Draft general management plan/environmental impact statement - Nez Perce National Historical Park and Big Hole National Battlefield

214 Pages·1996·13.7 MB·English

by  National Park Service

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
NEZ PERCE
PARK
NATIONAL HISTORICAL
AND
HOLE
BIG
NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD
United States Departmentofthe Interior • National Park Service
CamasMeadows,Idaho.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL
PARK
HISTORICAL
AND
HOLE NATIONAL
BIG
BATTLEFIELD
October 1996
Asotin and Okanogan Counties, Washington
Wallowa County, Oregon
Nez Perce, Idaho, Lewis, Clearwater, and Clark Counties, Idaho
Blaine, Yellowstone, and Beaverhead Counties, Montana
This Draft General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement will guide the management of at
NezPerceNationalHistoricalParkforthenext15to20years. Itcontainsstrategiesforcooperationwith
local interests, agencies, and tribes, aswell as plans forinterpretation, visitor experience, and parkop-
erations. The park consists of38sites in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Only five sites are
owned bythe National ParkService; therestwillbe managed as unitsoftheparkthroughcooperative
agreements or other arrangements between the National Park Service and the landowners. This plan
waspreparedbyaninterdisciplinaryteamofpeoplefromtheNational ParkService;theForestService;
the Nez Perce, Colville, and Umatilla Tribes; and statehistoricpreservationoffices.
Parkwideand site-specificinformationispresented on threemanagementalternativesand theireffects
on individual sites and on the park as a whole. Many overall actions would be designed to unify park
sites, upgrade interpretation, and help visitors recognize theconnectionbetweenthepark'sindividual
sites. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would accomplish goals and protect resources through
partnershipsarrangedthroughvarioustypesofformaland informalcooperativeagreementsormemo-
randumsofunderstanding.Alternative2, theminimumrequirementsalternativeand theproposed ac-
tion for overall park management, would retain the general management direction of the park, but
appropriateindividual managementtechniqueswouldbeapplied incertaincases.Alternative3would
involve more facilitydevelopmentand a greatercapital investment to add newvisitorfacilities oradd
personnel in some locations. Proposed actions for each site are detailed in the "Site-Specific Informa-
tion"partofthe document.
Theenvironmental consequencesofthe proposed action and the alternatives are also evaluated in the
document. No adverse cumulative impacts would be expected from the proposed action. The visitor
experience would improve at various sites of the park, resulting in beneficial cumulative effects. No
unavoidableadverseimpactswouldbeexpectedtoresultfromtheproposedaction.Inapracticalsense,
financial resourcescommitted to implementing the actionswould be irreversible.
Superintendent, Nez Perce National Historical Park
P.O. Box 93
Spalding, ID83551
United States Department of the Interior • National ParkService
DRAFT General Management Plan Nez Percp^^
1 mPaCt Statement National HtShc?Park X
OciobeTllge '
V7Nez Perce DRAFT General Management Plan
A National Historical Park Environmental Impact Statement
October 1996
SUMMARY
This Draft GeneralManagementPlan/Environ- marksthatareoflegendarysignificancetothe
mentalImpactStatement:NezPerceNationalHis- Nez Perce people. The park includes parts of
torical Parkand Big Hole National Battlefield is the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail,
neededtoaddressproblemsandmanagement theNezPerce(Nee-Me-Poo)NationalHistoric
concernsrelatedtoresourceprotectionandto Trail, and the Lolo Trail. The Nez Perce cul-
guidethemanagementofnaturalandcultural ture was shaped by the geography and the
resources,generaldevelopment,andparkad- rich and varied resources of the Nez Perce
ministration forthenext 15 to20years. Four- homeland.NezPerceNationalHistoricalPark
teensiteswereadded totheparkin 1992,and offers a unique opportunity for visitors to
there is a need for renewed focus and direc- understand present-day Nez Perce culture
tion.Theplancontainsstrategiesforcoopera- and to learn about important events of the
tion with local interests, agencies, and tribes, past.
as well as plans for interpretation, visitorex-
perience, and park operations. This document is divided into two major
parts,"ParkwideInformation"and"Site-Spe-
Nez Perce National Historical Park consists cificInformation."Thefirstcontainsinforma-
of 38 separate sites spread across Idaho, Or- tion that applies to theentire park: a descrip-
egon,Washington,andMontana. Onlyfiveof tion, information on the park's significance,
thesitesarefederallyownedandmanagedby desired future, issues and concerns, and al-
theNationalParkService; the restare, orwill ternatives for its overall management. The
be, managed as units of the park through second contains a description of each site,
cooperative agreements or other arrange- along with alternatives for its management
mentsbetweentheNationalParkServiceand and an analysis of the impacts of each alter-
theowningormanagingagencyorindividual. native on that site.
This plan was prepared by an interdiscipli-
nary team of people from the National Park Three alternativesforthemanagement ofthe
Service; the Forest Service; the Nez Perce, park are presented. Alternative 1, the no-ac-
Colville, and Umatilla Tribes; and various tion alternative, would involve thecontinua-
state historic preservation offices. tionofexistingconditions.Underthisalterna-
tivetheaccomplishmentofmanyofthepark's
The law that established Nez Perce National goals and objectiveswould continuetohinge
Historical Park specified that the park is to on partnership through various types of for-
"facilitate protection and provide interpreta- malandinformalagreements,andviewsheds
tionofsitesintheNezPerceCountryofIdaho and cultural resources would be protected
thathave exceptional value in commemorat- through cooperative agreements, memoran-
ing the history of the Nation." Specifically dums ofunderstanding, sceniceasements, or
mentionedaresitesrelatingtoearlyNezPerce purchase on a willing-sellerbasis.
culture, the Lewis and Clark expedition
through the area, the fur trade, missionaries, Alternative2, the minimum requirements al-
gold mining, logging, the Nez Perce War of ternative,is the proposed actionfor the over-
1877, and "such other sites as will depict the all management of the park. This alternative
roleoftheNezPercecountryinthewestward wouldretainunchanged thegeneralmanage-
expansion of the United States." ment direction of the park, but appropriate
managementtechniquesbased onindividual
Theparkcontainsburialsitesandsacredsites circumstances would be applied in certain
and is a focal pointforcurrentNez Percecul- cases. Incremental steps would be taken to
ture.Itpreservesacontinuumofatleast11,000 fulfill requirements and standards for land
years of Nez Perce culture. Its archeological and resource protection, visitor services, and
record, museum collection, cultural land- operations.Morecooperativeagreementsand
scapes, and structures are of national signifi- other partnership mechanisms would be de-
cance. Itcontainshistoricalandculturalland- veloped as needed to protect and interpret
DRAFT General Management Plan Nez Perce
Environmental Impact Statement
National Historical Park
October 1996
resources and to include NezPerce peoplein Surveys and studies would be conducted as
park management. Studies would be con- needed to identify and protect cultural and
ductedtoamplifyandcorrecttheinterpretive natural resources and to amplify and correct
story and to identify and protectnatural and interpretation. Studies also would be con-
cultural resources. The existing facilities ducted to identify possible additions to the
would be rehabilitated or expanded under park.Possibleadditionscouldincludesitesin
alternative 2, and modest developments Oklahoma and Kansas, whereChiefJoseph's
wouldbe added at some sites tomeet opera- band were sent after their surrender at Bear
tionalandvisitoruserequirements.Somenew PawBattlefield.Additionallegislationwould
visitorfacilities wouldbebuiltand othersre- be required to add to the park any sites out-
habilitated, and several overlooks and pull- side the five states where sites are already
outswouldbeconstructedorrelocated. Some authorized. Plans would be developed for
historicstructureswouldbeadaptivelyused. managing resources to meet legislated and
Theseactionswouldbeaccomplishedinpart- partnership requirements such as the Native
nership with other agencies and organiza- AmericanGravesProtectionandRepatriation
tions. Actand traditionaluses. Plansalsowouldbe
developed to manage vegetation, eliminate
Alternative3,whichincludesactionsbeyond exotic and noxious plants, and reintroduce
minimumrequirements,wouldinvolvemore native species.
facility development and a greatercapitalin-
vestment to develop new visitor facilities or Themanagementand operationofNezPerce
addpersonnel for certain locations. National Historical Park would continue to
rely heavily on partnerships with agencies,
This document includes analysis ofthe envi- organizations,andindividuals.Theparkstaff
ronmentalconsequencesofimplementingthe wouldcontinueworkingwithlocalgroupsto
proposed action and each ofthe alternatives. increase local appreciation of park sites and
Although alternative 2 is the parkwide pro- toencourage localpeople'sfeelings of"own-
posed action, the proposed actions for indi- ership" oftheparkanditsresources. TheNa-
vidual sites vary according to the needs of tional Park Service also would continue to
each site. Individual tables in the "Site-Spe- workwithlocal governments onplanning or
cificInformation"partofthedocumentshow developmentissues thatcould affectparkre-
the proposed action for each site and the en- sources. The Nez Perce people would be en-
vironmental consequences for that site. The couraged to participate in decision-making
informationfromtheindividualtablesisalso regarding park planning, management, and
presented in tables comparing alternatives operation. The National Park Service would
and consequences, whichcanbefound atthe furnish adequate site protection and security
end ofthe "Alternatives" chapter. through cooperative agreements, contracts
with local law enforcement agencies, and
Some actions would be taken parkwide re- other mechanisms.
gardless ofthe alternative selected. Many ac-
tions related to interpretation and visitor use Ingeneral,alternative 1 potentiallywouldre-
wouldbedesignedtounifytheparksitesand sult in adverse impacts on cultural resources
story and tohelp visitors recognizethatindi- because this alternative would provide little
vidual sites in Nez Perce National Historical additional protection for these resources.
Park are part of the larger park. Interpretive However, theculturalresourcesatsome sites
information would be upgraded and cor- are already adequately protected. At some
rected. Site-specific interpretive information sites provisions wouldbe made under all al-
wouldrefertotheparkasawholesothatvisi- ternatives to improve the information given
torscouldappreciatetheentirestory.Interpre- tovisitorsregardingtheimportanceofthecul-
tationwouldbe aimed athelpingvisitorsun- tural resources. At others, efforts would be
derstandtheinterrelationshipoftheNezPerce made toestablishagreementswithlandown-
people and their homeland. The park would ers regarding the protection of cultural re-
trynottointrudeoncontemporaryNezPerce sources. At most sites, alternative 1 would
lifeways.Culturalinformationwouldbeused causefewornoimpactsonnaturalresources.
withsensitivitytoNezPerceculturalconven- In a few locations, some surface disturbance
tions. could resultfrommoving signs ortrails.Any
Nez Perce DRAFT General Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
National Historical Park
October 1996
potential impacts on riparian areas orcrucial struction and development, leading to some
habitatoron threatened orendangered plant temporary jobs in the construction industry
or animal species would be mitigated. Inter- and some additional temporary demand for
pretive information forvisitors wouldbe im- locally provided goods and services. The ad-
proved under alternative 1 at most sites. In ditionofafewseasonalorpermanentemploy-
addition, the visitorexperience wouldbe en- ees would bring a slight long-term increase
hanced because the interconnection of the infederalexpendituresinthelocalareas.Tour-
various park sites wouldbe made clear. ismandtheconcomitantspendingbyvisitors
might also increase slightly in the affected
Additionalexpendituresforcapitalimprove- towns.
ments wouldberequired toimplementsome
oftheprovisionsofalternative1.Forexample, In places where the National Park Service
interpretiveprograms wouldbe improved at would protect park resources by acquiring
anumberofsites,andviewshedsandcultural scenicorconservationeasementsfromprivate
resources would be protected through landowners, federalmonieswouldbeplaced
cooperative agreements, memorandums of into theprivatesector,butthelandwouldre-
understanding,sceniceasements,orpurchase main in private ownership. Therefore, there
on a willing-seller basis. Expenditures also wouldbenoadverseeffectsonownersofpri-
would be necessary for the development or vateproperty,andpropertywouldremainon
construction of several visitor contact facili- local tax rolls. If a fee simple purchase was
ties and interpretive trails and the adaptive involved, thesellerwouldreceivecompensa-
use ofsome historic structures. tion at fair market value. In these instances,
localjurisdictionsprobablewouldexperience
In general, alternative 2 would result in bet- some reduction in local tax revenues. This
ter protection of cultural resources through would be largely offset by federal payments
more staff attention to protection; however, in lieu oftaxes to local governments.
increased visitation at some sites could lead
to disturbance. In addition, construction or Inmostcasestheeffectsonculturalandnatu-
moving of facilities at a few sites could dis- ral resources and on the visitor experience
turbunknownburiedculturalresources.Like underalternative 3wouldbe similartothose
alternative 1, alternative 2 would cause few described foralternative2.Atafewsitesvisi-
or no impacts on natural resources at most tationwouldincreasemoreunderalternative
sites. In a few locations, surface disturbance 3, and in a few cases interpretationwouldbe
could result from increased visitation or the improved through the addition ofmorepark
moving or construction of facilities. Any po- personnel or their presence formore months
tentialimpactsonriparianareas,crucialhabi- eachyear. Inareasofincreasedvisitation,soil
tat, orthreatened orendangeredplantorani- erosion could increase. More construction at
mal species would be mitigated. In general, some sites could increase the likelihood of
alternative 2 also would result in improved disturbing unknown buried cultural re-
interpretive information for visitors and an sources.
enhanced visitor experience because the in-
terconnectionofthevariousparksiteswould Alternative3would involvemorecapitalim-
be made clear. Improved interpretive media provement expenditures forthe construction
and the presence ofinterpretive personnel at of several new visitorcenters, a cultural cen-
some sites would further enhance the visitor ter,andaninterpretivefacility,theconversion
experience. of a building to a visitor contact facility, the
re-creation or rehabilitation of several struc-
Capital improvement expenditures would tures and historic buildings, and the devel-
increase under alternative 2 because of the opmentandseveralotherminorvisitorfacili-
construction or rehabilitationofvisitorfacili- ties.Thisalternativewouldresultinthemost
ties at several sites, the addition of several short-termpositiveeconomicbenefitsbecause
overlooksandpullouts,andthedevelopment it would involve the most federal expen-
of minor visitor facilities at a variety of sites. ditures for construction and development. It
Short-termpositiveeconomicbenefitswould would provide some temporary jobs in the
be greater than in alternative 1 because there construction industry and create some addi-
would bemore federal expenditures forcon-
DRAFT General Management Plan Nez Perce
Environmental Impact Statement
National Historical Park
October 1996
tionaltemporarydemandforlocallyprovided
goods and services.
The direct and indirect economic benefits
would probablybe significantfora fewbusi-
nesses and individuals, and it would be
greater for the towns near the major visitor
facilityconstructionsites.However,compared
to the size of the local economy, the number
ofnewjobscreatedandtheadditionalexpen-
ditures would be relatively insignificant and
would have little overall impact on the local
economy. There would be a slight long-term
increase in federal expenditures in the local
areas because additional seasonal or perma-
nentemployeeswouldbeadded.Tourismand
the concomitant spending by visitors might
also increase slightly in some towns as a re-
sult of the new or enhanced visitor facilities.
The effects ofNPS acquisition ofscenic ease-
ments or other interests in land from private
owners would be similar to those described
for alternative 2.
Noadversecumulativeimpactswouldbeex-
pected from the proposed action. The visitor
experience wouldimprove atvarious sites of
the park, resulting in beneficial cumulative
effects. No unavoidable adverse impacts
wouldbeexpectedtoresultfromtheproposed
action.Inapracticalsense,financialresources
committedtoimplementingtheactionswould
be irreversible.
Vl Nez Perce DRAFT General Management Plan
Environmental ImpactStatement
National Historical Park
7
CONTENTS
PARKWIDE INFORMATION SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
SPALDINGUNIT
PURPOSE OFAND NEED FORTHE PLAN ANTANDYELLOWJACKET 40
INTRODUCTION 3 BUFFALOEDDY 42
BRIEFDESCRIPTIONOFTHEPARK 3 COYOTE'SFISHNET 44
PARKPURPOSE 4 CRAIGDONATIONLANDCLAIM 46
PARKSIGNIFICANCE 4 DONALDMACKENZIE'SPACIFICFUR
PRIMARYINTERPRETIVETHEMES 5 COMPANYTRADINGPOST 48
DESIREDFUTURE 5 FORTLAPWAIOFFICERS'QUARTERSAND
ISSUESANDCONCERNS 6 NORTHERNIDAHOINDIANAGENCY 50
RELATIONSHIPTOOTHERPLANNINGEFFORTS 9 HASOTINOVILLAGESITE 53
LAPWAIMISSION 55
ALTERNATIVES FOR LENORE 56
PARK MANAGEMENT SAINTJOSEPH'SMISSION 58
ALTERNATIVESFORPARKMANAGEMENT 11 SPALDING 60
SUMMARYOFALTERNATIVES 12 UPPERCLEARWATER/ WHITEBIRDUNIT
ASASMITHMISSIONANDLEWISAND
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CLARKLONGCAMP 68
ALTERNATIVE 1:NOACTION 15 CAMASPRAIRIE 70
ALTERNATIVE2:MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 15 CANOECAMP 72
ALTERNATIVE3:ACTIONSBEYOND CLEARWATERBATTLEFIELD 74
MINIMUMREQUIREMENTS 16 CLEARWATERBATTLEFIELD 76
ACTIONSCOMMONTOALLSITESAND COTTONWOODSKIRMISHESSITE 78
ALLALTERNATIVES 16 EASTKAMIAH / HEARTOFTHE
INTERPRETATIONANDVISITOR MONSTER 80
EXPERIENCE 16 LOLOTRAILANDLOLOPASS 84
BOUNDARIESANDLANDPROTECTION 1 LOOKINGGLASSCAMP 88
SURVEYS,STUDIES,ANDPLANS MUSSELSHELLMEADOW 90
FORRESOURCEPROTECTION 18 PIERCECOURTHOUSE 92
PARTNERSHIPS 18 TOLOLAKE 94
PARKOPERATIONSANDMANAGEMENT 19 WEIPPEPRAIRIE 96
WEISROCKSHELTER 98
AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT WHITEBIRDBATTLEFIELD 100
OVERVIEW 21 OREGON /WASHINGTONUNIT
CULTURALRESOURCES 21 DUGBAR 106
NATURALRESOURCES 25 JOSEPHCANYONVIEWPOINT 108
VISITOREXPERIENCE ANDINTERPRETATION 28 LOSTTNECAMPSITE 110
FACILITIESFORPARKOPERATIONS 30 OLDCHIEFJOSEPHGRAVESITE 114
CARRYINGCAPACITY 31 NEZPERCE(NESPELEM)CAMPSITES 116
SOCIOECONOMICENVIRONMENT 32 NEZPERCECEMETERY 118
MANAGEMENTZONING 33 MONTANAUNIT
BEARPAWBATTLEFIELD 122
SUMMARYOF OVERALL BIGHOLENATIONALBATTLEFIELD 126
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CAMASMEADOWSBATTLESITES 130
OVERALLCONSEQUENCES 35 CANYONCREEK 132
SOCIOECONOMICCONSEQUENCES 35 TABLE1:COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES,SITE
CUMULATIVEIMPACTS 36 SPECIHC 134
UNAVOIDABLEADVERSEIMPACTS 36 TABLE2:COMPARISONOFENVIRONMENTAL
IRREVERSIBLEANDIRRETRIEVABLE CONSEQUENCES 144
COMMITMENTSOFRESOURCES 36
DRAFT General Management Plan Nez Percent VII
Environmental Impact Statement
October 996 National Historical Park A
1
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION right:Musselshell
Meadows, Idaho.
PUBLICINVOLVEMENT 161
PUBLICSCOPING 161
FURTHERMAILINGS 161
CONSULTATIONWITHSTATESANDOTHER
FEDERALAGENCIES 161
REVIEWERSOFTHEDRAFTDOCUMENT 161
PUBLICMEETINGS 163
COMPLIANCE 163
WETLANDS 163
THREATENEDORENDANGEREDSPECIES163
CULTURALRESOURCES 164
PREPARERSOFDOCUMENT 165
PLANNINGTEAMMEMBERS 165
CONTRIBUTORS 166
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES,INDEX
A:LEGISLATION 167
B:COSTESTIMATES 170
C: CULTURALRESOURCES 173
MUSEUMCOLLECTION 173
HISTORICRESOURCES 174
ETHNOGRAPHICDATA 174
CULTURALRESOURCESPROGRAM 174
ETHNOGRAPHICPROGRAM 175
D:NATURALRESOURCES 177
NATIVEVEGETATION 177
HYDROLOGY 177
AIRQUALITY 178
NATURALQUIET 178
CULTURALLANDSCAPESAND
VIEWSHED 178
E:THREATENED,ENDANGERED,ORSPECIAL
CONCERNSPECIES 179
F:VISITATION
APPENDIXG:CONSULTATIONLETTERS 183
REFERENCES 199
INDEX 201
MAPS
REGION 2
VICINITY 2
SOCIOECONOMICREGION 32
TABLES
TABLE COMPARISONOFALTERNATIVES,
1:
SITESPECIFIC 134
TABLE COMPARISONOFENVIRONMENTAL
2:
CONSEQUENCES 144
Nez Perce DRAFT General Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
National Historical Park
October 1996