Introduction
Working in Partnership with Others
Interpretive Challenges and Opportunities
Resource Protection Challenges aned Opportunities
for
Nez Perce National Historical Park
and
Big Hole National Battlefield
| INTRODUCTION |
Almost as soon as Nez Perce National Historical Park was established in 1965, it became obvious that many more than the original 24 sites were needed to portray a more complete story of the Nez Perce people. Twenty-seven years later, 14 sites in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana were added to the park.
The process of evaluating these new sites reinvigorated park supporters. Nez Perce National Historical Park had evolved into a model for working in partnership with public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to achieve its goals. Unlike "traditional" parks, there was very little land base; the park was managed and operated through collaborative processes, relying on cooperative agreements, memorandums of understanding, and other unconventional means for protecting and interpreting resources owned by others. Support for this innovative approach came from many individuals of diverse backgrounds, and the legislation adding the new sites passed by a wide margin in 1992.
This General Management Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park provides focus and direction to guide resource management, general development, and park administration for the next 15 to 20 years. The plan is a confirmation and endorsement of the successes that have already been accomplished, and a renewed commitment to continue operation in a similar mode for the foreseeable future.
This document contains information that applies to the entire park, including its purpose and significance, desired future, and interpretive themes. A plan for the overall management of the park is presented, followed by specific information on how each site will be managed.
| WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHERS |
The success of Nez Perce National Historical Park has been, and will continue to be, based on strong partnerships. Input from tribes, partners, park neighbors, and the general public was actively sought in the planning process from the outset. This General Management Plan reflects that input and acknowledges the very real possibility of additional partnerships in the future.
A newsletter announcing the general management planning process and presenting purpose, significance, and interpretive themes for the park was mailed to approximately 1,600 addresses on the park mailing list. Public meetings were held in 21 communities in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Montana in January and February 1995. These scoping meetings were attended by over 350 individuals, and 85 mailback comment forms were received. The summarized scoping results and a desired future developed by the full team were made available to the public in a second newsletter in July 1995.
The 50-page Alternatives Newsbook was distributed to the mailing list in April 1996. The newsbook included a summary of the planning process to that time, information that had been presented in earlier newsletters, and a request for comments on the parkwide and site-specific alternatives. Simultaneously, park management scheduled informal meetings where feedback on the alternatives was solicited. Information gathered at these meetings and from the 48 returned mailback forms was used to select the proposed action.
The National Park Service consulted with the states involved, tribes, and other federal agencies regarding the presence of sensitive resources.
Letters with proposed boundary maps were sent to the nearly 250 landowners whose properties were included within the proposed site boundaries, prior to distribution of the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, which was mailed in October, 1996. During October and November, public meetings were held in 17 communities in the four-state park area; these were attended by 512 individuals. There were 646 written comments on the document, from federal, tribal, state, and local officials, organizations, and individuals. Revisions to the plan were made based on these comments and on further consultations with landowners. The revisions were officially published in an abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement in August, 1997.
