DRAFT

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

WASHITA BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

Roger Mills County, Oklahoma

This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes a

proposed action and three alternatives for managing and using Washita Battlefield National Historic

Site. The plan is intended to provide a foundation to help park managers guide park programs and set

priorities. The alternative that is finally chosen as the plan will guide the management of the park over

the next 15 to 20 years.

The “no-action,” or status quo, alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other three

alternatives. Under this alternative, park managers will undertake no new construction projects or

make any major changes in managing visitor use.

Three action alternatives would create zones within the park to protect resources and provide

opportunities for a range of visitor experiences. Under the preferred alternative visitors would have

opportunities to participate in a variety of activities. The major action of the alternative would be to

locate the visitor/administrative facility offsite at the U. S. Forest Service site. In addition, cultural and

natural resource management strategies would be pursued to ensure that the location of the visitor

facility did not affect any known cultural resource sites or the cultural landscape, and that visitor

activities did not adversely affect the resources. Alternative A would provide visitors with offsite

learning opportunities, while preserving the reflective mood at the site. Most of the park would be

zoned conservation/restoration with small areas of contemplative zoning at the overlook area and at an

area on the west edge of the site. Under alternative B visitors would be provided with onsite learning

opportunities through integration of the visitor facilities with the historic scene. The goal would be to

provide a diverse but integrated range of onsite visitor experiences while respecting park resources.

This document also discusses the potential consequences of each alternative’s actions on cultural

resources, natural resources, visitor use and experiences, and the socioeconomic environment. In

general, the three action alternatives would better protect the park’s cultural and natural resources than

the no-action alternative. Alternative A would provide the greatest protection of natural resources, but

would have the most negative impacts on visitor use. Alternative B would provide for greater visitor

use than today, but also would have the most negative impacts on resources. The proposed action

would best protect the park’s natural resources while also maintaining a range of high-quality visitor

experiences.

For questions about this document, contact the park at Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, PO

Box 890, Cheyenne, OK 73628, or call 580-497-2742. Comments on this document will be accepted

through May 18, 2001, at the above address.

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service
SUMMARY

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site is

relatively new to the national park system.

Established in 1996 this NPS area in

Oklahoma interprets the site of the Southern

Cheyenne village of Peace Chief Black

Kettle that was attacked by the 7th U.S.

Cavalry under George A. Custer in 1868.

The park has been operating under an

interim operating plan since 1996 and a

strategic plan since 1998. This General

Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement (GMP / EIS) will provide

guidance for managing Washita over the

next 15-20 years.

Four alternatives, which include a no-action

alternative, are presented in the document.

Under all of these alternatives, certain

considerations or actions would be givens.

The landscape would be restored as closely

as possible to its 1868 appearance. Native

American values would be considered in the

management and development of the park.

Partnering with local, state, and other federal

agencies would also be pursued. Under any

scenario visitor use would be monitored to

determine the best way for visitors to have a

quality experience with the least effect on

the resource.

Certain park policies and standard park

practices that affect the historic site would

be followed to ensure protection of cultural

and natural resources, the best park

experience for visitors, and the implementation of sustainable practices to minimize

environmental impacts.

Four management zones 

tion/conservation, contemplative, extended

	


	
 


established for guiding the use, development, preservation, and understanding of

Washita. The zones are applied in varying

combinations and locations in the three

action alternatives.

ALTERNATIVES

The no-action alternative would be the

baseline for evaluating the changes and

impacts of the other action alternatives.

Under the no-action alternative, the Park

Service would continue to manage Washita

as it has since its establishment. No major

new construction would be authorized, and

no major changes would be made in

managing the park.

Under the preferred alternative visitors

would have opportunities to participate in a

variety of activities. Park managers would

make several changes to address impacts

from visitor use, and management zones

would be applied to identify desired resource

and visitor experience conditions. The major

action of the alternative would be to locate

the visitor/administrative facility offsite at

the U. S. Forest Service site. In addition,

cultural and natural resource management

strategies would be pursued to ensure that

construction of the visitor facility did not

affect any known cultural resource sites or

the cultural landscape, and that visitor

activities did not adversely affect the

resources.

Alternative A would provide visitors with

off-site learning opportunities, while

preserving the reflective mood at the site.

Most of the interpretive experience would be

 	


conservation/restoration with small areas of

contemplative zoning at the overlook area

and at an area on the west edge of the site.
SUMMARY

iv

At the offsite visitor center cultural

demonstrations, cooperative programs with

the Forest Service, and possibly a discovery

trail at the site would educate visitors about

resources of the area.

Under alternative B visitors would be

provided with onsite learning opportunities

through integration of the visitor facilities

with the historic scene. The goal would be to

provide a diverse but integrated range of

onsite visitor experiences while respecting

park resources. Facilities such as a visitor

center, trails, and waysides would be integrated into the historic scene. The visitor/

administration facility would be at a former

farm location. From the center, loop trails

would channel visitors to important topographic and historic places across the site.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Minor, long-term, adverse impacts on

archeological resources and the cultural

landscape could occur. Minor to moderate,

long-term adverse impacts would occur to

enthnographic resources.

There would be minor, long-term effects on

most natural resources. There would be

overall positive long-term benefits to park

soils. In the case of the natural soundscape

the impacts would be predominately short

term and adverse because of offsite noise

and increased visitation.

There would be moderate, long-term, negative impacts on the visitor experience.

Minor, positive, long-term impacts would

occur to the socioeconomic environment.

Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Generally impacts on cultural resources

would be minimal. Ethnographic sites, the

cultural landscape, and collections would

benefit.

There would be minor to moderate, longterm impacts to natural resources. In the case

of wildlife, there would be minor, short-and

long-term impacts on wildlife species that

live on or travel near the park area. Minor to

major, short-term disturbances to the natural

soundscape would occur during peak

visitation and during construction activities.

Visitors would experience moderate, longterm, positive impacts. The development of

a visitor center and remodeling of the

overlook would provide some moderate to

major, positive, short-term economic

benefits for some individuals and enterprises

involved with development.

Impacts of Alternative A

Long-term adverse impacts on archeological

resources would be negligible, whereas

long-term impacts on the landscape would

be minor and beneficial. Improvement in

visitor appreciation for and understanding of

American Indian concerns would result in

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on

ethnographic resources. There would be a

moderate, long-term beneficial effect on

collections, including archival materials.

As described under the preferred alternative,

minor to moderate, long-term impacts would

occur to most natural resources. There

would be overall long-term, major benefits

to wildlife species.
Summary

Visitors would experience minimal, longterm positive impacts. Some moderate to

major, positive, short-term economic

benefits would be experienced by

individuals and enterprises involved with

development.

Impacts of Alternative B

Mitigation measures would help reduce

possible adverse effects on archeological

resources and the cultural landscape under

alternative B. Improved tribal access and

public understanding of Indian concerns

would create long-term moderate beneficial

impacts on ethnographic resources. Longterm, moderate, beneficial effects on

collections would occur through improved

accountability, curation, and access for

researchers.

Restoration actions would provide overall,

moderate, long-term benefits to soils

resources through stabilization of disturbed

sites with native vegetation. Generally shortterm minor to moderate impacts would occur

to air and water quality. Moderate, long-term

adverse impacts on vegetation would occur

in association with visitor use/development

areas. Moderate to major, short-and longterm impacts would affect wildlife species

that live in or travel near the park. Activities

and uses would result in minor to moderate,

predominately short-term adverse impacts to

natural soundscapes.

Alternative B would result in moderate,

long-term positive impacts on the visitor

experience. There would be minor to

moderate, positive, short-and long-term

impacts on the socioeconomic environment,

with possible minor, negative, long-term

impacts on road traffic in Cheyenne.
vii

CONTENTS

Introduction

 Purpose of and Need for a Plan 3

 Brief Description and History of the Site 4

 Purposes, Significance, and Mission Goals of Washita Battlefield National Historic Site 7

 Interpretive Themes 9

 Primary Planning Issues and Concerns 10

 Future Plans to Address Other Issues 11

 Mandates, Policies, and Practices 13

Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

 Introduction 25

 No-Action Alternative 29

 Concept 29

 General Management Strategies 29

 General Cultural and Natural Resource Management Strategies 29

 Visitor Use Management Strategies 29

 Implementation 29

 Cost Implications 29

 The Preferred Alternative 32

 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 32

 Concept 32

 Rationale 33

 Management Zone Prescriptions 33

 General Management Strategies 34

 General Cultural Resource Management Strategy 34

 General Natural Resource Management Strategy 37

 Visitor Use Management Strategies 37

 Implementation 37

 Cost Implications 37

 Alternative A: Window to the Past 39

 Concept 39

 Rationale 40

 Management Zones Prescriptions 40

 General Management Strategies 40

 General Cultural Resource Management Strategy 40

 General Natural Resource Management Strategy 42

 Visitor Use Management Strategies 42

 Implementation 42

 Cost Implications 42

 Alternative B: Integrated Visitor Experience 44

 Concept 44

 Rationale 44

 Management Zone Prescriptions 45

 General Management Strategies 45

 General Cultural Resource Management Strategy 45

 General Natural Resource Management Strategy 45

 Visitor Use Management Strategies 47

 Implementation 47
CONTENTS

viii

 Cost Implications 47

 Mitigation Measures 49

 Cultural Resources 49

 Natural Resources 50

Affected Environment

 Introduction 61

 Cultural Resources 65

 Natural Resources 70

 Visitor Use 76

 Socioeconomic Environment 78

Environmental Consequences

 Introduction 83

 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 90

 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 101

 Impacts of Alternative A 116

 Impacts of Alternative B 129

Consultation and Coordination 145

Appendixes

 A: Summary of Legislative History 149

 B: Summary of Key Legal Mandates 152

 C: Selection of the Preferred Alternative 154

 D: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter 155

Bibliography 157

Preparers 159

Index 161

MAPS

Vicinity 6

Existing Conditions 31

Preferred Alternative 36

Alternative A 41

Alternative B 46

TABLES

1: Management Zones and Descriptions 28

2: Costs for No-Action Alternative 30

3: Costs for the Preferred Alternative 38

4: Costs for Alternative A 43

5: Costs for Alternative B 48

6: Summary of Alternatives 52

7: Summary of Impacts 53
vii

HOW THIS DOCUMENT IS ORGANIZED

This document has six main parts. The first

part, the “Introduction,” explains why the

plan is necessary and what the plan will

accomplish. It provides background information about Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site and describes the park’s

purposes, significance, and mission goals.

Included in this part are the major issues and

concerns, the focus of the plan, and the

National Park Service (NPS) policies and

standard park practices that have guided, and

continue to guide, the management of

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site.

The “Alternatives, Including the Preferred

Alternative” part presents alternatives for

managing the park. The no-action alternative

describes the current approach to managing

Washita Battlefield without the

implementation of a new management plan

and is required as a baseline for comparison

of action alternatives. The preferred alternative describes the National Park Service’s

preferred approach for managing the park.

Alternatives A and B present other

management options.

The fourth major part is the “Affected

Environment.” This part describes selected

cultural and natural resources of the park

and visitor experiences and uses. The

socioeconomic conditions in the region

surrounding Washita are also described.

Information in the “Affected Environment”

part provides the context for analyzing the

impacts of the management alternatives.

The next part, “Environmental Consequences,” describes the effects each alternative would have on key park resources,

visitor experiences and uses, and the regional socioeconomic environment in the

region.

The last part, “Consultation and Coordination,” describes the process the planning

team used to involve the public and consult

with other agencies during the development

of this plan.

The appendixes include a copy of the park’s

enabling legislation, a summary of the key

legal mandates that affect management and

planning for the park, and a summary of

how the preferred alternative was selected.
3

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR A PLAN

This section describes why the National

Park Service (NPS) has prepared this Draft

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (GMP / EIS) for

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

and the plan’s intent.

The purpose of this plan is to describe the

path the National Park Service intends to

follow in managing Washita over the next

15 to 20 years. The plan will not provide

specific and detailed answers to every issue

or question facing Washita. However, the

approved plan will provide a framework

for proactive decision-making on such

issues as visitor use, cultural and natural

resource management, and site development, which will allow park managers to

effectively address future problems and

opportunities.

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

is a new unit of the national park system

and is currently operating under an interim

operating plan (1996) and a strategic plan

(1998). A new general management plan is

essential for providing guidance to manage

Washita’s visitors in the 21st century, and

thus ensure the preservation of site

resources and provision of opportunities

for visitors to have quality park

experiences.

This Draft General Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement will have

a 60-day public review comment period.

During this period, the Park Service also

will hold public meetings to provide

additional opportunities for the public to

provide comments on the draft. After the

comment period ends, the planning team

will review comments on the draft document, make appropriate revisions, modify

various elements of the preferred

alternative and the other alternatives to

address comments, and prepare a final

general management plan / environmental

impact statement. The final document will

include responses to substantive comments

on the draft document. A minimum of 30

days after the final plan is published, the

National Park Service will publish a record

of decision in the Federal Register and the

plan will then be implemented.
4

BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE SITE

LOCATION

Located in Roger Mills County in western

Oklahoma, Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site protects and interprets the site

of the Southern Cheyenne village of Peace

Chief Black Kettle that was attacked by the

7th U.S. Cavalry under Lt. Col. George A.

Custer at dawn on November 27, 1868 (see

the Location map). The major features of the

park are the Washita River and its

floodplain, the area where the village is

believed to have been located.

The town of Cheyenne is less than a mile

from the park. Other nearby towns include

Reydon (15 miles), Elk City (30 miles), and

Sayre (26 miles).

HISTORY OF THE SITE

The cultural collision between pioneers and

Indians reached its peak on the Great Plains

during the decades before and after the Civil

War. U.S. Government policy sought to

separate tribes and settlers from each other

by establishing an Indian Territory (presentday Oklahoma). Some Plains tribes accepted

life on reservations. Others, including the

Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Comanches, did

not. They continued to hunt and live on

traditional lands outside the Indian Territory.

At first, this choice produced little conflict.

But following the Civil War, land-hungry

settlers began penetrating the plains in

increasing numbers, encroaching on tribal

hunting grounds. Indians could no longer

retreat beyond the reach of whites, and many

chose to defend their freedom and lands

rather than submit to reservation life.

Events leading to the Washita attack

included the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864.

On November 29 troops under the command

of Col. J.M. Chivington attacked and

destroyed the Cheyenne camp of Chief

Black Kettle on Sand Creek, 40 miles from

Fort Lyon, Colorado Territory. Black

Kettle’s band flew an American flag and a

white flag and considered themselves at

peace and under military protection. In

response to public sentiment, a federal peace

commission was created to convert Plains

Indians from their nomadic way of life and

settle them on reservations.

On the Southern Plains, the work of the

commission culminated in the Medicine

Lodge Treaty of October 1867. Under treaty

terms, the Arapahos, Cheyennes, Comanches, Kiowas, and Kiowa-Apaches were

assigned to reservations in the Indian

Territory. There they were supposed to

receive permanent homes, farms, agricultural implements, and annuities of food,

blankets, and clothing, but these were never

provided. The treaty was doomed to failure.

Many tribal leaders refused to sign. Some

who did sign had no authority to compel

their people to comply with such an agreement. Warrior societies, mostly young men

violently opposed to reservation life, continued to raid white settlements in Kansas.

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan, in command

of the Department of the Missouri, adopted a

policy that “punishment must follow crime.”

In retaliation for the Kansas raids, he

planned to mount a winter campaign when

Indian horses would be weak and unfit for

all but the most limited service. The Indians’

only protection in winter was the isolation

afforded by brutal weather.

Black Kettle and Arapaho Chief Big Mouth

went to Fort Cobb in November 1868 to

petition Acting Indian Agent Colonel

William B. Hazen for peace and protection.

A respected leader of the Southern Chey-
Brief Description and History of the Site

5

enne, Black Kettle had signed the Little

Arkansas Treaty in 1865 and the Medicine

Lodge Treaty in 1867. Hazen told them that

he could not allow them to bring their people

to Fort Cobb for protection because only

General Sheridan, the Departmental

Commander, had that authority. Disappointed, the chiefs headed back to their

people at the winter encampments on the

Washita River.

Even as Black Kettle and Big Mouth parlayed with Colonel Hazen, the 7th Cavalry

established a forward base of operations at

Camp Supply, Indian Territory as part of

Sheridan’s winter campaign strategy. Under

orders from Sheridan, Lt. Col. George A.

Custer marched south on November 23 with

about 800 troopers, traveling through a foot

of new snow. After four days, the command

reached the Washita valley shortly after

midnight on November 27. They silently

took up a position near an Indian encampment their scouts had discovered at a bend in

the river.

Black Kettle, who had just returned from

Fort Cobb on November 26, had resisted the

entreaties of some of his people, including

his wife, to move their camp downriver

closer to larger encampments of Cheyennes,

Kiowas, and Apaches wintered there. He

refused to believe that Sheridan would order

an attack without first offering an

opportunity for peace.

Before dawn, the troopers attacked the 51

lodges, killing a number of men, women,

and children. Custer reported about 100

warriors and several women and children

killed, though Cheyenne accounts claimed

11 warriors plus 19 women and children lost

their lives. More than 50 Cheyennes were

captured, mainly women and children. Army

losses were lighter: 2 officers and 19

enlisted men were killed. Most of the soldier

casualties belonged to Maj. Joel Elliott’s

detachment, whose eastward foray was

overrun by Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Kiowa

warriors coming to Black Kettle’s aid. Chief

Black Kettle and his wife were killed in the

attack.

Adhering to Sheridan’s plan to cripple

resistance, Custer ordered the slaughter of

the Indian pony and mule herd estimated at

more than 800 animals. The lodges of Black

Kettle’s people, with all their winter supply

of food and clothing, were burned. Realizing

now that many more Indians were threatening from the east, Custer feigned an attack

toward their downriver camps, then quickly

withdrew to Camp Supply with his hostages.

The engagement at the Washita might have

ended very differently if the larger encampments to the east had been closer to Black

Kettle’s camp. As it happened, the impact of

losing winter supplies, plus the knowledge

that cold weather no longer provided protection from attack, convinced many bands to

accept reservation life.
1950

A

47

Cheyenne

Mignon Laird

Airport

47

47

N

Vicinity

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

United States Department of the Interior/National Park Service

DSC / AUG 00 / 023 / 20007

0 1000 2000 3000 Feet

Black Kettle

National Grassland

US Forest Service

Overlook

283

283

Washita 

Battlefield

Washita River

Old Railroad Grade

Sargent

Major Creek

Washita Battlefield 

National Historic Site Dirt Road

OKLAHOMA
7

PURPOSES, SIGNIFICANCE, AND MISSION GOALS OF WASHITA

BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

The purposes, significance, and mission

goals of Washita are three of the key

elements that shaped the development of

the Draft General Management Plan.

These elements underlie how the park is

managed. The purposes tell why the park

was set aside as a unit in the national park

system. The significance of the park

addresses what makes the area unique —

why it is important enough to our cultural

and/or natural heritage to warrant national

park designation and how it differs from

other parts of the country. Washita’s

mission goals articulate the ideal future

conditions the National Park Service is

striving to attain. All of the alternatives and

management prescriptions in this

management plan should be and are

consistent with and support the park’s

purposes, significance, and mission goals.

Based on Washita’s enabling legislation,

legislative history, agency management

policies, and the knowledge and insights of

park staff, the planning team identified the

following purposes, significance

statements, and mission goals for Washita.

The following statements of park purpose

are based on the park’s 1996 establishing

legislation and consultation with local

residents and Native American tribes.

• To recognize the attack by Lt. Col.

George Armstrong Custer and the 7th

U.S. Cavalry on the Cheyenne encampment of Chief Black Kettle as a

nationally significant element of the

United States government Indian

policy.

• To recognize the struggles of the

Cheyenne and other Southern Great

Plains tribes to maintain control of their

traditional homelands.

• To protect, preserve, and interpret the

cultural and natural resources of the

national historic site through the

collaborative efforts of the United States

government and the Cheyenne-Arapaho

Tribe.

Washita is significant for the following

reasons:

• The attack at Washita was the first

implementation of a strategic policy

adopted by the U.S. Army to strike

encampments of Plains Indians in winter

when they were most vulnerable.

• The attacks at Sand Creek, Washita, and

Little Bighorn document the escalation of

hostilities between whites and Plains

Indians resulting from the failures of the

treaty system.

• The events at Washita greatly impacted

two prominent individuals: Chief Black

Kettle, widely known for his pursuit of

peaceful co-existence with whites, lost his

life; Lt. Col. George Custer, already

known for his exploits during the Civil

War, gained a reputation as an aggressive

Indian fighter.

• Washita epitomizes the ethical dilemma of

resolving cultural conflict through military

means and must be interpreted from

multiple perspectives.

• The physical resources (cultural

landscape) and the intangible resources

(emotions, memory, sense of connection)
INTRODUCTION

8

of the Washita site possess a high

degree of integrity.

• Washita is a deeply meaningful place

and has spiritual significance to the

Cheyenne and Arapaho people. It

portrays cultural values and

exemplifies a way of life that continues

into the present.

• The attack at Washita was a milestone

in the struggle of the Great Plains tribes

to maintain the freedom of their

traditional lifeways.

• Washita is a place to show respect for

lives that have been lost.

• The interpretation of Washita brings

opportunities for healing and education.

The mission goals of Washita areas

follows:

• Natural and cultural resources and

associated values of Washita Battlefield National Historic Site are protected, restored, and maintained in

good condition and managed within

their broader ecosystem and cultural

context.

• Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

contributes to knowledge about natural

and cultural resources and associated

values; management decisions about

resources and visitors are based on

adequate scholarly and scientific

information.

• Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfied with

the availability, accessibility, diversity,

and quality of Washita Battlefield

National Historic Site’s facilities, services,

and appropriate recreational opportunities.

• Park visitors and the general public

understand and appreciate the preservation

of Washita Battlefield National Historic

Site and its resources for this and future

generations.

• Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

uses current management practices,

systems, and technologies to accomplish

its mission.

• Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

increases its managerial capabilities

through initiatives and support from other

agencies, organizations, and individuals.
9

INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Interpretive themes are the key stories or

concepts that every visitor to Washita

Battlefield National Historical Site should

understand. They include the ideas that are

critical to a visitor’s understanding of the

park’s significance.

These themes, listed in no particular order,

will provide the foundation for all interpretive media (exhibits, films, brochures,

etc.) and programs at the park. These themes

helped guide the development of the

management alternatives; alternatives that

did not support the communication of the

themes were not considered.

• The events at Washita were a product of

a clash between two cultures whose

beliefs were so different and incompatible that violent conflict resulted.

• The attack at Washita was the first

implementation of a strategic decision by

the U.S. Army, which had been

unsuccessful in engaging Indian

combatants, to launch a “total war”

campaign against Southern Plains

Indians by striking winter encampments

and destroying their property when

Indian communities were most

vulnerable.

• Indians and many whites labeled the

attack at Washita a massacre, unprovoked and unjust, while the United

States military and many civilians hailed

it as a great victory in the struggle to

reduce Indian raids on the frontier.

• Chief Black Kettle’s life was filled with

irony: he was a major proponent for

peace, signing three treaties between

1861 and 1867, yet he was attacked at

Sand Creek and Washita.

• Gen. Philip Sheridan felt that Lt. Col.

George Custer’s aggressiveness was the

key to the successful implementation of

the army’s new strategy against the

tribes of the Southern Plains. The reports

of Custer’s victory catapulted him into

the public imagination as a great Indian

fighter and, ironically, encouraged the

headstrong behavior that led to his

demise at Little Bighorn.

• The attack at Washita and the resulting

death of Black Kettle were pivotal events

in the evolving relationships between the

Cheyenne people, white settlers, and the

U.S. government.

• The hallowed ground of Washita

provides opportunities to understand the

resiliency of the human spirit and the

struggle of societies to maintain cultural

identity.
10

PRIMARY PLANNING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The planning team identified four key issues

and concerns facing Washita based on

discussions with park staff, interested

agencies and organizations, tribes, and the

general public. Many of the issues revolve

around what the visitor experience will be

and what level of visitor facilities and

development is appropriate for Washita. The

Draft General Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement provides a

framework or strategy for addressing these

issues. This section summarizes the key

issues and concerns of this document.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Since Washita’s establishment, visitation to

the park has been fairly low. It is expected to

increase as the public becomes aware of the

park. It needs to be determined what would

be the best level of visitor use for Washita in

order to tell the story while protecting the

park’s resources.

The National Park Service must determine

the conditions (i.e., resource conditions,

visitor experiences) for which Washita

should be managed. If park managers allow

use levels to increase unchecked, resource

damage might increase and opportunities for

quality experiences, such as solitude, could

decline. If park managers regulate or restrict

use levels, resources could be better

protected, but visitors would have less

freedom to go where and when they choose.

If park managers limit use in one area and

displace visitors, other areas within or

outside the park could receive higher use

levels and resource impacts.

NATIVE AMERICAN PARTNERSHIP

Native American partnerships are vital to the

success of the park. Legislation mandates

involvement of Native American groups in

the development and management of the

park.

PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

Partnering with local, state, and other federal

agencies is being done and will continue to

be done as part of any alternative. An

example would be the need to work with

local commissions and governments in

developing protection strategies for

important views from the park.

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

The legislation establishing Washita calls for

restoration of the landscape as close as

possible to its 1868 appearance. Under each

of the alternatives restoration of the

landscape would be implemented.
11

FUTURE PLANS TO ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES

Future plans for the park will be prepared to

address several other issues that are of

concern to the park managers and visitors of

Washita. This General Management Plan

provides direction and lays the groundwork

for addressing these issues. However, future

implementation plans will provide specific

directions and actions to deal with these

issues.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

The cultural landscape inventory has

determined that Washita is nationally

significant as a cultural landscape in addition

to its significance as a national historic

landmark site. As the primary guide to

treatment and use of a cultural landscape, the

cultural landscape report will help guide

treatment and use of Washita’s cultural

landscape. It will be based on the historic

contexts for the area and will document the

characteristics, features, materials, and

qualities that make this landscape eligible

for the national register. In addition, the

report will analyze the landscape’s

development and evolution, modifications,

materials, construction, geographical context

and setting, and uses in all periods.

Important to planning and park management,

this analysis will also evaluate the

significance of individual landscape

characteristics and features within the larger

landscape context. It will make

recommendations for future landscape

treatment to minimize loss of significant

characteristics, features, and materials.

STUDY FOR RAILROAD GRADE

RESTORATION

Bisecting the current park is a railroad grade

that was constructed during the 1920s. The

legislation establishing the park states that

the landscape will be restored, as closely as

possible, to its appearance at the time of the

event. The railroad grade may be removed in

the future to help attain this goal. However,

the cost, impacts, and benefits of removing

the grade need to be studied in further detail

before a decision can be made.

VIEWSHED PROTECTION STUDIES

The protection of the views surrounding the

park is one of the most important issues of

the park’s management. A goal of the park

staff is to identify views that need to be

protected and develop how best to work with

local landowners to protect these views.

WATER RESOURCE STUDIES

In 1999 a water resources scoping report

was prepared for Washita by the National

Park Service. In this report was a list of

specific issues and recommended actions

involving the park’s water resources. They

include the following:

• Address the lack of monitoring

necessary to establish water quality

baseline and monitor long-term water

quality trend.

• Address the lack of information on

aquatic biological resources.

• Acquire complete knowledge of property

and water rights ownership and obtain a

solicitor’s opinion as to the ownership

and validity of all water rights associated

with the park.

• Complete a riparian zone condition

assessment.
INTRODUCTION

12

• Survey for and initiate control of exotic

plants.

• Follow up on the monitoring of private

waste disposal pits that are located

upstream.

• Acquire a more complete knowledge of

mineral rights and potential development

within the local watershed/ viewshed.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS

The park is preparing its first resource

management plan. The plan addresses the

long-term management, inventorying, and

monitoring of park’s natural and cultural

resources. Other resource plans the park

would be completing include fire management, vegetation management, and integrated pest management. All these plans

would be developed within the context of

the cultural landscape report.

COMPREHENSIVE INTERPRETIVE

PLAN

Two workshops were held in 1998 with the

goal of initiating a comprehensive

interpretive plan for Washita Battlefield.

In these workshops, park partners, resource

experts, stakeholders, and park staff

developed the primary interpretive themes

for Washita Battlefield and developed some

preliminary ideas for interpretive media and

programs. The Draft Comprehensive

Interpretive Plan was completed in 2000.

Following the approval of the GMP, the

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan will be

finalized.

ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

The ethnographic overview will provide a

comprehensive background study of the

types, uses, and users of ethnographic

resources within the park. Existing ethnographic data will be reviewed, summarized,

and evaluated, and data gaps will be

identified. Ethnographic information in this

overview will be derived primarily from

existing archival and published materials,

and will be supplemented by interviews and

oral histories of knowledgeable community

consultants.
13

MANDATES, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES

A number of federal laws and NPS policies

and practices guide the management of

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site.

Appendix B describes some of these key

federal laws. This section focuses on park

policies and standard park practices that

affect the management of units in the

national park system and particularly

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site.

These policies and practices guide the

actions taken by park staff on such topics as

natural and cultural resource management,

development of park facilities, and visitor

use management.

These policies and practices would continue

to guide park managers under all of the

alternatives described in “Alternatives,

Including the Preferred Alternative.” Park

staff would continue to implement NPS

policies and goals, as identified in NPS

Management Policies (1988), the NPS

Strategic Plan (2000), and the Washita

Battlefield National Historic Site Strategic

Plan (2000).

The ongoing management policies and

practices of Washita are described below.

For each topic discussed, there is a general

statement that describes the National Park

Service’s desired future condition or goal for

Washita. The general strategies or actions

taken (or that will be taken) by park staff to

achieve the desired conditions are also

discussed. Some of the strategies described

below are not currently being implemented,

but the strategies are consistent with NPS

policy, are not believed to be controversial,

and would require no additional analysis and

documentation under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

The alternatives in this GMP / EIS include

additional desired conditions and strategies

besides the ongoing park policies and

practices described below. The combination

of the ongoing park policies and practices in

this part and the strategies specific to the

alternative that is selected for implementation will form the final GMP for Washita

Battlefield National Historic Site.

RELATIONS WITH PRIVATE AND

PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS,

ADJACENT LANDOWNERS, AND

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

Washita is not isolated — the park is part of

a greater area, historically, socially, politically, and ecologically. The National Park

Service must consider how its actions at

Washita affect the surrounding environment

and society. A number of agreements and

the legislation establishing the park guides

these relations.

Desired Conditions

The National Park Service manages

Washita holistically as part of a greater

ecological, social, economic, and cultural

system. The Park Service demonstrates

leadership in resource stewardship and

conservation of ecosystem values within

and outside the park. Good relations are

maintained with adjacent landowners,

surrounding communities, tribal entities,

and private and public groups that affect,

and are affected by, the park. Washita is

managed proactively to resolve external

issues and concerns and to ensure park

values are not compromised.

Strategies

Park staff would continue to establish and

foster partnerships with public and private

organizations to achieve the purposes and
INTRODUCTION

14

mission of the park. Partnerships would be

sought for resource protection, research,

education, and visitor enjoyment purposes.

To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent land

uses, park staff would keep landowners, land

managers, local governments, and the public

informed about park management activities.

Periodic consultations would occur with

landowners and communities who were

affected by, or potentially affected by park

visitors and management actions. Park staff

would respond promptly to conflicts that

arose over their activities, visitor access, and

proposed activities and developments on

adjacent lands that could affect Washita.

Park managers would seek agreements with

landowners to encourage their lands to be

managed in a manner compatible with park

purposes. Park staff also would seek ways to

provide landowners with technical and

management assistance to address issues of

mutual interest.

The National Park Service would work

closely with local, state, federal agencies,

and tribal governments whose programs

affect, or are affected by, activities at the

park. They also would pursue cooperative

regional planning whenever possible to

integrate the park into issues of regional

concern.

RELATIONS BETWEEN NATIVE

AMERICAN TRIBES AND WASHITA

BATTLEFIELD NHS

Several Plains tribes view the Washita site

as part of their traditional homeland. These

tribes and bands include the Southern

Cheyenne and Arapaho, Plains Apache,

Caddo, Wichita, Comanche and Kiowa. The

Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho

Tribes also have expressed their close

affiliation with Washita. Traditional cultures

have a long and enduring relationship with

the land and its resources, a relationship that

links the prehistoric past with the

ethnographic present.

The National Park Service has developed

several park policies based on legal

mandates, such as the National Historic

Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources

Protection Act, Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act, and the

American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

Desired Conditions

The National Park Service and tribes

culturally affiliated with Washita maintain

positive, productive, government-togovernment relationships. Park managers

and staff respect the viewpoints and needs

of the tribes, continue to promptly address

conflicts that occur, and consider American

Indian values and participation in park

management and operation.

Strategies

The National Park Service would continue to

cooperate with tribes in conducting

ethnographic studies to better understand

which tribes were culturally affiliated with

the park and identify culturally significant

resources.

The park’s intangible resources, related to

the religious feelings of American Indians,

must be treated with great sensitivity. The

NPS would continue to consult with

concerned tribes to develop mutually

acceptable ways to enhance their privacy

during religious activities, foster a sense of

shared responsibility for the park, and to

develop a feeling of reconciliation.

Consultation with the Cheyenne and

Arapaho tribes would precede archeological
Mandates, Policies, and Practices

15

work, and all possible measures would be

taken to resolve differences between Indian

tribes and federal managers reasonably so

that NPS plans and actions respect the

cultural context of sites. Burials and sacred

objects would be afforded the utmost

respect. Park managers would establish a

prompt and effective notification system to

contact and consult with concerned groups

in case of inadvertent discoveries or

repatriation. Tribes would be consulted

when cultural properties of interest to them

are involved.

Protection of these resources also is

essential. National register properties would

have the highest priority for protection and

preservation. Regular consultations would

occur with affiliated tribes to continue to

improve communications and resolve any

problems or misunderstandings.

Park managers would continue to encourage

the employment of American Indians to

improve communications and working

relationships, and encourage cultural

diversity in the workplace.

Culturally affiliated tribal values would be

considered in efforts to improve overall

management and site interpretation.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

(GENERAL)

Washita’s cultural resources, including its

prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic

resources, are an integral part of the park’s

landscape. Protection of these resources is

essential for understanding people’s past,

present, and future relationship with the park

environment and expressions of America’s

cultural heritage.

Overall Desired Conditions

Washita’s cultural resources are protected

and the integrity of the park’s cultural

resources is preserved. Visitors and

employees recognize and understand the

value of the park’s cultural resources.

Washita is recognized and valued as an

example of cultural resource stewardship,

conservation, education, and public use.

General Strategies

The National Park Service would support

basic and applied research, directly and

through various partnerships and agreements, to enhance the understanding of

resources and processes or to solve specific

management questions.

The story of Washita cannot be fully

understood without placing it in a much

broader historic context that considers such

changes in federal Indian policy, the actions

of both the military and tribes, American

settlement and emigration patterns, and

Indian wars in the West. With the goal of

deepening visitor understanding of and

appreciation for the Washita story, park staff

would work with other parks, governmental

agencies, and entities to relate the Washita

story to events at Sand Creek and the Little

Big Horn.

As part of the cultural landscape, the park’s

natural and cultural resources are

interrelated. Management of the park’s

resources would consider the synergistic

effects of all proposals on both types of

resources. Plans for managing fire, nonnative species, trail maintenance, etc. would

integrate both cultural and natural concerns,

identify significant resources, and clearly

articulate procedures for dealing with both

types of resources.
INTRODUCTION

16

Resources identified as a component of the

larger cultural landscape would be managed

in the broader context rather than as an

individual element or resource.

Museum objects and collections, study

collections, archeological materials, natural

resource specimens, exhibits, and items are

essential to achieving the purposes of the

park, including scientific research, historic

preservation, and interpretation and education. A scope of collections statement has

been developed to guide acquisition of

objects and documents that contribute

directly to the understanding and

interpretation of the park’s themes.

Park staff would use the best available

scientific information and technology for

making decisions on and managing the

park’s cultural resources.

Park staff and researchers would continue to

collect information to fill gaps in the knowledge and understanding of Washita’s cultural resources, to assess their status and

trends and more effectively protect and

manage the resources.

To provide the public and park staff with

optimum interpretive and resource management opportunities, park personnel would

continue to research, document, and catalogue the artifacts. All artifacts and archival

materials would be conserved to NPS and

professional standards.

Visitor use management and construction

mitigation techniques would continue to

ensure that human activities were not

damaging park resources.

Park managers would continue to regularly

update the resource management plan and

prioritize actions needed to protect park

resources.

NATURAL RESOURCES (GENERAL)

Protection, study, and management of the

park’s natural resources and processes is

essential for achieving the park’s purposes

and mission. The resource management plan

(under preparation) provides strategies and

actions to address the park’s most important

resource management problems and research

needs.

Overall Desired Conditions

Restore the ecological integrity of the

Washita as best possible, including its

natural resources and processes. The natural

features of the park, including the natural

soundscape, remain undisturbed. The park is

restored as closely as possible to its 1868

appearance. The park continues to be a

dynamic, biodiverse environment. Park

visitors and staff recognize and understand

the value of the park’s natural resources.

Park staff use the best available scientific

information and technology to manage the

park’s natural resources. Park managers

ensure that facilities are available to meet the

needs of park staff and independent

researchers engaged in fundamental

physical, biological, and cultural studies and

analyses. Washita is recognized and valued

as an outstanding example of resource

stewardship, conservation, education, and

public use.
Mandates, Policies, and Practices

17

General Strategies

Park staff and other researchers would

continue to inventory park resources to

quantify, locate, and document biotic and

abiotic resources in the park and to assess

their status and trends.

Park managers would encourage and support

basic and applied research directly through

various partnerships and agreements to

enhance the understanding of park resources

and processes, or to answer specific

management questions.

Park staff and other researchers would continue the long-term systematic monitoring of

resources and processes to discern natural

and human induced trends, document

changes in species or communities, evaluate

the effectiveness of management actions

taken to protect and restore resources, and to

mitigate impacts on resources.

The National Park Service would continue to

expand the data management system,

including a geographic information system

(GIS), a research data base, and a literature

data base, for analyzing, modeling, predicting, and testing trends in resource conditions.

AIR QUALITY

Washita is designated a class II area under

the Clean Air Act. A Class II designation

indicates the maximum allowable increase in

concentrations of pollutants over baseline

concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as specified in the 1963 Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Further,

the Clean Air Act provides that the federal

land manager has an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related values

(including visibility, plants, animals, soils,

water quality, cultural resources, and visitor

health) from adverse pollution impacts.

Desired Conditions

Washita class II air quality is maintained or

enhanced with no significant degradation

Strategies

The National Park Service would continue to

work with appropriate state and federal

government agencies, industries, nearby

communities, and land managers to maintain

park and regional air quality.

NIGHT SKY

NPS policy recognizes that Washita’s night

sky is a feature that significantly contributes

to the visitor experience. The policy further

states that the Park Service will seek to

minimize the intrusion of artificial light into

the night scene. In natural areas, artificial

outdoor lighting will be limited to meeting

basic safety requirements and will be

shielded when possible.

Staff of Washita would continue to apply the

following measures to avoid or minimize the

impacts on sensitive natural resources:

Manage beaver population within the riparian area

to prevent loss of significant trees

Employ erosion control measures or place barriers

to control potential impacts on plants from trail

erosion or social trailing

Employ a variety of techniques, including visitor

education programs, restrictions on visitor

activities, and ranger patrols, to reduce impacts on

wildlife

Use designated river access/crossing points,

barriers, and closures to prevent trampling and loss

of riparian vegetation
INTRODUCTION

18

Desired Conditions

Excellent opportunities to view the night

sky are available. Artificial light sources

both within and outside the park do not

diminish night sky viewing opportunities.

Strategies

Park staff would continue to work with local

communities to encourage protection of the

night sky and would evaluate impacts on the

night sky caused by facilities within the

park. To the extent possible, the staff would

work within a regional context to protect

night sky quality. The park would strive to

set the best example in all developments that

involve the use of artificial outdoor lighting,

ensuring that it was limited to basic safety

requirements and was shielded to the

maximum extent possible, to keep light on

the intended subject and away from the night

sky.

WATER RESOURCES

The Washita River is a key resource at

Washita, shaping the landscape and affecting

plants, animals, and visitor use. The river, its

floodplain and riparian areas are all part of

the park’s water resources.

Desired Conditions

Maintain or improve current water resource

conditions.

Strategies

The National Park Service would work

cooperatively with the other agencies and

landowners to improve Washita River water

quality. They would continue to monitor

water quality for any changes.

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES

NPS Management Policies require park

managers to strive to preserve the natural

quiet and the natural sounds associated with

the physical and biological resources (for

example, the sounds of the wind in the

trees).

What is natural quiet? Parks offer a variety of unique, pristine sounds not found

in most urban or suburban environments.

They also offer a complete absence of

sounds that are found in such environments. Together, these two conditions

provide a special dimension to a park

experience — quiet itself. In the absence

of any discernible source of sound (especially manmade), quiet is an important

element of the feeling of solitude. Quiet

also affords visitors an opportunity to

hear faint or distant sounds, such as

animal activity. Such an experience provides an important perspective on the

vastness of the environment in which the

visitor is located, often beyond the visual

boundaries determined by trees, terrain,

and the like. In considering natural quiet

as a resource, the ability to clearly hear

the delicate and quieter intermittent

sounds of nature, the ability to experience

interludes of extreme quiet for their own

sake, and the opportunity to do so for

extended periods of time is what natural

quiet is all about.

Desired Conditions

Natural sounds predominate at Washita.

Visitors have opportunities throughout most

of the park to experience natural sounds in

an undisturbed condition. The sounds of

civilization are generally confined to

developed areas.
Mandates, Policies, and Practices

19

Strategies

The park would establish a baseline sound

measurement to monitor changes over time.

Park managers would minimize noise

generated by park management activities by

strictly regulating administrative functions

such as motorized equipment. Noise would

be a consideration when procuring and using

park equipment.

Bus tour companies would be requested to

comply with regulations that reduce noise

levels (e.g., turning off engines when buses

are parked).

The potential exists for increases in air

traffic above the park. If needed the National

Park Service would work with the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), commercial

businesses, and general aviation interests to

encourage aircraft to fly outside the park.

VISITOR INFORMATION, ORIENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND

EDUCATION

The National Park Service and its partners

use a variety of methods to orient visitors to

Washita Battlefield National Historical Site,

provide information about the park, and

interpret the park’s resources for visitors.

The Draft Comprehensive Interpretive Plan

(NPS 2000), developed in conjunction with

park partners and stakeholders, describes

interpretation goals and interpretive themes.

The plan describes what the park staff will

do to provide visitors with information, orientation, and interpretation. The plan also

addresses interpretive media such as exhibits, films, and wayside exhibits. The

Draft Comprehensive Interpretive Plan will

be finalized after this General Management

Plan is completed.

Interpretive messages would provide visitors

a deeper understanding of the significance of

the park to American Indians. These

messages would encourage visitors to

respect tribal commemorative offerings by

leaving them in place, undisturbed.

Desired Conditions

The National Park Service makes pretrip

information available to assist visitors in

planning a rewarding visit to the park. Park

staff uses a variety of media and outreach

methods to increase awareness about the

park and assist visitors with preplanning.

Visitors are able to easily locate the park

with the use of proper signage. When

visitors arrive at the park, they receive

information to orient them to what to do

(and what not to do), what to see, and how to

enjoy the park in a safe, low-impact way.

Interpretive programs connect the visitor to

the park’s significance, build a local and

national constituency, and gain public

support for protecting the park’s resources

and interpreting its story. Interpretive

programs are based on current and accurate

scholarship, provide multiple perspectives,

and present the actions and events fairly.

Outreach programs through schools,

organizations, and partnerships build

emotional and intellectual ties with the park,

its resources, and its themes. Also the park

would make facilities, interpretive programs,

and other services accessible to people with

disabilities.

Strategies

Park managers would finish and implement

the park’s comprehensive interpretive plan

with emphasis on providing information,

orientation, and interpretive services in the

most effective way possible.
INTRODUCTION

20

Park staff would stay informed of the park’s

developing and changing visitor demographics and desires to better tailor programs

to visitor needs and desires. They would

develop interpretive media and programs

supportive of park significance and themes.

Working with other agencies, partners,

native American tribes, and local communities, park staff would take action to

increase awareness of the park and its

resources and themes. This would include

improving pretrip planning, directional signs

to the park, and enroute information and

orientation. Park staff would work with local

communities and other related historical

sites to tell the story of Washita in a

comprehensive and coordinated fashion.

Park staff would also seek partnerships with

other state and national parks, educational

institutions, tribes, and other organizations

to enrich interpretation and education opportunities about park themes regionally and

nationally.

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

The Anadarko Basin is a major oil and gas

province because of its large size, thick

section of sedimentary deposits, and significant accumulations of hydrocarbons. Since

the early 1900s, there has been extensive oil

and gas exploration and production in the

Anadarko Basin. Throughout the basin, over

200,000 wells have been drilled, averaging

four wells per square mile. According to

recent production data, more than 2.3 billion

barrels of oil and more than 65.5 trillion

cubic feet of gas have been produced from

the Anadarko Basin since the early 1900s

(USGS 1995).

There is primarily deep gas production from

Pennsylvanian age Cherokee, Atoka and

Morrow Groups reservoirs (pers. comm.

Ron Dunkin) near the historic site. Within

11⁄2 miles of the site, six wells have tested

the deep reservoirs and were found

unproductive. Since the reservoirs that are

productive in the area have already been

tested near the park, it is likely that future oil

and gas drilling activity near Washita

Battlefield would be minimal. However, it is

still possible that deeper plays could be

developed in the future. Due to the depth of

the drilling targets (15,000’ or more), wells

could be directionally drilled from surface

locations outside park boundaries to develop

nonfederal oil and gas underlying federally

owned lands within the park.

Desired Conditions

When the surface was purchased at Washita

Battlefield, all of the subsurface mineral

rights were retained by the private landowner. In order to maintain the integrity of

park resources and the visitor experience,

the park would work with operators to

minimize the impacts of oil and gas

development.

Strategies

If oil and gas development were to occur

within the park, the operations would be

regulated by the NPS nonfederal oil and gas

rights regulations in 36 CFR (Part 9, Subpart

B). The NPS regulations would be applicable where access is on, across, or through

NPS-owned or controlled lands. Before

conducting oil and gas operations on NPS

lands, an oil and gas operator must submit

and obtain NPS approval of a proposed plan

of operations. The plan of operations describes in detail the proposed operation,

mitigation measures that would be implemented to protect park resources, and

reclamation plans for the operations site.

Prior to plan approval, the Park Service must
Mandates, Policies, and Practices

21

prepare an environmental assessment that

analyzes the impacts of the proposed

operation. If approved, an operator must

tender a performance bond to the Park

Service that covers both operator’s potential

liability and the cost of reclamation. There

would be a $200,000 cap on performance

bonds under the CFR regulations.

If the National Park Service were to

determine that the proposed oil and gas

operation would conflict with preservation,

management, or use of the parks, the 36

CFR 9B regulations and NEPA process

would result in identifying measures to

mitigate impacts. If a proposed operation

could not be sufficiently modified to prevent

the derogation of park values and purposes,

then the Park Service may seek to extinguish

the associated mineral right through

acquisition, unless otherwise directed by

Congress.

An approved plan of operations would also

be required for operators who seek to

directionally drill a well from a surface

location outside park boundaries to develop

nonfederal oil and gas underlying federally

owned or controlled lands or waters in a

park. The NPS regional director may

exercise discretion in terms of requiring all

or part of an approved plan of operations for

directional drilling operations if he or she

determined that the proposed operation

posed no significant threat of damage to unit

resources and values (36 CFR §9.32(e)).

While a waiver from all or part of the plan of

operations requirements may be granted,

operations would be subject to all other

applicable provisions under 36 CFR 9B

regulations.

SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability can be described in this

context as the result achieved by conducting

activities in ways that do not compromise

the environment or its capacity to provide

for present and future generations. Sustainable practices minimize the short- and longterm environmental impacts of developments and other activities through resource

conservation, recycling, waste minimization,

and the use of energy-efficient and

ecologically responsible materials and

techniques.

Over the past several years, the federal

government has been placing more emphasis

on adopting sustainable practices. In

particular, Executive Order 12873 mandates

federal agency recycling and waste

prevention, and Executive Order 12902

mandates energy efficiency and water

conservation at federal facilities.

Desired Conditions

All decisions regarding park operations,

facilities management, and development in

Washita — from the initial concept through

design and construction — reflect principles

of resource conservation. Thus, all park

developments and park operations are

sustainable to the maximum degree possible

and practical. New developments and

existing facilities are located, built, and

modified according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or

other similar guidelines.

The park has state-of-the-art water systems

for conserving water and energy conservation technologies and renewable energy

sources whenever possible.

Biodegradable, nontoxic, and durable materials are used in the park whenever

possible. Park personnel promote the reduction, use, and recycling of materials and

avoid as much as possible materials that are

nondurable, environmentally detrimental, or
INTRODUCTION

22

that require transportation from great

distances.

Strategies

Park staff would work with experts in and

outside the agency to make Washita’s

facilities and programs sustainable. Park

managers would perform value analysis and

value engineering, including life cycle

analysis, to examine the energy, environmental, and economic implications of

proposed park developments. Park staff

would support and encourage the service of

suppliers, contractors, and concessioners

who follow sustainable practices.
25

INTRODUCTION

This section describes the National Park

Service’s preferred approach (the draft

preferred alternative) and three alternative

approaches for managing Washita Battlefield National Historic Site — two action

alternatives and one no-action (i.e., continuing current management) alternative. The

alternatives and the assessment of the

potential environmental consequences of the

alternatives form the core of the Draft

General Management Plan / Environmental

Impact Statement.

Alternatives in this plan describe different

general visions for the future of the park.

They are intended to enable managers, users,

neighbors, and the public to consider

different approaches to managing visitor use

and resources, directing development, and

resolving conflicts that may arise at Washita.

The planning process used to develop the

GMP is described below along with assumptions made in preparing the plan.

Management zones were defined before

presenting a range of alternatives that were

generated based on zone management

strategies. The no-action alternative describes continuing existing management in

the park; the preferred alternative is the

proposed plan for Washita; alternative A

would provide an off-site visitor experience,

and alternative B would provide an integrated visitor experience while minimizing

site disturbance. Two tables (tables 6 and 7)

at the end of the chapter summarize the key

differences between the alternatives and the

key differences in the impacts that are

presumed will result by implementing each

alternative. The impacts table is based on the

analysis in the “Environmental Consequences” section of the document.

PLANNING PROCESS

In formulating the alternatives, the planning

team considered the park’s purposes and

significance, the National Park Service

mission, and other legal mandates and

policies under which the park operates. In

addition, the planning team solicited input

from the public, government agencies,

tribes, and other organizations about desired

future conditions for the park and specific

issues that need to be addressed by each of

the alternatives regarding levels of visitor

use; cultural and natural resources; and

development adjacent to the park. Team

members also gathered information about

existing visitor use, the condition of the

park’s facilities and resources. Finally, the

team identified a number of assumptions to

guide development of the alternatives.

Details of how the planning team selected a

preferred alternative are in appendix C.

Using all of the above information, the planning team developed four potential management zones for guiding the use, development, preservation, and understanding of

Washita and its resources. These zones form

the basis for the range of reasonable alternatives proposed by the planning team, which

are described below. The zones are applied

in varying combinations and locations in the

three action alternatives (see table 1). Note:

the zones do not apply to the no-action

alternative.

In October 1999 the planning team presented

the preliminary alternatives and zone

management strategies in a newsletter and

series of public meetings. Based on comments from the public as well as park staff,

the planning team then revised the initial

alternatives and identified a preferred

alternative. (See the inset for relevant

planning terms used throughout the

alternatives)
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

26

Each of the action alternatives identified by

the planning team consists of the following

elements:

• an overall management concept

• a series of general management strategies and zone-specific management

strategies (i.e., zone allocations and

actions) that would be implemented

• a brief discussion of funding necessary

for implementing each alternative

As noted in “Mandates, Policies, and

Practices,” the National Park Service would

continue to follow a number of strategies at

Washita regardless of the alternatives

considered in this plan. These strategies are

not repeated in this section. However, there

are other general management strategies that

do differ among the alternatives. These

alternative management strategies are

organized in this section by topic area.

The implementation of any alternative also

depends on future funding — this plan in no

way guarantees that the money will be

forthcoming. The Draft General

Management Plan establishes a vision of the

future that will guide year-to-year

management of Washita, but full implementation of the plan could be many years in

the future.

DECISION POINT

One major decision point was identified

during the scoping process. This point is the

question around which alternatives were

developed.

To what extent can public access to the

site’s cultural and natural resources be

provided without unacceptable impacts to

those resources?

POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ZONE

PRESCRIPTIONS

The key elements of the zones are

summarized in table 1. It is important to note

that none of the zones place limits on the

number of people. If in the future the

number of people visiting the park grows to

the point where the desired visitor

experience cannot be maintained, then

visitor management techniques would be

implemented to manage visitor numbers.

Under the preferred alternative (and the

other action alternatives), Washita would be

divided into different zones. These zones

identify how the different areas of the park

would be managed to achieve a desired

resource and visitor experience. The zones

are intended to protect park resources and

make a range of quality experiences available for visitors. The zones give visitors an

 Definitions of Planning Terms

The following terms are used throughout this

document.

Concept is the general idea that is behind the

alternative and includes how visitors would

experience the site.

Desired conditions refer to the goals or end results

park managers are striving to achieve. The NPS can

set desired conditions for park resources, visitor

experiences, management activities, and facilities.

Desired conditions reflect the park’s purposes and

mission goals, and ensure that the NPS preserves

Washita’s resources and provides quality

experiences.

General management strategies describe the general

actions park managers intend to take to achieve the

desired conditions. These strategies are not tied to

management zones. They may apply parkwide (e.g.,

general visitor use management) or to specific

geographic areas or facilities (e.g., Visitor Center).

Management zones identify how different areas in

the park will be managed to achieve a combination

of desired conditions. Not to be confused with the

traditional use of the term zoning.
Introduction

27

understanding of where certain activities are

and are not allowed. They also tell park

managers where development can and

cannot be added and the intensity of

management that is appropriate in different

areas of the park. Note that the no-action

alternative would not follow a new zonemanagement strategy.

Under all alternatives there may be the need

for infrequent use (one or two times per

year) of administrative vehicles for resource

management and protection on the north side

of the river. There may also be a need to

look for solutions (i.e., bridging the Washita

River or a low water crossing) or

opportunities (i.e., private easement for

access from the north) for better access to

the north in the future.
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

28

TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT ZONES AND DESCRIPTIONS

Management Zone

Prescriptions

Visitor Experience Resource Conditions Types of Facilities

RestorationConservation

While visitors would be

allowed into this zone,

access would not be

encouraged. Solitude,

natural quiet, and undirected discovery would be

key to this experience.

There would be a very low

probability of encounters

with other visitors or evidence of visitor impacts.

Resources would be restored

and managed to 1868

appearances with the longterm goal of resource

conservation.

No visitor facilities.

Minimal facilities for

resource protection or

safety may be needed in the

future

Contemplative

Visitor experience would

be primarily one of solitude with opportunities for

quiet and reflection.

Selected area(s) would

provide secluded experience for spiritual reflection. They may be close to

development (parking) to

provide easy access. There

would be a relatively low

probability of encounters

with other visitors.

Resources would be restored

and managed to 1868

appearances. There would be

some vegetation management to provide for access

and seclusion.

Development would be

limited to primitive trails

with benches and low-tech

shade (existing trees,

arbors). Limited development in selected area(s) for

accessibility with some

signs for informational

purposes.

Extended

Learning

The experience within this

zone would focus visitors

to an onsite in-theresource experience with a

combination of selfguided and ranger-led

activities. There would be

a moderate probability of

encountering other

visitors.

Predominately natural with

restoration to the 1868

appearance but managed to

provide for interpretation

and visitor safety.

Trails, overlooks, and

wayside exhibits and other

media would be appropriate

in these areas.

Development

Highly social, focused on

education, orientation, and

visitor comfort. This structured environment would

be highly accessible, and

contacts with park staff

and other visitors would

be common.

Resources would be modified

for visitor and park operational needs. These areas

would not be located on or

near sensitive natural or

cultural resources if such

resources could not be

adequately protected.

Maintenance facilities,

administrative facilities,

visitor center, utilities,

parking areas, demonstration areas (including

gardens), and hardened

circulation would be

appropriate in these areas.
29

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

CONCEPT

This alternative provides a baseline for

evaluating the changes and impacts of

the other action alternatives.

The Park Service would continue to manage Washita as it has since its establishment, relying on existing plans. No major

new construction would be authorized and

no major changes would be made in

managing the park.

Administrative and limited visitor facilities

would continue to be offsite in the town of

Cheyenne. Visitors would receive

information about the park from this office

and could tour the state-operated museum

nearby to get additional information about

the Washita event. The only visitor access

to the site would be from the overlook area

where a mowed interpretive trail would

lead visitors onto the site, which would

have descriptions of the historical events

and resources of the immediate area.

GENERAL MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

Site staff would continue to follow all of

the desired conditions and strategies

described earlier in “Mandates, Policies,

and Practices.”

GENERAL CULTURAL AND

NATURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

As with the general management strategies

the staff would continue to follow all of the

desired conditions and strategies described

earlier in “Mandates, Policies, and

Practices.” This would include the current

resource inventories and monitoring

programs and revegetation efforts.

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

Site managers would follow the policies

and practices that were identified in the

“Mandates, Policies, and Practices”

chapter.

IMPLEMENTATION

Park managers would continue to implement the management strategies described

under this alternative and under the “Mandates, Policies, and Practices” chapter over

the next 15 to 20 years as funding became

available. The National Park Service could

establish partnerships with other agencies

or groups to implement these actions; however, management emphases and related

staffing allocations would be retained as

identified in approved documents, such as

the Washita “Resource Management Plan.”

COST IMPLICATIONS

This alternative would be the least expensive for the National Park Service to implement because it does not require any new

development actions, and thus the Park

Service would not incur additional costs

beyond those of current operations.
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

30

TABLE 2: RELATIVE COSTS FOR NO-ACTION (COSTS IN FY 2000 DOLLARS)

Operation Cost $103,3441

Staffing Cost $264,6562

Total Costs $368,000

1. Operation costs include costs for studies, current resource inventories,

 as well as utilities, rent, etc.

 
1950

1950

2000

Existing Conditions/No Action

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

United States Department of the Interior/National Park Service

DSC / Aug 00 / 023 / 20003

Black Kettle’s

Camp Area

Overlook

Former

Farm

Site

Former

Farm

Site

Dirt Road 0 400 800 1200 FEET

N

(No Visitor Center)

1950

A

47

Washita River

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

Old Railroad Grade
32

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The preferred alternative is the plan the

National Park Service is proposing to

implement for Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site over the next 15 to 20 years.

Like all of the alternatives, the preferred

alternative is intended to safeguard the

future diversity of park resources and the

quality of visitor experiences.

Visitors would have opportunities to

participate in a variety of activities, ranging

from social to self-discovery experiences.

Unlike the no-action alternative, park

managers would make several changes to

proactively address impacts that would

result from increased visitor use levels.

Management zones would be applied

throughout the park to identify desired

resource and visitor experience conditions.

Park managers would allow continued

increases in overall park visitation but could

limit visitation numbers in certain areas to

satisfy zone conditions if need be.

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE

ALTERNATIVE

Environmentally preferable is defined as

“the alternative that will promote the

National environmental policy as expressed

in the National Environmental Policy Act’s

section 101. Ordinarily, this means the

alternative that causes the least damage to

the biological and physical environment: it

also means the alternative which best

protects, preserves, and enhances historic,

cultural, and natural resources”(“Forty Most

Asked Questions Concerning Council on

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) National

Environmental Policy Act

Regulations,”1981).

The environmentally preferable alternative is

the preferred alternative. This action (1)

maximizes protection of natural and cultural

resources while concurrently attaining the

widest range of neutral and beneficial uses

of the environment without degradation: (2)

maintains an environment that supports

diversity and variety of individual choice:

and (3) achieves a balance between human

population and resource use.

This alternative provides the balance and

flexibility necessary to protect the cultural

and natural resources at Washita Battlefield

National Historic Site and provide the

visitor with an appropriate experience.

CONCEPT

Visitors would have opportunities for a

comprehensive learning experience onsite

and offsite while preserving a reflective

mood at the park.

This alternative is based on an offsite visitor

center combined with learning areas at the

park itself. At each area the visitor’s

understanding of the event is incrementally

enhanced, helping to build a strong sense of

history and empathy for those who died

here. The visitor’s journey would begin at a

new off-site orientation and visitor center

shared with the U.S. Forest Service at its

current location. Here visitors would learn

about the historical chronology and background of the 1868 encounter. They could

observe cultural demonstrations and gardens

and participate in cooperative programs

presented by the National Park Service and

the Forest Service. The initial stop at the

visitor center would provide the background

for the next stage of the journey as the

visitor proceeds to the redesigned overlook.
The Preferred Alternative

33

At the redesigned and landscaped overlook

the expansive views of the river, the village

site, and the prairie hills would gradually

draw visitors into the drama that unfolded at

Washita. Waysides would help them understand the significance of the various topographic features and the progression of

events, and gradually they would begin to

integrate the messages they saw and heard at

the visitor center with the historic scene

below them.

The next stop would be a trailhead and

staging area at the former house site west of

the overlook. Shade, parking, water fountains, waysides, and vault toilets would be

provided at the staging area. From here,

waysides along a loop trail would help to

incrementally broaden the visitor’s understanding of the park and would provide

different views of the river and the hills

beyond.

At points along the trail, visitors could enter

contemplative zones, where they could have

the opportunity to sit quietly and view the

restored landscape, imagining the cold,

snowy scene along the river and on the hills

beyond. To preserve the sanctity of the park,

development would be low-key. The loop

trail would avoid sensitive areas along the

river edge and would circle around the

village site. Portions of the existing railroad

grade and any roads would be used for part

of the trail wherever feasible. Boardwalks

would be used to help protect resources and

direct visitor use.

RATIONALE

To minimize development on the NPS site,

the visitor/administration facility would be

at a Forest Service site about 1 mile from the

park. If possible the Park Service and the

Forest Service would combine their

facilities. If funding were not possible for a

joint facility, an NPS-only facility at the

Forest Service location would be pursued.

The major rationale for this action would be

to minimize the amount of development on

the NPS site.

MANAGEMENT ZONE

PRESCRIPTIONS

The following is a list of management zone

prescriptions that would be used under the

preferred alternative, where they would be

applied, and the planned actions at each

location.

Management

Zones

Location(s) Actions

Overlook Paved parking,

redesigned

pavilion

Old Farm Site Paved parking,

informational

kiosk,

restrooms

Development

West End Unpaved

parking

Extended

Learning

Corridor

within the

center of the

park

Paved and

unpaved trails,

boardwalks,

interpretive

signs, benches,

and shade

structures.

Center of trail

loop

Some benches,

limited

primitive trails

West end Benches, lowtech shade

structures

Contemplative

Area

Pony kill area Benches, lowtech shade

structures,

primitive trails

Conservation/

Restoration

North side of

river east and

west end of the

park

These areas

would be

undeveloped

and undergo

restoration if

need be.
ALTELRNATIVES, INCLUIDNG THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

34

GENERAL MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

In the preferred alternative, park managers

would follow all of the desired conditions

and strategies described in the “Mandates,

Policies, and Practices” chapter, plus several

additional management directions and

strategies. These strategies relate to

managing cultural and natural resources in

general, supplying and conserving water,

and managing visitor use and various levels

and types of park development.

GENERAL CULTURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

In addition to the desired conditions and

strategies described in the “Mandates,

Policies, and Practices” chapter of this

document, the following cultural resource

management strategies would be implemented under the preferred alternative.

Within the park’s development areas,

designs would be compatible with the

cultural landscape, respecting the original

landform. Designs of structures, trails, and

other facilities would be consistent

throughout the park. Sensitivity to the

historical and rural character of the park

would be paramount. The proposed visitor

center/ administrative complex would be

somewhat larger than existing Forest Service

structures. Thus, reducing the impacts of the

new facility would be critical. Every effort

would be made to reduce the visual intrusion

of the building and of onsite development

(trails, parking, signage, waysides) while

making them inviting and accessible to

visitors. The setting would be respected in

scale, mass, character, and materials.

There is a Native American reburial site on

the Forest Service site. Careful design of

new facilities at the Forest Service area

would ensure that the reburial site was not

disturbed. Measures such as fencing and offlimits signage would help protect this

section of the Forest Service site from traffic

during construction of the new visitor

facilities.

Tribes would be consulted before specific

design of trails and facilities, and their

advice would also be sought on appropriate

means of protection for important resources.

Design of facilities would provide the

highest feasible level of physical access for

disabled persons consistent with the

preservation of significant prehistoric,

historic, and ethnographic attributes.

Identification and evaluation of the park’s

tangible, nonrenewable cultural resources—

archeological remains, cultural landscape,

collections and archives—would be critical

because unknown resources could not be

managed effectively. Because such sites are

considered potentially significant for listing

on the National Register of Historic Places

until they were evaluated, development

activities would avoid identified cultural

resources wherever possible. Tribes would

be consulted when ethnographic or cultural

properties of interest to them are involved.

Guided by its scope of collections statement,

the park would acquire by purchase or

donation relevant artifacts, photographs,

field notes, oral histories, and other

supporting data from various sources to

establish a baseline collection for exhibits,

scientific research, and public education.

The park would work with the public to

encourage sharing of information on

artifacts and historical materials held in

private collections.

Wherever possible, the park would provide

for documentation and analysis of Washita

Battlefield artifacts currently held in private
The Preferred Alternative

35

and museum collections. The park would

make a concerted effort to obtain originals,

copies, or microfilm of all relevant documents, photographs, and records. A future

collections management plan would be

developed to provide appropriate direction

for management of the park’s collections.

An archeologist would monitor any grounddisturbing activities associated with construction of proposed interpretive trails and

the trailhead/ parking area. Prior to construction of facilities at the contemplative area

along the west side of the park, an archeological testing plan would be developed and

implemented. Testing in this area would be

needed to help ensure that intact cultural

remains were not affected by proposed construction of the parking lot. Based on results

of the testing, an archeologist might need to

monitor construction in this area, or

additional mitigation measures might need

to be developed.

The footprint of the new visitor center/

administrative complex would be designed

to avoid known cultural resources. Plans for

the development would be provided to concerned tribes for their review to ensure that

no burials nor ethnographic resources were

affected by the project, and tribes would be

consulted in a timely fashion regarding the

scheduling of the proposed construction

activities. An archeologist would monitor

any ground disturbance during construction

of the visitor center complex.

Appropriate stop-work provisions and provisions for borrow sources would be included

in the project construction documents to

minimize potential impacts on cultural

resources. Work limits would be defined in

areas near historic properties to prevent

inadvertent damage to sites. Sensitive design

and definition of work limits would prevent

any project effects on the reburial sites or on

other cultural resources. All contract and

federal employees would receive training in

protocol related to cultural resources. This

would include discovery situations as well as

the handling of artifacts or suspected

artifacts. Workers would also be informed of

the correct procedures in case previously

unknown resources were uncovered during

construction activities.

Should unknown resources be uncovered

during construction, work would be stopped

in the discovery area. The park superintendent would be notified immediately, and

the contractor would be directed to work in

another area. The Park Service would

initiate procedures to protect resources from

loss or damage, and would, as appropriate,

follow provisions of the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of

1990.

If it were decided that the railroad bed

should be removed, the undisturbed ground

bordering the railroad bed would be surveyed using a metal detector.
1950

2000

Black Kettle’s Camp Area

Overlook

Dirt Road

N

 0 400 800 1200

1950

Washita River

Feet

Management Prescriptions

Restoration - Conservation

Contemplative

Extended Learning

Development

Preferred Alternative

Dispersed Visitor Experience

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

United States Department of the Interior/National Park Service

DSC / AUG 00 / 023 / 20006

1950

A

47

Visitor Center

One mile East

Trailhead 

Staging Area

Old Railroad Grade

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site
The Preferred Alternative

37

GENERAL NATURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Park managers would pursue one additional

general natural resource management strategy under the preferred alternative compared to the no-action. The strategy would

be implementing a monitoring program

upon approval of the preferred plan to

measure visitor impacts on natural

resources.

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

This alternative would allow for visitor access to the park. Park staff would manage

visitor use to reflect desired resource conditions and visitor experiences as expressed in

the description of the management zones.

The Park Service would develop indicators

and standards to ensure resources and

visitor experiences were not diminished by

excessive or inappropriate visitor use. If

standards were violated, actions would be

taken to address visitor impacts, using the

methods that best ensure resource

protection.

IMPLEMENTATION

The National Park Service would implement

new developments and management actions

proposed under this alternative over the next

15 to 20 years as funding became available.

The Park Service would establish partnerships with other agencies or groups to implement several actions described in this

alternative.

Given adequate funding, the highest priority

would be given to implement actions that

serve the following functions:

• address crucial resource protection

needs

• address visitor and employee safety

concerns

• provide visitor facilities and

interpretation

COST IMPLICATIONS

The planning team prepared general estimates of the costs for the construction of

new facilities, the removal of facilities, and

other actions. The team also calculated onetime staff costs associated with implementing the alternative (primarily NPS employee

costs associated with construction actions

and implementation planning) and annual

full-time employee costs (primarily associated with operating facilities, and conducting

research and monitoring).

Table 3 displays the relative costs of implementing the preferred alternative in 2000

dollars. The actual cost of implementing the

preferred alternative would ultimately depend on funding by the National Park Service and Congress over the life of the plan.

The cost figures shown in table 3 give a

rough idea of the relative costs of the

preferred alternative compared to the other

alternatives. The estimates are general and

should not be used for budgeting purposes.

Actual costs to the National Park Service

would vary depending on if and when the

actions were implemented, the size and

location of facilities, and contributions by

partners and volunteers. Specifics about the

size and location of possible developments

will be decided in subsequent, more detailed

planning and design. Until the restoration/

revegetation plan is completed, it is not

feasible to estimate the cost or maintenance

of the restoration/revegetation.
ALTERANTIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38

TABLE 3: COSTS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (COSTS IN FY 2000 DOLLARS)

RELATIVE COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT

Area and Actions Capital Costs/

Construction

Administrative/Visitor Center

Area

Joint VC/Admin. Bldg and

Maintenance Bldg. $ 6,972,750

Trailhead Area at NPS Site

Parking and Trailhead Development

$ 818,549

Overlook Area at NPS Site

Upgrade overlook and parking

$ 248,824

West side Contemplative Area

Parking Area $ 7,400

Total Costs $ 8,047,523

 ADDITIONAL ANNUAL STAFFING COSTS1

Job Titles Number of

Employees

Interpreters 5

Protection Ranger 1

Clerical 1

Natural and Cultural Resource 1

Computer Specialist 1

Management Support 1

Custodial 2

Exterior Maintenance 1

Maintenance worker, heating, cooling,

repair

1

Total Cost $825,0002

 1. This is additional staffing to the current listed in the no-action alternative.

 2. Staffing costs include salary, training, equipment, and supplies.
39

ALTERNATIVE A: WINDOW TO THE PAST

CONCEPT

Provide visitors with off-site learning

opportunities, while preserving the

reflective mood at the site.

Under this alternative most of the interpretive experience would be offsite while

minimizing site disturbance and maintaining

a reflective mood at the park. This would be

accomplished by zoning most all of the park

conservation/restoration with small areas of

contemplative zoning at the overlook area

and at an area on the west edge of the park.

Small development areas would be at the

overlook and the west end to provide for

parking. Under alternative A there would be

no extended learning zones onsite.

Extensive exhibits and programs available at

the off-site visitor center would provide an

understanding of the events that occurred in

November 1868. At the visitor center,

cultural demonstrations, cooperative programs with the U.S. Forest Service, and

possibly a discovery trail at the park would

be provided that would educate visitors

about the resources of the area that were

used by the Native Americans.

Landscaping and shade would be provided at

the redesigned overlook. Here the expansive

prairie and riverine landscape spread out

below would evoke a strong sense of the

1868 scene and enhance and continue the

solemn and respectful mood established by

interpretive media at the visitor center.

The historic scene at the overlook and

surrounding contemplative area would

provide a visual window into the past and

opportunities to reflect on the nature of this

encounter.

This alternative would emphasize the deep

sense of respect and caring Native

Americans have for the area. From the

immediate vicinity of the overlook, visitors

would be able to view the area along the

river and the hills that hid the soldiers’

advance. The restoration of the prairie

ecosystem to the period of Black Kettle’s

camp would help visitors visualize the

events that occurred here. The disturbed

areas formerly occupied by homesites would

be revegetated with native species. Most of

the park would be preserved as untrailed

expanses and unfragmented natural systems.

Visitation would be managed with the goal

of providing a quality, but limited,

experience at and near the overlook, while

maintaining a sense of dignity and respect

for those who died here.

Waysides at the overlook would help tell the

story. The natural quiet and solemn setting

would be enhanced by having most facilities

offsite in a relatively less sensitive area

nearer the town of Cheyenne at the Forest

Service site.

Consistent with this concept, efforts would

be made to provide a broad range of educational offerings at the visitor center. By

having the visitor center offsite, demonstrations of Native American crafts and

traditions and cooperative programs with the

Forest Service could be accommodated

without intrusion on the historic site.

Relatively pristine resource conditions could

be restored and maintained throughout much

of the park.
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUIDNG THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40

RATIONALE

As described in the preferred alternative, the

visitor/administration facility would be

about 1 mile away at the Forest Service site.

This facility would be a combined

NPS/USFS facility if funding allowed. If

funding did not allow for a combined

facility, the Park Service would pursue an

NPS-only facility on the USFS site. The

rationale for this alternative would be to

have major development offsite and to

minimize intrusions on the park.

MANAGEMENT ZONE

PRESCRIPTIONS

The following is a list of management zone

prescription that would be used under this

alternative, where they would be applied,

and the planned actions at each location.

Management

Zones

Location(s) Actions

Overlook Paved parking,

redesigned

pavilion

Old Farm Site No

development

Development

West End Unpaved

parking

Extended

Learning

Zone is not

applied in

this

alternative

Surrounding

the overlook

area

Some benches,

limited primitive trails

Contemplative

Area

West end Benches, lowtech shade

structures

Conservation/

Restoration

North side of

river east and

west end of

the park

These areas

would be

undeveloped

and undergo

restoration if

need be.

GENERAL MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

In addition to all of the desired conditions

and strategies described in the “Mandates,

Policies, and Practices” chapter, park

managers would follow several other

management directions and strategies under

alternative A. These general management

strategies would be the same as those

described under the preferred alternative.

That is, park managers would implement the

same strategies for both alternatives with

regard to general cultural and natural

resource management, air quality, water

supply and conservation, visitor use

management, and levels and types of park

development. Alternative A differs from the

preferred alternative in that alternative A

proposes a different zoning scheme, and

park managers would follow different zonespecific management strategies.

GENERAL CULTURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

In addition to the statements in the

“Mandates, Policies, and Practices” chapter

of this document, the management strategies

and mitigation measures described for the

preferred alternative would apply to this

alternative. Archeological testing would

precede construction along the west edge of

the park.

Depending upon findings from archeological

testing, an archeologist might choose to

monitor construction here, or other

mitigating measures might need to be

developed. An archeologist would monitor

ground-disturbing work at the offsite visitor

center complex.
Visitor Center

One mile East

Overlook

1950

2000

Black Kettle’s

Camp Area

N

1950

Alternative A

Window into the Past

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

United States Department of the Interior/National Park Service

DSC / Aug 00 / 023 / 20004

Management Prescriptions

Restoration - Conservation

Contemplative

Development

A

47

0 400 800 1200 Feet

Old Railroad Grade

Washita River

Dirt Road

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUIDNG THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

42

GENERAL NATURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

As in the preferred alternative, park

managers would pursue the implementation

of a monitoring program to measure visitor

impacts on natural resources.

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

This alternative would limit visitors to the

overlook area. Park staff would manage

visitor use to reflect desired resource

conditions and visitor experiences as

expressed in the description of the

management zones. The Park Service would

develop measures (indicators and standards)

to ensure resources and visitor experiences

were not damaged or diminished by

excessive or inappropriate visitor use. If

standards were violated, actions would be

taken to address visitor impacts, using the

methods that best ensure resource protection.

IMPLEMENTATION

Like the preferred alternative, the Park

Service would implement actions under

alternative A over the next 15 to 20 years as

funding became available. Park managers

could establish partnerships with other

agencies or groups to implement several of

these actions and would need to increase

staff within park programs to support the

implementation of this alternative. Project

priority would be based on the criteria listed

under the preferred alternative.

COST IMPLICATIONS

Table 4 displays the relative costs of

implementing alternative A in 2000 dollars.

The table shows general estimates of the

costs for constructing new facilities,

removing facilities, and conducting other

actions under alternative A. The table also

displays one-time costs associated with

implementing the alternative (primarily NPS

employee costs associated with construction

actions and implementation planning) and

annual full-time employee costs (primarily

associated with operating facilities and

conducting research and monitoring).

The cost figures are only intended to give a

very rough idea of the relative costs of

alternative A compared to the other

alternatives. All of the caveats regarding the

cost figures described under the preferred

alternative also apply to alternative A. Until

the restoration/revegetation plan is completed, it is not feasible to estimate the cost

or maintenance of the restoration/

revegetation.
Alternative B: Integrated Visitor Experience

43

TABLE 4: COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE A

RELATIVE COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT

Area and Actions Capital Costs/

Construction

Administrative/Visitor Center Area

Joint VC/Admin. Bldg and

Maintenance Bldg.

$ 6,972,750

Overlook Area at NPS Site

Upgrade overlook and parking $ 408,699

Westside Contemplative Area

Parking Area $ 7,400

Total Costs $ 7,388,849

 ADDITIONAL ANNUAL STAFFING COST1

Job Titles Number of Employees

Interpreters 5

Protection Ranger 1

Clerical 1

Natural and Cultural Resource 1

Computer Specialist 1

Management Support 1

Custodial 2

Exterior Maintenance 1

Maintenance worker, heating, cooling,

repair

1

Total Cost $825,0002

 1. This is additional staffing to the current listed in the no-action alternative.

 2. Staffing costs include salary, training, equipment, and supplies.
44

 ALTERNATIVE B: INTEGRATED VISITOR EXPERIENCE

CONCEPT

Provide visitors with onsite learning

opportunities through integration of

visitor facilities with the historic scene.

The goal of this alternative would be to

provide a diverse but integrated range of

onsite visitor experiences while respecting

park resources.

Thoughtful, nonintrusive integration of facilities such as a visitor center, trails, and waysides into the historic scene would provide

continuity in the visitor experience. Visitors

could stop first at the overlook where the

scenic view and interpretive waysides would

introduce them to the park. The overlook

would be redesigned to minimize its impact

on the historic scene. Visitors would then

proceed to the visitor center, which would be

located on a previously disturbed house site

west of the overlook. Here they would

receive an orientation to the events that led

to the attack on the Cheyenne winter village

on the Washita. Space would be provided

inside the visitor center for cultural

demonstrations.

From the visitor center, loop trails of varying

length and difficulty would channel visitors

to important topographic and historic places

situated across the park. Trails and

interpretive materials would provide

opportunities for visitors to experience the

park briefly or more in depth.

An accessible trail would lead down to the

river, where the visitor could get a closer

view of the river, the village site, and the

hills that sheltered the soldiers. A more

primitive/rustic loop trail, 1.5 miles in

length, would take the visitor across the

Washita River to the high ground on the

north where they could experience an

entirely different perspective of the military

approach to the Indian village. These trails

would be sited to avoid sensitive resources

and areas where people were killed or fled

from their attackers. Shaded benches would

provide a quiet place to reflect on the events

and on the loss of life that occurred here.

Much of the village site and center of the

park would be zoned for contemplative use,

providing visitors an opportunity to sit

quietly, imagine, and reflect on the events of

1868.

Restoration of the prairie and the river

corridor would be given a high priority.

Restoration of the historic scene would help

give visitors a sense of place, allowing them

to feel they have traveled back in time to

revisit and understand the past. The railroad

grade would be removed except in selected

areas where it would be used as part of the

trail system.

RATIONALE

The major action of this alternative would be

to locate the visitor/administration facility

onsite at the former farm location. This

facility would be an NPS-only facility. The

rationale for this alternative would be to

have all facilities on NPS land and to

minimize the number of times a visitor

would have to stop with their vehicle. This

alternative would also allow for visitor

access onto the park.
Alternative B: Integrated Visitor Experience

45

MANAGEMENT ZONE

PRESCRIPTIONS

The following is a list of management zone

prescriptions that would be used under this

alternative, where they would be applied,

and what type of facilities would be at each

location.

Management

Zones

Location(s) Actions

Overlook Paved parking,

redesigned

pavilion

Old Farm Site NPS visitor/

administration

facilities, paved

parking,

informational

kiosk, restrooms

Development

West End Unpaved

parking

Extended

Learning

Corridor

within the

center of the

park

Paved and

unpaved trails,

boardwalks,

interpretive

signs, benches,

and shade

structures.

Center of trail

loop

Some benches,

limited

primitive trails

Contemplative

Area

West end Benches, lowtech shade

structures

Conservation/

Restoration

North side of

river east and

west end of

the park

These areas

would be

undeveloped

and undergo

restoration if

need be.

GENERAL MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

In addition to all of the desired conditions

and strategies described in the “Mandates,

Policies, and Practices” chapter, park

managers would follow several other

management directions and strategies under

alternative B. These general management

strategies would be the same as those

described under the preferred alternative.

That is, park managers would implement

the same strategies for both alternatives

with regard to general natural resource

management, air quality, water supply and

conservation, visitor use management, and

levels and types of park development.

Alternative B differs from the preferred

alternative in that alternative B proposes a

different zoning scheme, and park managers

would follow different zone-specific

management strategies.

GENERAL CULTURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The management strategies and mitigation

measures described for the preferred alternative would apply to this alternative, as

would the statements in the “Mandates,

Policies, and Practices” chapter of this

document. Archeological testing would

precede construction along the west edge of

the park, and, if appropriate, an archeologist

would monitor construction in this area as

well as at the onsite visitor center complex.

GENERAL NATURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

As in the two other action alternatives, park

managers would pursue one additional general natural resource management strategy.

The strategy would be implementation of a

monitoring program upon approval of the

proposed plan to measure visitor impacts on

natural resources and would follow all of the

natural resource mitigation measures

described in the “Mandates, Policies and

Practices” chapter.
Overlook

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

Visitor Center

and Site

Administration

N

 0 400 800 1200

1950

2000

Black Kettle’s

Camp Area

Dirt Road

1950

Alternative B

Integrated Visitor Experience

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

United States Department of the Interior/National Park Service

DSC / Aug 00 / 023/20005

Management Prescriptions

Restoration - Conservation

Contemplative

Extended Learning

Development

Feet

A

47

Washita River

Old Railroad Grade
Alternative B: Integrated Visitor Experience

47

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES

Park staff would manage visitor use to

reflect desired resource conditions and

visitor experiences as expressed in the

description of the management zones. The

Park Service would develop measures (indicators and standards) to ensure resources and

visitor experiences were not impaired by

excessive or inappropriate visitor use. If

standards were violated, actions would be

taken to address visitor impacts, using the

methods that would best ensure resource

protection such as reducing the number of

visitors.

IMPLEMENTATION

Like the preferred alternative, the Park

Service would implement actions under

alternative B over the next 15 to 20 years as

funding became available. Park managers

could establish partnerships with other

agencies or groups to implement several actions and would need to increase staff within

park programs to support the implementation of this alternative. Project priority

would be based on the criteria listed under

the preferred alternative.

COST IMPLICATIONS

Table 5 displays the relative costs of implementing alternative B in 2000 dollars. The

table shows general estimates of the costs

for constructing new facilities, removing

facilities, and conducting other actions. The

table also displays one-time costs associated

with implementing the alternative (primarily

NPS employee costs associated with

construction actions and implementation

planning) and annual full-time employee

costs (primarily associated with operating

facilities and conducting research and

monitoring).

The cost figures give a rough idea of the

relative costs of alternative B compared to

other alternatives. The caveats regarding the

costs described under the preferred alternative also apply to alternative B. Until the

restoration/revegetation plan is completed, it

is not feasible to estimate the cost or

maintenance of the restoration/revegetation.
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUIDNG THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48

 TABLE 5: COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE B

 RELATIVE COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT

Area and Actions Capital Costs/

Construction

Administrative/Visitor Center Area

Joint VC/Admin. Bldg and

Maintenance Bldg.

$ 7,197,634

Overlook Area at NPS Site

Upgrade overlook and parking $ 270,324

Westside Contemplative Area

Parking Area $ 7,400

Total Costs $ 7,475,358

 ADDITIONAL ANNUAL STAFFING COST1

Job Titles Number of

Employees

Interpreters 5

Protection Ranger 1

Clerical 1

Natural and Cultural Resource 1

Computer Specialist 1

Management Support 1

Custodial 2

Exterior Maintenance 1

Maintenance worker, heating, cooling,

repair

1

Total Cost $825,0002
49

MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures would

be applied to avoid or minimize potential

impacts on natural and cultural resources

from construction activities, visitor use,

and park operations. These measures

would apply to all alternatives.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

• Tribes would be consulted before

specific design of trails and facilities,

and their advice would also be sought

on appropriate means of protection for

important resources. Design of facilities would provide the highest feasible

level of physical access for disabled

persons consistent with the preservation of significant prehistoric, historic,

and ethnographic attributes.

• Identification and evaluation of the

park’s tangible, nonrenewable cultural

resources — archeological remains,

cultural landscape, collections, and

archives — would be critical because

unknown resources could not be

managed effectively. Because such

sites are considered potentially

significant for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places until they

are evaluated, development activities

would avoid identified cultural

resources wherever possible. Tribes

would be consulted when ethnographic

or cultural properties of interest to them

are involved.

• There is a Native American reburial

site on the Forest Service site. If it were

decided to construct at the Forest Service area, careful design of new facilities would ensure that the reburial site

was not disturbed. Measures such as

fencing and off-limits signage would

help protect this section of the Forest

Service site from traffic during construction of the new visitor facilities.

• An archeologist would monitor any

ground-disturbing activities associated

with construction of proposed interpretive trails and the trailhead/ parking

area. Prior to construction of facilities

at the contemplative area along the

west side of the park, an archeological

testing plan would be developed and

implemented. Testing in this area

would be needed to help ensure that

intact cultural remains are not affected

by proposed construction of the parking

lot. Based on results of the testing, an

archeologist might need to monitor

construction in this area, or additional

mitigation measures might need to be

developed.

• The footprint of the new visitor

center/administrative complex would

be designed to avoid known cultural

resources. Plans for the development

would be provided to concerned tribes

for their review to ensure that no burials or ethnographic resources were

affected by the project, and tribes

would be consulted in a timely fashion

regarding the scheduling of the proposed construction activities. An archeologist would monitor any ground

disturbance during construction of the

visitor center complex.

• Appropriate stop-work provisions and

provisions for borrow sources would be

included in the project construction

documents to minimize potential

impacts on cultural resources. Work

limits would be defined in areas near
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50

historic properties to prevent inadvertent damage to sites. Sensitive

design and definition of work limits

would prevent any project effects on

the reburial sites or on other cultural

resources. All contract and federal

employees would receive training in

protocol related to cultural resources.

This would include discovery situations

as well as the handling of artifacts or

suspected artifacts. Workers would also

be informed of the correct procedures

in case previously unknown resources

were uncovered during construction

activities.

• Should unknown resources be uncovered during construction, work would

be stopped in the discovery area. The

park superintendent would be notified

immediately, and the contractor would

be directed to work in another area.

The NPS would initiate procedures to

protect resources from loss or damage,

and would, as appropriate, follow

provisions of the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

of 1990.

• The park staff would continue to develop inventories for and oversee research

about archeological, historical, and

ethnographic resources to better understand and manage their resources. Cultural resources and collections would

continue to be managed following

federal regulations and NPS guidelines.

The park’s collection would be inventoried and kept in a manner that would

meet NPS curatorial standards for

protecting and preserving artifactual

materials.

• All mitigation measures would be

undertaken in consultation with the

Oklahoma State Historic Preservation

Office, the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, and the

associated Native American tribes on

all projects that involve ground

disturbance, impact ethnographic

resources or cultural landscapes.

• A collection management program

would be prepared and implemented

according to National Park Service

standards to guide protection, conservation, and use of museum objects. All

objects would be accessioned and cataloged. Archival and manuscript material would be surveyed, accessioned,

cataloged, arranged, and described, and

finding aids produced.

• Objects housed in repositories/

institutions outside the national historic

site would be preserved, protected, and

documented according to National Park

Service standards and procedures.

NATURAL RESOURCES

• Park resources, including air, water,

soils, vegetation, and wildlife, would

be inventoried and monitored to avoid

or minimize impacts of future development.

• New facilities would be built in previously disturbed areas or in carefully

selected sites with as small a construction footprint as possible.

• All new developments (not tied to an

approved plan) would be designed to

be temporary and reversible.

• New facilities would be built on soils

that were suitable for development.

Soil erosion would be minimized by

limiting the time that soil was left

exposed and by the use of various
Mitigation Measures

51

erosion control measures, such as

erosion matting or silt fencing. Once

work was completed, construction

areas would be revegetated with native

plants in a timely period.

• To prevent water pollution during

construction, erosion control measures

would be used and equipment would be

regularly inspected for leakage of

petroleum and other chemicals.

• A runoff filtration system would be

built to minimize water pollution from

parking areas.

• Areas used by visitors (e.g., trails)

would be monitored for signs of native

vegetation disturbance. Public

education, revegetation of disturbed

areas with native plants, erosion control

measures, and barriers would be used

to control potential impacts on plants

from trail erosion or social trailing.

• River access/crossing points would be

designated, and barriers, and closures

would be used to prevent trampling and

loss of riparian vegetation.

• A variety of techniques would be

employed to reduce impacts on

wildlife, including visitor education

programs, restrictions on visitor

activities, and ranger patrols.
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Topic NO-ACTION PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B

Concept The park would be managed as it

has since establishment, relying on

current plans. No major new

construction authorized; no major

changes in managing the park.

Visitors would have a

comprehensive learning

experience onsite and offsite. An

offsite visitor center would be

shared with the Forest Service.

Visitors would be given offsite

learning opportunities while

preserving the reflective mood

onsite.

Visitor facilities would be

integrated with the historic scene

to provide onsite learning

opportunities.

Cultural Resources The interim operating plan (1996),

strategic plan (1998), and NPS

policies and plans would continue to

be used to protect cultural

resources.

Same as no-action. In addition

• ground-disturbing activities

would be monitored.

• the Native American reburial

site on Forest Service site

would be protected.

• the new visitor center/

administrative complex

would be designed to avoid

known cultural resources.

Same as preferred alternative. Same as preferred alternative. In

addition, construction would be

monitored at the onsite visitor

center complex.

Natural Resources The interim operating and strategic

plans and NPS policies and plans

would continue to be used to protect

natural resources.

Same as no-action alternative. In

addition, a monitoring program

would be implemented (after

GMP approved) to measure visitor

impacts on natural resources.

Same as the preferred

alternative.

Same as preferred alternative.

Visitor Use Administrative and limited visitor

facilities would continue to be

offsite in Cheyenne; only visitor

access to site would be from

overlook area.

Visitors would be allowed access

onto the site; the learning

experience would be onsite and

offsite.

The visitor/administration facility

would be at a Forest Service site.

Extensive exhibits and programs

would be offsite.

Possible discovery trail would

educate visitors.

Small development areas would

be at the overlook and west end.

Limited visitor access to site.

The visitor/administration

facility would be at a Forest

Service site.

Extensive exhibits and

programs would be offsite.

Possible discovery trail would

educate visitors.

Small development areas

would be at the overlook and

west end.

Nonintrusive integration of

facilities would provide continuity

in the experience. Visitor

center/administration facilities at

old farm site.

Costs $368,000 $8,047,523 $7,388,849 $7,475,358
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

IMPACT TOPIC NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B

Cultural Resources Archeology. Minor, long-term adverse impacts on archeological resources could be caused by lack of NPS onsite

presence. Moderate long-term adverse cumulative impacts

would result from hobby collecting, development and

agricultural practices.

Cultural Landscape. Minor, long-term, adverse impacts

would occur on cultural landscape.

Ethnography. Minor to moderate, long-term adverse impacts

would occur to ethnographic resources because of lack of NPS

law enforcement and because of diminished quality of visitor

experience and subsequent change in tribal cultural practices.

Collections: Moderate, long-term, adverse impacts would

occur due to inadequate curatorial and research facilities, and

due to reduction of the park’s ability to acquire research

materials.

Archeology. Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on

archeological resources would result from natural processes,

unauthorized collecting, visitor use, prairie restoration, and

construction. Cumulative adverse impacts from development,

agricultural uses, and hobby collecting would be moderate and

long term, however, increased stewardship would reduce these

cumulative impacts marginally.

Cultural Landscape. Long-term impacts would be minor and

beneficial to cultural landscape.

Ethnography. There would be minor, long-term beneficial

impacts on ethnographic resources within the park by locating the

visitor center offsite, increasing public understanding, and

demonstrating respect for tribal concerns. Cumulatively there

would still be a long-term, minor to moderate adverse effect on

the traditional values of Indian tribes, but these impacts would be

tempered by improved access for tribes and increased visitor

understanding.

Collections: Implementation of this alternative would have a

long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on collections through

improved accountability, curation, and access for researchers.

Over time, cumulative impacts would be minor and beneficial,

due to the same reasons.

Archeology. Long-term adverse impacts on archeological

resources from unauthorized collecting, development, and

natural processes would be negligible. Cumulative impacts on

archeological resources from collecting, development, natural

processes, and agricultural uses would be long term,

moderate, and adverse.

Cultural Landscape. Long-term impacts on the landscape

would be both adverse and beneficial. Restoration activities

would have long-term, moderate beneficial impacts. The

overlook and west side contemplative area would intrude on

the cultural landscape of the park, resulting in a minor longterm adverse impact, but mitigating measures would help

reduce these impacts. New facilities at the Forest Service site

would have a long-term, adverse effect on the historic scene.

Long-term cumulative impacts on the landscape would be

moderate and adverse but these impacts would be somewhat

reduced through beneficial park restoration activities and

cooperation with neighbors.

Ethnography. There would be an improvement in visitor

appreciation for and understanding of American Indian

concerns and traditions, resulting in long-term, minor

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources.

Cumulatively there would still be a long-term, moderate

adverse effect on the traditional values of Indian tribes, but

these impacts would be tempered by improved access for

tribes and increased visitor understanding of American Indian

concerns.

Collections. There would be a long-term, moderate beneficial

effect on collections, including archival materials. Cumulative

impacts would also be long-term, minor to moderate, and

beneficial.

Archeology. Interpretive messages and law enforcement

presence would decrease potential for unauthorized

collecting so long-term adverse impacts to archeological

resources would be negligible to minor. Increased

presence of park personnel would result in negligible,

long-term, adverse impacts on archeological sites from

natural processes.

A variety of mitigating measures would help ensure that

facility development would have only minor long-term

adverse impacts on archeological resources.

Cultural Landscape. Construction would cause shortterm moderate adverse impacts on the cultural landscape.

Long-term impacts on the landscape would be both

adverse and beneficial. New facilities at the Forest Service

site would have a long-term, negligible beneficial effect on

the historic scene. Prairie restoration would have longterm, minor beneficial impacts on the park and the

surrounding NHL district by removing some intrusions

and restoring the prairie.

Ethnography. Long-term moderate beneficial impacts

would result due to improved tribal access and public

understanding of Indian concerns. On the other hand,

American Indians might not have the privacy they desire

to conduct their religious and commemorative activities,

resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts. Beneficial

cumulative impacts would be reduced slightly because

with an onsite visitor center there would be more potential

for disturbances to ceremonies which might eventually

result in broader changes in tribal practices.

Collections. A long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on

collections would occur through improved accountability,

curation and access for researchers. Over time, cumulative

impacts would be minor and beneficial, due to the same

reasons.

Natural Resources Soils. Restoration of natural topography and stabilization of

previously disturbed land with natural vegetation would result

in overall positive long- term benefits to park soils.

Soils. Long-term, minor impacts to soil resources would occur

adjacent to trail edges and as a result of off-trail use within the

“extended learning” and “contemplative” management zones.

Restoration of natural topography and the stabilization of

previously disturbed lands with native vegetation would result in

long-term beneficial impacts for the park as a whole.|

A total of 11.5 acres of land would be disturbed at the Forest

Service site for development of a visitor/ administration and

maintenance facility. There would be approximately 0.75 mi. of

utility lines for water and sewage connection to the city, which

would disturb about 0.25 acres.

Soils. Permanent soil loss would occur as a result of

construction of the offsite visitor center. Very localized

moderate, long-term impacts (predominately soil compaction)

would occur in association with the development of the small

unpaved parking facility at the west end of the park. Minor

short- and long-term impacts would occur through vegetation

loss, soil compaction, and localized erosion as a result of

primitive trail development within the identified

“contemplative” zone. These impacts would be substantially

less than existing conditions due to the limited area identified

for onsite visitor access.

A total of 11.5 acres of land would be disturbed at the Forest

Service site for development of a visitor/Administration and

maintenance facility. There would be approximately 0.75 mi.

of utility lines for water and sewage connection to the city,

which would disturb about 0.25 acres.

Soils. Permanent loss of soil resources would occur as a

result of onsite visitor center and associated parking lot

development. Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse

impacts to soil resources would occur in areas associated

with onsite trail expansions. Impacts to soil resources

would be partially mitigated; however, mitigation

measures would not be as effective as in the no-action

alternative due to the larger land area exposed to visitor

use/impact. Restoration actions would provide overall,

moderate, long-term benefits to soil resources through

stabilization of existing disturbed sites with native

vegetation.

A total of 10 acres of land would be disturbed at the

Forest Service site for development of a visitor/

administration and maintenance facility. There would be

approximately 1.4 mi. of utility lines for water and

sewage connection to the city, which would disturb about

0.5 acres.
IMPACT TOPIC NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B

Air Quality. Short-term minor to moderate impacts to air

quality would occur as a result of prescribed burning and other

restoration activities.

Vegetation. Localized minor to moderate, long-term

beneficial impacts to native vegetation would occur near

visitor use areas. Restoration activities and active weed

management throughout the park would result in major, longterm benefits to park vegetation resources.

Wildlife. There would be minor to moderate, short-term

negative impacts to wildlife resources.

Natural Soundscape. Minor, predominately short-term,

adverse impacts would occur to natural soundscapes as a result

of offsite noises and increased visitation..

Air Quality. Overall minor, long-term adverse impacts would

occur to localized air quality and visibility as a result of

increased visitation and associated vehicle emissions. Short-term

(1-2 days), minor to moderate impacts to air quality would occur

as a result of prescribed burning and other restoration activities

that require ground disturbance (e.g., creation of fugitive dust).

Vegetation. Localized, minor, long-term impacts would occur to

vegetation resources. Adverse impacts associated with proposed

visitor use would include vegetation trampling and loss, soil

compaction and erosion, and the unintentional spread of nonnative plant species. These impacts would increase as the level of

habitat fragmentation increased. Overall, long-term benefits to

parkwide vegetation resources would occur as a result of planned

restoration actions. Plant restoration would create overall benefit

to plant communities; however, there would be some moderate,

long-term, adverse impacts to vegetation resources.

Water Quality. Localized, minor to seasonally moderate, longterm, adverse impacts to surface waters would occur near the

visitor parking facilities as a result of runoff of petroleum-based

materials associated with increased onsite vehicle use. Overall,

long-term beneficial impacts to water quality would occur as

restoration activities progressed, reducing rates of sediment and

surface water runoff.

Wildlife. There would be predominately minor, short-term,

adverse impacts to various wildlife species that live in or travel

near the park area. Impacts would be most notable during periods

of onsite trail and parking development and during peak visitation. There would be overall long-term, substantial benefits to

wildlife species as a result of restoration and the enhancement of

habitats for wildlife use.

Natural Soundscape. Minor to major, short-term disturbances to

natural soundscapes would be experienced during peak visitation

and during construction activities.

Air Quality. There would be

minor, long-term adverse impacts to localized air quality and

visibility as a result of increased visitation and vehicle

emissions. Short-term (1-2 days), minor to moderate impacts

to air quality would occur as a result of prescribed burning

and other restoration activities that require ground

disturbance.

Negligible to minor, long-term impacts would occur to water

quality. The highest level of native vegetation protection

would occur under this alternative; minor, long-term losses to

vegetation adjacent to the overlook facility.

Vegetation. Localized, minor, long-term losses to native

vegetation immediately adjacent to the overlook, west end

parking facility, and associated primitive trail development

would occur under alternative A. Impacts would be highly

localized and would include trampling/loss of native

vegetation, soil compaction, and erosion. Restoration

activities and the restriction of visitor access to a much

smaller area (as compared to the no-action alternative) would

result in the highest levels of long-term benefits to vegetation

resources.

Water Quality. Negligible to minor, long-term adverse

impacts to water quality would occur as a result of increased

petroleum-based runoff from parking facilities and as a result

of localized erosion related runoff adjacent to primitive trail

areas. Overall, long-term beneficial impacts to water quality

would occur as restoration activities progress, reducing rates

of sediment and surface water runoff (e.g., increasing water

retention and filtration).

Wildlife. This alternative would result predominately in

minor to moderate, short- term, adverse impacts to various

wildlife species that live in or travel near the overlook and

associated “contemplative” zone. Impacts would be most

notable during periods of peak visitation. There would be

overall long-term, major benefits to wildlife species as a result

of restoration activities and limited visitor access resulting in

the substantial enhancement of habitats for wildlife use.

Natural Soundscape. The limited area identified for visitor

use would have seasonal minor to moderate adverse impacts

to park visitors. Increases in visitor concentrations within a

smaller area would result in a diminished ability for the

visitor to enjoy natural sounds.

Air Quality. Short-term, minor to moderate impacts to air

quality and near-range visibility would occur as a result of

increases in construction. Minor to moderate, long-term

impacts would also be expected due to increased onsite

visitor use and associated vehicle concentration. Impacts

would be greatest during peak visitation.

Short-term (1-2 days), minor to moderate impacts to air

quality would occur as a result of prescribed burning and

other restoration activities that require ground disturbance.

Water Quality. Minor to moderate, short-term impacts to

water quality would result from onsite construction

activities. Long-term, minor to moderate adverse impact to

water quality. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur

as restoration activities progressed, reducing rates of

sediment and surface water runoff (e.g. increasing water

retention and filtration), but these benefits would be moderately offset by the increased visitor use impacts.

Vegetation. Moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on

vegetation would occur in association with visitor

use/development areas. Although restoration activities

would result in overall long-term benefits to park

vegetation resources, the level of active vegetation

management required to maintain healthy native plant

communities would substantially increase as a result of

expanded onsite visitor access and uses.

Wildlife. Moderate to major, short- and long-term

impacts would occur to various wildlife species that live

on or travel near the park area. Impacts would be most

severe during periods of peak visitation and/or during

sensitive breeding seasons for wildlife.

Natural Soundscape. Activities and uses would result in

minor to moderate, predominately short-term, adverse

impacts to natural soundscapes. Impacts would increase

as the levels of park visitation increased.

Visitor Experience Limited access to the park, inadequate orientation to the park,

and minimal facilities would result in moderate, long-term,

negative impacts on the visitor experience.

Visitors would have increased opportunities to learn about and

experience Washita Battlefield in a setting that is compatible

with the park’s significance, which would result in moderate,

long-term, positive impacts on the visitor experience.

Visitors would have increased opportunities to learn about

Washita Battlefield but minimal first-hand opportunities to

experience the park. This alternative would result in minor,

long-term positive impacts on the visitor experience.

Visitors would have increased opportunities to learn about

Washita Battlefield and to experience the park. This

alternative would result in moderate, long-term positive,

impacts on the visitor experience.

Socioeconomic

Environment

There would be minimal positive long-term impacts on the

socioeconomic environment and a minimal negative long-term

impact on road traffic in and around Cheyenne.

There would be minor to moderate, positive, short- and long-term

impacts on the socioeconomic environment, with possible minor,

negative, long-term impacts on road traffic in Cheyenne.

Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative.
61

INTRODUCTION

The “Affected Environment” describes the

existing environment at Washita and the

surrounding region. The focus of this chapter is on key park resources, uses, and

socioeconomic characteristics that have the

potential to be affected by the alternatives

should they be implemented. Some

additional features are discussed because

they provide context and/or must be

considered in environmental impact

statements (e.g., certain threatened and

endangered species).

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED IN

THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

To focus the environmental impact statement, the planning team selected specific

impacts for further analysis and eliminated

others from evaluation. A brief rationale for

the selection of the topics is given below.

Cultural Resource Topics

The 1966 National Historic Preservation

Act, as amended, and 36 CFR 800 require

federal agencies to consider the effect of

their undertakings on properties listed or

eligible for listing on the National Register

of Historic Places. NEPA also requires

evaluation of project effects on the human

environment. Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site is listed on the national register

and is within a larger national historic

landmark district. Significant archeological

resources may exist within the park and on

Forest Service lands proposed for development. Cultural resources are addressed as an

impact topic in this document. The four

cultural resource topics analyzed are:

• Cultural Landscapes

• Archeological Resources

• Historic Resources*

• Ethnographic Resources

• Collections

(*Historic resources such as the railroad

grade and culverts, homestead clearings,

farm fields, and the county road will be

discussed as part of the cultural landscape.)

Natural Resource Topics

The planning team selected seven natural

resource impact topics for analysis based on

the major values of issues identified early in

the planning process, as well as to applicable

federal laws, regulations, and executive

orders (e.g., Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended; Executive Order 11988 -

Floodplain Management). The impact topics

analyzed are as follows:

• Soils

• Local Air Quality

• Local Water Quality

• Floodplain

• Vegetation

• Wildlife

• Natural Sound

The above resources have the potential to be

appreciably affected under the alternatives

evaluated. In addition, some of these topics

were selected because they are of special
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

62

concern (manipulation of vegetation to

restore cultural and natural landscapes), are

sensitive to disturbance (highly erosive soils,

riparian/ floodplain communities), are of

high public interest (protection of wildlife),

or are key resources that can affect the biotic

environment and/or park visitors (air and

water quality).

Visitor Use Topic

Early in the planning process, the planning

team identified visitor use as being

important value or issue to the public, as

well as key elements of concern to park

managers, and evaluated the uses and

experiences that may be appreciably affected

under the alternatives. Therefore, impacts on

visitor use as well as interpretation and

visitor experience will be analyzed.

Socioeconomic Topics

The planning team selected the socioeconomic environment as an impact topic

because the park is an important part of the

local economy. Analyzing the local economic impacts provides the context for

evaluating the possible impacts the

alternatives may have on the local area.

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT

NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL

Under NPS policies and Council on

Environmental Quality regulations,

environmental impact statements must

address a number of impact topics.

However, the planning team for the General

Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement, dismissed several irrelevant

topics as well as topics that would remain

unaffected by the alternatives. The team

dismissed other topics because the potential

for impacts under all of the alternatives

would be negligible. These topics are

addressed below.

Natural Resource Topics

Climate. No adverse impacts to climate

would occur as a result of actions proposed

under any of the alternatives.

Water Quantity. No measurable adverse

impacts would occur to ground or surface

water quantities as a result of activities in

any of the alternatives. Minor, long-term

improvements to surface and ground water

quantities may occur as a result of

restoration activities proposed under all

alternatives (e.g. removal of exotic species,

re-establishment of native vegetation

resulting in increased water retention and

permeability).

Wetlands. Only small, minor wetland

habitats exist outside of the riparian and

floodplain areas. These small communities

are associated with minor drainages or with

small seeps associated with the upland

bluffs. Although no detailed surveys have

been performed at these sites, they are likely

to add to the overall species diversity of the

park. These areas would not be impacted by

activities proposed under any of the

alternatives.

Threatened and Endangered Species. No

federal or state listed threatened or

endangered species (plant or animal) are

known to exist within the national historic

site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(1997) has identified the presence of four

listed bird species from Roger Mills County.

These species include: (1) interior least tern

(Sterna antillarum-endangered), (2)

whooping crane (Grus americanaendangered), (3) bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus-threatened), and (4) lesser

prairie chicken (Tympanuchus

pallidicinctus- candidate). It is highly
Introduction

63

suspected that any current use of habitats

within the national historic site by a listed

species is infrequent and transitory.

Restoration activities proposed under all of

the alternatives could improve native

habitats. However, the area would total area

of restoration would not be large enough for

any of the above species to within the park

and might result in increased use by rarer

species.

Prime and Unique Farmlands. There are

lands that are considered prime and unique

farmlands that would be impacted by

activities proposed under any of the

alternatives; however these lands would only

undergo restoration and if necessary would

be able to be returned to farmland if required

in the future. No areas of prime and unique

farmlands would undergo development.

Energy Requirements and Conservation

Potential. As noted in “Mandates, Policies,

and Practices,” the National Park Service

would pursue sustainable practices whenever

possible in all decisions regarding park

operations, facilities management, and

development at Washita Battlefield.

Natural or Depletable Resource

Requirements and Conservation

Potential. None of the alternatives would

result in the extraction of resources from the

park. As noted in “Mandates, Policies, and

Practices,” under all of the alternatives, park

staff would apply ecological principles to

ensure that the park’s natural resources were

maintained and not damaged.

Socioeconomic Topics

Environmental Justice. Executive Order

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations, requires all

federal agencies to incorporate

environmental justice into their missions.

This includes identifying and addressing

disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects of their

programs/policies on minorities and lowincome populations and communities.

For the purpose of fulfilling Executive Order

12898, in the context of the National

Environmental Policy Act, the planning

team assessed the alternatives presented in

this plan during the planning process. The

team determined that none of these

alternatives would result in significant direct

or indirect negative or adverse effects on any

minority or low-income population or

community. The following information

contributed to this conclusion:

The developments and actions of the

alternatives would not result in any

identifiable adverse human health effects.

Therefore, there would be no direct or

indirect negative or adverse effects on any

minority or low-income population or

community.

The impacts on the natural and physical

environment that occur due to any of the

alternatives would not significantly and

adversely affect any minority or low-income

population or community.

The alternatives would not result in any

identified effects that would be specific to

any minority or low-income community.

The planning team actively solicited public

participation as part of the planning process

and gave equal consideration to all input

from persons regardless of such factors as

age, race, or income status.

Park staff members have consulted and

worked with the affected American Indian

tribes and would continue to do so in cooperative efforts to improve communications

and resolve any problems that occur. The

planning team did not identify any negative
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

64

or adverse effects that disproportionately

and adversely affect the tribes.

Impacts on the socioeconomic environment

due to the alternatives would be minor or

positive and occur mostly within the local

and regional geographic area near the park.

These impacts would not occur at one time

but would be spread over a number of years,

thus mitigating their effects. Also, the

planning team does not expect impacts on

the socioeconomic environment to

significantly alter the physical and social

structure of the nearby communities.
65

CULTURAL RESOURCES

OVERVIEW OF WASHITA

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources are usually defined as

tangible entities such as archeological sites,

buildings, structures, objects, archeological

artifacts, and landscapes that are valued by

or significantly representative of a culture,

or may contain significant information

about a culture. The blanket term “historic

properties” refers to all cultural resources

considered eligible for the National

Register of Historic Places, including

prehistoric resources. Archeological sites

and artifacts, usually found underground,

may be either historic or prehistoric.

Ethnographic resources are a place or

property associated with the cultural

practices or beliefs of a living community.

These practices are rooted in that

community’s history, or are important in

maintaining its cultural identity.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

The park’s landscape still retains much of

the feeling and basic characteristics of the

1868 setting, and few modern intrusions

mar the overall effect. The unobstructed

view from the overlook down to the river

and to the hills beyond, the sound of the

grass blowing in the wind, and the landmarks spread out below graphically capture

the sense of place and a time long past.

Contributing landscape features identified

here during the cultural landscape

inventory include: specific topographic

features and routes associated with the

conflict, and the riparian, floodplain, and

upland ecosystems (vegetation and wildlife

characteristic of the historic period). This

landscape is not limited to areas

encompassed by the park boundary but

visually includes the broad, scenic distant

views as well. To the north and northwest

the red sandstone bluffs of the Horseshoe

Hills provide a rugged, colorful backdrop

that helps to frame the winding river

below, set jewel-like amongst a bordering

strand of trees. To the south and west the

rolling prairie hills culminate in a broad

expanse of open sky. Looking east from

the overlook area, the tree-strewn river

valley loses itself in the distance among the

gentle hills containing the town of

Cheyenne. The downstream areas where

other tribes were camped, and the probable

location of Captain Elliott’s stand are

visible from the Forest Service area/

proposed visitor center area, giving visitors

yet another dimension of understanding of

the overall story.

Equally important are the intangible elements of this cultural landscape. Within the

national historic site is the core area of the

battlefield, an area believed to include the

site of Black Kettle’s encampment,

Custer’s command post, the pony kill site,

and recently discovered troop and Indian

positions. Thus the cultural landscape is

more than just physical features and

scenery — it also includes an intangible

spiritual element. The tangible and

intangible elements of the landscape

combine to create a somber mood of

respect and to commemorate those who

died here. This is a hallowed ground with a

wide range of meanings for many different

groups. It is a place where people come to

remember and understand the past, and

reflect—each in their own way.

A reconnaissance level cultural landscape

inventory has been completed for Washita

(Cowley 1999). This inventory focuses on

the 315-acre, NPS-owned core area. It
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

66

provides preliminary information on the

chronology of landscape changes through

time, landscape significance, and significant landscape characteristics. These

characteristics include landscape systems

(the river and riparian zone), landscape

patterns such as circulation and vegetation,

and landscape features (specific topographic features). Lees et al. (1997) also

provides valuable information on the

cultural landscape.

Washita’s cultural landscape has been

evaluated under National Register of

Historic Places criteria and has been found

nationally significant under criteria A, B,

and D. In addition, Washita’s significance

is recognized through its inclusion as part

of a 12-square-mile national historic

landmark district. This district includes

private lands surrounding the park on the

west, north, and east (Cowley 1999). In the

1860s these lands were within both the

tribal and U.S. exploration/trading/ military

areas. It was a hunting and wintering area

and believed to be a sanctuary from the

U.S. Army for the Plains tribes. It also was

part of the Cheyenne and Arapaho

Reservation (Cowley 1999:2). The Washita

River served as a major circulation route

for Anglo-American explorers and traders

as well as for Plains tribes.

Over the years since the battle a number of

changes have occurred in the Washita

landscape. An army memorial was placed

on the site, over a Cheyenne burial, in

1890. In 1892 the Oklahoma Land Run


	 

floodplain was planted to crops, and the

hills were used as pasture. Over the

decades, the river has been channelized,

and has shifted its course southward. The

Panhandle and Santa Fe Railroad line was

established through the area in 1929. During the drought years of the 1930s the

hillslope below the overlook was terraced

to slow runoff. During the 1950s flood

control projects along the Washita River

resulted in removal of trees from the floodplain, and use of the area for crops and

pasture. Several farmsteads were built on

the property during the 20th century. These

have since been removed, and only

scattered foundations and a few broken bits

of farm implements and household goods

remain to mark the former occupants. The

memorial/overlook was constructed shortly

after the area was established as a national

historic landmark in 1965.

Modern intrusions on the park’s landscape

include the overlook, the state road (just

south of the park), fencelines, the railroad

grade, and homestead clearings. However,

for the most part these intrusions are fairly

modest, and the integrity of the area as a

cultural landscape is considered high

(Cowley 1999). Vegetation has grown over

the railroad grade and homesteads,

softening the view. Areas formerly planted

to crops currently are being revegetated

with native species. The state road is

behind most visitors as they view the

historic scene.

WASHITA’S HUMAN HISTORY

Western Oklahoma has been home to

American Indians as far back as 12,000

years before present when Paleo-Indian

groups roamed across the plains gathering

foods and pursuing now-extinct large game

animals. The sites described below are,

however, likely to have been associated

with more recent groups such as Woodland

or Early Ceramic peoples who practiced

seasonal rounds, occupied circular

structures, and grew corn and beans in

small plots. Or, sites within Washita may

have been associated with later Custer

Phase and Late Plains Woodland peoples
Cultural Resources

67

who built seasonal base camps, shelters,

and settlements along streams such as the

Washita River. These groups practiced

riverbottom gardening but may have had a

greater reliance on bison hunting than did

previous inhabitants. Some Western

Oklahoma sites also may reflect use by

Kiowa or Apache groups who were

moving onto the Plains from the Southwest

during the 1400s to 1600s.

By about A.D. 1700 most of the inhabitants

of the southern High Plains were nomadic

Apaches and Comanches who followed the

great herds of bison. By 1720 the

Comanches had forced the Apaches out of

the area. From ca. A.D. 1600 to 1800 the

Wichita Indians also inhabited areas of the

southern Plains, including some sites in

west central Oklahoma.

During the middle of the19th century,

pressures from other tribes forced the

Cheyenne and Arapaho from their

farming/bison hunting communities on the

prairies of southern Minnesota and eastern

North Dakota. These groups moved onto

the plains of eastern Colorado and western

South Dakota as nomadic tipi dwellers

where they were joined by other tribes such

as the Kiowa. Establishment of Indian

Territory in eastern Oklahoma preempted

former hunting grounds of several tribes,

and the Cheyenne and Arapaho broadened

their hunting range into Western

Oklahoma. As goldseekers and settlers

moved west, more traditional hunting

grounds were lost, and pressure on the

Cheyenne and the Arapaho from U.S.

Army campaigns intensified, resulting in

the 1868 conflict on the Washita River.

Present-day Cheyenne peoples reside in

several states. The Northern Cheyenne

were moved onto a land trust reservation in

1884. The reservation, which was later

expanded to 450,000 acres, is in southeastern Montana with tribal headquarters at

Lame Deer.

A reservation for the Southern Cheyenne

and Arapaho was established under the

Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867. In 1890

the reservation was dissolved and lands

were allotted to individual tribal members

whose descendents still live in the area

surrounding the tribal headquarters in

Concho, Oklahoma.

Settlers moved into Oklahoma in the late

1800s and early 1900s. At one time, three

homesites were located within the boundaries of the monument — one in the area

proposed for parking under the preferred

alternative, one along the eastern border of

the site, and one on the hill east of the

overlook. These three sites have since been

razed, and only occasional scatters of metal

roofing, fragments of household debris, or

concrete pieces from foundations remain.

All three former homesite areas lack

integrity as archeological sites and are not

considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Some of the areas currently within the park

boundaries, along with the 40-acre tract

presently occupied by the United States

Forest Service headquarters for the Black

Kettle National Grasslands, were surveyed

between 1963 and 1970, and in 1986 by

James Briscoe (Briscoe 1987). Surveys of

Washita Battlefield and some adjacent

areas include work done in 1995 and 1997

by the Oklahoma Historical Society,

assisted by National Park Service personnel and numerous volunteers. Metal detectors were used to systematically scan the

site for artifacts related to the battle (Lees

et al. 1997). This project also included

analysis of the Washita Valley geologic
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

68

history (Haynes 1997). Additional work

was done by the National Park Service in

July 1999 and March 2000. The intent of

this effort was to identify sites and artifacts

unrelated to the 1868 encounter and to help

ensure that no significant resources would

be disturbed by construction of the visitor

center, work at the overlook, or in

development of other facilities proposed in

this General Management Plan (NPS

1999b; NPS 2000a and 2000b).

These surveys identified three archeological sites within Washita Battlefield

National Historic Site and another adjacent

site. The first was the locale of the initial

conflict (Briscoe 1990; NPS 2000a).

Recent surveys verified that the battle

occurred within the park, and located a

number of battle-related artifacts as well as

the ridgeline where individual troopers

stood and fired (Lees et al. 1997; NPS

2000a).

Preston and Margaret George (1978) first

recorded an extensive prehistoric village

site. Artifacts included ceramics, projectile

points, fire-cracked rock, quarry debris,

shell, and animal bone. Projectile points

indicate a possible age range for the site

from about A.D. 700 to A.D. 1750. A

second occupation site identified in the

1990 Briscoe survey is thought to be a

continuation of the village (above).

Records indicate this site, containing firecracked rock and charcoal concentrations,

is the location of Black Kettle’s village, but

the documentary evidence from the 1990

survey is generally lacking. Local informants indicated souvenir hunters had

collected many artifacts at the site, and

active cutting at the river channel suggests

that much of the site had been eroded away

(NPS 1999b; NPS 2000a).

A sparse lithic scatter was recorded just

outside the park boundaries (Hofman

1978). However, the records indicate the

site is surficial, lacking depth, and had only

a limited number of flakes (NPS 1999b).

Two sites were in the vicinity of the Forest

Service administrative facilities. These

include a small, thin, lithic scatter on a

gravel outcrop overlooking Sargent Major

Creek. Artifacts found at this temporary

camp and quarry workshop include flakes,

cores, a preform, and fire-cracked rocks

(Briscoe 1987).

According to Briscoe (1987) a sandstone

slab located in another part of the Forest

Service site may indicate a burial. However, subsequent surveys failed to relocate

the slab (Briscoe 1990; NPS 2000b). Skeletal materials found in the Cheyenne area

were reinterred in the 40-acre Forest Service plot in 1987 (Briscoe 1987; NPS

2000b).

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Washita’s ethnographic resources include

both tangible and intangible elements

associated with the importance of the site.

For example, the Washita River and the

location of Black Kettle’s camp are special

places to the Cheyenne and the Arapaho —

areas that hold much spiritual meaning for

these groups. The pony kill site is also an

area of great sensitivity.

The Cheyenne oral history project by the

Oklahoma Historical Society has been

completed to aid the park in developing

programs that are sensitive to these

ethnographic concerns. An ethnographic

overview and assessment is underway. In

addition, a traditional use study was

completed in 2000 to determine the

ethnobotanical history of the site and

graphically describe the landscape
Cultural Resources

69

conditions at the time of the Washita

conflict. The study defines, as much as

possible, the ecological conditions

(including vegetation present in 1868), and

documents the characteristic use and value

of the landscape, especially vegetation by

the Cheyenne and other tribes, European

explorers/traders, and others at this time.

These studies will provide additional

information on the tribes affiliated with

Washita and help provide an understanding

of the significance of the site to the various

traditionally associated communities.

(Traditionally associated communities also

include local non-Indian communities and

landowners).

HISTORIC RESOURCES

A historic resource study is currently

underway (Greene in preparation) and,

when completed, will provide additional

information on the historic events at

Washita.

National Register of Historic

Places/National Historic Landmark

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

is listed in the National Register of Historic

Places. The park contains the core area that

was the primary focus of the battle — in

particular, Black Kettle’s campsite and the

area where many of the Indians died, as

well as the pony kill site. The 12-squaremile Washita Battlefield National Historic

Landmark District includes and surrounds

the park on the west, north, and east. The

landmark encompasses the areas of the

primary military maneuvers and approach

to the river. Significance of the landmark

lies in the fact that this encounter between

the U.S. military and the Cheyenne marked

a major turning point in the history of the

Indian Wars, and resulted a fundamental, if

short-lived, change in the Nation’s Indian

policy. The landmark boundaries include

much of the viewshed to the north, east and

west of the national historic site.

Collections

Approximately 190 artifacts (mostly

firearms ammunition) were located during

the 1995 and 1997 archeological field

studies. These are currently housed at the

park headquarters. A few additional

artifacts collected prior to creation of the

park are part of the collection at the Black

Kettle Museum in Cheyenne, Oklahoma.

Private collectors hold a variety of artifacts

from the site.
70

NATURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

The national historic site lies within the

western portion of the Great Plains in an

area that was once almost continuous mixed

and short grass prairie. Land use adjacent to

the park is dominated by farming and

ranching. The surrounding landscape can be

classified as dry plains, steppe with gently

rolling topography and moderate valley

slopes (2-20%). The elevation gradient

within the park ranges between 1,930-2,000

feet above mean sea level.

The climate of Roger Mills County is

subhumid, temperate, and continental. It is

characterized by hot summers, mild winters,

relatively high wind velocities, and wide

fluctuations in rainfall. Extremes in

temperature range from 115o

F to -18oF.

Average annual precipitation is 25.64 inches

with most of this precipitation occurring

between April to August for the Cheyenne,

Oklahoma area (NRCS 1963). Severe

thunderstorms are common and can produce

tornadoes.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site lies

on the southern flank of the Anadarko Basin,

a large, deep, sedimentary basin. The

Anadarko Basin covers approximately 50,000

square miles and contains more than 40,000

feet of Paleozoic-age sedimentary deposits.

The basin covers most of western Oklahoma,

southwestern Kansas, the northeastern part of

the Texas Panhandle, and southeastern

	
	

the Wichita-Amarillo Uplift to the south, the

Cimarron and Las Animas Arches to the

west, the Central Kansas Uplift to the north,

the Pratt Anticline to the northeast, the Nemaha Uplift to the east, and the Southern

Oklahoma fold belt to the southeast.

The Soil Survey for Roger Mills County

(NRCS 1963) identifies 10 principle soil

associations within Washita Battlefield. A

brief description of these soils is shown in

the table below.

SOIL NAME DESCRIPTION

Spur and Port

(SpA)

a deep reddish-brown, silty-loam soil. This soils are type is typically highly fertile

occurring only a few feet above the floodplain in areas of 0-1% slope.

WoodwardLoam

(WoB)

a darker color soil is found typically on broad ridgetops, on foot slopes, and along

drainageways in areas with 1-3% slope.

Miles-Springer

complex

(MxC)

the Miles soils make up 50-60% of this complex; the rest consist of Springer soils or

intermediates of the two. These soils are somewhat sandy and typically occur on upland

areas with 3-5% slope.

Woodward

(WdC)

a fine sandy loam soil that occurs in areas with 3-5% slope. This soil is fertile and

productive, but is subject to wind and water erosion when exposed.

Miles-Nobscot

complex (MnD)

this complex is 70-80% Miles soil and 20-30% Nobscot soils. This complex is typically

found on upland areas with 5-8% slope and the fine sandy loam to fine sand soils are

highly susceptible to wind erosion.

Springer loamy

fine sand, hilly

(SfE)

consists of reddish-brown sandy or moderately sandy soils on uplands. This soil type is

typically found on steeper upland areas and are not suited to cultivation due to severe

hazard of erosion.
Natural Resources

71

SOIL NAME DESCRIPTION

Springer loamy

fine sand,

hummocky (SfC)

this soil type tends to be located near larger streams, on higher spots of hummocky areas.

This soil also occurs on uplands of 3-5% slope and needs to be carefully managed to

control wind erosion.

Yahola fine

sandy loam (Ya)

this series consists of reddish, moderately sandy, calcareous soils on floodplains (<1%

slope) and are typically subject to flooding.

Pratt loamy fine

sand, hilly (PfE)

this fine sand soil occurs on steep slopes and are not suited to cultivation because of

severe hazard of erosion.

Lincoln (Ln) within Roger Mills county, these soils occur mostly on the floodplain of the Washita

River. These soils are typically dark-brown to reddish-brown. They are not suitable for

cultivated crops and are best managed if planted in permanent grass cover.

AIR QUALITY

Roger Mills County is designated as a class

II air quality area under the 1963 Clean Air

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

Air quality monitoring for Oklahoma is

conducted by the Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality. Roger Mills County

is currently in attainment with national

ambient air quality standards for particulate

matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,

ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead (NPS

1999).

Current local sources of air pollution include

particulate matter from agricultural

practices, prescribed burning, and emissions

associated with vehicle and farm equipment

usage.

WATER RESOURCES

The Washita River, a tributary to the Red

River, originates in the high plains of the

eastern panhandle of Texas. From its source,

the river flows in generally an easterly

direction through the Texas panhandle into

west-central Oklahoma (Reber, et. al. 1999).

The river crosses Washita Battlefield NHS

just above the confluence of Sargent Major

Creek near Cheyenne, Oklahoma. The

Washita

headwaters watershed above the national

historic site encompasses about 50 square

miles of rural, predominately agricultural

land. Agricultural uses consist primarily of

cattle ranching with a limited amount of irrigated crop production (e.g., wheat and

sorghum). The Washita River is the primary

water resource within the national historic

site.

Water Quality

Minimal water quality data has been

collected within the national historic site.

Basic water quality parameters have been

intermittently monitored by the USGS for

the Washita River approximately 1.5 miles

downstream from the parks boundary (Reber

et al. 1999).

There are many potential sources of water

contamination in the Washita River

watershed upstream of the battlefield.

Sources include wastes emitted from

livestock, humans, and wildlife, leaching of

fertilizers and pesticides from surrounding

agricultural lands, leachate from unlined

drilling-mud disposal pits near the river, oil

drilling and production, and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) used or spilled at an

airport and other commercial establishments

upgradient from the national historic site

(NPS/WRD Project Proposal 1999).
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

72

Of particular concern to the national historic

site are potential impacts from a waste pit

facility 2 miles west of the park. Until

recently, this facility consisted of a

commercial saltwater disposal well used

primarily for the injection of saline waters

produced in the oil and gas drilling process

into a deep aquifer. The facility has received

approval from the Oklahoma Corporation

Commission to expand commercial

operations by developing three 350’ x 1150’

earthen pits (evaporative ponds) for the

disposal of oil field wastes, including waterbased drilling fluids and/or cuttings and saltcontaminated soils (Reber et al. 1999).

Currently one of the pits has been excavated.

These new disposal pits will lie

approximately 1⁄4 mile up gradient from the

Washita River.

More detailed water quality analyses was

initiated in 2000 as the result of a joint

project between the USGS and the National

Park Service/Water Resources Division.

These analyses will provide specific

information on the presence and/or

concentrations of major ions, trace metals,

nutrients, pesticides, VOCs, and bacteria.

Data collected by this study will provide the

national historic site with the baseline

information necessary to determine the

current quality of water flowing in the

Washita River through the national historic

site (NPS 1999).

VEGETATION

Baseline vegetation data collection for

Washita Battlefield was conducted in late

June through mid-July 1998, and a vegetation analysis report was prepared by Stotts

and DuBey (1998). This survey resulted in

the identification of 10 distinct vegetation

units as discussed in the table below.

WILDLIFE

Wildlife is relatively abundant in and around

the national historic site although no formal

inventories of vertebrate species have been

performed. Mammal species known to

inhabit or migrate through the park include

the nine-banded armadillo

(Dasypus novemcinctus), coyote (Canis

latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped

skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Eastern cottontail

rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), beaver

(Castor canadensis), plains pocket gopher

(Geomys bursarius), white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), and bobcat (Lynx

rufus). Numerous small mammals,

including bat species, are also present, but

remain undocumented.

A total of 59 bird species have been

identified from the surrounding land areas

belonging to the Black Kettle National

Grassland and are also known or are likely

to occur at Washita Battlefield. Common

species include the northern bobwhite

(Colinus virginianus), various hawk species

(Buteo spp.), wild turkey (Meleagris

gallopavo), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus),

northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)

scissor-tail flycatcher (Muscivora forficata),

and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius

phoeniceus). Great blue herons and other

migratory waterfowl are also likely to use

the park.
Natural Resources

73

Vegetation Type Description

North Bench

37.8 acres

This unit is to the north of the Washita River and represents an transition between

the river floodplain and upland prairie habitat. Dominant vegetation includes

American Elm (Ulmus americana), Hackberry (Celtis spp.), Soapberry (Spindus

drummondii), Chickasaw Plum (Prunus angustifolia), little bluestem (Schizachirium

scoparium), various gramma’s (Bouteloua spp.), and switch grass (Panicum

virgatum). This section of the park has not been plowed though it is somewhat

degraded due to fire exclusion and the establishment of non-native plant species

such as downy brome (Bromus tectorum).

North Floodplain

45.5 acres

This unit is nearly flat, with evidence of old (natural) river channels. A narrow

riparian-like belt (30 feet wide) follows the north/northwest edge of the floodplain

and is dominated by black willow (Salix nigra), hackberry, and the non-native

tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). A few eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides)

may also be found in this area. This riparian-like belt may receive moisture during

periods of a high water table or from surface water runoff from the North Bench.

The herbaceous component dominates throughout the North Floodplain and is

representative of a highly disturbed/degraded habitat. Dominant herbaceous species

include yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), camphor weed (Heterotheca

subaxillaris), downy brome, and bundle flower (Desmantas illinoensis).

Meadow - South

Floodplain

61.7 acres

This unit is within the southern floodplain of the Washita River and was dominated

by old world bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum), a planted non-native grass

species. The unit underwent a prescribed burn in the spring of 1999 and has also

been tilled and re-seeded with a non-invasive cover crop as initial restoration

actions. Walk-through vegetation surveys performed during late-July, 1999, revealed

a dominance of early successional or weedy species including bermuda grass

(Cynodon dactylon), annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), ragweeds

(Ambrosia spp.), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and sow thistle (Sonchus asper).

Washita River

Riparian Corridor

11.7 acres

This unit averages 242 feet in width and includes the immediate land area associated

with the north and south bank of the Washita River. The width of the riparian

corridor has been significantly reduced from its 1868 appearance as a result of

agricultural land uses. The corridor is dominated by woody species such as

American elm, eastern cottonwood, hackberry, Chickasaw plum, and various willow

species (Salix spp.). The corridor is further threatened by the presence of tamarisk

which dominates both sides of the river banks. Removal of this aggressive exotic

was initiated by park staff in 1999, but much additional work is still required before

the species is considered under control.

South Riparian

23 acres

This unit is a narrow band that lies between a bench/ railroad grade on the south and

the meadow (south floodplain) unit to the north. This area is believed to have been

the old river channel and currently receives moisture as a result of seasonally high

water tables and from precipitation runoff from the adjacent upland bench. The soils

are in the Springer series and are composed of loamy fine sand and are hummocky

in places. Large, older trees of eastern cottonwood and black willow are distinct

within this unit, with a total of 16 different shrub and tree species being documented.

Farmstead

6 acres

The farmstead unit served as the former homesite (including outbuildings and a

garden) for Betty and Dale Wesner. Soils in this unit are loamy to fine sandy loam

within the Woodward and Yahola soil taxa. This unit is heavily infested with weedy

species including Kochia (Kochia scoparia), bermuda grass, ragweeds, and downy

brome. Hackberry and soapberry are dominant native tree species, with numerous

ornamental/planted trees also present within this unit.

Upland Range

46.5 acres

This unit contains the highest quality native upland prairie habitat found within the

national historic site. Though showing signs of degradation (most likely due to
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

74

Vegetation Type Description

historic grazing and fire suppression), this unit is representative of a typical loamy

prairie plant community. Three soil types are found in the upland range and are

from the Woodward, Miles-Nobscot, and Springer series. Dominant herbaceous

species include little bluestem, various grammas, downy brome, sand sage

(Artemisia filifolia), and yucca. Forb species are abundant and vary in composition

over the course of the growing season. Weed species are present, but in low

abundance or in early stages of infestation.

Areas of Previous

Wheat Fields

67.2 acres

This unit is comprised of four areas within upland and floodplain habitats and were

used for growing winter wheat up until 1997. In 1998, the National Park Service

began a weed mowing and replanting effort within the former wheat fields to reduce

soil erosion and to begin restoration efforts. The following seed mix was planted in

1998: Woodland Sand Bluestem (25%), Barton Western Wheat (14.4%), Cheyenne

Indian Grass (14%), Blackwell Switch Grass (12.3%), Texoca Buffalo Grass

(12.3%), Cimarron Little Bluestem (10.5%), El Reno Sideoats gramma (9.4%) and

Bends Sand Love Grass (2%). Walk-through surveys performed in late-July, 1999

revealed a dominance of early successional and weedy species within the previous

wheat field areas. Dominant species include horseweed, camphor weed, sow thistle,

annual sunflower, curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), and Johnson grass

(Sorghum halepense).

Panhandle Short Line

Railroad Grade

3.6 acres

This abandoned railroad grade bisects the middle of the national historic site. Soil

quality is poor and is comprised of excavated soil from local fields, cinders, and

gravel. The abandoned bed is slowly undergoing secondary succession with a

mixture of native and weedy species present. Trees present include American Elm

(remains of a planted shelter belt), hackberry, and soapberry, with Chickasaw plum

and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) as the dominant shrub species. Herbaceous

vegetation which accounts for the majority of plant cover, includes little bluestem,

cheat grass, kochia, giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), sand sage, Canada wild rye

(Elymus canadensis), Johnson grass, camphor weed, horseweed, wild morning glory

(Ipomoea sp.), yellow sweet clover, and bundle flower. The railroad grade is

currently the greatest impact to the cultural landscape. A more intensive restoration

assessment is needed to determine to what extent the former railroad grade can be

feasibly restored to reflect the historic conditions of 1868 battle.

Monument Overlook

3 acres

This unit of the park serves as the primary location for parking and onsite access to

the national historic site. The unit is vegetated with a mixture of native and nonnative grasses (predominately non-native) that are mowed routinely to give a lawn

appearance.

Forest Service Site

31.5 acres

Most of the site is revegetated old field. This sitet was reseeded to little bluestem

(Andropogon scoparius), indiangrass (Sorghastrom nutans), switchgrass (Panicum

virgatum), sand bluestem (Andropogon hallii), sideoats grama (Bouteloua

curtipendula), and sand lovegrass (Eragrostis trichlodes). Also found on this site are

communities of blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and buffalo grass (Buchloe

dactyloides), especially in unplowed areas, along with various species of the brome

grases (Bromus spp.). Shrubs on this unit include shinnery oak (Quercus havrdii),

sand sagebrush (Artemisia filiolia), and yucca (Yucca spp.). Tree species include

osage orange (Maclura pomifera), shinnery oak motts, black locust (Robinia

pseudoacacia), eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), pondosa pine (Pinus

ponderosa), and elm species (Ulmus spp.). Of the tree speces several are non-native

and most are the result of shelterbelt or ornamental plantings.
Natural Resources

75

Reptile and amphibian species are likely to

include garter snakes (Thamnophis sp.),

plains rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis

viridis), and various common turtle, frog,

and toad species.

Common warm water fishes suitable to the

Washita River include common carp

(Cyprinus carpio), black and yellow

bullheads (Ictalurus melas and I. natalis),

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctalis),

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),

and several shiner, minnow, and sunfish

species.

THE NATURAL SOUNDSCAPE

Another resource at Washita is the natural

soundscape. Sometimes referred to as

“natural quiet” and “natural ambient

sounds,” the natural soundscape includes

not only the quiet but the entire array of

natural sounds found in the park, includeing: the sound of wind as it crosses the

prairie, the call of a birds, and the gentle

flow of the Washita River.

There has been no measure of the natural

ambient sound environment at the park, but

it is assumed that the decibel reading in the

park would be in the 30-40 dBA range, an

estimate for a rural setting such as Washita.

As a point of reference, a conversation

between two people would typically

measure about 60 dBA, and typical

suburban daytime readings would be in the

50-60 dBA range. Sound levels in the 20-

30 dBA range would be found late at night

inside a single family residence, with all

windows closed, no internal noise sources

operating (such as heating or ventilating

systems) and no local traffic in the vicinity.

A factor to consider in determining the

impacts on the soundscape resource of the

park is the relative audibility of unwanted

sounds, or noise. Annoyance from human

sound sources, such as cars, buses, audio

devices, generators, aircraft overflights,

and peoples’ voices, can adversely impact

any natural soundscape. In very lowambient-level natural soundscapes, like

Washita, noise can be much more audible,

thereby having greater impacts than would

the same levels of noise in areas of higherambient-level soundscapes, such as urban

environments.
76

VISITOR USE

CURRENT USE

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

received approximately 10,000 visits in

1999. Visitation has been increasing slightly

since the park was established in 1996.

Approximately two-thirds of the current

visitors are from within Oklahoma. Park

visitation is currently calculated as the

number of visitors who enter the Black

Kettle Museum, which is functioning as the

park’s information center. The number of

visitors to the park is unknown. However, a

traffic counter was installed in 2000.

There has been no formal study of visitation

to Washita, so all information about park

visitors is based on staff observation. Visitor

use is mostly family groups, with a few

organized groups and schools. Most visitors

stay an hour or so at the park. Many of the

visitors learn about the existence of the park

by seeing the signs on the interstate, reading

a newspaper article, or by word of mouth.

PROJECTIONS OF POTENTIAL

VISITOR USE

Because the park does not have the facilities

to accommodate large numbers of visitors,

there has been minimal effort in disseminating information about the park and

encouraging visitation. Therefore, current

visitation is not indicative of what visitation

may be in the future, both in terms of types

of visitors and numbers of visitors.

The absence of hard data relating directly to

park use makes forecasting future visitor use

difficult. Future park use will be affected by

a variety of factors, including the weather,

the season, publicity, and the national and

state economy.

Western Oklahoma is currently not a destination for out-of-state tourism. Visitors

passing through on the interstate must make

a time commitment (a 30-minute drive) to

detour from the interstate to Washita

Battlefield.

Based on surveys of comparable state and

federal historical sites located in the

Midwestern and Western United States,

annual visitation to Washita Battlefield may

range between 20,000 and 75,000 visitors

per year. It may take several years of

publicity for visitation to reach these levels.

The average visitor length of stay will likely

range from an hour to several hours.

INTERPRETATION AND VISITOR

EXPERIENCE

The Black Kettle Museum, operated by the

Oklahoma Historical Society, has been functioning as the park information / interpretation center. It is in the center of Cheyenne,

2 miles from the battlefield site. Many visitors stop at the Black Kettle Museum to get

their information. Newly renovated exhibits

provide information on the Cheyenne culture

and the events at Washita. The museum is

too small to handle large audiences. The

museum has a small book sale area carrying

a limited number of publications about

Washita, including the trail guide. The

museum is staffed by employees and

volunteers of the Oklahoma Historical

Society, and is open daily.

Information and a small cooperating association sales outlet are available at the park

office in downtown Cheyenne, around the

corner from the Black Kettle Museum.

Many visitors bypass the Black Kettle

Museum and the park office, and head
Visitor Use

77

straight for the park. They do not receive

adequate orientation to the park and its

themes and significance. Some stop by the

US Forest Service ranger station located at

the corner of State Highways 47 and 47a,

thinking that the station is the office for the

National Park Service.

Once onsite, most visitor activities center

around contemplating the scene, learning

about the events that occurred at the site, and

walking the short mowed trail. Visitor use is

concentrated at the overlook where visitors

park, climb onto the pavilion, view the

encampment site and read the metal and

granite markers. Some visitors walk the

mowed trail that departs from the overlook

and circles around the area of the village

site. An interpretive trail guide is available

in Cheyenne but not available onsite. A

small number of picnic tables and a vault

toilet are available at the overlook. The park

is open to the public from daylight to dusk.

During the summer park staff and partners

provide guided walks along the trail and

other interpretive programs. Due to limited

visitor use, most visitors have the

opportunity to experience solitude and

natural quiet onsite. Given that there is

minimal onsite development and minimal

surrounding development, night sky viewing

opportunities are excellent.

The site is not staffed and there is no

communication between the site and the

park office or emergency services. Visitor

safety could potentially be an issue in the

future. To date there have been no major

visitor safety incidents.
78

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

POPULATION

Oklahoma had a population of 3,346,713 in

1998. Washita Battlefield is in Roger Mills

County, one of the smallest counties in the

state in terms of population. Roger Mills

County had an estimated population of 3,580

in 1998. The population of the county has

dropped 27% since 1980. In general, the

county has been unable to recover from the

massive out-migration of the Great Depression and the dust bowl era, a feature not

uncommon in several rural Oklahoma

counties. The county was 95% white in

1998, with 4% Native American. For comparison purposes the state averages are 83%

white, 8% black, and 8% American Indian.

Roger Mills County is predominantly rural,

with almost 60% of all residents living

outside city or town limits.

ECONOMY

The largest sources of employment in Roger

Mills County are farm employment and

government enterprises. The county’s

income is also highly dependent on the

mining sector, especially natural gas. The

county is the state’s top producer of natural

gas and brings in the state’s highest oil and

gas production. Agriculture and mining

account for almost 60% of the jobs in the

county. Government is a significantly larger

employer in Roger Mills County than other

counties in the state. The 1996 county

unemployment rate of 2.8% is below the

state average.

Roger Mills County trails the entire region

in average per capita retail sales. The only

boost to retail sales that the county receives

is from 1) retailers supplying the oil and gas

extraction industry and 2) tourists and

hunters visiting the Black Kettle National

Grasslands, Washita Battlefield, the

Canadian River, and related natural areas.

The per capita personal income for residents

of Roger Mills County was $14,561, 78% of

the 1995 state average of $18,601. Barely

one-third of the county income comes from

labor, while almost half comes from oil and

gas royalties, agriculture and other rents, and

other interest and dividends. The per capita

personal income ranked 53rd out of Oklahoma’s 77 counties. Oklahoma ranked 46th

among all 50 states for median household

income in 1996. The estimated poverty rate

in Roger Mills County in 1995 was 19%.

The park is a part of the local socioeconomic

environment, and the National Park Service’s expenditures for goods, services, and

staff provide a minor benefit to the area.

TRANSPORTATION / ACCESS

Cheyenne is 25 miles north of interstate 40,

which runs east / west across the state of

Oklahoma. Cheyenne is 138 miles west of

Oklahoma City, 128 miles east of Amarillo,

Texas, and 302 miles from Dallas, Texas.

US highway 283 and State Highway 47

intersect in Cheyenne and are the primary

access routes to Cheyenne. Washita Battlefield is located 2 miles west of Cheyenne on

SH47 / 47a.

A small airstrip is in Roger Mills County

just south of the Washita Battlefield site.

The nearest commercial airport is in

Oklahoma City.
Visitor Use

79

VISITOR SERVICES

Cheyenne, Oklahoma, had a population of

898 in 1992. Cheyenne provides limited

visitor services, including restaurants,

motels, automotive gas and services, and

medical assistance. Elk City, 37 miles to the

southeast, is the largest community in

Beckham County with a population (1995)

of 11,275. It provides additional visitor

services catering to the interstate trade.

REGIONAL LANDOWNERSHIP

AND USE

Washita Battlefield National Historical Site

is surrounded by privately owned lands. The

lands bordering the park on three sides are

privately owned and used for a variety of

purposes including grazing, farming, and

residential use. The park is bordered on the

south side by a state right-of-way for route

47a with private land to the south side of the

highway.
83

INTRODUCTION

The National Environmental Policy Act

mandates that environmental impact

statements disclose the environmental

impacts of a proposed federal action. In this

case, the proposed federal action is the

implementation of the General Management

Plan for Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site.

This chapter of the document analyzes the

potential effects of the four management

alternatives on resources, the visitor use, and

the socioeconomic environment of the park.

These effects provide a basis for comparing

the advantages and disadvantages of the

alternatives.

The alternatives in this document provide

broad management directions. Because of

the general, conceptual nature of their

potential consequences, the alternatives can

only be analyzed in general terms. Prior to

undertaking specific developments or other

actions as a result of the General

Management Plan, park managers would

determine whether or not they would need to

prepare more detailed environmental

documents, consistent with the provisions of

the National Environmental Policy Act.

The “Environmental Consequences” chapter

first identifies the impact topics the planning

team chose to analyze and discuss in this

document, the topics considered but

dismissed from detailed analysis, and the

rationale for making these selections. The

impact topics were divided into the

following categories:

• cultural resources

• natural resources

• visitor uses and experiences

• socioeconomic environment

This section next discusses the methodology

the planning team used to identify impacts

and includes definitions of terms. The

alternatives are then analyzed in the order

they appear in the “Alternatives, Including

the Preferred Alternative” part. Each impact

topic includes a description of the positive

and negative effects of the alternative, a

discussion of the cumulative effects, if any,

and a conclusion statement. For the

analyses, the planning team assumed that the

Park Service would take the mitigation

measures described in the alternatives.

At the end of the discussion for each alternative, there is a brief discussion of

unavoidable adverse effects, effects from

short-term uses and long-term productivity,

and irreversible and irretrievable

commitments of resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

84

METHODOLOGY

The planning team based this impact analysis and the conclusions in this part largely

on the review of existing literature and

park studies; information provided by experts within the National Park Service and

other agencies, and park staff insights and

professional judgments. The following

describes the methodology used for each

impact section.

Cultural Resources

Impacts to cultural resources were assessed

by (1) identifying areas that could be

impacted; (2) comparing the area of

potential effect with that of resources

listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for

register listing; (3) identifying the extent

and type of effect; (4) assessing these

effects according to procedures established

by the advisory council’s regulations; and

(5) considering ways to avoid, reduce, or

mitigate adverse effects.

Impact Assessment. In this environmental

statement, the cultural resource impact

analysis is described in terminology

consistent with the regulations of the

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

The impact analysis is intended, however,

to comply with the requirements of both

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), and Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The

Section 106 determination of effect for the

undertaking (implementation of the

alternative) is included in the “Section 106

Summary” section for each alternative.

Consistent with CEQ regulations, the

analysis of individual actions includes

identification and characterization of

potential impacts, including an evaluation

of impact intensity. This is a fundamental

difference between NEPA and NHPA;

wherein NHPA requires determinations of no

effect or effect, and further requires where

there is a determination of effect, a

determination of whether that effect is

adverse or not adverse.

Context. The context of the impact

considered whether the impact would be local

or regional. Local means the park, the

national historic landmark district, and the

Forest Service site. For the purposes of this

analysis, local impacts would be those that

occur at localized areas due to construction of

facilities or park operations such as

landscaping efforts.

Intensity. Intensity of impacts in the cultural

resource analysis then, for purposes of NEPA,

is defined as:

Negligible – Impact is barely perceptible

and not measurable; confined to small

areas or a single contributing element of a

larger national register district or

archeological site(s) with low data

potential.

Minor — Impact is perceptible and

measurable; remains localized and

confined to a single contributing element

of a larger national register district or

archeological site(s) with low to moderate

data potential.

Moderate — Impact is sufficient to cause a

change in character-defining feature;

generally involves a single or small group

of contributing elements or archeological

site(s) with moderate to high data potential.

Major — Impact results in substantial and

highly noticeable change in characterdefining features; involves a large group of

contributing elements and/or individually
Introduction

85

significant property or archeological

site(s) with high to exceptional data

potential.

Archeological resources are typically

considered eligible for inclusion in the

National Register of Historic Places

because of the information they have or

may be likely to yield. Intensity of impacts

to archeological resources relates, additionally, to the importance of the information they contain and the extent of disturbance/degradation.

Ethnographic resources are considered

eligible for inclusion in the national

register when they are rooted in a community’s history and are important in

maintaining the continuing cultural identity

of the community and meet criteria for

evaluation and integrity. Intensity of

impacts to ethnographic resources may

relate to access and use of, as well as

changes to, traditionally important places.

Duration. The duration of the impacts

considered whether the impacts would

occur in the short-term or the long-term. A

short-term impact would be temporary in

duration (or would refer to transitional

types of activities). A long-term impact

would have a permanent effect on cultural

resources.

Types of Impact. Impacts were evaluated

in terms of whether the impact would be

beneficial or adverse to cultural resources.

Beneficial impacts would help preserve

and enhance those character-defining

qualities that make a property significant

under national register criteria. Adverse

impacts would deplete or negatively alter

these resources.

Mitigation would tend to reduce the negative

impacts of a particular action.

CEQ regulations call for a discussion of the

“appropriateness” of mitigation and NPS-12,

the National Environmental Policy Act

Guideline of the National Park Service,

requires an analysis of the “effect” of

mitigation. The “resultant” reduction in

intensity from mitigation is an estimate of the

effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA. It

does not suggest that the level of effect as

comprehended by section 106 be similarly

reduced. Although adverse effects under

section 106 may be mitigated, for example,

the effect remains adverse.

Mitigation for NEPA purposes in this

environmental impact statement is based on

avoidance of adverse effects or application of

one or more standard mitigation measures

described at the end of the “Alternatives,

Including the Preferred Alternative” part.

Typically mitigation for archeological sites

may include avoidance of sites through

design. Continued consultation with culturally

associated Indian tribes would aid in

developing appropriate mitigating strategies

for effects to ethnographic resources. Such

strategies include continuing to provide

access to spiritual areas such as the village

area and the pony kill site.

 It is important to remember that all alternatives assume that park managers would apply

mitigation measures to minimize or avoid impacts. Increased visitor use would generate

the need for additional monitoring and the

mitigation of impacts. If mitigation measures

cited were not applied, the potential for

resource impacts would increase and the

magnitude of those impacts would rise.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

86

Natural Resources

Proposed actions and management zones

were evaluated in terms of the context,

intensity, and duration of the impacts, as

defined below, and whether the impacts

were considered beneficial or adverse to

the natural environment. Generally, the

methodology for natural resource impact

assessments follows direction provided in

the Council of Environmental Quality

Regulations for Implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act, section

1508.27.

Impact Assessment. The impact

assessment for each impact topic is

described below.

Soils. The impact assessment focused

on what effect the Washita Battlefield

National Historic Site General Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement alternatives would have on the

formation and conservation of geologic

and soil resources. Development actions

prescribed in the plan could affect the

current soil resources through accelerated

erosion or soil removal. Quantitative

analysis of soil erosion, removal, and loss

was not feasible for this impact assessment

due to the prescriptive nature of the plan.

Rather analysis was qualitative, and

professional judgement has been applied to

reach reasonable conclusions as to the

context, intensity, and duration of potential

impacts. When possible, mitigation measure(s) were incorporated into the Washita

Battlefield National Historic Site General

Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement to reduce the intensity of

adverse effects. Proposed actions and

management prescriptions under the plan

were evaluated in terms of the context,

intensity, and duration of the impacts, and

whether the impacts were considered to be

beneficial or adverse to soil resources.

Air Quality. The air quality impact assessment involved the identification and

qualitative description of the types of actions

under the plan that could affect air quality,

corresponding emissions sources and

pollutants, and relative source strengths.

Based on the relative source strengths, a

qualitative assessment was performed to

determine the potential for higher pollutant

emissions or concentrations, taking into

account the frequency, magnitude, duration,

location, and reversibility of the potential

impact.

Water Quality. The analysis identified

potential effects on water quality associated

with visitor use and the generation of

nonpoint pollution, such as refuse and

automobile-related pollutants. Additionally,

the analysis examined potential impacts on

water quality from construction.

Vegetation and Wildlife. Vegetation and

wildlife are so intertwined that both topics

have a similar analysis. NEPA calls for an

examination of the impacts of all components

of affected ecosystems. The National Park

Service is to protect the natural abundance

and diversity of all the park’s naturally

occurring communities. The ability to do a

quantitative analysis is limited due to the

prescriptive nature of the alternatives.

Qualitative analysis relies substantially on

professional judgement to reach reasonable

conclusions as to context, intensity, duration,

and type of potential effect. When possible,

mitigation measure(s) were incorporated into

the plan to reduce the adverse effect. The

starting point for impact assessment is the

natural process in the park unit, including

size, physical foundation, and components of

the natural communities and ecosystems.
Introduction

87

Analysis was based on the assumptions

listed below.

• The greater the size of a biotic community and the stronger its links to

neighboring communities, the more

valuable it is to the integrity and

maintenance of biotic processes.

Development limits the size of a

community and fragments and

disassociates communities from each

other.

• The more developed areas become, the

less valuable they are as wildlife

habitat. New development would

increase human presence and increase

the potential for soil, vegetation, and

wildlife disturbance. The potential for

negative wildlife interactions (such as

human injury from wildlife and the

introduction of unnatural food sources)

also would increase. The removal of

development from an area would

increase the value of the habitat.

• Development and activities near

sensitive habitat may adversely affect

adjacent natural communities.

• Disturbance in or near hydrological

features may reduce the productive

capability associated natural communities. Modifications that result in soil

compactions, loss of riparian vegetation, and accelerated erosion and

sediment transport influence important

habitat characteristic such as substrate

type, location, and cover. These physical aspects often determine the composition of vegetative and wildlife

communities.

• Trails generally form barriers for

wildlife and fragment habitat.

Context. The context of the impact

considered whether the impact would be local

or regional. Local means the park and the

Forest Service site. For the purposes of this

analysis, local impacts would be those that

occur at localized areas due to the allowance

of certain park operations such as

construction of facilities.

Intensity. The intensity of the impact

considers whether the impact would be

negligible, minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible – impacts where effects

considered not detectable and would have

no discernible effect on the resources.

Minor -- impacts would be slightly

detectable, but not expected to have an

overall effect.

Moderate – would be clearly detectable

and could have an appreciable effect on

the resources.

Major – would be substantial, highly

noticeable influence on the resources.

Duration. The duration of the impacts

considered whether the impacts would occur

in the short term or the long term. A shortterm impact would be temporary in duration

(or transition types of activities). A long-term

impact would have a permanent effect on the

resources.

Types of Impact. Impacts were evaluated in

terms of whether the impact would be

beneficial or adverse to resources. Beneficial

impacts would improve soil resources by

restoring areas and limiting development.

Adverse impacts would deplete or negatively

alter resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

88

Visitor Use, Experience, and

Interpretation

This section analyzes three different

aspects of visitation and visitor enjoyment:

visitor use, visitor experience, and

interpretation.

The visitor experience component analyzes

the expected level of visitation and length

of projected stay at the park. Impact

analysis was based on whether there would

be a change in the availability of onsite

activities and interpretive programs, media,

and orientation/information sources and

services throughout the park resulting from

the actions and management prescriptions

under the alternatives.

The visitor experience component also

evaluates the quality characteristics and

diversity of the visitor experience in terms

of how they might be altered as a result of

the actions and management zones in the

alternatives. Every individual visitor to the

park brings unique expectations and thus

each have a unique experience. As a result,

the environmental impact statement

identifies, where possible, how the quality

of the experience would change given

application of actions and management

zoning in each of the action alternatives.

The interpretation component evaluates

opportunities for and quality of interpretive opportunities and experiences and

orientation. Impact analysis was based on

whether there would be a change in the

access to, quality of, and diversity of

interpretive media and programs throughout the park resulting from the actions and

management prescriptions under the

alternatives.

Impact Assessment. This assessment focused

on the intensity and duration of impacts that

would result from the proposed actions under

the plan relative to the three different aspects

of visitation and visitor enjoyment, and

whether those impacts were considered to be

beneficial or adverse. The assessment looked

specifically at whether access to availability

of some aspect of visitor use would be altered

and whether there were changes in the

characteristics or the quality of the experience. This discussion was provided for

contextual purposes only, to facilitate the

reader’s understanding of the implications of

an impact.

Intensity. The intensity of the impact considers whether the impact to visitor experience would be negligible, minor, moderate, or

major. Negligible impacts were effects considered not detectable to the visitor and

therefore expected to have no discernible

effect. Minor impacts were effects that would

be slightly detectable, though not expected to

have an overall effect on the visitor experience. Moderate impacts would be clearly detectable to the visitor and could have an appreciable effect on the visitor experience. Major impacts would have a substantial, highly

noticeable influence on the visitor experience

and could permanently alter access to and

availability of various aspects of the visitor

experience.

Duration. The duration of the impacts considered whether the impacts would occur in

the short term or the long term. A short-term

impact would be temporary in duration (or

transition types of activities). A long-term

impact would have a permanent effect on the

visitor use, experience, or interpretation.

Types of Impact. Impacts were evaluated in

terms of whether they would be beneficial or

adverse to visitation and visitor enjoyment.

Beneficial impacts would allow greater access
Introduction

89

to or availability for visitor contact with

park resources and interpretative and

orientation media and programs.

Socioeconomic Environment

The impact analysis evaluated the effect on

the local economy. Quantitative analysis of

potential effects on socioeconomic conditions was not feasible due to the prescriptive nature of the plan. Rather, analysis of

effects was qualitative, and professional

judgement was applied to reach reasonable

conclusions as to the context, intensity, and

duration of potential impacts.

Impact Assessment. Proposed actions and

management zoning under this plan were

evaluated in terms of the context, intensity,

and duration of the socioeconomic impacts, and whether the impacts were

considered to be beneficial or adverse.

Context. The context of the impact was

local. Local means the area surrounding

the park. It is not expected that socioeconomic impacts would extend beyond

the counties and communities in the area.

Intensity. The intensity of the impact

considers whether the impact would be

negligible, minor, moderate, or major.

Negligible impacts were effects considered

not detectable and would have no discernible effect on the socioeconomic environment. Minor impacts were effects on the

socioeconomic environment that would be

slightly detectable, but not expected to

have an overall effect. Moderate impacts

would be clearly detectable to the visitor

and could have an appreciable effect.

Major impacts would have a substantial,

highly noticeable influence on the socioeconomic environment and could

permanently alter the socioeconomic

environment.

Duration. The duration of the impacts considered whether the impacts would be short or

long term. A short-term impact would be

temporary (or transition types ). A long-term

impact would have a permanent effect.

Types of Impact. Impacts were evaluated in

terms of whether the impact would be beneficial or adverse to the socioeconomic environment. Beneficial impacts would improve

the social or economic conditions in the affected area. Adverse impacts would negatively alter social or economic conditions.

 

Cumulative Effects. A cumulative impact is

described in regulations developed by the

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),

regulations 1508.7, as follows:

A “cumulative impact” is the impact

on the environment which results

from the incremental impact on the

action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions regardless of what

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or

person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over

a period of time.

To determine potential cumulative impacts,

actions with the region surrounding Washita

Battlefield National Historic Site were identified. The region, or assessment area, included

Roger Mills county. Potential projects, identified as “cumulative actions,” included any

planning or development activity that was

currently being implemented or would be

implemented in the reasonably foreseeable

future.
90

IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

Analysis. Under the no-action alternative,

there would be no change in management

or treatment of archeological sites. Due to

staffing and budget limitations, there is no

full-time law enforcement presence at the

site. Some visitors would continue to go

directly to the park, bypassing the Black

Kettle Museum and/or the NPS office in

Cheyenne. Visitors would have few opportunities to learn about stewardship of the

park’s archeological resources. Thus there

is potential for unauthorized collecting and

vandalism. Fortunately due to the heavy

vegetation cover across most of the site,

such collection is likely to be sporadic and

localized in nature. Under the no-action

alternative, long-term, minor adverse impacts on archeological resources may

occur due to a lack of NPS onsite presence.

Ongoing landscape restoration would continue, but this work is being done in

previously disturbed areas so no impacts to

archeological resources would be expected. Mitigation measures described at

the end of the “Alternatives, Including the

Preferred Alternative” part would reduce

effects of unauthorized collecting and

damage to sites from restoration activities.

Cumulative Effects. Before Washita’s

establishment as a national historic site,

artifacts and sites were damaged or lost

through a variety of agricultural uses,

souvenir hunting, terrace construction,

flooding, erosion, changes in river course,

and rodent activities. These actions and

processes destroyed scientific evidence

through the undocumented removal or

disturbance of artifacts from their original

locations. Once artifacts are removed, it is

generally impossible to use them to

document site time period, activities, or

users.

Hobby collecting on private and public

lands is ongoing and is expected to continue in the future, as is the loss of sites

and artifacts to natural processes. Highway

construction (U.S. Highway 283) and other

development projects continue to “nibble”

away at these nonrenewable resources. For

example, recent surveys within the park

failed to locate features of a prehistoric/

protohistoric site that were originally

documented only a few years ago.

The park is part of a 12-square-mile

national historic landmark district that

bounds the park on the west, north, and

east. The NHL district includes areas

associated with the battle—military and

Indian alike. These privately owned lands

are used for agricultural purposes. Plowing

and other agricultural activities such as

cattle grazing have reduced the quantity

and quality of archeological materials.

Over time these losses of sites and artifacts

diminish the scientific database related to

the prehistory and history of the Great

Plains. A diminished database causes

research into the past to be more difficult

and less statistically viable. The region’s

archeological resources have suffered

long-term, moderate adverse impacts from

these human activities and natural

processes. When the minor adverse

impacts of the no-action alternative are

combined with these other past, present,

and foreseeable future activities and
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

91

processes affecting prehistoric

archeological resources, moderate, longterm, adverse cumulative impacts would

occur. (Since the park is relatively small,

and because its archeological resources do

not reflect the full spectrum of sites across

the region, continuation of existing

conditions would have only a very modest

effect on the cumulative impacts from

regional loss of sites). Any loss of

archeological integrity within the park also

contributes to a cumulative effect on the

NHL district surrounding it.

Conclusion. The no-action alternative

could result in minor, long-term, adverse

impacts on archeological resources due to

lack of NPS onsite presence and fewer

opportunities for visitor stewardship

education.

Moderate, long-term, adverse cumulative

impacts on archeological resources would

result from continued hobby collecting,

development, and agriculture practices.

Cultural Landscape

Analysis: The overlook, adjacent roadway,

fencelines, railroad grade, agricultural

fields, and homestead clearings would

continue to visually intrude on the cultural

landscape. However, for several reasons,

this long-term adverse impact would be

minor. When visitors view the area from

the overlook, the railroad grade, homestead

clearings, and the agricultural fields are

some distance away, and vegetation tends

to soften the intrusions. The roadway lies

behind the viewing area and is usually not

directly within the primary viewshed seen

from the overlook. The overlook itself is

most intrusive when viewed from the path

below, near the river, but not all visitors go

into this area. As the park continues to

revegetate disturbed areas such as the

former farm fields, adverse impacts would

be gradually reduced. Mitigating measures

(described in the “Alternatives, Including

the Preferred Alternative” part) and

working with park neighbors also would

help maintain the cultural landscape within

the broader NHL district.

Cumulative Effects. Past activities such

as homesteading and railroad building

have made changes to the historic landscape, and roads, the railroad, and the

overlook would continue to have minor

adverse impacts on the landscape. However, no other future development of areas

around the park with potential to affect

the cultural landscape or the historic

landmark has been identified. The Park

Service would continue to work with

landowners to preserve the historic scene

around the park. Thus there would be no

cumulative impacts of the no-action

alternative.

Conclusion: The overlook, roadway,

fencelines, and railroad grade would

continue to have a minor, long-term,

adverse effect on the historic cultural

landscape. These impacts would be minor

due to the softening effects of vegetation

cover, and to the direction from which the

landscape is generally viewed. No

cumulative impacts would occur.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis. Prior to acquisition by the

National Park Service, this area was

privately owned, making it difficult for

American Indians to come here to conduct

religious ceremonies or leave offerings.

Access to park lands is now easier for

tribes, but many traditional places outside

the park are still privately owned, and are
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

92

inaccessible to tribes. Under this alternative, staffing limitations prevent a full-time

onsite NPS law enforcement presence at

Washita. Some visitors would continue to

go directly to the park, bypassing the Black

Kettle Museum and/or the NPS office in

Cheyenne. Lacking an onsite NPS

presence and with few opportunities for

visitors to learn about sensitive

ethnographic values, there would be potential for visitors to interrupt American

Indians’ religious activities, or to collect or

otherwise disturb offerings left at the site.

Losses of offerings and disruption of

religious activities would diminish the

quality of Indians’ religious experience

and could cause tribes to modify the

locales, type, and level of their spiritual

activities, a minor to moderate, long-term,

adverse effect on their cultural values.

Cumulative Effects. Over time,

American Indians have suffered losses of

their cultural traditions due to a variety of

reasons, including governmental policies,

Euroamerican educational programs, and

television. Each succeeding Indian generation finds fewer native speakers, and

there may be fewer religious practitioners

to conduct religious ceremonies. Access

to areas traditionally used historically is

often restricted. These trends are expected

to continue in the foreseeable future.

When the impacts of the no-action

alternative (e.g., disruption of onsite

religious activities by visitors) are combined with the cultural changes mentioned

above, there could be a minor to moderate, long-term, adverse cumulative effect

on the traditional culture/ethnographic

values of several American Indian tribes.

The intensity of effect could vary,

depending on the degree and type of

cultural change among tribes. These

changes in cultural values could include

modifications in the quantity, quality, or

type of religious activities related to

Washita and could reduce American

Indian interest in the site and its meaning

to tribes.

Conclusion. Lack of onsite NPS law

enforcement presence could result in minor

to moderate long-term adverse impacts on

ethnographic resources and values due to

the potential for disruptions of religious

activities by visitors.

Minor to moderate, long-term adverse

cumulative impacts on ethnographic values

and resources would also result from

diminished quality of religious experiences

and subsequent changes in tribal cultural

practices. The intensity of effect could

vary, depending on the degree and type of

cultural change among tribes.

Collections

Analysis. Under this alternative lack of

appropriate storage and exhibit facilities

would continue. Existing collections would

not receive optimal curation due to lack of

space and controlled climatic conditions.

Archival materials important for research

and interpretive programs might not be

available for use by researchers or park

staff. The future potential for the park to

acquire or study items needed for research

and interpretation would be reduced. Lacking appropriate facilities, the collection’s

research, interpretive, and scientific value

would be diminished.

The result would be long-term, moderate

adverse impacts on Washita’s collections

due to lack of appropriate curational and

research facilities, and the inability to

acquire or curate relevant archival materials. The impacts would be readily appar-
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

93

ent to curators, researchers and to park

staff.

Cumulative Effects. Washita was one of

the three pivotal military-Indian encounters

that illustrate major changes in governmental policy towards American Indians

during the late 19th century. The park’s

collections form only a small, nonrepresentative sampling of the many artifacts

and research materials related to this

history and to the park’s purpose and

significance. Private collectors and institutions scattered around the country hold the

majority of the artifacts and archival

materials relating to the 1868 events at

Washita and to prehistoric sites in the area.

Over time, as collections are sold, inherited, divided, or transferred, the integrity of

and the accountability for these artifact and

archival materials has been, and is likely to

continue to be, diminished. Future acquisition of copies of archival materials or

artifacts related to the park would become

more costly and perhaps more difficult.

Loss of integrity of Washita’s collections

or research potential also has an impact on

the integrity and research potential of a

much broader realm of American history

and archeology. Moderate, cumulative,

long term, adverse impacts could occur

under this alternative due to loss of

research potential, diminished integrity of

collections, and inability for the park to

acquire or use needed research materials.

Conclusion. Moderate, long-term, adverse

impacts would occur due to inadequate

curatorial and research facilities, and due

to reduction of the park’s ability to acquire

research materials. These moderate, longterm, adverse impacts would also be

cumulative due to continuing losses of

artifacts and research materials related to

Washita, the military-Indian conflict in the

West, and U.S. government policy towards

Indians.

SECTION 106 SUMMARY

Under the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and

adverse effect, the Park Service finds that

the continuation of park management

policies under this alternative would result

in adverse impacts to collections and

archeological, cultural landscape,

ethnographic resources.

Lack of an onsite law enforcement presence could contribute to unauthorized

collection of artifacts and loss of important

archeological information. Mitigating

measures (as described at the end of the

“Alternatives, Including the Preferred

Alternative” part) would be employed to

help educate visitors and protect resources,

but some adverse impacts of unauthorized

collecting could still occur.

Existing intrusions (the overlook, county

road, fencelines, and railroad grade) would

continue to adversely affect the cultural

landscape. Revegetation and other mitigation measures would be implemented as

funding allowed.

Whenever possible, the park would

continue to educate visitors regarding

Indian concerns about displacement of

offerings or disturbance of religious

activities. Lacking an onsite NPS law

enforcement presence, the adverse impacts

of these visitor activities would probably

continue.

Collections and history research would

continue to be adversely affected by lack

of appropriate facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

94

As part of a larger NHL district, impacts

on the park’s resources also impact the

district. The park would continue to work

with adjacent landowners to help ensure no

adverse impacts occurred to cultural

resources within the district.

In accordance with NPS policies and

procedures, the park would continue to

protect cultural resources to the greatest

extent allowable under present funding and

staffing levels. Disturbance of significant

resources would be avoided wherever possible. Where avoidance or preservation

could not be achieved, appropriate mitigation would be carried out under guidance

of the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation procedures (36 CFR 800).

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Soils

Analysis. No additional land disturbances

would occur from park development

under the no-action alternative. Minor to

moderate adverse impacts to soils would

occur as a result of continued soil compaction (and reduced soil permeability)

and erosion in association with trail and

visitor use areas. Long-term, humaninduced erosion issues would be localized

and primarily restricted to the sloped

areas along the trail. Soil erosion issues

would be mitigated by monitoring the trail

and restoration areas susceptible to

erosion through revegetation and use of

appropriate erosion control measures

(e.g., silt fencing, slope stabilization).

Visitor education on the impacts of offtrail use would also assist in minimizing

adverse impacts to soil resources.

Minor, temporary increases in soil erosion

would occur as a result of restoration

activities that require ground disturbance

(e.g., restoration of railroad grade and

former agricultural fields) but would

result in overall long-term benefits to soil

resources in the park through stabilization

of soils with native vegetation.

Long-term natural erosion processes

would continue under the no-action

alternative.

Cumulative Effects. Minor to moderate

adverse impacts to soil resources through

accelerated erosion would continue on

lands surrounding the national historic site

as a result of historic and ongoing agricultural practices.

Conclusion. Predominately minor, longterm impacts on soil resources directly

associated with the trail and visitor use

developments would continue as a result

of compaction and localized erosion.

Restoration of natural topography and the

stabilization of previously disturbed lands

with native vegetation would result in

overall positive, long-term benefits to

park soil resources.

Air Quality

Analysis. Predicted increases in park

visitation, coupled with existing traffic

patterns and vehicle use, likely would

result in negligible to moderate increases

in localized air emissions with temporary

minor impacts to near-range visibility.

Impacts would be greatest during seasons

of peak visitation (summer months) while

negligible to minor during the off season

(winter months). Impacts to local air

quality would be minimized by requesting

vehicles to turn off engines when parked.
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

95

Temporary minor to moderate, adverse

impacts to air quality and visibility would

also occur during restoration activities

such as prescribed burning and plowing.

These activities would be mitigated by

burning only under conditions that allow

for maximum smoke dispersal and by

minimizing ground-disturbance activities

(e.g., plowing) under exceptionally

windy, dry conditions.

Cumulative Effects. Roger Mills County

remains predominately rural with agriculture serving as the dominant land use.

Additional external factors associated

with seasonal agricultural practices might

contribute to temporary impairments to

localized air quality and visibility. Use of

agricultural equipment would result in

increases in vehicle emissions and in air

particulates (e.g., fugitive dust). Vehicle

emissions and residential and commercial

developments in the nearby town of

Cheyenne serve as added minor, longterm sources of localized air pollution. Air

quality issues outside the park would be

addressed through cooperative efforts

between the National Park Service,

associated landowners, and the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality.

Conclusion. The no-action alternative

would result in overall minor, long-term,

adverse impacts to localized air quality

and visibility as a result of increased

visitation and vehicle emissions. Minor to

moderate, short-term impacts to air

quality would occur as a result of

prescribed burning and other restoration

activities that require ground disturbance

(e.g., creation of fugitive dust).

Water Quality

Analysis. Predicted increases in visitation

and associated use of the existing parking

facility would increase the potential for

runoff of petroleum-based products (e.g.,

oil, gasoline, coolants) leading to localized negligible to minor, adverse impacts

as a result of surface water contamination

and runoff. Increased soil erosion associated with sections of the trail and

ground-disturbing restoration activities

would result in a negligible to minor

increase of sediment runoff into surface

waters. These impacts would be mitigated

through use of appropriate erosion control

measures and the monitoring of surface

water quality within the park.

Restoration activities under the no-action

alternative would result in long-term

benefits to water resources within the park

by establishing healthy stands of native

vegetation, reducing the land area susceptible to erosion, and by reducing rates

of sediment and surface water runoff (e.g.,

increased water retention and filtration).

Cumulative Effects. There are numerous

potential sources of water contamination

in the Washita River watershed upstream

of the battlefield. Potential sources include wastes emitted from livestock,

humans, and wildlife; leaching of fertilizers and pesticides from surrounding

agricultural lands; leachate from unlined

drilling-mud disposal pits near the river;

oil drilling and production; and volatile

organic compounds (VOC’s) used or

spilled at an airport and other commercial

establishments upgradient from the

national historic site (NPS/WRD Project

Proposal 1999).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

96

Preliminary water quality testing of the

Washita River (within the park) has

identified acceptable levels of four

pesticides (Atrazine, Deethylatrazine,

Prometon, and Tebuthiuron) and

seasonally high counts of fecal coliform

and fecal streptococcal bacteria that

substantially exceeded the states primary

contact standards for swimming. Sources

for the pesticide and fecal bacteria have

been detected outside the park and are

most likely associated with upstream

agricultural land uses.

Potential impacts to water quality within

the Washita River might also occur as a

result of the proposed expansion of a

waste pit facility 2 miles to the west

(upstream) of the park. Until recently, this

facility consisted of a commercial saltwater disposal well used primarily for the

injection of saline waters produced in the

oil and gas drilling process into a deep

aquifer. The facility has received approval

from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to expand commercial operations by

developing three 350’ x 1,150’ earthen

pits (evaporative ponds) for the disposal

of oil field wastes, including water-based

drilling fluids and/or cuttings and saltcontaminated soils (Reber, et. al. 1999).

These new disposal pits would lie

approximately 1⁄4 mile up gradient from

the Washita River.

Water pollution issues occurring outside

the park would be addressed through

cooperative efforts between the National

Park Service, associated landowners, and

the Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality.

Cumulative impacts are moderate, long

term, and adverse. The contribution of

Washita to these impacts would be small

in comparison to the total cumulative

impact.

Conclusion. Localized, negligible to

minor, adverse impacts to surface waters

would occur near the overlook parking

facility as a result of increases in runoff of

petroleum-based materials associated with

increased visitor/vehicle use. Overall,

long-term beneficial impacts to water

quality would occur as restoration

activities progress, reducing rates of

sediment and surface water runoff.

Vegetation

Analysis. Increased visitor use of the trail

system would result in continued longterm, minor losses of native vegetation.

Most of this loss would be associated with

disturbances to trail edges but might also

be the result of unsolicited creation of

social trails. These impacts could be

minimized by monitoring trail edges, revegetating disturbed areas with native

vegetation, and educating visitors.

Currently, no trail is within the riparian

corridor, limiting impacts to only minor

incidences created by unsolicited, off-trail

use and by non-native plant species.

The numerous exotic (non-native) plant

species within and outside the park

represents a substantial threat to park

vegetation resources. Exotic species’

impacts within the park would be mitigated by restoration activities and through

implementation of an integrated weed

management program. The park would

work cooperatively with local landowners

to resolve external invasive plant issues.

Short-term adverse impacts to native

vegetation as a result of earth moving and

reshaping of natural contours associated
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

97

with restoration of the abandoned railroad

grade and previous agriculture field areas

would occur under the no-action

alternative. These impacts would be

mitigated by salvage of native plant

materials for replanting whenever

possible and by limiting the work zone to

the minimum area necessary. Prescribed

burning would be used to assist in the

restoration and maintenance of native

plant habitats. Restoration activities

would provide overall, major, long-term

benefits to park vegetation resources.

Cumulative Effects. Historic alterations

through agriculture land uses, fire

suppression, establishment of non-native

species, and alterations to natural

hydrologic processes have resulted in

substantial degradation to the regional

vegetative resources. Historic and current

unmitigated overgrazing and agricultural

cropping activities have resulted in

regionwide losses of native plant diversity

and reductions in overall plant community

health. These impacts would have

moderate, long-term adverse impacts to

the park’s vegetative resources through

substantial reductions in natural plant

recruitment/migrations and through the

loss of potential for genetic exchange.

The presence of numerous unmitigated

populations of non-native plant species

external to the park represents a longterm, moderate threat (through potential

reinvasion) to park vegetation.

The cumulative impacts to the vegetation

resources are moderate to major, long

term, and adverse. The national historic

site impacts would be beneficial and are

small in comparison with other impacts in

the area.

Conclusion. Localized, minor to moderate, long-term beneficial impacts to

native vegetation would occur adjacent to

visitor use areas and/or as a result of

unsolicited off-trail uses. Restoration

activities and active weed management

throughout the park would result in major,

long-term, benefits to park vegetation

resources.

Wildlife

Analysis. Temporary displacement of

wildlife in association with existing visitor use and maintenance of the trail

system would continue. Habitat fragmentation created by the existing trail

within upland and floodplain communities

would have minor, longer-term adverse

impacts to less mobile wildlife species

(e.g., amphibians and reptiles) or to

species with smaller home ranges. Existing human, ambient noise levels would

have temporary adverse impacts to

wildlife species, especially on species that

are noise-sensitive or that rely on sound as

a means of communication (especially

during reproductive cycles).

Habitat loss as a result of human disturbances before designation of the

national historic site and the presence of

numerous non-native plant species

substantially threaten the wildlife

diversity at the park. These historic

impacts would be partially mitigated

through restoration activities that would

re-establish native plant communities.

Although restoration activities would

have short-term, adverse impacts to some

wildlife species as a result of temporary

losses in vegetative cover and increases in

ambient noise levels, the end result would

be substantial enhancement of habitats for

wildlife use.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

98

Use of prescribed fire would be timed to

avoid major breeding seasons for sensitive

wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, ground nesting birds). “Walkthroughs” of areas to be included in a

prescribed burn would be performed

immediately before any ignition to chase

or alert wildlife species. Groundburrowing animals would be insulated

from fire effects by soil depths of 1 inch

or more.

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife

has been historically affected by agricultural land uses (grazing and cropping),

fire suppression, hydrologic alterations,

and the introduction of non-native species. There has been subsequent habitat

loss and/or degradation associated with

historic and current human-related

disturbances. Cumulative impacts would

be moderate to major, long term, adverse

to regional wildlife species diversity. The

contribution of Washita is very small in

comparison to the total cumulative

impacts.

Conclusion. Activities identified under

the no-action alternative would result in

minor to moderate, predominately

temporary, negative impacts to wildlife

resources. Impacts would include habitat

fragmentation and increases in ambient

noise levels during periods of peak

visitation. Restoration of the natural

landscape at Washita would result in

long-term benefits to wildlife species by

improving habitat for wildlife use.

Natural Soundscapes

Analysis. Temporary impacts to natural

sounds are currently experienced as a

result of noise originating predominately

from offsite areas (passing cars, farm

machinery). Minor increases in ambient

noise levels would be expected with

increases in park visitation. Disturbances

to natural soundscapes would be more

prevalent during periods of peak visitation

(summer months).

Cumulative Effects. Surrounding land

uses are minimally disruptive to natural

soundscapes. Cumulative impacts would

be negligible to minor, long term, and

adverse.

Conclusion. Implementation of the noaction alternative would result in minor,

predominately short-term, adverse impacts to natural soundscapes as a result of

offsite noises and increased visitation.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE,

INTERPRETATION, AND

EXPERIENCE

Visitor use would likely grow over time as

more and more people learned about the

park. However, due to limited facilities and

staff, visitation would likely grow slowly

under this alternative. Because the access

to the park would continue to be minimal,

the average length of stay for visitors

would remain short.

Due to limited opportunities for interpretation and education, most visitors would

not fully understand the significance and

themes of the park or the causes, consequences, or context of the events that

occurred there. Visitors would continue to

be confused about where to go to get

information about the park – the Black

Kettle Museum, the National Park Service

office in Cheyenne, or the Forest Service

ranger station. Many visitors would arrive

at the park without adequate orientation or

introduction, minimizing their under-
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

99

standing of the park’s significance and

overall enjoyment of the park. Because

visitors would not be able to understand,

appreciate, and enjoy the park and its

resources, this would have a minor to

moderate, long-term negative impact on

the visitor experience.

Onsite facilities would remain minimal and

visitors would continue to have access to

only a limited portion of the park. Visitors

would have minimal opportunity for

contact with park resources, and those

visitors wanting to access the entire park

might be disappointed by a lack of trails or

other onsite facilities. Visitors with

mobility impairments would not have

access to any of the onsite facilities. This

would have a moderate, long-term negative

impact on those visitors wishing to

experience the site first-hand. Those

visitors who consider the site sacred and

prefer to not have visitors on the site would

experience a moderate long-term positive

impact under continuation of existing

conditions.

Visitors would continue to experience a

landscape considerably altered from its

1868 appearance. While current management practices of returning cropland to

native grasses would continue, restoration

would not be complete. This would limit

visitors’ ability to understand and imagine

the events of 1868. The current overlook

structure would continue to impact visitors’ views from the village site, compromising their experience. These actions

would combine to have a minor to moderate negative impact on visitors’ enjoyment and experience of the resource.

Because there would be no communication

between the park staff and emergency

services, the response time for visitor

emergencies could be long. This could

have a minor, negative long-term impact

on visitor safety.

Cumulative Effects. The National Park

Service would not have a visitor center

telling the Washita story and themes under

this alternative. However, these stories and

themes would continue to be partially told

through the existing exhibits at the Oklahoma Historical Society’s Black Kettle

Museum, as the Black Kettle Museum

would likely remain open under this alternative. The impacts of this action in

combination with the NPS no-action alternative would have a minimal minor to

moderate, positive cumulative impact on

the visitor’s ability to understand

Washita’s stories and themes.

Conclusion. Visitors would continue to

have minimal opportunities to experience

or learn about Washita Battlefield. Therefore, continuing existing conditions would

result in moderate, long-term, negative

impacts on the visitor experience.

IMPACTS ON THE

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Implementation of this alternative would

have minimal impacts on the socioeconomic environment of the local community. Visitation to the park would

gradually increase over time, which could

create minor additional economic benefits

and opportunities in the regional economy.

It would also cause a minor increase in the

amount of traffic in the local community

and on access roads.

Cumulative Effects. No known

cumulative impacts on tourism,

recreational opportunities, or the local and

regional economy would be expected.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

100

Conclusion. Under this alternative, there

would be minimal positive long-term

impacts on the socioeconomic environment

and a minimal negative long-term impact

on road traffic in and around Cheyenne.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE

EFFECTS

There would be no major adverse effects

as a result of the no-action alternative.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES OF THE ENVIORNMENT AND

MAINTENANCE AND EHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

Restoring the prairie vegetation within the

park would enhance long-term productivity

of the biological resources associated

within the boundary.

IRREVERSIBLE AND

IRRETIREVABLE COMMITMENTS

OF RESOURCES

The planning team is not aware of any

irreversible or Irretrievable commitments

resources that would occur under the noaction alternative.
101

IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

Analysis. Before going to the park, most

visitors would stop at the visitor center. Here

they would have an opportunity to learn

about the important role that archeological

resources have in telling the story of the

1868 encounter. Additional information

would be provided at the park, and visitor

use would be directed to non-sensitive areas.

Visitors would gain a better understanding

of the need to protect and preserve archeological resources and would be less likely to

remove artifacts from the park. The presence

of law enforcement rangers also would

encourage resource stewardship. Due to

reduced opportunities for unauthorized

collecting and improved stewardship of

resources, long-term adverse impacts on

archeological resources from unauthorized

collecting would be negligible.

Archeological surveys and testing within the

park and on Forest Service land have

identified the locations of archeological

resources as well as previously disturbed

areas. Known resources have been evaluated

for potential listing on the National Register

of Historic Places. During the planning

process, management zones were carefully

delineated to avoid potential impacts on

these resources. Thus construction of most

new facilities (the visitor center/

administrative facility, maintenance, the

overlook, and the trailhead) would occur in

previously disturbed areas and/or areas

lacking known archeological resources.

The following measures would help mitigate

adverse impacts of construction (Other

mitigation measures are found at the end of

the “Alternatives, Including the Preferred

Alternative” part). Stop-work provisions

would be included in construction

documents in case unknown resources were

discovered, and an archeologist would

monitor ground-disturbing activities in

sensitive areas, including trail construction.

Future testing and evaluation would be

conducted in areas where there is potential

for development or restoration activities to

encounter archeological resources. Should

resources be found, designs would be

adjusted accordingly, and appropriate

Section 106 compliance would be completed

prior to any ground disturbing activities.

An appropriate level of survey, testing, and

archeological monitoring would accompany

prairie restoration so no adverse impacts on

important cultural resources would be

expected.

These mitigating measures would help

reduce potential loss of resources from

development and restoration actions. Only

occasional (but long-term), negligible to

minor adverse impacts on archeological

resources would be expected from

development.

Damage to archeological resources from

natural forces such as erosion and rodent

activities would continue. However, the

increased presence of park personnel would

allow closer monitoring and maintenance of

archeological resources, and would aid in

recovery of important information where

sites are threatened. This would result in

negligible, long-term adverse impacts on

these resources.

Cumulative Effects. Natural processes and

hobby collecting on private and public lands
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

102

are ongoing and are expected to continue in

the future. These activities plus farming,

cattle grazing, and development (including

US highway 283), continue to reduce the

number and quality of archeological sites

regionally and on privately-owned lands

within the NHL district.

Over time these losses of sites and artifacts

diminish the scientific database related to

the prehistory and history of the Great

Plains and cause research into the past to be

more difficult and less statistically viable.

The region’s archeological resources have

suffered long-term, moderate adverse

impacts from these human activities and

natural processes.

When the impacts of the preferred

alternative are combined with these other

past, present, and foreseeable future

activities and processes affecting prehistoric

archeological resources, long-term,

moderate adverse cumulative impacts would

occur. However, because of proposed park

programs that would increase public

understanding and stewardship, adverse

cumulative impacts on archeological

resources could be slowed marginally.

Stewardship could have a ripple effect

outside the park if only a few visitors choose

to apply the preservation ideas learned at the

park to their home communities as well.

The park would continue to work with

adjacent landowners to help avoid any

potential adverse impacts on cultural

resources within the national historic

landmark. Park programs also would

increase stewardship and help reduce any

potential impacts to the NHL district

surrounding the park.

Conclusion. Negligible to minor, long-term,

adverse impacts on archeological resources

would result from natural processes,

unauthorized collecting, visitor use, prairie

restoration, and construction. Cumulative

adverse impacts from development,

agricultural uses, and hobby collecting

would be moderate and long term, however,

increased stewardship would reduce these

cumulative impacts marginally.

Cultural Landscape

Analysis. During development associated

with this alternative, short-term moderate

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape

would occur from construction (e.g., the

presence of heavy equipment, denuded

ground surfaces, dust, and noise would be

distracting to both visitors and staff.)

Long-term impacts on the cultural landscape

would be both beneficial and adverse. The

landscape would benefit from eventual

removal of all or parts of the railroad grade,

restoration of the grasslands, and

rehabilitation of the overlook area. Rehabilitation of the proposed staging area would

remove intrusive and exotic plantings and

debris. These changes would result in longterm, moderate beneficial impacts on the

cultural landscape.

Adverse impacts from replacement of

facilities at the overlook, definition of trails,

and development of the west end

contemplative area and trailhead would have

a minor, long-term, adverse impact on the

cultural landscape. Impacts would be minor

because these facilities would utilize

previously disturbed areas, and all possible

mitigating measures would be implemented

to reduce impacts on the landscape.

Throughout the site, revegetation with native

materials and use of topography and natural

vegetation screening to hide trails, parking,

and buildings would help to blend newly

constructed facilities unobtrusively into the
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

103

surrounding landscape. Reduction of visual

impacts of facilities and automobiles at the

trailhead staging area and at the west side of

the park would have high priority. Wherever

possible, unrestored sections of the railroad

grade would be used to camouflage trail

corridors.

Careful building design at the overlook

would consider mass, scale, location, and

use of natural appearing materials. All NPS

facilities would share a unified design

character. These measures would help

mitigate the adverse impacts of site

development. In addition, the park would

work cooperatively with adjacent landowners to maintain the historic ambiance of

the area surrounding the park.

All of these efforts would result in an overall

minor, long-term beneficial impact on the

overall cultural landscape, both inside and

around the park, including the national

historic landmark.

At the Forest Service site, new, carefully designed structures and landscaping with

natural materials would replace existing

older structures and exotic landscaping

materials. Structures would be sited so as to

provide the best opportunities for visitors to

gain a broad vista including the Washita

River and Sargent Major Creek drainages.

Sustainability would also be considered.

There would be a negligible, long-term,

beneficial impact on the historic scene at the

Forest Service site from these new facilities

and plantings.

Cumulative Effects. For well over a

century a variety of intrusive changes such

as farming, ranching, towns, railroads, and

highways have had a moderate long-term

adverse impact on the prairie landscape of

the 1860s. (The impact is moderate because

the area surrounding the park remains

pastoral in nature and developments are

relatively modest in size and visibility).

Most of these activities are expected to

continue into the future, although little new

development or change in the immediate

vicinity of the park is expected.

The preferred alternative proposes restoration of the cultural landscape within the

park. This proposal, coupled with cooperative efforts with local landowners, would

help reduce visual intrusions not only within

the park, but also in the broader viewshed

and national historic landmark surrounding

the park. Long-term moderate adverse

cumulative impacts from past and modern

developments would continue outside the

park. However, these impacts would be

reduced incrementally through beneficial

park restoration efforts.

Conclusion. Construction would cause

short-term moderate adverse impacts on the

cultural landscape. Long-term impacts on

the landscape would be both adverse and

beneficial. Restoration activities would have

long-term, moderate beneficial impacts by

removing intrusions and restoring the

prairie. New or replacement facilities would

intrude on the cultural landscape, resulting

in a minor, long-term adverse impact, but

mitigation would help reduce these impacts.

In sum, these long-term impacts would be

minor and beneficial.

New facilities at the Forest Service site

would have a long-term, negligible

beneficial effect on the historic scene.

Adverse cumulative impacts on the landscape from such activities as farming and

construction would be long term and

moderate. Restoration of the park landscape

would help reduce these cumulative impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

104

Ethnographic Properties

Analysis. Representatives of American

Indian tribes participated in development of

this and the other alternatives to help ensure

their concerns were incorporated into the

planning process. Management zones were

carefully delineated to reflect tribal concerns

about visitor use of sensitive areas such as

the village site. Short-term, adverse impacts

of construction on tribal activities would be

avoided or reduced by notifying tribes of

potential construction dates and locales. All

efforts would be made to accommodate

tribal needs during construction.

Visitors would be directed to non-sensitive

areas within the park. Interpretive messages

would help visitors appreciate the traditional

cultural values of the park, and would help

them understand the depth of respect and

caring tribes have for Washita. Interpretive

trails would allow visitors to see the areas

where the conflict occurred and would

improve their overall understanding of the

events before, during, and after the battle.

Placement of the visitor center offsite would

recognize the special nature of the park as

hallowed ground. Space would be available

in the offsite visitor center for tribes to

conduct demonstrations or other activities

that might be inappropriate to conduct

onsite.

Development site designs were structured to

avoid impacts on culturally sensitive areas.

For example, the reburial site lies outside of

the proposed development zone in a nonpublic use area where it would not be

affected by development or secondary

activities. The park would continue to

consult with tribes to ensure that no

ethnographic resources are affected.

By locating the visitor center offsite, and by

increasing visitors’ sensitivity to the

American Indian concerns, the potential for

removal of offerings and intrusions on

Indians’ religious activities would be

reduced. Implementation of this alternative

would result in minor, long-term, beneficial

impacts to ethnographic resources.

Cumulative Effects. Over time, American

Indians cultural traditions have been lost or

diminished as governmental policies, nonIndian educational programs, and television

effect cultural changes. Increasingly, fewer

Indian children learn their native language,

and there are fewer practitioners to conduct

religious ceremonies. In many areas, access

to areas traditionally used historically has

been restricted. These trends are expected to

continue in the foreseeable future.

When the impacts of the preferred alternative are combined with the cultural changes

mentioned above, there would be both

beneficial and adverse impacts (e.g., cultural

change would continue in the future, a longterm minor to moderate adverse cumulative

effect on the traditional culture/ethnographic

values of several American Indian tribes).

However, the preferred alternative would

temper this adverse effect slightly by

making access for tribes easier and by

helping to educate the public about the

special nature of Washita.

Conclusion. Potential short-term minor

adverse impacts of construction affecting

tribes would be avoided by tribal notifications. Implementation of this alternative

would have minor, long-term beneficial

impacts on ethnographic resources within

the park by locating the visitor center offsite,

increasing public understanding, and

demonstrating respect for tribal concerns.
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

105

Cumulatively there would still be a longterm, minor to moderate adverse effect on

the traditional values of Indian tribes, but

these impacts would be tempered by

improved access for tribes and increased

visitor understanding.

Collections

Analysis. Cooperative efforts to document

artifacts removed from the park before NPS

acquisition and to acquire copies of archival

materials would enhance the park’s

collections and provide crucial opportunities

for interpretation and research. New

facilities would provide appropriate

curatorial storage and work space for

researchers. These changes would have a

long-term, moderate beneficial effect on the

collections, including their interpretive and

research potential.

Cumulative Effects. Over time collections

and archival materials relating to the historic

site have been scattered among individuals

and institutions across the nation. Access to

these research materials has been difficult or

impossible for many researchers.

Archeological resources have been removed

from their original context, and their provenience lost. Past curation and conservation of

these items, and accountability for them, has

been variable and often inadequate, resulting

in adverse impacts. This situation would

likely continue in the future.

However, when the benefits of the preferred

alternative were combined with these past

and continuing adverse impacts, the resulting long-term effect would be to reduce or

ameliorate many of these negative impacts.

For example, in cooperation with institutions

and individuals, relevant archival and archeological materials could be acquired by the

park where they could be properly

documented and curated.

This would help to reduce many of these

previous adverse cumulative impacts,

eventually, resulting in long-term, minor

beneficial cumulative impacts on collections

and archival materials relevant to the park’s

significance.

Conclusion. Implementation of this

alternative would have a long-term,

moderate, beneficial effect on collections

through improved accountability, curation,

and access for researchers. Over time,

cumulative impacts would be minor and

beneficial for the same reasons.

SECTION 106 SUMMARY

Under the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and adverse

effect, implementation of the preferred

alternative would affect cultural resources

eligible for the national register, but these

affects would not be adverse.

Interpretive messages and onsite lawenforcement presence would encourage

visitor stewardship and reduce the potential

for unauthorized artifact collection. Park

staff would monitor sites to ensure that

natural processes such as rodent digging or

erosion did not damage sites.

Development would occur in disturbed areas

lacking significant archeological resources;

these areas and archeological site locations

were identified during past archeological

surveys. Sites were also evaluated for

national register eligibility.

An appropriate level of survey, testing, and

archeological monitoring would accompany
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

106

prairie restoration so no adverse impacts on

important cultural resources would be

expected.

Mitigation measures described above and at

the end of the “Alternatives, Including the

Preferred Alternative” part would be

employed to ensure that archeological

resources are not adversely affected.

The roadway, railroad grade, overlook, and

trailhead would intrude on the cultural

landscape. A variety of measures, including

vegetative n screening and attention to mass,

scale, location, and use of natural appearing

materials would be employed so that the

overall impact on the landscape would not

be adverse.

The park would work with visitors to prevent loss of offerings or disturbance of

religious activities by visitors so that no

adverse impacts would occur to ethnographic resources. Tribes would be informed

about dates of construction to prevent adverse impacts should access to the park be

limited by development work, heavy

vehicles, etc.

New facilities and programs would benefit

collections by providing increased resource

protection and preservation, additional

research potential, acquisition of badly

needed materials, and heightened

accountability for collections. The end result

would be beneficial to collections and

archival materials.

The park would work cooperatively with

their neighbors and with the Forest Service

to help protect resources in the national

historic landmark district. No adverse

impacts on cultural resources in the district

would be expected.

Should presently unknown resources be

discovered during on-going park programs

or construction, mitigation would be carried

out under guidance of the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation procedures (36

CFR 800).

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Soils

Analysis. The presence of a hardened trail

surface would cause localized minor to

moderate, long-term erosion problems as a

result of a loss of soil permeability and

increased precipitation runoff created by

the hardened pavement. These impacts

would be greatest in association with trail

areas occurring on slopes. Vegetation

losses along the trail edges and associated

soil compaction would be expected from

visitor use, further contributing to localized

soil erosion issues.

Temporary erosion issues resulting from

trail and parking facility developments

would be mitigated by limiting the amount

of time that bare soil was left exposed and

by use of appropriate erosion control

measures (e.g., silt fencing and erosion

matting). Revegetation with native plants of

the disturbed work zones upon completion

of construction activities would also assist

in minimizing impacts to soil resources.

Placement of aesthetically blending barriers

(e.g., wood fencing) around the small

unpaved parking facility at the west end of

the park would assist in minimizing vehicle

trespass (and, thus, impacts to soil

resources) beyond the identified parking

limits.

Minor, temporary increases in soil erosion

would also occur as a result of restoration

activities that require ground disturbance
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

107

(e.g., restoration of former agricultural

fields) but would result in overall long-term

benefits to soil resources in the park

through stabilization with native

vegetation.

High potential exists for off-trail visitor use

within the designated “contemplative” and

“extended learning” zones under the

preferred alternative. Creation of social

trails would result in vegetation trampling/loss, soil compaction, and localized

erosion problems, especially on sloped land

areas. Impacts could be minor to moderate,

and long-term depending on the extent of

off-trail visitor use. Adverse impacts would

be partially mitigated by monitoring offtrail use and by closure and restoration of

off-trail areas should they become

unacceptably impacted. Areas susceptible

to erosion would be monitored and

appropriate erosion control measures (e.g.,

silt fencing, slope stabilization) would be

applied. Long-term natural erosion

processes would continue under the

preferred alternative.

Negative, long-term impacts to local soil

horizons, increased soil compaction, loss of

soil permeability, moisture content, and soil

water storage capacity would occur in areas

affected by construction of the offsite

visitor center/administrative and

maintenance facilities and associated new

parking facility. A total of 11.5 acres of

soils would be disturbed by the construction. The construction would take place

primarily on 7.5 acres of land that has been

developed with Forest Service facilities.

Most all of the other 4 acres has been used

for equipment storage. There would be

approximately 0.75 miles of utility lines for

water and sewage connection to the city

and this would disturb about 0.25 acres.

Cumulative Effects. Minor to moderate

adverse impacts to soil resources through

accelerated erosion would continue on

lands surrounding the national historic site

as a result of historic and ongoing

agricultural practices.

Conclusion. Minor, long-term impacts to

soil resources (e.g., compaction and

erosion) would occur adjacent to trail edges

and as a result of off-trail use within the

“extended learning” and contemplative

management zones. Restoration of natural

topography and the stabilization of

previously disturbed lands with native

vegetation would result in long-term

beneficial impacts for the park as a whole.

Air Quality

Analysis. Predicted increases in park

visitation, coupled with existing traffic

patterns and vehicle use, would likely

result in negligible to moderate increases in

localized air emissions with temporary

minor impacts to near-range visibility.

Impacts would be greatest during seasons

of peak visitation (summer months) while

negligible to minor during the off season

(winter months). Impacts to local air

quality would be minimized by requesting

vehicles to turn off engines when parked.

Short-term, minor to moderate impairments

to local air quality and visibility would

occur as a result of onsite construction of a

new parking facility (trailhead) and trail

system. Offsite construction of the visitor

center would also result in temporary

adverse impacts to localized air quality and

near-range visibility. These impacts would

include increases in air particulates

(fugitive dust) and increased vehicle

emissions from heavy/motorized equipment

use. Mitigating measures, such as watering

to keep dust levels down, would be used to
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

108

minimize temporary impacts to air quality

and visibility.

Minor, long-term adverse impacts to local

air quality would occur as a result of

increases in vehicle emissions related to

both on- and offsite parking (including the

addition of parking for buses).

Temporary minor to moderate adverse

impacts to air quality and visibility would

also occur during restoration activities such

as prescribed burning and plowing. These

activities would be mitigated by burning

only under conditions that allow for

maximum smoke dispersal and by

minimizing ground disturbance activities

(e.g., plowing) under exceptionally windy,

dry conditions.

Cumulative Effects. Roger Mills County

remains predominately rural with agriculture serving as the dominant land use.

Additional external factors associated with

seasonal agricultural practices could

contribute to temporary impairments to

localized air quality and visibility. Use of

agricultural equipment would result in

increases in vehicle emissions and in air

particulates (e.g., fugitive dust). Vehicle

emissions and residential and commercial

developments in the nearby town of

Cheyenne serve as added minor, long-term

sources of localized air pollution. Air

quality issues outside the park would be

addressed through cooperative efforts

between the National Park Service,

associated landowners, and the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality.

Conclusion. The proposed alternative

would result in overall minor, long-term

adverse impacts to localized air quality and

visibility as a result of increased visitation

and associated vehicle emissions. Shortterm (1-2 days), minor to moderate impacts

to air quality would occur as a result of

prescribed burning and other restoration

activities that require ground disturbance

(e.g., creation of fugitive dust).

Water Quality

Analysis. Minor, temporary impacts to

water quality would occur as a result of

increased sediment runoff during onsite

construction of parking and trail facilities

and during construction of the offsite

visitor center. Temporary impacts to water

quality would be mitigated through use of

appropriate erosion control measures

during construction operations. Regular

inspections of equipment could guard

against any potential adverse impact to

surface or ground water as a result of

leakage of petroleum-based or other

hazardous chemical substances (e.g.,

hydraulic fluid). Equipment operators

would be required to stop work and

immediately contact the park superintendent should any leaks or breakage of

equipment fluid lines occurred.

Minor to moderate, long-term, adverse

impacts to water quality are likely to result

from increased, onsite, vehicle parking and

associated runoff of petroleum-based (and

other) chemicals. These impacts would be

minimized through proper parking facility

design and inclusion of a runoff filtration

system for the new trailhead parking

facility.

Increased soil erosion, in association with

hardened trail surfaces, are likely to result

in minor to moderate, long-term increases

in sediment runoff. Erosion and sediment

runoff would also increase if development

of social trails occurred within the designated “contemplative” and “extended

learning” zones. Impacts would be

partially mitigated by monitoring and re-
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

109

vegetation of trail edges, and through

visitor education.

Restoration activities under the no-action

alternative would result in long-term

benefits to water resources within the park

by establishing healthy stands of native

vegetation, reducing the land area susceptible to erosion, and by reducing rates of

sediment and surface water runoff (e.g.,

increased water filtration).

Cumulative Effects. There are numerous

potential sources of water contamination in

the Washita River watershed upstream of

the battlefield. Potential sources include

wastes emitted from livestock, humans, and

wildlife, leaching of fertilizers and

pesticides from surrounding agricultural

lands, leachate from unlined drilling-mud

disposal pits near the river, oil drilling and

production, and from volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) used or spilled at an

airport and other commercial establishments upgradient from the national historic

site (NPS/WRD Project Proposal, 1999).

Preliminary water quality testing of the

Washita River (within the park) has

identified the presence of EPA acceptable

levels of four pesticides (Atrazine, Deethylatrazine, Prometon, and Tebuthiuron) and

seasonally high counts of fecal coliform

and fecal streptococcal bacteria which

substantially exceeded the states primary

contact standards for swimming. Sources

for the pesticide and fecal bacteria detected

are external to the park and are most likely

associated with upstream agricultural land

uses.

Potential impacts to water quality within

the Washita River may also occur as a

result of the proposed expansion of a waste

pit facility 2 miles to the west (upstream) of

the park. Until recently, this facility

consisted of a commercial saltwater

disposal well used primarily for the

injection of saline waters produced in the

oil and gas drilling process into a deep

aquifer. The facility has received approval

from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to expand commercial operations by

developing three 350’ x 1150’ earthen pits

(evaporative ponds) for the disposal of oil

field wastes including water-based drilling

fluids and/or cuttings and salt-contaminated

soils (Reber, et. al. 1999). These new

disposal pits would lie approximately 1⁄4

mile up gradient from the Washita River.

Water pollution issues occurring outside

the park would be addressed through

cooperative efforts between the National

Park Service, associated landowners, and

the Oklahoma, Department of

Environmental Quality.

Conclusion. Localized, minor to

seasonally moderate, long-term, adverse

impacts to surface waters would occur near

the visitor parking facilities as a result of

runoff of petroleum-based materials associated with increased onsite vehicle use.

Overall, long-term beneficial impacts to

water quality would occur as restoration

activities progressed, reducing rates of

sediment and surface water runoff.

Vegetation

Analysis. Permanent vegetation loss would

occur with the construction and development of new trail extensions, the hardening

of trail surfaces, and the development of

both the trailhead parking (paved) and

west-end (unpaved) parking facilities.

Impacts to vegetation would be minimized

during trail and parking facility developments by limiting access routes for equipment and machinery and by limiting the

size of the work zone to only the minimum
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

110

area required. Onsite presence of park staff

during construction activities would also

serve to minimize adverse impacts to park

vegetation resources.

Minor, long-term adverse impacts to native

vegetation would be expected in areas

immediately adjacent to parking facilities

and adjacent to trail edges. These impacts

would include trampling/loss of native

vegetation, soil compaction, accelerated

soil erosion on sloped topographies, and the

development of appropriate conditions of

the spread and establishment of non-native

plant species. Impacts associated with

parking facilities would be minimized by

the placement of aesthetically blending

barriers (e.g., wood fencing) around

parking facilities to constrain visitor access

to defined trail areas. Use of a barrier is

especially important for the small unpaved

parking facility at the west end of the park

to assist in minimizing vehicle trespass

(and, thus, impacts to vegetation resources)

beyond the identified parking limits.

Additional vegetation losses would occur

as off-trail visitor uses increase within the

“contemplative” and “extended learning”

zones. Habitat fragmentation throughout

the entire center portion of the park would

increase as a result of both official and

unofficial trail expansions. Diligent

monitoring of visitor use areas for signs of

disturbance and timely re-vegetation of

disturbed areas with native species would

also minimize impacts to vegetation

resources.

Historic alterations to vegetation as a result

of agricultural land uses, fire suppression,

non-native plant establishment, and

alterations natural hydrologic processes

(e.g., flooding) have resulted in substantial

modification to vegetation resources as

compared to the 1868 time period. Historic

degradation (or loss) of native vegetation is

most notable within the riparian and

floodplain communities within the park.

These community types are dominated by

aggressive non-native plants such as

tamarisk, old world bluestem, and downy

brome.

Although no formal developments have

been proposed for the riparian corridor,

unsolicited use might occur as a result of

visitors attempting to get closer to the

river’s edge. Social trail development

within the riparian corridor would result in

minor, adverse impacts as identified above

for the “contemplative” and “extended

learning” zones. Removal of vegetation

from riverbank areas would add additional

impacts related to destabilization and

accelerated bank erosion. Again, these

impacts would be mitigated by monitoring,

revegetation of disturbed areas, and visitor

education.

Parkwide restoration activities, including

the use of prescribed fire, integrated weed

(non-native plant) management, the

removal of all or portions of the abandoned

railroad grade, and the subsequent reestablishment of healthy native plant

communities within the park would result

in major, long-term benefits to vegetation

resources.

Cumulative Effects. Historic alterations

through agricultural land uses, fire suppression, establishment of non-native species,

and alterations to natural hydrologic

processes have resulted in substantial

degradation to the regional vegetative

resources. Historic and current, unmitigated

over-grazing and agricultural cropping

activities have resulted in have resulted in

regionwide losses of native plant diversity

and reductions in overall plant community

health. These impacts would have
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

111

moderate adverse impacts to the parks

vegetative resources through substantial

reductions in natural plant

recruitment/migrations and through loss of

potential for genetic exchange.

Although the park would work cooperatively with local landowners to resolve

external invasive plant issues, the presence

of numerous unmitigated populations of

non-native plant species external to the

park represents a long-term moderate threat

(potential for re-invasion) to park

vegetation.

Conclusion. Localized, minor, long-term

impacts would occur to vegetation

resources. Adverse impacts associated with

proposed visitor use would include

vegetation trampling and loss, soil compaction and erosion, and the unintentional

spread of non-native plant species. These

impacts would increase as the level of

habitat fragmentation increased. Overall,

long-term benefits to parkwide vegetation

resources would occur as a result of

planned restoration actions. Benefits would

include increases in native plant diversity

and substantial increases in plant

community health and stability.

Wildlife

Analysis. Temporary displacement and

minor direct loss of wildlife species would

occur during construction activities

associated with the proposed trail expansion/hardening and development of new

parking facilities. These impacts would

likely affect smaller, less mobile wildlife

species (e.g., amphibians and reptiles), or

species with smaller home ranges.

The placement of additional onsite visitor

parking would moderately increase temporary wildlife displacements as a result of

increases in vehicle/visitor levels, and

associated noise, especially during periods

of peak visitation. Use of a larger area of

the park as “contemplative” and for

“extended learning” would also result in

increased potential for wildlife/visitor

interactions. Habitat fragmentation would

increase over existing levels as a result of

official and unofficial (e.g., social trails)

trail expansions. Increased ambient noise

levels would have minor adverse impacts to

wildlife species, especially those that are

noise sensitive or that relying on sound for

communications or for breeding. There

may be minor selection for those wildlife

species that are more noise tolerant.

Habitat loss as a result of previous human

disturbances and the presence of numerous

non-native plant species substantially

threaten the wildlife diversity at the park.

These historic impacts would be partially

mitigated through restoration activities that

would re-establish native plant communities. Although restoration activities would

have short-term adverse impacts on some

wildlife species as a result of temporary

losses in vegetative cover and minor

increases in ambient noise levels, the end

result would be substantial enhancement of

habitats for wildlife use.

Use of prescribed fire would be timed to

avoid major breeding seasons for sensitive

wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, reptiles,

ground nesting birds). “Walk-throughs” of

areas to be included in a prescribed burn

would be performed immediately before

any fire ignition to chase or alert wildlife

species. Ground burrowing animals would

be insulated from fire effects by soil depths

of 1 inch or more.

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife has

been historically affected by agricultural

land uses (grazing and cropping), fire
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

112

suppression, hydrologic alterations, and the

introduction of non-native species.

Cumulative impacts would be moderate to

major, long-term adverse to regional

wildlife species diversity. The contribution

of the historic site would be small in

comparison to the total cumulative impact.

Conclusion. This alternative would result

in predominately minor, short-term, adverse impacts to various wildlife species

that live in or travel near the park area.

Impacts would be most notable during

periods of onsite trail and parking development and during peak visitation. There

would be overall long-term, substantial

benefits to wildlife species as a result of

restoration and the enhancement of habitats

for wildlife use.

Natural Soundscapes

Analysis. Minor to moderate, short-term

impacts to natural sounds would be

experienced as a result of ambient noise

originating from offsite sources (e.g.,

passing cars, farm machinery). Moderate

to major, short-term, adverse impacts to

natural soundscapes would be expected

during construction of onsite parking and

trail facilities (e.g., heavy equipment use).

Construction noise impacts to visitors

would be mitigated by performing work, as

much as possible, during nonpeak visitor

seasons. Construction noise impacts to

wildlife would be minimized by avoiding

sensitive time periods related to

reproductive cycles (e.g., frog calling).

Minor to moderate, short-term increases in

ambient noise levels would occur as a

result of increased levels of onsite parking

and visitor use. These disturbances would

be more prevalent during periods of peak

visitation (summer months) and would be

negligible to minor during off-peak winter

months. Increases in ambient noise level

would be partially mitigated by requesting

that all vehicle engines be shut off when

parked. Distribution of visitors over a

larger trail system would also serve to

mitigate some noise impacts associated

with visitor use.

Cumulative Effects. Surrounding land

uses are minimally disruptive to natural

soundscapes. Cumulative impacts would be

negligible to minor, long term, and adverse.

Conclusion. Minor to major, short-term

increases in noise levels would occur

during construction activities proposed

under the preferred alternative. Minor to

moderate, short-term disturbances to

natural soundscapes would be experienced

during periods of peak visitation under the

preferred alternative.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE,

EXPERIENCE, AND INTERPREATION

Analysis

Under this alternative visitor use would

continue to grow at a moderate pace. The

construction of an offsite visitor center

would probably attract more visitors than the

no-action alternative. The average length of

stay would be longer than in the no-action

alternative because visitors would spend

considerable time at the visitor center,

particularly if there were special events or

demonstrations available, before heading out

to the site itself. An increased length of stay

would increase the likelihood that visitors

understand and appreciate park themes and

significance, yielding a moderate positive

long-term impact on the visitor experience.
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

113

A visitor center at the Forest Service site

would provide visitors with a conveniently

located facility to receive an extensive

orientation to the park, its themes, and its

significance. Increased understanding of

park themes and significance would increase

resource stewardship and visitor enjoyment.

Combining facilities and interpretation with

the Forest Service would provide added

convenience for visitors and increase the

breadth of the interpretation of natural and

cultural resources. Locating the visitor

center on the Forest Service site, with its

expanded views, would provide visitors with

opportunities to understand more of the

story and more of the context of the events

of the Washita. Cultural demonstrations at

the visitor center would increase visitor

understanding of and respect for other

cultures. These combined actions would

increase visitor understanding and enjoyment of the site and its significance and

themes. This would result in moderate, longterm positive impacts on the visitor

experience.

The development of a visitor center would

provide new opportunities to cooperate and

coordinate with the Cheyenne Arapaho tribe

to provide educational programs and

demonstrations. The visitor center would

also provide enhanced opportunities for

visitors to learn of the variety of regionally

available experiences and opportunities to

learn about Cheyenne Arapaho culture.

These actions would increase visitor and

local community members’ understanding of

Washita battlefield, the events that occurred

there, and the significance of the park. This

would provide a minor to moderate positive

impact on the visitor experience at the park.

Some continuity in mood and experience

would be lost when visitors exited the visitor

center, had to reload in their vehicle, and

drive out to the park. It is also possible that

some visitors would bypass the visitor

center and head straight out to the site,

missing the opportunity to learn about the

park themes and significance. This would

have a moderate, long-term negative impact

on those visitors who missed the visitor

center, and a minor, negative long-term

impact on those visitors who lost continuity

in mood.

Locating the visitor center offsite would

keep the noise and visual intrusions of the

visitor center away from the park and tend to

allow the onsite experience to be quiet and

reflective.

Those visitors wishing to have a reflective

experience would have additional opportunities for this type of experience in the

small contemplative area on the west side of

the park. This area would also provide relatively easy access to the river for those

visitors who wish to experience the river.

Overall, visitors would experience the site

with less landscape intrusions than the noaction alternative. The redesigned overlook

would have less of a visual impact on the

historic scene, providing visitors with a

better opportunity to imagine the site as it

was in 1868. However, increased vehicular

parking at the overlook would have an

impact on the visual scene. Visitors would

experience a more restored landscape onsite,

indicative or evocative of the 1868

appearance. These actions would combine to

provide a moderate long-term positive

impact on visitors’ opportunity to appreciate

and reflect upon the park’s themes and

significance.

Because there would be minimal

communication between the visitors onsite

and park staff or emergency services, the

response time for visitor emergencies could
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

114

be long. This could have a minor, long-term

negative impact on visitor safety.

Cumulative Effects

As previously mentioned, under this

alternative there would be increased

coordination with the Cheyenne Arapaho

tribe to provide educational opportunities

and demonstrations. The visitor center

would provide visitors and local residents

with information about other related sites

where they could learn more about the event

and the Cheyenne Arapaho. In addition to

this National Park Service action, several

regional historical groups and tribes are

developing organized tours of cultural and

historical sites in Oklahoma. The new visitor

center would likely be a stop on these tours,

and increase the potential to educate a wider

audience. The impacts of this increased

audience in combination with the impacts of

wider cooperation with the Cheyenne

Arapaho would have a minor, long-term,

positive impact on the visitor center’s ability

to educate a wide audience.

Under this alternative the Oklahoma

Historical Society’s Black Kettle Museum

would likely be converted to some other

museum use once the National Park Service

visitor center was operational. The impacts

of this action, taken in conjunction with the

National Park Service construction of a

visitor center under this alternative, would

result in minor, positive, cumulative impacts

on the educational opportunities for visitors

and residents of Cheyenne.

Conclusion

Visitors would have increased opportunities

to learn about and experience Washita

Battlefield in a setting that is compatible

with the park’s significance. This alternative

would result in moderate, long-term,

positive impacts on the visitor experience.

IMPACTS ON THE

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Analysis

Implementation of the proposed action could

have minor to moderate impacts on the

socioeconomic environment of the local

community. Visitation to the park would

gradually increase over time, which could

increase business activity in the local area.

The visitor center might increase the average

length of stay for visitors, leading visitors to

spend slightly more time and money in the

local community. This would result in

increased positive benefits of a minor to

moderate degree over the long-term for a

small number of firms and/or individuals,

mostly those related to the tourism and

service industries.

Some roadwork or road widening might

need to take place around the visitor center

site and out to the park. Increasing visitation

would also cause some increase in the

amount of traffic in Cheyenne and on local

highways, potentially causing some inconvenience to local residents and increased

traffic hazards. This would result in minor to

moderate negative impacts on local

residents.

The development of a visitor center and

remodeling of the overlook would provide

some moderate to major, positive, shortterm economic benefits for a limited number

of individuals and the enterprises involved

with the development. These short-term

benefits would mainly be concentrated in the

construction sectors, and could either be
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

115

local or regional, depending on the

contractors selected.

Cumulative Effects

No known cumulative impacts on tourism,

recreational opportunities, or the local and

regional economy would be expected.

Conclusion

Under this alternative there would be minor

to moderate, short- and long-term, positive

impacts on the socioeconomic environment,

with possible minor, negative, long-term

impacts on road traffic in Cheyenne.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

There would be some alterations to the

cultural landscape to accommodate visitors

and their vehicles. Outside the area there

would be changes due to additional traffic

on the roadway.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Restoring the prairie vegetation within the

park would enhance long-term productivity

of the biological resources associated within

the boundary.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF

RESOURCES

The loss of soil due to construction of new

facilities would be an irreversible commitment of resources. The planning team is

not aware of any other irreversible or

irretrievable commitments of resources that

would occur.
116

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

Analysis. Visitor center programs and

information at the overlook would direct

visitors to non-sensitive areas of the park

near the overlook, and would give visitors

the opportunity to learn about the importance of protecting archeological

resources. The presence of law enforcement

rangers also would encourage resource

stewardship.

Due to reduced opportunities for

unauthorized collecting and improved

stewardship of resources, long-term adverse

impacts on archeological resources from

unauthorized collecting would be negligible.

Archeological surveys and testing have

identified the locations of archeological

resources within the park and in on Forest

Service land, as well as previously disturbed

areas. Known resources have been evaluated

for potential listing on the National Register

of Historic Places. Management zones were

carefully drawn to protect sites, so facilities

(the visitor center/administrative facility,

maintenance, overlook, and contemplative

area parking) could be built in previously

disturbed areas.

Mitigating measures described in Chapter 2

and in the preferred alternative, including

stop-work provisions, archeological

monitoring, and future testing, evaluation,

and compliance, would be implemented to

reduce potential loss of resources from

development and restoration actions. Only a

very small portion of the park would be

developed so long-term adverse impacts on

archeological resources from construction

would be negligible.

Damage to archeological resources from

natural forces such as erosion and rodent

activities would continue to diminish site

integrity. However, increased park personnel

would allow closer monitoring and

maintenance of archeological resources, and

would aid in recovery of important

information where sites are threatened. This

would result in negligible, long-term adverse

impacts on these resources.

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative

impacts from unauthorized collecting,

development, agriculture, and natural

processes would be the same as in the

preferred alternative 	



long-term, moderate, and adverse.

Conclusion. Under this alternative longterm adverse impacts on archeological

resources from unauthorized collecting,

development, and natural processes would

be negligible. Cumulative impacts on

archeological resources from collecting,

development, natural processes, and

agricultural uses would be long-term,

moderate, and adverse.

Cultural Landscape

Analysis. Moderate, short-term adverse impacts to the landscape would occur during

construction with the presence of large vehicles, denuded soils, piles of materials, etc.

Construction of new facilities at the overlook and at the west end contemplative area

would have some minor impacts on the

overall cultural landscape. However, the

new overlook would be a replacement
Impacts of Alternative A

117

facility constructed in a previously disturbed

area, and vegetation screening would

prevent visitors from seeing the west end

contemplative area from the overlook. All

possible mitigating measures would be

implemented. In the park and at the Forest

Service site, new, carefully designed

structures and landscaping with natural

materials would replace existing older

structures and exotic landscaping materials.

Careful building design would consider

mass, scale, location and use of natural

appearing materials. All NPS facilities

would share a unified design character.

Because trails would no longer lead down

into the park, the restored landscape below

the overlook would more closely resemble

the 1868 scene than in any of the other

alternatives.

Throughout the park, revegetation with

native materials and use of topography and

natural vegetation screening would be used

to hide development, and help to blend new

facilities unobtrusively into the surrounding

landscape.

At the Forest Service site, structures would

be located to provide visitors the best views

of the Washita River and Sargent Major

Creek drainages. These new structures

would replace unsightly modern buildings.

Sustainability would also be considered in

this landscape.

Adverse impacts on the cultural landscape

from development would be long-term, but

minor due to mitigation. Long-term

moderate beneficial impacts (both to the

park and to the surrounding NHL) would

result from prairie restoration. Overall, longterm impacts on the cultural landscape

would generally be minor and beneficial.

Cumulative Effects. As described under the

preferred alternative, there have been a number of adverse cumulative impacts on area

landscapes for the past 140 years, including

farming, homesteading, and construction of

the roadway and the railroad. These changes

have had a moderate long-term adverse

impact on the prairie landscape of the 1860s.

(The impact is moderate because the area

surrounding the park remains rural and

developments are relatively modest in size

and visibility). Most of these activities are

expected to continue into the future, although little new development or change in

the immediate vicinity of the park is expected.

Alternative A proposes restoration of the

cultural landscape within the park. This

proposal, coupled with cooperative efforts

with local landowners, would help reduce

visual intrusions not only within the park,

but also in the broader viewshed and NHL

surrounding the park. Long-term moderate

adverse cumulative impacts from past and

modern developments would continue

outside the park. However these impacts

would be reduced incrementally through

beneficial park restoration efforts.

Conclusion. Long-term impacts on the

landscape from development and restoration

activities would be both adverse and

beneficial. Restoration activities would have

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts by

removing intrusions and restoring the

prairie. The overlook and west side

contemplative area would intrude on the

cultural landscape of the park, resulting in a

minor, long-term, adverse impact but

mitigating measures would help reduce

these impacts. New facilities at the Forest

Service site would have a long-term, adverse

effect on the historic scene.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

118

Long-term cumulative impacts on the

landscape would be moderate and adverse

but these impacts would be somewhat

reduced through beneficial park restoration

activities and cooperation with neighbors.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis. Representatives of American

Indian tribes participated in development of

this and the other alternatives to help ensure

their concerns were incorporated into the

planning process. Management zones were

carefully delineated to reflect tribal concerns

about visitor use of sensitive areas such as

Black Kettle’s village or the area along the

Washita River. As in the proposal,

placement of the visitor center offsite clearly

recognizes the special nature of the park as

hallowed ground. In addition, space would

be available in the offsite visitor center for

tribes to conduct demonstrations or other

non-religious activities that might be

inappropriate to conduct onsite.

Notifying tribes of potential construction

dates and locales would avoid short-term

adverse impacts of construction on tribal

activities. All efforts would be made to

accommodate tribal needs during

construction

Development site designs were structured to

avoid physical impacts on culturally

sensitive sites. For example, the reburial site

lies outside the proposed development zone

where it is not visible to the public, and

where it would not be affected by development or secondary activities. The park

would continue to consult with tribes to

ensure that no ethnographic resources are

affected.

Visitors would be directed to the overlook

where interpretive messages would help

them appreciate the park’s traditional

cultural values as well as the respect and

caring that tribes have for Washita. On one

hand, because visitors would not be invited

to move through the park, the hallowed

nature of the park would be emphasized.

Conversely, viewing the scene from afar

(the overlook) could reduce overall visitor

understanding of the conflict and appreciation for American Indians’ viewpoint of the

battle.

There would be few opportunities for visitors to impact sites valued by American

Indian tribes, or to inadvertently disturb

tribal religious activities. Implementation of

this alternative would have long-term, minor

beneficial impacts on ethnographic

resources.

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts of this alternative would be the same

as described in the preferred alternative

long-term, minor to moderate impacts on

traditional values would be tempered by

improved tribal access and increased visitor

sensitivity to tribal concerns.

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative

A would improve visitor appreciation for

and understanding of American Indian

concerns and traditions resulting in longterm, minor beneficial impacts on

ethnographic resources.

Cumulatively there would still be a moderate, long-term, adverse effect on the

traditional values of Indian tribes, but these

impacts would be tempered by improved

access for tribes and increased visitor

understanding of American Indian concerns.
Impacts of Alternative A

119

Collections

Analysis. Cooperative efforts to document

artifacts removed from the park prior to NPS

acquisition and to acquire copies of archival

materials would enhance the park’s

collections and provide new opportunities

for interpretation and research. New

facilities would provide appropriate

curatorial storage and work space for

researchers. Implementation of Alternative

A would have a long-term, moderate

beneficial effect on collections.

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative

impacts of alternative A would be the same

as the preferred alternative. That is, the

beneficial effects of acquiring relevant

materials, new opportunities for research,

and appropriate facilities would reduce

many of the adverse impacts of lack of

accountability, scattered collections, and

lack of research facilities. The end result

would be long-term, minor beneficial

cumulative impacts.

Conclusion: Implementation of alternative

A would have a long-term, moderate

beneficial effect on collections, including

archival materials. Cumulative impacts

would also be long-term, minor to moderate,

and beneficial.

SECTION 106 SUMMARY

Under the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and adverse

effect, the NPS finds that implementation of

alternative A would affect archeological

resources, cultural landscapes, ethnographic

resources, and park collections, but that this

effect would not be adverse.

Interpretive messages and onsite lawenforcement presence would encourage

visitor stewardship, and reduce the potential

for unauthorized artifact collection. Visitors

would not have access to sensitive areas.

Park staff would monitor sites to ensure that

natural processes such as rodent digging or

erosion do not damage archeological

resources.

Development would occur in disturbed areas

lacking significant archeological resources;

these areas and archeological site locations

were identified during past archeological

surveys. Sites have been evaluated for

national register eligibility.

An appropriate level of survey testing would

accompany prairie restoration and archeological monitoring, and no adverse impacts

on important cultural resources would be

expected.

Mitigation measures described above under

the preferred alternative and in the “Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative”

part would be employed to ensure that

archeological resources were not adversely

affected.

The roadway, railroad grade, overlook, and

trailhead would continue to intrude on the

cultural landscape. A variety of measures,

including vegetation screening, attention to

mass, scale, location and use of natural

appearing materials would be employed so

that the overall impact on the landscape

would not be adverse.

The park would work with visitors to prevent loss of offerings or disturbance of

religious activities by visitors so that no

adverse impacts would occur to ethnographic resources.

New facilities and programs would benefit

collections by providing increased resource
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

120

protection and preservation, additional

research potential, acquisition of badly

needed materials, and heightened accountability for collections. The end result would

be beneficial to collections and archival

materials.

The park would work cooperatively with

their neighbors and with the U.S. Forest

Service to help protect resources in the

national historic landmark district. No

adverse impacts on cultural resources in the

district are expected.

Should unknown resources be discovered

during ongoing park programs or

construction, mitigation would be carried

out under guidance of the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation procedures (36

CFR 800).

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Soils

Analysis. This alternative would eliminate

most of the existing mowed trail area,

limiting visitor access to upland areas more

immediate to the overlook parking facility.

A small unpaved parking lot would be

created at the west end of the park. Adverse

impacts resulting from existing trail use

(e.g., vegetation loss, soil compaction, and

minor erosion) would be mitigated and

restored to native vegetation.

Permanent soil loss and mixing of soil

horizons would occur as a result of

constructing the offsite visitor center. A

total of 11.5 acres of soils would be

disturbed for construction of the offsite

visitor center/administration and

maintenance facilities. The construction

would take place primarily on 7.5 acres of

land that has been developed with Forest

Service facilities. Most of the other 4 acres

has been used for equipment storage. Additional short-term, minor to moderate impacts might occur through soil compaction

and erosion during construction activities.

These impacts would be mitigated by

limiting the area of construction activities

to the minimum area needed and through

use of appropriate erosion control measures

(e.g., silt fencing, erosion matting). There

would be approximately 0.75 miles of

utility lines for water and sewage connection to the city and this would disturb about

0.25 acres.

Moderate, long-term impacts to soil

resources (predominately compaction)

would occur as a result of development of

the small unpaved parking lot. Placement

of aesthetically blending barriers (e.g.,

wood fencing) around the small unpaved

parking facility at the west end of the park

would assist in minimizing vehicle trespass

(and, thus, impacts to soil resources)

beyond the identified parking limits.

Minor, short- and long-term impacts to soil

resources would occur in association with

development of primitive trails within the

contemplative zone. Impacts would include

trampling/loss of vegetation, soil compaction, and localized erosion, especially on

sloped land areas. These impacts would be

much more limited as compared to the noaction alternative and would be easily

mitigated by monitoring, re-vegetation of

disturbed areas, and visitor education.

Minor, temporary increases in soil erosion

would also occur as a result of restoration

activities that require ground disturbance

(e.g., restoration of railroad grade and

former agricultural fields) but would result

in overall long-term benefits to soil

resources in the park through stabilization

with native vegetation.
Impacts of Alternative A

121

Long-term natural erosion processes would

continue under alternative A.

Cumulative Effects. Minor to moderate

adverse impacts to soil resources through

accelerated erosion would continue on

lands surrounding the national historic site

as a result of historic and ongoing

unmitigated agricultural practices.

Conclusion. Permanent soil loss would

occur as a result of construction of the

offsite visitor center. Localized, moderate

long-term impacts (predominately soil

compaction) would occur in association

with the development of the small unpaved

parking facility at the west end of the park.

Minor short- and long-term impacts would

occur through vegetation loss, soil compaction, and localized erosion as a result of

primitive trail development within the

identified “contemplative” zone. These

impacts would be substantially less than

existing conditions due to the limited area

identified for onsite visitor access.

Air Quality

Analysis. Short-term, minor to moderate

impairments to local air quality and visibility would occur as a result of offsite construction of the visitor center. These

impacts would include increases in air

particulates (fugitive dust) and increased

vehicle emissions from heavy/motorized

equipment use. Mitigating measures, such

as watering to keep dust levels down,

would be used to minimize temporary

impacts to air quality and visibility.

Predicted increases in park visitation,

coupled with existing traffic patterns and

vehicle use, would likely result in negligible to moderate increases in localized air

emissions with temporary minor impacts to

near-range visibility. Impacts would be

greatest during seasons of peak visitation

(summer months) while negligible to minor

during the off season (winter months).

Impacts to local air quality would be

minimized by requesting vehicles to turn

off engines when parked.

Temporary, minor to moderate adverse

impacts to air quality and visibility would

also occur during restoration activities such

as prescribed burning and plowing. These

activities would be mitigated by burning

only under conditions that allow for

maximum smoke dispersal and by

minimizing ground disturbance activities,

such as plowing, under exceptionally

windy, dry conditions.

Cumulative Effects. Roger Mills County

remains predominately rural with agriculture serving as the dominant land use.

Additional external factors associated with

seasonal agricultural practices may

contribute to temporary impairments to

localized air quality and visibility. Use of

agricultural equipment would result in

increases in vehicle emissions and in air

particulates (e.g., fugitive dust). Vehicle

emissions and residential and commercial

developments in the nearby town of

Cheyenne serve as added minor, long-term

sources of localized air pollution. Air

quality issues external to the park would be

addressed through cooperative efforts

between the National Park Service, associated landowners, and the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality.

Conclusion. Alternative A would result in

overall minor, long-term adverse impacts to

localized air quality and visibility as a

result of increased visitation and vehicle

emissions. Short-term (1-2 days), minor to

moderate impacts to air quality would

occur as a result of prescribed burning and

other restoration activities that require
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

122

ground disturbance (e.g., creation of

fugitive dust).

Water Quality

Analysis. Minor, temporary impacts to

water quality may occur as a result of

increased sediment runoff during offsite

visitor center construction activities.

Temporary impacts to water quality would

be mitigated through use of appropriate

erosion control measures during construction operations and through regular

inspections of equipment to guard against

potential adverse impact to surface or

ground waters as a result of leakage of

petroleum-based or other hazardous

chemical substances (e.g., hydraulic fluid).

Equipment operators would be required to

stop work and immediately contact the park

superintendent should any leaks or

breakage of equipment fluid lines occur.

Predicted increases in visitation and

associated use of the overlook parking

facility would increase the potential for

surface runoff of petroleum-based products

and other chemicals (e.g., oil, gasoline,

coolant). Elimination of the existing trail

system would decrease sediment runoff

into surface waters as a result of trail

erosion. Negligible to minor, long-term

sediment runoff would occur as a result of

soil erosion issues associated with

development of primitive trails within the

“contemplative” zone.

Restoration activities would result in longterm benefits to water resources within the

park by establishing healthy stands of

native vegetation, reducing the land area

susceptible to erosion, and by reducing

rates of sediment and surface water runoff

(e.g., increased water retention and

filtration).

Cumulative Effects. There are numerous

potential sources of water contamination in

the Washita River watershed upstream of

the battlefield. Potential sources include

wastes emitted from livestock, humans, and

wildlife, leaching of fertilizers and

pesticides from surrounding agricultural

lands, leachate from unlined drilling-mud

disposal pits near the river, oil drilling and

production, and from volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) used or spilled at an

airport and other commercial establishments upgradient Project Proposal, 1999).

Preliminary water quality testing of the

Washita River (within the park) has identified the presence of EPA acceptable levels

of four pesticides (Atrazine, Deethylatrazine, Prometon, and Tebuthiuron) and

seasonally high counts of fecal coliform

and fecal streptococcal bacteria which

substantially exceeded the states primary

contact standards for swimming. Sources

for the pesticide and fecal bacteria detected

are external to the park and are most likely

associated with upstream agricultural land

uses.

Potential impacts to water quality within

the Washita River may also occur as a

result of the proposed expansion of a waste

pit facility 2 miles to the west (upstream) of

the park. Until recently, this facility consisted of a commercial saltwater disposal

well used primarily for the injection of

saline waters produced in the oil and gas

drilling process into a deep aquifer. The

facility has received approval from the

Oklahoma Corporation Commission to

expand commercial operations by developing three 350’ x 1150’ earthen pits (evaporative ponds) for the disposal of oil field

wastes including water-based drilling fluids

and/or cuttings and salt-contaminated soils

(Reber, et. al. 1999). These new disposal
Impacts of Alternative A

123

pits will lie approximately 1⁄4 mile up

gradient from the Washita River.

Water pollution issues occurring external to

the park would be addressed through

cooperative efforts between the National

Park Service, associated landowners, and

the Oklahoma, Department of

Environmental Quality.

Conclusion. Negligible to minor, longterm adverse impacts to water quality

would occur as a result of increased

petroleum-based runoff from parking

facilities and as a result of localized erosion

related runoff adjacent to primitive trail

areas. Overall, long-term beneficial impacts

to water quality would occur as restoration

activities progress, reducing rates of

sediment and surface water runoff (e.g.,

increasing water retention and filtration).

Vegetation

Analysis. Minor vegetation losses would

occur immediately adjacent to the overlook

area and in association with the primitive

trails within the “contemplative” zone.

Limitations to site access would allow for

maximum restoration of vegetation

communities while eliminating potential for

further human-induced adverse impacts to

vegetation resources.

Minor, long-term adverse impacts to native

vegetation would be expected in areas

immediately adjacent to parking facilities

and adjacent to primitive trail edges. These

impacts would include trampling/loss of

native vegetation, soil compaction, accelerated soil erosion on sloped topographies,

and the development of appropriate conditions of the spread and establishment of

non-native plant species. Impacts associated with the west end parking facility

would be minimized by the placement of

aesthetically blending barriers (e.g., wood

fencing) to assist in minimizing vehicle

trespass (and, thus, impacts to vegetation

resources) beyond the identified parking

limits.

Historic alterations to vegetation as a result

of agricultural land uses, fire suppression,

non-native plant establishent, and

alterations natural hydrologic processes

(e.g., flooding) have resulted in substantial

modification to vegetation resources as

compared to the 1868 time period. Historic

degradation (or loss) of native vegetation is

most notable within the riparian and floodplain communities within the park. hese

community types are dominated by aggressive non-native plants such as tamarisk, old

world bluestem, and downy brome.

The presence of numerous exotic (nonnative) plant species both internal and

external to the park represents a substantial

threat to park vegetation resources. Exotic

species impacts internal to the park would

be mitigated by restoration activities and

through implementation of an integrated

weed management program. The park

would work cooperatively with local

landowners to resolve external invasive

plant issues.

Short-term adverse impacts to native vegetation as a result of earth moving, and

reshaping of natural contours associated

with restoration of the abandoned railroad

grade and previous agriculture field areas,

would occur. These impacts would be

mitigated by salvage of native plant

materials for re-planting whenever possible

and by limiting the work zone to the

minimum area necessary. Prescribed

burning would be used to assist in the

restoration and maintenance of native plant

habitats. Restoration activities would
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

124

provide overall, major, long-term benefits

to park vegetation resources.

Cumulative Effects. Historic alterations

through agriculture land uses, fire suppression, establishment of non-native species,

and alterations to natural hydrologic

processes have resulted in substantial

degradation to the regional vegetative

resources. Historic and current, unmitigated

over-grazing and agricultural cropping

activities have resulted in have resulted in

regionwide losses of native plant diversity

and reductions in overall plant community

health. These impacts will have moderate,

adverse impacts to the parks vegetative

resources through substantial reductions in

natural plant recruitment/migrations and

through loss of potential for genetic

exchange.

Conclusion. Localized, minor, long-term

losses to native vegetation immediately

adjacent to the overlook, west end parking

facility and associated with primitive trail

development would occur under alternative

A. Impacts would be highly localized and

would include trampling/ loss of native

vegetation, soil compaction, and erosion.

Restoration activities and the restriction of

visitor access to a much smaller area (as

compared to the no-action alternative)

would result in the highest levels of longterm benefits to vegetation resources.

Wildlife

Analysis. Habitat fragmentation within the

floodplain and upland habitats resulting

from the existing trail system would be

removed. Impacts to wildlife would be

minimized under alternative A by limiting

visitor access to the overlook and

associated “contemplative” zone.

Adverse impacts to wildlife species

resulting from ambient noise created by

visitor use under existing conditions would

be substantially reduced for most of the

park land area under alternative A.

Ambient noise levels would be increased

within the smaller designated

“contemplative” zone as a result of more

concentrated visitor use. Short-term, minor

to moderate, disruption of wildlife species

as a result of concentrated noise increases

adjacent to the overlook would be

expected. Impacts would be greatest during

periods of peak visitation (summer

months).

Habitat loss as a result of previous human

disturbances and the presence of numerous

non-native plant species substantially

threaten the wildlife diversity at the park.

These historic impacts would be partially

mitigated through restoration activities that

would re-establish native plant

communities. Although restoration

activities would have short-term, adverse

impact to some wildlife species as a result

of temporary losses in vegetative cover and

increases in ambient noise levels, the end

result would be substantial enhancement of

habitats for wildlife use.

Use of prescribed fire would be timed to

avoid major breeding seasons for sensitive

wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, reptiles,

ground nesting birds). “Walk-throughs” of

areas to be included in a prescribed burn

will be performed immediately prior to any

fire ignition to chase or alert wildlife

species. Ground burrowing animals would

be insulated from fire effects by soil depths

of 1 inch or more.

Alternative A would also afford the best

opportunity to restore, non-controversial,

extirpated wildlife species as found

appropriate.
Impacts of Alternative A

125

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife has

been historically affected by agricultural

land uses (grazing and cropping), fire

suppression, hydrologic alterations, and the

introduction of non-native species.

Cumulative impacts would be moderate to

major long-term adverse to regional

wildlife species diversity. The contribution

of Washita is very small in comparison to

the total cumulative impacts.

Conclusion. This alternative would result

predominately minor to moderate, shortterm, adverse impacts to various wildlife

species that live in or travel near the

overlook and associated “contemplative”

zone. Impacts would be most notable

during periods of peak visitation. There

would be overall long-term, major benefits

to wildlife species as a result of restoration

activities and limited visitor access

resulting in the substantial enhancement of

habitats for wildlife use.

Natural Soundscapes

Analysis. Temporary impacts to natural

sounds are currently experienced as a result

of noise originating predominately from

offsite areas (passing cars, farm

machinery). Minor increases in ambient

noise levels are expected with increases in

park visitation. Disturbances to natural

soundscapes will be more prevalent during

periods of peak visitation (summer months)

and predominately limited to the overlook

and associated “contemplative” zone.

Cumulative Effects. Surrounding land

uses are minimally disruptive to natural

soundscapes. Cumulative impacts would be

negligible to minor, long term, and adverse.

Conclusion. Although alternative A would

provide greater long-term benefits to

wildlife species through the reduction in

disruptions to natural soundscapes, the

limited area identified for visitor use would

have seasonal, minor to moderate adverse

impact to park visitors. Increases in visitor

concentrations within a smaller unit of area

would result in a diminished ability for the

visitor to enjoy natural sounds.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE,

EXPERIENCE AND

INTERPRETATION

Analysis

Under this alternative visitor use would

continue to grow at a moderate pace. The

construction of a visitor center offsite would

probably attract more visitors than the noaction alternative. The average length of

stay would be longer than in the no-action

alternative because visitors would spend

considerable time at the visitor center,

particularly if there were special events or

demonstrations available, before heading out

to the site itself. Increased visitor stays

would likely increase visitor understanding

and enjoyment of park resources and

significance, yielding a moderate, positive,

long-term impact on the visitor experience.

A combined-agency visitor center at the

Forest Service site would provide visitors

with a convenient place to receive an

extensive orientation to the park, its themes,

and its significance. Increased understanding

of park themes and significance would

increase resource stewardship and visitor

enjoyment. Combining facilities and

interpretation with the Forest Service would

provide added convenience for visitors and

increase the breadth of the interpretation of

natural and cultural resources. Locating the

visitor center on the Forest Service site, with

its expanded views, would provide visitors
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

126

with opportunities to understand more of the

story and more of the context of the events

of Washita. Cultural demonstrations at the

visitor center would increase visitor

understanding of and respect for other

cultures. These actions would yield a

moderate, positive, long-term impact on the

visitor experience by increasing visitor

understanding and enjoyment of the site and

its resources.

The development of a visitor center would

provide new opportunities to cooperate and

coordinate with the Cheyenne Arapaho tribe

to provide educational programs and

demonstrations. The visitor center would

also provide enhanced opportunities for

visitors to learn of the variety of regionally

available experiences and opportunities to

learn about Cheyenne Arapaho culture.

These actions would increase visitor and

local community members’ understanding of

Washita battlefield, the events that occurred

there, and the significance of the park. This

would provide a minor to moderate, positive

impact on the visitor experience at the park.

Some continuity in mood and experience

would be lost when visitors exited the visitor

center, had to reload in their vehicle, and

drive out to the site. It is also possible that

some visitors bypass the visitor center and

would head straight out to the site, missing

the opportunity to learn about the park

themes and significance. This would result

in moderate, long-term negative impacts for

those visitors who missed the visitor center,

and minor, long-term negative impacts for

those visitors who lost continuity in mood

and experience.

Visitors would learn the entire story at the

offsite visitor center but would have the

opportunity to visit a few areas of the park

to further enhance their learning experience.

The overlook’s impact on the historic scene

would be reduced when the overlook was

redesigned. Visitors would experience a

more restored landscape onsite, helping

them imagine and appreciate the events of

1868.

Minimal facilities and high-quality localized

interpretation would help visitors feel that

the park is something sacred, something

hallowed. This would have a moderate,

positive, long-term impact on those visitors

who value the site as a reflective and sacred

experience.

Those visitors wanting to access the entire

park might be disappointed by the lack of

trails or other onsite facilities. Visitors with

mobility impairments would have access to

the river. Visitors would get less of a firsthand experience of the site and its resources,

and would therefore not understand the park

story as intimately. This would have a

moderate, long-term, negative impact on

visitors’ ability to understand and appreciate

the site and its significance.

Those visitors wishing to have a reflective

experience would have opportunities for this

type of experience in the small contemplative area on the west side of the park and the

area surrounding the overlook. This area

also would provide relatively easy access to

the river for those visitors who wish to

experience the river.

This alternative would proactively manage

for a contemplative onsite experience with

little to no onsite visitor use. This would

provide moderate long-term positive impacts

for those visitors who do not think visitors

should be encouraged to walk on the

battlefield site.

Because there would be minimal communication between onsite visitors and park staff
Impacts of Alternative A

127

or emergency services, the response time for

visitor emergencies could be long. This

could have a minor, negative, long-term

impact on visitor safety.

Cumulative Effects

As previously mentioned, under this

alternative there would be increased

coordination with the Cheyenne Arapaho

tribe to provide educational opportunities

and demonstrations. The visitor center

would provide visitors and local residents

with information about other related sites

where they could learn more about the event

and the Cheyenne Arapaho. In addition to

this National Park Service action, several

regional historical groups and tribes are

developing organized tours of cultural and

historical sites in Oklahoma. The new visitor

center would likely be a stop on these tours

and increase the potential to educate a wider

audience. The impacts of this increased

audience, in combination with the impacts

of wider cooperation with the Cheyenne

Arapaho, would have a minor, positive,

long-term impact on the visitor center’s

ability to educate a wide audience.

Under this alternative the Oklahoma

Historical Society’s Black Kettle Museum

would likely be converted to some other

museum use once the National Park Service

visitor center was operational. The impacts

of this action, taken in conjunction with the

National Park Service construction of a

visitor center under this alternative, would

result in minor, positive impacts on the

educational opportunities for visitors and

residents of Cheyenne.

Conclusion

Visitors would have increased opportunities

to learn about Washita Battlefield but

minimal first-hand opportunities to

experience the park. This alternative would

result in minor, long-term positive impacts

on the visitor experience.

IMPACTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Analysis

Implementation of alternative A could have

moderate impacts on the socioeconomic

environment of the local community. The

visitor center might increase the average

length of stay for visitors, leading visitors to

spend slightly more money in the local

community. Visitation to the park would

gradually increase over time, which could

increase business activity in the local area.

These actions would result in increased

positive benefits of a minor to moderate

degree over the long term for a small

number of firms and/or individuals, mostly

those concentrated in the tourism and

service industries.

Some roadwork or road widening might

need to take place around the visitor center

site. Increasing visitation would also cause

some increase in the amount of traffic in

Cheyenne and on local highways, potentially

causing some inconvenience to local

residents and increased traffic hazards. This

would result in minor to moderate, negative,

long-term impacts on local residents.

The development of a visitor center and site

work would provide some moderate to

major, positive, short-term economic

benefits for a limited number of individuals

and the enterprises involved with the

development. These benefits would mostly

be concentrated in the construction and

materials sectors, and could either be local
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

128

or regional depending on the contractors

selected.

Cumulative Effects

No known cumulative impacts on tourism,

recreational opportunities, or the local and

regional economy would be expected.

Conclusion

Under this alternative there would be minor

to moderate positive impacts on the

socioeconomic environment, both short and

long term, with possible minor, negative

impacts on the road traffic in Cheyenne.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

There would be some alterations to the

cultural landscape to accommodate visitors

and their vehicles. Outside the area there

would be changes due to additional traffic

on the roadway.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

MAINTENANCE AND

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

Restoring the prairie vegetation within the

park would enhance long-term productivity

of the biological resources associated within

the boundary.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF

RESOURCES

Like the preferred alternative, the loss of soil

due to construction of new facilities would

be an irreversible commitment of resources.

The planning team is not aware of any other

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of

resources that would occur.
129

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

Analysis. At the onsite visitor center,

visitors would have an opportunity to learn

about the important role that archeological

resources have in telling the story of the

1868 encounter. This understanding would

have immediate reinforcement as visitors

move directly into the park.

Under alternative B more areas of the park

are open to visitation, increasing the potential for unauthorized collecting. However,

the influence of other visitors, interpretive

programs, and law enforcement presence

would increase stewardship and help reduce

collecting or damage to archeological

resources. Adverse impacts to archeological

resources would be long-term, negligible to

minor.

New facilities (the visitor center/ administrative facility, the overlook, and contemplative areas would be built in previously

disturbed areas inside the park. Surveys and

testing have identified the locations of

archeological resources, and management

zones were carefully drawn to reflect

locations and sensitivity of these resources.

Inventoried resources have been evaluated

for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places, and mitigation measures

have been developed to protect significant

resources. Plans for the new facilities were

specially designed to avoid significant

resources, stop-work provisions would be

included in construction documents in case

unknown resources are discovered, and an

archeologist would monitor grounddisturbing activities.

However, since trails and other development

would extend into more areas across the

park than in other alternatives, there would

be a slightly increased chance of artifact loss

due to construction. Mitigation would help

reduce long-term adverse impacts of

development on archeological resources so

impacts are minor.

Damage to archeological resources from

natural forces such as erosion and rodent

activities would continue to have a longterm, adverse effect. However, increased

presence of park personnel would allow

closer monitoring and maintenance of

archeological resources, and would aid in

recovery of important information where

sites are threatened. This would result in

negligible, long-term adverse impacts on

archeological sites.

Cumulative Effects. Impacts would be the

same as the preferred alternative. That is,

long-term, moderate adverse cumulative

effects would result from continuing hobby

collecting, construction, and natural

processes.

Conclusion. Interpretive messages and law

enforcement presence would decrease

potential for unauthorized collecting so

long-term adverse impacts to archeological

resources would be negligible to minor.

Increased presence of park personnel would

result in negligible, long-term, adverse

impacts on archeological sites from natural

processes.

A variety of mitigating measures would help

ensure that facility development would have

only minor long-term adverse impacts on

archeological resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

130

Cultural Landscape

Analysis. During development associated

with this alternative, short-term minor

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape

would occur from construction (e.g.,

presence of heavy equipment, denuded

ground surfaces, dust, and noise) which

would be distracting to visitors and staff.

Restoration activities would result in longterm, moderate beneficial impacts by

removing intrusions and restoring the prairie

within the park. This restoration, coupled

with cooperative efforts with local

landowners, would help reduce visual

intrusions not only within the park, but also

in the broader viewshed and NHL

surrounding the park.

Construction of trails, new facilities at the

overlook, the west end contemplative area,

and the visitor center area all would have

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape.

Thus all possible mitigating measures would

be implemented. Careful design would

consider mass, scale, location and use of

natural appearing materials for facilities. All

the NPS facilities would share a unified

design character, and sustainability would

also be considered in this landscape.

Throughout the park revegetation with

native materials and use of topography and

natural vegetation screening to hide trails

and other facilities would help to blend

facilities into the surrounding landscape.

However, the visitor center and its parking

area would be visible from the overlook and

from other areas within the extended

learning zone. The positive impacts of

restoration of the park landscape would be

counterbalanced by the intrusive views of

these new facilities that diminish the integrity of the cultural landscape. The result

would be a moderate, long-term adverse

effect on the landscape.

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative

impacts described for the preferred

alternative would be applicable for this

alternative as well. These moderate, longterm adverse cumulative impacts have

resulted from a century or more of changes

(towns, farms, roads, etc.) to the prairie

landscape and are expected to continue in

the future. However, little new development

or change in the immediate vicinity of the

park is expected.

When impacts of alternative B are combined

with the other past, present, and foreseeable

future human activities, long-term, moderate

adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural

landscape would result.

Conclusion. Construction would cause

short-term moderate adverse impacts on the

cultural landscape due to large vehicles,

disturbed ground surface, etc.

Long-term impacts on the landscape would

be both adverse and beneficial.

Prairie restoration would have long-term,

minor beneficial impacts on the park and the

surrounding NHL district by removing some

intrusions and restoring the prairie.

New and replacement facilities would

intrude on the cultural landscape of the park.

Even with mitigation, a moderate long-term

adverse impact would result.

Cumulative impacts on the landscape would

be adverse, moderate and long-term. The

adverse cumulative impacts on the

landscape would slightly more than those

described under the preferred alternative

because of the visual intrusion of the larger
Impacts of Alternative B

131

and more numerous visitor facilities within

the park.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis. Short-term adverse impacts of

construction on tribal activities would be

avoided or reduced by notifying tribes of

potential construction dates and locales. All

efforts would be made to accommodate

tribal needs during this time.

Long-term impacts of this alternative on

ethnographic resources would be both

adverse and beneficial. Representatives of

American Indian tribes participated in

development of this and the other alternatives to help ensure their concerns were

incorporated into the planning process.

Management zones were carefully delineated to reflect tribal concerns about visitor

use of sensitive areas such as the village site.

Visitors would be directed to non-sensitive

areas, and development site designs were

structured to avoid impacts on culturally

sensitive areas. For example, the Extended

Learning zone and visitor use trails avoid

intrusion on Black Kettle’s camp area. The

visitor center would be placed in a

previously disturbed site away from the

main areas of cultural sensitivity. The park

would continue to consult with tribes to

ensure that no ethnographic resources are

impacted.

Interpretive messages would help visitors

appreciate the traditional cultural values of

the park, and would help them understand

the depth of respect and caring tribes have

for Washita. Interpretive trails would allow

visitors to see the areas where the conflict

occurred, and would improve their overall

understanding of the events before, during,

and after the battle. All these efforts would

provide moderate long-term benefits for

ethnographic resources and values.

However, the presence of the onsite visitor

center and trails crossing the river could at

times allow visitors to intrude on the privacy

tribes would like to have as they come here

to commemorate the loss of their ancestors.

The result would be a long-term, minor

adverse effect on ethnographic resources.

Since the visitor center would be located

onsite, there would not be opportunities for

tribal demonstrations or other non-religious

activities that might be considered

inappropriate on site. For example, some

demonstrations such as traditional gardens

might be inappropriate on site because they

might be out of keeping with the feeling that

this area is hallowed ground. Such

constraints would result in minor, long-term

adverse impacts.

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative

impacts on ethnographic resources would be

similar to those described for the preferred

alternative. However, there would be

somewhat less guarantee of privacy for

American Indians who come to conduct

religious services. Over time this could

create minor, adverse impacts on traditional

cultural practices at a tribal level. This

would tend to reduce some of the positive

impact of improved access and interpretive

programs.

Conclusion. Long-term moderate beneficial

impacts would result from this alternative

due to improved tribal access and public

understanding of Indian concerns. On the

other hand, American Indians might not

have the privacy they desire to conduct their

religious and commemorative activities,

resulting in minor, long-term adverse

impacts. Beneficial cumulative impacts

would be reduced slightly because the onsite
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

132

visitor center would create more potential

for disturbances to ceremonies that might

eventually result in broader changes in tribal

practices.

Collections

Analysis. The impacts of this alternative

would be the same as in the preferred

alternative. That is, documentation of

artifacts and acquisition of archival

materials would enhance the park’s

collections. New facilities would provide

appropriate curatorial and research space.

These changes would have a moderate,

long-term beneficial effect on the collections, including their interpretive and

research potential. However, slightly less

space would be available for curation and

research facilities than in other alternatives.

Cumulative Effects. The impacts would be

the same as the preferred alternative.

Continuing adverse cumulative impacts

from scattered collections, inadequate

curation, and difficulty in research would be

reduced through improved accountability,

curation, and access for researchers under

this alternative. The end result would be

long-term, minor beneficial cumulative

impacts on collections and archival

materials relevant to the park’s significance.

Conclusion. Implementation of this alternative would have a moderate, long-term,

beneficial effect on collections through

improved accountability, curation and

access for researchers. Over time, cumulative impacts would be minor and beneficial,

due to the same reasons.

SECTION 106 SUMMARY

Under the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800.9)

addressing the criteria of effect and adverse

effect, the NPS finds that implementation of

the Alternative B would affect cultural

resources eligible for the National Register.

Impacts of this alternative on archeological

resources and collections would not be

adverse. The cultural landscape and

ethnographic values could be adversely

affected.

Interpretive messages and onsite lawenforcement presence would encourage

visitor stewardship and reduce the potential

for unauthorized artifact collection. Park

staff would monitor sites to ensure that

natural processes such as rodent digging or

erosion did not damage sites.

Development would occur in disturbed areas

lacking significant archeological resources;

these areas and archeological site locations

were identified during past archeological

surveys. Sites have been evaluated for

national register eligibility.

An appropriate level of survey, testing, and

archeological monitoring would accompany

prairie restoration so no adverse impacts on

important cultural resources would be

expected.

Mitigation measures described above under

the preferred alternative and in the

“Alternatives, Including the Preferred

Alternative” part would be employed to

ensure that archeological resources were not

adversely affected.

The overlook, road, trails, visitor center, and

parking would intrude on the cultural

landscape. A variety of measures, including

vegetation screening, attention to mass,

scale, location, and use of natural appearing
Impacts of Alternative B

133

materials would be employed to reduce

these impacts. However, the overall impact

on the cultural landscape would be adverse,

and further Section 106 compliance would

be required.

The park would work with visitors to

prevent loss of offerings or disturbance of

religious activities. However, visitors might

occasionally collect offerings or intrude on

tribes who have come to the site to

commemorate their ancestors. This would

result in adverse impacts on ethnographic

values, and necessitate further Section 106

compliance.

New facilities and programs would benefit

collections by providing increased resource

protection and preservation, additional

research potential, acquisition of badly

needed materials, and heightened accountability for collections. The end result would

be beneficial to collections and archival

materials.

The park would work cooperatively with

their neighbors and with the U.S. Forest

Service to help protect resources in the

national historic landmark district.

Construction of the visitor center in the

district would be an adverse effect and

would require further Section 106

compliance.

Should unknown resources be discovered

during ongoing park programs or construction, mitigation would be carried out under

guidance of the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation procedures (36 CFR

800).

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Soils

Analysis. Long-term, negative impacts to

local soil horizons, increased soil

compaction, loss of soil permeability,

moisture content, and soil water storage

capacity would occur in areas affected by

construction of an onsite visitor center, new

parking facilities, and through expansion

and surface hardening (partial or total) of

the trail system. Adverse impacts to soil

resources would be specifically related to

the removal of natural materials in visitor

center and trail construction, soil compaction as a result of grading and heavy equipment use, and/or the hardening of ground

surfaces. Construction of a visitor center

and administration and maintenance

facilities would impact about 10 acres of

land. All of the land has previously been

used for farming or was the residence and

out building for the farm. There would be

approximately 1.4 miles of utility lines for

water and sewage connection to the city

and this would disturb about 0.5 acres.

Temporary exposure of bare soils during

construction activities would result in

short-term erosion issues. Use of

appropriate erosion control measures and

limiting the amount of time that soil was

left exposed would assist in minimizing

temporary erosion issues as a result of

facility developments. Revegetation with

native vegetation of the disturbed work

zones as soon as construction was

completed would also assist in mitigating

impacts to soil resources.

The expansion of trail areas, including a

section that would cross the river to allow

access to the north side of the park, would

result in minor to moderate, long-term
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

134

impacts to soil resources. Impacts would

include loss of vegetation soil compaction

(and the associated loss of soil

permeability) and accelerated erosion,

especially on sloped topographies. A

greater level of adverse impact would occur

to the riverbank as a result of construction

of a trail crossing.

High potential would exist for off-trail

visitor use within areas designated as

“contemplative” or for “extended learning.”

These impacts would be minor to moderate

depending on the level of off-trail

developments and would be similar to

impacts identified for official trail areas.

Adverse impacts to soil resources as a

result of both official and unofficial trail

expansions would be partially mitigated by

monitoring of trail areas, closure and

restoration of trail sections determined to

have unacceptable levels of damage, and by

visitor education. Mitigation would not be

as effective as in the no-action alternative

because of greater parkwide development

and the associated potential for impacts to

the larger land base.

Minor, temporary increases in soil erosion

would also occur as a result of restoration

activities that require ground disturbance

(e.g., restoration of railroad grade and

former agricultural fields) but would result

in overall long-term benefits to soil

resources in the park through stabilization

with native vegetation.

Long-term natural erosion processes would

continue under alternative B.

Cumulative Effects. Minor to moderate

adverse impacts to soil resources through

accelerated erosion would continue on

lands surrounding the national historic site

as a result of historic and ongoing unmitigated agricultural practices.

Conclusion. Permanent loss of soil

resources would occur as a result of onsite

visitor center and associated parking lot

development. Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to soil resources

would occur in areas associated with onsite

trail expansions (official and unofficial).

These impacts would include vegetation

trampling/loss, soil compaction (and

associated loss of soil permeability), and

accelerated soil erosion. Impacts to soil

resources would be partially mitigated;

however, mitigation measures (e.g.,

monitoring, revegetation, visitor education)

would not be as effective as in the noaction alternative due to the larger land area

exposed to visitor use/impact.

Restoration actions would provide overall,

moderate, long-term benefits to soil

resources through stabilization of existing

disturbed sites with native vegetation.

Air Quality

Analysis. Temporary, minor to moderate

impairments to local air quality and visibility would occur as a result of construction activities in development of the onsite

visitor center, parking facilities, and trail

expansions. These impacts would include

increases in air particulates (fugitive dust)

and increased vehicle emissions from

heavy motorized equipment use. Mitigating measures, such as shutting off

equipment engines when not in use and

watering to keep dust levels down, would

be used to minimize temporary impacts to

air quality and visibility.

Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse

impacts to local air quality would occur as

a result of greater concentrations of

vehicles onsite (including buses). Impacts

would be greatest during periods of peak

visitation and relatively minor during non-
Impacts of Alternative B

135

peak time periods. These impacts would be

partially mitigated by requesting that all

vehicle engines be turned off when parked.

Minor to moderate, short-term, adverse

impacts to air quality and visibility would

also occur during restoration activities such

as prescribed burning and plowing. These

activities would be mitigated by burning

only under conditions that allow for

maximum smoke dispersal and by

minimizing ground disturbance activities

(e.g., plowing) under exceptionally windy,

dry conditions.

Cumulative Effects. Roger Mills County

remains predominately rural with agriculture serving as the dominant land use.

Additional external factors associated with

seasonal agricultural practices may

contribute to temporary impairments to

localized air quality and visibility. Use of

agricultural equipment would result in

increases in vehicle emissions and in air

particulates (, fugitive dust). Vehicle

emissions and residential and commercial

developments in the nearby town of

Cheyenne serve as added minor, long-term

sources of localized air pollution. Air

quality issues external to the park would be

addressed through cooperative efforts

among the National Park Service, associated landowners, and the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality.

Conclusion. Minor to moderate, short-term

impacts to air quality and near-range

visibility would occur as a result of increases in heavy equipment emissions and

air particulates during construction activities. Minor to moderate, long-term impacts

would also be expected due to increased

onsite visitor use and associated vehicle

concentration. Impacts would be greatest

during peak visitation (summer months).

Minor to moderate, short-term (1-2 days),

impacts to air quality would occur as a

result of prescribed burning and other

restoration activities that require ground

disturbance (e.g., creation of fugitive dust).

Water Quality

Analysis. Minor, short-term impacts to

water quality would occur as a result of

increased sediment runoff during onsite

construction activities. Temporary impacts

to water quality could be mitigated through

use of appropriate erosion control measures

during construction operations. Regular

inspections of equipment would guard

against any potential adverse impact to

surface or ground waters as a result of

leakage of petroleum-based or other

hazardous chemical substances (e.g.,

hydraulic fluid). Equipment operators

would be required to stop work and

immediately contact the park superintendent should any leaks or breakage of

equipment fluid lines occur.

Minor-to moderate, long-term adverse

impacts to water quality are likely to result

from increased onsite vehicle parking and

associated runoff of petroleum-based and

other hazardous chemicals. These impacts

would be partially mitigated through proper

parking facility design and inclusion of a

runoff filtration system.

Soil compaction (and subsequent losses in

soil permeability) would result in increased

soil erosion in association with trail areas

(hardened and unhardened). These impacts

would be minor to moderate and long term

in nature as a result of increases in

sediment runoff. Erosion and associated

sediment runoff would further increase

with the development of social trails within

the designated “contemplative” and

“extended learning” zones. Adverse
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

136

impacts to water quality as a result of soil

compaction and accelerated erosion would

be partially mitigated by monitoring,

closure and revegetation of areas

determined to have sustained unacceptable

levels of disturbance, and through visitor

education. The level of proposed onsite

development and visitor use under this

alternative would require much more

extensive monitoring and active mitigation

to control visitor use impacts as compared

to existing conditions.

Restoration activities would result in

moderate, long-term benefits to water

resources within the park by establishing

healthy stands of native vegetation,

reducing the land area susceptible to

erosion, and by reducing rates of sediment

and surface water runoff (e.g., increased

water retention and filtration).

Cumulative Effects. There are numerous

potential sources of water contamination in

the Washita River watershed upstream of

the battlefield. Potential sources include

wastes emitted from livestock, humans, and

wildlife; leaching of fertilizers and

pesticides from surrounding agricultural

lands; leachate from unlined drilling-mud

disposal pits near the river; oil drilling and

production; and from volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) used or spilled at an

airport and other commercial

establishments upgradient (Project

Proposal, 1999).

Preliminary water quality testing of the

Washita River within the park has

identified the presence of EPA-acceptable

levels of four pesticides (Atrazine,

Deethylatrazine, Prometon, and

Tebuthiuron) and seasonally high counts of

fecal coliform and fecal streptococcal

bacteria that substantially exceeded the

states primary contact standards for

swimming. Sources for the pesticide and

fecal bacteria detected are external to the

park and are most likely associated with

upstream agricultural land uses.

Potential impacts to water quality within

the Washita River might also occur as a

result of the proposed expansion of a waste

pit facility 2 miles west (upstream) of the

park. Until recently, this facility consisted

of a commercial saltwater disposal well

used primarily for the injection of saline

waters produced in the oil and gas drilling

process into a deep aquifer. The facility has

received approval from the Oklahoma

Corporation Commission to expand

commercial operations by developing three

350’ x 1150’ earthen pits (evaporative

ponds) for the disposal of oil field wastes,

including water-based drilling fluids and/or

cuttings and salt-contaminated soils (Reber,

et. al. 1999). These new disposal pits

would lie approximately 1⁄4 mile up gradient

from the Washita River.

Water pollution issues outside the park

would be addressed through cooperative

efforts among the National Park Service,

associated landowners, and the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality.

Conclusion. Minor to moderate, short-term

impacts to water quality would result from

onsite construction activities. Long-term,

minor to moderate adverse impacts would

occur to water quality as a result of parking

lot runoff and soil compaction and accelerated erosion in association with expanded

trail systems and increased onsite visitor

use. Long-term beneficial impacts would

occur as restoration activities progressed,

reducing rates of sediment and surface

water runoff (e.g., increasing water

retention and filtration), but these benefits

would be moderately offset by the

increased visitor use impacts.
Impacts of Alternative B

137

Vegetation

Analysis. Permanent vegetation loss would

occur as a result of construction of the new

onsite visitor center, development of the

visitor center parking lot (paved), west end

parking facility (unpaved), and trail system

expansions (including the hardening of

sections of trail). Impacts to vegetation

would be minimized during visitor center,

parking facility, and trail developments by

limiting access routes for equipment and

machinery and by limiting the size of the

work zone to only the minimum area

required. Onsite presence of park staff

during construction activities would also

serve to minimize adverse impacts to park

vegetation resources.

Minor to moderate, long-term, adverse

impacts to native vegetation would be

expected in areas immediately adjacent to

parking facilities and adjacent to trail

edges. These impacts would include

trampling/loss of native vegetation, soil

compaction (and associated loss of soil

permeability), accelerated soil erosion, and

the development of appropriate conditions

of the spread and establishment of nonnative plant species. Impacts associated

with parking facilities would be minimized

by the placement of aesthetically blending

barriers (e.g., wood fencing) around

parking facilities to constrain visitor access

to defined trail areas. Use of a barrier

would be especially important for the small

unpaved parking facility at the west end of

the park to assist in minimizing vehicle

trespass (and, thus, impacts to vegetation

resources) beyond the identified parking

limits.

Additional vegetation losses would occur

as off-trail visitor uses increased within the

“contemplative” and “extended learning”

zones. Habitat fragmentation throughout

most of the park’s vegetation habitats

would increase as a result of official and

unofficial trail expansions. Diligent monitoring of visitor use areas for signs of

disturbance, timely re-vegetation of

disturbed areas with native species, and

visitor education would assist in

minimizing impacts to vegetation

resources.

Historic alterations to vegetation as a result

of agricultural land uses, fire suppression,

non-native plant establishment, and

alterations in natural hydrologic processes

(e.g., flooding) have resulted in substantial

modification to vegetation resources as

compared to 1868. Historic degradation (or

loss) of native vegetation is most notable

within the riparian and floodplain

communities at the park. These community

types are dominated by aggressive nonnative plants such as tamarisk, old world

bluestem, and downy brome.

Alternative B would result in the

development of a trail crossing through the

riparian corridor. Although visitor access

within the corridor would remain limited,

unsolicited use would occur as a result of

visitors attempting to get closer to the

river’s edge. Social trail development

within the riparian corridor would result in

minor to moderate, adverse impacts as

identified above for the “contemplative”

and “extended learning” zones. Removal of

vegetation from river- bank areas would

also add additional impacts related to

destabilization and accelerated bank

erosion. Again, these impacts would be

partially mitigated by monitoring,

revegetation of disturbed areas, and visitor

education.

Parkwide restoration activities including

the use of prescribed fire, integrated weed

(non-native plant) management, the
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138

removal of sections of the abandoned

railroad grade, and the subsequent reestablishment of healthy native plant

communities within the park would result

in long-term benefits to vegetation

resources.

Cumulative Effects. Historic alterations

through agriculture land uses, fire suppression, establishment of non-native

species, and alterations to natural

hydrologic processes have resulted in

substantial degradation to the regional

vegetative resources. Historic and current

unmitigated overgrazing and agricultural

cropping activities have resulted in regionwide losses of native plant diversity and

reductions in overall plant community

health. These impacts would have moderate

adverse impacts to the parks vegetative

resources through substantial reductions in

natural plant recruitment/ migrations and

through loss of potential for genetic

exchange.

Although the park would work cooperatively with local landowners to resolve

external invasive plant issues, the presence

of numerous unmitigated populations of

non-native plant species outside the park

would represents a long-term moderate

threat (potential for re-invasion) to park

vegetation.

Conclusion. Alternative B would result in

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on

vegetation resources in association with

visitor use/development areas. Although

restoration activities would result in overall

long-term benefits to park vegetation

resources, the level of active vegetation

management required to maintain healthy

native plant communities would

substantially increase as a result of

expanded onsite visitor access and uses.

Wildlife

Analysis. Temporary displacement and

moderate direct loss of wildlife species

would occur during construction activities

associated with the proposed trail

expansion/hardening and development of

the onsite visitor center and new parking

facilities. These impacts would have a

greater effect on smaller, less mobile

wildlife species (e.g., amphibians and

reptiles) or species with smaller home

ranges.

The placement of an onsite visitor center

and associated parking facilities would

result in long-term moderate to major

adverse impacts to wildlife species.

Increases in vehicle/visitor levels and

associated noise, especially during periods

of peak visitation, would likely eliminate

noise sensitive species that currently live or

use land areas adjacent to these proposed

facilities. Selection for more noise-tolerant

species would be a possible secondary

impact, especially in areas of heaviest

visitor use.

The proposed trail expansions and visitor

use of “contemplative” and “extended

learning” zones would distribute visitors

(and associated noise) over a substantial

larger area of the park as compared to

existing conditions. Potential would exist

for increased wildlife-visitor encounters/

interactions, again increasing direct and

indirect disruptions to wildlife species.

Impacts to species relying on sound as a

form of communication (especially during

breeding seasons) would be most adversely

affected as a result of the wider distribution

of human-caused sources of noise

parkwide.

Habitat loss as a result of previous human

disturbances and the presence of numerous
Impacts of Alternative B

139

non-native plant species substantially

threaten the wildlife diversity at the park.

These historic impacts would be partially

mitigated through restoration activities that

would re-establish native plant communities. Although restoration activities would

have short term, adverse impacts to some

wildlife species as a result of temporary

losses in vegetative cover and minor

increases in ambient noise levels, the end

result would be substantial enhancement of

habitats for wildlife use.

Use of prescribed fire would be timed to

avoid major breeding seasons for sensitive

wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, reptiles,

ground nesting birds). “Walk-throughs” of

areas to be included in a prescribed burn

would be performed immediately before

any fire ignition to chase or alert wildlife

species. Ground burrowing animals would

be insulated from fire effects by soil depths

of 1 inch or more.

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife has

been historically affected by agricultural

land uses (grazing and cropping), fire

suppression, hydrologic alterations, and the

introduction of non-native species.

Cumulative impacts would be moderate to

major long-term adverse to regional

wildlife species diversity. The contribution

of Washita is very small in comparison to

the total cumulative impacts.

Conclusion. This alternative would result

in moderate to major, short- and long-term

impacts to various wildlife species that live

on or travel near the park area. Impacts

would be most severe during periods of

peak visitation and/or during sensitive

breeding seasons for wildlife.

Natural Soundscapes

Analysis. Short-term minor to moderate

impacts to natural sounds would be

experienced as a result of ambient noise

originating from offsite sources (e.g.,

passing cars, farm machinery). Moderate to

major, temporary adverse impacts to

natural soundscapes are expected during

construction of the onsite visitor center,

parking, and trail facilities (e.g., heavy

equipment use). Construction noise impacts

to visitors would be mitigated by

performing work, as much as possible,

during nonpeak visitor seasons. Construction noise impacts to wildlife would be

minimized by avoiding sensitive time

periods related to reproductive cycles (e.g.,

frog calling).

Minor to moderate short-term increases in

ambient noise levels would occur as a

result of increased levels of onsite parking

and visitor use. These disturbances would

be more prevalent during periods of peak

visitation (summer months) and in

association with land areas connected to the

visitor center facility. Increases in ambient

noise levels would be partially mitigated by

requesting that all vehicle engines be shut

off when parked.

Distribution of visitors over a larger trail

system would also serve to partially

mitigate some noise impacts associated

with visitor use, however, diminished

natural soundscapes would be expected

parkwide during times of peak visitation.

Cumulative Effects. Surrounding land

uses are minimally disruptive to natural

soundscapes. Cumulative impacts would be

negligible to minor, short term, and

adverse.

Conclusion. Activities and uses proposed

under this alternative would result in minor
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140

to moderate, predominately short-term,

adverse impacts to natural soundscapes.

Impacts would increase as the levels of

park visitation increased.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE,

EXPERIENCE, AND

INTERPRETATION

Analysis

Under this alternative visitor use would

continue to grow at a moderate pace. The

construction of a visitor center would

probably attract more visitors than the noaction alternative. The average length of

stay would be longer than in the no-action

alternative because visitors would spend

considerable time at the visitor center, or on

the trails at the site. This would have a

moderate, long-term, positive impact on the

visitor experience by increasing visitor

understanding and appreciation of the site’s

themes and significance.

Building a visitor center onsite would

provide visitors with a conveniently located

facility in which to receive an extensive

orientation to the park, its themes, and its

significance. Increased understanding of

park themes and significance would increase

resource stewardship and visitor enjoyment.

This would have a moderate, long-term,

positive impact on the visitor experience.

Integration of visitor facilities into the site

would provide continuity in the interpretation and visitor experience. Visitors would

be able to walk directly from the visitor

center out on to the site, which would be

more convenient, provide continuity in their

experience, and help maintain a reflective

mood at the park. This would have a minor

to moderate, long-term, positive impact on

the visitor experience by increasing visitor

convenience and helping to promote an

appropriate mood for the visitor.

The development of a visitor center would

provide new opportunities to cooperate and

coordinate with the Cheyenne Arapaho tribe

to provide educational programs and limited

demonstrations. The visitor center would

also provide enhanced opportunities for

visitors to learn of the variety of regionally

available experiences and opportunities to

learn about Cheyenne Arapaho culture.

These actions would increase visitor and

local community members’ understanding of

the Washita battlefield, the events that

occurred there, and the significance of the

park. This would provide a minor to

moderate, positive impact on the visitor

experience at the park.

Because there would be more opportunities

to construct formal trails, provide ranger-led

walks, and develop wayside exhibits,

visitors would have more opportunity to

access and learn about the park than in the

no-action alternative. Visitors could

experience the resource on their own or with

park staff in a manner that would help to

provide a sense of place. Visitors would

have the opportunity to view the village site

from two different viewpoints, helping them

to better understand the military approach to

the location. Visitors with mobility impairments would have considerably more access

to the park than in the no-action alternative.

By increasing visitor contact with the

primary park resources, these actions would

have a moderate, long-term, positive impact

on the visitor experience. However, these

actions would have a moderate, long-term,

negative impact on those visitors who think

visitor access onto the site should not be

encouraged.

The visitor center and associated parking,

while built on a previously disturbed area,
Impacts of Alternative B

141

would be an intrusion on the historic scene.

The low topography and vegetation of the

visitor center site would help minimize this

impact, and the impact could also be

partially mitigated through proper design

and landscaping. However, this construction

would still have a moderate, long-term,

negative impact on visitors’ ability to

appreciate and view a relatively undisturbed

historic scene and those visitors who thought

development of the visitor center near the

battlefield site was inappropriate.

The redesigned overlook and parking would

have less of a visual impact on the historic

scene, and visitors would experience a more

restored landscape in this portion of the park

than in the no-action alternative. These

features of this alternative would provide

visitors with a better opportunity to imagine

the scene as it was in 1868, providing a

minor, long-term, positive impact on the

visitor experience.

Under this alternative there would be limited

opportunities for cultural demonstrations,

which would need to take place inside the

visitor center or at an offsite location. This

would result in some increase in visitor

understanding of and respect for other

cultures. This would have a minor, longterm, positive impact on the visitors’ ability

to understand the event from multiple

perspectives.

Visitors would continue to be confused and

inconvenienced by the two government

headquarters within 1 mile of each other.

There would continue to be minimal

opportunities to share programs with the

Forest Service. This would result in the

continuation of a minor, long-term, negative

impact on the experience of park and USFS

visitors.

While visitors would not have opportunities

to experience solitude or natural quiet at the

overlook or the onsite visitor center, they

would have ample opportunity for quiet and

solitude on the park trails. Those visitors

wishing to have a reflective experience

would have additional opportunities for this

type of experience in the small contemplative area on the west side of the park.

This area also would provide relatively easy

access to the river. The provision of these

opportunities would have a minor, longterm, positive impact on those visitors who

value opportunities for a contemplative

experience.

The location of a visitor center onsite

would mean staff and first aid facilities

were available onsite during the park

operating hours. This would provide for

better visitor safety than in the no-action

alternative. This would have a minor, longterm, positive impact on visitor safety.

Cumulative Effects

As previously mentioned, under this

alternative there would be increased

coordination with the Cheyenne Arapaho

tribe to provide educational opportunities

and demonstrations. The visitor center

would provide visitors and local residents

with information about other related sites

where they could learn more about the event

and the Cheyenne Arapaho. In addition to

this National Park Service action, several

regional historical groups and tribes are

developing organized tours of cultural and

historical sites in Oklahoma. The new visitor

center would likely be a stop on these tours

and increase the potential to educate a wider

audience. The impacts of this increased

audience, in combination with the impacts

of wider cooperation with the Cheyenne

Arapaho, would have a minor, long-term,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142

positive impact on the visitor center’s ability

to educate a wide audience.

Under this alternative the Oklahoma

Historical Society’s Black Kettle Museum

would likely be converted to some other

museum use once the National Park Service

visitor center was operational. The impacts

of this action, taken in conjunction with the

National Park Service construction of a

visitor center would result in minor,

positive, cumulative impacts on the

educational opportunities for visitors and

residents of Cheyenne.

Conclusion

Visitors would have increased opportunities

to learn about Washita Battlefield and to

experience the park. This alternative would

result in moderate, long-term, positive

impacts on the visitor experience.

IMPACTS ON THE

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Implementation of alternative B could have

moderate impacts on the socioeconomic

environment of the local community over

the long term. The existence of a visitor

center might increase the average length of

stay for visitors, leading visitors to spend

slightly more money in the local

community. Visitation to the park would

gradually increase over time, which could

increase business activity in the local area.

This would result in long-term, positive

benefits of a minor to moderate degree for a

small number of firms and / or individuals,

mostly those related to the tourism and

service industries.

Some widening of Route 47a might need to

take place in conjunction with the

construction of the visitor center. Increasing

visitation would also cause some increase in

the amount of traffic in Cheyenne and on

local highways, potentially causing some

inconvenience to local residents and

increased traffic hazards. This could result

in minor to moderate, long-term, negative

impacts on the residents of Cheyenne.

The development of a visitor center and site

work would provide some moderate to

major, short-term, positive economic

benefits for a limited number of individuals

and the enterprises involved with the

development. This benefit would be

concentrated in the construction and

materials sectors and could be either local

or regional depending on the contractors

selected.

Cumulative Effects

No known cumulative impacts on tourism,

recreational opportunities, or the local and

regional economy would be expected.

Conclusion

There would be some minor to moderate,

short-term and long-term positive impacts to

the socioeconomic environment of the local

community. There could be minor, negative

long-term impacts on the road traffic in and

around Cheyenne.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

There would be some alterations to the

cultural landscape to accommodate visitors

and their vehicles. Outside the area there

would be changes due to additional traffic

on the roadway.
Impacts of Alternative B

143

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

MAINTENANCE AND

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

Restoring the prairie vegetation within the

park would enhance long-term productivity

of the biological resources associated within

the boundary.

IRREVERSIBLE AND

IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS

OF RESOURCES

Like the preferred alternative, the loss of soil

due to construction of new facilities would

be an irreversible commitment of resources.

The planning team is not aware of any other

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of

resources that would occur.
145

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Draft General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement for

Washita Battlefield National Historic

Site is a collaboration of the National

Park Service, US Forest Service, Native

American groups and the public.

Consultation and coordination among

the agencies and public were vitally

important throughout the planning

process. The public had two primary

avenues by which it participated in the

development of the plan –involvement in

public meetings and responses to

newsletters.

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND

NEWSLETTERS

Public meeting and newsletters were the

avenue used to keep the public informed

about and involved in the planning

process for Washita. A mailing list was

compiled during the planning process.

This mailing list included members of

governmental agencies, nongovernmental groups, businesses, legislators,

local governments, and interested

citizens. During the course of the

planning process two newsletters were

mailed and two sets of public meetings

were held. In May 1999 scoping

meetings were held in the towns of

Cheyenne, Concho, and Anadarko,

Oklahoma. These meetings as well as a

newsletter that followed included the

purpose, significance, and interpretive

themes of the park and asked for public

comments on these statements and on

issues the plan should address. Most

people who responded supported or did

not disagree with the purpose, significance or interpretive themes statements.

Most respondents wanted to see a

minimal amount of development and a

visitor facility.

Newsletter #2, published October 1999,

presented the preliminary draft alternatives, followed by public meetings later

in the month. Public meetings were held

this time in Cheyenne, Concho, Anadarko and Elk City as well as a presentation of the alternatives to the Oklahoma

Historical Society. Public feedback on

the preliminary alternatives was positive.

CONSULTATION WITH THE

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICES AND THE

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended

(16USC270, et seq.) requires that federal

agencies that have direct of indirect

interest jurisdiction take into account the

effect of undertaking on national register

properties and allow the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation an

opportunity to comment. Toward that

end the National Park Service would

work with the Oklahoma State Historic

Preservation Offices, advisory council,

and Oklahoma Historical Society to

meet requirements of 36 CFR 800. Both

state historic preservation offices were

invited to participate in the planning

process, and each had an opportunity to

review and comment on the preliminary

alternatives.
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

146

CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE

AMERICANS

Consultation with Native American groups

who historically occupied the area was

initiated during the planning process. The

Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho were

invited to participate in this planning

effort. All planning newsletters were sent

to other tribes associated with Washita. An

informational meeting on the preliminary

alternatives was held in December 1999

with the Northern Cheyenne in Lame Deer,

Wyoming. Conversations have been

ongoing throughout the planning process

to inform the tribes about the progress of

the plan and identify how and to what

extent they would like to be involved. The

tribes will also have the opportunity to

review and comment on this draft plan.

CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service began in October

1999 with a request for a list of endangered

and threatened species the may occur in or

near the park. A response dated October

1999 was received and is included in

appendix D.
149

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FOR WASHITA

BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE
APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

150
Appendix A: Legislative History

151
152

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF KEY LEGAL MANDATES

Legal mandates provide direction for what

can and cannot be considered in this plan.

Several of the provisions of key legal

mandates are summarized below.

NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION ACT OF 1978 (PL 95-625)

Section 604(b) of this act requires that

general management plans be prepared and

revised in a timely manner for each unit in

the national park system. The act further

specifies that general management plans will

include measures for the preservation of the

area’s resources, indications of the types and

intensities of development associated with

public use of the unit, visitor carrying capacities for all areas of the unit, and indications of potential modifications of the unit’s

external boundaries if needed.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF

1973, AS AMENDED (16 USC 1531 ET

SEQ.)

The purpose of this act is to provide

protection for animal and plant species that

are currently in danger of extinction

(endangered) and those that may become so

in the foreseeable future (threatened).

Section 7 requires all federal agencies to

ensure that their activities do not have

adverse impacts on the continued existence

of threatened or endangered species or on

designated areas (critical habitats) that are

important in conserving those species. Thus,

the National Park Service is required to fully

integrate endangered species conservation

planning into park system management.

Agencies also are required to consult with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure

that any action authorized, funded, or carried

out by the agency does not jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species or

critical habitat. The result of formal or

informal consultation with the Fish and

Wildlife Service should be documented in an

environmental assessment or environmental

impact statement.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA; PL 91-

190)

This act sets forth the federal policy to

preserve important historic, cultural, and

natural aspects of our national heritage.

Another purpose of NEPA is to help public

officials make decisions that are based on an

objective understanding of environmental

consequences and to take actions that

protect, restore, and enhance the

environment. The act applies to all federal

projects or projects that require federal

involvement. All federal agencies are

directed to use a systematic, interdisciplinary

approach that integrates natural and social

sciences in planning and decision making

that may impact the human environment.

NEPA and the Council on Environmental

Quality implementing regulations describe

the process a proposed federal action such as

this plan must follow. Among the steps in

the process, NEPA and the regulations

require early coordination, called “scoping,”

to determine the scope and significance of

issues to be addressed in an environmental

impact statement. A structured format for

public involvement during the public review

process is specified. When preparing an

environmental impact statement, the

regulations further require federal agencies

to rigorously explore and objectively
Appendix B: Summary of Key Legal Mandates

153

evaluate all reasonable alternatives to the

preferred alternative.

NATIONAL HISTORIC

PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AS

AMENDED (16 USC 470, ET SEQ.)

This act establishes as federal policy that the

historical and cultural foundations of the

nation’s heritage be preserved. Section 106

requires that federal agencies that have

direct or indirect jurisdiction over undertakings take into account the effect of those

undertakings on properties eligible for or

included in the National Register of Historic

Places.

The section also provides the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation and the

state historic preservation officer an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The

1992 amendments to the act have further

defined the roles of American Indian tribes

and the affected public in the section 106

consultation process. Section 110 requires

federal managers, in consultation with the

state historic preservation officers, to

establish programs to identify, evaluate, and

nominate properties to the National Register

of Preservation and the state historic

preservation officer an opportunity to

comment on the undertaking. The 1992

amendments to the act have further defined

the roles of American Indian tribes and the

affected public in the section 106

consultation process. Section 110 requires

federal managers, in consultation with the

state historic preservation officers, to

establish programs to identify, evaluate, and

nominate properties to the National Register

of Historic Places. National register eligible

or listed properties and national historic

landmarks are afforded special protection in

federal project federal project planning and

implementation.
154

APPENDIX C: SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

One of the major tasks in the planning

process was developing a preferred

alternative  !

for managing the park over the next 20

years. In order to develop a preliminary

preferred alternative, the four draft

alternatives that had been reviewed by the

public were evaluated using an objective

analysis process called “Choosing By

Advantages” (CBA). This process

evaluates different choices (in this case, the

four preliminary alternatives) by

identifying and comparing the relative

advantages of each according to a set of

goals and relevant facts.

The first step in the CBA process was to

develop the criteria that would be used to

compare the alternatives. The criteria were

based on the park purposes and significance, laws and policies, and the concerns

and comments commonly expressed by the

public and the park staff about the draft

management alternatives. Several criteria

were originally developed and then

dropped because there were no significant

differences in advantages between

alternatives.

The criteria were how well each alternative

• protects the integrity (including visual

and ecological) of the historic

landscape

• protects opportunities for solitude,

hearing natural sounds, and viewing the

night sky

• maintains an atmosphere of hallowed

ground, reflection and contemplation

respectful of the sacredness of the site

• protects the archeological resources

• provides visitor access and opportunities for first-hand experience of the

site, including for people with

disabilities

• provides for a continuous visitor

experience

• allows visitors to understand the park

story

• interprets a broader context (of the

battle, culture, region and ecosystem)

• provides visitor services and

orientation. accommodates groups

• is operationally efficient

• provides public partnership

opportunities (NPS-USFS)

• provides opportunities for tribal

• participation, interpretation and

demonstrations

For each criteria, the team identified the

advantages of an alternative based on the

specific characteristics or consequences of

that alternative. Each advantage was given

a point value that reflected its importance

when compared to the advantages of the

other alternatives. By adding up the

advantage scores for each alternative, the

team was able to determine how the

alternatives compared overall.

After completing the CBA scoring for all

four alternatives, the alternative labeled

dispersed visitor use had the highest total

advantage rating. This alternative provides

• the best combination of site integrity

and providing visitor access

• partnership with the USFS offering

operational efficiency and enhanced

public service

• a bridge between the past and the

present with enhances cultural

interactions and

• greater opportunity for tribal programs

and demonstrations

• most advantages for taxpayer dollars
155

APPENDIX D: LETTER FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
156
157

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, Robert E., editor

 1984a Prehistory of Oklahoma.

Orlando, FL: Academic Press,

Inc.

 1984b “The Plains Villagers: The

Washita River.” In: Prehistory of

Oklahoma, edited by Robert E.

Bell, 307-324. Orlando,

FL:Academic Press, Inc.

 1984c “Protohistoric Wichita.” In:

Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited

by Robert E. Bell, 363-378.

Orlando, FL:Academic Press, Inc.

Briscoe, James

 1987 Archaeological Reconnaissance of

the Cheyenne Tribe Reburial

Project on the Black Kettle

National Grasslands, Roger Mills

County, OK. Butler, OK: Briscoe

Consulting Services.

 1990 “Archeological Survey Report on

the Shell Western Seismic Line

90-372-6105, Roger Mills

County, OK.” Butler, OK:

Briscoe Consulting Services.

Cowley, J.

 1999 “Cultural Landscape Inventory for

Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site, Core Area.”

National Park Service.

Intermountain Support Office,

Santa Fe, NM.

George, Preston and Margaret

 1978 “Oklahoma Archeological Survey

Site Form,” site RM-103. On file

at the Oklahoma Archeological

Survey.

Gettys, Marshall

 1984 “Early Specialized Hunters.” In:

Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited

by Robert E. Bell, 97-108.

Orlando, FL:Academic Press, Inc.

Greene, Jerry

 n.d. “Draft Washita Battlefield

National Historic Site Historic

Resource Study.” (In preparation)

Denver, CO: National Park

Service, Harper’s Ferry Center.

Gunnerson , James H.

 1987 “Archaeology of the High

Plains.” Bureau of Land

Management, Cultural Resource

Series Number 19. Denver, CO:

Colorado State Office, Bureau of

Land Management.

Haynes, C. Vance

1997 “Washita Valley Geologic

History: The 1995 Study.” In:

Archaeology of the Washita

Battlefield National Historic Site,

by William B. Lees, Douglas D.

Scott, Bob Rea, and C. Vance

Haynes. Oklahoma City,

OK:Historic Sites Division,

Oklahoma Historical Society.

Draft of October 31, 1997.

Hofman, Jack L.

1976 “Oklahoma Archeological

Survey Site Form.” Resurvey of

County Sites, Roger Mills

County, RM-92. Form on file at

the Oklahoma Archeological

Survey.
APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

158

Hughes, David T.

1984 “The Foragers: Western

Oklahoma.” In: : Prehistory of

Oklahoma, edited by Robert E.

Bell, 307-324. Orlando,

FL:Academic Press, Inc.

Kehoe, Alice B.

 1992 North American Indians: A

Comprehensive Account. Second

Edition. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ:Prentice Hall.

Lees, Bill, Douglas D. Scott, Bob Rea, and

C. Vance Haynes

 1997 Archaeology of the Washita

Battlefield National Historic Site.

October 31, 1997 Draft.

Oklahoma City, OK:Historic Sites

Division, Oklahoma Historical

Society.

National Park Service, U. S. Department of

the Interior

 1999a Environmental Assessment for

Prescribed Burning and Range

Planting Revegetation Washita

Battlefield National Historic

Site. Roger Mills County,

Oklahoma. Intermountain

Support Office, Planning and

Environmental Quality, Denver,

CO.

1999b Project Proposal for the

Assessment of Water Quality in

the Washita River at the

Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site Near Cheyenne,

Oklahoma. Prepared by the

Water Resources Division, Ft.

Collins, CO.

 1999c “Cultural Landscape Inventory

Form, National Park Service,

Intermountain Region –

Southwest Cluster.” Washita

Battlefield National Historic

Site; Washita, Core Area, Level

2, Analysis and Evaluation.

January 1999 draft. Santa Fe,

NM:National Park Service

Reber, J. , M. Flora, and J. Harte

1999 “Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site Water Resources

Scoping Report.” Water

Resources Division, Ft. Collins,

CO .

Rude, Tricia

1999 “Trip Report, Washita

Battlefield National Historic

Site, Roger Mills County,

Oklahoma, June 1999 (WACC

Project Number WABA 1999

A).” Western Archeological and

Conservation Center, Tucson,

AZ.

Stotts, P. and R. DuBey

1998 “Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site Vegetation

Analysis.” National Park

Service, Intermountain Support

Office, Santa Fe, NM.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1963 “Soil Survey of Roger Mills

County, Oklahoma.” Series 159,

No.29.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1997 “Section 7 Consultation with

NPS on Endangered Species

Act.” Letter dated December

11, 1997.
159

PREPARERS

CORE PLANNING TEAM

Pamela Benjamin B.S., M.S., Biological Sciences, vegetation ecologist,

Intermountain Support Office. Natural resource information and

impact evaluation.

Stephen Black B.S. History, chief of interpretation/historian, Washita Battlefield

National Historic Site. History of the site and interpretation.

Sarah Craighead B.A. Biology, superintendent, Washita Battlefield National

Historic Site, supervisor and coordinator of park staff.

Kate Hammond B.A. Environmental Studies and History, interpretive planner,

Harpers Ferry Center. Development of visitor use and interpretive

section.

Jeffery Heywood Landscape architect, former job captain, Intermountain Region

Gregory Jarvis B.S. Geology, natural resource specialist, Denver Service Center.

Job Captain, overall responsibility for plan and statement

preparation.

Diane Rhodes M.A. Anthropology, cultural resource specialist, Denver Service

Center. Cultural resource information and impact evaluation.

Ronald Shields B.S., architectural engineering, project manager, Denver Service

Center. Supervised project schedule and coordination with park

staff and regional office.

CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSULTANTS

National Park Service

Brian Carlstrom, GIS/Natural Resource Specialist, Intermountain Region Support Office

Jill Cowley, Landscape Architect, Intermountain Support Office

Kit Dwyer, Cartographic Technician, Intermountain Region Support Office

Kurt Foote, Natural Resources, Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

Glenda Heronema, Visual Information Specialist, Denver Service Center

Brenden McNeil, GIS Intern, Intermountain Region

Alexa Roberts, Anthropologist, Intermountain Support Office

Anne Shewell, Visual Information Specialist, Denver Service Center
160

Sandy Schuster, Writer/Editor, Denver Service Center

Suzy Stutzman, Landscape Architect, Intermountain Support Office

University of Denver

Brenden McNeil, GIS Student Assistant

Tennille Williams, GIS Student Assistant

U. S. Forest Service

Chris Adam, former Engineer

Reggie Blackwell, District Ranger

Ken Boll, Engineer

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma

Joe Big Medicine

Lee Pedro

Gordon Yellowman
161

INDEX

air quality, 17, 40, 45, 61, 71, 86, 94-95,

107-08, 121, 134-35, 147

aternative A, iii, iv, vii, viii, 40-41, 43, 52-

58, 117, 119, 121, 124

Alternative B, v, vii, viii, 44-46, 48, 52-58,

132, 137-38

Arapaho, 4-8, 14-15, 66-68, 114, 126-27,

140-41, 160

archeological resources, iv, v, 59, 85, 90-91,

101-02, 105-06, 116, 119, 129, 132, 154

Cheyenne, iii, iv, v, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 29,

39, 44, 52, 59, 65-71, 74, 76-79, 90, 95, 98,

100, 108, 113-15, 121, 126-28, 135, 140-42,

145-46, 157-158

Chief Black Kettle, iii, 4-5, 7, 9

cost, 11, 21, 29-30, 37-38, 42-43, 47-48, 52,

cultural resources, iv, 8, 12, 15-17, 28, 32,

34-35, 49, 65

Cultural resources, 50, 65

Custer, iii, 4-5, 7, 9, 65, 67

environmental consequences, 25, 81, 152

implementation plans, 11

interpretation, 8, 15-16, 19-20, 28, 37, 76,

88, 92, 98, 105, 113, 119, 125-26, 140, 154

landowners, iii, 11, 13-14, 18, 25, 33, 37,

40, 42, 45, 47, 69, 91, 94-9996, 102-03,

108-09, 11, 117, 121, 123, 130, 135-36, 138

management zone, iii, 25, 33, 37, 40, 42, 45,

47, 86, 88, 101, 107, 129

natural resources, iii, iv, ix, 7, 16-17, 25- 26,

32, 34, 37, 42, 45, 50, 52, 61, 83, 94, 106,

120, 133,

natural soundscape, iv, v, 16, 75

no-action alternative, iii, ix, 25, 27, 32, 37,

43, 48, 52-58, 90-92, 94-95, 97-100, 109,

112, 120, 124-25, 134, 140-41

noise, 19, 75, 97-98, 102, 111-13, 124-25,

130, 138-39

Oklahoma, iii, 4, 50, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,

72, 76, 78, 79, 95-96, 99, 108, 113, 121-23,

127, 135-36, 141-42, 145, 157, 158

Oklahoma Historical Society, 67-68, 76, 99,

114, 127, 142, 145, 157, 158

preferred alternative, iii, iv, ix, 3, 23, 25, 26,

32, 33, 34, 37-38, 40, 42, 45, 47, 52-60, 67,

101-105, 107, 112, 116-119, 128-32, 143,

153, 154

socioeconomic, iv, v, viii, ix, 61, 63, 78, 83,

89, 99, 100, 114-15, 127-28, 142

U.S. Forest Service, 32, 39, 52, 120-, 133

visitor use, iii, v, 3, 10, 13, 16, 18, 25, 32-

34, 37, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 52, 64, 76-77, 83,

85-86, 88, 94, 96-98, 101-02, 104, 106-07,

110-112, 118, 124-26, 131, 134-40, 154

water quality, v, 11, 17, 18, 71, 72, 86, 95-

96, 108-09, 122-23, 135-36