140L5724Q0017_Attachment_003_U23WN0354_Excerpt.pdf

Development of a Preservation Plan for the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562), Bitter Creek, Uintah County, Utah (U23WN0354)

U23WN0354

8/18/2023

UintahShanna Diederichs and Preston Fisher

Jason Chuipka

12.02

June-October 2023 Shanna Diederichs

Tom Patterson Canyon 2020 T 14S, R 24E Section 12 T 15S, R 25E Sections 16, 17, 20, 21

UDSH Project Number:

Report Title:

Report Date: Org. Project Number:

Report Author(s): County(ies):

Principal Investigator:

Record Search Date(s): Field Supervisor(s):

Intensive Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals): Recon/Intuitive Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals): 0

Sites Reported Count Smithsonian Trinomials

COVER PAGE

Must Accompany All Project Reports Submitted to the Utah SHPO

Revisits (no updated site forms)

COVER PAGE

Must Accompany All Project Reports Submitted to the Utah SHPO

UDSH Project Number:____________________

Report Title:_____________________________________________________________________________

Report Date:___________________________ Org. Project Number:________________________

Report Author(s):_______________________

County(ies): _______________________________

Principal Investigator________________________

Record Search Date(s):___________________ Field Supervisor(s): _________________________

Intensive Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals):_____ Recon/Intuitive Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals):____

USGS 7.5’ Series Map Reference(s):__________________________

Sites Reported Count Smithsonian Trinomials Revisits (no updated site forms) Updates (updated site forms provided) New recordings (site forms provided) Total Count of Archaeological Sites in APE Historic Structures (structures forms provided) Total National Register Eligible Sites *Please list all site numbers per category. Number strings are acceptable (e.g. “42TO1-13; 42TO15”). Cells should expand to accommodate extensive lists.

Checklist of Required Items for Submittal to SHPO ☐ “Born Digital” Report in a PDF/A format

☐ SHPO Cover Sheet ☐ File Name is the UDSH Project Number with no hyphens or landowner suffixes

☐ “Born Digital” Site forms in PDF/A format ☐ UASF with embedded maps and photos ☐ File name is Smithsonian Trinomial without leading zeros (e.g. 42TO13 not 42TO00013) ☐ Photo requirements (including size and quality)

☐ Archaeological Site Tabular Data ☐ Single spreadsheet for each project ☐ Follows UTSHPO template (info here: https://goo.gl/7SLMqj)

☐ GIS data ☐ Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of survey (if different from APE) or other activity area with required field names and variable intensity denoted ☐ Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of site boundaries with a the required field name

42UN9562

42UN8352, 42UN9562

42UN8352, 42UN9562

Update (updated site forms provided)

New recordings (site forms provided)

Total Count of Archaeological Sites in APE

Historic Structures (structure forms provided)

Total National Register Eligible Sites

42UN8352

Trujillo Cabin Historic Site F2 Cabin F5 Workshop F6 Cabin F9 Barn F10 Cabin

Chipeta Cabin Site F1 Cabin F2 Cabin

USGS 7.5' Series Map References:

*Please list all site numbers per category. Number strngs are acceptable (e.g. "42TO1-13; 42TO15). Cells should expand to accomodate extensive lists.

Checklist of Required Items for Submittal to SHPO

"Born Digital" Report in PDF/A format SHPO Cover Sheet File Name is the UDSH Project Number with no hyphens or landowner suffixes

"Born Digital" Site forms in PDF/A format UASF with embedded maps and photos File name is Smithsonian Trinomial without leading zeros (e.g. 42TO13 not 42TO00012) Photo requirements (including size and quality)

Archaeological Site Tabular Data Single spreadsheet for each project Follows UTSHPO template (info here: https://goo.gl/7SLMqj)

GIS data Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of survey (if different from APE) or other activity area with required field names and variable intensity denoted Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of site boundaries with the required field names

1Page

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

UTAH STATE OFFICE

Form UT-8100-3 (December 2000)

Summary Report of Cultural Resources Inspection State Proj. No.: U23WN0354

1. Report Title: Development of a Preservation Plan for the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562), Bitter Creek, Uintah County, Utah (U23WN0354)

2. Report Date: 3. Dates of Survey:8/18/2023 5/18/2023-5/25/2023

4. Development Company: NA

5. Responsible Institution: Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

6. Responsible Individuals:

Principal Investigator:

Field Supervisor:

Report Author(s):

Jason Chuipka Shanna Diederichs Shanna Diederichs and Preston Fisher

7. BLM Field Office: B8 Vernal District Green River District- 8. County(ies): Uintah

9. Fieldwork Location:

10. Record Search:

Location of Records Searched:

Date of Record Search:

SEGO (Online), Uintah County Land Information Program, Utah Division of Oil and Gas

June-October 2023

11. Description of Examination Procedures:

12. Area Surveyed:

Linear Miles Intensive:

Recon/Intuitive:

Intensive:

Recon/Intuitve:

12.02Acreage

BLM OTHER FED STATE PRIVATE TOTAL

12.02

Development of a Preservation Plan for the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562), Bitter Creek, Uintah County, Utah (U23WN0354)

BLM OTHER FED STATE PRIVATE13. Sites Recorded:

Update

Full Re-record NR Eligible

First Recording

Total Number of Archaeological Sites:

# Smithsonian Site Numbers

# Smithsonian Site Numbers

# Smithsonian Site Numbers

# Smithsonian Site Numbers

Historic Structures (USHS Form):

Not Eligible

NR Eligible

Not Eligible

NR Eligible

Not Eligible

42UN9562

42UN8352

0 0

Tom Patterson Canyon 2020 T 14S, R 24E Section 12 T 15S, R 25E Sections 16, 17, 20, 21

2Page

Total National Register Eligible Sites:

14. Description of Findings:

15. Collection: Yes No (If Yes) Curation Facility: Accession Numbers:

16. Conclusions/Recommendations:

The condition assessment process found that both the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site and the Chipeta Cabin Site require conservation intervention within the next three years to prevent the loss of architectural elements and features to instability and acute deterioration.

Development of a Preservation Plan for the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562), Bitter Creek, Uintah County, Utah

(U23WN0354)

BLM Order No. 140L5723F0014

Prepared By:

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

August 25, 2023 ii

Development of a Preservation Plan for the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562), Bitter Creek, Uintah County, Utah (U23WN0354)

BLM Order No. 140L5723F0014

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: U23WN0354 BLM Cultural Resource Use Permit: 20UT54938

8/25/2023 iii

ABSTRACT

The 2023 condition assessment of the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562) was undertaken to provide the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office (BLM-VFO) with conservation treatment plans for each property aimed at preserving the sites, especially the standing architecture.

This project report was developed for submission to the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (Ute THPO) and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), because it includes Federal and Utah state lands within the external reservation boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Woods Canyon) conducted the condition assessments under Bureau of Land Management Requisition Contract 140L5723F0014 (Utah Division of State History Project Number U23WN0354 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 June 19 to 25, 2023. The project is located on land managed by BLM- VFO and Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources. Kemi Ismael served as the Contracting Officer for the project and Archaeologist Bill Reitze as the Contracting Officer’s Representative.

The Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562) are important historic properties. The design of each ranch and the characteristics of the architectural and non-architectural elements exemplify early twentieth century homesteading, ranching, and mineral exploration in the Book Cliffs of eastern Utah. Woods Canyon rerecorded Trujillo Cabin Historic Site and recorded the Chipeta Cabin Site. Both properties are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C and D.

The condition assessment process found that both the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site and the Chipeta Cabin site require conservation intervention within the next three years to prevent the loss of architectural elements and features to instability and acute deterioration. A few proposed treatments are presented as optional because they involve ground disturbance or restoration, actions that would minimally impact the integrity of the site.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Regulatory Setting Cultural Setting Methodology Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Preservation Plan Chipeta Cabin Site Preservation Plan Summary References Cited Appendix A Project Photographs Appendix B Cost Estimates for Treatment

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project location in the Book Cliffs of west central Utah Figure 2. Location of 42UN8352 and 42UN9562 with landowner status Figure 3. Overview of the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site. View to the south-southwest Figure 4. Site maps for the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Figure 5. Painting of Maria Teofila Lopez Martinez Trujillo Figure 6. Trujillo Family in 1936 at the Funeral of Joseph C. Trujillo in Rangely Colorado.

Feature 7. Cabin Feature 2 at the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site. View to the southeast Figure 8. Plan map of Feature 2 at Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Figure 9. Dude ranch themed wallpaper in the middle-south room of Feature 2 Figure 10. Red and white linoleum in the southwest room of Feature 2 Figure 11. Feature 2 northeast room interior facing south Figure 12. Feature 2 northwest room facing north Figure 13. Northeast corner of Feature 2 looking south. Showing profile measuring point.

Figure 14. Northeast corner of Feature 2 looking north. Showing upper profile measuring point Figure 15. Northeast corner of Feature 2 looking north. Showing profile measuring point

33 1/4 inches down from top Figure 16. Northeast corner of Feature 2 looking north. Showing profile measuring point

88 ½ inches down from top Figure 17. Feature 2, rotting basal logs at the east end of the south wall Figure 18. Feature 2 south wall, deteriorated door sill Figure 19. West end of south elevation of Feature 2 looking northwest. Note crack in stem wall and hole below it v

Figure 20. Closeup of Feature 2 southeast room interior showing hole in the floor below the stove pipe opening facing southeast

Figure 21. Feature 3, collapsing outhouse. View to the southeast Figure 22. Plan map of Feature 3 at Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Figure 23. Feature 4, collapsing coal shed. View to the north Figure 24. Plan map of Feature 4 at Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Figure 25. Plan map of Features 5 and 6 at the Trujillo Cabin Site Figure 26. Overview of Feature 5. View to the northwest Figure 27. Closeup of the west interior wall of Feature 5 Figure 28. Exterior of Feature 6 cabin. View to the east Figure 29. Interior of Feature 6 cabin. View to the southwest Figure 30. Crack and small hole in the foundation of Feature 6 Figure 31. Roof leak and modern attempts to fix it in the ceiling of Feature 6 Figure 32. Feature 7 facing northwest Figure 33. Plan map of Feature 7 at the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Figure 34. Pole gate between northern corrals in Feature 8 Figure 35. Plan view of Features 9, 10, and 14 at Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Figure 36. Feature 9, tack barn, on the left and Feature 10, bunk house on the right. View to the northwest Figure 37. Interior of Feature 9 facing northeast. Note collapsed saddle rack Figure 38. Feature 10 exterior. View to the southwest Figure 39. Interior of Feature 10. View to the north Figure 40. Feature 11 collapsed grain silo, and its foundation in the foreground. View to the east Figure 41. Feature 14, dugout, in the foreground and Feature 10, bunkhouse, in the background Figure 42. Sealed window in the east wall of Feature 10 with a support beam above the window and washed in fill level below the window Figure 43. Masonry foundation of Feature 16. View to the east Figure 44. Partially walled overhang in Feature 17 Figure 45. Small platform in a Ponderosa Pine tree in Feature 17 Figure 46. Closeup of Feature 18, pully t-post. View to the southwest Figure 47. Overview of the Chipeta Cabin Site. View to the southeast Figure 48. Map of the Chipeta Cabin Site Figure 49. Frank Allen Brewer Sr., his wife Edith Imogene Havens, and their oldest daughter, Ethel Edith at the Balanced Rock Brewer Ranch about 1907 Figure 50. F. Allen Brewer Jr Figure 51. Richard Brewer on the Sweetwater Ranch in 1946 or 1947 Figure 52. Exterior of cabin Feature 1. View to the northeast. Note the grade sloping to the south, the open west window, and the oak tree encroaching on the cabin from the south.

Figure 53. Plan map of Feature 1 at the Chipeta Cabin Site Figure 54. Damage to the southeast corner of the Feature 1 roof by collapsed and live branches of an adjacent oak tree Figure 55. Feature 1, east wall doorway. Note rotted and missing logs under the door sill.

vi

Figure 56. Feature 1 exterior facing northwest. Undermined, cracked, and deteriorating foundation under the roof leak in the southwest corner of the cabin

Figure 57. Interior of the south room of Feature 1. View to the east. Note the packrat midden material on top of all surfaces and filling the window shutters. Roof leak above the cabinet on the right

Figure 58. Animal destruction and feces in the north and south rooms of Feature 1. View to the southwest. Note open window on the right

Figure 59. Animal destruction and feces in the south room of Feature 1 Figure 60. Animal destruction and feces in the north room of Feature 1 Figure 61. Gaps in the boards covering the roof gable ends of the Feature 1 cabin Feature 62. Features 2, 3, and 4 at the Chipeta Cabin Site. View to the northeast Figure 63. Plan view of Features 2, 3, and 4 at the Chipeta Cabin Site Feature 64. Exterior of Feature 2, bunkhouse. View to the east Figure 65. Interior of Feature 2. View to the southwest. Note missing floorboards Figure 66. Overview of Feature 3, shed. View to the northeast Figure 67. Overview of Feature 4, barn. View to the west Figure 68. Initials and date “JG 8/55” incised in the daub between logs in the north exterior face of Feature 4 Figure 69. Deterioration of the south wall of Feature 4. Note new beams stored inside the barn Figure 70. Feature 5, double holed cistern or septic tank, on the west side of cabin Feature

Figure 71. Fence around develop spring, Feature 6 Figure 72. Closeup of a metal settling tray and other artifacts in Feature 7. View to the south Figure 73. Closeup of the corral north of Features 2, 3, and 4 in Feature 8. View to the west Figure 74. Feature 9 collapsed outhouse. View to the northeast

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Approximate Date Ranges for Construction of Features at the Trujillo Cabin

Historic Site Table 2. Condition Ratings and Summary for Standing Structures at Trujillo Cabin Historic

Site Table 3. Comparative measurements of structural lean off the northeast corner of cabin

Feature 2 Table 4. Treatment Priority for Standing Structures at Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Table 5. Materials Necessary to Implement the Treatment Plan at the Trujillo Cabin

Historic Site Table 6. Materials Necessary to Implement Optional Elements of the Treatment Plan at the

Trujillo Cabin Historic Site Table 7. Approximate Date Ranges for Construction of Features at the Chipeta Cabin Site.

vii

Table 8. Condition Ratings and Summary for Standing Structures at the Chipeta Cabin Site.

Table 9. Treatment Priority for Standing Structures at the Chipeta Cabin Site Table 10. Materials Necessary to Implement the Treatment Plan for the Chipeta Cabin Site.

Table 11. Materials Necessary to Implement Optional Elements of the Treatment Plan at the Chipeta Cabin Site

Trujillo Cabin Historic Site and Chipeta Cabin Site, Uintah County, Utah (U23WN0354)

INTRODUCTION

The 2023 condition assessment of the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site (42UN8352) and the Chipeta Cabin Site (42UN9562) was undertaken to provide the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office (BLM-VFO) with conservation treatment plans for each property aimed at preserving the sites, especially the standing architecture.

Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Woods Canyon) conducted the condition assessments under BLM Requisition Contract 140L5723F0014 (Utah Division of State History Project Number U23WN0354 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 June 19 to 25, 2023. The project is located on land managed by BLM-VFO and Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources. Kemi Ismael is the Contracting Officer for the project and Archaeologist Bill Reitze is the Contracting Officer’s Representative.

Project Description

The Trujillo and Chipeta Historic Cabin Sites are in the Book Cliffs area of the East Tavaputs Plateau, just west of the Utah/Colorado state border (Figure 2). The Chipeta Cabin Site is located at the confluence of Chipeta and Taylor Canyons, 2.5 miles up from Bitter Creek. The Trujillo Cabin Historic Site is in Bitter Creek, five miles down from its confluence with Chipeta Canyon.

(Figure 2). 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 around 7000’ above sea level, these sites are at the boundary between the Colorado Plateau ecozone and the Rocky Mountain ecozone. This area of the Book Cliffs is known for prolific spring formation and an average precipitation range of 6.5-17.6” annually.

Figure 1. Project location in the Book Cliffs of west central Utah.

Figure 2. Location of 42UN8352 and 42UN9562 with landowner status.

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.

This project report was developed for submission to the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (Ute THPO) and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), because it includes Federal and Utah state lands within the external boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. In September 2021, the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation became an official Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). The THPO has the same authority as State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) in the Section 106 compliance process. Therefore, the Ute THPO has consultation authority for Federal undertakings within the external reservation boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, which is approximately four million acres in Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah.

Utah SHPO retains authority over undertakings pursuant to UCA 9-8-404 to conduct work on or enter onto State of Utah lands within the external reservation boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. However, the Utah SHPO may defer their review and consultation authority to the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation THPO. A Principal Investigator Permit was issued by the Governor’s Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO). A fieldwork authorization was obtained from Utah State Institutional Lands (SITLA) as stipulated in the scope of work, under Utah Code 9-8-305(2)(a)-(b) and Utah Administrative Code R694-1-4 and 5. Prior to fieldwork both BLM-Vernal Field Office and Woods Canyon thought that Utah State Institutional Lands (SITLA) owned the parcel. SITLA had transferred the applicable property to Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) in 2014. DWR and SHPO were notified of the project post-fieldwork.

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 west central Utah between approximately 7800 B.C. and 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. By A.D. 1250, the Fremont had 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).

Numic (Ute and Shoshonean) hunting and gathering populations migrated into the region from the west (Simmons 2000:14) in the fourteenth century. 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 Antanasio Dominguez and his partner 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 Chipeta 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 were deemed extraneous to the needs of the Utes, taken into the public domain, and opened to the filing of land claims.

Euro-American 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 1,000,000 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 or rail stops 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. The rail line was also critical in moving agricultural and livestock goods, especially sheep wool. 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.

During this period, a two-track road was established along the upper reaches of Bitter Creek (Nestel et al. 2021:131) along with numerous other roads to access homesteads and ranches. 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 stopped itinerate sheepherding by stipulating that grazing leases must be held by ranchers with base properties. The Act also established the Division of Grazing in the Department of the Interior and formalized the grazing permit system still used by the Bureau of Land Management today (Athern 1996; Oliver et al. 2017:E35; Simmons 2000:49).

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 heavily settled.

Nevertheless, this territory continued to be an important landform. 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 historic resources with standing architecture, the Trujillo Cabin Historic Site and the Chipeta Cabin Site 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 adjacent or overlapping 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 (RPA), 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:

Masonry Repair: Masonry repair involves the addition of stone to a masonry structure that was not originally part of it or is missing from the structure. New laying can be done on either wetlaid or dry-laid fabric and is used discriminately to stabilize the existing masonry. New laying may be performed at the site to support overhanging, unsupported wall sections. Loose fabric is removed from the wall base with whiskbroom and by hand. The wall area is wetted, and a bed of mortar laid down. New stones are wetted and set in the mortar. Stones are built up in a style to simulate the surrounding masonry until the void is repaired. The stones should be new-laid in such a way to avoid areas where water could collect. All excess mortar is removed and the joints final textured by hand.

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.

According to the National Park Service Protecting Wood With Preservatives and Water Repellants Conserve O Gram (NPS 1993), there are several commercial borate wood preservative treatments on the market. National Park Service has put forward two borate products (Bora-Care and Tim- Bor) that are mild insecticides but safe for wildlife, plants, and humans.

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.

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. Below is a list of desirable attributes for stabilization daub/mortar as defined by Metzger (1988):

• Material must be durable with good adhesive qualities, able to withstand open weather exposure without excessive discoloration, crumbling, or extensive cracking.

• Materials must be consistent with variations in the original mortars throughout the site and be similar in color, texture, and content to the extent possible given availability and durability constraints.

• Materials must be moisture resistant to the extent that they dry and wet without excessive expansion and contraction, such as sediments containing illite or kaolinite, which compromises bonding resulting in poor consolidation and weather resistance.

• Materials must provide adequate flexibility to withstand seasonal wall movement and settling.

• Materials must provide good capillary drainage to allow moisture to escape the walls, preventing interior pooling, which promotes daub/mortar erosion and cracking during freeze/thaw and swell/shrink cycles.

• Materials…