On Horseback and By Highway

              On Horseback and
By Highway
Administrative Facilities of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 1902-1960
Historic Context Statement and Evaluations
Forest Service Report No. WS-05-731
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Intermountain
Region
Wasatch-Cache
National Forest
November 2005
2
Cover: Mill City Ranger Station (top); Forest Service Building in Ogden in 1933, now headquarters of the
Ogden Ranger District (middle); Kamas Ranger Station in 1937 (bottom).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities
on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual
orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with
disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large
print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,
Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-
5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
On Horseback and
By Highway
Administrative Facilities of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 1902-1960
Historic Context Statement and Evaluations
Forest Service Report No. WS-05-731
By
Richa Wilson
Regional Architectural Historian
USDA Forest Service
Intermountain Region Facilities Group
324 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
801-625-5704
rwilson@fs.fed.us
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY I
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................................................I
PREFACE.........................................................................................................................................................VI
ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................................VII
MAPS................................................................................................................................................................IX
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................... 1
SPATIALBOUNDARIES..............................................................................................................................................1
TEMPORALBOUNDARIES ........................................................................................................................................1
HISTORICALSETTING................................................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2: THE EARLY FOREST RESERVES......................................................................................... 3
PUBLIC SENTIMENT ...................................................................................................................................................3
CACHENATIONALFOREST......................................................................................................................................4
Logan Forest Reserve, 1903-1906 ...............................................................................................................................4
Bear River Forest Reserve, 1906-1908........................................................................................................................5
Port Neuf Forest Reserve, 1907-1908..........................................................................................................................6
Cache National Forest, 1908-1973.............................................................................................................................6
Idaho Divisions........................................................................................................................................................6
Monte Cristo Township...........................................................................................................................................6
Willard Addition......................................................................................................................................................7
Ogden River Addition .............................................................................................................................................7
Wellsville and Ogden Valley Additions..................................................................................................................8
WASATCHNATIONALFOREST...............................................................................................................................9
Grantsville Forest Reserve, 1904-1908 .......................................................................................................................9
Tooele Forest Reserve..................................................................................................................................................9
Salt Lake Forest Reserve, 1904-1908 ........................................................................................................................10
Vernon Forest Reserve, 1906-1908...........................................................................................................................11
Wasatch Forest Reserve, 1906-1908 .........................................................................................................................11
The Consolidated Wasatch National Forest, 1908-1973..........................................................................................12
The Vernon Division.............................................................................................................................................12
Inter-Forest Boundaries.........................................................................................................................................12
Summit County Addition ......................................................................................................................................13
Davis County and Morgan County Additions.......................................................................................................14
Unsuccessful Additions.........................................................................................................................................14
WASATCH-CACHECONSOLIDATION, 1973 ........................................................................................................15
PERSONNEL.................................................................................................................................................................17
CHAPTER 3: NEW DEAL PROGRAMS....................................................................................................... 19
WORKS PROGRESSADMINISTRATION ...............................................................................................................19
CIVILIANCONSERVATIONCORPS.......................................................................................................................19
Camp F-1, Logan Canyon.........................................................................................................................................19
Camp F-2, Blacksmith Fork Canyon .........................................................................................................................20
Camp F-4, Smith’s Fork and Camp F-7, Blacks Fork..............................................................................................21
Camp F-6, Soapstone.................................................................................................................................................21
Camps F-34, Hyrum ..................................................................................................................................................22
Camp F-35, Manila....................................................................................................................................................23
Camp F-38, Big Cottonwood.....................................................................................................................................23
Camp F-48, Bountiful & Camp F-49 Farmington Canyon......................................................................................24
II ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
Camp F-51, Huntsville .............................................................................................................................................. 24
State Camps ............................................................................................................................................................... 25
Camp SE-201 Davis County ................................................................................................................................ 25
Camp SE-204 Brigham City................................................................................................................................. 25
Camp SE-205 Woods Cross................................................................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 4: NURSERIES AND FIRE..........................................................................................................27
NURSERIES.................................................................................................................................................................. 27
FIREMANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................................ 29
CHAPTER 5: SUPERVISORS’ OFFICES.....................................................................................................31
CACHENATIONALFOREST................................................................................................................................... 31
Early Forest Supervisors........................................................................................................................................... 31
Supervisor’s Office .................................................................................................................................................... 31
Logan Warehouse Site............................................................................................................................................... 32
WASATCHNATIONALFOREST............................................................................................................................. 32
Early Forest Supervisors........................................................................................................................................... 32
Supervisor’s Office .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Redwood Work Center (Salt Lake City Central Repair Shop)................................................................................. 33
Salt Lake Fire Station................................................................................................................................................ 34
CHAPTER 6: LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT.................................................................................................35
NAMES&CONFIGURATIONS................................................................................................................................ 35
RANGERS..................................................................................................................................................................... 36
DISTRICTHEADQUARTERS................................................................................................................................... 37
Logan Ranger Station................................................................................................................................................ 37
Laketown Ranger Station.......................................................................................................................................... 37
Brigham City Ranger Station.................................................................................................................................... 38
ADMINISTRATIVE SITES......................................................................................................................................... 38
Blacksmith Fork Guard Station ................................................................................................................................ 38
Card Guard Station................................................................................................................................................... 39
Elk Valley Guard Station........................................................................................................................................... 40
Garden City Ranger Station...................................................................................................................................... 40
Grotto Point Ranger Station ..................................................................................................................................... 41
High Creek Ranger Station....................................................................................................................................... 41
Logan Warehouse Site............................................................................................................................................... 41
Log Cabin Ranger Station......................................................................................................................................... 41
Mantua Work Center................................................................................................................................................. 42
Mud Flat Ranger Station........................................................................................................................................... 42
Preston Flat Ranger Station...................................................................................................................................... 42
Right Hand Fork Guard Station ............................................................................................................................... 43
Rocky Ford Ranger Station....................................................................................................................................... 43
Spring Hollow Ranger Station.................................................................................................................................. 43
Tony Grove Guard Station (Tony Grove Memorial Ranger Station) ...................................................................... 43
Willow Spring Guard Station.................................................................................................................................... 45
Wood Camp Ranger Station ..................................................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 7: OGDEN RANGER DISTRICT.................................................................................................47
NAMES&CONFIGURATIONS................................................................................................................................ 47
RANGERS..................................................................................................................................................................... 48
DISTRICTHEADQUARTERS................................................................................................................................... 49
Little Bear River/Wellsville Mountain Ranger District ............................................................................................ 49
Laketown/Randolph Ranger District........................................................................................................................ 49
Ogden Ranger District .............................................................................................................................................. 49
ADMINISTRATIVE SITES......................................................................................................................................... 49
Beus Canyon Administrative Site.............................................................................................................................. 49
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY III
Blake Ranger Station .................................................................................................................................................50
Curtis Creek Guard Station.......................................................................................................................................50
Huntsville Administrative Site ...................................................................................................................................50
Monte Cristo Guard Station ......................................................................................................................................51
Randolph Administrative Site....................................................................................................................................52
Snow Basin Administrative Site.................................................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 8: SALT LAKE RANGER DISTRICT......................................................................................... 55
NAMES&CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................................................................55
RANGERS .....................................................................................................................................................................56
DISTRICTHEADQUARTERS ...................................................................................................................................57
Salt Lake Ranger Station ...........................................................................................................................................57
Bountiful Ranger Station ...........................................................................................................................................57
Tooele Ranger Station................................................................................................................................................57
ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.........................................................................................................................................58
Alta Guard Station .....................................................................................................................................................58
Brighton Guard Station .............................................................................................................................................59
Big Cottonwood Ranger Station/Wasatch Nursery...................................................................................................59
Box Elder Guard Station ...........................................................................................................................................59
Farmington Administrative Site ................................................................................................................................60
Farmington Canyon Guard Station ...........................................................................................................................60
Mill Creek Guard Station ..........................................................................................................................................60
Mt. Olympus Guard Station.......................................................................................................................................61
Mueller Park Guard Station......................................................................................................................................61
Rice Creek Canyon Field Station..............................................................................................................................62
Salt Lake Warehouse..................................................................................................................................................62
South Willow Guard Station......................................................................................................................................62
Spruces Guard Station...............................................................................................................................................63
Tooele Work Center...................................................................................................................................................64
Other Administrative Sites.........................................................................................................................................64
Big Slide Ranger Station .......................................................................................................................................64
Big Water Ranger Station......................................................................................................................................64
Bullock Ranger Station..........................................................................................................................................65
Burnt Flat Ranger Station......................................................................................................................................65
Emigration Ranger Station....................................................................................................................................65
Davenport Ranger Station .....................................................................................................................................65
Hogum Ranger Station..........................................................................................................................................65
Lime Kiln Ranger Station .....................................................................................................................................65
Miller's Flat Ranger Station...................................................................................................................................65
Mud Springs Ranger Station.................................................................................................................................65
North Willow Ranger Station ...............................................................................................................................65
Reynolds Flat Ranger Station................................................................................................................................66
CHAPTER 9: KAMAS RANGER DISTRICT ................................................................................................ 67
NAMES&CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................................................................67
RANGERS .....................................................................................................................................................................68
DISTRICTHEADQUARTERS ...................................................................................................................................69
Kamas Ranger Station ...............................................................................................................................................69
ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.........................................................................................................................................70
Beaver Creek Work Center........................................................................................................................................70
Ledgefork Guard Station ...........................................................................................................................................70
Mirror Lake Guard Station........................................................................................................................................71
Shingle Creek Ranger Station....................................................................................................................................71
Soapstone Guard Station...........................................................................................................................................72
CHAPTER 10: EVANSTON RANGER DISTRICT....................................................................................... 73
IV ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
NAMES&CONFIGURATIONS................................................................................................................................ 73
RANGERS..................................................................................................................................................................... 74
DISTRICTHEADQUARTERS................................................................................................................................... 74
ADMINISTRATIVE SITES......................................................................................................................................... 75
Bear River Ranger Station ........................................................................................................................................ 75
Blacksfork Commissary Cabin.................................................................................................................................. 75
Catarack Ranger Station........................................................................................................................................... 75
East Fork Blacks Fork Guard Station....................................................................................................................... 75
Hayden Fork Ranger Station .................................................................................................................................... 76
Middle Fork Scalers Cabin....................................................................................................................................... 76
Mill City Ranger Station............................................................................................................................................ 76
Mill Creek Administrative Site.................................................................................................................................. 76
Stillwater Ranger Station .......................................................................................................................................... 78
West Fork Blacks Fork Ranger Station..................................................................................................................... 78
Whitney Guard Station.............................................................................................................................................. 78
CHAPTER 11: MOUNTAIN VIEW RANGER DISTRICT..............................................................................79
NAMES&CONFIGURATIONS................................................................................................................................ 79
RANGERS..................................................................................................................................................................... 80
DISTRICTHEADQUARTERS................................................................................................................................... 80
Mountain View Ranger Station................................................................................................................................. 80
ADMINISTRATIVE SITES......................................................................................................................................... 81
Bridger Lake Guard Station...................................................................................................................................... 81
Hewinta Guard Station.............................................................................................................................................. 82
Hole in the Rock Guard Station................................................................................................................................ 82
Platinum Springs Ranger Station .............................................................................................................................. 84
Poison Creek Ranger Station.................................................................................................................................... 84
Smith’s Fork Ranger Station..................................................................................................................................... 84
CHAPTER 12: EVALUATIONS.....................................................................................................................85
ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Eligibility.................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Geographic Distribution ........................................................................................................................................... 86
Temporal Distribution............................................................................................................................................... 86
Building Typology...................................................................................................................................................... 88
EVALUATION SUMMARIES ................................................................................................................................... 89
Supervisor’s Office .................................................................................................................................................... 89
Redwood Work Center ......................................................................................................................................... 89
Logan Ranger District............................................................................................................................................... 91
Blacksmith Fork Guard Station............................................................................................................................ 91
Card Guard Station................................................................................................................................................ 92
Elk Valley Guard Station...................................................................................................................................... 94
Mantua Work Center ............................................................................................................................................ 95
Right Hand Fork Guard Station............................................................................................................................ 96
Tony Grove Guard Station.................................................................................................................................... 97
Ogden Ranger District .............................................................................................................................................. 99
Curtis Creek Guard Station................................................................................................................................... 99
Monte Cristo Guard Station................................................................................................................................ 101
Randolph Administrative Site ............................................................................................................................. 103
Salt Lake Ranger District........................................................................................................................................ 105
Alta Guard Station............................................................................................................................................... 105
Mill Creek Guard Station.................................................................................................................................... 106
Rice Creek Canyon Field Station ........................................................................................................................ 107
South Willow Guard Station............................................................................................................................... 108
Spruces Guard Station......................................................................................................................................... 110
Tooele Work Center............................................................................................................................................ 111
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY V
Kamas Ranger District ............................................................................................................................................113
Beaver Creek Work Center.................................................................................................................................113
Kamas Ranger Station.........................................................................................................................................114
Ledgefork Guard Station.....................................................................................................................................115
Mirror Lake Guard Station..................................................................................................................................116
Soapstone Guard Station .....................................................................................................................................117
Evanston Ranger District ........................................................................................................................................118
East Fork Blacks Fork Guard Station ..................................................................................................................118
Mill Creek Administrative Site ............................................................................................................................119
Whitney Guard Station........................................................................................................................................121
Mountain View Ranger District ...............................................................................................................................122
Bridger Lake Guard Station ................................................................................................................................122
Hewinta Guard Station ........................................................................................................................................124
Hole in the Rock Guard Station ...........................................................................................................................125
Mountain View Ranger Station ...........................................................................................................................126
APPENDIX A: TIMELINE............................................................................................................................ 129
APPENDIX B: FOREST LANDS ACTIONS............................................................................................... 134
APPENDIX C: PERSONNEL...................................................................................................................... 137
FOREST SUPERVISORS...........................................................................................................................................137
LOGAN FOREST RESERVE, 1903-1906 ...............................................................................................................137
BEAR RIVER FOREST RESERVE, 1906-1908 ......................................................................................................137
CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, 1908-1973.............................................................................................................137
SALT LAKE FOREST RESERVE, 1904-1908 ........................................................................................................137
GRANTSVILLE FOREST RESERVE, 1904-1908 ..................................................................................................137
VERNON FOREST RESERVE, 1906-1908.............................................................................................................138
WASATCH NATIONAL FOREST, 1906-1973........................................................................................................138
WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST.............................................................................................................138
DISTRICTRANGERS................................................................................................................................................139
CACHE NATIONAL FOREST................................................................................................................................139
WASATCH NATIONAL FOREST..........................................................................................................................141
APPENDIX D: BIOGRAPHIES .................................................................................................................... 146
APPENDIX E: HISTORIC ADMINISTRATIVE SITES................................................................................ 188
BYNAME....................................................................................................................................................................188
BYTOWNSHIP...........................................................................................................................................................190
APPENDIX F: EVALUATION SUMMARY TABLE.................................................................................... 193
SUPERVISOR’S OFFICE ..................................................................................................................................................193
LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT ...........................................................................................................................................193
OGDEN RANGER DISTRICT ...........................................................................................................................................193
SALT LAKE RANGER DISTRICT.....................................................................................................................................194
KAMAS RANGER DISTRICT...........................................................................................................................................194
EVANSTON RANGER DISTRICT.....................................................................................................................................195
MOUNTAIN VIEW RANGER DISTRICT...........................................................................................................................195
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................................... 197
VI ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
Preface
This document is a supplement to "Within a Day’s Ride: Forest Service Administrative Sites in Region 4,
1891-1960," a historic and architectural context written in 2004. That Region 4 context statement provides
information on the history of the Forest Service in the Intermountain Region, with a focus on administrative
site planning and architecture. It also discusses methodology of the historic research and field surveys.
This history of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest addresses specific administrative sites and ranger
districts. An overview of the Forest's evolution from several small forest reserves to its configuration is also
provided. For detailed information about the Forest, refer to “A History of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest,” written in 1980 by Charles S. Peterson and Linda Speth of Utah State University.
The Region 4 context statement and this Wasatch-Cache history support evaluations of administrative
sites for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The work has been completed in compliance
with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and will be incorporated into facilities
management and planning. The evaluations make up the last chapter of this document.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY VII
Acronyms
APW Accelerated Public Works
AWS Aircraft Warning Service
AS Administrative Site
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
CAA Civil Aeronautics Administration
CCC Civilian Conservation Corps
DOI United States Department of the Interior
DR District Ranger
DWR Division of Wildlife Resources
ECW Emergency Conservation Work
ERA Emergency Relief Act
FMP Forest Pest Management
FY Fiscal Year
GLO General Land Office
GS Guard Station
LDS Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder-day Saints
LEM Local Experienced Men
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NF National Forest
NPS National Park Service
NRA National Recreation Area
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
RO Regional Office (headquarters of a Forest Service region)
VIII ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
RD Ranger District
RS Ranger Station
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SO Supervisor’s Office (headquarters of a National Forest)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFS United States Forest Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
W-CNF Wasatch-Cache National Forest
WO Washington Office
WPA Works Progress Administration
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY IX
Maps
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
X ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Ranger District Boundaries
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 1
Chapter 1: Overview
SPATIAL BOUNDARIES
The Wasatch-Cache National Forest (W-CNF) stretches 250 miles on a northeast-to-southwest axis. The
Forest boundary encompasses approximately two million acres, of which 1.2 million acres are National
Forest System lands. The remaining acreage is privately owned or is held by state and local governments.
The Forest is characterized by three distinct areas: the Stansbury Range, the northern and western slopes
of the Uinta Mountains, and the Wasatch Front from Lone Peak north to the Idaho border including the
Wasatch, Monte Cristo, and Bear River ranges.1
Two physiographic regions, the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau, characterize the W-CNF. The
Bear, Logan, Weber, and Provo rivers drain into the Great Basin, while the other two critical rivers, the
Green and the Duchesne, flow into the Colorado Plateau. The W-CNF is a diverse forest ranging from salt
deserts in the southwest to multiple lakes and drainages in the northeast. There, on the north slope of the
Uintas, heavy timber stands of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir can be found. In contrast, the area east and
southeast of the Cache Mountains consists of high rolling plateaus with sage and oak brush. The Wasatch
front is distinguished by granite escarpments, deep canyons and high elevations.2
Facilities associated with the administration of the W-CNF are not confined to the Forest boundaries. To
serve forest users better, ranger district offices are located in nearby cities and towns: Salt Lake City,
Ogden, Logan, Kamas, Mountain View, and Evanston. Other support structures such as warehouses may
also be found in towns or just outside the forest boundary.
TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES
The focus of this study is a period beginning in 1902 when Albert Potter surveyed the area for potential
forest reserves. Since resources must be 50 years or older before they are considered eligible to the
National Register of Historic Places (except in special cases), the cut-off date was set at 1960. The intent
is that this document should be updated in 2010.
HISTORICAL SETTING
As with other forests in Region 4, several factors contributed to the establishment of early forest reserves
that now make up the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Logging, mining, settlement, and grazing created
the need for watershed and timber protection, while increasing recreational use supported preservation of
scenery and wildlife. In the rapidly growing urban area along the Wasatch Front, there was particular
concern for protecting water for both irrigation and domestic purposes.
As the heart of Mormon settlement, Salt Lake City became the population center of the state after the
Mormon pioneers arrived in 1847. Other settlements were soon established as the leader of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), Brigham Young, sent church members to settle other parts of the
1 Wasatch-Cache National Forest webpage, http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/wcnf/about/, accessed 8 April 2005.
2 Charles S. Peterson & Linda E. Speth, “A History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 25 September 1980,” TMs [photocopy], p.
28-39, Forest Service Heritage Center, Ogden, Utah.
2 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
region. Unlike other areas in the state, the Wasatch and Uinta mountains offered considerable timber
resources. Early pioneers quickly built sawmills and established other lumber operations. Big Cottonwood
Canyon was especially important in production of milled lumber, with roads constructed quite early and the
first mills built around 1850.
As scores of sawmills produced milled lumber, other enterprises were generating mining timbers, charcoal
and railroad ties. This extensive activity left the mountains denuded of trees and the Wasatch Front saw
logging peak in 1880. As resources dwindled, lumber from the Sierra Nevada and Chicago was imported.3
Grazing also had a significant impact on the land that now comprises the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
By the 1850s, Utah had become a grazing region with cattle as the main livestock, although there were
small numbers of sheep. Grazing practices were characterized less by Spanish ranching traditions and
more by Mormon traits of cooperation and community. Most Mormons lived in towns while working small
farms in outlying areas. Cattle and sheep were often grazed together as cooperative herds. This “Mormon
village livestock system” was in place by the 1870s and, by the 1880s, pressure on grazing resources in
Utah had increased.4
The influence of Western ranching became apparent after 1880, particularly in the corners of Utah. Cattle
numbers nearly doubled from 1885 to 1895. These were soon challenged by the number of sheep, which
peaked at nearly 4 million in the Utah region at the turn of the century. Over half were located in the
eleven counties in which the Wasatch-Cache is now located. Thousands of sheep were trailed to Utah,
which had abundant winter range in the east and west deserts. Sheep were also trailed through the state
to summer ranges in neighboring states.5
It was not long before sheep were given a good deal of attention. Sometimes called “hooved crickets”
because of their grazing habits, they were not popular with the cattle ranchers. Transient sheep, those
owned by non-residents, were a particular point of contention among the locals. Before long, the number
of sheep surpassed that of cattle in Utah. The decrease in adequate rangeland for cattle ranchers
corresponded with an increase in their animosity toward the sheep outfits, although Utah did not see the
violent range wars experienced in other Western states.
3 Ibid., 112-13.
4 Ibid., 176-78.
5 Ibid., 178-80.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 3
Chapter 2: The Early Forest Reserves
PUBLIC SENTIMENT
Unlike in other western states, the early Utah reserves were established with minimal conflict. Settlement,
logging, mining, and grazing significantly damaged the watersheds that supplied domestic and irrigation
water to valley communities and farms. Support for forest reserve designation came from several groups
and on February 22, 1897, Utah gained its first forest reserve, the Uintah Forest Reserve. The Uintah was
one of the 13 "Washington's Birthday" reserves created by President Grover Cleveland only ten days
before completing his term.
In contrast to the national outcry caused by Cleveland's action, residents in northern Utah called for more
forest reserve designations, particularly as watershed damage was exacerbated by a drought that left
inadequate water for irrigation in late summer. Utah State Agricultural College at Logan expressed its
support for the forest reserves, as did fans of Utah’s scenery and wilderness. These included university
professors who led natural history field trips, commercial clubs, railroads, and artists who compiled visual
collections of the Wasatch Mountains. Locals also saw establishment of the forest reserves as a way to
protect their recreation interests.6
Utah’s support of government-managed lands, in contrast to other Western states, may be attributed to the
Mormon culture as noted by the Cache Forest Supervisor in 1907:
On the whole the regulations by the Government of what belongs to the nation is
approved by the larger part of the communities. Much the larger part of the residents of
this region belong to the Church of Latter Day Saints who have been accustomed to
have the Church and its officials dictate to a considerable degree in all matters so that
they are different in a large degree from the residents of other western states where each
citizen is his own boss and anything that opposes him in any of his desires is considered
an unjust curtailment of his liberties and rights as an American citizen.7
In response to citizens’ petitions and Congressional support, lands were withdrawn from public entry as
early as 1900. Two years later, Gifford Pinchot sent Albert F. Potter to survey conditions in the state.
Potter began his work on the Wasatch Range near Logan and continued south, working from July to
November and logging over 3,000 miles. A former Arizona stockman, he noted serious problems caused
by grazing and timber interests, documenting public support and opposition along the way.
The work of Potter and later forest examiners was significant in that it led to the creation of several Utah
reserves including those that have been or are now part of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. In order
of creation, these included:
􀂃􈌠 Logan Forest Reserve, 1903 (original core of the current Cache side of the forest)
􀂃􈌠 Grantsville Forest Reserve, 1904 (now part of the Wasatch side)
􀂃􈌠 Salt Lake Forest Reserve, 1904 (now part of the Wasatch side)
􀂃􈌠 Vernon Forest Reserve, 1906 (now part of the Wasatch side)
6 Ibid., 51.
7 William Weld Clark, “Report on Personnel, Bear River National Forest, November 24, 1907,” transcription, p. 4, Cache National Forest
History Binders, Logan Ranger District office, Logan, Utah.
4 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
􀂃􈌠 Bear River Forest Reserve, 1906 (now part of the Cache side; area in Idaho is currently
administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest)
􀂃􈌠 Wasatch Forest Reserve, 1906 (original core of the Wasatch side of the forest)
􀂃􈌠 Port Neuf Forest Reserve, 1907 (once part of the Cache, now part of the Caribou National Forest)
CACHE NATIONAL FOREST
By the time the Cache National Forest was consolidated with the Wasatch National Forest in 1973, it had
undergone many transformations. It began in 1903 as the Logan Forest Reserve, expanding and
contracting as divisions in Utah and Idaho were added or transferred. These actions, as well as the
Forest’s early leaders, are discussed below.
Logan Forest Reserve, 1903-1906
At the beginning of the 20th century, the people of Logan relied on the Logan River for its culinary water
supply.8 Citizens became concerned about the impact of cattle and sheep on water quality and quantity,
particularly as erosion increased and irrigation water became scarce in the late summer months. The
harvesting of timber for fence posts, buildings, firewood and railroad ties had contributed to the problems
and these resources were becoming scarce.
With the encouragement of several locals, the Cache County Commission held a public meeting on
February 4, 1902 to discuss the possibility of creating a forest reserve. By a nearly unanimous vote, a
resolution was passed calling for the President to designate critical lands as public reserves. These
included the Little Bear River, Blacksmith Fork, Logan River, Little Muddy and Cub River watersheds.9
In response, the Logan Forest Reserve was withdrawn from public entry on May 7, 1902. Less than two
months later, on July 1, Albert Potter of the Division of Forestry arrived in Logan. He spent the first few
days talking with area citizens, noting in his diary their support for a forest reserve as a means of protecting
the water supply. He noted they blamed grazing – particularly sheep grazing – for damaging the supply,
but they did not recognize the impact of overlogging.
During his field investigation, which lasted until July 18, Potter observed great numbers of sheep, cattle,
burned areas, and extensive logging. On July 12, Potter wrote “Very little of the conifer area of this
proposed reserve has escaped the axe of the logger.” Other entries record small lead and copper mines,
a few water reservoirs, and pockets of good grass and timber stands.
Upon Potter’s recommendation, President Theodore Roosevelt formally established the Logan Forest
Reserve on May 29, 1903.10 Totaling 182,080 acres, it consisted of about nine townships embraced by
the present-day Logan Ranger District. The reserve stretched from Logan east to the Bear Lake Valley,
and from Richmond south to the Left Hand Fork of Blacksmith Fork. The Logan Forest Reserve survived
only three years. In 1906, it became part of the Bear River Forest Reserve.
8 Orval E. Winkler, “Cache National Forest is Source of Natural Wealth, Public Enjoyment,” The Herald Journal, Cache Valley
Centennial Edition, 25 March 1956.
9 Michael W. Johnson, “Whiskey or Water: A Brief History of the Cache National Forest, 30 October 2003” TMs [photocopy], p. 5,
located with Richa Wilson, Region 4 Facilities Group, Ogden, Utah.
10 Ibid., 6.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 5
Bear River Forest Reserve, 1906-1908
The Bear River Forest Reserve was another short-lived entity. It was created on May 28, 1906 from the
Logan Forest Reserve and over a half million acres of additional land. It consisted of three divisions, which
were shuffled between forests in later years.
1. Marsh Creek (West) Division. Located west of Interstate 15 in Idaho, this division included
Elkhorn Mountain (and was probably the Elkhorn Ranger District mentioned in later years). It was
transferred to the Pocatello National Forest in 1908 and then to the Cache National Forest in
1915. Historical documents often refer to this as part of the Malad Division (see below), even
though the two are separate areas of land. In 1942, the division, which includes the Summit
Guard Station, became part of the Caribou National Forest. Presently, it forms part of the
Westside Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
2. Malad (Middle) Division. Like the Marsh Creek Division, the Malad Division was transferred to
the Pocatello National Forest in 1908. It went to the Cache National Forest in 1915 and to the
Caribou National Forest in 1942. Located east of Interstate 15 and the town of Malad, this division
includes the Malad Range and the Oxford Mountains (and may have been the Oxford Ranger
District). Now part of the Westside Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, its
historic administrative sites included the Deep Creek Ranger Station and the Jenkins Hollow
Ranger Station.
3. Bear River (East) Division. The former Logan Forest Reserve made up the southern end of this
division, which extends north to Soda Point, Idaho. In 1908, it was designated as the Cache
National Forest. It encompassed the Bear River Range with Highway 34 to the west and Highway
89 and Bear Lake to the east. Adjacent towns included Soda Springs to the north, Paris to the
east and Logan to the west. Presently, the Logan Ranger District administers the Utah portion of
this division and the Montpelier Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest
administers the larger portion that lies in Idaho. Administrative sites on the Idaho side include the
Egan Basin, Cub River, Eight Mile, and Franklin Basin ranger stations.
The Bear River National Forest was reportedly divided into 11 grazing districts and four ranger districts:
North End, Mink Creek, Tony Grove, and Bear Lake.11 Without further information, one can only speculate
that these corresponded to the Marsh Creek (North End), Malad (Mink Creek), and Bear River (Tony
Grove & Bear Lake) divisions described above.
In his brief time as forest supervisor, William Weld Clark narrated in a 1907 report the desire of Rich
County residents to add land to the Bear River Forest Reserve.12 He went on to describe public sentiment
about the forest in general:
The attitude of the users and neighbors of this Forest is on the whole very friendly and
favorable. There are still plenty of kickers who are to be found in all communities and
are constitutionally opposed to any regulation by which they are required to ask for
something that they have been in the habit of obtaining without consulting anyone.
One year ago there was a widely different sentiment prevailing among the users and
neighbors of the old Logan Reserve who were familiar with the regulations governing
its use, and the residents of southern Idaho in the vicinity of the Bear River addition
who were ignorant concerning the aims, purposes, and regulations of the Forest.13
11 Cache National Forest History Binders, Logan Ranger District office, Logan, Utah.
12 Clark, 2.
13 Ibid., 3.
6 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
Two years after its creation, the Bear River Forest Reserve was “disbanded” on July 1, 1908. The Marsh
Creek and Malad (West and Middle) divisions, consisting of 149,440 acres, were transferred to the
Pocatello National Forest, while the Bear River (East) Division became the Cache National Forest with
533,840 acres.
Port Neuf Forest Reserve, 1907-1908
Robert Burns Wilson, a forest inspector, prepared a “Favorable Report on the Proposed Topaz Addition to
Bear River Forest Reserve, Idaho” in 1906. Despite his recommendation, this area was not added to the
Bear River Reserve but was instead established separately as the Port Neuf Forest Reserve on March 2,
1907. The new reserve, named for the mountain range it covered, was located east of Inkom and
McCammon, Idaho and south of Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The Toponce and Pebble ranger stations
were later located here.
The following year saw a nationwide move to consolidate small forests. Consequently, the Port Neuf
National Forest became part of the Pocatello National Forest on July 1, 1908. There it remained until 1915
when the entire Pocatello National Forest was transferred to the Cache National Forest.
Cache National Forest, 1908-1973
As discussed previously, the Cache National Forest was established July 1, 1908 from the Bear River
(East) Division of the Bear River National Forest. Before its consolidation with the Wasatch National
Forest in 1973, it underwent several transformations as lands were added, transferred, and eliminated.
Idaho Divisions
The first significant change came in 1915, when the Pocatello National Forest was eliminated and all its
land was transferred to the Cache. According to the Executive Order for this action, the consolidation was
made “for economy of administration.” The Pocatello lands included the Marsh Creek (West) and Malad
(Middle) divisions of the former Bear River National Forest. It also consisted of the Port Neuf Division (the
former Port Neuf National Forest) and the Pocatello Division. The latter was the original Pocatello Forest
Reserve, situated directly south of Pocatello, Idaho. This division encompasses Bannock Mountain and
the Mink Creek area and butts up against an eastern boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. It was
increased by nearly 20,000 acres in 1932 with the Bell Marsh Creek Addition.
The Pocatello and Port Neuf divisions were transferred to the Caribou National Forest in 1939, perhaps
because the Cache’s area of administration was greatly expanded in the 1930s with more additions. The
“Malad Division,” consisting of the old Marsh Creek and Malad divisions, was also transferred to the
Caribou National Forest only three years later in 1942. All four divisions now form the Westside Ranger
District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
Monte Cristo Township
An isolated block of land, the Monte Cristo Township was withdrawn from public entry in early 1906 for
purposes of a forest reserve. In 1908, Forest Assistant Robert V. R. Reynolds examined the area, which
consisted of Township 8 North, Range 4 East and was located south of Blacksmith Fork. Forest assistant
William Winter supplemented Reynolds’ report with another in 1909. Winter’s report included additional
lands located between the Monte Cristo Township and the Cache National Forest to the north, effectively
including the Monte Cristo mountain range. Winter recommended that the examined area be added to the
Cache National Forest to protect the watersheds of Ogden City, Curtis Creek, Rock Creek, Blacksmith
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 7
Fork, and the towns of Woodruff and Randolph.14 The lands were added on January 24, 1912 and,
according to an early map, were known as the Monte Cristo Division and the Randolph Division.15
Willard Addition
New Deal legislation of the 1930s allowed the acquisition and rehabilitation of damaged lands by Federal
agencies. In some cases, local governments and groups purchased these areas and transferred them to
the Forest Service. This was the case with the mountainous terrain above Willard, Utah, which was prone
to mud and debris slides resulting from erosion from overgrazing and fires. In 1933, the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) terraced some of Willard Peak but after another severe event in 1936,
aggressive measures were taken. Willard City condemned the land and the Forest Service, with CCC
help, began to rehabilitate it. The city donated the tract around Willard Peak, consisting of 1,807 acres, to
the Forest in 1941. This set a precedent and local governments in Box Elder, Cache and Weber set up
similar partnerships to address erosion.16
Ogden River Addition
The southern end of the Cache National Forest was significantly enlarged with the Ogden River Addition in
1936. Most of this was a large strip extending from about 2.5 miles north of the Weber River to two miles
past Brigham City. It included the mountain ridge from Ogden Peak to Ben Lomond Peak to Mt. Pisgah.
The addition also encompassed checkerboard sections of unpatented land in Ogden Valley.
A circa 1935 report on the proposed Ogden River Addition stated, “It would be hard to find an area which,
for its size, is more valuable as a watershed. Every drop of water rising on the proposed addition is used
for power or for irrigation or for both. In addition the cities of Ogden and Brigham derive their domestic
water supply from this area.”17 One reason for placing the land under Forest Service management was to
reduce silt in the Pineview Reservoir, which was being constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Another
was to decrease erosion and protect water flow in the canyons between Ogden and Brigham City. The
quality of the watersheds was being damaged by grazing and fires, many of which were started by
recreation users.
There was apparently some discussion of designating the land as a Taylor Law Grazing District. The
writer of the c.1935 report argued that the Cache Forest Supervisor could manage the addition more
efficiently than the Department of the Interior’s newly formed Grazing Service (later merged with the
General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management). He also expressed serious reservations
about “cooperating boards of stockman” as administrators. The report concluded, “The proposed Grazing
District administration is an experiment and we do not want to experiment with our watershed.”18
These remarks hinted at the well-documented saga playing out in Washington. Secretary of the Interior
Harold L. Ickes had been trying to move the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to his
department in an effort to control all public lands. As Utah Representatives Abe Murdock wrote, “Up to
date his ambitions have been thwarted, and in order to increase his power, he has resorted to other
tactics.”19 This tactics included a refusal to support the addition of any lands to the national forests.
14 William Winter, “Report on a Proposed Addition to the Cache National Forest, (1909?)” in file titled “LP – BOUNDARIES – Cache –
1909-1916,” R4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
15 Handwritten notations on a 1919 map in the Cache Historical Atlas, R4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
16 Johnson, 10-11.
17 Untitled, unsigned report in file titled “LP - BOUNDARIES – Cache – Ogden Valley, Ogden River Addition – Proclamation 5/26/36,
1934-1936,” R4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
18 Ibid.
19 Representative Abe Murdock, Washington, DC to Secretary E. J. Fjeldsted, Chamber of Commerce, Ogden, Utah, 19 April 1935,
located in file titled “LP - BOUNDARIES – Cache – Ogden Valley, Ogden River Addition – Proclamation 5/26/36, 1934-1936,” R4
Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
8 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
The Ogden River Addition issue was elevated to the President, who ordered the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior to work together. After Ickes sent his own representatives to examine the lands in the fall of
1935, he still insisted the proposed addition be administered by his department. Secretary of Agriculture
Wallace responded with a report to the President, noting the Forest Service’s experience with the area and
its ability to manage it efficiently as part of the Cache National Forest. He contrasted this with “the difficulty
and expense of setting up a new and untried agency [under the Department of Interior] with the attendant
problem of coordinating two separate jurisdictions.”20 Six months later, Secretary Ickes withdrew his
objections and the Ogden Valley Addition was made to the Cache National Forest on May 22, 1936.
Wellsville and Ogden Valley Additions
Several months after the Ogden River Addition, local governments and community groups focused their
efforts on designating the rest of the Ogden River watershed, as well as Wellsville Mountain, as national
forest lands. Again, the reason was to protect the water used by surrounding communities for power,
culinary and irrigation purposes. They submitted petitions to Congressional representatives who
forwarded them to the Department of Agriculture. Their efforts prompted the Regional Forester to request
an assessment of the area, which was completed in early 1937 by Ogden ranger Harold H. Price and
ranger W. H. Campbell (possibly of the Laketown/Rich County Ranger District).21
They predicted that, without protection, the proposed areas would eventually match the condition of the
Willard watershed when it experienced significant flooding in 1923 and 1936. They also argued that the
investment into recently completed dams (Pineview, Hyrum, and Cutler) required the control of runoff and
silt. Regarding administration, they proposed it be placed under the Ogden River Ranger District. One
forest guard should be hired in the summers to help manage the area.
It appears the proposed addition was held up by Secretary of Interior Ickes. Members of the South Cache
Water Users’ Association, the Logan Chamber of Commerce, and the Wellsville and Mendon mayors
pleaded with Ickes in May of 1938 to take action.22 They justified their arguments for watershed protection
by mentioning two “water spouts” the previous year, which led the Hyrum-Mendon canal to fill with 7,000
cubic yards of rock, mud, and silt.
Despite continuous appeals, Ickes did not give in until the following year. He conceded that the lands in
Ogden Valley could be added to the Cache National Forest because they were of “small acreage” and
interspersed with national forest lands. However, he disputed the Wellsville Mountain addition, noting it
should be administered by the Grazing Service due to its character. 23
The Ogden Valley Addition was made on April 28, 1939, pushing the Forest boundaries south to Weber
River and east to the Morgan County-Rich County line. The new boundary encompassed private lands
that the Forest Service planned to acquire through exchanges, donations, and purchases. Many of the
donations later came from surrounding towns and civic clubs that already owned or had purchased the
lands specifically for national forest designation. The area around Pineview Reservoir was not included in
the boundary until 1941. Even more was added years later, in 1963.
As with the Ogden River and Ogden Valley additions, local citizens and groups continued to harangue the
Department of Interior about the Wellsville Addition. They finally succeeded and it became part of the
20 H. A. Wallace to The President, 18 December 1935, in file titled “LP - BOUNDARIES – Cache – Ogden Valley, Ogden River Addition
– Proclamation 5/26/36, 1934-1936,” R4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
21 H. H. Price and W. H. Campbell, “Corrected and Amended Report on the Enlarged Ogden River and Wellsville Mountain Addition to
the Cache National Forest, 18 January 1937,” in file titled “LP – BOUNDARIES – Cache – Wellsville Mountain Addition, 1936-1939,”
R4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
22 Letter dated 11 May 1938, in file titled “LP – BOUNDARIES – Cache – Wellsville Mountain Addition, 1936-1939,” R4 Lands Status
Office, Ogden, Utah.
23 Harry Slattery, Acting Secretary of the Interior, to the Secretary of Agriculture, 29 March 1939, in file titled “LP – BOUNDARIES –
Cache – Wellsville Mountain Addition, 1936-1939,” R4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 9
Cache National Forest a few months later, on September 6, 1939. Located west of Logan and north of
Brigham City, it extended the forest’s northern boundary and was later designated the Wellsville Mountain
Wilderness.
WASATCH NATIONAL FOREST
The Wasatch National Forest was a consolidation of the Grantsville, Salt Lake, Vernon, and Wasatch
forest reserves. It grew and changed configuration as it traded land with the Uinta and Ashley national
forests, as additions were made, and as some lands were eliminated. In 1973, it merged with the Cache
National Forest.
Grantsville Forest Reserve, 1904-1908
Residents of Utah’s west desert petitioned for the establishment of forest reserves many times over
several decades. Most supported the action as a means to regulate grazing, particularly as sheep outfits
continued to invade the area. One of the earliest areas to be withdrawn from public entry was located west
of Grantsville in Tooele County on the Stansbury Mountains (north end of the Onaqui Range).24 Although
withdrawn in 1900, it was not until 1904 that Albert F. Potter completed a report on the proposed reserve,
recommending it be established to protect the irrigation water of valley settlers.
Potter wrote about the damage caused by sheep, as well as the nominal harvesting of timber for general
use or to support mining at Mercur. He recommended that the proposed reserve be divided into three
grazing districts, one west of the divide and two east of the divide, with all closed to sheep. One “first class
ranger” could administer the reserve from headquarters in Grantsville.25 On Potter’s recommendation, the
Grantsville Forest Reserve, consisting of 68,960 acres, was created on May 7, 1904.
The Wasatch National Forest absorbed the Grantsville Reserve on July 1, 1908. Once part of the Tooele
Ranger District, the division is now under the Salt Lake Ranger District and includes the Deseret Peak
Wilderness.
Tooele Forest Reserve
The proposed Tooele Forest Reserve, a small area south of Tooele and on the western slopes of the
Oquirrh Mountains, was withdrawn in February of 1901. Upon further investigation, forest officials
determined the area had a large amount of adverse holdings consisting of approved and unapproved
State selections. Consequently, in 1904, forest reserve designation was deemed unsuitable.26 Israel
Bennion of Vernon colorfully expressed his dissatisfaction to Gifford Pinchot, as well as the standard cattle
rancher’s view of sheep men, in a 1904 letter:
On the one hand is a class of people, representing many, who make many blades of
grass where one, or none, grew before; on the other hand, a class, representing few,
who utterly annihilate all grasses that ever grew, and then pass on to other localities,
other states, leaving ruin and desolation in their wake. Perhaps the homemakers rebuild
the waste places, and again the land begins to smile. What then? The harpies return;
24 In a letter to the Commissioner of the General Land Office dated April 20, 1904, Gifford Pinchot wrote, “Although Stansbury Range
occurs on the map, the mountains are not locally known under this name, but are called the Grantsville or Onaqui Mountains.” He
suggested, therefore, that the reserve be named “Grantsville” rather than “Stansbury Range.”
25 Albert F. Potter, “Report on the Proposed Grantsville Forest Reserve Utah, 1904,” in file titled “L, Boundaries, Wasatch, 1903-1907,”
Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
26 Acting Forester Overton W. Price to Senator Reed Smoot, 4 January 1904, in file titled “LP-BOUNDARIES-Wasatch-(Tooele) 1901-
1908,” Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
10 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
the terrible grasshoppers – I mean the sheep, with the golden hoof – golden to its owner,
but O, Lord, what of the rest! – comes back, and in a few days all is again a dustbed, and
the farmer’s yearlings are bellowing at the gate.27
Pinchot responded that he would send an agent to examine the region the following summer. The agent
apparently found the area did not meet the criteria for forest reserve designation and the withdrawn lands
were reopened to settlement and entry in October of 1905.
The issue was revived in the late 1930s but by then, the Department of the Interior’s Grazing Service was
managing rangelands. In 1939, the Regional Forester disapproved a proposal for the Tooele Addition (the
west slope of the Oquirrh Mountains) to the Wasatch National Forest. It was felt that management by the
DG was more appropriate.28
Salt Lake Forest Reserve, 1904-1908
Like the Grantsville reserve, the Salt Lake Forest Reserve was withdrawn from public entry in 1900. This
was followed two years later by a withdrawal of an additional five sections. That summer, in 1902, Albert
F. Potter conducted a field investigation.
According to Potter’s 1903 report,29 the proposed reserve included the Mill Creek, Big Cottonwood, and
Little Cottonwood basins, all of which were important for supplying water to the Salt Lake valley. He
described uses and conditions, noting that Mill Creek Canyon had been cut over for lumber and
extensively grazed. Potter indicated similar activities in Big Cottonwood Canyon, as well as mining and
recreational uses such as summer resorts, camping areas, and temporary summer homes. The public
also recreated in Little Cottonwood Canyon, which was accessible by tram car from Sandy Station to the
Alta mining district or by stage from Murray. Potter noted the ecological damage caused by extensive
mining and logging. He also commented on the good quality of the granite in the canyon, much of which
had been quarried for construction use in Salt Lake City, including that of the LDS temple.
Potter recommended the establishment of the Salt Lake Forest Reserve in his report. He suggested it be
administered as two grazing districts, with District 1 north of the divide between Big Cottonwood and Little
Cottonwood canyons and District 2 south of the divide.
In 1904, Albert Potter wrote a second report on the proposed Salt Lake Forest Reserve, reiterating parts
from his earlier report.30 Shortly thereafter, on May 26, 1904, the Salt Lake Forest Reserve was formally
established. At 95,440 acres, it consisted of most, but not all, of the previously withdrawn lands.
The people of Bountiful, Utah petitioned in late 1906 to have their watershed added to the Salt Lake Forest
Reserve. The following summer, E. H. Clarke, Forest Supervisor of the Salt Lake and the Wasatch
national forests, examined the area and completed a report supporting the action. Clarke also took the
opportunity to recommend the consolidation of his two forests, which would allow him to “distribute
Rangers to better advantage, and will do away with the keeping of two accounts in the office and the
issuing of two authorizations, and will be easier to handle in many other ways.”31 Although the Bountiful
addition was not made until 1934, Clarke’s vision was realized on July 1, 1908 when the Salt Lake,
Wasatch, and Grantsville forests were consolidated. The consolidated lands were named the Wasatch
National Forest.
27 Israel Bennion to Gifford Pinchot, 21 March 1904, in file titled “LP-BOUNDARIES-Wasatch-(Tooele) 1901-1908,” Region 4 Lands
Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
28 Peterson and Speth, 1980, 59.
29 Albert F. Potter, “Report on Proposed Forest Reserves in the State of Utah, 1903,” Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
30 Albert F. Potter, “Report on the Salt Lake Forest Reserve, Utah 1904,” in file titled “L, Boundaries, Wasatch, 1903-1907,” Region 4
Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
31 E. H. Clarke, “Report on Proposed Addition to Salt Lake National Forest, 10 June 1907,” in file titled “L, Boundaries, Wasatch, 1903-
1907,” Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 11
Vernon Forest Reserve, 1906-1908
Residents of the Vernon area began petitioning for a forest reserve in 1904 and lands were withdrawn from
public entry that year. Two reports were prepared for the proposed Vernon Forest Reserve, located on the
south end of the Onaqui Range, in 1906. R. B. Wilson’s report described the 97,920-acre area as similar
to the Grantsville Forest Reserve in that it was “purely a grazing proposition with the attendant water
questions.”32
Wilson briefly documented the effects of the drought on water supply (although settlers tended to blame
transient sheep), harvesting of timber for the Mercur mine, the population decrease attributed to harsh
conditions of living in a desert, unsuccessful attempts at mineral prospecting, and an increasing interest in
dry farming. Wilson concluded by recommending the creation of the Vernon Forest Reserve, with
administration carried out by the Grantsville Forest Supervisor and a ranger headquartered in Vernon.
In the second report, forest assistant Clyde Leavitt recommended that part of the withdrawn area be
designated a forest reserve to protect the water supplies of settlers in Rush, Skull and west Tintic valleys.
He also wrote that a Logan company, “composed mostly of professors and school teachers,” had bought
land for the purposes of dry farming on a large scale.33
The Rush Valley settlers were successful when, on April 24, 1906, the Vernon Forest Reserve was
created with 54,240 acres. During the 1908 forest consolidations, the Vernon, the Payson, and part of the
Fillmore forests were combined to form the Nebo National Forest. As explained later in this chapter, the
Vernon was reduced in size and transferred to the Wasatch National Forest only two years later.
Wasatch Forest Reserve, 1906-1908
Land was withdrawn for the Wasatch Forest Reserve as early as 1900, but most was released in 1901.
This was followed by a temporary withdrawal of lands on May 26, 1902 and Albert Potter’s investigation of
the area that summer. He reported that the land, which was between the proposed Salt Lake and Manti
forest reserves, was less favorable as a reserve due to alienated lands, minimal timber land, and brushy
grazing lands. Recognizing the area as an important part of the Utah Lake and Jordan River watershed,
Potter realized its value as a forest reserve, particularly if the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
chose to construct a Utah Lake storage reservoir. He recommended in 1903 that the lands remain
withdrawn and forest reserve designation be considered
after the USGS made a decision.
It was not until August 16, 1906 that the Wasatch
Forest Reserve was established. Consisting of 85,440
acres, it extended from approximately the Provo River
and American Fork area north to the southern boundary
of the Salt Lake Forest Reserve. After only two years,
these two forests and the Grantsville National Forest
were combined in a nationwide move to improve
administration by consolidating small forests. The
newly configured forest was known as the Wasatch
National Forest.
32 R. B. Wilson, “A Favorable Report on the Proposed Vernon Forest Reserve Utah, 1906,” in file titled “L, Boundaries, Wasatch, 1903-
1907,” Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
33 Clyde Leavitt, “Report on the Proposed Vernon Forest Reserve Utah, 1906,” in file titled “L, Boundaries, Wasatch, 1903-1907,”
Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
12 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
The Consolidated Wasatch National Forest, 1908-1973
The 1908 consolidation of the Wasatch, Grantsville, and Salt Lake forests led to better administration, but
more actions were taken in following years to improve efficiency. Borders between districts and forests
were shifted and whole divisions were transferred. Acreage shifted as agricultural lands were eliminated
from the Forest area and lands with timber or watershed values were added.
The Vernon Division
The Vernon Division was part of the Nebo National Forest from 1908 until 1910 when it was decided to
transfer it to the Wasatch National Forest. Charles F. Cooley, acting forest supervisor of the latter, wrote
as early as January 1909 that one full-time ranger could administer the Vernon and Grantsville divisions
together. He recommended that either the settlement of Clover Creek or St. John (two miles apart from
each other) be chosen as district headquarters since both were centrally located with daily mail service.
St. John also had a telephone line.34
Action on the Vernon Division was put on hold and consideration was even given to eliminating it from the
national forest. Forest examiner C. E. Dunston prepared a report in 1910 on the proposed elimination,
providing a historic overview of early Euro-American settlement and grazing activities. He wrote that since
its establishment as a forest reserve in 1906, sheep had been excluded from the Vernon Division and,
consequently, the range and stream flow were improving. He recommended that the Vernon Division be
retained.35 Dunston’s advice was taken and in July of 1910, the Vernon Division, less 14,560 acres of
eliminated land, was transferred to the Wasatch National Forest.
Inter-Forest Boundaries
Geography, recreation, costs, transportation, and politics formed the decisions to make numerous
additions to and exchanges between the Wasatch, Uinta, and Ashley forests. The major adjustments, all
affecting administrative boundaries in the Uinta Mountains, occurred in 1915, 1929, 1933, and 1954.
1915:
In late 1914, the District Forester directed the supervisors of the Wasatch (J. Frank Bruins) and Uinta
(Adolph Jensen) national forests to resolve their differences over the boundary between their two forests.
Bruins responded with a nine-page memo in which he presented the pros and cons of either forest’s
administration of the area corresponding to the current Kamas and Evanston ranger districts and parts of
the Mountain View , Duchesne (Ashley NF) and Heber (Uinta NF) ranger districts.36
Although unconfirmed, Bruins’ memo indicated that the land in question – “Districts Nos. 6 and 11 of the
old Uinta Forest” was already being administered by the Wasatch, even though it was not officially part of
the forest. He mentioned the proposal to “transfer permanently [the districts] from the Wasatch
administration to that of the Uinta.”
In his arguments for the Wasatch to retain these districts, he demonstrated the benefits to most users,
especially the timber industry. He argued that the Heber area grazing permittees, who wanted to work with
only the Uinta rather than both forests, represented the wishes of a few and was not in the best interest of
34 Acting Forest Supervisor C.F. Cooley to District Forester Clyde Leavitt, 7 January 1909, in file titled “LP – BOUNDARIES – Wasatch
– 1908-1909,” Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
35 C. E. Dunston, “Report on the Proposed Elimination of the Vernon Division of the Nebo National Forest, April 1910,” in file titled “LP –
BOUNDARIES – Wasatch – 1909-1921,” Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
36 J. F. Bruins, “Memorandum Location of Wasatch Uinta Interforest Boundary, 10 December 1915,” in file titled “LP – BOUNDARIES –
Wasatch – 1909-1921,” Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 13
resource protection. Regarding the Heber sheep owners, Bruins stated they were outsiders “whose
grazing status in the country is open to question.”37
Only six months later, on June 23, 1915, a 355,405-acre area was transferred from the Uinta to the
Wasatch, thus doubling the size of the latter. Without a graphic representation, it is difficult to know the
exact territory covered by Districts 6 and 11 mentioned in Bruins’ memo. However, his descriptions
suggest that the Wasatch received District 6 (the present-day Kamas and Evanston ranger districts and
part of the Mountain View Ranger District), while the Uinta assumed administration of District 11 (parts of
the current Heber Ranger District and the Ashley’s Duchesne Ranger District).
With the 1915 adjustment, the Wasatch consisted of four divisions. These were the Wasatch front, the
Grantsville Division, the Vernon Division, and the High Uinta area.
1929:
While timber and grazing administration guided the 1915 boundary adjustment, recreation and the growing
population of Salt Lake City were driving forces behind the 1929 transfer of the Granddaddy Lakes area to
the Wasatch. Located on the Uinta National Forest’s eastern boundary with the Ashley National Forest, it
encompassed 191,085 acres in Duchesne County. Part of this was transferred to the Ashley in 1954.38
1933:
In 1931, the Ashley National Forest acquired the Fort Bridger Addition consisting of 40,289 acres in
Wyoming. On November 7, 1933, a portion of this (about 17,000 acres) was transferred to the Wasatch.
At the same time, about 30,000 acres in Utah went from the Wasatch to the Ashley in an effort to improve
administration.
1954:
Discussions between the forest supervisors of the Wasatch, Uinta, and Ashley forests led to boundary
changes in 1954. The American Fork-Pleasant Grove Ranger District south of Salt Lake County was
transferred from the Wasatch to the Uinta. 39 Land on the north end of the Ashley, including the remainder
of the Fort Bridger Addition, went to the Wasatch. The Ashley transferred the Mountain View Ranger
District to the Wasatch but gained the Duchesne (Stockmore) district from the Uinta.40
These exchanges, along with others, caused much of the original Uintah Forest Reserve, established in
1897, to become part of the Wasatch National Forest. In corresponding moves, most of the original
Wasatch forest is now part of the Uinta National Forest.
Summit County Addition
The Summit County Addition (103,049 acres) encompassed the headwaters of the Heber, Green, and
Bear rivers and extended the Blacks Fork (Evanston) Ranger District northward to the Wyoming state
line.41 This area had been proposed as a forest reserve as early as 1906 but had little public support.
With Supervisor Art G. Nord’s involvement, the addition was again proposed in the early 1930s to a more
receptive public. Nord argued the addition was needed to control wildfires, the pine beetle problem, and
flood threats. He noted that the damage to the watershed was threatening the water supply of Evanston,
37 Ibid.
38 Peterson and Speth, 1980, 61-62.
39 Ibid., 63.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid., 67.
14 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
Echo Reservoir, and area farms. Nord and his supporters were successful. The Summit County Addition
(103,049 acres) was made on January 12, 1933.42
Davis County and Morgan County Additions
Efforts to include the watershed of Bountiful, Utah in the Wasatch National Forest were undertaken as
early as 1906. Forest Supervisor E. H. Clarke examined the area in 1907 and recommended its inclusion,
which was reiterated by the Regional Office (RO) in early 1909.43 The reply from the Washington Office
(WO) indicated, “there is still opposition to any further additions in Utah and until it has subsided it will be
impossible to take any action upon your recommendations other than the transfer of the Vernon area to the
Wasatch.”44
The political climate of the early 1930s, combined with government aid programs and recent floods
exacerbated by watershed damage, changed the situation. An area extending from the Davis County line
north to the Weber River had experienced serious floods and devastating erosion. In a 10-year period,
1923 to 1933, four serious flood seasons caused the death of five people and damaged or destroyed
property and infrastructure. Consequently, the Wasatch National Forest acquired the Davis County
Addition in 1934, effectively placing almost 58,000 acres on the west slope of the Wasatch Mountains
under forest protection. To rehabilitate these denuded, flood-prone lands, the Forest Service and the US
Army oversaw CCC crews who constructed terraces and check dams, seeded native grasses, and planted
trees to restore the watershed. On April 20, 1953, the Davis County Experimental Watershed gained
official status.45
The Wasatch National Forest was expanded eastward by 24,000 acres in 1962 with the Morgan County
Addition. This action added lands on the east side of the Wasatch Mountains to what was then the
Bountiful Ranger District.
Unsuccessful Additions
Not all land proposed for forest designation was accepted. In 1908, residents sought creation of a national
forest on the Cedar Mountains, west of the Grantsville Division and Skull Valley. Upon examination that
June, ranger George C Thompson found no valuable timber, nor the need to protect watersheds of the
range.46 The locals’ attempt to keep out sheep grazing by designating the area as a national forest failed.
In 1909, Robert V. R. Reynolds examined the Onaqui Range, which connected the Grantsville and Vernon
divisions in Tooele County. The addition of this range to the Wasatch National Forest had strong support
from Rush Valley residents, Governor William Spry (a native of the area) and Senator Reed Smoot. Of
note is Reynolds’ comment about the support of the LDS church:
The local leaders of this sect are strongly favorable to the Service, and during a stop at
the house of Israel Bennion, who is the Bishop at Vernon, a most unusual action on the
part of a Church officer was heard of. When Ranger Manwill [J. V. Manwell] was
withdrawn from this region in May, Biship [sic] Bennion gave his congregation a talk on
42 Ibid., 67-69.
43 District Forester Clyde Leavitt to The Forester, 25 January 1909, in file titled “LP-BOUNDARIES – Wasatch – 1908-1909, Region 4
Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
44 Assistant Forester James B. Adams to District Forester, 19 February 1909, in file titled “LP-BOUNDARIES – Wasatch – 1908-1909,
Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
45 “Multiple-Use Management Plan, Bountiful Ranger District, Wasatch National Forest, 1962” TMs, p. 12-13, History Binder, Salt Lake
Ranger District office, Salt Lake City, Utah.
46 George C. Thompson, “An Unfavorable Report on the Cedar Mountain Addition to the Wasatch National Forest Utah, June 1908,” in
file titled “LP-BOUNDARIES – Wasatch – 1908-1909, Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah and letter from Acting Forester
Albert F. Potter to Senator Reed Smoot, 22 October 1908, in file titled “LP-BOUNDARIES-Wasatch-(Tooele) 1901-1908,” Region 4
Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 15
the benefits of the Forest Service to the region and urged every man to behave in the
Ranger’s absence precisely as they would have done had he been present all the time.
The value of sentiment and backing of this nature cannot be over-estimated.47
Reynolds, who was acting forest supervisor of the Wasatch, clearly noted there were no timber values or
watershed issues and that the main concern was grazing. He compared it to other areas of Utah and
Idaho that he had recommended not be designated as national forest lands. However, perhaps
succumbing to political pressure, Reynolds recommended approval of the addition.
The addition of the Onaqui Mountains might have happened if Gifford Pinchot remained Chief Forester.
His replacement by Henry S. Graves in 1910 led to a stricter definition of “forest” with less reliance on
public sentiment. Reynolds “did an about face” on the proposed addition and even recommended
elimination of the Vernon Division, which was transferred from the Nebo to the Wasatch in 1910. Public
outcry was significant, with much coming from ranchers trying to defend themselves against the influx of
sheep through the area. Governor Spry may have influenced the postponing of the decision to eliminate
the Vernon Division.48
Clover Addition Local petitioners requested in 1917 that the Grantsville Division be extended 16 miles
south to Rock Canyon. Three years later, the Wasatch Forest Supervisor recommended that it be added,
“thus joining the Grantsville and Vernon Divisions,” even though it had no timber or watershed values. He
saw it important for grazing and administrative purposes.49 The proposed area, perhaps named for its
proximity to the town of Clover Creek, seems to correspond to the Onaqui Addition proposed earlier. It
again failed to be approved as national forest lands.
WASATCH-CACHE CONSOLIDATION, 1973
As demonstrated later in this document, the reorganization and consolidation of ranger districts is ongoing
as policies change, staffs shrink and increase, and needs change. In the 1970s, this was supplemented
with President Nixon’s directive to administer geographic areas through one Federal office rather than a
variety of Agency offices. His “Standard Regional Boundary Concept” would have eliminated the Forest
Service regional offices, among others. Former Ashley Forest Supervisor A. R. McConkie explained the
situation:
Funds and personnel limitations have been very severe during this spring of 1973. A
number of Forest Service consolidations has [sic] been made in the Intermountain
Region to cut down overhead costs. The same is true with Ranger District
consolidations. Approximately one-third of the Ranger Districts in the Region have been
eliminated by consolidating with other units. On April 24, 1973, announcement was
made by the Secretary of Agriculture that the Intermountain Regional Headquarters at
Ogden would be eliminated. The Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
headquarters at that location would also be moved. These actions, taken together with
shortage of funds since the Forest Service will receive in Fiscal Year 1974 an estimated
47 Robert V. R. Reynolds, “A Favorable Report on the Proposed Onaqui Addition to the Wasatch National Forest, June 13 to 27, 1909,”
in file titled “LP-BOUNDARIES – Wasatch – 1908-1909, Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
48 Peterson and Speth, 53-55.
49 Forest Supervisor Dana Parkinson to District Forester, 19 July 1920, in file titled “LP – BOUNDARIES – Wasatch – 1909-1921,”
Region 4 Lands Status Office, Ogden, Utah.
16 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
35% to 30% less funding than in the previous fiscal year, have brought about rather
severe crises with many Forest Service employees.50
The Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation halted his initiative to eliminate regional offices. As
McConkie mentioned, however, district consolidations had already taken place. This was a result of a
1968 “Size of Ranger District Policy” requiring forests to examine public services, resource management,
organization management, costs, and projected workload. In Region 4 studies, the Manila and Vernal
districts on the Ashley and the Mountain View and Evanston districts on the Wasatch were given top
priority because of the proposed legislation to designate Flaming Gorge as a National Recreation Area
(NRA). Districts considered for an area increase included the Evanston, Mountain View, Kamas, Bountiful,
Salt Lake, and Tooele districts on the Wasatch NF, the Heber District on the Uinta NF, and the Paris,
Randolph, Preston, Logan and Ogden districts on the Cache NF.
These studies led the Forest Supervisor in 1971 to make the following recommendations:51
􀂃􈌠 Combine the Evanston and Mountain View districts, along with that part of the Manila District to
the west boundary of the Flaming Gorge NRA. The North Slope of the Uintas should be
administered as one unit with headquarters in either Evanston or Mountain View.
􀂃􈌠 Combine the Kamas District and the portion of the Heber District in the Provo River drainage.
This would create one administrative unit for the Provo River drainage.
􀂃􈌠 Combine the Salt Lake and Bountiful districts with headquarters in Salt Lake City, since
management issues were similar and the interstate and other roads provided easy access.
􀂃􈌠 Leave the Tooele District intact with headquarters in Tooele.
A circa 1972 report52 outlined the agreement to consolidate the Wasatch and Cache national forests, with
a Supervisor’s Office (SO) in Salt Lake City. At the time of the report, the Cache SO in Logan employed
30 people, while the Logan Ranger District had eight people. It was expected that 30 jobs would be
eliminated or transferred from Logan.53 However, the report argued, the cost savings of consolidating
offices would allow more money to go to the districts, particularly in recreation administration. This was
seen as a necessity given the increasing number of forest visitors along the Wasatch Front. The savings
would also allow the Wasatch to establish a full-time law enforcement position at the Supervisor’s Office in
Salt Lake City. Finally, combining the Wasatch and Cache would eliminate problems caused by the two
forests’ differing policies, thus improving consistency and cooperation with other agencies and levels of
governments. 54
The two forests were consolidated in 1973 as the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, yet another
“hyphenated” forest in Region 4. The reorganization included the following actions:
􀂃􈌠 The Cache’s districts were reduced from five to three with headquarters located in Logan and
Ogden, Utah and Montpelier, Idaho.
􀂃􈌠 The Idaho part of the Cache (the Montpelier Ranger District) was assigned to the Caribou
National Forest for administrative purposes, although it was never formally transferred. This was
seen as a way to minimize competition and jealousy between the residents of Idaho and Utah.
50 A. R. McConkie, “Ashley National Forest Historical Information, May 22, 1973,” transcribed and posted on Ashley National Forest
website.
51 Robert L. Hanson to Forest Supervisor, 6 January 1971and Forest Supervisor to the Regional Forester, 12 March 1971.
52 “Cache National Forest Consolidation Proposal, December (1972?)” TMs [photocopy], located with Richa Wilson, Region 4 Facilities
Group, Ogden, Utah.
53 “Ibid.
54 “Ibid.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 17
􀂃􈌠 The six ranger districts of the Wasatch National Forest were reduced to four districts
headquartered at Mountain View (Wyoming), Kamas, Salt Lake City, and Tooele.
􀂃􈌠 The administration of the Vernon Division was given to the Uinta National Forest although it was
not formally removed from the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.55 Although the circa 1972 report
recommended the transfer of the entire Tooele Ranger District to the Uinta, the Grantsville
Division remained with the Salt Lake Ranger District.
The Wasatch-Cache National Forest has changed little since the 1973 consolidation. One exception is the
decision to have one ranger administer the Mountain View and Evanston ranger districts. Detailed
information about each of the forest’s six districts is provided in the following chapters.
PERSONNEL
Historically, the administrative structures of the Wasatch and Cache forests were typical. A Forest
Supervisor based at Forest headquarters (the Supervisor's Office or SO) directed District Rangers who
typically had both winter and summer headquarters. They were often helped in the summer months by
Assistant Rangers or Forest Guards.
Many of the Forests’ first officers were local men from Utah or, in the case of the Cache National Forest,
southern Idaho. They tended to be men with hands-on skills, rather than formal training. A 1907 report on
Bear River Forest Reserve personnel, presumably written by Forest Supervisor W.W. Clark, noted the
skills of the Deputy Supervisor, Forest Guard and two extra men:
This past year has been the first for all the officers on the Idaho portion of this Forest,
and as two of these men were guards who were unable to pass the Civil Service
examination the prospects are not as bright as they might be for a good efficient
personnel for next year. The great trouble with the men is their inexperience in
handling timber sales and their lack of training and education. The men have big
districts and are required to put in long hours and plenty of hard riding, but that is just
what I believe is best for them and the Service. In my opinion it is much more
satisfactory to all concerned to have a really efficient man, pay him a big salary and
give him to understand that he must do some tall hustling to run his district right than it
is to have two men at a lower salary with but little to do but grumble at the small pay
received.56
Clark summarized the measly salary situation of rangers, noting that although they were paid $900 a year,
they were typically laid off in the winter and had to board several of their saddle horses. An educated and
skilled ranger could make more money outside of the Forest Service. Given that they had to cover many
of their own work expenses, most were spending an average of $250 per year on lodging and subsistence
while away from home, horses, feed and shoeing, and their field equipment. If salaries did not increase,
Clark warned, the Forest would probably need to break in “a couple more green men next season.”57
The quality of the Forest personnel improved as more men attended forestry courses at the Utah State
Agricultural College in Logan. Others completed correspondence courses offered by Region 4 during
World War I. Some men gained work experience and education as enrollees of Civilian Conservation
Corps camps. Basil Crane served in the CCC at Paris, Idaho before attending Utah State Agricultural
55 Peterson and Speth, 1980, 72.
56 Clark, 1.
57 “Ibid., 2.
18 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
College where he earned a degree in range management. He later worked as a ranger on the Cache
National Forest.58
58 Basil K. Crane, “Dust from an Alkali Flat, 1981'' TMs [photocopy], p. 1, Forest Service Heritage Center, Ogden, Utah.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 19
Chapter 3: New Deal Programs
Utah was one of the states that suffered most during the Great Depression. By 1933, the unemployment
rate rose to the fourth highest nationwide at 35.8 percent. The average rate through the 1930s was 26
percent. Wage levels dropped significantly, 32 of the 105 banks failed and, in 1933, 32 percent of Utahns
received government relief funds. The situation was alleviated by New Deal programs with Utah ranking
ninth among the 48 states in the amount of per capita federal spending that occurred with those
programs.59
Transient camps were set up in Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Pocatello to provide temporary work for the
otherwise unemployed.60 Workers from the Lakeview transient camp built eight miles of the Farmington
Canyon road in 1936-37 and other transient camps similarly contributed to improvements around the
state.61 However, programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress
Administration (WPA) had a much greater impact, particularly on National Forest lands.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
In Utah, an average of 12,000 people annually worked for the WPA between 1935 and 1942. In 1936
alone, enrollees numbered 17,000. The WPA Art Project, Writers Project, and Music Project contributed
significantly to the state’s cultural development.62 The Forest Service also benefited as many WPA men
worked for the Wasatch and Cache forests. Ranger Kenneth Maughan recalled using up to 100 WPA
men at a time on recreation projects, roads, range improvements, administrative improvements, timber
stand improvements, and insect control.63 Another ranger recalled that the WPA camp on the Kamas
Ranger District was set up in June of 1935 with 30 unemployed miners from Park City. He described them
as a “rough, ringy bunch of men” who were charged with running a sawmill, primarily to make picnic tables
out of logs.64
CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS
In his 1971 dissertation, Kenneth Baldridge provides extensive information about the CCC in Utah. His
seminal work is the primary source for the following, which addresses CCC camps known to have existed
on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. More information about the relationship between the CCC and
the Forest Service is provided in “Within A Day’s Ride: Forest Service Administrative Sites in Region 4,
1891-1960," to which this Wasatch-Cache history is a supplement.
Camp F-1, Logan Canyon
In the first enrollment period (summer of 1933), two camps were established on the Cache National Forest.
One was Camp F-1 in Logan Canyon, which operated only two summers (1933 and 1934). Company
59 John S. McCormick, Utah History Encyclopedia at www.media.utah.edu/UHE/d/DEPPRESSION,GREAT.html, accessed 21 August
2002.
60 Peterson and Speth, 1980, 103.
61 Handwritten note in History Binder, Salt Lake Ranger District office, Salt Lake City, Utah.
62 McCormick.
63 Peterson and Speth, 1980, 103.
64 R. T. King, The Free Life of a Ranger. Archie Murchie in the U.S. Forest Service, 1929-1965, (Reno: University of Nevada Oral
History Program, 1991), 113 and 115.
20 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
957, consisting of Cache County residents, occupied the camp both seasons. In June of 1933, enrollees
began constructing their camp near the Tony Grove Ranger Station. They built “a mess hall, recreation
hall, four barracks, blacksmith shop, hospital, shower building, and administration building.” Enrollees also
laid shale walks and areas of lawn.65 Their work paid off and the camp was awarded “Blue Pennant”
status for being the best wooden camp in the Fort Douglas District.66
A.H. Powell served as camp superintendent with Captain Robert Sharpe commanding the company during
its first summer.67 During the second enrollment period (winter 1933-34), Company 957 was transferred to
La Verkin but returned to Logan Canyon the following summer. During the third enrollment period
(summer 1934), Camp F-1 was the only camp operating on the Cache National Forest as most camps
were assigned to drought control efforts further south.68 After two summers of work, Company 957 moved
to the new Camp F-34 in Hyrum for the winter of 1934-35. The Hyrum camp essentially replaced Camps
F-1 and F-2, but continued the work started by both.
Enrollees of Camp F-1 constructed campgrounds, drift fences, and fish pond improvements. They
eradicated pests, planted 1500 trees, and poisoned ground squirrels. Crews also worked on a road that
connected Cowley Canyon and Herd Hollow into Blacksmith Fork Canyon.69
After it was apparent that the CCC would not return to its camp in Logan Canyon, the site was redeveloped
as the Tony Grove Ranger Training School. Run by Utah State Agricultural College, the program served
to educate many forest rangers in subsequent years.
Company Start Date
957 05/26/1933
957 Summer 1934
Camp F-2, Blacksmith Fork Canyon
Camp F-2 was established in Blacksmith Fork Canyon of the Cache National Forest in 1933. It may have
been located a mile or so east of the present-day Blacksmith Fork Ranger Station in T11N, R3E, S30 (at
the site of the Grotto Point Administrative Site withdrawal).70 The first enrollees in Company 1347 were
housed in 18 tents, although they soon built a permanent mess hall and several other buildings.71 The
camp gained “Blue Pennant” status for being the best tent camp in the Fort Douglas District.72
During its one season of operation (summer 1933), Camp F-2 worked to build a road through Herd Hollow
and Cowley Canyon, connecting with a road started by Camp F-1. Both of these camps were replaced in
the winter of 1934-35 with the establishment of Camp F-34 in Hyrum.
Company Start Date
1347 Summer 1933
65 Kenneth W. Baldridge, “Nine Years of Achievement: The Civilian Conservation Corps in Utah” (Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young
University, 1971), 42-43.
66 Ibid., 69.
67 Ibid., 42
68 Ibid., 104.
69 Ibid., 42.
70 Scott Bushman, Hotshot Superintendent, Logan Ranger District, personal communication with author, 10 March 2003.
71 Baldridge, 43.
72 Ibid., 69.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 21
Camp F-4, Smith’s Fork and Camp F-7, Blacks Fork
There is some confusion about the locations of these two camps. In his 1971 dissertation, Kenneth
Baldridge wrote that Camp F-4 Smith’s Fork was in Summit County on the Ashley National Forest.
Occupied by Company 230, it only operated during the summer of 1933. It was “on the north slope of the
Uinta Range, just south of the Wyoming border.”73 It consisted of “25 LEM’s [Local Experienced Men]
from Weber County, Utah, and 185 boys from New York under Captain J. E. Grove. Superintendent Leon
Pack supervised the camp’s major assignment of building roads.”74 Information from the CCC alumni
website also indicates Company 230 occupied Camp F-4 beginning June 13, 1933 with the nearest
railroad at Carter, Wyoming and the nearest post office at Mountain View, Wyoming.75
Baldridge also reports that Camp F-7 Black’s Fork opened in the summer of 1933 in Summit County, but
was on the Wasatch National Forest. It was “southwest of Evanston, Wyoming, just over a mile south of
the state line.” It had 20 Local Experienced Men from the Ogden area and 200 New York enrollees,
occupied primarily with road building. Baldridge notes the similarities to Camp F-4, but distinguished the
two through its leaders: William E. Applegate was superintendent and Karl Bunnell was a foreman.76
According to the CCC alumni website, Camp F-7 was occupied by Company 231 beginning June 13, 1933
with the nearest railroads and post office at Evanston, Wyoming.
In 1965, former Forest Service official Jay Hann recalled that a CCC camp was “at the old Commissary
site on the Blacksfork.” In the summers of 1933 and 1934, enrollees worked on the road from Hewinta to
Mill Creek, and on the Blacks Fork Bridge. In addition, they built administrative buildings at Hewinta, East
Fork Blacks Fork, and Mill Creek.77 It is not clear if Hann was referring to Camp F-4 or Camp F-7. Neither
Baldridge nor the CCC alumni website provides any indication that either camp operated after the summer
of 1933.
Camp F-6, Soapstone
Another camp established during the summer
of 1933 was Camp F-6, near the present-day
Soapstone Guard Station. The first enrollees
formed Company 1346 under the command of
Captain William C. Louisell. The company
consisted of 25 Virginia enrollees and 175 Utah
enrollees.78 Jack Woolstenhulme was the
Forest Service leader of that first company,
which was given the tasks of insect control,
roadside clearing, and recreation activities.
Jack hired Wallie Anderson of Salt Lake City as
carpenter foreman, E. A. Dillon as an assistant,
Frank Fitzgerald as road foreman, Paul Higley
to oversee water systems, Carlos Hultz for
brush disposal, and Laurence Colton (later the
Kamas District Ranger) for insect control.79
73 Ibid., 43.
74 Ibid., 43, 45.
75 Civilian Conservation Corps Alumni website, http://www.cccalumni.org/states/utah1.html, accessed 1 June 2005.
76 Baldridge, 45.
77 Jay B. Hann, through memorandum from Assistant Regional Forester T. H. Van Meter to District Forest Ranger Marvin Combs, 11
March 1965, History Files, Mountain View Ranger District office, Mountain View, Wyoming.
78 Kenneth O. Maughan, Interview by Thomas G. Alexander, 16 February 1984, interview 71, transcript, p. 8, accession number R4-
1680-92-0024-71, Region 4 Heritage Center, Ogden, Utah.
79 Jack Woolstenhulme(?), TMs [photocopy], p. 253, History Files, Kamas Ranger District office, Kamas, Utah.
Soapstone CCC Camp, 1933.
22 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
During its multi-year history, the Soapstone Camp constructed fish habitat on the upper Provo River,80 built
or improved the campgrounds at Mirror Lake, Trial Lake and Lost Lake, extended the Mirror Lake Highway
to Scout Lake landing, constructed timber roads, and erected telephone lines. The enrollees also built the
Mirror Lake Guard Station,81 as well as the Kamas Ranger Station, the Soapstone Guard Station, and the
Ledgefork Guard Station.82 All of this work was done in the summers, with the company sometimes
transferring to Camp F-43 in Pleasant Grove for the winter.83
Company Start Date
1346 05/25/33
960 05/1934
1979 05/29/1935
No indication that the camp was occupied during the summer of 1936.
2514 06/23/1937
3544 05/26/1938
940 06/07/1940
No indication that the camp was occupied during the summer of 1939.
Unknown Summer 1941
Camps F-34, Hyrum
Camp F-34, located in Cache County, replaced Camp F-1 in Logan Canyon and Camp F-2 in Blacksmith
Fork Canyon. Camp F-34 continued to work in those two canyons, as noted by Fred Baugh, a former
Forest Service employee. While in charge of a spike camp at Tony Grove, Baugh “started the process of
building the nursery and also putting in that long water line from up at Tony Grove Lake which was a tough
project.” 84 Enrollees carried out tasks started by Camps F-1 and F-2, most notably the Blacksmith Fork
Canyon-Logan Canyon Loop Road through Cowley Canyon and Herd Hollow.85
In addition to the usual recreation, road and range improvements, Camp F-34 helped rehabilitate the
degraded Willard watershed in Box Elder County. Two months after serious flooding occurred there on
July 31, 1936, Supervisor John J. Wise and enrollees from the Hyrum camp, consisting of mostly Arkansas
natives, set up a spike camp and began building a six-mile road into Willard Basin. Upon its completion,
some enrollees rehabilitated the terrain with terracing and seeding, while others extended the road into
other areas.86
Unlike most other Utah camps, administration of the Hyrum camp was transferred in 1935 from the Fort
Douglas CCC District to the Pocatello CCC District.87 After several years of year-round operation, Camp
F-34 closed in May of 1941 and efforts were made to dispose of camp buildings the following October.88
Company Start Date
957 Winter 1934-35
80 Maughan, 8.
81 Ibid.
82 “History and Background, Kamas Intensive Management District, Wasatch National Forest (1963?)" TMs, History Files, Kamas
Ranger District office, Kamas, Utah; King, 110-12; A. E. Briggs, “Memoirs of a U.S. Forest Ranger, 1963” TMs [photocopy], p. 156
and 158, Region 4 Heritage Center, Ogden, Utah; and Warren G. “Sunny” Allsop, Interview by Thomas G. Alexander, 27 March
1984, interview 2, transcript, p. 3-5, 24, & 26, accession number R4-1680-92-0024-2, Region 4 Heritage Center, Ogden, Utah.
83 Baldridge, 117.
84 Fredrick R. Baugh, Interview by Thomas G. Alexander, 17 May 1984, interview 5, transcript, p. 4, accession number R4-1680-92-
0024-5, Region 4 Heritage Center, Ogden, Utah.
85 Baldridge, 173.
86 Ibid., 212.
87 “Pictorial Review Civilian Conservation Corps, Pocatello District, Company 3544, Camp Manila F-35, Manila, Utah,”
http://www.geocities.com/cccpapers/3544review.html, accessed 1 June 2005.
88 Cache National Forest History Binders.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 23
957 Summer 1935
957/276189 Winter 1935-36
957 Summer 1936
3796 05/18/36
2761/3796 Winter 1936-37
3796? Summer 1937
3265 10/12/1937
3265 Summer 1938
Unknown Winter 1938-39
3265? Summer 1939
Unknown Summer 1941 (to May)
Camp F-35, Manila
Most CCC work on the North Slope of the Uintas was from a base camp in Manila, Utah. Enrollees were
involved with the Blacks Fork to Steel Creek road, the Gilbert Creek dugway road, and the West Fork of
Blacks Fork road. The Manila camp relocated and reconstructed 200 miles of telephone line between
Vernal and Mountain View and built part of the Mountain View Administrative Site. A spike camp on the
East Fork of the Smiths Fork girdled trees, cleaned deadfall, and built roads.90
Company Start Date Post Office
1965 10/13/1934 Vernal
1965 Summer 1935 Manila
3544 10/31/1935 Manila
3239 or 1965 04/14/1936 Vernal
4794 10/18/1936 Green River, WY
1965 Summer 1937 Manila
No indication it operated in the winter of 1937-38 or summer
of 1938
3544 Winter 1938-39 Manila
3544 Summer 1939 Manila
No indication it operated in the winter of 1939-40
3544 Summer 1940 Manila
No indication it operated after the summer of 1940
Camp F-38, Big Cottonwood
In a 1965 interview, Kenneth Maughan stated, “In the
beginning, Salt Lake City was adverse to a CCC camp. They
simply did not want one. So for the first few years, there
were no CCC camps near Salt Lake. . . . the Big Cottonwood
Canyon Camp was finally established in approximately 1936
and the enrollees in that camp were primarily from the big
cities of the east. We had an outstanding camp
superintendent and we had outstanding foremen in that
camp.”91 Alf Engen and Frank Stone were two of the
foremen at Camp F-38, which set up in Murray during the
winters.92 One can assume that the enrollees built many of
89 Company 957 disbanded on January 10, 1936 and was replaced by Company 2761. Baldridge, 366.
90 Marvin H. Combs to Forest Supervisor, 25 March 1965.
91 Maughan, 10.
92 Ibid., 12.
Camp F-38 at Murray
24 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
the improvements on what is now the Salt Lake Ranger District before it shut down in July of 1942.93
Company Start Date
3240 04/14/1936
No indication it operated in the winter of 1936-37 or the summer of 1937
3240? Winter 1937-38
3240 Summer 1938
3240? Winter 1938-39
Unknown Summer 1939
3240 Winter 1939-40
3240 Summer 1940
3240 Winter 1940-41
Unknown Summer 1940
3803 Winter 1941-42
Camp F-48, Bountiful & Camp F-49 Farmington Canyon
These two camps apparently served as winter (Bountiful) and summer (Farmington Canyon) camps for
Company 940, which consisted of Utah residents. The company started out at the Pleasant
Grove/American Fork camp (Camp F-5) in June of 1933. In the fall, it transferred to Camp SE-205 in
Woods Cross, where it was occupied with erosion control work. The enrollees of Company 940 remained
there until the summer of 1935 when they were sent to Camp F-48 in Bountiful. Charlie Wehmeyer and
Roy White served as the camp superintendents.94
The work of Camps F-48 and F-49 focused on restoring the Davis County watershed and included the
well-known terracing work. The enrollees also worked on a ditch from Bountiful to Los Angeles for seven
years.95 It is possible that they also constructed the Rice Canyon Field Station Cabin and the Farmington
Canyon Guard Station.
Project Company Start Date
F-48 940 Summer 1935
F-48 940 10/18/1935
F-48 940 Summer 1936
F-48 940 Winter 1936-37
F-48 940 Summer 1937
F-48 940 Winter 1937-38
F-49 940 06/02/1938
F-48 940 Winter 1938-39
F-49 940 Summer 1939
F-48 940 Winter 1939-40
Camp F-51, Huntsville
In the winter of 1939, enrollees transferred from Camp F-34 in Hyrum to Camp F-51 in Huntsville, which
occupied the former site of Camp BR-12.96 The latter was a Bureau of Reclamation camp that had worked
on the Pineview Dam and other reclamation projects. It is possible that Camp F-51 provided the CCC
93 Baldridge, 131.
94 Ibid., 211.
95 Ibid.
96 Forest Supervisor A. G. Nord to Ranger Anderson, 1 August 1939, in file titled “5420 Huntsville,” Ogden Ranger District office.
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 25
enrollees who, along with the WPA, built the road to Snow Basin. The CCC is also credited with building
some of the ski runs at that resort. Camp F-51 closed permanently in July of 1942.97
Company Start Date
3265 Winter 1939-40
6429/3265 Summer 1940
No indication it operated during the winter of 1940-41
958 07/06/1941
958? Winter 1941-42
State Camps
Soil erosion (SE) camps were appointed in order to aid in flood control. These camps were under the
supervision of the Forest Service although a state-selected committee identified the projects. Eight camps
were created in Utah from October 1933 to March 31, 1934 to address soil erosion and flood control.
These camps were responsible for building access roads, dams and terraces. Although the SE camps
were disbanded after one year, other camps under the Soil Conservation Service continued the work of
watershed restoration and flood prevention.
Camp SE-201 Davis County
The Davis County camp was located just east of Bountiful near Mueller Park. The primary responsibility of
the camp, overseen by Superintendent Charles R. Wehmeyer, was restoration of the Davis County
watershed.98
Company Date
232 6/17/1933 Bountiful
Camp SE-204 Brigham City
This tent camp was constructed at Dock’s Flat near Mantua.99 The enrollees sought to reduce flooding by
creating nearly five miles of terracing in Willard Basin.100
Company Start Date
1254 6/14/1933 Springdale
1253 6/15/1933 Brigham City
Camp SE-205 Woods Cross
From 1933 to 1935, Company 940 was stationed near Woods Cross at the state-run Camp SE-205 to
work on the Davis County watershed. Administration of the camp was transferred to the Forest Service in
1935 and it became known as Camp F-48.
Company Start Date
940 Summer 1933
940 Winter 1933-34
940 Summer 1934
940 Winter 1934-35
97 Baldridge, 131.
98 Deseret News, 27 June 1933.
99 Baldridge, 58.
100 Deseret News, 14 June 1933.
26 ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY
ON HORSEBACK AND BY HIGHWAY 27
Chapter 4: Nurseries and Fire
Two areas of resource management, artificial planting and fire management, are worth examining in closer
detail because they led to the development of special administrative facilities. To support the former, there
were at least four nurseries established on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The need to detect and
fight fires led to the construction of improvements and placement of fire caches.
NURSERIES
In the summer of 1905, Forest Assistant James M. Fetherolf prepared a reforestation plan for the Salt Lake
Forest Reserve with the assistance of W. B. Hadley. Their work led them to establish a tree nursery the
following November in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Their 160-acre site, which now serves as the Spruces
Campground and Spruces Guard Station on the Salt Lake Ranger District, was formally withdrawn on
June 6, 1906. The Big Cottonwood Nursery, alternately known as the Wasatch Nursery and the Big
Cottonwood Ranger Station, was supplemented with 40 acres six months later on Fetherolf’s
recommendation. Specifically, he identified land owned by Earl and Mary Watrous. Adjoining the nursery
on the southeast, the Watrous land was covered by mining claims, but the couple was willing to relinquish
6.6 acres as long as they retained a road right-of-way. Fetherolf had no objections since the Forest
Service also needed the road "to reach the house and Planting Station."101 Another 40 acres was added
to the nursery in July of 1908.
Several buildings were constructed to support the nursery and to serve as a ranger station. (According to
a 1910 forest map, the Wasatch Nursery was in the middle of Section 17, while the Big Cottonwood
Ranger Station was in the southeast quarter of Section 17.) Photographs portray the nursery
headquarters as a side-gabled log building with a
steeply pitched roof. It had a full-width, shed-roofed
porch and shingles in the gable ends. A barn and a
tool house were also built for the nursery.102 The
ranger station dwelling was a side-gabled, board-and-
batten, one-story cabin. It had a full-width porch
with a shed roof and 2/2 windows.
The Wasatch Nursery had the distinction of being
the largest in the Forest Service.103 Nevertheless,
the nursery ceased operations around 1918
alt