ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT FOR THE ROSS IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY PROJECT AREA, CROOK COUNTY, WYOMING Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants on behalf of the Attenuation Environmental Company August 25, 2013 (updated edition) Ethnographic Context for the Ross In-Situ Recovery Project Area, Crook County, Wyoming Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Prepared by Scott C. Phillips, Thomas A. Witt, and Holly K. Norton SWCA Environmental Consultants 295 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300, Broomfield, Colorado 80021 (303) 487-1183 On behalf of the Attenuation Environmental Company P.O. Box 30537 Seattle, WA 98113 (206) 783-3208 Ethnographic Context for the Ross In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, Crook County, Wyoming TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE CONTEXT .......................................................................2 TIME INTERVAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................2 GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT ...............................................................................................4 THE ASSEMBLAGE OF EXISTING INFORMATION...........................................................4 REPOSITORIES ...................................................................................................................5 REPOSITORY RESEARCH ................................................................................................6 ANNOTATED SOURCES ...................................................................................................8 SOURCES REVIEWED & NOT FOUND RELEVANT TO THE CURRENT STUDY .16 SYNTHESIS .............................................................................................................................19 ARAPAHO .........................................................................................................................20 ARIKARA ..........................................................................................................................26 ASSINIBOINE ...................................................................................................................33 BLACKFEET .....................................................................................................................39 CHEYENNE .......................................................................................................................44 CREE ..................................................................................................................................49 CROW.................................................................................................................................52 GROS VENTRE .................................................................................................................59 HIDATSA ...........................................................................................................................64 KIOWA AND KIOWA APACHE .....................................................................................68 KOOTENAI ........................................................................................................................76 MANDAN...........................................................................................................................80 SALISH...............................................................................................................................84 SHOSHONE .......................................................................................................................87 SIOUX ................................................................................................................................93 EXPECTED TCP TYPES BASED ON THE ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT .....................100 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................103 REFERENCES CITED...........................................................................................................104 Ethnographic Context for the Ross In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, Crook County, Wyoming LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table of Repositories Contacted. ................................................................................................5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1. Location of the Ross Project Area. ................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. The territory of the Arapaho. ........................................................................................ 21 Figure 3. The territory of the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan. ..................................................... 27 Figure 4. The territory of the Assiniboine. .................................................................................. 35 Figure 5. The territory of the Blackfeet. ...................................................................................... 40 Figure 6. The territory of the Cheyenne....................................................................................... 45 Figure 7. The territory of the Cree. .............................................................................................. 50 Figure 8. The territory of the Crow.............................................................................................. 54 Figure 9. The territory of the Gros Ventre. .................................................................................. 60 Figure 10. The territory of the Kiowa and Plains Apache. .......................................................... 69 Figure 11. The territory of the Upper and Lower Kootenai......................................................... 77 Figure 12. The territory of the Flathead and Pend d'Oreille Salish. ............................................ 85 Figure 13. The territory of the Shoshone. .................................................................................... 88 Figure 14. The territory of the Sioux. .......................................................................................... 95 Ethnographic Context for the Ross In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, Crook County, Wyoming INTRODUCTION This document develops a context within which the significant patterns, events, persons and cultural values of ethnographic resources in the Ross In Situ Uranium Recovery Project (Ross Project) area may be considered. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as the lead federal agency on the undertaking, is responsible for taking into account the effects of the Ross Project on historic properties (including significant ethnographic resources) in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). ‘Ethnographic resource’ as it is used here means any historic property of “traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe,” pursuant to the Section 106 process (at Code of Federal Regulations Part 36 Section 800 [36 CFR 800]). The use of the term ‘ethnographic resource’ is also intended to distinguish those resources recognizable through ethnographic sources (such as by the people that hold the traditions and are of the culture from which importance is ascribed to the property). This differentiates ethnographic resources from other general cultural resources that tend to be archaeologically identified, in manners that may not well convey values of “traditional religious and cultural importance.” This context forms a background for the identification and evaluation process for ethnographic resources in the Ross Project area. It provides information that could be used by the NRC to support eligibility determinations of sites already identified by GCM Services (Ferguson 2010). In addition, it provides information that could be applied in complement to traditional cultural property (TCP) surveys conducted by Native American tribes with traditional ties to the Project region. In relation to a TCP survey, the ethnographic context may serve as needed to provide additional historical background to enhance understandings of the cultural importance of TCPs (TCPs being a type of ethnographic resource with a defined assessment approach, described in National Register Bulletin [NRB] 38 [Parker and King 1998]). The results of the ethnographic context can further be applied as needed in support of the TCP survey’s evaluation of these resources as “historic properties” (as defined under 36 CFR 800.16) and, therefore, of their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). TCP survey results in turn can be used to identify errors or discrepancies or to clarify details in the ethnographic context, as well to be reinforced by the reliable factual data contained within this context. The ethnographic context will rely on existing documentary sources of information, while TCP surveys are ideally further informed by elders and other culturally knowledgeable individuals and information sources from each participating tribe. As such, the ethnographic context will provide an overview, and the TCP study would be expected to be the direct means for collecting Project area-specific data, on sites of traditional religious and cultural importance. Context development follows the steps outlined in the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation