293711

Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 HISTORIC SITE FORM 1. Identification Name of Property: Yellowstone Diversion Dam and Penstock Address: Forest Service Road 126, Ashley National Forest City, County: Altonah, Duchesne County Current Owner Name: Moon Lake Electric Association Current Owner Address: 800 West US Highway 40, Roosevelt, UT 84066 Township: 2N Range: 4W Section: 10, 15, 22, 27, 28 Latitude/Longitude (degr-dec): 40.575113, -110.326993 USGS Map Name and Date: Burnt Mill Spring, UT 2020 Tax Number:00-0003-7725; -7758; -7766; -6731; -6732; -7808; -7832; U.S. Forest Service lands Legal Description (include acreage): The recorded resources are on U.S. Forest Service lands in the Ashley National Forest; however, the penstock also traverses eight private tax parcels: Parcel Number Legal Description 00-0003-7725: SEC 15 T2N R4W USM. BEG AT NW COR OF SW4SE4, TH E 1170 FT, S 75 FT, E 150 FT, S1245 FT, W 1320 FT, N 1320 FT TO BEG. 39.75 ACRES. 00-0003-7758 SEC 22 T2N R4W USM. NW4NE4; E2NW4; EXCEPT: BEG N 00°42’ W 2635.6 FT & N 89°18’ E 1322.6 FT FR W4 COR OF SEC, N 89°07’ E 1130.9 FT, S 21°28’ W 94.9 FT, S 54°04’ W 145 FT, S 06°19’ W 164.1 FT, S 00°24’ W 175.3 FT, S 10°09’ W 104.3 FT, S 06°18’ E 232.4 FT, S 18°27’ W 149.5 FT, S 28°13’ W 289 FT, S 36°39’ W 101.7 FT, S 06°21’ W 249.8 FT, S 22°29’ W 213 FT, S 34°38’ W 179 FT, S 25°46’ W 427.6 FT, S 16°33’ W 107.6 FT, S 40°08’ W 166 FT, S 27°14’ W 133.6 FT, S 89°14’ W 93 FT, N 00°44’ W 2634 FT M/L TO BEG. 78.28 ACRES 00-0003-7766: SEC 22, T2N, R4W, USM, N2NE4SW4; EXCEPT NW2W2NW4NE4SW4. 17.50 ACRES. 00-0030-6732 SEC 22 T2N R4W USM SE4NE4SW4. 10 ACRES. 00-0031-3761 SEC 22 T2N R4W USM, SW4NE4SW4. 10 ACRES. 00-0003-7808 S1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4; N1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4; SW1/4 SW1/4 NW ¼ SW ¼; W1/2 NW ¼ SW1/4 SW1/4; NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4- EXCEPT R OF W; SEC 27, T2N, R4W, USM. EXCEPT: BEG AT PT S 0° 35’ W 394.65 FT FROM W4/C SD SEC; TH S 0°35’ W 836.45 FT; TH S 89°20’ E 115 FT; TH N 0°35’ E 836.16 FT; TH N 89°25’ W 115 FT TO BEG. 17.12 ACRES. 00-0034-9801 SEC 27 T2N R4W USM; BEG AT A PT S 0° 35’ W 394.65 FT FROM W4/C SD SEC; TH S 0° 35’ W 836.45 FT; TH S 89° 20’ E 115 FT; TH N 0° 35’ E 836.16 FT; TH N 89° 25’W 115 FT TO BEG. 2.21 ACRES 00-0003-7832 STATE NO 2108: SEC 28 T2N R4W USM. A PLOT OF LAND LYING IN NE4SE4 OF SD SEC, BEG AT E4/C OF SEC, S 0°35’ W 1231.1 FT ALONG THE E SEC, N 89°20’ W 165 FT, N 10°33’ W 821.1 FT, N 17°17’ E 444 FT, N 89°25’ E 196 FT TO POB. EXCEPT: BEG E4/C; TH S 0°35’ W 394.65 FT; TH N 89°25’ W 314.40 FT; TH N 17°17’ E 412.03 FT; TH S 89°25’ E 196 FT TO BEG. 4.74 ACRES Source: Duchesne County Corporation (2021) 1 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants 2. Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Status / Use Property Category Evaluation ☐ Building(s) ☒ Eligible / Contributing ☒ Structure(s) ☐ Ineligible / Non-Contributing ☐ Site ☐ Out of Period ☐ Object Use: Original Use: Waterworks Current Use: Waterworks 3. Documentation Research Sources Check all sources consulted, whether useful or not. ☐ Abstract of Title ☒ Newspapers ☒ Tax Card and Photo ☒ City / County Histories ☐ Building Permit ☐ Personal Interviews ☐ Sewer Permit ☒ USHS Library ☐ Sanborn Maps ☐ USHS Preservation Files ☐ Obituary Index ☐ USHS Architects File ☐ City Directories / Gazetteers ☐ LDS Family History Library ☐ Census Records ☒ Local Library: Duchesne County History Center ☐ Biographical Encyclopedias ☒ University Library(ies): University of Utah J. Willard Marriott Digital Library Photos Drawings and Plans Dates: ☐ ☐ Slides: ☐ Prints: ☒ Historic: Dates: Measured Floor Plans: ☐ circa 1942 Site Sketch Map: ☐ 2020 Historic American Building Survey: ☐ Original Plans Available at: ☐ Other: Bibliographical References (Books, articles, interviews, etc.) Attach copies of all research notes, title searches, obituaries, and so forth. Cannon, Brian Q. 2000 Power Relations: Western Rural Electric Cooperatives and the New Deal. Western Historical Quarterly 31(2):133–160. 2 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Carmody, John M. 1939 Rural Electrification in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 201(January):82–88. Case, Peggy Ann 1949 Mt. Emmons. Roosevelt Standard 13 January. Roosevelt, Utah. Institute for Energy Research 2014 History of Electricity. Available at: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/history-electricity/. Accessed February 23, 2017. Moon Lake Electric Association (Moon Lake) 2011 History. Available at: http://www.moonlakeelectric.com/history.html. Accessed February 23, 2017. Roosevelt Standard 1938 Electric Association Granted Right of Way. 6 October. Roosevelt, Utah. 1939a REA Allots $285,000 To Extend Moon Lake Electric Project. 22 June. Roosevelt, Utah. 1939b Upper County to Celebrate Electrification. 31 August. Roosevelt, Utah. 1939c Moon Lake Electric Association Granted Certificate to Operate. 17 August. Roosevelt, Utah. 1939d Electrification Celebration to be Held at Altamont. 24 August. Roosevelt, Utah. 1940a Moon Lake R.E.A. Officials Return from Washington. 28 March. Roosevelt, Utah. 1940b Moon Lake REA to Make Survey for Power Plant. 20 June. Roosevelt, Utah. 1941a Work Begins on $200,000 Moon Lake Power Plant. 23 January. Roosevelt, Utah. 1941b Moon Lake Electric Association Receives $50,000 Allotment. 16 October. Roosevelt, Utah. 1942 Moon Lake Electric Company Started Work in 1938, Completed Project in Three Years. 17 December. Roosevelt, Utah. 1948 Co-op President Says Proposed REA Move Is Being Used to Cloud Issues. 5 February. Roosevelt, Utah. 1949a REA Ponders Purchas of Uintah Power. 24 March. Roosevelt, Utah. 1949b Moon Lake, Uintah Power Hook-Up. 29 September. Roosevelt, Utah. 1951a $2,366,000 Loan Approved by REA for Moon Lake Co. 15 February. Roosevelt, Utah. 1951b Work Starts on Moon Lake Electric Project. 25 October. Roosevelt, Utah. 1952 Moon Lake Seeks Site of New Hydro-Power Plant. 29 May. Roosevelt, Utah. 1953 Yellowstone Dam Level Raised by Electrical Co. 2 April. Roosevelt, Utah. 1955 Moon Lake Electric to Discuss Moving Office. 8 September. Roosevelt, Utah. 1956a Moon Lake Electric Assn. Members Vote Down Proposal to Move Headquarters. 31 May. Roosevelt Utah. 1956b Moon Lake Co-op Gets $569,000 Government Loan. 6 December. Roosevelt, Utah. 1956c Moon Lake Places Transmission Line in Service. 12 April. Roosevelt, Utah. Uintah Basin Record 1939a Moon Lake Power Company Approves Clyde Bid for Building of Power Line. 21 April. Duchesne, Utah. 3 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants 1939b Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Contract Approved For Second Section of Electrification Project. 13 October. Duchesne, Utah. Uintah Basin Standard 1962 2 Huge Transformers Enroute to Stations. 22 November. Roosevelt, Utah. Vernal Express 1948 Moon Lake REA Members to Vote On Vital Issues. 22 January. Vernal, Utah. 1963 Moon Lake Meet Told REA’s Freedom Role. 7 February. Vernal, Utah. 1979 Uintah County is Top Site for Moon Lake Power Plant. 3 May. Vernal, Utah. Whiting, Lezlee E. 1992 51-Year-Old Yellowstone Dam Getting $200,000 Face Lift. Deseret News 03 June. Available at https://www.deseret.com/1992/6/3/18987301/51-year-old-yellowstone-dam-getting-200-000-face-lift-br. Accessed January 5, 2021. 4. Architectural Description Building Style / Type: Dam Number of Stories: N/A Foundation Material: Log: other/undefined, stone: other/undefined Wall Material(s): Wood: other/undefined, cast concrete, metal: steel, metal: undefined/other (iron) Additions Alterations ☐ None ☐ None ☐ Minor ☐ Minor ☒ Major (Describe Below) ☒ Major (Describe Below) Number of Associated Outbuildings: None and/or Structures: 3 Description Briefly describe the principal building, additions or alterations and their dates, and associated outbuildings and structures. The Yellowstone River Diversion Dam and Penstock (Yellowstone Dam and Penstock) is located on the east fork of the Yellowstone River in the Ashley National Forest, north of the unincorporated community of Altonah (Figure 1). The property was constructed in 1941 and has been in continual operation. Thus, the period of significance for the Yellowstone Dam and Penstock is 1941 to 1971 to encompass the time in which the plant has continually provided electricity to rural communities in Utah up to the threshold for a property to be considered historic, which is 50 years. The property consists of the dam, diversion intake, sluice chamber, and penstock (Figure 2–Figure 9). The dam diverts water from the Yellowstone River through an intake and sluice chamber on the east side of the river and into the penstock which carries the water to the Yellowstone River Hydroelectric Power Plant (Yellowstone Power Plant). The diversion dam is a log-crib, earth and rock-filled structure that spans the width of the Yellowstone River (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Newspaper articles published in 1941 indicate the completed dam was to be 10 feet tall and 350 feet long (Roosevelt Standard 1941a). Subsequent articles in the 1950s report that the dam was made taller twice: in 1951 by 4 feet and in 1953 by 4.25 feet (Roosevelt Standard 1951a; Roosevelt Standard 1953). The condition of the dam at the time of survey does not reflect these physical descriptions; it is approximately 15 feet tall and stretches approximately 313 feet across the river. The log-crib structure of the dam is approximately 9 feet tall and consists of 8–10-inch-wide logs stacked in perpendicular layers and filled with earth and rock and covered with 2-inch planks running in perpendicular layers (Figure 12). A series of 6 x 6-inch trusses are laid side by side on top of the planks across the entire length of the dam and are set-back 3 feet from the down-stream face of the dam. The truss system is clad in 2-inch planks. In 1992, the upstream face of the dam was covered with a high-density polyethylene liner and the crest of the dam’s truss system and spillway were reinforced with an angle iron and steel plate (Figure 13). As 4 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 water travels downstream from the reservoir, silt deposits on the upstream face of the truss system. Water continues over the angled face of the truss system to the flat shelf on the downstream side of the dam where additional beams are anchored perpendicular to the base of the truss approximately every 2–3 feet across the length of the dam. Water then falls down the vertical face of the dam to the spillway apron which is constructed of 4–6-inch planks installed perpendicular to the dam with an 5-inch long upward angled face at its toe. Water travels approximately 15 feet over the spillway apron before finally returning to the natural riverbed (see Figure 10). Rotting spillway planks were replaced in 1992 with pressure-treated planks. The abutments on either side of the dam were originally constructed of wood harvested in the nearby Tabiona area. These were replaced with precast concrete T-walls in 1992 (Whiting 1992). The diversion intake controls are located above the dam on the east bank (Figure 14 and Figure 15). The intake structure was altered in 1951 when the dam was first heightened, but details of the alteration were not specified (Figure 16) (Roosevelt Standard 1951a). Presently, the intake consists of a concrete foundation with attached metal grating and measures 11 × 12 feet. A control gate is attached on the west side, and gear systems that control the gate are on top of the foundation (Figure 17 and Figure 18). Just south of the controls is a metal vent pipe with a wire cap. The pipe is approximately 6 feet tall and approximately 2 feet 6 inches in diameter. The wire cap is a fine mesh tube with a metal cone top and measures approximately 18 inches tall and approximately 2 feet 6 inches in diameter. Approximately 110 feet south of the intake is the sluice chamber, also constructed in 1951 ((Roosevelt Standard 1951a) (Figure 19). The sluice chamber is a formed concrete box measuring 12 × 36 feet with metal grating on top (Figure 20). Non-contributing recreational facilities have been constructed in the dam area (Figure 21–Figure 23). These facilities include two modern pit toilets, a fishing dock, and a trail on the east side of the dam. A five-site Ashley National Forest campground is just above the east bank of the diversion dam (Figure 24). The penstock was constructed simultaneously with the diversion dam in 1941. It is an above grade metal penstock that consists of 48-inch-diameter metal pipe. The penstock is 14,126 feet long and carries water from the diversion dam to the powerhouse. The penstock pipe emerges above ground approximately 90 feet south of the sluice chamber and runs south cross country to the Yellowstone Power Plant (Figure 25–Figure 28). A 240-foot-long section of the penstock pipe has been replaced, while the remainder has been patched and/or repaired over time. A variety of notes and marks on the pipe indicate where issues are located and where repairs have been made (Figure 29). Roads cross the penstock in six locations, resulting in three different types of overpasses: corrugated metal pipe (Figure 30), formed concrete of unknown shape, and formed concrete rectangular box. The metal pipe overpasses are in two higher traffic areas: an all-terrain vehicle trail crossing and the penstock’s intersection with National Forest Service Road (FR) 119. The penstock runs under the metal pipes with several inches of space between it and the pipes. Each pipe is covered with soil or other road materials. The shapes of the four concrete crossings are difficult to discern because only small portions are visible on the surface. These concrete crossings, located in lower traffic areas, may be thrust blocks simply covered in soil to allow vehicles to pass. The penstock is supported by three variations of concrete cradle supports: trapezoidal, rectangular, and rectangular with a lip along the bottom of one side. The trapezoidal and most of the rectangular supports each have a U-shaped indentation in the top that cradles the penstock (see Figure 26; Figure 31 and Figure 32). Three of the rectangular supports have flat tops with a metal cradle bolted to the concrete support. The sequence of construction for all cradle supports is unknown. Based on historic images of the penstock, the rectangular supports with metal cradles and the rectangular concrete cradle supports were constructed concurrent with the penstock (see Figure 26 and Figure 31). Each support is set into the ground at varying heights depending on the ground level and angle. Each cradle is lined with a stiff, laminated fabric-like material, approximately 1/16 inch thick. In several instances, the liner extends past the support at least 6 inches on either side and appears to be coated with a petroleum-based product (Figure 33). Along the portion of the penstock south of FR 119, there are 71 trapezoidal, 28 rectangular, and one rectangular with a lip supports. North of the road, there are fewer supports, with only 20 rectangular supports. Modern treated wood beams are used as supports in the spacing between the concrete supports in several places on the southern portion of the penstock (Figure 34). These supports consist of two to four stacked beams held in place with pieces of rebar and appear relatively new, but several supports appear to be older, as the wood is very weathered. The beams measure 3 inches × 3 inches × 6 feet. 5 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Along the penstock, there are 12 board-formed concrete thrust blocks in two shapes: rectangular prism and irregular hexagonal prism (Figure 35 and Figure 36). Historic images indicate the irregular hexagonal prism thrust boxes were constructed in 1941 concurrent with the penstock (see Figure 26 and Figure 31). The six irregular hexagonal prism thrust blocks typically measure 6 feet × 6 feet 6 inches × 6 feet above ground. One larger thrust block measures 13 feet 9 inches long. The six rectangular prism thrust blocks measure 6 × 5 × 6 feet above ground. There is no visible access to the pipe as it passes through the thrust blocks. All of the blocks are set into the ground and may be taller than what is visible above ground. The rectangular blocks are all south of where the penstock crosses FR 119. There are three metal control access boxes (two large and one small) along the penstock (Figure 37 and Figure 38). These are not observed in historic photographs and presumably postdate the penstock. Both sizes of metal boxes sit on top of the penstock, are made of galvanized sheet metal, and have two curved pipes coming out of the west side of the box. Each box is anchored to the penstock with L-shaped angle bars—each part of the L measures 1-1/2 inches—on either side of the penstock. The larger metal boxes measure 5 feet × 5 feet 6 inches × 3 feet, while the smaller boxes measure 3 feet 6 inches × 3 feet × 3 feet. The pipes on the larger boxes are 4 inches in diameter, while those on the smaller boxes are 2-1/2 inches in diameter. The larger boxes have grates at the ends of the pipes. In addition, at least one of the larger boxes has an access panel on the west side. Each of the boxes is accessible through a latched lid on the top. One modern wood control access box was observed along the penstock in 2018. This could not be field verified in 2020 due to an active wildfire and limited access. As it was recorded in 2018, the wood control access box sits on the ground immediately west of the penstock. The stepped box measures 3 feet × 6 feet × 2 feet 6 inches and is built from 1 inch × 3 foot pieces of milled lumber. A metal hinge is attached on the south side, and a rock currently holds the box closed. Lastly, there are two sets of modern wood stairs to provide access over the penstock. One set of stairs consists of five steps attached to two stringers and rests against the penstock. The second set has six steps on either side and connects with a small deck several inches above the penstock. The second set also has handrails. Both sets of stairs are located on private property and are not associated with a road or trail. 6 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants 5. Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 History Architect / Builder: Moon Lake Electric Association Date of Construction: 1941 Historic Themes Mark themes related to this property with ‘S’ or ‘C’ (S = significant, C = Contributing) Agriculture Conservation Invention Science Architecture Economics Landscape Architecture Social History Archaeology Education Law Transportation Art Engineering Literature Other: Commerce Entertainment / Recreation Maritime History Communications Ethnic Heritage Military Community Planning & Development Exploration / Settlement Performing Arts Health / Medicine Politics / Government Industry Religion S Historic Context Write a chronological history of the property, focusing primarily on the original or principal owners & significant events. Explain and justify any significant themes marked above. Electrification of Eastern Utah (1880s–1950s) The use of electricity to provide light and power to homes and businesses is a relatively recent development, particularly in rural America. The first power plant came into service in New York City in 1882, but for the next 50 years many rural areas (including those now served by Moon Lake Electric Association (Moon Lake) in eastern Utah and western Colorado) did not have access to the new utility. This historic context of Moon Lake and its Yellowstone Power Plant addresses the origins of rural electrification in the United States, the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) and its relationship with the western states during the New Deal, and the history of Moon Lake and its place in this broader history. When electrical power first came into use in the 1880s, it offered a level of convenience that the previously popular gaslight could not match, and, as a result, it quickly gained popularity in urban areas. The dense populations of cities made the installation of electric infrastructure economical: Power lines could serve many customers per mile, decreasing the average installation cost per customer. As well, new electric companies quickly began to merge, eliminating the need for many smaller generating plants and enabling the consolidated companies to instead use larger, more-efficient facilities (Institute for Energy Research 2014). In rural America, however, many farmers and other residents were widely dispersed, and it was less economically effective for power companies to establish the infrastructure necessary to provide them with power. As one 1939 publication notes, even by the 1910s (30 years after some cities began to use electricity) electric power was almost entirely unavailable to rural residents (Carmody 1939:82). In response to the unwillingness of electric companies to support rural electrification, prior to and during World War I some farmers began to organize electric distribution cooperatives. The number of these organizations increased immediately after the war (Carmody 1939:83). But by the mid-1920s, private utility companies had begun to push back against the trend. As John Carmody, an official who served with the REA, wrote about the period between the mid-1920s and the mid-1930s, “During the next ten years the electric utility industry closed its ranks and sought by means of territorial divisions among its members to appropriate to itself the exclusive right to serve all rural areas without assuming the obligation of adequately serving any of them” (Carmody 1939:84). As a result, by 1935, only 10 percent of American farms had electricity (Carmody 1939:84). 7 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Although the Great Depression brought economic disaster to the country, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal offered new opportunities for rural electrification. In 1935, the REA was set up as an emergency agency; its position as a New Deal agency was made concrete in 1936 with the passage of the Rural Electrification Act (Carmody 1939:84). The agency was tasked with encouraging rural electrification through practical and financial government assistance. By 1938, $153 million had been allotted to the agency for use in overseeing and funding 300 projects that provided power to approximately 675,000 people (Carmody 1939:86). As mandated by the REA, most of these projects involved the creation of public utility districts and cooperative associations. As Carmody (1939:82) notes, “Only 5 per cent [sic] of [REA-funded projects] are privately owned utility companies. Various public bodies account for an additional 9 per cent, and 86 per cent may be classed as cooperatives.” REA loans usually had a 25-year repayment period with 3 percent interest, which in 1944 was changed to 35 years with 2 percent interest (Cannon 2000:150). Projects always involved the construction of transmission lines, connecting homes to grids, and wiring homes for electricity, and many—particularly in the western states—also included the construction of a generating plant. In some cases, this was necessitated by the geographical remoteness of communities, making it unfeasible to connect new electrification projects to the existing grid. In other cases, the construction of new generating plants was mandated by a lack of cooperation from private electric companies, which would sometimes refuse to offer wholesale energy at a reasonable rate (Carmody 1939:85). The nature of the generating plants established under the REA varied. In most cases when private electric companies proved recalcitrant, it was common for electricity to come from federally managed hydropower plants or municipally owned or investor-owned sources (Cannon 2000:155). “Not surprisingly, since 81 percent of the electrical current produced in the northern and central Rocky Mountain region in 1937 was generated by hydro turbines and waterwheels, most western rural electric cooperatives relied upon hydroelectric power” (Cannon 2000:155). The REA (and the New Deal more broadly) is often portrayed as controversial in the West. Although the 14 states that received the highest per capita share of New Deal expenditures were all in the West, the programs are often portrayed as something foisted on westerners, as federal meddling, or (at least) as charity that conflicted with the guiding western principle of self-reliance (Cannon 2000:134–135, 139, 160). But the fact that the West received the most New Deal funding and western residents actively worked to divert federal funds to their states suggests that funds “empowered westerners rather than deprived them of their initiative or agency” (Cannon 2000:160). Additionally, when the opportunity presented itself to use federal money to improve their quality of life through rural electrification, most westerners were happy to do so (Cannon 2000:142). Although its most important function was to give rural residents access to the capital necessary for electrification projects, the REA was also closely involved with the projects themselves. In many cases, the agency worked to encourage interest in rural electrification, helped guide the establishment of cooperative electrification ventures, and gave the new associations economic guidance (Cannon 2000:143). The agency’s influence over funding also gave it considerable power over many different projects. The agency often influenced hiring decisions, the payment of wages for electrical employees, and decisions regarding the types of building materials used for projects; it even played a role in urging nearby operations to merge (Cannon 2000: 146–147, 149). The REA’s decisions were hardly set in stone, though. “The agency’s readiness to make concessions to local organizers in some cases . . . demonstrated the New Deal was not operating unilaterally in the West” (Cannon 2000:145). Moreover, in many cases (particularly in its early years), the REA took a relatively hands-off approach to project management and often worked with ventures to assure sound economic footing and success for projects rather than simply accepting or rejecting proposals and decisions (Cannon 2000:143, 150). While the agency’s direct involvement with electrification projects would increase in scope in the years following its creation, in many cases, westerners were able to counter the agency’s power over its decisions. Methods for doing so included appealing to politicians or other important individuals, effectively arguing their cases with the agency (and, particularly, backing up their desires with economic or engineering arguments), or even ignoring directives from the REA (Cannon 2000:143, 145, 148). Ultimately, the REA and the rural electrification it made possible represented a key opportunity for residents of western states to advocate for themselves, work together at the grassroots level, and improve their standard of living (Cannon 2000:158). 8 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 History of Moon Lake Electric Association From its origins in the public’s dissatisfaction with existing power suppliers, to its experiences with the REA, to its continued success as a rural electric cooperative, Moon Lake is an excellent example of broader historical patterns in the development of this electrical utility. The history of the company begins in 1938, when Moon Lake was first organized as a rural electric cooperative, spurred on by unsatisfactory existing service (Moon Lake 2011). As Cannon writes, “In some cases, including Moon Lake Electric Association in Utah, where existing utilities repeatedly failed to provide an adequate and reliable supply of electricity, cooperatives subsequently obtained federal loans to construct their own generating plants” (Cannon 2000:155). The initial project was of relatively modest scale: approximately 53 miles of transmission line was strung to serve 240 homes and businesses, which would receive power purchased from the Uintah Power and Light Company from its substation at Upalco, Utah, with construction done by the W. W. Clyde Construction Company (Roosevelt Standard 1939a, 1939b, 1939c). 1 Despite the small scale of the project, the use of copper wire, and the often difficult terrain in northeast Utah, the company’s bid to complete the construction of the line was only $44,650.50 and was based on an anticipated price of $867 per mile (Uintah Basin Record 1939a). As compared with many private companies (which often estimated the cost of such construction at $2,000 per mile or more), this project was remarkably cost effective (Cannon 2000:141). Ultimately, the project would receive $74,000 in funding from the REA as well as an additional $10,000 to help pay for installing wiring in buildings (Roosevelt Standard 1939a). By October 1938, Duchesne County commissioners had granted Moon Lake the right-of-way to place poles within 3 feet of existing fence lines, and construction began to connect the communities of Altonah, Bluebell, and Mount Emmons to the grid beginning in May 1939 (Roosevelt Standard 1938, 1942). This section of the project was completed and first electrified in September 1939 (Roosevelt Standard 1939d). As with many other electric cooperatives, a large celebration, including electrical demonstrations, a band concert, speakers, a baseball game, a children’s dance, and a “big dance at night” took place in Altamont to celebrate the region’s successful electrification (Cannon 2000:155; Roosevelt Standard 1939d). Even before the first section of the project was completed, an extension was being planned. This came at the behest of the REA. When Moon Lake was first organized, “there were two other similar organizations being incorporated, one known as the Tabby Mountain Association at Tabiona, the other known as the Western Uintah Electric Cooperative with headquarters at Lapoint. It was recommended by the REA and thought advisable to consolidate these two with the Moon Lake Electric Association (Roosevelt Standard 1942). The three merged in April 1939 (Roosevelt Standard 1942). In this case, Moon Lake typifies the relationship between electric cooperatives and the REA. The REA often suggested (and occasionally coerced) consolidation to make projects more economically feasible. As Cannon writes, the REA frequently complicated the task [of electrification] and challenged a cooperative’s local orientation by asking it to merge with an adjacent cooperative in order to boost the average number of customers per mile of line. Consolidation would enable the REA to electrify more homes economically, but it angered many board members because it threatened a cooperative’s local identity and the organizers’ interests and would delay completion of the project. (Cannon 2000:149) Although many cooperatives objected to consolidation, no publications from the time suggest that the addition to Moon Lake’s project was a source of conflict. If anything, news sources seem to treat the addition of further lines (through consolidation with other cooperatives) as a natural extension of the project. But cooperation between Moon Lake and the REA did not always prevail. For example, “When the directors of Moon Lake Electric in Utah offered four nominees for manager of the cooperative, the REA rejected all of them” on the basis that none met the qualifications for the position” (Cannon 2000:146–147). Surveying for the second phase of the project was scheduled to begin as early as the first week of September 1939; by October 1939, construction had begun. Homer C. Johnson of Portland, Oregon, won the bid for $150,405.05, 1 This project just barely met REA standards, which mandated the construction of at least 50 miles of line to serve an average of at least three customers per mile (Cannon 2000:143). 9 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 which included a budget of around $700 per mile of line—even less than the first phase (Uintah Basin Record 1939b). The second phase of Moon Lake’s project was completed on February 20, 1940 (Roosevelt Standard 1939d, 1942). It consisted of the construction of 220 miles of additional transmission lines to connect the communities of Boneta, Mountain Home, Talmage, Tabiona, Hanna, Utahn, Ioka, Hancock Cove, Montwell, Cedarview, Tridell, and Lapoint and was financed by federal funds totaling $285,000 (Roosevelt Standard 1939d). The project was so successful that Moon Lake added a third extension totaling 152 miles to serve Uintah County beginning in the fall of 1940 and ending in the spring of 1941. This third extension served the Arcadia, Myton, and Duchesne River areas as well as residents near Vernal and as far away as Jensen (Roosevelt Standard 1942). History of the Yellowstone River Hydroelectric Power Plant These projects were so successful that further developments to better serve the cooperative’s customers were possible. As the Roosevelt Standard later reported, “With approximately 450 miles of line and 1100 customers it then became apparent that the Association could afford to own and operate a generating plant” (Roosevelt Standard 1942). Once again, Moon Lake received the support of the REA, which appropriated $200,000 to build the plant (Roosevelt Standard 1940a). In the fall of 1940, a survey of potential sites was completed, with a site on the Yellowstone River selected as the best choice. After REA approval of the survey, building plans, and construction specifications, construction of the plant started in January 1941 and was finished by September of that year (Roosevelt Standard 1940b, 1942). [The project] includes a diversion dam, the power plant, a five-room house for the operator of the plant and the laying of approximately three miles of 48 inch steel pipe. . . . The diversion dam will be located on the east fork of the Yellowstone river [sic] about 10,000 feet above the site of the Yellowstone CCC [Civilian Conservation Corps] camp and the plant is to be located about 5,000 feet below the camp. The plant’s capacity will be about 900 kilowats [sic] and three 300 killowatt [sic] turbines and generators will be installed. The building [sic] 42 by 48 feet, will be constructed of concrete and cinder bricks with a stucco finish. Cinder bricks with a stucco finish will also be used for the residence. The diversion dam will be a log crib, rock filled structure 350 feet long, 66 feet at the base and about 10 feet in height. (Roosevelt Standard 1941a) Another account in the Roosevelt Standard provides further detail about the plant itself. “The plant consists of 14,000 ft. of steel flow line and the plant has three 525 H.P. turbines that operate three 300 K.W. generators, making a total capacity of 900 K.W.” (Roosevelt Standard 1942). Just 2 weeks after the plant was initially completed, Moon Lake received $50,000 from the REA to construct additional generating facilities, although it is unclear from news sources what additional construction may have occurred (Roosevelt Standard 1941b). When considered in total, the funds put toward Moon Lake by the federal government are impressive: The Moon Lake Electric association [sic] received an allocation of $50,000 for additional generating facilities, it was announced last week by the Rural Electrification association [sic] of Washington, D.C. The Moon Lake cooperative had previously been allotted $421,000 to build 433 miles of line which serves 1,320 members in Duchesne and Uintah counties; $200,000 for the construction of a generating plant, and $37,000 to finance house wiring and plumbing installations. The new grant brings the project total to $708,000. (Roosevelt Standard 1941b) The Roosevelt Standard provides further details about funding sources and Moon Lake’s mortgage. Interestingly, the Standard notes that all funds were borrowed from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, another New Deal program that operated between 1932 and 1957 and provided loans on behalf of the government; presumably in the case of Moon Lake, the loans were provided on behalf of the REA (Roosevelt Standard 1942). The terms of the loan appear to have been highly favorable: “The Government has a mortgage on all the associations [sic] property and the payments are repaid monthly over period of 25 years. The Association pays interest on the money borrowed at the rate the Government was required to pay on the day the loan was made” (Roosevelt Standard 1942). According to the Standard, as of 1942, Moon Lake had no trouble paying back these loans and was even ahead in its payments (Roosevelt Standard 1942). Based on newspaper accounts, locals were delighted with their new access to electrical power and the social and economic opportunities it offered. “Electricity is also proving to be of considerable importance in increasing the 10 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 production of meats, eggs and dairy products . . . which are so important to our war effort. For example, with aid of electricity we believe that the Communities around Tridell are now producing more eggs than was [sic] heretofore produced in the entire Basin” (Roosevelt Standard 1942). The project was a success, both for the REA and for the communities that had advocated for it and ultimately saw it through to completion. The ensuing decades brought new challenges and opportunities to Moon Lake. By the late 1940s, controversies had emerged around the leadership of the organization, particularly about various communities served by the cooperative having equal representation on the board of directors (Roosevelt Standard 1948). Another related issue that consistently arose between the late 1940s and 1956 was moving the Moon Lake headquarters from Altamont to a location closer to the more far-flung parts of its service area (Roosevelt Standard 1955, 1956a; Vernal Express 1948). By December 1956, the headquarters had moved to Vernal (Roosevelt Standard 1956b). By 1949, other practical issues had also emerged. As the Roosevelt Standard reported, “The Moon Lake Electric Association has been having difficulty in maintaining sufficient power for its far-flung system of lines” due to a shortage of water (Case 1949). This article presumably refers to the Yellowstone Power Plant. By March of that year, Moon Lake was considering purchasing the Uintah Power and Light Company’s holdings (Roosevelt Standard 1949a). In September, the two companies officially interconnected their services to provide better power and to manage peak loads, offering a source of power separate from the Yellowstone Power Plant (Roosevelt Standard 1949b). Just 2 years later, in 1951, Moon Lake purchased Rangely Power and Light Company, based in Rangely, Colorado, further increasing its generating capabilities and expanding its service range (Roosevelt Standard 1951a). The Rangely plant would become the primary power generating facility (Roosevelt Standard 1956c). In 1951, the Yellowstone Power Plant was rehabilitated. As a newspaper article details, “The existing hydro-plant is to be rehabilitated by raising the dam four feet, constructing [a] concrete sluiceway chamber, changing [the] intake structure, putting water from Clyde Spring in [a] 48 [inch] pipeline, reservoir clearing and excavation of the tailrace” (Roosevelt Standard 1951a). The work also included installing a screen to keep debris out of the sluice box (Roosevelt Standard 1951b). These improvements would not prove sufficient. In May 1952, Moon Lake began to look for a site to establish a new dam and hydroelectric plant (Roosevelt Standard 1952). Although the Yellowstone Power Plant remained in use, the dam was altered again in 1953. The Yellowstone dam . . . has been raised 52 inches. . . . The added height increases the storage capacity of the reservoir from 5.3 acre feet to 17.5 acre feet of water. The over-all [sic] plant was increased 33 1/3 % with the additional head of water, by reducing friction at the intake, and by enlarging the size of the storage pond. The latter keeps the silting process farther away from the intake. (Roosevelt Standard 1953) Demand for power continued to increase. In 1962, two new transformers were installed at the Rangely plant (Uintah Basin Standard 1962). By 1963, plans were in place for power generation from the Flaming Gorge Dam (Vernal Express 1963). By 1979, Moon Lake had also embarked on a coal-fired power plant project (Vernal Express 1979). The Yellowstone Power Plant had largely been superseded by 1979, when it is no longer discussed as one of Moon Lake’s generating plants (Vernal Express 1979). However, the plant continued to produce 900 kilowatts of power into the 1990s (Whiting 1992). In 1992 additional improvements were made to extend the life of the dam into the twenty-first century. Plans call for replacing the wooden abutments with precast concrete T-walls, replacing 105 feet of “penstock” or pipe that transfers water to the hydro plant, covering the width of the dam’s upstream face with high-density polyethylene liner, replacing rotting wood along the spillway with pressure treated planks and reinforcing the dam and spillway with angle iron and steel plate. (Whiting 1992) The precast concrete T-walls and angle iron and steel plate crest reinforcement are the most visible parts of the 1992 rehabilitation efforts. Additional rehabilitation work included plans to remove “some 20 acre-feet of silt that has collected in the reservoir” (Whiting 1992). While the REA is no longer a household name, its legacy remains. Many rural areas of the United States, particularly in the West, have access to power today because of the funding and support provided by the REA during 11 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 the 1930s and 1940s. And although facilities may have been updated or changed, many of the cooperatives established under the REA—like Moon Lake—remain in operation. Moon Lake’s Yellowstone River hydroelectric project is a physical reminder of the impact rural electrification had on the lives of countless Americans in the Uinta Basin and the rest of the American West. Significance The Yellowstone Dam and Penstock is associated with the Yellowstone Power Plant in the Uinta Basin, Utah. The Yellowstone Dam and Penstock is significant under the general theme of industry. Specifically, it is significant for its role in the rural electrification movement and development of hydroelectric power in the Uinta Basin. Constructed in 1941 by the MLEA, the Yellowstone Dam and Penstock was approved by the REA, which appropriated $200,000 for the hydroelectric project that included both the Yellowstone Dam and Penstock and the Yellowstone Power Plant. The Yellowstone Dam and Penstock provides water for the Yellowstone Power Plant, which in turn provides electricity for cooperative members in Duchesne and Uintah Counties that were otherwise unable to obtain electric service. The project marked the beginning of the development of hydroelectric power in the Uinta Basin during the early 1940s. Although the importance of the hydroelectric project was superseded by the introduction of coal-fired power plants in the late 1970s, the Yellowstone Dam and Penstock, in conjunction with the Yellowstone Power Plant, remains in use today. Because the property includes several contributing resources and because of its size traversing approximately 3 miles, the Yellowstone Diversion Dam and Penstock can be categorized as a historic district consisting of the diversion dam, intake control, sluice box chamber, and penstock. Alterations outside the period of significance have compromised integrity of workmanship and materials by replacing original materials. However, the Yellowstone Diversion Dam and Penstock retains integrity of location, setting, design, feeling, and association to convey its significance as a hydroelectric project associated with general theme of industry and, specifically, the rural electrification movement and development of hydroelectric power in the Uintah Basin. 12 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 1. Location map 13 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 2. Sketch map 14 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 3. Penstock complex in relation to the diversion dam (map 1 of 5). 15 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 4. Penstock complex (map 2 of 5). 16 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 5. Penstock complex (map 3 of 5). 17 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 6. Penstock complex (map 4 of 5). 18 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 7. Penstock complex in relation to the hydroelectric power plant (map 5 of 5). 19 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 8. Overview of the diversion dam, diversion intake controls, and recreation facilities, facing northwest. Figure 9. Overview of the diversion dam, facing north. 20 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 10. Diversion dam construction from east side of the reservoir, including the log-crib, earth and rock-filled structure, and precast concrete Twalls, facing northwest. Figure 11. Image of the diversion dam from the west bank of the Yellowstone River circa 1942, facing northwest. Photograph courtesy of the Uintah County Library. Available at the University of Utah J. Willard Marriot Digital Library at (https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s62268k1). 21 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 12. Plan and cross section of the Yellowstone dam, 1989. Plans courtesy of Moon Lake Electric Association. 22 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 13. Metal and plank clad truss system at the top of the dam leading into the flat shelf of the log crib structure and the spillway apron below, facing west. Figure 14. Diversion intake with gear system controls (center) and metal gate (left) submerged in the water on the east bank of the Yellowstone River, facing southwest. The metal vent pipe is in the background. 23 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 15. Diversion intake with metal gate submerged in the water on the east bank of the Yellowstone River, facing southeast. Figure 16. Historic image of the diversion dam and the diversion intake with gear system controls on the east bank of the Yellowstone River circa 1941, facing northwest. Photograph courtesy of the Uintah County Library. Available at the University of Utah J. Willard Marriot Digital Library (https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6bg63tq). 24 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 17. Detail of diversion intake gear system controls. Figure 18. Diversion intake access grate. 25 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 19. Sluice chamber, facing northwest. Figure 20. Sluice chamber with metal grating and gear system controls, facing south. The penstock emerges from below ground in the background. 26 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 21. Accessible pit toilet east of the diversion dam, facing southeast. Figure 22. Upper pit toilet and trail to campground east of the diversion dam, facing southeast. 27 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 23. Fishing dock from the east bank of the Yellowstone River, facing west. Figure 24. Campsite above the east bank of the Yellowstone River with the upper pit vault toilet and the diversion dam in the background, facing west. 28 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 25. Penstock carrying water from the diversion dam to the hydroelectric plant, facing southwest. Figure 26. Penstock carrying water from the diversion dam to the Yellowstone Hydroelectric plant circa 1942, facing southwest. Photograph courtesy of the Uintah County Library. Available at the University of Utah J. Willard Marriot Digital Library (https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6ns48qk). 29 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 27. Overview of the penstock crossing the terrain to the hydroelectric plant, facing northeast. Figure 28. Overview of the penstock crossing the terrain to the Yellowstone River Hydroelectric Power Plant circa 1942, facing northeast. Photograph courtesy of the Uintah County Library. Available at the University of Utah J. Willard Marriot Digital Library (https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/ s67q2d7s). 30 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 29. Detail of penstock repair. Figure 30. Example of corrugated metal road crossing, facing south. 31 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 31. Historic image of the penstock, cradle supports, and concrete thrust box circa 1942. Photograph courtesy of the Uintah County Library. Available at the University of Utah J. Willard Marriot Digital Library (https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s65t71bw). Figure 32. Example of rectangular formed concrete cradles with interspersed wood supports, facing northeast. 32 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 33. Example of a trapezoidal formed concrete cradle support with exposed liner. Figure 34. Example of modern treated lumber support. 33 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Figure 35. Detail of the board-formed concrete construction of a rectangular thrust box, facing south toward the hydroelectric plant in the background. Figure 36. Example of hexogonal-shaped thrust box, facing northwest. 34 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants Figure 37. Metal control access box, facing southeast. Figure 38. Metal control access box, facing northwest. 35 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021 Utah State Historic Preservation Office Researcher: Megan Daniels / Organization: SWCA Environmental Consultants This page is intentionally blank. 36 Historic Site Form (10-91) Date: January 21, 2021