H32(2200) 

Memorandum 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

JUL 1 8 2016 

Deputy Director, Operations 

Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science~\l,Q~ Regional Director, Midwest Region Isl Cameron Sholly 

Transmittal of Effigy Mounds National Monument Review Team Report 

In response to a range of findings related to management actions taken at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument (EFMO) between 1999 and 2010, a review team was ordered and their report entitled 

Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service (attached) has been received 

and reviewed by both of us. The team was given wide latitude in determining what needed be included in 

their review/report. 

In summary, a range of illegal and procedural violations occurred at the Monument between 1999 and 

2010. The violations included failure to comply with provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on at least 78 projects, including the 

construction of an extensive boardwalk system on sensitive burial sites. Over $3 .3 million in federal 

funding was expended on these projects. The Superintendent primarily responsible for the violations that 

occurred was removed from her position in 2010. Subsequently, a criminal investigation was conducted 

by the Investigative Services Branch (ISB), and forwarded to the U.S. Attorney, who declined criminal 

prosecution in 2013. 

The goals of the review centered on shedding light on the various incidents that occurred and decisions 

that were made at EFMO between 1999 and 2010, while providing recommendations and positive actions 

to improve cultural resource stewardship going forward. The review team examined an array of 

information, including the Draft Serious Mismanagement Report: Effigy Mounds National Monument 

1999-2010 and law enforcement case investigation materials. The Mismanagement Report, authored by 

the current Superintendent, selected park staff, and the involved ISB agent, and was compiled to highlight 

the illegal actions taken by the former Superintendent(s). The Draft Report provided some very relevant 

findings and recommendations, however, was largely focused on the previous Park Superintendent. 

The review team's report states (page 12) that the team currently at EFMO is "committed to the mission 

and purpose of the National Park Service," and that the park "has worked very hard to improve 

relationships with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and traditionally associated tribes." It 

states that all EFMO staff are now required to input "every project in the Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment (PEPC) website, which allows for increased transparency and accountability." 

The review team report also identifies (page 14) several failures and weaknesses in cultural resources 

management (both at EFMO and NPS-wide ), that fall within three main categories: 1) responsibility and 
authority; 2) planning, priority setting, and decision making; and 3) transparency, communication, and 

accountability. 

Overall, there are more than 70 recommendations in the team's report that need evaluation and 

consideration. The Associate Director for Cultural Resources and I will work together to evaluate the 

recommendations and take the actions necessary to ensure that the overall performance of our Cultural 

Resource programs at the park, regional, and national levels is elevated. 

Within the Midwest Region (MWR), specifically, multiple actions have occurred and are occurring, as a 

result of the EFMO incidents. These actions include: 

• Since 2010, nearly 200 Midwest superintendents, 106 coordinators, and others have attended 

formal training on the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)- Section 106, and other 

applicable laws. 

• MWR now has a full-time NHP A, Section 106 Coordinator to provide more effective regionwide 

oversight. 

• A compliance information aid was created for Midwest parks that is being routinely used by 

parks to ensure proper compliance procedures are followed. 

• In 2015, MWR established an Office of American Indian Affairs to improve relationships with 

tribal partners across the region. 

• The MWR now has a permanent, full-time Associate Regional Director for Cultural Resources, 

who also oversees the Midwest Archeological Center and provides direct senior leadership and 

oversight on all cultural resource activities throughout the region. 

• The region is actively developing better methods for ensuring that compliance has been 

completed prior to project dollars being released. 

• The region is actively developing better methods to monitor and compare expended park project 

dollars outlined in the PEPC system. 

We will continue working together to ensure not only that our cultural resources program continues to 

improve, but also to develop proper safeguards for preventing similar occurrences in the future. 

By this memorandum, we are formally transmitting the EFMO review team report to you and requesting 

your approval and concurrence to proceed with analyzing and implementing the recommendations made 

wherever possible. 

Attachment 

Approved: 

~ o:o,£ De~~i:;z;tor, Operations 

:1, :17· I~ 

Date 
Marching Bear Mounds (NPS Photo)
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service 

Page 2 of 48 

Page intentionally left blank 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 3 of 48
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service 

Page 4 of 48 

Page intentionally left blank 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 5 of 48
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 6 of 48

The purpose of the Effigy Mounds after action review is to determine root causes of the 

incidents that took place at Effigy Mounds National Monument (monument) between 

1999 and 2010 that led to impacts to cultural resources and strained relations with 

American Indians, and to recommend positive actions to improve National Park Service 

(NPS) practices going forward. The outcome of the after action review is twofold. First, 

the National Park Service will examine and recommend actions to help ensure that the 

same or similar incidents do not happen again at this or other park units. Second, is to 

foster healing among NPS staff at the monument, Midwest Regional Office, and 

Washington Support Office, and between the National Park Service and traditionally 

associated tribes. The incidents at the monument inspired this report to serve as a 

positive lessons learned document to guide the stewardship of all cultural resources in 

the National Park Service. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 7 of 48

In October 2014, Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director for Cultural Resources,

Partnerships and Science, and Patty Trap, acting Midwest Regional Director, began the 

process of assembling a team of experienced specialists to derive cultural resources 

lessons learned from the incidents that took place at Effigy Mounds National Monument

between 1999 and 2010. In addition, the team also considered Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) violations that occurred prior to 1999, but were still under 

litigation. 

The team reviewed an array of information to familiarize themselves with the incidents 

that took place at the monument, including the “Draft Serious Mismanagement Report: 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 1999-2010” (April 2014) and law enforcement case 

investigation materials. The report and materials focus on the law enforcement 

investigation of the incidents at the monument while this report focuses on cultural 

resources stewardship. In addition, the team reviewed newspaper and other online

articles and conducted listening sessions with NPS staff at both the monument and 

Midwest Regional Office. During the week of May 18, 2015, the team assembled at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument. The purpose of the trip was to conduct a series of 

interviews with current staff including the superintendent, cultural resource program 

manager, chief of visitor services, and the special agent who led the investigation. While 

at the monument that week the team participated in an all-employee meeting that 

included long-term and new monument staff. During the week of January 18, 2016, the 

team assembled at the Midwest Regional Office for the purposes of meeting with 

regional office staff about the incidents and to brief national and regional leadership on 

the recommendations in this report.

Also available for the team’s reference were the “Towards Excellence” Effigy Mounds 

National Monument Operations Evaluation (April-May 2009) and various park planning 

documents. The team’s knowledge and experience working with cultural resources laws 

(National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990), NPS 

Management Policies 2006, and the National Park Service programmatic agreement 

(2008) for the purposes of Section 106 compliance (Section 106 programmatic 

agreement) were integral to conducting the after action review. While these incidents 

impacted primarily archeological sites and museum collections, this report is concerned 

with the stewardship of all cultural resources.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 8 of 48

The team, representing a breadth and depth of cultural resources and management 

experiences, was comprised of NPS employees from outside the Midwest Region. 

Effigy Mounds Team

Sande McDermott Deputy Associate Director for Cultural Resources

Stewardship and Science, NPS Federal Preservation 

Officer, and Team Leader

Stanley Bond NPS Chief Archeologist and Department of the Interior 

Consulting Archeologist

Tami DeGrosky Superintendent, Nez Perce National Historical Park

Theresa Langford Curator, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

Joe Watkins Chief, Tribal Relations and American Cultures; NPS 

Tribal Liaison

Pam Holtman Program Analyst (Planner) and Team Editor

All members of the team contributed to this report and are in agreement with the 

observations and recommendations in this report. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 9 of 48

In 2009, during an Operations Evaluation at Effigy Mounds National Monument, a 

Midwest Regional Office team of subject matter experts learned of a boardwalk under 

construction to a mound group that had to be rerouted and extended, and proper 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) compliance had not been done. Many other non-compliant projects were also 

discovered. Following the Operations Evaluation in April 2009 and a September 2009 

review by two Midwest associate regional directors that found evidence of continued 

non-compliance, the Midwest regional director put in place several administrative 

actions at the monument that included an order to cease all new construction; to subject 

all routine activities subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act to review and clearance by the associated regional director for cultural 

resources; and to replace the monument’s chief of maintenance with a new nominee 

from the monument staff to serve as the Section 106 coordinator for the monument 

upon the approval of the Midwest Region Section 106 coordinator. In August 2010, the 

Department of Interior Office of the Inspector General received a complaint from a 

concerned citizen that alleged waste, fraud, and abuse by monument employees related 

to non-compliant projects and an alleged cover up by regional office officials. At the 

direction of the Office of the Inspector General, a criminal investigation was conducted 

by the Investigative Services Branch (ISB) of the National Park Service. At the 

conclusion of the investigation, the ISB investigator requested consideration for 

prosecution by the US Attorney’s Office of the superintendent and the chief of 

maintenance for ARPA violations. The subsequent declination of the US Attorney’s 

Office to decline to prosecute enabled the National Park Service to perform an internal 

investigation. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 10 of 48

The investigation revealed that during the time period of 1999-2010, monument staff 

failed to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the National 

Environmental Policy Act on at least 78 projects using $3,368,704 in federal funds, in 

particular an extensive system of boardwalks throughout the more than 200 American 

Indian sacred mounds. Although the criminal investigation focused on two projects

because of the statute of limitations, associated with these projects were major project 

review deficiencies and in many cases a complete lack of National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 106 and NEPA compliance. 

 Posts with mounds in the background (NPS Photo)
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 11 of 48

In a separate incident, a recent guilty plea brings to a close a multi-year investigation 

led by an Investigative Services Branch special agent into the theft of ancient American 

Indian remains from Effigy Mounds National Monument by the monument 

superintendent. The monument's superintendent served for more than 20 years. During 

his watch, he "voluntarily, intentionally and knowingly removed prehistoric skeletal 

remains," according to Iowa's Northern District US Attorney's Office. On or about July 

16, 1990, the superintendent carried a box of human remains from the monument's 

curatorial facility to his car, and directed a subordinate to do the same. He then drove 

the stolen remains home and hid them for more than two decades. After November of 

1990, these remains fell under the protection of NAGPRA. When the boxes were finally 

recovered, investigators found that several of the human bones were broken or 

fragmented beyond recognition. "It is a very sad day when a public official betrays the 

public's trust," said US Attorney Kevin Techau. "This was a serious crime and the 

betrayal was compounded by a violation of the most sacred trust placed in the 

Superintendent of Effigy Mounds National Monument." Area tribes found the looting 

particularly egregious. "These are people," said Iowa's state archeologist John 

Doershuk, "and there are living peoples who care deeply about these remains, just as 

most modern Americans would about their ancestors." A federal judge in Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa will make the final ruling in sentencing. As the case is still in litigation, this report 

will not discuss details beyond these facts taken from public documents.

The persons under investigation in both incidents no longer work for the National Park 

Service.

Looking back, everyone is astonished that the incidents at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument could have happened over the course of so many years. National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 compliance, as well as ARPA and NAGPRA compliance, 

processes failed, both in the spirit and letter of the law. Inevitably two questions come to 

mind. Are similar incidents happening in another park unit? How do we make sure these 

incidents never happen again? These incidents were perpetrated by individuals and 

their guilt falls under the legal arena. Pertinent to this report is determining how they 

were able to get away with it for so long. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 12 of 48

The current staff at Effigy Mounds National Monument is very committed to the mission 

and purpose of the National Park Service. They work hard to preserve and protect the 

monument’s cultural resources and to provide an enjoyable visitor experience.

Monument staff is now required to put every project in the Planning, Environment and 

Public Comment (PEPC) website which allows for increased transparency and

accountability. The park worked very hard to improve relationships with the state historic 

preservation office (SHPO) and traditionally associated tribes. The monument hired a 

former tribal historic preservation officer as the Section 106 and consultation

coordinator. In addition, the Midwest Regional Office filled the regional Section 106 

coordinator position. The monument is in the process of developing a programmatic 

agreement with the state historic preservation office and traditionally associated tribes

for routine and repetitive work. The staff is humiliated about their colleagues’ past 

actions, angry about the adverse effect on park resources, and ready to move forward. 

The stewardship of cultural resources in the National Park Service as a whole is 

generally healthy. Overall the cultural resources workforce is talented and they take 

pride in their accomplishments. They are also passionate about the resources they 

protect. Managers at the park, regional, and national levels are generally committed to 

the mission of the National Park Service – to preserve unimpaired the cultural resources 

and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of 

the public. Servicewide documents such as A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second 

Century of Stewardship and Engagement and National Park Service Cultural Resource 

Challenge: Preserving America’s Shared Heritage in the 21st Century recognize the 

value of cultural resources and document a commitment to stewardship. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 13 of 48

Throughout the National Park Service, the PEPC website works well when used 

appropriately and routinely, as does the Section 106 programmatic agreement. In 

particular, the six-member park cultural resources management teams required under 

the 2008 Section 106 programmatic agreement work well when used; and the bi-yearly 

state historic preservation office meetings work well when parks hold them.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 14 of 48

The National Park Service is the management entity Congress created to manage the 

system unimpaired, or to ensure there is no degradation of values for which a park unit 

was created. The National Park Service and the National Park System are two separate 

entities. The National Park System (system) is the combined parks and protected 

places, “the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein.” Even according to 

NPS Management Policies 2006, the National Park System is “The sum total of the land 

and water now or hereafter administrated by the Secretary of the Interior through the 

National Park Service for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational or other 

purposes.” It is essential to the health of the system that the service understand that 

while the service does great good for the system it can also do wrong to the system. 

The strength of the service increases with assessment and the correction of its course 

when necessary. To be successful, the service must address stewardship in a 

preventative way, not as a reaction or response to problems or issues once they arise.

The incidents at Effigy Mounds National Monument are a case study in stewardship 

weaknesses that are likely not unique to the monument; stewardship weaknesses occur 

across the National Park Service on a continuum of severity. In the case of Effigy 

Mounds National Monument, self-evaluation revealed breaks in the system of checks 

and balances and the line of authority, which allowed those who were culpable to 

prevail for so long. 

The team determined that failures and weaknesses fall under three main categories in 

both the case study and Servicewide: 1) responsibility and authority, 2) planning, priority 

setting, and decision-making, and 3) transparency, communication, and accountability. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 15 of 48

 Inadequate use of compliance process and tools, including PEPC: 

o The monument spent more than $3 million of federal funds on projects

with little or no compliance.

 Park staffing unrelated to park purpose:

o Preserving nationally significant archeological resources is the reason the 

monument was created, yet the appropriate cultural resources staff were 

not hired or maintained by the monument to support the monument’s 

purpose. In addition, cultural resources staff and staff with cultural 

resources expertise were not part of the decision-making process.

o Cultural resources staff and staff with cultural resources expertise were 

systematically reduced in importance regarding the operation of the 

monument.

 NPS staff unsure of their role, authority, and responsibility: As a result, NPS staff 

familiar with Effigy Mounds National Monument staff and operations appeared to 

be

o Not alarmed by inadequate cultural resources staffing at the monument.

o Not concerned that the Section 106 coordinator at the monument had no 

experience with Section 106 and was the chief of maintenance who 

created the projects to be reviewed.

o Not alarmed by ten years of little to no consultation with the Iowa State 

Historic Preservation Office or the numerous traditionally associated tribes 

and tribal historic preservation officers. This applies for both Section 106 

and NAGPRA consultation.

o Not concerned that the para-archeologists were not monitored by a 

professional archeologist and there was no professional review of their 

work.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 16 of 48

 Training does not guarantee that a person will be successful in their position:

o In the Effigy Mounds case study, the monument superintendent’s actions 

demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a lack of interest in 

applying what she learned at the Midwest Region’s Superintendent

Development Program, cultural resources training, and National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 training. 

 Span of control: 

o Accountability had little or no effect because the Midwest deputy regional 

director had 60 superintendents as direct reports, which included the 

monument’s superintendent. No matter how well intentioned, this number 

of direct reports is an impossible responsibility. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 17 of 48

 Line of authority unclear or broken: 

o Midwest Regional Office (other than the monument superintendent’s direct 

supervisor) and Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) staff believed they 

had little oversight authority other than correspondence with the 

monument superintendent suggesting corrective actions.

 Transparency unclear or broken: 

o Frustrated monument staff wanted transparency, but did not get it. 

Monument staff did not know if decision-makers were being held 

accountable for their decisions and actions. Monument staff followed the 

chain of command at the monument and it failed them. There was no clear 

path for whistleblowing beyond the chain of command.

 Mentor superintendent’s responsibility and authority unclear or broken: 

o The monument superintendent had a mentor superintendent before 

becoming the superintendent at Effigy Mounds National Monument. The 

mentor superintendent reported “no critical thinking skills” yet the mentee

was later assigned as superintendent of the monument.

 Decision-making on how parks spend staff time and money unclear or broken: 

o There was a small inner circle of staff at the monument who decided how 

time and money would be spent; they chose not to include other 

monument staff in this decision-making process which led to a deliberate 

lack of transparency.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 18 of 48

 NPS staff aware of potential impacts to cultural resources do not take action 

because of:

o complacency

o not wanting to hurt people’s feelings

o not wanting to damage their career or someone else’s career

o not wanting to give poor performance appraisals

o not wanting to make anyone mad

o a fear of retribution

o general staff belief that technical experts alone have responsibility and the 

technical experts believe they have no authority

 Hanging Rock bridge under construction (NPS Photo)
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 19 of 48

The team has three overarching recommendations that will strengthen cultural 

resources stewardship in the National Park Service. There are more specific 

recommendations that relate to these larger recommendations. The first is to educate 

and empower all employees as stewards through courses offered through the Cultural 

Resources Career Academy; the second is to increase the understanding and 

awareness of the civil, criminal, and administrative penalties and implications in cultural 

resources laws, regulations, and policies; and the third is to resolve the confusion of 

what work cultural resources professionals should be doing and where it should take 

place along with associated responsibilities, accountabilities, and authorities. The 

following chapters fully explore each of these strategies in a format that summarizes the 

team observations and makes recommendations for best practices to strengthen 

cultural resources stewardship. As the National Park Service, we are entrusted with the 

careful and responsible management of the authenticity of the National Park System. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 20 of 48

 Effigy Mounds National Monument (NPS Photo)
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 21 of 48
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 22 of 48

Transparency allows you to see when accountability is succeeding or failing. The team 

focused on elements of the incidents that could be indicators of strengths and 

weaknesses of cultural resources stewardship within the National Park Service. The 

team used the incidents at Effigy Mounds National Monument to inspire thoughtful 

analysis of the workings of cultural resources stewardship for all cultural resources at all 

levels of the agency. The team devised the following observations and 

recommendations, taken from the monument as a case study, to strengthen cultural 

resources stewardship throughout the National Park Service.

The 1995 “Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service (US Department 

of the Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers for Compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act” delegated Section 106 responsibilities to park 

superintendents. This was reaffirmed in the 2008 programmatic agreement. Section I.A 

of the programmatic agreement defines responsibilities for meeting the requirements of 

the agreement at each level of the National Park Service including the director, 

associate director for cultural resources, regional directors, regional Section 106 

coordinators, superintendents, park Section 106 coordinators, and the cultural 

resources management team. From this list, we could infer that the responsibility and 

authority for the stewardship of cultural resources lies solely within this group. 

However, the programmatic agreement is exclusive to compliance with the Section 106 

process. Stewardship of cultural resources is more than compliance with the 

programmatic agreement.

There are numerous cultural resources laws, policies, and standards that guide 

operations. Two commanding laws specific to stewardship that carry civil and criminal 

penalties are the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Federal land managers are responsible for 

protecting archeological resources on federal land through the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act. The roles and responsibilities of the land manager, for the 

National Park Service that means the park superintendent, are spelled out in the law 

and accompanying Code of Regulations (CFR), 43 CFR 7 “Protection of Archaeological 

Resources.” ARPA sets out standards for any archeological project in a park, whether it 

is carried out in-house, by a contractor or cooperator, or by a third party. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 23 of 48

Superintendents need to be aware of these requirements, and all park archeological 

projects should be reviewed by a professional NPS archeologist who has a complete 

understanding of the regulations. Permits are required of any third party researcher. 

While not required for cooperators and contractors, a superintendent would be 

protected from liability by having them complete a permit application. ARPA has 

substantial civil and criminal penalties and a land manager who does not follow ARPA 

regulations may be open to criminal and civil prosecution. In the case of the incidents at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, the US Attorney’s Office found that there was a 

nexus between the lack of Section 106 compliance under the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the damage to archeological sites under the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act. The US Attorney’s Office believed that there was the 

potential for a criminal case but prior NPS administrative decisions made conviction less 

likely; therefore, a decision was made not to prosecute. Superintendents should be 

aware, however, that damage to archeological sites from projects that they have 

approved may have consequences. Similar to the National Historic Preservation Act, 43 

CFR 7.7 requires the notification of American Indian tribes if any activities may harm or 

destroy cultural or sacred sites on public land.

Another commanding law specific to stewardship is the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act. NAGPRA requires that federal agencies return certain 

cultural items to lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations. In 

addition, inadvertent discoveries of such items on federal land and intentional 

excavation of such items from federal land are covered by NAGPRA. As a federal 

agency that manages public land and cares for public collections that contain cultural 

items that are subject to NAGPRA (Native American human remains, funerary objects, 

sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony), the National Park Service must 

comply with this law. Noncompliance with NAGPRA carries risks similar to ARPA. Civil 

penalties associated with this law apply to the National Park Service as well as 

museums. See appendix A for a comprehensive list of responsible Federal agency 

official requirements under NAGPRA.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 24 of 48

Stewardship is the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to 

one's care. National parks are all about authenticity, or preserving and protecting the 

real things in their original context. Parks are the real deal. It is through stewardship that 

the National Park Service guarantees the integrity and preservation of park resources. 

Stewardship of park resources is the responsibility of all NPS employees and goes well 

beyond the minimum required of the National Park Service in cultural resources laws 

and policies. 

There are risks realized to cultural resources stewardship when the National Park 

Service does not follow the NPS mission and numerous cultural resources laws, 

policies, and standards that guide operations, and does not use the Section 106 

programmatic agreement appropriately. These risks include, but are not limited to:

 Destroying the integrity of park resources and degrading the visitor experience

 Impairing cultural resources as described in the Organic Act

 Criminal and civil liability; the National Park Service is accountable under the 

National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among other laws

 Breaking our compact with American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian 

and Pacific Islander people as part of our government-to-government relationship

 Foreclosing on the Section 106 programmatic agreement (i.e., proceeding 

without completing the Section 106 process)

 Failing our NPS management policies

 Failing our own employees and park stakeholders

 Failing to meet the mission of the National Park Service which is the 

responsibility of all employees

The tools available to parks to preserve the real things in their original context fall under 

two general headings: laws and leadership. Both failed in this case study. Effigy 

Mounds National Monument leadership did not provide direction, protection, and order. 

Leadership rested solely with persons in positions of authority and those outside this 

inner circle had no opportunity to exercise leadership. The current reality throughout the 

National Park Service tends to reflect this model. As indicated earlier in the report, 

overall, there is a general feeling of disenfranchisement among staff at all levels of the 

National Park Service.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 25 of 48

The question to be answered is, “Why do we not exercise leadership more often than 

we do?” We all have the authority to speak and act for the stewardship of cultural 

resources, yet there is a gap between the current reality and the aspiration. There are 

problems that require a technical solution. We access technical experts and they give 

us a solution. However, often the consideration of what to do and how to do it is far 

more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Decision-making must be goal 

driven, focused on the solution to the problem rather than defending a single solution. 

Uncertainty about impacts is often expressed as disagreement among staff and 

stakeholders who have differing views about the direction and magnitude of resource 

change in response to management. 

Strengthening the stewardship of resources and maintaining park integrity requires a 

commitment to the use of Section 106 compliance and NEPA as planning and 

communication tools at all levels of the agency. We all share in the preservation of the 

integrity of the National Park System. Good resource stewardship ensures the health 

and integrity of our parks. There needs to be a firm commitment from NPS leadership to 

support resource stewardship. The end result should be that everyone is responsible for 

resource stewardship; know enough to speak up; and those who speak up will not be 

punished. The team recommends the support of training and measuring success as well 

as risk.

 The National Park Service should fully support the development and 

implementation of training and support services within the Stephen T. Mather 

Training Center Cultural Resources Career Academy. 

 All superintendents and other managers should complete by 2022 the course

“Cultural Resources for Innovative Leaders” offered by the Cultural Resources

Career Academy.

 All NPS employees should complete by 2022 basic cultural resources courses, 

many offered online through the Cultural Resources Career Academy.

 All employees who have direct or collateral cultural resources duties should 

complete by 2022 a cultural resources laws and policies course.

 We need to invest in resource stewardship the same way we do safety.

 The associate director for cultural resources, partnerships and science should 

lead a team to create a process that empowers all employees to speak up 

regarding cultural resources at risk.

 Conduct a “lessons learned” review, debrief, and staff after incident counseling 

following serious cultural resources mismanagement incidents.

 Celebrate all NPS staff whose actions strengthen cultural resources stewardship.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 26 of 48

As the National Park Service is responsible for resources stewardship, we are also 

responsible for the damage and destruction of the resources entrusted to us. 

Sometimes it seems as if we hold visitors, concessioners, and contractors to a higher 

standard than we do ourselves when it comes to resources stewardship. There are 

clear consequences and rewards for superintendent responsibilities in managing risk 

based on passing credit card audits and meeting contracting deadlines, but there are no

apparent consequences and rewards for managing risk specific to cultural resources

management. The lack of staff knowledgeable and skilled in cultural resources

management results in inappropriate collateral duties assigned to staff not qualified to 

complete the task. The travel ceiling and budget cuts results in the inability to share 

experienced resource management staff from other parks, NPS centers, or regional 

offices.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 27 of 48



o Oversight: supervisor should assign responsibilities to employees based on 

the employee’s expertise, training, and experience. Once employee is in the 

position, mentor them.

o Oversight: regularly consult outside sources such as the state historic 

preservation office (SHPO), tribal historic preservation office (THPO), 

traditionally associated tribes, and others.

o Conduct the required peer review of scientific documents, such as 

archeological surveys and excavations and damage assessment 

documentation, in accordance with NPS Management Policies 2006 (section 

5.1.1).

o Every NPS superintendent should have access to the expertise needed to

make informed decisions.

o Reaffirm the need for parks to have an appropriate plan in place regarding 

inadvertent discoveries under the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other 

cultural resources laws.



o Establish a process by which superintendents’ performance is rewarded, or 

there are consequences, for cultural resources stewardship that includes 

input from subject matter experts through the chain of command. 



o Use the park’s enabling legislation, general management plan (or similar 

planning document), and foundation document to determine staffing needs. 

o Avoid appointing staff as the Section 106 coordinator who have conflicts of 

interest with the preservation of cultural resources as a first priority (e.g., 

maintenance employee responsible for digging sign post holes or budget

officers concerned about obligation targets).
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 28 of 48



o Develop guidance for superintendents and resource managers on the 

relationship between Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act including guidance on the 

issuance of a Permit for Archeological Investigation (PAI, also referred to as 

an ARPA permit).

o Have cultural resources data fully entered into the appropriate databases 

with a seamless link to GIS so park managers can easily see the extent and 

location of known resources during a decision-making process.

o Exclude in-park and inter-park travel from the travel ceiling so parks may 

capitalize on and share experienced staff.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 29 of 48

Employees believe that they are not empowered as leaders in resources stewardship, 

and do not have the authority to question real and potential risks to cultural resources.

Employees may report concerns to their supervisor but beyond that there is no formal 

process. Employees, whether cultural resource professionals or others, consistently 

reported that they had no authority to report concerns or to follow up on concerns 

reported in their chain of command. The role, responsibility, and authority of park staff, 

regional office staff, Washington Support Office staff, and advisory groups are unclear. 

See Transparency, Communication, and Accountability Observation #2. 

 Charge the Cultural Resources Advisory Group (CRAG) to form a 

multidisciplinary committee on empowerment to make recommendations on the 

role, responsibility, and authority of all levels of the organization including 

regional and national advisory groups.

 All employees are informed and empowered with regards to cultural resources

laws, policies, standards, and processes. 

 All employees have a safe and effective route to cultural resources specialists 

and managers at all levels of the agency to advise and to consult on potential 

harm to resources.

 Allegations of harm are taken seriously, investigated, and actively addressed. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 30 of 48

Law enforcement rangers and solicitors are not well enough versed in cultural resources

laws and policies. There is a general lack of knowledge of the civil and criminal, as well 

as administrative, penalties associated with some cultural resources laws. The 

relationship between cultural resources laws and other laws, such as federal property 

laws, are not generally taught or understood.

 A resources law and policy course should be a standard module in existing 

training.

 Develop training or tap into existing training focused on the interaction among the 

National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 31 of 48

Planning in the National Park Service guides informed and insightful decisions that 

provide relevant and timely direction to park management, and informs future decisionmaking for each National Park System unit in accord with its stated mission. Planning 

also provides methods and tools for resolving issues in ways that minimize conflicts and 

promotes mutually beneficial solutions—solutions that articulate how public enjoyment 

of the parks can be part of a strategy for ensuring that resources are protected 

unimpaired for future generations. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

is most effective as a planning process; when properly used as a planning process it is 

not a barrier. Because we function under a compressed funding cycle and a single-year 

allocation of funding, along with other constraints, the culture of the National Park 

Service is “Get’er done!” This culture is not always conducive to going through a 

planning process. Many of the recommendations below are already in place and are 

being ignored as a convenient shortcut.

 Alleviate time constraints by providing funding for Section 106 compliance as part 

of the planning process.

 Make sure everyone at a park knows who is on the park’s interdisciplinary team 

(IDT) as outlined in PEPC and the cultural resources management (CRM) team 

as required by the Section 106 programmatic agreement (see section I.A in the 

agreement). (See recommendations under Planning, Priority Setting, and 

Decision-making Observation #3.)

 The decision-making process in parks should be formalized and how parks 

spend their time and money should be measured against park plans.

 Cultural resources projects will include consultation with cultural resources 

professionals and scholars having relevant expertise, traditionally associated 

peoples, and other groups and individuals.

 By policy all third-party archeological projects require a Permit for Archeological 

Investigation (also referred to as an ARPA permit). It is recommended that all 

projects not carried out by an NPS archeologist require an ARPA permit, 

including projects conducted under cooperative agreements and contracts.

 Parks have up-to-date baseline documentation. 

 Superintendent will ensure full consideration of the park’s cultural resources and 

values in all proposals for operations and development.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 32 of 48

Project creation is often reactive and based on personal preference and experience or it 

relies too heavily on current initiatives. The conceptual stage often focuses on the 

project, which is the solution to a problem, rather than on a definition of what the 

problem is and how best to resolve that problem. 

 Prevention: plan to prevent an incident and not what to do after.

 Projects should be based on strategic planning and a shared vision.

 Project planning should be done collaboratively among park staff and with 

external partners and tribes (where appropriate) to create checks and balances.

 Section 106 is a planning process and should be used as such rather than as a 

reaction to moving forward with defined and funded projects. Used properly, 

Section 106 is a tool to guide the nature and substance of park projects, not a 

hurdle to overcome in order to proceed with projects exactly as envisioned prior 

to consultation.

 Park staff should develop an overall plan for inadvertent discovery of cultural 

resources (e.g., archeological resources) and human remains.

 Park staff should plan for routine and repetitive projects. 

o A park should be prepared to discuss proposed routine and repetitive 

projects with the state historic preservation office at biennial meetings. 

o A park should also consult with the appropriate tribal historic preservation 

office and traditionally associated tribes about the proposed projects. 

o A park could create a park-specific programmatic agreement with the state 

historic preservation office and tribal historic preservation office for routine 

and repetitive projects.

 Cultural resources staff needs to notify appropriate park staff when field work is 

going to start, how long the project is to last, and who will be doing the work (i.e., 

permanent or seasonal staff, contractor, permittees, or volunteers).
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 33 of 48

There is a general misuse or lack of use of the nationwide Section 106 programmatic 

agreement. The Section 106 programmatic agreement allows the National Park Service

to use a streamlined review process under specific circumstances. The Section 106 

programmatic agreement also provides guidance for other activities related to the 

Section 106 process including identification of resources, consultation, and planning. 

:

 Ensure regional directors have all necessary tools to meet their responsibilities 

under the Section 106 programmatic agreement.

 Ensure regional and park Section 106 coordinators meet qualifications and

responsibilities of the Section 106 programmatic agreement.

 Ensure access to Section 106 training identified in Section 106 programmatic 

agreement.

 Meet all consultation provisions of the Section 106 programmatic agreement.

 Ensure appropriate use of the streamlined process.

 Ensure all reporting is accurate and timely as required in the Section 106 

programmatic agreement.

 All Section 106 activity must be documented in PEPC. Ensure the record is 

complete including uploading technical documents and consultation 

documentation.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 34 of 48

There is a general misuse or lack of use of PEPC by parks. PEPC, which is the National 

Park Service’s permanent record of the compliance process, provides transparency and 

ease of tracking and reporting.

 Use PEPC correctly and routinely for all projects.

 Use PEPC to report to the state historic preservation office all projects conducted 

under the Section 106 programmatic agreement.

 Have regional office staff spot check PEPC entries against project funding 

annually.

 All employees have an understanding of the purpose and use of PEPC.

 All employees who have a PEPC responsibility should take an annual refresher.

 IDT/CRM team needs to be involved in the development of the project, not 

consulted after the project is conceived. 

 IDT/CRM team is responsible for timely review and approval of appropriate 

projects in PEPC.

 Include PEPC training on the Cultural Resources Career Academy website. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 35 of 48

New superintendents’ training in roles and responsibilities should have more emphasis 

and be better defined for cultural resources stewardship and risk management. The lowgraded positions for first-time superintendents are often small cultural resources parks. 

The superintendent who supervises or advises the new superintendent seems to have 

little to no training as a mentor superintendent. The role and function of mentor 

superintendent is not clear or consistent. 

 In identifying parks suitable for “training” parks or for first-time superintendents, 

consider park complexity in addition to size and budget. Just because it is small 

does not mean it should be considered a “learning” park.

 Superintendents that supervise other superintendents need to have formal 

mentoring responsibilities and training.

 Formalize superintendent refresher training to include cultural resources laws,

policies, and guidance.

 To increase transparency, communication, and accountability, protection of 

cultural resources should be a part of every superintendent’s yearly Employee 

Performance Appraisal Plan. Demonstrating success in this area could include 

supplying the park’s list of cultural resources review committee members; 

supplying the park’s Section 106 project list given to the state historic 

preservation office; a list of other cultural resources projects in the park; and a 

copy of cultural resources database certifications (e.g., Archeological Sites 

Management Information System [ASMIS] certificate).
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 36 of 48

The internal role of the park, regional office, and Washington Support Office in cultural 

resources management is neither well defined nor consistent. What work we should be 

doing and where it should take place to be most effective is not clear. We see ourselves 

as distinct offices and not as a national cultural resources preservation program. There 

is confusion at every level, uncertainty as to span of responsibility, authority, and 

accountability. While this confusion has to do with who does what at each level of the 

agency, there is no understanding as to roles, responsibilities, and authorities regarding 

risk, mismanagement of or impacts to cultural resources.

 Have the Cultural Resources Advisory Group and regional cultural resources 

advisory groups focus on defining roles, responsibilities, and authorities for the 

work that we should be doing and where it should take place to be most effective.

 Recognize that in accordance with the NPS 1995 reorganization the “land 

manager” is the responsible party under the Section 106 programmatic 

agreement, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other federal 

preservation laws.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 37 of 48

The National Park Service is a land management agency, and the knowledge cultural 

resource experts have and the work they do should inform management at all levels of 

the agency. NPS Management Policies 2006 (section 5.1.1) directs cultural resources

research to inform decision-making. 

 Align our expectation of what we want and need from cultural resources staff.

 Park staffing should be based on the park purpose and the fundamental and 

other important resources it has; cultural resources parks should have the 

appropriate cultural resources staff (e.g., if the park has a museum collection, 

there should be a “curator of record” on staff or available through a formal 

agreement). Just as the general management plan, foundation document, and 

other plans rest on enabling legislation, it should be a factor in a park’s target 

organization to ensure there are appropriate people in appropriate positions.

 Enforcement of cultural resources laws should be a high priority for law 

enforcement rangers. Law enforcement rangers should be trained in the 

enforcement of cultural resources laws. Parks that use local law enforcement 

because they do not have an NPS law enforcement ranger on staff should 

include appropriate processes so that cultural resources laws and training is 

addressed in any agreement.

 Cultural resources research should not be purely academic and untethered from 

park priorities.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 38 of 48

The transparency, communication, and accountability of the National Park Service 

beyond park boundaries with governments, stakeholders, and partners are inconsistent. 

Increasingly partnerships are essential and effective means for the National Park 

Service to fulfill parts of the NPS mission and foster a shared sense of stewardship that 

is so crucial for the future of the stewardship of resources that are not confined to park 

boundaries. Our partners have a deep appreciation for and a sense of commitment to 

the NPS mission, values, resources, and people. Working through partnerships is a 

sound investment for both the near and long term. We need to invest wisely. A look 

across the nation shows that good relations and consultation strengthens stewardship.

The National Park Service has a government-to-government relationship with federally 

recognized tribes. Because of the federal government trust responsibilities to tribal 

nations, Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments” directs the National Park Service to interact with tribal officials on a 

government-to-government basis. Additionally, the National Park Service has 

obligations under the Section 106 programmatic agreement, the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 43 CFR 7 “Protection of Archeological Resources” (especially at 43 CFR 

7.7 “Notification to Indian tribes of possible harm to, or destruction of, sites on public 

lands having religious or cultural importance”), Director’s Order 75: Civic Engagement 

and Public Involvement, and NPS Management Policies 2006, all of which require 

consultation. In many cases we are using these as a box to check rather than using the 

consultation to inform park planning, decision-making, or values.

Even with all this law, policy, and guidance, there can be confusion and inconsistencies 

that impact relationships. In the Effigy Mounds case study, the monument’s website lists 

19 “culturally associated American Indian tribes” while the Midwest regional cultural 

anthropologist uses a list of 12 tribes derived from a 2001 cultural affiliation report 

created by non-NPS anthropologists. While these two lists might serve different 

purposes or have different utility for different programs, such inconsistency might lead to 

incomplete or improper consultation; consultation which originates at the monument

might involve 19 tribes, while consultation initiated at the Midwest Regional Office might 

only involve 12 tribes.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 39 of 48

 Hold required biennial review and monitoring meetings with the state historic 

preservation office. 

 Hold annual meetings with the tribal historic preservation office and traditionally 

associated tribes.

 Meet all requirements of Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments” to maintain the government-to-government 

relationship with tribal governments.

 Consult at the conceptual phase of all projects so that input is meaningful.

 Consult park partners and value their input.

 View consultation as a foundation upon which to build, not the end product.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 40 of 48

Park level accountability for cultural resources stewardship is not being met 

consistently. Internal controls are a valuable tool, but they are not infallible. It is unclear 

where the park/superintendent autonomy ends and the regional responsibility begins if

internal controls are not being used or reveal a problem.

 On behalf of the regional and deputy regional directors, regional office cultural 

resources staff and relevant specialists should increase involvement and support 

of park superintendents as the accountable officers under the Section 106 

programmatic agreement for work affecting cultural resources.

 Any support or oversight by a subject matter expert from the regional office or 

another park (e.g., the “curator-of-record” system) should be accomplished under

formalized roles and responsibilities and funded accordingly.

 The Midwest Region Museum Collection and Records Management Division has 

led a successful review of the region’s NAGPRA Inventories and related 

deaccessions to confirm that the NAGPRA incident at Effigy Mounds National

Monument was not repeated in other Midwest Region parks. This review should 

serve as a model and be expanded Servicewide.

 Mismanagement of or discrepancies in a park’s stewardship of resources should 

automatically result in a higher level review, and the form and product of that 

review should be standardized by regional offices.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 41 of 48
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 42 of 48

The Effigy Mounds National Monument after action review report is the direct result of 

the deep concern by the NPS national and regional leadership. Stephanie Toothman, 

Associate Director for Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Science, Cam Sholly, 

Midwest Regional Director, and Patty Trap, Midwest Deputy Regional Director (Patty 

was acting Midwest Regional Director at the time this effort started), charged the team 

to make recommendations to help ensure “this never happens again.” The “Draft

Serious Mismanagement Report: Effigy Mounds National Monument 1999-2010” (April 

2014), a law enforcement review document, calls for a critical evaluation by all NPS 

employees at all levels involved with the cultural resources compliance review process,

“Traditionally viewed as an obstacle or bottleneck, Section 106 offers the opportunity 

(legal requirement notwithstanding) to take stock of the potential impacts of a proposed 

project, and to carefully consider whether or not it meets the needs of the park, the 

stakeholders, and the public in a manner most suited to the agency mission and 

principles.” 

The team found that the NPS Organic Act, NPS Management Policies 2006, and 

Directors Orders, in addition to federal cultural resources laws and the National Park 

Service programmatic agreement (2008) for the purposes of Section 106 compliance

along with PEPC, provide adequate tools and processes to ensure the stewardship of 

cultural resources. The team found that the primary weakness in cultural resources 

stewardship lies in the fact that no formal process exists within the National Park 

Service to report and manage potential risk to and mismanagement of cultural 

resources. Perhaps most revealing was a discussion at the Cultural Resources Advisory 

Group annual meeting in 2015 that focused on the question: Who has the responsibility 

and authority to report cultural resources at risk outside of the chain of command? 

Cultural resources leaders from the Washington Support Office, regions, and parks,

determined that NPS staff at all levels of the organization believe they do not have the 

authority to report risk or abuse outside of their chain of command. 

The team has three overarching recommendations that will strengthen cultural 

resources stewardship in the National Park Service. There are more specific 

recommendations that relate to these larger recommendations. The first is to educate 

and empower all employees as stewards; the second is to increase the understanding 

and awareness of the civil, criminal, and administrative penalties and implications in 

cultural resources laws, regulations, and policies; and the third is to resolve the 

confusion of what work cultural resources should be doing and where it should take 

place along with responsibilities, accountabilities, and authorities.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 43 of 48

The team recommends that the National Park Service fully support the Stephen T.

Mather Cultural Resources Career Academy. All employees with direct or collateral 

cultural resources responsibilities should participate in leadership and cultural resources

laws and policies courses by 2022. Employees should feel confident and free to speak 

openly without retaliation when they see actions that do not follow cultural resources

laws, regulations, and policies that place cultural resources at risk. It should be 

understood that if an allegation is investigated and found to be without merit, that is a 

good thing. It means that we are properly engaged in stewardship but are also vigilant. 

Employees need to make the connection that good stewardship is what preserves the 

authenticity of the National Park System and the integrity of resources. Employees 

should also understand that cultural resources management is far more than a technical 

problem to be solved only by technical experts. Cultural resources management is 

complex and involves exploring alternative ways to meet management objectives, 

predicting the outcomes of alternatives based on the current state of knowledge, 

implementing one or more of these alternatives, monitoring to learn about the impacts of 

management actions, and then using the results to update knowledge and adjust 

management actions. Good stewardship focuses on learning and adapting, through 

partnerships of managers, scientists, and other stakeholders who learn together how to 

create and maintain sustainable resource systems.

The team recommends increased understanding and awareness of the civil, criminal, 

and administrative penalties and implications in cultural resources laws, regulations,

and policies. In the case of the incidents at Effigy Mounds National Monument, the US 

Attorney’s Office found that there was a nexus between the lack of Section 106 

compliance and the damage to archeological sites under ARPA. NPS staff needs to be 

aware that the NPS Investigative Services Branch has an anonymous tip line that 

should be used in incidents that raise criminal red flags. 

The team recommends that NPS leadership charge the Servicewide Cultural Resources 

Advisory Group to complete by January of 2017 an analysis of the work that cultural 

resources should be doing and where it should take place at each level of the 

organization including responsibilities, accountabilities, and authorities. The Cultural 

Resources Advisory Group represents the cultural resources leadership in each region 

as well as a superintendent appointed by each regional director. For this analysis,

Associate Director for Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Science should augment 

this team with select members of her staff. The combined expertise and experience of 

this group will provide necessary reason and balance to create recommendations that 

have the best chance to strengthen stewardship. 
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 44 of 48

The team found NPS leadership and staff care deeply for the mission of the National 

Park Service and for the cultural resources entrusted to them. Laws, regulations, and 

policies foster good cultural resources stewardship. Cultural resources laws, 

regulations, and policies work well when regularly applied as they were intended. 

Transparency allows you to see when accountability is succeeding or failing. To 

strengthen stewardship, the National Park Service needs to create the tools for 

managing the intentional or unintentional failures of accountability. 

Marching Bear Mounds (NPS Photo)
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 45 of 48
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 46 of 48

Appendix A: Responsible Federal Agency Official Requirements

Under NAGPRA

In circumstances where human remains or other cultural items are inadvertently 

discovered on park lands, the law requires that the “responsible Federal agency official”

 stop the ongoing activity associated with the discovery, such as construction, for 

at least 30 days, 

 protect the remains and items,

 notify lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations within 

three working days,

 initiate consultation with lineal descendants, potentially affiliated Indian tribes or 

Native Hawaiian organizations regarding the proposed treatment and disposition 

of the human remains and cultural items, 

 prepare, approve, and sign a written Plan of Action after consultation with lineal 

descendants, Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, 

 determine who is entitled to custody of the remains and cultural items pursuant to 

NAGPRA’s regulations (43 CFR 10.6),

 excavate remains and cultural items, where necessary and appropriate, in 

compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and 

 publish a Notice of Intended Disposition (NID) in local newspapers, before 

custody of the remains and cultural items is transferred to the appropriate lineal 

descendant(s), Indian tribe(s), or Native Hawaiian organization(s).

In circumstances where it is likely that a planned activity, such as a construction project, 

will result in the excavation of remains and/or other cultural items from park lands, the 

“responsible Federal agency official” must notify lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or 

Native Hawaiian organizations and consult about the planned activity and the proposed 

treatment and disposition of remains and items before the project is implemented. In 

addition, as described above, a written Plan of Action must be prepared, approved, and 

signed; appropriate custody must be determined; excavation must be in accordance 

with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act; and a Notice of Intended Disposition 

must be published before custody is transferred.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 47 of 48

Appendix B: Bibliography of Documents Quoted

Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide, US 

Department of the Interior, 2009 version—updated.

A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement, 

National Park Service, 2011.

National Park Service Cultural Resource Challenge: Preserving America’s Shared 

Heritage in the 21st Century, National Park Service, October 2013.

“Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service (US Department of the 

Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers for Compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act” (2008).

Saving Our History: A Review of National Park Cultural Resource Programs, National 

Academy of Public Administration, 2008.

“Draft Serious Mismanagement Report: Effigy Mounds National Monument 1999-2010,” 

National Park Service, April 2014.

“Towards Excellence,” Effigy Mounds National Monument, Operations Evaluation, 

April 27-May 1, 2009.
Strengthening Cultural Resources Stewardship in the National Park Service

Page 48 of 48

Appendix C: Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations, and NPS Policylevel Guidance Referenced in this Report

 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; 54 U.S.C. §302902

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1970; 42 U.S.C. §4321

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; 54 U.S.C. §300101 et 

seq.

 National Park Service Organic Act; 54 U.S.C. §100101 et seq.

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990; 25 U.S.C. 

§3001-3013

 Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments”

 43 CFR §7 “Protection of Archaeological Resources”

 43 CFR §7.7 “Notification to Indian tribes of possible harm to, or destruction of, 

sites on public lands having religious or cultural importance”

 43 CFR §10 “Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act”

 43 CFR §10.6 “Custody”

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 75: Civic Engagement and Public Involvement