to
Giraud and Shaw (2007) prepared a statewide landslide sus document surface and shallow subsurface conditions such as
ceptibility map of Utah at a scale of 1:500,000. Large landslide topography, type and relative strength of soil and rock, nature
deposits are commonly shown on modern geologic maps, and and orientation of bedrock discontinuities such as bedding or
the UGS and others commonly map surficial (Quaternary) ge fractures, groundwater depth, and active erosion. Mapping and
ology on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps (1:24,000 scale related field studies also help unravel the geologic history of
[1″ = 2000′]). Additional sources of relevant information in slope stability, which may help in estimating past movement
cluding links to several UGS-maintained web pages are pre parameters. Engineering geologic mapping at various scales is
sented in the Literature Searches and Information Resources relevant for different purposes. Investigators should map the
section in chapter 2. site surficial geology in sufficient detail to define the geologic
conditions present both at and adjacent to the site, placing spe
Analysis of Remote-Sensing Data cial emphasis on geologic units of known landslide susceptibil
ity. Baum and others (2008) suggest that large-scale mapping
Landslides leave geomorphic signatures in the landscape, (1:50–1:1000) showing geologic (lithology, structure, geomor
many of which can be recognized in various kinds of remote phology) and hydrologic (springs, sag ponds) details are need
sensing imagery. Analysis of remote-sensing data should in ed for investigations of landslides and landslide-prone sites,
and mapping at small (1:25,000–1:100,000) and intermediate
clude interpretation of stereoscopic aerial photographs, and if
scales is more appropriate to put landslides and landslide-prone
available, light detection and ranging (lidar) imagery and other
areas in context with regional and local geology. For most pur
remotely sensed images. Interferometric synthetic aperture ra
poses, published geologic maps are not sufficiently detailed to
dar (InSAR) data may prove useful when investigating large,
provide a basis for understanding site-specific conditions, and
complex landslides. Where possible, the aerial photography
new, larger scale, independent geologic mapping is necessary;
analysis should include both stereoscopic low-sun-angle and
however, features such as slope inclination, height, and aspect
vertical imagery. Landslide evidence visible on aerial photo
can be schematically illustrated on the geologic map if a de
graphs and lidar often includes main and internal scarps formed
by surface displacement, hummocky topography, toe thrusts, tailed topographic base map is not available.
back-rotated blocks, chaotic bedding in displaced bedrock,
denuded slopes, shear zones along the landslide flanks, veg During site geologic mapping, particular attention should be
etation lineaments, and vegetation/soil contrasts. Examination paid to mapping landslide features with accompanying pho
of repeat aerial photographs and/or lidar and InSAR imagery tos, detailed notes, and sketches where appropriate. Evidence
of recent landslide activity, including scarps, hummocky to
from multiple years may help reconstruct the history of land
slide movement. The area analyzed should extend sufficiently pography, shear zones, and disturbed vegetation (e.g., "jack
beyond the site boundaries to identify off-site landslides that strawed" trees), should be described and located. The land
might affect the site. In addition, nearby landsliding affecting a slide type, relative age, and cause of movement need to be
geologic unit that extends onsite should be evaluated for land evaluated for existing slope failures. The site geologic map
slide susceptibility of that unit. should also show areas of surface water and evidence for shal
low groundwater (such as phreatophyte vegetation, springs, or
modern tufa deposits).
A variety of remote-sensing data is available for much of
Utah. For information on availability of remote sensing data
see the Aerial Photography section in chapter 2, and the lidar If the site has been developed previously, structures that show
and InSAR discussions in appendices C and D, respectively. signs of distress, both on and near the site, should be mapped.
Cracks in pavement, foundations, and other brittle materials can
provide information about the stress regime produced by land
Geologic Investigations
slide movement, and should be mapped in detail with special
attention paid to rigid linear infrastructure such as curbs, gutters,
The primary purpose of a geologic investigation is to deter and sidewalks. Surface observations should be supplemented by
mine a hazard’s potential relative to proposed development, subsurface exploration using a backhoe, drill rig, and/or hand
and evaluate the need for additional geotechnical-engineering tools such as a shovel, auger, or probe rod where appropriate.
Chapter 4 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 67

Careful mapping and characterization of rock and soil units Christenson and Ashland (2006) suggested that care be taken
are critical to any geologic-hazards evaluation. Several classi when applying these classifications and inferring that a mature
fication systems have been developed to guide the investigator or old geomorphic expression implies adequate stability and
during this process including the Unified Soil Classification suitability for development. They report that many historical
System (ASTM, 2002) that provides information on geotech landslides in Utah have involved partial reactivations of old
nical behavior of unconsolidated deposits. The Unified Rock landslides—in particular, clay-rich landslides that typically
Classification System (Williamson, 1984) provides a system move at very slow rates for short periods of time. For such
atic and reproducible method of describing rock weathering, landslides, geomorphic expression may not be a reliable indi
strength, discontinuities, and density in a manner directly us cator of stability.
able by engineering geologists and engineers. The Geological
Strength Index (GSI) provides a system to describe rock mass Pertinent data and conclusions from the landslide-hazard
characteristics and estimate strength (Marinos and Hoek, geologic investigation must be adequately documented in a
2000; Marinos and others, 2005; Hoek and others, 2013). For written report. The report should note distinctions between
altered materials, Watters and Delahaut (1995) provide a clas observed and inferred features and relationships, and between
sification system that can be incorporated into an overall rock measured and estimated values. Although geologic investiga
classification. The method described by Williamson and oth tions will generally result in a qualitative hazard assessment
ers (1991) for constructing field-developed cross sections can (for example, low, moderate, or high), the report should clearly
facilitate topographic profiling and subsurface interpretation. state if a hazard exists and comment on development feasibili
ty and implications relative to landsliding. If a hazard is found
Landslide features become modified with age. Evaluation of and the proposed development is considered feasible, the re
the timing of the most recent movement of a slide can provide port should both clearly state the extent of the hazard and give
important information for landslide-hazard assessments. Active justification for accepting the risk, or recommend appropriate
landslides have sharp, well-defined surface features, whereas hazard-reduction measures or more detailed study. Kockel
landslides that have been inactive for tens of thousands of years man (1986), Rogers (1992), Turner and Schuster (1996), and
have features that are subdued and poorly defined (Keaton and Cornforth (2005) describe numerous techniques for reducing
DeGraff, 1996). The change of landslide features from sharp to landslide hazards. Hazard-reduction measures (for example,
subdued with age is the basis of an age classification developed building setbacks or special foundations) must be based on
by McCalpin (1984). Features included in this classification sys supporting data, such as measured slope inclination; height,
tem include main scarp, lateral flanks, and surface morphology, thickness, and physical properties of slope materials; ground
as well as vegetation patterns and landslide toe relationships. water depth; and projections of stable slopes. The basis for all
Wieczorek (1984) developed a classification system based on conclusions and recommendations must be presented so that
activity, degree of certainty of identification of the landslide a technical reviewer can evaluate their validity. Guidelines
boundaries, and the dominant movement type. These two sys for reports are provided in the Landslide-Investigation Report
tems were combined into the Unified Landslide Classification section below.
System (Keaton and DeGraff, 1996) outlined in table 13.

Table 13. Unified Landslide Classification System (from Keaton and Rinne, 2002).

Age of Most Recent Activity1 Dominant Material2 Dominant Type of Slope Movement2
Symbol Definition Symbol Definition Symbol Definition
A Active R Rock L Fall
R Reactivated S Soil T Topple
S Suspended E Earth S Slide
H Dormant-historic D Debris P Spread
Y Dormant-young F Flow
M Dormant-mature
O Dormant-old
T Stabilized
B Abandoned
L Relict

See appendix B for definition of terms. Landslides classified using this system are designated by one symbol from each group in the sequence activity
material-type. For example, MDS signifies a mature debris slide, HEF signifies a historic earth flow, and ARLS signifies an active rock fall that translated
into a slide.
1 Based on activity state (see Cruden and Varnes, 1996, table 3-2, page 38) and age classification (see Keaton and DeGraff, 1996, table 9-1, page 186).
2See Keaton and DeGraff (1996), table 3-2, page 38.
68 Utah Geological Survey

Geotechnical-Engineering Investigations or charcoal fragments found beneath the toe of a landslide

may be useful in determining the approximate age of landslide
A detailed geotechnical-engineering investigation generally movement (Baum and others, 2008). However, care should
be taken in the collection of samples to ensure that they are
should be performed as part of final design/mitigation activi
ties when a geologic evaluation indicates the existence of a relevant to understanding the behavior of the landslide. The
hazard. A geotechnical-engineering investigation, which in heterogeneous nature and complex history of most landslides
make it important that the relationship of samples and their
volves a quantitative slope-stability analysis, requires subsur
face exploration, geotechnical laboratory testing, topographic locations to the structure and overall geometry of the landslide
profiling, and preparation of geologic cross sections. Some is well understood.
investigations may include slope-movement monitoring or
At least one geologic cross section should be constructed
deformation analysis using photogrammetric or remote sens
ing methods, high resolution GPS surveys, inclinometers, pi through the slope(s) of concern to evaluate subsurface geo
ezometers, and/or extensometers. The results of the investiga logic conditions relative to the topographic profile. Cross sec
tion must be validated by adequate documentation of appro tions should extend at least to the maximum postulated depth
of potential slip surfaces and be at an appropriate scale (gener
priate input parameters and assumptions, and all supporting
data for conclusions and recommendations must be included ally between 1:120 [1 inch = 10 feet] and 1:600 [1 inch = 50
in the report to permit a detailed technical review. Subsurface feet]) for the size of the slope, type of proposed development,
exploration locations must be accurately shown on site plans and purpose of investigation.
and geologic maps. Where precise locations are necessary,
they should be surveyed rather than located using a hand-held Geotechnical-engineering investigations should include stat
GPS device. ic and pseudostatic analyses of the stability of existing and
proposed slopes using appropriate shear-strength parameters,
Slope stability is affected by soil, rock, and groundwater con under existing and development-induced conditions, and con
ditions. Engineering properties of earth materials and charac sidering the likely range of groundwater conditions. Numer
ous computer software packages are available for quantitative
terization of geologic structures can be inferred from surface
conditions, but subsurface exploration is required to obtain slope-stability analysis, including deterministic and probabi
definitive data and samples for laboratory testing. Develop listic soil- and rock-slope models. A slope-stability evaluation
ment of a subsurface exploration plan and selection of meth addressing post-earthquake conditions may be warranted in
ods should be based on the results of a geologic investiga some cases. Blake and others (2002) provide a detailed dis
cussion of landslide analysis and mitigation.
tion, considerations of study objectives, surface conditions,
and size of landslide. The exploration program should provide
values for the undisturbed and residual shear strength and fric Slope-Stability Analysis
tion angle of all geologic materials, and depth to groundwater.
If a landslide is present, subsurface exploration must be of Geotechnical-engineering investigations include a quantita
sufficient scope to determine slide geometry with relative con tive slope-stability (factor-of-safety of static and seismic con
fidence. At a minimum, a "best estimate" of the slide geometry ditions) analysis of existing and proposed slopes. The factor
should be made and appropriate analyses performed using the of safety (FS) is defined as:
best-estimate geometry.
Resistingforces
FS=
Drilling and trenching are the most commonly used methods Driving forces
for subsurface exploration of landslides. Geophysical tech
When the FS equals one (available soil shear strength exactly
niques are sometimes used where drilling is not feasible or
to aid extrapolating measurements between boreholes. The balances the shear stress induced by gravity, groundwater, and
most commonly used geophysical techniques include seismic seismicity), slope loading is considered to be at the point of
refraction, seismic reflection, ground-penetrating radar, and failure (Blake and others, 2002). The analysis requires mea
methods based on electrical resistivity. Geotechnical labora sured profiles of existing slopes and other input parameters
tory testing should be performed on samples obtained from (e.g., shear strength, groundwater levels, and slope loading;
see figure 24).
the ground surface or from subsurface exploration to evaluate
physical and engineering characteristics such as unit weight,
moisture content, plasticity, friction angle, and cohesion. Mc Static Slope-Stability Analysis
Guffey and others (1996) and Cornforth (2005) give detailed
descriptions of various types of available sampling techniques. The static stability of slopes is usually analyzed by segment
ing a profile of the soil into a series of slices and calculating
In some cases, samples can be used to determine the geologic the average FS for all those slices using a limit equilibrium
age of slope materials and possibly the age of previous land method. Such analyses require knowledge of the slope geom
slide movement. For example, radiometric analysis of wood etry and estimates of soil-strength parameters. As a general
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 69

Figure 24. Cross section of typical rotational landslide. Development activities can affect the equilibrium between driving and resisting forces
by either increasing driving forces (e.g., construction of building stock, roadways, and grading activities) or decreasing resisting forces (e.g.,
landscape watering that raises groundwater levels).

guideline, the UGS recommends a static FS greater than 1.5 stress-deformation analysis. Newmark’s (1965) permanent
for peak-strength conditions and/or where site characteristics displacement method estimates the displacement of a potential
and engineering properties of the geologic materials involved landslide block subjected to seismic shaking from a specific
are well constrained. Where these characteristics and proper strong-motion record. A modification of this method (Jibson
ties are not well understood, a higher FS is warranted. For and Jibson, 2003) now permits modeling landslides that are not
existing landslides where measured residual-strength param assumed to be rigid blocks and does a better job of modeling
eters are available and a back analysis is completed, a mini the dynamic response of the landslide material, thus yielding a
mum FS of 1.3 is acceptable. more accurate displacement estimate (Jibson, 2011).

Seismic Slope-Stability Analysis Estimation of Displacement

Methods for assessing slope stability during earthquakes have Despite advances in modeling of landslide displacement and
evolved since the mid-twentieth century when Terzhagi (1950) runout, precisely predicting or estimating the velocity or total
formalized the pseudostatic analysis technique. Methods de displacement of landslide materials is still beyond the capabil
veloped to assess stability of slopes during earthquakes now ity of modern modeling methods (Baum and others, 2008).
The most reliable methods of estimating future landslide
fall into three general categories: (1) pseudostatic analysis, (2)
stress-deformation analysis, and (3) permanent-displacement movements continue to rely on the presence of preexisting
analysis (Jibson, 2011). Each of these types of analysis has landslide deposits. Preexisting landslides provide “ground
strengths and weaknesses, and each can be appropriately ap truth” data (Baum and others, 2008) from which estimates of
plied in different situations. Pseudostatic analysis, because of future landslide movement can be based, with the confidence
that these estimates include site conditions and slope charac
its crude characterization of physical processes, tends to yield
teristics similar to those under consideration.
inconsistent and often conservative results (Jibson, 2011),
making it most suitable for preliminary or screening analy
ses. Stress-deformation analysis is very complex and expen Other Investigation Methods
sive for routine applications, and is best suited for large earth
structures such as dams and embankments. For a pseudostatic In addition to the methods described above, other methods
FS, the UGS recommends using an appropriate seismic coef may be used in landslide-hazard investigations where condi
ficient (typically 1/3 to 2/3 of a peak horizontal ground accel tions permit or when requirements for critical structures or
eration [PGA]) with a minimum FS ≥ 1.1 representing stable facilities include more intensive investigation or monitoring
slope conditions, using low-range strength values and conser over extended time periods. Other methods may include, but
vative groundwater levels. are not limited to:
• Aerial reconnaissance flights, including high-resolu
Permanent-displacement analysis bridges the gap between the tion aerial photography, lidar, and other remote-sens
overly simplistic pseudostatic analysis and overly complex ing imagery.
70 Utah Geological Survey

• Installation of piezometers. c. Site description and conditions, including dates of

• Installation of inclinometers. site visits and observations. Include information
on geologic and soil units, hydrology, topography,
• Local high-precision surveying or geodetic measure graded and filled areas, vegetation, existing infra
ments, including comparison surveys with infrastructure structure, presence of landslides on or near the site,
design grades and long-term monitoring employing re evidence of landslide-related distress to existing
peat surveys. Highly stable survey monuments are re infrastructure, and other factors that may affect the
quired, such as those developed by UNAVCO; see http:// choice of investigative methods and interpretation
facility.unavco.org/kb/questions/104/UNAVCO+Resou of data.
rces%3A+GNSS+Station+Monumentation for details.
d. Methods and results of investigation.
• Geochronologic analysis, including but not limited to
radiometric dating (e.g., 14C, 40Ar/39Ar), luminescence 1. Review of published and unpublished maps,
dating, soil-profile development, fossils, tephrochro literature, and records regarding geologic
nology, and dendrochronology (see Geochronology units, geomorphic features, surface water and
section of chapter 2). groundwater, and previous landslide activity.
2. Results of interpretation of remote-sensing im
agery including stereoscopic aerial photographs,
lidar, and other remote-sensing data as available.
LANDSLIDE-HAZARD MITIGATION
3. Results of GPS surveying of ground surface.
Avoidance or mitigation may be required where slope-stabil 4. Results of surface investigation including map
ity factors of safety are lower than required by the governing ping of geologic and soil units, landslide features
agency, or for slopes that have unacceptably large calculated if present, other geomorphic features, and land
earthquake-induced displacements. Even slopes proven dur slide-related distress to existing infrastructure.
ing analysis to be stable may require mitigation to avoid deg 5. Results of subsurface exploration including trench
radation of shear strengths from weathering if site grading ex ing, boreholes, and geophysical investigations.
poses weak geologic materials, or to remain stable under an
6. Results of field and laboratory testing of geo
ticipated future conditions such as higher groundwater levels,
logic materials.
toe erosion, or increased loading of the landslide mass during
development (see table 14). The most common methods of e. Conclusions.
mitigation are (1) hazard avoidance, (2) site grading to im 1. Existence (or absence) and location of land
prove slope stability, (3) improvement of the soil or reinforce slides on or adjacent to the site and their spatial
ment of the slope, and (4) reinforcement of structures built on relation to existing/proposed infrastructure.
the slope to tolerate the anticipated displacement (Blake and
others, 2002). 2. Statement of relative risk that addresses the
probability or relative potential for future land
sliding and, if possible, the rate and amount of
anticipated movement. This may be stated in
LANDSLIDE-INVESTIGATION REPORT semi-quantitative terms such as low, moderate,
or high as defined within the report, or quanti
fied in terms of landslide movement rates.
Landslide-hazard reports prepared for investigations in Utah
should, at a minimum, address the topics below. Individual 3. Degree of confidence in, and limitations of, the
site conditions may require that additional items be included. data and conclusions. Evidence on which the
The report should be prepared, stamped, and signed by a Utah conclusions are based should be clearly stated
licensed Professional Geologist with experience in conduct and documented in the report.
ing landslide-hazard investigations. Reports co-prepared by a f. Recommendations.
Utah licensed Professional Engineer should include the engi
neer’s stamp and signature. The report preparation guidelines 1. If a landslide-hazard exists on the site, provide
below expand on the general guidance provided in chapter 2. setback or other mitigation recommendations
as necessary, and justify based on regional and
A. Text site-specific data.
a. Purpose and scope of investigation, including a de
2. Limitations on the investigation, and recom
scription of the proposed project. mendations for additional investigation to bet
b. Geologic and hydrologic setting, including previ ter understand or quantify hazards.
ous landslide activity on or near the site. Expected 3. Construction testing, observation, inspection,
seasonal fluctuation of groundwater conditions. and long-term monitoring.
Chapter 4 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 71

Table 14. Summary of landslide mitigation approaches (modified from Holtz and Schuster, 1996).

Procedure Best Application Limitations Remarks

Avoid Problem
Relocate facility As an alternative anywhere and
None
large ifislocation
if studied
reconstruction
design
cost complete;
isduring largeiscost
required
already
planning if
selected
phase;
Detailed studies of proposed reloca
tion should ensure improved condi
tions
Completely
removepartially
ormaterials
unstable tion
depths
soils
Whereare
aresmall
involved
encountered
volumes where
and at
ofshallow
excava-
poor May
may
of not
be costly
be may
landslides;
property rights
tonot
best be feasible
alternative
control for large
excavation;
because
Analytical studies must be per
formed; depth of excavation must be
sufficient to ensue firm support
May be costly and not provide adequate Analysis must be performed for
At side-hill locations with shallow
Install bridge support capacity for lateral forces to anticipated loadings as well as struc
soil movements
restrain landslide mass tural capability

Reduce Driving Forces

In any design scheme; must also be Will only correct surface infiltration or Slope vegetation should be consid
Drain surface part of any remedial design seepage due to surface infiltration ered in all cases
On any slope where lowering of
Cannot be used effectively when sliding Stability analysis should include
Drain subsurface groundwater table will increase mass is impervious
slope stability consideration of seepage forces

Requires lightweight materials that may Stability analysis must be performed

Reduce weight At any existing or potential slide be costly or unavailable; excavation to ensure proper placement of light
waste may create problems weight materials

Increase Resisting Forces

Apply external force
Use buttress and May not be effective on deep-seated
At an existing landslide; in combi Consider reinforced steep slopes for
counter weight landslides; must be founded on a firm limited property access
nation with other methods
fills; toe berms foundation
To prevent movement before ex Stability and soil-structure analyses
Use structural Will not stand large deformations; must
cavation; where property access is are required
systems penetrate well below sliding surface
limited
Study must be made of in situ soil
Requires ability of foundation soils to shear strength; economics of method
Install anchors Where property access is limited
resist shear forces by anchor tension depends on anchor capacity, depth,
and frequency

Increase internal strength

Where water table is above shear Requires experienced personnel to in
Drain subsurface stall and ensure effective operation
surface
Use reinforced On embankments and steep fill Requires long-term durability of rein Must consider stresses imposed on
backfill slopes; landslide reconstruction forcement reinforcement during construction
Install in situ
reinforcement As temporary structures in stiff
soils Requiresand
anchors, long-term durability of nails,
micropiles Requires thorough soils investigation
and properties testing
Biotechnicalstabilization On soil slopes of modest heights Climate; may require
seasons; longevity irrigationplants
of selected in dry Design is by trial and error plus local
experience
72 Utah Geological Survey

B. References tigation (Title 58-76-10 ‒ Professional Geologists

a. Literature and records cited or reviewed; citations Licensing Act [Utah Code, 2011]). Final geologic
should be complete (see References section of this maps, trench logs, cross sections, sketches, drawings,
and plans prepared by, or under the supervision of, a
publication for examples).
professional geologist also must bear the seal of the
b. Remote-sensing images interpreted; list type,
professional geologist (Utah Code, 2011). Reports
date, project identification codes, scale, source,
co-prepared by a Utah licensed Professional Engi
and index numbers. neer and/or Utah licensed Professional Land Surveyor
c. Other sources of information, including well records, must include the engineer’s and/or surveyor’s stamp
personal communication, and other data sources. and signature.

C. Illustrations E. Appendices
a. Location map—showing site location and signifi Supporting data not included in the body of the report
cant physiographic and cultural features, generally (e.g., water-well data, survey data, groundwater and
at 1:24,000 scale or larger and indicating the Pub deformation monitoring data, etc.).
lic Land Survey System ¼-section, township, and
range; and the site latitude and longitude to four
decimal places with datum.
FIELD REVIEW
b. Site development map—showing site boundaries,
existing and proposed structures, graded and filled The UGS recommends a technical field review by the regu
areas (including engineered and non-engineered fill), latory-authority geologist once a landslide-hazard investiga
streets, exploratory test pits, trenches, boreholes, and tion is complete. The field review should take place after any
geophysical traverses. The map scale may vary de trenches or test pits are logged, but before they are closed so
pending on the size of the site and area covered by subsurface site conditions can be directly observed and evalu
the study; the minimum recommended scale is 1 inch ated. See Field Review section in chapter 2.
= 200 feet (1:2400) or larger where necessary.
c. Geologic map(s)—showing distribution of bed
rock and unconsolidated geologic units, faults or
other geologic structures, extent of existing land REPORT REVIEW
slides, geomorphic features, and, if appropriate,
features mapped using lidar data. Scale of site The UGS recommends regulatory review of all reports by a
geologic maps will vary depending on the size of Utah licensed Professional Geologist experienced in land
the site and area of study; minimum recommend slide-hazard investigations and acting on behalf of local gov
ed scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger ernments to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to
where necessary. For large projects, a regional reduce risks to future property owners (Larson, 1992, 2015).
geologic map and regional lidar coverage may be See Report Review section in chapter 2.
required to adequately depict all important geo
logic features and recent landslide activity.
d. Geologic cross sections, if needed, to provide DISCLOSURE
three-dimensional site representation.
e. Logs of exploratory trenches, test pits, cone pen The UGS recommends disclosure during real-estate trans
etrometer test soundings, and boreholes—showing actions whenever an engineering-geology investigation has
details of observed features and conditions. Logs been performed. See Disclosure section in chapter 2.
should not be generalized or diagrammatic. Trench
and test pit logs should show geologic features at
the same horizontal and vertical scale and may be
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
on a rectified photomosaic base.
f. Geophysical data and interpretations. The previous version of these guidelines was reviewed by
g. Photographs that enhance understanding of site the Utah Section of the Association of Engineering Geolo
surface and subsurface (trench and test pit walls) gists (AEG) and the Geotechnical Group of the Utah Sec
conditions with applicable metadata. tion of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
AEG reviewers included Brian Bryant (Salt Lake County
D. Authentication Geologist), Ed Fall (Woodward-Clyde), Jeff Keaton (AGRA
Report signed and sealed by a Utah licensed Pro Earth & Environmental), Dave Marble (Utah Division of
fessional Geologist in principal charge of the inves Water Rights, Dam Safety), Chuck Payton (Geo-Services),
Chapter 4 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 73

and Les Youd (Brigham Young University). ASCE review

ers included Jon Bischoff (Utah Department of Transporta
tion), Curt Christensen (Kleinfelder), Walt Jones (Terracon),
Bill Leeflang (Utah Division of Water Resources), and Russ
Owens (Dames & Moore). This version of these guidelines
benefitted from reviews by Steve Bowman, Rich Giraud,
Tyler Knudsen, William Lund, Greg McDonald, and Adam
McKean (Utah Geological Survey).
74 Utah Geological Survey
 CHAPTER 5
GUIDELINES FOR THE GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF
DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARDS ON ALLUVIAL FANS IN UTAH
by
Richard E. Giraud, P.G.

September 12, 2002, fire-related debris flow in Santaquin subdivision following the 2001 Mollie wildfire.

Suggested citation: Giraud, R.E., 2016, Guidelines for the geologic investigation of debris-flow hazards on alluvial fans in Utah,
in Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology
reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 75–91.
76 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 77

CHAPTER 5: GUIDELINES FOR THE GEOLOGIC

INVESTIGATION OF DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARDS ON
ALLUVIAL FANS IN UTAH
by Richard E. Giraud, P.G.

INTRODUCTION Historical records of sedimentation events in Utah indicate

that debris flows are highly variable in terms of size, material
These guidelines outline the recommended minimum ac properties, travel distance, and depositional behavior; there
ceptable level of effort for evaluating debris-flow hazards on fore, a high level of precision for debris-flow design param
alluvial fans in Utah. These guidelines were originally pub eters is not yet possible, and conservative engineering param
lished in 2005 (Giraud, 2005). The guidelines below provide eters and designs must be used where risk reduction is nec
updated information on debris-flow-hazard investigation in essary. Debris-flow-hazard investigations follow the premise
Utah. The objective of these guidelines is to promote uniform that areas where debris flows have deposited sediment in the
and effective statewide implementation of debris-flow hazard recent geologic past are likely sites for future debris-flow
investigation and mitigation measures to reduce risk. These activity. Debris-flow-hazard investigations use geomorphic,
guidelines do not include systematic descriptions of all avail sedimentologic, and stratigraphic information from existing
able investigative or mitigation techniques or topics, nor is debris-flow deposits and sediment-volume estimates from
it suggested that all techniques or topics are appropriate for the feeder channel and drainage basin to estimate the hazard
every project. Variations in site conditions, project scope, eco within the active depositional area of an alluvial fan. A com
nomics, and level of acceptable risk may require that some plete debris-flow-hazard investigation typically involves geo
topics be addressed in greater detail than is outlined in these logic, hydrologic, hydraulic, and engineering evaluations. The
guidelines. However, all elements of these guidelines should nature of the proposed development and the anticipated risk
be considered in debris-flow hazard investigations, and may reduction measures required typically determine the scope of
be applied to any project site, large or small. the hazard investigation.

Background Large-volume debris flows are low-frequency events, and

the interval between large flows is typically deceptively tran
Debris flows and related sediment flows are fast-moving flow quil. The debris-flow hazard on alluvial fans can be difficult
type landslides composed of a slurry of rock, mud, organic to recognize, particularly on alluvial fans that are subject to
matter, and water that move down drainage-basin channels high-magnitude, low-frequency events (Jakob, 2005). Debris
onto alluvial fans (figure 25). Debris flows generally initiate flows pose a hazard very different from other types of land
on steep slopes or in channels by the addition of water from slides and floods due to their rapid movement and destruc
intense rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Flows typically incorpo tive power. Debris flows can occur with little warning. Fifteen
rate additional sediment and vegetation as they travel down people have been killed by debris flows in Utah (chapter 1,
channel. When flows reach an alluvial fan and lose channel table 4). Thirteen of the victims died in two different night
confinement, they spread laterally and deposit the entrained events when fast-moving debris flows allowed little chance of
sediment. In addition to being debris-flow-deposition sites, escape. In addition to threatening lives, debris flows can dam
alluvial fans are also favored sites for urban development; age buildings and infrastructure by sediment burial, erosion,
therefore, a debris-flow-hazard investigation is necessary direct impact, and associated water flooding. The 1983 Rudd
when developing on alluvial fans. The hazard investigation Canyon debris flow in Farmington deposited approximately
may indicate that risk reduction is necessary for sustainable 90,000 cubic yards of sediment on the alluvial fan, damaged
development on the alluvial fan. A debris-flow-hazard investi 35 houses, and caused an estimated $3 million in property
gation requires an understanding of the debris-flow processes damage (Deng and others, 1992).
that govern sediment supply, sediment bulking, flow volume,
flow frequency, and deposition. However, a uniform level of Variations in sediment-water concentrations produce a con
acceptable risk for debris flows based on recurrence or fre tinuum of sediment-water flow types that build alluvial fans.
quency/volume relations, such as the 100-year flood or the Beverage and Culbertson (1964), Pierson and Costa (1987),
2% in 50-year exceedance probability for earthquake ground Costa (1988), and Pierson (2005a, 2005b) describe the fol
shaking, has not been established in Utah. lowing flow types based on generalized sediment-water con
78 Utah Geological Survey

centration range. These are the most destructive flows, and

it can be difficult to distinguish between hyperconcentrated
and debris flows based on their deposits or their effect on
infrastructure. Stream flow involves sediment transport by
entrained bed load and suspended sediment load associated
with water transport. Sheetfloods are unconfined stream flows
that spread over the alluvial fan (Blair and McPherson, 1994).
Debris-flow and stream-flow-flooding hazards may be man
aged differently in terms of land-use planning and protective
measures, but because debris-flow and stream-flow hazards
are often closely associated, concurrent investigations of
both debris-flow and stream-flow components of alluvial-fan
flooding is often beneficial.

Purpose
The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) developed these guide
lines to help engineering geologists evaluate debris-flow haz
ards on alluvial fans to ensure safe and sustainable develop
ment. The purpose of a debris-flow-hazard investigation is to
determine whether or not a debris-flow hazard exists, describe
the hazard, and if needed, provide geologic parameters neces
sary for hydrologists and engineers to design risk-reduction
measures. The objective is to determine active depositional
areas, frequency and magnitude (volume) of previous flows,
and likely impacts of future sedimentation events. Dynamic
analysis of debris flows using hydrologic, hydraulic, and oth
er engineering methods to design site-specific risk-reduction
measures is not addressed by these guidelines.

These guidelines will assist engineering geologists in evalu

ating debris-flow hazards in Utah, engineers in designing
Figure 25. Example of a drainage basin and alluvial fan at Kotter
Canyon, north of Brigham City, Utah.
risk-reduction measures, and land-use planners and technical
reviewers in reviewing debris-flow-hazard reports. The engi
neering geologist has the responsibility to (1) conduct a study
centrations and resulting flow behavior: stream flow (less that is thorough and cost effective, (2) be familiar with and
than 20% sediment by volume), hyperconcentrated flow (20 apply appropriate investigation methods, (3) record accurate
to 60% sediment by volume), and debris flow (greater than
observations and measurements, (4) use properjudgment, and
60% sediment by volume). These categories are approximate (5) present valid conclusions and recommendations supported
because the exact sediment-water concentration and flow type by adequate data and sound interpretations. The geologist
depend on the grain-size distribution and physical-chemical must also understand and clearly state the uncertainties and
composition of the flows. Also, field observations and video limitations of the investigative methods used and the uncer
recordings of poorly sorted water-saturated sediment provide tainties associated with design-parameter estimates.
evidence that no unique flow type adequately describes the
range of mechanical behaviors exhibited by these sediment
flows (Iverson, 2003). All three flow types can occur during
a single event. The National Research Council (1996) report SOURCES OF DEBRIS-FLOW
Alluvial-Fan Flooding considers stream, hyperconcentrated, INFORMATION
and debris-flow types of alluvial-fan flooding. The term debris
flood has been used in Utah to describe hyperconcentrated Sources of information for debris-flow-hazard investiga
flows (Wieczorek and others, 1983). tions include U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and UGS
maps that show debris-flow source areas at a nationwide
These guidelines address only hazards associated with hyper scale (1:2,500,000; Brabb and others, 2000), statewide scale
concentrated- and debris-flow sediment-water concentrations (1:500,000; Brabb and others, 1989; Harty, 1991), and 30 x
and not stream-flow flooding on alluvial fans. The term debris 60-minute quadrangle scale (1:100,000) for the entire state
flow is used here in a general way to include all flows within (Elliott and Harty, 2010). The 30 x 60-minute quadrangle
the hyperconcentrated- and debris-flow sediment-water con maps show both the source and depositional areas of some
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 79

historical debris flows. Alluvial-fan deposits are commonly western Canada. VanDine (1985) described conditions con
shown on modern geologic maps, and the UGS and others ducive to debris flows, triggering events, effects, and mitiga
map surficial (Quaternary) geology on USGS 7½-minute tion in the southern Canadian Cordillera. Hungr and others
scale quadrangle maps (1:24,000). Wasatch Front counties (1987) described debris-flow-engineering concepts and risk
have maps available in county planning offices showing spe reduction in source, transport, and deposition zones in Brit
cial-study areas where debris-flow-hazard investigations are ish Columbia. Jackson (1987) outlined methods for evaluating
required. Surficial geologic maps generally show alluvial-fan debris-flow hazards on alluvial fans in the Canadian Rocky
deposits of different ages and differentiate stream alluvium Mountains based on the presence of debris-flow deposits, al
from alluvial-fan deposits. luvial-fan geomorphic features, deposit ages, debris-flow fre
quency, and basin conditions. Jackson (1987) also provided a
Numerous investigators have studied debris-flow processes flow chart summarizing debris-flow-hazard evaluation. Jack
and performed debris-flow-hazard investigations in Utah. son and others (1987) used geomorphic and sedimentologic
Many studies address the 1983 and 1984 debris flows that initi criteria to distinguish alluvial fans prone to debris flows and
ated during a widespread rapid-snowmelt period. Christenson those dominated by stream-flow processes. Ellen and others
(1986) discussed mapping, hazard evaluation, and mitigation (1993) used digital simulations to map debris-flow hazards in
measures following the debris flows of 1983. Wieczorek and the Honolulu District of Oahu, Hawaii. VanDine (1996) sum
others (1983, 1989) described the potential for debris flows marized the use of debris-flow control structures for forest
and debris floods and mitigation measures along the Wasatch engineering applications in British Columbia. Boyer (2002)
Front between Salt Lake City and Willard. Lips (1985, 1993) discussed acceptable debris-flow-risk levels for subdivisions
mapped 1983 and 1984 landslides and debris flows in central in British Columbia and provided a suggested outline for
Utah. Paul and Baker (1923), Woolley (1946), Bailey and oth debris-flow studies on alluvial fans. Jakob and Hungr (2005)
ers (1947), Croft (1962), Butler and Marsell (1972), Marsell are editors of Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phenomena,
(1972), Keate (1991), Elliott and Kirschbaum (2007), and a book that provides an excellent overview of debris-flow sci
Elliott and Harty (2010) documented different debris-flow ence, mitigation, and case histories.
events in Utah. Other debris-flow events and investigation
reports can be found in the GeoData Archive System (http:// U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, for
geodata.geology.utah.gov/), a collection of consultant’s and merly Soil Conservation Service) soil surveys show soils on
other geologic-hazard reports and data maintained by the alluvial fans and in drainage basins. These soil surveys pro
UGS (see chapter 2). vide information on soil type, depth, permeability, erodibility,
slope steepness, vegetation, and parent material. Some soil
Several researchers investigated different aspects of the 1983 surveys document historical debris-flow activity.
and 1984 Davis County debris flows. Pack (1985), for the
purpose of landslide susceptibility mapping, used a multivari Newspaper articles and event reports often provide descrip
ate analysis to evaluate factors related to initiation of debris tions of historical debris flows and photographs showing
slides in 1983 that then transformed into debris flows. Pierson impacts on developed areas (Elliott and Kirschbaum, 2007).
(1985) described flow composition and dynamics of the 1983 Written observations and photographs of historical debris
Rudd Canyon debris flow in Farmington. Santi (1988) studied flows provide useful information on flow volume, flow veloc
the kinematics of debris-flow transport and the bulking of col ity, flow depth, deposit thickness, deposit areas, and building
luvium and channel sediment during a 1984 debris flow in damage. Comparison of historical debris-flow deposits with
Layton. Mathewson and others (1990) studied bedrock aqui prehistoric deposits indicates whether the historical debris
fers and the location of springs and seeps that initiated collu flow is a typical event relative to other flows preserved in the
vial slope failures in 1983 and 1984 that then transformed into sedimentary record.
debris flows. Keaton (1988) and Keaton and others (1991)
developed a probabilistic model to assess debris-flow hazards Stereoscopic aerial photographs are a fundamental tool for
on alluvial fans. Williams and Lowe (1990) estimated channel evaluating drainage basins and alluvial fans. Interpretation of
sediment bulking rates by comparing cross-channel profiles of aerial photographs can provide information on historical de
channels that discharged historical debris flows with channels bris-flow events, surficial geology, soils, bedrock exposures,
that had not discharged flows in historical time. Deng and oth channel characteristics, landslides, previous debris flows, rel
ers (1992) studied debris-flow impact forces, types of house ative deposit ages, erosional areas, land use, vegetation types,
damage, and economic losses from the 1983 Rudd Canyon and time brackets for historical debris flows. Reviewing the
debris flow. oldest and most recent photos available is useful to evaluate
drainage-basin and alluvial-fan changes through time. Obtain
Outside of Utah others have outlined approaches for evalu ing aerial photographs taken after historical debris flows al
ating debris-flow hazards and methods for estimating design lows direct mapping of sediment sources and deposits. The
parameters for debris-flow-risk reduction. Hungr and others UGS maintains a database of historical aerial photography in
(1984) described approaches to estimate debris-flow frequen Utah (https://geodata.geology.utah.gov/imagery/).
cy, volume, peak discharge, velocity, and runout distance in
80 Utah Geological Survey

DEBRIS-FLOW-HAZARD INVESTIGATION UGS recommends that investigations as outlined in these

guidelines be conducted for sites on or adjacent to alluvial
A debris-flow-hazard investigation is necessary when devel fans for all IBC Risk Category III and IV facilities, whether
oping on active alluvial fans where relatively recent debris near a mapped debris-flow susceptible area or not, to ensure
deposition has occurred. The investigation requires applica that a previously unknown debris-flow hazard is not present.
tion of quantitative and objective procedures to estimate the If a hazard is found, the UGS recommends a comprehensive
location and recurrence of flows, assess their impacts, and investigation be conducted. Additionally, in some instances
provide recommendations for risk-reduction measures if nec an investigation may become necessary when existing infra
essary. The hazard investigation must consider the intended structure is discovered to be on or adjacent to a debris-flow
land use because site usage has direct bearing on the degree of susceptible area.
risk to people and structures. The UGS recommends critical
facilities and structures for human occupancy not be placed in The level of investigation conducted for a particular project
active debris-flow travel and deposition areas unless methods depends on several factors, including (1) site-specific geolog
are used to either eliminate or reduce the risk to an acceptable ic conditions, (2) type of proposed or existing development,
level. In some cases, risk-reduction measures may be needed (3) level of acceptable risk, and (4) governmental permitting
retroactively to protect existing development. requirements, or regulatory agency rules and regulations. A
debris-flow-hazard investigation may be conducted separate
To evaluate the hazard on active alluvial fans, the frequency, ly, or as part of a comprehensive geologic-hazard and/or geo
magnitude or volume (deposit area and thickness), and runout technical site investigation (see chapter 2).
distance of past debris flows must be determined. The geologic
methods presented here rely on using the geologic characteris Minimum Qualifications of Investigator
tics of existing alluvial-fan deposits as well as drainage-basin
and feeder-channel sediment-supply conditions to estimate Debris-flow-related engineering-geology investigations and
the characteristics of past debris flows. Historical records can accompanying geologic-hazard evaluations performed before
provide direct evidence of debris-flow volume, frequency, and the public shall be conducted by or under the direct supervi
depositional area. However, the observation period in Utah is sion of a Utah licensed Professional Geologist (Utah Code,
short, and in many areas debris flows either have not occurred Title 58-76-10) who must sign and seal the final report. Often
or have not been documented. Therefore, geologic methods these investigations are interdisciplinary in nature, and where
provide the principal means of determining the history of required, must be performed by qualified, experienced, Utah
debris-flow activity on alluvial fans. Multiple geologic meth licensed Professional Geologists (PG, specializing in engi
ods should be used whenever possible to compare results of neering geology) and Professional Engineers (PE, specializ
different methods to understand the appropriateness, validity, ing in geological and/or geotechnical engineering) working as
and limitations of each method and increase confidence in the a team. See Investigator Qualifications section in chapter 2.
hazard investigation.
Alluvial-Fan Evaluation
Where stream flow dominates on an alluvial fan, a stream
flow-flooding investigation is necessary, but a debris-flow
Alluvial fans are landforms composed of a complex assem
hazard investigation is not required. The National Research
blage of debris-, hyperconcentrated-, and stream-flow depos
Council (1996) report Alluvial-Fan Flooding and the Federal
its. Alluvial-fan geomorphology, sedimentology, and stra
Emergency Management Agency (2003) Guidance for Allu
tigraphy provide a long-term depositional history of the fre
vial Fan Flooding Analysis and Mapping provide guidance for
quency, volume, and depositional behavior of past flows, and
evaluating the stream-flow component of alluvial-fan flooding.
provide a geologic basis for estimating debris-flow hazards.

When to Perform a Debris-Flow-Hazard Defining the Active-Fan Area

Investigation
The first step in an alluvial-fan evaluation is determining the
Geologic hazards are best addressed prior to land develop active-fan area using mapping and alluvial-fan dating tech
ment. The UGS recommends that a debris-flow-hazard inves niques. The active-fan area is where relatively recent deposi
tigation be made for all new buildings for human occupancy tion, erosion, and alluvial-fan flooding have occurred (figure
and for modified International Building Code (IBC) Risk Cat 26). In general, sites of sediment deposition during Holocene
egory II(a), II(b), III, and IV facilities (see table 12 in chapter time (past 11,700 years; post-Lake Bonneville in northwest
3 of this publication, modified from IBC table 1604.5 [Inter Utah) are considered active unless proven otherwise. Aerial
national Code Council, 2014a]) on or adjacent to alluvial fans. photographs, detailed topographic maps, and field verification
Utah jurisdictions that have adopted debris-flow special-study of the extent, type, character, and age of alluvial-fan deposits
maps identify zones in known debris-flow-susceptible areas
are used to map active-fan areas. Some areas of Utah have
within which they require site-specific investigation. The light detection and ranging (lidar) coverage, and the lidar data
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 81

Figure 26. Active and inactive alluvial fans, feeder channel, and intersection point. Modified from Bull (1977). Reproduced with permission by
Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., London.

can be used to develop detailed topographic maps and hill tion. Peterson (1981), Christenson and Purcell (1985), Wells
shade images to aid in mapping alluvial-fan deposits. The and Harvey (1987), Bull (1991), Whipple and Dunne (1992),
UGS maintains an archive of lidar data (http://geology.utah. Doelling and Willis (1995), Hereford and others (1996), and
gov/resources/data-databases/lidar-elevation-data/). Webb and others (1999) provide examples and suggestions for
mapping alluvial-fan deposits.
The youngest debris-flow deposits generally indicate debris
flows produced during the modern climate regime, and are im The geomorphic, sedimentologic, and stratigraphic relations
portant for estimating the likely volume and runout of future recognized during mapping of alluvial-fan deposits provide
flows. The active fan is often used as a zoning tool to identify insight into debris-flow recurrence, volumes, and depositional
special-study areas where detailed debris-flow-hazard investi behavior, and therefore debris-flow hazard in the proximal,
gations are required prior to development. The National Re medial, and distal fan areas (figure 27). The intersection point
search Council (1996) report Alluvial-Fan Flooding provides or apex of the active fan is where the feeder channel ends and
criteria for differentiating active and inactive alluvial fans. sediment flows lose confinement and begin to spread laterally,
thin, and deposit sediment (figure 26; Blair and McPherson,
Mapping Alluvial-Fan and Debris-Flow Deposits 1994). Most feeder channels lose confinement on the upper
fan, but others may incise the inactive upper fan and convey
Geologic mapping is critical for identifying and describing sediment and flood flows farther downfan via a fanhead trench
or channel (figure 26).
the active areas of alluvial fans. Mapping of debris-flow and
other deposits generally focuses on landforms; the extent,
type, character, and age of geologic deposits, specifically In proximal fan areas, debris flows generally have the highest
individual debris flows; and stratigraphic relations between velocity and greatest flow depth and deposit thickness, and are
deposits. Recent debris-flow deposits are generally mapped therefore the most destructive. In distal fan areas, debris flows
based on their distinctive surface morphology and composi generally have lower velocities and shallower flow depths and
82 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 27. Approximate proximal, medial, and distal fan areas on the Kotter Canyon alluvial fan, north of Brigham City, Utah.

deposits, and therefore are less destructive. Often, distal fan flow deposits generally create steeper proximal-fan slopes
areas are dominated by stream-flow processes only. However, (6°–8°), while finer grained stream-flow deposits form gentle
some debris flows may create their own channels by produc distal-fan slopes (2°–3°) (National Research Council, 1996).
ing levees on the fan and convey sediment farther downfan, or
block the active channel and avulse (make an abrupt change Differences in bedding, sediment sorting, grain size, and tex
in course) to create new channels. Unpredictable flow behav ture are useful to distinguish debris-, hyperconcentrated-, and
ior is typical of debris flows and must be considered when stream-flow deposits. Costa and Jarrett (1981, p. 312–317),
evaluating debris-flow depositional areas, runout distances, Wells and Harvey (1987, p. 188), Costa (1988, p. 118–119),
and depositional behavior on alluvial fans. Harvey (1989, p. 144), the National Research Council (1996,
p. 74), and Meyer and Wells (1997, p. 778) provide morpho
The proximal part of an alluvial fan is generally made up of logic and sedimentologic criteria (surface morphology, inter
vertically stacked debris-flow lobes and levees that result in nal structures, texture, grain size, and sorting) for differentiat
thick, coarse deposits that exhibit the roughest surface on the ing the three flow types. In general, debris-flow deposits are
fan (figure 27). Hyperconcentrated flows may be interbedded matrix supported and poorly sorted, hyperconcentrated-flow
with debris flows in the proximal fan area, but are generally deposits are clast supported and poorly to moderately sorted,
thinner and have smoother surfaces due to their higher ini and stream-flow deposits are clast supported and moderately
tial water content. Proximal fan deposits generally transition to well sorted. Table 15 is modified from Costa (1988) and
to thinner and finer grained deposits downfan, resulting in shows geomorphic and sedimentologic characteristics of de
smoother fan surfaces in medial and distal fan areas (figure bris-, hyperconcentrated-, and stream-flow deposits. Grain
27). Coarser grained sedimentary facies grade downfan into size analysis is useful in classifying deposits into the different
finer grained facies deposited by more dilute sediment flows. flow types (Pierson, 1985). In addition to the primary process
The downfan decrease in grain size generally corresponds of debris-flow deposition, secondary processes of weathering
with a decrease in fan-slope angle. Coarser grained debris and erosion by fluvial and/or eolian activity can rework de
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 83

Table 15. Geomorphic and sedimentologic criteria for differentiating water and sediment flows (modified from Costa, 1988, and Pierson, 2005a).

Flow Type Landforms and Deposits Sedimentary Structures Sediment Characteristics

Stream flow Bars, fans, sheets, splays; channels Horizontal or inclined stratifica Beds well to moderately sorted;
have large width-to-depth ratio tion to massive; weak to strong clast supported
imbrication; cut-and-fill structures;
ungraded to graded
Hyperconcentrated flow Similar to water flood, rectangular Weak stratification to massive; Poorly to moderately sorted;
channel weak imbrication; thin gravel clast supported
lenses; normal and reverse grading

Debris flow Marginal levees, terminal lobes, No stratification; weak to no Very poor to extremely poor
trapezoidal to U-shaped channel imbrication; inverse grading at sorting; matrix supported; ex
base; normal grading near top treme range of particle sizes;
may contain megaclasts

bris-flow deposits. The subsequent reworking of debris-flow debris flows can provide closely limiting maximum ages of
deposits can change the morphology and texture of the fan the overlying flow (Forman and Miller, 1989). Radiocarbon
surface and can introduce uncertainty of mapping individual ages of detrital charcoal within a debris-flow deposit provide
debris-flow deposits. a more broadly limiting maximum age. The applicability and
effectiveness of radiocarbon dating of debris-flow events is
More than one flow type may occur during a sedimentation governed by the presence and type of datable material and
event. Keaton (1988) described an ideal vertical alluvial-fan available financial resources (Lettis and Kelson, 2000).
stratigraphic sequence based on deposits in Davis County and
published eyewitness accounts. The ideal sequence resulting Subsurface Exploration
from a single debris flow consists of a basal plastic debris
flow deposit, sequentially overlain by a viscous debris-flow, Subsurface exploration using test pits, trenches, and natural
hyperconcentrated-flow, and finally a stream-flow deposit exposures is useful in obtaining sedimentologic and strati
owing to time-varying availability of sediment and water. graphic information regarding previous debris flows. Test-pit
Janda and others (1981) identified a similar vertical sequence and trench excavations can provide information on flow type,
in debris-flow deposits at Mount St. Helens, Washington, and thickness, the across-fan and downfan extent of individual
attributed the vertical sequence to rapid transitions between flows, and volume based on thickness and area. The type,
flow types. number, and spacing of excavations depend on the purpose
and scale of the hazard investigation, geologic complexity,
Lidar is a powerful tool for mapping alluvial-fan deposits (ap rate of downfan and across-fan transitions in flow type and
pendix C). The digital elevation model and derived detailed thickness, and anticipated risk-reduction measures. T-shaped
topography, hillshade, and hillslope maps aid the debris-flow test pits or trenches expose three-dimensional deposit rela
investigator in characterizing the alluvial-fan feeder channel, tions. Excavations in the proximal fan areas generally need to
the fan surface, fan deposits, fan channels, and presenting the be deeper due to thicker deposits. To evaluate the entire fan,
alluvial-fan-hazard information. tens of excavations may be required.

Determining the Age of Debris-Flow Deposits Mulvey (1993) used subsurface stratigraphic data from seven
test pits to estimate flow types, deposit thicknesses, the across
Both relative and numerical geochronologic techniques (Nol fan and downfan extent of deposits, deposit volumes, and age
ler and others, 2000; Geochronology section in chapter 2) are of deposits to interpret the depositional history of a 2-acre
useful for dating debris-flow deposits and determining the fre post-Bonneville fan in Centerville. On the Jones Creek fan
quency of past debris flows on a fan. Relative dating methods in Washington State, Jakob and Weatherly (2005) used sub
include geomorphic position of debris-flow deposits, boulder surface stratigraphic data and radiocarbon ages from trenches
weathering, rock varnish, soil-profile development (includ to determine the frequency of debris flows; a subsequent risk
ing pedogenic carbonate accumulation), lichen growth, and analysis demonstrated the need for mitigation measures. Blair
vegetation age and pattern. The amount of soil development and McPherson (1994) used across-fan and downfan strati
on a buried debris-flow surface is an indicator of the relative graphic cross sections to display, analyze, and interpret the
amount of time between debris flows at a particular location. surface and subsurface interrelations of fan slope, deposit le
Numerical dating techniques include sequential photographs, vees and lobes, deposit and sediment facies, and grain size.
historical records, vegetation age, and isotopic dating, princi However stratigraphic interpretation can be problematic. De
pally radiocarbon. Radiocarbon ages of paleosols buried by bris-flow deposits in a sedimentary sequence that have similar
84 Utah Geological Survey

grain sizes and lack an intervening paleosol or other distinct sion. Relatively small amounts of intense thunderstorm rain
layer may be difficult to distinguish. The lack of distinction fall (a few tenths of an inch per hour) are capable of triggering
between individual debris-flow deposits can lead to underesti fire-related debris flows (McDonald and Giraud, 2010; Can
mating debris-flow recurrence and overestimating debris-flow non and others, 2008).
magnitude (Major, 1997).
During the drought years of 1999–2004 in northern Utah, 26
Drainage-Basin and Channel Evaluation debris flows occurred in 7 wildfire areas, including repeated
flows from single drainages in different storms and multiple
Drainage-basin and channel evaluations determine the condi flows from different drainages during the same storm (Giraud
tions and processes that govern sediment supply and transport and McDonald, 2007). The fire-related debris flows were gen
to the fan surface, and provide an independent check of alluvi erated by erosion and progressive sediment bulking of run
al-fan evaluations. Drainage-basin and channel evaluation in off rather than by landslides. These debris flows initiated in
volves estimating the erosion potential of the basin and feeder a similar manner to the 1920s and 1930s debris flows from
channel and the volume, grain size, and gradation of sediment overgrazed and burned watersheds in northern Utah studied
by Bailey and others (1947) and Croft (1962), and burned ar
that could be incorporated into a debris flow. The evaluation
also considers different debris-flow initiation mechanisms. eas in the western U.S. studied by Cannon (2001). The debris
The results of the drainage-basin and channel evaluation are flows produced from the drainage basins show a wide range
used to estimate the probability of occurrence and design of channel sediment-bulking rates, flow volumes, and runout
volumes of future debris flows. In some cases, evaluation of distances (Giraud and McDonald, 2007).
the drainage basin and channel may be performed indepen
dently of the alluvial-fan evaluation. For example, a wildfire Debris-flow-hazard investigations following a wildfire ad
in a drainage basin may initiate a post-burn analysis of the dress burn severity and hillslope and channel conditions.
drainage basin and channels to estimate or revise the erodible Wells (1987), Florsheim and others (1991), Cannon and others
sediment volume and the probability of post-fire debris flows. (1995), Meyer and others (1995), Cannon and Reneau (2000),
Kirkham and others (2000), Robichaud and others (2000), and
Debris-Flow Initiation Cannon (2001) discuss post-burn conditions and debris-flow
susceptibility following wildfires. Cannon and others (2010)
developed empirical models based on statistical data from
Debris flows initiate in the drainage basin and require a hydro
recently burned basins in the Intermountain Western United
logic trigger such as intense or prolonged rainfall, rapid snow
States including Utah, to predict the probability and volume
melt, and/or groundwater discharge. Intense thunderstorm of post-fire debris flows. Input data include topographic pa
rainfall, often referred to as cloudburst storms by early debris
rameters, soil characteristics, burn severity, and rainfall totals
flow investigators in Utah (for example, Woolley, 1946; But
and intensities. Cannon and others’ (2010) methodology es
ler and Marsell, 1972), has generated numerous debris flows.
timates probability and volume of debris flows at a specific
Conditions in the drainage basin important in initiating de
point in time following a wildfire. As vegetation regrows and
bris flows are the basin relief, channel gradient, bedrock and soil conditions return to pre-burn conditions the probability
surficial geology, vegetation and wildfire, and land use. Ex of a debris flow decreases. Gartner and others (2008) found
posed bedrock on hillsides promotes rapid surface-water run
that most fire-related debris flows generally occur within two
off, which helps generate debris flows. Wildfires can destroy
years following the wildfire. Post-fire debris-flow methodol
rainfall-intercepting vegetation and create conditions that pro ogy is not appropriate for determining the volume and prob
mote rapid surface-water runoff. All of these conditions may
work in combination to promote debris flows. ability of non-fire-related debris flows, which generally are
larger volume and less frequent.
In Utah, above-normal precipitation from 1980 through 1986
Debris-Flow Susceptibility of the Basin
produced numerous snowmelt-generated landslides (mostly
debris slides) that transformed into debris flows and then trav
eled down channels (Brabb and others, 1989; Harty, 1991). Debris-flow susceptibility is related to the runoff, erosion, and
Many of these debris flows occurred during periods of rapid landslide potential of drainage-basin slopes and the volume
of erodible sediment stored in drainage-basin channels. Char
snowmelt and high stream flows, when Santi (1988) indicates
that saturated channel sediment is more easily entrained into acterizing drainage-basin morphologic parameters, mapping
debris flows. Above-normal snowpacks in 2005 and 2011 also bedrock and surficial geology, and estimating the volume of
produced snowmelt debris flows, but the rapid snowmelt pat erodible channel sediment provides information on the likeli
tern was not as widespread as the 1980–86 period. hood and volume of future debris flows.

In contrast to wet climate conditions, dry conditions often lead Important basin parameters include area, relief, and length and
to wildfires that partially or completely burn drainage-basin gradient of channels. A description of the types and density of
vegetation, creating conditions for increased runoff and ero vegetation and land use provides information on the possible
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 85

effects of wildfire and land use on surface-water runoff and into debris flows. Santi (1988) suggested that sediment bulk
erosion. Small, steep drainage basins are well suited for gen ing is more likely when passage of a debris flow occurs during
erating debris flows because of their efficiency in concentrat periods of stream flow and associated saturated channel sedi
ing and accelerating overland surface-water flow. ment, and will result in larger debris-flow volumes.

Both surficial and bedrock geology play a role in the susceptibil Wieczorek and others (1983, 1989) used groundwater levels,
ity of drainage basins to produce flows. Some bedrock weathers the presence of partially detached landslide masses, and es
rapidly and provides an abundant supply of channel sediment, timates of channel sediment bulking to evaluate debris-flow
whereas resistant bedrock supplies sediment at a slower rate. potential along the Wasatch Front between Salt Lake City and
Exposed cliff-forming bedrock greatly increases runoff. Willard. Superelevated levees, mud lines, and trim lines along
channels are evidence of peak discharge. Measurements from
Some bedrock, such as shale, weathers and generates fine these features are useful in estimating velocity and peak flow
grained clay-rich sediment, whereas other bedrock types gen (Johnson and Rodine, 1984). Determining the age of vegeta
erate mostly coarse sediment. The clay content of debris flows tion growing on the levees provides a minimum age of past
directly influences flow properties. Costa (1984) states that debris-flow activity.
small changes (1% to 2%) in clay content in a debris flow can
greatly increase mobility due to reduced permeability and in Land use and land-use changes within a drainage basin may
creased pore pressure. The presence of silt and clay in a slurry also influence debris-flow susceptibility. Land development
aids in maintaining high pore pressure to enhance flow mobil often creates impervious surfaces that increase the rate and
ity and runout (Iverson, 2003). volume of runoff. Development may also remove vegetation
and expose soils, promoting erosion, increasing sediment
Surficial geologic deposits that influence the sediment supply yield, and decreasing natural slope stability within the drain
include (1) colluvium on steep slopes susceptible to forming age basin. Debris-flow-hazard investigations must address
debris slides, (2) partially detached shallow landslides, (3) development-induced conditions where applicable.
foot-slope colluvium filling the drainage-basin channel that
may contribute sediment by bank erosion and sloughing, and Channel Sediment Bulking and Flow-Volume
(4) stream-channel alluvium.
Estimation
Mapping debris slides in a drainage basin and determining
Sediment supply, erosion conditions, and hydrologic condi
their potential to transform into debris flows is important in
tions of the drainage basin and channel determine the sedi
evaluating debris-flow susceptibility. Most of the 1983–84 de ment and water concentration (flow type) and flow volume
bris flows along the Wasatch Front initiated as shallow debris
that reaches an alluvial fan. Estimating channel sediment
slides in steep colluvial slopes below the retreating snowline
volume available for entrainment or bulking is critical be
(Anderson and others, 1984; Pack, 1985). Aerial-photograph
analysis can show colluvium on steep slopes and previous cause study of historical debris flows indicates 80% to 90%
of the debris-flow volume comes from the channel (Croft,
debris slides or partially detached debris slides. A literature
search of historical debris slides in the area and in areas of 1967; Santi, 1988; Keaton and Lowe, 1998). Most estimates
of potential sediment bulking are based on a unit-volume
similar geology may help identify debris-slide susceptibil
ity. For example, documented relations exist between debris analysis of erodible sediment stored in the channel, generally
slides and debris flows in drainage basins in the Precambrian expressed in cubic yards per linear foot of channel (Hungr
Farmington Canyon Complex of Davis County (Pack, 1985) and others, 1984; VanDine, 1985; Williams and Lowe, 1990;
Hungr and others, 2005). The sediment volume stored in indi
and in the Tertiary-Cretaceous rocks of the Wasatch Plateau
(Lips, 1985). vidual relatively homogeneous channel reaches is estimated,
and then the channel-reach volumes are summed to obtain a
Drainage basins that experience rapid snowmelt events have total volume. The total channel volume is an upper bound vol
an increased debris-flow hazard. Sustained rapid snowmelt ume and needs to be compared to historical (VanDine, 1996)
can produce large volumes of melt water with melt rates aver and mapped alluvial-fan flow volumes to derive a design vol
ume. If easily eroded soils and slopes prone to landsliding are
aging 1.5 inches of water per day for 12 days or more (Giraud,
2010; Giraud and Lund, 2010). Pack (1985) and Mathews present, then appropriate volumes for landslide and hillslope
on and others (1990) determined that in the 1983–84 Davis contributions determined from other drainage-basin landslide
County debris flows, water infiltration into fractured bedrock volumes should be added to the channel volume.
aquifers from rapid snowmelt perched and increased pore-wa
ter pressure in steep colluvial slopes that triggered localized Estimating a potential sediment-bulking rate requires field
colluvial landslides (debris slides) that transformed into de inspection of the drainage basin and channels. Channel sed
bris flows. Trandafir and others (2015) found that rapid snow iment-bulking estimates cannot rely on empirical methods
melt, water infiltration, and increased pore-water pressure in because they are only approximate and have low reliability
steep moraine slopes can also trigger landslides that transform due to the wide scatter of data which reflects the wide range of
86 Utah Geological Survey

topographical, geological, and climatic environments in Utah. Hungr and others (1984), VanDine (1985), and Williams and
Field inspection and channel sediment-bulking rate measure Lowe (1990) used historical flow volumes and channel sedi
ments of the material likely to be mobilized are the best meth ment bulking rates to estimate potential debris-flow volumes.
ods to arrive at more precise estimates of debris-flow volume. Williams and Lowe (1990), following the 1983 debris flows
Measuring cross-channel profiles and estimating the erodible in Davis County, compared cross-channel profiles of drain
depth of channel sediment is necessary to estimate the sedi ages that had discharged historical debris flows with those that
ment volume available for bulking (figure 28). Even though a had not to estimate the amount of channel sediment bulked by
great deal of geologic judgment may be required to make the historical flows. They estimated an average bulking rate of
volume estimate, this is probably the most reliable and practi 12 yd3/ft of channel for historical debris flows and used it to
cal method for bedrock-floored channels. The design volume estimate flow volumes for drainage basins lacking historical
should not be based solely on empirical bulking of specific debris flows, but recommended using this estimate only for
flood flows (for example, bulking a 100-year flood with sedi perennial streams in Davis County. Bulking rates for intermit
ment) because empirical bulking does not consider shallow tent and ephemeral streams are generally lower. For example,
landslide-generated debris flows (National Research Coun Mulvey and Lowe (1992) estimated a bulking rate of 5 yd3/ft
cil, 1996), channel bedrock reaches with no stored sediment, for the 1991 Cameron Cove debris flow in Davis County. The
and the typically longer recurrence period of debris flows. 1999–2004 fire-related debris flows in northern Utah have a
The channel inspection should also provide a description of wide range of estimated bulking rates (0.01 to 2.02 yd3/ft; Gi
the character and gradation of sediment and wood debris that raud and McDonald, 2007). Santi and others (2008) studied
could be incorporated into future debris flows. 46 fire-related debris flows in Utah, Colorado, and California,
and similarly found a wide range of bulking rates (0.12 to 4.0
yd3/ft). Hungr and others (1984), VanDine (1985, 1996), and
Williams and Lowe (1990) all concluded that channel length
and channel sediment storage are the most important factors
in estimating future debris-flow volumes.

Some drainage basins may have recently discharged a debris

flow, leaving little sediment available in the feeder channel
for sediment bulking for future debris flows. Keaton and oth
ers (1991) stated that channels with recent debris flows will
discharge future flows of less volume until the feeder channel
has recharged with sediment. In these situations, an evaluation
must consider remaining channel sediment as well as the rate
of sediment recharge to the channel (National Research Coun
cil, 1996; Bovis and Jakob, 1999). The percent of channel
length lined by bedrock is a distinct indication of the volume
of sediment remaining because sediment cannot be scoured
from bedrock reaches. Williams and Lowe (1990) suggested
that in Davis County the drainage basins capable of producing
future large debris flows are basins that have not discharged
historical debris flows. However, drainage basins having a
limited debris-flow volume potential due to lack of channel
sediment may still have a high stream-flow-flooding potential.

DEBRIS-FLOW-RISK REDUCTION

Eisbacher and Clague (1984), Hungr and others (1987), Van

Dine (1996), and Huebl and Fiebiger (2005) group debris
flow-risk reduction into two categories: passive and active.
Figure 28. Channel sediment and cross section used to estimate Passive methods involve avoiding debris-flow-hazard areas
sediment volume available for bulking. (a) Channel erosion from the either permanently or at times of imminent danger. Passive
September 10, 2002, fire-related debris flow on Dry Mountain east of methods do not prevent, control, or modify debris flows. Ac
Santaquin, Utah. Solid line shows the eroded channel after the debris
tive methods modify the hazard using debris-flow-control
flow, dashed line shows the estimated channel prior to debris-flow
structures to prevent or reduce the risk. These types of struc
passage. (b) Sketch of channel cross section showing stored channel
sediment above bedrock. Dashed line shows the estimated upper bound tures require engineering design using appropriate geologic
width and depth of channel sediment available for sediment bulking. inputs. In terms of development on alluvial fans, active risk
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 87

reduction measures with control structures generally attempt Little information exists on the past frequency of debris flows
to maximize the buildable space and provide a reasonable on most alluvial fans in Utah. Studies by Keaton (1988), Lips
level of protection. (1993), and Mulvey (1993) indicate that large-volume, destruc
tive debris flows on the alluvial fans they studied have return
Hungr and others (1987) and VanDine (1996) divide debris periods of a few hundred to thousands of years. Fire-related
flow-control structures along lower channel reaches and on debris flows in Utah are more frequent and vegetation types
alluvial fans into two basic types: open structures (which con for fires that produced fire-related debris flows have fire-re
strain flow) and closed structures (which contain debris). Ex turn periods of 0 to 300 years for stand-replacing fires (Giraud
amples of open debris-flow-control structures include uncon and McDonald, 2007). However, return periods vary widely
fined deposition areas, impediments to flow (baffles), check among alluvial fans and few data exist to quantify debris-flow
dams, lined channels, lateral walls or berms, deflection walls frequency-magnitude relations. Other difficulties in quantify
or berms, and terminal walls, berms, or barriers. Examples of ing debris-flow frequency-magnitude relationships include:
closed debris-flow-control structures include debris racks, or • Frequencies are time-dependent. Many drainages must
other forms of debris-straining structures located in the chan recharge channel sediment following a large-volume de
nel, and debris barriers and associated storage basins with a bris flow; the magnitude and frequency of future debris
debris-straining structure (outlet) incorporated into the design. flows depend on the size of and time since the last event.
• Statistically-based cloudburst rainfall volumes typical
In Utah, engineered sediment storage basins are the most com
ly used for stream-flooding evaluations (for example,
mon type of control structure used to reduce debris-flow risks.
the 100-year storm) are not applicable to debris-flow
These structures generally benefit the community as well as
volumes because debris-flow discharges do not relate
the individual developer or landowner, but they are typically directly to flood discharges, and in Utah many debris
expensive, require periodic maintenance and sediment remov flows are caused by rapid snowmelt rather than cloud
al, and must often be located in areas not owned or controlled burst storms.
by an individual developer. For these reasons, debris-flow
and flood-risk-reduction structures are commonly govern • Wildfires and land-use changes in the drainage basin
ment public works or shared public-private responsibilities, introduce significant uncertainty because they can tem
rather than solely a developer or landowner responsibility. porarily greatly increase debris-flow frequency.
This is particularly true in urban settings where the delineated
hazard area may include more than one subdivision and other Because of these complexities, generally accepted return peri
pre-existing development. In some cases, local flood-control ods for design of debris-flow risk-reduction measures based on
agencies such as Davis County Flood Control manage both probabilistic models do not exist, unlike for earthquake ground
debris-flow and stream-flooding hazards. shaking and flooding, which have established design return pe
riods of 2500 years (International Building Code) and 100 years
(FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program), respectively.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR RISK Although Keaton (1988) and Keaton and others (1991) devel
REDUCTION oped a probabilistic model for debris flows in Davis County
where a relatively complete record of historical debris flows
The debris-flow hazard at a particular site depends on the exists, the high degree of irregularity and uncertainty in return
periods limited their results and the practical application of
site’s location on the alluvial fan. Both debris-flow impact
their model. In some cases rather than assigning an absolute
and sediment burial are more likely and of greater magnitude
in proximal fan areas than in medial and distal fan areas (fig probability of debris-flow occurrence, many debris-flow prac
ure 27). Decisions regarding acceptable risk and appropriate titioners assign a relative probability of occurrence (VanDine,
1996) based on frequencies in similar basins and fans in the
control-structure design involve weighing the probability of
geographic areas that have experienced historical debris flows.
occurrence in relation to the consequences of a debris flow
and the residual risk level after implementing risk-reduction The UGS believes Holocene-age (past 11,700 years) debris
measures. Therefore, hazard investigations estimate the likely
flow deposits on an alluvial fan are sufficient evidence of a po
size, frequency, and depositional area of debris flows on an
tential hazard to warrant site-specific debris-flow-hazard stud
alluvial fan as accurately as possible.
ies and appropriate implementation of risk-reduction measures.
Holocene sediments were deposited under climatic conditions
Considering Frequency and Magnitude in Design similar to the present and therefore indicate a current hazard
unless geologic and topographic conditions on the alluvial fan
The frequency and magnitude of past debris flows are fun have changed. If site-specific data on debris-flow recurrence
damental indicators of future debris-flow activity. To address are sufficient to develop a probabilistic model, then the model
the past frequency and volume of debris flows, detailed geo may be used in consultation with local government regulators
logic studies involving geochronology are generally required. to help determine an appropriate level of risk reduction.
88 Utah Geological Survey

Debris-Flow-Hazard Zones peak discharge when designing protective structures. Pierson

(1985) described flow composition and dynamics of the 1983
Debris-flow-hazard zones identify potential impacts and as Rudd Canyon debris flow in Davis County, and included some
sociated risks, help determine appropriate risk-reduction flow properties typically considered in engineering design.
measures, and aid in land-use planning decisions. Hungr and Costa (1984) also listed specific physical properties of debris
others (1987) outline three debris-flow-hazard zones: (1) a di flows. Keaton (1990) described field and laboratory methods
rect impact zone where high-energy flows increase the risk of to predict slurry characteristics based on sedimentology and
impact damage due to flow velocity, flow thickness, and the stratigraphy of alluvial-fan deposits. Flow characteristics are
maximum clast size; (2) an indirect impact zone where impact also important to help estimate associated water volume. Pro
risk is lower, but where damage from sediment burial and de chaska and others (2008) provided debris basin and deflection
bris-flow and water transport is high; and (3) a flood zone po berm design criteria for fire-related debris-flow risk reduction.
tentially exposed to flooding due to channel blockage and wa
ter draining from debris deposits. These zones roughly equate Estimating debris-flow volume is necessary where debris
to proximal, medial, and distal fan areas, respectively (figure storage basins are planned (Santi, 2014). Because debris
27). Historical debris-flow records, deposit characteristics, flow behavior is difficult to predict and flows difficult to
and detailed topography are required to outline these hazard route, debris storage basins and deflection walls or berms are
zones. Site-specific studies are required to define which zone common methods of debris-flow risk reduction. The routing
applies to a particular site and to determine the most appropri of debris flows off an alluvial fan is a difficult and complex
ate land use and risk-reduction techniques to employ. task. O’Brien and Julien (1997) stated that channel convey
ance of debris flows off an alluvial fan is not recommended
Estimating Geologic Parameters for because there are numerous factors that can cause the flow to
plug the conveyance channel. Debris basins typically capture
Engineering Design sediment at the drainage mouth before the debris flow travels
unpredictably across the alluvial fan. For debris basin capac
Geologic estimates of debris-flow design parameters are nec ity, the thickness and area of individual flows on the alluvial
essary for engineering design of risk-reduction structures. fan and erodible channel sediment volumes are needed to es
The most appropriate data often come from historical or late
timate design debris volumes. Estimates of sediment stored
Holocene debris flows that can be mapped on the fan surface. in channels are usually maximum or “worst-case” volumes
Flow and deposit characteristics are also necessary to estimate
that represent an upper volume limit. Channel estimates may
peak discharge and calibrate computer-based hydraulic flow exceed the alluvial-fan estimates because typically not all
routing models (O’Brien and Julien, 1997). channel sediment is eroded and deposited on the fan, and the
channel estimate includes suspended sediment transported off
Geologic parameters required for engineering design vary de the fan by stream flows. Conversely, the alluvial-fan estimate
pending on the risk-reduction structure proposed. Engineer may exceed the channel estimate if a recent large flow has
ing designs for debris-flow risk-reduction structures are site removed most channel sediment. VanDine (1996) considered
specific (VanDine and others, 1997), and generally involve the design volume to be the reasonable upper limit of material
quantifying specific fan, feeder channel, deposit, and flow pa that will ultimately reach the fan. In a study on the precision
rameters. Geomorphic fan parameters include areas of active and accuracy of debris-flow volume measurement for histori
deposition, surface gradients, surface roughness (channels, cal debris flows, Santi (2014) found that volume measurement
levees, lobes), and topography. Feeder channel parameters in uncertainty is typically at least ± 10%−20%. Estimates of pre
clude channel gradient, channel capacity, and indications of historic debris flow volumes likely have greater uncertainty.
previous flows. Deposit parameters include area, thickness,
volume, surface gradient, gradation, and largest clast size. Flow volume is also important in modeling runout and deposi
Due to their perishable nature, flow parameters are difficult
tion. O’Brien and Julien (1997), in their hydraulic modeling of
to determine unless measured immediately after an event,
debris-flow runout, emphasized the importance of making con
and are often inferred from deposit characteristics or evi servative estimates of the available volume of sediment in the
dence from the feeder channel. The flow parameters include drainage basin, and comparing that volume to alluvial-fan de
estimates of flow type(s), volume, frequency, depth, velocity, posit volumes to determine an appropriate modeling volume.
peak discharge, and runout distance.
Geologic design parameters are also needed for the design of
Debris flows can have significantly higher peak discharge other types of engineered risk-reduction structures. For de
than stream-flow flooding. Estimating peak discharge is criti flection walls and berms or for foundation reinforcement, fan
cal because it controls maximum velocity and flow depth, im gradient, flow type (debris versus hyperconcentrated versus
pact forces, ability to overrun protective barriers, and runout stream), flow depth, peak flow, flow velocity, and debris size
distance (Hungr, 2000). VanDine (1996) stated that debris and gradation are important to ensure that the structure has
flow discharges can be up to 40 times greater than a 200-year the appropriate height, side slope, and curvature to account
flood, which shows the importance of carefully estimating for run-up and impact forces. For design of debris barriers,
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 89

flow volume, depth, deposition area, and gradient are needed 1. Literature Review. Summarize published and
to determine the appropriate storage volume. The size and unpublished topographic and surficial and bed
gradation of debris, flow velocity, and the anticipated flow rock geologic maps, literature, historical records
type are important in the design of debris-straining structures. regarding debris flows and alluvial-fan flooding,
Flow types are important to help estimate associated water and other relevant factors pertinent to the site.
volumes. Baldwin and others (1987), VanDine (1996), Deng 2. Interpretation of Remote-Sensing Imagery. De
(1997), and VanDine and others (1997) have described other scribe the results of remote-sensing-imagery in
design considerations for debris-flow-control structures. terpretation, including stereoscopic aerial photo
graphs, lidar, and other remote-sensing data when
Even though geologic investigations use quantitative and ob available. List source, date, flight-line numbers,
jective procedures, estimating design parameters for risk-re and scale of aerial photos or other imagery used.
duction structures has practical limits. As stated earlier, histori
cal records of debris flows show flows to be highly variable in 3. Alluvial Fan Evaluation. Include a site-scale
terms of size, material properties, and travel and depositional geologic map showing areas of active-fan de
behavior. Many debris-flow design-parameter estimates have position (generally Holocene-age alluvial fans)
high levels of uncertainty and often represent a best approxima and other surficial deposits, including older de
tion of a complex natural process; therefore, appropriate limita bris-flow and alluvial-fan deposits and their rel
tions and engineering factors of safety must be incorporated in ative age. Include test pit and trench logs (gen
risk-reduction-structure design. Investigators must clearly state erally at 1 inch = 5 feet) showing descriptions
of geologic units, layer thicknesses, maximum
the limitations of the investigation methods employed and the
uncertainties associated with design-parameter estimates. grain sizes, and interpretation of flow types.
Show basis for design flow-volume estimates
(deposit thickness and area estimates); a range
DEBRIS-FLOW-INVESTIGATION REPORT of estimates is suggested based on maximum,
average, and minimum thickness and area esti
The UGS recommends that a report prepared for a site-spe mates. Indicate runout distance, spatial extent,
cific debris-flow investigation in Utah at a minimum address thickness, flow type, and deposit characteristics
the topics below. Site conditions may require that additional of historical flows, if present. Provide deposit
items be included to fully evaluate debris-flow hazard at a age estimates or other evidence used to estimate
site; these guidelines do not relieve engineering geologists the frequency of past debris flows. Evaluate the
from their duty to perform additional geologic investigations debris-flow hazard based on anticipated prob
as necessary to adequately assess the debris-flow hazard. The ability of occurrence and volume, flow type,
report guidelines below pertain specifically to debris-flow in flow depth, deposition area, runout, gradation
vestigations on alluvial fans, and expand on the general report of debris, flow impact forces, and stream-flow
preparation guidance provided in the Engineering-Geology inundation and sediment burial depths.
Investigations and Engineering-Geology Reports sections of
4. Drainage Basin and Channel Evaluation. In
chapter 2.
clude a vicinity geologic map (1:24,000 scale)
A. Text on a topographic base of the drainage basin
a. Purpose and scope of investigation. Describe the showing bedrock and surficial geology, includ
location and size of the site and proposed type and ing shallow landslides (debris slides) and a mea
number of buildings or other infrastructure if known. surement of drainage-basin morphologic param
b. Geologic and topographic setting. The report should eters. Provide an estimate of the susceptibility
of the drainage basin to shallow landsliding,
contain a clear and concise statement of the site and likely landslide volume(s), and volume of his
site region’s geologic and topographic setting. The torical landslides, if present. Provide an estimate
section should include a discussion of debris-flow of the susceptibility of the drainage basin slopes
activity in the area and should reference pertinent to erosion. Include a longitudinal channel pro
published and unpublished geologic literature. file, showing gradients from headwaters to the
c. Site description and conditions. Include dates of alluvial fan. Include cross-channel profiles and
site visits and observations. Include information on a map showing their locations. Provide a basis
surficial and bedrock geology, topography, vegeta for channel volume estimates including initial
tion, existing structures, evidence of previous de debris slides, total feeder channel length, length
bris flows on or near the site, and other factors that of channel lined by bedrock, cross-channel pro
may affect the choice of investigative methods and files, and estimated volume of channel sediment
interpretation of data. available for sediment bulking including esti
d. Methods and results of investigation. mated bulking rate(s) in cubic yards per linear
foot of channel.
90 Utah Geological Survey

e. Conclusions. B. References
1. Conclusions must be supported by adequate a. Literature and records cited or reviewed; citations
data, and the report should present those data in should be complete (see References section of this
a clear and concise manner. publication for examples).
2. Provide the probability of debris-flow occur b. Remote-sensing images interpreted; list type, date,
rence (if possible), estimates of debris-flow vol project identification codes, scale, source, and in
ume, a map showing hazard areas, and a discus dex numbers.
sion on the likely effects of debris flows on the
c. Other sources of information, personal communica
proposed development.
tion, and other data sources.
3. Degree of confidence in, and limitations of, the
C. Illustrations. Should include at a minimum:
data and conclusions.
a. Location map. Showing the site and significant
f. Recommendations.
physiographic and cultural features, generally at
1. Recommendations must be supported by the re 1:24,000 scale or larger and indicating the Pub
port conclusions and be presented in a clear and lic Land Survey System ¼-section, township, and
concise manner. range; and the site latitude and longitude to four
2. Provide recommendations for hydrologic, hy decimal places with datum.
draulic, and engineering studies to define build b. Site development map. Showing site boundaries,
able and non-buildable areas (if appropriate) and existing and proposed structures, other infrastruc
design risk-reduction measures. ture, and site topography. The map scale may vary
3. Provide geologic design parameters for debris- depending on the size of the site and area covered
flow-control structures, as appropriate. by the study; the minimum recommended scale is 1
inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger when necessary.
4. Discuss implications of risk-reduction measures The site development map may be combined with
on adjacent properties, and the need for long
the site-specific geology map (see item “c” below).
term maintenance.
c. Site-specific geology map. A site-scale geology map
5. If recommendations are provided for debris of the drainage basin and alluvial fan as discussed
storage basins, both alluvial-fan and channel
above. Scale of site-specific geology maps will vary
volume estimates must be compared to select an
depending on the size of the site and area of study;
appropriate design debris volume. For flows that
may initiate as debris slides, an appropriate de minimum recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet
(1:2400) or larger when necessary.
bris-slide volume must be included. Due to un
If recommendations
chosenmay
6. estimates volume
flow-deflection
certainties
the inherent insignificantly.
differ both
structures
estimate
are provided
or
methods,
must for for
the volume
debris-flow-resis-
be
Rationale
provided.
debris- d. Debris-flow hazard map. Showing the debris-flow
hazard on different parts of the alluvial fan based on
results of the investigation.
e. Photographs that enhance understanding of the de
bris-flow hazard at the site with applicable metadata.
tant construction (reinforcement of foundations, D. Authentication
flood-proofing), hydraulic modeling of debris
out is
flow
tion
information
and thickness,
of
discharge,
necessary
impact to calibrate
onflow
forces
flow
run-up, is and
velocity,
type(s),
recommended.
runout,
models.
depositand
peak flow,
distribution
and
Specific
calcula-
run- The report must be signed and stamped by a Utah
licensed Professional Geologist in principal charge
of the investigation (Title 58-76-10 ‒ Professional
Geologists Licensing Act [Utah Code, 2011]). Final
geologic maps, trench logs, cross sections, sketch
es, drawings, and plans, prepared by or under the
7. Discuss residual risk to development (if appropri
supervision of a professional geologist, also must
ate) after risk-reduction measures are in place.
bear the stamp of the professional geologist (Utah
As noted
tion
and
only the first (2)considered,
risk-reduction
techniques
in fstep the debris-flow-hazard
above,
inprocess.
theDepending
geologic
subsequentonhydrologic,
evaluation
the is often
hy-
investigation
risk-reduc- Code, 2011). Reports co-prepared by a Utah li
censed Professional Engineer and/or Utah licensed
Professional Land Surveyor must include the engi
neer’s or surveyor’s stamp and signature.
draulic, and/or engineering studies may be needed to esti
mate peak flows and water volumes, route sediment, and F. Appendices
design
engineers must
appropriate,
control as a team
cost-effective
work
structures. to recommend
risk-reduction
Geologists, hydrologists,
techniques.
reasonable,
and Include supporting data relevant to the investigation
not given in the text such as maps, cross sections,
conceptual models, survey data, geochronology
Chapter 5 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 91

laboratory reports, laboratory test data, and qualifi

cations statements/resume.

FIELD REVIEW
The UGS recommends a technical field review by the regula
tory-authority geologist once a debris-flow-hazard investiga
tion is complete. The field review should take place after any
trenches or test pits are logged, but before they are closed so
subsurface site conditions can be directly observed and evalu
ated. See Field Review section in chapter 2.

REPORT REVIEW
The UGS recommends regulatory review of all reports by a
Utah licensed Professional Geologist experienced in debris
flow-hazard investigations and acting on behalf of local gov
ernments to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to
reduce risks to future property owners (Larson, 1992, 2015).
See Report Review section in chapter 2.

DISCLOSURE
The UGS recommends disclosure during real-estate trans
actions whenever an engineering-geology investigation has
been performed. See Disclosure section in chapter 2.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sue Cannon, Gary Christenson, Dale Deiter, Jerry Higgins,
Jason Hinkle, Jeff Keaton, Matt Lindon, Dave Noe, Robert
Pack, Tom Pierson, Paul Santi, Doug VanDine, and Gerald
Wieczorek reviewed and provided suggestions that improved
the previous version of these guidelines. This version was re
viewed by Gregg Beukelman, Steve Bowman, and William
Lund (Utah Geological Survey).
92 Utah Geological Survey
 CHAPTER 6
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING LAND-SUBSIDENCE
AND EARTH-FISSURE HAZARDS IN UTAH
by
William R. Lund, P.G.

Displacement across an earth fissure that formed in response to groundwater mining in Cedar Valley, Utah.

Suggested citation: Lund, W.R., 2016, Guidelines for evaluating land-subsidence and earth-fissure hazards in Utah, in Bowman,
S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a
suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 93–110.
94 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 95

CHAPTER 6: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING LAND

SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE HAZARDS IN UTAH
by William R. Lund, P.G.

INTRODUCTION These guidelines outline (1) appropriate investigation meth

ods, (2) report content, (3) map, trench log, and illustration
Land subsidence and earth fissures related to groundwater criteria and scales, (4) mitigation recommendations, (5) mini
mum criteria for review of reports, and (6) recommendations
mining (long-term groundwater pumping in excess of aqui
for geologic-hazard disclosure. However, these guidelines do
fer recharge) are human-caused geologic hazards, and as such
must be addressed during land development in subsiding ar not include systematic descriptions of all available investiga
eas. These guidelines present the recommended minimum ac tive techniques or topics, nor are all techniques or topics ap
ceptable level of effort for investigating land subsidence and propriate for every hazard investigation.
earth fissures related to groundwater mining in Utah at both
basin-wide and site-specific scales. Basin-wide investigations Considering the complexity of evaluating land-subsidence and
rely on a combination of remote sensing methods and high earth-fissure hazards, additional effort beyond the minimum
precision surveying to identify subsidence area boundaries, criteria recommended in these guidelines may be required to
subsidence rates, and earth-fissure locations. Site-specific in adequately evaluate such hazards. The information presented
in these guidelines does not relieve engineering geologists of
vestigations evaluate the effects of land subsidence and earth
fissures at a site, and typically include a literature review, the duty to perform additional geologic investigations neces
sary to fully assess these hazards either at regional or site
aerial-photograph and other remote-sensing data analysis,
and field investigation, usually including surficial geologic specific scales. As required by Utah state law (Utah Code,
mapping and trenching, and in some instances boreholes, 2011), land-subsidence and earth-fissure investigation reports
cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings, and geophysical and supporting documents must be signed and stamped by the
licensed Utah Professional Geologist in responsible charge of
investigations. The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) recom
mends a land-subsidence and earth-fissure investigation for the investigation.
all new buildings for human occupancy and International
Building Code (IBC) Risk Category II, III, and IV facilities Purpose
(International Code Council [ICC], 2014a) proposed in areas
of known or suspected susceptibility to land subsidence and These guidelines apply specifically to land subsidence and
earth fissures. earth fissures caused by groundwater pumping in excess of
recharge. These guidelines may also be applicable in whole or
The intent of these guidelines is to assist engineering geolo part for evaluating land subsidence and earth fissures resulting
from other causes (e.g., near-surface soil desiccation [giant
gists performing land-subsidence and earth-fissure investiga
tions, and to reduce, to the lowest level possible, epistemic desiccation cracks], collapsible soil, highly organic soil, karst
uncertainty (lack of necessary data) in evaluating land-subsid sinkhole formation, soil piping, underground mining, and oil
ence and earth-fissure hazards by conducting adequate hazard and gas pumping).
investigations. Aleatory variability (natural randomness) in
the occurrence of subsidence and formation of earth fissures The purpose of these guidelines is to provide appropriate
cannot be reduced; therefore, predicting exactly where and minimum land-subsidence and earth-fissure investigation and
when future land subsidence and earth fissures will occur is report criteria to:
not possible. As long as groundwater mining continues, new • protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public by
areas of land subsidence may appear and earth fissures may minimizing the potentially adverse effects of land sub
form. For those reasons, developing property in or near ar sidence and earth fissures;
eas of land subsidence and earth fissures will always involve
• assist local governments in regulating land use in haz
a level of irreducible, inherent risk. Additionally, even with
ardous areas and provide standards for ordinances;
innovative engineering design, limiting certain kinds of land
use (e.g., water conveyance or retention structures, pipelines • assist property owners and developers in conducting
and canals, liquid waste disposal systems, hazardous mate reasonable and adequate investigations;
rials processing and storage facilities) may be necessary in • provide engineering geologists with a common basis
areas of rapid subsidence and/or earth fissuring. for preparing proposals, conducting investigations, and
96 Utah Geological Survey

recommending land-subsidence- and earth-fissure-mit rial. Silt and clay layers have higher porosity, lower permea
igation strategies; and bility, and lower matrix strength than coarse-grained sediment
• provide an objective framework for preparation and re (sand and gravel). Coarse granular materials may settle almost
view of reports. instantaneously after dewatering, but because of their much
lower permeability, fine-grained layers may require decades
to fully drain and compress, and may continue to compress
These guidelines are not intended to supersede pre-existing
even after groundwater withdrawal is brought into equilib
state or federal regulations or local geologic-hazard ordi
rium with recharge (Bell and others, 2002; Budhu and Shelke,
nances, but provide useful information to supplement adopted
2008). The relation between groundwater-level decline and
ordinances/regulations, and assist in preparation of new ordi
land subsidence is complex and varies as a function of total
nances. The UGS believes adherence to these guidelines will
aquifer thickness, composition, and compressibility. In some
help ensure adequate, cost-effective investigations and mini
mize report review time. areas of Arizona, about 300 feet of groundwater decline pro
duced only 0.6 foot of subsidence. In other areas, a similar
water-level decline generated land subsidence of as much as
Background 18 feet (Arizona Land Subsidence Group, 2007).

Subsidence and earth fissures related to groundwater mining Earth fissures are linear cracks in the ground that form in re
occur when groundwater is pumped from an aquifer at a rate sponse to horizontal tensional stresses that develop when land
greater than aquifer recharge, resulting in dewatering of the subsidence causes different parts of an aquifer to compact by
aquifer. Bringing recharge and discharge into balance will different amounts (figure 30) (Leake, 2004; Arizona Division
slow or stop land-subsidence and earth-fissure formation—a of Emergency Management, 2007). Earth fissures may be
process successfully implemented in some areas experiencing hundreds of feet deep, range from a few feet to miles long,
land-subsidence and earth-fissure problems (Ingebritsen and and can be expressed as hairline cracks (figure 31), aligned
Jones, 1999; Bell and others, 2002). Both the cause and cure sinkholes (figure 32), or gullies tens of feet wide (figure 33)
for groundwater-mining-related land subsidence and earth fis where fissures intercept surface flow and are enlarged by ero
sures are typically societal in nature. It is rare that a single sion (Carpenter, 1999). Earth fissures typically form along the
groundwater producer (individual or organization) causes edge of basins, usually parallel to mountain fronts; over zones
land-subsidence and earth-fissure formation, and it is equally of changing sediment characteristics and density; or above
rare that a single producer can effect a cure. This is particular subsurface bedrock highs often coincident with pre-existing
ly true of Utah’s alluvial valleys, each with many stakehold bedrock faults (figure 30) (Arizona Land Subsidence Group,
ers, where only collective action by all involved (producers, 2007). Some earth fissures exhibit differential displacements
consumers, managers, and regulators) can prevent or reverse of several inches to several feet as aquifers compact unevenly
groundwater mining. across them (figure 34).

Land-Subsidence and Earth-Fissure Formation Land-Subsidence Hazards

In the United States, more than 17,000 square miles in 45 states Land-subsidence hazards may include (1) change in eleva
have been directly affected by land subsidence, and more than tion and slope of streams, canals, and drains, (2) damage to
80% of the subsidence has occurred because of groundwater bridges, roads, railroads, storm drains, sanitary sewers, wa
mining (Galloway and others, 1999). Land subsidence due to ter lines, canals, airport runways, and levees, (3) damage to
groundwater mining in thick, unconsolidated sediments results private and public buildings, and (4) failure of well casings
from a decrease in fluid (pore water) pressure as the water in from forces generated by compaction of fine-grained layers
fine-grained sediments moves into adjacent coarser grained in aquifer systems (Leake, 2004; Lin and others, 2009). Over
sediments as the aquifer is dewatered (Leake, 2004). The de half of the area of the San Joaquin Valley in California has
crease in pressure increases the effective stress in the dewa subsided due to groundwater mining, resulting in one of the
tered portion of the aquifer and transfers the entire overburden largest human-caused alterations of Earth’s surface topogra
stress (weight) to the aquifer matrix. The change in effective phy (Galloway and others, 1999). Near Mendota, California,
stress causes the aquifer matrix to change volume (compact) in the San Joaquin Valley, subsidence in excess of 28 feet
(Galloway and others, 1999). Initial matrix compaction is elas necessitated expensive repairs to two major central Califor
tic and will recover if the aquifer is recharged. However, once nia water projects (California Aqueduct and Delta-Mendota
collapse exceeds the elastic limit of the matrix material, com Canal; Galloway and others, 1999). In Mexico City, rapid
paction becomes permanent, aquifer storage is reduced, and land subsidence caused by groundwater mining and associ
land subsidence ensues (Galloway and others, 1999). ated aquifer compaction has damaged colonial-era buildings,
buckled highways, and disrupted water supply and wastewater
As an aquifer is dewatered, most subsidence results from the drainage (Viets and others, 1979; Galloway and others, 1999).
compression of fine-grained sediment layers (aquitards; figure Early oil and gas production and a long history of ground
29) as they drain into adjacent coarser grained aquifer mate water pumping in the Houston-Galveston area, Texas, have
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 97

Figure 29. Schematic cross section of a typical Utah alluvial basin showing the effect of groundwater-level decline on the compaction offine
grained horizons and resulting ground subsidence within the alluvial basin-fill aquifer. Note that as groundwater levels decline fine-grained
horizons begin to compact both above and below the water table.

Figure 30. (A) Schematic section of a valley basin showing how buried bedrock topography affects the formation and location of earth fissures.
(B) Schematic diagram showing initiation of earth fissures at depth due to horizontal tension stress, and development of fissures expressed at the
surface as hairline cracks, aligned sinkholes, and erosional gullies (after Carpenter, 1999).
98 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 31. Earth fissure in Cedar Valley expressed as an uneroded Figure 32. Sinkholes aligned along an earth fissure in Cedar Valley.
primary ground crack. This fissure could be traced for 900 feet before Photo taken in May 2009.
becoming obscured by recent agricultural activity. Photo taken in
August 2009.

created severe and costly coastal-flooding hazards associated Earth fissures were first recognized in Arizona in 1927; since
with land subsidence (Galloway and others, 1999; Harris that time their number and frequency have increased as land
Galveston Subsidence Districts, 2010). Lin and others (2009) subsidence due to groundwater mining has likewise increased
reported significant land-subsidence and earth-fissure damage (Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2007). More
related to groundwater mining in the Beijing area, including than 1100 square miles of Arizona, including parts of the
damage to the new Capital International Airport. Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, are now affected by
subsidence and numerous associated earth fissures (figure
36) (Arizona Land Subsidence Group, 2007; Conway, 2013).
Earth-Fissure Hazards
Damage caused by earth fissures in Arizona currently totals
in the tens of millions of dollars, and includes cracked, dis
Earth-fissure hazards may include (1) creating conduits that
placed, or collapsed freeways and secondary roads; broken
connect nonpotable or contaminated surface and near-surface
pipes and utility lines; damaged and breached canals (figure
water to a principal aquifer used for public water supply 37); cracked building foundations; deformed railroad tracks;
(Pavelko and others, 1999; Bell, 2004) (figure 35), (2) chang
collapsed and sheared well casings; damaged dams and flood
ing runoff/flood patterns, (3) deforming or breaking buried
utilities and well casings, (4) causing buildings and other control structures; and livestock deaths (Viets and others,
infrastructure to deform or collapse, and (5) endangering 1979; Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2007;
livestock and wildlife, and posing a life-safety hazard to hu Arizona Land Subsidence Group, 2007).
mans (Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2007).
Although known earth fissures in Utah are chiefly limited to Likewise, long-term groundwater mining in excess of re
rural areas (Escalante Desert—Lund and others, 2005; Cedar charge in Nevada’s Las Vegas Valley has produced water-table
Valley—Knudsen and others, 2014), elsewhere in the western declines of 100 to 300 feet (Pavelko and others, 1999) and as
United States, earth fissures related to land subsidence have much as 6 feet of land subsidence (Bell and others, 2002; Bell
become a major factor in land development in urban areas and Amelung, 2003). By the early 1990s, the Windsor Park
(Shlemon, 2004). Examples from Arizona and Nevada show subdivision in North Las Vegas was so impacted by earth fis
the extent of damage that can result from earth fissures related sures (figure 38) that 135 homes had to be abandoned and re
to groundwater mining. moved at a cost of about $20 million, and another 105 homes
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 99

required significant repairs (Bell, 2003; Saines and others,

2006). Most earth fissures in Las Vegas Valley are associated
with pre-existing bedrock faults (Bell and Price, 1991; Bell
and others, 2002; Bell and Amelung, 2003; Bell, 2004). Artifi
cial aquifer recharge has caused a decline in subsidence rates
in Las Vegas Valley since 1991 of 50%–80%, depending upon
location (Bell and others, 2002).

SOURCES OF LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND

EARTH-FISSURE INFORMATION
The UGS has investigated land subsidence and earth fissures
over the past decade in selected areas of Utah (DuRoss and
Kirby, 2004; Lund and others, 2005; Forester, 2006, 2012;
Katzenstein, 2013; Knudsen and others, 2014). Additionally,
see the Literature Searches and Information Resources section
in chapter 2 for information on other geologic-hazard reports,
maps, archives, and databases maintained by the UGS that
may be relevant to land subsidence and earth fissures, as well
as information on the UGS’ extensive aerial photograph and
light detection and ranging (lidar) imagery collections.

Water-level data are available from the U.S. Geological Sur

vey National Water Information System (http://waterdata.
usgs.gov/nwis) and UGS Groundwater Monitoring Data Por
tal (http://geology.utah.gov/resources/data-databases/ground
water-monitoring/).
Figure 33. Earth fissure in Escalante Valley eroded after intercepting
surface water runoff. Photo taken in January 2005.

Figure 34. Damage to street pavement by an earth fissure in Cedar Valley across which differential displacement is occuring at a rate of about
2 inches per year. Photo taken July 2015.
100 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 35. Earth-fissure scarp in Cedar Valley blocking an ephemeral drainage and causing water to pond along the fissure in a feed lot. Photo
taken in May 2009.

Figure 36. Earth fissure in a subdivision near Phoenix, Arizona, enhanced by erosion during a cloudburst storm. Photo credit: Brian Conway.
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 101

LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE

INVESTIGATION

Disclaimer
Land subsidence and earth fissures related to groundwater
mining are geologic hazards, and as such must be addressed
during land development in subsiding areas. However, land
subsidence and earth fissures will likely continue to occur and
expand as long as groundwater mining continues. Additional
ly, given the low permeability of many fine-grained sediment
layers in Utah’s basin-fill aquifers, subsidence may continue
in a diminishing fashion for some time (possibly decades)
after recharge and discharge are balanced as dewatered fine
grained deposits continue to drain and compact (Galloway
and others, 1999).

The fact that land subsidence is not currently occurring in an

area experiencing groundwater mining provides no guarantee
that subsidence will not commence there in the future. Like
wise, the absence of detectable earth fissures at the ground
surface in a subsiding area provides no assurance that fissures
are not present in the shallow subsurface or will not form in
the future. As long as groundwater mining continues, land
subsidence and earth fissures present long-term hazards to
infrastructure that a hazard investigation, no matter how de
Figure 37. Earth fissure intersecting an irrigation canal embankment tailed, can only partially identify and mitigate. For those rea
near Phoenix, Arizona. Photo credit U.S. Bureau of Reclamation sons, it is not possible to establish a standardized method for
(after Carpenter, 1999).

Figure 38. Remains of a home severly damaged by an earth fissure and eventually torn down in the Windsor Park subdivision, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
102 Utah Geological Survey

calculating setbacks from earth fissures as is done for Utah’s Basin-Wide Investigation Guidelines
hazardous faults (chapter 3). Setback distances from fissures
or from areas of anticipated future fissure growth, or other Land subsidence typically affects a large area (tens to hun
forms of land-subsidence and earth-fissure mitigation should dreds of square miles) within groundwater basins subject to
be designed and justified based on site-specific data. To fully groundwater mining. The first consideration when evaluating
ensure the safety of existing infrastructure and future develop land subsidence and earth fissures as geologic hazards is to
ment in subsiding areas, it is necessary to bring aquifer dis determine whether a proposed site and/or project is inside or
charge and recharge into balance so that groundwater mining outside of a subsiding area. If outside, land subsidence and
stops and hazards dissipate. earth fissures are not hazards; if inside or if in an adjacent
area that may be affected by future subsidence and fissuring, a
When to Perform a Land-Subsidence and Earth variety of negative consequences become possible and require
Fissure-Hazard Investigation careful evaluation. Within a subsiding area, the rate of subsid
ence and location of existing earth fissures are critical con
Geologic hazards are best addressed prior to land develop siderations for hazard investigations. Therefore, identifying
ment in affected areas. The UGS recommends that a land and periodically monitoring basin-wide subsidence boundar
subsidence and earth-fissure-hazard investigation be made for ies (subject to change over time with continued groundwater
all new buildings for human occupancy and for modified IBC mining), subsidence amount and rate (likely also variable over
Risk Category II(a), II(b), III, and IV facilities (see table 12 time) within those boundaries, and the location of existing
in chapter 3, modified from IBC table 1604.5 [ICC, 2014a]) earth fissures are first-order, basin-wide priorities for land
that are proposed in confirmed or suspected land-subsidence subsidence and earth-fissure investigations.
areas. Utah jurisdictions that have adopted land-subsidence
and earth-fissure special-study maps identify zones in known Available techniques for identifying subsidence boundaries,
land-subsidence and earth-fissure-susceptible areas within subsidence rates, and earth-fissure locations on a basin-wide
which they require site-specific investigations. The UGS rec scale fall into two principal categories: remote-sensing appli
ommends that investigations as outlined in these guidelines cations and high-precision Global Positioning System (GPS)/
be conducted in alluvial valleys for all IBC Risk Category III Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) monitoring net
works (surveyed benchmarks).
and IV facilities to ensure that previously unknown land-sub
sidence areas and earth-fissures are not present. If a hazard is
found, the UGS recommends a comprehensive investigation Remote Sensing
be conducted. Additionally, in some instances an investigation
may become necessary when existing infrastructure is discov Remote-sensing applications directly applicable to land-sub
ered to be on or adjacent to a subsiding area. sidence and earth-fissure investigations include analysis of ste
reoscopic aerial photographs (from multiple years if available),
The level of investigation conducted for a particular project interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) imagery, lidar
depends on several factors, including (1) site-specific geolog imagery, and other remote sensing data as available.
ic conditions, (2) type of proposed or existing development,
(3) level of acceptable risk, and (4) governmental permitting Aerial photographs: Analysis of stereoscopic aerial photo
requirements, or regulatory agency rules and regulations. A graph pairs is a standard remote-sensing technique long ap
land-subsidence and earth-fissure-hazard investigation may be plied to many kinds of geologic investigations, and requires
conducted separately, or as part of a comprehensive geologic little further explanation here. Where possible, the analysis
hazard and/or geotechnical site investigation (see chapter 2). should include both stereoscopic low-sun-angle and vertical
aerial photography. Applicable to both basin-wide and site
Minimum Qualifications of Investigator specific investigations, aerial photograph analysis can reveal
the presence of earth fissures, particularly those subject to ero
sion or across which differential displacement is occurring, as
Land-subsidence and earth-fissure-related engineering-geolo
gy investigations and accompanying geologic-hazard evalu well as other geomorphic evidence of land subsidence (sink
ations performed before the public shall be conducted by or holes, local subsidence bowls, displaced or warped linear in
under the direct supervision of a Utah licensed Professional frastructure, road damage, etc.). Examination of repeat aerial
Geologist (Utah Code, Title 58-76) who must sign and seal the photographs from multiple years may show fissure growth
final report. Often these investigations are interdisciplinary in (Knudsen and others, 2014), or the progressive development
nature, and where required, must be performed by qualified, of other subsidence-related features.
experienced, Utah licensed Professional Geologists (PG, spe
cializing in engineering geology) and Professional Engineers Google Earth and Bing Maps, among other providers of In
(PE, specializing in geological and/or geotechnical engineer ternet-based, free aerial imagery, are becoming increasingly
ing) working as a team. See Investigator Qualifications sec valuable as rapid reconnaissance tools, and provide high-reso
tion in chapter 2. lution, often color, non-stereoscopic aerial orthophotographs.
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 103

For many locations, Google Earth includes a historical imag

ery archive that permits evaluation of site conditions several
years to decades before present.

InSAR: InSAR is a side-looking, active (produces its own

illumination) radar imaging system that transmits a pulsed mi
crowave signal toward the Earth and records both the ampli
tude and phase of the back-scattered signal that returns to the
antenna (Arizona Department of Water Resources [ADWR],
no date, 2010; Zebker and Goldstein, 1986; Zebker and oth
ers, 1994; appendix D – InSAR Background and Application).
InSAR uses interferometric processing to compare the ampli
tude and phase signals received during one pass of the SAR
(synthetic aperture radar) platform (typically Earth-orbiting
satellites) over a specific geographic area, with the ampli
tude and phase signals received during a second pass over the
same area but at a different time (ADWR, no date). InSAR’s
chief advantage for subsidence monitoring is that it offers an
accurate, rapid, and cost-efficient way to determine the hori
zontal and vertical extent of land subsidence and subsidence
rate variability over a large area to an accuracy of about 1
centimeter. Forster (2006, 2012) demonstrated that long-term
subsidence in southwest Utah is detectable and measurable
with InSAR, and Katzenstein (2013) used InSAR to identify
an approximately 100-square-mile area in Cedar Valley, Iron
County, Utah, affected by subsidence resulting from ground
water mining.

Lidar: Lidar is a remote sensing, laser system that measures

the properties of scattered light to accurately determine the
distance to a target (reflective surface). Lidar is similar to ra
dar, but uses laser pulses instead of radio waves, and com
monly is collected from fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters.
Lidar produces a rapid collection of points (typically more
than 70,000 per second) that results in very dense and accu
Figure 39. Bare-earth lidar image of earth fissures in Cedar Valley,
rate elevation data over a large area (National Oceanic and
Utah. These fissures exhibit vertical down-to-the-east displacement and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2008). The resulting are well expressed on lidar imagery (hillshade image, illumination from
highly accurate, georeferenced elevation points can be used the northwest).
to generate three-dimensional representations of the Earth’s
surface and its features (NOAA, 2008). After processing, lidar
monitoring of existing earth fissure growth and new fissure
data can be used to produce a “bare-earth” terrain model (e.g.,
formation. Appendix C (Lidar Background and Application)
figure 39), in which vegetation and manmade structures have
presents additional information about lidar technology, imag
been removed. Lidar has several advantages over traditional
ery acquisition and processing, and cost.
photogrammetric methods; chief among them are (1) high ac
curacy, (2) high point density, (3) large coverage area, and
(4) the ability to resample areas quickly and efficiently, which High-Precision GPS/GNSS Survey Network
creates the ability to map discrete elevation changes over time
at a very high resolution (NOAA, 2008). The accuracy and coverage of benchmark networks in Utah’s
alluvial valleys are variable. In many areas, benchmarks, par
Lidar offers two important advantages over conventional ticularly older monuments, have been destroyed or disturbed by
aerial photography for documenting and mitigating land sub agricultural or development activities. Constraints on the num
sidence and earth fissures. First, high-resolution, bare-earth ber and locations of existing benchmarks may allow for only
lidar images can be used to identify and map currently unrec a general determination of the areal and vertical extent of land
ognized earth fissures that are not apparent on conventional subsidence in valley areas, and may not permit adequate moni
aerial photography (Knudsen and others, 2014). Second, re toring of either the rate or distribution of ongoing subsidence.
peat lidar surveys can be used to generate displacement maps Additionally, reported elevations of many older benchmarks
to define the boundaries of subsidence areas, and may allow (e.g., disturbed benchmarks, vertical angle benchmarks, and
104 Utah Geological Survey

some third-order leveled benchmarks) may not be sufficiently 5. Borehole geophysical data from deep wells in the area.
accurate to permit meaningful comparisons with new GPS/ 6. Pumping history of nearby water wells.
GNSS-derived survey data. Estimated uncertainties associated
with both historical leveling and GNSS elevation data should
The Sources of Land Subsidence and Earth-Fissure Informa
be discussed and included in subsidence calculations.
tion section above provides information on Utah’s geology
and past significant instances of land subsidence and earth
Where accurate, long-term monitoring of subsidence is im
fissure formation; however, that list of sources is not exhaus
portant for aquifer management or hazard investigations, the tive, and engineering geologists should identify and review all
UGS recommends that following acquisition of InSAR and
available information relevant to their site of interest.
lidar data to better define the basin-wide boundaries of subsid
ing areas and earth-fissure locations, those data be used to site
a network of high-precision GPS/GNSS survey monuments Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Remote
in subsidence and fissure “hot spots.” Periodic resurveying of Sensing Data
the benchmarks using GPS/GNSS methods permits repeated
high-precision (1–5 mm horizontal/vertical) subsidence mon Analysis of remote sensing data should include interpreta
itoring in areas most important for implementing best aquifer tion of stereoscopic aerial photographs (from multiple years
management practices and hazard evaluation and mitigation. if available), InSAR and lidar imagery, and other remotely
For increased accuracy, detailed subsidence studies typically sensed images as available for evidence of land-subsidence
employ static GPS survey methods rather than RTK surveys and earth-fissure-related lineaments, including vegetation
(http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Hydrology/Geophysics/ lineaments, gullies, scarps formed by surface displacement
GPS.htm). across fissures, and vegetation/soil contrasts. Where possible,
the analysis should include both stereoscopic low-sun-angle
GPS/GNSS surveys should follow the latest versions of the and vertical aerial photography. Examination of repeat aerial
National Geodetic Survey guidelines for establishing ellip photographs and/or lidar imagery from multiple years may
soid (Zilkoski and others, 1997) and orthometric (Zilkoski show fissure growth (Knudsen and others, 2014). The area in
and others, 2008) heights. High-quality floating sleeved rod terpreted should extend sufficiently beyond the site boundaries
or other appropriate monuments that reduce near-surface soil to identify off-site subsidence areas or fissures that might af
movements, such as from expansive soils, are recommended fect the site. Note that analysis of InSAR and lidar data has be
for precise vertical measurements. For bedrock sites, UNAV come “state of practice” for land-subsidence and earth-fissure
CO has developed stable mounting structures to isolate GPS/ investigations; therefore, investigations not employing those
GNSS instruments from near-surface soil movements (http:// techniques are at best reconnaissance-level investigations.
pbo.unavco.org/instruments/gps/monumentation).
Surface Investigation
Site-Specific Investigation Guidelines
Surface investigations should include mapping of (1) geologic
and soil units, (2) fissures and sinkholes, (3) faults and other
Literature Review
geologic structures, (4) geomorphic features and surfaces, (5)
vegetation lineaments, (6) animal burrowing patterns, and (7)
The following published and unpublished information (as avail deformation of engineered structures both on and beyond the
able) should be reviewed in preparation for both basin-wide and site, as appropriate. Special attention should be paid to linear
site-specific land-subsidence and earth-fissure investigations: infrastructure such as roadways, railroads, canals, dams, levees,
1. Published and unpublished geologic and engineering lit airport runways, etc. Level surveys of linear infrastructure and
erature, maps, cross sections, and records relevant to the comparison with as-built elevations may detect the presence or
site and site region’s geology and hydrology, and past absence of measurable subsidence, and in the case of dams, le
history of land subsidence and earth-fissure formation. vees, and other fluid conveyance and retention facilities, should
2. Survey data that may indicate past land subsidence, be made to determine if infrastructure integrity and safety
have been compromised. Protruding well heads often provide
particularly as-built plans of linear infrastructure such
evidence of land subsidence, and in some instances may allow
as roads, canals, dams, airport runways, and levees for
measurement of subsidence at a point (figure 40). Observed
historical elevation data, or as-built design grades that
features should be documented with detailed photographs, in
can be compared to current elevations. Be aware of any
cluding metadata (date, location, feature observed, etc.).
historical vertical datum changes and/or shifts, includ
ing geoid changes.
Subsurface Investigation
3. Maintenance records of nearby wells for signs of sub
sidence-related damage.
Earth fissures related to groundwater mining tend to be verti
4. Water-level data and subsurface geologic units from cal to near-vertical features (figures 30 and 41) extending to
nearby water-well and geotechnical borehole logs. hundreds of feet deep. In an uneroded state, the aperture of an
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 105

characterization may be especially important when assessing

whether subsurface conditions are consistent with a surface
feature being a subsidence-related earth fissure or a less haz
ardous giant desiccation crack. Subsurface investigation tech
niques may include, but are not limited to:
1. Trenching or test pits with appropriate logging and doc
umentation to permit detailed and direct observation of
continuously exposed geologic units, soils, fissures, and
other geologic features. This includes trenching across
known or suspected earth fissures and fissure zones to
determine their location and width, geometry and depth,
and displacement. When uneroded or filled, earth fis
sures are often very subtle features, so logging should
be performed in sufficient detail to detect their presence.
In preparation for logging, trench walls should be care
fully cleaned to permit direct observation of the geol
Figure 40. Protruding well head due to land subsidence resulting from
groundwater mining. Photo taken September 2014. ogy. Trenches should be logged at a minimum scale of
1 inch = 5 feet (1:60), and all logs should be prepared in
the field under the direct supervision of a Utah licensed
Professional Geologist. Vertical and horizontal logging
control should be used and shown on the log. The logs
should not be generalized or diagrammatic, and may be
on a rectified photomosaic base. The log should docu
ment all pertinent information from the trench, includ
ing (1) trench orientation and indication of which wall
was logged, (2) horizontal and vertical control, (3) top
and bottom of trench wall(s), (4) stratigraphic contacts,
(5) lithology and soil classification, (6) pedogenic soil
horizons, (7) marker beds, (8) fissures and faults, (9)
fissure/ fault orientations and geometry (strike and
dip), (10) fissure displacement and aperture, and (11)
sample locations (e.g., Birkeland and others, 1991;
Bonilla and Lienkaemper, 1991; U.S. Bureau of Rec
lamation, 1998b; Walker and Cohen, 2006; McCalpin,
2009). Logs should be prepared for all trenches, even if
fissures are not encountered.
2. The trench should be deep enough to expose all rele
vant aspects of fissure geometry (dip, width, associated
subsidiary features). Where the maximum trench depth
achievable, generally 15 to 20 feet, is not sufficient to
adequately characterize suspected fissures, the practi
cal limitations of trenching should be acknowledged
in the report and uncertainties should be reflected in
report conclusions and recommendations. Boreholes,
CPT soundings, and geophysical techniques (see no. 4
Figure 41. Vertical earth fissure in Cedar Valley exposed in the end of an below) may help extend the depth of investigation.
erosional gully formed along the fissure by infiltration of surface runoff. More than one trench may be necessary to investi
Photo taken August 2009. gate a site or building footprint, particularly when the
proposed development is large, involves more than
earth fissure may be 0.25 to 1 inch or less (figure 31), and may one building, and/or is characterized by complex fis
be open or filled. Situations may arise where surficial expres sure patterns. Generally, subsurface data should not
sion of earth fissures is lacking, but the presence or absence be extrapolated more than 300 feet without additional
of shallow subsurface earth fissures that could lead to future subsurface information. Complex fissure zones may
surface expression should be assessed. Lateral subsurface in require closer trench spacing. When trenches must be
vestigation methods such as trenching or shallow geophys offset to accommodate site conditions, sufficient over
ics tend to be most effective in these situations. Subsurface lap should be provided to avoid gaps in trench cover
106 Utah Geological Survey

age perpendicular to the fissure. Tightly spaced trench include, but are not limited to, high-resolution seismic
es may only need minor (a few tens of feet) overlap; reflection, ground penetrating radar, seismic refraction,
however, more widely spaced trenches require greater magnetic profiling, electrical resistivity, and gravity.
overlap to ensure continuous site coverage.
Test pits may provide useful information regarding site Other Investigation Methods
subsurface conditions; however, test pits are not an
acceptable alternative to trenches. A series of aligned Other methods may be incorporated in land-subsidence and
test pits perpendicular to the fissure trend cannot ad earth-fissure investigations when conditions permit or require
equately demonstrate the presence or absence of fissur ments for critical structures or facilities require more intensive
ing because fissures trending between test pits may not investigation or monitoring over extended time periods. Pos
be detected. sible methods may include, but are not limited to:
Trenches and fissures should be accurately located on 1. Aerial reconnaissance flights, including high-resolu
site plans and geologic maps. The UGS recommends tion aerial photography.
that trenches and fissures (projected to the ground sur 2. Installation of piezometers.
face) be surveyed rather than located using a hand-held
3. Local high-precision surveying or geodetic measure
GPS device.
ments, including comparison surveys with infrastruc
Trench investigations should be performed in compli ture design grades and long-term monitoring employ
ance with current Occupational Safety and Health Ad ing repeat surveys.
ministration (OSHA) excavation safety regulations and
4. Strain (displacement) measurement both at the surface
standards (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/trenchingexca
vation/construction.html). See Excavation Safety sec and in boreholes as part of a long-term monitoring pro
tion in chapter 2 for additional information. gram (Galloway and others, 1999).
5. Geochronologic analysis, including but not limited to
3. Boreholes and CPT soundings permit collection of data
on geologic units and groundwater, and may verify fis radiometric dating (e.g., 14C, 40Ar/39Ar), luminescence
sure plane geometry. Vertically focused investigation dating, soil-profile development, fossils, tephrochro
methods such as boreholes and CPT soundings are use nology, and dendrochronology (see Geochronology
ful for general subsurface characterization in a potential section of chapter 2).
fissure zone; however, an uneroded earth fissure in the
subsurface is a very small target for vertically directed
investigation methods. CPT soundings should be done
in conjunction with continuously logged boreholes to LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE
correlate CPT data with the physical characteristics of MITIGATION
subsurface geologic units. Data points should be suf
ficient in number and adequately spaced to permit reli Early recognition and avoidance of areas subject to land sub
able correlations and interpretations; however, it may sidence and earth fissures are the most effective means of
not be possible to detect an earth fissure in a borehole mitigating land-subsidence and earth-fissure hazards. How
or CPT sounding. ever, because avoidance may not always be a viable or cost
4. Geophysical investigations are indirect, non-destructive effective option, especially for existing facilities (figures 34,
37, and 38), the UGS provides the following general recom
methods that can be reliably interpreted when site
mendations (modified from Price and others [1992], Ken
specific surface and subsurface geologic conditions Euge [Geological Consultants, Inc., written communication,
are known. Geophysical methods should seldom be
2010], and Knudsen and others [2014]) to reduce the impact
employed without knowledge of site geology; howev of land subsidence and earth fissures. However, other mitiga
er, where no other subsurface geologic information is
tion techniques may be available/appropriate at a specific site,
available, geophysical methods may provide the only
and the engineering geologist should base mitigation recom
economically viable means of deep geologic reconnais
mendations on site-specific data.
sance (e.g., Chase and Chapman, 1976; Telford and oth
ers, 1990; Sharma, 1998; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, • Stop mining groundwater and manage basin-fill aqui
2001; Milsom and Eriksen, 2007; Reynolds, 2011). fers as renewable resources. Adopt best aquifer man
agement practices to bring long-term recharge of ba
Although geophysical methods can be used to detect
sin-fill aquifers into balance with long-term discharge.
the presence and location of shallow earth fissures, such
Possible strategies for achieving safe yield include:
methods alone never prove the absence of a fissure at
depth. Geophysical methods can provide critical in a. Import water from other basins.
formation concerning subsidence potential, especially b. Recharge aquifers artificially, including aquifer
compressible basin-fill and bedrock geometry that may storage and recovery projects.
not otherwise be available. Geophysical techniques may
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 107

c. Relocate concentrations of high-discharge wells to structures, pipelines and canals, liquid waste disposal
dispersed locations away from subsiding areas. systems, hazardous materials processing and storage
d. Establish a subsidence abatement district respon facilities) may be necessary in areas of rapid ongoing
sible for setting water policy and priorities (such as subsidence or rapid earth fissuring.
reducing water rights, permitting production wells, • Disclose the presence of land subsidence and earth
or taxing groundwater pumping) and for develop fissures during real-estate transactions so prospective
ing continued subsidence mitigation strategies. This property owners can make their own informed deci
function may naturally fall to water conservancy sions regarding risk.
districts, where such districts already exist.
e. Implement water conservation practices to re
duce groundwater consumption over time (reduce
groundwater pumping) to achieve safe yield.
LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE
INVESTIGATION REPORT
• Define basin-wide land-subsidence- and earth-fissure
hazard zones and require that land subsidence and earth The UGS recommends that a report prepared for a land-sub
fissures be carefully investigated on a site-specific ba
sidence and earth-fissure investigation in Utah should, at a
sis in those areas prior to new development.
minimum, address the topics below. Site conditions may re
• Avoid land-subsidence areas and earth fissures where quire that additional items be included to fully evaluate these
and when possible. hazards; these guidelines do not relieve engineering geolo
• When avoidance is not possible, land subsidence and gists from their duty to perform additional geologic investiga
earth fissures should be integrated into project design tions as necessary to adequately assess land-subsidence and
to provide a factor of safety for development. Because earth-fissure hazards. The report presenting the investigation
earth fissures caused by groundwater mining may ex results must be prepared, stamped, and signed by a Utah li
pand over time and new fissures may form if groundwa censed Professional Geologist (Utah Code, 2011) with experi
termining persists, it is not possible to establish standard ence in conducting land-subsidence and earth-fissure investi
setback distances or implement a standardized method gations. Reports co-prepared by a Utah licensed Professional
for calculating fissure setbacks as is done for hazardous Engineer or Utah licensed Professional Land Surveyor must
faults (chapter 3). Therefore, the UGS does not make include the engineer’s and/or surveyor’s stamp and signature.
a standard setback recommendation, but rather recom The report guidelines below pertain to investigations of land
mends that the engineering geologist in responsible subsidence and earth-fissure hazards resulting from ground
charge of the land-subsidence and earth-fissure investi water mining, and expand on the general guidance provided
gation make and justify an appropriate setback based on in the Engineering-Geology Investigations and Engineering
the results of a site-specific hazard investigation. Geology Reports sections of chapter 2.
• Keep water out of earth fissures to prevent erosion; A. Text
control surface runoff. a. Purpose and scope of investigation. If a site-specific
• Limit irrigation in earth-fissure areas; landscape with investigation, describe the location and size of the
drought-resistant native vegetation. site and proposed type and number of buildings or
other infrastructure if known.
• Prevent construction of retention basins or dry wells
b. Geologic, topographic, and hydrologic setting. The
and avoid effluent disposal (including on-site wastewa
ter disposal) in earth-fissure areas. report should contain a clear and concise statement
of the region/site’s geologic, topographic, and hy
• Establish a long-term, basin-wide monitoring program drologic setting. The section should include a dis
(InSAR, lidar, high-precision GPS/GNSS surveying) cussion of known land subsidence or earth fissures
to track the occurrence, magnitude, and growth of sub in the area, and should reference pertinent published
sidence areas and earth fissures. and unpublished geologic literature.
• Recognize that without effective mitigation of ground c. Site description and conditions. Include dates of
water mining, the long-term consequences of land sub site visits and observations. Include information
sidence and earth fissures are potentially serious. Be on geologic and soil units, hydrology, topogra
cause areas of land subsidence and earth fissures will phy, distribution and condition of existing bench
expand over time with continued groundwater min marks, graded and filled areas, vegetation, existing
ing, quantifying the future effects of land subsidence structures, presence of fissures on or near the site,
and earth fissures at a site may not be possible even evidence of land subsidence, and other factors that
after a careful hazard investigation. Additionally, even may affect the choice of investigative methods and
with innovative engineering design, limiting certain interpretation of data.
kinds of land use (e.g., water conveyance or retention
108 Utah Geological Survey

d. Methods and results of investigation. f. Recommendations.

1. Literature Review. Summarize published and 1. Recommendations must be supported by the re
unpublished topographic and geologic maps, port conclusions and be presented in a clear and
literature, and records regarding geologic units, concise manner.
faults, geomorphic features, surface water and 2. If earth fissures are present on site, provide set
groundwater, benchmark elevation data, previ back or other mitigation recommendations as
ous land subsidence and earth fissures, and other
necessary, and justify based on site-specific data.
relevant factors pertinent to the site.
3. Mitigation measures to control fissure growth
2. Interpretation of Remote-Sensing Imagery. De and reduce risk from land subsidence, such as
scribe the results of remote-sensing-imagery in preventing surface water from entering fissures,
terpretation, including stereoscopic aerial pho strengthening structures that must bridge fis
tographs, InSAR, lidar, and other remote-sens sures, and using flexible utility connections in
ing data when available, conducted to identify subsidence areas or where utilities cross fissures
evidence of land subsidence and earth fissures. displaying differential displacement.
List source, date, flight-line numbers, and scale
of aerial photos or other imagery used. 4. Construction testing, observation, inspection,
and long-term monitoring.
3. Surface Investigation. Describe pertinent sur
face features including mapping of geologic and 5. Limitations on the investigation and recommen
soil units; geomorphic features such as scarps, dations for additional investigation to better un
springs, and seeps; fissures; faults; and describe derstand or quantify hazards.
methodology and quality of data used to deter B. References
mine the amount and distribution of subsidence a. Literature and records cited or reviewed; citations
including sources of historical elevation data,
should be complete (see References section of this
surveying methods, and accuracy/uncertainties
publication for examples).
involved with subsidence calculations.
b. Remote-sensing images interpreted; list type, date,
4. Subsurface Investigation. Describe trenching
project identification codes, scale, source, and in
and other subsurface investigations (test pits,
dex numbers.
borings, CPT soundings, geophysics) conducted
to evaluate earth fissures at the site. The strike, c. Other sources of information, including survey data,
dip, and vertical displacement (or minimum well records, personal communication, and other
displacement if total displacement cannot be data sources.
determined) across fissures should be recorded. C. Illustrations. Should include at a minimum:
Trench logs should be included with the report a. Location map. Showing the area investigated (re
and should be prepared in the field at a scale of gion or site specific) and significant physiographic
1 inch = 5 feet or larger. and cultural features, generally at 1:24,000 scale
e. Conclusions. or larger and indicating the Public Land Survey
1. Conclusions must be supported by adequate System ¼-section, township, and range; and the
data, and the report should present those data in site latitude and longitude to four decimal places
a clear and concise manner. with datum.
2. Data provided should include evidence establish b. Site development map. For site-specific investiga
ing the presence or absence of land subsidence tions showing site boundaries, existing and pro
and earth fissures on or near a site and relation posed structures, other infrastructure, and site to
to proposed or existing infrastructure. Report dis pography. The map scale may vary depending on
placement across earth fissures if present. the size of the site and area covered by the study;
the minimum recommended scale is 1 inch = 200
3. Statement of relative risk that addresses the
feet (1:2400) or larger when necessary. The site
probability or relative potential for growth of
development map may be combined with the site
existing or future earth fissures and the rate and
specific geology map (see below).
amount of anticipated land subsidence. This
may be stated in semi-quantitative terms such c. Regional geology/land-subsidence map. A regional
as low, moderate, or high as defined within the scale (1:24,000 to 1:50,000) map showing the in
report, or quantified in terms of fissure growth vestigation area’s geologic setting, including geo
rates or land subsidence rates. logic units, faults, other geologic structures, areas
of land subsidence, and earth fissures within a 10
4. Degree of confidence in, and limitations of, the
mile radius of the development site. Depending on
data and conclusions.
Chapter 6 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 109

project size and complexity, it may be necessary to Logs should include interpretations and evidence
show a larger area.
for the age and origin of geologic units. Study limi
d. Site-specific geology map. For site-specific inves tations should be clearly stated for suspected earth
tigations, a site-scale geology map showing (1) fissures where un-fissured deposits are deeper than
distribution of geologic and soil units, (2) earth practical excavation depths.
fissures, (3) land-subsidence areas, (4) faults, (5) g. Borehole and CPT sounding logs. Borehole and
springs and seeps, whether aligned or not, (6) other CPT sounding logs should include the geologic
relevant geomorphic features, and (7) trench and interpretation of deposit genesis for all layers en
boring locations, wells and piezometers, geophysi countered; logs should not be generalized or dia
cal transects, survey lines, relevant benchmarks, grammatic. Because boreholes are typically multi
and other kinds of monitoring locations. Scale of purpose, borehole logs may also contain standard
site geologic maps will vary depending on the size geotechnical, geologic, and groundwater data.
of the site and area of investigation; minimum rec
h. Geophysical data and interpretations.
ommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or
larger when necessary. i. Photographs that enhance understanding of site sur
If on-site investigations reveal the presence of land face and subsurface (trench and test pit walls) con
subsidence or earth fissures, the boundary and mag ditions with applicable metadata.
nitude of the subsiding area and earth-fissure loca D. Authentication
tions should be shown on either the site-specific The report must be signed and sealed by a Utah li
geologic map or on a separate land-subsidence and censed Professional Geologist in principal charge
earth-fissure-hazard map depending on site scale of the investigation (Title 58-76-10 ‒ Professional
and complexity. If earth-fissure avoidance is the Geologists Licensing Act [Utah Code, 2011]). Final
mitigation strategy employed, an appropriate set geologic maps, trench logs, cross sections, sketches,
back should be shown either on the site-specific drawings, and plans, prepared by or under the super
geology map, or on a separate land-subsidence and vision of a professional geologist, also must bear the
earth-fissure-hazard map. seal of the professional geologist (Utah Code, 2011).
e. Geologic/topographic cross sections. Site geologic Reports co-prepared by a Utah licensed Professional
cross sections should be included as needed to illus Engineer and/or Utah licensed Professional Land Sur
trate three-dimensional geologic relations. veyor must include the engineer’s or surveyor’s stamp
and signature.
f. Trench and test pit log(s). Logs are required for
each trench and test pit excavated as part of the in E. Appendices
vestigation whether earth fissures are encountered Include supporting data relevant to the investigation
or not. Logs are hand- or computer-drawn maps of not given in the text such as maps, boring logs, cross
excavation walls that show details of geologic units sections, conceptual models, fence diagrams, survey
and structures. Logs should be to scale and not gen data, water-well data, geochronology laboratory re
eralized or diagrammatic, and may be on a rectified ports, laboratory test data, and qualifications state
photomosaic base. The scale (horizontal and vertical) ments/resume.
should be 1 inch = 5 feet (1:60) or larger as neces
sary and with no vertical exaggeration. Logs should
be prepared in the field and accurately reflect the
features observed in the excavation, as noted below. FIELD REVIEW
Photographs are not a substitute for trench logs.
The log should document all pertinent information The UGS recommends a technical field review by the regu
from the trench, including (1) trench and test-pit ori latory-authority geologist once a land-subsidence and earth
entation and indication of which wall was logged, fissure-hazard investigation is complete. The field review
(2) horizontal and vertical control, (3) top and bot should take place after any trenches or test pits are logged,
but before they are closed so subsurface site conditions can
tom of trench wall(s), (4) stratigraphic contacts, (5)
be directly observed and evaluated. See Field Review section
lithology and soil classification, (6) pedogenic soil
in chapter 2.
horizons, (7) marker beds, (8) fissures and faults,
(9) fissure orientations and geometry (strike and
dip), (10) fissure displacement, and (11) sample
locations (e.g., Birkeland and others, 1991; U.S. REPORT REVIEW
Bureau of Reclamation, 1998b; Walker and Cohen,
2006; McCalpin, 2009). Logs should be prepared The UGS recommends regulatory review of all reports by a
for all trenches, even if fissures are not encountered. Utah licensed Professional Geologist experienced in land
110 Utah Geological Survey

subsidence and earth-fissure-hazard investigations and acting

on behalf of local governments to protect public health, safe
ty, and welfare, and to reduce risks to future property owners
(Larson, 1992, 2015). See Report Review section in chapter 2.

DISCLOSURE
The UGS recommends disclosure during real-estate trans
actions whenever an engineering-geology investigation has
been performed. See Disclosure section in chapter 2.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

David Black and Rick Rosenberg (Rosenberg Associates),

Kelly Crane (Ensign), Ken Euge (Geological Consultants,
Inc.), Ken Fergason and Michael Rucker (AMEC Earth and
Environmental, Inc.), Pete Rowley (Geologic Mapping, Inc.),
David Simon (Simon Associates, LLC), Ralph Weeks (Geo
Southwest, LLC), and Gregg Beukelman, Steve Bowman,
Paul Inkenbrandt, Tyler Knudsen, Mike Lowe, Adam McK
ean, and Rich Giraud (Utah Geological Survey) provided in
sightful comments and additional data that substantially im
proved the utility of these guidelines.
 CHAPTER 7
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING ROCKFALL
HAZARDS IN UTAH
by
William R. Lund, P.G., and Tyler R. Knudsen, P.G.

Rockfall in 2013 that damaged a residence in St. George, Utah, and severly injured the occupant.

Suggested citation: Lund, W.R., and Knudsen, T.R., 2016, Guidelines for evaluating rockfall hazards in Utah, in Bowman, S.D.,
and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a sug
gested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 111–123.
112 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 7 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 113

CHAPTER 7: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING

ROCKFALL HAZARDS IN UTAH
by William R. Lund, P.G., and Tyler R. Knudsen, P.G.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of these guidelines is to provide appropriate min

imum rockfall investigation and report criteria to:
These guidelines present the recommended minimum ac • protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public by
ceptable level of effort for investigating rockfall hazards in minimizing the adverse effects of rockfalls;
Utah, and are intended for site-specific investigations for new
• assist local governments in regulating land use in haz
structures for human occupancy and for International Build
ardous areas and provide standards for ordinances;
ing Code (IBC) Risk Category II, III, and IV facilities (In
ternational Code Council [ICC], 2014a). The intent of these • assist engineering geologists in conducting reasonable
guidelines is to assist engineering geologists performing rock and adequate investigations;
fall investigations, and to reduce, to the lowest level possible, • provide engineering geologists with a common basis
epistemic uncertainty (lack of necessary data) in evaluating for preparing proposals, conducting investigations, and
rockfall hazard by conducting adequate hazard investigations. recommending rockfall-mitigation strategies; and
Aleatory variability (natural randomness) in rockfall behav
ior cannot be reduced; therefore, predicting exactly when and • provide an objective framework for preparation and re
where future rockfalls will occur and how large they will be is view of reports.
not possible. For that reason, developing property on or near
These guidelines are not intended to supersede pre-existing
rockfall-susceptible areas will always involve a level of ir
reducible, inherent risk. state or federal regulations or local geologic-hazard ordi
nances, but provide useful information to supplement adopted
These guidelines outline (1) appropriate investigation meth ordinances/regulations, and assist in preparation of new ordi
ods, (2) report content, (3) map and illustration criteria and nances. The UGS believes adherence to these guidelines will
scales, (4) mitigation recommendations, (5) minimum criteria help ensure adequate, cost-effective investigations and mini
for review of reports, and (6) recommendations for geologic mize report review time.
hazard disclosure. However, these guidelines do not include
systematic descriptions of all available investigative tech Background
niques or topics, nor does the UGS suggest that all techniques
or topics are appropriate for every hazard investigation. Rockfall is a natural mass-wasting process that involves the
dislodging and rapid downslope movement of individual rocks
Considering the complexity of evaluating rockfall hazard, ad and rock masses (Cruden and Varnes, 1996). The widespread
ditional effort beyond the minimum criteria recommended in combination of steep slopes capped by well-jointed bedrock
these guidelines may be required at some sites to adequately makes rockfall among the most common slope-failure types
address rockfall hazard. The information presented in these in Utah. Rockfall poses a hazard because falling, rolling, or
guidelines does not relieve engineering geologists of the duty bouncing rocks and boulders can cause significant property
to perform additional geologic investigations necessary to damage and be life threatening (Smith and Petley, 2009) (fig
fully assess the rockfall hazard at a site. As required by Utah ure 42). At least 20 deaths directly attributable to rockfalls
state law (Utah Code, 2011), rockfall investigation reports have occurred in Utah since 1850 (Hylland, 1995; Case, 2000;
and supporting documents must be signed and stamped by the Castleton, 2009; Lund and others, 2010, 2014; chapter 1). Sig
licensed Utah Professional Geologist in responsible charge of nificant damaging or fatal rockfalls in Utah include Big Cot
the investigation. tonwood Canyon and the San Juan River in 1999 (Castleton,
2009); the Town of Rockville in 2002 (Lund, 2002a, 2002b;
Purpose Rowley and others, 2002), 2010 (Knudsen, 2011), and 2013
(Lund and others, 2014); Provo in 2005 (Giraud and Christen
son, 2010) and 2009 (Giraud and others, 2010); State Route
A rockfall-hazard investigation uses the characteristics of past 14 in 2009 (Lund and others 2009a, 2009b); and St. George in
rockfalls at a site as a scientific basis for providing recommen 2013 (Lund, 2013). See Case (2000) for a list of notable Utah
dations to reduce the risk for damage and injury from future,
rockfalls in the 1980s and 1990s.
presumably similar, rockfalls.
114 Utah Geological Survey

Figure 42. Rockfall damage to a house in southern Utah. Rockfall Figure 43. Site showing rockfall source (cliff attop of slope), acceleration
boulder leaning against wall passed entirely through the house and zone (steep slope below cliff), and runout zone (base of steep slope near
struck a vehicle in the driveway. Photo credit: Dave Black, Rosenberg barn and corral). See figure 46 for related information. Photo credit:
Associates, photo taken February 2010. Dave Black, Rosenberg Associates, photo taken February 2010.

Rockfalls occur where a source of rock exists above a slope ground section above). Additionally, the Literature Searches
steep enough to allow rapid downslope movement of dislodged and Information Resources section in chapter 2 provides in
rocks by falling, rolling, bouncing, and sliding (figure 43). formation on other geologic-hazard reports, maps, archives,
Rockfall sources include bedrock outcrops or boulders on steep and databases maintained by the UGS and others that may
mountainsides or near the edges of escarpments such as cliffs, be relevant to rockfalls, as well as information on the UGS’
bluffs, and terraces. Talus cones and scree-covered slopes are extensive aerial photograph and light detection and ranging
indicators of a high rockfall hazard, but other less obvious areas (lidar) imagery collections.
may also be vulnerable (Lund and others, 2010). Slope modi
fications such as cuts for roads and building pads and clearing Rockfall Characterization and Control (Turner and Schuster,
slope vegetation for development or from wildfire can increase 2012) is the best currently available general reference for in
or create rockfall hazards, as can construction of non-engi vestigating and mitigating rockfall hazard. Although chiefly
neered and/or poorly constructed rockery walls, which are be concerned with the effects of rockfall on transportation corri
coming increasingly common in Utah urban areas (figure 44). dors, much of the information contained in this comprehensive
publication is directly applicable to site-specific investigations
Rockfalls may be triggered by freeze/thaw action, rainfall, for human-occupied structures and high-risk infrastructure.
changes in groundwater conditions, weathering and erosion of
the rock and/or surrounding material, and root growth (Smith
and Petley, 2009). Rockfall is the most common type of mass
movement caused by earthquakes. Keefer (1984) stated that
ROCKFALL-HAZARD INVESTIGATION
earthquakes as small as magnitude (M) 4.0 can trigger rock
falls. In Utah, the 1988 ML 5.3 San Rafael Swell earthquake When to Perform a Rockfall-Hazard Investigation
triggered multiple rockfalls (figure 45) (Case, 2000), and the
1992 ML 5.8 St. George earthquake caused numerous rockfalls Geologic hazards are best addressed prior to land develop
in Washington County (Black and others, 1995). However, ment. The UGS recommends that a rockfall-hazard investi
many rockfalls occur with no identifiable trigger. Although not gation be made for all new buildings for human occupancy
well documented, rockfalls in Utah appear to occur more fre and for modified IBC Risk Category II(a), II(b), III, and IV
quently during spring and summer months (Case, 2000). This facilities (modified from IBC table 1604.5 [ICC, 2014a]; see
is likely due to spring snowmelt, summer cloudburst storms, table 12 in chapter 2) that are proposed on or adjacent to areas
and large daily temperature variations (Castleton, 2009). where bedrock crops out on steep slopes. Utah jurisdictions
that have adopted rockfall special-study maps identify zones
in known rockfall-susceptible areas within which they require
a site-specific investigation. The UGS recommends that in
SOURCES OF ROCKFALL INFORMATION vestigations as outlined in these guidelines be conducted for
all IBC Risk Category III and IV facilities on or adjacent to
The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) has investigated numer areas where bedrock crops out on steep slopes, whether near
ous rockfalls over the past three and a half decades (see Back a mapped rockfall area or not, to ensure that a previously un
Chapter 7 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 115

Figure 44. Unreinforced rockery wall typical of many constructed in recent years in Utah. Strong ground shaking during an earthquake may cause
such walls to fail and generate urban rockfalls. Photo taken January 2013.

fore the public shall be conducted by or under the direct su

pervision of a Utah licensed Professional Geologist (Utah
Code, Title 58-76) who must sign and seal the final report.
Often these investigations are interdisciplinary in nature,
and where required, must be performed by qualified, experi
enced, Utah licensed Professional Geologists (PG, specializ
ing in engineering geology) and Professional Engineers (PE,
specializing in geological and/or geotechnical engineering)
working as a team. See Investigator Qualifications section
in chapter 2.

Investigation Methods

Inherent in rockfall investigations is the assumption that fu

Figure 45. Dust clouds created by numerous rockfalls during the
1988 M 5.3 San Rafael Swell earthquake (photo courtesy of Terry A. ture rockfalls will in most instances occur in areas subject to
Humphrey, U.S. Bureau of Land Management). previous rockfalls, and in a manner generally consistent with
past rockfall events. A site-specific rockfall investigation typ
known rockfall hazard is not present. If a hazard is found, ically includes at a minimum:
the UGS recommends a comprehensive investigation be con • Literature review.
ducted. Additionally, in some instances an investigation may • Analysis of stereoscopic aerial photographs and other
become necessary when existing infrastructure is discovered remote-sensing imagery.
to be on or adjacent to a rockfall-susceptible area.
• Site characterization, usually including surficial geo
The level of investigation conducted for a particular project logic mapping, measuring rockfall shadow angles,
depends on several factors, including (1) site-specific geolog and characterizing rockfall source areas, acceleration
ic conditions, (2) type of proposed or existing development, zones, and runout areas.
(3) level of acceptable risk, and (4) governmental permitting • Other investigations as necessary to fully evaluate the
requirements, or regulatory agency rules and regulations. A rockfall hazard at a site (e.g., computer modeling, bore
landslide-hazard investigation may be conducted separately, holes, geophysics, slope and groundwater instrumenta
or as part of a comprehensive geologic-hazard and/or geotech tion and monitoring) (see also chapter 2).
nical site investigation (see chapter 2).
Literature Review
Minimum Qualifications of Investigator
Prior to the start of field investigations, an engineering ge
Rockfall-related engineering-geology investigations and ologist conducting a rockfall investigation should review
accompanying geologic-hazard evaluations performed be published and unpublished (as available) geologic literature,
116 Utah Geological Survey

geologic and topographic maps, cross sections, consultant’s A first-order consideration when performing a rockfall inves
reports, and records relevant to the site and site region’s geol tigation is whether or not the conditions for rockfall are pres
ogy (see the Literature Searches and Information Resources ent at or near the site of interest. If either a rock source or a
section in chapter 2), with particular emphasis on informa slope steep enough to permit rockfall debris to move rapidly
tion pertaining to the presence of known rockfall sources and downslope are absent, there is no rockfall hazard. The deter
the past history of rockfalls at or near the site of interest. The mination of whether a rockfall hazard is present or not can
Sources of Rockfall Information section above provides in often be made quickly from analysis of aerial photographs or
formation on Utah’s geology and past significant rockfalls; other remote sensing data, or from a brief site reconnaissance.
however, the list of sources is not exhaustive, and engineering
geologists should identify and review all available informa If conditions for rockfall are present on or adjacent to a site (a
tion relevant to their site of interest. rockfall may not follow a direct path downslope), evaluating
the severity of the hazard requires determining the characteris
Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Remote tics of three rockfall-hazard components: (1) the rock source,
Sensing Data which generally consists of a bedrock unit that exhibits a
relatively consistent pattern of rockfall susceptibility where it
A rockfall investigation should include interpretation of ste crops out on or above steep slopes (e.g., the Shinarump Con
reoscopic aerial photographs (from multiple years if avail glomerate Member of the Chinle Formation in southwestern
able), available lidar imagery (appendix C), and other re Utah), although talus, cliff-retreat deposits, glacial moraines,
motely sensed data for evidence of rockfall sources and past and any steep slope in unconsolidated deposits that contain
rockfall activity (see the Literature Searches and Information large cobbles and boulders may also source rockfalls, (2) the
Resources section in chapter 2). Examination of the oldest acceleration zone, where the rockfall debris gains momentum
available aerial photographs may show evidence of rockfalls as it travels downslope; this zone often includes a talus slope,
subsequently obscured by development or other ground dis which becomes less apparent with decreasing relative hazard
turbance. The area interpreted should extend sufficiently be and may be absent where the hazard is low, and (3) the run
yond the site boundaries to identify evidence of off-site rock out zone, which includes gentler slopes and valley bottoms at
fall sources that might affect the site and adequately charac the base of the acceleration-zone slope where boulders roll or
terize patterns of rockfall occurrence. Aerial photographs and bounce as they decelerate and eventually come to a stop (fig
other remote-sensing imagery may prove useful in identifying ure 46) (Evans and Hungr, 1993; Wieczorek and others, 1998;
and mapping local joints, faults, and other bedrock disconti Higgins and Andrews, 2012b).
nuities, and regional geologic structures that may contribute
to rockfall hazard at a site. Rockfall investigations should include mapping susceptible
geologic units and talus slopes, and topographic features
Google Earth and Bing Maps, among other providers of In that may affect rockfall hazard. Rockfall sources should be
ternet-based, free aerial imagery, are becoming increasingly evaluated for (1) rock type (lithology; e.g., U.S. Bureau of
valuable as rapid site-reconnaissance tools, and provide Reclamation, 1998b; Walker and Cohen, 2006), (2) weather
high-resolution, often color, non-stereoscopic aerial ortho ing, (3) discontinuities (bedding, joints, faults, shear zones,
photographs of many sites of interest. For many locations, foliation, schistosity, veins, etc.; e.g., U.S. Bureau of Recla
Google Earth also includes a historical imagery archive that mation, 1998b), and (4) potential clast size. The presence of
permits evaluation of site conditions several years to de bedrock discontinuities in a rock source, and their relation to
cades before present. cliff faces/slope are of particular importance. Discontinuities
may divide a rock source into blocks or wedges and enhance
the ability of a bedrock unit to source rockfalls (provide de
Site Characterization
tachment surfaces), and can also affect the size and shape of
rockfall debris. Important properties of discontinuities include
Rockfall is a surface phenomenon, and as such, the presence (1) orientation, (2) spacing, (3) persistence, (4) roughness, (5)
and severity of a rockfall hazard depend chiefly on site topog weathering, (6) aperture width, (7) aperture filling, and (8)
raphy and the characteristics of the rockfall source. Higgins seepage (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1998b; Higgins and
and Andrew (2012a, table 2-1) identify several types of rock Andrew, 2012b). Discontinuity spacing and other rock-mass
slope failures ranging from simple to complex that may con data are normally recorded by making a scanline survey along
tribute to rockfalls. Readers requiring information on rock a rock outcrop surface or from rock cores (U.S. Bureau of
fall failure mechanisms are directed to Higgins and Andrew Reclamation, 1998b; Higgins and Andrews, 2012b).
(2012a) for a discussion of each failure type and the condi
tions under which they occur. Climatic factors such as precipi
Groundwater conditions should be carefully investigated. The
tation and temperature affect erosion, freeze-thaw cycles, and
presence of groundwater can greatly increase the potential for
groundwater conditions, and are common rockfall triggers.
rockfall by (1) reducing shear strength along failure surfaces,
Earthquakes are a less common phenomena, but earthquakes
may trigger numerous nearly simultaneous rockfalls. (2) decreasing cohesion in infilling materials, (3) increasing
forces that may induce pressure along discontinuities, and (4)
Chapter 7 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 117

Figure 46. Typical rockfall path profile and components of a rockfall shadow angle (modified from Lund and others, 2008).

enhancing freeze-thaw cycles (Higgins and Andrew, 2012a). set back from the boundary of the runout zone determined
Groundwater conditions may exhibit seasonal variations, and using the shadow-angle technique are at greatly reduced risk
thus may require long-term monitoring to accurately gauge from rockfall.
their effect on rockfall conditions.
The UGS recommends establishing the extent of the rockfall
The acceleration zone should be evaluated for (1) slope angle, runout zone at a site using a shadow angle based on the distri
(2) aspect, (3) substrate, (4) surface roughness, (5) vegetation, bution of past rockfall debris, since each past rockfall repre
and (6) launch points (abrupt changes in slope) that may cause sents a field test of rockfall susceptibility at the site. However,
rockfall debris to become airborne. The presence of gullies, pre where rockfall debris has been disturbed or removed, deter
viously fallen boulders, and other sometimes subtle geomorphic mining the limit of the runout-zone boundary can be difficult
or topographic features in the acceleration zone can deflect the or impossible. In those situations, it may be necessary to de
path of a rockfall toward a site, even though the rockfall source termine a shadow angle at a nearby undisturbed site with simi
is not directly above the site of interest. In runout zones, rock lar geologic and topographic conditions, which can then be
fall deposits should be evaluated for (1) distribution, (2) clast applied to the site of interest. Alternatively, in some instances
size, (3) amount of embedding, and (4) weathering of rockfall it may be possible to estimate the boundary of the runout zone
boulders as an indicator of rockfall age (figure 47). below a rock source using rockfall modeling software.

Rockfall shadow angle: At undeveloped sites, or where

rockfall debris has not been disturbed or removed from the
runout zone, empirically establishing the outer boundary of
the area affected by rockfall is often possible by measuring
a rockfall shadow angle (Evans and Hungr, 1993; Wieczorek
and others, 1998; Turner and Duffy, 2012). A shadow angle
is the angle between a horizontal line and a line extending
from the base of the rock source to the outer limit of the run
out zone as defined by the farthest outlier rockfall debris at
a site (figure 46). Shadow angles vary depending on (1) rock
type, (2) rock shape, (3) slope steepness, (4) slope character
istics (such as surface roughness, vegetation, etc.), and (5)
rock source height (Knudsen and Lund, 2013). Multiple mea
surements are necessary to establish a representative shadow
angle; for example, Lund and others (2010) and Knudsen and
Lund (2013) measured dozens of shadow angles in Zion Can
Figure 47. Weathered rockfall boulder with subsequent erosion of soil
yon in southwestern Utah to determine that an angle of 22° is from around the boulder base indicating that this rockfall occurred in the
generally applicable to the geologic and topographic condi distant past and the area may no longer be in an active rockfall-hazard
tions found there. Structures and other infrastructure that are area. Photo taken March 2004.
118 Utah Geological Survey

Rockfall modeling software: The numerical simulation of and the higher the hazard. However, with sufficient data it is
rockfall trajectories is chiefly based on the principles of New possible to estimate the probability (x % chance in y years)
tonian mechanics and can provide reasonably precise estimates of future rockfalls at a site. Conducting a probabilistic anal
of rockfall trajectories, velocities, and kinetic energies (Turner ysis requires information on both the number and timing of
and Duffy, 2012). Numerous rockfall computer models incor past rockfalls (Turner, 2012). Only a few areas in Utah have
porating a variety of assumptions have been developed over both a high rockfall hazard and a history of rockfall damage
the past three decades. Two-dimensional (2-D) simulations to structures to have produced a significant record of histori
based on a “typical” slope profile have been most commonly cal rockfalls. Rockville, Utah, is one such place, where six
applied (e.g., Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program [Jones large rockfalls have occurred over the past 13 years (figure
and others, 2000]; Rocfall [RocScience, 2011]); however, it 48) (Knudsen, 2011; Lund and others, 2014), resulting in an
has long been recognized that 2-D models only partially re average recurrence interval (average repeat time) for large
flect the realities of a three-dimensional (3-D) slope (Turner rockfalls of 2.2 years. The annual probability of a large rock
and Duffy, 2012). Multiple 2-D profiles need to be run to help fall in Rockville based on the 13-year record is 46%. Three
account for the 3-D nature of rockfalls and the surrounding of the rockfalls struck and damaged inhabited structures, and
topography. Appropriate input data are critical, and therefore, one of the three caused two fatalities (figure 49). Such well
the use of “typical” values should be avoided. Often, exten documented rockfall histories are rare, so in most instances,
sive fieldwork is needed to determine rock shape, surface timing of past rockfalls must be determined by other means.
In Yosemite National Park, Stock and others (2012a, 2012b)
roughness, vegetation, etc. for model input values. Attempts
used cosmogenic beryllium-10 exposure ages to date the sur
have been and are being made to develop 3-D rockfall mod
els, although most current models require significantly greater faces of rockfall boulders exposed to cosmogenic radiation
for the first time following the rockfall. They integrated the
computational capability and considerable experience to apply
and interpret properly. Geographic information system (GIS) number of identified rockfall events, rockfall timing data, and
software is increasingly being used to evaluate landslide and computer simulations of rockfall runout to develop a hazard
rockfall hazards. Soeters and van Westen (1996) provided a boundary with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years
for rockfall-susceptible areas of Yosemite Valley. Such de
comprehensive review of GIS techniques and how they can
be used to assess slope instability and establish hazard zones. tailed probabilistic rockfall-hazard investigations are costly
More recently, Fell and others (2008a, 2008b) defined and both in terms of time and money, and are beyond the scope of
most rockfall investigations. However, a probabilistic rockfall
elaborated on the role of GIS analysis in landslide susceptibil
investigation may be required when evaluating hazard and
ity, hazard, and risk zoning, and Van Westen and others (2008)
risk for high-value infrastructure or for areas of prolonged
provided a review of spatial information and GIS techniques
high human occupancy in rockfall-susceptible areas.
in landslide hazard assessment (Turner and Duffy, 2012).
Other Investigation Methods
Providing detailed information on the use of rockfall simu
lation software is beyond the scope of these guidelines. In
vestigators may wish to consult Turner and Duffy (2012) for Other investigation methods may be incorporated in rockfall
an extensive summary of the uses and limitations of current investigations when conditions permit or requirements for
computational rockfall modeling techniques. Most analyti critical structures or facilities make more intensive investiga
cal methods only model the interaction between a single rock tion or monitoring necessary. Possible investigation methods
may include, but are not limited to:
block and the ground surface during successive impacts as
the block rolls or bounces downslope. Collisions or impacts • Aerial reconnaissance flights.
among multiple moving blocks are typically not evaluated,
• Instrumentation and monitoring, which may include
unless sophisticated discrete element numerical modeling is
conventional high-precision surveying or geodetic
used. Interactions among multiple rock blocks frequently oc
measurements, terrestrial photogrammetry, airborne
cur during rockfalls; thus, most analytical models represent a
and/or terrestrial lidar and radar technologies, strain
significant simplification over reality (Turner and Jayaprakash,
(displacement) measurement both at the surface and in
2012). Therefore, rockfall computer simulation models are
boreholes, and groundwater piezometers (Andrew and
only reliable when they have been carefully calibrated against
others, 2012).
field observations (Turner and Duffy, 2012).
• Drilling to recover rock core for characterizing rock
Rockfall probability: A rockfall investigation, performed as sources, installing slope monitoring instruments, and
described above, will establish the presence or absence of a investigating and monitoring groundwater conditions.
rockfall hazard at a site and define a boundary beyond which • Geophysical investigations to better define disconti
the risk from future rockfalls is much reduced. However, de nuity patterns in rockfall source areas. Geophysical
termining (predicting) the exact timing of future rockfalls techniques may include (1) high-resolution seismic
is not possible, and is not likely to become possible in the reflection, (2) ground penetrating radar, (3) seismic re
foreseeable future. As a general rule, the more rockfall debris fraction, (4) refraction microtremor (ReMi), (5) mag
on or at the base of a slope, the more frequent rockfalls are,
netic profiling, (6) electrical resistivity, and (7) gravity.
Chapter 7 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 119

Figure 48. Rockfall-hazard zones mapped by the UGS, and historical rockfalls and their travel paths in the Town of Rockville, Utah.

Geophysical methods should not be employed without Determining the boundary of the rockfall runout zone and
knowledge of site geology; however, where no other siting all new buildings for human occupancy and IBC Risk
subsurface geologic information is available, geophys Category II, III, and IV facilities (ICC, 2014a) outside that
ical methods may provide the only economically viable zone will substantially reduce rockfall risk. However, because
means to characterize rock-mass discontinuities (e.g., the boundary of a rockfall runout zone seldom can be estab
Telford and others, 1990; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, lished with a high level of precision, the UGS recommends
2001; Milsom and Eriksen, 2011; Reynolds, 2011). that structures for human occupancy or high-risk facilities be
• Geochronologic analysis, chiefly, but not limited to, set back an appropriate distance from the runout-zone bound
application of various cosmogenic isotope dating ary to provide an additional factor of safety from rockfalls.
techniques to rockfall-boulder surfaces to estimate Rockfall hazard is highly dependent on site geologic and
times of boulder emplacement. topographic conditions; therefore, the UGS does not make
a standard setback recommendation, but rather recommends
that the engineering geologist in responsible charge of the
rockfall investigation make and justify an appropriate setback
ROCKFALL MITIGATION based on the results of the site-specific hazard investigation.
Where investigation results provide confidence in the runout
Early recognition and avoidance of areas subject to rockfall zone boundary, additional setback can be minimized. Where
are the most effective means of mitigating rockfall hazard. the boundary is uncertain, a larger setback is appropriate.
120 Utah Geological Survey

A A

B B

Figure 49. (A) House in Rockville, Utah, September 2010. (B) The Figure 50. (A) Rockfall in 1947 through the roof of a maintenance
same house in December 2013, destroyed by a large rockfall. The two building in Zion National Park. (B) Rockfall in 2010 through the
occupants in the house were killed. roof of the same maintenance building. Photos courtesy of National
Park Service.

Avoidance may not always be a viable or cost-effective op Rockfall Characterization and Control (Turner and Schuster,
tion, especially for existing facilities (figure 50), and many 2012). Conversely, in areas where a site-specific investigation
techniques are available to mitigate rockfall hazard. Rockfall indicates that rockfalls are possible but the hazard is low, it
mitigation is often conducted by specialized design-build may be possible to conclude that the level of risk is acceptable
manufacturers and/or contractors, often using proprietary and that no hazard-reduction measures are required (Lund and
techniques and/or materials. Mitigation techniques include, others, 2010). However, disclosure of the presence of a rock
but are not limited to, (1) rock stabilization, (2) engineered fall hazard at a site during real-estate transactions is necessary
structures, and (3) modification of at-risk structures or fa to ensure that prospective property owners can make their
cilities. Rock-stabilization methods are physical means of re own informed decision regarding rockfall risk (Knudsen and
ducing the hazard at its source using rock bolts and anchors, Lund, 2013; see also Disclosure section below).
steel mesh, scaling, or shotcrete on susceptible outcrops. En
gineered catchment or deflection structures such as rockfall
fences (figure 51), berms, or benches can be placed below
source areas, or at-risk structures themselves can be designed ROCKFALL-INVESTIGATION REPORT
to stop, deflect, retard, or retain falling rocks. Such methods,
however, may increase rockfall hazard if not properly de The UGS recommends that a report prepared for a site-spe
signed and maintained. Detailed information on rockfall miti cific rockfall investigation in Utah at a minimum address the
gation techniques is given in “Part 3: Rockfall Mitigation” of topics below. Site conditions may require that additional items
Chapter 7 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 121

terpretation, including stereoscopic aerial photo

graphs, lidar, and other remote-sensing data when
available. List source, date, flight-line numbers,
and scale of aerial photos or other imagery used.
3. Surface Investigations. Describe pertinent surface
features including mapping of rockfall sources
(geologic units, talus slopes, precarious boulders,
etc.) and discontinuities (bedding, joints, faults,
foliation, schistosity, etc.), and other structural or
geomorphic features that may affect the location,
size, frequency, and path of rockfalls.
4. Shadow-Angle Analysis and/or Rockfall Com
puter Modeling. Describe the methods and results
of shadow-angle analysis or computer modeling
used to identify rockfall runout-zone boundaries,
Figure 51. Rockfall fence installed to mitigate the rockfall hazard including a description and listing of the input pa
and protect the Zion National Park maintenance building. Photo rameters and how they were obtained.
taken June 2014. 5. Rockfall Pathway Analysis. Describe gullies,
previously fallen rockfall debris, and other geo
be included to fully evaluate rockfall hazard at a site; these
morphic or topographic features in the rockfall
guidelines do not relieve engineering geologists from their acceleration and runout zones that may affect the
duty to perform additional geologic investigations as neces rockfall path. Note that when struck by rapidly
sary to adequately assess rockfall. The report guidelines be
moving rockfall debris, previously fallen boul
low pertain specifically to rockfall investigations, and expand ders often shatter in whole or part and contribute
on the general report preparation guidance provided in the
material (including flyrock) to the rockfall rather
Engineering-Geology Investigations and Engineering-Geolo than effectively shielding the site from hazard
gy Reports sections of chapter 2.
(Knudsen, 2011; Lund and others, 2014).
A. Text 6. Other Investigation Methods. When special con
a. Purpose and scope of investigation. Describe the ditions or requirements for critical facilities de
location and size of the site and proposed type and mand a more intensive investigation, describe the
number of buildings or other infrastructure if known. methods used to supplement the rockfall investi
b. Geologic and topographic setting. The report should gation and the purpose/result of those methods.
These may include, but are not limited to (a)
contain a clear and concise statement of the site and
aerial reconnaissance, (b) drilling and rock core
site region’s geologic and topographic setting. The
analysis, (c) geophysical investigations, (d) slope
section should include a discussion of rockfall ac and groundwater instrumentation and monitor
tivity in the area, historical seismicity if relevant to ing, and (e) geochronology.
rockfall susceptibility, and should reference perti
nent published and unpublished geologic literature. B. Conclusions.
c. Site description and conditions. Include dates of a. Conclusions must be supported by adequate data,
site visits and observations. Include information and the report should present those data in a clear
on geologic units, topography, vegetation, existing and concise manner.
structures, evidence of previous rockfalls on or near b. Data provided should include evidence establishing
the site, and other factors that may affect the choice the presence or absence of a rockfall hazard on or
of investigative methods and interpretation of data.
adjacent to the site and relation to existing or pro
d. Methods and results of investigation. posed infrastructure.
1. Literature Review. Summarize published and un c. Statement of relative risk that addresses the relative
published topographic and geologic maps, litera potential for future rockfalls. This may be stated in
ture, and records regarding geologic units; rock semi-quantitative terms such as low, moderate, or
sources; faults, joints, and other discontinuities; high as defined within the report, or as a probability
surface water and groundwater; topographic and if combined with information on the number and
geomorphic features; previous rockfalls; and oth timing of past rockfalls.
er relevant factors pertinent to the site. d. Degree of confidence in, and limitations of, the data
2. Interpretation of Remote-Sensing Imagery. De and conclusions.
scribe the results of remote-sensing-imagery in
122 Utah Geological Survey

C. Recommendations. holes, geophysical transects, scanline transects,

and slope and groundwater-monitoring locations.
a. Recommendations must be supported by the report
Scale of site-specific geology maps will vary de
conclusions and be presented in a clear and concise pending on the size of the site and area of study;
manner.
minimum recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet
b. Rockfall runout-zone boundaries and additional (1:2400) or larger when necessary.
setbacks should include the justification for the set d. Geologic/topographic cross sections. Site geologic
back distance chosen based on shadow angle and/
or rockfall computer modeling, and include an ap cross sections should be included as needed to il
lustrate three-dimensional geologic relations.
propriate statement or measure of boundary confi
dence/uncertainty. e. Rockfall hazard map. If site-specific investigations
c. Other recommended mitigation methods such as reveal the presence of a rockfall hazard, rockfall
runout zones and appropriate additional recom
building/structure design or use restrictions, risk
mended setbacks based on shadow angle and/or
reduction measures such as placement of detached
rockfall computer modeling should be shown either
garages or other non-habitable structures in rockfall on a rockfall-hazard map, or on the site-specific ge
zones, or engineering-design methods in the rockfall
ology map depending on site scale and complexity.
source area or runout zone to mitigate rockfall risk.
f. Borehole logs. Borehole logs should include the
d. Recommendations for long-term monitoring if nec
geologic interpretation of deposit genesis for all
essary.
layers encountered; logs should not be generalized
e. Limitations on the investigation and recommenda or diagrammatic. Because boreholes are typically
tions for additional investigation to better under multipurpose, borehole logs may also contain stan
stand or quantify the hazard. dard geotechnical, geologic, and groundwater data.
D. References g. Geophysical data and interpretations.
a. Literature and records cited or reviewed; citations h. Photographs that enhance understanding of the
should be complete (see References section of this rockfall hazard at the site with applicable metadata;
publication for examples). photographs of rock core if acquired during drilling.
b. Remote-sensing images interpreted; list type, date, F. Authentication
project identification codes, scale, source, and in a. The report must be signed and stamped by a Utah
dex numbers.
licensed Professional Geologist in principal charge
c. Other sources of information, including well records, of the investigation (Title 58-76-10 ‒ Professional
personal communication, and other data sources. Geologists Licensing Act [Utah Code, 2011]). Final
E. Illustrations. Should include at a minimum: geologic maps, trench logs, cross sections, sketch
a. Location map. Showing the site and significant es, drawings, and plans, prepared by or under the
supervision of a professional geologist, also must
physiographic and cultural features, generally at
bear the stamp of the professional geologist (Utah
1:24,000 scale or larger and indicating the Pub
Code, 2011). Reports co-prepared by a Utah li
lic Land Survey System ¼-section, township, and
censed Professional Engineer and/or Utah licensed
range; and the site latitude and longitude to four
Professional Land Surveyor must include the engi
decimal places with datum.
neer’s or surveyor’s stamp and signature.
b. Site development map. Showing site boundaries,
G. Appendices
existing and proposed structures, other infrastruc
ture, and site topography. The map scale may vary a. Include supporting data relevant to the investiga
depending on the size of the site and area covered tion not given in the text such as maps, boring logs,
by the study; the minimum recommended scale is 1 cross sections, conceptual models, fence diagrams,
inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger when necessary. survey data, water-well data, geochronology labo
The site development map may be combined with ratory reports, laboratory test data, and qualifica
the site-specific geology map (see item “c” below). tions statements/resume.
c. Site-specific geology map. A site-scale geology
map showing (1) geologic units, (2) bedding,
faults, joints, other discontinuities, and relevant FIELD REVIEW
geologic structures, (3) distribution of bedrock
and unconsolidated-deposit rockfall sources, (4) The UGS recommends a technical field review by the regula
rockfall pathways and runout zones, (5) seeps
tory-authority geologist once a rockfall-hazard investigation
or springs, (6) other slope failures, and (7) bore is complete. See Field Review section in chapter 2.
Chapter 7 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 123

REPORT REVIEW
The UGS recommends regulatory review of all reports by a
Utah licensed Professional Geologist experienced in rockfall
hazard investigations and acting on behalf of local govern
ments to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to re
duce risks to future property owners (Larson, 1992, 2015).
See Report Review section in chapter 2.

DISCLOSURE
The UGS recommends disclosure during real-estate trans
actions whenever an engineering-geology investigation has
been performed. See Disclosure section in chapter 2.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ken Euge (Geological Consultants, Inc.), David Black
(Rosenberg Associates), and Gregg Beukelman, Steve Bow
man, Rich Giraud, and Adam McKean (Utah Geological Sur
vey) provided insightful comments and additional data that
substantially improved the utility of these guidelines.
124 Utah Geological Survey
 CHAPTER 8
SUGGESTED APPROACH TO GEOLOGIC-HAZARD
ORDINANCES IN UTAH
by
William R. Lund, P.G., Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., and Gary E. Christenson, P.G.

15

Shallow groundwater geologic-hazard special study map of part of St. George, Utah, from UGS Special Study 127.

Suggested citation: Lund, W.R., Bowman, S.D., and Christenson, G.E., 2016, Suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordi
nances in Utah, in Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engi
neering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular
122, p. 125–131.
126 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 8 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 127

CHAPTER 8: SUGGESTED APPROACH TO

GEOLOGIC-HAZARD ORDINANCES IN UTAH
by William R. Lund, P.G., Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., and Gary E. Christenson, P.G.

INTRODUCTION in Utah. Effective geologic-hazard ordinances are science

based, and it is chiefly the science-based (technical) compo
This chapter updates and revises Utah Geological and Mineral nents of a geologic-hazard ordinance that are discussed here.
Survey Circular 79, Suggested Approach to Geologic Hazards Administrative aspects of ordinance adoption and implemen
Ordinances in Utah (Christenson, 1987), and is intended for tation are left to the specific requirements and needs of in
municipal and county officials responsible for planning for dividual jurisdictions; however, the Utah Geological Survey
(UGS) recommends that ordinances include (1) a requirement
and permitting future land development in their jurisdictions.
for a thorough regulatory review (Larson, 2015) of engineer
While the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and Inter
national Residential Code (IRC) are adopted statewide as part ing-geology reports and other geological documents submit
of the State Construction and Fire Codes Act (http://le.utah. ted as part of the development permitting process, and (2) an
gov/xcode/Title15A/15A.html), geologic hazards are typi enforcement requirement, including site inspection, to ensure
cally not a part of these codes. A geologic-hazard ordinance that geologic-hazard mitigation recommendations are in fact
protects the health, safety, and welfare of citizens by minimiz incorporated in project construction as approved.
ing the adverse effects of geologic hazards (see chapter 1 of
This chapter is not a comprehensive review of all possible ap
this publication for a definition of a geologic hazard). Geo
logic hazards can be considered at various times during plan proaches or types of ordinances, overlay zones, or develop
ment codes in which geologic hazards may be addressed. Nor
ning and development, but generally are best addressed early
in the process before development proceeds. Some geologic is it a model ordinance, although it is based in part on proven
hazards cannot be mitigated, or are too costly to mitigate, and effective ordinances in Utah (e.g., Salt Lake City [updated
therefore should be avoided. Other hazards can be effectively 2014], Salt Lake County [2002a], City of Draper [2010], and
Iron County [2011]) that could serve as models for future
mitigated by means other than avoidance, and need not affect
land use significantly, as long as the hazard is identified, char geologic-hazard ordinances in other jurisdictions. Additional
acterized, and accommodated in project planning and design. recommendations for reducing losses from geologic hazards,
Conversely, failure to identify and mitigate geologic hazards including those related to ordinances, were outlined by the
may result in significant additional construction and/or future 2006–2007 Governor’s Geologic Hazards Working Group
maintenance costs or result in property damage, injury, and/ (Christenson and Ashland, 2008).
or death. Castleton and McKean (2012) discuss the various
geologic hazards commonly encountered in Utah. Other chapters in this publication address (1) minimum ac
ceptable requirements for engineering-geology investigations
Where master plans and zoning ordinances have already been and subsequent reports prepared in support of the develop
ment permitting process (chapter 2), and (2) the minimum ac
adopted, amendments can be used to address geologic haz
ards, although it may be too late to change the existing land ceptable level of effort recommended to investigate surface
use to one more compatible with the hazards. Geologic-hazard fault-rupture, landslide, debris-flow, ground-subsidence and
or sensitive-land overlay zones are effective for areas where earth-fissure, and rockfall hazards (chapters 3–7). As the UGS
zoning ordinances are already in place. The overlay zone (or develops additional geologic-hazard guidelines in the future,
zones, if hazards are considered separately) includes areas the new guidelines will be incorporated in updates of this pub
where hazards have been identified and places restrictions on lication. The UGS recommends that, at a minimum, munici
development. Overlay zones may be placed over existing zone palities and counties incorporate the standards presented in
maps requiring that development conform to overlay regula this publication in their geologic-hazard ordinances. Experi
ence has shown that requirements established in a geologic
tions. Geologic hazards may also be addressed in develop
hazard ordinance, even if identified as minimum acceptable
ment codes and subdivision ordinances.
standards, typically become the maximum level of effort
expended in the development permitting process (Slosson,
1984). Therefore, it is incumbent on municipalities and coun
PURPOSE ties to establish science-based technical requirements and
standards in their ordinances that ensure that geologic hazards
This chapter presents a suggested approach for implementing are adequately identified, characterized, reported upon, and
a geologic-hazard ordinance at the municipal or county level mitigated in their jurisdictions.
128 Utah Geological Survey

ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT Geologic-Hazard Special Study Maps

A comprehensive geologic-hazard ordinance helps protect the A critical first step to ensure that geologic hazards are ad
health, safety, and welfare of citizens by minimizing the ad equately addressed in land-use planning and regulation is
verse effects of geologic hazards. In almost all cases, it is more preparation by local jurisdictions of geologic-hazard special
cost effective to perform a comprehensive engineering-geolo study maps, which define areas where geologic-hazard inves
gy investigation to identify and characterize geologic hazards tigations are required prior to development. The UGS pub
and implement appropriate mitigation in project design and lishes geologic-hazard special study maps for selected areas in
construction, rather than relying on additional maintenance Utah, showing delineated special-study areas where detailed
over the life of the project, incurring costly change orders dur investigations are recommended. These maps are prepared by
ing construction, and/or increasing public liability to hazards. qualified, experienced geologists using best available scien
Often, local governments are left to mitigate geologic-hazard tific information, but are necessarily generalized and designed
issues after an event, such as a landslide (for example, the only to indicate areas where hazards may exist and where
2014 Parkway Drive landslide in North Salt Lake), which in site-specific geologic-hazard investigations are necessary.
many cases is costly to taxpayers and may have been avoided. Because geologic-hazard special study maps are prepared at
a non-site-specific scale (generally 1:24,000 or smaller), haz
Geologic-hazard ordinances should, at a minimum, consider ards may exist but not be shown in some areas on the maps.
the hazards known within that jurisdiction. Higher levels of The fact that a site is not in a geologic-hazard study area for
safety can be achieved by investigating all of the geologic a particular hazard does not exempt the engineering geologist
hazards commonly encountered in Utah (see chapter 1 and in responsible charge of the investigation from evaluating a
appendix B of this publication, and Neuendorf and others hazard if evidence is found that one exists.
[2011] for geologic-hazard definitions). While not all of these
hazards are likely to be present within every local jurisdic Utah Geological Survey Geologic-Hazard Maps
tion, those not present can quickly be eliminated from fur
ther consideration by a comprehensive engineering-geology The UGS has prepared or assisted with preparation of geo
investigation. Documenting the absence of a hazard is often logic-hazard special study maps for Cache, Davis, Iron, Salt
as important as documenting the presence of one. Lake, eastern Tooele, Utah, western Wasatch, and Weber
Counties (on file with the respective county planning depart
When to Perform a Geologic-Hazard ments and may be available at http://geology.utah.gov/map
Investigation pub/maps/geologic-hazard-maps/). Many of these maps have
become dated, only a few hazards were mapped, and more
accurate mapping methods are now available. The current
Geologic hazards are best addressed prior to land develop UGS Geologic Hazards Program (http://geology.utah.gov/
ment in affected areas. The UGS recommends that a compre
about-us/geologic-programs/geologic-hazards-program/)
hensive geologic-hazard investigation be performed for all
Geologic Hazards Mapping Initiative develops modern, com
new buildings for human occupancy, and for all IBC Risk Cat
prehensive geologic-hazard map sets on U.S. Geological Sur
egory II, III, and IV facilities (IBC table 1604.5 [International
vey 1:24,000-scale quadrangles in urban areas of Utah (Bow
Code Council, 2014a]) proposed in areas of known or sus man and others, 2009; Castleton and McKean, 2012) as PDFs
pected geologic hazards. The level of investigation conducted and full GIS products. These map sets typically include 10 or
for a particular project depends on several factors, including more individual geologic-hazard maps (liquefaction, surface
(1) site-specific geologic conditions, (2) type of proposed or
fault rupture, flooding, landslides, rockfall, debris flow, radon,
existing development, use, and operation, (3) level of accept collapsible soils, expansive soil and rock, shallow bedrock,
able risk, and (4) governmental permitting requirements, or and shallow groundwater). Some quadrangles may have ad
regulatory agency rules and regulations. A geologic-hazard ditional maps of wind-blown sand, piping and erosion, land
investigation may be conducted separately, or as part of a subsidence and earth fissures, or other geologic hazards iden
comprehensive engineering-geology and/or geotechnical site tified within the mapped area.
investigation (chapter 2).
The Magna and Copperton quadrangle map sets (Castleton
Minimum Qualifications of the Investigator and others, 2011, 2014) within Salt Lake Valley have been
published, with mapping continuing in Salt Lake and Utah
Minimum qualifications for the geologist in responsible charge Valleys. Similar UGS geologic-hazard map sets are avail
of an engineering-geology investigation and for regulatory-au able for the St. George–Hurricane metropolitan area (Lund
thority geologists are detailed in chapter 2. In addition, geolog and others, 2008), high-visitation areas in Zion National Park
ic-hazard ordinances should specify conflict of interest require (Lund and others, 2010), and the State Route 9 corridor be
ments. It is imperative that regulatory-authority geologists hold tween La Verkin and Springdale (Knudsen and Lund, 2013).
themselves to the highest ethical standards to eliminate conflicts Additionally, detailed surface-fault-rupture-hazard maps have
of interest and bias that may jeopardize the review process. been published for the Levan, Fayette, and southern half of
Chapter 8 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 129

the Collinston segments of the Wasatch fault zone (Harty and hazards; and reporting investigation results, conclusions, and
McKean, 2015; Hiscock and Hylland, 2015) with mapping recommendations. Local governments may adopt these guide
on other segments ongoing. The UGS routinely partners with lines by reference into geologic-hazard ordinances to estab
local governments to expedite the publication of geologic lish minimum engineering-geology investigation and report
hazard special study maps in critical areas and can provide requirements and minimum criteria for investigating geologic
guidance on how to use and interpret the maps. hazards in their jurisdictions.

Where Geologic-Hazard Maps Are Not Available For purposes of land development, an engineering-geology
investigation should address all aspects of site geology that af
Where geologic-hazard special study maps are not available, fect or are likely to be affected by the proposed development.
the local government should consider partnering with the UGS A site-specific engineering-geology investigation should fo
to develop the appropriate maps consistent with those avail cus on the geologic hazards present at a site and their potential
able in other areas. The UGS creates these special study area effect on the proposed project if not avoided or mitigated. In
maps for local and state agencies as delegated by Utah Code. some instances, an investigation may be specific to a single
hazard (e.g., a surface-fault-rupture investigation along the
If funding or other impediments to preparing geologic-hazard Wasatch fault zone), but more typically an engineering-geol
ogy investigation will address all hazards at the site. If the in
special study maps occur, geologic-hazard ordinances should
state that the first step in a geologic-hazard investigation is to vestigation identifies a hazard(s) that presents an unacceptable
determine if the site is near mapped or otherwise known geo risk to development if not mitigated, the report must include
logic hazards. If so, larger scale maps (if available) should be a hazard-mitigation plan that defines how hazards will be ad
examined, aerial photograph and other remote sensing imag dressed in project design. The plan should be in sufficient de
ery interpreted, and a field investigation performed to produce tail and with sufficient supporting data to allow local govern
a detailed geologic map as outlined in chapter 2 to determine ments to evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of proposed
if a geologic hazard(s) is present that will affect the site. If mitigation measures.
evidence for a hazard(s) is found, the UGS recommends that a
site investigation be performed in accordance with the guide
lines presented in chapter 2, and in chapters 3–7 as applicable.
PROJECT REVIEW
Scoping Meeting
Effective project review, including field and report review, is
necessary to ensure the project conforms to applicable codes
Due to the interdisciplinary and complex nature of many
and ordinances.
geologic-hazard investigations, the UGS recommends that
geologic-hazard ordinances include a provision for a pre-in
vestigation scoping meeting between the permitting author
Field Review
ity (municipality or county) and the consultant performing
As part of the project review, upon completion of fieldwork for
the investigation (and project owner if needed) to discuss any
building code and/or local ordinance requirements that apply a site-specific engineering-geology investigation, a technical
to the project. These meetings can reduce the uncertainty re field review by the regulatory-authority geologist is critical to
garding applicable requirements and speed the project/permit ensure that the investigation adequately identified and charac
approval process. The geologist representing the permitting/ terized all geologic hazards at the site. The field review should
regulatory entity, building official, and planner should attend take place before any test pits or trenches excavated for the in
at a minimum. Several scoping meetings and/or site visits vestigation, and that may expose evidence of geologic hazards,
may be needed on complex projects. are closed. Although not required, the UGS appreciates being
afforded the opportunity to participate in geologic-hazard field
reviews and particularly surface-fault-rupture investigation
trenches. Contact the UGS Geologic Hazards Program in Salt
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY Lake City at (801) 537-3300, or the UGS Southern Regional
INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS Office in Cedar City at (435) 865-9036.

Chapter 2 provides guidelines for conducting site-specific Report Review

engineering-geology investigations and preparing engineer
ing-geology reports. Chapters 3–7 provide guidelines for Before final design and permit approval, a qualified, Utah
investigating surface-fault-rupture, landslide, debris-flow, licensed Professional Geologist, specializing in engineering
ground-subsidence and earth-fissure, and rockfall hazards. geology (i.e., regulatory-authority geologist), should review
These chapters are intended as guidance for consultants char engineering-geology reports and other geologic materials
acterizing site geologic conditions; investigating geologic (maps, cross sections, etc.) submitted in support of the de
130 Utah Geological Survey

velopment permitting process. The same minimum qualifica cations. Paper copies will be returned to the local government
tions recommended for an investigator (see the Investigator once digital archiving of the report is complete, along with
Qualifications section in chapter 2) apply to the regulatory-au text-searchable PDF files for each report, if requested. Please
thority engineering geologist. If a geotechnical report or other submit reports for archiving to:
engineering analysis and/or recommendations are included
Utah Geological Survey
with the engineering-geology report, a qualified, Utah-li
Geologic Hazards Program-GeoData
censed Professional Engineer, specializing in geological and/ 1594 W. North Temple, P.O. Box 146100
or geotechnical engineering, must review the report or perti
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
nent sections and, as necessary, participate in field reviews.
If the report is deemed adequate, the permitting process may
proceed and report recommendations may be implemented with a return address and contact information.
(see Enforcement section below). If the report is deemed in
adequate, further work can be required or the development
can be denied. ENFORCEMENT
Appendix A presents checklists for reviewing an engineer
Identification and characterization of geologic hazards and in
ing-geology report and for reviewing surface-fault-rupture-,
corporation of subsequent mitigation recommendations into
landslide-, debris-flow-, ground-subsidence and earth-fis
project planning and design are critical steps for protecting the
sure-, and rockfall-hazard investigations. These checklists,
health, safety, and welfare of Utah’s citizens. However, these
which follow the recommendations in chapter 2 and chap
efforts are ineffective if hazard-mitigation procedures required
ters 3–7, give a concise view of engineering-geology report for project approval are not followed during construction. An
requirements and geologic-hazard-investigation criteria,
effective geologic-hazard ordinance must contain an enforce
respectively, and can provide report authors with valuable ment provision to ensure that mitigation requirements are im
feedback information to revise their reports following a plemented. Most Utah municipalities and counties do not have
thorough review by the regulatory-authority geologist and
a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer on
engineer as necessary. Digital files of these checklists are
staff or retainer to regularly perform the construction observa
provided as Microsoft Word 2007+ (docx) form document
tion, inspection, and compliance documentation necessary to
files. The reviewer should complete the Report and Review verify that the geologic-hazard mitigation requirements have
section, select the appropriate section information check box been followed. In those instances, the UGS recommends that
(either adequately documented or additional information
a qualified representative (engineering geologist and/or geo
needed) and enter comments for each section in the Review
Comments field, which will automatically expand as text is technical engineer as appropriate) from the consulting firm
entered, and enter any other comments and notes in the last that made the hazard-mitigation recommendations be retained
by the developer to monitor project construction and docu
section, along with affixing a Utah Professional Geologist ment compliance with mitigation requirements. Large and/or
stamp.
complex projects may also require a consulting firm retained
by the local permitting authority as part of a comprehensive
Local governments or other agencies that do not have a quali quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program.
fied engineering geologist on staff, should retain a licensed
Professional Geologist with the recommended qualifications
to perform field and report reviews as needed. This individual Final, as-built project drawings and other documentation, as
appropriate, and a document stating that report recommenda
should not be employed by, subcontracted to, or have any sig
tions were implemented, should be stamped and signed by
nificant contact with the consultants or firms that performed
the geologist/engineer making the inspections and submitted
the investigations and reports under review to eliminate any to the regulatory authority to verify that the required hazard
real or perceived conflict of interest.
mitigation provisions were satisfactorily implemented. This
provision may be added as part of the final building inspection
Report Archiving and approval process.
The UGS requests reviewing local governments to submit
copies (an original preferred) of final engineering-geology
reports for scanning, digital cleanup, and entry into the UGS DISCLOSURE
GeoData Archive System (https://geodata.geology.utah.gov)
so these reports will be available for the preparation of future The UGS recommends disclosure during real-estate trans
UGS geologic hazard maps and for reference by the local gov actions whenever an engineering-geology investigation has
ernment and other users. If original PDF files are available been performed for a property to ensure that prospective
(not scanner derived), a paper copy is not needed; however, property owners are made aware of geologic hazards present
the UGS would prefer to scan paper copies to retain high qual on the property, and can make their own informed decision
ity control and for conformance with archive project specifi regarding risk. Disclosure should include a Disclosure and
Chapter 8 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 131

Acknowledgment Form provided by the jurisdiction, which

indicates an engineering-geology report was prepared and is
available for public inspection.

Additionally, prior to approval of any development, subdivision,

or parcel, the UGS recommends that the regulating jurisdiction
require the owner to record a restrictive covenant with the land
identifying any geologic hazard(s) present. Where geologic haz
ards are identified on a property, the UGS recommends that the
jurisdiction require the owner to delineate the hazards on the de
velopment plat prior to receiving final plat approval.
132 Utah Geological Survey
 CHAPTER 9
ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY INVESTIGATION AND
REPORT GUIDELINES FOR NEW UTAH PUBLIC SCHOOL
BUILDINGS (UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION)
by
D.
Steve Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., Richard E. Giraud, P.G., and William R. Lund, P.G.

Public school building in North Ogden, Utah, with Ben Lomond Peak in background.

Suggested citation: Bowman, S.D., Giraud, R.E., and Lund, W.R., 2016, Engineering-geology investigations and report guide
lines for new Utah public school buildings (Utah State Office of Education), in Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guide
lines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic
hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 133–136.
134 Utah Geological Survey
Chapter 9 | Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 135

CHAPTER 9: ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY INVESTIGATION AND

REPORT GUIDELINES FOR NEW UTAH PUBLIC SCHOOL
BUILDINGS (UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION)
by Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., Richard E. Giraud, P.G., and William R. Lund, P.G.

INTRODUCTION fied, assessed, and mitigated. Preparation of geologic-hazard

reports must be performed by a Utah-licensed Professional
To ensure that proposed schools are protected from geologic Geologist, and should follow the engineering-geology report
hazards, the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) recom (chapter 2) and individual geologic-hazard guidelines con
mends that an engineering-geology investigation be per tained in this publication (chapters 3–7).
formed to investigate possible geologic hazards at new school
sites and that subsequent reports prepared by Utah-licensed The geologic-hazards section of the UGS website includes
Professional Geologists be reviewed by the Utah Geological information for consultants and design professionals (http://
Survey (UGS) (http://www.schools.utah.gov/finance/Facili geology.utah.gov/about-us/geologic-programs/geologic-haz
ties.aspx). The purpose of the UGS review is to ensure that ards-program/for-consultants-and-design-professionals/) that
site-specific geologic-hazard investigations are sufficiently contains these recommended guidelines (this publication);
thorough, report conclusions are valid, proposed mitigation published UGS geologic-hazard maps, reports, site-specific
measures are reasonable, geologic hazards are addressed uni studies, geologic maps, and hydrogeology publications; aer
formly and effectively throughout the state, and school-site ial photography; important external publications (including
development consultants receive useful feedback related to many of the papers cited in this volume); and links to relevant
geologic hazards. These guidelines are intended to be used in external websites. Although the UGS website contains many
conjunction with the geologic-hazard guidelines presented in resources useful for engineering-geology investigations, it is
this publication (chapters 3–7). not a complete source for all geologic-hazard information. As
a result, a thorough literature search and review should always
be performed for school-site investigations.

SCHOOL SITE GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

AND INVESTIGATION
UGS SCHOOL SITE GEOLOGIC-HAZARD
Geologic hazards represent a safety issue for Utah schools. REPORT REVIEW
These guidelines and subsequent UGS review of engineering
geology reports are non-regulatory, but the guidelines cite UGS review of engineering-geology school-site reports
relevant sections of the 2015 International Building Code (In encompasses 20 items associated with the project and geo
(http://geology.utah.gov/ghp/school-site_review/index.htm)
ternational Code Council, 2014a) adopted statewide that indi
cate specific geologic hazards that should be addressed in a logic hazards as indicated on the Engineering-Geology Re
geologic-hazard assessment of a proposed site. The need for port Review Checklist in appendix A. UGS staff will review
detailed investigations can generally be assessed by consulting the submitted report for pertinent information related to each
regional geologic-hazard maps (http://geology.utah.gov/map item, determine if the report adequately addresses each item,
pub/maps/geologic-hazard-maps/) available for various parts and provide brief comments on the items, as needed.
of the state; however, these maps are not a substitute for site
specific engineering-geology/geologic-hazard investigations. The UGS reviews engineering-geology reports from a geolog
ic perspective; however, if hazard-investigation or risk-reduc
The complex and interdisciplinary nature of geologic-hazard tion measures include engineering analyses, design, specifica
investigations often requires that engineering geologists, en tions, and/or recommendations, a Utah-licensed Professional
gineers, and other design professionals work together to in Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering must also
vestigate the hazards, prepare geologic-hazard reports, and in review the report.
tegrate report recommendations into project design. Involve
ment of both engineering geologists and engineers, including To request an engineering-geology report review for a school
geotechnical, civil, and structural, will generally provide site, contact the UGS School-Site Review Coordinator (see
greater assurance that geologic hazards are properly identi Contacts section below) for your particular site location.
136 Utah Geological Survey

CONTACTS

Utah Geological Survey (UGS), Geologic Hazards Program (GHP)

http://geology.utah.gov/ghp/index.htm
Program Manager – Steve Bowman [(801) 537-3304],
stevebowman@utah.gov

Northern/Central Utah (Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett,

Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Juab, Millard, Morgan,
Rich, Salt Lake, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah,
Utah, Wasatch, and Weber Counties)

Utah Department of Natural Resources Building

1594 West North Temple, P.O. Box 146100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-6100
(801) 537-3300, FAX (801) 537-3400

School-Site Review Coordinator – Richard Giraud

[(801) 537-3351], richardgiraud@utah.gov

Southern Utah (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, San

Juan, Washington, and Wayne Counties)

Southern Utah Regional Office

646 North Main Street
Cedar City, Utah 84721
(435) 865-9036, FAX (435) 865-2789

School-Site Review Coordinator – Tyler Knudsen

[(435) 865-9036], tylerknudsen@utah.gov
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 137

REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Association of Engineering Geologists, Utah Section, 1987,
Officials, 2014, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifica Guidelines for evaluating surface fault rupture hazards
tions, part II, sections 7-index, seventh edition, variously in Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Miscella
paginated. neous Publication N, 2 p.
American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear So ASTM International, 2002, Standard practice for description
ciety, 2008, Criteria for investigations of nuclear facility and identification of soils (visual-manual procedure):
sites for seismic hazard assessments: American National ASTM International Standard D2488-00 (v. 04.08).
Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society ANSI/ ASTM International, 2003, Standard guide to site character
ANS-2.27-2008, variously paginated.
ization for engineering design and construction purposes:
Anderson, L.R., Keaton, J.R., Saarinen, T.F., and Wells, W.G., ASTM International Standard D420-98 (v. 04.08).
II, 1984, The Utah landslides, debris flows, and floods of
May and June 1983: Washington, D.C., National Acad ASTM International, 2009, Standard practice for radon control
emy Press, 96 p. options for the design and construction of new low-rise resi
dential buildings: ASTM International Standard E1465-08a.
Andrew, R.D., Arndt, A., and Turner, A.K., 2012, Chapter 7— ASTM International, 2011, Standard test method for standard
instrumentation and monitoring technology, in Turner,
penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils:
A.K., and Schuster, R.L., editors, Rockfall characteriza
ASTM International Standard D1586-11.
tion and control: Washington, D.C., Transportation Re
search Board of the National Academies, p. 212–284. ASTM International, 2012a, Standard practice for minimum
requirements for agencies engaged in the testing and/or
Andrews, D.J., and Bucknam, R.C., 1987, Fitting degradation
of shoreline scarps by a model with nonlinear diffusion: inspection of soil and rock as used in engineering design
and construction: ASTM International Standard D3740-
Journal of Geophysical Research, v.92, p. 12,857–12,867. 01 (v. 04.08).
Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2010, Interferomet ASTM International, 2012b, Standard test method for elec
ric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR): Hydrology Divi
tronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of
sion, Geophysics/Surveying Unit: Online, http://www.az
soils: ASTM International Standard D5778-12.
water.gov/AzDWR/Hydrology/Geophysics/InSAR.htm,
accessed October 23, 2010. Avery, T.E., and Berlin, G.L., 1992, Fundamentals of remote
sensing and airphoto interpretation: New York, Macmil
Arizona Department of Water Resources, no date, Monitoring
lan Publishing Company, 472 p.
the state’s water resources—InSAR—ADWR’s satellite
based land subsidence monitoring program: Arizona De Bailey, R.W., Craddock, G.W., and Croft, A.R., 1947, Wa
partment of Water Resources Fact Sheet, 2 p. tershed management for summer flood control in Utah:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Miscel
Arizona Division of Emergency Management, 2007, Haz
laneous Publication no. 639, 24 p.
ards and prevention—earth fissures: Arizona Division of
Emergency Management, 1 p. Baldwin, J.E., II, Donley, H.J., and Howard T.R., 1987, On
debris flow/avalanche mitigation and control, San Fran
Arizona Land Subsidence Group, 2007, Land subsidence
cisco Bay area, California, in Costa, J.E., and Wieczorek,
and earth fissures in Arizona—research and information
G.F., editors, Debris flows/avalanches: Geological Soci
needs for effective risk management: Arizona Geological
ety of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, Volume
Survey Contributed Report CR-07-C, 24 p. VII, p. 223−236.
Ashland, F.X., 2003, The feasibility of collecting accurate
Barrell, D.J.A., 2010, Assessment of active fault and fold
landslide-loss data in Utah: Utah Geological Survey
hazards in the Twizel area, Mackenzie District, South
Open-File Report 410, 25 p.
Canterbury: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences
Ashland, F.X., 2008, Reconnaissance of the Little Valley Limited Science Consultancy Report 2010/040, 22 p.
landslide, Draper, Utah—evidence for possible late Ho
locene, earthquake-induced reactivation of a large, pre Batatian, L.D., and Nelson, C.V, 1999, Fault setback require
existing landslide: Utah Geological Survey Open-File ments to reduce fault rupture hazards in Salt Lake County
Report 520, 17 p. [abs.]: Association of Engineering Geologists Abstracts
with Programs, 42nd Annual Meeting, p. 59.
Association of Engineering Geologists, Utah Section, 1986,
Baum, R.L., Galloway, D.L., and Harp, E.L., 2008, Landslide
Guidelines for preparing geologic reports in Utah: Utah
and land subsidence hazards to pipelines: U.S. Geologi
Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Publica
cal Survey Open-File Report 2008-1164, 192 p.
tion M, 2 p.
138 Utah Geological Survey

Bell, J.W., 2003, Las Vegas Valley—land subsidence and fis Black, B.D., Lund, W.R., Schwartz, D.P., Gill, H.E., and
suring due to ground-water withdrawal: U.S. Geological Mayes, B.H., 1996, Paleoseismic investigation on the Salt
Survey, 5 p.: Online, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/ Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone at the South
impacts/hydrology/vegas_gw, accessed March 29, 2010. Fork Dry Creek and Dry Gulch sites, Salt Lake County,
Bell, J.W., 2004, Fissure evolution—what we know after 30 Utah—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 7: Utah Geo
years of observation, in Shlemon Specialty Conference— logical Survey Special Study 92, 22 p.
Earth Fissures, El Paso, Texas, April 1–3, 2004, Confer Black, B.D., Mulvey, W.E., Lowe, M., and Solomon, B.J., 1995,
ence Materials: The Association of Engineering Geologists Geologic effects, in Christenson, G.E., editor, The Sep
and Engineering Geology Foundation, unpaginated, CD. tember 2, 1992 ML 5.8 St. George earthquake, Washington
Bell, J.W., and Amelung, F., 2003, The relation between County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 88, p. 2–11.
land subsidence, active Quaternary faults, and earth fis Blair, T.C., and McPherson, J.G., 1994, Alluvial fan processes
sures in Las Vegas, Nevada [abs.]: Geological Society of and forms, in Abrahams, A.D., and Parsons A.J., editors,
America Cordilleran Section 99th Annual Meeting: On Geomorphology of desert environments: London, Chap
line, https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003CD/finalprogram/ man and Hall, p. 355−402.
abstract_52146.htm. Blake, T.F., Hollingsworth, R.A., and Stewart, J.P., editors,
Bell, J.W., Amelung, F., Ramelli, A.R., and Blewitt, G., 2002, 2002, Recommended procedures for implementation of
Land subsidence in Las Vegas, Nevada, 1935–2000— DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for analyzing
new geodetic data show evolution, revised spatial pat and mitigating landslide hazards in California: Los An
terns, and reduced rates: Environmental and Engineering geles, Southern California Earthquake Center, 110 p., 1
Geoscience, v. VIII, no. 3, p. 155–174. appendix: Online, http://scecinfo.usc.edu/resources/cata
Bell, J.W., Caskey, S.J., Ramelli, A.R., and Guerrieri, L., log/LandslideProceduresJune02.pdf.
2004, Pattern and timing of faulting in the central Nevada Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface faulting and related effects, in
seismic belt and paleoseismic evidence for prior beltlike Wiegel, R.I., editor, Earthquake engineering: Englewood,
behavior: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 47–74.
ica, v. 94, no. 4, p. 1229–1254. Bonilla, M.G., and Lienkaemper, J.J., 1991, Factors affecting
Bell, J.W., and Katzer, T., 1990, Timing of late Quaternary the recognition of faults exposed in exploratory trenches:
faulting in the 1954 Dixie Valley earthquake area, central U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1947, 54 p.
Nevada: Geology, v. 18, p. 622–625. Bovis, M.J., and Jakob, M., 1999, The role of debris supply
Bell, J.W., and Price, J.G., 1991, Subsidence in Las Vegas conditions in predicting debris flow activity: Earth Sur
Valley: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File face Processes and Landforms, v. 24, p. 1039−1054.
Report 93-5, 182 p. Bowman, S.D., 2008, Aerial photo comparisons between
Benson, L.V., Lund, S.P., Smoot, J.P., Rhode, D.E., Spencer, 1938 and 2006 photos—four locations between Salt
R.J., Verosub, K.L., Louderback, L.A., Johnson, C.A., Lake City and Alpine, Utah: Utah Geological Survey:
Rye, R.O., and Negrini, R.M., 2011, The rise and fall of Online, http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/publications/
Lake Bonneville between 45 and 10.5 ka: Quaternary In aerial-photographs/aerial-photo-comparisons/, accessed
ternational, v. 235, p. 57–69. December 31, 2011, 1 p.
Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating, 2014, Radiocarbon dating Bowman, S.D., 2012, Utah Geological Survey Geologic Data
charcoal: Online, http://www.radiocarbon.com/carbon Preservation Project and new geologic data resources, in
dating-charcoal.htm. Hylland, M.D., and Harty, K.M., editors, Selected topics
in engineering and environmental geology in Utah: Utah
Beukelman, G.S., 2012, Springhill Landslide, North Salt
Lake: Utah Geological Survey: Online, http://geology. Geological Association Publication 41, p. 195–207.
utah.gov/hazards/landslides-rockfalls/springhill-land Bowman, S.D., 2015, Emergency response and the Utah Geo
slide-north-salt-lake/update-on-springhill-landslide/, ac logical Survey—what role do we serve and what services
cessed April 2014. are provided?: Utah Geological Survey, Survey Notes, v.
47, no. 1, p. 1–3.
Beverage, J.P., and Culbertson, J.K., 1964, Hyperconcentra
tions of suspended sediment: American Society of Civil Bowman, S.D., Castleton, J.J., and Elliott, A.H., 2009, New
Engineers, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, v. 90, no. geologic hazards mapping in Utah: Utah Geological Sur
HY6, p. 117−126. vey, Survey Notes, v. 41, no. 3, p. 1–3.
Birkeland, P.W., Machette, M.N., and Haller, K.M., 1991, Bowman, S., Hiscock, A., Hylland, M., McDonald, G., and
Soils as a tool for applied Quaternary geology: Utah McKean, A., 2015a, LiDAR—valuable tool in the field
Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Publica geologist’s toolbox: Utah Geological Survey, Survey
tion 91-3, 63 p. Notes, v. 47, no. 1, p. 4–6.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 139

Bowman, S.D., Hiscock, A.I., and Unger, C.D., 2015b, Com Society of Civil Engineers, December 9–11, 2009, San
pilation of 1970s Woodward-Lundgren & Associates Francisco, California, p, 1270–1280.
Wasatch fault investigation reports and low-sun-angle Bray, J.D., 2015, Engineering mitigation of surface-fault rup
aerial photography, Wasatch Front and Cache Valley, ture, in Lund, W.R., editor, Proceedings Volume—Basin
Utah and Idaho—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 26: and Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit III: Utah
Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 632, variously Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 15-5, vari
paginated, 6 plates, 9 DVD set. ously paginated, CD.
Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., 2013, Compilation of U.S. Bronk Ramsey, C., 1995, Radiocarbon calibration and analy
Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduc sis of stratigraphy—the OxCal program: Radiocarbon, v.
tion program final technical reports for Utah—Paleoseis 37, no. 2, p. 425–430.
mology of Utah, Volume 23: Utah Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Publication 13-3, variously paginated. Bronk Ramsey, C., 2001, Development of the radiocarbon
program OxCal: Radiocarbon, v. 43, no. 2a, p. 355–363.
Bowman, S.D., Young, B.W., and Unger, C.D., 2011, Com
pilation of 1982-83 seismic safety investigation reports Bronk Ramsey, C., 2008, Depositional models for chronologi
of eight SCS dams in southwestern Utah (Hurricane and cal records: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 27, no. 1-2,
p. 42–60.
Washington fault zones) and low-sun-angle aerial photog
raphy, Washington and Iron Counties, Utah, and Mohave Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009, Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon
County, Arizona—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 21: dates: Radiocarbon, v. 51, no. 4, p. 337–360.
Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 583, variously
Bronk Ramsey, C., 2010, OxCal Program, v. 4.1.7: Radio
paginated, 2 plates, six DVD set.
carbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford: Online,
Boyer, D., 2002, Recommended procedure for conducting https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal.html.
studies in support of land development proposals on al
Brough, R.C., Jones, D.L., and Stevens, D.J., 1987, Utah’s
luvial and debris torrent fans, in Jordan, P., and Orban,
J., editors, Terrain stability and forest management in the comprehensive weather almanac: Salt Lake City, Utah,
Publishers Press, 517 p.
interior of British Columbia, workshop proceedings, May
23–25, 2001, Nelson, British Columbia, Canada: Online, Bryant, W.A., 2010, History of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr003/Boy Fault Zoning Act, California, USA: Environmental and
er2.pdf, accessed April 15, 2015. Engineering Geoscience, v. XVI, no. 1, pp. 7–18.
Brabb, E.E., Colgan, J.P., and Best, T.C., 2000, Map showing Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-rupture hazard
inventory and regional susceptibility for Holocene debris zones in California—Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
flows and related fast-moving landslides in the contermi Zoning Act with index to earthquake fault zone maps:
nous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Miscella California Geological Survey Special Publication 42
neous Field Studies Map MF-2329, 42 p. pamphlet, scale [Interim Revision 2007], 42 p.: Online, ftp://ftp.consrv.
1:2,500,000. ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf.
Brabb, E.E., Wieczorek, G.F., and Harp, E.L., 1989, Map Bucknam, R.C., and Anderson, R.E., 1979, Estimation of
showing 1983 landslides in Utah: U.S. Geological Sur scarp ages from a scarp-height–slope-angle relationship:
vey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2085, scale Geology, v. 7, p. 11–14.
1:500,000. Budhu, M., and Shelke, A., 2008, The formation of earth fis
Bray, J.D., 2001, Developing mitigation measures for the haz sures due to groundwater decline, in 12th International
ards associated with earthquake surface fault rupture, in Conference, Goa, India, 1–6 October, 2008: Internation
Konagai, K., A workshop on seismic-fault induced fail al Association for Computer Methods and Advances in
ures—possible remedies for damage to urban facilities: Geomechanics, p. 3051–3059.
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, University Bull, W.B., 1977, The alluvial fan environment: Progress in
of Tokyo, Japan, p. 55–79.
Physical Geography, v. 1, no. 2, p. 222–270.
Bray, J.D., 2009a, Earthquake surface fault rupture design Bull, W.B., 1991, Geomorphic responses to climatic change:
considerations, in Proceedings, Sixth International Con New York, Oxford University Press, 326 p.
ference on Urban Earthquake Engineering: Center for Ur
ban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technol Bull, W.B., and Pearthree, P.A., 1988, Frequency and size
of Quaternary surface ruptures of the Pitaycachi fault,
ogy, Tokyo, Japan, p. 37–45.
northeastern Sonora, Mexico: Bulletin of the Seismologi
Bray, J.D., 2009b, Designing buildings to accommodate earth cal Society of America, v. 78, p. 956–978.
quake surface rupture, in Goodno, B., editor, Applied
Technology Council and Structural Engineers Institute Bunds, M., Toké, N., Walther, S., Fletcher, A., and Arnoff,
2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance M., 2015, Applications of structure from motion software
of Existing Buildings and Other Structures: American in earthquake geology investigations—examples from
140 Utah Geological Survey

the Wasatch, Oquirrh, and San Andreas faults [poster], Cannon, S.H., 2001, Debris-flow generation from recently
in Lund, W.R., editor, Proceedings Volume—Basin and burned watersheds: Environmental and Engineering
Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit III: Utah Geo Geoscience, v. 12, no. 4, p. 321−341.
logical Survey Miscellaneous Publication 15-5, variously Cannon, S.H., Gartner, J.E., Rupert, M.G., Michael, J.A., Rea,
paginated, CD. A.H., and Parrett, C., 2010, Predicting the probability and
Butler, E., and Marsell, R.E., 1972, Developing a state water volume of postwildfire debris flows in the intermountain
plan, cloudburst floods in Utah, 1939–69: Utah Depart western United States: Geological Society of America
ment of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resourc Bulletin, v. 122, p. 127−144.
es Cooperative-Investigations Report Number 11, 103
Cannon, S.H., Gartner, J.E., Wilson, R.C., Bowers, J.C., and
p., 1 plate.
Laber, J.L., 2008, Storm rainfall conditions for floods and
California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists, 1998a, debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern
Guidelines for engineering geologic reports: California Colorado and southern California: Geomorphology, v.
Board for Geologists and Geophysicists, 8 p. 96, no. 3-4, p. 250−269.
California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists, 1998b, Cannon, S.H., Powers, P.S., Pihl, R.A., and Rogers, W.P.,
Geologic guidelines for earthquake and/or fault hazard 1995, Preliminary evaluation of the fire-related debris
reports: California Board for Geologists and Geophysi flows on Storm King Mountain, Glenwood Springs,
cists, 7 p. Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95
508, 38 p.
California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists, 1998c,
Guidelines for groundwater investigation reports Califor Cannon, S.H., and Reneau, S.L., 2000, Conditions for genera
nia Board for Geologists and Geophysicists, 7 p. tion of fire-related debris flows, Capulin Canyon, New
California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists, 1998d, Mexico: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 25,
no. 10, p. 1103−1121.
Guidelines for geophysical reports for environmental and
engineering geology: California Board for Geologists Carpenter, M.C., 1999, South-central Arizona—earth fissures
and Geophysicists, 5 p. and subsidence complicate development of desert water
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973, Guidelines resources, in Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen,
to geologic/seismic reports: California Division of Mines S.E., editors, Land subsidence in the United States: U.S.
and Geology Note 37, 2 p. Geological Survey Circular 1182, variously paginated.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975a, Recommend Carter, W., Shrestha, R., Tuell, G., Bloomquist, D., and Sar
ed guidelines for preparing engineering geologic reports: tori, M., 2001, Airborne laser swath mapping shines new
California Division of Mines and Geology Note 44, 2 p. light on Earth’s topography: EOS Transactions, v. 82, no.
46, p. 549–555.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975b, Checklists
for the review of geologic/seismic reports: California Di Case, W.F., 2000, Notable Utah rockfalls in the 1990s and 1980s:
vision of Mines and Geology Note 48, 2 p. Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 373, 11 p.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975c, Guidelines Caskey, S.J., Bell, J.W., Wesnousky, S.G., and Ramelli, A.R.,
for evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture: Califor 2004, Historical surface faulting and paleoseismology in
nia Division of Mines and Geology Note 49, 4 p. the area of the 1954 Rainbow Mountain–Stillwater se
quence, central Nevada: Bulletin of the Seismological
California Geological Survey, 2002, Guidelines for evaluating Society of America, v. 94, no. 4, p. 1255–1275.
the hazard of surface fault rupture: California Geological
Survey Note 49, 4 p.: Online, http://www.conservation. Castleton, J.J., 2009, Rock-fall hazards in Utah: Utah Geo
ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_49/ logical Survey Public Information Series 94, 3 p.
Documents/note_49.pdf. Castleton, J.J., Elliott, A.H., and McDonald, G.N., 2011, Geo
California Geological Survey, 2011a, Checklist for the re logic hazards of the Magna quadrangle, Salt Lake Coun
view of engineering geology and seismology reports for ty, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Special Study 137, 73
p., 10 plates, scale 1:24,000.
California public schools, hospitals, and essential service
buildings: California Geological Survey Note 48, 2 p. Castleton, J.J., Elliott, A.H., and McDonald, G.N., 2014, Geo
California Geological Survey, 2011b, Natural hazards dis logic hazards of the Copperton quadrangle, Salt Lake
closure—Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones: Online, County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Special Study
152, 24 p., 10 plates, scale 1:24,000.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/dis
close.aspx. Castleton, J.J., and McKean, A.P., 2012, The Utah Geological
California Geological Survey, 2013, The Alquist-Priolo Survey Geologic Hazards Mapping Initiative, in Hylland,
M.D., and Harty, K.M., editors, Selected topics in engi
Earthquake Zoning Act: Online, http://www.conserva
tion.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/main.aspx. neering and environmental geology in Utah: Utah Geo
logical Association Publication 41, p. 51–67.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 141

Chang, W.L., and Smith, R.B., 2002, Integrated seismic study areas, Wasatch Front, Utah: Utah Geological Sur
hazard analysis of the Wasatch Front, Utah: Bulletin of vey Circular 106, 7 p., GIS data, scale 1:24,000, CD.
the Seismological Society of America, v. 92, no. 5, p. City of Draper, 2005, Review protocol for an administrative
1904–1922. interpretation of Sections 9-10-070 and 9-19-080 of the
Chase, G.W., and Chapman, R.H., 1976, Black-box geol Draper Municipal Code regarding the issuance of build
ogy—uses and misuses of geophysics in engineering ge ing permits for structures astride active faults in subdivi
ology: California Geology, v. 29, p. 8–12. sions approved prior to the adoption of the Draper City
Chen, Y., Lai, K., Lee, Y., Suppe, J., Chen, W., Lin, Y.N., hazard ordinance: Online, http://www.draper.ut.us/Docu
Wang, Y., Hung, J., and Kuo, Y., 2007, Coseismic fold mentCenter/View/989, 3 p.
scarps and their kinematic behavior in the 1999 Chi-Chi City of Draper, 2010, Title 9 Land use and development code
earthquake Taiwan: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. for Draper City—Chapter 9-19 Geologic hazards ordi
112, B03S02, 15 p., doi:10.1029/2006JB004388. nance: Online, http://www.draper.ut.us/documentcenter/
Christenson, G.E., 1986, Debris-flow mapping and hazards as view/379, 66 p.
sessment in Utah, in Kusler, J., and Brooks, G., editors, Im City of North Salt Lake, 2011, Springhill landslide mitigation
proving the effectiveness of floodplain management in arid project—overall benefit-cost ratio determination, Octo
and semi-arid regions, March 24–26, 1986, Proceedings: ber 2011: Unpublished grant application to the Federal
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., p. 74−77. Emergency Management Agency, 3 p.
Christenson, G.E., 1987, Suggested approach to geologic haz Cluff, L.S., Brogan, G.E., and Glass, C.E., 1970, Wasatch
ards ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral fault, northern portion, earthquake fault investigation
Survey Circular 79, 16 p. and evaluation, a guide to land use planning: Oakland,
Christenson, G.E., 1993, The Wasatch Front County Hazards California, Woodward-Clyde and Associates, unpub
Geologist Program, in Gori, P.L., editor, Applications of lished consultant’s report for the Utah Geological and
research from the U.S. Geological Survey program, As Mineralogical Survey, variously paginated, compiled in
sessment of Regional Earthquake Hazards and Risk along Bowman, S.D., Hiscock, A.I., and Unger, C.D., 2015,
the Wasatch Front, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Profes Compilation of 1970s Woodward-Lundgren & Associ
sional Paper 1519, p. 114–120. ates Wasatch fault investigation reports and low-sun-an
gle aerial photography, Wasatch Front and Cache Valley,
Christenson, G.E., and Ashland, F.X., 2006, Assessing he sta Utah and Idaho—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 26:
bility of landslides—overview of lessons learned from Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 632, variously
historical landslides in Utah, Proceedings for the 40th paginated, 6 plates, 9 DVD set.
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Geotechnical
Engineering 2006, Logan, Utah State University, 17 p. Cluff, L.S., Brogan, G.E., and Glass, C.E.,1973, Wasatch
fault, southern portion, earthquake fault investigation
Christenson, G.E., and Ashland, F.X., 2008, A plan to reduce and evaluation, a guide to land use planning: Oakland,
losses from geologic hazards in Utah—recommendations California, Woodward-Lundgren and Associates, unpub
of the Governor’s Geologic Hazards Working Group
lished consultant’s report for the Utah Geological and
2006–2007: Utah Geological Survey Circular 104, 30 p. Mineralogical Survey, variously paginated, compiled in
Christenson, G.E., Batatian, L.D., and Nelson, C.V., 2003, Bowman, S.D., Hiscock, A.I., and Unger, C.D., 2015,
Guidelines for evaluating surface-fault-rupture hazards Compilation of 1970s Woodward-Lundgren & Associ
in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publica ates Wasatch fault investigation reports and low-sun-an
tion 03-6, 14 p. gle aerial photography, Wasatch Front and Cache Valley,
Utah and Idaho—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 26:
Christenson, G.E., and Bryant, B.A., 1998, Surface-faulting
Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 632, variously
hazards and land-use planning in Utah, in Lund, W.R.,
paginated, 6 plates, 9 DVD set.
editor, Western States Seismic Policy Council proceed
ings volume, Basin and Range Province Seismic-Hazards Cluff, L.S., Glass, C.E., and Brogan, G.E., 1974, Investiga
Summit: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publica tion and evaluation of the Wasatch fault north of Brigham
tion 98-2, p. 63–73. City and Cache Valley faults, Utah and Idaho, a guide
to land-use planning with recommendations for seismic
Christenson, G.E., and Purcell, C., 1985, Correlation and age
of Quaternary alluvial-fan sequences, Basin and Range safety: Oakland, California, Woodward-Lundgren and
Associates, unpublished Final Technical Report for the
Province, southwestern United States, in Weide, D.L., U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards
editor, Soils and Quaternary geology of the southwestern
Reduction Program, contract no. 14-08-001-13665, vari
United States: Geological Society of America Special
ously paginated, compiled in Bowman, S.D., Hiscock,
Paper 203, p. 115−122.
A.I., and Unger, C.D., 2015, Compilation of 1970s Wood
Christenson, G.E., and Shaw, L.M., 2008, Geographic infor ward-Lundgren & Associates Wasatch fault investigation
mation system database showing geologic-hazard special reports and low-sun-angle aerial photography, Wasatch
 Utah Geological Survey
142

Front and Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho—Paleoseismol Croft, A.R., 1962, Some sedimentation phenomena along the
ogy of Utah, Volume 26: Utah Geological Survey Open Wasatch Mountain Front: Journal of Geophysical Re
File Report 632, variously paginated, 6 plates, 9 DVD set. search, v. 67, no. 4, p. 1511−1524.
Cohen, K.M., and Gibbard, P.L., 2010, Global chronostrati Croft, A.R., 1967, Rainstorm debris floods, a problem in pub
graphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million years, v. lic welfare: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experi
2010: Subcomission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of the In ment Station Report 248, 35 p.
ternational Union of Geological Sciences, 2010 documen Crone, A.J., Machette, M.N., Bonilla, M.B., Lienkaemper,
tation, online, http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/charts/. J.J., Pierce, K.L., Scott, W.E., and Bucknam, R.C., 1987,
Colman, S.M., Kelts, K., and Dinter, D., 2002, Depositional Surface faulting accompanying the Borah Peak earth
history and neotectonics in Great Salt Lake, Utah, from quake and segmentation of the Lost River fault, central
high-resolution seismic stratigraphy: Sedimentary Geol Idaho: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
ogy, v. 148. p. 61–78. v. 77, no. 3, p. 739–770.
Colman, S.M., and Pierce, K.L., 2000, Classification of Qua Crone, A.J., Personius, S.P., DuRoss, C.B., Machette, M.N., and
ternary geochronologic methods, in Noller, S.M., Sow Mahan, S.A., 2014, History of late Holocene earthquakes
ers, J.M., and Lettis, W.R., editors, Quaternary geochro at the Willow Creek site on the Nephi segment, Wasatch
nology—methods and applications: Washington, D.C., fault zone, Utah—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 25:
American Geophysical Union Reference Shelf 4, p. 2–5. Utah Geological Survey Special Study 151, 55 p., CD.
Committee on Ground Failure Hazards, 1985, Reducing loss Cruden, D.M., and Varnes, D.J., 1996, Landslide types and
es from landslides in the U.S: Washington, D.C., Com processes, in Turner A.K., and Schuster, R.L., editors,
mission on Engineering and Technological Systems, Na Landslides—investigation and mitigation: Washington,
tional Research Council, 41 p. D.C., National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council, Transportation Research Board Special Report
Conway, B.D., 2013, Land subsidence monitoring report, 247, p. 36–75.
Number 1: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 30
p.: Online, http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Hydrology/ Currey, D.R., 1982, Lake Bonneville—selected features
Geophysics/documents/ADWRLandSubsidenceMoni-
toringReport_Number1_Final.pdf, accessed September of relevance to neotectonic analysis: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 82-1070, 30 p., 1 plate, scale
10, 2013. 1:500,000.
Cook, K.L., Gray, E.F., Iverson, R.M., and Strohmeier, M.T., Currey, D.R., 1990, Quaternary paleolakes in the evolution of
1980, Bottom gravity meter regional survey of the Great semidesert basins, with special emphasis on Lake Bonn
Salt Lake, Utah, in Gwynn, J.W., editor, Great Salt eville and the Great Basin, U.S.A.: Palaeogeography, Pa
Lake—a scientific, historical, and economic overview: laeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 76, p. 189–214.
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 116, p. Currey, D.R., Berry, M.S., Green, S.A., and Murchison, S.B.,
125–143. 1988, Very late Pleistocene red beds in the Bonneville
Coppersmith, K.J., and Youngs, R.R., 2000, Data needs for basin, Utah and Nevada [abs.]: Geological Society of
probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis: Journal America Abstracts with Programs, v. 20, no. 6, p. 411.
of Geodynamics, v. 29, p. 329–343.
Curtis, G.H., 1981, A guide to dating methods for the deter
Cornforth, D.H., 2005, Landslides in practice—investiga mination of the last time of movement of faults: U.S. Nu
tion, analysis, and remedial/preventative options in soils: clear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-2382, 314 p.
Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 395 p. Deng, Z., 1997, Impact of debris flows on structures and its
Costa, J.E., 1984, Physical geomorphology of debris flows, in mitigation: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Ph.D. the
Costa, J.E., and Fleisher, P.J., editors, Developments and sis, 242 p.
applications of geomorphology: New York, Springer Deng, Z., Lawton, E.C., May, F.E., Smith, S.W., and Williams,
Verlag, p. 268−317. S.R., 1992, Estimated impact forces on houses caused by
Costa, J.E., 1988, Rheologic, morphologic, and sedimento the 1983 Rudd Creek debris flow, in Conference on Arid
logic differentiation of water floods, hyperconcentrated West Floodplain Management Issues, Las Vegas, Nevada,
flows, and debris flows, in Baker, V.E., Kochel, C.R., and December 2–4, 1992, Proceedings: Association of State
Patton, P.C., editors, Flood geomorphology: New York, Floodplain Managers Inc., p. 103−115.
John Wiley and Sons, p. 113−122.
dePolo, C.M., 2011, The recovery of Wells, Nevada from the
Costa, J.E., and Jarrett, R.D., 1981, Debris flows in small 2008 earthquake disaster, in The 21 February 2008 Mw
mountain stream channels of Colorado and their hydro 6.0 Wells, Nevada earthquake: Nevada Bureau of Mines
logic implications: Bulletin of the Association of Engi and Geology Special Publication 36, variously paginated:
neering Geologists, v. 18, no. 3, p. 309−322. Online, http://data.nbmg.unr.edu/Public/freedownloads/
sp/sp036/, accessed September 28, 2015.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 143

Deseret News, 1986, Utah’s worst avalanche disaster crippled locene and latest Pleistocene paleoseismology of the Salt
Bingham Canyon in 1926: Deseret News, February 20– Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone, Utah, at the
21, 1986, p. 4B. Penrose Drive trench site, in DuRoss, C.B., and Hylland,
M.D., 2014, Evaluating surface faulting chronologies of
Dinter, D.A., 2015, Paleoseismology of faults submerged be
graben-bounding faults in Salt Lake Valley, Utah––new
neath Utah Lake [poster], in Lund, W.R., editor, Proceed
paleoseismic data from the Salt Lake City segment of the
ings Volume, Basin and Range Province Seismic Hazards
Wasatch fault zone and the West Valley fault zone—Pa
Summit III: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Pub leoseismology of Utah, Volume 24: Utah Geological Sur
lication 15-5, variously paginated, CD. vey Special Study 149, 39 p., 6 appendices, CD.
Dinter, D.A., and Pechmann, J.C., 2000, Paleoseismology of DuRoss, C.B., and Kirby, S.M., 2004, Reconnaissance in
the East Great Salt Lake fault: Final Technical Report to
vestigation of ground cracks along the western margin
the U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards of Parowan Valley, Iron County, Utah: Utah Geological
Reduction Program, award no. 98HQGR1013, 6 p. Survey Report of Investigation 253, 17 p., CD.
Dinter, D.A., and Pechmann, J.C., 2005, Segmentation and DuRoss, C.B., Personius, S.F., Crone, A.J., McDonald, G.N.,
Holocene displacement history of the Great Salt Lake and Lidke, D.J., 2009, Paleoseismic investigation of the
fault, Utah, in Lund, W.R., editor, Basin and Range Prov northern Weber segment of the Wasatch fault zone at the
ince Seismic Hazards Summit II: Utah Geological Survey Rice Creek trench site, North Ogden, Utah—Paleoseis
Miscellaneous Publication 05-2, variously paginated, CD. mology of Utah, Volume 18: Utah Geological Survey
Dinter, D.A., and Pechmann, J.C., 2014, Paleoseismology Special Study 130, 37 p., 2 plates, CD.
of the Promontory segment, East Great Salt Lake fault: DuRoss, C.B., Personius, S.F., Crone, A.J., Olig, S.S., Hyl
Final Technical Report to the U.S. Geological Survey land, M.D., Lund, W.R., and Schwartz, D.P., 2016, Fault
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, award segmentation—New concepts from the Wasatch fault
no. 02HQGR0105, 23 p.
zone, Utah, USA: Journal of Geophysical Research—
Dinter, D.A., and Pechmann, J.C., 2015, Paleoseismology of Solid Earth, v. 121, 27 p. (doi:1002/2015JB012519).
the northern segments of the Great Salt Lake fault [post DuRoss, C.B., Personius, S.F., Crone, A.J., Olig, S.S., and
er], in Lund, W.R., editor, Proceedings Volume, Basin Lund, W.R., 2011, Integration of paleoseismic data
and Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit III: Utah from multiple sites to develop an objective earthquake
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 15-5, vari chronology—application to the Weber segment of the
ously paginated, CD. Wasatch fault zone, Utah: Bulletin of the Seismologi
Dobbins, D., and Simon, D., 2015, One city’s perspective on cal Society of America, v. 101, no. 6, p. 2765–2781 (doi:
what local governments need from geoscientists, in Lund, 10.1785/0120110102).
W.R., editor, Proceedings Volume, Basin and Range Prov Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Utah Chapter,
ince Seismic Hazards Summit III: Utah Geological Survey 2015, Scenario for a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the
Miscellaneous Publication 15-5, variously paginated, CD. Wasatch fault–Salt Lake City segment—hazards and loss
Doelling, H.H., and Willis, G.C., 1995, Guide to authors of estimates: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
geological maps and textbooklets of the Utah Geological Utah Chapter, 53 p.: Online, https://ussc.utah.gov/pages/
Survey: Utah Geological Survey Circular 89, 30 p., 11 help.php?section=EERI+Salt+Lake+City+M7+Earthqua
appendices. ke+Scenario, accessed September 28, 2015.
DuRoss, C.B., 2008, Holocene vertical displacement on the Eisbacher, G.H., and Clague, J.J., 1984, Destructive mass
central segments of the Wasatch fault zone, Utah: Bul movements in high mountains—hazard and manage
letin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 98, no. ment: Geological Survey of Canada Paper 84-16, 230 p.
6, p 2918–2933 (doi:10.1785/0120080119).
Ellen, S.D., Mark, R.K., Cannon, S.H., and Knifong, D.L.,
DuRoss, C.B., 2015, Characterizing hazardous faults—tech 1993, Map of debris-flow hazard in the Honolulu District
niques, data needs, and analysis [short course manual], of Oahu, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Re
in Lund, W.R., editor, Proceedings Volume, Basin and port 93-213, 25 p., scale 1:90,000.
Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit III: Utah Geo Elliott, A.H., and Harty, K.M., 2010, Landslide maps of Utah:
logical Survey Miscellaneous Publication 15-5, CD. Utah Geological Survey Map 246DM, scale 1:100,000,
DuRoss, C.B., and Hylland, M.D., 2015, Synchronous rup DVD.
tures along a major graben-forming fault system— Elliott, A.H., and Kirschbaum, M.J., 2007, The preliminary
Wasatch and West Valley fault zones, Utah: Bulletin of landslide history database of Utah, 1850−1978: Online,
the Seismological Society of America, v. 105, no. 1, p. http://geology.utah.gov/resources/data-databases/land
14–37 (doi:10.1785/0120140064). slide-history/, accessed July 20, 2015.
DuRoss, C.B., Hylland, M.D., McDonald, G.N., Crone, A.J.,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, Radon prevention
Personius, S.F., Gold, R.D., and Mahan, S.A., 2014, Ho in the design and construction of schools and other large
144 Utah Geological Survey

buildings: Environmental Protection Agency Publication Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., editors,
625-R-92-016, 50 p. 1999, Land subsidence in the United States: U.S. Geo
Erslev, E.A., 1991, Trishear fault-propagation folding: Geol logical Survey Circular 1182, variously paginated.
ogy, v. 19, p. 617–620. Gartner, J.E., Cannon, S.H., Santi, P.M., and deWolfe, V.G.,
Evans, S.G., and Hungr, O., 1993, The assessment of rock fall 2008, Empirical models to predict the volumes of debris
hazard at the base of talus slopes: Canadian Geotechnical flows generated by recently burned basins in the western
U.S.: Geomorphology, v. 96, no. 3-4, p. 339−354.
Journal, v. 30, p. 620–636.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003, Guide Gath, E., 2015, Mitigating surface faulting—developing an
lines and specifications for flood hazard mapping part earthquake fault zoning act for the new millennium, in
Lund, W.R., editor, Proceedings Volume, Basin and
ners, appendix G—guidance for alluvial fan flooding
analyses and mapping: Online, http://www.fema.gov/ Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit III: Utah Geo
media-library-data/1387818091947-c2fd64ab6948e3d logical Survey Miscellaneous Publication 15-5, variously
6e3d6cfbe945a8d19/Guidelines%20and%20Specifica paginated, CD.
tions%20for%20Flood%20Hazard%20Mapping%20 Gilbert, G.K., 1890, Lake Bonneville: U.S. Geological Survey
Partners%20Appendix%20G-Guidance%20for%20Al Monograph 1,438 p.
luvial%20Fan%20Flooding%20Analyses%20and%20
Giraud, R.E., 2005, Guidelines for the geologic evaluation of
Mapping%20(Apr%202003).pdf, accessed July 20, 2015. debris-flow hazards on alluvial fans in Utah: Utah Geo
Federal Highway Administration, 2003, Checklist and guide logical Survey Miscellaneous Publication 05-06, 16 p.
lines for review of geotechnical reports and preliminary Giraud, R.E., 2010, Investigation of the 2005 Uinta Canyon
plans and specifications: Federal Highway Administra snowmelt debris flows, Duchesne County, Utah, in El
tion Publication No. FHWA ED-88-053, 38 p. liott, A.H., compiler, Technical Reports for 2002-2009,
Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., Geologic Hazards Program: Utah Geological Survey Re
and Savage, W.Z., 2008a, Guidelines for landslide sus port of Investigation 269, p. 118–133.
ceptibility, hazard, and risk zoning for land-use planning: Giraud, R.E., and Christenson, G.E., 2010, Investigation of
Engineering Geology, v. 102, p. 85–98. the May 15, 2005, 1550 East Provo rock fall, Provo,
Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., Utah, in Ashley, A.H., compiler, Technical Reports for
and Savage, W.Z., 2008b, Commentary—guidelines for 2002–2009, Geologic Hazards Program: Utah Geologi
landslide susceptibility, hazard, and risk zoning for land cal Survey Report of Investigation 269, p. 35–43.
use planning: Engineering Geology, v. 102, p. 99–111.
Giraud, R.E., Elliott, A.H., and Castleton, J.J., 2010, Investi
Florsheim, J.L., Keller, E.A., and Best, D.W., 1991, Fluvial gation of the April 11, 2009, 1550 East Provo rock fall,
sediment transport in response to moderate storm flows Provo, in Elliott, A.H., compiler, Technical reports for
following chaparral wildfire, Ventura County, southern 2002–2009, Geologic Hazards Program: Utah Geological
California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. Survey Report of Investigation 269, p. 207−219.
103, no. 4, p. 504−511.
Giraud, R.E., and Lund, W.R., 2010, Investigation of the June 3,
Forman, S.L., editor, 1989, Dating methods applicable to 2005, landslide-generated Black Mountain debris flow, Iron
Quaternary geologic studies in the western United States: County, Utah, in Elliott, A.H., compiler, Technical reports
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Pub for 2002–2009, Geologic Hazards Program: Utah Geologi
lication 89-7, 80 p. cal Survey Report of Investigation 269, p. 143−163.
Forman, S.L., and Miller, G.H., 1989, Radiocarbon dating of Giraud, R.E., and McDonald, G.N., 2007, The 2000–2004
terrestrial organic material, in Forman, S.L., editor, Dat fire-related debris flows in northern Utah, in Schaefer,
ing methods applicable to Quaternary geologic studies in V.R., Schuster, R.L., and Turner, A.K., editors, Confer
the western United States: Utah Geological and Mineral ence presentations, 1st North American Landslide Con
Survey Miscellaneous Publication 89-7, p. 2−9. ference, Vail, Colorado: Association of Environmental
Forster, R.R., 2006, Land subsidence in southwest Utah from and Engineering Geologists Special Publication no. 23,
1993 to 1998 measured with interferometric synthetic p. 1522−1531.
aperture radar (InSAR): Utah Geological Survey Miscel Giraud, R.E., and Shaw, L.M., 2007, Landslide susceptibility
laneous Publication 06-5, 35 p. map of Utah: Utah Geological Survey Map 228DM, scale
Forster, R.R., 2012, Evaluation of interferometric synthetic 1:500,000, DVD.
aperture radar (InSAR) techniques for measuring land Godsey, H.S., Currey, D.R., and Chan, M.A., 2005, New evi
subsidence and calculated subsidence rates for the Es dence for an extended occupation of the Provo shoreline
calante Valley, Utah, 1998 to 2006: Utah Geological Sur and implications for regional climate change, Pleistocene
vey Open-File Report 589, 25 p. Lake Bonneville, Utah, USA: Quaternary Research, v.
63, no. 2, p. 212–223.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 145

Godsey, H.S., Oviatt, C.G., Miller, D.M., and Chan, M.A., Harvey, A.M., 1989, The occurrence and role of arid zone al
2011, Stratigraphy and chronology of offshore to near luvial fans, in Thomas, D.S.G., editor, Arid zone geomor
shore deposits associated with the Provo shoreline, Pleis phology: New York, Halsted Press, p. 13−58.
tocene Lake Bonneville, Utah: Palaeogeography, Palaeo Hatheway, A.W., and Leighton, F.B., 1979, Trenching as an
climatology, Palaeoecology, v. 310, no. 3–4, p. 442–450 exploratory tool, in Hatheway, A.W., and McClure, C.R.,
(doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2011.08.005). Jr., editors, Geology in the siting of nuclear power plants:
Gori, P.L., 1993, U.S. Geological Survey program, Assess Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering
ment of Regional Earthquake Hazards and Risk along Geology, Volume IV, p. 169–195.
the Wasatch Front, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Profes Hecker, S., Abrahamson, N.A., and Woodell, K.E., 2013,
sional Paper 1519, variously paginated. Variability of displacement at a point—implications
Gray, H.J., Mahan, S.A., Rittenour, T., and Nelson, M.S., for earthquake-size distribution and rupture hazards on
2015, Guide to luminescence dating techniques and their faults: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
application for paleoseismic research, in Lund, W.R., edi v. 103, no. 2A, p. 651–674 (doi:10.1785/0120120159).
tor, Proceedings Volume, Basin and Range Province Seis Hereford, R., Thompson, K.S., Burke, K.J., and Fairley, H.C.,
mic Hazards Summit III: Utah Geological Survey Mis
1996, Tributary debris fans and the late Holocene alluvial
cellaneous Publication 15-5, variously paginated, CD. chronology of the Colorado River, eastern Grand Can
Hall, D.E., Long, M.T., and Remboldt, M.D., 1994, Slope sta yon, Arizona: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.
bility reference guide for national forests in the United 108, no. 1, p. 3−19.
States: Washington, D.C., U.S. Forest Service Publica Higgins, J.D., and Andrew, R.D., 2012a, Chapter 2—rockfall
tion EM-7170-13, 3 volumes, 1091 p. types and causes, in Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L.,
Hanks, T.C., and Andrews, D.J., 1989, Effect of far-field slope editors, Rockfall characterization and control: Washing
on morphological dating of scarplike landforms: Journal ton, D.C., Transportation Research Board of the National
of Geophysical Research, v. 94, p. 565–573. Academies, p. 21–55.
Hanson, K.L., Kelson, K.I., Angell, M.A., and Lettis, W.R., Higgins, J.D., and Andrew, R.D., 2012b, Chapter 6—site
1999, Techniques for identifying faults and determining characterization, in Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L., edi
their origins: Washington, D.C., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory tors, Rockfall characterization and control: Washington,
Commission NUREG/CR-5503, variously paginated. D.C., Transportation Research Board of the National
Harris, J., 2001, Relocation project has mixed results: The Academies, p. 177–211.
View Neighborhood Newspapers, Wednesday, July 11, Highland, L.M., 2004, Landslide types and processes: U.S.
2001, online [no longer available]. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3072: Online, http://
Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, 2010, Web page: Online, pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3072/pdf/fs2004-3072.pdf.
http://www.hgsubsidence.org/, accessed March 31, 2010. Highland, L.M., and Bobrowsky, P., 2008, The landslide
Hart, M.W., Shaller, P.J., and Farrand, G.T., 2012, When land handbook—a guide to understanding landslides: U.S.
slides are misinterpreted as faults—case studies from the Geological Survey Circular 1325, 129 p.
western United States: Environmental and Engineering Highland, L.M., and Schuster, R.L., 2000, Significant land
Geoscience, v. 18, no. 4, p. 313–325. slide events in the United States: U.S. Geological Sur
Harty, K.M., 1991, Landslide map of Utah: Utah Geologi vey: Online, http://landslides.usgs.gov/docs/faq/signifi
cal and Mineral Survey Map 133, 28 p. pamphlet, scale cantls_508.pdf, accessed July 20, 2015.
1:500,000. Hiscock, A.I., and Hylland, M.D., 2015, Surface-fault-rup
Harty, K.M., and Lowe, M., 2003, Geologic evaluation and ture-hazard maps of the Levan and Fayette segments of
hazard potential of liquefaction-induced landslides along the Wasatch fault zone, Juab and Sanpete Counties, Utah:
the Wasatch Front: Utah Geological Survey Special Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 640, 7 plates,
Study 104, 40 p. scale 1:24,000.

Harty, K.M., and McKean, A.P., 2015, Surface fault rupture Hoek, E., Carter, T.G., and Diederichs, M.S., 2013, Quantifi
hazard map of the Honeyville quadrangle, Box Elder and cation of the Geological Strength Index chart: 47th U.S.
Cache Counties, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Open Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium Proceed
File Report 638, 1 plate, scale 1:24,000, CD. ings, San Francisco, variously paginated: Online, http://
www.rocscience.com/library/rocnews/fall2013/Quantifi
Harty, K.M., Mulvey, W.E., and Machette, M.N., 1997, Sur cation-GSI-Chart-Hoek-Carter-Diederichs.pdf.
ficial geologic map of the Nephi segment of the Wasatch
fault zone, eastern Juab County, Utah: Utah Geological Holtz, R.D., and Schuster, R.L., 1996, Stabilization of soil slopes,
Survey Map 170, scale 1:50,000. in Turner, A.K., and Shuster, R.L., editors, Landslides—in
vestigation and mitigation: Washington, D.C., National
146 Utah Geological Survey

Academy Press, National Research Council, Transportation of graben-bounding faults in Salt Lake Valley, Utah—
Research Board Special Report 247, p. 439–473. new paleoseismic data from the Salt Lake City seg
ment of the Wasatch fault zone and the West Valley
Hoopes, J.C., McBride, J.H., Christiansen, E.H., and Kow
fault zone—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 24:
allis, B.J., 2014, Characterizing a landslide along the Utah Geological Survey Special Study 149, p. 41–76,
Wasatch mountain front (Utah): Environmental and En
gineering Geoscience, v. 20, no. 1, p. 1–24. 8 appendices, CD.

Huebl, J., and Fiebiger, G., 2005, Debris-flow mitigation mea Hylland, M.D., and Lowe, M., 1998, Characteristics, timing,
and hazard potential of liquefaction-induced landsliding in
sures, in Jakob, M., and Hungr, O., editors, Debris-flow
the Farmington Siding landslide complex, Davis County,
hazards and related phenomena: Heidelberg, Springer
Utah: Utah Geological Survey Special Study 95, 38 p.
Praxis, p. 444−487.
Ingebritsen, S.E., and Jones, D.R., 1999, Santa Clara Valley,
Hungr, O., 2000, Analysis of debris flow surges using the the
ory of uniformly progressive flow: Earth Surface Process California—a case of arrested subsidence, in Galloway,
D., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., editors, Land sub
and Landforms, v. 25, p. 483−495.
sidence in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Cir
Hungr, O., McDougall, S., and Bovis, M., 2005, Entrainment cular 1182, variously paginated.
of material by debris flows, in Jakob, M., and Hungr, O.,
International Code Council, 2014a, International building
editors, Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena:
code: Country Club Hills, Illinois, 700 p.
Heidelberg, Springer-Praxis, p. 135−158.
International Code Council, 2014b, International residential
Hungr, O., Morgan, G.C., and Kellerhals, R., 1984, Quantita
code—for one and two story dwellings: Country Club
tive analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of reme
Hills, Illinois, 902 p.
dial measures: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 21, p.
663−677. International Commission on Stratigraphy, 2009, Interna
tional Stratigraphic Chart: International Commission
Hungr, O., Morgan, G.C., VanDine, D.F., and Lister, D.R., on Stratigraphy and International Union of Geological
1987, Debris flow defenses in British Columbia, in
Sciences: Online, http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/
Costa, J.E., and Wieczorek, G.F., editors, Debris flows/
StratChart2009.pdf.
avalanches: Geological Society of America Reviews in
Engineering Geology, Volume VII, p. 201−222. Iron County, 2011, Iron County, Utah Code of Ordinances, Title
17 Zoning—Chapter 17.59 Geologic conditions: Online,
Hylland, M.D., 1995, Fatal Big Cottonwood Canyon rock fall
code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.59GECO.
https://www.municode.com/library/ut/iron_county/codes/
prompts UGS emergency response: Utah Geological Sur
vey, Survey Notes, v. 27, no. 3, p. 13.
Iverson, R.M., 2003, The debris-flow rheology myth, in Rick
Hylland, M.D., editor, 1996, Guidelines for evaluating land
enmann, D., and Chen, C.L., editors, Proceedings of the
slide hazards in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular
92, 16 p. Third International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards
Mitigation—Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment,
Hylland, M.D., 2007, Spatial and temporal patterns of sur September 10–12, 2003, Davos, Switzerland: Rotterdam,
face faulting on the Levan and Fayette segments of the Millpress, p. 303−314.
Wasatch fault zone, central Utah, from surficial geologic
Jackson, L.E., Jr., 1987, Debris flow hazard in the Canadian
mapping and scarp-profile data, in Willis, G.C., Hylland,
M.D., Clark, D.L., and Chidsey, T.C., Jr., editors, Cen Rocky Mountains: Geological Survey of Canada Paper
86-11, 20 p.
tral Utah—diverse geology of a dynamic landscape: Utah
Geological Association Publication 36, p. 255–271. Jackson, L.E., Jr., Kostaschuk, R.A., and MacDonald, G.M.,
1987, Identification of debris flow hazard on alluvial fans
Hylland, M.D., DuRoss, C.B., McDonald, G.N., Olig, S.S., in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, in Costa, J.E., and
Oviatt, C.G., Mahan, S.A., Crone, A.J., and Personius, Wieczorek, G.F., editors, Debris flows/avalanches: Geo
S.F., 2012, Basin-floor Lake Bonneville stratigraphic sec logical Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geol
tion as revealed in paleoseismic trenches at the Baileys ogy, Volume VII, p. 115−124.
Lake site, West Valley fault zone, Utah, in Hylland, M.D.,
and Harty, K.M., editors, Selected topics in engineering Jakob, M., 2005, Debris-flow hazard analysis, in Jakob, M.,
and environmental geology in Utah: Utah Geological As and Hungr, O., editors, Debris-flow hazards and related
sociation Publication 41, p. 175–193, DVD. phenomena: Heidelberg, Springer-Praxis, p. 411−443.
Hylland, M.D., DuRoss, C.B., McDonald, G.N., Olig, S.S., Jakob, M., and Hungr, O., 2005, Debris-flow hazards and re
Oviatt, C.G., Mahan, S.A., Crone, A.J., and Personius, lated phenomena: Heidelberg, Springer-Praxis, 739 p.
S.F., 2014, Late Quaternary paleoseismology of the Jakob, M., and Weatherly, H., 2005, Debris flow hazard and
West Valley fault zone, Utah—insights from the Bai risk assessment, Jones Creek, Washington, in Hungr, O.,
leys Lake trench site, in DuRoss, C.B., and Hylland, Fell, R., Couture, R., and Eberhardt, E., editors, Landslide
M.D., 2014, Evaluating surface faulting chronologies risk management: New York, A.A. Balkema, p. 533−541.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 147

Janda, R.J., Scott, K.M., Nolan, K.M., and Martinson, H.A., County, Utah: College Station, Texas A&M University,
1981, Lahar movement, effects, and deposits, in Lipman, Ph.D. dissertation, 441 p.
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., editors, The 1980 eruptions Keaton, J.R., 1990, Predicting alluvial-fan sediment-water
of Mount St. Helens, Washington: U.S. Geological Sur
slurry characteristics and behavior from sedimentology
vey Professional Paper 1250, p. 461−478. and stratigraphy of past deposits, in French, R.H., editor,
Janecke, S.U., and Oaks, R.Q., Jr., 2011, Reinterpreted history Proceedings, Hydraulics/Hydrology of Arid Lands, July
of latest Pleistocene Lake Bonneville—geologic setting 30–August 3, 1990, San Diego, California: American
of threshold failure, Bonneville flood, deltas of the Bear Society of Civil Engineers, p. 608−613.
River, and outlets for two Provo shorelines, southeastern Keaton, J.R., Anderson, L.R., and Mathewson, C.C., 1991,
Idaho, USA, in Lee, J., and Evans, J.P., editors, Geologic Assessing debris flow hazards on alluvial fans in Davis
field trips to the Basin and Range, Rocky Mountains, County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Contract Report
Snake River Plain, and terrains of the U.S. Cordillera: 91-11, 166 p., 7 appendices.
Geological Society of America Field Guide 21, p. 195–
222 (doi:10.1130/2011.0021[09]). Keaton, J.R., Anderson, L.R., Topham, D.E., and Rathbun,
D.J., 1987a, Earthquake-induced landslide potential in
Jibson, R.W., 2011, Methods for assessing the stability of
and development of a seismic slope stability map of the
slopes during earthquakes—a retrospective: Engineering urban corridor of Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah,
Geology, v. 122, p. 43–50. in McCalpin, J., editor, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual
Jibson, R.W., and Harp, E.L., 1995, The Springdale landslide, Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soils Engineer
in Christenson, G.E., editor, The September 2, 1992 ML ing: Logan, Utah State University, April 6–8, 1987, p.
5.8 St. George earthquake, Washington County, Utah: 57–80.
Utah Geological Survey Circular 88, p. 21–30. Keaton, J.R., Currey, D.R., and Olig, S.J., 1987b, Paleoseis
Jibson, R.W., and Jibson, M.W., 2003, Java programs for us micity and earthquake hazards evaluation of the West Val
ing Newmark's method and simplified decoupled analy ley fault zone, Salt Lake City urban area, Utah: Salt Lake
sis to model slope performance during earthquakes: U.S. City, Dames & Moore and University of Utah Depart
Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-005, CD. ment of Geography, Final Technical Report prepared for
U.S. Geological Survey, contract no. 14-08-0001-22048,
Johnson, A.M., and Rodine, J.R., 1984, Debris flow, in Bruns
55 p. +33 p. appendix. (Subsequently published in 1993
den, D., and Prior, D.B., editors, Slope instability: New
as Utah Geological Survey Contract Report 93-8.)
York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 257−361.
Jones, C.L., Higgins, J.D., and Andrew, R.D., 2000, Colo Keaton, J.R., and DeGraff, J.V., 1996, Surface observation
rado rock fall simulation program, version 4.0: Report and geologic mapping, in Turner, A.K., and Shuster,
R.L., editors, Landslides—investigation and mitigation:
prepared for the Colorado Department of Transportation,
127 p. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, National
Research Council, Transportation Research Board Spe
Kaliser, B.N., 1978, Ground surface subsidence in Cedar City, cial Report 247, p. 178–230.
Utah: Utah Geological Survey Report of Investigation
124, 22 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000. Keaton, J.R., and Lowe, M., 1998, Evaluating debris-flow
hazards in Davis County, Utah—engineering versus geo
Katzenstein, K., 2013, InSAR analysis of ground surface defor logical approaches, in Welby, C.W., and Gowan, M.E.,
mation in Cedar Valley, Iron County, Utah: Utah Geologi editors, A paradox of power—voices of warning and rea
cal Survey Miscellaneous Publication 13-5, 43 p., CD. son in the geosciences: Geological Society of America
Keate, N.S., 1991, Debris flows in southern Davis County, Reviews in Engineering Geology, Volume XII, p. 97−121.
Utah: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, M.S. thesis, Keaton, J.R., and Rinne, R., 2002, Engineering-geology map
174 p. ping of slopes and landslides, in Bobrowsky, P.T., edi
Keaton, J.R., 1984, Genesis-lithology-qualifier (GLQ) system tor, Geoenvironmental Mapping—methods, theory, and
of engineering geology mapping symbols: Bulletin of the practice: Leiden, The Netherlands, Taylor and Francis/
Association of Engineering Geologists, v. XXI, no. 3, p. Balkema, p. 9–28.
355–364. Keaton, J.R., Wartman, J., Anderson, S., Denoit, J., deLaCha
Keaton, J.R., 1986, Potential consequences of tectonic defor pelle, J., Gilber, R., and Montgomery, D.R., 2014, The
mation along the Wasatch fault: Utah State University, 22 March 2014 Oso landslide, Snohomish County,
Final Technical Report to the U.S. Geological Survey for Washington: Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnais
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, sance, 172 p.
Grant 14-08-0001-G0074, 23 p. Keefer, D.K., 1984, Landslides caused by earthquakes: Geo
Keaton, J.R., 1988, A probabilistic model for hazards relat logical Society of America Bulletin, v. 95, p. 402–421.
ed to sedimentation processes on alluvial fans in Davis
148 Utah Geological Survey

Kelson, K.I., Kang, K.-H., Page, W.D., Lee, C.-T., and Cluff, Basin and Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit III:
L.S., 2001, Representative styles of deformation along Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 15-5,
the Chelungpu fault from the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) variously paginated, CD.
earthquake—geomorphic characteristics and responses Leake, S.A., 2004, Land subsidence from ground-water
of man-made structures: Bulletin of the Seismologi
pumping: U.S. Geological Survey: Online, http://geo
cal Society of America, v. 91, no. 5, p. 930–952 (doi: change.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/subside,
10.1785/0120000741). accessed March 29, 2010.
Kerr, J., Nathan, S., Van Dissen, R., Webb, P., Brunsdon, D., Lettis, W.R., and Kelson, K.I., 2000, Applying geochronol
and King, A., 2003, Planning for development of land on ogy in paleoseismology, in Noller, J.S., Sowers, J.M., and
or close to active faults—a guide to assist resource man
Lettis, W.R., editors, Quaternary geochronology: Wash
agement in New Zealand: Prepared for the Ministry of ington, D.C., American Geophysical Union Reference
the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, by the In Shelf 4, p. 479−495.
stitute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, client report
2002/124, 71 p. Lienkaemper, J.J., and Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009, OxCal—
versatile tool for developing paleoearthquake chronolo
Kirkham, R.M., Parise, M., and Cannon, S.H., 2000, Geology gies—a primer: Seismological Research Letters, v. 80,
of the 1994 South Canyon fire area, and a geomorphic no. 3, p. 431–434 (doi:10.1785/gssrl.80.3.431).
analysis of the September 1, 1994, debris flows, South
Lin, Z., Huili, G., Lingling, J., Yaoming, S., Xiaojaun, L., and
Flank Storm King Mountain, Glenwood Springs, Colo
rado: Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication Jun, J., 2009, Research on evolution of land subsidence
46, 39 p., 1 appendix, 1 plate, scale 1:5,000. induced by nature and human activity by utilizing re
mote sensing technology: Urban Remote Sensing Event,
Knudsen, T.R., 2011, Investigation of the February 10, 2010, Shanghai, 5 p. (doi10.1109/URS.2009.5137693).
rock fall at 274 Main Street, and preliminary assessment
of rock-fall hazard, Rockville, Washington County, Utah: Lips, E.W., 1985, Landslides and debris flows east of Mount
Utah Geological Survey Report of Investigation 270, 17 p. Pleasant, Utah, 1983 and 1984: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 85-382, 12 p., scale 1:24,000.
Knudsen, T., Inkenbrandt, P., and Lund, W., 2012, Investiga
Lips, E.W., 1993, Characteristics of debris flows in central
tion of land subsidence and earth fissures in Cedar Valley,
Iron County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey contract de Utah, 1983: Utah Geological Survey Contract Report
liverable report to the Central Iron County Water Conser 93-3, 66 p.
vancy District, variously paginated. Lund, W.R., 2002a, Professional contributions—Large boul
Knudsen, T., Inkenbrandt, P., Lund, W., Lowe, M., and Bow der damages Rockville home: Association of Engineering
man, S., 2014, Investigation of land subsidence and earth Geologists AEG News, v. 45, no. 2, p. 25.
fissures in Cedar Valley, Iron County, Utah: Utah Geolog Lund, W.R., 2002b, Large boulder damages Rockville
ical Survey Special Study 150, 84 p., 8 appendices, CD. home: Utah Geological Survey, Survey Notes, v. 34,
Knudsen, T.R., and Lund, W.R., 2013, Geologic hazards no. 1, p. 9–10.
of the State Route 9 corridor, La Verkin City to Town Lund, W.R., 2005, Consensus preferred recurrence-interval
of Springdale, Washington County, Utah: Utah Geo and vertical slip-rate estimates—review of Utah paleo
logical Survey Special Study 148, 13 p., 9 plates, scale seismic-trenching data by the Utah Quaternary Fault Pa
1:24,000, DVD. rameters Working Group: Utah Geological Survey Bul
Kockelman, W.J., 1986, Some techniques for reducing land letin 134, 109 p.
slide hazards: Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Lund, W.R., editor, 2012, Basin and Range Province Earth
Geologists, v. 23, no. 1, p. 29–52. quake Working Group II―recommendations to the U.S.
KSL, 2015, Deal struck—North Salt Lake, developers and Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Mapping
gas company ready to fix landslide: KSL.com: Online, Program for the 2014 update of the National Seismic
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34936682&nid=148, accessed Hazard Maps: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report
591, 17 p.
September 28, 2015.
Larson, R.A., 1992, A philosophy of regulatory review, in Lund, W.R., 2013, Rock fall—an increasing hazard in urban
Stout, M., editor, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meet izing southwestern Utah: Utah Geological Survey, Sur
ing of the Association of Engineering Geologists: As vey Notes, v. 45, no. 3, p. 4–5.
sociation of Engineering Geologists, October 2–9, Long Lund, W.R., 2014, Hazus loss estimation software earthquake
Beach, California, p. 224–226. model revised Utah fault database—updated through
Larson, R.A., 2015, Reviewing fault surface-rupture and 2013, prepared for the Utah Division of Emergency Man
earthquake-hazard mitigation reports for regulatory agement: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 631,
compliance, in Lund, W.R., editor, Proceedings Volume, 11 p., CD.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 149

Lund, W.R., 2015, Current strategies for mitigating surface Machette, M.N., 1989, Slope-morphologic dating, in Forman,
faulting in the Basin and Range Province, in Lund, W.R., S.L., editor, Dating methods applicable to Quaternary
editor, Proceedings Volume, Basin and Range Province geologic studies in the western United States: Utah Geo
Seismic Hazards Summit III: Utah Geological Survey logical and Mineral Survey Miscellaneous Publication
Miscellaneous Publication 15-5, variously paginated, CD. 89-7, p. 30–42.
Lund, W.R., Bowman, S.D., and Piety, L.A., 2011, Compi Major, J.J., 1997, Depositional processes in large-scale debris
lation of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation seismotectonic flow experiments: Journal of Geology, v. 105, p. 345−366.
studies in Utah, 1982–1999—Paleoseismology of Utah,
Marinos, P., and Hoek, E., 2000, GSI—a geologically friendly
Volume 20: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Pub
tool for rock mass strength estimation: Proceedings of the
lication 11-2, 4 p.
GeoEng2000 Conference, Melbourne, p. 1422–1442.
Lund, W.R., DuRoss, C.B., Kirby, S.M., McDonald, G.N.,
Marinos, V., Marinos, P., and Hoek, E., 2005, The geologi
Hunt, G., and Vice, G.S., 2005, The origin and extent cal strength index—applications and limitations: Bulle
of earth fissures in Escalante Valley, southern Escalante
tin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, v. 64,
Desert, Iron County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Spe p. 55–65.
cial Study 115, 30 p., CD.
Lund, W.R., Knudsen, T.R., and Bowman, S.D., 2014, Inves Marsell, R.E., 1972, Cloudburst and snowmelt floods, in Hil
pert, L.S., editor, Environmental geology of the Wasatch
tigation of the December 12, 2013, fatal rock fall at 368
Front, 1971: Utah Geological Association Publication 1,
West Main Street, Rockville, Utah: Utah Geological Sur p. N1−N18.
vey Report of Investigation 273, 21 p., CD.
Lund, W.R., Knudsen, T.R., and Brown, K.E., 2009a, Large Martin, G.R., and Lew, M., editors, 1999, Recommended pro
cedures for implementation of DMG Special Publication
rock fall closes highway near Cedar City, Utah: Associa
117, Guidelines for analyzing and mitigating liquefaction
tion of Environmental and Engineering Geologists AEG in California: Los Angeles, Southern California Earth
News, v. 52, no. 2, p. 21–22.
quake Center, 63 p.
Lund, W.R., Knudsen, T.R., and Brown, K.E., 2009b, Janu
Mathewson, C.C., Keaton, J.R., and Santi, P.M., 1990, Role of
ary 5, 2009, State Route 14 milepost 8 rock fall, Cedar
bedrock ground water in the initiation of debris flows and
Canyon, Iron County, Utah [abs.]: Geological Society of
sustained post-flow stream discharge: Bulletin of the As
America Abstracts with Programs, Rocky Mountain Sec
sociation of Engineering Geologists, v. 27, no. 1, p. 73−83.
tion, GSA Abstracts with Programs, v. 41, no. 6, p. 46.
Lund, W.R., Knudsen, T.R., DuRoss, C.B., and McDonald, McCalpin, J., 1984, Preliminary age classification of land
G.N., 2015, Utah Geological Survey Dutchman Draw site slides for inventory mapping, in Hardcastle, J.H., editor,
Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Engineering Ge
paleoseismic investigation, Fort Pearce section, Washing
ology and Soils Engineering Symposium: Moscow, Uni
ton fault zone, Mohave County, Arizona, in Lund, W.R.,
versity of Idaho, p. 99–111.
editor, Geologic mapping and paleoseismic investiga
tions of the Washington fault zone, Washington County, McCalpin, J.P., 1987, Recommended setbacks from active
Utah, and Mohave County, Arizona—Paleoseismology normal faults, in McCalpin J.P., editor, Proceedings of the
of Utah, Volume 27: Utah Geological Survey Miscella 23rd Annual Symposium on Engineering Geology and
neous Publication 15-6, p. 43–86, 1 plate, CD. Soils Engineering: Logan, Utah State University, April
6–8, 1987, p. 35–56.
Lund, W.R., Knudsen, T.R., and Sharrow, D.L., 2010, Geo
logic hazards of the Zion National Park Geologic-Hazard McCalpin, J.P., 2009, editor, Paleoseismology (second edi
Study area, Washington and Kane Counties, Utah: Utah tion): Burlington, Massachusetts, Academic Press (Else
Geological Survey Special Study 133, 97 p., 12 plates, vier), 613 p.
scale 1:24,000, DVD. McCalpin, J.P., and Nelson, A.R., 2009, Introduction to pale
Lund, W.R., Knudsen, T.R., Vice, G.S., and Shaw, L.M., oseismology, in McCalpin, J.P., editor, Paleoseismology
2008, Geologic hazards and adverse construction condi (second edition): Burlington, Massachusetts, Academic
tions—St. George-Hurricane metropolitan area, Wash Press (Elsevier), p. 1–27.
ington County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Special McDonald, G.N., and Giraud, R.E., 2010, September 12,
Study 127, 105 p., 14 plates, scale 1:24,000. 2002, fire-related debris flows east of Santaquin and
Lund, W.R., Schwartz, D.P., Mulvey, W.E., Budding, K.E., Spring Lake, Utah County, Utah, in Elliott, A.H., compil
and Black, B.D, 1991, Fault behavior and earthquake re er, Technical Reports for 2002–2009, Geologic Hazards
currence on the Provo segment of the Wasatch fault zone Program: Utah Geological Survey Report of Investiga
at Mapleton, Utah County, Utah—Paleoseismology of tion 269, p. 2−16.
Utah, Volume 1: Utah Geological Survey Special Study McGuffey, V.C., Modeer, V.A., Jr., and Turner, A.K., 1996,
75, 41 p. Subsurface exploration, in Turner, A.K., and Schuster,
150 Utah Geological Survey

R.L., editors., Landslides—investigation and mitigation: Mulvey, W.E., 1993, Debris-flood and debris-flow hazard
Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, National from Lone Pine Canyon near Centerville, Davis County,
Research Council, Transportation Research Board Spe Utah: Utah Geological Survey Report of Investigation
cial Report 247, p. 278–316. 223, 40 p.
McKean, A., and Kirby, S., 2014, Newly discovered Holo Mulvey, W.E., and Lowe, M., 1992, Cameron Cove subdi
cene-active basin floor fault in Goshen Valley, Utah vision debris flow, North Ogden, Utah, in Mayes, B.H.,
County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey, Utah Quaternary compiler, Technical reports for 1990–1991, Applied Ge
Fault Parameters Working Group 2014 Proceedings: On ology Program: Utah Geological Survey Report of In
line, http://geology.utah.gov/ghp/workgroups/pdf/uqf vestigation 222, p. 186−191.
pwg/UQFPWG-2014_Presentations.pdf. National Highway Institute, 2002, Subsurface investiga
Mears, A.I., 1992, Snow-avalanche hazard analysis for land tions—geotechnical site characterization: Federal High
use planning and engineering: Colorado Geological Sur way Administration Publication No. FWHANHI-01-031,
vey Bulletin 49, 55 p. variously paginated.
Meyer, G.A., and Wells, S.G., 1997, Fire-related sedimenta National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008, Li
tion events on alluvial fans, Yellowstone National Park, dar 101—an introduction to LiDAR technology, data, and
U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 67, no. 5, applications: Charleston, South Carolina, National Oce
p. 776−791. anic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services
Meyer, G.A., Wells, S.G., and Jull, A.J.T., 1995, Fire and allu Center, 62 p.
vial chronology in Yellowstone National Park—climatic National Research Council, 1996, Alluvial fan flooding:
and intrinsic controls on Holocene geomorphic process Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, Commit
es: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107, no. tee on Alluvial Fan Flooding, 182 p.
10, p. 1211−1230.
National Weather Service, Salt Lake City Forecast Office,
Mikulich, M.J., and Smith, R.B., 1974, Seismic-reflection 2015a, Avalanche deaths in Utah 1958–Present: Online,
and aeromagnetic surveys of the Great Salt Lake, Utah: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/projects/disasters/ava
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 85, no. 6, p. lanche_deaths.php, accessed September 24, 2015.
991–1002, 1 plate. National Weather Service, Salt Lake City Forecast Office, 2015b,
Miller, B., 1965, Laser altimeter may aid photo mapping: Avi Flash flood & flood deaths in Utah prior to 1950: Online,
ation Week & Space Technology, v. 88, no. 13, p. 60–65. flood_deaths.php, accessed September 24, 2015.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/projects/disasters/flood_stats/
Miller, D.M., Oviatt, C.G., and McGeehin, J.P., 2013, Stra
tigraphy and chronology of Provo shoreline deposits and Nelson, C.V., and Lund W.R., 1990, Geologic hazards and
lake-level implications, late Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, constraints, in Lund, W.R., editor, Engineering geology
eastern Great Basin, USA: Boreas, v. 42, no. 2, p. 342– of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area, Utah: Utah Geo
361. [Article first published online October 25, 2012, doi: logical and Mineral Survey Bulletin 126, p. 25–35.
10.1111/j.1502-3885.2012.00297.x.] Nelson, A.R., Lowe, M., Personius, S., Bradley, L.A., Forman,
Milsom, J.J., and Eriksen, A., 2011, Field geophysics (fourth S.L., Klauk, R., and Garr, J., 2006, Holocene earthquake
edition): Chichester, United Kingdom, John Willey and history of the northern Weber segment of the Wasatch
Sons, 304 p. Fault Zone, Utah—Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 13:
Mohapatra, G.K., and Johnson, R.A., 1998, Localization of Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 05-8,
listric faults at thrust ramps beneath the Great Salt Lake 39 p., 2 plates.
basin, Utah—evidence from seismic imaging and finite Nelson, C.V, and Christenson, G.E., 1992, Establishing
element modeling: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. guidelines for surface fault rupture hazard investiga
103, p. 10,047–10,063. tions—Salt Lake County, Utah [abs.]: Proceedings of
the Association of Engineering Geologists, 35th Annual
Monmonier, M., 2002, Aerial photography at the Agricultural
Meeting, p. 242–249.
Adjustment Administration—acreage controls, conser
vation benefits, and overhead surveillance in the 1930s: Neuendorf, K.K.E., Mehl, J.P., Jr., and Jackson, J.A., editors,
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, v. 68, 2011, Glossary of geology (5th edition, revised): Alex
no. 12, p. 1257–1261. andria, Virginia, American Geosciences Institute, 800 p.
Morgan County, 2006, County Ordinance CO-06-22—an or Newmark, N.M., 1965, Effects of earthquakes on dams and
dinance of Morgan County enacting regulations and stan embankments: Geotechnique 15, p. 139–159.
dards for review of the issuance of building permits for Noller, J.S., Sowers, J.M., and Lettis, W.R., editors, 2000,
certain subdivisions in Morgan County, and establishing Quaternary geochronology, methods and applications:
an effective date: Online, http://www.planning.utah.gov/
Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, AGU
Index_files/PDFs/morganCO.6.22.pdf, 5 p. Reference Shelf 4, 582 p.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 151

North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature, Pavelko, M.T., Woods, D.B., and Laczniak, R.J., 1999, Las
2005, North American stratigraphic code: American As Vegas, Nevada—gambling with water in the desert, in
sociation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 89, no. Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., editors,
11, p. 1547–1591. [Reproduced by the U.S. Geological Land subsidence in the United States: U.S. Geological
Survey: Online, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/NACSN/ Survey Circular 1182, variously paginated.
Code2/code2.html.]
Pearthree, P.A., 1990, Geomorphic analysis of young faulting
O’Brien, J.S., and Julien, P.Y., 1997, On the importance of and fault behavior in central Nevada: Tucson, University
mudflow routing, in Chen, C.L., editor, Debris-flow haz of Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation, 212 p.
ards mitigation, Proceedings of First International Con
Personius, S.F., and Scott, W.E., 1992, Surficial geologic map
ference, San Francisco, California: American Society of of the Salt Lake City segment and parts of adjoining seg
Civil Engineers, p. 667−686.
ments of the Wasatch fault zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2011, OSHA Utah Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Miscella
Fact Sheet, trenching and excavation safety: Occupation neous Investigations Series Map I-2106, scale 1:50,000;
al Safety and Health Administration, 2 p. also Utah Geological Survey Map 243DM (2009 digital
Olig, S.S., 2011, Extending the paleoseismic record of the release).
Provo segment of the Wasatch fault zone, Utah: Oakland, Peterson, F.F., 1981, Landforms of the Basin and Range Prov
California, URS Corporation, unpublished Final Tech ince defined for soil survey: Nevada Agricultural Experi
nical Report for the U.S. Geological Survey National ment Station Technical Bulletin 28, 52 p.
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, award no.
Pierson, T.C., 1985, Effects of slurry composition on debris
02HQGR0109, variously paginated.
flow dynamics, Rudd Canyon, Utah, in Bowles, D.S., edi
Olig, S.S., Gorton, A.E., Black, B.D., and Forman, S.L., 2000, tor, Delineation of landslide, flash flood, and debris-flow
Evidence for young, large earthquakes on the Mercur hazards in Utah: Logan, Utah State University, Utah Wa
fault—implications for segmentation and evolution of the ter Research Publication G-85/03, p. 132−152.
Oquirrh–East Great Salt Lake fault zone, Wasatch Front,
Pierson, T.C., 2005a, Distinguishing between debris flows
Utah [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts
and floods from field evidence in small watersheds: U.S.
with Programs, v. 32, no. 7, p. A–120.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3142, 4 p.
Olig, S.S., Gorton, A.E., Black, B.D., and Forman, S.L., 2001,
Pierson, T.C., 2005b, Hyperconcentrated flow—transitional
Paleoseismology of the Mercurfault and segmentation of
processes between water flow and debris flow, in Jakob,
the Oquirrh–East Great Salt Lake fault zone, Utah: Oak M., and Hungr, O., editors, Debris-flow hazards and relat
land, California, URS Corporation, unpublished technical ed phenomena: Heidelberg, Springer-Praxis, p. 159−202.
report to the U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program, award no. 98HQGR1036, Pierson, T.C., and Costa, J.E., 1987, A rheologic classifica
variously paginated. tion of subaerial sediment-water flows, in Costa, J.E., and
Wieczorek, G.F., editors, Debris flows/avalanches: Geo
Olig, S.S., Gorton, A.E., and Chadwell, L., 1999, Mapping
logical Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geol
and Quaternary fault scarp analysis of the Mercur and
ogy, Volume VII, p. 1−12.
West Eagle Hill faults, Wasatch Front, Utah: Oakland,
California, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, unpublished Price, J.G., 1998, Guidelines for evaluating potential surface
technical report to the U.S. Geological Survey Nation fault rupture/land subsidence hazards in Nevada (Revi
al Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, award no. sion 1): Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 9 p.
1434-HQ-97-GR-03154, variously paginated. Price, J.G., Bell, J.W., and Helm, D.C., 1992, Subsidence in
Oviatt, C.G., 2015, Chronology of Lake Bonneville, 30,000 Las Vegas Valley: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology
to 10,000 yr B.P.: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 110, Quarterly Newsletter, Fall 1992, 2 p.
p. 166–171. Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., and Higgins, J.D., 2008, Debris
Oviatt, C.G., Currey, D.R., and Sack, D., 1992, Radiocarbon basin and deflection berm design for fire-related debris
chronology of Lake Bonneville, eastern Great Basin, flow mitigation: Environmental and Engineering Geosci
USA: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ence, v. 14, no. 4, p. 297–313.
ogy, v. 99, p. 225–241. Reiter, L., 1990, Earthquake hazard analysis, issues and in
Pack, R.T., 1985, Multivariate analysis of relative landslide sights: New York, Columbia University Press, 254 p.
susceptibility in Davis County, Utah: Logan, Utah State Reynolds, J.M., 2011, An introduction to applied and environ
University, Ph.D. dissertation, 233 p. mental geophysics (second edition): Chichester, United
Paul, J.H., and Baker, F.S., 1923, The floods in northern Utah: Kingdom, John Wiley and Sons, 712 p.
University of Utah Bulletin, v. 15, no. 3, 20 p. Robichaud, P.R., Beyers, J.L., and Neary, D.G., 2000, Evalu
ating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treat
152 Utah Geological Survey

ments: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Santi, P.M., 2014, Precision and accuracy in debris-flow
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-63, 85 p. volume measurement: Environmental and Engineering
Robison, R.M., 1993, Surface-fault rupture—a guide for Geoscience, v. 20, no. 4, p. 349−359.
land use planning, Utah and Juab Counties, Utah, in Santi, P.M., deWolfe, V.G., Higgins, J.D., Cannon, S.H., and
Gori, P.L., editor, Applications of research from the U.S. Gartner, J.E., 2008, Sources of debris flow material in
Geological Survey program, Assessment of Regional burned areas: Geomorphology, v. 96, p. 310−321.
Earthquake Hazards and Risk along the Wasatch Front,
Schwartz, D.P., and Coppersmith, K.J., 1984, Fault behav
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1519, ior and characteristic earthquakes—examples from the
p. 121–128.
Wasatch and San Andreas fault zones: Journal of Geo
RocScience, 2011, RocFall 4.0: Online, https://www.roc physical Research, v. 89, no. B7, p. 5681–5698.
science.com/products/12/RocFall, accessed June 2014. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu,
Rogers, J.D., 1992, Recent developments in landslide miti J.P., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D.,
gation techniques, in Slosson, J.E., Deene, A.G., and Kayen, R.E., and Faris, A., 2003, Recent advances in soil
Johnson, J.A., editors, Landslides/landslide mitigation: liquefaction engineering—a unified and consistent frame
Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering work: Berkeley, University of California, Earthquake En
Geology, Volume IX, p. 95–118. gineering Research Center Report 2003-06, 71 p.
Rowley, P.D., Hamilton, W.L., Lund, W.R., and Sharrow, D., Shan, J., and Toth, C.K., 2009, Topographic laser ranging and
2002, Rock-fall and landslide hazards of the canyons of scanning, principals and processing: Boca Raton, Florida,
the upper Virgin River basin near Rockville and Spring CRC Press, 590 p.
dale, Utah [abs.]: Geological Society of America 2002 Sharma, P.V., 1998, Environmental and engineering geophys
Abstracts with Programs, Rocky Mountain Section, v. ics: New York, Cambridge University Press, 499 p.
34, no. 4, p. P–39.
Shepherd, E.C., 1965, Laser to watch height: New Scientist,
Saines, M., Bell, J.W., Ball, S., and Hendrick, C., 2006, For v. 26, no. 437, p. 33.
mation of earth fissures over the past half century at the
Las Vegas Earth Fissure Preserve, Las Vegas, Nevada Shlemon, R.J., 2004, Fissure impact on the built environment,
in Shlemon Specialty Conference—Earth Fissures, El
[abs.], Seminar on Environmental Impacts of Growth,
Paso, Texas, April 1–3, 2004, conference materials: The
and Mitigation Measures in Southern Nevada, Las Vegas,
Nevada, May 24–25, 2006: Las Vegas, Air and Waste Association of Engineering Geologists and Engineering
Management Association, 1 p. Geology Foundation, unpaginated, CD.
Salt Lake City, 2014, Chapter 18—Site development require Shlemon, R.J., 2010, A proposed mid-Holocene age definition
ments: Salt Lake City: Online, http://www.sterlingcodi for hazardous faults in California: Environmental and En
fiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=672, accessed gineering Geoscience, v. XVI, no. 1, p. 55–64.
July 28, 2015. Shlemon, R.J., 2015, Acceptable risk for surface-fault rupture
Salt Lake County, 2002a, Geological hazards ordinance: Salt in the Basin and Range Province, in Lund, W.R., editor,
Lake County Planning and Development Services Divi Proceedings Volume, Basin and Range Province Seismic
sion, Chapter 19.75: Online, https://www.municode.com/ Hazards Summit III: Utah Geological Survey Miscella
library/ut/salt_lake_county/codes/code_of_ordinances? neous Publication 15-5, variously paginated, CD.
searchRequest={%22searchText%22:%22geologic%22, Simon, D.B., Black, D.R., Hanson, J.R., and Rowley, P.D.,
%22pageNum%22:1,%22resultsPerPage%22:25,%22bo 2015, Surface-fault-rupture-hazard investigation for a
y%22:false,%22synonym%22:false,%22contentTypes%
oleanSearch%22:false,%22stemming%22:true,%22fuzz portion of the Southern Parkway Northern Extension
(State Route 7), Fort Pearce section, Washington fault
22:[%22CODES%22],%22productIds%22:[]}&nodeId= zone, Washington County, Utah, in Lund, W.R., editor,
TIT19ZO_CH19.75GEHAORFONAHAAR_19.75.060 Geologic mapping and paleoseismic investigations of the
GEHAENGERE, accessed July 28, 2015. Washington fault zone, Washington County, Utah and
Salt Lake County, 2002b, Minimum standards for surface Mohave County, Arizona—Paleoseismology of Utah,
fault rupture hazard studies: Salt Lake County Planning Volume 27: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Pub
and Development Services Division, Geologic Hazards lication 15-6, p. 107–175.
Ordinance, Chapter 19.75, appendix A, 9 p.: Online, Slemmons, D.B., 1969, New methods for studying regional
http://slco.org/pwpds/zoning/pdf/geologichazards/Ap seismicity and surface faulting: American Geophysical
pAfaultReportMinStds.pdf, accessed July 28, 2015. Union Transactions, EOS, v. 50, p. 397–398.
Santi, P.M., 1988, The kinematics of debris flow transport Slemmons, D.B., and dePolo, C.M., 1992, Evaluation of ac
down a canyon: College Station, Texas A&M University, tive faulting and associated hazards, in Studies in geo
M.S. thesis, 85 p. physics—active tectonics: Washington, D.C., National
Research Council, p. 45–62.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 153

Slosson, J.E., 1984, Genesis and evolution of guidelines for Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., and Sherriff, R.E., 1990, Applied
geologic reports: Bulletin of the Association of Engineer geophysics (second edition): Cambridge, United King
ing Geologists, v. XXI, no. 3, p. 295–316. dom, Cambridge University Press, 790 p.
Smith, K., and Petley, D.N., 2009, Environmental hazards— Tepel, R.E., 2010, Faulting and public policy in California—
assessing risk and reducing disaster (fifth edition): New the evolution of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zon
York, Routledge, 383 p. ing Act: Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, v.
XVI, no. 1, p. 3–6.
Soeters, R., and van Westen, C.J., 1996, Slope instability
recognition, analysis, and zonation, in Turner, A.K., and Terzhagi, K., 1950, Mechanism of landslides, in Application
Schuster, R.L., editors, Landslides—investigation and of geology to engineering practice: Geological Society of
mitigation: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, America, Berkley Volume, p. 83–123.
National Research Council, Transportation Research Trandafir, A.C., Ertugrul, O.L., Giraud, R.E., and McDonald,
Board Special Report 247, p. 129–177. G.N., 2015, Geomechanics of a snowmelt-induced slope
Solomon, B.J., Storey, N., Wong, I., Silva, W., Gregor, N., failure in glacial till: Environmental Earth Sciences, v.
Wright, D., and McDonald, G., 2004, Earthquake-haz 73, no. 7, p. 3709−3716.
ards scenario for a M7 earthquake on the Salt Lake City Treiman, J.A., 2010, Fault rupture and surface displace
segment of the Wasatch fault zone, Utah: Utah Geologi ment—defining the hazard: Environmental and Engineer
cal Survey Special Study 111DM, 59 p. ing Geoscience, v. XVI, no. 1, p. 19–30.
Stock, G.M., Luco, N., Collins, B.D., Harp, E.L., Reichen Turner, A.K., 2012, Chapter 5—Rockfall risk assessment and
bach, P., and Frankel, K.L., 2012a, Quantitative rock-fall risk management, in Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L.,
hazard and risk assessment for Yosemite Valley, Yosemite editors, Rockfall characterization and control: Washing
National Park, California: National Park Service, 96 p. ton, D.C., Transportation Research Board of the National
Stock, G.M., Luco, N., Harp, E.L., Collins, B.D., Reichen Academies, p. 113–174.
bach, P., Frankel, K., Matasci, B., Carrea, D., Jaboyedoff, Turner, A.K., and Duffy, J.D., 2012, Chapter 9—Modeling
M., and Oppikofer, T., 2012b, Quantitative rock fall haz
and prediction of rockfall, in Turner, A.K., and Schus
ard and risk assessment in Yosemite Valley, California, ter, R.L., editors, Rockfall characterization and control:
USA, in Eberhardt, E., Froese, C., Turner, K., and Le
Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board of the
roueil, S., editors, Landslides and engineered slopes— National Academies, p. 334–406.
protecting society through improved understanding: Lon
don, CRC Press, p. 1119–1125. Turner, A.K., and Jayaprakash, G.P., 2012, Chapter 1—In
troduction, in Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L., editors,
Suter, M., 2006, Contemporary studies of the 3 May 1887 MW Rockfall characterization and control: Washington, D.C.,
7.5 Sonora, Mexico (Basin and Range Province) earth
Transportation Research Board of the National Acad
quake: Seismological Research Letters, v. 77, no. 2, p. emies, p. 3–20.
134–147.
Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L., editors, 1996, Landslides—
Swan, F.H., III, Hanson, K.L., Schwartz, D.P., and Black,
investigation and mitigation: Washington, D.C., National
J.H., 1981a, Study of earthquake recurrence intervals on
Academy Press, National Research Council, Transporta
the Wasatch fault at the Little Cottonwood Canyon site,
tion Research Board Special Report 247, 673 p.
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-450,
30 p. Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L., editors, 2012, Rockfall char
acterization and control: Washington, D.C., Transporta
Swan, F.H., III, Schwartz, D.P., and Cluff, L.S., 1980, Re
tion Research Board of the National Academies, 658 p.,
currence of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes CD supplement.
produced by surface faulting on the Wasatch fault zone,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1998a, Earth manual—part 1
Utah: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
v. 70, p. 1431–1462. (third edition): U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Sci
ences and Research Laboratory, 311 p.
Swan, F.H., III, Schwartz, D.P., Hanson, K.L., Kneupfer, P.L.,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1998b, Engineering geology
and Cluff, L.S., 1981b, Study of earthquake recurrence
intervals on the Wasatch fault at the Kaysville site, Utah: field manual (2nd edition)—Volume I: U.S. Depart
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-228, 30 p. ment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington,
D.C., 478 p.
Taylor, C.L., and Cluff, L.S., 1973, Fault activity and its
significance assessed by exploratory excavation, in Pro U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2001, Engineering geology field
ceedings of the Conference on Tectonic Problems of the manual (2nd edition)—Volume II: U.S. Department of the
San Andreas Fault System: Stanford University Publica Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C., 535 p.
tion, Geological Sciences, v. XIII, September 1973, p. U.S. Department of Defense, 2004, Unified Facilities Crite
239–247. ria (UFC), Soils and geology procedures for foundation
154 Utah Geological Survey

design of building and other structures (except hydrau Utah Environmental Public Health Tracking Network, 2015,
lic structures): U.S. Department of Defense Publication Radon in Utah: Utah Department of Health, Bureau of
UFC 3-220-03FA, variously paginated. Epidemiology, Environmental Epidemiology Program
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014, Guidance on the and Bureau of Health Promotion, Utah Cancer Control
treatment of the economic value of a statistical life (VSL) Program, 15 p.: Online, http://www.health.utah.gov/envi
in U.S. Department of Transportation analyses—2014 roepi/healthyhomes/epht/Radon_in_Utah.pdf, accessed
adjustment: U.S. Department of Transportation memo September 29, 2015.
randum: Online, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/ Utah Geological Survey, 2011, LiDAR elevation data, Cedar
dot.gov/files/docs/VSL_Guidance_2014.pdf, accessed and Parowan Valleys: Utah Geological Survey: Online,
September 28, 2015. http://geology.utah.gov/resources/data-databases/lidar
U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Quaternary fault and fold data elevation-data/.
base of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Earth Utah Geological Survey, 2016, Utah Quaternary fault and fold
quake Hazards Program: Online, http://earthquake.usgs. database: Online, http://geology.utah.gov/resources/data
gov/hazards/qfaults/. databases/qfaults/.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2011, Practical imple Utah Quaternary Fault Parameters Working Group, 2013,
mentation guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 hazard Summary—Utah Quaternary Fault Parameters Working
studies: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regula Group meeting, Tuesday, February 5, 2013: Utah Geo
tory Guide 2117, 227 p. logical Survey: Online, http://geology.utah.gov/ghp/
pdf, 6 p.
workgroups/pdf/uqfpwg/UQFPWG-2013_Summary.
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2006a, 2006
NAIP 1 meter color orthophotography: Online, http://gis.
utah.gov/data/aerial-photography/2006-naip-1-meter Utah Section of the Association of Engineering Geologists,
color-orthophotography/, accessed November 18, 2010. 1986, Guidelines for preparing engineering geologic re
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2006b, 2 me ports in Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Mis
ter LiDAR: Online, http://gis.utah.gov/elevation-terrain cellaneous Publication M, 2 p.
data/2-meter-lidar, accessed November 18, 2010. Utah State University Luminescence Laboratory, 2014, In
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2009, 2009 structions for sample collection and submittal: Online,
HRO 1 foot color orthophotography: Online, http://gis. http://www.usu.edu/geo/luminlab/submit.html.
utah.gov/aerial-photography/2009-hro-1-foot-color-or Van Westen, C.J., Castellanos, E., and Kuriakose, S.L., 2008,
thophotography, accessed December 8, 2010. Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vul
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2011, 1 meter nerability assessment—an overview: Engineering Geol
LiDAR elevation data (2011): Online, http://gis.utah.gov/ ogy, v. 102, p. 112–131.
data/elevation-terrain-data/2011-lidar/, accessed Novem VanDine, D.F., 1985, Debris flows and debris torrents in the
ber 18, 2010. southern Canadian Cordillera: Canadian Geotechnical
Utah Avalanche Center, 2015, Avalanche fatalities, 2015: On Journal, v. 22, p. 44−68.
line, https://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanches/fatali VanDine, D.F., 1996, Debris flow control structures for forest
ties, accessed September 24, 2015. engineering: British Columbia Ministry of Forests Re
Utah Code, 2011, 58-76-10 ‒ Title. Professional Geologists search Program, Working Paper 22, 68 p.
Licensing Act: Online, http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title58/ VanDine, D.F., Hungr, O., Lister, D.R., and Chatwin, S.C.,
Chapter76/C58-76_1800010118000101.pdf. 1997, Channelized debris flow mitigative structures in
Utah Department of Transportation, 2011, Geotechnical British Columbia, Canada, in Chen, C.L., editor, Debris
manual of instruction: Utah Department of Transporta flow hazards mitigation, Proceedings of First Interna
tion, 70 p.: Online, http://udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner. tional Conference, San Francisco, California: American
gf?n=3959503745590753, accessed September 30, 2015. Society of Civil Engineers, p. 606−615.

Utah Department of Transportation, 2014, Pavement design Varnes, D.J., 1978, Slope movement types and processes, in
manual of instruction: Utah Department of Transporta Schuster, R.L., and Krizek, R.J., editors, Landslides—
tion, 258 p.: Online, http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uco analysis and control: Washington, D.C., National Acad
emy of Sciences, National Research Council, Transporta
nowner.gf?n=20339215312776663, accessed September
30, 2015. tion Research Board Special Report 176, p. 11–33.

Utah Division of Emergency Management, 2014, State of Viets, V.F., Vaughan, C.K., and Harding, R.C., 1979, Envi
Utah hazard mitigation plan: Utah Department of Emer ronmental and economic effects of subsidence: Berkeley,
gency Management, variously paginated: Online, https:// California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Geothermal
sites.google.com/a/utah.gov/utah/, accessed September Subsidence Research Management Program, 251 p.
28, 2015.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 155

Viveiros, J.J., 1986, Cenozoic tectonics of Great Salt Lake flood along the Wasatch Front between Salt Lake City
from seismic-reflection data: Salt Lake City, University and Willard, Utah, and measures for their mitigation:
of Utah, unpublished M.S. thesis, 81 p. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-635, 45 p.
Walker, J.D., and Cohen, H.A., 2006, The geoscience hand Wieczorek, G.F., Lips, E.W., and Ellen, S., 1989, Debris flows
book—AGI data sheets (4th edition): American Geologi and hyperconcentrated floods along the Wasatch Front,
cal Institute, 302 p. Utah, 1983 and 1984: Bulletin of the Association of En
Walter, H.G., 1934, Hansel Valley, Utah, earthquake: The Com gineering Geologists, v. 26, no. 2, p. 191−208.
pass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, v. 14, no. 4, p. 178–181. Wieczorek, G.F., Morrissey, M.M., Iovine, G., and Godt, J.,
Watters, R.J., and Delahaut, W.D., 1995, Effect of argillic al 1998, Rock-fall hazards in the Yosemite Valley: U.S.
teration on rock mass stability, in Haneberg, W.C., and Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-467, 7 p., 1
Anderson, S.A., editors, Clay and shale slope instability: plate, scale 1:12,000.
Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Williams, S.R., and Lowe, M., 1990, Process-based debris
Geology, Volume X, p. 139–150. flow prediction method, in French, R.H., editor, Proceed
Webb, R.H., Melis, T.S., Griffiths, P.G., Elliott, J.G., Cerling, ings, Hydraulics/Hydrology of Arid Lands, July 30–Au
gust 3, 1990, San Diego, California: American Society of
T.E., Poreda, R.J., Wise, T.W., and Pizzuto, J.E., 1999,
Lava Falls rapid in the Grand Canyon—effects of late Civil Engineers, p. 66−71.
Holocene debris flows on the Colorado River: U.S. Geo Williamson, D.A., 1984, Unified rock classification system:
logical Survey Professional Paper 1591, 90 p., 1 plate, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, v.
scale 1:1,000. XXI, no. 3, p. 345–354.
Wells, S.G., and Harvey, A.M., 1987, Sedimentologic and Williamson, D.A., Neal, K.G., and Larson, D.A., 1991, The
geomorphic variations in storm-generated alluvial fans, field-developed cross-section—a systematic method of
Howgill Fells, northwest England: Geological Society of portraying dimensional subsurface information and mod
America Bulletin, v. 98, no. 2, p. 182−198. eling for geotechnical interpretation and analysis [abs.]:
Wells, W.G., II, 1987, The effects of fire on the generation of Chicago, Illinois, Association of Engineering Geologists,
debris flows in southern California, in Costa, J.E., and 34th Annual Meeting, Proceedings, p. 719–738.
Wieczorek, G.F., editors, Debris flows/avalanches: Geo Woolley, R.R., 1946, Cloudburst floods in Utah, 1850–1938:
logical Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geol U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 994, 128 p.,
ogy, Volume VII, p. 105−114. 23 plates.
Wesnousky, S.G., 2008, Displacement and geometrical char Working Group on Utah Earthquake Probabilities, 2016,
acteristics of earthquake surface ruptures—issues and Earthquake probabilities for the Wasatch Front region
implications for seismic-hazard analysis and the process in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming: Utah Geological Survey
of earthquake rupture: Bulletin of the Seismological So Miscellaneous Publication 16-3, variously paginated.
ciety of America, v. 98, no. 4, p. 1609–1632 and online Yeats, R.S., Sieh, K., and Allen, C.R., 1997, The geology of
electronic supplement. earthquakes: New York, Oxford University Press, 568 p.
Western States Seismic Policy Council, 2011, Policy Recom Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 1999, Revised
mendation 11-2—Definition of fault activity for the Ba MLR equations for predicting lateral spread displace
sin and Range Province: Western States Seismic Policy
ment, Proceedings, 7th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earth
Council, 5 p. quake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Coun
Whipple, K.X., and Dunne, T., 1992, The influence of debris termeasures against Liquefaction: Seattle, Washington,
flow rheology on fan morphology, Owens Valley, Califor Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
nia: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, no. Research Technical Report MCEER-99-0019, p. 99–114.
7, p. 887−900.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro,
Wieczorek, G.F., 1984, Preparing a detailed landslide-inven G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Liam Finn, W.D., Harder,
tory map for hazard evaluation and reduction: Bulletin L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao,
of the Association of Engineering Geologists, v. 21, no. S.S.C., Macuson, W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K.,
3, p. 337–324. Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B.,
Wieczorek, G.F., 1996, Landslide triggering mechanisms, in and Stokoe, K.H., II, 2001, Liquefaction resistance of
Turner, A.K., and Shuster, R.L., editors, Landslides—in soils—summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
vestigation and mitigation: Washington, D.C., National NCEER/NSF workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction
Academy Press, National Research Council, Transporta Resistance of Soils: American Society of Civil Engineers
tion Research Board Special Report 247, p. 76–90. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi
neering, v. 127, no. 10, p. 817–833.
Wieczorek, G.F., Ellen, S., Lips, E.W., Cannon, S.H., and
Short, D.N., 1983, Potential for debris flow and debris
156 Utah Geological Survey

Zebker, H.A., and Goldstein, R.M., 1986, Topographic map

ping from interferometric synthetic aperture radar ob
servations: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, p.
4993–4999.
Zebker, H.A., Rosen, P.A., Goldstein, R.M., Gabriel, A.,
and Werner, C.L., 1994, On the derivation of coseismic
displacement fields using differential radar interferom
etry—the Landers earthquake: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 99, no. B10, p. 19,617–19,634.
Zilkoski, D.B., Carlson, E.E., and Smith, C.L., 2008, Guide
lines for establishing GPS-derived orthometric heights,
version 1.5: Silver Spring, Maryland, National Geodetic
Survey, 15 p.
Zilkoski, D.B., D’Onofrio, J.D., and Frakes, S.J., 1997,
Guidelines for establishing GPS-derived ellipsoid heights
(Standards: 2 cm and 5 cm), version 4.3: Silver Spring,
Maryland, National Geodetic Survey, 10 p.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 157

APPENDICES
158 Utah Geological Survey
 APPENDIX A
REPORT REVIEW CHECKLISTS

The Wasatch fault zone at the mouths of Little Cottonwood and Bells Canyons, Salt Lake Valley, Utah.

This appendix contains recommended report review checklists for combined geologic-hazard/engineering-geology reports (in
cluding school sites) and reports specific to a single hazard (surface fault rupture, landslides, debris flows, rockfall, and land
subsidence and earth fissures) as described in this publication. These checklists are intended to promote uniformity in report
preparation and review, and to provide a minimum acceptable level of geologic-hazard investigation. Digital fill-in versions
of these checklists are also available at http://geology.utah.gov/about-us/geologic-programs/geologic-hazards-program/for
consultants-and-design-professionals/recommended-report-guidelines/.
160 Utah Geological Survey

ENGINEERING-GEOLOGY REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

For additional information, see chapter 2 of: Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, 2016, Guidelines for investigating
geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in
Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 15–30.
Report and Review Information
Report Title:
Report Type: _ Reconnaissance _ Preliminary _ Final _ Combined Engineering Geology/Geotechnical
_ Other
Author: Project #:
Location: County:
Reviewing Organization: File #:
Reviewed By: Utah PG License #:
First Review: Review # ___: Final Approval:

1. Investigation/Report Purpose and Scope

Are the purpose and scope of the engineering-geology investigation appropriate and adequate for the proposed
project?
Review Comments:

2. Project Description and Location

Is the description of the size, type of construction, intended foundation system, grade/floor elevations, building area
(square feet), and International Building Code (IBC) risk category (Table 1604.5) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should provide a marked location on an index map using a 7-1/2 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map or equivalent
base map; parcel number; provide the site latitude and longitude to four decimal places with datum; and a site development map adequate to show
site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, other infrastructure, and relevant site topography. The scale of site development maps will vary
depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger, as necessary
Review Comments:

3. Literature Review
Is the engineering-geology-investigation literature review appropriate and adequate for the proposed project? Are
references properly cited in the report and reference list?
Review Comments:

4. Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Other Remote-Sensing Data

Is the analysis of aerial photography and other remote-sensing data (as available) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project? Are aerial photographs and remote-sensing data properly documented and referenced?
Review Comments:
5. Regional Geology and Geologic/Fault Maps
Are the description and analysis of the regional geology and geologic/Quaternary fault maps appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide a regional-scale (1:24,000 to 1:50,000) map showing the geology and location of all mapped or known Quaternary faults,
including fault orientation (trend of surface trace, sense of displacement, etc.) and fault activity class (age category) within 10 miles of the site.
Review Comments:

6. Site-Specific Geology and Geologic Maps

Are the description and analysis of the site-specific geology, geologic maps, and cross sections appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should describe site geology according to Guidelines for Conducting Engineering-Geology Investigations and Preparing Engineering
Geology Reports in Utah (Chapter 2), and provide a site-scale geologic map(s) showing geologic and soil units, Quaternary and other faults, seeps
or springs, slope failures, lineaments investigated for evidence of faulting, and other geologic features existing on and near the project site.

Maps should show locations of trenches, test pits, boreholes, geoprobe holes, cone penetration test (CPT) soundings, and geophysical lines. Scale
of site geologic maps will vary depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or
larger, as necessary. Site geologic cross sections should be included as needed to illustrate three-dimensional geologic relations. The degree of
detail and scale of site geologic mapping should be compatible with the geologic complexity of the site, type of building, and layout. For hillside
sites, describe geology of both the site and adjacent properties, including any known or mapped landslides

Review Comments:

7. Surface-Fault-Rupture
Are the description and analysis of the potential for surface-fault rupture, and building setbacks appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should evaluate the surface-faulting hazard for any faults on the site having Quaternary displacement. If the fault age (activity class) is
unknown, the fault should be considered Holocene, unless data are adequate to determine otherwise.

If on-site investigations reveal the presence of a Quaternary fault, and fault avoidance is the surface-faulting-mitigation method chosen, an
appropriate fault setback should be established following the method described in Guidelines for Evaluating Surface-Fault-Rupture Hazards in
Utah (Chapter 3, this volume), and shown on either the site-specific geologic map or on a separate surface-faulting-hazard map depending on site
scale and complexity. The degree of confidence in and limitations of data and conclusions must be clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

8. Subsurface Investigation
Are the description and analysis of the subsurface investigation appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide subsurface engineering-geology and geotechnical information, including a site-specific plan view map showing exploration
sites (borings, test pits, trenches, etc.), existing groundwater levels, and areas of existing and planned cuts and fills.

Logs are required for all boreholes, standard penetration tests (SPT), and CPT soundings. Logs should include the geologic interpretation of
deposit genesis for all layers. Because boreholes are typically multipurpose, borehole logs may also contain geotechnical, geologic, and
groundwater data. All logs should include the identity of the person who made the log
Review Comments:

9. Seismic Ground Shaking and Design Parameters

Are the description and analysis of seismic ground shaking and seismic design parameters appropriate and adequate
for the proposed project?
Reports should include an evaluation of the seismic ground-shaking hazard and provide seismic-design parameters (site coefficients, mapped
spectral accelerations, and design spectral response acceleration parameters) according to IBC Section 1613.5 or International Residential Code
(IRC) Section 301.2.2. Characterize the upper 100 feet of the building site profile to determine the site class as outlined in IBC Table 1613.5.2. If
the building site profile is Site Class F, site-specific evaluation is required by the IBC and outlined in ASCE Standard 7.

Review Comments:
162 Utah Geological Survey

10. Liquefaction
Are the description and analysis of liquefaction appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should include an evaluation of the liquefaction hazard at the site. IBC Section 1803.5.11 requires a liquefaction evaluation if the structure
is determined to be in Seismic Design Category C. IBC Section 1803.5.12 requires a liquefaction evaluation and an assessment of potential
consequences of any liquefaction and mitigation measures if the structure is in Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F. See IRC Section 401.4 for
residential structures. The evaluation should address the possibility of local perched groundwater and the raising of groundwater levels by
seasonal or longer term climatic fluctuations, landscape irrigation, and soil absorption systems (septic systems, infiltration basins, etc.).
A minimum boring depth of 50 feet below the existing ground surface is recommended for evaluating liquefaction hazard. From site borings,
report SPT blow counts using the current ASTM D1586 standard (ASTM, 2011). CPT data according to the current ASTM D5778 standard
(ASTM, 2012b) may be used, but only concurrent with SPT data for reliable correlation. Include complete liquefaction analysis information,
including all calculations. Minimum acceptable safety factors for liquefaction generally range from 1.15 to 1.3. The final choice of an acceptable
safety factor depends on many factors, such as the ground-motion parameters used, site conditions, likely ground-failure mode (settlement, lateral
spread, etc.), and the critical nature of the structure or facility. Lower safety factors may be justified for large, infrequent earthquakes (e.g., the
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) or the 2% probability of exceedance in 50-year event), less damaging failure modes, and non-essential
facilities. Determine the likely ground-failure mode, amount of displacement, and acceptable safety factor, and evaluate cost-effective liquefaction
mitigation. As this review of liquefaction is from a geologic standpoint, additional engineering review by a Utah-licensed Professional Engineer
will be necessary.

Review Comments:

11. Seismically Induced Settlement or Ground Failure

Are the description and analysis of seismically induced settlement or ground failure appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should include an evaluation of the potential for seismically induced settlement or ground failure (other than liquefaction), such as from
sensitive clays or loose, granular soils, and tectonic subsidence accompanying surface faulting. For Seismic Design Category C, IBC Section
1803.5.11 requires an assessment of surface displacement due to faulting or lateral spreading. For Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F, IBC
Section 1803.5.12 requires an assessment of potential consequences of soil strength loss, including estimating differential settlement, lateral
movement, and reduction in foundation soil bearing capacity, and addressing mitigation measures. See IRC Section 401.4 for residential
structures. As this review of seismically induced settlement or ground failure is from a geologic standpoint, additional engineering review by a
Utah-licensed Professional Engineer is necessary.

Review Comments:

12. Problem Soil and Rock and Shallow Groundwater

Are the description and analysis of problem soil and rock and shallow groundwater appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should include an evaluation of the potential for problem soil and/or rock and shallow groundwater. The evaluation should consider
collapsible, expansive, soluble, organic, erosion, piping, and corrosive soil and/or rock. If collapsible soils are present, the site should be classified
as Site Class F according to IBC Table 1613.5.2, and a site-specific geotechnical evaluation is required. IBC Section 1803.5.3 outlines site soil
classification and additional criteria for expansive soils. See IRC Section 401.4 for residential structures. The evaluation should also consider
non-engineered fill, mine- and groundwater-induced subsidence, shallow bedrock, karst, breccia pipes, sinkholes, caliche, and active sand dunes,
as applicable. The evaluation should address the possibility of local perched groundwater and the raising of groundwater levels by seasonal or
longer term climatic fluctuations, landscape irrigation, and soil absorption systems (septic systems, infiltration basins, etc.).
Review Comments:

13. Soil and Rock Slope Stability, Debris Flows, and Rockfall
Are the description and analysis of slope stability, debris flows, and rockfall appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should provide an evaluation of the potential for slope failure in accordance with the Guidelines for Evaluating Landslide Hazards in Utah
(Chapter 4), debris flows in accordance with the Guidelines for the Geologic Evaluation of Debris-Flow Hazards on Alluvial Fans in Utah (Chapter
5), and rockfall in accordance with Guidelines for Evaluation of Rockfall Hazards in Utah (Chapter 7). The slope stability evaluation must
consider immediately adjacent property, constructed cut and fill slopes, existing landslides, appropriate seismic ground-shaking levels (pseudo
static coefficients), and development- and climatic-induced groundwater conditions. The evaluation must also consider snow avalanche hazards,
where appropriate. IBC Section 1808.7 outlines building setbacks from slopes and IBC Appendix J outlines grading provisions for cuts and fills,
drainage, slope benching, and erosion control.
Review Comments:
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 163

14. Flooding
Are the description and analysis of flooding appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide an evaluation of the potential for flooding and erosion on alluvial fans and from streams, lakes, dam failures, canals, and
ditches. Determine the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone on a current, official flood map (http://msc.fema.gov). IBC Appendix
G outlines flood-resistant construction guidelines.
Review Comments:

15. Seiches, Tsunamis, and Other Earthquake- or Landslide-Induced Flooding

Are the description and analysis of seiches, tsunamis, and other earthquake- or landslide-induced flooding appropriate
and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide an evaluation of the potential for seiches and other earthquake- or landslide-induced flooding if the site is near a lake or
reservoir.
Review Comments:

16. Radon
Are the description and analysis of radon hazards appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide an evaluation of the potential for naturally occurring radon gas at the site.
Review Comments:

17. Geologic-Hazard Zones, Maps, and Ordinances

Are the description and application of applicable geologic-hazard zones, maps, and ordinances appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Review and cite applicable geologic-hazard zones, maps, ordinances, and zoning and building regulations required by the permitting jurisdiction.

Review Comments:

18. Conclusions
Are the report conclusions, including the description, analysis, and statement of geologic hazards supported with
geologic evidence and appropriate reasoning? Are the conclusions appropriate and adequate for the proposed
project?
The degree of confidence in and limitations of data and conclusions must be clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

19. Recommendations
Are the report recommendations for geologic-hazard mitigation supported by the investigation data and report
conclusions?
Any limitations on the investigation and recommendations for additional investigation must be clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:
164 Utah Geological Survey

20. Utah-Licensed Professional Geologist/Engineer Seal

Is the report stamped by a Utah-licensed Professional Geologist (PG), and if the report contains engineering analysis
and/or recommendations, by a Utah-licensed Professional Engineer (PE), in responsible charge of the project?
The engineering-geology report must be stamped and signed by the engineering geologist who conducted the investigation (Utah Code 58-76-602).
The geologist must be licensed to practice geology in Utah. The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) defines a PG
as a person licensed to engage in the practice of geology before the public, but does not define or license geologic specialists, such as engineering
geologists. The UGS considers an engineering geologist to be a person who through education, training, and experience is able to assure that
geologic factors affecting engineering works are recognized, adequately interpreted, and presented for use in engineering practice and/or the
protection of the public; this person shall have a Bachelor’s degree in geology or engineering geology from an accredited university and at least
five full years of experience in a responsible charge engineering-geology position. If a geotechnical report or other engineering analysis and/or
recommendations are included with the engineering-geology report, a PE licensed in Utah must also stamp and sign the report or pertinent
sections. For more information, see http://dopl.utah.gov/.

Review Comments:

Review Summary, Notes, and Reviewer Professional Geologist (PG) Stamp

Review Comments:

Reviewer's Utah PG Stamp

Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 165

SURFACE-FAULT-RUPTURE-HAZARD REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

For additional information, see chapters 2 and 3 of: Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, 2016, Guidelines for
investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard
ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 15–58.

Report and Review Information

Report Title:
Report Type: _ Reconnaissance _ Preliminary _ Final _ Combined Engineering Geology/Geotechnical
_ Other
Author: Project #:
Location: County:
Reviewing Organization: File #:
Reviewed By: Utah PG License #:
First Review: Review # ___: Final Approval:

1. Investigation/Report Purpose and Scope

Are the purpose and scope of the surface-faulting investigation appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Review Comments:

2. Project Description and Location

Is the description of the size, type of construction, intended foundation system, grade/floor elevations, building area
(square feet), and International Building Code (IBC) risk category (Table 1604.5) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should provide a marked location on an index map using a 7-1/2 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map or equivalent
base map; parcel number; provide the site latitude and longitude to four decimal places with datum; and a site development map adequate to show
site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, other infrastructure, and relevant site topography. The scale of site development maps will vary
depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger, as necessary.
Review Comments:

3. Literature Review
Is the surface-fault-rupture-hazard investigation literature review appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Are references properly cited in the report and reference list?
Review Comments:

4. Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Other Remote-Sensing Data

Is the analysis of aerial photography and other remote-sensing data (as available) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project? Are aerial photographs and remote-sensing data properly documented and referenced?
Report should list the source; project code; roll, line, and frame numbers; date; and scale for aerial photography used.
Review Comments:
166 Utah Geological Survey

5. Regional Geology and Geologic/Fault Maps

Are the description and analysis of the regional geology and geologic/Quaternary fault maps appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide a regional-scale (1:24,000 to 1:50,000) map showing the geology and location of all mapped or known Quaternary and
other faults, including fault orientation (trend of surface trace, sense of displacement, etc.) and fault activity class (age category) (Chapter 3) within
10 miles of the site.
Review Comments:

6. Site-Specific Geology and Geologic Maps

Are the description and analysis of the site-specific geology, geologic maps, and cross-sections appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should describe site geology according to Guidelines for Conducting Engineering-Geology Investigations and Preparing Engineering
Geology Reports in Utah (Chapter 2), and provide a site-scale geologic map(s) showing geologic and soil units, Quaternary and other faults, seeps
or springs, slope failures, lineaments investigated for evidence of faulting, and other geologic features existing on and near the project site. Maps
should show locations of trenches, test pits, boreholes, geoprobe holes, cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings, and geophysical lines. Scale of
site geologic maps will vary depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger
as necessary. Site geologic cross sections should be included as needed to illustrate three-dimensional geologic relations. The degree of detail and
scale of site geologic mapping should be compatible with the geologic complexity of the site, type of building, and layout. For hillside sites,
describe geology of both the site and adjacent properties, including any known or mapped landslides.

If on-site investigations reveal the presence of a hazardous Quaternary fault, and fault avoidance is the surface-faulting-mitigation method chosen,
a fault setback should be established following the method described in the Guidelines for Evaluating Surface-Fault-Rupture Hazards in Utah
(Chapter 3). The fault setback should be shown on either the site-specific geologic map or on a separate surface-faulting-hazard map depending on
site scale and complexity

Review Comments:

7. Trench and Test Pit Logs

Are trench and test pit logs appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should include logs for each trench and test pit excavated as part of the investigation whether faults are encountered or not. Logs should
show details of geologic units and structures. Logs should be to scale and not generalized or diagrammatic, and may be on a rectified photomosaic
base. The scale (horizontal and vertical) should be 1 inch = 5 feet (1:60) or larger as necessary with no vertical exaggeration. Logs should be
prepared in the field and accurately reflect the features observed in the excavation. Photographs are not a substitute for trench logs. All logs
should include the identity of the person who made the log.
Review Comments:

8. Borehole and CPT Logs

Are boreholes and CPT soundings appropriately located and interpreted for the proposed project?
Reports should include logs for all boreholes and CPT soundings. Logs should include the geologic interpretation of deposit genesis for all layers
and whether or not evidence of faulting was encountered. Because boreholes are typically multipurpose, borehole logs may also contain
geotechnical, geologic, and groundwater data. All logs should include the identity of the person who made the log.
Review Comments:

9. Geophysical Interpretations
Are geophysical lines (if any) appropriately located on the site-specific geology map and adequately interpreted for
the proposed project?
Reports should include complete geophysical logs and accompanying data and field/geophysical interpretation reports.
Review Comments:
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 167

10. Conclusions
Are the report conclusions, including the description, analysis, and statement of relative surface-faulting hazard,
supported with geologic evidence and appropriate reasoning? Are the conclusions appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
The report should evaluate the surface-faulting hazard present at the site and state the relation to existing or proposed infrastructure. The report
should include a statement of relative risk and address the potential for future surface faulting. The degree of confidence in and limitations of data
and conclusions must be clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

11. Recommendations
Are the report recommendations for surface-faulting mitigation supported by the investigation data and report
conclusions?
If the investigation reveals the presence of a hazardous Quaternary fault(s), and fault avoidance is the surface-faulting- mitigation method chosen,
an appropriate fault setback should be established following the method described in Guidelines for Evaluating Surface-Fault-Rupture Hazards in
Utah (Chapter 3) and shown on either the site-specific geologic map or on a separate surface-faulting-hazard map depending on site scale and
complexity. If engineering-design mitigation of surface faulting is proposed, the recommendation must be based on adequate data to characterize
the faults past displacement history sufficient for engineering-design purposes (recommend three closed seismic cycles – four paleoearthquakes;
see Guidelines for Evaluating Surface-Fault-Rupture Hazards in Utah [Chapter 3). Any limitations on the investigation and recommendations for
additional investigation must be clearly stated and documented in the report.
Review Comments:

12. Utah-Licensed Professional Geologist/Engineer Seal

Is the report stamped by a Utah-licensed Professional Geologist (PG), and if the report contains engineering analysis
and/or recommendations, by a Utah-licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in responsible charge of the project?
The engineering-geology report must be stamped and signed by the engineering geologist who conducted the investigation (Utah Code 58-76-602).
The geologist must be licensed to practice geology in Utah. The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) defines a PG
as a person licensed to engage in the practice of geology before the public, but does not define or license geologic specialists, such as engineering
geologists. The UGS considers an engineering geologist to be a person who through education, training, and experience is able to assure that
geologic factors affecting engineering works are recognized, adequately interpreted, and presented for use in engineering practice and/or the
protection of the public; this person shall have a Bachelor’s degree in geology, engineering geology, or a closely related field from an accredited
university and at least five full years of experience in a responsible engineering-geology position. If a geotechnical report or other engineering
analysis and/or recommendations (including liquefaction analysis) are included with the engineering-geology report, a PE licensed in Utah must
also stamp and sign the report or pertinent sections. For more information, see http://dopl.utah.gov/.
Review Comments:

Review Summary, Notes, and Reviewer Professional Geologist (PG) Stamp

Review Comments:

Reviewer's Utah PG Stamp

168 Utah Geological Survey

LANDSLIDE-HAZARD REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

For additional information, see chapters 2 and 4 of: Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, 2016, Guidelines for
investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard
ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 15–30, 59–73.

Report and Review Information

Report Title:
Report Type: _ Reconnaissance _ Preliminary _ Final _ Combined Engineering Geology/Geotechnical
_ Other
Author: Project #:
Location: County:
Reviewing Organization: File #:
Reviewed By: Utah PG License #:
First Review: Review # ___: Final Approval:

1. Investigation/Report Purpose and Scope

Are the purpose and scope of the landslide-hazards investigation appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Review Comments:

2. Project Description and Location

Is the description of the size, type of construction, intended foundation system, grade/floor elevations, building area
(square feet), and International Building Code (IBC) risk category (Table 1604.5) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should provide a marked location on an index map using a 7-1/2 minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic map or equivalent base map;
parcel number; provide the site latitude and longitude to four decimal places with datum; and a site development map adequate to show site
boundaries, existing and proposed structures, other infrastructure, and relevant site topography. The scale of site development maps will vary
depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger, as necessary.
Review Comments:

3. Literature Review
Is the landslide-hazard-investigation literature review appropriate and adequate for the proposed project? Are
references properly cited in the report and reference list?
Review Comments:

4. Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Other Remote Sensing Data

Is the analysis of aerial photography and other remote sensing data (as available) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project? Are aerial photographs and remote-sensing data properly documented and referenced?
Report should list the source; project code; roll, line, and frame numbers; date; and scale for aerial photography used.
Review Comments:
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 169

5. Regional Geology and Geologic/Fault Maps

Are the description and analysis of the regional geology and geologic/Quaternary fault maps appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide a regional-scale (1:24,000 to 1:50,000) map showing the geology and location of all mapped or known Quaternary and
other faults, including fault orientation (trend of surface trace, sense of displacement, etc.) and fault activity class (age category) within 10 miles of
the site.
Review Comments:

6. Site-Specific Geology and Geologic Maps

Are the description and analysis of the site-specific geology, geologic maps, and cross-sections appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should describe site geology according to Guidelines for Conducting Engineering-Geology Investigations and Preparing Engineering
Geology Reports in Utah (Chapter 2), and provide a site-scale geologic map(s) showing geologic and soil units, Quaternary and other faults, seeps
or springs, slope failures, lineaments investigated for evidence of faulting, and other geologic features existing on and near the project site. Maps
should show locations of trenches, test pits, boreholes, geoprobe holes, cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings, and geophysical lines. Scale of
site geologic maps will vary depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger
as necessary. Site geologic cross sections should be included as needed to illustrate three-dimensional geologic relations. The degree of detail and
scale of site geologic mapping should be compatible with the geologic complexity of the site, type of building, and layout, and should describe the
geology of both the site and adjacent properties, including any known or mapped landslides.
Review Comments:

7. Landslide Hazard Map

Is the map showing landslide-hazard-zone boundaries and additional recommended setbacks (if any) appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
If on-site investigations reveal the presence of a landslide hazard, the boundary of the hazard zone with an appropriate building setback should be
shown on either the site-specific geologic map or on a separate landslide-hazard map depending on site scale and complexity, and include a
statement on uncertainty.
Review Comments:

8. Subsurface Investigation
Is the description and analysis of the subsurface investigation, including piezometers and/or slope instrumentation (if
any), appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide subsurface engineering-geology and geotechnical information, including a site-specific plan view map showing exploration
sites (borings, test pits, trenches, etc.), existing groundwater levels, and areas of existing and planned cuts and fills. Logs are required for all
boreholes, standard penetration tests (SPT), and CPT soundings. Logs should include the geologic interpretation of deposit genesis for all layers.
Because boreholes are typically multipurpose, borehole logs may also include geotechnical, geologic, and groundwater data. All logs should
include the identity of the person who made the log.
Review Comments:

9. Geophysical Interpretations
Are geophysical lines (if any) appropriately located on the site-specific geology map and adequately interpreted for
the proposed project?
Reports should include complete geophysical logs and accompanying data and field/geophysical interpretation reports.
Review Comments:
170 Utah Geological Survey

10. Conclusions
Are the report conclusions, including the description, analysis, and statement of landslide hazards supported with
geologic evidence and appropriate reasoning? Are the conclusions appropriate and adequate for the proposed
project?
The report should evaluate the landslide hazard present at or adjacent to the site and state the relation to existing or proposed infrastructure. The
report should include a statement of relative risk and address the potential for future landslides. Boundaries of landslide hazard zones must be
defined and include a statement/measure of boundary uncertainty. The degree of confidence in and limitations of data and conclusions must be
clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

11. Recommendations
Are the report recommendations for landslide-hazard mitigation supported by the investigation data and report
conclusions?
If a landslide hazard is present on site, the report should provide and justify building setbacks or other mitigation recommendations to control
landslides and reduce risk. Any limitations on the investigation and recommendations for additional investigation must be clearly stated and
documented in the report.
Review Comments:

12. Utah-Licensed Professional Geologist/Engineer Seal

Is the report stamped by a Utah-licensed Professional Geologist (PG), and if the report contains engineering analysis
and/or recommendations, by a Utah-licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in responsible charge of the project?
The engineering-geology report must be stamped and signed by the engineering geologist who conducted the investigation (Utah Code 58-76-602).
The geologist must be licensed to practice geology in Utah. The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) defines a PG
as a person licensed to engage in the practice of geology before the public, but does not define or license geologic specialists, such as engineering
geologists. The UGS considers an engineering geologist to be a person who through education, training, and experience is able to assure that
geologic factors affecting engineering works are recognized, adequately interpreted, and presented for use in engineering practice and/or the
protection of the public; this person shall have a Bachelor’s degree in geology, engineering geology, or a closely related field from an accredited
university and at least five full years of experience in a responsible engineering-geology position. If a geotechnical report or other engineering
analysis and/or recommendations (including liquefaction analysis) are included with the engineering-geology report, a PE licensed in Utah must
also stamp and sign the report or pertinent sections. For more information, see http://dopl.utah.gov/.

Review Comments:

Review Summary, Notes, and Reviewer Professional Geologist (PG) Stamp

Review Comments:

Reviewer's Utah PG Stamp

Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 171

DEBRIS-FLOW-HAZARD REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

For additional information, see chapters 2 and 5 of: Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, 2016, Guidelines for
investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard
ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 15–30, 75–91.

Report and Review Information

Report Title:
Report Type: _ Reconnaissance _ Preliminary _ Final _ Combined Engineering Geology/Geotechnical
_ Other
Author: Project #:
Location: County:
Reviewing Organization: File #:
Reviewed By: Utah PG License #:
First Review: Review # ___: Final Approval:

1. Investigation/Report Purpose and Scope

Are the purpose and scope of the debris-flow-hazard investigation appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Review Comments:

2. Project Description and Location

Is the description of the size, type of construction, intended foundation system, grade/floor elevations, building area
(square feet), and International Building Code (IBC) risk category (Table 1604.5) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should provide a marked location on an index map using a 7-1/2 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map or equivalent
base map; parcel number; provide the site latitude and longitude to four decimal places with datum; and a site development map adequate to show
site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, other infrastructure, and relevant site topography. The scale of site development maps will vary
depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger, as necessary.
Review Comments:

3. Literature Review
Is the debris-flow-hazard-investigation literature review appropriate and adequate for the proposed project? Are
references properly cited in the report and reference list?
Review Comments:

4. Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Other Remote-Sensing Data

Is the analysis of aerial photography and other remote-sensing data (as available) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project? Are aerial photographs and remote-sensing data properly documented and referenced?
Report should list the source; project code; roll, line, and frame numbers; date; and scale for aerial photography used.
Review Comments:
172 Utah Geological Survey

5. Regional Geology and Geologic/Fault Maps

Are the description and analysis of the regional geology and geologic/Quaternary fault maps appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide a regional-scale (1:24,000 to 1:50,000) map showing the geology and location of all mapped or known Quaternary and
other faults, including fault orientation (trend of surface trace, sense of displacement, etc.) and fault activity class (age category) within 10 miles of
the site.
Review Comments:

6. Site-Specific Geology and Geologic Maps

Are the description and analysis of the site-specific geology, geologic maps, and cross-sections appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should describe site geology according to Guidelines for Conducting Engineering-Geology Investigations and Preparing Engineering
Geology Reports in Utah (Chapter 2, this volume), and provide a site-scale geologic map(s) showing geologic and soil units, Quaternary and other
faults, seeps or springs, slope failures, lineaments investigated for evidence of faulting, and other geologic features existing on and near the project
site. Maps should show locations of trenches, test pits, boreholes, geoprobe holes, cone penetrometer test soundings, and geophysical lines. Scale
of site geologic maps will vary depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or
larger as necessary. Site geologic cross sections should be included as needed to illustrate three-dimensional geologic relations.

The degree of detail and scale of site geologic mapping should be compatible with the geologic complexity of the site, type of building, and layout.
For hillside sites, describe geology of both the site and adjacent properties, including any known or mapped landslides.

Review Comments:

7. Alluvial-Fan Evaluation
Is the alluvial-fan evaluation appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Report should provide a site-scale surficial geologic map of the alluvial fan showing debris flow and alluvial deposits. The map should be
provided at an appropriate scale for the fan investigated. The fan evaluation should provide basis for design flow-volume estimates (deposit
thickness and area estimates). The fan evaluation should also state the anticipated probability of occurrence and volume, flow type(s), flow depth,
deposition area, runout, gradation of debris, flow impact forces, stream-flow inundation and sediment burial depths, and age estimates or other
evidence used to estimate the frequency of past debris flows.
Review Comments:

8. Drainage-Basin and Channel Evaluation

Is the drainage-basin and channel evaluation adequate for the proposed project?
Report should provide a site-scale geologic map of the drainage basin showing surficial and bedrock geology at an appropriate scale for the
drainage basin investigated. The evaluation should include an estimate of the susceptibility of the drainage basin to shallow landsliding, likely
landslide volume(s), and volume of historical landslides, if present. A longitudinal channel profile, showing gradients from headwaters to the
alluvial fan should be provided along with cross-channel profiles and a map showing their locations. The evaluation should include a basis for
channel volume estimates including initial debris slides, total feeder channel length, length of channel lined by bedrock, and estimated volume of
channel sediment available for sediment bulking, including estimated bulking rate(s) in cubic yards per linear foot of channel.
Review Comments:

9. Frequency and Magnitude Considerations for Risk Reduction

Are the debris-flow frequency and magnitude estimates of geologic parameters for engineering design appropriate for
proposed risk-reduction measures?
Investigators must state how the frequency and magnitude were determined and why they are appropriate for use in design of risk-reduction
measures.
Review Comments:

10. Estimated Geologic Parameters for Engineering Design

Are the estimates of geologic parameters for engineering design appropriate for proposed risk-reduction structures?
Many debris-flow design-parameter estimates have high levels of uncertainty; investigators must clearly state the limitations of the evaluation
methods employed and the uncertainties associated with design-parameter estimates.
Review Comments:
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 173

11. Conclusions
Are the report conclusions, including the description, analysis, and statement of debris-flow hazards supported with
geologic evidence and appropriate reasoning? Are the conclusions appropriate and adequate for the proposed
project?
Report should evaluate the debris-flow hazard present at or adjacent to the site and state the hazards relation to existing or proposed infrastructure.
The report should include a statement of relative risk or quantified risk, address future debris-flow potential, and address the potential impacts from
future debris flows. The limitations and uncertainty of data and conclusions must be clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

12. Recommendations
Are the report recommendations for debris-flow hazard mitigation supported by the investigation data and report
conclusions?
Any limitations on the investigation and recommendations for additional investigation must be clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

13. Utah-Licensed Professional Geologist/Engineer Seal

Is the report stamped by a Utah-licensed Professional Geologist (PG), and if the report contains engineering analysis
and/or recommendations, by a Utah-licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in responsible charge of the project?
The engineering-geology report must be stamped and signed by the engineering geologist who conducted the investigation (Utah Code 58-76-602).
The geologist must be licensed to practice geology in Utah. The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) defines a PG
as a person licensed to engage in the practice of geology before the public, but does not define or license geologic specialists, such as engineering
geologists. The UGS considers an engineering geologist to be a person who through education, training, and experience is able to assure that
geologic factors affecting engineering works are recognized, adequately interpreted, and presented for use in engineering practice and/or the
protection of the public; this person shall have a Bachelor’s degree in geology, engineering geology, or a closely related field from an accredited
university and at least five full years of experience in a responsible engineering-geology position. If a geotechnical report or other engineering
analysis and/or recommendations (including liquefaction analysis) are included with the engineering-geology report, a PE licensed in Utah must
also stamp and sign the report or pertinent sections. For more information, see http://dopl.utah.gov/.

Review Comments:

Review Summary, Notes, and Reviewer Professional Geologist (PG) Stamp

Review Comments:

Reviewer's Utah PG Stamp

174 Utah Geological Survey

LAND-SUBSIDENCE AND EARTH-FISSURE-HAZARD REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

For additional information, see chapters 2 and 6 of: Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, 2016, Guidelines for
investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard
ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 15–30, 93–110.

Report and Review Information

Report Title:
Report Type: _ Reconnaissance _ Preliminary _ Final _ Combined Engineering Geology/Geotechnical
_ Other
Author: Project #:
Location: County:
Reviewing Organization: File #:
Reviewed By: Utah PG License #:
First Review: Review # ___: Final Approval:

1. Investigation/Report Purpose and Scope

Are the purpose and scope of the land-subsidence and earth-fissure-hazard investigation appropriate and adequate for
the proposed project?
Review Comments:

2. Project Description and Location

Is the description of the size, type of construction, intended foundation system, grade/floor elevations, building area
(square feet), and International Building Code (IBC) risk category (Table 1604.5) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should provide a marked location on an index map using a 7-1/2 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map or equivalent
base map; parcel number; provide the site latitude and longitude to four decimal places with datum; and a site development map adequate to show
site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, other infrastructure, and relevant site topography. The scale of site development maps will vary
depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger, as necessary.
Review Comments:

3. Literature Review
Is the land-subsidence and earth-fissure-hazard investigation literature review appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project? Are references properly cited in the report and reference list?
Review Comments:

4. Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Other Remote-Sensing Data

Is the analysis of aerial photography and other remote-sensing data (as available) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project? Are aerial photographs and remote-sensing data properly documented and referenced?
Report should list the source; project code; roll, line, and frame numbers; date; and scale for aerial photography used.
Review Comments:
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 175

5. Regional Geology and Geologic/Fault/Subsidence Maps

Is the description and analysis of the regional geology and geologic/Quaternary fault/subsidence maps appropriate
and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide a regional-scale (1:24,000 to 1:50,000) map showing the geology and location of all mapped or known Quaternary and
other faults, including fault orientation (trend of surface trace, sense of displacement, etc.) and fault activity class (age category) within 10 miles of
the site.
Review Comments:

6. Site-Specific Geology and Geologic Maps

Are the description and analysis of the site-specific geology, geologic maps, and cross-sections appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should describe site geology according to Guidelines for Conducting Engineering-Geology Investigations and Preparing Engineering
Geology Reports in Utah (Chapter 2, this volume), this volume and provide a site-scale geologic map(s) showing geologic and soil units,
Quaternary and other faults, seeps or springs, slope failures, lineaments investigated for evidence of faulting, and other geologic features existing
on and near the project site. Maps should show locations of trenches, test pits, boreholes, geoprobe holes, cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings,
and geophysical lines. Scale of site geologic maps will vary depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1
inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger as necessary. Site geologic cross sections should be included as needed to illustrate three-dimensional geologic
relations.

The degree of detail and scale of site geologic mapping should be compatible with the geologic complexity of the site, type of building, and layout.
For hillside sites, describe geology of both the site and adjacent properties, including any known or mapped landslides.

Review Comments:

7. Subsurface Investigation
Are the description and analysis of the subsurface investigation, including wells, piezometers, and instrumentation (if
any), appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should provide subsurface engineering-geology and geotechnical information, including a site-specific plan view map showing exploration
sites (borings, CPT soundings, test pits, trenches, etc.), existing groundwater levels, and areas of existing and planned cuts and fills. Logs are
required for all boreholes, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), and CPT soundings. Logs should include the geologic interpretation of deposit
genesis for all layers. Because boreholes are typically multipurpose, borehole logs may also include geotechnical, geologic, and groundwater data.
All logs should include the identity of the person who made the log.

Review Comments:

8. Benchmarks and Other Elevation Data

Are benchmarks and other elevation data appropriately located on the regional and site-specific geology maps and
adequately interpreted for the proposed project?
Reports should include background data on elevation data used for the project, including surveying reports.
Review Comments:

9. Geophysical Interpretations
Are geophysical lines (if any) appropriately located on the site-specific geology map and adequately interpreted for
the proposed project?
Reports should include complete geophysical logs and accompanying data and field/geophysical interpretation reports.
Review Comments:
176 Utah Geological Survey

10. Conclusions
Are the report conclusions, including the description, analysis, and statement of land subsidence and earth fissures
supported with geologic evidence and appropriate reasoning? Are the conclusions appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?

The report should evaluate the land-subsidence and earth-fissure hazard present at or adjacent to the site and state the relation to existing or
proposed infrastructure. The report should include a statement of relative risk and address the potential for future land subsidence or earth fissure
formation. The degree of confidence in and limitations of data and conclusions must be clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

11. Recommendations
Are the report recommendations for land-subsidence and earth-fissure-hazard mitigation supported by the
investigation data and report conclusions?
If a land subsidence and/or earth-fissure hazard is present on site, the report must provide and justify earth-fissure setbacks and/or other land
subsidence or earth-fissure mitigation recommendations to reduce risk. Any limitations on the investigation and recommendations for additional
investigation must be clearly stated and documented in the report.
Review Comments:

13. Utah-Licensed Professional Geologist/Engineer Seal

Is the report stamped by a Utah-licensed Professional Geologist (PG), and if the report contains engineering analysis
and/or recommendations, by a Utah-licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in responsible charge of the project?
The engineering-geology report must be stamped and signed by the engineering geologist who conducted the investigation (Utah Code 58-76-602).
The geologist must be licensed to practice geology in Utah. The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) defines a PG
as a person licensed to engage in the practice of geology before the public, but does not define or license geologic specialists, such as engineering
geologists. The UGS considers an engineering geologist to be a person who through education, training, and experience is able to assure that
geologic factors affecting engineering works are recognized, adequately interpreted, and presented for use in engineering practice and/or the
protection of the public; this person shall have a Bachelor’s degree in geology, engineering geology, or a closely related field from an accredited
university and at least five full years of experience in a responsible engineering-geology position. If a geotechnical report or other engineering
analysis and/or recommendations (including liquefaction analysis) are included with the engineering-geology report, a PE licensed in Utah must
also stamp and sign the report or pertinent sections. For more information, see http://dopl.utah.gov/.

Review Comments:

Review Summary, Notes, and Reviewer Professional Geologist (PG) Stamp

Review Comments:

Reviewer's Utah PG Stamp

Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 177

ROCKFALL-HAZARD REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST

For additional information, see chapters 2 and 7 of: Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, 2016, Guidelines for
investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard
ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, p. 15–30, 111–123.

Report and Review Information

Report Title:
Report Type: _ Reconnaissance _ Preliminary _ Final _ Combined Engineering Geology/Geotechnical
_ Other
Author: Project #:
Location: County:
Reviewing Organization: File #:
Reviewed By: Utah PG License #:
First Review: Review # ___: Final Approval:

1. Investigation/Report Purpose and Scope

Are the purpose and scope of the rockfall-hazard investigation appropriate and adequate for the proposed project?
Review Comments:

2. Project Description and Location

Is the description of the size, type of construction, intended foundation system, grade/floor elevations, building area
(square feet), and International Building Code (IBC) risk category (Table 1604.5) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project?
Reports should provide a marked location on an index map using a 7-1/2 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map or equivalent
base map; parcel number; provide the site latitude and longitude to four decimal places with datum; and a site development map adequate to show
site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, other infrastructure, and relevant site topography. The scale of site development maps will vary
depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400) or larger, as necessary.
Review Comments:

3. Literature Review
Is the rockfall-hazard-investigation literature review appropriate and adequate for the proposed project? Are
references properly cited in the report and reference list?
Review Comments:

4. Analysis of Aerial Photographs and Other Remote Sensing Data

Is the analysis of aerial photography and other remote-sensing data (as available) appropriate and adequate for the
proposed project? Are aerial photographs and remote-sensing data properly documented and referenced?
Report should list the source; project code; roll, line, and frame numbers; date; and scale for aerial photography used.
Review Comments:
178 Utah Geological Survey

4. Regional Geology and Geologic/Fault Maps

Is the description and analysis of the regional geology and geologic/Quaternary fault maps appropriate and adequate
for the proposed project?
Reports should provide a regional-scale (1:24,000 to 1:50,000) map showing the geology and location of all mapped or known Quaternary and
other faults, including fault orientation (trend of surface trace, sense of displacement, etc.) and fault activity class (age category) within 10 miles of
the site.
Review Comments:

5. Site-Specific Geology and Geologic Maps

Is the description and analysis of the site-specific geology, geologic maps, and cross-sections appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
Reports should describe site geology according to Guidelines for Conducting Engineering-Geology Investigations and Preparing Engineering
Geology Reports in Utah (Chapter 2, this volume), and provide a site-scale geologic map(s) showing geologic and soil units, Quaternary and other
faults, seeps or springs, slope failures, lineaments investigated for evidence of faulting, and other geologic features existing on and near the project
site. Maps should show locations of trenches, test pits, boreholes, geoprobe holes, cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings, and geophysical lines.
Scale of site geologic maps will vary depending on the size of the site and area of investigation; recommended scale is 1 inch = 200 feet (1:2400)
or larger as necessary. Site geologic cross sections should be included as needed to illustrate three-dimensional geologic relations.

The degree of detail and scale of site geologic mapping should be compatible with the geologic complexity of the site, type of building, and layout.
For hillside sites, describe geology of both the site and adjacent properties, including any known or mapped landslides and rockfall source areas.

Review Comments:

6. Rockfall-Hazard Map
Is the map showing rockfall runout zone boundaries and additional recommended setbacks (if any) appropriate and
adequate for the proposed project?
If on-site investigations reveal the presence of a rockfall hazard, the boundary of the rockfall runout zone with an appropriate building setback (if
any) should be shown with a statement/measure of runout zone boundary uncertainty. In general, the greater the uncertainty in the runout zone
boundary, the greater the setback distance.
Review Comments:

7. Boreholes/Piezometers/Slope Monitoring Instrumentation Logs

Are boreholes, piezometers, and slope instrumentation (if any) locations appropriately located, documented, and
interpreted for the proposed project?
The report should provide surface and subsurface engineering-geology and geotechnical information, including a site-specific plan view map
showing exploration sites (borings, CPT soundings, test pits, trenches, etc.), existing groundwater levels, and areas of existing and planned cuts
and fills. Logs are required for all boreholes and CPT soundings, and should include the geologic interpretation of deposit genesis, weathering,
fracturing, and other data relevant to rockfall genesis. Because boreholes are typically multipurpose, borehole logs may also include geotechnical,
geologic, and groundwater data. All logs should include the identity of the person who made the log.
Review Comments:

8. Scanline and Geophysical Interpretations

Are scanlines and geophysical lines (if any) appropriately located on the site-specific geology map and adequately
interpreted for the proposed project?
Reports should include complete geophysical logs and accompanying data and field/geophysical interpretation reports.
Review Comments:
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 179

9. Conclusions
Are the report conclusions, including the description, analysis, and statement of relative rockfall hazard supported
with geologic evidence and appropriate reasoning? Are the conclusions appropriate and adequate for the proposed
project?
Report must evaluate the rockfall hazard present at or adjacent to the site and state the hazards relation to existing or proposed infrastructure. The
report should include a statement of relative risk and address the potential for future rockfalls. Boundaries of rockfall runout zones must be
defined and include a statement/measure of boundary uncertainty. The degree of confidence in and limitations of data and conclusions must be
clearly stated and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

10. Recommendations
Are the report recommendations for rockfall-hazard mitigation supported by the investigation data and report
conclusions?
If a rockfall hazard is present on site, the report must provide and justify runout zones and building setbacks or other mitigation recommendations
to control rockfalls and reduce risk. Any limitations on the investigation and recommendations for additional investigation must be clearly stated
and documented in the report.

Review Comments:

11. Utah-Licensed Professional Geologist/Engineer Seal

Is the report stamped by a Utah-licensed Professional Geologist (PG), and if the report contains engineering analysis
and/or recommendations, by a Utah-licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in responsible charge of the project?
The engineering-geology report must be stamped and signed by the engineering geologist who conducted the investigation (Utah Code 58-76-602).
The geologist must be licensed to practice geology in Utah. The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) defines a PG
as a person licensed to engage in the practice of geology before the public, but does not define or license geologic specialists, such as engineering
geologists. The UGS considers an engineering geologist to be a person who through education, training, and experience is able to assure that
geologic factors affecting engineering works are recognized, adequately interpreted, and presented for use in engineering practice and/or the
protection of the public; this person shall have a Bachelor’s degree in geology, engineering geology, or a closely related field from an accredited
university and at least five full years of experience in a responsible engineering-geology position. If a geotechnical report or other engineering
analysis and/or recommendations (including liquefaction analysis) are included with the engineering-geology report, a PE licensed in Utah must
also stamp and sign the report or pertinent sections. For more information, see http://dopl.utah.gov/.

Review Comments:

Review Summary, Notes, and Reviewer Professional Geologist (PG) Stamp

Review Comments:

Reviewer's Utah PG Stamp

180 Utah Geological Survey
 APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGIC-HAZARD
AND OTHER TERMS

The Organ, typical Entrada Sandstone monolith in Arches National Park. The Three Gossips can be seen in the background.
Photo credit: Gregg Beukelman, May 5, 2014.
182 Utah Geological Survey

GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGIC-HAZARD AND OTHER TERMS

Abandoned landslide – Inactive landslide which is no longer affected by its original causes. An example would be of a landslide
whose movement is caused by stream erosion at its toe. The stream then changes course and the movement stops.

Acceptable and reasonable risk – A level of risk at which it is expected that there will be no loss of life or significant injury to
occupants, no release of hazardous or toxic substances, and no more than minimal structural damage (i.e., physically and
economically reasonable to repair) to critical infrastructure, critical facilities, or to structures designed for human occu
pancy, in the event that the anticipated geologic hazard were to occur.

Active landslide – Landslide that is currently moving; first-time movement or reactivated.

Active sand dunes – Shifting sand moved by wind. May present a hazard to existing structures (burial) or roadways (burial,
poor visibility).

Activity class (of a fault) – The level of activity as defined by WSSPC (2011) of a fault based on the time of most recent rupture
of the ground surface. Holocene activity class means movement of a fault that has broken the ground surface in approxi
mately the past 11,700 years, shown as “<15,000 years” on the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States);
Late Quaternary activity class means movement of a fault that has broken the ground surface in approximately the past
130,000 years; and, Quaternary activity class means movement of a fault that has broken the ground surface in approxi
mately the past 2.6 million years. Depending on local conditions, faults in any activity class may be buried or concealed.

Alluvial fan – A generally low, cone-shaped deposit formed by deposition from a stream issuing from mountains as it flows
onto a lowland.

Alluvial-fan flooding – Flooding of an alluvial-fan surface by overland (sheet) flow or flow in channels (stream flow, debris
flow) branching outward from a canyon mouth. See also, alluvial fan.

Alluvial-fan surface, active – An alluvial-fan surface where the fan-building processes of flooding, debris flow, sediment depo
sition, and erosion are active or potentially active during storm or snowmelt events. Active portions of the fan have gener
ally shallow stream channels, often braiding into several channels that distribute alluvium broadly across the fan surface.
Active alluvial-fan surfaces receiving periodic sedimentation are typically rough (numerous boulders and cobbles at the
surface) and support sparse vegetation.

Alluvial-fan surface, inactive – An alluvial-fan surface where the fan-building processes are no longer active. Inactive fan
surfaces are stable and usually marked by well-developed soil and plant succession. Stream channels are generally single
strand, incised below the inactive fan surface, and associated with a flat, low floodplain terrace. Floods along channels on
inactive alluvial-fan surfaces behave as normal riverine floods.

Avalanche (snow) – A large mass of snow or ice that moves rapidly down a mountain slope.

Buildable area – That portion of a site, lot, or parcel that is entitled to contain the proposed improvement (for example, complies
with zoning and building setbacks); and, either will not be impacted by a geologic hazard, or has all identified geologic
hazards mitigated to an acceptable and reasonable risk. Any mitigation necessary to deem a geologically hazardous area as
“buildable” must be based on an approved geologic-hazard report and engineered methods.

Canal/ditch flooding – Flooding due to overtopping or breaching of canals or ditches.

Collapsible soil – Soil that has considerable strength in its dry, natural state, but that settles significantly due to hydrocompac
tion when wetted; usually associated with young alluvial fans, debris flows, and loess.

Complex landslide – Landslide activity where a landslide exhibits at least two types of movement (fall, topple, slide, spread,
or flow) in sequence.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 183

Composite landslide – Landslide activity where a landslide exhibits at least two types of movement (fall, topple, slide, spread,
or flow) in different parts of the displaced mass at the same time.

Creep – (a) Deformation that continues under constant stress. (b) A very slow to extremely slow rate of movement; not a recom
mended term, use very slow or extremely slow instead.

Crown – Non-displaced ground adjacent to the highest part of the main scarp of a landslide.

Dam-failure flooding – Flooding downstream from a dam caused by an unintentional release of water due to a partial or com
plete dam failure.

Debris – Any surficial accumulation of loose material that contains a significant proportion of coarse material; 20% to 80% of
inorganic particles are larger than 2 mm (the upper limit of sand-size particles).

Debris flow – Slurry of rock, soil, organic matter, and water (generally >60% sediment by volume) that flows down channels
and onto alluvial fans. May be initiated by erosion during a cloudburst storm or by a shallow (slip surface generally less
than 10 feet deep) slope failure on a steep mountain slope. Debris flows can quickly travel long distances from their source
areas, presenting hazards to life and property along stream channels and on or near downstream alluvial fans.

Development – For purposes of these guidelines, development includes the installation and construction of roads, utility lines/
conveyances, subdivision improvements, buildings, structures, and physical improvements accessory to any of these uses.

Displaced material – Material moved from its original position by a landslide; includes both the depleted and accumulated
masses (depletion and accumulation).

Dormant landslide – Inactive landslide that can be reactivated by its original or other causes.

Dormant-historic landslide – Slopes with evidence of previous landslide activity that have undergone most recent movement
within preceding 100 years.

Dormant-young landslide – slopes with evidence of previous landslide activity that have undergone most recent movement
during an estimated period of 100–5000 years before present.

Dormant-mature landslide – Slopes with evidence of previous landslide activity that have undergone most recent movement
during an estimated period of 5000–10,000 years before present.

Dormant-old landslide – Slopes with evidence of previous landslide activity that have undergone most recent movement during
an estimated period greater than 10,000 years before present.

Earth – Unconsolidated material that contains 80% or more of inorganic particles smaller than 2 mm (the upper limit of sand
size particles).

Earth fissure – A linear tension crack in the ground that extends upward from the groundwater table and is a direct result of
land subsidence caused by groundwater depletion. The surface expression of earth fissures may range from less than a
yard to several miles long and from less than half an inch to tens of feet wide. Earth fissures change runoff/flood patterns,
break buried pipes and utilities, cause infrastructure to collapse, provide a direct conduit to the groundwater table for con
taminants, and may pose a life-safety hazard. Earth fissures can quickly erode into sinkholes/gullies when washed out by
surface runoff, and some can experience vertical offset.

Earthquake – A sudden motion or trembling of the Earth as stored elastic strain energy is released by fracture and movement
of rocks along a fault.

Earthquake-induced flooding – Flooding caused by a seiche, tectonic subsidence, increase in spring discharge, rise in the water
table, or disruption of streams and canals caused by an earthquake. See also, seiche, tectonic subsidence.
184 Utah Geological Survey

Engineering Geologist – A Utah-licensed geologist, who through education, training, and experience practices in the field of
engineering geology. The term “Geologist” as used in this publication, specifically refers to an Engineering Geologist
qualified to study the specific geologic hazard(s) identified. The engineering geologist in principal charge of investigations
should have a minimum of five years of experience in a responsible position in the field of engineering geology either in
Utah or in a state with similar geologic hazards.

Engineering geology – The application of the geological sciences to engineering practice for the purpose of assuring that the
geologic factors affecting the location, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of engineering works are recog
nized and adequately provided for in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare.

Erosion – Removal and transport of soil or rock from a land surface, usually through chemical or mechanical means.

Essential facilities –Infrastructure and facilities intended to remain operational in the event of an adverse geologic event or
natural disaster. They include, but are not limited to, those uses listed under Risk Category IV as defined in the International
Building Code (IBC, table 1604.5, p. 336; International Code Council, 2014a).

Expansive soil and/or rock – Soil or rock that swells when wetted and shrinks when dried. Typically associated with high clay
content, particularly sodium-rich clay.

Fall – Landslide movement that starts with the detachment of soil or rock from a steep slope along a surface on which little or
no shear displacement takes place.

Fault – A fracture in the Earth's crust forming a boundary between rock or soil masses that have moved relative to each other,
due to tectonic forces. When the fracture extends to the Earth’s surface, it is known as a surface-fault rupture, or fault trace.

Fault scarp – A steep slope or cliff formed by movement along a fault.

Fault setback – A specified distance on either side of a fault within which essential facilities and other structures designed for
human occupancy are not permitted.

Fault trace, or surface-fault rupture – The intersection of a fault plane with the ground surface, often present as a fault scarp, or
detected as a lineament.

Fault zone – A corridor of variable width along one or more fault traces, within which deformation has occurred.

Flank – Non-displaced material adjacent to the sides of the rupture surface of a landslide; compass directions are preferable in
describing the flanks, but “left” and “right” can be used looking downslope.

Flow – A spatially continuous movement in which surfaces of shear are short-lived, closely spaced, and usually not preserved.
The distribution of velocities in the displaced mass resembles that of a viscous liquid.

Geologic evaluation – The review of a geologic study area to determine the hazard potential relative to the proposed develop
ment, and to verify the need for geologic studies and reports. Geologic evaluations are performed by engineering geolo
gists, or geotechnical engineers with input from engineering geologists

Geologic study area – A potential geologically hazardous area, within which geologic-hazard investigations are required prior
to development.

Geologically hazardous area – An area that, because of its susceptibility to a geologic hazard, is not suitable for the siting of
structures designed for human occupancy or critical facilities, consistent with public health or safety concerns, unless the
hazard is mitigated to an acceptable and reasonable level.

Geotechnical Engineer: A professional, Utah-licensed engineer who, through education, training and experience, is competent
in the field of geotechnical engineering and should have either (1) a graduate degree in civil engineering, with an emphasis
in geotechnical engineering; or a B.S. degree in civil engineering with 12 semester hours of post-B.S. credit in geotechnical
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 185

engineering, or course content closely related to evaluation of geologic hazards, from an accredited college or university;
or (2) five full years of experience in a responsible position in the field of geotechnical engineering in Utah, or in a state
with similar geologic hazards and regulatory environment, and experience demonstrating knowledge and application of
appropriate techniques in geologic-hazards investigations.

Geotechnical engineering: The investigation and engineering evaluation of earth materials including soil, rock, and man-made
materials and their interaction with earth retention systems, foundations, and other civil engineering works. The practice
involves the fields of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, and earth sciences and requires knowledge of engineering laws,
formulas, construction techniques, and performance evaluation of engineering.

Ground shaking – The shaking or vibration of the ground during an earthquake.

Hazard mitigation – An action taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the risk to human life and public and private prop
erty from identified hazards.

Holocene – The period of time between about 11,700 years ago and the present (Holocene Epoch). Also the geologic deposits
that formed during that time (Holocene Series). See also, Quaternary.

Hydrocompaction – Where the ground subsides due to unconsolidated soils becoming saturated with water and losing their
structural strength (soil bonds being dissolved by water), and the ground compacting under the weight above.

Hyperconcentrated flow – Slurry of rock, soil, organic matter, and water (generally 20%–60% sediment by volume) that flows
down channels and onto alluvial fans. May be initiated by erosion during a cloudburst storm or by a shallow (slip surface gen
erally less than 10 feet deep) slope failure on a steep mountain slope. Hyperconcentrated flows can travel long distances from
their source areas, presenting hazards to life and property along stream channels and on or near downstream alluvial fans.

Lake flooding – Flooding around a lake caused by a rise in lake level.

Landslide – General term referring to a wide variety of mass-movement landforms and processes involving the downslope
transport, under gravitational influence, of soil and rock materials

Liquefaction – Sudden, large decrease in shear strength of a saturated, cohesionless soil (generally sand, silt) caused by a col
lapse of soil structure and temporary increase in pore water pressure during earthquake ground shaking. Liquefaction may
induce ground failure, including lateral spreads and flow-type landslides.

Main scarp – Steep surface of undisturbed material at the upslope extent of a landslide; caused by movement of the displaced
material away from the undisturbed ground; the visible part of the surface of rupture.

Mine subsidence – Subsidence of the ground surface due to the collapse of underground mines; may also cause earth fissures.

Minor scarp – Steep surface on the displaced material of a landslide produced by differential movements within the dis
placed material.

Non-buildable area – An area that contains a geologic hazard that presents an unreasonable and unacceptable risk, such that the
siting of structures designed for human occupancy, critical facilities, and other specified development improvements are
prohibited in that area by permitting agencies.

Non-engineered fill – Soil, rock, or other fill material placed by humans without engineering specification, observation, and
testing. Such fill may be uncompacted, contain voids and/or oversize, low-strength, and/or decomposable material; may
be subject to differential subsidence; and may have a low bearing capacity and/or poor stability characteristics.

Organic deposits (peat) – An unconsolidated surface deposit of semi-carbonized plant remains in a water-saturated environ
ment, such as a bog or swamp. May also occur as thin interbeds in soil or in a dried-out condition. Organic deposits are
highly compressible, have a high water-holding capacity, can oxidize and shrink rapidly when drained, and may combust
under certain circumstances.
186 Utah Geological Survey

Piping – Subsurface erosion of soil or rock by groundwaterflow, forming narrow voids. Pipes can remove support of overlying
soil and rock, resulting in collapse.

Problem soil and rock – Geologic materials having characteristics that make them susceptible to volumetric changes, collapse,
subsidence, or other engineering geologic problems.

Quaternary – The period of time between 2.6 million years ago and the present (Quaternary Period). Also the geologic deposits
that formed during that time (Quaternary System). The Quaternary comprises the Holocene and Pleistocene Epochs/Series.
See also, Holocene.

Radon – A radioactive gas that occurs naturally through the decay of uranium and radium. Radon can be present in high concen
trations in soil derived from rock such as granite, shale, phosphate, and certain metamorphic rocks. Exposure to elevated
levels of radon can cause an increased risk of lung cancer.

Reactivated landslide – Landslide that is again active after being inactive.

Relic landslide – Landslide that clearly developed under different geomorphic conditions, perhaps thousands of years ago.

Rockfall – The relatively free falling or precipitous movement of rock from a slope by rolling, falling, toppling, or bouncing.
The rockfall runout zone encompasses the area at risk from falling rocks below a rockfall source.

Rotational slide – Landslide in which the surface of rupture is curved concave upward and movement is roughly rotational
about an axis parallel to the ground surface and transverse across the landslide.

Rupture surface – Surface that forms, or has formed, the lower boundary of the displaced material of a landslide below the
original ground surface.

Sediment bulking – Erosion and incorporation of channel sediment by a debris flow.

Sensitive clay – Clay soil that experiences a particularly large loss of strength when disturbed, and therefore is subject to failure
during earthquake ground shaking.

Setback, geologic hazard – An area subject to risk from a geologic hazard, within which construction of critical facilities and
structures designed for human occupancy are not permitted.

Shallow bedrock – Bedrock at depths sufficiently shallow to be encountered in construction excavations.

Shallow groundwater – Groundwater at depths sufficiently shallow to be encountered in construction excavations, typically
within 10 feet of the ground surface or less. A rising water table can cause flooding of basements, crawlspaces, and septic
drain fields.

Slide – A downslope movement of a soil or rock mass occurring dominantly on surfaces of rupture or on relatively thin zones
of intense shear strain.

Slope failure – Downslope movement of soil or rock by falling, toppling, sliding, or flowing. See also, landslide.

Slope stability analysis – Analysis of static and dynamic stability of engineered and natural slopes of soil and rock.

Soil – Aggregate of solid, typically inorganic particles that either was transported or was formed in situ by weathering of rock;
subdivided into earth and debris.

Soluble soil or rock (karst) – Soil or rock containing minerals that are soluble in water, such as calcium carbonate (principal
component of limestone), dolomite, and gypsum. Dissolution of minerals and rocks can cause subsidence and formation
of sinkholes.
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 187

Spread – An extension of a cohesive soil or rock mass combined with a general subsidence of the fractured mas of cohesive
material into softer underlying material.

Stabilized landslide – Landslide that has stopped moving after mitigation measures have been applied.

Stream flooding – Overbank flooding of floodplains along streams; area subject to flooding generally indicated by extent of
floodplain or calculated extent of the 100- or 500-year flood.

Structure designed for human occupancy – Any building or structure containing a habitable space, or classified as an assembly,
business, educational, factory and industrial, institutional, mercantile, or residential occupancy classification under the
adopted International Building Code.

Subsidence – Permanent lowering of the normal level of the ground surface by hydrocompaction, piping, karst, collapse of
underground mines, loading, decomposition or oxidation of organic soil, faulting, groundwater mining, or settlement of
non-engineered fill.

Surface faulting (surface fault rupture) – Propagation of an earthquake-generating fault rupture to the ground surface, displac
ing the surface and forming a scarp.

Suspended landslide – Landslide that have moved within the last annual cycle of seasons but that are not moving at present.

Talus – Accumulated rock fragments lying at the base of a cliff or a steep rocky slope.

Tectonic subsidence – Lowering and tilting of a basin floor on the downdropped side of a fault during an earthquake.

Toe – Lower, usually curved, margin of the displaced material of a landslide, the most distant from the top of a landslide.

Topple – A forward rotation out of the slope of a mass of soil or rock about a point or axis below the center of gravity of the
displaced mass

Translational – Type of landslide that moves along a roughly planar surface with little rotation or backward tilting.

Trigger – Cause that puts a slope into a marginal state of activity leading to a landslide.

Zone of accumulation – Portion of a landslide within which the displaced material lies above the original ground surface.

Zone of depletion – Portion of a landslide within which the displaced material lies below the original ground surface.
188 Utah Geological Survey
 APPENDIX C
LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING (LIDAR)
BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION

Bare-earth lidar DEM showing the Bonneville and Provo shorelines of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville and the trace of the
Wasatch fault zone. Image credit: Adam McKean.

Suggested citation: Bowman, S.D., 2016, Light detection and ranging (lidar) background and application, in Bowman, S.D., and
Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports, with a suggested
approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, appendix C, p. 189–196.
190 Utah Geological Survey

LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING (LIDAR)

BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION
by Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.

INTRODUCTION vegetation canopies as shown on figure C1 from the Snowba

sin, Utah, area. For more detailed information than provided
Light detection and ranging (lidar) technology uses transmit here, Renslow (2012) provides a comprehensive review of air
ted and reflected laser pulses to measure the distance to an borne lidar systems and processing.
object. Lidar transmitted from an airborne platform (fixed
wing aircraft or helicopter) is commonly used to determine Lidar may be acquired from three different platforms: terres
ground surface elevations to create highly accurate, bare-earth trial, airborne, and spaceborne. The most common acquisition
digital elevation models (DEM). A lidar instrument can send platform is airborne, with the lidar unit mounted in the floor of
many thousands of laser pulses at a rapid rate, which allows an airplane or helicopter (figure C4). Terrestrial lidar is com
a high point spacing density, much greater than is possible monly used to map steep slopes, such as cut or mine slopes,
using traditional surveying methods. Landslides (figure C1), and fault or landslide scarps.
fault scarps (figure C2), earth fissures (figure C3), and other
features that are difficult or not possible to detect visually Due to the long path length of emitted and reflected laser light,
because of vegetation, access, or other issues, may often be spaceborne lidar systems require high-power lasers with high
clearly shown in lidar data. electrical input requirements. Consequently, few spaceborne
lidar systems are in use, with the exception of profiling sys
Unlike radar interferometry (InSAR), most lidar data are ac tems, which typically are employed for atmospheric and/or
quired by private aerial imaging and mapping firms. In 1996, ocean monitoring and research, such as the NASA ICESat sat
only one vendor was selling commercial lidar systems (Balt ellite (NASA, 2010).
savias, 1999); today there are numerous commercial vendors
producing lidar scanning systems including Leica Geosys Lidar systems typically use either a neodymium-doped yt
tems, Toposys (now Trimble), Optech, and Riegl, along with trium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) or gallium arsenide (GaAs)
numerous aerial imaging and mapping firms employing the laser (Shan and Toth, 2009) driven by a power source and
technology. Most of these systems are small and light enough sophisticated electronics, and for aircraft acquisition, are
to be installed and operated in small, single-engine aircraft, coupled with a GPS or more recently, a Global Navigation
and more recently, in remotely operated, unmanned aircraft. Satellite System (GNSS) inertial measurement unit (IMU)
to determine precise three-dimensional position information.
Figure C5 shows a Leica ALS70 instrument mounted in an
LIDAR BACKGROUND AND ACQUISITION aircraft used for the 2011 State of Utah acquisition. The posi
tion information is used during processing raw sensor data to
point cloud and to bare-earth data to correct for aircraft flight
First developed in the 1960s with early laser components path drift (yaw, pitch, and roll) and other irregularities. Dur
(Miller, 1965; Shepherd, 1965), lidar has evolved from simple ing acquisition of terrestrial lidar, each instrument location is
electronic distance measurement systems used in surveying measured with GPS or GNSS, which is used for subsequent
(Shan and Toth, 2009) into a sophisticated surface mapping processing to a three-dimensional model.
technique on multiple platforms, including terrestrial, airborne,
or spaceborne. Lidar may be applied using one of two general
While scanning systems generally comprise a laser aimed at
methods: profiling or scanning. Profiling involves acquiring
a rotating mirror, various manufacturers use different meth
elevation data along a single flight path of the platform. Scan ods, including standard rotating mirrors (Optech and Leica
ning involves acquiring elevation data along a swath parallel to
Geosystems ALS scanners); rotating optical polygon scanners
the flight path of the platform, or in the case of terrestrial scan
(Reigl scanners); Palmer scanning with a wobbling mirror
ners, along a path parallel to the angular rotation path of the (NASA Airborne Topographic Mapper [ATM] and Airborne
stationary scanner. In addition, the reflected light backscatter,
Oceanographic Lidar [AOL] scanners; and tilted, rotating
intensity, and other parameters can be measured for additional
mirrors with a fiber optic array (Toposys scanners) (Leica
applications. Lidar can measure the ground surface with accu
Geosystems, 2008a; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad
racies of a few inches horizontally and a few tenths of inches
ministration, 2008; Shan and Toth, 2009).
vertically (Carter and others, 2001) and can penetrate thick
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 191

Figure C1. Comparison of 2006 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 1-meter color orthophoto imagery (left) and 2006 2-meter
airborne lidar imagery (right) in the Snowbasin area, Weber County, Utah. Red lines outline the Green Pond and Bear Wallow landslides that
are clearly visible in the lidar imagery, but barely visible to undetectable in the NAIP imagery. Data from the Utah Automated Geographic
Reference Center (AGRC) (2006a, 2006b), and graphics generated by the Utah Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Program, undated.

Lidar data acquired from the reflected laser pulses (figures C6 of-sight style. Slopeshade images show the ground surface
and C7) are converted to raw point cloud data—a collection slope angle with steep slopes shaded and shallow slopes illu
of range measurements (straight-line distance from platform minated so topography is not masked by illumination shadow.
system to the imaged ground surface) and sensor orientation Digital surface models (DSM) can also be produced that re
parameters (Fernandez and others, 2007) in the lidar system. tain vegetation and non-native features, representing the high
The intensity of returned laser pulses can also be used to de est return of the imaged surface. Often, numerous shaded-re
termine general surface texture, although ground surface clas lief images with different illumination angles are needed for
sification can be difficult. interpretation of fault scarps, landslides, and other geologic
features, due to different feature aspect angles and will vary
For use in elevation and most geologic studies, the point cloud with each project and the feature(s) of interest.
data must first be converted to bare-earth data that have vege
tation and other non-native features (buildings, etc.) removed, Lidar Data Acquisition and Specifications
and then be georeferenced to a coordinate system. The point
cloud data are converted by using the range and orientation of Acquisition of new lidar data should follow specifications
each laser shot (pulse) to place the shot in a three-dimensional matching the specific project for which it is acquired. The U.S.
reference frame (Fernandez and others, 2007). Bare-earth li Geological Survey (USGS), in partnership with several other
dar data may then be processed by a variety of remote sensing organizations, developed a comprehensive lidar acquisition,
image software to develop DEMs, shaded-relief hillshade and processing, and handling specification (Heidemann, 2014;
slopeshade images at various sun (illumination) angles, or a http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11b4/) suitable for most geologic
combination of these image types. Hillshade images show the projects and is widely used. In addition, the Federal Emergen
ground surface illuminated from a particular angle, in a line cy Management Agency (FEMA) developed standards for li
192 Utah Geological Survey

Figure C2. Comparison of 2006 (2 meter), 2011 (1 meter), and 2013–2014 (0.5 meter) airborne lidar imagery (top row) to 2006, 2011, and 2014
(1 meter, bottom row) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery in the International Center area, Salt Lake City, Utah. Fault scarps
indicated by red arrows show traces of the Granger fault, West Valley fault zone, that are clearly visible in the lidar imagery, but barely visible to
undetectable in the NAIP imagery. Salt Lake International Airport visible to the right on each image. Data from the AGRC (2006b, 2009).

dar data used in flood mapping analyses included in RiskMap post-acquisition processing of the raw lidar data to bare-earth
(Bellomo, 2010) that integrate with the USGS specification. data. Vegetation-related issues can introduce additional height
One-meter or better ground cell size data is often needed for error and may cause additional scattering of the transmitted la
detailed landslide, fault, and other geologic investigations as serpulse, resulting in less laser energy reflected back to the re
shown on figure C2. ceiving sensor. Various laser backscatter methods may be used
to resolve canopy height issues. Increased flight line overlap
The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) and Utah Automated may be needed in steep, mountainous areas to ensure adequate
Geographic Reference Center (AGRC) partners with other ground point density and to minimize potential shadow areas.
governmental agencies to acquire lidar data in Utah, and col These issues can be reduced with good project specifications,
lectively has acquired over 3254 square miles of 0.5- and should be addressed by the data acquisition vendor prior to
1-meter data. If lidar data is acquired for a specific project, data delivery, and should be checked during a quality control
we suggest consider donating the data to AGRC for public process by the data purchaser before final data acceptance.
distribution (contact information available at http://gis.utah.
gov/about/contact/) once the project is complete.
LIDAR DATA AVAILABILITY
Issues with Lidar Acquisition and Processing AND ANALYSIS

Variable vegetation and tree canopy cover density and thick Lidar coverage in Utah is mainly limited to urban areas, and has
ness and/or steep, mountainous terrain can result in difficult predominantly been collected for FEMA RiskMap flood map
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 193

Figure C3. Comparison of 2011 bare-earth lidar image (left; Knudsen and others, 2014, data from UGS, 2011) and 2011 National Agriculture
Imagery Program (NAIP; AGRC, 2011) 1-meter color orthophoto imagery (right) showing where Enoch-graben-west fissures intersect the
Parkview and Legacy Estates subdivisions. Fissures that are clearly identifiable in the lidar image are barely visible to undetectable in
the NAIP imagery, particularly in the southern half of the image. Shading added to highlight fissure traces. Graphics generated by Tyler
Knudsen, Utah Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Program, 2014.

ping projects, land-use planning, and fault trace mapping. Avail

able data is generally 1- to 2-meter ground cell size in bare-earth,
digital elevation model format. However, high-quality 0.5-meter
data acquired in 2013–2014 by the UGS, AGRC, and other part
ners, is now available for Salt Lake and Utah Valleys, and along
the entire Wasatch and West Valley fault zones. Raw point cloud
data for some areas may be available. Available data coverage
can be searched using the AGRC Raster Data Discovery Ap
plication (http://mapserv.utah.gov/raster/) or ftp://ftp.agrc.utah.
gov/LiDAR/, and OpenTopography (http://www.opentopog
raphy.org), a National Science Foundation-supported portal to
high-resolution topography data and analysis tools.
Figure C4. General imaging geometry of an airborne lidar
instrument. Dashed lines indicate reflected laser pulses that may Lidar data are not directly viewable without suitable software,
be detected if sensor crosses the reflected path (modified from Leica such as Global Mapper (http://www.bluemarblegeo.com/
Geosystems, 2008b). products/global-mapper.php), Fusion (http://forsys.cfr.wash
194 Utah Geological Survey

Figure C6. Scanning swath from the ATM-2 lidar scanner showing
oscillating scanning motion (modified from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 2008). Individual laser data points are
shown as colored dots.

Figure C5. Leica ALS70 lidar instrument mounted in a Piper Navajo

aircraft used for the 2013 Utah acquisition by the Utah Geological
Survey and partners (photo credit: Watershed Sciences, Inc.)

ington.edu/fusion/fusionlatest.html), FugroViewer (http://

www.fugroviewer.com/), and ESRI ArcGIS. Data from Open Figure C7. Typical lidar transmitted and received pulses for flat, but
Topography may be processed online to Google Earth KMZ partially obscured; sloping; and flat, smooth terrain from left to right
files using user-selected parameters (such as hillshade altitude (modified from Riegl Laser Measurement Systems GmbH, 2010).
and azimuth), and is generally the easiest way to access the
data for most users without the use of specialized software. The 2011 datasets include raw LAS (industry standard lidar
format), LAS, DEM, DSM, and metadata (XML metadata,
UGS Lidar Data project tile indexes, and area completion reports) files. This
lidar data is available from the AGRC Raster Data Discovery
The UGS acquires lidar data with its partners in support of Application (DEM data and metadata only, http://mapserv.
various geologic mapping and research projects. In 2011, ap utah.gov/raster), is included in the USGS National Elevation
proximately 1902 square miles (4927 km2) of 1-meter lidar Dataset (http://ned.usgs.gov/) that is part of The National Map
(DEM data and metadata only, http://nationalmap.gov/viewer.
data was acquired for the Cedar and Parowan Valleys, Great
Salt Lake shoreline/wetland areas, Hurricane fault zone, Low html), and OpenTopography (all data and metadata, http://
ry Water area, Ogden Valley, and North Ogden, Utah. The www.opentopography.org/id/OTLAS.042013.26912.1).
2011 lidar acquisition was performed by Utah State Univer
sity, LASSI Service Center through a partnership with AGRC The datasets acquired by the UGS and its partners are in the
and the Utah Division of Emergency Management (UDEM). public domain and can be freely distributed with proper credit
to the UGS and its partners. For more information about UGS
In late 2013, the UGS and its partners acquired 0.5-meter lidar lidar acquisitions and data, see http://geology.utah.gov/re
of Salt Lake and Utah Valleys, the West Valley fault zone, sources/data-databases/lidar-elevation-data/.
and along the entire length of the Wasatch fault zone from
north of Malad City, Idaho, south to Fayette, Utah. The 2013 Data Analysis
lidar acquisition was performed by Watershed Sciences, Inc.
through a partnership with AGRC, USGS, Salt Lake County Bare-earth lidar data can be used to create DEMs (often sup
Surveyors Office, and UDEM. plied by the vendor), and subsequently to determine ground
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 195

subsidence and for ground surface modeling, and/or hill Ground Subsidence
shade and slopeshade images that can be used for geologic
feature mapping, such as landslides (figure C1), faults (fig For determining ground subsidence, at least one repeat data
ure C2), scarps (figures C1 and C2), shorelines, etc. Often, acquisition is required to determine the magnitude using lidar
numerous shaded-relief (hillshade and slopeshade) images data. However, several repeat acquisitions would be necessary
with different illumination angles are needed for interpreta to determine the ongoing rate of ground subsidence over a spec
tion of fault scarps, landslides, and other geologic features, ified time period. These acquisitions must be timed correctly
due to different feature aspect angles and will vary with to avoid snow cover and to have similar vegetation coverage
each project and the feature(s) of interest. Use of GIS soft conditions to ensure similar data processing of each lidar ac
ware will assist with geologic mapping, by allowing various quisition. Once two or more DEMs are available over an area,
data sets, such as aerial orthoimagery, to be overlain on the they can be subtracted from each other to determine the change
lidar data. in elevation over a given time period. By using three or more
DEMs and the corresponding elevation differences, an estimate
Landslides of the rate of change in elevation can be determined.

Landslides may be difficult to detect using aerial photog The rate of change may also be influenced by seasonal chang
raphy in vegetated areas, as illustrated on figure C1. Bare es in groundwater levels and ground temperature that may
earth DEMs with hillshade and/or slopeshade illumination overprint ground subsidence changes, as soil material volume
methods are often used to delineate landslides and inter changes result in an inflation or deflation signal. The major
nal landslide features. McDonald and Giraud (in prepara drawbacks to this method are the relatively high cost of li
tion) used 1-meter lidar data in the Lowry Water area of dar data when used in a repeat acquisition application and the
the Wasatch Plateau to map and inventory landslides at a variable vertical accuracy of the data, which can be significant
scale of 1:12,000 in a densely vegetated (conifer forest and if data acquisition is not carefully controlled.
brush) area.

Faults CONCLUSIONS
Traditionally, faults have been mapped using a combination Lidar is a valuable new tool for detecting, mapping, and un
of low-sun-angle (preferably stereoscopic) aerial photog
derstanding geologic hazards, particularly in areas that are
raphy and field reconnaissance. Additional information on difficult to access and/or visually observe, and is often criti
aerial photography is available in chapter 2 of this publica cal to use in highly vegetated areas. Lidar has allowed the
tion. However, small fault scarps may not be visible on aerial mapping of many geologic hazards at unprecedented levels
photography, and/or barely visible in the field. A lidar-derived of detail that was not possible previously using traditional
slopeshade image with a slope gradient from 0 to 45 degrees methods. Geologic hazard investigations should utilize lidar
(white to black) is often useful in mapping. McKean and Hyl data whenever possible, and on large and/or complex proj
land (2013) used 1-meter lidar data near Great Salt Lake for ects where data does not currently exist, lidar data acquisition
mapping subtle fault scarps that were not apparent on aerial should be seriously considered with data donated to the public
photography, and were very difficult to recognize in the field, domain where possible.
as a part of geologic mapping of the Baileys Lake quadrangle.
Starting in 2014, the UGS mapped traces of the Wasatch fault
zone at a scale of 1:10,000 using 0.5-meter lidar data (Harty
and McKean, 2015; Hiscock and Hylland, 2015). Fault trace REFERENCES
mapping at this level of detail and scale would not be possible
without high-quality lidar data. Baltsavias, E.P., 1999, Airborne laser scanning—existing
systems and firms and other resources: ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, v. 54, p. 164–198.
Earth Fissures
Bellono, D.A., 2010, Procedure Memorandum No. 61—Stan
Lidar is often invaluable for mapping earth fissures. While dards for LiDAR and other high quality digital topogra
phy: Federal Emergency Management Agency Procedure
larger earth fissures with significant vertical and/or horizontal
displacement are often visible on aerial photography, small Memorandum No. 61, 26 p.
er to “hairline” earth fissures are often not visible on aerial Carter, W., Shrestha, R., Tuell, G., Bloomquist, D., and Sar
photography, due to little or no vertical displacement and/or tori, M., 2001, Airborne laser swath mapping shines new
contrast change across the fissure. Knudsen and others (2014) light on Earth’s topography: EOS, Transactions, v. 82, no.
used 1-meter lidar data of Cedar Valley to map over 8.3 miles 46, p. 549–555.
of earth fissures, while previous aerial-photography-based
Fernandez, J.C., Singhania, A., Caceres, J., Slatton, K.C.,
mapping only revealed 3.9 miles of fissures. Starek, M., and Kumar, R., 2007, An overview of LiDAR
196 Utah Geological Survey

point cloud processing software: Geosensing Engineer Shan, J., and Toth, C.K., 2009, Topographic laser ranging and
ing and Mapping, Civil and Coastal Engineering Depart scanning, principles and processing: Boca Raton, Florida,
ment, University of Florida, 27 p. CRC Press, 590 p.
Harty, K.M., and McKean, A.P., 2015, Surface fault rupture Shepherd, E.C., 1965, Laser to watch height: New Scientist,
hazard map of the Honeyville quadrangle, Box Elder and v. 26, no. 437, p. 33.
Cache Counties, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Open
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2006a, 2006
File Report 638, 1 plate, scale 1:24,000, CD. NAIP 1 meter color orthophotography: Online, http://gis.
Heidemann, H.K., 2014, LiDAR base specification version utah.gov/naip2006, accessed November 18, 2010.
1.2: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods,
book 11, chapter B4, 67 p. Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2006b, 2 me
ter LiDAR: Online, http://gis.utah.gov/elevation-terrain
Hiscock, A.I., and Hylland, M.D., 2015, Surface-fault-rup data/2-meter-lidar, accessed November 18, 2010.
ture-hazard maps of the Levan and Fayette segments of
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2009, 2009
the Wasatch fault zone, Juab and Sanpete Counties, Utah: HRO 1 foot color orthophotography: Online, http://gis.
Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 640, 7 plates, utah.gov/aerial-photography/2009-hro-1-foot-color-or
scale 1:24,000.
thophotography, accessed December 8, 2010.
Knudsen, T., Inkenbrandt, P., Lund, W., Lowe, M., and Bow
man, S., 2014, Investigation of land subsidence and earth Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2011, 2011
NAIP 1 meter orthophotography: Online, http://gis.utah.
fissures in Cedar Valley, Iron County, Utah: Utah Geolog
gov/data/aerial-photography/2011-naip-1-meter-ortho
ical Survey Special Study 150, 84 p., 8 appendices, CD.
photography/, accessed April 22, 2014.
Leica Geosystems, 2008a, Leica ALS60 airborne laser scan
Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2013, 1 meter
ner: Online, http://www.leica-geosystems.com/common/ LiDAR elevation data (2011): Online, http://gis.utah.gov/
shared/downloads/inc/downloader.asp?id=10325, ac
data/elevation-terrain-data/2011-lidar/, accessed Septem
cessed November 18, 2010.
ber 3, 2013.
Leica Geosystems, 2008b, Leica ALS Corridor Mapper, Air
Utah Geological Survey, 2011, LiDAR elevation data: Online
borne laser corridor mapper product specifications: On
http://geology.utah.gov/databases/lidar/lidar.htm, accessed
line, http://www.leica-geosystems.com/common/shared/
September 3, 2013.
downloads/inc/downloader.asp?id=9035, accessed No
vember 18, 2010.
McKean, A.P., and Hylland, M.D., 2013, Interim geologic
map of the Baileys Lake quadrangle, Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Re
port 624, scale 1:24,000, 18 p. booklet.
Miller, B., 1965, Laser altimeter may aid photo mapping: Avi
ation Week & Space Technology, v. 88, no. 13, p. 60–65.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010, IC
ESat & ICESat-2, Cryospheric Sciences Branch, Code
614.1: Online, http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/, accessed No
vember 18, 2010.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008,
Topographic LiDAR—an emerging beach management
tool, data collection animations: Online, http://www.csc.
noaa.gov/beachmap/html/animate.html, accessed No
vember 18, 2010.
Riegl Laser Measurement Systems GmbH, 2010, Long-range
airborne scanner for full waveform analysis, LMS-Q680i:
Online, http://www.riegl.com/uploads/tx_pxpriegldown-
loads/10_DataSheet_LMS-Q680i_20-09-2010.pdf, ac

cessed November 18, 2010.

Renslow, M., editor, 2012, Airborne topographic LiDAR
manual: Bethesda, Maryland, American Society for Pho
togrammetry and Remote Sensing, 528 p.
 APPENDIX D
INTERFEROMETRIC SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR
(INSAR) BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION

InSAR interferogram of Cedar Valley, Utah, and vicinity.

Suggested citation: Bowman, S.D., 2016, Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) background and application, in
Bowman, S.D., and Lund, W.R., editors, Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology
reports, with a suggested approach to geologic-hazard ordinances in Utah: Utah Geological Survey Circular 122, appendix
D, p. 197–203.
198 Utah Geological Survey

INTERFEROMETRIC SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR

(INSAR) BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION
by Steve D. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.

INTRODUCTION Japan, through their Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

(JAXA), developed the JERS-1 satellite that was launched on
Radar interferometry is a process of using phase differences February 11, 1992, and ended operation on October 12, 1998
between two or more correlated radar images over the same (JAXA, 2010a). JAXA launched the next-generation radarsat
area to measure surface displacements or topography. In ellite ALOS on January 24, 2006, and ended operation in May
terferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) may now be 2011 (JAXA, 2010b). JAXA launched ALOS-2, the successor
applied worldwide, due to the availability of high-quality to ALOS, in May 2014 (JAXA, undated). Canada, through
interferometric datasets from various spaceborne (ERS-1, the CSA and a partnership with a private company, developed
ERS-2, JERS-1, ALOS, ALOS-2, Radarsat-1, Radarsat-2, the Radarsat-1 and Radarsat-2 satellites with launches in No
ENVISAT, SRTM, SIR-C, TerraSAR-X, TanDEM-X, and vember 1995 and December 2007, respectively (CSA, 2010).
COSMO-SKYMED) and airborne platforms. Only ALOS-2, Radarsat-1 failed on March 29, 2013 (CSA, 2013). Germany,
Radarsat-2, Sentinel-1, TerraSAR-X, TanDEM-X, and COS through the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and a partner
MO-SKYMED satellites are still operational; ERS-1, ERS-2, ship with a private company, developed the TerraSAR-X
ENVISAT, Radarsat-1, ALOS, and JERS-1 have failed. satellite that was launched on June 15, 2007 (DLR, 2009),
and a tandem, almost identical satellite, TanDEM-X that was
launched on June 21, 2010 (DLR, 2010).
InSAR Spaceborne Acquisition Platforms
The United States does not have operating synthetic ap
erture radar (SAR) satellites and relies on research and InSAR BACKGROUND AND PROCESSING
academic data access agreements with the European Space
TECHNIQUES
Agency (ESA), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), and
others. Commercial users must purchase all SAR data.
However, the United States (National Aeronautics and First developed by Richman (1971) and Graham (1974) with
Space Administration [NASA]) operated the Shuttle Radar very limited datasets, InSAR for mapping surface displace
ments and topography was later investigated by Zebker and
Topographic Mission (SRTM) during 11 days in February
2000, and the Shuttle Imaging Radar (SIR-C) mission dur Goldstein (1986), Gabriel and others (1989), Goldstein and oth
ing 11 days in April 1994, and again in September–October ers (1993), and many others who contributed new processing
1994, that flew aboard the Space Shuttle (Jet Propulsion techniques. The mapping of coseismic displacements resulting
from the 1992 Landers earthquake (Zebker and others, 1994)
Laboratory, 2010a, 2010b), along with several other radar
satellite platforms that are no longer operational. NASA was one of the early applications of InSAR. Later applications
is currently investigating developing the L- and S-band included glacier monitoring, volcano deformation monitoring,
NISAR radar satellite in a joint mission with the Indian landslide detection, subsidence monitoring, and other applica
Space Research Organization. tions. Hanssen (2001) used InSAR to map the displacement
field of the Cerro Prieto geothermal field in Mexico, and docu
The ESA has a long history of SAR satellites, beginning with mented about 8 cm/year (3.1 inches/year) of subsidence result
ing from the extraction of water and steam for geothermal pow
the launch of ERS-1 in July 1991, followed by a second edi
er production. Rosen and others (2000) gave an in-depth review
tion of the satellite, the ERS-2, in April 1995 (ESA, 2008).
and discussion of InSAR concepts, theory, and applications.
During 1995 to 1996, the ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellite tandem
mission was developed where the satellite space orbits were
Use of InSAR requires an interferometric dataset, a suitable
adjusted to support InSAR between ERS-1/2 image pairs.
The ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites failed in March 2000 (ESA, temporal and spatial baseline, and images that correlate to
2008) and September 2011 (ESA, 2012b), respectively. ESA gether (matching similar locations in each image). InSAR
may be applied in one of two methods: differential or topo
launched the next-generation radar satellite ENVISAT (which
also included other sensors) in March 2002 (ESA, 2010), that graphic interferometry. Differential InSAR measures small
failed on April 8, 2012 (ESA, 2012a). scale ground displacements due to subsidence, earthquakes,
glacier movements, landslides, and other ground movement
with the effects of topography removed. Topographic InSAR
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 199

measures ground topography with no ground displacement, 2001). Table D1 shows the common spaceborne radar plat
resulting in a digital elevation model (DEM). A DEM can be forms and operating radar bands. For C-band systems, Bc ~
thought of as a three-dimensional topographic map. Differ 1100 m; L-band systems, Bc ~ 4500 m; and X-band systems,
ential InSAR can measure displacements to sub-centimeter Bc ~ 100 m. The actual usable baseline for ERS-1/2 and Ra
accuracy and topographic InSAR can measure topography to darsat-1/2 (C-band platforms) is typically 500–600 m or less.
tens of meters, depending on sensor and platform characteris Two radar images that generally match the above characteris
tics. As shown on figure D1, two satellite image acquisitions
tics can form an interferometric pair.
with slightly different satellite locations (defined as Orbit 1
and Orbit 2 locations) are needed for InSAR.
InSAR data processing generally begins with raw sensor data,
or single-look complex (SLC) data, and involves raw data
InSAR Theory
processing and co-registering two or more images. The sec
ond image (and others if used) must be precisely aligned with
Radar interferometry works by measuring the phase differenc
es of two complex-format radar images or images that retain the first image with sub-pixel accuracy; otherwise, additional
phase information (real and imaginary electrical components
of the reflected radar signal). Standard radar images do not re
tain phase information and cannot be used in InSAR process
ing and analysis. The interferometric phase, ϕ is defined as:

ϕ=φ1-φ2= 4πλ (ρ2-ρ1)

where φ1 = phase of Image #1, φ2 = phase of Image #2, λ

= radar wavelength, ρ1 = range of Image #1, and ρ2 = range
of Image #2 (Rosen and others, 2000). Figure D2 shows the
imaging geometry of a radar satellite during data acquisition,
including the range direction.

The two complex-format radar images typically have short

temporal and spatial baselines—the time between the two im
age acquisitions and the distance between the imaging loca
tions (satellite three-dimensional position) of the two images,
respectively. The two images must also cover nearly the same
area on the ground surface. The critical baseline, Bc or maxi
mum baseline distance that can be processed, is defined as:
e D2. Imaging geometry of a radar satellite. As the satellite moves in a forward direction (to the upper r
Bc = λr Figure D2. Imaging geometry of a radar satellite. As the satellite
2 * R cos θ moves in a forward direction (to the upper right in the figure), the
satellite images the light gray swath on the ground surface. The dark
where λ = radar wavelength, r = radar path length, R = ground gray area on the ground surface indicates the area covered by a
range resolution, and θ = local incidence angle (Hanssen, single radar pulse (modified from Hanssen, 2001).

ure D1.
FigureSatellite geometry
D1. Satellite geometryfor
forsingle-pass
single-pass (A) andandinterferometric
(A) (B)acquisition.
interferometric (B) radar radar acquisition. Usingsatellite
Using two different two different
space positions
allows for the height difference, Hp to be determined (modified from Hanssen, 2001).
200 Utah Geological Survey

Table D1. Radar bands, wavelengths, and InSAR spaceborne platforms showing year date ranges of operation and launch/operating country.

Radar
Band Wavelength
(cm) Range Civilian Space InSAR Platforms1,2
Non-Operational Operating
X 2.4 – 3.8 X-SAR (SIR-C,
STRM (2000, USA)
1994, USA) TerraSAR-X (2007+, Germany/EU)
TanDEM-X (2010+, Germany/EU)
COSMO-SkyMed 1 (2007+, Italy/EU)
COSMO-SkyMed 2 (2007+, Italy/EU)
COSMO-SkyMed 3 (2008+, Italy/EU)
COSMO-SkyMed 4 (2010+, Italy/EU)
KOMPSAT-5 (2013+, South Korea)
C 3.8 – 7.5 ERS-1 (1991-2000, EU)
SIR-C
Radarsat-1
ENVISAT
ERS-2 (1994, USA)
(1995-2013,
(1995-2011, EU)
(2002-2012, EU)
Canada)
Radarsat-2 (2007+, Canada)
Sentinel-1 (2014+, EU)

S 8 – 15 -- Proposed: NISAR (USA/India)

L 15 – 30 Seasat3 (1978, USA)
ALOS
SIR-C
JERS-1 (1994, USA)
(1992-1998,
(2006-2011, Japan)
Japan) ALOS-2 (2014+, Japan)
Proposed: NISAR (USA/India)

1 EU – European Union, USA – United States of America.

2 Allsystems are satellite-based, with the exception of SIR-C and SRTM, which were flown on the now-defunct Space Shuttle.
3 The USA’s only civilian radar satellite, Seasat, operated for 105 days in 1978 (JPL, 1998). Seasat data has been used in some InSAR analysis;
however, the data was never intended to be used for InSAR, custom processing software is required, and products are relatively poor when
compared to more modern data products.

error is introduced into the process and later processing steps algorithms are automated and do not require user intervention
will fail. After co-registration, the complex phase informa during processing. An existing DEM, which must cover all of
tion of the first image is multiplied by the conjugate (inverse) the ground area covered in the radar image, is often used to
phase of the second image to generate an interferogram or in generate seed points to help in automatic guiding of the phase
terference image. unwrapping process. Least squares phase unwrapping follows
the general procedures of the branch-cut methods, but with
The interferogram contains topographic and ground displace least-squares estimation.
ment information with each cycle of phase (or phase change of
0 to 2π radians) representing a specific quantity of change. At Figure D3 shows a final, unwrapped, geocoded interferogram
this point in the processing chain, the interferogram is in radar from Envisat data of Cedar Valley (Iron County) and the sur
coordinates, which later must be registered to ground coordi rounding region. Specific color fringes in the Beryl-Enterprise
nates (such as latitude/longitude, Universal Transverse Merca area, Quichipa Lake, and Enoch graben show vertical displace
tor [UTM], or other coordinate system). ment directly related to ground subsidence. The variable colors
in the rest of the image are the result of incomplete removal of
Phase Unwrapping topography and/or atmospheric noise in the data.

One of the most difficult steps in InSAR processing is the After phase unwrapping of the interferogram and depending
on the analysis method used, a displacement map may be gen
phase unwrapping process. This process utilizes the phase in
formation from the interferogram to determine the magnitude erated if the effects of topography are removed using an ex
of surface displacements or topography (depending on the isting DEM, or a DEM may be created if the interferogram
analysis method) present in the image. Phase unwrapping may contains little to no surface displacements.
use branch-cut, least squares, and error minimization criteria
methods (Rosen and others, 2000). Branch-cut methods utilize Issues With InSAR Processing
phase differences and integrating that difference. The phase
unwrapped solution should be independent of the path of in Problems associated with InSAR are chiefly (1) shadowing
tegration (Madsen and Zebker, 1998); however, this may not present in the original radar data from topographic relief (par
always be the case. Phase residues may result from this pro ticularly when applied to mapping mountainous areas where
cess, across which phase unwrapping is not possible. If an area steep mountains block the inclined radar signal), and (2) decor
is enclosed by these errors, the area will not be unwrapped, relation caused by changes in the imaged area. These changes
and no information will be obtained. Many of the branch-cut may be due to freezing, thawing, precipitation, vegetation,
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 201

Enoch graben

Beryl-Enterprise area
Cedar City

Quichipa Lake

Figure Figure D3. Unwrapped

D3. Unwrapped interferogram
interferogram of an entireofEnvisat
an entire Envisat
frame, frame,byprocessed
processed the UGS, by the UGS,
covering the covering
time period theoftime period
August 11, 2009,
of August11,
to August 2009, toAugust
31, 2010, showing 31, 2010, showing significant subsidence near Quichapa Lake, Enoch graben,
significant subsidence near Quichapa Lake, Enoch graben, and the Beryl-Enterprise area resulting and thefrom
groundwater withdrawal. Each specific color cycle represents 3 cm of deformation; the variable colors in the rest of the image are the result
of incomplete removal of topography and/or atmospheric noise in the data. Area outside the Envisat frame shown in black on the edges;
black areas within interferogram denote areas of no data from shadowing or from no correlation between the two images used to create the
interferogram. Envisat data ©2009, 2010 European Space Agency.

wind, motion of water, and human-induced changes, such as SAR DATA AVAILABILITY AND
changes in land use. Agricultural fields are constantly chang
PROCESSING
ing due to vegetation (crop) changes in height and size, and
from tilling of fields that may cause significant decorrelation.
SAR data suitable for use in differential interferometric process
Vegetated areas may also exhibit decorrelation, due to wind
ing is available for many areas in Utah from ESA (ERS-1, ERS
moving vegetation, such as in forests.
2, and ENVISAT) and Japanese (ALOS and ALOS-2) satellites.
InSAR satellites have commonly been designed, launched, and
Increased time between two radar image acquisitions will re
managed by joint government-commercial funding and op
sult in increased temporal decorrelation and is directly related
eration agreements, and as such, two cost levels of data exist.
to ground surface parameters. Zebker and Villasenor (1992)
Academic and government researchers typically acquire data
found that increasing the time between acquisitions decreased
through governmental agreements and partnerships, with data
correlation significantly for lava flows and forests in Oregon;
access proposals often required. All other use requires com
however, the Death Valley, California, valley floor did not ex
mercial purchase from private vendors, and all data is typically
perience this correlation decrease. Some geographic areas typ
subject to third-party data transfer restrictions. Commercial
ically have low temporal decorrelation, including many desert
purchases of ERS-1, ERS-2, and ENVISAT data in the existing
and low-vegetation-density areas; high-temporal-decorrelation
ESA data archive cost approximately $560 per scene (2013).
areas include many moderately to highly vegetated and/or for
ested areas, active agricultural lands, and other areas subject Due to the large amount of data generated by a radar sys
to surface disturbance. Persistent scatterers, a relatively new
tem, available satellite on-board data storage, and high power
technique utilizing point scatterers (Hooper and others, 2004),
may be used to match common points between radar images, (electrical) use of a radar system, radar data is not continu
ously acquired as in other imaging satellites, such as the Land
such as the centers of pivoting agricultural sprinklers, reflec
sat series (1-7). Rather, specific, pre-determined areas of the
tive metallic objects that may act as near-corner reflectors, or
Earth’s surface are imaged on each path of the satellite within
other stationary reflective objects.
202 Utah Geological Survey

the power and data storage capabilities of the satellite. These deformation, such as that caused by seismic deformation and
pre-determined areas are based on requirements of the satel groundwater-withdrawal- or mining-induced land subsidence.
lite program, scientific investigator requests, and commercial Large surface areas can be covered with repeat coverages,
purchases. In many cases, radar data are downlinked to ground allowing time-series analysis of deformation. InSAR has al
stations within radio receiving range (ground station mask), lowed the mapping of ground deformation at unprecedented
so additional data may be acquired beyond the limits of on levels of detail over large regional areas that was not possible
board data storage, or are transmitted to a satellite communi previously using traditional methods.
cations network that in turn transmits to ground stations. This
pre-planning and equipment adds additional cost to new data
acquisitions, which is reflected in the higher cost of new acqui
sitions to the end-user. REFERENCES
Arizona Department of Water Resources, undated, Fact
Data Analysis and Applications Sheet—Monitoring the state’s water resources, InSAR—
ADWR’s satellite based land subsidence monitoring pro
Due to the complexities of processing InSAR data, and that gram: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2 p.
most InSAR processing software is generally expensive
(commercial versions) or difficult to obtain (due to licensing Avery, T.E., and Berlin, G.L., 1992, Fundamentals of remote
and/or export restrictions), prospective users of InSAR should sensing and airphoto interpretation, fifth edition: New
seek out a competent remote sensing researcher familiar with York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 472 p.
InSAR data and processing. Canadian Space Agency, 2010, Satellites—earth-observation
satellites: Online, http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satel
InSAR is particularly suited to detecting and monitoring lites/, accessed October 18, 2010.
ground deformation, such as that caused by seismic deforma Canadian Space Agency, 2013, RADARSAT—seventeen
tion and groundwater-withdrawal- or mining-induced land years of technological success: Online, http://www.asc
subsidence. Prior to the widespread use of lidar, InSAR was csa.gc.ca/eng/media/news_releases/2013/0509.asp, ac
used to create DEMs, and is still used to create DEMs of large cessed September 3, 2013, no longer available.
areas today, such as in Alaska and Antarctica, although with
lower resolution (larger ground cell size) than lidar. European Space Agency, 2008, ERS overview: Online, http://
html, accessed October 18, 2010.
www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMGWH2VQUD_index_0_m.
Seismic Deformation
European Space Agency, 2010, ENVISAT history: Online,
Detecting and monitoring seismic deformation was one of the http://earth.esa.int/category/index.cfm?fcategoryid=87,
early applications of InSAR, including the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hec accessed October 18, 2010.
tor Mine, California, earthquake (Simons and others, 2002). European Space Agency, 2012a, ESA declares end of mis
However, InSAR has yet to be applied in Utah for seismic de sion for Envisat: Online, https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/
formation as no active faults in the state are known to creep, news/-/asset_publisher/G2mU/content/good-bye-envi
and a surface rupturing earthquake has not occurred in Utah sat-and-thank-you, accessed September 3, 2013.
since InSAR data have become available.
European Space Agency, 2012b, ERS satellite missions com
plete after 20 years: Online, https://earth.esa.int/web/
Ground Subsidence guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/ers/news/-/
asset_publisher/T7aX/content/ers-satellite-missions
InSAR has been applied to detecting and monitoring ground complete-after-20-years-7895?p_r_p_564233524_
assetIdentifier=ers-satellite-missions-complete-after
subsidence throughout the Intermountain West, including for
groundwater-withdrawal-induced subsidence in Utah (Forester, 20-years-7895&redirect=%2Fc%2Fportal%2Flayout%3
2006, 2012; Knudsen and others, 2014), Nevada (Katzenstein, Fp_l_id%3D66101, accessed March 15, 2012.
2008), and Arizona (Arizona Department of Water Resources,
undated). Interferograms and derivative ground deformation Forster, R.R., 2006, Land subsidence in southwest Utah from
maps can be used to show areas and magnitudes of ground de 1993 to 1998 measured with interferometric synthetic
formation that can assist with developing detailed ground de aperture radar (InSAR): Utah Geological Survey Miscel
formation monitoring and groundwater management programs. laneous Publication 06-5, 30 p.
Forster, R.R., 2012, Evaluation of interferometric synthetic
aperture radar (InSAR) techniques for measuring land
subsidence and calculated subsidence rates for the Es
CONCLUSIONS calante Valley, Utah, 1998 to 2006: Utah Geological Sur
vey Open-File Report 589, 25 p., CD.
InSAR is a valuable, evolving tool for detecting, mapping, and
understanding geologic hazards, particularly related to ground
Guidelines for investigating geologic hazards and preparing engineering-geology reports 203

Gabriel, A.K., Goldstein, R.M., and Zebker, H.A., 1989, Knudsen, T., Inkenbrandt, P., Lund, W., Lowe, M., and Bow
Mapping small elevation changes over large areas—dif man, S., 2014, Investigation of land subsidence and earth
ferential radar interferometry: Journal of Geophysical fissures in Cedar Valley, Iron County, Utah: Utah Geolog
Research, v. 94, p. 9183–9191. ical Survey Special Study 150, 84 p., 8 appendices, CD.
German Aerospace Center, 2009, TerraSAR-X—Germany's Madsen, S.N., and Zebker, H.A., 1998, Imaging radar inter
radar eye in space: Online, http://www.dlr.de/eo/en/desk ferometry, in Henderson, F.M., and Lewis, A.J., editors,
topdefault.aspx/tabid-5725/9296_read-15979/, accessed Principals & applications of imaging radar, third edition,
March 15, 2012. volume 2: New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 359–380.
German Aerospace Center, 2010, TanDEM-X—a new high Richman, D., 1971, Three dimensional azimuth-correcting
resolution interferometric SAR mission: Online, http:// mapping radar: United Technologies Corporation, vari
www.dlr.de/hr/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2317/3669_ ously paginated.
read-5488/, accessed September 3, 2013. Rosen, P.A., Hensley, S., Joughin, I.R., Li, F., Madsen, S.N.,
Goldstein, R., Englehardt, H., Kamb, B., and Frohlich, R.M., Rodriquez, E., and Goldstein, R.M., 2000, Synthetic aper
1993, Satellite radar interferometry for monitoring ice ture radar interferometry: Institute of Electrical and Elec
sheet motion—application to an Antarctic ice stream: tronics Engineers, Proceedings of the IEEE, v. 88, no. 3.
Science, v. 262, p. 525–1530. Simons, M., Fialko, Y., and Rivera, L., 2002, Coseismic de
Graham, L.C., 1974, Synthetic interferometer radar for topo formation from the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, California,
graphic mapping: Institute of Electrical and Electron earthquake as inferred from InSAR and GPS observa
ics Engineers, Proceedings of the IEEE, v. 62, no. 6, p. tions: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
763–768. v. 92, no. 4, p. 1390–1402.
Hanssen, R.F., 2001, Radar interferometry—data interpreta Zebker, H.A., and Goldstein, R.M., 1986, Topographic map
tion and error analysis: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Klu ping from interferometric synthetic aperture radar ob
wer Academic Publishers, 308 p. servations: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, p.
Hooper, A., Zebker, H., Segall, P., Kampes, B., 2004, A new 4993–4999.
methods for measuring deformation on volcanoes and Zebker, H.A., Rosen, P.A., Goldstein, R.M., Gabriel, A.,
other natural terrians using InSAR persistent scatterers: and Werner, C.L., 1994, On the derivation of coseismic
Geophysical Research Letters, v. 31, p. 1–5. displacement fields using differential radar interferom
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2010a, Japanese earth re etry—the Landers earthquake: Journal of Geophysical
sources satellite “FUYO-1” (JERS-1): Online, http://www. Research, v. 99, no. B10, p. 19,617–19,634.
jaxa.jp/projects/sat/jers1/index_e.html, accessed October Zebker, H.A., and Villasenor, J., 1992, Decorrelation in inter
18, 2010. ferometric radar echoes: IEEE Transactions on Geosci
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2010b, Advanced land ence and Remote Sensing, v. 30, no. 5, p 950–959.
observing satellite “DAICHI”: Online, http://www.alos
restec.jp/en/staticpages/index.php/aboutalos, accessed Oc
tober 25, 2010.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, undated, ALOS-2-the
advanced land observing satellite-2 “DAICHI-2”: On
line, http://global.jaxa.jp/activity/pr/brochure/files/sat29.
pdf, accessed September 3, 2013.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1998, SEASAT 1978: Online, http://
southport.jpl.nasa.gov/ scienceapps/seasat.html, accessed
May 22, 2014.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2010a, Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission—the mission to map the world: Online, http://
www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/, accessed October 18, 2010.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2010b, SIR-C/X-SAR flight 1 sta
tistics: Online, http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/sir-c/html/
mission.html, accessed October 18, 2010.
Katzenstein, K.W., 2008, Mechanics of InSAR-identified
bedrock subsidence associated with mine-dewatering in
north-central Nevada: Reno, University of Nevada, Reno,
Ph.D. dissertation, 300 p.