Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU
Final Environmental Impact Statements (ID) Idaho
1997
Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce National Historical Park and Big Hole National Battlefield
United States, Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/idaho_finalimpact
Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons
Recommended Citation United States, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce National Historical Park and Big Hole National Battlefield" (1997). Final Environmental Impact Statements (ID). Paper 22. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/idaho_finalimpact/22
This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Idaho at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Final Environmental Impact Statements (ID) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DIt>51-S-0S
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NEZ PERCE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND BIG HOLE NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD
JULY 1997 AsorIN AND OKANOGAN C OUNTlES, W ASHINGTON W ALLOWA C Ol1l'olY, OREGON NEZ PERCE, IDAHO, L EWIS, CLEARWATER, AND ClARK C OUNTTES, IDAHO BWNE, YELLOWSTONE, AND BEAVERHEAD COUNTIES, M OM'AN'" INTRODUCTION
This Fitla / Enuironmental lmpact Statement for Nez P~ rc e National Historical Park and Big Hole National Battlefield is an abbreviated document. It is important to understand that this Final Environmental Impact Statement must be read in conjunction with the previously published. Draf t General Management Plan/Enuironmental lmpact Statement.
A notice of availability of the Draft General Management PlanlEnuironmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 199, p. 53373, on October 11, 1996. Approxi mately 1,700 copies of the draft were distributed to governmental agencies. public interest groups, businesses, media, local libraries, and individuals.
Written comments were accepted through December 11 , 1996, which was the dose of the 60- day public comment period for the draft document.
During the public review period, 512 people participated in workshops conducted in late October and early November in 16 communities in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho. In addition, 641 letters were received. The National Park Service greatly appreciates the time and effort that people took to participate in the review of the d raft document and to comment on the proposals.
This document is divided into three sections: a summary of the public meetings, responses to the comments, and corrections or revisions to the draft document. The responses are addressed via General Responses to Major Issues, a table of Site-Specific Comments, and Specific Responses and Copies of Comment Letters.
Concerns ex prf'''sed in letters from individuals are summarized in the General Responses to Major Issues section. In the Specific Respmlses a'id Copies of Comme"t Letters section only letters from elected officials, federal agencies, tribes, state and local governments, and organizations are displayed . In some cases, when a comment was received from individuals as we ll as from agencies or organizations whose letters were displayed, the comment is addressed only in the Specific Respo'I5eS and Copies of Comment Letters section.
The section of the document, Corrections and Revisioll s to tile Draft Docllme"t, contains specific fac tual corrections and cla rifying text changes to the Draft General Management Plan/Environ -
Final Environmental Impact Statement . NezPerce~~ National HistorICa l Park Ii menta/Impact Statement, as a result of public review. CONTENTS
A JO. day waiting period will foUow the publication of this Final Enviro'lnJetl tGI Impact State ment, and a record of decision is expected to be signed in August of this year. The record of decision will indicate the alternative selected as the general management plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park and Big Hole National Battlefield. This procedure is in accordance lntroduction ...... i with the Code of Federal Regul,Uons, title 40, parts 1505.2 and 1506.10. When the record of decision is signed, the General Management Plan will be issued and will include the details of Responses to Public Comments the record of decision and all elements of the plan. It will not contain the rejected alternatives or other components of the environmental impact statement. Summary of Public Meetings Workshop Fonnat ...... 1 For further information about this plan, please contact: Responses to Public Comments ...... 1 Concerns 1 Suyerintendent Nez Perce National Historical Park General Responses to Major Issues ...... 2 Route 1, Box 100 The General Management Plan and the Park in General ...... 2 Spalding. Idaho 83540 The Environmentallmpact Statement ...... 3 Scoping ...... 3 Socioeconomic ConcerI\S ...... 3 "No Action" ...... 3 lmpacts of Additional Traffic on Local Roads .. . __ ... __ ... ____ ...... __ ...... 3 lnterpretation and VlSitor Use ... __ ...... __ ...... __ ...... __ ...... 4 Boundaries and Land Protection ...... 4 Establishing Boundaries [pp. 8, 17-18J ...... 4 Land Protection Plan [po9 J ...... 5 Boundaries for Clearwater Battlefield [po 74J ...... 6 Boundaries for Weippe Prairie [po% J ...... 7 Surveys, Studies and Plans for Resource Protection ...... 7 Partnerships ...... 7
Site-Specific Comments ...... 9
Specific Responses and Copies of Comment Letters ...... 13
Corrections and Revisions to Draft Document
lntroduction ..... ------.. ------.. --~ Plan Implementation ...... ______.. ____ . __ ...... 51 Alternative 2: Minimum Requi.rements Proposed Action .... __ ...... __ .... __ .. ____ 51 PhaSing ...... 51
Actions Common to AU Sites and AU Alternatives ...... 51 Boundaries and Land Protection . __ ..... __ . __ . ______...... 51 Alternatives - Coyote's Fishnet ...... __ .... ____ .. __ .. ____ ...... 52
Affected Environment ...... 52 Natural Resources ...... 52 Ecoregions ...... __ .... __ .... __ ...... 52 Conifer/Alpine Meadows ...... 52
Summary of OveraU Environmental Consequences. . .. __ 52 Socioeconomic Consequences ...... 52 Alternative 2: Minimum Requi.rements ...... 52
United States Department of the lnterior • National Park Service
Final Environmental Final Environmental iii ij "Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez Perce~" j( National Historical Park Impact Statement NaHonal Historical Park Ii RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Site-Specific Infonnation ...... 52 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS Concerns Spalding Unit Coyote's Fishnet ...... 52 Workshops were held in 16 communities near There was a supportive atmosphere at many Upper Clearwater/ White Bird Unit ...... 53 park sites. Press releases announced these of the meetings, in which concerns we"'e ex Clearwater Battlefield ...... 53 meetings. They were also announced in a pressed within the context of appreciation for Tolo Lake ...... 53 transrnittalletter enclosed in each maiJe
Final Environmental Final Environmental iv " Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez Perce~t x NatMmai Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park i1 stated, or were against the proposed changes Socioeconomic Concerns the sites related to the Chief josep., Band, par ments that might not be substantive, but a re in park management and operation. A few ticularly for a Nez Perce cultural center. sponse will help the public better understand comments indicated they were opposed to the There were concerns that private property how or why we arrived at a decision. park as a whole for unspecified reasons. would lose value if it was included within the The primary concern voiced at most of the proposed National Park Service boundaries, other meetings. particularly in communities Six major issues w~re raised in the written The National Park Service apprecJates the and that its inclusion would negatively affect along the upper Clearwater River valley, was comments from individuals received during positive comments and acknowled ges the the tax base of local entities. Since fee interest that boundaries were being proposed on pri the public review period. These can be better negative ones. We hope our responses will to most of the private property included vate land. After hearing explanations of the addressed in longer, more general explana help everyone better understand why we within the proposed boundaries would not boundaries. the upcoming Land Protection tions than can be accommodated in the side made the decisions we did, and will illustrate have been acquired, there would have been Plan, and various management strategies that by-side format of letters and responses. In this how we adjusted the plan to accommodate the no reduction in the local tax base. For those could be used to protect the cesoun_Ce:. the section we respond to issues raised in indi- comments . few areas where acquisition of interest in the opinion was clearly expressed that these •- :>'i lla 1 letters concerning: property will take place, arrangements will be boundaries should not be established without r. lade for payment in lieu of taxes ~o localgov the consent of the landowner. Our response • The General Management Plan and the THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ernments. Acquisitions of partial interests was that those who wanted their private land Park in General STATEMENT (e.g., easements) would have titUe if any im to be a part of the park sites would be con pact on county tax bases, as property taxes tacted prior to issuing the final document, to • The Environmental Impact Statement Several comments expressed the opinion that would continue to be paid. be sure they were in agreement with the the environmental impact statement is incom boundaries. Except for previously legislated • Interpretation and Visitor Use plete, due to inadequacy of the seoping pro Response. In response to the concerns regard boundaries. the proposed boundaries were cess, a lack of addressing socioeconomic con ing loss of value or rights to private property, redrawn to exclude those properties where the • Boundaries and Land Protection cerns, the title "No Action" for Alternative 1, when a landowner objected to having his or landowner objected. and the impacts of additional traffic on local her property included in the proposed bound • Surveys, Studies, and Plans for Re roads. ary for any reason, unless the boundaries were source Protection estabtished by legislation, we excluded that GENERAL RESPONSES TO MAJOR property {-om the boundary. PIe ... see Ap ISSUES • Partnershiy.i Scoping pendix C for maps indicating ~he revised prcr posed boundaries for specific Sil ~S_ Six hundred forty-one written comments were There is also a table d isplaying site-specific A Notice of Intm t to Prepare an Environntmtal received.Of these, 430 were fonn letters from comments and our responses. Some of the Im pact Statemen t was published in the Fede ral ind ivid ual ~, examples of the four types of same topicS and sites are also discussed in re Register, Vo!' 59, No. 222, p. 59790 on Novem UNo Action" form letters are displayed in Appendix A. sponses presented in the Specific Responses ber 18, 1994. The National Park Service deter Comment letters fro m elected officials, federal and Copies of Comment Letters section. mined that a single meeting in a centralloca The definition of a "NoAction" alternative is agencies, tribes, state and local governments tion would not be appropriate for a park that presented on page 12 of the Draft General Man and organizations are reproduced in the sec The page numbers where specific issues iIIre includes 38 sites in four states; we set up meet agement Plan/£"cironmen tal Impact Statement . tion titled Specific Responses and Copies of Com addressed in the Draft General Management ings in 21 communities where we could elicit "No Action" does not imply that the park wW mttlt Letters. Appendix B lists the names of PlanlEnvironmentallmpact State,nent are in the views of people near the affected sites. cease operations, but rather that it will con individuals who submit ted letters. dicated in [brackets). People who could not attend the meetings had tinue to operate under the same level of au the opportunity to express their views by mail thority and support that currently e).ists. Responses are required only for comments or telephone [p.161 [. As the planning and that are substantive. Comments are consid THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT an alysis process continued, we provided ered to be substantive when they: PLAN AND THE PARK IN newsletters describing what we had done, and Impacts of Additional Traffic on Local GENERAL we adjusted the focus of our efforts based on Roads (a) question, with reasonable basis, the ac the responses we received from the public and curacy of information in the ElS; A number of letters commended the National our partners. There was concern about increased traffic on Park Service for its efforts in developing the local roads, and the associated increased ex (h) question, with reasonable basis, the ad plan, and praised the proposals to improve The National Park Service believes that we pense to local governments for maintenance. equacy of environmental analysis; the visitor experience. Support was expressed have complied with Council on Environmen for the work done to date, and fo r telling a tal Quality Regulations on scoping, through Respo"se. Under 16 USC S. and 8b, the NJ (c) present reasonable alternatives other worthwhile story. Some comments were in "an early and open process for determining tional Park Service has the authority to enter than those presented in the EIS; or fav or of expanding the park in general, and the scope of issues to be add ressed and for into agreements with county governments for others encouraged expanding boundaries of identifying the significant issues related to a maintenance of approach roads to park sites. (d ) cause changes or revisions in the prcr specific sites or designating new sites. proposed action" (40 CFR 1501.7). posa!. Others requested that the plan be halted or In some cases, we have responded to com- scrapped, since they disagreed with it as Final Environmental NezPerce~ Final Environmental Impact Statement National Historical Park 11 2 ~ NezPerce Impact Statement /( NationaJ Historical Park INTERPRETATION AND VISITOR BOUNDAruESANDLAND by this method. preferable means of administration of a prop USE PROTECTION erty, having established boundaries will sim Since the 38 sites are spread across four states, plify the process of acquiring that interest. Of the comments received that specifically Establishing Boundaries (pp. 8, 17-18( and since Nez Perce National Historical Park addressed interpretation and visitor use, most is a "partnership park", with authority to de Response. Boundaries were evaluated and were site specific, suggesting more or less visi One of the requirements for a Natio"al Park velop cooperative agreements and contracts established based on criteria presented in Na tor use facilities at a particular site. Another Service General Management Plan is that and to expend funds for sites in non-Federal tional Park Service Management Policies. How group of comments offered suggestions for boundaries be established or modified a::; ownership, it was difficult to focus workplans ever, in response to the many comments rela developing a particular interpretive media needed (Management Policies 2:8, 1988). The and develop agreements when, in most cases, tive to boundaries, the park is again contact product (videos, relief maps, murals, etc.) National Park Service may recommend there was no clear definition of the resource ing those landowners who indicated a will which the reviewer felt shouJd be produced boundary revisions: area. Defining boundaries will help the park ingness to have their land included, to con to interpret specific stories or c;tory elements. staff establish priorities, and justify why en firm their inclusion. When landowners are not ergy should be exerted in one location but not These suggestions are too prescriptive for the • to include significant resources or op willing. the boundary will not include their level of detail appropriate in a General Man portunities for public enjoyment re on nearby property. This is especially impor property, except in the few cases where there agement Plan, but they will be considered as lated to purposes of the park tant since limited. personnel and budget are are legislated boundaries. In those cases the the park develops strategies to implement the available for park management and operation. boundaries will be retained.. GMP. • to address operational and manage ment issues such as access and bound The planning team evaluated various ways to Future minor boundary adjustments can be One letter recommended constructing a com ary identification by topographic or define the boundaries at all 38 sites. Because mad., by following an established National fort station at each site. Beyond the prohibi other natural features or roads the landscape surrounding most of the perti P~ .. it Service process which includes: tive cost of this recommendation, many sites nent resources was so vast and expansive, il was no t feasible to include a "viewshed" do not have the land base to make this fea • to protect park resources critical tl"' ful • the need to include the resource in the sible. Also, the resources at most sites do not filling the park's purpose (what can be seen from a single point when park, based on the criteria listed above; c:upport visitor activities which would require looking toward, or standing in the middle of. the primary resource) in the boundaries. In a long enough stay at the site to make the fa We are also required to determine that: • willingness on the part of the land cilities appropriate. many cases, the planning team decided. that owner; the boundaries established in recent historic • the added lands will be feasible to ad studies o r for nominations to the National Two letters suggested designating and inter minister • notification of various levels of govern preting additional Nez Perce legend sites. Register of Historic Places would be the best ment; and basis for defining the locations of the re There are many legend sites in the Nez Perce • other alternatives for management and sources. The team evaluated whether protec homeland and to designate and interpret each resource protection are not adequate • publication in the Federal Re~ster . of these would be an enormous undertaking. tion afforded by eligibility for or listing in the National Register would be adequate, with For Nez Perce National Historical Park, this Rather, the plan proposes to expand the inter When Nez Perce National Historical Park was out including the resources within park process will not begin until an agreement with pretation at legend sites already designated established in 1965, boundaries were estab boundaries. Because eligibility or listing pro the landowner has been drafted. Agreements to include a discussion of the role of legend lished only for lands owned in fee simple or vides p:otection relative only to Federal ac for land protection purposes will not be final sites in Nez Perce culture and to provide the easement by the National Park Service. For the tions, and since most of the properties are pri ized unless the property is within the bound visitor with a sense of the number and vari remainder of the sites, and for some of the ad vately owned, National Register listing alone ary, since the boundaries indicate that federal ety of legend sites. ditional that were authorized in 1992, no does not afford the needed protection. resources are being used for the protection of boundaries were defined. Al138 sites are con significant resources and their enjoyment, Suggestions were made to expand the inter sidered to be nationally significant, since they There were few operational and management sometimes at a distance, by visitors. pretation at certain sites to include historic fig contribute to the story of Nez Perce National issues relative to boundary establishment. ures that have no connection to the Nez Perce Historical Park. All sites are also considered Regarding tl." feasibility of administration, it people and their culture. These suggestions to be critical to fulfilling the park's purposes is anticipated that cooperative agreements and und Protection Plan (p. 9) are outside the legislated purpose of Nez Pe"", since each site represents 3 distinct portion of other partnership measures will continue to National Historical Park. the story. be the primary means of providing for pr~ The Draft General Management Plan/£nviron tection and interpretation of the resources, and menial Impact Statemen t did not spell out the Finally, some people felt that the current level In many cases, the "site" was considered to therefore cost of acquisition and administra details of land protection strategies that would of interpretation at park sites was adequate. be the pulloff and wayside exhibit where a tion is low. The type of agreement or interest, be applied to protect the resources and visitor Site analysis by the GMP team found that the historical marker was located; sometimes the and the size and configuration of the area sub experience for each site. This lack of detail was interpretation at many sites was not up to location of the actual event or resource was ject to an agreement will be negotiated with unsettling to landowners whose property was National Park Service standards in that it unknown or unidentified. This made it diffi the landowner or managing agency. However, included in the proposed park boundaries. failed to give visitors an understanding of the cult for the visitors to learn about the Nez if the National Park Service and the landowner site's significance, and/or the interpretive Perce story, since they often could not iden or agency determine that some type of acqui A Land Protection Plan is developed based on message did not reflect current scholarship on tify the location or feature they were looking sition such as easement or fee simple is the park boundaries, and periodically reviewed the site and was inaccurate. for. Little protection of resources was afforded
Final Environmental Final Environmental 4 "NezPerce Impact Statement NezPerceM 5 X' National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park X and updated for each park containing needs and wishes of the land owner. Battle Ridge. Although there was much op the proposals. nonfederal lands. A Land Protection Plan can position to including any of B"ttle Ridge not be developed for Nez Perce National His Response: As soon as is feasible, the Land Pro within the proposed boundaries, some land Several comments expressed con c~ rn about torical Park until the proposed boundaries are tection Plan for Nez Perce National Histori owners expressed an in terest in working c~ resource management issues on lands admin approved. This will occur at the time the re cal Park will be updated, based on the results opera ti vely with the National Park Service to istered by other federal agencies. For example, sponsible agency official signs the Record of of this plan. Some of the public participation preserve the remnants of the ISn battle and luelloading at the Dug Bar site in H. 'ls Can Decision, 30 days after this Final Environ","" undertaken for the Draft General Managemen t to provide the potential fo r limited visitor ac yon National Recreation Area was a concern. tat Impact Statemen t is distributed. Plan/Environmental Impact Statement has laid cess and interpretation on the site. Tunber management was a concern at another the groundwork for completion of the Land site. Management of a site is the responsibil Land Protection Plans identify alternative Protection Plan. The Land Protection Plan will Response. The National Park Service has ity of the administering agency, based on its methods to provide for the protection of re be subject to public review. changed its Proposed Action to Alternative 1: policies and practices. When the resources are sources, for visitor use, and for development; No Action . The proposed boundaries have on property owned and managed by another identify the minimum interests necessary for also been adju sted to reflect landowner agency or individual, the National Park Ser those purposes; and establish priorities for Boundaries for Clearwater Battlefield wishes. We will continue to work to preserve vice will work coUaboratively with the owner acquisition of land (if any) or interests in land. [p.74) the property rights of all landowners in the or managing agency to conduct necessary These plans are subject to public review. area - not only those who object to being in studies and meet resource protection goals in Boundaries at the Clearwater Battlefield site cluded in the proposed boundaries. but also a manner least damaging to the cultural re There are three techniques the National Park were proposed based on two primary consid those who wish to be included. sources associated with Nez Perce National Service uses to protect land: erations: location of the battle itself and the Historical Park. Nez Perce village west of the Clearwater River, • cooperative approaches, such as agree and providing the opportunity to gain a clear Boundaries for Weippe Prairie {po961 ments, local regulations and zoning, overview of the battlefield and village site. PARTNERSHIPS and other measures that do not in There was overwhelming opposition to des volved acquisition of any interest in real A recent historic resource study suggested an ignating proposed boundaries on private Several comments were received remarking property; area that would include all the battle activi ?roperty at this site. As a result, the proposed on the excellent relationship Nez Perce Na ties of the U.S. Army and the Nez Perce. The boundaries have been adjusted to include only tional Historical Park has with its partners, • acquisition of less-than-fee interests, planning team proposed boundaries that the two existing waYSides, one located on particularly tribes and other federal agencies. such as easements or rights-of way; and would include this area, and also the view Idaho Highway 11, and the other on a section The enabling legislation for the park provides from a wayside at a curve on Stites Road, line road southeast of the town of Weippe. The fo r contracting and making cooperative agree • acquisition of fee interests, possibly across the Clearwater River from the battle National Park Service has changed its Prc ments with a wide range of partners to p~ with arrangements for some rights to field.In addition. directional signs and a way posed Action to Alternative 1: No Action. tect, preserve, maintain, or operate any site, be preserved such as life estates and side near the battlefield were proposed. object. or property included within the park. lease-backs. (NPS Management Poli regardless of whether it is owned by the gov cies. p. 3:1. 1988) There were 141 I."downers directly affected SURVEYS. STUDIES. AND PLANS ernment [po168-169) . by the proposed alternative for Clearwater FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION Nez Perce National Historical Park is a part Battlefield. Both private land as weU as allot Issues and desired futures related to partner nership park, and has authority to enter into ment land was involved. A number o( comments remarked on the need ships are discussed in the Draft General Man cooperative agreements with other entiti~ fo r surveys, studies, and plans fo r resource agement Plan/Environmental Impa ct Statement and to expend funds on non-NPS properties. Stites Road Wayside. Many concerns were protection. Others cited concern for potential on pages 5, and 8. Alternative 2, Minimum Because it is so difficult to protect 38 sites scat expressed about the wayside. First, the land impacts on resources, such as vegetative com Requiremen ts, which is the proposed concept tered across 4 states, fee ownership in most oWllers on either side of Stites Road did not munities and archeological sites. Many of for long-term management of the entire park, cases is not (easible, cost-effective, nor ap pr~ want their property included in the bound these concerns are related to topics that have encourages a more focussed approach to part priate. Therefore, the first of these - coopera aries. Second, there were questions about how been or will be addressed in other plans. The nerships [po12) . and provides for taking maxi tive approaches - is usually the technique of difficult it would be for visitors to reach the General Management Plan is the lead planning mum advantage of partnership opportunities choice (or land protection for this park. wayside in inclement weather or when driv document for the park. Studies and imple whenever possible (p. 15] and involving ing recreational vehicles, and what the impact mentation proposals must support this docu greater numbers 01 partners [po18) . Since major boundary adjustments are usu of heavier traffic wuuld be on the county road. ment and b. consistent with it [po 3). Addi ally initiated through a GeneroJ Management Third, landowners were concerned about tres tional compliance 'vill be conducted as pro Some comments encouraged the National Plan, major revisions to Land Protection Plans passing. Furthermore, there was misunder posed actions are implemented. Please see Re Park Service to work closely with others on often occur immediately after a General Man standing about what a wayside is - the plan lationship to Other Planning Efforts [po 9). efforts related to the Lewis and Clark National agement Plan is completed. In the case of Nez ning team envisioned it as a widened area on Surveys, Studies, and Plans for Resource P~ Historic Trail and the Nez I')erce (Nee-Me-Poo) Perce National Historical Park, the land p~ the road where someone could stop to read a tection [po 18). and Compliance [po 163-164). National Historic Trail. Existing relationships tection strategies will be tailored to each site, small interpretive sign, but it became clear that for information about various steps that will and the desired future relative to these trails based on its specific needs for resource pr~ the public thought it would be on a much be taken to assu re that resources a re ad are described throughout the d ocument, and tection and visitor experience, and on the larger scale. equately protected during implementation of are listed in the index. There was a sugges-
Final Environmental Final Environmental 6 ~NezPerce Impact Statement Nez Perce\~ 7 iI National Historical Pari< Impact Statement National Historical Park K tion that one park site be devoted entirely to SITE-SPECIFIC Lewis and Clark interpretation. Such a site COMMENTS exists at Canoe Camp, described on pp. 72-73 of the Draft General Management PIanlEnvi ron menta/Impact Statement. These comments and responses are presented verify that changes were made where appro as briefly as possible here. The reader should priate. The page numbers in brackets indicate refer to the section titled Corrections and Revi where the sites are addressed in the Draft Gen sions to Draft Document, included later in this eral Management Plan /E. nvironmental Im pact Final Environmental Impact Statement, to Statement.
Site Comment Response SPALDING UNIT Ant and YeUoWjacket Leave tence where It IS. Agreed. [p. 40) Buttato Eddy Revise boundary, Washing- Agreed. [p.42) ton side. Coyotes Fishnet Include only wayside in Agreed. [p. 44) boundaries. Craig Donation Revise boundary to include Unfeasible. Will include [p.46) more of actual site. only wayside in bound- aries. Hasotino Village Site Eastern boundary is artifi- Boundary is the same as [p. 53) cial; doesn't follow topogra- the 1976 National Register phy or viewshed.. of Historic Places bound- ary. Saint Joseph's Mission Protect Nez Perce cemetery. Cemetery is outside scope [p. 58) of plan. There may be future opportunities to work together on this cemetery. Spalding Visitor Center Numerous comments and Proposed actions will [p. 64) suggestions were made update interpretive media regarding this site. to include the new sites, provide more in-depth interpretation of the park's primary interpretive themes, and facilitate visitors' experiencing multiple park sites. UPPER CLEARWATERIWHITE BIRD UNIT Clearwater Battlefield Numerous comments and Please see general responses, [p. 74) suggestions were made under interpretation and regarding this site. visitor use, boundaries and land protection, and socio- economic impacts. Proposed Action is changed to Alter- native 1.
Final Environmental Final Environmental 9 8 t-1Nez Perce Impact Statement IITl>8CI Statement NezPerce~ II National Historical Pari< National Historical Park X Site Comment Site Comment Response Response UPPER CLEARWATERIWHITE BIRD UNIT (con f mue d) OREGONIWASHINGTON UNIT East Kamiahl Heart of the This site should be ex- The National Park Service Dug Bar ravor Alternabve 2 Agreed. Monster panded. has included the McBeth (p. H16) (p. 80J House within the proposed Joseph Canyon Lhange boundaries to Agreed. boundaries, and will work (p. l08) exclude private property cooperatively with its and a portion of USFS land. o'''~ers to preserve and Favor Alternative 2 Agreed. interpret it. Proposed Action Lostine Campsite Change boundaries to Agreed. is changed to Alternative I. (p. 110) exclude certain private Tolo Lake Statement that "NPS would Agreed. See corrections property. (p.94J support reestablishment of and revisions to Site Favor Alternative 3 Agreed. traditional uses" is a contra- Specific Infonnation. Old cruef Joseph Gravesite Maintain 8 acres as a buffer. diction to the statement on Agreed. Pa:rking issues (p. 113) p. 16 that the NPS "would will be resolved outside of try not to intrude on (con- buffer, and will not intrude temporary Nez Perce) into the view from or the llieways." rustoric character of the Looking Glass Camp I Loncern that boundaries do The boundaries at this site cemetery. Improved interpretation will consist (p. 88) not include all of the re- were established based. on sources. the results of a recent of small wayside panels. Favor Alternative 3 Agreed. rustoric resource study. Weippe Prairie Nwnerous comments were Please see generarresponses , (p. %) made regarding this site. under interpretation and visitor use, boWldaries and land protection, and soc:i~ economic impacts. Proposed Action is changed to A1ter- nativel. WelS Kockshelter Loncerns were expressec1 Houiiifanes were vermea: (p. 98) about ownership. See also response to Keuterville Highway District letter. White Bird Battlefield Lorrect existing boundaries. f .. (p. l00) Concerns about visitor ~sre:.Ite scope or vISitor facilities. facility has not yet been detennined. Detailed project planning with fuU public involvement will be conducted.
Final Environmental 10 "NezPerce Final Environmental Impact Statement NezPerce~ II 'X National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park X SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND COPIES OF COMMENT LETTERS
Twenty-nine of the 641 letters that were re Site Comment Response ceived in response to the Draft General Man MONTANA UNIT agemmt Plan/Environmental Impact Statement are reproduced in this section. They are orga Bear Paw Battlefield Numerous comments were Boundaries are revised to nized into groups as follows: letters from fed (p. 1221 made regarding this site. protect resources outside eral elected officials and agencies, tribes, state current boundary. We will work with the communities elected officials and agencies, local agencies, and other partners to refine and organizations. Within each group the let the need, scale, and siting ters are arranged in the order in which they were received. Appendix A displays four fonn for the facilities at the battlefield. Proposed action letters, which accounted for 430 of the re sponses received. All substantive individual is changed to Alternative 3. comments were addressed in the section titled Big Hole National Battle- Favor Alternative 2 Agreed field General Responses to Major Issues, except when it was clear they would be addressed in (p. 126 and p. 1741 Collections at Big Hole are Agreed. See corrections Specific Responses and Copies of Comment inadequately described and revisions to Cultural Letters. Resources Status and Program. Camas Meadows /'avor Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides Each distinct comment is numbered. The re sponse of the National Park Service to each (p. I301 interpretation of the sites themselves, in addition to letter appears beside the letter, with the re sponses numbered to correspond to the com interpretation of the park and the Nez Perce (Nee- ments. U the issue has been discussed. in the general responses, the commenter may be Me-Poo) National Historic re Trail. Due to the fragile ferred to that discussion; if the comment has been answered in a previous letter, the nature of the sites, and commenter may be referred to that earlier concerns of local people re that they might be de- sponse. When a page number is mentioned, it stroyed by visitors, we do refers to the Draft General Management Plan/ not wish to draw additional Environmental Impact Statement. attention to them. There- fore, we have retained The National Park Service recognizes and ap preciates the long-term support and volunteer Alternative 2 as OUf pro- posed action. contributions to the park of the many people Canyon Creek Kequest that we interpret Topic is outside park who wrote comment letters. Implementing the (p. 1321 Calamity Jane. purpose. Suggest work. plan will require the continued support and with Friends of Canyon assistance of these people and organizations. Creek to interpret. Concern about existing We wiJI work with partners monument. to be sure monument is protected.
Fina! Environmental 12 Final Environmental Impact Statement NezPerceM 13 "'NeZ}{ NationaJ Perce Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park ~ approach to providin g resource protection and visitor ~.!.awo enjoyment - partnership and rcc:opiza tbe 14 ,*,.tdcd iD 1992. We II. the DCCd 10 p"*cc c:auiD ... RICh • die volunta ry cooperation. Based on ---- paw '* of Ok! Cbid bcpb JcJc-s .. tbr: bIMJ of Wallowa LIb: ill. ~ public response, we have -- Orqon. The ~ ..., RICOpir.eI cbe Nez Pm:e ~ iD W)"OIIliaI aJIboup DO adjusted the site boundaries to -- are ~ -- lpCCiflC .. c.xd iD bit.... I aid tbr::o aod I'D r'CIIII* ..,. dill JcaiIIItioa exclude land where the owners -- aIJows rec:opi6on of tbe .. what: IUIIory .... made. ~1I .19N objected to having their I have m:ciwd IC'YCfaI calli from COIIItiu:Db wbo are eap:r 10 emer do IDIDt cype of Iaad property included wi thin the ~ qrumeaI wiCb tbr: Put. be it euemftIlI or coopenIive pIaaD.iac aad . ~ boundaries. We will continue to ..... PJIIIkw.... __ __ ...... ,_. rl\dly ...... work with landowners w ho are Na ... NItbaI HiIImic&I PIrt **Theyrcer_.,. KIioaf. Howner .__1be IDIjority ofpriv*1IIIdownm.,...... _ hlw. _..... badJy ...... _"" tIearty. interested in entering into land ... federal ~ may iIIfriDIe OIl their,..... • privax property 0W1Ia'I. protection agreements. -POIlomc.loI9'J_- SpIIdiJIf, ID 13551-Ol93 F ...... Suwr. 'Old rille IbM iD Weippr YOil -.cd cboIc ruidcIa tbM "wt (lhe National Put. Thank you fo r supporting Service) aR JOiac to ,0 bIct IIId cr-= dIoK bouadaric:s.' From dliI vuuae poW, I twly o ~~ efforts to. help improve concur widl your COIMJCIIII. Wbc:rt: you hI'Ie willial LmSowIIas, it wit! be ippI'OIIrie 10 vIs Itor experience at 1'1dI ...... II .. ,.... to your call for COIIIIIIaII OD die Draft 0eaaaI ...... work wiIb lhem. Wbeft, you hIvt IaDcIowaer coa:en., iI will be ~ to dircc:tJy 3 va rious sites of the park. This --_~""'S-(GMPfIIlS)forlbt NaPert:eN..--aHiIIoricaJ Part. 1ddraItt.. CODCeI1II by cIr'oppiaIlbe bowIdary~ . IIttOGIIY believe Ibe lad .. Hole N.a..J BIaIeftdd. objc:ctiw:s of the act can be adUcwd by varioua QIIICIW ocber tt. elClbliIIriDC boundaries. work would be impossible without the coopera ti on of loca l We gratefully FInl, kt me CDDIIIICII! JOIiI for your d'l'cwu ia drtdopia& til ptaD. Tty.. to addrea me OvaaIJ, lIlY plan dIat ~ • 15 10 20 year time IpU willlllldoulle1ly COIDiD communities and interested ... ot .. r.ttor .. .aIS.,20,...... ,..::WIy(or,.nlcullrty). acknowledge your JUUeIlioaI dIM hit.,.,s. My c:c:.nmaa hlft ~ ODe of d:ae d.irecdy. 0dIcr individuals. 1 _~toa..to""' __ """'''''''''''''''' AkIaI __ adI&r 3 ...... ,.. adlu ~ tile ~. proYidUIc more acc:ara iafOl'lllaCioa for. appreciation of the ~ ...... _ot.,."priortIIeI. beau ~ r:A bMdcftdd c:ompoDerD, c:oopa1IIiw dforts wid!. the 1 _O(T~ complexity of developing this r...... nou...... raIipmalatraIIIiIIc..... ___ _ Secod7.I.., ...... toJOll ...... ~~ ...... pIIa-,.....t. General Ma1lagemellt Plmr. The law ~ ..-:.ia ID bnoc tbaa 5*IOI1OIIIe ... .u lint: .,. IIIIICft. They diftcdy I ...... -vl400 ...... ~.--cdI. ftc. wonIId support of the Idaho delegation 10 impo¥iaI vWIor aperic:ar:r .. variow lila fA tbe ~ .., ...... IAwiIIIa. ... olJOllf m. put. wbklI, ita ywr wonk, has been a keystone and a ,.....-..d ..... PraM. reMlJt ·iD btacfidaI a.DDIIti¥c ctrec:b" (or the J*k 1tIeIf...... to.IIJI'ICifIc,...... dltcalPlIDA.... • ____ 1naIII beacon for the park. ---,",_ ...... JIftIfIft1 cnr.n" rae.n.d _~__ ...... _-- CIIII_ '1'buIk you (or this oppommiIy 10 COIDIDaII. If you haft..-~ dae National Park Service CCIDDCDII, plait: fc:c:1 free to c:aU IDe. lloc* I'orwud to 1bt ftaaI pIaD an:I ill illdusioa of Managemettt Policies require ...... """"""". ,...... -- _to ... .,. __ oIti1 ..... ~bylO..,ol.,~ OIl 2 that boundaries be PI. 17vl .. GWPIEIS ...... •...... laIl~·IIlIdd&... 1Int 'HEady. established as needed in a 2 __ ...... •... fIII·tor_: General Management Plan. Nez ...... beelllabtilbld . ... dIc __ ror ... ~WOIdIIbe Perce National Historical Park ...• has operated since its - establishment under the lila ...... CIa to., .... "!be ...... for NaIWc:e N..... 1IiItorbI PIrt ~ ...... lilt h .... ofW...... ,.. 0reta-.1IWIo. w,...... LAlUly::l overriding philosophy of ... ..,...... "fIIIIdf)'or ...... tbr_ ..... N UMcd Sl*I s-or partnership and voluntary cooperation for management of ,..-.----_._'"'_ ... designated sites. The boundaries proposed in the Draft General Management Plan/ ..- -~- _-_.. _-- .. ------__.- .. - Envirollmfntallmpact Statement --- were based on the need to --- protect significant resources and provide opportunities for public enjoyment related to purposes of the park. These boundaries do not change the basic
Final Environmental Final Environmental Nez Perce~,f 15 14 ~ NezPerce Impact Statement Impact Stalement X NatHJnal Historical Park National Historical Park ~ The specific land protection strategies were 1 not spelled out in the Draft General Management Plan/ E'lVironmental lmpact Statemellt .. .. because they must be based on _ - - -__.- approval of the boundaries .- - - proposed in the plan, and this -- ... approval does not occur until - _--- the Record of Decision is signed. _...... ,.....c.w...... - The public comment period is ...... ,.. ,i:" ;.:. included in the National .. - ...... "' " IMD awl." _ Environmental Policy Act ...... -...... ,. regulations for precisely this _ ...... w-...... _, reason-to give individuals the - ... opportuni ty to express their n..k,...... _ • .,.,01 .... a-...... ~ ..... Dw • • WIIIIr...... «M'1IIII)., ...... ~ ...... I .... ,...... WIII ... w...... ~ views prior to an agency AJ,.._-. ... ~ONPI'FlI ... ,...a..e.tI ...... __ .... __•• .,_01 ...... , ...... , Thank you for the support you decision. Based on public ,..._ -...... ~,...... ,...... ---....,....,UI* ..... ,...... _.. __ ..... ,... ___ .. expressed fo r the proposed response, we have adjusted the _ WWII ...... -'...... , ... II .. _ ...... ~ ...... action at MusselsheU Meadow. site boundaries to exclude land .. OWPIEII .... ct.ritJ ... ~~ ...... fII ...... ==-=!:::--=-==.=-.==-=...... We also apprecidte the where the owners objected to 1 SpedftaIIJ...... c:M'I'BII .. __ ...... II ...... -~--- significant contribution the having their property included ...... ,. ...,...... - _ ~ :.:-.=... .. ,---=-...... ---- .....-...... Clearwater Nati('nal Forest has within the boundaries. We will ...... _.OWII ~,.. made in Ms. Fee's time during .-.-fII.... ,...... __ .. _.,.. ~ ...... _I ...... _ ...... -...... continue to work with ...... -...... _ - development of the Draft landowners who are interested --_ --_ na ...... eoa.- ...... l"' .. It!Q ...... ~ ...... PIrt General Management Plan/ in entering into land protection ...... ,...... -...... Environmental Impact Statement. agreements. -..-...... 'DIII_ ...... , ...... ,fllCa ...... ,. ... ~- ...... , ...... I .... _~ We look forward to working ~ - We acknowledge your ...... ,.., ...... , ..... ~''-' with you further. support for continued 1 ...... 6ct ...... ,...... 0WI1III. I ...... cooperation with the loca l ...... fII .. _ .. _..,...... ,...... ~- 2 ...... __...... ~I ...... ~ ... - ...... public, and your recognition of ...... ,...... -... -...-fII...... -...... the unique character of Nez ...... -- Perce National Historical Park. _ _- 'DIII ...... , • .....-...... "'-'-.....,...... wiIII .. ,.,..,...., ...... ,...... ,. 2 _ ...11 ...... ", ...... 1 ...... - ..... --"...... ~;::;r-.---
16 Final Environmental Final Environmental tyfN6Z Perce Impact Statement Impact Statement Nez Percev' 17 i1 National Historical Park National Historical Park i1 .. United Slates Department of the ...... _ - u.,,_ filii AND WlLIlUFE AaVICII - -- --~P.O. " II ...... - 12.1 .. - -- • --- ~Jl . UH ... ,.,....,.C.WrIIIIr...... _UIDt. ..,...... ""...... au1..oot:J rraDklin c. Wralter. 8uparlat.~t Wez hre. ..ticmal Rbtodcel ..rtt 0. Mr. Wtftr. P.O. eo. '3 8p8ulding, ldabo 1)551·00'] """,,""'_of~ 'I, , ... ,...... CJWI~ ...... I"wot ...... o..r NT'. tIalbr, Tht ...... 1he1.MOl\. ~~ ...... WIIJ.U...... bpIrtfnInt .... lUIIIIt• .,...... lntt.c.-...... an.1If .. ~,.... . t _ in nceipt of tbe draft a..nl NMlCs.-t n./1IDY1~ ...... , .... .,.c::aneow.tyoA2 ,.,...."., .. "8ouncIrt NofwooII I'llllpKt Itat-.K: for tM ... ".roe ..t1emel tiuorica1 ... tIIdClb rnooun.. •. H.,.,...... fIf ...... , 1hItAM. The idlmtiU.. &ooek1... tiaaal Piall "tcIMry .. beJ.ae ~ ada u.a eour., ...... fwWllilll ...... Lookiag 01... 0IIIp aita . .... twO ...... -..-...... IlndIl ...... ,...... ,.nI • ...... ,IIIIncIh ...... OIf ...... """- I 1IIOUld be iIltUNteci b punuiDg an -.r-t _til u.a ..u...J...... _.,.,,anIonaof ...... If ...... ~ ..me. to ....lop CNlnral hi.tory iauzpntatia at: tI&18 atte . ... We look forward to ...... -wtly.,., ... ~,...... I you an ~ . .. an 111 u.a pC'OCMe of ~ .. ~ha working with you to • We acknowledge the ...... -In ...... a ...... InfanMIIIftfllll'*ll trail De&t to ~ 014 .Ul poDII. lOcteted ~ U...... ,.. eM interpret the Looking Glass ...... "..,.1Na ...... ,~_..,IIfIfit . w. .. batc:buy. .. waul4 ln. to 1Mol... cba .. iA IUa ~ .. __ .. 1 -...-.In Campsite. support you expressed for ...... 'f!IU.ttw ...... _""' ...... ,."..cu.-...... poeelbl., -ial ~ ....rtl .. of yaur alte aud VIU& -..- ... the proposed action. We ne,....., ...... ,., ...... , ...... ,...... , otlIar b~ ia ~iaI ~\Ial 1afo-.tt. ... tM8 • -'-- ~ look forward to meeting with ...... i~~ b.1.etoric dta. you to develop interagency Management of a site is !be .. you 1acl..s.d witb thl _/It. deli_tad. pcapoeeII ~ agreements regarding the responsibility of the 2 IIIIdch ~ the _tin 12'· acra .. pz1IpNty u ro.It1a. Ia management of this site. We do th1a the caly alt.math. beiDI oaa.1.dered. -" if .ct. __ 2 administering agency, not anticipate that any of our Z>d natl'1ctlc:aa .auld thi. dNi~iCIII aDta.il? IIDald u. ~ of based on its policies and plans will affect your research ~D.""""" f 1 Qerear1Dg f..:ilitiM at coo.kia ",ieul rta ....., be in practices. When the resources -.- ecmfUct with U. 1 ....1 of neource protact:lC111 rllllUind !J¥ tJai. activities. PrcpoMl? If.o, .. ..,. wi.eb to c:.-.icIar • -.lilted bowIduy Wida are on property managed by _~...--. AtIIt~ ...... Oftbr.~.CA .itlcludu ODly tbe pnHDt. trail alta DOrtb. of tbe _tc:bazy ..,.,... another agency, the National rood. Park Service will work coUaboratively with that agency I -.prr:iata u.a opportUDity to ~ CIII thia ,la. aDd look fO¥WZd. to di.cuu1Dg t.hU prapoaal f\&t't.bK. IDfonatiaa/lDdtlcat.iCIII 8pac:ialiat to meet resource protection and 8ua& IoaWyIIr will be takiag u.a IMd CD the Mill JIcDLI Tntl project. interpretation goals. for t.M Pi ... aDd WUdlUa aarric.. You ay ClCiGUIC't Mr DC' .,..11 at (201) 47'etSt1.
.iIIcaftly.
NCa 1M J010
Wills... 8. IIUter. -.u "0W0nbak ft.Aeri.. 0i:IIIpl_
Final Environmental Final Environmental 18 MNezPerce Impact Statement Impact Statement Nez perce"., 19 'K National Historical Pari< National Historical Park X _D.__ AL ___ ,1IIlO_ __. _ WIINiIfIIaII_01
__ :1,1996 ...Hoo. _c._..... __...... PIrt
'...... 0._" _m51 Iloorlofr. __
...... -Hoo ..... __PIrt _ .... _ ... _ .... _ ..... L ~ ...... _ ' .0._93 ...... -.-~ Iloor_~~Il5SI ---_ ---- _ ""',..,...... I_ ...... _ ..... eor,oof ...... _I1_of... The National Park Service 1 will comply with all laws. ". __~ ... _ .... Dnoft~ u.s. ... _ ...... --(1. _of_ ... --.- ..... o...Jo...... _ .. _10: regulations. and NPS __~-(MP1EJS)1ar1lloKto ..... ___ 1 policies, etc. regarding water Iofr._-..,._..... and wetlands as they relate to ....._,...,AcI ... _309of.... ~MAcI. ... u.1. _eor,o.,.,...... anticipated development. --_._--...--- - 110 __ -...... ,~ • We appreciate the EPA's ~=.=::.~'"':"~ Thank you for noting this review of the document • __e:OO .... !!., nr...1_"" error. Please see _ .. _ ...... Lactof~(LO) ...... and are pleased that it _ .... W._oft.be .... _uood. __of ... _MPII!IS. .-.-_. 2 Corrections and Revisions. was determined to be adequate. OO_41..... -of-_--.r.. -- _,...... , ...... 10 __.. (206)$5:14561. 2 _30_ ...... _1 .. _. When site-specific project .. _01' ... ___- .. _ ..... _ planning takes place. 3 resources will be 3 inventoried and appropriate -_.. _ ...... , ...... - (I. ... _1_19;-3... _.".,,- natural and cultural resource ----_"1; ... _1_117.-- 119. IlO, "'Ill).- compliance will be conducted. "...... - ...... -.. _ ..... _- Please refer to page 164 in the 4 _01' ...... _ ...... 62 ... 72_ ...... _101'- draft document. 62,71...... 101)...... ,._ __.. _ ...... __... "._-...... _ Development and _-_ anticipated use at the ...... ,-..-...... --Jr,...... ,...... _ .... UoI~of __.. (402)221_1. 4 Spalding site [page 62[ and 1'10*,...... --. .. _ .... _ the Canoe Camp site [page 72[ would not change the habitat used by bald eagles nor disturb 0 __ them. Sturgeon and sockeye salmon are not known to occur at the White Bird Battlefield site.
Final Environmental Final Environmental 20 MNezPerce Impact SIBtement NezPerce~ 21 t< National Historical Pari< Impact SIBle""",1 National Historical Park X P. 0 , In to1 "'E Ctt)'. ca "114
Thank you for the offer to share the opportunities for 3 interpretation and information at your visitor center. We will work with you to determine how best to do this. Thank you for your comments on the Draft General Mlnagement Plan/Environmentallmpact Statement. We look forward to continuing our working relationsrup with you. The proposed boundary at Dug Bar was adjusted to 1reflect your comment. We acknowledge your comments regarding interpretation and resource management at this site. ~ . r: . '- c..o...... h ....' ~ :IOU...... ~ .1t~ . 'nih h .... iJIponac I ..... that ....111 .... 'm .....ntt .. 17 wdl .. ""btac, The proposed boundary at Joseph Canyon Viewpoint was adjusted to reflect =-: ~n:=~i!! , ;~ c;:::c!~~ ::. -:~~ c: * 2 2 .lc• • oa .Ue .... ~ • your comment. We share your , c:oacen witll. "'- _.te .c J...,. OMrL.-. ~ for r ..croo. at concerns regarding human •.ita. '!'IM '-HIlt ..... nc.M.· In. r.aJ...... 'tlw.c die "CleMl Pl!dt waste and the potential for a lentce will ...... r ...... lbSlicr to.. reacn- _~ . "de facto" trailhead into the .. I';' 1M .ice .111 1M ..n ... ..,. tha flAt ...... n4I '" lteta U ...., l . tba canyon. We will work with you caDJG:I d.-, ..,., , .. bate 1.... ICMary ~ ~ .111 1M ..rn... d to develop a memorandum of t:hr-ah tha _tl_l fon.t _..uy ~ .,..bIiI. ~ understanding for operational and interpretive considerations for this site.
Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Statement NezPerce~ 23 22 'r'Nez Perce National Historical Park X K National Historical Par'< Impact Statement WI.&A--...CllPAln..rOl ...... , -. TIll"."__ ~-.&A.___ _ ...... _ _-II.'.
____ PlItt ,F_C._...... -.. I'D. .... ~--, .... -___TIw*,.._..-.v- ..--... _ .... ~Io_ ____ Plltt(Plltt) .PIItt _ Management of a site is the ... _.., .. The proposed action at the responsibility 01 the .. _lIIIoee('O .. '6" .. __.... "' .. __.. PIrtI, .. Spalding Site [po60] administering agency, based on specifies that adaptive use its policies and practices. When 1 ...1IiII_ ...... ~-- ~"'~...... IIi~ ....i=_. Dear •• _~ , 01 the Watson's Store will be the resources are on properly ...... -Tht_";"" .... __------n.,..._(EI8)_ provided lor, possibly with J ...... -te te at.u.I u. ~'a ...... _ dill -.& ---. managed by another agency, the .. __.,0 .. ,6'. __...... ___'" leasing arrangements. Use of National Park Service will work ,1u. Joe tM ...... a.u..al 1I1KK1eU ... ~. .... __-(UtI): .. ___PllttMU • ...... -_,... this structure by tribal artists collaboratively with that agency __ ~"'_ ... _ .. ___ MU._ ~~tM~~~=,=-.w_-=-.: &0 .. artwdl. · seems very appropriate, and ~ FIoh ... pot.eat:lal 11 u..lr to meet resource protection and _ .... _ ...... __.por\"' .. __ would benefit both the artists interpretation goals. We will _ ~PIon;ond .. __ LwDlnolyMU. Tht_In_ .. ecU1Call~ tIMIn ill .. Iat.enR ... t.r1llre1 at.I.fta to leMe. _ _..--_ ..... _ ... _ ... __.. El8(e.g..-.y ,Ul1.. utMr tM old ~ .-.op _ u. ~ -.n- and the visitors. Watson's Store work with you and the other 1 will need substantial Ur.-1IiII_PIItt_~.,.)oInI .. _ ..... __ _,. ____.. PIItt_ond_~• . involved agencies in the future = ..: --:~= ~o:--..:.-=~_::. .01 C .r.. :: rehabilitation prior to any to outline the details 01 := ~Y~'~l= =-.:.. ~-:l!o.:. ... .:r..-:- nI~ public use. cooperation and collaboration. . . tile ~ ,,..., ...... tMM Qa lie 1~. Indian preference in -- ...u.u Mlltjeft, I llldantaall _U-.1 &1". - u. '...... :.:,::-~~.:.::~.:~"'::".: 2 hrIt ...... I .... "'jeaeot to U. CleuwtAr rt.. t.IIet u of..,ad contracting is an ..-..... --l0iii'...... -----,...... - ~ty ~ ~I~~.~·.!. =-=. ~I::-.!! 2 operational issue, and -...y. l.uaa pnt....oe .. ooet.nct.1JaIg fOl' G1. poud. .. ..u 11_ to outside the scope of the General dt ... .-u...... to 41.... ~ .1U1 ,..,.. Management Plan process. ~ . rl.... let. _ ... __ U. 1. ~_t. to -.t. ,..,...,..,.. Additionally, the National Park Service, unlike the Burea u of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service, is not able to use Indian preference in contracting and hiring. We do, however, 10Uow the proced ures 01 the Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance and have successlully employed Indian· owned businesses fo r contracts. We will make every effort to ensure TERO is aware of aJl park contracting opportunities.
Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Nezperce~ 25 24 ~NezPerce Statement National Historical Park /1 \WNa tional Historical Park Impact Statement WIIDBAI... __aBSOLUTION ...... _ ...... ___ _ ,.r'''', Colville Confederated 1iibes ___ _ .... OohtII~,.,...... C1oW,....- ·t ...... P.O. Boa 150 - Napdan, WA 991" (509) 634-47JJ ""'-"'-." _M.... ."1!lo __C=-",,00htII _~ .... ~~,-, ...... C1oW,....-",.. • ,...... Ni'OIIIwII C-- • II ...... ,. fir ...... _c._. .... ~-""_-.-_ao..l1_.... _ ...... __ _ • • 0...... ,_1 -_WllBUAS, M_.,--_Ia __" __ "-'co...~ ---- 471t)bo __.. ~ __.. _._...... • _ .. __ 1__ .. ""...... ,. ~eo.w.
~_rr_YID, ...... OohtII_~ ...... We gratefull y acknowledge SPI!CIAL -. llil: ". ..,..,,, __ I", ...... _" .. ,...... -,--.. -".. - ...... ~o.. .. ~ OoMtk~",,-"-"_"i t · " .. __ your support for this plan. _ ..~ ...... -..-_ _"..0& .. " ...... __ · l ~ _ .. o...~~...... ___ ...... ",_ .... " 1 We look forward to -_._ -- continuing to w ork with you to ...... ,...... ,_ 1liiy _., .. CAiMIII_«-.a.,. _"7_ a.IId ..... TMJ_ ...... ,.l. .. ~" implement the plan. - .....,-_ OAGANT._..-,_ .. _V._I..," .. .. _- ~"""""'CohIII--._., ... OohtII __ -..y26, The four delegates from .-,.. ... _ ..... _ ..-....-.,- - ...... 193I...... -., .. ~" ___ ... 1'. 1_ the Colville Confederated 2 ...... -" A~ 2 Tribes contributed - -...... ,..--- significantly to the planning --u,.._ ...... _ ...... process. We appreciate the time CJ:,!..!~ and effort they spent. a..._~
Final Environmental Final Environmental 26 ~Nez Perce Impact Statement NezPerce~ 27 x NaUonal Historical Pari< Impact Statement National Historical Park K It;fk:,e 17fk,e TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITIEE ,,0TRIBAL.__ . EXECUTIVEUllWlilLIOMtO ...... COMMITIEE __ ,.o.lOla. IN'WAI.cwtO .... CIOIt...ua
~lo,l996 o.c..bft' 11, It,. We gratefully acknowledge Il0l ____ your support for this plan...... - haM "UII_...... u~ en frU'a ..UGMJ 1I1ROc1oal I'VII: 1 --,.0._" .U-..l .ut e.ftlc...... 1D135.S14IPl P. 0." '3 Please see Nez Perce Tribal _....-w.., .,.141.,. ID 'U51-GOIl Executive Committee, ulnd DIU' ....1M .... ' ..111. , Commission ChnirwomQlI .-,...... ___.. _19111-. 2 ___.... ___ 11oo __ ftaftJt for ,1'9'1119 - tIt.18 ~ty to ...,.-t. tile .rruu ... t.M Thank you for your active Carla HiglrEagle #1, page 25...... _____ ""'00II-'-<-....nIIoII._ - ..... 8ts hrcIe "UOM! at.todcal PUll In -..lepUiJ U. 8IIMIn1 1 1 ...... laa. support of the general oI __...... ,...... ood.-..~ .. pnrride_ management planning ood __ I~A_ .. __ :r: tMaJI; tM e.nenl ...... t 'lu ,. dUl to t.M f.~ of U. ... 1 _ .. __...... __ fU'ce ..tJ-.l Uet.odcal hdt .... tao. ~tJ._ .f ..~. process. We will continue to work ___ ._.. ___ ...... ,,00II_...... ,_ ... 2 ll1ot.H7 for tile .....U_ to ~ . '1M an. .et1c1l 1 ..... • a.aen in partnership with the 2 ...... w._.. __pnrride ....,.-oIIIoI ___. =. "':". ro::..= ::.. for ,:;. s::--"'::;~"':t ~1: Please refer to the IhlrftNIIdl.. Ut8 arM .aad I UUU tM ~toIy of tIlU I_u_ ...... discussion in the general tribe to protect and ...... to ...... to ...... IIIc:Ido...... w_ .. 3 2). To ____."Mood ..Y __ ood interpret existing and additional ....-- ::0.:. p~ "u.. ~-.r!orOf~ .::.~ ~ .=. == ..:: responses section for pnrride-..,.-...... 1liI ___ ...... ___...... oldu ... fwce ...t1__ tell", put of U. URocy 111 t.M ... 2 3 lnterpretation and Visitor Use. sites. 3 :",:1'; ...... ,.-_._-...... l~ To~_ ...... -""' :=1'~1.1= t.4U.fOl::1J~OIIIf~·U~'=; !::rt.ecl.,: __.....-._ood_ol_~ ... ba-.--. _ld 1M to ad4rM• ..u .. tM ladlu pn,..... IUd.. ~ Please see Nez Perce Tribal The park and tribe are 4 .11 ...... _ ...... _____...... _ol n u.. PArk 1Mn'1ce. ruwOM.UJ'. J -.pnc1at-e Ute feet tllet .. do developing a new ...... lin ..rc. ...lop. wfIo ..II: la U. pelie teIICIl1a,v Execu tive Committee, .181t.on aboat the ... ruo.. ..to I f ..l .. ...s...... hft:e CllQimrml Samuel Pelwy #4 , 4 cooperative agreement to ....,... _00II-...., ... ---- people ..loyed to teech tM pabUc 8U tiI:MMIt. U. ... hrce. .... 3 help address these issues. The Lood)'...... ,...... ___ood ..... orlWopojoullconlod ....Uo. wlUCII U I. ., ai.. wM bett:ar to t..a. u. ,-Uc .....t. page 28 . _ ~._ .... __.. ...-...... ood ... _ .. ... J'u'ce It.IAtoqr t.M.n ...... ~ ,.noIl' National Park Service is ___...... -oI .. _00dU.s . ~ ...... -.. We appreciate your required to follow Office of 5 x..u,.. I "....t to t.hUJl t.M... ..rc. "UOMI IIUtoc1~l .ar. ...,...... for t.M poeiU.. worUAg nl.UOMlLlp wtlldil ..I.a ~ t.M ... contribution to the _ terce '!rlbe &ftd t.M .ark 1en'1~. Personnel Management hiring .. 4 relationship between the guidelines. 6 .-,..I>t ___ oodpooidft-tiot ...... _ .._ ..... ntoo. 4 ."..~~ park and the Tribe. We share your (oncents SioanIy. ~i""'" . r. ___ regarding funding for the AtUu •• 'byl.. 5 implementation of this /~Jt.~ ... rwc. 'I'c.1.bt.l a.eaU.. C-.ltt.. plan, and will pursue funding _N._ COl fU. according to the priorities ~ established on pages 15 and 16 of the Draft General Management Plan/Environmrntal lmpact Statement. We look forward to continu.ing OUI partnership 6 with th. tribe.
Final Environmental Final Environmental 28 ~ NezPerce Impad Statement Nez Perce~ 29 '!< National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Pari< X .... 2 -.a1L_ ol __ ~~I',I996_._.IIo .. . ,...... ___ Please refer to the -, 1100~ __.,...... _..,...... _ ...... -..--aclWaccumuDIHO.LA''''~ 5 discussion under Land .... --.~ .. ,.-..-.. ... -., ...... Protection Plan . ....•.0._" - -,...... _Iood ...... _... _ ___...... __ • ....,ol...... ,...... 5 ..... ---...... , We regret that our letter to -- ...... - House 01 Representadves ...... -_--- .. .. - landowners created -__.--'"--- _ ....,..-.-_ 1...... _-..-..-- concern. We held public State 01 Idaho 6 • -...,-... meetings in 21 communities Octobct 25, 1996 F... tllelool_. __...... _ ... _ .... _.,-- during seoping for this plan,
...-Ja .. ____ ---~ol~_ .. and another 17 public meetings .-.I...... for comment on the Draft __.. _poial"",, ____ ..-wlllbo_...... _ General Mnnagement Plan/ Mr. FIIIIk W_, Superiotaxleat ia_ .. _...... _.. _ ---..--_ - Environmental Impact Statement . ii traffic on local roads Nez P.... National Part N.tional Parlt Service __ IocoI_ol..-_oII_tiabl ..... _ na_ol..... Notice of these meetings was increases due to higher given in local newspapers and ___ ---""IiIJ~ ...... -- P.O. Box 93 _ .. __ ... beexjlOClOd .. ""-. I visitation at park sites, we other medja. Several newsletters Spouldios, ID 13551-0093 will work with county Y_~I,...... 1100 __... ___ were also distributed to the governments to address these Door Mr. WaIkcr: nearly 2,000 addresses on the needs. Authority for the park to _ ...... ol-..."iII .... Wo/ppo~. 1...... 11_... ,.. .. boId.puIIIIc--.iothe~_e>q>Iaia,.... ___ -._ mailing list we have developed enter into agreements with I have been informed by. number of my constituents and public official. oftbe park for this project. After the 17 _1100~ PubIic-, ...... bo ...... _bo county governments for this sc:rviccI notice to property ownen rqardina inclusion ofa pert oftbc Weippe prairie in iDdudod ill _ tIIa _....-BJ.S. public meetings in October, purpose is provided in 16 USC the Nez p.,.. National Part. 1996, we again contacted Sa and 8b. Hod.puIIIIc--._boIdpriorlO_JDOiIioa, .... ~,.._ .... landowners. When landowners This has not only l'IIiJcd the c:oncem of the individuals owning property that may be iI>dadIoi ...... dllaio .... __WIou· I " ...... itt For explanation of a land are not willinS- the boundary propooed fur takins, but .bo JocaI public official, Final Environmental Final Env;ronmental 30 ~Nez Perce Impact Statement NezPerce~ 31 K National Historical Pari< Impact Statement National Historical Pari< 11. '-'_ .... .-..oc~ Thank you for your support of the general II.__..... 1 management plamUng --- process. 1...... 1420 £lit Sbdh Avenue - We agree that the P,O. b200701 _.MTSIIe2O --- interrelationships between 2 the park and the Nez Perce o.c:.rnber 11 , 1gee (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic F,.C. WaIbr TraiJ would have benefitted .....- from more discussion. We Nez hrce Nlltional HiJIorkaI Pwk P. O.8oa93 intend to work toward Spaid ..... 10 '3SS I improving our coordination the .....rbMd CDuDtJ .~ ~ .. nri.ewed tile We gratefully acknowledge =~t.t~ pl.. aDd 1.1.1 Ie.- tie a.. ~. a&J.u with the agencies, Dear FrWi;: your support for the Big Hole organizations, and individuals National Battlefield in general. on. propoMd ..:ei.- (altH1lath. 2, -W bette.' ...,. &.II. and for the proposed action who manage and support the public by eabaDciDg tbe c:u.zr..t .uitol' ~. Willa JaaneeedI trail. r~a!:ri:=!4.tbe curreat facility eu.K ~taly r.cw. .. (Alternative 2). .The,... ooukl pouibty bmdil fTom more diKussion Oft me ~ipl and connections A more detailed map of the between the Nez. Pem! Nltioaal lfu&oric Pattt Ind the Nu ~ National HiRoric Trill. There IIIOmC 'ftle; ail' Role "tioaal .at:t.bUe1d Ie • YaluIIbl. aNt: to park will be included in 2 dilcusakioordtccomprmcfllhocpian forlhetrailOft~ IOInd 1l,lSwcll udilCUSlionoftheu.11 _If iadhcr ~ but &Nen how ckloscly 1tIcte cfforts .... related. it miaht be helpr»11O uy more. =~:-s fIIc:h~ry -:S1:-cc::c: t~~. SMft;"'~ ,!: =1:: 3 the final General to .....dMrIId C'ouatJ. Management Plan . .A mon: detailed .... map chatllhe one included on ... 2 would be belpful. The Individul.J Inc mapa woR:very_ll. We and our partners have 3 • ConccnI about aowdifll at cwo Montana lita (Bear hw and Bis Hoac) arc d'xu:urd on ... 3 I. S~n1y. been working with Travel Hat there Men In)I diICllUion wilb Travel MOIIUIna (the MorCaAIIt* tourism OI'pftiDtion) Ibout 4 Montana. 4 roduclnlJl"O'DO'lion ofthne 1l1CI? Yes, we have been working .Has ~ been any diICussion abouc intq;rltin, sites witt. ~isl:in& or proposed dIU' tceIIic: byQyt in mtes which t..vc JUth propMIJ (MootanI doa not)? ScenIC byMys an be an ~lCc:e Uent vdtic:Je hK with the scenic byways 5 "lliikltli lfloc:Onem\fnlillOri "IMine: . nesRNniofn bona~'1"",*~ · programs in states where 5 w. my haYe mined it, arc Jila in priVllc ownership and identirlCd for possibk purehuc they exist. . ""I 6 prioriliud inthcptan? As discussed in the We appreciate the opportunity 10 offer commcnts on the M--sanmt Plan and EIS Md look forwwd 10 general responses under worIcm, with your qcncydurinlthe impkmentalionofthc Plan. As)"OU know. OUt ap;nc:yowns the Land Protection Plan, and Bear Paw BauJearound Ind we will assist)'OU u best we can Not)'OW" land prouction plan in an effort to 6 trMJfer the t.alepound properly tRIe to NPS. in Sp.,ra tor Kempthome #2, page 16, specific land protection strategies have not been developed fo r each site, and therefore we cannot yet ~AdminiJlrltor establish priorities for Parb D;v\PJn implementation activities. We, too, look forward to WC"fking with you on title transfer fo r Bear Paw Battlefield to the National Park Service. Final Environmental Final Environmental 32 ~ Nezperce Impact Statement NezPerce~ 33 X National Historical Park Impac1 Statement National Hictorical Park X We acknowledge your WAllOWA COUNTY COURT concern regarding 4 increased traffic on Baker _.. - to' ...... _ Road, and we look torward to -- working in partnership with Decellber S, 1996 you to resolve this and other --- similar issues as the plan is "rlltlk W.lur, luperiDteodeat We oc.cur ia. tM Mlacti_ ~ Alt...... tt .. 1 .. tM ~ implemented...... ree ..UOD&l at.toried 'ut acti _ . we ..... U. OIJICIPU'aUOD with the ~ .. tile etate to 5 ...... traffic s.- tMt. wll1 .,.i.... tM .it. ______'.0.peu.ldiiDV,. " '3 ID 13551 ....11,. UMIII. we aleo fewol' at.atf'- of tM alta _ a .., to The Draft General f urtber atU9ltll tM ~ of riaiton .,...... Iae' ~, Ma /lOgrnr"" Plan/ Dear Mr. walur, eapec1allJ' __ ,,-1.. effect. Ulet. at_ .. ~ to u. Environmen tal Impact Auoc:iated Ditcb~ .. ia tile .....u_ of t.IIe .... ~ 5 We acknowledge your 'rbIi "'11~ CouDty Court bIIrtlby requ,nU tlY,t JOU. coaai cSer tbI ."..s coat:rol ta eepec:Jally ~t 011 • .lte t:Mt ~ .. Stattment states that a fee 0 : follow1", ~U 1104 1Dcorporat. tM followlov c:baDoea to t.be allQlfed to -., uti.. -...... U. Par' .....see '- ~ to support of the selection of partial interest will be acquired Draft (feDeral ~t Plan for tbe ... Perce ..t1oaal . btorlcal pur..... U. -WUUDI ..llu ... williDg ...,..- ...... to u. only when there is a willing the proposed alternatives 1 .ark &a you adopt t.be 'lul PlaD. we ba•• r ..trieted our r ad _ t o propoMd ~rtJ' a6tiUon. ... aJeo wta to 1'''''' t.IIe ParIl 1 ~ ait.. loeattl wl t.bl n "allowa Couaty, Or... . saniee of tM Dee4 to .... ,.,..ta in 11_ of taaee for laoda iD seller and a willing buyer, for Dug Bar, Joseph Canyon 'ad: CMDerallip. Viewpoint, Lostine subject to specihc exceptions, Campground, and Old Chief , - A9aUI the Coart I' .....t.a tbat a ....,...... of ~ be such as the property proposed we COIlCU.I' 10 tbe ..l.ction of Alt.mati.. 2 .. the pr0p0M4 -.el0pa4 betwe. tba Pult "nice .ad tile eo.arty CXJDCe.I'Diog for acquisition adjacent to the Joseph Gravesite. action. We rai tar at. our c:oe~m exprue.ed i n our letter of ~ 1 1aDce with U. CoIIipI' ...... h. Lead u.a 'laD. nt• .., ~d 2 ",,-,,1' 13, 1996 ~t the 1... 1 of fuel l0a4iag ... re.ult o f addI'... _tuel notification, I'.. iew ... ~al Pl'~ for Old Chief Joseph Gravesite. As stated in the general decr... e4 greaing .t the Dug Bar ait. . We a4\ooCete that the ' uk ••ri 0U8 land \1M acti. iU.. . Congress d esignated these service worll with the ror•• t Service to _in.tai.D a re4uC*! 1... 1 o f exceptions, designated by response to questions gra.. ,. fuela. Thi. 18 in. c:c.pUance with the prov18101l. of t.M. 'rbaak JOU f ol' t.be apportUAit)' to r ....t. 1:bNe col'Tactioae to 2 about Surveys, Studies, Wallow. County/.... perce Tribe ••1_ Babitat "COYeI'7 Plea wblch the Pl'opoM4 plea. wb1ch ie eo iIIportaat t o tba citJa.. of wallowa Congress, which aUow for and Plans for Resource ~ppl1ea to all laM. 1n Wallowa County by drtu. of bel ng incl uded Couaty. tba .-ban of the Mew Perce 'rl'i'" ... t.be peopl. of the condemnation as a last resort in the Wallowa County eo.preben8i.. LaDd U.. 'Ian. ADotbar lIni ted Stat ... Protection, the National Park prodaion of th. ... 81llOn Babitat 'Ian ia the control of coxioua fo r certain properties if they are Service will work wee4a. We r equ•• t that )'0\1 addr•• a that control in )"OW' fiul threatened. Please refer to the collaboratively with property JI&I'l.ag~t plan. park legislation on page 168 of owners and managers to .J08IPIl CMJqf yllWQlft the Draft General Ma nage",,,,' cond uct necessary studies and Platl/f.nvironmentallmpact We concur 1n the ••leetion of Alt.mathe 2 .. the propoaed meet resource protection goals. action. V. inai.t t.h.at the wiabaa of private latWSowaera be Statement . This incl udes collaboration to 3 r _ pectad .. to wbether to i nclude PI' hat. 1...,. wIthin the control noxious weeds. boundary of the . i t.. In thia cu. we beli... that t.be prhoat. l andowo• .r r~at. tbat tb. property be dcluded fra- the .ite tk'lundary aDd that requ.at *la t be honored. we beU••• that tbe ' A'I' tIOftIIU', a.lDla.mt Please refer to our general PI" . '. i oua aa4 future ~t of t.be prhoat.e laada COI'It1nue to response regarding pro. 14. f o r t.ba d .ul a apect that ia 4_irad. 3 Establishing Boundaries, and to 5e/lalor Craig #2, page 14. We concur in tha ..laction of AI tamati.. 3 .. the propoead a ction. V. heartily aupport tbe _tabUa.t...nt of an ia.t .rprath. fac U ity on t.ba 'ri clt Bill Site. ODc. again. we ia.aiat that ~ wtabe. of priYa ta landowner. be I'eapected aa to wbathal' to incl\l4a priv.t.. l aada withi n the boundary of the Cooflu.nc:. 8it.. Any priva t a pr opert y landowftar requ•• t that tbe PrdPU'ty be ..eluded froe the . i te bouD4a.ry _t be boQored. Fmal Environmental 34 ~ NezPerce Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce~ 35 )\ National Historical Pari< Impact Statement Natk>nal Historical Park i1 CITY OF HARI.EM City of Chinook A MUNIUrAL W.l'lllIArltIN ....'=- ....::...::::=: (#til JSJ.ZJfI -IHIX J1, --- IIAKLDI, MONTANA 59516 ------~10,1" ~N c. WM.JCDt. -..atJNTDmENT """"1' It, UtI ,.Z NJtCI. NIlITJQIW.. HIIITWtICM. II'IlIIItk ,.. o. aDl «J hpu'iDteDideat 8f'1IIU), ... IIHliHO ~l- Final Environmental Final Environmental Nez Perc e~~ 37 36 ~ Nez Perce Impact Statemenl Impad Statement ~ Nat)onal Historical Park National Historical Park X XEVI'EIlVIUE mGBWAY IIISJ1UCI' P.O. _I37 ~mm21 ,0 ... ..""'-""'- ...... ,...... ,13• •9M QaIlCONTIJ\IL - COORDlNA11NG COUNCIL -- , ..... c.w.. . ~ Har...... -'1.19!I6 .:>AlU)OPOllICTOU ...$pIWiIf. " .....3S'1 "'""""'''''''''"'''' OodIt'~Wb""""" Dw~W.-.r. Mr.r...... -- w_ n.QoeptT_~c-iJ""""'''o..a..n.I'''''''' --- ,.. .. ~ ..... S-b...... HiIIDriaf ...... 1'.0."93 ". --.. - ...---",,~-... SpooIdIoc, m 83551_ ~·d."""JIIIri:"'·Onwa .. .--- J...o.a.c.....- n.OrtpTnilI~eo..:iI- ...... AlllrllllMJ- --- Please see Wallowa County n-..... W_ --...... _ .50...... 0£_ ...... -.,...... ". -- 1 eo.c.iI ... oc..-..mo.oootcMft ..... fII ...... TI1IiI ...... COllrt "1 , page 34. ~- c.c....t.c.., ..... fIIW ...... , A lliank you for ag r ~ in g to w. - - ,.., - 01 O:oobe< 15, 19!Hi ...... olio _ 01 dIo Weil Ha.,...... ,...... ,._ ...... 1nditioMI_~oI*W...... NII .... 1 _...,...... AltlU ...... do ... _dIo ...... oI ...... pm 2 n...... ---" 1 ...... ,ortot ... Ha...... IO __ ,.. ... lila. _ •• ~oI ·dIo~Bipway-. ... do_ .. _ 1. ~~:~:e~!~~~I~;~es ...... fII ...... ID...... "...... , ...... The partnerships __.. __ IIIIIject .. IIoodiaI .... ___CNet. 1111 __ " ~ site. 0li0_ rIPO<>f....,aod _...... -...... Tat ...... -.. olio ...... b ...... ___ n.,..;.u ....-.pponol ..OrrepT .... ~ ...... I10 ...... developed in association ...... ~ n.OrrepTniII~eo.cilil~lO .. with planning for this site The Nati onal Park Service ...... ~aod_0I_1oca1-.. 2 ~oI"'prc;.Ca. A ...... ""'-'hrlcScmceb ...... sets an excellent example of the does not intend to restrict ...... criticllllO*_oI... efbt. III _010li0-, we __ 1IIaI if olio lite -. .. be_. pnlpOOIII.1IIaI leverage that can result from the any rights of the _~'*'Id_tho_ dPt .. - dPtol...,.-" 2 tho_ organized efforts of sma lJ Keuterville Highway District to 2 pdIno ..... -IIIajor .. - ..... IIoodioI .. ---."_..... paItiIc communities working together maintain and repair the road . _y .. be_... Iite .. _ ... ~oI .. _aod_ ...... _ W_kbedlo_oId1o __...... dIopmilc ..... _parkIow .. with agenCies and organizations We hope to enlarge the parking _ .. _upOlle_. toward a common goal. We look area at the site, subject to future y..,aillt .uen..n.l. "1iIe -*I be H".. ".""., ...... c.,.. n.eo.cil ...... forward to the continued site-specific planning. The pady--.dbdle ..... bydle~f1I~loc:Ikdotr*....,. "by*lddiIiaaol~ success of this partnership. safety of visit9rs and travelers ..-eo.,. - .liIIIiliIyiOoonnco.:~01'=::x'~.":~~~'...:!==.: ...... would be an important 3 ...-,eoc. ... _ .... _ , ...... w._ -"""'" OWQie(..... ~ n.eo-:a ..... ~) . ~ID .. We acknowledge your be...." .. ____.,..,_ o.r ...... "'- consid eration in that effort. _..... anmI.il4mc.k ...... beillpnMd...,...... ,...... ~ ..lad,-, __ .a:oopoo .... DillrlctSllop. _ ...... _aywlf --... ..,...... ,.._ ...... WOIIId-..:. __ ~ comment questioning the "'""...... need for additi onal staff at We look forward to • (lOll 961-3163 or Jaa _.(201) 1162·3161 . _ 3 ... 11IcOr.-T""CoardiIIliIrceo.til"'lllJlCl'''d'btIotlbc~'''Scnicc Dug Bar, and your suggestions - IDdndapilllllbr .... ~ working with you to .. - 4 and support for interpretation develop a cooperative ... 3 - '"-'Y. and development at Joseph agreement. ,..a-...~DIftcw 111SC-..:WSlN.tHl Canyon Viewpoint and Old ..... o,.,pmIO'.... r ...... , /-~ Chief Joseph Gravesite . I "...... , J... ~'~DircIdor .. OtwIaTrllillCoar6IItiIaCc.c:il Thank you for your support of the National 4 Park Service. 38 M NezPerce Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Statement Impact Statement Nez Perce ~,4.I 39 t< National Historical Park National Historical Park i1 The planning team grate that plan will be the Compre fully acknowledges your hensive Interpretive Plan. 1 recognition of the com plexity of the park and the The Spalding Visitor Center is process we followed in develop National Parks ot .. NPNHP~--~-. __-01 __...... ----...... -. centrally located within a half and CoaoervIIion Association Ioo:IdroG In boIto romo _..-.... And. 0Iji0Ing- ...... ,.... _ day's drive of the majo ri ty of ing this document. Unfortu bl_. nately, we believe your com oInWOOOIgoIoog .. ytoId"-"--*'Y-. the park's 38 si tes. Because of its PACIFIC NoaTH1VEST REGIONAL OrnCE proximity to the park's primary ments reflect misunderstanding CIHo1y, ...... monywoyo .. ioo'4> 40 Final Environmental Final Environmental ~ Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez PerceV .. I X National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park i;. Thank you for your support of Nez Perce 1 National Historica l Park YIUOWITONI HlIT01UC1l. acelln sites in Oregon. We acknowledge your ~~- support of the proposed 811"- MY '9103-1012 NoYcmbef' 26, 1996 altemativ,-'S at Lostine (406)~7956 . 2 Campsite, Dug Bar, Joseph F"","C. W"'. SuporinI O-~W""" n.~ Toun..~ TIIk Force 00 CuIbnI Heritae-Tourilin aIppOIUtMcIbta 01 ... NIItioaeI Ptft 5erYicetodevdop (cur Na: Per'CI N.tionII HiIcoricII r.t __ in CJrr..,...... T.. F.... hu...;.,...... Dnfto-nl"-_ood ...... _ StatCIDCIII tdeued a. Odobcl' aod would lit. &0 ...... conncIIl. b ~ We will work with you to assure that the marker is 1 protected. The sto ry of Calamity Jane is beyond the scope of Nez 2 Perce National Historical Park. However, this does not preclude the Yellowstone Historical Society and other organizations such as the Friends of Canyon Creek from developing interpretive infonnation at this location. ._ ... __ ._--...... _...... 42 ~NezPerce Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Statement Impact Statement Nez Perce ~ ,- 43 k' National Historical Parte National Historical Park ~ _ .... au-J.~ ...... ___ aC&lat'1aU '.0... - " ~=,,=.~J ~ ____ """""."""U,UH _1, 1'" ... rn.IIUa G • ...u.., ~ ' .0'-93 • ____ dIe.Dn.fc: -.al .--c: .~t&1 ...... WI3SS1 .-.at --*-* ... - p...... Please refer to Mayor Miller, It __ • "'" at lan la ... rift, ..., , ... __ !lplftout t-u_ Harlem. MT #. page 36. .t 'lla "" ...... ~r ....,u .. now, 1.0 1oo&t04 U • Ie.. ~l1' fttNoo_Tnil~_"""' __ ""_~"""" We acknowledge your support of the proposed alternatives at lIadlW ..-1 .,... n ... ,1Ia __ ...... u. .--.Joe .r 'lla o.run ",""'-~_.""'._I Lostine Campsite. Dug Bar...... ill \ot... "- ...... MIl , ... V.I. "",,, ... "'" tsal ..... 01 fttCoolllioe_AIlI3. "'-"'-"'.-"--'.".__ A Joseph Canyon Viewpoint, and , __,,~. 'h'" ,.....t... , ...... or , ...... ' ...... " to..t. •...... -. Cruef Joseph Cravesite...... -...,.. ~ _.w. __, 1.0 ua. ~ , .. rr.t .... ot. __ __ -...... dIo-----.. -"' .. - w. __AIl'2.DIoIa. ... AIl'2 ...... ~ ViooopaIoL w.... AIl __...... , ... tdIM, .,.. fw --..r ...... la, or _ ...... OMNHi.. 13 ....0I0f .... __ .. _-.- ...... ,. W...... _to-...._,..io ... _ no hal' Paw .-ttl.floW ..... ,...... ~ r... _eiM t ...... '1Ia' 00.11; ...s.l1',...... rt...,.~~_t •• i ftoNla UH ..... JII'OIbt.. no 8atte.l PUle. Iorrio. 18 ...... _ , ... bOftIIO u"t.n. ..-. .t. I.~""IW {CeU.,.. _ ...... ' •••• •••••Iow to 8OCI1Ir'et, JI"OteOt tbU ...... t, n'_'oa, poeoe a '1& qMIItlc. • .l n.itOZ"o om.,. ....u be appropr1.ate 4'IIrlac ....Nl _,lui of , ... ,...... toIIri.fto ' ....1 .I'll,. ... viM, .t, ..... to \7 ..Ua.1 r..n ,...... 1 . 1Mt •• ~ pardu. s..'t atoU'" at tbe elt. dariaC ott ...... _t•• 'LUIt t ... .,.. door .f • __, it iA aD ..tt ... ,le ..-t. lIIat ,be batU...... ,... vU1 ..-.1a , ... _ ,... ,..,. t. ,..,.. Final Environmental 44 Final Environmental Impact Statement NezPerce~ 45 t1Nez Perce National Historical Pa",- X 1\ National Historical Park Impact Statement (S411 __ .. 1~lll _- ... c... -~ -- P'O. bt.. ~ __ ~lo.l9M -- w.c:e.er---- ...... -...... Na:...... Pwa: NIdoaII ...... p.n-.l ,...... O"Kc:nd PORod] , 'rlUlltll. V.n.r _- llah. IMpL. LIN SpIIIIIt,w.t IU",;O"' ""u. .. or l"t.rlor-'-' MaUo... 1 ... rll ... ,.1_ .... P.r.,. Ilat.rloal To: ....c.w ... ~ "'Uo_. h,. ~a .2 It.-"Unc. 'dation .:1511'·0013 P'e'E ' ' .... , p . her ",. V".ll"r, We acknowledge your thlLoIdIItc..-. n.w.-.,.eou.,oa....-oreo.-c.JIIIIIPO'U V.. at th. C ...... r "_roe CoalJtJOft _Id Ilk. to ••pr ••• ...... our .. 1_. ,.,aMllq tlla prOlPOaH ...torloa' '.rll alat.. to alt•• ,. support 01 the proposed 1 V.'~ IUd ..tU. lid,. oa tile .culth 'or' Cl ...... '.,. . ~ot_,,__ ... NI& ...... -_n._"'iI ...... oI01W ...... or ..... alternatives at Lostine eq,....,.. • ....,. __ ,,.IUoo 01 tt•••• alt•• h lllPO"t.eat to 0." .hto"loa. "oot•• The preferred alternatives 1 illda.lanl~ot ... ~-~ ...... Thl • • ""y.,...... be•• done .o" th. "-IPs- Pral"i. 'a u.. ION 01 Campsite, Dug Bar, Joseph 1 1.lorwaUoul .l,a.. b,. additional oo"t"ol. plaoed UllOa t .... lor both Clearwater ~ <. Canyon Viewpoint, and Old 11__ ...... ,COIIIA:t-. _ot_...... ~.ID- ...... "rhat. p"ope"ty rlpta It)' u.. ftaUoMI hrll: ••rvIH , • ....,...tattl• . Battlefield and Weippe v.. I" Cle..... te" Count,.. "ay" a Co.p".""n .. ly. f.and u... Pia. t.hat 1 Cruel Joseph Gravesite. 2 .11",...... _,. d •• I,naLlo" J'01l _J' wl.b tl.l i~ •• IfPO" our ollh... Prairie have been adjusted to and U..l,. pl __ lor th.h propertJ'. reflect public comment. We look As the General In yl_ of til. _rme .. I" ... 10" th... proPO•• '. MY.~. annollltnlld. ". al,", qUfl"Unn Lb. d_anor ct' the pl.n. forward to working with public Management Plan is e . Pr ..... I." pr"pArt., ",,_ra ""r. nul I",",--d fI'. ""1' ..,.. and private entities in implemented, we will th.,. IftYn lylld I" , Ullr pl" .. a r",ar.II", lINtlr prllperU.. ff'. th. 2 2 'POept.OfI 01 th. pl.". accomplishing the goals 01 the continue to work with It. Your t.tt.r or Oolobftr 15 . .... to land _ner. Indlcat•• ,.our .1111...-•• lo .110" tll_ top Ily. on th. propert,. .iUI o.rtala General Management Plan. neighbors to be sure that aU 3 r".lrl"U"".. ntl,. yl"I.t."" 1.""lr RIOt.• • "to.tAt ... 1..... " .nd brl".a concerns are addressed. · u .... ,~ F.... r.1 auve" __ nl oo"l,..,l . .,. reqlHtat Utat l" •• olu H Please see the general ... It.., _. PrlYata Pro.,."t,. 'I,hte " ...... cted . response regarding 2 Scoping. Please also refer to the DC: statements both in the ....,,1")' Cral,. U.'. •• nata general response section Dirk a-pt.tto"... U ...... t. 3 ..... c.a... l.b . U. S . 10._ 01 •••" •••• tath•• and in earlier letters regarding M.III. C ...po . U ••. hue. 0' ••pr ••• "talh •• revision of boundaries based on 1'1111 ..tt . GoY."nor • • tat. 01 Id.bo CI __.t." CoUlllJ' Board 01 C-I •• lon.r. public comment. tdabc CountJ' aoa"d 01 ec-Ja.lo_". Ilar,_rU. MoLa--"U • • Idaho .t.at. lenale Cb_k CtlCSd,.. 'datto Slat. Iou•• n' • .,,,"fUI,,,,taUY•• " .... .rudel , Id.ho Stat. Rou •• 01 •• P" •••"tally •• Final Environmental Final Environmental 46 tA.Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez Perce~ 47 " National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park i1. _ -... ..t1aaal · JIU~aal _ ~11 - • ..t1..,.). .AI!nl~1.u ' . 0. ".J spoJdJDg. ZeIobD- " .55J-OOIJ (20') '.'.22.1 1 eft. 111 ~1"~8Ut"~_""".u. UH TOI h'aDkl.bl C. Walltu..... riAt ..... t lib" ~u OIl tbe DraLt o.auaJ .....--t p~tal .:..-ct .ta~t .,.., We agree that a limited facility of some type is needed on-site to provide visitor orientation. Please see Mayor Miller, Harlem , MT #1. pag,36. B-st~?;t!:'7 Uc ' /,'y'" 'tN1( ,,,., cae ,.IJ,.,.;"Id &L Final Environmental Final Environmental 49 48 ~Nez Perce Impact Statement NezPerce~ i1 National Historical Park Impact Slalement National Historical Park i1 CORRECTIONS AND REVISIONS TO DRAFT DOCUMENT INTRODUCTION the need scale and siting for any d eyelopment w ill be carefully evaluated and will be sub The following sections are the same as the ject to public review draft document. If there are no changes to a Please see Senator Craig #2, page section, that heading is not repeated. Correc Page 15, Paragraph 9 is revised as follows: 14, and also the general tions and revisions are noted by page num response section discussing the ber, paragraph, and, where necessary, line Costs. It is estimated that the construction Clearwater Battlefield site. number. A partial paragraph at the top of a costs for this alternative would be ~ page counts as paragraph L Material that has been deleted is shown in strikeottt; added ~. This includes $1,510,579 fo r first material is ~ or otherwise high priority items and ~ ~ for lighted. second-priority items. It is estimated that the rehabilitation and expansion of the visitor fa TIu-oughout the document, ail references to cilities would cost $5,609,414 for Spalding, Idaho Department of Transportation or Idaho and $2,603,674 for Big Hole National lOOT are changed to Idaho Transportation Battlefield, Montana. See appendix B for more Department. detailed cost estimates. Page 15, Paragraph 10 is revised as follows: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Staffing. A total of:lt 42.S additional full-time Based on public input, the proposed action equivalents would be required for staffing was modified. The following changes accom under alternative 2, as fo llows: modate those revisions. Park Support Unit 10.0 Spalding Unit 3.0 Page 15, Alternative 2 heading is revised as Upper Clearwater / White Bird Unit 7.0 follows: Oregon/ Washington Unit 505 Jl..S Big Hole Battlefield/ Montana Unit 505 ll!.ll Alternative 2: Minibiubi Requhebltlll3 Proposed Action ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL SITES AND ALL ALTERNATIVES Phasing Boundaries and Land Protection Page 15, Paragraph 7 is revised as follC'Vls: Page 17, Paragraph 5 is revised as follows: Second Priority - Visitor contact facilities would be developed at WitHe Bhd Battlefield it. The boundaries for each site that are presented IdaIto; in this document are proposed boundaries. Where landowners objected to baving their Traditional Campsite near WaUowa, Oregon, property inclyded within the proposed Bear Paw Battlefield and the Blaine County boundaries and the site was not a legislated Museum in Chinook, Montana, .and....in..J.l exception they were deleted The site-specific Nespelem Washington area Improyed visi maps have been revised to indicate the pro= tor contact facilities at White Bird Battlefield posed boundaries as tbey have been adjysted Canyoo Creek and Heart of the Monster to respond to pyblic CQ.W.IIlrn.t. The record of would be provided. The National Park Ser decision for the final environmental impa(~ vice would assist the city information center statement w ill include identification of the fi in Laurel. Montana. During implementatioo nal boundaries based 00 the maps shown in 50 Final Environmental Final Environmental 51 ~Nezperce Impact Statement Nez Perce~ '<@ 1\ National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park ii. this filial Erl vjroumelltal lmvact StatewrnL SUMMARY OF OVERALL Boundaries for the sites listed below were re WEIPPE PRAIRIE ENVIRONMENTAL vised based on public comment. Please see the Add the following paragraph: CONSEQUENCES revised maps p nesented in Appendix C. Alternatives Ant and YeUowjacket In the future, should landowners decide they SOCIO ECmJOMIC Buffalo Eddy P. 96: DeSignate Alternative I as the PRO want to develop a cooperative agreement or CONSEQUENCES Coyote's Fishnet POSED ACTION instead of Alternative 2. other type of interest with Nez Perce Na tional Craig Donati on Land Claim Historical Park to protect and interpret re Alternative 2: Minimum Requirements sources located on their property, a mutuall y Also in Appendix C is a map showing the OREGONfWASHINGTON UNIT acceptable agreement will be d rafted specify Page 36, Paragraph 2, revise as follows: CONFLUENCE OVERLOOK site, formerly ing the boundaries of the resource and what known as DONALD MACKENZIE' S PA Boundaries for the sites listed below were re measures will be taken to protect and inter Under this alternative the National Park Ser CIFIC FUR COMPANY TRADING POST. vised based on public comment. Please see the pret it. Procedures for a minor boundary ad vice might acquire more priva te property on revised maps pnesented in Appendix C. justment will ~le followed, which include no a willing-seller basis or might buy more sce Dug Bar tification of local and sta te officials and the nic easements than under the no-action alter UPPER CLEARWATERIWHITE Joseph Canyon Viewpoint Congressional delegation, and publication in nati ve. One-time payments at fair market BIRD UNIT Lostine Campsite the Federal Register. At that time, the agreement valu e for lands received would placed federal wi1l be finalized. monies in to the private sector. Thus, there Boundaries for the sites listed below were re would be no ad verse effe<: t on owners of pri vised based on public comment. Please see the NEZ PERCE (NESPELEM) vate property. Once in federal ownership the revised maps pnesented in Appendix C. CAMPSITES AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT a ffected properties would be removed from Clearwater Battlefi eld the local ta x rolls. However, the local tax base Weippe Prairie Alternatives NATURAL RESOURCES wou ld not be sigilificalitly affected because iIIost of ~,e land that iiiight be acquio ed is. u The corrected map for the White Bird Battle P. 116: Designate Alternative 3 as the PRO Ecoregions ,al aglkultwal hiiid, "hid, is taxed al a lela field site also appears in Appendix C. A loca POSED ACTION instead of Alternative 2. Re Conifer/Alpine Meadows tive 10 .. late, and the aueage imohed is reIa tion map for the Asa Smith Mission and Lewis place wording in AJ ternative 3 with the fol ti vel, sillall ill willpal ison to ~,e size of the and Clark Long Camp waysides is shown in lowing: Page 26, Paragraph 9, nev ise as follows: ~ this would be offset by federal pay the same appendix. ments in lieu of taxes to local governments NPS would participate in developing an in To the west of the batho lith are the ~ CLEARWATER BATTLEFIELD terpretive facility in the Nespelem area, wouJd ~ Mountains, "hid, gCileldll, do lIot work with tribal partners on operations and exeeed eloaliolG of 8,800 feet which rise 10 SITE·SPECIFIC INFORMATION Alternatives maintenance. 10000 feft and the Blue Mountains which rise to 8 000 feet. SPALDING UNIT P. 74: Designate Alternative 1 as the PRO POSED ACTION instead of Alterna ti ve 2. MONTANA UNIT COYOTES FISHNET TOLOLAKE BEAR PAW BATTLEFIELD Page 45, Revise Alternati ves as shown below: Alternatives Boundaries for Bear Paw Battlefield were re vised based on public comment. Please see the Alternatives - Coyote's Fishnet P. 94: Revise Alternative 2 to read as foUows: nevised map presented in Appendix C. Alternative 1: No Action PROPOSED ACTION Alternative 3: Actions Alternative 2: Minimum Beyond Minimum Same as 1, plus: interpretive materi als and Alternatives: Requirements Requirements waysides would be developed to include full Fishnet feature would be Sa me as 1. plus: site interpreted Same as 2. range of events and resources, including ca correctl y identifi ed and sign in context of other nearby Nez vjewshcd protected Final Environmental Final Environmental 52 ~Nez Perce Impad Statement Nez Perce~,f 53 i( National Historical Park Impad Statement National Historical Park i( CONSULTATION AND The legislative history of the park was re COORDINATION viewed, and the planning process to date was summarized. The cooperative nature of park PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT management was stressed. Copies of news letters, enabling legislation, the Draft Central P. 161: The following new section has been Management Plan/ETlvirmlme1Ttal Impact Statf inserted before th e heading "Consultation ment, and other inJormational materials were with States and Other Federal Agencies," available. After the introduction, the floor was opened to questions. Most of the questions re Appendix A Public Review of the Draft Doc ument quested clarification of statements within the Examples of Form Letters draft document. The fo llowing letters are A notice of avail ability of the Draft General 1Ic ____ examples of the four types of Mmmgemenl Plall!£lI vironmelllal Impact State Writte n comments were accepted through form letters that individuals ment was published in the Federal Register, Vol. December 11 , 1996, which was the close of the •.0 . ... " submitted. We received 430 61 , No. 199, p. 53373, on October 11 , 1996.Ap 6O-day public comment peri od fo r the draft ~_.3S't form letters. proximately J,700 copies of the draft were d is d ocument. Six hundred forty-one letters were tributed to governmental agencies, public in receivpd. The National Park Service greatly terest groups, businesses, media, local librar a ppredates the time and effort that many ies, and individuals. people took to participate in the review of the 1_...... __.... 6011 • .".... -.....--- draft document and to comment on the pro __.... W.... _I...... "' ...... Workshops were held in 16 communities near posals. ... _...... -, ... _-*1...... _ ...... ,"' ...... park sites. Press releases announced these -_ 1 --_ _-_ ...... , ...... meetings. They were also announced in a transmittal letter enclosed in each mailed copy APPENDIX C: CULTURAL of the draft document. An additional meeting RESOURCES - STATUS AND in Weippe was scheduled at the request of PROGRAM landowners and the community; it was not announced to the general public. STATUS OF CULTU RA L Number RESOURCES Sipad: - Site Date Signed In Mission, Oregon OCtober 28. 1996 3 Museum Collection Wallowa, Oregon October 29, 1996 18 Joseph, Oregon October 30, 1996 8 Enterprise, Oregon October 30, 1996 8 Replace Paragraph 3, P. 174, with the fo llow Wisdom, Montana November 4, 1996 7 ing: Chinook, Montana November 6, 1996 25 La urel, Montana November 7, 1996 9 The museum coUections at Big Half> National Lapwai, Idaho November 12, 1996 11 Spalding. Idaho November 12, 1996 14 Battlefi eld include archeological collections White Bird, Idaho November 13, 1996 lO made by park staff in the 1960's and 1970's, Grangev ille, Id aho November 14, 1996 40 and d uring the 1991 archeological survey. Weippe, Idaho November 15, 1996 125 Important military equipment and original Nespelem, WA November 18, 1996 21 pieces belonging to Nez Perce participants Lewiston, Idaho November 19, 1996 21 have been gathered and are on loan from such cc: u.s. -Larryo./i Kooskia, Idaho November 20, 1996 122 U.I . _Dlrt~ Kamiah, ldaho November 21, 1996 70 institutions as the U.S. Military Academy at u__.a. ....-_a....PIII_ Total: 512 West Point. u... ..-...o. The workshops were informal, and geared to help people better understand the draft plan so they could provide appropri ate comments that would articulate their concerns with, or support for, the proposals. Comment fo rms and a Guide to Comments were available to assist the public in preparing and submitting comments. Final Environmen ,AI ,,,Nez Perce Final Environmental Nez Pe rce ~e Appendixts 54 Impact Statement National Historical Park ~ x NaUonal Historical Paf1< Impact Statement ...& Perce .a\1onl1 Rlatorlcal 'It" IfOftMer 15. 1196 P.O. IcId.l SPIUI,.,l4. ..,551 _1996 'ranlUla C. Valker Superintendent _93_.... _-- Dear IU. Walken ---0...... __ lDl3m_3 I b ..... r •• le.ad the pl'opo.ed 8oundu·1 •• and !nloraat1on of tbe 1_ ...... _-. .. 1_0fI'0tIIlI) .. --.._~_ "' Cllunter aattlefield S1te locat.ct n•• r Stit•• , Uabo...... ror the ricoI'd, I •• atrongly oppoa •• to thl devilopeent of tbll oI .. prtnoa .,--,.;..- l, f •• IXlttpll • ,...... - _._,.tIa_....-_...... prope •• tor .any r •••on. a for .... -.._r...... , ... -_ -_ _-- 1. Lover pro~rtr valul 1110Il0l' ...... ~01 .. ,.t .. _ .. ,..,..ia ...... ,_ 2. 8ur"'n Cou.nty road ayat •• - ).Infringe.. nt on prlvatl pro.,-rty a.nare -. S lnc.rlly, Final Environmental Nez Final Environmental Impact Statement Perce~'~ ~J'pendix A VNez Perce Impact Slatement National Historical Park X ii National Historical Park APPENDIX B NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO sUBMITIED WRlTIEN COMMENTS Adams. Carolyn M. Bosse, William M. Converse, Jeanie M. Ad~ms, Mark L. Bowen, Jack E. Coon, Ira Daud Adkison, Car/ R. Bower, Beverly Coon,jo Aeschliman, Brian Boyd (?), Timothy Cooper, Billi Aeschliman, Lois E. Brandt, Grampa John Cooper, Michael Aldrich, James Brandt, Rocky S. Cornett, Dwight L. Aldrich, james D. Brandt, Lucky Cox, Margaret M . Aldrich, Pauline Breedlove, Jason F. Cox, Sandra S. Aldrich, Alice I. Breedlove, Jim W. and Linda J. Cox, Dale L. -"'.,1996 Aldrich, James O. Breedlove, Jim Cox, Steve R. Aldrich. Pauline M. Breedlove, Linda Cox, John L. Allpress, Cheryl Broderick, Tamera K. Cramer, Rick R. N_ hrIt Savico Anderson, Shane Lee Brotnor, James Cramer, William E. Nez Perce Nabonal Hittoric hit Anderson, Clifford L. Brown,Jim Cuddy, Charles D. Do. 93 Anderson. Leroy Andy Brown, Sharon Cullin, Todd SpoIdln .. ID I3m.()09) Andrews, Frank B. Brown, Robby Curtin, Michael E. Applington, Gene Bryson, Freda Curtis, Sharon Armita~e. Gerry L. Buche!, Sue Daeges, Charles and Sandra I wish to ao on n:conS ItItina Ihat I am OPPOSED 10 die National Park Sc:rvicc or any other Armitage, Marie Cahala, Robert Dahler, Merlin j. JO'VCI'NI'CDt qency Cltablilllin. boundarica around private property on the Weippe Prairie. Ausman. Nick J. Cahala, Steven H. Dahler, Kim and Cindy Ba iley, Erik Cahala, James Daniels, Kathy J (eel akin, thiJ property • natioDaI pan: is aa infiinacmc:nt on the riabta or the private Ball, Cecil M. Cahill. Nancy Daniels, Dave and Kathy property owncn aa4 will have a aepdve economic effect on the property 0WDCf'I involved. Ball. Diana L Cahill, Nancy Jo Davis, Neona [r.d die M __ otn.Iy _"die ...... and ohon IJUI pnirieo or"", Ball, E. Arlene Card, Lynn B. Deal,judy Balsley, Ron Carden, Ronald Deal, Mike .... and ia aIroody ...... s by die ...... No ocher put iI_ '" _led. Barber. Richard W. Carden, Susan Denham. Stanley J. [ DO NOT FEEL doIa put will benefit die MAJORITY or die people in "'is, '" lOy ocher Berreth, Charles C. Carlson, Mary Catherine Deyo, Barbie ...... Barteaux, Bill Carpenter, Norma Dickinson, Steve Barteaux, Sheila L Carver, David W. Dieringer, Mr. & Mrs. Henry Siooady, Baune, Jan M . Carver, J. L. Dietz. Lauren A. Baze. Sheila Cash. Frank R. Dietz, jolyan E. Beard. Michael J. Chapman. Everett Dirard, Kim Bell, Mark and Connie Chapman, leRoy Dobson, Patricia Benson, Renee Chapman, James L. Dobson, Edward j. Benson, Terrance Lee Chapman, Kenneth L. Donley, Chester R. Berreth, Michelle Childers. Wayland Donnelly, Patrick and Virginia Berreth, Edward L. Choate, Stan Dub, Kelly j . Berreth, Cath!in Christian, Wayne Duffy, Debbi Berreth, Jason C laffey, james F. Dugger, Mike Bi1lups, Lynette Clark, Dwain Dunn, Bruce H. Billups, Greg Clark, Christopher L. Dunn. Mary and C. Albert Binder, Leo Clark, Clarence Dunning, James E. Binder, Alva May Clark, James L. Eagan, joe and Louella Blain, Patricia A. Clark, Steve Eason. Charles and Linda Blair, Don Clark, Alona Eason, Chance Blanchard .c rry Cleveland, Thomas E. Eason, Susan Blankensrup, Melvin R. Cleveland, Nicky E. Eason, Alice B!eger, Kevin Cochrell, Art Eason, Vance Blewett, Verda Cochrell, Diane Eberhardt. Shuree Bolen, William R. Cochrell, Barbara Ely, Kevin R. Bolen, Darlene K. Cochrell, Jason Emmert,Jim Bolz, Kevin L. Cochrell, Brant Emmert, Mickey Bolz, Shannon Lynn Cochrell, Preston Emory, Cathy L. Bon Anno, Mr. & Mrs. Ed ward Colgan, Rodger Estes, Robin C. Colgan. Rodger Evans, Steven R. Borders, Fred F. Consolive r, Pat Farbo, Thomas P. Final Environmental Final Environmental v'Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez percev' Appendix5~ ~ NatIonal Historical Par1< Impact Statement National Historical Park 11 Fezatt. Claire Heisey, Kathy Johnson. Rita D. Larve, Doloris J. Miles, John C. Pollock, Mind y S. Finney, Kenneth V. Hembcrry, Ron Johnson , Donald W. Lathrop, Burke and Tammy Miles, Russel C. and Lucinda Pomponio, Sr., Richard A. Fisher, Ruth Ann Heywood, Leslie Johnson, Norman J. Lathrup, Emra (Duke) and M. Poppe, Michael J. Fitzgerald, P. G. Heywood, Earl Johnson, Jr., Carl A. Rhee Miles, Russel C. and Lucinda Potratz, Carol Fi tzpatrick, Leslie W. Hiefield, Jr., Preston C. Johnstun, Maxine M. Lavell, Ed O. M. Pouliot, Gordon L. Fitzpatrick, Jennifer K. H igh Eagle, Carl. Jones. Val and Jean Lee, Thomas Miles, Grant and Sharon Powers, Adrian Fletcher, James and Sue HiII, Mike Jones. Daniel R. Lee, Phy llis Mitchell, Benny B. and Donna Pratt, Albert C. Fogle, May R. Hix, Gary L. Jorgenson, Ma rlowe F. Lefferts, Kathy J. L. Pratt, Jane Fogleman, Misti Hix, Cynthia Jorgenson, Vickie L. Lefferts, C. Scott Mitchell, Sylvia Pratt. Charles A. Forsman, Peter C. Hodges, Debbie Justus, William J. l..eseman, Bruce Moore, Carolyn Pratt. Steve Forsman, Carol J. Hoggatt, Sian Karluk, David W. Lill ie, Douglas Moore, Grace E. Pratt, CheJsey Franey, Jim Hohnstin, Rory Kam, Kelllie M. Lillie, Elizabeth E. Morris,Alan Pratt, Margie Frazier, Darrol G. Hollibaugh, Dan Kam, Kelly M. Lindsor, Ron Morris, Tony Price, R. A. Frazier, Kelly Hollibaugh, Casey Kam, EricH. Lisher, Judy P. Morris, Vivian M. Puksta, Debbie Frazier. Joyce E. Hope, Michelle J. Kaseman, Elmer C. Lomba rd, Vema Morris, Ginger Pyeatt, Betty G. Freeman, Thomas Hovey, Ellie Kauffman, Jo Ann Lombard, Ronda Morrison, Brian RandaJl, Dawn Gehring. John Charles and Hovey. Patrick L. Kau tz, William E. Lombard, Dennis Moses. Jr., Charlie Rayner, Pat Bonnie Hueth, Joann M. Kautz, Shirley Lougee, Sandy Nacumbo, Don Rayner, Donald E. Gehring. Charles Hueth, David K. Kelso, Marjorie J. Luke, Neil Nedoma, J. Olaf Reed, Tawne Gibbar, Marvin Hueth, Gordon R. and Mary A. Kelso, Walter C. Lutes, Rex and Sandy Nelson, W. Greg Reilly, James T. Gibbar, Barbara Hutchins. Elata Kerzman, Arthur E. Lynn, Mr. II< M ... R. G. Nelson, I' hyllis Reth, Deborrah Gibbar, Betty Hutchins, Emerald J. Kiele, Dorothy Lyons, Ron Neumayer, Kay Reynolds, Ken Gibbar, Terry Hutchins, Sharon Kiele, Gene Lyons, Dewaine Newfeld, Jeff R. Reynolds, Alice M. G Uiett, Stella Hutchins, Mark B. Kiele. Marlean Lyons. Thomas Newman, Darrel and Barbara Reynolds. Harry L. G illiam, Amy Hutchins, Lawrence O. Kingen, Patricia Lytle. Teresa and Larry Newman. Wayne aJld Enid Rhoads. Ronda Goodwin. Michael Hutchins, Bonnie Kingen, Michael J. Lytic. Aaron, L.D. and Clinlon Newman, Darrel and Barbara Rhoads. Nicholas Gravelle, Paul J. Hutchins, Marvin Kirkland. Jack D. and Cecelia Lytle, Mr. II< Mr>. Leslie D. Nightingale. Jack Rleche, Juanita M. Greene. Jane I. Hutchins, Harold M. Maki, Nancy E. Nitz. Edwina J. Rieche, Anthony C. Gresir, Glen S. Hutchins, Linda Klapp rich, Beth Ann Maki, William A. Nitz. Timothy A. Ringen, Norman Hallam, JoT. Hyde, BobF. KJapprich. Bilijo Mallory. James W. Ni tz. Don l. Rivers, Larry G. Hanks, David Hyde, Marlene Klapprich, Judy H. Manes. Almon J. Norris. Sr., Melvin F. Roady, Jean G. Hardin, VmaJ, Kathleen, and Hyde. Marlene A. Klapprich, DVM, Helen M. Manshare, Bart N. O'Donnell, Harley Roady, Darrell Wes Irby, Jim Klein, linda J. Marner, Joseph Obrien, Charles V. Roberts, Randy G. Harney, Walter l. Jackson , Ralph A. Knight, Jerry Marshall. Ginger Odell, Jacquie Roberts, Shirley G. Harney. Jack L. Jackson, Roy R. Knight, Michael L. Martin, Sharon Ogden, Laurie H. Robinson. Mike Harney, Thomas Ja ckson, Mary M. Knot (?) , Jim Martini. Angela J. Olson. Allie C. Ross, Gary L. Harris. TmaR. Jackson. James C. Koerling, William L. Mason, R. Marc Olson. Jolean F. Ross, Richard Hartig, Robert G. Jacobson, Alan Konrad, lillian Matthes, Jesse Olson, William J. Roth, Robert L. Hartig, Jan ice R. Jacobson. Mr. and M.rs. Wesley Krueger. Edward E. Matthews, Wayne Olson. Karen S. Roy, Tom and Sally Hartman, George W. Jacobson, Wesley Krug, Rick Mattson. Roy and Alice Opdahl, Martin Rucker, Thomas J. Hartman. James E. Jacobus, Debra J. Kundert, Ernest and Ruth McCollum, William Opresik, Lester Ryan. Wtlliam M. Hartman, George and lngabo Jared , William R. Lacey, Jacqueline McCormack·Adams. Ann Opresik. Rose Satty, Mike Hartman, lngabo Ann Jared , Penny Lacey, Roy C. McGee, Rammie Opresik, Edward C. Schenck. Betty Rose Harvey, Leah Jared , Mitch Lage. Clarence and Edna McHone. Ivan G. Owen. DorrisE. 5chlader. JoAnne Harvey, Dennis Jell um. Karen Lage, Carolyn McHone. Ivan G. Owens, Don Schlader, Bart Harvey, Marchelle Jensen. Joyce Lahatt. Marguerite Mcintosh, Dan Packer. Joseph E. Schlader. Wendy Hasenoehrl. Leo Jentz, Gregory W. Lampman. Steve Mcintosh, Betty Packer. Joseph E. and Goldie Schlader, Julie Ann Haskin. Garold Jeter, Francis LaMunyan, Doug Mcintosh. Rick Padildia. Greg Schlader. Marty Haskins, Larry Johnson, Mary A. and Donald Lange, Don and Carol A. Mcintosh. Kathleen A. Payton, Dannette Schroeder, Jud y Hatch, Cheryl W. Larson, Michael J. Mcintosh, Kimberly Penman. Ed Schwartz, Jeff Havig, Dennis Johnson, Shawn M. Larson, Joe and Lois McKinnon. Randy Peterson. H. Seeley, Ba rbalisa Heckman, Pamela S. Johnson, Benny Larson, Teri McMillen, Lori L. Pethtel. Lillian Selzler. Kenneth P. Heil. Jeannie L. Johnson, Clayton Larson, Joe and Lois Mendenhail, Ray Pierce. John Selzler, Robert J. Heimgartner. Carlene Lillie Johnson, Bea Larson. Frankie P. and Susan K. Meyers, Karen Pikering, Darin Selzler, Maxine L. Heinrich, Sandra Johnson, To m Larson, Sharon Mid ler. Matt Platt, John P. Sharp, lei. C. Heinrich, William E. Johnson, Mary Ann Larson. Ronald J. Midstokke. Marlene Pleaufeau ts, Ken Sharp, Robert D. Final Environmental Final Environmental ~pendix B " Nez Perce Impact Statement Impact Statement Nez Perce~" Appendi\~ x National Historical Park National Historical Pari< ~ APPENDIXC REVISED BOUNDARY MAPS Sharp, Lisa K. Trainor, Roseann Young. Len REVISED BOUNDARY MAPS Sheets, Mike Trainor, Richard Zimmennan, Joan Sheets, Bobi Trieb, Tamara R. Zimmennan, Robert D. Spalding Unit page She", Ken Trieb, Russell J. Zimmennan, Alona R. Ant and YeUowjacket 64 Shepherd, Jesse A. Urnphenour, Maxine Buffalo Edd y 64 Shoemaker, Mr. & Mrs. Del Umphenour, William F. Shoemaker. D. W. Umphenour, Claud E. Coyote's Fishnet 65 Shope, Sisalene A. Umphenour, Steve A. Confluence Overlook 66 Simonsen, James R. Umphenour, Becky (fonnerly Donald MacKenzie's Trading Post) Sinclair, Kristy K. Vargovich, Adam Craig Donation Land Claim 67 Sincl. ir, Ralph W. Vargovich, James E. Skinner, Terri Vaughn, Dan Upper ClearwaterlWhite Bird Unit Smeltz, Bob Veeder, Ben Camas Prairie 67 Smith, Vickie Waide, William M. Clearwater Battlefield 68 Smith, Joseph L. Waide, BiHie l. Looking Glass Camp 69 Smith, Debra L. Ward, Ormal L. Smolinski, Alvin Wasem, Harold and Eldene Pierce Courthouse 69 Smolinski, John Watson, Dolores Tolo lake 70 Snyder, Thomas L. Watts, Marvin Weippe Prairie 70 Snyder, Jane Webster, Bill White Bird Battlefield 71 Snyder, Dorothy Webster, James A. Snyder, H. Dean and Irene F. Weholt, Rick Washington/Oregon Unit Weidner, Arminta Snyder, Alan OugBar n Snyder, Shannon Wells, James E. Joseph Canyon Viewpoint Snyder, Louie E. Wells, Vera Jean n Sonneck, Vera White, Joyce B. Lostine Campsite 73 Souders, Melinda S. WLlberton, Steven Spence, Alexander R. Wikock, James Montana Unit Spencer, Roberta Willett, Gary and Kathy Bear Paw Battlefield 74 Spencer, M. M. WLllhite, Dick Camas Meadows 75 SI. Peter, Jeff Williamson, Larry Norwood's Encounter and Howard's Camp Stamper, Tma Wdlson, JeAnn Canyon Creek 76 Stark, Cindy Lou Wilson, Chris Steiner. Chris E. Wilson, Gary K. Stenzer. Harry Wilson, Chris Stewart, Shelly Wilson, Arnold E. Stewart, William R. Wilson, Sharon R. Stewart, Donald G. Wilson, George E. Stewart, Joyce Wilson, L. KeUy Stewart, Jim Wm, LindaJ. Stone, Richard Wirth, Bruce M. Stone, Glenn L. Wirth, Catherine N. Stone, Bill S. W.... Mildred Sutton, Lori W... , Mildred Swanzey, Mary Ann and Gene Witt, Orville Tennant, Jerry V. Wolverton DVM, Duane D. Thirngan, Lee Wood, Richard Thirngan, Peggy M. Wright, David C. Thomas, Keith w. Wright, Thomas l. Thomas, Mary P. Wright, Bonnie J. Thornton. Rose Anne Wyatt, Sue Thornton. Lyle A. Wyatt, John A. Thornton. Carl Yates, Shirlee M. Tondevold. Bob Yates, Stan Townsend, Susan Yates, Barbara Townsend. John E. Yocum (?). J. Final Environmental Final Environmental ~ Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez Perce~. Appendix6~ x National Historical Pari( Impact Statement National Historical Pari( X ANT AND COYOTES YELLOWJACKET FISHNET )l '(,.. \ \ ! U i ~ - ~ \ ) v : BUFFALO EDDY COYOTE'S FISHNET, SPALDINC UNIT. USGS Q UADS: LAPWAI, L EWISTON ORCHARDS N ORTH, IDAHO, BUFFALO EODY, SPALDING UNIT. USGS Q UADS: C APTAIN JOHN RAPIDS, IDAHO-WASH, Final Environmental Final Environmental ~ pe ndi x C ~Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez Perce~ i\ National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park i\ CRAIG CONFLUENCE DONATION OVERLOOK LAND CLAIM FORMERLY DONALD MACKENZIE'S TRADING POST Proposed WaysIde '-~~c ~~~~~;:::tl~~ 1.22~ Hislo" CI Mon __ ;,~ __ • __ ~~ ~\.. ~,\~ CRAIG D ONATION L AND CLAIM, SPALDING UNIT. USGS Q UADS: SWEETWATER, CULDESAC, IDAHO. CAMAS CONFLI:fENCE OVERLOOK, SPALDING UNIT. PRAIRIE U SGS Q UADS: C LA RKSTON, W ASH.- IDA HO, L EWISTON O RCHARDS NORTH, IDA HO. -' ;-----... C AMAS PRA IRIE, UPPER CLEARWATERlWHJTE BIRD U NIT. USGS QUAD: GRANGEVILLE WEST, IDAHO. Final Environmental Final Environmental V Nez Perce Impact Slatement Nez Perce~~ :1 National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park i( LOOKING CLEARWATER GLASS BATTLEFIELD CAMP LOOKING GLASS CAMP, UPPER ClEARWATERlWHITE BIRD UNIT. USGS QUAD: K ~ ' I 4• . ' ..... PIERCE COURTHOUSE, UPPER CLEARWA; E RlWHI T~ BIRD UNIT. CLEARWATER B ATTlEFIELD, UPPER CLEARWATERlWHITE BIRD UNIT. USGS QUAD: PIERCE, I DAHO. USGS Q UAD: STITES, IDAHO. Final Environmental Final Environmental upendix C ~~ Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez PerceV 11 National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park ;, TOLO LAKE TOLD LAKE, UPPER CLEARWATERIWHITE BIRD U NIT. USGS QUAD: GRANGEVILLE WEST, IDAHO . ..... ,/ .... ., , ' .. WEIPPE PRAIRIE " 7 I I \ ' .. ~~"r-~~~~, . . L' ----- ' " l '\" \ ' \ ---~z!"'-----;:t-~---+~~I r n Final Environmental Final Environmental ~J'pendix C ~~ Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez PerceV X National Historical Park Impact Slatement National Historical Park ;( DUG BAR ~ DUG BAR, OREGONIWASHINGTON UNIT. USGS QuAD: C ACTUS M TN., IOAHo-OREG. JOSEPH CANYON VIEWPOINT . '.. \ ;':: I .: ""+1' -- ~ , ...... ,,: ('. / LOSTINE CAMPSITE, OREGONIWAS HI NGTON U NIT. USGS Q UADS: EVANS, W ALLOWA, OREGON. Final Environmental Final Envi ronmental ~~ Nez Perce Impact Statement Nez Perce~ Appe ndi x7~ i1 National Historical Park Impact Slatement National Historical Park i~ CAMAS MEADOWS BEAR PAW BATTLE BATTLEFIELD SITE NORWOOD'S ENCOUNTER HOWARD'S CAMP o · BEAR PAW BA1TLEFIElD, MONTANA UNIT. USGS Q UADS: C LEVELAND NW, CLEVELA ND, M ONTANA. CAMAS MEADOWS, MONTANA UNIT. USGS Q UADS: A NTA LOPE VA LLEY, IOMON,K ILGORE, PINE BUITE, IDAHO. Final Environmental Final Environmental ~ NezPerce Impact Statement Nez Perce ~~ ~ National Historical Park Impact Statement National Historical Park 11 CANYON CREEK CANYON CREEK, MONTANA UNIT. USGS Q UADS: LAUREL, Two PINE ScHOOL, M ONTANA. Final Environmental ~cpendix C MNez Perce K National Historical Park Impact Statement