Cultural, Historical, Geological, and Paleontological Resources


This topic for county resource planning is concerned with resources that have intrinsic value based on their age, heritage, scientific importance, or other intangible significance. However, these resources also highlight the unique character of the local setting and may contribute toward attracting businesses and tourism. Geology is another important planning component within the region. Items to highlight include unique geologic features and sights as well as identify potential development hazards such as faults, landslides and rockfall potential, and soil liquefaction potential (temporary loss of soil strength and stiffness during an earthquake or other applied stress).

 


Map of Data

LAYER NAME TRANSLATION (alphabetical)
Marshall/MD 250K= USGS geologic map for display at 1:250k
Marshall/MD 500= USGS geologic map for display at 1:500
UDNR.UGS.mapbib= USGS map and reports bibliography. Use this to identify local geologic reports.

Download mxd The ESRI mxd file of the services used to create the above map.


Resource Information

Cultural resources include archaeological sites, standing structures (e.g., buildings and bridges), and even places of importance that are over 50 years of age. Many historical and cultural resources are very sensitive and protected by law; however, it is important to remember that all cultural sites are not important or significant, and that those not considered as such would not be adversely affected by any planned projects.

Use the cultural data (Archaeology Sites, Historic Districts, Cultural Resource, etc.) to identify areas of the county that have significant cultural resources.

Geologic resources include fossils (paleontological resources) which are defined as the remains, traces, or imprints of ancient organisms preserved in or on the Earth’s crust, providing information about the history of life on Earth. The Utah Antiquities Act (UCA 9-8-404.) protects significant paleontological resources and applies to all paleontological resources that are on or eligible for inclusion in the State Paleontological Register.

The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) provides technical information and assistance regarding earthquakes and geologic hazards. The UGS also compiled a statewide list of geologic sights which they compiled into a mapping application with site photos and site descriptions for each feature.

Use the geological data (Geology, Landslide, Faults, Paleo Sensitive Areas, etc.) to understand the geologic resources within the county.


Best Management Practices

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

  • Establish a historic preservation committee to oversee the preservation ordinance and to educate, advocate, and provide assistance in historic preservation efforts.[1]
  • Educate residents through the historic preservation committee by holding workshops on rehabilitation, financial incentives, and other information. Establish a clearinghouse of information on preservation, loans, grants, construction and renovation, and landscaping.[1]
  • Cultural resources will continue to be inventoried and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such evaluation will consider the impacts of any proposed project to cultural resources in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects with management objectives for cultural resources.[2]
  • Consult with Utah Geological Survey regarding how future proposed uses may impact paleontological resources, as needed.[3]
  • The preservation of these resources can be supported by inventory, education and protection programs.[4]
  • Encourage the conservation, restoration, and preservation of those properties already listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[5]
  • Encourage property owners to conduct cultural resource surveys on significantly sized projects, or projects which are located in proximity to areas identified as having cultural resources.[5]
  • Work with owners of properties with significant cultural resources to identify alternative funding sources to avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts on the resources.[5]
  • Seek adaptive uses as an alternative to demolishing or significantly altering historic structures.[5]

Geologic Hazards

  • Areas of erosion on public land will be identified and evaluated to identify sources and determine improvements.[2]
  • Fit development to the existing terrain, to prevent or reduce all adverse impacts in hazardous areas.[1]
  • Protect life and property by prohibiting development on slopes greater than 30%.[1]
  • Require the avoidance or mitigation of environmental hazards such as flooding, landslides, and subsidence or fissure zones as part of the development review process.[5]


Economic Considerations
  • Cultural, historical, geological, and paleontological resources are often connected with tourism and recreation. For example, the Utah Geological Survey has created a GeoSites online interactive map to help people explore Utah’s geological sites.
  • Historic buildings and districts provide character, a sense of stability, and a unique marketing angle for businesses; thus, community planners can draw upon local historic resources to stimulate economic development.[6]
  • A study by the Utah Heritage Foundation found that, “Utah benefited by $717,811,000 in direct and indirect spending by visitors to Utah heritage sites and special events, and $35,455,268 in investment that stayed in Utah rather then sent to Washington, D.C. because of projects that utilized the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit.”[7]


Impact Considerations - Cultural Resources

Because the application of the laws and regulations for cultural resources are complex and can be difficult to understand, it is usually a good idea to consult with a professional archaeologist or architectural historian concerning how to proceed with a particular project.

When considering plans for alterations to the landscape, it is important to remember that there can be, and sometimes are, archaeological sites, historic sites, and standing structures in those locations that may be of importance to many people. This is true despite the fact that the resource may not look interesting, may be in disrepair, or even, be collapsed or in ruins. The history and importance of a location cannot always be easily interpreted.

Knowing the potential for affecting cultural resources in various settings can be of great help early in the planning process so that they can be taken into account or the project planned around them. Settings in the WFRC planning area include: undeveloped rural, developed rural, and urban.

Undeveloped Rural (including Desert and Mountain) Settings
In places such as the West Desert, in high mountains, and even along the Great Salt Lake, archaeological sites will be the most prominent of all cultural resources. Depending upon the presence of fresh water sources and other resources of value to both prehistoric and historic peoples, the following kinds of sites can be expected.

Prehistoric sites in undeveloped rural/desert/mountain settings may include:

  • Lithic scatters or chipping stations
  • Campsites
  • Villages
  • Rock art
  • Processing sites
  • Quarry sites (where rock materials were acquired for making tools)

Historic sites in undeveloped rural/desert/mountain settings may include:

  • Cabins
  • Mines
  • Railroads
  • Industrial sites
  • Roads/trails
  • Small, isolated town sites
  • Transmission, telephone, and telegraph lines
  • Pipelines for water, gas, or petroleum products

Developed Rural Settings
This type of setting includes rural areas where existing and former small towns exist, where subdivisions may be planned, where developed recreation sites may exist, and where orchards or other agricultural activities take place.

Prehistoric sites in rural settings may include:

  • Similar types of sites as listed above
  • Even larger village sites if permanent water sources are present and elevation is not high

Historic sites in rural settings may include:

  • Similar types of sites as listed above
  • Town sites
  • Agricultural activity sites
  • Canals and ditches
  • Farmsteads
  • Fences
  • Orchards and associated buildings and other features

Urban Settings
In these locations a wide variety of sites can be found and, depending upon their age, history and integrity, they may be quite important. In urban settings, buildings, structures, historic landscapes, and urban detail might be expected. Although remnants of agricultural elements from earlier time periods might also be present. Linear sites, such as old transmission lines and pipelines, would be reduced in number or not visible.

Prehistoric sites in urban settings may include:

  • Similar types of sites listed above, though usually highly disturbed, destroyed,  or not visible

Historic sites in urban settings may include:

  • Dense occupation with both commercial and multifamily residential structures in downtowns, single family residential structures in suburban areas, though sometimes remnants remaining in downtown areas
  • Industrial sites, sometimes densely spaced
  • Remnant farmsteads, fences, orchards, other agricultural features
  • Railroads
  • Considerable infrastructure features including sidewalks, signs, signals, street lights, power lines, fire hydrants, and many other visible features

Project Impacts on Cultural Resources
In planning, it is important to consider the nature of potential impacts from proposed projects. Obviously, those types of projects involving considerable earth moving or structure demolition will have the most impact on archaeological and standing structure sites. During the planning phase of work, it is not necessary to undertake archaeological or standing structures surveys, though obtaining guidance for potential cultural resources impacts is essential. The first step is to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This office can help in the planning process and provide information about whether there are known or expected cultural resources existing within the project area. This information is not always complete depending if the entire project area has been previously inventoried for cultural resources. Engaging a cultural resources firm at this point can also be very useful. They can apply their knowledge and expertise to the project and provide some sense of what types of sites one can expect to be there and provide an idea of the possible density. They can also carry out a literature search of the area through the SHPO database which will provide the planning team with the best information available prior to finalizing a plan or project.  Another helpful place to start is the Division of State History’s county planning resource page.

If a project is subject to federal or certain state agency oversight, it is important to seek guidance from the lead federal agency (leading or heading up the project) or state agency. The most commonly consulted agencies, with their contact information, are listed later in this document. Once a plan or project is finalized, it is likely that a pedestrian cultural resources survey will be necessary. This pedestrian inventory usually consists of the project footprint, usually with a buffer area around it. This inventory involves engagement of qualified archaeologists and, depending upon the types of sites expected to be encountered, those qualified to record and evaluate architecture (usually architectural historians). In the State of Utah, survey involves walking the entire project area in transects spaced no wider than 15 meters (30 ft) and recording and evaluating all prehistoric and historic sites 50 years old or older. It also involves recommending whether located sites are significant or important. The professional doing the inventory evaluates sites discovered and recorded for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A report and site forms are prepared and submitted to an agency whose specialist will agree or not with the consultant’s recommendation. Should a site be determined eligible to the NRHP by a federal agency, it is called an Historic Property. If a project is subject to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106 requirements, either the historic property will need to be avoided or some type of data recovery undertaken to mitigate the adverse effect (destruction or even a minor impact) on the site.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that prior planning is very important to know what might be in a project area so that early in the process so that, if possible, changes can be made to avoid adverse impacts on sites. If it is not possible to avoid impacting sites, there are many ways to mitigate the effects, which don’t always involve excavation or costly changes to project plans. It is always important to remain in contact with the lead agency during a project subject to Section 106. This will help to know, as far in advance as possible, how a project may be altered to avoid unnecessarily expensive and time consuming cultural resources mitigation.

Engagement of a qualified cultural resources company is also in the best interest of project managers. These professionals can guide the project team through the process and help them avoid costly assumptions and unnecessary tasks.

Visual Impacts
While not all projects are subject to visual effect evaluation requirements, there are instances when this is the case. Such requirements are usually determined by the lead agency, depending upon the type of project and that agency’s regulations. That is why it is important to not assume, but to ask the question early in the planning process. In some cases, construction of power lines, housing developments, industrial parks, even pipelines, can trigger the need to take into account visual effects to cultural resources. Note, consideration of visual effects to cultural sites is different than visual effect studies which may be undertaken as part of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies.

Human Remains
Another consideration of impacts that needs to be mentioned is encountering human remains or burials. While not frequent, it is vitally important that legal processes be followed, should this occur. It should be mentioned that proper procedures must be followed for encountering burials regardless of whether a project is subject to Section 106 or on private property.

Native American Considerations
Procedures when encountering a Native American grave differ from that of the grave of any other person and it is important that proper procedures are followed in each instance. Hiring of a qualified archaeologist (cultural resource professional) is best in this regard, although the Utah Division of State History Antiquities Section is also available to assist. Procedures differ slightly on federal, state and private lands. See compliance law links below for federal projects and state projects.

Federal and State Agencies, Laws, and Regulations
There are federal and state laws and regulations protecting significant cultural resources and historic properties. While these laws and regulations generally apply to federal or state lands, there are many situations where private lands may be included. One of the most important considerations is to know which federal or state agencies are being consulted or included in the project. Many have their own regulatory structure concerning cultural resources. A list of federal and state agencies most commonly involved in resource planning is provided below. State and county entities must understand the importance of SHPO. Besides consulting with individual agencies, it is important to consult with the SHPO whenever undertaking resources planning or projects.

Federal Agencies:

  1. US Bureau of Land Management, Utah Cultural Resources, Salt Lake City
  2. US Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF History and Culture, Utah
  3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Bountiful, Utah
  4. US Bureau of Reclamation Provo, Utah
  5. US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona
  6. Federal Communications Commission
  7. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC
  8. US Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC
  9. Rural Utility Service, Washington, DC
  10. National Resources Conservation Service, Utah
  11. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

Utah State Agencies:

  1. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
  2. Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
  3. Utah State Parks
  4. State Institutional Trust Lands Administration
  5. Utah Department of Transportation
  6. State Historic Preservation Office
  7. Utah National Guard

Federal laws must be considered if project plans include federal land. The same is true if federal licensing or federal funds are involved. In accordance with federal laws and regulations, project undertakings must take into account their effects upon potential historic properties. The following federal legislation is the most pertinent:

  1. Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59_209; 34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431_433)
  2. Historic Sites Act of 1935 (P.L. 74_292; 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461_467)
  3. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89_665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. 470 as amended by P.L. 90_243, P.L. 93_54, P.L. 94_422, and P.L. 94_458)
  4. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91_190; 83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
  5. Executive Order 11593 of 1971; Executive Order 13007
  6. Archaeological and Historical Conservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 86_523, as amended by P.L. 93_291; 16 U.S.C. 469_469c)
  7. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm; Public Law 96-95 and amendments to it)
  8. American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95_341)
  9. Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990 (P.L.101-601)
  10. National Register of Historic Places

The State of Utah also has several laws with implementing regulations, which may be applicable to project planning and undertakings including:

  1. Antiquities Protection Act of 1993 (U.C.A. Sec. 9-8-3 and 9-8-4)
  2. Abuse or Desecration of a Dead Human Body (U.C.A. Sec. 76-9-704)

Helpful Contact Information
The Utah Division of State History is the main resource in Utah for information and expertise on cultural and historical items. The Division programs include:

It is usually a good idea to consult with a professional archaeologist or architectural historian concerning how to proceed with a particular project.

  • The Utah Public Policy Lands Coordination Office, which issues permits for archaeologists who work in Utah, maintains a list of permitted archaeologists.
  • It can also be helpful to consult the State Historic Preservation Office regarding consultant selection.  
  • Yet another source is the American Cultural Resources Association website where capable consultants are listed who are qualified to work in Utah, as well as other parts of the country.

It is also very important to know that it is usually necessary to consult with specific Native American tribes when planning for projects.

  • A useful agency to contact concerning Native American tribes is the Utah Division of Indian Affairs. This agency can help facilitate contact with tribes and provide information.
  • A Bureau of Indian Affairs website also exists that is quite helpful for identifying tribes in the region, as these contacts change regularly.
Impact Considerations - Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of animals (vertebrates and invertebrates) and plants or traces or evidence of prehistoric animals. It is important to remember that there can be paleontological resources in areas planned for development of various kinds. This will occur in areas where geologic formations occur which hold fossils of various kinds or where Pleistocene Period deposits (the last 3 million years or so) occur, such as on some locations around the shores of the Great Salt Lake. A call about this subject is not easy and requires an understanding of the geologic history of the Wasatch Front and where such formations and deposits may be exposed on the surface or by excavation. A good place to begin due diligence concerning this topic is the Utah Geological Survey’s county planning page concerning paleontological resources.

After becoming acquainted with how fossil resources are regulated within the state, it is important to consult with paleontologists at the Utah Geological Survey. This will help to know whether there is potential for paleontological resources within a proposed project or planning area. Currently, Dr. James Kirkland is the State Paleontologist and Martha Hayden is Assistant Paleontologist. The State Paleontologist is a good source, but for specific information about project areas, it is best to contact Ms. Hayden. Their contact information is available from this link to the Utah Geological Survey. Ms. Hayden will be able to provide information that you need to know about state laws and regulations concerning paleontological resources and how you should proceed. In some cases, it may not be necessary to do further work. On the other hand, depending upon the situation and where a project lies, it may require the hiring of a professional paleontologist to help work through the process.

There are no Utah State requirements for paleontological resources on private lands. Should the State Paleontologist identify a particular area as sensitive for such resources that lie on state lands or federal lands, it will likely be necessary to hire a professional paleontologist to assist in the project. The State of Utah does not maintain a list of qualified paleontologists, but the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does maintain a list of permitted paleontologists. These professionals are not only qualified to work on federal lands, but on most any project undertaken in a Wasatch Front county.

Types of Paleontological Resources

Types of paleontological localities include:

  • Invertebrate localities are fossil remnants of non-vertebrate creatures. These are many-celled animals that do not have a vertebral column, backbone, vertebrae, backbone or long, full-length notochord.
  • Vertebrate localities include fossil remnants of creatures with some form of vertebrae. These can be mammals, dinosaurs and other reptiles.
  • Floral localities are remnants of plants.
  • Trace fossils include skin impressions, track sites, and remnants of burrows or borings.

Impacts on paleontological resources are considered significantly adverse if project implementation results in adverse effects on Condition 1 or 2 paleontologically sensitive geological formations or in adverse effects on Class 1, 2, or 3 paleontologically sensitive fossil localities. The rationale for these significance criteria is discussed below.

Paleontological research will be guided, in part, by a geologic formation classification system and a sensitivity classification of fossil localities, both suggested by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and modified from the Committee on Guidelines for Paleontological Collecting (Committee) (1987). The classification system for defining the paleontological sensitivity of geological formations consist of the following from the BLM:

  • Condition 1. Formations known to contain fossils of significant scientific interest, or where significant fossils (especially vertebrates) are likely to be discovered with detailed field work.
  • Condition 2. Formations where fossils are present, but by their nature are not anticipated to be of high scientific value.
  • Condition 3. Formations containing few fossils or those found are of little scientific value.

The classification system for defining the paleontological sensitivity of fossil localities consist of the following from The Committee on Guidelines for Paleontological Collecting (1987):

  • Class 1. Critical – reference locality for holotype or critical paleontological material, or any type section of geological strata needed for future study.  All vertebrate fossil sites fall within this category.
  • Class 2. Significant – any locality that produces rare, well-preserved, or critical fossils usable for taxonomic, evolutionary, stratigraphic, paleoenvironmental, or paleoecological studies.
  • Class 3. Important – any locality that produces common, abundant fossils useful for stratigraphic or population variability studies.
  • Class 4. Insignificant – any locality with poorly preserved, common, or stratigraphically unimportant fossil material.
  • Class 5. Unimportant – any locality intensively surveyed and determined to be of minimal scientific interest.

For federally overseen projects, the significance of paleontological localities and fossil finds will be determined by the lead federal agency in consultation with the Utah State Paleontologist (USP). The lead federal agency, in consultation with the federal land owning agency (as applicable), and the USP, determines the significance of impacts and treatment planning related to these resources. Impacts are considered significant if either of the following were to occur:

  • Disturbance of paleontological resources, including geologic formations containing fossils, fossil localities, or isolated fossil finds that are on file with the USP’s Office.
  • Alteration of paleontological resources, including geologic formations containing fossils, fossil localities, or isolated fossil finds that are on file with the USP’s Office.

A similar scenario (involving state agencies and the Utah State Paleontologist’s Office) would likely occur for state lead projects or a state agency oversees the project, but each project needs to be determined case by case.

Federal and State Agencies, Laws, and Regulations
There are federal and state laws and regulations protecting significant cultural resources, or historic properties. While these laws and regulations generally apply to federal or state lands, there are many situations where private lands may be included, as well State and Federal legislation that applies to paleontological resources are as follows: Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-209; 34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432, 433) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (P.L. 91-190; 83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4327). However, the most recent and most important law protecting paleontological resources on federal lands (except Indian Reservations) is the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, Subtitle D – Paleontological Resources Preservation (P.L. 111-011; 123 Stat. 1172; 16 U.S.C. 470aaa). In addition, BLM has developed regulations about protection of paleontological resources on lands administered by their field offices. Applicable Utah State legislation consists of the Antiquities Protection Act of 1993 (U.C.A. Sec. 9-8-101-806).

Federal Agencies:

  1. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Utah Cultural Resources, Salt Lake City
  2. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF History and Culture, Utah
  3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Bountiful, Utah
  4. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Provo, Utah
  5. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (on Indian Reservations), Phoenix, Arizona
  6. Federal Communications Commission
  7. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
  8. U.S. Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
  9. Rural Utility Service, Washington, D.C.
  10. National Resources Conservation Service, Utah
  11. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Utah State Agencies:

  1. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
  2. Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
  3. Utah State Parks
  4. State Institutional Trust Lands Administration
  5. Utah Department of Transportation (often carries out work under authority of the Federal Department of Transportation, Highway Administration)
  6. Utah Geological Survey

Prehistoric and Ethnographic Overview

BRIEF PREHISTORIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

Counties of Tooele, Salt Lake, Davis, Morgan and Weber

In the period of time before European Americans entered the Great Basin, known as Prehistory, native peoples found food through behavior patterns rooted in the seasonal procurement of resources found in particular environments. Over time, in some parts of the Great Basin, traditional hunting and gathering patterns gave way to living increasingly longer periods of time in particular areas and the development of agriculture.

Paleo-Indian Period

The Pleistocene, or the most recent “Ice Age,” is divided into a number of periods marked by warming and cooling trends that resulted in the repetitive advance and retreat of continental ice masses across North America. The Wisconsin Glaciation (20,000 to 18,000 years before present [B.P.]) marking the end of the Pleistocene Period created much cooler and moister weather patterns across North America. The advancement of glaciers in higher elevations and northern latitudes trapped much water in the form of ice. This resulted in lower sea levels that exposed the area between Siberia and Alaska, known as the Beringian Landmass. Archaeological evidence from across the North American continent indicates that humans may have crossed the Beringian Landmass into this continent as early as 16,000 B.P. (Taylor, et al. 1999:455). These early aboriginal inhabitants are referred to as Paleo-Indians.

Paleo-Indians were highly mobile, hunting animals and gathering plants with an emphasis on large Pleistocene animals such as Wholly Mammoths and Mastodons. Paleo-Indian social organization consisted of small groups that spread rapidly to inhabit North and South America. Paleo-Indian sites are distinguished by the presence of specific types of projectile points and associated tools, and the remains of extinct large mammals. Conservative estimates for the Paleo-Indian Period place this earliest North American occupation between 14,000 and 10,000 B.P.

During the Pleistocene, a portion of a large inland lake covered the project area with water (Currey, et al. 1983). This lake, known as Lake Bonneville, covered much of the Eastern Great Basin. This lake was impounded by landforms of various types. As glacial runoff slowed and the climate warmed and dried, the waters of the lake receded gradually. About 15,000 B.P., a cataclysmic flood, which occurred as a result of fractured and weakened geologic formations at Red Rocks Pass at the north end of the lake (in Cache Valley), dramatically lowered the level of the lake and created significantly altered shorelines. The resulting shoreline may have supported humans; however, there is no archaeological evidence for such an early occupation of the Great Basin. People do not appear to have inhabited the region until later in the Paleo-Indian Period, ca. 11,500 B.P., but precise dating of such early occupations is complicated. The geologically active, erosional nature of the Great Basin diminishes the probability that intact, early Paleo-Indian artifacts could be identified.

The first known Paleo-Indian occupations of the Great Basin are represented by three distinct technological traditions or complexes, represented by particular sets of stone tools. These are known as the Western Clovis Complex, the Western Stemmed Complex, and the Folsom Complex (Willig and Aikens 1988:1).

Paleo-Indian sites are rare in the project area. However, a brown chert Alberta-series projectile point fragment was found at site 42BO922 near the Golden Spike National Historic Site (Giles and Frost 2001). This Paleo-Indian projectile point dates between 9500-9000 B.P. (Drager and Ireland 1986:596).

The Clovis complex (11,500 to 11,000 B.P.) is represented by lanceolate shaped projectile points which have narrow grooves extracted (fluting) on both sides to facilitate connecting (hafting) the points to the end of a spear. Also associated with the Clovis tool assemblage are other particular types of stone and bone tools for cutting and butchering animals and, likely, sewing hides. Clovis sites are limited in Utah to isolated surface finds and several small sites such as Lime Ridge (Davis and Brown 1989), Helln Moriah (Davis, et al. 1996), and Site 42MD300 (Copeland and Fike 1988).

The Western Stemmed Complex (11,000 to 8,000 B.P.) is characterized by large lanceolate shaped projectile points associated with knives and other heavy stone tools. In Utah, sites from this complex include Danger Cave (Jennings 1957), Hogup Cave (Aikens 1970), and the Sevier Desert Site (Simms and Lindsay 1984).

The Folsom Complex represents a cultural tradition more distinct than the Clovis and Western Stemmed complexes. The Folsom Complex dates to between 11,000 and 9,500 B.P. The Folsom Complex is found in a wider geographic range and over a longer time period than that of Clovis. Folsom sites are associated with fluted projectile points that are smaller, thinner, and more refined than those identified at Clovis sites. More delicate and detailed task specific stone and bone tools are also found in this assemblage. Folsom hunters appear to have primarily hunted extinct forms of bison. Larger mammals, such as mammoths, are absent from Folsom sites. Folsom points have been noted as isolated artifacts across Utah, and at the Montgomery habitation site near Green River, Utah (Davis 1985).

The terminal Pleistocene, or Bonneville Period, ranges from 11,000 to 9,500 B.P. (Aikens and Madsen 1986:154). This time frame overlaps with the Paleo-Indian Period and is considered a transitory stage between Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic lifestyles. In this time frame, Western Stemmed is seen as following Clovis, rather than occurring at the same time. The presence of stone flakes and grinding stones (used to mill plants), that occur at the Danger Cave site, date to around 9,800 B.P. (Jennings 1957) providing early evidence for plant processing and suggest that different animals were being hunted and a wider variety of plant species were being gathered, during this time period.

Archaic Period

The period of time known as the “Archaic” (10,000 to 1,600 B.P.) represents a long span of years distinguished by a steady transition of lifeways and technologies. An increased focus on hunting of small game and gathering of plant resources marks the Archaic Period. Nevertheless, the transition between the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods is poorly defined. Both the Folsom and Western Stemmed complexes existed into the Archaic. Folsom culture during the Archaic does not seem to have changed dramatically from what is understood for the Paleo-Indian Period. However at sites such as Hogup Cave and Danger Cave, Western Stemmed assemblages show that the people of this time exploited an increasing variety of plants and animals (Aikens and Madsen 1986; Jennings 1978). Archaic cultures expanded across the Great Basin, resulting in a multitude of projectile point types, sites, and lifeways. Several periods of the Archaic have been defined in order to show these cultural shifts.

The Wendover Period ranges from approximately 9,500 to 6,000 B.P. as defined by Aikens and Madsen (1986:154) and roughly corresponds to the Early Archaic Period described for other regions. Sites are found at many different elevations and in a wide variety of environments. Excavation of dry caves in western Utah recovered basketry, cloth, cordage, digging tools, snares, buckskin, and fire drills (Jennings 1978:41, 49). Stone tools for grinding plants, implements such as atlatls (wood spear extenders), and traps for hunting small game are common. These artifact assemblages are indicative of the wide variety of activities engaged in by prehistoric inhabitants, who most likely followed a seasonal round of hunting and gathering. Projectile points common to the Wendover Period are known as the Elko Series, Pinto Series, Bitterroot Side-notched, and Humboldt Concave-base.

The Black Rock Period ranges from 6,000 to 1,500 B.P. (Aikens and Madsen 1986:154). This range spans the Middle to Late Archaic as described in other Great Basin regions. It is characterized by a drier environment, which diminished lake margin resources, i.e. reduced plant and animals available as food resources. Increasing pressure from population expansion complicated issues. The increased population pressure and decrease in available food resources prompted a shift to a more mobile population and movement into upland areas to take advantage of food resources located at higher elevations. Expansion into upland piñon-juniper tree communities for the exploitation of mountain sheep, deer, and other animals became more necessary. The beginning of the Black Rock Period is distinguished, technologically, by the appearance of new Elko and Gypsum projectile point types. Around 4,000 B.P., a moister, cooler period began with an expansion of mountain glaciers, cooling of the environment, increased rainfall, flooded springs, and increased marshlands. Subsistence activities shifted to an emphasis on upland areas due to the decrease in available plants and waterfowl from flooded areas (Aikens and Madsen 1986:158). The end of the Black Rock Period is distinguished by the introduction of the bow and arrow. This technology rapidly replaced the atlatl and diminished the importance of the spear. While projectile point forms remained constant in terms of basic form, overall size decreased.

Several characteristics of horticulture (proto-agriculture) subsistence occurred at the end of the Archaic Period. The manufacture of pottery and the introduction of domesticated corn  variants accompanied an increase in settled communities that appeared throughout much of Utah, Eastern Nevada, Western Colorado, and Southern Idaho. Designated the Fremont, this cultural tradition flourished between 1600 and 700 B.P. (Marwitt 1986:161).

Formative Period

There are five distinct variants of the cultural sites and artifact assemblages representing the Fremont. The Great Salt Lake Fremont variant is most commonly associated with the Northern Great Salt Lake Basin (Marwitt 1986:162). This variant occupied the northern periphery of the Fremont area from 1,200 to 700 B.P. The Great Salt Lake Fremont differed from the four other variants by their nearly complete reliance on the processing of wild plant and animal resources around marsh and lake environments (Madsen 1989:21-22; Marwitt 1986:168). These hunter/gatherer characteristics coincide with the region’s theme of subsistence patterns rooted in a marshland economy. Commonly attributed to the Great Salt Lake Fremont are bone knives, saws and whistles, antler harpoon heads, ceramic humanlike figurines, and ceramic vessels of a type of pottery known as Great Salt Lake Gray Ware and Promontory Gray Ware (Marwitt 1986:168-169). Habitation sites generally lack substantial architecture and are limited to subsurface pithouses and storage pits located near marshy areas. These were seasonally used semi-permanent structures. Mobile camps and well-sheltered caves were visited during seasonal rounds maintained by this transient Fremont subgroup. Sites important to our understanding of the Great Salt Lake Fremont include Bear River No. 1 (Aikens 1966) and Bear River No. 2 (Shields and Dalley 1978), Injun Creek (Aikens 1966), the Levee and Knoll sites (Fry and Dalley 1979), Hogup Cave (Aikens 1970), the Promontory Caves (Steward 1937), Swallow Shelter (Dalley 1976), Orbit Inn (Simms and Heath n.d.), Willard (Judd 1926), and the Fremont sites identified along the southern banks of the Snake River in Southern Idaho (Butler 1981).

Near the end of the Fremont occupation, what appear to be a different people, speaking a different language, began migrating east and northeast from the southwestern part of the Great Basin, in California. They entered the region and became the dominant population. These groups were Numic linguistic group speakers whose descendants, ultimately, became the currently known tribes of Shoshone, Ute and Paiute. It appears that the Fremont culture abandoned the Great Basin at approximately the same time that Numic-speaking groups migrated into the Great Basin (Jones 1994). Fremont agriculture and house construction ceased about 800 B.P. in the southern Fremont range (Dodd 1982), about 650 B.P. in central Utah (Janetski, et al. 1985), and ca. 650-500 B.P. in the northern and eastern Fremont regions (Aikens 1966; Fry and Dalley 1979; Creasman and Scott 1987).

Late Prehistoric Period

Models for the Numic expansion described above vary and are contested by some (Sutton and Rhode 1994). The various models are based largely upon analysis of studies on the languages and culture of current tribal groups in the Great Basin. The most accepted theories place the origins of the Numa in southwestern California, suggesting their east-by-northeast expansion into the Great Basin (Madsen 1994; Rhode and Madsen 1994). The exact nature of their movements is unclear. It is not understood whether the Fremont abandoned the region completely prior to the Numic expansion, if competition for resources forced the Fremont from the area, or if the Fremont were assimilated into the Numic/Shoshone populations (Marwitt 1986:171-172; Simms and Heath: n.d.). Archaeological evidence is disparate. At some sites, levels with Fremont attributes coincide with Shoshone pottery. At other sites, a complete replacement of Fremont characteristics is suggested by a distinctly non-Fremont assemblage (Madsen 1989:44; Marwitt 1986:172). Eventually, Fremont attributes disappear and elements of Shoshone culture become dominant.

Due to a scarcity of artifacts, ethnically identifiable Shoshone, Goshute, and Ute sites are difficult to identify. Little is known about these groups, archaeologically, outside of the presence of Late Prehistoric pottery and Desert Side-notched projectile points. Antelope traps constructed of brush and small, temporary brush shelters appear to represent the range of Shoshone architecture. Neither is conducive to archaeological preservation.

Ethnographic and historical evidence for the counties of Tooele, Salt Lake, Davis, Weber and Morgan suggest that the northern area of Morgan and Weber counties, was primarily occupied by Western Shoshone, historically designated the “Weber Utes”, as in inhabitants living along the Weber River (Steward 1938:220). These same people are known to have occupied the Salt Lake City area, alongside Gosuite (Goshute) peoples, a variant of Western Shoshone (Steward 1938:220-222; Thomas and others 1986:262, 282) whose core territory was further west in and around Tooele County. The Western Shoshone also had connections further north into Cache and Malad Valleys in Idaho, where they may have mixed with what are known as Northern Shoshone and Bannock bands in Southern Idaho and Southeastern Oregon (Steward 1938:186-222). Ute Indians from the Utah Lake area further south are also known to have frequented the Salt Lake County area (Steward 1938:221-222).

Traditionally, all of these groups followed seasonal rounds, moving to specific geographic areas as particular resources became available. Band size and structure were flexible, adapting to various requirements for utilizing different resources, with small family-size groups in spring and summer and larger groups in the fall and winter (Steward 1938:220-221). The flexible nature of these groups, allowed far-flung travels. Particularly, for the Ute and Northern Shoshone and Bannock, the introduction of the horse in the 1700s, allowed a much enhanced subsistence base, with bison hunting in Wyoming and even further north and east onto the Great Plains, salmon fishing in Idaho, and antelope drives in many parts of the Great Basin, Idaho and Wyoming. These patterns of subsistence remained predominant until the Historic Period when the pressures of Euro-American settlement disrupted the abilities of Shoshone groups to maintain their seasonal rounds.

References Cited

Aikens, Melvin C. Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships, Including a Report of Excavations at the Injun Creek and Bear River Number 1 Sites, Northern Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 82. Salt Lake City, 1966.

Aikens, Melvin C. Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 93. Salt Lake City, 1970.

Aikens, Melvin C. and David B. Madsen. Prehistory of the Eastern Area. In Great Basin, edited by W.L. D’Azevedo, pp. 149-160. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 1986.

Butler, B. Robert. Late Period Cultural Sequences in the Northeastern Great Basin Subarea and Their Implications for the Upper Snake and Salmon River Country. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(2):245-256, 1981.

Copeland, James M. and Richard E. Fike. Fluted Projectile Points in Utah. Utah Archaeology, 1988.

Creasman, Steven D. and Linda J. Scott. Texas Creek Outlook: Evidence for Late Fremont (Post A.D. 1200) Occupation in Northwest Colorado. Southwestern Lore 53(4), 1987.

Currey, Donald R., Genevieve Atwood, and Don R. Mabey. Major Levels of Great Salt Lake and Lake Bonneville. State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Map 73. Salt Lake City, 1983.

Dalley, Gardiner F. Swallow Shelter and Associated Sites. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No.96. Salt Lake City, 1976.

Davis, William E. The Montgomery Folsom Site. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 1985.

Davis, William E. and Gary M. Brown. The Lime Ridge Clovis Site. Utah Archaeology, 1989.

Davis, William E., Dorothy Slack, and Nancy Shearin. The Hell’n Moriah Clovis Site. Utah Archaeology, 1996.

Dodd, Walter A., Jr. Final Excavations at the Evans Mound Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 106. Salt Lake City, 1982.

Drager, Dwight L., and Arthur K. Ireland. The Seedskadee Project: Remote Sensing in Non-site Archaeology. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Region, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Division of Cultural Research, Branch of Remote Sensing, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. Submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah,  Interagency Agreement No. 2-07-40-S3351. Copies available from Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 1986.

Fry, Gary F. and Gardiner F. Dalley. The Levee Site and the Knoll Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 100. Salt Lake City, 1979.

Giles, Ralph B. and Dawn A. Frost. Golden Spike National Historic Site, Systemwide Archaeological Inventory Program, Fiscal Year 2000 Interim Report, vol. 1. Western Archaeological Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona, 2001.

Janetski, Joel C., Asa S. Nielson, and James D. Wilde. The Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series Nos. 85-99. Provo, Utah, 1985.

Jennings, Jesse D. Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Paper 27. Salt Lake City, 1957.

Jennings, Jesse D. Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Paper 98. Salt Lake City, 1978.

Jones, Kevin. Can the Rocks Talk? Archaeology and Numic Languages. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and D. Rhode, pp. 71-75. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1994.

Judd, Neil M. Archeological Observations North of the Rio Colorado, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 28. Washington, D.C., 1926.

Madsen, Brigham D. Exploring the Great Salt Lake, The Stansbury Expeditions of 1849-50. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1989.

Madsen, David B. Exploring the Fremont. University of Utah Occasional Publication No. 8. Salt Lake City, 1989.

Madsen, David B. Mesa Verde and Sleeping Ute Mountain: The Geographical and Chronological Dimensions of the Numic Expansion. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and D. Rhode, pp. 24-31. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1994.

Marwitt, John P. Northern Shoshone and Bannock. In Great Basin, edited by W.L. D’Azevedo, pp. 161-172. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 1986.

Rhode, David and David B. Madsen. Where Are We?  In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and D. Rhode, pp. 71-75. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1994.

Shields, Wayne F. and Gardiner F. Dalley. The Bear River No. 2 Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 99. Salt Lake City, 1978.

Simms, Steven R. and Kathleen M. Heath Site Structure of Orbit Inn: An Archaeological Application of Inferences from Ethnoarchaeology. Copy on file at the Weber State University Archaeological Laboratory, Ogden, Utah., n.d.

Simms, Steven R. and La Mar W. Lindsay. 42MD300, an Early Holocene Site in the Sevier Desert. Utah Archaeology, 1984.

Steward, Julian H. Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 116. Washington, 1937.

Steward, Julian H. Petroglyphs of the United States, Smithsonian Report for 1936, 1938.

Sutton, Mark Q. and David Rhode. Background to the Numic Problem. In Across the West: Human Population  Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and D. Rhode, pp. 6-15. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1994.

Taylor, R.E., C. Vance Haynes, Jr., Donna L. Kirner, and John R. Southon. Radiocarbon Analysis of Modern Organics at Monte Verde, Chile: No Evidence for a Local Reservoir Effect. American Antiquity, 1999.

Thomas, David Hurst, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stehen C. Cappannart. Western Shoshone. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Great Basin, Volume 11, pp. 262-283, edited by William C. Sturtevant, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1986.

Willig, Judith A. and C. Melvin Aikens. The Clovis-Archaic Interface in Far Western North America. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by J. A. Willig, C.M. Aikens, and J.L. Fagan, pp. 1-40. Anthropological Papers No. 21, Nevada State Museum, Carson City, 1988.

Brief County Histories
Davis County

The history of Davis County began with the fur trappers of the early nineteenth- century. These men, in search of fur bearing animals, as well as adventure, crossed the area many times. Permanent occupation; however, did not begin until the arrival of the Mormon pioneers in 1847. In the fall of 1848, the first pioneers arrived in the area and settled along Davis Creek, about one half mile south of Farmington. Daniel C. Davis, a captain in the Mormon Battalion, spent the winter of 1848‑49 in that location (Jolliffe 1948:20). When the area was formed into a county by the Territorial legislature in 1850, it was named in honor of Davis (Hardy 1948:21).

Shortly after creation of the County, communities were quickly established along the principal travel corridor between Ogden in the north and Salt Lake City in the south. Two of these communities were Farmington and Kaysville. These communities grew quite rapidly for the first few years. The 1850 census showed a population of 280 people for the Farmington area while the Kaysville-Layton area had a total of 417 people in 1853 (Adams 1948:121, Arrington 1966:27). Other parts of the county did not fare as well. South Weber, which was settled in 1851, never grew into a very large settlement. However, other communities would be created as the population increased and the farming communities expanded. Layton, originally part of Kaysville, became its own separate community in 1891 and Fruit Heights had been part of East Kaysville until 1939 (Dawson 1980:2, Van Cott 1990:149).

The communities of Kaysville and Farmington continued at a slow growth rate until the arrival of the Utah Central Railroad in late 1869 (Arrington 1966:272). The railroad was built south from the Union Pacific line in Ogden to Salt Lake City. This construction of this line was a major impetus to growth in the area. The railroad provided increased distribution of agricultural goods throughout the region and opened new outside markets for these commodities, as well as allowing for the importation of industry, farming equipment and goods.

Even though the arrival of the railroad provided the potential for development of a more urbanized and industrialized community, many factors weighed against these changes. Prominent among these was the presence of two much larger and growing cities, Ogden and Salt Lake City. Urbanization was already well under way in these areas. Industry flocked to the two larger towns where the railroads built locomotive yards and the population was able to supply workers for the industries that centered on the railroads. While industry was growing to the north and south of Davis County, agricultural activities continued to dominate the economy of the area throughout the 19th century and well into the twentieth century. Dairy farming and the raising of alfalfa hay and grain were the two enterprises most prominent in the county (Adams 1948:128; Bowman 1948:173). Several creameries were built to process milk products in Layton, Kaysville and South Weber in the late 1800s. Later, sugar beets became an important crop and a sugar beet factory was built in Layton.

The major growth areas of Davis County were at first in the eastern part of the county along the current US-89 corridor. This was the first major north-south transportation corridor through the area. Along this corridor the towns began to grow; however, since this was located along the base of the Wasatch Front, expansion moved toward the western part of the county. Current U. S. Highway 89 (the Mountain Road) and its predecessor roads, grew in importance over time until the 1930s. Since then it has been used primarily for transportation to and from the Ogden area. Though not a major focus of population or commerce, the Highway 89 corridor remained an agricultural region of the county, well‑known for its fruit orchards. Its higher elevation, sloping conditions and favorable soils encouraged establishment of fruit orchards, especially of cherries and peaches.

The economy of the area continued to develop slowly during the early twentieth-century with a marked improvement towards the end of the Great Depression and prior to the United States’ entry into World War II. The time period (late 1930s), marked a radical change for Davis County. As political events began to change and war loomed, the Federal government began a buildup of defense industry establishments along the Wasatch Front including areas of Davis County. In 1939, Congress appropriated money for the construction of Hill Air Force Base in Layton, which was completed in November 1940 (Christensen 1989:498‑499). At the same time, the US Army needed a supply point close to rails in the west that could service the various military bases along the west coast and borders. In September 1941, the Utah General Depot in Ogden (now Defense Depot Ogden) was operational. With entry into the war, the Navy also needed a supply base close to railroads and away from enemy attack. Hence, in June 1942 construction of the Clearfield Naval Supply Depot was started and completed in April 1943 (Christensen 1989:498‑499). These facilities along with the Ogden Arsenal, which was established in 1920, formed a strong military presence in Davis County during World War II and markedly altered the economic and population patterns of the county and permanently changed the landscape.

Since World War II the economy of the area has seen a decreased reliance on agriculture and has become more of an expansion of the Wasatch Sprawl between Salt Lake City and Ogden. A growing number of local industries have also started in the area such as those located at the massive Freeport Center (formerly Clearfield Naval Supply Depot). Hill Air Force Base continues to be a major employer of Davis County residents.

Morgan County

Morgan County is situated among the Wasatch Mountains east of the Wasatch Front. The history of the area begins with the first Euro-Americans to enter the Morgan Valley. These were the fur trappers of the British Hudson’s Bay Company under Peter Skene Ogden, as well as a number of independent American fur trappers and traders. Attracted by the bountiful streams and forested slopes of Morgan Valley, these trappers began utilizing the area’s resources as early as the 1820s (Utah State Historical Society 1988:18). By 1825, competition for these limited resources led to a confrontation, near Mountain Green, between Peter Skene Ogden’s company and a group of American trappers. Ogden avoided a bloody conflict by fleeing the area after 23 of his men left his company to join the American fur trappers (Roylance 1982:426; Stuart 1983:6).

Trappers continued to be the sole exploiters of the valley until the arrival of Thomas J. Thurston, an early Latter-day Saint (Mormon) settler in the spring of 1855 (Deseret Evening News 1906:61). Thurston was joined shortly thereafter by Bishop Charles S. Peterson (the founder of the town of Peterson in the county) (Deseret Evening News 1906:61). The main access route from the Wasatch Front to Morgan Valley was through Weber Canyon. The access was rugged and difficult due to the lack of any functional roads. With the assistance of several residents of Weber and Davis Counties, Thurston and Peterson constructed a road suitable for wagon travel through the canyon (Deseret Evening News 1906:61). With the completion of the road, Peterson and Roswell Stevens, who had helped with the road’s construction, settled at Weber City. The name was changed to Peterson in 1872 (Historical Records Survey 1937:3).

News of the area’s fertile farmland reached the residents of the surrounding counties. Eager pioneers made their way into the valley to try their hand at farming. Within five years of the initial settlement by Thurston and Peterson, several new communities had been established including Mountain Green, Mt. Joy (North Morgan), Richville and Round Valley (Morgan County Historical Society 1989). Morgan City, established in 1860, soon became one of the area’s largest communities (Morgan County Historical Society 1989:56).

In 1862, the Territorial Legislature officially created Morgan County and designated Weber City (Peterson) as the county seat. In 1866, the county seat was moved to the small town of Littleton. Two years later, in 1868, the seat was once again moved, this time to Morgan City (Morgan County Visitors Bureau 1992). With its new found fame, the town changed its name to Morgan City in honor of Jedediah Morgan Grant, First Counselor to Brigham Young and father of future (1940) president of the Mormon Church, Heber J. Grant (Works Progress Administration 1945:359). Around the same time, Morgan City received a franchise to incorporate (Morgan County Historical Society 1989:149).

Eager to build their communities into thriving residential and agricultural centers, residents of the valley exploited the natural resources of the area. As early as 1859, the Porter family had set up a lumber mill at the mouth of Hardscrabble Canyon, which provided building supplies for local residents. Lumber was the major industry in the area from 1860 to 1875. In 1862, Samuel and Thomas Brough began making bricks in a Richville brickyard, and Daniel Williams constructed and operated a lime kiln near Morgan. Other area masons began hewing blocks and red and “bluish” sandstone suitable for building from the surrounding outcrops (Deseret Evening News 1906:61). With the construction of numerous irrigation ditches throughout the area, the grain crops, particularly wheat, were flourishing.

Perhaps the biggest boon to the growth and economy of Morgan City specifically, and Morgan County broadly, was the completion of the Union Pacific segment of the Transcontinental Railroad through Morgan County between 1867-68 (Morgan County Visitors Bureau 1992; Historic Records Survey 1937:4). A “One Thousand Mile” marker, located just north of Morgan, commemorates the point at which 1,000 miles of track had been laid in the construction of the Railroad from Omaha, Nebraska (Stuart 1983:8). Ties for the local portion of the line were made by a mill located at Hardscrabble Canyon. Not only did the railroad’s completion put Morgan on the main freight/passenger line between Salt Lake City and all points east, but it also provided an outlet market for local agricultural products. The town soon became the county’s major trade center. The coming of the railroad also brought with it the first telegraph line and the first full-scale bridge across the Weber River (Deseret Evening News 1906:61; Historical Records Survey 1937:4). Prior to this time, crossing of the river had to be done by fording the waters at low levels or by boats, a hazardous journey at the best of times.

Unique in the history of such a small rural town such as Morgan, was the founding of a school of medicine in 1880. The Medical College of Utah was established by Dr. Frederick S. Kohler for the purpose of training future doctors (Divett 1960:3). The college operated for only two years, graduating a single class of four students in 1882 and closing down in 1883 due to a lack of enrollment resulting from (unproven) newspaper reports of poor teaching and suspect ethics (Divett 1960:1 and 6).

Construction and industry were the major themes of the years between 1895 and 1915. In 1896, construction of the East Canyon Dam was begun. Built of dirt and rock with a half-inch thick steel core, the dam was completed in 1898. Shortly after, in 1903, the first culinary water system was constructed in Morgan City. In 1904, the Morgan Canning Company was established and a large factory constructed in Morgan. Intended to service the highly productive pea farmers of the Morgan Valley, the company also received produce from farmers of the Cache Valley. The company was sold to the California Packing Company in 1928. The plant was closed down some time later. In 1905, the Union Pacific Railroad built a new depot and freight center to accommodate the growing market of the area (Deseret Evening News 1906:61). The completion of this depot was followed by the implementation of a phone system by the Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Company (Historic Records Survey 1937:4).

Local industry continued to grow in the ensuing years. In 1907, the Union Portland Cement Company was started near Devil’s Slide, a town established at the mouth of Lost Creek Canyon in 1904 for employees of the Portland Company (Historical Records Survey 1937:4-5). The abundance of high grade local limestone made the area suitable for such a venture. The current facility, which was constructed in 1947 by the Ideal Basic Cement Company, is one of the largest employers in the county (USHS 1988:18; Anonymous n.d.). In 1912, C.F. Holding and F.A. Bean constructed a power plant near Hardscrabble Canyon. The venture failed shortly thereafter. The Utah Power and Light Company took over the electrical power franchise for the area in 1914, building a new plant and installing additional power lines (Historical Records Survey 1937:4).

Due to drought and the Great Depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s, growth throughout the area slowed drastically. Agriculture and dairying continued to be the major industries in the valley although outside markets for local products ceased to exist. In order to help pull the nation out of the depression, the federal government established a national Reconstruction Program, of which the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was a part. Morgan County residents were the recipients of sorely needed federal funding through a WPA program designed to construct new schools and provide jobs for needy people. Funding was provided for the construction of a new district elementary school and mechanical arts building (Morgan County Historical Society 1989:67).

Education, which had always been important to the residents of the Morgan Valley as evidenced by the construction of 34 schools by 1929, came to the forefront in the late 1930s. In 1936, all of the schools scattered throughout the valley were consolidated into a single school district. Until that time, each community had been responsible for funding and maintaining its own schools. Following the consolidation, many of the smaller local schools were abandoned and students from throughout the area were bused to facilities in Morgan (Morgan County Historical Society 1989:65-68). Having created the first consolidated school system in the state, Morgan received national recognition for its efforts (Morgan County Visitors Bureau 1992).

In 1944, the school district constructed a one-story food canning center in Morgan. The center was used for the processing of local produce with a portion of the products to be used to supplement the school lunch program. The building was also made available to county residents to can their own products for personal use (Morgan County Historical Society 1989:136). The facility was closed down in 1958 when changes in the purchasing and distribution of food for school lunches eliminated the need for the center (Morgan County Historical Society 1989:138).

Morgan residents once again benefitted from federal funding when the Weber Basin Reclamation Project was implemented in 1952. Under this program, federal money was used to construct power plants and dams in the county (USHS 1988:18). It wasn’t until nearly a decade after the program’s implementation, however, that Morgan was truly impacted. In the mid-1960s, the old earthen dam at East Canyon was replaced with a large concrete structure. At the same time, Lost Creek Reservoir was created by the construction of a 220-foot high earth-fill dam. Both projects were undertaken by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation [BOR] (Roylance 1982:427).

In 1964, near the time of the construction of the Lost Creek and East Canyon Dams, the Browning Arms Company chose to locate a factory near Mountain Green. The $400,000 building houses both the company headquarters, which had become overcrowded at the Ogden location, and a research and development department (Anonymous n.d.). This plant remains as one of the largest employers in the valley. Despite the opening of the Browning plant, a downward economic and social slide began in 1964. When Interstate 84 was constructed that year, a number of local establishments went out of business, being razed for the building of the road (Ogden Standard Examiner 1991:D1). In 1973, the Lost Creek Reservoir lands and facilities were turned over by the BOR to the State Parks Division for maintenance and recreational management. Shortly thereafter, the town of Devil’s Slide was abandoned and nearly all of the buildings moved to Morgan (Morgan County Historical Society 1989:59).

Business closures continued steadily through the 1970s. Even the completion of the Trappers Loop Highway in 1990 failed to bring much needed revenue to Morgan as commuters use the road as a quick connection between the shopping centers of Ogden and residences in the Huntsville area, rather than as a means of reaching businesses in Morgan City. Today, Morgan Valley’s identity is one of many bedroom communities for the busier Wasatch Front cities. Over 65 percent of the county’s 5,500 residents work outside the county in the urban centers of Ogden and Salt Lake City, the largest percentage of out-of-county workers for any county in the state. The majority of those who do work within the county are employed by either the Ideal Cement Company or the Browning Arms Company, or make their living in agriculture, ranching, or mink farming, a recent development in the area (Roylance 1982:426; Ogden Standard Examiner 1991:D1).

Salt Lake County

The initial European-American incursion into the current State of Utah occurred in 1776 when members of the Dominguez-Escalante Expedition traveled down the Spanish Fork River and entered Utah Valley. This expedition was led by two Franciscan fathers, and was searching for a favorable route from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the Spanish mission in Monterey, California. Members of the expedition provided the first detailed account of the Timpanagos Ute Indians they encountered in the area surrounding Utah Lake (Warner 1976:63-65). After the expedition left the area, apparently no European-Americans entered the area until the fur trade sparked interest in the Utah Valley.

The fur trade developed in earnest during the 1820s when entrepreneurs formed companies to exploit the vast supply of beaver in the rivers and streams of the North American West. The Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804-1806 had revealed in the west an abundance of beaver, an animal in high demand for making fur hats (Bartlett and Goetzmann 1982:26-30). By 1824, the fur trade in present-day Utah had begun from three main sources: 1) traders from Taos and Santa Fe, New Mexico, licensed by the Mexican government; 2) the Canadian Hudson Bay Company with outposts in Oregon; and 3) American interests based in St. Louis (Eldredge and Gowans 1994:209). Jedediah Smith of the St. Louis-based Rocky Mountain Fur Company and Etienne Proust out of Taos were among the first to trap in the Utah Valley during the 1820s (Van Wagoner 1990:2). Smith led a party of trappers though the area in the mid-1820s.

Trappers were the first European-Americans in the Salt Lake Valley, frequenting the area from the 1820s into the early 1840s. The numerous streams emanating from the western slopes of the Wasatch Mountains provided fertile hunting grounds for those attempting to exploit the resources of the valley. Trappers and explorers Jedediah Smith, John Fremont, and Jim Clyman, among others, are known to have traveled in the vicinity of the current project area (Morgan 1973).

The first permanent non-Native American settlers to arrive in the Salt Lake Valley were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons or L.D.S.). Mormon pioneers led by Brigham Young entered the Salt Lake Valley through Emigration Canyon in 1847. Young organized each of the arriving companies into groups or “committees” (Arrington 1958:45). These committees were assigned different tasks, such as planting, surveying and laying out city blocks, building a fort wall, constructing cabins, and exploring the surrounding valleys for natural resources. The first homes in the area were simple rectangular-shaped one- or two-story structures constructed with adobe and logs with red sandstone foundations (Angus 1993:53). The construction of canals became an absolute necessity for the new agriculturalists during this period.

As the populations of the various sections of Salt Lake County increased, numerous small markets, groceries, blacksmiths, and butcher shops were established, and by 1850, the population of Salt Lake County rose to 6,157 inhabitants (Powell 1994:432). During this time, Salt Lake City continued to grow in population and importance. The city developed as an important economic hub for the region, as a pioneer religious capitol, and as a center of government.

Salt Lake County and northern Utah in general have often been referred to as the Crossroads of the West. In this section of the west, migrations of Eastern peoples dispersed along the various routes and trails leading farther west, as well as south and north. By 1857, a decade after their arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, Mormon settlements were spread out along the valleys and mountains of the Wasatch Front. Their settlements extended from Ogden to Las Vegas and from Fort Bridger to Carson Valley (Wahlquist 1981:92-93).

By the 1860s, with the ongoing arrival or Mormons from Europe and the Eastern United states, agriculture began to expand rapidly. The arrival of the railroad in Salt Lake County in 1870, opened up new markets for crops and livestock produced by local residents. Other factors also contributed to increased agricultural productivity. Successful production of sugar beets was another significant agricultural development during this period. Agricultural and economic success led to increasing populations. From 1860 to 1890, Salt Lake County population rose from 11,295 to 58,457 inhabitants (Powell 1994:432).

Along with the arrival of the steel rails and steam trains to Salt Lake City, came hundreds to thousands of railroad workers. Many of these workers were non-English speaking of various ethnic affiliations, such as Chinese, Japanese, Slavic, Italian, Syrian, Greek, and Hispanic. As with most immigrants from a similar culture, these immigrants formed their own ethnic communities, such as Swedetown, Little Syria, and the Greek Ghetto within the larger towns and cities. With the opening of ethnic restaurants, markets, and groceries, these neighborhoods took on the culture of the residents’ country of origin (Cooper and Roberts 1992:6, 7).

Salt Lake City underwent significant changes during the late 1890s and early 1900s. In 1896, following half a century of conflict over religious freedom and the issue of polygamy, the Utah Territory was granted statehood.

The war-time economy generated by World War I boosted the local metals industries and facilitated the establishment of fabricators and foundries within Salt Lake Valley. Understandably, new warehouses and storage facilities were always a common site in the area (Daughters of Utah Pioneers 1947:125). By the close of the war overseas, the Industrial Zone included several large industrial complexes such as the May Foundry and Machine Shop and the Utah Oil Refining Company. Similarly railroad-related industries continued to provide steadily increasing employment and income for the area until the nationwide depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The strong economic growth that had been enjoyed by local residents for decades came to an abrupt halt with the stock market crash in the east. The loss of jobs by hundreds of local smelter and railroad employees during the Depression plunged the communities into a period of industrial decline which resulted in the closure of several of the smelters as well as numerous other businesses (Grey 1989). Economic conditions for agriculturalists worsened during the 1920s, as the depression was felt across the state and prices for many agricultural products dropped precipitously. Between 1920 and 1921 the price of sugar beets fell from $12.03 to $5.47 per ton (Alexander 1989:466).

A variety of local, state, and federal programs provided some relief to residents. However, full economic recovery from the Great Depression did not come until the massive mobilization effort brought on by American involvement in World War II, when employment in the area dramatically increased due to large federal projects including an increased need for petroleum products and metal industries. Salt Lake City’s population continued to grow during this period from 116,110 in 1920 to 149,934 in 1940 (Powell 1994:437).

Like other counties along the Wasatch Front, Salt Lake County continued to grow in the years following World War II. The development of new residential subdivisions along the I-15 corridor allowed for commuter travel for workers into the city. Midvale, Murray, Bennion, Taylorsville, West Jordan, and South Jordan grew and modernized throughout the Post War Period. With the completion of two major highway systems, Interstate 15 and Interstate 215, they have become “bedroom communities” for the rapidly growing number of people who are employed in Salt Lake City.

With the coming of highways and road systems connecting the area to urban centers, growth promises to continue at a steady rate. The intensive residential and commercial development of the past few decades has served to physically join the various communities in the area, effectively blurring corporate boundary lines. These expanded and melted communities are a stark contrast to the tiny, somewhat isolated settlements of the early pioneer period.

Tooele County

The history of Tooele County is rather unique. The isolation of the county, the presence of the defense industry, and its position on the Nevada border have all contributed to this history.

The first non-Native Americans to pass through the region that would become Tooele County were primarily fur trappers and explorers. In 1827, Jedediah Smith crossed the Salt Flats as he traveled east from California to the mountains of Utah. His was the first known European-American incursion into the imme­diate region (Zier 1984:26). Smith would be followed in 1845 by John C. Fremont on his way west and E.G. Beckwith in 1853 (Wahlquist 1981:80-83).

The Tooele Valley was the first area of the county to be occupied by white men when Captain Howard Stansbury ordered the construction of an adobe house built in 1849. The residence was used by Stansbury to shelter his herders caring for US Army mules and livestock. This structure was constructed at the north end of the Valley on E. T. Hill. Soon after the arrival of Stansbury, the settlers of the Salt Lake Valley came to Tooele looking for herding and grazing land for their livestock (Barlow and Tipps 1988:9). Thus, the Army was soon followed by settlers, who arrived in September of the same year. Led by Ezra Taft Benson, they constructed a fort and sawmill at the mouth of Big Creek Canyon. On June 19, 1853, Tooele City, covering a nine square mile area, was incorporated as a city (Blanthorn 1994:558-9).

Tooele Valley almost immediately developed into an important agricultural and ranching area in the state. After the discovery of gold and silver ores in the 1860s, the valley became a significant mining center as well (Mercer 1961). By 1850, Grantsville (west of Tooele City) had been settled by 30 families. Both communities were based on ranching and farming but were also supported by mining in the nearby Oquirrh Mountains.

In 1854, Colonel E. J. Steptoe and his command entered Rush Valley, south of the city of Tooele. Steptoe had been sent by President Franklin Pierce to establish a military road through the territory from Salt Lake City to southern California and to capture the murderers of a Lt. Gunnison and his men (Poll et al. 1978; Mercer 1961). The military detachment under Steptoe’s command included 85 mounted dragoons, an artillery company and 136 teamsters. Due to the large number of animals, 450 mules, 300 horses and an unspecified number of cattle, an adequate supply of water and grass was required by Steptoe to maintain this detail. The area around Rush Lake met these needs and Steptoe order the construction of barracks and other military facilities on the east side of the lake. By 1856, Steptoe, with increasing tensions between the military and the Mormons, moved his command to Benecia, California (Mercer 1961).

Upon the abandonment of the post in Rush Valley, Brigham Young ordered the occupation of the post by a company of settlers. The area was used by the Mormons to raise cattle. In 1858, a second army under the command of Albert S. Johnston arrived in Cedar Valley (to the east of Rush Valley) and built Camp Floyd. Johnston commanded an army of 3,500 men which required water and forage for large herds of cattle, mules and horses. Johnston has the herds spread out over a wide area, including Rush and Skull Valleys (located west of Rush Valley). By 1861, the soldiers abandoned Camp Floyd and returned to the east in order to participate in the Civil War.

Johnston’s command was replaced in 1862 by a volunteer army from California led by Colonel Patrick Connor. Connor selected Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City as the site for his post. However, like the commanders before him, he sent a small detachment to Rush Valley to graze and water some of his animals. These men constructed a small post at the present site of Stockton, called Camp Relief (Mercer 1961).

Many of Connor’s men were recruited from the California gold fields, and they were encouraged by Connor to spend time exploring the hills for mineral deposits. They established the first mining districts in the state around Stockton in Rush Valley. On August 6, 1870, the Rush Valley Mining District was filed (Mercer 1961). By the end of the Civil War, the military forces were cut back at Fort Douglas and Connor withdrew form Rush Valley and the camp was taken over by civilian settlers and miners.

The continued discovery of rich mineral deposits in the Oquirrhs and the Salt Flats of Tooele County during the late 1800s caused the economic base of the area to shift from one centered around agriculture to one based on mineral exploitation. In 1864, the Rush Valley Mining District was established and by the 1870s communities such as Ophir and Mercur were boasting of populations of well over 6,000 residents (Utah State Historical Society [USHS] 1988:26). In 1909, the Tooele Valley Railroad was constructed to serve the mines and smelters of the area (Grady 1983:2-49). This rail line helped to boost the economy of the valley by providing a faster and more cost effective means of transporting the ore from the mines to the smelters and then on to outside markets.

The Bonneville Salt Flats also attracted the attention of automobile speed racers, when the hard, dry surface of the salt flats was discovered to be an ideal racing surface. By 1914, the flats were popular with automobile speed racers (Anderson n.d.:22). But it was not until 1925 that the surface of the Bonneville Salt Flats became popular with speed racers from all over the world. In that year, racer Ab Jenkins beat an excursion train by ten minutes in a race across the salt flats (Hallaran 1994:48). Since then, the salt flats have been the site of numerous land speed records.

In 1918 the Lincoln Memorial Highway, the first coast-to-coast automobile road in the United States, was built through Tooele County. Known as the Wendover Cutoff, the highway headed directly west from Salt Lake City to Wendover (Zier 1984:29).

Mining and ranching continued as the primary economy of Tooele County until the start of World War II. With the advent of hostilities overseas, the federal government established numerous military installations in the Tooele Valley for the purposes of bomber training, supply storage, repair of equipment, and chemical and biological warfare testing (USHS 1988:26). By the close of the war, Wendover Air Base, Dugway Proving Ground, and the Tooele Army Depot employed more than 22,000 military personnel and civilians.

In the 1970s, a controversy arose regarding the effects of hazardous waste created by chemical testing at Dugway. The issue of this hazardous material is still being debated. In March of 1993, the BRAC Commission recommended the elimination of the maintenance and supply divisions at the Tooele Army Depot North Area, leaving the main function of the installation as munitions and chemical storage (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 1995:1-1). Following Congressional approval of the recommendation of this action in the fall of 1993, the realignment began with the reduction or transfer of the depot’s maintenance and supply functions. The realignment was officially completed at the close of the federal fiscal year 1995 (September 30, 1995), although small tasks such as the movement of equipment occurred after this (Walden 1995). A 1,684 acre parcel of land in the North Area was excessed, although some of the buildings within this area were retained by the Tooele Army Depot or other agencies to support their missions (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 1995: 2-4). A local redevelopment authority has established an office in the excessed area to facilitate reuse of the buildings.

These military installations remain as Tooele Valley’s largest employers despite the recent cutbacks in defense spending. Ranching, farming, and mining operations still exist in the area, but on a much smaller scale, since most of the land in Tooele County is reserved for military use (USHS 1988:26).

Weber County

General information in the following brief summary of the history of Weber County comes primarily from Roberts and Sadler (1985) and Terry (1988) unless otherwise noted. The occupation of Weber County by Euro-American began during the early 1840s when Miles Goodyear, a fur trapper and trader, established Fort Buenaventura on the western bank of the Weber River. The fort, constructed in 1844, was less than one mile northwest of the western portion of the current project area.

In 1847 and 1848, shortly after the arrival of the Mormon pioneers to the Salt Lake Valley, a group of settlers under the direction of Captain James Brown explored the Ogden area and purchased the fort from Goodyear (Daughters of Utah Pioneers [DUP] 1944:58). They renamed the fort and the small settlement that soon grew up around it, Brown’s Fort or Brownsville, in honor of Captain Brown. During the spring of the following two years, floodwaters from the Weber River inundated the settlement. This flooding instigated a move of the “town site” to higher ground, east side of the river. They built a new fort at approximately 29th Street and Pacific Avenue (Terry 1988:99). Around that time, the settlement received its current name, Ogden City. The next year, in 1851, Henry G. Sherwood officially surveyed the Ogden area and established a grid for the town site. Ogden grew rapidly to become the second largest city in Utah. An active commercial center and many residential districts evolved in the city within the first decade of settlement.

Ogden expanded rapidly in population during the mid-1850s, and by 1860, there were 1,463 residents in the community. Brigham Young, president of the Mormon Church, envisioned Ogden becoming the headquarters for all Mormon settlements in the northern portion of the Utah Territory. As a result, he encouraged many settlers to abandon the forts and farmsteads in the outlying areas, and establish permanent homes and businesses within Ogden City (DUP 1944:77). In 1854, the areas to the north and northwest of Ogden City were surveyed to establish definable farming plots. This led to the creation of three new communities or “districts”; Bingham Fort District, Slaterville District, and North Ogden District (DUP 1944:79).

The Union Pacific Railroad arrived in Ogden during in 1868 and had a major impact on the commercial and residential growth of the area. The size and importance of Ogden City changed significantly with the arrival of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. The completion of the transcontinental railroad provided the impetus for seven other railroads, with 56 steam trains daily, which eventually established themselves in Ogden. The presence of these railroads dramatically increased the industrial, commercial, and agricultural base of the city. It also eased the movement of goods, people, and ideas to and from the area.

By 1870, the population rose from 1,463 residents in 1860 to 3,127 residents, and a decade later this number had risen to 6,069, and by 1890, it had more than doubled to 12,889 (Roberts and Sadler 1985:65). An increase in the number of residents was not the only impact the railroad had on the city’s population. Besides increasing its numbers, it increased the population’s diversity. Before the arrival of the railroad, most of Ogden City’s residents were of northern European descent, primarily from Great Britain. This new diversity included railroad workers of Italian, Greek, Chinese, or African descent (Roberts and Sadler 1985:94-96). Many of these individuals, especially the Chinese workers, chose to remain in Ogden after construction work was completed, or stay to work for railroad-related industries in town.

The completion of the railroad also created many changes in Ogden City’s business landscape. Hundreds of travelers per week made their way into or through Ogden via the many passenger trains servicing the town. New businesses including hotels and restaurants were established to accommodate these travelers. The railroads also provided a valuable service to farmers and ranchers in the farmlands outside of the city. In the late 1800s, the Ogden Livestock Yards were established and thousands of cattle, sheep, and pigs were shipped out of the Ogden area each year. Eight railroads eventually established themselves in Ogden, and as the area grew into a nationally recognized livestock center, the industry grew in importance in the area. An increased commercialization of both the livestock industry and the canning industry mark the period after the arrival of the railroad. As a junction city, Ogden became a center of livestock trade and of canning and export. The strong economic base and the employment opportunities created by the flourishing livestock and canning industries drew many new residents to the area. This provided the impetus for the development of several new residential subdivisions with the city, starting in the 1910s.

Eventually the canning industry grew to be even bigger than the livestock industry, being one of the largest employers in the Ogden area during this time. Although a few small canning factories had been established in Ogden and the surrounding areas (i.e., Roy and Hooper) before the turn of the century, full-scale development of the industry did not begin until the early 1900s. By 1919, more than 46 canneries were in the area (Roberts and Sadler 1985:88-89). Many of these were within Ogden City proper, while others were in the surrounding rural communities. Besides the canning factories, support facilities such as can manufacturing plants and paper box companies also developed around this time.

The economy of the County was definitely looking up in the 1920s. However, the impact of the stock market crash at the end of the decade on Weber County was substantial. As a whole, Utah was one of the states most affected by the Great Depression. At the time of the Great Depression, the economy of Ogden City was largely dependent on the agriculture (livestock and canning included) and railroad industries. As the value of agricultural products plunged, residents began to suffer hardships. The railroad companies could no longer afford to ship locally-produced goods to outside markets. As a result, not only did the farmers, ranchers, and cannery workers have no outlet for their products, but the railroad companies began laying off their own workers. Several canning factories, and many other local business, closed down during the Depression. Some reopened during or after World War II, but many others never did.

In an attempt to boost the economy by providing employment to local residents, many agencies, both private charity and government sponsored, developed public works projects in the mid-1930s. Federal programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the National Youth Administration (NYA), the Public Works Administration (PWA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided employment and assistance to Weber County residents. Relief programs such as these helped to stay residents of Weber County through the Great Depression until the activities of World War II provided a permanent economic recovery.

The establishment of several government installations in Weber County in preparation for World War II also helped the struggling County economy. The establishment of these facilities provided new jobs for thousands of residents left unemployed by the Great Depression. Several new military installations were built in the Ogden area during this time including the Utah General Depot (now the Defense Depot Ogden), the Ogden Arsenal, and Hill Material Air Base (now Hill Air Force Base).

Although in north Davis County, Hill Material Air Base became one of the largest employers for Weber County residents both during and after its construction. Opened in 1939, the WPA constructed the base (Roberts and Sadler 1985:130). In addition to the growth from the new military installations, Ogden increased in importance as a regional railroad junction and freight clearinghouse. Because of its value as a hub of railroad activity, warehousing increased as did commercial activity. In fact, Ogden eventually came to possess the largest warehouse district in Utah (Polk 1989:9).

The post-war period is marked by rapid residential growth in the Ogden area, as a whole. Federal employment continued to play an important role in the economy of the Ogden area throughout the mid-1950s. The establishment of an IRS district office, the Western Internal Revenue Center, at the Defense Depot in late 1956 provided jobs for more than 360 local residents. By 1970, the work load of the center had outgrown the confines of the building at the Depot. As major industries, such as Thiokol Corporation (manufacturer of rocket motors), Kimberly-Clark, Iomega, and Morton International continue to locate in or near Ogden, the area attracts more residents.

The expansion of the population of Ogden and surrounding communities was directly reflected in the creation of new subdivisions and plats. In part, actual construction within the subdivisions was probably spurred by the strong economic growth of the Ogden area between the World Wars and the construction of the Ogden Arsenal in Sunset in 1920 (Roberts and Sadler 1985:114). During and after World War II, the growth of the nearby military establishments of Hill Air Force Base, Defense Depot Ogden and the Clearfield Naval Supply Depot spurred the growth of the newer subdivisions in Weber County.

County History References

Adams, Sarah J. Humphrey. “Layton, a History of Pioneer Days of Layton,” in East of Antelope Island, ed. Annie Call Carr, 118-140. Bountiful, UT: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, Davis County Company, 1948.

Alexander, Thomas G., and David E. Miller. “From War to Depression.” In Utah’s History, edited by Eugene E. Campbell, 463–80. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1989.

Anderson, Garn. “The History of Wendover.” n.d. MS, Sagebrush Consultants, Ogden, Unpublished.

Angus, Mark. Salt Lake City under Foot. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, Inc., 1993.

Anonymous. Morgan County. Ogden, UT: Manuscript on file at the Weber County Library, Main Branch. n.d.

Arrington, Leonard J. Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

Arrington, Leonard J. Great Basin Kingdom: Economic History of the Latter-Day Saints, 1830-1900. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1958.

Barlow, K. Renee and Betsy Tipps. Cultural Resource Inventory of a Proposed Improvement along State Road 112, Tooele County, Utah. PIII Associates, Cultural Resources Report 438-02-8825, Salt Lake City, 1988.

Bartlett, Richard A., and William H. Goetzmann. Exploring the American West, 1803-1879. Washington D.C.: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1982.

Blanthorn, Ouida. A History of Tooele County. Salt Lake City: Tooele County Commission and Utah State Historical Society, 1998.

Bowman, Leonard. “South Weber,” in East of Antelope Island, ed. Annie Call Carr, 172-186. Bountiful, UT: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, Davis County Company, 1948.

Christensen, John E. The Impact of World War II. Utah’s History, ed. by Richard D. Poll, Thomas G. Alexander, Eugene E. Campbell, and David E. Miller, 497-514. Utah’s History. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978.

Cooper, Wallace, and Allen Roberts. Salt Lake City West Side Reconnaissance Survey. Salt Lake City: Cooper/Roberts Architects, 1992.

Daughters of Utah Pioneers [DUP]. Beneath Ben Lomond’s Peak. Salt Lake City: Weber County Daughters of Utah Pioneers Chapter. Quality Press, 1944.

Daughters of Utah Pioneers. Tales of a Triumphant People: A History of Salt Lake County, Utah 1847-1900. Salt Lake City: daughter of Utah Pioneers Salt Lake County Company, 1947.

Dawson, Janic P. Three Sections of East Layton History. Ogden, UT: Department of History, Weber State University, 1980.

Deseret Evening News. “Morgan City, The Land of Flowers, Trees and Happy Homes.” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), December 15, 1906, pg. 61.

Divett, Robert T. “The Medical College of Utah at Morgan.” The Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 48, no. 1 (January 1960).

Grady, Jim. An Archaeological Overview and Management Plan for the Tooele Army Depot. Denver: Stearns-Roger Services, Inc., National Park Service Contract No CX-0001-2-0048, 1983.

Grey, W. “Seven Murray Edifices Nominated for National Historic Register.” Deseret News, December 13, 1989.

Hallaran, Kevin. “Bonneville Salt Flats.” In Utah History Encyclopedia, edited by Alan Kent Powell, 47–48. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994.

Hardy, Zada W. “Davis County,” in East of Antelope Island. ed. Annie Call Carr, 21-23. Bountiful, UT: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, Davis County Company, 1948.

Historical Records Survey. Inventory of County Archives No. 15: Morgan County (Morgan City). Ogden, UT: Historical Records Survey, 1937.

Jolliffe, Arthur T. “Davis County before the Pioneers,” in East of Antelope Island, ed. Annie Call Carr, 15-20. Bountiful, UT: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, Davis County Company, 1948.

Mercer, Mildred A. History of Tooele County. Salt Lake City: daughters of the Utah Pioneers Publishers Press, 1961.

Morgan County School Buildings: An Illustrated History, Morgan, UT: Morgan County Historical Society, 1989

Morgan County Visitor’s Bureau.”Morgan County Utah: Area Map and Business Directory.” Manuscript located at Weber County Library, Main Branch, Ogden, UT.

Morgan, Dale L. The Great Salt Lake. Albuquerque: Ray A. Billington, 1973.

Ogden Standard Examiner. “Inducing Tourists to Stop and Spend.” Ogden Standard Examiner (Ogden, UT), July 7, 1991, pg. D1.

Polk, Michael R. A Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of Washington Boulevard, Ogden, Utah. Archaeological Report No. 347, Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants, Ogden, 1989.

Poll, Richard D., Thomas G. Alexander, Eugene E. Campbell, and David E. Miller. Utah’s History. Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1978.

Powell, Allan Kent. Utah History Encyclopedia. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994.

Roberts, Richard C. and Richard W. Sadler. Ogden: Junction City. Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge, California, 1985.

Roberts, Richard C. R, and Richard w. Sadler. The Weber River Basin: Grass Roots Democracy and Water Development. Logan: Utah State University Press1994.

Roylance, Ward J. Utah, a Guide to the State. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah, a Guide to the State Foundation, 1982.

Stuart, Mark E. A Revised Summary of Morgan County Archaeology. On file at the Division of State History, salt Lake City, UT. 1983.

Terry, William W. Weber County is Worth Knowing. Privately published, Ogden, 1988.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Disposal and Reuse of the BRAC Parcel at Tooele Army Depot. Prepared for U.S. Army Material Command by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, with technical assistance from Tetra Tech, Inc., 1995

Utah State Historical Society. Utah’s Counties, Beehive History No. 14. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City. 1988.

Van Cott, John W. Utah Place Names: A Comprehensive Guide to the Origins of Geographic Names: A Compilation. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1990.

Van Wagoner, R. S. Lehi: Portraits of a Utah Town. Lehi: Lehi City Corporation, 1990.

Van Wagoner, Wayne L. “Mormon Expansion.” In Atlas of Utah, edited by Wayne L. Van Wagoner, 92–93. Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1981.

Wahlquist, Wayne L., ed. Atlas of Utah. Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1981.

Walden, Malcom. Personal communication. [Conversation on October 18, 1995 between Harold R. Housley of Sagebrush and Malcom Walden, BRAC Director at Tooele Army Depot, regarding the BRAC area.] Notes on file at Sagebrush, Ogden, Utah, 1995.

Warner, Ted J. The Dominquez-Escalante Journal: Their Expedition through Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico in 1776. Translated by Fray Angelico Chavez. Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1976.

Works Progress Administration. Utah: A Guide to the State. New York: Hastings House, 1945.

Zier, Christian J. A Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, West-Central, Utah. Metcalf-Zier Archaeologists, Inc., Eagle, Colorado, 1984.

Data Download
  GIS Data Map Service Web Map Document  Tabular Data  Website
Data NameData ExplanationPublication DateSpatial AccuracyContact
National Register of Historic Places
Use to locate historic places on the national register, sites, structures, and buildingsMay, 20141:24,000National Park Service
GoeSights
Interactive map identifying geologic points of interest throughout Utah.Unknown1:24,000Utah Geological Survey
Generalized Archaeology Sites
Use to locate recorded archaeological sites within 320ac. hexagons10/29/2014Generalized dataUtah DivisionUtah State History
Cemeteries
Use to locate cemeteries1/18/131:24,000Utah Division of State History
Historic Districts
Use to locate areas designated as a historic districtMarch 20141:24,000Utah Division of State History
Corey Jensen
UGS Geologic Maps
30'x60' and 7.5' Geologic Maps of UtahVariousVariousUtah Geological Survey
UGS Paleo Sensitivity Areas
Use to identify potential sensitive paleontological areasUnknownUnknownUtah Geological Survey
State Paleontologist's Office
Jim Kirkland
Utah Quaternary Fault and Fold Database
, ,
Compilation of existing information on faults and fault-related folds considered to be potential earthquake sources1/20/2016VariousUtah Geologic Survey
Geological Map of Utah
,
Use to identify geological units20001:500,000Utah Geological Survey

References

  1. Salt Lake County. 2004. Copperton Township General Plan. Salt Lake County Public Works Department, February.
  2. US Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District. 1988. Proposed Pony Express Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, September.
  3. Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. 2013. Final Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan and Record of Decision. Utah Department of Natural Resources, March.
  4. Tooele County. 2008. Tooele County General Plan.
  5. Morgan County. 2010. Moving Forward: Morgan County General Plan. Adopted December 21.
  6. Utah Division of State History. 2004. Historic Resources County Resource Planning Webpage. Accessed: 2/24/16.
  7. Utah Heritage Foundation. 2013. Profits Through Preservation. Accessed: 2/24/16.