A History of the Architecture of the USDA Forest Service

1917-1933: From Above

When the Nation entered World War I, many sawmills were closed because of labor and management conflicts, and the cost of lumber and materials increased. Improvements constructed during this period were generally modest in size and features. As of 1917, there was still no record of a Forest Service architect.

In the California Region, Regional Forester Coert DuBois issued an Improvement Circular on May 1, 1917. As DuBois explained:

The designs for buildings included in this Manual cover the field of buildings generally. From time to time, however, to meet special needs, small buildings, the plans and estimates for which are not included in this Manual, will be constructed. Maintenance of buildings already constructed now and then will require carpenter work of various kinds. The following chapter is written with a view of securing better construction and a higher grade of maintenance work by setting forth certain standards of construction and by giving ideas of how to do certain things which, to the inexperienced man, are more or less puzzling. Unless previous authority is secured, the specifications with respect to the dimension of materials for different purposes and the general type of construction shall apply to all common miscellaneous construction and repair work. [1]

The designs for the circular had been developed during the two previous years. They called for standard wood-framed construction in the larger structures with log construction employed for smaller buildings. The buildings were small and inexpensive to erect. The estimated cost for the 1D dwelling (figure 1-10) was $112 in labor plus materials, well within the $650 building spending limitation (see appendix B for plans and a list of materials). The buildings reflect the influence of the Craftsman architecture of the era and were obviously designed with an eye to more than strictly functional requirements. Designs such as dwelling 1D, with its classic, temple-inspired front porch, overhanging eaves, clapboard siding, and gable roof, would be right at home in any working-class neighborhood of the era.

Figure 1-10. The classically inspired 1D dwelling, Region 5 (1917)

While circumstances at times required the substitution of less finished material for the milled lumber, rusticity does not seem to have been the aim of the designers. If one compares the kind of buildings constructed by the National Park Service with the buildings built by the Forest Service in the 1910's and 1920's, it becomes apparent that the latter were not really all that rustic. In fact, given the mission of the Forest Service, it could be argued that rusticity would have been an inappropriate goal for the designers of the DuBois-era structures to pursue. [2]

In the Region 2 Office of Engineering, James Brownlee, a mechanical engineer, was overseeing the design and construction of administrative improvements based on the Forest Service policy that stated, "Each new improvement [shall be] carefully planned, and all details of construction [shall be] carefully included in each plan." [3] These plans exhibited increasing use of the bungalow style (figure 1-11). Another influence changing the style of the buildings was that a growing number of rangers after World War I were trained in the forestry schools on the East Coast. These men lacked the pioneer construction skills, and many stations were constructed by building contractors. [4]

Figure 1-11. Plans for ranger dwelling. Glade Ranger Station, Region 2

The 1928 Forest Service National Manual of Regulations and instructions was the first Service-wide publication to address design policy since the Use Book. It stated that dwellings would be built only when it was impractical to rent living or office space. Office space was to be provided apart from dwellings. The first office designs from the various Regions would appear 3 years later. Garages were for official vehicles only. [5]

A companion to the National Manual, the Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Handbook, was also issued. Included in the C&M Handbook were plans for various types of buildings. These were not mandatory, but were used in many Regions of the Forest Service.

A significant innovation in Region 1 fire control planning was the development of the Ninemile Remount Depot on the Lolo National Forest. The Forest Service had always relied on horses and mules for getting supplies into the backcountry to fight fires, and in the early years the common practice was to hire commercial pack stock when the need arose. The rise in the number of automobiles and trucks in the 1920's, however, had caused a commensurate decline in the number of horses. In 1929, Clyde Fickes recommended that the Forest Service acquire its own reserve of pack stock and saddle horses at some central location, where they could be trucked to any point in the Region at short notice. Fickes had in mind the old remount depots of the U.S. Cavalry, where saddle horses were trained for issue to replace lost mounts. Although Fire Chief Howard Flint and others in the Regional Office opposed this idea, Regional Forester Evan Kelley gave it his approval.

Kelley put Fickes in charge of the remount operation, but he gave it close supervision, too. William Fox, the first professional architect, designed most of the buildings. Many of the facilities and equipment were completely innovative, such as the horse trucks designed specifically for transporting a standard pack string of nine mules and a saddle horse. "Kelley . . . really wanted it to function as planned." writes Fickes. "No one else in the RO wanted to have much to do with it because they were afraid they would get their fingers burned. After we made it prove its worth, then everybody wanted to get into the act." The Ninemile Remount Depot was a complete success; its value increased as the level of activity rose. [6]

William Fox designed the buildings for Ninemile in the Cape Cod style of architecture. The site plan was devised to look like a Kentucky horse farm, with clean white buildings, corrals, and tree and grass landscaping (figures 1-12 and 1-13). The reasons for selecting this type of architectural style are unclear; however, it appears to have been the personal choice of Fickes and Kelley. [7]

Figure 1-12. Residence, Ninemile Ranger Station, Lolo National Forest (1931)

Figure 1-13. Office, Ninemile Ranger Station, Lolo National Forest (1931)

By 1930, Forest Service appropriations shifted to emphasize fire protection structures rather than administrative improvements. In a letter to the forest supervisors. Region 5 Regional Forester S.B. Show stated that, unlike past practices, the Washington Office was now emphatic about not transferring funds from one function to another. As Show pointed out, "The money allotted for protection improvements must be spent on such and no transfers should be made between administrative or protection improvement construction and maintenance projects without approval." [8]

By the 1930's, rangers were required to own their own vehicles rather than horses. Motor vehicles helped stimulate a road construction boom in the 1920's that resulted in increased recreational use and timber and mineral extraction. Rangers used automobiles and trucks to expedite their field work, and their families enjoyed easier access to the supplies and social contact available within nearby communities. This initiated an administrative policy shift that resulted in the consolidation of districts and the replacement of full-time rural ranger stations with seasonal or temporary stations served in the summer by rangers who lived in towns the rest of the year.

The introduction of designed office space in 1931 and the construction of various other buildings at administrative sites increased the need for site planning. Guard stations may have had only a single one-room cabin, but typically consisted of a two- or three-room dwelling and a small barn. Another innovation at this time was the combination office building that included office, storage, and living quarters when built at remote locations. The architectural appearance of these differed throughout the country depending on the local styles and materials available. Figures 1-14 through 1-17 show some of the styles of this time period.

Forest Service Buildings of the 1920's and 1930's

Figure 1-14. Ranger residence, Cabin Lake Ranger Station, Deschutes National Forest, Region 6 (1923)

Figure 1-15. Pelki Ranger Station, Region 1 (1925)

Figure 1-16. Twin Lakes Ranger Station, Region 1 (1924)

Figure 1-17. Boise Assay Office remodeled as the Supervisor's Office, Boise National Forest, Region 4 (1933)

In 1932, the Washington Office requested that the Regions develop a careful policy and program before beginning any major Government-owned improvement project, and suggested that the following factors determine the need for such projects:

1. Location.

2. Certainty as to permanence.

3. Adequacy of present plant.

4. Annual rental and other costs of present plant.

5. Chance to rent satisfactory facilities, including chance to get satisfactory facility constructed for rental to the Service.

6. Full and complete cost for site and construction of a permanently satisfactory plant.

7. The $2,500 building limitation required construction of buildings of proper design.

8. Annual maintenance and upkeep cost of such a Government-owned plant.

Public opposition to Forest Service personnel and policy continued during this period. Buildings therefore continued to blend with the local culture, much as they had in the earlier period. The separation of office and residence had practical applications, but may also be reflective of the Forest Service's goal of integrating the rangers into the fabric of the community by physically separating them after hours from their official duties.

Notes

1. Supernowicz, pp. 7-8.

2. Ibid., p. 8.

3. Jim Schneck and Ralph Hartley, Administering the National Forests of Colorado, p. 47.

4. Ibid.

5. Schneck and Hartley, Evaluation of R-1 Forest Service Owned Buildings for Eligibility to National Register of Historic Places, p. 48.

6. Historical Research Associates, p. 58.

7. Ibid., p. 95.

8. Supernowicz, p. 10.