140L5724Q0017_Attachment_002_U21WN0597_Excerpt.pdf

Condition Assessment and Preservation Plan for the Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site, Uintah County, Utah

(U21WN0597)

BLM Order No. 140L5721P0059

Prepared By:

Shanna Diederichs, M.A., RPA, AIC and Preston Fisher, P.E.

January 13, 2022 ii

Condition Assessment and Preservation Plan for the Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site, Uintah County, Utah (U21WN0597)

BLM Order No. 140L5721P0059

Prepared by:

Shanna Diederichs, M.A., RPA, AIC and Preston Fisher, P.E.

Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

140 North Linden Street Cortez, Colorado 81321

Prepared for:

Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office

170 S 500 E Vernal, Utah 84078

Under authority of:

Utah State Project Number: U21WN0597 BLM Cultural Resource Use Permit: 20UT54938

1/13/2022 iii

ABSTRACT

The Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site, or Rat Hole Cabin (42UN3351), is located on the northern side of Rat Hole Canyon in the Book Cliffs of east central Utah. The site was settled as a homestead by the King family ca. 1910 who ran a sheep ranch out of the property until 1940. In 1940 the property was incorporated into an expansive cattle operation run by the Hill family and the Cripple Cowboy Cow Outfit out of Rangely, Colorado. Through a series of transactions, Rat Hole Cabin was transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1970. Today the historic site consists of six partially intact structures (two cabins, masonry cellar, barn, granary, and and outhouse), the foundations of three other structures, livestock management features (stock pond, cattle chute, two corrals, and fences), two historic road segments, two trash dumps, and a developed spring. A condition assessment of the Rat Hole Cabin site was initiated in 2021 to provide the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office (BLM-VFO) with a conservation treatment plan aimed at preserving the site, especially the standing architecture.

The assessment was conducted by Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Woods Canyon) under the authority of BLM Vernal Field Office (Utah Division of State History Project Number U21WN059; BLM Cultural Resource Use Permit: 20UT54938). Architectural Conservator, Shanna Diederichs and Structural Engineer, Preston Fisher, conducted the condition assessment and developed the preservation plan. Jason Chuipka served as the principal investigator. Fieldwork was conducted between September 13 and Septemeber16, 2021. The project is located on land managed by BLM-VFO. Tori Blunt Mayes was the Contracting Officer for the project and Archaeologist Bill Reitze served as the Contracting Officer’s Representative.

The condition assessment process found Rat Hole Cabin to be in moderately good condition but suffering from acute and ongoing deterioration. Both short- and long-term preservation treatments are recommended. Halting the structural collapse of the larger cabin and the barn are urgent treatment priorities and should be undertaken within one year. Weather proofing and structural stabilization of the granary, cellar, and smaller cabin are high to moderate treatment priorities and should be addressed within the next three-five years. As a safety precaution, visitors should be deterred from entering the barn and smaller cabin. It is also recommended that modern garbage across the property be removed, and the site monitored bi-annually for signs of structural instability and vandalism.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Cultural Setting Methodology History of Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site Previous Work Site Description and Condition Assessment Preservation Plan Summary References Cited

Appendix A: Photographs of Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site Appendix B: Condition Assessment and Treatment Forms Appendix C: Cost Estimate for Preservation Plan

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Overview of Rat Hole Cabin facing east Figure 2. Location of 42UN351 in the Book Cliffs of west central Utah Figure 3. Areal overview of the Rat Hole Cabin site boundary Figure 4. Plan map of the southwest portion of Rat Hole Cabin site Figure 5. Plan map of the southwest portion of Rat Hole Cabin with historic elements highlighted in red. .. 4 Figure 6. Plan map of the central portion of Rat Hole Cabin with historic elements highlighted in red Figure 7. Plan map of the northeast portion of Rat Hole Cabin with historic elements highlighted in red Figure 8. Feature 1, scaled plan map of two room log cabin Figure 9. Overview of Feature 1. View to the northwest Figure 10. Feature 1, west exterior elevation Figure 11. Feature 1 east room interior wall, facing west Figure 12. Feature 1, interior roof construction, view to the east Figure 13. Feature 1 South wall looking west. Note lean in center supported by log, settlement of wall, and deteriorated basal logs Figure 14. Figure 1 east room north wall interior showing horizontal crack radiating from door lintel Figure 15. Feature 1 West room looking east. Note south end of wall leaning toward south Figure 16. Figure 1 east room north wall interior showing horizontal crack radiating from door lintel Figure 17. Feature 1 west Room North wall. Note string line showing upper portion of wall leaning away from window Figure 18. Feature 2 overview, view to the northwest Figure 19. Feature 3 scaled plan map of the two-story barn Figure 20. Feature 3, overview of Feature 1. View to the southwest Figure 21. Feature 3, overview of Feature 1. View to the northwest Figure 22. Feature 3 interior facing northwest Figure 23. Closeup of Feature 3 south exterior wall. Note tallies written in pencil Figure 24. Overview of Feature 3 facing west. Note collapsing roof and structural lean to the south Figure 25. Feature 3, north interior wall. Note the loss of chinking and daub in about a third of the wall. .. 33 Figure 26. Feature 3, north exterior wall. Inscription “CODY U WANKIER” into the daub Figure 27. Feature 3, east interior wall. Note settling and rotting basal logs Figure 28. Feature 3 east exterior wall looking south. Note upper log rolling out and roof rafter shifting out and toward south Figure 29. Feature 3 south wall looking east. Note leaning upper wall v

Figure 30. Feature 3, post supporting northwest corner of the cantilevered loft. Note that loft has shifted 5” to the southwest Figure 31. Feature 3, post supporting northeast corner of the cantilevered loft. Note that loft has shifted 5” to the southwest Figure 32. Feature 3 east interior wall. Note missing floor joists from loft and log bowing upwards from 15 cantilever on north end of loft Figure 33. Feature 3 south half roof interior showing the four standing rafters, including two cracked rafters Figure 34. Feature 3 north half of the roof interior. Note the broken and displaced rafter, the cracked rafter, displaced purlins, and missing metal sheathing Figure 35. Features 4 and 5, scaled plan map of granary and cabin Figure 36. Overview of Feature 4. View to the northwest Figure 37. Feature 4 interior. Note collapsing roof section Figure 38. Feature 5, overview facing north Figure 39. Closeup of Feature 5 collapsed roof facing west Figure 40. Figure 5, view to the southeast. Note loss of daub and chinking between the logs Figure 41. Feature 5 interior, view to the south. Not the collapsing construction material inside the south wall doorway Figure 42. Feature 6, overview of collapsed outhouse. View to the north Figure 43. Feature 8, overview of the developed spring. View to the east Figure 44. Feature 9 overview of stock pond. View to the northeast Feature 45. Feature 10, overview of cattle loading chute. View to the northeast Figure 46. Feature 13, overview of trash dump on the ridge dating between 1850-1900 Figure 47. Feature 15, view of the ranch entry gates on the south-southwest side of the perimeter fence. .. 51 Figure 48. Feature 16, overview of road grade leading from the homestead to the spring. View to the east.

Figure 49. Map of the western portion of Rat Hole Cabin with modern impacts highlighted in blue Figure 50. Map of the central portion of Rat Hole Cabin with modern impacts highlighted in blue Figure 51. Map of the eastern portion of Rat Hole Cabin with modern impacts highlighted in blue

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Projects Within One Mile of Rat Hole Cabin Table 2. Condition Ratings and Summary for Standing Structures at Rat Hole Cabin Table 3. Treatment Priority for Standing Structures at Rat Hole Cabin Table 3. Materials Necessary to Implement the Proposed Treatment Plan Table 4. Materials Necessary to Implement Optional Elements of Treatment Plan

Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site, Uintah County, Utah (U21WN0597)

INTRODUCTION

The Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site, or Rat Hole Cabin (42UN3351), is an historic ranch property in the Book Cliffs of east central Utah. The site was settled as a homestead by the King family ca.

1910 who ran a sheep ranch out of the property until 1940. In 1940 the property was incorporated into an expansive cattle operation run by the Hill family and, eventually, the Cripple Cowboy Cow Outfit out of Rangely, Colorado. Through a series of transactions, Rat Hole Cabin was transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1970. Today the historic site consists of six partially intact structures (two cabins, a masonry a cellar, a barn, a granary, and an outhouse), the foundations of three other structures, livestock management features (a stock pond, a cattle chute, two corrals, and several fences), two historic road segments, two trash dumps, and a developed spring. The 2021 condition assessment of Rat Hole Cabin was initiated to provide the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office (BLM-VFO) with a conservation treatment plan aimed at preserving the site, especially the standing architecture.

Figure 1. Overview of Rat Hole Cabin facing east.

Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Woods Canyon) conducted the condition assessment under BLM Requisition Contract 140L5721P0059 (Utah Division of State History Project Number U21WN059 and BLM Cultural Resource Use Permit: 20UT54938).

Architectural Conservator, Shanna Diederichs, and Structural Engineer, Preston Fisher, conducted the condition assessment and developed the preservation plan. Jason Chuipka served as the Principal Investigator. Fieldwork was conducted between September 13 and Septemeber16, 2021. The project is located on land managed by BLM-VFO. Tori Blunt Mayes is the Contracting Officer for the project and Archaeologist Bill Reitze is the Contracting Officer’s Representative.

Project Description

The Rat Hole Cabin Site (42UN3351) is located in the Book Cliffs area of the East Tavaputs Plateau, just west of the Utah/Colorado state border (Figure 2). The ranch encompasses a shallow side canyon and portions of the flood plain on the north side of Rat Hole Canyon about one mile north of the confluence of Rat Hole and Tent Canyons (Figure 3). These canyons are part of the Bitter Creek drainage system which runs north-northwest to the White River through the shale plateaus of the Green River Formation (Patterson et al. 2018). At an elevation of 7100’ above sea level, Rat Hole Cabin is situated at the boundary between the Colorado Plateau and Rocky Mountain ecozones. This area of the Book Cliffs is known for prolific spring formation and an average precipitation range of 6.5-17.6” annually.

Figure 2. Location of 42UN351 in the Book Cliffs of west central Utah.

Figure 3. Areal overview of the Rat Hole Cabin site boundary.

Figure 4. Plan map of the southwest portion of Rat Hole Cabin site.

Figure 5. Plan map of the southwest portion of Rat Hole Cabin with historic elements in red.

Figure 6. Plan map of the central portion of Rat Hole Cabin with historic elements in red.

Figure 7. Plan map of the northeast portion of Rat Hole Cabin with historic elements in red.

The Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site measures 1000’ southwest to northeast and encompasses 6.35 acres (Figures 4-7). The western third of the site is in the Rat Hole Canyon alluvial floodplain which is down cut 25’ by Rat Hole Creek which runs along the western edge of the site. The flood plain is vegetated by dispersed rabbitbrush and bunch grasses. The current Rat Hole Canyon Road runs through the southwest portion of the site along the edge of the floodplain. The homestead portion of the site occupies several meadows in the mouth of the side canyon on a bench above the floodplain. Portions of the homestead are choked with large rabbitbrush but the BLM appears to have recently cut back standing vegetation and cut down dead cottonwood trees.

A few live cottonwood trees are still standing next to the standing structures. Otherwise, the meadows are covered sagebrush, bunch grasses, forbes, and wildflowers. A developed spring at the northeastern edge of the site is a defining feature of the homestead. The spring is still running at over 10 gallons per hour producing a standing pool of water. The area around the spring is covered by a dense mat of ferns and the slope below the spring is choked with willows, chokecherries, box elders, and young spruce trees. The slopes and benches of the side canyon around the homestead are covered by a mixed woodland of pinion, juniper, ponderosa, and massive Engelman Spruce trees. A large wildfire recently burned across Rat Hole Canyon south of the site, incinerating all of the standing forest and vegetation. Only low lying grasses and rabbit brush have begun to regrow in the burned area.

The last detailed recording of the site was conducted in 2008 (Pagano 2008). Since that time the BLM has fenced the homestead in an effort to preserve the structures, but the condition of the site has continued to decline. The condition assessment of Rat Hole Cabin was initiated to provide the BLM-VFO with a treatment plan to reverse or minimize structural deterioration, erosion, and visitor impacts to the site. Woods Canyon conducted the field assessment between September 13 and Septemeber16, 2021. A literature review of existing site information, historical literature, and archival documentation was also conducted.

This report summarizes the history of the property and its current condition, documents the structural and fabric condition of all standing architecture, presents the impact of natural deterioration, visitor use, and management actions on the resource, and provides a treatment plan to stabilize the structures and manage ongoing impacts to the site.

REGULATORY SETTING

The context in which the BLM requires cultural resource services is derived from the statutory requirements outlined in 36 CFR 800, 36 CFR 67.7, BLM Manual Section 8100, and Utah BLM State Office guidelines. In addition to these requirements, the BLM’s responsibilities derive from its mission to identify, evaluate, protect and preserve cultural resources on public land under its jurisdiction, and to ensure that BLM-initiated or authorized actions do not inadvertently affect cultural resources.

Awareness and public concern for the preservation of our national cultural heritage has prompted legislation by federal, state and tribal governments to protect historical, ethnographic, and archaeological cultural resources. Cultural resource management projects are mandated and authorized by federal legislation and stipulation. These regulatory acts include the Federal Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59- 209); The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 1980 and 1992 (P.L. 89-665); The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91- 194); Executive Order 11593: “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment”, 1971 (36 C.F.R. 8921); The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579); The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 95- 96); The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1979 (P.L, 95-341); and The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-601).

CULTURAL SETTING

Several summaries of the cultural background of Utah have been written (Berry 1986; Condie and Fowler 1986; Jennings 1978; Spangler 2013). The reader is directed to these sources to develop a better sense of the cultural context of the project area. More salient are regional historic contexts for northeast Utah and northwest Colorado including Sheepherding and Sheep Camps in the Uinta Basin, 1879-1972 (Oliver et al. 2017), Settlements of Uintah County: Digging Deeper (Burton 1998), Class I Cultural Resource Inventory of Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management (Patterson et al. 2018), and An Isolated Empire: A History of Northwest Colorado (Athearn 1976). A very brief synopsis of the pre-historic and historic cultural setting of the project area are presented below.

The earliest human occupation of Utah is usually attributed to the Paleoindian (ca. 11,500-8000 BP). Paleoindian sites are rare in the area (Gillette and Madsen 1993; Patterson et al. 2018). The end of the Pleistocene saw a warmer and drier climate with many fewer large mammals. This created a shift in behavior among human inhabitants of Utah. The post-Paleoindian peoples are called the Archaic and occupied the central west Utah area between approximately 7800 B.C. and

Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site, Uintah County, Utah (U21WN0597) 7

A.D. 550 (Patterson et al. 2018; Spangler 2013). The Archaic are characterized as semi- nomadic hunter-gatherers who relied on plant gathering and hunting small to medium- sized mammals, often with a spear thrower (atlatl). Archaic structures, if present archaeologically, are generally small and expedient. Archaic sites are widespread in the region (Patterson et al. 2018).

Formative cultures in Utah developed between approximately 500 B.C. and A.D. 550 as humans became more sedentary and reliant on the cultivation of plant crops. The Formative culture in the area, Fremont, continued many of the Archaic lifeways as occasional farmers who relied heavily on hunting (Patterson et al. 2018:74). This culture was present in southeastern Utah until approximately A.D. 1300. Between A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1300, the Fremont migrated away from the region, possibly as a result of climate changes that made farming and hunting more difficult (Schwindt et al. 2013; Schollmeyer et al. 2013).

As early as the fourteenth century A.D., Numic speaking hunting and gathering populations migrated into the region from the west (Simmons 2000:14). When Spanish encountered them in the mid-1500s the Numic speaking Ute had an immense territory stretching from western Great Basin, in the mountains and valleys of central Utah, in northern New Mexico, on both sides and the Colorado Rockies. The Ute are believed to have developed as a distinct people around A.D.

1000 in the southern part of the Great Basin, an area roughly located in eastern California and southern Nevada (Reed 1999; Simmons 2000:14). For centuries the Utes occupied the drainages of the Green River in the Book Cliffs region of Utah. By the 17th century a loose confederation of 13 bands was in place with a population of 5,000-10,000 people (Baker 1988:179; Simmons 2000:16). These Ute bands had fluid membership and high mobility.

The earliest known records of European contact with the Utes of west central Utah are from Juan Maria de Rivera, who explored the region during two expeditions in A. D. 1765 (Patterson et al.

2018:94; Sanchez 1997). Rivera recorded a shy group of ‘root eaters’ he called the Sabaugans. A decade later Fray Francisco Atanasio Dominguez and his partner Fray Francisco Silvestre Velez de Escalante traveled directly through east central Colorado and west central Utah on their way north to cross the Green River. Unlike the shy Sabaugans previously noted by Juan Maria de Rivera, Dominguez and Escalante reported Utes in the area as mounted warriors The Utes were among the first indigenous groups in North America to acquire and master the horse, which contributed to their remarkable success in the 17th and early 18th centuries. With their newfound mobility and mastery of the horse, the Utes became one of the most feared and powerful tribes in the West (Simmons 2000:1070; Resendez 2017:178-181).

For 200 years, the Spanish limited the Ute’s trade and exposure to outside peoples (Simmons 2000:47) but as trade restrictions relaxed in 1810, the Utes were gradually able to interact with more outsiders. With Mexico’s independence in 1821, Ute territory was opened up to trappers, miners, and settlement encroachment. In 1824-1825 the Ashley-Henry Company expedition (led by William H. Ashley and Andrew Henry), explored the Ashley Valley and Uinta Basin (Burton 1998:57–59). Other fur trade expeditions followed, including one led by Etienne Provost (a French-Canadian) and another led by Antoine Robidoux (Burton 1998:60; Oliver et al. 2017 E:6).

Of these early trappers, Robidoux became the most influential, eventually building and operating several forts in the Uinta Basin to serve as provisioning and trading points for Euro-Americans and Utes (Patterson et al. 2018:101; Simmons 2000:6). Other forts were soon established in the region including Fort Reed, Fort Uinta (Wintey/ Robidoux), and Fort Crockett (Oliver et al. 2017 E:6).

John C. Fremont was the first American surveyor and explorer to the area. With the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, and the subsequent transfer of Alta, California to the United

States, drastic encroachments on the Ute’s territory ensued, marking “the beginning of the end for Ute sovereignty in the region” (Husband 1984). Following the establishment of the Uintah Indian Reservation in 1864 and the Burnot Agreement of 1873, northern and western Utes were moved to the Uintah Reservation in north central Utah (Patterson 2018:106; Simmons 2000:151). In Colorado, illegal encroachment by settlers and conflicts with Federal Indian Agents led to the Battle of Milk Creek and the Meeker Massacre in 1879. In response, Uncompahgre Ute Indians in Colorado were moved to the newly created Utah Ouray Reservation in 1882. This reservation encompassed the territory between the Green River and the Utah/ Colorado border, including the Bitter Creek and Rat Hole Canyon drainage systems. The Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Reservation were consolidated into the Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Reservation in 1886 (Simmons 2000:196). The Dawes Act of 1887 continued settler encroachment by dividing the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation into allotments to be owned and farmed by individual tribal members (Oliver et al. 2017:E2). Millions of other acres, including the entirety of Rat Hole Canyon, were deemed extraneous to the needs of the Utes, taken into the public domain, and opened to the filing of land claims.

White ranchers and settlers quickly moved into public domain lands in northeast Utah and northwest Colorado. This area was extremely appealing for ranching with its ready sources of water and expanses of open range (Oliver et al. 2017: E9-10; Simmons 2000:10). The earliest settlements sprang up around water sources in Brown’s Park and Grand Valley in Colorado and in the Ashley Valley and Uintah Basin of Utah. Though sheep men like Robert Bodily, the first commercial sheep herder in the Uintah Basin, established their outfits as early as 1879, it was not until the 1890s that the region became a ranching hub (Simmons 2000:17). By 1900 there were reports that any rangeland outside of the Ute reservation was heavily overgrazed, a practice known as overstocking and in 1901 Utah recorded the highest number of stock sheep ever reported (Simmons 2000:31). Competition for rangeland caused decades worth of conflict between sheep and cattle operations (Oliver et al. 2017:E22).

The sheepherding industry was flourishing at the turn of the 20th century (Oliver et al. 2017:E14- 16). Construction and expansion of transcontinental railroads allowed wool from the region to be exported to the east coast where the Dingley Tariff Act of 1897 had resulted in high prices for American wool (Oliver et al. 2017:E24; Simmons 2000:25). Based on a growing demand for settlement in the Book Cliffs, Theodore Roosevelt instituted a homestead lottery in 1905 where 1000000 acres in Uinta Basin were deeded to interested settlers. Several town sites were identified and withdrawn from the lottery including Dragon, Watson, Rainbow, Ignatio, and Bonanza where there was already a sheep shearing plant (Oliver et al. 2017:E35; Patterson et al.

2018:119; Simmons 2000:29). This coincided with the construction of the Uintah Railway, a narrow gauge railroad that connected to the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad at Mack, Colorado. The Uintah Railway ran north from Mack for 28 miles into the Book Cliffs and over Baxter Pass to the towns of Dragon, Ignatio, Rainbow, and Watson (Bender 1970; Burton 1998 :105). The main purpose of the rail line was to haul Gilsonite, a naturally occurring hydrocarbon resin, from a mine in the Uinta Basin at Rainbow Junction to industries along the Denver Rio Grande Railroad. With the advent of hard-surfaced highways and trucking in the 1930s, the Uintah Railway went out of business. All towns along its line were abandoned by the 1940s (Bender 1970).

From 1900 to 1930, lumber harvesting, mining, and grazing ran unchecked in the Book Cliffs. By the end of that period, many of the high mountain passes were denuded by logging for houses, railroad ties, mine timbers, and firewood and overgrazed by cattle, sheep, and horses (Blunt 2012;

Oliver et al. 2017:E45; Patterson et al. 2018). The Taylor Grazing Act put a stop to open grazing on public rangelands and established the Division of Grazing in the Department of the Interior

Rat Hole Cabin Historic Site, Uintah County, Utah (U21WN0597) 9

(Athern 1996; Oliver et al. 2017:E35; Simmons 2000:49). For all intents and purposes, the public domain land in northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah was withdrawn from homesteading by this act and it formalized the grazing permit system still used by the Bureau of Land Management today.

The oil and natural gas industry played a large part in the development of the Book Cliffs and the Uinta Basin to the north. Oil was first discovered near the Utah-Wyoming border in 1847, and the first oil well was drilled in the Uinta Basin in 1900 (Spangler 2002). But it was not until after World War II that the oil and natural gas industry and exploration boomed after the discovery of a major oil reserves near Roosevelt in 1949 (Simmons 2000:2-67). Within a year, Phillips Petroleum was setting up camps in the Book Cliffs and drilling in the many drainages of Bitter Creek (Vernal Express, 25 November 1954). Oil and gas extraction continued through the 1970s with companies like Taiga Energy, Basin Petroleum, and Belco Petroleum all building pipelines to wells in the Book Cliffs (Times Independent, 3 March 1977).

The rugged terrain of the Book Cliffs ensured that the region was never be heavily settled.

Nevertheless, this territory was important to regional history. Since the 1970s, oil and gas extraction has continued to expand. The remote nature of the area still lends itself to cattle ranching on a seasonal basis. Recreation, in the form of hunting and off-roading, has also become popular. The Book Cliffs will always be a natural barrier between the Grand and Uintah Valleys but one that is woven into the histories of both basins.

METHODOLOGY

The conduct of heritage preservation is guided by accepted standards and procedures to ensure that the work is professionally done and is consistent with established goals for historic preservation. Professional standards for the preservation work and personnel qualifications are defined within the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects (USDI 1995) and Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications (USDI 1997). Professional standards for archeological excavation and analysis as well as acceptable qualifications of personnel are defined in the codification of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and supplemented by the standards of the Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA), State Historical Preservation Offices, BLM Manual 8100, and the National Park Service (NPS-28).

Procedural standards for the preservation of cultural resources are governed primarily by the Department of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects (USDI 1985), Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (USDI 1995) and Archaeological and Historic Preservation (USDI 1983), Bureau of Land Management Manual 8100 (USDI revised 2004), United States Forest Service Manual 2300 (USDA 1978), National Park Service Preservation Guidelines-28 (NPS-28 [USDI 1981]). Additional compliance guidance is directed from the State of Utah Archaeological Compliance Guidance (State of Utah 2020) and the Intensive Level Survey Standard Operating Procedures (State of Utah 2020).

Records Research

As an historic resource with standing architecture, Rat Hole Cabin required scaled literature reviews for the completion of the Utah Archaeology Site Form (UDSH 2019) and compliance with Standard Operating Procedures for a Utah State History Intensive Level Survey (UDSH 2020).

A literature review was conducted of previous projects and site documentation within one mile of the project area through the Utah State Department of Heritage and Art’s archaeology mapping and content management system: SEGO Pro. Overview contexts specific to the area of investigation were reviewed for information on people events, and historical contexts associated with the property. Through the Uintah County Recorder’s Office tax files and title abstracts for the property were located and copied. General Land Office (GLO) survey records for the area were accessed through the Bureau of Land Management. Biographical information on people associated with the property was gathered from several historical contexts. Birth, death, naturalization, and census information and records were found on genealogical websites and the County Assessor’s Office. Additional information on the people associated with the history of the property was gathered from the Utah History Research Center at the Utah Historical Society and online newspaper archives.

Photography

The property setting and all standing architecture and non-architectural features at the site were fully documented with photographs taken with a digital SLR camera (Nikon D40X) and an iPad.

Standing structures were photographed from the front corner (showing primarily the main facade) and one from the opposite rear corner. Interior and exterior wall elevations of structures standing more than two feet high were also photographed. These photographs serve to record the condition and construction details of each structure prior to the proposed intervention and are a condition baseline for future assessment.

Condition Assessment Documentation

The interior and exterior conditions of standing walls and roofs were documented at the site using a Condition Assessment Form (Appendix B). These forms document the extent of deterioration for each standing wall and identify the condition and primary deterioration factors. A scale of 1-5 was used when assessing both condition and deterioration factors. When referring to deterioration factors 1 is slight and 5 is extreme impact. If no number was entered into a given field on the form, that signifies that either that portion of the wall no longer exists, or that there are no significant impact to that wall segment. Only extant architecture standing more than 1’ tall was assessed. Generally, no speculation was made concerning missing portions of walls or rooms. All of the standing architecture showed some form of deterioration from natural weathering (wind, water, time, etc.) and/or structural instability. Normally only significant impacts and significant deterioration factors were documented. Following completion of the condition assessment, a Stabilization Requirements Form (Appendix B) was filled out for each room. This form documents the specific stabilization needs of each wall within a room highlighting not only the type of repair needed, but also the materials that are necessary to accomplish these repairs. To visually complement the Stabilization Requirements Form, photos of areas requiring stabilization were digitally annotated to highlight the specific stabilization needs of each wall or provenience.

Treatment Methods

The conduct of heritage preservation is guided by accepted standards and procedures to ensure that the work is professionally done and is consistent with established goals for historic preservation. Professional standards for the preservation work and personnel qualifications are defined within the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects (USDI

1995) and Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications (USDI 1997). Professional standards for archeological excavation and analysis as well as acceptable qualifications of personnel are defined in the codification of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and supplemented by the standards of the Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA), State Historical Preservation Offices, BLM Manual 8100, and the National Park Service (NPS-28).

Procedural standards for the preservation of cultural resources are governed primarily by the Department of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects (USDI 1985), Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (USDI 1995) and Archaeological and Historic Preservation (USDI 1983), Bureau of Land Management Manual 8100 (USDI revised 2004), United States Forest Service Manual 2300 (USDA 1978), National Park Service Preservation Guidelines-28 (NPS-28 [USDI 1981]), and Ruins Stabilization: A Handbook (Metzger 1988).

As these standards make clear, preservation in an historic context is the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material remains of a site and stabilization of associated buildings (USDI 1995). Building stabilization shall be used to 1) reestablish the structural stability of a structure through the reinforcement of loadbearing members, 2) arrest deterioration leading to structural failure, 3) reestablish weather resistant conditions. Substantial reconstruction or restoration of lost building features are not included in preservation undertakings. If protective or code required mechanical systems are installed during structural stabilization, they should be concealed whenever possible so as not to detract from the property's aesthetic and historical qualities. When missing elements are duplicated the composition, design, color, and texture should reflect the original material. In most cases, ground disturbing activities are avoided during preservation.

The following stabilization methods can be implemented individually or combined as necessary at a site depending on its specific structural requirements, agents of deterioration, and intended use, as defined in this document. A variety of basic physical intervention/fabric manipulation techniques are recommended in response to the structural needs of the sites, based on the condition assessment. Documentation on the original structural stability and fabric was utilized to ensure historic accuracy in the preservation recommendations. The basic procedures recommended are outlined below:

Replacing Logs: Replacing logs in log construction buildings is necessary when structural elements are seriously deteriorated. The technique requires supporting walls above the section to be replaced, removing the rotted section of log, and inserting a comparable log into place. Any replacement log should generally match the wood species or type of the original (Bomberger 1991; USDA 2015). The replacement should also be hewn, if necessary, to replicate the dimensions and tool marks of the original beam. A section of deteriorated log can be replaced through a process of wood splicing where a localized area of deterioration is cut away and is replaced by a matching, seasoned, and shaped section of log along a scarf joint (45-degree angle cuts). The splice is secured to the severed log by angling lag screws or bolts through the upper and lower surfaces, which will be concealed by daubing.

Hewing Timbers: Hewing is the process of turning raw timber into construction logs of regular dimensions that can be used for posts, sills, and beams (Bomberger 1991). After the timber is cut to length, the face to be hewn is measured and marked with a chalk line. With either a chainsaw or pole axe, kerf cuts are made 3-4” apart to the depth of the chalk line. Wood between the kerf cuts is chipped away leaving a rough but clearly flatter surface. With a broad axe (large 9” to 13” blade and short 24” long handle) the remaining material is chopped away and the rough side hewn into a smooth flat surface.

Realigning Log Walls: Like replacing logs, realigning walls requires beams above the section to be supported, and in some cases, jacked up slightly to insert the deflected section (Bomberger 1991; USDA 2015). A brace beam or plywood sheet should be mounted on the exterior of the section to be realigned. Pressure is exerted on this brace by a winch, jack, or both to realign the wall. Once the wall is plumb, supports for the upper wall can be removed. Caution should be taken during this process because the aligned section may be slightly reweighted when the beams above it are lowered. The realigned wall section is secured to the header log by angling lag screws or bolts through the upper and lower surfaces. These attachment points will be concealed by daubing.

Borate Anti-Fungal Log Treatment: Borate is a nontoxic odorless salt that, when applied to wood, can slow its deterioration due to brown or white wood rot. (NPS 1993; MacDonald 2003).

Borates do not affect the structural properties of wood or metal fasteners and they have the added benefit of suppressing termite activity in wood. Paints and water repellants can be applied over borate-treated wood.

In the treatment of log cabins, borate should be applied to basal logs in contact with the ground surface and to any other logs showing signs of wood rot. Logs should be treated along their interior and exterior face. Prior to application, dirt should be scraped and brushed away from the exposed log face. Localized rot should be treated with a Glycol-based borate solution, which effectively penetrates seasoned wood. Glycol gels will initially darken the exterior of the wood, but the glycol will volatilize within three to five days returning the wood to its normal color.

After the glycol treatments have dried to the touch, the interior, exterior, and ends of all lower basal logs in a log structure should be brushed with a borate powder and water formula. A second coat should be applied when the first has dried. This will ensure consistent level of the anti-fungal in areas prone to rot.

While borate is not poisonous to mammals, it is toxic to insects and can be toxic to some plants in high concentrations. Care should be taken to protect and avoid insect nests, grass, and other plants when applying borate. After application, all equipment can be washed with water. Wash water and any left-over solution is considered non-toxic waste.

Roof Repair: Roof repair is often essential to reestablishing weather resistant conditions for historic structures. Because roofs are periodically replaced, existing roofs are often fully reconstructed or repaired with modern materials. Acceptable material for historic roof systems include rough cut an milled lumber, wood shakes and shingles, tar paper, corrugated metal without ribs, tar paper, and standing seam metal without ribs. Unless the replacement construction or materials are inappropriate, the roof should be repaired in kind during preservation. This can mean the introduction of new in-kind materials or the reuse of collapsed on-site roofing materials.

Roof fasteners and clips should be historically accurate and be made of a material compatible with all other materials used or coated to prevent rust.

Repointing: Repointing is the replacement of deteriorated, loose, or missing, daub within the joints of a chink and daub log wall or the mortar in a masonry wall. All joints requiring repair should be raked clean of loose material. This process is accomplished with trowels, whiskbrooms and by hand. The clean joints are then thoroughly wetted for additional cleaning and to prevent the surrounding fabric from drawing excessive moisture out of the stabilization daub or mortar.

Water is applied to the joints with spray bottles and whiskbrooms. The stabilization daub or mortar is then introduced to the void by hand or trowel. This new material is repeatedly packed into the joint during the curing process to ensure that the voids are completely filled and to prevent cracking. Where necessary, small stones are used as spalls to aid in filling large joints in masonry repairs. All repointing daub or mortar is final textured to simulate the surrounding joints or to achieve a weathered appearance. Repointing at sites will be done only to the degree that structural stability and compatible visual characteristics are achieved.

Replicating Historic Daub and Mortar: When repointing historic log structures, it is important to replicate the constituent material recipe for daub or mortar, as well as its color and texture (USDA 2015). This will ensure that the new material bonds to the old and is not so water repellent that it forces water into or holds water against the logs or masonry, creating the conditions for deterioration.

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, historic daub was generally a mix of hydrated lime, clay, and sometimes sand (Bomberger 1991). In some cases, portland cement was also added to the mix for workability but only in small quantities (NPS 2014). Along with the correct ratios of the proper sand used, both lime and clay wick water moisture out of the adjacent log, reducing the potential for dry rot. The lime also uses the carbon from the water to chemically convert the hydrated lime in the mix back into becoming limestone Prior to repointing, preservationists should experiment with different ratios of alluvial clay from Rate Hole Canyon floodplain, sand, and hydrated lime to create a daub with the same color and tensile strength as the original daub mixture in each structure.

Backfilling and Drainage Contouring: Backfilling is the addition of culturally sterile sediment and/or stone to a structure, to support and protect structural fabric and cultural deposits.

Backfilling is used to support wall bases, eliminate differential fill levels, cushion and protect archaeological deposits from foot or vehicle traffic and the natural elements. Where appropriate, backfilling alone can fully stabilize a site or structure. Drainage contouring is the method of arranging backfill material to encourage moisture and water runoff away from wall bases and out of structures or where necessary, into the center of the structure. Burial or reburial of a structure or feature may be considered a priority action when compatible stabilization materials do not provide adequate stability.

French Drain Installation: French drains are a technique used to convey water away from a structure. They are used when backfilling and contouring are deemed infeasible or too destructive to implement. Constructing a french drain involves excavating a trench and drywell, installing a perforated pvc pipe, and filling the trench and drywell with gravel.

The trench should be excavated directly below the dripline of a building to catch precipitation run-off. A pipe in the trench will that water to a drywell away and downslope of the building. The trench should be up to 1’ deep, 6-12” wide, and slope approximately a quarter inch per foot. The drywell should measure and measure 3’ wide by 3’ long and up to 3’ deep and be installed at least 2’ away and downhill from the structure. The sides and bottom of the trench, but not the drywell, should be lined with an 8 oz. commercial grade filter fabric that is rated for 90 GPM through one square foot of fabric. Extra fabric should be left above each side of the trench during pipe and gravel installation and folded over the top of the gravel to keep silt and sand from plugging up the capacity of drain. To install the drain, cover the bottom of the trench with 2” of ¾” or larger washed gravel. Perforate the upper face of a 4” diameter rigid pvc drainage pipe and lay the pipe on top of the gravel in the trench. Cover the pipe with 8” of gravel, fold the filter fabric down, and fill the upper trench to grade with additional gravel. Likewise, the drywell should be filled with ¾” or larger gravel and then topped by a thin coating of sediments to blend it with the surrounding landscape.

Vegetation Removal: Vegetation removal involves the eradication, through physical or chemical means, of vegetal material, which is impacting or has the potential to harmfully impact the structural fabric or cultural deposits of a site. Generally, this applies to trees, shrubs and deep-rooted grasses. Shallow rooted grasses are usually beneficial in erosion control through soil stabilization.

HISTORY OF RAT HOLE CABIN HISTORIC SITE

The history of the Rat Hole Cabin historic site was set in motion by the Dawes Act of 1887.

When enacted in 1903 the Act divided the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation into allotments to be owned and farmed by individual tribal members (Oliver et al. 2017:E2). Two allotments were claimed in Bitter Springs about two miles up from Rat Hole Canyon (GLO 1921). These are listed as Allotment # 580 assigned to Sam Archee and an un-numbered allotment assigned to John McCook. Millions of other acres, including the entirety of Rat Hole Canyon, were deemed extraneous to the needs of the Utes, taken into the public domain, and opened to the filing of land claims.

White ranchers and settlers quickly moved into the public domain lands between the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation and the Utah/Colorado state border. Like lower Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Canyon was considered too alkali for cattle but suitable for sheep grazing (Oliver et al. 2017). A 1921 GLO map shows two standing cabins in Rat Hole Canyon; the “Thomas King Cabin” in the upper canyon and “Davis Cabin” in the location of the Rat Hole Canyon Cabin historic site.

Though referred to as “Davis Cabin” the brother of Thomas King, William George King, was likely living on the property with his wife Lulu Mae King and two of what would be their three children. This is based on the U.S. Federal 1920 census, which lists both William and Thomas King as living in Uintah County with their families and an uncorroborated interpretive sign that once stood at the site describing William King homesteading the spot in the 1910s (Wilson 2003).

William George King was born to William George King Senior and Matilda (Trubridge) King on December 12, 1873 in Wishford, Wiltshire, England (General Register Office, Southport England 1874). William (Bill), his brother Thomas (Tom), and his sister Ethyl migrated to the U.S.

sometime prior to 1900. William George King was already living in Uintah County, Utah when he filed a Petition for Naturalization to the United States of America in 1905 (U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor 1905). According to Burton (1998:497):

The brothers were sheepmen who came to America from England, bringing Ernest and Frank Smith with them. Another Smith brother, Jack, married the Kings’ sister Ethyl. The Kings and Smiths kept sheep in the Brown’s Park area until 1910 when they sold out and moved to the Book Cliffs. The Kings had one cabin in Rat Hole and another in (adjacent) Tent Canyon.

William King married his wife, Lulu King, soon after moving to Uintah County (State of Colorado 1912). Lulu King, was born on June 7, 1880 as Lula Mae Julian in Butler Kansas to parents born in the Carolinas (United States Census Bureau 1900). In 1900, at the age of 19 she was on her own and working in a restaurant in Augusta, Oklahoma (United States Census Bureau 1900). It is unclear how Lulu and Bill met but they were married in 1912 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It is then that Lula Mae Julian changed her name to Lulu Mae King. The King’s had three children: Elizabeth King in 1914, William W. King in 1916, and Florence King in 1918 (United States Census Bureau 1920). Eventually William George King filed a 1928 patent claim for 640 acres in Rat Hole Canyon, under the Homestead Entry-Stock Raising Act of 1916 (Uintah County Recorder 1928). This property encompassed both cabins in Rat Hole Canyon on the 1921 GLO map. The family ranch was expanded in 1930 when Lulu Mae King filed a patent for another 320 acres of Rat Hole Canyon under the Deserted Lands Act of 1877 (Uintah County Recorder 1930). According to the 1920 census, the family lived full time at the Rat Hole Cabin homestead but all of the children were born in Grand Junction, Colorado (United States Census Bureau 1920). By 1930, the Kings were listed as having two residences: the Rat Hole Cabin homestead and a house in Grand Junction at 929 White Street (United States Census Bureau 1930). By 1940 William George King, age of 67, had retired from sheepherding. William, Lulu, and their youngest daughter, Florence, moved to a boarding house in Grand Junction (United States Census Bureau 1940). Within two years, Lulu Mae King passed away at the age of 62 (United States Census Bureau 1940). William George King continued to live in the Grand Junction/ Fruita area until his death in 1970 at the age of 97.

When he retired in 1940, William George King sold the Rat Hole Cabin homestead and his ranching property in Rat Hole Canyon to W.C. Havens and Don F. Hill (Uintah County Recorder 1940). This purchase was part of the Hill’s family consolidation of large tracks of land in the Book Cliffs for cattle ranching.