CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA

BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

JUNE 2005
Notice: This manuscript has been authored by Bahr Vermeer Haecker Architects, Ltd. in association with

John Milner Associates, Inc. under Contract Number C6000990002 with the NPS. TheUnited States

Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United

States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license topublish or reproduce

the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA

BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK 

C ULTURAL L ANDSCAPE R EPORT

PREPARED FOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE

AND 

BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK

PREPARED BY

JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 

ARCHITECTS • ARCHEOLOGISTS • PLANNERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

103 WEST MAIN STREET

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 

(434) 979-1617 

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

BAHR VERMEER HAECKER ARCHITECTS, LTD. 

121 SOUTH 13 T H STREET, SUITE 200 

LINCOLN, NE 68508 

(402) 475-4551 

TASK ORDER − T6068020114 

JUNE 2005 
PROJECT CREDITS

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK

William Supernaugh, Superintendent 

Marianne Mills, Chief, Resource Education 

MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE

Marla McEnaney, Historical Landscape Architect 

Nick Chevance, Regional Environmental Coordinator 

Sandra Washington, Division Chief, Planning and Compliance 

Sherda Williams, former Historical Landscape Architect 

SOUTH DAKOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

Stephen Rogers, Historic Preservation Coordinator 

Jay D. Vogt, State Historic Preservation Officer 

BAHR VERMEER HAECKER ARCHITECTS

Dan Worth, AIA, Principal-in-Charge 

Gregg Munn, Project Architect 

JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Rob McGinnis, ASLA, Project Manager 

Matt Whitaker, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Jacky Taylor, Landscape Historian 

Alisa Hefner, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Adriane Fowler, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Julie Basic, ASLA, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Aaron Cross, Cultural Landscape Specialist 

Amy Wells, Graphic Designer 

Liz Sargent, ASLA, Historical Landscape Architect 

Jessica Koepfler, Administrative Assistant 

TOTAL QUALITY NEPA 

Heidi West, Ph.D., Environmental Specialist 

Kathie Joyner, Environmental Specialist 

KIRK AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Stephen Kirk, Ph.D., FAIA, CVS, Architect and Value Analysis facilitator 
TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1-1

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA BOUNDARY..................................... 1-1 

HISTORICAL SUMMARY ............................................................................. 1-2 

SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................... 1-3 

PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 1-6 

NPS STAFF ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT ............................. 1-11 

A/E STAFF ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT SERVICES .................. 1-12 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................... 1-12 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .......................... 1-23 

CHAPTER TWO SITE HISTORY

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2-1 

SITE HISTORY BY CHRONOLOGICAL PERIOD .................................. 2-2 

 PaleoIndian Period, ca. 12,000–7,500 BP...................................................... 2-2 

 Archaic, Plains Woodland, and Plains Village Periods, ca. 7,500–300 BP... 2-4 

 Early European-American Contact Period, 1700–1803................................. 2-6 

 European-American Exploration, Trade, 

 and the Beginnings of Settlement, 1803–1890 ........................................ 2-8 

 Federal Development/Land Ownership, 1890–1909 ................................... 2-14 

 Concessionaire Development and Monument Establishment, 1909–1939.. 2-16 

 Early Master Planning and CCC Development, 1938–1941 ....................... 2-24 

 World War II, 1942–1945............................................................................ 2-31 

 Post World War II Development, 1945–1956 ............................................. 2-32 

 Mission 66, 1956–1966................................................................................ 2-35 

 Further Expansion and National Park Designation, 1966–2003.................. 2-46 

CHAPTER THREE EXISTING CONDITIONS

SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3-1

 Cultural Context and Setting.......................................................................... 3-1 

 Environmental Context and Setting............................................................... 3-2 

EXISTING CONDITIONS BY LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS .... 3-9

 Natural Systems .......................................................................................... 3-10 

 Spatial Organization .................................................................................... 3-12 

 Land Use ...................................................................................................... 3-16 

 Circulation ................................................................................................... 3-17 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * II

 Topographic Modifications ......................................................................... 3-19 

 Vegetation ................................................................................................... 3-20 

 Buildings and Structures ............................................................................. 3-21 

 Small-scale Features ................................................................................... 3-42 

 Views and Vistas ......................................................................................... 3-44 

 Potential Archeological Resources ............................................................. 3-45 

CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 4-1 

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION .................................................................... 4-1 

 Current National Register Status of Cedar Pass ............................................ 4-1 

 Summary Statement of Significance.............................................................. 4-3 

 Historic Contexts ........................................................................................... 4-4 

 Criterion A ..................................................................................................... 4-7 

 Criterion C ................................................................................................... 4-10 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 4-12 

 Natural Systems ........................................................................................... 4-13 

 Spatial Organization .................................................................................... 4-14 

 Land Use ..................................................................................................... 4-16 

 Circulation ................................................................................................... 4-17 

 Topographic Modifications ......................................................................... 4-19 

 Vegetation ................................................................................................... 4-19 

 Buildings and Structures ............................................................................. 4-20 

 Small-scale Features ................................................................................... 4-23 

 Views and Vistas.......................................................................................... 4-26 

INTEGRITY EVALUATION ......................................................................... 4-27 

 Integrity Assessment by Aspect .................................................................. 4-28 

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING EXISTING AND FUTURE 

NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC 

PLACES .................................................................................................... 4-29 

Recommended National Register District .................................................. 4-30 

CHAPTER FIVE MANAGEMENT ISSUES

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 5-1 

VISITOR USE AND ACCESS...................................................................... 5-1 

ADMINISTRATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................... 5-2 

CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 5-2 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES .............................................................. 5-3 

CHAPTER SIX ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 6-1 

CHARACTER AREAS .................................................................................... 6-3 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * III

ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................... 6-4 

 Alternative A—No Action ............................................................................ 6-4 

 Alternative B—Preservation ......................................................................... 6-5 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) ................................. 6-8 

CHAPTER SEVEN TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 7-1 

 Chapter Organization .................................................................................... 7-1 

 Treatment Approach ..................................................................................... 7-1 

TREATMENT GUIDELINES.......................................................................... 7-2 

 General .......................................................................................................... 7-2 

 Additions to the Landscape ........................................................................... 7-3 

 Landscape Management ................................................................................ 7-4 

 Accessibility .................................................................................................. 7-5 

 Sustainability ................................................................................................. 7-6 

PREFERRED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE C: REHABILITATION .. 7-7 

 Overarching Recommendations for the Rehabilitation Alternative .............. 7-9 

 Recommendations by Character Area for the Rehabilitation Alternative .. 7-11 

CHAPTER EIGHT IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 8-1 

PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 8-1 

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .......................................................................... 8-5 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NARRATIVE REFERENCES.........................................................................B-1 

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS ...................................................................B-3 

MAPS, PLANS, AND DRAWINGS ...........................................................B-6 

PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................B-11 

ONLINE RESOURCES ................................................................................B-14 

APPENDIX A

BUILDING/STRUCTURE NUMBER INDEX

APPENDIX B

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX C

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * IV

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER ONE

Figure 1-1, Badlands National Park Location Map 

Figure 1-2, Cedar Pass Developed Area Vicinity Map 

CHAPTER TWO

Figure 2-1, Illustration of the land area included in the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. 

Figure 2-2, The route taken by Lewis and Clarke in the early 1800s. 

Figure 2-3, Fort Pierre-Fort Laramie Trail 

Figure 2-4, Fort Pierre-Fort Laramie Trail 

Figure 2-5, 1851 Fort Laramie treaty for Indian territories. 

Figure 2-6, Bodner rendering of Fort Pierre. 

Figure 2-7, Map of Sioux Reservation subdivision based on Agreement of 1889. 

Figure 2-8, Pine Ridge Reservation. 

Figure 2-9, Sod homestead. 

Figure 2-10, 1882 railroad map, showing stage route. 

Figure 2-11, Building in railroad town of Interior, ca. 1909. 

Figure 2-12, View of ranch lands adjacent to Badlands, 1935. 

Figure 2-13, Millard’s Dance hall, ca. 1928. 

Figure 2-14, Millard’s hotel at Cedar Pass, also known as a lodge, ca. 1928. 

Figure 2-15, Millard’s rental cabins, ca. 1930s. 

Figure 2-16, Cabins at Cedar Pass, ca. 1930s. 

Figure 2-17, Early road through Cedar Pass, 1908. 

Figure 2-18, Bridge on early road through Cedar Pass, 1912. 

Figure 2-19, Car near the summit of Cedar Pass, 1917. 

Figure 2-20, Monument highway construction, ca. 1931 

Figure 2-21, Monument highway construction, ca. 1931 

Figure 2-22, 1940 Route 16A extension joining Monument highway. 

Figure 2-23, Detail, 1940 Route 16A extension joining Monument highway. 

Figure 2-24, Details, Map of Land Acquisitions, 1938 Master Plan. 

Figure 2-25, Map showing U.S. 16, U.S. 14, and State Highway 40. 

Figure 2-26, Millard cabin configuration prior to Monument establishment at Cedar Pass. 

Figure 2-27, Millard cabin configuration, 1938. 

Figure 2-28, Millard gas station at Cedar Pass along State Highway 40. 

Figure 2-29, Cedar Pass Lodge addition, ca. 1940. 

Figure 2-30, Millard Cedar Pass Lodge addition, ca. 1940. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * V

Figure 2-31, Details, 1938 Master Plan showing Millard development with dance hall on the far 

right. 

Figure 2-32, Parking area on Cedar Pass, early 1940s. 

Figure 2-33, Photograph of gas pumps relocated to the CCC utility area. 

Figure 2-34, Detail, CCC utility area on 1950 Master Plan. 

Figure 2-35, CCC utility area, ca. 1938. 

Figure 2-36, Details, site plan and elevation of Custodian's Residence. 

Figure 2-37, 1949 photograph of garage refitted as temporary residence. 

Figure 2-38, Photograph of the temporary headquarters office, ca. 1949. 

Figure 2-39, Headquarters area, ca. 1949. 

Figure 2-40, 1949, Millard cabin looking south. 

Figure 2-41, 1949, Millard cabin newly stuccoed. 

Figure 2-42, Millard cabins looking west. 

Figure 2-43, 1949 plan showing Stock Pond. 

Figure 2-44, 1950 Master Plan showing property lines and fencing. 

Figure 2-45, Pinnacles site, Millard development, ca. 1940s (razed by 1950). 

Figure 2-46, Early headquarters, ca. 1950. 

Figure 2-47, Flagpole at headquarters, view to Cedar Pass, 1951. 

Figure 2-48, 1953 Planting Plan for NPS residential area. 

Figure 2-49, Early plan for a campground, ca. 1955. 

Figure 2-50, Information station, ca.1958. 

Figure 2-51, Local stock ranch with sheds and fenced corrals, ca. 1956 (Kelly Land). 

Figure 2-52, Mission 66 interpretive exhibits, ca. 1962. 

Figure 2-53, Mission 66 interpretive exhibits. 

Figure 2-54, Mission 66 interpretive exhibit on trail. 

Figure 2-55, Alternative design for the Visitor Center. 

Figure 2-56, North façade, Visitor Center, ca. 1959. 

Figure 2-57, South façade, Visitor Center, ca. 1960. 

Figure 2-58, Building #30. 

Figure 2-59, Building #28 

Figure 2-60, Apartment buildings. 

Figure 2-61, Access roads to residential sites, ca. 1958. 

Figure 2-62, Residential area from the air, ca. 1964. 

Figure 2-63, Construction of parking at seasonal quarters. 

Figure 2-64, 1958 planting plan. 

Figure 2-65, Master plan showing campground area, Mission 66. 

Figure 2-66, Mission 66 campground plan. 

Figure 2-67, Photograph of campground showing picnic tables shelters, ca. 1950s. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * VI

Figure 2-68, Program at campground amphitheater, 1958. 

Figure 2-69, Placement of amphitheater in relation to campground, ca. 1959. 

Figure 2-70, Device to simulate campfire illumination effect, ca. 1959. 

Figure 2-71, Campfire device with wood for realistic effect, ca. 1959. 

Figure 2-72, New amphitheater, ca. 1960. 

Figure 2-73, Visitor Center parking, ca. 1964. 

Figure 2-74, Campground planned expansion (1950s Master Plan). 

Figure 2-75, Utilities and road alignment at campground, ca. 1962. 

Figure 2-76, Road alignment and campground expansion plan, 1969. 

Figure 2-77, 1971 Plan. 

Figure 2-78, Residential road re-alignment, ca. 1974. 

Figure 2-79, Existing conditions, 1977. 

Figure 2-80, 1975 Existing development. 

Figure 2-81, Lodge expansion, ca. 1986. 

Map 2-1, 1966 Period Plan 

CHAPTER THREE

Figure 3-1, View northeast of Badland formation, the Wall, and Visitor Center sign. 

Figure 3-2, View north of eastside wash with Badland formation in the background. 

Figure 3-3, Badland Sparse Vegetation Complex and Badlands Loop Road corridor. 

Figure 3-4, View northwest of Western Wheatgrass Alliance Grassland. 

Figure 3-5, View northeast small Eastern Cottonwood Woodland and trail between Visitor 

Center and Lodge with Badland formation in the background. 

Figure 3-6, View north across property area with grasslands in the foreground and formations in 

the background. 

Figure 3-7, Intersection of Badlands Loop Road and SD Highway 377. 

Figure 3-8, View east of Visitor Center parking and formations in the background. 

Figure 3-9, View north of administrative and overflow parking behind the Visitor Center. 

Figure 3-10, Front of Visitor Center including parking lot, sidewalks, flagpole, bike rack, kiosk, 

and informational sign. 

Figure 3-11, Administration cluster and boardwalk sidewalks. 

Figure 3-12, Resource Protection and Collections Storage buildings area with adjacent parking 

lot. 

Figure 3-13, Spur connecting the service road to a section of the former service road. 

Figure 3-14, View east into the residential area drive and various small-scale features including a 

basketball goal, play equipment, and vertical board fencing. 

Figure 3-15, Single-family residence west of the road segment across from the southern 

intersection of the loop road. 

Figure 3-16, Representative view of the fencing and vegetation around residences. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * VII

Figure 3-17, View of the apartment cluster courtyard and parking. 

Figure 3-18, Vertical board fencing enclosing a clothes drying yard east of the apartments. 

Figure 3-19, View north of the fire cache and its surrounds. 

Figure 3-20, The service road passing through a gap in the formations. 

Figure 3-21, View south, capturing the maintenance building complex, parking area, and plant 

nursery. 

Figure 3-22, Mixing circle and debris piles south of the maintenance area. 

Figure 3-23, The water tank and building connected to the service road via short gravel drive. 

Figure 3-24, View east of the wastewater lagoons and access drive. 

Figure 3-25, View of the service area at the rear of the Lodge building. 

Figure 3-26, The Lodge drive through the cabin area and its associated planted central space. 

Figure 3-27, View of a typical cabin and associated plantings with formations in the distance, 

Figure 3-28, View west of the cabins to Lodge employee RVs and modular homes. 

Figure 3-29, View of the campground drive, wood bollards, and picnic shelters. 

Figure 3-30, View of the amphitheater at the base of a formation. 

Figure 3-31, View southwest along South Dakota Highway 377. 

Figure 3-32, View northeast along the Badlands Loop Road with formations in the background, 

Figure 3-33, View of the campground entrance station, road to the group camping area, and path 

accessing the amphitheater. 

Figure 3-34, Typical campground gravel road, campsite pull-off, and wood bollards. 

Figure 3-35, View south of the service road just south of the Visitor Center. 

Figure 3-36, View of the former wastewater lagoons. 

Figure 3-37, Siberian elms that have seeding into natural area. 

Figure 3-38, A defined edge between the developed area mown grass and the surrounding 

grasslands south of the Lodge. 

Figure 3-39, View southeast of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center. 

Figure 3-40, View northeast of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center. 

Figure 3-41, Detail of the masonry exterior walls of the Visitor Center. 

Figure 3-42, The ramp accessing the porch of the Visitor Center. 

Figure 3-43, A window on the rear of the Visitor Center. 

Figure 3-44, Cedar Pass Lodge. 

Figure 3-45, The original Cedar Pass Lodge 

Figure 3-46, Rear of Cedar Pass Lodge. 

Figure 3-47, Lodge Cottage. 

Figure 3-48, Cedar Pass Lodge Laundry Building. 

Figure 3-49, Window detail of the Cedar Pass Lodge Laundry Building. 

Figure 3-50, Lodge Maintenance Building. 

Figure 3-51, Cabin (Rooms 1, 1A, 2, 2A). 

Figure 3-52, Window detail of cabin. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * VIII

Figure 3-53, Cabin 3. 

Figure 3-54, Cabin 4. Similar to Cabins 5, 6, 21, 22, and 23. 

Figure 3-55, Cabin 8. Similar to Cabins 7 and 9. 

Figure 3-56, Cabin 11, Similar to Cabins 10 and 12. 

Figure 3-57, Rear of Cabin 12. Similar to Cabins 10 and 11. 

Figure 3-58, Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin (Rooms 14, 15, 16, 16A) 

Figure 3-59, Rear of Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin. 

Figure 3-60, Detail of original window, Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin. 

Figure 3-61, Rear of Cabin 18, with Cabin 19 to the right. Similar to Cabin 20. 

Figure 3-62, Cabin 33. 

Figure 3-63, Group campground comfort station 1. 

Figure 3-64, Group campground comfort station 2. 

Figure 3-65, Campground Comfort Station loop A. 

Figure 3-66, Campground comfort Station loop B. 

Figure 3-67, View south of Administration Building. 

Figure 3-68, View east of Administration Building. 

Figure 3-69, Conference/Maintenance Building. 

Figure 3-70, Collection Storage/Fitness Center Building. 

Figure 3-71, Natural Resource Protection Building. 

Figure 3-72, Natural resource Office Building. 

Figure 3-73, Residence #28. 

Figure 3-74, Residence #29. 

Figure 3-75, Residence #30. 

Figure 3-76, Residence #31. 

Figure 3-77, Residence #32. 

Figure 3-78, Residence #33. 

Figure 3-79, Residence #34. 

Figure 3-80, Residence #46. 

Figure 3-81, Seasonal Apartment #135. 

Figure 3-82, Seasonal Apartment #52, similar to Seasonal Apartment #45 and #51. 

Figure 3-83, Maintenance Shop. 

Figure 3-84, Maintenance Cold Storage. 

Figure 3-85, Maintenance Shop office addition. 

Figure 3-86, Maintenance Storage Building 

Figure 3-87, Sand Shed. 

Figure 3-88, Hazmat Building. 

Figure 3-89, Lodge Employee Mobile Home. 

Figure 3-90, Cedar Pass Lodge Ice house. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * IX

Figure 3-91, Interpretive Shelter. 

Figure 3-92, Campground Shed. 

Figure 3-93, Campground Entrance Booth. 

Figure 3-94, Amphitheater screen, projection booth, and retaining wall. 

Figure 3-95, Air Quality Monitoring Station. 

Figure 3-96, Sewage Treatment Lift Station. 

Figure 3-97, Cedar Pass Tack Room. 

Figure 3-98, Water supply tank and water pump building. 

Figure 3-99, Concrete box culvert. 

Figure 3-100, Timber footbridge. 

Figure 3-101, Concrete block retaining wall. 

Figure 3-102, Portable picnic sun/wind shelters. 

Figure 3-103, Amphitheater benches and guardrails. 

Figure 3-104, Wood bollards and trash receptacles at campground. 

Figure 3-105, Board fencing partially enclosing trash receptacles at the campground. 

Figure 3-106, Picnic shelter at the campground area. 

Figure 3-107, View northeast from the Lodge capturing the Visitor Center and Administration 

area. 

Figure 3-108, The view southeast from the Lodge is dominated by the fire cache. 

Figure 3-109, View of cabins from the top of a small formation between the Lodge and the 

campground. 

Map 3-1, Existing Conditions Natural Systems 

Map 3-2, Existing Conditions Circulation and Spatial Organization 

Map 3-3, Existing Conditions Topography, Small-scale Features, Vegetation, and Buildings 

Map 3-4, Existing Conditions Views and Vistas 

Map 3-5, Existing Conditions Detail Visitor Center and Residential 

Map 3-6, Existing Conditions Detail Lodge and Cabins Area 

Map 3-7, Existing Conditions Detail Campground Area 

Map 3-8, Photograph Stations Visitor Center 

Map 3-9, Photograph Stations Lodge 

Map 3-10, Photograph Stations Study Area 

CHAPTER FOUR

Figure 4-1, View south from the amphitheater toward former wastewater lagoons in 2002; 

amphitheater projection booth, screen, and benches are visible. 

Figure 4-2, View southwest from the amphitheater across group campground loop in 2002; a foot 

bridge, picnic shelters, scattered shade trees, and bollards are visible. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * X

Figure 4-3, View across group campground in 1959 from amphitheater; pullouts for campground 

sites and bollards are visible. No trees are visible. 

Figure 4-4, Amphitheater in 1962 with a small projection structure and folding screen. The 

simulated campfire is visible in the center. 

Figure 4-5, View of Visitor Center façade looking south in 2002; the flagpole, mature plants, and 

kiosk are visible. The addition of the theater on the porch diminished the cool and inviting 

“veranda” appearance of the entrance area. 

Figure 4-6, View of the Visitor Center façade looking southeast in 1959; the flagpole, immature 

plants, and Resource Protection Office are visible. 

Figure 4-7, View of campground in 2002 with RV waste disposal station, bollards lining road, 

dumpster, and comfort station. 

Figure 4-8, View of campground pull-offs, picnic shelters, trash receptacles, comfort station, and 

bollards along road in 1965. 

Figure 4-9, Single-family residence at foot of Wall formation with large trees and board fencing 

in 2002. 

Figure 4-10, Single-family residence in 1957 with immature tree, shade and wind screen, and 

brick structure. 

Figure 4-11, Entrance to Visitor Center in 2002 with informational sign and ramp. 

Figure 4-12, Visitor Center entrance in 1959 with open porch. 

Figure 4-13, Cedar Pass Lodge in 2002 with additions to the original lodge on both sides, board 

fencing to the east, and large trees behind the building. 

Figure 4-14, Cedar Pass Lodge in 1969 with a massing of plants to the west side of the building. 

Figure 4-15, Cedar Pass Lodge in 1960 with gas station and sign and a residence to the east; the 

Lodge sign is at the parking lot entrance. 

Figure 4-16, The original Cedar Pass building in 1940, built by Ben Milllard. 

Figure 4-17, View of amphitheater screen, wood benches on concrete supports, and retaining 

wall along the perimeter in 2002. 

Figure 4-18, View of the amphitheater screen and base, simulated campfire, and wood benches 

on concrete supports in 1962, 

Figure 4-19, View east of Visitor Center sign in 2002 with raised lettering and the Wall 

formation in the background. 

Figure 4-20, View west of the Mission 66 sign for Headquarters. 

Map 4-1, Contributing Resources 

Map 4-2, Contributing Views 

Map 4-3, Missing Resources 

Map 4-4, Zones of Integrity 

Map 4-5, Proposed Historic District Boundary 

CHAPTER SIX

Map 6-1, Character Areas 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS * JUNE 2005 * XI

Map 6-2, Alternative A: No-Action 

Map 6-2, Alternative B: Preservation 

Map 6-3, Alternative C: Rehabilitation 

CHAPTER SEVEN

Map 7-1, Alternative C: Rehabilitation 

Map 7-2, Alternative C, Rehabilitation, Detail Visitor Center and Residential Area 

Map 7-3, Alternative C, Rehabilitation, Detail Lodge and Cabins Area 

Map 7-4, Alternative C, Rehabilitation, Detail Campground Area 

Map 7-5, Alternative C, Rehabilitation, Detail Maintenance 

Map 7-6, Alternative C, Rehabilitation, Open Space and Road Corridors 
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Badlands National Park protects and preserves the unique landforms and scenery of the White 

River Badlands for the benefit, education, and inspiration of the public. Primarily associated with 

wilderness values, the park has continued to evolve since its establishment in 1939 to 

accommodate the needs of a fascinated public. The administration and operations developments 

and visitor amenities associated with Badlands National Park are generally clustered in Cedar 

Pass, a relatively level area along the park’s southern boundary. This Cultural Landscape Report 

(CLR) and Environmental Analysis (EA) has been prepared to document and record the history 

and current conditions of the developed area at Cedar Pass, and guide its future treatment and 

use. John Milner Associates, Inc. (JMA) of Charlottesville, Virginia, in association with Bahr 

Vermeer Haecker Architects, Ltd. (BVH) of Lincoln, Nebraska, and Total Quality NEPA of 

Niwot, Colorado, have collaborated on the study of the Cedar Pass Developed Area at Badlands 

National Park for the National Park Service (NPS), which administers the site. In 1995, the NPS 

began planning for the rehabilitation of one of the primary features associated with the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area: the Ben Reifel Visitor Center. Other improvements planned for the site 

have included three new buildings: a fire cache (already constructed); a museum storage building 

southeast of the fire cache (under construction); and a resource management equipment storage 

building (not yet constructed). This project is intended to support NPS plans for change within 

Cedar Pass, particularly documentation of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, which has been 

determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the state level for its 

association with the NPS Mission 66 program. The Visitor Center is the only remaining such 

structure in South Dakota retaining substantial integrity. The CLR is intended to assess the 

significance and integrity of the landscape features associated with the visitor center and the 

surrounding developed area prior to establishment of these new facilities. 

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

Figures 1-1 and 1-2 (located at the end of this chapter) illustrate the location and vicinity of the 

park, and the CLR study area boundary. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 2 

Badlands National Park is located in the southwestern corner of South Dakota. Covering more 

than 242,756 acres, the park extends across portions of Shannon, Pennington, and Jackson 

Counties. The Cedar Pass Developed Area located in Jackson County comprises approximately 

290 acres along the southern park boundary in the eastern portion of the park. It is located 70 

miles east of Rapid City and just northeast of the town of Interior, South Dakota. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area encompasses the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, the park 

administration complex, Cedar Pass Lodge, a campground/amphitheater area, park employee 

housing including apartments and single-family residences, maintenance facilities, and the 

beginning of the Badlands Loop Road. The developed area project boundary begins just east of 

the Visitor Center on County Road 240. It then follows County Road 240 southwest for 

approximately 680 yards to the beginning of the Loop Road, and then continues in the same 

direction for another 615 yards to a stream corridor just west of the campground. The study area 

boundary follows the stream corridor due south for 365 yards until it intersects with the Badlands 

National Park boundary. At this point the study boundary follows the park boundary to the east 

for 660 yards, and, continuing along it, turns 90 degrees south and extends for another 885 yards 

in the same direction. The park and study area boundaries then make another 90 degree turn, this 

time to the east, and travel 445 yards, where they turn 90 degrees to the west. After an additional 

250 yards, the study area boundary splits from the park boundary, turning north 90 degrees and 

running 1.4 miles along the top of a ridge until it reaches its point of origin at County Road 240. 

Map 3-1, located in Chapter 3, illustrates the boundary of the study area. 

HISTORICAL SUMMARY 

Although information regarding early American Indian use and occupation of the Cedar Pass 

area is scant, there is evidence of usage in the White River badlands beginning as early as the 

PaleoIndian Clovis Complex, ca. 11,000 years BP or about 9,000 BC. Some evidence found in 

archeological examination of the Johnny site in the Cedar Pass area reflects brief episodes of 

occupation or use by a variety of American Indian groups over the course of the last 1,200 years. 

European contact began with French exploration during the 18th century. During this period, 

accounts of early European travelers, in particular fur traders and scientists, provide an 

impression of the challenges this land posed for occupation and discovery. Geologic and 

paleontological discoveries led to increasing scientific interest and investigation, and expeditions 

paralleled and fed into national westward expansion and settlement. In the 1880s the railroad 

reached the vicinity of the Badlands and Homesteading Acts provided the opportunities sought 

by immigrants from the eastern parts of the United States and Europe looking for land to 

cultivate and on which to settle. 

After a long hard struggle on the part of individual and local government interest in developing 

the area as a public tourist destination, the Badlands was authorized as a national monument in 

1929. Land that had been found to be sub-marginal and generally unsuited to agricultural 

development was obtained by the federal government and preserved. Recreational development 

was made possible through programs of the New Deal with the Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) improving privately constructed infrastructure and roads. Later, during a financial boost 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 3 

from the Mission 66 Program, a Visitor Center and other visitor-related facilities, and 

administrative, utility, and personnel features were built and improved. Today, although some of 

the earlier buildings do not survive, the Cedar Pass Developed Area continues to exhibit physical 

expressions of a 1930s planning philosophy, and tangible evidence of Mission 66 planning and 

design principles. 

SCOPE OF WORK

The NPS utilizes CLRs as the primary guide for treatment of a cultural landscape. Based on the 

historical context provided in a historic resource study (HRS), a CLR documents and evaluates 

the character-defining features, materials, and qualities that make a landscape eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places. It analyzes the landscape’s development and evolution, 

geographic context, modification, materials, construction techniques, and use over time. A CLR 

provides a synthetic and cohesive view of a site’s historic and existing features through 

comprehensive documentation, analysis, and evaluation. The team uses landscape evaluation as 

the basis for proposing thoughtful recommendations regarding historic preservation treatment. 

While CLRs vary in their emphasis and level of investigation, they are typically interdisciplinary 

in nature, drawing on information developed by historians, landscape architects, ecologists, 

botanists, architects, archeologists, as well as other related professions and disciplines. The level 

of investigation is determined by the historical significance and integrity of the site, identified 

management goals, past documentation efforts, and potential landscape alterations or changes 

under consideration by the owner. 

Typically, a CLR is composed of three parts: 

1. Part I includes a site physical history, existing conditions documentation, comparative 

analysis of historic and existing conditions, and National Register-level significance 

evaluation and integrity assessment. 

2. Part II presents a treatment plan based on the information developed in Part I and on any 

identified management goals for the site. 

3. Part III records the treatment, as implemented at a future date. 

Parts I and II have been completed in this document, which also includes an Environmental 

Assessment as Appendix B. 

NPS personnel from the Midwest Regional Office and Badlands National Park have identified 

several objectives for the project, including to: 

⎯ document the historical development of the site’s cultural landscape; 

⎯ determine the integrity and significance of the site’s historic landscape; 

⎯ conduct an environmental analysis; and 

⎯ complete a value analysis session to evaluate proposed alternatives. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 4 

The CLR scope of work included the following specific task elements: 

1) Project Organization and Assistance with Public Meetings — The team participated in a 

pre-design conference and in public scoping meetings to solicit public input for the 

CLR/EA project. 

2) Field Investigations and Research — Field investigations were conducted to document 

existing conditions in Cedar Pass. Potential historic landscape features and archeological 

resources were identified and their general condition was evaluated. 

3) Report Narrative with Supporting Illustrative Graphics and Develop Recommendations, 

Conceptual Design Drawings, and Implementation Guidelines — JMA prepared a report 

organized into chapters as follows: 

⎯ Chapter 1 Introduction: This chapter briefly documents the scope of the report, study 

area, methodologies used, and provides an abstract of the findings. It identifies A/E 

staff associated with project services and recommends areas and/or topics requiring 

further historical research, study, archeological, and/or physical investigation. 

⎯ Chapter 2 Site History: The narrative component of this chapter describes the 

physical evolution of the site. It is illustrated with historic photographs, maps, 

drawings, and a period plan showing development at the end of the period of 

significance. Documentation utilized to develop the chapter included primary and 

secondary sources, interviews with park staff, photographs, and maps. The narrative 

includes: 

a) historic contexts for each major period of development using secondary sources 

to enable the reader’s understanding of the historical and cultural significance of 

the site. 

b) a chronological description of the physical development and evolution of the 

landscape, including its environmental setting, layout, circulation, spatial 

organization, land use practices and resulting patterns, cultural or ethnic 

expressions, views and vistas, vegetation related to land use, and other 

characteristics and features associated with each major period. 

⎯ Chapter 3 Existing Conditions: The narrative of this chapter describes and evaluates 

the general condition of existing landscape features, such as the site’s environmental 

setting, spatial organization, land uses, circulation, buildings and structures, smallscale features, above-ground utilities, and potential archeological or paleontological 

resources. The chapter is illustrated with maps and existing conditions photographs. 

The existing conditions maps graphically document the locations of existing 

landscape features. 

⎯ Chapter 4 Analysis and Evaluation: This chapter describes the National Register-level 

significance of the Cedar Pass landscape and evaluates the integrity of surviving 

landscape features. Maps and photographs illustrate the narrative analysis. A map 

showing “zones of relative integrity” is included. A period of significance is defined 

which augments the Visitor Center Determination of Eligibility, as defined in 2002. 

The narrative identifies contributing, non-contributing, and missing features. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 5 

⎯ Chapter 5 Management Issues: This chapter describes the management issues to be 

addressed by the treatment recommendations. Management issues were identified 

through consultation with the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative 

(COTR) and park personnel. 

⎯ Chapter 6 Alternatives: This chapter defines three treatment alternatives for the 

developed area based on the EA investigation, including a “no action” and two action 

alternatives. 

⎯ Chapter 7 Treatment Recommendations for the Preferred Alternative: This chapter 

proposes specific treatment recommendations needed to achieve the preferred 

alternative. Treatment recommendations address natural and historic resource 

protection, life safety concerns, universal accessibility issues, visitor and staff parking 

needs, park-specific management issues identified in Chapter 5, and the results of the 

analysis presented in Chapter 4. Recommendations and guidelines are illustrated by 

drawings and photographs of suggested approaches. A conceptual design/treatment 

plan illustrates the preferred alternative. 

⎯ Chapter 8 Implementation Recommendations: This section of the report contains 

general recommendations for phasing the implementation of the preferred alternative. 

Project statements, using the Project Management Information System format, are 

included so the park can pursue funding for discrete portions of the preferred 

alternative. The statements include project descriptions, justifications, and planning 

level cost estimates. 

⎯ Appendix A Buildings/Structures Number Index: This table correlates the CLR 

feature identity number system with the park number system and indicates List of 

Classified Structures (LCS) numbers where available. 

⎯ Appendix B Environmental Assessment: The EA is appended in its entirety. 

⎯ Appendix C Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental Assessment for Cedar 

Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape Report: The Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) is appended in its entirety. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 6 

PROJECT METHODOLOGY

This CLR has been prepared in accordance with the guidance offered in the most recent versions 

of various federal standards documents, many of which are cited for their relevance in the project 

scope of work. Primary among these are: 

⎯ NPS Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process and Techniques (1998);

⎯ National Register Bulletin No. 30: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural 

Historic Landscapes; 

⎯ NPS Management Policies (2001);

⎯ The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines and Standards for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation; 

⎯ NPS Director’s Order No. 28: Cultural Resources Management Guidelines; 

⎯ Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) with

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996); 

⎯ Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), whichever provides greater levels of accessibility; 

⎯ NPS 77: Natural Resources Management Guidelines; 

⎯ NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design; 

⎯ National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; 

⎯ National Register Bulletin 18: Guidelines for Documenting and Evaluating Designed 

Historic Landscapes;

⎯ The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 

⎯ The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations; 

⎯ Director’s Order No. 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Decision Making; 

⎯ NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990); and 

⎯ AIRFA (American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978). 

Additionally, the project team referred on a regular basis to the following park-specific studies 

for guidance and information: 

⎯ Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) (February 

2003); 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 7 

⎯ National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form for Historic 

Roads Resources, Badlands National Park (1994); 

⎯ “National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Determination of Eligibility for 

Grand Canyon Village Mission 66 Planning Effort” (2003); 

⎯ National Register Bulletin, Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and 

Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places (2002); 

⎯ “Determination of Eligibility, Cedar Pass Visitor Center, Badlands National Park” (2002); 

⎯ Mission 66 Prospectus, Badlands National Monument (1956); 

⎯ Environmental Assessment (EA) for Site Development for new Fire Cache, Resource 

Management Storage Building, and Museum Storage Building at Cedar Pass Developed 

Area (August 20, 2002); 

⎯ USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, Technical Memorandum No. 8260-00-02 

(November 19, 1999); and 

⎯ GIS data for Badlands National Park including hydrography, surficial geology, and 

hypsography. 

HISTORICAL RESEARCH AND SITE HISTORY NARRATIVE

Historical research to support the CLR was primarily limited to the archives at Badlands 

National Park and the Denver Service Center Technical Information Center (DSC TIC). Project 

historian Jacky Taylor collected information during a May 2003 visit to the park and documents 

were collected from DSC TIC online. Directed research was conducted in two stages. The first 

stage involved review of collected data and materials provided to JMA by the NPS, with a 

subsequent visit to the park’s repository. Within the repository, materials reviewed included 

secondary sources such as books, reports, and other documents, as well as primary source maps, 

drawings, photographs, and additional documents. Pertinent materials were photocopied or 

temporarily borrowed from the park. The second stage involved a more in-depth analysis of the 

collected resources and materials. Each item was reviewed for information relevant to the 

physical development of the study area landscape. Gaps in documentation were sought through 

remote means from other NPS archives.

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

JMA project personnel Rob McGinnis, Matt Whitaker, and Aaron Cross conducted site visits to 

document existing conditions in November 2002 and June 2003. During the November 2002 

visit, historical landscape architects Rob McGinnis and Matt Whitaker conducted field 

investigations, met with park personnel, and gathered available documents and information from 

the park. During the week of June 16, 2003, Whitaker, and JMA cultural resource specialist 

Aaron Cross, returned to the site to collect additional photographs showing the site during the 

growing season. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 8 

JMA personnel photographed all primary landscape features as part of the fieldwork effort. 

Photographic station points and the direction of the views were noted on maps in the field and 

later added to the base map. 

BASE MAP

JMA created existing conditions base maps in AutoCAD 2002 using a 1987 survey overlaid with 

an aerial and GIS data. Additions, deletions, and other corrections to the base information were 

noted during site visits and corrected in the map files. 

EXISTING CONDITIONS DOCUMENTATION

Existing conditions documentation is provided through cross-referenced narratives, maps, and 

photographs. Landscape features are discussed within the framework established in A Guide to 

Cultural Landscape Reports; Content, Process, and Techniques that identifies various landscape 

characteristics through which existing features can be organized and presented. Existing base 

maps, field investigation notes and photographs, park planning documents, pertinent park files, 

and natural resource studies formed the foundation for the existing conditions documentation. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area landscape features were described according to the following 

landscape characteristic categories: natural systems, spatial organization, land use, circulation, 

topography, vegetation, buildings and structures, small-scale features, views and vistas, and 

archeological resources. Existing conditions documentation was prepared concurrently by JMA 

and BVH project personnel, with BVH completing existing conditions documentation for the 

site’s buildings and structures. The condition of historic landscape features was assessed using 

the definitions associated with the Cultural Landscapes Inventory program; the definitions 

associated with the List of Classified Structures program were used for buildings and structures. 

Photographs of representative landscape features are included in the existing conditions 

documentation chapter and are referenced in the text. JMA provided a documentation notebook 

containing all of the existing conditions photographs, slides, negatives, and digital image copies 

on CD to the NPS to supplement the representative photographic coverage included in the report 

at the completion of the project. 

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION

A preliminary significance evaluation was prepared using a variety of sources for guidance. 

Current draft National Register Nominations for two road corridors that pass through the 

developed area, and a determination of eligibility for the Ben Reifel Visitor Center were used as 

the basis from which to develop the CLR significance evaluation of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area landscape. Of particular importance was the consideration of Mission 66 design and 

planning principles, their applicability to Cedar Pass, and their physical expression in the 

landscape. Because a comprehensive context statement is available only for Mission 66 Visitor 

Centers, the project team reviewed various available examples of National Register nominations 

for Mission 66-era landscape design and planning efforts. In addition, JMA reviewed sources 

that provide an understanding of modern landscape design and National Park landscape design in 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 9 

the Mission 66 era. These documents included Linda Flint McClelland’s Building the National 

Parks (1998); “Grand Canyon Village, Mission 66 Planning Effort” draft Multiple Property 

Documentation Form Determination of Eligibility (2003); information presented in the 

proceedings of the “Mission 66 Research Work Meeting,” held in Washington, DC, May 28-29, 

2003; NPS “Northeast Region Guidelines for Evaluating Mission 66 Park Development 

Excepting Visitor Centers” (2002); National Register Bulletin, “Historic Residential Suburbs;” 

Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places 

(2002); Richard Longstreth’s “I Don’t Understand It, It Doesn’t Look Old to Me,” printed in 

Common Ground, Summer 2003; The Struggle for Modernism: Architecture, Landscape 

Architecture, and City Planning at Harvard, 2002, and Marc Treib’s Modern Landscape 

Architecture: A Critical Review, 1993. 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The CLR team prepared a comparative analysis of historic and existing conditions to better 

understand the relationship between the historic and contemporary Cedar Pass landscape and 

determine how its character had changed since the period of significance. For the most part, the 

analysis focused on extant features and their dates of construction. The three primary goals of the 

comparative analysis were to: 

1) understand which features survive from the period of significance; 

2) establish the basis for an integrity assessment; and 

3) provide an understanding of the similarities and differences between historic and existing 

conditions that would contribute to the development of a well-grounded treatment plan 

for the cultural landscape. 

Through the development of the comparative analysis of historic and existing landscape 

conditions, three lists were prepared that identified contributing, non-contributing, and missing 

features. Contributing features survive from one of the periods of significance; non-contributing 

features originate after the last period of significance; and missing features are known or thought 

to have existed during one of the periods of significance but may only be evident in the 

archeological record. Conjectural information was indicated within the lists. 

The CLR also provides an overall integrity summary and then assesses integrity in accordance 

with the seven aspects—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association—described in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register 

Criteria for Evaluation. 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

The chapter entitled Management Issues was prepared from notes taken during the November 

2002 CLR start-up meeting held at park headquarters. It draws from the discussions between 

members of the CLR/EA team, regional NPS personnel, and Badlands NP personnel. It also 

includes additional issues identified through field investigations and from review of current park 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 10 

planning documents. The chapter was previewed NPS staff for review and comment prior to 

submission of the 75% draft CLR, and updated based on their input. 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Preliminary preservation alternatives were identified and developed through a series of 

discussions involving project team personnel prior to undertaking the Value Analysis (VA) and 

EA. NPS Midwest Region staff and CLR team members prepared conceptual-level descriptions 

of the preliminary alternatives, which were then refined by the CLR team and reviewed and 

approved by the NPS. Three alternatives were then explored in more detail narratively and 

graphically, including a “no-action” and two action alternatives for development. The 

alternatives were presented during a VA workshop and refined as part of the VA process. The 

revised alternatives were then used by the EA team to undertake the EA process. The alternatives 

were further refined during the early phase of the EA process to ensure compliance with NPS 

guidelines and policies. 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES THROUGH VALUE ANALYSIS (VA) 

The VA was an organized, creative process that focused on the issues to be addressed in the CLR 

for the purpose of achieving essential functions and attendant benefits at the lowest total costs for 

materials, equipment, staffing, energy usage, facilities, professional services, maintenance, etc. 

over the life of the project. A Certified Value Specialist (CVS) guided the VA study. A multidisciplinary team comprised of members of the CLR and EA team and NPS personnel analyzed 

the functions of the preservation and other programmatic elements under study, identified high 

cost areas, ascertained the benefits sought, and proposed alternatives to those planned or 

currently being used. The VA was organized into three distinct parts: pre-study preparation, 

study workshop, and post-study implementation. 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (EA) 

The EA was undertaken in accordance with NPS Director’s Order 12, NPS Management 

Policies, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA process included the review and 

assessment of a “no-action” and two action alternatives based on the alternatives developed as 

part of the CLR process described above. The EA team conducted two public scoping meetings, 

one in Kadoka, and one in Wall, South Dakota. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, the South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, and the South Dakota State Historic Preservation 

officer were consulted. In addition, the EA was transmitted to several tribal governments and 

organizations, as well as local governments. 

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Management issues, the findings of the VA, and the preferred alternative preservation concept 

resulting from the EA process served as the basis and framework for developing the CLR 

treatment approach, guidelines, and recommendations. The treatment recommendations were 

prepared based upon guidance outlined in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, as 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 11 

well as other relevant NPS guides and management policies associated with specific project 

recommendations. 

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Implementation recommendations include specific preservation documentation, planning, and 

treatment projects with planning-level cost estimates and phasing recommendations. These 

implementation project descriptions were developed using selected treatment recommendations 

determined to be feasible projects leading to preservation-related actions. Phasing 

recommendations were based on the CLR team’s understanding of park priorities as well as 

facility and resource condition and use. Cost data was derived from NPS Class C cost 

information and cost data associated with the consultant’s project experience. 

NPS STAFF ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT

MIDWEST REGION OFFICE

Marla McEnaney, COTR and Historical Landscape Architect 

Mark Wolterman, Historical Architect 

Nick Chevance, Environmental Compliance 

BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK

William Supernaugh, Superintendent 

Marianne Mills, Chief of Resource Education 

Brian Kenner, Chief of Resource Management 

Ron Dorcey, Chief of Maintenance 

Scott Lopez, Chief Ranger 

Jean Sigafoos, Fee Program Manager 

Ray Sawdy, B&W Supervisor 

Marcia Huether, Administrative Officer 

Jenny Brown, General Manager, Cedar Pass Lodge 

MINUTEMAN MISSILE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

Sue Lamie, Historian 

NICODEMUS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

Sherda Williams, Superintendent (Former Project COTR) 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 12 

A/E STAFF ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT SERVICES

BAHR VERMEER HAECKER ARCHITECTS • CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND CULTURAL 

LANDSCAPE REPORT

Dan Worth, AIA, Principal-in-Charge 

Gregg Munn, Project Architect 

JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES, INC. • CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

Rob McGinnis, ASLA, Project Manager 

Matt Whitaker, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Jacky Taylor, Landscape Historian 

Alisa Hefner, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Adriane Fowler, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Julie Basic, ASLA, Landscape Architectural Designer 

Aaron Cross, Cultural Landscape Specialist 

Amy Wells, Graphic Designer 

Liz Sargent, ASLA, Review and Quality Control 

Jessica Koepfler, Editing and Proofreading 

TOTAL QUALITY NEPA • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Heidi West, Ph.D., Environmental Specialist 

Kathie Joyner, Environmental Specialist 

KIRK AND ASSOCIATES, LLC • VALUE ANALYSIS

Stephen Kirk, Ph.D., FAIA, CVS, Architect and Value Analysis Facilitator 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY

Three landscape features associated with Badlands National Park have been determined eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. These include two linear resources, the 

Cedar Pass Road and Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance Road, both of which have been 

evaluated in draft National Register nominations. Both roads appear to possess significance 

under Criterion A in the areas of Conservation, Entertainment/Recreation, Landscape 

Architecture, Politics/Government, and Transportation. The Cedar Pass Road, also referred to as 

Route 2 to Cedar Pass Campground, is significant during the period 1935–40, while Cedar Pass 

to Northwest Entrance Road is significant during the period 1934–35. These roads are significant 

for their association with efforts to establish a national monument and later a national park at 

Badlands over three decades. These roads were 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 13 

a critical feature of the park because it was believed that the badlands 

environment was too formidable, too hot, and visitors would be too exposed 

unless they were able to experience it via a ‘motor trail’ through the park. 

However, an important feature of [these roads] was the fact that [they] met the 

design standards of landscape architecture embraced by the National Park 

Service. As a result, the [roads were] designed to be ‘so located that tourists will 

be able to see the Scenery,’ to minimize the man-made intrusions, and to 

emphasize the ‘absolutely uninhabited’ feeling of the region. The [roads 

themselves were] recognized as a man-made intrusion and the original design 

considered routes which ‘would cause less damage to the formations’ while still 

providing access to areas of major importance.1

The Cedar Pass Visitor Center was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places in 2002. The Determination of Eligibility (DOE) notes that the Visitor Center 

displays 11 of the 12 features characteristic of its building type and style 

(Allaback 2002, 274-275), including low, horizontal massing and a spare 

decorative scheme. Several elements of the design, such as the exterior restrooms 

and prominent covered porch, can be particularly attributed to the style of Cecil 

Doty, the building’s designer and chief designer at the Western Office of Design 

and Construction (WODC). Like other visitor centers of the time, the interior 

spatial arrangement separates public visitor areas from more private park 

administration zones...The period of significance is 1958–66, beginning with the 

construction of the building and ending with the conclusion of the Mission 66 

historic context. 

Although Cedar Pass Visitor Center is not yet fifty years old, it is Carey & Co.’s 

opinion that it has adequate historic significance to justify a NRHP listing under 

special Criteria Consideration G. It is significant under National Register Criteria 

A for its association with the National Park Service’s Mission 66 program. It is 

exceptionally significant at the state level because it is the only remaining Mission 

66 visitor center in South Dakota that retains substantial integrity.2

The South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer and the CLR project team concur with the 

draft National Register nominations and determinations of eligibility. The CLR evaluation builds 

upon these documents to include landscape resources. Based on work conducted on behalf of the 

CLR, the Cedar Pass Developed Area appears to possess state-level significance as a historic 

district under National Register Criteria A and C for 1) early tourism associated with western 

landscapes and parks; 2) CCC development and New Deal Master Planning; and 3) the National 

Park Service’s Mission 66 initiative within the areas of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, 

Social History/Tourism, Recreation and Community Planning and Development during the 

period 1928 through 1966. Although the Cedar Pass development is less that 50 years old, it 

 

1

 Ken Karsmizki, “Draft National Register Nomination Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance Road” (Bozeman, MT: 

Western History Research, 9/1993), 8, 2. 

2

 Carey & Co., Inc. Architecture, “Determination of Eligibility; Cedar Pass Visitor Center, Badlands National Park; 

Interior, South Dakota” (San Francisco: prepared for the National Park Service, March 2002), 2. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 14 

appears to meet Criteria Consideration G eligibility requirements as a relatively complete 

example of a Mission 66 developed area with a high degree of integrity, which remains rare and 

unusual within the state of South Dakota. 

The extended period of significance reflects a continuum of use by various individuals and 

agencies to provide services and amenities for visitors at Cedar Pass. Early private tourism 

development efforts coexisted with federal attempts to establish park administration and 

maintenance functions. Each campaign attempts to more completely and comprehensively 

address visitor needs, and park administration infrastructure built upon previous efforts. The 

distillation of an approach to site development at Cedar Pass that would render the natural 

wonders of the park accessible yet not intrude upon their uniqueness culminated in the efforts 

conducted as part of the Mission 66 initiative. This then became a blueprint for Cedar Pass site 

development and resulted in a built environment that survives today with a high degree of 

integrity. Although seeds of the ideas from early tourism and New Deal-era development 

germinated in a more comprehensive plan during Mission 66, little of integrity remains from the 

earlier period of significance. Today, the developed area most closely approximates its character 

during the Mission 66 period. 

Analysis and documentation prepared on behalf of this project also suggests that the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area landscape possesses integrity for the period of significance ending in 1966. 

With the exception of the Cedar Pass Lodge and relocated cabins, the site retains little integrity 

to the Early Tourism Period however. By 1966, although the landscape had been altered from its 

early 20th century appearance associated with tourism developments, the landscape that reflects a 

1950s-era Mission 66 concept of zoned uses, and compactly developed site features within zones 

oriented to a strong regulating system, such as a linear spine or road corridor, had been 

implemented by the NPS. The road system, housing developments, Visitor Center, Cedar Pass 

Lodge, campground, and maintenance area that currently characterize the Cedar Pass landscape 

were also already in place by 1966.

The additions of contemporary buildings, realignment of the administration area service road, 

and removal of pre-1966 buildings have diminished slightly the integrity of the Cedar Pass 

landscape. 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBILITY

With a broad understanding of the historical significance of the development of the park and the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area, the CLR recommends the establishment of a National Register 

historic district encompassing Cedar Pass Developed Area. The district area and its justification 

are described below. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 15 

Cedar Pass Developed Area Historic District 

See Map 4-5 at the end of Chapter 4. 

Boundary

The CLR team recommends that a National Register historic district be considered for the 

current NPS-administered lands and facilities known as the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The 

boundary for this proposed historic district should follow the current park boundary to the south, 

extending from the wash west of the campground and east to the existing service road at the 

northwest corner of the existing wastewater lagoons. The boundary on the north should follow 

the north side of the Badlands Loop Road and SD 377. The historic district boundary on the west 

should follow the western edge of the wash. The boundary on the east should follow along the 

base of the steeper grades of the formations beginning at the Loop Road and running just east of 

the Visitor Center and Residential Area complexes and the service road, and ending just north of 

the wastewater lagoons. The wastewater lagoon facility should not be included in the proposed 

historic district. 

Justification

Based on the CLR research, documentation, analysis, and evaluation, the site appears to 

possess significance at the state level as a historic district under National Register Criteria 

A and C for 1) early tourism associated with western landscapes and parks; 2) CCC 

development and New Deal Master Planning; and 3) the National Park Service’s (NPS) 

Mission 66 initiative within the areas of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Social 

History/Tourism, Community Planning and Development, and Recreation during the 

period ca. 1928 through 1966. Despite the fact that Mission 66-era Cedar Pass 

development is less than fifty years of age, Cedar Pass appears to meet the eligibility 

requirements of Criterion Consideration G as a relatively complete example of a Mission 

66 developed area with a high degree of integrity, which remains rare and unusual within 

the state of South Dakota. 

The extended period of significance reflects a continuum of use of Cedar Pass by various 

individuals and agencies to site services and amenities for visitors endeavoring to experience the 

dramatic Badlands landscape. Early private efforts to develop a tourist site eventually coexisted 

with federal initiatives to establish park administrative and maintenance functions. Each 

campaign to address visitor and park administrative needs built upon previous efforts. The 

approach to the Cedar Pass site development that rendered the park’s natural wonders 

accessible—yet did not intrude upon their physical integrity—culminated in the efforts of the 

Mission 66 initiative. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 16 

Cedar Pass Road and Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance Road 

Corridors 

This CLR also recommends that consideration be given to completing the process for evaluating 

the Cedar Pass Road historic road corridor and the Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance historic 

road corridor. These two potential historic resources are closely associated with the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. Both properties terminate at the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Archeological and Ethnographic Resources

The CLR scope did not include identifying and evaluating archeological resources and 

ethnographic resources. Potential archeological districts or sites were not considered by this 

CLR. Future work in this area may be supported by the Historic Resource Study currently under 

way for the park. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SECTION 106 REVIEW

(The EA is appended to this CLR.) 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape, located within Badlands National Park, is 

considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The EA presents and analyzes 

three alternatives proposed in the Cedar Pass Developed Area CLR for the management of the 

landscape over the next fifteen to twenty years. 

The majority of development within Badlands National Park associated with park administration, 

park operations, and visitor amenities is clustered in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. In 1995, 

Badlands National Park began planning for the rehabilitation of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center 

and the construction of several new buildings, all located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

As a result of these planned improvements, the Visitors Center’s determination of eligibility for 

the National Register of Historic Places, and the recognized need for future improvements within 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the NPS believed additional study was needed to guide future 

treatment and use of the area. This CLR was prepared to aid in decision making for the future 

management and use of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

The CLR proposes three options for future management and use of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would result in the continuation of the current 

management strategies without management guidance specific to the cultural landscape. 

Alternatives B and C both include historic landscape management options for the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area designed to guide how the future needs of the park would be met. Cultural 

landscape concerns include cultural resources, vegetation, wildlife, special status species, 

paleontology, visitor experience, and park operations. 

Under Alternative A, the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be managed as it currently is (in 

2004), without management guidance related to the cultural landscape. The cultural landscape 

would be managed as a historic landscape, in compliance with the National Historic Preservation 

Act and Director’s Order No. 28. To meet park needs, continuing development and alterations 

within the landscape would be expected. Though the district would be managed for historic 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 17 

resource values, a minimum application of available preservation knowledge and technology 

would be utilized. New development and facility siting would not utilize the original planning 

approach of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. It is not expected that historic preservation 

specialists would be used to complete work within the area. No policies, strategies, or 

implementation initiatives would be available to lend a comprehensive and sustained program of 

the historic landscape and building preservation as outlined in the CLR. Potential impacts under 

this alternative include minor to major adverse impacts to the cultural landscape; minor adverse 

and beneficial effects to archeological resources; minor to moderate adverse impacts and 

moderate benefits to native vegetation; minor to moderate adverse impacts to wildlife; minor to 

moderate adverse impacts to paleontological resources; minor to moderate adverse impacts and 

benefits to visitor experience; and minor adverse impacts and minor to moderate benefits to park 

operations. 

Under Alternative B, referred to as the preservation alternative, management guidance would be 

focused on preserving the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. Historic resources 

would be protected and maintained with only minor changes to meet identified facility and 

operational needs within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Intrusive landscape features may be 

mitigated or removed after their useful lives. Open space and natural systems would be 

protected. New development would occur off site within the Pinnacles area, about twenty miles 

northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Potential impacts under this alternative include 

minor benefits to the cultural landscape; minor adverse impacts and minor benefits to 

archeological resources; minor to moderate adverse impacts and benefits to native vegetation; 

minor benefits and minor to possibly major adverse impacts to wildlife; minor to moderate 

adverse impacts and minor benefits to paleontological resources; minor to moderate adverse and 

beneficial impacts to visitor experience; and minor adverse impacts and benefits to park 

operations. Under this alternative, there is also the potential to adversely affect the black-tailed 

prairie dog (federal candidate species) and create minor to major adverse impacts to the swift fox 

(state threatened species) population. 

Alternative C, referred to as the rehabilitation alternative, proposes adaptation of the historic 

landscape for limited new uses, while protecting, to the greatest extent possible, the significant 

historic fabric and landscape relationships. New development would be limited to critical park 

needs, would occur within defined and distinct areas (development sites), and would be 

compatible or non-intrusive with the historic landscape. Open space and natural systems would 

generally be protected though minor development that does not jeopardize the historic character 

of the landscape is possible. Some existing non-contributing structures that are compatible with 

the cultural landscape would be retained/used. Intrusive landscape features would be mitigated or 

removed. Potential impacts under this alternative include minor adverse impacts and minor to 

moderate benefits to the cultural landscape; minor adverse and beneficial effects to archeological 

resources; minor to moderate adverse impacts and benefits to native vegetation; minor to 

possibly major adverse impacts and minor benefits to wildlife; minor to moderate adverse 

impacts and minor benefits to paleontological resources; minor to moderate benefits to visitor 

experience; and minor to moderate benefits and adverse impacts to park operations. Alternative 

C is presented as both the environmentally preferred and the preferred alternative. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 18 

The selected alternative identified in the EA and proposed for selection in the FONSI does not 

constitute an action that normally requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement 

(EIS), and the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the human environment. 

Adverse environmental impacts that could occur are negligible to moderate. There are no 

unmitigated adverse impacts on public health, public safety, threatened or endangered species, 

sites or districts listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or other 

unique characteristics of the region. In addition, no highly uncertain or controversial impacts, 

unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects, or elements of precedence have been 

identified. Implementation of the selected alternative will not violate any federal, state, or local 

environmental protection law and will not result in impairment of park resources or values. 

Based on the foregoing, the NPS has determined the selected alternative will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not 

required for this project and this will not be prepared. 

The South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reviewed the EA as part of the 

Section 106 review process. The SHPO determined, based on the information provided in the 

EA, that the alternatives described in the EA would not have an adverse impact on historic 

properties. 

TREATMENT

Based upon the park’s need to improve the functionality of the Cedar Pass Developed Area for 

visitor and administration needs, the recommended primary treatment approach to guide the 

treatment of the site is rehabilitation. This approach is consistent with the preferred 

alternative—Alternative C: Rehabilitation, established in the Environmental Assessment (EA)—

and will allow the park to meet current and future needs as well as protect the area’s resources. 

Preservation of the essential character-defining features of a cultural landscape is always a 

critical component of rehabilitation. The action alternatives proposed by the CLR treatment plan 

primarily reflect variations within the overarching approach of rehabilitation. 

In addition to the preservation of the overall historic landscape character and individual historic 

features, rehabilitation allows for the improvement of facilities to enhance the visitor experience, 

and the careful implementation of necessary functional site improvements as identified in park 

planning documents. Rehabilitation also allows managers to pursue resource management 

initiatives intended to promote sustainability. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 19 

Overarching Recommendation for the Rehabilitation Alternative 

See Map 7-1 at the end of Chapter 7.

⎯ All contributing features of the Cedar Pass Developed Area should be identified, 

retained, and preserved to the greatest extent feasible. 

⎯ The site’s overall spatial character derived from the siting of buildings, the road and drive 

patterns, pedestrian circulation patterns, and vegetation patterns should be maintained by 

preserving essential features and character and utilizing Mission 66 design principles in 

the placement of limited compatible new features. 

⎯ Historic features and materials should be maintained and repairs performed when 

necessary. 

⎯ In-kind replacement or the use of compatible materials for replacement of 

deteriorated historic building/structure features should be allowed. 

⎯ Changes to the cultural landscape that have acquired historic significance in their own 

right should be retained and maintained. 

⎯ Compatible landscape and site features (buildings, roads, small-scale features, etc.) that 

post-date the period of significance should be retained and used. 

⎯ Missing historic features, which were critical to historic character, should be replaced 

if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exist so the feature can 

be accurately reproduced. Using a new compatible feature to replace a missing 

feature is an option. 

⎯ Archeological resources should be protected and preserved. 

⎯ Natural systems and features should be protected and preserved. 

⎯ Alterations to a cultural landscape that are deemed necessary to assure its continued 

use should be allowed as long as these alterations do not destroy historic character 

such as spatial organization, land patterns, features, and materials. 

⎯ The removal of incompatible landscape and site features (buildings, roads, smallscale features, etc.) that post-date the period of significance should be considered. 

⎯ Mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact of intrusive non-historic buildings 

should be used and removal of these buildings at the end of their useful life should be 

considered. 

⎯ Intrusive, non-historic buildings that cannot be made to be compatible with the historic 

landscape should be removed after their useful life. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 20 

⎯ New building developments should be limited to meet critical space needs and, when 

possible, should be sited where non-extant buildings were located during the period of 

significance. 

⎯ New or altered facilities should be non-intrusive and allow maximum access. New 

construction that would destroy historic character should not be permitted. 

⎯ New design should be differentiated from existing historic resources. New additions 

and alterations should be a product of their time but compatible with the historic 

resources in materials, size, scale and proportion, and massing. A clear differentiation 

between historic and modern features should be maintained 

⎯ New additions to the landscape that create a false sense of history or historic character 

should not be permitted. 

⎯ New additions and alterations should ensure accessibility, and protection of public 

and staff health and safety, and environmental protection and energy efficiency 

should be considered. 

⎯ Historic structures and features should be documented using appropriate and accepted 

procedures prior to change. 

⎯ Archeological resources should be protected and preserved in place. If such resources are 

disturbed, mitigation measures should be undertaken. 

Phasing Recommendations 

Phasing recommendations, developed in concert with park personnel during the VA workshop, 

focus on three primary phases of implementation that span a fifteen year period. Each phase 

relates to a five year period. The goals and specific recommended treatments for each phase are 

identified in Chapter 7. A limited number of recommendations were not included in the phasing 

plan; these consist of issues that were introduced as considerations for long-range planning that 

are most likely beyond the fifteen year time-frame of the phasing plan. Depending on such 

factors as funding, the goals for park management and interpretation, and the completion of 

related planning documents, other projects may ultimately shift into subsequent phases. 

Phase One (Years 1-5)

During Phase One, the following projects should be implemented: 

⎯ Prepare Historic Structure Reports for all historic buildings and structures 

⎯ Prepare a Historic Buildings and Structures Maintenance Plan 

⎯ Prepare a Historic Landscape Maintenance Plan for developed area vegetation 

⎯ Complete/update the List of Classified Structures and Cultural Landscapes Inventory for the 

park 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 21 

⎯ Complete a park-wide archeological survey to gather baseline prehistoric and historic 

archeological information 

⎯ Complete additional directed research regarding historic period plantings in all areas of the 

developed area 

⎯ Complete the Visitor Center renovation and expansion project 

⎯ Develop bus parking on the west side of the service road proximate to the Visitor Center 

including a pedestrian path connecting the bus parking with the Visitor Center 

⎯ Develop the vehicle hail protection structures and associated sitework south of the Visitor 

Center 

⎯ Complete the Museum Storage Facility at the Fire Cache site 

⎯ Undertake exterior rehabilitation of Cedar Pass Lodge to be compatible with the historic 

developed area landscape 

⎯ Rehabilitate the Lodge Maintenance Building to serve as a bicycle rental facility 

⎯ Develop a new historically-compatible Lodge Maintenance and Laundry facility including 

site development south of the Lodge 

⎯ Rehabilitate and expand the campground Amphitheater 

⎯ Develop historically-compatible visitor shower/laundry facilities in the Campground near the 

existing comfort stations 

⎯ Develop a new historically-compatible campground host storage facility 

⎯ Develop an interpretive trail loop at the Campground 

⎯ Develop the alternative fuel refueling facility at the Maintenance Area 

⎯ Develop the wash rack and maintenance office facility in the Maintenance Area 

⎯ Reorganize the materials storage area (“bone yard”) within the Maintenance Area 

⎯ Develop a staff picnic facility just north of the Maintenance Area 

⎯ Rehabilitate the Visitor Center plantings based on additional research to enhance landscape 

integrity 

⎯ Rehabilitate the Residential Area plantings based on additional research to enhance 

landscape integrity 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 22 

⎯ Rehabilitate the Cedar Pass Lodge Area plantings based on additional research to enhance 

landscape integrity including removal and replacement of Siberian elms 

⎯ Develop a pedestrian path along the former alignment of the service road to connect the 

Residential Area with the Visitor/Administration Area 

⎯ Install plantings to screen the Fire Cache and future facilities 

⎯ Continue programs for controlling and eradicating invasive plant species 

Phase Two (Years 6-10)

During Phase Two, the following projects should be implemented: 

⎯ Construct staff housing (single-family or duplex units) in the Residential Area in locations 

identified for future housing in historic period master plans 

⎯ Complete ADA accessibility modifications of three existing single-family residences and one 

or more units in the seasonal staff apartment buildings 

⎯ Develop four RV sites between the Residential Area and the Fire Cache Area to support 

researchers 

⎯ Continue the program of exterior renovations of residences 

⎯ Develop a walking and bicycle trail linking the Visitor/Administrative Area, the Residential 

Area, the future researcher RV area, the Fire Cache Area, and the Maintenance Area to 

promote safety, reduction of vehicle use, and staff recreation 

⎯ Construct three new historically-compatible cabins in the Cedar Pass Lodge Area in locations 

of former cabins 

⎯ Develop the seasonal concessionaire staff dormitory and associated site development just to 

the south of the cabins in the Cedar Pass Lodge Area 

⎯ Develop measures to control unauthorized access to the formations at the Campground Area 

to slow their deterioration 

⎯ Construct the Angel Butte Trail starting at the Campground Area including the spur trail 

linking the Campground Area with the Maintenance Area 

⎯ Continue programs for controlling and eradicating invasive plant species 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 23 

Phase Three (Years 11-15)

During Phase Three, the following projects should be implemented: 

⎯ Construct an administration addition on the south end of the Visitor Center 

⎯ Develop an administration building or complex south of the Visitor Center 

⎯ Develop a staff picnic shelter within the central open space of the Residential Area 

⎯ Develop a facility within the Cedar Pass Lodge Area to serve as a dance hall/special events 

venue 

⎯ Develop an outdoor special events/demonstration facility within the Campground Area 

⎯ Continue programs for controlling and eradicating invasive plant species 

⎯ Replace existing shade/picnic structures with structures based on the historic designs 

⎯ Begin developing a program for experimenting with the establishment of shade trees in the 

Campground Area 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Research for this project focused on archives at Badlands National Park and the DSC TIC’s 

online service. Additional research in the National Archives could explore locating records 

pertaining to early NPS development at Badlands National Park. 

In particular, it would be helpful to locate correspondence between the landscape architects and 

planners regarding their justification for the siting of various features; and any recommendations 

they make for planning or design concepts. Although the work of the architect, Cecil Doty, 

responsible for the Visitor Center is well-documented, specific details regarding individuals 

responsible for the landscape design and planning of Cedar Pass are less well-documented. 

According to Conrad Wirth, committees were set up to make decisions regarding development at 

individual parks during the Mission 66 initiative, so it is likely that several individuals had a 

hand in the design and planning of Cedar Pass. Available meeting records begin to suggest who 

the individuals involved in the committee to design and plan Cedar Pass were; further records 

could reveal more specific information. Although these records are not available at Badlands 

National Park, it is possible they are archived at the National Archives, College Park, Maryland, 

in Record Group 79.3.3 Miscellaneous records, Mission 66 records. 

In addition, research and documentation of the history of property ownership and land 

transactions (in particular, property owned and operated by the Millard family) would also 

provide important clues to the early history of the area that influenced later park development. Of 

further interest would be more detailed documentation relating to development implemented 

after 1985. This would potentially clarify development at Cedar Pass area where it is not always 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA * BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1 - 24 

possible to discern between early activity by concessionaire Ben Millard and that undertaken by 

the NPS. It is possible that this could be available at the National Archives, College Park, 

Maryland, in Record Group 79.4.2 Records of the Branch of Plans and Design. 

Historical aerial photographs, if available, might help to shed light on completion dates for 

various construction efforts suggested in the numerous master plans prepared for the park, for 

which as-built documentation is scarce. Further information regarding the administrative history 

of the park might be searched in the National Archives, College Park, Maryland in Record Group 

79.1 Administrative History and Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Record 

Group 48. Much of this documentation could be gathered and organized as part of a detailed 

Administrative History for Badlands National Park. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

INTRODUCTION * JUNE 2005 * 1-25
CHAPTER TWO

SITE

HISTORY
SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 1

CHAPTER TWO

SITE HISTORY

INTRODUCTION

This documentation of the history of the Cedar Pass Developed Area at Badlands National Park 

is organized into a series of chronological periods reflecting changes to the landscape over time. 

Periodization also takes into account regional and national trends. Each period is discussed in a 

separate section and illustrated with maps, plans, and photographs representative of the period. 

The periods that comprise the Cedar Pass site physical history are as follows: 

Period I: PaleoIndian Period, ca. 12,000–7,500 before present (BP); 

Period II: Archaic, Plains Woodland, and Plains Village Periods, ca. 7,500–300 BP; 

Period III: Early European-American Contact Period, ca. 1700–1803; 

Period IV: European-American Exploration, Trade, and Settlement, 1803–1890; 

Period V: Federal Development/Land Ownership, 1890–1909; 

Period VI: Concessionaire Development and Monument Establishment, 1909–1938; 

Period VII: Initial Master Plan, and CCC Development, 1938–1941; 

Period VIII: World War II, 1942–1945; 

Period IX: Post WWII era, 1945–1956; 

Period X: Mission 66, 1956–1966; and 

Period XI: Further Expansion and National Park Designation, 1966–2003. 

The Badlands’ most significant feature is its vivid portrayal of the erosion process, which, 

through time, has created the colorful grandeur of the landscape seen today. No less important is 

the story told by the fossil bones of prehistoric animals, and the physical evidence of continuing 

human occupation. This despite the fact that fluctuating extreme seasonal temperatures and high 

wind speeds, combined with the harsh physical features of sod tables, eroded buttes, and deeply 

etched drainageways have made for decidedly inhospitable living conditions in the area. The 

name “Badlands” has been perpetuated through descriptions of the place by early travelers, 

inhabitants, and other visitors, many of whom gave it names with dark connotations: American 

Indians named the Badlands region Mako Sica, while French explorers referred to it as Mauvais 

Terres, both of which can be directly translated as ‘bad lands.’ 

Although evidence of regional land usage prior to the 19th century is scant, the accounts of early 

European travelers, in conjunction with recently completed archeological investigations, help to 

suggest the ways in which humans have used this challenging land. European contact began with 

French exploration during the 18th century. These geologic and paleontological discoveries led to 

more serious scientific investigation. Scientific investigation and expeditions paralleled and fed 

into national westward expansion and settlement. Later, these in turn led to a growing tourist 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 2

industry as scientists published their findings and a more general public became aware of the 

wonder to be found in the Badlands. 

During the early 1900s, two men in particular—State Senator Peter Norbeck, and Ben Millard, a 

prominent local businessman—laid the groundwork for creating a national park at the Badlands; 

Senator Norbeck focused on enabling legislation, while Millard focused on creating visitor 

facilities.1 Much of this early work strongly influenced the planning of Cedar Pass during later 

years. Norbeck’s plan for the loop road, which began at Cedar Pass and wound up into the 

Badlands, provided a logical place at which to develop facilities. Once Ben Millard had 

constructed concessionaire facilities at Cedar Pass it seemed appropriate to continue 

development at this same site rather than establishing a new site further into the Badlands. 

Today, much of the Cedar Pass development reflects decisions made during the New Deal era 

when the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) constructed infrastructure for the National 

Monument. Even though many of the earlier buildings do not survive, planning at Cedar Pass 

still follows the tenets of 1930s planning principles. Mission 66 design and planning efforts in 

the 1950s and 1960s built on this earlier work, and helped to establish the site’s contemporary 

landscape character. 

SITE HISTORY BY CHRONOLOGICAL PERIOD

PALEOINDIAN PERIOD, CA. 12,000–7,500 BP 

South Dakota falls within the area of the Plains culture that is governed by a reliance on bison for 

food, clothing, and other human needs. Archeological records suggest that human activity 

followed the gradual warming of the northern part of the North American continent when 

glaciers retreated northward and expansive ice sheets melted, creating a wetter and cooler 

climate with increased biodiversity. Boreal coniferous forests, with spruce predominating, 

became more widespread and grew at much lower elevations. A deciduous forest soon replaced 

this, and, by about 10,000 to 8,000 years BP, grasslands dominated the region.2

Over the approximately 4,500 years that define the PaleoIndian period in this region, the climate 

changed dramatically. After the glacial retreat, the region gradually began to turn both warmer 

and dryer, and it is thought that at this time, ca. 11,000 BP, Asiatic peoples migrated across the 

Bering Strait (Beringia). 3 

The earliest human occupation of North America can be dated to the PaleoIndian period. 

PaleoIndian peoples were required to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. Like many of the 

subsequent occupants of the northwestern Great Plains, PaleoIndian peoples were migratory 

 

1

 Peter Norbeck was elected as a State Senator in 1908 and a US Senator in 1920. Ray Mattison and Robert A. 

Grom, History of Badlands National Monument (Interior, SD: Badlands Natural History Association, 1968), 27. 2

 James C. Chatters, “Environment,” in Handbook of North American Indians 12 (1998): 43; Waldo C. Wedel and 

George C. Frison, “Environment and Subsistence,” in Handbook of North American Indians 13 (2001): 46, 48; 

James C. Chatters and David L. Pokotylo, “Prehistory: Introduction,” in Handbook of North American Indians 12 

(1998): 73. 

3

 Within the larger US, the PaleoIndian period is roughly defined as between 13,000–9,000 BP. In the Custer County 

vicinity, however, strong evidence for PaleoIndian occupation of the area occurs only between 12,000–7,500 BP. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 3

groups that followed seasonally adaptive subsistence strategies. Based on the scarce material 

culture left behind, archeologists believe that these peoples were predominantly hunters and 

scavengers, who relied upon the killing and opportunistic scavenging of large mammals. 

Contrary to archeological findings, however, many American Indians maintain through their 

creation stories that their peoples originated in North America. For the Lakota of the Great 

Plains, currently inhabiting western South Dakota, creation stories place their early ancestors 

near Wind Cave in the Black Hills, Mille Lacs in Minnesota, or as far east as North Carolina. 

Generally divided up into two distinct cultural entities, early and late, the PaleoIndian period is 

defined by the material culture remains of the peoples who occupied the area. The earliest 

PaleoIndian complex is characterized by the Clovis and subsequent Folsom cultures. 

The types of material culture most commonly identified from these cultures are distinctive fluted, 

lanceolate projectile points found predominantly at Plains kill and butchering sites associated 

with extinct megafauna. Archeologists believe that Clovis and Folsom peoples were highly 

nomadic foragers traveling in small groups and following a generalized subsistence with an 

emphasis on hunting. Because they depended to a large degree on hunting, they likely followed 

the migrations of regional fauna. Towards the end of the early PaleoIndian period, as Folsom 

peoples began to more efficiently utilize native flora, it is likely that specific ecological niches 

were repeatedly visited on a seasonal basis and that plant gathering may have been initiated on a 

seasonal basis. Habitations most likely consisted of temporary camps in the open and in caves 

and rock shelters. Mammoth, bison, and pronghorn antelope dominated the larger mammal 

species hunted by PaleoIndians in the northwestern plains.4

Various archeological investigations have been undertaken in the park to determine American 

Indian occupation. In 1980–81, an investigation by Hannus and Ferguson produced the first 

evidence of PaleoIndian Clovis hunters’ remains in the park’s South Unit. While little evidence 

of PaleoIndian activities has been found in the Cedar Pass Developed Area, archeologists 

determined that it is possible that groups followed bison throughout the region.5

 

4

 Wedel and Frison, “Environment and Subsistence,” 50; Chatters and Pokotylo, “Prehistory,” 73-74; Tom E. Roll 

and Steven Hackenberger, “Prehistory of the Eastern Plateau,” in Handbook of North American Indians 12 (1998): 

123-124. 

5

 Bruce A. Jones, “Archeological Investigations at Cedar Pass Slide, Badlands National Park” (Lincoln, NE: 

Midwest Archeological Center, Technical Report No. 75, 2002.) 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 4

ARCHAIC, PLAINS WOODLAND, AND PLAINS VILLAGE PERIODS, CA.

7,500–300 BP 

About 7,000 BP, during the Plains Archaic period, the regional climate became drier, with more 

frequent droughts of longer duration. While the bison remained the primary game animal of local 

peoples, the supply diminished. American Indians began making increased use of plant foods; 

developed more elaborate methods of long-term food storage; and depended on smaller game, 

even rodents. Primarily nomadic, the region’s peoples generally lived in very small groups. 

Several sites associated with Archaic period Plano complexes are known in South Dakota. 

Over subsequent millennia, the dry climate slowly became wetter and, by 3,000 BP, the land 

again supported sufficient bison for large game hunting to become more practical on a regular 

basis. Archeological evidence for increased regional human activity during this time includes a 

relative abundance of corner-notched dart points known as Pelican Lake points.6

 

The first professional archeological investigations were undertaken in southwest South Dakota in 

1953 by Paul Beaubien, who recorded more than thirty sites during a preliminary assessment of 

what is now the North Unit of Badlands National Park. Most of these sites consisted of scatters 

of lithic debris and fragmented animal bone exposed atop the Badlands Wall, or appeared in 

similar scatters or as isolated features, such as hearths or fire pits, eroding out of cutbanks, 

ravines, or sod tables. Two major sites recorded by Beaubien were 39JK4—the Johnny Site—

and 39PN9—the Pinnacles. Beaubien’s investigations of the Johnny Site and Pinnacles confirm 

probable occupation and use of the region by groups during the Plains Woodlands period (1,100 

BP-800 BP) and later populations.7

 

In 1961, Dee Taylor conducted substantial work in the Badlands with excavations at the 

Pinnacles (39PN9) and the Johnny Site (39JK4). Both of these appear to have been occupation 

sites. Ceramics from the Pinnacles site suggest an occupation by Extended Coalescent peoples 

and the possibility of an earlier Woodland period component. Ceramics from the Johnny Site 

suggest occupations by Initial Middle Missouri and Later Post-Contact Coalescent peoples.8

In 1996, Jones found that there had been no radiocarbon ages obtained from archeological 

features anywhere in the park that date prior to about 2,300 years BP. However, archeological 

evidence of the subsequent Late Prehistoric and Plains Village tradition in the Badlands was 

found to be relatively abundant and is documented throughout the North and South Units of the 

park. In 1987, Johnson investigated two sites in the vicinity of park residences and 

concessionaire cabins in the headquarters area. In 1993, Jones conducted archeological inventory 

work along the North Unit Loop Road involving a corridor ranging from 25 to 400 meters wide. 

In 2002, Jones summarized cumulative findings in the Badlands area indicating that American 

Indian use of the White River Badlands began as early as the PaleoIndian Clovis Complex, ca. 

 

6

 George C. Frison, “Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and Central Plains,” in Handbook of North 

American Indians 13, Part 1 of 2 (2001): 131-145. 7

 Jones, “Archeological Investigations on the Cedar Pass Slide.” 

8

 Thomas W. Haberman, “Cultural Resource Investigation Along the Proposed Route of Highway 44 Between 

Scenic and Interior, Pennington Co., SD” (Rapid City, SD: State Archaeological Research Center for South Dakota 

Department of Transportation, Contract Investigation Series 119, 1984.) 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 5

11,000 years BP or about 9,000 BC. While there is only a small amount of supportive evidence 

at this point, American Indian use of the area probably continued through the Plains Archaic and 

the Plains Woodland traditions to ca. 500–700 AD. 

At the Johnny Site, eroding artifactual material was re-analyzed by Johnson. Johnson 

corroborated the date of the Anderson ware ceramics found by Taylor and also prompted some 

reinterpretation of the Johnny Site data. The Johnny Site and other archeological sites recorded 

in the vicinity of Cedar Pass seem to reflect brief episodes of occupation or use by a variety of 

American Indian groups over the course of the past 1,200 years. The single waterfowl bone 

fragment and the faunal remains that were recovered suggest that the Johnny Site was occupied 

on occasion during the spring. Questions remain regarding whether a second occupation level 

actually exists beneath the shallow level exposed by Taylor in 1958.9

In 1989 the Johnny Site on Cedar Pass was reexamined and found to contain ceramic 

information suggestive of area usage by American Indians from the permanent Plains Village 

farming communities along the Missouri River to the east. These groups would certainly have 

included the ancestral Arikara, as well as other Siouan-speaking Indian populations. The Plains 

Village activity in the White River Badlands would have emphasized the seasonal hunting of 

bison or antelope, but, based on evidence from the Johnny Site, may have also included 

waterfowl. It is likely that many of these use episodes were short-term and probably occurred on 

a seasonal basis.10 

In 1961, Taylor identified sites in the Cedar Pass Developed Area vicinity, which included Dry 

Creek, Cedar Pass Butte, Reservoir, Johnny, Crew, and Cedar Pass Flats. Ceramic materials 

(including sherds from the Cedar Pass Butte, Reservoir, and Cedar Pass Flats sites) closely 

resemble those from the Johnny Site, although they are neither Stanley nor Anderson ware, two 

of the typical diagnostics of the period. On the basis of known artifact type, the Badlands sites 

are most closely related to village sites located along the Missouri River from the Fort Randall 

area to well beyond the Oahe Reservoir. All sites contain hearth remains and have the 

appearance of temporary camp sites. Although house remains have not yet been discovered, it is 

conceivable that the remains of permanent house structures may yet be located along the White 

River. Thousands of bison bones have been discovered through erosion of the sediments at both 

the Pinnacles and Johnny Sites. It is assumed that the Badlands, with its steep escarpments and 

blind canyons, would have been an ideal area in which to trap and kill large numbers of bison. 

According to the South Dakota State Plan for Archeological Resources prepared in 1990 and 

revised in 1991, a total of 561 prehistoric sites have been recorded within the archeological 

region known as #8 White River Badlands. These sites range from PaleoIndian through the 

Plains periods, and extend into the post-Contact period, to include historic occupation. 

Subsequent archeological investigation has occurred intermittently within the Badlands. An 

 

9

 Ann M. Johnson, “The Johnny Site, 39JK4, Badlands National Park” (Lincoln, NE: Midwest Archeological 

Center, 1989.) 

10 Bruce A. Jones, “Archeological Inventory and Evaluation Along the Loop Road, Segment 10-2, Badlands 

National Park, South Dakota” (Lincoln, NE: Midwest Archeological Center, 1993.) 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 6

inventory was conducted in 1976 in the White River Development Area of the South Fork Unit.11

Twenty-three additional sites were recorded during this work. Two of the 23 recorded sites 

produced probable Plains Village ceramics, and confirmed occupation of the area over the course 

of the past millennium. Additionally, a lanceolate projectile point base, suggesting that the South 

Unit might contain Plains Archaic or Paleo-Indian deposits, was recovered several kilometers 

east of Fog Creek, a tributary of the White River.12

Additional investigations in the Badlands occurred in 1991, leading to an inventory of a segment 

of the Loop Road, which examined a 25- to 400-meter-wide corridor. This corridor extended 

along both sides of the present road corridor between park headquarters and Cedar Pass, and 

resulted in the identification of one historic and three prehistoric sites. Further investigations 

were conducted by Johnson (1989a, 1989b, 1994), Jones (1993, 1996, 2002) and Hannus et al. 

(2003). Data gathered on early occupation and use of the Badlands covers the entire park area; 

yet specific information relating to the Cedar Pass Developed Area occurs in the investigation of 

one site only, the Johnny Site, which is so badly eroded that it has been deemed no longer worthy 

of further investigation. 

EARLY EUROPEAN-AMERICAN CONTACT PERIOD, 1700–1803

Tribal occupation of the Badlands area during the period of contact can be understood within a 

developed historical context. The Caddoan speakers, all ancestors to the Wichita, Kitsai, Pawnee, 

and Arikara, moved from the Southeast around 900 AD, bringing many Mississippian traditions 

with them as they adapted to the grasslands and tributaries of the lower Missouri and Mississippi 

River valleys. The ancestors of the Siouan-speaking Mandan and Hidatsa arrived around 1100 

AD, settling in earthen-lodge villages along the Upper Missouri and its tributaries in what are 

now North and South Dakota. Other speakers of Siouan languages arrived somewhat later from 

the Ohio Valley. In 1600 AD the ancestors of the Otoe, Missourian, Iowa, Omaha, Ponca, Kansa, 

and Osage were all well-established in regionally permanent villages, with the Missouri River 

serving as a central and connecting transportation corridor. 

The Spanish introduced horses into the Southern Plains region in the 1600s, and use spread 

quickly northward from tribe to tribe, eventually becoming as integral as bison to the Plains 

culture.13 Horses were found to be indispensable because of the advantages they provided in 

hunting. Prior to full integration of the horse, dogs had assisted the seasonal Plains village 

horticulturists with bison hunts. These methods of hunting are well described in the literature.14

In the summer months, tribal groups gathered together, forming large encampments to hunt the 

buffalo herds, since effective hunting required cooperative techniques. In the Southern Plains 

region, fire was the tool used to surround a herd and to drive it toward hunters; on the High 

Plains, prehistoric methods included driving a herd over a cliff or into a corral, sometimes at the 

 

11 Carl Falk, et al., “A Preliminary Assessment of Archeological Resources in the Vicinity of the Proposed White 

River Development, Badlands National Monument, South Dakota” (Lincoln, NE: Midwest Archeological Center, 

Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No. E., 1978.) 12 Ken Karmizski, Draft “National Register Multiple Property Documentation, Historic Road Resources at Badlands 

National Park” (Bozeman, MT: Western History Research, 1993), Section E, Page 2. This documentation indicates 

that #8 White River Badlands was in the Monument boundary. 

13 Frison, “Hunting and Gathering Tradition,” 131-145. 14 Frison, “Hunting and Gathering Tradition,” 131-145.
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 7

bottom of a slope or cut bank. A herd was typically lured by a buffalo caller. The animals were 

then directed between lines of rock piles or brush arranged as a funnel to increasingly constrict 

the herd. Participants shouted and waved ropes to direct the herd toward the precipice or into the 

corral. 

With horses, tribes became mounted hunters in long-distance pursuit of the thunderous, roving 

herds. In short, the introduction of horses into the Plains Indians way of life changed it from 

agrarian to nomadic hunting and gathering. Later, access to the firearm, which added power, 

would further change their culture. 

Specific documentation of Plains tribes as it relates to the Cedar Pass area at the time of contact 

is sparse. With the encroachment of Europeans onto native lands to the east, and a concomitant 

period of droughty conditions, many agrarian tribes trekked to the western Plains, seeking new 

farmlands as well as larger herds of bison. The Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa had settled in 

South Dakota along the Missouri River around 1100, living in earthen lodge villages on the 

upper Missouri and its tributaries. They adopted a horticultural subsistence system with a 

periodic hunting tradition.15 

By 1700, when Spanish and French explorers and traders first encountered them, the western 

Plains tribes were in a state of demographic flux; the oldest tribes, all of which were agrarian, 

were found on the eastern edges of the Plains. The few records relating to interchanges between 

American Indians and Europeans in the Badlands area generally involve negotiation by explorers 

seeking to claim land for various European powers. During the first half of the 18th century, 

France sought to explore and claim vast western territories including present South Dakota. 

Francois and Louis Joseph La Verendrye set out in 1742 from Fort La Reine near present-day 

Winnipeg, Canada, in search of a waterway to the Pacific. Their route led them through 

Bismarck, North Dakota, southwest across the plains. It appears that the brothers traveled 

through the Black Hills in February 1743, then east down either the Cheyenne River or the Bad 

River to the site of present-day Fort Pierre. They buried a lead plate on a hill on the west bank of 

the Missouri River to claim the area for France.16

After Francois and Louis La Verendrye witnessed extensive intertribal warfare, they realized the 

effort that would be required to pacify the resident groups and subsequently departed. This 

marked the end of official French presence in the lands of the Osage on the Missouri, but many 

individual French traders and voyageurs continued entering the Plains. The Missouri River 

remained the most significant regional means of transportation both for American Indians and 

European and Euro-American traders for some time. 

 

15 William R. Swagerty, “History of the United States Plains Until 1850,” in Handbook of North American Indians

13, part 1 of 2 (2001): 256. 

16 Philip S. Hall, Reflections of the Badlands (Freeman, SD: Pine Hill Press, 1997), 1; Swagerty, “History of the 

United States Plains Until 1850,” 266-267. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 8

EUROPEAN-AMERICAN EXPLORATION, TRADE, AND THE BEGINNINGS OF 

SETTLEMENT, 1803–1890

Exploration 

In 1803, the United States acquired formal title to the Louisiana Territory from France (see

Figure 2-1). One year later, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark began their western 

expedition, spending the fall of 1804 exploring present-day South Dakota (see Figure 2-2). 

Although their expedition barely scratched the edges of the Badlands, their notes and maps are 

the first official records describing the area’s cultural and biological history from a EuropeanAmerican perspective. While camped near the southern bank of the Bad River in 1804, the 

expedition raised the US flag, marking the first time the flag was flown in South Dakota. Lewis 

and Clark returned through the area in 1806. The Lewis and Clark expedition marked the 

beginning of US federal policy on the Plains. During the winter at Fort Mandan, Lewis and Clark 

prepared a statistical report on the tribes of the Missouri River and Northern Plains, including 

Plains Indian populations, locations, and economic relationships.17

It is clear from the conflicts that arose between Lewis and Clark and the local American Indian 

tribes that the river was the major regional circulation system, and its usage was considered a 

property right. The region’s strongest military powers—the Teton and the Piegan Blackfoot—

attempted to block the expedition’s boats from using the river, as they had been accustomed to 

receiving payment for passage through their section of the Missouri. This misunderstanding of 

property and waterway systems usage on the part of Lewis and Clark led to Clark describing the 

tribes as “miscreants,” who viewed the merchants of the Missouri with contempt. In turn, these 

enemies of the Mandan-Hidatsa envisioned Lewis and Clark dispensing guns to their foes.18 

Immediately after Lewis and Clark’s return from the west, large numbers of Euro-American 

trappers began entering the Northern Plains and Rockies. Jedediah Smith and an eleven-man 

party passed through the area of the Badlands in 1823. A member of the party, James Clyman, 

provided one of the earliest known descriptions of the region; it is believed to be an account of 

the White River Badlands. His description is as follows: 

...a tract of land whare [sic] no vegetation of any kind existed being worn into 

knobs and gullies and extremely uneven a looses [sic] grayish coloured [sic] soil 

very soluble in water running thick as it could move, a paleo whitish colour [sic] 

and remarkably adhesive there [came] on a misty rain while we were in this pile 

of ashes [badlands west of the South Fork of the Cheyenne River] and it loaded 

down our horses feet in great lumps it look [sic] a little remarkable that not a foot 

of level land could be found the arrow revines [sic] going in all manner of 

directions and the cobble mound[s] of a regular taper from top to bottom all of 

them of the precise same angle and the top sharp the whole of this region is 

moving to the Missouri River as fast as rain and thawing of Snow can carry it. 19

 

17 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 1. 18 Swagerty, “History of the United States Plains Indians Until 1850;” 269.

19 Mattison and Grom, A History of the Badlands National Monument, 12. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 9

Trade 

A host of fur traders and trappers followed the Jedediah Smith party into what is now 

southwestern South Dakota. Fort Tecumseh, built near the mouth of Bad River in 1822, and later 

Fort Pierre Chouteau, built in the same vicinity in 1832, were the hubs of an expansive network 

of small sub-stations located at various points along tributaries flowing into the Missouri River 

from the west.20 

The traders set out from Fort Pierre Chouteau each fall for these sub-stations with beads, 

vermilion, blankets, shirts, calico, hatchets, axes, knives, firearms, gunpowder, traps, and other 

trading supplies, and returned to the fur trading forts in the spring with bison hides and beaver 

pelts. 

Several major wintering houses were located on the two rivers that drained the Badlands. Four of 

these outposts were located on the Cheyenne River. The Cheyenne Post site was at the 

confluence of the Cheyenne and Missouri Rivers. A second post was a few miles above the 

mouth of Cherry Creek. Francis Chadron and William Laidlaw established a wintering house in 

1826 at a fork of the Cheyenne, where a still was set up for making whiskey. The Oglala Post 

was built in 1827 near the mouth of Rapid Creek, at the northwest corner of the Badlands. Pierre 

de Papin operated a sub-station at the forks of White River, just below the Badlands. A second 

major wintering house was located at Butte Cache, just above the mouth of Wounded Knee 

Creek and at the southwest corner of the Badlands.21

Goods were transported via the White River, although on occasion the water was too shallow 

even to accommodate a canoe. At such times, the goods were taken by horse and cart. The route 

that traders at Chartran Post and Cache Butte followed was a Lakota trail along the western edge 

of the Badlands. This trail was heavily used from as early as 1826 through at least 1845 when the 

American Fur Company used it as a supply route for Fort John (later called Fort Laramie) on the 

North Platte River. The route came to be known as the Fort Pierre-Fort Laramie Trail (see 

Figures 2-3 and 2-4).22

According to some sources, a second route existed through the Badlands but was seldom taken, 

most likely due to the difficult terrain. One early trader described it as follows: 

The descent [off of the north wall] is by road about five feet broad, winding round 

and among the hills. In going over this trail great precaution is necessary for a slip 

of the foot would precipitate either man or horse into the gulf below.23

Maximilian, Prince of Wied, journeyed up the Missouri with Charles Bodmer in 1834 and was 

given a description of the Badlands by William Laidlaw upon reaching Fort Pierre. The German 

prince wrote of his regret in being unable to visit the place: 

 

20 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 7-9. 21 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 7-9. 22 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 7-9. 23 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 9. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 10

Mr. Laidlow, who had been there in the winter, gave me a description of it. It is 

two days’ journey, he said, south-west of Fort Pierre, and forms, in the level 

prairie, an accumulation of hills of most remarkable forms, looking like fortresses, 

churches, villages and ruins, and doubtless consisting of the same sand-stone as 

the conformations near the Stone Walls. 24

A Jesuit priest, Father Smet, also visited the Badlands area in 1848 and described it as virtually 

impossible to settle, with little hope of cultivating anything.25 

American Indian Lands 

Exploration and trade was complicated by tensions among the various parties that occupied the 

area. For example, relations between tribes on the Upper Missouri—especially in the Blackfoot 

country—were tense and hostile, with Europeans exacerbating the problem by trading guns for 

local resources.26 

American Indians were accustomed to intertribal conflict that forced them to vacate their lands. 

A more serious challenge, however, was posed by US public policymakers and private citizens 

who presumed that Plains peoples would be eager to engage in commerce and open to 

negotiating access to—and purchase of—their lands. In May 1830, Congress passed the Indian 

Removal Act, which empowered the President of the US to move eastern American Indians west 

of the Mississippi to a place they called “Indian Territory.” A campaign that had begun as a 

somewhat voluntary operation, with concessions of land usage granted to the American Indians 

in exchange for their agreement to occupy certain areas, gradually became more strictly 

mandated by government legislation, with tribes increasingly forced to leave their lands.27

The US government sought to exercise ever-increasing control over the Dakota lands. EuroAmericans and American Indians had long struggled over land ownership. In 1851, the Fort 

Laramie Treaty attempted to establish peaceful relations among the various tribes and EuroAmerican immigrants. It confirmed the right of the US government to establish roads and 

military and other posts within American Indian territories (see Figure 2-5). But the treaty also 

required the US government to protect the Indian nations, and intended to formally recognize 

certain tracts of land within surveyed areas as American Indian territories. Between 1855 and 

1857, the US Army purchased Fort Pierre and used it as a military post. They eventually 

abandoned the fort, and left it to civilian settlers (see Figure 2-5).28

An amendment to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 generally established all areas of South 

Dakota west of the Missouri River as Lakota land. It also included hunting grounds in the 

Powder Region of Wyoming. By the time the Agreement of 1876 was enacted, treaties between 

sovereign American Indian nations had ended, replaced by agreements between the federal 

government and “domestic dependent nations.” The 1876 agreement removed the Black Hills of 

 

24 Mattison and Grom, A History of the Badlands National Monument, 12. 25 “The Industry of the settler will never success [sic] in cultivating and a planting this fluctuating and sterile soil,” 

in Mattison and Grom, A History of the Badlands National Monument, 12. 26 Swagerty, “History of the United States Plains Indians Until 1850,” 270-275.

27 Swagerty, “History of the United States Plains Indians Until 1850,” 258. 

28 South Dakota State Historical Society http://www.sdhistory.org (accessed June 2004). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 11

South Dakota from the Lakota domain. The Agreement of 1889 further broke up the existing 

great Sioux Reservation into six small reservations, including Standing Rock, Cheyenne River, 

Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Rosebud, and Pine Ridge (see Figure 2-7). 

The area between the White and Cheyenne Rivers, including land on which the Badlands 

National Monument was established became public domain.29 This followed the Dawes 

Allotment Act of 1887, which allocated lands for American Indian families, extended the US law 

to cover these groups, and permitted the sale of their remaining land to American homesteaders. 

This treaty formally defined Sioux lands to include the Black Hills and stipulated regular 

payments of food, clothing, and goods in exchange for US military withdrawal from Sioux lands. 

As an assurance that no Euro-Americans would be allowed to settle on assigned Sioux lands, the 

federal government would be allowed to construct additional roads and would be ceded all lands 

outside of Sioux land. Nevertheless, by the fall of 1890, most American Indians had been 

stripped of much of their territory, and were settled into allotted areas known as reservations.30

In December 1890, in an attempt to defy the pressure of government forces, thousands of 

American Indians, including many Oglala Sioux, sought guidance from the Indian prophet 

Wovoca. His vision called for the native peoples to practice the Ghost Dance and wear ghost 

shirts, which would be magically impervious to bullets. Wovoca predicted that the white man 

would vanish, and the hunting grounds would be restored. One of the last known Ghost Dances 

was conducted on Stronghold Table in what is now the South Unit of Badlands National Park. 

Accounts of what happened next differ, but it is generally agreed that Chief Big Foot and his 

band of Miniconjous Sioux fled through the Big Foot Pass and camped at the White River. When 

the Indians reached Pine Creek they were intercepted by the army. The following day, while 

attempting to disarm them, the military precipitated the infamous “Wounded Knee Massacre.” 

(see Figure 2-8).31 The incident stands as the last armed engagement of the Indian Wars. Pine 

Ridge Reservation is located approximately forty-five miles south of the Cedar Pass project.32 

Scientific Discovery 

In addition to interest in potential trade products an unexplored territory might yield, the 

Badlands offered treasures, particularly for scientists involved with the study of paleontology. 

Initially, American Indian tribes participated in the dissemination of these treasures, sharing their 

findings with Euro-American scientists. The Lakota tribe, for example, was instrumental in 

trading large fossilized bones, seashells, and turtle shells with Euro-American explorers and 

traders. They correctly assumed that the area had once been underwater, and that the bones 

 

29 South Dakota State Historical Society http://www.sdhistory.org (accessed June 2004). 30 Patricia Albers, “The Home of the Bison: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Study of Traditional Cultural 

Affiliations to Wind Cave National Park” (unpublished manuscript, Wind Cave National Park), 65-68; Barbara B. 

Long, “Wind Cave National Park: Historic Contexts and National Register Guidelines” (Cresco, IA: Four Mile 

Research Company, 1992), 5; Western History Research, “Wind Cave National Park Land Study,” Volume I, (n.d.), 

MS on file at the Library Collection, Wind Cave National Park, 20.

31 Mattison and Grom, History of Badlands National Monument, 22. 32 http://www.nps.gov/badl/exp/humans.htm (accessed June 2004). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 12

belonged to creatures that no longer existed. These fossils soon became a valid reason for further 

exploration of this strange land.33

Between 1843 and 1854, fur traders also shared their findings with scientists. In 1846, for 

example, fur trader Alexander Culbertson sent a fossil—what later proved to be the lower jaw of 

an extinct animal—to Hiram A. Prout, a St. Louis physician, who subsequently published a paper 

in the American Journal of Science. In his paper, Prout declared the fossil to have come from a 

creature he called a Paleotherium. In 1849, Dr. Joseph Leidy, having received another fossil from 

the same source, published a paper describing the fossil as the skull and leg-bone from an 

extinct, cud-chewing mammal, later discovered as a species of camel.34 

The first scientist to become interested in exploring the Badlands for fossils was David Dale 

Owen, Geologist to the United States. Unable to travel to the Badlands himself, Owen sent an 

assistant, Dr. John Evans. Evans traveled to Fort Pierre Chouteau in spring 1849 and hired five 

French-Canadian voyageurs as muleteers and cooks and one as a guide. He also employed a 

Sioux Indian named Elk Horn to guide. Evans collected paleontological specimens from the 

Badlands, including a petrified rhinoceros head, and a wolf jawbone. In the 1870s, Yale 

University Professor O.C. Marsh visited the region and developed more refined methods of 

extracting and reassembling fossils into nearly complete skeletons.35

Continued interest on the part of scientists helped to spread awareness about the Badlands. When 

the railroads began to arrive in the vicinity of the Badlands from the1880s, the way was opened 

up for settlement.36

Settlement 

Euro-Americans became more interested in the Badlands as a place for both scientific discovery 

and potential settlement. American Indian ownership and use of the land was increasingly 

circumscribed by US government legislation. The unexplored lands of South Dakota were 

initially “public domain”—land owned by the American people but controlled and divided under 

federal law to promote settlement by transfer or sale of the land to private owners. Such laws 

ensured that land was parceled out equally and sold at a set price. The land survey system 

established by the Land Ordinance Act of 1785 to control this transfer or sale began in Ohio. The 

first surveys to be undertaken in Dakota Territory began in Dubuque, Iowa, in 1859, and 

continued through 1861, reaching Yankton, South Dakota.37 

 

33 Badlands National Park History and Culture website http://www.nps.gov/badl/exp/humans.htm#fossilhunters 

(accessed June 2004). 

34 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 13. 35 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 13-15. 36 Hall, Reflections of the Badlands, 35-36. 37 Courtesy of Public Records and Information Staff, Office of Surveyor General of South Dakota, Bureau of Land 

Management Montana State Office, Billings, MT; also 

http://www.library.sos.state.il.us/library/isl/ref/glo/glolocguide.html.With the Land Ordinance of 1785, the need for 

an organization to carry out the newly created mandates became vital. In 1812, Congress, with the Act of April 25, 2 

Stat. 716, created the General Land Office (GLO) and placed it under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department. 

Along with a new organization, a new method of surveying was employed. Previously, land had been surveyed 

using a system called metes and bounds, in which the surveyor started at a fixed point, usually determined by a local 

natural or artificial monument, and ran lines by compass course and distance. But the Land Ordinance Act of 1785 

also mandated that surveyors use the new rectangular system, whereby the land was partitioned into a grid of 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 13

Some settlers had already established themselves on the land by this time. The Pre-emption Act 

of 1841 was introduced to accommodate these settlers, who would otherwise be unrecognized 

squatters or individuals illegally settled on federal land. When government surveyors took stock 

of surrounding land and prepared it for public sale, squatters had the right to purchase up to 160 

acres of their illegal holdings for $1.25 per acre from the local land office and pre-empt or 

prevent any subsequent claims as long as the settler could show proof of a dwelling and 

improvements to the land. The Pre-emption Act, repealed in 1891, legalized early pioneer 

settlement on unsurveyed lands, and recognized squatting as a legitimate means of establishing a 

homestead. 

By 1861, the Dakota Territory was established, encompassing what would later become North 

and South Dakota and parts of Montana and Wyoming. A year later, the governor of the Dakota 

Territory declared the Black Hills were “rich beyond conception in mineral resources of coal, 

copper and iron.” That same year, the federal Homestead Act of 1862 was established. The 

Homestead Act declared that: 

There are two classes of public lands; the one class at $1.25 per acre, which is 

designated as minimum, and the other at $2.50 per acre or double minimum... 

[The Act] gives to every citizen and to those who have declared their intentions to 

become such, the right to a homestead on surveyed lands. This is conceded to the 

extent of one quarter section or 160 acres, held at $1.25 per acre, or eighty acres 

at $2.50 per acre, in any organized district embracing surveyed public lands.38

After a five to seven year “proving up” or occupancy period and payment of a small filing fee, 

the homesteader could acquire legal title to his land. Although the Homestead Act was a very 

good deal for those with little money, it was not perfect. Much of the land administered under the 

act was not productive, either because of natural resource limitations or lack of access. The best 

lands had typically been pre-empted before the act’s establishment or acquired as part of railroad 

grants. Much of the public land claimed under the Homestead Act was eventually abandoned and 

returned to the public domain. 

The Timber Culture Act of 1873 was another law that encouraged homesteading and the planting 

of trees in the west. If a settler planted forty acres of timber (reduced to ten acres in 1878), and 

fostered its growth for ten years, the individual was entitled to that quarter section of land. The 

Timber Culture Act also permitted homesteaders who occupied their land for three years, with 

one acre of trees under cultivation for two of those three years, to receive a patent to the land. 

The law was repealed in 1882. 

 townships and ranges, with 36 parcels per township, each 1 square mile or 640 acres. Each township itself is 6 miles 

square and based on a series of principal meridians and baselines running across the land. Thirty states, known as the 

Public Land states, were surveyed using the rectangular system. The original thirteen colonies and their thenterritories (the states of Kentucky, Maine, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia) plus Hawaii and Texas 

were surveyed with metes and bounds or other methods. 38 (Anonymous, 1869, 466-68) as written in the 1868 Agriculture Report and quoted in Philip Pregill and Nancy 

Volkman, Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in the Western Tradition (New York: Van Nostrand 

Reinhold, 1993), 388. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 14

The Desert Land Act of 1877 was designed to foster settlement of the arid and semi-arid regions 

of the west, specifically portions of Arizona, California, the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The act allowed anyone to purchase 

640 acres of land for 25 cents per acre if the land was irrigated within three years of filing. A 

rancher could receive title to the land any time within the three years upon proof of compliance 

with the law and payment of one additional dollar per acre.39

On November 2, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison admitted South Dakota to the Union. As a 

state, South Dakota would need a capital city. South Dakota’s territorial capital had shifted 

between towns since its inclusion in Dakota Territory. Yankton was elected as the capital of 

Dakota Territory in 1862. In 1883, because of its central location, Bismarck (North Dakota) was 

selected as capitol of Dakota Territory. In 1885, a Constitutional Convention for the part of the 

territory south of the 46th Parallel was held, and Huron was chosen as the new capitol. Congress 

did not recognize the 1885 Convention, so the capitol remained in Bismarck. Pierre was 

subsequently chosen as the temporary capital of South Dakota. In 1890, in a competition 

between Huron, Watertown, and Pierre, Pierre won as the permanent seat. In 1904, the “Great 

Capitol Fight” between Pierre and Mitchell occurred. Pierre won again, and has remained the 

capital ever since. Clearly the competition for recognition as the most significant city in the area 

was fierce. Even the large railroad companies became involved: the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. 

Paul Railroad promoted Mitchell, while the Northwestern Railroad sided with Pierre. Both 

companies supplied free tickets for the public to visit as an incentive to vote for their town. In a 

sparsely populated region, economic prosperity depended greatly on transportation routes.40

FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT/LAND OWNERSHIP, 1890–1909 

As the federal government took greater control of the Dakota Territory, removing it from 

American Indian ownership and enacting legislation that supported further exploration and 

development, more people began to consider the Badlands as a viable place to settle. 

In 1894, the Carey Act granted one million acres of public land to arid states and territories on 

the condition they “reclaim” the land through irrigation and sell it to settlers. This attempt to 

promote irrigation of arid Western lands proved unsuccessful when states found they could not 

raise the funds to mount large-scale irrigation projects. Effective land reclamation in the West 

would have required a massive federal investment. 

Beginning in 1899, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology began a program of 

sending individuals to the Badlands area on an annual basis to work in the field of paleontology. 

This underscored the area’s importance in scientific discovery, and provided a continual 

presence in the area. 

Settlement was dependent on individual ability to adapt to a place where resources were scarce 

and conditions difficult. While timber was in short supply, sod was a plentiful resource that 

could be used to create living quarters. Possibly taking their cue from American Indians, 

 

39 http://www.time-passages.com/land-patent-research.html (accessed June 2004). 40 http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/statehood.html (accessed June 2004). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 15

homesteaders built sod houses dug into the ground. This dwelling form provided warmth, was 

protected from the winds and cold in winter, and offered relief from the summer heat. 

A description of one family’s attempts to settle in the region provides insight into the harshness 

of the natural conditions of this place. In 1906, Herbert Sherman, his wife and six children, 

moved from Randolph, Nebraska, to a South Dakota claim about three miles northwest of the 

town of Kadoka where they homesteaded 180 acres of grassland. The first thing Sherman and his 

family had to do was build a shelter. They followed the model they had seen across the plains—a 

sod house. Sod was cut from the prairie using a sod plow and their four-horse team. The sod was 

cut into pieces four inches thick by two feet long and fourteen inches wide. These pieces were 

stacked to form the front and sides of the house. The back of the house was dug into a small hill, 

and a trap door in the floor led to a cellar in the hillside where the family stored their homecanned goods. Light entered through windows cut into each side of the house and a door in the 

front. The roof was constituted of timber supports with boards and tar paper and sod on top (see 

Figure 2-9). 

Drinking water came from a ninety-foot-deep well that had been dug with great difficulty since 

they had to break through a resistant layer of shale. The well had a hand pump that worked in 

warm weather, but froze in the winter, so a bucket on a rope had to be used instead. Outbuildings 

included a large barn where they stored hay for their cattle and horses and also provided a shelter 

for livestock in the winter. Family accounts indicate that they spent their summers putting up the 

hay for their animals and gathering firewood along the creek to heat the house in the winter. 

They then spent their winters feeding the livestock, cleaning out the barn, and trying to keep 

warm against the cold winds and snow. 

The house was not too far from a small stream where they had a vegetable garden. Rattlesnakes 

could be a hazard, lying under the sand, forming a small mound near the stream to keep cool, and 

surprising anyone who did not pay attention. Snakes also crawled into the sod house in the 

summer to keep cool. They would crawl up and lay on the overhead beams. One of the boys 

would catch the snakes and take them into Kadoka where he got five cents apiece for dead ones 

and twenty-five cents for live ones. They also had to watch for snakes under the hay shocks 

when loading hay into the wagon.41

In 1906, there was considerable homestead activity under the original homestead law of 1862, 

despite the inadequacy of a 160-acre parcel to support a family in the arid region. Leonel Jensen, 

a long-time resident in the vicinity of the Badlands, stated that when his father came to the region 

in May 1906 there were few homestead buildings. By the fall of that year, there was a homestead 

shack on practically every quarter section of land, as many settlers began to anticipate the arrival 

of the railroads. 

In 1907, railroad development through the White River valley (see Figure 2-10 for the alignment 

of a stage route that likely preceded the rail line route) prompted a homesteading boom. Towns 

began to spring up, usually every twenty miles at points where trains stopped to take on water. 

From east to west, beginning near the town of Kadoka, the watering stops included Weta, 

Interior, Conata, Imlay, and Scenic. One of these, the town of Interior, was located in Jackson 

 

41 Oral history website: http://www.soysite.com/newsletter/Sep99.html (accessed June 2004). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 16

County, near the Badlands and southeast of Rapid City between Wall and Kadoka on the banks 

of the White River. It soon boasted two hotels, two cafes, five saloons, a bank, a Ford dealer, a 

livery stable, and a newspaper (see Figure 2-11).

CONCESSIONAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT,

1909–1939 

Despite the arrival of the railroad, newly formed townships, and individual farmsteads, the area 

remained somewhat isolated and barren during the early 20th century. A small number of visitors 

had begun to venture into the Badlands to see the scenic beauty they had heard about for 

themselves. Gradually, interest in the area as a tourist destination grew. Tourist facilities began 

to be established, built by enterprising individuals. When various people began suggesting a park 

be created in the area, it became clear that various obstacles existed, not least of which was 

convincing federal entities that the site was worthy of preservation as a public reservation. 

Because of the various issues involved in the development of tourist facilities and establishment 

of a park at Badlands this section of the physical history at the Cedar Pass Developed Area has 

been subdivided into thematic headings. 

Establishing the Monument 

In March 1909, State Senator Peter Norbeck pledged his support for various groups urging the 

State House and Senate to approve a joint resolution requesting the US Congress to set aside a 

national park in the South Dakota Badlands. Norbeck, who was born into a farming family in 

Clay County in southeastern South Dakota, had a personal interest in protecting the lands he had 

grown up hearing about. While his father had been a member of the 1871 Dakota Territorial 

Legislature that helped settle the area, Peter Norbeck’s career coincided with other early efforts 

to enact conservation legislation and develop a system of national conservation areas and parks 

in the West. 

The resolution supported by Norbeck in 1909 read as follows: 

Whereas there is a small section of country about the headwaters of the White 

River in South Dakota where Nature has carved the surface of the earth into most 

unique and interesting forms, and has exposed there, in the geological formations 

to an extent, perhaps not elsewhere found; and 

whereas this formation is so unique, picturesque and valuable for the purposes of 

study that a portion should be retained in its native state, therefore be it resolved 

by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring; That Congress be and 

hereby is requested to provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall select 

township of government land in the most picturesque portion of the region 

mentioned and the same shall be set aside and be kept as a National Park.42 

 

42 Mattison and Grom, History of Badlands National Monument, 27; Jay A. Schuler, A Revelation Called the 

Badlands: Building a National Park 1909–1939 (Interior, SD: Badlands Natural History Association, 1989), 8; 

Louis Knowles Report. [“Norbeck Collection of Papers,” Badlands National Park Library, F656.N6N111 No. 1.] 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 17

The wording in this resolution is important, as, over the years, the designation of parkland 

became increasingly complicated as legislators quibbled over how to select lands exhibiting 

scenery of “supreme and distinctive quality or some natural feature so extraordinary or unique as 

to be of national interest and importance.” 

Congress was increasingly reluctant, primarily for financial reasons, to confer the status of 

“national park” onto just any piece of land, but Senator Norbeck continued to campaign for 

recognition of the importance of the Badlands. In 1911, he traveled to the Badlands to see for 

himself the reality of what he had heard and read about. 

The US Forest Service was also interested in setting aside the area as a national park. In 1919, 

Louis Knowles, a Forest Ranger for the Harney District of the Black Hills National Forest, set 

out for the Badlands in search of sites suitable for federal “Game Parks or Preserves.” He 

discovered a land ravaged by constant plowing and featuring virtually no wildlife due to 

excessive hunting. Very few trees remained, as many had been cut down for fencing. Most farms 

had failed and their occupants had moved on. Those farmers remaining had consolidated into 

larger farms or ranches that were often over-grazed. Knowles noted that numerous fences 

blocked the view of the Badlands Wall, a dramatic and irregular cliff paralleling the north bank 

of the White River for nearly sixty miles, which was a favorite Badlands hiking spot. Knowles 

also noted that visitation to the Badlands in 1919 had increased greatly over the years. Many 

visitors came via railroad, but some traveled State Route 40 (the Washington Highway) that 

connected the towns of Scenic and Interior with Rapid City, although much of this road, which 

followed more or less the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad, was still under 

construction in 1919.43 Knowles quickly determined that the federal government should identify 

the area to be included within the park or Monument boundaries, and restrict public access to the 

land for grazing and other private commercial activities pending park establishment. He also 

proposed constructing a road along the Wall that would allow greater numbers of visitors to 

experience the scenic views of the Badlands.44 

In May 1922, Peter Norbeck, who had by this time been elected to the US Senate, introduced a 

bill for establishing a national park at the Badlands. Despite the fact that Congressman 

Williamson introduced an identical bill in the House of Representatives on the same day, neither 

one of these bills were passed. Norbeck explained the situation in a letter to a constituent as 

follows: 

...regarding the Bad Lands National Park, [I] will state that the Park Service here 

will not approve a bill of that kind, — and therefore, we can not secure the 

legislation. They are, however, willing to approve the plan of having it designated 

by the President as a “National Monument.”45 

 

43 Mattison and Grom, History of Badlands National Monument, 27. 44 Schuler, A Revelation Called the Badlands, 13-18. 45 Senator Norbeck to Vice President H.E. Beebe, Bank of Ipswich (SD), May 5, 1924. [“Norbeck Collection of 

Papers,” Badlands National Park Library F656.N6N111 No. 1.] 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 18

One of the problems with creating a national monument at Badlands was the need to increase the 

number of acres that the government could incorporate into a public recreation facility. The bulk 

of the property in the area was privately owned and the NPS hesitated to fully push for creating a 

national park. Senator Norbeck explained the situation in a 1927 letter: 

The Park program is not as easy as it seems on account of so much of the land 

having gone into Private ownership. The Federal Government will not purchase 

land for park purposes. They never have. The State must and that will come 

slow.46

In July 1928, Norbeck joined a group of fellow Senators and National Park Service (NPS) 

officials on a trip to inspect proposed parks in the Dakotas and Wyoming. Their trip included a 

dinner stop at Ben Millard’s hotel, located in the vicinity of the Wall, and a spectacle of Indian 

dance at Interior, South Dakota. A resulting report from this trip concluded that the Badlands 

formations did not match those of the Grand Canyon, were less spectacular than Bryce Canyon, 

and therefore could not be awarded national park status. For his part, despite disappointment that 

the Badlands area could only be granted “monument” status, Senator Norbeck insisted that the 

state of South Dakota construct a highway through the proposed Badlands park and purchase 

most of the privately owned land, in the hope that this would ensure prompt tourism 

development of the site and full state cooperation. 

Finally, in 1929, President Coolidge authorized the creation of Badlands National Monument, 

comprising some 50,830 acres. Establishment of the Monument stipulated that land would be 

acquired and roads built at the state’s expense. Only after these conditions had been met to the 

satisfaction of the US President, could a proclamation be issued and the lands be dedicated as 

described. This bill also stipulated that the Department of the Interior could grant hotel and lodge 

franchises prior to fulfillment of the conditions.47

With the onset of the Great Depression, conditions for developing the Monument at Badlands 

looked bleak. It took several programs created by President Roosevelt to provide incentives and 

financial means to support further development. In June 1933, under executive order #6166, the 

monuments and public grounds of the nation’s capital, an assortment of national monuments 

previously under the US Forest Service, and many battlefields and military cemeteries previously 

under the war department were brought under the stewardship and management of the NPS. 

Furthermore, in 1934, under a cooperative agreement with the new Federal Emergency Relief 

Administration (FERA), the NPS assumed leadership for nationwide recreational planning and 

began to develop model parks called recreational demonstration areas on land considered submarginal for agriculture.48 

FERA provided the funding necessary for the government to acquire land that was otherwise 

unsuitable for agriculture but could be developed as public parkland. In addition to funding land 

 

46 Senator Norbeck to J.W. Parmley, Ipswich, SD November 7, 1927. [“Norbeck Collection of Papers,” Badlands 

National Park Library [F656.N6N111 No. 1.] 

47 House of Representatives Report No. 2607, 70th Congress, 2nd Session, quoted in Mattison and Grom, History of 

the Badlands, 34. 48 Linda Flint McClelland, Building the National Parks (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 328. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 19

purchases, it supported the establishment of recreational facilities by demonstrating how 

recreational facilities could be planned and developed.49 

Much of the land required to create a monument at Badlands was located in the public domain 

but a large area adjacent to the Monument was still owned by homesteaders who had left the area 

after continual battles with drought and other natural disasters. A federal government report 

determined that 60 percent of this land should be considered sub-marginal and “generally 

unsuited to agricultural uses... with some of it “so badly eroded that it will not maintain a grass 

and hence is wasteland except for its recreational and scenic beauty.”50

Support and interest in purchasing land for the National Monument came from various NPS 

executives. Regional director Herbert Maier, for example, wrote to NPS Washington 

headquarters regarding sub-marginal land in the area of Badlands National Monument stating: “I 

have personally visited this area and cannot recommend it too highly as having national appeal 

of a type unlike any other area in the United States. The land in use is extremely sub-marginal 

for cultivation or grazing, and is highly desirable for acquisition and development as a 

Recreational Demonstration Project, Type IV, an extension to a present public holding.” 51

In November 1934, NPS Director Arno B. Cammerer recommended to the Secretary of the 

Interior that he approve additional land for inclusion in the proposed Badlands National 

Monument. This could be implemented by executive order of the President, and executed by 

acquiring privately owned lands through existing federal government relief programs. 

In April 1935, officials from the Sub-Marginal Land Committee inspected areas in Jackson and 

Pennington Counties, certified them unsuitable for agricultural use, and recommended that they 

be made available for purchase by the NPS. The sub-marginal land project extended primarily 

over Townships 1, 2, 3, and 4, and south Ranges 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 east, in the 

southwestern part of South Dakota. Acquisition of the homesteads was complicated because 

many owners still held property rights, even though they no longer occupied the land. Many also 

owed taxes and mortgages on their lands in excess of their current value. In addition, some tracts 

of land had expired but unreleased oil leases.52 

Intervention came from the federal government in the form of approval from the Secretary of the 

Interior for the Badlands National Monument boundary extension in June 1936, an act that 

amended the original act of March 1929. It authorized the inclusion of adjacent or contiguous 

lands, as determined by the US President within five years from the act approval, and capped the 

size of the Monument at 250,000 acres. In the same month, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

ordered that all unreserved and non-appropriated lands in Pennington, Jackson, Fall River, and 

Custer Counties be “temporarily withdrawn from settlement, location, sale or entry for 

 

49 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 414. 50 Sub-Marginal Land Program, Certificate of Recommendation for Land Acquisition, Jackson and Pennington 

Counties, South Dakota, April 5, 1935. [Miscellaneous Papers, Badlands Nation Park (BNP) Library.] 

51 Herbert Maier, Regional Director to Land Program Division, Re: Badlands National Monument Extension, NPS, 

Washington, DC, April 2, 1935. [Miscellaneous Papers, BNP Library.] 

52 Sub-Marginal Land Committee Statement, April 5, 1935. [Miscellaneous Records, BNP Library.] 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 20

classification and use as a grazing project pursuant to the sub-marginal land program of the 

Federal Emergency Relief Administration.”53

With public land potentially becoming available for purchase, the NPS could begin developing 

plans for recreational infrastructure. 

Land Ownership 

During the early 1930s, two simultaneous developments had an impact on future park 

establishment: on a local level, increasing numbers of people were taking advantage of the 

railroads and seeking to settle the land near small western towns such as Interior; and on a 

national level, the federal government was seeking to conserve areas encompassing important 

natural resources. 

For decades, homesteaders had struggled to farm the western Plains despite problems with 

paucity of water and good soil. Immigrating families nevertheless sought to eke out a living on 

land that appeared at first to provide hope for a better future. Although it became increasingly 

evident that the land was poorly suited to agriculture, grazing and sheep farming remained a 

possibility for many. With the arrival of the railroads, and hence connection to more populated 

areas of the country, more settlers opted to take their chances in the region. From 1900 to 1905, 

the population in western South Dakota increased from 43,782 to 57,575; by 1910 it had more 

than doubled to 137,687. After 1910, the population continued to increase until the 1930s, but at 

a slower pace. Much of the settlement occurred in Pennington County, which had a regional 

urban center. Jackson County witnessed far less settlement.54

In 1912, the period to “prove up” on the lands purchased for homesteading was liberalized; the 

required residency changed to three, rather than the earlier five, years. In 1915, Congress applied 

the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 to South Dakota, enabling settlers to acquire parcels of 320 

acres instead of 160 acres; an amount that was more suited to cattle and sheep farms. Homestead 

laws were liberalized again in 1916 with the enactment of the Stock-Raising Homestead Act. 

This provided for 640-acre homesteads on lands officially designated as non-irrigable grazing 

lands. Encouraged by the high prices and increased demand for farm and ranch products during 

World War I, many farmers and ranchers took advantage of the liberalized homestead acts and, 

between 1910 and 1920, purchased increasing amounts of land in western South Dakota. Yet by 

1922, less than half of the land that was later included into Badlands National Monument was 

publicly owned (see Figure 2-12).55

Although many people who had farmed within the Badlands region fled during the 1930s when 

drought led to the Dustbowl years and waves of grasshoppers destroyed crops, others continued 

farming, with a heavy dependence on government assistance programs. 

 

53 Land Program Division Regional Officer Herbert Maier, “Report on Badlands National Monument Extension 

Project,” April 2, 1935. [Miscellaneous Records, BNP Library.] 

54 Mattison and Grom, A History of the Badlands, 26. 55 Mattison and Grom, A History of the Badlands, 24-26. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 21

Concessionaire Development 

When government officials including Senator Peter Norbeck and Louis Knowles visited the 

Badlands in the late 1910s and the 1920s, it was clear that a tourism industry was already 

becoming established. Visitors could see the Badlands from the cars of the Chicago, Milwaukee 

and St. Paul Railroad, which ran south of and parallel to the formations. 

At this time, Senator Norbeck and local concession owner Ben Millard were related through the 

recent marriage of Millard’s nephew and Norbeck’s daughter. Millard had seen an opportunity 

when he first arrived in the Badlands and read of plans to conserve the landscape and open it up 

for tourism. In the fall of 1927, Millard and Norbeck surveyed the area together to locate sites for 

developing a refreshment stand, a hotel, and a camp. They agreed that a stand would do well at 

Pinnacles, and they favored a site in the juniper grove at Cedar Pass for the campground and 

hotel. Although Millard and his sister attempted to lease the land from the federal government, 

they were blocked by Norbeck’s legislation withdrawing the federal land from public 

occupation. Fearing their application to lease federal land would not be granted, Millard’s sister, 

Clara Jennings, purchased a tract of private land at ten dollars an acre on a relatively flat prairie 

at the foot of Cedar Pass. The Millards regarded this as a temporary measure until a more scenic 

location could be acquired. As it transpired, the land they purchased was far more suited to 

development in terms of its topography and open landscape. Millard opted to construct a simple 

dance hall using bark-covered boards at this location. He engaged bands to play once or twice a 

week and on holidays in the spacious, high-ceilinged building. To safeguard his investment, 

Millard mounted an advertising campaign valued at $800 that brought visitors from as far away 

as Rapid City. From available documentation examined for this CLR, it appears that Ben Millard 

managed the Cedar Pass property, although his sister Clara owned it until his purchase in 1937 

(see Figure 2-13).56

Documentation regarding the construction of Millard’s lodge and curio extension is somewhat 

sketchy. Some sources suggest the lodge was constructed in 1928 and it is possible this was the 

bark-covered building seen in an historic photograph. An addition was made in 1930 along with 

some rental cabins for overnight tourists. The cabins later became the mainstay of his business 

(see Figures 2-14, 2-15, and 2-16).

57

Transportation Routes 

Documentation regarding the development of roads in the vicinity of and within the Badlands 

National Monument is somewhat sketchy. It is clear from visitors’ descriptions and historic 

photographs that an unpaved road led from Cedar Pass through the Badlands as early as 1919 

when Louis Knowles reported on conditions in the area for the US Forest Service. The road was 

rough and often treacherous. Attempts to master the steep incline often resulted in overheated 

engines. Tired and frustrated drivers parked precariously on the rugged verges of the trail with no 

hope of help or refreshment in sight (see Figures 2-17, 2-18, and 2-19). Settlers likely created 

 

56 Schuler, A Revelation Called the Badlands, 26-27 57 Schuler, A Revelation Called the Badlands, 27; Carey and Co. Inc. Architecture, Draft “Determination of 

Eligibility, Cedar Pass Lodge Area, Badlands National Park, Interior, South Dakota” (San Francisco: prepared for 

National Park Service, 2002). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 22

their own roads, crisscrossing the terrain where possible, primarily following section lines and 

connecting main roads to the interior of their privately owned parcels. 

A draft National Register Multiple Property Nomination for Historic Road Resources at 

Badlands National Park describes the development of roads in the vicinity as follows: 

By the late 1920s, US Highways 14 and 16 stretched east to west through local 

townships in the area, Cottonwood, Quinn, and Wall. US Highway 16 approached 

the badlands region from Chamberlain, to the east, and turned sharply north about 

seven miles west of Kadoka, only to turn sharply west again ten miles further 

where it joined US highway 14. These two highways skirted the badlands north of 

the Monument boundary58 (see Figures 2-20 and 2-21). 

Two railroad lines also served the area. The Chicago & North Western Railway passed near the 

town of Wall north of the Monument. The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific ran along 

and through the southern boundary of the proposed monument, paralleling State Highway 40 to 

Rapid City. 

The lack of safe, reliable public roads was clearly seen as a problem by many parties interested 

in developing the Badlands area. Early visitors entering the Badlands from Kadoka or 

Cottonwood had driven the ‘narrow and precipitous’ route through Cedar Pass. One visitor 

described it as follows: 

The passes become more crooked and the grades more steep. The road is bordered 

by profuse scrub trees. There is a thrill in that drive! At first it looks dangerous, 

but the danger seems to minimize as we approach each more steep and more 

crooked and more narrow section. By taking it the risk is small.59

Tourism was hindered because many of the interesting landmarks remained inaccessible. 

Scarcity of water also presented an obstacle as all known springs in the area were on patented 

land, and the springs flowed only during the early spring, barely supplying enough to meet 

domestic needs. 

Roads in the area of the Badlands did not differ too much from roads in other rural parts of the 

country. They were too few, poorly maintained, and frequently impassable. Since the late 19th

century, farmers all over the country who had trouble transporting their products to market had 

campaigned for better roads. The national Good Roads Movement, active in various states, 

promoted the construction of new roads and improvement of existing transportation routes. 

Whether it was appropriate to involve federal or state government was debated within the 

movement. In South Dakota, the Good Roads Movement began as early as 1908.60 

In December 1902, Congressman Walter Brownlow introduced the first bill suggesting a unified 

system of national, state and local roads; the bill provided for cooperative permanent 

 

58 Karmizski, Draft “National Register Multiple Property Documentation, Historic Roads Resources,” Section E, 

Page 9. 

59 Mattison and Grom, A History of the Badlands, 30. 60 http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su2.htm (accessed May 2004). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 23

improvement of public highways. The introduction of Henry Ford’s inexpensive automobile—

the Model T—in 1909 provided a stronger impetus for such a system as far greater numbers of 

the population suddenly had the means to travel cross-country. 

Better roads were clearly needed to access remote rural areas like the Badlands. To address this 

problem, Congress passed the Federal Aid Road Act in 1916. The act ensured that each state 

would have a highway agency with engineering professionals to carry out federal-aid projects, 

that projects were designed and constructed properly, and that rural life was enhanced by 

focusing on local or post roads rather than long-distance roads. In 1916, the South Dakota State 

Highway Commission was created to take advantage of federal monies available for state 

highway construction. Additional state legislation providing for new road construction was 

passed in 1917 and 1919.61 

The question of safer roads at the Badlands was addressed when the South Dakota Highway 

Commission announced plans to build a new highway through the area; its exact route became a 

cause of competition as interested parties viewed the highway as a business opportunity. The 

state, attempting to save costs, wanted to construct the road through the least rugged part of the 

country. This meant that it would avoid the area around the Wall, which encompassed a range of 

formations dividing the prairie from the valley below. Norbeck and Millard hoped the highway 

would instead follow the Wall, thereby providing access to the dramatic landforms of the 

Badlands. 

Millard surveyed the route he and Norbeck felt would be more scenic and interesting to tourists 

and eventually succeeded in convincing the state to extend the highway, as originally proposed, 

east from Big Foot Pass close along the Wall and up through Cedar Pass. At the same time that 

Norbeck was promoting the Badlands as a tourist destination, he also promoted the development 

of Custer State Park. Senator Norbeck became ‘legendary’ at Custer State Park for supporting 

the design of roads that would lead the visitor through scenic areas, yet preserve natural beauty 

by having the road curve around natural resources.62 

In 1928, State Highway 40 was under construction. Seven miles west of Kadoka where US 

Highway 16 turned north, State Highway 40 was proposed to continue in an easterly direction to 

connect with the existing State Highway at Kadoka. An existing portion of State Highway 40 

approached the Badlands from the west, connecting Rapid City with Scenic, Imlay, Conata, and 

Interior. From Interior it headed north toward Cedar Pass and south of Cedar Pass stretched 

further east, about fifteen miles. State Highway 40 was described as a graded road between 

Rapid City and Scenic and as a dirt road from Scenic to a point northeast of Interior. From that 

point northeast of Interior, the road was graded through Cedar Pass as well as along the fifteenmile road segment running east, south of Cedar Pass (see Figure 2-22).

63

By 1935, automobile travel was much improved as is evidenced by an NPS report that described 

the forty-two miles of existing roads within the Badlands Monument boundaries. Of these roads, 

twenty-one miles were graveled, and the other twenty-one were graded to a high standard. The 

 

61 http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su2.htm (accessed May 2004). 62 Karmizski, Draft “National Register Multiple Property Documentation, Historic Roads Resources,” Section E, 10. 63 Once the state had fulfilled obligations to construct roads in conjunction with the establishment of the Monument, 

responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of the roads within the Monument boundary fell to the NPS. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 24

route through the Monument was designated as State Highway 40. It arose from US Highway 16, 

seven miles east of the proposed monument, entered the Monument about four miles north of 

Millard’s hotel at Cedar Pass, and passed through Cedar Pass, Big Foot Pass, Dillon Pass, and 

Pinnacles Pass before reaching its terminus at Sage Creek (see Figure 2-23).64 

At Cedar Pass, a three-mile segment of low-standard road led from the Monument area to 

Interior. A high-standard road connected Interior with the Monument highway about three miles 

west of the Cedar Pass area. The NPS report indicated that one of these roads should be 

eliminated, and from the standpoint of traffic planning, that it should be the latter.65 

At the time the NPS began discussing a major lodge development in April 1935, the park could 

be entered from the east by way of State Highway 40. An improved roadway led to the Cedar 

Pass area and connected with an existing road from Interior running beside the Chicago, 

Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad. 

In 1936, the greatest advocate for a park at the Badlands, Senator Peter Norbeck, died. Norbeck 

had, however, lived to achieve many of his goals. Roads had been constructed, land acquired and 

boundaries for the National Monument authorized and established. In 1936, Congress authorized 

the enlargement of the National Monument to 250,000 acres by presidential proclamation.66 

EARLY MASTER PLANNING AND CCC DEVELOPMENT, 1938–1941 

National park master planning had begun in the late 1920s but only really developed as a fully 

supported practice in the 1930s. At the time, it was intended to consider all park improvements 

over a six-year period. By 1939, master planning was a component of the many emerging 

programs of the NPS, assisted by the New Deal program initiated by President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt.67 This section examines the initial Cedar Pass planning efforts conducted by the NPS, 

the physical development implemented by the CCC, and the additional land acquisition that 

accompanied these efforts prior to World War II. 

Master Planning 

Master planning became a mandatory NPS process in 1929 under the leadership of landscape 

architect Thomas Vint.68 Landscape preservation and conservation principles established in 1916 

were used to determined policies that guided planning. Key park service personnel including 

NPS Director Stephen Mather and Vint, among others, determined that in order to conform to 

principles of preservation and conservation of the natural landscape, construction was to disturb 

the ground as little as possible and improvements were to be of native materials, and rustic in 

character. This concept was particularly prevalent in national parks in the west where landscape 

architects struggled to plan necessary visitor facilities in landscapes that encompassed vast areas 

 

64 Howard W. Baker, Resident Landscape Architect, “Report to the Deputy Chief Architect on Development of 

Proposed Badlands National Monument,” November 13 and 14, 1935. [Miscellaneous Records, BNP Library.] 

65 Baker, “Report to the Deputy Chief Architect of Development of Proposed Badlands National Monument,” 1935. 

[Miscellaneous Records, BNP Library.] 

66 Mattison and Grom, History of Badlands, 9. 67 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 7. 68 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 293. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 25

of natural scenery.69 Schemes resulting from a philosophy that protected the natural environment 

provided for development in clusters where buildings were grouped together functionally and 

aesthetically into an attractive and harmonious “ensemble.” Often this involved making a 

decision as to whether to retain or demolish existing government or concessionaire buildings. 

The siting of facilities was further complicated by the need for certain structures to be visible to 

the public and others to be screened.70 

At the proposed Badlands National Monument, master planning conformed to principles set out 

by the main office of the NPS Branch of Plans and Design, Western Division, San Francisco. 

Resident landscape architect Howard Baker surveyed the area in 1935, and in a subsequent 

report indicated that one major and two minor developed areas should be considered.71

In 1938, much of the activity at Badlands continued to focus on land acquisition but also 

included planning for physical development (see Figure 2-24). Although acquisition of land 

remained problematic as much of the area was still in private ownership, the most pressing 

infrastructure need was providing clean water regularly to large numbers of people. An 

administrative facility was also needed to oversee management of the area. Such a facility would 

encompass offices, but also cover visitor facilities such as a museum and concessions within the 

same general area. In order to concentrate facilities, and avoid their duplication and piecemeal 

siting throughout the Monument, the NPS determined that it would be desirable to locate the 

headquarters, utility group, residential area, and visitor facilities in one more-or-less compact 

grouping. 

A master plan developed for the Badlands in 1938 described the advantages and disadvantages of 

constructing a future headquarters at either of the two already-developed sites. The Pinnacles site 

appears to have been the first choice for the headquarters due to its location at the juncture of two 

Monument highways (US Highway 16 and State Highway 40). It was also of interest because of 

its proximity to Pinnacles Pass and its centrality within the Monument area, which would 

facilitate administration. The connection to a transcontinental highway at Wall appears also to 

have been an advantage. Furthermore, park planners anticipated that a greater number of visitors 

would pass through the highly scenic Pinnacles area regardless of which entrance they used (see 

Figure 2-25). 

Nevertheless, another factor to be considered was the private development that had already been 

established at Cedar Pass. Ben Millard’s visitor facilities included a one-story frame structure 

that functioned as a dining hall, lounge, and kitchen; fifteen cabins; a gas station; and restrooms. 

Electricity lit the grounds and buildings, and a sewage disposal system emptied into septic tanks 

(see Figure 2-26, 2-27, and 2-28). 

 The NPS considered these facilities lacking in comfort and convenience, and inadequate for 

their projected visitation levels. Refurbishment appeared not to be a viable option, as this would 

still not meet NPS standards for quality accommodations, despite Millard’s construction of a 

 

69 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 138. 70 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 145-148. 71 Baker, “Report to the Deputy Chief Architect, Branch of Plans and Design, on Development of Proposed 

Badlands National Monument,” 1935. [Miscellaneous Records, BNP Library.] The idea of adobe or sod buildings 

appears to have been dropped early on in the planning and design process. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 26

stucco addition to the Lodge. One advantage to Millard’s development appears to have been the 

layout and organization of buildings on the landscape. The 1938 master plan shows the 

configuration of Millard’s development, which it suggests be demolished (see Figures 2-29 and 

2-30). 

The Site Design for Pinnacles 

The proposed headquarters site at Pinnacles was on a promontory that extended beyond the rest 

of the canyon rim, close to the precipitous cliff walls and towering high above the canyon 

bottom. The site would provide magnificent panoramic views of the Badlands formations that 

extended across the land. Arguments against establishing a headquarters site at the Pinnacles 

included the fact that there was little land on which to develop an administrative headquarters. 

This would have to be attempted at the nearest town, Wall, which did not fall within the National 

Monument boundary. The NPS had experienced problems maintaining administrative offices in 

towns or villages in the past, which made Wall less attractive. In addition, the water supply was 

severely limited. 

A proposal for development at the Pinnacles site took into consideration the visitor experience 

combined with protection of the natural resources, as well as the need to facilitate the lives of 

employees. The proposed master plan of 1938 shows administrative structures, a museum, and 

the operator’s building clustered along an axis formed by the entrance road and parking area. The 

proposed parking area was of a simple design, intended to avoid confusion and large enough to 

accommodate both current and projected future needs. The circulation route and parking area 

were designed to allow visitors to go from their cars to the various buildings without having to 

cross traffic. 

The 1938 plan for the headquarters building notes that the design was intended to provide an 

effective architectural setting while offering commanding views of the Badlands formations both 

from within the building and from its associated seating terrace. The partially roofed terrace, 

situated between the two wings of the building and extending to the rear, was intended as a shady 

retreat and observation point. The concessionaire’s wing was placed to the left of the main axis 

in close proximity to the cabin group that was also part of the concessionaire’s responsibility. 

There was a sharp division between the concessionaire’s units and government developments, 

each located on opposite sides of the main axis; yet they were still conveniently near one 

another. The concessionaire’s wing would have a dining room and lounge from which visitors 

could view the spectacular and colorful landscape.72 

The proposed utility group was placed at a distance from the center of activities, and at the 

bottom of a deep draw out of view from the main highway and the administration and 

concessionaire’s area. In addition to the compact grouping of the utility buildings, the plan was 

to connect individual buildings by walls that would act as a screen. The buildings in the utility 

grouping were designed to allow for future expansion. The residential area was proposed to be 

placed at a point which was sufficiently far from the center of activities to afford some privacy, 

yet close enough to be within easy walking distance of both utility and administrative groups. 

 

72 National Park Service, “Master Plan, Badlands National Monument, South Dakota,” 1938. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 27

Despite the many advantages of the Pinnacles site, it was ultimately rejected in favor of the 

Cedar Pass site. The primary concerns regarding the Pinnacles site was that it lacked available 

water, and locating administrative facilities in Wall was considered inefficient for park 

operations. 

The Site Design for Cedar Pass 

Cedar Pass was an attractive option for locating the park headquarters for a number of reasons. 

The park boundary and land acquisition issues were easier, particularly after Ben Millard offered 

to donate his land to the NPS. The proposed Cedar Pass site design was consistent with the 

Pinnacles proposal in its use of tight clusters and functional zoning. Zones promoted efficiency 

for those working onsite. For example, staff housing and administrative offices were in separate 

clusters, but employees could walk easily between the two areas. 

The 1938 Master Plan was amended several times to address the evolution of the new park, most 

notably in ca. 1943 when the NPS concentrated on developing Cedar Pass and abandoned the 

idea of locating a headquarters at the Pinnacles site. Sources differ as to the reason for choosing 

Cedar Pass over the Pinnacles. Some indicate it was the accessibility to water that made Cedar 

Pass the favored location. Others suggest it was Millard’s offer to donate approximately twentyeight acres of land to the endeavor.73

NPS reasons for retaining Millard’s facilities at Cedar Pass are also unclear but, in view of 

strained financial resources in the early years prior to and during World War II, it can be 

surmised that Millard’s improved facilities appeared more positive than they had initially. Rather 

than razing Millard’s development, the NPS assimilated them into new site development. By 

June 1940, five additional buildings had already been constructed at Cedar Pass relating to 

maintenance and administration.74 

Once the issue of location had been settled, materials had to be selected. As a historically-used 

material, it is not surprising that natural sod was given serious consideration as a possible 

building material for all the units in the headquarters area. In 1935, resident landscape architect 

Howard W. Baker had recommended adobe as a building material, but Thomas Vint preferred 

investigating the possibility of using sod. Eventually, the idea was rejected as impractical. A 

stone quarry was found within the vicinity from which a hard, gray stone could be obtained in 

quantities sufficient to construct all of the proposed buildings, although it is not known what type 

of stone this was. The master plan conceded that stone construction would be more expensive 

than sod, but noted it would also be “far more permanent, free of vermin attack, and the erosion 

to which sod is subjected.” In addition, stone would “eliminate the need of constant 

maintenance.” Stone would also allow for the construction of large structures and, as noted in the 

plan “would lend itself to a freer and more interesting architecture.”75 

 

73 Karsmizki, Draft “National Register Multiple Property Nomination, Historic Roads Resources at Badlands 

National Park,” Section E, page 20; Mattison and Grom, History of the Badlands, 43. 74 Superintendent’s Reports, April 1941. BNP Library. 

75 National Park Service, “Master Plan; Badlands National Monument, South Dakota,” 1938. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 28

In 1939, the Badlands was proclaimed a national monument consisting of 150,000 acres. It 

became the seventy-seventh national monument and the 151st area in the federal park system to 

be administered by the NPS. 

Early Park Development 

The Civilian Conservation Corps was brought into the Badlands to provide much needed labor 

for park development. Initial construction efforts were impaired by the fact that the CCC camp 

had been located at Quinn Table and much of their work was needed between Cedar Pass and the 

Pinnacles, thus, laborers wasted much of the day traveling to and from the site. Consequently, a 

mess kitchen and mess hall was constructed at Cedar Pass; later, a camp was established there as 

well. Custodian’s reports indicate that the ‘army’ was to erect a camp for CCC laborers at Cedar 

Pass. It is not clear if this was possibly a way of referring to the CCC or was indeed an army 

unit.76 The earlier CCC camp at Quinn Table was abandoned and transferred from the Army to 

the NPS. A caretaker was assigned to the Quinn site to repair broken windows and close up the 

buildings. 

The new CCC camp was located just south of the Monument boundary on land owned by the 

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and was protected from the severe, prevailing, northwesterly 

winds by the formations that surround it on three sides. Approximately 1,800 square feet of main 

water line had to be laid between the camp and the Monument residential area before the 

permanent reservoir could be used. In the meantime, the camp was supplied through a 6,000 

gallon steel tank, which was subject to freezing in cold weather. 

The new CCC camp included a utility area, maintenance garage, and blacksmith shop. Although 

the camp was ultimately dismantled, some of the buildings and associated features in the utility 

area were retained and became the park’s maintenance yard. The maintenance yard remains 

separated from other functions in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. With the retention, and 

ongoing development of this utility area, a precedent was set for the location of maintenance 

facilities away from other developed area functions. 

To address the water problem, which was nearly as bad at Cedar Pass as it was at Wall, funding 

in the amount of $22,000 dollars was appropriated to fund a reservoir system. The funds were 

intended for the construction of a pipeline from the White River to a reservoir that would store 

100,000 gallons, complete with a collection system, a pump house and pumping equipment at the 

White River, and distribution lines in the headquarters area. This water system was constructed 

between May 1940 and May 1941. 

The early years of park development also focused on providing the visitor with information. 

Altogether, fifty signs constructed of wood and concrete were erected at Cedar Pass and 

elsewhere along visitor routes. Roads were improved with new layers of gravel, abandoned 

farmsteads were razed, a ranger was employed to assist visitors, and a building was constructed 

near the Pinnacles checking station that would serve as the temporary residence for the acting 

custodian until a permanent residence could be completed at Cedar Pass. The ranger played an 

 

76 Superintendent’s/Custodian’s Reports, September 1941. BNP Library. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 29

important part in addressing visitor needs by documenting and ranking their requests for things 

like road improvements, expanded museum facilities, and restroom facilities.77

Visitors complained of the lack of sanitary facilities and water and the condition of the highway. 

The NPS constructed five new parking areas along the Monument in the early 1940s as park 

managers feared that erosion was exacerbated by drivers pulling over their cars along roadsides

(see Figure 2-32). 

This was addressed in 1940 when Millard constructed a new gas station and comfort station 100 

feet west of the lodge. This building was constructed with underground public flush-type toilets, 

an improvement over the pit toilets that had served the camp in previous years. Millard 

constructed a camp building, 36 feet by 70 feet, to house men’s and women’s toilets for the 

entire cabin camp and the old gas station was moved south near the utility area, leaving the north 

side of the highway free of obstruction (see figure 2-33).78 

Visitors felt the park should be more widely advertised and ranger-naturalist services added. In 

1940, Millard offered the only such services at Cedar Pass Lodge, where he lectured nightly on 

the geologic history of the Badlands, showed several reels of film of the Badlands, Custer State 

Park, and Wind Cave National Park. The NPS considered his lecture and accompanying film in 

conformance with park policies and satisfactory to Monument visitors, although it was clear that 

the Monument’s significance was not fully appreciated by visitors. 

In January 1941, Ben Millard began construction of a sewer line from his lodge, intending to 

connect it with the NPS sewer system. At about the same time, CCC crews constructed a pipeline 

ditch from the reservoir at Cedar Pass to the highway, crossing at the junction of the highway 

and the headquarters area service road. 

As the facilities at Cedar Pass improved, local landowners requested assistance with 

improvements that would provide connections to their lands, and to services they might want to 

make available to visitors. The NPS denied a request to establish a road from the highway to the 

gas station and refreshment stand across State Highway 40. A request to open a saddle horse 

concession in the Cedar Pass area was also denied. The latter request was denied on the basis that 

facilities available for caring for and stabling horses were inadequate and demand for such a 

concession was limited. The concession was subsequently set up on privately owned land.79 

Relations with adjacent landowners were not always on the best of terms and conflicts arose 

particularly with reference to accessibility of land for grazing. The park wanted to avoid having 

stock graze throughout the park land while farmers wanted to continue their traditional practice 

of allowing the animals to roam freely. A paucity of fences meant that herds of domestic stock 

grazed at will over government land, as well as lands owned or leased by private individuals. The 

NPS was concerned that the grassland was threatened from overgrazing. Owners for their part 

attempted to cooperate but were unable to afford to fence their property. 

 

77 Superintendent’s/Custodian Reports called the ranger station a checking station not a check-in station, possibly 

because rangers were positioned to check on the needs of visitors. 78 This building was rehabilitated in 1951 but sold in 1959. 

79 Superintendent’s Reports, June–August 1940. BNP Library. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 30

Acting Custodian Stricklin noted that: “It would appear that until the land at such strategic places 

within the Monument can be purchased such incidents will continue to occur.” 

Grazing of sheep, cattle and horses on the Monument was noted—this is 

practically impossible to check as long as large tracts of county and private land 

exist within the boundaries here owners can headquarter herds of stock and allow 

them to overflow on to unmarked ground.80 

At this point the NPS began to keep better records of land ownership within the designated park 

boundary, and determined that Jackson County owned 3,990 acres within the Monument 

boundary and private individuals living within Jackson County owned an additional 280 acres. In 

addition, Pennington County was found to own 10,589 acres within the boundary and private 

citizens residing within Pennington County owned another 16,383 acres. Eventually, these lands 

were incorporated into federal ownership and grazing permits were ceased. 

In February 1942, federal agencies acknowledged the importance of beef as a commodity to 

support the war. In January 1943, under a plan proposed by Congressman Case to help in the 

“Beef for Victory” program, the NPS authorized grazing permits for the first time on federally 

owned grasslands within the Monument boundary. Under this program, the Monument was 

divided into seven grazing units. Land exchange occurred under an agreement known as the 

Recommended Program of Procedure, which made it possible to transfer without legislation 

3,676.19 acres of NPS lands lying outside the park boundary to the Soil Conservation Service 

(SCS). This was done by order of the Secretary of the Interior in July 1949. An orderly grazing 

plan was established with the aid of the SCS and as part of the new agreement, permits for the 

grazing of sheep and cattle were issued to individuals or farming organizations with the 

understanding that the grazing would be terminated over the course of some eighteen years—by 

1961—through mandatory reductions of a little more than 15 percent every three years. 

The question of grazing was problematic for both NPS and stockmen alike, and numerous 

meetings were called in an effort to come to terms with the issues. This continued for some time. 

At a South Dakota conference in March 1954, for example, it was agreed that existing boundary 

lines in general should remain in place. Landowners within the Sage Creek basin were permitted 

to continue grazing under permit and the NPS agreed to look into the possibilities of establishing 

a fenced game reserve between Interior and Konata, and running north to Big Foot Pass for the 

showing of small bands of antelope, deer, buffalo and a few wild horses in natural prairie 

surroundings. It was also agreed that negotiations with the Oglala Sioux Tribe regarding 

exchange of Land Utilization (LU) lands in the Pine Ridge Reservation for Sheep Mountain on 

the west end of the Monument should continue.81 The complicated land ownership patterns in the 

National Monument, along with the terms of the grazing permits, would plague the NPS for 

years. 

In May 1941, Millard donated 160 acres that enabled the NPS to construct a custodian’s 

residence at Cedar Pass. Although the land was located close to the formations, it became the 

 

80 Superintendent’s Reports, June 1940. BNP Library. 

81 The Land Utilization Project is part of the history of national grasslands, national forests, and the Soil 

Conservation Service. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 31

beginning of the headquarters’ residential area. At the same time, Millard continued to actively 

develop the area, laying cement asbestos pipes to the reservoir and constructing septic and 

dosing tanks that would eventually constitute the sewer system at Cedar Pass headquarters. 

Millard also remodeled several cabins in 1941, added plumbing, and constructed one new cabin. 

It is estimated that the park was subsequently able to accommodate 125 people per night during 

the season, an increase of 25 over previous seasons. In addition, Millard donated to the NPS 

additional lands that he had purchased from Jackson County. 

WORLD WAR II, 1942–1945 

During America’s involvement in World War II, Monument development at Badlands, including 

Cedar Pass slowed almost to a standstill. Many of the CCC laborers were called to serve in the 

military, and funding was reduced to such a degree that it barely covered minimal maintenance. 

Nonetheless, planning for development of the Monument continued. Lands within the Monument 

boundary were also affected by a decision enabling the US Army to evacuate Indians and other 

residents from the portion of the Monument known as the Pine Ridge Reservation in order to 

establish a bombing range. Because of the way in which this appropriation of land would affect 

grazing, park officials became concerned that a demand for grazing privileges within the 

Monument would ensue. Indeed, stock farmers who had previously leased land within the 

reservation were left with no place to run their cattle once the Army had taken over the 

reservation. 

In 1942, a revised master plan focused on ‘objectionable features’ that would have to be removed 

in order to create a public place of natural beauty and interest. The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul 

and Pacific Railroad, which passed through the park’s southern boundary, was considered 

intrusive, and since it was a small, single-track branch line on a poorly graded roadbed and 

carried little traffic, it was hoped that the line could be moved, if not eliminated. In a few places 

where the line passed through grazing land, the right-of-way was fenced with barbed wire, also 

considered visually intrusive within the landscape. Five miles of the line passed through the 

Monument near the town of Interior, with another two miles of line running near the town of 

Scenic. 

Some of the privately owned unimproved roads, particularly those located along the northern and 

southern boundaries that connected with the main Monument highway, were also considered a 

problem from an administrative and security perspective. The 1942 Master Plan proposed to gain 

permission to close these roads in the future. 

Finally, the Millard cabins, which provided the only overnight accommodations within the 

Monument, were considered inadequate. It was proposed that these be acquired at some future 

date in order to control concessionaire development. The 1942 master plan illustrates twelve 

existing cabins, the dance hall, and a planned Custodian’s Residence in the administration area. 

The 1950 Master Plan shows this building labeled as ‘Building #12’ (see Figure 2-34).

A memorandum regarding development at Cedar Pass noted that it should be kept relatively 

inconspicuous, with minimal tourist facilities, and lodging and food service kept at one location. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 32

It was considered especially desirable, soil conditions permitting, to keep all necessary utility 

lines underground. 

The Monument’s water supply was a constant source of concern. In 1942, the cement-asbestos 

water line from the pumping station at White River to the reservoir at Cedar Pass suffered breaks 

due either to improper laying of the pipe or to abnormal settling from excessive rainfall. In every 

case the pipe was found to have broken near the middle of the thirteen-foot section, where the 

dirt bedding under the pipe had been soaked away by surface water that had penetrated the dirt 

backfill of the ditch.82 

In 1943, members of the 21st Service Group of the armed forces constructed a bridge at the 

White River crossing west of Kadoka with an approach road following the water line from a 

point near the pumping station to join State Highway 40 directly south of the Monument 

headquarters area.83 From this junction it was expected that traffic would go west to the town of 

Interior to reach the Monument, but that some traffic would continue north along the Monument 

service road through the utility and residential areas, joining State Highway 40, sometimes also 

referred to as the Badlands Highway, near Cedar Pass lodge. Concern was expressed that, if this 

did not happen, the headquarters layout would be seriously affected. It was then decided to 

abandon the service road below the utility area, fencing it off at the pump house with the addition 

of a gate for employee use only. Thus public access via this route to the utility and residential 

areas was severed. 

In April 1944, the landscape architect for Wind Cave National Park provided design concepts for 

tree and shrub plantings in association with the residences within Cedar Pass. The proposed 

plantings provided the buildings with a visual buffer. Other proposals suggested removing trees 

and shrubbery from in front of the administration building to establish a panoramic view of the 

surrounding landscape. 

POST WORLD WAR II DEVELOPMENT, 1945–1956 

By the time CCC efforts at Badlands were terminated in 1942, a number of administrative 

changes had occurred in the program at the national level. Diminishing funds and staff at the 

regional office level meant that regional landscape architects and architects spent less time at 

individual sites and were consequently less familiar with them. The craftsman’s ethic and 

attention to detail, which had previously guided the design of structures, gave way to a 

functionalism in design, which advocated modern materials, streamlined forms, and mechanized 

technology. On the one hand, adherence to principles of rustic design, such as using curved lines 

and avoiding right angles continued, yet the character of park structures, roads, and trails began 

to change from the design of the New Deal era.84 

At Badlands, visitation dropped precipitously during the war, with the number of overnight 

visitors reduced to two or three per night compared to fifty or more per night during the pre-war 

period. This prompted park officials to consider ways to improve facilities to attract visitors, and 

 

82 Superintendent’s Reports, May 1942. BNP Library. 

83 Superintendent’s Reports, September 1943. BNP Library. 

84 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 452. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 33

make the park safer and more accessible. At this point visitor facilities owned by private 

concessionaire Millard were absorbed into a more comprehensive NPS development plan. 

Visitor use facilities were separated from park administration and maintenance functions. For 

example, plantings screened the Cedar Pass reservoir and its access road was barricaded to keep 

out visitors. A fence also surrounded the sewage disposal lagoon behind the Cedar Pass Lodge 

and cabins. 

During the 1940s, the development to improve facilities at Cedar Pass continued. The park 

mulched steep road shoulders and rugged narrow washes throughout the Monument in 

November 1945 as part of an experimental program. In 1947, the Rural Electrification Authority 

(REA) provided electrical service. Road improvements occurred in 1948: the park oiled almost 

four miles of State Highway 40 (also known as Monument Road) between Cedar Pass junction 

and Norbeck Pass (which then became known as Route 2), and the NPS secured a permit to 

change the State Highway 40 alignment. 

The NPS completed the custodian’s house in November 1946. In July 1948, a new sewer line 

was constructed from the custodian’s residence to the old line. In 1946, Millard’s gas station and 

restroom facilities continued to serve a desperate need; the park’s ability to supply clean water 

for public use remained a problem. 

Between May 1948 and the end of 1949, improvements were made to the utility buildings. Some 

were moved elsewhere to serve other uses. For example, one of the old CCC buildings was 

moved to the vicinity of the new Custodian’s House and remodeled to function as a garage (see 

Figure 2-35). The old blacksmith’s shop was moved to a site near the highway, and remodeled 

for use as a temporary headquarters office (see Figures 2-36 and 2-37). Between December 1948 

and January 1949, the custodian’s position was changed to superintendent. 

In 1949, the NPS removed slab siding at the Cedar Pass Lodge and from some of the cabins and 

replaced it with stucco, and planned for grading the parking in front of the Lodge. Slabs were 

reused at building #11, which was the temporary headquarters. Grading at this area was begun in 

order to allow access to the building (see Figures 2-38 through 2-40).85 

In June and July 1949, a large stock pond constructed west of Cedar Pass Lodge outside the 

south boundary brought about an unwanted concentration of grazing in and around headquarters, 

illustrating once again the undesirability of issuing grazing permits. However, these were soon to 

be terminated (see Figure 2-41).86 

The 1950 Master Plan shows proposed features and the extant Millard development.87 The 

Millard property sits along State Highway 40, with the lodge and custodian’s residence at the 

head of a horseshoe-shaped cluster that comprised six large cabins and fifteen smaller cabins, a 

storage area, power house, laundry, and dormitories off the cabin area (see Figure 2-42). A 

stucco one- story addition was made to the lodge in 1950. Documentary evidence suggests that 

 

85 Superintendent’s Reports, April 1949. BNP Library. 

86 Superintendent’s Reports, July 1949. BNP Library. 

87 Drawing reference number NM-BL-029B. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 34

Millard may have moved his cabins to accommodate the new alignment of the Cedar Pass 

Pinnacles road in the 1930s. 

The 1950 plan proposed an administrative area sheltered at the foot of the formations. A utility 

road is shown connecting a sixty-car parking lot in front of the administration building with 

residential buildings clustered in a horseshoe shape along a secondary road off the utility area. A 

powder magazine was located in the distance off the old road to Interior and close to the ‘present 

utility area’ marked on the plan for obliteration. A proposed new utility area appears on the plan 

between the pump house and residential area in the area in which the CCC had their camp (see

Figure 2-42).

The development shown in the 1950’s Master Plan clearly builds on the ideas shown on the 1938 

Master Plan. The alignment of the cabins, however—as noted earlier—appears to have been 

altered, possibly due to the realignment of the road extending from State Highway 40 in front of 

the Lodge (see Figure 2-42 detail).

Between mid-1950 and 1951, extensive rehabilitation of the utility site was conducted. Sixteen 

new highway signs were constructed, and the woodwork on residences was painted. Building 

#12 was completed, and building #9 received a concrete floor. A traffic counter was installed at 

Cedar Pass Lodge which was the only concession building left in the Monument, the concession 

building at the Pinnacles having been razed by this time, and Cedar Pass Lodge was considered 

the best place to keep track of visitation (see Figure 2-43). A drift fence was constructed to keep 

cattle from around the lower utility area and Cedar Pass Lodge. Sanitary features for building 

#13 were completed. New roofing was completed on building #1, the repair shop; #3, the gas and 

oil house; #5, the employees’ temporary quarters; and #7, the storage shed. Buildings #3 and #5 

each received a coat of silver gray paint. 

Other minor alterations were carried out within Cedar Pass in the early part of 1950. These 

included the addition of a small enclosure in the rear of the administration building to protect the 

future fire danger station site and installation of a culvert beneath the service road at the upper 

utility area. In February 1951, electrical service was extended to the lower utility area. Although 

the site plan was simple, the NPS administrative headquarters area was taking shape. The NPS 

presence was symbolized by repainting and erecting the flagpole from the former CCC camp at 

the new headquarters site (see Figures 2-44 and 2-45). 

In 1952, Congress authorized a 27,000-acre reduction in the size of Badlands National 

Monument. This was to ensure that the Monument conformed to federal standards for this type 

of park designation. The proposed reduction prompted a reassessment of the land needed for a 

significant National Monument at the Badlands. A memo stated: 

If it is found, as appears likely that our chief concern and purpose should be with 

the Badlands formations then the boundaries should be drawn accordingly, with 

due regard for the Badlands protection, interpretation, and attendant development 

needs. If we are to retain some or all of the grasslands we must have strong and 

valid justification for doing so and be prepared to disclose and defend what 

specific Monument purposes and uses they are to serve. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 35

Between 1952 and 1955, maintenance of roadways continued. In 1952, a mixture of buffalo and 

blue grama grasses as well as crested wheat was seeded on slopes along approximately three 

miles on the northeast entrance road; guardrails were installed, platform fills were completed, 

one trail was finished and another readied for pavement. Construction of a new utility road was 

finished; and new metal road signs were installed. Telephone service was extended to the 

headquarters at the Monument. Further rehabilitation of accommodations also occurred, with 

three cabins at Cedar Pass Lodge modernized with showers and toilet facilities. The park 

residential area was upgraded through the addition of prefabricated houses, and walks for all 

quarters. A 1953 proposed planting plan shows massings of plantings around the headquarters 

area as well as the employee residences, with scattered shrubs and trees articulating modern 

landscape characteristics. Crisp lines delineate the edges of irregular polygon-shaped beds within 

an amorphous, free-flowing grassy area. This planting scheme contrasted sharply with the 

geometric symmetry of the buildings, yet drew the surrounding area in, sculpting the natural and 

manmade into a continuous form in which indoor and outdoor space is shared. Landscape 

features at Badlands are in general quite sparse likely due to the harsh climate of the area (see 

Figure 2-46).88

Additional modern landscape features included gradually graded ramps and wide entry walks 

that were intended to accommodate the movement of large numbers of people. Plans also 

included the design of broad elevated terraces with aggregate stone surfaces and protective walls 

that would provide safe, uncrowded viewpoints.89

By 1955, visitation had swelled beyond all expectations. The popularity of the park, and public 

appreciation of its spectacular resources, fostered a new discussion in Congress regarding the 

need to increase the Monument’s size to have it designated as a national park. The number of 

campers and picnickers at the park had increased by 200 percent since the end of the war. In May 

1955, the Millard family donated two more tracts of land, totaling 18.5 acres, to the NPS. Of this, 

5.85 acres located in front of the Cedar Pass Lodge were donated for the relocated highway 

right-of-way; the remaining 12.65 acres made the development of the Cedar Pass campground 

possible. The initial 1955 plan for a campground differs greatly, however, from that ultimately 

constructed under the auspices of Mission 66 (see Figure 2-47). 

MISSION 66, 1956–1966

See Map 2-1, 1966 Period Plan 

Ten years after the end of World War II, economic prosperity catapulted Americans into a 

lifestyle that had greater flexibility, wealth, mobility, and opportunities for recreation. This new 

lifestyle prompted visitation at state and national parks to rise to record numbers. In 1955, the 

number of visitors to national parks totaled 50 million, twice the number that the parks were 

equipped to accommodate. A strategy for how to address this issue became of paramount 

importance to the NPS. In the development for future expansion and improvement, the early 

planning efforts were used as a foundation. This was as true at Badlands as it was elsewhere in 

the country. 

 

88 Carey and Co., Draft “Determination of Eligibility Cedar Pass Visitor Center,” Section 7, page 9. 

89 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 466. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 36

Promoting the Program 

The sudden surge in visitors after World War II found park officials fighting for funding to 

support long-term plans for maintenance and rehabilitation. Had the early master plans of the 

1930s and 1940s not been in place, it would have proven much harder for park administrators to 

develop the Mission 66 concept. The purpose of Mission 66 was really an attempt to update, 

carry out, and improve on earlier master plans, such as the Badlands National Monument master 

plan of 1938.90

On December 9, 1951, Conrad Wirth was named Director of the NPS.91 He devised a solution to 

the funding problems that had plagued development at the parks for years. Long-term projects 

required long-term funding sources and Congress had not been forthcoming in the past. In 

addition, many parks had been allowed to deteriorate during the war years, performing only 

minimal maintenance. Although fiscal recovery was slow following the war, visitation increased 

dramatically; and NPS officials realized that parks were falling short in fulfilling a growing 

demand for quality recreation. In place of the traditional annual budget requests, NPS Director 

Wirth proposed petitioning for an entire decade of funding from Congress in order to correct the 

parks’ degraded condition and provide sufficient assistance for them to realize their full 

potential. Wirth and his colleagues devised a plan called Mission 66 that they hoped would fund 

projects beginning in 1956 and continue over a ten year period. Mission 66 had a framework of 

accepted standards that would ensure that basic facilities would be provided at all parks. 

In a statement describing the Mission 66 program, the NPS noted that: 

Mission 66 is a forward looking program for the National Park System intended 

to so develop and staff these priceless possessions of the American people as to 

permit their wisest possible use; maximum enjoyment for those who use them; 

and maximum protection of the scenic, scientific, wilderness, and historic 

resources that give them distinction.92 

The statement went on to describe the importance of visitor “enjoyment-without-impairment,” 

which considered protection of the resource. The fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the 

NPS would occur in 1966, and total visitation at the nation’s parks was projected to reach 80 

million that year. Using the ten-year span between 1956 and 1966, Mission 66 was intended to 

“replace outmoded and inadequate facilities with physical improvements adequate for expected 

demands but so designed and located to reduce the impact of public use on valuable and 

destructible features.” In addition, the program was intended to provide both facilities and 

personnel for visitor services of the quality and quantity that the public was entitled to expect in 

its National Park System. 

In January 1956, the NPS held a meeting to discuss the development of Badlands National 

Monument within the parameters of Mission 66; from this meeting, an executive committee was 

created for the purpose of steering development at the park. The following month, a second 

 

90 Conrad L. Wirth, Parks, Politics and the People (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), 59. 

91 Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, 21. 

92 “What is Mission 66,” in Badlands National Park Mission 66 folder, National Archives – Plains, Kansas City, 

MO. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 37

meeting introduced the Mission 66 plan to members of the Wall Chamber of Commerce. Later 

that spring, the Superintendent of the park spoke to the Commercial Club at Murdo, the Big 

Buffalo Farmers Union, and the Big Buffalo 4-H Club. Because the Mission 66 plan would 

greatly affect visitation, allowing far greater numbers than ever before to visit the park, and 

likely provide benefits to local businesses, it was important for the NPS to keep the local 

population informed of their decisions. 

Programmatic changes due to Mission 66 encompassed education and interpretation. Not only 

would there be enhanced opportunities to provide information to the visitor, the NPS would use 

that information to protect the physical environment from deterioration. Gathering of information 

by park historians and naturalists was therefore given greater importance. This information was 

used in interpretive programs but also as a tool to better understand how to protect and preserve 

the park’s resources.93 Information was relayed to the visitor through a building—visitor 

information center—designed specifically for the purpose of explaining the significance of the 

park’s natural and cultural resources. 

The new visitor information center became a focus point of Mission 66 developments. Prior to 

the development of this type of facility, which became known as the Visitor Center, the only 

contact visitors had with park staff had been via a small information station staffed by seasonal 

employees during the summer, and only 5.1 percent of park visitors typically stopped at this 

station (see Figure 2-48).94

The Visitor Center 

During Mission 66, interpretive programs focused on providing information to visitors through 

comprehensive exhibits housed at central locations. Attempts to do this had occurred at various 

parks in the 1930s with the construction of early museums, which tended to be small, 

uncomfortable places that provided minimal information. During Mission 66, at Badlands, much 

thought went into how such an information locale could be improved to provide a range of 

information encompassing indigenous natural features and cultural resources. This was a primary 

feature of the Mission 66 Visitor Center concept.95 

Integral to the planned central role of the Visitor Center was its placement in the park. Early in 

the Mission 66 program, NPS architects identified three potential locations for the placement of 

Visitor Centers: 

An ‘entrance’ Visitor Center established the mood of the park and introduced the 

visitor to the total interpretation of park values; the ‘en route’ center posed the 

problem of simultaneously introducing the visitor to the park and providing 

information about the site to be visited; most common was the ‘terminal’ Visitor 

Center located at a popular destination which supplied the visitor with a summary 

of park values, while incorporating relevant information about the area.96

 

93 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 466. 

94 This information station was moved to the Pinnacles area after the opening of the new Visitor Center at Cedar 

Pass. Superintendent’s Notes, 1958. BNP Library. 

95 Wirth, Parks, Politics and the People, 45. 96 Sarah Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type (Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 2000), 28. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 38

Placement of the Visitor Center was indeed crucial as architects were encouraged to make use of 

surrounding views in their designs, and consider how the Visitor Center siting would influence 

the location of future buildings. It was felt that placement “affects how, in what sequence, the 

story is told as well as how much or how little.” NPS Naturalist Paul Schultz commented: “a 

Visitor Center should be in touch with the feature it interprets.”97

The concept of a Visitor Center at Badlands National Monument began with a 1956 prospectus 

documenting the significance of the Monument, the condition of its existing facilities, and the 

adjustments required to accommodate the growing number of visitors at Cedar Pass. 

Superintendent George B. Sholly also submitted a “museum prospectus” in 1957, specifically 

addressing the visitor services requirements. He felt that Cedar Pass was an ideal location that 

allowed visitors to arrive from either the east or west and experience some of the Badlands 

formations before arriving at the Visitor Center. After viewing the exhibits and information, the 

visitors would then be able to enjoy the rest of the park with new appreciation and 

understanding. In the museum prospectus Sholly outlined in detail the necessary public spaces 

within the Visitor Center, providing rough dimensions for each.98 

Cecil Doty, chief designer at the Western Office of Design and Construction (WODC) in San 

Francisco, California, incorporated much of this information into his preliminary drawing for the 

Visitor Center at Cedar Pass in February 1957. Using Sholly’s suggestions, Doty oriented the 

Visitor Center to face the Badlands Wall and provided the lobby with a “picture window” view 

of the formations. Through a prominent raised porch glass-enclosed lobby, views were afforded 

north toward the Badlands landforms. To shield it from climatic extremes, the public entrance 

was located on the building’s north side at the rear of a large covered porch. The interior layout 

of spaces was intended to accommodate the programmatic requirements of the building and 

maintain separate visitor services and administrative functions. For example, public restrooms 

were constructed in a separate, exterior space, a corridor separated administrative functions from 

visitor space, and moveable partitions allowed for flexibility of space between the offices. A 

landscaping scheme consisted of porch planters and shrubs against the front façade. 

An alternate design dated November 1957, displays a ‘z’ shaped footprint and a porch spanning 

most of the front façade. As in the earlier design, the glass lobby and other public functions were 

placed on the west side of the building; however, the visitor spaces appear more separated from 

the administrative zone, standing together as a suite at an angle to the main section. The 

restrooms are grouped together and placed at an opposite angle. Within this new geometry, the 

administrative corridor, still parallel to the highway and featuring storage to the north and offices 

to the south, takes on the additional function of connecting one angled section to the other (see 

Figure 2-53).99

After several refinements to the preliminary design, Doty handed over the plans to the Rapid 

City architecture firm of Lucas, Craig and Whitman. The final design deviated only slightly from 

its conservative rectangular footprint and spare detailing. His “z”-shaped design was closer in 

many ways to an attempt to express the Park Service Modern design sensibility and would have 

 

97 Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type, 28. 

98 Carey and Co., Draft “Determination of Eligibility Cedar Pass Visitor Center,” 9: 21. 99 Carey and Co., Draft “Determination of Eligibility Cedar Pass Visitor Center,” 9: 25. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 39

been a stronger rival in modern aesthetic design to other exemplary Visitor Centers had it been 

built. Lucas, Craig and Whitman prepared and issued construction drawings with a few minor 

modifications such as reducing the number of skylights by half, and eliminating the planters at 

the porch, thus giving the porch a more utilitarian and severe appearance than originally 

intended. By May 1958, they had issued a complete set of construction drawings and two months 

later Corner, Howe and Lee, also a local firm, began construction on the new Visitor Center at 

Cedar Pass. 100 

Extreme weather conditions caused a brief delay in construction of the Visitor Center when 

winds ripped the roof off the exhibit room portion of the building (consisting at that time of 

trusses and decking) from the walls, and it literally sailed across the access road, causing $8,000 

worth of damage. With the roof gone, one interior wall and one exterior wall crumbled. 

Fortunately, no injuries were sustained. Work resumed, and the Visitor Center was completed in 

late 1958 and dedicated at a ceremony in 1959 (see Figures 2-54 and 2-55). It was the first 

Mission 66 Visitor Center to be completed in South Dakota.101

In 1958, the same building contractors—Corner, Howe and Lee, of Rapid City, South Dakota—

also completed five new personnel residences at Cedar Pass. These new facilities permitted the 

addition of a permanent Park Naturalist and an Administrative Aide to the Monument. Gas 

service was connected to the five new residences and three existing residences, enhancing living 

conditions (see Figures 2-56 and 2-57). A year later, landscape improvements, consisting of 200 

truck loads of subsoil and 350 truck loads of topsoil prepared the grounds surrounding the 

residences and Visitor Center. By the end of June 1959, the NPS constructed three seasonal 

apartments and a utility shop, erected sixty-four miles of fence, and established access roads to 

the residential area (see Figures 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, and 2-61). 

In 1958, parking areas and driveways for the residential housing and seasonal residences were 

graded and surfaced with gravel. Trees and shrubs were planted at the apartment houses and the 

Visitor Center, and lawn was established and maintained. Landscaping was also carried out in 

other areas, such as at the headquarters. One hundred acres of wheat stubble was tilled and 

planted with native seed, noxious weeds around buildings and water reservoirs were removed, 

and soil sterilized. Planting plans from 1958 indicate that the following plantings were 

recommended for the headquarters area of Cedar Pass: Indiancurrant coralberry, fendler wood (a 

rose), lead plant amorpha, silver sage bush, common blue eyed grass, Virginia spiderwort, 

meadow rose, western virginsbower, skunkbush sumac, green ash, eastern redcedar, sand cherry, 

clove currant, sunshine rose, small soapweed, box elder, American elm, common hackberry, and 

symphoricarpos (see Figure 2-62). 

Camping 

Although camping was a major component of parks from the 1930s on, it was only during the 

Mission 66 period that adequate financial support was provided for their construction. Much 

damage had resulted from visitors camping in undesignated areas. Emilio P. Meinecke was the 

founder of the modern campground. As a plant pathologist who discovered that human activity 

in the forests of California was killing the giant sequoias and redwoods, he developed planning 

 

100 Carey and Co., Draft “Determination of Eligibility Cedar Pass Visitor Center,” 9: 22. 101 Carey and Co., Draft “Determination of Eligibility Cedar Pass Visitor Center,” 9: 25. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 40

concepts that were rooted in a concern to protect the natural environment. He advocated that 

campgrounds be divided up into individual campsites of legitimate sizes, each one offering 

approximately as much privacy, shade, and other advantages as the other, based on the 

vegetation on the ground and on the preservation of its essential features throughout the life of 

the campsite.”102 

Meinecke developed his ideas, expanding his theories in a publication called “Camp Planning 

and Camp Reconstruction,” where he viewed the campground as “a community, of roofless 

cabins.” The Mission 66 planners built on Meinecke’s ideas for campgrounds, simultaneously 

expressing their own concerns to preserve the natural landscape, disturbing the land as little as 

possible by using the loop form to reduce development. At Badlands a campground was built to 

prevent further individual camping on random individually chosen sites. Signage provided 

effective direction to specific campsites. The layout and configuration allowed for panoramic 

views and protected the landscape by keeping traffic to a single access road. The campsites and 

associated utilities were clustered to minimize natural resource impacts (see Figures 2-63 and 2-

64).103 

Planners and designers worked to delineate campgrounds where many people could comfortably 

congregate in one area. A well-organized and regulated site would ensure that a limited space 

could be used efficiently. Key to the site organization was fulfilling the campers’ desire to feel 

immersed in the natural surroundings. Two characteristic elements of successful campsite 

planning were the campground road plan and division of the campground into individual sites. 

Other elements considered essential to the camping experience were automobile access; 

availability of picnic tables, shelters, and potable water; and sufficient spacing between sites. 

Meinecke, advocated the need to focus on the individual elements of the campsite to provide 

successful planning. He wrote: 

There can be no doubt that the one-way road system is the most desirable and 

serviceable, and that it should be adopted wherever possible within the camp 

grounds. It restrains fast driving, cuts down dust nuisance and saves a great deal 

of space that may more profitably be thrown into actual camping or into screens 

to insure a higher degree of privacy in the camps. 

and 

The best utilization of the whole camp ground is secured by a one-way road, 

which is lined on both sides by campsites. In the simplest case, that of a relatively 

narrow strip, the road leads through its middle, serving lots on either side. On 

larger grounds the road may swing back at the end to serve another single or 

double tier parallel to the first. In broader camp grounds of rectangular or square 

outline connecting roads run back into the main road at such an angle that the 

 

102 E.P. Meinecke, A Campground Policy (Ogden, UT: US Forest Service, US department of Agriculture, 1932), 10, 

quoted in McClelland, Building the National Parks, 278. 103 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 282. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 41

driver is forced to continue in the one direction and large rocks or other obstacles 

are placed so that he will not attempt to run against the one-way travel.104 

Campsite development became a priority at Badlands National Monument between 1956 and 

1959. In addition to installing thirty American Indian-inspired picnic shelters, the park added six 

pit toilets and constructed guard rails and timber barriers at the Cedar Pass campground (see

Figure 2-64). Interpretive signs were also added around the site. The campground road was 

extended by almost a half mile, and the campground itself expanded to accommodate a minimum 

of fifty more sites. It was then graded, with parking spurs, and covered with two to three inches 

of gravel. 

Mission 66 campground development also included a campfire circle and amphitheater (see

Figure 2-66). The progress at Badlands was reported in a public presentation of the Mission 66 

plan, covered by the local Rapid City Journal and Yankton Press, and in a report from the 

superintendent as follows: 

The coming year will see a great change take place at Badlands. For the first time, 

an adequate exhibit room will be available for our visitors. The latest 

development in audio visual aids will help the visitor decide where to go and what 

to see. Adequate housing for seasonal employees will enable us to recruit better 

qualified seasonal personnel. In short, a new era is beginning. The future visitor to 

Badlands will be exposed to more and better interpretive facilities than ever 

before. It is our duty to see that these facilities are properly used to provide the 

services without which these facilities are useless. We hope that we can measure 

up to the challenge that lies ahead.105 

Interpretive programs were enhanced by the addition of new signage including a large sign at the 

headquarters. Spot checks were made by rangers to keep count of the number of visitors who 

used the areas where interpretive signs were placed. It was found that interpretive contact rose 

steeply due to the new improvements. New programs were highly publicized, including the 

campfire program at the amphitheater, and slide programs at the Visitor Center, as well as more 

general information on the area. 

The campfire program became a regular with the arrival of the first park Naturalist on June 1, 

1958. A simulated campfire constructed of fiberglass and connected to copper tubing with light 

bulbs beneath was added. It was then covered with wood for a more realistic effect (see Figures 

2-67 through 2-69).106 These programs were conducted each evening during the travel season at 

the campfire circle and amphitheater near Cedar Pass and reached a total of 7,145 people 

annually. They consisted of lectures, slide-illustrated talks, and movies. Audio-visual aids were 

used to advantage in the operation of these talks; the equipment included an RCA 400 movie 

projector and an EKCOTAPE tape recorder plus slide projector. Excitement and enthusiasm for 

 

104 E.P. Meinecke, Camp Planning and Reconstruction (California Region: US Forest Service, S.B. Shaw, n.d. [ca. 

1933]) 7. 

105 “Annual Report on Information and Interpretive Services,” January 1959, Mission 66 Folder, BNP Library. 106 Safety was an issue during implementation of the Mission 66 programs. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 42

the new program spilled over into publicity events that resulted in write-ups in travel 

publications.107

Visitor safety was a primary concern during the Mission 66 era and places considered to be 

hazardous or pose possible harm were fenced, as for example at the gas distribution system. 

Visitor safety was addressed through the provision of fire equipment and placement of a prairie 

fire danger chart at the Visitor Center. In addition personnel were instructed in emergency rescue 

techniques. 

Land Acquisition 

Land acquisition programs that acquired the original extent of the National Monument occurred 

simultaneously with the move to update facilities at Badlands. The purchase of these additional 

lands was intended to enhance park recreational offerings, meet conservation goals, and prevent 

adjacent development. In 1956, NPS identified the following parcels important to purchase for 

their impact on the developed area at Cedar Pass: 

J. R. Richardson, 7.18 acres along the monument highway; Robert W. Kelly, 160 

acres visible from within 1 mile of the road and considered an “eyesore” because 

of the corrals sheds and fences that “detract from the native loveliness of the 

prairie;” Lee Williamson, 40 acres on Highway 40; Mabel Keith, 160 acres close 

to the Monument Highway; S.N. Millard and B.H. Millard, 120 acres and Cedar 

Pass Lodge (see Figure 2-49 for Kelly property).108

Despite excellent relations between the NPS and Ben Millard, there was concern that future 

owners of the Cedar Pass Lodge might not be so amicable. In March 1962, contract land 

appraisers evaluated the Cedar Pass Lodge property. Millard’s holdings consisted of 72.01 acres 

and included the entire Cedar Pass Lodge development. The NPS eventually acquired the Cedar 

Pass Lodge and land for $275,000 from the Millard family. The Lodge was then run on a 

contract basis.109

Fencing 

In 1957, the designated boundary of the National Monument was redefined, reducing the size of 

the park by approximately 11,000 acres and leaving an official acreage of 111,529.82 acres. 

After the boundaries were redefined, the NPS began a long-term program of fencing the 

Monument. The first segment of fencing was completed in 1957; by early 1962 some 108 miles 

of fence were erected, with 20 miles still to be completed. The fencing of non-federal land 

located within the National Monument would require an additional 92 miles of fence.110

 

107 Superintendent’s Reports, June-August 1958. BNP Library. 108 Memorandum: Superintendent BNM to Regional Director, Region Two, March 22, 1955 [Ten-Year Program for 

Acquiring Private Land] Mission 66 File, NAR. 

109 It is not clear if any buildings were constructed by the NPS within Millard’s development. It appears that Millard 

and the NPS worked together to improve facilities but documentary evidence of their endeavors specifics was not 

identified in research conducted for this CLR. 

110 Mattison and Grom, A History of the Badlands, 36. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 43

Signage 

The first changes of the Mission 66 period to be made at Cedar Pass were interpretive signs 

located at the main parking area. The new signage was considered integral to providing better 

facilities for visitors. A study was conducted in conjunction with the State Highway Commission 

to design effective approach signs on highways leading to Badlands National Monument. 

Telling the story of Badlands at various locations was also important in order for the visitor to 

receive a more complete understanding of the landscape. As has been discussed, the terrain of 

the Badlands was very rugged and, in places, impassable. Travel through the terrain by large 

numbers of visitors on foot or by automobile was risky both in terms of visitor safety and in 

protecting resource integrity. Attempts were made to reduce impacts to natural resources by 

directing visitors by means of prominent signage. In this way, significant locations could be 

viewed and understood. Visitors also appeared to be missing certain features of the landscape. 

This quote reveals NPS concerns: 

Too frequently the visitor drives hurriedly through the Monument and while 

greatly impressed with the unusual scenery he does not gain a full understanding 

of the area’s significance. Unfortunately due to rugged topography and often 

adverse climatic conditions only the most interested and hardy visitors will 

undertake the extensive and prolonged examination of the area with a full 

appreciation of its values demands. However all-weather roads, parking areas, and 

interpretive signs at the principal points of interest will help the average visitor 

see and understand more of the natural features of the Monument. A series of 

overlooks, interpretive signs, wayside exhibits, in-place displays, and short selfguiding trails will unfold the story of the Oligocene Epoch and its fossils.111

Between 1957 and 1961, information relating to resources of the National Monument was 

provided through the addition of nine new interpretive roadside and trail exhibits, four 

rehabilitated exhibits and one replacement exhibit. Seven new designated picnic areas were also 

added to the Monument. State Highway 40 was regraded and an addition made with 1.9 acres of 

Millard property acquired for right-of-way purposes (see Figures 2-50, 2-51, and 2-52).

Adding major and minor support facilities refined the site management program at the park, for 

example, the placement of a flat-bed to hold a 300-gallon water tank that was to be used with the 

pump unit at Cedar Pass. The park renewed twenty-three grazing permits; acquired “Satan,” a 

saddle horse used to check boundary fences and patrol isolated areas in the park; and constructed 

a barn and corral for the horse. 

The lack of a comprehensive communication network at the Monument was finally rectified as 

Golden West Telephone Company installed a new telephone system that connected the Cedar 

Pass headquarters, residential area, and Cedar Pass Lodge, with the town of Interior. This 

provided telephones for some area ranchers for the first time in their history. 

 

111 Untitled document dated July 31, 1957 received at Mount Rushmore and available in BNP Library, 

miscellaneous documents. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 44

By 1960, the Visitor Center was fully furnished with exhibits and a functioning audio-visual 

program. More visitors than ever were traveling to the site, necessitating the addition of an 

interpretive station at the Pinnacles overlook manned during the tourist season. Five new 

interpretive signs were erected at overlooks built as part of the road construction program. The 

amphitheater was modified with the addition of a new base for the amphitheater screen and a 

plaque that drew attention to the new name, the George H. Sholly Memorial Amphitheater. (This 

plaque was later removed). The amphitheater was also wired for sound (see Figure 2-70). 

Almost 100,000 persons visited the Cedar Pass Visitor Center during June, July, and August 

1960. Such heavy use revealed the need to further develop and expand facilities. At this time the 

evening program became the “thing to do” locally. Not just campers were attending but also 

people from the surrounding area, and those staying outside of the park in campgrounds and 

other accommodations traveled to the park for the evening program. 

The audio-visual room was already considered to be too small. Seating was provided for thirtysix to forty people, which was insufficient for the use it received during peak periods. The 

parking area, lobby, and exhibit portions of the facility remained adequate during this time, 

however (see Figure 2-71).

NPS personnel implemented a new interpretive sign program for the twenty-eight miles of main 

Monument road with a total of twenty-two interpretive signs describing the pertinent aspects of 

the Badlands story. New signage was also added in order to eliminate confusion at the 

intersection of State Highway 40 and US Highway16A, just west of the headquarters. At the 

campground, new signage displayed fees at the campground entrance and camping sites were 

given numbered signs on the loop road. As the campground became more populated park rangers 

increased their activity, providing assistance from a new campground kiosk between the hours of 

two to ten o’clock p.m. during the main camping season. 

In June 1962, greatly increased visitation necessitated extending the group picnic area to take 

care of the overflow from the regular campground. A section of plastic water line was installed a 

few inches under the ground to provide water, and two pit-type comfort stations were erected. 

Twenty regulation refuse can bases were installed in the Cedar Pass campground. Funds did exist 

for another loop on the existing campground in anticipation of increased visitation during the 

Seattle World’s Fair of 1962, however, rains had prevented preparation of the road (see Figures 

2-72 and 2-73).112

Transportation changes in the vicinity reflected national trends. On October 24, 1960, the last 

passenger train departed from the Rapid City depot. For the first time in seventy-five years, 

South Dakota’s second largest city was without rail passenger service as the Chicago and 

Northwestern discontinued its Rapid City and Mankato to Minnesota run. Only freight service 

was thereafter available on the line, since the Chicago, Milwaukee Railroad had eliminated 

passenger service several years previously. Airline service however, steadily improved, with 

three companies operating flights from Rapid City, including non-stop flights to Denver, by 

1960. 

 

112 Superintendent’s Reports, June 1962. BNP Library. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 45

NPS personnel completed various general maintenance activities within the park at this time. 

Such tasks included repainting roadside trash barrels with new lettering and adding a different 

type of attachment to keep the barrels from blowing over in high winds. Construction crews 

completed a new apartment building; graded and gravel-surfaced trails to the new comfort 

station at Cedar Pass and from Cedar Pass Lodge to the amphitheater parking lot and constructed 

a steel screen over the dump area for safe burning of trash. The park planted ten evergreen and 

sixty-nine deciduous trees around the Visitor Center and residential area in April 1962. At the 

same time they leveled and reseeded rough and barren areas, which had occurred due to the lack 

of rain in recent years. 

The critical need for recreational facilities for NPS and Cedar Pass Lodge employees was 

addressed through the addition of a volleyball net, and square and round dances held on a weekly 

or more frequent basis as desired. 

Nature trails received new signage and directional stakes at the trailheads and along the route. At 

the Visitor Center too, several routed plastic information signs were added, including a clock 

with hands announcing the next showing of the audio-visual program. 

The small amphitheater, with a seating capacity of 170, was overcrowded and in need of 

rehabilitation because of increased use of the campground. At the Visitor Center too, the audiovisual room became inadequate with its 300 seating capacity and renovations became a priority. 

In 1964, the park acquired Millard’s Lodge and cabins, and immediately leased them as a 

concessionaire facility to be managed by the Oglala Sioux Park and Recreation Authority. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 46

FURTHER EXPANSION AND NATIONAL PARK DESIGNATION, 1966–2003 

In 1966, NPS Director George B. Hartzog, Jr., wrote in a National Geographic article, “We are 

doing our level best to plan for tomorrow, as did the architects of the famous Mission 66, now 

completed.” He spoke of a plan called ‘Parkscape U.S.A.’ that proposed to expand the National 

Park System by 1972 in order to meet the needs of a new generation of tourists. Expanding the 

parks meant the NPS would need to acquire more lands and to develop cooperative programs 

with other agencies to develop both outdoor recreation opportunities and approaches for better 

management and park preservation.113 

The most recent addition to the park system since land had first been designated as worthy of 

conservation was increased development of recreation. George Hartzog emphasized the need to 

publicize these recreation areas, using the multitude of media now available. He predicted that by 

the year 2000, American workers would receive a month of vacation annually, and a three-day 

weekend. Increasingly, the majority of the population was urban, and therefore needed a means 

to escape to the fresh air and beautiful countryside. The emphasis within parks would be 

expanded opportunities for recreational activities. In order to avoid damaging park resources, 

new ways of accessing the interior of natural conservation areas were being considered; it was 

felt that roads were intrusive no matter how well they were designed. Helicopters, aerial 

tramways, or cog or funicular railways on steep slopes were also possibilities entertained as 

alternatives to automobile access.114 

Hartzog’s ideas were reflected in developments at the Badlands where increased visitation from 

1966 led to the need to expand facilities beyond the provisions of the Mission 66 program. Even 

before Mission 66 developments were completed, many areas showed signs of inadequacy and it 

was clear that the park needed more land and larger facilities. 

Land that the United States Air Force had used as a practice firing range during World War II 

was returned to the NPS, but much of the range was declared excess property, with 2,500 unused 

acres being retained by the USAF. In 1968, Congress expanded the National Monument area by 

133,000 acres, increasing its total acreage to 244,000. Much of this land had previously been part 

of the Pine Ridge Reservation. 

In 1969 a new plan was developed showing the Cedar Pass Developed Area with extant 

headquarters, campground, and concession area, and the design for expanding the campground 

development began in 1967 (see Figure 2-74). 

By 1970, visitation had caused crowding of all areas, in particular parking had become a severe 

problem. For example, makeshift parking was used for the fourth season in a row in an attempt 

to remove some of the overflow from the Visitor Center parking lot and from along US Highway 

16A. The twenty-eight-space parking area had been inadequate for peak season traffic since at 

least 1963, and indeed parking had begun to be problematic only a few years after the opening of 

the Visitor Center. At this time visitors parked on road shoulders and along the private access 

road to the residential and utility area. 

 

113 George B. Hartzog, “Tomorrow in our National Parks” National Geographic 130 (No.1, July 1966): 48. 114 Hartzog, “Tomorrow in our National Parks,” 80. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 47

Because visitor parking intruded into zones set aside for administration and park personnel 

residences, a new parking lot was constructed at the Visitor Center and the access road to the 

residential area leading directly off the southeast rear side of the Visitor Center was obliterated in 

favor of a road that ran from the southeast rear of the Visitor Center parking lot to the 

utility/maintenance area. A short spur road was constructed off the main utility/maintenance road 

leading to the residential loop and dead-ending to the south in the apartment complex area (see

Figure 2-75 and 2-76). 

At the campground, too, parking had become a problem in the early sixties. In 1962, parking at 

the entrance to the campground had been realigned. A 1963 proposal for the expansion of the 

campground remained pending in 1977 (see Figure 2-77). At the Cedar Pass Lodge, parking had 

also become a problem. In 1971, plans were drawn modifying the existing parking, adding a lot 

to the rear of the building. 

As part of a response to increased visitation, new cabins were planned for concession employees, 

a new restaurant and curio store, a possible swimming pool and horseback riding facilities. In the 

administration area, expansion of interpretive and information services was identified as a 

necessary project as was office space and storage. Two new residential facilities, four 

apartments, and a vehicle storage structure were required, and in the maintenance area an 

increased capacity for heavy motorized equipment and flammables was needed. At the 

campground, an entrance kiosk, all season comfort station, and relocation of the amphitheater 

were indicated as planned. It was also proposed to realign State Highway 40 south of the 

campground to join US Highway 16A at a point further north of the developed area. This project 

was not executed however. Existing development in 1977 is shown to include new employee 

parking in the rear of the Visitor Center, as well as parking in the front of the Lodge (see Figure 

2-78). 

In November 1978, Badlands National Monument was re-designated Badlands National 

Park. To achieve national park status, a site must meet the following criteria: 

Have relatively spacious land and water areas, so outstanding in quality and 

beauty as to make imperative their preservation by the federal government for the 

enjoyment, education and inspiration of all people. They should embrace a 

sufficiently comprehensive unit as to permit public use and enjoyment and 

effective management of a continuing representation of its flora and fauna. They 

should be adaptable to a type of management that can provide a range of 

opportunities for human enjoyment, such as camping, picnicking, hiking, 

horseback riding and sightseeing in a natural setting consistent with the 

preservation of the characteristics and features that merit their establishment. 

They will most often contain a diversity of resources and values, including scenic 

and scientific. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2 - 48

In contrast, monuments generally are concerned with preserving primarily scientific resources 

and are not of sufficient size to support a broad range of visitor services, as for example at 

national parks.115 

Changes continued to occur within the Cedar Pass landscape during the 1980s: an extension was 

added to the Lodge, improvements were made to the residences, and additional residences were 

built. 

In 1993, further archeological work built on the work undertaken in 1975 and the State Historic 

Preservation Office in South Dakota found that a site (the Johnny Site 39JK4) located just below 

the escarpment was eligible for nomination to the National Register under Criterion D for 

possibility of yielding information on the Initial Middle Missouri period. The State Historic 

Preservation Officer James T. Reynolds suggested that this may be “one of the best preserved 

village assemblages” in this part of South Dakota (see Figure 2-80).

116 

However, since that time erosion has almost completely destroyed any remnants of archeological 

material.117

In September 1999, an application was made for funding for a storage facility at park 

headquarters and additional monies were sought to rehabilitate and expand the Ben Reifel Visitor 

Center. 

In 2000, various minor improvements were made, such as the installation of solar-lighting on 

trails between the headquarters and the campground, and construction of a new laundry and 

maintenance buildings to replace the 1920s buildings. 

In 2003, the park undertook a General Management Plan/Environmental Impact to reconsider 

natural and historic resources at the park in general. In 2002, an archeological investigation was 

conducted in conjunction with remediation of a landslide on the Cedar Pass segment of the Loop 

Road in the North Unit. Continued movement associated with the slide had caused repeated 

breaks in the road surface, prompting concern for driver safety and continued visitor access to 

the park. 

 

115 Ernest Allen Conally, Associate Director to Honorable George McGovern, United States Senate, December 4, 

1972. 

116 SDSHS site 39JK4 Determination of Eligibility, June 12, 1993. 117 95% Review Comment, Cedar Pass Badlands National Park Cultural Landscape Report. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-49

Figure 2-1: Illustration of land area included in the 1803 Louisiana Purchase.

Figure 2-2: The route taken by Lewis and Clark in the early 1800s.

HTTP:WWW.SDHISTORY.ORG/SOC/SOC_HIST.HTM. (SOUTH

DAKOTA STATE

HISTORICAL SOCIETY)

HTTP:WWW.SDHISTORY.ORG/SOC/SOC_HIST.HTM. (SOUTH

DAKOTA STATE

HISTORICAL SOCIETY)
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-50

Figure 2-3: Fort Pierre–Fort Laramie Trail.

Figure 2-4: Fort Pierre–Fort Laramie Trail.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-51

Figure 2-6: Bodmer rendering of Fort Pierre.

Figure 2-5: 1851 Fort Laramie treaty for Indian territories.

SOUTH

DAKOTA STATE

HISTORICAL SOCIETY,

HTTP:WWW.SDHISOTRY.ORG/SOC/SOC_HIST.HTM

HTTP://WWW.CANKU-LUTA.ORG/PINERIDGE/LARAMIE_TREATY.HTML

Rapid City

Cedar Pass
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-52

Figure 2-7: Map of Sioux Reservation subdivision based on

Agreement of 1889.

Figure 2-8: Pine Ridge Reservation.

SOURCE TO BE ADDED LATER

HTTP://WWW.BLACKHILLSBADLANDS.COMGO.ASP?ID=281
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-53

Figure 2-9: Sod homestead.

WWW.PRAIRIEHOMESTEAD.COM

Figure 2-10: 1882 railroad map, showing stage route.

LIBRARY OF

CONGRESS, U.S. AND

TERRITORIAL SURVEYS, 1882
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-54

Figure 2-12: View of ranch land adjacent to Badlands, 1935. Much of the land that would

become Badlands National Monument was still in private ownership at the time. (BADL-1935-1)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-11: Building in railroad town of Interior, ca. 1909. (BADL-1964-54B)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-55

Figure 2-13: Millard’s dance hall, ca. 1928. (BADL-1965-100)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-14: Millard’s hotel at Cedar Pass, also known as a lodge, ca. 1928. (BADL-1968-3) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-56

Figure 2-15: Millard’s rental cabins, ca. 1930s. (BADL-1935-3)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-16: Cabins at Cedar Pass, ca. 1930s.

JAY SCHULER, A REVELATION

CALLED THE

BADLANDS, PG. 32
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-57

Figure 2-17: Early road through Cedar Pass,

1908. (BADL-1908-13) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-18: Bridge on early road through Cedar Pass, 1912. (BADL-1917-119) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-58

Figure 2-19: Car near the summit of Cedar Pass, 1917. (BADL-1912-52) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-20: Monument Highway construction,

ca. 1931. (BADL-1931-1) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-59

Figure 2-21: (BADL-1931-2) Monument Highway construction, ca. 1931.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-22: 1940 Route 16A extension joining Monument Highway.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-60

Figure 2-23: (detail) 1940 Route 16A extension joining Monument Highway.

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, MAP 137 80059
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-61

Figure 2-24: (details) Map of Land Acquisitions, 1938 Master Plan (NM-8L 3002B).

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-62

Figure 2-25: Map showing U.S. 16, U.S. 14, and State Highway 40.

MATTISON, A HISTORY OF THE

BADLANDS, APPENDIX E

Figure 2-26: Millard’s cabin configuration prior to Monument establishment at Cedar Pass.

SCHULER, A REVELATION

CALLED THE

BADLANDS, PG. 28 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-63

Figure 2-27: Millard cabin configuration, 1938.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-28: Millard gas station at Cedar Pass along State Highway 40, ca. 1939. 

(BADL-1939-43)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-64

Figure 2-29: Cedar Pass Lodge addition, ca 1940. (BADL-1940-11)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-30: Millard’s Cedar Pass Lodge and addition, ca. 1940. (BADL-1940-9) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-65

Figure 2-31: (details) 1938 Master Plan showing Millard development with dance hall on the far

right.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-66

Figure 2-32: Parking area on Cedar Pass, early 1940s. (BADL-1940-2) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-33: Photograph of gas pumps relocated to the CCC utility area. (BADL-1951-4)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-67

Figure 2-34: (detail) CCC utility area on 1950 Master Plan.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-35: CCC utility area, ca. 1938. (BADL-1938-6) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Cedar Pass

Lodge 

& Cabins
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-68

Figure 2-36: (details) Site plan and elevation of custodian’s residence. (DSC-2023-C)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER

Figure 2-37: 1949 photograph of garage (white building on the left) refitted as temporary 

residence . (BADL-1950-25)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-69

Figure 2-38: Photograph of the temporary headquarters office, ca. 1949. (BADL-1950-23)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-39: Headquarters area, ca. 1949 (same building pictured in figure 2-35). (BADL-1950-

24) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-70

Figure 2-40: 1949, Millard cabin looking south.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-41: 1949, Millard cabin newly stuccoed.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-71

Figure 2-42: 1949, Millard cabins looking west.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-43: 1949 plan showing Stock Pond. (5324-8) 

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-72

Figure 2-44: 1950 Master Plan showing property lines and fencing. (DSC-2029-B)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER

Figure 2-45: Pinnacles site, Millard Development, ca. 1940s (razed by 1950). (BADL-1939-54)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

property

division

Millard

fence line
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-73

Figure 2-47: Flagpole at headquarters, view to Cedar Pass, 1951. (BADL-1956-28)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-46: Early headquarters, ca. 1950. (BADL-1956-24)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Flagpole headquarters

area
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-74

Figure 2-48: 1953 Planting Plan for NPS residential area. (DSC-2114)

DENVER SERVICE CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-75

Figure 2-49: Early plan for a campground, ca. 1955. (DSC-2120)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER

Figure 2-50: Information station, ca. 1958. (BADL-1958-

63)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-76

Figure 2-51: Local stock ranch with sheds and fenced corrals, ca. 1956 (Kelly Land).

(BADL-1956-55)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-52: Mission 66 interpretive exhibits, ca. 1962. (BADL-1962-24) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-77

Figure 2-53: Mission 66 interpretive exhibits. (BADL-1962-26A-B)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-54: Mission 66 interpretive exhibit on trail. (BADL-1961-6)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-78

DENVER SERVICE CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

Figure 2-55: Alternative design for the Visitor Center. (DSC-3118-D)

CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-79

Figure 2-57: South façade, Visitor Center, ca. 1960. (BADL-1960-38)

Figure 2-56: North façade, Visitor Center, ca. 1959. (BADL-1959-21)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-80

Figure 2-58: Building #30. (BADL-1960-6)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-59: Building #28. (BADL-1956-60) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-81

Figure 2-60: Apartment buildings. (BADL-1959-72)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-61: Access roads to residential sites, ca. 1958. (BADL-1959-46)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-82

Figure 2-62: Residential area from the air, ca. 1964. (BADL-1964-104)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

Figure 2-63: Construction of parking at seasonal quarters. (BADL-1959-47)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-83

DENVER SERVICE CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

Figure 2-64: 1958 planting plan. (DSC-3148)

CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-84

Figure 2-65: Master plan showing campground area, Mission 66. (DSC-2029-E)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER

Figure 2-66: Mission 66 campground plan. (DSC-3113)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER.
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-85

Figure 2-68: Program at campground amphitheater, 1958.

(BADL-1958-33)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-67: Photograph of campground showing picnic table shelters, ca. 1950s.

(BADL-1965-21) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-86

Figure 2-69: Placement of amphitheater in relation to campground, ca.1959. 

(BADL-1959-14)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-70: Device to simulate campfire illumination effect, ca. 1959. (BADL-1959-68)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-87

Figure 2-71: Campfire device with wood for realistic effect, ca. 1959. (BADL1959-67) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-72: New amphitheater, ca. 1960. (BADL-1962-53B)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-88

Figure 2-73: Visitor Center parking, ca. 1964. (BADL-1964-43) 

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

Figure 2-74 Campground planned expansion (1950s Master Plan). (DSC-2029-F)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-89

Figure 2-75: Utilities and road alignment at campground, ca. 1962. (DSC 3216-A)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER

Figure 2-76: Road alignment and campground expansion plan, 1969. (DSC-3243-A)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-90

Figure 2-77: 1971 Plan. (DSC-40000-A)

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER

Figure 2-78: Residential road to re-alignment, ca. 1974.

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-91

Figure 2-79: Existing Conditions, 1977. (DSC 80006-1) 

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER

Figure 2-80: 1975 Existing development. (DSC 40003)

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

SITE HISTORY * JUNE 2005 * 2-92

DENVER SERVICE

CENTER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CENTER

Figure 2-81: Lodge expansion, ca. 1986. (DSC-41021) 
CHAPTER THREE

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 1 

CHAPTER THREE

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This chapter includes written, graphic, and photographic documentation of existing landscape 

conditions for the Cedar Pass Developed Area of Badlands National Park in 2003. This 

documentation is based primarily upon field investigations of the study area and site information 

provided by the National Park Service (NPS). The first section of this chapter—Site 

Description—places Cedar Pass within a regional environmental and cultural context. Specific 

information about the study area and its features follow in the section titled Existing Conditions 

Documentation by Landscape Characteristic. 

Representative photographs, referenced in the text, illustrate primary landscape features. The 

photographs and photographic station point maps (Maps 3-8 to 3-10) are located at the end of the 

chapter. Maps (Maps 3-1 to 3-7) that identify the locations of site features are also located at the 

end of the chapter. 

SITE DESCRIPTION

CULTURAL CONTEXT AND SETTING

Badlands National Park is a popular visitor attraction that averages over 900,000 visitors a year.1

Visitors travel to Badlands National Park for a variety of reasons. Most are attracted to the area’s 

natural history and its scenic beauty. As one of the world’s richest fossil beds, the Badlands’ 

paleontological resources attract many visitors. Visitors are also drawn to the region’s American 

Indian history and the various tribes with strong connection to the Badlands landscape. Tourist 

amenities contribute to high visitation within this area. 

Badlands National Park is comprised of two units, the North Unit and the South Unit. The Cedar 

Pass Developed Area sits within the southeastern portion of the North Unit of the park. It 

comprises approximately 290 acres of the park’s nearly 250,000 acres. Rapid City, South 

Dakota, is located approximately forty miles northwest of the park and both I-90 and SD 

Highway 44 provide access from Rapid City to the park. Air travel to the region is supported by 

the Rapid City Regional Airport with multiple daily flights. The Badlands Loop Road is located 

off I-90. Cedar Pass can be accessed by automobile via Badlands Loop Road or SD Highway 

377 from Interior, South Dakota. The Ben Reifel Visitor Center, Cedar Pass Lodge and cabins, 

campground, administrative offices, and park housing and maintenance facilities are all located 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

 

1

 http://www.nps.gov/badl/pphtml/facts.html (accessed August 11, 2003). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 2 

In addition to Badlands National Park, there are numerous other attractions in the region that 

contribute to its popularity as a tourist destination. South Dakota State Parks, Wall Drug, 

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site, and Buffalo Gap National Grassland are nearby, 

while Mount Rushmore National Monument, Jewel Cave National Monument, Wind Cave 

National Park, and Devils Tower National Monument are within two hundred miles of the park. 

These parks and sites, as well as neighboring towns and cities, provide tourist amenities such as 

lodging and restaurants. 

The area around the park is generally rural and sparsely populated, although a few small towns 

dot the landscape. Just southwest of Cedar Pass, the town of Interior is a gateway to the eastern 

portion of the park. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation covers approximately two million acres 

south of the park. The reservation is best known as the site of the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre 

and is home to as many as 40,000 members of the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) tribe. Pine Ridge is the 

second largest reservation in the United States and includes within its boundaries the two poorest 

counties in the country. Due to a lack of economic development, unemployment is at a 

staggering rate of eighty percent. The average life expectancy on the Reservation is forty-five 

years and many residents live in substandard houses, some of which lack running water or 

electricity.2

While the southern half of the park is surrounded by the Reservation, the majority of the 

northern half of the park is contained within the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. Cedar Pass is 

located in this northern half of the park in an area where a narrow section of the grassland 

separates the park from the reservation. The White River serves as the boundary between the 

reservation and grassland three miles south of Cedar Pass. The two halves of the park are 

referred to as the North Unit and the South Unit (also known as the Stronghold Unit). The North 

Unit is managed solely by the NPS while the South Unit is co-managed by the NPS, and the 

Oglala Lakota (Sioux) tribe. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT AND SETTING

The park falls within the geologic region referred to as the Badlands, a highly eroded plateau 

region of South Dakota and northern Nebraska. The Badlands derives its name from the Oglala 

Lakota, who called this region Mako Sica, translated simply into “bad land.” French traders 

echoed the sentiment, dubbing the place Les Mauvaises Terres. For nomadic people like the 

Lakota, this land was bad indeed—a highly dissected erosional landscape, a place of disorienting 

and fantastical landforms where it was easy to get lost. The Badlands’ spectacular landscape is 

so renowned for these qualities that this term now applies to all similar gullied and sculpted 

areas. 

The three defining characteristics of a badlands landscape include 1) poorly consolidated, easilyerodable sedimentary bedrock, especially shale and mudstone; 2) an arid or semi-arid climate 

with infrequent but torrential precipitation; and 3) lack of vegetation to stabilize the soil. These 

factors combine in the Badlands of South Dakota to form one of the world’s most rapidly 

 

2 From http://www.pineridgerez.net/overview.php and http://www.airc.org/reservations/pineridge.html (accessed 

July 25, 2003). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 3 

eroding landscapes. This erosion has not only produced the dramatic sculpted landform, but has 

also revealed a world-famous trove of fossils. The spectacular geological features and the fossils 

contained in the landscape are the primary reason the park was established.3

The region’s climate is semi-arid, with short, hot, dry summers and long, cold, dry winters. Due 

to its location on the Northern Plains, temperatures at the Badlands show extreme seasonal 

variability, with winter lows dropping to -30 ̊F and summer highs reaching in excess of 100 ̊F. 

During the spring and fall, temperatures can vary dramatically and change rapidly. Average 

annual precipitation is 16 inches, mostly occurring in the late spring and early summer. 

Afternoon and evening thunderstorms, sometimes torrential, are frequent during the summer.4

Although precipitation has been largely responsible for the formation of the Badlands landscape 

through erosion, surface water is nearly non-existent. 

Natural systems—geology, climate, and the biotic responses to these factors, such as plant and 

wildlife communities—have exerted a profound influence on human activities in the region. 

Each is described below. 

GEOLOGY

The bedrock that underlies the Badlands landscape is mostly poorly-cemented mudstone, 

claystone, and siltstone containing scattered beds of sandstone and conglomerate, thin beds of 

limestone, and layers of concretion. These sediments were deposited on floodplains (the mud, 

clay, and silt), in stream channels (sand and gravel), and in shallow lakes (limestone). Volcanic 

ash is prominent in several of the layers, especially in the upper layers of the local section. The 

bedrock can be divided into three distinct geological units, or formations. In ascending order, 

from oldest to youngest, they are: the Pierre Shale, the Chadron Formation, and the Brule 

Formation (the latter two are included in the White River Group).5

The oldest exposed formation in the area is the Pierre Shale, an extensive deposit of dark gray 

colored shale containing abundant Late Cretaceous-age marine fossils from between 69 and 84 

million years ago. This is the most widespread sedimentary rock formation in South Dakota. It is 

about 300 feet thick in the Badlands region and thickens considerably toward the west, into 

Montana. These rocks formed from organic-rich mud deposited in a shallow inland sea. Upon 

weathering, the shale produces dark gumbo clay. Patches of resistant limestone in the black shale 

erode into conical hills called teepee buttes, formed from ancient reefs rising off the seafloor. 

Pierre Shale is not exposed in the Cedar Pass Developed Area, but underlies the formations that 

are exposed there. In some places the Pierre Shale is capped by white beach sand of the Fox 

formation, which locally forms an important aquifer.6

 

3

 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Badlands National 

Park, South Dakota” (Interior, SD: Department of the Interior, February 2003), 3, 66, 69. 

4

 Joy Keve Hauk, Badlands: Its Life and Landscape (Interior, SD: Badlands Natural History Association, 8th ed., 

1993), 46 

5

 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 10. 6

 John Paul Gries, Roadside Geology of South Dakota (Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company , 2nd

ed., 1998), 96. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 4 

All along the top of the Pierre Shale is a red and yellow paleosol, or ancient soil horizon. Its 

coloration is derived from the weathering of pyrite during warm and wet conditions in the past. 

Above this paleosol is an unconformity representing 30 million years of upheaval and folding 

during the Laramide Orogeny. The resulting erosion surface has about 150 feet of relief.7

Overlying the Pierre Shale is the White River Group, consisting of the lower Chadron Formation 

overlain by the much thicker Brule Formation. The Chadron Formation has thin, basal 

conglomeratic sandstone that is buried by greenish gray clay with abundant Eocene-age land 

mammal fossils, 34 to 39 million years old. These rocks contain bentonite, a rock composed of 

montomorillonite-rich clay that is formed from the breakdown of volcanic ash. Bentonite poses 

serious engineering problems. The clays absorb water very quickly and swell up when wet; and 

they can remain saturated for days, even weeks, after a rainfall.8

 The Chadron is highly variable 

in thickness, as it is filling an erosional surface. It typically weathers to low hummocks called 

haystacks, contrasting with the steep cliffs in the overlying Brule Formation. The uppermost part 

of the Chadron contains thin (one to twelve inch) discontinuous zones of limestone and marks a 

distinct break in slope. The limestone beds were deposited by algae in shallow lakes and ponds, 

and contain fossil clams and snails.9

The Brule Formation is composed of up to 450 feet of tan and pink, water-lain clay and sandy 

gravel, with zones of underlying windblown sand, silt, and volcanic ash, and contains an 

incredible assemblage of Oligocene-age fossil mammals 31 to 34 million years old. Unlike the 

underlying Chadron sediments, the Brule beds readily shed surface runoff, and this formation 

weathers to steep bluffs and cliffs. The upper part forms steep cliff faces that are ornamented 

with spires, pillars, steps, shelves, and overhangs. Volcanic material becomes increasingly more 

abundant upward throughout the formation, and the white ash beds at the top form the sheerest 

vertical cliffs.10

Based upon distinct fossil assemblages and lithology, the Brule Formation can be divided into 

the lower Scenic Member and the overlying Poleslide Member, each with several distinct zones. 

In the lower part of the Scenic Member, about ten to forty feet above the Chadron limestone 

beds, is the “Lower Nodular Zone” (sometimes known as the “Red Layer”) containing calcite 

nodules and Oligocene-age fossils that are covered with a red clay coating. The nodules are 

formed when calcite cement, moving with water in the soil, accumulates in discreet areas; when 

the formation weathers, the hard cemented areas remain behind. It appears that these nodules are 

remnants of ancient caliche layers, which are carbonate soil horizons that form in semi-arid 

regions. The middle part of the Scenic Member contains what are known as the Metamynodon

channel sandstones, named for the presence of fossils of a large aquatic rhinoceros. The top 

layers are punctuated by the “Upper Nodular Zone.” The Poleslide Member contains the 

Protoceras channel sandstones, named for a primitive camel, and the Leptauchenia nodule layer, 

named for a fossil oreodont, an extinct, pig-like creature. 

 

7

 Gries, Roadside Geology of South Dakota, 194. 8

 Gries, Roadside Geology of South Dakota, 166. 9

 Gries, Roadside Geology of South Dakota, 195. 10 Hauk, Badlands: Its Life and Landscape, 11-12. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 5 

GEOMORPHOLOGY

The sediments that underlie the region have never been deeply buried. They are loosely 

cemented, contain a great deal of volcanic ash, and are composed of expansible clays, all of 

which contribute to their disintegration. Erosion averages about one inch per year, but varies 

considerably by locality, rock type, and microclimate.11 Of the sediment in the Badlands, the ash 

layers are the most susceptible to weathering processes, while the sheets of channel sandstone 

and layers containing concretions are the most resistant. 

Landforms in the Badlands can be divided into three categories: 

1. walls, escarpments, and buttes formed along zones of headward erosion by steeply sloping 

gullies and rills; 

2. basins containing terrace-like benches dissected by gullied drainages; and 

3. plateaus and tablelands comprising the remnants of the largely-eroded surface of a once 

higher plain.12

The most distinctive feature in the area, the Wall, is a 200-foot-high erosional front carved in 

Brule Formation, eroding away from the White River. The Wall extends from Cedar Pass to 

Sage Creek, dividing the higher northern grasslands from the lower southern grasslands, while 

functioning as a drainage divide between the White River to the south and White River Creek to 

the north.13 The Badlands Loop Road utilizes breaks in the Wall that occur at Dillon Pass, Big 

Foot Pass, and Cedar Pass to cross the landform. 

Other erosional features in the Badlands include pinnacles, spires, buttes, arches, knife-edged 

ridges, and deep ravines. Depositional features include alluvial fans, outwash fans, slumps, and 

landslides. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The White River Badlands region is considered the birthplace of modern vertebrate paleontology 

in North America and contains some of the finest known accumulations of late Eocene and 

Oligocene mammal fossils in the world. Fossils from the Badlands are used to define the North 

American Land Mammal Ages for these time periods. 

The Pierre Shale contains abundant Late Cretaceous (Pierre Stage, 69 to 84 million years ago) 

marine fossils, including more than eighty species of ammonites, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, fish, 

sea turtles, and crabs in tan limestone nodules.14 The beds of shale were deposited over 15 

million years, time for significant evolution to occur, and the Pierre Shale can be divided into 

several distinct fossil zones.15

 

11 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 67 12 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 67. 13 Hauk, Badlands: Its Life and Landscape, 13. 14 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 69; Hauk, Badlands: Its Life and Landscape, 9; Gries, 

Roadside Geology of South Dakota, 94-95. 15 Gries, Roadside Geology of South Dakota, 95. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 6 

The Chadron Formation contains Eocene (Chadronian Stage, 39 to 34 million years ago) fossils 

such as titanotherium, alligators, oreodonts, early horses, rhinoceroses, felines, and canines. The 

Brule Formation contains the world’s most extensive known source of Oligocene (Orellan Stage, 

34 to 32 million years ago) fossil mammals, with more than 150 different genera of rodents, 

horses, camels, pigs, deer, antelope, beaver, felines, canines, small rodents, and oreodonts.16 Of 

particular note are Metamynodon, a large aquatic rhinoceros; Protoceras, a primitive camel; and 

Leptauchenia, an oreodont. Fossils are particularly common in the irregular channel sands, 

indicating that the animals either became mired or drowned, perhaps as part of a herd trying to 

cross during flood stage; such an occurrence is known as a “death assemblage.” According to the 

2003 draft GMP, “the entire park potentially contains fossils,” but only a small percentage has 

been surveyed.17 

SOILS

Soils in the Badlands are formed from the weathering products of shale, siltstone, claystone, and, 

to a lesser extent, sandstone and volcanic ash. There are four regional soil classifications: 

Vertisols are upland clays with very high shrink/swell potential. These soils are characterized by 

deep cracks. 

Mollisols are prairie soils found on grassy bluffs. They are usually darkened due to organic 

material. 

Aridisols occur on dry uplands. These soils contain very little organic material. They may 

contain mineral concentrations such as gypsum or calcite. 

Entisols are incipient upland soils formed from steep slope erosion, alluvial floodplain 

deposition and material blown in by the wind. These soils are embryonic and do not have any 

developed horizons. 

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, there are no prime or unique 

agricultural soils in the Badlands National Park. In fact, much of the park lacks soil because of 

highly active erosion. 

 

16 Gries, Roadside Geology of South Dakota, 196. 17 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 69. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 7 

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Many of the soils and rock formations contain montmorillonite, a clay that expands when wet 

and shrinks when dry, conditions that can result in slumps or landslides. In addition, deep pits 

can form within previous slumps as the underlying unconsolidated material is undermined. 

Slumps are often most active during unusually wet periods. An active slump is located north of 

the study area along the Badlands Loop Road where it threatens to close this portion of the road. 

This would affect circulation patterns such as the approach to the Cedar Pass Developed Area. A 

buttress was built in fall 2000 as a measure to temporarily stabilize the slump.18

PLANT COMMUNITIES19

A total of 457 vascular plants have been documented in the park, including 41 species of native 

grasses. This mixed-grass community is a transitional association between short-grass prairie to 

the west and tallgrass prairie to the east. It is one of the largest contiguous native mixed-grass 

prairies under federal protection and part of one of the largest remaining mixed-grass prairies in 

North America. Despite human activity, according to the 2003 draft GMP, “the park’s current 

vegetative mix is believed to approach what naturally existed before the influx of European 

settlers.”20 

The vegetation of the Badlands National Park was mapped in 1999 as part of a nationwide 

mapping project by the US Geological Survey and the NPS. Approximately 48 percent of the 

park is sparsely vegetated or barren, while grasslands cover approximately 45 percent, 

shrublands (dry, mesic, and riparian) cover approximately 4 percent, woodlands (dry coniferous 

and riparian) cover approximately 2 percent, and riparian/wet meadows cover the remaining 1 

percent of the park. 

Three plant species listed as rare by the state of South Dakota are endemic to the Badlands: 

Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii), Dakota buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri), and secund 

bladderpod (Lesquerella arenosa var. argillosa). There are also two other state-listed rare plants 

that occur here but are not endemic to the Badlands: the Easter daisy (Townsendia exscapa) and 

the largeflower Townsend daisy (Townsendia grandiflora). Four other state-listed rare plants 

may be present in the park: Hopi tea (Thelesperma megapotamicum) in open sites, hairy virgin’s 

bower (Clematis hirsutissima) near streams, Parry’s rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus parryi) on dry 

plains, and silver-mounded candleflower (Cryptantha cana) on sandy, gravelly soil. 

 

18 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 68. 

19 This section summarized from National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 70-71. 20 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 70. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 8 

INVASIVE NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES21

A total of 71 exotic species are known to exist within the park; most have limited distribution 

and are found primarily in disturbed areas. Some of these plants have arrived unintentionally, 

brought in by birds or via windblown seeds, while others were planted for agricultural or 

landscaping purposes. Four species are of special concern in the park: Japanese brome (Bromus 

japonicus), downy brome (Bromus tectorum), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), and puncture 

vine (Tribulus terrestris). Halogeton is a common species on the formations in the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. Canada thistle is also a significant problem, infesting an estimated 8,000 acres 

in the park. This species is invading native grasslands and riparian areas. 

Other introduced grass species include smooth brome (Bromopsis inermis), crested wheatgrass 

(Agropyron cristatum), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Relatively common exotic 

species include alfalfa (Medicago sativa), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), yellow sweet clover 

(Melilotus officianalis), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa), Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), 

perennial sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). 

The park has focused much of its invasive plant control measures on Canada thistle using both 

chemical and biological control methods. Park resource managers are also experimenting with 

controlled burns followed by overseeding with native grasses. 

WILDLIFE22

Although animals are relatively scarce due to the Badlands’ sparse vegetation, a variety of 

species are represented. To date, 56 mammal species have been documented in the park, with 8 

others suspected to be present. Seventeen reptile and amphibian species and more than 200 birds 

and 11 fish species have been identified in association with the park. 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) were restored to the park in 1964, filling a 

niche formerly occupied by the now-extinct Audubon’s bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis

auduboni). Bison (Bison bison) were restored to the park in 1963 and now number over 500 

head. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are somewhat common in the park, while white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are only seen infrequently and are usually restricted to riparian 

areas. Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) are common. Other mammals found in the 

park are coyotes, bobcats, muskrats, least chipmunks, jackrabbits, desert cottontails, eastern 

cottontails, and black-tailed prairie dogs. 

Several endangered or threatened species of note occur within the park. The black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes), extirpated from the Badlands and once considered the most endangered 

mammal in the United States, has been reintroduced into the Badlands with 217 captive-bred 

individuals released between 1994 and 1997. Listed as endangered by the federal government 

 

21 This section is summarized from National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 72. 22 This section summarized from National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 73-78. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 9 

and the state of South Dakota, the black-footed ferret completely relies on prairie dog colonies, 

feeding primarily on prairie dogs and utilizing their burrows for shelter and breeding. 

The state of South Dakota considers the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) a 

species of management concern and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified it as a 

candidate for listing as threatened. Sharps and Uresk (1990) found that at least 40 percent of all 

vertebrates west of the Missouri River are associated with prairie dog towns. However, within 

the park, prairie dogs now inhabit only 5 percent of their former territory, but the current 

colonies have the potential to expand. 

The mountain lion (Felix concolor), listed as threatened by South Dakota, occasionally appears 

in the park, with thirty-seven documented sightings from 1960 to 2002, many of them transient 

males. No dens have been found in the park. The bald eagle is a sporadic and uncommon visitor 

to the park with twenty-seven sightings from 1960 to 2002, mostly between December and April, 

and mostly near water sources such as streams or livestock dams, or near prairie dog towns. The 

whooping crane is a migrant that occasionally uses the wetlands, meadows, and agricultural 

fields in the park. 

EXISTING CONDITIONS BY LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTIC

The landscape features associated with Cedar Pass Developed Area are documented below in 

accordance with the Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques 

and National Register Bulletin No. 30. Narrative, graphic, and photographic depictions of 

existing landscape features, systems, and land use patterns within the study area are organized by 

the following eleven landscape characteristics: 

⎯ Natural Systems (N) 

⎯ Spatial Organization (SO) 

⎯ Land Use (L) 

⎯ Circulation (C) 

⎯ Topographic Modifications (T) 

⎯ Vegetation (Ve) 

⎯ Buildings (B) 

⎯ Structures (S) 

⎯ Small-scale Features (SS) 

⎯ Views and Vistas (V) 

⎯ Archeological Resources (A) 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 10 

NATURAL SYSTEMS 

The natural systems and features discussed in this section occur within, and are part of, the 

regional and park-wide natural systems described above. 

The most distinctive geological feature in the study area, the Wall (described above), extends 

through the Cedar Pass Developed Area; Cedar Pass is a break within this formation23 (see 

Figure 3-1). 

There are two primary soil associations located within the study area: 1) Badlands-InteriorCedarpass Association: a deep, well-drained, loamy and silty soil found on badlands, uplands, 

fans, and floodplains; and Cedarpass-Denby-Interior Association, which occurs on alluvial fans 

and terraces along the base of badlands formations. The expansion and contraction of badlands 

soil limits suitability for development, and, in the past, native soil has had to be removed from 

beneath the construction sites for roadways, parking areas, and buildings.24 

Surface water is almost non-existent within the study area; there are no perennial streams, 

floodplains, or natural wetlands. Gullies and washes provide drainage during rainstorms and 

after snowmelt (see Figure 3-2). Although little data exists on water quality within the park, it is 

believed to vary seasonally and from stream to stream.25

Plant communities within the Cedar Pass Developed Area are largely comprised of grasslands 

with sparsely scattered trees. Except for a few cottonwoods along the washes, there are no 

naturally occurring trees within the study area. There are no known rare plant populations inside 

the study area. The USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program identified the following plant 

groups inside the Cedar Pass Developed Area.26 The locations of the groups are indicated on 

Map 3-1.

27 

 

23 Within the context of the existing conditions documentation by landscape characteristic, the term “formation” will 

be applied (following local tradition) to erosional features such as pinnacles, spires, hoodoos, and walls. This usage 

can be somewhat confusing. Technically, a geological formation is the basic lithostratigraphic unit in geology, 

representing laterally extensive layers of rocks that were deposited under similar circumstances. Formations are part 

of a geological hierarchy—they are divided into members that are further divided into beds; and two or more 

formations are part of a group or supergroup. As such, the geological formation is roughly akin to the species or 

genus in biology, and formalized names for formations must pass through an internationally-recognized 

stratigraphic commission. 

24 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 68. 25 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 61. 26 Jim Von Loh, et al., USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Badlands National Park, South Dakota, Technical 

Memorandum No. 8260-00-02, (Denver, CO: Technical Service Center, November 1999). 

27 The Vegetation Mapping Program uses the National Vegetation Classification System. The vegetation maps are 

based on specific vegetation photo signatures and many grasses have identical photo signatures that cannot be 

differentiated. Therefore, many of the park’s grass species cannot be separated out in the minimum 1/2 hectare 

mapping unit areas, and plants are instead grouped into complexes. In Badlands National Park there is an 

overabundance of acres in a complex because 50 percent is the Badlands Sparse Complex and 36 percent is 

Western-Wheatgrass Complex; however, there are more association map units than complex map units. 

A complex includes multiple associations and an association is a combination of a few different plant species, 

usually three or less that are classified as dominant (e.g. at least 40 percent is dominated by a species) or co-
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 11 

1) Badland Sparse Vegetation Complex includes four associations, with the most sparsely 

vegetated—the Eroding Great Plains Badlands Complex—the one most likely present within the 

study area. This complex typically occurs on steep shale slopes and other heavily-eroded areas 

where moisture is scarce and temperatures are extreme. Approximately 15 percent of the study 

area falls in this category; these areas were almost barren of vegetation. Plant species most often 

present within this association include small-flowered wild buckwheat (Eriogonum 

pauciflorum), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and curly-cup gumweed (Grindelia 

squarrosa) (see Figure 3-3). 

2) Western Wheatgrass Alliance Grassland covers the majority of the study area—approximately 

53 percent—including most of the areas not occupied by Badlands formations or developed 

areas. This association is dominated by western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), a sod-forming 

grass that thrives in clay soils. It can range from almost pure, monotypic stands, to a true mixedgrass prairie. Other common species in this alliance include Japanese brome, blue grama 

(Bouteloua gracilis), Kentucky bluegrass, green needlegrass (Nassella virdula), and buffalo 

grass (Buchloe dactyloides) (see Figure 3-4). 

3) Western Snowberry Shrubland is found on approximately 1 percent of the study area, forming 

several colonies in the southern and western portions of the site. This plant community is found 

in moist drainages, swales, or depressions or other low areas where extra moisture is available. 

Common species include western snowberry or wolfberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), 

skunkbush (Rhus trilobata), prairie wild rose (Rosa arkansana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron 

rydbergii), mountain wormwood or white sage (Artemisia ludoviciana), western wheatgrass, 

downy brome, and Japanese brome. 

4) Chokecherry Shrubland is located in a small area (less than 1 percent of study area acreage) 

just south of the maintenance buildings. This plant community is often found in draws and 

drainages, forming impenetrable thickets composed of American plum (Prunus americana) 

and/or chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), with western snowberry, skunkbush, currant (Ribes 

odoratum), and Kentucky bluegrass also often present. 

5) Switchgrass Grassland is a common component of mesic areas, but was found as a dominant 

grass in a few areas of the North Unit of the park. One of these areas occurs just north of the new 

wastewater ponds and comprises a little more than 1 percent of the study area. The dominant 

species is switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) with other associated species including little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), heath aster (Aster ericoides), wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), 

prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), and western wheatgrass. 

 

dominant. Associations in the park are termed, for example, as Woodland, Shrubland, and Grassland while groups 

of Associations are termed as complex, emergent wetlands, and alliances. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 12 

6) Emergent Wetland Grassland is dominated by short rhizomatous grasses and grasslike plants 

such as cattail (Typha angustifolia and T. latifolia), bulrush (Scirpus americanus and validus), 

barley (Hordeum vulgare), and common rush (Juncus spp.). This community was mapped in a 

small area (less than one percent of study area acreage) that appears to have been used as a 

borrow pit located west of the maintenance buildings and southwest of the old wastewater 

ponds—just outside the boundary of the park and the study area. The area associated with the 

now-drained ponds will cease supporting this type of vegetation. 

7) Eastern Cottonwood Woodland is one of the few wooded associations in the park. During 

CLR-related fieldwork, a few trees were mapped in this association and others were noted to 

occur north of the old wastewater ponds and along the northern portion of the eastern wash. 

Common species include the cottonwood (Populus deltoides), peachleaf willow (Salix 

amygdaloides), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua) with snowberry, western wheatgrass, and 

Kentucky bluegrass also often present (see Figure 3-5). 

Exotic and invasive plant species, (described for the park as a whole in the Environmental 

Context and Setting section above) are also present within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Plants common in the study area, or of particular concern, are halogeton, yellow sweet clover, 

alfalfa, puncture vine, and Canada thistle. Other exotic or invasive species found in the park that 

may occur within the study area include Japanese brome, downy brome, smooth brome, crested 

wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, giant ragweed, field bindweed, spotted knapweed, Russian 

knapweed, houndstongue, and perennial sow thistle. Siberian elms (Ulmus pumila) have been 

planted at the Lodge and have escaped to the grassland area east of the Lodge. 

Wildlife that occurs within the Cedar Pass Developed Area includes Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep, which are frequently sighted in the study area. Other common park wildlife that may be 

sighted within the study area include mule deer, pronghorn antelope, coyotes, bobcats, muskrats, 

least chipmunks, jackrabbits, desert cottontails, and eastern cottontails.28 The black-footed ferret, 

black-tailed prairie dog, mountain lion, and bald eagle are also spotted within the study area. 

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION

Within the sharply dissected terrain of the Badlands, which can be described as extreme, vast, 

and disorienting, the Cedar Pass Developed Area offers a point of contrast and reference. 

Located at the southeastern tip of Badlands National Park, it is partially surrounded on the north 

and east by the Badlands Wall formation, with smaller formations located around the 

maintenance area to the south and a single peak between the Cedar Pass Lodge and campground. 

Open grasslands sweep across the remainder of the site, continuing southwest beyond the post 

and wire fence demarcating the park (and study area) boundary. This protected position at the 

foot of the Wall, with open views to the southwest, presents visitors with both close views of the 

formations and distant views across the prairie (see Figure 3-6). 

 

28 National Park Service, Draft “General Management Plan,” 74. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 13 

Within the site, the formations dominate spatial organization, with clustered buildings lining 

circulation corridors. The Badlands Loop Road and South Dakota Highway 377 separate the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area from the Wall formation to the north. Both road corridors are 

slightly elevated. With little or no vegetation in the area, these road corridors seem to merge 

visually with the surrounding landscape (see Figure 3-7). In the northeastern corner of the study 

area, the service road corridor leaves the Badlands Loop Road and cuts south through the site, 

passing through a gap in the formation and continuing outside the park. These three roads—the 

Badlands Loop Road, SD Highway 377, and the service road—form an “L”-shaped system along 

which developed nodes are located (see Map 3-2). 

Four separate development nodes are located with the study area; the Visitor 

Center/administration residential cluster; maintenance facilities; the Cedar Pass Lodge and 

cabins; and campground. The Visitor Center/administration/residential area is the largest, 

beginning at the corner of the service road and the Loop Road and stretching south along the 

eastern side of the service road. The Visitor Center faces the Loop Road with a large parking lot 

in front. Staff parking edges the rear of the building and a large overflow parking area stretches 

from the rear of the Visitor Center to the administration cluster with its paving continuous with 

the service road (see Figures 3-8 and 3-9). Walks connect the Visitor Center to the parking areas 

and the administration cluster. Tree and shrub plantings accentuate the front lawn of the Visitor 

Center (see Figure 3-10). The Visitor Center is the focal point of a large open area. The siting of 

the Visitor Center affords views of the formation to the west. The circulation patterns of roads, 

parking and walks, and plantings are subordinate to and strengthen the object quality of the 

Visitor Center. 

The administration portion of the cluster lies several hundred feet south of the Visitor Center and 

is comprised of five buildings—three of which are situated to form a courtyard space, with the 

other two sitting to their east. Two small parking areas are located between the two groups of 

buildings and accessed from the south via an old service road segment. A network of walks 

connects the buildings, Visitor Center, and parking. Several small trees surround the two eastern 

buildings and several others line a walk from the Visitor Center to this area (see Figures 3-11 

and 3-12). In contrast to the Visitor Center area, the administration area is a complex of 

buildings that are sited to form courtyard-like spaces defined by building façades. 

Further south and oriented along the old service road segment is the residential portion of the 

cluster. A short road spur connects the service road with the residential streets (see Figure 3-13). 

The northern half of the residential cluster is comprised of eight one-story single-family 

residences that edge the old service road segment as well as a loop drive to the east (see Figure 

3-14 and Figure 3-15). Five of the houses have detached garages, which form a small courtyard 

space. Fencing and vegetation creates intimate spaces around each house. Front lawns lack 

fencing but have more trees and shrubs, while the rear lawns are often partially fenced but have 

few plantings (see Figure 3-16). The southern half of this cluster is comprised of four, one-story, 

seasonal employee apartments at the terminus of the old service road segment. The apartment 

units are arranged to create a central courtyard. A formation surrounds the units to the south, 

east, and west sides. Walks connect the two units to each other and to two small parking areas 

(see Figure 3-17). A few trees are scattered throughout the area. A small fenced clothesline area 

lies just east of the apartment units (see Figure 3-18). The arrangement of streets and buildings, 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 14 

along with large trees, resulted in a hierarchy of spaces. A large central space is defined by the 

Loop Road, large trees, and the fronts of residences. Smaller residential lawn spaces are defined 

between buildings, between the buildings and loop road edge, and by fencing. In addition, at the 

rear of the single-family residences are small spaces defined by the rears of buildings and 

fencing and the nearby formations. Another major courtyard space is defined by the multifamily 

apartment buildings. 

A new two-story fire cache lies just east of the service road approximately 600 feet south of the 

apartment complex and outside the developed nodes. Although the site was under construction 

during the June 2003 field visit, it was noted that the appearance of this building will differ 

significantly from other buildings visible from the visitor areas due to its two-story profile. The 

base of the building is partially screened by a formation just to its north (see Figure 3-19). 

The maintenance developed node is located in the far south portion of the study area to either 

side of the service road; although the bulk of development lies to the west of the road. From the 

fire cache, the service road crosses a narrow strip of prairie before passing through a gap in a 

large formation and reaching the maintenance area. This formation completely screens the 

maintenance area from visitor areas (see Figure 3-20). The primary maintenance yard lies 

immediately south of the formation. It consists of three large rectangular buildings situated 

perpendicular to the service road (see Figure 3-21). Several smaller structures edge the yard. 

Employee parking, a fenced tree nursery, and site fencing separate the area from the service 

road. South of these buildings, a gravel drive loops around a formation peak with piles of 

discarded building materials and equipment lining its edge and a mixing circle at its south end 

(see Figure 3-22). This central formation peak screens much of the debris from the service road 

and maintenance yard. A small shed and fenced area for horses lies between the mixing circle 

and service road. 

A large water tank and pump building lie at the base of another formation opposite the service 

drive from the maintenance buildings. A short gravel drive connects these structures to the 

service road (see Figure 3-23). Two large wastewater lagoons surrounded by fencing are located 

east of the service road at the southern extreme of the study area. A gravel drive connects this 

area to the service road and continues east beyond the study area boundary (see Figure 3-24). 

The other two developed nodes are found southwest of the Visitor Center. Cedar Pass Lodge lies 

along the Loop Road approximately 1,000 feet to the west, with the main building facing the 

road. A large parking lot occupies most of the space between the building and road. The rear of 

the building is typical of a service court for a restaurant, with a large refrigeration unit, and trash 

and recycling receptacles (see Figure 3-25). A wide drive east of this building leads to the Lodge 

cabins, which are set in two facing rows. The drive narrows to a single lane and forms an oblong 

circle drive between the cabins with a wide planted strip between the lanes. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 15 

A dozen cabins lie on the west side of the drive and nine structures lie to its east. The structures 

are evenly spaced except for a gap on the west side and two gaps on the east side where cabins 

have been removed. The structures vary by size depending on use and number of rental units—

there is a large employee residence, a laundry room, as well as single and triple unit cabins. The 

employee residence has a fenced side and back yard as well as a number of shrubs and trees (see 

Figure 3-2). A few trees lie to either side of the main Lodge and a variety of trees and shrubs are 

scattered between and around the rear of most cabins, helping to create an enclosed space 

between the rows of structures (see Figure 3-27). Vegetation in the planted strip varies from 

dense tree growth at either end (again enclosing this interior space to an extent) to scattered trees 

over turf or turf only in the middle. Otherwise only an occasional tree lies here and there around 

the perimeter of this area. The siting of the cabins and large trees create one of the more 

formalized spaces in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. In contrast with the central spaces of the 

residential area, the row of cabins creates a long, rectilinear space defined by the front façades of 

the structures, straight parallel drives and linear tree plantings. 

On the west side of the main Lodge, a service drive leaves the parking lot and swings around to 

the rear of the building. A branch off this drive heads south, running parallel to the cabin drive 

before curving back to the east to tie into the end of the cabin drive. This drive connects to a 

small maintenance building southwest of the main building, and halfway down its length, to a 

mobile unit residential area used by Lodge employees. There are no plantings in this area and a 

large formation rises to the west of these two buildings (see Figure 3-28). A fenced propane 

storage area lies to the north of the mobile units. A defined turf area encompasses the cluster’s 

perimeter, adjacent to the surrounding native prairie grasses. 

The campground is the westernmost development node within the study area and stretches along 

South Dakota Highway 377 to the Loop Road intersection at the western boundary of the study 

area. A large formation physically and visually separates the Lodge from the campground. The 

area is accessed via a drive from Highway 377, which provides access to the amphitheater 

parking lot to the left and the campground to the right. The pavement widens at the campground 

entrance booth. A loop drive services the group camping area. It extends from the main drive to 

the east and rejoins the main drive on either side of this booth. Beyond the booth, the main drive 

separates to form two loop drives. Each loop drive has a cross link with campsites lining the 

edges of the drives, and a central comfort station. The group area has two comfort stations set 

outside its loop. Trails to the comfort stations are the only formal pedestrian circulation features 

in the area. Bollards line the edge of each drive inside the campgrounds. Each campsite is 

composed of a parking space and a picnic table covered by a sun/wind shelter. Overall, the 

campground is characterized by open lawn with a few scattered shade trees and open prairie 

grassland beyond. The sun/wind shelters dominate the ground plane in the two main campground 

loops, while only a few closely situated rows of these structures are found in the group camping 

loop (see Figure 3-29). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 16 

The diamond-shaped amphitheater is located southeast of the eastern group camping loop and 

amphitheater parking. It occupies slightly sloped terrain at the western base of a large formation 

separating the campground from the Lodge. The formation rises steeply behind the projection 

screen (see Figure 3-30). The amphitheater is connected to its parking lot by a winding path; a 

second path joins the amphitheater to the group camping site. 

LAND USE

Within the confines of the study area there are a variety of land uses. These include: 

⎯ visitor accommodations: visitor services available at the park include restrooms at the 

Visitor Center and Lodge and four comfort stations at the campground. Other 

accommodations include a restaurant and gift shop within the Lodge and a bookstore at 

the Visitor Center. 

⎯ interpretation: interpretive activities occur in several areas, including the amphitheater, 

the outdoor classroom, free-standing waysides along roads and trails, and interpretive 

media/exhibits and an audio-visual program and at the Visitor Center. 

⎯ lodging: a concessionaire provides seasonal lodging at individual cabins at the Cedar 

Pass Lodge. 

⎯ recreation: passive recreation in the Cedar Pass Developed Area includes viewing 

wildlife, picnicking, and attending interpretive programs at the amphitheater. Active 

recreation includes informal walks through the campground and unauthorized access of 

formations. Camping and picnicking are the primary active recreational uses. Picnic 

tables are located the group and individual campsites. 

⎯ administration: park offices are housed in the Visitor Center and in the administration 

building cluster behind the Visitor Center. 

⎯ maintenance: several buildings comprise the maintenance facility. The facility provides 

equipment storage, fuel storage, horse stables, a small nursery, equipment washing, a 

mixing circle, and chemical storage. The area is also used as a storage site for discarded 

equipment and building materials, and garbage burning. A fire cache, located between the 

maintenance area and Visitor Center, houses fire fighting equipment for the park. A 

maintenance building for the Lodge is located to its southwest. A museum collections 

storage building is currently under construction. 

⎯ utility: utilities located in the area include water, electric, and propane storage. A water 

storage tank and pump house provide water. Wastewater lagoons for water treatment are 

located off the service road near the south boundary. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 17 

⎯ housing: single-family homes for permanent park personnel and apartments for seasonal 

personnel are located south of the administration building cluster. Housing for the 

concession manager is located southeast of the Lodge. A mobile home and two RVs 

provide housing for Lodge personnel west of the cabins. 

CIRCULATION 

Circulation in the Cedar Pass Developed Area consists of two highways, a state road, and a 

variety of sidewalks and trails. South Dakota Highway 377 and Badlands Loop Road border the 

study area to the north and provide access to points beyond. Both highways are two-lane asphalt 

roads slightly elevated above the surrounding grade. From Interior, South Dakota, Highway 377 

heads north and borders the site for approximately a quarter mile before terminating at the 

Badlands Loop Road (see Figures 3-31 and 3-32). Bordering the northeastern portion of the 

study area for approximately a quarter mile, the Badlands Loop Road forms a loop connecting to 

I-90. Located off these two major roads are three main access points to the site: the campground 

drive, Cedar Pass Lodge Drive, and a service road. 

The campground drive is accessed from South Dakota Highway 377. After an initial short paved 

section, the remainder of the drive is gravel. A road arises leading east into the amphitheater 

parking lot. The second turn off the drive is another east turn onto a loop road that provides 

access to the amphitheater and group campground. The first portion is paved, but the road 

changes to gravel at the amphitheater. It remains gravel as it loops around the group 

campground. The main campground drive widens at the group campground to accommodate an 

entrance booth in the center of the road (see Figure 3-33). The group campground loop rejoins 

the main road approximately 100 feet past the booth. The road then forks to provide access to the 

two campgrounds. Both drives are gravel and loop through the campground in an irregularly 

curved manner to accommodate gravel pull-offs for individual camp sites (see Figure 3-34). 

The entrance to Cedar Pass Lodge drive originates from the Badlands Loop Road just east of its 

intersection with South Dakota Highway 377. A paved road—Cedar Pass Lodge Drive—

provides access to Lodge parking, the service area behind the Lodge, and the cabins. The road 

continues from the parking lot on the east side of the Lodge and enters the cabin area (see Figure 

3-26). Through the cabins, the drive is a one-way loop with a large area of turf and trees in the 

center. Two gravel lanes cut across the drive to connect the two sides of the loop. Near Cedar 

Pass Lodge, a gravel service road leads from the western end of the Lodge parking lot to the 

concession maintenance building and service area behind the Lodge. The service road then 

proceeds south to the propane tanks and mobile home, then turns east, terminating at the end of 

Cedar Pass Lodge drive loop. Near the southern boundary of the park, the former wastewater 

lagoon access drive is visible as a trace road. The road heads south, then forks to connect to a 

former borrow pit site and the maintenance facility. 

The service road originates at the Badlands Loop Road just west of the Visitor Center and runs 

south through the site (see Figure 3-35). It is a non-public, unmarked road, paved in asphalt for 

most of its length, becoming gravel just south of the maintenance cluster. From the Badlands 

Loop Road, a road leading east provides access to the Visitor Center parking. As the service road 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 18 

proceeds, another road leading east directly behind the Visitor Center provides access to the 

administration parking lot. Continuing beyond the parking, the service road expands to form 

overflow parking space. Two hundred and fifty feet beyond the overflow parking, a spur road 

leads east and connects to an older road section (see Figure 3-13). A remnant of the original 

alignment of the service road, 200 feet east of the present service road, provides access to the 

apartments and to a loop through the single-family homes. The main service road continues 

south where a gravel drive to the east provides access to the fire cache. Approximately half a 

mile south of the fire cache is an intersection; to the west is the paved entrance to the 

maintenance yard and to the east a gravel drive to the water storage. The service road continues 

to the park’s south boundary (see Figure 3-21). Approximately 600 feet from the southern park 

boundary, a ten- to fourteen-foot gravel drive heads east and provides access to the new 

wastewater lagoon before continuing out of the study area (see Figure 3-24). 

Parking 

Parking lots are located throughout the study area at key locations. A paved parking lot with 

forty to fifty marked bays is located in front of the Visitor Center. Another paved parking area 

comprised of two lots is located behind the Visitor Center. One is a rectangular lot located 

directly south of the Visitor Center; the other is an expansion of the service road (see Figure 3-

9). Located between the Resource Protection Office and the Conference Center is a paved 

parking lot with a gravel extension along the east side. Located in front of the Lodge is a paved 

parking lot with spaces for approximately sixty to seventy vehicles. The amphitheater parking 

area, located off the campground access road also provides paved parking. The maintenance yard 

has a graveled parking lot accessed by the service road (see Figure 3-21). 

Pedestrian Circulation 

Sidewalks provide the means for pedestrian circulation within the developed area. A concrete 

walk twelve feet wide provides access from the Visitor Center parking to the front entrance of 

the center. Four-foot-wide walks continue around the perimeter of the building to provide access 

to the administrative parking lot behind. An eight-foot-wide sidewalk begins at the southeastern 

corner of the administrative parking and connects to a system of wooden boardwalk sidewalks 

throughout the administrative cluster (see Figure 3-11). In the residential areas concrete 

sidewalks connect entrances, garages, and patios. 

The circulation at the Lodge is less formal. The loop road through the cabins and the open space 

between the cabins allow pedestrian movement to and from the Lodge building. To enter the 

Lodge from the cabins, pedestrians must walk through the service area at the rear of the building 

and then along either the east or west side the building. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 19 

A six-foot-wide trail runs parallels to the south edge of the Badlands Loop Road, connecting the 

Visitor Center and Lodge parking with the outdoor classroom adjacent to the amphitheater 

parking area. Bollard lights line the asphalt trail (see Figure 3-5). At the outdoor classroom, a 

single asphalt walk heads south, winding towards the amphitheater. Another asphalt walk from 

the group campground loop provides access to the south end of the amphitheater and includes a 

flight of concrete steps. Other asphalt walks are located within the campground area, providing 

access to the four comfort stations. 

TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS

Topographic modifications evident within the Cedar Pass Developed Area are associated with 

the grading for the construction of buildings, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and utilities. 

Because the approach to facility design at Cedar Pass was to disturb as little of the natural 

environment as possible, the use of cut and fill and large areas of land disturbance to construct 

buildings were minimized. Most importantly, existing facilities have been sited to minimize 

impacts to the formations (see Geology and Natural Systems discussions earlier concerning 

naturally-occurring topographic features). 

The most dramatic topographic modifications associated with the area are wastewater treatment 

lagoons. The former wastewater lagoons contained four ponds, two large ponds approximately 

one to one and a half acres and two smaller ponds approximately half an acre in size. The larger 

ponds are estimated to have had an original depth of ten feet. Plans are underway to restore the 

ponds to native prairie vegetation by filling the ponds and then farming for several years to 

stabilize soil fertility (see Figure 3-36).29 New wastewater lagoons have been installed east of 

the service road near the south park boundary. These ponds are approximately two acres in size. 

Some of the soil excavated from these ponds has been mounded between the ponds and the 

service road. Roads include graded swales and pitched road beds to direct stormwater to the 

swales (see Figure 3-24). 

The topographic forms of sensitive geologic formations are undergoing measurable changes 

resulting from unauthorized access by visitors. Human-generated alterations, in the form of 

trails, paths, footholds, and the compacting and flattening of features, is evident on formations in 

the campground and Visitor Center areas. 

 

29 NPS PMIS System # 52569, Fill-in and Rehabilitate Old Lagoon Site, September 1999. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 20 

VEGETATION

Vegetation introduced as part of facility development primarily includes plants that are found 

regionally. These include: 

Trees 

Acer negundo Box Elder 

Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 

Jumiperus virginiana Redcedar 

Ulmus americana American Elm 

Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm 

Shrubs and Small Trees 

Prunus americana Wild Plum 

Prunus pumila Sand Cherry 

Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 

Rhus aromatica Skunkbush Sumac, Fragrant Sumac 

Rosa spp. Wild Rose 

Symphoricarpus spp. Corralberry, Snowberry 

Small groupings of cedar trees anchor the front corners of the Visitor Center and are scattered 

around the parking lot and along the back of the building. Deciduous trees dot the surrounding 

landscape. Mown turf grass surrounds the Visitor Center and parking area. A grove of Siberian 

elms, possibly including other species, is located southwest of the Visitor Center. Siberian elms 

are potentially invasive and have already begun to spread by seed to surrounding areas (see 

Figure 3-37). 

The vegetation in the residential area includes areas of mown turf grass and scattered evergreen 

and deciduous trees. There are few specimen shrubs or massings of shrubs. The eastern edge of 

the area is where the maintained residential landscape abuts naturally occurring vegetation. 

Mown turf grass is the predominant vegetation type around Cedar Pass Lodge and in the parking 

medians. Deciduous trees occur sporadically along the perimeter of the Lodge including a large 

Siberian elm off the southwest corner. Cedars and deciduous trees and shrubs are located behind 

the Lodge and extend into the cabin area. The manager’s residence has two raised planting beds 

on either side of the entrance containing an assortment of ornamental plants. The cabin area 

consists mainly of mown grass with evergreen trees between the cabins and deciduous trees 

located in the common lawn area, which provides much needed shade (see Figure 3-27). A 

defined edge exists between the mown grass in the Lodge area and the surrounding grasslands 

(see Figure 3-38). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 21 

The vegetation in the campground consists of mown grass with scattered deciduous trees. The 

grass is patchy at the base of these trees where visitors seek shade. Natural grassland vegetation 

exists beyond the perimeter of the maintained campground landscape. 

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

B-01 Ben Reifel Visitor Center (Cedar Pass Visitor Center) 

The Ben Reifel Visitor Center is a low, one-story masonry and glass Modernist building located 

on the south side of Highway 240—the Badlands Loop Road—a short distance from the Interior 

entrance to the park. It was dedicated on September 16, 1959, following fifteen months of 

construction under the initiative of Mission 66. It was built for and still functions as the park 

interpretive center, gift shop and administration building (see Figures 3-39 and 3-40). The NPS 

architect Cecil Doty was the designer; and the Rapid City firm of Lucas, Craig, & Whitwam was 

the architect of record. The Visitor Center is set against the rising rock formations at the entrance 

to the pass, and at the corner where the service road leads south to park housing, there are 

various maintenance and additional administration buildings. 

The building has a flat roof with pre-finished, sheet-metal, gravel stops. An exposed-concrete 

foundation-wall system supports the exterior walls, composed of random-sized split-faced 

concrete masonry units (see Figure 3-41). The rough texture and color of the concrete masonry 

units resembles the striated layers of the Badlands rock formations. There is some cracking of 

the mortar in various areas due to settling. The roof of the Visitor Center shelters a relatively 

large recessed entry porch area that contains an exterior film theater with fixed seating and an 

exterior access to the public restrooms. The entry porch is composed of a concrete slab on grade, 

covered by a wooden-beam roof supporting tongue-and-groove decking. The open porch has 

been enclosed by painted plywood supported by steel tubing that is not original to the building. 

A ramp to the entry porch, also not original to the building, is not universally accessible (see 

Figure 3-42). The windows are hollow-metal steel fabrications with insulated glass on the front 

façade and steel-sash casement window systems on the rear. 

Near the building’s front entrance is the gift shop; a display room interpreting the park’s 

geology; and a small interior theater containing display cases interpreting the flora, fauna, and 

native peoples of the area. Park administrative offices are located along the south side of the 

building. 

Several areas of the foundation have moisture damage and evidence of settling. The floor of the 

exterior theater is in poor condition. Moisture has entered some of the concrete window sills 

causing the steel re-bar in the sills to rust. This has caused oxide jacking, a condition where the 

moisture in the sill has expanded through freeze-thaw cycles and split the face from the concrete 

sills (see Figure 3-43). Other exterior systems that include flashing and rain gutters are well 

maintained and in good condition. 

B-02 Cedar Pass Lodge 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 22 

The Cedar Pass Lodge is located on the south side of the Badlands Loop Road, between the 

Interior entrance to the park and the Visitor Center. It consists of a central original structure, 

which has received later additions to both the north and south sides (see Figure 3-44). The 

central original structure was constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, and has 

a simple gable roof with a projecting gable pavilion at the entrance (see Figure 3-45). The 

architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and 

colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. Deep roof eaves contain round log rafters, 

which are exposed at the underside. Wood decking comprises the substructure. The roof is 

covered with sheet metal roofing and appears to be in fair condition. The log roof eaves are in 

good condition. 

The north and south additions have flat roofs with large projecting overhangs and fascias faced 

with stained diagonal tongue-and-groove dimensioned lumber. The body of the Lodge complex 

has painted and lightly textured stucco finished walls, in good condition. 

The original Lodge building has two large, wood-framed windows flanking the main entrance 

that have long and narrow horizontal muntins, in fair condition. The north and south additions 

contain tempered aluminum storefront window systems with insulating glass that are in fair 

condition. The entry and service doors are of brushed metal with hollow metal frames. The rear 

of the building contains pieces of mechanical equipment and a long, rectangular walk-in freezer 

unit (see Figure 3-46). 

B-03 Cedar Pass Lodge Cottage 

The cottage is located across the drive to the cabins and directly east of the Cedar Pass Lodge 

(see Figure 3-47). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of 

this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and colors that 

harmoniously blend with the landscape. The cottage is an L-shaped, one-story residence with 

simple gable roofs and a projecting gable pavilion at the main entrance. The roofs are covered 

with pre-finished metal roofing, with no downspouts or gutters. The roof edges and eaves 

contain exposed rafter tails with wood sheathing. The wood elements are painted and are in fair 

condition. The walls of the cottage consist of lightly textured and painted stucco. The stucco is in 

fair condition. The windows consist of wood casement units set into wood frames and sills. 

Windows are painted and are in fair condition. The cottage doors consist of wood slab doors 

with a wood screen door. The entry doors have several small horizontal shaped glass lights. The 

doors are painted and are in fair condition. 

B-04 Cedar Pass Laundry Building 

The laundry building is located directly south of the Cedar Pass Lodge. Constructed circa 1928 

for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple 

Western building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. It is 

a rectangular, one-story building with a simple gabled roof. The roof is covered with asphalt 

shingles with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias are constructed of 1-by-8-inch painted wood 

with the eaves containing exposed log rafter tails and spaced sheathing. These exposed logs 

contain some rot and are in fair to poor condition. The wall surfaces of the laundry building are 

of lightly textured painted stucco. The laundry building was clad with log siding that has since 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 23 

been removed and stucco covering reapplied. The material still contains evidence of this 

alteration. Eaves and fascias are in generally fair condition. The windows are the original 

horizontal divided lights with an awning sash at the bottom (see Figure 3-49). The stucco wall 

surface curves and returns into the wood frame and the windows contain a simple, sloping wood 

sill. The windows are in fair condition. The entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood 

frame. The cabins and accompanying service buildings were originally clad with log siding for a 

rustic look. The split log siding was replaced with stucco in 1949. The protruding roof beams of 

the laundry building still contain evidence of the original log finish (see Figure 3-48). 

B-05 Cedar Pass Lodge Maintenance Building 

The maintenance building is a small, one-story, rectangular storage building containing a simple 

gable roof covered with asphalt shingles, in good condition (see Figure 3-50). It is located south 

of Cedar Pass Lodge and west of the laundry building. Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard 

and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building 

forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof has no 

downspouts or gutters. Rafters are exposed at the eaves. Fascias consist of 1-by-1-inch painted 

cedar boards. Rafter tails are in fair to poor condition. Some rafter tails show signs of rot due to 

moisture. The exterior walls of the maintenance building consist of lightly textured painted 

stucco, in fair condition. Some areas lack paint and have been damaged due to material storage 

leaning against the building. The stucco wall surfaces curve and return into the wood frame of 

the windows that contain a simple, sloping wood sill. The windows are casement sashes that 

contain divided wood lights, painted and in fair to poor condition. The door to the maintenance 

building consists of a two-panel wood door in wood frame. The door is in poor condition. 

B-06 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabins # 1, 1A, 2, 2A 

This cabin is a seasonal rental building located directly south of the laundry building within the 

cabin compound. It is a small, one-story, four-unit structure with a simple gable roof and a bay 

facing the front and a projection on the rear (see Figure 3-51). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben 

Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western 

building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The cabins 

were originally clad with log siding that was replaced with stucco in 1949. The roof is covered 

with asphalt shingles with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by6-inch painted wood in fair condition. The front projecting bay that contains an exterior door to 

one of the units is sheathed in split face multi-colored concrete masonry units. The wall surfaces 

of the rest of the cabin are lightly textured painted stucco, in fair condition. The original, wood, 

horizontal-slider windows have been replaced with aluminum double-hung sashes, with the 

exception of two wooden three-over-one, double-hung windows on the rear projection of the 

building (see Figure 3-52). There are window air conditioners projecting from the lower sash of 

a window in the rear of each unit. The windows are in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry 

doors consist of a slab wood door set in a wood frame with a wood screen door. The entry doors 

are a variety of configurations, some containing small glass vision panels. The screen doors and 

doors are generally in fair condition. The cabin contains a concrete platform running across the 

building, connecting the front entries of all of the units. The cabin has surface-mounted conduit 

and fuse boxes. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 24 

B-07 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #3 

This cabin, set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, is a small, one-story structure 

with simple gable roofs and a front gable sheathed in split face concrete masonry units with a 

window in the main entry door (see Figure 3-53). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and 

Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building 

forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The exterior walls of 

the rest of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The roof is covered with asphalt 

shingles with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted 

wood, in fair condition. The original wood horizontal-slider windows have been replaced with 

aluminum double-hung sashes. The windows are in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry doors 

consist of a slab wood door set in a wood frame with a wood screen door, in fair condition. An 

air conditioner has been cut into the north side of the cabin. There is a small concrete slab stoop 

at the entry door. This cabin has a surface-mounted conduit and fuse box. 

B-08 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #4 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a small angular bathroom addition on the 

northwest corner (see Figure 3-54). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, 

the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials 

and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. The roof of the addition has a roof slope, which is shallower than 

that of the main cabin. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair 

condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The windows are 

double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are 

in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame 

containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door 

are in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and 

fuse boxes. 

B-09 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #5 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof, and a small angular bathroom addition on the 

northwest corner (see Figure 3-54). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, 

the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials 

and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. The roof of the addition has a roof slope, which is shallower than 

that of the main cabin. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair 

condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The windows are 

double-hung aluminum, replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are 

in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 25 

containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door 

are in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and 

fuse boxes. 

B-10 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #6 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a small angular bathroom addition on the 

northwest corner (see Figure 3-54). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, 

the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials 

and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. The roof of the addition has a roof slope that is shallower than 

that of the main cabin. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair 

condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The windows are 

double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are 

in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame 

containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door 

are in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and 

fuse boxes. 

B-11 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #7 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof (see Figure 3-55). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben 

Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western 

building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is 

covered with asphalt shingles and contains no downspouts or gutters. Fascias are constructed of 

1-by-6-inch painted wood with exposed rafter tails and spaced sheathing at the eaves. Fascias 

and eaves are generally in fair condition. The wall surface of the cabin is lightly textured painted 

stucco. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame with a wood 

screen door. The doors are in fair condition. The windows are of a horizontal slider configuration 

with horizontal divided lights at each sash, original to the construction of the cabin. The stucco 

wall surface curves and returns into the wood frame, and the windows contain a simple, sloping 

wood sill. The windows are in fair condition. The cabin has had an air conditioner cut into the 

side of the cabin. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof (see Figure 3-55). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben 

Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western 

building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is 

covered with asphalt shingles and contains no downspouts or gutters. Fascias are constructed of 

1-by-6-inch painted wood with exposed rafter tails and spaced sheathing at the eaves. Fascias 

and eaves are generally in fair condition. The wall surface of the cabin is lightly textured painted 

stucco. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame with a wood 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 26 

screen door. The doors are in fair condition. The windows are of a horizontal slider configuration 

with horizontal divided lights at each sash, original to the construction of the cabin. The stucco 

wall surface curves and returns into the wood frame, and the windows contain a simple, sloping 

wood sill. The windows are in fair condition. The cabin has had an air conditioner cut into the 

side of the cabin. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. 

B-13 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #9 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof (see Figure 3-55). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben 

Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western 

building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is 

covered with asphalt shingles and contains no downspouts or gutters. Fascias are constructed of 

1-by-6-inch painted wood with exposed rafter tails and spaced sheathing at the eaves. Fascias 

and eaves are generally in fair condition. The wall surface of the cabin is lightly textured painted 

stucco. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame with a wood 

screen door. The doors are in fair condition. The windows are of a horizontal slider configuration 

with horizontal divided lights at each sash, original to the construction of the cabin. The stucco 

wall surface curves and returns into the wood frame, and the windows contain a simple, sloping 

wood sill. The windows are in fair condition. The cabin has had an air conditioner cut into the 

side of the cabin. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. 

B-14 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #10 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof (see Figure 3-56). A bedroom addition on the rear 

has doubled the size of the footprint of the original building (see Figure 3-57). Constructed circa 

1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional 

simple Western building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the 

landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and 

eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair condition. The wall surfaces of the 

cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The windows are double-hung aluminum 

replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are in fair to poor condition. 

The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame containing a small glass 

vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door are in fair condition. This 

cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, painted, in fair condition. 

This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface mounted conduit and fuse boxes. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 27 

B-15 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #11 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof (see Figure 3-56). A bedroom addition on the rear 

has doubled the size of the footprint of the original building (see Figure 3-57). Constructed circa 

1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure employs traditional 

simple Western building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the 

landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and 

eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair condition. The wall surfaces of the 

cabin are of lightly textured, painted stucco. The windows are double-hung aluminum 

replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are in fair to poor condition. 

The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame containing a small glass 

vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door are in fair condition. This 

cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, painted, in fair condition. 

This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and fuse boxes. 

B-16 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #12 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a bedroom addition on the rear that has 

doubled the size of the footprint of the original building (see Figures 3-56 and 3-57). 

Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of this structure 

employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and colors that harmoniously 

blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles with no downspouts or 

gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair condition. The 

wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured, painted stucco. The windows are double-hung 

aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are in fair to poor 

condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame containing a 

small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door are in fair 

condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, painted, in 

fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and fuse boxes. 

B-17 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin # S 14, 15, 16, 16A 

This cabin, set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, is a small, one-story, four unit 

T-shaped structure with a simple gable roof (see Figure 3-58). Three units face the lane, and one 

is placed in an ell on the rear, accessed by a concrete path around the north end of the building 

(see Figure 3-59). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the architecture of 

this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and colors that 

harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles with no 

downspouts or gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood in fair 

condition. The wall surface of the cabin is lightly textured painted stucco, in fair condition. The 

original wood horizontal-slider windows are in place on the front of the cabin, typical of the 

original windows of all of the cabins (see Figure 3-60). These windows have been replaced with 

aluminum double-hung sashes at the rear unit and are in poor condition. There are air 

conditioners projecting through the rear walls of the units. The cabin entry doors consist of a slab 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 28 

wood door set in a wood frame with a wood screen door. The doors are generally in fair 

condition. The cabin contains a wood platform running across the building, connecting the 

entries of the three front units. The cabin has surface-mounted conduit and fuse boxes. 

B-18 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #18 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof, and a small flat roofed bathroom addition on the 

south end (see Figure 3-61). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the 

architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and 

colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, 

in fair condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The 

windows are double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The 

windows are in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a 

wood frame containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen doors 

and doors are generally in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform 

at the front entry, painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surfacemounted conduit and fuse boxes. 

B-19 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #19 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a small flat roofed bathroom addition on the 

south end (see Figure 3-61). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the 

architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and 

colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, 

in fair condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The 

windows are double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The 

windows are in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a 

wood frame containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen doors 

and other doors are generally in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood 

platform at the front entry, painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has 

surface-mounted conduit and fuse boxes. 

B-20 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #20 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a small flat roofed bathroom addition on the 

south end (see Figure 3-61). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the 

architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and 

colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, 

in fair condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The 

windows are double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The 

windows are in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 29 

wood frame containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen doors 

and doors are generally in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform 

at the front entry, painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surfacemounted conduit and fuse boxes. 

B-21 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #21 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a small angular bathroom addition on the 

northwest corner (see Figure 3-54). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, 

the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials 

and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. The roof of the addition has a roof slope, which is shallower than 

that of the main cabin. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair 

condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The windows are 

double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are 

in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame 

containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door 

are in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and 

fuse boxes. 

B-22 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #22 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a small angular bathroom addition on the 

northwest corner (see Figure 3-54). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, 

the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials 

and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. The roof of the addition has a roof slope, which is shallower than 

that of the main cabin. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch, painted wood, in fair 

condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The windows are 

double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are 

in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame 

containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door 

are in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and 

fuse boxes. 

B-23 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #23 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a small angular bathroom addition on the 

northwest corner (see Figure 3-54). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, 

the architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials 

and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. The roof of the addition has a roof slope that is shallower than 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 30 

that of the main cabin. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch painted wood, in fair 

condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The windows are 

double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The windows are 

in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a wood frame 

containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and entry door 

are in fair condition. This cabin contains a small 3-by-8-foot wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. This cabin is not air conditioned and has surface-mounted conduit and 

fuse boxes. 

B-24 Cedar Pass Lodge Cabin #33 

Set in the cabin compound south of Cedar Pass Lodge, this cabin is a small, one-story, 

rectangular structure with a simple gable roof and a steeply pitched off-center roof over the entry 

porch (see Figure 3-62). Constructed circa 1928 for Ben Millard and Clara Jennings, the 

architecture of this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and 

colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles 

with no downspouts or gutters. Fascias and eaves are constructed of 1-by-6-inch, painted wood, 

in fair condition. The wall surfaces of the cabin are of lightly textured painted stucco. The 

windows are double-hung aluminum replacements for the original wood horizontal sliders. The 

windows are in fair to poor condition. The cabin entry door consists of a slab wood door set in a 

wood frame containing a small glass vision panel, with a wood screen door. The screen door and 

entry door are in fair condition. This cabin contains a small wood platform at the front entry, 

painted, in fair condition. An air conditioning unit has been installed through the south wall of 

the cabin and has surface mounted conduit and fuse boxes. 

B-25 Campground Comfort Station Group 1 

This comfort station is much newer than the other three comfort stations within the campground, 

and is placed south of the amphitheater (see Figure 3-63). It is a small, rectangular building with 

a gabled roof. The roof has asphalt shingles with exposed rafters and eaves that are painted, and 

the paint is in good condition. The shingles are in good condition. 

The building has vertically scored plywood siding, which is painted and in good condition. The 

doors are composed of built-up wood doors and wood frames, which are in good condition. The 

ADA-accessible men’s and women’s restrooms are connected to the campground by a crushed 

stone path. 

B-26 Campground Comfort Station Group 2 

This comfort station was constructed as part of the Mission 66 campground improvements (see 

Figure 3-64). It is a rectangular concrete masonry building with a low sloping roof with pointed 

gable ends, Usonian in design. The roof has projecting wood beams at gables with tongue-ingroove wood decking. The roof is covered with corrugated metal roofing, which is in good to 

fair condition. The wood fascias and soffits are covered with pre-finished metal material, which 

is in fair condition. The stack bond concrete masonry walls are painted, and in good condition. 

Above the concrete masonry there is a band of wood plywood at the windows up to the eaves. 

The wood is painted and in good to fair condition. The windows, both fixed and operable, have 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 31 

clear and frosted glass. The fixed wood frames are painted and in good to fair condition. The 

operable windows have a steel hopper sash with a screen. These are in fair condition. The doors 

are hollow metal with hollow metal frames, which are painted. These are in good condition. 

B-27 Campground Comfort Station A 

This comfort station was constructed as part of the Mission 66 campground improvements (see 

Figure 3-65). It is a rectangular concrete masonry building with a low sloping roof with pointed 

gable ends, Usonian in design. The roof has projecting wood beams at gables with tongue-ingroove wood decking. The roof is covered with corrugated metal roofing, which is in good to 

fair condition. The wood fascias and soffits are covered with pre-finished metal material, which 

is in fair condition. The stack bond concrete masonry walls are painted, and in good condition. 

Above the concrete masonry there is a band of wood plywood at the windows up to the eaves. 

The wood is painted and is in good to fair condition. The windows, both fixed and operable, 

have clear and frosted glass. The fixed wood frames are painted and are in good to fair condition. 

The operable windows have a steel hopper sash with a screen. These are in fair condition. The 

doors are hollow metal with hollow metal frames, which are painted. These are in good 

condition. 

B-28 Campground Comfort Station B (Amphitheater Vault Toilet) 

This comfort station was constructed as part of the Mission 66 campground improvements (see 

Figure 3-66). It is a rectangular concrete masonry unit building with a low sloping roof with 

pointed gable ends, Usonian in design. The roof has projecting wood beams at gables with 

tongue-in-groove wood decking. The roof is covered with corrugated metal roofing, which is in 

good to fair condition. The original wood of the fascias and soffits are covered with pre-finished 

metal material, which is in fair condition. The stack bond concrete masonry walls are painted, 

and in good condition. 

Above the concrete masonry there is a band of plywood at the windows up to the eaves. The 

wood is painted and is in good to fair condition. The windows, both fixed and operable, have 

clear and frosted glass. The fixed wooden frames are painted and are in good to fair condition. 

The operable windows have a steel hopper sash with a screen. These are in fair condition. The 

doors are hollow metal with hollow metal frames, which are painted. These are in good 

condition. 

B-29 Administration Building 

The administration building, constructed in 1999, is a one story, modular, L-shaped, 

prefabricated building with simple end gables (see Figures 3-67 and 3-68). It is located south of 

the Visitor Center at the far south end of the parking lot. The roof material is a pre-finished steel 

with pre-finished aluminum K-style gutters and rectangular downspouts. The exterior wall finish 

is vinyl siding. Windows are aluminum clad horizontal sliders. The three entry doors are prefinished steel with vision panels and are all wheelchair accessible with ADA-conforming 

wooden ramps with tubular steel railings. The color of the building is in keeping with the 

traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 32 

B-30 Conference/Maintenance Building 

The conference/maintenance building is located directly east of the administration building (see 

Figure 3-69). The building was originally constructed in the 1980s as a “pole barn” garage. Sixty 

percent of the building was enclosed in 1994 for use as administrative space for maintenance. 

The conference room served as the library for the park until 1999. The building form is 

composed of a simple rectangular prefabricated module with simple end gables. The roof is 

brown asphalt with PVC gutters and downspouts. The exterior wall surface is of painted 

vertically-scored plywood siding. Fascias and eaves are composed of conventional lumber and 

plywood for soffits. The color of the building is of a buff-sand color finish, inspired by the color 

of the landscape, and is consistent with the traditional colors of the majority of the older 

buildings within the park. 

B-31 Collection Storage/Fitness Center Building 

The collection storage/fitness center is a small, one-story, rectangular building with simple end 

gables and a roof pitch approximately 4:12. It is located directly to the south of the Resource 

Protection Building (see Figure 3-70). This building was constructed as a “pole barn” garage in 

the 1980s on an existing concrete slab that was originally constructed for a Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) era garage (the original garage was torn down in the 1960s). In 1994, 

the garage was enclosed and converted into offices for the GIS program and law enforcement 

rangers with the rear portion serving as collection storage. In 1999 the front portion of the 

building was converted into the fitness center when the Natural Resource Management staff 

moved into the new administrative and headquarters building, freeing up space in the Ranger 

Station and the GIS lab. The architecture employs traditional simple Western building forms in 

materials and colors that harmoniously blend with the landscape. The roof is of pre-finished steel 

roofing with no gutters or downspouts. The exterior wall finish is lightly textured stucco. Former 

openings have been closed although their locations remain visible. The windows consist of 

aluminum clad horizontal slider units. The entry door, which is not original to the building, is 

embossed steel set in a wooden frame and is in fair condition. 

B-32 Resource Protection Building (CCC Ranger Station) 

Set east of the conference/maintenance building, this building is a one-story, U-shaped, lightlytextured stucco-clad building with a simple peaked roof (see Figure 3-71). The architecture of 

this structure employs traditional simple Western building forms in materials and colors that 

harmoniously blend with the landscape. The inner court of the U plan has been in-filled. The 

roof is sheathed in non-original pre-finished steel. The rafter tails of the original portion of the 

building are exposed with painted roof sheathing. The roof is edged with PVC gutters with PVC 

downspouts, in fair condition. The windows are the original painted wood frame and sills, which 

have been retrofitted with, anodized aluminum double-hung sashes. The paint of the frames is 

failing. The main entry door is flush steel set in a wood frame. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 33 

B-33 Natural Resources Office Building 

The natural resources office building is a simple one-story, rectangular and modular building that 

was constructed in 2001. It was assembled off site and moved to its present location. The roof is 

of pre-finished sheet metal, with metal fascias and soffits. The exterior walls are sheathed in 

bossed plywood that has been painted (see Figure 3-72). The windows consist of aluminum clad 

horizontal slider units. The entry doors are pre-finished steel with vision panels. The color of the 

building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the 

park. 

B-34 Residence #28 

This single-family, one-story, staff residence was built in 1952-53, directly south of the CCC-era 

buildings (see Figure 3-73). There is a projecting gable denoting the main living area inside. The 

building also includes an attached single-car garage. The roof is medium pitched with gable ends 

and no overhangs, and there is a narrow covered porch stretching across the front of the house. 

The roof is sheathed in standing-seam metal, not original to its construction. The exterior walls 

are of wide-profile cedar, painted, with vertical, painted tongue-and-groove cedar boards in the 

gables below the living room windows and on the sides and back. Fascias and eaves are painted 

dimensioned lumber, in fair condition. The windows have been replaced with a mix of vinyl clad 

horizontal sliders and double-hung windows. The color of the building is in keeping with the 

traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-35 Residence #29 

This single-family, one-story, staff residence was built from1952-53, directly south of the CCCera buildings (see Figure 3-74). There is a projecting gable denoting the main living area inside. 

The building also includes an attached, single-car garage. The roof is medium pitched with gable 

ends and no overhangs, and there is a narrow covered porch stretching across the front of the 

house. The roof is sheathed in standing-seam metal, not original to its construction. The exterior 

walls are wide profile cedar, painted, with vertical, painted tongue-and-groove cedar boards in 

the gables below the living room windows and on the sides and back. Fascias and eaves are 

painted dimensioned lumber, in fair condition. The windows have been replaced with a mix of 

vinyl clad horizontal sliders and double-hung windows. The color of the building is in keeping 

with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park.

B-36 Residence #30 

This single-family, one-story, Mission 66-era residence is located in the housing compound 

south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-75). The low, sloped roof with wide 

overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are recent replacements 

placed in the original wooden frames. The color of the building is in keeping with the traditional 

colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-37 Garage #30A 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 34 

This building is a one-vehicle detached garage which is original to the construction of Residence 

#30 (see Figure 3-75). The finishes of the garage match that of the house. The low sloped roof 

with wide overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in 

dimensioned plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The 

exterior walls are finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are 

recent replacements in the original wooden frames. There is a small concrete slab patio that 

connects the garage and house. These are in good to fair condition. The color of the building is in 

keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-38 Residence #31 

This single-family, one-story, Mission 66-era residence is located in the housing compound 

south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-76). The low, sloped roof with wide 

overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are recent replacements 

placed in the original wooden frames. The color of the building is in keeping with the traditional 

colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-39 Garage #31A 

This building is a one-vehicle, detached garage that is original to the construction of Residence 

#31 (see Figure 3-76). The finishes of the garage match that of the house. The low sloped roof 

with wide overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in 

dimensioned plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The 

exterior walls are finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are 

recent replacements in the original wooden frames. A breezeway has been installed between the 

garage and the residential unit. The breezeway consists of tubular steel elements clad with 

prefabricated cedar trellises. These also are in good to fair condition. There is a small concrete 

slab patio that connects the garage and house. These are in good to fair condition. The color of 

the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within 

the park. 

B-40 Residence #32 

This single-family, one-story, Mission 66-era residence is located in the housing compound 

south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-77). The low, sloped roof with wide 

overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are recent replacements 

placed in the original wooden frames. The color of the building is in keeping with the traditional 

colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 35 

B-41 Garage #32A 

This building is a one-vehicle, detached garage that is original to the construction of Residence 

#32 (see Figure 3-77). The finishes of the garage match that of the house. The low, sloped roof 

with wide overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in 

dimensioned plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The 

exterior walls are finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are 

recent replacements into the original wooden frames. A breezeway has been installed between 

the garage and the residential unit. The breezeway consists of tubular steel elements clad with 

prefabricated cedar trellises. These also are in good to fair condition. There is a small concrete 

slab patio that connects the garage and house. These are in good to fair condition. The color of 

the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within 

the park. 

B-42 Residence #33 

This single-family, one-story, Mission 66-era residence is located in the housing compound 

south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-78). The low, sloped roof with wide 

overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung, aluminum windows are recent replacements 

placed in the original wooden frames. The color of the building is in keeping with the traditional 

colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-43 Garage #33A 

This building is a one-vehicle, detached garage original to the construction of Residence #33

(see Figure 3-78). The finishes of the garage match that of the house. The low, sloped roof with 

wide overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung, aluminum windows are recent replacements 

in the original wooden frames. A breezeway has been installed between the garage and the 

residential unit. The breezeway consists of tubular steel elements clad with prefabricated cedar 

trellises. These are also in good to fair condition. There is a small concrete slab patio that 

connects the garage and house. These are in good to fair condition. The color of the building is in 

keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-44 Residence #34 

This one-story, Mission 66-era, single-family dwelling is located in the housing compound to the 

south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-79). The low, sloped roof with wide 

overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are recent replacements 

placed in the original wooden frames. The color of the building is in keeping with the traditional 

colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 36 

B-45 Garage #34A 

This building is a one-vehicle, detached garage original to the construction of Residence #34 

(see Figure 3-79). The finishes of the garage match that of the house. The low, sloped roof with 

wide overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco. The double-hung aluminum windows are recent replacements 

into the original wooden frames. A breezeway has been installed between the garage and the 

residential unit. The breezeway consists of tubular steel elements clad with prefabricated cedar 

trellising. These also are in good to fair condition. There is a small concrete slab patio that 

connects the garage and house. These are in good to fair condition. The color of the building is in 

keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-46 Residence #46 

This single-family, one-story, 1970s-era residence is located in the housing compound south of 

the administration building complex and serves as housing for the park Superintendent (see

Figure 3-80). The residence has a low, pitched roof of a pre-finished sheet metal with wide 

overhangs, and PVC gutters and downspouts. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The exterior walls are finished in vertical-groove plywood siding. The double-hung 

aluminum windows are recent replacements in the original wooden frames, in fair condition. A 

wooden deck has been added to the rear of the house, painted, in good condition. The color of 

the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within 

the park. 

B-47 Garage #46A 

This building is a one-vehicle, detached garage original to the construction of Residence #46

(see Figure 3-80). The finishes of the garage match that of the house. The low, sloped roof with 

wide overhangs is of a pre-finished sheet metal. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned 

plywood. The fascias and soffits are painted and in good to fair condition. The exterior walls are 

finished in vertical-groove plywood siding. The double-hung aluminum windows are recent 

replacements into the original wooden frames. The color of the building is in keeping with the 

traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

B-48 Seasonal Apartment #135 

This building, constructed in 1976, is a one-story, four-family apartment building located in the 

housing compound to the south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-81). Each 

unit has a recessed entry porch. The low, pitched roof is of a pre-finished sheet metal with wide 

overhangs. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned plywood. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco in fair condition. The double-hung aluminum windows are 

recent replacements placed in the original wooden frames. Entry doors consist of flush wood 

with wood and glass storm doors in fair condition. This is one of four multi-unit buildings that 

enclose a common yard. The color of the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the 

majority of the older buildings within the park.

B-49 Seasonal Apartment #45 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 37 

This building is a one-story, Mission 66-era, four-family apartment building located in the 

housing compound to the south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-82). Each 

unit has a recessed entry porch. The low, pitched roof is of a pre-finished sheet metal with wide 

overhangs. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned plywood. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco in fair condition. The double-hung aluminum windows are 

recent replacements in the original wooden frames. Entry doors consist of flush wood with wood 

and glass storm doors in fair condition. This is one of four multi-unit buildings that enclose a 

common yard. At the rear of the building is a wood screened outdoor laundry line. The screens 

consist of 1-by-12-inch, board-on-board, painted fences in fair to poor condition. The color of 

the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within 

the park. 

B-50 Seasonal Apartment #51 

This building is a one-story, Mission 66-era, four-family apartment building located in the 

housing compound to the south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-82). Each 

unit has a recessed entry porch. The low pitched roof is of a pre-finished sheet metal with wide 

overhangs. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned plywood. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco in fair condition. The double-hung aluminum windows are 

recent replacements into the original wooden frames. Entry doors consist of flush wood with 

wood and glass storm doors in fair condition. This is one of four multi-unit buildings that 

enclose a common yard. At the rear of the building is a wood screened outdoor laundry line. The 

screens consist of 1-by-12-inch, board-on-board, painted fences in fair to poor condition. The 

color of the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older 

buildings within the park. 

B-51 Seasonal Apartment #52 

This building is a one-story, Mission 66-era, four-family apartment building located in the 

housing compound to the south of the administration building complex (see Figure 3-82). Each 

unit has a recessed entry porch. The low pitched roof is of a pre-finished sheet metal with wide 

overhangs. Fascias and soffits are finished in dimensioned plywood. The exterior walls are 

finished in lightly textured stucco in fair condition. The double-hung aluminum windows are 

recent replacements in the original wooden frames. Entry doors consist of flush wood with wood 

and glass storm doors in fair condition. This is one of four multi-unit buildings that enclose a 

common yard. At the rear of the building is a wood-screened outdoor laundry line. The screens 

consist of 1-by-12-inch, board-on-board, painted fences in fair to poor condition. To the north of 

this building is a small, relatively new storage building. It is a prefabricated building constructed 

off site and moved to its present location. The exterior walls are of grooved vertical plywood 

siding with a slightly peaked sheet-metal roof. It has large sliding doors facing into the courtyard 

of the four apartment buildings. The color of the building is in keeping with the traditional colors 

of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 38 

B-52 Fire Cache, #177 

The fire cache was constructed in late 2002. It is a long, steel-structured, peaked building with 

three large truck bays at the west end, under a roof that is higher than the rest of the building (see 

Figure 3-19). The roof and walls are finished in sheets of corrugated metal. The windows are 

aluminum horizontal sliders. Its industrial architecture and materials are not in keeping with the 

masonry or wood of the buildings that elsewhere blend into the landscape. 

B-53 Maintenance Shop 

The maintenance shop, with initial construction in 1960, faces the maintenance cold storage 

building to the north. The two buildings share a drive and large paved area (see Figure 3-83). 

The walls are constructed of concrete masonry in a stack bond with a low, sloped roof pitched 

from front to back. The walls are in fair condition. The paint is peeling and some cracking has 

occurred due to settlement. The building has a rectangular plan with four low and two high 

vehicle bays. The building has K-style downspouts and gutters, which are in good condition. The 

overhead doors are non-insulated steel panels with vision panels. These are in fair condition. The 

fascias are in poor condition. They are lacking paint. 

B-54 Maintenance Cold Storage 

The maintenance cold storage building, with initial construction in 1961, faces south toward the 

maintenance shop (see Figure 3-84). The walls are constructed of concrete masonry units in a 

stack bond with a low, sloped roof pitched from front to back. The walls are in fair condition. 

The paint is peeling and some cracking has occurred due to settlement. The building has a 

rectangular plan with six low and two high vehicle bays. The building has K-style downspouts 

and gutters, which are in good condition. The building has aluminum windows with insulated 

glass and slider vent units. These are in good condition. The overhead doors are non-insulated 

steel panels with vision panels. These are in fair condition. There is a small office addition at the 

west (see Figure 3-85). It has wood lap-siding with a partially corrugated gable roof, which is in 

fair condition. The aluminum fascias are in poor condition. They are lacking paint. 

B-55 Maintenance Storage Building 

The maintenance storage building, constructed in 1988, is located north of the maintenance shop

(see Figure 3-86). It is a long, corrugated-metal, paneled building with a peaked, asphaltshingled roof. The building contains six tall truck bays and fifteen short truck bays, with no 

overhead doors. The aluminum fascias are in fair condition. 

B-56 Sand Shed 

The sand shed, constructed in 1977, is located to the west of the maintenance buildings (see 

Figure 3-87). It has a rectangular plan. The south end has lower walls than the north end, causing 

a break in the continuous gabled roof. There are corrugated-metal panel walls and decking, 

which are in fair condition. The paint finish is fading and some of the panels are dented. There is 

a sliding barn door at the south end and an overhead steel door at the east. Both are in fair 

condition. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 39 

B-57 Hazmat Building 

The hazmat building is a small, rectangular structure placed near the maintenance buildings 

within a small canyon that is used as a repository for used materials and equipment (see Figure 

3-88). It has a low, sloping, peaked roof with wide overhangs. The roof is sheathed in asphalt 

shingles. The fascia and soffits are of dimensioned lumber. The walls are finished in verticalstriated plywood. The north side of the building has a steel, sliding, barn-type door, and the west 

side has a steel door. Park staff have indicated that this building may have been constructed at 

the Pinnacles Ranger Station in the 1970s to serve as a tack shed for wilderness rangers and later 

moved to the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

B-58 Lodge Employee Mobile Home 

The Lodge employee mobile home was placed in the park in 2003. It is a new, prefabricated 

mobile home with a low, pitched asphalt roof and vinyl siding (see Figure 3-89). The color of 

the building is not in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings 

within the park. 

S-01 Cedar Pass Lodge Ice House 

The ice house consists of a refrigeration trailer unit that has been permanently installed on a 

concrete slab (see Figure 3-90). An independent post system supports a flat roof with a wide 

fascia of diagonal wood siding, stained, and in fair condition. It is placed just west of the Cedar 

Pass Lodge, accessed from the sidewalk on the edge of the Lodge parking lot. 

S-02 Interpretive Shelter 

The interpretive shelter is a rectangular structure with a gable roof, open on two sides, with the 

other two sides enclosed with stucco walls and colored to blend with the landscape (see Figure 

3-91). The structure is in good condition. The roof is of pre-finished metal with wood eaves and 

wood fascia. These are in good condition. There are heavy metal connections at the columns and 

roof. The asphalt slab is in good condition. 

S-03 Campground Shed 

The campground shed is a prefabricated, recently-placed, small, wooden structure with a low, 

pitched, gabled roof, which was constructed off site and placed here on wooden runners (see 

Figure 3-92). The roof is of asphalt shingles and the walls are of vertical-grooved and textured 

plywood, with wide sliding doors on one side. The color of the building is in keeping with the 

traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 40 

S-04 Campground Entrance Booth 

The campground entrance booth, built during the Mission 66 era, has a rectangular plan with a 

shed roof (see Figure 3-93). There is a small booth for park staff that contains sliding aluminum 

horizontal windows and a metal door and frame. These are in good condition. There is a deep, 

long roof overhang, which contains an information panel between the columns and the pay 

telephone. The walls are lightly-textured stucco that has been painted. They are in good 

condition. The corrugated metal roof is also in good condition. There are plywood soffits and 

wood fascia, which are painted and in good condition. The color of the building is in keeping 

with the traditional colors of the majority of the older buildings within the park. 

S-05 Amphitheater Stage 

The amphitheater stage is a tall, rectangular building with a shed roof. It has vertical-groove 

plywood siding, which is in good condition (see Figure 3-94). The corrugated metal roof is in 

good to fair condition. The steel overhead stage door is painted and is in good condition. The 

color of the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older 

buildings within the park. 

S-06 Amphitheater Projection Booth 

The amphitheater projection booth is a small rectangular building with simple shed roof that is in 

fair condition (see Figure 3-94). The lightly-textured stucco walls are painted. The asphaltshingle roof has a wood fascia and plywood soffit, which is painted. They are in good condition. 

The entry door at the rear of the booth is of solid wood, painted, and in good condition. The 

color of the building is in keeping with the traditional colors of the majority of the older 

buildings within the park. 

S-07 Amphitheater Retaining Wall 

The amphitheater retaining wall is a low concrete structure set into the landscape to the east of 

the projection booth. It supports a chain link fence, is battered, and in good condition (see Figure 

3-94). 

S-08 Air Quality Monitoring Station (NE Entrance Air Quality 

Building) 

Across the service road and southwest of the fire cache, the air quality monitoring station is a 

square concrete building with adjacent metal scaffolding that houses monitoring equipment on 

top (see Figure 3-95). 

S-09 Sewage Treatment Lift Station 

Between the fire cache and maintenance area, a sewage treatment lift station is located along the 

east side of the service road. The structure is comprised of three upright, rectangular, metal 

structures on a concrete pad and a junction box on a post surrounded by metal bollards (see 

Figure 3-96). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 41 

S-10 Cedar Pass Tack Room 

The tack room is a small, one-story, wood building with a wood-frame and gable roof which has 

cedar shingles (see Figure 3-97). The roofing is in poor condition with cupped and missing 

shingles. The wooden lap siding is painted and in fair condition. The wooden divided-window 

sashes are in poor condition. 

S-11 Water Supply Tank 

The water supply tank is a large round metal water tank located in the park maintenance area

(see Figure 3-98). 

S-12 Water Supply Pump Building 

The water supply pump building is a pre-engineered structure, which was recently constructed

(see Figure 3-98). It has a simple rectangular plan with a gabled, corrugated-metal roof and wall 

panels, which are in good condition. The doors are of hollow metal and flat steel and are in good 

condition. 

S-13 Wastewater Lagoons and Structures 

In addition to the partially enclosed concrete retaining wall and visible pipes, most of the 

structures related to the wastewater lagoons are underground (see Figure 3-24). 

S-14 Concrete Box Culverts 

Two large concrete box culverts with perpendicular walls create a box culvert under the 

Badlands Loop Road and SD Highway 377 (see Figure 3-99). 

S-15 Timber Footbridge 

Along the trail from the Visitor Center to the Lodge, a timber footbridge, consisting of wood 

slats held together by side posts, crosses a small wash (see Figure 3-100). 

S-16 Concrete Block Retaining Wall 

There is a short concrete-block retaining wall with capstones in front of the building adjacent to 

the parking lot (see Figure 3-101). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 42 

SMALL-SCALE FEATURES

Various small-scale features are located throughout the Cedar Pass Developed Area. These 

features are listed below and their locations noted on existing conditions maps; important or 

unusual features are described herein in greater detail. Types of small-scale features include 

signage, fencing, trash receptacles, and lighting. Several small-scale features are unique or only 

occur in specific locations. Features unique to the Visitor Center are a metal flagpole, 

galvanized-steel bike racks, and a wood informational kiosk (see Figure 3-10). Decorative gravel 

landscape installations in a variety of forms can be found around the Lodge and in the cabin 

common area (see Figure 3-27). Stone plaques (indicating tree dedications) are located north of 

the administration cluster and in the maintenance area. Portable picnic structures with attached 

curved roofs are made of galvanized metal and wood and can be found in the cabin and 

maintenance areas (see Figure 3-102). The amphitheater has wood benches on concrete bases

(see Figure 3-103). A wooden interpretive display cart is housed inside the outdoor classroom 

adjacent to the amphitheater parking lot. 

Signage is a common feature found throughout the park in a variety of forms. A brown stucco 

sign with white raised lettering rests on a concrete base in front of the Visitor Center to identify 

it (see Figure 3-1). A similar but smaller sign identifying the Lodge is located on the shoulder of 

the road opposite the building. Other informational and traffic signs, located throughout the 

study area, range from wood with routed lettering to metal signs with painted lettering. 

Several types of fencing occur throughout the site. Wood post-and-rail fencing can be found at 

the Visitor Center, in front of the resource building, and in the residential area. Board screen 

fencing also occurs throughout the park to provide screening for different features, such as trash 

receptacles in the campground. This fencing provides backyard privacy for many of the 

residences. The board screen fencing is variable in height, though typically about six feet high, 

and is painted to match adjacent buildings or is sealed with a clear finish. Chain link fencing 

with metal screening slats surrounds the propane tanks that are located west of the cabins at the 

Lodge, east of the residential area, and at the maintenance yard. Wood post-and-wire fencing 

surrounds the nursery adjacent to the maintenance yard and the newly installed wastewater 

lagoons located near the south entrance of the park (see Figures 3-21 and 3-24). The park 

boundary is defined by metal post-and-wire fencing. A metal access gate, like that at the 

southern entrance, is located at the entrance to the campground near the entrance booth. Wooden 

bollards with angled tops are used along roadsides to keep cars from leaving designated 

circulation corridors (see Figure 3-104). 

Another common feature found in various forms throughout the site are trash and recycling 

receptacles. The most common trash receptacle type is the round metal can with a detachable lid 

found at the Visitor Center, inside three-sided pale fencing in the campground, and adjacent to 

cabins and other buildings (see Figure 3-105). Another common trash receptacle type is an 

upright top-loading metal bin with a hinged lid. The standard recycling receptacle is a double bin 

with a hinged lid, while the similarly-designed trash receptacle has a single bin. These upright 

types are located along the perimeter of the Visitor Center and Lodge parking lots and 

throughout the campground area (see Figure 3-41). Large metal dumpsters with plastic hinged 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 43 

roofs are located throughout the developed areas, typically along the perimeter of parking lots 

and behind buildings. 

Electrical and HVAC utility boxes and concrete water valve caps can be found close to most 

buildings. Fire hydrants are located throughout the developed areas and are most often 

accompanied by fire boxes mounted on posts. Metal frame with wood surface picnic tables are 

found near the cabins, in the campground, in the residential area, and behind the Visitor Center. 

Metal benches and plastic lawn chairs can also be found near the cabins. Other small-scale 

features found in developed areas include timber overhead lighting posts; irregular, cut-log 

edging; water spigots on the sides of buildings and mounted on posts in gravel beds; drinking 

fountains; concrete and corrugated metal culverts; and concrete or gravel splash basins along 

buildings at gutter outlets. Wood and metal bollards with affixed light fixtures, both solar and 

electrical, can be found alongside some of the trails throughout the site. Concrete wheelstops and 

curbs edge most parking lots (see Figure 3-5). Vending machines are located at the Lodge and 

on the south side of the conference building. 

Picnic shelters composed of a concrete pad with a curved wooden roof and sides on metal 

supports can be found throughout the campground area (see Figure 3-106). RV hookups 

contained in metal boxes and RV dump station connections are also located in the campground 

area. 

Several small-scale features associated with residential uses are located in the residential area. 

These include swing sets, portable storage buildings, clotheslines, doghouses, hose reels, satellite 

dishes, mail boxes on posts, mounted TV antennas, and large concrete culverts set up as play 

equipment (see Figure 3-14). Covered walkways between the garages and homes were being 

repaired at the time of the June 2003 field visit. 

The maintenance yard contains small-scale features that support maintenance tasks, such as 

propane tanks, and heavy equipment including snow plows and trailers. Abandoned equipment 

and large piles of building materials and rubbish are located adjacent to the maintenance yard

(see Figure 3-22). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 44 

VIEWS AND VISTAS

In a scenic landscape as vast and dramatic as the Badlands, views and vistas are critical to a 

meaningful visitor experience. Many of the viewpoints in the Badlands region are experienced 

by automobile, rendering road design integral to accessing and understanding the natural 

surroundings. The Badlands Loop Road was originally routed by the South Dakota Highway 

Department to bypass the rugged terrain of the formations, opting for a more economic route 

through cattle-grazed grasslands. Ben Millard altered this decision by insisting that scenery was 

the reason for the road and thus promoted a route that captured the best the Badlands had to 

offer. Winding through Cedar Pass, the planned vistas from the Badlands Loop Road offer a 

glimpse of the rich scenery within and surrounding the study area (see Figure 3-32).30 

At Cedar Pass, a natural opening in the Wall formation offers views into the study area. From 

here, the development is visible in front of a cluster of small formations. Beyond the developed 

area, grasslands and other small formations are visible for as far as the eye can see. The 

Badlands formation known as the Wall creates the background for most views to the north from 

within the study area (see Figure 3-1). The Visitor Center is located to take advantage of views 

of the Wall to the east, north, and west. The administrative cluster dominates the view south 

from the Visitor Center. 

The view north from the Lodge and parking lot also focuses on the surrounding Wall formation. 

Due to the flat topography of the developed area, most of the formation is visible from the Lodge 

cabins. The service area at the rear of the Lodge building is highly visible from the cabins and is 

incompatible with the residential setting (see Figure 3-25). Views to the northeast from the 

cabins capture the rear of the Visitor Center, parking lot, administrative cluster, residential area 

in the distance, and the fire cache (see Figure 3-107). The administrative cluster and fire cache 

are most prominent in this view due to the light color of the administrative buildings, which 

contrasts with the surroundings, and the two-story height of the fire cache, which contrasts with 

the one-story buildings that otherwise characterize the study area (see Figure 3-108). The 

southern formation blocks the view into the maintenance area. The view southwest from the 

Lodge extends across the grasslands to the campground picnic shelters in the distance. To the 

west, the formation cluster between the Lodge and campground is visible. However, located at 

the base of the formation, a mobile home and two RVs interfere with this expansive view (see 

Figure 3-28). 

From the campground area, the Wall dominates the view north; to the east the amphitheater is 

nestled into the side of the small formation (see Figure 3-30). To the south, the view extends 

across the grasslands; the fire cache can be seen in the distance to the east and the former 

lagoons in the foreground. The view to the west stretches out across the grasslands. 

The small formation between the Lodge and campground offers an informal observation point 

within the study area (see Figure 3-109). From a vantage point of seventy feet above the 

 

30 Jay Schuler, A Revelation Called The Badlands, Building a National Park; 1909-1939 (Interior, SD: Badlands 

Natural History Association, 1994 second printing), 28-29. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3 - 45 

surrounding area, a panoramic view from the formation captures the development clusters within 

a natural setting of grasslands and formations. Only the fire cache interrupts this view. 

POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

NPS archeological resource maps indicate no known prehistoric archeological sites within the 

study area. Given the continuous tourism-related and community use of the study area beginning 

in the early 20th century, it is likely that several historic-period sites contain artifacts and other 

material. These sites are associated with the Millard family’s early tourism development and the 

development of the park by the NPS and include the former dance hall site, razed cabins, Lodge 

dormitories, CCC structures, early NPS buildings, and road traces. The former locations of these 

missing features are indicated on Map 4-2. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-46

Figure 3-1: (2A-16) View northeast of Badlands formation, the Wall, and Visitor Center sign.

Figure 3-2: (G-09) View north of eastside wash with Badlands formations in the background.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-47

Figure 3-3: (I-22) Badland Sparse Vegetation Complex and Badlands Loop Road corridor.

Figure 3-4: (2A-08) View northwest of Western Wheatgrass Alliance Grassland.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-48

Figure 3-5: (D-09) View northeast of small Eastern Cottonwood Woodland and trail between

Visitor Center and Lodge with Badlands formations in the background.

Figure 3-6: (2B-05) View north across project area with grasslands in the foreground and formations in the background.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-49

Figure 3-7: (J-10) Intersection of the Badlands Loop Road and South Dakota Highway 377.

Figure 3-8: (C-07) View east of Visitor Center parking and formations in the background.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-50

Figure 3-9: (T-14) View north of administrative and overflow parking behind the Visitor Center.

Figure 3-10: (2A-18) Front of Visitor Center including parking lot, sidewalks, flagpole, bike rack,

kiosk, and informational signs. 

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-51

Figure 3-11: (T-11) Administration cluster and boardwalk sidewalks.

Figure 3-12: (T-09) Resource Protection and Collection Storage buildings area with adjacent 

parking lot.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-52

Figure 3-13: (R-15) Spur connecting the service road to a section of the former service road.

Figure 3-14: (Q-24) View east into the residential area drive and various small-scale features

including a basketball goal, play equipment, and vertical board fencing.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-53

Figure 3-15: (R-14) Single-family residence west of the road segment across from the southern

intersection of the loop.

Figure 3-16: (R-06) Representative view of the fencing and vegetation around residences.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-54

Figure 3-17: (R-23) View of the apartment cluster courtyard and parking.

Figure 3-18: (S-07) Vertical board fencing enclosing a clothes drying yard east of the apartment

cluster.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-55

Figure 3-19: (2A-23) View north of the fire cache and its surrounds.

Figure 3-20: (O-08) The service road passing through a gap in the formations.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-56

Figure 3-21: (O-11) View south, capturing the maintenance building complex, parking area, and

plant nursery.

Figure 3-22: (P-05) Mixing circle and debris piles south of the maintenance area.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-57

Figure 3-23: (N-23) The water tank and building connected to the service road via a short gravel

drive.

Figure 3-24: (2B-01) View east of the wastewater lagoons and access drive.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-58

Figure 3-25: (E-03) View of the service area at the rear of the Lodge building.

Figure 3-26: (E-15) The Lodge drive through the cabin area and its associated planted central space.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-59

Figure 3-27: (E-10) View of a typical cabin and associated plantings with formations in the distance.

Figure 3-28: (2A-03) View west of the cabins to Lodge employee RVs and modular homes.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-60

Figure 3-29: (L-03) View of the campground drive, wood bollards, and picnic shelters.

Figure 3-30: (I-21) View of the amphitheater at the base of a formation.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-61

Figure 3-31: (H-21) View southwest along South Dakota Highway 377.

Figure 3-32: (B-18) View northeast along the Badlands Loop Road with formations in the background.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-62

Figure 3-33: (J-06) Campground entrance station, road to the group camping area, and path

accessing the amphitheater.

Figure 3-34: (K-18) Typical campground gravel road, campsite pull-off, and wood bollards.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-63

Figure 3-35: (B-21) View south of the service road just south of the Visitor Center.

Figure 3-36: (2A-14) View of the former wastewater lagoons.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-64

Figure 3-37: (F-07) Siberian elms that have seeded into natural area.

Figure 3-38: (2A-05) A defined edge between the developed area mown grass and the surrounding

grasslands south of the Lodge.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-65

Figure 3-39: (BVH-01) View southeast of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center.

Figure 3-40 : (BVH-02) View northeast of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-66

Figure 3-41: (BVH-03) Detail of the masonry

exterior walls of the Visitor Center.

Figure 3-42: (BVH-04) The ramp accessing the porch of the Visitor Center.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-67

Figure 3-43: (BVH-05) A window on the rear of the Visitor Center.

Figure 3-44: (BVH-02) Cedar Pass Lodge.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-68

Figure 3-45: (BVH-07) The original Cedar Pass Lodge.

Figure 3-46: (BVH-08) Rear of the Cedar Pass Lodge.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-69

Figure 3-47: (BVH-09) Lodge cottage.

Figure 3-48: (BVH-10) Cedar Pass Lodge laundry building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-70

Figure 3-49: (BVH-11) Window detail of the Cedar Pass Lodge laundry building.

Figure 3-50: (BVH-12) Lodge maintenance building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-71

Figure 3-51: (BVH-13) Cabin (Rooms 1, 1A, 2, 2A). 

Figure 3-52: (BVH-14) Window detail of cabin. 

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-72

Figure 3-53: (BVH-15) Cabin 3.

Figure 3-54: (BVH-16) Cabin 4. Similar to cabins 5, 6, 21, 22, and 23.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-73

Figure 3-55: (BVH-17) Cabin 8. Similar to cabins 7 and 9.

Figure 3-56: (BVH-18) Cabin 11. Similar to cabins 10 and 12.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-74

Figure 3-57: (BVH-19) Rear of Cabin 12. Similar to cabins 10 and 11.

Figure 3-58: (BVH-20) Cedar Pass Lodge cabin (Rooms 14, 15, 16, and 16A).

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-75

Figure 3-59: (BVH-21) Rear of Cedar Pass Lodge cabin.

Figure 3-60: (BVH-22) Detail of original window, Cedar Pass Lodge cabin.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-76

Figure 3-61: (BVH-23) Rear of cabin 18, with cabin 19 to the right. Similar to cabin 20.

Figure 3-62: (BVH-24) Cabin 33.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-77

Figure 3-63: (BVH-28) Group campground comfort station 1.

Figure 3-64: (BVH-27) Group campground comfort station 2.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-78

Figure 3-65: (BVH-26) Campground comfort station loop A.

Figure 3-66: (BVH-25) Campground comfort station loop B.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-79

Figure 3-67: (BVH-29) View south of administration building.

Figure 3-68: (BVH-30) View east of administration building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-80

Figure 3-69: (BVH-31) Conference/maintenance building.

Figure 3-70: (BVH-32) Collection storage/fitness center building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-81

Figure 3-71: (BVH-33) Resource protection building.

Figure 3-72: (BVH-34) Natural resource office building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-82

Figure 3-73: (BVH-35) Residence #28.

Figure 3-74: (BVH-36) Residence #29.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-83

Figure 3-75: (BVH-37) Residence #30.

Figure 3-76: (BVH-38) Residence #31.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-84

Figure 3-77: (BVH-39) Residence #32.

Figure 3-78: (BVH-40) Residence #33.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-85

Figure 3-80: (BVH-42) Residence #46.

Figure 3-79: (BVH-41) Residence #34.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-86

Figure 3-81: (BVH-43) Seasonal apartment #135.

Figure 3-82: (BVH-44) Seasonal apartment #52, similar to seasonal apartment #45 and

#51.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-87

Figure 3-83: (BVH-46) Maintenance shop.

Figure 3-84: (BVH-47) Maintenance cold storage.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-88

Figure 3-85: (BVH-48) Maintenance shop office addition.

Figure 3-86: (BVH-49) Maintenance storage building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-89

Figure 3-87: (BVH-50) Sand shed.

Figure 3-88: (BVH-51) Hazmat building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-90

Figure 3-89: (2A-04) Lodge employee mobile home.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003

Figure 3-90: (BVH-53) Cedar Pass Lodge ice house.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-91

Figure 3-91: (BVH-54) Interpretive shelter.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

Figure 3-92: (BVH-55) Campground shed.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-92

Figure 3-93: (BVH-56) Campground entrance booth.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

Figure 3-94: (BVH-57) Amphitheater screen, projection booth, and retaining wall.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-93

Figure 3-95: (Q-04) Air quality monitoring station.

Figure 3-96: (Q-01) Sewage treatment lift station.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-94

Figure 3-97: (BVH-58) Cedar Pass tack room.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002

Figure 3-98: (BVH-59) Water supply tank and water supply pump building.

BAHR

VERMEER

HAECKER, NOVEMBER 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-95

Figure 3-99: (C-10) Concrete box culvert.

Figure 3-100: (D-05) Timber footbridge.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-96

Figure 3-102: (F-09) Portable picnic sun/wind shelters.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003

Figure 3-101: (T-06) Concrete block retaining wall.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-97

Figure 3-103: (J-02) Amphitheater benches and guardrails.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

Figure 3-104: (K-19) Wood bollards and trash receptacles at campground.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-98

Figure 3-105: (K-11) Board fencing partially enclosing trash receptacles at the campground.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

Figure 3-106: (K-10) Picnic shelter at campground area.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-99

Figure 3-107: (G-01) View northeast from the Lodge capturing the Visitor Center and administration area.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

Figure 3-108: (2A-07) The view southeast from the Lodge is dominated by the fire cache.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

EXISTING CONDITIONS * JUNE 2005 * 3-100

Figure 3-109: (I-25) View of cabins from the top of the small formation between the Lodge and

the campground.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002










CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS

AND

EVALUATION
ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 1

CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

The Analysis and Evaluation chapter of a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is an essential tool 

for unraveling the complexities of cultural landscape resources. The analysis process involves 

the review of collected documentation of a site’s social and physical history and the placing of 

this information within the context of American history to determine its relevance, importance, 

and representation of a period and/or practice. The criteria for conducting the analysis are based 

upon National Register of Historic Places guidance. From the analysis, a statement of 

significance (how a place’s meaning relates to history), and a period of significance (when placeshaping events occurred), can be determined. Further analysis compares physical conditions of a 

place during the determined period(s) of significance with current physical conditions, supports 

an understanding of the degree to which the conditions have changed since the period of 

significance, and identifies features dating from the period of significance that contribute to the 

landscape’s overall significance. Features that are not associated with the historic period(s) of 

significance are also identified. These are referred to as non-contributing resources. 

The analysis process examines the presence, or lack, of historic features and intrusive nonhistoric features. This information is used to determine historic integrity. The significance and 

integrity information is critical to formulating appropriate treatment recommendations in Part II 

of a CLR. The pages that follow provide an evaluation of significance, a comparative analysis 

that considers the origin of extant features and their evolution over time, and identifies features 

that were associated with the Cedar Pass landscape in the past but are no longer extant. Utilizing 

the significance evaluation and comparative analysis, the integrity of the historic landscape as 

established during the period of significance is assessed. 

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION

CURRENT NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS OF CEDAR PASS

Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places must be significant to American 

history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture and must exhibit this significance in 

districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that retain integrity of location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 

Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places must also meet at least one of the 

following four Criteria: 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 2 

A) be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history; or 

B) be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, 

or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values, or that 

represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; or 

D) have yielded or be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.1

At Cedar Pass, although the landscape as a whole has yet to be evaluated for National Registerlevel significance, there are a limited number of resources that have been individually evaluated. 

These include the Cedar Pass Road, the Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance Road, and the Ben 

Reifel Visitor Center. 

The proposed boundary of the historic Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance Road is a thirty-mile 

long, approximately twenty-two-foot-wide corridor running along the Loop Road from the 

intersection of the Loop Road with the road to Interior (SD 377). The proposed boundary of the 

historic Cedar Pass is a 2.2-mile long, approximately twenty-two-foot-wide corridor running 

from the intersection of the Loop Road with the road to Interior (SD 377) to the intersection of 

the Loop Road with the Old Northeast Entrance Road. The proposed National Register 

boundaries of these two historic roads overlap with the Cedar Pass Developed Area CLR study 

area. 

Draft National Register nominations for the two roads were prepared concurrently in 1993 in 

conjunction with a Multiple Property Documentation Form for Historic Roads Resources in 

Badlands National Park. Both roads were found to possess significance under Criterion A in the 

areas of Conservation, Entertainment/Recreation, Landscape Architecture, Politics/Government, 

and Transportation. The Cedar Pass Road, also referred to as Route 2 to Cedar Pass 

Campground, was determined significant during the period 1935–40, and the Cedar Pass to 

Northwest Entrance Road during the period 1934–35. 

As noted in the draft nominations, these roads are significant for their association with efforts 

conducted over a three-decade period to establish Badlands National Monument, and were 

a critical feature of the park because it was believed that the badlands 

environment was too formidable, too hot, and visitors would be too exposed 

unless they were able to experience it via a motor trail through the park. However, 

an important feature of [these roads] was that [they] met the design standards of 

landscape architecture embraced by the National Park Service. As a result, the 

road[s] [were] designed to be so located that tourists [would] be able to see the 

scenery, to minimize the man-made intrusions, and to emphasize the absolutely 

uninhabited feeling of the region. The road[s] [themselves were] recognized as a 

 

1

 US Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register 

Nomination Form (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1991), 35. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 3 

man-made intrusion and the original design considered routes that “would cause 

less damage to the formations” while still providing access to areas of major 

importance.2

Under separate consideration, the Ben Reifel Visitor Center at Cedar Pass was determined 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 2002. It was deemed significant under 

National Register Criteria A for its association with the National Park Service’s (NPS) Mission 

66 program at the state level as the only remaining Mission 66 visitor center in South Dakota that 

retains substantial integrity.3 The Determination of Eligibility (DOE) notes that the Visitor 

Center 

displays 11 of the 12 features characteristic of its building type and style 

(Allaback 2002, 274-275), including low, horizontal massing and a spare 

decorative scheme. Several elements of the design, such as the exterior restrooms 

and prominent covered porch, can be particularly attributed to the style of Cecil 

Doty, the building’s designer and chief designer at the Western Office of Design 

and Construction (WODC). Like other visitor centers of the time, the interior 

spatial arrangement separates public visitor areas from more private park 

administration zones. ...The period of significance is 1958–66, beginning with the 

construction of the building and ending with the conclusion of the Mission 66 

historic context. 

Although the Ben Reifel Visitor Center is not yet fifty years old, the DOE notes that it possesses 

adequate historic significance to justify National Register listing under Criterion Consideration 

G. 

The findings of a significance evaluation conducted on behalf of this CLR are entirely consistent 

with the National Register-level evaluations of the historic roads and the Visitor Center. 

However, the extensive investigation into the history of the landscape of Cedar Pass suggests 

potential areas for augmenting and expanding our understanding of the site’s significance. The 

specific recommendations for expanded thematic areas, contexts, and periods of significance are 

presented in detail below. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the landscape research, documentation, analysis, and evaluation conducted by 

John Milner Associates, Inc. (JMA) on behalf of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the site 

appears to possess significance at the state level as a historic district under National 

Register Criteria A and C for 1) early tourism associated with western landscapes and 

parks; 2) CCC development and New Deal Master Planning; and 3) the NPS’s Mission 

66 initiative within the areas of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Social 

History/Tourism, Community Planning and Development, and Recreation during the 

 

2

 Ken Karsmizki, Draft “National Register Nomination Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance Road” (Bozeman, MT: 

Western History Research, 9/1993), 8. 

3

 Carey and Co., Inc. Architecture, “Determination of Eligibility; Cedar Pass Visitor Center, Badlands National 

Park; Interior, South Dakota” (San Francisco: prepared for the National Park Service, March 2002), 2. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 4 

period ca. 1928 through 1966. Despite the fact that Mission 66-era Cedar Pass 

development is less than fifty years of age, Cedar Pass appears to meet the eligibility 

requirements of Criterion Consideration G as a relatively complete example of a Mission 

66 developed area with a high degree of integrity, which remains rare and unusual within 

the state of South Dakota. 

These findings are consistent with the significance evaluation information developed for 

individual landscape features. However, they also expand upon the contexts, thematic areas, and 

periods of significance by comprehensively considering the Cedar Pass landscape as a whole. 

The extended period of significance reflects a continuum of use of Cedar Pass by various 

individuals and agencies to site services and amenities for visitors endeavoring to 

experience the dramatic Badlands landscape. Early private efforts to develop a tourist site 

eventually coexisted with federal initiatives to establish park administrative and 

maintenance functions. Each campaign to address visitor and park administrative needs is 

completely and comprehensively built upon previous efforts. The approach to the Cedar 

Pass site development that rendered the park’s natural wonders accessible—yet did not 

intrude upon their integrity—culminated in the efforts of the Mission 66 initiative. 

Little physical developments resulted from the ideas put forth during the master planning 

efforts undertaken between 1938 and 1950. Mission 66 not only culminated the master 

planning process by establishing a blueprint for Cedar Pass site development, it also 

resulted in a built environment that survives today with a high degree of integrity. 

Although the design style was new, the way in which the plan fit the land and allowed for 

visitor interaction with the park’s important resources reflected ideas espoused during 

earlier private tourism initiatives and the New Deal era. 

Little of the built environment survives from either the early tourism and New Deal eras, and 

Cedar Pass Developed Area retains low integrity of these two periods. Today, the developed area 

most closely approximates its character during the Mission 66 period. 

HISTORIC CONTEXTS

The events associated with the development of the Cedar Pass area did not occur in isolation, but 

are related to events and park developments within the region, state, and nation. Evaluation of 

the significance of Cedar Pass has considered the various historic contexts that influenced its site 

development and master planning. At Cedar Pass, relevant contexts for the historic landscape 

include: 

1. Early tourism associated with Western Landscapes and Parks, ca. 1928–1938; 

2. The New Deal and Conservation, the Work of the Civilian Conservation Corps, ca. 1938–

1941; and 

3. The NPS Mission 66 initiative, ca. 1956–1966. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 5 

It should be noted that as of yet, the South Dakota Historic Preservation Office has no contextual 

study for early tourism in the state, a study that would support a more detailed evaluation of this 

context than has been possible here. Nevertheless, tourism has been evaluated in association with 

many of the early western parks and activities at those evaluated appear consistent with the 

activities associated with the Cedar Pass Developed Area of the Badlands. 

Efforts on the part of the NPS to develop this site were closely tied to the national influence of 

the automobile and the accessibility this newly affordable form of transportation offered to 

distant places worth visiting. Beginning in the 1920s, the automobile dramatically influenced the 

landscape at Cedar Pass. Initial exploration of the area had been on horseback or on foot. It was 

not until a suitable and safe road had been constructed through the otherwise rugged and 

impassable terrain that the Badlands became a viable tourist attraction. The sheer isolation of the 

place also demanded that services, such as overnight accommodations and dining facilities, be 

offered to the visitor who likely had traveled some distance to reach the park. 

The first person known to have developed tourist facilities at Badlands was Ben Millard. By 

1938 when the NPS began to seriously consider establishing the area as a national monument, 

Millard had already provided a number of cabins, a dining lodge, and a dance hall. These 

amenities offered a kind of oasis of human contact at the end of a long and arduous road. 

In the 1938 Master Plan for the proposed Badlands National Monument, Millard’s tourist 

facilities were described as substandard, and their removal was recommended. Five years later, a 

new master plan reversed this recommendation and built upon Millard’s extant features. This 

practice of working with existing development rather than obliterating it would become a 

primary tenet of the Mission 66 initiative. Further research is recommended to ascertain details 

as to how this decision came about. 

The Mission 66 initiative was developed by professional architects, landscape architects, 

engineers, and planners within the NPS, many of whom had been integrally involved in park 

planning and development programs before, during, and after World War II. One figure was 

Thomas Vint, a landscape architect trained at the University of California, Berkeley.4

 Many of 

Vint’s ideas about community planning appear to have influenced Cedar Pass development as it 

evolved over time, beginning with the master plans of 1938 and 1943, and culminating with the 

ten-year Mission 66 plan. 

Landscape architects such as Thomas Vint applied their knowledge of landscape architecture and 

garden design history, gained through degree training, to accomplishing the social and physical 

agenda of the Mission 66 program. They brought historic landscape design tools to bear on a 

new style. For example, the overlooks that are characteristic of road and trail design from the 

period likely grew out of A.J. Downing’s 19th century romantic notions of the use of viewpoints 

and vistas.5 Loop roads became an important feature of park roads, providing a stopping and 

resting point that afforded visitors spectacular and often panoramic views of the landscape. In 

some ways the Loop Road designed as part of Mission 66 functioned like the traffic circles of 

 

4 Linda Flint McClelland, Building the National Parks: Historic Landscape and Design Construction (Baltimore: 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 160. 

5

 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 20, 211. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 6 

urban parkways. A loop road configuration allowed for improved traffic flow and smooth 

transitions between the main road and overlooks and other pull-offs. The loop road and 

associated overlooks typically followed a curvilinear route, deferring to the contours of the land. 

Unlike the rustic design that sought to blend with and abstract the natural environment, Mission 

66 used curvilinear forms that most likely drew from modernist principles. 

By emphasizing form, modernists avoided the axis or central focal point as a unidirectional 

viewpoint for drawing visitors through the landscape. Instead, the curvilinear route allowed the 

visitor to circumnavigate the landscape, taking in multiple views from multiple vantage points. 

This new way of encompassing volumes of space is consistent with ideas expressed about 

modernism in landscape architecture by practitioners like Garrett Eckbo and James Rose. Eckbo 

contended that “the modern space is multifaceted and omni directional,” while his contemporary 

James Rose spoke of “space rather than style as the true province of landscape architecture,” of 

“ground forms evolving from the division of space,” and “space without the restrictive coercion 

of the singular axis.”6

 

Landscape architects of the mid-20th century established their own vocabulary of form, often 

adopting gestures from the past and utilizing them in a new way, such as to express a concern for 

human activities, an augmented understanding of ecology and the greater landscape, or their 

hopes for 20th century technologies. Architectural forms, while orthogonal in plan and elevation, 

were consistent with the goal of understanding volumetric space. They afforded new 

opportunities for interaction with the landscape through the use of permeable divisions of space 

composed of large windows, screen panels, and horizontal extensions that merged interior and 

exterior space. Such philosophies came to serve the programmatic intentions of the Mission 66 

initiative. In turn, the expanded role of interpretation and pedagogy, a keystone of the Mission 66 

initiative, became a tool for landscape preservation.7

 

Planning at Cedar Pass can be understood as an expression of Mission 66 concepts based on 

readings of Linda Flint McClelland’s Building the National Parks, Conrad Wirth’s Parks, 

Politics, and the People, Amanda Zeman’s Draft “Multiple Property Determination of Eligibility 

for Grand Canyon Village Mission 66 Planning Effort,” and the drawings and plans of the 1950 

Master Plan for Cedar Pass and their amendments. These planning efforts incorporate the 

following design principles: 

⎯ improving access by developing interpretive facilities as close to the resource as 

possible; 

⎯ expanding on interpretive opportunities by extending interpretation into the landscape 

through a range of experiential activities; 

⎯ establishing synergies between educational programs and signature park resources; 

⎯ using curvilinear forms to allow for multiple views and an unimpeded processional; 

 

6

 Marc Treib, “Axioms for a Modern Landscape Architecture,” in Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical 

Review (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), 55. 7

 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 466. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 7 

⎯ managing visitor movement; 

⎯ clustering relatively dense site planning of new facilities and complexes; 

⎯ utilizing a unifying design concept that makes use of an armature or datum along which 

development occurred; 

⎯ employing zoning of like uses; 

⎯ practicing the visual and physical separation of different uses; 

⎯ avoiding fragile resources in site developments; 

⎯ incorporating existing features into new designs; and 

⎯ espousing the use of modern materials and construction methods and minimizing of 

detailing and ornamentation in order to avoid distraction from the surrounding natural or 

historic resource. 

CRITERION A 

The CLR team’s research and evaluation indicates that the landscape and associated resources of 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area of Badlands National Park is significant under Criterion A for its 

association with a series of important events, trends, and activities that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our history including:1) early tourism; 2) CCC Development 

and New Deal Master Planning; and 3) the NPS Mission 66 Initiative within the areas of 

Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Social History/Tourism, Recreation, and Community 

Planning and Development. Many of these trends, particularly those that have occurred during 

the 20th century, are closely tied to Criterion C activities, culminating in expressions of 

architecture and landscape architecture that characterize the built environment of Cedar Pass 

Developed Area at Badlands National Park. 

Development at Cedar Pass initially occurred within the private sector, and was intended to 

promote the importance of the site and accommodate visitor needs. Two factors that are known 

to have influenced Ben Millard and his sister Clara Jennings’ choice to develop Cedar Pass 

include the availability of land for purchase and its topography, which was better suited to 

development than other sites. It is also possible that Millard chose this location because of its 

vantage point for good views of the formations, as well as its close proximity to local 

transportation routes.8

 Although further research is needed to determine Millard’s exact reasons 

for locating his tourist facilities—the Lodge and cabins—on the flat land below Cedar Pass, it 

appears that by doing so, Millard set a precedent that the NPS followed. 

 

8

 The reason that land was still available to purchase at this site was due to the fact that Senator Peter Norbeck had 

persuaded Congress to pass legislation prohibiting private purchase of federal land in those areas that had not yet 

been claimed. See Jay Shuler, A Revelation called the Badlands (Interior, SD: Badlands Natural History 

Association, 1989, 1994), 27. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 8 

Senator Peter Norbeck and Ben Millard, two of the most influential proponents of establishing a 

park at the Badlands worked together to establish an appropriate road that would lead visitors 

through the difficult terrain and provide opportunities for viewing the spectacular landscape. 

Working together with the State Highway Commission, they were intent on finding a route that 

emphasized the scenery. Senator Norbeck is known for his conviction that roads should follow 

the contours of the land and circumnavigate natural resources, that is, that the natural resources 

should dictate the path. 

Millard and Norbeck were ultimately successful in attracting federal interest in the site as a 

national park. Under the purview of the NPS, the Badlands was authorized in 1929 with the 

caveat that adequate land acquisition and appropriate road development would precede park 

establishment. 

Although early exploration of the Badlands was on horseback or by foot, and visitation was 

encouraged by the railroad companies during the late 19th century, 20th century monument 

designation required highway construction to support the increasing automobile travel through 

the area. Travel by automobile also required better roads, which were promoted nationwide by 

the Good Roads Movement.9

 Safe passage through the otherwise treacherous Badlands was a 

concern of early park planners. Although efforts began as early as 1930, it was not until 1940 

that roads were complete to provide sufficient access for the American public. 

As leisure time increased and families began taking more frequent vacations, the number of 

drivers grew and automobiles became larger, more varied and more affordable. Increased travel 

led to an unprecedented demand for services within and around the sites visited. By the end of 

the 1930s, the National Park System was overburdened by an influx of visitors interested in 

recreation, edification, and release from increasingly urban lifestyles. Five factors significantly 

influenced the popularity of national parks and put pressure on the NPS: general population 

growth; overall increase in travel within America; a boom in the popularity of outdoor 

recreation; national emphasis on wilderness preservation; and growth of the “conservation” 

movement.10

Park officials determined the need for a master plan to help them respond to visitor needs. With 

completion of the first plan in 1938, master planning became the primary tool for park 

development at Cedar Pass. The first plan, however, was never entirely implemented and 

underwent various revisions over the next fifteen years. A lack of funding produced piecemeal 

development until Mission 66, when development plans were fully realized.11 

The Mission 66 initiative was intended to anticipate the full range of issues associated with 

visitor needs, and provide a vision for comprehensive development. Although the earlier master 

plans were never fully implemented, many of their ideas were consistently carried forward from 

one plan to the next. Many of the NPS landscape architects who played important roles in the 

 

9

 Karsmizki, Draft “National Register Nomination Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance Road,” 2. 10 Ronald F. Lee, “Public Use of the National Park System, 1872-2000,” NPS, March 14, 2002. Quoted in Amanda 

Zeman, Draft “National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Determination of Eligibility, Grand Canyon 

Village Mission 66 Planning Effort” (Grand Canyon, AZ: National Park Service, February 24, 2003), 5. 11 Zeman, Draft “Determination of Eligibility, Grand Canyon Village Mission 66 Planning Effort,” 5. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 9 

pre-World War II park development era led the Mission 66 program.12 Because one of the 

Mission 66 concepts recommended incorporating existing work into new plans, the Cedar Pass 

master plans built upon the earlier master plans and accommodated existing site development, 

thus reflecting a continuous development approach reaching back to the Early Tourism Period 

beginning in ca. 1928. 

The tenets of the various Cedar Pass master plans indicated an intention to protect natural 

resources, carefully site development outside of significant views, and provide visitors with 

comfortable and commodious accommodations. With more reliable and substantial funding 

during Mission 66, NPS landscape architects could effect their ideas about conservation. They 

felt “the best way to protect the resources was to control human movement and design facilities 

that could properly meet each park’s usage needs”13 

Mission 66 planning efforts incorporated approaches involving the siting of facilities with the 

same functions in a fashion similar to land use zoning. NPS planners carefully considered the 

relationship of each area of land use to others and the surrounding environment in ways that 

would increase the efficiency of park operations, and facilitate movement, visitor comfort, and 

interpretation of resources. Although this was a specific tenet of Mission 66 design, it built upon 

a practice already in place at Badlands: residential and utility uses were zoned into clusters and 

partitioned from visitor use areas as early as 1940. The Mission 66 program updated facilities, 

expanded educational and interpretive opportunities, and provided improved amenities for 

national park visitors. 

Other considerations that influenced zoning were the placement of visitor facilities to view 

primary resources; topography; access to transportation routes; and availability of water. In some 

ways these planning principles can be seen to model suburban planning principles of the period. 

Since the 1920s local jurisdictions had used zoning ordinances, master plans, and comprehensive 

plans to control the use and character of residential neighborhoods. Topography was a strong 

determinant of design, as was the availability of water and site drainage, and the size and shape 

of buildings. At the Badlands, considerations of climate, topography, and water accessibility also 

influenced planning.14 

In Building the National Parks, Linda Flint McClelland provides an overview of the essential 

characteristics of Mission 66 park planning and landscape design with a discussion of the role of 

landscape architects in national parks as follows: 

The primary function of the landscape architect was to “steer the course of how 

the land [was] to be used” through “the creation, maintenance, and growth of the 

Master Plan” and by translating studies of park professionals—historians, 

geologists, archeologists, naturalists, architects, and engineers—into “an orderly 

and well-conceived development plan.” 15

 

12 “Mission 66 Research Working Meeting,” Washington, DC, May 28-29, 2003. 

13 Zeman, Draft “Determination of Eligibility, Grand Canyon Village Mission 66 Planning Effort,” 6. 

14 See David L. Ames and Linda Flint McClelland, National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs

(Washington: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2002). 

15 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 32. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 10 

Mission 66 was the first comprehensive planning program ever undertaken by the NPS. 

Although park master plans were initially intended to address the specific needs of an individual 

park, they were standardized under Mission 66 to consider system-wide needs and a cohesive 

approach to park management and facility development. During Mission 66, the WODC set the 

standards for the program. This program resulted in a constructed model that is recognizable 

today as a standard system for providing connections between the visitor and the environment. 

Providing information to the visitor to improve interpretation occurred at various parks in the 

1930s with the construction of early museums. These tended to be small, uncomfortable places 

offering minimal information. An early example of an information station was a booth-like 

structure constructed at Cedar Pass that operated only during the summer months. During the 

early NPS planning years, much thought went into how to improve the dissemination of 

information in order to provide the visitor with a more fulfilling and informative experience. By 

the 1950s, the museums were evolving into buildings that provided both initial contact between 

visitors and park staff as well as a palette of information encompassing indigenous features and 

cultural resources. This was a primary goal of the Mission 66 Visitor Center concept.16

Very little has been written to date on the significance of Mission 66 planning and design in the 

national parks, and there is no definitive contextual study of landscape architecture during the 

Mission 66 period. Visitor Centers are addressed in Sarah Allaback’s book, Mission 66 Visitor 

Center: The History of a Building Type.

17 As noted by Allaback, the Visitor Center was the 

foundation of programmatic planning and design principles that drove the Mission 66 initiative. 

This building housed the functions fundamental to the successful execution of Mission 66. 

CRITERION C: EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE,

PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION, OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF 

A MASTER 

Under Criterion C, Cedar Pass Developed Area is significant in the areas of Architecture and 

Landscape Architecture for its association with Mission 66-era design, park master planning, and 

facility design for visitor amenities and park administration.

Mission 66 was a vehicle for providing improved programmatic facilities and comfort to an 

increased number of visitors. 

Linda McClelland states that: 

Education and interpretation took on particular importance in Mission 66. 

Through new visitor centers, information stations, publications, exhibits, 

campfire talks, conducted trips, roadside displays, and audiovisual 

presentations, Mission 66 endeavored to develop the informational and 

 

16 Conrad Wirth, Parks, Politics and the People (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), 45. 17 Former NPS historian Ethan Carr is in the process of writing a contextual study of landscape architecture of the 

Mission 66 era. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 11 

interpretive programs of the parks to help visitors enjoy the parks and use 

them wisely.18

The most significant undertaking of the Mission 66 initiative at the Badlands was the design and 

construction of a Visitor Center. This was a multifaceted unit, which not only informed the 

visitor about the landscape, natural resources, and history of the area; but also allowed the visitor 

to see the landscape from the vantage point of a place protected from extreme temperatures. 

Early on in the Mission 66 program, NPS architects at WODC identified three potential locations 

for the placement of Visitor Centers: 

An ‘entrance’ visitor center established the mood of the park and introduced the 

visitor to the total interpretation of park values; the ‘en route’ center posed the 

problem of simultaneously introducing the visitor to the park and providing 

information about the site to be visited; most common was the ‘terminal’ visitor 

center located at a popular destination which supplied the visitor with a summary 

of park values, while incorporating relevant information about the area.19

Placement of the visitor center was crucial; architects were encouraged to make use of 

surrounding views in their designs, and to bear in mind that their location influenced 

further development of the park’s building program. It was felt that placement “affects 

how, in what sequence, the story is told as well as how much or how little.”20 

Sarah Allaback argues that while any of a dozen locations on the edge of a natural area 

would orient visitors in wilderness parks, most historical parks could not be adequately 

understood without providing interpretation in close proximity to the historic resources. 

NPS Naturalist Paul Schultz commented: “a visitor center should be in touch with the 

feature it interprets.” At Badlands National Park, the placement of the Visitor Center at 

the entrance to the formations was equally crucial to the experience. Here the Visitor 

Center is nestled at the foot of a wall of formations, in an area that stands before the 

dominant and overwhelming mass of land formations that the visitor can go on to 

experience by taking the Loop Road. The Visitor Center is immediately accessible and 

visible from the road as it approaches from the north entrance. 

The use of modern materials and design ideas, such as horizontality and a clean style with 

minimal detail, can be seen in buildings constructed at Cedar Pass Developed Area during the 

Mission 66 period. These were intended to enhance the quality of the visitor experience without 

detracting from the setting and the natural resource. Mission 66 used new structural forms, 

modern materials—glass, concrete, and steel—and machine-driven methods of construction for 

sturdy, low-maintenance, permanent structures that could serve the modern-day needs of the 

traveling public on a large scale. 21 

 

18 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 465. 

19 Sarah Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type (Washington: US Department of the 

Interior, Government Printing Office, 2000), 28. 20 Allaback, quoted from “A Report on Visitor Centers” (Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, ca. January 

1960), National Park Service History Collection, Harpers Ferry Center. 

21 McClelland, Building the National Parks, 464. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 12 

Property types associated with Mission 66 design and planning efforts include Visitor Centers 

and other accommodations, circulation systems, employee housing, and administrative and 

maintenance facilities. The types and models for required structures were standardized 

throughout the National Park System. Architects established consistent criteria for employee 

housing, for example, that included one, two, or three bedrooms, all with the same floor plan, 

which provided a simple low-cost durable design. At Cedar Pass, modern construction and 

materials were used as early as 1952 when prefabricated housing was added to the staff 

residential area.

Working to avoid intrusion into the natural resource areas, loop roads provided a means of access 

and organized individual zones of development. Loop roads allowed condensed land use, thereby 

supporting a conservation ethic. For example, in the residential area, houses were placed around 

a loop road that conserved land, took advantage of views, separated them from public areas, and 

contributed to a sense of community. The same principles were applied to site planning and 

development of the campground: loop roads served to develop a greater number of campsites 

along a single road. 

Loop roads formed the armature for each of the individual zones, connecting clusters of 

buildings associated with administration, residential, utility, and campground use areas. Visual 

buffers used topography and screening elements such as plantings to separate functions. At the 

residential area, for example, plantings obscured views of the buildings for visitors. 

Zoning was also implemented through small-scale design features. At the campground, for 

example, barriers keep visitors limited to the designated camping area and off the surrounding 

landscape. Signage was an important tool to control movement, imbue an attitude of stewardship, 

and convey much needed interpretive information to visitors. This was particularly evident in 

overlooks and trails that afforded opportunities to better view and understand the scenery without 

disturbing the landscape. Trails were carefully placed and overlooks were designed as compact 

development areas that were carefully considered for their spatial relationships, internal 

orientation and organization, as well as the views they afforded to the important surrounding 

natural resources. From patterns of spatial organization, to small-scale features, Cedar Pass 

continues to reflect the principles of Mission 66, which defined and redefined visitation in the 

mid-20th century though its landscape and building features. 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Today, the Cedar Pass Developed Area landscape reflects aspects of all of its past uses; however, 

features associated with the Mission 66 design initiative are by far the most prevalent. Many 

features from the Early Tourism Period were incorporated into the Mission 66 site design. To 

determine the degree to which Cedar Pass has changed over time, the landscape during the 

period of significance and in 2003 were compared. This comparison links extant features to their 

period of origin and assesses whether they contribute to the site’s historic significance. Those 

features that are not associated with a significant historic period are identified as noncontributing. The landscape characteristics defined in Chapter 3 are used as the basis for the 

comparative analysis. For each characteristic, the discussion begins with the evolution of the 

landscape from the early period of significance through the end date of the period of significance 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 13 

followed by a discussion of its character today. Non-contributing features—those that have been 

added to the landscape since the end of the period of significance—and missing features—

resources that are known to have been part of the site during the period of significance—are also 

indicated for each landscape characteristic. Map 4-1 and 4-2 show contributing resources, and 

Map 4-3 shows missing features. 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND FEATURES

Both during the period of significance and today, the Cedar Pass Developed Area is 

characterized by the contrast of the Badlands formations set against the open prairie. All of the 

natural systems present during the period of significance remain. Native plant communities and 

wildlife continue to inhabit this area. Similarly, the two extant washes continue to run through 

the area and have experienced only minor natural alterations since the end of the period of 

significance. The most notable change to natural systems has been the introduction of invasive 

exotic plants that have the potential to disrupt native communities. The non-native Siberian elms 

at the Lodge, which were likely planted after the period of significance, have escaped and are 

currently naturalizing in the area along the eastside wash. Another minor alteration to natural 

features includes the removal of portions of a minor formation to allow for the construction of 

the portable administration buildings. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing 

N-01 Eastside wash C 

N-02 Westside wash C 

N-03 Badlands formations C 

N-04 Western wheatgrass alliance grassland C 

N-05 Badlands sparse vegetation complex C 

N-06 Western snowberry shrubland C 

N-07 Emergent wetland grassland C 

N-08 Switchgrass grassland C 

N-09 Chokecherry shrubland C 

N-10 Eastern cottonwood C 

N-11 Invasive Siberian elm thickets along eastside wash NC 

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION

The Cedar Pass Developed Area was established in a relatively level area encompassed by the 

Wall formation. During the Early Tourism Period, the Lodge/cabin cluster was established at 

Cedar Pass adjacent to the Badlands touring route. By 1942, the Lodge had taken on its current 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 14 

character. In the years that followed, the NPS continued locating administrative and maintenance 

facilities at Cedar Pass until the current arrangement was established during the Mission 66 

period. A key principle of this period was the concentration of development in zones with the 

surrounding natural features serving as the setting. 

The overall spatial organization of the Cedar Pass Developed Area has changed little since the 

period of significance. Spatial patterns have changed in some portions of the site, primarily 

through the addition or removal of buildings. Most significant are the addition of the 

administrative building cluster, the fire cache, and several maintenance structures. An apartment 

building and single-family residence have also been added. The single-family residence was 

proposed by Mission 66 master plans and, therefore, contributes to historic spatial patterns of 

organization. The addition of the administrative cluster has greatly increased the density of 

structure in that area and reduced the open space between the residential and visitor areas. The 

addition of the fire cache in its previously undeveloped location has greatly impacted spatial 

organization in this area by breaking the once continuous open space, which Mission 66 planners 

had consciously left undeveloped. Maintenance was separated from other development. Along 

with the large number of buildings and structures added in the maintenance area (such as the 

water storage tank and pump building, a large garage, sand shed, and a number of minor 

structures; although some cabins have been removed) the area has been substantially enlarged in 

the years since the end of the period of significance. The campground has experienced only 

minor changes since the period of significance, including the addition of a comfort station and 

interpretive shelter. The alignment of the service road from the Visitor Center to the seasonal 

employee apartments, which bypassed the remainder of the residential area, also affected spatial 

organization. Figures 4-1 through 4-4 illustrate the spatial patterns from the period of 

significance and today. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing Early Tourism CCC Mission 66 

SO-01 Badlands Loop Road corridor C • • • 

SO-02 South Dakota Highway 377 corridor C • 

SO-03 Service road corridor C/NC • • • 

SO-04 Visitor Center surrounds22 C • 

SO-05 Cedar Pass Lodge/cabins surrounds C • • • 

SO-06 Campground surrounds C • 

SO-07 Amphitheater parking/interpretive shelter surrounds C • 

 

22 Surrounds in this case refers to the associated landscape features of the building or cluster noted, for example at 

the Visitor Center this would include the space formed by vegetation, sidewalks, fences, parking areas, and the 

buildings or cluster itself. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 15 

SO-08 Amphitheater surrounds C • 

SO-09 Administration area surrounds NC 

SO-10 Residence area surrounds C/NC • 

SO-11 Seasonal apartments surrounds C • 

SO-12 Maintenance yard surrounds C/NC • 

SO-13 Wastewater lagoon surrounds NC 

SO-14 Former wastewater lagoon surrounds C • 

SO-15 Open meadow C 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 16 

LAND USE

Land use within the Cedar Pass Developed Area during the Early Tourism Period included 

lodging, recreation, and visitor accommodations such as a restaurant and restroom facilities. 

During the early park development and Mission 66 periods, land uses expanded to include NPS 

administration, employee housing, maintenance, utility, interpretive, and recreational activities. 

Two important concepts during this period were leaving unused (natural) portions of the site as a 

setting for the developed portions and separating maintenance uses from the rest of the site. 

Examples of visitor accommodations and recreational activities that were developed during 

Mission 66 include the campground, a gift shop, and comfort stations. 

The present land use at Cedar Pass has changed little since the period of significance. Lodging 

and visitor accommodations continue to be offered at the Cedar Pass Lodge. The campground, 

employee housing, and administration areas remain in the same locations and continue to 

perform functions similar to those performed during the period of significance (see Figures 4-5 

and 4-6). The park’s primary maintenance facility continues to be located at Cedar Pass. 

Changes that post-date the period of significance include the addition of the new fire cache, 

located in the view of the visitor and residential areas in a previously undeveloped area. While 

this building was sited in a former site of park maintenance facilities developed in the 1940s, the 

site was later abandoned in accordance with Mission 66 development plans and maintenance 

facilities were relocated to their current location. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing/ Early Tourism CCC Mission 66 

N/A Visitor accommodations C • • • 

N/A Interpretive C • 

N/A Lodging C • • • 

N/A Recreation C • • • 

N/A Administration C • • 

N/A Maintenance C • • 

N/A Utility C • • • 

N/A Housing C • • 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 17 

CIRCULATION

Little is known about area roads before the Early Tourism Period. During this time, Ben Millard 

and Senator Peter Norbeck played key roles in the layout of the Badlands touring road that 

passed through Cedar Pass, later known as the Badlands Loop Road. The current road alignment 

at Cedar Pass Lodge also took form during this period. Today’s service road roughly follows a 

road that was constructed in 1940 to access a water source on the White River. 

One of the primary CCC activities in the park was improving roads built during the Early 

Tourism Period. During Mission 66, implementation of the 1950 Master Plan included adding 

the Visitor Center parking lot and realigning the service road around it, adding a residential loop 

off the service road, and constructing a parking lot for the seasonal employee apartments. Other 

circulation system additions included the three campground loops, amphitheater trail and parking 

lot, and the maintenance drive/yard. Concrete sidewalks associated with the residences, 

apartments, a Visitor Center, and other gravel paths, were also added during this period. 

Today, most of the circulation features that were present during the period of significance 

survive. Key changes have included the realignment of the service road south of the Visitor 

Center and the addition of parking areas behind the Visitor Center and along the new service 

road. The realignment of the service road left an isolated segment of the former road at the 

residential area; a short spur was created to connect these two roads. Other circulation features 

that have been added or modified since the end of the period of significance include a trail from 

the Visitor Center to the campground area (a trail was likely present during the period of 

significance but has been replaced), an expansion of the amphitheater parking lot, new sidewalks 

associated with new buildings, an access drive west of the Lodge to temporary housing, and an 

expanded maintenance yard. A small service loop off the service road has been removed. Its 

removal was part of the Mission 66 relocation of the maintenance area, although the work was 

completed after the period of significance. Map 2-1, 1966 Period Plan illustrates the original 

orientation of the service road as well as the missing service loop. Since the end of the period of 

significance, very little has changed in association with the Visitor Center front parking lot, the 

Lodge parking and cabin access loop, three campground loops, and the southern portion of the 

service road. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 illustrate the campground circulation from the period of 

significance and today. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 18 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing Early Tourism CCC Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

C-01 Badlands Loop Road C • Good ca. 1935 

C-02 South Dakota Highway 377 C • Good ca. 1928 

C-03 Service road C/NC • • • Good 1940, 52-

55, 77 

C-04 Service road spur NC Good 1977 

C-05 Former service road segment C • Good ca. 1920s55 

C-06 Residential Loop Road C • Good 1954 

C-07 Cedar Pass Lodge drive C • Fair ca. 1940s 

C-08 Lodge service road NC Poor varies 

C-09 Campground drive C • Good 1955-59 

C-10 Visitor Center front parking lot C • Good ca. 1955 

C-11 Visitor Center rear parking lot NC Good ca. 1974 

C-12 Administration parking lot NC Good 1974 

C-13 Lodge parking lot C Good varies 

C-14 Amphitheater parking lot C • Good 1956 

C-15 Maintenance parking lot C • Fair varies 

C-16 Visitor Center sidewalks C • Good ca.1960 

C-17 Lodge sidewalks NC Good ca. 1969 

C-18 Amphitheater walks C • Fair 1956 

C-19 Campground walks C • Fair ca. 1960 

C-20 Trail from Visitor Center to amphitheater C • Fair ca. 1960 

C-21 Administration area sidewalks NC Good ca. 1969 

C-22 Residences area sidewalks C • Good 1955-59 

C-23 Maintenance yard C • Fair varies 

C-24 Wastewater lagoon access drive NC Fair 2002 

C-25 Former wastewater lagoon access drive C Poor ca. 1940s 

Missing circulation systems include: 

⎯ 1940 service road segments in Visitor Center, residential, early maintenance, and CCC Camp 

areas. 

⎯ CCC Camp walks. 

⎯ The short road segment from the Lodge cabins west to the pit toilet/dormitory area. 

⎯ The Mission 66 service road segments from the Visitor Center to the Resource Protection 

building and from the residential area back to the service road. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 19 

TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS

Given the terrain associated with the Badlands, considerable topographic modifications were 

necessary to accommodate development within the area during the period of significance. The 

Cedar Pass topography was altered to construct various road corridors and buildings, and the 

wastewater lagoons. The borrow pits were formed from removal of fill material. Perhaps the 

most substantial alterations were related to road construction, such as the approach of the Loop 

Road to the Visitor Center and the service road through a formation at the southern end of the 

site. The construction of the amphitheater and lagoons also required significant site 

manipulations. The majority of the historic topographic alterations remain intact. Since the end 

of the period of significance, the addition of several new buildings, new lagoons, and the 

realignment of the service road have further altered topographic features. The new wastewater 

lagoons have replaced those constructed during the period of significance and plans are 

underway to restore the original lagoon site to its natural landform. The newly constructed 

sewage lagoons detract from views within the maintenance area, but are recommended as falling 

outside the historic developed area boundary. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing/ Undetermined Early Tourism CCC Mission 66 Date of Origin 

T-01 Former wastewater lagoons C • ca.1940s 

T-02 New wastewater lagoons NC 2002 

T-03 Circulation corridors* C/NC varies 

T-04 Building sites** C/NC • • • varies 

T-05 Borrow pits UD UD 

* Contributing circulation corridors include: the Badlands Loop Road, SD Highway 377, the 

original service road, the Lodge drive, and the campground drive. Non-contributing corridors 

include the post-1966 service road segments. 

** Contributing building sites include: the Visitor Center, seven single-family residences, three 

apartment buildings, two maintenance buildings, the Cedar Pass Lodge and cabins, the 

amphitheater, and three campground comfort stations. Non-contributing building sites include 

the fire cache, post-1966 maintenance buildings, the water tank and pump building, and three 

administration buildings. 

VEGETATION 

Little is known about the planted vegetation that characterized the developed area during the 

Early Tourism Period. During the park development period, a 1953 plan illustrates planting 

recommendations for the first three single-family residences. Mission 66 period planting plans 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 20 

approved in 1956 indicate proposals for ornamental vegetation associated with the residences, 

apartments, and Visitor Center. The extent to which these plans were actually implemented is 

currently not known, although it appears that at least in part, the planting plan was utilized 

around the Visitor Center. No information regarding planting is available for the Lodge. Only a 

partial proposed Mission 66 planting plan for the campground area has been found. 

Today, the vegetation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area consists primarily of trees, a few 

shrubs, mown turf around buildings, and scattered trees with mown turf in the campground. The 

species represented at the Visitor Center are consistent with those indicated in the planting plans. 

Those include Indian currant coralberry (Symphoricarpus orbiculatus), silver sagebrush 

(Artemisia cana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sand cherry (Prunus pumila), box elder 

(Acer negundo), American elm, (Ulmus americana), and common hackberry (Celtis 

occidentalis). Therefore, it is likely that the vegetation located at the Visitor Center and residence 

area is derived from those planting plans (see Figures 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, and 4-10). The harsh 

environment of the Badlands makes vegetation management difficult. Therefore, if the planting 

plans were implemented, the challenging climate could be responsible for the absence of many 

of the individual plants from the Mission 66 period today. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing/ Undetermined Early Tourism CCC Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Ve-01 Visitor Center landscape C • Fair 1959 

Ve-02 Cedar Pass Lodge/cabins landscape UD Fair varies 

Ve-03 Maintenance area nursery NC Fair post 1985

Ve-04 Residential landscape C • Fair 1959 

Ve-05 Campground landscape C Fair varies 

Missing vegetation features include: 

⎯ Based on the planting plan, various individual trees and shrubs 

⎯ Depending on when plantings were installed at the Lodge, individual trees and shrubs 

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

Circa 1928, Ben Millard purchased the land now known as the Cedar Pass Developed Area and 

began to build visitor accommodations, including a dance hall and cabins.23 By 1942, he had 

constructed a lodge and a series of guest cabins nearby arranged in a double row along a road 

corridor. The majority of these structures survive today. During the early park development 

period, buildings were constructed to support CCC activities, including park administration 

buildings and temporary barracks, which were removed (as was typical) after the CCC camp’s 

 

23 Jay Shuler, A Revelation Called The Badlands, Building a National park 1909-1939 (Interior, SD: Badlands 

Natural History Association, 1989), 26 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 21 

departure. Several other buildings constructed by the CCC remained, but by the end of Mission 

66, most had been removed. 

Many new buildings were constructed during the Missing 66 period, including the Visitor 

Center, seven single-family residences, three apartments, campground comfort stations, two 

maintenance buildings, and the amphitheater. Only minor repairs and retrofitting have occurred 

to these buildings since, with little change in their appearance (see Figure 4-11 and 4-12). 

Missing buildings include those that were constructed during earlier periods and incorporated 

into the Mission 66 plan such as the custodian’s residence, Lodge dormitory, pit toilets, and the 

early maintenance buildings. 

The Cedar Pass Lodge, cabins, and outbuildings were modified during and after the Mission 66 

period development. Additions have been constructed on either side of the Cedar Pass Lodge, 

and many of the cabins have experienced exterior alterations (see Figure 4-13 through 4-16). 

The only CCC building that remains today is the former ranger station, now used for Resource 

Protection offices. Since the end of the period of significance, some buildings and structures 

have been added to Cedar Pass. These include two maintenance buildings, a water tank/pump 

building, a fire cache, three modular administration buildings, a single-family residence, and an 

apartment building. A new projection booth and screen have replaced the former Mission 66 

structures at the amphitheater (see Figure 4-17 and 4-18). An additional comfort station and 

interpretive shelter have been added in the campground area. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing/ Undetermined Early Tourism CCC Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

B-01 Ben Reifel Visitor Center C • Fair 1959 

B-02 Cedar Pass Lodge C • Fair 1927-86 

B-03 Lodge cottage C • Good 1946 

B-04 Lodge laundry building C • Fair 1927-42 

B-05 Lodge maintenance building C • Fair 1927-42 

B-06 Cabin #1-1A-2-2A C • Fair 1927-42 

B-07 Cabin #3 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-08 Cabin #4 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-09 Cabin #5 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-10 Cabin #6 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-11 Cabin #7 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-12 Cabin #8 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-13 Cabin #9 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-14 Cabin #10 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-15 Cabin #11 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-16 Cabin #12 C • Fair 1927-42 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 22 

B-17 Cabin #14-15-16-16A C • Fair 1927-42 

B-18 Cabin # 18 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-19 Cabin #19 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-20 Cabin #20 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-21 Cabin #21 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-22 Cabin #22 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-23 Cabin #23 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-24 Cabin #33 C • Fair 1927-42 

B-25 Campground comfort station group 1 NC Good post 1985

B-26 Campground comfort station group 2 C • Good 1956-63 

B-27 Campground comfort station A C • Good 1956-63 

B-28 Campground comfort station B C • Good 1956-63 

B-29 Administration building NC Good post 1985

B-30 Conference/maintenance building NC Good post 1985

B-31 Collection storage building UD Good post 1985

B-32 Resource Protection building C • Good 1942 

B-33 Natural Resources office building NC Good post 1985

B-34 Residence #28 C • Good 1953 

B-35 Residence #29 C • Good 1953 

B-36 Residence #30 C • Good 1952-55 

B-37 Garage #30A C • Good 1952-55 

B-38 Residence #31 C • Good 1958-59 

B-39 Garage #31A C • Good 1958-59 

B-40 Residence #32 C • Good 1959 

B-41 Garage #32A C • Good 1959 

B-42 Residence #33 C • Good 1959 

B-43 Garage #33A C • Good 1959 

B-44 Residence #34 C • Good 1958-59 

B-45 Garage #34A C • Good 1958-59 

B-46 Residence #46 NC Good ca. 1950-

70s 

B-47 Garage #46A NC Good ca. 1970s 

B-48 Seasonal apartment #135 NC Fair 1976 

B-49 Seasonal apartment #45 C • Fair 1959 

B-50 Seasonal apartment #51 C • Fair 1959 

B-51 Seasonal apartment # 52 C • Fair 1959 

B-52 Fire cache NC Good 2003 

B-53 Maintenance shop C • Fair 1960 

B-54 Maintenance cold storage C • Fair 1961 

B-55 Maintenance storage building NC Good 1988 

B-56 Sand shed NC Good 1977 

B-57 Hazmat building NC Good ca. 1970s 

B-58 Lodge employee mobile home NC Good 2003 

S-01 Lodge ice house C • Fair 1927-42 

S-02 Interpretive shelter NC Good post 1985
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 23 

S-03 Campground shed NC Good post 1985

S-04 Campground entrance booth NC Good post 1966

S-05 Amphitheater stage NC Good post 1966

S-06 Amphitheater projection booth NC Good post 1966

S-07 Amphitheater retaining wall NC Good post 1966

S-08 Air quality monitoring station NC Good post 1985

S-09 Sewage treatment lift station NC Good 2003 

S-10 Tack room C • Poor 1942* 

S-11 Water supply tank NC Good 2002 

S-12 Water supply pump building NC Good 2002 

S-13 Wastewater lagoons and structures NC Good 2003 

S-14 Concrete box culverts UD Good UD 

S-15 Timber footbridge NC Good post 1985

S-16 Concrete block retaining wall C Good 1956-66 

* This structure appears to be older than the Mission 66 period but was not noted on any maps 

prior to that period. It could be one of the CCC camp structures moved to this location. 

Missing buildings and structures include: 24

⎯ Dance hall 

⎯ Campground pit toilets 

⎯ Lodge dormitory (2) 

⎯ Lodge laundry 

⎯ Lodge cabins (3) 

⎯ Lodge pit toilets (4) 

⎯ Custodian’s residence 

⎯ Service station (across the Loop Road to the north) 

⎯ Early maintenance buildings ( approximately 8) 

⎯ Powder magazine (just outside study area to the east) 

⎯ CCC camp (shower, mess hall, garages, quarters, oil house) 

SMALL-SCALE FEATURES

Little is known about the small-scale features associated with the Early Tourism Period. The 

park development and Mission 66 periods witnessed the introduction of a variety of small-scale 

features, including the Visitor Center sign, a flagpole, portable picnic shelters, amphitheater 

benches, fencing, and a simulated campfire at the amphitheater. Other small-scale features likely 

present during the period of significance included trash receptacles, bollards, signs, lighting, and 

furnishings typical of residence and campground sites. 

Today, many of the small-scale features from the period of significance have been replaced as 

they became obsolete or fell into a state of disrepair. The flagpole, amphitheater benches, and a 

few portable picnic shelters remain from the period of significance. The Visitor Center sign has 

 

24 The locations of these missing structures should be considered archeological sites (which might yield information 

about the site’s development history) and should be treated accordingly. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 24 

been modified to include the new name of the Visitor Center (see Figures 4-19 and 4-20). Only a 

few of the portable picnic shelters remain, having been replaced by permanent picnic structures 

in the campground (see Figures 4-2 and 4-8). At the amphitheater, the simulated campfire 

feature is no longer present and a variety of contemporary small-scale features have been added, 

such as picnic tables, trash receptacles, an interpretive display cart, RV utility connections, 

vending machines, utility boxes, and an assortment of residential furnishings—play equipment, 

seating, tables, planters, and similar private garden items. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing/ Undetermined Earl

y Tourism 

CCC Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

SS-01 Visitor Center sign C • Good 1958/1979

SS-02 Informational signs (traffic, location, 

etc.) 

NC Good post 1966 

SS-03 Phone box NC Good post 1985 

SS-04 Flagpole C • Good 1951 

SS-05 Trash/recycle receptacles NC Good post 1966 

SS-06 Kiosk NC Good post 1985 

SS-07 Post and rail fencing NC Good post 1966 

SS-08 Electrical and HVAC utility boxes NC Good post 1966 

SS-09 Dumpsters NC Good post 1985 

SS-10 Wheel stops NC Good post 1985 

SS-11 Bike racks NC Good post 1985 

SS-12 Fire hose boxes NC Good post 1985 

SS-13 Fire hydrants NC Good post 1985 

SS-14 Picnic tables NC Good post 1985 

SS-15 Bollard lights NC Good post 1985 

SS-16 Stone tree dedication plaques NC Good post 1985 

SS-17 Cedar Pass Lodge sign UD Good UD 

SS-18 Board screen fencing NC Good post 1966 

SS-19 Timber overhead lighting post UD Good varies 

SS-20 Irregular cut log edging NC Fair post 1985 

SS-21 Benches UD Good varies 

SS-22 Plastic lawn chairs NC Good post 1985 

SS-23 Picnic shelters (portable) C • Good 1956-58 

SS-24 Gravel landscape decorations NC Fair post 1985 

SS-25 Concrete water valve caps NC Good UD 

SS-26 Chain link fencing NC Good post 1985 

SS-27 Timber bollards NC Fair post 1985 

SS-28 Amphitheater benches C • Fair 1959 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 25 

SS-29 Interpretive display cart NC Good post 1985 

SS-30 Metal access gates NC Good post 1966 

SS-31 Picnic shelters (fixed) NC Good post 1966 

SS-32 Drinking fountains UD Good varies 

SS-33 Water spigots UD Good varies 

SS-34 Concrete/gravel splash basin UD Good varies 

SS-35 RV utility connections NC Good post 1966 

SS-36 RV dump station connections NC Good post 1966 

SS-37 Vending machine NC Good post 1966 

SS-38 Circular concrete culverts (play 

equipment) 

NC Fair post 1966 

SS-39 Metal post and wire fencing NC Fair post 1966 

SS-40 Play swings NC Good post 1985 

SS-41 Portable storage sheds NC Good post 1985 

SS-42 Clotheslines NC Good post 1966 

SS-43 Dog houses NC Good post 1985 

SS-44 Hose reels NC Good post 1985 

SS-45 Satellite dishes NC Good post 1985 

SS-46 Mail boxes and stand NC Good post 1985 

SS-47 Gas utilities NC Good post 1985 

SS-48 TV antennas NC Good post 1985 

SS-49 Concrete and corrugated metal 

culverts 

NC Good post 1985 

SS-50 Covered walkways C/NC • Good varies 

SS-51 Metal bollards NC Good post 1985 

SS-52 Propane tanks NC Good post 1985 

SS-53 Abandoned equipment/junk piles NC Poor varies 

SS-54 Maintenance equipment NC Good post 1985 

SS-55 Portable research vehicles (RVs) NC Good post 1966 

SS-56 Wood post and wire fencing NC Good post 1985 

SS-57 Wood post and plank fencing NC Good post 1985 

Missing small-scale features include: 

⎯ CCC camp flagpole 

⎯ Synthetic campfire 

⎯ Cedar Pass Lodge sign (which matched the form of the sign at VC) 

⎯ Fences at cabins 

⎯ Chairs on Lodge front porch 

⎯ Gas station sign 

⎯ CCC camp fuel tanks and pumps 

⎯ Light poles and fixtures at Lodge cabins 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 26 

VIEWS AND VISTAS

The rich scenery within and surrounding the Cedar Pass Developed Area influenced many of the 

design decisions made by Ben Millard, and later, the NPS. During the Early Tourism Period, the 

Badlands Loop Road was planned to capture the best views of the surrounding formations and 

landscape. The placement of Cedar Pass Lodge allowed for panoramic views of the Wall 

formation. Similarly, during the Mission 66 period, the orientation of the Visitor Center and 

campground were influenced by the desire to capture the best views of the Wall and the 

surrounding formations and landscape. The Badlands formations were also considered during the 

siting of potentially intrusive development because of their ability to block incompatible views. 

The formations in the southern portion of the site, for example, block the maintenance area from 

view of visitor and staff residential areas. Another formation provides visual separation of the 

campground and Lodge. 

Today, little has changed in terms of the overall views. The siting of the Visitor Center, Lodge, 

and campground still afford panoramic views of the formations. The maintenance area remains 

screened from view of visitors, and the developed portions of the site are screened from view of 

the campground. The view of the area from Cedar Pass remains similar to that during the period 

of significance; the addition/loss of buildings would appear minimal in the overall landscape. 

Views have been altered on a smaller site scale with the addition and removal of contributing 

buildings and structures. While the missing buildings have a limited impact on the viewshed, the 

addition of the fire cache and administrative cluster changed the appearance of their areas. The 

siting of the fire cache is perhaps the most disruptive change to views. The partial enclosure of 

the porch at the Visitor Center has altered the view of the formation from this area. The in-filling 

of the originally open Visitor Center front porch prohibits visitors from experiencing views of 

the formations to the north while on the porch and under the roof. 

# Feature 

Contributing/ Non-contributing Early Tourism CCC Mission 66 Date of Origin 

V-01 View of area from top of Cedar Pass C • 1935-66 

V-02 View from Visitor Center area C • 1959 

V-03 View from Lodge and cabin area C • 1927-42 

V-04 View of area from top of the formation 

west of the Lodge 

C • 1966 

V-05 View from campground area C • 1959 

V-06 View from Badlands Loop Road C • 1935-66 

V-07 Views of new buildings NC varies 

V-08 Views from inside Visitor Center porch* C 1959 

* The view from inside the porch has been significantly altered. (There are no missing views or 

vistas.) 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 27 

INTEGRITY EVALUATION

Assessment of a landscape’s integrity is based on an evaluation of the existence and condition of 

physical features dating from a property’s period or periods of significance, taking into 

consideration the degree to which the individual qualities of integrity are present. The seven 

qualities of integrity assessed in accordance with National Register criteria are location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. As defined in National Register 

Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation: 

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place 

where the historic event occurred; design is the combination of elements that 

create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property; setting is the 

physical environment of a historic property; materials are the physical elements 

that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a 

particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property; workmanship is 

the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any 

given period in history or prehistory; feeling is a property’s expression of the 

aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and association is the 

direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 

National Register Bulletin 15 also states that: 

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance....Historic 

properties either retain integrity (that is convey their significance) or they do not. 

Within the concept of integrity, the National Register Criteria recognize seven 

aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain 

historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the 

aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property 

to convey significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to 

a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is 

significant. 

Based upon the work conducted on behalf of this CLR, the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

landscape appears to possess a high degree of integrity for the period of significance from 1928 

to 1966. By 1966, the developed area landscape reflected Mission 66 concepts of zoning uses 

and developing compact site features oriented to a strong organizational element, such as a linear 

‘spine’ or road corridor. The road system, housing developments, Visitor Center, Cedar Pass 

Lodge, campground, and maintenance area that currently characterize the Cedar Pass landscape 

were in place by 1966. (See Map 4-4 at the end of the chapter.)

The changes that have occurred within the landscape since 1966 have served to diminish the 

integrity of the Mission 66 period to some degree, primarily through the addition of buildings 

after 1966. The loss of a few buildings and the realignment of the service road after 1966 have 

also weakened the site’s integrity. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 28 

INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT BY ASPECT 

Cedar Pass possesses a high degree of integrity of location based on its continuing use as a 

tourist destination in the same location from the early 1920s through the early 1940s. It has 

maintained a park headquarters in the same location as established in the late 1940s through the 

late 1960s. 

Overall, the Cedar Pass Developed Area possesses a high degree of integrity of design for the 

Mission 66 period. For the most part, the primary character and pattern of spatial organization 

was established by 1966. The overall layout of the Cedar Pass landscape preserves the majority 

of the systems and features established during the 1960s, as well as many features from the early 

1940s that were integrated into the Mission 66 development. 

The addition and loss of different buildings, as well as the expansion of the maintenance yard, 

detract from the integrity of design in those respective areas. The administrative and maintenance 

areas were most affected, retaining only a medium level of integrity of design due to the 

associated changes in spatial organization and the incompatible design styles and forms of 

structures. The additional single-family residence and apartment unit, and the realignment of the 

service road, all of which post-date the Mission 66 period, could be viewed as continuations of 

the Mission 66 planning, and therefore detract only minimally from the integrity of design. 

The two-story fire cache location also detracts from the integrity of design as it was in an area 

that was purposefully cleared of maintenance/utility structures during the Mission 66 period to 

isolate these uses from other areas of the site. The change in design of the campground picnic 

shelters detracts from the integrity of design to a lesser degree. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area retains a high degree of integrity of setting for the Mission 66 

period. Much of the park continues to be rugged, geologically fascinating country that remains 

undeveloped. Cedar Pass continues to serve as a primary visitor contact point as well as a 

lodging and recreation facility and park headquarters. During the Mission 66 period, the NPS 

established an approach to land management in the developed area that survives today. 

While some of the development that has occurred within the site since 1966 has changed patterns 

of spatial organization and character, most of these changes remain in keeping with the uses 

established in the 1956 Master Plan. The location of the fire cache in an area easily seen by 

visitors is the only change since the end of the period of significance that seriously detracts from 

the integrity of setting. Other later additions, such as the administrative cluster and expanded 

maintenance area, are relative continuations of functions and uses established during the period 

of significance. 

Cedar Pass Developed Area features possess a medium degree of integrity of materials for the 

Mission 66 period. The dominant material that post-dates the period of significance is the metal 

siding and roofing associated with pre-engineered buildings. In some cases, such as roofing, the 

use of metal building materials is less intrusive. In the case of temporary and mobile buildings 

and siding of buildings, the metal stands in marked contrast to painted and unpainted wood and 

painted stucco. The metal-clad fire cache, temporary administrative and residential Lodge 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 29 

buildings, Lodge ice vending structure, most-recently constructed single-family residence, 

campground interpretive shelter, new alterations to the Mission 66 residences, and replacement 

campground picnic shelters all detract from the integrity of materials. In addition, the original 

amphitheater screen has been replaced with a structure that does not use the stucco that 

characterized the original. Aside from those listed here, the majority of surviving buildings and 

structures retain a high degree of integrity of materials. It should be noted that Lodge cabins 

were originally clad with cedar slabs; today’s stucco was added in 1949 and was characteristic of 

the structures by the end of the period of significance. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area retains a medium degree of integrity of workmanship for the 

Mission 66 period. The majority of the features constructed during or integrated into the Mission 

66 period continue to exhibit workmanship representative of these periods. The addition of the 

fire cache, mobile administrative buildings, and mobile residences has diminished integrity of 

workmanship due to their use of different materials and construction methods. These features 

detract from the Mission 66 period integrity of workmanship. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area retains a high degree of integrity of feeling for the Mission 66 

period. As the continued primary visitor contact point, headquarters, lodging, and recreation 

destination set among the Badlands formations and native prairie meadows, the landscape has 

retained its character and has changed little since the end of the period of significance. The 

feeling of the clustered developments, like islands within the natural landscape, continues to 

contribute to the site’s integrity of feeling. 

Generally, Cedar Pass retains a high degree of integrity of association for the Mission 66 

period. Ben Millard’s Lodge and the NPS Mission 66 developments survive in much the same 

configuration as when they were established, helping to convey associations with these groups 

and their efforts to create a tourist destination and headquarters for the park. The loss of the early 

tourism and CCC features during and after the period of significance has greatly diminished the 

integrity of feeling for this aspect of the site’s history. 

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING EXISTING AND FUTURE 

NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC 

PLACES

The significance evaluation, comparative analysis of the historic and the existing landscape, and 

assessment of landscape integrity contained herein has focused on the overall landscape of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. The process for evaluating national parks as a whole and the 

individual resources within parks has progressed substantially since the late 1980s and early 

1990s. With the NPS’s publication of Linda Flint McClelland’s Presenting Nature: The Historic 

Landscape Design of the National Park Service, 1916 to 1942 in 1993, and the emergence of 

analysis methodologies stemming from guidance provided by National Register Bulletins 18 and 

30, a more holistic view of a national park’s designed cultural landscape was possible. 

The multiple-property listing “Historic Park Landscapes in the National and State Parks” that 

addresses New Deal-era historic designed park landscapes provides guidance on relevant 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 30 

property types and the potential boundary of a nominated district or site. According to this 

multiple property listing: 

Ideally, it is desirable to identify and register the largest unit having significance 

and integrity as a historic park landscape...The coordinated development for 

parks during the historic period through a comprehensive planning process and 

the development of master plans provides a strong argument for this approach. 

With a broad understanding of the historical significance of the development of the park, a 

recommendation is offered below regarding a National Register historic district encompassing 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. In addition, this CLR also recommends that consideration be given 

to completing the process for evaluating the Cedar Pass Road historic road corridor and the 

Cedar Pass to Northwest Entrance historic road corridor. These two potential historic resources 

are closely associated with the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Both proposed historic properties 

terminate at the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

It is important to note that the CLR scope did not include identifying and evaluating 

archeological resources and ethnographic resources. Any potential district of archeological sites 

and/or listing of additional individual sites are not addressed in this CLR. The Historic Resource 

Study currently under way for the whole park will be useful in addressing historic resources 

proximate and within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

RECOMMENDED NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT

Cedar Pass Developed Area Historic District 

See Map 4-5 at the end of this chapter. 

Boundary

The CLR team recommends that a historic district designation be considered for the current 

NPS-administered lands and facilities known as the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The boundary 

for this proposed historic district should follow the current park boundary to the south, extending 

from the wash west of the campground and extending east to the existing service road at the 

northwest corner of the existing wastewater lagoons. The boundary on the north should follow 

on the north side of the Badlands Loop Road and SD 377. The historic district boundary on the 

west should follow the western edge of the wash. The boundary on the east should follow along 

the base of the steeper grades of the formations beginning at the Loop Road and running just east 

of the Visitor Center and Residential Area complexes, just east of the service road and ending 

just north of the wastewater lagoons. The wastewater lagoon facility should not be included in 

the proposed historic district. 

Justification

Based on this CLR’s landscape research, documentation, analysis, and evaluation, the site 

appears to possess significance at the state level as a historic district under National 

Register Criteria A and C for 1) early tourism associated with western landscapes and 

parks; 2) CCC development and New Deal Master Planning; and 3) the National Park 

Service’s (NPS) Mission 66 initiative within the areas of Architecture, Landscape 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4 - 31 

Architecture, Social History/Tourism, Community Planning and Development, and 

Recreation during the period ca. 1928 through 1966. Despite the fact that Mission 66-era 

Cedar Pass development is less than fifty years of age, Cedar Pass appears to meet the 

eligibility requirements of Criterion Consideration G as a relatively complete example of 

a Mission 66 developed area with a high degree of integrity, which remains rare and 

unusual within the state of South Dakota. 

The extended period of significance reflects a continuum of use of Cedar Pass by various 

individuals and agencies to site services and amenities for visitors endeavoring to 

experience the dramatic Badlands landscape. Early private efforts to develop a tourist site 

eventually coexisted with federal initiatives to establish park administrative and 

maintenance functions. Each campaign to address visitor and park administrative needs 

completely and comprehensively built upon previous efforts. The approach to the Cedar 

Pass site development that rendered the park’s nature wonders accessible—yet did not 

intrude upon their uniqueness—culminated in the efforts of the Mission 66 initiative. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-32

Figure 4-1 View south from amphitheater toward former wastewater lagoons in 2002; amphitheater projection booth, screen, and benches are visible.

Figure 4-2 View southwest from amphitheater across group campground loop in 2002; a foot

bridge, picnic shelters, scattered shade trees, and bollards are visible.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002 JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-33

Figure 4-3 View across group campground in 1959 from amphitheater; pullouts for campground

sites and bollards are visible. No trees are visible.

Figure 4-4 Amphitheater in 1962 with a small projection structure and folding screen. The simulated campfire is visible in the center.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-34

Figure 4-5 View of Visitor Center façade looking south in 2002; the flagpole, mature plants, and

kiosk are visible. The addition of the theater on the porch diminished the cool and inviting “veranda” appearance of the entrance area.

Figure 4-6 View of Visitor Center façade looking southeast in 1959; the flagpole, immature

plants, and resource protection office are visible. 

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-35

Figure 4-7 View of campground in 2002 with RV waste disposal station, bollards lining road,

dumpster, and comfort station.

Figure 4-8 View of campground pull-offs, picnic shelters, trash receptacles, comfort station, and

bollards along road in 1965.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-36

Figure 4-9 Single-family residence at foot of Wall formation with large trees and board fencing

in 2002.

Figure 4-10 Single-family residence in 1957 with immature tree, shade and wind screen, and

brick structure.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-37

Figure 4-11 Entrance to Visitor Center in 2002 with informational sign and ramp.

Figure 4-12 Visitor Center entrance in 1959 with open porch.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-38

Figure 4-13 Cedar Pass Lodge in 2002 with additions to the original Lodge on either side, board

fencing to east, and large trees behind the building.

Figure 4-14 Cedar Pass Lodge in 1969 with a massing of plants to the west side of the building.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-39

Figure 4-15 Cedar Pass Lodge in 1960 with gas station and sign and a residence to the east; the

Lodge sign is at the parking lot entrance.

Figure 4-16 The original Cedar Pass building in 1940, built by Ben Millard.

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-40

Figure 4-17 View of amphitheater screen, wood benches on concrete supports, and concrete

retaining wall along the perimeter in 2002.

Figure 4-18 View of amphitheater screen and base, simulated campfire, and wood benches on

concrete supports in 1962.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ANALYSIS & EVALUATION * JUNE 2005 * 4-41

Figure 4-19 View east of Visitor Center sign in 2002 with raised lettering and the Wall formation

in the background.

Figure 4-20 View west of Mission 66 sign for Headquarters.

JOHN

MILNER

ASSOCIATES, INC., 2002

BADLANDS

NATIONAL PARK

ARCHIVE





CHAPTER FIVE

MANAGEMENT

ISSUES
MANAGEMENT ISSUES * JUNE 2005 * 5 - 1

CHAPTER FIVE

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a summary of landscape management issues of concern for the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. The issues documented in this chapter are based upon discussions between 

members of the Cultural Landscape Report (CLR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) team, 

regional National Park Service (NPS) staff, and Badlands National Park personnel during the 

November 2002 CLR start-up meeting at park headquarters. Additional issues were also 

identified during field investigations and through review of available park planning documents. 

These issues guided the development of treatment recommendations and alternatives found later 

in this document. Issues are organized by topic, with some issues related to more than one topic. 

VISITOR USE AND ACCESS

⎯ Only a few of the Cedar Pass facilities provide universal accessibility. Accessibility 

improvements need to be made in the Visitor Center, administrative cluster, single-family 

and seasonal residences, campground, and Lodge to provide for all visitors. 

⎯ The Visitor Center facility is often at or above capacity during peak seasons. Bookstore, 

administrative, and interpretive space is not adequate for the need. 

⎯ Parking at the Visitor Center is not adequate during peak periods. 

⎯ Summertime high temperatures in the audio-visual area outside the Visitor Center often 

exceed 90 or 100 degrees. This creates an unpleasant and potentially unsafe condition for 

visitors. 

⎯ The location of the audio-visual area at the entrance to the Visitor Center, and between this 

entrance and the parking lot, often results in pedestrian congestion during peak visitation 

periods. The noise from visitors entering and leaving the Visitor Center and using the 

adjacent restrooms makes viewing the film difficult. 

⎯ Summertime high temperatures and the relative lack of shade in the campground cause many 

visitors to complain. The few trees in the campground often experience so much trampling 

that they are damaged or killed. 

⎯ Many campground users would like to see showers installed in the campground for 

convenience and utility. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

MANAGEMENT ISSUES * JUNE 2005 * 5 - 2

⎯ Pedestrian/vehicular conflicts are a problem in a number of places at Cedar Pass, especially 

at the Visitor Center and administration area. 

⎯ There are visitor, employee, and service circulation conflicts in the Visitor Center area. 

ADMINISTRATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

⎯ The Visitor Center facility is often at or above capacity during peak seasons. Bookstore, 

administrative, and interpretive space is not adequate. 

⎯ The park lacks adequate storage space for natural and cultural resource artifacts and 

collections. The park plans to add new facilities in Cedar Pass to accommodate this need. 

⎯ The park has inadequate administration and maintenance facilities and there are plans to add 

additional buildings in the Cedar Pass Developed Area to accommodate projected needs. The 

park requires site and design guidance for new facilities. 

⎯ Insufficient parking areas for park employees and maintenance equipment have led to these 

vehicles taking up space in the overflow visitor parking area, and thus inadequate visitor 

parking during peak visitation periods. 

⎯ There is no separate employee parking at the Cedar Pass Lodge, leading to insufficient 

availability during peak use periods. 

⎯ The mobile home structures used by Lodge employees are inconsistent with the character 

expected of the site by visitors in association with the Lodge and campground. The park 

would like to develop plans for a dorm or housing structure for on-site Lodge employees. 

⎯ There are drainage problems in some areas of Cedar Pass. Culverts need to be replaced and 

some road and parking surfaces may require grading changes. 

⎯ When the Badlands Loop Road over Cedar Pass fails, a new corridor will be required to 

connect Cedar Pass with routes to the north and west. This would change the approach and/or 

entry to Cedar Pass and require changes to historic circulation patterns. 

⎯ The park would like to place all current above-ground utilities underground and install new 

utilities underground. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

⎯ There were several phases of development activity in the Cedar Pass area in the early 20th

century relating to the Lodge, CCC, and early park establishment. A comprehensive 

archeological survey of the Cedar Pass Developed Area is needed to identify resources 

before additional development occurs. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

MANAGEMENT ISSUES * JUNE 2005 * 5 - 3

⎯ Three cabins have been removed at the Lodge since the end of the period of significance. The 

park needs to consider reconstructing the three lost cabins. 

⎯ Varying remnants of historic vegetation from the park development period remain at the 

Visitor Center, residential area, and the Lodge. The harsh environment of the Badlands 

makes it difficult to maintain historic vegetation. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

⎯ All of Badlands National Park is rich in paleontological resources. An approach that will 

ensure the protection of these resources during all potential ground-disturbing activities 

needs to be defined. 

⎯ Siberian elms used in the landscape of the Lodge have seeded to natural areas. The park 

needs to define an approach to the problem of non-native species in the area. 

⎯ Light pollution is a problem across the country; the desire to prevent light pollution in 

isolated areas such as the Badlands National Park has been identified. As one of the 

developed areas in the park, Cedar Pass needs to address this issue with its current and future 

outdoor lighting plans. 
CHAPTER SIX

ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-1

CHAPTER SIX

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

The alternatives for treatment presented herein should not to be confused with the type and scope 

of General Management Plan (GMP) or Development Concept Plan (DCP) alternatives. Cultural 

landscape treatment alternatives should be viewed as conceptual ‘overlay’ alternatives that are 

compatible with and supportive of the GMP currently in progress. 

Three alternatives have been developed: one no-action, and two action alternatives. The noaction alternative provides the baseline for analyzing the impacts of the action alternatives. The 

action alternatives are Preservation and Rehabilitation, the first two of four treatment 

alternatives defined by the Secretary of the Interior as approaches for managing historic 

landscapes. These four approaches—preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and 

reconstruction—are defined and discussed in both The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties and NPS’s Director’s Order No. 28 (DO-28): Cultural 

Resources Management Guidelines. 

DO-28 provides the following definitions of the four treatment alternatives for cultural 

landscapes: 

Preservation maintains the existing integrity and character of a cultural landscape 

by arresting or retarding deterioration caused by natural forces and normal use. It 

includes both maintenance and stabilization. Maintenance is a systematic activity 

mitigating wear and deterioration of a cultural landscape by protecting its 

conditions. In light of the dynamic qualities of a landscape, maintenance is 

essential for the long-term preservation of individual features and integrity of the 

entire landscape. Stabilization involves reestablishing the stability of an unsafe, 

damaged, or deteriorated cultural landscape, while maintaining its existing 

character. 

Rehabilitation improves the utility or function of a cultural landscape, through 

repair or alteration, to make possible an efficient compatible use while preserving 

those portions or features that are important in defining its significance. 

Restoration accurately depicts the form, features, and character of a cultural 

landscape as it appeared at a specific period or as intended by its original 

constructed design. It may involve the reconstruction of missing historic features, 

and selective removal of later features, some having cultural value in themselves. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-2

Reconstruction entails depicting the form, features, and details of a non-surviving 

cultural landscape, or any part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period or as 

intended by its original constructed design. Reconstruction of an entire landscape 

is always a last-resort measure for addressing a management objective and will be 

undertaken only after policy review in the regional and Washington offices.1

The three alternatives defined in this chapter for treatment of the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

have been evaluated through a Value Analysis (VA). Following this process, an Environmental 

Analysis (EA) of the alternatives was developed using the information generated by the VA and 

this CLR. (The EA is included in the Appendices of this CLR.) The following alternative 

descriptions are consistent with the EA alternatives. Through this process, a preferred treatment 

alternative was identified—Alternative C: Rehabilitation. Specific treatment guidelines, 

recommendations, and implementation information focusing on the preferred alternative 

identified as part of the VA process follow in Chapters Seven and Eight. 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES THROUGH VALUE ANALYSIS

The VA was an organized, creative process focused on the requirements of the CLR for the 

purpose of achieving essential functions and attendant benefits at the lowest costs for materials, 

equipment, staffing, energy usage, facilities, professional services, and maintenance, over the life 

of the project. A Certified Value Specialist (CVS) guided the VA. The VA involved the 

participation of the NPS in the study in order to take advantage of their experience and 

knowledge. A multi-disciplinary team comprised of members of the CLR and EA team as well as 

NPS staff, analyzed the functions of the preservation and other programmatic elements under 

study, identified high cost areas, ascertained the benefits sought, and proposed alternatives to 

those planned or currently being used. The VA was organized into three distinct parts: pre-study 

preparation, study workshop, and post-study implementation. 

The primary benefits to the CLR include the improvement of the historic preservation and 

sustainability aspects of the alternatives; identification of cost benefits associated with 

alternatives; and identification of additional research, investigations, and planning efforts 

required to support historic preservation and cultural resource management. The VA process had 

a direct impact on the preferred alternative through the identification of future planning, design, 

construction, and maintenance projects, and initiatives not anticipated by the CLR team. The VA 

aided in the creation of a more comprehensive and more functional CLR in terms of its role in 

supporting a streamlined process for managing change within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

(EA) 

The EA was undertaken in accordance with NPS Director’s Order No.12: Conservation Planning 

and Environmental Impact Analysis, NPS management policies, and the National Environmental 

Policy Act. The EA process included the review and assessment of one no-action and two action 

alternatives based on the alternatives developed as part of the CLR process. The EA team 

 

1

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Director’s Order No. 28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guidelines (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997), 98-102. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-3

conducted two public scoping meetings: one in Kadoka and one in Wall, South Dakota. The US 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, and the 

South Dakota State Historic Preservation officer were consulted. In addition, the EA was 

transmitted to several tribal and local governments. 

CHARACTER AREAS 

Ten character areas have been identified for the Cedar Pass Developed Area landscape (see Map 

6-1). These character areas, based on similarities of land use, historic resource character and 

type, and patterns of spatial organization, are used to structure the description of alternatives in 

this chapter, the EA alternatives in the Appendix, and treatment information in later chapters. 

The ten character areas within Cedar Pass Developed Area include: 

Visitor/Administrative Area – This area encompasses the Visitor Center and the administration 

cluster south of the Visitor Center as well as the associated parking lots and their environs. 

Residential Area – This area includes the single-family houses and apartment units south of the 

administration area as well as the associated drives, parking lot, and their environs. 

Cedar Pass Lodge Area– This area encompasses the Lodge, its cabins, and its associated support 

structures as well as the associated drives, parking lots, and their environs. 

Campground Area – This area includes the three campground loops and the amphitheater area as 

well as the associated interpretive shelter, parking lot, and their environs. 

Maintenance Area – This area is comprised of the maintenance cluster in the southern portion of 

the project area as well as the associated mixing circle, water supply structures, parking lots, 

house pen, and their environs. 

Fire Cache Area – This area encompasses the new fire cache building south of the residential 

area, the associated parking area, and their environs. 

Wastewater Lagoon Area (new) – This area encompasses the new wastewater lagoons in the 

southernmost portion of the study area, the associated drive, and their environs. 

Badlands Loop Road and SD 377 Corridor – This area encompasses portions of the two road 

corridors that form the northern boundary of the project area. 

Service Road Corridor – This area includes the service road corridor from the Badlands Loop 

Road to the southern park boundary. 

Open Space Areas – This area encompasses all the open, undeveloped space that surrounds the 

other character areas. Since the old wastewater lagoons have been abandoned and are being 

restored to their natural landform and vegetative cover, this site is also included in this area. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-4

ALTERNATIVES

A narrative description, supported by a conceptual site plan, is provided below for the three 

alternatives. 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION

The no-action alternative provides a baseline for evaluating changes and impacts associated with 

the two action alternatives. Though the district would be managed for historic resource values, a 

minimum application of available preservation knowledge and technology is expected under this 

alternative. The NPS would continue to manage and use the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape in the current (2004) manner, without the coherent and cohesive historic preservation 

guidance provided in the CLR. Development and alteration would be evaluated for its effect on 

the historic landscape under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Detailed historical research yielding information about original design and construction of 

facilities, and building exterior and interiors; evaluation of historic integrity; and conservation 

assessments would all be lacking as a result. New development and facility siting would not 

utilize the original planning approach of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Designers of new 

facilities, general contractors constructing them, and laborers/contractors involved in 

maintenance operations would not be required to have training, education, and/or experience in 

preservation technology. In sum, no park or developed area policies, strategies, and 

implementation initiatives would be available to lend a comprehensive and sustained program of 

guidance for preservation of the historic landscape and its buildings as outlined in this CLR (see 

Map 6-1 located at end of chapter). 

The no-action alternative includes the following overarching guidelines/actions:

• The plans for expanding the Ben Reifel Visitor Center would proceed. 

• Park headquarters and other park operations would remain in the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area, with the construction of the fire cache, an additional park office building, and the 

museum storage facility completed as planned. 

• Work would be allowed to ensure accessibility, health and safety, environmental, and 

limited energy-efficiency considerations. 

• The concession operations and campgrounds would remain at the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area in their current location and configuration. 

• Development would continue in the area to accommodate future needs as they arise. 

• Repairs to buildings would not attempt to preserve historic form or materials. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-5

• As needed, buildings, structures, and other landscape features would be altered, removed, 

or added. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance 

process. 

• Alterations to parking and road/circulation alignments would be used to address 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the 

Section 106 compliance process. However, design of new circulation would not benefit 

from an understanding of historic development patterns and the sensitivity of historic 

resources. 

• New buildings, structures, or landscape features may or may not be compatible with the 

Mission 66 site design principles or existing buildings, structures, and features. Effects of 

these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance process. 

• The plans for a new laundry building, expanded amphitheater, and new shower facilities 

would continue to be developed. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the 

Section 106 compliance process. 

• Failure of the Loop Road at Cedar Pass (in the wall above the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area) would eventually result in changed traffic patterns. New traffic patterns may or 

may not attempt compatibility with Mission 66 principles of layout and design. Effects of 

these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance process. 

• Archeological resources would be protected and preserved in place, if possible. 

Otherwise, mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts would be undertaken. 

Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance process. 

ALTERNATIVE B—PRESERVATION

Background 

Preservation is the first of the four treatment alternatives (see Alternative C for the rehabilitation 

alternative) defined by the Department of the Interior as an approach for managing historic 

landscapes. 

Preservation maintains the existing integrity and character of a cultural landscape by 

arresting or retarding deterioration caused by natural forces and normal use. It includes 

both maintenance and stabilization. Maintenance is a systematic activity mitigating wear 

and deterioration of a cultural landscape by protecting its conditions. In light of the 

dynamic qualities of a landscape, maintenance is essential for the long-term preservation 

of individual features and integrity of the entire landscape. Stabilization involves 

reestablishing the stability of an unsafe, damaged, or deteriorated cultural landscape, 

while maintaining its existing character. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-6

In preservation, the options for replacement are limited. The expressed goal of The Standards for 

Preservation and Guidelines for Preserving Cultural Landscapes is retention of the landscape’s 

existing form, features, and materials, provided that such actions will not result in a degraded 

landscape condition or threaten historic resources. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes addresses preservation further: 

• A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the 

retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a 

treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, 

stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 

• The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of 

intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial 

relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 

• Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work 

needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will 

be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly 

documented for future research. 

• Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be 

retained and preserved. 

• Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

• The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate 

level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited 

replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, 

design, color, and texture. 

• Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, would be undertaken using the gentlest 

means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 

• Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must 

be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken (NPS 1996:19). 

Additionally: 

• The design of new features and systems would be undertaken by designers with a 

moderate level of training, education, and/or experience in preservation technology. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-7

• The repair and maintenance of new features and systems would be undertaken by 

maintenance staff or contractors with a moderate level of training, education, and/or 

experience in preservation technology. 

• Construction involving the rehabilitation and renovation of existing facilities would be 

undertaken by general contractors and subcontractors with a moderate level of training, 

education, and/or experienced in preservation technology. 

Alternative B (Preservation) Description 

The general scope of Alternative B is the protection and preservation of surviving historic 

resources through the application of a moderate level of preservation knowledge and technology, 

while accommodating growth within other areas of the park. Its focus is on the historic 

features/elements of the cultural landscape at Cedar Pass Developed Area and their integrity 

based on the significance evaluation presented in this CLR. Any modifications to the landscape 

would be directly related to the need to meet identified facility and operational needs. No new 

development is planned for the Cedar Pass Developed Area; new construction would take place 

off site, within the Pinnacles area (approximately twenty miles to the northwest of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area). Historic resources at the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be protected and 

maintained while intrusive resources would be mitigated or removed after their useful life. The 

proactive management of both cultural and natural resources integral to the landscape would be 

minimal. Existing roads, buildings and other landscape features would be repaired with the 

historic nature of the resource in mind. The preservation alternative includes the following (Map 

6-2 presents the proposed alternative B): 

• The historic functions of facilities and historic land use would continue. 

• All contributing historic and cultural landscape features of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area would be identified, retained, and preserved. 

• The site’s overall spatial character derived from the environmental setting, the siting of 

buildings, the road and drive patterns, the pedestrian circulation patterns, and vegetation 

patterns would be preserved. 

• As a preliminary measure, deteriorated features and materials would be stabilized and 

protected. 

• Historic features and materials would be maintained and repairs performed when 

necessary. 

• Limited, in-kind replacement of severely deteriorated historic features, which are vital to 

the site’s historic character, would be undertaken. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-8

• Accessibility, health and safety, environmental, and limited energy efficiency 

considerations would be applied. 

• Archeological resources would be protected and preserved in situ to the greatest extent 

feasible. If disturbance were necessary, mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts 

would be undertaken. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the Section 

106 compliance process. 

• Natural systems and features (drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife) 

would be protected but with limited efforts to enhance them. 

• The open, undeveloped areas would remain undeveloped and in their natural state. 

• New development would not occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area and would 

instead be located outside the historic area in the Pinnacles area. Development planned at 

this time for the next ten to fifteen years would require approximately five to ten acres 

and could include housing, administrative/operational support facilities, and associated 

utilities and parking. In general, development would be situated proximate to existing 

facilities at the Pinnacles area and away from the Loop Road. 

• New roads would not be constructed within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. However, 

when the Loop Road is no longer viable due to natural erosional processes, some changes 

in circulation and access to the site may become unavoidable. 

• Limited and minimal mitigation measures would be utilized to reduce or eliminate the 

intrusive nature of non-historic structures and features that intrude on historic character. 

• Intrusive, non-historic structures and features would only be removed after their useful 

life. 

ALTERNATIVE C—REHABILITATION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Background 

The rehabilitation alternative is the second of the four treatment alternatives (see Alternative B 

for the preservation alternative) defined by the Department of the Interior as an approach for 

managing historic landscapes. 

Rehabilitation improves the utility or function of a cultural landscape, through repair or 

alteration, to make possible an efficient compatible use while preserving those portions or 

features that are important in defining its significance. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-9

In rehabilitation, the cultural landscape’s character-defining features and materials are 

protected and maintained as they are in the treatment preservation; however, a 

determination is made prior to work that a greater amount of existing historic fabric has 

become damaged or deteriorate over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement 

will be required. The Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation allow 

the replacement of extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either 

traditional or substitute materials. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes addresses rehabilitation further: 

• A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal 

change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

• The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of 

distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that 

characterize a property will be avoided. 

• Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes 

that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or 

elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 

• Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be 

retained and preserved. 

• Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

• Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of 

deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the 

old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing 

features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 

• Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest 

means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 

• Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must 

be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 

• New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic 

materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work 

will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-10

features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property 

and its environment. 

• New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a 

manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic 

property and its environment would be unimpaired. 

Additionally: 

• The design of new features and systems would be undertaken by designers with a high 

level of training, education, and/or experience in preservation technology. 

• The repair and maintenance of new features and systems would be undertaken by 

maintenance staff or contractors with a high level of training, education, and/or 

experience in preservation technology. 

• Construction involving the rehabilitation and renovation of existing facilities would be 

undertaken by general contractors and subcontractors with a high level of training, 

education, and/or experience in preservation technology. 

Alternative C (Rehabilitation) Description 

The rehabilitation alternative allows for the adaptation of the historic landscape to limited new 

uses while protecting, to the greatest extent possible, its significant historic fabric and 

relationships. It promotes preservation treatment of the historic landscape while allowing new 

and adaptive uses. The focus is on the enhancement of the surviving historic resources through 

the extensive application of a high level of preservation knowledge and technology for the 

design/construction of new features and repair/maintenance of existing features, while 

accommodating growth within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This high level of historic 

preservation expertise could include detailed historical research regarding building 

exteriors/interiors, evaluation of historic integrity, and conservation assessments. New 

development would be limited to critical park needs, would occur within defined and distinct 

areas (development sites) as defined in the CLR, and would be compatible with, or non-intrusive 

to, the cultural landscape (see Map 6-3). Where possible, new structures would be located where 

buildings had been removed. Any new major roads or circulation alterations would be associated 

with new development. Existing non-contributing structures compatible with the cultural 

landscape would be retained/used. The rehabilitation alternative includes the following (see 

Figure 6-3). 

• All contributing features of the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be identified, retained, 

and preserved, to the greatest extent feasible. 

• The site’s overall spatial character derived from the siting of buildings, the road and drive 

patterns, the pedestrian circulation patterns, and vegetation patterns would be maintained 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-11

by preserving essential features and character, and utilizing Mission 66 design principles 

in the placement of limited compatible new features. 

• The historic foundation planting design around the Visitor Center would be reestablished 

using the original Mission 66 period planting plans. Problematic or inappropriate plants 

would be substituted with more suitable but similar plants. Plants with low water and 

maintenance requirements are preferable. 

• Historic features and materials would be maintained and repairs performed when 

necessary. In-kind replacement or the use of compatible material for replacement of 

deteriorated historic building/structure features would be allowed. 

• Changes to the cultural landscape that have acquired historic significance in their own 

right would be retained and maintained. 

• Compatible landscape and site features (such as buildings, roads, or small-scale features) 

that post-date the period of significance would be retained and used. 

• Missing historic features that were critical to the historic character would be replaced if 

adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists for the feature to be 

accurately reproduced. A compatible new feature as a replacement would also be an 

option. 

• Archeological resources would be protected and preserved in place to the greatest extent 

feasible. If disturbance was necessary, mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts 

would be undertaken. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the Section 

106 compliance process. 

• Natural systems and features (drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife) 

would be protected and preserved. 

• Alterations to the cultural landscape that are deemed necessary to assure its continued use 

would be allowed as long as these alterations do not destroy historic character such as 

spatial organization, land patterns, features, and materials. 

• The removal of landscape and site features (such buildings, roads, or small-scale features) 

that post-date the period of significance, have incompatible characteristics with the 

surviving historic features, and detract from the overall historic character would be 

considered. 

• Mitigation measures would be utilized to reduce the intrusive nature of non-historic 

buildings that are retained. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

ALTERNATIVES * JUNE 2005 * 6-12

• Intrusive non-historic buildings would be removed after their useful life. 

• New building developments would be limited to meet critical space needs and, when 

possible, would be sited in locations where buildings that have since been removed 

existed during the period of significance. 

• New or altered facilities would be as non-intrusive as possible while allowing for 

accessibility and safety, and would not be permissible if historic character, such as spatial 

organization, land patterns, features and materials, would be destroyed. 

• New design would need to be differentiated from existing historic resources. New 

additions and alterations would need to be a product of their time but compatible with the 

historic resources in materials, size, scale and proportion, and massing. A clear 

differentiation between historic and contemporary features would need to be maintained. 

• Changes that create a false sense of history, such as features that are designed to appear 

historic, would not be allowed. 

• Work would be allowed to ensure accessibility, health and safety, environmental, and 

limited energy efficiency considerations. 

• Historic structures and features would be documented using appropriate and accepted 

procedures prior to changes. 

• The failure of the Loop Road may require changes in circulation and access within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. 




CHAPTER SEVEN

TREATMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-1

CHAPTER SEVEN

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ORGANIZATION

This chapter focuses on the treatment recommendations for the Cedar Pass Developed Area and 

includes sections on the approach to treatment; guidelines for managing resources, and 

undertaking treatment; as well as specific recommendations for treatment of landscape features 

and systems organized by character area. Following the treatment recommendations are 

supporting and supplemental plan graphics. This chapter on treatment is followed by Chapter 

Eight: Implementation Recommendations. Chapter Eight provides descriptions of specific 

landscape treatment planning, design, and implementation projects including phasing 

recommendations and planning-level Class C cost estimates. 

TREATMENT APPROACH

The Secretary of the Interior currently recognizes four appropriate treatment approaches for 

historic landscapes: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. These are 

defined and discussed in both The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties and NPS’s Director’s Order No. 28 (DO-28): Cultural Resources 

Management Guidelines. 

The treatment plan provided in this chapter is intended to improve the ability of Badlands 

National Park managers to identify, preserve, and protect existing natural, cultural, and historic 

resources; improve the site’s functionality to accommodate current and projected visitor and 

administrative needs; and to identify resource protection, management, and maintenance needs 

based on a synthetic understanding of the site, its historical development, and significance. 

Based upon the park’s need to improve the functionality of the Cedar Pass Developed Area for 

visitor and administration needs, the recommended primary approach to guide the treatment of 

the site is rehabilitation. This approach is consistent with the preferred alternative—Alternative 

C: Rehabilitation, established in the Environmental Assessment (EA)—and will allow the park to 

meet current and future needs as well as protect the area’s resources. Preservation of the essential 

character-defining features of a cultural landscape is always a critical component of 

rehabilitation. As shown below, the action alternatives proposed by the CLR treatment plan 

primarily reflect variations within the overarching approach of rehabilitation. 

In addition to the preservation of the overall historic landscape character and individual historic 

features, rehabilitation allows for the improvement of facilities to enhance the visitor experience, 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-2 

and the careful implementation of necessary functional site improvements as identified in park 

planning documents. Rehabilitation also allows managers to pursue resource management 

initiatives intended to promote sustainability. 

TREATMENT GUIDELINES

The guidelines listed below apply to the site as a whole and to specific treatments of landscape 

features or systems. They guide the treatment recommendations that follow as well as resource 

management and implementation of treatment actions. 

GENERAL

⎯ Protect, retain, and maintain all contributing features of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. 

⎯ Undertake all treatment projects under the direction of the appropriate specialists 

including historical landscape architects, historical architects, archeologists, natural 

resource management specialists, and qualified technicians and artisans. 

⎯ Undertake all work in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties, Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes, and Director’s Order No. 28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines

and all applicable local, state, and federal codes, regulations, and policies. 

⎯ Avoid landscape changes that create a false sense of history. This includes the 

addition of features that when viewed or experienced by visitors give the impression 

that the feature is associated with the historic development of the area. Examples 

include typical features that might have been used elsewhere during the historic 

period or items used to represent historic features that are not themselves historic. 

⎯ Retain and maintain changes to the cultural landscape that have acquired historic 

significance in their own right. 

⎯ Retain landscape integrity by protecting individual elements as well as the character 

of the overall landscape. 

⎯ Analyze the potential impacts of change on the site’s landscape prior to the 

implementation of any project. 

⎯ Undertake sufficient study and recordation of landscape features requiring modification, 

repair, or replacement before work is performed to protect research and interpretive 

values. 

⎯ Undertake measures to protect and preserve all topographic and landform features, 

especially those associated with the Badlands formation. Avoid land disturbance 

activities and operations that may impact these natural and cultural resources. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-3 

⎯ Undertake vegetation management strategies based on NPS principles of sustainability, 

as described in the 1993 Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design, and park management 

objectives. 

ADDITIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE

⎯ Planning and design of new features and systems should be compatible with the 

Mission 66 planning and design concepts embodied in the physical character of the 

surviving landscape. The following Mission 66 planning and design approaches and 

concepts should guide planning, design, and implementation of new additions: 

− expand on interpretive opportunities by extending appropriate interpretative 

facilities and programs into the landscape through a range of experiential 

activities; 

− use curvilinear circulation forms to allow for multiple views and an unimpeded 

processional; 

− cluster relatively dense siting of new facilities and complexes within existing 

developed areas; 

− maintain the existing zoning of like uses; 

− create visual and physical separations of different uses by utilizing undisturbed 

topographic features and limited use of screen plantings; 

− avoid fragile natural resources when siting new additions; 

− incorporate existing features into new designs; 

− incorporate new features within existing development clusters; and 

− use modern materials and construction methods and minimize detailing and 

ornamentation in order to avoid distraction from the surrounding natural or 

historic resource. Look to the surviving Mission 66 buildings and landscape as the 

source of compatible forms, materials, colors, and detailing. 

⎯ Consider carefully, when adding new features, the potential impact of development on 

archeological resources, existing patterns of spatial organization, and the historic 

character of the site as a whole. 

⎯ New design within the historic landscape must be based on a thorough understanding 

of the integrity of the site to avoid diminishing it. 

⎯ Differentiate new work from existing historic resources. Design all new additions and 

alterations to be a product of their time, and compatible with the historic resources in 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-4 

materials, size, scale and proportion, and massing while maintaining a clear 

differentiation between historic and contemporary features. 

⎯ Design and site new additions or alterations to the landscape in such a way as not to 

destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the 

cultural landscape. 

⎯ To the greatest extent possible, incorporate only native species into new plantings. 

Specifically, consider installing native species of trees, shrubs, and grasses currently 

and historically found growing within the park. Prevent the introduction of any 

invasive alien plant species as part of new plantings or otherwise on the site. 

⎯ Design and site new additions and alterations to the landscape in such a way that, if 

removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the cultural landscape would 

be unimpaired. 

⎯ Minimize disturbance associated with the installation of new facilities and systems 

that cross or abut sensitive ecosystems to preserve existing landforms, and plant and 

animal life. 

⎯ Undertake design of new features, systems, and programs to be as accessible as 

possible. 

⎯ Establish a park design guide for specifying and/or fabricating site furnishings, 

including benches, trash receptacles, lighting fixtures, drinking fountains, sign 

systems, and other small-scale features. 

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT

⎯ If necessary, remove existing trees using a method that minimizes the potential 

impacts on known and potential archeological resources. Undertake tree removal 

monitored by a qualified archeologist. 

⎯ Avoid endangering known or potential archeological resources by limiting activities that 

may disturb the land until necessary archeological and additional cultural landscape 

investigations have been completed. If it is not known whether archeological resources 

are located within an area planned for land disturbing activity, such activity should be 

preceded by archeological evaluations and investigations. 

⎯ Remove invasive plant species identified during monitoring activities using ecologicallysound removal techniques. Ecologically-sound removal techniques are those that will not 

cause damage to other resources, or whose impact on other resources has been assessed 

to determine whether the treatment provides benefits outweighing the impact on other 

resources. Removal of invasive plant species in the vicinity of historic and archeological 

resources should be undertaken in such a way as to minimize ground disturbance and 

threats to remaining vegetation. Removal should be undertaken only after remaining 

resources and landscape features and systems have been protected. Biodegradable 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-5 

systemic herbicides (i.e. glyphosate) that break down into harmless components upon 

contact with the soil when properly applied may constitute an ecologically-sound 

removal technique. Ecologically-sound techniques also include repairing damage to 

resources and mitigating the impact of removal, such as the potential for soil erosion on 

steep slopes and elsewhere, and legally disposing of removed invasive plant material in a 

landfill. 

⎯ Undertake installation of new plants as necessary in areas of known or potential sensitive 

historic or archeological resources using acceptable and least-damaging planting 

techniques accompanied by archeological monitoring. Recommended techniques include: 

the minimization of ground disturbance through the installation of small plants wherever 

possible; the installation of plants by hand; the selection of planting locations that are not 

in conflict with desirable plants to remain; and the protection of existing plants and 

resources to remain. 

⎯ Protect native vegetative communities by monitoring for invasive plant species. Remove 

invasive species identified during monitoring activities using ecologically-sound removal 

techniques. Refer to A Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Nonnative Plants on 

National Park System Lands for guidance and information. 

⎯ Encourage stewardship of site resources by establishing interpretive programs that 

discuss the interrelated nature of cultural and natural history. It is preferable to develop 

interpretive plans prior to implementing landscape changes. Landscape changes should 

be generated by and/or be compatible with interpretive plans. 

⎯ Recognize the critical importance of natural resources to the cultural landscape and 

site history, and strive to maintain the ecological integrity of the undeveloped areas of 

the site. 

⎯ Avoid the use of chemical or physical treatments that cause damage to cultural resources 

and natural systems. 

⎯ Protect and preserve archeological resources in place. If such resources must be 

disturbed, undertake mitigation measures such as recovery, curation, and documentation. 

⎯ Control and monitor visitor access, use, and impacts to the park to prevent damage to its 

cultural and natural resources, particularly, but not limited to, sensitive ecological areas 

such as riparian corridors and known and potential archeological resources. 

⎯ Document, through drawings, photographs, and notes, all landscape changes, treatments 

and removed features. Maintain records of treatments and preserve documentation 

according to professional archival standards. 

ACCESSIBILITY

⎯ Approach overall planning, design, and interpretation with accessibility as a primary 

design factor. All features associated with accessibility should conform to the standards 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-6 

cited in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and Americans with 

Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). In addition, the latest proposed draft 

accessibility guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas prepared by the U.S. Access 

Board’s Regulatory Negotiation Committee should be consulted for interim standards for 

the campground, picnic facilities, amphitheater, and access routes and trails connecting to 

and within these areas. 

⎯ As a part of the planning and design process, recognize the potential diversity of visitors 

including persons who may be emotionally-, physically-, and mentally-challenged; do not 

speak English; are arriving from foreign countries and remote urban and rural locations; 

or are very young or elderly. 

⎯ Design and construct all new facilities to be barrier free when practical. 

⎯ Integrate accessibility components fully into the design of new facilities and site 

improvements to allow for the use and access of all visitors. 

⎯ Design operational and administrative facilities to be accessible to the greatest extent 

feasible. 

SUSTAINABILITY

⎯ Institute cultural and natural resource treatment and maintenance methods that are 

environmentally and culturally sensitive and sustainable over the long term. 

⎯ Minimize areas of vegetative disturbance, soil compaction and excavation, and drainage 

pattern alteration. 

⎯ Undertake site design that incorporates holistic, ecologically-based strategies aimed at 

contributing to the repair and restoration of natural systems. 

⎯ Promote biodiversity. 

⎯ Avoid disturbing areas of sensitive habitat. 

⎯ Use mitigating devices, such as retaining walls, closed drainage systems, and large areas 

of cut and fill, sparingly. Implement the least-intrusive activities and those involving 

stabilization first, and proceed subsequently to the most invasive as necessary. Limit 

major new interventions to areas that have previously been severely disturbed. 

⎯ Emphasize landform-based solutions over hardscape solutions. 

⎯ Site new developments to take advantage of solar heating. 

⎯ Consider the direction of prevailing summer breezes and winter winds to help with 

cooling and ventilation in summer, and to shelter new facilities from harsh winter winds. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-7 

⎯ Consider the site’s ecology, including topography, soil types, vegetation, wildlife 

habitats, and ground water, in order to integrate any new buildings into the ecosystem. 

⎯ Use locally indigenous materials that are renewable, environmentally sensitive, and 

reflect the regional vocabulary. Material should also reflect the design aesthetic of the 

Mission 66 period. 

⎯ Take into consideration life-cycle costing of materials to assess long-term wearing 

capacity and maintenance costs. Consider materials that are non-toxic, durable, longlived, and low maintenance. 

⎯ Explore the availability of recycled materials, and consider reusable materials. 

⎯ Use only stable, non-hazardous materials that do not emit toxins through off-gassing or 

soil leaching and avoid petroleum-based materials whenever possible. 

⎯ Consider monitoring the effects of developing and operating facilities on surrounding 

resources to ensure that the limits of acceptable change are not exceeded. 

⎯ Consider including information about the relationship of cultural resources to the 

environment and sustainability in interpretive materials. 

PREFERRED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE C: REHABILITATION

This alternative was determined through the EA process to be the preferred alternative (see the 

EA appended in this CLR) for adapting the historic landscape to limited new uses while 

protecting significant historic fabric and relationships. The general scope of Alternative C is the 

preservation and enhancement of the surviving historic resources through the extensive 

application of a high-level of preservation knowledge and technology while accommodating 

growth within designated areas for future development. Furthermore, this alternative is guided by 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, which indicates that “in Rehabilitation, a 

cultural landscape’s character-defining features and materials are protected and maintained as 

they are in the Preservation treatment; however, a determination is made prior to work that a 

greater amount of existing historic fabric has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as 

a result, more repair and replacement will be required. The Standards for Rehabilitation and 

Guidelines for Rehabilitation allow the replacement of extensively deteriorated, damaged, or 

missing features using either traditional or substitute materials.” 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are: 

⎯ A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires 

minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial 

relationships. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-8 

⎯ The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of 

distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that 

characterize a property will be avoided. 

⎯ Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. 

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding 

conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be 

undertaken. 

⎯ Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right 

will be retained and preserved. 

⎯ Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

⎯ Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the 

severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new 

feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. 

Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical 

evidence. 

⎯ Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the 

gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not 

be used. 

⎯ Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources 

must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 

⎯ New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy 

historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. 

The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the 

historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the 

integrity of the property and its environment. 

⎯ New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such 

a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the 

historic property and its environment should be unimpaired. 

Additionally: 

⎯ The design of new features and systems should be undertaken by designers with a highlevel of training, education, and/or experience in preservation technology. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-9 

⎯ The repair and maintenance of new features and systems should be undertaken by 

maintenance staff or contractors with a high-level of training, education, and/or 

experience in preservation technology. 

⎯ Construction involving the rehabilitation and renovation of existing facilities should be 

undertaken by general contractors and subcontractors with a high-level of training, 

education, and/or experience in preservation technology. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-10 

OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REHABILITATION 

ALTERNATIVE: (see Map 7-1) 

⎯ All contributing features of the Cedar Pass Developed Area should be identified, 

retained, and preserved to the greatest extent feasible. 

⎯ The site’s overall spatial character derived from the siting of buildings, the road and drive 

patterns, the pedestrian path and walks patterns, and vegetation patterns should be 

maintained by preserving essential features and character and utilizing Mission 66 design 

principles in the placement of limited compatible new features. 

⎯ Historic features and materials should be maintained and repairs performed when 

necessary. 

⎯ In-kind replacement or the use of compatible materials for replacement of 

deteriorated historic building/structure features should be allowed. 

⎯ Changes to the cultural landscape that have acquired historic significance in their own 

right should be retained and maintained. 

⎯ Compatible landscape and site features (buildings, roads, small-scale features, etc.) that 

post-date the period of significance should be retained and used. 

⎯ Missing historic features, which were critical to historic character, should be replaced 

if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exist so the feature can 

be accurately reproduced. Using a new compatible feature to replace a missing 

feature is an option. 

⎯ Archeological resources should be protected and preserved. 

⎯ Natural systems and features should be protected and preserved. 

⎯ Alterations to a cultural landscape that are deemed necessary to assure its continued 

use should be allowed as long as these alterations do not destroy historic character 

such as spatial organization, land patterns, features, and materials. 

⎯ The removal of incompatible landscape and site features (buildings, roads, smallscale features, etc.) that post-date the period of significance should be considered. 

⎯ Mitigation measures should be utilized to reduce the visual impact of intrusive nonhistoric buildings and consider removing these buildings at the end of their useful life. 

⎯ Intrusive, non-historic buildings that cannot be made to be compatible with the historic 

landscape should be removed after their useful life. 

⎯ New building developments should be limited to meet critical space needs and, when 

possible, should be sited where non-extant buildings were located during the period of 

significance. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-11 

⎯ New or altered facilities should be non-intrusive and allow maximum access. New 

construction that would destroy historic character should not be permitted. 

⎯ New design should be differentiated from existing historic resources. New additions 

and alterations should be a product of their time but compatible with the historic 

resources in materials, size, scale and proportion, and massing. A clear differentiation 

between historic and modern features should be maintained 

⎯ New additions to the landscape that create a false sense of history or historic character 

should not be permitted. 

⎯ New addition and alterations should ensure accessibility, and protection of public and 

staff health and safety, and environmental protection and energy efficiency should be 

considered. 

⎯ Historic structures and features should be documented using appropriate and accepted 

procedures prior to changes. 

⎯ Archeological resources should be protected and preserved in place. If such resources are 

disturbed, mitigation measures should be undertaken. 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY CHARACTER AREA FOR THE REHABILITATION 

ALTERNATIVE

Visitor/Administrative Area 

This area includes the primary visitor contact point of the Visitor Center as well as the 

administrative offices for Badlands National Park. Historic resources in this area should be 

protected and maintained while intrusive resources should be removed or mitigated if possible. 

New, compatible, and non-intrusive buildings and features should be allowed in this area. A 

compatible addition to the Visitor Center should be allowed and the administration structures 

should be replaced with historically compatible buildings (see Map 7-2). 

⎯ The essential Park Service Modern architectural character of the Visitor Center and its 

environs should be maintained and protected. 

⎯ A compatible addition to the rear of the Visitor Center should be allowed to 

accommodate space needs. 

⎯ The contributing front parking lot and road configurations should be maintained and 

protected. 

⎯ The non-intrusive overflow parking and realigned service road should be retained. 

⎯ The historic foundation planting design around the Visitor Center should be reestablished 

using the original Mission 66 period planting plans. Problematic or inappropriate plants 

should be substituted with more suitable, yet similar plants that require less maintenance 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-12 

and water. Plant selection should focus on achieving the overall character established in 

the historic planting plans—buildings surrounded by mown lawn with clusters of mixed 

shrubs and tree plantings. Substituting mown grass with a more sustainable alternative 

should be another option. Further research should be conducted to determine the 

feasibility of substituting mown turf with hardy low-growing native grasses that require 

less mowing and overall maintenance. Visitor safety and resource protection issues 

should also guide plant selection. For example, tall grasses that disguise the location of 

harmful wildlife or plant configurations and accelerate the spread of a wildland fire 

should be avoided. Wildland fire management documents should be referenced for more 

information on appropriate planting schemes. 

⎯ The CCC-era Natural Resource building and its environs should be maintained and 

protected. 

⎯ It is preferable to remove the collections storage building to enhance the integrity of the 

character area. However, in the near-term and prior to removal, the exterior character of 

the collections storage building (adjacent to the CCC-era Natural Resource building) and 

associated site elements should be altered to be more compatible with the character of the 

historic buildings and landscape. 

⎯ The current administration buildings should be replaced by a historically compatible 

building. The building or complex of buildings should primarily house administrative 

functions and may also include a fitness center. If the fitness center includes outdoor 

facilities, they should be screened with fencing. 

⎯ Pedestrian circulation between the Visitor Center and administration cluster should be 

maintained. A section between the parking lot and administration cluster could be

realigned to follow the former historic service road alignment. 

⎯ The parking areas in front of the Resource Protection building should be reduced to the 

minimum required spaces and area. This could be achieved by verifying the required 

number of spaces and by aligning the parking spaces with the curved road versus aligning 

the spaces with the buildings. Shade and evergreen trees should be planted to provide 

shade and buffer this area from the residential area. In addition, relocated minimal 

parking could be sited on the west side of the existing drive after removal of the existing 

administration buildings. 

⎯ A hail protection structure that could accommodate twenty-four vehicles should be added 

to the parking lot behind the Visitor Center. Consider using the historic picnic shade and 

wind protection structure that served the campground as a source of design character. 

Another possible source of compatible design character is the exterior structures that 

connect the single-family residences with their garages. 

⎯ A picnic area should be added adjacent to the bus parking area to accommodate visitor 

and employee needs. New structures should be avoided and shade tree plantings utilized 

to provide shade. If wind and shade structures are necessary, adopt a contemporary 

version of the historic design of the campground picnic wind and shade structure. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-13 

Residential Area 

This area includes eight single-family houses that are used by the park’s permanent employees, 

and four seasonal staff apartment buildings. Historic resources should be protected and 

maintained while intrusive resources should be removed or mitigated. New compatible 

residences should be constructed in locations historically planned for additions (see Map 7-2). 

⎯ The contributing residences and apartment units, their essential Park Service Modern 

architectural character, and their environs should be maintained and protected. 

⎯ The overall spatial character derived from the siting of buildings, the road and drive 

patterns, the pedestrian circulation patterns, and screen fencing patterns should be 

maintained and protected. 

⎯ The contributing patterns of tree and shrub plantings and areas of lawn should be 

maintained and protected. 

⎯ Historic planting designs should be reestablished using Mission 66 planting plans. 

Problematic or inappropriate plants should be substituted with more suitable plants that 

are similar in form yet require less maintenance and water. 

⎯ If the need arises, new architecturally compatible residences should be added in building 

locations indicated on Mission 66 master plans. Three units of the three-bedroom singlefamily type could be added or a duplex housing type could be used in lieu of singlefamily units. 

⎯ The architectural character of residence #46 (B-46) and its garage (B-47) should be 

modified to be compatible with the Park Service Modern style. 

⎯ The compatible seasonal apartment building that post-dates the period of significance 

should be retained. 

⎯ Landscape features that are not compatible with the period of significance should be 

removed or mitigated. 

⎯ Four staff houses (Residence #29, #30, #31, and Seasonal Apartment #51) should be 

modified to provide universal access and meet ADA requirement standards. 

⎯ A new, architecturally-compatible picnic shelter should be added in the central open area 

to address the need for employee social areas. The architectural character of the new 

shelters should be derived from the adjacent residential architecture. 

⎯ High speed Internet access should be provided to all residences. 

⎯ Four RV sites for seasonal researchers should be added in the open space between the fire 

cache area and the residential area. Each site should include a concrete pad, associated 

drive and parking, utility hookup, shade structure, and connection to the existing sanitary 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-14 

system. The shade structure form should be derived from the residential area. Trees 

should also be planted in this area in a pattern compatible with the residential area. 

⎯ A pedestrian/bike path should be added to connect the fire cache area with the residential 

area. Avoid disturbing formations and major land disturbance. 

Cedar Pass Lodge Area 

This area includes the facilities associated with the Lodge such as the Lodge building, cabins, 

manager’s residence, laundry building, maintenance/storage shed, mobile units for employees, 

and ice vending structure. Developed before 1942, this area includes many of the oldest extant 

features in the study area and retains many of the essential tourism-related characteristics from 

the period of significance. Historic resources should be protected and maintained, while intrusive 

resources should be removed or mitigated. Mobile building units should be phased out and 

removed, and new compatible residences should be constructed in locations historically planned 

for additions (see Map 7-3). 

⎯ The Lodge, cabins, and historic support buildings and their essential overall character 

should be maintained and protected. The exteriors of all historic buildings should be 

rehabilitated. 

⎯ The contributing parking configuration and loop drive should be maintained and 

protected. 

⎯ The contributing pattern of trees, shrubs and lawn plantings of the Lodge area should be 

maintained and protected. 

⎯ Utilize further research to discover historic planting plans or the design intent for the 

Lodge area. If found, reestablish historic plantings. Problematic or inappropriate plants 

should be substituted with more suitable plants that are similar in form yet require less 

maintenance and water. 

⎯ Because of environmental imperative, the Siberian elms from the Lodge landscape should 

be removed and replaced with a compatible but non-invasive alternative deciduous tree, 

preferably a native, of a similar form and general character. 

⎯ The mobile units used by Lodge employees should be removed. A new, historically 

compatible employee dormitory should be constructed and a single-family residence with 

a detached garage for the Lodge manager or caretaker should be constructed using 

standard NPS design criteria. 

⎯ Intrusive, non-historic features should be removed or altered to be compatible with the 

character of the area that was established during the period of significance. 

⎯ Three new, historically compatible cabins should be constructed in the footprints of 

historic cabin locations. Cabins should maximize energy efficiency and be winterized for 

year-round use; units should have one or two bedrooms as appropriate for the infill. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-15 

⎯ Only the exterior of the Lodge and ice building should be rehabilitated to enhance 

historic character and provide for a better visitor experience. The recommendations of a 

Historic Structures Report (HSR) should serve as guidelines for ways to change 

fenestration, exterior materials, details, and plantings. 

⎯ Visitor amenities/concession services should be expanded to include Internet connections 

at the Lodge. A bike rental/storage area should be located at the existing Lodge 

maintenance building that may include modifying the structure. 

⎯ A new, compatible visitor laundry and maintenance facility should be constructed behind 

the Lodge. The existing access drive should be repaired and upgraded to provide access 

to the area. A loop drive should terminate the access drive at the new dormitory. The 

remaining portion of the existing drive should be removed and the natural landform and 

vegetation should be reestablished. 

⎯ In order to address the need for additional visitor and employee recreational areas, a new, 

compatible dance hall/social center should be constructed adjacent to the Lodge cottage. 

Campground Area 

This area includes three campground loops, the amphitheater, an interpretive shelter, and a 

parking lot. This area was the last portion of the site to be developed during the period of 

significance and retains a high level of integrity. Historic resources should be protected and 

maintained while intrusive features should be removed or mitigated. New compatible buildings 

and alterations of contributing features should be allowed in this area, including the addition of a 

new special use area and replacement of fixed picnic shelters (see Map 7-4). 

⎯ The contributing structures and features of the campground, amphitheater, and associated 

buildings as well as their essential character should be maintained and protected. 

⎯ The campground drives, circulation features, and their essential character should be 

maintained and protected. 

⎯ The compatible entrance booth that post-dates the period of significance should be 

retained. 

⎯ The intrusive storage shed should be removed and replaced with a historically compatible 

storage structure. The shed should be moved to a more appropriate location based on 

Mission 66 design characteristics. The source for compatible design character should be 

the historic comfort stations. 

⎯ The fixed picnic shelters should be replaced with picnic shelters matching the historic 

design. Secure an existing historic picnic shelter for use in replicating the historic design. 

Measured drawings and documentation of materials and design details of the historic 

shelter should be prepared to support the effort. 

⎯ A new, compatible group shelter should be added in the group campground area and 

should be approximately twenty-four feet by sixteen feet with one to two sides for wind 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-16 

protection and a locked room or area to supply a secured storage area. The source for 

compatible design character should be the historic comfort stations. 

⎯ The amphitheater should be enlarged following its current configuration and orientation. 

The design qualities established during Mission 66 should be used to guide the design of 

additions, but the additions should be differentiated from the historic features. The new 

screen design should be guided by the original Mission 66 screen that has been removed 

from the site. When designing the additional seating, minimize land disturbance so that 

the new construction, like the original facility, fits into the terrain. Avoid large areas of 

soil disturbance and surface grading to mitigate drainage problems. If subsoil conditions 

permit infiltration, consider mitigating drainage problems with a storm drain system of 

area drains and pipes that connect with a drywell and subsurface infiltration. 

⎯ New, historically compatible shower facilities and a visitor laundry facility should be 

added following the site layout principles and architectural character established by the 

Mission 66 campground plan. The source for compatible design character should be the 

historic comfort stations. 

⎯ If necessary, additional tree plantings in the campground should follow the example 

proposed by the 1956 planting plan for the group camping area. Additional research 

should also be employed to search for similar plans for the other two campground loops. 

⎯ The general layout of these earlier planting plans should be utilized but additional 

research should be employed to determine more appropriate trees for this area. Due to the 

harsh conditions, fast growing trees that are tolerant of soil compaction and drought 

should be given priority. Structural soils should also aid in soil stabilization around the 

trees that are prone to erosion due to intensive use by visitors seeking shade. If tree 

reestablishment within the campground fails, another option should be planting trees 

along the stream where survival rate is better. Alternative tree locations should give 

existing trees reprieve from excessive use. Also, further research should be conducted to 

discover other shade alternatives either in lieu of planting trees or while newly planted 

trees are being established. One alternative example should be rentable tent flies or 

canopies provided by the concessionaire for campers during their stay. 

⎯ Measures should be taken to educate visitors about “butte rash” (visitor impacts to butte 

formations), and butte formations should be further protected by limiting visitor access. 

⎯ A new, compatible Demonstration and Special Use area should be created to address the 

need for additional visitor recreational areas. This multi-use facility should accommodate 

special events, interpretive programs, and demonstrations. Two possible locations are 

identified near the group campground (see Sheet 6-18). 

⎯ A loop trail should be added to provide additional natural resource interpretive 

opportunities. The trailhead should be located at the southern tip of Campground A. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-17 

Maintenance Area 

Since the end of the period of significance, many new buildings and structures have been added 

and older ones have been removed from this area. The site has also more than doubled in size 

with the addition of a waste yard, mixing circle, and a more recent water supply tank and 

structure. This area therefore retains a lower level of integrity relative to other areas in the site. 

Historic resources should be protected and maintained while intrusive resources should be 

removed or mitigated. New compatible buildings and alterations of contributing features should 

be allowed in this area. Dumping and burning of debris should be discontinued at this site (see 

Map 7-5). 

⎯ The contributing buildings and their essential character should be maintained and 

protected. 

⎯ The contributing parking lot and drive should be maintained and protected. 

⎯ If necessary, new historically compatible service structures should be located in this area. 

New structures should be sited to ensure protection of the potential archeological 

resources and be screened from views of visitor and residential areas. 

⎯ The non-intrusive overflow parking lot and realigned service road should be retained. 

⎯ The materials and debris in the waste yard that the park can no longer use should be 

removed and disposed of in a proper manner. The dumping of this type of material in the 

park should be discontinued. Storing of materials and equipment should continue. 

Improvements should be undertaken to store materials and equipment. 

⎯ The use of burning to dispose of materials should be discontinued. 

⎯ A new propane refueling station should be added adjacent to the service road to support 

alternative fueled vehicles. The existing entrance drive should be expanded in order to 

create a loop access drive around the refueling station. 

⎯ In order to address the need for additional employee recreational facilities, a new staff 

picnic area should be constructed north of the maintenance area. A service trail following 

the existing road corridor should provide access to the picnic area. 

Fire Cache Area 

This area encompasses the new fire cache building south of the residential area and the 

associated parking area and their environs. New compatible buildings and alterations of 

contributing features should be allowed in this area (see Map 7-2). 

⎯ The fire cache should be screened to reduce visibility. Consider the use of shade and/or 

evergreen trees to screen and buffer facilities. Avoid planting trees in rows and straight 

lines. Consider screen plantings along the northern and western edges of the site. At the 

southern edge, plantings could be located on the west side of the road. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-18 

Wastewater Lagoon Area 

This area encompasses the new wastewater lagoons in the southernmost portion of the study area 

and the associated drive and their environs (see Map 7-5). 

⎯ This area could be considered as existing outside the historic district since it was not 

developed by 1966. 

⎯ The wastewater lagoons should remain as developed and no changes are recommended 

for this area. Impacts on the viewshed from visitor areas within the developed area should 

be considered and mitigated when designing new additions for this area. 

Badlands Loop Road and SD 377 Corridor 

This corridor includes a section of two roads that together form the northern boundary of the 

study area. 

Slumping on Cedar Pass is projected to cause a complete failure of a portion of the Loop Road 

north of the study area. When this occurs, the Cedar Pass Developed Area will be directly 

impacted when one of its primary approach corridors is blocked. Depending on the new route, 

circulation patterns and the approach experience within the CLR study area could be altered (see 

Map 7-6). 

⎯ The characteristic features such as dimensions, layout, and spatial organization associated 

with these roads should be maintained and preserved. 

⎯ The Mission 66-era concept of providing visitor orientation in a Visitor Center and 

clearly separating visitor use areas from administration/residential/maintenance areas 

should be maintained and preserved, if possible, in the design of the new approach road. 

Service Road Corridor 

This area comprises the service road corridor through the study area. Originally constructed in 

the 1940s, a large section of the road was realigned ca. 1970. Characteristic features of the 

historic portions of the road should be maintained and preserved. Portions of the road that postdate the period of significance should be retained as well (see Map 7-6). 

⎯ The characteristic features such as dimensions, layout, and spatial organization associated 

with historic portions of this road should be maintained and preserved. 

⎯ The portions of the road that post-date the period of significance should be retained. 

Open Space Area 

This area includes the remaining open, interstitial space that surrounds the other character areas. 

The Badlands formations and the open native prairie meadows contained within this area form 

the setting for the site. This concept was an important part of Mission 66 planning and is evident 

in the site layout. The natural character of the open space area should be maintained and 

preserved while intrusive resources, such as invasive plant species, should be removed or 

mitigated. No new buildings or alterations of contributing features should be allowed in this area. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 7-19 

Opportunities for viewing scenic and natural features from the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

should be preserved (see Map 7-6). 

⎯ Because of environmental imperative, the Siberian elms that have seeded here from those 

parent trees at the Lodge should be removed and the areas should be restored to a healthy 

prairie ecosystem. 

⎯ Other invasive plant species present in the area should be controlled. 

⎯ Opportunities for viewing scenic and natural features from the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area and across the area should be preserved and protected. 

⎯ The overall pattern of development and open space should be preserved and maintained. 

⎯ A new trail, typical of back-country trail character, should be added to this area. The 

Angel Butte Trail should begin at the group campground and continue east through the 

open grassland. The trail should continue east beyond the study area boundary. A spur off 

the Angel Butte Trail should head south following an existing road. This service trail 

should provide access to the staff picnic area before terminating at the maintenance area. 

⎯ No additional development should be allowed in this area. 






CHAPTER EIGHT

IMPLEMENTATION

RECOMMENDATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-1

CHAPTER EIGHT

IMPLEMENTATION 

RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Previously in this report, Chapter 7 provided recommendations for treating the historic, cultural, 

and natural landscape resources of the Cedar Pass Developed Area within Badlands National 

Park. The treatment recommendations for the Cedar Pass Developed Area outlined in Chapter 7 

describe the end result of the implementation of the treatment plan. This chapter provides a 

process for implementing selected projects, identified below, of the treatment plan. 

The process is described through implementation recommendations for research, planning, and 

landscape projects, placed in an appropriate sequence of necessary research, planning, design, 

implementation, and management actions. Suggested phasing sequences are intended to be 

placed within a context of other park planning initiatives, and were developed during Value 

Analysis (VA). They are intended to guide and inform planners and managers during the 

decision-making process regarding resource management. Certain projects are identified as 

priorities for immediate implementation due to the current deteriorated condition of, or threat to, 

a resource. For example, the removal of invasive plant species is a high priority due to the threat 

they pose to surrounding native vegetation. Some projects require additional investigation or 

research prior to implementation, while others require further review within the framework of 

long-range planning efforts. 

PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS

The phasing recommendations focus on three primary phases of implementation that span a 

fifteen-year period. Each phase relates to a five-year period. The projects that comprise the 

treatment plan are placed into the phasing structure. The project descriptions follow the phasing 

plan. A limited number of recommendations were not included in the phasing plan; these consist 

of issues that were introduced as considerations for long-range planning that are most likely 

beyond the fifteen year time-frame of the phasing plan. Depending on factors such as funding, 

the goals for park management and interpretation, and the completion of related planning 

documents, some projects may ultimately shift into subsequent phases. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-2

PHASE ONE (YEARS 1-5) 

During Phase One, the following projects should be implemented. Project descriptions have been 

prepared for those listing in bold text. 

• Prepare Historic Structure Reports for all historic buildings and structures 

• Prepare a Historic Buildings and Structures Maintenance Plan 

• Prepare a Historic Landscape Maintenance Plan for developed area vegetation 

• Complete/update the List of Classified Structures and Cultural Landscapes Inventory for 

the park 

• Complete a park-wide archeological survey to gather baseline prehistoric and 

historic archeological information 

• Complete additional directed research regarding historic period plantings in all 

areas of the developed area 

• Complete the Visitor Center renovation and expansion project 

• Develop bus parking on the west side of the service road near the Visitor Center 

including a pedestrian path connecting the bus parking with the Visitor center 

• Develop the vehicle hail protection structures and associated sitework south of the Visitor 

Center 

• Complete the museum storage facility at the fire cache site 

• Undertake exterior rehabilitation of Cedar Pass Lodge to be compatible with the historic 

developed landscape 

• Rehabilitate the Lodge maintenance building to serve as a bicycle rental facility 

• Develop new historically-compatible Lodge maintenance and laundry facility including 

site development south of the Lodge 

• Rehabilitate and expand the campground amphitheater 

• Develop historically-compatible visitor shower/laundry facilities in the campground near 

the existing comfort stations 

• Develop a new historically-compatible campground host storage facility 

• Develop an interpretive loop trail at the campground 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-3

• Develop an alternative fuel refueling facility at the maintenance area 

• Develop the wash rack and maintenance office facility in the maintenance area 

• Reorganize the materials storage area (“bone yard”) within the maintenance area 

• Develop a staff picnic facility just north of the maintenance area 

• Rehabilitate the Visitor Center plantings based on additional research to enhance 

landscape integrity 

• Rehabilitate the residential plantings based on additional research to enhance 

landscape integrity 

• Rehabilitate the Cedar Pass Lodge plantings based on additional research to 

enhance landscape integrity, including removal and replacement of Siberian elms 

• Develop a pedestrian path along the former alignment of the service road to connect the 

residential area with the visitor/administration area 

• Install plantings to screen the fire cache and future facilities 

• Continue programs for controlling and eradicating invasive plant species 

PHASE TWO (YEARS 6-10) 

During Phase Two, the following projects should be implemented. Project descriptions have 

been prepared for those listing in bold text. 

• Construct staff housing (single-family or duplex units) in the residential area in locations 

identified for future housing in historic period master plans 

• Complete ADA accessibility modifications of three existing single-family residences and 

one or more units in the seasonal staff apartment buildings 

• Develop four RV sites between the residential area and the fire cache area to support 

researchers 

• Continue the program of exterior renovations of residences 

• Develop a walking and bicycle trail linking the visitor/administrative area, the residential 

area, the future researcher RV area, the fire cache area, and the Maintenance area to 

promote safety, reduction of vehicle use, and staff recreation 

• Construct three new historically-compatible cabins in the Cedar Pass Lodge area in the 

locations of former cabins 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-4

• Develop the seasonal concessionaire staff dormitory and associated site development just 

to the south of the cabins in the Cedar Pass Lodge area 

• Develop measures to control unauthorized access to the formations at the 

campground area to slow degradation of the geologic formations 

• Construct the Angel Butte Trail starting at the campground area including the spur trail 

linking the campground area with the maintenance area 

• Continue programs for controlling and eradicating invasive plant species 

PHASE THREE (YEARS 11-15) 

During Phase Three, the following projects should be implemented. Project descriptions have 

been prepared for those listing in bold text. 

• Construct an administration addition on the south end of the Visitor Center 

• Develop an administration building or complex south of the Visitor Center 

• Develop a staff picnic shelter within the central open space of the residential area 

• Develop a facility within the Cedar Pass Lodge area to serve as a dance hall/special 

events venue 

• Develop an outdoor special events/demonstration facility within the campground area 

• Continue programs for controlling and eradicating invasive plant species 

• Replace existing shade/picnic structures with structures based on the historic period 

design 

• Begin a program for experimenting with establishing shade trees in the campground 

area
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-5

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

INTRODUCTION

The recommendations indicated and listed in previous sections within this chapter relate to a 

series of historic landscape-related projects that should be considered for implementation at the 

park. These projects—including the tasks, additional research and physical investigations, and 

expertise necessary to complete each project—are briefly described below. The itemization of 

tasks for each project does not include project management, compliance-related reviews, and 

other management elements typically undertaken by National Park Service (NPS) personnel as 

part of the planning, design, and construction phases of a project. 

Project budget data had been developed, including an opinion of probable construction costs, for 

each of the projects involving construction. All cost data presented in this report is intended to be 

used for general planning purposes only. Construction cost data is based on average costs typical 

in 2005 and does not account for inflation regarding implementation beyond 2005. The cost data 

has been developed using NPS Class C planning-level cost-estimating data. Professional fees and 

other fees for services are based on current and past experience estimating order of magnitude 

fees for services. Typically, fees and costs are based on the assumption that consultants and/or 

private contractors would perform all work. The annual costs associated with maintenance and 

landscape management are beyond the scope of this project and have not been addressed in this 

document. It is important to note that all project budget data is intended to support planning 

efforts and initiatives and should not be used to establish final project budgets, and that readilyavailable cost data for some of the project elements is very limited or non-existent. JMA, 

endeavoring to support subsequent planning efforts, has included very rough estimates for some 

project elements. In some cases, additional studies are required to determine the full extent of 

projects and their costs. In others, it is not possible to determine order of magnitude or 

conceptual-level project budget costs. For example, when very little is known about the scope of 

the project due to the fact that significant additional research or planning and feasibility studies 

are first required to develop sufficient levels of information to support cost estimating, project 

cost data was not included. 

RESEARCH, PLANNING, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

The following section includes descriptions of recommended research, planning and/or 

implementation projects. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-6

Historic Structures Reports for All Historic Buildings and Structures 

Project Description

Historic Structures Reports (HSRs) should be prepared for all of the historic buildings and 

structures within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. HSRs provide a baseline for future planning, 

as well as repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation/restoration. The HSR work should include 

HABS-level documentation. This project could be completed as a single document, or as a series 

of documents covering groups of buildings and structures. HSRs could be undertaken for the 

buildings and structured grouped in the residential area, the Cedar Pass Lodge area, the 

campground area, and the maintenance area. 

Additional Studies Needed

A reconnaissance-level investigation could be undertaken by regional and park cultural resource 

managers, supported by this report and a qualified historical architect, to determine which 

buildings and structures should be documented and when. This survey could identify use and 

condition issues that would support prioritizing buildings and structures. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Identify buildings and 

structures to be 

documented 

Regional and park 

cultural resource 

managers and historical 

architects 

Utilize information from the 

CLR to aid process. 

2. Preparation of the 

HSR(s) 

NPS staff and/or 

contractors; historical 

architects, architectural 

historians, building 

materials conservators, 

historical engineers; 

preservation 

tradespersons 

Single-family 

residences— 

$75,000-$100,000 

Apartments— 

$50,000-$85,000 

Lodge and 

outbuildings— 

$85,000-$125,000 

Lodge cabins— 

$75,000-$100,000 

Campground 

structures— 

$50,000-$85,000 

Maintenance 

structures— 

$75,000-$100,000 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-7

Historic Buildings and Structures Maintenance Plan 

Project Description

To ensure the preservation of historic buildings and structures, a Historic Buildings and 

Structures Maintenance Plan should be prepared for all of the historic buildings and structures 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. HSRs provide the immediate repair and design 

recommendations. However, they do not necessarily provide long-term maintenance guidance. 

The maintenance plan would provide the specialized technical prescriptions required to guide 

appropriate maintenance over time. The maintenance plan would identify the various types of 

required maintenance by systems and materials and the required means, methods, and expertise 

required to implement proper maintenance by park staff and contractors. 

Additional Studies Needed

The completion of the HSRs would need to precede preparation of the maintenance plan. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Review of existing 

maintenance practices 

and capabilities 

Badlands cultural 

resource managers and 

maintenance personnel 

 This findings data would be 

used by the plan preparers. 

2. Preparation of the 

Maintenance Plan 

NPS staff and/or 

contractors; historical 

architects, building 

materials conservators, 

historical engineers; 

preservation 

tradespersons 

$85,000-$100,000 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-8

Landscape Maintenance Plan for Developed Area Vegetation 

Project Description

Given the various types of vegetation found within the developed area, and recommendations for 

removal and replacement of certain plants called for in this document, the preparation of a 

Vegetation Maintenance Plan is recommended. The Vegetation Maintenance Plan should 

holistically address vegetation maintenance concerns for the entire Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

In addition to appropriate methods for pruning, fertilizing, and general care of historic and 

existing vegetation, the plan should also suggest suitable methods for tree removal and 

appropriate replacement species, mowing schedules, and what types of new plantings would be 

compatible with the historic landscape. Periodic and seasonal maintenance schedules should be 

included describing when these actions should occur throughout the year. 

Additional Studies Needed

Completion of the additional directed research required to better understand the historic period 

plantings would be useful to support plan preparation. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Review of existing 

landscape maintenance 

practices and 

capabilities 

Badlands cultural and 

natural resource 

managers and 

maintenance personnel 

The findings data would be 

used by the plan preparers. 

2. Preparation of the 

plan 

Historical landscape 

architect, arborists, 

horticulturists, grounds 

maintenance 

tradespersons 

$50,000-$75,000 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-9

Park-Wide Archeological Survey 

Project Description

During the VA workshop undertaken as part of this Cultural Landscape Report (CLR), park staff 

indicated that a park-wide archeological survey of the developed area was needed to identify 

archeological resources in a comprehensive and systematic manner. Such surveys or inventories 

support planning and design by ensuring protection of archeological resources, and are best 

completed prior to beginning the planning and design process. The archeological baseline data 

can support efficient planning and design and the avoidance of having to re-design or relocate 

land-disturbing activities. Archeological survey work should be undertaken in accordance with 

DO-28. DO-28 indicates that an Archeological Overview and Assessment may be the 

appropriate level of work. The scope of this survey includes the description and assessment of 

known and potential archeological resources, assessment of past archeological studies, and 

determination of the need for and design of future studies. 

Additional Studies Needed

A Historic Resources Study is in progress and should serve to support archeological survey or 

inventory work. In addition, this CLR should also support any archeological survey work in the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Collect available data Park cultural resource 

managers 

 

2. Undertake 

archeological survey 

work 

NPS or contract 

archeologists 

$100,000-$150,000 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-10

Directed Research of Historic Period Plantings 

Project Description

As a result of the research findings of the CLR effort, additional directed research is 

recommended regarding plantings established during the period of significance within the 

developed areas of Cedar Pass. This directed research effort should be completed prior to 

conducting any landscape maintenance planning and prior to the design of rehabilitated plantings 

within the developed areas of the Visitor Center/Administration Area, the Residential Area, and 

the Cedar Pass Lodge Area. 

Additional Studies Needed

No additional studies are required. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Conduct research NPS or contract 

landscape historian or 

historical landscape 

architect 

(see below) 

2. Preparation of a 

report documenting 

findings of the directed 

research effort 

NPS or contract 

landscape historian or 

historical landscape 

architect 

$10,000-$20,000 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-11

Rehabilitate the Visitor Center Plantings, Residential Area Plantings, and 

Cedar Pass Lodge Area Plantings 

Project Description

This project involves the design of rehabilitated plantings within the Residential Area, the 

Visitor/Administration Area, and the Cedar Pass Lodge Area. Additional directed research may 

yield more detailed information on the historic period planting design for these areas. The 

research findings and the information in this CLR could support a re-design of the plantings to 

better reflect their historic character. The purpose of the project would not be a literal reconstruction of the Mission 66 planting design, but would focus on reestablishing the essential 

planted aspects of the Mission 66-era developed area. Existing trees and shrubs that contribute to 

the historic character would be retained. Those that do not contribute to historic character would 

be removed or replaced. Invasive exotic plants would also be removed and replaced with noninvasive species. 

Additional Studies Needed

The recommended plant-related directed research should be completed prior to design of new 

plantings. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Planting design NPS or contract 

historical landscape 

architect 

$25,000-$35,000 

2. Implementation of 

planting plans 

Historical landscape 

architect, landscape 

contractor, or qualified 

park maintenance staff 

Residential area— 

$50,000-$75,000 

Visitor Center/admin. 

area— 

$25,000-$50,000 

Cedar Pass Lodge 

area— 

$75,000-$100,000 

3. Monitor installation 

during grounddisturbing activities 

NPS archeologist 

4. Post-construction 

evaluation 

Park natural resource 

and maintenance staff, 

landscape architect 

 Monitor for invasive plant 

species and health of new 

plantings. 

5. Maintenance Park staff Periodic maintenance. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-12

Fire Cache Area Screen Plantings 

Project Description

The two-story height and contemporary materials of the fire cache make it an incompatible 

feature within the landscape that can be viewed from historic areas within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. This project involves mitigating this view through screen plantings. The 

recommended method of screening involves the installation of native evergreen plantings at 

varying heights along the perimeter of the fire cache area. 

Additional Studies Needed

A viewshed study should be undertaken to determine the visible areas of existing and proposed 

buildings and structures to ensure that screen plantings will be effective at the time the plantings 

are ten to fifteen years of age. The viewshed study could involve establishing lines of sight from 

the Cedar Pass Lodge and cabin areas and the Visitor Center environs. The lines of sight would 

then be documented using photography and site maps. A more sophisticated viewshed analysis 

could be undertaken using GIS software. This process requires digital elevation data of an 

appropriate scale to determine which visitor areas have visual access of the existing and future 

development in the fire cache area. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Viewshed study NPS or contract 

landscape architect 

Photography-based 

analysis— 

$3,000 

A GIS-based study is 

relatively inexpensive. 

However, it requires a digital 

elevation model. A GIS-based 

viewshed or seen-area 

analysis study may be costprohibitive unless appropriate 

aerial photogrammetric 

mapping is available. 

2. Planting design NPS or contract 

landscape architect 

$5,000-$8,000 

2. Installation of 

vegetation 

Qualified park staff or 

landscape contractor 

Assume 30-40 native 

evergreen trees, 10-15 

ft. ht.— 

$15,000-$20,000 

3. Monitor grounddisturbing activities NPS archeologist 

4. Periodic maintenance Qualified park staff 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-13

Invasive Plant Species Control Program 

Project Description

Invasive plant species, such as Siberian elms, need to be controlled and/or eradicated to prevent 

them from threatening native plant communities and other sensitive natural areas and their 

ecosystems. The park should continue its programs of invasive exotic species control. The 

preparation of a Landscape Maintenance Plan for the developed areas of Cedar Pass should be 

coordinated with all efforts to control invasive exotic plants. In addition, all efforts undertaken in 

support of rehabilitating the plantings in the developed areas of Cedar Pass should be 

coordinated with efforts to control and eradicate invasive exotic plants. The scope of the 

Landscape Maintenance Plan should include identification of invasive exotic plants. This data 

could be used to support invasive exotic plant control measures. The control effort should 

include the development of specific, appropriate methods of control and removal based on 

knowledge of each plant species, the extent to which they exist in and harm native vegetation 

communities, and the success of current local or regional efforts to contain them. Prior to 

implementation of control methods, a monitoring system should be developed that will identify 

areas where control methods were not succeeding and where new invasive plant species occur. 

This on-going initiative should be coordinated with all other efforts toward enhancing the 

ecosystems of open space areas within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Additional Studies Needed

No additional studies are required. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Further development 

of existing control plan 

or preparation of a new 

plan 

NPS botanist/ecologist, 

wildlife biologist, 

landscape architect 

 A historical landscape 

architect should be consulted 

during the plan preparation 

process. 

2. Undertake eradication 

measures 

Qualified landscape 

contractor, park natural 

resource staff, park 

maintenance staff 

Tree and stump removal 

Assume 20 @ $1,000 

each— 

$20,000 

Light clearing/grubbing/ 

erosion control 

Assume 5 acres @ 

$10,000/acre— 

$50,000-$60,000 

3. Monitor removal 

work 

NPS archeologist, 

natural resource staff, 

landscape architect 

 Archeologists should monitor 

soil-disturbing activities. 

4. Implement disturbed 

land reclamation/revegetation as required 

NPS natural resource 

staff, park natural 

resource staff, park 

maintenance staff 

Individual tree or shrub 

replacement in developed 

areas should be undertaken as 

part of the planting 

rehabilitation projects. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-14

Geologic Formation Access Control Program 

Project Description

Park staff have indicated a need to develop a program for controlling unauthorized access to the 

geologic formations resulting in damage to the formations. Unauthorized access is due primarily 

to visitors accessing the formation near the campground amphitheater and another in the 

environs of the Visitor Center. 

This project involves a program of visitor education, data collection, implementation of sign and 

barrier controls, and monitoring of conditions. The development of the program could be based 

on the NPS’s Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) guidelines and processes. The 

program will likely involve a combination of measures. It should strive to avoid physical barriers 

involving damage to the formations. Employing a combination of visitor education and sign 

systems should be pursued prior to erecting a barrier. If barriers are required, they should be the 

least visually intrusive and be sited to avoid formation damage. Designing barriers that rest on 

the surface may be preferable to ground installations. 

This program should be viewed as dynamic and evolving over time. After less-intrusive and lessintensive measures are developed, tested, implemented, and evaluated, more intensive measures 

may be required, depending on the effectiveness of earlier measures. 

Additional Studies Needed

No additional studies are required. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Undertake pre-design 

services; consider 

employing a VERP 

process 

Regional land. arch., 

park natural/cultural 

resource staff, rangers 

and interpretive staff, 

park maintenance staff 

 

2. Prepare access control 

program plan 

Regional land. arch., 

park natural/cultural 

resource staff, rangers 

and interpretive staff, 

park maintenance staff 

 

3. Implement visitor 

access control measures 

Park natural and cultural 

resource staff, park 

rangers and interpretive 

staff, park maintenance 

staff 

Pamphlet— 

$2,000 

Interpretive waysides— 

$20,000 

Informational signs 

(10)— 

$4,000 

Physical barriers— 

$20-$40 per l.f. 

4. Monitoring Park staff 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-15

Replace Campground Picnic Structures 

Project Description

This project involves the fabrication and construction of picnic shade structures based on the 

original Mission 66 design for such features. The project also involves repairing surviving 

historic Mission 66-era picnic shelters that are scattered throughout the campground area and 

other parts of the developed area. The existing non-historic shelters should be salvaged and used 

within non-historic areas of the park. The Mission 66 picnic shelters are a primary contributing 

feature that is essential to conveying design significance within the campground. This project 

involves removal of the existing, non-compatible structures and siting and construction of 

reconstructed shelters. Some of the original Mission 66 shelters are located near the maintenance 

facilities and should be salvaged, if possible. Salvage material from any demolished shelters 

should recycled as possible. Replacement of existing non-historic structures could be phased by 

group, or replacements could be made on an individual basis at the end of the useful life of each 

existing structure. 

Additional Studies Needed

Historic period construction/fabrication drawings should serve as the primary documents for 

preparing fabrication and construction documents for the new structures. In addition, a surviving 

structure with a high degree of integrity should be identified for use as a model. Measured 

drawings should be made of the identified surviving structure and compared with the historic 

construction/fabrication drawings. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Additional research to 

secure historic 

construction drawings 

NPS architectural 

historian 

 

2. Measured drawings of 

surviving historic 

structure 

NPS or contract 

historical landscape 

architect 

$3,000-$5,000 

3. Design and 

construction documents 

NPS or contract 

historical landscape 

architect or architect 

$10,000-20,000 Assumes that all structures 

would be fabricated at the 

same time. 

4. Fabrication of 

structures 

NPS or contract 

historical landscape 

architect or architect, 

contract fabrication firm 

Each structure and 

associated sitework— 

$5,000 

Replace 120 

structures— 

$600,000-$800,000 

Assumes that all structures 

would be installed at the same 

time. 

5. Site construction and 

installation of structures 

NPS or contract 

historical landscape 

architect, NPS 

maintenance crews or 

contractor 

(see above) 

6.Monitoring of land 

disturbing activities 

NPS archeologist 

7. Reuse of salvaged 

non-historic structures 

NPS maintenance crews 

or contractor 

 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS * JUNE 2005 * 8-16

Campground Shade Trees Program 

Project Description

Shade within the campground is currently provided by small slated picnic structures, a scattering 

of trees, and group picnic structures. Park staff have indicated that visitors continually note their 

affinity for shade trees within the campground. Park staff have also noted, however, that existing 

shade trees within the campground area suffer from soil compaction of their root zones, and have 

a high mortality rate. Deciduous trees that can provide shade as they mature are not naturallyoccurring outside of riparian zones. Owing to climate and other site factors, establishing and 

maintaining shade trees not necessarily sustainable. 

A shade tree plan and program should be developed to address this need. The plan should 

identify one or more native or non-native and non-invasive deciduous tree species that will 

survive in the local climate and in the local soil. This program should be viewed as experimental, 

and will require several years before useable shade is available. The program will require visitor 

education measures and will also require the installation of barrier of the root zone of trees until 

they are mature enough to handle limited soil compaction. Additionally, the installed trees will 

require higher levels of care and maintenance. It will likely be preferable to install saplings to 

ensure survival. Consideration could be given to maintaining a root zone mulch of graded 

locally-quarried stone to reduce soil compaction. 

The park should avoid introducing large shade structures or numerous additional small structures 

and should continue to advise visitors of local climate conditions and the need to bring portable 

shade structures. In addition, consideration should be given to adding covered areas when 

constructing the planned laundry and shower facilities. 

Additional Studies Needed

Additional research should be conducted on trees that will be sustainable within the existing 

cultural condition of the site and that will meet all design criteria including moderate to rapid 

growth rates, and ability to withstand compacted soils. 

Project Implementation Process:

Task Expertise Needed Estimated Cost Notes 

1. Additional research NPS landscape architect 

2. Planting design NPS or contract 

historical landscape 

architect 

$5,000 

3. Implementation of 

planting plan 

Historical landscape 

architect, landscape 

contractor or qualified 

park maintenance staff 

$30,000-$40,000 

4. Monitor grounddisturbing activities NPS archeologist 

5. Post-construction 

evaluation and 

monitoring 

Park natural resource 

and maintenance staff, 

landscape architect 

 Monitor health of new 

plantings. 

6. Maintenance Park staff Periodic maintenance. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NARRATIVE REFERENCES

Albers, Patricia. “The Home of the Bison: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Study of 

Traditional Cultural Affiliations to Wind Cave National Park.” Draft on file at the Library 

Collection, Wind Cave National Park. 

Alfonsin, Anthony. The Struggle for Modernism: Architecture, Landscape Architecture and City 

Planning at Harvard. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002. 

Allaback, Sarah. “The Mission 66 Visitor Center.” In Cultural Resource Management 9 (1999): 

19-21. 

—————. Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type. Washington, DC: US 

Department of the Interior, G.P.O., 2000. 

Carey and Co. Inc. Architecture. “Determination of Eligibility Cedar Pass Visitor Center,” 

Badlands National Park, Interior, South Dakota.” San Francisco, prepared for National 

Park Service, March 2002. 

Carr, Ethan. “Mission 66 and ‘Rustication.’” In Cultural Resource Management 9 (1999): 16-19. 

—————. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. 

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998. 

Chatters, James C. “Environment.” In Handbook of North American Indians 12 (1998): 43. 

Chatters, James C. and David L. Pokotylo. “Prehistory: Introduction.” In Handbook of North 

American Indians 12 (1998): 73. 

Falk, Carl, et al. “A Preliminary Assessment of Archeological Resources in the Vicinity of the 

Proposed White River Development, Badlands National Monument, South Dakota.” 

Lincoln, NE: Midwest Archeological Center, Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No. E, 

1978. 

Frison, George C. “Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and Central Plains.” In 

Handbook of the North American Indian 13 (Part 1 of 2, 2001): 46-48. 

Gries, John Paul. Roadside Geology of South Dakota. 2nd ed. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press 

Publishing Company, 1998. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 2 

Grosvenor, Melville Bell. “Today and Tomorrow in Our National Parks.” In National 

Geographic 130, No. 1 (July 1966). 

Hall, Philip S. Reflections of the Badlands. Freeman, SD: Pine Hill Press, 1997. 

Hartzog, George B. “Mission 66 and Parkscape.” In Historic Preservation 18, No. 4 (1966): 140-

143. 

—————. “Parkscape U.S.A.” National Geographic 130, No. 1 (July 1966): 48. 

Hartzog, George P. and Stewart L. Udall. “Compilation of the Administrative Policies for the 

Historical Areas of the National Park System.” Washington, DC: US Government 

Printing Office, 1968. 

Hauk, Joy Keve. Badlands: Its Life and Landscape. 8th ed. Interior, SD: Natural History 

Association, 1993. 

Hannus, Adrien L., et al. The Archeology of Badlands National Park. Sioux Falls, SD: 

Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College, Archeological Contract Series No. 175. 

Jones, Bruce A. “Archeological Investigations at Cedar Pass Slide, Badlands National Park.” 

Lincoln: Midwest Archeological Center, Technical Report No. 75, 2002. 

Karmizski, Ken. Draft “National Register Multiple Property Documentation Historic Roads 

Resources,” Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1993. 

Long, Barbara B. “Wind Cave National Park: Historic Contexts and National Register 

Guidelines.” Cresco, IA: Four Mile Research Company, 1992. 

Madrid-French, Christine. “The Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 1956 Modern Architecture in the 

National Parks.” MA Thesis, University of Virginia, 1998. 

Mattison, Ray H. and Grom, Robert A. A History of the Badlands National Monument. Interior, 

SD: Badlands Natural History Association, 1968. 

Meinecke, E.P. Camp Planning and Camp Reconstruction. Interior, SD: US Department of 

Agriculture, n.d. 

—————. A Campground Policy. Ogden, UT: US Forest Service, US Department of 

Agriculture, 1932.

Miles, John C. Guardians of the Parks. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis, 1995. 

McClelland, Linda Flint. Building the National Parks: Historic Landscape Design and 

Construction. Baltimore: University of Johns Hopkins Press, 1998. 

Pregill, Philip and Nancy Volkman. Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in the Western 

Tradition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 3 

Shuler, Jay. A Revelation Called The Badlands: Building a National Park 1909-1939. Interior, 

SD: Badlands Natural History Association, 1989. 

Swagerty, William R. “History of the United States Plains Until 1850.” In Handbook of the 

North American Indians 13, Part 1 of 2 (2001): 256. 

Treib, Marc, ed. Modern Landscape Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993. 

————. The Architecture of Landscape, 1940-1960. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 

Press, 2002. 

Wedel, Waldo C. and George C. Frison, “Environment and Subsistence.” In Handbook of North 

American Indians 13 (2001): 46, 48. 

Western History Research. Wind Cave National Park Land Study. Volume II, n.d. Compiled 

Data. MS on file at the Library Collection, Wind Cave National Park. 

Wirth, Conrad L. “The Mission Called 66.” In National Geographic 130, No. 1 (July, 1966). 

Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980. 

Wrenn, Tony P. “Preservation, Conservation, and the National Registry.” In Historic 

Preservation 18, No. 4 (1966): 164-169. 

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. “National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential 

Suburbs, 2002.” Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 2002. 

Baker, Howard W. “Report to the Deputy Chief Architect on Development of Proposed 

Badlands National Monument, November 13 and 14, 1935.” San Francisco, CA: Office 

of Deputy Chief Architect, Branch of Plans and Design Western Division, December 30, 

1935. 

Cammerer, G.B. to Senator Norbeck. December 21, 1935, [Readjustment of low-grade land in 

Agricultural Demonstration Projects LA-SD-1] Badlands National Park Archives. 

Case, Francis. “Items Around the Senate for Special Interest to the People of South Dakota.” 

Reports from Washington, DC, March 29, 1954. 

Conally, Ernest Allen. Associate Director to Honorable George McGovern, United States Senate, 

December 4, 1972. 

Federal Emergency Administration Land Program Correspondence,1935: Certificate of 

Recommendation for Land Acquisition and Sub-marginal Status of Land and Documents 

pertaining to the Proposed Greater Extension of the Badlands National Monument, 1936.
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 4 

Haberman, Thomas W., Therese Chevance, and Patricia Malone. “Cultural Resource 

Investigations Along the Proposed Route of Highway 44 between Scenic and Interior, 

Pennington Co., S.D. Vol. 1, Reach 1 Sites.” Rapid City, SD: State Archeological 

Resource Center for South Dakota Department of Transportation, Contract 

Investigations, Series 119, 1984. 

Johnson, Ann J. “The Johnny Site, 39JK4, Badlands National Park.” 1989. MS on File, Badlands 

National Park. 

————. “An Initial Middle Missouri Campsite in Badlands National Park.” South Dakota 

Archeology 13 (1989), line 1-28. 

————. “The Fog Creek Archeological Sites, Badlands National Park.” 1994. On file at 

Badlands National Park. 

Jones, Bruce A. “1993 Archeological Inventory and Evaluation Along Loop Road Segment 10-

2.” Badlands National Park, South Dakota. MS on file, Badlands National Park. 

————. “1996 Archeological Inventory and Evaluation along the Loop Road.” Badlands 

National Park, South Dakota, Technical Report No. 39, Lincoln, NE: Midwest 

Archeological Center, 1993. 

————. “2002 Archeological Investigations on the Cedar Pass Slide.” Lincoln, NE: Midwest 

Archeological Center, Technical Report No. 75, 2002. 

Karsmizki, Ken. Draft “National Register Nomination Multiple Property Documentation Historic 

Roads Resources.” Bozeman, MT: Western History Research, 1993. 

Kirk Associates. “Cedar Pass Developed Area Value Draft Report. Gross Pointe Park, MI, and 

Bahr Vermeer Haecker Architects. Badlands National Park, South Dakota.” Lincoln, NE: 

National Park Service, May 2004. 

Knowles, Louis. Report in Excerpts from Norbeck Collection of Papers, 1919 [Miscellaneous 

Papers, Badlands National Park, Library]. 

Kuehn, David. Preliminary Geoarcheological Reconnaissance in Badlands National Park, South 

Dakota. Lincoln, NE: Midwest Archeological Center, Technical Report No. 88, 2003. 

Loh, Jim Von, et al. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, Technical Memorandum No. 

8260-00-02, Badlands National Park. Interior, SD: National Park Service, November 

1999. 

Maier, Herbert. “Re: Badlands National Monument Extension,” Regional Director to Land 

Program Division. NPS, Washington, D.C., April 2, 1935. [Miscellaneous Papers, 

Badlands National Park, Library]. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 5 

Memorandum: Acting Chief, Midwest Archeological Center to Director, Midwest Region, 

August 27,1970. “Re: Archeological Site 39JK2,” Badlands National Monument, [MS on 

file Badlands Cultural Resource files, Badlands National Park]. 

Memorandum: Superintendent, Badlands National Park to Acting Manager, Midwest 

Archeological Center, July 21, 1999. “Re: Archeological Inventory of Two Proposed 

Construction Locations,” Badlands National Park, South Dakota. 

Memorandum: Secretary of the Interior to Park Service Director, Badlands National Monument, 

July 3, 1938. 

Memorandum: Superintendent, Badlands National Monument to Regional Director, Region Two, 

March 22, 1955 [Ten-Year Program for Acquiring Private Land] Mission 66 file, NAR]. 

Memorandum: NPS Director Thomas J. Allen, Jr., to All Park Superintendents, September 11, 

1939. 

Millard, B.H. to Senator P. Norbeck. January 30, 1936 [Boundary Description of the 

Monument]. 

National Park Service. “Annual Report on Information and Interpretative Services, 1955-1970, 

Badlands National Monument.” 

—————. “Annual Report on Information and Interpretive Services, January 1959, Badlands 

National Monument.” 

—————. “Environmental Assessment: Site Development for new Fire Cache, Resource 

Management Storage Building, and Museum Storage Building at Cedar Pass Developed 

Area, Badlands National Park.” 2002. 

—————. “General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Badlands National 

Park, South Dakota.” February 2003. 

—————.Land and Recreation Planning Division Report, December 5, 1952, [Miscellaneous 

Papers, Badlands National Park, Library]. 

—————. “Mission 66 Prospectus, Badlands National Monument.” 1956. Badlands National 

Park Library. 

—————. PMIS System # 52569, Fill-in and Rehabilitate Old Lagoon Site, September 1999. 

—————. “Recommendations for Boundary Adjustments, Badlands National Monument, 

Region Two, Omaha Nebraska.” Report Prepared by Land and Recreation Planning 

Division in Selected Documents Pertaining to Badlands National Monument, 1929-1949.

Badlands National Park Library. 

—————. “A Report on Visitor Centers.” National Park Service History Collection, Harpers 

Ferry Center. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, ca. January 1960. 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 6 

“Norbeck Collection of Papers,” Badlands National Park Library, [F656.N6N111 No. 1]. 

Reynolds, James T. to SHPO Dr. Junius Fishburne, South Dakota State Historical Society, July 

1, 1993. [Johnny Site (39JK4) DOE], Cultural Resource Files, Badlands National Park. 

Sheire, James W. “The Badlands Historical Basic Data Base Study,” Washington, DC: Division 

of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, November 1969, NPS. 

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office. “Site 39JK4 Determination of Eligibility.” June 

12, 1993. 

Superintendent’s Reports, Badlands National Monument—excerpts from 1940 to 1962. 

Sub-marginal Land Program, Certificate of Recommendation for Land Acquisition, Jackson and 

Pennington Counties, South Dakota, April 5, 1935. [Miscellaneous Papers, Badlands 

National Park Library]. 

Taylor, Dee C. “Salvage Archeology in Badlands National Monument, South Dakota.” Missoula, 

MT: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Montana State University, 1961. 

“What is Mission 66,” in Badlands National Park Mission 66 folder, National Archives-Central 

Plains Region, Kansas City, MO. 

Untitled document dated July 31, 1957, received at Mount Rushmore and available in Badlands 

National Park Library, miscellaneous documents. 

Zeman, Amanda. “National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Determination of 

Eligibility, Grand Canyon National Park Post-War Development, 1945-1956; Mission 66 

Planning and Development at Grand Canyon National Park, 1956-1966; Parkscape 

U.S.A./Concessionnaire Development at Grand Canyon National Park.” 

MAPS, PLANS, AND DRAWINGS

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Concession Building. 3 Sheets. n.d. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 2047). 

1936 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Land ACQ & Ownership. 7 Sheets. 

1/01/1936. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 5354). 

1938 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Master Plan, 3rd Complete Edition, Title 

Page. 7 Sheets. 1938. (NM-BL 3002-B). 

—————. National Park Service. Preliminary Study for General Development, Proposed 

Headquarters, Part of the Master Plan for Badlands National Monument. 2 Sheets. 1938. 

(NM-BL 2500, 2500-A). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 7 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Lodge Area, Part of the Master Plan for 

Badlands National Monument. 1 Sheet. 1938. (NM-BL 3004-A). 

1940 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Water System. 3 Sheets. 8/01/1940. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 5329). 

1941 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Land Status Map, Part of the Master Plan, 

Badlands National Monument. 2 Sheets. 1941. (NM-BL 2036, 2036-B). 

—————. National Park Service. Custodians Residence. 3 Sheets. 1/16/1941-6/14/1946. 

(NM-BL 2023-C). 

1942 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Master Plan, Badlands National 

Monument. 6 Sheets. 1942. (NM-BL 2034- A). 

1949 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Area Topography. 12 Sheets. 

3/01/1949. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 5324). 

1950 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Master Plan, for Badlands National 

Monument. 5 Sheets. 1950. ( NM-BL 3105). 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Area, Part of the Master Plan for Badlands 

National Monument. 1 Sheet. 3/13/1950. (NM-BL 2029-B). 

1951 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Utility Layout, Cedar Pass Area, Part of 

the Master plan for Badlands National Monument. 1 Sheet. 2/01/1951. (NM-BL-5334). 

—————. National Park Service. Utility Layout Pinnacles Checking Station, Part of the 

Master Plan for Badlands National Park. 1 Sheet. 7/13/1951. (NM-BL 5337-B). 

1952 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Service Road, Administration Area - 

Cedar Pass. 7 Sheets. May 1952. (NM-BL 5336-B). 

1953 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Landscape Plan Bldg. 12, 27, 28. 1 Sheet. 

12/01/1953. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 2114). 

—————. National Park Service. Utility Area Topography. 4 Sheets. 2/01/1953. (Denver 

Service Center #BADL - 137 - 2105). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 8 

1955 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Parking and Road Alignment – Cedar 

Pass. 1 Sheet. 3/01/1955. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3104). 

1956 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Development. 1 Sheet. 

7/20/1956 (NM-BL 2029 – G). 

1957 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Base Map, Part of the Master Plan for 

Badlands National Monument. 1 Sheet. June 1957. (NM-BL 5302-C). 

—————. National Park Service. General Development, Part of the Master Plan for 

Badlands National Monument. 1 Sheet. 1/18/1957. (NM-BL 2034-E). 

—————. National Park Service. Historic & Archeological Base Map. 1 Sheet. 10/01/1957. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3134). 

—————. National Park Service. Interpretation. 1 Sheet. October 1957. (NM-BL 3133). 

—————. National Park Service. Minor Developed Areas, Part of the Master Plan for 

Badlands National Monument. 1 Sheet. March 1957. (NM-BL 3122-A)

—————. National Park Service. Physical Improvements, Mission 66, Part of the Master 

Plan for Badlands National Monument. 1 Sheet. June 1957. (NM- BL 3117).

1958 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Driveways and Parking Area, 

Headquarters Badlands National Monument. 1 Sheet. December 1958. (NM-BL 3147).

—————. National Park Service. Index. 1 Sheet. January 1958. (NM-BL 3106). 

—————. National Park Service. Sage Creek Region. 1 Sheet. 11/17/1958. (NM-BL 3146). 

—————. National Park Service. Utility Buildings, Cedar Pass. 11 Sheets. 5/15/1958. (NMBL 3119-C). 

1958 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Houses 30-33 & Apartments 51 & 52. 2 

Sheets. 5/01/1958. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3128). 

—————. National Park Service. Visitor Center Location. 1 Sheet. 3/01/1958. (Denver 

Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3135). 

1959 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Picnic Tables. 1 Sheet. 11/23/1959. 

(WODC-STD 1063-A). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 9 

—————. National Park Service. Planting Plan. 6 Sheets. 1/23/1959. (NM-BL 3148-A). 

—————. National Park Service. Roads and Trails. 2 Sheets. 1/13/1959. (NM- BL 2045-B). 

—————. National Park Service. Sage Creek Basin Development. 1 Sheet. 4/20/1959. (NMBL 3144). 

1960 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. 4 Unit Seasonal Apt. Building. 2 Sheets. 

8/01/1960. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3204). 

1962 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Area Topography. 17 Sheets. 

7/01/1963. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3230). 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Campground and Utilities, Part of the Master 

Plan. 1 Sheet. 1962. (NM-BL 3216-A). 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Development. 1 Sheet. 9/01/1962. (Denver 

Service Center #BADL - 137 - 2029). 

—————. National Park Service. Picnic Table Shelter. 1 Sheet. 5/01/1962. (Denver Service 

Center #BADL - 137 - 3142). 

1963 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Comfort Stations. 5 Sheets. 5/27/63. (NMBL 3217). 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Campground & Utilities. 1 Sheet. 7/01/1963. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3216). 

—————. National Park Service. General Utilities, Part of the Master Plan, Badlands 

National Monument. 1 Sheet. 3/15/1963. (NM-BL 3220-B). 

—————. National Park Service. Pinnacles Entrance with Utilities. 1 Sheet. 5/3/1963. (NMBL 3224). 

1964 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Roads and Parking, Cedar Pass 

Campground, 7 sheets. 2/19/1964. (NM-BL 3223-B). 

1965 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Campground Signs. 1 Sheet 4/5/1965. 

(NM-BL 3241). 

1966 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Pinnacles. 10 Sheets. 

11/01/1966. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 41900). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 10 

—————. National Park Service. Ranger Station Site Development. 1 Sheet. 6/01/1966. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3210). 

1969 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Visitor Center. 1 Sheet. 6/01/1969. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 3118). 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass. 2 Sheets. 2/16/1969 (NM-BL 3243). 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Developed Area Plan. 2 Sheets. 6/19/69. (NMBL 3243-A). 

1973 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Landownership. 1 Sheet. 2/1/1973. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 20005). 

1974 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Topography. 2 Sheets. 

10/01/1974. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 41013). 

1975 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Alternative B – Cedar Pass. 1 Sheet. 

7/01/1975. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 40005). 

—————. National Park Service. Archeological Resources Cedar Pass. 1 Sheet. 7/01/1975. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 40002). 

1976 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Regional Map. 1 Sheet. 7/01/1976. 

(Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 80015). 

1977 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Location Map. 1 Sheet. April 1977. (NMBL 137 40,000-A). 

1978 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Site Analysis Visitor Center. 1 Sheet. 

6/01/1978. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 40010). 

1984 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Trail Lighting – Cedar Pass. 3 Sheets. 

7/01/1984. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 80040). 

1985 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Residence – Cedar Pass. 2 Sheets. 

5/01/1985. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 80045). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 11 

1987 

Landmark Mapping Limited. Lakewood CO. Topographic Survey. Badlands National Park. 2 

Sheets. 6/12/1987. (137-80062). 

1992 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Lodge Rehabilitation. 38 

Sheets. 11/16/1992. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 41021). 

1995 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass Water Utility. 4 Sheets. 

5/01/1995. (Denver Service Center #BADL - 137 - 80081). 

PHOTOGRAPHS

Badlands National Park Natural Resources Library: 

1908 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Park Road. 1908. (CAT BADL - 4611 b). 

1909/10 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Nearby Towns. 1909/10. (CAT BADL - 

3471 c). 

1912 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass District. 1912. (CAT BADL - 

4732 b). 

1917 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass District. 1917. (CAT BADL - 

4739 b). 

1929 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. 1929. (CAT BADL 

- 3480 b). 

1931 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Park Road. 1931. (CAT BADL - 2990). 

—————. National Park Service. Park Road. 1931. (CAT BADL - 2989). 

1935 

US Department of the Interior. National Park. Surrounding Ranches. (CAT BADL - 3484 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. 1935. CAT BADL - 2643 b). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 12 

1938 

US Department of the Interior. National Park. Maintenance Buildings. (CAT BADL - 2710 b). 

1939 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Park Road. 1939. (CAT BADL - 3093 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. 1939. (CAT BADL - 2635 b). 

1940 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. (CAT BADL - 

2645 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. 1940. (CAT BADL - 2646 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Parking Areas & Overlooks. 1940. (CAT BADL - 2822 b). 

1950 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Park Road. 1950. (CAT BADL - 3097 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. 1950. (CAT BADL - 2910 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Visitor Center and Administrative Buildings. Ca.1950 (CAT 

BADL - 4135 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. ca.1950. (CAT BADL - 2911 b). 

1951 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Park Road. 1951. (CAT BADL - 3100 b). 

1954 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Park Road. 1954. (CAT BADL - 3108 b). 

1956 

United States Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cedar Pass District. (CAT 

BADL - 3490 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Cedar Pass District. (CAT BADL - 4406 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Park Road. 1956. (CAT BADL - 2916 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Park Road. 1956. (CAT BADL - 3134 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Park Road. 1956. (CAT BADL - 3136 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. 1956. (CAT BADL - 2914 b). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 13 

1957 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Visitor Center and Administrative 

Buildings. 1957. (CAT BADL - 2719). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. 1957. (CAT BADL - 2919 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. 1957. (CAT BADL - 2920 b ). 

1958 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Amphitheatre Programs. 1958. (CAT 

BADL - 2501 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Visitor Center & Administrative Buildings . 1957. (CAT 

BADL - 4164 b). 

1959 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Residences.1959. (CAT BADL - 2927 b).

—————. National Park Service. Secondary Structures. 1959. (CAT BADL - 2489c). 

—————. National Park Service. Secondary Structures. 1959. (CAT BADL - 2490c). 

—————. National Park Service. Secondary Structures. 1959. (CAT BADL - 2499c). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. 1959. (CAT BADL - 2928 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. 1959. (CAT BADL - 2934 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences. 1959. (CAT BADL - 2935 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Visitor Center & Administrative Buildings. 1959. (CAT 

BADL - 4170 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Visitor Center & Administrative Buildings. 1959. (CAT 

BADL - 4173 b). 

———. National Park Service. Visitor Center & Administrative Buildings. 1959. (CAT BADL - 

4175 b). 

1960 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Residences.1960. (CAT BADL - 2936 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences.1960. (CAT BADL - 2937 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Residences.1960. (CAT BADL - 2947 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Signs – Informational.1960. (CAT BADL - 3229 b). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 14 

—————. National Park Service. Signs – Informational.1960. (CAT BADL - 3230 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Visitor Center & Administrative Buildings. 1960. (CAT 

BADL - 4182b). 

1961 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Signs – Informational.1961. (CAT BADL 

- 3240 b). 

1962 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Secondary Structures.1962. (CAT BADL 

- 2481 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Trails. 1962. (CAT BADL - 4039 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Trails. 1962. (CAT BADL - 4042 b). 

1964 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Residences. (CAT BADL - 2959 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Visitor Center & Administrative Buildings. 1964. (CAT 

BADL - 4207 b). 

1965 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. (CAT BADL - 

2629 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Park Road. 1965. (CAT BADL -3186 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Park Road. 1965. (CAT BADL -3187 b). 

—————. National Park Service. Park Road. 1965. (CAT BADL -3194 b). 

1968 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. 1968. (CAT BADL 

- 2653 b).

———. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. 1968. (CAT BADL - 2600 b). 

1969 

US Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Concession Buildings. (CAT BADL - 

2603 b). 

ONLINE RESOURCES

American Indian Relief Council. Reservation Profiles Pine Ridge Reservation. 

http://www.airc.org/reservations/pineridge.html (accessed July 25, 2003). 
CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK * SOUTH DAKOTA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

BIBLIOGRAPHY * JUNE 2005 * B - 15 

Badlands National Park. http://www.nps.gov/badl/exp/home.htm (accessed August 5, 2003). 

Badlands National Park, Park Facts. http://www.nps.gov/badl/pphtml/facts.html (accessed July 

8, 2003). 

Badlands National Park History. Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s. 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/unrau-williss/adhi3.htm (accessed August 5, 

2003). 

Badlands National Park History and Culture Fossils. 

http://www.nps.gov/badl/exp/humans.htm#fossilhunters 

Badlands National Park History and Culture, Human History. 

http://www.nps.gov/badl/exp/humans.htm 

Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office, Billings, MT. 

http://www.library.sos.state.il.us/library/isl/ref/glo/glolocguide.html 

Genealogy of the Dakotas. http://www.time-passages.com/land-patent-research.html 

Green Papers. Official Name and Status History of the Various States.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/statehood.phtml (accessed August 5, 2003). 

History of Henry Ford and his inventions. 

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blford.htm (accessed August 2003). 

Kansas State Land Survey. http://www.ksls.com/public/publicsurvey.htm (accessed August 5, 

2003). 

Oregon State University. Canada Thistle. http://mint.ippc.orst.edu/canthistle.htm (accessed July 

8, 2003). 

Oral history of the Badlands. http://www.soysite.com/newsletter/Sep99.html 

Pine Ridge Reservation. Demographics, Geography, and Reality. 

http://www.pineridgerez.net/overview.php (accessed July 25, 2003). 

Sherman’s of Yaxley Newsletter. A Family’s Description of Homesteading. 

http://www.soysite.com/newsletter/Sep99.html (accessed August 5, 2003). 

South Dakota State Historical Society. http://www.sdhistory.org/ (accessed August 5, 2003). 

South Dakota Department of Transportation. http://www.sddot.com/ (accessed August 5, 2003). 

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Building the Foundation.” 

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su2.htm 
APPENDIX A
Appendix A

Building/Structure Number Index

CLR ID# Building/Structure Name Park ID LCS ID #

B-01 Ben Reifel Visitor Center 26 20479

B-02 Cedar Pass Lodge 100 27657

B-03 Lodge Cottage 102 27745

B-04 Lodge Laundry Building 108 27688

B-05 Lodge Maintenance Building 109 27689

B-06 Cabin #1-1A-2-2A 110 27658

B-07 Cabin #3 111 27660

B-08 Cabin #4 112 27661

B-09 Cabin #5 113 27662

B-10 Cabin #6 114 27663

B-11 Cabin #7 115 27664

B-12 Cabin #8 116 27665

B-13 Cabin #9 117 27668

B-14 Cabin #10 118 27669

B-15 Cabin #11 119 27685

B-16 Cabin #12 120 27686

B-17 Cabin #14-15-16-16A 121 27687

B-18 Cabin #18 122 27735

B-19 Cabin #19 123 27736

B-20 Cabin #20 124 27738

B-21 Cabin #21 125 27740

B-22 Cabin #22 126 27741

B-23 Cabin #23 127 27742

B-24 Cabin #33 128 27743

B-25 Campground Comfort Station Group 1

B-26 Campground Comfort Station Group 2

B-27 Campground Comfort Station A

B-28 Campground Comfort Station B 43183

B-29 Administration Building 164 20480

B-30 Conference/Maintenance Building 152 20481

B-31 Collection Storage Building 173 27634

B-32 Resource Protection (CCC Ranger Station) 12 27633

B-33 Natural Resources Office Building 172 27635

B-34 Residence #28 28 27636

B-35 Residence #29 29 27637

B-36 Residence #30 30 27638

B-37 Garage #30A 30A 40314

B-38 Residence #31 31 27639

B-39 Garage #31A 31A 40316

B-40 Residence #32 32 27640

B-41 Garage #32A 32A 40318

B-42 Residence #33 33 27641

Cedar Pass Developed Area Badlands National Park
Appendix A

Building/Structure Number Index

CLR ID# Building/Structure Name Park ID LCS ID #

B-43 Garage #33A 33A 40319

B-44 Residence #34 34 27643

B-45 Garage #34A 34A 40321

B-46 Residence #46 46 27644

B-47 Garage #46A 46A 40323

B-48 Seasonal Apartment #135 135 27645

B-49 Seasonal Apartment #45 45 27646

B-50 Seasonal Apartment #51 51 27649

B-51 Seasonal Apartment #52 52 27651

B-52 Fire Cache 177 43166

B-53 Maintenance Shop 35 27747

B-54 Maintenance Cold Storage 36 27748

B-55 Maintenance Storage Building 150 27750

B-56 Sand Shed 146 27751

B-57 Hazmat Building 180 27749

S-01 Lodge Ice House 107 27744

S-04 Campground Entrance Booth 160 28225

S-05 Amphitheater Stage 186 43182

S-08 Air Quality Monitoring Station 166 43157

S-10 Tack Room (Horse Barn) # 21 21 43173

Cedar Pass Developed Area Badlands National Park
APPENDIX B
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

NOVEMBER 2004

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

CEDAR PASS DEVELOPED AREA 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE 

November 2004 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Badlands National Park 

South Dakota 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 i 

SUMMARY 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape, located within Badlands National Park, is 

considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This draft environmental 

assessment presents and analyzes three alternatives proposed in the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

Cultural Landscape Report for the management of the landscape over the next 15-20 years. 

The majority of development within Badlands National Park associated with park administration, 

park operations, and visitor amenities is clustered in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. In 1995, 

Badlands National Park began planning for the rehabilitation of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center 

and the construction of several new buildings, all located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

As a result of these planned improvements, the visitors center’s determination of eligibility for 

the National Register of Historic Places, and the recognized need for future improvements within 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the National Park Service believed additional study was needed 

to guide future treatment and use of the area. A cultural landscape report was prepared to aid in 

decision making for the future management and use of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

The Cultural Landscape Report proposes three options for future management and use of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would result in the 

continuation of the current management strategies without management guidance specific to the 

cultural landscape. Alternatives B and C both include historic landscape management options for 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area designed to guide how the future needs of the park would be 

met. Cultural landscape concerns include cultural resources, vegetation, wildlife, special status 

species, paleontology, visitor experience and park operations. 

Under alternative A, the no-action alternative, the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be 

managed as it currently is (in 2004), without management guidance related to the cultural 

landscape. The cultural landscape would be managed as a historic landscape, in compliance with 

the National Historic Preservation Act and Director’s Order 28.To meet park needs, continuing 

development and alterations within the landscape would be expected. Though the district would 

be managed for historic resource values, a minimum application of available preservation 

knowledge and technology would be utilized. New development and facility siting would not 

utilize the original planning approach of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. It is not expected that 

historic preservation specialists would be used to complete work within the area. No policies, 

strategies, or implementation initiatives would be available to lend a comprehensive and 

sustained program of the historic landscape and building preservation as outlined in the cultural 

landscape report. Potential impacts under this alternative include minor to major adverse impacts 

to the cultural landscape; minor adverse and beneficial effects to archeological resources; minor 

to moderate adverse impacts and moderate benefits to native vegetation; minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to wildlife; minor to moderate adverse impacts to paleontological resources; 

minor to moderate adverse impacts and benefits to visitor experience; and minor adverse impacts 

and minor to moderate benefits to park operations. 

Under alternative B, referred to as the preservation alternative, management guidance would be 

focused on preserving the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. Historic resources 

would be protected and maintained with only minor changes to meet identified facility and 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 ii 

operational needs within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Intrusive landscape features may be 

mitigated or removed after their useful lives. Open space and natural systems would be 

protected. New development would occur off site within the Pinnacles area, about 20 miles 

northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Potential impacts under this alternative include 

minor benefits to the cultural landscape; minor adverse impacts and minor benefits to 

archeological resources; minor to moderate adverse impacts and benefits to native vegetation; 

minor benefits and minor to possibly major adverse impacts to wildlife; minor to moderate 

adverse impacts and minor benefits to paleontological resources; minor to moderate adverse and 

beneficial impacts to visitor experience; and minor adverse impacts and benefits to park 

operations. Under this alternative, there is also the potential to adversely affect the black-tailed 

prairie dog (federal candidate species) and create minor to major adverse impacts to the swift fox 

(state threatened species) population. 

Alterative C, referred to as the rehabilitation alternative, proposes adaptation of the historic 

landscape for limited new uses, while protecting, to the greatest extent possible, the significant 

historic fabric and landscape relationships. New development would be limited to critical park 

needs, would occur within defined and distinct areas (development sites), and would be 

compatible or nonintrusive with the historic landscape. Open space and natural systems would 

generally be protected though minor development that does not jeopardize the historic character 

of the landscape is possible. Some existing noncontributing structures that are compatible with 

the cultural landscape would be retained/used. Intrusive landscape features would be mitigated or 

removed. Potential impacts under this alternative include minor adverse impacts and minor to 

moderate benefits to the cultural landscape; minor adverse and beneficial effects to archeological 

resources; minor to moderate adverse impacts and benefits to native vegetation; minor to 

possibly major adverse impacts and minor benefits to wildlife; minor to moderate adverse 

impacts and minor benefits to paleontological resources; minor to moderate benefits to visitor 

experience; and minor to moderate benefits and adverse impacts to park operations. 

Alternative C is presented as both the environmentally preferred and the preferred alternative. 

Notes to Reviewers and Respondents:

This environmental assessment has been prepared as an appendix to the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area Cultural Landscape Report. It has been prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act to evaluate the impacts of 

the project on the human environment and provide an opportunity for the public to review and 

comment on the project. This environmental assessment serves as notification to the public of 

proposed actions and seeks the views of the public and all consulting parties on the effects on the 

environment. The public comment period for this document will remain open for 30 days. 

Comments should be received by January 30, 2005 and may be addressed to: 

Superintendent William Supernaugh, Badlands National Park, P.O. Box 6, Interior, SD 57750 

Comments may also be sent via email to william_supernaugh@nps.gov

Revisions post-dating the public review were made to this document. These revisions were made 

in response to internal NPS review comments (Appendix E) and comments received during the 

public comment period. Nearly all were editorial in nature; none were considered substantive, 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 iii 

with one exception. This exception is related to a comment concerning impacts to 

paleontological resources resulting from the possible future alignment of the Loop Road, which 

runs north/northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The comment addresses the serious 

impacts that could occur to paleontological resources if the road is routed away from the Cedar 

Pass Slide Area. This comment has been considered but beyond the scope of this document and 

will be shared with the team currently preparing the park’s GMP/EIS. 

A letter dated March 4, 2005, notes that based on the information provided in this environmental 

assessment, the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that the 

alternatives as described will have no adverse effect on historic properties (Appendix F). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 iv 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-3 

Need 1-3 

Purpose 1-3 

Objectives 1-4 

Background 1-4 

Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles Area Settings 1-5 

Park Plans and Projects Related to the Cedar Pass Developed Area 1-5 

Impact Topics 1-6 

 Cultural Resources 1-6 

 Vegetation 1-6 

 Wildlife 1-7 

 Special Status Species, Threatened and Endangered Species 1-7 

 Paleontological Resources 1-7 

 Visitor Experience 1-7 

 Park Operations 1-7 

Issues Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 1-8 

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1 

Alternative A—No Action 2-47 

Alternative B—Preservation 2-48 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 2-51 

Mitigation Measures 2-54 

 Cultural Resources 2-54 

 Cultural Landscapes 2-54 

 Archeological Resources 2-55 

 Vegetation 2-55 

 Wildlife 2-55 

 Special Status Species 2-56 

 Paleontological Resources 2-56 

 Visitor Experience 2-56 

 Park Operations 2-56 

How Alternatives Meet Objectives 2-57 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 vi 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 2-59 

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 2-59 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 

Cultural Resources 3-2 

 Culture History 3-2 

 History of Badlands National Park 3-3 

Cultural Resources Located within Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles Area 3-5 

 Cultural Landscapes 3-5 

 Archeological Resources 3-9 

Vegetation 3-11 

 Vegetation in the Cedar Pass Developed Area 3-12 

 Vegetation in the Pinnacles Area 3-14 

 Species of Special Concern 3-15 

 Exotic Species 3-15 

Wildlife 3-16 

 Badlands National Park 3-16 

 Ungulates 3-16 

 Carnivores 3-17 

 Small Mammals 3-17 

 Birds 3-17 

 Reptiles and Amphibians 3-18 

 Insects 3-18 

 Cedar Pass Developed Area 3-19 

 Pinnacles Area 3-19 

Special Status Species—Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species 3-20 

 Cedar Pass Developed Area 3-20 

 Pinnacles Area 3-20 

 Black-tailed prairie dog 3-21 

 Black-footed ferret 3-22 

 Swift fox 3-23 

Paleontological Resources 3-23 

 The Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles Area 3-24 

Visitor Experience 3-25 

 Recreational Opportunities 3-27 

Park Operations 3-29 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 vii 

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 

Geographic Area of Analysis 4-1 

Assumptions 4-1 

Methodology 4-1 

 Impairment 4-2 

 Cumulative Impacts 4-2 

Cultural Resources 4-3 

 Guiding Regulations and Policies 4-3 

 Assumptions Related to Cultural Resource Analysis 4-4 

 Methods of Impact Analysis for Cultural Resources 4-5 

 Cultural Resource Impact Thresholds Definitions 4-5 

 Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act 4-7 

 Environmental Consequences 4-8 

 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-8 

 Alternative A—No Action 4-8 

 Alternative B—Preservation 4-13 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 4-17 

Vegetation 4-22 

 Guiding Regulations and Policies 4-22 

 Methods of Impact Analysis for Vegetation 4-23 

 Vegetation Impact Thresholds Definitions 4-24 

 Environmental Consequences 4-25 

 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-25 

 Alternative A—No Action 4-25 

 Alternative B—Preservation 4-27 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 4-29 

Wildlife 4-32 

 Guiding Regulations and Policies 4-32 

 Methods of Impact Analysis for Wildlife 4-33 

 Wildlife Impact Threshold Definitions 4-33 

 Environmental Consequences 4-34 

 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-34 

 Alternative A—No Action 4-34 

 Alternative B—Preservation 4-36 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 4-39 

Special Status Species—Threatened and Endangered Species 4-40 

 Guiding Regulations and Policies 4-40 

 Methods of Impact Analysis for Special Status Species 4-41 

 Special Status Species Impact Threshold Definitions 4-42 

 Environmental Consequences 4-43 

 Alternative A—No Action 4-43 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 viii 

 Alternative B—Preservation 4-43 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 4-47 

Paleontological Resources 4-47 

 Guiding Regulations and Policies 4-48 

 Methods of Impact Analysis for Paleontological Resources 4-48 

 Paleontological Resources Impact Threshold Definitions 4-49 

 Environmental Consequences 4-49 

 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-49 

 Alternative A—No Action 4-50 

 Alternative B—Preservation 4-51 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 4-54 

Visitor Experience 4-55 

 Guiding Regulations and Policies 4-56 

 Methods of Impact Analysis for Visitor Experience 4-56 

 Visitor Experience Impact Threshold Definitions 4-57 

 Environmental Consequences 4-57 

 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-57 

 Alternative A—No Action 4-57 

 Alternative B—Preservation 4-59 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 4-62 

Park Operations 4-63 

 Guiding Regulations and Policies 4-64 

 Methods of Impact Analysis for Park Operations 4-64 

 Park Operations Impact Threshold Definitions 4-65 

 Environmental Consequences 4-65 

 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-65 

 Alternative A—No Action 4-65 

 Alternative B—Preservation 4-68 

 Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 4-70 

CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5-1 

The Public Scoping Process 5-1 

Agency Consultation 5-1 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5-1 

 South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 5-2 

 South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer 5-2 

List of Preparers 5-2 

List of Recipients 5-3 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 ix 

REFERENCES CITED 

APPENDICES 

A. Letter of Concurrence from the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer 

Regarding Eligibility of the Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape for the 

National Register of Historic Places 

B. Summaries of Public Scoping Meetings 

C. CONFIDENTIAL—NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION: Cedar Pass Developed 

Area Cultural Landscape with Areas of Potential Historic Archeological Sites Indicated 

D. Letter of Consultation, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks regarding Special Status 

Species 

E. National Park Service Environmental Assessment Internal Review Comments 

F. Letter from South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer indicating that alternatives 

as described in the EA will have no adverse effect on historic properties. 

LIST OF TABLES 

Chapter 2. Alternatives 

2-1: Alternatives Elements Summary 

2-2: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape Report, Environmental Consequences by 

Alternative 

2-3: Summary of How Alternatives Meet the Objectives 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 

3-1: List of Contributing and Noncontributing Structures/Features/Elements, Cedar Pass 

Developed Area Cultural Landscape 

3-2: Vegetation Community Types in Cedar Pass Developed Area 

3-3: Birds Observed within Badlands National Park 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Note: Chapter figures are located at the end of each chapter. 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

1-1: Badlands National Park Location Map 

1-2: Badlands National Park, North Unit, with Cedar Pass Developed Area, Pinnacles Area 

and Northeast Entrance Indicated 

1-3: Cedar Pass Developed Area Site Plan 

Chapter 2. Alternatives 

2-1: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape Alternative A, No Action 

2-2: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape Alternative B, Preservation 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 x 

2-3: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape Alternative C, Rehabilitation 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 

3-1: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape with Contributing Structures Indicated 

3-2: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape with Contributing Views Indicated 

3-3: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape with Character Areas Indicated 

3-4: Cedar Pass Developed Area, Existing Vegetation Conditions 

3-5: Badlands National Park, North Unit, Pinnacles and Northeast Entrances and Visitor 

Attractions Indicated 
CHAPTER ONE

PURPOSE AND NEED
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-1 

CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

This environmental assessment (EA) presents a range of alternatives for the future treatment and 

management of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape, which is considered eligible 

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (appendix A). The EA analyzes 

impacts to the environment of the no-action alternative (current management, alternative A), the 

preservation alternative (alternative B), and the rehabilitation alternative (alternative C). The 

alternative selected as a result of this analysis will be used to guide the future management of 

development and improvements at the Cedar Pass Developed Area in Badlands National Park 

(the park) in a manner that is compatible with cultural landscape values consistent with the 

cultural landscape. 

The cultural landscape report (CLR) is programmatic in nature and provides only a management 

direction for the future provision of services, facilities, and operations within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. Likewise, this EA is programmatic and does not include analysis of specific 

development proposals. It is expected that proposed future actions would require additional sitespecific analysis prior to implementation. 

As defined in this EA, the Cedar Pass Developed Area includes approximately 290 acres along 

the southern park boundary in the northeastern portion of the park (figures 1-1, 1-2 located at the 

end of the chapter). This 290-acre area is consistent with the CLR study area for which this EA 

has been prepared. In addition, under alternative B (the preservation alternative), it is proposed 

that some unidentified services/facilities be sited at the Pinnacles area. This area is located about 

20 miles to the northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area and currently includes several park 

functions/operations (figure 1-2). 

The majority of the historic development associated with park administration, park operations, 

and visitor amenities are generally clustered in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. In 1995, the park 

began planning for the rehabilitation of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center and the construction of 

several new buildings, all located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. As a result of these 

planned improvements, the determination of eligibility for the NRHP of the visitor center (in 

association with the National Park Service Mission 66 Program [NPS n.d.]), and the recognized 

need for future improvements within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the National Park Service 

(NPS) believed additional study was needed to guide future treatment and use of the area. These 

additional efforts to guide management of the area are designed so a significant cultural 

landscape at Cedar Pass Developed Area would not be inadvertently compromised. The CLR has 

been prepared to aid in the decision making for the future management of the area. 

A cultural landscape is defined as "a geographic area, including both cultural and natural 

resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, 

or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values” (NPS 1994). Cultural landscapes can 

range from large tracts of land to small homesteads and 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-2 

reveal aspects of our country's origins and development through their form and features 

and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapes also reveal much about our evolving 

relationship with the natural world (NPS 1994). 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape functions as the primary visitor contact and 

park administrative center for the park. The cultural landscape is considered rare among park 

units today in its association with and high degree of integrity related to the NPS Mission 66 

Program (NPS n.d.). 

The Mission 66 Program was designed to fund park projects from 1956-1966, the intent of which 

was to ensure that basic facilities were provided at all parks. The importance of visitor 

“enjoyment without impairment” and resource protection were emphasized. The Mission 66 

Program was intended to replace inadequate facilities with improvements adequate for expected 

demands, and designed and located to reduce the public’s impact on valuable and fragile park 

features (see chapter 3 of this document and John Milner Associates 2004:2-50 for further 

information on the Mission 66 Program). 

For a property to be considered eligible for the NRHP, it must be at least 50 years of age and 

associated with one or more specified areas of significance. These include the property’s 

associations with significant historic events and/or persons, the integrity of distinctive 

characteristics, and/or the likelihood of its yielding important prehistoric/historic information in 

the future. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years may also be considered 

eligible if it is of exceptional importance. The park must consider the effects of any proposed 

actions on NRHP-eligible resources and take actions to minimize those that would adversely 

affect them in accordance with NHPA (1966, as amended). 

The period of significance of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape is associated 

with several time periods. These include Early Tourism (1928-1938), Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) Development and New Deal Master Planning (1938-1941), and the Mission 66 

period (1956-1966). Despite the fact that Mission 66-era development is less than fifty years of 

age, it has been found to meet the NRHP eligibility requirements (criterion G) “as a relatively 

complete example of a Mission 66 developed area with a high degree of integrity, which remains 

rare and unusual within the state of South Dakota” (John Milner Associates 2004:4-5; appendix 

A). 

A CLR functions as the NPS’ primary guide for treatment and use of cultural landscapes. 

A CLR is generally intended to provide a synthetic and cohesive view of a site’s historic 

and existing features through comprehensive documentation, analysis and evaluation. 

Using this knowledge as a basis for decision-making, a CLR often subsequently provides 

carefully considered cultural resource treatment recommendations (John Milner 

Associates 2004:1-4). 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape is comprised of a variety of elements that 

contribute to its significance, including natural systems, spatial organization, land use, 

circulation, topography, vegetation, buildings and structures, small-scale features, views and 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-3 

vistas, and archeological resources (John Milner Associates 2004; see chapter 3 of this document 

for more detail). 

The CLR (John Milner Associates 2004) has defined ten character areas within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area landscape based on similarities of land uses, historic resource character and 

types, and patterns of spatial organization. These areas include: visitor/administrative; 

residential; Cedar Pass Lodge; campground; maintenance; fire cache; wastewater lagoon; 

Badlands Loop Road and S.D. 377 Corridor; service road corridor; and open space (figure 1-3). 

The CLR being analyzed in this EA has been prepared to document and record the history and 

current conditions of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (cultural landscape). Research and results 

derived from the CLR would be used to guide future development, improvements, and 

maintenance of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The NPS is considering using the CLR recommendations as a long-range management plan for 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. This EA analyzes the impacts of proposed 

alternatives (including no action, or current management). 

Need 

 Need is a discussion of existing conditions that need to be changed, problems that need to 

be remedied, decisions that need to be made, and policies or mandates that need to be 

implemented (NPS 2004a: 16). 

The CLR is needed to provide general guidance for future management of the NRHP-eligible 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. It is anticipated that future development and improvements within 

the park will be necessary in order to provide a variety of park services and functions (for 

example, visitor services and facilities, park administration office space, or park operations). 

Many of these services and facilities would be appropriately located in the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area as this is the part of the park where administrative, maintenance, and other day-to-day 

functions are located. 

No management plan currently exists for the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The cultural landscape 

is considered eligible for the NRHP as a result of its association with early tourism, CCC 

development, and the NPS Mission 66 initiative (appendix A). The Cedar Pass Developed Area 

is integral to the park’s history and development. Therefore, coordinating future development at 

Cedar Pass Developed Area with guidance supplied in the CLR is essential in preventing 

unnecessary adverse impacts to the unique cultural landscape. 

Purpose 

Purpose is a statement of goals and objectives that the NPS intends to fulfill by taking 

action (NPS 2004a:16). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-4 

The purpose of the CLR is to document and record the history and current conditions of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area, and guide its future treatment and use (Milner 2004:1-1). 

Objectives 

 Objectives are specific statement of purposes: i.e., they state what must be achieved for 

the plan to be successful (NPS 2004b: 15) 

The following objectives have been identified for the CLR: 

• to adequately document the historical development of the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape 

• to provide a baseline for the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape for future 

research and planning efforts 

• to provide a predictable and useable guide for future management and use of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape, while protecting and preserving its 

historic nature 

• to manage for resource values while accommodating anticipated uses 

• to streamline planning and compliance processes for proposed development within 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

• to contribute tangible planning guidelines for the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape in other park planning efforts (for example, general management plans or 

resource management plans) 

• to enhance visitor experience through the understanding of the history of the park’s 

development 

All action alternatives analyzed should meet the stated objectives of the CLR to be considered 

reasonable alternatives. 

BACKGROUND 

Badlands National Park is located in the southwestern corner of South Dakota, includes 

approximately 242,756 acres, and extends across portions of Shannon, Pennington, and Jackson 

Counties. The Cedar Pass Developed Area is located along the southern boundary in the 

northeast corner of the park, approximately two miles northeast of the town of Interior. 

In 1929, Congress authorized the creation of Badlands National Monument while, at the same 

time, requiring that the state of South Dakota acquire certain lands and construct a scenic road 

for public access. By 1939, these conditions were met and the monument was established. In 

1968, expanded monument boundaries were authorized through acquisition of lands of 

outstanding scenic and scientific character, capping the total acreage at 244,000. Under this 

provision, approximately 133,000 acres of tribal reservation (Oglala Sioux) lands were included 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-5 

in the monument. In 1978, the monument was redesignated as Badlands National Park. The park 

is managed to: 

• protect the unique landforms and scenery of the White River Badlands for the benefit, 

education, and inspiration of the public 

• preserve, interpret, and provide for scientific research the paleontological and 

geological resources of the White River Badlands 

• preserve the flora, fauna and natural processes of the mixed grass prairie ecosystem 

• preserve the Badlands wilderness area and associated wilderness values 

• interpret the history of the Sioux Nation and Lakota people (NPS, in preparation: 8) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles Area Settings 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area consists of approximately 290 acres containing the majority of 

services and facilities related to park functions (figure 1-3). These include the Ben Reifel Visitor 

Center, the park administration complex, Cedar Pass Lodge, a campground/amphitheater, park 

employee housing including apartments and single-family residences, maintenance facilities, and 

a portion of the Badlands Loop Road (John Milner Associates 2004:1-2). The Cedar Pass 

Developed Area is located approximately two miles northeast of the town of Interior and five 

miles southwest of the northeast entrance to the park. 

Under alternative B, the Pinnacles area is proposed for additional development. This area is 

located approximately 20 miles northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, along Loop Road 

(figure 1-2). It houses a ranger station for law enforcement staff, two entrance booths, a radio 

repeater tower, and several outbuildings associated with park operations. 

PARK PLANS AND PROJECTS RELATED TO THE CEDAR PASS 

DEVELOPED AREA

The park and Cedar Pass Developed Area are currently managed under the master plan for the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area (NPS 1982) and the park General Management Plan (NPS 1985). 

Having been prepared approximately 20 years ago, they do not represent a comprehensive plan 

for managing the park (NPS, in preparation: iii). Consequently, the park is currently in the 

process of updating its general management plan and environmental impact statement, which is 

expected to be available to the public in 2005. 

Projects recently completed or currently in progress within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

include an addition to the Ben Reifel Visitor Center and construction of a new fire cache, 

resource management storage building, and museum storage building (NPS 2002). In addition, 

the former wastewater lagoons have recently been filled in and regraded to original topographic 

contours (Mills, pers. comm. 2004). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-6 

Future potential actions within the Cedar Pass Developed Area include additional 

modifications/additions to the visitor center; parking and circulation modifications; construction 

of new laundry, shower, housing, and multi-use facilities; construction of a hail shelter; addition 

of a group shelter and picnic areas for residential and visitor use; expansion of the amphitheater; 

installation of utilities; addition of pedestrian/bike path and trails; installation of a new propane 

refueling station; removal of Siberian elms and other modifications to landscape plantings; 

possible construction of a new approach road to the area should the Loop Road fail; and the 

removal, alteration, or addition of other unspecified facilities. The teams preparing both this CLR 

and the general management plan are in communication to ensure consistency between the 

documents. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

Impact topics are potential environmental problems or opportunities that might occur if an 

alternative is implemented. While no programmatic impacts from the CLR guidance are 

expected, these issues could potentially be affected by future development. The issues presented 

below were identified through conversations with NPS specialists from the park and the Midwest 

Regional Office, the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the public 

during two scoping meetings held in November of 2002 (see chapter 5 and appendix B for details 

about public scoping). Discussions regarding issues and concerns resulted in identifying specific 

impact topics—those resources that could be affected by the future implementation of an 

alternative. Impact topics include: 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources—Future development activities hold the potential to disturb and 

damage prehistoric and historic archeological resources at both the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area and Pinnacles area. This is particularly true for subsurface resources encountered 

through grading, excavation, and other ground disturbing activities related to 

development. No comprehensive archeological resource inventories have been conducted 

for the 290-acre Cedar Pass Developed Area or the Pinnacles area and no known 

prehistoric archeological resources exist within either area. However, historic 

archeological resources associated with park development are known to exist at Cedar 

Pass Developed Area and it is likely that such resources could be affected during future 

development. 

Cultural Landscapes (includes Historic Structures)—The Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape is considered eligible for the NRHP (John Milner Associates 2004; 

appendix A). As all historic structures and buildings are located within the cultural 

landscape’s boundaries, they are evaluated in this EA as a part of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area cultural landscape. The strategy employed for managing future actions 

within the cultural landscape could result in incremental loss of or enhancement to the 

resource’s integrity. 

Vegetation 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-7 

Vegetation within the Cedar Pass Developed Area is primarily a mixture of natural 

grasslands and landscaped areas associated with the cultural landscape. The Pinnacles 

area is characterized by grasslands. Vegetation within both of these areas may potentially 

be affected (removed, restored) by future development (for example, new construction or 

demolition). 

Wildlife 

Park shrublands and grasslands support a diverse wildlife population. Future 

development has the potential to impact wildlife and wildlife habitat as a result of 

disturbance and removal of habitat. 

Special Status Species, Threatened and Endangered Species 

The black-tailed prairie dog (federal candidate species), the black-footed ferret (federal 

and state endangered species), and the swift fox (state threatened species) are known to 

use or are indirectly related to the general Pinnacles entrance area, identified in 

alternative B as an area for future development. Future development impacts related to 

alternative B on those species are possible. 

Paleontological Resources 

General paleontological mapping has occurred throughout the park, though none is 

specific to the Cedar Pass Developed Area or Pinnacles area. It is known that fossil-rich 

bedrock (Scenic Member of the Brule Formation) underlies all of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area with bedrock exposure ranging from ground surface to about one foot 

below the surface (Benton, pers. comm. 2004). Fossil-rich bedrock (Brule and Sharps 

formations) underlies the Pinnacles area as well. Future development (such as 

construction or demolition) could potentially impact subsurface paleontological resources 

in these areas. 

Visitor Experience 

One of the purposes for creating the park was “for the benefit and enjoyment of the 

people” (45 Stat. 1553). The manner in which future development occurs within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area has the potential to affect preservation of scenic views and 

the cultural landscape in general, flexibility in provision of services and facilities, and the 

provision of additional interpretive materials, all of which could impact the visitor 

experience. 

Park Operations 

The manner in which future efforts to protect the cultural landscape are implemented 

could mean buildings required for administration or housing would be in a different 

location than the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The potential constraints on future 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-8 

development, such as requiring that new buildings be compatible with the cultural 

landscape, could also affect cost, maintenance and repair, and logistics of park 

operations. 

ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies consider several different 

possible issues to determine whether a detailed analysis of impact topics is required. The 

following is a discussion of impact topics the NPS considered initially, but did not analyze 

further, either because the topics were irrelevant to the alternatives, would have negligible 

impacts, or required no more detailed work to understand impacts than what is provided below. 

Water Resources (water quality/quantity, wetlands, floodplains)—Two intermittent, unnamed 

streams crosscut the Cedar Pass Developed Area; neither is expected to be impacted by any 

alternative. Emergent wetland vegetation was noted in association with the former wastewater 

lagoons of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This area has been filled and regraded to natural 

contours (Mills, pers. comm. 2004) and the vegetation no longer exists. No floodplain areas are 

expected to be affected by any of the proposed alternatives. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands—No prime or unique farmlands exist within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. The area has historically been viewed as relatively poor for agricultural 

activities. No prime or unique farmlands are expected to be impacted by the any of the proposed 

alternatives. 

Air Quality—Badlands National Park is a class I air quality area. While no impacts to air quality 

are expected from the adoption of the CLR, temporary effects of future construction and 

development within the study area could result in increased vehicle exhaust and emissions; 

however these would rapidly dissipate and are believed to have the potential to cause only a 

temporary, negligible degradation of local air quality. 

Soundscapes—Temporary construction/development noise could result in dissonant, humancaused impacts to the soundscape of the park under some alternatives. However, such temporary 

activity would be restricted to the Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles area and is believed 

to have the potential to result in only negligible effects to the soundscape. 

Rare/Unusual Vegetation—No impacts to rare/unusual vegetation is expected to result from the 

proposed alternatives. 

Unique Ecosystems—No impacts to unique ecosystems are expected to result from the proposed 

alternatives. 

Environmental Justice— All federal agencies are required to incorporate environmental justice 

into their missions by identifying/addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income 

populations (Executive Order 12898). Future implementation of any the proposed alternatives 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 1-9 

would not include any actions that would lead to disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects to minorities and low-income populations and communities. 

Unique/Important Fish or Fish Habitat—No unique fish or fish habitat exist within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area or Pinnacles area. Two unnamed, intermittent streams exist at the Cedar 

Pass Developed Areas, neither of which is believed to provide fish habitat. 

Introduction/Promotion of Nonnative Species—Replacement and/or maintenance of nonnative 

vegetation species that are historically associated with the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape will occur with future development regardless of the alternative. However, the action 

alternatives call for the substitution of some nonnative species with native, possibly xeric plants. 

These actions would not have an impact on native plant communities because the plantings 

would occur in developed areas where native plants are far less abundant. 

Energy Resources—No actions proposed would impact energy resources within the park. 

Socioeconomics—The action alternatives would not be expected to result in more than 

negligible impacts to socioeconomics of the area when compared to the no-action alternative. 

The rehabilitation alternative (alternative C) may result in more security for concessionaire 

facilities. 

Other Agency or Tribal Land Use—Existing and proposed lands uses within the park are in 

conformance with local land use plans. No conflict is expected with existing state or Tribal 

planning efforts. No other agency or tribal land uses would be affected by this proposal. 

Urban Quality/Gateway Communities—No impacts to urban quality/gateway communities are 

expected as a result of this proposal. 

Energy, Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential—None 

of the analyzed alternatives would result in the extraction of resources from Badlands National 

Park. Under all alternatives, conservation principles would be applied to ensure the park's natural 

resources are maintained. 

Sacred Sites and Indian Trusts—No known sacred sites (Executive Order 13007) or Indian 

trust resources (ECM95-2) are involved in the plan or any of the proposed alternatives. 


CHAPTER TWO

ALTERNATIVES
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-1 

CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area is currently managed under the park’s general management plan 

(NPS 1985) and the Master Plan and Development Concept Plan for Cedar Pass (NPS 1982). A 

draft of an updated general management plan for the park designed to revise these out-dated 

management documents is currently under review (NPS, in preparation). 

 

With the recent rehabilitation of the NRHP-eligible Ben Reifel Visitor Center, the construction 

of several new buildings within the Cedar Pass Developed Area (study area), and the fact that the 

cultural landscape is considered eligible for the NRHP (appendix A), the park recognizes the 

need for additional study to guide future management of the area. As a result, the draft Cedar 

Pass Developed Area, Badlands National Park, Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) has been 

prepared (John Milner Associates 2004). The CLR documents the history and elements of the 

cultural landscape and proposes management alternatives to aid in decision-making for future 

use of the area in ways that do not degrade the landscape. The cultural landscape is considered 

eligible for the NRHP with a period of significance ranging from 1928-1966 (John Milner 

Associates 2004, chapter 4; appendix A). 

Three alternatives are analyzed and compared in this EA—the no-action alternative and two 

action alternatives. The no-action alternative sets a baseline of existing conditions that will 

continue into the future against which to compare impacts of action alternatives (NPS 2004a:21). 

Its analysis is required under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 

1502.14(d)). The no-action alternative analyzed in this EA examines impacts of continuing with 

existing management of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape without historic 

preservation guidance provided by the CLR. 

 

The two action alternatives analyzed include the use of the historic preservation concepts 

provided in the CLR in managing and planning for future uses in the area. These include a 

“preservation” alternative (alternative B) and a “rehabilitation” alternative (alternative C). 

 

The following alternative descriptions, summarized in table 2-1, are consistent with those 

presented in the CLR for which this EA has been prepared. Alternatives for treatment (action 

alternatives) of the cultural landscape presented herein should not be confused with the type and 

scope of those found in a general management plan. These treatment alternatives “should be 

viewed as conceptual ‘overlay’ alternatives that are compatible with and supportive of the 

general management plan” (John Milner Associates 2004:6-1). This means that while the 

alternatives provide direction for development, they do not analyze the effects of development 

itself. Each talks generally about development and its impacts but because of its programmatic 

nature, analysis is not intended to be used for site-specific development. Table 2-2 summarizes 

the environmental consequences of each alternative. 

Under all alternatives, the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape is treated as an NRHPeligible historic landscape for which compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-2 

Preservation Act is required. Section 106 requires all federal agencies to consider effects of their 

actions on cultural resources determined eligible for the NRHP (see the “Cultural Resources” 

section in chapter 4 for additional information on regulations). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

Table 2-1: Alternatives Elements Summary  2-3 

Element Alternative A, No Action Alternative B, Preservation Alternative C, Rehabilitation 

General Concept Management of Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

Current (2004) management strategy continues without the benefit and guidance of park and developed area-specific policies and strategies. Cultural landscape managed for historic resource values (historic landscape) with minimal application of historic preservation knowledge and technology. 

NRHP-eligible cultural landscape managed through preservation approach, guided by the CLR. All contributing landscape features identified, retain, and preserved. Protection/preservation of historic landscape accomplished through use of moderate levels of preservation knowledge/technology. Historic functions of facilities and historic land use preserved within Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

NRHP-eligible cultural landscape managed through rehabilitation approach, guided by the CLR. All contributing landscape features identified, retained, and preserved or rehabilitated. Preservation/ rehabilitation of historic landscape accomplished through use of high levels of preservation knowledge/ technology. 

Location of Facilities and Services (park administration/ operations, visitor services). 

Appropriate existing and future functions/facilities related to park administration/ operations and visitor services remain at Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Some future park administrative/ operations functions and visitor services may be relocated to Pinnacles area. 

Same as alternative A 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-4 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-5 

Element Alternative A, No Action Alternative B, Preservation Alternative C, Rehabilitation 

General Concept (continued) Future development and landscape modification 

Absent a guidance document (CLR), development more likely to occur throughout the cultural landscape in a manner insensitive to the NRHP-eligible landscape. Future development needs would continue to be accommodated within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Landscape modifications may not be compatible with Mission 66 design principles/concepts. In accord with Section 106 (NHPA), historic landscape features would be added, removed and altered, as needed. 

No new development within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Essential features of the Mission 66 design principles (overall spatial character derived from environmental setting, siting of buildings, circulation patterns, and vegetation patterns) would be preserved using staff/consultants with moderate levels of historic preservation expertise. Intrusive resources would be mitigated or removed after their useful life; no new roads allowed. Future park needs met by development off site (Pinnacles area). 

New development at the Cedar Pass Developed Area limited to critical space needs allowed in identified development sites. Landscape alterations necessary to ensure the cultural landscape’s continued use allowed as long as they maintain historic character. Future development undertaken by staff/consultants with high levels of historic preservation expertise. The site’s overall spatial character derived from the environmental setting, siting of buildings, circulation patterns, and vegetation patterns would be maintained by preserving essential features and utilizing Mission 66 design principles in the placement of compatible new features. New, compatible development would be clearly differentiated from historic features. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-6 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-7 

Element Alternative A, No Action Alternative B, Preservation Alternative C, Rehabilitation 

General Concept (continued) Maintenance/repair of cultural landscape 

Maintenance/repair continues in current manner. These activities are more likely to be undertaken by staff/contractors untrained in historic preservation techniques. 

Maintenance/repairs undertaken by staff/contractors with moderate levels of historic preservation knowledge/methods. Deteriorated features/materials stabilized and protected; historic features and materials maintained and repairs performed when necessary; limited, in-kind replacement of severely deteriorated historic features vital to the site’s historic character undertaken. 

Maintenance/repairs undertaken by staff/contractors with high levels of historic preservation knowledge/ methods. Historic features and materials maintained and repairs performed when necessary. Inkind replacement or use of compatible material for replacement of deteriorated historic building/structures features. 

Natural Resources Absent CLR guidance, new 

development and landscape modifications within the Cedar Pass Developed Area are more likely to occur in open space areas where natural resources could be affected. 

Under CLR guidance for preservation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (no new development), open space areas and associated natural resources protected. Future off-site development poses greater risks to natural resources, including special status species, at the Pinnacles area. 

Under CLR guidance, for rehabilitation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, open space areas and associated natural resources generally protected. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-8 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-9 

Element Alternative A, No Action Alternative B, Preservation Alternative C, Rehabilitation 

General Concept (continued) Cultural Resources Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape managed as a historic resource. Absent CLR guidance regarding future management of the landscape, new development and landscape modifications are more likely to have the potential for adverse affects to the cultural landscape and archeological resources. Archeological resources would be protected/preserved to the greatest extent feasible. Protection for cultural resources derives primarily from Section 106 (NHPA) compliance. 

Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape managed as a historic resource. Under CLR guidance for preservation of the historic landscape (no new development), contributing historic and cultural landscape features would be identified, retained and preserved. Archeological resources would be protected/preserved to the greatest 

extent feasible. Future development at the Pinnacles area poses increased risks to cultural resources, particularly archeological resources. 

Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape managed as a historic resource. Under CLR guidance for rehabilitation of the historic landscape, contributing historic and cultural landscape features of the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be identified, retained, preserved, and/or rehabilitated. Archeological resources would be protected/preserved to the greatest extent feasible. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-10 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

Table 2-2: Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape 

 2-11 

Report, Environmental Consequences by Alternative 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural LandscapesRealignment of Loop Road Unknown effects 

(lack of management plan, potentially adverse effects to cultural landscape, unknown 

until route selected) 

Unknown effects (moderate levels of historic preservation expertise used in design; effects to be determined when route selected) 

Unknown effects (high levels of historic preservation expertise used in design; effects to be determined when route selected). 

Use/preservation of open space/natural systems 

Negligible to major adverse impacts (effects to spatial organization and views; potential incremental loss of landscape integrity) 

Minor benefit (preservation of open space areas and spatial organization/views) 

Minor benefit (preservation of open space areas and spatial organization/views). Minor adverse impacts (minor development in open space areas [trails/paths]) 

New development, Cedar Pass Developed Area 

Negligible to major adverse impacts (potential incremental loss of landscape integrity) 

Minor benefit (no new development) 

Negligible to minor adverse impacts (alteration of landscape features; integrity of cultural landscape remains intact) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-12 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-13 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural Landscapes (continued) Vegetation Management (for example, Siberian elm removal/replacement; maintenance/reestablishment of historic plantings) 

Negligible effect Negligible to minor benefit 

(maintenance of historic vegetation patterns) 

Minor to moderate benefits (reestablishment of historic Mission 66 planting designs; maintenance of historic vegetation patterns) 

Removal/mitigation of intrusive landscape features (such as structures) 

N/A (none proposed) 

Negligible to minor benefits (limited removal of incompatible landscape features) 

Minor benefits (removal of incompatible landscape features) 

Rehabilitation of existing cultural landscape features (building modifications/ rehabilitation) 

N/A (no rehabilitation proposed) 

N/A (no rehabilitation proposed) 

Minor to moderate benefit (rehabilitation of cultural landscape features; use of high level of historic preservation expertise) 

Archeological ResourcesRealignment of Loop Road Minor adverse impacts 

(ground disturbance) 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-14 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-15 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological Resources (continued)Protection of archeological resources 

Minor benefit (protection of resources); 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A 

Use/preservation of open space/natural systems 

Minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance within open space areas) 

Minor benefit (no ground disturbance in open space areas) 

Negligible to minor benefits (general preservation of open space areas, minimal ground disturbance) Minor adverse impact (proposed minor development [trails/paths] in open space areas) 

New development Cedar Pass Developed Area: 

Minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Minor benefit (no new development/ground disturbance) Pinnacles area: Minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Minor adverse impact (ground disturbance) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-16 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-17 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological Resources (continued) Vegetation Management (Siberian elm removal/replacement; maintenance of historic plantings) 

Negligible effects (no ground disturbance) 

Negligible effects (minimal ground disturbance) 

Negligible to minor adverse impacts (increased ground disturbance resulting from reestablishment of historic planting designs) 

Removal/mitigation of intrusive landscape features (such as structures) 

N/A (no removal/mitigation proposed) 

Negligible to minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 

Same as alternative B 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-18 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-19 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

VEGETATION Loop Road realignment Adverse impacts of unknown 

magnitude possible (loss of vegetation/ground disturbance) 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-20 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-21 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

VEGETATION (continued)New development Cedar Pass—within 

undeveloped areas: Moderate adverse impacts (permanent loss of vegetation within construction site) Minor adverse impacts (short-term effects to vegetation adjacent construction sites) Minor adverse, indirect impacts (potential spread of invasive 

species). Cedar Pass—within built up/developed areas: negligible effects from new construction; minor benefits from building removal (restoration of native vegetation) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Moderate benefits (no new development proposed) Pinnacles area: Same impacts described under alternative A within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: same as alternative A (potential for less disturbance of undeveloped areas) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-22 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-23 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

VEGETATION (continued)Open space/natural systems use/preservation 

Moderate adverse impact (loss/fragmentation of native vegetation possible) 

Moderate benefit (preservation of open space—no development) 

Minor to moderate benefit (general preservation of open space) Minor adverse impact (loss of vegetation related to minor development) 

Removal of intrusive landscape structures/features 

N/A Minor benefit 

(restoration of native vegetation) 

Same as alternative B 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-24 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-25 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

VEGETATION (continued)Vegetation Management, Cedar Pass Developed Area (reestablishment of historic plantings, tree planting) 

N/A N/A Historic vegetation 

(reestablishment): Negligible to minor benefit (reestablishment of historic patterns in developed areas; restoration of native grasses in some developed areas) Tree planting: Negligible effects in developed areas (trampling); minor to moderate, site-specific adverse impacts in areas of native vegetation (trampling, decrease in native grass cover) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-26 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-27 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

VEGETATION (continued)Removal of invasive Siberian elms 

Lodge Area: Short-term--Minor adverse impact (herbicide use) Long-term--moderate benefit (promotion of healthy prairie ecosystem) 

Lodge and open space areas: Same as alternative A (w/slight, but not notably, increased, benefits due to total removal of elms within Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

Lodge and open space Areas: Same as alternative B 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-28 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-29 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

WILDLIFELoop Road realignment Minor adverse impacts 

(construction impacts) 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A 

Use/preservation of open space/natural systems 

Minor adverse impacts (construction activity, habitat loss/fragmentation) 

Minor benefit (open space preservation) 

Negligible to minor benefit (general open space preservation) Negligible to minor adverse impacts (construction activity, habitat loss/fragmentation) 

New development Cedar Pass Developed Area: 

Minor adverse impact (construction activity; habitat loss/fragmentation) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Minor benefit (no new development) Pinnacles area: Short-term--Minor adverse impacts (construction disturbances) Long-term--Minor to moderate adverse impacts (habitat loss/fragmentation) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Negligible to minor adverse impacts (short term: increased human activity, noise, traffic) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-30 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-31 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

WILDLIFE (continued) Removal/mitigation of intrusive landscape features 

N/A Negligible to minor adverse 

impacts (short-term: construction activity/disturbances) Negligible effects (long-term: restoration of native vegetation) 

Same as alternative B (with similar but slightly higher level of effort/potential effects) 

Vegetation Management (removal of Siberian elms and associated vegetation restoration) 

Moderate adverse impacts (human activity, habitat loss) 

Moderate to possibly major adverse impacts (human activity, habitat loss, nature/size of replacement trees) 

Same as alternative B 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-32 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-33 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Black-footed Ferret (federal and state endangered [under the Endangered Species Act, considered “threatened” on NPS lands]) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: N/A, species not present Pinnacles area: N/A, no development proposed 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: same as alternative A Pinnacles area:  Federal impacts: may 

affect/not likely to adversely affect 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Same as alternative A Pinnacles area: Same as alternative A 

Swift fox (state threatened) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: N/A, species not present Pinnacles area: N/A, no development proposed 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: same as alternative A Pinnacles area: minor to major adverse impacts (construction activity, habitat loss/fragmentation, increased human activity) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Same as alternative A Pinnacles area: same as alternative A 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-34 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-35 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

 PALEONTOLOGYLoop Road realignment < major adverse impacts 

(ground disturbance) 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A 

Use/preservation of open space/natural systems 

Negligible to minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 

Minor benefit (open space preservation, no alterations proposed; no ground disturbance) 

Negligible to minor benefit (general preservation of open space areas) Negligible to minor adverse impacts (minor construction/ground disturbance) 

New development Cedar Pass Developed Area: 

Minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Negligible to minor benefits (no new development/ground disturbance) Pinnacles area: minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 

Mitigation/removal of intrusive landscape features 

N/A (none proposed) Negligible to minor adverse 

impacts (minor ground disturbance) 

Same as alternative B 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-36 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-37 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

 PALEONTOLOGYVegetation Management Siberian elm removal: 

Negligible (no ground disturbance) 

Siberian elm removal/ replacement; historic foundation plants maintained: Negligible to minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 

Siberian elm removal/ replacement; foundation plants maintained: Same as alternative B Reestablishment of historic planting design: Negligible to minor adverse impacts (ground disturbance) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-38 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-39 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE Loop Road realignment Unknown effects 

(realignment route unknown) 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A 

Preservation of scenic views Minor to moderate adverse 

impacts (loss of views; potential development in space areas) 

Minor benefit (preservation of open space areas; no development 

Same as alternative B 

Historic preservation treatment method for NRHP-eligible cultural landscape 

Minor adverse impacts (no management plan for the cultural landscape; potential incremental loss of historic character) 

Minor to moderate benefit (preservation of Mission 66 design, Park Service Modern architecture) 

Minor to moderate benefit (preservation/ rehabilitation of Mission 66 design, Park Service Modern architecture) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-40 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-41 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE (continued)Provision of future visitor services/facilities 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Minor to moderate benefits (flexibility to provide additional visitor services/facilities) Pinnacles area: N/A 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Minor to moderate adverse impacts (limited ability to provide for additional or improved visitor services/facilities) Pinnacles area: Unknown type/intensity (likely long-term and local to regional in scope) 

Cedar Pass Developed Area: Minor to moderate benefit (flexibility to provide additional visitor services/facilities) Pinnacles area: N/A 

Additional interpretive materials N/A N/A Minor benefit 

(additional interpretive materials) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-42 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-43 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

PARK OPERATIONS Work within landscape to ensure accessibility, health and safety and energy efficiency 

Negligible to minor benefit (staff efficiency; visitor/staff safety; energy/financial savings) 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A 

New development/improvements related to park operations 

Long-term: Minor to moderate benefit (park operations remain concentrated at Cedar Pass Developed Area with flexibility to respond to future needs) Short-term (construction effects): Minor adverse impacts (disruption of park operations at Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

Long-term: Unknown, possibly adverse impacts (possible disconnection of park operations related to off-site development at Pinnacles area) Short-term (construction effects): negligible to minor adverse impacts (disruptions of park operations at Pinnacles area) 

Long-term: Minor to moderate benefit (park operations remain concentrated at the Cedar Pass Developed Area with flexibility to respond to future needs) Short-term (construction effects): minor adverse impact (disruptions of park operations at Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

Use of historic preservation expertise in planning/ design/construction of modifications to the cultural landscape 

Negligible to minor adverse impacts (minimal use of historic preservation expertise; possible slight increase in time/financial commitment) 

Minor adverse impacts (use of moderate levels of historic preservation expertise; slightly increased financial/time commitments) 

Minor to moderate adverse impact (use of high levels of historic preservation expertise; increased financial/time commitments) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-44 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-45 

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B, PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C, REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

PARK OPERATIONS (continued)Routine maintenance/repair of historic landscape 

Negligible to minor adverse impacts (limited training in historic preservation techniques) 

Minor adverse impacts (use of workers with moderate levels of training in historic preservation techniques [could involve staff training]; increased time/financial commitments) 

Minor adverse impact (use of workers with high levels of historic preservation techniques [could involve staff training]; increased time/financial commitments) 

Retention/use of compatible landscape structures post-dating period of significance 

N/A Negligible to minor benefit 

(financial savings, existing park operations not disrupted) 

Minor to moderate benefit (financial savings, park operations remain concentrated at Cedar Pass Developed Area, park operations not disrupted). 

Vegetation management (historic vegetation, Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

N/A (none proposed) Negligible effects 

(maintenance) 

Short-term: Minor adverse impact (research, reestablishment) Long-term: Minor benefit (reduced maintenance time) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-46 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-47 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION 

The no-action alternative provides a baseline for evaluating changes and impacts of the two 

action alternatives. Though the district would be managed for historic resource values, a 

minimum application of available preservation knowledge and technology is expected under this 

alternative. The NPS would continue to manage and use the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape in the current (2004) manner, without the coherent and cohesive historic preservation 

guidance provided in the draft CLR (John Milner Associates 2004). Development and alteration 

would be evaluated as to its effect on the historic landscape under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Types of guidance that would be lacking as a result include detailed historical research yielding 

information regarding original design and construction of facilities, a high level of historical 

research regarding building exterior and interiors, evaluation of historic integrity, and 

conservation assessments. New development and facility siting would not utilize the original 

planning approach of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Designers of new facilities, general 

contractors constructing them, and laborers/contractors involved in maintenance operations 

would not be required to have training, education, and/or experience in preservation technology. 

In sum, no park or developed area policies, strategies, and implementation initiatives would be 

available to lend a comprehensive and sustained program of guidance for preservation of the 

historic landscape and its buildings as outlined in the CLR (figure 2-1 located at end of chapter). 

The no-action alternative includes the following overarching guidelines/actions:

• The plans for expanding the Ben Reifel Visitor Center would proceed. 

• Park headquarters and other park operations would remain in the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area, with the construction of the fire cache, an additional park office building, and the 

museum storage facility completed as planned. 

• Work would be allowed to ensure accessibility, health and safety, environmental, and 

limited energy efficiency considerations. 

• The concession operations and campgrounds would remain at the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area in their current location and configuration. 

• Development would continue in the area to accommodate future needs as they arise. 

• Repairs to buildings would not attempt to preserve historic form or materials. 

• As needed, buildings, structures and other landscape features would be altered, removed, 

or added. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance 

process. 

• Alterations to parking and road/circulation alignments would be used to address 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the 

Section 106 compliance process. However, design of new circulation would not benefit 

from an understanding of historic development patterns and the sensitivity of historic 

resources. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-48 

• New buildings, structures, or landscape features may or may not be compatible with the 

Mission 66 site design principles or existing buildings, structures, and features. Effects of 

these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance process. 

• The plans for a new laundry building, expanded amphitheater, and new shower facilities 

would continue to be developed. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the 

Section 106 compliance process. 

• Failure of the Loop Road at Cedar Pass (in the wall above the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area) would eventually result in changed traffic patterns. New traffic patterns may or 

may not attempt compatibility with Mission 66 principles of layout and design. Effects of 

these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance process. 

• Archeological resources would be protected and preserved in place, if possible. 

Otherwise, mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts would be undertaken. 

Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the Section 106 compliance process. 

ALTERNATIVE B—PRESERVATION 

Background 

 

Preservation is one of four treatment alternatives (preservation, rehabilitation [see alternative C], 

restoration, reconstruction) defined by the Department of the Interior as a potential approach for 

managing historic landscapes. 

Preservation maintains the existing integrity and character of a cultural landscape by 

arresting or retarding deterioration caused by natural forces and normal use. It includes 

both maintenance and stabilization. Maintenance is a systematic activity mitigating wear 

and deterioration of a cultural landscape by protecting its conditions. In light of the 

dynamic qualities of a landscape, maintenance is essential for the long-term preservation 

of individual features and integrity of the entire landscape. Stabilization involves reestablishing the stability of an unsafe, damaged, or deteriorated cultural landscape, while 

maintaining its existing character (NPS 1998, chapter 7.D). 

In preservation, the options for replacement are limited. The expressed goal of The 

Standards for Preservation and Guidelines for Preserving Cultural Landscapes is retention 

of the landscape’s existing form, features and materials, provided that such actions will 

not result in a degraded landscape condition or threaten historic resources (NPS 1996:20). 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes addresses preservation further: 

• A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes 

the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, 

if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-49 

• The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement 

of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial 

relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 

• Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. 

Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and 

features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close 

inspection, and properly documented for future research. 

• Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will 

be retained and preserved. 

• Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

• The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the 

appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires 

repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the 

old in composition, design, color, and texture. 

• Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest 

means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 

• Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources 

must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken (NPS 1996:19). 

Additionally: 

• The design of new features and systems would be undertaken by designers with a 

moderate level of training, education, and/or experienced in preservation technology. 

• The repair and maintenance of new features and systems would be undertaken by 

maintenance staff or contractors with a moderate level of training, education, and/or 

experienced in preservation technology. 

• Construction involving the rehabilitation and renovation of existing facilities would be 

undertaken by general contractors and subcontractors with a moderate level of training, 

education, and/or experienced in preservation technology. 

Alternative B (Preservation) Description 

The general scope of alternative B is the protection and preservation of the surviving historic 

resources through the application of a moderate level of preservation knowledge and technology, 

while accommodating growth within other areas of the park. Its focus is on the historic 

features/elements of the cultural landscape at Cedar Pass Developed Area and their integrity 

based on the significance evaluation presented in the CLR (John Milner Associates 2004). Any 

modifications to the landscape would be directly related to the need to meet identified facility 

and operational needs. No new development is planned for the Cedar Pass Developed Area; new 

construction would take place off site, within the Pinnacles area (approximately 20 miles to the 

northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area). Historic resources at the Cedar Pass Developed 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-50 

Area would be protected and maintained while intrusive resources could be mitigated or 

removed after their useful life. The proactive management of both cultural and natural resources 

integral to the landscape would be minimal. Existing roads, buildings and other landscape 

features would be repaired with the historic nature of the resource in mind. The preservation 

alternative includes the following (figure 1-2 shows the vicinity; figure 2-2 presents the proposed 

alternative B). 

 

• The historic functions of facilities and historic land use would continue. 

• All contributing historic and cultural landscape features of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area would be identified, retained, and preserved. 

• The site’s overall spatial character derived from the environmental setting, the siting of 

buildings, the road and drive patterns, the pedestrian path and walks patterns, and 

vegetation patterns would be preserved. 

• As a preliminary measure, deteriorated features and materials would be stabilized and 

protected. 

• Historic features and materials would be maintained and repairs performed when 

necessary. 

• Limited, in-kind replacement of severely deteriorated historic features, which are vital to 

the site’s historic character, would be undertaken. 

• Work would be allowed to ensure accessibility, health and safety, environmental, and 

limited energy efficiency considerations. 

• Archeological resources would be protected and preserved in place to the greatest extent 

feasible. If disturbance were necessary, mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts 

would be undertaken. Effects of these actions would be evaluated through the Section 

106 compliance process. 

• Natural systems and features (drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife) 

would be protected but with limited efforts to enhance them. 

• The open, undeveloped areas would remain undeveloped and in their natural state. 

• New development would not occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area and would 

instead be located outside the historic area in the Pinnacles area. Development planned at 

this time for the next 10-15 years would require approximately 5-10 acres and could 

include housing, administrative/operational support facilities, and associated utilities and 

parking. In general, development would be situated proximate to existing facilities at the 

Pinnacles area and away from the Loop Road. 

• New roads would not be constructed within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. However, 

when the Loop Road is no longer viable due to natural erosional processes, some changes 

in circulation and access to the site may become unavoidable. 

• Limited and minimal mitigation measures would be utilized to reduce or eliminate the 

intrusive nature of nonhistoric structures and features that intrude on historic character. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-51 

• Intrusive, nonhistoric structures and features would only be removed after their useful 

life. 

ALTERNATIVE C—REHABILITATION (Preferred Alternative) 

Background 

The rehabilitation alternative is one of four treatment alternatives (preservation [see alternative 

B], rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction) defined by the Department of the Interior as a 

potential approach for managing historic landscapes. 

Rehabilitation improves the utility or function of a cultural landscape, through repair or 

alteration, to make possible an efficient compatible use while preserving those portions or 

features that are important in defining its significance (NPS 1998, chapter 7.D). 

In rehabilitation, the cultural landscape’s character- defining features and materials are 

protected and maintained as they are in the treatment preservation; however, a 

determination is made prior to work that a greater amount of existing historic fabric has 

become damaged or deteriorate over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement 

will be required. The Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation allow 

the replacement of extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either 

traditional or substitute materials (NPS 1996:50). 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes addresses rehabilitation further: 

• A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires 

minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

• The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of 

distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that 

characterize a property will be avoided. 

• Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. 

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding 

conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 

• Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will 

be retained and preserved. 

• Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

• Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity 

of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will 

match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement 

of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-52 

• Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest 

means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 

• Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources 

must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 

• New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy 

historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. 

The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the 

historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the 

integrity of the property and its environment. 

• New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a 

manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic 

property and its environment would be unimpaired (NPS 1996:49). 

Additionally: 

• The design of new features and systems would be undertaken by designers with a high 

level of training, education, and/or experienced in preservation technology. 

• The repair and maintenance of new features and systems would be undertaken by 

maintenance staff or contractors with a high level of training, education, and/or 

experienced in preservation technology. 

• Construction involving the rehabilitation and renovation of existing facilities would be 

undertaken by general contractors and subcontractors with a high level of training, 

education, and/or experienced in preservation technology. 

Alternative C (Rehabilitation) Description 

The rehabilitation alternative allows for the adapting of the historic landscape to limited new 

uses while protecting, to the greatest extent possible, its significant historic fabric and 

relationships. It promotes preservation treatment of the historic landscape while allowing 

adaptive uses, including news uses. The focus is on the enhancement of the surviving historic 

resources through the extensive application of a high level of preservation knowledge and 

technology for the design/construction of new features and repair/maintenance of existing 

features, while accommodating growth within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This high level of 

historic preservation expertise could include detailed historical research regarding building 

exteriors/interiors, evaluation of historic integrity, and conservation assessments. New 

development would be limited to critical park needs, would occur within defined and distinct 

areas (development sites) as defined in the CLR, and would be compatible with, or nonintrusive 

to, the cultural landscape (figure 2-3). Where possible, new structures would be located where 

buildings had been removed. Any new major roads or circulation alterations would be associated 

with new development. Existing noncontributing structures compatible with the cultural 

landscape would be retained/used. The rehabilitation alternative includes the following (figure 2-

3). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-53 

• All contributing features of the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be identified, 

retained, and preserved, to the greatest extent feasible. 

• The site’s overall spatial character derived from the siting of buildings, the road and 

drive patterns, the pedestrian path and walks patterns, and vegetation patterns would 

be maintained by preserving essential features and character and utilizing Mission 66 

design principles in the placement of limited compatible new features. 

• The historic foundation planting design around the visitor center would be 

reestablished using the original Mission 66 period planting plans. Problematic or 

inappropriate plants would be substituted with more suitable but similar plants, 

preferably plants with low water and maintenance requirements. 

• Historic features and materials would be maintained and repairs performed when 

necessary. In-kind replacement or the use of compatible material for replacement of 

deteriorated historic building/structure features would be allowed. 

• Changes to the cultural landscape that have acquired historic significance in their own 

right would be retained and maintained. 

• Compatible landscape and site features (such as buildings, roads, or small-scale 

features) that post-date the period of significance would be retained and used. 

• Missing historic features that were critical to historic character would be replaced if 

adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists so the feature can be 

accurately reproduced. A compatible new feature as a replacement would also be an 

option. 

• Archeological resources would be protected and preserved in place to the greatest 

extent feasible. If disturbance were necessary, mitigation measures to minimize 

adverse impacts would be undertaken. Effects of these actions would be evaluated 

through the Section 106 compliance process. 

• Natural systems and features (drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife) 

would be protected and preserved. 

• Alterations to a cultural landscape that are deemed necessary to assure its continued 

use would be allowed as long as these alterations do not destroy historic character 

such as spatial organization, land patterns, features and materials. 

• The removal of landscape and site features (such buildings, roads, or small-scale 

features) that post-date the period of significance that have incompatible 

characteristics with the surviving historic features and detract from the overall 

historic character would be considered. 

• Mitigation measures would be utilized to reduce the intrusive nature of nonhistoric 

buildings that are retained. 

• Intrusive nonhistoric buildings would be removed after their useful life. 

• New building developments would be limited to meet critical space needs and, when 

possible, would be sited in locations where buildings that have since been removed 

existed during period of significance. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-54 

• New or altered facilities would be as nonintrusive as possible while allowing for 

accessibility and safety and would not be permissible if historic character such as 

spatial organization, land patterns, features and materials would be destroyed. 

• New design would need to be differentiated from existing historic resources. New 

additions and alterations would need to be a product of their time but compatible with 

the historic resources in materials, size, scale and proportion, and massing. A clear 

differentiation between historic and modern features would need to be maintained. 

• Changes that create a false sense of history, such as features that are designed to 

appear historic, would not be allowed. 

• Work would be allowed to ensure accessibility, health and safety, environmental, and 

limited energy efficiency considerations. 

• Historic structures and features would be documented using appropriate and accepted 

procedures prior to changes. 

• The failure of the Loop Road may require changes in circulation and access within 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

The implementation of mitigation measures can often minimize potential adverse impacts to 

natural and cultural resources from construction activities and park operations. The measures 

described below are crafted to be consistent with those provided in the draft General 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Badlands National Park (NPS, in 

preparation) and apply to all alternatives. 

Cultural Resources 

The park will continue its compliance related to cultural resource protection under its Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline (Director’s Order 28 [NPS 1998]), the NPS Management 

Policies (NPS 2001), and the 1995 Service-wide Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (SHPO). These documents charge NPS managers with avoiding or 

minimizing, to the greatest degree practicable, adversely impacting park resources and values. 

Cultural Landscapes (Including Historic Structures) 

Future proposals affecting historic structures and the NRHP-eligible Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape will be conducted in compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (NPS 1996) and Cultural Resource Management Guideline (NPS 1998). If adverse 

effects on historic structures or contributing cultural landscape elements are unavoidable, 

appropriate documentation would be completed in accordance with the appropriate standards and 

guidelines. Where appropriate, other mitigation measures would be developed in consultation 

with the South Dakota SHPO, the ACHP, and other appropriate parties. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-55 

Archeological Resources 

All future proposed ground disturbance (for example, construction or vegetation management) 

would be preceded by an assessment for the presence of archeological resources. Information 

related to potential locations of historic archeological sites included in John Milner Associates 

(2004) will be reviewed at the project planning phase to determine likelihood of encountering 

resources, as well as to guide project design and location (appendix C [CONFIDENTIAL—not 

for public distribution]). If archeological resources are evident at ground surface, project 

redesign and/or other appropriate mitigative measures would be developed in consultation with 

the SHPO and Tribe (where applicable), prior to construction. If there is reason to believe that 

subsurface archeological resources are present in the project area, ground disturbance would be 

monitored by a cultural resource specialist. If archeological resources are encountered during 

construction activities, ground-disturbing work would stop immediately and allow for 

professional evaluation and compliance activities by a cultural resource professional, in 

cooperation with the SHPO and Tribes (if appropriate). Should human remains, funerary, or 

sacred objects be encountered, work would immediately cease and the park staff would notify 

and consult with appropriate American Indian Tribes as required under the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NPS, in preparation: 51-52). 

Vegetation 

Projects would be designed to minimize impacts on vegetation. If adequate data do not exist for 

areas where projects could potentially impact vegetation, surveys would be conducted prior to 

implementation to determine presence of special status plant species and assess impacts to the 

resource. Revegetation plans would be developed for areas affected by major construction 

activities. Whenever appropriate and possible, revegetation with native plant species would be 

required, as would the salvage of plants and topsoil. Revegetation plans would specify such 

features as seed and plant sources, seed mixes, soil preparation, fertilizers, and mulching. To the 

extent possible, salvaged vegetation would be used rather than new planting or seeding. The use 

of nonnative species would be considered only where deemed necessary to maintain a cultural 

landscape or to prevent severe resource damage. Restoration activities would be instituted 

immediately after construction is completed. Post-construction monitoring of the sites would 

ensure that revegetation was successful. Plantings would be maintained and unsuccessful plant 

materials would be replaced (NPS, in preparation: 50). 

Management of invasive species would be conducted in compliance with the Integrated Weed 

Management Plan, Badlands National Park (NPS 2003a). 

Wildlife 

Proposed projects would be designed to avoid adverse impacts to known important wildlife 

habitat (wildlife corridors, breeding/nesting/foraging/roosting areas). Appropriate studies would 

be conducted prior to project implementation to discover if potential impacts to wildlife would 

occur and, if so, the appropriate mitigation. Design and construction of new structures would 

attempt to minimize human disturbance and building footprints/impervious surfaces; avoid 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-56 

adverse effects on behavior, distribution and movements of wildlife (noise, lighting); and 

avoid/minimize habitat loss/fragmentation. Where possible, areas of disturbance resulting from 

development or other disruptive actions (such as structure removal) would be restored to native 

vegetation. 

Special Status Species 

Future development would be designed to avoid adverse impacts to special status species and 

their habitat (wildlife corridors, nesting areas, feeding areas; minimization of habitat loss, noise, 

excessive lighting). Appropriate studies would be conducted prior to project implementation to 

discover if special status species (federal or state) exist/utilize the proposed project site/area. 

Consultation with the appropriate state (State of South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks [SDGFP]) 

and federal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) resource agencies would be conducted to ensure 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act and other state wildlife regulations. Design and 

construction of new structures would attempt to limited human disturbance in the area, minimize 

building footprints, avoid adverse effects on behavior, distribution and movements of wildlife 

(noise, lighting), and avoid/minimize habitat loss/fragmentation. 

Paleontological Resources 

Future development projects would be preceded by surveys to assess the potential to affect 

paleontological resources. Because much of Badlands National Park is underlain with fossil-rich 

deposits, ground-disturbing activities would be monitored by a paleontological resource 

professional to avoid adverse affects to the resource. If subsurface paleontological resources are 

discovered during monitoring, project redesign and/or other mitigative measures (data recovery) 

would be implemented prior to further disturbance (NPS, in preparation: 51) 

Visitor Experience 

The overall planning and design of structures and features would consider the integration of 

accessibility factors. All features associated with accessibility would conform to the standards 

cited in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards and Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines. The accessibility guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas prepared by 

the U.S. Access Board’s Regulatory Negotiation Committee would also be consulted. 

Where practical, new facilities would be barrier free. Planning and design for new facilities will 

recognize potential diversity of visitors. Operational and administrative facilities would be 

designed to be accessible to the greatest extent possible. 

Park Operations 

Accessibility issues described under “Visitor Experience” would also apply for park operations. 

To the greatest extent possible, operational and administrative facilities would be designed to be 

accessible. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-57 

HOW ALTERNATIVES MEET OBJECTIVES 

All action alternatives analyzed must meet all objectives to a large degree. They must also 

address the stated purpose of taking action and resolve the need for action. Therefore, the action 

alternatives and their effects were individually assessed to evaluate how well each would meet 

the objectives of the CLR: 

• To adequately document the historical development of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape. 

• To provide a baseline database for the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

for future research and planning efforts. 

• To provide a predictable and useable guide for future management and use of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape, while protecting and preserving its 

historic nature. 

• To manage for resource values while accommodating existing planned uses. 

• To streamline planning and approval processes for proposed development within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. 

• To contribute tangible planning guidelines for the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape in other park planning efforts (such as general management plans 

or resource management plans). 

• To enhance visitor experience through the understanding of the history of the park’s 

development. 

Table 2-3 summarizes the evaluation of how each alternative meets the above objectives. The 

no-action alternative falls short of meeting all objectives owing to the fact that it lacks 

management guidance for future development within the NRHP-eligible Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. Specific historic landscape management guidance provided in the action alternatives (B 

and C) helps to meet objectives, to varying degrees, related to future planning and development 

and resource protection. Alternative C contributes to the greatest degree to the comprehensive 

documentation of the landscape, as well as the accommodation of future needs within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area. Alternative B contributes to the management of resources values while 

accommodating existing planned use within the Cedar Pass Development Area; however, 

resource values within the Pinnacles area are at the greatest risk under this alternative. Both 

action alternatives more clearly meet objectives related to enhanced visitor opportunities 

associated with history of the park’s development than does the no-action alternative. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-58 

Table 2-3: Summary of How Alternatives Meet the Objectives 

OBJECTIVES ALTERNATIVE A, 

NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE B, 

PRESERVATION 

ALTERNATIVE C, 

REHABILITATION 

To adequately 

document the historical 

development of the 

Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape 

1 2 3 

To provide a baseline 

database of the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape for 

future research and 

planning efforts. 

1 2 3 

To provide a 

predictable and useable 

guide for future 

management and use of 

the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area 

cultural landscape, 

while protecting and 

preserving its historic 

nature. 

1 2 3 

To manage for resource 

values while 

accommodating 

existing planned uses. 

1 2 3 

To streamline planning 

and approval processes 

for proposed 

development within the 

Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape. 

1 3 3 

To contribute tangible 

planning guidelines for 

the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area 

cultural landscape in 

other park planning 

efforts. 

1 3 3 

To enhance visitor 

experience through the 

understanding of the 

1 3 3 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-59 

OBJECTIVES ALTERNATIVE A, 

NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE B, 

PRESERVATION 

ALTERNATIVE C, 

REHABILITATION 

history of the park’s 

development. 

TOTALS 7 17 21 

1 = partially meets goal 

2 = meets basic level of goal 

3 = provides highest levels of goal achievement 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

In the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations, agencies are 

required to evaluate how each of the analyzed alternatives meet certain policy statements set for 

in Section 101 and 102(1) of 40 CFR 1502.2d. The environmentally preferred alternative is 

defined as the alternative(s) that best meets the criteria or objectives set out in Section 101(b) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In its regulations (Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning CEQ’s NEPA regulations), the CEQ interprets this as meaning 

...the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; 

it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 

cultural, and natural resources. 

Using both the CEQ’s interpretations of the Section 101 criteria and the alternatives impact 

information provided in this document, it was determined that alternative C (rehabilitation), also 

the preferred alternative, is the environmentally preferred alternative. 

Alternative C would provide the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation, provide an environment that supports diversity and variety of choice, and assure 

culturally pleasing surroundings. It would also allow for appropriate, on-site provision of 

adequate office and work space for park staff, while alternative B could result in some services 

and facilities being forced off site (Pinnacles area) with potential loss of productivity and other 

undesired consequences. Alternative C also provides a slightly greater contribution to the 

enhancement of the quality of renewable resources and recycling of depletable resources. 

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Several options were considered but eliminated for areas of future off-site development/use 

under alternative B. One included the possibility of future park development needs being met at a 

site in the town of Interior, South Dakota, approximately two miles southwest of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. The site currently contains a motel. However, it is believed to be too small to 

accommodate the projected needs of 5-10 acres and was dismissed from further consideration. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 2-60 

Providing additional operational facilities for future park need in existing offices in the town of 

Wall, South Dakota, was also considered for alternative B. Wall is located about 28 miles to the 

northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. There was discussion of sharing facilities with 

other federal agencies. Because of the uncertainty about the future feasibility of this option, as 

well as the fact that it is located 28 miles away from the current focus of park operations, it was 

dismissed from further consideration. 



CHAPTER THREE

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The affected environment described in this EA involves the Cedar Pass Developed Area and, 

secondarily, the Pinnacles area. While the Cedar Pass Developed Area is the focus of the 

Cultural Landscape Report (CLR), the Pinnacles area has been proposed for off-site development 

that would not take place at the Cedar Pass Developed Area under alternative B (preservation 

alternative). For this reason, the Pinnacles area is included in the “Affected Environment” and 

“Environmental Consequences” chapters of this EA. 

Badlands National Park is located in southwestern South Dakota within the geologic region 

referred to as the Badlands, a highly eroded plateau region of South Dakota and northern 

Nebraska (see figure 1-1). The Cedar Pass Developed Area (study area), sits within the 

northeastern portion of the north unit of Badlands National Park, comprising approximately 290 

acres of the park’s nearly 250,000 acres. The Pinnacles area is located approximately 20 miles to 

the northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, along the northern boundary of the park (figure 

1-2). 

As defined in the project scope of work, the Cedar Pass Developed Area encompasses the Ben 

Reifel Visitor Center, the park administration complex, Cedar Pass Lodge, a campground/ 

amphitheater area, park employee housing including apartments and single family residences, 

maintenance facilities, and the beginning of the Badland Loop Road. The Pinnacles area contains 

a ranger station, self-serve entrance booths, and several outbuildings associated with park 

functions. This section addresses both the essential characteristics of the larger park landscape 

and information about the specific study areas. 

The natural systems of the Badlands area have significantly influenced the human use of the area 

through time. The regional climate is characterized as semi-arid, with short, hot, dry summers, 

and long, cold, dry winters. Significant seasonal temperature variability is evident, with winter 

lows dropping to -30 ̊F and summer highs reaching in excess of 100 ̊F. Spring and fall 

temperatures can vary dramatically and change rapidly. Average annual precipitation is 16 

inches, mostly occurring in the late spring and early summer. Afternoon and evening 

thunderstorms, sometimes torrential, are frequent during the summer (Hauk 1993). The presence 

of highly erodable sedimentary bedrock (for example, shale and mudstone), coupled with the 

lack of soil-stabilizing vegetation creates a rapidly eroding landscape. Such erosion has produced 

dramatic sculpted landforms and exposed innumerable fossils, both of which were driving forces 

for the park’s creation. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-2 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Note: Unless otherwise noted, the following summary is based primarily on information included 

within the Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Badlands 

National Park [NPS, in preparation] The Cedar Pass Developed Area, Badlands National Park, 

Cultural Landscape Report [John Milner Associates 2004], and the South Dakota Historical 

Society [2004]. 

Culture History 

Evidence of the earliest prehistoric use of the Badlands National Park area dates to around 

11,500 BP (before present) (Paleo-Indian Period) in the form of big-game hunting sites. Over 

time, these early big game hunting cultures made increasing use of plant foods and long-term 

food storage. Remains of two butchered mammoths have been recorded at the Lange/Ferguson 

site (39SH33) on what is now the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, approximately five miles 

outside the park boundary in the south unit (NPS 2000). 

When a drier climate prevailed around 8,000 to 7,000 BP (Plains Archaic Period), subsistence 

strategies shifted from predominantly big-game hunting to a more generalized hunting and 

gathering strategy with people living in small groups. Foraging activities are represented by the 

recovery of numerous grinding and milling stones and remains of elk, deer, antelope, rabbits, 

birds, rodents and reptiles. Evidence of stone circles, believed associated with a form of 

superstructure for temporary habitation, occurs for the first time during this period. Eight sites 

within Badlands National Park are believed to date to the Plains Archaic Period, none of which 

occurs within the Cedar Pass Developed Area or Pinnacles area (NPS 2000). 

Around 1,500 BP (Late Prehistoric Period) new cultural patterns characterized by a variety of 

subsistence strategies, presence of pottery, burial mounds, social and religious cultural changes, 

the presence of exotic trade items, the bow and arrow, and horticulture are evident. However, 

many of these traits are not apparent in western South Dakota as the Archaic Period lingered on 

with continued reliance on bison hunting and plant gathering. Eight sites identified within the 

park date to this period, none of which are located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area or the 

Pinnacles area. The Pinnacles area (39PN9) is located to the northwest of the study area, within 

the north unit, and contains ceramics dating to about 1050 BP. The Johnny site (39JK4), located 

to the north of the study area in the north unit of the park, dates to approximately 1000 BP. 

The earliest signs of European contact with native inhabitants in South Dakota occur during the 

Protohistoric/Historic Period (approximately 250-150 years ago) in the form of glass trade beads, 

iron knives, and other metal implements. The introduction of the horse to the region, combined 

with acquisition of firearms, transformed the lives of the Plains hunters in South Dakota, 

ultimately giving rise to the horse-mounted cultures so familiar to Americans. Subsistence was 

based on seasonal adjustments, with groups coming together in the summer for cooperative 

hunting efforts (for example, animal drives). Seven sites dating to this time period have been 

identified within Badlands National Park. An iron point believed to be associated with the 

Arikara was recovered from site 39PN32. Two stone circle sites (39SH34 and 39SH35) are 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-3 

believed associated with the Sioux. Site 39PN2 may have been occupied by Big Foot prior to the 

Wounded Knee massacre in 1890 (NPS 2000:15-16). 

During the Historic Period (approximately 150-60 years ago), the acquisition of the Louisiana 

Territory by the U.S. (in 1803) paved the way for the Lewis and Clark expedition a year later. 

Their notes are the first European records to address the cultural and biological history of the 

badlands region. Exploration and settlement of the park region was restricted by topography, 

climate, and the insecure nature of the area. Intertribal relations were often tense during this time, 

exacerbated by the presence/use of the area by Europeans. With the passage of the Indian 

Removal Act in 1830, the U.S. government empowered itself to move eastern Indians west of the 

Mississippi to the area that is now essentially Oklahoma. By 1831, smallpox had infected the 

Plains Indian groups, killing more than 50 percent of the population. 

The U.S. government established territorial status for South Dakota in the 1860s. The interest in 

the fossil beds of the badlands region grew as fur traders shared the fossils with scientists in the 

mid-19th Century. American Indians continued to be displaced from their land by new nonnative 

homesteaders, traders, trappers, and others. In 1889, South Dakota was admitted to the Union as 

a state. By 1890, Indians had lost most of their territory and were confined to reservations. One 

of the last armed engagements of the U.S. and the Indians occurred along Wounded Knee Creek 

in the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, some of which is now encompassed within the south unit 

of the park. A band, led by Chief Big Foot, was pursued and overtaken by U.S. solders that 

attempted to disarm the band. Gunfire erupted and ultimately, 200-300 American Indians and 30 

soldiers lay dead. 

History of Badlands National Park 

In 1909, Senator Peter Norbeck was instrumental in the State House and Senate approval of a 

joint resolution requesting that the U.S. Congress set aside a national park in the South Dakota 

Badlands, though it was not officially declared a national park. In 1929, Congress authorized the 

creation of Badlands National Monument (originally approximately 50,000 acres) and, at the 

same time, required as conditions for monument designation that the state of South Dakota 

acquire certain lands and construct a scenic road for public access. By 1939, these conditions 

were met and the monument was established. In 1968, expanded monument boundaries were 

authorized through “acquisition of certain lands of outstanding scenic and scientific character,” 

capping the total acreage at 244,000 (P.L. 90-468). Under this provision, approximately 133,000 

acres of tribal reservation (Oglala Sioux) lands were included in the monument. In 1978, the 

monument was redesignated as Badlands National Park. 

Major road/highway construction efforts during the first half of the 20th Century provided access 

for visitors/tourists to the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This area was named for a pass through 

the formations located about one mile north of the current visitor center. Construction of the loop 

road that runs past the Cedar Pass Developed Area occurred in segments between 1930 and 

1940, funded by a variety of sources. In addition, tourists could view the Badlands area from the 

Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad, which ran south of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-4 

In the 1920s, Senator Norbeck, aided by Ben Millard, began plans to develop visitor and tourist 

attractions in the park area. By 1935, Cedar Pass included a dining hall and kitchen with 15 

associated cabins, as well as a dance hall. A gas station and restroom facility also existed. The 

NPS considered these amenities to be inadequate and recommended major development at 

several proposed sites, one of which was the existing Cedar Pass Developed Area (study area), 

eventually selected. Development of a monument headquarters at Cedar Pass was underway by 

1942. For several decades after this, improvements to visitor facilities and access to the area 

continued, with the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) occasionally playing a part in these 

efforts. Existing structures at the site were incorporated into the general design of the area, with 

some improvements. Some utility buildings were moved elsewhere, some were remodeled. The 

Cedar Pass Lodge underwent repairs and the cabins’ batten strip exteriors were replaced with 

stucco. 

By 1955, visitation to the national monument had increase so significantly that new facilities 

were required. At the service-wide level, NPS Director Conrad Wirth and colleagues had 

proposed the Mission 66 program whereby funding from Congress would be petitioned for an 

entire decade to correct the parks’ degraded condition and provide assistance for parks to realize 

their full potential. It was designed to fund projects from 1956-1966 that would ensure basic 

facilities would be provided at all parks. The importance of visitor “enjoyment without 

impairment” and resource protection were emphasized. Mission 66 was intended to “replace 

outmoded and inadequate facilities with physical improvements adequate for expected demands 

but so designed and located to reduce the impact of public use on valuable and destructible 

features” (John Milner Associates 2004: 2-50). 

The Mission 66 program was described by the NPS as 

...a forward looking program for the National Park System intended to so develop and 

staff these priceless possessions of the American people as to permit their wisest possible 

use; maximum enjoyment for those who use; and maximum protection of the scenic, 

scientific, wilderness, and historic resources that given them distinction (NPS n.d.). 

Many of the new structures/amenities constructed at the Cedar Pass Developed Area were 

accomplished as a result of the Mission 66 Program, intended to replace inadequate facilities 

with structures designed and located to minimize impacts of public use on valuable park features. 

This included alterations to interpretive signs, educational materials, additional natural resource 

research, scenic overlooks, trail exhibits, picnic areas, staff residence facilities, campgrounds, 

and, eventually, a visitor center which combined visitor contact and museum facilities, 

completed in 1958. (Refer to John Milner Associates 2004, chapter 2, for detailed information on 

the Mission 66 period.) 

By 1968, parking at the visitor center, the campground and the lodge was considered inadequate. 

New office space and storage was needed for park administration; park staff housing was also 

lacking. Changes occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s to accommodate these needs at the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area (for example, lodge extension, residence improvements, addition of 

office space and interpretive/information services) (refer to John Milner Associates 2004, chapter 

2 for detailed history of the Cedar Pass Developed Area). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-5 

Cultural Resources Located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area and 

Pinnacles Area 

The NPS categorizes cultural resources by the following categories: archeological resources, 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, museum objects and ethnographic resources. 

Archeological resources and cultural landscapes are addressed below. Historic structures are 

included within the cultural landscape discussion as all such resources fall within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area cultural landscape boundaries. It is not expected that ethnographic resources and 

museum collections would be affected by this proposal; consequently, they are not discussed 

further. 

Because only approximately 5-10% of the park has been inventoried for cultural resources, 

information is limited. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Several localities within Badlands National Park have been identified as candidates for 

consideration as cultural landscapes. These include 

• The south end of Stronghold Table—site of prolonged Ghost Dances during 1890, which 

contributed to the events of Wounded Knee. This is the site of the last known Ghost 

Dances of the 19th Century. 

• Big Foot Pass—believed to be the route of Chief Big Foot and his band as they fled from 

the U.S. Army to Wounded Knee in 1890. 

• The fossil collecting sites of early paleontologists. 

• Sage Creek Road, Sage Creek homesteads, and remnant sections of the Forts Pierre and 

Laramie roads (NPS, in preparation: 16). 

None of these has undergone formal documentation or evaluation; none are located within the 

current study areas (Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles area). A park-wide cultural 

landscape inventory is scheduled for Badlands National Park in the near future. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area, the subject of this analysis, is considered eligible for the NRHP 

(appendix A). Its period of significance is believed to range from 1928-1966 and is associated 

with: 

• early monument/park development and tourism (1928-1938) 

• the New Deal/CCC development (1938-1941) 

• the NPS Mission 66 initiative (1956-1966) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-6 

The majority of the cultural developments at Badlands National Park are clustered within the 

boundaries of the proposed Cedar Pass cultural landscape. This area, located just southwest of 

Cedar Pass Developed Area, includes approximately 290 acres and contains, among other things, 

park administrative offices, park operations facilities, visitor center and other amenities, and staff 

housing. 

Ben Millard began building in the study area around 1928, including a dance hall, a lodge, and 

associated guest cabins. Many new buildings were added during the Mission 66 Period including 

the visitor center, seven single-family residences, three apartments, campground comfort station, 

the amphitheater, and two maintenance buildings. Most of the Mission 66 period structures exist 

today with minor repairs and little change in appearance (John Milner Associates 2004). Since 

the period of significance (1928-1966) buildings and structures have been added to the landscape 

(for example, maintenance buildings, single-family residence, apartment building). 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

 ...appears to possess state-level significance as a historic district under National Register 

Criteria A and C for 1) early tourism associated with western landscapes and parks; 2) 

CCC development and New Deal Master Planning; and 3) the NPS’s Mission 66 

initiative within the areas of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Social 

History/Tourism, Recreation and Community Planning and Development during the 

period 1928 through 1966. Despite the Mission 66-era Cedar Pass development being 

less than fifty years of age, Cedar Pass Developed Area appears to meet the eligibility 

requirements of Criterion G as a relatively complete example of a Mission 66 developed 

area with a high degree of integrity, which remains rare and unusual within the state of 

South Dakota (John Milner Associates 2004:1-16). 

Development during the early tourism period (1929-1938) focused on promoting viable tourism 

attractions and transportation related to Badlands National Monument. Between 1938 and 1941 

(CCC development/New Deal Master Planning), master planning and implementation had 

significantly improved tourism facilities at the Monument. The NPS Mission 66 Initiative (1956-

1966) involved monument/park planning and development programs, including, among others: 

• improved access by developing interpretive facilities as close to the resource as possible 

• expanded interpretive opportunities by extending interpretation into the landscape 

through a range of experiential activities 

• managing visitor movement 

• clustering relatively dense site planning of new facilities and complexes 

• utilizing a unifying design concept that made use of an armature or datum along which 

development occurred 

• employing zoning of like uses (John Milner Associates 2004: 4-9) 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-7 

The extended period of significance for the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

reflects “a continuum of use of Cedar Pass Developed Area by various individual and agencies to 

site services and amenities for visitors” (John Milner Associates 2004: 1-17). Private and federal 

efforts to encourage tourism in the area coexisted with ever-increasing efforts to provide the 

needs of visitors and park administration. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area is comprised of a variety of landscape elements that contribute 

to its NRHP eligibility. These include natural systems, spatial organization, land use, circulation, 

topography, vegetation, buildings and structures, small-scale features, views and vistas, and 

archeological resources (John Milner Associates 2004) (see table 3-1 at the end of this chapter). 

These are described briefly below (please refer to John Milner Associates 2004, chapter 3, for 

greater detail). 

Natural Systems—Natural systems identified within the landscape include topography (such as 

badlands formations and washes) and vegetation (such as grasslands and shrublands). The 

systems present during the period of significance are still observable today with only minor 

alterations. The one notable exception is the presence of invasive vegetation species (for 

example, Siberian elms). 

Spatial Organization—Spatial organization within the study area is dominated by badlands 

formations and building clusters located along circulation corridors. The area contains four 

separate nodes of development including the visitor center/administration/residential cluster, the 

maintenance area, Cedar Pass Lodge and associated structures, and the park campground. The 

general spatial organization of the landscape has remained relatively constant since the period of 

significance; however some changes in specific areas have occurred, primarily with the addition 

and removal of structures related to park administration/maintenance and housing/lodging. For 

example, recent construction of a new fire cache structure in a previously undeveloped area has 

broken the continuous open space originally planned by Mission 66 planners (John Milner 

Associates 2004: 4-21). 

Land Use—A variety of land uses exist within the study area, including those related to visitor 

accommodations, interpretation, lodging, recreation, park administration, maintenance, utilities, 

and housing. Important aspects of the Mission 66 land use concepts included leaving “unused 

(natural) portions of the site as a setting for the developed portions and separating maintenance 

uses from the rest of the site” (Milner, Associates 2004: 4-22). The land use pattern of the study 

area has not changed significantly since the period of significance (1928-1966). 

Circulation—The circulation features of the study area took shape during the early tourism 

period (1929-1938), with alterations and additions continuing through time as needed. CCC 

efforts in the park area from 1938-1941 included road improvement activities. During the 

Mission 66 Period (1956-1966) additions to the circulation patterns included construction of the 

Visitor Center parking lot and realignment of the service road around it; a residential loop off the 

service road; a parking lot for the apartments; the three campground loops; the amphitheater trail 

and parking lot; the maintenance drive/yard; and sidewalks and gravel paths associated with the 

visitor center and residences (John Milner Associates 2004: 4-23). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-8 

Topography—Over the years, the topography of the Cedar Pass Developed Area has been 

altered to accommodate construction of roads, buildings, the amphitheater, and other park 

facilities. The most significant topographic alterations were the construction of the wastewater 

lagoons. Four former lagoons have recently been restored to original grade and replanted with 

native vegetation. Most of the topographic alterations to the study area are evident today. 

Vegetation—Planted vegetation within the Cedar Pass Developed Area currently consists 

primarily of trees, shrubs, and mown turf. Invasive Siberian elms exist southwest of the visitor 

center and to the southwest of the Cedar Pass Lodge. Small groupings of cedar trees are scattered 

throughout the landscape. Several historic planting plans provide detail regarding specific 

plantings associated with the residences, apartments and visitor center. The vegetation evident 

around the visitor center is consistent with those indicated in the planting plans. 

Buildings and Structures—Over 70 structures have been identified within the study area, 47 of 

which are believed to contribute to the significance of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape (John Milner Associates 2004) (see table 3-1 and figure 3-1 at the end of the chapter). 

These 47 include the: 

• Ben Reifel Visitor Center (independently determined eligible for the NRHP) 

• Cedar Pass Lodge 

• Cedar Pass Lodge Cottage Building 

• Cedar Pass laundry building 

• Cedar Pass lodge maintenance building 

• Cedar Pass lodge cabins (numbers 1-1A, 2-2A, 3-12, 14-16A, 18-23, 33) 

• Campground comfort stations (group 2, station A, station B) 

• Resource protection building 

• Staff residences (#28-34A) 

• Seasonal apartments (#45, 51, 52) 

• Maintenance shop and cold storage structures 

• Cedar Pass Lodge ice house 

• Cedar Pass tack room 

Small-Scale Features—Small-scale features of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape include signs, fencing, trash receptacles, and lighting. Several features are considered 

unique or only occur in specific locations (for example, metal flagpole, wood information kiosk, 

amphitheater benches, and portable picnic shelters). Many of the small-scale features have been 

replaced or modified since the end of the period of significance. Various contemporary smallscale features have been added (picnic tables, vending machines, utility boxes) (John Milner 

Associates 2004). 

Views and Vistas—Dramatic views and vistas of the scenic landscape, most of which are 

accessed by automobile, are an integral part of the visitor experience at Badlands National Park. 

The historic design of the study area was significantly influenced by the potential opportunities 

for visual enjoyment of the natural surroundings. Views that contribute to the NRHP-eligibility 

of the cultural landscape include those toward badlands formations from the visitor center, 

lodge/cabins, campground, Loop Road and residence areas (figure 3-2). Badlands formations 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-9 

were also used in design of the landscape to block incompatible views (for example, screening of 

maintenance area). Over the years, views have been altered by addition/removal of contributing 

buildings and structures. The construction of the fire cache is perhaps the most disruptive 

alteration of views since the period of significance (John Milner Associates 2004). 

Archeological Resources—Three historic archeological sites have been recorded within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. These include remnants of Millard’s dance hall (39JK251), dating 

to the early 20th Century; brick and concrete remnants of a possible structure (39JK237), dating 

to the early 20th Century; and a concrete foundation (39JK227). Individually, none of the 

recorded resources is considered to be eligible for the NRHP (see below for further discussion). 

No prehistoric archeological sites have been recorded within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

In addition to the 11 landscape characteristics, the CLR has defined ten character areas within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area landscape based on similarities of land uses, historic resource 

character and types, and patterns of spatial organization (John Milner Associates 2004: 6-3 to 6-

4). These character areas were used to structure the alternatives descriptions and treatment 

information and include the following areas (figure 3-3): 

1. visitor/administrative 

2. residential 

3. Cedar Pass Lodge 

4. campground 

5. maintenance 

6. fire cache 

7. wastewater lagoon 

8. Badlands Loop Road and S.D. 377 Corridor 

9. service road corridor 

10. open space areas 

Archeological Resources 

Only a small portion of the land in the north unit of the park has been systematically inventoried, 

resulting in a fragmentary view of the prehistoric use of the area. Most of the archeological sites 

identified to date are described as prehistoric lithic/artifact scatters; however, a few historic 

archeological sites (such as farmsteads) have also been recorded (NPS 2004c). 

No prehistoric archeological sites are known to occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area or 

Pinnacles area, though several historic archeological sites have been identified/recorded (see 

below). Archeological investigations in these general areas have added to the understanding of 

the prehistoric use of the area and include, among others, Beaubien 1953; Johnson 1987a, 1987b; 

Jones 1991, 1999, 2000; Miller 2002; NPS 1974, 1976, 2002; SARC 1997; and Taylor 1961. 

Two Late Prehistoric Period sites located north of the Cedar Pass Developed Area in the north 

unit of the park--the Johnny Site and the Cedar Pass Butte Site--suggest occupation of the area 

by probable Woodlands groups, as well as later populations (Beaubien 1953, Taylor 1961). The 

Cedar Pass Butte site is very rare for the park in that it contains architectural features (rock wall, 

subrectangular, two-room structure). Further investigative work was recommended for this site 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-10 

(NPS 1974). The Johnny site includes cord-roughened pottery, evidence of lithic processing, and 

extensive faunal remains, suggesting its use as a base camp (NPS 2000). The Pinnacles Site (not 

located within the Pinnacles area analyzed in this EA), also dating to the Late Prehistoric Period, 

contains ceramics dating to around 900 A.D. Several other sites in the north unit of the park have 

yielded ceramics similar to the pottery recovered from the Johnny Site. In addition, some sites 

have yielded hearths and thousands of bison bones believed to represent faunal processing and/or 

village sites. 

Three historic archeological sites have been recorded within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Remnants of Millard’s dance hall (39JK251) were encountered during the initial stage of a 

construction project within the Cedar Pass Developed Area in 2001 (Miller 2002). 

Documentation of disturbed resources was completed prior to construction resuming and 

monitoring of the site continued throughout the remainder of the project. The site is believed to 

be the remnants of a dance hall built by one of the early 20th Century settlers in the area (Ben 

Millard) who provided a variety of services and facilities to early tourists and visitors to the 

Badlands area. A significant amount of historic material was recovered though no footprint of 

the dance hall structure was located. It is believed that much of the dance hall remnants had been 

significantly impacted by previous ground disturbance. The site has been determined as not 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (see Miller 2002, South 

Dakota State Historical Society 2002). 

Site 39JK237 is described as a “sparse scatter of red brick fragments, two concrete slabs, and a 

short section of abandoned road” (NPS 2002: 17). Dating to the first half of the 20th Century, it is 

believed related to operations of the Cedar Pass Lodge or early park operations. Due to its 

significant lack of integrity, the site has been recommended as not eligible for nomination to the 

NRHP (NPS 2002). 

Site 39JK227, a concrete foundation located off of an access road, was recorded in 1998 by 

Augustana College Archeology Lab and recommended as not eligible for the NRHP (Augustana 

College Archeology Lab 1998; Miller 2002). 

In addition to the above, several structures known to have existed in the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area are no longer evident on the surface. Research shows that these include two lodge 

dormitories, several lodge cabins, a service station, early maintenance buildings, the CCC camp, 

pit toilets at the campground and lodge, and the lodge laundry. While general locations of these 

missing structures are known, no surface evidence is apparent. These areas may potentially 

contain historic archeological data related to these original structures and should be treated as 

sensitive areas prior to any development (appendix C [CONFIDENTIAL--not available for 

public distribution]). 

No historic archeological resources are known to exist within the Pinnacles area. However, the 

area has not been systematically surveyed for cultural resources. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-11 

VEGETATION 

Badlands National Park is located on the western edge of the mixed-grass prairie of the central 

United States. This ecosystem forms a transition zone between arid short-grass prairie 

ecosystems to the west and mesic tall-grass prairie ecosystems to the east. The region’s climate is 

continental, semi-arid, and characterized by short, hot, dry summers, and long, cold, dry winters. 

Average annual precipitation in the Northern Plains is 16 inches, occurring mostly in the late 

spring and early summer in the form of intense, frequent afternoon thunderstorms. The mixedgrass prairie is characterized by diverse grassland communities that are adapted to withstand 

long periods of dry weather, high winds, and frequent fires. Fire suppression, past dryland 

farming, and grazing have substantially affected the grasslands in Badlands National Park. 

However, management activities such as the reintroduction of a frequent fire regime have 

restored much of the park’s grasslands to conditions present before European settlement (NPS, in 

preparation). Today, the park supports one of the largest contiguous native mixed-grass prairies 

under Federal protection in the United States. Grasslands cover about 109,065 acres, or 45% of 

the park area. 

Vegetation associated with badlands formations is quite sparse as a result of the lack of moisture 

and high surface temperatures of the badlands formations during the growing season. Much of 

the moisture falling on these formations runs off the steep slopes instead of soaking into the 

ground. Drought-tolerant shrubs and annual forbs associated with badlands formations are found 

on pinnacles, outwash fans, seasonal drainages, and low hills, which harbor greater soil moisture. 

Approximately 48% or 114,568 acres of Badlands National Park is sparsely vegetated or barren 

as a result of the harsh environmental conditions imposed by badlands physiographic features as 

well as from constant soil disturbance caused by prairie dogs. 

Shrublands cover about 10,072 acres, or 4% of the park. They are mainly found in riparian areas, 

floodplains, sandhills, mesic slopes, and draws. Woodlands are uncommon in Badlands National 

Park, covering about 3,566 acres or 2% of the park. They generally are restricted to floodplains, 

drainage bottoms, sandhill toeslopes, seasonal draws, and slumps on butte and cliff faces. The 

lack of surface water in this region limits the distribution of wetlands and wet meadows in the 

park; these occupy approximately 1% of the park (1,783 acres) and are found along the bottoms 

of drainage channels. 

The vegetation of the Badlands National Park was mapped in 1999 as part of a nationwide 

mapping project by the U.S. Geological Survey and the NPS (USGS 1999). Nine major 

vegetative communities were identified in this analysis: dry mixed-grass prairie, mesic mixedgrass prairie, introduced grasslands, riparian/wet meadows, dry plains shrublands, mesic plains 

shrublands, riparian shrublands, dry coniferous forest and woodlands, and riparian deciduous 

forests and woodlands. 

A number of botanical studies conducted in the park have identified 457 vascular plants, 

representing about 70 different plant families. The largest number of species present is in the 

Asteraceae (sunflower) family. A complete inventory of lichens was also undertaken by WillWolf in 1998. A total of 171 lichen species and four species of lichenicolous fungi were recorded 

within the park boundaries (Will-Wolf 1998). Grasses are the dominant plants in Badlands 

National Park. Forty-one species of native grasses have been recorded in the park. Among the 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-12 

most important are buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides), blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis), 

western wheat grass (Agropyron smithii), and needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata). 

Nonnative plants can be found throughout the park on lands that have been disturbed by prior 

grazing and dryland farming. A total of 71 exotic plant species have been documented in the 

park. Most nonnative species are found primarily in disturbed areas, and are fairly localized in 

their distribution. However, Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) and downy brome (Bromus 

tectorum) are present to some degree in all the park’s grasslands, particularly western wheatgrass 

(Agropyron smithii) stands, and are of special concern because of their ability to invade and 

compete with native species. These exotic species have been experimentally controlled since 

2000 with springtime prescribed fires and seeding with native species. Chemical and biological 

control have been used to limit the spread of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), which occurs on 

an estimated 8,000 acres in the park, and has greatly altered riparian communities and invaded 

native grassland communities. In addition, control of noxious weed species such as spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), and biennial 

sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) has been the subject of recent management activities. 

Vegetation in the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area occupies 290 acres in the northeastern portion of the north unit 

of Badlands National Park (John Milner Associates 2004). The park's visitor center, Cedar Pass 

Lodge, campground, administrative offices, and most tourist amenities are located within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area (Figure 1-3). This area is accessed by automobile via Badlands Loop 

Road or S.D. Highway 377 from Interior, South Dakota. 

As in the larger park, vegetation communities in the Cedar Pass Developed Area are largely 

comprised of grasslands, Badlands vegetation communities, and limited shrublands, woodlands, 

and wetlands (table 3-2). The following plant communities were identified inside the project area 

by the USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program (1999): Western Wheatgrass Alliance, 

Switchgrass Grassland, Western Snowberry Shrubland, Chokecherry Shrubland, Eastern 

Cottonwood Woodland, Emergent wetland grassland and Badland Sparse Vegetation Complex 

(figure 3-4). In addition, exotic Siberian Elms have been planted around the Lodge area, and 

have escaped into native grassland areas. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-13 

Table 3-2: Vegetation Community Types in Cedar Pass Developed Area 

TOTAL ACRES OF 

CEDAR PASS STUDY 

AREA

PERCENT OF CEDAR 

PASS STUDY AREA

Grasslands 

Western Wheatgrass Alliance Grassland 154 acres 53% 

Switchgrass Alliance Grassland 3.5 acres 1.2% 

Shrublands and Woodlands 

Western Snowberry Shrubland 2.9 acres 1% 

Chokecherry Shrubland >2.9 acres >1% 

Eastern Cottonwood >2.9 acres >1% 

Wetlands 

Emergent Wetland Grassland >2.9 acres >1% 

Sparsely Vegetated and Barren Areas 

Badlands Sparse Vegetation Complex 44 acres 15% 

Developed Areas and Standing Water 77 acres 27% 

Total 290 acres 100% 

Source: The Cedar Pass Developed Area, Badlands National Park Cultural Landscape Report (John Milner 

Associates 2004). 

Grassland Communities 

Western Wheatgrass alliance covers the majority of the project area (154 acres). This association 

is dominated by western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), a sod-forming grass that thrives in 

clay and silt soils. This grass can form pure, monotypic stands, but will also grow in association 

with green needlegrass (Nassella virdula), blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalo grass 

(Buchloe dactyloides) and threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) in a true mixed-grass prairie. Other 

species commonly found in this alliance include exotic Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), and 

Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis).

Switchgrass alliance grasslands are commonly found in wet, shallow basins in Badlands National 

Park, but are relatively restricted within the Cedar Pass Developed Area (3.5 acres). The 

dominant species is switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), a fire-adapted rhizomatous grass. Other 

associated species include: little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), heath aster (Aster 

ericoides), wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), and 

western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). 

Shrubland and Woodland Communities 

Western Snowberry shrubland is found in moist drainages, swales, or depressions or other low 

areas where moisture is available. Within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, western snowberry 

shrublands are found on 2.9 acres along the eastside wash and the switchgrass alliance grassland 

in the southeastern portion of the study area (figure 3-4). Western snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis) is a small (less than 3 feet tall), rhizomatous shrub that forms clonal colonies within 

the study area. Other species in this community include: skunkbush (Rhus trilobata), prairie wild 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-14 

rose (Rosa arkansana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii), mountain wormwood or white 

sage, Artemisia ludoviciana), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Exotic species 

commonly associated with western snowberry shrublands include brome or cheatgrass (Bromus 

tecorum), and Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus). 

Chokecherry shrubland commonly occurs in mesic draws, slumps, along the edge of sand hills, 

and on slopes where mesic conditions persist. In the Cedar Pass Developed Area, chokecherry 

shrublands are found on less than 2.9 acres in the southeast corner of the study area, in close 

proximity to the maintenance buildings (figure 3-4). This plant community often forms 

impenetrable thickets composed of deciduous shrubs such as American plum (Prunus 

americana), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and western snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis). Other species associated with this community include skunkbush (Rhus trilobata), 

currant (Ribes odoratum), and exotic Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). 

Eastern cottonwood woodlands are one of the few wooded associations in Badlands National 

Park. Only a few trees are found within the study area, primarily in the northern portion of the 

eastern wash and north of the old wastewater ponds (less than 2.9 acres; figure 3-4). Common 

species in this association include cottonwood (Populus deltoides), peachleaf willow (Salix 

amygdaloides), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua) with snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and exotic Kentucky bluegrass (Poa 

pratensis). 

Wetland Communities 

Emergent wetlands are found on less than 2.9 acres of the study area that appears to have been 

used as a borrow pit, located west of the maintenance buildings (figure 3-4). Species found in 

these wetland areas included grass-like plants such as cattail (Typha angustifolia and T. latifolia), 

bulrush (Scirpus americanus and Scirpus validus), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and common rush 

species (Juncus spp.). 

Sparsely Vegetated and Barren Areas 

Badland sparse vegetation complex is the second most common vegetation community in 

Badlands National Park and in the Cedar Pass Developed Area (44 acres). Badlands sparse 

vegetation develops on siltstone, volcanic ash, and claystone and occurs on steep shale slopes 

and other heavily-eroded areas where moisture is scarce and temperatures are extreme. These 

areas are almost barren of vegetation. Plant species capable of growing in these areas include 

drought-tolerant silverscale saltbush (Atriplex argentea), wild buckwheat (Eriogonum 

pauciflorum), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), curly-cup gumweed (Grindelia 

squarrosa), and other annual forbs. 

Vegetation in the Pinnacles Area 

Vegetation in the Pinnacles area is comprised primarily of grasslands (Kenner, pers. comm. 

2004). The area has been disturbed to a certain degree by prior park development in the area 

(such as the ranger station, entrance booths, radio tower). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-15 

Species of Special Concern 

There are no known federal or state-listed rare plant populations inside the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area or Pinnacles area (John Milner Associates 2004; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USFWS] 2004a, b; SDGFP 2004a, b; Mills, pers. com. 2004; Kenner, pers. com. 2004). 

Although three plants listed as rare by the state of South Dakota are found within the boundaries 

of Badlands National Park, none occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area or Pinnacles area. 

These plants include: Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii), Dakota buckwheat (Eriogonum 

visheri), and secund bladderpod (Lesquerella arenosa var. argillosa) (NPS in preparation). In 

addition, Easter daisy (Townsendia exscapa) and the largeflower Townsend daisy (Townsendia 

grandiflora) are state-listed rare plants that are found in the park’s prairies, but are not endemic 

to this region (NPS, in preparation) and are not found within the study areas. Hopi tea 

(Thelesperma megapotamicum), hairy virgin’s bower (Clematis hirsutissima), Parry’s 

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus parryi), and silver-mounded candleflower (Cryptantha cana) are 

state-listed rare species that may occur in Badlands National Park, but have not been recorded 

within park boundaries (NPS, in preparation). 

Exotic Species 

Cedar Pass Developed Area 

Exotic species of particular concern in the Cedar Pass Developed Area are halogeton (Halogeton 

glomeratus), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), puncture vine 

(Tribulus terrestris), and Canada thistle (Circium averense). Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) 

is a noxious weed that is poisonous to ungulates and is common on badlands features in the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. At high densities this plant could pose a risk to the park’s bighorn 

sheep population. Yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) is a biennial herb from Europe that 

invades and degrades native grasslands by shading native plants and altering soil nutrient 

availability. It responds favorably to fire and grows abundantly on disturbed areas and roadsides. 

Puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), is an exotic forb from southern Europe that is common along 

the park’s gravel-surfaced roads. The sharp, spiny seed pods of this species frequently cause flat 

tires on visitors’ bicycles. 

In addition, Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum) are 

commonly found in western wheatgrass alliance grasslands and chokecherry shrublands within 

the study area. Research conducted in Badlands National Park indicates that Japanese brome 

(Bromus japonicus) is reduced by spring burning (Whisenant 1987a). Research conducted 

outside the park indicates that repeated spring fires could also decrease the abundance of other 

exotic grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron 

desertorum), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and downy brome (Bromus tectorum) (Whisenant 

1987b; USDA 2000). 

Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) has been planted at the lodge and has escaped to the grassland area 

east of the Lodge. Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) is an exotic, fast-growing, hearty tree that 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-16 

tolerates a variety of conditions such as poor soils, low moisture, cold winters and long summer 

droughts. This species is known to invade dry and mesic prairies, including sand prairies. 

Other exotic or invasive species found in the park that may occur in the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area include: giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), houndstongue 

(Cynoglossum officinale), and perennial sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis). 

Pinnacles Area 

The Pinnacles area is currently impacted by park development and exotic species (Kentucky blue 

grass [Poa pratensis] and smooth brome [Bromus inermis]) can be found there, primarily in 

disturbed areas (Kenner, pers. comm. 2004). Most of the 71 exotic species known to exist in the 

park have been in the area for a long time and are likely to continue to exist in disturbed areas, 

posing little threat to native species (NPS, in preparation: 78). The location of the Pinnacles area 

immediately adjacent to a private inholding may have influenced the presence and types of 

exotic species now found at the site (Mills, pers. comm. 2004). 

WILDLIFE 

As comprehensive wildlife surveys/studies are not available for the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

and Pinnacles study area, the information provided below is general in nature. General park 

conditions are described, followed by wildlife and habitat information more specific to the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles area. 

Badlands National Park 

Within the general park area, 56 mammal species; 112 bird species, 17 reptile and amphibian 

species; and at least 11 fish species have been documented (NPS, in preparation). 

Ungulates 

The restoration of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis Canadensis) in the 1960s 

filled the ecological niche formerly occupied by the now extinct Audubon’s bighorn sheep. This 

effort has resulted in numbers ranging from 58 to 74 animals in three distinct populations, 

primarily within the north unit, as well as in the Cedar Butte area in the south unit. The long-term 

viability of the sheep in the park is uncertain at this point, though staff is attempting to 

translocate animals to enhance the population genetically and reproductively. 

White-tailed deer (O. virginianus) are seen infrequently; pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra 

americana) and mule deer (Odocolileus hemionus) are much more common, moving in and out 

of the park. They are hunted by tribal members in the south unit. Cattle grazing also occurs in the 

south unit. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-17 

Bison (Bison bison) were reintroduced to the park in the 1960s; an additional release occurred in 

the 1980s. A healthy heard of about 700 head of bison now exists, ranging within about 40,000 

acres in the north unit of the park. A bison management plan is currently being prepared. 

Carnivores 

A total of 12 carnivore species has been documented in the park. Common meso-carnivores 

include the coyote (Canis latrans) and bobcat (Felis rufus), while the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and 

American badger (Taxidea taxus) are observed less frequently and considered uncommon. The 

swift fox (Vulpes velox)(state threatened), the mountain lion (Felis concolor) and the blackfooted ferret (Mustela nigripes) have also been observed. 

Small Mammals 

Small mammals common to the park are the least chipmunk (Eutamius minimus), eastern cotton 

rabbit (Sylvilagus floridus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridus), thirteen-lined ground 

squirrel (Spermophilus tridencemlineatus), black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicanus), deer 

mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), muskrat (Ondontra zibehicus), black-footed ferret (Mustela 

nigripes)(federal threatened), and several other smaller rodents. 

Small mammals influence both faunal and floral communities directly and indirectly through 

mechanisms such as seed dispersal and vegetation alteration. Changes in plant production may 

alter small mammal populations and, in turn, small mammals may impact plant communities. 

Small mammals, vegetation, and other mammals and bird species are closely intertwined 

ecologically. Consequently, changes in small mammal populations can lead to variations in 

abundance of other species. 

The black-tailed prairie dog is considered a keystone species of the Great Plains, as survival of a 

number of species depends on its presence within the ecosystem. At least nine species depend 

directly on prairie dogs or their activities for their survival, and 137 additional species are 

associated with the species in an opportunistic manner (Kotliar et al. 1999). 

In 2001, a total of 4,440 acres of active prairie dog colonies (127 separate colonies) were mapped 

within Badlands National Park, most of which occur in the north unit. Mapping and density 

estimates data indicate that the prairie dog population is stable or increasing slightly in Badlands 

National Park (NPS, in preparation: 84). 

A prairie dog colony currently exists within and around the Pinnacles area, an area where future 

park development may occur under alternative B. The colony consists of approximately 60 acres 

and is currently encroaching on the north, east, and south sides of the Pinnacles developed area 

(Kenner, pers. comm. 2004). 

Prairie dog burrows provide shelter for burrowing owls, rattlesnakes, swift foxes and other 

animals (NPS, in preparation: 83). Burrowing owls are known to use the Pinnacles area and swift 

foxes have also been released there in the recent past (Kenner, pers. comm. 2004). Prairie dogs 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-18 

are themselves prey for black footed ferrets, hawks, eagles and other predators (NPS, in 

preparation: 83). 

Birds 

Badlands National Park provides habitat to a diverse bird population including raptors, 

waterfowl, shorebirds, herons, cranes, woodpeckers, and songbirds. Most are either summer 

residents or migrants. Sixty-eight species have been observed nesting in the park. Commonly 

observed birds are presented in Table 3-3. 

Table 3-3. Birds observed within Badlands National Park (NPS, in preparation) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Hirundo spp. barn, cliff and grasshopper swallows 

Eremophila alpetstris horned lark 

Calamospiza melancocorys lark bunting 

Zenaida macroura mourning dove 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird 

Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk 

Falco mexicanus prairie falcon 

Charadrius vociferous killdeer 

Sialia currucioides mountain bluebird 

Turdus migratorius American robin 

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle 

Asio otus long-eared owl 

Tyto alba barn owl 

Athene cunicularria burrowing owl 

Nyctea scandiaca snowy owl 

Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk 

Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey 

Haliaeetus leuocephalus * bald eagle 

Grus Americana ** whooping crane 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon 

* federal threatened 

** federal endangered 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Amphibians commonly observed in the park are the boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), 

Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousii), the Great Plains toad (Cognatus bufonidae) and the plains 

spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus bombifrons). Frequently observed reptiles include the red-sided 

garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), western plains hinges (Heterodox nascius), western plains 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-19 

garter snake (Thamnophis radix), bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleuc), and prairie rattlesnake 

(Crotalus viridis)(Smith et al. 1998). 

Insects 

Approximately 19 species of butterflies have been observed in the park. Several species of 

grasshoppers and crickets (Orthoptera), along with elm leaf beetles (Pyrrhalta luteola) and elm 

bark beetles (Scolytus multistriatus) are also common (NPS 2004c). 

Cedar Pass Developed Area 

The general area in and around the Cedar Pass Developed Area provides habitat for a variety of 

wildlife species including, among others, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, coyotes, bobcats, 

muskrats, least chipmunks, jackrabbits, desert cottontails, and eastern cottontails. Swift fox, 

mountain lions, and bighorn sheep have also been observed in the general area (Kenner, pers. 

comm. 2004; John Milner Associates 2004: 3-18). 

Grasslands habitat comprises the majority of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The structure of 

grassland vegetation influences the diversity and abundance of plants and animals and provides 

habitat for many small mammals, ungulates, carnivores, etc. Prairie birds such as the western 

meadowlark and horned lark are common. Birds of prey find good hunting opportunities in the 

open grassland areas. 

Badlands sparse vegetation present within the Cedar Pass Developed Area is characterized by 

minimal vegetation resulting from little moisture and extreme temperatures. Drought-tolerant 

vegetation (saltbush, wild buckwheat, broom snakeweed, forbs, etc.) in these areas provides 

habitat (cover, food) for a variety of the animals using the area and throughout the park. 

Small emergent wetland areas make up about one percent of the Cedar Pass Developed Area and 

provide habitat for amphibians and reptiles, as well as a variety of rodents and other wildlife. 

Small mesic shrublands and woodlands areas, about one percent of the study area, provide 

wildlife with important protection from both extreme hot and cold temperatures and are used by 

a variety of animal species (e.g., rodents, coyotes, deer, birds). 

About a quarter of the of the Cedar Pass Developed Area is classified as “developed” or 

“standing water”. The area has sustained impacts from past park development (visitor center, 

lodge, campgrounds, wastewater lagoons, etc) that have resulted in considerable wildlife habitat 

alteration/loss through the decades. At the same time, structures attract certain animals (e.g., 

rodents) that many benefit from and use them. 

Most visitor use of the Cedar Pass Developed Area is concentrated in these previously impacted 

areas. Human activity in these areas has and will continue to disrupt movements and use by 

wildlife. Wildlife sensitive to human use already avoid areas of high human activity. Conversely, 

animals that do use the Cedar Pass Developed Area are accustomed to human activity though 

these species could be potentially impacted by future development in the area. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-20 

Pinnacles Area 

Vegetation in the Pinnacles area is comprised primarily of grasslands (Kenner, pers.comm. 

2004), providing habitat for a number of small mammals (including the black-tailed prairie dog), 

ungulates (pronghorn antelope), carnivores (coyotes, swift fox, mountain lions, bobcats), a 

variety of insects and birds, etc. 

A prairie dog colony of approximately 60 acres in size currently encroaches on the north, east, 

and south sides of the Pinnacles developed area (Kenner, pers. comm. 2004). Sparse vegetation 

is found within areas of established prairie dog towns. Through their cycle of burrow 

establishment, grazing, and burrow abandonment, prairie dogs may alter grassland vegetation 

types over time. This constant use causes native vegetation to revert back to an early 

successional state dominated by annual forbs, sometimes including non-native weeds (NPS 

2004c). 

Prairie dog burrows provide shelter for burrowing owls, rattlesnakes, swift foxes and other 

animals. Burrowing owls are known to use the Pinnacles area and swift foxes have been released 

there in the recent past (Kenner, pers. comm. 2004)(see Special Status Species below). Prairie 

dogs are themselves prey for black footed ferrets, hawks, eagles and other predators (NPS, in 

preparation: 83)(see Special Status Species below). 

The Pinnacles area has been disturbed by prior park development (ranger station, entrance 

booths, radio tower, etc.) that has undoubtedly resulted in wildlife habitat alteration/loss. At the 

same time, structures attract certain animals (e.g., rodents) that many benefit from and use them. 

Though human activity within this area is not as intense as that at the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area, wildlife sensitive to human use already avoid these developed areas. Animals that do use 

the developed area around Pinnacles are accustomed to human activity though these species 

could potentially be impacted by future development. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—THREATENED, ENDANGERED OR 

CANDIDATE SPECIES 

Badlands National Park contains several special status wildlife species including the blackfooted ferret (Mustela nigripes [state and federal endangered; listed as threatened on NPS 

lands]), the swift fox (Vulpes velox [state threatened]), the mountain lion (Felis concolor [state 

threatened]), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus [federal threatened]), and the whooping 

crane (Grus Americana [federal endangered]). 

Cedar Pass Developed Area 

Consultations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (2004a, b) and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2004 a, b) have resulted in the conclusion that no federal or state 

species considered threatened, endangered, or of special concern are currently known to exist in 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area (appendix D). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-21 

Pinnacles Area 

Consultations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (2004b) and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Services (2004b) have resulted in the following information regarding federal 

and state species considered threatened, endangered, or of special concern known to exist within 

the Pinnacles area (appendix D). 

Black-footed Ferret 

Both the Federal and State governments list the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) as 

endangered (SDGFP 2004b; USFWS 2004b). It was first listed as such in 1967 (Endangered 

Species Protection Act) and later, in 1973 (Endangered Species Act). However, within Badlands 

National Park, the ferret is considered threatened at the federal level and is managed according to 

a block clearance strategy. 

Block clearance is a strategy developed by the Service to determine the likelihood of blackfooted ferret occurrence in a geographic area and provide sufficient information to allow the 

Service to assess an area for the biological potential for contributing to recovery of the 

ferret. The act of block clearing an area negates the need to conduct future ferret surveys to 

comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The exception is for NPS lands and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands - ferrets are considered threatened in those areas. 

Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced in Badlands National Park, Buffalo Gap 

National Grasslands and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation (USFWS 2004b). 

The Pinnacles area is not currently known to be used by black-footed ferrets and little historic 

information exists about ferret densities in the park. Documented populations were found in 

neighboring Shannon and Mellette Counties in the 1960s and 1970s. The last confirmed sitings 

of black-footed ferrets in South Dakota were in 1979 and 1983 (NPS, in preparation: 82). 

Black-footed ferrets are typically associated with prairie dogs colonies, feeding primarily on 

prairie dogs and relying on their burrows for shelter, family rearing and escape from predators. It 

is believed that they cannot survive for extended periods outside of prairie dog colonies (Licht 

1997; NPS, in preparation: 82). 

Once found throughout South Dakota, the black-footed ferret population has declined to near 

extinction. This decline has been attributed to habitat conversion for agriculture, extensive efforts 

to control prairie dogs that compete with livestock for forage, and sylvatic plague, a disease that 

has killed large numbers of prairie dogs on which ferrets prey. These three factors also 

fragmented prairie dog colonies on which the black-foot ferret relies. In addition, the removal of 

large carnivores (bears, wolves) from the Badlands area, likely increased predation of coyotes 

(their main predator) on ferrets (NPS, in preparation: 82). 

Badlands National Park and the Conata Basin area of Buffalo Gap National Grassland have been 

designated as reintroduction sites (USFWS et al. 1994). In 1994, a partnership among the NPS, 

U.S. Forest Services, USFWS, and SDGFP provided funds and personnel for reintroduction and 

monitoring efforts. Between 1994 and 1999 (when the reintroduction ended), an average of 35 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-22 

animals were released in the park each year. Many died soon after release as a result of 

predation. However, successful reproduction of ferrets has been detected every year. Since the 

end of the reintroduction period (1999), the ferret population has begun to disperse outward from 

release sites to smaller adjacent prairie dog colonies. This has resulted in an increase in prairie 

dog colonies confirmed to be occupied by ferrets. The population reached a high in 2000 with a 

minimum of 33 individuals but then declined to an estimated 14 individuals in 2001. The ferret 

population is currently concentrated in the north unit in Kocher Flats and the Roberts area 

(approximately four miles to the west/northwest of the Pinnacles area). The park’s reintroduced 

black-footed ferret population is designated a nonessential experimental population under the 

Endangered Species Act which provides more management flexibility (NPS in preparation: 83). 

Swift Fox 

The swift fox (Vulpes velox), listed by the State of South Dakota as threatened (SDGFP 2004b), 

generally inhabits flat, open prairie areas. Swift fox habitat in Badlands National Park is 

concentrated in the Sage Creek area and along the northern edge of the north unit where the 

Pinnacles area is located. While once believed to be relatively abundant, the population has 

declined in its northern range as a result of trapping, hunting, predator and rodent control 

programs, habitat loss, droughts, severe winter, and disease (Carbyn et al. 1993). By 1900, the 

swift fox was relatively rare in the northern plains (NPS, in preparation: 84). 

The park is currently working with the SDGFP, South Dakota State University, and the Turner 

Endangered Species Fund in re-establishing a self-sustaining swift fox population in the 

Badlands ecosystem. Reintroduction efforts are ongoing. A release of the fox into the prairie dog 

town at the Pinnacles area occurred in 2003 with another planned for the fall of 2004. Three 

litters (15 pups with at least 13 still alive) have been documented as a result (Kenner, pers. 

comm. 2004). 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Note: The following is based primarily on information included within the Draft General 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Badlands National Park [NPS, in 

preparation], the Cedar Pass Developed Area, Badlands National Park, Cultural Landscape 

Report [John Milner Associates 2004],the Environmental Assessment: Site Development for new 

Fire Cache, Resource Management Storage Building, and Museum Storage Building at Cedar 

Pass Developed Area (NPS 2002), and Fossil Hunters (NPS 2004d). 

The presence of significant paleontological resources was a major incentive for the establishment 

of Badlands National Monument and the later park designation. While only a small percentage of 

the park has been surveyed, it is possible that the entire park area contains fossils. Generalized 

mapping of the area can be found in Raymond and King (1976). A variety of small, historic 

research and project sites comprise the majority of fossil information for the park. The draft 

general management plan contains a list of these research projects (NPS, in preparation: 75). 

The area in and around the Badlands National Park contains the largest known deposits of late 

Eocene and Oligocene mammal fossils in North America. Fossils from this area are typically 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-23 

used to define the North American Land Mammal Ages for these time periods and have 

contributed significantly to the understanding of mammalian evolution and diversity, 

paleoecology, and paleoclimates. 

The park region is particularly conducive to paleontological research due to the characteristic 

erosion that has exposed numerous mammal and marine fossils. However, once exposed, fossils 

can disintegrate within a few years and are often lost before they can be recorded and preserved. 

Fossil collecting without a research permit, though illegal in the park, is common and visitors 

pick up an unknown amount of material every year. 

Interest in the park’s paleontological resources can be traced to the traditional American Indian 

knowledge of the area. The Lakota had observed fossilized bones, seashells and turtle shells in 

the Badlands region. In the 1840s, trappers and traders made some of the first collections of 

paleontological resources. By 1854, 84 distinct species had been discovered in North America, 

77 of which were found in the White River Badlands. 

From 1899 to present, the South Dakota School of Mines remains one of the most active 

paleontological research institutions working in the White River Badlands. Throughout the late 

1800s and continuing today, scientists and institutions from all over the world have benefited 

from the fossil resources of the White River Badlands (NPS 2004d). 

Marine fossils have been recovered in the deposits of an ancient sea that existed in the area 65 to 

80 million years ago (Cretaceous Period). Pierre Shale in the region contains abundant Late 

Cretaceous marine fossils, including more than 80 species of ammonites, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, 

fish, sea turtles, and crabs in tan limestone nodules. 

Twenty-five to 34 million years ago (Oligocene Epoch), a great diversity of animal life existed in 

the Badlands region, including camels, horses, oreodonts, antelope-like animals, brontotheres, 

rhinoceroses, false deer, rabbits, beavers, creodonts, saber-toothed cats, land turtles, rodents and 

birds. Many of these animals, upon death, were deposited in lakes, waterways, and floodplains of 

the area. 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles Area 

Bedrock in the Cedar Pass Developed Area consists of the Scenic Member of the Brule 

Formation, part of the Eocene/Oligocene White River Group. The Brule and Sharps Formations 

underlie the Pinnacles area, both considered fossil-rich (Benton, pers. comm. 2004). Bedrock 

depth in these area is variable, and is sometimes exposed at ground surface. 

The Brule Formation contains the world’s most extensive known source of Oligocene fossil 

mammals, with more than 150 different genera of rodents, horses, camels, pigs, deer, antelope, 

beaver, felines, canines, and oreodonts (Gries 1998: 95). Of particular note are Metamynodon, a 

large aquatic rhinoceros, Protoceras, a primitive camel, and Leptauchenia, an oreodont. Fossils 

are particularly common in the irregular channel sands, indicating that the animals either became 

mired or drowned, perhaps as part of a herd trying to cross during flood stage. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-24 

The Brule Formation makes up much of the feature known as the Badlands Wall, just north of 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area. It consists of steeply spired brown and tan volcaniclastic 

mudstones and siltstones modified by ancient soil development. Fossil soil horizons can be 

observed in the area as parallel reddish and greenish bands in outcrops (Terry 1998). 

The Scenic Member of the Brule Formation, believed to range between 27 and 39 meters in 

thickness, has been the source of many important scientific studies including the Big Pig Dig and 

the baseline mapping of fossil bone beds study (Benton et al. 2001; Bjork 1994-1996; Clark et al. 

1967; DiBenedetto 1997, 1998, 1999; Herbel 1997, 1998; Stevens 1995, 1996a, b; Terry 

1996a, b). A three-year survey of fossil bone beds in the Poleslide Member of the Brule 

Formation is currently underway. 

The Big Pig Dig site, located west of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, was discovered in 1993 

along Conata Road. Fossil remains included those of Subhyracadon (early rhinoceros), 

Archaeotherium (a piglike mammal), Mesohippus (early horse), Leptomeryx (a deerlike 

mammal), saber-tooth cat, oreodont, and rodent. This site is considered significant in that it may 

be the largest concentration of early Oligocene mammals ever recorded. Preservation is excellent 

and individuals are relatively complete. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Note: The following information is based primarily on the Draft General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement, Badlands National Park [NPS, in preparation], the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area, Badlands National Park, Cultural Landscape Report [John Milner 

Associates 2004], Badlands National Park Visitor Study (Simmons and Gramann 2001) and 

Castle Trail Complex Demonstration Transportation System Plan (NPS 2003b) 

Visitors travel to Badlands National Park for a variety of reasons including the natural and scenic 

beauty, as well as the natural history of the area. As home to one of the world’s richest fossil 

beds, the paleontological resources of the area attract many visitors. The history of local 

American Indians and their strong connections to this region and landscape attract visitors as 

well. 

Neighboring areas are generally sparsely populated and rural. The gateway communities of 

Interior and Scenic flank the north unit of the park to the east and west respectively. The north 

unit is almost completely surrounded by the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. The large Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation, a portion of which is included within Badlands National Park (south 

unit), stretches across the southwestern part of the state, bordering the south, west and east 

portions of the southern half of the park (see figure 1-2). The south unit is cooperatively 

managed by the NPS and the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) tribe residing on the reservation. The Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation, best known as the site of the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre, is home 

to as many as 40,000 members of the Oglala Lakota tribe. This two million acre reservation is 

the second largest in the United States. 

Badlands National Park can be accessed by five official entrances, all managed and maintained 

by the NPS. Entryways include the northeast, Conata Road, Interior, Pinnacles, and Sage Creek, 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-25 

all with self-serve entrance stations. The northeast entrance, which leads to the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area, is the most frequently used; the Pinnacles entrance station is the second most 

used access point to the park. Visitors can also enter the park on secondary gravel roads 

primarily used by local residents. The Cedar Pass Developed Area, located in the northeastern 

portion of the park, can be accessed by automobile via Badlands Loop Scenic Byway (Loop 

Road) or S.D. Highway 377 from Interior. The Pinnacles entrance area, approximately 20 miles 

northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, can be reached from I-90, using Highway 240, or 

from the Cedar Pass Developed Area using the Loop Road. 

The State of South Dakota has designated the Loop Road from Cactus Flats to the Pinnacles 

entrance of the park as the Badlands Loop Scenic Byway (figure 3-5). This road, with its 

numerous pullouts, is typically crowded during the summer season. Prior to redesigning pullouts 

and parking lots, visitors could experience congestion during this period. According to NPS 

visitation data, more than 90% of park visitors travel the Loop Road. In 1999, August was 

determined the busiest month (annual daily traffic of 2,734 vehicles) for the road. In 1999, the 

annual traffic count on the Loop Road was approximately 348,640 (annual daily traffic of 995 

vehicles). 

The park conducted a formal visitor survey in August of 2000 (Simmons and Gramann 2001). 

Park employees have also collected additional visitor information at entrance stations, during 

routine patrols, and from backcountry and wilderness registration points. The following 

summarizes the results of these efforts. 

Badlands National Park averages approximately 1 million visitors a year, with up to 70% of the 

visitation occurring in June, July and August. A downward trend in visitation (approximately –

2% a year) has been apparent over the past decade. This rate of decline would result in 

approximately 885,000 annual recreational visitors by 2005, though it is believed that a steady 

downward trend in visitation is not likely over a long period. At the same time, a steady upward 

trend in visitation may not be sustainable in terms of park resources or infrastructure. 

Currently, most park visitors travel from the upper Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, 

Michigan); visitors from 40 others states and Washington D.C. also visit the park. Seven percent 

of park visitors are international, primarily from Canada, England, and Germany. Members of 

the scientific community come to study the park’s natural and cultural resources. 

Most groups visiting the park consist of four or fewer people, primarily in family groups. 

Approximately 83% stay in the park less than one day; of these, 75% percent stay only two to 

four hours, mostly in the north unit. Tour buses visit the Cedar Pass Developed Area but are 

typically on tight schedules, resulting in short visits. A moderate number of school groups also 

visit the park, mostly from Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The park is also a destination park for 

an increasing number of wilderness backpackers. Informal visitor studies in 1984 indicated that 

visits to the south unit were typically longer (one to three days) and focused on American Indian 

culture, history, and the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

Services and facilities (paved roads, visitor center, overlooks, trails, restrooms) most used are 

located in the north unit (figure 3-5). The most commonly visited sites in the park are in the 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-26 

north unit (Pinnacles Overlook, Ben Reifel Visitor Center, Cedar Pass Lodge, Journey Overlook 

picnic area, the Roberts Prairie Dog Town, and the Big Pig Dig [a paleontological site]). The 

Cedar Pass Lodge is adjacent to the Ben Reifel Visitor Center and offers overnight lodging, a 

restaurant and a large gift shop (figure 1-3). In surveys, visitors expressed that the overlooks and 

Cedar Pass campground are the most important park services and facilities. Facilities and 

services offered within the Cedar Pass Developed Area (visitor center; restrooms; lodge, 

restaurant, gift shop, and cabins; campground; and picnic areas) rated as either “very important” 

or “extremely important” to visitors. The presence of these services and amenities contributes to 

the high visitation rates in this area. Bus traffic is increasing (approximately 12 buses/day) which 

causes significant parking congestion at the Ben Reifel Visitor Center. All park services and 

facilities were rated by visitors as above average in importance and quality. 

Constructed in 1959, the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, functions as the park’s primary orientation 

and educational facility with about 25% of all park visitors stopping there (figures 1-3, 3-5). It is 

open year-round with extended hours from Memorial Day to late August. The visitor center is 

currently undergoing an expansion and remodel to provide for additional educational exhibits 

and facilities. The parking lot is inadequate and often appears full, likely prompting many to 

bypass the visitor center. It is not well signed and many visitors miss the turn-off. Tour buses use 

the visitor center parking lot for picnics because no other picnic facilities large enough are 

available. 

Relative to the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the Pinnacles entrance area has few visitor 

facilities/services (figure 3-5). The area currently contains a ranger station (infrequently-staffed 

with no public contact responsibilities), two self-service entrance booths, park law enforcement 

offices, a radio repeater tower, and several other associated outbuildings/structures. While few 

visitor services are offered, the Pinnacles entrance is the second most frequently used access to 

the park. 

Recreational Opportunities 

Park information is available online from the NPS web site (www.nps.gov) and from a variety of 

travel guides and welcome centers. Information is also available at the northeast, Interior and 

Pinnacles entrance stations, as well as at visitor centers and waysides along the Loop Road. 

Existing recreational opportunities within the park include experiencing paleontological 

resources, camping, picnicking, bicycling, horseback riding, nature study, ranger programs, 

experiencing wilderness, photography, bird and flower observation. Both the north and south 

units of the park contain prehistoric, historic, scenic, scientific and human resources. 

Campgrounds at the Cedar Pass Developed Area and Sage Creek provide camping on a firstcome, first-served basis with reserved sites available for groups (Figure 3-5). Evening programs 

are popular with campers. Campgrounds typically fill to capacity, with most campers staying 

only one night. The park’s main campground located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

contains 96 sites, four group sites, running water, flush toilets, shaded picnic tables, paved roads, 

parking areas and a trailer sewage dump station. Camping fees are $10/night. Summer programs 

are offered in the amphitheater and are typically well attended. Though it contains no formal 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-27 

campsites or potable water, the Sage Creek campground, located along the west edge of north 

unit off Sage Creek Rim Road, contains pit toilets and picnic tables. Popular with wilderness 

visitors and pack stock users, no fees are charged at this campground. 

Small picnic areas are available at the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, the Cedar Pass campground, 

Journey Overlook, Conata Road, and the White River Visitor Center (Figure 3-5). 

The highly developed Loop Road area of the north unit is the most heavily visited section of the 

park where there are hiking and interpretive trails, overlooks, wayside exhibits, picnic areas and 

restrooms (Figure 3-5). The Sage Creek Rim Road to the primitive Sage Creek campground is 

less impacted by visitors and offers a less structured environment with a sense of discovery, 

remoteness and solitude. 

In additional to the use of private vehicles for sightseeing, tour bus rides along the Loop Road 

are available for visitors to enjoy the scenery that forms the badlands, as well as the priories 

ecosystems. Of the 14 designated overlooks along the Loop Road, six contain interpretive panels 

depicting geologic scenes. Visitors can also use short interpretive trails. A few of the more 

popular stopping places along the Loop Road include (Figure 3-5): 

• Big Badlands Overlook—the first vista of badlands country from the northeast 

entrance. At this location there are two waysides and a 60-yard path. About 30-35% 

of visitors stop at this overlook. 

• Window, Door, and Notch Trails—first opportunity to get “up close” to the scenery. 

Easy and accessible paths traverse out and through the Badlands Wall. 

• Prairie Winds—an elevated boardwalk at the Prairie Winds stop. Visitors can walk a 

short distance into the prairie. 

• Fossil Exhibit Trail—5 miles east of Cedar Pass Developed Area, paleontology is 

interpreted with self-guided trail booklets for the elevated 400-yard boardwalk. 

Guided fossil walks are available in the summer. Twenty-minute fossil talks are given 

daily at the parking lot pavilion. Vault toilets are available. One of the first 100% 

accessible trails in the national park system (listed as a national recreation trail in 

1985). 

• Pinnacles Overlook—offers a spectacular view of the spires and canyons of the 

region. A short trail leads down a set of stairs to wayside panels and overlooks. 

• Roberts Prairie Dog Town—located about four miles west of the Pinnacles entrance 

station, along Sage Creek Rim Road. 

Hiking and backpacking are permitted with the north unit offering the Castle Trail Network 

(7 miles) and Cliff Shelf (.5 mile nature trail/viewpoint) facilities. Bicycle use is increasing in the 

park with most preferring the Loop Road, Sage Creek Rim Road, and other secondary roads. 

Horseback riding and pack stock use are allowed in the park but not in developed areas or on 

marked trails, roads, or highways. This activity is very popular in the wilderness areas of the 

park. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-28 

Badlands National Park is world renowned as one of the largest storehouses of North American 

vertebrate fossils. Opportunities for observations of scientific paleontological excavations are 

available to visitors from June through August at a site on Conata Road (Big Pig Dig). 

Researchers and educators are available during the summer to answer questions as they work. 

The park’s landscape contains numerous scenic features with limited visual intrusions (such as 

park facilities at Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles area). Smaller intrusions (shade 

shelters and restrooms) are located at trailheads and waysides. The viewshed beyond the park 

boundary is rural and includes manufactured features (ranches, roads, communications towers). 

Intrusions to the night sky have resulted from some of these features (radio/cell towers). Certain 

areas, such as the Cedar Pass Developed Area, create lighting that is visible within the park. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area contains a variety of visitor services and facilities, as well as the 

centralized park administrative and maintenance operations. The area contains the Ben Reifel 

Visitor Center, the Cedar Pass Lodge and cabins/restaurant/gift shop, park and lodge staff 

housing, park staff administrative offices, the Cedar Pass campground, a maintenance area, a fire 

cache, associated infrastructure (utilities, roads). How well these elements function as intended 

contributes to the efficiency of park operations. 

The existing visitor center includes office space for five permanent employees; the park library; 

administrative functions for public affairs, cultural, resource management, education, and 

partnerships (fax, copying machine, mail table, storage); as well as exhibits, visitor bathrooms, 

lobby, and bookstore. The new addition will provide a theater; workspace for seven permanent 

employees and fifteen temporary employees; an enlarged library; a classroom for school groups; 

tripled bookstore and exhibit areas; doubled public bathrooms area; an audiovisual room; a break 

room; and storage for the bookstore (Mills, pers. comm. 2004). 

Fire-fighting capabilities have been recently centralized at the Cedar Pass Developed Area. With 

the construction of the fire cache (NPS 2002), fire-fighting equipment and supplies previously 

stored in several locations around the park have been moved to the fire cache structure (fire 

engines, search and rescue cache, equipment storage, personal lockers, office/work space for fire 

crew). This has decreased the time it takes to inventory and maintain equipment. An engine and 

some supplies continue to be maintained at Pinnacles Ranger Station to facilitate quick response 

to the northwestern portion of the park (20 miles from Cedar Pass Developed Area). 

The recently constructed resource management storage building houses supplies and equipment 

programs related to vegetation and wildlife management, ferret reintroduction and paleontology. 

This includes all-terrain vehicles, flatbed trailers, recreational vehicle trailers, spray tanks, 

backpacks, traps, loading ramps, and various items of personal protection for staff. The building 

also provides an office area for field employees (NPS 2002). 

The museum storage building, currently under construction, will meet a long-identified need for 

the park. It has provided the needed environmental controls, storage, safety, lighting and security 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-29 

for the storage of park museum objects. The structure is designed to comply with NPS standards 

as identified in 36 CFR 79 (Curation of Archaeological Collections). 

The addition of these three buildings will increase the number of structures requiring 

maintenance for which no new money has been appropriated (NPS 2002). Those expenses are 

currently being absorbed by the park’s existing budget, reducing money available for other 

activities. 

The CLR has identified a variety of issues as existing management concerns which will need 

addressing in the future, all of which affect park operations. Among others, these include: 

• Administration, visitor center and maintenance facilities—inadequate space. 

• Parking, visitor center—insufficient parking areas for park staff and maintenance 

equipment. 

• Parking, Cedar Pass Lodge—no separate employee parking leading to inadequate 

parking space during peak periods. 

• Lodge housing—mobile home structures are inconsistent with what visitors would 

expect in the area. There is a need for an on-site housing structure. 

• Culverts—drainage problems require some culverts replacement and road grading 

changes. 

• Badlands Loop Road—when this road fails, a new corridor will be required to 

connect Cedar Pass Developed Area with routes to the north and west. 

• Utilities—underground all above-ground utilities; all new utilities would be install 

underground (John Milner Associates 2004, chapter 5). 

• Circulation—pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, particularly at the visitor center. 

The Pinnacles area contains a ranger station (infrequently-staffed, no public contact 

responsibilities), two self-serve entrance stations, park law enforcement offices, a radio repeater 

tower, and some associated outbuildings. A fire engine and some fire-fighting supplies are 

maintained at the Pinnacles area to facilitate quick response to the northwestern portion of the 

park (NPS 2002). No formal maintenance facilities are located at the Pinnacles area. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-30 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

Table 3-1. List of Contributing and Noncont

 3-31 

ributing Structures/Features/Elements, Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Natural Systems Eastside Wash C Westside Wash C Badlands Formations C Western Wheatgrass Alliance Grassland C Badlands Sparse Vegetation Complex C Western Snowberry Shrubland C Emergent Wetland Grassland C Switchgrass Grassland C Chokecherry Shrubland C Eastern Cottonwood C Invasive Siberian Elms Thicket Along Eastside Wash NC Spatial Organization Badlands Loop Road Corridor C • South Dakota Highway 377 Corridor C • Service Road Corridor C/NC • • • Visitor Center Surrounds C • Cedar Pass Lodge/Cabins Surrounds C • 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-32 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-33 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Spatial Organization (continued)Campground Surrounds C • Amphitheater Parking/Interpretive Shelter Surrounds C • Amphitheater Surrounds C • Administration Area Surrounds C Residence Area Surrounds C • Seasonal Apartments Surrounds C • Maintenance Yard Surrounds C • Waste Water Lagoon Surrounds NC Former Waste Water Lagoon Surrounds C • Open Meadow C Land UseVisitor accommodations C • • • Interpretive C • Lodging C • • • Recreation C • • • Administration C • • Maintenance C • • Utility C • • • 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-34 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-35 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Land Use (continued) Housing C • • CirculationBadlands Loop Road C • ca. 1935 South Dakota Highway 377 C • ca. 1928 Service Road C/NC • • • 

1940/ 1952-55/ 

1970? 

Service Road Spur NC 1970? Former Service Road Segment C • 1952-55 Residential Loop Road C • 1959 Cedar Pass Lodge Drive C • ca. 1940s Lodge Service Road NC varies Campground Drive C • 1955-59 Visitor Center Front Parking Lot C • ca. 1960 Visitor Center Rear Parking Lot NC ca. 1970 Administration Parking Lot NC ca. 1971 Lodge Parking Lot C varies Amphitheater Parking Lot C • 1956 Maintenance Parking Lot C • varies 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-36 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-37 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Circulation (continued) Visitor Center Sidewalks C • ca. 1960 Lodge Sidewalks C ca. 1969 Amphitheater Sidewalks C • 1956 Campground Sidewalks C • ca. 1960 Trail from Visitor Center to Amphitheater C • ca. 1960 Administration Area Sidewalks NC ca. 1969 Residences Area Sidewalks C • 1955-59 Maintenance Yard C • varies Waste Water Lagoon Access Drive NC 2002 Former Waste Water Lagoon Access Drive UD 1940s TopographyFormer Waste Water Lagoons C • 1940s New Waste Water Lagoons NC 2002 Circulation Corridors C/NC Varies Building Sites C • • • Varies Borrow Pits UD ? VegetationVisitor Center Landscape C • 1959 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-38 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-39 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Vegetation (continued) Cedar Pass Lodge/Cabins Landscape UD Varies Maintenance Area Nursery NC post 1985 Residential Landscape C • 1959 Campground Landscape UD Varies Buildings and StructuresBen Reifel Visitor Center #26 C • Fair 1959 Cedar Pass Lodge #100 C • Fair ca. 1927 Lodge Cottage #102 C • Good 1946 Lodge Laundry Building #108 C • Fair 1927-49 Lodge Maintenance Building #109 C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #1-1A-2-2A (110) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #3 (111) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #4 (112) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #5 (113) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #6 (114) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #7 (115) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #8 (116) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #9 (117) C • Fair 1927-49 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-40 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-41 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Buildings and Structures (continued) Cabin #10 (118) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #11 (119) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #12 (120) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #14-15-16-16A (121) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #18 (122) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #19 (123) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #20 (124) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #21 (125) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #22 (126) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #23 (127) C • Fair 1927-49 Cabin #33 (128) C • Fair 1927-49 Campground Comfort Station Group 1 NC Good 1957-60 Campground Comfort Station Group 2 C • Good 1955 Campground Comfort Station A C • Good 1957-60 Campground Comfort Station B C • Good 1957-60 Administration Building #164 NC Good post 1985 Conference/Maintenance Building #152 NC Good post 1985 Collection Storage Building #173 UD Good post 1985 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-42 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-43 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Buildings and Structures (continued) Resource Protection (CCC Ranger Station) #12 C • Good post 1985 Natural Resources Office Building #172 NC Good post 1985 Residence #28 C • Good 1952-1955 Residence #29 C • Good 1952-1955 Residence #30 C • Good 1952-1955 Garage #30A C • Good 1952-1955 Residence #31 C • Good 1958-1959 Garage #31A C • Good 1958-1959 Residence #32 C • Good 1958-1959 Garage #32A C • Good 1958-1959 Residence #33 C • Good 1958-1959 Garage #33A C • Good 1958-1959 Residence #34 C • Good 1958-1959 Garage #34A C Good 1958-1959 Residence #46 NC Good ca. 1970s Garage #46A NC Good ca. 1970s Seasonal Apartment #135 NC Fair 1971-1974 Seasonal Apartment #45 C • Fair 1958-1960 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-44 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-45 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Buildings and Structures (continued) Seasonal Apartment #51 C • Fair 1959-1960 Seasonal Apartment # 52 C • Fair 1959-1960 Fire Cache #177 NC Good 2003 Maintenance Shop #35 C • Fair ca. 1950 Maintenance Cold Storage #36 C • Fair ca. 1950 Maintenance Storage Building #150 NC Good LATER Sand Shed #146 NC Good ? Hazmat Building #180 NC Good LATER Lodge Employee Mobile Home NC Good 2003 Lodge Ice House #107 C ? Fair 1927-49 Interpretive Shelter NC Good post 1985 Campground Shed NC Good ? Campground Entrance Booth #160 UD Good ? Amphitheater Stage UD Good ? Amphitheater Projection Booth UD Good ? Amphitheater Retaining Wall UD Good ? Air Quality Monitoring Station NC Good post 1985 Sewage Treatment Lift Station NC Good 2003 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-46 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-47 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Buildings and Structures (continued) Tack Room (Horse Barn ) #21 UD Poor 

older than 

1977 

Water Supply Tank NC Good 2002 Water Supply Pump Building NC Good 2002 Waste Water Lagoons and Structures NC Good 2003 Concrete Box Culverts NC Good varies Timber Footbridge NC Good post 1985 Concrete Block Retaining Wall C Good 1956-66 Small-Scale FeaturesVisitor Center Sign C 1958/1979 Informational Signs (traffic, location, etc.) NC varies Phone Box NC post 1985 Flagpole C • 1951 Trash/Recycle Receptacles NC ? Kiosk UD post 1985 Post and Rail Fencing UD varies Electrical and HVAC Utility Boxes NC varies Dumpsters NC post 1985 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-48 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-49 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Small-Scale Features (continued) Tire Stops NC post 1985 Bike Racks NC post 1985 Fire Hose Boxes NC 1959? Fire Hydrants NC post 1985 Picnic Tables NC post 1985 Bollard Lights NC post 1985 Stone Tree Dedication Plaques NC post 1985 Cedar Pass Lodge Sign UD ? Pale Fencing NC varies Timber Overhead Lighting Post UD varies Irregular Cut Log Edging UD post 1985 Benches UD varies Plastic Lawn Chairs NC post 1985 Picnic Shelters (Portable) C • 1956-1959 Gravel Landscape Decorations NC post 1985 Concrete Water Valve Caps NC ? Chain Link Fencing NC post 1985 Timber Bollards NC post 1985 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-50 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-51 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Small-Scale Features (continued) Amphitheater Benches C • 1959 Interpretive Display Cart NC post 1985 Metal Access Gates NC varies Picnic Shelters (Fixed) NC ? Drinking Fountains UD varies Water Spigots UD varies Concrete/Gravel Splash Basin UD varies RV Utility Connections NC ? RV Dump Station Connections NC ? Vending Machine NC post 1985 Circular Concrete Culverts (as play equipment) NC ? Metal Post and Wire Fencing NC varies Play Swings NC post 1985 Portable Storage Sheds NC post 1985 Clotheslines NC varies Dog Houses NC post 1985 Hose Reels NC post 1985 Satellite Dishes NC post 1985 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-52 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-53 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Small-Scale Features (continued) Mail Boxes and Stand NC post 1985 Gas Utilities NC 1959? TV Antennas NC post 1985 Concrete and Corrugated Metal Culverts NC post 1985 Covered Walkways UD varies Metal Bollards NC post 1985 Propane Tanks NC post 1985 Abandoned Equipment/Junk Piles NC varies Maintenance Equipment (salt trucks, plows, trailers, etc) NC post 1985 Portable Research Vehicles (RVs) NC varies Wood Post and Wire Fencing UD post 1985 Wood Post and Plank Fencing UD post 1985 Views and VistasView of Area from Top of Cedar Pass Developed Area C View from Visitor Center Area C View from Lodge and Cabin Area C View of Area from Top of Formation west of Lodge C View from Campground Area C 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-54 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-55 

Feature Associated Historic Periods 

 C/NC1

Early 

Tourism 

NPS 

CCC 

NPS 

Mission 66 Condition Date of Origin 

Views and VistasView from Badlands Loop Road C Views of New Buildings NC varies View from inside Visitor Center Porch C Archeological FeaturesDance Hall Area Former Service Road Segments Residence Tennis Court Early Maintenance Area CCC Camp Lodge Area Former Campground Structures 1 C = Contributing; NC = Noncontributing; UD = Undetermined 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 3-56 




Figure 3-5: Badlands National Park, North Unit, Pinnacles and Northeast Entrance and Visitor Attractions Indicated

27

44

44

590

502

509

590

589

240

240

377

14

90

90

9

Ben ReifelVisitor Center(Park Headquarters)

5mi

7.5km

13.5mi

22km

5mi

7.5km 2mi

3km

8.5mi13.5km

10mi16km

9mi

15km

3mi5km

19mi30km

8.5mi13.5km

12mi19km

2.5mi

3.5km

20mi32km

Northeast Entrance

Pinnacles Entrance

Interior Entrance

Badlands Loop

Road

See Cedar Pass

detail map

BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK 

BADLANDS WILDERNESS AREA

NORTH UNIT

NORTH UNIT

Bear - in - the - Lodg

Potato Cre

Cain Creek ver Creek

Sage Creek

South Fork

Middle Fork

White R vi er

r

White R

vi er

BUFFALO GAP NATIONAL GRASSLAND

BUFFALO GAP NATIONAL GRASSLAND

Cactus Flat

Hay Butte

Overlook

Sage Creek

Basin Overlook

BadlandsWildernessOverlook

Pinnacles

Overlook

Prairie Wind

Overlook

Yellow Mounds

Overlook

Burns Basin

Overlook

White River

Valley Overlook

Panorama

Point

Conata Basin Overlook

Homestead Overlook

Ancient Hunters Overlook

Cottonwood

Wall

Exit 131

Exit 110

Exit 116

Exit 127

Quinn

Interior

2443ft745m

Cedar Pass Lodge (open seasonally)

Big Badlands Overlook

Prairie Homestead

Conata

Bigfoot Pass Overlook

Fossil Exhibit Trail

To Kadoka

3247ft990m

RobertsPrairie Dog Town

Sage Creek Road

Conata Road

DillonPass

BigfootPass

Medicine RootTrail

Sage Creek

no water

CONATA

BASIN Castle Trail

Sage

Creek Rim

Road

Sage Creek Road

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

The Grassland is interspersed with privately-owned land.

Check at the Grassland headquarters in Wall for details.

QUINN

TABLE

Source: National Park Service
CHAPTER FOUR

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the disclosure of environmental 

impacts of a proposed federal action, reasonable alternatives to that action, and any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the preferred alternative be implemented. 

This section presents the analysis of environmental impacts of the three alternatives on cultural 

resources, wildlife, special status species, paleontology, vegetation, visitor experience, and park 

operations. Through this analysis, effects of the three alternatives are compared. 

As the analysis of this EA is programmatic in nature, potential effects to resources are discussed 

below in general terms. Additional and more specific impact analysis will occur once details and 

locations of future actions are finalized, prior to construction. 

GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF ANALYSIS 

This EA contains programmatic analysis of impacts of future management of the 290 acres 

Cedar Pass Developed Area over the next 10-15 years. Similar programmatic impact analysis for 

the Pinnacles area associated with alternative B is also included (approximately 5-10 acres). 

While most effects of the proposal are typically focused on the Cedar Pass Developed Area and 

Pinnacles area, in certain cases they can result in park-wide impacts (for example, park 

operations) and are accordingly discussed within this analysis. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

Certain assumptions that influence the analysis of impacts of alternatives have been made 

regarding the study areas covered within this EA and are described below. 

• Having been previously analyzed (NPS 2002), the impacts of the plans for the expansion 

of the NRHP-eligible Ben Reifel Visitor Center, as well as the construction of the fire 

cache, resource management and museum storage buildings are not analyzed in this EA. 

• The research provided within the CLR (John Milner Associates 2004) related to NRHP 

significance, historic contexts, integrity, landscape features of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape forms the basis for the formulation of the management 

alternatives and the identification/evaluation of impacts within this EA. 

• Reference to the Cedar Pass Developed Area implies the 290-acre study area discussed 

above (“Geographic Area of Analysis”); reference to the Pinnacles area implies that area 

designated in the CLR as the site for off-site development under alternative B 

(approximately 20 miles northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-2 

METHODOLOGY 

Analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature. Impacts presented here are generalized by type. 

It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future site-specific projects are 

proposed. As each alternative, if implemented in the future, contains activities that could 

potentially affect the environment, the broad analysis contained in this EA is designed to aid in 

future planning efforts. 

Potential impacts are described in terms of 

• type—adverse, beneficial. 

• context—site-specific, local, regional. 

• duration—short-term, less than one year; long-term, longer than one year. Unless 

otherwise noted, all direct adverse impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are 

considered permanent in nature due to the nonrenewable nature of these resources. 

• intensity (see impact thresholds for each impact topic below)—It is assumed, when the 

impact analysis includes the use of mitigation measures described in chapter 2, that these 

measures would, in fact, be applied. As these measures are designed to minimize or avoid 

negative impacts, potential for resource impact and the intensity of that impact would 

almost certainly increase if they are not implemented as described in the analysis. 

Impairment 

NPS policy also requires that potential effects of proposals evaluate the likelihood of causing 

“impairment” of resources. An action results in impairment when its impacts “harm the integrity 

of park resources or values” (NPS Management Policies [NPS 2001, sec. 1.4.4]). Established by 

the 1916 Organic Act, one of the primary purposes of the national park system is a mandate to 

conserve park resources and values. NPS managers must always seek to avoid adversely 

impacting park resources and values or to minimize those impacts to the greatest degree 

practicable. Although the NPS has the discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that 

discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that park resources and values remain 

unimpaired, unless a specific law directly provides otherwise. 

Every park varies in its enabling legislation, resources and missions and, consequently, the level 

at which resource impairment could occur varies from one park to another. Analysis of the 

context, duration and intensity of impacts of each alternative, as well as the potential for 

impairment are evaluated in this EA as required under Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2004a). 

Where appropriate, an evaluation relative to impairment is included for each impact topic 

analyzed (paleontology, cultural resources, vegetation, wildlife, special status species). Visitor 

use and park operations are not considered park resources and, therefore, no impairment 

statements are provided. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-3 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to implement NEPA requires the 

analysis of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative 

impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are analyzed for all alternatives. 

Past actions include the incremental development of the Cedar Pass Developed Area and the 

Pinnacles area. Current/recent projects within the Cedar Pass Developed Area include the 

rehabilitation of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center and the construction of the Fire Cache, the 

Museum Storage, and the Resource Management buildings (NPS 2002). A number of future 

projects at the Cedar Pass Developed Area are at various stages of planning and development 

(for example, renovation of seven permanent housing units, updating of structural fire readiness, 

replacement of Cedar Pass laundry facility, campground improvements) (Kirk Associates 2004: 

67). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The potential to impact cultural resources exists under all alternatives. Archeological resources 

may be affected as a result of ground disturbance associated with future development; cultural 

landscapes may be affected as a result of future modifications and new, incompatible 

development. Project-specific studies have documented the presence of a cultural landscape 

(including historic structures) and historic archeological resources within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area (see chapter 3). No formal cultural resource studies exist for the Pinnacles area; 

however, alternative B proposes new construction (ground disturbance) in this area, an activity 

that could affect these resources. 

Following is a summary of NPS regulations and policies related to cultural resource 

management, as well as a description of the methods used to analyze potential impacts to these 

resources. 

Guiding Regulations and Policies 

Federal actions that have the potential to affect cultural resources are subject to a variety of 

regulations. Compliance with these and other laws serves as the foundation for general protection 

of cultural resources important to the nation. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

(1966, as amended) is the principal legislative authority for management of cultural resources 

associated with NPS projects. Section 106 of the NHPA requires all federal agencies to consider 

the effects of their actions on cultural resources determined eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, the NHPA requires that federal agencies take 

actions to minimize harm to historic properties that would be adversely affected by a federal 

undertaking. Section 110 of the NHPA, among other things, charges federal agencies with the 

responsibility for establishing preservation programs for identification, evaluation and 

nomination of historic properties to the NRHP. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-4 

Other important laws and regulations designed to protect cultural resources follow: 

• The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 1990 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), 1978 

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 

• The Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), 1979 

• Executive Order 11593, 1971 

In addition, the NPS is charged with protection and management of cultural resources in its 

custody. This is furthered through the implementation of the NPS’s Cultural Resources 

Management Guidelines (NPS 1998), the NPS Management Policies (NPS 2001), and the 1995 

Service-wide Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO). These 

documents charge NPS managers with avoiding, or minimizing to the greatest degree 

practicable, adversely impacting park resources and values. 

The draft general management plan for Badlands National Park also addresses the management 

and protection of cultural resources, outlining the following strategies: 

• continuation of survey, inventory and evaluation of resources in accordance with the 

NHPA 

• development of more accurate predictive modeling of prehistoric site distribution 

• use of avoidance techniques to prevent impacts to significant sites 

• continued support of cultural resource research 

• consultation with the SHPO and federally recognized tribes regarding actions that could 

potentially affect the resource (NPS, in preparation: 16) 

Assumptions Related to Cultural Resource Analysis 

To promote consistency and clarity, the following assumptions have been made for the evaluation 

of effects to cultural resources under all alternatives. 

• The Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape is considered eligible for inclusion in 

the NRHP (appendix A). 

• Under all alternatives, it is assumed that future development and alteration of cultural 

resources (landscape, archeological resource) would comply with Section 106 of the 

NHPA. 

• It is assumed that under all alternatives The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (NPS 1996) would be used for guidance for work within the cultural 

landscape. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-5 

• Because analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature, impacts presented here are 

generalized by type. It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future 

site-specific projects are proposed. As each alternative, if implemented in the future, 

contains activities that could potentially affect cultural resources, the broad analysis 

contained in this EA is designed to aid in future planning efforts. For instance, in general 

any ground-disturbing activity such as clearing/grading, trenching/excavation, and filling 

could affect buried archeological resources through the loss of cultural contexts of 

artifacts, features. The intensity of these potential impacts remains largely unknown 

without the benefit of extensive surveys. Intensity of impacts of future projects can be 

influenced by the type/nature of the archeological resource encountered, the ability of 

workers to recognize buried cultural materials during construction, and the level of 

disturbance of the cultural resources as a result of the actions. 

Methods of Impact Analysis for Cultural Resources 

The NPS categorizes cultural resources by the following categories: archeological resources, 

cultural landscapes, historic structures, museum objects and ethnographic resources. The 

proposal under consideration is not believed to have the potential to affect museum objects or 

ethnographic resources and they are not discussed further. All historic structures are considered 

part of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape and are, therefore, addressed in the 

“Cultural Landscapes” section. A review of reference materials regarding cultural resources 

within Badlands National Park, as well as communications with NPS staff, were completed to 

identify and evaluate potential impacts to cultural resources located within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area and Pinnacles area. 

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources over time can include total loss of sites or parts of sites 

due to development, erosional processes or lack of appropriate maintenance; loss of integrity and 

interpretive value; and the gradual loss of the cultural resource base within the park. 

The area included in the impact analysis for cultural resources includes the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area (all alternatives) and the Pinnacles area (alternative B) (figure 1-2). 

Cultural Resource Impact Thresholds Definitions 

Cultural Landscapes 

Negligible: Impact(s) is at the lowest levels of detection - barely perceptible and not 

measurable. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impact – impact(s) would alter a pattern(s) or feature(s) of the cultural 

landscape but would not diminish the overall integrity of the landscape. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Beneficial impact – preservation of landscape patterns and features in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-6 

Properties With Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact - impact(s) would alter a pattern(s) or feature(s) of the cultural 

landscape, diminishing the overall integrity of the landscape. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. A memorandum 

of agreement is executed among the NPS and applicable state or tribal historic 

preservation officer and, if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). The mitigative measures 

identified in the MOA reduce the intensity of impact under NEPA from major to 

moderate. 

Beneficial impact – rehabilitation of a landscape or its patterns and features in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties With Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Major: Adverse impact - impact(s) would alter a pattern(s) or feature(s) of the cultural 

landscape, diminishing the overall integrity of the resource. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. The NPS and 

applicable state or tribal historic preservation officer are unable to negotiate and 

execute a memorandum of agreement in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). 

Beneficial impact – restoration of a landscape or its patterns and features in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Badlands National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning document. 

Archeological Resources 

Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of detection - barely measurable with no perceptible 

consequences, either adverse or beneficial. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impact - disturbance of a site(s) results in little, if any, loss of integrity. 

For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-7 

Beneficial impact – maintenance and preservation of a site(s). For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact - disturbance of a site(s) results in loss of integrity. For purposes 

of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. A 

memorandum of agreement is executed among the NPS and applicable state or 

tribal historic preservation officer and, if necessary, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). The mitigative 

measures identified in the MOA reduce the intensity of impact under NEPA from 

major to moderate. 

Beneficial impact – stabilization of a site(s). For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Major: Adverse impact – disturbance of a site(s) results in loss of integrity. For purposes 

of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. The NPS and 

applicable state or tribal historic preservation officer are unable to negotiate and 

execute a memorandum of agreement in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). 

Beneficial impact – active intervention to preserve a site(s). For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Badlands National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning document. 

Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act 

These analyses are designed to comply with requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, which 

requires an assessment of the effect of the undertaking (implementation of an alternative) on 

cultural resources based upon the criterion of effect and criteria of adverse effect found in the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations. In this EA, a Section 106 

summary is included at the end of each alternative’s discussion. In accordance with the ACHP 

regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR 800), impacts to cultural resources are identified 

and evaluated by: 

1. Determining the area of potential effect (APE). For the purposes of this EA, the APE is 

defined as the Cedar Pass Developed Area (all alternatives) and the Pinnacles area 

(alternative B), both located within Badlands National Park (figure 1-2). 

2. Identifying cultural resources present in the area of potential effects that were either listed 

in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 

3. Applying the criteria of adverse effect to affected cultural resources either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the National Register. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-8 

4. Considering ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. 

An adverse effect occurs when an impact alters any characteristic of a cultural resource that 

qualifies it for inclusion in the NRHP. Adverse effects also include reasonably foreseeable 

effects caused by the preferred alternative that would occur later in time, be farther removed in 

distance or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5). A determination of no adverse effect means there is 

an effect, but the effect would not diminish in any way the characteristics of the cultural resource 

that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register. 

If it is determined that the proposed actions would adversely affect National Register eligible or 

listed cultural resources, the park would prepare an environmental assessment to analyze the 

impacts of the action on the cultural resources, as well as negotiate and execute a memorandum 

of agreement with the South Dakota SHPO to stipulate how the adverse effect would be 

minimized or mitigated. If it is determined that the proposed action would have no adverse effect 

on National Register eligible or listed cultural resources, the park would document this 

determination and consult with the South Dakota SHPO for comment. 

CEQ regulations and the NPS’s Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Decision-making (Director’s Order #12, NPS 2004a) also call for a discussion of the 

appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an analysis of how effective the mitigation would be in 

reducing the intensity of a potential impact (reducing impacts from major to moderate). Any 

reduction in intensity of impact due to mitigation however, is an estimate of the effectiveness of 

mitigation under NEPA only and does not suggest that the level of effect under Section 106 is 

similarly reduced. Cultural resources are nonrenewable resources and adverse effects generally 

consume, diminish, or destroy the original historic materials or form, resulting in a loss in the 

integrity of the resource that can never be recovered. Therefore, while adverse effects under 

Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect to the resource remains adverse. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

The eventual failure of the Loop Road at the Cedar Pass could result in changed traffic patterns 

in the area, including that portion of the Loop Road contained within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape (northern boundary) (NPS, in preparation) (figure 1-3). While the route 

of this future road realignment is unknown at this time, it has the potential to affect both 

archeological and cultural landscape resources within the study area (figure 1-3). Potential 

impacts to the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape vary among alternatives and are discussed 

below. Potential effects to archeological resources are similar under all alternatives and are 

related to construction activities (ground disturbance), which can uncover or damage such 

resources, particularly those unidentified and buried. With implementation of mandatory 

mitigation measures (preconstruction survey, monitoring of ground disturbance [chapter 2]), 

adverse impacts would likely be held to minor and site-specific. 

Under all alternatives, archeological resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be 

preserved and protected to the greatest extent possible, a minor, localized benefit. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-9 

Alternative A—No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, as under all alternatives, the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape would be treated as a historic landscape. Development and alterations of the cultural 

landscape would be preceded by Section 106 (NHPA) review to ensure that adverse effects are 

minimized and that NPS historic preservation standards are met. Though the district would be 

managed for historic resource values, the assumption used in the EA for analysis purposes is that 

a minimum application of available preservation knowledge and technology would be applied 

(e.g., no additional research). The NPS would continue to manage and use the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area cultural landscape in the current (2004) manner, without historic preservation 

guidance provided for in the draft CLR (for example, detailed historical research yielding 

information regarding original design and construction of facilities, high levels of historical 

research regarding building exterior/interiors, evaluation of historic integrity, conservation 

assessments) (John Milner Associates 2004). New development and facility siting would not 

utilize the original planning approach of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Designers of new 

facilities, general contractors constructing them, and laborers/contractors involved in 

maintenance operations would not necessarily be required to have training, education, and/or 

experience in preservation technology. Park maintenance staff currently has minimal 

preservation training. In sum, no park- and Developed Area- policies, strategies, and 

implementation initiatives would be available to lend a comprehensive and sustained program of 

the historic landscape and building preservation as outlined in the CLR (figure 2-1). 

Analysis 

Analysis of impacts to cultural resources under the no-action alternative would be primarily 

related to future development and its effects on the cultural landscape, including impacts to 

buried cultural resources. These impacts include landscape modifications associated with the 

future use and management of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape, as well as 

ground disturbance associated with future new construction. 

Cultural Landscapes (Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

Characteristic features of the circulation element of the cultural landscape (roadway dimensions, 

layout, spatial organization) are considered significant. In particular, the portion of the Loop 

Road associated with the Cedar Pass Developed Area could be affected by a change in the 

overall road alignment in the event of future road failure at Cedar Pass. The no-action alternative 

includes no historic preservation management guidance related to the cultural landscape. Without 

such guidance, future realignment of the Loop Road at the Cedar Pass Developed Area could 

involve only minimal understanding of the historic sensitivity of the landscape and could result 

in adverse impacts resulting from its loss of historic association with this circulation element. 

Depending on the ultimate realigned route of the Loop Road, localized, long-term, effects of 

unknown type and intensity could occur to the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

under this alternative. When the future route is selected, a more definitive statement of effect to 

the cultural landscape will be possible. When compared to the no-action alterative under which 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-10 

only minimal historic preservation planning is likely, the action alternatives offer a greater 

degree of protection to the integrity of the historic landscape related to future road realignment. 

Open space areas are defined within the CLR as one of ten character areas, and one which retains 

a high degree of integrity (John Milner Associates 2004, Map 4-4). Open spaces “encompasses 

all the open, undeveloped space that surrounds the other character areas” (Milner 2004: 6-4; also 

see chapter 2). The natural system landscape features that have been identified within these areas 

include drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, and wildlife (John Milner Associates 2004: 

3-14 through 3-18). 

Under the no-action alternative, it is assumed that the cultural landscape would be managed in a 

minimal way for historic resource values. Future projects proposed within open space areas may 

not initially appear to jeopardize the integrity of the historic landscape. However, over time, the 

cumulative effect of multiple projects could directly affect the integrity of the open space areas 

and, indirectly, the spatial organization of the landscape and contributing views into and out of 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This potential increase in future development in open space 

areas and its potential to affect its integrity could result in localized, long-terms impacts to the 

cultural landscape. Depending on the type and amount of future development in the open space 

areas, intensity of potential impacts could vary (negligible to major) through time, possibly 

becoming more intense as incremental encroachment into open space areas occurs over the next 

10-20 years. Potential development within open space areas under the no-action alternative 

would put cultural resources at a higher risk when compared to the action alternatives under 

which open space areas are specifically preserved and protected. 

Under the no-action alternative, new development within the Cedar Pass Developed Area would 

not be guided by the CLR as is the case under alternatives B and C. Without the benefit of such 

guidance, development proposals that reflect minimal sensitivity to the context and integrity of 

the resource are possible throughout the cultural landscape. In addition, new development could 

be planned, designed and constructed by those untrained and inexperienced in historic 

preservation planning and construction techniques. As a result, new construction has the 

potential to create adverse effects to the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape in its 

impacts to the historic integrity and context of contributing elements. 

Future new construction and development in the Cedar Pass Developed Area would undergo 

required compliance with federal historic preservation policies and regulations (see “Guiding 

Regulations and Policies” and “Assumptions” above). However, incremental loss of the integrity 

of the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape as a result of the lack of management guidance, coupled 

with lack of use of trained historic preservation specialists in design and construction of new 

development, is a possibility under the no-action alternative. Loss of integrity from future 

development within the general landscape could occur through insensitive planning, 

incompatible design, and incremental loss of significant landscape elements/features. This 

potential incremental loss could result in long-term, localized, adverse impacts. The intensity of 

potential impacts could vary (negligible to major) through time, likely becoming more intense as 

incremental development proceeds over the next 10-20 years within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. When compared to the action alternatives under which historic preservation guidance is 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-11 

provided, new development under the no-action alternative presents a decidedly greater risk to 

the cultural landscape of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Under the no-action alternative, future vegetation management consists of the removal of 

invasive Siberian elms in the open space areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This action 

would result in negligible effect on the cultural landscape. When compared to alternatives B and 

C, which recommend increased efforts of management designed to restore historic vegetation 

patterns within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the no-action alternative offers a lesser benefit to 

the historic patterns of the cultural landscape. 

Archeological Resources 

Open space areas are defined within the CLR as one of ten character areas. The natural system 

landscape features that have been identified within these areas include drainages, vegetation, 

Badlands formations, and wildlife (John Milner Associates 2004: 3-14 through 3-18). Under the 

no-action alternative, there is a greater possibility of impact to open space and natural systems as 

a result of the lack of specific management guidance for the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape at 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area. As this alternative provides no historic preservation-related 

guidance for open space protection, it is more likely that development/ground disturbance in 

these large areas could impact buried archeological resources (prehistoric and historic). 

Permanent adverse impacts to archeological resources of unknown intensity are possible as a 

result of potential ground disturbance in these open space areas possible under this alterative. 

However, with the implementation of mitigation measures (chapter 2), adverse impacts would 

likely not exceed the site-specific, minor level. When compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternatives B and C would provide reduced potential for disturbance of archeological resources 

through the protection of open space areas within the cultural landscape. 

Under the no-action alternative, the potential for future new development and associated ground 

disturbance in all areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape is more likely than 

that under the other two alternatives. This situation would result from the lack of historic 

preservation planning guidance (CLR) in the future management and use of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area under this alternative. As a result, this alternative would likely result in the 

greatest amount of ground disturbance from future development in both disturbed and 

undisturbed areas of the study area. 

The risk to prehistoric and historic archeological resources from future development (ground 

disturbance) is greatest to those buried, unidentified resources. Potential impacts can be 

associated with construction activities, structure and vegetation removal, structure modifications 

(additions), road realignments and parking alterations. All such future proposals have the 

potential to result in adverse impacts of unknown intensity to buried archeological resources. 

However, the implementation of mitigative measures (for example, pre-construction surveys, 

presence of a cultural resource specialist during such ground disturbing activities) would likely 

reduce potential adverse impacts to no greater than minor (see the “Mitigation Measures” section 

in chapter 2). When compared to the action alternatives, the no-action alternative would create 

the greatest risk to archeological resources throughout the Cedar Pass Developed Area resulting 

from potential development/ground disturbance. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-12 

Under the no-action alternative, future vegetation management is limited to the removal of 

invasive Siberian elms in the open space areas of the cultural landscape. Tree removal would 

occur through cutting and application of herbicides to the stump to prevent re-growth (Prosser, 

pers. comm. 2004). As no ground disturbance would occur, this action would result in negligible 

impacts to archeological resources. This represents a benefit to archeological resources when 

compared to the action alternatives under which additional vegetation management work (ground 

disturbance) would occur. 

Cumulative Impacts 

On-going and future actions within the park have the potential to result in cumulative loss of, or 

impacts to cultural resources (construction of the Lakota Heritage and Education Center, possible 

expansion of the Sage Creek campground, realignment of the Loop Road, gunnery range cleanup [south unit], park maintenance activities, theft/vandalism). Some of these actions could 

contribute adverse cumulative effects to scenic views into and out of the cultural landscape at the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. Actions outside the park, which could adversely affect cultural 

resources over time, include the construction of transportation and utility facilities, increased use 

of adjacent National Grasslands, and illegal collecting on private lands. In addition, the result of 

natural erosion processes undoubtedly contributes to the cumulative loss of these resources, 

particularly archeological resources, throughout and around the park. 

To complicate the picture, less than 10% of the park has been inventoried for cultural resources, 

resulting in a significant lack of data from which to predict potential cumulative loss of cultural 

resources. However, a variety of project-specific cultural resources studies for the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area have been undertaken through the years, allowing for a clearer picture of the 

cultural resource database for this area (see chapter 3). The gradual park development of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area and the Pinnacles area has almost certainly contributed to the 

cumulative loss of the park’s cultural resources. Many of these adverse effects were created at a 

time when little or no formal protection existed for historic properties. Periodic evaluation and 

monitoring of known/recorded cultural resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area would 

help reduce additional cumulative loss of the park’s cultural resources. 

Conclusions 

The no-action alternative would result in risks to the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape primarily 

due to the lack of specific management guidance for the future development/use of the historic 

landscape, as well as the minimal use of historic preservation expertise for planning, design and 

construction. Potential adverse impacts to the landscape range from negligible to major, 

primarily resulting from effects to views, spatial organization, and open space, as well as the 

potential for incompatible planning/design and loss of significant landscape elements/features. 

This risk could increase incrementally as development continues through the years within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

The no-action alternative would also result in minor, adverse effects to archeological resources, 

particularly buried resources, as a result of the potential for greater development in undeveloped 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-13 

(open space) areas within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, as well as future realignment of the 

Loop Road. Minor benefits would result from the commitment to preserve archeological 

resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, to the extent possible. 

Compared to the two action alternatives that include historic preservation-based management 

guidance for the Cedar Pass Developed Area, including the use of additional historic 

preservation expertise and technology, this alternative would provide no similar efforts and could 

potentially result in increased disturbance of archeological resources and incremental loss of 

integrity and character of the cultural landscape. However, compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA prior to development and for those cultural resources encountered during construction 

activities would occur to ensure that the effects of such actions are identified, evaluated and 

mitigated, if necessary. 

As impairment is defined, implementation of alternative A would not result in impairment of 

cultural resources within Badlands National Park (see “Methods of Impact Analysis for Cultural 

Resources”). 

Section 106 Summary 

Future actions associated with the no-action alternative that have the potential to affect cultural 

resources have been analyzed at the programmatic level. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5, 

implementing regulations of the NHPA, addressing the criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

NPS finds that, the no-action alternative could potentially result in an adverse effect to the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area cultural landscape resulting from potential realignment of the Loop Road, 

use of open space areas within the landscape, and new development within the general 

landscape. Vegetation management would not result in adverse effects (no adverse effect) to 

cultural landscape resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Pursuant to the same regulations and level of analysis, the NPS finds that the no-action 

alternative is not likely to result in adverse effects (no adverse effect) to archeological resources 

currently identified as eligible for or listed in the NRHP. 

As this programmatic analysis includes no site-specific information regarding direct impacts to 

cultural resources, additional Section 106 compliance efforts will be necessary at the time 

specific projects are proposed in the future. In cases where they have not been identified as part 

of this analysis, potential adverse impacts (as defined in 36 CFR 800) to cultural resources listed 

in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be coordinated by the NPS with the SHPO to 

determine the level of effect on the property and to determine any necessary mitigative measures. 

Alternative B—Preservation 

Alternative B focuses on the management and preservation of the historic integrity of the NRHPeligible cultural landscape at the Cedar Pass Developed Area through the application of moderate 

levels of preservation knowledge and technology. Park growth needs would be met in other areas 

of the park. Historic functions of the cultural landscape’s facilities and land use would continue. 

Contributing cultural landscape resources would be protected and maintained, while limited 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-14 

efforts would be made to remove or mitigate intrusive elements. Only minor changes within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area would be allowed to meet identified facility and operational needs. 

Existing roads, buildings and other landscape features would be repaired with the historic nature 

of the resource in mind. Surviving historic resources would be maintained/preserved through the 

application of moderate levels of preservation knowledge and technology. Natural systems 

(drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife) and open space areas would be preserved 

(figure 2-2). 

As no new development would occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, new facility needs 

would be met through new development at the Pinnacles area, located approximately 20 miles to 

the northwest (figure 1-2). It is estimated that approximately 5-10 acres of land in the Pinnacles 

area will be needed to fulfill future park development needs (figure 1-2). 

Analysis 

Analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources under alternative B is primarily related to 

levels of ground disturbance, particularly at the Pinnacles area, and cultural landscape 

modification and preservation efforts. 

Cultural Landscapes (Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

Characteristic features of the circulation element of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (for 

example, roadway dimensions, layout, spatial organization) contribute to the significance of the 

NRHP-eligible cultural landscape. The portion of the Loop Road associated with the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area (northern boundary) could be affected by a change in the overall road alignment 

in the event of future road failure at Cedar Pass. A loss of the cultural landscape’s association 

with this circulation element could result in adverse impacts. Under alternative B, efforts would 

be made to ensure the integrity of characteristic features of this road through the use of moderate 

levels of historic preservation expertise for road design. As the alignment is unknown at this 

time, it is assumed that localized, long-term effects of unknown type and intensity could occur to 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape under this alternative. When the future route 

is selected, a more definitive statement of effect to the cultural landscape will be possible. 

Under alternative B, the open space elements and associated natural systems of the NRHPeligible cultural landscape would be retained and protected. This action would result in a minor, 

localized, long-term benefit to the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. When 

compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B offers decidedly greater protections for the 

historic integrity of open space areas of the historic landscape. 

Under alternative B, no future development would occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, 

contributing to the overall preservation of the integrity of the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape. 

Rather, future development would occur at the Pinnacles area, approximately 20 miles to the 

northwest (figure 1-2). This, coupled with preservation efforts of existing contributing landscape 

elements, would result in a minor, long-term, localized benefits to the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape. When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B offers a 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-15 

higher degree of protection of cultural landscape integrity through its preclusion of new 

development and its preservation efforts. 

Under alternative B, future vegetation management actions within the cultural landscape include 

the removal of invasive Siberian elms from the Cedar Pass Lodge and the open space areas. 

Trees removed from the Lodge area would be replaced with noninvasive, deciduous trees of 

similar form and character. Open space areas would be restored to native prairie grassland. In 

addition, future maintenance and in-kind replacement of the existing foundation plantings within 

the cultural landscape may occur. These future vegetation management actions would further the 

preservation of the historic landscape patterns, resulting in a localized, long-term, negligible to 

minor benefit to the landscape. When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B 

provides additional and beneficial benefits to the cultural landscape related to vegetation 

management. 

Under alternative B, minimal and limited efforts would be made to reduce or eliminate the 

intrusive nature of noncontributing landscape features (structures), with removal only after their 

useful life. Future removal of intrusive features would result in negligible to minor, long-term, 

localized benefits to the cultural landscape. When compared to alternative B, the no-action 

alternative offers no similar benefits, as it includes no mitigation of intrusive landscape elements. 

Archeological Resources 

Under alternative B, the open space elements and their associated natural systems of the NRHPeligible Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape will be retained and protected. This 

action would further strengthen the protection of archeological resources in these areas through 

its resulting lack of ground disturbance and park use, a minor, site-specific benefit to 

archeological resources. When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B offers a 

notably increased level of protection for archeological resources through its open space 

preservation. 

Under alternative B, no new construction development would take place within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area, a minor, localized, beneficial effect to archeological resources. Comparatively, 

development potential under the no-action alternative would result in reduced protection for 

archeological resources. 

Future needs for new facilities/development would be met at the Pinnacles area, approximately 

20 northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (figure 1-2). Future development could include 

new housing, RV sites for researchers, staff offices, utilities, and parking. Future construction 

activities have the potential to adversely affect prehistoric and historic archeological resources, 

particularly those buried resources that have not been identified or evaluated. The effects of such 

actions have the potential to result in permanent, site-specific adverse impacts of unknown 

magnitude, depending on the archeological resource and level of disturbance. However, the 

implementation of mandatory mitigative measures (for example, presence of a cultural resource 

specialist during such ground disturbing activities) would likely mitigate potential adverse 

impacts to no greater than minor and site-specific (see the “Mitigation Measures” section in 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-16 

chapter 2). No development would occur within the Pinnacles area under the other two 

alternatives. 

The future removal and replacement of invasive Siberian elms in the Cedar Pass Lodge area, the 

removal of the elms in the open space areas, and the maintenance and in-kind replacement of 

contributing site foundation plantings would result in minor ground disturbance within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area. Much of this activity will occur in previously disturbed (landscaped) 

areas. If previously unidentified archeological resources were encountered subsurface, adverse 

effects would be expected with the intensity of the effect depending on the resource and level of 

disturbance. The implementation of mandatory mitigative measures (for example, presence of a 

cultural resource specialist during such ground disturbing activities) would likely hold potential 

adverse impacts to the negligible level (see the “Mitigation Measures” section in chapter 2). 

When compared to the no-action alternative which involves the least amount of vegetation 

management (ground disturbance), risks from such activities to buried archeological resources 

are increased under this alternative. 

Under alternative B, minimal and limited efforts would be made to reduce or eliminate the 

intrusive nature of noncontributing landscape features (structures.), removing them only after 

their useful life. These measures would result in very limited amounts of ground disturbance. 

With the implementation of mandatory mitigation measures, site-specific adverse impacts to 

archeological resources would not exceed negligible to minor in intensity. No similar risks to 

archeological resources are expected under the no-action alternative under which mitigation of 

intrusive landscape elements would not occur. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources of alternative B are similar to those described under the 

no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Alternative B would result in minor benefits for archeological and cultural landscape resources 

due to open space/natural systems preservation efforts, the lack of new development within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area, maintenance of historic vegetation patterns, removal of intrusive 

landscape features, and the protection of archeological resources. Conversely, minor adverse 

impacts to archeological resources are expected as a result of future realignment of the Loop 

Road, new development at the Pinnacles area, and the removal of intrusive landscape elements at 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Impacts to the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape as a result of 

future realignment of the Loop Road are unknown at this time; however, the use of 

designers/contracts with moderate levels of historic preservation expertise could result in 

benefits to the landscape. 

When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B is believed to offer an increased level 

of protection for archeological and cultural landscape resources throughout the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area due to the reduced likelihood of landscape alterations. However, compared to 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-17 

the no-action alternative, it would provide a notably greater risk to archeological resources in the 

Pinnacles area where off-site development would occur. 

As impairment is defined, alternative B will not result in impairment of cultural resources within 

Badlands National Park. 

Section 106 Summary 

Future actions associated with alternative B that have the potential to affect cultural resources 

have been analyzed at the programmatic level. This analysis is pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5, 

implementing regulations of the NHPA, addressing the criteria of effect and adverse effect. At 

the programmatic level, the NPS finds that the following future actions under alternative B, with 

mandatory mitigation measures, would not result in adverse effects (no adverse effect) to 

archeological or cultural landscape resources currently identified as eligible for or listed in the 

NRHP: protection of archeological resources, use/preservation of open space, new development, 

vegetation management and removal/mitigation of intrusive cultural landscape features. In some 

cases, benefits to these resources may occur under alternative B (no adverse effect). 

Pursuant to the same regulations, the NPS finds that the future realignment of the Loop Road 

would result in unknown effects (no adverse effect or adverse effect) to the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area cultural landscape. A final determination of effect under 36 CFR 800 will be 

possible when the realignment route is finalized and impacts can be evaluated some time in the 

future. The potential future realignment of the Loop Road would not result in adverse effects (no 

adverse effect) to archeological resources located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

As this programmatic analysis includes no site-specific information regarding direct impacts to 

cultural resources, additional Section 106 compliance efforts will be necessary at the time 

specific projects are proposed in the future. In all cases where cultural resource have not been 

identified as part of this analysis, potential adverse impacts (as defined in 36 CFR 800) to those 

listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be coordinated by the NPS with the SHPO to 

determine the level of effect on the property and to determine any necessary mitigative measures. 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 

This alternative focuses on the rehabilitation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape for limited new uses, while protecting significant historic landscape elements to the 

greatest extent possible. Necessary growth would be accommodated within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area through the modern, contemporary use of the historic landscape through 

rehabilitation techniques. It is designed to enhance the surviving historic resources through the 

application of high levels of preservation knowledge and technology. Only alterations that 

preserve/restore the historic character of the cultural landscape would be allowed. New 

development would be limited to critical park needs and would occur within defined and distinct 

development sites, most of which have been previously disturbed (for example, sites where 

buildings existed at one time and have since been removed, and within developed/altered 

vegetation areas) (figure 2-3). Open space areas and their associated natural systems would 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-18 

generally be preserved, with minor exceptions (trails/paths). New development would be 

compatible with or nonintrusive to the historic landscape. Existing noncontributing structures 

compatible with the cultural landscape would be retained and rehabilitated for use. Historic 

planting designs would be restored in some areas (figure 2-3). 

Analysis 

Analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources under alternative C is related to ground 

disturbance associated with new construction and other modifications associated with the 

rehabilitation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. 

Cultural Landscapes (Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

Characteristic features of the circulation element of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (for 

example, roadway dimensions, layout, spatial organization) contribute to the significance of the 

NRHP-eligible cultural landscape. The portion of the Loop Road associated with the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area (northern boundary) could be affected by a change in the overall road alignment 

in the event of future road failure at Cedar Pass. A loss of the cultural landscape’s association 

with this circulation element could result in adverse impacts. Under alternative C, efforts would 

be made to ensure the integrity of characteristic features of this road (dimensions, layout, spatial 

organization) through the use of high levels of historic preservation expertise for road design. As 

the alignment is unknown at this time, it is assumed that localized, long-term effects of unknown 

type and intensity could occur to the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape under this 

alternative. When the future route is selected, a more definitive statement of effect to the cultural 

landscape will be possible. When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative C offers the 

highest level of protection for the historic integrity of the cultural landscape related to this 

portion of the circulation element. 

Alternative C includes the preservation of general spatial characteristics of the landscape, 

including its open space areas and associated natural systems. This would result in a minor, 

localized, long-term benefit to the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape through its 

protection of these areas. 

At the same time, this alternative would accommodate development within open space areas 

which does not jeopardize its historic character. Design/construction of compatible, minor 

development within open space areas (for example, trails/paths) would incorporate a high level 

of historic preservation expertise. This increases the likelihood that new features would be 

designed and constructed with the integrity of the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape in mind (see 

the “Mitigation Measures” section in chapter 2). Consequently, the construction of these new 

features within the open space areas of the landscape should have no more than a localized, 

minor, long-term adverse impact on the resource. When compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternative C offers greater protections for the historic integrity of open space areas of the 

historic landscape. 

Under alternative C, new development for critical needs would be allowed within the cultural 

landscape and would occur within defined, previously impacted, development sites (figure 2-3). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-19 

New development could include replacement structures that are substantially more compatible 

with the historic landscape than were the intrusive structures they replaced. New construction has 

the potential to create adverse impacts of unknown magnitude to the NRHP-eligible cultural 

landscape in its effects on both visual and physical characteristics. The strategy under alternative 

C is designed to preserve the integrity of the existing historic landscape and its contributing 

elements, while incorporating Mission 66 design principles into the design and placement of new 

structures. Under this alternative, new development would involve the use designers and 

construction workers with high levels of historic preservation expertise. New construction would 

be required to differ from, but be compatible with, existing historic structures. The clustering of 

new development into pre-determined areas, coupled with the incorporation of high levels of 

historic preservation expertise to ensure compatible design and construction principles, would 

likely hold adverse impacts to long-term, localized, and no greater than negligible to minor in 

intensity. When compared to the no-action alternative, the manner in which future development 

occurs under this alternative would result in greater preservation of the landscape’s integrity. 

 

Potential vegetation management associated with alternative C includes the removal of invasive 

Siberian elms from the Cedar Pass Lodge and open space areas. Trees would be replaced with 

similar, deciduous species in the Lodge area; open space areas would be restored to native prairie 

grassland. In addition, original historic planting designs would be reestablished, where possible, 

at the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, Cedar Pass Lodge, residential, and campground areas of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. At the Visitor Center and residential areas, the historic foundation 

planting design would be reestablished to the original Mission 66 plan. Problematic or 

inappropriate plants would be substituted with more suitable but similar plantings that require 

less maintenance. The focus would be on re-establishing the overall character—“buildings 

surrounded by mown lawn with clusters of mixed shrubs and tree plantings” (John Milner 

Associates 2004: 6-27). Visitor safety and resource protection would also guide plant selection. 

Plantings within the Cedar Pass Lodge area would be based on further research to discover 

historic planting design intent. Plantings within the campground area would follow the example 

proposed by the 1956-planting plan for the area. The vegetation management actions under 

alternative C would contribute to maintaining the integrity of the cultural landscape and would 

be considered a minor to moderate, long-term, localized benefit to the resource. Comparatively, 

no such vegetation management is included under the no-action alternative and, thus offers no 

similar benefits. 

Under alternative C, efforts would be made to mitigate intrusive, noncontributing landscape 

features that post-date the landscape’s period of significance (structures, roads.), removing them 

after their useful life. These efforts would result in minor, long-term, localized benefits to the 

cultural landscape. Comparatively, alternative A proposes no mitigation efforts related to 

intrusive landscape elements and, thus, offers no similar benefits. 

Under this alternative, alterations of cultural landscape features and structures (for example, 

building modifications, rehabilitation efforts) that are consistent with its historic character and 

are considered necessary to ensure the landscape’s continued use would be allowed. A high level 

of historic preservation expertise would be utilized in the rehabilitation (design, construction, 

repair/maintenance) of such structures. Collectively, these rehabilitative efforts would likely 

result in a minor to moderate, long-term, localized benefit to the landscape. Comparatively, 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-20 

under the no-action alternative only minimal historic preservation knowledge would be utilized 

to evaluate the potential usefulness of a historic structure, making it possible that compatible 

structures would be removed and replaced--a potential detriment to the cultural landscape when 

compared to alternative C. 

Archeological Resources 

Alternative C proposes the preservation of general spatial characteristics of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area landscape, including natural systems and open space areas, while allowing for 

development within the landscape that does not jeopardize its historic character. This general 

preservation of open space areas is a negligible to minor benefit to archeological resources. 

Minor, compatible development within open space areas (for example, trails/paths) could involve 

ground disturbance and the potential to adversely impact buried, unrecorded archeological 

resources. Such impacts can result in permanent loss of cultural contexts or artifact and features. 

Implementation of mandatory mitigation measures described in chapter 2 would likely hold these 

potential adverse impacts to site-specific and minor in intensity. When compared to alternative 

A, incremental development could occur within open space areas, resulting in a notably 

increased potential risk to archeological resources than that likely under alternative C. 

Under alternative C, future improvements and new critical needs development could occur 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area within specified development sites, typically where other 

buildings or development have existed in the past (figure 2-3). Almost all of these locales have 

been previously impacted through construction and landscape management activities. Potential 

future development within the Cedar Pass Developed Area could include construction of new 

structures, compatible additions to existing ones, underground utilities installation, RV facilities, 

trails/paths, laundry and shower facilities, dormitories. Ground disturbance resulting from new 

construction has the potential to adversely affect prehistoric and historic archeological resources, 

particularly those buried resources that have not been identified or evaluated. The effects of such 

actions can result in permanent adverse impacts of unknown magnitude, depending on the 

archeological resource and level of disturbance. The fact that most new construction will occur 

with previously impacted development sites, coupled with implementation of mandatory 

mitigation measures (see chapter 2), would likely hold potential adverse impacts to no greater 

than minor and site-specific. Comparatively, the no-action alternative would likely result in the 

highest potential for impacts to archeological resources from new development due to the 

possibility of disturbance throughout the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Potential vegetation management efforts associated with alternative C includes the removal of 

invasive Siberian elms from the Cedar Pass Lodge and open space areas, as well as their 

replacement with similar, deciduous trees in the Lodge area. Where trees are removed from open 

space areas, native prairie grassland vegetation would be restored. In addition, original historic 

planting designs and intents would be reestablished, where possible, at the Ben Reifel Visitor 

Center, Cedar Pass Lodge, residential, and campground areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Some of these vegetation management efforts (plantings, grassland restoration) would result in 

ground disturbance that could adversely impact buried cultural resources. However, ground 

disturbance is anticipated to be minor and would occur primarily in previously impacted areas. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-21 

This fact, coupled with implementation of mandatory mitigation measures (chapter 2), would 

likely hold potential effects to archeological resources in these areas to negligible to minor, sitespecific adverse impacts. When compared to the no-action alternative, which includes fewer 

vegetation management activities, alternative C would result in increased risks to archeological 

resources. 

This alternative proposes mitigation measures to reduce the intrusive nature of nonhistoric 

buildings that are retained within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, as well as the possible 

removal of incompatible structures/features that detract from its surviving historic nature. This 

effort could result in minor ground disturbance with potential adverse impact to archeological 

resources, particularly those buried, unidentified resources. The fact that these activities would 

occur in previously impacted areas, coupled with implementation of mandatory mitigation 

measures (chapter 2), would likely ensure adverse impacts to archeological resources could be 

limited to site-specific and negligible to minor in intensity. No similar risks to archeological 

resources are expected with the no-action alternative under which mitigation of intrusive 

landscape elements is not included. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources of alternative C are similar to those described under 

alternative A. 

Conclusions 

Under alternative C, impacts to the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape resulting from future 

realignment of the Loop Road are unknown at this time. Negligible to minor adverse impacts to 

the cultural landscape could result from new development within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. Minor to moderate benefits to the historic landscape would be realized by way of 

vegetation management, rehabilitation of cultural landscape elements, mitigation of intrusive 

landscape features, and general preservation of open space areas. Alternative C offers notable 

historic preservation benefits through its focus on rehabilitation of the cultural landscape and the 

use of highly trained historic preservation specialists for design, construction and 

repair/maintenance activities. Alternative C would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts 

to archeological resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area as a result of ground 

disturbance associated with new development, landscape modifications (vegetation management, 

removal of intrusive landscape features), and future realignment of the Loop Road. Minor 

benefits to archeological resources are possible as a result of the commitment to preserve these 

resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Of all alternatives, this approach provides 

maximum flexibility for the park in meeting future needs within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, 

while ensuring the retention of a high level of historic integrity of cultural resources, particularly 

when compared to impacts to cultural resources possible under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of alternative C will not result in impairment of cultural resources within 

Badlands National Park. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-22 

Section 106 Summary 

Future actions under alternative C that have the potential to affect cultural resources have been 

analyzed at the programmatic level. This analysis is pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5, implementing 

regulations of the NHPA, addressing the criteria of effect and adverse effect. 

The NPS finds that alternative C would not likely result in adverse effects (no adverse effect) to 

archeological or cultural landscape resources resulting from protection of archeological 

resources, use/preservation of open space, new development, vegetation management, 

removal/mitigation of intrusive cultural landscape features, and rehabilitation of existing 

landscape features. In some cases, benefits to these resources could occur under alternative C (no 

adverse effect). 

Pursuant to the same regulations, the NPS finds that the future realignment of the Loop Road 

would result in unknown effects (no adverse effect or adverse effect) to the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area cultural landscape. A final determination of effect under 36 CFR 800 will be 

possible when the realignment route is finalized and impacts can be evaluated some time in the 

future. Potential realignment of the Loop Road would not result in adverse effects (no adverse 

effect) to archeological resources located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

As this programmatic analysis includes no site-specific information regarding direct impacts to 

cultural resources, additional Section 106 compliance efforts will be necessary at the time 

specific projects are proposed in the future. In all cases where cultural resource have not been 

identified as part of this analysis, potential adverse impacts (as defined in 36 CFR 800) to those 

listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be coordinated by the NPS with the SHPO to 

determine the level of effect on the property and to determine any necessary mitigative measures. 

VEGETATION 

Future development analyzed at the programmatic level in this EA involves the potential to 

impact natural vegetation resources at the Cedar Pass Developed Area (all alternatives) and the 

Pinnacles area (alternative B), primarily as a result of ground disturbing activities. Most of the 

natural vegetation at the Cedar Pass Developed Area consists of grasslands (Western Wheatgrass 

Alliance Grassland and Switchgrass Alliance Grassland). Over a quarter of this area consists of 

“developed area” with landscaped vegetation. The Pinnacles area consists primarily of grasslands 

(Kenner, pers. comm. 2004). 

Following is a summary of NPS regulations and policies related to vegetation resources, as well 

as a description of the methods used to analyze potential impacts to these resources. 

Guiding Regulations and Policies 

NPS regulations such as the Organic Act of 1916 and NPS Management Policies provide for the 

protection of park resources, including vegetation communities. The NPS Management Policies 

(NPS 2001) state that “The National Park Service will preserve the natural resources, processes, 

systems, and values of units of the national park system in an unimpaired condition, to 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-23 

perpetuate their inherent integrity and to provide present and future generations with the 

opportunity to enjoy them.” 

Specific guidelines with respect to the management of natural resources, including vegetation 

resources, include: 

 Preserving and restoring the natural abundances, diversities, dynamics, distributions, 

habitats, and behaviors of native plant and animal populations and the communities and 

ecosystems in which they occur; 

 Restoring native plant and animal populations in parks when they have been extirpated 

by past human- caused actions; and 

 Minimizing human impacts on native plants, animals, populations, communities, and 

ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them (NPS Management Policies, NPS 2001, 

Section 4.4.1). 

In addition, the Badlands National Park Draft General Management Plan (NPS, in preparation) 

includes the following mission goal, relevant to overall natural resources for the park, including 

vegetation: 

The natural and cultural resources and associated values in Badlands National Park are 

protected, restored, and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader 

ecosystem and cultural context (NPS, in preparation: 9). 

Specific guiding management principles and strategies related to the protection of vegetation 

communities within their broader ecosystem context recommend that: 

Plant communities and the processes governing them will continue unaltered in most of 

the park. Communities will include the diverse species, genetic variability, plant associations, and successional stages representative of an ecologically functioning system in 

the Great Plains. The following actions will be taken to manage the park’s vegetation: 

• Plant communities will be inventoried to determine the species present and 

monitored to assess their condition. The park will continue its effort to inventory 

rare plants. 

• The NPS will continue efforts to eradicate invasive exotic (nonnative) plants in 

the park. The park staff will continue to work with the U.S. Forest Service, the 

Oglala Sioux Tribe, and private landowners to prevent the spread of exotic plant 

species into and out of the park. 

• The park will continue to use fire as a management tool for maintaining plant 

communities (NPS, in preparation: 14). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-24 

Methods of Impact Analysis for Vegetation 

In this section, the impacts of alternatives on vegetation resources are evaluated individually. 

Unless otherwise noted, analysis involves effects to natural or native vegetation as opposed to 

landscape vegetation. The analysis of alternative A (no-action alternative) includes discussion of 

what the future conditions in the park would be if no changes were made to facilities or park 

management in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The two action alternatives (Alternatives B 

and C) are then compared to the no-action alternative to identify the incremental changes that 

would result from changes in park infrastructure and management. 

Because analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature, impacts presented here are generalized 

by type. It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future site-specific 

projects are proposed. As each alternative, if implemented in the future, contains activities that 

could potentially affect vegetation resources, the broad analysis contained in this EA is designed 

to aid in future planning efforts. 

The review of each alternative begins with a brief summary of the proposed alternative. Impacts 

on vegetation resources are then evaluated at a programmatic level in terms of the type of impact, 

and the intensity, context, and duration of the impact (see “Methodology” above). A discussion 

of the cumulative impacts of the proposed alternatives follows the review of impacts. In the 

conclusion section, individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed alternatives are 

summarized. A determination is made about the potential for impairment of vegetation resource 

as a result of the proposed alternative. Impairment of the vegetation resource is defined below. 

The analysis of impacts and the conclusions in this section are based largely on information from 

NPS experts, professional judgments, as well as on the review of existing literature and studies. 

In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment prevailed. 

The area included in the impact analysis for vegetation includes the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

(all alternatives) and the Pinnacles area (alternative B) (figure 1-2). 

Vegetation Impact Thresholds Definitions 

Negligible: Impacts might occur, but would have no measurable or perceptible changes in 

plant community size, integrity, or continuity. 

Minor: Impacts would be measurable or perceptible but would be small in magnitude and 

localized within a relatively small area. The overall viability of the plant 

community would not be affected and, if left alone, would recover. 

Moderate: Impacts would cause a clearly detectable change in the plant community (for 

example, abundance, distributions, quantity, or quality); however, the impact 

would remain localized and would not affect the viability of regional plant 

populations. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-25 

Major: Impacts to the plant community would be substantial, highly noticeable, 

widespread and permanent. This could include changes in the abundance or 

distribution of a local or regional population to the extent that the population 

would not be likely to recover (adverse) or would return to a sustainable level 

(beneficial). 

Impairment: The action would contribute substantially to the deterioration of vegetation within 

the Badlands vegetation complex to the extent that vegetation communities would 

no longer function as a natural system within the Great Plains ecosystem. The 

action would harm the integrity of park resources or values to the point of 

violating the NPS Organic Act of 1916. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, future realignment of the Loop Road could result in removal of road 

sections and construction of new road sections within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Depending on the potential realignment of this road, localized, permanent, adverse impacts of 

unknown magnitude could occur to natural vegetation within the Cedar Pass Developed Area as 

a result of vegetation removal and ground disturbance. If road sections are removed, and 

revegetated with native vegetation, positive impacts to the vegetation resource could occur. Until 

and when this realignment occurs, a more definitive statement of level of impact is not possible. 

Alternative A—No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, as under all alternatives, the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape would be treated as a historic landscape. The area would continue to be managed and 

used in the current (2004) manner, without historic preservation guidance provided for in the 

draft CLR (John Milner Associates 2004). Buildings, structures and landscape features could be 

altered, removed, or added as needed. New development and facility siting would not utilize the 

original planning approach of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Designers of new facilities, 

general contractors constructing them, and laborers/contractors involved in maintenance 

operations would not be required to have training, education, and/or experience in preservation 

technology. In sum, no park- and Developed Area- policies, strategies, and implementation 

initiatives would be available to lend a comprehensive and sustained program of the historic 

landscape preservation as outlined in the CLR (figure 2-1). Invasive Siberian elm would be 

removed from open space areas. 

Analysis 

Analyses of impacts to vegetation under the no-action alternative are related to new 

development, removal of Siberian elm, and use of open space areas. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-26 

Under alternative A, buildings, structures and other landscape features throughout the landcape 

could be altered, removed, or added as needed. Future projects would likely be associated with 

facilities related to park administration/operations and visitor services. Construction of new 

structures and features in areas vegetated with native plants, particularly open space areas, would 

directly and negatively affect vegetation communities by destroying vegetation in the building 

site, and disturbing vegetation in surrounding areas. The destruction of vegetation is a moderate 

impact because the effects clearly decrease plant abundance in the long-term, but the impact is 

localized to the construction area. Disturbance to surrounding vegetation is a minor, localized, 

short-term impact, as vegetation is expected to recover on its own in less that a year’s time. 

Construction in built-up areas and areas that do not currently harbor native plants would have a 

negligible impact on native plant communities. 

Where structures are removed, prompt replanting according to mitigation measures (chapter 2) 

would occur. Replanting with appropriate native vegetation after structure removal would result 

in minor, localized, long-term beneficial effects on native vegetation. 

Construction also results in soil disturbance and soil erosion, which could indirectly affect 

vegetation adversely communities by facilitating the expansion of invasive species, such as 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Canada thistle (Centaurea maculosa), and biennial 

sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) in open space areas (Larson 2003). Expansion of invasive 

species cover has the potential to result in minor to moderate, long-term negative impacts, 

depending on the extent of invasive species spread. Planting disturbed soil areas with appropriate 

native vegetation soon after construction, before invasive species have the opportunity to 

establish, and would reduce both soil erosion and invasive species spread. These mandatory 

mitigation measures would decrease the detrimental indirect effects of construction on 

vegetation, making them relatively minor, short-term and localized. When compared to the noaction alternative, types of potential impacts to vegetation under alternative C are similar. 

However, potential impacts to vegetation in undisturbed areas of the landscape are greater under 

the no-action alternative than would occur under alternative C. 

Under alternative A, buildings, structures and landscape features could be altered, removed or 

added within the open space areas with minimal consideration for the integral part this area and 

its associated natural systems play within the larger cultural landscape. Repeated removal of 

vegetation in open space areas as a result of construction would be a moderately negative, longterm impact to localized vegetation communities. Construction in open space areas would also 

result in the fragmentation of vegetation communities in the open space area, which would have 

a moderate, long-term negative impact to the Cedar Pass Developed Area. When compared to the 

two action alternatives under which open space areas would be protected, the no-action 

alternative could result in increased risks to vegetation resources. 

Under this alternative, nonnative, invasive Siberian elm vegetation species would be removed 

from open space areas. Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) is an exotic tree species that had been 

planted at the Lodge and has escaped to the grassland area east of the Lodge. In open space areas 

where elms are removed, native prairie species would be restored, promoting the growth of a 

healthy native prairie ecosystem in formerly invaded areas and aiding in reducing the spread of 

this exotic, invasive species into noninvaded areas. Removal of Siberian elms would occur 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-27 

through cutting and application of herbicides to the stump to prevent re-growth (Prosser, pers. 

comm. 2004). Use of chemical controls to remove Siberian elms could have a minor, short-term 

negative impact on individual plants. This negative impact however, is outweighed by the 

moderate, long-term positive benefits of Siberian elm removal within the open space areas of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. When compared to the two action alternatives, the no-action 

alternative involves similar effects to vegetation resources related to Siberian elm removal. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-28 

Cumulative Impacts 

On-going and future actions within the park have the potential to result in cumulative effects to 

native vegetation. These include the construction of the Lakota Heritage and Education Center, 

possible expansion of the Sage Creek campground, possible realignment of the Loop Road, park 

maintenance, change in vehicular and pedestrian access, cleanup of the gunnery range (south 

unit), cattle grazing (south unit), and the designation of the Crazy Horse Scenic Byway 

(promoting additional traffic past the Cedar Pass Developed Area). Actions outside the park that 

could adversely affect vegetation over time include the construction of the roads and railroad, 

and the construction of primitive campgrounds and trails in Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, 

immediately adjacent to the park’s north unit. Collectively, these actions could result in minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative effects to native vegetation resources. 

Some on-going activities such as prescribed park and National Grasslands burns, as well as the 

reintroduction of native plants and weed management could result in cumulative benefits to 

vegetation. Invasive vegetation species are currently controlled in accordance with the park’s 

current draft of the General Management Plan (NPS, in preparation). Collectively, these are 

considered moderate cumulative benefits for native vegetation within and around the park. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would result in minor to moderate, long- and short-term, localized negative 

impacts to native vegetation communities within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. These impacts 

are primarily associated with potential for construction of new structures and features, 

particularly in undisturbed open space areas. Such activities would permanently remove 

vegetation, increase fragmentation of native plant communities within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area open space areas, and reduce the integrity of these native plant ecosystems. The negative 

effects of construction on vegetation can be partially mitigated by the minor benefit of restoring 

native species to areas where structures are removed. Long-term, moderate benefits for native 

vegetation are also expected as a result of the removal of invasive Siberian elm trees within open 

space areas. As the potential for development in currently undisturbed areas of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area is higher under this alternative (no management guidance for the historic 

landscape), it would pose the highest risk to native vegetation when compared to the other two 

alternatives. 

Implementation of alternative A would not result in an impairment of vegetation within Badlands 

National Park. 

Alternative B—Preservation 

Alternative B focuses on the preservation of contributing historic features within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area cultural landscape (figure 2-2). Only minor changes within the landscape would 

be permitted to meet facility and operational needs. Management of cultural and natural 

resources would be minimal and only to a level required to ensure the protection of resources. 

Natural systems and features, including vegetation patterns, would be protected and preserved 

with limited efforts to enhance them. Siberian elm would be removed from the Lodge and open 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-29 

space areas, and other invasive species would be removed from the open space area in 

accordance with current invasive species policy. Open, undeveloped areas would remain 

undeveloped and in their natural state. Limited and minimal mitigation measures would be 

utilized to reduce the intrusive nature of nonhistoric features and structures, which would be 

removed only after their useful life. 

Under this proposal, space for development needs for the park would be provided at the 

Pinnacles area, located approximately 20 miles to the northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area (figure 1-2). It is estimated that approximately 5-10 acres of land would be required to fill 

future park development needs. The vegetation of the area is primarily grassland (Kenner, pers. 

comm. 2004). As specific vegetation cover data were not available for this EA, assessments of 

possible impacts are likewise even more general than for the Cedar Pass Developed Area. As 

with other alternatives, more detailed impact analysis would be required prior to project-specific 

construction activities. 

Analysis 

Analysis of impacts to vegetation under alternative B is related to new construction at the 

Pinnacles area, as well as open space use/protection, vegetation management, removal of 

invasive Siberian elms, and removal of intrusive structures within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. 

Under alternative B, no new development would occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

This would have a moderate, positive, long-term impact on vegetation resources in the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area through protection and preservation of the biotic integrity of existing 

vegetation communities. Compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B provides greater 

protection of native plant communities through the general preclusion of new development 

within the cultural landscape. 

Under alternative B, construction activities at the Pinnacles area of the park would transfer the 

negative impacts of construction on vegetation from the Cedar Pass Developed Area to the 

Pinnacles area. Construction activities that may take place in the Pinnacles area would directly 

result in destruction of existing vegetation and disturbance of surrounding vegetation. Specific 

data cover information is not available for this analysis. Specific impacts to vegetation would be 

clearly identified prior to construction through environmental project review. In general, the 

effects of new development on vegetation in developed and undeveloped areas of the Pinnacles 

area are similar to those described under the no-action alternative for the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. 

Open space areas identified in the CLR would experience overall protection under alternative B. 

The protection and preservation of open space areas and its associated natural features provided 

under alternative B would strengthen the long-term integrity of existing vegetation communities 

in the Cedar Pass Developed Area and would be a moderate, long-term, benefit of this 

alternative. Of the three alternatives, alternative B provides for the greatest protection of open 

space areas, particularly when compared to the no-action alternative. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-30 

Under alternative B, removal of intrusive, nonhistoric and incompatible buildings, structures and 

landscape features may occur after their useful life. Surrounding vegetation is often disturbed in 

structure removal; however the effects to native vegetation communities are relatively negligible, 

localized, and temporary. Vegetation surrounding structures is usually nonnative or of lower 

quality than vegetation occurring in undeveloped areas. Prompt reestablishment of natural 

landforms and vegetation in areas where structures are removed should mitigate any negative 

effects of structure removal on vegetation communities. Replanting of these areas with native 

vegetation would have a net positive impact on vegetation by restoring native vegetation 

communities. The net positive effect would be minor, localized, and long-term in duration. The 

no-action alternative does not include removal of intrusive structures within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. 

Under this alternative, nonnative, invasive Siberian elm vegetation species would be removed 

from open space and Lodge areas within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Effects of this removal 

on native vegetation are similar to that described under the no-action alternative (moderate, longterm benefit). However, under alternative B, the long-term benefits to native vegetation are 

slightly, but not greatly, increased as a result of the removal of all invasive elms within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area (versus removal only from open space areas under the no-action 

alternative). The total removal of Siberian elm will promote the growth of a healthy native 

prairie ecosystem in formerly invaded areas and would halt the spread of this exotic, invasive 

species into noninvaded areas. Compared to alternative A, greater numbers of Siberian elm 

would be removed under this alternative, a benefit to native vegetation (a benefit similar to that 

realized under alternative C). 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to native vegetation of alternative B are similar to those described under the 

no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Alternative B would result in minor to major, positive, long-term effects on native vegetation 

resources in the Cedar Pass Developed Area, while displacing some potential adverse impacts to 

the Pinnacles area. The protection of open space from future development, the removal of 

invasive Siberian elm from open space and Lodge areas, and the reestablishment of native 

species cover in areas where intrusive structures are removed would result in minor to moderate 

benefits to native vegetation. New development that would likely occur at the Pinnacles area 

under this alternative would result in minor to moderate, long- and short-term, adverse impacts to 

native vegetation. Compared to the other two alternatives, alternative B is better for native 

vegetation resources in the Cedar Pass Developed Area but decidedly less protective of the 

resource in the Pinnacles area. Overall, impact to native park vegetation under alternative B may 

actually be more adverse than those under the no-action alternative because its primary effects to 

these resources occur in a less disturbed area (Pinnacles area). 

Implementation of alternative B would not result in an impairment of vegetation within Badlands 

National Park. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-31 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative C provides for the rehabilitation of the historic landscape at the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area for limited new uses, while preserving historic features. In general, open space 

areas would be preserved. New development would be limited to meet critical space needs and 

would be located in defined development sites where buildings have been removed, whenever 

possible (figure 2-3). Historic features would be identified, preserved and repaired. Buildings, 

structures and landscape features that are incompatible with surviving historic features or detract 

from the overall historic character of the cultural landscape could be mitigated and/or removed 

after their useful life. Missing historic features that are critical to the historic character of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area could be added. Historic planting designs would be reestablished 

using Mission 66 planting plans. Siberian elm would be removed from open space and Lodge 

areas (figure 2-3). 

Analysis 

Analysis of impacts to vegetation within the Cedar Pass Developed Area under alternative C are 

related to new construction and modifications of the cultural landscape, open space 

use/preservation, removal of intrusive structures, removal of Siberian elm, and vegetation 

management, 

Under alternative C, most new construction would occur within specific development sites 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area (figure 2-3). These areas have typically been previously 

impacted; consequently, their use would result in fewer impacts to native vegetation. 

Construction which may occur within these development sites includes new buildings and 

features such as housing, administrative offices, visitor services/facilities, roadwork, etc. In 

addition, several intrusive structures may be remodeled and/or replaced. In general, most new 

development, remodeling and structure replacements would occur within the defined 

development sites in which little, if any, native vegetation remains (see figures 2-3 and 3-4). 

Construction related effects to vegetation in undeveloped and developed areas are similar to 

those described under the no-action alternative. However, most development under alternative C 

would likely occur in already built-up areas (less impact to native vegetation) versus the potential 

under the no-action alternative for greater impacts to undisturbed, native vegetation throughout 

the landscape. 

Open space areas would experience general protection under alternative C, a minor to moderate, 

long-term, localized benefit to native vegetation within open space areas. At the same time, 

minor, compatible developments (such as trails/paths) that do not compromise the landscape’s 

integrity are possible within open space areas. Construction impacts of such development on 

native vegetation in open space areas would result in permanent loss of vegetation within project 

areas and short-term effects to vegetation adjacent to the projects. In addition, such development 

could result in greater fragmentation of native plant communities and localized destruction of 

plants within open space areas. Collectively, these negative effects to native vegetation within 

open space areas would be long-term in duration and minor in magnitude. Compared to the no-
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-32 

action alternative, this alternative provides a greater degree of protection of open space areas 

and, thus, greater protection for native vegetation within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Under alternative C, removal of intrusive, nonhistoric buildings, roads, structures and landscape 

features at the Cedar Pass Developed Area may be considered after their useful life. Impacts of 

structure removal are similar to that described under alternative B. 

Under alternative C, historic planting designs would be reestablished in the Visitor Center, 

Residential, and Lodge areas. Invasive or otherwise problematic or inappropriate plants would be 

substituted with plants more suitable to the environment and landscape (Milner 2004). These 

actions would have a negligible impact on native plant communities because the plantings occur 

in developed areas where native plants are less abundant or do not exist. Mown grass in the 

Visitor Center Area may be substituted with a hardy low-growing native grass. This action could 

have a minor, positive long-term impact on native vegetation communities by expanding the 

cover of native grasses in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This action provides an opportunity 

for additional enhancement of native plant communities in the Cedar Pass Developed Area, and 

is a benefit that is unique to alternative C. 

Under alternative C trees would be planted to provide shade near RV sites, parking areas and in 

the campground. In these developed areas, tree planting would have a negligible effect on native 

vegetation communities. If planted in undeveloped areas, introduction of tree species could alter 

the structure of native grassland communities growing in those areas. Introduction of tree species 

would result in shading, which may indirectly result in the decrease of grass cover in areas 

surrounding the trees because grassland species are often not adapted to compete with tree 

species for sunlight and soil resources. Trampling of vegetation by people seeking shade would 

also result in decreased native vegetation cover. Thus, tree planting in undeveloped, open space 

areas could result in minor to moderate, site-specific long-term adverse impacts to native 

grassland vegetation communities. Similar activities are not expected under alternatives A and B. 

Under this alternative, nonnative, invasive Siberian elm vegetation species would be removed 

from open space and Lodge areas within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Effects of this removal 

on native vegetation are similar to that described under alternative B. The total removal of 

Siberian elm will promote the growth of a healthy native prairie ecosystem in formerly invaded 

areas and would halt the spread of this exotic, invasive species into noninvaded areas. Compared 

to alternative A, greater numbers of Siberian elm would be removed under this alternative, a 

benefit to native vegetation. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to native vegetation of alternative C are similar to those described under the 

no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Adverse impacts to native vegetation within the Cedar Pass Developed Area related to possible 

actions under alternative C include localized, long-term effects, ranging from negligible to 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-33 

moderate in intensity. These primarily result from potential new construction and vegetation 

management activities in undeveloped, open space areas. In addition, minor to moderate, longterm benefits associated with open space preservation, restoration of native vegetation, and 

removal of invasive Siberian elm are also possible and would improve the health and biotic 

integrity of existing vegetation communities. As, for the most part, development would occur 

within previously impacted development sites where native vegetation would not be affected, the 

degree of potential impact to these resources under alternative C is notably reduced when 

compared to the no-action alternative where development could potentially occur throughout the 

landscape. 

Implementation of alternative C would not result in an impairment of vegetation within Badlands 

National Park. 

WILDLIFE 

As no comprehensive wildlife surveys exist for the Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles 

area, general information regarding wildlife has been gleaned from the draft General 

Management Plan (NPS, in preparation). Site-specific impacts to wildlife will be analyzed prior 

to future development in the appropriate NEPA document. As previously noted, no specific 

development is proposed in any alternative; however, recommendations in the alternatives 

described in the CLR (and analyzed in this EA) could influence where and how future 

development in the park occurs. Park wildlife potentially affected by future development 

includes ungulates, carnivores, small mammals, birds, insects, reptiles and amphibians. 

Following is a summary of NPS regulations and policies related to wildlife management, as well 

as a description of the methods used to analyze potential impacts to these resources. 

Guiding Regulations and Policies 

The NPS Organic Act directs parks to conserve wildlife unimpaired for future generation. Parks 

interpret this to mean that native animal life should be protected and perpetuated as part of a 

park’s natural ecosystem. NPS management goals for wildlife include maintaining components 

and processes of naturally evolving park ecosystems, including natural abundance, diversity and 

ecological integrity of plants and animals (NPS 2001, sec. 4.1). 

The park’s draft General Management Plan has summarizes its intent to further the protection, 

study and management of wildlife resources with the following strategies for wildlife. These 

include 

• the perpetuation of native animal life as part of the natural ecosystem by minimizing 

human influences 

• ensuring the preservation of populations and habitats of migratory species 

• providing visitor education programs 

• management of exotic species that threaten park resources 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-34 

• continuing to work to restore extirpated native species 

• expanding the range of bison herd in the park (NPS, in preparation: 14-15) 

Methods of Impact Analysis for Wildlife 

Because analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature, impacts presented here are generalized 

by type. It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future site-specific 

projects are proposed. As each alternative, if implemented in the future, contains activities that 

could potentially affect wildlife and wildlife habitat, the broad analysis contained in this EA is 

designed to aid in future planning efforts. 

A review of reference, planning and environmental documents regarding wildlife resources 

within Badlands National Park, as well as communications with NPS staff, were completed to 

identify and evaluate potential impacts to wildlife resources located within the areas of study. 

The area of analysis includes the Cedar Pass Developed Area (all alternatives) and the Pinnacles 

area (Alternative B)(Figure 1-2). 

Wildlife Impact Threshold Definitions 

Negligible: The action might result in a change but the change would not be measurable or 

would be at the lowest level of detection. 

Minor: The action might result in a detectable change but the change would be slight and 

have a local effect on a population. This could include changes in the abundance or 

distribution of individuals in a local area, but not changes that would affect the 

viability of local populations. Changes to local ecological processes would be 

minimal. 

Moderate: The action would result in a clearly detectable change in a population and could 

have an appreciable effect. This could include changes in the abundance or 

distribution of local populations, but not changes that would affect the viability of 

regional populations. Changes to local ecological processes would be of limited 

extent. 

Major: The action would be severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial to a population. 

The effects would be substantial and highly noticeable, and they could result in 

widespread change and be permanent. This could include changes in the abundance 

or distribution of a local or regional population to the extent that the population 

would not be likely to recover (adverse) or would return to a sustainable level 

(beneficial). Significant ecological process would be altered, and “landscape-level” 

(regional) changes would be expected. 

Impairment:Some of the major impacts described above might be an impairment of park 

resources if their severity, duration, and timing resulted in the elimination of a 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-35 

native species or significant population decline in a native species, or they 

precluded the park’s ability to meet recovery objectives for listed species. In 

addition, these adverse, major impacts to park resources and values would 

contribute to deterioration of the park’s wildlife resources and values to the extent 

that the park’s purpose could not be fulfilled as established in its enabling 

legislation; affect resources key to the park’s natural or cultural integrity or 

opportunities for enjoyment; or affect the resource whose conservation is identified 

as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other park planning documents. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impact Common to All Alternatives 

The eventual failure of the Loop Road at Cedar Pass could require a route realignment that could 

affect that portion of the Loop Road encompassed within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape (northern boundary)(NPS 2003a)(Figure 1-3). While the route of this future 

road realignment is currently unknown, the construction of new roadway has the potential to 

adversely affect wildlife resources within the study area. Such impacts are caused by ground 

disturbance, vegetation/habitat loss and fragmentation, noise, lighting, interference of wildlife 

movement, etc. With implementation of mitigation measures (pre-construction studies, 

appropriate design/construction [see Chapter 2]), it is believed that adverse impacts to wildlife 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area would likely be long-term, site-specific, and no greater 

than minor in intensity. 

Alternative A—No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, as under all alternatives, the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape would be treated as an historic landscape. The park would continue to manage 

and use the Cedar Pass Developed Area in the current (2004) manner, without comprehensive 

historic preservation guidance (CLR)(John Milner Associates 2004). Development would 

continue in the area to accommodate future needs. Buildings, structures and other landscape 

features could be altered, removed, or added as needed. New development and facility siting 

would not have the benefit of management guidance similar to those associated with alternatives 

B and C and could potentially occur anywhere within the landscape (Figure 2-1). 

Analysis 

Potential impacts to wildlife under the No Action alternative are linked to on-going human use of 

the area (visitors, staff), as well as future management actions that may result in loss of habitat, 

disruption of wildlife corridors, and disturbance caused by construction/development activities 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area (noise, lighting, human activity, ground disturbance, etc.) 

While open space areas and their associated natural systems (drainages, vegetation, Badlands 

formations, wildlife) are defined within the CLR as important to the cultural landscape (John 

Milner Associates 2004), under this alternative there is a greater possibility of impact to these 

areas due to the lack of specific management guidance for the Cedar Pass Developed Area. The 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-36 

majority of this open space area is dominated by native grassland vegetation, and, to a lesser 

degree, badlands sparse vegetation. Native grassland areas provide habitat for a variety of 

wildlife species including small mammals (e.g., rabbits, chipmunks, muskrats), pronghorn 

antelope, mule deer, carnivores (coyotes, swift fox, mountain lions, bobcats), and birds that use 

the area. A much smaller portion of the open space area is characterized by more mesic 

vegetation (emergent wetlands, shrublands/woodlands) and provides wildlife habitat for species 

similar to those found within grassland areas, as well as amphibians and reptiles (see Chapter 3, 

Wildlife). 

This alternative makes it more likely that park activity would occur in currently undeveloped 

open space areas of the landscape that could adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. These 

effects primarily derive from construction development (noise, lighting, ground disturbance, 

vegetation cover impacts/habitat loss). The implementation of mitigation measures (Chapter 2) 

would likely ensure that adverse impacts to wildlife would not exceed that of minor in intensity, 

site-specific in scope, and short- and long-term in duration. When compared to the action 

alternatives, the No Action alternative would likely result in increased risks to wildlife within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area as a result of potential development within open space areas. 

However, unlike the No Action alternative, alternative B has the potential to result in 

considerable adverse impacts to wildlife by development in the Pinnacles area. 

Absent comprehensive management guidance under the No Action alternative, the potential for 

new development and its associated habitat disturbance in all areas of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area is highest when compared to the other two alternatives. Consequently, the potential to 

adversely impact wildlife is greatest under this proposal, associated primarily with construction 

activities, structure and vegetation removal, structure modifications (additions, etc.), road 

realignments and parking alterations, etc. Where new development occurs in already impacted 

areas, effects to wildlife would be negligible. However, development could be located more 

randomly, including in open space areas now used by wildlife, potentially resulting in adverse 

impacts to habitat (see discussion of open space wildlife habitat immediately above). While 

specific impacts are unknown at this point, implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., preconstruction studies, minimization of habitat impact, etc. [Chapter 2]) would likely hold potential 

adverse impacts to site-specific, long-term, and no greater than minor in intensity. When 

compared to the action alternatives, the No Action alternative would likely result in increased 

risks to wildlife within the Cedar Pass Developed Area as a result of potential development 

throughout the general landscape. However, unlike the No Action alternative, alternative B could 

result in considerable adverse impacts to wildlife by its off-site development in the Pinnacles 

area. 

Under the No Action alternative, vegetation management is limited to the removal of invasive 

Siberian elms in the open space areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Tree removal would 

occur through cutting and application of herbicides to stumps to prevent re-growth (Chad 

Prosser, pers. comm. 2004). Open space areas where elms are removed would be restored to 

native grasses. Removal of Siberian elms could create a moderate, localized, long-term adverse 

impact to wildlife and their habitat (loss of habitat for some species [birds, small mammals]) 

resulting from the scarcity of trees in the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Similar but potentially 

increased adverse effects are expected under the two action alternatives. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-37 

Cumulative Impacts 

Wildlife populations and their habitats within the park have been altered over the years by 

human activity, particularly within the Cedar Pass Developed Area and Pinnacles areas. These 

areas have sustained impacts from construction/development of numerous structures that have 

resulted in wildlife habitat alteration/loss through the decades. Within these areas, human activity 

has undoubtedly disturbed movements and use by wildlife. Most human use of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area and the Pinnacles area is concentrated in previously impacted/developed areas 

typically avoided by wildlife sensitive to such activity. 

In addition, the continuation of hunting (deer, pronghorn, small mammals) in the south unit of 

the park, the possible designation of the Crazy Horse Scenic Byway (promoting additional traffic 

past the Cedar Pass Developed Area), and the possible realignment of the Loop Road potentially 

contribute to minor, cumulative impacts to wildlife in and around the park. The construction of 

the Mni Wiconi water project and the DM&E railroad, both outside the park, could also result in 

minor, cumulative adverse effects on behavior, distribution and movements of wildlife in those 

areas (NPS 2003a:118). Prescribed burns which occur in and outside the park have the ability to 

cumulatively benefit wildlife habitat. 

Conclusions 

The No Action alternative would likely create negligible to moderate adverse impacts to wildlife 

and their habitat within the Cedar Pass Developed Area resulting from potential Loop Road 

realignment, use of open space areas, new development activities, and vegetation management 

activities. Compared to Alternatives B and C, the No Action alternative would likely result in an 

increased risk to wildlife/habitat due to the lack of management guidance for the future use of the 

cultural landscape at Cedar Pass Developed Area. This could result in a less predictable/random 

development and potentially higher levels of impact (disturbance) to wildlife and their habitat in 

previously undeveloped areas/open space areas. When compared to No Action, Alternative B 

proposes off-site development in a less developed area (Pinnacles) where adverse impacts to 

wildlife and habitat are likely and could be more intense. When effects of the No Action 

alternative are considered, long-term, cumulative adverse impacts to park wildlife and habitat are 

not expected to exceed minor levels. 

The implementation of the No Action alternative would not result in impairment of wildlife 

resources within Badlands National Park. 

Alternative B—Preservation 

Alternative B focuses on preservation of the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape at the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area; no new development is expected. The alternative allows for only minor 

landscape changes to meet identified facility and operational needs. Historic resources would be 

protected and maintained while intrusive resources would be mitigated or removed after their 

useful life. The management of both cultural and natural resources would be minimal. Invasive 

Siberian elms would be removed from open space and Lodge areas. Open space areas and their 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-38 

associated natural systems (drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife) would be 

preserved. 

New development would occur in the Pinnacles area located approximately 20 miles to the 

northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (Figures 1-2 and 2-2). It is estimated that 

approximately 5-10 acres would be required to provide for needed park facilities that would not 

be constructed at the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Analysis 

Analysis of impacts to wildlife under this alternative includes potential loss of habitat, disruption 

of wildlife corridors, and disturbance caused by construction/development activities (noise, 

lighting, increased human activity, ground disturbance) within the Pinnacles area. In addition, 

structure removal and vegetation management activities within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

have the potential to disrupt wildlife and their habitat. 

Alternative B proposes the preservation of open space areas and their associated natural systems 

as identified within the CLR. Open space areas provide habitat to a variety of wildlife and are the 

least disturbed areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (see Chapter 3, Wildlife). As a result, 

preservation of these areas would result in a minor, localized, long-term benefit for wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. When compared to the No Action alternative, alternative B offers a notable 

benefit to wildlife in this area. 

Under alternative B, no new construction development would occur within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. As a result, no further loss of wildlife habitat or habitat fragmentation in this 

area is anticipated, resulting in a minor, localized, long-term beneficial effect to wildlife. 

Compared to the No Action alternative under which new development could occur throughout 

the landscape, this is a benefit to wildlife and wildlife habitat within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area resulting from its promotion of habitat conservation. 

Under this alternative, new development would occur within the Pinnacles area. The Pinnacles 

area is comprised primarily of grasslands (Kenner, pers. comm. 2004), providing habitat for a 

number of small mammals (including the black-tailed prairie dog), pronghorn antelope, 

carnivores (coyotes, swift fox, mountain lions, bobcats), and a variety of insects and birds (see 

Chapter 3, Wildlife). Past park development (ranger station, entrance booths, etc.) has 

undoubtedly resulted in wildlife habitat alteration/loss. As much as 5-10 acres could be affected, 

potentially resulting in adverse impacts to wildlife/habitat in the area (habitat loss/fragmentation, 

construction activity). Specific development plans/locations are unknown at this time. However, 

with the implementation of mitigation measures (Chapter 2), it is likely that short-term adverse 

impacts during construction phase could be held to minor and site-specific. Long-term adverse 

impacts to wildlife would likely be localized, and range from minor to moderate in intensity due 

to the inevitable loss of habitat. No development at Pinnacles is planned under the other two 

alternatives, a benefit to wildlife in this area when compared to Alternative B. 

Under alternative B, limited and minimal efforts would be made to reduce or eliminate intrusive 

and incompatible structures/features within the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-39 

Such structures would be removed only after their useful life. These actions would occur in 

previously impacted areas, likely resulting in negligible to possibly minor, temporary, sitespecific impacts to wildlife for the duration of the projects. If the impacted areas where features 

are removed are restored to native vegetation (see mitigation measures, Chapter 2), long-term 

impacts could be mitigated to negligible in the long-term owing to the enhancement of potential 

wildlife habitat within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Under Alternative B, invasive Siberian elm trees would be removed from open space and Lodge 

areas within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. In the Lodge area, elms would be replaced with 

non-invasive, deciduous trees (preferably native). In open space areas, native prairie grassland 

species would be restored. Techniques used for tree removal and impacts associated with them 

are similar to those described under the No Action alternative. However, under alternative B, a 

greater number of elm trees would be lost due to additional removal in the Lodge area. This 

additional tree removal could result in localized, long-term, adverse impacts to wildlife (birds, 

small mammals) and their habitat due to the scarcity of trees in the area. Adverse effects could 

range from moderate to major in intensity resulting from the abrupt loss of wildlife habitat. The 

intensity of effects would depend on the nature and size of wildlife populations that use the 

boreal habitat, as well as the type of tree replacement. Adverse effects could be partially 

mitigated by prompt replacement of Lodge trees with alternates of a size, nature and growth rate 

capable of contributing considerably to long-term habitat replacement. When compared to 

alternative B, decreased adverse effects to wildlife would be expected under the No Action 

alternative as it does not include the additional tree removal/replacement in the Lodge area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to wildlife and their habitat under alternative B are similar to those 

described under the No Action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Alternative B would result in minor to possibly major adverse impacts to wildlife as a result of 

activities within the Cedar Pass Developed Area (potential Loop Road realignment, removal of 

intrusive features, vegetation management). Minor benefits to wildlife are also expected at the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area as a result of the lack of development and preservation of open 

space areas. Minor to moderate adverse impacts to wildlife and their habitat are possible at the 

Pinnacles area as a result of development in a relatively undeveloped area. When compared to 

the No Action alternative, alternative B would result in increased adverse impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat owing to the future development of the Pinnacles area, a relatively undeveloped 

site (no development proposed at Pinnacles under alternatives A and C). Conversely, the lack of 

development within the Cedar Pass Developed Area under alternative B is an overall benefit to 

wildlife and their habitat when compared to both the No Action alternative and alternative C. 

When effects of alternative B are considered, the long-term, cumulative adverse impacts to park 

wildlife and their habitat are not expected to exceed minor levels. 

The implementation of alternative B would not result in impairment of wildlife resources within 

Badlands National Park. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-40 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 

The Rehabilitation alternative allows for the adaptation of the historic landscape to limited new 

uses, while protecting its significant historic fabric and relationships through preservation and 

rehabilitation treatments. New development would be limited to critical park needs and would 

typically occur within defined and distinct areas of previous impact (see Figure 2-3 for 

development sites). In general, natural systems (drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, 

wildlife) and open space areas would be preserved, with only minor alterations allowed. Siberian 

elms would be removed from the open space and Cedar Pass Lodge areas. Existing noncontributing, compatible structures would be retained and rehabilitated. Those features that are 

considered incompatible with the cultural landscape may be mitigated and/or removed after their 

useful life (Figure 2-3). 

Analysis 

Analysis of impacts to wildlife under Alternative C includes short-term disturbance caused by 

new construction, primarily restricted to areas previously impacted. In addition, effects of 

mitigation (removal/screening) of intrusive structures/features, as well as vegetation management 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area are analyzed. Potential disturbance to wildlife and their 

habitat includes noise, lighting, increased human activity, ground disturbance, etc. 

This alternative would generally preserve open space and associated natural systems in the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area, a negligible to minor benefit to wildlife and their habitat (please refer to 

discussion of wildlife habitat and open space areas presented under alternative A and in Chapter 

3). At the same time minor, compatible modifications (e.g., trails) to the landscape, including 

open space areas, are allowed. With mitigation measures (Chapter 2), such actions within open 

space areas would likely result in negligible to minor, site-specific adverse impacts to wildlife 

from construction activity, permanent loss and possible fragmentation of small areas of habitat, 

and alteration of wildlife behavior. These effects would be of short- and long-term duration. 

When compared to the No Action alternative, alternative C represents a notably decreased risk to 

wildlife/habitat in natural and open space areas due to minimal and restrictive use of these areas. 

Under this alternative, new development within the Cedar Pass Developed Area would occur 

primarily in areas which have been previously impacted (see Figure 2-3 for development sites). 

Therefore, no additional habitat loss or fragmentation is expected. However, construction and 

mitigation activities within development sites are expected to alter wildlife behavior, movement 

and distribution as a result of increased human activity, traffic, noise, etc. With mitigation 

measures (Chapter 2), adverse impacts to wildlife could be held to negligible to minor, 

temporary, and site-specific for the duration of projects. Compared to the No Action alternative, 

this alternative would offer fewer adverse impacts to wildlife as a result of its clustered 

development in previously impacted areas. 

Under alternative C, the removal of incompatible features of the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

historic landscape would be considered. In addition, mitigation measures (screening) may be 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-41 

utilized to reduce the intrusive nature of non-historic buildings that are retained. These actions 

would result in effects to wildlife and their habitat similar to those described under alternative B. 

Impacts of removal of Siberian elms within the open space and Cedar Pass Lodge areas, as well 

as vegetation restoration actions associated with it, are similar to those presented in Alternative 

B. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to wildlife and their habitat under alternative C are similar to those 

described under the No Action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Alternative C could create minor to possibly major adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat resulting from potential Loop Road realignment, new development, vegetation 

management, and activities designed to mitigate intrusive structures within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area cultural landscape. Minor benefits are also expected owing to the general 

preservation of open space areas. When compared to this alternative, the No Action alternative 

would likely result in an increased risk to wildlife and wildlife habitat as a result of the potential 

for random and unpredictable development possible without the guidance of specific 

management guidance for the Cedar Pass Developed Area. When effects of alternative C are 

considered, long-term, cumulative, adverse impacts to park wildlife and their habitat are not 

expected to exceed minor levels. 

The implementation of alternative C would not result in impairment of wildlife resources within 

Badlands National Park. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 

SPECIES 

Guiding Regulations and Policies 

The federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that all federal agencies 

consider the potential effects of their actions on species listed as threatened or endangered at the 

federal level. If it is believed that an action may adversely affect a listed species, consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required to ensure that actions will not 

jeopardize the species’ continued existence or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

Methods of Impact Analysis for Species of Special Concern 

Because analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature, impacts presented here are generalized 

by type. It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future site-specific 

projects are proposed. As each alternative includes potential activities that could potentially 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-42 

affect special status species, the broad analysis contained in this EA is designed to aid in future 

planning efforts. 

Communications with park staff and informal consultation with the USFWS (2004a, b) and the 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (2004a, b; appendix D) were conducted to 

identify the presence of special status species within the project areas (Cedar Pass Developed 

Area and Pinnacles area). These efforts were designed to determine which, if any, special status 

species inhabit the areas likely to be affected by future development and the potential impacts to 

those species. 

Information from these sources resulted in the determination that no special status species are 

know to exist within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, a focal point for all alternatives. At the 

same time, it was found that one special status species (swift fox [Vulpes velox] [ state threatened 

species]) has been observed in the Pinnacles area, a site proposed for future development under 

alternative B. 

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), not known to currently exist within the Pinnacles 

area, is often found in association with prairie dog colonies and is listed by both the State and 

Federal governments as endangered. However, on NPS lands, the black-footed ferret is 

considered threatened for management purposes (USFWS 2004b; see “Species of Special 

Concern” section in chapter 3). The black-footed ferret is also addressed in this analysis. 

The programmatic analysis contained within this EA is based on the best professional judgment 

of NPS staff from Badlands National Park, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SDGFP, and 

available literature. 

As defined under the Endangered Species Act, effects to special status species are evaluated 

analyzing activities that could result in a “take” or cause harm to a species, including harassment. 

These potential effects are limited to those actions under alternative B which include future 

development at the Pinnacles area. Potential impacts to special status species or their habitats 

were evaluated based on species presence and the potential effects of actions related to future 

development in this area. Conditions that exist under the no-action alternative are used as a 

baseline against which the actions of alternative B are compared. 

The area analyzed for impacts to special status species is the Pinnacles area (figure 1-2). This 

area would be used as a site of future development under alternative B. Several special status 

species have been observed in an around this area (see above). 

Special Status Species Impact Threshold Definitions 

The Endangered Species Act defines the terminology used to assess impacts to federally listed 

(versus state listed species) species as follow: 

No effect: When a proposed action would not affect a listed species or designated critical 

habitat. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-43 

May affect/not likely to adversely affect: Effects on special status species are discountable (i.e., 

extremely unlikely to occur and not able to be meaningfully measured, detected, 

or evaluated) or are completely beneficial. 

May affect/likely to adversely affect: When an adverse effect to a listed species may occur as a 

direct or indirect result of proposed action and the effect either is not discountable 

or is completely beneficial. 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical habitat 

(impairment): The appropriate conclusion when the NPS or the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service identifies situations in which the proposal could jeopardize the 

continued existence of a proposed species or adversely modify critical habitat to a 

species within or outside park boundaries. 

The terminology used to assess impacts to state listed species is as follows: 

Negligible: Actions result in no observable or measurable impacts to native wildlife species, 

their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them and would be of short 

duration, localized, and well within natural population fluctuations. 

Minor: Actions would result in detectable impacts, but they would not be expected to 

result in substantial populations fluctuations and would not be expected to have 

any measurable, long-term effects on native species, their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them. Long-term characteristics would remain stable and 

viable, though occasional responses to disturbance by some individuals could be 

expected but without interference to feeding, reproduction or other factors 

affecting population levels. 

Moderate: Impacts on species of concern, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them would be detectable, and they could be outside that of natural variability for 

short period of time. Key ecosystem processes may experience disruptions that 

would be outside the natural range of fluctuation (but would return to natural 

conditions). Sufficient habitat would remain functional to maintain viability of 

native wildlife populations. 

Major: An action would result in detectable impacts on native wildlife, their habitats, or 

the natural processes sustaining them. Key ecosystem processes might be 

disrupted permanently. Adverse responses to disturbance by some individuals 

would be expected, with negative impacts to feeding, reproduction, or other 

factors resulting in a long-term decrease in population numbers and genetic 

variability. Loss of habitat might affect the viability of at least some native 

species. 

Impairment: Some of the major impacts described above might be an impairment of park 

resource if their severity, duration and timing result in the in the elimination of a 

native species or significant population declines in a native species, or they 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-44 

precluded the park’s ability to meet recovery objectives for listed species. In 

addition, these major adverse impacts to park resources and values would 

• contribute to deterioration of the park’s wildlife resources and values to the 

extent that the park’s purpose could not be fulfilled as established in its 

enabling legislation; 

• affect resources key to the park’s natural or cultural integrity or opportunities 

for enjoyment; or 

• affect the resource whose conservation is identified as a goal in the park’s 

general management plan (NPS, in preparation) or other park planning 

documents for Badlands National Park. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A—No Action 

The no-action alternative proposes no development within the Pinnacles area related to the 

management of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. Consequently, no effects to 

special status species are anticipated. Such effects are similar to that realized under alternative C. 

When compared to alternative B, alternatives A and C represent a benefit to special status 

species resulting from the absence of development in the Pinnacles area. 

The implementation of the no-action alternative would not result in impairment of special status 

species within Badlands National Park. 

Alternative B—Preservation 

Alternative B focuses on preservation of the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape at the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. The alternative allows for only minor changes within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area to meet identified facility and operational needs. Instead, new development would occur in 

the Pinnacles area, located approximately 20 miles to the northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area (figures 1-2). It is estimated that approximately 5-10 acres may be required to provide for 

needed facilities that would not be constructed at the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

The general Pinnacles area is known to be used by the swift fox, a state threatened species. The 

black-footed ferret is listed by both the state and federal governments as endangered. For 

management purposes, it is considered “threatened” on NPS lands (see Chapter 3, “Special 

Status Species”). While not known to currently exist within the Pinnacles area, the black-footed 

ferret is often found in association with prairie dog colonies, one of which exists at the Pinnacles 

site. 

Analysis 

Analysis of impacts to special status species under this alternative is related to potential loss of 

habitat, disruption of wildlife corridors, and disturbance caused by new 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-45 

construction/development activities within the Pinnacles area (noise, lighting, human activity, 

ground disturbance). 

Federally-listed wildlife species

Black-footed Ferret (federal endangered [considered “threatened” within NPS lands]): The 

black-footed ferret, not known to currently utilize the Pinnacles area, may be indirectly impacted 

by future development as a result of the presence of the black-tailed prairie dog in the area. 

Initially listed as endangered in 1967, black-footed ferrets are typically associated with prairie 

dog colonies, feeding primarily on prairie dogs and relying on their burrows for shelter, family 

rearing and escape from predators. It is believed that they cannot survive for extended periods 

outside of prairie dog colonies (Licht 1997) (NPS, in preparation: 82). 

Badlands National Park and the Conata Basin area of Buffalo Gap National Grassland have been 

designated as reintroduction sites (USFWS et al. 1994)(see “Special Status Species—Threatened, 

Endangered or Candidate Species” section in chapter 3 for detail). The park’s reintroduced 

black-footed ferret population is designated a nonessential experimental population under the 

Endangered Species Act which provides more management flexibility (NPS, in preparation: 83). 

Reintroduction efforts between 1994 and 1999 resulted in the dispersal of the reintroduced ferret 

population outward from release sites to smaller adjacent prairie dog colonies. This has resulted 

in an increase in prairie dog colonies confirmed to be occupied by ferrets. The population 

reached a high in 2000 with a minimum of 33 individuals but then declined to an estimated 14 

individuals in 2001. It is believed that additional monitoring is needed to determine “if this 

decrease is due to the inability of the park’s fragmented prairie dog habitat to support a viable 

ferret population, the dispersal of the ferrets to lower quality habitat, survey detection problems, 

disease in the ferret population, or an increase in predation on ferrets” (NPS, in preparation: 83). 

The ferret population is currently concentrated in the north unit in Kocher Flats and the Roberts 

Prairie Dog town area (approximately four miles to the west/northwest the Pinnacles area). 

As the black-footed ferret population in the park currently has no direct association with the 

Pinnacles area prairie dog colony, it is not dependent on it for survival. However, if future 

reintroduction efforts involve this colony, its stability would likely be important. Consequently, 

the status of the prairie dog at the Pinnacles area has the potential to indirectly affect the blackfooted ferret population within the park. As a result, black-footed ferrets may be affected but are 

not likely to be adversely affected under this alternative. Additional study and analysis will occur 

for specific project proposals, at which time a more detailed and formal evaluation of impacts to 

special status species will occur as required under the Endangered Species Act. 

State-listed wildlife species

Swift fox (state threatened): Under alternative B, development in the Pinnacles area has the 

potential to affect swift fox reintroduction efforts and species viability in the Badlands 

ecosystem. The park works cooperatively with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks, the Turner Endangered Species Fund, and South Dakota State University on 

reintroduction efforts. The Pinnacles area prairie dog colony was the site of a release of the swift 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-46 

fox in 2003, with another release possible in the fall of 2004 (Kenner, pers. comm. 2004). Three 

litters have been documented as a result of these efforts. Future development in this area has the 

potential to result in direct and adverse impacts to the swift fox as a result of habitat 

loss/fragmentation (long-term), construction activity (short-term) and generally increased human 

presence (long-term). If reintroduction efforts are continued in this area, the swift fox 

populations may experience long-term, localized adverse impacts ranging from minor to major

under this alternative. Additional study and analysis will be required for specific projects in the 

future, at which time a more detailed and formal evaluation of impacts to special status species 

will occur. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Wildlife populations, including those species considered to have special status (threatened, 

endangered), and their habitats within the park have been altered over the years by human 

activity. This is particularly true for developed areas of the park, including the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area and the Pinnacles area. The future realignment of the Loop Road may 

potentially contribute to cumulative impacts to special status species in and around the park 

through loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation. The construction of the Mni Wiconi water 

project and the DM&E railroad, both outside the park, could result in cumulative adverse effects 

on behavior, distribution and movements of wildlife (NPS, in preparation: 118), including 

special status species. Prescribed burns in and outside the park also have the ability to influence 

wildlife habitat over time. 

Once found throughout South Dakota, the black-footed ferret population has declined to near 

extinction. This decline has been attributed to habitat conversion for agriculture, extensive efforts 

to control prairie dogs that compete with livestock for forage, and sylvatic plague, a disease that 

has killed large numbers of prairie dogs. These three factors also fragmented prairie dog colonies 

on which the black-foot ferret relies. In addition, the removal of large carnivores (bears, wolves) 

from the Badlands area, likely increased predation of coyotes (their main predator) on ferrets 

(NPS in preparation: 82). 

Badlands National Park and the Conata Basin area of Buffalo Gap National Grassland have been 

designated as reintroduction sites (USFWS et al. 1994). Between 1994 and 1999, an average of 

35 animals were released each year. Successful reproduction of ferrets has been detected every 

year and the population has begun to disperse outward from release sites to smaller adjacent 

prairie dog colonies. This has resulted in an increase in prairie dog colonies confirmed to be 

occupied by ferrets. The population reached a high in 2000 with a minimum of 33 individuals 

but then declined to an estimated 14 individuals in 2001. The ferret population is currently 

concentrated in the north unit in Kocher Flats and the Roberts area (approximately a mile to the 

northwest of the Pinnacles area). Future activities or development within the general park area 

(inside and outside) which results in increased habitat conversion for agriculture, increased 

human controls of prairie dogs or increased prairie dog mortality from sylvatic plague could 

result in adverse cumulative impacts to black-footed ferrets populations within the park. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-47 

Conclusions 

The following impacts are possible to special status species under alternative B: 

• under federal regulations, the black-footed ferret may be affected but is not likely to be 

adversely affected as a result of future development within the Pinnacles area 

• under state regulations, the swift fox would likely experience minor to major adverse 

impacts as a result of future development at the Pinnacles area 

When compared to other alternatives, alternative B would result in an increase in potential 

adverse impacts to special status species as a result of its potential development in the Pinnacles 

area. Alternatives A and C propose no new development within the Pinnacles area and would, 

therefore, not involve the potentially lengthy and comprehensive consultation with the USFWS 

that would be required under alternative B prior to proposed development in this area. 

Future projects that may affect special status species would undergo specific analysis at the time 

of the proposal to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. As a result of 

comprehensive consultation with the USFWS regarding special status species that would be 

required for future development to occur in this area, it is not believed that alternative B would 

result in impairment of special status species within Badlands National Park. 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative C proposes no development within the Pinnacles area related to the management of 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. Consequently, no effects to special status 

species are anticipated. Such effects are similar to those realized under the no-action alternative. 

When compared to alternative B, both alternatives A and C represent a benefit to special status 

species resulting from the absence of development in the Pinnacles area. 

The implementation of the alternative C would not result in impairment of special status species 

within Badlands National Park. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Under all alternatives, the potential to affect paleontological resources exists in that some level 

of ground disturbance would occur. It is known that the fossil-rich Brule (Cedar Pass Developed 

Area) and the Brule and Sharps Formations (Pinnacles area) underlie the study areas. 

Consequently, ground disturbance would be expected to potentially disturb paleontological 

resources in these areas. 

Following is a summary of NPS regulations and policies related to paleontological resources, as 

well as a description of the methods used to analyze potential impacts to these resources. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-48 

Guiding Regulations and Policies 

Federal actions that have the potential to affect paleontological resources are subject to guiding 

laws, regulations and policies designed to aid in preservation of the resource. These include: 

• NPS regulation 36 CFR 2.1 prohibits the destruction or disturbance of mineral, cave and 

paleontological specimens in park units, and prohibits collection of paleontological 

resources except for scientific purposes. 

• Section 4.8.1 of the NPS Management Policies (NPS 2001) charges the NPS with 

allowing natural geological process to proceed unimpeded. Section 4.8.2 requires the 

NPS to protect geologic features from adverse effects of human activity. Section 4.8.2.1 

encourages scientific paleontological research and directs that locations of such resources 

be protected. 

In addition, Badlands National Park has summarized its intent to further the protection, study and 

management of park resources with the following strategies for paleontological resources. To 

ensure the protection of this nonrenewable resources, inventory and monitoring programs will be 

expanded, paleontological resources will be managed and studied in their geologic context, park 

staff will partner with and encourage others to conduct paleontological research within the park, 

additional interpretive/educational visitor programs will be developed, collected fossils will be 

managed in accordance with the park’s collection management plan, and fossils exhibits will be 

improved (NPS, in preparation: 13-14). 

Methods of Impact Analysis for Paleontological Resources 

Because analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature, impacts presented here are generalized 

by type. It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future site-specific 

projects are proposed. As each alternative, if implemented in the future, contains activities that 

could potentially affect paleontological resources, the broad analysis contained in this EA is 

designed to aid in future planning efforts. 

A review of reference materials regarding paleontological resources identified within Badlands 

National Park, as well as communications with NPS staff, were conducted to identify and 

evaluate potential impacts to the resource located within the study areas. The Cedar Pass 

Developed Area and Pinnacles area are known to be underlain with fossil-rich deposits (Benton, 

pers. comm. 2004) (see chapter 3). 

The area included in the impact analysis for paleontological resources includes the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area (all alternatives) and the Pinnacles area (alternative B) (figure 1-2). 

Paleontological Resources Impact Threshold Definitions 

Negligible: Impacts to park paleontological resources are not detectable based on standard 

scientific methodologies. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-49 

Minor: Low probability of impact because either (1) the activity would occur in an area 

not known to contain paleontological resources and the volume of disturbance 

would be negligible, or (2) the activity would occur in an area containing 

paleontological resources but the volume of disturbance would be nearly 

indiscernible. Monitoring would likely detect changes or loss of resources, and 

the loss of associated contextual information would be minimal. 

Moderate: Moderate probability of impact because either (1) the activity would occur in an 

area not known to contain paleontological resources and the volume of 

disturbance would be large, or (2) the activity would occur in an area containing 

paleontological resources but the volume of disturbance would be small. 

Monitoring would identify most affected paleontological resources features, but 

some resources and/or associated contextual information would be lost. 

Major: High probability of impact because the activity would occur in an area containing 

paleontological resources and the volume of disturbance would be large. Even 

with monitoring, many features and/or associated contextual information would 

likely be lost. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Badlands National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning document. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

If and when the Badlands Loop Scenic Byway (Loop Road) fails at Cedar Pass, route 

realignment and construction of the Loop Road could affect the portion of the road included 

within the northern extent of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (figure 1-3). Route realignment 

options are unknown at this time; however, road construction activities in this area of the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area would have the potential to affect paleontological resources in 

construction, staging and access areas. Such impacts would result from road construction 

activities (excavation) and the associated loss of contextual integrity of the resource within the 

chosen alignment given the fossil-rich layers known to underlie the areas currently being 

reviewed (NPS, in preparation). Through the use of mandatory mitigation measures (preconstruction surveys, monitoring [chapter 2]) the park would likely be able to prevent impacts to 

paleontological resources from becoming major in intensity. 

Alternative A—No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, the NPS would continue to manage and develop the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area in the current (2004) manner, without a management guidance as provided in 

the draft CLR under alternatives A and B. Implementation of this alternative would include new 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-50 

development (construction, landscape alterations) as needed throughout the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area (figure 2-1). Development could potentially occur within open space areas that 

include natural systems landscape features (drainages, vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife) 

(figure 2-1). 

Analysis 

Potential impacts to paleontological resources under the no-action alternative would result from 

ground disturbance (new construction development, structure and vegetation removal, other 

landscape alterations). 

Open space areas are defined within the CLR as one of ten character areas and, along with 

natural systems (vegetation and topography, including badlands formations), are specifically 

preserved under both action alternatives. Under the no-action alternative which includes no 

specific preservation efforts related to these areas, there is a greater possibility of impact to open 

space and natural (undeveloped) areas resulting from a lack of specific management guidance for 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Due to the potential for development anywhere in the landscape, 

this would result in the greatest risk to paleontological resources of all alternatives within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. The risk level derives from the potential for ground disturbance in 

both disturbed and undisturbed areas of the study area (for example, new construction, structure 

and vegetation removal, structure modifications, road work, parking alterations). Use of 

mandatory mitigation measures (chapter 2) would likely hold permanent, site-specific adverse 

impacts to paleontological resources to the negligible to minor level. When compared to the 

action alternatives, the no-action alternative would result in the greatest level of risk to 

paleontological resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area as a result of potential 

development within open space areas. However, it should be noted that under alternative B, 

significant risks to these resources are transferred from the Cedar Pass Developed Area to the 

Pinnacles area. 

Under the no-action alternative, the potential for new development and associated ground 

disturbance in all areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape is more likely than 

that under the other two alternatives. As a result, this alternative would likely result in the 

greatest amount of ground disturbance in both disturbed and undisturbed areas within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area when compared to the action alternatives. Buried, unidentified 

paleontological resources would be at the greatest risk from ground disturbance. The use of 

mandatory mitigation measures (for example, pre-construction surveys, presence of a cultural 

resource specialist during such ground disturbing activities) would likely reduce permanent, sitespecific adverse impacts to paleontological resources to no greater than minor (see the 

“Mitigation Measures” section in chapter 2). As a result of new development, the no-action 

alternative would create the greatest risk to paleontological resources within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area when compared to the two action alternatives. 

Under the no-action alternative, vegetation management is limited to the removal of invasive 

Siberian elms in the open space areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Tree removal would 

occur through cutting and application of herbicides to the stump to prevent regrowth (Prosser, 

pers. comm. 2004). Where trees are removed, native prairie grassland species would be restored. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-51 

As no ground disturbance would occur, this action would result in negligible impacts to 

paleontological resources. When compared to ground disturbance associated with vegetation 

management under the two action alternatives, the no-action alternative (no ground disturbance) 

is believed to be beneficial for paleontological resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources can include total or partial resource loss due to 

development impacts, erosional processes, and illegal collecting. The following on-going and 

future actions within the park have the potential to result in cumulative loss of, or impacts to, 

paleontological resources: construction of the Lakota Heritage and Education Center, possible 

expansion of the Sage Creek campground, realignment of the Loop Road, gunnery range cleanup (south unit), park maintenance activities, increased access theft/vandalism. Actions outside 

the park which could adversely affect paleontological resources over time include the 

construction of transportation and utility facilities, increased use of adjacent National Grasslands, 

and illegal fossil collecting on private lands (NPS, in preparation: 132), all of which may have 

already contributed to regional impacts to paleontological resources. 

Conclusions 

The no-action alternative could result in minor to moderate adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area resulting from ground disturbance associated 

with new development (particularly within open space areas), landscape alterations, and future 

Loop Road realignment. When compared to the two action alternatives, the no-action alternative 

has the potential to result in more ground disturbance throughout the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area, particularly within undeveloped, open space areas. However, the no-action alternative 

would result in no increased risks to paleontological resources within the Pinnacles area as is the 

case under alternative B. 

Paleontological resources would not be impaired as a result of the implementation of the noaction alternative. 

Alternative B—Preservation 

Designed to protect the integrity of the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape, alternative B proposes 

no new development/construction within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Only minor changes to 

the area to meet facility and operational needs would occur. Open space areas and natural 

systems (vegetation, topography) would be preserved within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Nonnative species, including Siberian elm, would be removed from the Cedar Pass Lodge and 

open space areas. Intrusive, nonhistoric structures may be removed after their useful life. This 

proposal would greatly minimize ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact 

paleontological resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area but would increase the risk to 

the resource at the Pinnacles area. 

Park facility needs would be met through new development at the Pinnacles area, located 

approximately 20 miles to the northwest (figure 1-2). It is estimated that approximately 5-10 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-52 

acres of land in the Pinnacles area will be needed to fulfill future park development needs 

(figures 1-2 and 2-2). 

Analysis 

Analysis of potential impacts to paleontological resources under alternative B is primarily related 

to new construction (ground disturbance), particularly at the Pinnacles area, and minor landscape 

modifications (vegetation management, structure removal, open space preservation) within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Under alternative B, existing open space elements and natural systems (vegetation, topography) 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be retained and protected, promoting the 

contextual integrity and protection of paleontological resources in these areas. As no 

development would occur in these areas, the resulting lack of ground disturbance would provide 

a minor, site-specific, long-term benefit to paleontological resources within these open space 

areas. When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B offers greater protection for 

paleontological resources within natural systems/open space areas of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape. 

Under alternative B, no new development (construction) would occur within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. This resulting lack of ground disturbance is considered a site-specific, longterm, negligible to minor benefit to paleontological resources at this location. When compared to 

alternative A (and alternative C), implementation of this alternative offers increased benefit to 

paleontological resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

At the same time, new facility and operational needs under this alternative would be provided at 

the Pinnacles area (20 miles to the northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, figure 1-2). 

Development needs may require the use of 5-10 acres at the Pinnacles area, known to be 

underlain by the fossil-rich Brule and Sharps Formations (see chapter 3). Site-specific data on 

surface exposure and depths of these formations at this location are unknown (Benton, pers. 

comm. 2004). Development could include new housing, RV sites for researchers, staff offices, 

utilities, and parking. Construction-related ground disturbance has the potential to adversely 

affect paleontological resources, particularly those buried resources that have not been identified 

or evaluated. Through the use of mandatory mitigation measures (monitoring [see chapter 2]), 

impacts would likely be reduced to site-specific and minor in intensity. Compared to the noaction alternative under which no development would occur at the Pinnacles area, this alternative 

would potentially result in considerably increased risks to paleontological resources in that area. 

Under this alternative, structures and features considered incompatible and noncontributing to 

the cultural landscape at the Cedar Pass Developed Area may be removed after their useful life. 

Such actions would occur in previously impacted areas and would result in only minor amounts 

of ground disturbance. The use of mandatory mitigation measures (see chapter 2) would likely 

hold site-specific adverse impacts to paleontological resources to the negligible to minor level. 

No mitigation/removal of intrusive structures or associated impacts would occur under the noaction alternative. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-53 

The removal and replacement of invasive Siberian elms in the Lodge and open space areas, as 

well as the maintenance and in-kind replacement of contributing historic site foundation 

plantings would result in minor ground disturbance within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Such 

activity has the potential to permanently adversely affect archeological resources, particularly 

buried resources. Historic plant maintenance/replacement activities would involve minor ground 

disturbance and would occur in previously disturbed areas (around structures). Elm removal 

(cutting, herbicide application) will involve no ground disturbance. Elms would be replaced in 

the Lodge area with noninvasive, deciduous trees and would involve minor ground disturbance. 

In open space areas, native prairie grasslands would be restored with little ground disturbance 

expected. Vegetation management activities under this alternative would result in a minor 

amount of ground disturbance, considered a negligible to minor impact to paleontological 

resources if mandatory mitigation measures are used (chapter 2). When compared to the noaction alternative, under which no ground disturbance is associated with Siberian elm removal, 

this alternative may result in slightly increased risks to paleontological resources within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources of alternative B are similar to those described 

under the no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Under alternative B, minor adverse impacts to paleontological resources from new development 

would occur in the Pinnacles area. At the same time, negligible to minor benefits to 

paleontological resources would be realized within the Cedar Pass Developed Area as a result of 

no new development and open space/natural systems preservation. Negligible to moderate 

adverse impacts to paleontological resources are possible at the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

related to mitigation/removal of intrusive structures, vegetation management activities, and 

future Loop Road realignment. When compared to alternative A, alternative B would result in a 

decreased level of ground disturbance and potential impacts to paleontological resources within 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area, while notably increasing risks to the resource at the Pinnacles 

area. 

Implementation of alternative B will not impair paleontological resources within Badlands 

National Park. 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 

This alternative proposes the rehabilitation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

for limited new uses. To fill critical park needs, new development in defined and distinct areas 

(development sites) would be allowed within the Cedar Pass Developed Area (see figure 2-3). 

Where possible, new structures would be located where buildings had been previously removed. 

Intrusive, nonhistoric elements (structures) of the landscape could be mitigated or removed after 

their useful life. Historic landscape planting patterns/designs would be reestablished, where 

possible. Siberian elms would be removed from open space and Lodge areas. Natural systems 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-54 

(vegetation, topography) and open space areas would be generally preserved with only minor 

development allowed within them. Any new major roads or circulation alterations would be 

associated with new development. 

Analysis 

Under alternative C, potential effects to paleontological resources within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area are related to ground disturbance (new construction/development, vegetation 

management, intrusive structure removal). 

Alternative C includes the general preservation of open space areas, including natural systems, a 

negligible to minor, long-term, localized benefit to paleontological resources within the open 

space areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Minor development within these areas that does 

not jeopardize the historic landscape’s character would be allowed (for example, trails/paths). 

Minor development would likely involve ground disturbance and the potential to adversely 

impact buried, undocumented paleontological resources, resulting in permanent loss of 

contextual resource data. Use of mandatory mitigation measures described in chapter 2 would 

likely hold these potential adverse impacts to site-specific and negligible to minor in intensity. 

When compared to alternative C, alternative A would result in a greater degree of risk to 

paleontological resources within these natural, open space areas of the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. 

Under this alternative, new construction (new structures or additions to existing ones) within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area would result in ground disturbance. While much of this activity 

would occur in areas already impacted by earlier development (see figure 2-3 for development 

sites), any activity involving ground disturbance has the potential to adversely affect 

buried/unrecorded paleontological resources. However, the use of mandatory mitigation 

measures (survey, monitoring [see chapter 2]) would likely ensure that potential site-specific 

adverse impacts to paleontological resources would reach no greater than minor in intensity. 

Comparatively, the no-action alternative would result in similar risks to paleontological 

resources within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

This alternative proposes mitigation measures (screening, removal) to reduce the intrusive nature 

of nonhistoric buildings within the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape. This effort 

could result in minor ground disturbance with potential adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources, particularly those buried and unidentified. Effects of these actions are similar to those 

described under alternative B. The no-action alternative includes no removal or mitigation of 

intrusive structures. 

This alternative also proposes the removal/replacement of Siberian elm in Lodge and open space 

areas and the maintenance of building foundation plantings within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. Impacts of these actions are similar to those described under alternative B. 

In addition, this alternative includes the reestablishment of original historic planting designs, 

where possible, for the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, Cedar Pass Lodge, and residential, and 

campground areas of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. These efforts will result in ground 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-55 

disturbance that has the potential to adversely impact buried paleontological resources. However, 

it should be noted that this ground disturbance would occur in previously impacted areas. With 

adherence to mandatory mitigation measures (chapter 2), potential adverse effects to 

paleontological resources would be held to site-specific and negligible to minor in intensity. The 

no-action alternative does not include the reestablishment of historic plantings within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources of alternative C are similar to those described 

under the no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Under alternative C, ground disturbance from new construction, intrusive structure removal, 

vegetation management activities, and the future realignment of the Loop Road has the potential 

to result in negligible to moderate adverse impacts to paleontological resources within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area. In addition, negligible to minor benefits to paleontological resources are 

possible as a result of the general preservation of open space areas within the cultural landscape. 

The no-action alternative includes similar types of adverse effects but does not include the 

benefit to paleontological resources related to open space preservation. 

Implementation of alternative C will not impair paleontological resources within Badlands 

National Park. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

The Cedar Pass Developed Area currently functions as the focal point of visitor contact, services 

and information within the park. Alterations to it, possible under all alternatives, would 

potentially affect the visitor experiences in the future. 

Following is a summary of NPS regulations and policies related to the provision and 

enhancement of visitor experiences and opportunities, as well as a description of the methods 

used to analyze potential impacts to them. 

Guiding Regulations and Policies 

The 1916 Organic Act requires the NPS to ensure its natural and cultural resources are not 

impaired, but it also requires parks “to provide for the enjoyment of” these resources. NPS

Management Policies (NPS 2001) state that the enjoyment of park resources and values by the 

people of the U.S. is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks and that the NPS is committed 

to providing appropriate, high-quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the parks. Because many 

forms of recreation can take place outside a national park setting, the NPS will therefore seek to 

provide opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the 

superlative natural and cultural resources found in a particular unit, and defer to other agencies, 

private industry, and nongovernmental organizations to meet the broader spectrum of 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-56 

recreational needs and demands that are not dependent on a national park setting. Among other 

things, the NPS seeks to provide opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited 

and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources found in a particular unit. 

However, the NPS will not allow visitors to conduct activities that 

• would impair park resources or values 

• would create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for other visitors or employees 

• are contrary to the purposes for which the park was established 

• would unreasonably interfere with the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the nature 

soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or commemorative locations 

within the park; NPS interpretive, visitor service, administrative, or other activities; NPS 

concessionaire operations; or other existing appropriate park uses 

Methods of Impact Analysis for Visitor Experience 

Because analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature, impacts presented here are generalized 

by type. It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future site-specific 

projects are proposed. As each alternative, if implemented in the future, contains activities that 

could potentially affect visitor experience, the broad analysis contained in this EA is designed to 

aid in future planning efforts. 

The draft General Management Plan for Badlands National Park (NPS, in preparation) focuses 

those visitor issues related to access, availability of information, and range and enjoyment of 

visitor activities. A “Long Range Interpretive Plan” prepared for the park (NPS 1999) outlines 

actions to inform and educate visitors about the park in an understandable and enjoyable manner. 

A review of relevant park planning and environmental documents related to visitor experience 

and a recent visitor use survey (Simmons and Gramman 2002) was conducted for this analysis. 

The area included within this EA analysis includes the Cedar Pass Developed Area (all 

alternatives) and the Pinnacles area (alternative B) (figure 1-2). 

Visitor Experience Impact Threshold Definitions 

Negligible: The effect would be undetectable by visitors or would be barely perceptible to most 

visitors; it would have no discernible effect. 

Minor: The action might result in a slightly detectable effect that would result in little 

detraction or improvement in the quality of the visitor experience. There would not 

be an overall effect on the visitor experience. 

Moderate: There would be a change in the experiences of a large number of visitors, resulting 

in a noticeable decrease or improvement in the quality of the experience. A 

decrease in quality would be indicated by a change in the frustration level or in the 

inconvenience for a period of time. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-57 

Major: A substantial improvement or a severe drop in the quality of many peoples’ 

experience would result from an action such as the addition or elimination of a 

recreation opportunity or a permanent change in access to a popular area that would 

be clearly detectable. A substantial, highly noticeable influence could have an 

appreciable effect on the visitor experience by permanently altering access to and 

the availability of various aspects of the visitor experience. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

If and when the Loop Road fails, the redesign of the access to the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

via this route will likely be altered (NPS, in preparation). This could include the portion of the 

Loop Road included in the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape, determined to be an 

integral part of its Mission 66 Design (John Milner Associates 2004; figures 1-2 and 1-3). A 

future realignment route could create a degree of disconnection between the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area/visitor center and the original Loop Road that currently runs immediately 

adjacent to these visitor facilities (figures 1-2 and 1-3). The future realignment of the road could 

result in effects of unknown type (adverse or beneficial) and intensity to the visitor experience. 

Beneficial effects to the visitor experience could result from the integration of Mission 66 

concepts into the design of the realignment route (for example, use of the visitor center to orient 

visitors to the park). Adverse impacts are possible if the realignment route results in a 

disconnection of the roadway from the focal point of the visitor experience (Cedar Pass 

Developed Area). When the realignment occurs, a more definitive statement of effect to visitor 

experience will be possible. 

Alternative A—No Action 

Under alternative A, the park would continue to manage and develop the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area (the focal point of visitor contact for the park) in the current (2004) manner. The NRHPeligible Ben Reifel Visitor Center and Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape would be 

managed as historic resources, although no specific management guidance would direct future 

development/use of the area, as is the case under alternatives B and C. Possible development 

within the cultural landscape (new construction, structure removal, circulation alterations) would 

result in effects to the visitor experience (for example, views, provision of facilities/services). 

Analysis 

Impact analysis for Visitor Experience under alternative A is related to the ability to provide 

visitor services and facilities, and the preservation of the cultural landscape and scenic views 

related to the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Several views from the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape contribute to its NRHP 

eligibility (figure 3-2) and enhancement of the visitor experience. Under the no-action 

alternative, there is a greater likelihood that scenic views could be affected into and out of the 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-58 

Cedar Pass Developed Area by development. Consequently, scenic views could be 

compromised, resulting in localized, long-term, minor to moderate adverse impacts to the visitor 

experience in the area. When compared to the two action alternatives that specifically include the 

preservation of open spaces areas (scenic views), the no-action alternative would have the 

potential for more negative effects on the ability of visitors to experience existing scenic views 

that contribute to the historic nature of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

As with all alternatives, the primary visitor contact point would remain at the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area, considered eligible for the NRHP as a cultural landscape (appendix A). This 

alternative includes no specific management guidance related to the historic nature of the area. 

Rather, future developments and other landscape modifications would undergo required NHPA 

(Section 106) review, typically on a project-by-project basis. The lack of management guidance 

under alternative A makes it more likely than under the action alternatives that incremental loss 

of integrity and context of the historic landscape would occur (piecemeal development in open 

space areas, evaluation/demolition/replacement of contributing landscape features). As a result of 

the potential loss of historic context and integrity of this important cultural landscape, 

management of the Cedar Pass Developed Area under this alternative has the potential to create 

localized, long-term, minor adverse impact to the visitor experience. This derives from the 

potential for the loss or eventually compromised nature of landscape features dating to the period 

of significance (1928-1966) and the effects this would have on visitors’ ability to understand and 

appreciate the historic development of the park. When compared to alternatives B and C under 

which CLR guidance focuses on the historic integrity of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the noaction alternative could potentially result in a decrease in the quality of visitor experience. 

Under the no-action alternative, new development necessary to provide for future visitor 

facilities and services would continue within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Visitors have 

indicated that facilities and services offered within the Cedar Pass Developed Area are “very 

important” or “extremely important” to them and contribute to their high visitation to this area. 

Approximately 25% of all visitors to the park visit the Ben Reifel Visitor Center located within 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area (Simmons and Gramann 2001). Under this alternative, buildings 

could be altered, removed or added, as needed; circulation routes would be altered to address 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Aside from minor adverse effects on the visitor experience related to 

enjoyment and understanding of the historic landscape (see above discussion), this flexibility 

could result in a minor to moderate benefit for visitors as a result of the park’s ability to provide 

desired services and facilities. Regarding the provision of visitor facilities and services, the noaction alternative would provide the highest degree of flexibility when compared to the two 

action alternatives, a benefit to visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The draft General Management Plan’s preferred alternative proposes a variety of actions that 

would affect the visitor experience at Badlands National Park (NPS, in preparation). These 

include expanded interpretative/educational opportunities; increased camping, hiking and 

picnicking areas; reductions in off-road use; additional visitor contact stations; expanded trail 

and road access, and improved driving/sightseeing experiences (NPS, in preparation: 141-145). 

The designation of the Crazy Horse Scenic Byway would likely increase traffic in and visitation 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-59 

to the Cedar Pass Developed Area though the future realignment of the Loop Road would likely 

influence this. Future construction of the Lakota Heritage and Education Center (south unit) and 

the potential development of an additional visitor center at the Minuteman Missile National 

Historic Site (I-90 corridor) would provide additional visitor information. Collectively, these 

actions could produce long-term major benefits related to the visitor experience (NPS, in 

preparation: 143). Several draft general management plan proposals other than those included in 

the preferred alternative could also affect visitor experience within Badlands National Park 

(NPS, in preparation). 

Conclusions 

Under this alternative, minor to moderate adverse impacts to the visitor experience would be 

expected. These would result from the possible loss of scenic views over time and the potential 

for incremental loss of historic character of the cultural landscape due to the lack of management 

guidance. Conversely, this alternative would likely result in minor to moderate benefits to visitor 

experience in its ability to provide needed visitor services and facilities, a benefit similar to that 

realized under alternative C. When compared to alternative B (no new development), the noaction alternative provides a significantly greater degree of flexibility in the provision of these 

visitor services/facilities. However, in so doing, it is possible that the historic integrity of the 

cultural landscape could be jeopardized from the lack of management guidance, creating adverse 

impacts to the visitor experience when compared to the two action alternatives. 

Alternative B—Preservation 

Alternative B focuses on the preservation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

and its contributing historic features. No new development would occur and only minor changes 

within the landscape to meet identified facility and operational needs would be allowed. 

Contributing historic and cultural landscape features would be identified, retained and preserved. 

Maintenance and repairs to historic features would be performed when necessary by staff or 

contractors with a moderate level of historic preservation expertise. Deteriorated features would 

be stabilized/protected. Intrusive, nonhistoric structures may be removed after their useful life. 

Open space areas and associated natural systems (vegetation, topography) would be preserved 

and remain undeveloped. 

As no new development would occur at the Cedar Pass Developed Area under this alternative, 

development would take place in the Pinnacles area, located approximately 20 miles to the 

northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area (figures 1-2 and 2-2). Types and locations of future 

development are unknown at this time but could include office/administrative space, staff 

housing, RV sites for researchers, storage space. Though there are no specific plans at this time, 

additional visitor contact services/facilities could potentially be located within the Pinnacles area 

in the future. 

Analysis 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-60 

Impact analysis for visitor experience under alternative B is related to the park’s future ability to 

provide adequate visitor services and facilities, and the preservation of the cultural landscape and 

scenic views related to the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

The general lack of development within the Cedar Pass Developed Area under this alternative 

would be instrumental in the preservation of scenic views from and into the area. This is 

considered a minor benefit to the visitor experience. Similar benefits would be realized under 

alternative C. When compared to the no-action alternative (no management guidance for 

development), alternative B would result in notably increased protection of open spaces and 

concomitant protection of scenic views in and out of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

As with all alternatives, the primary visitor contact point would remain at Cedar Pass Developed 

Area cultural landscape. Visitation rates to this area are high and most visitors consider the area 

to be a “very important” or “extremely important” part of their park experience (Simmons and 

Gramann 2001; see the “Visitor Experience” section in chapter 3). Under this alternative, the 

treatment for the historic landscape is that of preservation, with only minor alterations to the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area recommended. Only minor alterations necessary to retain the 

historic integrity of the historic landscape would occur; no new development is planned. Visitors 

to the area would have an opportunity to experience a relatively intact example of the NPS 

Mission 66 NPS design (Cedar Pass Developed Area), the NPS Modern architectural character of 

the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, and other historic elements of the NRHP-eligible cultural 

landscape related to the period of significance (1928-1966)(see John Milner Associates 2004). It 

is likely that many visitors are unaware of the historic nature and significance of the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area as it has just recently undergone extensive historical research leading to its 

eligibility for the NRHP (appendix A). The opportunity for visitors to experience this significant 

historic landscape represents a minor to moderate, long-time benefit to the visitor experience. 

Future park efforts to enhance educational and informational opportunities regarding the historic 

landscape and its history would increase these benefits further. Due to the preservation efforts 

related to the historic landscape at the Cedar Pass Developed Area under alternative B, the visitor 

experience would be notably improved when compared to the no-action alternative. 

Under this alternative, no new development would occur within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, 

significantly limiting opportunities for the park to provide additional or improved visitor 

facilities and services within this primary visitor contact site. The Cedar Pass Developed Area is 

one of the most frequently visited areas of the park and includes the Ben Reifel Visitor Center, 

the Cedar Pass Lodge restaurant/gift shop and cabins, a campground, restrooms, and picnic 

areas. In a visitor survey, this area rated as either “very important” or “extremely important” to 

visitors (Simmons and Gramann 2001). Future limitations in providing visitor services and 

facilities at Cedar Pass Developed Area could result in long-term, localized, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to the visitor experience. This effect could intensify over time should visitation 

rates increase and existing facilities come to the end of their useful lives. When compared to the 

no-action alternative, this alternative would result in decreased flexibility to provide for 

increasing and improved visitor facilities and services within the Cedar Pass Development Area, 

a detriment to visitor experience in this area. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-61 

If this alternative were selected, it is possible that some of these visitor services/facilities may be 

provided at the Pinnacles area, though types and numbers are unknown at this time. This 

uncertainty, coupled with the fact that draft general management plan proposes future visitor 

services/facilities at a variety of places throughout the park (NPS, in preparation), results in the 

conclusion that effects of alternative B on visitor experience are largely unknown and are 

discussed below in general terms. 

The Pinnacles entrance is the second most-used of the five official park entrances (the northeast 

entrance which leads to the Cedar Pass Developed Area is the most frequently used entrance). At 

this time, the only visitor services located at the Pinnacles area are two self-service entrance 

stations. This access point marks the western end of the Badlands Loop Scenic Byway. The Loop 

Road, with its numerous pullouts, overlooks, and fossil exhibit areas, is heavily traveled by park 

visitors, particularly during the summer season (Figure 3-5)(see the “Visitor Experience” section 

in chapter 3). According to NPS data regarding visitation, more than 90% of park visitors travel 

the Loop Road. Visitors have indicated a significant interest in visiting features around the 

Pinnacles entrance such as the Roberts Prairie Dog Town and Pinnacles Overlook, located within 

a mile of this access point (Simmons and Gramann 2001). Locating additional visitor facilities in 

the Pinnacles area could be beneficial to the many people using this entrance, as it would notably 

improve the amount and type of visitor information, services and facilities currently available in 

an area where several popular visitor attractions exist. Additional analysis related to effects to 

visitor experience will be necessary at the time these future off-site proposals are made. Effects 

(beneficial or adverse) of off-site (Pinnacles area) provision of visitor services/facilities would 

likely be long-term and local to regional in scale. Neither the no-action alternative nor alternative 

B include any use of the Pinnacles area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to the visitor experience of alternative B are similar to those described under 

the no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Under alternative B, minor to moderate benefits to the visitor experience would be realized from 

the preservation of scenic views into and out of the Cedar Pass Developed Area, as well as the 

preservation of the historic landscape. The inability to provide for new 

development/improvements (visitor services/facilities) within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

under this alternative and its potential to limit future visitor opportunities could result in minor to 

moderate adverse impacts to the visitor experience. Effects to the visitor experience related to 

provision of visitor services/facilities at the Pinnacles area (versus Cedar Pass Developed Area) 

are unknown at this time but could result in benefits to those interested in popular park features 

located in the general area (Pinnacles Overlook, Roberts Prairie Dog Town) and to the many 

park visitors that use the Pinnacles entrance. Providing additional visitor amenities at the 

Pinnacles entrance area (the second most-used park entrance) in the future would result in a 

notable improvement over the amount and type of visitor information and services and facilities 

currently available. Compared to the no-action alternative where many future visitor services 

would be met at the Cedar Pass Developed Area, alternative B restricts future visitor-related 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-62 

improvements within the Developed Area, while potentially improving such services/facilities at 

the Pinnacles entrance. 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative C focuses on the rehabilitation of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape 

through preservation of contributing historic features and landscape integrity, while improving 

the utility or function of the landscape through rehabilitation. Adaptive uses of existing structures 

are integral to this proposal. New, compatible uses would be allowed; however, their design 

would differ from the existing historic resources. New development would be limited to critical 

park needs and would occur within defined and distinct development sites (figure 2-3). Where 

appropriate, new development would occur in areas where other intrusive, nonhistoric structures 

have been removed. Some existing, noncontributing structures compatible with the cultural 

landscape would be retained/used. Open space areas, including natural systems (drainages, 

vegetation, Badlands formations, wildlife), would generally be preserved. Existing historic 

foundation plantings would be maintained and historic planting designs related to the Mission 66 

period would be reestablished, where possible, around the visitor center, the residential area, the 

lodge and the campground (figure 2-3). Interpretive information would be provided visitors 

through additional programming and interpretive trails. 

Analysis 

Impact analysis for visitor experience under alternative C focuses on the primary provision of 

visitor services and facilities at the Cedar Pass Developed Area through the rehabilitation of the 

cultural landscape, preservation of scenic views, and the provision of additional interpretive 

services. 

Effects related to the preservation of open space (scenic views) under this alterative are similar to 

that described for alternative B. 

As with all alternatives, the primary visitor contact point in the park would remain at the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area. This alternative includes the rehabilitation of a variety of cultural 

landscape features which could effect the visitor experience. Designers, staff and contractors 

involved in the rehabilitation of these structures would have high levels of historic preservation 

expertise. Visitors would be provided opportunities to experience a relatively intact example of 

the NPS Mission 66 NPS design at the Cedar Pass Developed Area with its complementary 

alterations, the NPS Modern architectural character of the Visitor Center, and other historic 

elements of the landscape related to its period of significance (1928-1966) (John Milner 

Associates 2004). Benefits to the visitor experience under alternative C are similar to those 

provided under alternative B and represent an improvement over the effects realized under the 

no-action alternative. 

Under this alternative, limited, compatible, new development would occur within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area within defined development sites, affording opportunities to provide for future 

visitor facilities and services (improvements to lodge, visitor center, campground). The ability 

and flexibility to respond to changing visitor needs through time, while retaining the historic 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-63 

nature of the Cedar Pass Developed Area as the primary visitor experience focal point, would 

likely result in minor to moderate, long-term, site-specific benefits to visitor experience. 

Compared to this alternative, the no-action alternative offers similar benefits to visitor 

experience related to flexibility in the future provision of visitor services. 

New interpretive materials and presentation are included under alternative C. Additional 

interpretive materials would be associated with programming for a future multi-use facility and a 

loop trail, both located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Interpretive materials could be 

used to promote education and understanding of a variety of important aspects of the park and 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area (such as natural and cultural resources). This proposal is 

considered a minor, localized, long-term benefit to the visitor experience, and one not realized 

under the other two alternatives. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to the visitor experience of alternative C are similar to those described under 

the no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Rehabilitation of the historic landscape at Cedar Pass Developed Area under this alternative 

would provide a variety of benefits to the visitors’ park experiences. Minor to moderate benefits 

would result from new adaptive improvements (rehabilitation) to the landscape, preservation of 

scenic view, flexibility in providing additional visitor services and facilities in the future, and the 

addition of interpretive materials. In comparison, the no-action alternative would allow an even 

greater degree of flexibility in providing services/facilities though, in so doing, the historic 

integrity of the cultural landscape could be compromised as a result of the lack of management 

guidance. In contrast to alternative B under which flexibility to provide future services and 

facilities within the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be more limited, the visitor experience 

under alternative C would be enhanced. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

Park operations for Badlands National Park are currently concentrated within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area. Alternatives analyzed have varying effects on park operations, including the 

transfer of some facilities and functions to the Pinnacles area (alternative B). This analysis is 

focused on the ability of the park to adequately and efficiently provide for functions that ensure 

efficient park operation (for example, maintenance/repair of facilities/systems, administration, 

staff housing) over the next 10-15 years. Discussions with park staff have helped form the 

foundation of the analysis (Mills, pers. comm. 2004; Dorsey, pers. comm. 2004). 

Guiding Regulations and Policies 

For this EA, maintenance and repair activities are considered a part of park operations. Routine 

maintenance/repair activities within an NRHP-eligible cultural landscape (Cedar Pass Developed 

Area) may require adjustments in the ways these activities are performed to ensure the 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-64 

landscape’s historic integrity is not compromised. Many routine maintenance/repair activities 

performed within the cultural landscape are exempted from further Section 106 (NHPA) review 

in the 1995 Programmatic Agreement among the NPS, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of SHPOs, provided that: 

1. the undertakings are based upon information adequate to identify and evaluate affected 

cultural resources 

2. the NPS finds that their effects on cultural resources in or eligible for the National 

Register will not be adverse based on criteria in 36 CFR 800 

3. that decisions regarding these undertakings are made and carried out in conformity with 

applicable policies, guidelines, and standards...and are documented using the form for 

“Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources” or another appropriate 

format (NPS 1995) 

“Preservation maintenance” activities considered exempt under the 1995 Programmatic 

Agreement are defined as: 

• Housekeeping: the removal of undesirable deposits of soil in ways that minimize harm to the 

surfaces treated, repeated at short intervals so that the gentlest and least radical methods can 

be used. 

• Routine maintenance: usually consists of service activities such as tightening, adjusting, 

oiling, pruning. 

• Cyclic maintenance: maintenance performed less frequently than annually; usually involves 

replacement or at least mending of material. 

• Stabilization: action to render an unsafe, damaged, or deteriorated property stable while 

retaining its present form (NPS 1998). 

Methods of Impact Analysis for Park Operations 

Because analysis for this EA is programmatic in nature, impacts presented here are generalized 

by type. It is assumed that additional analysis will be conducted when future site-specific 

projects are proposed. As each alternative contains activities that could potentially affect park 

operations, the broad analysis contained in this EA is designed to aid in future planning efforts. 

Facilities/functions related to park operations are concentrated within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area and include, among others, the following: park administration facilities, park maintenance 

operations, staff/concessionaire housing, campground, Cedar Pass Lodge and cabins, fire 

response, resource management, curatorial facilities, and associated infrastructure (roads, 

utilities). Where they relate to the visitor experience, visitor services/facilities are addressed 

above (in the “Visitor Experience” section). 

The Pinnacles area, the designated site for new development under alternative B, includes the 

following park operations/facilities: a ranger station (infrequently-staffed with no public contact 

responsibilities), two self-service entrance booths, park law enforcement offices; a radio repeater 

tower, and several other associated outbuildings/structures. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-65 

The area analyzed for impacts to park operations include the Cedar Pass Developed Area (all 

alternatives) and the Pinnacles area (alternative B) (figure 1-2). 

Park Operations Impact Threshold Definitions 

Negligible: Park operations would not be affected or the effect would be at low levels of 

detection. 

Minor: The effect would be detectable, but would be of a magnitude that it would not have 

an appreciable adverse or beneficial effect on parks operations. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial adverse or 

beneficial change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public. 

Major: The effect would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial adverse or 

beneficial change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public 

and would be markedly different from existing operations. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, work to ensure accessibility, health and safety, environmental and limited 

energy efficiency within the historic landscape would be allowed. The provision of an accessible, 

healthful and safe working environment, as well as enhancement of energy efficiency measures 

within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, would provide negligible to minor, long-term and 

localized benefits to park operations. This is realized through improved staff efficiency and 

accessibility, visitor and staff safety, and energy (and related financial) savings within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area. 

Alternative A—No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, as under all alternatives, the Cedar Pass Developed Area would 

remain the focal point for park operations. The cultural landscape would be managed as a 

historic resource and modifications to it would be evaluated under Section 106 of the NHPA to 

ensure its integrity is not jeopardized by future actions. However, no related management 

guidance would be used to guide how park operations continue to be provided currently or in the 

future, as would be the case under action alternatives. Changes within the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area to ensure proper functioning of park operations would be allowed, provided they do not 

compromise the landscape’s integrity. Accordingly, structures and circulation elements within 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area would be added, removed or altered to meet park operations 

needs. Design of new features and systems, as well as routine repair and maintenance activities, 

would be undertaken by staff or contractors without training, education, and/or experience in 

preservation technology. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-66 

Analysis 

Analysis of effects on park operations is focused on the effects of new development and 

improvements within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, issues of historic preservation related to 

development, and routine maintenance and management activities related to the historic 

landscape. Evaluation of effects relates to the issue of efficiency in the performance of necessary 

operations related to the park’s functioning. 

Under this alternative, development/improvements within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

related to park operations (housing, staff administration, operations/maintenance activities) 

would continue to be provided as long as they were compatible with the historic landscape. This 

would occur through additions, demolitions and/or alterations of landscape facilities. The noaction alternative would allow the continued concentration of park operations within its 

traditional area. New development (construction) could result in short-term, site-specific, minor 

adverse impacts to park operations during the construction period. In the long-term, the 

continued concentration of park operations in the Cedar Pass Develop Area would mitigate this, 

resulting in minor to moderate benefits in its contribution to productivity and efficiency. 

New development and other modifications (other than routine maintenance/repair) to the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area historic landscape under this alternative would be sited, designed, and 

constructed by staff and consultants without historic preservation expertise. Still, compliance 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (NPS 1996) is assumed to ensure that the 

integrity of the historic landscape would not be jeopardized (see “Assumptions Related to 

Cultural Resources” above). As many park staff/contractors may be unfamiliar with historic 

preservation techniques and concepts, a minimal amount of effort would be required on their part 

to ensure that future proposals do not jeopardize the integrity of the historic landscape under 

Section 106 of the NHPA (see the “Guiding Regulations and Policies” section under “Cultural 

Resources” above). As a result of the likely additional commitment of time and possibly finances 

required by staff and/or consultants to ensure future projects are compatible with the historic 

landscape, long-term, negligible to minor adverse impacts to park operations are possible under 

this alternative. When compared to the action alternatives, the no-action alternative, while still in 

compliance with historic preservation mandates, would result in the least impact to park 

operations related to historic preservation issues as a result of the nominal use of historic 

preservation specialists for landscape modifications. 

Under the no-action alternative, routine repair and maintenance of contributing elements of the 

historic landscape would be undertaken by staff or contractors without training, education, and/or 

experienced in preservation technology. Still, compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (NPS 1996) is assumed to ensure that the integrity of the historic landscape would 

not be jeopardized (see “Assumptions Related to Cultural Resources” above). As many park 

staff/contractors may be unfamiliar with working with historic preservation techniques and 

materials for day-to-day maintenance/repair activities, a minimal amount of training may be 

required to ensure efficiency and timeliness in these efforts. Limited training would be necessary 

to ensure that these actions would not result in long-term, adverse impacts to park operations. As 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-67 

a result of the commitment of staff time for training in historic preservation methods related to 

routine maintenance/repair activities, park operations could, in the short-term, experience 

negligible to minor adverse impacts, decreasing in intensity as workers become trained in basic 

preservation maintenance methods. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In general, increasing public visitation, resource protection and management efforts, the 

provision of appropriate and adequate visitor services, and staffing needs have taxed park 

budgets. Park operations can be adversely and cumulatively affected by such budget reductions. 

The current expansion/rehabilitation of the Ben Reifel Visitor Center (additional administrative 

offices and visitor services) and recent construction of the fire cache, the museum storage 

building, and the resource management building provides a negligible to minor cumulative 

benefit to park operations. This is realized through the enhancement of the park’s ability to 

supply coordinated services (fire fighting) and centralized and adequate resource management 

(curatorial storage of museum objects, natural resource management building), all of which 

positively affect park operations over the long-term. 

Conclusions 

The no-action alternative would result in minor to moderate benefits to park operations in its 

flexibility to provide for the proper functioning of park operations in an efficient and timely 

manner. Minor benefits to park operations are also expected through activities to ensure 

accessibility, health and safety, and energy efficiency. Short-term, minor adverse impacts can be 

expected as a result of disruptions of park operations related to new construction and 

improvements, consideration of historic preservation concepts in planning/development within 

the cultural landscape, and initial training in historic preservation techniques related to 

repair/maintenance of the historic landscape. The no-action alternative would allow for greater 

flexibility and ability to provide services and facilities within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

related to park operations, without the potential of moving some operations off site (Pinnacles 

area) and possibly creating inefficiencies for park operations as could be the case under 

alternative B. The no-action alternative could potentially result in increased flexibility for park 

operations as a result of the lack of specific management guidance (CLR) that dictates 

development locations as is the case under alternative C. 

Alternative B—Preservation 

Alternative B focuses on preservation of the NRHP-eligible cultural landscape at the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area, allowing for only minor changes within it to meet identified facility and 

operational needs. No new development would occur. Maintenance and repairs to historic 

features would be performed when necessary; deteriorated features would be 

stabilized/protected. Contractors and staff with moderate levels of historic preservation expertise 

would be used for any modifications made to the historic landscape. Nonhistoric structures that 

are intrusive to the historic landscape of the Cedar Pass Developed Area may be removed after 

their useful life. Open space areas would remain undeveloped. A few compatible structures that 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-68 

post-date the historic landscape’s period of significance (1928-1966) may be retained and used. 

Historic cultural landscape plantings would be preserved and maintained. New development 

needs related to park operations (housing, administration, operations/maintenance) would be 

provided in the Pinnacles area, located approximately 20 miles to the northwest of the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area, the traditional focus of park operations (figures 1-2 and 2-2). 

Analysis 

Potential impacts to park operations analyzed under this alternative are related to the possible 

transfer of some park operations/functions to the Pinnacles area from the Cedar Pass Developed 

Area; issues of historic preservation related to landscape modifications; routine 

maintenance/repair of the historic landscape elements; vegetation management within the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area; and the continued use of compatible, noncontributing features of that 

landscape. Evaluation of effects relates to the issue of efficiency in the performance of necessary 

operations related to the park’s functioning. 

Under this alternative, new development requirements related to park operations (housing, staff 

administration, operations/maintenance activities) would be provided at the Pinnacles area, 

approximately 20 miles to the northwest of the Cedar Pass Developed Area. This could result in 

a certain number of park operations and facilities that have been or would have been 

appropriately located within the Cedar Pass Developed Area being physically disconnected from 

the Cedar Pass Developed Area in the future. This potential physical disconnection could also 

hamper the ability to provide routine maintenance and inspection of new off-site structures. The 

intensity of the impact depends on the facilities and services related to park operations that are 

moved to the Pinnacles area (unknown at this time). This action has the potential to result in 

long-term impacts, possibly adverse, of unknown intensity, to park operations. Potential impacts 

would be adverse if inefficiencies regarding time and productivity related to park operations 

resulted from the physical disconnection from the Cedar Pass Developed Area. In addition, an 

increase in the numbers of structures requiring maintenance and annual inspection/repair would 

also have a negative impact on park operations. 

New development at the Pinnacles area would result in short-term, possibly localized, negligible 

to minor adverse impacts to existing park operations for the duration of the construction period. 

Depending on the nature of functions moved to the Pinnacles area, alternative B may result in a 

decrease in the efficiency of park operations when compared to alternative A. 

Modifications (other than routine maintenance/repair) to the Cedar Pass Developed Area historic 

landscape under this alternative would be conducted by staff and consultants with moderate 

levels of historic preservation expertise. This work could include implementation of preservation 

measures for structures within the landscape, the in-kind replacement of severely deteriorated 

historic features that are vital to the site’s historic character, or limited mitigation measures 

(including removal) designed to reduce their intrusion on the historic character of the cultural 

landscape. The use of staff and consultants with a moderate level of historic preservation would 

result in long-term, minor adverse impacts to park operations resulting from higher financial and 

time commitments. When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B could result in an 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-69 

increased impact to park operations resulting from the potential for additional time/financial 

commitments related to historic preservation issues. 

The treatment method of the historic landscape under this alternative is that of preservation 

defined as “the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, 

integrity, and materials of an historic property” (NPS 1996: 19). Under this alternative, a 

moderate level of historic preservation expertise would be required for routine maintenance 

activities that have the potential to affect the integrity of the historic landscape. As many workers 

may be unfamiliar with working under historic preservation guidelines for day-to-day 

maintenance/repair activities, a certain amount of training to ensure efficiency, timeliness and 

quality in maintenance efforts may be necessary. Additional historic preservation training that 

may be required to adequately accomplish routine maintenance/repair activities under alternative 

B could result in minor, short-term impacts to park operations. As workers become trained in 

preservation maintenance methods, adverse impacts related to routine maintenance and repair 

activities would be reduced. 

Under alternative B, a few compatible structures that post-date the landscape’s period of 

significance (1928-1966) (seasonal apartment building) within the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

would be retained and used. Their continued use may help to avoid the future need to find/create 

more space/facilities elsewhere within the park (Pinnacles area). This is a negligible to minor, 

long-term, localized benefit in its potential to provide financial savings, retain some existing park 

operations/functions in traditional locales, and avoid disruption of park operations within the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area. Comparatively, the no-action alternative proposes no reuse of 

compatible, noncontributing structures, though such reuse is possible and likely. 

Under alternative B, the historic plantings that contribute to the NRHP-eligibility of the Cedar 

Pass Developed Area cultural landscape would be preserved and maintained. When necessary, 

the plantings would be replaced with in-kind vegetation. The preservation and maintenance of 

this vegetation would likely result in negligible effects to park operations related to maintenance 

time involved. No new vegetation management activities specific to historic foundation plantings 

are included as part of the no-action alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts related to park operations of alternative B are similar to those described 

under the no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Under alternative B, necessary new development that, under the other two alternatives, would 

have occurred within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, would occur at the Pinnacles area. As a 

result of the off-site development, facilities/functions that have been appropriately located within 

the Developed Area could be moved to the Pinnacles area in the future. This has the potential to 

adversely affect long-term efficiency and productivity of park operations to an unknown degree. 

New construction at the Pinnacles area will likely cause short-term, negligible to minor adverse 

impacts to park operations. Minor adverse impacts can be expected related to additional 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-70 

time/financial commitments for the use of historic preservation specialists for landscape 

modifications within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, as well as for historic preservation training 

that related to routine maintenance activities. Park operations would experience negligible to 

minor benefits through the retention and use of several existing compatible landscape structures 

and features, as well as from activities to ensure accessibility, health and safety and energy 

efficiency. When compared to the no-action alternative, alternative B has a greater potential to 

adversely affect park operations, primarily as a result of the possible disconnection of park 

operations functions between the Pinnacles area and Cedar Pass Developed Area. 

Alternative C—Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative C focuses on the preservation and rehabilitation of contributing historic features and 

landscape integrity, while improving the utility or function of the landscape. Adaptive uses of 

existing structures are an integral component of the proposal. Existing park operation/functions 

would remain concentrated within the Cedar Pass Developed Area. New, compatible 

development would be limited to critical park needs and allowed within defined development 

sites (figure 2-3). In general, these development sites are areas that have been previously 

impacted by past development. Contractors and staff with high levels of historic preservation 

expertise would be used for any modifications made to the historic landscape. If compatible with 

the historic landscape, existing noncontributing structures would be retained/modified/used. 

Open space areas would generally remain undeveloped. Existing historic foundation plantings 

would be maintained and historic planting designs related to the Mission 66 period would be 

reestablished, where possible, around the Visitor Center, the residential area, the lodge and the 

campground (figure 2-3). 

Analysis 

Potential impacts to park operations analyzed under this alternative are related to new 

development within the Cedar Pass Developed Area, issues of historic preservation related to 

landscape modifications; routine maintenance/repair and vegetation management within the 

historic landscape; and the continued use of compatible, noncontributing features of that 

landscape. Evaluation of effects relates to the issue of efficiency in the performance of necessary 

operations related to the park’s functioning. 

Under this alternative, critical new space needs for park administration and operations would be 

provided within the existing Cedar Pass Developed Area through the following means: 1) new 

development; 2) the adaptive modification and reuse of existing structures; and 3) the 

replacement of noncontributing, incompatible structures with appropriate ones in the same 

locale. This would result in the continued concentration of appropriately located park operations 

equipment, facilities and administration at the Cedar Pass Developed Area. New development 

and structure modifications within the historic landscape would result in short-term, site-specific, 

minor adverse impacts to park operations during the construction period. In the long-term, the 

continued concentration of park operations appropriately located within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area would mitigate this, resulting in a minor to moderate benefit in its contribution 

to productivity and efficiency. Comparatively, the no-action alternative offers similar but slightly 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-71 

enhanced benefits to park operations in that the absence of management guidance dictating 

development locations may provide greater flexibility for efficiencies related to park operations. 

In order to retain a high level of historic integrity, modifications to the cultural landscape under 

this alternative (new additions, rehabilitation of existing structures) would be undertaken by 

planners, designers and contractors with high levels of expertise in historic preservation concepts 

and techniques. This could include conducting expert levels of building exterior and interior 

evaluations to determine historic integrity, original design and construction techniques. These 

efforts could result in a long-term, minor to moderate adverse impact to park operations resulting 

from increased financial and time commitments required under this alternative. Alternative C, 

when compared to the no-action alternative, would likely result in an increased adverse impact to 

park operations resulting from the potential for additional time/financial commitments related to 

historic preservation issues. 

The treatment method for the Cedar Pass Developed Area under alternative C is rehabilitation, 

defined as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, 

alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, 

cultural, or architectural values” (NPS 1996: 49). Under this alternative, staff and contractors 

with high levels of historic preservation experience would be used when routine maintenance 

and repair activities have the potential to affect the integrity of historic features or structures 

within the cultural landscape at Cedar Pass Developed Area. The need for the park to train and/or 

retain such workers to perform expert-level historic preservation work under alternative C could 

result in long-term, minor adverse impact to park operations. These would result from increased 

time and financial commitments and possible difficulty of training staff and retaining experts. 

Despite the need for higher levels of training, these impacts are similar to those realized under 

alternative B because many aspects of maintenance are routine and methodical in nature. Once 

trained, adverse impacts to park operations would not likely differ between action alternatives. 

Impacts to park operations related to maintenance are notably increased under alternative C 

when compared to the no-action alternative. 

Under alternative C, some compatible elements of the Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural 

landscape (buildings, roads) that post-date the period of significance would be retained and used. 

Their continued use may help to avoid the future need to find/create more space elsewhere in 

already over-capacity structures or to construct new facilities. This is a minor to moderate, longterm, localized benefit to park operations in financial savings (decreased need for new 

structures), its retention of existing park functions in their current locales, and avoidance of 

disruption of park operations as a result of structure removal/replacement. Comparatively, the 

no-action alternative proposes no reuse of compatible, noncontributing structures, though such 

reuse is possible. 

Under alternative C, the existing historic plantings that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area cultural landscape would be preserved and maintained. In addition, 

historic planting designs would be reestablished around the visitor center and the Residential 

Area. Research will also be conducted to identify original planting design intent for the 

campground and Cedar Pass Lodge areas. In all cases, when plantings are replaced or 

reestablished, there will be an emphasis on the use of appropriate xeric plants that require less 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 4-72 

water and general maintenance. In the short-term these research and reestablishment efforts 

could result in minor adverse impacts to park operations. However, they would ultimately be 

offset by a long-term, minor benefit in the reduction of vegetation maintenance time required. 

Comparatively, the no-action alternative includes no new vegetation management actions related 

to historic foundation plantings and would, therefore, incur neither adverse nor beneficial effects 

realized under alternative C. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts related to park operations of alternative C are similar to those described 

under the no-action alternative. 

Conclusions 

Under alternative C, the ability to provide necessary new facilities within the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area would result in long-term minor benefits and short-term minor adverse impacts 

to park operations. The use of highly trained historic preservation specialists in the research, 

planning, design and construction of new landscape elements could result in minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to park operations related primarily to additional time and financial 

commitments. Routine maintenance operations within the cultural landscape may experience 

minor adverse impacts resulting from the need to train or retain experts with a high level of 

expertise. The retention/use of compatible, noncontributing landscape structures would result in 

a minor to moderate benefit to park operations. Vegetation management actions under 

Alternative C would likely result in minor adverse impacts in the short-term, offset by minor, 

long-term benefits for park operations. Activities to ensure accessibility, health and safety, and 

energy efficiency would result in minor benefits for park operations. Alternative C provides for 

flexibility associated with park operations within the Cedar Pass Developed Area but would also 

involve a notable increase in time and financial commitment related to historic preservation 

issues when compared to alternative A. 
CHAPTER FIVE

CONSULTATION

AND

COORDINATION
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 5-1 

CHAPTER 5 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

THE PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS 

Public scoping meetings for the Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape Report 

Environmental Assessment were held in November of 2002. These scoping meetings represent 

early involvement of interested and affected public and are considered essential elements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process. 

Two public scoping meetings were held in the Badlands National Park area. News releases 

announcing the public meetings were sent to local and regional news media. 

The locations for the two public scoping meetings were: 

Kadoka, SD – November 20, 2002 (7 attendees) 

Wall, SD – November 21, 2002 (2 attendees) 

The meetings were designed to inform the public of the project to prepare a Cultural Landscape 

Report and Environmental Assessment for the Cedar Pass Developed Area in Badlands National 

Park, and to elicit public feedback regarding issues and management alternatives. A fact sheet 

related to the planning process was distributed at these meetings (appendix B). 

The meetings began with a presentation by NPS staff to explain the project background, the 

Mission 66 initiative, and issues to be considered in the EA. Following the presentation, 

members of the public provided comments and concerns. These comments involved issues of 

current projects, shading, access, visitor experience, and light pollution. Summaries of these 

meetings, including public comments and concerns, are presented in appendix B. 

AGENCY CONSULTATION 

The following agencies were consulted during the preparation of this EA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that each federal agency, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the Interior, ensure that proposed agency actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in destruction or adverse impact to designated critical 

habitat. 

Informal consultations with the service took place in February 2004 with a phone conversation 

between Total Quality NEPA staff and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff related to the 

Cedar Pass Developed Area and the planning process. A review of the agency’s web site listings 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 5-2 

of special status species for Jackson, Pennington and Shannon counties was conducted 

(http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm). The service will be provided a 

copy of this draft document for their review and determination of concurrence with EA findings. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

In 2004, consultation with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks was initiated 

regarding state-listed threatened and endangered species located within or around the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area and the Pinnacles area. Communications with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks regarding state-listed threatened and endangered species are included in 

appendix D. A review of the agency’s web site listings for special status species was conducted 

(http://www.sdgfp.info/wildlife/diversity/tes.htm). The agency will be provided a copy of this 

draft document for review and determination of concurrence with EA findings. 

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer 

The South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer was consulted in 2004 regarding the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of the Cedar Pass Developed Area 

cultural landscape. Related correspondence regarding the NRHP eligibility of the cultural 

landscape is provided in appendix A. 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Name Title Education/Responsibility 

Total Quality NEPA 

 

Kathryn Joyner Senior Analyst M.S. Archeology/Anthropology, 

B.S. Education 

Responsible for cultural resources, 

visitor experience, park operations, 

wildlife, special status species, 

paleontological resource analysis. 

Cristina Rumbaitis-del Rio Senior Analyst PhD. Ecology and Evolutionary 

Biology, 

B.A. Earth and Environmental Sciences 

Responsible for vegetation analysis. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 5-3 

Heidi West Principal Ph.D. Environmental Science and 

Engineering, MA. Science 

Communications, M.S. Biology, 

B.S. Biology 

Responsible for technical document 

review. 

Juanita Barboa Technical Editor B.S. Technical Communication 

Responsible for final 

editing/formatting. 

John Milner 

Associates, Inc. 

 

Rob McGinnis, ASLA Principal 

Landscape 

Architect 

M.L.A. Landscape Architecture 

Responsible for Cultural Landscape 

Report, alternatives, graphics/mapping. 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS 

Following is the list of agencies and organizations that will receive a copy of this draft EA. 

Federal Department and Agencies

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Tribal Governments and Organizations

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, P.O. Box 430, Rosebud, SD 57570 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, P.O. Box 590, Eagle Butte, SD 57625 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council, P.O. Box D, Fort Yates, ND 58538 

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, P.O. Box H, Pine Ridge, SD 57770 

State of South Dakota

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

Office of the South Dakota State Preservation Officer 

Local Governments

Jackson County, SD 

Pennington County, SD 

Shannon County, SD 

Mayor of Wall, SD 

Mayor of Interior, SD 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 5-4 
REFERENCES
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 R-1 

REFERENCES CITED 

Augustana College Archeology Lab. 1998. Site 39JK227 Documentation. 

Beaubien, Paul, 1953 Preliminary report of Archeological Reconnaissance, Badlands National 

Monument. NPS, Midwest Region, Omaha. 

Benton, R.C., Evanoff, E., Herbel, C. and Terry, D.O., Jr. 2001. “Baseline mapping of fossil 

bone beds at Badlands National Park; A First in Park History.” In Santucci, V.L. and 

McClelland, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Fossil Resource Conference: National Park 

Service Geological Resources Division Technical Report, NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-01/01, 

p. 85-94. 

Benton, Rachel (NPS), 2004. Personal communication regarding underlying bedrock within the 

Cedar Pass and Pinnacles study areas. 

Bjork, P.R., 1994, 1995, 1996. Annual Reports for Summer Field Excavations of the Pig Dig at 

Badlands National Park. On file with the Badlands National Park Library. 

Carbyn, L., S. Brechtel, D. Hjertaas, and C. Mamo. 1993. An Update on the Swift Fox 

Reintroduction Program in Canada. Natural History Occasional Paper, 19. Alberta, 

Canada: Provincial Museum of Alberta. 

Clark, J., J.R. Beerbower, and K.K. Kietzke. 1967. “Oligocene Sedimentation, Stratigraphy, 

Paleocology and Paleoclimatology in the Big Badlands of South Dakota,” Fieldiana: 

Geology Memoirs. Vol. 5, Field Museum of Natural History, 158 pp. 

DiBenedetto, J.N. 1997. “Preliminary Investigation of the Stratigraphy, Fauna and Taphonomy 

of the Brian Maebius Site, Tyree Basin, Badlands National Park, South Dakota.” Final 

Report for Geologist in the Parks Internship. On file, Badlands National Park Library, 32 

pp. 

1998. “An Oligocene Tree Stump from Badlands National Park, Scenic Member of the 

Brule Formation, Interior, South Dakota.” Abstracts with Programs, the 5th Conference 

on Fossil Resources: Partners Preserving our Past, Planning our Future. p. 14. 

1999. “Continuing Investigation of the Stratigraphy, Fauna and Taphonomy of the Brian 

Maebius Site, Tyree Basin, Badlands National Park, South Dakota, Challenge Cost Share 

Final Report.” On file in the Badlands National Park Library. 28 pp. 

Dorsey, Ronald (NPS). 2004. Personal communication regarding Badlands National Park 

operations. 

Gries, John Paul. 1998. Roadside Geology of South Dakota, 2nd ed., Missoula, Montana: 

Mountain Press Publishing Company. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 R-2 

Hauk, J.K. 1993. Badlands: Its Life and Landscape. Badlands Natural History Association, 8th

Ed. 

Herbel, C.L. 1997, 1998. “Annual Reports for the field excavation, lab preparation and curation 

of fossils collected from the Pig Dig.” On file with the Badlands National Park Library. 

John Milner Associates Inc. 2004. The Cedar Pass Developed Area, Badlands National Park, 

Cultural Landscape Report (90% Draft). Charlottesville VA. 

Johnson, Ann. 1987a. “Archeological Inventory in Residence Area.” Rocky Mountain Region 

Archeological Project Report. On file, SD Archeological Research Center. 

1987b. “Archeological Inventory in the Concession Cabin Area.” Rocky Mountain 

Region Archeological Project Report. On file, SD Archeological Research Center. 

Jones, B. 1991. “Archeological Inventory and Evaluation along Loop Road Segment 10-2, 

Badlands National Park, South Dakota.” 

1999. “Archeological Inventory of two Proposed Construction Locations, Badlands 

National Park, SD.” 

2000. Archaeological Overview and Assessment. NPS Midwest Archeological Center, pp. 

1-10. 

Kenner, Brian (NPS--Chief of Natural Resources, Badlands National Park). 2004. Personal 

communication regarding wildlife and vegetation issues at the Pinnacles Entrance area. 

Kirk Associates, LLC. 2004. Cedar Pass Developed Area: Cultural Landscape Value Analysis 

Draft Report, May 20, 2004. Table entitled: “Cedar Pass Developed Area, Badlands 

National Park, South Dakota, Cultural Landscape Report, Value Analysis Workshop,” p. 

67. Grosse Point Park, MI. 

Kotliar, Natasha B., Bruce W. Baker, April D. Whicker, and Glenn Plumb. 1999. “A Critical 

Review of the Assumptions about the Prairie Dog as a Keystone Species.” Environmental 

Management. 24 (2). 

Licht, D.S. 1997. Ecology and Economics of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 

Miller, Paul. 2002. Construction Excavation Monitoring for Cultural Resources at the Badlands 

National Park Administrative Site, Jackson County, SD. Quality Service Report #011002. 

Mills, Marianne (NPS—Chief of Resource Education, Badlands National Park). 2004. Personal 

communication regarding study area conditions within the Cedar Pass and Pinnacles 

study areas (cultural resources, visitor experience, wildlife, vegetation, park operations). 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 R-3 

National Park Service (NPS). n.d. “What is Mission 66,” document on file at Badlands National 

Park, Mission 66 file, National Archives—Plains, Kansas City, MO. 

 in preparation. Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 

Badlands National Park. 7/03. 

1974. Archeological Survey, Cedar Pass Area, Badlands National Monument. Midwest 

Letter Report, October 23, 1974. 

 1976. Environmental Assessment: Development Concept Plan, Badlands National 

Monument, Cedar Pass. 1/1976. 

 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Plan and Development 

Concept Plan, Cedar Pass, Badlands National Park. Denver Service Center. 

 1985. Badlands South Unit: General Management Plan Revision, Draft Development 

Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment. Denver Service Center. 

 1994. Protecting Cultural Landscapes—Planning, Treatment and Management of 

Historic Landscapes. Preservation Briefs. Charles A. Birnbaum, on-line resource 

available at http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/brief36.htm. 

 1995. Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service (USDI), the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers. 

 1996. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Charles A. Birnbaum, ed., 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

 1998. Cultural Resource Management Guideline. NPS-28. 

 1999. Long-Range Interpretive Plan: Badlands National Park. On file at Badlands 

National Park, South Dakota. 

 2000. Badlands National Park Archeological Overview and Assessment. Revised 6/2000. 

Prepared by Marianne Mills, Badlands National Park, South Dakota. 

 2001. NPS Management Policies 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. Washington D.C. 137 pp. 

 2002. Environmental Assessment: Site Development for new Fire Cache, Resource 

Management Storage Building, and Museum Storage Building at Cedar Pass Developed 

Area. Badlands National Park, Jackson County, South Dakota. August 20, 2002. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 R-4 

 2003a. Integrated Weed Management Plan, Badlands National Park. On file at Badlands 

National Park. 

 2003b. Castle Trail Complex Demonstration Transportation System Plan. Badlands 

National Park. NPS, Denver Service Center. 

 2004a. Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making, 

Director’s Order #12. 

 2004b. Handbook to Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis and Decision-Making (preliminary draft), June 2004. 

 

 2004c. Environmental Assessment for the Fire Management Plan, Badlands National 

Park, Jackson, Pennington, and Shannon Counties, South Dakota. 

2004d. Fossil Hunters (online). National Park Service. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/badl/exp/home.htm. 

Prosser, C. 2004. Personal Communication. Exotic Plant Management Team Liaison, Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park. 

Raymond, W.H. and R. U. King. 1976. Geologic Map of the Badlands National Monument and 

Vicinity, West Central South Dakota. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey 

Map I-934. 

SARC (State Archeological Research Center). 1997. An Intensive Cultural Resources Inventory 

of the Proposed Cliff Shelf Nature Trail Renovation Project, Near Cedar Pass in 

Badlands National Park, Jackson County, SD. Prepared by Roger Williams. 

Simmons, Todd and James H. Gramann. 2000. Badlands National Park Visitor Study, Summer 

2000. Visitor Services Project Report 123. 

Smith, B.E., D.M. Browning, E.N. Taylor, R.S. Ferguson, and K. Yturralde. 1998. 

Herpetofaunal Surveys of the Fall River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service, 

Southwestern South Dakota, and Badlands National Park. Report submitted to the 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, US Geological Survey, US Department of the 

Interior. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP). 2004a, Letter of consultation 

(received 4/18/04) regarding species of special concern related to the Cedar Pass 

Developed Area Cultural Landscape Report. 

 2004b. On-line resource, Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species of South 

Dakota. http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/index.htm. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 R-5 

South Dakota Historical Society. 2002. “Determination of eligibility, 39JK251 (Millard’s Dan 

Hall).” 

 2004. On-line resources related to the Prehistory/History of South Dakota. 

http://www.sdhistory.org. 

Stevens, K.K. 1995. “An Orellan Fossil Site in the Scenic Member of the Brule Formation. 

White River Group, South Dakota.” In: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of 

America Meetings, North-Central and South-Central Sections. 88 pp. 

 1996a. “Taphonomy of an Orellan (Early Oligocene) Fossil Assemblage in the Scenic 

Member, Brule Formation, White River Group, Badlands National Park, South Dakota.” 

In: Abstracts with Programs Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section. 

28:4:39. 

 1996b. “Taphonomy of Early Oligocene (Orellan) Vertebrate Assemblage in the Scenic 

Member, Brule Formation, White River Group, Badlands National Park, South Dakota.” 

Unpublished Masters thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City. 

103 pp. 

Taylor, Dee. 1961. Salvage Archeology In Badlands National Monument. Manuscript submitted 

to NPS, Midwest Region, Omaha. 

Terry, D.O. 1996a. “Stratigraphic and Paleopedologic Analysis of Depositional Sequences 

within the Pig Wallow Site, Badlands National Park.” Final Report for NRPP Grant on 

file in the Badlands National Park Library, 164 pp. 

 1996b. “Stratigraphy, Paleopedology and Depositional Environment of the Conata Picnic 

Ground Bone Bed (Orellan), Brule Formation, Badlands National Park, South Dakota”. 

In: Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America Meetings, Rocky Mountain 

Section, 28:4:40. 

1998. “Stratigraphy, depositional environments, and fossil resources of the Chadron 

Formation in the South Unit of Badlands National Park, South Dakota.” pp. 127-128. In 

J.E. Martin, J. Hoganson and R.C. Benton (eds.), Partners Preserving our Past, Planning 

our Future. Proceedings for the Fifth Conference on Fossil Resources, Dakotaterra 

Volume. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fire Sciences Laboratory. 2000. Fire Effects Information System. (Online). Available 

at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [accessed 12/13/03]. 

USFWS. 2004a. Phone consultation between Charlene Bessken (USFWS) and Kathie Joyner 

(Total Quality NEPA) related to threatened and endangered species associated with the 

Cedar Pass developed area Cultural Landscape Report. 
Environmental Assessment • Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape • November 2004 

 R-6 

 2004b. On-line resource related to federally listed species, by county. 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endangered_species.htm 

USFWS, USDI, USFS. 1994. Final EIS: Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction: Conata 

Basin/Badlands, South Dakota. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Ecological Services Office. 

USGS-NPS. 1999. Vegetation Mapping Program. Technical Memorandum No. 8260-00-02, 

Badlands National Park, South Dakota, National Park Service. November 1999. 

Whisenant, S. 1987a. “Effects of fire on mixed-grass plant communities in Badlands National 

Park.” Annotated Bibliography. 96 pp. 

Whisenant, S. 1987b. “Effects of fire on mixed-grass plant communities in Badlands National 

Park.” Final Progress report. 21 pp. 

Will-Wolf, S. 1998. “Annotated list of lichens species in Badlands National Park.” Unpublished 

report. 
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A 

Letter of Concurrence from South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer 

Regarding Eligibility of the Cedar Pass Developed Area Cultural Landscape for the 

National Register of Historic Places

APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B 

Summaries of Public Scoping Meetings 

Kadoka, SD – November 20, 2002 

Wall, SD – November 21, 2002