History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest / submitted to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, September 25, 1980 ; by Charles S. Peterson, Linda E. Speth, Utah State University

              A HISTORY OF THE WASATCH-CACHE}
NATIONAL FOREST
Submitted to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
September 25, 1980
by Charles S. Peterson
Linda E. Speth
Utah State University
FORWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In writing this history of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest we have
followed the suggested Forest Service history outline in spirit and
general context. As the outline suggests, we have tri"ed to put the
Forest in its broader persoective, both as it relates to develooments
within the Forest Service generally and local background. At the same
time we have looked closely at the actual function of the Forest during
its various stages.
Interpretively we have proceeded from the potnt of view that the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest spreads over a substantial geographic area
and that a playoff between interests that are essentially urban on the one
hand and rural on the other, has made for considerable diversity in the
programs of the Forest. Conflict between conservationists and non­conservationists
has not been keen in the area of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest. Indeed. cooperation has been a more dominant theme.
The history of the Forest falls into two major periods. The first,
or what might be called the formative years, lasted from 1903 until
perhaps the mid 1930s although the cutoff date is not precise. Grazing.
watershed and timber, probably in that order, dominated the Forest's
programs during this period. Although some remarkable scientific
achievements may be noted, this was clearly the era of the practical
horseback ranger whose great strength lay in what may be called "grass­roots
wisdom and homespun diplomacy.1I The second period was launched
with a great upsurge as weather conditions, the national mood and the
economy brought new programs in the New Deal years. With urbanism,
a";"f1uence and a growing consciousness of environmental problems to fuel
them, the programs of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have generally
maintained their momentum in the years since. Recreation and enviromental
themes have, in considerable measure, replaced the earlier emphasis upon
grazing and timber.
i i
During the process of the study, many people have contributed; all
of them graciously and with a real interest in seeing the project through.
Forest Supervisor Chandler St. John has given us the benefit of his views
on the Forest1s history and has supported our research generally. Three
Contracting Officer Representatives have worked with us. G. F. Horton,
Theodore Navritil and Franklin H. Grover. Each has been helpful in many
ways. Frank Grover, who has seen us through the bulk of the project, has
been especially attentive and quick to make suggestion, including construc­tive
criticism. Rangers and personnel on each of the Ranger Districts
have also made their historical files available and have conferred with
us as need has arisen. Because they were at hand, Ranger M. J. Roberts
and his staff at the Logan Ranger District were called on again and again
for help. At the Regional Office, Robert L. Safran and Don Hooper were
of special help, but various others also contributed. Taking a special
interest in the entire project were several former Forest Service officers
who spent many hours in conversation. Warm thanks then to Kenneth O.
Maughn, James Jacobs, Owen DeSpain, Bryson Cook, Julian Thomas, Delay
Hansen and L. J. Colton. The Merrill Library and the Department of History
and Geography, as well as the general administration at Utah State University
were supportive of the undertaking and contributed in various ways. In
addition to the two authors, Wesley Hardin, a graduate student at Utah
State University, did early research and wrote the first draft of what
became Chapter II.
Charles S. Peterson
Linda E. Speth
CHAPTER
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
Foreword and Acknowledgments
List of Illustrations
National Developments and the Wasatch-
Cache National Forest ....
Utah Background and the Emergence of
Resource Utilization as an Issue
Boundaries and the Growth of a Forest
Administration and Personnel: Some
Views and Viewpoints
Timber
Forest Fires and Insect Control
Utah Grazing and the Contributions of
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Watershed Management for Summer Flood
Control, 1920-1960
Recreation
Bibliography
iii
PAGE
i
iv
18
. 36
80
111
147
174
224
244
286
III us.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
List of Illustrations
Salt Lake City about 1869
Salt Lake City about 1911
Cache National Forest 1915
Wasatch National Forest 1915
Mountain-Valley Relationship: City Creek-Salt Lake City
Lake Blanche at Head of Big Cottonwood Canyon
Big Cottonwood Canyon 1902 ........ .
Big Cottonwood Canyon: Winter View at Brighton
Thin Timber and Ground Cover Little Cottonwood Canyon
Little Cottonwood Canyon: Waterpower Mill about 1900
Lodgepole Pines Infested with Mountain Pine Beetle
Burning Trees Infested with Pine Beetle
Unit Piling on "Operation Pushover"
Small User's Cattle, Wasatch Forest about 1900
Range Improvements
Big Mountain Sheep
Sheep on the Trail
on the Grantsville Division in the 1920s.
Driveway 1914
Site of Cottonwood Grove, Farmington Canyon 1923 Flood
Flood Damage to Home Near Ford Creek 1923
New Contour Trenches, Head of Ford Canyon 1934
Trenches in Ford Creek Area Several Years Later
Lily Lake, Wasatch National Forest 1935
Mirror Lake Forest Camp 1935 .....
iv
Page
29
29
44
47
50
50
114
114
117
117
160
163
166
191
191
200
200
226
226
236
236
263
263
24 Aspen Grove Picnic Area, Wasatch National Forest 1935 265
25 Boat Dock at Spring Hollow Forest Camp in Logan Canyon 1935. 265
CHAPTER I
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE
\~ASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST
The story of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest must begin with the
national story of the Forest Service. It is impossible to understand
how the Wasatch and Cache were established, grew and developed without
being aware of their national setting. As units of the national forest
system, they were created at a unique time in American history and were
formed against the broad sweep of national events, patterns and attitudes.
In many ways the story of the Forest Service is an unusual and
colorful account. Established in 1881, the Forestry Division in the
Department of Agriculture was a small, understaffed federal agency,
primarily charged with compiling and disseminating information about
the forested lands of the United States. At first the division lacked
the authority to either regulate or promote the conservation of the
nation's forests.
In fact, the Forestry Division (the bureaucratic embryo from which
the Forest Service sprang) was created at a time when the thrust of
American history was frankly hostile or indifferent to the conservation
or preservation of the nation's resources. In many ways the basic
achievement of the organization lay in its very creation and in its
regional growth. In less than twenty-five years a small federal division
survived bitter infighting between the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Interior, increased its admin~strative power, achieved
permanent, bureaucratic status and attained jurisdiction over a variety
of forested areas such as the Wasatch-Cache.
For the first time in the nation's history, a federal agency was
charged with the duty of conserving a valuable natural resource. That
ideal ran counter to America's traditional "first come, first serve"
attitude toward the nation1s natural resources, its watersheds, minerals
and timber supplies. As the agency grew administratively under the able
direction of such men as Gifford Pinchot, it publicized the conservation
movement and fostered the idea that IIwise use ll made better sense than
rampant exploitation.
The Forest Service eventually wielded jurisdiction over a large
number of very different types of national forests. It oversaw timber­land
that ranged from the oak stands along the eastern coast, to the
lodgepole pines of Utah, to the stately redwoods of California.
In his history of the Forest Service, Harold K. Steen notes that
forest officials, both at the local forests and the national levels,
were bound by attitudes and a corpus of federal land laws that preceeded
their creation. l The story of the Wasatch-Cache must, therefore, begin
with an understanding of how the federal agency emerged in the midst
of prevailing nineteenth century attitudes and laws concerning resource
use.
The Pioneer and the Public Domain
In 1893 historian Frederick Jackson Turner, concluded that after
four centuries of exploration, settlement, and development the American
frontier had closed. Cities, towns, outlying farms, ranching and
mining communities dotted the American landscape as settlement spread
from the Atlantic seaboard, across the Great Plains and reached the
western Pacific coastline. Such rapid, almost frantic settlement has
caused historians to label the nineteenth century as the era of Manifest
Destiny; a time when most Americans believed that it was their God-given
right and duty to exploit the land, tame the wilderness and establish
homes and farms from "sea to shining sea."
2
The federal government recognized the land hunger of its citizens,
and throughout the nineteenth century fOllo0ed an accelerating policy of
transferring land from federal control to private ownership that peaked
in the years before the Forest Service was created. Congress passed a
variety of public land laws that promoted both agricultural development
and internal improvements. For almost a century, millions of federally
owned acres came under private control with little or no concern about
the conservation or preservation of natural resources. The land policy
of the federal government from 1785 to 1891 was based on the principle
of exploitation; opening land to farms, mines, sawmills, railroads. As
the land was taken up, untold damage was inflicted on the nation's
resources. 2
Federal Land Law
3
The initial pattern for an orderly system of federal land sale and
settlement was established in the early days of the Republic. The North­West
Ordinance of 1785 contained two basic principles: (1) federal
land could not be given away as a gift, but was to be purchased and (2)
land on the public domain should be surveyed prior to the actual sale. 3
Basically this arrangement tended to favor large speculators over
individuals without access to ready cash. After the initial survey, 640
acre sections were to be sold at public auction for not less than $1.00
an acre. The prospective buyer had to have at least $640 in ready cash,
and small farmers or landless pioneers simply could not obtain that much
money. 4
By 1862, however, Congress permitted those of pioneer spirit (but
without much cash) to acquire federally owned lands. The Homestead Act
of 1862 gave restless individuals the chance to move west and claim
160 acres for the moderate price of a filing fee and the difficult task
of living on the tract for five years. Congress hoped that the residency
requirement would discourage speculation and ensure that homesteaders
would actually settle on the tract and establish farms. 5
Federal interest in promoting rapid agricultural development of the
public domain also led to the passage of the Morrill Act the same year
the Homestead Act became law. The Morrill Act provided federal aid for
the promotion of agricultural education and productivity. By its terms
each state received 30,000 acres of public ~and for each of its congres­sional
representatives. The proceeds from the donation were then used
for establishing land grant colleges to prepare speCialists for agriculture
(and eventually forestry). In all, sixty-nine land grant colleges came
into existence under the Morrill Act, among them Utah State University
at Logan, Utah. 6
The Homestead and Morrill acts were passed in response to western
needs, and as farmers pushed westward, Congress began to pass laws
designed to meet particular farming needs of that region. When farmers
4
and settlers confronted the arid reaches of the West, they gradually
learned that the Homestead Act and its various requirements were not
realistic in farming communities where rainfall was so woefully inadequate.
As early as 1869 Utahns petitioned for federal land grants in support
of irrigation development. 7 In 1875 President Grant visited the inter­mountain
region, and western settlers persuaded him that land laws
originally made for the middle west did not work for their region. In
his message to Congress, Grant summarized the western position: "Land
must be held in larger quantities (more than the 160 acres under the
Homestead Act) to justify the expense of conducting water upon it to
make it fruitful or to justify using it as pasturage. IIB In response
Congress passed the Desert Land Act in 1877. The law allowed pioneers
in eleven states and territories (Utah among them) to claim 640 acres of
the public domain in return for $1.25 an acre and irrigating the land
within a three year period. From 1877 to 1904 slightly more than a
quarter of a million acres of land were claimed in Utah under this act.9
Although Congress (and the nation) favored the eventual agricultural
development of the public domain, a variety of federal laws authorized
land withdrawal for other uses as well. During the 1850s and 1860s, for
example, Congress embarked on a policy of railroad grants to spur trans­portation
development and link eastern and western markets and producers.
Ultimately this generous federal subsidy of railroads proved remarkably
effective in developing transportation facilities. In 1869 the Central
Pacific and the Union Pacific railroad lines linked together at Promontory
Utah, and the nation had its first transcontinental railroad and
much land that would later fall within the boundaries of the Wasatch
and Cache National Forests passed from federal ownership.10
Congress aided western economic development by various other land
laws. In 1873 the Timber Culture Act allowed pioneers to claim part of
the public domain under provisions similar to the Homestead Act, except
that planting and cultivating trees could be substituted for part of
the original residency requirement. The Timber and Stone Act of 1878,
5
for the first time in the nation's history, allowed settlers to directly
purchase and use federal timberland. Harold K. Steen has pointed out,
however, that neither law was prompted by a desire to conserve forest
resources. Indeed, the laws promoted the rapid use and utilization of
timber. Lumber companies often controlled individual claims and stripped
the forests to meet western needs for building materials. Millions of
trees were carelessly cut to provide materials for railroad ties, houses,
barns, fences and mine props.ll
Mining companies and frontier settlers exploited federal land.
Congress sanctioned this process in the General Mining Acts of 1866 and
1877. Basically, the laws dealt with lands containing gold, silver,
cinnabar and copper. Many acres were claimed under these acts, among
them areas within the boundaries of what later became the Wasatch
National Forest. 12
Despite the mining, timber and railroad grants, both the federal
government and the nation favored farming as the best use of the public
domain. Between 1850 and 1900 nearly 550 million acres of the public
domain were claimed for agricultural operations, and the number of farms
increased phenomenally from 1.5 million to 5.75 million farms. The
majority of these new agricultural operations had been acquired under
federal land laws such as the Homestead and Deseret Land acts. 13
Resource Depletion
The pioneer hunger for land, and the emphasis on development and
IIprogress li led most settlers and government agencies to ignore the
conservation of natural resources. In many cases what citizens of a
later age have regarded as vital resources, were seen only as impediments
to settlement. This attitude was especially apparent in the treatment
of the forested lands of the United States., To farmers intent on
clearing land, planting a crop and building a home, vast tracts of forests
represented obstacles to be removed by hours of backbreaking labor. 14
Once the trees were felled, and the stumps pulled from the ground,
the lumber provided valuable building material. Only rarely did western
settlers sense the need for preserving forest resources. Shortly after
their arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, for example, the Mormon 1eaders
6
told their followers: II .. we also wish the green timber and young
trees to remain as they are, particularly the sugar maple, many of which
are big enough to yield you sap ... from which we will hereinafter
receive an abundant harvest of sweet. ,,15 Such farsighted restrictions on
destruction of forest resources were rare, however, and as agricultural
communities spread westward, millions of trees were uprooted, cut and
lost forever in order to satisfy western growth and expansion.
While the majority of farmers regarded the forest as either an
obstacle to be conquered or as a never ending source of building materials,
additional timber depredations were caused by stockmen. Cattlemen drove
their herds throughout the West, and as the cattle grazed, they destroyed
countless forest seedlings. Sheepmen, with their large herds of grazing
sheep devoured young seedlings and destroyed the soil mantle. As forest
resources were plundered by farmers, sheepmen and cattlemen, the nation's
soil suffered serious erosion. Summer rains swept away the rich topsoil
on denuded slopes; without adequate vegetation to halt the disastrous
runoff, millions of acres of fertile topsoil were lost.16
Thus, the nineteenth century saw the rapid settlement of the West
at the cost of resource exploitation and destruction. Unfortunately,
the federal government not only contributed to this resource damage by
promoting the agricultural and economic development of the West, but
also by failing to effectively meet its minimal responsibilities. The
General Land Office, in the Department of the Interior, administered the
disposal and regulated the use of federal land throughout most of the
nineteenth century. Many historians, among them Roy Robbins and John
. Ise, have charged that agency with gross abuse and incompetence in
executing its duties~17 Plagued by the evils of the spoils system, the
General Land Office had many officials who owed their positions to
corporate influence; and these men often turned a blind eye as livestock
associations, railroads and irrigation companies grabbed more land than
the law allowed. Local agents of the GenerAl Land Office occasionally
permitted fraudulent entries either due to cupidity or ignorance of
statutory provisions.
The Desert Land Act proved especially subject to abuse under the
administration of the General Land Office. Fraudulent claims on the
public domain were entered without individuals complying with the act's
requirements, and many of these people received many more acres than the
law allowed. Utah historian, A. J. Simmonds has noted that fraudulent
entries under this act were very common in Trenton, Utah, an area
adjacent to what later became the Cache National Forest. 18
While graft, corruption and outright abuse, often fostered by
western monopolies, marred the record of the General Land Office, the
overall resource damage of the United States during the nineteenth
century cannot be blamed on one agency. The rapid settlement of the
West, the land hunger of most Americans and the federal government's
wish to foster economic development all contributed to the thoughtless
utilization of the nation's resources.
The Conservation Movement and Forestry
Within this larger context of land abuse and exploitation a few
perceptive individuals began to notice the depletion of the nation's
resources and express concern. Secretaries of the Interior such as
Columbus Delano and Carl Schurz warned that continued timber trespass
and depredation on the public domain (whether due to ignorance or greed)
threatened timber values and an important resource. But their warnings
were ignored by Congress, and their efforts to enforce trespass laws
evoked opposition in the West. It should also be noted, however, that
some westerners, particularly in places like Oregon and Colorado were
starting to question the wisdom of unregulated use, although in the
1870s and 1880s those that did so wanted state rather than federal laws
to resolve the problems. 19
7
Given this slowly emerging awareness on the part of some government
officials and westerners, the real beginnings of what later became the
conservation movement was sparked by individuals from the eastern
scientific establishment who argued for the efficient, scientific manage­ment
of the nation's forests. These men, through such organizations as
the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American
Forestry Association, began to publicize the damage a century of government
supported exploitation had caused. Through their lobbying efforts they
succeeded in slowing a one hundred year trend, and finally won a measure
of federal support for conservation with the creation and establishment
8
of a Division of Forestry within the Department of Agriculture.
In 1873 Franklin B. Hough, a medical doctor, statistician, naturalist
and historian, presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. In a paper entitled, "On the
Duty of Government in the Preservati on of Forests, 1/ he analyzed cens us
data to illustrate how timber supplies were being exhausted, and convinced
the convention that the federal government should take effective measures
to halt this serious resource damage and unnecessary waste. The convention
passed a resolution supporting Hough's argument, and apPointed a committee
to persuade Congress of the serious need to support conservation of the
national timber suPply.20
Initially then, the conservation movement was led by men interested
in forestry. Overall, the forestry movement and the conservation movement
of the late nineteenth century were inextricably intertwined, and it was
foresters who provided the direction and leadership of the conservation
movement for almost fifty years.
The growing interest in both the scientific management of the
nation's forests and the conservation of dwindling timber supplies led
to the organization of the American Forestry Association in 1875. Men
such as Hough used the organization to put political pressure on Congress.
And eventually the American Forestry Association persuaded that agency
that scientific techniques could halt the damage caused by a century of
constant growth and exploitation. On August 15, 1876, Congress authorized
the appointment of a federal forestry agent. Franklin Hough assumed this
position, and within six years became chief of the newly established
Division of Forestry in the Department of Agriculture. 2l
Era of the Reserves
Both the American Forestry Association1and the American Association
for the Advancement of Sci ence conti nued thei r efforts to convi nce the
government that its approach to the public domain was reckless and short­sighted.
In 1889 the AFA met with President Harrison and urged the
adoption of a national forest policy. That same year a joint delegation
from the AFA and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
also met with the secretary of the interior. 22
These lobbying efforts culminated in a radical change in federal
land policy. In 1891 Congress passed the General Land Law Revision Act
which contained an important rider. Section 24 (now commonly referred
to as the Forest Reserve Act) authorized the president to reserve
forests on the public domain from entry. Within a few weeks of the
9
passage of the Forest Reserve Act, President Harrison used his new power
to issue a proclamation creating the Yellowstone Forest Reserve in Wyoming.
During the next two years Harrison created fourteen more reserves through­out
the West. 23
His successor, Grover Cleveland, was initially hesitant about creating
new reserves because the 1891 act did not specify how the reserves would
be protected or administered. In the absence of these stipulations the
secretary of the interior prohibited any type of use, and Cleveland,
after establishing two reserves decided to wait. According to historian
Lawrence Rakestraw many westerners, concerned about the conditions of
their community watersheds, supported the creation of the initial reserves. 24
Although foresters such as Hough and the eastern organizations (AFA
and AAAS) had made important beginnings, the overall battle for conservation
was far from won. Foresters and scientists had gained federal recognition
of forestry with the creation of the Forestry Division in the Department
of Agriculture and had also successfully lobbied for forest reservation.
Yet the actual administration or protection of reserves had not been
defined. It was the Department of the Interior rather than the Forestry
Division which oversaw the nation's first forest reserves. Within a few
years presidential reservation and the concept of federal conservation
faced intense western hostility because of Interior's decision that the
reserves could not be used.
The subsequent battle with the West over the forest reserves, and
the growing rivalry between Interior and the Forestry Division in the
Department of Agriculture over the administ,r ation of those western forests
are complicated, intertwined issues. While the story is difficult to
discuss in an abreviated form, the most important themes can be seen
through the experiences of one of the first foresters in the United States,
Gifford Pinchot.
Pinchot had a profound and lasting impact on public land policy.
He established the Forest Service as the foremost conservation agency in
the federal government, and made sure the organization followed certain
basic principles he believed were important. More than any other indi­vidual,
his name became synonymous with both forestry and conservation.
Gifford Pinchot and Wise Use
10
As a member of the American Forestry Association, Pinchot had argued
that a special commission should be formed to tour and study the forest
reserves. By 1896 Cleveland's administration, worried about the need for
protection and management, formally requested that National Academy of
Sciences to appoint a commission to study the problem and make recom­mendations.
The 1896 Forest Commission included professors from Harvard
and Yale, a botanist, engineer, geologist and one forester--Gifford
j Pinchot. After visiting the western reserves and studying timberland on
the public domain, the commission recommended that additional reserves
be established. Pinchot had urged that definite plans for management
should also be forwarded to the Academy and the administration, but he
had been unable to convince the chairman of the commission, Charles
Sargent to do so. On February 22, 1897 President Cleveland withdrew
over 21,000,000 acrew from public entry and created thirteen new reserves,
including Utah's first reserve--the Uinta. Westerners were stunned by
by the sheer numbers of the acres withdrawn. The fact that it was done
a week before Cleveland left office and that their congressional
representatives had played no role also caused consternation. An
acrimonious and strident protest errupted, and Lawrence Rakestraw
believes that organized western opposition to the reserves dates to this
event. 25
In his autobiography, Breaking New Ground, Pinchot notes that the
highly vocal western hostil ity to these "Washington Birthday Reserves"
was in a large measure justified.
\ The creation of thirteen new Reserves in seven states came
like a thunderclap. And since under existing interpretations
of law no use whatever could be made of the resources of the
old Reserves, or of the new, since even to set foot upon them
was illegal, the only possible conclusion was that this vast
area was to be locked up, settlers were to be kept out, and
all developments premanently prevented. No wonder the West
rose up.26
11
The uproar initiated complex manuevering and administrative battles
but it also led to an amendment to the Sundry Civil Appropriations Bill
which was to form the basis of forest management for over sixty years.
Known as the Organic Act of 1897 it finally specified the purposes for
which reserves could be created: "to improve and protect the forest
within the reservation for the purpose of securing favorable conditions
of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber II
The secretary of the interior was also given the power to make rules for
the protection and administration of the reserves which were now opened
to public use. 27
Pinchot1s experiences with the Forest Commission of 1896 and the
legislative manueverings culminating in the Organic Act provided
valuable lessons that helped him later as chief forester, and reinforced
many of his philosophies. He knew that western sentiment must be
recognized, that advance groundwork must be laid in shaping a favorable
response and, above all, that use of the forests must be permitted.
Unlike John Muir and the Sierra Club, Pinchot did not favor the simple
preservation of resources. Instead he supported regulated resource
utilization that would result in the "greatest good for the greatest
number" over the longest period. This concept of wise use led him to
pay attention to western sentiment, to devise a practical, workable
system of forest administration and to wrest control of the reserves
from what he regarded as the Department of Interior1s inefficient,
incompetent and often corrupt management. 28
Although Pinchot was named chief of the Division of Forestry in
1898, it was only with the ascendance of Theodore Roosevelt to the
presidency in 1901 that he was able to achieve his long term goals.
Pinchot convinced Roosevelt of the benefits of supporting conservation.
In the years that followed, the close friendship of these two men had
profound consequences for the development and growth of federal forest
1
po . 29 1 cy.
In 1903 President Roosevelt concerned, like Pinchot, about the
conservation issue and western response, appointed the forester to a
three-man public lands commission. Pinchot, along with W. A. Richards,
Commissioner of the General Land Office, and F. H. Newell, Direct·~ of
12
the Reclamation Service, were to determine where the West stood on
grazing issues and to analyze the "condition, operation and effect of
present land laws." With Pinchot's urging, the Public Lands Commission
of 1903 made a concerted effort to determine western needs and attitudes
about resource utilization. The commission sent out questionnaries to
1,400 stockmen, and held public hearings in distant western communities.
In 1904, for example, the commission met in Salt Lake City to determine
Utah's needs and attitudes about the use of federal lands. 30
The commission's report, based on various hearings and studies, was
frankly critical of the Department of the Interior, particularly the
General Land Office, and urged that existing land laws be reformed,
especially those dealing with western forests. The Public Lands Commis­sion
strongly recommended the repeal of the Timber and Stone Acts of
1878. Despite that act's intent of aiding individual pioneers, it had
been abused by lumber companies and monopolists who had raided forest
resources. The commission also urged the President and Congress to
implement specific plans for range control. Their grazing recommendations
were based, in part, on Albert F. Potter's 1902 survey of the Wasatch
Range. Potter's survey was also used to establish the initial boundaries
of the Logan, Wasatch and Grantsville reserves in Utah, areas that
eventually came under the jurisdiction of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest. 3l
Pinchot used the Public Lands Commission report to underscore his
point that the Department of Interior was incompetent and that the
reserves should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Possibly
Pinchot's antipathy to the Department of the Interior influenced the
negative report of the Public Lands Commission. In any case, he himself
admits his bias in his autobiography when he notes: " ... I hoped the
investigations would prove the need for transferring the Forest Reserves
from the Department of the Interior, where they were thoroughly mishandled,
to the Department of Agriculture, where I was confident we could do a
good job." 32
In less than a year after the commission made its first report,
President Roosevelt signed the Transfer Act, and the Bureau of Forestry
in the Department of Agriculture now administered 86,000,000 acres of
public forest reserves. With Roosevelt's support and assistance. the
13
period of 1905-1908 saw other gains for Pinchot's vision of a national
forest policy. In 1905 the Bureau of Forestry became the Forest Service
with access to far more money and manpower than the fledgling Forestry
Division had had in 1881. In 1907 Roosevelt created twenty-one new
reserves (and stirred a new outburst of western grievances) and the
federal forests wer2 renamed national forests. The following year
Pinchot recognized the validity of western charges that the forests were
run by Washington men vlith little understanding of western needs, and he
established six district offices. Important policy decisions were now
made at such district headquarters as Ogden, Utah, for the individual
forests. (The name district was changed to region in 1930.) The emphasis
on a decentralized federal agency remained one of Pinchot's most
enduring 1egacies. 33
When Roosevelt failed to run for a third term, Pinchot's long series
of victories came to an end. His official position within the Service
was abruptly brought to a close with the Ballinger-Pinchot controversy of
1910, a battle triggered by the continuing rivalry between the Departments
of Interior and Agriculture. President Taft fired Pinchot in 1910, and
one phase of the forestry and conservation movement came to an end. 34
Pinchot, however, was not crushed by the event. His autobiography
contains almost a complacent note about the entire episode. The
Ballinger-Pinchot controversy gave wide publicity to what he considered
the Department of the Interior's corruption and the inefficiency of
its attitude towards resource utilization. In many ways, despite
Pinchot's dismissal, the high morale of the Forest Service, its concept
of wise use and its attempt to listen to regional needs all appeared in
sharp and welcome relief to Interior's earlier activities. Pinchot
may have been fired by Taft, but overall, both he and the Forest Service
received massive public support. Even the West, once strongly opposed
and still frequently resistant to the concept of conservation, praised
Pinchot's contributions to forestry and cortservation and condemned
Taft's action. 35
Summary
In a remarkably brief time, Gifford Pinchot, building on the early
14
achievements of Franklin B. Hough and others, had accomplished significant
gains for the development and conservation of the nation's forests and
had spearheaded the national conservation movement. Faced with wide­spread
indifference and hostility, Pinchot, with presidential support
and approval, had defined the concept of conservation and gained a wide
measure of public acceptance for that cause. As chief forester he
articulated the concept of wise use and firmly established a federal
agency dedicated to that concept.
Pinchot strongly believed that the Forest Service should be cognizant
of particular regional needs and realities. The actual administration
and development of each local forest depended on a variety of factors.
He realized that the attitudes and expectations of the surrounding local
population, and the region's particular economic and climatic setting
would dictate the overall success or failure of the local forest personnel
in achieving the national goal of "wise use."
The success or failure of the Forest Service, therefore, must be
noted in its regional context. The operation and administration of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest can be understood only by noting both the
national setting and its peculiarly local background within the overall
context of Utah's settlement. In many ways, attitudes that the Forest
Service faced on a national level would prove equally important in
shaping the character of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. But while
the overall issue of resource utilization was important on both the
national and local level, it differed in important particulars as
applied in Utah and surrounding states. Utah's Mormon settlers, the
pioneer experience with irrigation and the region's climatic and economic
setting all contributed to attitudes about and experiences with resource
utilization that were to prove critical in the creation and administration
of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
CHAPTER I
NOTES
lHarold K. Steen, The U.S. Forest Service: A History (Seattle,
Washington: 1976), p. 4.
2Marion Clawson and Burnell Held, The Federal Lands: Their Use and
Management (Lincoln, Nebraska: 1957), pp. 22-25; Paul Gates, History of
Public Land Law (Washington, D.C.: 1968). An excellent account of early
federal land policies is contained in Malcolm Rohbrough, The Land Office
Business: The Settlement and Administration of American Public Lands,
1780-1837 (New York: 1968).
3S teen , Forest Service, p. 4.
4Richard N. Current, ed., The Essentials of American History, 2d ed.
(New York: 1976), p. 51. Hereafter cited as Essentials.
5Benjamin Horace Hibbard, A History of the Public Land Policies
(Madison, Wisconsin: 1965, originally published in 1924), p. 385.
6Essentials, pp. 150,200.
7Hibbard, History of Public Land Policies, p. 424.
8Cono . Record, 44 Cong., 2 Session, p. 32.
9Hibbard, History of Public Land Policies, pp. 427-28; Gates, History
of Public Land Law, p. 493.
10Robert G. Athearn, Union Pacific Country (Lincoln, Nebraska: 1971);
Gates, History of Public Land Law, Chapter XIV.
11Steen, Forest Service, p. 8.
12Hibbard, History of Public Land Policies, pp. 516-17; Clawson and
Held, Federal Lands, p. 25. Western coal lands were not subject to
withdrawal under these acts.
13S teen , Forest Service, p. 5.
14Hibbard, History of Public Land Policies, pp. 372,457.
15Quoted in Philip A. Barker, "Canyon Maple: A Colorful Mountaineer,"
American Forests (December 1977).
16
16Charl es S. Peterson, "Sma 11 Ho 1 di ng Land Patterns in Utah and the
Problem of Forest Watershed Management," Forest History 17 (1973) :5-13.
17Roy Robbins, Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1936
(Lincoln, Nebraska: 1942); John Ise, The United States Forest Policy
(New Haven, Connecticut: 1920).
18A. J. Simmonds, "Water for the Big Range, II Utah Hi stori cal Quarterly
39 (1971) :226.
19Steen, Forest Service, p. 7; Lawrence Rakestraw, "Uncle Sam's
Forest Reserves," Pad fi c Northwest Quarterly 44 (1953): 145; Rakestraw,
"A History of Forest Conservation in the Pacific Northwest, 1891-1913"
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of ~Jashington, 1955), pp. 5-15; Dennis
Roth, liThe Public Domain, State's Rights, and the National Forests,"
mimeographed, Washington, D.C.: 1980. We are grateful to Mr. Roth for
sending us his paper and for commenting on an earlier version of this
chapter.
20Samuel Trask Dana, Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the
United States (New York: 1956), p. 80.
21 Ibid., pp. 81-82; Steen, Forest Service, pp. 9-20.
22 Dana , Forest and Range Policy, p. 100.
23 Ibid ., p. 102; Steen, Forest Service, p. 26.
24Rakestraw, "Uncle Sam1s Forest Reserves," p. 146; Roth, "Public
Domain, States 1 Rights and National Forests," p. 13.
25Steen, Forest Service, pp. 30-34; Gifford Pinchot, Breaking New
Ground (New York: 1947), pp. 86-102; Roth, "public Domain, States l
Rights and National Forests,.1 pp. 13,16-17; also see Rakestraw, "Uncle
Sam 1 s Forest Reserves," and "A Hi story of Forest Conservati on. II Western
response to conservation varied in each state and among different interest
groups. Two good discussions that indicate differing reactions in
Colorado and Utah respectively are contained in G. Michael McCarthy, Hour
of Trial: The Conservation Conflict in Colorado and the West, 1891-1907
(Norman, Oklahoma: 1977) and Charles S. Peterson, Look to the Mountains
(Provo, Utah: 1975), pp. 109-116.
26Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, p. 109.
27Steen, Forest Service, pp. 34-37; Roth, "Public Domain, States l
Rights and National Forests,.1 pp. 17-18.
28Ibid., pp. 105-22.
29 Ibid., pp. 188,229-30.
30 Ibid., pp. 243-50; McCarthy, Hour of Trial, p. 118; Hibbard, History
of PublTClLand Policies, p. 432.
31Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, pp. 108, 252; Steen, .:....Fo..::...;r;...;e:;..::s_t_S......,e:::-;r::-iv,....:.i..,:.c.::,.e,
p. 163; Charles S. Peterson, "Albert F. Potter's Wasatch Survey, 1902:
A Beginning For Public Management of Natural Resources in Utah," Utah
Historical Quarterly 39 (1971}:238-53.
32Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, p. 246.
33Steen, Forest Service, pp. 69-102.
34For a detailed account see James Penick, Jr., Progressive Politics
and Conservation: The Ballinger-Pinchot Affair (Chicago: 1968).
35Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, pp. 391-510.
17
CHAPTER II
UTAH BACKGROUND AND THE EMERGENCE OF
RESOURCE UTILIZATION AS AN ISSUE
The Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 ies prtmarily in Utah, a state
remarkable for the difference of its early history. Its setting too,
;s also diverse although perhaps not uniquely so. Contained within its
boundaries are the remnants of a great inland sea; the remains of
volcanoes and glaciers; the fossilized skeletons of dinosaurs; the rugged
Wasatch and Uinta ranges; and the curious splendors of its canyons,
arches and towers. A record of the earth's development and changes has
been deposited and then laid bare providing evidence of geological
epochs out of mind. More recently, it has been peopled by native
Americans and people from the world over with a westering instinct. In
the pages that follow, the development of the state will be traced as
it moved toward the point in time when the national conservation movement
had a practical effect upon it.
Prehistoric Utah
It seems ironic that most of Utah's scenic wonders--the Great Salt
Lake, the salt flats, the arches, Monument Valley, the fossil beds near
Vernal--are all associated with barren, desert conditions when the area
was, for most of its earth life, covered with water. In earliest times
a shallow seaway covered most of western ~orth America. This ancient
body of water laid down sediment, preserved fossils, and slowly sculpted
the land as the seaway's depth and shoreline changed. Molten material
from deep in the earth formed the granite and other igneous rocks that
would later be lifted up as part of the Rocky Mountains. 1 Later
19
the seaway retreated leaving most of eastern Utah covered with rivers and
swamplands. It was at this time that Utah experienced its dinosaur era.
Vast numbers of animals and plants flourished and died, leaving their
remains in the mud and sand. Near the end of the dinosaur period,
massive flooding occurred again. The Rocky Mountains were gradually
lifted up, and as the sediments from the newly uplifted mountains washed
away, the rocky crags were left exposed. The last major change in Utah's
landform came during the Ice Age. Although the continental ice cap did
not reach as far south as Utah, the extreme cold formed glaciers in the
Wasatch and Uinta Mountains which later carved the land as they moved
down the mountains into the valleys. The runoff from the melting ice
helped create a gigantic inland sea, Lake Bonneville, which covered
most of western and central Utah, and stretched into Idaho and Nevada. 2
The lake washed against the shores forming broad terraces that are
still apparent along Utah's mountains. Eventually the waters broke
through at the northern end of what is now Cache Valley, at Red Rock
Pass, lowering the lake level considerably as the onrushing waters
poured into the Columbia River Basin. As the lake's water level fell,
its saline content increased. The Great Salt Lake, however, is the
only remnant of the original Lake Bonneville in Utah today that has
a high saline content. 3
Native Americans in Utah
The first people to live in the area that later became the Wasatch­Cache
National Forest were Indians. The various cultures that inhabited
the region differed widely in lifestyle and origin. The first group,
the Desert Culture, appeared about 10,000 years ago and were a primitive,
nomadic people who relied on whatever plants and animals they could
find for food and clothing. They were followed by the Anasazi--"the
ancient ones." During the early Anasazi period (about the time of Christ),
the Basket Maker culture appeared. Basket Makers eventually came to
depend on agriculture and hunting, made pottery and by 500-700 A.D.,
built permanent houses. During the later Anasazi period (about 700-1300 A.D.)
the Pueblo culture developed. House construction became very refined
and communities were built in cliff caves, on mesa tops and in canyons.
By the thirteenth century, however, the Anasazi had abandoned their
communities in Utah and Colorado and were not heard of again. 4
Around 400 A.D. the Fremont Culture developed with the Anasazi.
The Fremont differed from the Desert Culture in that corn, beans and
squash were grown and by 900 A.D. the people lived in simple, yet
permanent dwellings. Fremont people made baskets and some pottery and
began using leather products and buffalo hides after coming in contact
with the Plains Indians. By 1300 A.D. the Fremont had retreated just
20
as the Anasazi did, and were assimilated into other cultures. The
Northern Shoshoni, for example, were located in northern Utah, southern
Idaho and Wyoming, and developed many of the traits of the Plains Indians.
The Shoshoni were nomadic, hunting and trading for a livelihood. The
Gosiutes, found in northwestern Utah and northeastern Nevada were called
Diggers by early whites because of their meager life style. The Southern
Paiutes also lived on desert lands. They built small huts, and many
bands kept small gardens to help provide food. The Paiutes used basket
making as an art form, and the bow and arrow for hunting. Like the
Paiutes, the Navajo also relied on agriculture. This group probably
migrated from western Canada to northern New Mexico about the same time
the Spanish arrived in America. They kept livestock, mostly small bands
of sheep, but competition for the land from other nomadic tribes forced
them to move westward. 5
While the Navajos and Paiutes were semi-agricultural and tended
to remain in relatively restricted areas, the Utes ranged over large
tracts of land. The Western Utes, for example, inhabited the eastern
two-thirds of present day Utah and tended to congregate around Utah
Lake. Some of them also adopted the horse to hunt and trade over much
of present day Utah, Colorado and Arizona.
Spanish Influences
Utah was a borderland to the Spaniards, a few of whom penetrated
its desert barriers briefly and had a fleeting impact upon it. During
the sixteenth century, explorers and settlers from New Spain (now Mexico)
journeyed northward into Pueblo Indian count~. Exploring on north a
few of them came into contact with the Utes as early as the 1620s. In
21
the 1700s the Spanish began capturing Utes and trading them as slaves
thoughout New Spain. In time, the Utes responded by becoming slave
traders themselves, raiding Southern Paiute camps and selling the
captives to the Spanish. Similar attacks caused the Navajo to leave
their homes and seek protection from the Spaniards. Spanish padres in
the area asked Indians about the lands and peoples that lay to the north.
Indians reported what they knew and, in many cases, made up stories to
satisfy the Spaniard's demand for information.6
The first extensive exploration of the region now know as Utah
began in 1776. On July 29, Francisco Anatanasio Dominguez and Silverster
Veley de Escalante set out from Santa Fe on a journey to contact the
natives and locate a route between New Mexico and California. Dominguez
led the party while Escalante kept a detailed journal. Don Bernardo
Miera y Pachico drew maps of the country the expedition traversed,
which later explorers consulted.
The Spanish padres traveled north after entering present Colorado
from New Mexico. They turned west into the Uinta Basin, continuing
until they reached Utah Valley in late September. Frustrated by the
late season in their effort to reach California they passed through
southwestern Utah before returning to Santa Fe by way of the Crossing
of the Fathers, now under Lake Powell. Although the explorers had
evidently heard about the Great Salt Lake, they did not see it. Their
trail provided the basic route for later Spanish traders and was
eventually refined and extended to become the Old Spanish trail. 7
The Fur Trade
Meantime, other Europeans were extending westward in quest of furs
and Indian trade. By the time the fur trade approached Utah, there were
four kinds of trappers in the West: Indians who sold their pelts to
white traders; independent white trappers w~o operated alone or in small
groups; trappers who worked for the fur companies; and company men. Aside
from the brief boost that they may have given to the beaver pelt industry,
trappers and fur traders made their most lasting contribution in
exploration and in establishing America's interest in the country.
22
In the 1820s a three-pronged assault converged on the fur country where
Utah, Idaho and Wyoming now meet. The British sent expeditions from the
northwest; Taos trappers worked out from New Mexico; and various American
companies sent expeditions from St. Louis. For a time the region of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest was in hot dispute. 8
The Americans and the British had been sparring over control of the
western fur trade since 1808. Competition between the British owned
Hudson Bay Company and various American groups finally culminated in
the creation of a "fur desert. II Peter Skeen Ogden, the main agent for
the British in this process, drove deep into the disputed territory with
the intention of killing every fur-bearing animal. Ogden made one
such expedition in 1825 with 131 men, trapping his way southward through
Idaho to the Bear River, near present Franklin, There he learned that
a large group of Americans had wintered in the locality. He then
travelled on through Cache Valley into Weber Canyon. Everywhere Ogden
found that American trappers had preceded him. They also enticed
twenty-three of his men to desert, taking 700 beaver pelts with them.
Ogden's brigade still managed to severly decimate the beaver population
in the area. But it had little effect on keeping Americans out. By
1830, northern Utah came under substantial American influence, and in
1846 a treaty with Great Britian formally secured the Oregon area for
the United States.
The rising American prominence in the Great Salt Lake Region began
in 1822 when William Ashley and Andrew Henry joined forces to ascend
the Missouri River.9 With Ashley and Henry came other famous mountain
men. Jim Bridger followed the Bear River out of Cache Valley in 1824
and is believed to have been the first white man to set eyes on the
Great Salt Lake. He later established Fort Bridger along the Oregon
Trail in present Wyoming. Jedediah Smith explored the country adjacent
to the Wasatch Mountain range and made seve,r al trips between 1826 and
1829 into southern Utah and California. Ashley, himself, is credited
with developing the rendezvous, a sort of wilderness fair designed to
take trade goods to trappers. The first rendezvous was held north of
the Uinta Mountains, probably on Henrys Fork of the Green River, in
1825. In 1826 they met in Cache Valley and in 1827 and 1828 at Bear Lake. 10
23
The third group of trappers that converged on the Uinta and Wasatch
mountains were the Taos trappers from New Mexico, among them, Canadian
born Etienne Provost. Entering Utah by approximately the same route
used by Dominguez and Escalante, Provost and his trapping brigade may
have seen the Great Salt Lake before Jim Bridger. In 1825 he was among
those who encountered Peter Skene Ogden and later led Ashley's party
via the Provo and Weber rivers to the rendezvous on Henrys Fork on the
Gr een R1· ver. 11
Following 1830 the fur trade moved to the tlorthern
1840 had ceased to be an important factor in the region
Cache National Forest. Nevertheless, in the late 1830s
Rockies, and by
of the Wasatch­and
the l840s
many mountain men continued to follow the traplines and a few established
forts in the Wasatch-Uinta area. Antoine Robidoux, for example, built
a trading post in the Uinta Basin, perhaps as early as 1832, that was
eventually abandoned or destroyed by Indians. Uncle Jack Robertson
(often mispelled "Robinson") came to the Green River country on the
north side of the Uinta Mountains with Robidoux. He is said to have
build a cabin on Blacks Fork, about two miles from present Mountain
View, perhaps the first white habitation in the area of the Wasatch­Cache
National Forest. Robertson, is also said to have convinced his
friend, Jim Bridger, to build a trading post a few miles from his
ca b1. n. 12
In the years that followed, Fort Bridger became a major landmark
on the Oregon Trail. For a time after 1847 Bridger got along well with
the Mormons, but by 1852 the relationship had disintegrated and Bridger
was forced to leave. 13 Fort Supply, founded in 1853 by the Mormons
near the site of Robertson, served to pacify the Indians, decrease the
influence of the mountain men and establish a Mormon population on this
important approach to Utah. It is ironic that both Fort Bridger and Fort
Supply were burned to the ground by the Mormons during the Utah War to
prevent their occupation by advancing federhl troops.14
Miles Goodyear, a contemporary of Bridger and Robertson, became
convinced in the 1840s that a "halfway house" for immigrants was a sound
idea. To effect this plan he established Fort Buenaventura at the
confluence of the Weber and Ogden rivers. His ranch there was taken over
by the Mormons in the years immediately after they arrived. 15
24
The Fremont Expeditions
Growing from the Dominguez-Escalante expedition and the maps that
it produced were many misconceptions about the geography of the Great
Basin. The Great Salt Lake was thought by some to contain sea monsters,
whirlpools and islands covered with exotic vegetation. Furthermore, no
one had yet understood the geological characteristics of this inland
sea or the Great Basin in which it was located. Foremost among those
who set the record straight on this count was Captain John C. Fremont,
who made five expeditions to the Rocky Mountains. In 1843 Fremont and
thirty-eight men left St. Louis and headed for Oregon. Midway, he left
the main body at Soda Springs in present Idaho, continuing through Cache
Valley to the Great Salt Lake. After exploring the lake, he turned north­ward
to Fort Hall and then went via the Snake and Columbia Rivers to
Fort Vancouver. His return trip also brought him through much of the
Wasatch-Cache country as he passed from southern Utah, to Utah Lake and
on out of Utah via the Uinta Basin. In 1845 Fremont returned, this time
coming through the Uinta Basin. He camped where the city of Salt Lake
now stands and explored the vicinity for two weeks. The path Fremont
took west across the Great Salt Lake desert later became part of the
ill-fated Hastings Cutoff. Among other things, Fremont first gave a
reliable description of the Great Basin. This, with his other findings,
was published in 1845 and read with great interest by Mormons in Nauvoo,
Illinois, who relied heavily upon his report in choosing the Great
Basin for their eventual destination. 16
The First Mormon Settlements in Utah
A new era for the region adjacent to what is now the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest was initiated in 1847 with the arrival of the Mormons.
\
This group under the direction of Brigham Young was seeking a place to
establish and practice their religion without threat of interference. l ?
On arrival the Mormons systematically evaluated their surroundings and
chose where the main settlement should be located. A stockade, known
as the Old Fort, was built in a ten-acre square. Once it was completed,
the 130 settlers in the Pioneer Company began preparing themselves for
winter. Then in September, a large band of 1540 Mormons arrived. In
all, nearly 1700 individuals prepared to spend the winter in the Salt
Lake Valley. This large group caused problems. Livestock ate most of
the crops that had been planted. Luckily the winter was mild and the
settlers continued to acquaint themselves with the surrounding country
and to build homes, fences and grist mills. By the end of their first
year, the ~1ormons were firmly entrenched in the Salt Lake Valley.18
25
In 1847 the Great Basin belonged to Mexico, but by February 1848
had become part of the United States. In view of this change the
~1ormons planned for statehood. In March 1849, a constitution for the
State of Deseret was drawn up, and a delegation sent to Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, settlers operated as if the IIState of Deseretll--the proposed
boundaries of which encompassed an area larger than the present state
of Texas--was actually a legal government. 19
In coming to Utah, the Mormons believed they were establishing the
Kingdom of God on earth. Church leaders assumed authority to act on
God's behalf, and the Church controlled every aspect of Mormon life.
When it came time to set up a government all apparently accepted it as
appropriate that top governmental positions should be given to top church
officials. Such devotion and discipline contributed in a real way to
the survival of the Great Basin colonies.
However, it was this same devotion to religious principles that
had caused the Mor~ons to be driven out of one state after another.
Now as they sought statehood, a number of related influences combined
to defeat the effort: the economic and political power wielded by the
Mormon Church; its control over the everyday lives of its members; the
promotion of teachings that were seen by non-Mormons as being contrary
to traditional Christian beliefs; and the fear of proslavery congressmen
that Utah would have to be admitted to the Union as a free state because
it was not suited for slavery.20 By creating Utah Territory as part of
the Compromise of 1850, Congress sought to Iprevent the creation of a
theocracy in the Great Basin that would be a part of the United States
in name only_
Settlements Along the Wasatch
Between 1847 and 1869, three basic movements in Mormon settlement
may be observed. The most significant step was the establishment of
communities in the major valleys from Ogden in the north to ~t. George
26
in the south. The second step was the movement into more distant valleys;
and the third was the creation of distant outposts along supply and
immigration routes.
Salt Lake was the Mormons' first permanent settlement and rapidly
became the area's leading city. It was the home of Brigham Young, the
headquarters of the Mormon Church, and the commercial and political
center for the entire area. But life in this frontier metropolis was
far from ideal. A mercantile policy was adopted which placed sharp
limits on trade with the non-Mormon world and instead undertook " ...
to produce, manufacture, and make every article of use, convenience, or
necessity among our own people ... "21 This quest for self-sufficiency
and independence meant that, in the short term at least, settlers could
expect to do without many things until the home industries were firmly
established.
Mormon leaders were interested in establishing agricultural communities
beginning with Salt Lake City and spreading outward from there. Yet,
Salt Lake was destined to become an urban center. As it grew, demands
placed on natural resources were tremendous. Together with the needs
of the Mormon population, mining, railroading and manufacturing stripped
the region of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest of timber, forage and
minerals. As a result, the natural base upon which people depended was
seriously depleted by 1900.
In the years immediately after 1847, other communities were settled
in the Great Salt Lake and Utah valleys including most of the towns and
cities that presently stand on the borders of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest. Important among these was Ogden, which became a railroad and
timbering center and made demands on the resources that were particularly
heavy. Established somewhat later were settlements in Cache and Bear
Lake valleys, which were also dependent upon mountain resources.
Elsewhere settlements extended as far afield as San Bernardino and
Carson Valley, Nevada in the early years, and later to Idaho, Arizona,
Wyoming, Hawaii and ultimately even into Mexico and Canada. Some 500
27
Mormon communities were founded by 1900; all looking to Salt Lake City
as a cultural center and seat of authority.
The Mormon Village
Once settlers were secure in their new locations, they set to work
building their own versions of the "city of Zion,1I a planned community
of farmers and tradespeople that had been devised in 1833 by Joseph
Smith. Under this plan most towns were laid out in a grid pattern with
square blocks and wide streets running in north-south and east-west
directions. Block size varied, but Salt Lake City may be taken as an
example. There ten acre blocks were divided into eight 1 1/4 acre lots.
Each lot had space for a house, garden and outbuildings, including barns
and corrals. Each farmer was assigned five to twenty acres outside of
town by his bishop or drew lots for his share. Farmer worked these
fields during the day and returned to town at nightfall.
The village plan was designed to keep Mormons together in a close­knit
society. The plan worked well in the early years of settlement, but
in 1862 the Homestead Act made it possible for individuals to gain title
to 160 acres or more. This put strains on the original concept of
community, but was adapted and modified to fit into Mormon life. 22
Ideally it was hoped to base this entire process of settlement on
religious principles. Essential was a unity of spirit and purpose that,
among other things, extended to resource utilization. Leaders taught
that all resources belonged to God, hence no man actually owned them.
Individuals would act as stewards, but the product was to serve the
community. Originally, there was to be no speculative sale of land.
Other resources, too, were expected to serve the community and were
consequently placed under stewards rather than held for speculative or
money-making purposes. Water was, of course, crucial to the Mormon plan
\
to redeem the land and make it productive. Timber, too, was recognized
as a key resource and efforts were made to control its use for the good
of the community. As ecclesiastical authority was transformed to civil
government, the territorial legislature placed control of water and
timber along with other important resources under the jurisdiction of
the county courts.
The Gathering
Now that Mormons had found their lion, the next task was to build
up the population. Missionaries sent overseas met with great success.
28
By 1849, missionaries were proselytizing in Scandinavia, Germany, France,
Switzerland, Italy, Spain, the South Seas and Australia. By 1852
Mormons were also preaching in South America, South Africa, Japan,
China and India. Between the founding of the Church in 1830 and 1896
when Utah became a state, more than 100,000 men, women and children were
contacted, converted, organized and gathered to "lion" from various
nations. 23 Mormonism offered not only the "one true church," but also
economic relief. Each man could have his own land, each family could
be assured of a happy and productive life, children would be educated,
and no one would be left idle.
Not every person who wanted to emigrate could afford the journey.
Various schemes were tried by Church leaders to remedy this situation.
Eventually the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company (PEF) was established.
Under this plan, members in Utah contributed to help pay the costs
involved in transporting converts from Liverpool, England. Once the
immigrant arrived, he was expected to repay his debt to the PEF so
others could make the journey. The response to this program so taxed
Mormon resources that even greater economies were sought. In 1856,
Brigham Young proposed that immigrants be outfitted with two-wheeled
handcarts that could be pulled or pushed to Utah with 100 to 500 pounds
of food and clothing aboard. A disastrous experience in the fall of
1856, notwithstanding, most companies proceeded as planned, and over
3000 people walked to Utah between 1856 and 1860,24
Government Surveys and the Utah War
The first episode in the long chapter of government management of
the public domain of which the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is part,
developed where Captain Howard Stansbury of the Corps of Topographical
Engineers came in 1849-50, to map the Great Salt Lake and survey roads
in the region. His findings helped influence the selection of stage
coach and railroad routes and his reports contained accurate descriptions
29
Illus. 1 Salt L3ke City abou~-r 1..°. )0' 9
I: I u:;. _ Salt Lake Cit~ ac
of the region and the early settlements. Stansbury's reports. and a
book of observations about the Mormons by Lieutenant John W. Gunnison,
one of Stansbury's officers, '.. I ere published and did r;lUCfl to ac:::uaint
?r
Americans 'ilith the r~ormons and the Great Basin. ~J
As the l850s advanced, Utah experienced serious growing pains.
30
Controversies arose in which Brigham Young, who had been appointed
governor, failed to satisfy all the regulations imposed by t~e ~ederal
government. Disputes over Indian policy, mail contracts, land Jolicies
and the court system were particularly troublesome. To ~urther complicate
matters, the newly formed Republican Party demanded in 1856 that those
"t'.'lin relics of bar~arism--slavery and polygamy" be abolished in the
territories. Even though the Republicans did not win the presidential
election of 1856, their campaign platform had focused attention on '~t.1:'
and its society.
By early 1357, frictions led President James Buchanan to dcpoint a
new governor and dispatch an army to Utah. Upon hearing of the ar~j's
approach, Brigham Young mobilized the Mormon militia and fortified ~ne
territory. The army was slowed down by bad weath~r and its c00rander,
Albert Sidney Johnston, was forced to 2stablis' carp near Fort
Bridger. >!hen ,·/inter bt'~<e in 1853, a peace cssion offered
presidential aGnesty to the ~ormons, and Johns­itself
at Camp Floyd, ~est Of oresent Provo,26
:; arr:} established
Even though the Utah War caused a great dea" n~ te~sion it did 0J:
in the Great Basin,
_"'~~r __
if i teo u 1d b e Ij S '" d -":, r:~ i 1i ta t"/ .j c c e s s , I1, ' I SO
Captain James H. S~ :))[l>larted roads ~et';ieen
Floyd and from C3:~p =-loyd to Carson Valley in :;:·ja. The Pony E;<Dres~
and telegraph lirl'?,) later follo\ved this sam) pa'- , as did \·/agon roads
I'/hich opened up portions of '.'Ihat is now the \'!asc=h-Cacne :lational F:)rco~-
~7 for the first time.- '
Po s t C i vi 1 'II a r Sur 'j e ~, s
Perhaps the greatest mapping surveys ever undertaken in the West
took place in and around Utah in the 1860s and 1870s. The purpose of
these was to take an inventory of the natural resources of the West
31
and make detailed maps in the process. Between 1853 and 1860 four great
railroad surveys had been undertaken and from these reports one single
map of the West had been drawn. After the Civil War there was considerable
interest in filling in the gaps still left in western geography.
Ferdinand Hayden headed one of these great surveys from 1867 to
1879. Hayden was a physician, a geologist and a paleontologist, a
historian and, according to one source, an Jlinsatiable tourist. 11 During
his twelve years in the field he covered large areas of the Rocky Mount­ains
and tne Colorado Plateau, from cliff dwellings in northern New
Mexico to Yellowstone Park in the north. In fact, one of his expeditions
to Yellowstone started out from Cache Valley. Hayden eventually pushed
a bill through Congress to establish Yellowstone National Park and a
peak and stream are named for him in the Uinta Mountains.
Another major survey was led by Clarence King. His major goal was
to complete a survey from the Great Plains to the Pacific Ocean which
would facilitate the completion of a transcont~ 'ental railroad. In
1864 he was assigned the task of exploring the :Oth parallel--a 100 mile
wide strip of land running west to east from t ~ California Sierra to
the border of Nebraska. A survey of the Wasatc~ and Uinta Mountains was
included in Kingls efforts, a fact which place names, Kingls Peak, still
attest.
John Wesley Powell, perhaps the best known lf the great surveyors,
had fought as a major in the Civil War, and haG ~een appointed a professor
of geology afterwards. Like Hayden and King, h~ turned to Washington.
D.C. in the 1860s and 1870s for the necessary f,1ds to explore the West.
Powell recognized that the numerous rivers of t, e Colorado watershed
were among the least known regions of America, 3nd set out to survey
that area. In 1869 and 1871, he led two major expeditions down the
I
Green and Colorado Rivers. Powell also spent considerable time studying
the Indians of the area and was instrumental in establishing the Bureau
of American Ethnology in 1880.
Perhaps Powell IS greatest achievement was his Report on the Lands
of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account or
the Lands of Utah, published in 1879. Depending in large part upon his
observations in Utah, Powell declared that the West was an arid region
that could not support dense populations and that any attempt to impose
the small-farm, grid-style pattern of settlement used in the East would
be disastrous for the settlers, inadequate for irrigation purposes,
32
and detrimental to the fragile environment. Powell IS surveys also left
behind a rich photographic record of the West. Much of his data was
collected near Salt Lake City and reflected water conditions there and
on the Wasatch range. 28
Summary
The Mormons originally came to Utah in 1847 because it was one
place that nobody else wanted. It was fertile enough to sustain life,
and yet forbidding enough to discourage others from moving into the
territory. But the Mormons were not left alone to pursue their dream.
Far from it. In 1869 came the transcontinental railroad. Soon there­after
the mining frontier followed. With polygamy and the Mormon
question at stake the territory became a focal ::,oint of politics and
after some hesitation the business world and tr~ livestock kingdom also
invaded the territory. Mormon peculiarity, inc'uding the doctrine of
stewardship, were maintained until 1890, when with the churchls decision to
yield on polygamy, a move to embrace certain forms of American conformity,
was initiated. Among other things this impacted directly upon natural
resources as, with the canons of free enterprise supplanting those of
stewardship, Utahns turned to speculative and e~Jloitive development.
However, old conflicts were hardly laid to rest ~efore new conflicts
emerged. Among these were growing frictions over the utilization of
natural resources. With hundreds of cities and ~owns needing pure water,
and a livestock industry that had infested the watersheds, the Utah
background began to meet the background of the growing national
conservation movement described in Chapter I. Thus beckoned by new times
and new movements, the Wasatch and Cache National Forests took on
finite bounds by 1905.
CHAPTER II
NOTES
lS. George Ellsworth, Utah's Heritage (Santa Barbara, California:
1977), pp. 14-17.
2Ibid ., pp. 16-18. Lake Bonneville \'Jas named for Captain Benjamin
Bonneville, a U.S. army officer in the 1930s who became active in the
American fur trade. Bonneville was a poor busi.nessman, a failure as a
fur trapper, and inadequate as a topographer. Some feel he would have
passed through history unnoticed if Washington Irving had not written
a three volume account of the Captain's adventures. See Thomas D. Clark,
Frontier America: The Story of the Westward Movement, 2d ed. (NevI York:
1969), pp. 438,458-62.
3Robert L. Layton, "Utah: The Physical Setting," in Utah"s Hi:story,
edited by Richard D. Poll (Provo, Utah: 1978), pp. 8-9; Ellsworth,
Utah's Heritage, pp. 18-19.
4S. Lyman Tyler, "The Earliest Peoples," in Utah's History, pp. 23-25.
5Ibid ., rp. 25-30.
6Ibid . '. pp. 30-33.
7Ted J. vlarner, liThe Spanish Epoch," in Utah's History, pp. 35-49;
Charles S. Peterson, Utah: A Bi'centennial History, The States and the
Nations Series (New York: 1977), pp. 6-9; Charles S. Peterson, Look
to the Mountains: Southeastern Utah and the La Sal National Foresr-(Provo,
Utah: 1975), pp. 5-8.
8Clark, Frontier America, pp. 454-57; David E. Miller, "The Fur
Trade and The Mountain Men,u in Utah's History, pp. 55-67.
9Miller, "The Fur Trade and The t~ountain Men," p. 55.
lOIbid., rp. 55-67; Clark, Frontier America, pp. 55-67.
llHerbert S. Auerbach, "Old Trails, Olp Forts, Old Trappers and
Traders," Utah Historical Quarterly 9 (1941):13-63; David E. Miller,
"Explorers and Trail Blazers," in Utah's History, p. 63.
12Ellsworth, Utah's Heritage, p. 112; Auerbach, "Old Trails and
Traders, II pp. 52-57.
13 Fred R. Gowan and Eugene E. Campbell, Fort Bridger: Island in
the Wilderness (Provo, Utah: 1975), pp. 47,49-83,85-101.
14 Ibid., pp. 3-15, 61-69.
l5Recently, the Utah State Division of Parks and Recreation have
conducted a dig at the Fort Buenaventura site and propose to develop
it as a historic property.
34
16Miller, IIExplorers and Trail Blazers," pre 72-79; Clark, Frontier
America, p. 501.
l7Earlier Joseph Smith explored the possibilities of establishing
settlements in Oregon, California, Texas (then part of Mexico), and even
Vancouver Island. See Leonard J. Arrington, The Great Basin Kingdom: An
Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900, Bison Book edition,
(Lincoln, Nebraska: 1966), pp. 38-44.
18After the Mormons had been driven out of Illinois, they travelled
across Iowa and bui It a temporary settlement on the western side of the
Missouri River. Nearly 3500 people spent the winter of 1846-47 huddled
on the river bank in makeshift cabins and sod houses. Many died due
to lack of proper food, shelter and sanitary conditions. The September
immigration was made up of Mormons who did not want to spend another
winter on the banks of the Missouri. See Arrington, pp. 38-44; Ellsworth,
Utah IS Heri tage, pp. 15-56; Eugene E. Campbell, "The Mormon Mi grati ons
to Utah," in Utah's History, pp. 113-29.
19JosePh Smith
ancient inhabitants
Mormon, Ether 2:3.
symbols.
believed that the word "deseret" was used by the
of America to describe the honey bee. See Book Of
The honey bee has since become one of Utah's state
20Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, pp. 38-44; Ellsworth, Utah's
Heritage, pp. 160; Clark, Frontier America, pp. 604-608.
21Cited in Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 47.
22Ellsworth, Utah's Heritage, pp. 179-81, 190-93. For a discussion
of how the Homestead Act effected the Mormon Village see Charles S.
Peterson, "Imprint of Agricultural Systems on the Utah Landscape," in
The Mormon Role in the Settlement of the West, edited by Richard H.
Jackson (Provo, Utah: 1978), pp. 91-106.
23Gustave O. Larson, liThe Mormon Gathering," in Utah IS History, pp.
175-77; Ellsworth, Utah's Heritage, pp. 174-78.
24Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, pp. 96-108; Larson, "The Mormon
Gathering," pp. 177-82; Richard H. Jackson,. "the Overland Journey to
Zion," in The Mormon Role in the Settlement of the West, pp. 1-28.
25John W. Gunnison, The Mormons, or Latter-da Saints, in the Valle
of the Great Salt Lake, (Philadelphia: 1852; and Howard Stansbury,
An Expedition to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake ... (London: 1852).
26Ellsworth, Utah's Heritage, pp. 208-21; Peterson, Utah: A
Bicentennial History, pp. 84-85; Campbell, "Governmental Beginnings,"
pp. 165-70.
27E11sworth, Utah's Heritage, pp. 237-38.
35
280n the past Civil War surveys see Richard A. Bartlett, Great Surveys
of the American West (Norman: 1962); Gustave O. Larson and Charles S.
Peterson, "Opening the Colorado Plateau," in Utah's History, pp. 375-78;
Ellsworth, Utah's Heritage, pp. 238-43. Also see John Wesley Powell,
Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More
Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah, edited by Wallace Stegner (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962).
CHAPTER III
BOUNDARIES AND THE GROWTH OF A FOREST
In significant ways boundaries summarize the history of the Wasatch­Cache
National Forest. Boundary making was among the first evidences
that forestry was coming to have an influence upon Utah in the turn­of-
the-century years, and boundary shifts and reorganization of various
kinds continue to characterize the Forest today_ Reflected in the evo­lution
of boundaries have been numerous developments. In the first years
urban concern for culinary water, watershed protection and questions of
grazing adjustement had a bearing upon the creation of the Forest's
various divisions. In the years since, an almost unending array of
interests, administrative needs, legislative developments and techno­logical
advances as well as personalities have played a role in boundary
adjustments, making it clear that boundary making is a continuing process.
Not only have boundaries been the product of divergent influences but
they have varied almost infinitely in the size and the context of their
changes. The largest boundary changes have involved a half million
acres or more while the smallest have added or eliminated tiny plots of
no more than an acre or two. Presidential proclamations, executive
orders, congressional enactments, donations and administrative acquisi­tions
under literally dozens of authorizing laws have been the means
by which this process has moved.
In part these developments have reflected -~gressive self advancing
tendencies implicit in the Forest Service and in governmental bureaus
generally. In part they also reflect contfoversy and political give and
take as various interests have advanced themselves at the expense of
others. In yet other ways Forest boundaries have been extended through
cooperative effort, service to various clienteles and adjustment to
economic conditions and the growth of other managerial agencies. All
in all boundaries and the Status Book of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest in which additions, eliminations and re-organizations are
detailed come near being the story of the Forest in brief. They are
37
a foreshortened statement, not merely of land transactions, but of the
values, policies, economic interests and functions that have character­ized
the Forest during the eight decades of its existence. In Forest
boundaries one reads not merely the course of events but much of character
and influence as well. Consequently, it is appropriate at this early stage to
undertake a statement about the establishment of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest and the various changes and reorganizations through which its present
physical forms have evolved.
Matters of Size and Character
The sprawling size of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is a point
eminently worth considering. With its headquarters at Salt Lake City
its bounds have extended through much of its existence for about 250
miles on a southwest to northeast axis from the limits of the old
Vernon Division to Mountain View and beyond in Wyoming. On the north,
the present limits of the Cache extend a full hundred miles from Salt
Lake City and, in recent memory, layover into Idaho an additional fifty
miles, while after 1915 for more than two decades, the northern limits
were pushed as far afield as Pocatello. To the south and east of Salt
Lake City the Uinta National Forest absorbed other fingers of mountain
country providing rather closely restricted limits in those directions.
Maps of this country, as of others, are seen as the crow files.
On them, distances between points are minimized. But the Wasatch­Cache
Forest, like other geographic units, has real size that its
administrators have had to deal with and which should be understood as
one contemplates boundaries. Although modern travel and communications
ease its impact dramatically, size and the distance into which it translates
conform to the mountains which the Forest administers and is limited by
travel time. As a result, size is given very real dimensions that
complicate not only administration but makes for complexity as one tries
to see the development of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest as an
administrative and functioning entity.
38
To further emphasize the sprawling character of the Forest, attention
may be called to how it corresponds to other administrative subdivisions.
The area now being administered lies, of course, in two states, Utah and
Wyoming. More impressive, is that fact that in addition to the lone
county of Uinta in Wyoming it falls, at least in some part, in twelve
Utah counties, somewhat less than half of the state's total of twenty-nine.
Within these counties Forest acreage varies widely from fewer than 100
in Utah county to 268,084 acres in Cache County and 507,088 in Summit
County. More impressive still is that fact that for much of its history,
the Wasatch-Cache extended in to five Idaho counties as well. In all,
it presently (1980) consists of 1,133,370 acres. At times during the
history of the two Forests as separate entities, total size varied upward
to well over two million acres.'
Within this far-flung region the Wasatch-Cache is concentrated and
scattered according to factors of nature and human need. More or less
solid blocks of Forest are found in the Grantsville and Logan divisions
and on the vast north slope of the Uinta Mountains which comprises most
of Summit County's half million acres. Southeast of Salt Lake City a
relatively concentrated block of Forest land is also situated while
elsewhere, especially in the Ogden Ranger District, Forest property is
widely fragmented and scattered by private and state lands.
Another factor worth noting in this context is the character
of the Forest boundaries which are drawn to include large areas not
actually.owned by the Forest Service and under its jurisdiction only
for a variety of rather narrowly defined functions. Thus, as one
visualizes the Wasatch-Cache, one sees it in at least three geographic
relationships; first, the broad region of thirteen counties in two
states over which it spreads; second, the country embraced within its
boundaries; and third, those lands actually owned by the United States
and allocated to the Forest Service by official action for administrative
purposes.
Diversity, too, prevails. At base this is a matter of natural
conditions. In its contemporary form, the Wasatch-Cache straddles two
physiographic regions; the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau. Within
these two provinces the Forest is drained by numerous streams, including
six rivers of critical importance to the region: Green River, and its
39
affluents, including the Duchesne River, which flow into the Colorado
Plateau; and Bear River, Logan River, Weber River and Provo River which
empty into the Great Basin. Previously, when the old Pocatello Division
was part of the Cache, the Forest also extended into the Columbia drainage,
broadening its physiographic context even more.
Although the dominant natural theme of both the Great Basin and the
Colorado Plateau is aridity, natural diversity is easily apparent in the
country over which the Forest extends. At the southwest it extends into
the salt deserts; a drouth wracked and salt encumbered country. Along
the Wasatch Front it is characterized by granite escarpments, high
elevations, precipitous canyons, limited timber and unstable, brush
covered watersheds. With the exception of the Wellsvilles, which also
form part of the Wasatch Front, the mountains adjacent to Cache Valley
are less abrupt in their ascent, less lofty and less dominated by steep
rocky walls. East and southeast of the Cache mountains extends yet
another habitat; one of high rolling plateaus covered with sage and oak
brush and slashed frequently by smaller canyons and drainages which are
sometimes vegetated with evergreens and aspens. Finally, the north slope
of the Uinta Range offers an additional distinctive natural region with
its heavy growths of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir, its high country,
and lakes and drainage systems.
Perhaps even more apparent than the distances that set it apart
and the diversity of its natural settings are differences in what may
be called the social influences that have impinged upon the Forest.
From the beginning there has been a fundamental cleveage in the economic
and social interests of the people who lived within the Forest1s service
area. On the one hand was the urban society of the Wasatch Front, which
by 1900 was well established as a regional manufacturing and commercial
center. This urban society has continued to be a major factor in the
existence of the Forest asserting its interests in watershed management
and leisure time uses and having a distinc~ impact on the Forest1s
functions and upon its administrative relationships with the Intermountain
Region of the Forest Service. Elsewhere society has tended to be rural
and in early decades, life phased off into conditions that were distinctly
frontier like and in a few cases, even primitive in terms of communications
and contact with the outside world. In such areas interests tended to
be limited to grazing, timbering, agriculture and other extractive
activities and were carried on without the sophistication that charac­terized
the more developed economy of the Wasatch Front. Influencing
40
the Cache Division of the Forest was yet another major factor. Utah
State Agricultural College at Logan did much to focus eyes on the need
for forest reserves as early as 1900 and with the beginning of a forestry
school in the later 1920s did even more to influence the functions and
boundaries of the Wasatch-Cache Forest.
Establishment: First Developments and General Background
Now that attention has been drawn to some of the physical and
social forces that influenced the growth of the Forest we may turn to
the question of the Forest's establishment and the conditions and
interests out of which it grew. There is no single organic act to
which we may point as representing the birth of the Forest. Indeed, if
its creation may be referred to as a birth at all, it must be styled as
a multiple birth because what the Forest later became grew out of.what,
to begin with, were eight scattered forest reserves and a few major
extensions which were added as time passed. Responding to local issues
two of these reserves were established in 1903 (Logan and Pocatello).
two in 1904 (Grantsville and Salt Lake), three in 1906 (Vernon, Bear
River and Wasatch) and one in 1907 (Port Neuf). Created in what was
almost a buckshot pattern. these small local units were later drawn
together and have. in some cases, continued to be shuffled from one
jurisdiction to another to meet new needs and administrative requirements. 2
The years in which this flurry of forest building took place were
an active time for conservation in Utah and the West. As we have seen
in an earlier chapter, Mormons had initially approached their natural
resources as stewardships to be wisely manased for the good of God's
children. By 1890, however, evidence was everywhere apparent that
speculative and promotional values that paid more heed to profit than
stewardship were having an impact upon natural resources. Most dramatic
were evidences that timber depletion and overgrazing had disturbed the
balance by which nature maintained mountain watersheds. 3
41
A number of factors tended to bring Utah into step with the forestry
movement that was developing nationally and created a situation in which
forest reserves could be created without the open conflict that accompanied
the movement in neighboring Colorado and Wyoming. 4 Scientists and
engineers of both local and national connections focused much attention
upon Utah as the seat of Anglo-American irrigation following the first
irrigation congress which took place in Salt Lake City in 1891. The
city itself had only begun to enter the age of modern facilities in 1889
when it had some twenty-three miles of water mains and about 2300 taps
which provided the central portions of town with fairly reliable service
except during dry periods. By 1905 the city's water system had grown
immensely. Under the direction of farseeing engineers like A. F.
Doremus major steps had been taken to secure control of Utah Lake and
the mountain watersheds that lay up City Creek, Emigration Creek, Mill
Creek and Big Cottonwood Creek. Trades had been made with various
irrigation companies throughout the valley making for more efficient
use of water and assuring city residents of access to the more potable
water of the mountain streams. Springs and streams had been cleaned
and holding tanks and reservoirs built and a large concrete acqueduct
was under construction to connect Big Cottonwood Canyon to the city.
Efforts had also been made to control grazing and stock driving along
watercourses that fed municiple supplies. Salt Lake City and other
communities had also purchased key watersheds in their efforts to control
the sources of drinking water. 5
With a large percent of its people living in towns and cities Utah
was thus predisposed to resource management and in some part overcame the
characteristic western fear of eastern domination on the one hand and
affinity for individual control implicit in free enterprise on the
other. As a result, the state became a somewhat apprehensive supporter
of forest reservations. Governors during the early statehood period
(after 1896), including Heber M. Wells, Wil~iam Spry, and John C. Cutler
offered cautious support but sought to avoid the onus of selling out to
the enemies of home rule by hedging their public remarks with demands
that local people staff the new reserves and with provisions that control
would revert to the state in the event its citizens so willed. In an
era when party regularity was at a premium Utah senators and congressmen
42
played the role of what scholar Thomas G. Alexander has called "business
minded conservationists ll so successfully that several of them had
considerable influence upon federal resource policy and upon the way the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest came to develop. Particularly important
in this context were Senator Reed Smoot, who for years served as
chairman of the Forest Reserves subcommittee of the Natural Resources
Committee, and Congressman Don Colton, who put together many of the
provisions that became the Taylor Grazing Act before he, like Smoot,
was defeated in 1932. Also influential were VJilliam Spry who, after he
left the governor's office became Commissioner of the General Land Office,
and Senators William King, who as a long time Democratic senator was
only less important than Smoot, and George Sutherland who, although his
tenure as senator was shorter, moved on to the Supreme Court where he
wrote many of the conservative opinions of the court during the 1920s
and 1930s.6
Thus, with remarkably little show of friction, Utah moved with
the times as conservation was instituted in the years after 1896. In
1897 when Grover Cleveland set aside the Uintah Forest Reserve along
with more than 20,000,000 acres in reserves elsewhere, officials and
private interests in Utah complained enough to keep in good stead with
their neighbors, but basically supported the president's action. Two
years later, local interests petitioned that the Fishlake Forest Reserve be
established, and welcomed the first IIforest agent" who was assigned at
Coalville along the Weber River to give the Uintah Reserve a shadowy
semblance of administration. 7 Then in July 1902 as the Bureau of
Forestry grew under Gifford Pinchot's vigorous leadership Albert Potter,
a former Arizona stockman, showed up in Logan and as the grazing expert
of the administrative cadre Pinchot was putting together, undertook a
survey of the \'Jasatch Range that, over a period of five months, carried
him from one end of Utah to the other. Responding to petitions from
various local groups as well as to forestry;s sense of urgency, he
examined the Cache and Wasatch portions of the present Forest carefully.
Both areas he found to be seriously depleted in terms of grazing and
timber and in acute need of management and regulation. Referring to
lithe reserve" in a way that suggests plans in vlashington were already
well underway to create the Utah units he returned east in the fall of
1902, wrote his report and a large number of Utah reserves were there­after
established.8
Boundaries Take Shape for the Cache National Forest
The first of the new reserves was the Logan Reserve which was
apparently withdrawn from public entry on May 7, 1902. While it is not
clear what this meant in terms of legal status, it does suggest why
Potter began his Wasatch survey at Logan and also clarifies a reference
43
or two to "the reserve" in hi s report that read as if it were already
established. In its earliest form the Logan Reserve embraced an area
eighteen miles square or a total of nine townships east of Logan and
Smithfield. Not included was the tier of townships that lay next to the
Idaho border in which considerable state and private land had apparently
been taken up. On May 29, 1903 the Logan Reserve was formally established.
In response to Potter's survey a dozen sections were trimmed from the
tier of townships that fronted the valley on the west and on the south­east
about half a township was dropped in view of the private and state
lands held on Blacksmith Fork near present Hardware Ranch. 9
In a separate transaction the Pocatello Forest Reserve was created
on September 5 of the same year. In October 1904 Forest Agent Smith
Riley proposed that 94,390 acres be withdrawn as the "Malade Forest
Reserve. II Reporting that the population that lived in the area were
nearly all "in favor ll he employed a tactic widely used in the survey
reports that preceeded the establishment of reserves in the Wasatch-Cache
when he continued that the reserve was an "absolute necessity." "Under
the present prevailing condition the land will soon become a barren
waste that will be a menace, rather than a benefit, to the thrifty
communities contiguous to it."lO Riley's appeal notwithstanding, the
Malad Reserve was apparently never established as a separate unit, but
on May 26, 1906, 68,720 acres designated as,the "Malade or Middle
Division" were put together with 56,960 acres known as the "Marsh Creek
or Western Division" and the 271,680 acres of the "Bear or East Division".
In February of the same year IIMonte Cristo Township" south of Blacksmith
Fork had been added to the Logan Reserve which was now attached to the
"Bear D;vision,1I forming a reserve extending from Soda Springs on the
1-
~'" ....
u 5 OE;~~~~~LTU~ ..
HE~RY S. ,)RAVES. FORESTER
CACH E NATIONAL FOREST
IDAHO .... UTAH
BOIS!: "~IOIAN
SAI.T LAKr: MERIOIAN
... fy·""·'·_IU ..... n,~ ... c,.. =:J :-:~:~:'. '!..~ ;: ..... ,. ~U'
<,.fe·· .. ~ .........
Cl ::::'~.:'.;~':: ~: .. .::..~.:. lo,lj
L:3n... •.• ~ •• .,..~ •. _
-
III us. 3 Cache National Forest 1915
44
.. ,os..
.. , 1·
~.. ,
;p ... .. .
~
I
J
45
north to Marsh Creek on the west and to Monte Cristo on the south. The
unit thus formed totalled 683,280 acres and was given the name Bear River
Forest Reserve. This name may have been an effort to placate Bear Lake
livestock men, most of whom objected to the withdrawal of their range
lands from the public domain, or compensation for maintaining headquarters
in Logan.
Elsewhere, the Port Neuf Forest Reserve was withdrawn from public
entry on March 2, 1907 and almost immediately attached to the Pocatello
Forest Reserve. This arrangement was quickly altered when the Port
Neuf was divided between the Bear River and the Pocatello reserves in
1908. The same year forest reserves across the nation were redesignated
national forests and the entire Bear River was renamed the Cache National
Forest. In 1915 the Pocatello National Forest was consolidated with the
Cache where it remained until 1938, at which time what had been the
Pocatello, Port Neuf, Marsh Creek and Malad Divisions were all transferred
to the Caribou National Forest. 1l
Beginning in 1934 a series of significant additions to the Cache
National Forest were initiated as a result of growing interest in
recreation and the serious floods that are discussed in detail in another
part of this history. As background to these additions it should be
recalled that during the Depression, land values were down sharply and
that much land sold at tax auction or merely passed into the possession
of various levels of local government. With a drouth of unprecedented
severity. and the great winds of the Dustbowl before them, people were
sensitive as they had rarely been to just how subject mankind was to
natural disasters. These developments coupled with the New Deal's
general penchant for action prompted a movement of boundary extension
that was second only to the early years of forest establishment. As
expressed directly in boundary changes this movement began for the Cache
National Forest with the addition of three sections of land adjacent
to Willard Peak in the so called IITerry's Withdralt/al" of July 27,1934.
\
Two years later on May 22, a much more comprehensive addition was made
which encompassed the mountains along the Wasatch Front from south of
Ogden to north of Brigham City. Interested cities and towns, promoters
of skiing at Snow Basin, and groups interested in controlling floods at
Willard and elsewhere joined forces to acquire large tracts of land
46
through purchase, donation and exchanges, which were then turned over to
the Federal Government. Similar transactions culminated in a proclamation
on September 6, 1939 bringing the Wellsville Mountains into the Forest's
jurisdiction. The same year the Ogden Valley Addition extended the
Forest boundaries south and east bringing within its limits 392,686 acres,
some of which had been recommended for inclusion within the Forest as
early as 1908 and 1909. 12 However, most of this vast addition was not
placed under Forest ownership but appears to have been included in
Forest boundaries because of federal reclamation projects then under
way and because of Ogden City's interest in having a managed watershed.
Two years later, on May 12, 1941, the Ogden Basin Reclamation Project
carne to a focus in the addition of the land immediately around Pineview
Reservoir in the west end of Ogden Valley most of which had remained in
private ownership.13
Thus, with developments that varied from the simple announcement of
one ranger, forests in the early period to the balancing of such complicated
and interacting forces as public opinion, competing interests, federal
programs and the sciences of forestry in what may be termed its middle
era, the Cache National Forest had, by World War II, assumed what would
be its essential boundaries until the transfer of administrative
responsibilities in 1973. At that time it was divided along state lines,
its Idaho portions merged with the Caribou National Forest and its
Utah portions assigned to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Boundaries on the Wasatch Front
As in the case of the Cache, the initial establishment of the Wasatch
Forest came about through the creation of a number of small reserves which
were then consolidated and supplemented to become an administrative
whole, with headquarters first apparently at Murray and later at Salt
Lake City. A number of important consider~tions were reflected in the
way these small reserves evolved. In the first place was the reality of
the desert country in which the Forest lies. In this context, reserve
making was a process of seeking out the areas of high elevation and
withdrawing them from public entry. In addition, it was a process of
responding to the patterns of land entry and ownership that had evolved
01:
!:.
,.-
::~
"., lt\"l " , . \y ~j" '., ~.' ~ L~ :~~j
~~ t.. H 3 t-
I 1 III S ,
-j-
TO>
T 10:1
\,
~ 7 W R 0 " . . "
!I lias atch Nat i ona 1 Fores t, 1915
,).~.<,
,. '"('I' ~; ,.
'.114) .. ! '. I
.\
IMI ;.1
it.. S r ~)~ H v: l f
lil 1.1 c)lth,'
WASATCH NATIONAL rOREST
UTAH
!:lAd lAKl. Ulf\jl! LitH 6 Oil. ,'1";1 d 'I I.'.
_i •. ,[ :::..Itl
_, (roil ',1' rt-r IT
I.'
\ ....
• > ,
. ~",
Haw ,.. I .... " .
-/0:>
'-.I
48
in the six decades since the Mormons had arrived. As one forest assistant
put it "alienation on this old settled country is so complete that it
will be impossible to extend the boundaries" to many areas that by
character ought to have been included. 14 As a consequence, the Wasatch
Forest stood in contrast, even to the Cache, in the way pieces of the
Forest were spread and in the way federal ownership extended only to
bits of land scattered among a maze of alienated lands. Among other
things, mining had contributed to this fragmented character of land
claims and interests. In some localities, particularly up the Cottonwood
Canyons, literally hundreds of mining claims, some of which overlapped
each other in every direction, added to the complexity of boundary
identification.
A second general observation is that on the Wasatch, as on the Cache,
the 1930s were a period of extension. Depression, public sentiment and
federal programs resulted in the extension of Forest boundaries and in
the acquisition of considerable acerages as the need to manage resources
became apparent.
The first hint of forest building on the Wasatch Front came in 1900
when tracts of land near Salt Lake City and Grantsville were withdrawn
from public entry, evidently in anticipation of later establishment of
reserves. In May of 1904 presidential proclamations established first
the Grantsville Reserve with 68,960 acres and then the Salt Lake with
95,440 acres. In April of 1906 the Vernon Forest Reserve was created
with bounds encompassing 54,240 acres and in August of the same year the
Wasatch Reserve was established with 85,440 acres. In June of 1908 the
Vernon and part of the Fillmore Reserve were combined to establish the
Nebo National Forest and the Vernon name was discontinued. Almost
immediately Supervisor Dan Pack of the Nebo returned a report unfavorable
to the continuation of the Vernon under the administration of the Forest
Service. After some discussion the Vernon Division was included in the
Wasatch National Forest in July 1910. Meantime there was much adminis­trative
overlap between the Grantsville, the Salt Lake and the Wasatch
reserves which culminated on July 2, 1908 when the entire Grantsville
and Salt Lake Reserves were discontinued and their land added to what
was by this time designated the Wasatch National Forest. Totalling
about 304,000 acres these four units comprised the original core of the
49
southwestern portion of the Forest. 15
During this early period most people in Salt Lake and Tooele counties
appear to have been favorably disposed to the forest reserve movement.
As pointed out earlier, this was related in part to the need for domestic
water in Salt Lake City and other communities. In the smaller cities
and rural regions of both counties favorable sentiment grew also from
the need to stablize irrigation sources. Although rural population had
lagged behind city growth the number of farms had increased dramatically
since 1890. Drouth from 1899 to 1902 combined with overgrazing and
heavy use of timber to emphasize the growing shortage of irrigation
water. To meet the problem, communities like Bountiful and Grantsville
had, even before this early date, laid tile pipelines from springs and
other mountain sources but farmers still found themselves to be shy of
water, particularly in the later summer months.
The position of Salt Lake City and most of its residents was made
clear in a letter of November 27,1905 from the city engineer to E. H.
Clark, "Forest Ranger" of the old Salt Lake Reserve:
The Mayor has directed me to acknowledge receipt of your favor
of November 20th, with reference to grazing on the Salt Lake
Forest Reserve during the season of 1906, and to make a statement
of the attitude of the city administration in this matter. Our
city, as you are aware, has acquired the right to nearly half of
the waters of Big Cottonwood Creek, and by July 15, 1906, the new
conduit now in course of construction is to be completed after
which time our proportion of the Big Cottonwood water will be
brought in to the city .... We have also negotiated and are
about to consummate a contract which will give us a portion of
the waters of Mill Creek, which will also be brought into the
city through the new conduit. You will see, therefore, that
with the exception of the Little Cottonwood area, every watershed
embraced by the Salt Lake Forest Reserve will be contributing to
our city water supply. That this supply shall be pure is of the
utmost importance, and to the extent that the city has jurisdiction
over these watersheds, its authority will be exercised to the
fullest extent to prevent any contamination. In the matter of
the land within the Forest Reserve, beyond the jurisdiction of
the city, we are depending upon the gopd offices of the Forest
Service. We wish to urge, therefore, that during the season of
1906, no grazing be permitted on any of the lands within the Salt
Lake Forest Reserve, exception only the Littl
T6
Cottonwood water­shed,
which is not yet tributary to the city.
In addition to such sentiments the wilderness movement so apparent
elsewhere began to have an impact on Utah. Although Utah lacked prophets
50
Illus. 5 Mountain-Valley Relationship: City Creek-Salt Lake City
"
Illus. 6 Lake Blanche at Head of Big Cottonwood Canyon
51
of the wilderness ethic to call attention to spectacular scenery and
herald its aesthetic and spiritual values who could compare to John Muir
in California, there was something of an awakening to such values in the
years prior to the establishment of the Salt Lake Reserve in 1904.
Thomas Morin, Jack Hillers, Frederick Oellanbaugh and other imports who
worked for John Wesley Powell and F. V. Hayden did much to publicize
southern Utah's spectacular "standing up country" but it was people of
a more local connection who advanced an aesthetic interest in northern
Utah's mountains and thus had a bearing on the establishment of reserves
there. Following the example of their col1egues in California and
elsewhere in the West-professors at the University of Utah and Brigham
Young University began to lead "natural history" expeditions that turned
attention to the scientific and aesthetic potential of mountain country.
Even more important were those that promoted the country for tourism.
By 1890 Commercial Clubs began to spring up in the territory and by
1900 the Chamber of Commerce was well established. Together with the
Union Pacific Railroad such groups extolled the scenic virtues of the
Wasatch Mountains and the High Uintas.
Artists were the ready accomplices of such promoters. Among the
foremost of these was H. L. A. Culmer who, in addition to celebrating
southern Utah in his paintings, helped popularize the scenic wonders of
the Wasatch Range. 1? Even more important in this context was Alfred
Lambourne who did striking sketches and paintings of the Wasatch
mountains. In 1891 and again in 1895 he issued collections that
heralded the beauty of his homeland. The first undertook to redress
what Lambourne considered to be the regrettable lack of awareness of
Utah's scenery generally, in a series of pencil sketches accompanied
by short romantic descriptions in Scenic Utah, which was published in
New York. Included were portfolios on the Wasatch, on the Uintas, on
Southern Utah, the Great Salt Lake and rustic scenes. 18 Four years
later he turned his attention directly to the Wasatch Range, heralding
\
its unique beauty in A Summer in the Wasatch with a deft brush and
Thoreau like textual description.
Paralleling the growth of artistic interest in the Wasatch Mountains
was the continuing development of interest in camping and picnicing. 19
The public press, too, entered vigorously into the matter and one gets
the distinct impression that the vocal portions of the public were
overwhelmingly favorable to forest reserves. The usual pattern was for
local interests to petition for the establishment of a reserve after
which a forest examiner, usually Albert F. Potter or Robert R. V.
Reynolds, would survey the area in question, write a report that would
balance off the contending interests and give best promise of extending
the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 20 Reports would then recommend
the establishment of a reserve or addition to one already established.
Although a goodly number of names appear on some of the petitions,
individuals and small groups of leaders had great impact. This was
especially apparent on the Grantsville and the Vernon divisions. At
Grantsville stockmen, farmers and the users of city water joined forces
but it seems likely that William Spry, a native of the town,who was
elected governor in 1908 was influential in the establishment of the
reserve. There can be no question that he was a key figure in the
development of its boundaries and its addition to the Wasatch Forest
during his term as governor.
The Role of Local Interests in Early Boundaries
52
Men whose role in promoting the establishment of a reserve and then
defending it was even more prominent were Alanzo Stookey, of Clover and
Israel Bennion, Mormon bishop at Vernon. Members of early livestock
famil i es who had opened the ~Jest Desert country to Mormon util i zati on,
their campaign for the reserves point up significant areas of common
cause between conservation and the Mormon interest in stable communities.
Bennion, Stookey and a few dozen other Mormon families eked out a
livelihood at Vernon and Clover. At the turn of the century their
survival in the country was threatened by drouth and sheep, some 400,000
of which wintered on the West Desert and t~ailed north to pastures in
Wyoming and Idaho, passing through and around Clover and Vernon twice
each year. Recognizing that in the long run sheep threatened their way
of life, Bennion and Stookey promoted the establishment of the Tooele
County reserves which by 1909 had become "little islands of refuge" in
a sea of sheep.2l
Not only had the settlers been united in petitioning that reserves
be created but they maintained cordial relationships with their own
political representatives as well as with all levels of the Forest
Service from Gifford Pinchot to local rangers. According to Robert
Reynolds, a forest assistant who soon became Forest Supervisor on the
Wasatch, the Vernon-Clover group had lIengineered the withdrawal through
the aid of Governor Spry and Senator Smoot. II In addition, Stookey had
led a delegation to Ogden to congratulate Pinchot for his lIefforts in
behalf of the small ranch owners. II Continuing, Reynolds reported that
53
The local leaders of this sect [Mormon] are strongly favorable to
the Service, and during a stop at the house of Israel Bennion, who
is Bishop at Vernon, a most unusual action on the part of a Church
officer was heard of. When Ranger Manwill was withdrawn from this
region in May, Bishop Bennion gave his congregation a talk on the
benefits of the Forest Service .... and urged every man to behave
in the Rangerls 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. 22
Although Supervisor Dan Pack had recognized as early as 1908 that
in the technical sense the Vernon Division was not forest area and had
recommended that it be eliminated, all parties appear to have been well
pleased with the situation in 1909 when an attempt was made to enlarge
the Wasatch National Forest by adding land from the Onaqui Range that
lay between the Grantsville and the Vernon Divisions. Proponents of
this addition tried to meet the needs of sheepmen by leaving six-mile
margins at either end of the addition, to allow maximum manuverability
and access to feed and water as sheep trailed to and from winter pasture.
As they had always done, Bennion and Stookey mustered the locals and in
a great show of good will, Reynolds and they appeared to be well on the
way to an enlargement of forest boundaries.
By 1910, however, things had changed. Pinchot had bitten off more
than he could chew in a controversy with Secretary Ballinger of the
Department of Interior, and President Taft ~howed signs of restructuring
the conservation movement. As Henry S. Graves, who succeeded to the
position of Forester when Pinchot was forced out expressed it, "under
the agreement between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior we must hew toll a carefully defined line of what was
54
forested country, "regardless of public sentiment.,,23 Obedient team
member that he was, Robert R. V. Reynolds, who by this time was Supervisor
on the Wasatch, did an about face. Claiming that the Vernon "has always
been known as the most doubtful project in the District," he now called
for its el imination. As he put it, "the retention of the Vernon is a
very weak place in the defences of the Service and would be indefensible
if the land were looked over by an unfriendly inspector. 1I24
Almost immediately Bennion moved to the defense of the Reserve.
Reynolds' recommendation was read in a public meeting where it "came
like a prediction of earthquake, a declaration of war. Our peorle, sick
of the turmoi 1 of sheep, happy in the security of thei r Reserve, II he
wrote, "sold out their sheep; and turned their attention to improving
their cattle and horses and their homes .... they thereby lost their
Reserve privileges elsewhere. Now where are we?" Then he outlined the
improvements that had revitalized springs and streams previously smothered
under "tons upon tons of gravel and debris" before concluding "what
Roosevelt and Pinchot wound, Taft unwinds. Call it error, call it
foolish; but mark the outcome!"
Bennion seemed to see the dilemma as the outgrowth of "policies that
may be broader than my field of vision" but others in his community saw
only their own field of vision and in it sheepmen were the spoilers. In
an eloquent appeal Per Emil Pehrson related that
400,000 sheep pass by this small Reserve and with a jelous [sic]
eye cannot get on; how long will it last 400 thousand ... ?
It will not make a bed ground for them. Sheep men now have
everything East and VJest of us, and now we bel ieve they want
this little corner and the earth and its fullness thereof ..
our streams of water will grow smaller and our farms will be as
dry 1 and unproduct i ve and of 1 itt 1 e worth."
In a final outburst of eloquence Pehrson appealed "please send a message
that the damper may be turned and that this division may stand as solid
as the rocks of Gibraltar and that the poor man may appreciate the hand
\ of our good government." Bennion's final appeal had an element of
prophet; c threat, "We . . . are a uni t for conservation of the Nati on's
resources. It is the people's demand; whoso fails to heed, will be
ground to powder. 1I25
55
The Role of a Senator
It seems likely that eloquent letters did little to save the Vernon
Division. Nevertheless, it was not abolished nor was it taken from the
Wasatch National Forest until much later. Specific information is
lacking to explain the matter, but one is inclined to guess that good
connections politically and careful efforts to cultivate good relations
with the Forest Service paid off for the Vernon settlers. Although they
made good cases for excluding the Vernon, neither Reynolds or the District
IV officers (later Region IV) felt good about letting their old friends
down. More important was the fact that a local man, William Spry was
governor of Utah. Supporting the inclination to see political connections
as important is the fact that Israel Bennion's brother, Hardin, was a
member of the State Land Board. Finally, and the most important connection
of all, was the fact that Reed Smoot, who had played an undeviating line
of party regularity during both the Roosevelt and Taft administrations
was chairman of the Section of Forests of the powerful and prestigious
National Conservation Commission of which Overton Price, Associate
Forester was secretary.
Insight into the role Smoot played in this and other situations may
be derived from correspondence connected with a 1924 proposal to make
certain additions to the Vernon Division under the Clarke-McNary Act
which authorized Forest Service acquisition of land for purposes of
fire protection, watershed management and timber production. After
referring to the fact that in contrast to all other western states but
Arizona and Nevada, forest additions could be made in Utah by presidential
proclamation as well as by congressional enactment, a letter from
Acting Forester E. A. Sherman in Washington, D.C. spelled out the
following explanation and instructions:
In Utah a special condition exists with reference to additions
which amounts in substance to this office refrainin from makin
additions that are ob1ecte to by the enior Senator. Un er thlS
arrangement more smal additions have been made in Utah than
probably any other state in the Union during the past 15 years.
We should soon reach the point where our Forest boundaries in
.that state should be considered permanently fixed.
After referring again to the Vernon addition Sherman's letter continued,
56
"if the local public interested in this addition can secure the support
of the senior Senator and their Congressman, Mr. Colton, I would be
willing to recommend that this addition be made by Presidential
Proclamation. ,,26 Whereas, by the terms of a congressional enactment of
1907 most western states protected themselves from unwanted additions by
making expansion of national forests contingent upon legislative action,
Utah apparently achieved an even firmer control of the way its national
forests evolved through the role played by Reed Smoot during the five
terms he sat in the Senate.
Whatever the case, the Vernon Division remained part of the Wasatch
Forest until 1973 when it was assigned to the Uinta National Forest.
Boundary Additions that Failed
As was the case in the 1909 effort to add the Onequi Range to the
Wasatch Forest, many attempts to make additions to the Forest's bounds
failed. The so-called Bountiful and the Oquirrh additions are two examples
that had a varied and long history and may be used to illustrate a
number of problems implicit in boundary revision over the years. As early
as 1909 farmers and townspeople of "south Bountiful" and Woods Cross
launched a drive to bar grazing from their watershed and bring substantial
portions of the mountains east of Davis County under forest administration.
Irrigation companies constructed tile conveyance systems from mountain
springs and the city of Bountiful purchased several hundred acres of
land crucial to the town's culinary needs. Now as sheep pushed over the
divide from Weber Canyon and increasingly foraged on Bountiful's
watershed, people declared themselves willing to buy additional land
and to turn it over to the Forest Service. E. H. Clarke, supervisor of
the Salt Lake Reserve, recognized the critical condition of the watersheds
and urged immediate action to acquire whatever land was available.
Interestingly, he coupled his request with ~ proposal to combine the
Wasatch and the Salt Lake reserves thus hoping to make substantial
administrative savings. As it turned out, the Wasatch and the Salt Lake
reserves were brought together, but due to the large amount of alienated
lands in the Bountiful watershed as well as the influence of the sheep
interests the addition failed. 27 It was only in the 1920s and 1930s
when floods demanded that action be taken that key blocks of land were
finally added.
57
Several efforts were also made to add the Oquirrh Mountains to the
Wasatch National Forest. One of these was made in 1909. ~ittle evidence
now exists of what steps were taken on the part of private or public
parties, but a proposal was made officialy by the Forest Service to
include some parts of it. A decade later, residents of Cedar Fort in
Utah County initiated another move to incorporate part of the Oquirrhs.
This was a local move and called for the withdrawal of land only in the
townships directly north and west of the town. The Cedar Fort petitioners
were apparently led by cattlemen who were objecting to heavy invasion
by transient sheepmen. Ranger W. W. Smith of the Pleasant Grove District
made the analysis for the Forest Service and found that upwards of forty­five
percent of the area was owned privately and by the state. Although
a good number of homesteads and pre-emption entries had been made,
mineral patents were more common, particularly in the netghborhood of
Bingham, Lewiston, Ophir, and Stockton. Because of its local focus and
the large amount of alienated land within its confines, neither Smith
nor Supervisor Dana Parkinson endorsed the petition with any enthusiasm
and after an effort or two to adjust the land actually to be included,
the movement apparently d;ed.2~
After more or less constant maneuvering during the 1920s a major
bid to have the Oquirrhs added in the late 1930s points up growing
complexities in the process of boundary adjustments including the fact
that the establishment of the Grazing Service (later the Bureau of Land
Management) in the Department of Interior provided both an escape gap
and an additional option. This movement coincided with the successful
additions of large amounts of land in Davis, Box Elder and Cache
counties for flood control purposes and reflected some of the same
interests. In Tooele, as elsewhere in the area, the general mood was
favorable and the success of the Forest Se~vice in arresting erosion
and floods on other mountains undoubtedly featured in the course the
campaign took. Finally, there was no place in the entire Region where
nature and time had dealt more harshly than on the Oqu;rrhs.
The prime mover in the conservation drive was the city of Tooele
which carefully gathered its support and conducted a well planned
58
campaign. Basic to its appeal were some 9,000 people who lived in towns
around the mountain's peripheries. Most of these depended upon the
mountain for culinary and irrigating water. In addition, a great many
depended upon Kennecott Copper and other industries which were in turn
dependent upon the limited amount of water generated by the mountain.
Initially, it was proposed that almost the entire range be turned over
to the Forest. Of this, the state owned 12,744 acres or twenty-five
percent, private interests 23,258 or thirty-four percent and 37,312
acres were public domain and under the Grazing Service's jurisdiction
in the Department of Interior.
Well aware of the difficulties it faced, the city orchestrated its
efforts carefully. The help of Senators William King and Elbert Thomas
was enlisted. Towns and communities from around the entire circumference
of the mountain were mobilized. Dozens of groups and organizations were
lined up. Important among these was the Salt Lake City Chamber of
Commerce whose Gus Backman persuasively talked of Salt Lake City's
furture recreational needs and the contributions a revitalized mountain
range could make. The basic document around which all of these elements
rallied was a skillful brief prepared by Tooele's city attorney
detailing past problems of misuse, current deterioration of a vital
resource and future needs as well as presenting a roster of the
formidable array that had come together to achieve this end. With what,
in view of the existing structure of ownership and administration, can
only be termed unblushing self confidence, Tooele asked that 106,000
acres be designated as watershed reserve and placed under the Forest
Service. To signify its own earnestness and bait the trap it pointed
to its considerable and not too successful attempt to meet need for culinary
water and offered to donate some 2000 acres it owned on the Oquirrh
watersheds.
But the elaborate preparations were not a matter of overkill.
Indeed, one evidence of opposition showed ~p early in the campaign when
the Lehi Cattle Users Association objected to transferring public lands
on the southeast part of the range from the Grazing Service with whom
they were well pleased. In addition, officials of the Forest Service
proceeded cautiously. They acknowledged the need to take steps to bring
the Oquirrhs under control but recognized the key position of the
Grazing Service and the Department of Interior. Finally it was the
Department of Interior and its claims to the public lands involved that
turned the case. At successive levels the Forest Service had endorsed
the addition, but at each step had warned the Tooele forces that a
necessary feature was the support of the Department of Interior. On
May 16, 1939 Grazing Service officials took a firm position, refusing
to "O.K. the addition of the we