Regional magnetic and gravity features of the Gibson Dome area and surrounding region, Paradox Basin, Utah: A preliminary report

Mineral resources of the Indian Creek, Bridger Jack Mesa, and Butler Wash Wilderness Study Areas, San Juan County, Utah

“…Thickened salt was the preferred interpretation of Joesting and others, because the Needles faults are commonly regarded as caused by downslope sliding of the rocks above the salt toward the Colorado River. Lewis and Campbell (1965), Stromquist (1976), Huntoon (1979), and Hildenbrand and Kucks (1983) interpreted the anomaly source as low-density, moderately magnetized Precambrian rocks because of small magnetic highs in the area of the low (not shown on fig. 5).…”

“…The contour interval is 10 gammas. The magnetic data subsequently were continued upward mathematically to an elevation of 12,500 ft by Hildenbrand and Kucks (1983; fig. 4).…”

“…5). Contoured Bouguer values shown on figure 5 have been reduced using a density of 2.5 g/cm 3 (grams per cubic centimeter) and have been extracted from the map of Hildenbrand and Kucks (1983). The contour interval is 2 mGals (milligals), the probable error in the Bouguer anomaly values, when errors in terrain corrections and elevation are considered (Hildenbrand and Kucks, 1983).…”

Mineral resources of the Behind the Rocks Wilderness Study Area, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah

“…The survey of the eastern part of the study area was flown at an elevation of 12,500 ft at spacings of 1-2 mi in connection with the La Sal Mountains survey (Case and others, 1963). The magnetic data were subsequently continued upward mathematically and merged by Hildenbrand and Kucks (1983) to an elevation of 12,500 ft. Additional magnetic surveys were flown as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation Program (NURE) along flight lines spaced about 3 mi apart and about 400 ft above the surface (Johnson, 1983), but the widely spaced data provide few details pertinent to this report.…”

“…5). A reduction density of 2.5 g/cm3 (grams per cubic centimeter) was used for the data, and the gravity interpretation is from Hildenbrand and Kucks (1983).…”