Pierce, Idaho for the Pierce Courthouse, and the First Presbyterian Church of Kamiah for both the
historic church and the nearby McBeth house.'”

Private landowners represented the most challenging situations for cooperative management.
As noted above, Superintendents Burns and Williams recommended that the First Presbyterian
Church and McBeth house be dropped from consideration after they sensed that the park
administration would not be able to obtain landowner cooperation. In July 1968, Burns suggested
that the St. Joseph’s Mission Church be dropped as a site for the same reason. Perhaps NPS
officials would have followed his advice if it had not been for the fact that the park brochure had
already been published and listed the Pfeifers’ church building as part of the St. Joseph’s Mission
site. The Pfeifers claimed that the brochure had led to an increase in visitation. The Pfeifers
demanded some kind of cooperative agreement with the Park Service.”

The Pfeifers wanted financial assistance for the maintenance of the building and some modest
compensation for their time in guiding visitors through the church. During the winter of 1968-69,
Superintendent Williams negotiated a cooperative agreement with the Pfeifers covering these
points. In addition, Williams notified the Pfeifers that the NPS would be affixing 18,000 stickers
to the 18,000 park brochures it had printed explaining that the church was private property.'°
The final agreement, concluded on June 29, 1970, involved the Park Service and the newly
formed St. Joseph’s Mission Historical Society, of which the Pfeifers were controlling members.'”

The Pierce Courthouse presented another problem. The owners wanted to donate the
property to the Park Service. Superintendent Williams discussed this possibility with regional
officials, who rejected the idea on the grounds that the Park Service should not acquire more
historic buildings in the park than it could maintain. The feasibility study of 1963 recommended
that the state of Idaho acquire and administer this site; however, state officials proposed to move
the building to the capitol lawn in Boise, an idea which the owners and other local citizens
adamantly opposed. In 1969, Superintendent Williams proposed that the owner donate the
property to the Clearwater Historical Society of Orofino, Idaho, as an “interim measure and until
such time as the National Park Service might possibly become involved.” Apparently Williams
formed the impression that the owner, Leonard Cardiff, had agreed to this arrangement and that

14 Superintendent to Regional Director, November 4, 1968, NEPE, chrono file.

15 Director to Frank Church, October 13, 1967, Superintendent to Regional Director, July 2, 1968, Chief, Portland
Field Office to Regional Director, September 28, 1968, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 St. Joseph’s Mission

Church.

16 Superintendent to Regional Director, December 19, 1968, Jack R. Williams to Mr. and Mrs. John Pfeifer,
November 26, 1968, NEPE, Administrative files, L1425 St. Joseph’s Mission Church.

1” Briefing Report, Cooperative Agreement between the National Park Service and the St. Joseph’s Mission
Historical Society, 1987, NEPE, Administrative Files, A4415 Cooperative Agreements, St. Joseph’s Mission. The
agreement was renegotiated in 1987. A major concern at this time was to ensure that the interpretive use of the church
property would continue after the Pfeifers were deceased. See additional correspondence, same file.

Chapter Three él


On June 29, 1992, Representative Bruce Vento of Minnesota introduced House Resolution
504 to dispose of the Senate’s amendments to House Resolution 2032. Essentially this resolution
called for an amendment of the Senate amendments that would allow condemnation authority
under carefully prescribed circumstances. The Secretary of the Interior would not be able to
acquire land for the park without the consent of the owner except within the four parcels
previously designated by the House bill, including the eight-acre parcel around the Old Chief
Joseph Gravesite. Moreover, the Secretary would have to find that the nature of the land use had
changed or was about to change significantly, and that the acquisition of the land was essential for
the purposes of the park. In short, Representative Vento maintained, condemnation authority was
a necessary management tool but also a tool of last resort.**

Intense negotiations followed. Superintendent Walker met with the mayor of Joseph, the
landowner, local citizens, tribal representatives, and Forest Service officials. The meeting resulted
in an agreement whereby the Forest Service would transfer the $300,000 appropriation for land
acquisition to the Park Service. Meanwhile, NPTEC Vice Chairman Charles Hayes and Joe
Redthunder went to Washington to lobby Oregon’s Senator Mark Hatfield, who now opposed the
bill. Their pleas, together with the House resolution’s stipulation that no more than eight acres
could be acquired at the Old Chief Joseph Gravesite without the willing consent of the landowner,
persuaded Hatfield to drop his opposition to the bill.*”

There remained one final point of controversy which nearly doomed the bill. On October 5-6,
the Chief Joseph Band met to discuss the legislation and then voted to oppose it. They contended
that they had not been consulted and that they did not want the Younger Chief Joseph’s gravesite
developed, publicized, and subjected to vandalism.** The attorney for the Confederated Colville
Tribes notified Washington’s Senator Slade Gorton, who promised to stop the bill. A mere two
days remained before the bill was scheduled for a vote. Superintendent Walker and Allen
Slickpoo initiated a meeting with the Colville Nez Perce at Nespelem and drove through the night
to get there by 8:00 a.m. They assured the Chief Joseph Band that the Colville Confederated
Tribes would retain ownership of the sites on the Colville Indian Reservation and that the sites
would only be activated and developed at the tribe’s initiative. At 10:30 a.m. the band voted 32
to 8 in favor of the bill; the tribal attorney faxed the news to Senator Gorton’s office, and the
Senator lifted his stop on the bill >“

°°! Thid.

36 Frank Walker, interview with author, July 21, 1995; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 24, 1992. Hatfield’s
opposition to the bill stemmed from his longstanding policy of refusing to sponsor any legislation that was opposed by
county commissioners in Oregon. The Wallowa County commissioners supported the condominium development as a
needed source of revenue and were adamantly opposed to any additional federal land ownership within the county.
(Stephanie Toothman, comments on draft, March 18, 1996.)

36 Eddie Palmanteer, Jr., to Brock Adams, October 6, 1992, NEPE, Additions Study files.

36 Frank Walker, interview with author, July 21, 1995.

126 ; Chapter Eight



Chairman Angus A. Wilson told the Senate subcommittee that he thought the park would benefit
the tribe. NPTEC intended to cooperate closely with the Park Service and to invest tribal funds in
tourist services near the park. “Maybe the Government, at a later date, would have to invoke
laws regulating this sort of thing,” Wilson said. (NPTEC later considered a motel development at
Orofino, but eventually dropped the plan.)

NPS officials, for their part, stressed that the national historical park would be developed in
accordance with accepted National Park Service standards and policies. There was nothing in the
legislation specifically mandating that special consideration be given to tribal economic
development. One official noted that the Armour Research Foundation’s feasibility study wrongly
implied that the NPS should build a visitor center at Spalding in order to relieve the tribe of this
financial undertaking. The reason that the NPS supported the project was “to assure the proper
preservation of cultural and historical values of the Nez Perce Country and to permit the Nez
Perce story to be cohesively told.”

Governor Smylie added another wrinkle when he noted in his testimony before the Senate
subcommittee that the Spalding State Park served admirably as a picnic area for thousands of
local residents.” The governor promised to convey the state park to the National Park Service
once the Nez Perce National Historical Park was established, but with the caveat that this
traditional recreational use would continue to be permitted.

7 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho,
88th Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964, p. 68.

®8 Assistant Regional Director to Director, January 21, 1964, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 14,
February 1964.

° U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho,
88th Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964, p. 32.

26 Chapter One


Pictorial Essay

Ground-breaking ceremony, visitor center...

Josiah Red Wolf, five years old in 1877 and the last survivor of the
War of 1877, speaks at the ground-breaking ceremony for the

visitor center at Big Hole National Battlefield, 1968. Red Wolf lost
This marked his first return to

his mother and sister in the battle.
the site of that tragedy.


Archeological investigation, Spalding Mission site, 1973. ..
The NPS sponsored an investigation of the Spalding mission

complex, including the mission, Spalding home, and mill site. The
arboretum can be seen in the background

Pictorial Essay : 5


Nez Perce National Historical Park
Administrative History

Contract No. 1443-CX9000-93-031

Prepared for

USDI National Park Service
Seattle, Washington

by
Ted Catton, Project Historian

Missoula, Montana

September 1996


COL

q8iq JaideyD

‘(dew SAN) 8861-L861 Ut porenfeag sous ‘L omnsty

(s#

bay

unig

at
tt 1938 20 SM0
@%. 1339 NOAN

NUVd TYNOILYN
NOLGL GNVYO

VNVLINOMWM

* eualay

88-Z86L Peyeny[eay Seyts

~
aysapieg ZZ8L X

uSteduies 9210 ZON
LL8L JO BNO} om

BUS 88-286. @
puasay]

NODHYO

‘

@ SIISAABI S,YdASOf JalYD PIO
oysdwey
pueg EMOTE ‘ea NVIONI

jevonpel! @ “Ee

uevaanne 26, quiodaata
—\ autg Oe @” votuen ydasor
Lo e
oysdwed LJ Ry ocariaheestas sacy

852(9 Buyj007 ©

ait=d

00242,

\ee,

28,
eS

“

S3u NVIONI
ANATY.d YANOD

NOLONIHSVM

3uY NVION, alls eung

SNYHOFS Udacop jeiyg BUNOA

liad sasdweg 82g 72N @ Va
aD] 1 NOILVAMASRY | |
Se NVION}
& aTUATO>, ;
u : 2? 5
;
®
,

~



In the Spalding picnic-recreation area visitor densities on at least five days reached concentrations
approximating one visitor for each 85 square feet, roughly the space over an 8' x 12' rug!?”

Such high visitor densities inevitably brought with it a tide of accidents, petty offenses, and
misdemeanors — problems such as littering, fender benders, off-road use by trail vehicles, weight-
limit violations by commercial vehicles, firearms violations, poaching, and abuse of controlled
substances. To cope with this unforeseen situation, Williams took two actions. First, he had two
rangers deputized by the county sheriff's department, obtained a law enforcement vehicle, and
closed the park at night.”" Second, he worked on implementing the U.S. Magistrate System for
Nez Perce National Historical Park. This process took some five years to accomplish.

The Park Service had adopted the U.S. Magistrate System for the first time in 1968-69 in the
Southeast Region (principally in eastern Virginia). The system operated on the basis of a
“Uniform Fee Schedule” for law violations that would be agreed upon by all federal agencies in an
area and approved by the senior judge in that judicial district. The system allowed law enforce-
ment agents to issue fines without requiring court appearances by the violator, who in most cases
would admit guilt and remit the fine required by the Uniform Fee Schedule by mail.”* The plan
met with some resistance from the U.S. attorney in Boise, but was finally implemented on July 1,

1974.7

In the meantime, the park staff was burdened with an increasing number of case/incident
reports, citations, and follow-up court appearances. In 1972 alone there were 110 case records.
The most notorious case involved an assault on two rangers, Glenn L. Hinsdale and Steven T.
Kernes, by two brothers named Fry. Kernes tried to interpose himself in a drunken brawl and
Hinsdale came to his aid. The rangers were outnumbered and surrounded, both received punches,
while verbal threats made by the Fry brothers, their father, and others in the crowd brought about
“near-riot conditions.”’“ The Fry case represented the most serious law enforcement incident in

the park’s history.

Use of the picnic area for large parties and social functions continued through the late 1970s,
but concerns about visitor safety gradually diminished. A “Crime Prevention and Physical
Security Plan,” prepared for the park in 1979, stated that crime was not a major problem. The
report characterized the situation as “a low level of minor, but annoying, vandalism incidents
punctuated by infrequent but more serious incidents involving property damage or loss. Crime
against persons are rare while crimes against property predominate.” Between 1974 and 1979

200 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1972, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 67.

201 Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.

202 Jack R. Williams to Eli B. Ponack, February 25, 1972, NEPE, chrono file.

203 Superintendent’s Annual Reports, 1972, 1974, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 67.

204 The incident is described in detail in Glenn L. Hinsdale to Sydney Smith, June 21, 1972, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Four 7


Richard Halfmoon, 1970. . .

A Nez Perce leader and chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee,
Halfmoon has been a longtime supporter of the Nez Perce National Historical Park.

Pictonal Essay


tribal members were inspired to learn in their adult years some of the cultural arts that their
parents and grandparents had been taught in their youth. In this way, the national historical park
actually assisted in the preservation of Nez Perce culture.”

The large cultural demonstrations grew sporadic in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Nez Perce
performers began to find an alternative outlet for their cultural arts in Indian powwows, which
became increasingly common throughout the region. Some followed the “powwow circuit”
during the summer and were unavailable to perform in the park. What events there were drew
fewer visitors, as many Lewiston-area residents began to take the cultural demonstrations for
granted or showed declining interest. Some park officials even construed the decline in non-
Indian attendance as a sign of white backlash against the tribe for its numerous court claims

relating to tribal fishing and hunting rights."

In 1984, Superintendent Whittaker sought to revive interest in the cultural demonstrations by
consolidating them into one six-hour affair called Cultural Day. The first annual Cultural Day was
held Saturday, August 25, 1984, and drew more than 800 visitors, many of whom came to see the
new visitor center.° The second annual event, held on Saturday, August 24, 1985, featured
approximately 35 demonstrators who demonstrated or discussed various cultural arts from
beadwork, leatherwork, and cornhusk weaving to language, food preservation, children’s games,
singing, dancing, and tepee raising. Co-sponsored by the Nez Perce Tribe, the event attracted
more than 1,000 visitors. Pleased with its success, Whittaker explained to the regional director,
“The day accomplishes many things. It enhances the visitor experience, assists in preserving the
culture, improves Park knowledge of the history, culture, and traditions of the Nez Perce People,
and encourages community involvement.”*° Thus, the Cultural Day became a regular feature of
the park’s interpretive program.

Another interpretive program that invited cooperation between the park staff and the Nez
Perce Tribe was the “Nez Perce Lyceum.” Harkening back to the nineteenth century lyceum
movement, which aimed to bring expert speakers on the arts and sciences to town and village
audiences, the Nez Perce Lyceum consisted of a series of presentations on Nez Perce history and
culture. The presentations were held in the visitor center auditorium over a period of weeks in
the spring or fall. Presentations included tribal member Ron Pinkham speaking on “Oral
Traditions of the Nez Perce Tribe,” tribal member Jesse Greene speaking on “Nez Perce Fishing
and Fishing Rights,” traditional story-telling by Herman Reuben and Allen Moody, and talks by
non-Nez Perce historians, archaeologists, and geologists. In recent years the Lyceum has reached

*7 Ibid; Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.
8 Carol Gamet, interview with author, July 26, 1995.
° Lewiston Morning Tribune, August 26, 1984.

9 Superintendent to Regional Director, November 5, 1985, Administrative Files, NEPE, L58 Proposed Areas.

82 Chapter Five


Regional Director Leo J. Diederich, assembled in Lewiston on June 3. The NPS officials first
convened with the Development Advisory Committee. Others who attended this meeting
included representatives of the BIA and ARA, the director of the Idaho State Historical Society,
the president of the Spalding Museum Foundation, and three anthropologists from Washington
State University. The following day the NPS team toured the reservation with Superintendent
William E. Ensor, Jr., and NPTEC Chairman Angus Wilson. The team found some serious
obstacles to the proposed development. The Nez Perce Indian Reservation lacked a readily
definable physical boundary to give tourists a strong sense of place; moreover, tribally-owned
lands and Indian allotments were widely interspersed with lands within the reservation that were
owned or leased by non-Indians. The area was scenic but did not have any outstandingly
significant natural features. At the conclusion of the visit, the NPS team determined that the
proposed $10,000 ARA grant was insufficient. It recommended that the feasibility study should
include both a survey of the recreational resources and an analysis of the reservation’s and
region’s economies, for a total cost of $50,000.

By August the ARA had approved a $37,500 grant and the feasibility study was under way.
The BIA contracted with Armour Research Foundation of Chicago. Joseph Fraser conducted
field research for the economic component during the fall and completed Volume I in June 1963.
Erwin Thompson, historian at Whitman Mission National Monument, was granted a leave of
absence from the NPS to consult with Armour Research Foundation and prepare Volume II of the
feasibility study, “A Survey of the Recreational and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce
Country.” The latter volume was completed in September 1963.“

_ Fraser’s report suggested that the increase in tourist traffic following completion of the Lewis
and Clark Highway would justify tribal investment in a “tourist and historical facilities program.”
The report identified a joint commission of Indian and non-Indian area residents as the best way to
manage such a venture. Fraser broke the program into three components: (1) a museum or visitor
center; (2) an amphitheater and Indian village; and (3) a tourist services complex. The
construction, operation, and maintenance costs of a museum or visitor center might be secured
through a federal appropriation, Fraser stated. The amphitheater and Indian village, on the other
hand, would probably have to be a tribal enterprise. Fraser noted that such facilities had proven
profitable for some tribes and had failed for others. Finally, Fraser recommended that the tourist
services complex include a motel, restaurant, service station, arts and crafts shop, trailer park, and
campground. This complex would also have to be a tribal enterprise, requiring a larger

39 Acting Assistant Regional Director to Assistant Regional Director, June 19, 1962, NEPE, Administrative History
33873, Folder 4, April 1963.

© Lewiston Morning Tribune, August 30, 1962; Joseph H. Fraser, A Survey of the Recreational and Tourism
Resources in the Nez Perce Country, Vol. If, The Nez Perce Country, prepared for Armour Research Foundation for
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, June 1963; Erwin N. Thompson, A Survey of the Recreational and Tourism
Resources in the Nez Perce Country, Vol. II, The Nez Perce Country, prepared for Armour Research Foundation for

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, September 1963.

Chapter One 15


OC) more complexity too. Given the myriad number of land owners of the park’s 38 sites, the NPS
would need cooperative agreements with various state, local, and other federal agencies, four
tribal governments, and several private organizations. For example, several sites were part of the
Nez Perce National Historic Trail and would involve cooperative management with the Forest
Service. It was approximately a five-hour drive from Spalding to Nespelem, Washington, and
twice that from Spalding to the Bear Paw Battlefield in Montana. Such a complicated park could
not be administered out of one or even two administrative locations.””

On January 13-14, 1994, the superintendents of Nez Perce National Historical Park, Big Hole
National Battlefield, and Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site convened with staff from the
Personnel Division of the Pacific Northwest Regional Office to revamp the park’s organizational
structure. In essence, the plan replaced traditional functional divisions with five management
units based on logical clusters of sites. Each of these units would handle daily operations,
cultivate local community support, and develop working relations with the park’s partners in that
area. Technical activities, planning, and overall coordination would be consolidated in a park-
wide support unit based at Spalding.>*

Superintendent Walker put this staff reorganization into effect in stages. The
Oregon/Washington Unit was activated even before the unit organization concept was formally
developed. Paul Henderson began work in August 1993 at Joseph, Oregon, as the park’s first
unit manager.** The following year Curator Sue Buchel accepted reappointment as unit manager

O of the Montana Unit. In addition to managing a permanent staff of five at Big Hole National
Battlefield, Buchel had line authority to the park ranger at Bear Paw Battlefield. Park Ranger
Otis Halfmoon established an NPS presence at Chinook, Montana and at the site. Meanwhile,
Walker established the remaining management units at Spalding and Grangeville. Art Hathaway
served as the manager of the Spalding unit, with primary responsibility for the visitor center
operation, while Mark O’Neill became the manager of the White Bird and Upper Clearwater

Units, with offices and staff in Grangeville.*”*

The unit management concept more or less reflected the contemporary regional reorganization
of the national park system in microcosm. It was hoped that each management unit would
function as a small park, enjoying a reasonable amount of autonomy for carrying out daily
operations while benefiting from centralized administrative support services at Spalding.
Superintendent Walker decentralized the administrative organization of Nez Perce National
Historical Park at the same time that Director Roger G. Kennedy decentralized the administrative

373 Nez Perce National Historical Park, Unit Organization Concept, no date, NEPE, library.
374 Thid.
375 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1993, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D34.

O 376 Staff organization charts, February 1995, NEPE, library.

Chapter Eight 131


O BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Manuscript Collections

Boise State University.
Frank Church Papers.
Les Jordan Papers.
Larry LaRocco Papers.

Columbia-Cascade Cluster System Support Office.
DSC Microfiche Reports.
Kent Bush Files.

Federal Records Center, Seattle.
Record Group 79, Records of the National Park Service.

National Archives, Pacific Northwest Region.
Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Nez Perce National Historical Park.

Additions Study Files.
Administrative Files.

O Administrative History.
Chronological Files.
Library Vertical Files.
Resource Management Files.
Richard Halfmoon Papers.

Washington State University.
Ted Little Papers.

Winchester, Idaho.
Robert Burns Papers.

II. Congressional Documents

U.S. Congress. House. Amending the National Trails System Act by Designating the Nez Perce (Nee-Me-
Poo) Trails [sic] as a component of the national trails system: report (to accompany S.
1542)(including the cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). 99th Cong., 2d sess., House

report 99-873, 1986.

. Designating the Nez Perce National Historical Park in the State of Idaho: Report to
Accompany H.R. 2032 (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). 102nd Cong., 1st
sess., House report 102-258, 1991.

C) . Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho. 89th Cong., Ist sess., House report 238, 1965.

Bibliography 137


complex and challenging one to interpret, and he envisioned a main visitor center with exhibits
that would tie it together.

The study team for the master plan hewed closely to Congress’s statement on the purpose of
the park:

The Nez Perce National Historical Park protects and provides interpretation for various component
sites relative to the early Nez Perce country of Idaho, the Lewis and Clark expedition through the
area, the fur trade, missionaries, gold mining and logging, and the Nez Perce war of 1877, as they
depict the role of the Nez Perce country in the westward expansion of the Nation.”

The master plan did, however, prioritize these various historical themes as of primary or second-
ary importance. The primary theme would embrace early Nez Perce culture; the tribe’s first
contact with the American explorers, Lewis and Clark; the Christian missionaries and their
influence on the Nez Perce culture; and the War of 1877. The secondary theme would address
the effects of American expansion on the native people and the land. Evident here was an effort
to sharpen the focus, develop a central plot line with a consistent point of view, in order to make

the park story comprehensible to the day-user.

The authors of the park’s first Interpretive Prospectus (1970) took this further. “This is
essentially the story of a people — a people and the land,” they wrote. Wherever possible, the
story elements should be presented from the Nez Perce point of view. The mining frontier, for
example, should be considered primarily in terms of the pressure that it placed on the Nez Perce
homeland and resources. Explorers, traders, miners, settlers, and soldiers would be kept in the
wings while the Nez Perce were given center stage. These non-Indian groups would appear, “but
only in relationship to the Nez Perce and their activities and life values on this land.””!

Finally, after identifying probable visitor use and defining the park story, the Park Service tied
the interpretive program into the development plan for the park. Arguably, the unusual land
ownership pattern of Nez Perce National Historical Park posed an even greater challenge to
interpreters than its complex story. Without a contiguous land base to work with, the Park
Service had virtually no influence over how visitors would circulate around the far-flung park.
Ideally, the interpretive prospectus stated, the NPS would direct all visitors to a main visitor
center at Spalding and expect them to “fan out from there” (essentially the same visitor circulation
pattern that the Armour Research Foundation had envisioned). Realistically, however, the NPS
had to prepare for receiving the visitor at each site or several sites in whatever order the visitor
chose. The most it could do would be to develop three “major entry points” at Spalding, East

220 1J.§. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, A Master Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park,
Idaho, June 1968, p. 2.

221 Nez Perce National Historical Park, Jnterpretive Prospectus, 1970, p. 2. Perhaps mindful of the Spalding
Museum Foundation’s particular interest in Henry Spalding, the authors of the interpretive prospectus did not explicitly
consign missionaries to a supporting role, but in practical terms the missionary experience was undergoing the same

process of marginalization.

Chapter Five 77


dozen years would pass before it had a permanent visitor center. Williams knew that it was not
unusual for Congress to delay fifteen to twenty years before appropriating funds for the develop-
ment of a new area of the national park system.” He admitted that the park was in something of a
“holding pattern,” but the Nez Perce Tribe had a hard time accepting that.”

Congressional procrastination was merely the shorthand explanation for the park’s slow
beginnings. In the early 1970s the Nixon administration repeatedly eliminated requests for
construction funds from the National Park Service’s budgets, and refused to use such funds when
Congress appropriated them.” The Park Service had more success in obtaining funds for the
stabilization of historic buildings. During Williams’ superintendency, nearly a third of all funding
for development in Nez Perce National Historical Park was used for building renovation. A
modest $300,000 was programmed for the Spalding visitor center and headquarters development,
all of which went to planning.* Meanwhile, the high rate of inflation in the late 1960s and early
1970s made it evident that Congress would have to raise the ceilings on development and land

acquisition funding for the park.

A gulf in NPTEC and NPS thinking first became evident in the winter of 1969-70. Disap-
pointed with the park’s makeshift visitor center in Spalding, NPTEC tried to obtain NPS support
for a tribal tourist development on the outskirts of Orofino, Idaho. The proposed facility would
have featured overnight camping and “suitable sales outlets for Nez Perce Indian arts and craft
work or Nez Perce souvenir items.” The plan envisioned a cluster of five or six tepees for nightly
rental in addition to tent and trailer sites. It would be coordinated with the development of a
marina concession by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the development of a visitor center
by the Park Service (even though there were no park sites nearby). The tribe had the encourage-
ment of the Clearwater Economic Development Association, Inc., and contracted with an
engineering and planning firm to prepare a feasibility study.”

While Superintendent Williams had been aware of the proposal for some time, Pacific
Northwest Regional Director John A. Rutter felt he had been ambushed. On January 29, 1970,
NPTEC member Irvin Watters, accompanied by Executive Director E.L. Williams of the

° Jack Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.

1 Richard A. Halfmoon to Walter J. Hickel, October 6, 1970, and Glen T. Bean to Halfmoon, October 8, 1970,
NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Nez Perce Tribe.

* Frank Church to A.L. Lyons, November 28, 1973, BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 3.3.7, Box 133, Folder 8.

% Legislative Counsel to Frank Church, January 23, 1976, NEPE, Administrative Files, D18 Planning and
Development Programs Spalding Visitor Center.

* Alten P. Slickpoo and Irwin C. Watters, Tourist Development Project, February 26, 1969, Slickpoo to Jack
Williams, March 14, 1969, Resolution NP 69-163, March 11, 1969, Slickpoo to Robert J. Giesen, December 16, 1969,
Giesen to Slickpoo, January 8, 1970, and Regional Director to Director, February 17, 1970, NEPE, Administrative
Files, A3815, Public Relations--Nez Perce Tribe.

Chapter Two 33



disadvantage that it was causing a buildup of the herbicide in the soil and could adversely affect
other plants and wildlife.”

In 1973, Superintendent Williams recommended to Regional Director John Rutter that the
time had come to reevaluate this situation. Williams proposed specific changes in management
for the Spalding, East Kamiah, and White Bird Battlefield. At Spalding, the land behind and north
of the Agent’s Residence would be planted with alfalfa and used to pasture horses. Williams
recommended alfalfa because it remained green throughout the area’s long, hot summers while
other crops turned brown, and it did not pose as great a fire hazard as native grasses. As for the
horses, Williams suggested that if appaloosa horses were grazed they would serve the interpretive
program, too. The Nez Perces had selectively bred these brown and white spotted horses and the
breed was named for the Palouse River in Washington. Williams had developed a keen interest in
the appaloosa and owned a number of these animals; indeed, it would be his own stock grazing
near the Agent’s Residence in Spalding. At East Kamiah, Williams proposed to erect a protective
barricade around the Heart of the Monster and permit the rest of the acreage to be grazed by
horses (again, using appaloosas if possible). At White Bird, grazing would continue but it would
be monitored by the Soil Conservation Service in order to determine what type of grazing the area
could best sustain.*%

Rutter responded by sending NPS Historian Vernon Tancil to the park to evaluate the
superintendent’s suggestions. Tancil concurred that grazing at White Bird would be in keeping
with the historical scene, but he questioned the use of alfalfa at Spalding as it was not clear
whether it had been planted in that area in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, cultivation
of gardens, orchards, potato patches, wheat and other grains, and the grazing of cattle, horses,
and sheep would all be in keeping with historical farming activities. Rutter emphasized to
Williams that the fire-resistant quality of alfalfa could not take precedence over the Park Service’s
mission to restore the historic scene. As for the grazing of horses at East Kamiah, Rutter
cautioned that the NPS “should be very sensitive to the Nez Perces’ views concerning the
pasturing of horses so near one of their sacred cultural sites.”*”

Superintendent Williams’ initiative led to a study by Entomologist Roland W. Portman on the
condition of the arboretum at Spalding. The trees, now nearly forty years old, showed signs of
overcrowding, including abnormal limb growth and an overly dense overstory. The removal of
some trees had left unsightly gaps in the arboretum. A few trees were dead or overgrown,

*° Douglas J. Riley, Environmental Assessment, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Spalding Site, [1975], NEPE,
Resource Management files, Fire; Nez Perce National Historical Park Resources Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment, CSSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D-15B, p. 12.

°° Regional Director to Superintendent, May 7, 1974, NEPE, Resource Management files, RM - White Bird
Battlefield Grazing Impact Studies; Laurin Huffman, personal communication, April 10, 1996. On the appaloosa, see
Haines, The Nez Perce: Tribesmen of the Columbia Plateau, pp. 23-24.

*°7 Tid.

106 Chapter Seven


In the weeks and months following this incident, NPTEC received letters from tribal members ©
demanding the abolishment of Nez Perce National Historical Park. The disturbance and subse-
quent mistreatment of the graves seemed to confirm tribal members’ suspicions that the park was
a “white man’s” idea. It acquired symbolic significance, unleashing other ill-feelings about the
park. Tribal leader Jesse Greene, for example, objected strongly to the Park Service’s display of a
portrait of Henry Harmon Spalding in the temporary visitor center. For Greene and many other
Nez Perces, Spalding was the man who had suppressed Nez Perce customs and whipped Nez
Perce children. The Park Service removed the offending portrait, but Greene’s displeasure ran so
deep he wanted the Park Service removed from the area as well.’”

The superintendent and staff continued to occupy offices in the former Blue Lantern Motel
while the new. visitor center was under construction. Superintendent Morris brought three Nez
Perces onto the park staff. Former NPTEC Chairman Angus Wilson was appointed park
technician in October 1976 and retired in April 1977. Albert Barros, a student at Lewis and Clark
College, took a position as a general student trainee under a Cooperative Education Agreement.
Maynard Holt joined the maintenance staff. Other additions to the permanent park staff included
Stephen Shawley as park curator and Harold White as maintenance worker. Shawley, a Univer-
sity of Idaho anthropology student and specialist in Nez Perce artifacts, first began cataloguing
the park’s collections under contract in 1976. He was appointed park curator in October 1977.
White had worked at Spalding State Park for the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
before 1965, and had worked for the NPS as a seasonal maintenance worker since that date. In C)
June 1978, Chief of Interpretation and Resource Management (I&RM) Douglas J. Riley trans-
ferred out and the new chief, I&RM, Kenneth L. Adkisson transferred in from Sitka National

Historical Park.”

Staff members spent most of their time at the Spalding unit, making infrequent trips to the
other three NPS-owned sites and the numerous cooperatively managed sites. There was a
growing concern with vandalism as interpretive signs were defaced at East Kamiah, White Bird
Battlefield, and Weis Rockshelter in the mid to late 1970s, but the small staff primarily concerned
itself with interpretation and visitor protection at the Spalding unit. Morris continued in his post
until the visitor center was brought nearly to completion. In February 1981, shortly before Morris
retired, park staff moved into the new building.”

22 Richard Halfmoon, interview with author, July 27, 1995. Nez Perce tribal members expressed concern that the
reinterred graves should be properly protected in the future. In the fall of 1982, the NPS contracted with Sprague to
oversee that the artifacts associated with the burials were protected under a cement slab, and that the graves were given
suitable markers, At a dedication ceremony on November 24, 1982, NPTEC Chairman Scott expressed sorrow over the
incident but said that greater understanding and respect were the foundation for preservation. Wilfred Scott to Fahy
Whittaker, August 12, 1982, Richard Halfmoon Papers; Superintendent to Regional Director, December 1, 1982,
NEPE, Administrative Files, A3815 Public Relations--Nez Perce Tribe.

23 Superintendent’s Annual Reports, 1976, 1977, 1978, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 67. O

‘4 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1981, NEPE, chrono file.

40 Chapter Two


Pictorial Essay

“Living history” demonstration .. .

Demonstration of the spinning wheel, Spalding Park, 1974. NPS
interpreters experimented with "living history" demonstrations in the
1970s. Left to right: Judy Hoffman, Annie Johnson, Gail Corsini, Bette
Inthurn.



National Historic Trail in 1986 (P.L. 99-445). To the surprise of many in the Park Service, the
law placed the trail under the administration of the Forest Service. It remains one of the few units

in the National Trails System administered by that agency.”

The Forest Service’s first coordinator for the Nez Perce Trail, Jim Dolan of the Northern
Regional Office in Missoula, Montana, asked Superintendent Roy Weaver to help him establish an
advisory council for the trail. Weaver arranged for a representative of NPTEC as well as a
representative of the Nez Perce at the Colville Indian Reservation to be on the council. The
organizational meeting was held at the park on February 11, 1987.'* Following formal designa-
tion of the trail on July 19, 1991, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail Foundation was created.
Most of the foundation’s members were formerly on the advisory council.’

Owing to the distance between the Nez Perce groups in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and
the Forest Service trail coordinator in Missoula, Montana, the park was often asked to assist with
administrative details. NPS and Forest Service officials found that they had to work together to
avoid duplication of effort. Some members of the Park Service wondered whether the administra-
tion of the trail would someday pass to their agency. Such a change would lessen confusion in the
public’s mind between the trail and the park, and would simplify management of overlapping
sections of the Nez Perce and Lewis and Clark trails as the latter approached its bicentennial

celebration.'”

Although the Park Service had not been designated the lead agency for the Nez Perce Trail,
the establishment and administration of this new entity under the aegis of the U.S. Forest Service
anticipated two major trends in the development of Nez Perce National Historical Park in the
1990s. First, the trail focused attention on the Nez Perce War of 1877. In this sense, the
designation of the trail anticipated later park additions legislation which was to expand the number
of park sites relating directly to the war. Together with the park additions, the Nez Perce Trail
altered the interpretive thrust of the park story, increased the amount of emphasis on the conflict
between Nez Perce and white and the story of the war itself. Second, the trail spanned four states
(Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), greatly expanding the number of congressional
members and constituencies with whom the park administration needed to involve itself.
Specifically, it underlined the fact that the Nez Perce are a divided people, with separate bands

189 Forest Service, The Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan, 1990, pp. 3-6; Mary
Horstman, interview with author, October 23, 1995; Stephanie Toothman, comments on draft, March 18, 1996.

199 Superintendent to Regional Director, February 5, 1987, NEPE, chrono file. Weaver suggested that the
Redthunders could provide the desired input, and failed to remind the Forest Service to maintain relations with the
Colville Business Council. Subsequently, the Colville Business Council criticized the Redthunders and the Forest
Service for this informal arrangement. The Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce complained that it lacked proper
representation in the management of the trail. (Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.)

‘91 Superintendent to Regional Director, May 27, 1992, NEPE, chrono file.

192 Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

Chapter Three 67


Pierce Courthouse, 1967...

The first courthouse in Idaho, located in Idaho's first gold rush
town. This cooperative site now has interpretive exhibits inside
which relate the building to the gold rush and explain how the gold
rush affected the Nez Perce people.

Pictorial Essay


Historical Park got a new superintendent — another man whose experience working in Indian
country in the Southwest seemed to recommend him for the job.’®

The Superintendency of Robert L. Morris, 1975-1981

Robert L. Morris had worked at several units in the Southwest, beginning with a ranger job at
Canyon de Chelly National Monument in 1948 and ending with a tour as Superintendent of El
Morro National Monument in the 1970s." It was no secret in Park Service circles that the new
superintendent of Nez Perce would be walking into a difficult situation, and Morris accepted the
job with an important guarantee: Regional Director Russell E. Dickenson promised to put all his
influence behind getting a new Visitor center built at Spalding as soon as Congress raised the
budget ceiling for park development.’

This promise strengthened Morris’ position as he met with various interested parties upon his
arrival. Not only were tribal leaders anxious for the NPS to initiate park development, but a
number of other park supporters voiced similar sentiments immediately. These included Ted
Little, Marcus Ware, faculty members of the University of Idaho, and Idaho Senators Church and
McClure as well as Warren G. Magnuson and Henry M. Jackson of Washington.'* To the local
groups Morris tried to convey one important message: do not argue with each other about where
the visitor center will be or whose history it will present until after Congress has approved the
funding increase. These issues could be finalized after funding had been approved.'” In October
1976, exactly one year into Morris’ superintendency, Congress amended the Nez Perce National
Historical Park Act by raising the development ceiling from $1,337,000 to $4,100,000.'*
Regional Director Russell E. Dickenson’s pledge of support for the visitor center, Morris’ efforts
at consensus-building, and the 1976 act of Congress all seemed to place the park on a new and
more advantageous footing.

During 1976, park staff worked closely with Nez Perce tribal representatives in planning new
interpretive exhibits for East Kamiah and White Bird Battlefield. The East Kamiah interpretive

3 John A. Rutter to Richard Halfmoon, February 18, 1975, May 12, 1975, and August 14, 1975, NEPE, Richard
Halfmoon Papers; Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995; Robert Morris, interview with author,
August 30, 1995.

'* U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, News Release, September 8, 1975, BSU, Frank Church
Papers, Series 3.3.7, Box 16, Folder 16.

5 Robert L. Morris, interview with author, August 30, 1995.
106 Thid.
*” Robert L. Morris, interview with author, August 30, 1995.

18 OO Stat. 2732.

36 Chapter Two


picnic tables.’ Burns used these reports to get authorization to purchase two .38 caliber
revolvers for the park.’ Park Historian Earl Harris was commissioned a deputy sheriff in 1967.1”

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, recreational use of the picnic area at Spalding continued to
underpin the development of law enforcement in Nez Perce National Historical Park. The picnic
area’s popularity grew at a phenomenal rate for reasons that had little to do with the national
historical park. Other recreational sites in the region were being inundated by new reservoirs
created on the lower Snake River. Until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed replace-
ment recreational sites at the new water line on these reservoirs in the mid-1970s, the picnic
grounds at Spalding remained the only green, shaded, public use area convenient to Lewiston.
Indeed, it was claimed that the 15-acre picnic area was the largest such facility in northern
Idaho.'* As a result, official estimates of the number of visits at Spalding grew from a little under
33,000 in 1968 to more than 225,000 in 1972. Most of these people came to enjoy the shade and
green grass rather than the historical resources or Park Service interpretive program.’

Superintendent Williams was confronted with the frustrating and unpopular task of assigning
his seasonal interpreters to duties that were more consistent with a national recreation area than a
national historical park. His frustration was apparent in his annual report for 1972:

By far the most frustrating and energy-absorbing problems in 1972 have been traffic control and
crowd management at the Spalding unit. To a large extent, these may be considered facets of the
same problem. Visitation topped 210,000 this calendar year - up 144% from 1971 and up more than
400% from 1968.

The available organized parking will accommodate 350 vehicles at one time. Six hundred vehicles or
more were present at any given instant between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on a total of 11 weekend
days in July and August. On three weekend days and two holidays the peak load was in excess of
700 vehicles; on Labor Day it exceeded 850 vehicles, creating hazardous conditions on more than a
mile of Park and adjacent roadways.

A 200-car temporary parking area was opened in June 1972. This prevented a still more serious
problem but minimum standards of traffic control and pedestrian safety were violated at least 30
days out of the May 15 through September 10 visitation period.

'° Superintendent to Regional Director, April 19, 1967, NEPE, chrono file.

‘86 Prior to that time, Burns purchased dog food at government expense to feed two old watch dogs who were
longtime residents of the Watson’s Store. Robert L. Burns to Katherine Swift, May 2, 1966, NEPE, chrono file.

197 Superintendent to Regional Director, June 9, 1969, NEPE, chrono file.

8 Fahy C. Whittaker, Statement for Management, Nez Perce National Historical Park, CCSO, library DSC
microfiche reports, NEPE D14A, p. 12.

'° Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1972, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 67.

70 Chapter Four


jeopardizing the health of the Colorado Blue Spruce and Sequoia trees respectively. Thirty-eight
years of lawn-mowing, watering, and fertilizing, in addition to extensive trampling by the public,
had compacted the surface soil and caused a buildup of grass thatch. To correct these myriad
problems, Portman suggested that the park obtain the services of an arboriculturist. Unfortu-
nately, fiscal constraints did not permit this and the arboretum experienced another nineteen years

of relative neglect.*°

Meanwhile, Superintendent Williams decided to attack the exotic weed problem with another
management tool, prescribed burning. The superintendent directed his chief of interpretation and
resource management, Douglas J. Riley, to develop a prescribed burn proposal and environmental
assessment. Riley proposed a series of six burns in different areas of the Spalding site, prefacing
the proposal with the comment that these weedy areas became “veritable tinderboxes” during the
dry season and that the burns were necessary “to protect historical and managerial ‘exposures’.”>”
Riley noted in his environmental assessment that while prescribed burning promised to be effective
and to allow the park to reduce its use of herbicides, it did have drawbacks. The principal
drawback was that prescribed burns made people nervous and did in fact carry the risk of burning
out of control and destroying private property adjacent to the park.* Prescribed burns were
conducted without mishap in 1975 and 1976.

Superintendent Robert Morris made a few changes in natural resource management. At East
Kamiah, he took care of the fire hazard by having the ground between the parking area and the
Heart of the Monster mown regularly. This controlled the thistle growth and virtually eliminated
the danger to visitors from rattlesnakes as well as the fire hazard, and it presented an aesthetically
pleasing appearance. In the superintendent’s judgment, these factors outweighed the negative
effect that a manicured lawn had on the site’s historical integrity.*"

During the unusually dry summer of 1977 the park did not conduct any prescribed burns
because they were deemed too difficult to control. In that context, Morris had his staff review the
effectiveness of prescribed burns and develop a new fire management plan for the park. The plan

308 Ronald W. Portman, Tree Survey Report, September 17-18, 1974, NEPE, Resource Management files, Spalding -
Arboretum.

309 Douglas J. Riley, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Spalding Site, Prescribed Burn Proposal, NEPE,
Resource Management files, Fire.

31° Douglas J. Riley, Environmental Assessment, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Spalding Site, [1975], NEPE,
Resource Management files, Fire.

311 Robert Morris, interview with author, August 30, 1995.

Chapter Seven 107


Nez Perces hold a powwow in Spalding Park, 1972.



Ri7w RI6W

AYWONNOS S3SN .

-

a oar)
\ SEIGE AREA

Nez Perce
/ HOWITZER

National Historic Pe CAPTURE
Trail Segment | sie_ 3

U.S.F.S, BOUNDARY en 7 < VISITOR CENTER,
- 9 ‘ MAINTENANCE AREA

— . & PARKING

SEWAGE
LAGOONS

EMPLOYEE
10: @3 HOUSING

16 MILES _—

TO: wiSDOm
oO MILES

LEGEND

NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD BOUNDARY
PAVED ROAD

UNPAVEO ROAD

TRAIL

IRRIGATION DITCH

ABANOONED FLUME

BOUNDARY MAP
BIG HOLE NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

O Figure 8. Map of Big Hole National Battlefield (NPS map).

Chapter Eight 129


rather than functions. The administration was restructured around four units (Spalding, Ore-
gon/Washington, White Bird/Upper Clearwater, and Montana). Each unit had a unit manager
whose primary responsibilities were to manage a local staff and develop community relations.
Unit managers were based in Spalding, Idaho; Joseph, Oregon; Grangeville, Idaho; and Big Hole
National Battlefield, Montana. In addition, the Bear Paw Battlefield in north central Montana had
a site manager who reported to the Montana unit manager. A park-wide support unit was based
in Spalding and included specialists in interpretation and resource management.

In many respects the staff reorganization at Nez Perce mirrored the reorganization of the
entire National Park Service during 1994-95. The push to increase staff positions in the field
benefitted from the agency-wide effort to trim support staffs in the regional offices. Nevertheless,
the ambitious plan was not without risk. As the staff report on the unit organization concept
pointed out,

One of the primary reasons for the decline in both government productivity and support is the
continued use of top-down, centralized bureaucracies. They fail to adequately serve either the
customers or the employees. Changing this environment will not be easy nor will it be painless, but
if we are to truly better serve customers, protect park resources, save precious fiscal resources, and
empower employees to be creative and productive; it must be changed. Early attempts at a unit
concept in other NPS areas may well have been doomed from the start by changing only what would
not threaten the status quo of a top-down, centralized bureaucracy. Truly empowering employees
within a work unit can be very threatening to “command managers.” At Nez Perce NHP we seek to
implement a true “work team” approach to park management, based on managers serving as coaches
and facilitators rather than controllers and commanders.’

Walker’s other major management efforts to date have included the development of a five-
year plan for the park in 1994, and the rejuvenation of Nez Perce tribal involvement in the park’s
interpretive program. In this latter endeavor, Walker has enjoyed greater success than perhaps
any of his predecessors. A high point was the contemporary Nez Perce art exhibition entitled
“Sapatq’ayn: 20th Century Nez Perce Artists,” the first of its kind, held as a National Park Service
75th Anniversary event in 1991. The park obtained growing tribal support in the annual Nez
Perce Cultural Days event as well as in its Spring Lyceum Nez Perce speakers series. Three more
Nez Perces were hired into permanent staff positions.“ Working with tribal elders, Walker
considered the formation of an Elders Board. When fully developed, the board would consult
with the park staff on a regular basis to assist with the park’s resource management and interpre-
tive programs. Walker is credited by the Nez Perces with finally opening communication between
the park and the tribe. In the fall of 1994, the Park Service honored Walker and the Nez Perce
Tribe with the Vail Partnership Award."

‘® Susan Buchel and Paul Henderson, “Unit Organization Concept,” no date, NEPE, library.
‘ Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1991, CCSO, Library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D-34.

* Richard Ellenwood, interview with author, October 3, 1995; Superintendent to Regional Director, September 30,
1994, NEPE, chrono file.

46 Chapter Two


Collections

The Nez Perce Tribe purchased two historic collections in 1964 when the park bill was still
under consideration in Congress, entrusting them to the Park Service’s care once the park had
been authorized. One collection consisted of the inventory left in the Watson’s Store when the
tribe purchased the property. Since this building had served as a general store for the local Nez
Perce Indians since 1911, it still contained numerous interesting items that would be of use in a
historic furnishings plan. The other collection was that belonging to Joe Evans’ Sacajawea
Museum, located near the Watson’s Store. The Evans family had been augmenting their museum
collection since 1931. Most of the artifacts were unauthenticated. They included a buckskin
dress alleged to have belonged to Sacajawea, and a dugout canoe supposedly used by the Lewis
and Clark expedition. Much of the collection had been damaged or destroyed in the flood of
1963. The Evans family sold other items along with their house lot in 1964. These two collec-
tions were stored in various locations at Lapwai and Spalding, including the basement of the tribal
headquarters, Watson’s Store, and Fort Lapwai Officers’ Quarters, and received little curatorial
care before the mid 1970s.”

In 1967, Washington State University loaned the L.V. McWhorter collection to Nez Perce
National Historical Park. McWhorter was a Washington rancher with an interest in documents
and cultural materials pertaining to the Nez Perce and Yakima tribes. Park officials stored the
McWhorter collection in a locked vault located in one of the offices in the former Blue Lantern
Motel. After selecting certain items for exhibit in the new visitor center, the park returned the
McWhorter collection to Washington State University in 1983.7" In 1971, the NPS purchased the
Vera I. Rydryck collection, which added about 200 important artifacts to the park’s inventory.
The park received other collections by donation, including the Chapman family collection of
artifacts collected in the 1920s and 1930s in the Snake and Clearwater river drainages, and the
Spalding Museum Foundation’s collection (see Chapter 1).?”

Collections management did not go beyond storage of the materials until the mid-1970s, when
the park administration gradually added that function to its scope of operations. In 1974, the
NPS contracted with Joel Bernstein, an instructor at the University of Montana, to catalog
records and artifacts stored in Lapwai. Bernstein found his working conditions in the Officers’
Quarters building so primitive that he eventually moved his cataloguing operation to an office in

* The canoe was pictured in a juvenile history book, To the Pacific with Lewis and Clark, an entry in the American
Heritage Junior Library Series. Park historian Earl Harris investigated the canoe’s history and determined that it had
most likely been built by a non-Indian for use on the Clearwater River some time prior to World War I. Lewiston
Morning Tribune, February 7, 1963; Earl R. Harris to H.P. Howard, May 14, 1968, NEPE, chrono file; National Park
Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park Collection Management Plan, Seattle, 1994, p. 3.

1 National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park Collection Management Plan, Seattle, 1994, p. 3;
Superintendent to Regional Director, July 31, 1969, NEPE, chrono file.

*®2 National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park Collection Management Plan, Seattle, 1994, p. 5.

90 Chapter Six


During this period, the Spalding Museum Foundation provided continuity and assumed
several important tasks in the coalescing movement for a national historical park. It took over the
DAR’s role of lobbying for a congressional appropriation with which to establish a museum,
promoted the museum idea locally and raised funds from private donors, acquired property (a
small parcel of land adjoining the southwest corner of Spalding State Park) with the intent of
donating it to the park, and coordinated the effort of collecting and storing artifacts for future
display ina museum. The Spalding Museum Foundation remained active even after it was largely
subsumed by the campaign to establish a national historical park. In 1963, it paid for an appraisal
of the Evans property, a key parcel of land in Spalding on which stood the Sacajawea Museum
‘with its eclectic assortment of historical artifacts.» Even after the park was established, the
Spalding Museum Foundation continued to lobby senators and congressmen for the necessary
funds to build the park’s visitor center.

By the early 1960s, booster organizations like Advance Idaho and the Lewiston Chamber of
Commerce had developed a keen interest in the area’s historical resources. It began to appear
that Idaho’s historical and recreational resources could be developed together. The idea arose
that Idaho’s overall character — scenic, rustic, and pristine — could be preserved and marketed
in a single package. This called for a wider conception, something like “Nez Perce country” or
‘Nez Perce historic country.” Beginning about 1961, some of these individuals began to work
with Nez Perce tribal representatives on a plan to establish a national historical park.

The Nez Perce Tribe

There were about 2,100 Nez Perces on the tribal roll in 1960, with some three-fourths of all
tribal members residing on the reservation. The dominant tribal concern then, as now, was how
to improve economic conditions on the reservation. While some Nez Perces found employment in
the lumber mills and others worked in the woods or farmed their own land, many others faced a
critical lack of employment opportunities on the reservation. Only about thirty percent of adult
male tribal members who lived on the reservation had full-time employment. Another twenty-five
percent of this group had seasonal employment. Considering that the average Nez Perce family
income was approximately $950 per year, and considering further the reluctance shown by most
Nez Perces to move off the reservation, it followed that the foremost tribal concern was to foster
job growth on the reservation.’*

'S Appraisal of “Evans Property” at Spalding, Idaho, for Spalding Historical Assn. as of May 15, 1963, by Glenn W.
Hall, WSU, Ted Little Papers, Box 2, Folder 20. Theodore H. Little, a Lewiston attorney who represented the Nez
Perce Tribe, joined the foundation and became one of the key individuals in the movement for a national historical park.

'® Joseph H. Fraser, A Survey of the Recreation and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country, vol.I, report
prepared by Armour Research Foundation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon, June 14, 1963, p. 1.

8 Chapter One


PROLOGUE

he Nez Perces call themselves Nimiipu, meaning “we the people” or “the real

people.” According to tribal legend, the Nez Perces were created from the heart of

monster, whose gross body completely filled the valley of the upper Clearwater
River in what is now north central Idaho. When monster had devoured nearly all the animals in
the land, coyote slew monster by jumping down its throat and cutting out its heart. Coyote then
dismembered the body and flung the pieces to distant parts of the land, where different peoples
sprang up. Last of all, coyote took monster’s heart and squeezed the blood out of it. These
drops of blood from monster’s brave heart mingled with the earth and created the noblest of

tribes, the Nez Perce people.’

The homeland of the Nez Perces centered upon the Clearwater, lower Snake, and lower
Salmon rivers and their tributaries. It extended to the northeastern edge of the Columbia Plateau
where it meets the Bitterroot Valley. Lapwai Creek was considered the dividing line between the
buffalo-hunting Nez Perces, who took the Lolo Trail to the hunting grounds east of the Continen-
tal Divide, and their fishing and hunting fellow tribesmen.’ By the time the Nez Perces acquired
horses in the early 1700s, the tribe had come to occupy a strategic location as intermediaries
between the Flatheads and Crows on the northeast and the natives of the Columbia Plateau on the
north and west. Trade generally fostered good relations with these peoples. The Coeur d’Alenes
to the north, and the Shoshones and Bannocks to the south, meanwhile, were the Nez Perces’
traditional enemies. There were raids back and forth, but sometimes the Nez Perces traveled with
the Coeur d’Alenes to the buffalo grounds.? By the early nineteenth century, the Nez Perces had
numerous permanent villages on the Clearwater River, at least eleven villages on the Snake River
as far upstream as the Imnaha River, three permanent villages on the Salmon River and its
tributaries, six villages between the Grande Ronde River and the Wallowa Mountains of north-
eastern Oregon and on the Snake River below the Clearwater, and three villages in what is now

the southeast corner of Washington state.‘

1 Francis Haines, The Nez Perces: Tribesmen of the Columbia Plateau, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
1955. The Nez Perce people do not capitalize these characters’ names.

? Robert H. Ruby and John A. Brown, A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest, revised ed., University
of Oklahoma, Norman, 1992, p. 145.

3 Haines, The Nez Perces: Tribesmen of the Columbia Plateau, p. 17.

4 Ruby and Brown, A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest, p. 145.

Prologue


The last log drive on the Clearwater River, 1968...

Some of the park's founders hoped that the NPS might interpret
this activity for the public as a vestige of the past, but the activity
ceased after 1968.

Pictorial Essay


sion by including knowledge of Nez Perce history and culture as a desirable hiring criterion for all
park positions.’

These peacemaking efforts notwithstanding, the tribe soon circumvented Briggle to get the
superintendent removed. In late 1986, Deputy Director Denis Galvin initiated discussions with
Whittaker and Roy W. Weaver, superintendent of Edison National Historical Site, New Jersey,
about a potential job swap between the two of them. According to Weaver, Galvin was a
personal friend who knew of Weaver’s desire to get a transfer back to the west. After Weaver
had agreed to the change, he met with Briggle in Washington, D.C., for a briefing on the park.
Briggle told Weaver of the need to involve the Nez Perce Tribe more effectively in park manage-

ment. The two-way transfer was accomplished in January 1987.'*

The Superintendency of Roy W. Weaver, 1987-1990

Weaver had worked in a variety of functions, including natural resource management,
interpretation, and park management, during his tenure with the NPS. He was the first superin-
tendent of Roger Williams National Memorial in Providence, Rhode Island. Although he had
never before worked in a park unit with a close relationship to an Indian tribe, Weaver maintains
that his experience working with various ethnic groups on the East Coast served him well at Nez
Perce. Weaver brought to the superintendency a “healthy curiosity” about Nez Perce culture, as
well as a professional commitment to listen to tribal concerns and to make the park a good
neighbor. One of his first acts was to tour the park with NPTEC members.’

From the tribe’s standpoint, Weaver got the park administration moving in the right direction
again with the appointment of two Nez Perces, Jesse Kipp and Kevin Peters, to permanent staff
positions. In addition, the park still employed Nez Perces as cultural demonstrators and in other
seasonal jobs, and Allen Slickpoo held a temporary position as a museum technician. Still, there
were numerous frustrations. Weaver tried to get Slickpoo’s position upgraded, but the regula-
tions of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) barred the upgrade because Slickpoo, for all
his expertise in Nez Perce culture, lacked the necessary formal educational credentials. Weaver
also applied for “contiguous area” hiring authority — a special dispensation granted to some

132 William J. Briggle to Allen Slickpoo, April 29, 1986, Briggle to J. Herman Reuben, May 15, 1986, Briggle to
Reuben, May 29, 1986, Fahy C. Whittaker to Reuben, June 5, 1986, Memorandum of Understanding between Nez
Perce National Historical Park and Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, August 27, 1986, CCSO, Kent Bush files,

File NPTEC.

'3 Roy W. Weaver, interview with author, October 4, 1995.

'34 Roy W. Weaver, interview with author, October 4, 1995.

Chapter Two 43


Pictorial Essay


of population within a two-hour radius of Nez Perce mattered most. They noted that Idaho was
one of the last remaining states still classified as rural by the U.S. Bureau of Census. Rather than
suggesting ways to “capture” a certain percentage of out-of-state traffic so that these travelers
would spend money in the local economy, NPS planning teams focused on the needs of the local
day-user first, the weekend vacationer second, and the long distance traveler last.”*

The Park Service’s emphasis on the day-user had important implications for the interpretive
program. Whereas the Armour Research Foundation envisioned a main visitor center that would
present an overview of Nez Perce country and entice the visitor to spend an extra day or two
exploring the various historical sites, the Park Service wanted to make each park site meaningful
on its own merits and representative of the larger complex. Park planners were mindful that this
would not be a destination park. “Since there are many other interesting day-use activities readily
available in and around the Nez Perce county [sic],” the master plan stated, “the historical park
will be placed in a position of competing for the visitor’s time.”2"”

After identifying the probable visitor use pattern, the planners turned to the more difficult
question of what the national historical park was about. The concept of Nez Perce country was
central. The Nez Perce Development Advisory Committee, the Armour Research Foundation, the
NPS feasibility study team, and finally Congress itself used this term to define the park’s scope
and meaning. The term was deliberately vague, giving the Park Service some room for interpreta-

tion.”"8

Historian Erwin Thompson suggested that Nez Perce country comprised “great and varied
scenery” as well as “the story of two cultures in close contact.” He considered the history of the
Nez Perce people to be “a continuous thread that must be woven throughout the length and
breadth of the tapestry,” yet the history of white settlement, which had so altered the land and the
native culture, “must also receive emphasis.”#" Thompson allowed that the park story would be a

216LJ.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, A Master Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park,
Idaho, June 1968, p. 9. The authors of the Interpretive Prospectus (1970) were even more blunt: “We cannot assume
that most visitors will see all units of the park; in fact, probably very few will. The average visitor coming into the
country is recreation-oriented. He is not after a million facts and this situation should guide our interpretive

developments. If we can interest this
visitor with a few provocative elements, he may wish to involve himself more deeply in the park story. We don’t want to
offer him so much on initial contact that he is confused and bewildered by it all. The light touch is better than the sledge

hammer approach” (p. 4).
717 Thid, p. 9.

718 Multiple meanings of the term “Nez Perce country” are described in “Nez Perce National Historical Park,”
Incredible Idaho, vol.1, no.1 (July 1969), pp. 20-22.

* Erwin N. Thompson, A Survey of the Recreational and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country, vol.Il,
prepared by Armour Research Foundation for U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C., September 1963, p. 2.

76 Chapter Five


© about Nez Perce history and culture from Nez Perce Indians? As one tribal leader bluntly
expressed it, no one wants to find Mexican cooks at a Chinese restaurant. In this respect Nez
Perce members of the interpretive staff had an advantage over their non-Nez Perce fellow
employees. But they too felt humbled, bound as they were by tribal custom to defer to the elders
of the tribe on matters of Nez Perce history and culture."

Park staff also contended, at least initially, with a dearth of information. Early planning
documents for Nez Perce National Historical Park stressed that much historical research needed
to be done before many of the park sites could be interpreted judiciously. Scholarly books on the
Nez Perce people and the War of 1877 were fairly scarce when the park was established. Alvin
Josephy’s The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest was published in 1965. The
standard work on Nez Perce culture was still Francis Haines’ The Nez Perces: Tribesmen of the
Columbia Plateau (1955). The Park Service began to address the need for a good military
history of the War of 1877 by contributing funds to a study by Merrill D. Beale resulting in the
book, “7 Will Fight No More Forever”: Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce War (1963). Yet many
of the park sites still lacked reliable historical data. Even Beale’s military history contained only
sketchy details on the Battle of White Bird, for example. The NPS addressed this gap when it
assigned John Dishon McDermott of the Park Service’s Division of History, Washington, D.C., to

produce a history of the Battle of White Bird.”

Even with this exhaustive study completed, it became evident in the course of preparing
C) exhibits for the White Bird Battlefield interpretive shelter that no history of the battle could be
definitive. NPTEC objected to the Park Service’s interpretation of how the battle started, and
adopted a resolution advancing its own interpretation of events. The NPS’s Division of Exhibits
at Harpers Ferry Center reviewed the tribal resolution and found NPTEC’s interpretation to be at
variance with historical sources (specifically McDermott’s Forlorn Hope and L.V. McWhorter’s
Yellow Wolf, His Own Story [1948]). By way of compromise, it devised a new panel with the
label “How Did it Begin? Two Historical Views.” The final texts, jointly approved by NPTEC

and the NPS, read as follows:

248 Futures Workshop, Nez Perce National Historical Park General Management Plan, authors notes, May 15-18,
1995.

C) 249 John Dishon McDermott, Forlorn Hope. A Study of the Battle of White Bird Canyon Idaho and the Beginning of
the Nez Perce Indian War, National Park Service, Division of History, June 1968.

Chapter Five 85


pk?
@

\ NEZ PERCE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

PLEASE RETURN TO:

TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
DENVER SERVICE CENTER

ior Scans NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
tf 127-00 2

cP


Management direction should concentrate on ecosystem restoration of the historic scene on the sites
rather than just controlling or eliminating noxious weeds. However, an Historic Landscape Plan and
a Vegetation Management Plan are necessary before the controlling of noxious weeds can be
expanded to ecosystem or historic scene restoration.?

The park needed more research with which to develop management plans. These plans would in
turn guide resource managers in the use of such tools as prescribed fire, the replanting of native
grasses, and eradication of exotics. It was indicative of Weaver’s grander outlook on resource
management that the updated resources management plan of 1987 lumped previous project
statements for East Kamiah, Spalding, and White Bird under the single goal of developing a
vegetation management plan. In addition, Weaver wanted to reassess grazing again, give greater
protection to resources by stepping up law enforcement, and mark the park boundaries more

clearly.

In 1988, the park contracted with the University of Idaho CPSU to conduct base line research
and an investigation of grazing effects at the White Bird Battlefield. The CPSU’s Gerry Wright
took the lead role in designing biological research at Nez Perce National Historical Park. The
research team began by inventorying well over 100 species of flora present at the site. It then
established nine test plots of 100 square-meter grids each. These test plots would give a
measurement of change in species density over time. Each test plot included an exclosure so that
the effects of grazing on biomass could be monitored. In addition, the CPSU scientists secured
assistance from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) for field monitoring, and help from the Nez
Perce National Forest with aerial photo monitoring. The latter would help determine erosional

trends. Both agencies had offices in Grangeville.**

Another part of the plan was to increase the Park Service presence in the area and obtain
better cooperation from the rancher, Andrew Dahlquist. In 1988, Dahlquist had 1,200 head of
sheep grazing in the area and his permit allowed him to graze 400 Animal Unit Months on park
land. He was supposed to move the herd frequently. Weaver directed Chief Ranger Jan Dick to
visit the site often, make himself conspicuous, and see how much Dahlquist was moving his sheep,
or indeed whether he was committing livestock trespass.**

By the winter of 1989-1990 the NPS was actively working with the SCS and Dahlquist to
develop a revegetation plan for White Bird. The plan involved two stages. In the first stage, a

323 Nez Perce National Historical Park, Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 1987, CCSO,
library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D15B, p. 5.

34 Thid..-

325 Jan Dick to Roy Weaver, June 15, 1988, NEPE, N1617 Revegetation Management - White Bird Site. See also
Mack Barrington and R. Gerald Wright, “An Inventory of Plant Communities and Methods to Monitor Vegetation
Change at White Bird Battlefield, Nez Perce NHS,” July 1989, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D31.

326 Superintendent to Regional Director, June 17, 1988, NEPE, Administrative Files, N1617 Revegetation
Management - White Bird Site.

Chapter Seven 111


Battlefield, White Bird Battlefield, and at Tonkawa in Oklahoma. These ceremonies have C)
attracted Nez Perces from Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and have become annual events.”

Three years after passage of the additions bill, the Park Service appeared to be playing a
critical and fruitful role in bringing the different Nez Perce groups into closer agreement on the
significance and future direction of the park. The Nez Perce National Historical Park Additions
Act of 1991 provides that the Park Service will consult with the Nez Perce people in interpreting
the park story. Representatives from the Chief Joseph Band began to participate with representa-
tives of the Nez Perce Tribe in planning for the new sites. By then it was evident that the new
shape of the park was tending to soften the jealousies and resentments that had long divided the
Nez Perce people. More recently, enactment of the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 added
other incentives for cooperation between the NPS and the Nez Perce people, while raising the
possibility of a tribally administered park some time in the future. Still, the Nez Perces did not
speak with one voice, even on such a fundamental issue as this.

An Interagency Coordinated Strategy workshop in October 1993 also appeared to be pointing
the park in a new direction. The workshop brought together representatives of seven federal
agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe. Its goal was to develop a coordinated strategy for federal land
managers in the Nez Perce country of Idaho that would allow agencies to pool their resources and
minimize conflict. At first the Coordinated Strategy was modeled on the so-called “Four Corners
Strategy” of resource management being developed in the four corners region of Utah, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Arizona. But as the program developed, the focus shifted to interpretation,
documentation, and consultation relating to Nez Perce history and culture. The Park Service,
Forest Service, and Nez Perce Tribe were the major partners in the Coordinated Strategy; the
Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Soil Conservation
Service, and Idaho SHPO were involved too. Following the workshop, designated participants
took six months to prepare an action plan. Among the promised actions was a Nez Perce Trail
symposium. The symposium took place in Lewiston in October 1995.3”

Currently the park is embarked on its first general management planning process. The
purpose of the General Management Plan (GMP) is to provide management philosophy and
direction for the park during the next ten to fifteen years. During the GMP process, NPS
officials, Nez Perce representatives, and interested citizens are refining the park’s purpose and

7” Frank Walker, interview with author, July 21, 1995; Frank Walker, comments on draft, February 26, 1996.

*8 Superintendent to Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Director, Rocky Mountain Region,
Superintendent, Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, and Associate Regional Director, Rocky Mountain Region,
September 1, 1993, NEPE, Administrative Files, A3815 Public Relations - Nez Perce Tribe; Sue Buchel, interview with ©
author, October 23, 1995; Frank Walker, interview with author, July 21, 1995.

134 Epilogue


Big Hole National Battlefield museum, circa 1960.

Pictorial Essay =



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.

Map of Nez Perce National Historical Park (NPS map)....................... 23
Land Ownership at Nez Perce National Historical Park (NPS map).............. 49
Historical Map of Land Exchange, Spalding, 1991 (National Park Service map, no
date). 0 eee eee eee es 54
Historical Map of Highway System at Spalding, 1971 (State of Idaho Department of
Highways Map). ...... 0... cette teens ‘55
Nez Perce National Historic Trail... 20.0.0. 65
Sites Studied in 1969 Evaluation (NPS map).............. 0.0.0. c eee eee 117
Sites Evaluated in 1987-1988 (NPS map). ........... 0.0... e cece eee eee 122
Map of Big Hole National Battlefield (NPS map). ................0.0.02005. 129

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FOOTNOTES

BSU
CCSO
DSC
FRC

NAPNWR __ National Archives, Pacific Northwest Region

NEPE

NPTEC Nez Perce Tribal Executive Council

RG
WSU

Boise State University
Columbia-Cascade Cluster System Support Office
Denver Service Center

Federal Records Center

Nez Perce National Historical Park

Record Group

Washington State University

ii

Preliminaries


380-acre central portion of the site would be closed to grazing except in spring and fall when the
preferred perennial plants were dormant; thus, only the noxious weeds would be cropped. Also
during this phase, Dahlquist would cultivate the 380-acre area with oat or barley hay and harvest
the crop at the end of the summer. In the second phase, the area would be planted with native
grass seed and fenced off for two years to allow the native grass to become established. Native
grass seed would be purchased from the local seed distributor using credit from Dahlquist’s
grazing fees. The hope was that once native grasses were firmly established in the central portion
of the site they could be encouraged to expand to the remaining two-thirds of the site.”

Meanwhile, the park administration started to revamp its approach to vegetation management
at the Spalding and East Kamiah units. The park developed a new grazing management plan for
East Kamiah that sought to bring grazing use into proper adjustment. The plan included eleven
schedules and measures for determining proper grazing levels. According to the authors of the
plan, “grazing will be managed and regulated to provide for improvement and maintenance of
native grass species to the greatest extent possible.” At the Spalding site, some eleven separate
weed infestations were identified, labeled alphabetically, and treated with various herbicides or
removed by different mechanical means.*”

But in one important respect the park was frustrated before it could fully implement its new
revegetation plans. The park’s new fire management strategy, approved March 1988, announced
that beginning that year the park would once again experiment with prescribed burns to assess (1)
the natural role of fire within the various plant communities, and (2) whether prescribed burns
could be used as a supplement to mechanical and chemical controls of exotic and noxious
weeds.**> However, due to the unusually severe fire season throughout the West that year, all
prescribed burns were deferred. Following the public outcry over the dramatic wildfires in
Yellowstone National Park in 1988, the NPS implemented a new system-wide fire management
policy. One feature of the new policy was a requirement that qualified burn bosses supervise all
prescription fires. Under the new policy, the staff at Nez Perce lacked qualified personnel. As a
result, natural resource managers had to improvise a great deal. Essentially they reverted back to
mowing, hand-pulling, and spraying weeds with chemical treatments.

27 Superintendent to Regional Director, January 10, 1990, NEPE, Administrative Files, N1617 Revegetation
Management - White Bird Site.

*8 Nez Perce National Historical Park, “Grazing Management Plan, East Kamiah,” no date, NEPE, Resource
Management files, Vegetation Management Plan.

°° Spalding Revegetation Accomplishments 1988, NEPE, Resource Management files, Vegetation Management.
Plan.

330 Nez Perce National Historical Park, Fire Management Plan, Nez Perce National Historical Park, CCSO, library
DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D24.

112 Chapter Seven



C) tribal member."" After keeping the search going months longer than he had anticipated, he hired
Carol M. Gamet, an employee of the BIA office in Lapwai and a non-Indian.

Meanwhile, Burns received several inquiries from tribal members about other employment
opportunities in the park. Two Nez Perce women, Ida Blackeagle and Viola Morris, were hired
to perform their beadwork and other crafts in the presence of park visitors. These women became
the first “cultural demonstrators” in the National Park Service.” Some Nez Perces were
interested in seasonal ranger positions. One individual wanted to serve as a guide, but Burns
informed him that there would be no such position for at least three years. With the transfer of
the Spalding State Park, the NPS hired two laborers (one Nez Perce and one non-Indian) who
worked for the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. Burns employed two other non-
Indians to fill seasonal ranger positions during the summer of 1966. The following winter another
non-Indian, Milo E. Anderson, joined the staff as maintenance foreman.®

Burns also brought a park historian on staff. He wanted an individual who could bring
expertise to the tasks of curating artifacts and setting up an interpretive program, as well as serve
as acting superintendent when Burns was absent. In March 1966, Burns informed Allen Slickpoo
that the candidate for this job would have to have about fifteen years of Park Service experience.
Six months later, in a letter to the regional director, Burns lowered his standards to ten years
experience and stressed that he wanted to “push this through as soon as I can.” Without
recommending a specific federal grade level, Burns suggested that “perhaps after the development

OC) and construction phase of the Park has been completed the grade of the Historian may want to be
dropped one or two grades.”TM In February 1967, Earl R. Harris was hired as park historian. He
had worked for the NPS since 1950. He transferred to Nez Perce from Scotts Bluff National

Monument, Nebraska.*

If the composition of the new staff seemed disappointingly non-Indian to the Nez Perce Tribe
in 1967, tribal leaders by and large accepted it graciously. They remained confident that the park
would be a good thing for their people and that Burns had their interests at heart. The superinten-
dent worked hard to develop a personal rapport with the Nez Perce and genuinely enjoyed that

8! Superintendent to Acting Regional Director, May 6, 1966, and Superintendent to Regional Director, December 30,
1966, NEPE, chrono files.

® Robert L. Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995.

® Robert L. Burns to Allen P. Slickpoo, March 26, 1966, Superintendent to Acting Regional Director, May 6, 1966,
Burns to James D. Speer, May 19, 1966, Burns to Interagency Board of U.S. Civil Service Examiners, December 13,
1966, NEPE, chrono files; Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 21, 1966; Carol Gamet, interview with author, July 26,

1995.

Robert L. Burns to Allen P. Slickpoo, March 24, 1966, and Superintendent to Regional Director, September 15,
1966, NEPE, chrono files.

O 85 T ewiston Morning Tribune, March 28, 1971.

Chapter Two 31


renewable loan in 1980, and a generous selection of items from the collection became the focus of
the visual interpretation of Nez Perce material culture in the new visitor center in 1983.7

While Shawley showed considerable acumen as a collector, he had little experience in
designing museum exhibits. He was resourceful in expanding the exhibits in the temporary visitor
center and in refurnishing the Watson’s Store. However, when it came to planning the permanent
exhibit in the new visitor center, Shawley encountered difficulties. Despite two years of collabo-
rative effort between the park, the regional office, and Harpers Ferry Center, many problems
developed in getting the permanent exhibits in place inside the new facility. The problems
stemmed from a combination of inadequate planning and poor workmanship by the contractor. In
September 1982, Harpers Ferry Center contracted with Promotion Products, Inc., to fix the
myriad problems in the museum area. Regional Curator Kent Bush worked with a professional
crew to plan the modifications, while Shawley was relieved of that duty.”

Shawley got into serious trouble as he resumed the task of cataloguing. During the period
that the visitor center was under development, he had neglected his cataloguing duties and had
allowed some of the collections to become mixed together. Other collections lacked adequate
documentation to show whether the Park Service had acquired them by purchase or loan. By the
end of 1981, Shawley had catalogued 700 objects and had properly completed 500 museum cards,
while consigning numerous other items to museum clearinghouse lists. This headway notwith-
standing, Superintendent Whitaker could only describe the park’s museum records as a

“quagmire.”

Whitaker was increasingly concerned about Shawley’s job performance. Indeed, as the large
backlog of curatorial work festered, Whitaker’s trust in Shawley’s professional integrity eroded.
When one notable item disappeared and then reappeared, it raised suspicions. Shawley’s former
professor, Dr. Roderick Sprague, confided to Whitaker that he had concerns about Shawley
occupying such an official position. In Sprague’s estimation, Shawley had approached the study
of anthropology at the University of Idaho from the perspective of a dealer, specializing too early
in his hobby interest of Nez Perce material culture. The son of missionaries, Shawley had grown
up with Nez Perce Indians and had a firsthand knowledge of their traditional material culture. As
park curator, he had maintained his contacts with dealers of Indian artifacts. He was secretive and

266 Nez Perce National Historical Park, The Spalding-Allen Museum Collection (brochure), [1995], Roy W. Weaver
to Dr. Gary C. Ness, June 10, 1988, CCSO, Kent Bush files.

7 Superintendent to Regional Director, September 28, 1982, NEPE, chrono file; Kent Bush, interview with author,
August 24, 1995,

8 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1981, NEPE, chrono file; Superintendent to Deputy Regional Director, February
18, 1983, NEPE, chrono file.

92 Chapter Six



C) dress and produce certain items were later encouraged to dress as they pleased and work on
whatever items they desired.”

On the other hand, park staff agreed that the park’s existence was now a part of Nez Perce
history and acculturation. Indeed, the tribe’s partnership with the NPS had been agreed to by the
Nez Perce Tribe, and who was to say that the idea of Nez Perce National Historical Park was not
a part of their own cultural evolution? The issue was to what extent the NPS should curtail its
preservationist mandate in order to avoid intruding on Nez Perce culture. This was a delicate

issue.

Some NPS officials envisioned the park taking a strong lead in cultural preservation.
Superintendent Williams encouraged the park’s cultural demonstrators, Ida Blackeagle and Viola
Morris, to teach their arts to other tribal members. He was pleased, on visiting Nez Perce country
many years later, to observe the high quality of Nez Perce beadwork and leatherwork for sale in
the area and he believed, proudly, that the park had had something to do with it.” Similarly, the
interpretive prospectus of 1970 suggested that Nez Perce children might come to the visitor
center on school-sponsored field trips to learn from cultural demonstrators, practice making
traditional arts and crafts, and listen to Nez Perce storytellers. This became a popular activity,
and NPS staff (both Indian and non-Indian) were often requested to present tribal educational
programs. A Nez Perce children’s “Story Time” at the visitor center would heighten the chil-

O ’ dren’s appreciation of their heritage, the interpretive prospectus stated.?*

In short, the preservationist goals of the park presented the staff with a conundrum. The
concept of bringing a variety of tribal arts and oral traditions partially under the Park Service’s
aegis for preservation seemed to some park staff like an appropriate outgrowth of the partnership
idea, while others found it disturbing. This aspect of the relationship between the Park Service
and the Nez Perce people is not unique within the National Park System, but it is unusual and
complex. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of an administrative history to give this relation-
ship the intensive study that it deserves.

256 Susan Buchel, telephone interview, May 2, 1996.
57 Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.

O 258 National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park Interpretive Prospectus, 1970, p. 18.

Chapter Five 87


Perce Tribe’s legal counsel in Washington, D.C., Richard Schifter, was a partner in the prestigious
law firm of Strasser, Spiegelberg, Fried, Frank & Kampelman, and a former student of the
preeminent Indian rights lawyer of the New Deal era, Felix S. Cohen.” Since the Nez Perce Tribe
had strong ties to the Democratic Party, the election of John F. Kennedy held promise for the

tribe.

In March 1961, NPTEC Chairman Richard A. Halfmoon inquired about obtaining technical
assistance from the National Park Service on a proposal to develop some tourist attractions on the
reservation. Schifter, NPTEC’s liaison in Washington, contacted Assistant Secretary of the
Interior John A. Carver, Jr. and drafted a letter for Senator Frank Church to send to the
Department of the Interior in support of NPTEC’s proposal.® Carver directed the NPS to consult
with the Nez Perce Tribe on its tourist development proposal. The NPS assigned Daniel F.
Burroughs, chief of the Columbia River Recreation Survey Branch of the NPS located in
Portland, Oregon, to the task. In May 1961, Burroughs met with Halfmoon, four other NPTEC
members, and William E. Ensor, Jr., the BIA’s superintendent of Northern Idaho Indian Agency,
and accompanied the group on a field survey. This appears to have been the first instance of
direct cooperation between the Nez Perce Tribe and the NPS.*! .

Burroughs listed six different projects which the tribe had taken under consideration. These
included a museum; a reconstructed Nez Perce village; a western fort that would include stores
for the sale of Nez Perce arts and crafts; an amphitheater in which tribal members could perform
dances, ceremonies, and other tribal customs; a community hall for the transaction of tribal
business, as well as for use by non-Indian organizations such as the Boy Scouts; and tourist
accommodations, including motels, restaurants, service stations, automobile campgrounds.
Burroughs concluded that the scenic attractions of the region, together with the traffic on U.S. 95
between Lewiston and Boise and State Route 9 up the Clearwater Valley, would justify some kind
of well-planned development.”

° Allen Slickpoo, Sr., interview by author, July 21, 1995.

3° Richard Schifter to Richard A. Halfmoon, March 17, 1961, enclosing Frank Church to John A. Carver, Jr., March
13, 1961, NEPE, Richard Halfmoon Papers.

3! Daniel F. Burroughs, “Preliminary Report on the Proposed Plan of Recreation Development, Nez Perce Indian
Tribe of Idaho,” June 1961, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 4, April 1963. Richard Halfmoon recalls
these events differently. Halfmoon relates that Burroughs’ made a sudden appearance in Spalding, and expressed
concern that Halfmoon and Sam Watters were prepared to burn down an old building next to Watters’ home, and made a
surprising announcement that the National Park Service was planning a park at the site. Halfmoon characterizes the
NPS preliminary study as a “hush hush plan,” and maintains that “nobody told the Nez Perce people what was going
on.” Richard Halfmoon, interview by author, July 27, 1995; Richard A. Halfmoon, comments on draft, May 9, 1996;
Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

* Daniel F. Burroughs, “Preliminary Report on the Proposed Plan of Recreation Development, Nez Perce Indian
Tribe of Idaho,” June 1961, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 4, April 1963.

12 Chapter One



protecting the historic resources and improving the park setting. But some traffic between U.S.
95 and points east still went through the site, because savvy motorists knew that they could shave
about three miles off their trip by taking the old U.S. 12 from Spalding along the south side of the
Clearwater River to Arrow Junction.

The third change in the highway traffic pattern came with the closure of the Spalding viaduct
in 1986 when the state highway department declared it unsafe. The closure deflected all traffic
that was using old U.S. 12 onto the short section of road past the picnic area. Superintendent
Weaver was faced with the unacceptable situation of having semi-trucks and numerous other
vehicles driving directly through the Spalding unit. Not only did it harm the park’s ambiance, but
the road itself was crumbling under this unprecedented usage. After considerable local public
debate on the situation, Weaver decided to close the park road to through traffic in 1988. Signs
were posted at Arrow Junction to warn motorists that old U.S. 12 now ended at the Spalding
viaduct. Frustrated motorists who missed the signs kept breaking down the Park Service’s barrier
when they got to Spalding. Finally Weaver put up a heavy pipe gate. Frustration with the road
closure gradually abated, leaving the highway traffic pattern around Spalding more favorable than
it had been in seventy years from the standpoint of the historic resources and providing a parklike
ambiance. The old, abandoned viaduct still stands, and continues to be a major visual intrusion on
the historic scene."

Land Acquisition for the East Kamiah Site

Original plans for Nez Perce National Historical Park contemplated that three historic themes
would be represented near the town of Kamiah: Nez Perce culture, the Lewis and Clark story, and
the missionary story. An important element of Nez Perce culture, the tribal legend of how the
people came to inhabit the Nez Perce country, would be presented at the site of a geologic
formation known to the Nez Perce as the Heart of the Monster. A piece of the Lewis and Clark
story would be told nearby with a roadside sign. This was the area of the “Long Camp,” where
the Lewis and Clark expedition waited for snow in the Bitterroot Mountains to melt before
returning eastward over the range. The actual site of the Long Camp was now occupied by an
operating sawmill so there would be no land acquisition involved in this site. Finally, the
missionary story here would feature the First Presbyterian Church, built in 1874, and the McBeth
house nearby, where the missionaries Susan and Kate McBeth resided. The McBeth sisters are
buried in a cemetery behind the church.’

> Roy W. Weaver, interview with author, October 4, 1995; Superintendent to Public Affairs Office, PNRO,
September 12, 1988, NEPE, chrono file; assorted correspondence in NEPE, Administrative Files, A3815 Public
Relations—Closure East Gate.

U.S, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 4 Master Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park,
Idaho, June 1968, pp. 16-18.

56 Chapter Three


M

Magnuson, Warren G., 11, 36
McBeth, Kate, 56,

McClure, James, 35, 36, 110, 124
McDermott, Jim, 85, 124
Mission 66, 28, 128

Moody, Allen, 82

Moris, Robert L., 36, 38, 40, 53, 86, 91, 107, 108
Morris, Viola, 31, 35, 81, 87
Morse, Wayne L. 116

Mott, Jr., William Penn, 42
Musselshell Meadows, 60

NU

Nash, Philleo, 11

National Parks Advisory Board, 19-21

Nez Perce Indian Reservation, 14, 15, 17, 116, 119,
123, 133

Nez Perce Lyceum, 82, 83

Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) Trail, 63, 64, 67, 133

Nez Perce National Historic Trail, 3, 64, 65, 67, 123,
131, 133

Nez Perce National Historic Trail Foundation, 67

Nez Perce National Historical Park Association, 29

Nez Perce Park Cooperative Association, 83, 84

Nez Perce Trail, 67, 116, 134

Nez Perce Tribal Development Advisory Committee,
13, 14, 19, 135

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, 9, 42, 43, 81,
127

Nez Perce War of 1877, 28, 64, 67, 77, 103; see also,
War of 1877

Northern Idaho Agency, 48, 60, 81

Northwest Interpretive Association, 84, 96

Noxious weed control, 105, 109

NPTEC, 9, 10, 12-15, 25, 26, 30, 32-35, 38-40, 42, 43,
48, 53, 58, 60, 67, 68, 81, 85, 94, 102, 119, 120,
123, 124, 126, 127; see also, Nez Perce Tribal
Executive Committee

Northwest Interpretive Association (NWIA), 84

O

Odegaard, Charles H., 123, 130

O'Neill, Mark, 73, 113, 131

Officers Quarters, 97

Ohio Historical Society (OHS), 91, 93, 94

Old Chief Joseph Gravesite, 116, 119, 120, 125, 126
Old Chief Joseph Monument Site, 133

PO

Packwood, Bob, 34, 120, 123
Palmanteer, Jr., Eddie, 124, 126, 127
Paul, Elmer, 100, 102

Penney, Frank, 14

Penney, Sam, 94, 127

Peters, Keven, 43, 95

Pierce Courthouse, 60-62, 98

Poor Coyote’s Cabin, 98
Presbyterian Board of Missions, 5
Prescribed burn (or fire), 107, 111

RK

Red Wolf, Josiah, 119

Redthunder, Joe, 44, 119, 121, 124, 126
Reuben, J. Herman, 42, 43, 45, 82
Rickey, Don, 103

Ridenour, James M., 123, 125

Riley, Douglas J., 35, 40, 106, 107
Rutter, John A., 27, 32-36, 106

Ss

Sapatq’ ayn, 46, 83

Sacajawea Museum, 8, 90

Schifter, Richard, 12

Scott, Douglas D., 103

Scott, Wilfred, 35, 38-40, 53, 119

Seloske, Teresa, 73

Shawley, Stephen D., 39, 40, 91-93

Slickpoo, Allen, 9, 12-14, 25, 31, 33, 34, 43, 57, 95,
126

Smylie, Robert E., 7, 18, 26, 30, 63

Soil Conservation Service, 106, 108, 111, 134

Space, Ralph, 63

Spalding, Henry H., 2, 3, 5, 40, 47, 52, 77, 91, 92, 94,
99, 100

Spalding Mission, 5, 6, 25, 99, 101

Spalding Museum, 7, 25

Spalding Museum Foundation, (Inc)., 5-8, 14, 15, 28,
77,90

Spalding Post Office, 48, 98

Spalding State Park, 6-8, 13, 26, 28-31, 34, 40, 47, 48,
52

Spalding Visitor Center, 33, 80

Spalding viaduct, 52, 53, 56

Sprague, Roderick, 38-40, 51, 92, 100

Stephens, Stan, 123

Symmms, Steve, 110, 124

Index

175


During the 1980s, the Park Service began to develop cultural landscape studies for various
Nez Perce sites. These studies sought to bring the park’s assemblage of historic resources into a
more unified whole and to clarify the constantly recurring questions about how to proceed when
historic resources, representing different historical periods, overlapped and complemented one

another.

The process started with a brief report in 1985 by Jim Romo of Oregon State University titled
Landscape Overview and Vegetation Survey: Spalding Mission and East Kamiah. In 1987, the
Regional Office initiated a more ambitious historic landscape study focusing on the Spalding unit.
The study team’s report, completed in 1990, offered an alternative way to preserve and interpret
the park’s cultural features that would be more consistent with the central concept of the park as
a depiction of a process of cultural and environmental change. The authors stated:

The Spalding unit of Nez Perce National Historical Park is a complex landscape that portrays
evidence of human use and occupation spanning more than 10,000 years. Previous historical studies
at Spalding have identified only two significant historic periods: a missionary era from 1838-1847;
and an era associated with the occupation and administration of the area by the Indian Agency from
1860-1902. While current interpretation focuses on these two periods, the landscape itself suggests
that other events and cultural activities have shaped the site. This has led to considerable confusion
in regard to managing the “appropriate” historic scene and cultural context. One major thrust of this
study is, therefore, to explore the potential significance of other historic periods, and to develop a
landscape context for interpreting the full range of significant cultural resources at the site.”

Among the report’s contributions, it brought further attention to the arboretum planted in 1936 in
commemoration of Henry Spalding, arguing persuasively that the arboretum should be considered
a significant cultural resource. The state park era, which lasted from 1936 to 1966, was another
significant episode that should be recognized by the park’s resource managers and interpreted for
the public. The early monuments to Spalding told an interesting story of how commemorative
efforts and park design had changed in the past seventy years. The report provided perspective
and background information for park managers but it was not a detailed, prescriptive management

plan. That still remained to be done.”

Archeology

Many sites in Nez Perce National Historical Park contain archeological resources; a few, such
as Weis Rockshelter, Lenore, and Hasotino Village, feature them. These sites form part of a
larger matrix of archeological sites in Nez Perce country extending along the Snake and
Clearwater rivers and into some upland areas. The history of archeological investigations in Nez

28 Cathy A. Gilbert, Gretchen A. Luxenberg, and Marsha R. Tolon, Historic Landscape Report: Spalding Unit, Nez
Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, Seattle, 1990, p. 4.

290 Sue Buchel, interview with author, October 23, 1995.

Chapter Six 99


FU

Ecosystem restoration, 108, 111
Edmonds, Kermit, 103
Ellenwood, Richard, 46, 81, 94
Ensor, Jr., William E., 12, 15
Evans Property, 8

FO

Fire management, 107, 108, 112

First Presbyterian Church, 29, 56, 57, 61

First Presbyterian Church of Kamiah, 29, 61

Forest Service, 18, 29, 60, 64, 67, 73, 84, 120, 125,
126, 131, 134

Fort Fizzle, 116, 121

Fort Lapwai, 2, 60, 62, 90, 97

Fraser, Joseph, 8, 15, 16, 75

Fry case, 71

Gi

Galvin, Denis, 43

Gamet, Carol M., 31, 32, 69, 82

General Management Plan, 85, 86, 132, 134, 135; see
also, GMP

GMP, 134; see also, General Management Plan

Gorton, Slade, 126, 127

Grazing management, 112

Grazing policy, 108

Greene, Jesse, 40, 82

oo

Haines, Aubrey, 1, 103, 106

Halfmoon, Richard A., 9, 12, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36,
38-40, 48, 53, 81, 83, 119

Halfmoon, Otis, 124, 131

Harding, Ralph, 19

Harris, Earl R., 31, 35, 57, 70, 81, 83, 90

Hartzog, Jr., George B., 17, 18, 48

Hasotino Village, 99, 103, 121

Hatfield, Mark, 44, 116, 120, 123, 126

Hathaway, Art, 37, 41, 44, 80, 93, 109, 131

Hayes, Charles, 34, 123, 124, 126

Heart of the Monster, 56-58, 69, 83, 106, 107

Henderson, Paul, 46, 97, 131

Hickel, Walter, 33, 60

Hinsdale, Glenn L., 35, 71, 120

Holt, Maynard, 40

Huffman, Laurin C., 93, 97, 98, 106
Hummel, Edward A., 30, 52

fi

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, 30, 31, 40
Idaho State Highway Department, 6, 30, 100

Idaho State Historical Society, 15, 62, 120

Indian Claims Commission, 9

Indian tourism, 11

Interagency Coordinated Strategy, 134

i

Jackson, Henry M., 11, 36

Johnston, William F., 14, 17-19

Jordan, Len B., 19-21

Joseph Canyon Viewpoint, 116, 121
Joseph the Older, 2, 116, 127

Joseph the Younger, 116, 119, 121
Josephy, Alvin M., Jr., 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 118

KU

Kennedy, John F., 11, 12, 14,
Kennedy, Roger G., 131
Kernes, Steven T., 35, 71
Kipp, Jesse, 43

Kopcynski, Susan, 93

Lb

Lapwai Mission Cemetery, 52, 53

Lenore, 60, 99, 100

Lewis and Clark, 7, 15, 17, 25, 45, 56, 57, 64, 67, 77,
90, 94

Lewis and Clark Canoe Camp, 30; see also, Canoe
Camp

Lewis and Clark Expedition, 2, 17, 56, 63, 77, 90

Lewis and Clark Highway, 7, 15, 17, 63

Lewis and Clark Trail, 18, 63, 64

Little, Theodore H., 6-9, 13, 14, 25, 36, 84

Lolo Pass, 60, 63, 125

Lolo Trail, 1, 60, 64

Long Camp, 56

Looking Glass’s 1877 Campsite, 121

Lopez, Eddie, 130

174

Index


Kamiah, and White Bird Battlefield.” Consequently, the interpretive prospectus called for visitor
centers at these locations with each one orienting the visitor to the whole park as well as a
particular theme. At White Bird the theme would be the War of 1877, at East Kamiah it would be
Nez Perce traditions, and at Spalding the visitor center would introduce the over-arching theme of
Nez Perce cultural change from prehistory to the present.

The park’s land ownership pattern posed another challenge to interpretation. Although it was
Congress’s intent that the Park Service serve as the lead agency for interpreting the park story,
this could not be accomplished without the cooperation of a multitude of landowners.” On-site
interpretation of the 19 cooperative sites required consent and in some cases a commitment of
resources from the landowners. Most of the cooperative sites already had historical markers that
had been developed by the State Highway Department. It would take many years to bring on-site
interpretation of these sites up to national park standards. Signalling the fact that these sites
would receive lesser priority, the Jnterpretive Prospectus commented simply, “It would be nice to
be able to influence the design, placement, and texts of the State markers.”

Eventually it became apparent that the cooperative sites would provide the greatest challenge
for park interpretation. At each site interpretation had to accomplish two things: reveal the
historical significance that was intrinsic in the site, and provoke the visitor to think about how that
site related to the broader park story. In many cases, nothing was left of a site but the memory as
recorded in a state historical marker. As the park’s creators freely admitted, many of the sites did
not possess national significance on their own merits; it was only by bringing them into associa-
tion with one another (through interpretation) that they acquired national significance. In other
words, the creators of Nez Perce National Historical Park intended this unique park to be more
than the sum of its parts. It was about historical ideas and the character of a region as much as it
was about physical objects and specific geographical locations. In order to be a success, the park
had to reveal each site’s significance in relation to the whole park. Failing that, the Park Service
would then be in the errant position of guiding visitors to 21 separate sites that did not have
national significance.

222 Thid, pp. 6-10.

3 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho,
88th Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964, p. 18.

4 Thid, p. 20.

78 Chapter Five


shelter was built in August 1977, and interpretive exhibits were installed the following spring.

The development also included a new 3,000-foot pole fence along the highway frontage, replacing
some 2,000 feet of barbed wire fence that the Nez Perce Tribe had built under contract two years
earlier. Other planned improvements, including additional interpretive displays and public
restrooms with flush toilets, remained to be done. The White Bird Battlefield interpretive shelter

was completed in July 1977.'°

Meanwhile the NPS proceeded to develop plans for the much-anticipated visitor center at
Spalding. Park planners suggested a bold exterior design that would emphasize the park’s Nez
Perce theme. At first they proposed a tall, conical building resembling a tepee. Then they agreed
upon a simple triangle motif, a design element common in Nez Perce beadwork. Worked into the
exterior design of the visitor center in the form of a gently pitching triangular slab roof, the
triangle looked vaguely like an arrowhead.' The building would stand on the bluff above the
river with the raised point of the roof directing the visitor’s gaze up the Clearwater Canyon. The
sloping triangular roof design was repeated at the East Kamiah and White Bird Battlefield
interpretive shelters. A second motif, also repeated at these two sites, consisted of three slanting
poles placed in the ground beside each highway entrance. The latter symbolized the traditional
Nez Perce eagle staff. The effect of the two motifs together was striking. These visual design
features marked a significant step in bringing the park’s wide interpretive orbit closer and closer
to the central story of the Nez Perce Tribe.'”

The decision to locate the visitor center on the bluff was also important. The two previous
administrative headquarters and visitor centers — the Watson’s Store and the former Blue
Lantern Motel — were both situated below the bluff, inside the historic area. Park planners
decided that the new, larger visitor center would intrude on the historic setting and negatively
impact the historic resources if it were built in that area. Moreover, U.S. 12 had been rerouted
along the top of the bluff shortly after the park was authorized in 1965, and park planners wanted
the visitor center to be clearly visible to passing motorists. Locating the visitor center on the bluff
had one rather ironic consequence, however. Most park visitors, after spending twenty to thirty
minutes in the visitor center, would get back on the highway without going down to the historic

area,!?

The location of the visitor center had one very bitter consequence. On September 11, 1979,
while putting in the access road for this development site, a construction crew inadvertently

10°Superintendent’s Annual Reports, 1974, 1976, 1977, NEPE, chrono file.
N© Art Hathaway, interview with author, July 26, 1995.

11 Frank Walker, comments on draft, February 26, 1996.

‘2 The park symbol is two crossed eagle feathers. Superintendent Williams designed the park symbol.

43 Art Hathaway, interview with author, July 26, 1995.

Chapter Two 37


CRETE? us

Go” sd = onoriae

Za 7 SPaL bas \,
A ‘ ' 4
SPALDING \
sie \ N
9 camtag 1
EAST KAMAN =
SUT.

caTrOR wo

WHITE BIRO a

SITE \“
ViCIMETY war " SS
os “ated
wILES wait 9100

TOWNSHIP 36 NORTH
RANGE 4 WEST
NEZ PERCE COUNTY —- BOISE MERIDIAN
BASIC DATA’ GL.O.PLATS

COUNTY RECORDS
PRELIMINARY TITLE CERTIFICATES

a

# . Lorie

‘

2a. wp ml

Scigeet| REVISED TRACT No!
\ 528-67] apDING TRACT Wo 13
g-8- &] A00ING ;
Big 3- StL COMR ECT:
eee. 5, PBT CC ORM :
eeenttied | METEN C "os,

5-10-67 REVISED GOUNOARY OW 7

=
________
TRACT REGISTER

TRACT Kot NAME OF OWNER | ASE

1BIA [US 'M "RUST FORHEIRS OF JAMES MCSKES | ror{  _|

2 US IN TRUST FORME? PERCE TRIBE, ET AL | S85

3 ELWORA HALL — po}

48 4al JAMES @ BILLER ET UX _ y ole?
THOMAS W EVANS, DECEASED ET AL 6227

686A | FRED A MILLER ET UX Mat

7 [ US. TRUST FOR NEZ PERCE TRIBE vat
Toecereo. a H

{orcrtts
TO 1 STATE OF IDAHO
x

TOAGTOB| SPALDING WET AT

a SPALDING MUSEUM FOJNOA

2 Teeoace s STEDMAN,
3 T JAMES ( OLIVER ET &

ia TCELBERT ROBERTS. E
15 JOSEPH f CRAWFORD ,
16 jy ALVIN & SPRAGUE,
Pi? | Cw RALSTORLET Je
awa | JAMES Ow
ise j sAMES OO

rN Sd DKON, ET AL
20 | GEORGE KH STEDWAN
20k; GEORGE w STEDMAN
2! TTULLY w SAMPSON @ BURRELL SAMPSON i 7633
ER SZAL US IN TRUST FOR WEZ PERCE TREE L334 4
228 | US Im TRUST FOR REZ PERCE TRIBE ros)
z2z¢ US IN TRUST FOR NEZ PERCE THBE | 978 |
22D | Coit w SemPSeN G BURRELL 1 SauPsen Vaso
18C__|dAMES 0. WHITE i 14.85
13a [VAMESLOLIVER ET AL i243
TTA [GERELD WILFONG FT EX oR
: 4
_ —+
ed i

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE mITERIOR
| NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

is | | },
| OFFICE OF LAND 8 WATER RIGHTS SSC begare -—|
ITLE OF BRawNG: Oat! wen
| LAMO OWMERSHIP MAP a
| 22 LOF i 3 oe SREB
7 ~geten MEZ PERCE BHP. e.-La
2726 at ace ete

‘Figure 2.
Land Ownership at Nez Perce National

‘Historical Park (NPS map).
| 49

ON MICROFILM


Indian Affairs) plus acquisition of a maximum of 8 acres in fee.*? This proposal formed the basis
for renewed discussion in the 1980s.

The Park Additions Study Redux

A proposed condominium development near the site of the Old Chief Joseph grave reignited
the park additions proposal in the mid-1980s. In August 1985, NPTEC passed a resolution
affirming the significance of the Old Chief Joseph gravesite in Wallowa County, Oregon, and
expressing opposition to any commercial or residential development of the surrounding land.*? In
December 1986, Stanlynn Daugherty, chairperson of the Historical Park Committee of Enterprise,
Oregon, wrote to Oregon Senator Bob Packwood requesting that the NPS conduct a feasibility
study and support a legislative amendment of the park’s enabling act.** Senator Mark Hatfield
and Representative Robert F. Smith received other inquiries by constituents who supported
acquisition of the site. This correspondence, coupled with a public meeting in Enterprise on
November 7, 1986, attended by park officials, representatives from the Nez Perce and Umatilla
Tribes, local state park officials, and area citizens, led to an initiative by the NPS’s Pacific
Northwest Regional Office in 1987. Acting without any official request from Congress for a
feasibility-suitability study, the regional office formed a task force with the object of reviewing
and updating the 1969 additions study. Specifically, NPS officials perceived an opportunity to
reopen the issue of a multi-state park, and to lift the ceilings on land acquisition, easements, and
development.>*

Regional Historian Stephanie Toothman, serving as team leader, obtained a minimal $5,000
for the project from the regional director, the most that could be afforded without a congressional
request. The team adopted a two-pronged strategy for determining the suitability and feasibility
of park additions: NPS Chief Historian Ed Bearss and former Idaho State Historic Preservation
Officer Merle Wells would develop National Landmark recommendations for key sites, buttress-
ing the case for the suitability of park additions; Toothman, the superintendent, and other team
members, meanwhile, would reopen the question of enlarging the park beyond the state of Idaho, °

> Department of the Interior, Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed Oregon Additions, Nez Perce National
Historical Park, [1971]; Superintendent to Regional Director, March 3, 1972, NEPE, chrono file; Regional Director to
Associate Director, May 22, 1973, NEPE, L58 Proposed Areas - New Additions, Wallowa 1970-1973.

*8 Task Directive, Nez Perce Additions Study: 1987, NEPE, Additions Study files.
* Stanlynn Daugherty to Robert Packwood, December 1, 1986, NEPE, Additions Study files.

*45 Acting Superintendent to Regional Director, November 13, 1986, NEPE, chrono files; Task Directive, Nez Perce
Additions Study: 1987, NEPE, Additions Study files. Regional Historian Stephanie Toothman served as team leader.
Other team members included Superintendent Roy Weaver, Regional Chief of Natural Resource Management Reed
Jarvis, Regional Archeologist Jim Thomson, and Glenn Hinsdale of the regional office’s Interpretation Division. The
task force also included representatives from the BIA, Forest Service, and Idaho State Historical Society.

120 Chapter Eight


aary JaydeyD

STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 8
PROPOSED REMOVAL OF CLEARWATER RIVER BRIDGE \
NEAR SPALDING ,IDAHO N\A
BOISE, APRIL 1971 e _.
\ \ ~~.
7 1 “16 15 44 7
> 4 |
' vt Old Spalding bridge to be
43 | removed
A> !
ye a .
Ne ‘ aa)
i NESS are
Leto Lewiston If - a J Bans Were 4 20
7 SAL ERY SPALDING
e f
New Spalding bridge NORTII
>)
LAP WAI LEGEND
29 de 2? Old Spalding bridge to be removed Ban G
; To be constructed ,added to the State Highway System
f by previous Highway Board action orl eeeioael
| Removal from the Stote Highway System
authorized by previous Highway Board action ____ ssaonuum
ee eee ee ee To be retained on the State Highway System creme
Other roads mee SS
‘ 1 ke |
re3)
Or .
Figure 4.

Historical Map of Highway System at Spalding, 1971 (State of Idaho Department of Highways Map).


Haines, Francis. The Nez Perces: Tribesman of the Columbia Plateau. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1955.

Iverson, Thomas M. A Preliminary Report of Archaeological Investigations of the Agency Cabin, Nez
Perce National Historical Park. Moscow: Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, 1975.

Josephy, Alvin M. The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1965. .

Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Vol. Il.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1984.

Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Revised ed.
Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1992.

Scott, Douglas D. A Sharp Little Affair: The Archeology of the Big Hole Battlefield. Reprints in
Anthropology, vol.45. Lincoln, Nebraska: J&L Reprint Company, 1994.

Slickpoo, Allen P., compiler. Nu mee poom tit wah tit (Nez Perce Legends). Lapwai, Idaho: Nez Perce Tribe
of Idaho, 1972.

Stevens, Mark. “Chief Joseph’s Revenge.” The New Yorker, August 8, 1994.

Sweet, Jill D. “Let ‘em Loose: Pueblo Indian Management of Tourism.” American Indian Culture and
Research Journal, vol.15, no.4 (1991), pp.59-74.

Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting Our Heritage: Principles and Practices for Visitor Services in Parks,
Museums, and Historic Places. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957.

Walker, Deward E. Conflict and Schism in Nez Perce Acculturation: A Study of Religion and Politics.
Washington State University Press, 1968.

Whalen, Sue. “The Nez Perces’ Relationship to Their Land.” Indian Historian, vol.4, no.3 (197 1).

Woods, Wilma M. “The Role of Federal Dollars and the Economics of Recreation in the Development of
Idaho’s State Parks, 1908-1965.” Idaho Yesterdays, vol.34, no.4 (Winter 1991), pp.15-21.

VI. Newspapers (from clippings files)

Idaho County Free Press.

Lewiston Morning Tribune.

Spokesman Review (Spokane).

Missoulian (Missoula).

Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Bibliography 141


The Park Service determined to negotiate an acquisition package for the remaining landown-
ers rather than purchase the tracts individually. Superintendent Burns, accompanying Inspector
Clifford J. Harriman of the Park Service’s central office in Washington, negotiated purchasing
options with nine property owners as follows:

* Purchase price includes sellers’ moving and relocation expenses. Since 1983, the NPS has not had authority to pay
more than the appraised value for real property.

4&4A James Miller $8,500 $14,950
6& & 6A Fred Miller 9,000 13,000
13 James Oliver 9,500 11,750
13A Oliver Albright 20,000 34,500
15 Joe Crawford 6,500 7,500
16 Alvin Sprague 9,600 11,200
17 Chub Ralstin 19,000 27,550
18A, B, & C Jim White 38,000 42,900
12-20 & 20A George Stedman _ 24,223 30,000
TOTALS $144,323 $193,350

There were four other landowners who had already settled with the Park Service:

* Purchase price includes sellers’ moving and relocation expenses. Since 1983, the NPS has not had authority to pay
more than the appraised value for real property.

3 Elnora Hall $4,000 $5,000
17A Gerald Wilfong 8,750 9,900
21 Tully Sampson 20,280 22,500
2,22,22A, B, C Nez Perce Tribe 42,750 66,000
TOTALS $75,780 $103,400

and three landowners who had made offers:

PP

* Purchase price includes sellers’ moving and relocation expenses. Since 1983, the NPS has not had authority to pay
more than the appraised value for real property.

5 Thomas Evans $3,000 $6,000
14, 14A, 14B Del Roberts 24,000 30,000
19 J.H. Dixon 11,500 15,000

TOTALS $38,500 $51,000

Chapter Three 51


Agency.”” Specifically, Burns proposed to employ Mrs. Ida Blackeagle and Mrs. Viola Morris of
Lapwai, Idaho as “cultural demonstrators,” the first such position in the civil service.*? Black-
eagle was one of a few Nez Perce women who had revived the art of cornhusk weaving. Morris
was one of the only Nez Perces left who still tanned buckskin the traditional way.

Blackeagle and Morris began demonstrating their arts in 1967, attracting some 1,500 to 2,000
onlookers each summer season. In the summer of 1969, the two women accompanied Park
Historian Earl Harris to the Idaho State Fair in Boise, where some 12,000 people paused at their
booth to watch them practice their arts.”

Superintendent Williams was as enthusiastic as his predecessor about the cultural demonstra-
tions. While Blackeagle and Morris became the mainstays of the program, Williams recruited
other Nez Perce tribal members to participate in traditional costumed dances, audience participa-
tion dances, drumming, singing, artifact and handicraft displays, food preparation exhibits, gaming
exhibitions, and tepee raising. Williams obtained two $45,000 grants in the summers of 1971 and
1972 from the Clearwater Economic Development Association with which to pay the cultural
demonstrators’ wages. In the first summer, the cultural demonstrators performed on ten
consecutive Sunday afternoons in July and August. Williams contracted with the Nez Perce
Tribal Executive Committee (NPTEC) to hire the participants and coordinate the program.”
NPTEC member Richard Ellenwood was the principal organizer.

The Sunday afternoon programs received such excellent publicity by local newspapers and
television stations that they began to draw crowds of up to 4,000 people in a day. For the
superintendent, enthusiasm about the success of the venture began to yield to concern about the
effects of such concentrated use on the resources in this historic area. As paved parking lots
became jammed, visitors parked their cars on the adjoining fields of dry grass where there was a
high risk of soil compaction and brushfire.”*

Nevertheless, the cultural demonstrations were good for public relations. For the first time,
large numbers of non-Indian visitors were perceiving the validity of the park’s interpretive theme.
Nez Perce tribal members, for their part, could see that the Park Service was accomplishing
something even if it did not yet have a permanent visitor center. Perhaps most importantly, many

232 Superintendent to Director, February 23, 1967, NEPE, chrono file.

233 Robert Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995. The position description for the cultural demonstrator stated
that the incumbent would “demonstrate for public enjoyment, education, and inspiration, the creation of and production
by hand of Nez Perce cultural articles.” See Job Description for Cultural Demonstrator, [1967], NEPE, chrono file.

234 Superintendent to Director, January 9, 1970, NEPE, chrono file.

235 Superintendent to Director, January 13, 1972, NEPE, chrono file; Jack R. Williams to Richard A. Halfmoon, July
10, 1972, NEPE, chrono file; Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.

6 Toid.

Chapter Five Bi


the park headquarters building in Spalding. In any case, the NPS found Bernstein’s work to be of
such poor quality that it had to be redone.** In 1976, the NPS contracted for this work with
Stephen D. Shawley, a local expert on Nez Perce material culture with a bachelor’s degree in
anthropology from the University of Idaho. In 1977, Shawley secured a staff position as the

park’s first museum curator.

Like Bernstein, Shawley worked under adverse conditions. The collections were still exposed
to vermin and the storage facilities lacked proper standards of heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (HVAC). Among Shawley’s first recommendations was the need for a new museum
storage facility. The NPS began renting the Rose building in Lapwai for collections storage.
Formerly an auto service garage, the Rose building was a windowless, masonry structure without
insulation. The NPS retrofitted the facility with fire and burglar alarms, heaters, and humidifiers.
Despite the exorbitant cost of maintaining the proper temperature and humidity levels for the
collections through the winter, the Rose building served as the park’s museum storage facility
until the collections could be moved to the new visitor center in 1981.

Under Shawley’s guidance, the Park Service sought to acquire more items of Nez Perce
traditional material culture to improve its exhibits in the visitor center. Out of a total of some
30,000 items held by the park, approximately 85 percent were of relatively recent vintage and
would be of little use outside the Watson’s Store exhibit. Shawley noted many categories of
traditional material culture were inadequately represented: toys and recreation devices, hunting
and fishing implements, ceremonial objects, women’s dress, horse technology and accoutrements,
native medicines, and household tools. Superintendent Morris requested $10,000 for the purpose

of purchasing such artifacts.”®

That same year the NPS arranged with the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) for the loan of the
Dudley Allen-Henry Spalding collection. Henry Spalding, like other nineteenth-century mission-
aries, used the trade in native artifacts to help finance the operation of their missions. This
remarkable collection, which included clothing and horse gear used by the Nez Perce Indians in
the 1830s and 1840s, had been assembled by Henry Spalding and shipped by riverboat down the
Snake and Columbia rivers to Fort Vancouver, thence by ship via the Hawaiian Islands and Cape
Horn to Boston, and finally overland to Dr. Dudley Allen in Kinsmen, Ohio. In 1893, Dr. Allen’s
son donated this collection to Oberlin College, and in 1942, the Allen-Spalding collection was
loaned to the OHS. In the late 1970s, the curator of Northwest Indian Art at the Burke Museum
in Seattle, Bill Holm, learned of the existence of this collection and brought it to the attention of
park officials. The park obtained the Allen-Spalding collection on the basis of a one-year

283 Kent Bush, comments on draft, March 29, 1996.
264 Superintendent to Regional Director, June 14, 1977, NEPE, chrono file.

265 Superintendent to Regional Director, December 20, 1979, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Six 91


federal employers to circumvent standard OPM procedures and hire within local communities —
but the OPM denied this request also."

Weaver’s impact in other areas benefitted the park. For example, Weaver gave a new impetus
to resource management. With his degree in forestry, Weaver had acquired a strong background
in natural resource management. It was his philosophy that national park managers should make
resource protection their number one priority, ahead of visitor use and interpretation, even ina
historical park such as Nez Perce. Prior to 1987, natural resources in Nez Perce National
Historical Park received scant attention. Weaver established new staff positions, a natural
resource management program, and a collections management program, obtaining political and
financial support from the NPS regional office and technical assistance from Biologist Gerry
Wright of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit at the University of Idaho.

After improving tribal relations and boosting the park’s resource management program,
Weaver’s third major effort was to resurrect the old movement to bring other sites in Oregon,
Washington, and Montana that related to the Nez Perce story into the park. Citizens’ groups
were already raising the issue in 1986, and park staffer Art Hathaway had attended a few meetings
concerning park additions before Weaver’s arrival. Weaver held meetings with citizens in
Oregon’s Wallowa country and with Joe Redthunder of the Chief J oseph band of Nez Perce on
the Colville Indian Reservation in north central Washington. The regional office assembled a
team to produce an “additions study” and the prospects for congressional approval looked
promising until two property owners in Joseph, Oregon, objected. As a result, Oregon’s Senator
Mark Hatfield withdrew his support for the bill. The movement stalled temporarily just as
Weaver was seeking a transfer to another park in a different region.'”

After Weaver’s departure in July 1990, Museum Curator Susan Buchel served as acting
superintendent for two months. During this interim, Buchel and other staff members developed a
“yellow paper” which outlined recommendations for the new superintendent. These included
improving the National Park Service image, working more closely with the Nez Perce Tribe,
involving the staff more closely in park operations, and improving the quality of interpretation and
resource management.'*

35 Roy W. Weaver, interview with author, October 4, 1995.
36 Roy W. Weaver, interview with author, October 4, 1995.
'37 Roy W. Weaver, interview with author, October 4, 1995.

'38 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1990, CCSO, DSC reports on microfiche, NEPE D-34.

44 Chapter Two


organization of the National Park Service regions. Both efforts were aimed at empowering
employees, putting employees closer to the resources and the Park Service’s constituents, and
ultimately reducing administrative costs. Both plans drew inspiration from the objectives outlined
in the report of Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review, From Red Tape to
Results - Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less.

The plan held both opportunities and risks. In order for the plan to work, the superintendent
or park manager would have to supervise the unit managers lightly or else the employees in the
field would only feel the weight of still another layer of bureaucracy overseeing their decisions.
Unit managers, meanwhile, would have to demonstrate abilities to manage staff and develop
professional relationships with a multitude of park partners, or, in other words, mirror the skills
and responsibilities of the superintendent at a local level. The success of the plan would rest to a
large extent on finding and retaining the right people for the unit manager jobs.

Yet with so many communities bordering on or surrounding the 38 sites that composed Nez
Perce National Historical Park, decentralization of the park administration seemed to be an
imperative. The benefits of having park staff on the ground from Joseph, Oregon, to Chinook,
Montana, became apparent as the NPS began seeking public input in its scoping meetings for the
park’s new General Management Plan in the spring of 1995. Park staff looked to a future in
which local communities would be more closely involved, and partnerships between the Park
Service and non-government entities would be increasingly emphasized.*”

*”” Sue Buchel, interview with author, October 23, 1995.

132 Chapter Eight


state lines and extended into what is now northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington.
Moreover, the War of 1877 had taken the non-treaty portion of the tribe on a 1,300-mile journey
into western Montana, Yellowstone National Park, and finally north central Montana. Survivors
of the war eventually became scattered between Canada, the Umatilla Indian Reservation in
Oregon, the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington, and the Nez Perce Indian Reservation in
Idaho. The Nez Perce Trail, battlefield sites in Montana, and sites reflecting the Joseph band’s
exile on the Colville Indian Reservation all comprised important parts of the Nez Perce story and
actually lay beyond the bounds of the aboriginal Nez Perce homeland. The main concept of the
park additions was to correct the inconsistency between the park idea and its authorizing
legislation and allow the Nez Perce story to unfold over a broader canvas.

The impetus for park additions originally came from citizens of the Wallowa country of
northeastern Oregon. In the fall of 1967, Dean B. Erwin of Enterprise, Oregon, and Harold H.
Haller of LaGrande, Oregon, wrote their congressional representatives and state governor
protesting that the Nez Perce National Historical Park.should not have been limited to Idaho. In
December 1967, Northeast Oregon Vacationland, Inc., of which Haller was president, passed a
resolution requesting that certain sites in Wallowa County be considered for inclusion in the park.
Oregon Senators Mark O. Hatfield and Wayne L. Morse and Representative Al Ullman sent three
separate inquiries to the Interior Department based on these requests.>*

The Park Service responded to the congressional inquiries by fielding a study team in the fall
of 1968. The team inspected seven sites in Oregon and Washington: the gravesite of Chief Joseph
the Older near the town of Joseph, Oregon, on the shore of Wallowa Lake; the site of Chief
Joseph the Younger’s first encounter with settlers; the homesite of the first American settler in the
Wallowa Valley; Joseph Canyon viewpoint on Oregon State Highway 3, a cave site on Joseph
Creek, Asotin County, Washington, that was reputedly the birthplace of Chief Joseph the
Younger; the last campsite of Chief Joseph the Younger; and the gravesite of Chief Joseph the
Younger. The study team also gave consideration to sites along the route taken by non-treaty
Nez Perce in the War of 1877 although it did not visit them in the field. These included Camas
Meadows, Idaho; Fort Fizzle, Montana; Big Hole National Battlefield, Montana; Yellowstone
National Park, Wyoming; and Bear Paw Battlefield, Montana (Figure 6).*”

The team concluded that two of the Oregon sites — the gravesite of Chief Joseph the Older
and the Joseph Canyon viewpoint — were significant and suitable additions to the park, while the
other two Oregon sites together with the cave site in Asotin County, Washington, did not have
national significance. The last campsite and gravesite of Chief Joseph the Younger, both situated
on the Colville Indian Reservation, deserved recognition but were not suitable additions because

*? National Park Service, Nez Perce Alternative Study Report: Oregon and Washington, 1969, p. 3.

*® Thid, pp. 4-5.

116 Chapter Eight


© Park Service additions study with respect to sites in Montana. “Additional sites to be desig-
nated,” the bill stated, “shall include but not be limited to Virginia City, Montana; Lolo Pass,
Montana; St. Mary’s Mission, Montana, Bannack State Park, Montana; and Pompeys Pillar,
Montana.”* Most of these sites do not relate to Nez Perce country, and their inclusion in the
park would have created formidable problems for interpretation. Third, for reasons that remain
unclear the Senate subcommittee found it advisable to amend the bill by stipulating that the
individual components of the park would be administered by the respective regional division of
the National Park Service in which the component was located. This would have made it even
more difficult for the park to function as a single administrative unit of the national park system.

The Pacific Northwest Regional Office completed a final draft of the additions study and
formally transmitted it through NPS Director James Ridenour to Congress in 1990. Senator
Larry Craig, formerly a member of the House, introduced new legislation, Senate Bill 550, in the
102nd Congress. Representative Pat Williams of Montana introduced a similar measure, House
Resolution 2032, in the House. Again, members of the Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana
delegations cosponsored both bills. Absent from these bills were the awkward provisions
contained in the previous Senate version. The Senate passed $.550 with amendments in August
1991, and the House passed HR.2032 with amendments two months later. The Senate then
added several amendments to the House bill and passed it on November 27, 1991.

It now remained for the House to repass the bill as amended by the Senate. The chief
O) difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill concerned limits on the power of the
federal government to acquire land from private property owners, and it was on this point that
congressional debate focused in the following year.*°

The Old Chief Joseph Gravesite in Wallowa Country, Oregon, the site that had initially stirred
interest in the park additions, now became the most controversial issue. Congress had already
appropriated $300,000 for the acquisition of eight acres around this site. The funds had been |
allocated to the U.S. Forest Service for F.Y. 1991 on the assumption that the government was
negotiating with a willing seller. Subsequently, the landowner had become interested in subdivid-
ing the land for residential development and no longer wanted to sell. This raised the controver-
sial issue of whether any land involved in the bill could be taken by condemnation. The House
amendments passed in 1991 significantly scaled back the power of eminent domain authorized by
the bill by allowing it at only four specific sites. But this did not go far enough for the Senate,
which eliminated the power of eminent domain altogether and left the Park Service with no ability

to acquire and protect these sites.*°

58 U.S. Congress, House, S.2804, in the House of Representatives, 101st Cong., 2d sess., October 18, 1990.
359 Nez Perce National Historical Parks Chronology, no date, BSU, Larry LaRocco Papers, MSS 139.

O 36 Congressional Record, House, June 29, 1992, p. H5354.

Chapter Eight 125


this unit’s own authorizing legislation. Indeed, the act directly acknowledged the site’s dual CO)
status in its provision that “Lands added to the Big Hole National Battlefield, Montana, pursuant

to paragraph (10) shall become part of and be placed under the administrative jurisdiction of, the

Big Hole National Battlefield, but may be interpreted in accordance with the purposes of this

Act.” Moreover, the site retained its own base funding as a distinct unit within the national park

system. The Big Hole National Battlefield superintendent and staff remained in place at the

visitor center and administration building.*”

It appears that Congress’s intent was to allow the Park Service some latitude in formulating
how this unit and the other Montana units would be administered. Indeed, NPS officials at the
field level began conceptualizing how the expanded park could most effectively be administered
several months before Congress finally enacted the legislation. Nez Perce National Historical
Park Superintendent Frank Walker, Big Hole National Battlefield Superintendent Jock
Whitworth, and Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historical Site Superintendent Eddie Lopez had
been working together on the legislation since 1990. Walker believed that the most effective way
to manage the Montana sites would be from Big Hole National Battlefield and the Rocky
Mountain Regional Office. To avoid duplication of efforts between the Pacific Northwest and
Rocky Mountain regions of the National Park Service, certain parkwide administrative matters

‘such as general management planning, interpretive planning, and relations with the Nez Perce
Tribe could be handled out of one region.

Pacific Northwest Regional Director Charles H. Odegaard supported this concept and
broached the prospect of a cooperative agreement with the Rocky Mountain Region on October
19, 1992, three weeks after the Senate passed the bill. Odegaard suggested that the two regional

directors decide between them which region would take the lead. The first task of the lead office
would be to prepare a memorandum for activation of the new additions.*”!

Even this arrangement proved to be unwieldy, however. In May 1993, Rocky Mountain
Regional Director Bob Baker was helping conduct a Purpose and Significance Workshop for Big
Hole National Battlefield when he realized that it was difficult to interpret Big Hole separately
from the other sites in Nez Perce National Historical Park. In March 1994, Baker and Odegaard
agreed to an exchange: the three Montana battle sites for the Oregon National Historic Trail. The
exchange took place on June 10, 1994. Thus, the Montana sites were brought under the
administration of the superintendent at Spalding.*”

While Big Hole Battlefield and the farflung Montana sites posed the most immediate challenge
to park administration, the sheer number of new sites in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington created

*9 Sue Buchel, interview with author, October 23, 1995.

*”! Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region to Regional Director, Rocky Mountain Region, October 19, 1992,
NEPE, Administrative files, L58 Proposed Areas - New Additions, Wallowa.

*? Frank Walker, comments on draft, F ebruary 26, 1996.

130 Chapter Eight


Pictorial Essay

Powwow dancing at Spalding, 1972...

Foreground: Randy Ellenwood. Background, left to right: Molly
Ellenwood, unidentified male child, Charley Ellenwood.


Pictorial Essay

Angus Wilson, 1975 .

Angus Wilson (left) in the temporary visitor center, 1975. Wilson
served as chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
and as a member of the park staff and was a strong supporter of
the park idea. Also pictured: Viola Morris and Mark Kiegley.


Cover Photograph. Two Nez Perce women, Elizabeth Wilson and Agnes Moses, digging camas roots in Musselshell
Meadows, Nez Perce National Historical Park, 1965. Courtesy National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical

Park, Neg. 0452.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROLOGUE ....... 00. cee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee eee 1
CHAPTER ONE

ORIGINS OF NEZ PERCE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ............ 5
CHAPTER TWO

ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT ..........2.e08 20 cee eee eeeae 27
CHAPTER THREE

LAND ACQUISITION AND PROTECTION ........00 000 eevee eeuas 47
CHAPTER FOUR

VISITOR PROTECTION ......... 00 cee eee ee ee ee eee ee eee ene 69
CHAPTER FIVE

INTERPRETATION .......00 cee eee ee ee ee ee te ee ee ee eee 75
CHAPTER SIX

CULTURAL RESOURCES ........ 000 ce eee eee te eee eee ee ees 89
CHAPTER SEVEN

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ........-00 00000 ee eeaae 105
CHAPTER EIGHT

NEW ADDITIONS .......... 0000 eee ee eee eee eee ee ee eae 115
EPILOGUE

NEW DIRECTIONS .......... 00 cee eee eee eee ee nee eee ene 133
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............. ee eee 137
PICTORIAL ESSAY .. 0... ee ee ee ee ee eee PLATES 1-27
INDEX 1... 0 ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee 173

Preliminaries


Pictorial Essay

White Bird Battlefield, 1965 ...

White Bird Canyon was the site of a Nez Perce camp and the first
engagement in the War of 1877. Comprising 1,245 acres of fee
owned land and 655 acres of scenic easement, it is the largest NPS-
owned site in the park.



More than a year after Regional Director Daniel J. Tobin, Jr., had approved the plan, very
little of the plan had been implemented. Evidently disappointed, Superintendent Whitaker

explained the reasons for the delay:

Cultural resources problems have generally been perceived to be more critical; the natural resources
problems are more complex, data is harder to acquire, and expended efforts have yielded smaller
payback than in cultural resource management; limited staffing and higher priority uses of Park
staff...[in] competition with resources management has meant less time devoted to natural resources

and fewer visible and effective results.**°

In 1983, the park administration requested and obtained special funding to address the two
major problems of noxious weed control and grazing at White Bird. According to Acting
Superintendent Art Hathaway,

Special funding in FY 83 and FY 84 would provide the necessary foundation for natural resource
management programs at Nez Perce National Historical Park so that once the data is gathered, maps
developed, inventories completed, and a management program developed and implemented, the Park
staff should be able to carry on necessary management activities without requiring any significant

degree of funding beyond normal base.*"”

In an updated version of the resource management plan in 1984, park staff created a schedule for
noxious weed control at Spalding involving an expenditure of $30,000 from park operating funds
over the next five years. In the course of this control program, the park would develop a detailed
plant inventory and longterm vegetative management plan, targeting certain exotic species for
intensive pest management in the future.*"

The 1984 update of the resource management plan also contained one additional issue. As
base line biological research by the University of Idaho’s CPSU finally got underway in the
summer of 1983, CPSU researchers thought they discovered three small plots of remnant stands
of native bunchgrass. These relict grasslands, totaling no more than three acres, had potential
significance both as interpretive exhibits and as a genetic source for vegetative restoration
programs that the park might undertake. The park committed modest funds for additional
research on these plots during the next five years. In about 1988 visiting botanists identified these
grasses as an alpine variety not native to the valley after all. They had been planted by the State
Highway Department. A strip of native grasses was planted behind the Visitor Center and
maintained in 1990 and 1991. It has since been overtaken by weeds.*”

316 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1982, NEPE, chrono file.

317 Acting Superintendent to Regional Director, February 17, 1983, NEPE, Administrative Files, N1617
Revegetation Management - White Bird Site.

318 Nez Perce National Historical Park, Five-year Program Sheet and Overview-needs Update, April 10, 1984,
CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D15.

319 Thid; Ken L. Adkisson, Preservation of Native Grasslands, April 27, 1984, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Seven 109

tee


CHAPTER FOUR
VISITOR PROTECTION

Nez Perce National Historical Park’s unusual pattern of land ownership has tended to shape
its program of visitor protection. All but a handful of park sites are outside the Park Service’s
jurisdiction. Park visitors may travel hundreds of miles while touring the park, but with few
exceptions they are not driving over park roads; consequently, traffic safety is a relatively minimal
concern in this unit of the national park system. Once they are out of their cars, park visitors are
exposed to relatively few safety hazards. The park administration has taken the precaution of
closing the riverfront at the Spalding unit to public swimming (there are some dangerous currents,
and one boy drowned after jumping off the Old Spalding bridge in the park’s early years).’* It
keeps the grass mown around the Heart of the Monster in order to protect visitors from rattle-
snakes.’ Aside from managing these natural hazards, most of the park administration’s visitor

protection program consists of law enforcement.

In the park’s early years the NPS had proprietary jurisdiction over two sites: Spalding and
Canoe Camp. Both were donated to the NPS by the State of Idaho in July 1966. Proprietary
jurisdiction meant that the NPS could normally expect assistance from the local sheriff and the
state patrol, each based thirteen miles west of the Spalding unit in Lewiston. The Spalding unit
included an established picnic area used extensively by local and out-of-state visitors. To
Superintendent Burns, several prior incidents of misconduct in the picnic area seemed to justify “a
vigorous policy of protection to both property and visitors.” Burns maintained that on several
occasions during the summer of 1966 members of a gang of 20 to 25 ex-convicts had invaded the
picnic area and involved themselves in “numerous incidents of disorderly conduct, questionable
nocturnal activities, drinking parties, fighting and various degrees of objectionable disturbance.”
In addition, many visitors had reported property stolen from their parked vehicles or from their

193 Carol Gamet, interview with author, July 26, 1995. Superintendent Burns cited “two separate instances of
drowning in the Clearwater River at the Park site in 1966, before the National Park Service had assumed jurisdiction.”

Superintendent to Regional Director, April 19, 1967, NEPE, chrono file.

‘94 Superintendent to Regional Director, October 31, 1978, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Four 65


aary Jaydey>

‘(eyep ou ‘dew solAsag ye [eUOneN) 166] “BuIpjeds ‘osueyoxg pueT Jo dey jeouosipy “¢ ondLy

cn) pom om

ea) a Arepunog

NYVIGININ 9S10@ -ALNNOD J9NId TIN
Samy JDNVY
MAYOR 9¢ dIHSNMOL

ALIS ONIOIWdS

the

=
em

+
ave LLPRIOEK

OHYVQ!
1000

(aradirs) ao 1S
tT

Pa

oh He Saf
ts 2 [\ JONVHOX3- a

|


involving an undetermined number of prehistoric mammoths. At the end of the field season the C)
significance of the site remained unclear.

In summary, the amount of investigation of archeological resources varies widely throughout
Nez Perce National Historical Park. So far, the NPS has limited its own archeological investiga-
tions primarily to the Spalding and Montana battlefield sites. Although the NPS is in the process
of documenting and assessing all past archeological investigations, much remains to be done.

s

104 Chapter Six


CHAPTER TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

Viewed from the perspective of the superintendency, management of the park has presented
two fundamental and persistent challenges. One might be termed a pattern of neglect, originating
both inside and outside the National Park Service. Superintendents have sought to overcome, or
at least ameliorate, this neglect by securing funds and staff positions that were essential for
implementing the park’s basic development plans. Superintendents have had to contend with the
reality that Nez Perce National Historical Park has, since its establishment, been treated as a

second-class site within the national park system.

The other fundamental challenge for superintendents of Nez Perce National Historical Park
has been to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with the Nez Perce Tribe. These two
challenges are connected, for the Nez Perce people recognize the pattern of neglect and believe
that the park has not yet lived up to its promise. Some superintendents have been able to work
effectively with tribal leaders, emphasizing common goals and converting the Nez Perces’
frustration into political support for their budget requests. Other superintendents have had less
success working with the tribe, discovering too late that cool relations with the tribe ultimately
undermined the park. As one senior NPS official observed, “The Park is pointless without the full
involvement of the Nez Perce Tribe. It’s their story, and any attempt to tell it without their full
participation would be pointless and, needless to say, a complete failure.””

This chapter provides a narrative of the park’s administrative development from 1965 to the
present, focusing on these two main themes of neglect and relations with the tribe. Six superin-
tendents have administered Nez Perce National Historical Park since the park was authorized in
1965. These six individuals have enjoyed varying success. Superintendents are remembered by
the tribal leadership and the staff at Nez Perce largely on the basis of their effectiveness or
ineffectiveness in advancing the park’s development plans and working constructively with the
tribe. Therefore, these two themes are traced chronologically through the six superintendencies.
It must be pointed out, however, that one superintendent’s initiatives commonly unfolded during
the next superintendent’s tour of duty. Moreover, when relations between the tribe and the park
broke down at Nez Perce National Historical Park, bad luck and surrounding circumstances were
often as much the cause as the personalities involved.

70 John A. Rutter to Richard Halfmoon, August 14, 1975, NEPE, Richard Halfmoon Papers.

Chapter Two 27


the Wilderness Act of 1964, but the wilderness of western history and myth. Desiring to build
support for the park proposal, Senator Church deliberately eschewed the term “wilderness” to
avoid any confusion with official wilderness. But he implied, nevertheless, that “scenic
magnificence” had a historical and mythic dimension in this case, for without the wilderness
setting the historic resources did not have the same impact. That was why local preservationists
began with the premise that Nez Perce country was rich in scenic-recreational-historical

resources.

Erwin Thompson described the correlation between scenic and historical values in Nez Perce
country in his 1963 feasibility study:

Despite extensive farming in the uplands, intensive logging on the mountain slopes and canyon walls,
and the growth of towns and cities, the overall effect as one drives through the former lands of the
Nez Perces is the impression, “This is how it was.” The prairies are still open; vast armies of pines
and firs still climb the hills; the grass-covered slopes still rise above basalt cliffs; the rivers and
streams largely run clear and free. The country is so vast, so magnificent, and so lightly settled that
the eye tends to glance over such recent developments as roads, railroads, mills, fences, towns, and
spreading residential sections. This is still, in essence, the Nez Perce country.*

Scenic grandeur, in other words, would assist the park visitor in conjuring up the images of
western history and myth.

The relationship of the park resources to the surrounding scenery was vague. The House
report on the measure, for example, stated that the park concept departed from the usual type of
park in which a single, compact area was placed in federal ownership; instead the park would
comprise a number of widely scattered sites not necessarily under federal ownership. The
historical values of Nez Perce country were too varied and diffuse to make a compact area under
federal ownership feasible; therefore, “it is believed that the approach...will give maximum
coverage at minimum expense.”* This begged the question of what was meant by “coverage.”
Indeed, most of the sites would be designated without any defined or protective boundaries
whatsoever.

Another important aspect of the park concept which still awaited definition concerned the
park story. The park’s creators agreed that the story was relatively complex, involving multiple
events, eras, and points of view. They also agreed that the story must be presented skillfully to tie
the various sites together. To the extent that the park’s creators could foresee that the story
would be contentious, they deliberately postponed discussion of that problem until the park bill
had been enacted. In retrospect, one can find the seeds of contention in the park campaign.

* Quoted by Church in ibid.

* U.S. Congress, House, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, 89th Cong., |st sess., H. Rept. 238, April
1965, p. 2.

22 : Chapter One


renounced the use of prescribed burning and committed the park to the suppression of all
. wildfires?”

Morris also reconsidered the grazing policy at White Bird. The range had been overgrazed in
the past and cattle grazing had been terminated, but now the range had mostly recovered. Morris
decided to permit a limited amount of sheep grazing in order to “knock down the tall grass and
help control spring seed growth.” The sheep were pastured so that no area was grazed for more
than 30 to sixty days. In addition, Morris began an experiment by having one 80-acre tract
seeded with natural grass. This was accomplished with the help of a local rancher, Richard
Anderson, who agreed to plant the seed in return for being permitted to harvest a hay crop on the
same tract. Experts from the Soil Conservation Service investigated the site and determined that
the hay crop would be a help in getting the native grass started.*”

The 1980s might be considered a decade of transition in the park’s natural resource program.
Conceptually, park officials moved toward a more ambitious program of ecosystem restoration.
Practically, however, there was little change until the end of the decade. In terms of funding and
personnel activity, there was more continuity than change as the decade began, with weed control
at all three NPS-owned sites and monitoring of grazing use at the White Bird site continuing to be
the park’s first and second natural resource management priorities.*

Park staff developed the park’s first resource management plan in 1981. The plan called for
continued use of herbicides as the most effective means of controlling exotic weeds at the
Spalding site. Concurrently, the park would work with researchers from the University of Idaho’s
Cooperative Park Studies Unit (CPSU) to obtain base line data and a vegetation inventory.
Concerning sheep grazing at the White Bird Battlefield, the authors of the plan took the position
that the presence of sheep degraded the historic scene, impacted the vegetation, and might be
causing erosion and damage to archeological resources. Under optimal conditions, the grazing
would be ended in four or five years. The plan articulated five other natural resource management
concerns: erosion of the slope at the Spalding site, control of vegetative overgrowth of the two
basalt mounds (the heart and liver of the legendary monster) at the East Kamiah site, vegetation
management in the mowed portion of the East Kamiah site, removal or replacement of the above-
ground utility line at White Bird, and relocation of the picnic area at the Spalding site.>'5

32 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1977, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 67, Fire Management Plan,
1980, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D15.

*1 Superintendent to Regional Director, January 26, 1977, NEPE, Resource Management files, White Bird
Battlefield Revegetation Projects General Information; Robert Morris, interview with author, August 30, 1995.

344 Acting Superintendent to Regional Director, February 17, 1983, NEPE, Administrative Files, N1617
Revegetation Management - White Bird Site.

*$ Nez Perce National Historical Park, Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Nez Perce
National Historical Park, 1981, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D15.

108 Chapter Seven


Superintendent
Roy Weaver, c. 1988.

_

Pictorial Essay



Pictorial Essay

“Living history” demonstration ...

Park visitors observe a living history demonstration of two mountain men
in camp, 1974. The interpreters in costume are Steve Kernes (left) and Ed
Steerman.



INDEX

A

Adams, Brock , 124, 126

Adkisson, Kenneth L., 40, 72, 109

Agency Cabin, 97, 98, 101

Agency Residence, 97, 98

Allen (Dudley)-Spalding (Henry) collection, 91-94

Anderson, Milo E., 31

Andrus, Cecil, 100, 119

Ant and Yellow Jacket, 62

Appaloosa Horse Club, Inc., 64

ARA, 14, 15; see also, Area Redevelopment
Administration

Arboretum, 6, 30, 47, 52, 99, 106, 107

Area Redevelopment Administration, 14; see also, ARA

Armour Research Foundation, 8, 15-17, 75-77

a

Baker, Bob, 130

Barros, Albert, 40, 72

Battle of White Bird, 3, 58, 85, 86

Baucus, Max, 123, 124

Bear Paw, 3, 46, 116, 119, 121, 131, 133

Bearss, Ed, 120

Beymer, Renee, 113

BIA, 5, 10, 14, 15, 18, 30, 31, 62, 80, 120; see also,
Bureau of Indian Affairs

Big Hole, 3, 28, 46, 103, 115, 116, 119, 121, 127-131,
133

Big Hole Battlefield, 28, 103, 128, 130

Blackeagle, Ida, 31, 35, 81, 87

Blue Lantern Motel, 34, 37, 40, 53, 79, 80, 90

Briggle, William J., 42, 43

Buchel, Susan, 6, 12, 44-46, 58, 62, 67, 87, 93-96, 99,
102, 103, 113, 124, 130-132, 134

Buffalo Eddy, 103, 121

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 5, 6, 8, 15-17, 35, 75, 76, 120;
see also, BIA

Burns, Conrad, 124

Burns, Robert L., 28-32, 48, 51, 52, 57, 60, 61, 69, 70,
79-81, 119, 128

Burroughs, Daniel F., 12, 18

Bush, Kent, 41-43, 91-95

Butt, Mardi, 86

Cc

Camas Meadows, 3, 116, 121

Camas Prairie Railroad, 52

Canoe Camp, 30, 42, 47, 60, 69, 79, 98

Canyon Creek, 3, 103, 121

Carver, John A., Jr., 12, 17-19, 115

Celilo Falls judgement award, 9, 10

Chance, David H., 38, 100-102

Chief Joseph, 3, 85, 116, 119, 123-124; and Warrior’s
Memorial, 95

Chief Joseph Band, 44, 67, 95, 124, 126, 127, 133, 134

Chief Joseph the Older; gravesite, 116, 118-121, 125,
126, 133

Chief Joseph the Younger, 116; gravesite, 32, 116, 119,
121, 126

Church, Frank, 11, 12, 19-22, 25, 28, 33, 35, 36, 48

Clearwater, 1-3, 5,7, 12, 17, 21, 29, 33, 34, 37, 42, 46,
53, 56, 60-64, 69, 81, 90, 99, 100, 121, 131, 133

Clearwater Battlefield, 62, 134

Clearwater Economic Development Association, Inc.,
33

Clearwater National Forest, 21, 29, 60, 63, 64

collections, 40, 41, 44, 72, 89-92, 95, 96, 103

Colville Indian Reservation, 3, 44, 67, 116, 123, 124,
126

Coordinated Strategy, 134

Craig, Larry, 62, 124, 125

Craig Donation Claim, 62

Crawford House, 98

Cultural Day, 82

DD

Dahlquist, Andrew, 59, 110-112

DAR, 6, 7, 25; see also, Daughters of the American
Revolution

Daughters of the American Revolution, 5, 6, 25; see
also, DAR

Development Advisory Committee, 13-15, 19, 76, 135

Dick, Jan R., 73, 110, 111

Dickenson, Russell E., 36, 110, 119

Diederich, Leo J., 15

Dug Bar, 121

Index

173


Bicentennial celebration scheduled for 1976." Instead of three visitor centers at Spalding, East
Kamiah, and White Bird Battlefield, there would be one main visitor center at Spalding and
relatively inexpensive interpretive shelters at the other two sites. The Denver Service Center’s
final development concept plan of 1976 presented this new concept.*

Williams made some changes in the permanent park staff. Park Historian Earl R. Harris
transferred out in 1971, and rangers Glenn L. Hinsdale and Steven T. Kernes transferred in.
Williams appointed Hinsdale as his chief of interpretation and resource management. Thus,
Hinsdale assumed Harris’ duties. In two years Hinsdale transferred to the Pacific Northwest
Regional Office, and Douglas J. Riley transferred in from Glacier Bay National Monument. Riley
then became the new chief of interpretation and resource management.”

Nez Perces continued to find employment opportunities at the park to be limited to relatively
low-paying seasonal positions. The superintendent recruited seasonal employees through the
Idaho Employment Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs rather than NPTEC.'® A few Nez
Perces worked at the park summer after summer as cultural demonstrators. Williams obtained a
$45,000 grant for this purpose two summers in a row. A number of Nez Perce women regularly
came to the park to learn cornhusk weaving, beadworking, and leatherworking from the cultural

demonstrators.'”!

Williams formed close personal relationships with the two longtime cultural demonstrators,
Ida Blackeagle and Viola Morris. He was also close to Angus Wilson and Wilson’s mother, a
tribal elder and matriarch whom Williams knew as “one of the last of the buffalo people.”
Nevertheless, other tribal members came to dislike the superintendent and began to demand his
replacement. Richard Halfmoon complained to Regional Director John Rutter, who agreed to
transfer Williams to another park. Some of Rutter’s correspondence with Halfmoon took place
without the superintendent’s knowledge. The transfer took place within six months. Williams
was reassigned to Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Colorado, and Nez Perce National

*” Stanley W. Hulett to James A. McClure, December 11, 1973, and John A. Rutter to James A. McClure, January
25, 1974, NEPE, H1417 Administrative History; Rutter to Frank Church, February 15, 1973, BSU, Frank Church

Papers, Series 3.3.7, Box 133, Folder 6.

*8 National Park Service, Final Development Concept Plan, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, August
1976. Consultants for this project included NPTEC, Richard Halfmoon (chairman), and Wilfred Scott (secretary).

*° Superintendent’s Annual Reports, 1972, 1973, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 67.
1 Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.
101 Superintendent to Regional Director, September 18, 1974, NEPE, chrono files.

102 Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.

Chapter Two 35


they were too far from the rest of the park. The sites in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming associ- oe
ated with the war were more or less significant but also seemed too distant to be added to the

park.** In effect, the team was suggesting that the park could cross state lines but it should still

stay within the area of the Nez Perce homeland; “Nez Perce country” should not be redefined to

include the trail of the Nez Perce in 1877 nor the scenes of the non-treaty Nez Perces’ exile

following their defeat.

The team closed its 37-page report by proposing two alternatives for bringing the two
significant Oregon sites into the park. One alternative would involve government purchase of 5.1
acres of fee land and 100 acres of scenic easement surrounding the elder Chief Joseph gravesite at
Wallowa Lake. The other alternative would accept this site under current ownership and the Park
Service would administer it through a cooperative agreement. In other words, the question of
federal acquisition of this small parcel of land was critical. Regardless of whether the federal
government acquired the site or not, the addition of the two Oregon sites would require Congress
to amend the original park act by removing the stipulation that the park would be confined to

Idaho.***

Congressman Ullman introduced H.R. 1189, a bill to amend the Nez Perce National Historical
Park Act, on January 22, 1971. The House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs requested
more information from the Park Service in support of Ullman’s bill. Specifically the committee
needed data on the current land status of the two sites, the kind of resources the sites contained,
and the Park Service’s land requirements in order to protect them adequately, and details on how C)
the Park Service would develop the two sites as well as cost estimates for each. The Park Service
did not commit the necessary staff time to compile this information, and so the bill languished in
committee. A frustrated Alvin Josephy complained that “something seems to have gone awry in
the Washington office.” But Superintendent Jack Williams attributed the Park Service’s neglect
of the House committee’s request to lower echelons in the agency.*”

The newly operational Pacific Northwest Regional Office produced an environmental impact
statement on the proposed Oregon park additions in the fall of 1972, and the Washington office

334 Thid, pp. 17-30.
5% Thid, pp. 36-37.

336 Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., to Jack Williams, September 7, 1971, NEPE, Administrative Files, L58 Proposed Areas -
New Additions, Wallowa 1970-1973.

57 The NPS Western Region was in the process of reorganization and the design office in San Francisco was getting
split up between Seattle and Denver. Jack Williams to Don Swart, February 26, 1973, NEPE, Administrative files, L58 C)

Proposed Areas - New Additions, Wallowa 1970-1973.

118 Chapter Eight


McDermott, John Dishon. Forlorn Hope: A Study of the Battle of White Bird Canyon Idaho and the
Beginning of the Nez Perce Indian War. Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park
Service, 1968.

National Park Service. Big Hole National Battlefield Statement for Management. National Park Service,
November 1992.

. Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed Oregon Additions, Nez Perce National Historical
Park. National Park Service, 1972.

. Environmental Assessment: Development Alternatives, Nez Perce National Historical Park,
Idaho. National Park Service, July 1976.

. Final Development Concept Plan, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho. National Park
Service, August 1976.

. Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, Comprehensive Management Plan Status Report.
National Park Service, March 1981.

_A Master Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho. National Park Service, June
1968,

_ Nez Perce National Historical Park: Five-year Program Sheet and Overview-needs Update.
O National Park Service, April 1984.

. Nez Perce Alternative Study Report, Oregon and Washington. National Park Service, 1970.

. Nez Perce Country: A Handbook for Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho. Division of
Publications, National Park Service, 1983.

. Nez Perce National Historical Park Collection Management Plan. National Park Service, 1994.
. Nez Perce National Historical Park Final Interpretive Prospectus. National Park Service, 1970.

Nez Perce National Historical Park. Land Protection Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park. National
Park Service, 1984.

. Nez Perce National Historical Park Resources Management Plan and Environmental
Assessment. National Park Service, 1981.

. Nez Perce National Historical Park Resources Management Plan and Environmental
Assessment, National Park Service, 1987.

. Statement for Management, Nez Perce National Historical Park. National Park Service, 1977,
1983, 1989.

Thompson, Erwin N. Historic Resource Study: Fort Lapwai, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho.
O Denver Service Center, National Park Service, July 1973.

Bibliography 139


Land Protection and the Cooperative Sites

The park’s cooperative sites are those that are managed under cooperative agreement between
the Park Service and a landowner. When Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickel formally
designated Nez Perce National Historical Park in 1970, he recognized 19 cooperative sites in
addition to the Spalding, East Kamiah, White Bird, and Canoe Camp sites. Two more, the
Lenore and Pierce Courthouse sites, were included in 1977. With the park additions in 1992,
more than a dozen other cooperative sites were authorized. Each individual cooperative site
received relatively little attention from the park administration, but collectively the cooperative
sites are what make Nez Perce National Historical Park such an unusual unit of the national park
system. Arguably, it is the cooperative sites that have shaped the park’s management tone. As
Superintendent Walker observed in 1991,

This park is based on its ability to get along well with a wide variety of communities, individual
landowners, state and other federal agencies. If we are to survive, we must get along fairly well, but
if we are to flourish, we must become good neighbors and friends and become involved in community
activities and earn the respect and trust of those neighbors and friends.!”

Management of the cooperative sites began with the task of identifying the landowners and
establishing relations with them. The next step was to develop cooperative agreements with the
landowners aimed at protecting the resources and providing for public access. The ultimate goal
was to develop interpretive exhibits at each site that would make the park a unified whole. All of
this had to be achieved in the absence of defined site boundaries.

The initial process of identifying land owners contained at least one surprise: Superintendent
Burns learned in 1967 that the Clearwater National Forest did not own the Musselshell Meadows,
but had been trying to acquire it through a land exchange with the Diamond National Match
Company for the past four years. Forest Service officials agreed with Burns that the site had
significance as a major camas digging area, perhaps the last of its kind.'” The Forest Service
acquired the site in 1972 and retained ownership of it.”

Other landowners included the Idaho Department of Highways for a large number of sites
mostly consisting of roadside interpretive signs, the Keuterville Highway District of Idaho County
for the Weis Rockshelter, the Lapwai School District for the Northern Idaho Agency and Fort
Lapwai sites, the Forest Service for the Lolo Pass and Lolo Trail sites, Mr. and Mrs. John M.
Pfeifer of Culdesac, Idaho, for the St. Joseph’s Mission Church, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Cardiff of

‘7! Superintendent to Regional Director, March 6, 1991, NEPE, Administrative Files, A38 Public Relations.
"? Superintendent to Regional Director, January 8, 1967, NEPE, chrono file.

‘3 Forest Supervisor to Chairman, NPTEC, June 19, 1972, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Musselshell
Meadow.

60 Chapter Three


CHAPTER EIGHT
NEW ADDITIONS

Introduction

In 1992, fourteen sites in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho were added to Nez Perce
National Historical Park, making it the most geographically diffuse unit in the national park
system. The additions were consistent with the original conception of the park as a series of sites,
or “string of pearls,” whose significance derived from their historical association with Nez Perce
country. Nevertheless, with so many sites spread across such a wide area, it remained to be seen
whether the park additions would ultimately strengthen this imaginative park idea or stretch it to

the breaking point.

It seems probable that the Nez Perce National Historical Park Additions Act of 1991, signed
into law in October 1992, constitutes a watershed in the park’s history. While the administrative
adjustments to the park additions are only now unfolding, the campaign for the additions, the NPS
feasibility studies on the proposed additions, and the legislative history of the 1992 act are now a
closed chapter in the administrative history of Nez Perce National Historical Park.

The proposal to amend the original park act by adding sites outside of Idaho first surfaced in
the 1960s, practically went dormant during the 1970s, and reawakened in the mid-1980s. It
culminated with a legislative campaign during 1990-1992. The first section of this chapter traces
the early development of this proposal through 1972. The next section examines what was
virtually a second round of local initiatives and NPS studies in the 1980s. The third section
summarizes the legislative history of the Nez Perce National Historical Park Additions Act of
1991. The fourth section considers some of the administrative dilemmas that this uniquely
expansive park posed, with particular reference to the pre-existing NPS site of Big Hole National
Battlefield, now embraced within the park. The last section of the chapter notes some recent
administrative initiatives that have stemmed directly from the park additions. These seem to
indicate dramatic new directions for the park’s future.

The 1969 Park Additions Study

Conceptually, Nez Perce National Historical Park embraced a distinct region of the West that
the park’s creators defined as “Nez Perce country.” Statutorily, the park was confined to the
“Nez Perce country of Idaho.” Apparently Assistant Secretary of the Interior John Carver, a
Boise native, favored this limitation as a practical matter, assuming that a national historical park
which crossed state lines would be harder to sell in Congress. But the act’s inconsistency in this
respect was evident because the aboriginal homeland of the Nez Perce people obviously predated

Chapter Eight 115


Implementation of the Interpretive Program

One yardstick that the NPS uses for measuring the success of its interpretive programs is to
count “visitor contacts.” Visitor contacts are defined as face-to-face encounters between visitors
and NPS personnel. These range from guided walks to casual contacts made by roving interpret-
ers to over-the-counter greetings inside visitor centers. NPS officials believe that a high ratio of
visitor contacts to total visitation generally indicates a high level of visitor interest in the park
story, or an especially active interpretive program, or both. In its early years, Nez Perce National
Historical Park exhibited a relatively low ratio of visitor contacts to total visitation. Park
managers believed this reflected a low level of visitor interest in the park story as some eighty
percent of visitors came to the park merely to enjoy the picnic area.”

To stimulate more interest in the park’s historical resources, park managers sought to put
their interpreters where visitor use was most concentrated. Superintendent Robert Burns
established a makeshift visitor center in the Watson’s Store at Spalding as well as “contact
stations” in the Spalding picnic area and the Canoe Camp site. He assigned his two seasonal
rangers to the Spalding and Canoe Camp units. When Superintendent Jack Williams replaced
Burns, he apparently discontinued the contact station at Canoe Camp, assigning a roving
interpreter to the picnic area during June, July, and August instead. In the summer of 1971,
Williams closed the contact station and walk-through exhibit inside the Watson’s Store when the
number of visitors dwindled to less than 200 in four weeks. He concluded that the building
required signing in order to make its status as an exhibit clear to the public.”

Williams’ most significant innovation was the development of a temporary visitor center in the
former Blue Lantern Motel. The eight-unit motel building became government property on
January 1, 1969. In its first year of operation as park headquarters, the structure provided
administrative office space for four permanent employees as well as a public information-
orientation room where visitors could inspect wall maps and obtain the free park brochure. In
1971, the Park Service renovated the building by removing several interior walls and expanding

25 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1972, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 67. Superintendent
Williams reported the following statistics for the years 1968-1972:

Year Total Vis. Vis. Contacts Percentage
1968 32,849 1,184 4
1969 67,126 4,286 6
1970 53,736 8,710 16
1971 140,863 20,728 14
1972 225,026 20,298 9

226 Superintendent to Director, January 13, 1972, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Five 79


Park Association, and tribal leaders, contacted state officials in Boise, and met with Forest
Service officials of the Clearwater National Forest.”

Another preliminary administrative concern was to get the land acquisition program moving.
Burns worked with specialists in the Park Service’s Western Service Center in San Francisco,
making recommendations on site as to which land owners would likely negotiate a fair price and
which would not. The latter residents were threatened with proceedings to condemn their
property by right of eminent domain, as authorized under Section 3 of the Nez Perce National
Historical Park Act.” The process of land acquisition was most contentious at Spalding, where
the Park Service wanted to add several privately owned tracts to the core area covered by the
Spalding State Park. Ultimately, twelve households were removed in order to restore the
historical character of Spalding. Burns took pride in the fact that the people who were dispos-
sessed received an equitable settlement under his watchful eye.” As a result, the Park Service
reached its $630,000 limit before it had acquired all the private land that it desired.

Burns also ran into a sharp encounter in East Kamiah. There the Park Service wanted to
acquire the First Presbyterian Church of Kamiah and the neighboring house that had once been
the home of the missionary-teacher McBeth sisters. The church’s Nez Perce parishioners and the
Reverend Henry L. Sugden turned out to be unwilling sellers. Sugden informed Burns in the fall
of 1967 that his parishioners were adamantly opposed to the purchase and resented the recent
visit by an appraiser. He hinted that they might consider a long-term lease of the former McBeth
house, however. After serious consideration, Burns recommended that the Park Service drop the
two buildings from the list of properties that were being sought as park sites. He argued that the
missionary story in East Kamiah was not of prime importance to the park for it overlapped the
missionary story at Spalding and Lapwai.”

Burns wanted to be sensitive to opposition to the park from Nez Perce tribal members in East
Kamiah in order to preserve the feeling of goodwill toward the park among the tribe as a whole.
When he spoke to the parishioners at East Kamiah, he could not dislodge their idea that the park
was a “white man’s scheme to make the white man rich.” Burns noted that the attitude might
stem from the fact that the Nez Perce at Kamiah and Lapwai still harbored bad feelings toward

7 Superintendent to Regional Director, December 8, 1966, NEPE, chrono files.

75 Senator Church averred that this was the intent of Congress in Frank Church to William J. Jones, June 5, 1967,
BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 3.3.7, Box 132, Folder 14.

76 Robert L. Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995.

7 Superintendent to Regional Director, November 14, 1967, NEPE, chrono files. Since then, the owners of the
McBeth house have requested consultation by the Park Service on how to handle structural problems with the house.
There may still be a possibility that the property will be added to the park. (Stephanie Toothman, comments on draft,

March 18, 1996.

Chapter Two 29


CO) resources to National Register standards would be delayed for many years. More recently, the
emphasis in Nez Perce National Historical Park has shifted from historic structures to historic

landscapes.

Ideally, preservation of historic buildings begins with historical research on the buildings. Yet
the Park Service inherited a number of historic structures in Nez Perce National Historical Park
which required “emergency stabilization” before any historical research had occurred or even been
programmed. The Agency Residence and Watson’s Store at Spalding and the Officers Quarters
at Fort Lapwai required fairly immediate attention to prevent further deterioration. In the case of
the Officers Quarters, the NPS contracted with Royal Roofing Company of Lewiston to reshingle
the roof, replace broken windows, and repair the chimneys before the building’s history had been
documented. While the building was being stabilized in 1971-1972, park officials learned that the
rear of the building had been constructed first, and that the building’s horizontal wood siding
covered its original board and batten finish. Learning about a building’s history as it was
undergoing repair was not the ideal method of documentation, but it was preferable to letting the

building deteriorate to an irreparable condition.”

These emergency repairs pointed to the urgent need for historical research. In the early

1970s, NPS historian Erwin Thompson produced three solid historic structure reports for Nez
Perce National Historical Park in quick succession: Historic Resource Study: Spalding (1972),
Historic Resource Study: Lapwai (1973), and Historic Structure Report: St. Joseph’s Mission

©) (1973).%3 Thompson based his reports on research in federal records repositories, church records
held at Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington, and secondary literature. Historical Architect
David G. Henderson provided architectural data for the buildings at Spalding and the St. Joseph’s
Mission in two companion reports in 1974.7 These reports provided resource managers with a
guide to the historical significance of various structures as well as preliminary recommendations
on how the structures might be restored, relocated, or removed.

Following these studies, the Park Service worked on nearly all of the historic buildings in the
park. At Spalding, the NPS restored the whole exterior and a portion of the interior of the
Watson’s Store, stabilized the Agency Cabin and moved it back to its original location, and
undertook extensive rehabilitation of the agency’s residence. Historical Architect Laurin C.
Huffman of the regional office prepared a historic structure preservation guide for the latter
building in 1977.% The NPS included funds for yearly maintenance of the St. Joseph’s Mission in

282 Superintendent to Director, Western Service Center, January 20, 1971, NEPE, chrono file.
83 CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D4, NEPE D6, NEPE D7.

284 CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D717 and NEPE D724.

285 This was an adaptive restoration. The exterior was restored as closely as possible to its original appearance when

OC) built in 1894. On the interior, the NPS preserved the original stairway but installed modern kitchen and bathroom
(continued...)

Chapter Six 97


The Nez Perce Tribe also took a keen interest in reservation land issues. The majority of the
reservation was checkerboarded by allotments, some of which were owned by individual Nez
Perces and some by non-Indians. The majority of the reservation acreage was leased to non-
Indians for agricultural purposes. The tribe held only a remnant of the reservation lands. The
Nez Perce Tribe was seeking to bring reservation lands back into tribal ownership, and was
accomplishing this by purchasing one parcel at a time. Although the tribe’s land acquisition
program aimed at improving the tribe’s contemporary economic base, it had underpinnings in the
Nez Perces’ cultural tradition too. As tribal leader Richard A. Halfmoon explained in 1970, the
Nez Perces traditionally regarded the area as their homeland; no person “owned the earth,” but
members of a group enjoyed the privilege of living ona portion of the earth, and there the earth

provided them with resources they needed to live.”

A third tribal concern, more strongly felt among the elders than the young people, was how to
preserve Nez Perce culture. To some Nez Perces it seemed that the medicine dance, the root
feast, and other traditional customs were in danger of extinction. The Nez Perce people were
approaching a time when full-bloods would constitute a minority of the tribe. Some Nez Perces
began to have discussions about what the tribal government might do to preserve the Nez Perce

cultural heritage."*

The Nez Perce Tribe had a constitution and bylaws (adopted in 1948 and revised in 1961) and
a nine-member governing body, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee (NPTEC). NPTEC
was charged with administering tribal economic development, managing human and natural
resource programs, and monitoring investment of tribal income and assets.’ This last function
became especially important in the late 1950s and early 1960s after the Nez Perce Tribe received
judgment awards for three cases before the Indian Claims Commission. The first award — for
$2.8 million — stemmed from the tribe’s loss of its accustomed fishing place at Celilo Falls on the
Columbia River. The second award — for $4.2 million — compensated the tribe for the unfairly
low price paid for Nez Perce lands in 1863 during Idaho’s gold rush. The third award — for $3
million — was to compensate the Nez Perce for gold taken from the reservation illegally before
the reservation had been reduced in size. In the words of tribal attorney Theodore H. Little, the
judgments created an “upsurge of hope among the Nez Perce, and a desire to build for the

future.”

'7 Sue Whalen, “The Nez Perces’ Relationship to Their Land,” Jndian Historian, vol.4, no.3 (1971), p. 31.

'8 Allen Slickpoo, Sr., interview by author, July 21, 1995.

19 Robert H. Ruby and John A. Brown, A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest, rev. ed. (Norman,
1992), p. 147.

2° Theodore H. Little, untitled speech delivered in Clarkston, Washington, July 6, 1962, WSU, Ted Little Papers, Box
4, Folder 6.

Chapter One


the visitor center area into two former offices. When completed, the interim visitor center O
featured six exhibits, a four-minute audio-visual program, and an information counter.”’

In the absence of a permanent visitor center, park interpreters spent much time outside and
afield. During the 1970s, one member of the interpretive staff provided “living history” demon-
strations on the fur trapping era by dressing in the garb of a mountain man and occupying a mock
camp near the boom grounds. Interpreters also gave guided history walks around the Spalding
unit and offered history and environmental education presentations to area schools.”* With the
completion of the visitor center, interpreters frequently provided guided tours of the exhibits.”

The addition of the modern Spalding Visitor Center in June 1983 probably constitutes the
most important turning point in the development of the park interpretive program. After many
months of frustration that attended the final preparation of the exhibits (rearranging the exhibit
cases, rewriting many of the display captions, improving the glass fittings and track lighting), park
staff were pleased to get the visitor center opened. For the first time the park was able to display
many intriguing artifacts that had been in storage. The public response to the visitor center was
generally very favorable. The character of visitation began to change, with fewer people using the
picnic area and more people contemplating the Nez Perce heritage. Many long distance travelers
now stopped at the visitor center on their way through the region. Even if they stayed an average
of only twenty minutes, it was evident to park staff that the visitor center exhibits tended to

captivate them.”°
While contact stations, roving interpreters, and the temporary visitor center at the former Blue O

Lantern Motel yielded a significant number of visitor contacts in the park’s early years, undoubt-

edly the most successful aspect of the interpretive program, prior to the opening of the permanent

visitor center, consisted of “cultural demonstrations” by members of the Nez Perce Tribe.”' In

1967, Superintendent Burns proposed that the NPS employ Nez Perces to demonstrate their

cultural arts. The Park Service developed the idea in part to satisfy the desire to create park jobs
for members of the Nez Perce Tribe. Burns worked with Education Specialist Joseph T. Williams

of the BIA to implement a cooperative program between the NPS and the BIA’s Northern Idaho

227 Superintendent to Director, January 9, 1970, and January 13, 1972, NEPE, chrono file.
28 Superintendent to Regional Director, October 24, 1974, NEPE, chrono file.
29 Art Hathaway, interview with author, July 26, 1995.
30 Art Hathaway, interview with author, July 26, 1995.
31 Freeman Tilden, in his influential book Jnterpreting our Heritage, cited demonstration as one of the key
ingredients in park interpretation. Instead of putting a historical object on display, park interpreters would demonstrate
O

how the object was used. Tilden, /nterpreting our Heritage: Principles and Practices for Visitor Services in Parks,
Museums, and Historic Places, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1957, pp. 70-72.

80 Chapter Five


View 1
Some Nez Perce say that the Battle of White Bird Canyon was an ambush — skillfully planned and

executed by the warriors. The Indians concealed themselves behind the two small hills visible in the
valley below you. When the horse soldiers reached the hills, the Nez Perce launched a deadly attack

from both sides.

View 2
According to many written histories, the Nez Perce chiefs sent out a peace party to meet the soldiers

under a flag of truce. But the peace offer was refused when a volunteer militiaman who was
accompanying the Army fired two quick shots at the Indian delegation. From that moment, both
sides were committed to a fight.”

It could be argued that by offering clashing historical interpretations, the NPS provided the
park visitor with a richer park experience. Superintendent Whittaker, for example, took guidance
from the idea that interpretation should never avoid controversial issues nor expect to please all
park visitors, but should tell the whole story from multiple points of view if necessary.’ Yet
there were countervailing pressures to focus the story and to emphasize, perhaps even exaggerate,
the Nez Perce perspective.*” “In order to achieve [the park] goals, it seems appropriate,
wherever possible, to deal with the story elements from the Nez Perce point of view,” the
Interpretive Prospectus directed." However, Whittaker objected when an early draft of the script
for the park’s film, written by a Native American, struck her as unduly harsh toward white
Americans. She rejected the script.*

Interpreters also questioned the Park Service’s role in displaying Nez Perce material culture
and cultural arts. They did not want to overstep the bounds of preservation by meddling with the
process of acculturation. The specter of Indians performing traditional ceremonies for tourist
dollars rather than for their own sense of self was troubling. The park’s interpretive specialist,
Mardi Butt, cautioned that the NPS must guard against “creating culture.”?° As a result of
frequent staff discussions on the subject, the park continually made adjustments in its interpretive
program. Cultural demonstrators, for example, who were once requested to wear traditional

2°0 Chief, Division of Exhibits to Regional Director, November 17, 1976, Superintendent to Regional Director,
November 22, 1976, Acting Superintendent to Regional Director, December 20, 1976, Hank Warren to Superintendent
Morris, December 20, 1976, Labels - White Bird Battlefield Exhibit (quoted), NEPE, Administrative Files, D18
Planning Program.

**! Fahy C. Whittaker, interview with author, September 27, 1995.

** Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.

>? National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park Interpretive Prospectus, 1970, p. 2.
** Fahy C. Whittaker, interview with author, September 27, 1995.

*° Futures Workshop, Nez Perce National Historical Park General Management Plan, author’s notes, May 15-1 8,
1995,

86 Chapter Five


CHAPTER ONE
ORIGINS OF NEZ PERCE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

Introduction

The idea for Nez Perce National Historical Park originated in two separate causes, or
movements. The first movement featured the longstanding efforts of white residents of the
Clearwater Valley to commemorate the mid-nineteenth-century activities of Protestant
missionaries Henry and Eliza Spalding. The second movement sprang from the efforts of the Nez
Perce Tribe to foster job growth on their reservation through tourism development. Beginning
about 1961, activists in the two movements began working together toward a common goal of
establishing a national historical park. The resulting campaign garnered support from both the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the National Park Service (NPS), and culminated in the Nez
Perce National Historical Park Act on May 15, .1965.

The Non-Indian Preservationists

The small delta at the confluence of Lapwai Creek and the Clearwater River was the site of
some of Idaho’s earliest recorded history, and so it appealed strongly to non-Indian Idahoans with
an interest in commemorative local history. The idea that this site should be preserved initially
drew support from such organizations as local pioneer associations, the Daughters of the
American Revolution, and the Presbyterian Board of Missions. Later it gathered adherents from
county historical societies and state universities. Although the movement evolved through more
than four decades, its vision remained essentially the same: to develop the Spalding site in order to
provide Idahoans and out-of-state visitors with a better appreciation of the Nez Perce role in U.S.

history.

As early as 1920 a few non-Indian valley residents proposed that the state or federal
government establish a park to commemorate the Spaldings and their activities among the Nez
Perce. A Clarkston fruit grower by the name of E.A. White wrote a letter on behalf of a local
pioneers association urging officials in Washington, D.C. to preserve the site of the Spalding
mission and school. Whether this letter was directed to the National Park Service is unclear; it
may have been the first proposal for a national historical park in the area.*

8 Marcus J. Ware, “Looking Backward,” July 12, 1977, and “The Impetus of the Alice Whitman Chapter on the
Projected Visitor Center at Spalding Park,” no date, NEPE, Library Vertical Files, Spalding Museum Foundation.
These sources do not indicate to whom the letter was sent or whether it was referred to the NPS.

Chapter One


114 Chapter Seven


Ware, and Ted Little. Like other national park cooperative associations, the purpose of this
organization was to publish and distribute park-related literature and raise funds through sales of
books, pamphlets, postcards, and souvenirs. It obtained tax-exempt status in September 1969 and
gradually increased its revenue to the point of being able to make yearly financial contributions to
the park, mostly for library acquisitions.** Later, the Nez Perce Park Cooperative Association
merged with the Northwest Interpretive Association (NWIA), whose interpretive and visitor
service programs covered all the national park areas together with various Forest Service, Bureau
of Land Management and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sites in the Pacific Northwest. The
NWIA offered a variety of publications pertaining to Nez Perce National Historical Park.

The cooperative association’s sales department soon began featuring Nez Perce arts and
crafts. Beaded coin purses, hand bags, key chain holders, and moccasins, as well as various items
of jewelry, sold well to park visitors. Sales of Nez Perce arts and crafts grew to almost $3,000 in
1981, more than $9,000 in 1986, and more than $15,000 in 1995.%” This was of some importance
to the Nez Perce Tribe, whose original proposals for tourism development in the early 1960s had
emphasized the need to promote sales of these items for the benefit of tribal members.

Problems in the Interpretive Program

With the interpretive program carrying much of the burden of making the Nez Perce National
Historical Park idea a success, it was not surprising that park interpreters often found themselves
making difficult philosophical choices. They were interpreting the culture of a people whose
living members still practiced many of the cultural arts being interpreted and whose own sense of
the past still bore many traces of an oral rather than a written tradition. They were interpreting a
war which still burned in the hearts of the defeated side’s descendants. For all these reasons, park
staff members found it unusually difficult to trust their own authority to interpret the park.
Superintendent Walker observed in 1992,

The interpretive staff at Nez Perce realizes almost daily that we are dealing with some complex,
emotionally charged issues here, with very real people involved. We often question what we’re doing
— does anybody really care, how much should we care, and just what should we be doing? There is
a certain intangible toll that it takes — but there are also some very real rewards.

Park interpreters also had to cope with preconceptions about their racial and tribal identity.
Non-Indian members of the interpretive staff had to deal with the local sentiment that they were
holding jobs which ideally belonged to the Nez Perces. Would not park visitors prefer to learn

45 Executive Secretary, NPPCA, to Regional Director, February 25, 1970, NEPE, chrono file.
*6 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1993, NEPE, chrono file.

joe Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1981, 1986, NEPE, chrono file; Frank Walker, comments on draft, February 26,

84 Chapter Five


While biological research by the CPSU progressed, Superintendent Whitaker ran into
difficulties over sheep grazing at White Bird. The grazing permittee, Andrew Dahlquist, decided
to resist what appeared to him as Park Service plans to phase out this land use. Instead of a year
to year grazing permit, Dahlquist wanted a lease “in perpetuity.” Dahlquist claimed that he had
purchased the surrounding land from the Hagen estate with the express understanding that he
would be able to graze his sheep on park land. Dahlquist alleged that the Hagen family had sold
1111.6 acres of their estate to the Park Service in 1969 with the understanding that grazing was a
historical use and would be permitted to continue. It seemed to Superintendent Whitaker that
Dahlquist was gathering documentation with the object of garnering community support for his
stand.*”

Dahlquist succeeded in creating a flap that could have served as a reminder, if one were
needed, of the conservative political forces that had shaped this Idaho national historical park in
the first place. In the winter of 1983-1984, Dahlquist sought help from Idaho Senators James
McClure and Steve Symms. McClure inspected the site in June 1984 and satisfied himself that
“there was not an overgrazing problem.” He and Symms met with NPS Director Russ Dickenson
and obtained a statement by the director that grazing was a historical use of the area and need not
be terminated. With the director in full retreat, Whitaker disavowed any intention of phasing out
sheep grazing at the expiration of Dahlquist’s permit.*! Three years later, an in-depth study of the
effects of grazing at White Bird was yet to be started.>”

When Roy Weaver was appointed superintendent in January 1987, one of his top priorities
was to invigorate the park’s natural resources management program and bring resource specialists
into the park staff. He found a willing assistant in Chief Ranger Jan Dick. It was Weaver’s and
Dick’s philosophy that preservation of resources, even natural resources in a historical park, must
come first in the Park Service’s overall mission. Dick made this position clear in the park’s
expanded natural resources management plan:

*?° Superintendent to Regional Director, December 12, 1983, and February 14, 1984, NEPE, chrono file; Questions
Submitted to the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies by Senator James A. McClure on April 2, 1985 for
Hearings on the National Park Service, April 10, 1985, NEPE, Administrative files, L3019 Land Use - Grazing General.

*! Superintendent to Regional Director, February 14, 1984, NEPE, chrono file; Questions Submitted to the

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies by Senator James A. McClure on April 2, 1985 for Hearings on the
National Park Service, April 10, 1985, NEPE, L3019 Land Use - Grazing General.

*? Nez Perce National Historical Park, Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 1987, CCSO,
library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D15B.

110 Chapter Seven


country at ceremonies during the Chief Joseph and Warriors Memorial, at a special service at
Spalding Presbyterian Church, and at the Park Headquarters. The collection was returned to
display in June. It is owned by the Nez Perce Tribe and cared for and displayed by the NPS under

a joint agreement.

Another collection that began to receive more staff attention in the late 1980s was the park’s
historic photograph collection. The collection was in disarray, with original and copy negatives
and prints and snapshots attached to cards that usually had no identifying information. Hundreds
of negatives located in the park files had never before been catalogued. The photograph:
collection provided an unusually intimate view of the Nez Perce people and received a growing
amount of use from researchers outside the Park Service. Museum Curator Susan Buchel
initiated an organization of this material in 1988. Tribal elder Allen Slickpoo, Sr., employed as a
museum aid, identified many of the previously unknown people, events, and locations featured in
the photographs. Slickpoo took some of the photographic images to knowledgeable sources in
the community and to senior citizen centers in Lapwai and Kamiah. Two other Nez Perces on the
park staff, Kevin Peters and Calvin Shillal, also assisted with the project. Elders of the Chief
Joseph Band in Nespelem identified photographic images in 1990. After they were identified, all
photographic subjects were cross-referenced and entered into a computer database, and the
personal name index came to include more than 1,000 entries. The photographs continue to be
one of the most heavily used resources among the park’s collections.?”

Surprisingly, problems relating to museum storage space were not entirely alleviated with the
completion of the new visitor center. The building contained three large rooms in the basement
for museum storage, but these filled up quickly. Several large furnishing items that had been
stored in the Watson’s Store were moved to the new building along with all the other collections
that had been held in scattered locations. Moreover, the building’s heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning system were housed in the same space as museum storage. Indeed, one of the
rooms, Vault B-3, was flooded in December 1983, and about 250 objects came in contact with
water. Regional Curator Kent Bush recommended $18,000 in improvements to the ceiling, walls,
and floors of these storage rooms to bring them closer to museum standards. The park staff was
provided with guidelines for preventive maintenance to safeguard against future problems with the
HVAC system.”* Flooding problems in Vault B-3 have persisted.

Adequate storage, not just for the museum collection but for various supplies associated with
all phases of park operations, became more acute over time. As a result, the park administration
built a new storage building in 1995. Measuring 90 x 40 feet and located by the maintenance
shop, the building would provide storage area for supplies and equipment related to interpreta-

277 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1989, NEPE, chrono file, Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

28 Curator to Chief, I&RM, December 28, 1983, Development/Study Package Proposal, July 29, 1982, CCSO, Kent
Bush files. Particular concerns with the condition of the storage vaults included potential contamination of collections

by oil and dust from the heat pump/air filtration unit and lighting deficiencies.

Chapter Six 95


the building had changed hands, but two years later he learned that local citizens had dissuaded
Cardiff!” Finally, the Idaho State Historical Society accepted the offer of donation from Cardiff,
and the Park Service entered a cooperative agreement with the Idaho State Historical Society in
1979. In that agreement the NPS agreed to provide guidance on how to preserve and interpret
the structure. The NPS would provide actual maintenance assistance as funds allowed. In 1987,
Superintendent Weaver initiated meetings with the Idaho State Historical Society on what should
be done to stabilize the structure and make it available to the public.'"” The Pierce Courthouse
was opened to the public for the first time in the summer of 1990.'*

One persistent management concern was how to keep the cooperative sites tidy. Many of
these sites were quite remote from the park headquarters and could only be visited by park staff
intermittently. Litter accumulated around the wayside signs. Vandalism was not uncommon,
especially at secluded sites such as the Weis Rockshelter. As a matter of fiscal necessity, the NPS
has tried to enlist the park’s partners in controlling the litter problem, but the park administration
has not always received the support it desires. For example, during the 1980s many cooperative
sites with the Idaho Department of Highways sometimes became unacceptably trashy by national
park standards. State highway department officials, however, did not want to give the problem
high priority. In recent years, the Park Service has earmarked funds for litter control at many of
these sites. Maintenance or interpretive personnel patrol the sites on a bi-weekly basis.

Another management concern has been the need to delineate boundaries for the protection of
cooperative sites. In 1982, the Nez Perce Tribe proposed a housing project on the grounds of old
Fort Lapwai. The project threatened to intrude on the historic scene. As the Park Service, the
BIA, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the tribe all got involved in the issue, it became
clear that the parties to the cooperative agreement covering the Fort Lapwai site had not agreed
to any boundary definitions. Many cultural resources were lost during the initial phase of housing
development. The site still lacks boundaries. Indeed, several other sites still lack boundaries,
including Ant and Yellow Jacket, Coyote’s Fishnet, Weis Rockshelter, Craig Donation Claim,
Clearwater Battlefield, and the first Lapwai Mission.”

‘8 Superintendent to Director, November 17, 1971, NEPE, chrono file.

° Roy W. Weaver to Ms. Debbi Duffy, Febriary 23, 1987, NEPE, Administrative Files, A4415 Cooperative
Agreement, Idaho State Historical Society, CCSO, Resources Management Plan and EA for Nez Perce National
Historical Park, 1981, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D-15. ;

'89 Pat Byron to Sue Buchel, February 17, 1990, NEPE, Administrative Files, D6215
Plan/Preparation/Maintenance/Preservation Pierce County Courthouse.

"8! Roy W. Weaver, interview with author, October 4, 1995.

'® Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1982, NEPE, chrono file, Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

62 Chapter Three


junkyard to clean up the area. In addition, the Park Service dissuaded NPTEC from undertaking
a variety of proposed developments on tribal lands nearby that would have adversely affected the
site. Examples included a tribal housing project and a rodeo grounds.’” The NPS tried to acquire
a parcel on the opposite side of the highway from the Heart of the Monster but was unsuccessful.
This land was subsequently developed into a commercial campground for recreational vehicles.'*

Land Acquisition for the White Bird Battlefield

The site of the Battle of White Bird Hill contrasted with the Spalding and East Kamiah sites.
The area had no habitations or other roadside development, but local ranchers grazed livestock.
As the park’s master plan indicated, “The site itself is attractive and its restoration to its historical
condition would be a relatively minor undertaking.” The authors recommended that the Park
Service acquire about 1,250 acres in fee and an additional 725 acres in scenic easement.'* In
October 1969 the NPS acquired fee title to 1111.6 acres and an easement over 285 acres. The
NPS purchased the land and easement from Harry M. Hagen of White Bird for $71,000. The
NPS purchased a scenic easement over an additional 100 acres belonging to local rancher Charles
Bentz. These lands formed the core of the White Bird unit.'*

Within the White Bird Battlefield three tracts owned by the state of Idaho remained. These
public school land tracts totaled 261.7 acres. As noted earlier, the law would not allow the NPS
to purchase this type of land with Land and Water Conservation Funds. The NPS explored
various alternatives for protecting these parcels. NPS officials asked the state of Idaho to donate
a scenic easement on the three tracts, but state officials responded that the state was legally
prohibited from donating fee title or any interest attached to public school lands. NPS officials
then considered a proposal to have a local rancher purchase the state-owned tracts and then sell a
scenic easement on the lands to the Park Service. The third and preferred alternative was to get
the National Park Foundation to purchase the lands and donate a scenic easement to the park. It
should be remembered that in no circumstances could the Park Service purchase the lands because

1 Regional Historian to Assistant Regional Director, October 10, 1966, and Superintendent to Regional Director,
November 16, 1966, FRC-Seattle, RG 79, Accession 74A207, Box 13183, File L30; Superintendent to Regional
Director, January 14, 1970, NEPE, Administrative Files, D18 Planning Program; Jack R. Williams, interview with
author, September 28, 1995.

16 Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

'6 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, A Master Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park,
Idaho, June 1968, p. 25.

'6> Attorney General to Secretary of the Interior, March 10, 1970, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Harry M.
Hagen Tract 01-101; Jack R. Williams to Idaho Department of Public Lands, December 13, 1968, NEPE, chrono;
Superintendent to Regional Director, November 17, 1971, NEPE, Administrative Files, Resource Management files,
White Bird Battlefield Easements.

58 Chapter Three


Hartzog agreed with Carver that the cooperation of various landowners and agencies would be
vital to the success of the program.*

NPS Director Conrad L. Wirth conceptualized the proposed park along similar lines but with
a greater emphasis on the land base. He thought there might be a ghost town in the region that
the Park Service could acquire and preserve. “It shouldn’t take too much land, but we should
have enough land for a proper setting to get the true feeling of the story we are trying to tell,”
Wirth advised. In addition, Wirth wanted the park to have land for camping and other
recreational uses. “This might be worked out jointly with other land agencies but still be part of
the over-all package.” Finally, Wirth suggested that the park’s interpretive thrust could be
coordinated with similar types of units elsewhere in the nation where the story was more
expansive than the actual site under NPS jurisdiction.

It might be considered as a general outpost of the interpretive story we hope to tell of the western
expansion at St. Louis....In our visitor center at St. Louis we are proposing to tell the general story of
the western expansion brought about by general exploration and, of course, the Louisiana Purchase.
In the Nez Perce country the story would be about one of the great trails of exploration in the North,
especially the Lewis and Clark Trail, and the prehistory and history of man that dates back to 9,000
B.C. It could include other historic sites, perhaps not of national importance in themselves but their
combination with the over-all picture would aid in telling the complete story.”

Touring the Nez Perce country in mid-May, Carver and Wirth were impressed by what they
saw. Idaho’s Governor Robert E. Smylie joined Carver and Wirth in support of the park idea.
Carver came to two important conclusions. First, the history of the area was the outstanding
resource. Second, the park should be decentralized but limited to Idaho.

By now it was quite clear that the Park Service, not the BIA, was guiding the park proposal
along. Park planning overshadowed the development of tourist facilities, although local
newspaper coverage of these developments still noted that the Nez Perce tribe was an important
part of a “cooperative effort” and had offered to use some of its judgment funds to provide
accommodations for park visitors: Before leaving Lewiston, Wirth asked Burroughs and several
members of the Nez Perce Advisory Development Committee to draft a bill for authorizing the
national historical park. A legislative assistant in the Park Service’s Washington office massaged
the draft bill and sent it back to the Nez Perce Advisory Development Committee. William F.
Johnston, managing editor of the Lewiston Morning Tribune and chairman of the tourism

“8 Acting Director to Assistant Secretary, April 5, 1963, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 4, April 1963.
Director to Assistant Secretary, April 26, 1963, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 4, April 1963.

U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region News (Missoula, Montana), No. 28, July 12, 1963, Lewiston Morning
Tribune, May 15, May 16, and May 18, 1963. Carver did not explain his decision to limit the park to Idaho.
Presumably, a single-state park appeared more feasible politically. Park proposals traditionally needed the unanimous
support of the state’s whole congressional delegation in order to receive consideration by Congress.

18 Chapter One:


After acquiring Spalding State Park, the Park Service still had an inadequate land base for
protection of historic resources at Spalding. If the long-range goal was to restore the scene to its
historical character, several dwellings of twentieth-century origin would have to be removed.
Indeed more than a dozen houses and outbuildings extending along the county road from the
Spalding post office west as far as the present-day maintenance building would have to be
acquired and torn down. Thus, the most complicated, costly, and politically sensitive element of
the whole land acquisition program involved the remaining lands that were to constitute the

Spalding site.

Interior Department officials actually became involved in land acquisition at Spalding more
than two years earlier, indeed before Congress enacted P.L. 89-19, by giving encouragement to a
tribal proposal to acquire property in Spalding for later sale to the Park Service. The purpose of
this informal arrangement was to prevent certain land owners from raising the price for their land
once the park was authorized. In 1964, the tribe negotiated three land purchases in Spalding of
the Watson, Evans, and Sampson brothers properties for a total investment of $53,299. In 1967,
the Park Service agreed to purchase these tracts from the tribe for $66,000, allowing for seven
percent per annum interest on the tribe’s investment plus ten percent overhead and administrative

costs. 8

At the same time that the Park Service negotiated a land sale with the tribe, it made prelimi-
nary inquiries among local residents. While the Park Service was able to find a handful of willing
sellers, other residents protested vehemently to Senator Frank Church. The senator, always wary
of backlash from his constituents for his stances on environmental issues, suggested to NPS
Director George Hartzog, Jr., that the Park Service might be trying to include more land in the
Spalding site than Congress had intended.’ Church recommended that the negotiations between
the Park Service and land owners should be handled locally by the superintendent. This prompted
a visit to Spalding by Hartzog in May 1967. After Hartzog’s visit, Burns discussed the problem
directly with Church and reported to the director, “I came away with the distinct feeling that the
Senator will be satisfied with anything we do there — even though he did not come out and say
it.””!

“8 'NPTEC, Resolution 67-35, October 14, 1966, Superintendent Nez Perce National Historical Park to
Superintendent Northern Idaho Agency, December 19, 1966, Superintendent Northern Idaho Agency to Superintendent
Nez Perce National Historical Park, December 21, 1966, Bill Bryan to Richard A. Halfmoon, June 7, 1967, NEPE,
Richard Halfmoon Papers.

“° Frank Church to George Hartzog, Jr., April 27, 1967, BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 3.3.7, Box 132, Folder
14.

'®° Superintendent to Director, May 26, 1967, NEPE, chrono file.

48 Chapter Three


system — required cooperation between the park administration and the Board of Trustees of the
Spalding Presbyterian Church.'®

In 1979, Superintendent Morris proposed a land exchange with the tribe that would allow for
expansion of the cemetery to the south and consolidate the park’s holdings north of it (Figure 3).
At that time the former Blue Lantern Motel, which extended onto the Park Service’s 1.27-acre
parcel, was still in use as park administrative headquarters. Under Superintendent Morris’
proposal the former Blue Lantern would be vacated and the building razed prior to the land
exchange. NPTEC approved the plan but the church’s Board of Trustees claimed that the tribal
land involved in the exchange actually belonged to the Spalding Presbyterian Church. This
delayed the land exchange for several years until the tribe was able to obtain clear title to that

tract. The transfer was finally accomplished in 1991."

The third unresolved land issue in Spalding involved the Spalding viaduct, or more broadly,
the evolving commercial highway pattern in the area. As proponents of Nez Perce National
Historical Park had emphasized all along, two interstate highways converged at Spalding, making
that place a natural “gateway” for orienting tourists to Nez Perce country. Yet the highway
junction also threatened to overwhelm Spalding’s historical character.

The highway traffic pattern around Spalding went through three major changes, each
involving the construction or abandonment of a different bridge (Figure 4). When the park was
first proposed, all traffic through the area used the Old Spalding Bridge across the Clearwater
River. Dating from the 1920s, this highway bridge joined the south bank of the river less than one
hundred yards from the historic mission site. The first change in this highway traffic pattern
occurred with the completion of the New Spalding Bridge one and a half miles west of Spalding.
Traffic between U.S. 95 and Lewiston now bypassed Spalding, whisking past the village on a
broad 55 m.p.h. curve that rounded the hillside between Lapwai Creek and the Clearwater River.
The new bridge opened shortly before Nez Perce National Historical Park was authorized.

The second change came in the 1970s with the completion of the Arrow Bridge, a little more
than two miles east of Spalding, and the removal of the Old Spalding Bridge. Now all traffic on
U.S. 12 bypassed Spalding on the opposite side of the Clearwater River. Even if traffic now
moved past the site at greater speeds, these changes were probably good from the standpoint of

‘S83 Superintendent to Regional Director, November 24, 1970 and December 3, 1971, NEPE, chrono file;
Memorandum of Agreement Between the National Park Service and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Relating to the
Maintenance of the Lapwai Mission Cemetery, Spalding, Idaho, April 10, 1971, NEPE, Richard Halfmoon Papers.

‘54 Robert L. Morris to Wilfred A. Scott, November 21, 1979, Regional Director to Director, February 25, 1981, and
Superintendent to Regional Director, October 11, 1984, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Nez Perce Tribe,
Superintendent to Regional Director, April 5, 1988, Superintendent to Deputy Regional Director, March 2, 1989, Office
of the Regional Solicitor to Chief, Division of Lands, April 11, 1989, Chief, Division of Lands to Associate Regional
Director, April 18, 1991, Superintendent to Chairman, NPTEC, April 22, 1991, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425
Acquisition of Lands—Holdings, Land Exchange—Nez Perce Tribe.

Chapter Three 53


farther afield to include presentations on the Makah Cultural and Research Center on the
Washington coast and traditional tribal fishing on the Columbia by a member of the Yakima

Nation.#!

The park hosted a unique event, the twentieth-century Nez Perce artists exhibition, in 1991.
Titled “Sapatq’ayn,” the artists exhibition featured works of art and a guest lecture series by four
nationally-known Native American artists. The Nez Perce Longhouse Society contributed a
blessing for the opening and a seven drum ceremony for the closing. The park administration
secured more than $20,000 in private donations to help with the cost of the program, and many
people, including park staff, contributed volunteer time to the effort. Superintendent Frank
Walker justified the exhibition in his annual report, “While this may seem like an unusual thing for
a park to do, Nez Perce is a unique cultural park and this type of activity was very appropriate.”
Sapatq’ayn was worthwhile, Walker stated, because it encouraged preservation of Nez Perce art
and tradition, developed new partnerships, and improved the Park Service’s image. Many Nez
Perces expressed pride in the exhibition and commented that the park was “coming out of the

closet.”2

Beginning in 1991, the park received funds from the Parks as Classrooms Program with which
to develop a packet of educational materials on the Nez Perce people to supplement the social
studies curriculum in area schools. As interest in the program burgeoned, the park also sponsored
workshops for teachers for college credit at Lewis-Clark State College.”

The park administration also established some self-guided interpretive programs. The first
such program was the auto tour of the park, based on the booklet “Your Guide to Nez Perce
National Historical Park.”* Visitors could also take a self-guided walk around the Spalding unit
and learn about the park from the interpretive signs. In 1977 the NPS added a self-guided auto
tour of the White Bird Battlefield. Motorists could start at the top of White Bird Hill and take old
U.S. 95 down to the town of White Bird, making numbered stops that correlated with numbered
passages in a guide booklet. Finally, the interpretive exhibit at Heart of the Monster included an
audio display featuring the voice of tribal member Angus Wilson, who described the Nez Perce

legend relating to the monster and the coyote.

The park administration helped launch the Nez Perce Park Cooperative Association at the end
of 1968. Founding officers included Jack Williams, Earl Harris, Richard Halfmoon, Marcus

241 Program notes, 1988-1991, NEPE, Administrative Files, K18 Interpretive Activities, Nez Perce Lyceum.

242 Superintendent to Regional Director, December 19, 1990, NEPE, chrono file; Superintendent’s Annual Report,
1991, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D34.

243 National Park Education Program and Parks as Classrooms, [1991], NEPE, Administrative Files, K1817
Interpretive Activities, Education Program.

244 Superintendent to Regional Director, January 27, 1971, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Five


ONITED states

DEPARTMENT OF THe?

WATIONAL PARK s

First Park Headquarters...

Robert Burns, first superintendent of Nez Perce National Historical
Park, and his wife Vivian display the sign for the first park
headquarters, located in Watson's Store, 1965.


. Providing for Increases in Appropriation Ceilings and Boundary Changes in Certain Units of
the National Park System, and for other purposes. 94th Cong., 2d sess., House report 94-1162, 1976.

. Tribal Self-governance Act of 1994. 103rd Cong., 2d sess., House report 103-653, 1994.

USS. Congress. Senate. Amending the Act of May 15, 1965, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to
designate the Nez Perce National Historical Park in the state of Idaho, and for other purposes: report (to
accompany S.550). 102nd Cong., Ist sess., Senate report 102-130, 1991.

. Designating the Nez Perce (Mee-Ne-Poo) Trail as a component of the National Trails System:
Report (to accompany S. 1542). 99th Cong., 2d sess., Senate report 99-382, 1986.

. Establishing Self-governance, and for other purposes: report (to accompany S.1618). 103rd
Cong., Ist sess., Senate report 103-205, 1993.

. Implementation of the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project: Hearing before the
Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate. 103rd Cong., 2d sess., Senate hearing 103-441, 1993.

. Miscellaneous New Mexico public lands bills and Nez Perce National Historical Park
addition: hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 10st Cong., 2d sess., Senate hearing 101-1068.

. Nez Perce National Historical Park: report (to accompany S.2804). 10 1st Cong., 2d sess.,
Senate report 101-494, 1990.

. Providing for Increases in Appropriation Ceilings and Boundary Changes in Certain Units of
the National Park System, and for other purposes. 94th Cong., 2d sess., Senate report 94-1158, 1976.

. Providing for the Nez Perce National Historical Park in the State of Idaho. 89th Cong., |st
sess., Senate report 63, 1965.

III. Reports by the National Park Service

Barrington, Mack, and R. Gerald Wright. An Inventory of Plant Communities and Methods to Monitor
Vegetation Changes at White Bird Battlefield, Nez Perce NHS [sic]. Cooperative Park Studies Unit,
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, July 1989.

Gilbert, Cathy A., Gretchen A. Luxenberg, and Marsha R. Tolon. Historic Landscape Report: Spalding
Unit, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho. National Park Service, 1990.

Henderson, David G. Historic Structure Report: Architectural Data, Spalding Area, Nez Perce National
Historical Park, Idaho. Denver Service Center, National Park Service, January 1974.

. Historic Structure Report: St. Joseph’s Mission Church Architectural Data, Nez Perce
National Historical Park, Slickpoo, Idaho. Denver Service Center, National Park Service, February
1974,

138 Bibliography


Less than a month after Burroughs’s quick survey, Secretary Udall met with NPTEC at
Spalding State Park. NPTEC members Allen Slickpoo and Harrison Lott, tribal attorney
Theodore H. Little, and Irving Faling, a member of the tourism promotion organization called
“Advance Idaho”, briefed Udall on the proposed tribal enterprises. The development could
include an Indian village, a handicraft store, a horse racing track, and rodeo grounds, Udall was
told. “Jobs would be provided for hundreds of Indians in the area, as this program gradually
developed,” Faling said, “and the entire Lewiston area would derive great benefits from the
tourists attracted to the region.” Udall expressed strong support for the proposal, drawing
comparisons between what the Nez Perce Tribe could offer and what some Indian groups in the
Southwest had achieved by way of tourism development. He encouraged the non-Indian
community to work closely with the Nez Perce Tribe and noted approvingly the emphasis on
promoting tribal income. “When Indians are the magnets to attract these tourists, as they often
are,” Udall said, “they certainly should share in the economic benefits.”

Udall opposed short term fixes, stressing the importance of using tribal judgment funds for the
development of long-range programs to promote job growth and educational opportunities for
tribal members. Per capita payments were invariably spent on consumer commodities, Udall
remarked, “and in a few months or years there is nothing to show for it.”** Congress had
appropriated judgment funds for the Nez Perce Tribe only two weeks prior to Udall’s visit. His
concern over how the money would be used certainly must have been an important factor behind
his visit. Indeed, uncomfortable with leaving the fate of those funds to tribal politics, Udall
decreed on September 11, 1961, that no more per capita payments could be made out of Nez
Perce trust funds until the tribe had an approved economic development plan. The Secretary’s
directive placed NPTEC members in an awkward position as they stood for reelection. In the
long run, however, it probably bolstered the position of those Nez Perces who wanted NPTEC to

seize the initiative for economic development planning.*

On July 26, 1961, NPTEC adopted resolution 61-143, providing for the establishment of a
Nez Perce Tribal Development Advisory Committee. The purpose of the committee was to
investigate various economic opportunities that would create jobs and improve the standard of
living of tribal members. The committee’s specific charge was to develop an overall economic
development program to guide use of the Nez Perce judgment award funds. The committee was

to report to NPTEC on an advisory basis.**

33 Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 11, 1961.
4 Thid.

35 Lewiston Morning Tribune, March 11, 1962; Daniel H. Olney to R.D. Holtz, September 18, 1962, NAPNWR, RG
75, Portland Area Office, Tribal Operations Branch, Box 1536, Nez Perce Tribal Affairs 1962.

36 R D. Holtz to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 25, 1961, NAPNWR, RG 75, Portland Area Office, Tribal
Operations Branch, Box 1536, Nez Perce Tribal Affairs 1962.

Chapter One 13


. Historic Structure Report: St. Joseph’s Mission Historical Data Section. Denver Service
Center, National Park Service, May 1973.

IV. Reports by Other Agencies

Fraser, Joseph H. A Survey of the Recreation and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country. Vol.1.
Prepared by Armour Research Foundation for Bureau of Indian Affairs, June 14, 1963.

Thompson, Erwin. A Survey of the Recreation and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country. Vol.2.
Prepared by Armour Research Foundation for Bureau of Indian Affairs, September 1963.

USDA Forest Service, USDI National Park Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. The Nez Perce
(Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail: Comprehensive Plan. USDA Forest Service, 1990.

USDA Forest Service. Northern Region News (Missoula, Montana). No.28, July 12, 1963.

V. Books and Articles
Anonymous. “Nez Perce National Historical Park.” Incredible Idaho, vol.1, no. (July 1969), pp.20-22.

Beal, Merrill D. “7 Will Fight No More Forever,” Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce War. Seattle: University
of Washington, 1963.

Brown, Mark H. The Flight of the Nez Perce. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1967.

Burt, Larry. “Western Tribes and Balance Sheets: Business Development Programs in the 1960s and 1970s.”
Western Historical Quarterly, vol.23, no.4 (November 1992).

Chance, David A., and Jennifer V. Chance. Archaeology at Spalding, 1978-1979. University of Idaho
Anthropology Research Manuscript Series, No.? Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho, 1984.

. Exploratory Excavations at Spalding Mission, 1973. Laboratory of Anthropology, University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 1974.

Chance, David H., and Jennifer V. Chance, with Elmer Paul. A Review of the Archaeology of the Nez Perce
Country. Prepared for the National Park Service, Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology,
University of Idaho, November 1987.

French, Larry. “Tourism and Indian Exploitation: A Social Indictment.” The Indian Historian, vol.10, no.4
(Fall 1977), pp.19-27.

Gurcke, Karl, Caroline D. Carley, et al. Nez Perce National Historical Park Archaeological Excavations,
1979-1980. Part I. University of Idaho Anthropological Research Manuscript Series, No. 70. Laboratory
of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1981.

140 Bibliography


By 1970 the Park Service had tailored this interpretive scheme to fit the realities of the park’s
land base in East Kamiah; it was decided to drop the missionary story in East Kamiah after the
First Presbyterian Church refused to sell its land to the Park Service. Significantly, this change of
plan preceded the decision to scale back the basic development plan for the park. According to
the new development plan, the Park Service would forgo the development of three “entrances”
into Nez Perce country at Spalding, East Kamiah, and White Bird in favor of a main hub at

Spalding.

Various explanations were given for the First Presbyterian Church’s refusal to sell. Burns
thought the Presbyterian Nez Perces of Kamiah were acting out of spite toward the Nez Perces of
Lapwai.'*’ In the 1960s these devoutly Christian Nez Perces still looked askance at the way the
Nez Perces in Lapwai were bringing back the root feast, holding pow-wows, and reviving other
tribal customs that the church had discouraged earlier in the century.* Conversely, the Reverend
Henry L. Sugden suggested that the church membership became intransigent on the sale of the
church property (which included a number of rental homes) only after a Park Service appraiser
rudely appeared unannounced and “thoroughly examined and measured all homes inside and -
out.”!* In the course of Burns’ subsequent talks with the church congregation, some Nez Perces

raised a significant point, as Burns reported:

One item they mentioned, which I think we should give careful consideration to, is the fact that for
the past 100 years or so it has been the tradition of this Church that individual Indians were allowed
to build close around them. I feel that this tradition should be maintained, since we are not trying to
present the picture that close back into the old culture or the days of Lewis and Clark. Their point is
well taken. They feel we should not buy their lands and then ignore their tradition in order to tailor

the story to our ideas.’

At Superintendent Burns’ suggestion, the Park Service retreated from its original plan to
acquire this site. Later, Superintendent Williams proposed an alternative in which the Park
Service would buy the McBeth house and move it to the East Kamiah site. This plan never

materialized .'*

The Park Service acquired some privately-owned lands around the Heart of the Monster site.
Once the lands were in Park Service ownership, the park administration removed a sawmill and

‘57 Superintendent to Regional Director, November 14, 1967, NEPE, chrono files.

158 Allen Slickpoo, Sr., interview with author, July 21, 1995.
459 Henry L. Sugden to Robert Burns, October 9, 1967, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Presbyterian Church.

169 Superintendent to Regional Director, February 5, 1968, FRC-Seattle, RG 79, Accession 74A207, Box 13183, File
L30.

161 The proposal had the support of Regional Historian John Hussey, Reed Jarvis, and Park Historian Earl Harris.
Acting Assistant Regional Director to Director, July 11, 1968, FRC-Seattle, RG 79, Accession 74A598, Box 19936,
File L7019; and Jack R. Williams to Rev. Henry L. Sugden, January 22, 1969, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Three 57


As early as 1805-06, when the Lewis and Clark expedition passed through their country, the
Nez Perces became known for their friendship with Americans. In 1831, Nez Perces participated
in the native expedition to St. Louis in search of the “white man’s religion.” This resulted in the
establishment of a mission at Lapwai in 1836 by the Reverend and Mrs. Henry H. Spalding of the
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and another at Kamiah in 1839 by the
Reverend Asa Bowen Smith. However, the American Board mission was abruptly terminated
following the killing of the Reverend Dr. and Mrs. Marcus Whitman and others at their Waiilatpu
mission, near present-day Walla Walla, Washington, in 1847.5

The missionaries left a legacy of dissension between Christian and nativist (non-Christian)
tribal factions, which deepened as the tribe became more entangled in the westward expansion of
the United States. The U.S. government formed Washington Territory in 1853, and dispatched
the first appointed governor and ex-officio superintendent of Indian affairs, Isaac Stevens, to
negotiate land cession treaties with the Pacific Northwest Indians. The rival factions of Nez
Perces and other tribes convened with Stevens at the Walla Walla Treaty Council in 1855.
Governor Stevens offered terms that satisfied Lawyer, whom Stevens recognized as the head
chief of the tribe, but angered Looking Glass and other head men among the nativist Nez Perces.
Still, the governor coerced all the Nez Perce head men into signing the treaty. Compared to most
other tribes, the Nez Perces retained a large part of their lands in a reservation of some 7,694,270
acres.°

After gold was discovered on the reservation in 1860, the federal government did little to
prevent prospectors from intruding on the reservation. The towns of Lewiston (a supply center
- on the lower Snake River) and Pierce (in the heart of the gold fields) were illegally established in
Indian country. In 1861, federal officials negotiated an unratified agreement with the Nez Perces
that allowed Americans to conduct mining operations in the area lying north of the Snake and
Clearwater rivers and granted a right-of-way through the area south of that line. The agreement
also provided that troops be stationed on the reservation. This the government accomplished in
1862 with the establishment of Fort Lapwai. In 1863, a federal commission negotiated a new land
cession treaty with the Nez Perces. Lawyer again led numerous other head men in signing the
treaty, but now his authority to represent the whole tribe was even more doubtful than in 1855.
The new reservation was approximately one tenth its former size and many bands had been
dispossessed without consent. The rift between Christian and nativist Nez Perces that was born in
the missionary period widened as the nativist faction refused to accept the treaty. Old Joseph,
leader of the Wallowa band of Nez Perces, tore up his New Testament in protest of the govern-

‘ Tbid., p. 146.

* Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1965, pp. 329-337.

2 Prologue


Nez Perce cultural demonstrators . ..

Ida Blackeagle and Viola Morris demonstrate beading and
cornhusk weaving in Spalding Park, 1967. Nez Perce cultural
demonstrators have been an important part of the park's
interpretive program.

Pictorial Essay 22



CHAPTER FIVE
INTERPRETATION

Introduction

The interpretive program is a major aspect of Nez Perce National Historical Park. The park
story is complex and challenging. Interpreting the story for visitors is vital to the success of the
park, because most of the park’s widely scattered sites relate to each other historically rather than
visually or geographically. Indeed, the park’s creators acknowledged that most of these sites and
wayside signs did not possess intrinsic national significance. It was only when they were
considered as a whole that the historical sites in Nez Perce country accrued national significance.
Therefore, the interpretive program has been responsible for making each site achieve a level of
national significance by virtue of its association with the other sites in the park. The park
administration’s interpretive function carries most of the responsibility for making the park’s

“string of pearls” cohere.

The conceptual framework for the park’s interpretive program was developed through three
key planning documents: the feasibility report of 1963, the master plan of 1968, and the interpre-
tive prospectus of 1970. These documents outlined the goals of the program as well as the
physical development of the park that the NPS would need to undertake in order to accomplish its
goals. This chapter begins with a discussion of that conceptual framework. It then looks at the
various components of the interpretive program as it actually developed. Finally, it considers
some of the problems that are peculiar to interpretation in this partnership park.

Planning the Interpretive Program

Park planning began with an analysis of visitor use trends. Tourism in Idaho was increasing at
a rapid rate in the 1960s. Armour Research Foundation’s report projected that the number of
tourists passing through Nez Perce country would grow from 593,000 in 1963 to 822,000 in 1970
on the way to 989,000 in 1975.75 NPS planners were more cautious in their projections, pointing
out that the major “tourist paths” between eastern population centers and destination parks in the
Pacific Northwest crossed the state of Idaho via Interstate 80 and Interstate 90. These highways
carried four times the volume of traffic on U.S. 95 and twelve times the volume on U.S. 12, the
two traffic corridors that traverse the park. It seemed to NPS planners that the park would
primarily attract local day-use. Therefore, the planners believed that consideration of the amount

215 Joseph H. Fraser, A Survey of the Recreation and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country, vol.1, prepared
by Armour Research Foundation for U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon, June 1963, p. 6.

Chapter Five 75


The Superintendency of Robert L. Burns, 1965-1968

On August 22, 1965, more than three months after Nez Perce National Historical Park was
authorized, the Secretary of the Interior announced that Robert L. Burns had been appointed the
park’s first superintendent. Burns was selected for the job for a couple of reasons. As the first
superintendent of Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial from 1963 to 1965, he had already been
through the experience of setting up a new unit in the national park system. Before going east in
1960, Burns had spent thirteen years as a ranger in various national parks in the Rocky Mountain
West, concluding with three years at Big Hole Battlefield National Monument in 1957-1960. Big
Hole was the site of a sharp engagement between the Nez Perce and the U.S. Army in 1877, and
while serving at that site Burns learned about the story of the Nez Perce War of 1877.7" When he
was appointed superintendent of Nez Perce National Historical Park, Burns decided with
hindsight that the Park Service’s experience at Big Hole in the late 1950s and early 1960s —
establishing an administrative presence, receiving visitors, and preparing development plans under
Mission 66 — helped to generate enthusiasm within the Park Service for the Nez Perce National

Historical Park proposal.”

Burns arrived in Nez Perce country with an open mind as to where he would establish
temporary headquarters. Spalding, Lapwai, and Lewiston all seemed like possibilities. He
inquired about office space in the BIA’s administrative building in Lapwai, but was offered
nothing better than a cramped room in the basement bisected at chest height by a water pipe.
Richard Halfmoon then suggested that he establish his quarters in Watson’s Store, an old general
store on the edge of the Spalding State Park which the tribe had recently purchased with the
expectation that it would be incorporated into the national historical park.” Burns accepted the
offer, and Watson’s Store became the park’s administrative headquarters and temporary visitor
center for the next three years.

One of Burns’ initial tasks was to establish official contact with numerous political entities
throughout the region. His objectives were to advertise the park, to make the Park Service
administrative presence known, and to develop partnerships with landowners of those sites that
would be cooperatively managed. Thus he delivered lectures and slide programs at the University
of Idaho and Washington State University, gave talks to schools and service clubs in the
Lewiston-Clarkston area, agreed to be interviewed by the Lewiston and Spokane newspapers and
Lewiston’s TV and radio stations, corresponded with key U.S. senators and congressmen,
consulted with members of the Spalding Museum Foundation, the Nez Perce National Historical

"Press Release, August 22, 1965, BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 1.1, Box 92, Folder 12; Lewiston Morning
Tribune, August 25, 1965.

” Robert L. Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995.

® Robert L. Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995.

28 Chapter Two


law enforcement function.?”? Again in 1990, Superintendent Walker was requested to reassess the
park’s law enforcement needs. Walker concluded that it was still desirable to have a law
enforcement commissioned ranger on the park staff. Despite the small number of law enforce-
ment incidents, “the threat to visitors and resources is real,” Walker insisted. “Given our
logistical situation with scattered, isolated sites containing significant cultural and historical
resources, maintaining an NPS law enforcement presence offers us the only feasible way to ensure
protection and integrity.””! This resulted in another file report, “Law Enforcement Needs
Assessment, Nez Perce National Historical Park,” prepared by Chief Ranger Jan R. Dick.”

Walker augmented the park’s visitor protection program with two significant staff
appointments in 1991-1992. In 1991, Walker hired a seasonal park ranger, Teresa Seloske, for
the White Bird Battlefield unit for the first time in the park’s history. Seloske established a base
of operations in the Forest Service building in Grangeville. Her presence in the area yielded new
information about visitor use patterns, and discouraged vandalism of the interpretive shelter — a
recurrent problem at the White Bird unit.? The second significant appointment, in April 1992,
was Mark O’Neill as chief, natural resources management and visitor protection. O’Neill _
professionalized the park’s law enforcement arm. He oversaw improvements in the level of
medical emergency services that the park could provide, and helped the park acquire a Model 42
light-engine fire truck, which was equipped to respond to wildland fires and to provide limited

support for fire suppression.”

210 Superintendent to Acting Regional Director, February 3, 1987, NEPE, chrono file.

a Superintendent to Regional Director, October 17, 1990, NEPE, chrono file.

212 NEPE, Administrative Files, W2623 Reports--Situation, Law Enforcement Program Assessment.
213 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1991, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D34.

214 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1992, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, D34; Superintendent’s Annual
Report, 1993, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Four 73


Officers' Quarters, Fort Lapwai, 1975...

The building is a focal point for interpretation of the Fort Lapwai
sites.

Pictonal Essay 3


‘\. f
\ (
foo 7 \ ee :
oa ? aa was fn rere ~
Ba — 7? Hasotine Village oe _ ,
j — ) /
} os fj re
4 ke Pendleton
y } ~. Pope
Yow 7 Una till

= i.
a N

MONTAND?

(a

tos

ie ae
fine vation |] Yellowstong N. rp
an Cattle Site ns

- iS
¢ ; ~ om

a a

Figure 5,
Nez Perce National Historic Trail.

#29/20042 ON AMADA pn» 95


The National Parks Advisory Board provided additional leverage in getting the bill introduced.
Alvin Josephy presented the concept of the Nez Perce National Historical Park to the board at its
49th annual meeting in Big Bend National Park, Texas, in November 1963. The board adopted a
resolution endorsing the concept on November 6. This action strengthened the position of the
Idaho delegation; two weeks later Senator Church introduced the bill with Senator Jordan co-

sponsoring it.*

Senator Jordan’s support was especially valuable. He had refused in the previous month to
co-sponsor Church’s bill to establish a Sawtooth Wilderness National Park. In Jordan’s view, the
Sawtooth proposal was too restrictive and would hinder Idaho’s economic development. The
Nez Perce National Historical Park’s unusual concept of land ownership, on the other hand,
seemed to pose no such threat. As preservationists’ hopes for a national park in Idaho’s
Sawtooth Range dimmed, the prospects for the Nez Perce National Historical Park looked
comparatively brighter.°**

Once Idaho’s congressional delegation was unified behind the bill, its progress through
Congress was relatively straightforward. Most importantly, Congress chose not to debate or
prescribe the actual sites that would be included in the park; this was left to the discretion of the
Secretary of the Interior. Instead, Congressional debate focused on the amount of acreage that
the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to acquire in fee and in scenic easements, the
amount of the limitation on land acquisition and development costs, and the limits on the
secretary’s authority in administering cooperative sites.*” The Senate Subcommittee on Public
Lands held hearings on the bill in Washington, D.C., and Lewiston in August and October 1964.*
Following the election of the 89th Congress in 1964, Representative White re-introduced the bill
in the House on January 4, 1965, and Church and Jordan re-introduced an identical bill in the
Senate on January 6. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reported the bill with
an amendment on February 9, and the Senate amended and passed the bill the next day, and
referred it to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The House committee
reported on the bill with an amendment on April 14, and the House amended and passed the bill

on May 3.

5° Edward B. Danson, Jr., Resolution Proposed Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, November 6, 1963, and
Office of Senator Church to Lewiston Morning Tribune, November 21, 1963, BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 1.1,
Box 92, Folder 11.

6 Lewiston Morning Tribune, October 4, 1963.

7 U.S. Congress, Senate, Providing for the Nez Perce National Historical Park in the State of Idaho, 89th Cong.,
Ist sess., S. Rept. 63, February 1965; U.S. Congress, House, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, 89th Cong.,
Ist sess., H. Rept. 238, April 1965.

* U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, 88th
Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964

20 ; Chapter One


bulldozed through a tribal cemetery. Remains of a number of individuals were disturbed. The
incident brought about a nadir in NPS-Nez Perce relations. Even after the remains were sorted
out, identified, and reinterred a little more than three years later, the incident still cast a pall over
Nez Perce feelings about the park and Park Service representatives. The decision to build the
road dated from 1976, when planners saw a need to construct a direct road between the visitor
center parking area and the historic area below. The road would traverse down the side of the
bluff. Sam Watters, a tribal member, objected that the proposed road cut would intersect a tribal
cemetery. Morris requested a consultation, and on March 18, 1976, Dr. Roderick Sprague,
chairman of the Department of Sociology/Anthropology at the University of Idaho, inspected the
site and the development plans with NPS officials and members of the Nez Perce Tribe. Even
though there was a known Nez Perce cemetery at the top of the bluff, Sprague advised that the
proposed road cut would not disturb any graves because graves would not extend down the
slope. Nevertheless, he suggested that a trained archeologist should be present to monitor the
initial phase of construction in case human remains were discovered.'* With that assessment, and
some archeological testing accomplished during the summer and fall of 1978, plans to locate the
visitor center on the top of the bluff proceeded with the tribe’s approval.

It was in the fall of 1978 that the NPS broke ground for the visitor center. Contrary to
Sprague’s advice, no archeologist was assigned to monitor the construction work.'* The work on
the road had barely begun when it was discovered that the bulldozer crew had unearthed a
number of graves. According to Superintendent Morris, the burial remains were encountered
about twenty-five feet outside the known cemetery."* Archeologist David Chance maintains that
the actual road cut went outside the area shown on project plans.’ The disturbance of the graves
happened because the cemetery and the earthworks extended over a wider area than the park
officials and archaeologists had anticipated. It caught both the archaeologists and park officials

by surprise.

Morris contacted NPTEC the next day and sought to involve tribal representatives in the
damage assessment. Despite this gesture, members of the tribe formed an impression that park
officials underestimated the gravity of the situation. When NPTEC Secretary Silas Whitman
arrived at park headquarters on September 13, he thought that the tone of the staff suggested that
“seemingly the project was not of a significant problem other than a few graves being disrupted.”

“4 Roderick Sprague to Charles F. Bohannon, March 25, 1976, NEPE, Richard Halfmoon Papers.
"'’ Secretary NPTEC to NPTEC, September 19, 1979, NEPE, Richard Halfmoon Papers.
"6 Robert L. Morris to Wilfred A. Scott, September 12, 1979, NEPE, Richard Halfmoon Papers.

"” David Chance, interview with author, October 2, 1995.

38 Chapter Two


The Spalding site . ..

The Spalding site is situated beside the confluence of Lapwai Creek and the
Clearwater River, top left. The mission site is in the trees beyond the parked cars. The
arboretum extends from the center to the right of the photo and the Presbyterian
cemetery is behind the single row of trees in the center of the photo. The former Blue
Lantern motel, converted into a visitor center and administration building, is on the
left.

Pictorial Essay 16


the acquisition would cause the park to exceed its maximum allotment of 1,500 acres in fee.’ To
date, the lands remain under state ownership.

NPS management tried to discover what kind of legal force was contained in a scenic
easement. In November 1971, Superintendent Williams requested a solicitor’s opinion on this —
issue. Specifically, he wanted to know if hunting was allowed on scenic easements or inholdings
within the park boundaries, whether overgrazing was permissible on the state-owned inholdings at
White Bird, and whether it was the stockowner’s or the landowner’s responsibility to prevent
grazing trespass on scenic easements. Williams made repeated inquiries over the next two years

but did not get a reply to these questions.'”

The superintendent had to make practical decisions as issues arose. In June 1971, Superinten-
dent Williams authorized the rancher, Harry M. Hagen, to harvest the native grass hay from a 20-
acre area inside the park boundary. The cutting of the hay that year, Williams was careful to
explain, constituted the removal of a potential fire hazard.'* On another occasion in 1974,
Williams instructed Hagen to remove 100 head of sheep and three horses from NPS lands.'*
(Later, grazing would become the most controversial issue at White Bird, and is discussed in
Chapter 7.) Years later, in 1991, Superintendent Walker sought restitution from White Bird
resident Andrew Dahlquist for cutting trees on a portion of his property on which the federal
government had purchased a scenic easement. Dahlquist’s action was in clear violation of the
easement, although he professed that he was not aware of the restriction against cutting trees.”
This incident highlighted another problem with scenic easements: even when the easement was
clear on its face, the precise terms of the easement could be forgotten over the course of time.
Scenic easements required constant vigilance by the Park Service.

166 Superintendent to District Director, March 28, 1969, Superintendent to Director, June 25, 1970, NEPE, chrono
file, Superintendent to District Director, April 2, 1969, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Development of Public

Lands—Idaho.

167 Superintendent to Regional Director, November 17, 1971, NEPE, Administrative Files, Resource Management
files, White Bird Battlefield Easements.

168 Jack R. Williams to Harry M. Hagen, June 17, 1971, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Harry M. Hagen Tract
01-101.

16 Jack R. Williams to Harry M. Hagen, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Harry M. Hagen Tract 01-101.

170 Franklin C. Walker to Andrew Dahlquist, June 10, 1991, Chief Ranger to Associate Regional Director, April 26,
1991, and Office of the Regional Solicitor to Superintendent, June 6, 1991, NEPE, L3019 Land Use (Special Use

Permits) Dahlquist—Timber Cutting Incident.

Chapter Three 59


ON MICROFILM

| ANT AND
YELLOWJACKET

DONALD MACKENZIE’S POST ~ | x SITES

VISITOR CENTER

X SPALDING
SPALDING HOME

X\ NORTHERN IDAHO INDIAN AGENCY
> | FORT LAPWAI

COYOTE’S \
FISHNET
CLARKSTON \

LEWISTON$
Wena

SZ

CRAIG DONATION
LAND CLAIM x

\ ST. JOSEPHS
\ MISSION

MAP OF NEZ PERCE
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

ARCHEOLOGICAL

CANOE CAMP

\
\

3,
%
a
a
ok,
~
3

\
\
\
\
\
ASA SMITH MISSION X
LEWIS AND CLARK LONG CAMR X

NEZ PERCE
INDIAN RESERVATION

CRAIGMONT

EAST KAMIAH p

%
i)
=
a
+
©
om

mS
~~.

oo

~~

~~, CLEARWATER

~L BATTLEFIELD

COTTONWOOD “~
COTTONWOOD SS

SKIRMISHES “~

~

x

WEIS ROCKSHELTER
GRANGEVILLE

X CAMAS PRAIRIE

WHITE BIRD *
BATTLEFIELD

X PIERCE

WEIPPE

PRAIRIE

x
x

MUSSELSHELL
MEADOW

HRA PROJECT\426\NEZPERCE.OWG 9/17/96 BDL

‘Figure 1. :
Map of Nez Perce National Historical Park

(NPS map).

429/20041
1 of 1

23


St. Joseph's Mission . .

St. Joseph's Mission, Slickpoo, 1975. Founded by Father Joseph M. Cataldo in
1874, the church was the heart of the first Roman Catholic mission in Nez Perce
country and was the foremost Catholic church for many years. The cooperative

site is owned by the St. Joseph's Mission Historical Society. The NPS executed a
cooperative agreement with the Society on June 29, 1970 providing for the
preservation, protection, interpretation, renewal, and maintenance of the
property.


tended to treat the park collection as his own.”* This raised the issue of whether Shawley
possessed proper credentials to be a park museum curator. Professional standards for museum
curation in the national park system changed significantly during the 1970s and 1980s; what had
once been a field dominated by collectors was becoming more and more a field for the specialist
with formal training in museology.”” Shawley’s background was no longer a good fit with the

Park Service.

It took an additional two years for Whitaker to resolve this personnel problem. In 1983,
Whitaker put Shawley under the supervision of Art Hathaway. The next year, she asked for a
performance review of the park curator by the regional curator, Finally, in 1985, she requested an
audit of museum management in the park by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Both the
performance review and the inspector general’s report found major weaknesses in the park’s
internal control system for museum property. The OIG report presented nine separate actions for
correcting these deficiencies. Under threat of indictment for theft of missing items, Shawley

resigned in 1985.77!

The two succeeding park curators, Susan Kopcynski (1986-1987) and Susan Buchel (1988-
1994) implemented the OIG report’s recommendations and began re-cataloguing all of the park
museum holdings according to National Catalog standards. The latter was accomplished mainly
through contracts with the University of Idaho Anthropology Laboratory. The regional curator
wrote and administered the contracts while the park curator monitored the cataloguing operation
on-site. By 1994, all objects had been adequately documented in the National Catalog, but
accession records from 1965 to 1986 still contained many gaps in documentation.”

As the park’s collection management program emerged from the morass in which the OIG
found it in the mid-1980s, one of the outstanding problems concerned the future of the Allen-
Spalding collection. This collection, with an appraised value of approximately $583,100,
accounted for nearly a third of the total value of the park’s museum holdings. More importantly,
it formed the core of the park’s collection of Nez Perce artifacts. As Superintendent Weaver
explained to the Director of the Ohio Historical Society in 1988,

269 Art Hathaway, interview with author, July 26, 1995; Kent Bush, interview with author, August 24, 1995.

2” ¥ aurin Huffman, personal communication, April 10, 1996.

27. Art Hathaway, interview with author, July 26, 1995; Deputy Regional Director to Regional Curator, August 1,
1984, and Regional Curator to Deputy Regional Director, August 31, 1984, Kent Bush files, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Office of Inspector General Audit Report, “Review of Museum Management at the Nez Perce National

Historical Park, National Park Service,” March 1985, pp. 17-19.

272 National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park Collection Management Plan, Seattle, 1994, p. 7.

Chapter Six 93


Tr y (CO

Tancil, Vernon, 106 ’ Yellowstone National Park, 3, 112, 116, 128
Thompson, Erwin, 15-17, 22, 76, 97, 100

Thomson, Jim, 102, 120

Tobin, Daniel J., 41, 109

Tolo Lake, 3, 103, 121

Toothman, Stephanie, 29, 39, 67, 98, 119-121, 126

Traditional Campsite, 121]

UC

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 33, 70, 84
Udall, Stewart L., 11, 13, 63

Ullman, Al, 116, 118, 119

Umatilla Indian Reservation, 3, 116, 119, 123
University of Idaho, 7, 28, 36, 38, 39, 44, 91-93,

100-102, 111

We |

Walker, Frank C., 37, 45, 46, 59, 60, 73, 83, 84, 96,
126, 130, 131, 133, 134

War of 1877, 3, 17, 28, 30, 64, 67, 68, 77, 78, 85, 103,
116, 119, 123, 124, 133; see also, Nez Perce War of
1877

Ware, Marcus, 5, 7, 14, 36, 84

Washington State University, 15, 28, 90

Watson’s Store, 28, 32, 34, 37, 70, 79, 90-92, 95, 97,
98

Watters, Irvin, 33

Watters, Sam, 12, 32, 38, 39

Weaver, Roy, W., 43-45, 56, 62, 67, 72, 92-94, 96,
102, 110, 111, 120, 121, 133

weed(s), 105, 107-109, 111, 112,

weed control, 105, 108, 109

Weippe Prairie, 102

Weis Rockshelter, 40, 60, 62, 99, 100

Wells, Merle, 17, 19, 120

White, Compton I., 6, 19, 20, 25

White Bird Battlefield, 19, 21, 30, 35-37, 40, 47, 58,
59, 73, 78, 83, 85, 86, 98, 102, 105, 106, 108, 111,
119, 134

Whitman, Silas, 2, 5-7, 15, 38

Whittaker, Fahy C., 40-43, 70, 72, 82, 86

Whitworth, Jock, 130

Williams, Jack R., 32-37, 43, 52, 57-59, 61, 64, 70, 71,
79-83, 86, 87, 103, 106, 107, 118, 125

Wilson, Angus A., 14, 15, 26, 35, 40, 83

Wirth, Conrad L., 14, 18
Wright, Gerry, 44, 111

176 Index

ve U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 794-413 / 62006 REGION NO. 10


The Superintendency of Frank C. Walker, 1990 -

In September 1990, Frank C. Walker transferred to Nez Perce National Historical Park from
Fort Clatsop Nationa! Memorial, where he had been superintendent since 1985. A second-
generation Park Service employee, Walker had gone from Yellowstone to White Sands National
Monument, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, Gulf Islands National Seashore, and
Carlsbad Caverns National Park. With a degree in biology, Walker also had a keen interest in
history. By the time he came to Nez Perce country, his career path had already intersected the
Lewis and Clark story twice before — first at the expedition’s point of departure in St. Louis,
then at Fort Clatsop near the mouth of the Columbia.”

Walker had some prior exposure to Nez Perce National Historical Park while he was
superintendent at Fort Clatsop. He had helped in the preparation of a development concept plan
for the Spalding unit some five years earlier and had observed the conflict between the tribe and
the superintendent. Upon learning of Weaver’s departure, he applied for the job because the
concept of the park interested him and the prospect of town living was attractive.”

Walker and tribal leaders quickly moved to establish good communications. Within a week of
his arrival, the new superintendent accepted an invitation from General Council Chairman J.
Herman Reuben to attend the semi-annual meeting of the council that month. Following that
meeting, Walker made it a practice to attend each General Council session and regularly report on
developments in the park. This ongoing commitment was significant in establishing a relationship
of trust and open communication with the tribe.”

_ The park additions bill consumed much of the superintendent’s time and energy during the
first two years of his tenure. President George Bush signed the park additions bill on October 30,
1992, authorizing fourteen new park sites in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. (see
Chapter 8). These additions mainly followed the pattern of the cooperatively managed sites rather
than the NPS-owned sites among the original 24 sites. Implementation of the act required the
negotiation of cooperative agreements with numerous individuals and agencies and the fostering
of good relations with some 21 separate communities. As of July 1995 the park had 50 coopera-

tive agreements in place.”

With the park additions, it became increasingly evident that the park administration would
need to be decentralized in order to manage so many far-flung sites effectively. Walker encour-
aged the park management staff in developing a new concept for administration based on units

'39 Frank C. Walker, interview with author, July 21, 1995.
140 Frank C. Walker, interview with author, July 21, 1995.

141 Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

142 Frank C. Walker, interview with author, July 21, 1995; Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1993, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Two 45


Chapter Five


tion of a comprehensive management plan to the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park
Service. The act required the Secretary to submit the plan to Congress by September 30, 1981.
The Midwest Regional Office sought input on the plan from Nez Perce National Historical Park in
1980. Specifically, the project team sought advice from park officials in identifying and evaluating
historic and recreational resources where the Lewis and Clark Trail passed through Nez Perce

country. '*

By that time, discussion was well underway for designation of a Nez Perce or Nee-Me-Poo
National Historic Trail (Figure 5). The first milestone in this effort was reached in 1965 with the
inclusion of the Lolo Trail as a site in Nez Perce National Historical Park, and its designation as a
National Historic Landmark. The feasibility studies for the park recognized the historical
significance of the Nez Perce Tribe’s traditional trail across the Bitterroot Range which Lewis and
Clark followed in 1805 and 1806. Like other sites in the park, the Lolo Trail site was not
designated by boundaries; indeed, portions of it remained obscure. Park officials worked with
U.S. Forest Service officials from the Clearwater National Forest to locate precisely where the
trail existed. In any event, the Lolo Trail designation served to highlight the connection between
the route followed by Lewis and Clark and the trail which the Nez Perce people had used

historically.'*’

As the centennial year of the Nez Perce War of 1877 approached, various entities expressed
interest in having portions of the 1,200-mile route taken by the Nez Perce (including that portion
which followed the Lolo Trail) designated as a Nez Perce National Historic Trail. The Appaloosa
Horse Club, Inc., which organized a commemorative trail ride over a section of this route each
summer, inquired about the project in 1975. Superintendent Jack Williams outlined for the club
the criteria which were normally applied in evaluating a trail’s suitability for designation as a
national historic trail. Williams explained to the members that for a study to be initiated, “a
request to the Secretary of the Interior by your Congressman recommending various outstanding
segments of the Nez Perce War Trail is needed.”'"* In 1976, Congress amended the National
Trails System Act to authorize a study of the Nez Perce or Nee-Me-Poo Trail. The act called for
a joint study by the Park Service and the Forest Service. The agencies submitted the joint report
to the public review process after 1982, and Congress designated the Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo)

86 Regional Director to Superintendent, May 15, 1980, NEPE, Administrative Files, L6017 National Scenic/Historic
Trails, Lewis-Clark Historic Trail.

'87 Superintendent to Regional Director, November 17, 1972, NEPE, chrono file.

'88 Jack R. Williams to Appaloosa Horse Club, Inc., February 25, 1975, NEPE, chrono file.

64 Chapter Three


CHAPTER SIX
CULTURAL RESOURCES

Introduction

The Nez Perce National Historical Park Act charges the Park Service with protecting those
sites that have exceptional value in commemorating the history of the nation. Park Service policy
and planning documents for this park consistently emphasized the need to treat Nez Perce history
as a continuum from prehistory to the present.” Cultural resources management in Nez Perce
National Historical Park has embraced a combination of archeological sites, historic structures,
geological formations of mythological significance to the Nez Perce people, and material artifacts
of Nez Perce culture from the prehistoric era to the present.

Park staff who are involved with collections management face many of the same philosophical
issues that staff members who work in interpretation find so perplexing. Park staff want to
document Nez Perce acculturation without unduly influencing it. This raises questions about the
proper procedure for acquiring contemporary cultural artifacts and indeed what constitutes a
contemporary cultural artifact. After experimenting with a program which sought to preserve the
Nez Perce language, for example, the park staff decided that language was beyond the scope of
the park’s cultural resources management program. On the other hand, park staff view the
collecting of oral traditions as being within the purview of their mission.

NPS officials have been cognizant of the relationship between the park and the Nez Perce
people as they have managed the park’s archeological and historical resources. The archeological
surveys at Spalding, in particular, have been circumscribed by the known abundance of unmarked
burial sites in the area. The Nez Perce do not want these sites to be disturbed. Archeologists
have occupied a difficult role in the park’s development, facilitating interpretation of the cultural
resources on the one hand, while trying to protect burial remains from disturbance on the other.

This chapter traces the history of cultural resources management in Nez Perce National
Historical Park. The first section discusses the acquisition, storage, and cataloguing of the park’s
collections of prehistoric and historic artifacts. The second section provides an overview of the
inventory, study, and restoration of the park’s historic structures and landscapes. The third
section describes the archeological investigations that have taken place in the park to date.

259 Nez Perce National Historical Park Interpretive Prospectus, National Park Service, 1970, p. 2; Nez Perce
National Historical Park Collection Management Plan, National Park Service, 1994, p. 9.

Chapter Six 89


traditional ways and history jealously. Nez Perces of the Colville Indian Reservation insisted that
they were the only “true descendants of Chief Joseph,” and should therefore have greater
influence than NPTEC on all sites relating to the War of 1877.° NPTEC found this claim to be
politically unacceptable and historically unfounded.** Many Nez Perce combatants in the War of
1877 belonged to other bands. There were descendants of Ollokot, for example, at Lapwai,
Idaho and Pendleton, Oregon.** To complicate matters further, some Nez Perces on the Colville
Indian Reservation objected to Joe Redthunder discussing the additions with NPS officials as if he
represented the band.** Official representation of the Chief Joseph Band would remain a problem

until the final hours of the legislative campaign.

These problems notwithstanding, the Nez Perce Tribe asked the congressional delegations of
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana to consider sponsoring a bill as soon as the NPS
released the 1989 draft report on park additions.** Senator James A. McClure and Representative
Larry Craig of Idaho took the lead and introduced companion bills in the Senate and House on
June 28, 1990. Senators Max Baucus and Conrad Burns of Montana, Brock Adams of Washing-
ton, and Steve Symms of Idaho cosponsored the Senate bill 2804, and Representatives Jim
McDermott of Washington and John Rhodes of Arizona cosponsored the House version. This
was a strong showing of regional, bipartisan support. The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and
Natural Resources held a hearing on §.2804 on July 27, 1990, and reported favorably on the bill,
with amendments, on September 19.” The Senate passed $.2804 on October 18, but the House
failed to vote on the measure before Congress adjourned.

In the long run this appears to have been fortunate, for S.2804 as amended had some peculiar
provisions that were subsequently deleted in the Nez Perce National Historical Park Additions
Act of 1991. First, it amended the Act of May 15, 1965 to include potential sites in Oregon,
Washington, Montana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. Although the Park Service’s additions study
did not consider any sites in Oklahoma, the Senate bill included this state in the event that the
Secretary of the Interior would later identify sites associated with the exile of Nez Perce tribal
members to Oklahoma Territory for addition to the park. Second, the Senate bill went beyond the

352 Resolution 1994-344, no date, NEPE, Resource Management files, Nez Perce Tribe.

353 Charles H. Hayes to Eddie Palmanteer, Jr., August 11, 1994, NEPE, Resource Management files, Nez Perce
Tribe.

34 W. Otis Halfmoon, comments on draft, July 18, 1996.

55 Sue Buchel, Record of Telephone Conversation with Patty Wren of the Wenatchee World, October 8, 1991,
NEPE, Administrative Files, LS8 Proposed Areas - New Additions, Wallowa.

°° Charles H. Hayes to Les Aucoin, May 8, 1990, NEPE, Administrative files, L58 Proposed Areas - New Additions,
Wallowa.

*°7 U.S, Congress, Senate, Nez Perce National Historical Park, 101st Cong., 2d sess., Report 101-494, October 3,
1990, p. 3.

124 Chapter Eight


C) Prior to the Senate’s vote, Gorton asked for clarification of the Chief Joseph Band’s preroga-
tives in the development and interpretation of the park additions. The following letter from
NPTEC Chairman Sam Penney to Colville Confederated Tribes Chairman Eddie Palmanteer, Jr.,
was inserted in the Congressional Record:

Dear Chairman Palmeteer (sic): I am very concerned about the Nez Perce Park Additions Bill and its
chances of passing this 102d Congress. The bill would authorize the National Park Service to
designate specific sites significant to the history and culture of the Nez Perce people. The hold

placed on the bill by Senator Gorton threatens to kill this bill. If this bill dies, it is highly unlikely we
will be able to stop condominium development from encroaching upon the Old Joseph Monument

site near Wallowa Lake. This has been our primary driving force in pushing this additions bill. I

want to provide the following assurances to the Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce and to the Confeder- -

ated Tribes of the Colville Reservation:

1. Categorically and without exception, the Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce will have complete
and total purview over any sites designated under the Nez Perce National Historical Park within the
boundary of the Colville Reservation. If the Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce on the Colville
Reservation chooses not to establish any recognition of the sites, then the sites would remain

inactive.

2. The Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce on the Colville Reservation will be consulted and
participate in the interpretation of all other sites of the park system, with the exception of those
located within the boundary of the Nez Perce Reservation.

OC) 3. If the Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce requests, the Nez Perce Tribe will support an
amendment to the Nez Perce National Historical Park in the 103d Congress to remove the Washing-

ton State sites from the park system.

Thope this letter addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
Sam Penney,
Chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee?

After this significant maneuver by Gorton on behalf of the Colville Confederated Tribes, the
Senate passed the bill with unanimous consent.

Big Hole National Battlefield and the Unit System

Big Hole National Battlefield had a long association with Nez Perce National Historical Park
that predated the Nez Perce National Historical Park Additions Act of 1991. In fact, the national
battlefield predated the national historical park by many decades. The 1877 battlefield site was set
aside as a military reserve in 1883 and designated a national monument in 1910. It was trans-
ferred from the War Department to the National Park Service in 1933 and placed under the

© 365 Congressional Record, October 8, 1992, p. 817860.

Chapter Fight 127


aspect of his job. He took lessons in the Nez Perce language from a tribal elder and attempted,
without great success, to learn Nez Perce beadwork. He often “made sweat” with the Indians,
priding himself on the fact that he could take the heat in the sweat lodge longer than some of his
Nez Perce companions. He learned all that he could about native foods, collected various plant
specimens for display in the Watson’s Store, and cultivated his own patch of the medicinal root,
kouse-kouse.® Burns and Halfmoon once traveled to Nespelem, Washington, to inspect the grave
of the younger Chief Joseph. The two men were in agreement that the gravesite should one day
become part of the Nez Perce National Historical Park. Regional Director John A. Rutter subse-
quently advised Burns that the matter of the grave was out of Burns’ jurisdiction.”

Before Burns departed Nez Perce country for Philadelphia in 1968, his good friends Richard
Halfmoon and Sam Watters took him into the backcountry. There they insisted that he go out
alone on a vision quest. Considerably moved, Burns complied.® This farewell gesture not only
revealed something of the tribal leaders’ relationship to the superintendent; it also indicated their
untarnished hopes for the park’s future.

The Superintendency of Jack R. Williams, 1968-1975

Jack R. Williams was appointed superintendent of Nez Perce National Historical Park in the
fall of 1968. Prior to this appointment, Williams had served as superintendent of Aztec Ruins
National Monument, New Mexico (1963-1965), and Navajo National Monument, Arizona (1965-
1968). He was no stranger to Indian country, having worked with Pueblos and Navajos. Like
Burns, he sweat with the Nez Perce and took a keen interest in their culture, becoming an expert
on their famous Appaloosa horses. Nevertheless, Williams did not share his predecessor’s success
in getting along well with the Nez Perce. He established a law enforcement presence at Spalding
that many tribal members found repugnant. Some thought he wore his uniform too ostenta-
tiously. He also made a mistake in where he lived, first occupying a double-wide trailer on the
premises, and later moving into the former Indian agent’s house after it had been refurbished.” It
was not long before NPTEC members began to grumble that they wanted a different superinten-
dent.

But the superintendent was more of a target for Nez Perce ire than a cause of it. It seemed to
the Nez Perce Tribe that the park’s development program had sputtered and stalled. Although
the NPS completed its master plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park in June 1968, another

*° Robert L. Burns to J.V.K. Wagar, March 6, 1968, NEPE, chrono files.
*” Superintendent, Nez Perce NHP to Superintendent, Coulee Dam NRA, November 6, 1967, NEPE, chrono files.
** Robert L. Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995.

* Carol Gamet, interview with author, July 26, 1995.

32 Chapter Two


The park staff, 1967...

Back row, left to right: Jim Haney, Jim Speer, Carol Gamet, Jim Reynolds,
"Nubbs" Raboin, Milo Anderson, Robert Burns. Front row, left to right:
Linda Paisano, Becky Baer, Emmett Carter, Harold White, Earl Harris.

Pictorial Essay



the Spalding Museum Foundation, Inc. In the fall of that year, Marcus Ware, a Lewiston
attorney, headed the new organization, assisted by DAR member Virginia Leckenby. Other
charter members included Joseph Blackeagle of Lapwai, JE. Buchanan, president of the
University of Idaho, and fifteen others, most of whom were residents of Lewiston or Clarkston.”

Proponents of the Spalding State Park and a Spalding Museum probably always saw some
economic benefit in their efforts, but it was not until about 1960 that tourism development
became a major part of their arguments. At least two factors were at play in bringing about this
change. First and most importantly, Idahoans discovered that tourism had become a major factor
in the state’s economy. A 1960 tourist survey revealed that in the previous year tourists had spent
approximately $120 million in the state, making tourism Idaho’s third largest industry after
agriculture and timber. Governor Robert E. Smylie requested the legislature to create a state
parks department. The legislation failed in 1961 and 1963, but passed in 1965. Meanwhile, the
Commissioners of the State Land Board concluded that outdoor recreation was “fast assuming a
prominent role in the economy of Idaho,” and pressed for more development of Idaho’s scenic

and historical resources."

A second factor in the changing orientation of the movement for a historical park was the
expectation of increased tourist traffic along the Clearwater River corridor stemming from new
federal highway development. In 1962, the federal government completed U.S. Highway 12
between Lewiston and Lolo, Montana. Called the Lewis and Clark Highway because it roughly
followed the same route taken by the explorers, the road pierced a large stretch of wild country
and was extraordinarily scenic. The Lewis and Clark Highway joined U.S. 95 across the
Clearwater River from Spalding, making Spalding a logical center for tourist information.

Perhaps a third factor contributed to the movement’s higher profile in the early 1960s. Dams
were under construction or being planned at several points above and below Lewiston on the
Snake and Clearwater rivers. Many of Idaho’s river canyons still looked essentially the same as
they had in the time of Lewis and Clark. Although Idahoans have generally shown little support
for the creation of national parks in their state, the spate of dam building at this time appears to
have made many area residents poignantly aware of Idaho’s recreational and historical resources

and more sympathetic to preservation."

12 «The Impetus of the Alice Whitman Chapter on the Projected Visitor Center at Spalding Park,” NEPE, Library
Vertical Files, Spalding Museum Foundation; Articles of Association of Spalding Museum Foundation, Inc., November

1953, WSU, Ted Little Papers, Box 2, Folder 20.

13 Wilma M. Woods, “The Role of Federal Dollars and the Economics of Recreation in the Development of Idaho’s
State Parks, 1908-1965,” Idaho Yesterdays, vol.34, no.4 (Winter 1991), pp. 15-21; quote on p. 19.

4 For example, see Governor Robert E. Smylie’s remarks in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, 88th Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964, pp.

30-31.

Chapter One



VII. Oral history interviews

Buchel, Sue. October 23, 1995.
Burns, Robert. July 22, 1995.

Bush, Kent. August 24, 1995.
Chance, David. October 2, 1995.
Ellenwood, Richard. October 3, 1995.
Gamet, Carol. July 26, 1995.
Halfmoon, Richard. July 27, 1995.
Hathaway, Art. July 26, 1995.
Horstman, Mary. October 23, 1995.
Morris, Robert. August 30, 1995.
Slickpoo, Allen P., Jr. July 21, 1995.
Toothman, Stephanie. August 24, 1995.
Walker, Franklin C. July 21, 1995.
Weaver, Roy C. October 4, 1995.
Whitaker, Fahy. September 27, 1995.
_ Williams, Jack. September 28, 1995.

142

Bibliography



Pictorial Essay

Old Chief Joseph's Gravesite Wallowa Lake, Oregon, 1963. . .

In 1926, the remains of Old Chief Joseph were moved to this site from his
campsite where he died in 1871. The present grave site is a key for
interpreting the history and culture of the Wallowa Nez Perce. Acquisition
of the site was authorized by Congress in 1992.



Pictorial Essay

Josiah Red Wolf with NPS Director G. Hartzog, Jr....

In July 1966, NPS Director George Hartzog, Jr., visited the newly authorized
national historical park and met with Nez Perce, including Josiah Red Wolf,
last survivor of the Nez Perce War. Left to right: Josiah Red Wolf, George
Hartzog, Jr., Richard Halfmoon.


CHAPTER THREE
LAND ACQUISITION AND PROTECTION

Introduction

The conceptual plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park called for the protection of a
number of scattered sites, a so-called “string of pearls,” most of which would not require National
Park Service ownership. The original planning group for the park recommended that the NPS
acquire fee title for just three key sites at Spalding, East Kamiah, and White Bird Battlefield."
(Canoe Camp, a fourth NPS-owned area, was donated to the NPS by the State of Idaho in July
1966.) To ensure that the Park Service would abide by this plan (and to satisfy Idahoans who
might otherwise oppose the creation of the park) Public Law 89-19 limited the purchase of land in
fee to 1,500 acres and the purchase of scenic easements for an additional 1,500 acres. The total
cost for these lands could not exceed $1,337,000 under the law. Other federal agencies could
transfer ownership to the Park Service of another 1,500 acres. Whatever lands the Nez Perce
Tribe donated to the park would not count against any of these limitations. Land acquisition
would be funded by the newly created Land and Water Conservation Fund.”

Most of the park’s original land base (that is, excluding the park additions authorized in 1994)
was acquired between 1966 and 1969 (Figure 2). This chapter first summarizes the land
acquisition program for the Spalding, East Kamiah, and White Bird Battlefield units. It then
considers land protection issues associated with the cooperative sites. Finally, it traces the park’s
involvement with two national historic trails. Discussion of the park additions after 1994 is

reserved for Chapter 8.

Land Acquisition for the Spalding Site

Land acquisition officially began with the transfer of Spalding State Park to the Park Service
in a public ceremony on July 24, 1966. This area, with its shady arboretum and picnic grounds,
its memorial to Henry and Eliza Spalding, and its pleasant stretch of riverfront, formed the
nucleus of the Spalding site. It adjoins a cemetery and church used by Nez Perce tribal members.

\46 Chief, Office of Resource Planning to Assistant Director, October 25, 1968, FRC-Seattle, RG 79, Accession
74A207, Box 13183, File L1417.

'47 | and Protection Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park, 1984, CCSO, Library, DSC microfiche reports,
NEPE D-20, p. 4. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established under the Land and Water Conservation

Fund Act of 1965. As amended in 1968, the fund captured revenues from visitor fees, surplus property sales, motorboat
fuel taxes, and offshore oil and gas leasing and set it aside for federal and state parkland acquisition. Under the terms of

the act, the Park Service could not purchase lands from the state of Idaho.

Chapter Three 47


In 1922 the state regent of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), Mrs. James
Babb, created a stir when she successfully opposed a plan by the Idaho State Highway
Department to build a new bridge and approach road directly through the historic site.

Apparently Mrs. Babb drove to the site and bodily positioned herself in the way of the surveyors,
“calmly informing [them] that if they put that bridge across the site they would have to put it over
her because she was going to stay right there.” The surveyors agreed to relocate the highway fifty

feet to the east.°

Inspired by Mrs. Babb’s protest, the Alice Whitman Chapter of the DAR now spearheaded the
park movement. About 1923 it succeeded in having a memorial placed at the Spalding home site
consisting of a large rectangular rock on which was mounted a bronze tablet. Displaying a degree
of ethnocentrism that later generations-would find offensive, the DAR’s memorial proclaimed that
the Spalding mission site represented the “first home” in Idaho. In 1935 the DAR marked the site
of the Spalding home with two piles of stones, erected an iron fence around the site, and identified
it with a second memorial plaque. The following year the Alice Whitman Chapter of the DAR
achieved its initial objective when Governor C.C. Moore of Idaho dedicated a large acreage
surrounding the homesite as Spalding State Park. In the following months, the Idaho State
Highway Department developed the site with an arboretum, picnic grounds, and winding foot

paths (see Chapter Six)."°

The next goal of the Alice Whitman Chapter of the DAR was to establish a museum at
Spalding. A few DAR members, notably Mrs. John Alley, wife of the physician in charge of the
Nez Perce Indian Tuberculosis Hospital at Lapwai, collected artifacts. Their intent was to display
them in a public museum eventually. Beginning in 1949, the DAR prevailed on Idaho’s Senators
Glen Taylor and Henry C. Dworshak and Representative Compton I. White to introduce bills that
would appropriate funds for “an Indian museum.” Senator Taylor’s bill called for an
appropriation of $85,000 for the Secretary of the Interior to establish a museum at Spalding “for
the purpose of preserving, classifying, and displaying relics and artifacts of the American Indian,
and historical material relating to the early history of the Northwest.” Senator Dworshak’s bill
called for a $50,000 appropriation and assigned the development of a museum to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. Although the DAR organized a letter-writing campaign in support of these various
bills, none of the bills was passed."

Despite that disappointment, the DAR succeeded in generating enough local interest in the
museum proposal to call a public meeting on May 29, 1953, which led directly to the formation of

* “The Impetus of the Alice Whitman Chapter on the Projected Visitor Center at Spalding Park,” no date, NEPE,
Library Vertical Files, Spalding Museum Foundation.

0 Ibid; see also, Lewiston Tribune, May 10, 1936. In recent years, tribal cultural leaders have pointed out to park
officials that the rock used to memorialize the Spalding homesite was removed from its original location where it was
known in Nez Perce oral tradition as “Coyote’s cradle board.” (Susan Buchel comments on draft, March 20, 1996.)

'' Virginia Leckenby to Fellow Citizens, February 2, 1950, WSU, Ted Little Papers, Box 2, Folder 20.

6 Chapter One



The Superintendency of Fahy C. Whittaker, 1981-1987

Breaking with tradition, Regional Director Daniel J. Tobin selected someone without previous
experience working with Indian peoples to be Nez Perce National Historical Park’s next
superintendent. He also decided to appoint the first woman to the position. Fahy C. Whittaker
was schooled in history and trained in cultural resource management and interpretation. She had
worked in various historical sites in the east before moving into park management, and was
superintendent of the William Howard Taft National Historical Site in Cincinnati when Tobin

hired her for the job in Idaho.'*

Whittaker started at Nez Perce on March 8, 1981, less than a month after the park staff had
settled into its new offices. A main focus at the beginning of her superintendency was to get the
visitor center ready for visitors. A tangle of problems had emerged in the final construction
phase: the lighting inside the exhibit room was disappointing, the paint was the wrong color, the
plate glass did not fit the exhibit mounts, and there were problems with the roof. In addition,
storage vaults had been added to the design to accommodate artifact collections that were __
currently stored in Lapwai, necessitating changes in the building’s heating and cooling systems.
All of these problems caused delays in opening the visitor center. It finally opened to the public

on June 29, 1983.)

With the new visitor center completed, Nez Perce National Historical Park experienced a
surge in what park officials termed “non-recreational use.” Non-recreational use referred to those
park visitors who did not come primarily to use the picnic area. Park managers had consistently
expressed discomfort over the large number of picnickers, or “recreational use” in the Spalding
unit. Large crowds of picnickers could spoil the ambiance that was necessary to other visitors’
enjoyment of the historic area. Whittaker acted forcefully to limit recreational use of the Spalding

unit to certain well-defined areas.'”

Whittaker also faced persistent staff problems. An operations evaluation team visited the park
in July 1982 and found a variety of problems in the administration. The team described “a
leadership void which has established bad habits and a certain amount of cynicism among key staff
members.” It suggested that troubles with the visitor center exhibits had been “‘a serious

125 Fahy C, Whittaker, interview with author, September 27, 1995.

126 Kent Bush, interview with author, August 24, 1995; Art Hathaway, interview with author, July 26, 1995. Fora
thorough critique of the problems with exhibitry, see Superintendent to Regional Director, September 28, 1982, NEPE,

chrono file.

127 Fahy C. Whittaker, “Statement for Management, Nez Perce National Historical Park,” September 28, 1983,
CCSO, DSC Microfiche Reports, Nez Perce D-14A.

128 Fahy C. Whittaker, interview with author, September 27, 1995; Fahy C. Whittaker, “Statement for Management,
Nez Perce National Historical Park,” September 28, 1983, CCSO, DSC Microfiche Reports, Nez Perce D-14A;
Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1982, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Two 41


and socio-economic conditions were alternately included and deleted. In May 1990, Regional
Director Charles H. Odegaard finally forwarded the report to Director James M. Ridenour, noting
that it lacked “the full array of legislative support data.” The report did not contain estimates for
land acquisition costs, nor a detailed development schedule, nor data sheets to indicate estimated
increased operational costs. Perhaps most importantly, the report did not propose site boundaries
nor detail land ownership status of the sites. These shortcomings, stemming from the report’s
unusual genesis, tended to disguise problems that would trouble both the legislative effort and
management. The report projected a need for some modest visitor contact facilities, landscaping
and site stabilization, signing, fencing, and parking development, for a total cost of approximately
$175,000. Odegaard stated that the additions had the support of Oregon’s Senators Packwood
and Hatfield, and Montana’s Governor Stan Stephens and Senator Max Baucus.*° With the
circulation of the additions study, the stage was set for the campaign to have the Nez Perce
National Historical Park Act amended.

The Nez Perce National Historical Park Act of 1991

The legislative campaign for additions to the Nez Perce National Historical Park demanded an
unprecedented level of cooperation between the different groups of Nez Perces on the Umatilla,
Colville, and Nez Perce Indian Reservations. Leaders of the separate Nez Perce bands had to
overcome their historical mistrust and animosity toward one another dating back to the missionary
period, the Treaty of 1863, and the War of 1877. The situation was complicated by the fact that
the Nez Perce groups in Washington and Oregon belonged to “confederated tribes,” and NPTEC
did not want to involve these other tribes in the park. Fortunately, the Nez Perce people had
already made a start toward improved relations in discussions pertaining to the designation of Nez

Perce National Historic Trail in the mid-1980s.

Representatives of the Nez Perce band on the Umatilla Indian Reservation worked closely
with NPTEC representatives concerning the proposed sites in Wallowa County in 1986-1988.
Contacts between NPTEC and members of the Joseph band of Nez Perces who lived on the
Colville Indian Reservation were more sensitive. The mostly Christian Nez Perces of the Nez
Perce Indian Reservation, many of whose ancestors had refused to aid Chief Joseph and his
followers in the War of 1877, now wanted to embrace that historical figure as part of a shared
past. NPTEC Chairman Charles Hayes explained in a press release in June 1990, “Our people
want to heal the wounds of the past and share our history. The rich culture and history of the Nez
Perce can teach us lessons today. Chief Joseph was a statesman and a true American hero.”?*!

The Nez Perces of the Colville Indian Reservation, however, were inclined to guard their

350 Regional Director to Director, May 31, 1990, NEPE, Additions Study files.

351 Press Release, “Nez Perce Tribe Applauds Bill to Save Historical Sites,” June 28, 1990, NEPE, Additions Study
files.

Chapter Eight 123


C) subcommittee of the Nez Perce Advisory Development Committee, then submitted the draft bill
with supporting documents to all four members of Idaho’s congressional delegation.

The whole congressional delegation responded favorably to the legislative proposal. “I wish
every legislative proposal could come to me in such good shape as yours for the Nez Perce
National Historical Park,” Senator Frank Church wrote to Johnston. Representatives Compton I.
White and Ralph Harding supported the proposal, as did the one Republican member of the
delegation, Senator Len B. Jordan. It was perhaps significant that the Nez Perce country had
personal associations for Jordan: the senator came from Grangeville, near the White Bird
battlefield, and had operated a ranch near Pittsburg Landing in the Snake River Canyon for a

number of years.”

William F. Johnston of the Nez Perce Tribal Development Advisory Committee nevertheless
thought that two points in the bill needed strengthening. The first and easier point was the name.
Initially the Park Service favored the name “Nez Perce Country National Historic Sites.” Alvin
Josephy thought it needed the greater prestige of the national historical park designation. John
Carver agreed to change “Sites” to “Park” and let Congress amend the title back to “Sites” if
Congress deemed it necessary. But William Johnston still thought the handle was too long. He
could appreciate the meaning attached to each word, but the end result was “pretty cumbersome
to promote nationally — or even to put on a map.”* Eventually Senator Church shortened the

title to Nez Perce National Historical Park.

O The second point of the bill that Johnston sought to strengthen concerned the park’s land
base. As the bill was originally drafted, Section 3 provided that the government could purchase
no more than 500 acres for the park. It is unclear who suggested the limitation, but its aim was
clearly to deflate any charges that this was a “land grab.” Johnston preferred no limitation, or at
least a higher ceiling. Harold T. Fabian, chairman of the National Parks Advisory Board, agreed
that the limitation could be too restrictive and might “prove embarrassing” to the Park Service.
Apparently, Senator Church was willing to consider eliminating this provision, but
Representatives White and Harding insisted on it. Still, with backing from the National Parks
Advisory Board, Johnston persuaded the Idaho delegation to accept a higher limitation of 1,500

acres.*4

5! Newton Edwards to William F. Johnston, June 3, 1963, and William F. Johnston to Newston Edwards, July 15,
1963, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folders 6 and 10, June and October 1963; William F. Johnston to Senator
Frank Church, September 15, 1963, BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 1.1, Box 92, File 11; Spokane Spokesman-

Review, May 26, 1963.
52 Merle Wells, comments on draft, February 19, 1996.

33 William F. Johnston to Newton Edwards, July 15, 1963, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 10, October
1963.

OC) 54 William F. Johnston to Frank Church, September 15, 1963, Harold P. Fabian to William F. Johnston, September
10, 1963, and Port to Senator, September 10, 1963, BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 1.1, Box 92, Folder 11.

Chapter One 19


Non-Indians were invited to serve with tribal members on the committee. As the new entity
described itself to the Nez Perce tribal membership in its initial report, the Development Advisory
Committee represented a “cooperative community project” in keeping with the government’s
broad new Indian policy of stimulating long term investment on Indian reservations.*” Committee
members included Allen Slickpoo, Angus A. Wilson, and Frank Penney of NPTEC, Marcus Ware
and Theodore H. Little of the Spalding Museum Foundation, and William F. Johnston of the
Lewiston Morning Tribune. Johnston chaired the tourism subcommittee. The formation of this
committee joined together the older non-Indian preservationist movement for a historical park
with the newer reservation-oriented movement for tourism development. Henceforth, the
Development Advisory Committee would work with NPS and BIA officials and legislators to
hone the Nez Perce National Historical Park proposal between 1961 and 1965. The fusion of
these two interest groups was a crucial turning point in the origins of Nez Perce National

Historical Park.*

The Campaign for Nez Perce National Historical Park

National park campaigns often materialize out of the guiding vision of one individual or
organization. No one entity or person can be singled out in the campaign for Nez Perce National
Historical Park, although the Nez Perce Tribal Development Advisory Committee did play a
central role as a consensus-builder. Rather, the campaign succeeded because local citizens,
officials in the Department of the Interior, and Idaho’s congressional delegation all worked
together without encountering any major opposition.

On April 20, NPTEC Chairman Angus A. Wilson wrote to the Area Redevelopment
Administration with a request for technical assistance. The ARA notified NPS Director Conrad
L. Wirth of the request and offered a grant of $10,000. On May 2, Wirth requested that the NPS
Western Region send a team to the area. Their task was to prepare a reliable cost estimate for a
feasibility study to determine if the $10,000 grant was sufficient. The team, headed by Assistant

37 Development Advisory Committee to Nez Perce Tribal Membership, no date, NAPNWR, RG 75, Portland Area
Office, Tribal Operations Branch, Box 1536, Nez Perce Tribal Affairs 1962.

*8 Another initiative by the Kennedy Administration encouraged the two groups to work together. As part of
Kennedy’s legislative program for stimulating the national economy, Congress passed the Area Redevelopment Act
(ARA) on May 1, 1961. The ARA sought to provide low interest loans for business development in designated areas of
the nation with substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment. Further signalling the federal
government’s new direction in Indian policy, the act specifically targeted Indian reservations for redevelopment and
authorized Indian tribes to apply for loans. Several counties in north central Idaho, including the Nez Perce Indian
Reservation, were designated as a redevelopment area under the act. ARA funds, procured by NPTEC, helped to pay
the cost of feasibility studies undertaken on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe in 1962-1963. See Larry Burt, “Western
Tribes and Balance Sheets: Business Development Programs in the 1960s and 1970s,” Western Historical Quarterly,
vol.23, no.4 (November 1992), p. 480; Angus A. Wilson to William L. Batt, Jr., June 13, 1962, enclosing Technical
Assistance Project Proposal, NAPNWR, RG 75, Portland Area Office, Tribal Operations Branch, Box 1536, Nez Perce
Tribal Affairs 1962.

14 . Chapter One


ment’s treatment of his people.’ Reverend Spalding returned to the Lapwai area in the early
1870s and conducted revival meetings, reinforcing the Presbyterian Nez Perce community in the

face of growing Roman Catholic and nativist influence.

The so-called “non-treaty” Nez Perces continued to dwell in their traditional areas off the
reservation. They experienced growing difficulties from encroachment by white settlement. In
May 1877, federal officials gave the non-treaty Nez Perces an ultimatum that they must move to
the reservation or face war with the U.S. The non-treaty Nez Perces decided to yield. However,
on their way to the reservation, some young members of the tribe rode out of the Nez Perces’
camp at Tolo Lake and killed a group of white settlers in revenge for past injustices done to them.
This precipitated the battle of White Bird Canyon and the onset of the War of 1877.

Seeking to avoid further encounters with the U.S. Army, the non-treaty chiefs led their people
on a 1,170-mile journey over the Bitterroot Mountains, southward and through Yellowstone
National Park, and finally northward toward Canada. During their trek, the Nez Perces fought
additional battles at the Clearwater, Big Hole, Camas Meadows, Canyon Creek, and finally near
the Bear Paw Mountains in north central Montana, where most of the surviving non-treaty Nez

Perces surrendered.

The flight of the non-treaty Nez Perces left a complicated legacy. In addition to the suffering
and loss of life during the war itself, the bitter memory of the war widened the breach between
tribal factions. The defeated Nez Perce were scattered in many directions. A few escaped to
Canada. Most were taken as prisoners of war to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) where dozens of
them perished in the hot climate. Eventually they were allowed to return to the Pacific North-
west: some to Lapwai, others with Chief Joseph to the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington,

and still others to the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon.

Yet the legacy of the war was not entirely bitter. As capable foes, and ultimate victims, in the
last major Indian war of the nineteenth century, the Nez Perces secured for themselves a place of
honor in the history and myth of the American West. Americans found the Nez Perces’ story all
the more poignant given the tribe’s reputation as a proud and noble people who began the
nineteenth century with an exceptionally friendly disposition toward the United States. In the
twentieth century, various historians and anthropologists gave substance to this popular concep-
tion of the Nez Perce. The historian Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., went one step further and advanced
the thesis that the tribe had played a key role in the opening of the Pacific Northwest. The
creation of the Nez Perce National Historical Park in 1965 and the Nez Perce National Historic
Trail in 1986 further attested to the popular appeal and historical significance of the Nez Perce

story.

7 Ruby and Brown, A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest, p. 146; Josephy, The Nez Perce Indians
and the Opening of the Northwest, pp. 408-442.

Prologue


OC) significance, interpretive themes, and management objectives.*” It is perhaps the most open
forum for public debate on the meaning of the park since the creation of the Nez Perce Tribal
Development Advisory Committee in 1961. Government officials and citizens are choosing
among an array of desired futures. Whatever decisions are made concerning the need for site
boundaries and land protection, interpretation of the Nez Perce story, and staffing of the various
units or functions, it is likely that this unique park will evolve toward co-management by the Park

Service and the Nez Perce people.

O) 379 Nez Perce National Historical Park General Management Plan, NEPE, Administrative Files, A4021, Nez Perce
NHP Meetings, Park Partners Annual Meetings.

Epilogue 135


C) In 1993, Mark O’Neill and Susan Buchel began a major revision of the park’s resource
management plan. With input from the natural and cultural resources staff at the regional office,
the authors more than quadrupled the number of projects for both natural and cultural resources
management. Complicating the process was the uncertainty about which sites would be autho-
rized and included under the pending park additions legislation. Renee Beymer, appointed to the
newly created position of Natural Resources Management Specialist in 1994, brought the plan to
completion. The plan was approved in 1995.*!

©) 331 Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

Chapter Seven 113


there were 282 case/incidents reported. Most consisted of minor traffic offenses and parking
violations.”

_ In the early 1980s traffic congestion, together with the general effect of large crowds on the
historic resources and character of the place, assumed greater importance. Protection of the
visitor experience overtook protection of visitor safety as the major focus of the program. In
1982, Superintendent Whittaker closed a small parking area on the east side of the picnic area and
removed the asphalt in order to eliminate a major source of traffic congestion. This reduced the
amount of manpower devoted to traffic control.2* Whittaker also implemented a reservation
system, a maximum load level, and land use zones that aimed to isolate the picnic area from the
historic resources. Further, she tightened enforcement of the Code of Federal Regulations
relating to pets within the park. In the superintendent’s statement for management, Whittaker
observed that recreational use of the picnic area in the middle of the historic site constituted a
major conflicting use which ultimately must be addressed by relocating the picnic area
elsewhere.”

In the past ten years, NPS officials have periodically reevaluated the law enforcement
presence in Nez Perce National Historical Park in light of the park’s minimal land base and
proprietary jurisdiction. When the NPS adopted its new “Law Enforcement Guidelines” (NPS-9)
in April 1984, it raised the standards for commissioned officers. Park Rangers Ken Adkisson and
Albert Barros would need regular target practice on a firing range in order to maintain their
commissions. At that time Superintendent Whittaker insisted that the park would meet these
requirements, if necessary by sending Adkisson and Barros to another park for law enforcement
training, because “the new Visitor Center and museum collections are too valuable to be without
this kind of protection.”** The park prepared a new manual, “Law Enforcement Guidelines, Nez
Perce National Historical Park,” in response to NPS-9 in 1985.7”

Superintendent Weaver was requested to review a further change of NPS policy with regard
to ranger commissions in 1987. Weaver suggested that Nez Perce National Historical Park was
not in need of a criminal investigator (GS-1811) position but neither could the park do without
one commissioned ranger position, and he warned against too much specialization in the service’s

205 Nez Perce National Historical Park, Crime Prevention & Physical Security Plan (draft), October 20, 1979,
CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D15.

266 Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1982, NEPE, chrono file.

2°” Fahy C. Whittaker, Statement for Management, Nez Perce National Historical Park, CCSO, library DSC
microfiche reports, NEPE D14A, pp. 6-12; Memorandum, “Pet Policy, Nez Perce National Historical Park,” May 9,
1984, NEPE, Administrative Files, W4615 General Regulations, Pet Policy--Correspondence; Fahy C. Whittaker,
interview with author, September 27, 1995.

8 Superintendent to Regional Director, April 14, 1983, NEPE, chrono file.

2° NEPE, Administrative Files, W4617 General Regulations, Law Enforcement Guidelines.

72 Chapter Four


Local non-Indians, Nez Perce, and Idaho’s senators and representatives all had different ideas
about what precisely constituted the park story. Local, non-Indian interest in the project had
started with the Spalding mission site and the missionary story. Indeed, the Daughters of the
American Revolution regarded the missionary experience as symbolic of a larger story of
“civilizing” or “Americanizing” the Nez Perce country. Exemplifying its somewhat narrow vision
of a Spalding museum, the DAR sponsored an “Idaho school childrens’ historical drive for dimes”
on May 13, 1954, to commemorate the coming of the first printing press to Idaho on that date in
1839.° As will be seen, a story that cast the Spaldings as heroic torch-bearers and the Nez Perce
as benighted heathens did not sit well with the Nez Perce Tribe on whose land the museum would

be built.

NPTEC approached the park idea with different expectations about the park story. It was
assumed that the Nez Perce people would be at the center of the story. The NPS-administered
visitor center would complement tribally-administered developments such as an amphitheater for
pageants, a reconstructed Indian village, or an outlet store for Nez Perce arts and crafts.
Anthropologists in nearby universities assumed that preserving Nez Perce cultural traditions and
artifacts would be a major thrust of the new park.*

Idaho’s congressional delegation took a more expansive view of the park story. Senator
Church suggested that there were three principal stories to be told in Nez Perce country: the story
of Lewis and Clark, the story of the mining frontier, and the story of the Nez Perce’s flight from
the U.S. Army in 1877. Representative White was even more inclusive. “The historic
background of the State is an epic story of pioneer adventure, missionary zeal, Indian wars, and
the advance of civilization,” he testified. “In the north-central area of the State there is an area
well adapted to the preservation of historical sites and the development of the cultural lore of the
Nez Perce Indian Tribe.”* The expansiveness of these statements were calculated to satisfy all of
the park’s proponents, not necessarily to provide guidance to the Park Service as it set about
developing an interpretive program. Idaho’s congressional delegation succeeded admirably in
selling the park idea to Congress, but it left the NPS with a formidable challenge in making the
park story coherent for visitors and at the same time palatable to local constituents.

The park campaign also highlighted the fact that tribal and non-Indian groups had potentially
conflicting ideas about who the park would benefit. Tribal leaders anticipated that Nez Perces
would find jobs on the park staff and that the park would stimulate arts and crafts sales. NPTEC

6 Mimeograph titled SLIP TO BE SENT INTO THE HOME OF EACH SCHOOL CHILD, WSU, Ted Little Papers,
Box 2, Folder 20.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho,
88th Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964, p. 77.

® Tbid, p. 11.

6 Allen Slickpoo, Sr., interview by author, July 21, 1995.

Chapter One 25


Transferring the Deed...

Governor Robert E. Smylie signs the deed transferring Spalding
State Park to the National Park Service, 1966.

Left to right: Superintendent Robert Burns, Regional Director Ed
Hummel, state legislator, Governor Smylie, two state legislators.


Nez Perces disagreed on how the judgment funds could best be used. Some wanted to C)
apportion the money among all tribal members on a per capita basis, while others wanted NPTEC
to make discretionary use of the funds for long term economic development on the reservation.
The conflict over proper use of tribal funds was often sharp, and tribal elections for NPTEC
positions would often focus on this issue.” At first those Nez Perces in favor of per capita
payments had their way. The Celilo Falls judgment award was dispensed in $1,400 cash
allotments to all tribal members with recommendations that it be used for the purchase of home
improvements, farm machinery, and the like.” Federal officials later maintained, with tacit
concurrence from some tribal leaders, that the economic benefits from those expenditures had
been short-lived and disappointing.» They recommended that a portion of the money should be
held in trust while the tribe developed a long term economic development plan for the reservation.
Some tribal members were receptive to the idea of working with the federal government to invest
the tribal judgement funds wisely. As will be seen, the judgment funds would play a crucial role in
the campaign for establishing Nez Perce National Historical Park. Perhaps fittingly, a portion of
the money received by the Nez Perce Tribe for its loss of lands a century earlier would now be
used to invoke the idea of “Nez Perce country” in a new incarnation — as a historical artifact and
unifying theme for the Nez Perce National Historical Park.

The spirit of cooperation between NPTEC, the NPS, and the BIA reflected a broad change in
federal Indian policy taking place in Washington, D.C. following the presidential election of 1960.
During the previous decade, the Eisenhower Administration and a Republican-led Congress had ()
sought to implement a policy of “termination” through which federal trust responsibility to Indian
tribes would be reduced. Ostensibly aimed at “freeing” Indians from the BIA bureaucracy,
termination threatened to eliminate the tribes’ special relationship to the federal government and
abrogate the Indians’ treaty rights. Although only a handful of federally-recognized Indian tribes
were actually “terminated,” the policy cast a pall over all Indian tribes. Tribal governments balked
at taking over services provided by the BIA for fear of appearing “advanced” and ready for
termination.”

21 For example, see Daniel H. Olney to R.D. Holtz, September 18, 1962, NAPNWR, RG 75, Portland Area Office,
Tribal Operations Branch, Box 1536, Nez Perce Tribal Affairs 1962.

2 Robert H. Ruby and John A. Brown, A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest rev.ed. (Norman,
Oklahoma, 1992), p. 149.

3 Daniel H. Olney to R.D. Holtz, September 18, 1962, NAPNWR, RG 75, Portland Area Office, Tribal Operations
Branch, Box 1536, Nez Perce Tribal Affairs 1962; Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 11, 1961; Minutes of the Advisory
Committee held at the Hotel Lewis Clark, Lewiston, Idaho, June 4, 1964, NAPNWR, RG 75, Portland Area Office,
Tribal Operations Branch, Box 1567, Nez Perce Minutes 1964, p. 3.

4 Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, vol. II ©
(Lincoln, 1984), pp. 1058-1059.

10 Chapter One


Photo Credits

Plate 1.
Plate 2.
Plate 3.
Plate 4.
Plate 5.

Plate 6.

Plate 7.
Plate 8.

Plate 9.

Plate 10.
Plate 11.

Plate 12.
Plate 13.
Plate 14.

Plate 15.
Plate 16.
Plate 17.
Plate 18.

Plate 19.

Plate 20.

Plate 21.

Plate 22.

Plate 23. D

Plate 24.

Plate 25.

Plate 26.
Plate 27.

Robert Burns’ collection.

Robert Burns’ collection.
Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. 0419.

Paul J. Schumacher photo courtesy of Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. 1024.
Douglas Riley photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical

Park, Neg. 0421.
J.A. Hussey photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical

Park, Neg. 0969.

Robert Burns photo courtesy of Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. 0752.

Hugh E. Manar photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical
Park, Neg. 1222.

Photo courtesy of Robert Burns.
Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. 0111.

Woodridge M. Williams photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National
Historical Park, Neg. 0257.

‘Photo courtesy of Robert Burns.

Photo courtesy of the National Park Service.

Douglas Riley photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical

Park, Neg. 0411.

Photo courtesy of Robert Burns.

Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. ( 0417.

Photo courtesy of National Park Service.

Photo courtesy of Robert Burns.

Lewiston Morning Tribune photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National

Historical Park, Neg. 2867.

Top, Douglas Riley photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National

Historical Park, Neg. 0415. Bottom, Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce

National Historical Park, Print I-086.
Top, photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park,
Print M-098. Bottom, photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National
Historical Park.

Photo courtesy of Robert Burns.

ouglas Riley photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical

Park, Neg. 0261.
Douglas Riley photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical

Park, Neg. 0260.

Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. 2537.
Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. 1525.
Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Neg. 1521.



each other based on their respective loyalties shown in the War of 1877.” The superintendent did
not want the park to cause friction between tribal factions. Ifit did, he reasoned, the Park Service
would find itself in the position of favoring one faction over another.

The land acquisition program remained tightly focused on a few core sites. Initially the Park
Service planned to acquire fee title to just three sites: Spalding, East Kamiah, and White Bird
Battlefield. Sometime after Burns’ arrival, acquisition of the state’s seven-acre Lewis and Clark
Canoe Camp site entered into the program. In February 1966, Regional Director Edward A.
Hummel inquired with state officials about the possibility of including this area with the antici-
pated transfer of Spalding State Park. The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation welcomed
this suggestion. Director Wilhelm M. Beckert stated that both sites would achieve a “better
national image and national recognition under the National Park Service,” and expected that the
people of Idaho would “greatly benefit” if these sites were placed “under the National Park

designation.””

Burns began preparing for the transfer of the Spalding State Park to the Park Service as soon
as he heard that the state legislature had passed the authorizing legislation. The ceremony was
scheduled for the earliest possible date, July 24, 1966. This allowed three months to clear the title
to the land, verify boundaries, hire two maintenance men (one for the Spalding site and one for
the Canoe Camp site), oversee dismantling of the existing concession stand and cleanup of the
area, and invite the appropriate dignitaries to the ceremony. On the appointed day, Governor
Smylie transferred the Spalding State Park together with the Canoe Camp site to the Park
Service.”

After establishing a Park Service presence and getting the land acquisition program moving,
assembling a staff became the new superintendent’s next concern. This was no routine task, as
Burns had to reconcile civil service procedures with the expectation on the part of many Nez
Perces that tribal members would find jobs in the new park. The first staff position that Burns
needed to fill was that of administrative clerk. Thinking of the importance of precedence he very
much wanted a Nez Perce tribal member for that position. He coordinated a search with the
chairman of NPTEC and the BIA office in Lapwai, but failed to locate an interested, qualified

"8 Tid.

”® Edward A. Hummel to William M. Frome, February 17, 1966, and Wilhelm M. Beckert to William M. Frome,
February 17, 1966, FRC-Seattle, RG 79, Accession 744598, Box 19936, File L7019.

*° Burns also obtained plats of the original 1936 tree plantings in the arboretum from W.S. Thorber, a landscape
engineer with the Idaho State Highway Department. Thornber was then retired and living in Lewiston. Robert L. Bums
to W.S. Thornber, March 23, 1966, Superintendent to Regional Director, April 20, 1966, and Burns to Alden Stevens,
July 25, 1966, NEPE, chrono files.

30 Chapter Two


Sam Jackson singing and drumming during Cultural Days, Spalding Park, 1971.

Pictorial Essay



4

and that he had not constructed the buildings with a view toward permanently settling in the
area.”

The 1973 study also suggested that the Agency Cabin, though intact, had been moved from its
original foundation. In 1975, the Park Service contracted with the University of Idaho to
investigate this hypothesis further. The resulting report by Thomas M. Iverson confirmed that the
structure was part of the Agency complex that occupied the site beginning in 1861, _ that the
building had been moved a short distance from its original location.”*

The Park Service sponsored a second phase of archeological work at the Spalding unit in
1978-1979 as part of a mitigation plan for the development of the visitor center and access road.
Test excavations during the summer of 1978 confirmed the locations of an agency office, Sutler’s
store, and other buildings documented in Thompson’s 1972 report. They also revealed the
existence of prehistoric resources. On the basis of these findings, the Park Service authorized
more extensive excavations in the fall of 1978 and again in the spring of 1979. While the historic
building sites yielded disappointingly little data, the investigators found evidence of occupation
from about 10,500 years ago and parts of two pit houses dating from a later period. The earlier
prehistoric remains, called the Lapwai Component, included animal bones and unusual stone

tools.”

The archeological resources proved to be considerably more extensive than anticipated.
Before they could be properly investigated, the University of Idaho exceeded its budget and the
building contractor proceeded with road excavations that resulted in the destruction of a third and
fourth pit house as well as the disturbance of several Nez Perce burials (see Chapter Two).
Archeologist David Chance, who was in charge of the field work, pondered this project with the

benefit of hindsight in 1984:

One lesson to be drawn from all of this is that an archaeologist in a “mitigation” program such as
this should never make compromises on behalf of a sponsoring agency, but should let the agency take
the entire burden of declaring the cut-off point. The second lesson is that project boundaries need to
be viewed with extreme skepticism. The excavating contractor in this case went well outside the

- boundary, by as much as 50 ft. Third, one should not budget below cost simply because an agency
finds itself faced with a far larger archaeological resource than it planned on. We fielded three
seasons of excavation for above $60,000. This error made it quite impossible to meet deadlines,

294 David H. Chance and Jennifer V. Chance, Exploratory Excavations at Spalding Mission, 1973, Laboratory of
Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1974.

295 Thomas M. Iverson, A Preliminary Report of Archaeological Investigations of the Agency Cabin, Nez Perce
National Historical Park, Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1975.

296 Chance et al., Archeology of the Nez Perce Country, p. 12 (quote); David H. Chance and Jennifer V. Chance,
Archaeology at Spalding, 1978-1979, University of Idaho Anthropological Research Manuscript Series, Laboratory of

Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1984, pp. 1, 6.

Chapter Six 101


PICTORIAL

ESSAY



These early nineteenth-century objects serve not only as the focus of the visual interpretation at our
park museum, but form the heart of our research collection. They represent the oldest known
examples of historical Nez Perce material culture aside from the articles acquired by Lewis and Clark
and exhibit cultural style, and decorative techniques long since lost.?”

Weaver suggested that the OHS and the NPS negotiate new terms for this important accession,
such as a long-term loan, donation, exchange, or purchase. The OHS did not respond to
Weaver’s letter, but simply renewed the yearly loan agreement.

In the spring of 1993, the park received a letter from the OHS requesting that the collection
be returned to Ohio within three weeks. The OHS offered no prior warning nor any explanation.
Park officials protested that they needed more time to package the materials and arrange for new
exhibits in the visitor center, OHS representatives misunderstood and thought the park was
refusing to cooperate.” From the ensuing discussions, it gradually became evident that the OHS
was willing to sell the collection as long as it could recover something close to the collection’s
appraised value. The NPS, for its part, wanted to work with the Nez Perce Tribe as the most
appropriate and desirable purchaser of the collection.

In September 1993, the General Council of the Nez Perce Tribe voted in favor of forming a
committee on the Allen-Spalding collection comprising four tribal members, one member of
NPTEC, and one NPS official. According to committee member Richard Ellenwood, the Park
Service backed the tribe’s efforts “110 percent.” Negotiations proved rather delicate. The OHS’s
negotiating position appeared to change according to the internal politics of its board of directors.
The Nez Perce Tribe, for its part, appealed to public opinion in support of its claim that the
articles properly belonged in Nez Perce country, pointing out that Henry Spalding obtained the
items for a tiny fraction of their present value. The tribe did not limit its appeal to Idaho citizens,
but obtained radio air time in Ohio and contacted the Ohio governor to press its case.”" By
November 1995, negotiations had deadlocked. The Park Service removed the items from display
in the visitor center and announced that it would soon begin packing the collection for shipment
to Ohio.”” In December the NPS, the tribe, and the OHS reached an agreement: the tribe would
have until June 1996, to raise $608,100 with which to purchase the collection. The final price
was based on the earlier appraisal and the addition of a cradle board which was part of the
collection but had not been loaned to the NPS.

After six months and a national effort the tribe raised the necessary funds. On May 28 Tribal
Chairman Samuel Penney and NPS Curator Robert Chenoweth went to Columbus, Ohio to
deliver a check and receive the cradle board. The collection was welcomed back to Nez Perce

773 Roy W. Weaver to Dr. Gary C. Ness, June 10, 1988, CCSO, Kent Bush files.
274 Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.
275 Richard Ellenwood, interview with author, October 3, 1995.

76 The Missoulian, November 29, 1995.

94 Chapter Six


Idaho’s Senator Frank Church, Montana’s Senator Lee Metcalf, and other prominent western
senators and congressmen began to oppose the termination policy by the end of the decade. John
F. Kennedy denounced the termination policy during the presidential election campaign of 1960.
He promised Indians that there would be no change in treaty relationships without the consent of
the tribes concerned. Kennedy further declared that “there would be protection of the Indian land
base, credit assistance, and encouragement of tribal planning for economic development.” The
government would take “no steps to impair the cultural heritage of any group.” Kennedy chose
Stewart L. Udall, a congressman from Arizona with a deep interest in Indian affairs, to be his
Secretary of the Interior. Udall immediately appointed a task force on Indian affairs, whose
report became the blueprint for the administration’s Indian policy. One member of the task force,
anthropologist and former Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin Philleo Nash, was appointed

Commissioner of Indian Affairs.”

Both Udall and Nash believed that Indian tourism held great promise as a way to improve
economic conditions on many Indian reservations. Indian tourism — the marketing of Indian
villages, ceremonies, and arts and crafts to non-Indian tourists — already had a long history in the
Southwest where the Pueblo Indians, for example, had begun to derive significant income from
tourists as early as the 1920s.* Another precedent could be found among the Eastern Cherokees,
who established a tourist industry in the decade and a half after World War II which revolved
around a Cherokee pageant, a reconstructed Cherokee village, and a Museum of the Cherokee
Indian.”” Udall thought that Indian groups could learn from the experience of the Southwest
Indians, and he recommended to a group of Nez Perces that the tribe might send a delegation, at
federal expense, to study an Apache-owned recreation center in his state of Arizona.”
Commissioner Nash, for his part, was familiar with recent initiatives to develop a tourist trade
around the Menominee Indian Reservation’s attractive lakes and forests in northern Wisconsin,
and from his new position he promptly pushed a proposal to develop recreational facilities on
other Indian reservations throughout the United States.

Nez Perces by and large welcomed the Democratic Party’s electoral victory in 1960 and the
change of federal Indian policy that it promised. Democrats not only opposed termination, they
were staunch allies of many tribes, including the Nez Perce. Idaho Senator Frank Church, Idaho
Congresswoman Gracie Bowers Pfost, Washington Senators Henry M. Jackson and Warren G.
Magnuson, and Montana Senator Lee Metcalf were such Democratic Party politicians. The Nez

25 Tbid, pp. 1087-1091.

26 Jill D. Sweet, “Let ‘em Loose”: Pueblo Indian Management of Tourism,” American Indian Culture and Research
Journal, vol.15, no.4 (1991), pp. 59-74.

27 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho,
88th Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964, p. 38; Larry French, “Tourism and Indian Exploitation: A Social
Indictment,” The Indian Historian, vol.10, no.4 (Fall 1977), pp. 19-27.

28 Tr ewiston Morning Tribune, June 11, 1961.

Chapter One 11


Perce country is reviewed in a 1987 report prepared for the NPS by David H. Chance and Jennifer
V. Chance with Elmer Paul, and this section draws upon that report.”

In a few locations archeological investigations predated the creation of Nez Perce National
Historical Park, or at least the addition of that site to the park. The Weis Rockshelter site was
discovered in 1960. B. Robert Butler of Idaho State College investigated the site during 1961-
1962. Located about four miles up Rocky Canyon on the northern edge of the Clearwater
Plateau, the Weis Rockshelter site led to other discoveries at the mouth of Rocky Canyon
(Cooper’s Ferry) and on nearby Rock Creek (Double-House site) which Butler investigated
during 1963-1964. Together, these sites provide a record of occupation from 8,000 years to
2,000 years before present.” The Lenore site on the Clearwater River was discovered during
archeological surveys conducted for the Idaho State Highway Department in the mid-1960s. The
site contained evidence of occupation as early as 10,000 years before present, as well as a number
of pit houses from a more recent phase of prehistory. Earl H. Swanson, Jr., also of Idaho State
College, taught summer field schools at the Lenore site from 1967 to 1971. He described the site
as one of the most significant archeological sites in the Pacific Northwest. In 1972, Governor
Cecil Andrus recommendéd that the Lenore site be included in Nez Perce National Historical
Park. In 1974, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and in 1977 it was
designated as a cooperative site within the Nez Perce National Historical Park.? Both the Weis
Rockshelter and Lenore sites were included in the park because of what had already been revealed
by archeological investigations.

The Park Service initiated its own archeological investigation in Nez Perce National Historical
Park at the Spalding site in 1973. The project followed one year after the historic resource study
by Erwin Thompson and was principally directed at learning more about the mission site through
test excavations. Dr. Roderick Sprague of the University of Idaho headed the project and David
Chance led the field crew of ten, all members of the Nez Perce Tribe. The excavations were made
during April through June and focused on the mission house and its adjacent buildings, the grist
mill, and the saw mill. Perhaps the most significant finding was that the mission site was more
complex and extensive than had been supposed, containing evidence of an unusually large number
of improvements compared to most other mission sites of the same period. The investigators also
concluded that Spalding was an innovator, trying new techniques in each subsequent structure,

**! David H. Chance and Jennifer V. Chance with Elmer Paul, A Review of the Archaeology of the Nez Perce
Country, prepared for the National Park Service, Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho,
November 1987. Hereafter cited as Chance et al., Archaeology of the Nez Perce Country.

 Thid, pp. 2-3; National Park Service, Resources Management Plan, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington, March 1995, p. 22.

* Chance et al., Archeology of the Nez Perce Country, p. 9; Superintendent to Regional Director, October 16, 1972,
November 9, 1972, April 10, 1973, February 25, 1977, and May 2, 1977, NEPE, chrono file.

100. Chapter Six


CHAPTER SEVEN
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Most of Nez Perce National Historical Park’s natural resource issues have involved vegetation
management. Early efforts focused on maintaining a “park-like quality” and prohibiting land uses
that would detract from each site’s historical appearance. Gradually the park administration
adopted a variety of management tools and assumed the more ambitious goal of restoring the
vegetation to its historic appearance. These tools included noxious weed control, prescribed
burning, reseeding of native grasses, and selective use of grazing and farming. Even as this
program gained momentum at the end of the 1980s it continued to be circumscribed by a number
of factors. Budget constraints, limited staff, the need to preserve good community relations with
neighboring farmers and ranchers, the difficulties of managing small land areas that were
surrounded by altered biotic communities, and questions about which historical era should guide
each site’s vegetation management plan all posed challenges to effective natural resource

management.

In the park’s early years, natural resource management did not receive high priority. Park
managers followed the guidelines set out in the park’s master plan of 1968 as well as the NPS
manual, Administrative Policies for Historical Areas of the National Park System. These
statements of policy allowed for continued use of NPS-owned land for grazing and farming in
conformity with good husbandry practices. The Park Service issued special use permits to a
number of agriculturalists and ranchers for use of some lands at the Spalding, East Kamiah, and
White Bird Battlefield. Other portions of these same sites were allowed to return to a natural

state.*TM

At first the curtailment of agricultural and ranching uses seemed to improve the historical
appearance of these sites, but soon the Park Service found that noxious weeds invaded rapidly
and grasses grew high enough to create a fire hazard where grazing and farming had been
abruptly discontinued. During the early 1970s, the park began using the herbicides Roundup and
2, 4-D to suppress weeds. The NPS generally favored the use of Roundup because of its low
toxicity and its tendency to break down when it came in contact with soil. The park resorted to 2,
4-D to combat poison hemlock. Although effective against weeds, this management tool had the

304 National Park Service, A Master Plan for Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, June 1968, p. 30,
Superintendent to Regional Director, October 19, 1973, NEPE, chrono file.

Chapter Seven 105


focusing on the feasibility of park additions. The team re-established contact with Joe Redthunder
and other members of the Joseph Band of Nez Perce as well as tribal representatives of the
Umatilla and Nez Perce Tribes, and made a whirlwind tour of proposed sites in Oregon, Washing-
ton, and Idaho. As project funding was exhausted after this tour, Toothman was left to write the
report primarily on her own, with some help from Superintendent Weaver.**

The report exceeded the parameters of the 1969 study and evaluated the Montana and
Wyoming sites on the same basis with the Washington, Oregon, and Idaho sites. The study team
considered a number of new sites and accepted the idea of expanding the park into a five-state
area. Altogether, seventeen sites were evaluated and fourteen were determined to be suitable and
feasible for addition to the park. The fourteen sites considered suitable and feasible for addition
were Tolo Lake, Looking Glass’s 1877 Campsite, and Camas Meadows Battle Sites in Idaho;
Buffalo Eddy and Dug Bar on the Idaho-Washington boundary; Joseph Canyon Viewpoint, Old
Chief Joseph’s Gravesite and Cemetery, and Traditional Campsite at the Fork of the Lostine and
Wallowa rivers in Oregon; Hasotino Village, Burial Site of Chief Joseph the Younger, and Nez
Perce Campsites in Washington; and Big Hole National Battlefield, Bear Paw Battlefield, and
Canyon Creek in Montana. The three sites that the team rejected were Ahsahka Village Archeo-
logical Site on the Clearwater River, Swallows Nest Rock, and Fort Fizzle (Figure 7).*’

One of the keystones of the additions proposal was Old Chief Joseph’s Gravesite and
Cemetery. Superintendent Weaver contended that the site offered a vital opportunity to interpret
the story of the non-treaty Nez Perces who had lived in the Wallowa Valley and had constituted
about one third of the tribe in the 1870s. Their story was not well-interpreted elsewhere. The
beautiful setting of the Wallowa Valley would help provide an understanding of the “sorrow and
difficulty which plagued those Nez Perces who were forced out of their homeland,” Weaver
argued. Moreover, the site would provide a suitable west entrance to the park. He added
candidly, “this is an unusual Park and it is almost impossible to properly orient visitors to the Park

before they have passed through much of it.”**

Since the report had not been requested by Congress and was not an officially funded
suitability-feasibility study, NPS planners and the legislative liaison staff in the Washington office
did not know what to do with it.” Various sections containing support data on funding, staffing,

346 Stephanie Toothman, interview with author, August 24, 1995; Stephanie Toothman, comments on draft, March
18, 1996.

47 National Park Service, Nez Perce National Historical Park Additions Study (Draft Report), 1989, NEPE,
Additions Study files. The team rejected Fort Fizzle because the earlier studies had rejected it; the team did not visit the
site. The team rejected Swallows Nest because, contrary to earlier reports, tribal representatives did not indicate that it
had any significance to the Nez Perce people. (Stephanie Toothman, comments on draft, March 18, 1996.)

348 Superintendent to Regional Director, February 22, 1990, NEPE, chrono files.

349 Stephanie Toothman, interview with author, August 24, 1995.

Chapter Eight 121


located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Canada as a legacy of the War of 1877. Henceforth,
the park administration would need to consult not only with NPTEC, but with representatives of
Nez Perce groups in Washington and Oregon as well.

68 Chapter Three


74

Chapter Four



investment than the amphitheater and Indian village, but the complex offered greater chances of
returning a profit.”

Thompson’s report emphasized that the history of the people and the land posed a “complex
challenge to interpreters.”

The history of the Nez Perce Indians offers a continuous thread that must be woven throughout the
length and breadth of the tapestry. The history of the whites, who now dominate the country, must
also receive emphasis. And the contacts and conflicts of the two provide a story by itself.
Explorations, the fur trade, the missionaries, gold mining (both white and Chinese), the growth of
towns and cities, the agriculture and forest industries, the great dams that are to come — all these and
many more aspects make up the whole story.”

The key to success, in Thompson’s estimation, was an ample visitor center. For Thompson, the
visitor center would serve not only as a museum for interpreting the story of Nez Perce Country,
but would also direct the visitor to numerous outlying historical sites. The facility would also
provide a safe home for historical and ethnographic objects that were now scattered throughout
the area and at risk of being lost or destroyed. The visitor center administrator would be in
charge of running the facility and coordinating the management of scattered sites with many
landowners and government agencies.*

Thompson invited Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., to contribute a foreword to his report. Josephy, a
distinguished historian and editor with American Heritage Magazine, was then working on his
book, The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest (1965). Enlisting Josephy in the
park campaign proved to be a wise move. He had numerous contacts among the Nez Perces, as
well as with politicians in Washington, D.C. Indeed, his brief foreword to Thompson’s report
would be quoted more often than any other testament on behalf of the park.“

Josephy had first discovered Nez Perce country while on an assignment for Time Magazine
some years before. His “immediate, grand impression,” Josephy wrote in the foreword, “was of
having come on one of the most spectacularly rugged and beautiful parts of the United States.”
And yet this was also one of the least known and developed regions of the country. After
sketching the history of the area, Josephy concluded,

Nowhere else in this country, in fact, am I aware of a large region whose over-all story can be
interpreted so compactly in a setting that has so little changed under the advance of civilization. The

“ Joseph H. Fraser, “A Survey of the Recreation and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country,” vol.1, prepared
by Armour Research Foundation for Bureau of Indian Affairs, June 14, 1963, pp. 5-10.

“ Erwin Thompson, A Survey of the Recreational and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country, vol.2, prepared
by Armour Research Foundation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, September 1963, p. 2.

*® Tid, pp. 3-5.

“* For example, see Senator Len Jordan’s testimony in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, 88th Cong., 2d sess., August 18 and October 9, 1964, p. 12.

16 Chapter One


right, c. 1978.

ndent Robert Morris, at

Superinte:


made it necessary to use funds from other sources to carry on with the project, and resulted in
recrimination until the agency was presented with an analysis of the facts. 297

The disturbance of the Nez Perce burials, a painful episode in itself, led to two more archeol-
ogy projects. The first consisted of recovery of the burial remains and monitoring of further road
excavation in the area, while the second consisted of mitigative excavation of a further section of
a water line trench associated with the mission site. Finally, Chance did a small amount of further
archeological testing of the grist mill site in 1986.7"

In 1987, the Pacific Northwest Regional Office contracted with the University of Idaho to
produce an overview of archeology in Nez Perce country and make recommendations for NPS
management. The study, conducted primarily by David Chance, involved a literature search of
known sites and walk-over surveys of the White Bird Battlefield, Weippe Prairie, and Musselshell
Prairie sites. He was accompanied on the field surveys by tribal elder Elmer Paul. The three-day
survey of the White Bird Battlefield revealed some interesting preliminary findings including what
Chance interpreted to be breastworks and temporary soldier graves.*” At the Weippe Prairie and
Musselshell Prairie sites, Chance determined that there was potential to learn something about
changing patterns of camas root harvesting in the historical period.”

Chance’s survey of the White Bird Battlefield also revealed the fact that several Nez Perce
burials had been vandalized. Chance notified Superintendent Weaver about the vandalism in
1987, and the two men concurred that the best alternative was to leave the disturbed burial sites
alone since they were already partially revegetated. However, it was Elmer Paul’s understanding
that the burial remains were to be reinterred. In October 1989, Paul revisited the site and was
dismayed to see no change. During the next several months, the park consulted with NPTEC, the
tribe’s Cultural Resource Program, and Regional Archeologist Jim Thomson to develop a
preferred action. In May 1990, a party of NPS employees and Nez Perce tribal members spent
two days reinterring the burial remains and then reseeding the area with native fescue. After-
wards, Museum Curator Sue Buchel traced the vandalism to a 1974 case incident record
involving the “desecration of an Indian grave.” Approximately 24 holes had been dug with a post

7 David H. Chance and Jennifer V. Chance, Archaeology at Spalding, 1978-1979, University of Idaho
Anthropological Research Manuscript Series, Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1984, p. 12.

?°8 Chance, et al., Archaeology of the Nez Perce Country, p. 12; Karl Gurcke, et al., Nez Perce National Historical
Park Archaeological Excavations, 1979-1980, University of Idaho Anthropological Research Manuscript Series No.
70, Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1981.

°° David H. Chance to Jim Thomson, April 21, 1987, NEPE, H30 Historic Sites and Structures.

> Chance et al., Archaeology of the Nez Perce Country, p. 61.

102 Chapter Six


The question then arose whether the Senate and House needed to go to conference to
reconcile the difference between the two bills. The Senate’s amendment to the bill stipulated that
no more than $630,000 would be authorized for land acquisition. The House version carried this
same provision, but added a limitation of $1,337,000 for development. Senators Church and
Jordan recommended that the Senate agree to the amendment by the House and dispense with a
joint conference. The bill, Public Law 89-19, was finally approved on May 15, 1965.

Interpretation of the Act

It was evident to all that the Nez Perce National Historical Park was an unusual addition to
the national park system. The act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to designate a number
of recommended sites throughout an area that measured 60 miles from north to south and 110
miles from east to west (Figure 1). Some sites would be acquired by the NPS, some would
remain in the Clearwater National Forest, and some would remain under non-federal ownership
and would be managed under cooperative agreements. The NPS would be responsible for
relating’ all the sites to one another through a park-wide interpretive plan. No one connected with
the establishment of Nez Perce National Historical Park would have argued with the statement of
the National Parks Advisory Board that the park idea represented “an imaginative new concept of
historic preservation.” Beyond that general point of consensus, however, those individuals and
groups involved in creating the park had different ideas about how the park would develop.

Probably the most nebulous aspect of the park concept had to do with the resources that were
to be preserved. At a certain point in the planning process, the so-called scenic-recreational-
historical values that made Nez Perce country an attractive region had to be redefined as primarily
of historical value; this was, after all, to be a national historical park. Yet the scenic values
remained implicit in the legislation. Senator Church argued that the area contained “scenic
magnificence” as well as historical resources, and that the natural setting gave Nez Perce country

“a high degree of historical integrity.”

This was a complicated formulation. The relatively undeveloped condition of the land gave
the historical resources integrity in a dual sense. In the narrow sense of the term, there were few
visual intrusions of modern life to distract the viewer; one could still see, for example, the White
Bird Battlefield in much the same condition as it existed on the eve of the battle. In a broader
sense, the natural setting contributed to the feeling of these historical sites because the historical
themes that they reflected — exploration, gold mining, Indian-white conflict, logging — were
strongly associated with nineteenth-century white Americans’ experience of the wilderness. The
scenic magnificence alluded to the area’s wilderness values: not official wilderness as defined by

®° Ed Woozley to Len B. Jordan, May 4, 1965, BSU, Len B. Jordan Papers, MSS 6, Box 144, Folder 8.

5 Frank Church, Senate Speech, September 2, 1964, BSU, Frank Church Papers, Series 1.1, Box 92, Folder 11.

Chapter One 21


In addition, the NPS prepared to bring condemnation proceedings against two other land owners ©
for Tracts 1, 1A, and 22D unless they joined in the overall settlement. This brought the total cost

of land acquisition for the Spalding unit to $358,750. The total was higher than anticipated, but

Harrison recommended that the Park Service accept the package because many of the property

owners were elderly and were experiencing difficulty relocating and had already inspired local

sympathy. The negotiations, Harrison further explained, had been long and difficult and the

alternative of bringing condemnation proceedings would be costly. Assistant Director Ed

Hummel authorized the chief of the Office of Land and Water Rights, Thomas Kornelis, to accept

the options on all tracts in the Spalding area.'*

By December 1968, the land acquisition program for the Spalding site was nearly complete.
Three significant land issues remained which would present some difficulties for years to come.
These were the Camas Prairie Railroad right-of-way, the Lapwai Mission Cemetery, and the
Spalding viaduct. The Camas Prairie Railroad went right through the Spalding site, with the
former state park being situated on one side and the old Presbyterian church on the other. Freight
trains ran fairly regularly along this railroad; today they run daily, mostly carrying logs. The trains
posed a safety hazard as well as a problem of aesthetics. A Lewiston-based group now and then
raised the possibility of operating steam-powered excursion trains between Lewiston and the
historical park, a prospect that the Park Service viewed with disfavor. Instead, the Park Service
planned to seek a scenic easement over this railroad right-of-way to prevent commercial develop-
ment. The plan, however, was never carried out.'” C)

The Lapwai Mission Cemetery had historic value. It contained the grave stones of Henry and
Eliza Spalding and many mission Nez Perce parishioners. It abutted the arboretum in the former
Spalding State Park. The Nez Perce Tribe owned the cemetery and still used it, while the Board
of Trustees of the Spalding Presbyterian Church managed it. Prior to 1966, the state of Idaho had
a verbal agreement with the Board of Trustees to maintain the cemetery along with the state park.
After the transfer of the state park to the Park Service, Superintendent Burns provided for the
cost of maintenance (mainly mowing and watering) from the park’s budget. In 1971, Superinten-
dent Williams formalized this arrangement in a memorandum of agreement between the NPS and
the tribe. Thus, all land protection issues involving) the cemetery — gating the road at night,
discouraging inappropriate recreational use of the cemetery grounds, improving the sprinkler

'S! Clifford J. Harrison to Director, December 18, 1967, and Assistant Director to Chief, Office of Land and Water
Rights, December 20, 1967, NEPE, Administrative Files, L1425 Spalding Site General.

'S? Superintendent to Regional Director, December 13, 1968, NEPE, chrono file; Jack R. Williams, interview with C)
author, September 28, 1995; Superintendent to Regional Director, April 4, 1985, NEPE, chrono file.

52 Chapter Three


its cooperative agreement with the St. Joseph’s Mission Historical Society. The NPS did not
provide funds for restoration of the Pierce Courthouse, because the building was still privately
owned.

The Park Service used these studies in determining which buildings to eliminate from specific
sites to enhance the “historic scene.” A number of residences and barns in the Spalding unit were
demolished. The Park Service allowed two other buildings, a log cabin known as Poor Coyote’s
Cabin and a residence built during the Agency Period known as the Crawford House, to deterio-
rate until they were finally removed.”* The Park Service tried to eliminate the Spalding postmas-
ter’s residence but met sharp local opposition. Petitioners argued that the building had local
historical significance. Moreover, the building’s elderly residents had no inclination to move to
another house or abandon the Spalding Post Office. After unintentionally arousing local
opposition, the Park Service decided instead to issue the residents, George and Clara Glasby, a
special use permit to occupy the house on Park Service land.”

The emphasis on the Spalding unit’s historic buildings in the 1970s revealed some of the
limitations of this unusual national historical park. Not surprisingly, the Park Service channeled
its limited resources into those sites and buildings that it actually owned. Resource management
plans did not even address the cooperative sites prior to 1987, but focused exclusively on the four
NPS-owned sites of Spalding, East Kamiah, White Bird Battlefield, and Canoe Camp. The
emphasis on historic buildings also tended to accentuate the park’s rather eclectic character. The
Park Service demolished old residences and barns in its effort to recreate the historic scene around
the mission site at Spalding, yet it preserved the Agency Cabin, Agency Residence, and Watson’s
Store because each of those buildings possessed historical significance. According to the
Resource Management Plan for 1995, “Resources of different periods are often found in close
proximity and create special management problems in trying to maintain one without affecting the
integrity of another.”

785(__ continued)
plumbing. (Laurin Huffman, comments on draft, March 12, 1996.)

286 Poor Coyote’s cabin had been disassembled and moved to the site, reassembled incorrectly, and parked under the
viaduct on skids. At first the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) maintained that the cabin was
significant, perhaps as a transitional Nez Perce house. The documentation on the house and its physical condition were
poor, however, and in the late 1980s the NPS persuaded the Idaho SHPO to accept documentation and removal of the
structure. The Crawford House was removed in the early 1980s, to the Idaho SHPO’s subsequent regret. (Stephanie
Toothman, comments on draft, March 18, 1996.)

**7 Extensive correspondence on this issue, spanning the years 1973-1989, may be found in NEPE, Administrative
Files, D3423 Spalding Post Office.

88 National Park Service, Resources Management Plan, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, and Washington, 1995, p. 30.

98 Chapter Six


Clearwater Economic Development Association, and Roy M. Howard of the consulting firm
Cornell, Howland, Hayes, and Merryfield, stopped by the Pacific Northwest Regional Office in
Seattle to present their proposal. Rutter listened but declined to comment, saying that he needed
time to examine it. He pointed out that the proposal represented a considerable departure from
the master plan, but that the NPS wanted to cooperate as much as possible with the tribe. He
offered to discuss it further with them on a planned visit to Spalding. When Rutter arrived in
Spalding a few days later, he was surprised to learn that the tribal council would vote the next
morning on whether to apply for a loan for the tourist enterprise, even though the feasibility study
indicated that a Park Service visitor center at the Orofino site would be vital to its success. Rutter
suggested that NPS planners review the proposal first. One member of NPTEC asked the
consultants to explain how the tribe might go forward without the Park Service’s help. After
some discussion of this NPTEC decided to adopt a resolution asking for a loan of $750,000.
Although the plan was later abandoned, it signaled the divergent expectations of the park by the

tribe and the NPS.

Meanwhile, Williams proceeded with his own plan for a temporary visitor center. The
Watson’s Store was far too small to hold the park’s growing staff. The area of the building that
had been set up for visitors was cold and dark. He moved the administrative offices and museum
exhibits into the Blue Lantern Motel. This building stood between the former Spalding State Park
and the railroad on land acquired from the James Albright family. By painting the long structure
dark brown and posting some appropriate NPS signage, Williams made the building serve as a
combination administration building, ranger quarters, and visitor center.*

Williams worked with NPS officials in the regional office to obtain congressional action on
amending the park’s enabling act practically from the start of his superintendency. For a while it
appeared that increased budgets would be achieved through a park additions bill, as Oregon’s
Senator Bob Packwood expressed keen interest in getting the Nez Perce sites near Wallowa Lake
included in the park. This led to a study of potential park additions in 1969 (see Chapter 8.) By
the early 1970s, however, NPS officials regarded the master plan for Nez Perce National
Historical Park as overly ambitious.

In 1973, Regional Director Rutter scaled back the park’s development plans in order to
increase the likelihood of early congressional appropriations for the park. Development of Nez
Perce National Historical Park, together with numerous other relatively new areas in the national
park system, received lesser priority behind those units associated with the American Revolution

*> Regional Director to Director, February 17, 1970, NEPE, Administrative Files, A3815, Public Relations--Nez
Perce Tribe; Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995; Allen P. Slickpoo, Sr., interview with
author, July 21, 1995.

*6 Jack R. Williams, interview with author, September 28, 1995.

34 Chapter Two


Otis Halfmoon dancing...

Park visitors watch a Nez Perce dancer, 1972. The dancer, Otis
Halfmoon, became a park ranger and was assigned to Bear Paw
Battleground, Montana in 1994.

Pictorial Essay =



136 Epilogue


opening of the new Lewis and Clark Highway across the Bitterroot Mountains now makes this area
easily accessible as it has never been before to large numbers of vacationing American families.
Without the knowledge of the background of the country through which they are driving, awareness
of the great heritage of this region might easily evade them. This report, with its conclusions, shows
the way to a truly imaginative interpretive program whose establishment cannot but help inspire
Americans to a greater regard for this beautiful portion of the United States and its noble past.’

During the spring of 1963, when the Armour Research Foundation’s reports were in draft,
officials in the Department of the Interior began conceptualizing how the Nez Perce country
might be brought into the national park system. Assistant Secretary of the Interior John A.
Carver, Jr., a native of Boise, took the lead. Carver represented one of Idaho’s prominent
political families; prior to his appointment as assistant secretary, he had managed Frank Church’s
Senate office. Since joining the Interior Department, Carver had overseen several national park
proposals, and he recognized at the outset that they were now “dealing with a concept which is
new and different.” The basic premise of a national historical park in Nez Perce country was that
the region around the confluence of the Clearwater and Snake rivers offered a unique opportunity
to interpret a number of distinct yet intertwining stories of the nation’s heritage. The three main
themes, in Carver’s view, were the Lewis and Clark expedition, the mining frontier, and the War
of 1877. “What we have here is not a land area to be brought under Federal ownership, but rather
a series of sites,” Carver observed. What would hold the park together was the interpretive effort

emanating from the visitor center.“

From his position as Assistant Secretary, Carver made the crucial call that the project should
serve the national park system first, and the Nez Perce Tribe incidentally. “I am thinking of a park
equivalent to our National Historical Parks in the East,” Carver wrote:

The project must stand on its own feet as a historical park type development. One incident is greatly
enhanced economic opportunities for the Nez Perce Indians, but we still must remember that this is
an incident, not justification for the kind of development I have outlined. This project can stand on
its own feet, and it is better to emphasize its intrinsic worth rather than its contribution to Indian

economic advancement.*’

As Carver prepared to visit the Nez Perce Indian Reservation in May, NPS Acting Director
George B. Hartzog, Jr., provided additional thoughts on the proposed park. Hartzog agreed that
a visitor center would be an essential component of the “broad scale or regional approach in
planning and promotion” that was now under discussion. Hartzog suggested that the visitor
center could be located on the reservation in the Spalding-Lapwai area. There might be a satellite
visitor center in the Kamiah area. Other sites might be interpreted through small on-site exhibits.

45 Erwin Thompson, A Survey of the Recreational and Tourism Resources in the Nez Perce Country, vol.2, prepared
by Armour Research Foundation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, September 1963, pp. i-ti.

“6 John A. Carver, Jr., to William Johnston, April 1, 1963, NEPE, Administrative History 33873, Folder 4, April
1963; Merle Wells, comments on draft, February 19, 1996.

“’ Toid.

Chapter One 17



National Historic Trails

Nez Perce National Historical Park has been associated with the development of two national
historical trails: the Lewis and Clark Trail and the Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic
Trail. Both trails intersect a number of sites within Nez Perce National Historical Park.

Efforts to establish a trail of commemorative markers along the route of the Lewis and Clark
expedition began as early as the 1930s. A private organization called the Lewis-Clark Trail
Commission led this effort, which focused initially on marking and developing sites along the
expedition route between St. Louis and the mouth of the Columbia River. In 1948, the NPS
recommended that a “Lewis and Clark Tourway” be established along the Missouri River from St.
Louis to Three Forks, Montana. In the 1950s, conservationist J.N. “Ding” Darling led an effort
to develop the historic route into a recreational trail. In 1962, Secretary of the Interior Stewart
Udall directed the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) to analyze the proposal and formulate a
development plan. The BOR completed its report in 1965, and included its concept for a Lewis
and Clark national scenic trail in its 1966 report to Congress, “Trails for America: Report on

Nationwide Trails Study.”'®

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543) on October
2, 1968. The act listed the route of the Lewis and Clark expedition for study and possible
designation as a National Scenic Trail. The BOR identified a 3,700-mile route and recommended
that it be designated under a new category to be called National Historic Trails. The National
Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 65-625) amended the National Trails Act to include this
designation, and named the Lewis and Clark Trail as one of four National Historic Trails.'*

Local efforts to commemorate the expedition route through northern Idaho received a large
boost from the construction of U.S. Highway 12 over Lolo Pass and its designation as the “Lewis
and Clark Scenic Highway” in the early 1960s. In 1966, Idaho citizens formed the Idaho Lewis-
Clark Trail Committee and elected the retired forest supervisor of the Clearwater National Forest,
Ralph Space, as its chairman. Like the Lewis and Clark Trail Commission which Congress had
established two years earlier, the local organization assumed the role of stimulating government
agencies to identify, mark, and preserve the trail. Governor Robert E. Smylie advised the
committee that it must coordinate planning with the NPS since the commission’s decisions might
have an impact on the Nez Perce National Historical Park.'®

The National Trails System Act assigned administrative responsibility of the trail to the
Secretary of the Interior, and delegated responsibility for long-term administration and prepara-

18 National Park Service, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, Comprehensive Management Plan Status
Report, March 1981, p. 1.

'* Thid.

185 7 ewiston Morning Tribune, February 5, 1966.

Chapter Three 63


EPILOGUE
NEW DIRECTIONS

A number of administrative and political developments in recent years strongly suggest that
Nez Perce National Historical Park is evolving in new directions. In general, the park’s major
constituents have responded to these new developments with enthusiasm, as the ambitious park
additions appear to be a catalyst for growth rather than disintegration. But recent political
discourse on the possibility of scaling back the national park system creates a measure of doubt.

The park additions have had a profound effect on park relations with the Nez Perce people.
From 1965 to 1985, park officials had virtually no contact with Nez Perces on the Umatilla and
Colville Indian Reservations. Nez Perce participation in cultural events consisted solely of Nez
Perces who lived on or near the Nez Perce Indian Reservation, with the Nez Perce community of
Lapwai being particularly close to park affairs. This started to change when condominium
development threatened the Old Chief Joseph Monument site in Oregon and Nez Perces on the
Umatilla Reservation became concerned. Superintendent Roy Weaver established new contacts
with the Nez Perce groups in Oregon and Washington, and Superintendent Walker cultivated
them further. This process also stemmed from interagency meetings with diverse Nez Perce
groups who were concerned with the Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail, estab-
lished in 1986. In order to ensure closer cooperation between the park and the Nez Perce people,
the Nez Perce National Park Additions Act of 1991 mandated that the NPS would consult Nez

Perces on interpretation of the park sites.

Both the 1992 additions and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail focused greater attention
on the War of 1877. For many years park officials and Lapwai area Nez Perces had tacitly agreed
to minimize interpretation of this sorrowful event. Now, with so many park sites relating to the
dispossession, flight, and exile of the non-treaty Nez Perces, the subject could no longer be
muted. Increasingly, the public perceived the park and the trail as a single entity commemorating

the war.

The 1992 additions and the trail have tended to bring Nez Perce groups together and foster a
spirit of cooperation between them. There are differences of opinion about this. One reviewer
commented that the NPS role in this process should not be overstated, and that the process has
been occurring for some time. Another reviewer objected to the statement that the additions and
the trial made the Chief Joseph Band more involved in the park. Following enactment of the Nez
Perce National Park Additions Act of 1991, the Nez Perce Tribe organized a reception, hosted by
the National Council of American Indians (NCAD) in Washington, D.C. This led to other
ceremonies that year at Spalding, Joseph, Big Hole National Battlefield, and Bear Paw Battlefield.
The Nez Perce held special pipe ceremonies at these gatherings, as well as at the Clearwater

Epilogue 133


B
ROCKY BOY Spr aw
INDIAN RE. x

“~ INDIAN
RESERVATION

ySrg JadeyD

e Chiat Joseph's Grave
~ Chiel Joseph's
Last Campsite

reat Falls

‘7 COUER D'ALENE
INDIAN RES

on Helena , MONTANA

Billings

HITE BIR Le

JUNE 17, 1877

. i; ‘A
OMATitL Al ee @ Encounter gent Creek e,
ff

Homesite of First Settler @ C

Wallowa Lake ®
Old Chief Joseph's Gravsite

Retreat Trail Through
Yellowstone NP

WYOMING

GRAND TETON
NATIONAL PARK

OREGON

Legend
@ 1969 Site

= Route of 1877
Nez Perce Campaign vise On
C WIND RIV
*idaho * Jackson ) inotan. RES
Falls Lect oe
_ 3S )

X 1877 Battlesite

ie Sites Studied in 1969 Evaluation

\

yARS

Figure 6. Sites Studied in 1969 Evaluation (NPS map).


completed a legislative support package in December 1972, but the Ullman bill was never
reintroduced.**

Despite the disappointing outcome, this early effort to make the park more nearly encompass
all of “Nez Perce country” had lasting repercussions. The most important result was to spur Nez
Perce tribal interest in the Oregon, Washington, and Montana sites. As early as November 1967,
Superintendent Burns and NPTEC Chairman Richard Halfmoon travelled to the gravesite of Chief
Joseph the Younger near Nespelem, Washington, with the idea that the park might some day
encompass this site. In 1969, the additions study team made initial contact with Joe Redthunder
of Nespelem, the oldest living descendent of Chief Joseph.*” With the creation of Nez Perce
National Historical Park, Nez Perces began to take an interest in the battlefield sites in Montana
as well. Josiah Red Wolf, the last Nez Perce survivor of the War of 1877, had lost his mother and
sister in the Battle of the Big Hole when he was five years old. Now in his nineties, he went to
Big Hole National Battlefield and broke ground for the new visitor center, marking the first time
he had been back to this tragic scene of his youth.*° In the centennial year of the war, several
hundred Nez Perces traveled to the Bear Paw Battlefield to take part in ceremonies. There they
found the state’s historical markers inaccurately placed and in some cases defaced. That fall,
NPTEC passed a resolution urging that the state of Montana transfer this state park to the federal
government for inclusion in the Nez Perce National Historical Park. The NPS responded that the
War of 1877 was already adequately represented in the national park system by Big Hole National
Battlefield and the White Bird Battlefield.“

A second important result of the early effort to expand Nez Perce National Historical Park
was the attention it brought to the Old Chief Joseph gravesite. Not only did local citizens of
Wallowa County become interested in better preserving the site, but Nez Perces of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation in Oregon and the Nez Perce Indian Reservation in Idaho also became better
apprised of the situation. In 1972, NPS officials negotiated with the owner of the surrounding
land, the Associated Ditch Company. The Associated Ditch Company expressed strong opposi-
tion to the initial proposal of a 100-acre scenic easement. Following those negotiations, the NPS
revised its proposal to involve acquisition of the existing 5.1-acre parcel (owned by the Bureau of

338 National Park Service, Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed Oregon Additions, Nez Perce National
Historical Park, 1972, Acting Regional Director to Director, December 6, 1972, NEPE, L58 Proposed Areas - New

Additions, Wallowa 1970-1973.
339 Stephanie Toothman, interview with author, August 24, 1995.
340 Robert Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995.
341 Mark Stevens, “Chief Joseph’s Revenge,” The New Yorker, August 8, 1994, p. 32; Wilfred A. Scott to Cecil B.

Andrus, October 11, 1977, Edward J. Kurtz to Scott, December 13, 1977, Director to Scott, December 16, 1977, and
Russell Dickenson to Scott, January 13, 1978, NEPE, Administrative Files, A3815 Public Relations - Nez Perce Tribe.

Chapter Eight 119


Prologue


tion, maintenance, visitor protection, and administration, together with a few large objects from
the museum collection. It would also house the park’s fire truck, heavy maintenance equipment,
and riding mowers. This new structure alleviated storage problems in the basement of the visitor

center.””

In recent years, two staff reorganizations have had a significant effect on the collections
management program. In 1988, Superintendent Weaver sought to increase the level of resource
protection in the park with the establishment of two new divisions for natural and cultural
resources. The position of park curator was reclassified to include management of the Cultural
Resources Division. In 1991, responsibility for the park library was transferred from the
Interpretive to the Cultural Resources Division. While the staff reorganization increased the level
of protection for cultural resources as a whole, it reduced the amount of staff time available for
collections management. To correct this deficiency, the park gained a full-time Museum
Technician position and a part-time Librarian position. Under the new organization, the library
grew from an interpretive staff resource into a public-service research facility. The library
received additional funding through the regional office and donations from the Northwest
Interpretive Association for the collection of dissertations, theses, rare books, and other items.”

In 1994, Superintendent Walker introduced the unit organization concept in Nez Perce
National Historical Park and obtained approval of a revised organizational structure/position
management plan (Chapter 8). That plan called for a Cultural Resource Management Specialist,
Museum Curator, Museum Technician, and Library Technician to staff the Cultural Resources
Division within the Park Support Unit based at Spalding. In March 1996, the Cultural Resource
Management Specialist position remained to be filled.”

Historic Structures and Landscapes

Nez Perce National Historical Park’s limited number of historic buildings received strong
emphasis in the park’s early years. One year after the park was authorized, the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 led to new guidelines for preservation of historic structures listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. All national historical parks (including all Nez Perce sites)
were automatically entered in the National Register even though documentation of the historic

*° Environmental Assessment, Proposed Spalding Consolidated Storage Facility, Nez Perce National Historical Park,
Spalding, Idaho, CCSO, library DSC microfiche reports, NEPE D38.

8 The park’s Collection Management Plan, completed in 1994, recommended a further staff increase of one
permanent full-time Curator of Collections position plus a four-year term appointment for a technician to clear up the
remaining problems with accessions, cataloguing, and internal control monitoring. National Park Service, Nez Perce
National Historical Park Collection Management Plan, Seattle, 1994, pp. 89-91; Susan Buchel, interview with author,
October 23, 1995; Susan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996.

8! Nez Perce National Historical Park, Unit Organization Concept, no date, NEPE, library.

96 . Chapter Six


He and Richard Halfmoon discussed whether there was a need for NPTEC to request an
injunction in order to halt construction “until some positive action could be taken.”""®

Later that morning Halfmoon and Sam Watters, who had warned against the road in the first
place, inspected the site with the superintendent, Park Curator Stephen Shawley, Cathy Spude
from the Denver Service Center, Dr. Sprague, and some graduate assistants from the University

of Idaho. Watters reported to NPTEC:

I observed three distinct piles of skulls and bones, some of which were in crushed condition, one with
most of the larger bones intact. Cedar remnants and beads, with some remains of pottery and the
remains of a headpiece were also in evidence. Mr. Shawley and myself then toured the area and
observed other assumed grave sites which were either dug out by the machinery and crushed or
covered by a considerable amount of dirt. There seemed to be another six or so probable grave sites

that could be readily identified so."°

The following morning, Watters revisited the site with NPTEC Chairman Wilfred Scott, and
found that the skeletal remains observed the day before had already been put in paper sacks and
taken to the University of Idaho for study. Archaeologists were in the process of marking out
additional sites for excavation. After briefing an afternoon session of the Reservation Develop-
ment Subcommittee on the status of the graves, Watters, Scott, and three other tribal members
returned to the site again “to obtain a firsthand look at the direction the Park Service and
archaeologists were taking.” They were dismayed to find that the archaeologists had disinterred
three additional cedar coffins on the assumption that they must be moved. “The shock of seeing
the ancestors in their last resting place and the prospect of seeing them destroyed to move them in
the name of progress became too much for tribal people in attendance,” Watters wrote. There
was a meeting late that afternoon between tribal representatives, park officials, archaeologists,
and Spude, followed by a conference call to the regional office.” After a further meeting on
Saturday morning, it was decided to suspend all construction and post a security guard at the site
until all the remains were reinterred in their original locations. The road alignment would be
altered to avoid the cemetery, and the NPS would conduct archeological testing on the level
ground to the west of the cemetery where the visitor center was to be located. Karl Gurcke of the
University of Idaho assembled an all-Nez Perce archeological crew of thirteen and supervised the
reinternment of the burial remains and the testing of the visitor center site during the next two

weeks.

48 Secretary, NPTEC to NPTEC, September 19, 1979, NEPE, Richard Halfmoon Papers.

"9 Toid.

120 Thid. Spude was highly critical of how the project had been managed; she was later reprimanded for
insubordination. Stephanie Toothman comment on draft, March 18, 1996.

121 Karl Gurcke, Nez Perce National Historical Park Archaeological Excavations, 1979-1980, Part I, Burial
Recovery and Monitoring, University of Idaho Anthropological Research Manuscript Series, No.70, Laboratory of
Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1981, p. 1.

Chapter Two 39


Pictorial Essay

Park administration building ...

Park administration building, located in the former Blue Lantern
Motel, Spalding. The highway viaduct, now abandoned, is visible
on the left.


administration of the Yellowstone National Park superintendent. Expanded from 5 acres to 195
acres by executive order in 1939, Big Hole Battlefield remained virtually undeveloped until
Mission 66. The Mission 66 program for Big Hole Battlefield provided for the construction of a
visitor center and administration building, development of trails, landscaping, and interpretive _
signs, and marking of the monument boundary.** Beginning in 1957, Yellowstone ranger Robert
Burns was assigned to the area from June through September as the first on-site administrator of

the unit.

Burns, who later served as first superintendent of Nez Perce National Historical Park from
1965 to 1968, thought that Mission 66 planning for Big Hole Battlefield was an important
antecedent in the creation of the Idaho park because it awakened interest in the Nez Perce story.*”
He and Idaho historian Samuel M. Beal were instrumental in getting the Mission 66 program
approved by a skeptical regional director. Burns also relayed to his superiors his strong impres-
sion that a large percentage of visitors to the Big Hole Battlefield were sympathetic to the Nez
Perce cause, and this too seemed to consolidate NPS support for the unit as well as the Nez Perce
National Historical Park idea. A visitor center was built at the battlefield in 1968 .°*

Big Hole Battlefield National Monument was redesignated Big Hole National Battlefield by an
act of Congress on May 17, 1963. As amended in 1972, this act appropriated $42,500 for
acquisition of approximately 466 acres of additional land (Figure 8). In 1987, certain administra-
tive functions of Big Hole National Battlefield were transferred to Grant-Kohrs Ranch National
Historic Site.*° The Nez Perce National Historical Park Additions Act of 1991 included Big Hole
National Battlefield within the park additions.

The act placed Big Hole National Battlefield in a somewhat anomalous position within Nez
Perce National Historical Park. For example, Section 2 of the act expressly added Big Hole
National Battlefield to the park, but it did not change the national battlefield designation nor annul

°° National Park Service, Mission 66 for Big Hole Battlefield National Monument, [1957], Robert Burns papers.

°°” Mission 66 was the National Park Service’s answer to growing public use of the national park system in the first
decade after World War II: proposed by the Eisenhower administration and approved by Congress in 1956, it constituted
a ten-year program of development to conclude in 1966 on the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the National Park

Service.

> Robert L. Burns, interview with author, July 22, 1995; Burns to Howard Baker, [19687], NEPE, chrono files.

%® National Park Service, Big Hole National Battlefield Statement for Management, November 1992, pp. 5, 10.

128 Chapter Eight


hole digger.*' Unfortunately this was not an isolated incident, but represented one of the primary
threats to the archeological resources in Nez Perce National Historical Park.

Battlefield sites and the Spalding site were particularly susceptible to vandalism. Occasionally
park officials apprehended people with metal detectors. Increasingly, the park worked with the
tribe to improve the level of protection of these sites. Cooperation was especially important for
all those sites that were not owned by the Park Service.

With the park additions in 1992, three battlefield sites in Montana came into Nez Perce
National Historical Park, each with a history of archeological exploration. In the case of Big Hole
Battlefield, archeological investigations were conducted as early as the 1950s and continued
through the 1970s. NPS employees Don Rickey, Aubrey Haines, and Kermit Edmonds made
careful collections of battlefield artifacts. In 1991, the Park Service received a grant from
country-western singer Hank Williams, Jr., to conduct a more systematic archeological survey.
Directed by Dr. Douglas D. Scott of the Midwest Archeological Center, this effort involved a
thorough re-examination of the unit’s collections as well as a metal-detecting survey of the entire
battlefield. The survey drew some significant conclusions for management, including the location
of tepees and events during the battle that indicated a need to acquire additional acreage at the
site. It also provided valuable information for interpretation, confirming the disposition and
movements of troops and warriors during the battle and the fact that Shoshones had mutilated the

bodies of fallen Nez Perce.*”

In 1994, the Rocky Mountain Region provided funding for Dr. Scott and the Midwest
Archeological Center to prepare an Archeological Overview and Assessment for the Montana
Nez Perce War Sites. Scott focused on the historical archeology, primarily associated with the
Nez Perce War of 1877, and subcontracted with Ethos Consultants, Inc., of Havre, Montana, to
conduct literature searches and assess the potential for the sites to contain prehistoric resources,”

Other sites had already received archeological investigation prior to being authorized as
additions to the park in 1994. These included Hasotino Village and Buffalo Eddy. During the
late summer of 1995, Ranger Teresa Soleski monitored a paleontological dig near Tolo Lake

301 Susan Bushel, “Report on Rehabilitation of Vandalized Burials, White Bird Battlefield,” December 3, 1991, (case
incident records attached), NEPE, Administrative files, 11425 White Bird Site General.

302 National Park Service, Resources Management Plan, Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, and Washington, March 1995, p. 19; Douglas D. Scott, A Sharp Little Affair: The Archeology of the Big Hole
Battlefield. Reprints in Anthropology, vol.45. Lincoln, Nebraska: J&L Reprint Company, 1994.

303 Sysan Buchel, comments on draft, March 20, 1996; Patrick J. Rennie and John H. Brumley, “Prehistoric
Archaeological Overview and Assessment of the Canyon Creek Battlefield Area: Yellowstone County, Montana,” draft
report prepared for National Park Service, July 1994; Rennie and Brumley, “Prehistoric Archaeological Overview and
Assessment of the Bear’s Paw Battlefield State Park: Blaine County, Montana,” draft report prepared for National Park

Service, June 1994.

Chapter Six 103


distraction from basic park operations.” The park appeared to be understaffed, particularly in
maintenance. The team learned that the superintendent, chief of IRM, and chief of maintenance
spent little time outside of the Spalding unit, and it recommended that one of these people should
visit the other units at least once a week. Overall, the team found the East Kamiah, Canoe Camp,
and Spalding units “very shabby in appearance.”

The staff situation was complicated by a growing mistrust between the superintendent and the
park curator. In 1984, Whittaker requested a performance review of the park curator by the
regional curator. This led to an inspector general’s audit of museum management at Nez Perce
the following year, culminating in Shawley’s resignation under pressure (see Chapter 6). This
necessary but arduous task of housecleaning took its toll; a second operations evaluation in 1985
pointed to a definite need for improvement in the management of staff and routine inspection of
outlying sites."

Still another staff issue caused a breach between the superintendent and the tribe. Tribal
members expressed dismay over the unrealized employment opportunities for Nez Perces in the
national historical park. First, the tribe wanted a greater commitment by the NPS to hire Nez
Perces for seasonal positions, pointing out that the tribe had agreements with the Clearwater,
Payette, and Nez Perce national forests but it had no such agreement with the NPS. Second, the
tribe wanted the park to maintain one or two permanent staff positions for Nez Perces and to
provide career enhancement opportunities. Otherwise, there could be little hope for eventually
filling the position of superintendent with a tribal member. Specifically, the tribe objected to the
Park Service’s plan to upgrade a GS-9 ranger position which would exclude likely Nez Perce
applicants from competition. Complicating the situation, several tribal leaders believed that the
superintendent herself, rather than the agency, was accountable for these perceived shortcomings.
In June 1986, tribal representatives addressed their concerns to NPS Director William Penn Mott,
Jr 333

With yet another superintendent of Nez Perce National Historical Park under attack by the
tribe, Acting Regional Director William J. Briggle tried to intercede for Whittaker. His solution
was to establish a memorandum of understanding between the park administration and NPTEC.
The agreement, signed by Whittaker and NPTEC Chairman J. Herman Reuben on August 27,
1986, pledged the NPS to improve tribal employment opportunities and committed the tribe to
assist park officials in recruiting Nez Perce tribal members. The NPS made a significant conces-

"9 Operations Evaluation Team to Regional Director, August 13, 1982, NEPE, A5427 Operations Evaluation.
°° Regional Director to Superintendent, May 29, 1985, NEPE, Administrative Files, A5427 Operations Evaluations.

'*! The tribe itemized its concerns about the superintendent as follows: “poor public relations with the tribe and
general community; poor supervisory skills; poor attendance; lack of communication with the tribe on employment, park
improvement projects, and land use; poor attitude; failure to meet with the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee and
General Council when scheduled, etc.” J. Herman Reuben to William Penn Mott, Jr., June 5, 1986, CCSO, Kent Bush
files, File NPTEC.

42 Chapter Two