Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

Responses to CommentsIdaho Power CompanyShoshone-Bannock Tribes were invited to participate in an oral history study but declined theinvitation.Due to some unanticipated delays, the completion date for the Nez Perce Tribe’s ethnographicstudy has been extended. The document is currently in the final review phase and will not besubmitted with the FLA. IPC will notify the appropriate agencies and tribes when the reportbecomes available.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-187Two of the three completed tribal ethnographic studies have addressed botanical resources.Because of the confidential nature of these reports, they were provided to the land managementagencies only. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes may obtain a copy of these reports by contactingthe BLM or USFS.An attempt was made to work with the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute tribes todevelop ethnographic projects. IPC proposed an ethnobotanical field school at Bancroft Springswith the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in connection with relicensing efforts for Mid-Snakeprojects. In the Mid-Snake new license application, the company proposed a 375-acre researchpreserve on land it owns at Bancroft Springs. In response to Shoshone-Bannock tribal staffrequests, IPC offered access to the tribes to be used as a field school for Shoshone-Bannocktribal members. A field trip to the preserve took place in March 2000 with cultural anthropologistKristin Ruppel, Director of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal AmeriCorps/InPEACE program;several AmeriCorps participants; and IPC representatives Mark Druss, Allan Ansell, and RobynJohnson. Despite IPC’s effort to provide this opportunity to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, thetribal government decided not to pursue the project. The project never went forward.IPC will work within the framework of treaties and other existing laws and regulations asappropriate to address plant resources in which the tribes have a legitimate interest.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-188IPC’s philosophy is to not abandon consultation, but to work through conflicts. An importantfirst step is to lay the groundwork for initial meetings through ongoing contacts so thatpotentially interested parties are aware of proposed actions on the part of IPC. Parties with nointerest in a specific project can express this prior to engaging in time-consuming meetings,saving their efforts for discussions that are relevant to their concerns.Consultation will precede unavoidable adverse effects on historic properties, as part of thesection 106 process required for all federal undertakings. It will also be a general method ofcultural resource management by IPC, wherein open lines of communication should helpmanagement practices run smoothly.Internally, IPC personnel who initiate and are responsible for ground-disturbing activities willapprise the cultural resources manager of a proposed action (see the HPMP [or TechnicalReport E.4-15], Figure 4.3-b). If the action is on private land, the cultural resources manager willconsult with the landowner to allow the management process to continue. The cultural resourcesmanager will determine whether Native Americans have an interest in the proposed action,Page 76Hells Canyon Complex