# Sean O’Meara, Maren P. Hopkins, Michael C. Spears, and T. J. Ferguson (2021) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Asouthern_ute%3A20242da18608f9b5 ## Record - **Collection:** Tribal code - **Document type:** Tribal code ## 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 Copyright © Southern Ute Indian Tribe 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 Unknown.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 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 1 Gold King Mine overlook 8/19/2019 2 Molas Lake 8/20/2019 3 Maggie’s Gulch 8/20/2019 4 Cement Creek, plant identification 8/21/2019 5 Gold King Mine Level 7 overlook 10/15/2019; 10/17/2019 6 Gladstone 10/15/2019 7 Velocity Basin 10/15/2019 8 Animas River 10/16/2019 9 Iron Fen 10/15/2019 10 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. 79 S. Ute 3/12/2019; 3/15/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019 Erwin Taylor 80 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 55 S. Ute 3/12/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019 Edward. B. Box, III 52 S. Ute 3/15/2019 Garrett Briggs 34 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 74 Ute M. 10/15/2019–10/17/2019 Alfred Wall, Jr. 73 Ute M. 3/13/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019 Laverna Summa 73 Ute M. 8/19/2019–8/21/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019 Helen Munoz 71 Ute M. 3/13/2019; 3/14/2019; 10/15/2019–10/17/2019 Terry Knight 70 Ute M. 3/13/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019 Kathryn Jacket 70 Ute M. 3/13/2019; 8/19/2019–8/21/2019 Mark Wing – Ute M. 10/15/2019–10/17/2019 Betsy Chapoose 60 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 79 41% Spring Field Session Medicinal 51 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 43 23% Ceremonial 19 9% Basketry materials 15 8% Utilitarian 15 8% Shelter 7 3% Weaponry 6 3% Fuel (firewood) 5 2% Hygienic purposes 4 2% Report Review Session Poisonous and avoided 2 1% 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 2 1% Trail markers 1 1% Insect repellent 1 <1% Toy 1 <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). [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Asouthern_ute%3A20242da18608f9b5. Public record. Not legal advice.