Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex, Long Valley Road Exit from State Route 7, Washington

Source document Quoted word for word from HALS UT-7. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

The significance of the Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex was established by archaeologists who conducted surveys between and with an update of the survey in Patricia Stavish recommended the Erosion Control Complex as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places for its association on a national level with the Great Depression and the work relief programs resulting from it, including the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Soil Conservation Service now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service The site is also significant on a regional and local level for the contributions of the CCC and the SCS to the revitalization of agricultural and rangelands in the arid Southwest through the construction of erosion control structures similar to those found here.

The site is locally significant for its association with the settlement and early history of Washington City, Utah, by Mormon colonists and their struggle to divert water from the Virgin River to irrigate their crops. The site contains significant "Rustic Architecture," a style of vernacular architecture used extensively by the CCC program in some form for construction projects ranging from the simple (e.g. erosional control features) to highly sophisticated (e.g., buildings). Stavish commented that many conservation projects constructed by the CCC in the southwestern United States tried to adhere to the principles of rustic architectural style.

One of these principles applicable to the Long Valley site was to maintain the setting where the features were constructed as natural in appearance as possible, where the manmade structures were subordinate to the environment. Stavish determined that the property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important archaeological information about the erosional control complex or the overall contributions of the CCC program to the local or regional history. WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 2

Source document Quoted word for word from HALS UT-7. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

Susan Crook, ASLA, PLA, PART I. HISTORICAL INFORMATION A. Date of Establishment Enrollees from the Civilian Conservation Corps camp based in Leeds, Utah constructed the Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex between October 1, and March 31, The Soil Conservation Service designed and supervised the completion of this complex of erosion control structures designed to protect a section of the Washington Canal, one of the primary water conveyance features that carried water to the Washington Fields (Harper et. al., p. B.

Historical Context The survival of the agrarian community of Washington City, Utah, founded in by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), depended on their success at diverting water from the Virgin River to irrigate a large area of arable land, known as the Washington Fields. Successful damming of the river eluded the settlers until when they were able to construct a rock dam at a site in the river channel where bedrock created a natural rock foundation for the dam. The cooperative Washington Fields Canal Company then built the Washington Canal (Canal) to carry water from the reservoir created by the dam to the Washington Fields. The new Canal, however, required constant maintenance.

Spring runoff and summer monsoonal storms caused the Virgin River to flood, sending floodwaters into the Canal that clogged it with soil and debris. Overgrazing by cattle and sheep in the late and early accelerated soil erosion in upland areas along the River. Sheet wash from heavy rain storms regularly carried sand and silt into the Canal Larsen Shamo In March of the Washington Field Canal Company requested assistance from the newly formed Soil Conservation Service District Manager, Quate, to obligate resources that would protect the Canal and other ditches that carried water to the Washington Fields from the effects of erosion. New Deal in Washington County President Franklin D. Roosevelt made preventing soil erosion one of the priorities of the New Deal.

The Soil Conservation Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps were established to restore watersheds and rangelands through erosion control projects (Shamo p. 8). One hundred and two CCC camps were established in Utah between and While most of the men who enrolled in the CCC in other parts of the country were sent to another region, most of the enrollees in Utah were assigned to a camp in the state. Washington County was home to 15 CCC camps, more than any other county in Utah. Camps were affiliated with government agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 3 or Grazing Service.

Projects included building trails and campgrounds, improving roadways and bridges, and building structures to prevent wildfires and flash flooding. The Soil Conservation Service oversaw companies that worked on erosion control and irrigation projects in Washington County (Shamo p. 9) Upstream engineering, the concept devised by the SCS for dissipating the force of storm water before it became a channelized torrent, was the erosion control method used on the Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex. Rather than trying to minimize the damaging effects of flooding at its point of impact, as early Washington and St. George residents had done, SCS engineers looked at how they could slow down and spread out flood waters at their source, preventing soil and debris from washing downstream.

(Shamo p. 8) The CCC Camp No. based in Leeds, constructed the Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex. This camp was initially established in October and housed Company commanded by Captain H. G. Chapman. The primary purpose of the camp was to construct a road from Leeds to Oak Grove in the Dixie National Forest, where they built recreational facilities. When Company finished the facilities at Oak Grove, they were transferred to Idaho in March and the Leeds Camp was abandoned. (Harper et. al., p. 10) In October the Leeds Camp was put back into operation for use by the Soil Conservation Service as housing Company The new camp was formed by moving Company 585 from their previous camp, at Gunlock, and supplementing the workforce with men from other SCS camps.

One of the projects undertaken by Company 585 was the construction of the Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex. The work was done between October 1, and March 31, according to camp records obtained from the National Archives by Harper et al., p. The camp constructed similar erosion control structures at other locations in Washington County. The camp was active for the next four years, closing at the end of July After the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, many of the men were either drafted into the army or found jobs in the defense industry. With the Depression over and the U.S. fully involved in World War II, the camp was no longer needed.

Washington City and the Cotton Mission A company of 160 Mormon men, women, and children arrived at the potential location of Washington City, about a mile north of the Virgin River, with 200 head of cattle, some sheep, pigs and chickens on May 7, Their leader was Bishop Robert D. Covington, a former plantation owner from the Southern U.S. who is celebrated as the founder of Washington City. One of the group members, Crawford, observed in a letter to the editor of the Deseret News that the location had plenty of land, water and timber and would be a good place to raise cotton (Larson p. Crawford s optimistic assessment echoed that of earlier Mormon explorers. Parley P.

Pratt led a company of 50 men into southwest Utah in1849 with a commission from the Legislative WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 4 Assembly of the State of Deseret, the theocratic government set up by Brigham Young after the first company of Mormons arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in Pratt arrived at the confluence of Ash Creek and the Virgin River with 20 of his men on New Year s Day He reported a floodplain of about a mile wide and several miles long with loose, sandy soil, extremely fertile, easily watered and sometimes subject to overflow. The only timber he saw was large cottonwoods along the stream, suitable for temporary building and fuel. (Larson p. John D.

Lee led a party of eleven men to the Virgin River Valley in early The Deseret News published his enthusiastic description of the area where Washington and the Washington Fields were later located on April 3, As we descended this stream [the Virgin], the bottom continued to widen out, and the amount of timber increases affording land and other facilities sufficient in many places, to warrant small settlements .At a distance of 15 miles from camp we found ourselves in one of the most pleasant and lovely valleys that the mountains afford. It is about 5 miles in diameter. The soil is of a lively alluvial nature; and of a dark chocolate color, and easily irrigated; banks of the streams low.

The climate is of a mild temperature; the sun here rises without being hid behind the mountains so that its morning and evening smiles are fully appreciated by the favored vegetation of this valley. (Larson p. 6) Lee also mentioned that by February the grapevines and cottonwood were almost leafed out and the dock and other early herbs were in bloom. Shamo p. 3) observed that the Mormon s glowing reports said more about their belief in their ability to cultivate the land than actual knowledge about local ecology. The high hopes of Covington and his band of colonists were soon dashed by the realities of coping with the erratic Virgin River, unpredictable weather, and scarce desert forage for domestic animals. Shamo p.

1) wrote, Since the first Mormon settlements were established in the mid-nineteenth century, residents constantly struggled to build and repair irrigation systems. Flooding from the Virgin River sent high volumes of water, mud and debris which destroyed dams and silted up ditches, leaving a path of destruction in their wake. An report on the cost of irrigation systems revealed that these cash-strapped southern Utah communities had expended on irrigation systems in less than a decade. The Washington Fields alone accounted for about of those costs. (Shamo, Covington s group consisted primarily of Southerners experienced in cotton growing who were called by Brigham Young to colonize Utah s Dixie so named for the mild climate in order to grow cotton.

The land east of the Virgin River was considered ideal for this purpose. Brigham Young envisioned a network of settlements producing goods appropriate to the resources around them that would make the Latter-Day Saints self-sufficient. The cost and availability of cotton was uncertain with tensions between the North and South escalating. Any WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 5 goods brought into the intermountain west had to be freighted in wagons from the west coast or from cities to the east. The completion of the transcontinental railroad was over a decade away. The success of the Cotton Mission was deemed essential, but it could only succeed by reliably diverting water from the Virgin River to irrigate the crop.

Spring runoff and monsoonal summer thunderstorms washed out dams made of earth and brush, and filled irrigation canals and ditches with sand and silt year after year. In the cooperative Washington Fields Canal Company approved a new method of dam building a pile dam. The dam was made of four rows of timbers driven into the riverbed and bolted together with stringers cross-tied between the rows of timbers to form cribs for rocks. This method required considerably more effort and expense than the failed brush and earth dams. The timber for the piles was cut and hauled from the Pine Valley Mountains. Iron was hauled from Washington City to Enoch in Iron County for the casting of a large hammer to drive the piles. The 900-pound pile driver was ready in February and work began.

Rocks were rolled down from the mountains on either side of the river to fill the cribs. Work on the dam continued into January delayed by sickness from malaria among the workers, and weakness in of the teams of horses from failure of the lucerne (alfalfa) crop for lack of irrigation water. (Larson p. Charles W. Seegmiller, commenting on the pile dam s completion in a interview with Karl Larson p. remarked, Well, we finished it, looked at it with satisfaction, and then said, Now there is a dam that will be permanent; we have mastered the river at last! Their jubilation was short-lived. On December 7, the largest flood on the Virgin to that date heavily damaged the dam. A subsequent flood of the same magnitude followed in short order, destroying it. This was the last straw for many.

Within a few years, nearly half of Washington s residents had given up and moved away. Those who remained determined that an all rock dam was the only solution for damming the Virgin River. The Canal Company chose a new site upriver where bedrock in the river channel created a stable foundation for the dam. The rock dam proved the most expensive, but best solution, costing nearly The larger dam along with a holding reservoir and new ditches also increased the amount of arable land. Although the rock dam [built in proved to be the solution Washington City residents hoped for, the Canal still required constant maintenance and improvements. (Shamo p. 6).

This prompted the Washington Field Canal Company request for assistance from the SCS to obligate resources that would protect the Canal and other ditches that carried water to the Washington Fields from the effects of erosion. While the residents were working to hold back the devastating floods, they were contributing to the increasing intensity and frequency of the floods with their farming and livestock grazing practices. When raising cotton and other crops proved to be impractical and unprofitable, residents turned to the raising of domestic sheep, goats, and cattle as an alternative. The demand for cattle dramatically increased during the and to feed the growing populations of St. George, Washington and the mining boomtown of Silver Reef.

Alfalfa replaced cotton on the Washington Fields. Any available rangeland became overgrazed. By about cattle ranged in Washington County (Shamo p. 6) WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 6 PART II. PHYSICAL INFORMATION Landscape Character and Description The study site is on an approximately 606-acre parcel in Long Valley bounded on the west and north by State Route-7 and on the east by the centerline of Warner Ridge. The Washington Dome parallels Warner Ridge on the west side of Long Valley beyond the highway. Access is at the north end of the parcel from Long Valley Road where it goes under at the Long Valley Road Exit and becomes a dirt road.

Long Valley Road runs through the parcel in a southwesterly direction along an intermittent drainage at the center of the valley for about 1.6 miles until it is blocked by (Image 1). The Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex is located at the base and along the slopes of the eastern side of Washington Dome (Image 2). The erosion control structures are scattered along about a mile stretch west of Long Valley Road starting about a quarter of a mile south of the beginning of the dirt section of the road. They are built across gullies and channels that drain toward the center of Long Valley. The grade breaks at a high point of feet in the center of the valley near the south end of the study site, sending runoff northeast and southwest.

The soils on the study site are Pintura loamy fine sand on 1 to 5 percent slopes on either side of the road in the center of the valley, Nikey sandy loam (NLE) on 3 to 15 percent slopes at the base of the Washington Dome along and Laverkin fine sandy loam on 2 to 5 percent slopes where Long Valley Road ends at The upper slopes of the Washington Dome are classified as Badland (BA). The western slope of Warner Ridge is classified as Badland, very steep A badland is defined by the as, A landscape that is intricately dissected and characterized by a very fine drainage network with high drainage densities and short, steep slopes and narrow interfluves [regions between the valleys of adjacent watercourses, especially in a dissected upland].

Badlands develop on surfaces that have little or no vegetative cover overlying unconsolidated or poorly cemented materials (clays, silts, or sandstones) with, in some cases, soluble minerals, such as gypsum or halite. Native desert shrub vegetation on the site includes creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), sand sage (Artemsia filifolia), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and bunch grasses. Character Defining Features The steep slopes of Warner Ridge on the east and the gentler slopes of the Washington Dome west of frame Long Valley, dominating the landscape. the Southern Parkway, defines the western and northern boundaries of the Long Valley parcel.

Culverts under the parkway carry stormwater from the gullies on the slopes of the Washington Dome to outfalls on the east side of the roadway where the gullies continue. WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 7 The Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex was built along the gullies at the base of the Washington Dome to prevent eroding sediment and debris from washing down Long Valley into the Washington Fields Canal. The erosion control structures were constructed using native soil and rock. They blend in with the landscape from a distance, but are obviously constructed when seen up close. Three types of erosion control structures were documented: 1) earthen berms, 2) rock spreaders, and 3) gully plugs.

Piles of unused, stockpiled rock near the erosion control structures were also documented. The berms, rock spreaders and gully plugs work together to intercept and slow the velocity of stormwater runoff so it can drop its sediment load and percolate into the hillside. The earthen berms, loose earthfill diversion dams, are the nucleus of the erosion-control structures. They were built across washes and gullies to capture and divert streamflow. They consist of a berm of dirt placed perpendicular to the wash or gully. The excavated basin acts as both a reservoir and a desilting pond. They were generally spaced 10 meters apart along the wash, but the distance varies depending on the situation. The Leeds CCC Camp built his kind of feature in various project areas throughout Washington County.

(Harper A cluster of 43 earthen berms at the southwest end of the study site are almost uniform in their size and spacing, following the standard specifications described above. Rows of linear berms were generally constructed an equal distance apart across tributaries of larger gullies (Image 3). Berms were demolished during the construction of Earthen Berms C34 and C43 (Images 50, 51) are in good condition and are typical of the remaining berms in the cluster. Most of the other earthen berms on the site are larger with curving alignments varying from slight crescents to U and S shapes, and with rock spreaders at one or both ends. Earthen Berm J (Image 11) is one of the larger berms on the site, with a linear distance measured on a tangent from end-to-end of about 180 feet.

Rock Spreader I is attached to its northeast end. Rock spreaders, the second type of feature, were either linear or u-shaped, depending on their intended function. Linear spreaders were typically constructed on gently-sloping terrain by placing boulders and cobbles up to fourteen inches in diameter along the contour of a slope to either collect and divert water to dams, slow or prevent sheet flow, or collect water-born sediments. Silt was deposited behind rocks with the gaps between rocks allowing water to pass through. The nutrient-rich soil deposits trapped behind the rocks provided beds for plant growth. (Harper p. 26) Feature DO4.5 is an example of a linear rock spreader (Images 46, 47) with no associated earthen berm or headwall. It is mostly intact.

Rock Spreaders C and D, attached to either end of Earthen Berm E, appear to be linear, but their original shape is unclear because they are severely eroded (Images 6, 7). Rock Spreader AC (Images 28, 29) is a variation on the linear design with a tail at the end on a 45-degree angle. U-shaped rock spreaders were typically built as part of a larger contour ditch or trench system. They allowed the collected runoff to be slowly released at protected spillways in the ditch or trench so they water could spread out and percolate into the soil. The exposed ends of the berm WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 8 portion of the trench were capped and protected from erosion by dry lain rock rubble masonry.

A spreader comprised of a linear rock-protected berm parallel to the trench berm was located on the downslope side of the breach opening to dissipate the energy of the water exiting the feature. The space between the end caps of the earthen berm and the spreader may have been paved or lined with rocks to reduce erosion of the feature and to further dissipate runoff energy. (Harper p. 27) Rock Spreaders T and U and their associated berm (Images are examples of this type of construction. The u-shaped spreaders are attached to either end of an earthen berm, which in this example is also u-shaped. Gully Plugs, the third type of feature, were check dams built to collect soil. They are found throughout the Southwest, and may resemble prehistoric check dams that also functioned to collect soil.

Gully plugs were constructed by throwing a few rocks into the bottom of a small rill, sometimes with brush or sticks laid down first, and then covered with rocks. The areas behind the plugs were often replanted or reseeded. Gully plugs are often found in groups in a drainage or series of drainages. (Harper p. 22) Features F, L, AA and AD were the only gully plugs recorded on the site during this survey. They are all heavily eroded. The remains of Gully Plug AA are located at the end of Earthen Berm Z (Images 25, 26, The Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex retained a high degree of integrity when the team did the field survey in February They rated the condition of fifty-eight of the structures as good, eleven fair, and ten poor.

There is no record of any maintenance on the erosion control structures, but also no record of activities on the site that would have disturbed the structures, other than deterioration from erosion since their construction, and trampling as a result of recent cattle grazing on the Long Valley parcel. The table on the following page lists the erosion control structures documented at the Long Valley site. The labeling system was continued from previous archaeological surveys. The group of earthen berms labeled C12 through C43 are located west of about one-tenth of a mile northwest of where Long Valley Road dead ends into Earthen berms C01 through C11 were recorded previously as part of this group. They were located in the right-of-way of and were demolished during its construction.

(Image 3) Table 1. Long Valley Erosion Control Features Label Image No. Feature Type Description Condition A 4, 5 Rock Spreader U-shaped rock spreader attached to Good the north end of Earthen Berm B. B 4, 5 Earthen Berm Berm connected to Rock Spreader Good A. The center of the berm has eroded. WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 9 Label Image No. Feature Type Description Condition C 6 Rock Spreader Headwall is missing from this Fair severely eroded rock spreader at the south end of Earthen Berm E. D 6, 7 Rock Spreader Rock Spreader D at the north end of Fair Berm E shows some erosion but is mostly intact. E 6, 7 Earthen Berm Earthen Berm E was constructed in a Good u- shape with Rock Spreader C to the south and Rock Spreader D to the north.

F 8 Gully Plug Rocks left behind from gulley plug. Poor Most of the feature has eroded away. G 8, 9 Rock Spreader The center of this linear rock Poor spreader is in place, but the edges have eroded away. H 8, 9 Rock Pile Largest stockpile of unused rock on Good the site. I 10, 11 Rock Spreader U-shaped rock spreader with center Fair eroded is attached to Earthen Berm J. J 11 Earthen Berm One of the larger berms on the site Good in a gentle s-shape with Rock Spreader I attached to the northeast end. K 12 Rock Pile Unused rocks left in a pile. Fair L 12 Gully Plug Remnants of an eroded gully plug. Poor M 13 Earthen Berm Large u-shaped earthen berm with Good Rock Spreader N attached to the north end.

N 13 Rock Spreader The headwall Rock Spreader N is Fair intact at its connection to the north end of Berm M, but the body has been thinned by erosion. O 14, 15 Rock Spreader/ Rock spreader and associated u- Good Earthen Berm shaped earthen berm. The rock spreader has eroded, but the main shape of the spreader is still visible. Rock Spreader P is attached to the north end of the berm. WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 10 Label Image No. Feature Type Description Condition P 14, 16 Rock Spreader Rock spreader connected to the Fair north end of Earthen Berm/ Rock Spreader O. Rock spreader has eroded at the end of the headwall, dividing it from the spreader. Q 14, 16 Rock Pile Unused rocks left in a pile. Poor R 14, 17 Rock Pile Rocks left in a pile.

This pile is more Good scattered than others on the site. T 18, 19 Rock Spreader/ Rock Spreader is at the south end of Good Earthen Berm its associated earthen berm, with Rock spreader U at the north end. U 19, 20 Rock Spreader/ Rock Spreader U is attached to the Good Earthen Berm north end of the earthen berm that links it to Rock Spreader T. V 21, 22 Rock Spreader/ Rock spreader and associated Good Earthen Berm earthen berm with spreader attached at north end. W 23, 37 Rock Spreader Rock spreader separated by erosion Good from Earthen Berm This spreader is unlike other spreaders on site, with two lines of spreaders extending from the headwall. X 24 Earthen Berm/ Earthen berm with an eroded rock Good Rock Spreader/ spreader and rock pile at the Rock Pile southwest end.

Rock Spreader Y is attached to the northeast end. Y 24 Rock Spreader/ Rock spreader with unused rock pile Good Rock Pile at the northeast end of Earthen Berm X. Z 25, 26 Earthen Berm Large s-shaped earthen berm with Good Gully Plug AA attached at the north. AA 25, 26, 27 Gully Plug The remains of gully plug AA are Poor visible on either side of the gully at the north end of Earthen Berm Z. AB 28 Earthen Berm Large s-shaped berm with Rock Good Spreader AC attached at the north. AC 29, 30 Rock Spreader Linear rock spreader with a 45- Good degree tail at the end. The spreader is attached to the north end of Earthen Berm AB. AD 31 Gully Plug Remains of an eroded gulley plug. Poor WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 11 Label Image No.

Feature Type Description Condition B01 32, 33 Earthen Berm/ An earthen berm with rock spreaders Poor Rock Spreaders at its ends on the north and the south. The north half of the berm has eroded away. B02/AE 34 Earthen Berm Large earthen berm with little Good erosion. B03 35 Rock Spreader Rock spreader with no associated Fair berm. B04 23, 36, 37 Earthen Berm Earthen berm that appears to be Fair connected to Rock Spreader W to the south, but is separated by erosion. B05 38 Rock Pile Unused rocks left in a pile. Poor B06 39 Rock Spreader Rock spreader with no associated Fair berm. B07/AF 40 Rock Pile Unused rocks left in a pile. Good D01 41 Rock Spreader Eroded rock spreader. Main shape is Poor still visible. D02 42 Earthen Berm Earthen berm in a semi u-shape.

Good D03 43, 44 Rock Spreader Rock spreader with no associated Poor berm. Most of the spreader has eroded away, with the headwall being the most intact. D04 45 Earthen Berm A u-shaped earthen berm. Good 46, 47 Rock Spreader Linear rock spreader, mostly intact, Good with no headwall or associated berm. D05 48 Rock Spreader Rock spreader with no berm on a Fair rocky slope near the north end of the study site. D06 49 Rock Spreader The most northerly group of rocks Fair on the study site. They appear to be the scattered remains of a rock spreader with no associated berm. 3 Earthen Berms Not Found. Linear berms previously Demolished recorded at locations under 3, 50, 51 Earthen Berms Linear berms constructed along a Good series of small gullies. The centers of many of the berms have eroded.

WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 12 Conclusion The Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex is significant as a small, but important local project associated with the Civilian Conservation Corps, the work of the Soil Conservation Service, and the history of Washington City, Utah. The Leeds Camp of the CCC constructed the Washington Fields Erosion Control Complex, under the direction of the nascent Soil Conservation Service at a time when local need and national resources meshed during the New Deal era. SCS engineers developed standard drawings and specifications based on decades of scientific research by the Federal government on erosion control and flood prevention methods.

The erosion control methods were brilliant in their simplicity and their adaptability to locally available materials. The erosion control structures improved the delivery of water to the Washington Fields at a time when agriculture was still a primary component of the local economy by helping to keep the Washington Canal free of sediment and debris. The erosion control structures were never maintained, and appear to have been forgotten by the time the Washington Canal was piped in the early to eliminate seepage losses and make more efficient use of the water, primarily for secondary irrigation with the conversion of much of the Washington Fields from hay production to residential development. p 2). PART III.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION References Harper, Christopher, Heidi Roberts and Suzanne Eskenazi; contributions by Gregory Seymour July Battling the Elements: Results of Data Recovery Efforts at Civilian Conservation Corps Site Washington County, Utah. HRA, Inc. Archaeological Report Utah Antiquities Permit No. U-09-HQ-0096b. Prepared for State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration and Utah Bureau of Land Management St. George Field Office. Larson, Andrew Karl The Red Hills of November. Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press. Reprinted by the Dixie College Foundation. Natural Resouces Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. (accessed November 26, Natural Resouces Conservation Service Glossary of Soil Survey Terms. United States Department of Agriculture.

(accessed November 26, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 13 Shamo, Michael Lyle A Project of Interest: The Civilian Conservation Corps Washington Fields Project, Unpublished paper. On file at the Utah State Antiquities Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. Stavish, Patricia Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) Site Form for CCC Erosion Control Complex, Montgomery Archaeological Consultants. On file at the Utah State Antiquities Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. Washington County Water Conservancy District Water Line Newsletter, Fall St. George, Utah: Washington County Water Conservancy District. (accessed November 26, PART IV.

PROJECT INFORMATION This project was completed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of as amended (54 U.S.C. under the direction of Dawna Ferris Rowley, National Conservation Area Manager, and Lori Hunsaker, Archaeologist, St. George Bureau of Land Management Field Office in coordination with Chris Merritt, Deputy Utah SHPO, Antiquities Coordinator. The project was done as part of the mitigation for the adverse effect (demolition) of the historic erosion control structures during future development. The administered Long Valley parcel was transferred to a developer in exchange for his private inholding in the Red Cliffs Desert (tortoise) Reserve/National Conservation Area.

The project was funded by Washington County, Utah, under a contract administered by the Habitat Conservation Plan Administrator, Cameron Rognan. Shalae A. Larsen, ASLA, PLA, Principal, and Greg Tarsa, Project Manager, Io Design Collaborative, did fieldwork on the site in February and completed measured drawings in spring CRS Engineers verified the locations and dimensions of the structures with a field survey and drone aerial photography in February as part of the fieldwork team. Peter L. Goss, Professor Emeritus of Architectural History, University of Utah, took, processed and printed the archival photographs. Laura Bandera, Voda Landscape + Planning assisted with archival research. Susan Crook, ASLA, PLA, was the historian on the project who prepared the historical report. PART V.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Table of Images

Image 1. Land Ownership Map for Long Valley Parcel 16 Image 2. Topographic Map Showing Long Valley Study Site and Vicinity 17 WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 14 Image 3. Locations of Earthen Berms 18 Image 4. Aerial View of Rock Spreader A and Earthen Berm B. 19 Image 5. Rock Spreader A and Earthen Berm B. 20 Image 6. Aerial View of Features C-D-E, Rock Spreaders and Earthen Berm. 21 Image 7. Rock Spreader D and Earthen Berm E. 22 Image 8. Aerial View of Features s23 Image 9. Rock Spreader G and Rock Construction Pile H. 24 Image 10. Aerial View of Rock Spreader 25 Image 11. Aerial View of Earthen Berm J and Rock Spreader I. 26 Image 12. Gully Plug L and Rock Construction Pile K. 27 Image 13. Aerial View of Earthen Berm M and Rock Spreader N. 28 Image 14.

Aerial View of Features O/P/Q/R. 29 Image 15. Rock Spreader O. 30 Image 16. Rock Spreader P and Rock Construction Pile Q. 31 Image 17. Rock Construction Pile 32 Image 18. Rock Spreader T. 33 Image 19. Aerial View of Rock Spreaders T and U and Associated Earthen Berm..................... 34 Image 20. Rock Spreader U. 35 Image 21. Aerial View of Rock Spreader V and Associated Berm. 36 Image 22. Oblique Aerial View of Rock Spreader V and Berm. 37 Image 23. Rock Spreader W. 38 Image 24. Aerial View of Features X and Y. 39 Image 25. Aerial View of Earthen Berm Z and Gully Plug AA. 40 Image 26. Oblique Aerial of Gully Plug AA and Earthen Berm 41 Image 27. East Side of Eroded Gully Plug AA 42 Image 28. West Side of Earthen Berm AB, View to South. 43 Image 29. Aerial View of Rock Spreader AC.

44 Image 30. Northeast End of Rock Spreader AC. 45 Image 31. West Side of Eroded Gully Plug AD. 46 WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 15 Image 32. Aerial View of Feature B01 Earthen Berm with Rock Spreaders. 47 Image 33. North End of Feature B01 Earthen Berm with Rock Spreaders. 48 Image 34. Large Earthen Berm B02/AE, Aerial View. 49 Image 35. Rock Spreader 50 Image 36. Earthen Berm 51 Image 37. Aerial View of Earthen Berm B04 and Rock Spreader W. 52 Image 38. Rock Construction Pile 53 Image 39. Aerial View of Rock Spreader 54 Image 40. Rock Construction Pile B07/AF. 55 Image 41. Rock Spreader 56 Image 42. Earthen Berm 57 Image 43. Aerial View of South End of Rock Spreader 58 Image 44. Aerial View of Rock Spreader 59 Image 45. West End of Earthen Berm 60 Image 46.

Oblique Aerial View of Rock Spreader 61 Image 47. East Side of Rock Spreader 62 Image 48. South side of Rock Spreader 63 Image 49. Rock Spreader 64 Image 50. Southwest End of Earthen Berm 65 Image 51. South Side of Earthen Berm 66 WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 16 Image 1. Land Ownership Map for Long Valley Parcel The 605.61-acre Long Valley parcel is the area in white between the Washington Dome and the Warner Ridge. The parcel is bounded on the west and north by the Southern Parkway and on the east by the top of the Warner Ridge. Access is at the north end of the parcel from Long Valley Road where it goes under at the Long Valley Road Exit and becomes a dirt road.

(Washington County, Utah, Recorder s Office, Interactive Map, excerpt downloaded Labels in red added.) WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 17 Image 2. Topographic Map Showing Long Valley Study Site and Vicinity The erosion control structures recorded in this study were located within the red boundary line labeled, Study Site. Long Valley Road, designated by the double dashed line in the center of Long Valley, follows an intermittent drainage that flows northeast toward the Washington Canal near its out-take at the Washington Fields Dam on the Virgin River. The canal is shown as an open ditch on this map. (USGS, Washington Dome, Labels in red added.) WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 18 Image 3.

Locations of Earthen Berms A cluster of forty-three earthen berms was located at the south end of the study site. Features recorded previously, were demolished during the construction of The distance between the berms in each row is generally equal, as was standard practice for these groups of earthen berms. (Aerial photo source, ARGC Utah. Labels added.) WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 19 Image 4. Aerial View of Rock Spreader A and Earthen Berm B. Aerial view of Rock Spreader A (upper right) attached to Earthen Berm B. The spreader extends from the north end of the berm. The center of the berm has eroded, cutting it in half. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 20 Image 5.

Rock Spreader A and Earthen Berm B. North end of u-shaped Rock Spreader A where it attaches to Earthen Berm B. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 21 Image 6. Aerial View of Features C-D-E, Rock Spreaders and Earthen Berm. Earthen Berm E (bottom center) was constructed in a u-shape with Rock Spreader C to the south (right center) and Rock Spreader D to the north (left center). (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 22 Image 7. Rock Spreader D and Earthen Berm E. North end of Rock Spreader D with Earthen Berm E in background. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 23 Image 8.

Aerial View of Features The rocks at the left are the remains of Gully Plug F. The end of Rock Spreader G is at the lower left, with the body of the rock spreader in the center. Rock Construction Pile H is on the right. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 24 Image 9. Rock Spreader G and Rock Construction Pile H. South end of Rock Spreader G with Rock Construction Pile H beyond. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 25 Image 10. Aerial View of Rock Spreader I. This rock spreader in fair condition is attached to the east end of Feature J, a large, intact Earthen Berm. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO.

UT-7 PAGE 26 Image 11. Aerial View of Earthen Berm J and Rock Spreader I. Rock Spreader I is barely visible as a few white dots among the vegetation at the end of this large earthen berm. The length of the rock spread measured in a straight line form tip to tip is approximately 185 feet. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 27 Image 12. Gully Plug L and Rock Construction Pile K. Gully Plug L (left) has nearly eroded away. Rock Construction Pile K is at upper right. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 28 Image 13. Aerial View of Earthen Berm M and Rock Spreader N. Rock Spreader N (lower right) is attached to the north end of this u-shaped earthen berm.

The headwall of the rock spreader is intact but the tail appears to have been scattered by erosion. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 29 Image 14. Aerial View of Features O/P/Q/R. Eroded remains of Rock Spreader O are at right center. Its form is still discernible despite the erosion. Its associated earthen berm angles left at about 30o and then angles right to the headwall of Rock Spreader P near the top center of the photo. Rock Construction Pile Q is left of Rock Spreader P, and Rock Construction Pile R is above it on the right. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 30 Image 15. Rock Spreader O.

The scattered remains of Rock Spreader O with its associated u-shaped earthen berm. The berm is visible as a diagonal line of bare soil going left and then right from the end of the rock spreader (center right). (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 31 Image 16. Rock Spreader P and Rock Construction Pile Q. East side of Rock Spreader P with Rock Construction Pile Q on its right. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 32 Image 17. Rock Construction Pile R. This rock construction pile near Rock Spreader P is more widely scattered than the others on the study site. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO.

UT-7 PAGE 33 Image 18. Rock Spreader T. Rock Spreader T is attached to the south end of its associated earthen berm. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 34 Image 19. Aerial View of Rock Spreaders T and U and Associated Earthen Berm. Rock Spreader T (left) and Rock Spreader U (right) are attached to either end of the u-shaped earthen berm between them. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 35 Image 20. Rock Spreader U. Rock Spreader U is almost intact. It is attached to the north end of the u-shaped earthen berm that connects with Rock Spreader T. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 36 Image 21.

Aerial View of Rock Spreader V and Associated Berm. Rock Spreader V (center) is attached to the earthen berm at its left. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 37 Image 22. Oblique Aerial View of Rock Spreader V and Berm. This view clearly shows the berm attached to the headwall of Rock Spreader V. A highway sign on the Southern Parkway is silhouetted on the horizon between the Warner Ridge (upper left) and the Washington Dome (upper right). (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 38 Image 23. Rock Spreader W. The form of Rock Spreader W is unique compared to other spreaders on the study site, with two sections of spreaders extending from the headwall.

It appears that a section that connected it to Earthen Berm B04 to its north has eroded away. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 39 Image 24. Aerial View of Features X and Y. Feature X includes the eroded rock spreader on the right and the earthen berm extending from its headwall that ends at Rock Spreader Y on the left. The piles of rocks on the right above the eroded rock spreader and on the left by Rock Spreader Y appear to be unused rock left over from the construction of the rock spreaders. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 40 Image 25. Aerial View of Earthen Berm Z and Gully Plug AA.

Earthen Berm Z snakes in a wide s-curve from the upper left to the lower right. The scattered rocks of eroded Gully Plug AA are seen at its end on the lower right. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 41 Image 26. Oblique Aerial of Gully Plug AA and Earthen Berm Z. This tilted oblique aerial view clearly shows the s-shape of Earthen Berm Z and the erosion of Gully Plug AA. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 42 Image 27. East Side of Eroded Gully Plug AA This gully plug is located at the north end of Earthen Berm The plug has eroded with remains visible to the south and north of the swale.

(Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 43 Image 28. West Side of Earthen Berm AB, View to South. This is a large s-shaped berm with Rock Spreader AC attached to its north end. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 44 Image 29. Aerial View of Rock Spreader AC. Rock Spreader AC (bottom center) is attached to the north end of Earthen Berm AB. Note the straight line construction with the 45-degree tail at the end. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 45 Image 30. Northeast End of Rock Spreader AC.

The stones on this end are jumbled and out of alignment compared to the regular arrangement of the stones on the west end as viewed in the aerial image. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 46 Image 31. West Side of Eroded Gully Plug AD. The remains of Gully Plug AD are on the north end of the gully that they once plugged. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 47 Image 32. Aerial View of Feature B01 Earthen Berm with Rock Spreaders. This feature is an earthen berm oriented north-south with rock spreaders at either end. Approximately half of the berm has eroded away up to the north rock spreader seen at the upper left.

(Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 48 Image 33. North End of Feature B01 Earthen Berm with Rock Spreaders. View looking southwest at the erosion of the earthen berm near the rock spreader at its north end. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 49 Image 34. Large Earthen Berm B02/AE, Aerial View. This large earthen berm shows little erosion. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 50 Image 35. Rock Spreader Rock spreader with no associated berm. View toward the northwest with the Pine Valley Mountains at top center.

A highway sign at the side of the Southern Parkway is visible as a bright green dot at the top left. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 51 Image 36. Earthen Berm Earthen Berm B04 looking south toward Rock Spreader W separated from it by erosion. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 52 Image 37. Aerial View of Earthen Berm B04 and Rock Spreader W. This rock spreader appears to have connected to the Earthen Berm to the north, but has been separated by erosion. This spreader is unlike the other spreaders on site because it has two sections of spreaders extending from the headwall.

(Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 53 Image 38. Rock Construction Pile West side of Rock Construction Pile B05 that includes a square wooden post. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 54 Image 39. Aerial View of Rock Spreader Rock spreader with no associated earthen berm. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 55 Image 40. Rock Construction Pile B07/AF. Rock pile assumed to be left from construction of rock spreaders. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 56 Image 41.

Rock Spreader The main shape of Rock Spreader D01 is still evident despite erosion and displacement of rocks. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 57 Image 42. Earthen Berm South side of u-shaped Earthen Berm D02 looking west with the Pine Valley Mountains at upper right. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 58 Image 43. Aerial View of South End of Rock Spreader South end of Rock Spreader The center of the spreader has been displaced by erosion. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 59 Image 44. Aerial View of Rock Spreader Rock Spreader D03 has no berm associated with it.

Most of the spreader has eroded away with the headwall (top center) being the most intact. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 60 Image 45. West End of Earthen Berm West End of u-shaped Earthen Berm D04 looking southeast toward the Warner Ridge. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 61 Image 46. Oblique Aerial View of Rock Spreader This linear rock spreader has no associated berm or headwall. Most of the spreader is intact. View toward southeast. (Drone photo by CRS Engineers, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 62 Image 47.

East Side of Rock Spreader Detail of Rock spreader taken about ten feet in from end of the headwall looking southeast. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 63 Image 48. South side of Rock Spreader This rock spreader is located on a rocky slope near the north end of the study site away from any earthen berms or swales. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 64 Image 49. Rock Spreader The most northerly grouping of rocks on the study site that appear to be arranged as a rock spreader. They are on a rocky slope not associated with a berm or a swale. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 65 Image 50.

Southwest End of Earthen Berm This berm is typical of a group of 43 small earthen berms constructed at intervals across a series of parallel swales at the southwest end of the study site. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19, WASHINGTON FIELDS EROSION CONTROL COMPLEX HALS NO. UT-7 PAGE 66 Image 51. South Side of Earthen Berm These small earthen berms were generally constructed in a straight line perpendicular to the swales they crossed. No rock spreaders were associated with them. (Photo by Shalae Larsen, February 19,