Cultural, Historical, Geological, and Paleontological Resources


Human and natural resources which have intrinsic value based on their age, heritage, scientific or other intangible significance.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Map of Data


Download mxd

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


Resource Information

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.

Cultural resources include archaeological sites, standing structures (e.g., buildings, bridges), and even places of importance that are more than 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) that 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 et seq.) protects significant paleontological resources and applies to all paleontological resources that are on or eligible for inclusion in the State Paleontological Register.

Geology is also important in resource planning to highlight unique geologic features and sights as well as identify potential hazards to development, including:

  • Faults
  • Landslides/rockfall potential
  • Soil liquefaction potential (temporary loss of soil strength and stiffness during an earthquake or other applied stress)

The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) provides technical information and assistance regarding earthquakes and geologic hazards.

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


Best Management Practices

The following are examples of goals and policies from existing county plans and federal land management plans that could be included or modified for county resource management plans.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

  • Emery County has an abundance of prehistoric and archeological resources as well as a strong cultural heritage. Emery County’s past, which includes dinosaurs, Native Americans, early settlers, and the mining industry, is proudly displayed and depicted in numerous museums and points of interest. Emery County will work with state and federal agencies to protect these resources [1].
  • Emery County views the preservation of its heritage and culture and its associated heritage and tourism industries as a critical part of the planning process. The preservation of heritage and cultural resources, including access to the sites and settings of local history, has great significance for the citizens of Emery County [1].
  • Preserve cultural resources in their current locations whenever possible, and give very careful consideration before altering, destroying, or removing these resources [2].
  • Preserve the reminders of Carbon County’s recent and more distant past as important resources for all members of the community to enjoy [2].
  • Ensure that county policy is consistent with the Federal Antiquities Act [2].
  • Coordinate with State Historic Preservation Office, the review of any cultural or historic designation proposals [2].
  • Describe, as appropriate, high interest or unique geological, paleontological, biological, archeological, or historical features for public information and, as appropriate, develop interpretive information for these sites [3].
  • Reasonable and effective stipulations and conditions to protect against damage to cultural resources should accompany decisions to issue mineral leases, permit drilling, and permit seismic activities in the Public Lands Region. Such drilling and seismic activities should not be disallowed merely because they are in the immediate vicinity of the above-described cultural resources if it is shown that such activities will not damage those resources [4].
  • Locate, evaluate, and protect significant paleontological resources. Provide for public visitation and education opportunities while simultaneously protecting and supporting the scientific and research value of paleontological resources [5].

Geologic Hazards

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


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].
  • The world-famous geological resources Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park are located in Southeastern Utah. Together, these parks attracted 1,523,529 visitors in the year 2012 [8].


Impact Considerations - Cultural Resources

When planning for projects that would change the landscape of a county, valley, river, mountain, or even a parcel of land, it is important to take into consideration the potential effects that the projects may have on the area’s cultural resources. The following discussion will provide some understanding of the potential effects to significant cultural resources. Because the application of the laws and regulations for cultural resources are complex, 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 archaeological sites, historic sites, and standing structures in those locations that may be of importance to many people. This may be true for resources that seem uninteresting, are in disrepair, or even in ruins. The history and importance of a location cannot always be easily determined. That’s why it’s important to consult a cultural resources professional, whether it be one employed by a federal or state agency, or a private consultant.

Types of Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include archaeological sites, standing structures (e.g., buildings, bridges), and places of importance that are more than 50 years of age. There are many types of cultural resources that could be encountered in the SEUALG area. It is important to remember that all cultural sites are not important or significant, and that those not considered such would not be affected by any planned projects.

A list of cultural resource types that are often found in this area can be found below. This list is not exhaustive, but it may be helpful in determining what resources should be considered during project planning.

Very Rural, Desert, or Mountain Settings
In very rural areas, such as high mountains and deserts, archaeological sites will be the most prominent of all cultural resources. Depending upon the presence of fresh water sources and other features of value to prehistoric and historic peoples, the following kinds of sites can be expected:

Prehistoric sites in very rural settings may include:

  • Lithic scatters or chipping stations
  • Campsites
  • Pueblos
  • Irrigation features and agricultural fields
  • Road features
  • Rock art
  • Processing sites
  • Quarry sites (where rock materials were acquired for making tools)

Historic sites in very rural settings may include:

  • Cabins
  • Mines
  • Railroads
  • Industrial sites
  • Roads/trails
  • Small, isolated town sites
  • Transmission, telephone and telegraph lines

Rural Settings
This setting includes areas where small towns exist, in areas where subdivisions may be planned, in developed recreation sites, and in agricultural areas such as farms and orchards.

Prehistoric sites in rural settings may include:

  • Sites similar to those listed above
  • Larger village sites if permanent water sources are present and elevation is not high

Historic sites in rural settings may include:

  • Sites similar to those listed above
  • Town sites
  • Agricultural activity sites
  • Canals and ditches
  • Farmsteads
  • Fences
  • Orchards and associated buildings

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. Remnants of agricultural elements from earlier time periods might also be present. Linear sites, such as historic transmission lines and pipelines, would be reduced in number or not visible.

Prehistoric sites in urban settings may include:

  • Sites similar to those 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, and fire hydrants

Project Impacts on Cultural Resources
In resource planning, it is important to consider the nature of potential impacts from proposed projects. 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 in 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 area and provide information about what types and quantity of sites to be expected. Cultural resource professionals can also conduct literature searches through the SHPO database, which can yield the best information available prior to finalizing a plan or project.

If a project is subject to federal or state agency oversight, it is important to seek guidance from the lead 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 will most likely include the project footprint and perhaps a buffer area. Pedestrian surveys usually require 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 feet) 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 conducting the inventory will evaluate 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 recommendations. Should a site be determined eligible to the NRHP by a federal agency, it will be designated as a 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 adverse effects (destruction or even a minor impact) on the site.

Prior planning is very important to know what kinds of cultural resources might be found in a project area 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 that 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
Visual impact evaluation requirements are usually determined by the lead agency of the project. In some cases, construction of power lines, housing developments, industrial parks, and pipelines can trigger the need to take into account visual effects to cultural resources. Also be aware that consideration of visual effects to cultural sites under Section 106 is different than visual effect studies which may be undertaken as part of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies.

Human Remains
Another possible consideration is that of human remains or burials. While not frequent, it is vitally important that legal processes be followed if human remains are encountered. Proper procedures must be followed for encountering burials regardless of whether a project is subject to Section 106 or on private property.

Procedures when encountering a Native American grave differ from that of the graves other persons, 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.

Native American Considerations
It is very important to consider that it may be necessary to consult with specific Native American tribes when planning for projects. If projects are to be undertaken on federal lands, or have federal funding or federal licensing, it will be necessary to consult with tribes about concerns that they may have about sites of interest to them within the project area. There may also be instances when this is the case with projects subject to state laws. Generally, federal agencies are the only entities allowed to formally consult with tribes, but there is much coordination activity that must occur in conjunction with this consultation that may fall to the proponent or their consultant. Tribes may be aware of archaeological sites located within project areas, and there may be traditional cultural properties (TCPs), which are sites or resources that are important to tribes because of their “association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community’s history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community”[9]. Note that TCPs are usually associated with tribes, but are not limited to Native Americans. Specific ethnic, religious, fraternal and other kinds of groups may also find particular locations important to them which may be considered traditional cultural properties. Standards for establishing the existence of TCPs are high. It is best to engage professionals with an understanding of the regulations and the ability to undertake the research necessary to establish or verify a claim of a particular TCP.

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 good 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 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.
  • The Bureau of Indian Affairs is helpful for identifying tribes in the region; these contacts change regularly.
Impact Considerations - Paleontological Resources

When planning for projects that would change the landscape of a county, valley, river, mountain, or even a parcel of land, it is important to take into consideration the potential effects that the projects may have on the area’s paleontological resources. There are certainly fewer instances where paleontological resources will be of concern in the planning process than cultural resources, but it is important to be informed about this subject in the planning process. It is often good to consult with a professional paleontologist concerning how to proceed with a particular project, though taking a step before this may not require such consultation.

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. In areas where geologic formations occur,  there may be fossils. For example, there are Jurassic Period deposits in the San Rafael Swell. The Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, in Emery County, is located in this area. This quarry was designated a National Natural Landmark in 1965 and contains the densest concentration of Jurassic dinosaur fossils ever found.

Paleontology requires an understanding of the geologic history of the southeastern Utah and where such formations and deposits may be exposed. A good place to begin due diligence concerning this topic is the Utah Geological Survey website concerning paleontological resources. This website provides an oversight and information about fossil resource existing conditions, policy and position statements, goals and objectives, monitoring methods, and sources of assistance.

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 clarify if there may be paleontological resources within a project 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 about state laws and regulations concerning paleontological resources and how to proceed. In some cases, no further effort may be needed. However, depending upon the situation and where a project lies, a professional paleontologist may be needed.

There are no Utah State requirements for paleontological resources on private lands. If the State Paleontologist identifies 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 US 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 any county in southeastern Utah.

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, or 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 by a geologic formation classification system and a sensitivity classification of fossil localities, both suggested by the 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 consists 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 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, the 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. 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. Utah Geological Survey

Prehistoric and Ethnographic Overview

BRIEF PREHISTORIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

Counties of Carbon, Emery, Grand and San Juan

Paleoindian Period (ca. 11,500–8000 B.P.)
Regarded as the earliest human occupation in southeastern Utah, as with the rest of North America, the Paleoindian Period dates from approximately 11,500 to 8,000 B.P. (Frison 1991:39; Schroedl 1991). This era is characterized by small, nomadic or semi-nomadic groups of hunters. The artifact assemblages of this period include large lanceolate projectile points, spurred end scrapers, gravers, borers, crescents, and unique styles of bone tools (Frison 1991; Pierson 1980:23; Schroedl 1991). Distinctive projectile points of this era have been categorized according to shape and age, with Clovis being the oldest, followed by Folsom and Plano. Paleoindian surface finds in the area surrounding the project are widely distributed and few in number. No Paleoindian sites or remains have been found in the immediate vicinity of the survey area. The end of the Paleoindian Period and the termination of the Pleistocene is marked by dramatic climatic and environmental changes including an overall drying trend and warmer temperatures, which may have contributed to the extinction of mega fauna. Regardless, these changes brought about a different life-way known as the Archaic Period.

Archaic Period (ca. 8,000–1,500 B.P.)
In general, the lengthy Archaic tradition is characterized by a shift in hunting toward smaller game, a greater dependency upon plant resources, and the commencement of agriculture (Horn, Reed, and Chandler 1994:105). This economic transition is a result of the adaptation to a semi-arid, high-desert environment and was relatively more labor intensive than those adopted by the earlier Paleoindian traditions.

During the Archaic Period the population was low and highly mobile, with habitations consisting of rockshelters and temporary open encampments (Lipe 1993:2). The artifact assemblages of this period include a higher frequency of items relating to plant procurement and processing, such as grinding slabs, milling stones, manos, coiled basketry, roasting pits, and storage cists. Projectile points become smaller and more variable reflecting the hunting of game, such as deer, elk, antelope, and mountain sheep, and the use of the spear thrower or atlatl. Common point types include corner-notched and side-notched varieties and some stemmed points (Drager and Ireland 1986:597). Additional artifacts recovered from sites associated with the Archaic Period include netting, fur cloth, bone awls, cordage, woven sandals, atlatls, snares, traps, and digging tools (Jennings 1978:45-54). Moreover, an early form of maize agriculture appears to have been practiced in east central Utah during this period, likely to supplement hunting and gathering subsistence activities (Jett 1991:25, 29; Westfall, Davis, and Blinman 1987:8).

Archaic sites and artifacts are relatively common throughout Utah. Sites affiliated with the Archaic Period near the current project area include numerous open lithic scatters classified as chipping sites, short-term camps, habitation sites, specialized tool manufacture sites, and lithic quarries (Black et al.1981; Davis and Westfall 1988; Westfall 1984).

Formative Period (ca. 1,700–700 B.P.)
The next prehistoric period represented in Utah, commonly referred to as the Formative Period, includes the Anasazi and Fremont cultural traditions. Fremont sites in Utah are primarily located north of the Colorado River and extend across Utah and east into west-central Colorado, while the Anasazi sites of southeastern Utah are primarily located south of the Colorado River and extend east into west-central Colorado and south to the Four Corners region. Hence, northern San Juan County is situated in a Fremont-Anasazi transitional zone, where sites possessing traits of both prehistoric traditions have been identified (Black et al. 1981:32). Prehistoric culture changed drastically during the Formative Period. Great developments in technology, subsistence patterns, and artistic styles seen in the archaeological record have resulted in the subdivision of the Anasazi into two major categories, the earlier Basketmaker followed by the Pueblo, and still further classification within those two categories.

The general trend from the earlier Archaic Period groups to those of the Formative Period is that of increased reliance upon plant resources and agricultural practices, as well as a shift toward more sedentary lifeways. As groups became more dependent upon plant resources, activities associated with food processing, preservation, harvesting, and storage began to emerge. Evidence of this can be seen in the archaeological record as pottery, basket making, and storage pits increased in number and complexity over time.

During the Formative Period, habitation sites also became more complex. Both the Fremont and the Anasazi are also known to have employed caves, rockshelters, and niches in cliff faces for both food storage and habitation throughout the Formative Period. However, dwellings also included partially excavated floors, stone masonry, adobe and wood walls, elaborate pithouses, and log foundations (Kehoe 1992:120-121; Jennings 1978:107-128, 184; Lipe 1993:2; Marwitt 1986:170). It is near the end of this era that the Anasazi began to construct multi-room dwellings, or “great houses”, and kivas, which are ritualistic or ceremonial subterranean rooms. Kiva and great house sites in San Juan County are located in Montezuma Canyon, Bluff, Cottonwood and Comb washes, the Edge of the Cedars, and in the Natural Bridges/Cedar Mesa area (McPherson 1995:35-36). This time period is also marked by an increasing sophistication within communities. More permanent dwellings coupled with larger villages opened the door to more structured religion, politics, economics, and society as a whole.

Although there is much debate as to the reasons why, archaeological evidence indicates that Anasazi and Fremont groups abandoned the area by 700–550 B.P. (Kehoe 1992:368; Marwitt 1986:171; McPherson 1995:37). After this period in time, the unique cultural traditions associated with the Formative Era are no longer represented in San Juan County.

Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 700–200 B.P.)
After the abandonment of the area by the Fremont and Anasazi around 700 B.P., linguistic and archaeological evidence indicates that early Numic speakers, such as the Ute and Southern Paiute, had become the primary occupants of southeastern Utah. By this time, the Navajo were also located in southeast Utah as well as northeastern Arizona, southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico. Coming from the west, the migration of Numic speakers into the Great Basin region may have begun as early as 900 B.P. (Tipps, La Fond, and Birnie 1996:14; Reed 1994:188). Numic speakers were well-adapted to the arid desert environment and often took up residence in the habitations abandoned by Fremont and Anasazi peoples (Aikens and Witherspoon 1986). They utilized bent willow and cottonwood branches to make shelters called wickiups. Plant resources were used to make nets, baskets, clothing, and footwear, and they tanned animal hides to make clothing, containers, and tepees. The Ute and Southern Paiute were skilled foragers and hunters and had an acute ability to exploit the diverse resources of the desert environment, although some small-scale horticultural activities are known to have taken place. Another group to migrate into this region of Utah during the time period was the Navajo, or Athabaskan speakers, from the north. The Navajo lived more pastoral lives, rather than agricultural. The traditional Navajo dwelling was a hogan, a rounded house of forked poles and covered with earth or adobe. Archaeological evidence of the Navajo in the area is infrequent and mostly limited to small, short-term camps and isolated ceramic finds (Black et al.1981:116-120).

During the late 1800s, in a number of different moves, the US government forcibly relocated most indigenous groups remaining in the area to several established reservations, including the Utes to the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, the Southern Paiute to several reservation locations in southwestern Utah and the Navajo, first in 1863 to Fort Defiance, Arizona, and then to Fort Sumner, New Mexico. After negotiations with the Federal Government, the Navajo were able to begin to return to their original homeland, now the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. Despite these disruptions to the native communities, sporadic use of the San Juan County area continued for hunting and trading activities well into the 20th Century, as well as, being a thoroughfare for migration (Horn, Reed, and Chandler 1994:130-148).

References Cited

Aikens, C. Melvin and Younger T. Witherspoon. 1986. Great Basin Numic Prehistory: Linguistics, Archaeology, and Environment. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C.J. Condie and D.D. Fowler. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110: 7-20.

Black, Kevin D., James M. Copeland, Steven M. Horvath, and William A. Lucius. 1981. An Archaeological Survey of the Lisbon Valley Study Tract in the Moab District, San Juan County, Utah. Utah State Antiquities Permit No. U-81-CD-0423b. Centuries Research, Inc., Lakewood, Colorado.

Davis, William E. And Deborah Westfall. 1988. Archaeological Data Recovery at Sites 42SA17444 and 42SA17446; Union Oil Company of California Proposed Lisbon Field Drill Location A-710 and Access Route, San Juan County, Utah. On file at BLM Grand Resource Area, Moab, Utah.

Drager, Dwight L. and Arthur K. Ireland (editors). 1986. 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, Utah

Frison, G. C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Inc., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, San Diego.

Horn, John, Alan Reed, and Susan Chandler. 1994. Grand County Resource Area Class I Cultural Inventory (Draft). Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Montrose, Colorado.

Jennings, Jesse D. 1978. Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 98. Salt Lake City.

Jett, Stephen C. 1991. Split-Twig Figurines, Early Maize, and a Child Burial in East-Central Utah. Utah Archaeology 4(1):23-31.

Kehoe, Alice B. 1992. North American Indians: A Comprehensive Account. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Lipe, William D. 1993. The Basketmaker II Period in the Four Corners Area. In Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers from the 1990 Wetherill–Grand Gulch Symposium, edited by Victoria M. Atkins, pp. 1-12. Cultural Resource Series No. 24, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.

Marwitt, John P. 1986. Fremont Cultures. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 161-172. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

McPherson, Robert S. 1995. A History of San Juan County. Utah State Historical Society, San Juan County Commissioners, Salt Lake City.

Pierson, Lloyd M. 1980. Cultural Resource Summary of the East Central Portion of Moab District. Resource Series No. 10, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah.

Reed, Alan D. 1994. The Numic Occupation of Western Colorado and Eastern Utah during the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. In: Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D.B. Madsen and D. Rhode. University of Utah Press.

Schroedl, Alan R. 1991. Paleo-Indian Occupation in the Eastern Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau. Utah Archaeology 1991   4 (1):1-15.

Tipps, Betsy, Andreˈ D. La Fond, and Robert I. Birnie. 1996. Cultural Resource Investigations near White Crack, Island-in-the-Sky District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Cultural Resource Selections No. 11. Intermountain Region, National Park Service, Denver.

Westfall, Deborah A. 1984. Cultural Resource Inventories of Sefel Geophysical, Ltd. Seismograph Lines: Dry Valley and Montezuma Creek, San Juan County, Utah. Utah State Antiquities Permit No. U-84-AS-0314b. Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah.

Westfall, Deborah A., William E. Davis, and Eric Blinman. 1987. Green Spring: An Anasazi and Southern Paiute Encampment in the St. George Basin of Utah. Cultural Resource Series No. 21, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Brief County Histories
Carbon County
Emery County
Grand County
San Juan County
County History References
Data Download
  GIS Data Map Service Web Map Document  Tabular Data  Website
Data NameData ExplanationPublication DateSpatial AccuracyContact
UGS Geologic Maps
30'x60' and 7.5' Geologic Maps of UtahVariousVariousUtah Geological Survey
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
Generalized Archaeology Sites
Use to locate recorded archaeological sites within 320ac. hexagons10/29/2014Generalized dataUtah DivisionUtah State History
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
UGS Paleo Sensitivity Areas
Use to identify potential sensitive paleontological areasUnknownUnknownUtah Geological Survey
State Paleontologist's Office
Jim Kirkland
Historic Districts
Use to locate areas designated as a historic districtMarch 20141:24,000Utah Division of State History
Corey Jensen
Geological Map of Utah
,
Use to identify geological units20001:500,000Utah Geological Survey
Cemeteries
Use to locate cemeteries1/18/131:24,000Utah Division of State History

References

  1. Emery County. 2012. Emery County General Plan.
  2. Carbon County. 1997. Carbon County Master Plan.
  3. US Forest Service. 1986. Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
  4. San Juan County. 2008. San Juan County Master Plan, March.
  5. Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. October 2008. 182 p.
  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.
  8. National Park Service. 2016. Park Statistics. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
  9. Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service.