Sean O’Meara, Maren P. Hopkins, Michael C. Spears, and T. J. Ferguson (2021)

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Prepared by

Sean O’Meara, Maren P. Hopkins, Michael C. Spears, and T. J. Ferguson

UTE ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ETHNOBOTANICAL RESEARCH

IN THE BONITA PEAK MINING DISTRICT

UTE ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ETHNOBOTANICAL RESEARCH

IN THE BONITA PEAK MINING DISTRICT

Prepared by Sean O’Meara, Maren P. Hopkins,

Michael C. Spears, and T. J. Ferguson

Anthropological Research, LLC

UTE ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ETHNOBOTANICAL RESEARCH

IN THE BONITA PEAK MINING DISTRICT

Prepared by

Sean O’Meara, Maren P. Hopkins, Michael C. Spears, and T. J. Ferguson

Anthropological Research, LLC

6655 W. Sweetwater Dr.

Tucson, Arizona

85745

Prepared for

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

PO Box 737

Ignacio, Colorado

81137

April 30, 2021

Exterior Front Cover:

View of the Animas River from the Durango and Silverton

Narrow Gauge Railroad. Photograph by Sean O’Meara,

October 16, 2019. Terry Knight in the BPMD study area.

Photograph by Michael Spears, August 20, 2019. Cover

design by Jacquelyn Dominguez, Statistical Research, Inc.,

Tucson, Arizona.

Exterior Back Cover:

View of the San Juan Mountains near the Gold King Mine in

Colorado. Photograph by Maren Hopkins, August 19, 2019.

Cassandra Atencio in the BPMD study area. Photograph

by Maren Hopkins, August 19, 2019. Alden Naranjo in

the BPMD study area. Photograph by Maren Hopkins,

August 20, 2019. Cover design by Jacquelyn Dominguez,

Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Interior Front Cover Top:

Research participants in the BPMD study area. Front row

from the left to right: Erwin Taylor, Alfred Wall, Jr., Terry

Knight, and Maren Hopkins. Back row from left to right:

Alden Naranjo, Jr., Garrett Briggs, Cassandra Atencio,

Kathryn Jacket, T. J. Ferguson, Michael Spears, Elizabeth

Francisco, William Widener, Forrest Vaughan, and Laverna

Summa. Photograph by Maren Hopkins, August 20, 2019.

Interior Front Cover Bottom:

The San Juan Mountains of Colorado in the BPMD study

area. Photograph by Maren Hopkins, August 20, 2019.

Interior Back Cover Top:

Research participants in front of the Durango & Silverton

Narrow Gauge Railroad. Front row from the left to right:

Laverna Summa, Helen Munoz, Alfred Wall, Jr., and

Emily Whiteman. Back row from left to right: Shawn

Kelley, Sean O’Meara, William Widener, Michael Spears,

Ernest Pinnecoose, T. J. Ferguson, Mark Wing, and Maren

Hopkins. Photograph by Maren Hopkins, October 16, 2019.

Interior Back Cover Bottom:

Animas River looking south from Baker’s Bridge.

Photograph by Sean O’Meara, October 17, 2019.

IN MEMORIAM

Alden Burch Naranjo, Jr.

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

1941–2020

Stories are passed along by grandparents, and each family has a

version of history. History includes personal life experiences of those

elders that shared, and we relate to the past through their stories.

[Alden Naranjo, Jr., 2019]

Photo on previous page:

Alden Naranjo, Jr., in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado

during a research session for the Ute ethnographic and

ethnobotanical study of the Bonita Peak Mining District.

Photograph by Maren Hopkins, August 21, 2019.

Executive Summary

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s Cultural Preservation

Department and NAGPRA Office collaborated with

Anthropological Research, LLC, on Ute ethnographic and

ethnobotanical research in the Bonita Peak Mining District

(BPMD). This work was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Environmental Programs

Division as part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements

for the Nation (WIIN) Act. This study will inform the EPA’s

environmental remedial investigations to assess any threats

to Ute people and their culture that were incurred as a result

of the Gold King Mine Spill of 2015 in the BPMD. The spill

produced a high volume of heavy metal contaminants into

the Animas River watershed. At the request of the Southern

Ute Indian Tribe, this research included input from all three

Ute tribes: Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute

Tribe, and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray

Reservation, due to their shared concern and historical

connections to the region. Research efforts for this study

included two field trips to the BPMD area, interviews, and

work sessions with Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute

tribal members. Due to restrictions and safety concerns

related to the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings and review

sessions were conducted virtually in 2020 and 2021. A total

of 20 Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribal members

participated in the research. The Ute Indian Tribe contributed to the study through previously documented information and a review of the study findings.

The study primarily focused on Ute plant use and traditional knowledge about the environment. The Southern Ute

Indian Tribe Cultural Preservation Department requested

a comprehensive review of all previously recorded Ute

traditional-use plant species. Through interviews, fieldwork,

and archival research, 202 traditional-use plant species were

documented with 40 of those plant species observed during

fieldwork. Of these plants, 21 species were recommended

for further toxicological study by the EPA to assess the risk

to Southern Ute tribal members who harvest and use these

plants from the BPMD and the Animas River watershed.

The study also documented other Ute traditional resources

related to the Ute cultural landscape. Trail systems, 55 animal

species, 20 types of water-related resources, 11 minerals, 33

landforms and place names, and 36 Ute terms related to the

sky and constellations were documented. While not the focus

of this study, each of these categories are connected to Ute

plant harvesting practices and traditional use of the BPMD.

Many Ute tribal members continue to visit the BPMD and

the study area on a regular basis to hunt, visit cultural sites,

collect wild plants, and teach tribal youth about Ute culture.

This study also contextualized the aboriginal, historic, and

contemporary developments of the BPMD. Ute traditional

lifeways, historical developments (encroachment, treaties,

and the reservation system, land loss), and perspectives on

traditional land management are summarized in this report.

Ute participants stressed that the impacts from the

Gold King mine spill of 2015 directly relates to the period

of non-Native encroachment that began more than two

centuries prior. Violence, loss of land, environmental degradation, removal from aboriginal areas, and the associated

impacts to health, language, customs, and sovereignty over

their sacred landscape are all part of the lasting legacy of the

mining that occurred in the BPMD. In spite of this, Ute people continue to view the mountainous regions of Colorado

as their sacred landscape. As a Southern Ute-led study, this

project serves as a model for future tribally directed research.

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the many

Ute tribal elders, past and present, whose words and his

tories are presented in this report. We would like to extend

a special note of thanks to tribal participants who contributed directly to this project, lending their time, expertise,

and humor while sharing parts of their personal, family, and

tribal histories. As they often remind us, their elders’ words

and deeds continue to guide the present generation, and this

work seeks to preserve that information for generations

to come.

In the course of this study, we were always reminded how

fortunate we are to have had the opportunity to document

some of the Ute history and contemporary Ute connections

to this extraordinary landscape. We have gained a deeper

appreciation for the San Juan Mountains and the Animas

River watershed, and we hope that this report helps all readers better understand how these areas are integral in Ute

history and culture.

The COVID-19 pandemic reminds us of the urgent

nature of our work in historic preservation. The lived

experiences of our elders cannot be replicated, and we are

eternally grateful for the time we have had with those we

have lost. We hope that this work demonstrates the value of

engaging with elders in the places that are most significant

to them, and preserving their stories as they see fit for future

generations.

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Project Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methodology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Quality Assurance Project Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Archival Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Ethnographic Fieldwork, Interviews, and

Work Sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Winter Work Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Summer Field Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Fall Field Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Spring Field Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Report Review Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Report Overview.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. BONITA PEAK ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. . . . . . . 10

Geological History of the San Juan Mountains. . . . . . 10

Vegetation of the San Juan Mountains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Ecological Regions of the BPMD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Water in the San Juan Mountains.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Upper Animas River and the Bonita Peak

Mining District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Mining in the Upper Animas River

Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Impacts from Mining in the Upper

Animas River Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Gold King Mine Spill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3. UTE CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW. . . 20

Ute Origins and Social Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Ute Creation and Seasonal Rounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Ute Social Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Historical Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

US Government Influence on Ute Territory.. . . . . . 27

Contemporary Ute Tribes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Ute History in the Bonita Peak Area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Contemporary Ute Perspectives about the

Bonita Peak Area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4. THE UTE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Ute Seasonal Rounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Ute Seasons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Tumut, “going to sleep,” Winter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Tāmān or Temanut, “things are waking

up,” Spring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Tatatch, “when it is hot,” Summer.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Uvanit, “leaves are falling,” Fall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Ute Traditional Management of Plant Life. . . . . . . . . . . 51

Harvesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Prayers and Offerings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Diversification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5. INVENTORY OF UTE TRADITIONAL-USE

PLANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Ethnographic Summaries of Plant Resources

in the BPMD Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Abronia fragrans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Achillea millefolium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Achnatherum hymenoides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Agastache pallidiflora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Agave parryi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Agoseris spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

[ vii ]

viii a Table of Contents

Agropyron cristatum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Agrostis scabra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Allium spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Amaranthus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Amelanchier alnifolia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Amsinckia tessellate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Antennaria spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Apocynum cannabinum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Arabis holboelli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Arnica mollis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Artemisia spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Asclepias spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Ascomycota (Phylum). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Asparagus officinalis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Astragalus iodanthus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Atriplex canescens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Balsamorhiza sagittata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Beckmannia syzigachne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Berberis repens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Betula occidentalis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Bryophyta (Division). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Calochortus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Carex spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Castilleja spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Celtis reticulata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Cercocarpus montanus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Chenopodium spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Cirsium spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Claytonia megarhiza. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Cleome serrulata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Collinsia parviflora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Comandra umbellata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Cornus sericea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Crataegus rivularis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Cryptantha sericea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Cymopterus longipes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Cystopteris fragilis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Datura wrightii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Daucus carota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Descurainia pinnata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Distichlis spicata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Draba nemorosa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Eleocharis palustris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Elymus canadensis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Ephedra viridis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Equisetum spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Ericameria nauseosa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Erigeron canus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Eriogonum spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Erysimum asperum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Fragaria vesca. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Fraxinus spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Fritillaria atropurpurea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Fritillaria pudica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Fungi (Kingdom). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Glaux maritima.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Grayia spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Grindelia spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Gutierrezia spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Hedysarum boreale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Helianthus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Hierochloe odorata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Ipomopsis spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Iva axillaris.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Juncus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Juniperus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Lathyrus ornatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Lepidium spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Lewisia spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Leymus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Ligusticum porteri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Lithospermum ruderale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Lomatium dissectum var. multifidum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Lycopus americanus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Maianthemum racemosum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Matricaria discoidea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Mentha arvensis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Monarda fistulosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Nicotiana attenuata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Nuphar lutea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Oenothera spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Opuntia polyacantha.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Orogenia linearifolia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Pascopyrum smithii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Paxistima myrsinites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Penstemon glaber.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Perideridia gairdneri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Phacelia spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Phleum pratense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Phlox spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Phragmites australis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Picea spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Pinus aristata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Pinus contorta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Pinus edulis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Table of Contents a ix

Pinus flexilis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Pinus ponderosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Poliomintha incana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Polypogon monspeliensis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Populus spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Populus tremuloides.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Potentilla spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Prunus virginiana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Pseudocymopterus montanus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Pseudotsuga menziesii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Pteridium aquilinum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Purshia spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Quercus gambelii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Ranunculus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Rhus trilobata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Ribes spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Rosa spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Rubus ideaus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Rubus parviflorus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Rumex spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Salix spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Sambucus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Senecio spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Shepherdia spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Solanum jamesii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Solidago simplex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Sphaeralcea spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Spiranthes diluvialis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Streptanthus cordatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Symphoricarpos spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Taraxacum officinale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Tellima spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Toxicodendron rydbergii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Trifolium spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Triglochin maritima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Typha spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Ulmus pumila. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Unknown.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Vaccinium caespitosum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Verbascum thapsus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Viola beckwithii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Yucca spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Zigadenus nuttallii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Additional Plants Observed During Fieldwork

with No Known Traditional Uses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

6. INVENTORY OF OTHER UTE

TRADITIONAL-USE RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Minerals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Landforms, Ute Place Names, and Ute

Legacy Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Ute Astronomy and the Sky.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . 185

Summary of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Ute Perspectives on the Gold King Mine

Spill and the Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1.

Bonita Peak Mining District with 50-mile buffer

included in the study area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2.

Ute band territories following the removal of

the Moĝwáchi and Kapuuta bands in 1868 in

relation to contemporary Ute reservations.. . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3.

The contamination plume flowing southward

and mixing with the blue waters of the Animas

River on the southern end of the Southern Ute

Reservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.4.

Research stops made during fieldwork.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.5.

Work session at Southern Ute Indian Tribe... . . . . . . . . . 7

1.6.

Research Participants in the BPMD study area.. . . . . . 7

2.1.

Vegetative communities of the Animas River

watershed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.

EPA sub-ecoregions of Colorado included in

this study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3.

The contamination plume flowing southward

through the Animas River along US 550 on

the southern end of the Southern Ute

Reservation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1.

BPMD study area in relation to the Ute

aboriginal territory... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

x a Table of Contents

3.2.

Image of a Ute family group at a campsite.. . . . . . . . . . 23

4.2.

Ute color chart and associated seasons.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.3.

Ute family in a shared tipi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.1.

3.4.

Ute territory during the early nineteenth century

as mapped by Alden Naranjo, Jr., in 2019.. . . . . . . . . . . 25

Garrett Briggs and William Widener document

plants in the BPMD study area... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.2.

Example of a traditional Ute noa-ivikan

(stick lodge).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

William Widener and Cassandra Atencio

discuss plants in the project area... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.3.

Geopolitical landscape of Ute territory after

European arrival.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

William Widener discusses plants with

Terry Knight.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.4.

Abronia fragrans.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Ute territory in the nineteenth century.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.5.

Achillea millefolium... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Reduction of Ute lands proposed under 1863

meeting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.6.

Achillea millefolium... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.7.

Achillea millefolium... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Ute lands as of 1868.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.8.

Achnatherum hymenoides... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.10. Ute lands following the Brunot Cession of 1874.. . . 31

5.9.

Agastache pallidiflora.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.11. Ute lands as of 1882.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.10. Agave parryi... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.12. Contemporary Ute reservations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.11. Agoseris glauca... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.13. Ute ancestral site near Molas Lake (5SA1802).. . . . . 35

5.12. Agropyron cristatum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.14. Ute ancestral site near the top of

Maggie’s Gulch.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.13. Agrostis scabra.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.15. Map drawn by Bernardo de Miera following the

Dominguez-Escalante Expedition of 1776.. . . . . . . . . . 37

5.15. Allium spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.16. Segments of the Old Spanish Trail in

southwestern Colorado.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.17. Allium spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.5.

3.6.

3.7.

3.8.

3.9.

3.17. View of Baker’s Park (Silverton), the Animas

River, and the San Juan Mountains, San Juan

County, Colorado, sometime between 1870

and 1878... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.14. Agrostis scabra.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

5.16. Allium spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.18. Amaranthus retroflexus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.19. Amelanchier alnifolia... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.20. Amelanchier alnifolia... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.21. Amsinckia tessellata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.18. Ute trails mapped in the 1870s within the

BMPD study area... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.22. Antennaria dimorpha.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.19. Ute trails mapped by Wheeler Expedition in

1874–1875 in the vicinity of Silverton and

the BMPD... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.24. Apocynum cannabinum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.20. Example of a wooden Ute structure similar to

those burned as firewood by Anglo settlers in

the 1870s.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.21. Example of a wood Ute platform similar to

those burned as firewood by Anglo settlers in

the1870s.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.23. Apocynum cannabinum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.25. Arabis holboellii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.26. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.27. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.28. Terry Knight discussing Arctostaphylos

uva-ursi... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.29. Arnica mollis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5.30. Artemisia frigida... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.22. Contemporary land tenure map of the Brunot

Cession area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.31. Artemisia ludoviciana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.23. Ute trails described by Alden Naranjo, Jr., and

Ernest Pinnecoose during the 2019 research

session.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.33. Asclepias tuberosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.1.

Photo entitled “Teaching the Trail.” Southern

Ute chief Buckskin Charlie shows Ute warriors

the signs of the trail.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.32. Artemisia tridentata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5.34. Lichen.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5.35. Asparagus officinalis... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5.36. Astragalus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5.37. Atriplex canescens... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table of Contents a xi

5.38. Balsamorhiza sagittata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.79. Fragaria vesca.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.39. Beckmannia syzigachne.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.80. Fraxinus spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.40. Berberis repens.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.81. Fraxinus spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.41. Betula occidentalis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.82. Fritillaria atropurpurea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

5.42. Moss.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.83. Fritillaria pudica.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

5.43. Calochortus gunnisonii... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.84. Puffball (Basidiomycota division)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.44. Carex spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.85. Glaux maritima.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.45. Castilleja integra.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.86. Grayia spinosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.46. Castilleja rhexifolia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.87. Grindelia nuda.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

5.47. Celtis reticulata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.88. Grindelia nuda.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

5.48. Cercocarpus montanus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.89. Gutierrezia sarothrae.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

5.49. Cercocarpus montanus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.90. Hedysarum boreale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

5.50. Chenopodium spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.91. Helianthus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.51. Cirsium scariosum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.92. Hierochloe odorata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.52. Claytonia megarhiza.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.93. Ipomopsis aggregata... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.53. Cleome serrulata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5.94. Iva axillaris.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.54. Collinsia parviflora.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5.95. Juncus ensifolius... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

5.55. Comandra umbellata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5.96. Juncus parryi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

5.56. Cornus sericea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5.97. Juniperus spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

5.57. Crataegus rivularis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.98. Juniperus communis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

5.58. Cryptantha sericea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.99. Juniperus scopulorum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.59. Cymopterus spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.100. Lathyrus lanszwertii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.60. Cystopteris fragilis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.101. Lepidium perfoliatum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

5.61. Datura wrightii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.102. Lewisia pygmaea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

5.62. Daucus carota... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.103. Leymus cinereus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

5.63. Descurainia pinnata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.104. Ligusticum porteri.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.64. Distichlis spicata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5.105. Lithospermum ruderale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5.65. Draba nemorosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5.106. Lomatium spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

5.66. Eleocharis palustris.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5.107. Lycopus americanus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

5.67. Elymus canadensis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5.108. Maianthemum spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.68. Ephedra spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

5.109. Maianthemum spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.69. Equisetum arvense.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

5.110. Maianthemum spp... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.70. Equisetum laevigatum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

5.111. Maianthemum stellatum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.71. Ericameria nauseosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.112. Matricaria discoidea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

5.72. Erigeron canus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.113. Mentha arvensis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

5.73. Eriogonum jamesii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.114. Monarda fistulosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5.74. Eriogonum jamesii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.115. Nicotiana attenuata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.75. Eriogonum racemosum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.116. Nicotiana attenuata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.76. Erysimum capitatum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.117. Nuphar lutea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.77. Fragaria vesca.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.118. Oenothera spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

5.78. Fragaria vesca.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.119. Oenothera spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

xii a Table of Contents

5.120. Opuntia polyacantha.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

5.158. Purshia stansburiana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

5.121. Orogenia linearifolia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.159. Quercus gambelii... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

5.122. Orogenia linearifolia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.160. Garrett Briggs, William Widener, and

Helen Munoz discussing traditional uses of

Quercus gambelii along the Animas River.. . . . . . . 146

5.123. Pascopyrum smithii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.124. Paxistima myrsinites... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5.125. Penstemon spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5.126. Perideridia gairdneri.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

5.127. Phacelia sericea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

5.128. Phleum pratense... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

5.129. Phleum pratense... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

5.130. Phlox gracilis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.131. Phragmites australis... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.132. Phragmites australis... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.133. Picea engelmanii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5.134. Picea pungens.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5.135. Pinus aristata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.136. Image of tipi poles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.137. Lodgepole pine poles used for supporting tipi.. . . 133

5.138. Tipi construction using lodgepole pine... . . . . . . . . . . 133

5.139. Pinus edulis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

5.140. Pinus edulis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5.161. Ranunculus cymbalaria.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

5.162. Rhus trilobata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

5.163. Rhus trilobata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

5.164. Ribes cereum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.165. Ribes leptanthum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.166. Harvesting currants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.167. Rosa woodsii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

5.168. Rosa woodsii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

5.169. Rubus ideaus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

5.170. Rubus ideaus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

5.171. Rubus parviflorus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

5.172. Laverna Summa holding a sample of dock

collected near the Gold King Mine.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

5.173. Rumex salicifolius.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

5.174. Salix exigua.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

5.175. Sun Dance corral with willow enclosure.. . . . . . . . . 155

5.143. Pinus ponderosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

5.176. A painting on muslin attributed to Ute artist

Louis Fenno depicting the Ute Sun Dance,

Bear Dance, and other historical events,

1890–1900... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

5.144. Poliomintha incana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

5.177. Sambucus racemosa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

5.145. Polypogon monspeliensis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

5.178. Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

5.146. Populus angustifolia seed fluff.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

5.179. Senecio triangularis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

5.147. Populus angustifolia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

5.180. Shepherdia argentea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

5.148. Sun dance lodge constructed using

cottonwood posts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

5.181. Shepherdia argentea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

5.149. Cottonwood center post erected for a Sun

Dance lodge. A willow bundle rests in

the fork.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

5.183. Solanum jamesii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

5.141. Pine posts used for tipi poles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5.142. Pinus ponderosa in the foreground.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.150. A stand of Populus tremuloides in the

summer.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5.182. Shepherdia argentea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

5.184. Solidago simplex.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

5.185. Sphaeralcea spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

5.186. Spiranthes diluvialis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

5.151. Populus tremuloides.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5.187. Streptanthus cordatus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

5.152. A stand of Populus tremuloides in the fall... . . . . . . 141

5.188. Symphoricarpos spp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

5.153. Potentilla anserina.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

5.189. Taraxacum officinale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

5.154. Prunus virginiana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

5.190. Tellima grandiflora.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

5.155. Pseudocymopterus montanus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

5.191. Toxicodendron rydbergii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

5.156. Pseudotsuga menziesii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

5.192. Trifolium longipes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

5.157. Pteridium aquilinum in the foreground of

an aspen grove.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

5.193. Trifolium repens.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

5.194. Triglochin maritima... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table of Contents a xiii

5.195. Typha latifolia... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

6.4.

Terry Knight discusses the cultural importance

of water with Michael C. Spears, while

Kathryn Jacket examines plants growing

next to the stream.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

6.5.

San Juan Mountains in the vicinity of the

Gold King Mine.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

6.6.

A sample of Ute legacy names in and adjacent

to the BMPD study area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

6.7.

Selected Southern Ute place names in the

BPMD region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

7.1.

Changes in Ute land tenure through time in

relation to the BPMD study area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

7.2.

Ernest Pinnecoose and Garrett Briggs

discussing the impacts of the Gold King Mine

spill as they stand alongside Cement Creek.. . . . . . . 187

5.196. Ulmus pumila.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

5.197. Vaccinium caespitosum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

5.198. Verbascum thapsus... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

5.199. Viola beckwithii... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

5.200. Yucca baccata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

5.201. Yucca glauca.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

5.202. Zigadenus nuttallii... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

6.1.

Ernest Pinnecoose holds yellow mineral found

in Cement Creek near Gladstone.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

6.2.

Terry Knight of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

describes the cultural significance of red ochre

found near Molas Lake in the BPMD study area... . . 177

6.3.

Seeps and springs located in the BPMD.. . . . . . . . . . . 178

LIST OF TABLES

5.2.

Additional Plants Observed During Fieldwork

with No Known Traditional Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

6.1.

Ute Traditional-Use Animals Identified in

Archival Research and Field Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

6.2.

Ute Traditional-Use Minerals Identified in

Archival Research and Field Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Uncompahgre and White River Ute Terms for

Winter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.3.

Ute Traditional Terms and Concepts Relating

to Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

4.2.

Uncompahgre and White River Ute Terms for

Spring.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.4.

Ute Place Names Identified in Archival

Research and Field Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

4.3.

Uncompahgre and White River Ute Terms for

Summer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.5.

Ute Astronomical Terms Identified in

Archival Research and Field Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

4.4.

Uncompahgre and White River Ute Terms for

Fall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

7.1.

Recommended Plant Species for Testing. . . . . . . . . . . 190

5.1.

Ute Traditional-Use Plants Identified in

Archival Research and Field Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

1.1.

Key Research Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.

Research Stops Made During Fieldwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3.

Ute Research Participants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.4.

Summary of Ute Plant Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1.

Classification of EPA Sub-ecoregions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4.1.

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

THE PURPOSE OF this study was to identify culturally

important plants and other resources that may have been

compromised by long-term mining and reclamation in

the Bonita Peak Mining District (BPMD), especially the

resources that may have been impacted by the 2015 Gold

King Mine spill. This study was advocated for by the

Southern Ute Indian Tribe to assess the cultural and health

implications of traditional resources that were affected by

the Bonita Peak Mine Spill in 2015. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was already tasked with

completing a remedial investigation that involves collecting data to determine the condition of an affected site, the

nature of the hazard, the risk to human health and the environment, and the treatability of contamination. Due to the

location of the spill within ancestral Ute territory, the area

protected under the Brunot Agreement and its direct impact

on the Animas River watershed, the Southern Ute Indian

Tribe requested the evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources that continue to be used by tribal members.

In order to address the concerns of the Southern Ute Indian

Tribe, Anthropological Research, LLC (Anthropological

Research) worked with cultural preservation representatives

from the Southern Ute Tribe’s NAGPRA Office to develop

a research strategy to identify research goals. As a result, an

ethnographic and ethnobotanical study was developed for

the BPMD and the surrounding area (Figure 1.1).

The research approach was designed to identify and

document Ute cultural and environmental concerns within

BPMD in order to evaluate potential impacts to Ute lifeways and assist EPA in its remedial investigation of the

area. The assessment of potential impacts to Ute lifeways

was conducted through interviews with tribal elders who

possess familial, tribal, and personal knowledge of the area,

as well as through extensive archival research. Through this

well-rounded approach, information about various topics

was gathered including information about Ute trails; Ute

relations with various groups during the European and

Euro-American occupation, as well as with the US federal

government; and how Ute language, lifeways, and spiritual

cosmology persist and are tied to plants, animals, seasonality, and high-mountain landscapes. In order to document

resources that are connected to but not immediately located

within the BPMD, the study area was expanded to 50 miles

around the BPMD boundary.

The BMPD falls within the traditional ancestral homelands of multiple Ute bands that were separated into separate federally recognized Indian tribes, with reservation

lands in Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico (Figure 1.2). As a

result, all three Ute Indian tribes participated in the research,

including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute

Tribe, and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray

Reservation (Ute Indian Tribe). Although their ancestors

were forceably removed from the region through deceptive

practices and unfulfilled promises, Ute people retain deep

cultural and historical connections to the San Juan Mountains of Colorado including the BPMD area.

Ute tribal members continue to visit their ancestral lands.

The continued use of the San Juan Mountains and areas

within BPMD plays a critical role in the perpetuation of

traditional knowledge transmission. Tribal members return

on a regular basis to hunt, visit cultural sites, collect wild

plants, and teach tribal youth about Ute culture through oral

histories and cultural teachings.

Tribal members today know and understand the land,

archaeology, history, and natural resources of this region

through traditional cultural knowledge that has been passed

down through generations. This knowledge and understanding is augmented with personal experiences and documented

[1]

2 a Chapter One

Figure 1.1. Bonita Peak Mining District with 50-mile buffer included in the study area.

history about the area. Harm caused to the land and resources

of this region has an inherently adverse cultural effect on

the Ute people. As Betsy Chapoose, Director of the Cultural

Rights and Protection Office of the Ute Indian Tribe put

it, these landscapes are the source of every component of

Ute culture including language, songs, stories, knowledge

of plants, animals, seasons, ceremonies, and lifeways and

the impacts of the spill in this area transcend basic environmental concerns and affect Ute people spiritually and

culturally.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The area forming the BPMD saw a high concentration of

Anglo-American mining activities spanning the mid-19th

century through the twentieth century. The district encompasses 35 mines, seven tunnels, four tailings impoundments,

and two study areas where additional information is needed

to evaluate environmental concerns. The BPMD encompasses historical and ongoing releases of water from mining

operations in Mineral Creek, Cement Creek, and Upper Animas Creek, all of which flow into the Animas River near Silverton, Colorado. The Gold King Mine is located within the

BPMD near Silverton, Colorado. Remediation activities in

the upper Animas River watershed focusing on reducing the

environmental impacts of inactive mines increased during

the 1990s. On August 5, 2015, the EPA was conducting an

investigation of the Gold King Mine to monitor the release

of water from the mine, treat mine water, and plan further

mine remediation (US Bureau of Reclamation 2015:35–60;

Thayer and Thayer 2018). A project to drain water from

the Gold King Level 7 adit was started but the EPA and its

contractor misjudged the level of water in the mine tunnel.

During the excavation needed to install a drainage pipe,

Introduction a 3

Figure 1.2. Ute band territories following the removal of the Moĝwáchi and Kapuuta bands in 1868 in relation to contemporary Ute

reservations (after Callaway others 1986; Jefferson and others 1972).

pressurized water in the mine tunnel sprung a leak. This led

to the uncontrolled release of about three million gallons of

contaminated water into Cement Creek, a tributary of the

Animas River. This release temporarily turned the Animas

River a mustard-yellow color for a period of six days (Figure 1.3). The spill received national attention and affected

multiple tribal communities along the Animas and San Juan

watersheds.

News of the 2015 spill and remediation efforts was communicated to community members in part through the Southern Ute Drum (Smith 2016a, 2016b, and 2017; Toledo 2016)

and community meetings held by the Southern Ute Indian

Tribe’s Environmental Programs Division on November 16,

2016. The BPMD became a Superfund site on September 9,

2016 (EPA 2017). In 2017, BPMD was added to the EPA’s

National Priorities List (NPL), requiring the EPA to provide

intense and immediate attention in assessing and mitigating

the short- and long-term effects of the spill. The Southern

Ute Indian Tribe was notified about mitigation funds by the

EPA in 2017. As news circulated among the tribal communities, the Southern Ute NAGPRA Office and Environmental

Protection Department discussed additional opportunities

to evaluate the scope of spill’s impact in regard to cultural

resources within the Brunot Agreement area. Through the

urging of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Environmental Programs Division applied for funding under the Water

Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) act to

document cultural concerns related to the spill.

A central goal of this research was to develop a list of

plants within the BPMD that Ute people harvest, consume,

4 a Chapter One

Figure 1.3. The contamination plume flowing southward and mixing with the blue waters of the Animas River on the southern end of

the Southern Ute Reservation. Photograph by Environmental Programs Division of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, August 2015.

or interact with so the EPA can determine if heavy metals

and other contaminants associated with mine drainage pose

a health risk to Ute people. Beyond gathering data to assist

the EPA, the Southern Ute NAGPRA Office directed this

study to result in a valuable heritage resource for use by current and future generations of the three Ute tribes and to support future heritage preservation projects. In order to capture

the broad scope of Ute knowledge, history, and traditional

cultural practices associated with the BPMD, a modified

cultural landscape approach was used. This resulted in the

establishment of a 50-mile buffer around the BPMD (see

Figure 1.1).

METHODOLOGY

The research methods used for this project were developed

in collaboration with the Southern Ute NAGPRA Office.

Of particular interest to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe was

the development of a study that included the perspectives

of all three Ute tribes, ethnographic fieldwork and interviews in the study area during all four seasons of the year,

and a comprehensive literature review of previously documented Ute traditional-use resources. Research activities

for this project involved several components, including:

(1) the preparation of a Quality Assurance Project Plan

(QAPP), (2) archival research, (3) ethnographic field visits, interviews, and work sessions with tribal members,

and (4) a report review session with project participants.

Anthropological Research worked closely with the Southern

Ute NAGPRA Office to schedule site visits, select project

participants, and determine when and how to modify project

methods, as needed. Key research personnel included: T. J.

Ferguson, Maren Hopkins, Sean O’Meara, Michael Spears,

and Shawn Kelley from Anthropological Research, William

Widener of GeoSystems Analysis, Cassandra Atencio and

Garrett Briggs of the Southern Ute Cultural Preservation

Department NAGPRA Office, and Terry Knight and Nichol

Shurack of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Historic Preservation Office (Table 1.1). Forrest Vaughan and Alexandra

Ratcliff of the Environmental Programs Division of the

Southern Ute Indian Tribe oversaw the project and acted as

liaisons between the research team and the EPA.

Quality Assurance Project Plan

A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was required for

this project by the EPA to outline data-collection procedures

and ensure that project requirements were met (EPA 2002).

The QAPP was completed on November 13, 2018, and it

was updated on November 22, 2019.

Introduction a 5

Table 1.1. Key Research Personnel

Name

Affiliation

Role

T. J. Ferguson

Anthropological Research

Principal Investigator

Maren Hopkins

Anthropological Research

Project Manager; Researcher

Sean O’Meara

Anthropological Research

Researcher

Michael Spears

Anthropological Research

Researcher

Shawn Kelley

Anthropological Research

Researcher

William Widener

GeoSystems Analysis

Plant Biologist

Cassandra Atencio

Southern Ute Cultural Preservation Department

Staff

Garrett Briggs

Southern Ute Cultural Preservation Department

Staff

Nichol Shurack

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Staff

Terry Knight

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Historic Preservation Office

THPO

Archival Research

Extensive archival research was conducted for this project to collect information about Ute history and land use in

the BPMD study area. Anthropological Research reviewed

archival materials at the Southern Ute Cultural Preservation

Department and Southern Ute Museum and Cultural Center

in Ignacio, Colorado; the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Tribal

Historic Preservation Office in Towaoc, Colorado; the Ute

Indian Museum in Montrose, Colorado; and the San Juan

County Historical Museum in Silverton, Colorado.

Online databases were extensively researched during this

project. These databases include AnthroSource, the Bibliography of Native North Americans, JSTOR, the Native

American Ethnobotany Database, the University of Utah’s

Doris Duke Oral History Collection, and the Rocky Mountain Online Archive (RMOA). Anthropological Research

also used an extensive in-house digital library, which contains resources relevant to Ute culture and history including sources from the Smithsonian’s National Archives and

National Anthropological Archives. Digitized historical

newspapers at the Colorado Historic Newspaper Collection

provided a wealth of information about Ute history in the

BPMD study area. The Ute Indian Tribe also provided digital resources containing ethnobotanical information specific

to the bands associated with their tribe.

Finally, Anthropological Research coordinated with

archaeologists from San Juan National Forest (SJNF) and

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Gunnison Field

Office to identify published literature and archival materials

relevant to the current study. Archaeological reports, archaeological site forms, and environmental reports have been

obtained for use in the project.

Ethnographic Fieldwork, Interviews,

and Work Sessions

At the request of the Southern Ute NAGPRA Office, the

original plan of work for this study included fieldwork to the

BPMD during the spring, summer, and fall in order to assess

plants during the three growing and harvest seasons. They

requested that interviews with tribal elders occur during the

winter months, in order to adhere to traditional practices.

Due to heavy snowfall and adverse weather conditions in

the BPMD study area during the spring of 2019, the work

plan had to be modified to include a combination of fieldwork and work sessions at tribal offices.

During the summer and fall of 2019, the research team

visited 10 locations within the BPMD (Table 1.2 and Figure

1.4), as well as other locations within the broader study area.

The goals of the research were to identify Ute traditional-

plant collection areas and other natural resources to elicit

information about Ute culture, history, and land use in the

study area. Between three and six researchers from Anthropological Research were present for each session. Ethnographic and ethnobotanical information was documented

using handwritten notes, photographs, and digital audio

recorders.

The Southern Ute NAGPRA Office solicited input and

participation from the community through notices in the

Southern Ute Drum, a presentation to the Elder’s Group,

and through follow up calls with people recommended

to participate in the project. Twenty members from the

Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute tribes participated in the research for this project (Figure 1.5; Figure 1.6;

Table 1.3). All tribal research participants signed informed

consent forms at the beginning of each research session to

6 a Chapter One

Table 1.2. Research Stops Made During Fieldwork

No.

Research Stop

Date of Visit

Gold King Mine overlook

8/19/2019

Molas Lake

8/20/2019

Maggie’s Gulch

8/20/2019

Cement Creek, plant identification

8/21/2019

Gold King Mine Level 7 overlook

10/15/2019;

10/17/2019

Gladstone

10/15/2019

Velocity Basin

10/15/2019

Animas River

10/16/2019

Iron Fen

10/15/2019

Baker’s Bridge

10/17/2019

Figure 1.4. Research stops made during fieldwork.

document their understanding of project goals and their

willingness to participate in the research. Study updates

were also provided to the community in 2019 (Southern

Ute Drum 2019).

The study team attempted to involve members of the

Ute Indian Tribe; however, due to scheduling conflicts they

were unable to participate in fieldwork. Plans for Anthropological Research staff to travel to Fort Duchesne, Utah,

to conduct interviews with tribal members were disrupted

by the COVID-19 pandemic, and travel and work restrictions precluded that research from happening. Ute Indian

Tribe perspectives were researched in depth in the literature

review and they are included in this report. The Ute Indian

Tribe Director of the Cultural Rights and Protection Office

met virtually with Anthropological Research staff on September 30, 2020, to provide preliminary feedback.

Introduction a 7

Figure 1.5. Work session at Southern Ute Indian Tribe, with Alden Naranjo, Jr. (center-right) pointing

out Ute use areas on a map to Michael C. Spears (right), Garrett Briggs (center-left), and Shawn

Kelley (left). Photograph by T. J. Ferguson, March 18, 2019.

Figure 1.6. Research Participants in the BPMD study area. Clockwise from left to right: Forrest Vaughan, William

Widener, Alden Naranjo, Kathryn Jacket, Terry Knight, Garrett Briggs, and Michael Spears. Photograph by Maren

Hopkins, August 20, 2019.

8 a Chapter One

Table 1.3. Ute Research Participants

Name

Age

Tribe

Participation Date(s)

Alden Naranjo, Jr.

S. Ute

3/12/2019; 3/15/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019

Erwin Taylor

S. Ute

3/12/2019; 3/15/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019

Arlene A. Millich

–

S. Ute

3/12/2019

Ernest Pinnecoose

–

S. Ute

3/12/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Elsie Redd

–

S. Ute

3/12/2019

Hanley Frost, Sr.

–

S. Ute

3/12/2019

Linda Baker

–

S. Ute

10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Cassandra Atencio

S. Ute

3/12/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019

Edward. B. Box, III

S. Ute

3/15/2019

Garrett Briggs

S. Ute

3/12/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Micah Odoms

–

S. Ute

3/12/2019

Xavier Watts

–

S. Ute

3/12/2019

Moav Berry

–

S. Ute

3/12/2019

Emily Whiteman

Ute M.

10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Alfred Wall, Jr.

Ute M.

3/13/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Laverna Summa

Ute M.

8/19/2019–8/21/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Helen Munoz

Ute M.

3/13/2019; 3/14/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Terry Knight

Ute M.

3/13/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019

Kathryn Jacket

Ute M.

3/13/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019

Mark Wing

–

Ute M.

10/15/2019–10/17/2019

Betsy Chapoose

N. Ute

9/30/2020 (virtual meeting)

Winter Work Session

From March 12 to 15, 2019, Anthropological Research

conducted a work session with the Southern Ute and Ute

Mountain Ute tribal members (Figure 1.5). The work took

place at tribal offices in Ignacio and Towaoc, Colorado,

respectively, and included interviews, mapping activities,

plant identification activities, and archival research. Twelve

people from the Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute

tribes took place in the interviews and activities. In addition,

Anthropological Research and the Southern Ute Cultural

Preservation Department presented information about the

project to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe Elder’s Group at

their monthly Sip, Chat, and Chew meeting on March 15,

2019, which was attended by 33 people.

Summer Field Session

From August 19 to 21, 2019, the research team conducted

fieldwork in the BPMD study area with four Southern Ute

tribal members and four Ute Mountain Ute tribal members

(Table 1.3; Figure 1.6). Research stops included a visit to

an overlook of the Gold King Mine, Cement Creek, Molas

Lake, and Maggie’s Gulch (Figure 1.4, Table 1.2) Elizabeth Francisco, the BLM archaeologist from the Gunnison

Field Office, accompanied the group on August 20, 2019,

to Molas Lake and Maggie’s Gulch to discuss Ute archaeological sites identified in those areas. On August 21, 2019,

the group visited the Ute Indian Museum in Montrose,

Colorado, where they had a lengthy discussion about Ute

history and plant use that included a tour of the museum’s

ethnobotanical garden.

Fall Field Session

From October 15 to 17, 2019, the research team conducted

fieldwork in the BPMD study area with three Southern Ute

tribal members and five Ute Mountain Ute tribal members

(Table 1.3; Figure 1.4). Elizabeth Francisco, the BLM

archaeologist from the Gunnison Field Office, accompanied the group on October 15, 2019, to Gladstone and the

Velocity Basin to discuss Ute history and archaeological

sites in that area. On October 16, 2019, the group rode the

Introduction a 9

Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad Train from

Silverton to Durango to view and discuss the plant diversity

and water quality along the Animas River.

Table 1.4. Summary of Ute Plant Use

Traditional Use

Number Species

Percentage

Edible

41%

Spring Field Session

Medicinal

26%

Due to adverse weather during the spring of 2019 and travel

restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic that began

in the spring of 2020, the fourth session was not completed.

Travel restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic

remained in effect through the completion of the study.

Follow up meetings occurred virtually through Zoom, email,

and conference calls.

Unspecified

23%

Ceremonial

Basketry materials

Utilitarian

Shelter

Weaponry

Fuel (firewood)

Hygienic purposes

Report Review Session

Poisonous and

avoided

Several virtual review meetings were held following the

completion of the two draft reports to discuss the accuracy

of the report’s contents and to identify concerns and discuss

the inclusion or removal of culturally sensitive information.

The Southern Ute NAGPRA Office participated in review

sessions on September 8, 2020, January 27, 2021, and February 12, 2021. Individual review sessions were held with

tribal participants on Februrary 18, 23, and 26, and March 5,

2021. After reviewing their tribe’s contributions to the report,

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s Tribal Historic Preservation

Office provided their comments over the phone on March 5,

2021, and Ute Indian Tribe’s Cultural Rights and Protection

Office provided their feedback via email on March 3, 2021.

Animal feed

Trail markers

Insect repellent

<1%

Toy

<1%

REPORT OVERVIEW

This report contains seven chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides an overview of the Bonita

Peak environmental setting. Chapter 2 orient the reader to

the geology, plants, and water resources of the BMPD study

area, and situate human land use of the San Juan Mountains

within an ecological context. Chapter 3 reviews Ute history

and culture across a broad scale of time and space, including specific connections to the BMPD study area up to the

present day. Chapter 4 describes the Ute cultural landscape

and how Ute cosmology and traditional lifeways are related

to the traditional use of the natural environment. Chapter 5

inventories the plants in the BMPD that are traditionally

used by the Ute people including summaries of ethnographic information identified for each plant species. Chapter 6 summarizes other significant traditional-use resources

identified during the project by Ute research participants.

Finally, Chapter 7 reviews Ute attitudes about the Gold King

Mine spill and the remedial investigation and offers recommendations for the EPA to consider going forward.

During the study, 202 plant species used by Ute people

were identified. Although 162 plant species were identified

only through legacy data and interviews, 40 species were

observed during fieldwork. Many of these plants are used

for more than one purpose. The diversity of uses is shown in

Table 1.4. Additional plants were identified that require further research to determine their significance to Ute people.

Since the project was developed around a holistic approach,

other resources considered culturally important were also

recorded, such as animals, minerals, water resources, and

landforms.

Ute terms are referenced throughout this report. While

attempts have been made to standardize Ute orthography,

differences in dialect and spelling remain. The Southern

Ute Indian Tribe presently uses the linguistic research of

Thomas Givón (2011, 2013a, and 2013b) as the official

orthography of the tribe, but this work does not reflect the

linguistic variation among the three Ute tribes. When the

tribal origin of a Ute term is known, the Ute term is accompanied by a superscript with the following abbreviations:

Southern Ute Indian Tribe= (S), Ute Indian Tribe= (N), and Ute

Mountain Ute Tribe= (M). Ute terms originating from two

bands of the Ute Indian Tribe are abbreviated here as White

River Band= (W) and Uncompahgre Band= (U). Ute language

terms used in this report thus reflect the orthography used at

the time in which the information was collected. The terms

documented during the fieldwork for our study were provided by tribal participants.

CHAPTER T WO

Bonita Peak Environmental Setting

UTE PEOPLE HAVE been inextricably tied to the mountainous landscapes of Colorado since the time of their creation.

The San Juan Mountains, a high and rugged mountain range

within the Southern Rocky Mountains, are the largest mountain range by area in the state of Colorado. Tribal representatives noted that the alpine environment and terrain of the

BPMD are characteristic of the places where the Ute Bear

Dance originated and was regularly traversed as part of Ute

seasonal rounds. The high peaks of the San Juan Mountains

also call to mind the mountain tops that Ute people were

placed upon at the time of their creation.

The San Juan Mountains host some of the tallest mountains in the contiguous United States, with 28 peaks above

9,000 feet and 13 peaks above 14,000 feet. The mountain

range is home to a diverse set of plant and animal communities that vary by elevation and other environmental factors.

The Rio Grande and tributaries of the San Juan, Animas,

Dolores, and Gunnison rivers have their headwaters in the

mountain range, providing water for vast areas of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico.

The geologic events that formed the San Juan Mountains

over tens of millions of years created a distinct set of geological properties that include substantial mineral deposits.

The discovery of these mineral deposits by Euro-Americans

created a rush of development and mining in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The mining industry

has largely gone dormant, and the San Juans have become

a significant tourism destination, known for alpine beauty,

historic sites, and a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities. Today, much of the region is under the jurisdiction of

the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management,

with small mountain towns dotting the alpine valleys. Farming, ranching, and timber operations also continue.

GEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE

SAN JUAN MOUNTAINS

Geologist refer to the period of mountain building in western North America as the Laramide orogeny, which occurred

from 70 to 50 million years ago. The process is described as

a “compressional tectonic event that resulted in thrust faulting, crustal thickening, and mountain uplift across portions

of western North America” (Blair and Gillam 2011:62).

This geologic event caused the broad coastal plain that

covered southwest Colorado to give way to the San Juan

Uplift, which is centered southeast of Silverton, and created adjacent troughs to the south, including the San Juan

Basin. An erosional cycle that followed the San Juan Uplift

removed sediment, exposing the new rock formations, and

transforming the region into an environment that geologists

think consisted of rolling hills and deeply incised valleys

(Blair and Gillam 2011:62–63).

Beginning 35 million years ago, magma pierced the crust

of the earth northeast of the San Juan Mountains, near the

modern town of Saguache. Volcanic centers began to form,

and volcanic activity slowly occurred to the south and west,

in what is today the San Juan Mountains. These eruptions

developed over 20 andesitic composite volcanoes, creating the San Juan Volcanic Field. These volcanos deposited

large amounts of andesitic rocks across the region, creating

a landscape that would have looked similar to the modern

Cascade Mountains in the northwest United States (Blair

and Gillam 2011:63).

Around 30 million years ago, the volcanic eruptions

began to create large calderas that often were tens of kilometers in diameter. The eruptions in this phase of volcanic activity ejected materials that blanketed thousands of

[ 10 ]

Bonita Peak Environmental Setting a 11

square kilometers, creating a widespread volcanic plateau.

The region would have had rolling topography with scatter

caldera depressions (Blair and Gillam 2011:63–64).

Approximately 25 million years ago, the volcanic field

within the San Juan Mountains region was subjected to an

alternating pattern of erosion and lava flows. This period

also saw the initial development of the Rio Grande Rift east

of the San Juan Mountains. The lava flows largely ceased

by 15 million years ago, and the area was characterized by

moderate erosion for the next 10 million years. Between

5 million and 2.6 million years ago, uplift and block faulting

accelerated (Blair and Gillam 2011:64–66).

The abundant ore deposits in the western San Juan

Mountains contain gold, lead, copper, and zinc. These minerals were deposited near the surface during the doming

and collapse of large volcanic calderas including the Silverton and Lake City calderas. The doming and collapse

was accompanied by faulting insedimentary rocks,which

allowed the slow upward migration of mineral-laden waters

that contained precious metals leached from surrounding

rocks. Near the earth’s surface, cooler temperatures and

lower pressures caused minerals within the solution to separate and move into veins along the side of the faults, where

they then altered the surrounding host rock. Subsequent ore

deposition bound the veins together with the surrounding

rock, and further faulting of the bedrock often shattered the

veins. As a result, the ore veins are heterogeneous, often

following fault lines. They vary based on the surrounding

host rock (Fetchenier 1996:80–81).

Beginning around 5 million years ago, the earth began to

cool, initiating the repeated glaciation of the San Juan Mountains that began 800,000 years ago. At the height of the last

glacial expansion, which occurred 22,000 to 20,000 years

ago, the San Juan Mountains contained a vast ice field that

stretched for 1,900 square miles (5,000 square kilometers)

with intermittent exposed mountaintops. This period of glaciation developed the prominent mountain peaks and cirque

basins that are prominent features of the modern San Juans.

The western San Juan Mountains experienced significant

glacial erosion “as gravity pulled massive tongues of ice

down existing river valleys, glacial loads of pulverized rock

ground down bedrock and over-deepened valleys to form

U-shaped canyons” (Blair and Gillam 2011:68). In general,

glacial retreat began around 20,000 years ago and continued

for as much as 10,000 years. Evidence from the Animas

Valley Glacier, however, indicates that glacial retreat began

there around 19,400 years ago and ended 12,300 years ago,

when the ice field disappeared (Blair and Gillam 2011:72).

Over the last 12,000 years, the San Juan Mountains have

continued to evolve geomorphologically in the form of the

movement of rock glaciers (slow moving glacial remnants

buried under their own debris), landslides, and erosion associated with the fire regime (Blair and Gillam 2011:74).

Since the forced removal of the Utes nearly 150 years

ago, major impacts to the mountain range have occurred

that have drastically altered parts of the landscape. Blair and

Gillam (2011:74) write that:

The impact of human activity, both directly and indirectly, on the San Juan landscape is inescapable,

although systematic documentation is lacking. In the

last 150 years, the invasion of gold seekers, farmers

and ranchers, developers, recreational enthusiasts, and

second-home owners have created roads, towns, dams,

mines, and mine waste. (More than 1,500 mine workings have been documented in San Juan County.) Mining activity in the late 1800s and early 1900s accounted

for surges of sediment at 50 to 4,7000 times pre-mining

rates in some places. … In the Upper Animas Valley,

between Howardsville and the old town of Eureka,

sediment surges have increased channel braiding and

added heavy metals to floodplain deposits.

VEGETATION OF THE SAN JUAN MOUNTAINS

The San Juan Mountains encompass a range of vegetative

communities that can be described in a variety of ways.

Floyd-Hanna and others (1996), Jamieson and others (1996),

and Minckley and Brown (1994b) categorize the communities by elevation and keynote species type. Through analysis

of satellite imagery, the LANDFIRE Program, co-managed

by the US Forest Service and the Department of Interior, has

identified 62 vegetation types in the Animas River watershed. Ute tribal representatives have stated that a wholistic view of plant communities that considers Ute cultural

beliefs and practices is useful when considering land habitats. Figure 2.1 illustrates plant communities within the

Animas River Watershed, derived from the LANDFIRE

Program geospatial data and refined using a wholistic view

of the landscape.

The lowest elevations are represented in Figure 2.1 as

intermountain and semi-desert areas. These are dry areas and

south-facing lower elevation slopes where Ute traditional-

use plants such as prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), sages (Artemisia spp.),

paintbrush (Castilleja spp.), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), junipers (Juniperus spp.), currants (Ribes

spp.), and yucca (Yucca spp.) are usually found. FloydHanna and others (1996:144–145) describe these areas

in part as greasewood-shadscale shrub-steppe and Great

12 a Chapter Two

Basin sagebrush shrub-steppe. The greasewood-shadscale

shrub-steppe community inhabits low-elevation valleys in

poorly drained saline soils that are dominated by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) and shadscale (Atriplex

confertifolia). The Great Basin sagebrush shrub-steppe is

present in low-lying well-drained soils and is dominated

by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), blue gramma grass

(Bouteloua gracilis), galleta grass (Pleuraphis jamesii), and

a variety of forbs.

Riparian areas are representative of the key vegetation

community for this study and are hosts to a wide range of Ute

traditional-use plants. These include chokecherry (Prunus

virginiana), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia),

cattail (Typha spp.), mint (Mentha arvensis), horsetails

(Equisetum spp.), wild rose (Rosa spp.), and other waterloving plants. Minckley and Brown (1994b:240) describe

these areas as montane riparian communities along perennial streams between 4,000 and 7,000 feet. They note that

these are often covered in “canyon bottom forest,” which

is generally composed of narrowleaf cottonwood, bigtooth

maple (Acer grandidentatum), box elder (Acer negundo),

alder (Alnus oblongifolia), and willows (Salix spp.). A variety of shrubs also make up an important aspect of montane

streamsides, which also contain trees, shrubs, and grasses

from adjacent montane vegetation communities. According

to Minckley and Brown (1994a:237), subalpine perennial

streams and other aquatic areas are often flanked by varieties of shrub willow (Salix spp.), as well as other scrub

including red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), gooseberry

(Ribes spp.), and raspberry (Rubus spp.). The riparian areas

may have a few trees that have germinated from surrounding vegetation communities.

Because of the homogenous qualities of piñon-juniper

woodlands and savannas, they are included in their own category (Figure 2.1). Pine nuts are an invaluable and treasured

traditional staple food for Utes and these forests are usually

mixed with open clearings of arid native grasses and shrubs

and stands of larger Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus

scopulorum). This community also includes Gambel oak

(Quercus gambelii), a significant traditional-use plant.

Floyd-Hanna and others (1996:146–148) describe these

communities as dominant within the southwestern United

States between 5,000 and 7,750 feet, including the foothills

of the San Juan Mountains. In the lower portion of this zone,

piñon (Pinus edulis) shares canopy dominance with the Utah

juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), while at higher elevations

the Utah juniper is replaced by the Rocky Mountain juniper

(Juniperus scopulorum). Juniper trees have expanded into

adjacent grasslands over the last century due to overgrazing,

droughts, and fire suppression.

Two forest communities are represented in Figure 2.1:

aspen forests and mixed montane forests and woodlands.

Because a single plant can create a large stand of trees,

quaking aspen (Populous tremuloides) communities are

often homogenous, with a mixed understory of wildflowers,

ferns (bracken), and grasses, as well as some Ute traditional-

use foods such as raspberries (Rubus ideaus) and thimble

berries (Rubus parviflorus). Most notable is the presence

of oshá (Ligusticum porteri), which can be found growing

under aspens at forest edges.

Floyd-Hanna and others (1996:149–153) classify these

edge areas, which occur between 6,000 and 9,500 feet, as

a mixed mountain shrub community, consisting of woody

plants generally under 16 feet in height. There are close

to 50 species within this community,which is a mixture of

species from adjacent communities. Most mixed mountane

shrub communities are found on steep or moderate slopes.

Biologists consider the mixed mountain shrub community

to represent a stage of recovery in areas that have been disturbed by fire or other disruptions, destined for replacement

by woodland or forest communities given enough undisturbed time.

Mixed montane forests and woodlands refers to communities where Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and other conifers are found.

These are the placeswhere Utes peeled ponderosa pine and

accessed a large array of traditional-use plants. Floyd-Hanna

and others (1996:154) defined these middle elevation zones

as areas between the semiarid foothills and the moist forests

of the high mountains. They note that ponderosa pine was

heavily logged in southwestern Colorado during the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a result, most

of the ponderosa pine forests present in the San Juan Mountains today date to the early twentieth century. According

to Jamieson and others (1996:160), mixed conifer forests

are also incorporated in this category. Trees in these forests

include ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), southwestern

white pine (Pinus strobiformis), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga

menziesii), white fir (Abies concolor), corkbark fir (Abies

lasiocarpa var. arizonica), blue spruce (Picea pungens),

and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). The dominant

species within a given stand of this community depends on

the soils and other environmental factors.

Due to fire suppression since the late 1800s, the structure

of mixed-conifer forests has not fundamentally changed.

The forests are naturally dense and large-scale crown fires

were part of the normal fire pattern. The lack of fires over

the last century, however, has created a more homogeneous

forest that lacks diversity in stand age and structure. This

makes the mixed-conifer forests less resilient to fire and

Bonita Peak Environmental Setting a 13

Figure 2.1. Vegetative communities of the Animas River watershed based on existing vegetation type data developed by the

LANDFIRE Program.

14 a Chapter Two

more vulnerable to insect and disease outbreaks (Korb and

Wu 2011:166–167).

The fire regime and, by extension, the health and nature

of ponderosa pine forests have changed significantly over

the last century. In the past, ponderosa pine forests with an

understory of Gambel oak were well adapted to frequent,

light surface fires that occurred in intervals of 3 to 11 years.

Most fires were small and patchy; more large-scale surface

fires happened approximately every dozen years. The largescale surface fires could burn through thousands of acres

but rarely became crown fires because of the open-stand

structure of ponderosa pine forests. The large-scale surface

fires ended in the late nineteenth century when fire exclusion

policies were implemented to protect Euro-American settlement and livestock grazing. (Korb and Wu 2011:157–158).

By 1880, the San Juan Mountains had become chronically overgrazed by sheep and cattle. This killed or stunted

the grasses and forbs that had previously provided fuel for

the surface fires. Compounding this, land managing agencies

adopted a policy of fire suppression in the early twentieth

century. As a result, the previously open stands of ponderosa

pine were infilled with herbaceous cover, trees, and shrubs.

Today, the open stands of ponderosa pine have largely been

replaced with a closed-canopy forest that lacks herbaceous

understories. The understory is dominated by Gambel oak,

which acts as a “ladder fuel” in the dense ponderosa pine

stands, enabling surface fires to spread from the ground into

the crowns of overstory trees. As a result, the low-severity

surface-fire regime of the ponderosa forest is being replaced

by a regime of high-severity crown fires. The high-severity

crown fires that now spread through ponderosa pine forests

can kill 50 to 100 percent of the trees and shrubs (Korb and

Wu 2011:159).

The subalpine forests, woodlands, and meadows occur

between 9,500 and roughly 11,000 feet. These areas support many valued Ute traditional-use plant species that are

stunted due to the extreme elevation and weather conditions.

Jamieson and others (1996:160) note that most of the tree

species in the mixed-conifer community cannot survive

at these elevations. Willows (Salix spp.) and occasional

stands of oshá (Ligusticum porteri) can be found on sunny

slopes where ample water is present. The spruce-fir forest

community found in subalpine areas is dominated by Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and corkbark fir (Abies

lasiocarpa var. arizonica). Historically, the spruce-fir forest fire regime consisted of infrequent, high-severity crown

fires. These forests burned infrequently because of their wet

environment; when lightning strike fires started, they rarely

grew to a significant size. Major fires occurred every 200

or more years and would kill nearly all trees within a burn

area, resetting the spruce-fir stands to the beginning of their

growth process. Spruce-fir and cold-weather mixed-conifer

forests still appear to be within their average fire interval of

200 or more years, but fire suppression and climate change

may impact these ecological zones by decreasing landscape

diversity and the ability of plants to fend off insect epidemics (Korb and Wu 2011:167–168).

Alpine grassland and shrublands communities (areas

above 11,000 feet) are host to a variety of stunted alpine

grasslands, tussock, and moss. These areas are too high in

elevation to support the growth of trees, and most plants

within the communities are low herbaceous plants and small

woody shrubs. These communities favor slow-growing, persistent perennial plants that may take several years to establish during the short growing season. The most common

form of these communities is an alpine meadow, which can

grow as a lush carpet of flowers and forbs during the short

summer (Jamieson and others 1996:169, 170, 172).

At the uppermost elevations in the San Juan Mountains

are treeless alpine vegetation communities and are categorized in Figure 2.1 as sparsely vegetated. These areas are

covered in scree; they serve other purposes in Ute culture.

ECOLOGICAL REGIONS OF THE BPMD

As defined by Chapman and others (2006), ecological

regions are determined by multiple factors including the

geology, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and

hydrology of a given geographical area. Ecological regions

are used by land managers and government agencies,

including the EPA, to understand, evaluate, and create management plans that address site-specific variables. The EPA

Level IV Ecoregions Map of Colorado (Chapman and others

2006) shows that the BPMD study area encompasses three

Level IV ecological regions, which are further classified

into 15 sub-ecoregions (Table 2.1; Figure 2.2). The majority

of lands in the project area and the entire BPMD are classified as the Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21. The western

periphery of the study area, as well as the area south and

east of Durango along the Animas River towards Ignacio,

is classified by the EPA as the Colorado Plateaus Ecoregion

20. The far eastern portion of the study area that includes the

Rio Grande and the western extent of the San Luis Valley is

classified by the EPA as the Arizona/New Mexico Plateau

Ecoregion 22.

WATER IN THE SAN JUAN MOUNTAINS

The San Juan Mountains aquifer is heterogenous because

of the region’s complex geologic structure, but it appears

Bonita Peak Environmental Setting a 15

Table 2.1. Classification of EPA Sub-ecoregions.

No.

Sub-Region

Region

20a

Monticello-Cortez Uplands and Sagebrush Valleys

Colorado Plateaus Ecoregion 20

20b

Shale Deserts and Sedimentary Basins

Colorado Plateaus Ecoregion 20

20c

Semiarid Benchlands and Canyonlands

Colorado Plateaus Ecoregion 20

21a

Alpine Zone

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21b

Crystalline Subalpine Forests

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21c

Crystalline Mid-Elevation Forests

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21d

Foothill Shrublands

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21e

Sedimentary Subalpine Forests

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21f

Sedimentary Mid-Elevation Forests

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21g

Volcanic Subalpine Forests

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21h

Volcanic Mid-Elevation Forests

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21i

Sagebrush Parks

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

21j

Grassland Parks

Southern Rockies Ecoregion 21

22a

San Luis Shrublands and Hills

AZ/NM Plateau Ecoregion 22

22b

San Luis Alluvial Flats and Wetlands

AZ/NM Plateau Ecoregion 22

to be well-connected regionally and has significant depth.

Evidence from springs and streams indicates that the water

table of the aquifer reaches even the highest elevations in the

San Juan Mountains. Estimates have suggested that groundwater discharge into all the major streams in the San Juan

Mountains is approximately 150 billion gallons of water per

year, which is roughly 3.5 years worth of water for the city

of Denver, Colorado, as of the year 2000. The surface and

groundwater discharge from the San Juan Mountains likely

helps to recharge groundwater in the surrounding San Luis,

San Juan, San Miguel, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison basins

(Caine and Wilson 2011:94–95).

There are approximately 630 bodies of water in the San

Juan Mountains. Many of the natural lakes in the San Juan

Mountains are the result of glacial activity that created

depressions or dammed valleys. Some lakes, such as Little

Molas, result from water dissolving limestone bedrock. The

alpine and sub-alpine lakes within the San Juan Mountains

are generally nutrient-poor and contain less biological diversity than lower-elevation bodies of water. Fish were often

not supported in high-elevation bodies of water but many

previously fishless lakes in the San Juan Mountains have

been stocked with trout over the last century. Many bodies of water contain significant amounts of mercury, which

occurs naturally, comes from mining activity, or is deposited

as atmospheric pollution from coal-fired power plants in the

Four Corners. Mercury levels have significantly increased

since the 1960s, indicating that atmospheric deposition from

coal-fired plants is a major source of the element (Nydick

2011:114, 123, 126).

Fens are the dominate type of wetland in the San Juan

Mountains above 9,000 feet (2,700 m). Fens are distinctive

in that they accumulate organic soil (peat) and are thus considered peatlands. Fens are supported by groundwater and

develop soils because they are permanently saturated. The

slow decomposition rate of the oxygen-free soils within the

fens allows for the accumulation of organic materials. Fens

began to form in the San Juan Mountains approximately

12,000 years ago when the mountain glaciers began to melt.

Many fens in the San Juan Mountains are between 6,000 and

10,000 years old with 3 to 8 ft (.9–2.4 m) of soil depth. Soil

in fens accumulates at a rate of approximately 8 inches per

1,000 years (Chimney and Cooper 2011:129–130). In highly

mineralized areas of the San Juan Mountains, fens can have

significant concentrations of iron and other metals and can

leach significant amounts of heavy metals into surface water

(Stanton and others 2007).

The surface water of the San Juan Mountains drains

through numerous high-elevation streams that feed into

several large rivers. Stream flow is most abundant during the

period of snowmelt between April and July, and additional

water is added by rain from July to September. On the

eastern side of the continental divide the surface water

drains into the Rio Grande, which has its headwaters in the

16 a Chapter Two

Figure 2.2. EPA sub-ecoregions of Colorado included in this study based on information from Chapman and others 2006.

Bonita Peak Environmental Setting a 17

mountain range. The Rio Grande then flows through New

Mexico, Texas, and Mexico to enter the Gulf of Mexico.

On the western side of the continental divide, the surface

water drains into tributaries of the Dolores, Gunnison, and

San Juan Rivers. These rivers all flow into the Colorado

River, which weaves its way through Arizona, Nevada, and

California before entering the Gulf of California in Mexico.

UPPER ANIMAS RIVER AND THE

BONITA PEAK MINING DISTRICT

The Animas River is an important tributary of the San Juan

River and remains one of the few undammed waterways in

western Colorado. It originates in Animas Forks northeast of

Silverton at 11,200 ft and flows south to Farmington, New

Mexico, where it drains into the San Juan River. Along its

course, the Animas River travels through high alpine to arid

desert environments and supports a wide variety of riparian

vegetation communities, The river serves as an important

plant and animal habitat, a water source for agriculture and

municipalities, and as a venue for recreational opportunities

(Somers and Floyd-Hanna 1996:181, 187).

The BPMD, at the center of our study area, is within the

upper Animas River watershed. The upper Animas River

watershed includes the portion of the river from its head

waters down to the town of Silverton. The Animas River

has two major tributaries, Cement Creek and Mineral Creek,

which enter the river in Silverton. This portion of the watershed is composed entirely of alpine and subalpine habitats,

ranging from 9,300 to 13,800 feet in elevation. There are

three principal basins in the upper Animas River watershed:

Cement Creek, Mineral Creek, and the upper Animas. These

basins are generally steep and narrow glacial valleys that

open into wider valleys such as the one where the town of

Silverton is situated. The steep portions of the three basins

have minimal vegetation, with sporadic spruce-fir forest and

riparian vegetation in less steep areas (Von Guerard and

others 2007:25).

Mining in the Upper Animas River Watershed

The upper Animas River watershed around Silverton, particularly along Cement and Mineral Creeks, was a highly

active and productive part of mining of mineralized deposits

in the San Juan Mountains. Ore containing precious metals was mined from faults along the southern edge of the

Silverton Caldera (Fetchenier 1996:83). Production-scale

mining took place over a 120-year period, from AD 1871 to

1991. The mining followed a boom-and-bust pattern, based

on the price of metals. There were hundreds of mines and

prospect pits were opened during that period, with an estimated total of 18.1 million tons of ore produced from those

mines (Jones 2007).

Prospectors began exploring the San Juan Mountains for

valuable minerals in the 1860s, and by 1872 their finds had

created a small mining rush. In 1873, the Brunot Agreement

was signed, which relinquished the San Juan Mountains

from Ute exclusive ownership (discussed further in Chapter 3). Following the Brunot Agreement, Anglo-Americans

could legally claim, purchase, and sell land within the San

Juan Mountains, spurring development. A recession and

lack of infrastructure limited development in the 1870s,

however, making small prospecting operations more

common than large mines (Ninnemann and Smith 2006:8,

10, 11–13).

Significant mining development occurred in 1882 after

the cost of transporting ore to market was reduced when

a spur of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad reached Silverton. Short railroad spurs from Silverton to Gladstone,

Red Mountain, and Animas Forks were added, linking

these mineral-rich areas to the town (Ninnemann and Smith

2006:13–16). Ores were shipped by rail to Durango, where

they were processed at the San Juan and New York Smelter

(Jones 2007:55). Although mining during the early period of

development (AD 1871–1889) was done by hand, the large

mines of the period could still produce approximately 100

tons of ore per day.

Technological advances in the late-nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries (AD 1890–1913) allowed mines to significantly increase their output, and large mines were able

to produce 200 tons of ore per day. These advances included

the construction of aerial tramways to transport ore and

supplies to and from remote mine sites, the advent of the

compressed-air powered machine-drills, and the incorporation of electricity into mining practices (Jones 2007:57).

These advances were particularly significant for remote,

high-altitude mines such as the Gold King and Sunnyside on

upper Cement Creek, which both developed tram systems in

the late-nineteenth century (Jones 2007:54, 58). The environmental impacts of mining increased during this period,

particularly with increased milling at remote sites and the

discharge of tailings directly into streams (Jones 2007:54,

57, 58, 61–63).

World War I created an increased demand for metals,

and technological developments further mechanized the

processes of mining and milling. The introduction of a new

froth-floatation milling process allowed for the mechanized

separation of ores. This significantly reduced the cost of

processing. As a result, miners extracted larger amounts

of lower-grade ore. (Jones 2007:65). In the 1910s, the

18 a Chapter Two

Sunnyside Mine became the most productive mine in the

region, producing more than 600 tons of ore per day. The

optimism of the early twentieth century was followed by a

postwar recession from 1921 to 1922 that altered the character of mining in the San Juan Mountains. Many small and

medium mines closed permanently, including the Gold King

Mine in 1925. Larger mines, including the Sunnyside Mine,

restarted when the national economy recovered but the local

industry was, from that point forward, dominated by a few,

large producers (Jones 2007:66).

Throughout the Great Depression, World War II, and the

Korean War, the Shenandoah-Dives Mine and its associated

Mayflower Mill was the main producer of ore in the San Juan

Mountains. The Shenandoah-Dives Mine ceased production

in 1953 (Jones 2007:70–72). In 1959, the Sunnyside Mine

was reopened and the Gold King Mill level tunnel, later

renamed the American tunnel, was widened and extended

to reach the Sunnyside veins. This provided economical

transportation of ore and drainage for the Sunnyside mine

workings (Jones 2007:75). High-grade gold ore was discovered at the Sunnyside Mine in the 1970s, which allowed it to

remain in operation until 1991, when the high-grade ore was

exhausted and metal prices declined (Jones 2007:74–76).

With the closure of the Sunnyside Mine, ore production in

the San Juan Mountains became dormant.

Impacts from Mining in the

Upper Animas River Watershed

As a result of the mining of highly mineralized deposits

near its headwaters, the Animas River and its watershed

were exposed to a variety of pollutants. Mining activities

extracted significant quantities of ore and left numerous

toxic tailings piles. The ore extraction and tailings contributed significantly to the level of heavy metals in the Animas River. In addition, naturally exposed ore deposits and

iron bogs leached large amounts of heavy metals into the

upper Animas River. Mineral Creek and Cement Creek,

two important tributaries, contribute significant amounts of

sulfuric acid to the Animas River, causing increased heavy

metal volumes and lower pH values than normal. The

negative impact of these tributaries can be seen for miles

downstream, although the downstream tributaries help to

dilute the toxicity of the water (Somers and Floyd-Hanna

1996:182–185).

Remediation activities in the upper Animas River watershed that focus on reducing the environmental impacts of

inactive mines increased in the 1990s and are on-going.

These efforts include the removal of tailings and mine

dumps, the construction of hydrologic controls to prevent surface runoff, and the plugging of adits and portals.

Although studies suggest that 90 percent of metal loads in

surface water come from only 80 of the 5,300 mining sites

in the upper Animas River watershed, remediation efforts

have been slow. As of 2004, only approximately one-quarter

of high priority sites for remediation had been remediated

(Finger and others 2007:1069).

Gold King Mine Spill

The Gold King Mine has been subject to remediation efforts

since 2008, following a slope failure of a waste-rock dump

on Level 7 of the mine. In 2009, the Colorado Division of

Mining and Safety installed a 2-foot-diameter drain pipe

and an observation pipe above the drain in the collapsed

Gold King Mine Level 7 New Adit in order to direct water

seepage from the adit into a concrete flume (US Bureau of

Reclamation 2015:27–35). Following five years of monitoring, the EPA requested that the Colorado Division of Mining

and Safety reopen and stabilize the Level 7 New Adit. This

work commenced on September 11, 2014, but was quickly

stopped as seepage began flowing during soil removal. Temporary measures were conducted to contain the new seepage

(US Bureau of Reclamation 2015:35–39).

In August 2015, excavations were restarted at the Gold

King Mine Level 7 New Adit and the crew observed seepage similar to that observed in 2014. To safely contain the

water within the Level 7 New Adit, the EPA devised a plan

to excavate collapsed fill from the top of the adit opening,

under the assumption that water levels had not risen to the

adit roof. They would then insert a steel pipe at an angle into

the top of the adit opening and insert it into the pool of water,

from which they could safely pump the water from the adit

for treatment (US Bureau of Reclamation 2015:46–50).

The EPA and its contractor began implementing the plan

on August 5, 2015. As an excavator dug into the debris

that was over-top the adit, water began to flow from the

adit. The rate and size of this flow increased rapidly, and it

quickly became a “blowout,” with the uncontrolled release

of yellow, metal-laden water from the adit. The water flowed

into nearby Cement Creek, eventually entering the San Juan

River from the Animas River, and ultimately making its way

to Lake Powell (US Bureau of Reclamation 2015:52–60).

In total, approximately three million gallons of water

from Gold King Mine Level 7 New Adit containing significant levels of cadmium, arsenic, iron, copper, aluminum,

beryllium, and manganese entered Cement Creek. The water

flowed from the Animas River (Figure 2.3) into the San Juan

River. This caused numerous municipalities in Colorado,

New Mexico, Utah, and the Navajo Nation to swiftly take

action to protect their drinking water supplies (Finley and

McGhee 2015; Turkewitz 2015). While metal levels in the

Bonita Peak Environmental Setting a 19

Figure 2.3. The contamination plume flowing southward through the Animas River along US 550 on the southern end of the Southern

Ute Reservation. Photograph by the Environmental Programs Division of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, August 2015.

Animas River returned to pre-spill levels by August 11,

2015, the EPA and other groups continue to investigate the

potential long-term impacts of the Gold King Mine spill

(Colorado Water Quality Control Division 2016).

On September 9, 2016, the EPA designated the Gold

King Mine and 47 other mining-related sources of metal-

laden water in the Upper Animas, Cement Creek, and Mineral Creek drainages as a Superfund site on the National

Priorities List. The Superfund designation, which provides

federal resources for cleanup, had been resisted by local

residents and businesses for years, because they worried that

the designation may hurt business. In 2016, the US Congress authorized appropriations of $4 million per year for

four years (2017–2021) through the passage of the WIIN

Act. This act funds a long-term water quality monitoring

program for the San Juan watershed (EPA 2021). Since

2016, the EPA has been treating the discharged water of the

Gold King Mine at a temporary treatment plant in Gladstone, as well as conducting monitoring programs, smallscale remediation, and a number of studies to better inform

the large-scale remediation efforts to come (EPA 2020; Finley and McGhee 2015).

Monitoring remains ongoing and from 2016 to 2018,

Mountain Studies Institute sampled 18 sub-basins in

the tributary flows around Bonita Peak that contribute to

Cement Creek and the Upper Animas River. It collected

600 samples from 132 seeps and springs and 31 draining

mines. A large variability in water chemistry was observed

across the study area. The study found that draining mines

generally have larger metal loads than seeps and springs.

The samples included a range of metals including aluminum (Al), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese

(Mn), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), sulfate ion (SO4) (Cowie and

Roberts 2020).

CHAPTER THREE

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview

THE THREE UTE Indian reservations are presently located

in southwestern Colorado and east-central Utah. These

reservations cover only a small fraction of traditional Ute

territory, which historically spanned across most of Utah

and Colorado and portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas,

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming (Figure 3.1). The BPMD

and the Animas River watershed lie at the heart of this vast

area. Historically, the Bonita Peak area was a crossroads for

multiple Ute bands. It was an important seasonal residence,

with abundant resources for hunting, plant gathering, and

religious and spiritual wellbeing.

This chapter situates Ute culture and history within the

geographical setting of the BPMD. The legacy of the Ute

people in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado is engraved deeply onto the land, and it continues to

grow as time passes. Although Ute occupation of this area

has changed over time, the Bonita Peak landscape remains

important to the Ute people. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe,

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Ute Indian Tribe all retain

connections to the Bonita Peak area through their cultural

history and cosmology, and this landscape continues to be

a significant hunting, fishing, and plant-gathering place for

Ute tribal members.

UTE ORIGINS AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Ute Creation stories are the foundation of Ute history and

culture. They explain Ute origins, territoriality, and land use

through time, and they are infused with the moral teachings

and life principles that underscore Ute life. These stories

define the spiritual and physical relationships of Ute Indians

with all living elements. Ute creation and traveling stories

are most often told during the winter months (Duncan

2003). While multiple versions of origin accounts exist, they

all include the same basic elements. As Alden Naranjo, Jr.,

explained, “Stories are passed along by grandparents, and

each family has a version of history. History includes personal

life experiences of those elders that shared, and we related to

the past through their stories.” Mr. Naranjo added that “the

Ute creation story tells us how we came to be here. It helps

frame Ute lifeways into a deeper philosophical context.”

The Utes refer to themselves as Núuchiu (S), “Ute-Indian

people” (Callaway and others 1986:365), and a Ute individual is a Núuchi (S) Variations of this name include Nuche and

Nuutsiyu, both of which have been translated as “Mountain

People” (Burns 2003:16). The term for mountain, káavi (S),

however is not part of these words, which suggests that

Nuche and Nuutsiyu have been previously mistranslated.

The Ute language is part of the Numic branch of the Uto-

Aztecan language family. “Ute” is a term applied by Spanish explorers, originating from the term quasuatas, which

the Spanish used to refer to all people residing in the lands

between the Pueblo territory and the Shoshone (Givón 2011).

Ute Creation and Seasonal Rounds

Ute tribal representatives stated that the high mountain

peaks in the San Juan Mountains and BPMD evoke memories about their creation story and that it is possible to feel

the Creator’s presence in these special places. Ute people

were placed in the mountains at the time of their creation

and so have maintained an unbroken connection to the

mountains since time immemorial. The following is one

version of the story as told by Alden Naranjo, Jr., and Monica Lujan (Naranjo and Lujan 2000:7–8):

[ 20 ]

In the days even before the ancient times, only Sinawav,

the Creator and Coyote inhabited the earth. They had

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 21

Figure 3.1. BPMD study area in relation to the Ute aboriginal territory.

come out of the light so long ago, that no one remembered when or how. The earth was young and the time

had not come to increase the people. Sinawav gave a bag

of sticks to Coyote and said, “Carry these over the far

hills to the valleys beyond.” He gave specific directions

Coyote was to follow and told him what to do when he

got there. “You must remember this great responsibility.

The bag must not be opened under any circumstances

until you reach the sacred grounds,” he told him.

“What is this I carry?” asked Coyote.

“I will say no more. Now be about your task,” Sinawav answered.

Coyote was young and foolish, consumed with

curiosity. “What is this I carry?” he kept asking himself. As soon as he was over the first hill and out of

sight he stopped. He was just going to peak in the bag.

“That could hurt nothing,” he thought. Just as he untied

the bag and opened a small slit, they rushed for the

opening. They were people. These people yelled and

hollered in strange languages of all kinds. He tried to

catch them and get them back into the bag. But they ran

away in all different directions. From how full the bag

was after he had gotten it closed, he could tell there was

only a fraction of what he had started out with. He went

to the sacred valley and dumped them out there. There

was a small number of these people. But those few ones

were the Utes, the real Utes from around here. Coyote

then returned and told Sinawav that he had completed

his task. Sinawav searched Coyote’s face. “I know,”

Sinawav sighed. “You foolish thing. You do not know

what a fearful thing you have done.”

Coyote finally confessed. “I tried to catch them. I

was frightened. They spoke in strange tongues that I

couldn’t understand.”

22 a Chapter Three

“Those you let escape will forever war with the chosen ones. They will be the tribes which will always be a

thorn in the sides of the Utes,” said Sinawav. “The Utes,

even though they are few in number, will be the mightiest and most valiant of heart.” Sinawav then cursed

Coyote, “You are an irresponsible meddler. From this

time on you are doomed to wander this earth on all

fours forever as a night crawler.

At Rocky Mountain National Park, Ute Indian Tribe representative Venita Taveapont described feeling the presence

of creation in the high mountain of Colorado:

Last year when I first came to this country, Colorado,

I was reminded of the story that we tell about the creation of Ute people where the creator had placed people

in a bag. He cut up some sticks and he placed them

in a bag and then Coyote, being the curious and mischievous person that he is, opened the bag and he let

out a lot of people and they scattered over the world.

But there were a few people that were left in the bag

and those were the Utes. When the creator came back

and he found those few people he placed them high in

the mountain—high on the mountain tops. And when

I came, I thought, ‘Wow this must have been where he

placed them.’ Because to me it seemed like we were on

the top of the world. And what a choice place to place

people, because everything was here, that they needed

to survive. The other thing is that there is such reverence, such a feeling of the ancestors being here and that

you can’t help but be in awe of their hardiness, their

ability to survive, and to walk these mountains. Every

year, every year they would come either to worship or

to hunt and gather—this is the place that they held in

high reverence. This is the beginning of the connection,

this is the beginning of bringing back those traditional

names, bringing back our traditional ways. And I think

for too long that we’ve kind of held things back and we

can’t do that anymore. For our own people we need to

have that reconnection, for our children, for our grandchildren, great grandchildren. We still need to have that

connection and rebuilding that knowledge [Brunswig

and others 2010:64].

Ute Social Structure

The Ute people were traditionally organized into small kin

groups called bands. Population estimates in Ute territory

range from 0.2 to 1 person per square mile, which is higher

than most other Great Basin groups (Callaway and others

1986:352). Local groups generally consisted of 5 to 10 families, and each family shared a tipi (Figure 3.2; Figure 3.3).

Larger groups ranged up to 20 to 40 families, depending on

the availability of food to sustain the group. While some

territoriality existed among Ute families, resources were

considered communal (Burns 2003:27).

Ute oral traditions describe the seasonal mobility of

families as a clockwise route around a central mountain.

According to Burns (2003:4, 14), some Ute groups even

took on the name of the mountains that their territories

were centered upon. The mountain-centered seasonal round

included the use of a variety of ecosystems, with dispersed

winter camps at lower elevations and gatherings of groups at

higher elevations during the summer (Burns 2003:15). For

example, Spanish scribes from 1626 documented seasonal

rounds of the Kapuuta (S) Utes south from the upper San Juan

region in southwestern Colorado to the Pueblo of Jemez and

Abiquiu in the Rio Grande region of New Mexico to trade

and escape cold weather. In the springtime, the Kapuuta (S)

Utes returned to the area around Ignacio and Pagosa Springs

(Lister 2011:129).

The seasonal movements of bands were important to Ute

subsistence and spirituality. The ceremonial calendar corresponded to the seasonal movements of groups, so certain

events corresponded to the particular environment in which

they would be held. For instance, summer ceremonies took

place in high mountain settings, while fall events often took

place in lower valley camps (Burns 2003:5). Ute families

often traveled long distances to partake in a variety of gatherings with other Ute people including military campaigns,

social gatherings, and religious events such as the Bear Dance

that was performed each spring (Conetah 1982:21–22).

During fieldwork for the current study, Alden Naranjo, Jr.,

explained the role of ceremonies and social gatherings in

the seasonal mobility patterns of different families. He said:

The bands were comprised of families and their leaders made decisions about where to camp over winter.

And then in the spring, they’d hold the Bear Dances

and council meetings, and they decided which families

and which bands would be at certain areas during the

summer time, in case there was sickness or raids, then

they would know where groups were.

Mr. Naranjo, Jr., explained that leaders within bands

were chosen based on their ability to effectively guide

their group. Different Ute bands came together during the

spring and summer and made plans collectively. Cassandra

Atencio added that Ute bands were interconnected through

marriage, and this was an important mechanism for Ute

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 23

Figure 3.2. Image of a Ute family group at a campsite. National Anthropological

Archives, Smithsonian Institution.

Figure 3.3. Ute family in a shared tipi. Basin: Ute, BAE 4750(11), Box VII:3, National Anthropological

Archives, Smithsonian Institution.

24 a Chapter Three

people to gain knowledge and information, and maintain

alliances across their vast territory. She recalled that “the

Bear Dance was different, it used to be in different places,

and we intermarried during the Bear Dance and so you gain

that information from the other bands. So, the intermingling

between the bands allowed for that knowledge to be shared.”

Ms. Atencio emphasized that the tradition of intermarriage

continues today, explaining that while both her parents were

enrolled members of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, one

of her grandfathers on her maternal side had come from

a Northern Ute band and received rations at Ignacio. He

married and became an enrolled member of the Southern

Ute Indian Tribe. The tradition of intermarriage and the

ration and enrollment system enforced by the federal government are some of the reasons why it is important today

to integrate cultural perspectives and histories from all three

Ute tribes.

In addition to hunting, gathering, herding, and limited

agriculture, some Ute bands raided Pueblo, Apache, Hopi,

and Navajo communities to supplement their subsistence.

There is evidence that the Utes began raiding prior to the

adoption of the horse, and the practice became more frequent after the Utes acquired horses in the seventeenth century. Band identities also appear to have been strengthened

as horses were integrated into Ute lifeways (Callaway and

others 1986:339, 353).

By the nineteenth century, Ute society was comprised

of about 11 bands (Burns 2003; Callaway and others

1986; Southern Ute Indian Tribe 2021). The bands were

often named for a significant geographic feature within the

band’s territory or a significant resource that they harvested.

Eastern bands include Moĝwáchi (S), Kapuuta (S), Weenuche

(although the band is officially referred to as Weeminuche,

Weenuche is the traditional name according to Ute Mountain Ute Tribe tribal representatives), Uncompahgre (sometimes called Tabeguache), Parianuche, and Yampa. Western

bands include Uintah, Timpanogots, Pahvant, Sanpits, and

Moanunts. Mobility among the bands was high, although in

some band territories abundant resources supported yearround encampments (Callaway and others 1986:338–339;

Conetah 1982:19–25). During research for the current project, Alden Naranjo, Jr., drew a map showing the overlapping

territories of Ute bands (Figure 3.4). He explained that the

maps made by historians are often inaccurate or incomplete,

sometimes mis-plotting band areas.

The Yampa band territory included the White and Yampa

river watersheds and mountainous areas of north-central

Colorado. The Yampa regularly traveled into southern Wyoming and the plains of eastern Colorado and western Kansas

to hunt. The Parianuche band, sometimes referred to as the

Grand River band, traveled throughout mountainous areas

of north-central Colorado, extending from the Denver area

west across the Colorado Plateau into far eastern Utah. Parianuche and Yampa band territories merged over time and

these bands are sometimes referred to collectively as the

White River Utes. The Uncompahgre band, also called the

Tabeguache band, was primarily located along the Gunnison

and Uncompahgre rivers and in the high mountain areas of

central Colorado, including the Elk Mountains and traveled

to the east beyond the Front Range and to west into eastern

Utah (Burns 2003; Callaway and others 1986).

The Uintah band extended from the Uinta Range of

northeastern Utah south across the Tavaputs Plateau and

west to the Strawberry River area. Timpanogots band territory encompassed Utah Lake, the Provo River, and surrounding areas within north-central Utah. The Sanpits band,

also known as San Pitch, lived primarily within the Sanpete

Valley and Sevier River Valley within west-central Utah.

The Moanunts band ranged throughout the upper Sanpete

Valley and Fish Lake areas of central Utah. The Pahvant

lived in west-central Utah and south into the Sevier Lake

region (Burns 2003; Conetah 1982:23–25; Southern Ute

Indian Tribe 2021).

Collectively the Kapuuta (S) and Moĝwáchi (S) are often

referred to as Southern Ute (Delaney 1974). The Kapuuta (S)

ranged from the headwaters of the San Juan River to the

Animas River, south of the Conejos River, and into the

Sangre de Cristo Mountains. They occupied areas in the

San Luis Valley in Colorado and around what are now the

towns of Chama and Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico (Callaway and others 1986:339; Lister 2011:129). Moĝwáchi (S)

territory covered eastern Colorado and extended south to

Santa Fe, New Mexico (Bennett 1999:10) and beyond down

to Tucumcari. The Weenuche band historically occupied the

Four Corners region, spanning from southeastern Utah to

southwestern Colorado, and into northwestern New Mexico. The Weenuche traditionally used the San Juan River

Valley and its tributaries (Perlman 1998:12). They occupied

all the small river valleys of southwestern Colorado and

southeastern Utah and ranged into the San Juan Mountains

near Telluride and Silverton, the Abajos, and the La Sal

mountains (Jacobs 1992; McPherson 1992).

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS

The Utes were mobile hunters and gatherers, who, early

on, lived primarily in ivikani (S) (stick lodges) (Figure 3.5).

Ute historians note that Ute people obtained horses as early

as the 1580s (Southern Ute Indian Tribe 2021) and Alden

Naranjo, Jr., noted that the ivikani (S) was replaced by the

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 25

Figure 3.4. Ute territory during the early nineteenth century as mapped by Alden Naranjo, Jr., in 2019.

nuugani (S) (skin-covered tipis) following the wide adoption of the kava (S) (horse) by the mid-seventeenth century.

The Utes occupied valley bottoms and mountainous areas

according to the seasons, and they marked their territory

with a regional network of trails. They relied on the land

for their physical and spiritual sustenance. As mobile people, Ute ancestors left a light imprint on the ground; however, many of the places they held sacred are fixtures of the

environment, including forests, valleys, springs, rivers, and

mountaintops.

According to Ute oral traditions, the Ute people have

resided in Colorado since time immemorial. Archaeological

evidence of Ute history prior to the arrival of Europeans

is sparse, in part due to their low impact and mobile lifeway. Despite Ute oral history, some archaeologists suggest

that the Ute likely migrated southward through the Great

Basin during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, settling

throughout eastern Utah and western Colorado (Lister

2011:129). Other archaeologists believe the Utes entered

western Colorado as early as AD 1100 (Madsen 1975;

Reed 1988, 1994); however, these theories are contested

by Ute people. Ute oral history is more closely supported

by Buckles (1971:1349, 1357–1359) who suggests that Ute

are connected to at least the Late Desert Culture (Archaic)

period because between Desert Culture and Ute material

culture and lifeways cannot readily be distinguished from

one another (Cassells 1983:191; Brunswig and others

2010:57). By the sixteenth century, the Ute people traveled

over a large territory that spanned from western Utah to

eastern Colorado, and from southern Wyoming to northern Arizona and New Mexico (Callaway and others 1986).

Groups of Utes made regular trips into the Great Plains to

hunt and wage military campaigns against the Comanche,

Kiowa, and Arapaho (Reed 1991:3).

26 a Chapter Three

Figure 3.5. Example of a traditional Ute noa-ivikan (stick lodge). Photograph by Hillers,

Powell Expedition 1873. Catalog No. 1547. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian

Institution.

The Utes were the primary Indigenous inhabitants of

Colorado at the time of European contact. The date of the

first direct encounter between the Utes and Spanish colonists and the nature of their early interactions are unknown

because the early Spanish records from New Mexico were

destroyed during the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. Some scholars

believe that the Utes were likely in contact with Spaniards

by at least the early 1600s (Callaway and others 1986:354).

Between approximately AD 1600 and 1775, the Utes

developed an equestrian lifestyle, with influences from

Plains groups and Spanish colonists. During this time, there

was increased distinction and potential competition among

bands (Baker 1993). After the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, some

Navajos and members of Jemez Pueblo sought refuge in Ute

territory. They coexisted with the Utes in southern Colorado

for several decades, until the Navajos and Jemez returned to

northern New Mexico in the mid-eighteenth century (Lister

2011:134). During that time, the Southern Ute bands were

under increasing pressure as Plains tribes encroached on

their hunting grounds (Callaway and others 1986:355).

Between 1775 and early 1800s, horses were synonymous

with Ute culture and trade with the Spanish colonists

became more common. Raiding became a common subsistence strategy as competition with Plains groups increased

(Callaway and others 1986:336). By 1776, Utes participated

in regular trade and captive ransom fairs in northern New

Mexico (Burns 2003:31).

In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain, thereby

changing trade relationships and interactions between the

Spanish and the Utes. Earlier, with the Louisiana Purchase in

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 27

Figure 3.6. Geopolitical landscape of Ute territory after European arrival.

1803, the French sold their landholdings within Ute territory

to the United States. Between 1821 and 1848, the majority

of Ute lands were under Mexican rule, with a small area

under dispute between Mexico and the Republic of Texas

from 1836 to 1845. With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

in 1848, Ute territory became entirely under the jurisdiction

of the United States (Figure 3.6).

In the early nineteenth century, the Cheyenne and Arapaho expanded their range into areas of Colorado that had

traditionally been Ute territory, causing the Utes to retract

into a smaller region (Figure 3.7). By the mid-nineteenth

century, Ute control over their aboriginal territory was

reduced and extended from around the Uintah Mountains

and Yampa River on the north to the San Juan River on the

south and from Sevier Lake on the west to the Front Range

of the Rocky Mountains on the east.

US Government Influence on Ute Territory

From the 1850s to the 1870s, a surge of American settlement occurred in Ute territory, driven by mining, ranching,

timbering, and railroading enterprises. This was enabled in

part by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, which

opened up a vast area of the western United States that

previously belonged to Mexico. The surge in settlement

directly affected traditional Ute land use and mobility

patterns (Burns 2003:5). This disruption of traditional

lifeways caused conflict between Utes and Anglo settlers,

which eventually led to the involvement of the US government, and decades of unrest between conflicting groups.

In 1850, the Treaty of Abiquiu (Treaty with the Utah,

1849) was ratified by the US Congress to maintain peace

and amity between the Utes and the US government (Iden

28 a Chapter Three

Figure 3.7. Ute territory in the nineteenth century (After Callaway and others 1986:337, Jefferson and others 1972:6).

1929:5). The treaty mandated that the United States had

“lawful and exclusive jurisdiction over [the Utes] and the

vast territory over which they hunted,” which was then

administered as part of the territory of New Mexico. In

1855, the governor of the Territory of New Mexico negotiated a land exchange with the Utes of approximately 2,000

square miles of land north of the San Juan River and east of

the Animas River for the removal of Utes from New Mexico

(Callaway and others 1986:355). However, the 1855 treaty

was not signed by a majority of the Ute bands and was never

ratified by Congress.

By 1860, prospectors had traveled into the Animas

Valley and opened up mining claims on Ute lands (Jefferson

and others 1972:22). These incursions resulted in clashes

between the Utes and miners. As a result, a commission

was formed in 1863 to negotiate with the Ute bands with the

goal of obtaining title to some of their lands. A meeting was

called at Conejos, Colorado. It was attended almost exclusively by members of the northern Tabeguache band (also

called Uncompahgre). The lands of interest are described as

follows (Figure 3.8):

Beginning on the 37th degree of north latitude, at the

eastern base of the Sierra Madre Mountain; running

thence northerly with the base of the Rocky Mountains to the forty-first parallel of north latitude to its

intersection with the summit of the Snow Range northwest of the North park; thence with the summit of the

Snowy Range southerly to the Rabbit-Ear Mountains;

thence southerly with the summit of said Rabbit-Ear

Range of mountains, west of the Middle Park, to the

Grand River; thence with the said Grand River to its

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 29

Figure 3.8. Reduction of Ute lands proposed under 1863 meeting.

confluence with the Gunnison River; thence with the

said Gunnison River to the mouth of the Uncompahgre

River; thence with the said Uncompahgre River to its

source in the summit of the Snowy Range, opposite the

source of the Rio Grande del Norte; thence in a right

line south of mountains, dividing the waters of the San

Juan River from those of the Rio Grande del Norte;

thence with the summit of said range southeasterly to

the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude; thence with

the line of said parallel of latitude to the place of the

beginning [Iden 1929:11–12].

the mountain range that divides the Arkansas and Gunnison

rivers. The treaty allowed the government to mine, construct military forts, and construct railroads and roads on

Indian lands not ceded (Iden 1929:13). In exchange, the

Tabeguache band received $10,000 worth of goods and provisions, a blacksmith shop, 150 head of cattle, and 1,000

head of sheep that were given to the band “chief.”

Because the other Ute bands were largely excluded from

the 1863 treaty negotiations, another treaty was negotiated to

establish a Ute Reservation in 1868 (15 Stat. 619). The lands

included in the reservation (Figure 3.9) are described as:

The Tabeguache people who attended the Conejos meeting agreed to cede nearly all of the territory of interest,

excluding the area bounded by the mouth of the Uncompahgre River, the Bunkara River, Roaring Fork River, and

Beginning at the Southern boundary of Colorado on the

107th meridian it went north on that meridian to a point

15 miles north of the 40th parallel and then west to the

Colorado Territory boundary, then south to the southern

30 a Chapter Three

Figure 3.9. Ute lands as of 1868.

boundary following the southern boundary to the place

of beginning. These boundaries embraced a territory

estimated to be 15,120,000 square acres [Iden 1929:16].

Prior to 1868, Ute aboriginal territory in Colorado

encompassed 56 million acres. After the treaty of 1868,

Ute lands were reduced to 18 million acres. Responding to

pressure from mining interests and the governor of Colorado, the US government negotiated the additional cession

of 3,450,000 acres in the southern portion of Ute territory

(Callaway and others 1986:355).

Under the terms of the 1868 Treaty with the Utes, two

agencies were established. The northern agency was established on the White River to serve the Yampa, Grand River,

and Uintah bands, while the southern agency was established on Los Pinos Creek in the Cochetopa Hills to serve the

Tabeguache, Moĝwáchi (S), Weenuche, and Kapuuta (S) bands.

The two agencies sought to distribute sheep, encourage agriculture, and educate Ute children (Lloyd 1932:15, 21).

In 1872, a meeting was called to discuss the cession of

the southern portion of the Ute Reservation, clearing the

way for mining and land development. Felix Brunot, who

was appointed to the Ute commission, met with Uncom

pahgre (Tabeguache) band chief Ouray, who pledged to help

with the land negotiations if the US government aided in the

return of his son, who was captured by Lakota in battle years

before. Negotiations began in September 1873; meanwhile,

White settlers were mining on Ute lands without reper

cussions. The Utes also faced restrictions on their southern

and eastern lands, with their 1868 reservation boundaries not

being upheld. The land sought by the commission included

12 million acres along the Colorado and New Mexico border,

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 31

Figure 3.10. Ute lands following the Brunot Cession of 1874.

in what is now San Juan and Hinsdale counties and parts of

La Plata, Archuleta, Mineral, Ouray, San Miguel, Dolores,

and Montezuma counties. The Moĝwáchi (S), Kapuuta (S), and

Weenuche bands, whose territory traditionally included the

San Juan region, were especially affected by the incursions

of non-Indian settlers (Borland 1951:1, 17, 24).

During the meetings, Brunot offered the Ute Bands

$25,000 a year in perpetuity for their cession of the mountainous San Juan region on the southern part of their reservation

(Borland 1951:29), The Utes who had convened for the negotiations resisted the commissioners. Eventually, however,

Brunot persuaded the Utes present at the treaty council to

sign an agreement to cede the following lands (Figure 3.10):

Beginning at a point on the eastern boundary of said

reservation fifteen miles due north from the southern

boundary of the Territory of Colorado; thence north by

a line parallel with the said western boundary to a point

ten miles north of the point where said line intersects

the 38th parallel of north latitude; thence east to the

eastern boundary of the reservation; and thence south

along said boundary to the place of the beginning [Iden

1929:40].

Despite resistance among some of the Utes, the “Brunot

Agreement” (18 Stat. 36) was approved by the US Congress

on April 29, 1874 (Borland 1951:33). By the time the Brunot

Agreement was passed, 1,441 mining claims had been registered in the lands in question (Indian Claims Commission 1962:194). Ute leaders understood the land cession to

encompass only mining regions, and they expected the miners would leave in the winters. Essentially, they believed that

32 a Chapter Three

mining would be limited to mountainous areas and that they

would have continued access to the valleys (Burns 2003:33).

The Brunot Agreement did not end tensions between

Utes and White settlers. For the White River Utes, the situation worsened when a newly appointed Indian Agent,

Nathan Meeker, arrived at the White River Agency and,

along with the assistance of military troops, began a cruel

and forceful enforcement of assimilation. As tensions grew,

the White River Utes reached a breaking point in the fall of

1878. On September 29, 1878, Utes opened fire on Major

Thomas Thornburgh and his men, who were traveling from

Fort Steele to protect the White River Agency. The attack,

which took place at Milk Creek near the northern boundary

of the reservation, was part of a synchronized effort on the

part of the Utes. At the same time, Utes at the White River

agency set fire to the buildings, killed Meeker and several

other employees, and took women and children hostage.

The battle at Milk Creek and the Meeker Incident led to

immediate retaliation by the US Army. The State of Colorado began a campaign dubbed “The Utes Must Go.” The

governor of Colorado, Fred Pitkin, called for the removal of

all Utes from the state, and the Colorado Legislature nearly

passed a bill that would offer a 25-dollar bounty on Ute

scalps (Decker 2004).

In 1879, the US Department of the Interior secretary convened a Peace Commission to facilitate negotiations between

Ute leaders and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. After

the Meeker Incident, the US government wanted to consolidate all of the Ute bands. The idea was that the Utes

would be served exclusively by the White River agency and

they would cede the southern part of their reservation. After

several rounds of negotiations, the Weenuche, Moĝwáchi (S),

and Kapuuta (S) bands proposed that they would exchange

the land desired by the US government for lands on the

headwaters of the Piedra, San Juan, Navajo, Blanco, and

Chama rivers. All parties agreed to this arrangement, and

the Utes ceded 1,920,000 acres in exchange for lands around

those rivers. The Kapuuta (S), Moĝwáchi (S), and Weenuche

Utes subsequently moved to a 728,320-acre reservation in

southwestern Colorado and were served by the Southern Ute

agency in Ignacio. After the death of Chief Ouray in 1880,

in 1882 the Tabeguache were forced to move to a new, much

smaller reservation in Utah, along with the White River Utes

(Iden 1929:52) (Figure 3.11).

The experience of removal from Colorado remains

a painful memory among people of the Ute Indian Tribe

and Betsy Chapoose noted that the gravity of loss of their

homeland left the Utes in a total state of bereavement, with

people wailing and cutting their own hair as they left Colorado. A review of archaeological features and historical

newspapers show that despite the “removal” of Utes from

most of their Colorado homelands in the nineteenth century, Utes continued to return to their aboriginal lands “well

into the twentieth century” (Martin 2016:15). The Colorado

Wickiup Project has documented aboriginal wooden features reliably dated as late as 1914 and 1915/1916. Historical newspaper accounts report almost annual Ute hunting

forays into northwestern Colorado from 1881 to 1912, and

a group of 800 Utes camped near Rangely, Colorado, in

1914. Martin (2016:15–16) concluded that: “Not only did a

significant number of the people apparently never abandon

their traditional home and remained off-reservation in western Colorado after the 1881 expulsion, but large numbers of

[Ute Indian tribal members] returned to the area from the

[Utah] reservations, either as temporary hunting parties or

with intentions for a more permanent homecoming.”

Increased mining and railroad construction continued

in Southern Ute territory into the 1880s, drawing Hispanic

settlers from New Mexico to southern Colorado where they

established several settlements along the San Juan River.

Government programs on the Southern Ute Reservation

encouraged farming, allotting 160 acres to Ute families.

“Unused” reservation lands (in the eyes of the government)

totaling 523,079 acres were sold to Hispanic farmers and

homesteaders, including the Animas Valley. By the late

1880s, despite local efforts to preserve land ownership

among Ute and Hispanic farmers, Anglo homesteaders also

settled in the area (Lister 2011:139–141). Fort Lewis, which

was established at Pagosa Springs in 1878, was moved to

the La Plata River drainage in 1881 in order to keep peace

between the Southern Utes and encroaching settlers.

In 1887, the Dawes Severalty Act imposed a system of

private property onto tribal lands by subdividing tribal communal lands into allotments for Native American heads-offamily and individuals (Barton and Barton 2001). Any lands

remaining after allotments were assigned were considered

surplus and were sold to non-Natives. As a result, around

85 percent of Southern Ute lands were declared “excess” by

the federal government and were opened to White settlers

in 1895. The Weenuche Utes viewed the Dawes Act as alien

to their traditions. They resisted allotments and moved to

the far western side of the reservation, separating themselves from the Kapuuta (S) and Moĝwáchi (S) bands. By the

early 1900s, the Southern Ute Reservation was divided, and

the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation was established for the

Weenuche band (Potter 2020). In 1911, the US government

took more than 52,000 acres of Southern Ute land to create

Mesa Verde National Park (Sellars 2007). In exchange, the

Ute Mountain Ute tribe was given some acreage along the

northern boundary of their reservation.

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 33

Figure 3.11. Ute lands as of 1882.

With the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, tribes were

allowed to consolidate Indian lands and acquire additional

lands. Under these provisions, the Southern Ute Indian

Tribe increased their land holdings to 304,700 acres by

1966, although ownership of Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute allotment lands continued to be reduced (Callaway

and others 1986:356).

Contemporary Ute Tribes

Years of forced removal from their traditional lands were

detrimental to the Utes as the land served as the basis for

their culture, including religion, ceremony, and language

(Burns 2003:15). In spite of the massive reduction in Ute

land tenure over time, however, the Ute people still value

their traditional homeland and they rely on it for physical

and spiritual nourishment and education.

The United States separated the Ute bands into three federally recognized tribes: the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Ute Indian Tribe of the

Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Figure 3.12). The Southern Ute Indian Tribe has a reservation in southwestern

Colorado, headquartered in the town of Ignacio. The Ute

Mountain Ute Reservation spans portions of southwestern

Colorado, northern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah.

The tribe is headquartered in Towaoc, Colorado. The Ute

Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation is located

in northeastern Utah and is headquartered in Fort Duchesne.

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is made up predominately

of members of the Kapuuta (S) and Moĝwáchi (S) bands; however, the reservation is within lands traditionally occupied

by the Weenuche band. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is predominantly made up of members of the Weenuche band

and includes members from the White Mesa Utes, whose

34 a Chapter Three

Figure 3.12. Contemporary Ute reservations.

traditional territory encompassed the Four Corners region

(Perlman 1998:12). The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and

Ouray Reservation is predominantly made up of the Uintah,

White River, and Uncompahgre (Tabeguache) bands.

UTE HISTORY IN THE BONITA PEAK AREA

The Bonita Peak area lies at the heart of traditional Ute

territory and has been important in Ute lifeways for generations. Although Ute ancestors left a light imprint on the

land, a number of campsites, trails, peeled trees, caves, and

crevices associated with their occupation are present in and

around the BPMD. Ute people have also expressed that

the land itself, its viewsheds, plant and animal life, waterways, soundscapes, and landmarks are all lasting indicators

of Ute presence because Ute culture was created in these

environments. During fieldwork for the current study, the

research team visited a Ute ancestral site near Molas Lake

(5SA1802) just south of Silverton that consists of a lithic

scatter with several obsidian fragments (Figure 3.13). Ute

tribal participants suggested that this site was probably a

camp for hunting and plant collecting. Viewing the multiple

cobbles scattered across the ground surface at the site, Terry

Knight said there were likely tipis there in the past, and

possibly a medicine wheel grounds.

The group traveled to another Ute archaeological site

situated on a high-altitude (12,600 ft. elevation) ridgeline

near Maggie’s Gulch (5SA1804), located just outside of

and northeast of Silverton (Figure 3.14). The site consists

of around 200 to 300 lithic artifacts of different material

types, including obsidian, tools, cores, and an Elko Corner

Notched projectile point. The Rio Grande Valley and the

Animas River Valley are both visible from the site. Terry

Knight believed this site was a hunting camp, and that there

Ute Cultural and Historical Overview a 35

Figure 3.13. Ute ancestral site near Molas Lake (5SA1802). Photograph by Maren Hopkins, August 20, 2019.

were probably others nearby. “There are a lot of deer, elk,

and sheep here,” he said. Mr. Knight explained that Utes

would hunt by driving the game down the slopes into the

valleys or draws where they could be more easily killed and

processed. Cassandra Atencio explained that the viewshed

was probably more important to Ute ancestors than the site

itself because it kept them oriented within their homeland

and being in the mountains was a source of spiritual strength,

especially at high altitudes. She thought there was probably

a trail on the ridgeline that was used by Utes in the past.

In the 1700s, Spanish explorers ventured into the San

Juan Mountains to map the territory and establish trade

relations with Native people living in the region. The Juan

Maria Rivera expedition of 1765 was the first officially

sanctioned exploration of the northern reaches of Spanish

territory north of New Mexico (Horn 2017:2). The pretext

of the expedition was to search for silver ore in the mountains after a Ute Indian living near Abiquiu claimed that the

area was rich in precious metals. Many historians believe,

however, that the true intent of the expedition was military

reconnaissance, and it was concealed because of fear of

violence and retaliation

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.