National Park Service • U.S. Department of the Interior 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

i 

Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

Clayton County and Allamakee County, Iowa 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation 2860 on October 25, 

1949, to protect significant prehistoric earthen mounds found in northeast Iowa. Subsequent legislation 

expanded the purpose and significance by specifying the wildlife, scenic, and other natural values of the 

area. The mounds are in a variety of forms, including effigy (animal-shaped), linear, conical, and compound 

(a combination of conical and linear elements). The monument contains about 200 mound sites, of which 31 

are in the form of bear and bird effigies. The monument’s authorized boundary was expanded in 1961 and 

again in 2000; it now encompasses a total of 2,526 acres in the North, South, and Sny Magill units, and the 

Heritage Addition. 

The national monument’s last general management plan was completed in 1990 with an amendment 

completed in 1999. Since 1999, the 1,045-acre Heritage Addition was added to the national monument 

thereby increasing the land base by approximately 70%. The national monument faces new resource and 

management challenges as a result of this and other changes. This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement will provide the direction for these new lands. 

During the development of the general management plan, the National Park Service took a close look at past 

construction activities and practices in the park, particularly those with the potential to harm the 

archeological resources the park was created to protect. To ensure the protection of the resources, the 

National Park Service has spent a significant amount of time in the past three years reassessing the proper 

role, function, and form of development in a landscape dominated by the mounds. As a result, the National 

Park Service revised the draft general management plan and released it for public comment in fall 2011. 

This Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement presents and analyzes three 

alternative future directions for the management and use of Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which describes current management of the monument. It serves 

as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. Alternative B is the National Park Service 

preferred alternative and is also the environmentally preferable alternative. In alternative B, a large portion 

of the monument would be zoned as backcountry and a virtual research center would be created to collect 

and share information on mound research and preservation. In alternative C, more of the monument would 

be placed in a “discovery zone” that would allow for more visitor amenities, while a research center would 

be developed outside of the monument. Alternatives B and C would improve access to the South Unit by 

connecting the Yellow River bridge and trail to the trails in the South Unit. 

The potential environmental impacts of all alternatives have been identified and assessed. The key impacts 

of implementing alternative A, the no-action alternative, would be no new impacts on soils, vegetation, 

wildlife, and visual resources. There would be no impacts to special status species as a result of this 

alternative. There would be negligible to moderate, adverse impacts to some cultural resources (including 

museum collections), but these impacts would be confined to localized areas and would often be offset by 

beneficial impacts. The mounds would not be adversely affected by any of the alternatives. 

The impacts of implementing alternative B, would be beneficial for visitor experience and museum 

collections, and would result in short-term, minor, adverse impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from building and trail construction. There would 

be negligible to moderate, adverse impacts to some cultural resources, but these impacts would be confined 

to localized areas and would often be offset by beneficial impacts. Special status species would not likely be 

adversely affected. The key impacts of implementing alternative C would be similar to those of 

implementing alternative B. Special status species would not likely be adversely affected. 

U.S. Department of the Interior  National Park Service
ii 

SUMMARY 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was 

established by presidential proclamation on 

October 25, 1949, to protect significant 

prehistoric earthen mounds found in 

northeast Iowa. Subsequent legislation 

expanded the purpose and significance to 

include the wildlife, scenic, and other 

natural values of the area. The monument’s 

authorized boundary was expanded in 1961 

and again in 2000; the monument now 

encompasses a total of 2,526 acres in the 

North Unit, South Unit, Sny Magill Unit, 

and the Heritage Addition. 

Since the completion of the 1990 general 

management plan and the 1999 

amendment, several conditions have 

changed or emerged that prompt the need 

for a new plan: 

 The 1,045-acre Heritage Addition 

expanded the monument’s land 

base by approximately 70% and 

added several cultural resources, 

including mounds and extensive 

natural areas. 

 Management of resources and 

visitor needs at the Sny Magill Unit 

are not adequately addressed in the 

previous general management plan. 

This document is the Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement (GMP) for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. During the 

development of this general management 

plan, the National Park Service (NPS) took 

a close look at past construction activities 

and practices in the park, particularly those 

with the potential to harm the archeological 

resources the park was created to protect. 

To ensure the protection of the resources, 

the National Park Service has spent a 

significant amount of time reassessing the 

proper role, function, and form of 

development in a landscape dominated by 

the mounds. As a result, there have been 

some fairly significant changes to the 

alternatives that reduce the amount of 

development in the alternatives. As a result 

of the changes to the alternatives, a Revised 

Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

released for public review in August 2011. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

three alternatives for future management of 

Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION 

Current management strategies and trends 

would continue under the no-action 

alternative. There would be no major 

changes to monument operations or visitor 

services. All cultural sites would continue to 

be maintained and preserved using current 

practices. The mounds would continue to 

be protected and preserved. Management 

treatments would vary according to the 

cover and condition of individual mounds. 

Historic sites would be protected from 

degradation but not otherwise managed. 

The museum collections and archives 

would continue to be stored in the visitor 

center basement, which does not meet NPS 

museum collections standards. 

The Heritage Addition would not have a 

long-term plan in place. The North, South, 

and Sny Magill units would continue to be 

managed as they are currently. 

Key Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A 

There would be no new impacts of 

implementing alternative A to soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources. 

There would be negligible to moderate, 
Summary 

iii 

long-term, adverse impacts as well as longterm, beneficial impacts to cultural 

resources. Moderate, adverse impacts 

would be confined to localized areas. The 

mounds would not be adversely affected. 

ALTERNATIVE B—NPS 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Alternative B would provide enhanced 

natural and cultural resource protection, 

opportunities for increased understanding 

of the monument, and expanded 

opportunities for visitors to experience 

relative quiet and solitude. Due to the 

sensitivity and irreplaceable nature of the 

mounds and cultural landscape, the 

National Park Service will accomplish these 

goals with the minimum amount of 

development. 

The landscape and visitor facilities would 

support a contemplative atmosphere with 

opportunities for visitors to spend time 

reflecting on the lives and legacy of the 

moundbuilders1 and the sacred nature of 

the site today. Education and interpretation 

of the natural resources of the park would 

be expanded. 

The natural setting created by preserving or 

restoring landscapes would provide a 

connection between the moundbuilding 

cultures and the environment that shaped 

their lives and beliefs. This would be 

especially enhanced through the extensive 

backcountry zone under this alternative. 

Visitor experiences throughout the monument would be primarily self-guided on a 

 

1. As used in this document, the term moundbuilder is 

intended to broadly apply to the prehistoric American 

Indian groups who constructed mounds for burial and 

ceremonial purposes in the Upper Mississippi River Valley. 

Moundbuilding activities spanned approximately 1,800 

years beginning around 500 BC during the Late Archaic 

Period, and continued through the subsequent Woodland 

Period to AD 1250. Effigy mounds are associated with Late 

Woodland Period moundbuilders. Used in this broad 

context, the moundbuilders are not necessarily a distinct 

cultural group or do not represent continuous occupation 

of the area by a particular ancestral people.

variety of trail types in a quiet, 

contemplative setting to maintain an 

atmosphere of respect toward the sacred 

nature of the monument. 

Under this alternative, the diversity of 

visitor trail experiences would be expanded 

from that currently offered at the 

monument. 

Consistent with the resource conditions 

and visitor experiences defined in the 

backcountry zone, visitors to some areas of 

the monument would be able to experience 

a walk on marked trails through natural, 

undeveloped landscapes and view some 

mounds in a more natural state (with only 

some woody materials removed for 

preservation purposes). 

Providing access to mounds that are in 

different conditions would allow an 

expansion of existing interpretive 

opportunities and an increased 

understanding of the monument’s 

fundamental resources. A trail connecting 

the Yellow River Bridge and North Unit 

trails to the South Unit trails would be 

developed in consultation with the Iowa 

state historic preservation officer, Office of 

the State Archaeologist, and traditionally 

associated American Indian tribes.2

Those portions of the monument’s museum 

collections and archives that are in longterm storage and not on display in the 

visitor center are inaccessible to the public, 

including researchers; these would either be 

(1) moved out of the basement of the visitor 

center to a more secure location outside of 

the monument where they will receive 

better care while remaining accessible to 

legitimate researchers; or (2) the current 

facility would be improved and staffing 

 

2. In this document, consulting American Indian tribes are 

referred to as traditionally associated due to their 

traditional association with the lands now recognized as 

Effigy Mounds National Monument. This term is not to be 

confused with culturally affiliated, as defined by the Native 

American Graves Repatriation Act. 
SUMMARY

iv 

would be increased to more closely meet 

NPS museum collections standards. 

Zoning 

In this alternative, the majority of the 

monument would be in the backcountry 

zone. The area around the visitor center 

would be zoned as development and the 

most heavily visited trails and mound 

groups would be located in the discovery 

zone. 

While the Riverfront Tract is in the monument’s authorized boundary, it is not 

currently owned by the National Park 

Service. If this tract were acquired, it would 

be managed in the backcountry zone. 

Key Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B 

The key impacts of implementing 

alternative B, would be short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts and long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, 

wildlife, and visual resources from building 

and trail construction. Effects would be 

beneficial for museum collections because 

they would be stored in a location that fully 

meets or more closely meets NPS museum 

collections standards. 

Alternative B also would result in negligible 

to moderate, adverse impacts to other 

cultural resources, but these would be 

confined to localized areas and would often 

be offset by beneficial impacts. The mounds 

would not be adversely affected. Special 

status species would most likely not be 

adversely affected. There would be minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on the visitor 

experience and the socioeconomic 

environment. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would provide enhanced and 

expanded opportunities for visitors to 

experience the monument and increase 

their understanding of the moundbuilders 

while protecting and preserving natural and 

cultural resources. A major component of 

this alternative would be the establishment 

of a mound research center in leased space 

near the monument to collect and share 

scholarly information, maintenance 

methods, and preservation techniques. 

Those portions of the monument’s museum 

collections and archives that are in longterm storage and not on display in the 

visitor center are inaccessible to the public, 

including researchers; therefore, they 

would be moved out of the basement of the 

visitor center to a more secure location 

within the research center. The collections 

would remain accessible to legitimate 

researchers. 

As a means of enhancing the visitor 

experience, public access to various units of 

the monument would be improved in this 

alternative. More of the monument would 

be in the discovery zone, allowing for more 

visitor amenities. 

The landscape and visitor facilities would 

provide opportunities for the public to 

learn about the lives and legacy of the 

moundbuilders and the sacred nature of the 

site today. The natural setting created by 

preserving or restoring landscapes would 

provide a connection between the moundbuilding cultures and the environment that 

shaped the moundbuilders lives and beliefs. 

Visitor experiences throughout the monument would be on developed trails that 

would allow visitors to learn about the 

mounds and their makers. Because more of 

the monument would be in the discovery 

zone in this alternative, visitors would be 

likely to encounter other visitors or park 

staff during their visit. 

Key Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative C 

The key impacts of implementing 

alternative C would be the same as the 

impacts of implementing alternative B. 
Summary 

v 

Zoning 

In this alternative, most of the North and 

South units would be placed in the 

discovery zone, which allows for more 

visitor amenities (developed trails, benches, 

etc.). The Heritage Addition would be 

zoned backcountry, which allows for less 

developed public trails to provide some 

access to this area and to other areas of the 

monument while protecting cultural and 

natural resources. The area around the 

visitor center would be zoned as 

development. 

While the Riverfront Tract is in the monument’s authorized boundary, it is not 

currently owned by the National Park 

Service. If this tract were acquired, it would 

be managed in the backcountry zone.
vi 
vii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 3

INTRODUCTION 4

Purpose of the Plan 4

Need for the Plan 5

The Next Steps 5

Implementation of the Plan 5

DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT 6

Climate 6

Geography 6

Monument Units 7

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 10

Monument Purpose and Significance 10

Primary Interpretive Themes 12

Special Mandates or Administrative Commitments 13

Servicewide Laws and Policies 13

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan 19

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 21

Introduction 21

Issues 21

IMPACT TOPICS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL 23

Cultural Resources 23

Natural Resources 24

Other Topics 25

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 27

Historic Buildings and Structures 27

Air Quality 27

Water Quality and Quantity 27

Wetlands and Floodplains 28

Geology 28

Wilderness 29

Night Sky 29

Soundscapes 29

Prime or Unique Farmlands 30

Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment 30

Indian Trust Lands 30

Environmental Justice 30

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

INTRODUCTION 35

USER CAPACITY 36

Overview 36

Resource and Visitor Experience Indicators and Standards 38

Long-term Monitoring 40

PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEGISLATED BOUNDARY (NON-NPS LAND) 43

Recommended Boundary Adjustments 43
CONTENTS

viii 

Boundary Adjustments Considered but not Included in Recommendations 46

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES 49

MANAGEMENT ZONES 51

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 54

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C) 55

Resource Management 55

Visitor Use 55

Monument Management 56

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION 57

Concept 57

Zoning 57

Monumentwide 57

Heritage Addition 57

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area (in the North Unit) 57

North Unit 58

South Unit 58

Sny Magill Unit 58

ELEMENTS COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES B AND C) 63

Heritage Addition 63

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area 63

North Unit 64

South Unit 64

Sny Magill Unit 64

Future Acquisitions 64

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 66

Concept 66

Heritage Addition 66

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, Maintenance Area (Development Zone in the North Unit) 66

North Unit 67

South Unit 67

Sny Magill Unit 68

Virtual Research Center 68

ALTERNATIVE C 71

Concept 71

Heritage Addition 71

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, Maintenance Area (Development Zone in the North Unit) 71

North Unit 71

South Unit 72

Sny Magill Unit 72

Research Center 73

ESTIMATED COSTS 77

Alternative A (No Action) 77

Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 77

Alternative C 78

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 80

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION 82

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 84

Cultural Resources 84

Natural Resources 85

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 88
Contents 

ix 

SUMMARY TABLES 90

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 103

Background 103

Archeological Resources 104

Ethnographic Resources 105

Cultural Landscapes 106

Museum Collections 107

NATURAL RESOURCES 109

Soils 109

Wild and Scenic Rivers 110

Vegetation 110

Fish and Wildlife 111

Special Status Species 113

Viewsheds 116

VISITOR USE AND UNDERSTANDING 118

Visitor Experience 118

Visitor Understanding 120

Visitor Safety and Access 120

Recreational Use of the Yellow River 121

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 122

Socioeconomic Benefits of the National Park Service 122

Economics in the Study Area 122

Visitor Spending in The Planning Area 123

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 125

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 129

Terms and Assumptions 129

Cumulative Impacts 130

CULTURAL RESOURCES 132

Types of Cultural Resources 132

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Methodology 132

Archeological Resources 133

Cultural Landscapes 138

Ethnographic Resources 142

Museum Collections 145

NATURAL RESOURCES 149

Introduction 149

Soils 149

Wild and Scenic Rivers 152

Vegetation 154

Fish and Wildlife 157

Special Status Species 160

Visual Resources/Viewsheds 163

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 166

Methodology 166

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A 167

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 169

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 171
CONTENTS

x 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 175

Methodology 175

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A 176

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 176

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 177

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 180

Methodology 180

Impacts From Implementing Alternative A 180

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 181

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 182

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION 

POTENTIAL 183

Introduction 183

Alternative B 183

Alternative C 184

CLIMATE CHANGE 185

Background 185

Relevant Laws and Policies 185

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 187

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 188

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 189

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 193

Public Involvement and Response to Comments 193

Consultation with Other Agencies/Officials and Organizations (To Date) 219

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 221

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 223

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION SUMMARY 227

APPENDIX B: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND IOWA DEPARTMENT 

OF NATURAL RESOURCES 229

APPENDIX C: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 239

APPENDIX D: YELLOW RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ASSESSMENT 261

APPENDIX E: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN IN THE MONUMENT 271

APPENDIX F: KNOWN, PROBABLE, AND POSSIBLE MOUND LOCATIONS IN DEVELOPED AREA 273

REFERENCES 277

INDEX 279
Contents 

xi 

TABLES 

Table 1. Laws, Mandates, and Policies Pertaining to Effigy Mounds National Monument 15

Table 2: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 41

Table 3. Management Zones 51

Table 4. Estimated Costs of the Alternatives (in 2010 Dollars) 79

Table 5. Environmentally Preferable Alternative 81

Table 6. Summary of Alternatives 90

Table 7. Summary of Key Impacts 96

Table 8. Soils 109

Table 9. Effigy Mounds Visitation Figures 119

Table 10. Visits and Spending by Visitor Segment, 2006 124

Table 11. Economic Effects of Visitor Spending by Sector, 2006 124

Table 12. Response to Comments 195

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Region 8

Figure 2. Effigy Mounds National Monument 9

Figure 3. User Capacity Framework 37

Figure 4. Recommended Boundary Adjustments 48

Figure 5. Alternative A 61

Figure 6. Alternative B 69

Figure 7. Alternative C 75
xii 
Background 1

Presentation at Effigy Mounds National Monument
2 
3 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement (GMP) is 

organized in accordance with the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

implementing regulations for the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NPS 

Program Standards for Park Planning, and 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, 

and Decision-making. 

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the 

framework for the entire document. It 

describes why the plan is being prepared 

and what needs it must address. It gives 

guidance for the alternatives that are being 

considered based on the national 

monument’s legislated purpose, the 

significance of its resources, special 

mandates and policies, and fundamental 

and other important resources and values. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts; the alternatives in 

the next chapter address these issues and 

concerns to varying degrees. This chapter 

concludes with a statement of the scope of 

the environmental impact analysis—

specifically what impact topics were or 

were not analyzed in detail. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, describes the user 

capacity framework, recommended 

boundary adjustments, and the 

management zones that would be used to 

manage the national monument in the 

future. This chapter also describes three 

alternative ways of addressing the issues 

and maintaining the monument’s purpose 

and significance. One alternative consists 

of continuation of current management 

and trends in the monument (alternative A, 

the no-action alternative). Alternatives B 

and C are the “action” alternatives. This 

section is followed by the estimated costs 

associated with each of the alternatives. 

The next sections include the evaluation of 

the environmentally preferable alternative, 

a discussion of alternatives or actions that 

were dismissed from detailed evaluation, 

mitigative measures proposed to minimize 

or eliminate the impacts of some proposed 

actions, and future studies and 

implementation plans that will be needed. 

The chapter ends with summary tables of 

the alternative actions and the 

environmental consequences of 

implementing those alternative actions. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

describes those areas and resources that 

would be affected by implementing actions 

in the various alternatives—cultural 

resources, natural resources, visitor use 

and experience, socioeconomic 

environment, and monument operations. 

Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences analyzes the impacts of 

implementing the alternatives on topics 

described in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter. Methods used for assessing the 

impacts in terms of intensity, type, and 

duration are outlined in the chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and 

Coordination describes the history of 

public and agency coordination during the 

planning effort and a response to 

comments; it also lists agencies and 

organizations that will be receiving copies 

of the document. This chapter also 

includes a list of preparers. 

The Appendixes present supporting 

information for the document and the wild 

and scenic river assessment, followed by 

References, and an Index.
4 

INTRODUCTION 

This document is the Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, which replaces the Revised Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument released in August 

2011. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

and analyzes three alternative future 

directions for the management and use of 

Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

Alternative B is the NPS preferred 

alternative and is also the environmentally 

preferable alternative. The potential 

environmental impacts of all alternatives 

have been identified and assessed. 

General management plans are intended to 

be long-term documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for decision making and 

problem solving in the parks. This general 

management plan is intended to provide 

guidance for the next 15 to 20 years. 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation 

plans are accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional 

data or regulatory compliance, and 

competing national park system priorities 

prevent immediate implementation of 

many actions. Major or especially costly 

actions could be implemented 10 or more 

years into the future. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The approved general management plan 

will be the basic document for managing 

Effigy Mounds National Monument for 

the next 15 to 20 years. The purposes of 

this general management plan are as 

follows: 

 Confirm the purpose, significance, 

and fundamental resources and 

values of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. 

 Clearly define the resource 

conditions and visitor uses and 

experiences to be achieved in the 

national monument. Provide a 

framework for managers to use 

when making decisions about how 

to best protect resources, how to 

provide quality visitor uses and 

experiences, how to manage visitor 

use, and what kinds of facilities are 

needed and appropriate in or near 

the monument. 

 Ensure that this framework for 

decision making has been 

developed in consultation with 

interested stakeholders and 

adopted by NPS leadership after 

adequate analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of 

alternative courses of action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service and governing park management 

provides the fundamental direction for the 

administration of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument (and other units and programs 

of the national park system). This general 

management plan builds on these laws, 

NPS policies, and legislation that 

established the monument to provide a 

vision for the future. 

The “Servicewide Laws and Policies” 

section calls the reader’s attention to topics 

that are important to understanding the 

management direction at the national 

monument. This section presents a 

summary of the topics and conditions to 

which management is striving, including 
Introduction 

5 

more detail on the law or policy directing 

management actions. The alternatives in 

this general management plan address the 

desired future conditions that are not 

mandated by law and policy, and which 

must be determined through a planning 

process. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The existing general management plan for 

Effigy Mounds National Monument does 

not provide adequate management 

guidance in several key areas. Since the 

completion of the 1990 general 

management plan for the monument and 

the 1999 amendment, several conditions 

changed or emerged that prompt the need 

for a new plan: 

 The 1,045-acre Heritage Addition 

expanded the monument’s land 

base by approximately 70% and 

added several cultural resources, 

including mounds and extensive 

natural areas. 

 Management of resources and 

visitor needs at the Sny Magill Unit 

are not adequately addressed in the 

previous general management plan. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After distribution of the Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, there will be a 30-day no action 

period after which the NPS planning team 

will prepare a record of decision, which 

may be signed by the regional director. 

With the signing of the record of decision 

and its publication in the Federal Register, 

the plan can be implemented. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

The implementation of the approved plan, 

no matter which alternative, would depend 

on future NPS funding levels and 

servicewide priorities, and on partnership 

funds, time, and effort. The approval of a 

general management plan does not 

guarantee that funding and staffing needed 

to implement the plan would be 

forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

plan could be many years in the future. 

Implementation of the approved plan 

could also be affected by other factors. 

Once the general management plan is 

approved, additional feasibility studies and 

more detailed planning and environmental 

documentation would be completed, as 

appropriate, before any proposed actions 

would be carried out. Examples include the 

following: 

 Appropriate permits would be 

obtained before implementing 

actions that would impact 

wetlands. 

 Appropriate federal and state 

agencies would be consulted 

concerning actions that could 

affect threatened and endangered 

species. 

 Traditionally associated American 

Indian tribes, Office of the State 

Archaeologist, and the Iowa state 

historic preservation officer would 

be consulted. 

 As appropriate, NEPA 

documentation would be prepared 

prior to any action. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or 

projects should be prioritized or 

implemented. Those decisions would be 

addressed during the more detailed 

planning associated with strategic plans, 

implementation plans, etc. All future, more 

detailed plans would be based on the goals, 

future conditions, and appropriate types of 

activities established in the approved 

general management plan.
6 

DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was 

authorized by Presidential Proclamation 

2860 on October 25, 1949. The monument 

currently comprises 2,526 acres in 

northeastern Iowa in two counties: 

Allamakee and Clayton. It is divided into 

four units for the purposes of this 

management plan: North Unit, South Unit, 

Heritage Addition, and Sny Magill Unit 

(see region and park maps). Land 

surrounding Effigy Mounds National 

Monument is managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State of 

Iowa, and private landowners. Land uses in 

the area include agriculture (farming, 

timber cutting, and livestock grazing), rural 

development, resources management, 

recreation, and transportation. 

The monument represents an important 

link in a complex of protected areas that 

preserve many of the values characteristic 

of this region. Much of the nearby 

Mississippi River bank and island area is 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service as the Upper Mississippi River 

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, a 261-

mile-long preserve that extends from 

Wabasha, Minnesota, to Rock Island, 

Illinois. Yellow River State Forest lies 

adjacent to the Heritage Addition. Between 

the currently developed monument units 

and the Sny Magill Unit is Pikes Peak State 

Park, which preserves several effigy 

mounds and bluff tops much like those of 

the monument. The Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources (IDNR) manages small 

tracts of land and recreation sites near the 

monument. The Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources also manages the access 

road and boat ramp in the Sny Magill Unit. 

CLIMATE 

The climate is typical of the Upper 

Midwest United States with large annual 

and daily fluctuations. In the winter, 

snowfall averages about 32 inches. The 

normal January low/high temperatures are 

6/24 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with 160 days 

of the year below freezing. Summer 

low/high temperatures in July are 61/83°F. 

The average length of the growing season is 

140 days with an average annual 

precipitation of 32 inches. The Mississippi 

River has a moderating effect on the 

climate in the valley that reduces the 

variance of temperature extremes. This 

allows plants that are adapted to warmer 

conditions to exist farther north than their 

normal range. 

GEOGRAPHY 

Effigy Mounds National Monument is 

located on the bluffs and floodplain of the 

Mississippi River. Elevation of the 

monument varies from about 615 feet 

above sea level at the Sny Magill Unit to 

just over 1,000 feet in the western part of 

the Heritage Addition. Surface topography 

around the monument is composed of 

abruptly rising bluffs, deep valleys, and 

relatively flat ridge tops. In some places the 

bluffs rise 300 feet above the Mississippi 

River. The North and South units and the 

Heritage Addition are predominantly 

uplands with steep bluffs and old open 

fields on the highest upland flat areas. 

Uplands above the 900-foot level comprise 

about 50% of the monument area. The area 

of steep slopes rising from the floodplain 

up to the 900-foot level make up about 

25% of monument lands, while the 

remaining 25% of the lands consist of 
Description of the Monument 

7 

floodplains, water impoundments, and 

waterways (NPS 1999). 

The monument lies in a geologically unique 

area of erosional topography drained by an 

intricate system of rivers and streams. 

Erosional forces have cut through a plain 

leaving high divides and precipitous bluffs 

above adjacent waterways. Although 

geologic deposits from earlier Ice Age 

events have been found, the last glacial 

period did not cover the area that is now 

the northeast corner of Iowa, so this 

eroded landform is commonly referred to 

as the Driftless Area. Generally speaking, 

the Driftless Area contains both the 

Paleozoic Plateau and the Silurian 

Escarpment, which is a landform transition 

between the Paleozoic Plateau and the 

glaciated land to the west in Iowa. 

MONUMENT UNITS 

North Unit 

The monument's headquarters, 

maintenance facility, and visitor center are 

in the North Unit. Trails in this unit allow 

visitors to view the mounds and scenic 

views on self-guided walks of varying 

distances (longest trail is 7 miles round 

trip). Wayside exhibits along the trails 

provide interpretive messages. Rangerguided interpretive tours are available on a 

seasonal basis. Little Bear Mound (one of 

the monument’s finest examples of the 

effigy style), Great Bear Mound (the largest 

effigy mound in the monument), and many 

other mound groups are in the North Unit. 

In addition, spectacular views of the 

Mississippi River Valley are available from 

Eagle Rock, Fire Point, Third Scenic View, 

and Hanging Rock. 

South Unit 

The South Unit contains the renowned 

Marching Bear Group of mounds. Access 

to the South Unit is by foot from the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources day use 

area. It is a 4-mile round-trip hike to the 

Marching Bear Group from the day use 

area. 

A major concern is that visitors must cross 

railroad tracks and a busy highway to 

access the South Unit from the day use 

area. Another concern is that the southern 

property boundary fence is only about 

20 feet from the nearest mound and 

incompatible uses could occur on the 

adjacent private property. 

Heritage Addition 

This 1,045-acre unit was added in 2000, 

increasing the monument’s land base by 

approximately 70%. Most access to this 

unit currently requires crossing private 

land. There are five known mounds, five 

prehistoric stone quarries, four historic 

sites, the Yellow River, Dousman Creek, 

and an abundance of natural resources in 

this unit. There are also abandoned logging 

roads that could be used as foot trails. This 

unit is not advertised and is not shown on 

the current monument brochure. 

Sny Magill Unit 

This small 141-acre unit is located in the 

floodplain on the west bank of the 

Mississippi River about 10 miles south of 

the headquarters/visitor center. The Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources 

maintains a boat ramp, parking area, and 

access road into the unit. With over 

100 mounds, the Sny Magill Unit contains 

50% of all mounds in the monument. It 

also has the highest concentration of 

mounds known in the region. A trail leads 

from the access road to mounds in the 

northern end of the unit. This unit is not 

advertised and not shown on the 

monument brochure. There are no visitor 

services or NPS presence in this unit; there 

is not much indication that it is a national 

park system unit.
Monument Boundary

Towns

0 1 2 Miles

North

Sny Magill Unit

Prairie 

du Chien

McGregor

Yellow RiverYellow River

IOWA

WISCONSIN

76

76 Marquette

Heritage 

Addition

Visitor Center and

Monument Headquarters

FIGURE 1: REGION

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / Feb 2011 / 394 / 20,022B

South

Unit

North

Unit

X-56

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

IOWA

Effigy Mounds

National Monument
HERITAGE ADDITION

Founders 

Pond

Yellow River

Smokey Hol ol w Road

NOTES: 

*The park is in the process of completing a 

boundary survey. The boundary shown on 

this map is for illustrative purposes only.

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

IOWA

WISCONSIN

Mississi p

p i R i v e r

Pleasant Ridge Road

Co un ty Road (Rest ricted Use)

Dousman C reek

76

Figure 2: Park

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Legend

Public Road

County Road

State Boundary

Waterbody

National Monument Boundary

Non-NPS Land within Park Boundary

0 0.5 1

Miles

DSC/November 2011

Entrance Road

Sn y Magill Creek

Johnsons Slo ugh

X56

SNY MAGILL UNIT

0 0.25 0.5

Miles
10 

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 

MONUMENT PURPOSE 

AND SIGNIFICANCE 

Monument Purpose 

Purpose statements are based on the 

national monument’s legislation and 

legislative history and NPS policies. The 

statement reaffirms the reasons for which 

the national monument was set aside as a 

unit of the national park system and 

provide the foundation for management 

and use. 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

preserves outstanding representative 

examples of significant phases of 

prehistoric Indian moundbuilding 

cultures in the American Midwest; 

protects wildlife and natural values 

within the monument; and provides for 

scientific study and appreciation of its 

features for the benefit of this and future 

generations. 

Significance Statements and 

Associated Fundamental and Other 

Important Resources and Values 

Significance statements capture the 

importance of the national monument to 

the country’s natural and cultural heritage. 

Significance statements do not inventory 

national monument resources; rather, they 

describe the national monument’s 

distinctiveness and help to place the 

monument within its regional, national, 

and international contexts. Significance 

statements answer questions: Why are 

Effigy Mounds National Monument’s 

resources distinctive? What do they 

contribute to the natural/cultural heritage?

Defining the significance and associated 

fundamental resources helps managers 

make decisions that preserve the resources 

and values necessary to accomplish the 

national monument’s purpose. 

Fundamental resources and values are 

critical in fulfilling the monument’s 

purpose and maintaining its significance. 

Other important resources and values are 

otherwise important to park planning and 

management. Identifying fundamental and 

other important resources and values helps 

to focus management on the features most 

important in the monument. 

Significance 1. The national monument 

contains nationally significant 

archeological resources comprising one of 

the largest concentrations of burial 

mounds in the United States, including 

some of the finest and best preserved 

examples of effigy mounds in their original 

forms. These cultural features provide an 

insight into the social, spiritual, and 

ceremonial life of peoples in this region 

prior to European contact. 

Fundamental Resources and Values—

These resources include the primary 

archeological sites in all units of the 

monument, including all their features 

such as mounds, rock shelters, 

habitation sites, rock art, and associated 

artifacts, representing 1,800 years of the 

moundbuilding culture. While the 

Heritage Addition has not yet had a 

systematic archeological inventory 

completed, some mounds have been 

discovered in that area. The resources 

of that area are included as fundamental 

resources. 

Significance 2. The natural and cultural 

resources of the monument are intricately 

connected—the moundbuilding cultures 

were the result of the dynamic interface of 

people and their environment. The native 

vegetation communities associated with 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

11 

the moundbuilding era were the result of 

the topography and climate found in the 

geologically unique Driftless Area of the 

Upper Midwest. This environment 

produced microhabitats that support 

extensive flora and fauna diversity. This 

diversity attracted and sustained 

generations of American Indians. 

Fundamental Resources and Values—

The monument contains habitat for an 

assemblage of plants found nowhere 

else in Iowa and rare in the region. This 

habitat includes both the transition 

zone of several vegetation communities 

found in the eastern hardwood and 

prairie ecosystems and microclimates 

produced by north-facing slopes and 

the influence of the river valley. 

Habitat, including wetlands, for almost 

300 species of birds, including nesting 

habitat for the red-shouldered hawk (a 

state listed species) and habitat for 

several other federal- and state listed 

animal and plant species, including bald 

eagles, peregrine falcons, Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, purple fringed orchid, 

and jeweled shooting star. 

Important Resources and Values—

The Yellow River is listed in the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory and 

possesses outstandingly remarkable 

values. 

The topography associated with the 

Driftless Area reveals 500-million-yearold limestone bedrock. 

The exposed 400-foot bluffs 

overlooking the Mississippi River 

feature American Indian rock art sites, 

rock shelters that were important as 

habitation sites, and chert outcroppings 

that were locally important for making 

tools and weapons. 

Significance 3. The monument contains 

historic resources that represent European 

American settlement of the area and the 

displacement of historic American Indian 

culture. Conversely, early scientific 

research conducted in the monument 

during the late 1800s began the period of 

understanding and preserving of the rich 

Indian culture. 

Important Resources and Values—

The monument includes a road built in 

1840 by the military that connected Fort 

Crawford, Wisconsin Territory, with 

Fort Atkinson, Iowa, and a historic 

archeological site—the Jefferson Davis 

sawmill—that supported the building of 

Fort Crawford. These are some of the 

reminders of how early 19th-century 

American Indian treaties involved the 

military in resolving “the Indian 

problem” and opened up the territories 

for United States expansion and 

settlement prior to the Mexican War. 

Additional historic sites within the 

monument document early American 

use of the land for homesteading; 

agriculture; and economic, consumptive 

purposes, such as clamming, logging, 

and quarrying. These sites are tangible 

connections to the early western 

expansion of America. 

Significance 4. The monument preserves 

and protects physical evidence of the 

cultural landscape, which documents the 

early and continuing scientific interest in 

the mounds and moundbuilding cultures. 

The monument’s cultural resources and 

collections document the full breadth of 

archeological investigations in the 

monument, from early mound 

documentation and exploration to modern 

methods of archeological investigation that 

incorporate a variety of techniques and 

native perspectives. 

Fundamental Resources and Values—

The monument’s collections include 

original documents, photographic 

collections, and artifact collections that 

both document the important 

contributions of Ellison Orr and others 

to the early development of the science 

of field archeology relating to the 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

12 

moundbuilding cultures and support 

future scientific study and 

interpretation of paleontology, natural 

history, geology, history, and ethnology. 

Significance 5. The monument is 

identified by present-day members of the 

monument’s traditionally associated tribes 

as a sacred landscape. 

Fundamental Resources and Values—

The individual resources of the 

monument listed previously as 

fundamental and important resources—

mounds and associated artifacts, native 

vegetation, and rivers—collectively 

form a cultural landscape. Tribes and 

NPS staff are pursuing a designation 

that would acknowledge the entire 

national monument as a traditional 

cultural property. Some natural 

resources present in the monument, 

such as medicinal and ceremonial 

plants, are also culturally important, 

contributing to the importance of the 

area to modern American Indian tribes. 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Primary interpretive themes are the key 

stories, concepts, and ideas of a park that 

the NPS staff use for educating visitors 

about the monument and for inspiring 

visitors to care for and about the resources. 

With these themes, visitors can form 

intellectual and emotional connections 

with monument resources and 

experiences. Subsequent interpretive 

planning may elaborate on these primary 

themes. Based on the park’s purpose, 

significance, and primary resources, the 

following interpretive themes have been 

developed: 

 Effigy Mounds National 

Monument preserves earthen 

mounds that are a manifestation of 

a sophisticated moundbuilding 

culture composed of several 

cultural systems that allowed the 

inhabitants to maintain a balance 

with the natural environment. 

These cultural systems of social 

organization (required to harness 

the labor to build the mounds), 

spiritual expression (the mounds), 

economics (widespread trade 

networks), and horticulture and 

early agriculture, allowed these 

peoples to invest the time and labor 

necessary to build the mounds. 

 The notable erosional features of 

the Driftless Area set the 

framework for a unique assemblage 

of prairie and forest, wetlands and 

upland, and warm and cool 

environments that are home to 

highly diverse communities of 

plants and animals. This provides 

an opportunity to study the 

intricate connection between the 

moundbuilding people and the 

dynamic continuum of the natural 

world that had a profound impact 

on the evolution of a complex 

American Indian culture. 

 The design and extent of ancient 

mound construction reveals not 

only the cultural sophistication and 

foresight of generations of 

moundbuilders, but also illustrates 

the special value they placed in 

their shared community beliefs and 

in these sacred places. 

With European and American expansion, 

forces swept over the Effigy Mounds area, 

removed the American Indian residents 

and displaced their culture. Ironically, the 

monument, as a sacred site, includes 

remnants of these cultural conflicts and the 

forces of “nation- building” revealed by the 

old military road that connected Fort 

Crawford to Fort Atkinson, the Jefferson 

Davis sawmill site, the nearby Winnebago 

mission school, and a portion of the 

Neutral Ground (a “buffer zone” 

established by the U.S. Government to 

control American Indian movement and 

activity). 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

13 

 The monument’s cultural resources 

and collections document the full 

breadth of archeological 

investigations in the monument, 

from early mound documentation 

and exploration, to modern 

methods of archeological 

investigation that incorporates a 

variety of techniques and native 

perspectives. The monument 

continues to serve as a springboard 

for the progression of American 

archeology—from a simple 

fascination with “curiosities” to a 

scientific methodology that today 

incorporates the sacred nature of 

American Indian archeological 

sites. 

 Combining a focus on less invasive 

archeological methods with 

continued consultation with 

traditionally associated tribes 

allows a better understanding of 

American Indian traditions, 

history, and stories related to the 

moundbuilding cultures. Only by 

combining earlier methods of 

archeology, other less invasive 

methods of today, and the oral 

traditions and histories of the 

native peoples can we develop a 

deeper understanding of and 

spiritual connection with the past. 

SPECIAL MANDATES OR 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Public Law 106-323 allowed for additional 

lands (50-acre Riverfront Tract) to be 

purchased from willing sellers and adjusted 

the monument boundary to include these 

lands. While the Riverfront Tract is in the 

legislated monument boundary, it remains 

in ownership of the Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources and the Canadian 

Pacific Railroad. Should this land become 

available, it may be purchased by the 

federal government and immediately 

included in the monument. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

Many management directives are specified 

in laws and policies guiding the National 

Park Service and, therefore, are not subject 

to alternative approaches. For example, 

there are laws and policies about managing 

environmental quality (such as the Clean 

Air Act; the Endangered Species Act; and 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands”); laws governing the 

preservation of cultural resources [such as 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) and Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA)]; and laws about providing 

public services (such as Americans with 

Disabilities Act). In other words, a general 

management plan is not needed to decide, 

for instance, that it is appropriate to 

protect endangered species, protect 

archeological sites, conserve artifacts, or 

provide for handicap access. Laws and 

policies have already decided those and 

many other things. Although attaining 

some of the conditions set forth in these 

laws and policies may be temporarily 

deferred in a park because of funding or 

staffing limitations, the National Park 

Service would continue to strive to 

implement these requirements whether or 

not a park has a current general 

management plan. 

Some of these laws and executive orders 

are applicable solely or primarily to units of 

the national park system. These include the 

NPS Organic Act of 1916 that established 

the National Park Service; General 

Authorities Act of 1970; act of March 27, 

1978, relating to management of the 

national park system; and National Parks 

Omnibus Management Act (1998). Other 

laws and executive orders have much 

broader application, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and Executive 

Order 11990. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 United States 

Code (USC)1) provides the fundamental 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

14 

management direction for all units of the 

national park system: 

[P]romote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments, and reservations...by such 

means and measure as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects and the wild 

life therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The NPS General Authorities Act (16 USC 

1a-1, et seq.) affirms that while all national 

park system units remain “distinct in 

character,” they are “united through their 

interrelated purposes and resources into 

one national park system as cumulative 

expressions of a single national heritage.” 

The act makes it clear that the NPS Organic 

Act and other protective mandates apply 

equally to all units of the national park 

system. Further, amendments state that 

NPS management of park units should not 

“derogat[e] . . . the purposes and values for 

which these various areas have been 

established.” 

The National Park Service also has 

established policies for all units under its 

stewardship. These are identified and 

explained in a guidance manual titled NPS 

Management Policies 2006. The action 

alternatives (alternatives B and C) 

considered in this document incorporate 

and comply with the provisions of these 

mandates and policies. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, section 

5(d)(1) requires that consideration be given 

by all federal agencies to potential national 

wild, scenic, and recreational river areas, 

and all river basin and project plan reports 

submitted to the Congress shall consider 

and discuss any such potentials. 

Table 1 shows some of the most pertinent 

servicewide mandates and policies related 

to planning and management goals at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

Because these goals are discussed in terms 

of “desired conditions,” the table is written 

in the present tense. The alternatives in this 

management plan address the desired 

future conditions that are not mandated by 

law and policy and must be determined 

through a planning process. 
Foundation for Planning and Management

15 

TABLE 1. LAWS, MANDATES, AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Desired Conditions Sources

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried and their significance 

is determined and documented. Archeological sites are preserved and 

protected in an undisturbed condition unless it is determined through 

formal processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. When disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the 

site is professionally documented and excavated in consultation with 

the Iowa state historic preservation officer and traditionally associated 

tribes. Resulting artifacts, materials, and records are curated, 

conserved, and/or repatriated. Some archeological sites that can be 

adequately protected may be interpreted to the visitor. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Executive 

Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the 

Cultural Environment”; Archeological Resources 

Protection Act; The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation; Programmatic Agreement 

among the National Park Service, Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

(2008); NPS Management Policies 2006; Director’s 

Order 28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline; Director’s Order 28A: Archeology; and 

Executive Order 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites” 

Examples of Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service would take the following actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to archeological 

sites: 

 Complete archeological surveys of all units of the national monument. 

 If archeological resources are discovered, they would be treated as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (national register) pending a formal determination of their significance by the National Park Service, the Iowa 

state historic preservation officer and traditionally associated American Indian tribes. 

 Protect all archeological resources; if disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with the 

Iowa state historic preservation officer, traditionally associated American Indian tribes, and, as necessary, with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

 When archeological resources are discovered, consult with traditionally associated American Indian tribes. 

 In advance of any new development, or modification of existing developments, consult with the Iowa state historic 

preservation officer and traditionally associated American Indian tribes.

HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC STRUCTURES

Desired Conditions Sources

Historic structures are inventoried and their significance and integrity 

are evaluated under National Register of Historic Places criteria. The 

qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility for listing of historic 

structures in the national register are protected in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation (unless it is determined through 

a formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable). 

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 

11593; Archeological Resources Protection Act; The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for 

Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 

Reconstructing Historic Buildings; Memorandum of 

Agreement among the National Park Service, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers (2008); NPS Management Policies 2006;

Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resources 

Management; and NPS List of Classified Structures. 

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Maintain and certify the List of Classified Structures—the NPS inventory of all historic and prehistoric structures that 

have historical, architectural, or engineering significance. 

 Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each historic structure formally determined to be eligible for listing 

or already listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

16 

TABLE 1. LAWS, MANDATES, AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Desired Conditions Sources

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify 

landscapes potentially eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places, and to assist in future management decisions 

for landscapes and associated resources, both cultural and 

natural. 

A cultural landscape report clearly identifies the landscape 

characteristics and associated features, values, and associations 

that make a landscape historically and culturally significant. The 

content of a cultural landscape report provides the basis for 

making sound decisions about management, treatment, and use. 

The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving 

the landscape’s physical attributes, biotic systems, and use (when 

that use contributes to its historical significance). 

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 

11593, ; Archeological Resources Protection Act; 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation; Programmatic Agreement among 

the National Park Service, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National Conference 

of State Historic Preservation Officers (2008); 

Executive Order 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites”; 

NPS Management Policies 2006; Director’s Order 

28: Cultural Resources Management Guidelines; 

List of Classified Structures; Cultural Landscape 

Inventory 

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Maintain and certify the cultural landscapes inventory—an evaluated inventory of all landscapes having historical 

significance in which the National Park Service has acquired or plans to acquire legal interest. 

 Update the current cultural landscapes inventory to determine whether an “ethnographic landscape” exists, to 

determine its boundaries, and to document any resources. 

 Complete the cultural landscape report for the monument. 

 Maintain cultural landscapes according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Desired Conditions Sources

All museum collections (prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, 

works of art, archival documents, and natural history specimens) 

are identified and inventoried, catalogued, documented, 

preserved, and protected; and provision is made for access to and 

use of them for exhibits, research, and interpretation according 

to NPS standards. 

The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are 

protected in accordance with established standards. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act; Archeology and Historic 

Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines ; NPS Management Policies 2006; 

Director’s Order 24: NPS Museum Collections 

Management

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Inventory and catalog all museum collections in accordance with standards in Director’s Order 24: Museum 

Collections Management and the NPS Museum Handbook. 

 Develop and implement a collection management program according to NPS standards to guide the protection, 

conservation, and use of museum objects. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

17 

TABLE 1. LAWS, MANDATES, AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

SOILS 

Desired Conditions Sources

The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve the 

soil resources, and to prevent to the extent possible the unnatural 

erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil or its 

contamination of other resources. 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural condition as 

possible, except where special considerations are allowed under policy. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

When soil excavation is an unavoidable part of an approved facility 

development project, the National Park Service would minimize soil 

excavation, erosion, and off-site soil migration during and after the 

development activity. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

WATER RESOURCES 

Desired Conditions Sources

Surface water and groundwater are protected, and water quality meets 

or exceeds all applicable water quality standards. 

Clean Water Act; Executive Order 11514, 

”Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality”; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

NPS programs and facilities and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are 

maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface water and 

groundwater. 

Clean Water Act; Executive Order 12088, 

“Federal Compliance with Pollution 

Control Standards”; Rivers and Harbors 

Act; NPS Management Policies 2006

The Yellow River is managed to maintain the characteristics that make it 

eligible and suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (4.3.4) 

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Continue monitoring water quality of the Yellow River and initiate monitoring of other waterways. When 

degraded water quality and/or flows occur, attempt to locate and mitigate at the source. 

 Inform and educate visitors about the water resources. 

 Take no management actions that could adversely affect the values that qualify the Yellow River for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

FLOODPLAINS 

Desired Conditions Sources

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. Executive Order 11988, ”Floodplain 

Management”; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Long-term and short-term environmental effects associated with the 

occupancy and modifications of floodplains are avoided. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or 

inappropriate human activities to a site outside the floodplain or where the 

floodplain would be affected, the National Park Service: 

 prepares and approves a statement of findings in accordance 

with Director’s Order 77-2 

Director’s Order 77-2: Floodplain 

Management; NPS Management Policies 

2006
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

18 

TABLE 1. LAWS, MANDATES, AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

 uses nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce 

hazards to human life and property while minimizing impacts on 

the natural resources of floodplains 

 ensures that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent 

with the intent of the standards and criteria of the National Flood 

Insurance Program (44 CFR 60) 

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Prepare a quantitative analysis of the Yellow River and Mississippi River floodplains and the risk of damaging 

floods. 

 Develop procedures to redirect visitors during a flood event. 

 Inform visitors about the values of flooding and natural floodplains.

NATIVE VEGETATION AND ANIMALS

Desired Conditions Sources

The National Park Service strives to maintain, as part of the natural 

ecosystem, native plants and animals in the national monument. 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural 

condition as possible, except where special considerations are warranted. 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or extirpated 

from the national monument are restored where feasible and sustainable. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 

The management of nonnative plant and animal species, including 

eradication, would be conducted wherever such species threaten national 

monument resources or public health and when control is prudent and 

feasible. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; 

Executive Order 13112, “Invasive 

Species” 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Desired Conditions Sources

Federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and their 

habitats are protected and sustained. 

Endangered Species Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been 

severely reduced in or extirpated from the national monument are 

restored where feasible and sustainable. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Conduct periodic inventories for special status species. 

 Prepare and implement a resources stewardship strategy. 

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES 

Desired Conditions Sources

The natural soundscape of the monument would be preserved to the 

greatest extent possible. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Where soundscapes have been degraded by unnatural sounds (noise) 

they would be restored to a natural condition wherever possible. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Identify what types and maximum levels of unnatural sound constitute acceptable impacts and monitor to 

determine when those levels are exceeded. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

19 

TABLE 1. LAWS, MANDATES, AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Desired Conditions Source

Cultural and natural resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment 

of future generations. Visitors have opportunities for forms of enjoyment that 

are uniquely suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural 

resources found in the national monument. No activities occur that would 

cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the monument has 

been established. 

Visitors would have opportunities to understand and appreciate the 

significance of the national monument and its resources, and to develop a 

personal stewardship ethic. 

For all zones, units, or other logical management divisions in the monument, 

the types and levels of visitor use are consistent with the desired resource and 

visitor experience conditions prescribed for those areas. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006; National Parks and 

Recreation Act (PL 95-625) 

To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities are accessible to and 

usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 

Americans with Disabilities Act; 

Director’s Order 42: Accessibility for 

Visitors with Disabilities in National 

Park Service Programs and Services

Examples of Compliance Actions 

 Give all visitors the opportunity to understand, appreciate, and enjoy the resources and values of the national 

monument. 

 Continue to monitor visitor comments on issues such as crowding, access, and other experience-related topics. 

 Identify implementation commitments for user capacities for all areas of the national monument. 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING 

EFFORTS TO THIS GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Effigy Mounds National Monument is in 

Clayton and Allamakee counties, Iowa. 

Properties surrounding the park include 

state lands and privately owned residential 

and agricultural lands. There are no tribal 

lands nearby. 

Several planning efforts have influenced or 

would be influenced by the approved 

general management plan for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. Some of these plans 

are described briefly here, along with their 

relationship to this general management 

plan. 

The monument is located within the Silos & 

Smokestacks National Heritage Area. As one 

of the federally designated heritage areas in 

the nation, it is an affiliated area of the 

national park system—the National Park 

Service does not own or manage the heritage 

area, but may provide some funding and 

technical support. The mission of the 

heritage area is to ensure that residents and 

visitors alike can learn about the significant 

contributions that northeast Iowa’s people 

and land made to America’s agricultural 

legacy. The Silos & Smokestacks National 

Heritage Area Board of Trustees provides 

the connecting element of this regional 

partnership network. The visitor attractions, 

sites, and communities are key partners in 

developing the national heritage area. 

Planning for the national heritage area in 

supporting tourism and economic activity is 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

20 

generally compatible with the monument’s 

management alternatives. 

The Mississippi River Trail is a long-distance 

bicycle and pedestrian trail being developed 

along the Mississippi River from Minnesota 

to Louisiana. The National Park Service 

supports this effort and proposes that the 

monument become a destination point along 

the trail. However, bicycles are not allowed 

on monument trails, so the river trail must be 

routed outside the monument. The 

monument may provide bicycle racks at 

trailheads to accommodate this visitor 

group. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 

the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge located on the Mississippi River 

next to the monument. Monument staff 

review refuge planning documents for 

potential management conflicts, and the 

refuge staff review NPS documents. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 

visitor center to be built relatively near the 

Sny Magill Unit. 

The Upper Mississippi National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge is designated as a Ramsar 

Convention wildlife refuge. The Ramsar 

Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework 

for national action and international 

cooperation for the conservation and wise 

use of wetlands and their resources. It was 

adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 

and came into force in 1975. It is the only 

global environmental treaty that deals with a 

particular ecosystem. 

Because the national monument staff already 

works in concert with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to preserve wetlands, the 

Ramsar Convention designation does not 

affect the way the national monument is 

managed. 

The National Park Service would endeavor 

to remain involved with local and regional 

efforts to protect, manage, and interpret 

burial mounds and other cultural resources 

in the region.
21 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

INTRODUCTION 

The general public; NPS staff; representatives 

from other county, state, and federal agencies; 

and representatives from various organizations identified issues and concerns during 

scoping (early information gathering) for this 

general management plan. An issue is defined 

as an opportunity, conflict, or problem 

regarding the use or management of public 

lands. Comments were solicited at public 

meetings, through planning newsletters, and 

on the NPS planning website (see “Chapter 5: 

Consultation and Coordination”). Planning 

issues and concerns can change over time or 

have been addressed during the development 

of the plan. Additional issues were raised in 

response the Effigy Mounds Revised Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, responses to these 

comments are provided in “Chapter 5: 

Consultation and Coordination.” 

In general, visitors and others value the cultural and natural resources in the monument. 

They value the well-preserved burial mounds, 

scenic views, beauty, and natural resources. In 

addition, respondents appreciate the 

recreational opportunities (hiking, birding, 

etc.) and participation in the various programs 

and events that are offered at the monument. 

The issue receiving the most comments was 

the need to improve/strengthen interpretive 

and education programs at the monument and 

in nearby communities (outreach). Concerns 

over the limited funding and workforce were 

expressed. The preservation of natural 

resources was identified as an important issue. 

Many people felt the National Park Service 

should partner with other local agencies and 

organizations to manage resources in a 

regional context. 

The planning team also received many 

interesting ideas and suggestions for future 

management of the monument. Many 

respondents felt that the National Park 

Service is doing a good job and want the 

monument to stay the way it is now with 

no further development. Others would like 

to see more American Indian involvement. 

Commenters also said the National Park 

Service should continue or enhance its 

efforts to preserve cultural and natural 

resources. Some think the National Park 

Service should expand the visitor 

opportunities available at the monument 

and provide more trails, activities, or other 

visitor amenities. 

Comments received during scoping 

demonstrated there is much that the public 

likes about the national monument—

including its management, use, and 

facilities. The issues and concerns 

generally involve determining the 

appropriate visitor use, types, and levels of 

facilities and activities while protecting the 

primary resources. The GMP alternatives 

provide strategies for addressing the issues 

within the context of the monument’s 

purpose, significance, and special 

mandates. 

ISSUES 

During public scoping for the planning 

process, many possible issues were 

proposed by the public and agency 

personnel. Some of these were not 

addressed in the plan because they are 

covered by law and policy, are outside the 

scope of the general management plan, or 

are better addressed in a site-specific plan. 

The following issues were identified by the 

public and NPS staff during the early 

phases of this planning effort. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

22 

Information, Education, and 

Access Issues 

 Public access to the Heritage Addition 

is limited. The Yellow River runs 

through the Heritage Addition 

effectively splitting the area into two 

segments. Access to the southern 

portion of the Heritage Addition 

requires crossing private land. Access 

to the northern portion is limited by a 

lack of parking or safe vehicle pullouts 

from Highway 76. 

 Orientation, wayfinding, facilities, and 

opportunities for hiking in the 

monument are lacking and do not 

meet visitor needs. 

 The monument’s difficult terrain and 

extensive archeological resources 

mean that providing universal access 

to all resources is difficult or nearly 

impossible. 

 Visitors to the Sny Magill Unit do not 

receive orientation materials or 

contact with park staff. As a result, 

visitors are discouraged from visiting 

this area. 

 The visitor center is overcrowded 

when school groups are present. The 

visitor center space is too small to 

meet the needs of the visitors and 

interpretive staff. 

Cultural and Natural 

Resource Management Issues 

 Additional resources related to the 

moundbuilders in the region need to 

be further researched, preserved, 

and interpreted. 

 The boundary fence near 

Marching Bear group is too close 

to the mounds (approximately 20 

feet) to protect the resource and 

provide for a quality visitor 

experience; the general 

management plan needs to 

consider how to protect both 

resources and the viewshed at the 

Marching Bear group. 

 There are concerns about 

protecting key viewsheds seen 

from the monument; there is a 

need to mitigate visual 

encroachments. 

 The current facility that houses the 

monument collections does not 

meet NPS museum collections 

standards for preservation or 

operational needs. 

 There is a need for a wild and 

scenic river eligibility 

determination for the Yellow 

River. 

Administrative Issues 

 There is a need to more fully 

address management of and 

possible development in the Sny 

Magill Unit; there is a need for a 

stronger NPS presence there. 

 Decisions on appropriate levels of 

access and development need to be 

made for the Heritage Addition.
23 

IMPACT TOPICS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making 

one decision over another. To this end, 

NPS general management plans are 

typically accompanied by environmental 

impact statements. Environmental impact 

statements identify the anticipated impacts 

of possible actions on resources and on 

park visitors and neighbors. Impacts are 

organized by topic, such as “impacts on the 

visitor experience” or “impacts on 

vegetation and soils.” Impact topics serve to 

focus the environmental analysis and to 

ensure the relevance of impact evaluation. 

The impact topics identified for this general 

management plan are outlined in this 

section; they were identified based on 

federal laws and other legal requirements, 

CEQ guidelines, NPS management policies, 

staff subject-matter expertise, and the 

issues and concerns expressed by the public 

and other agencies early in the planning 

process (see previous section). 

Impact topics, simply defined, are the 

resource categories that could be affected 

by the actions of the alternatives of the plan. 

The impact topics discussed below were 

derived from the issues identified during 

scoping and the potential for impacts. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resource topics to be considered 

are of five overlapping types. They include 

the following: 

Archeological Resources consist of 

artifacts, objects, or sites that evidence past 

human habitation or occupation over time. 

One or more of the alternatives could affect 

these resources; consequently, this topic is 

retained for detailed analysis. 

Cultural Landscapes, either historic or 

ethnographic, that are distinctive features 

of the human-built environment or natural 

environment, or both, and that represent 

aspects of a way of life of a people, group, 

or family. One or more of the alternatives 

could affect this resource, so this topic is 

retained for detailed analysis. 

Museum Collections consist of objects or 

records that relate to site history, setting, 

and occupation. One or more of the 

alternatives could affect this resource, so 

this topic is retained for detailed analysis. 

Ethnographic Resources are those 

resources that are associated with a 

people’s cultural system or way of life. They 

include technology, sites, structures, 

material features, and natural resources. 

Because access to and use of ethnographic 

resources is a topic of interest to American 

Indians, this topic is retained for detailed 

analysis. 

Note: The mounds can be classified as 

structures, archeological and ethnographic 

resources, and/or components of the 

cultural landscape at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. Of the 210 structures 

within the monument that are listed on the 

NPS List of Classified Structures, 208 are 

mounds. In this document, impacts to the 

mounds would be considered under 

“Archeological Resources.” Two historic 

structures, the Military Road and a cistern, 

are not affected by proposals in the plan so 

“structures” as an impact topic was not 

considered further. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

24 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils 

The soil in the area around Effigy Mounds 

originated from erosion of the limestone 

bedrock and was deposited by the wind or 

water in relatively recent times. 

Soil can be affected by development, 

ecological restoration, and visitor use. 

Because alternatives presented in this plan 

include actions that would affect soil 

resources, this topic is retained for further 

analysis. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Units of the national park system that 

contain one or more river segments listed in 

the Nationwide Rivers Inventory would 

comply with section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act, which instructs each 

federal agency to assess whether those 

rivers or segments are suitable for inclusion 

in the national wild and scenic rivers 

system. 

A segment of the Yellow River within the 

monument is listed on the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory, so this topic is retained for 

further analysis. Included in this general 

management plan is a study to determine if 

the Yellow River is eligible and suitable for 

inclusion in the national wild and scenic 

rivers system (appendix D) 

Vegetation 

The transition zone of several vegetation 

communities found in the eastern 

hardwood and prairie ecosystems and 

microclimates produced by north-facing 

slopes and the influence of the river valley 

provide habitat for an assemblage of plants 

found nowhere else in Iowa and rare in the 

region. 

There is a concern about the spread of 

nonnative plants in the monument and the 

adverse effects these species could cause to 

native plants. 

Alternatives presented in this plan could 

affect native and invasive nonnative 

vegetation, so this topic is retained for 

detailed analysis. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Effigy Mounds National Monument is 

home to an unusual diversity of fish, birds, 

and wildlife due to its location and habitat. 

As one of the largest preserved natural areas 

in Iowa, the monument may serve as a 

refuge for sensitive or representative flora 

and fauna. 

Fish and wildlife concerns at the monument 

include preserving or restoring natural 

habitats and maintaining healthy 

populations of fauna. Alternatives 

presented in this general management plan 

could potentially affect fish or wildlife 

species or important habitat, so this topic is 

retained for analysis. 

Special Status Species 

Analysis of the potential impacts on special 

status species (federal or state endangered, 

threatened, or candidate species; or species 

of concern) is required by the Endangered 

Species Act, NPS management policies, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and 

other regulations. One or more of the 

alternatives could affect special status 

species or their habitat so this topic is 

retained. 

Viewsheds 

Unobstructed natural views are becoming 

scarcer throughout the United States. They 

are especially important at the monument 

because they contribute to a sense of 

timelessness—an important quality of the 

Effigy Mounds experience. As expressed 

through comments received during public 

scoping, natural views are valued by the 
Impact Topics Discussed in Detail 

25 

public. Because of the importance of 

natural viewsheds, this topic is retained. 

OTHER TOPICS 

Visitor Use and Experience 

The Organic Act of 1916 and NPS 

management policies require the National 

Park Service to provide opportunities for 

the enjoyment of a park unit's resources 

and values. This enjoyment comes from 

activities that are appropriate for each park 

unit. Scenic viewsheds and the ability to 

view the mounds up close are considered 

an important contributing factor to positive 

visitor experiences in this monument. 

Actions in one or more of the alternatives 

could affect visitor use and experience in 

the monument, so this topic is retained. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

National Environmental Policy Act 

requirements include an analysis of social 

and economic impacts caused by federal 

actions. 

The economies of several nearby 

communities are affected by the 

monument. Changes to the way Effigy 

Mounds is managed or operated resulting 

from implementing one or more of the 

alternatives in this plan could influence the 

socioeconomic environment of nearby 

communities; consequently, this topic is 

retained for analysis. 

Monument Operations 

and Facilities 

Topics could include staffing, maintenance, 

facilities, ability to enforce park regulations 

and protect park values, employee and 

visitor health and safety, or administrative 

access. 

Changes in monument operation needs 

could occur as a result of implementing any 

of the action alternatives, so this topic is 

retained for analysis. 

Natural or Depletable Resources 

Requirements and Conservation 

Potential 

Consideration of these topics is required by 

40 CFR 1502.16. The National Park Service 

adopted the concept of sustainable design 

as a guiding principle of facility planning 

and development (NPS Management 

Policies 2006, 9.1). The objectives of 

sustainability are to design facilities to 

minimize adverse effects on natural and 

cultural values and to require the least 

amount of nonrenewable resources and 

energy. 

Through sustainable design concepts, best 

management practices, and other resource 

management principles, all the alternatives 

analyzed in this document would 

contribute to conserving natural resources. 

Analysis of this topic has been combined 

with the following topic and placed at the 

end of the Environmental Consequences 

chapter. 

Energy Requirements 

and Conservation Potential 

One or more of the action alternatives 

could result in new facilities with inherent 

energy needs. In all alternatives, new 

facilities would be designed with long-term 

sustainability in mind. Nevertheless, action 

alternatives that call for additional 

structures could result in an increased 

energy need. Analysis of this topic has been 

combined with the previous topic at the 

end of the “Environmental Consequences” 

chapter. 

Climate Change 

Climate change refers to a suite of changes 

occurring in Earth’s atmospheric, 

hydrologic, and oceanic systems. 

Documented changes, including increased 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

26 

global air and ocean temperatures, 

widespread melting of snow and ice, and 

rising global average sea level, provide 

evidence that the climate system is 

warming. Any of the action alternatives at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument would, 

of course, have very little effect on the 

cumulative level of greenhouse gases or 

other climate change factors (e.g. carbon 

footprint) when viewed nationwide. 

Potential management actions could change 

the monument’s contribution to climate 

change factors. This topic is discussed in 

chapter 4. 
27 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

HISTORIC BUILDINGS 

AND STRUCTURES 

Historic buildings and structures are those 

that are important to local, regional, or 

national history and that are either listed in 

or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. No standing or 

intact historic buildings remain at Effigy 

Mounds National Monument. Although 

the mounds could be considered 

structures, in this analysis they have been 

treated as archeological resources. 

Military Road is also being described and 

treated as an archeological resource, 

although several sections have been 

maintained for park trail and maintenance 

use. The houses near the maintenance 

building have been determined ineligible 

for the national register. Therefore, there 

would be no impact on historic buildings 

or structures and this topic has been 

dismissed from further analysis. 

AIR QUALITY 

The Clean Air Act states that managers 

have an affirmative responsibility to 

protect park air quality from adverse air 

pollution impacts. The monument is a 

Class II airshed according to guidelines in 

the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. 

Under Class II, modest increases in air 

pollution are allowed beyond baseline 

levels for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen, and nitrogen dioxide, provided 

that the national ambient air quality 

standards, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are not 

exceeded. 

There are no major air pollution sources 

within or near the monument. Engine 

exhaust is the most common pollutant in 

the region and is heaviest around roads and 

highways, railroad tracks, and agricultural 

operations. Airborne particulates (e.g., dust 

and smoke) are generated from 

construction, agricultural operations, and 

the burning of fields or weeds. 

Construction-related activities could occur 

with the implementation of an action 

alternative and local air quality may be 

temporarily affected by this activity. 

However, there would be no long-term 

effects on air quality so it was dismissed as 

an impact topic in this document. 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

Groundwater at the monument is found in 

the Jordan-Prairie du Chien bedrock 

interval and is typically called the Jordan 

Aquifer. Local streams receive high 

proportions (70%–80% or more) of their 

base flow from groundwater, which 

provides important cold water 

characteristics of the streams. 

The Yellow River originates in southeastern Winneshiek County, Iowa, and 

flows through the monument about 

3.5 miles before joining the Mississippi 

River. A portion of the Yellow River, 

including the segment that runs through 

the monument, is currently listed on Iowa’s 

impaired waters list for high levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria (Weeks 2006). Dousman 

Creek, a cold water trout stream, enters the 

Yellow River inside the monument 

boundary. 

Sny Magill Creek is one of the more widely 

used streams for recreational trout fishing 

in Iowa. The stream bottom is primarily 

rock and gravel with frequent riffle areas. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

28 

In most years, discharge in the Sny Magill 

watershed is high during the spring and 

summer and declines during the fall and 

winter. High flows during the spring 

snowmelt period and summer storms can 

cause sediment discharge from Sny Magill 

Creek. 

None of the alternatives described in this 

plan would affect water quality or quantity 

so this topic is dismissed from detailed 

analysis. 

WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS 

Within Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, the Yellow River wetlands are 

made up of the slow-moving river and the 

adjacent floodplain, several small shallow 

ponds, and Dousman Creek. These 

wetlands total about 650 acres and contain 

habitat for many resident and migratory 

birds 

The North and South units of Effigy 

Mounds National Monument contain four 

ponds or ponded wetlands totaling 

approximately 65 acres; these are 

associated with active floodplains of the 

Yellow River and the west bank of the 

Mississippi River. 

These ponds are located within the 100-

year floodplain (NPS 1999). Founders 

Pond is the largest, with a surface area of 40 

acres and average depth of 3 feet. The 

smallest pond is about 3 acres with a depth 

of 1 foot (Weeks 2006). 

The entire Sny Magill Unit is within the 

100-year and 500-year floodplains (Weeks 

2006). Periodic and seasonal flooding is 

common, causing complete or partial 

inundation of the Sny Magill Unit for short 

periods, usually in the spring. 

The Yellow River and Sny Magill drainages 

are influenced by the Mississippi River 

during high flows, when the Mississippi 

River backs into these drainages, reducing 

flow velocity of the Yellow River and Sny 

Magill Creek (NPS 1999). On the Yellow 

River, the backup occurs for about 3 miles 

upstream from its mouth. 

The only actions proposed in the 

alternatives that could affect wetlands or 

floodplains are the construction of trails 

through the Heritage Addition and in the 

Sny Magill Unit in alternatives B and C. 

Until public access / development plans for 

these areas are prepared, it is difficult to 

assess the impacts (if any) that might occur. 

Full site-specific environmental impact 

analyses on wetlands and floodplains 

would be conducted with the development 

of these plans, so wetlands and floodplains 

are dismissed from further analysis in this 

general management plan and deferred to 

the implementation plans. 

GEOLOGY 

The monument lies in a geologically unique 

area of erosional topography drained by an 

intricate system of rivers and streams. 

Erosional forces have cut through a plain 

leaving high divides and precipitous bluffs 

above adjacent waterways. Although 

geologic deposits from earlier Ice Age 

events have been found, the last glacial 

period did not cover the area that is now 

the northeast corner of Iowa, so this 

eroded landform is commonly referred to 

as the Driftless Area. Generally speaking 

the Driftless Area contains both the 

Paleozoic Plateau and the Silurian 

Escarpment, which is a landform transition 

between the Paleozoic Plateau and the 

glaciated land to the west in Iowa. 

None of the alternatives described in this 

document include actions that would 

disturb or destroy rock outcroppings or 

other geologic formations. Because there 

would be no potential to affect the geology 

of the monument or region, this topic is 

dismissed from further analysis. 
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 

29 

WILDERNESS 

Wilderness areas are established through 

congressional designation. There are no 

areas in the monument with such 

designation and it is unlikely that areas 

would be eligible for possible designation. 

Although the current management 

planning process was undertaken in large 

part because of the acquisition of the 

1,045-acre Heritage Addition, an 

assessment of the size, configuration ,and 

condition of the area makes it impractical 

to be managed as wilderness. Therefore, 

this topic is dismissed from further 

analysis. 

NIGHT SKY 

NPS policy requires the park service to 

preserve, to the extent possible, the natural 

lightscapes of parks and seek to minimize 

the intrusion of artificial light (light 

pollution) into the night scene (NPS

Management Policies 2006). The clarity of 

night skies is important to visitor 

experience and is also ecologically 

important. Artificial light sources, both 

within and outside the monument, have 

the potential to diminish the clarity of night 

skies. 

The rural setting of the monument 

currently provides for relatively dark 

nights. Following NPS policy, existing 

outdoor lighting that is found to be 

contributing to nighttime light pollution 

would be replaced with fixtures that do not 

contribute to light pollution. In addition, 

any new outdoor lighting installed as a 

result of implementing any of the 

alternatives in this document would be the 

minimum necessary for safety or security 

and of a design that prevents stray light 

from spreading upwards into the sky (best 

lighting practices). Monument personnel 

would work with neighbors to decrease 

light pollution if a problem arises under 

any alternative. Given these considerations 

and the fact that the monument is open for 

day use only, the topic of night sky is 

dismissed from further consideration. 

SOUNDSCAPES 

NPS Management Policies 2006 requires 

park managers to strive to preserve the 

natural soundscape of a park, which is 

defined as the lack of human-related sound 

and the prevalence of natural sounds. Due 

to the primarily undeveloped nature of 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, 

natural sounds predominate throughout 

most of the units. These sounds are 

associated with physical and biological 

resources such as the sounds of wind 

through the trees, flowing water, or birds. 

Impacts on the monument’s soundscapes 

occur from activities outside the 

monument. These activities include traffic 

on Highway 76 and trains on the tracks 

that run alongside the monument’s eastern 

boundary and adjacent to the Sny Magill 

Unit. The planning team has learned there 

would be a substantial increase in the 

number of coal trains running alongside 

the monument—up to 27 additional trains 

per week. Another source of noise is 

motorized boat traffic on the Yellow River 

and Mississippi River. 

Most noise created within monument 

lands occurs in the visitor center / 

maintenance area. However, this area is 

zoned as development, which allows more 

noise than other zones. Increased 

visitation, which could occur with the 

improved access, could increase the 

human-caused noise, but this increase is 

expected to be slight. 

The alternatives would not appreciably 

change the distribution or number of 

visitors or activities in a given area and so 

would not affect natural soundscapes. 

Implementing any of the alternatives 

would not alter the monument’s natural 

soundscape except on a temporary basis, 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

30 

so this topic is dismissed from further 

analysis. 

PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS 

In August 1980, the Council on 

Environmental Quality directed that 

federal agencies must assess the effects of 

their actions on farmland soil classified by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) as prime or unique. Prime 

farmland is defined as soil that particularly 

produces general crops such as common 

foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique 

farmland produces specialty crops such as 

fruits, vegetables, and nuts. 

Three of the soil units found within the 

boundaries of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument (Caneek, Lawson, and Ion silt 

loams) are considered by the National 

Resource Conservation Service to be prime 

farmland only if drained and protected 

from flooding (NRCS 2005). These soil 

types are in the floodplain of the Yellow 

River, are subject to regular flooding, and 

are not planned for development, so no 

prime or unique farmlands would be 

affected by any actions proposed in this 

plan. This topic is dismissed from further 

consideration. 

URBAN QUALITY AND DESIGN 

OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

Consideration of this topic is required by 

40 CFR 1502.16. Urban areas and 

developed-area vernacular designs are not 

concerns in the rural area of the 

monument. Following NPS standard 

operating procedures, any new structures 

called for in an alternative would include 

rural design concepts, natural colors, and 

materials that do not detract from the 

environment. Given this mitigation, no 

further analysis of this topic is necessary. 

INDIAN TRUST LANDS 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts to Indian trust 

resources from a proposed action by 

Department of the Interior (USDI) 

agencies be explicitly addressed in 

environmental documents. No lands 

within Effigy Mounds National Monument 

are held in trust by the Secretary of the 

Interior solely for the benefit of American 

Indians due to their status as American 

Indians. However, recognized tribes 

having any implied or explicit rights to use 

lands or resources on the monument 

would continue to have these rights 

honored in accordance with law and NPS 

policy. This topic is dismissed from further 

analysis. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,” requires all federal agencies 

to incorporate environmental justice into 

their missions by identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs and policies on 

minorities and low-income populations 

and communities. According to the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

environmental justice is the 

fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income, 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. Fair treatment means that no 

group of people, including a racial, ethnic, 

or socioeconomic group, should bear a 

disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences resulting 

from industrial, municipal, and 

commercial operations or the execution 
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 

31 

of federal, state, local, and tribal 

programs and policies. 

The goal of “fair treatment” is not to shift 

risks among populations, but to identify 

potential disproportionately high and 

adverse effects and identify alternatives 

that may mitigate these impacts. 

Clayton and Allamakee counties contain 

both minority and low-income 

populations; however, environmental 

justice is dismissed as an impact topic for 

the following reasons: 

 The monument staff and planning 

team actively solicited public 

participation as part of the 

planning process and gave equal 

consideration to all input from 

persons regardless of age, race, 

income status, or other 

socioeconomic or demographic 

factors. 

 Implementation of the preferred 

alternative would not result in any 

identifiable adverse human health 

effects. Therefore, there would be 

no direct or indirect adverse effects 

on any minority or low-income 

population or community. 

 The impacts associated with 

implementation of the preferred 

alternative would not disproportionately affect any minority or 

low-income population or 

community. 

 Implementation of the preferred 

alternative would not result in any 

identified effect that would be 

specific to any minority or lowincome community. 

 The impacts to the socioeconomic 

environment resulting from 

implementation of any of the 

action alternatives would be 

beneficial. In addition, the 

monument staff and planning team 

do not anticipate the impacts on 

the socioeconomic environment to 

appreciably alter the physical and 

social structure of the nearby 

communities. 

None of the alternatives described in this 

document include actions that would 

impact minority populations and lowincome populations. Because there would 

be no potential to affect minority 

populations and low-income populations, 

this topic is dismissed from further 

analysis. 
32 
Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternatives 2

Conical Mounds
34
35 

INTRODUCTION 

As noted earlier in this document, user 

capacity and proposed boundary 

adjustments must be addressed in a general 

management plan. Therefore, this chapter 

opens with these two topics, and then the 

elements of the management alternatives 

are discussed. 

Management alternatives generally consist 

of three elements: (1) management zones 

that help define levels of activities and 

development for various areas of a park or 

monument; (2) actions that are common to 

more than one alternative; and (3) the 

specific actions proposed in each 

alternative. Thus, this chapter includes a 

discussion of management zones, actions 

common to all of the alternatives, and 

actions common to alternatives B and C, as 

well as a description of each alternative. 

In addition, there is a discussion of 

alternatives and actions considered but 

dismissed, the identification of the 

environmentally preferred alternative, 

information on the costs associated with 

each of the alternatives, mitigative 

measures, and future studies and 

implementation plans needed. 

The chapter also includes tables that 

summarize the key differences among the 

alternatives and the key differences in the 

impacts that are expected from 

implementing each alternative. (The 

summary of impacts table is based on the 

analysis in “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences.”)
36 

USER CAPACITY 

OVERVIEW 

General management plans for national 

park system units are required by law to 

identify and address implementation 

commitments for user capacity, also 

known as carrying capacity. The National 

Park Service defines user capacity as the 

types and levels of visitor use that can be 

accommodated while sustaining the quality 

of park resources and visitor experiences 

consistent with the purposes of the park. 

Managing user capacity in national parks is 

inherently complex and depends not only 

on the number of visitors, but also on 

where the visitors go, what they do, and the 

“footprints” they leave behind. In 

managing for user capacity, the park staff 

and partners rely on a variety of 

management tools and strategies rather 

than relying solely on regulating the 

number of people in a park area. In 

addition, the ever-changing nature of 

visitor use in parks requires a deliberate 

and adaptive approach to user capacity 

management. 

The foundations for making user capacity 

decisions in this general management plan 

are the purpose, significance, special 

mandates, and management zones 

associated with the park. The purpose, 

significance, and special mandates define 

why the park was established and identify 

the most important resources, values, and 

visitor opportunities that would be 

protected and provided. The management 

zones in each action alternative describe 

the desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences, including appropriate types of 

activities and general use levels, for 

different locations throughout the park. As 

part of the National Park Service 

commitment to implement user capacity, 

the park staff would abide by these 

directives for guiding the types and levels 

of visitor use that would be accommodated 

while sustaining the quality of park 

resources and visitor experiences 

consistent with the purposes of the park. 

In addition to these important directives, 

this plan includes indicators and standards 

for Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

Indicators and standards are measureable 

variables that would be monitored to track 

changes in resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. The indicators and standards 

help the National Park Service ensure that 

desired conditions are being attained, 

supporting the fulfillment of the park’s 

legislative and policy mandates. The 

general management plan also identifies 

the types of management actions that 

would be taken to achieve desired 

conditions and related legislative and 

policy mandates. 

Table 2 includes the indicators, standards, 

and potential future management strategies 

that would be implemented as a result of 

this planning effort. The planning team 

considered many potential issues and 

related indicators that would identify 

impacts of concern, but those described 

below were considered the most 

significant, given the importance and 

vulnerability of the resource or visitor 

experience affected by visitor use. The 

planning team also reviewed the 

experiences of other parks with similar 

issues to help identify meaningful 

indicators. Standards that represent the 

minimum acceptable condition for each 

indicator were then assigned, taking into 

consideration the qualitative descriptions 

of the desired conditions, data on existing 

conditions, relevant research studies, staff 

management experience, and scoping on 

public preferences. 
User Capacity 

37 

User capacity decision making is a form of 

adaptive management (see figure 3) in that 

it is an iterative process in which 

management decisions are continuously 

informed and improved. Indicators are 

monitored, and adjustments are made as 

appropriate. As monitoring of conditions 

continues, managers may decide to modify 

or add indicators if better ways are found 

to measure important changes in resource 

and social conditions. 

Information on the NPS monitoring 

efforts, related visitor use management 

actions, and any changes to the indicators 

and standards would be available to the 

public. 

FIGURE 3. USER CAPACITY FRAMEWORK
38 

RESOURCE AND VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE INDICATORS AND 

STANDARDS 

Currently, visitor use has had few adverse 

effects on the resources of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. If visitor numbers 

were to increase above the highs seen in 

the early 1990s, it is expected that the 

potential for adverse effects on natural and 

cultural resources would also increase. A 

large number of visitors at one time could 

also affect the visitor experience and result 

in resource damage. 

For the life of this plan, visitation would be 

controlled by the number and quality of 

facilities, by management actions, and by 

cooperative local efforts and initiatives. 

NPS staff would monitor resources and 

visitor use and judge whether the standards 

are being exceeded in any area. It is not 

likely that the expected levels of visitation 

and types of use would cause severe 

impacts on the desired visitor experience 

or the resources. 

The priority resource and visitor 

experience indicators for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument are associated with 

the following issues: 

 Disturbance to the mounds and 

other archeological resources 

 Visitor created trails 

 Visitor caused 

degradation/widening of the 

designated trail system 

 Overflow parking in paved areas 

due to crowding at the visitor 

center parking area (parking on 

grass would not be tolerated) 

The condition of park resources are 

already being monitored and managed in 

various ways, but the indicators listed in 

table 2 would help the park staff track 

specific influences to these resources as a 

result of visitor use. Similar to the resource 

indicators, visitor opportunities and 

related experiences in the park are already 

being monitored, and the indicators listed 

in table 2 would help the park staff track 

these specific issues more systematically to 

ensure that desired conditions are being 

achieved. 

Disturbance to the Mounds and 

Other Archeological Resources 

Visitor use impacts on cultural resources 

include wear on historic structures and 

unintentional disturbances and vandalism 

to the mounds, archeological resources, 

and historic structures. Cultural resources 

are nonrenewable, so impacts, especially 

those resulting from disrespectful 

behavior, must be minimized to the extent 

possible. The park staff are already using 

internal guidelines to monitor cultural 

resources. The indicator for visitor use 

impacts to cultural resources is based on 

this existing monitoring protocol. 

Management efforts would be focused on 

maintaining the integrity and current 

condition of all sites, and the standard 

would be that visitor use impacts would 

not change the current condition level. 

Ideally, all sites would be maintained to at 

least “good” condition. To ensure that this 

standard is maintained, visitor education 

and enforcement of park regulations 

would be continued, and closure of 

particularly vulnerable areas would be 

considered. Other possibilities include 

developing new opportunities for active or 

passive interpretation of sites, including 

education about staying on trails and not 

walking on the mounds. Opportunities for 

site stewardship programs with volunteers 

and other organization could also help 

with education about and preservation of 

cultural resources. If necessary, additional 

signs and barriers could be erected to 

better protect resources. 
User Capacity 

39 

Degradation or Widening of the 

Designated Trail System and Visitor 

Created Trails 

Currently, hiking trails provide access to 

several areas with concentrations of 

preserved mounds. Visitors can also 

experience a unique variety of habitats, 

including upland forest, prairie, and 

wetlands. For those wanting a more indepth experience, the monument offers 14 

miles of challenging hiking trails that 

crisscross the monument. The monument’s 

trail system is an important resource for 

facilitating visitor experience and directing 

visitor use, thereby protecting resources. 

Currently, the majority of the designated 

trails are in good condition with only 

minimal incidences of widening and 

erosion as a result of visitor use. Although 

degrading trail conditions is not currently 

an issue at the monument, it was identified 

as an important indicator because impacts 

to trails can affect both resources as well as 

the quality of the visitor experience. Trail 

widening was identified as the most likely 

impact of concern at the monument. The 

indicator for this issue involves tracking 

the incidences of visitor created problem 

areas (excessive widening) along segments 

of the trail system. The standard would 

vary depending on the zone, with the most 

conservative threshold in the backcountry 

zone to provide the highest level of 

resource protection. If designated trails 

exceed standards, park staff would 

consider more substantial trail 

maintenance. Increased visitor education 

about staying on trails and park regulations 

would also be used as a tool for 

maintaining standards. Other management 

actions considered include trail 

realignment or reconstruction, installing 

temporary or permanent signs, area 

closures, and reductions in group size or 

use levels where appropriate. 

In addition to assessing conditions of 

designated trails, park staff is concerned 

about visitors leaving designated trails 

during their hikes, causing potential 

impacts to both natural and cultural 

resources. Although the proliferation of 

visitor created trails is not currently a 

problem at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, future expansion of informal 

trails was still considered a high priority 

issue given the related impacts of 

vegetation loss, soil erosion, fragmentation 

of wildlife habitats, and disturbance to rare 

flora, fauna, and archeological sites 

(Marion 2008). The indicator for visitor 

created trails is based on a modified 

version of a trail condition classification 

system developed by Jeff Marion of the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Marion 

2008). Because the mounds are the park’s 

primary resource, there is no tolerance for 

visitor created trails in these areas. In less 

sensitive areas of the monument, the 

standard was less stringent, but would still 

be aimed at minimizing the growth of 

informal trails, with no more than a 5% 

increase above the 2010 baseline. Some of 

the existing management activities the 

National Park Service has been employing 

in relation to this issue include educating 

visitors to stay on trails and clearly marking 

designated trails. Further, the National 

Park Service has placed barriers and 

actively restored visitor created trails to 

minimize their continued use. Roving 

patrols and other education and 

enforcement techniques have also been 

used. Other actions considered include 

increased enforcement or presence of 

rangers or volunteers, area closures, and 

reduced use levels. 

Overflow Parking in the Grass due 

to Crowding at the Visitor Center 

Parking Area 

Parking in the grass near the visitor center 

has been a commonplace practice over the 

years when the visitor center parking lot 

reached its capacity. However, recent 

studies and geophysical investigations have 

revealed that there are existing mounds 

and mound remnants in some of these 

areas. Although overflow parking usually 

occurs only during peak seasons or special 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40 

events, increased restrictions on the 

locations for overflow parking would be 

established based on this new data. Once 

these new restrictions are in place, both 

protection rangers and interpretive rangers 

would be tasked with monitoring any 

violations of unauthorized parking. There 

would be no tolerance for parking in the 

grassy areas to ensure that mound 

remnants are not further impacted by this 

activity. There would be a low tolerance 

for parking in unauthorized paved areas 

(no more than four per year). Possible 

management actions include additional 

signage and education about peak times, 

education about mound remnants and 

their preservation, better demarcation for 

parking, access by shuttle, and increased 

enforcement. 

LONG-TERM MONITORING 

The park staff would continue monitoring 

use levels and patterns throughout the 

park. In addition, the park staff would 

monitor these user capacity indicators. The 

rigor of monitoring the indicators (e.g., 

frequency of monitoring cycles, amount of 

geographic area monitored) may vary 

considerably depending on how close 

existing conditions are to the standards. If 

the existing conditions are far from 

exceeding the standard, the rigor of 

monitoring might be less than if the 

existing conditions are close to or trending 

towards the standard. 

Initial monitoring of the indicators would 

determine if the indicators are accurately 

measuring the conditions of concern and if 

the standards truly represent the minimally 

acceptable condition of the indicator. Park 

staff might decide to modify the indicators 

or standards and revise the monitoring 

program if better ways are found to 

measure changes caused by visitor use. 

Most of these types of changes should be 

made within the first several years of 

initiating monitoring. After this initial 

testing period, adjustments would be less 

likely to occur. Finally, if use levels and 

patterns change appreciably, the park staff 

might need to identify new indicators to 

ensure that desired conditions are achieved 

and maintained. This iterative learning and 

refining process, a form of adaptive 

management, is a strength of the NPS user 

capacity management program. 
41

TABLE 2: USER CAPACITY INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

General Visitor Impact 

Topic Indicator Standard Potential Managemen

Visitor impacts to archeological resources and cultural landscapes 

Documented changes in condition of cultural resources from visitor caused threats and disturbances, as defined in NPS Archeological Site Management Information System and List of Classified Structures (defined as good, fair, poor, or destroyed). Look at characteristics such as 

 visitor-caused degradation or 

visitor-caused increase in natural wear 

 deliberate and unintentional 

vandalism or theft 

 use of unauthorized areas/sites 

Visitor impacts do not exceed threshold of changing overall site condition to a lesser condition (i.e., good to fair, fair to poor, etc.) with emphasis on maintaining sites in good condition Visitor impacts do not threaten character defining features 

 Develop new opportunities f

interpretation of sites that inabout staying on trails and p(e.g., not walking on the mo

 Develop site stewardship pro

volunteers and organizations 

 Partner with other historic p

friends groups to create awaarcheological and historic sitarcheology programs 

 Mitigate/take corrective actio

Secretary of the Interior stan

 Restrict visitor activity at des Add signs and/or barriers to 

resources 

 Increase law enforcement  Establish site/area closures 

Visitor created trails (could be focused along the river and/or in other areas) 

Number of visitor created trails on switchback or mound areas Total number of class 2 or above trails that leave designated trails 

No tolerance (No new trails on switchback or mound areas) No more than a 5% increase above current baseline 

 Increase in visitor education 

and park regulations 

 Place border logs or other ba

trails at the junction with inf

 Restore visitor created trails; 

trailhead signs explaining the asking visitors to remain on f

 Enhance marking of the offic

improve adjacent designated 

 Increase enforcement or pre

volunteers 

 Area closures  Reduce use levels 
42

TABLE 2: USER CAPACITY INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

General Visitor Impact 

Topic Indicator Standard Potential Managemen

Condition of designated trail system 

Number of linear feet where the trail has expanded 1–3 feet wider than adjacent, more typical, sections of the trail per mile 

No more than 500 linear feet per mile of trail exceeding the normal width in any zone 

 Consider more substantial tr Increase in visitor education 

trails and park regulations 

 Enhance marking of the offic

further improve designated t

 Consider trail realignment an Install temporary or permane Area closures  Reduce group sizes and/or u

Crowding at visitor center parking lot 

Number of days with vehicles parked in unauthorized paved areas per year Number of days with vehicles parked in grassy areas per year 

No more than 4 days per year No vehicles would be tolerated in unpaved (grassy) areas at any time 

 Trip planning/education abo

additional signage 

 Education about new finding

remnants in grassy areas of tis important to stay in design

 Better demarcation (e.g., sig

education) of area closures o

 Access by shuttle  Increased enforcement  Protection and interpretive ra

tasked with collecting data funauthorized areas 

Trail Classification SystemClass 0: Trail barely distinguishable; no or minimal disturbance of vegetation and/or organic litter. Class 1: Trail distinguishable; slight loss of vegetation cover and/or minimal disturbance of organic litter. Class 2: Trail obvious; vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized in primary use areas. Class 3: Vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized within the center of the tread, some bare soil exposed. Class 4: Nearly complete or total loss of vegetation cover and organic litter within the tread, bare soil widespread. Class 5: Soil erosion obvious, as indicated by exposed roots and rocks and/or gullying. 
43 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEGISLATED BOUNDARY 

(NON-NPS LAND) 

Public Law 106-323 adjusted the 

monument’s boundary to include both the 

Heritage Addition and the Riverfront 

Tract. The Riverfront Tract comprises 

approximately 50 acres of bottomland in a 

narrow strip between the Mississippi River 

and the monument’s North Unit boundary 

(see North Unit maps). The state of Iowa 

owns about 30 acres and the Canadian 

Pacific Railroad owns about 20 acres of this 

tract. Two archeological sites are located 

on the tract. These sites represent 

moundbuilder village habitation, an 

important aspect of the moundbuilding 

cultures that is not already included in the 

monument. The remains of a historic 

settlement are included at Red House 

Landing. 

While the Riverfront Tract is in the 

legislated monument boundary, it 

currently remains in ownership of the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources and the 

Canadian Pacific Railroad. Authorization 

to acquire this tract is included in existing 

legislation and may occur as soon as there 

is a willing seller; therefore, it will not be 

analyzed further in this document. 

RECOMMENDED 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

Figure 4 shows the location of the property 

tracts described below. 

As part of the planning process, the 

National Park Service must identify and 

evaluate boundary adjustments that may be 

necessary or desirable to carry out the 

purposes of the national monument. The 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 provides for boundary adjustments 

that fall into three categories: (1) technical 

revisions; (2) minor revisions based on 

statutorily defined criteria; and (3) 

revisions to include adjacent real property 

acquired by donation, purchased with 

donated funds, transferred from any other 

federal agency, or obtained by exchange. 

Otherwise, the boundary of a national park 

may be modified only when authorized by 

law. Section 3.5 of the NPS Management 

Policies 2006 states that the National Park 

Service may recommend potential 

boundary adjustments for one or more of 

the following reasons: 

 to include and protect significant 

resources and values or to enhance 

opportunities for public enjoyment 

related to monument purpose 

 to address operational and 

management issues 

 to protect resources critical to 

fulfilling the monument’s purpose 

National Park Service policies further 

instruct that any recommendations to 

expand a park unit’s boundaries be 

preceded by a determination that the 

added lands would be (1) feasible to 

administer considering size, configuration, 

ownership, cost, and other factors; and (2) 

that other alternatives for management and 

resources protection are not adequate. 

During the course of the planning process, 

several land parcels were identified as 

potential additions to Effigy Mounds 

National Monument under alternatives B 

and C. The following is a review of the 

policy criteria for boundary adjustments as 

applied to these properties. However, any 

acquisition would be only from willing 

sellers. 

Before any of these boundary adjustments 

are made, an approved survey of the 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

44 

monument’s boundaries needs to be 

completed. It is the goal of the National 

Park Service to acquire needed lands or 

interests in lands through cooperative 

negotiation processes with willing sellers. 

Some of the lands described here would 

best be protected through ownership by 

the National Park Service; others could 

better be protected through the purchase 

of interests in the land, such as easements, 

or through other agreements. The best 

mechanism of protection would be 

determined in conversation with willing 

sellers and is not discussed here. Some 

adjustments of the monument’s boundary 

would require legislative authorization 

from Congress. 

Tract 1 

This tract is adjacent to the part of the 

South Unit, which preserves the Marching 

Bear Mound Group. It is an approximately 

20-acre parcel of agricultural land 

currently in row crops and hay rotation. 

Reason for recommending this 

boundary adjustment. Inclusion of this 

tract in the monument’s boundary is 

necessary in order to protect significant 

resources and values and to enhance 

opportunities for public enjoyment related 

to monument purpose. 

Tract 1 lies within approximately 20 feet of 

the Marching Bear Mound Group. 

Development of this tract would threaten 

this fundamental park resource. 

Residential development of farming land is 

a recent trend in the area. In 2006, 

Allamakee County, where the park visitor 

center is located, issued 1.7 building 

permits per 10 square miles—a rate more 

than 50% higher than that of neighboring 

rural counties. Park employees have 

observed that much of this development is 

for second homes or vacation homes 

concentrated at the edges of public lands. 

Tract 1 is one mile south of the Allamakee 

County line on a piece of land that would 

be attractive for this type of development 

for three reasons: (1) it has a ridge-top 

location; (2) there is direct access to a 

highway; and (3) there is a lack of zoning 

prohibitions. Development of this type 

would risk harm to the Marching Bear 

Mound Group. 

Determination that this tract meets 

boundary change criteria. Tract 1 would 

be feasible to administer because it is small 

in size and it borders the monument. 

Additionally, there are no structures on 

this property to maintain and no known 

presence of hazardous materials. Because 

of the risk of development if this tract 

remains unprotected and in private 

ownership, alternatives to including this 

tract in the monument’s boundary would 

not be adequate for management and 

resource protection. 

Tract 2 

Tract 2 is an approximately 120-acre parcel 

mostly on the sides and top of a bluff over 

the Yellow River. The tract consists of a 

mixture of open pasture, fields, and steep 

wooded slopes and has been used for 

farming and logging. In a narrow area 

between wetlands and bluffs on the west 

side of Founders Pond, a county road 

weaves in and out of the current park 

boundary and tract 2.3

Reason for recommending this 

boundary adjustment. Including this tract 

in the boundary is necessary in order to 

protect significant resources and values 

and to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to monument purpose.

The adjacent part of the monument is 

included in the backcountry zone in 

alternatives B and C where cultural 

resources are preserved in place in good 

condition and natural resources are 

managed to be preserved or be restored to 

 

3.

 Throughout this document, this road is referred to as 

“county road.”
Proposed Changes to Legislated Boundary (Non-NPS Lands) 

45 

an approximate appearance of the 

landscape associated with the 

moundbuilding era. Under alternatives B 

and C, the monument would pursue hiking 

access, county relinquishment, or 

abandonment of the county road. 

If tract 2 is developed, which is a potential 

future use for the same reasons cited in the 

discussion of tract 1, it would be difficult 

for the park to achieve these desired 

conditions in the adjoining, narrow part of 

the monument. 

Determination that this tract meets 

boundary adjustment criteria. This tract 

would be feasible to administer because it 

is adjacent to and, in places, almost 

completely surrounded by the monument. 

Roughly 80 acres of this tract are 

surrounded on three sides by the 

monument, while the remainder of the 

tract adjoins the park on two sides. There 

are no structures on this property and no 

known hazardous substances. Other 

alternatives for management and resource 

protection are not adequate for two 

reasons: (1) this tract is attractive for 

possible future development; and, (2) 

without this tract in the boundary, the 

monument would not be able to reuse the 

entire county road as trail. Instead, it 

would be necessary to accommodate 

visitor access by constructing a new section 

of trail to bypass the county road through 

this tract. New trail construction in this 

area would entail not only substantial cost, 

but also likely impacts to the wetlands. 

Tract 3 

Tract 3 includes approximately 120 acres 

of land south and west of the monument. 

The tract consists mostly of steep wooded 

slopes punctuated by the valley formed by 

Dousman Creek and is mostly used for 

production forestry (logging). A county 

road weaves in and out of the current park 

boundary and this tract. 

Reason for recommending this 

boundary adjustment. Including this tract 

in the boundary is necessary in order to 

protect significant resources and values 

and to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to monument purpose. 

The part of the monument adjacent to this 

tract is zoned to protect the natural setting 

of the mounds and the ability of visitors to 

experience them in this setting. If tract 3 

continues to be used for commercial 

forestry and/or is developed, it would be 

difficult for the park to achieve desired 

conditions in the adjacent part of the 

monument. Without this tract in the 

monument’s boundary, it would also be 

challenging to prevent degradation in the 

quality of Dousman Creek, which is a 

tributary to the Yellow River and a rare 

native trout stream. Commercial forestry 

activities upstream have the potential to 

increase surface runoff and sedimentation 

in the stream. 

Determination that this tract meets 

boundary adjustment criteria. This tract 

would be feasible to administer because it 

is almost completely surrounded by the 

monument. It consists of an approximately 

80-acre section surrounded on three sides 

by the monument and an adjoining 

approximately 40-acre section that is also 

surrounded by the monument on three 

sides. Additionally, there are no structures 

on this property and no known hazardous 

substances. Other alternatives for 

management and resource protection are 

not adequate for three reasons: (1) much of 

this tract is attractive for possible future 

development; (2) continued use of this 

tract for logging would risk harm both to 

visitor experience and to Dousman Creek; 

and, (3) without this tract in the boundary, 

the monument would not be able to reuse 

the entire county road as trail. Instead, it 

would be necessary to accommodate 

visitor access by constructing a new section 

of trail to bypass the county road through 

this tract. New trail construction in this 

area would entail not only substantial cost, 

but also likely impacts to the wetlands. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46 

Tract 4 

This tract is an approximately 30-acre tract 

just west of the railroad corridor between 

the western border of the Sny Magill Unit 

and Highway X56. This field is used for 

agricultural purposes, but most of it is 

seasonally flooded, which results in 

reduced crop yields. 

Reason for recommending this 

boundary adjustment. Adjusting the 

boundary to include this property would 

address operational and management 

issues. Alternatives B and C in the general 

management plan envision this property to 

house a small visitor contact station and 

possibly parking for visitors in high profile 

vehicles that cannot currently access the 

Sny Magill Unit given the low overhead 

railroad underpass. Because trail access 

from this visitor station to the mounds at 

Sny Magill would be provided, including 

this tract in the boundary would also 

enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to park purpose. 

Determination that this tract meets 

boundary change criteria. This property 

is absent of structures. There are no known 

hazardous substances on the property nor 

are there any known cultural resources; 

this makes it appropriate for consideration 

for new development. This property would 

be in the development zone if included in 

the boundary and it would be feasible to 

manage as such. There are no other 

adequate alternatives for management and 

resource protection. A visitor contact 

station cannot be built within the existing 

boundary because the low railroad trestle 

would not allow for passage of 

construction equipment. Additionally, the 

Sny Magill Unit is at a lower elevation than 

tract 4 and is entirely within the floodplain, 

another factor, which would make 

construction of a visitor contact station 

within the existing boundary problematic. 

Tract 4 is at risk for development for 

industrial use. A quarrying operation 

directly across Highway X56 from this 

tract has begun to spill over onto it (for 

example, it has been used as a storage and 

staging area for the quarry). To provide an 

appropriate, safe setting for the visitor 

contact station and trail to the Sny Magill 

mounds, it is necessary to include a tract 

large enough to separate the experience of 

visitors from this type of industrial activity. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

CONSIDERED BUT NOT INCLUDED 

IN RECOMMENDATIONS 

Railroad Corridor 

Adjusting the boundary to include the 

railroad corridor that forms the western 

edge of the Sny Magill Unit would enhance 

opportunities for public enjoyment related 

to park purposes. Currently, the sound of 

the trains passing close to the resources 

compromises the desired condition for 

most of the Sny Magill Unit, which is a 

contemplative experience for visitors with 

primarily natural soundscapes. 

It would not be feasible for the National 

Park Service to manage this corridor in its 

boundaries while it is still actively used by 

the railroad. However, should the 

Canadian Pacific Railroad decide to move 

this portion of their tracks away from the 

monument, this corridor would be recommended for inclusion in the boundary. In 

the event that this railroad corridor 

becomes available for other purposes and 

is sold privately, a particularly problematic 

situation could result in which it would be 

impossible to access the Sny Magill 

mounds by road without crossing private 

property. Therefore, under a change in 

ownership scenario, excluding this 

corridor from the monument’s boundary 

would not be an adequate alternative for 

management and resource protection. 
Proposed Changes to Legislated Boundary (Non-NPS Lands) 

47 

Other Tracts 

Five other privately held tracts that meet 

the criteria for boundary adjustments were 

also considered for addition to the 

monument as part of this planning effort, 

but are not included here. While including 

these five tracts in the boundary would 

have allowed the monument to protect 

significant resources and values, enhance 

opportunities for public enjoyment, and 

better address operational and 

management issues, these tracts are not 

recommended for inclusion out of respect 

for concerns expressed by the landowners.
HERITAGE ADDITION

Founders 

Pond

Yellow River

Smokey Hol ol w Road

NOTES: 

*The park is in the process of completing a 

boundary survey. The boundary shown on 

this map is for illustrative purposes only.

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

IOWA

WISCONSIN

Mississi p

p i R i v e r

Pleasant Ridge Road

Co unt y Road (Restricted Use)

Tract 3

Tract 2

Tract 3

Tract 2

Tract 1

Dousman C reek

76

Figure 4: Recommended 

Boundary Adjustments

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Legend

Public Road

County Road

State Boundary

Tract Proposal

Waterbody

National Monument Boundary

Non-NPS Land within Park Boundary

0 0.5 1

Miles

DSC/March 2012

Entrance Road

Sn y Magill Creek

Johnsons Slo ugh

X56

Tract 4

SNY MAGILL UNIT

0 0.25 0.5

Miles
49 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

The primary building blocks for creating a 

framework for consistent and defensible 

management for a national park system 

unit are the management zones and the 

alternatives. All are developed within the 

scope of the unit’s purpose, significance, 

fundamental resources and values, 

mandates, and legislation. 

Management zones define specific 

resource conditions and visitor 

experiences to be achieved and maintained 

in each particular area of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. Each zone 

description includes the types of activities 

and facilities appropriate to support the 

desired conditions. Because the zoning 

schemes were developed as a result of this 

planning effort, they are not applied to the 

no-action alternative (alternative A). Three 

management zones have been identified 

for Effigy Mounds National Monument—

backcountry zone, discovery zone, and 

development zone. 

One of the challenges in managing 

resources at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument is that preserving the varied 

fundamental resources requires potentially 

conflicting methods. For example, to 

preserve the integrity of a mound, it is 

often necessary to remove trees growing in 

or adjacent to the mound because if these 

trees were to fall down their roots would 

pull up the soil, damaging the mound and 

exposing buried mound material. 

However, given the density of mounds in 

the monument, if all mounds were to be 

protected by tree removal, there would be 

a noticeable decrease in tree cover, which 

could compromise habitat for rare plants 

and birds as well as diminish the overall 

natural setting of the mounds. 

The management zones for this plan are 

designed to address these inherent 

conflicts by aiming to achieve different 

desired conditions for resources and 

visitor experience in different areas of the 

park and by specifying which facilities and 

management actions would be appropriate 

in each area. 

The management alternatives in this 

general management plan represent 

different approaches to overall monument 

management and use. They respond to 

issues raised by public, law, policy 

considerations, and analysis performed by 

the planning team. Each of the alternatives 

has an overall management concept and a 

description of how different areas of the 

monument would be managed 

(management zones). 

In formulating the alternatives, the 

management zones were placed in 

different locations or configurations on a 

map of the park according to the overall 

intent (concept) of each of the alternatives. 

The management zones were presented to 

the public in Effigy Mounds GMP 

Newsletter #3 and the Draft Effigy Mounds 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement. In response to internal 

and external comments, the alternatives 

were modified and presented in the Revised 

Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

three alternatives, including the NPS 

preferred alternative, for future 

management of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. Alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, presents a continuation of 

existing management direction and is 

included as a baseline for comparing the 

consequences of implementing each action 

alternative. The action alternatives are 

alternative B and alternative C. These 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 

action alternatives present different ways 

to manage resources and visitor use and 

improve facilities and infrastructure at the 

national monument. These alternatives 

embody the range of what the public and 

the National Park Service want to see 

accomplished with regard to cultural 

resource conditions, natural resource 

conditions, and visitor use and experience 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and visitor uses, experiences, 

and opportunities should be at Effigy 

Mounds National Monument rather than 

on details of how these conditions and uses 

or experiences should be achieved. Thus, 

the alternatives do not include many details 

on resource or visitor use management. 

More detailed plans or studies would be 

required before most conditions proposed 

in the alternatives could be achieved. The 

implementation of any alternative also 

depends on future funding and 

environmental compliance. An approved 

plan does not guarantee that funding to 

implement it would be forthcoming. The 

general management plan establishes a 

strategy that would guide day-to-day and 

year-to-year management of the national 

monument, but full implementation could 

take many years.
51 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT ZONES

BACKCOUNTRY ZONE

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT ZONE

(brown) 

Purpose/Emphasis In this zone, the emphasis 

would be on the protection 

of resources in a natural 

setting. 

In this zone, the emphasis 

would be on enhancing 

visitor access and 

understanding of the 

mounds, while still 

maintaining a natural 

setting. 

The emphasis of this zone 

would be to provide the 

facilities and amenities 

necessary for visitor services 

and monument operations. 

There would be minimal 

development and the visitor 

experience would be one of 

quiet and solitude. 

There would be some 

development designed to 

enhance understanding, 

such as interpretive 

waysides and signs. Rangerled activities would occur 

here, and visitors would be 

likely to see others in this 

zone. 

Although zoned for 

development, the recent 

discovery of numerous 

mound remnants in the 

headquarters development 

zone make careful and 

thoughtful consultation 

with associated tribes and 

other parties increasingly 

important whenever 

changes or improvements 

to this area are 

contemplated. See 

appendix F. 

Maintenance activities 

would occur primarily to 

further resource 

preservation, while 

accommodating visitor 

experience as appropriate. 

Maintenance activities in 

this zone would occur 

primarily to enhance visitor 

experience as much as 

possible, while preserving 

resources. 

The primary purpose of 

maintenance activities in 

this zone would be to 

maintain resources and 

facilities in support of visitor 

experiences, safety, and 

park operations. 

Desired Resource Conditions 

Cultural Resources Burial mounds and other 

cultural resources would be 

preserved in place in good 

condition according to the 

Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards. 

Burial mounds and other 

cultural resources would be 

preserved in place in good 

condition according to the 

Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards. 

Mowing on or around the 

mounds would be done in 

accordance with the 

treatment recommendations 

of an approved cultural 

landscape report. 

Where present in this zone, 

cultural resources would be 

protected and monitored 

according to the Secretary 

of Interior’s Standards.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52 

TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT ZONES

BACKCOUNTRY ZONE

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT ZONE

(brown) 

Natural Resources Natural resources would be 

managed to preserve or 

restore the approximate 

appearance of the 

landscape associated with 

the moundbuilding era (to 

be identified in the cultural 

landscape report) and to 

preserve rare habitat. 

Natural resources in this 

zone would be managed to 

allow for visitor access and 

to approximate the 

appearance of the 

landscape associated with 

the moundbuilding era (to 

be identified in the cultural 

landscape report). 

Natural resources would be 

modified when necessary 

for visitor use or monument 

operations. 

Desired Visitor Experience

This zone would be 

experienced primarily by 

hiking or paddling via selfguided or ranger-led trips. 

This zone would be 

experienced primarily by 

hiking or paddling via selfguided or ranger-led trips. 

This zone would offer the 

primary orientation to the 

park. Information and 

interpretation would be 

offered in an indoor 

setting. 

On-site information and 

interpretation would be 

limited within the zone. 

On-site information and 

interpretation would be 

available at many sites in 

this zone. 

The visitor experience would 

be relatively quiet and 

contemplative. Encounters 

with other visitors and 

monument staff would be 

rare. 

Encounters with other 

visitors and monument staff 

would be expected in this 

zone. 

Special events for large 

crowds could be 

accommodated here. Many 

encounters with other 

visitors and monument staff 

would be expected. 

To fully experience this 

zone, a higher level of 

preparation would be 

necessary and a greater time 

commitment than in the 

other zones (1–4 hours) 

would be needed. 

A moderate time 

commitment and physical 

ability would be necessary 

to experience this zone. 

All visitors, regardless of 

time allowance and physical 

ability, could experience 

this zone. Visitors could 

gain some understanding 

of the park with a 30- to 

60- minute time 

commitment. 

Appropriate Facilities and Monument Operation Practices 

Facilities Trails: Simple, minimally 

developed foot trails; over 

time, trails in this zone 

would be 2 to 3 feet in 

width with some naturally 

occurring obstacles. The 

trails would generally have a 

natural dirt surface, unless 

preservation needs require 

Trails: Foot trails in this zone 

would be moderately 

developed; over time, trails 

in this zone would be 3 to 6 

feet in width. Natural 

surface materials would be 

used to maintain the trail 

tread; examples include 

woodchips, compacted 

Unless future studies 

demonstrate unacceptable 

harm occurring to recently 

discovered mound 

remnants in this area, this 

zone would have the visitor 

center, research and 

educational facilities, 

administrative offices, 
Management Zones 

53 

TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT ZONES

BACKCOUNTRY ZONE

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT ZONE

(brown) 

Facilities, continued the use of surface materials 

for resource protection. 

Drainage features would be 

designed to blend with the 

natural environment. 

The one exception to the 

trail standards (above) is the 

South Unit trail to the 

Marching Bear Mound 

Group. This trail would 

continue to accommodate 

occasional use (not to 

exceed two vehicle trips a 

week) by small park 

vehicles. 

There would be no 

additional raised boardwalk 

trails. 

Roads: Maintenance roads 

in the backcountry zone 

would be limited. The 

maintenance road in the 

North Unit (that supports 

maintenance of the 

discovery zone) would be 

used on an occasional basis 

by park staff, not to exceed 

three trips per week. The 

North Unit maintenance 

road would have a natural 

dirt surface and would not 

exceed 10 feet in width. The 

northern maintenance road 

in the North Unit would be 

abandoned. 

Other Facilities: Other 

facilities in this zone would 

include small rustic benches, 

and limited, unobtrusive 

informational signs. 

crushed stone, and dirt. 

Drainage features would be 

designed to blend with the 

natural environment. 

There would be no 

additional raised boardwalk 

trails. 

Roads: Maintenance roads 

in the discovery zone would 

be acceptable. If possible 

without disturbing 

resources, some trails would 

be constructed or rebuilt to 

accommodate occasional 

use by small park vehicles 

and could be accessed by 

people with mobility 

impairments. 

Other Facilities: Other 

facilities in this zone would 

include benches, interpretive 

waysides, and amenities 

such as trash/recycling 

receptacles. 

maintenance facilities, 

trailheads, primary indoor 

and outdoor interpretive 

exhibits, museum 

collections storage and 

management space, 

parking lot, surfaced trails, 

developed outdoor 

program area, and 

accessible facilities. 

Practices for 

maintenance/operations 

and resource 

management 

Park staff and volunteers 

would maintain resources 

and facilities in this zone 

with an emphasis on 

preserving resource 

integrity. 

Park staff and volunteers 

would maintain resources 

and facilities in this zone 

with an emphasis on the 

support of visitor experience 

and safety to the extent 

possible without 

compromising resource 

integrity. 

Park staff and volunteers 

would maintain resources 

and facilities in this zone 

with an emphasis on the 

support of visitor 

experience, safety, and park 

operations. 
54 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The development and identification of a 

preferred alternative involves evaluating 

the alternatives with the use of an objective 

analysis process called “choosing by 

advantages” or “CBA.” Through this 

process, the planning team identified and 

compared the relative advantages of each 

alternative according to a set of factors. 

The advantages of each alternative were 

compared for each of the following CBA 

factors: 

Factor 1—Improve Cultural Resource 

Management 

Factor 2—Improve Natural Resource 

Conditions 

Factor 3—Improve Information, 

Education, and Access (Visitor 

Experience) 

Factor 4—Improve operational efficiency 

and effectiveness 

The relationships between the advantages 

and costs of each alternative were 

compared to determine which would 

provide the greatest overall benefits for the 

most reasonable cost. 

Alternatives B and C are similar in a 

number of areas. They both include a 

research center (a virtual center in 

alternative B and an off-site center in 

alternative C), which would contribute to 

factors 1 and 3. It was determined after the 

CBA workshop that the research center 

would be virtual in alternative B and offsite in alternative C; however, this 

difference does not change the 

contributions to factors 1 and 3. They both 

include the addition of a small contact 

center at the Sny Magill Unit, which would 

also contribute to factor 3. They also would 

result in a reduction of aging assets (three 

housing units), which would contribute to 

factor 4. 

However, in alternative B, the majority of 

the North and South units would be in the 

backcountry zone, while in alternative C, 

the majority of the North and South units 

would be in the discovery zone. Because of 

this difference, Alternative B has a slightly 

higher score for factor 2. Because the trails 

would be slightly less developed in the 

backcountry zone and signs and waysides 

would be more restricted, alternative B, 

with its larger backcountry area, would be 

slightly better at improving the natural 

resource conditions. Implementing the 

features of the backcountry zone on larger 

portions of the monument would also 

improve the protection of the cultural 

landscape, adding slightly to factor 1. Trail 

development and maintenance in the 

backcountry zone would be minimal, 

adding to factor 4. 

Therefore, using the CBA process, 

alternative B was identified as the preferred 

alternative. 

In consultation with traditionally 

associated tribes after the selection of the 

preferred alternative, it was noted that 

alternative C may have a greater 

contribution to factor 3 as a result of the 

inclusion of a physical research center, the 

proximity of the museum collections, and 

the zoning that would allow for more 

access and interaction. While these are 

important points that were not part of the 

CBA workshop, they do not change the 

overall selection of the preferred 

alternative.
55 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

(ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C) 

The following actions would be 

implemented regardless of which 

alternative is approved. The actions 

described here should be considered in 

addition to the actions described 

specifically for each alternative. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

 The mounds would be preserved in 

place. 

 Archeological survey and 

evaluations and a cultural 

landscape report would be 

completed for the entire 

monument. 

 National Register of Historic 

Places nomination forms would be 

updated to include descriptions of 

all eligible (contributing) resources 

not presently described and to 

incorporate new scientific 

information. 

 When feasible, the resources of the 

monument would be managed for a 

landscape that emulates that which 

existed during the time of the 

moundbuilding era to be identified 

in the cultural landscape report. 

The sensitive cultural and natural 

resources would be preserved 

using the natural processes that 

sustained the moundbuilders and 

protected their heritage through 

time, combined with the 

appropriate management practices 

to conserve them for the future. 

 Cooperative management 

strategies with stakeholders for 

resource protection and 

preservation would be developed. 

 Archeological evaluations of sites 

could include noninvasive 

geophysical investigations of 

mounds and limited archeological 

testing of nonmound areas of 

cultural sites. 

 While natural resources and 

processes would be preserved or 

restored to the extent possible, 

they could be managed when 

necessary to restore landscapes or 

preserve fundamental cultural 

resources. 

 Ongoing ecosystem restoration 

efforts and nonnative species 

management would continue. 

 The monument staff would 

complete a resource stewardship 

strategy that includes an ecosystem 

restoration strategy, nonnative 

species management, and a fire 

management plan. 

 Riverbanks in the Sny Magill Unit 

would be stabilized from erosion 

and selected trees may be removed 

from the mound group and 

adjacent area. 

VISITOR USE 

 Safety messages would be 

prominent in communications to 

the public. 

 Interpretation would emphasize 

the sacred nature of the mounds 

and resources, and would consider 

the cultural resources (mounds) as 

symbols of the values, beliefs, and 

accomplishments of the 

moundbuilders. 

 The National Park Service would 

explore partnership possibilities 

with appropriate groups to offer 

interpretive canoe trips. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

 Frequent special events would take 

place in developed areas. 

 Wetland habitat interpretive 

programs would be offered as 

accessible opportunities for all 

visitors. 

MONUMENT MANAGEMENT 

 An approved boundary survey 

would be completed to resolve land 

issues. 

 Treatment of unused logging roads 

would be dictated by the 

completed cultural landscape 

report. 

 Maintenance facilities and 

functions would stay where they 

are while actively adapting to the 

changing needs of resource and 

facility requirements. 

 Radon, which has been found in 

the basement of the headquarters 

building, would be mitigated. 

 The recently remodeled former 

park housing units would continue 

to be used as office space for park 

employees. 

 If new information reveals that 

repairing or replacing existing 

infrastructure in the headquarters 

area would cause harm to 

archeological resources, the 

National Park Service would 

investigate ways to repair or 

replace that infrastructure in a 

nonintrusive manner, or would 

consider relocating facilities. 

 If new information reveals that 

repairing or replacing existing 

infrastructure in the headquarters 

area would cause harm to 

archeological resources, the 

National Park Service would 

investigate ways to repair or 

replace that infrastructure in a 

nonintrusive manner, or would 

consider relocating facilities (see 

appendix F). 
57 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION 

CONCEPT 

Current management strategies and trends 

would continue under the no-action 

alternative. There would be no major 

changes to monument operations or visitor 

services. All cultural sites would continue 

to be maintained and preserved using 

current practices. The mounds would 

continue to be protected and preserved. 

Management treatments would vary 

according to the cover and condition of 

individual mounds. Historic sites would be 

protected from degradation, but not 

otherwise managed. The Heritage Addition 

would not have a long-term plan in place. 

The North, South, and Sny Magill units 

would continue to be managed as they are 

currently. 

ZONING 

There would be no zoning in this 

alternative. Management direction from 

the previous general management plan and 

other planning would remain in effect. 

MONUMENTWIDE 

 Existing trails and other facilities 

(benches, signs, etc.) would 

continue to be maintained. 

 The long-range interpretation plan 

would be completed and would 

include placement information for 

new trail interpretive and 

directional signs. 

HERITAGE ADDITION 

 Visitors would be able to 

experience the landscape of the 

Heritage Addition from overlooks 

in the North and South units and 

through infrequent ranger-led 

hikes or tours. 

 Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation through 

nonpersonal media at the visitor 

center (exhibits, printed materials, 

etc.) and would have opportunities 

to appreciate the related cultural 

environment in a quiet 

contemplative setting. 

 Public access would include 

canoeing and infrequent ranger-led 

hikes. 

 Motorized and nonmotorized 

boating would be allowed on the 

Yellow River. No facilities would 

be provided and take-out would be 

prohibited in the monument. 

VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA 

(IN THE NORTH UNIT) 

 The visitor center complex would 

be maintained and media upgraded 

as needed. 

 Frequent special events would take 

place in developed areas. 

 Visitors would continue to receive 

formal and informal services at the 

visitor center; these would include 

educational programs, information 

and orientation, demonstrations, 

and hikes. 

 Crowding of the visitor center 

would continue when school 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

58 

groups are present, especially 

during inclement weather. 

 The monument’s museum 

collections and archives (items not 

on display in the visitor center) 

would remain in the basement of 

the visitor center. 

NORTH UNIT 

 This unit would continue to be 

managed to accommodate the most 

visitor use of any unit with 

continued emphasis on resource 

protection and preservation. 

 Trails would continue to be 

maintained or improved for visitor 

access and safety while preserving 

mounds by relocating trails away 

from mound sites. 

 Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation through 

personal services such as hikes and 

nonpersonal media (trailside 

exhibits, printed materials, etc.) 

and would have opportunities to 

appreciate the related cultural 

environment in a quiet 

contemplative setting. 

 Frequent ranger-led hikes or tours 

connecting the tangible resources 

of the moundbuilders and natural 

features of the monument would 

take place only in areas that do not 

jeopardize those resources. 

 The National Park Service would 

not actively seek to acquire the 

Riverfront Tract, which is already 

within the authorized boundary, 

unless its cultural resources are 

endangered in some way or the 

property is put up for sale. 

SOUTH UNIT 

 This unit would be managed to 

support a low level of visitor use 

while maintaining the primitive 

setting. 

 Trails would be improved for 

visitor access and safety while 

preserving mounds by relocating 

trails away from mound sites and 

changing substrate from gravel to 

wood chip. The only new trail 

would connect the Yellow River 

bridge to the South Unit trails; 

existing trails could be realigned 

for resource protection or 

improved visitor experience. 

 Trail signs would be upgraded; this 

would include a wayside at the 

Marching Bear Group. 

 Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation primarily 

through nonpersonal media 

(trailside exhibits, printed 

materials, etc.) and have 

opportunities to appreciate the 

related cultural environment in a 

quiet contemplative setting. 

 Visitors would be primarily on 

their own on existing trails with 

minimal contact with monument 

staff or other visitors. Occasional 

special hikes connecting the 

tangible resources of the 

moundbuilders and natural 

features of the monument would 

take place. 

SNY MAGILL UNIT 

 This unit would be primarily 

managed for preservation of the 

mounds with limited amenities for 

visitor use. The parking area and 

wood-chipped trail would 

continue to be maintained. There 

would be no other development 

under this alternative. 
Alternative A– No Action 

59 

 Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation on this unit at 

the main unit visitor center, and 

would have opportunities to 

appreciate the related cultural 

environment in a quiet 

contemplative setting. 

 There would continue to be very 

limited NPS presence in this unit 

due to lack of available staff. 

 Visitors would be provided 

opportunities to experience the 

influence of the natural world on 

the moundbuilders through 

interpretation and personal 

contemplation. 

 The public would continue to have 

access to this unit for recreational 

activities in appropriate areas. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 
HERITAGE ADDITION

Founders 

Pond

Ye l l o w R i v e r

Maintenance Road

Third Scenic

View

Twin Views

Smokey Hol ol w Road

Maintenance Road

Fire Point Trail

 relocated and 

 overlook rehabilitated

Riverfront Tract

GREAT BEAR 

MOUND GROUP

LITTLE BEAR 

MOUND GROUP

COMPOUND

MOUND GROUP

MARCHING BEAR

MOUND GROUP

YELLOW RIVER

MOUND GROUP

NOTES: 

*The location of trails in the Heritage 

Addition will be determined in a future

public access and trail development plan.

*The park is in the process of completing a 

boundary survey. The boundary shown on 

this map is for illustrative purposes only.

Hanging Rock

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

Visitor Center

C

o

unt y Road (Restricted Use)

D

o

u

sman Creek

76

Figure 5

Alternative A

(No Action)

EFFIGY MOUNDS 

NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Legend

Contour Lines (10 m interval)

Public Road

County Road

Park Road

Maintenance Access

Trail

State Boundary

Waterbody

National Monument Boundary

Non-NPS Land within Park Boundary

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Air Photo Source: National Agricultural 

Imagery Program (NAIP)

Collection Year: 2010

DSC/June 2012

E

n

t

r

a

n

c

e

Road

Sny M agi

l

l

C

re

ek

Johnsons Slough

X56

M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r

SNY MAGILL UNIT 0 0.25 0.5

Miles

IOWA

WISCONSIN
62 
63 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

(ALTERNATIVES B AND C) 

To understand alternatives B and C, the 

actions described here should be 

considered in addition to those actions 

described in the section entitled “Elements 

Common to all the Alternatives 

(Alternatives, A, B, and C)” and the actions 

specific to each of the action alternatives. 

HERITAGE ADDITION 

 Wild and scenic river designation 

for the Yellow River would be 

pursued. 

 The National Park Service would 

work with Allamakee County to 

authorize hiking on the county 

road. 

 Leave No Trace principles would 

be emphasized, including trash 

removal. 

 Appropriate activities allowed in 

the unit would include quiet, low 

impact, resource-based activities 

such as hiking, canoeing, and 

wildlife viewing. 

 Visitors would receive information 

and orientation at the visitor center 

before accessing the Heritage 

Addition. 

 Ranger-led hikes would occur 

occasionally in this unit. 

 River and aquatic biology 

educational programming could be 

offered utilizing the Yellow River 

and wetlands. 

 Pass-through canoeing on the 

Yellow River would be allowed, but 

take-out would be prohibited in 

the monument to protect riverside 

resources. 

 Wayside and directional sign 

placement (for orientation and/or 

interpretation) would be 

minimized; locations would be 

selected to carefully reflect the 

contemplative setting desired. 

Placement of signs would be 

guided by the long-range 

interpretation plan (see the “Future 

Studies and Implementation Plans 

Needed” section). 

 Treatment of unused logging roads 

would be dictated by the 

completed cultural landscape 

report (see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 

 The specific location of trails in the 

Heritage Addition would be 

identified in a subsequent trail 

development / public access plan 

(see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). The access plan would 

explore and analyze potential 

options that require a minimum of 

new trail construction. 

VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA 

Development Zone in the North 

Unit 

 Exhibit, museum, and bookstore 

space in the visitor center would be 

reconfigured. 

 Depth of information and 

interpretation content in the visitor 

center would increase and new 

technology would be used as it 

becomes available.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

64 

NORTH UNIT 

 There would be no development of 

new facilities in the North Unit. 

 The National Park Service would 

pursue acquisition of the 

Riverfront Tract in the legislated 

boundary from a willing seller to 

protect cultural resources on the 

tract and would evaluate the sites 

for national register or national 

landmark status. 

 If possible without compromising 

resource integrity, the existing trail 

at Fire Point would be moved for 

visitor safety and resource 

preservation. The mound at Fire 

Point would be stabilized after the 

trail is moved. All work would be 

done according to Advisory 

Council Regulations (36 CFR Part 

800), NPS Management Policies 

2006, NPS 28: Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline, and The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation. All work 

would be done in consultation with 

the Iowa state historic preservation 

officer and traditionally associated 

American Indian tribes. 

SOUTH UNIT 

 Interpretation of mound 

preservation and the related 19th 

century American Indian cultural 

experience would be enhanced by 

interpreting the military trail and 

cistern. 

 The Yellow River Bridge Trail 

would be connected to the existing 

Marching Bear Trail. The exact 

location of the trail would be 

determined through careful site 

planning (see the “Future Studies 

and Implementation Plans 

Needed” section). In consultation 

with the Iowa state historic 

preservation officer, Office of the 

State Archaeologist, and 

traditionally associated American 

Indian tribes. 

SNY MAGILL UNIT 

 The public would continue to have 

access to this unit for approved 

recreational activities. Boating on 

the Mississippi River adjacent to 

and within this unit would be 

monitored for use levels and 

resource impacts. 

 The National Park Service would 

explore possible cooperative 

partnerships with other agencies 

such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to provide visitor services. 

 If land between the highway and 

the railroad tracks is acquired from 

a willing seller, a visitor contact 

station would be developed to 

provide an NPS presence for 

resource protection and visitor 

services. 

 A site development plan would be 

developed to evaluate options for 

location and design of the visitor 

contact station, access trail, and 

trail surface improvements (see 

“Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 

FUTURE ACQUISITIONS 

 The National Park Service would 

pursue acquisition of the tracts 

identified “Figure 4: 

Recommended Boundary 

Adjustments” from a willing seller. 

 If tract 1 is acquired it would be 

zoned discovery. 

 If tracts 2 and 3 are acquired, they 

would be zoned backcountry. 
Elements Common to Both Action Alternatives (Alternatives B and C) 

65 

 If tract 4 is acquired it would be 

zoned backcountry. 

 While the Riverfront Tract is in the 

monument’s authorized boundary, 

it is not currently owned by the 

National Park Service. If this tract 

is acquired, it would be managed in 

the backcountry zone. 
66 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

CONCEPT 

Alternative B would provide enhanced 

natural and cultural resource protection, 

opportunities for increased understanding 

of the monument, and expanded 

opportunities for visitors to experience 

relative quiet and solitude. Due to the 

sensitivity and irreplaceable nature of the 

mounds and cultural landscape, the 

National Park Service would accomplish 

these goals with the minimum amount of 

development. 

The desired visitor experience would be 

for visitors to make personal connections 

to the monument’s tangible resources 

through understanding of the significance 

of the (pre-European contact) American 

Indian moundbuilding story and its 

relationship to the heritage of the region. 

The landscape and visitor facilities would 

support a contemplative atmosphere with 

opportunities for the public to spend time 

reflecting on the lives and legacy of the 

moundbuilders and the sacred nature of 

the site today. Education and 

interpretation of the natural resources of 

the park would be expanded. 

The natural setting created by preserving 

or restoring landscapes would provide a 

connection between the moundbuilding 

cultures and the environment that shaped 

their lives and beliefs. This would be 

especially enhanced through the extensive 

backcountry zone under this alternative. 

Visitor experiences throughout the monument would be primarily self-guided on a 

variety of trail types in a quiet, 

contemplative setting to maintain an 

atmosphere of respect toward the sacred 

nature of the monument. 

Under this alternative, the diversity of 

visitor trail experiences would be 

expanded from that currently offered at 

the monument. Presently, visitors walk on 

trails to view mounds that have had the 

covering vegetation manicured so that the 

mounds are clearly visible. Consistent with 

the resource conditions and visitor 

experiences defined in the backcountry 

zone, visitors to some areas of the 

monument would be able to experience a 

walk on marked trails through natural, 

undeveloped landscapes and view some 

mounds in a more natural state (with only 

some woody materials removed for 

preservation purposes). Providing access to 

mounds that are in different conditions 

would allow an expansion of existing 

interpretive opportunities and an increased 

understanding of the monument’s 

fundamental resources. 

HERITAGE ADDITION 

The Heritage Addition would be zoned for 

backcountry. See “Figure 6. Alternative B.” 

VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA 

(DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE 

NORTH UNIT) 

This area would be managed as part of the 

development zone. See “Figure 6. 

Alternative B.” 

Additional elements include the following: 

 Those portions of the monument’s 

museum collections and archives 

that are in long-term storage and 

not on display in the visitor center 

are very inaccessible to the public, 
Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

67 

including researchers; they would 

either be (1) moved out of the 

basement of the visitor center to a 

safer, more secure location outside 

of the monument where they 

would receive better care yet 

remain accessible to legitimate 

researchers; or, (2) the current 

facility would be improved and 

staffing would be increased to 

more closely meet NPS museum 

collections standards. The National 

Park Service would be willing to 

cooperate with local universities, 

museums, nonprofit organizations, 

or government agencies to store 

the museum collections and 

archives closer to Effigy Mounds 

National Monument, in 

accordance with NPS museum 

collections standards. Due to 

concerns raised by traditionally 

associated tribes and other 

stakeholders, it may be preferable 

to keep the collections at Effigy 

Mounds National Monument. If 

the collections are moved, the NPS 

Midwest Regional Office, chief of 

Museum Collections and Records 

would oversee the move and serve 

as a technical advisor. All options 

would be carefully considered in 

consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer, Office of the 

State Archaeologist, and 

traditionally associated tribes. 

NORTH UNIT 

The area immediately north of the visitor 

center, including the major trail and access 

road, would be placed in the discovery 

zone. The area included in the discovery 

zone is designed to connect the 

interpretive information available at the 

visitor center with the on-the-ground 

resources. 

The remainder of the North Unit would be 

placed in the backcountry zone, which is 

designed to enhance resource protection 

and offer visitors opportunities for solitude 

and thoughtful reflection. See “Figure 6. 

Alternative B.” 

Elements associated with the North Unit 

include the following: 

 Existing trails could undergo minor 

realignment for resource 

protection purposes in the 

backcountry zone and for visitor 

experience in the discovery zone. 

 The width of some existing trails 

and roads within the backcountry 

and discovery zones would be 

reduced according to the 

management zone descriptions. 

 Visitors would be provided 

opportunities to reflect on the 

influence of the natural world on 

the moundbuilders in a primarily 

quiet contemplative setting. There 

would be limited personal services 

such as guided hikes and talks. Onsite information would be limited 

in the backcountry zone. 

 Interpretive waysides and signs 

would be primarily sited in the 

discovery zone. Some interpretive 

waysides and signs may be carefully 

sited in the backcountry zone to 

provide essential information but 

not detract from the natural and 

contemplative setting. Wayside and 

sign placement would be 

determined in the long-range 

interpretation plan. 

 Maintenance access to the 

northernmost portion of the 

monument would be nonvehicular 

and the northern maintenance road 

would be abandoned. 

SOUTH UNIT 

In alternative B, the majority of the South 

Unit is zoned for backcountry. An area 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68 

immediately south of Highway 76 would be 

placed in the discovery zone. See “Figure 6. 

Alternative B.” 

The backcountry zoning is designed to 

enhance resource protection and offer 

visitors opportunities for solitude and 

thoughtful reflection. The area that is 

zoned discovery is designed to connect the 

interpretive information available at the 

visitor center with the on-the-ground 

resources. 

Elements associated with the South Unit 

include the following: 

 Visitors would be provided 

opportunities to experience the 

influence of the natural world on 

the moundbuilders through 

interpretation and contemplation 

and would receive information 

primarily from the visitor center 

and limited wayside exhibits. 

 Directional signs would be added 

as needed to assist visitors. 

 Interpretive waysides and signs 

would be primarily sited in the 

discovery zone. Some interpretive 

waysides and signs may be carefully 

sited in the backcountry zone to 

provide essential information but 

not to detract from the natural and 

contemplative setting. Wayside and 

sign placement would be 

determined in the long-range 

interpretation plan. 

 In this alternative, the majority of 

the existing trails would be in the 

backcountry zone. 

 The width of some existing trails 

and roads within the backcountry 

and discovery zones would be 

reduced according to the 

management zone descriptions. 

 Visitors would be primarily on 

their own in the backcountry zone 

and have minimal contact with 

monument staff or other visitors. 

 Existing trails could be realigned 

for resource preservation purposes 

in the backcountry zone and for 

visitor experience purposes in the 

discovery zone. 

SNY MAGILL UNIT 

In alternative B, the majority of the Sny 

Magill Unit is zoned for backcountry. A 

small portion of the unit that contains an 

improved trail is zoned for discovery. See 

“Figure 6. Alternative B.” 

Elements associated with the Sny Magill 

Unit include the following: 

 Depending upon the time of year, 

visitors would receive formal and 

informal personal services at the 

contact station such as NPSconducted educational programs; 

conducted interpretive 

demonstrations, talks, and walks; 

and additional contact with 

rangers. 

 Access to the Sny Magill Unit 

would be improved from current 

conditions under this alternative. A 

trail would be built from the 

parking area only to the first 

mounds encountered (a distance of 

approximately 412 yards). 

VIRTUAL RESEARCH CENTER 

In alternative B, a virtual research center 

would be developed to serve as an online 

portal for information exchange on mound 

research and management in the region. 

The virtual research center would be 

developed and managed by monument 

staff, in partnership with tribal 

governments, other land management 

agencies, and academic institutions. 
HERITAGE ADDITION

Founders 

Pond

Ye l l o w R i v e r

Third Scenic

View

Twin Views

Smokey Hol ol w Road

Maintenance Road

Fire Point Trail

 relocated and 

 overlook rehabilitated

Riverfront Tract

GREAT BEAR 

MOUND GROUP

LITTLE BEAR 

MOUND GROUP

New Trail

(exact location TBD)

COMPOUND

MOUND GROUP

MARCHING BEAR

MOUND GROUP

YELLOW RIVER

MOUND GROUP

NOTES: 

*The location of trails in the Heritage 

Addition will be determined in a future

public access and trail development plan.

*The park is in the process of completing a 

boundary survey. The boundary shown on 

this map is for illustrative purposes only.

Hanging Rock

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

Visitor Center

C

o

u n ty Road (Restricted Us

e

)

D

o

u

sman Creek

76

Figure 6

Alternative B

EFFIGY MOUNDS 

NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Legend

Contour Lines (10 m interval)

Public Road

County Road

Park Road

Maintenance Access

Trail

State Boundary

Waterbody

National Monument Boundary

Non-NPS Land within Park Boundary

Alternative Management Zones

Backcountry Zone

Developed Zone

Discovery Zone

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Air Photo Source: National Agricultural 

Imagery Program (NAIP)

Collection Year: 2010

DSC/June 2012

Proposed future 

visitor contact 

station should 

property become 

available for 

acquisition.

Improve Trail

E

n

t

r

a

nce

Road

S n

y

M

agill

Creek

Johnsons Slough

X56

M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r

SNY MAGILL UNIT 0 0.25 0.5

Miles

WISCONSIN

IOWA
70 
71 

ALTERNATIVE C 

CONCEPT 

Alternative C would provide enhanced and 

expanded opportunities for visitors to 

experience the monument and increase 

their understanding of the moundbuilders 

while protecting and preserving natural 

and cultural resources. 

The desired visitor experience would be 

for visitors to make personal connections 

to the monument’s tangible resources 

through understanding of the significance 

of the (pre-European contact) American 

Indian moundbuilding story and its 

relationship to the heritage of the region. 

As a means of enhancing the visitor 

experience, public access to various units 

of the monument would be improved in 

this alternative. 

The landscape and visitor facilities would 

provide opportunities for the public to 

learn about the lives and legacy of the 

moundbuilders and the sacred nature of 

the site today. The natural setting created 

by preserving or restoring landscapes 

would provide a connection between the 

moundbuilding cultures and the 

environment that shaped the 

moundbuilders lives and beliefs. 

Visitor experiences throughout the monument would be on developed trails that 

allow visitors to learn about the mounds 

and their makers. Because more of the 

monument would be in the discovery zone 

in this alternative, visitors would be likely 

to encounter other visitors or park staff 

during their visit. 

HERITAGE ADDITION 

The Heritage Addition would be zoned as 

backcountry, see “Figure 7. Alternative C.”

VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA 

(DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE 

NORTH UNIT) 

This area would be managed as part of the 

development zone. See “Figure 7. 

Alternative C.” 

Additional elements include the following: 

 Those portions of the monument’s 

museum collections and archives 

that are in long-term storage and 

not on display in the visitor center 

are very inaccessible to the public, 

including researchers; they would 

be moved out of the basement of 

the visitor center to the new 

research center located outside of 

the monument in a neighboring 

town (within approximately 10 

miles of the monument 

headquarters). This new location 

would meet NPS museum 

collections standards and provide a 

safer, more secure location, yet 

provide access for legitimate 

researchers. The NPS Midwest 

Regional Office, chief of Museum 

collections and Records would 

oversee the move and serve as a 

technical advisor. 

NORTH UNIT 

In alternative C, almost the entire North 

Unit is zoned as discovery. The discovery 

zoning is designed to provide improved 

access to the resources in the North Unit. 

This zoning also allows for more on-site 

interpretation and directional signs. See 

“Figure 7. Alternative C.” 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 

Additional elements include the following: 

 Existing trails could undergo minor 

realignment for resource 

protection purposes. 

 The width of some existing trails 

and roads within the discovery 

zone would be reduced according 

to the management zone 

description. 

 Visitors would have opportunities 

to experience the influence of the 

natural world of the 

moundbuilders through personal 

services such as guided hikes and 

talks, and nonpersonal media 

(trailside exhibits, printed 

materials, etc.). 

SOUTH UNIT 

In alternative C, the majority of the South 

Unit would be in the discovery zone. The 

discovery zoning is designed to provide 

improved access to the resources in the 

South Unit. This zoning also allows for 

more on-site interpretation and directional 

signs. See “Figure 7. Alternative C.” 

Additional elements include the following: 

 Visitors would be provided 

opportunities to experience the 

influence of the natural world on 

the moundbuilders through 

interpretation and contemplation. 

Visitors would receive information 

from the visitor center and wayside 

exhibits. 

 Directional signs would be added 

as needed to assist visitors. 

 Interpretive waysides and signs 

would be primarily sited in the 

discovery zone. Some interpretive 

waysides and signs may be carefully 

sited in the backcountry zone so as 

not to detract from the natural and 

contemplative setting. Wayside and 

sign placement would be 

determined in the long range 

interpretation plan. 

 Visitors would be primarily on 

their own on well-developed trails, 

but are likely to have some contact 

with monument staff or other 

visitors. 

 The width of some existing trails 

and roads within the backcountry 

and discovery zones would be 

reduced according to the 

management zone descriptions. 

 In this alternative, the majority of 

the existing trails would be located 

in the discovery zone. 

 Existing trails could be realigned 

for resource preservation purposes 

in the backcountry zone and for 

visitor experience purposes in the 

discovery zone. 

SNY MAGILL UNIT 

In alternative C, the majority of the Sny 

Magill Unit is zoned for backcountry. A 

portion of the unit that contains an 

improved trail is zoned discovery. See 

“Figure 7. Alternative C.” 

Elements include the following: 

 The existing trail (approximately 

(885 yards) would be improved to 

provide for better visitor access 

and natural resource management 

according to a site development 

plan to be prepared. 

 Depending on the time of year, 

visitors would receive formal and 

informal personal services at the 

visitor contact station such as NPSconducted educational programs; 

interpretive demonstrations, talks, 

and walks; and additional contacts 

with rangers. 
Alternative C 

73 

RESEARCH CENTER 

In alternative C, a research center would be 

developed outside of the monument in a 

neighboring town. In addition to its 

primary use as a research center, the 

facility would also house the monument’s 

museum collections and archives. The 

facility would have an office for the center 

director, a small research space, and a 

library for National Park Service and 

visiting researchers. 

The research center would be located in a 

leased building within approximately 

10 miles of the monument headquarters. 

The monument would also seek out 

partnership opportunities to lease space 

from other agencies that are developing 

compatible facilities in the nearby area. 

The primary goal of the center would be to 

promote education, preservation, and 

maintenance activities that would support 

mound stewardship throughout the fourstate region. As a result of this research 

capacity, there would be an expanded role 

for maintenance and interpretation staff to 

work in cooperation with resource 

managers in employing innovative 

management techniques and interpretive 

programming. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 
HERITAGE ADDITION

Founders 

Pond

Ye l l o

w

R i v e r

Maintenance Road

Third Scenic

View

Twin Views Smokey Hol ol w Road

Maintenance

Road

Fire Point Trail

 relocated and 

 overlook rehabilitated

Riverfront Tract

GREAT BEAR 

MOUND GROUP

LITTLE BEAR 

MOUND GROUP

New Trail

(exact location TBD)

COMPOUND

MOUND GROUP

MARCHING BEAR

MOUND GROUP

YELLOW RIVER

MOUND GROUP

NOTES: 

*The location of trails in the Heritage 

Addition will be determined in a future

public access and trail development plan.

*The park is in the process of completing a 

boundary survey. The boundary shown on 

this map is for illustrative purposes only.

Hanging Rock

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

Visitor Center

Co u n ty

Road (Restricted Use)

Dousman Creek

76

Figure 7

Alternative C

EFFIGY MOUNDS 

NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Legend

Contour Lines (10 m interval)

Public Road

County Road

Park Road

Maintenance Access

Trail

State Boundary

Waterbody

National Monument Boundary

Non-NPS Land within Park Boundary

Alternative Management Zones

Backcountry Zone

Developed Zone

Discovery Zone

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Air Photo Source: National Agricultural 

Imagery Program (NAIP)

Collection Year: 2010

DSC/March 2012

Proposed future 

visitor contact 

station should 

property become 

available for 

acquisition.

Improve Trail

Entrance Road

Sny M agill Creek

Johnsons Slough

X56

M i s s i s s i p

p i R i v e r

SNY MAGILL UNIT

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

WISCONSIN

IOWA
76 
77 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates in general management 

plans are required by the National Parks 

and Recreation Act of 1978 and are 

requested by Congress for budget control 

purposes. 

The implementation of the approved plan, 

no matter which alternative, would depend 

on future NPS funding levels and 

servicewide priorities, and on partnership 

funds, time, and effort. The approval of a 

general management plan does not 

guarantee that funding and staffing needed 

to implement the plan would be 

forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

plan could be many years in the future. 

The following assumptions apply to costs 

presented in this plan: 

 These cost figures are broad 

estimates based on the costs of 

construction, supplies, and 

employee salaries; they should not 

be used for budgeting and project 

planning. 

 The costs presented here have been 

developed using industry standards 

to the extent available. 

 Actual costs would be determined 

at a later date, considering the 

design of facilities, identification of 

detailed resource protection needs 

and changing visitor expectations. 

 Potential costs for land protection 

tools (easements, acquisitions, etc.) 

to implement the boundary 

adjustment proposals in this 

general management plan are not 

included in these estimates. 

 The cost estimates presented here 

represent the total costs of projects. 

It is possible that cost sharing 

opportunities with partners could 

reduce overall costs. 

The NPS Facility Planning Curatorial 

Space Model was consulted and research 

on comparable facilities was conducted to 

determine the space needs for a research 

center in alternative C. The NPS facility 

planning model was also run to determine 

the space needs for a Sny Magill visitor 

contact station in alternatives B and C. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Costs associated with implementing this 

alternative include both on-going 

operations funding (base funding) and 

those items that are already funded or 

approved. Funded projects include 

construction of a trail to the South Unit 

and actions addressing deferred 

maintenance. 

In addition to the above costs, periodic 

increases in base funding would be 

required to cover inflation and to remain at 

the current level of monument operations. 

The current staffing level cannot be 

reduced if the monument is to continue to 

be open 362 days a year. 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Cost estimates for this alternative include 

reconfiguration of the visitor center, a 

visitor contact station and trail in the Sny 

Magill Unit, a trail connecting the North 

and South units, and new trails in the 

Heritage Addition. Improvements to the 

museum exhibits and collections storage 

are also included. Funding needs for 

building maintenance and operations costs 

are also included in this alternative. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 

Nonfacility costs in this alternative would 

include stabilization of the mound at Fire 

Point, implementation of landscape 

restoration, other cultural and natural 

resource management actions, additional 

plans and studies, and funding for 

enhanced interpretation programs and 

materials at the main visitor center and at 

the Sny Magill Unit. 

Five and a half additional permanent staff 

positions would be recommended to fully 

implement alternative B. The following 

positions would be needed: museum tech, 

two seasonal interpreters, two seasonal 

maintenance workers, law enforcement 

ranger, and a seasonal cultural resource 

specialist. This increase in staffing would 

be necessary to have staff available at the 

visitor center and seasonally at the Sny 

Magill Unit; to operate the virtual resource 

center; and to conduct needed 

administrative, resource management, and 

protection functions. The increase in 

staffing is also due to the inclusion of the 

Heritage Addition within Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. The Heritage 

Addition approximately doubled the total 

acreage of the monument, yet static base 

funding has resulted in little to no increase 

in staffing. 

Although the cost estimates were based on 

using full-time NPS employees, some of the 

work could be done by volunteers or 

cooperating association employees. If it 

were not possible to fill the eight positions, 

then the Sny Magill Unit would be staffed 

only a few days a week or would be staffed 

only when visitation is high. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Cost estimates for this alternative include 

reconfiguration of the visitor center, 

construction of a visitor contact station 

and longer trail in the Sny Magill Unit, a 

trail connecting the North and South units, 

and development of trails and access in the 

Heritage Addition. Improvements to the 

museum exhibits are also included. 

Funding needs for additional building 

maintenance, operations, and the leasing of 

a research center facility in a nearby town 

are also included in this alternative. 

Nonfacility costs in this alternative would 

include stabilization of the mound at Fire 

Point, implementation of landscape 

restoration, other cultural and natural 

resource management actions, additional 

plans and studies, and funding for 

enhanced interpretation programs and 

materials at the main visitor center and the 

Sny Magill Unit. 

Seven and a half additional permanent staff 

positions would be recommended to fully 

implement the alternative C. The following 

positions would be needed: cultural 

resource specialist/research center 

director, museum tech, two seasonal 

interpreters, maintenance worker, two 

seasonal maintenance workers, law 

enforcement ranger, seasonal cultural 

resource specialist, and an IT tech. This 

increase in staffing would be necessary to 

have staff available at the research center, 

visitor center, and seasonally at the Sny 

Magill Unit; to operate the research center; 

and to conduct needed administrative and 

resource management duties. The increase 

in staffing is also due to the inclusion of the 

Heritage Addition within Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. The Heritage 

Addition approximately doubled the total 

acreage of the monument, yet static base 

funding has resulted in little to no increase 

in staffing. 

Although the cost estimates were based on 

using full-time NPS employees, some of the 

work could be done by volunteers or 

cooperating association employees. If it 

were not possible to fill the nine positions, 

then the Sny Magill Unit would be staffed 

only a few days a week or would be staffed 

only when visitation is high. 
Estimated Costs 

79 

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES (IN 2010 DOLLARS) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) Alternative C 

Annual Operating Costs1 $1,200,000 $1,465,000 $1,680,000 

Staffing (FTE2) 18 22.5 25.5 

One Time Costs 

 Facility Costs3 $600,000 $2,560,000 $2,710,000 

 Nonfacility Costs4 $100,000 $250,000 $250,000 

Total One Time Costs $700,000 $2,810,000 $2,960,000 

(1) Annual operating costs are the total annual costs for maintenance and operations associated with each alternative, 

including maintenance, utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, leasing, and other materials. 

(2) Total full-time equivalents (FTEs) are the number of positions required to maintain the assets of the park at a good level,

provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and other support staff. FTE is not a measurement of the number of 

people, but is a measurement of “equivalency”—for instance, two part-time employees could equal one FTE. The full-time 

equivalent staff would not necessarily be National Park Service employees. Park managers would explore opportunities to work 

with partners, volunteers, and other federal agencies to manage the park efficiently. Employee salaries and benefits are 

included in the annual operating costs. 

(3) Initial construction costs include those for construction or renovation of facilities. In the no action alternative, initial 

construction costs includes only those costs already planned within existing programs and with an approved funding source. 

Costs in this category also include deferred maintenance and any offset in deferred maintenance as a result of the actions in 

the alternative. 

(4) Nonfacility costs include the costs of actions for cultural and natural resource management, visitor service materials, and

other park management activities that are not related to a facility but would require substantial funding above the annual park

operating costs. 
80 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The National Park Service is required to 

identify the environmentally preferable 

alternative in its environmental impact 

analysis documents for public review and 

comment. The National Park Service, in 

accordance with USDI policies contained 

in the department manual 516 DM 4.10 

and NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions, 

defines the environmentally preferable 

alternative (or alternatives) as the 

alternative that best promotes the national 

environmental policy expressed in section 

101(b) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

Section 101 states that it is the continuing 

responsibility of the federal government to 

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 

2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

3. attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk to health or safety, or 

other undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

4. preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of national 

heritage, and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment which 

supports diversity, and variety of 

individual choices; 

5. achieve a balance between population 

and resource use that would permit 

high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and 

6. enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

Alternative A (no action) lacks the range of 

diversity and individual choices found in 

the other alternatives. It also does not 

provide as much resource protection and 

beneficial management as the other 

alternatives—more resource impacts 

would be expected with increasing visitor 

use levels in this alternative. Thus, the noaction alternative would not meet criteria 

3, 4, and 5 as well the other alternatives. 

Alternative B would expand visitor use 

opportunities and improve research and 

management of mounds through the new 

virtual research center, new trails, and the 

Sny Magill visitor contact station, thus 

providing for a wide range of negligible and 

beneficial uses of the environment 

(meeting criteria 3 and 5). This alternative 

would also meet criteria 2 and 4 through its 

continued protection of the undeveloped 

areas of the national monument and the 

emphasis on preserving entire landscapes. 

Alternative C would also provide a high 

level of resource protection (meeting 

criteria 3 and 4). This alternative would 

continue protection of the undeveloped 

areas of the national monument. 

Alternative C would strengthen scientific 

inquiry at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. This alternative would also 

expand visitor use opportunities through 

the addition of new trails and the Sny 

Magill visitor contact station, thus 

providing for a wide range of beneficial 

uses of the environment (meeting criteria 3 

and 5). The range of visitor experience 

opportunities would also be improved 

under this alternative. However, while 

alternative C would allow more 

manipulation of land (by placing more 

acreage in the discovery zone), thus 

improving visitor opportunities, this 

zoning would not allow the degree of 

protection that alternative B allows. 
Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

81 

After consideration of the alternatives in 

this general management plan, the environmentally preferable alternative is the same 

as the NPS preferred alternative 

(alternative B). This alternative would 

more fully satisfy all the national 

environmental criteria than would 

alternative A or C. 

Alternative B and C are similar; however, in 

alternative B, the monument is primarily 

zoned for a more backcountry experience 

with less development (trails and signs). 

Thus, Alternative B would provide a high 

level of protection of natural and cultural 

resources. The alternative would also 

maintain an environment that supports a 

diversity and variety of individual choices 

and would integrate resource protection 

with an appropriate range of visitor use. 

TABLE 5. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

Criterion Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

1 Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

2 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

3 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

4 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Partially meets criterion 

5 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

6 Partially meets criterion Partially meets criterion Partially meets criterion 

Conclusion Environmentally preferable 

alternative 
82 

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM 

DETAILED EVALUATION 

Early on in the alternative development 

process, the planning team created three 

alternatives schemes that each had a 

different area of emphasis: research, 

education, and visitor experience. It was 

then realized that the National Park Service 

should not emphasize only one area of 

operations or programming at the possible 

expense of other important programs, as 

this would result in an inability to meet 

project objectives and resolve need. The 

National Park Service should be doing all 

these in every alternative. Therefore, these 

alternatives were dropped from further 

consideration. 

The planning team also considered 

alternatives that would facilitate more 

efficient maintenance of the monument. 

Because these alternatives would have 

required the construction of more roads, 

maintenance facilities, or both, in areas 

dense with fundamental resources 

(mounds), the team decided that greater 

maintenance efficiency, however desirable 

on one hand, would have too great an 

environmental impact. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

considered constructing a visitor center for 

the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge about 2 miles 

north of the Sny Magill Unit. The National 

Park Service at one time contemplated 

asking the Fish and Wildlife Service if they 

would consider a joint facility operated by 

both agencies that would, in part, satisfy 

the need for an NPS presence at the Sny 

Magill Unit. This idea was later dismissed 

because the center’s location would be too 

far away from the Sny Magill Unit. In order 

to provide for resource protection and to 

improve the visitor experience at that unit, 

the visitor contact station must be close to 

the resource. Staff should be immediately 

available to direct visitors to stay on trails 

and to discourage pothunting (the illegal 

removal of archeological materials). The 

proposed visitor contact station in 

alternatives B and C would meet this need, 

yet be modest in size and would include, at 

most, small, simple exhibits. 

Several individual actions were also 

dismissed from further consideration, such 

as building a boardwalk to the mounds in 

the Sny Magill Unit, because these types of 

actions could have too great an 

environmental impact. Although a 

boardwalk would have allowed year-round 

access to the mounds and reduced damage 

to natural resources, it was felt that such a 

structure would allow excessive impacts to 

cultural landscapes to occur. Another 

action considered was the construction of 

a small maintenance storage facility in the 

North Unit to keep equipment and 

supplies nearer to where they are used 

most often. However, archeological 

resources and rare plants were recently 

discovered in the proposed location, so 

this action was dismissed. 

Another action was the construction of a 

small parking area for visitors who would 

hike into the northern part of the Heritage 

Addition. This was dismissed because of 

public safety reasons. 

Another action was the reconstruction of 

the access road into the South Unit used by 

visitors to access this unit. This was 

dismissed because the completion of the 

trail from the visitor center would make 

(hiking) access provided by this road no 

longer necessary and reconstruction could 

cause too great of an impact on the 

environment. 

The planning team considered tearing 

down the two former park housing units 

and constructing a multipurpose research 
Alternatives and Actions Considered But Dismissed from Further Evaluation 

83 

center / administrative facility in the 

previously developed footprint. During the 

development of the general management 

plan, the park housing units were 

remodeled to provide office space for the 

Heartland Exotic Pest Management Team. 

The team has since been moved to another 

location and the offices are now being used 

by monument staff. The addition of these 

offices addressed the monument’s need for 

additional office space. 

The need for expanded research, which 

was previously considered in a new 

multipurpose research center to be 

developed at the monument, was 

addressed in alternative B by adding a 

virtual research center and in alternative C 

by including an off-site research center. 

The multipurpose research center would 

have also provided a place for groups of 

visitors to gather; this need can now be met 

with the vacated office space in the visitor 

center. Recent evidence indicated that the 

development of new facility (multipurpose 

research center) would have resulted in too 

great of an environmental impact. 

Development of the multipurpose research 

center on the lands to be purchased at the 

entrance of the Sny Magill Unit was also 

considered. However, these lands 

experience regular flooding and the scale 

of the development was determined to be 

technically infeasible at this site. 

Furthermore, the lack of security 

associated with this remote site would be 

insufficient for the protection of the 

museum collection archives.
84 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park 

Service with managing the lands under its 

stewardship “in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations” (NPS 

Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the 

National Park Service routinely evaluates 

and implements mitigation whenever 

conditions occur that could adversely 

affect the sustainability of national park 

system resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the 

action alternatives protects unimpaired 

natural and cultural resources and the 

quality of the visitor experience, a 

consistent set of mitigative measures would 

be applied to actions proposed in this plan. 

The National Park Service would prepare 

appropriate environmental review (i.e., 

those required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other 

relevant legislation) for these future 

actions. As part of the environmental 

review, the National Park Service would 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse 

impacts when practicable. The 

implementation of a compliancemonitoring program would include 

reporting protocols to ensure activities stay 

within the parameters of NEPA and NHPA 

compliance documents, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers section 404 permits, and so 

forth. The compliance-monitoring 

program would oversee these mitigative 

measures and would include reporting 

protocols. 

The following mitigative measures and best 

management practices could be 

implemented to avoid or minimize 

potential impacts from the implementation 

of the alternatives. These measures would 

apply to all alternatives and were 

considered as part of the alternatives in the 

analyses of environmental impacts. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would preserve 

and protect, to the greatest extent possible, 

resources that provide evidence of the 

human occupation of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. Mitigative measures 

intended to reduce or eliminate adverse 

effects to cultural resources could include 

the following: 

 Continue to develop inventories 

for and oversee research about 

archeological, historical, and 

ethnographic resources to better 

understand and manage the 

resources. Continue to manage 

cultural resources and collections 

following federal regulations and 

NPS guidelines. 

 Subject projects to site-specific 

planning and compliance. Make 

efforts to avoid adverse impacts 

through adherence to the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for 

Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Guidelines for 

Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring, and Reconstructing 

Historic Buildings, and the 

Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Make use of screening 

and/or sensitive design that would 

be compatible with historic 

resources. If adverse impacts could 

not be avoided, mitigate these 

impacts through a consultation 

process with all interested parties. 

 Inventory all unsurveyed areas in 

the park for archeological, 

historical, and ethnographic 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

85 

resources as well as cultural and 

ethnographic landscapes. 

 Document cultural and 

ethnographic landscapes in the 

park and identify treatments. 

 Conduct archeological site 

monitoring and routine protection. 

Conduct data recovery excavations 

at archeological sites threatened 

with destruction, where protection 

or site avoidance during design and 

construction is infeasible. 

 Avoid, if not possible mitigate, 

impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Mitigation would include 

continuing to provide access to 

traditional use and spiritual areas 

and screening new development 

from traditional use areas. 

 Continue ongoing consultations 

with traditionally associated 

American Indian tribes. Protect 

sensitive traditional use areas to the 

extent feasible. 

 Design facilities to avoid known or 

suspected archeological resources. 

 If previously unknown cultural 

resources are discovered during 

project work, all work in the area 

would cease until the site can be 

evaluated by a qualified person and 

appropriate action can be 

implemented. 

 Encourage visitors through the 

park’s interpretive programs to 

respect and leave undisturbed any 

inadvertently encountered 

archeological resources and to 

respect and leave undisturbed any 

offerings placed by American 

Indians. 

 Strictly adhere to NPS museum 

collections standards and 

guidelines on the display and care 

of artifacts. This would include 

artifacts used in exhibits in the 

visitor center. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would preserve 

and protect, to the greatest extent possible, 

the natural resources of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. Mitigative measures 

intended to reduce or eliminate adverse 

effects to natural resources could include 

the following: 

Air Quality 

 Implement a dust abatement 

program. Standard dust abatement 

measures could include the 

following elements: water or 

otherwise stabilize soil, cover haul 

trucks, enforce speed limits on 

unpaved roads, minimize 

vegetation clearing, and revegetate 

after construction. 

Soils 

 Build new facilities on soil suitable 

for development. Minimize soil 

erosion by limiting the time that 

soil is left exposed and by applying 

other erosion control measures 

such as erosion matting, silt 

fencing, and sedimentation basins 

in construction areas to reduce 

erosion, surface scouring, and 

discharge to water bodies. Once 

work is completed, revegetate 

construction areas with native 

plants in a timely period. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

Mitigative actions would occur during 

normal park operations as well as before, 

during, and after construction to minimize 

immediate and long-term impacts on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. These 

actions would vary by specific project and 

by area of the national monument affected; 

additional mitigation would be added 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

86 

depending on the specific action and 

location. Many of the measures listed 

above for vegetation and wildlife would 

also benefit rare, threatened, and 

endangered species by helping to preserve 

habitat. 

Mitigative actions specific to rare, 

threatened, and endangered species would 

include the following: 

 Conduct surveys for rare, 

threatened, and endangered 

species as warranted. 

 Locate and design facilities and 

actions to avoid adverse effects on 

rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. If avoidance is infeasible, 

minimize and compensate for 

adverse effects on rare, threatened, 

and endangered species as 

appropriate and in consultation 

with the appropriate resource 

agencies. Conduct work outside of 

critical periods for the specific 

species. 

 Develop and implement 

restoration and/or monitoring 

plans as warranted. Plans should 

include methods for 

implementation, performance 

standards, monitoring criteria, and 

adaptive management techniques. 

 Implement measures to reduce 

adverse effects of nonnative plants 

and wildlife on rare, threatened, 

and endangered species. 

Vegetation 

 Monitor areas used by visitors (e.g., 

trails) for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Use public education, 

revegetation of disturbed areas 

with native plants, erosion control 

measures, and barriers to control 

potential impacts on plants from 

trail erosion or social trailing. 

 Develop revegetation plans for the 

disturbed area and require the use 

of native species. Revegetation 

plans should specify seed/plant 

source, seed/plant mixes, soil 

preparation, and so forth. Salvaged 

vegetation should be used to the 

extent possible. 

Water Resources 

 To prevent water pollution during 

construction, use best management 

practices such as erosion control 

measures, minimized discharge to 

water bodies, and regular 

inspection of construction 

equipment for leaks of petroleum 

and other chemicals. Minimize the 

use of heavy equipment in a 

waterway. 

 Build a runoff filtration system to 

minimize water pollution from 

larger parking areas. 

Wildlife 

 Employ techniques where 

necessary to reduce impacts on 

wildlife, including visitor education 

programs and restrictions on 

visitor and park management 

activities. 

 Implement a natural resource 

preservation program. Standard 

measures would include 

construction scheduling, biological 

monitoring, erosion and sediment 

control, use of fencing or other 

means to protect sensitive 

resources adjacent to construction, 

removal of all food-related items or 

rubbish, topsoil salvage, and 

revegetation. These measures 

could include specific construction 

monitoring by resource specialists 

as well as the development and 

monitoring of treatment and 

reporting procedures. 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

87 

Wetlands 

 Wetlands are delineated by 

qualified NPS staff or certified 

wetlands specialists and clearly 

marked before construction work. 

Construction activities are 

performed in a cautious manner to 

prevent damage caused by 

equipment, erosion, siltation, and 

so forth. 

Natural Soundscapes 

 Noise impacts from construction 

would be minimized by making use 

of quieter technology, scheduling 

interpretive programs around 

construction, locating stationary 

noise sources as far from sensitive 

uses as possible, and requiring that 

construction equipment not be left 

idling any longer than necessary. 

Scenic Resources 

Mitigative measures designed to minimize 

visual intrusions include the following: 

 Where appropriate, use facilities 

such as trails and fences to route 

visitors away from sensitive natural 

and cultural resources, while still 

permitting access to important 

viewpoints. 

 Design, site, and construct facilities 

to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects on natural and cultural 

resources and visual intrusion into 

the natural and cultural landscape 

in compliance with federal law, 

NPS policy, and associate 

management planning documents. 

 Provide vegetative screening where 

appropriate to hide intrusions into 

the natural scene. 
88 

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

After completion and approval of a general 

management plan for the national 

monument, other more detailed studies 

and plans would be needed before specific 

actions could be implemented. As 

required, additional environmental 

compliance (National Environmental 

Policy Act, National Historic Preservation 

Act, and other relevant laws and policies), 

and public involvement would be 

conducted. 

Additional studies would include, but 

would not be limited to, the following: 

1. A cultural landscape report is needed 

on the entire monument. This is a 

monument priority. Update the 

cultural landscape inventory to 

determine whether an ethnographic 

landscape exists at the national monument, determine the boundary of such 

a landscape, and identify resources. 

2. A resource stewardship strategy would 

expand the desired natural and cultural 

resource conditions from this general 

management plan, describes the 

current condition of the resources, and 

identifies the difference between 

current and desired conditions. 

Comprehensive strategies to achieve 

and maintain the desired resource 

conditions are developed that identify 

specific monitoring indicators and 

targets. The resource stewardship 

strategy guides preparation of 

implementation plans such as a 

vegetation management plan, cultural 

resource management plan, nonnative 

species control plan, or a fire 

management plan. 

3. A public access / trail development 

plan with environmental assessment 

(or other appropriate level of 

compliance) under alternatives B and 

C, using the direction provided in this 

general management plan. The trail 

plan would focus on the Heritage 

Addition, but would also address new 

trail connections from the visitor 

center to the Heritage Addition and 

South Unit trail system (Yellow River 

Bridge to South Unit trails). 

During the course of developing this 

general management plan, two options for 

providing safe access to the northern part 

of the Heritage Addition using trails 

beginning from the visitor center area were 

discussed: 

 Building a trail on the northern side 

of the Yellow River, between the 

river and Highway 76, which would 

enter the northern part of the 

Heritage Addition from the east 

side on an existing logging road. 

Visitors would reach the start of 

this trail at the visitor center area by 

crossing through the tunnel under 

the highway and continuing into 

the Heritage Addition. 

 Building a very small parking area 

in the Heritage Addition along 

highway 76 from which visitors 

could directly access trails in the 

northern part of the Heritage 

Addition. This option was removed 

from consideration because of 

safety issues associated with the 

parking lot access road intersection 

with highway 76. 

There may also be other options for 

visitor access to the northern part of the 

Heritage Addition. The access plan and 

environmental assessment would 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

89 

analyze other potential options as well 

as the two options listed above. 

4. Under the alternatives B and C, future 

management of the Sny Magill Unit 

would require a site development plan 

with environmental assessment (or 

other appropriate level of compliance) 

to analyze and decide on the following: 

 appropriate designs and locations 

for a visitor contact facility on 

adjacent property should such 

property be acquired 

 the alignment and design of an 

access trail from the visitor contact 

station to the mounds 

 alternative surfaces and locations 

of a trail to facilitate access to and 

interpretation of the mounds 

without causing adverse impacts 

 appropriate staffing levels to 

provide adequate visitor services 

and protect resources 

5. The long-range interpretation plan for 

the monument would be finalized and 

would include placement information 

for new trail interpretive and 

directional signs. 

6. A long-term mound maintenance plan 

would be developed to guide the future 

care and treatment of vegetation on or 

near the mounds.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

90 

SUMMARY TABLES 

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Current management strategies and 

trends would continue under the 

no-action alternative. There would 

be no major changes to monument 

operations or visitor services. All 

cultural sites would continue to be 

maintained and preserved using 

current practices. The mounds 

would continue to be protected and 

preserved. Management treatments 

would vary according to the cover 

and condition of individual mounds. 

Historic sites would be protected 

from degradation, but not otherwise 

managed. The Heritage Addition 

would not have a long-term plan in 

place. The North, South, and Sny 

Magill units would continue to be 

managed as they are currently. 

Alternative B would provide enhanced 

natural and cultural resource 

protection, opportunities for increased 

understanding of the monument, and 

expanded opportunities for visitors to 

experience relative quiet and solitude. 

Due to the sensitivity and irreplaceable 

nature of the mounds and cultural 

landscape, the National Park Service 

would accomplish these goals with 

the minimum amount of 

development. 

The desired visitor experience would 

be for visitors to make personal 

connections to the monument’s 

tangible resources through 

understanding of the significance of 

the (pre-European contact) American 

Indian moundbuilding story and its 

relationship to the heritage of the 

region. The landscape and visitor 

facilities would support a contemplative atmosphere with opportunities for 

the public to spend time reflecting on 

the lives and legacy of the 

moundbuilders and the sacred nature 

of the site today. Education and 

interpretation of the natural resources 

of the park would be expanded. 

Alternative C would provide enhanced 

and expanded opportunities for 

visitors to experience the monument 

and increase their understanding of 

the moundbuilders while protecting 

and preserving natural and cultural 

resources. 

The desired visitor experience would 

be for visitors to make personal 

connections to the monument’s 

tangible resources through 

understanding of the significance of 

the (pre-European contact) American 

Indian moundbuilding story and its 

relationship to the heritage of the 

region. As a means of enhancing the 

visitor experience, public access to 

various units of the monument would 

be improved in this alternative. 

The natural setting created by 

preserving or restoring landscapes 

would provide a connection between 

the moundbuilding cultures and the 

environment that shaped their lives 

and beliefs. This would be especially 

enhanced through the extensive 

backcountry zone under this 

alternative. 

The landscape and visitor facilities 

would provide opportunities for the 

public to learn about the lives and 

legacy of the moundbuilders and the 

sacred nature of the site today. The 

natural setting created by preserving 

or restoring landscapes would provide 

a connection between the 

moundbuilding cultures and the 

environment that shaped the 

moundbuilders’ lives and beliefs. 

Visitor experiences throughout the 

monument would be primarily selfguided on a variety of trail types in a 

quiet, contemplative setting to 

maintain an atmosphere of respect 

toward the sacred nature of the 

monument. 

Visitor experiences throughout the 

monument would be on a variety of 

trail types that allow visitors to learn 

about the mounds and the 

moundbuilders. Because more of the 

monument would be in the discovery 

zone in this alternative, visitors would 

be likely to encounter other visitors or 

park staff during their visit. 
Summary Tables 

91 

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Under this alternative, the diversity of 

visitor trail experiences would be 

expanded from that currently offered 

at the monument. Presently, visitors 

walk on trails to view mounds that 

have had the covering vegetation 

manicured so that the mounds are 

clearly visible. Consistent with the 

resource conditions and visitor 

experiences defined in the 

backcountry zone, visitors to some 

areas of the monument would be able 

to experience a walk on marked trails 

through natural, undeveloped 

landscapes and view some mounds in 

a more natural state (with only some 

woody materials removed for 

preservation purposes). Providing 

access to mounds that are in different 

conditions would allow an expansion 

of existing interpretive opportunities 

and an increased understanding of the 

monument’s fundamental resources. 

A virtual research center would be 

developed to serve as an online portal 

for information exchange on mound 

research and management in the 

region. The virtual research center 

would be developed and managed by 

monument staff, in partnership with 

other land managers and academic 

institutions. 

A research center would be developed 

outside of the monument in a 

neighboring town. The facility would 

also house the monument’s museum 

collections and archives. The facility 

would have an office for the center 

director, a small research space, and a 

library for NPS and visiting researchers. 

General Zoning

There would be no zoning in this 

alternative. Management direction 

from the previous general 

management plan and other 

planning would remain in effect. 

In this alternative, the majority of the 

monument is in the backcountry zone. 

The area around the visitor center is 

zoned for development and the most 

heavily visited trails and mound 

groups are located in the discovery 

zone. 

In this alternative, most of the North 

and South units would be placed in 

the discovery zone, which allows for 

more visitor amenities (developed 

trails, benches, etc.). The Heritage 

Addition would be zoned 

backcountry, which allows for lessdeveloped public trails to provide 

some access to this area and to other 

areas of the monument while 

protecting cultural and natural 

resources. 

While the Riverfront Tract is in the 

monument’s authorized boundary, it 

is not currently owned by the National 

Park Service. If this tract is acquired, it 

would be managed in the backcountry 

zone. 

While the Riverfront Tract is in the 

monument’s authorized boundary, it 

is not currently owned by the National 

Park Service. If this tract is acquired, it 

would be managed in the backcountry 

zone. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92 

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Heritage Addition

Visitors would continue to be able to 

experience the landscape of the 

Heritage Addition from overlooks in 

the North and South units and 

through infrequent ranger-led hikes or 

tours. 

The Heritage Addition would be 

primarily zoned as backcountry. 

The Heritage Addition would be 

primarily zoned as backcountry. 

Public trails would be provided in the 

Heritage Addition using the existing 

county road and appropriate logging 

roads. Some new trails could be 

constructed according to a public 

access/trail development plan (see the 

“Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section). Trails would be 

designed according to the trail standards 

for the backcountry zone. Trails would 

be for pedestrian use—no horses, bikes, 

or public vehicles would be allowed. 

Public trails would be provided in the 

Heritage Addition using the existing 

county road and appropriate logging 

roads. Some new trails could be 

constructed according to a public 

access/trail development plan (see the 

“Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section). Trails would be 

designed according to the trail standards 

for the backcountry zone. Trails would 

be for pedestrian use—no horses, bikes, 

or public vehicles would be allowed. 

The specific location of trails in the 

Heritage Addition would be identified in 

a subsequent trail development or public 

access plan (see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” section). 

The access plan would explore and 

analyze potential options that require a 

minimum of new trail construction. 

The specific location of trails in the 

Heritage Addition would be identified in 

a subsequent trail development or public 

access plan (see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” section). 

The access plan would explore and 

analyze potential options that require a 

minimum of new trail construction. 

Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation through nonpersonal 

media at the visitor center (exhibits, 

printed materials, etc.) and would 

have opportunities to appreciate the 

related cultural environment in a quiet 

contemplative setting. 

In addition to information provided at 

the visitor center, wayside and sign 

placement (for orientation and/or 

interpretation) would be minimized; 

locations would be selected to carefully 

reflect the contemplative setting desired. 

Placement of signs would be guided by 

the long-range interpretation plan (see 

the “Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section). 

In addition to information provided at 

the visitor center, wayside and sign 

placement (for orientation and/or 

interpretation) would be minimized; 

locations would be selected to carefully 

reflect the contemplative setting desired. 

Placement of signs would be guided by 

the long-range interpretation plan (see 

the “Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section). 

Public access would include canoeing 

and infrequent ranger-led hikes. No 

facilities would be provided and takeout would continue to be discouraged. 

Public access would include canoeing 

and ranger-led hikes. No facilities would 

be provided. Boat take-out would be 

prohibited and this prohibition would be 

actively enforced. 

Public access would include canoeing 

and ranger-led hikes. No facilities would 

be provided. Boat take-out would be 

prohibited and this prohibition would be 

actively enforced. 

Wild and scenic river designation 

would not be pursued for the Yellow 

River. 

Wild and scenic river designation would 

be pursued for the Yellow River. 

Wild and scenic river designation would 

be pursued for the Yellow River. 

The National Park Service would seek 

hiking access, county relinquishment, or 

abandonment of the restricted use 

county road to facilitate use of the road 

as a trail. 

The National Park Service would seek 

hiking access, county relinquishment, or 

abandonment of the restricted use 

county road to facilitate use of the road 

as a trail. 
Summary Tables 

93 

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

North Unit (not including the Visitor Center Area)

In alternative B, most of the North Unit

would be zoned as backcountry. The 

area immediately north of the visitor 

center and maintenance area would be 

placed in the discovery zone. 

In alternative C, almost the entire North 

Unit would be zoned as discovery. The 

discovery zoning is designed to provide 

improved access to the resources in the 

North Unit. 

Trails would continue to be 

maintained or improved for visitor 

access and safety while preserving 

mounds by relocating trails away from 

mound sites. 

Existing trails could undergo minor 

realignment for resource protection 

purposes in the backcountry zone and 

for visitor experience in the discovery 

zone. Existing trails that do not meet the 

trail standards for the backcountry and 

discovery zones would be corrected. 

Existing trails could undergo minor 

realignment for resource protection 

purposes. Existing trails that do not meet 

the trail standards for the backcountry 

and discovery zones would be corrected. 

Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation through personal 

services such as hikes and nonpersonal 

media (trailside exhibits, printed 

materials, etc.). 

Visitors would be provided opportunities 

to reflect on the influence of the natural 

world on the moundbuilders in a 

primarily quiet contemplative setting. 

There would be limited personal services 

such as guided hikes and talks. On-site 

information could be expanded 

subsequent to a long-range 

interpretation plan. 

Visitors would have opportunities to 

experience the influence of the natural 

world of the moundbuilders through 

personal services such as guided hikes, 

talks, and nonpersonal media (trailside 

exhibits, printed materials, etc.). On-site 

information could be expanded 

subsequent to a long-range 

interpretation plan. 

The National Park Service would not 

actively seek to acquire the Riverfront 

Tract, which is already within the 

authorized boundary, unless its 

cultural resources are endangered in 

some way or the property is put up for 

sale. 

The National Park Service would pursue 

acquisition of the Riverfront Tract in the 

legislated boundary from a willing seller 

to protect cultural resources on the tract 

and would evaluate the sites for national 

register or national landmark status. 

The National Park Service would pursue 

acquisition of the Riverfront Tract in the 

legislated boundary from a willing seller 

to protect cultural resources on the tract 

and would evaluate the sites for national 

register or national landmark status. 

Fire Point Trail would remain where it 

is and the mound at Fire Point would 

not be stabilized. 

If possible without compromising 

resource integrity, the existing trail at 

Fire Point would be moved for visitor 

safety and resource preservation. The 

mound at Fire Point would be stabilized 

after the trail is moved. 

If possible without compromising 

resource integrity, the existing trail at 

Fire Point would be moved for visitor 

safety and resource preservation. The 

mound at Fire Point would be stabilized 

after the trail is moved. 

North Unit Visitor Center Area

This area would be managed as part of 

the development zone. 

This area would be managed as part of 

the development zone.

The visitor center complex would be 

maintained and media upgraded as 

needed. 

The monument’s museum collections 

and archives would either be (1) moved 

to a storage facility outside of the 

monument that meets NPS museum 

management standards; or (2) the 

current facility would be improved and 

staffing would be increased to more 

closely meet NPS museum collections 

standards. 

The monument’s museum collections 

and archives would be moved to a 

storage facility in the new research 

center, to be located outside the 

monument in a nearby town. The 

storage facility would meet NPS museum 

management standards. 

Exhibit, museum, and bookstore space in 

the visitor center would be reconfigured.

Exhibit, museum, and bookstore space in 

the visitor center would be reconfigured.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94 

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

North Unit Visitor Center Area

Visitors would continue to receive 

formal and informal services at the 

visitor center; these would include 

educational programs, information 

and orientation, demonstrations, 

and hikes. 

Depth of information and 

interpretation content in the visitor 

center would increase and new 

technology would be used as it 

becomes available. 

Depth of information and 

interpretation content in the visitor 

center would increase and new 

technology would be used as it 

becomes available. 

South Unit

This unit would be managed to 

support a low level of visitor use 

while maintaining the primitive 

setting. 

In alternative B, the majority of the 

South Unit would be zoned for 

backcountry. The area immediately 

south of the visitor center and 

maintenance area would be placed in 

the discovery zone. In this alternative, 

the majority of the existing trails 

would be in the backcountry zone. 

In alternative C, the majority of the 

South Unit would be in the discovery 

zone. The discovery zoning is designed 

to provide improved access to the 

resources in the South Unit. In this 

alternative, the majority of the existing 

trails would be located in the 

discovery zone. 

Trail signs would be upgraded; this 

would include a wayside at the 

Marching Bear Group. 

On-site information could be 

expanded subsequent to a long-range 

interpretation plan. 

On-site information could be 

expanded subsequent to a long-range 

interpretation plan. 

Visitors would be primarily on their 

own on existing trails with minimal 

contact with monument staff or 

other visitors. Occasional special 

hikes connecting the tangible 

resources of the moundbuilders and 

natural features of the monument 

would take place. 

Visitors would be primarily on their 

own in the backcountry zone and 

have minimal contact with monument 

staff or other visitors. 

A trail connecting the Yellow River 

Bridge to the trails in the South Unit 

would be developed according to a 

public access or trail development plan 

(see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 

Existing trails that do not meet the 

trail standards for the backcountry 

and discovery zones would be 

corrected. 

Visitors would be primarily on their 

own on well-developed trails, but are 

likely to have some contact with 

monument staff or other visitors. 

A trail connecting the Yellow River 

Bridge to the trails in the South Unit 

would be developed according to a 

public access or trail development plan 

(see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 

Existing trails that do not meet the 

trail standards for the backcountry 

and discovery zones would be 

corrected. 

Sny Magill Unit

In alternative B, the majority of the 

Sny Magill Unit is zoned for 

backcountry. A small portion of the 

unit that contains an improved trail is 

zoned discovery. 

In alternative C, the majority of the 

Sny Magill Unit is zoned for 

backcountry. A portion of the unit 

that contains an improved trail is 

zoned discovery. 

The National Park Service would 

pursue acquisition of the land 

between the highway and the railroad 

tracks from a willing seller for a 

contact station to provide an NPS 

presence for resource protection and 

visitor services. 
Summary Tables 

95 

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Sny Magill Unit, continued

This unit would be primarily 

managed for preservation of the 

mounds with limited amenities for 

visitor use. The parking area and 

wood-chipped trail would continue 

to be maintained. No other 

development under this alternative. 

The National Park Service would 

pursue acquisition of the land 

between the highway and the railroad 

tracks from a willing seller for a 

contact station to provide an NPS 

presence for resource protection and 

visitor services. 

There would continue to be very 

limited NPS presence in this unit. 

Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation on this unit at the 

main unit visitor center, and would 

have opportunities to appreciate the 

related cultural environment in a 

quiet contemplative setting. 

Depending upon the time of the year, 

visitors would receive formal and 

informal personal services at the 

contact station such as NPS-conducted 

educational programs; conducted 

interpretive demonstrations, talks, and 

walks; and additional contacts with 

rangers. 

Depending on the time of year, 

visitors would receive formal and 

informal personal services at the 

contact station such as NPS-conducted 

educational programs; conducted 

interpretive demonstrations, talks, and 

walks; and additional contacts with 

rangers. 

The existing trail would remain as it 

is. 

A portion of the existing trail would 

be improved according to the Sny 

Magill site development plan (see the 

“Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section). The trail 

would be built from the parking area 

only to the first mounds encountered 

(approximately 412 yards). 

The existing trail (approximately (885 

yards) would be improved for visitor 

access and natural resource 

management according to the Sny 

Magill site development plan (see the 

“Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section). 

The public would continue to have 

access to this unit for recreational 

activities in approporiate areas. 

The public would continue to have 

access to this unit for recreational 

activities in appropriate areas. Boating 

on the Mississippi River adjacent to 

and within this unit would be 

monitored for use levels and resource 

impacts. 

The public would continue to have 

access to this unit for recreational 

activities in appropriate areas. Boating 

on the Mississippi River adjacent to 

and within this unit would be 

monitored for use levels and resource 

impacts. 

The National Park Service would not 

explore possible cooperative 

partnerships with other agencies 

such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to provide visitor services. 

The National Park Service would 

explore possible cooperative 

partnerships with other agencies such 

as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

provide visitor services. 

The National Park Service would 

explore possible cooperative 

partnerships with other agencies such 

as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

provide visitor services. 

A site plan would be developed to 

evaluate options for location and 

design of the visitor contact station, 

access trail from visitor contact station 

to the mounds, and trail surface 

improvements (see “Future Studies 

and Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 

A site plan would be developed to 

evaluate options for location and 

design of the visitor contact station, 

access trail from visitor contact station 

to the mounds, and trail surface 

improvements (see “Future Studies 

and Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

96 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS

Actions Common 

to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

NPS Preferred 

Alternative C

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological 

Resources 

Visitor use, bank 

stabilization, and 

maintenance activities 

would have permanent, 

local, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts, but the 

impact intensities would 

be reduced through 

avoidance, mitigation, and 

construction design. 

A complete cultural 

resource inventory of the 

monument and continued 

mound preservation 

activities would have a 

long-term, beneficial 

impact on archeological 

resources throughout the 

monument. 

Trail maintenance would 

occur in previously 

disturbed areas. Trails 

would be realigned in 

areas to avoid significant 

archeological resources. 

These actions could lead to 

local, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts that 

would be long term. 

The ground disturbing activities, trail 

work, and construction would be 

located to avoid adverse impacts to 

archeological resources. These actions 

would result in localized, negligible to 

minor, permanent, adverse impacts to 

archeological resources, or no impacts 

at all. 

Acquiring tracts of land and evaluating 

them for national register-significant 

archeological resources would give park 

managers a baseline for managing 

these resources. Rangers would also 

have jurisdiction to protect these 

resources under federal preservation 

laws. These actions would result in 

long-term, local, beneficial impacts to 

archeological resources. 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Visitor use, maintenance 

activities, and bank 

stabilization would have 

long-term, negligible to 

minor, local, negative 

effects to the cultural 

landscapes throughout the 

monument, but the impact 

intensities would be 

reduced through 

avoidance, mitigation, and 

construction design. 

Stabilization of the 

riverbank would have a 

moderate, long-term, 

adverse impact that would 

be offset by the long-term, 

beneficial effect of 

stabilizing the riverbanks 

to protect nearby cultural 

resources. 

Maintaining mound 

appearance would result in 

a long-term, beneficial 

impact throughout much 

of the monument because 

the landscape integrity 

would be retained or 

restored. 

There would be no 

additional impacts to 

cultural landscapes beyond 

those identified as 

common to all alternatives.

Trail work would be confined to 

previously disturbed areas or designed 

to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to 

landscape character-defining features. 

These activities could have negligible to 

minor, long-term, localized impacts to 

the cultural landscapes, or no impacts 

at all. 

Improved trail designs that encourage 

visitor to stay off the mounds would 

result in a long-term, beneficial impact 

throughout much of the monument. 

Acquiring tracts of land, stabilizing Fire 

Point Mound, and restoring landscapes 

would afford greater federal protection 

over new lands as well as perpetuate 

character-defining landscape features. 

These actions would result in long-term, 

beneficial impacts throughout much of 

the monument. 
Summary Tables 

97 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS

Actions Common 

to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

NPS Preferred 

Alternative C

CULTURAL RESOURCES, continued

Ethnographic 

Resources 

The overall impact of 

actions that are common 

to all the alternatives 

would be long term and 

beneficial on 

ethnographic resources, 

because tribal access and 

the ability to conduct 

tradition practices usually 

would not be limited. 

Prescribed burns could 

limit access, which would 

result in a short-term, 

minor, adverse impact. 

Impacts would be the 

same as those identified in 

the “Actions Common to 

All Alternatives” section. 

Impacts would be 

the same as those 

identified in the 

“Actions Common 

to All Alternatives” 

section. 

Impacts would be 

the same as those 

identified in the 

“Actions Common 

to All Alternatives” 

section. 

Museum 

Collections 

 There would be minor to 

moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts due to 

storage conditions and 

the inability to 

accommodate visiting 

researchers. 

The collections would 

continue to provide a 

minor, but important, 

beneficial cumulative 

contribution to regional 

museum collections. 

Alternative B 

would result in 

housing the 

collections in a 

facility that fully 

meets NPS 

museum 

collections 

standards or more 

closely meet NPS 

museum 

collections 

standards. The 

alternative would 

allow greater 

accessibility to the 

collections than is 

currently available 

under alternative 

A. The impact to 

the preservation of 

the collections and 

their usefulness in 

the long term 

would be 

moderate to major 

and beneficial, 

locally, regionally, 

and possibly 

nationally and 

internationally. 

Alternative C 

would result in 

housing the 

collections in a 

facility that fully 

meets NPS 

museum 

collections 

standards. The 

alternative would 

allow greater 

accessibility to the 

collections than is 

currently available 

under alternative 

A. The impact to 

the preservation of 

the collections and 

their usefulness in 

the long term 

would be 

moderate to major 

and beneficial, 

locally, regionally, 

and possibly 

nationally and 

internationally. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

98 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS

Actions Common 

to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

NPS Preferred 

Alternative C

NATURAL RESOURCES

Soils This alternative would 

have no new impacts on 

soils. 

There would be no 

cumulative impact. 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 

and long-term, 

negligible to 

minor, adverse 

impacts to soil 

resources in the 

monument. 

There would be a 

minor, adverse 

cumulative impact. 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 

and long-term, 

negligible to 

minor, adverse 

impacts to soil 

resources in the 

monument. 

There would be a 

minor, adverse 

cumulative impact.

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

No effect. No effect. No effect. 

Vegetation There would be 

continuation of negligible 

and minor, adverse 

impacts to vegetation. 

There would be a minor 

to moderate, adverse, 

cumulative impact. 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 

and long-term, 

negligible, adverse 

impacts to 

vegetation in the 

monument 

There would be a 

minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative 

impact. 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 

and long-term, 

negligible, adverse 

impacts to 

vegetation in the 

monument 

There would be a 

minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Fish and Wildlife There would be 

continuation of long-term 

negligible adverse impacts 

to fish and wildlife. 

Cumulative effects would 

be minor to moderate and 

adverse. 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 

and long-term, 

negligible, adverse 

impacts to fish and 

wildlife. 

Cumulative effects 

would be minor to 

moderate and 

adverse. 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 

and long-term, 

negligible, adverse 

impacts to fish and 

wildlife. 

Cumulative effects 

would be minor to 

moderate and 

adverse. 

Special Status 

Species 

There would be no effect 

on the federal listed 

Higgins eye pearlymussel, 

Iowa Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, 

western prairie fringed 

orchid, northern 

monkshood, or state listed 

species. 

There would be no 

This alternative 

may affect, but is 

not likely to 

adversely affect, 

the federal listed 

Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, Iowa 

Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, 

western prairie 

fringed orchid, 

This alternative 

may affect, but is 

not likely to 

adversely affect, 

the federal listed 

Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, Iowa 

Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, 

western prairie 

fringed orchid, 
Summary Tables 

99 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS

Actions Common 

to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

NPS Preferred 

Alternative C

project-related cumulative 

effects on federal listed or 

other special status 

species. 

northern 

monkshood, or 

state listed species. 

There would be 

minor, adverse, 

cumulative effects 

on federal listed or 

other special status 

species. 

northern 

monkshood, or 

state listed species.

There would be 

minor, adverse, 

cumulative effects 

on federal listed or 

other special status 

species. 

Viewsheds There would be no impact 

on visual resources in the 

monument. 

There would be no 

project-related cumulative 

effects. 

There would be 

short-term and 

long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on 

visual resources in 

the monument. 

Cumulative effects 

would be minor 

and adverse. 

There would be 

short-term and 

long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on 

visual resources in 

the monument. 

Cumulative effects 

would be minor 

and adverse. 

OTHER

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

 This alternative would 

result in the continuation 

of long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse 

impacts and minor 

beneficial, impacts to 

aspects of visitor use and 

experience, but would 

not result in any new 

impacts. 

There would be no 

project-related cumulative 

impacts. 

Implementing 

alternative B would 

result in several 

long-term, minor 

beneficial impacts 

and a long-term, 

minor, adverse 

effect on the visitor 

experience. 

Overall cumulative 

impacts would be 

long-term, minor, 

and beneficial. 

This alternative 

would result in 

minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts 

on the visitor 

experience. 

Overall, 

cumulative 

impacts would be 

long-term, minor, 

and beneficial. 

Socioeconomic 

Environment 

There would be shortterm, negligible to minor, 

beneficial economic 

impacts in the region. 

Overall cumulative effects 

would be minor and 

beneficial. 

There would be 

short-term and 

long-term, minor, 

beneficial economic 

impacts in the 

region. 

Overall cumulative 

effects would be 

minor and 

beneficial. 

There would be 

short-term and 

long-term, minor, 

beneficial 

economic impacts 

in the region. 

Overall cumulative 

effects would be 

minor and 

beneficial. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

100 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS

Actions Common 

to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

NPS Preferred 

Alternative C

OTHER, continued

Monument 

Operations and 

Facilities 

There would be the 

continuation of longterm, minor, adverse 

impacts. 

Overall cumulative effects 

would be minor and 

adverse. 

There would be 

short-term and 

long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to 

monument 

operations and 

facilities. 

Cumulative effects 

would be 

negligible. 

There would be 

short-term and 

long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to 

monument 

operations and 

facilities. 

Cumulative effects 

would be 

negligible. 
Affected Environment 3

Red-tailed Hawk
102 
103 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

BACKGROUND 

The National Park Service is charged with 

the stewardship of many of the nation’s 

most important natural and cultural 

resources and is responsible for preserving 

these resources for the enjoyment of 

present and future generations. The 

cultural resources of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument are defined as the 

material evidence of past human activities. 

Among these are archeological resources, 

cultural landscapes, ethnographic 

resources, historic buildings and 

structures, and museum collections and 

archives. 

By their nature, cultural resources are finite 

and nonrenewable; as a result, national 

monument management activities and 

policies must reflect awareness of their 

irreplaceable character. Therefore, NPS 

cultural resource management involves 

research, evaluation, documentation, and 

registration of national monument 

resources, along with the establishment of 

priorities to ensure that these resources are 

appropriately preserved, protected, and 

interpreted to the public. 

Formal Designation of Resources 

The National Register of Historic Places is 

the nation’s official list of cultural 

properties worthy of preservation. Effigy 

Mounds National Monument was declared 

a national monument in 1949 and listed in 

the national register in 1966. The 

documentation for the national register 

was submitted in 1976 and an update of 

section 8 (significance) of the 

nomination—following the inclusion of the 

Heritage Addition in the monument and 

the following further scientific research—

has been prepared. 

A historic resource study describing the 

cultural resources of the national 

monument was completed in 2003. It 

provided syntheses of site history, site 

archeology, prepared an updated historical 

significance section of the nomination 

form, made recommendations for future 

research, and provided an exhaustive 

bibliography of site history and archeology. 

An archeological overview and assessment 

was completed in 2004 (NPS 2004). 

Currently, 206 mounds or mound groups 

are listed on the NPS List of Classified 

Structures. Two historic resources (Old 

Military Road in the South Unit, and a 

cistern near Old Military Road) are also 

listed. All are listed as being either of 

national significance in their own right or 

as contributing to the national significance 

of Effigy Mounds National Monument. All 

known mound sites are also listed on the 

NPS Archeological Sites Management 

Information System (ASMIS) and Iowa Site 

Inventory and Iowa State File. 

The Jefferson Davis Sawmill site, partially 

within the monument boundary, has not 

been fully investigated but has been 

determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Other resources, such as the remains of 

farmsteads, rock shelters, prehistoric stone 

quarries, and village sites are also known to 

be within the boundaries of the national 

monument. Some of these have been 

recorded, but a systematic inventory of all 

resources in the park has not yet been 

completed. 

Period of Significance 

Although Effigy Mounds National 

Monument evidences occupation going 

back 2,500 years or more, two periods of 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

104 

significance based on extant resources of 

designated national significance are 

evident: the period of mound building 

from approximately 500 BC to AD 1250, 

and the period of settlement / Indian 

removal (roughly 1800 to 1849). As 

additional research is completed on other 

types of archeological resources within the 

national monument, the period of 

significance could be expanded to 

encompass a greater period of time. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

contains important archeological resources 

representative of human use over time, as 

well as ongoing American Indian use. The 

area was used primarily by ancient, 

historic, and contemporary American 

Indian peoples, although some remains of 

historic European Americans are also 

present. 

Archeologists generally believe the first 

Iowans were probably Paleo-Indians, 

(10,000 to 7000 BC). Paleo-Indians are 

credited with crossing the Bering Land 

Bridge toward the end of the last Ice Age 

and peopling the Americas. They were 

migratory hunters and are associated often 

with large extinct megafauna such as 

mammoth and mastodon. The origin 

stories of many American Indian tribes 

differ from this theory. 

Associated with the Paleo-Indians are 

several diagnostic flaked stone spear 

points, known as “Clovis” and “Folsom,” 

that distinguish the Paleo-Indian period. 

Most of what we know about the PaleoIndians is based on items that came from 

soil known to be more than 9,000 years old 

or associated with either Clovis or Folsom 

points. Other items of everyday use created 

by Paleo-Indians are virtually 

indistinguishable from similar items 

created later, so the relationship with the 

two point types or ancient soil is 

particularly important to the identification 

of their presence. These people made use 

of whatever plant and animal food they 

could harvest seasonally. They lived in 

small, probably family, groups and their 

total number would have been small. 

Despite their hunting skills, life would have 

been very difficult and the search for food, 

preparation of hides, and making of 

weapons would have been nearly all 

consuming. Some evidence of their 

existence has been identified in Allamakee 

and Clayton counties, but none has been 

found within the national monument. 

Approximately, 9,000 years ago, the way of 

life of the Paleo-Indians changed. The 

climate continued to become warmer and 

drier. The period from 7000 to 500 BC is 

referred to as the Archaic Period. The 

inhabitants had a much less harsh climate 

in which to hunt, fish, and gather nuts and 

berries. The tools made and used by these 

peoples became more varied and distinct. 

The two types of points indicative of the 

Paleo-Indian period gave way to a variety 

of point types during the Archaic. With 

greater success in procuring food, the 

Archaic peoples were able to spend more 

time in a semisedentary, communal 

culture. By the end of the Archaic Period, 

the first mounds associated with burials 

were built, reflecting the growth of the 

population and, with it, the free time to 

develop more complex belief systems and 

items for trade. 

Following, and perhaps growing out of, the 

Archaic Period, were the Woodland Period 

cultures (500 BC to AD 1250). The 

Woodland peoples were much more 

sedentary than the cultures that preceded 

them, reflecting an agricultural lifestyle 

that made larger permanent or seasonal 

village units possible and allowed them to 

stay in one place longer. 
Cultural Resources 

105 

Sophisticated pottery made preservation 

and cooking of foods more practical. 

Indeed, pottery typology joins point types 

as tools archeologists use to identify 

differences through time, and through 

regions. Trade of goods and increased 

communication with other village units 

allowed a flourishing of the culture, 

traditions, and belief systems. Early on, the 

mounds constructed were simple conical 

burial mounds, evolving into compound 

and linear mounds and culminating in the 

great effigy mounds of the late Woodland 

Period. 

Archeological research indicates a time 

span of approximately 1,800 years of 

mound building. Generally speaking, this 

would have occurred 500 BC to AD 1250, 

spanning the period from the late Archaic 

to the late Woodland periods. The 

increasing complexity of the mounds, the 

manner of burials, and the inclusion of 

exotic burial items attest to the growing 

sophistication of the Woodland peoples. 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

contains examples of both Archaic and 

Woodland period mounds. 

Somewhere around AD 1250, the 

moundbuilding stopped; whether this 

resulted from pressures caused by 

expanding populations, warfare among 

groups of villages, or migration from 

outside is not fully understood. However, 

the Woodland peoples seem to have been 

replaced by people referred to as “Oneota” 

and representative of the influence of the 

Mississippian cultures farther south. 

Large-scale agriculture and large villages 

necessitated a movement out of the forests 

and into large open areas. It was likely a 

time of cultural ferment with continued 

trade interaction, population growth, and 

warfare. 

Although numerous surveys have been 

undertaken within Effigy Mounds 

National Monument since the monument 

was first discovered, the national 

monument still lacks a complete 

archeological inventory of mounds, villages 

sites, rock shelters, quarries, town sites, 

mills, farmsteads, schools, and other 

human-made features as required by 

section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Effigy Mounds National Monument today 

encompasses 2,526 acres with more than 

200 mounds, 31 of which are the namesake 

effigy mounds. In the North and South 

units of the national monument alone, 

18 rock shelters and several possible village 

sites have been identified, but not 

extensively studied. These have great 

potential for understanding the lifeways of 

the people who built the mounds. 

For a more in-depth discussion of the 

archeology of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, the reader is referred to “A 

Guide to Effigy Mounds National 

Monument” by Dennis Lenzendorf. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Introduction 

Ethnographic resources are variations of 

natural resources and standard cultural 

resource types. They are subsistence and 

ceremonial locales and sites, structures, 

objects, and rural and urban landscapes 

assigned cultural significance by traditional 

users. The decision to call resources 

“ethnographic” depends on whether 

associated peoples perceive them as 

traditionally meaningful to their identity as 

a group and the survival of their lifeways. 

Some such resources may be designated by 

other terms and cross-listed in other NPS 

inventories. Sites defined as archeological 

for preservation purposes, for example, are 

ethnographic if traditional religious 

practitioners consider them significant 

sources of spiritual power. Members of 

associated groups may also ascribe 

meaning to properties in park collections 

perceived as sacred or as items of cultural 

identity and heritage. Groups also assign 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

106 

their own cultural meanings to natural 

landscapes and localities. 

The traditional management distinction 

between natural and cultural resources 

may be inapplicable where ethnographic 

resources are concerned. When natural 

resources acquire meaning according to 

the different cultural constructs of a 

particular group, they become 

ethnographic and thus cultural resources 

as well. 

One particular type of ethnographic 

resource is a traditional cultural property 

which is an ethnographic resource in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Traditionally 

associated tribes and National Park Service 

staff are working together to nominate the 

entire land area of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument as a traditional cultural 

property. 

Resources of the Monument 

Effigy Mounds National Monument has a 

long-standing connection with a number of 

American Indian groups (see the list of 

traditionally associated tribes under 

“Agencies and Organizations Receiving a 

Copy of this Document” in Chapter 5). In 

particular, the Ho-Chunk Nation of 

Wisconsin claims a close affinity to the site. 

The national monument represents a point 

of connection with the spiritual world of 

the ancestors and a place of great spiritual 

power. It has been visited continuously by 

American Indians for hundreds of years. 

American Indians come to the site 

individually and in groups. They come to 

learn about their ancestors as described in 

interpretive talks and exhibits in the visitor 

center by NPS staff. They come in groups 

to tell and reflect upon their history and to 

relate their stories. They come to honor 

their ancestors and commune with them. 

Some may come for spiritual guidance as in 

a vision quest. 

Among the resources that are considered 

ethnographic are the mounds; the 

American Indian archeological and historic 

artifacts within the national monument 

collections; and the landscape of the 

national monument, including the animals 

and birds that inhabit it. It is likely that the 

landscape qualifies as an ethnographic 

landscape; however, additional evaluation 

of the landscape and its associations with 

contemporary American Indians is 

necessary before that determination can be 

made. 

In accordance with the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 

the national monument is consulting with 

tribes to determine the cultural affiliation 

of human remains and funerary objects 

held in the museum collection at the 

monument. A NAGPRA action plan is 

needed for the monument to cover 

instances of the inadvertent discovery of 

American Indian human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of 

cultural patrimony. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Introduction 

A cultural landscape is often expressed in 

the ways that land is organized and 

divided, and through such factors as 

settlement patterning, land use, circulation, 

and built environment. The character of a 

cultural landscape is defined by physical 

attributes such as roads, structures, and 

vegetation patterns, and by cultural 

attributes such as values and traditions. 

Cultural landscapes are shaped by a variety 

of factors, including land use and land 

management, political and legal systems, 

and technology and economics. As such, 

they constitute a living record of an area’s 

past—a visual chronicle of its history. 

Cultural landscapes are not static; modern 

and natural forces are continually 
Cultural Resources 

107 

reshaping them, posing a significant 

preservation challenge. 

Cultural landscapes can be broken into 

four broad categories: (1) historic sites—

those that are significant for their 

association with a historic event, activity, 

or person; (2) historic designed 

landscapes—those that were consciously 

designed or laid out according to design 

principles or in a recognized style or 

tradition; (3) historic vernacular 

landscapes—those that evolved over time 

as a result of use or development and that 

reflect endemic traditions, beliefs, customs, 

or values; and, (4) ethnographic 

landscapes—those that are related to 

particular places or areas that 

contemporary peoples link to their 

traditional way of life and cultural heritage. 

Resources at the Monument 

Two landscapes have been formally 

defined. The northern landscape 

encompasses all of the North Unit, South 

Unit, and Heritage Addition of the national 

monument (NPS 2007a). The southern 

landscape encompasses the Sny Magill 

Unit (NPS 2007b). Both are categorized as 

“historic site” for their association with a 

historic event, activity, or person. 

The entire landscape at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument may also fall into the 

ethnographic landscape category. It is 

linked to contemporary American Indians 

and associated closely with their cultural 

heritage, belief systems, and way of life. 

However, additional evaluation of the 

landscape and its associations with 

contemporary American Indians needs to 

be undertaken to determine whether this is 

the case. 

With the advent of European settlement, 

the mounds that had survived centuries 

with little change began to disappear as 

lands were leveled for farming or town 

sites. Forested areas were cut down and 

erosion damaged many mounds that had 

survived the millennia. Mounds continue 

to be lost or damaged by development in 

the region. As mounds are damaged or 

destroyed, the mounds at the national 

monument become more important to 

preserve. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Introduction 

Museum collections are prehistoric and 

historic objects, artifacts, works of art, 

archival documents, and natural history 

specimens valuable for the information 

they provide about processes, events, and 

interactions among people and the 

environment. 

Resources at the Monument 

The museum collections support the 

interpretive themes of the national 

monument and assist in research and 

resource management programs. 

Approximately 34,800 items are in the 

collection; 29,500 of which are catalogued 

and approximately 5,300 remain to be 

catalogued at the time of this writing. The 

objects are overwhelmingly cultural in 

nature and categorized into archeological, 

ethnological, and historical collections. 

The national monument collections also 

include natural history categories on 

biology, paleontology, and geology 

associated with the origins of the national 

monument and its native flora and fauna. 

The museum cultural collections and 

archives consist of artifacts, field notes, and 

manuscripts. Much of the collection was 

gathered by Ellison Orr (a central figure in 

the creation of a national park in Iowa and 

establishment of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument), and donated to the National 

Park Service. Some pieces of the collection 

are not directly related to excavations 

conducted within Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, but are significant for 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

108 

comparison with collections gathered 

within the monument and elsewhere. Data 

gathered through excavations and surveys 

conducted since the national monument 

was established are housed within the 

visitor center. 

Collections are used for exhibits, 

illustration of ideas and concepts in 

interpretive programs, research to 

understand the site’s early inhabitants and 

environment, and for comparison with 

other similar collections elsewhere. 

Museum collections are stored in the 

basement of the visitor center, which does 

not meet NPS standards for storage of 

museum collections. In 2012, the facility 

was found to be 75% compliant with NPS 

museum collections standards. The 

majority of the deficiencies could be 

addressed with increased staffing. Many of 

the remaining deficiencies could be 

addressed with facility improvements. 

However, due to basement location of the 

storage it would be difficult to ever fully 

meet NPS museum collections standards. 

Nonetheless, the location is above the 500-

year floodplain of the Yellow and 

Mississippi rivers. Artifacts are contained 

in metal storage cabinets. Archives are kept 

in file cabinets and on bookshelves. Maps 

and drawings are kept in map files. 
109 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The varied topography at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument provides conditions 

in which a range of plant and animal 

communities flourishes, enabling early 

societies and cultures to develop and 

prosper. 

SOILS 

The principal soil type of the hilltop 

prairies is Fayette silt loam. It occurs in the 

uplands on benches along stream valleys. 

The light colored Fayette soil is well 

drained and has developed from loess 

(silty, windblown materials). In profile, the 

brownish gray silt loam surface soil is 4 to 

8 inches thick with the yellowish brown 

silty clay subsoil extending down to about 

28 inches (NPS 2000). A list of soil units 

within the boundaries of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument is found in the 

following table. 

TABLE 8. SOILS

Name Description 

Boone loamy sand On slopes ranging from 9%–18% 

Caneek silt loam Channeled, 0%–2% slopes, in floodplain of Yellow River; prime farmland only if drained and 

protected from flooding or not frequently flooded. 

Dubuque silt loam 9%–18% slopes, some are moderately eroded. Farmland of statewide importance 

Fayette silt loam 5%–40% slopes, some moderately eroded, farmland of statewide importance 

Ion silt loam 0%–2% slopes, in floodplains 

Lacrescent silt loam 25%–70% slopes, on slopes of bluffs 

Lawson silt loam 0%–2% slopes; prime farmland only if drained and protected from flooding or not frequently 

flooded. 

Medary silt loam 14%–25% slopes 

Nordness silt loam 18%–40% slopes 

Paintcreek silt loam 9%–30% slopes 

Village silt loam 9%–18% slopes, some moderately eroded 

Volney channery loam 5%–9% slopes 

Yellowriver silt loam 14%–25% slopes 

Zwingle silt loam 1%–9% slopes; farmland of statewide importance 

Source: Soil Survey Geographic Database, Natural Resources Conservation Service 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

110 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

The Yellow River is listed in the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The study 

that placed the river in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory found the Yellow River to 

be free flowing and to possess the 

following outstandingly remarkable values: 

scenery, recreation, geology, wildlife, 

history, and culture. 

As part of this general management plan, 

the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River 

within the boundaries of the national 

monument was determined to be eligible 

and suitable for inclusion in National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System (see appendix D 

for assessment). 

VEGETATION 

Vegetation on the wooded hills consists of 

a mix of hardwoods such as oak, maple, 

hickory, and basswood. The white oak 

grows on ridge tops in drier sites, and it 

was heavily used by farmers and 

landowners to construct barns, houses, 

wagons, and boats. Red oak trees grow on 

slopes with moist soil and can reach 

impressive sizes. Black oaks grow along the 

bluff edge while chinquapin oak can be 

found among the limestone outcroppings. 

Interspersed throughout the area are a 

variety of less common species, including 

ironwood, blue beech, and eastern red 

cedar. Many shrubs grow in the uplands, 

including hazelnut, gray dogwood, and 

prickly ash. 

Indian grass, big bluestem, switchgrass, and 

little bluestem are predominate grass 

species of the tallgrass prairie at Effigy 

Mounds National Monument. Compass 

plant, butterfly weed, blazing star, 

goldenrods, asters, and purple and greyheaded coneflower add color to the open 

grasslands. 

Various species of pondweed along with 

water milfoil, elodea, watershield, 

duckweed, arrowhead, bulrush, cattail, and 

wild rice populate the quiet backwaters 

and ponds of the monument. When 

present, filamentous and plankton algae 

are bioindicators that identify areas 

polluted with excessive nutrients. 

The monument was created from the 

acquisition of private land that had been 

farmed and logged, altering the native 

vegetation mosaic. After 50 years of NPS 

protection, maturing stands of trembling 

and big-toothed aspen mark where the 

woods had been cleared. Sugar maple and 

basswood are now replacing the aspen. 

Sumac is found in the forest-prairie 

ecotone. 

The Heritage Addition still appears to be 

heavily forested, but most of the 

merchantable timber was removed prior to 

acquisition by the National Park Service, 

causing forest succession to be set back. 

The Sny Magill Unit is in a floodplain and 

is inundated annually by spring floods. The 

vegetation in this unit is dominated by 

silver maple, elm, and green ash. Swamp 

white oak is well represented in this unit. 

Microhabitats 

The combination of topography, longitude, 

latitude, and climate of northeast Iowa has 

produced unique microhabitats that 

support island populations of flora and 

fauna. These microenvironments include 

north-facing algific talus slopes and “goat 

prairies.’ 

Algific talus slopes are usually found on 

north-facing slopes. They are cold air seeps 

connected to crevices in the limestone 

bedrock, which are connected to 

underground caverns. The movement of 

cold air exiting the slope through the 

crevices creates a colder, moister 

environment down slope of the vent. This 

seepage of cold air creates microhabitat for 

groups of relict ice age plant communities. 
Natural Resources 

111 

These plant communities are remains of 

plant populations that are associated with 

more northern climates. As the glaciers 

advanced during the last ice age, plant 

communities that were adapted to 

northern climates moved south. With the 

warming of the climate and the retreat of 

the glaciers, the plants environmentally 

adapted to the cold climate moved north 

also. The modifying effect of the cold air 

seeps creates an artificially induced 

microclimate that maintains remnants of 

the prehistoric ice age plant communities 

(NPS 2000). Cold air seeps do exist in the 

monument, but it is not known if these are 

true algific talus slopes or if the associated 

flora and fauna species occur here. 

Goat prairies are small prairie remnants 

found on bluff faces. These prairies are 

associated with shallow soil, south facing 

slopes, and rock outcrops. The south 

aspect, shallow soil, and drier conditions 

select the drought tolerant native grasses 

over woody vegetation, giving the prairie 

species a competitive advantage. 

Locating, identifying, and monitoring of all 

special microhabitats are important for 

maintaining and protecting the presettlement ecological remnants. The 

greatest potential for the existence of 

federal listed threatened and endangered 

(T&E) species occurs in these areas. At 

present, the status of federal listed 

threatened or endangered species 

associated with these areas is unknown and 

the need for survey of these areas is 

important. 

Nonnative Vegetation 

Adverse effects to native populations occur 

from disruption and displacement by 

aggressive, nonnative species that have a 

competitive advantage or do not have 

natural controls. Asiatic honeysuckle, 

buckthorn, garlic mustard, multiflora rose, 

and purple loosestrife are nonnative 

species that have been identified in and 

around Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. If these nonnative species 

continue to multiply, they would 

outcompete and replace native species that 

have existed in this location for thousands 

of years. If allowed to multiply unchecked, 

aggressive nonnative species may 

eventually supplant native vegetation and 

replace it with a nonnative monoculture 

that does not supply adequate food or 

cover for local fauna. 

NPS units that have nonnative species 

problems develop an integrated pest 

management program to identify and 

locate infestations of nonnative species, 

determine their impact on the resource, 

and develop strategies that would prevent, 

eliminate, or control the occurrence of 

undesirable species. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Fish 

Fish are found in the Mississippi River, 

Yellow River, Sny Magill Creek, and many 

of the smaller streams and creeks in the 

monument. A list provided by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service contains 118 species 

of fish known to occur in the Upper 

Mississippi River National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge adjacent to the monument. 

The most common species are gizzard 

shad, common carp, emerald shiner, river 

shiner, bullhead minnow, and bluegill 

(USFWS 1991). There are reports of native 

trout in Dousman Creek. The fish species 

sampled in Sny Magill Creek have 

remained relatively constant through the 

years and are typical of Iowa cold water 

streams. Based on survey results, Sny 

Magill creek is dominated by a single 

species, the fantail darter (Etheostoma 

flabellare). In 2001, the first occurrence of 

slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), a cold 

water fish that is intolerant of environmental degradation, was noted in Sny 

Magill Creek (North Carolina State 

University 2001). Recreational fishing is 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

112 

allowed in the monument, governed by 

state regulations. 

Aquatic Invertebrates 

Unionid mussels (freshwater clams) may 

be among the most endangered group of 

animals in North American waters. 

Unionid populations are declining due to a 

number of factors relating to habitat 

alteration and human interference. In 

Iowa, the decline is from habitat loss, 

siltation, pollution, and loss of larval host 

species (NPS 2000). The increased spread 

of nonnative species present in the 

Mississippi River (i.e., the zebra mussel), 

have placed additional stress on fragile 

populations, causing the loss of unionid 

species in many regions. Unionid mussels 

are present in the Yellow River and 

Johnson’s Slough (adjacent to the Sny 

Magill Unit). 

Birds 

Almost 300 species of birds are known to 

nest or migrate through Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. The monument is on 

the Mississippi Flyway, one of the major 

bird migration routes on the continent. 

Each spring and fall, neotropical birds use 

the forested bluffs along the Mississippi 

Flyway for feeding and resting stopovers. 

Migrating raptors use the thermals rising 

from the bluffs on their biannual flight to 

and from nesting and wintering sites along 

the Mississippi Flyway. 

Wetlands in the monument provide habitat 

for many resident and migratory birds. In 

spring and fall, wood ducks, mallards, 

Canada geese, and an occasional osprey are 

found feeding and resting in Founder’s 

Pond. Canada geese, mallards, blue-winged 

teals, wood ducks, ruddy ducks, and swans 

are seen on or along the Mississippi River. 

Prothonotary and cerulean warblers 

inhabit the floodplain forest along the 

sloughs. 

Colonies of great blue heron, great egrets, 

and double crested cormorants nest in 

colonial nest sites, or rookeries, in trees on 

the river islands. The rookeries are active 

in the spring when young fledgling birds 

are fed by their parents. 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

potentially occurs statewide and is listed as 

breeding and wintering in Allamakee and 

Clayton counties. During the winter, this 

species feeds on fish in the open water 

areas created by dam tailwaters, the warm 

water effluents of power plants and 

municipal and industrial discharges, or in 

power plant cooling ponds. The more 

severe the winter, the greater the ice 

coverage and the more concentrated the 

eagles become. They roost at night in 

groups in large trees adjacent to the river in 

areas protected from the harsh winter 

elements. They perch in large shoreline 

trees to rest or look for fish to feed on. The 

bald eagle was federal listed as threatened, 

but was delisted by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in 2007 due to population 

recovery. 

Wild turkeys were once thought to be 

extirpated from the area but are now 

common in the monument. Peregrine 

falcons and red-shouldered hawks are also 

seen in the monument (see “Special Status 

Species”). 

Amphibians 

The abundant wetlands in Effigy Mounds 

National Monument are habitat for 

numerous species of amphibians, including 

bullfrogs; American toads; and leopard, 

green, western chorus, spring peepers, and 

gray tree frogs. 

Reptiles 

The limestone bluffs unique to 

northeastern Iowa are home to a variety of 

reptiles. The black rat snake is the largest 

and most commonly seen snake in the 

monument. The brown, northern redbelly, 
Natural Resources 

113 

eastern garter, and prairie ringneck snakes 

are common, but, due to their small size, 

are difficult to find. The five-lined skink is 

the only lizard common to the monument. 

Several species of turtles inhabit the 

lowlands and marshy areas of the 

monument, including the painted turtle, 

map turtle, Blanding’s turtle, and soft-shell 

turtles. Snapping turtles, reaching lengths 

of 15 inches and weighing 40 pounds or 

more, inhabit the Mississippi River and 

often take short forays inland. 

Historically, the timber rattlesnake has 

been found in the region, although 

documented sightings have not taken place 

for many years. With the recent addition of 

1,045 acres to the monument, the 

protection of suitable habitat for the timber 

rattlesnake is more likely. This, combined 

with the efforts to return the monument to 

a more prairie ecosystem, increases the 

likelihood of rattlesnakes once again 

colonizing secluded bluff tops. 

Mammals 

The Mississippi River, Yellow River, and 

adjacent wetlands provide the preferred 

habitat of many small mammals. 

Chipmunks, squirrels, beaver, muskrat, 

river otter, and mink occupy the quiet 

sloughs and river edges. Occasional 

sightings of gray fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus) and coyote (Canis 

latrans) have been reported. Whitetail deer 

and red fox inhabit the floodplain and 

upland forests. Recently, an unnatural 

increase in population density of whitetail 

deer has been reported in the area. 

Until the mid-1800s, northeast Iowa supported a small elk population. Elk 

disappeared from the region following 

European settlement. Likewise, the timber 

wolf was extirpated from the region by the 

1930s. Isolated reports of wolves, black 

bear, and mountain lions have increased 

steadily over the past 10 years. Although it 

is suspected these sightings constitute the 

wanderings of young males, the rugged 

terrain may provide the right combination 

of habitat and seclusion to encourage these 

species to re-inhabit the region. 

Nonnative Species 

The zebra mussel is a fast-spreading 

species that was inadvertently introduced 

to this continent from Asia. They are 

established in the Great Lakes and have 

been found in the Mississippi River. Their 

presence disrupts lake and river 

ecosystems and clogs industrial equipment. 

It may be only a matter of time before the 

Mississippi River and its tributaries are 

severely affected by this quick-spreading 

species. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

A list of federally threatened, endangered 

and candidate species for the Effigy 

Mounds National Monument general 

management plan was prepared by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and forwarded to 

the National Park Service in a 

memorandum dated January 13, 2005 

(appendix B). The list was rechecked 

March 19, 2012. The following species may 

occur in the vicinity of the monument: 

Federal Listed Species 

(E=Endangered, T=Threatened) 

1. Higgins eye pearlymussel (E) 

Lampsilis higginsii

2. Iowa Pleistocene snail (E) 

Discus macclintocki

3. Prairie bush clover (T)

Lespedeza leptostachya 

4. Western prairie fringed orchid (T) 

Platanthera praeclara

5. Northern monkshood (T)

Aconitum novaboracense 

6. Bald eagle*

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

* The bald eagle was in the memorandum, but has 

been subsequently delisted by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

114 

State Listed Species. Information on state 

listed species was obtained from the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources (IDNR 

2005), was cross-referenced with species 

known to occur in the monument, and 

rechecked on March 19, 2012, to generate 

the list below. (F-Federal, IA-Iowa; EEndangered, T-Threatened) 

1. Higgins eye pearlymussel F-E, IA-E 

(Lampsilis higginsii) 

2. Bald eagle F-Delisted, IA-E (Halineetus 

leucocephalus) 

3. Peregrine falcon F-Delisted, IA-E 

(Falco peregrinus) 

4. Gray wolf F-Delisted 

(Canis lupus) 

5. Red-shouldered hawk IA-E 

(Buteo lineatus) 

6. Bluff Veritigo IA-E (Veritigo 

merimecensis) 

7. Spectaclecase IA-E 

(Cumberlandia monodonta) 

8. Slough sandshell IA-E 

(Lampsilis teres teres) 

9. Yellow sandshell IA-E 

(Lampsilis teres anodontoides) 

10. Purple cliff break IA-E 

(Pellaea atropurpurea) 

11. Yellow-eyed grass IA-E 

(Xyris torta) 

12. Leathery grapefern IA-T 

(Botrychium multifidum) 

13. Jeweled shooting star IA-T 

(Dodecatheon amethystinum) 

14. Creeping juniper IA-T 

(Juniperus horizontalis) 

15. Wild lupine IA-T 

(Lupinus perennis) 

16. Purple fringed orchid IA-T 

(Platanthera psycodes) 

17. Slender ladies’-tresses IA-T (Spiranthes 

lacera) IA-T 

18. Southern bog lemming IA-T 

(Synaptomys cooperi) 

19. Grass pickerel IA-T 

(Esox americanus) 

20. Central newt IA-T 

(Notophthalmus veridescens) 

21. Strange floater IA-T 

(Strophitus undulates) 

Iowa Species of Special Concern 

1. Hawthorn 

(Crataegus pruinosa) 

2. Purple coneflower 

(Echinacea purpurea) 

3. Prairie dock 

(Silphium terebinthinaceum) 

4. Rough bedstraw 

(Galium asprellum) 

5. Small white lady’s slipper 

(Cypripedium candidum) 

6. Summer grape 

(Vitis aestivalis) 

7. Southern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys volans) 

8. Great Plains ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes magnicamporum) 

9. Spotted coralroot 

(Corallorrhiza maculate) 

10. Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) 

Animals 

The Higgins eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis 

higginsii) is listed as endangered for the 

Mississippi River north of Lock and Dam 

20, which includes Allamakee and Clayton 

counties, Iowa. This species prefers sand/ 

gravel substrates with a swift current and is 

most often found in the main channel 

border or an open, flowing side channel. 

While there is no designated critical 

habitat, the Higgins Eye Recovery Team 

has designated habitats essential to the 

recovery of the species. These areas 

include Allamakee County, Iowa (river 

miles 655.8-658.4 Right); Harper’s Slough 

area, Allamakee County, Iowa (river mile 

639-641.4R); Marquette-McGregor area, 

Clayton County, Iowa (river mile 634-636); 
Natural Resources 

115 

McMillan Island area, Clayton County, 

Iowa (river mile 616.4-6 19.1R). 

The endangered Iowa Pleistocene snail

(Discus macclintocki) is found on northfacing slopes of the Driftless Area in 

Clayton County. It occupies algific talus 

slopes at the outlet of underground ice 

caves along limestone bluffs within a 

narrow regime of soil moisture and 

temperature. This snail is a relic of 

preglacial times; it was once widespread, 

but is now known only from a cave in 

Bixby State Preserve, approximately 20 

miles southwest of the Sny Magill Unit. 

The snail’s survival in a nonglaciated 

Driftless Area within the boundaries of the 

last four glaciations is so unique that the 

species was first described, and had long 

been known only, as a fossil. The existence 

of this snail depends on its requirement for 

a “fossil” climate at the mouth of the cave 

where temperature and humidity are 

relatively constant. Although the snail has 

not been found on the monument specific 

habitat conditions may exist in the area. 

Plants 

The prairie bush clover (Lespedeza 

leptostachya) is listed as threatened and 

considered to potentially occur statewide 

in Iowa, including Allamakee and Clayton 

counties. It occupies dry to mesic prairies 

with gravelly soil. There is no critical 

habitat designated for this species. This 

species should be searched for whenever 

prairie remnants are encountered. 

The western prairie fringed orchid 

(Platanthera praeclara) is listed as 

threatened and considered to potentially 

occur statewide in Iowa, including 

Allamakee and Clayton counties. It 

occupies wet to mesic grassland habitats. 

There is no critical habitat designated for 

this species. According to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, this species should be 

searched for whenever wet prairie 

remnants are encountered. 

The northern monkshood (Aconitum 

novaboracense) is listed as threatened in 

Allamakee and Clayton counties. It 

occupies north-facing, cold-seeping slopes 

in the Driftless Area of northeast Iowa and 

one slope along the Iowa River. There is no 

critical habitat designated for this species. 

State Listed Species 

Information on state listed species that may 

occur in the monument was provided by 

the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources. The monument’s resource 

specialist compiled a list of state listed 

species found in the monument (appendix 

E). 

State Endangered Species 

Red-shouldered hawks are fairly common 

in the monument and are most often seen 

soaring above the riverside bluffs. Their 

preferred breeding habitat is riparian 

forests and wooded swamps. Nests are 

built in coniferous trees 20 to 60 feet tall 

and are re-used several years in a row. Redshouldered hawks are more able to tolerate 

human disturbance if there are mature 

trees and a high canopy available (Ehrlich, 

Dobkin, and Wheye 1988). The Yellow 

River floodplain has been identified as one 

of 12 nesting sites and one of two multiple 

nesting sites of the red-shouldered hawk in 

the state (NPS 2000). 

The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrine) has 

an extensive natural distribution and is 

found on all continents except Antarctica. 

The American peregrine falcon breeds in 

Mexico, the United States, and Canada. 

Peregrines lay their eggs in “scrapes” in the 

soft earth on the floor of ledges and small, 

shallow caves located high on cliff walls 

(USFWS 2012). They prefer open land or 

open forests for foraging. 

Peregrine falcons were endemic to the area 

with the last nesting pair reported in 1965 

about 20 miles north of the monument. In 

1998 and 1999, nineteen peregrines were 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

116 

released at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument by the Raptor Resource Center 

of Bluffton, Iowa. The falcons were 

released from boxes placed at Hanging 

Rock. The intent was to release captivebred birds on the cliffs of the Mississippi 

River and have them imprint on the 

limestone bluffs overlooking the river. It is 

hoped that some of the birds would return 

to the cliffs to set up territories and nest 

among the ancient sites along the river. 

The bluff vertigo is a land snail that 

inhabits forested limestone or dolomite 

cliffs and outcrops. Common plant 

associations for this species in Iowa are 

scattered conifers, yew, and deciduous 

trees such as maples (NatureServe 2005). 

State Threatened Species 

Jeweled shooting star is a flowering plant 

of the primrose family. In the monument, it 

is found in three locations on limestone 

outcrops near bluff tops and moist cliff 

faces (IDNR 2005). 

The slender ladies-tresses (Spiranthes 

lacera), a native orchid, was recently 

discovered in the North Unit. Flowers are 

tiny, less than 1/4 inch, white with a green 

throat, and are arranged in a large spiral 

around the flowering stalk. The number of 

spirals can vary greatly. It is found on 

sandy soils in dry meadows or sunny 

clearings in woods. In the monument, it 

has been found on restored fields. The 

extent of this plant in the monument is 

currently unknown. 

State Species of Special Concern 

The pugnose minnow (Notropis emiliea) is 

about 2 inches long and feeds on aquatic 

invertebrates. It is found in northern 

Mississippi River basins, usually in 

lowlands in clear to turbid, sluggish, often 

weedy waters of lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, 

swamps, and streams of all sizes 

(NatureServe 2005). It has been found near 

the Yellow River in the Heritage Addition 

(IDNR 2005). 

VIEWSHEDS 

Overlooks such as Fire Point and Eagle 

Rock provide the visitor with dramatic 

views of the Mississippi River Valley with 

its braided channels, wooded islands, and 

steep bluffs. As seen from bluff top 

viewpoints, the panorama of the Heritage 

Addition appears to be a seamless 

extension of the cultural and natural 

landscape represented within the 

monument. 

The bluffs of the Mississippi River extend 

downstream (south) as far as the eye can 

see. Hawks soar above the wooded islands 

in the river’s channel, and crows populate 

the bluff tops. In autumn, the forest 

presents a vivid display of color. 

Signs of the modern age are few, consisting 

of a road, a bend of the railroad track, 

some farmland, and a few silos in the 

distance. 

A procession of conical mounds lines a trail 

back into the woods looking west from the 

Mississippi River. Little Bear Mound and 

companion Great Bear Mound are a short 

distance from the river, and beyond that 

are more mounds of the conical and linear 

style. Visitors are able to contemplate these 

mounds in a primitive setting, without 

distractions of roads, parking lots, or other 

intrusions often encountered at 

archaeological sites accessible to the 

public. 

A concern is the viewshed from the 

overlooks in the North Unit looking to the 

east. The view across the river is of Prairie 

du Chien, Wisconsin. Although mitigated 

somewhat by distance, reflective surfaces 

such as metal roofs can detract from the 

quality of the view under certain light 

conditions. 
Natural Resources 

117 

A regional pattern of development that 

evolved during the past decade indicates 

that there are probable future land use 

pressures on Effigy Mounds National 

Monument from outside its boundaries. 

Residential expansion is impacting the 

traditional farmlands and wooded lands 

surrounding the monument. The influence 

of these factors is only expected to increase 

during the upcoming years, resulting in 

increasing impacts to natural viewsheds. 
118 

VISITOR USE AND UNDERSTANDING 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

provides an opportunity for monument 

visitors to explore the remnants of a past 

culture that constructed hundreds of 

sacred earthen mounds, some in the shape 

of birds and bears. This window to the past 

also provides a modern link with 12 

traditionally associated American Indian 

tribes that consider this place to have 

significant meanings. The monument 

protects and preserves over 200 intact 

mounds and their surrounding cultural and 

natural landscapes and provides an 

uncrowded atmosphere that enhances 

visitors’ opportunity to understand and 

connect with these distinctive resources. It 

continues to be a challenge for monument 

staff to facilitate protection of 

archeological resources while providing 

opportunities for visitors to discover and 

connect with the historic human presence. 

Visitors to Effigy Mounds National 

Monument can enjoy self-guided tours or 

join a ranger for a walk, talk, or historical 

demonstration. Hiking trails provide 

access to several areas with concentrations 

of preserved mounds. Visitors can also 

experience a unique variety of habitats, 

including upland forest, prairie, and 

wetlands. The views of the Mississippi 

River are scenic and provide visitors an 

opportunity to understand the complex 

web of protected areas adjacent to the 

national monument. Birding is becoming 

particularly popular due to the diverse 

habitats encompassed by Effigy Mounds. 

The visitor center is open June to Labor 

Day from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. every day; 

and, during other times of the year, 

weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 

weekends 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The 

monument is closed Thanksgiving, 

Christmas, and New Year’s days. Although 

people seem to locate the visitor center 

with little trouble, wayfinding signs outside 

the monument are few in number and in 

some cases placed in nonstandard areas. 

Visitors are encouraged to begin their 

exploration of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument at the visitor center, where they 

can receive orientation and wayfinding 

information along with a schedule of 

special events and opportunities. They can 

also purchase interpretive material and 

books from the cooperating association 

bookstore, and view exhibits and a film 

about the monument’s resources. After 

exploring the visitor center, many visitors 

proceed on the short trail to the three 

accessible burial mounds behind the visitor 

center and from there, to the main North 

Unit trail. Automobile access to the interior 

of the monument is not permitted. 

The visitor center and support offices are 

currently fairly crowded some times of the 

year, which has some impact on visitors 

receiving appropriate orientation and 

interpretation. Some of the current 

interpretive media and orientation 

information does not adequately address 

the diversity of park themes and visitors. 

For those wanting a more in-depth experience, the monument offers 14 miles of 

challenging hiking trails that crisscross the 

monument. Many visitors take advantage 

of the short, universally accessible, 

wetlands trail adjacent to the visitor center. 

For those with a little more time, rangers 

recommend the steep, 2-mile-long-loop 

trail, which leads to several burial and 

effigy mounds adjacent to Fire Point. The 

North Unit also offers a 7-mile-long trail 

providing access to more cultural and 

scenic areas. Longer hikes are available in 

the more secluded South Unit, known for 

its Marching Bear Group and outstanding 

prairie habitats. 
Visitor Use and Understanding 

119 

Special events and activities are available 

throughout the year and include special 

ranger-led programs, bird walks, living 

history moonlight hikes, and cultural 

demonstrations. The largest special event is 

the “Hawk Watch Weekend,” which 

attracts the greatest number of visitors 

every year in early fall. The monument also 

conducts viewings of park-related films in 

the winter. 

Thousands of students visit the monument 

every year to participate in the curriculumbased education program. The 

monument’s staff accommodates 

educational program requests on a 

reservation basis and can offer resources 

that facilitate teacher-led educational 

experiences within the monument. During 

inclement weather, the visitor center gets 

extremely crowded when student groups 

and other visitors are forced indoors. 

The Sny Magill Unit of Effigy Mounds 

contains at least 106 mounds representing 

one of the largest concentrations of 

mounds in one location found in North 

America. Visitors have an opportunity to 

look through basic orientation information 

in a brochure available at the visitor center. 

Currently, vehicle access can be 

challenging with the low overhead 

clearance under the railroad track and the 

soft-surfaced trail. Many visitors come to 

this unit to fish and access the river at the 

state-maintained boat ramp. 

The secluded nature and unique resources 

of Effigy Mounds National Monument 

invite visitors to not only gain a deeper 

awareness of the cultural landscape, but to 

also explore one of the few preserved and 

still wild areas in this part of the country. 

The combination of a centralized point for 

orientation and the ability to then extend a 

visit onto easy trails or strenuous hikes 

offers abundant opportunities for many, 

diverse experiences. 

Effigy Mounds National Monument is 

65 miles south of La Crosse and 105 miles 

west of Madison, Wisconsin. A large 

number of visitors access the monument 

through Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin via 

US Highway 18 or via Iowa state highway 

76, which is a segment of The Great River 

Road. 

Visitor Use 

Effigy Mounds National Monument is 

purely a day use area. The majority of 

visitors initially utilize the visitor center 

and its adjacent trails, but some expand 

their explorations to the other trails within 

the monument. Other recreational users 

utilize the Yellow River or the Mississippi 

River adjacent to the monument to boat 

and fish. About 16,000 fishing visitors were 

counted in 2007. 

Most visitors are locals who live within a 3-

to 4-hour drive, some of whom bring outof-area visitors on a recurring basis. 

Approximately 40% of visitation happens 

in the summer, with the majority of winter 

visitation occurring during the annual 

winter film festival. Subjectively, visitation 

patterns appear to be changing with the 

busiest month no longer being October, 

but occurring toward the end of summer. 

The monument does attract a number of 

international visitors as well. 

Prior to 2004, Sny Magill visitation was not 

recorded in annual statistics, which 

partially accounts for the jump in 

recreational visitation in 2004 (table 9). 

TABLE 9. EFFIGY MOUNDS VISITATION FIGURES

Year Recreational 

Visits 

Visitor 

Center 

2011 83,861 52,215 

2010 80,883 47,435 

2009 79,378 42,990 

2008 69,895 37,997 

2007 88,268 47,567 

2006 91,175 50,196 

2005 89,746 48,121 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

120 

TABLE 9. EFFIGY MOUNDS VISITATION FIGURES

Year Recreational 

Visits 

Visitor 

Center 

2004 96,189 52,154 

2003 80,859 52,502 

2002 76,260 49,811 

2001 81,045 51,411 

2000 78,762 50,163 

Source: Effigy Mounds National Monument

VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Visitor understanding of the monument’s 

resources and their inherent meanings is 

facilitated through effective interpretation 

and education programs. Interpretive 

services include both personal services 

(rangers greeting visitors at the visitor 

center) and nonpersonal services like the 

wayside exhibit that describes the people 

who built the mounds and their culture. 

Interpretation is made more effective by 

giving visitors adequate orientation and 

wayfinding guidance, both in and outside 

the monument. 

The current personal and nonpersonal 

opportunities provided for visitors to 

Effigy Mounds National Monument are 

successful in facilitating visitor 

understanding. However, an expansion 

and/or reorganization of the visitor center 

and an increase in interpretive staff would 

be an effective way to increase visitor 

understanding and enjoyment, thus 

promoting greater park stewardship. 

The majority of visitors start their 

experience in the visitor center where they 

can contact a ranger, sales person, or 

volunteer; watch the 15-minute orientation 

program; and enjoy the exhibits. In 

addition to these interpretive experiences, 

visitors also can receive directions and 

other wayfinding information. As they 

move out into the resource, they receive 

other interpretive messages via guides, 

ranger activities and talks, wayside 

exhibits, and printed material like site 

bulletins. These also provide a knowledge 

base for those who wish to explore the 

more strenuous and/or secluded hikes. 

Educational groups receive personal 

guided experiences, as staff is available. 

Environmental study guides and materials 

are available for on-site and previsit 

education. 

VISITOR SAFETY AND ACCESS 

When hiking in the monument, visitors are 

cautioned to be aware of the weather as 

summer can be very hot and humid and 

winters can be cold and snowy. Trails are 

occasionally closed due to hazardous 

conditions. Summer heat and humidity can 

cause heat-related illness. 

The only access to the South Unit trail 

system involves crossing the highway 

adjacent to the monument boundary, 

which can be hazardous due to limited 

sight distance and heavy traffic moving at a 

high rate of speed. Alternatives to this 

situation are currently being discussed. 

Visitors are oriented to the need for fitness 

and self-sufficiency when exploring the 

monument’s trail system. The elevation 

changes can be challenging while uneven 

and possibly slippery trail surfaces are 

common. The chance of meeting other 

people or employees on these trails can be 

minimal. Thus, there is a need to be selfsufficient. 

Many of these hazards are partially 

mitigated by adequate orientation at the 

visitor center and information from the 

monument’s website and interpretive 

handouts. 

The visitor center offers enhanced access 

options along with an accessible restroom 

and exhibit area. The boardwalk trail also 

offers an accessible hike for those visitors 

who might find other trails too challenging. 
Visitor Use and Understanding 

121 

Other trails in the monument are, for the 

most part, uneven and primitive due to the 

nature of the site. 

RECREATIONAL USE 

OF THE YELLOW RIVER 

The National Park Service recognizes there 

is historic and current recreational use on 

the Yellow River inside and outside the 

monument boundaries. This use includes 

fishing, canoe and kayak paddling, and 

motor boating. The use of motorboats is 

associated with fishing and is estimated by 

the monument staff to be quite low. 

No hunting is allowed in the monument 

and fishing is governed by state 

regulations. Because it is a navigable river, 

the State of Iowa has some management 

authority for the water and its use. 

Approximately 3.5 miles of the river flow 

through monument lands before joining 

the Mississippi River near the monument 

headquarters. The Yellow River is a 

backwater for the Mississippi here and is 

quite sluggish for the last 3.5 miles. 

Upstream of the monument, the river flows 

quite fast for Iowa and, therefore, is 

attractive to paddlers. 

An area along the river near Iowa 76 has 

been used as an unauthorized canoe takeout for many years. Safety concerns about 

the steep banks and vehicles moving into 

and out of the highway have prompted the 

National Park Service to close this take-out 

area. Also, part of the take-out area is on 

private land where the National Park 

Service has no authority to make any 

improvements. Paddlers have access to 

public put-in and take-out points upstream 

of the monument and at a site on the 

Mississippi River just below the mouth of 

the Yellow River. 
122 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

 National parks generate more than 

$4 in value to the public for every 

tax dollar invested. 

 Nationwide, the national parks 

support $13.3 billion of local 

private-sector economic activity 

and 267,000 private-sector jobs. 

 National parks attract businesses 

and individuals to the local area, 

resulting in economic growth in 

areas near parks that is an average 

of 1% per year greater than 

statewide rates over the past three 

decades. 

 The social benefits of national 

parks are many and extend well 

beyond economic values (Hardner 

and McKenney 2006). 

A trend that has affected most units of the 

National Park Service in the past several 

years is a decrease in visitation. Of 

particular note is the apparent decrease in 

interest by the nation’s young people. 

ECONOMICS IN THE STUDY AREA 

For the purposes of this document, the 

study area (area of consideration) for 

socioeconomic analysis is Clayton and 

Allamakee counties, Iowa, and Crawford 

County, Wisconsin. Although all the 

monument units are in Iowa, the City of 

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, is socially and 

economically linked to the monument 

because of its proximity and availability of 

visitor services (e.g., restaurants, hotels, 

and auto service stations). 

Allamakee County, Iowa 

The headquarters, visitor center, and most 

of the monument are located in Allamakee 

County. Waukon, Harpers Ferry, and other 

small, rural communities form the 

population base of this county. The U.S. 

Census Bureau estimates that the county’s 

population was 14,709 in 2005. The 

population increased by 6.1% in the 

preceding 15 years (1990–2005). The state 

of Iowa experienced an increase of 6.8% in 

population over the same period. The 

average number of persons per square mile 

in the county was 23 in 2000, while the 

statewide average was 52. 

The median household income in 

Allamakee County in 2010 was $46,623 

while the median for Iowa was $47,961. 

The per capita income in 2010 was $21,349 

while the figure for the state was $24,883. 

According to the 2000 employment figures 

provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the 

economy of Allamakee County is based on 

manufacturing; education, health and 

social services; agriculture (including 

forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining); and 

retail trades. 

Federal spending from all sources in 

Allamakee County totaled $77.416 million 

in 2004. 

Clayton County, Iowa 

The Sny Magill Unit and most of the South 

Unit are located in this county along with 

Marquette, McGregor, and other 

communities. The U.S. Census Bureau 

indicates that the county’s population was 

18,337 in 2005. The population decreased 

by 3.8% in the preceding 15 years (1990–

2005). The State of Iowa experienced an 

increase of 6.8% in population over the 
Socioeconomic Environment 

123 

same period. The average number of 

persons per square mile in the county was 

24 in 2000, while the statewide average was 

52. 

The median household income in this 

county in 2010 was $45,873 while the 

median for Iowa was $47,961. The per 

capita income in 2010 was $22,303 while 

the figure for the state was $24,883. Based 

on the 2000 employment figures, the 

economy of Clayton County is centered 

around manufacturing; education, health, 

and social services; agriculture (including 

forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining); and 

retail trades (U.S. Census Bureau). 

Federal spending from all sources in 

Clayton County totaled $108.715 million in 

2004. 

Crawford County, Wisconsin 

The City of Prairie du Chien (population 

6,018) and several smaller towns lie within 

this county. The U.S. Census Bureau 

indicates that the county’s population was 

17,134 in 2005. The population increased 

by 7.6% in the preceding 15 years (1990–

2005). The State of Wisconsin experienced 

an increase of 12.8% in population over the 

same period. The average number of 

persons per square mile in Crawford 

County in 2000 was 30, while the 

Wisconsin statewide average was 99. 

The median household income in the 

county in 2010 was $39,486 while the 

median for Wisconsin was $49,001. The 

per capita income in 2010 was $26,334 

while the figure for the state was $25,458. 

According to U.S. Census Bureau 

employment figures, Crawford County is 

economically based in manufacturing; 

education, health, and social services; retail 

trades; and a combination of agriculture, 

forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. 

Federal spending from all sources in 

Crawford County totaled $97.996 million 

in 2004. 

VISITOR SPENDING IN 

THE PLANNING AREA 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

hosted 91,175 recreation visits in 2006, the 

latest year of complete data. According to a 

visitor study conducted by the National 

Park Service in 2005, 93% of visitors were 

on day trips and 7% were on overnight 

trips staying in motels or bed and breakfast 

facilities, or camping in the area. 

The results of the visitor study were used 

with the NPS money generation model to 

calculate the level of economic effect 

visitor spending has in the area. For 

analysis, the total recreation visits were 

converted to 36,470 party days in the local 

area (party days = number of days spent in 

the vicinity by a party of visitors). On 

average, visitors spent $60 per party per 

day in the study area. Total visitor 

spending was $2.18 million dollars in 2006 

(table 10). This includes spending in sales, 

income, and jobs in businesses selling 

goods and services directly to park visitors. 

The direct effects of the $2.18 million spent 

by visitors to the national monument were 

$1.59 million in sales, $564,000 in personal 

income (wages and salaries), $875,000 

million in value added, and 39 jobs 

supported. Large direct effects were 

$445,000 in food and drinking places, 

$312,000 in retail trade and $68,000 in the 

hotel sector. As visitor spending circulates 

through the local economy, an additional 

$480,000 in sales, $161,000 in personal 

income, $295,000 in value added, and six 

jobs were created in secondary effects 

(table 11). 

The total effects figures shown in table 10 

are the sum of the following: 

 direct effects accrued largely to 

tourism-related business in the area 

 indirect effects accrued to a 

broader set of economic sectors 

that serve these tourism businesses 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

124 

 induced effects that are impacts of 

household expenditures from 

income earned in a directly or 

indirectly affected industry 

TABLE 10. VISITS AND SPENDING BY VISITOR SEGMENT, 2006

Day Trips Hotel Camping Total 

Recreation Visitors 84,763 4,559 1,823 91,175

Segment Shares in Rec. Visits 93% 5% 2% 100%

Visitor Party Days 33,918 1,824 729 36,471

Avg. Spending Per Party Day $ 55 $ 147 $ 87 $ 60

Total Spending $923,000 $268,000 $64,000 $2,178,000

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office Money Generation Model

TABLE 11. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF VISITOR SPENDING BY SECTOR, 2006 

Sectors Sales Personal Incomes Jobs Value Added

Direct Effects 

Motels, Hotels, B&Bs 

and Cabins $ 68,000 $ 20,000 2 $ 30,000

Campgrounds $ 6,000 $ 1,000 0 $ 2,000

Restaurants & Bars $445,000 $140,000 12 $195,000

Admissions $492,000 $169.000 13 $277,000

Retail $312,000 $159,000 10 $248,000

Others $262,000 $ 75,000 2 $123,000

Total $1,585,000 $564,000 39 $875,000

Secondary Effects $480,000 $161,000 6 $295,000

Total Effects $2,065,000 $725,000 45 $1,170,000

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office Money Generation Model
125 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

The staff of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument is responsible for managing the 

cultural and natural resources on 

2,526 acres of national park system land 

and accommodating about 80,000 visitors 

each year. The base funding was 

approximately $1.2 million in fiscal year 

2010. At one time, the monument collected 

entrance fees during the summer months, 

but no longer does. 

There are 17 full-time-equivalent 

employees (FTEs) at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument, who provide 

interpretation and education, resource 

management, administration, facility 

management, and law enforcement at the 

four units. This does not mean that there 

are 17 employees, as FTE is not a 

measurement of the number of people but 

is a measurement of “equivalency”—two 

part-time employees could equal one FTE. 

Seasonal employees, cooperating 

association employees, and volunteers 

assist the permanent staff in some of these 

duties. 

Monument staff provide interpretation 

and education programs centered around 

the visitor center and major trails in the 

North Unit. The visitor center is staffed at 

all times the monument is open (362 days a 

year). Interpreters conduct visitor 

programs such as talks or guided walks as 

well as roving interpretation on the major 

trails during the primary visitor season. 

The administrative staff keeps everything 

running and tracks the budget. One parttime law enforcement ranger provides 

needed law enforcement. Permanent and 

seasonal natural resource staff perform 

resource restoration actions and conduct 

monitoring of sensitive resources. 

All units are open for day use only, 

although not physically closed at night. 

In addition to the visitor center and office 

buildings, NPS staff members are 

responsible for maintaining access roads, a 

maintenance facility, paved parking lot, 

trails, former employee residences that 

have been converted to office space, and 

utilities. 

The greatest outdoor maintenance 

workload is around the visitor center and 

in the North Unit where the largest 

proportion of visitation occurs. Work in 

the North Unit requires transporting 

equipment and supplies from the 

maintenance yard located near the visitor 

center. There are two maintenance access 

roads in the North Unit that facilitate the 

movement of personnel and equipment 

closer to the trail where work is done. 

The Sny Magill Unit is more than 10 miles 

away from the maintenance yard, so crews 

must travel to do work at this unit. A fence 

and footpath need occasional 

maintenance. Stabilization of the riverbank 

and protective maintenance of the mounds 

is ongoing. Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources maintains the access road, 

parking area, and boat ramp in this unit. 

There are no visitor services or regular 

NPS presence at this unit. 
126 
Environmental 

Consequences 4

Marching Bear Mound Group
128 
129 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that environmental documents 

include discussion of the environmental 

impacts of a proposed federal action, 

feasible alternatives to that action, and any 

adverse environmental effects that could 

not be avoided if a proposed action should 

be implemented. In this case, the proposed 

federal action is implementation of the 

Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Effigy 

Mounds National Monument. This chapter 

contains the analysis of the environmental 

impacts on cultural resources, natural 

resources, visitor experience, social and 

economic environment, and national 

monument operations, and that would 

result from the actions of each of the three 

alternatives. The analysis is the basis for 

comparing the beneficial and adverse 

effects that would be caused by 

implementing each alternative. 

Because the actions described in the 

alternatives are general and conceptual, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. If and 

when site-specific developments or other 

actions are proposed for implementation 

after the final general management plan is 

published and approved, appropriate 

detailed environmental and cultural 

compliance documentation would be 

prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

Each alternative discussion also describes 

cumulative effects and presents a 

conclusion. At the end of the impact 

section, there is a brief discussion of the 

unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of 

resources, the relationship of short-term 

uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and the energy 

requirements and conservation potential. 

The impacts of each alternative are briefly 

summarized in table 7, at the end of 

“Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative.” 

TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Each impact topic includes a discussion of 

impacts, including the context, intensity, 

duration, and type of impact. Intensity of 

impact describes the degree, level, or 

strength of an impact as negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major. Because definitions of 

intensity vary by resource topic, separate 

intensity definitions are provided for each 

topic. Contexts for impacts are described as 

local (confined to a localized area), 

monumentwide (occurring throughout the 

monument or in multiple locations within 

the monument), or regional. Duration of 

impact considers whether the impact 

would occur over the short term, long 

term, or (in the case of cultural resources) 

permanent. Unless otherwise noted, shortterm impacts are those that, within a short 

period of time—generally one year or 

less—would no longer be detectable 

because the resource or value would return 

to its predisturbance condition or 

appearance. Long-term impacts refer to a 

change in a resource or value that are 

expected to persist for more than one year. 

Permanent impacts to cultural resources 

are irreparable. The type of impact refers to 

whether the impact on the resource or 

value would be beneficial or adverse. 

The impact analyses for the action 

alternatives (alternatives B and C) describe 

the difference between implementing 

alternative A (no-action alternative) and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

130 

implementing the action alternatives. In 

other words, to understand the 

consequences of any action alternative, the 

reader must also consider what would 

happen if current management practices 

were to continue. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

CEQ regulations also require assessment of 

cumulative impacts in the decision-making 

process for federal projects. Cumulative 

impacts result from the incremental impact 

of an action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of who undertakes such 

other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor 

but collectively important actions taking 

place over time. 

Cumulative impacts are considered for all 

alternatives. To determine potential 

cumulative impacts, other projects within 

and surrounding Effigy Mounds National 

Monument were identified. Projects were 

identified by discussions with the 

monument, federal land managers, and 

representatives of county and town 

governments. Potential projects identified 

as cumulative actions included any 

planning or development activity currently 

being implemented, or that would be 

implemented in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. The CEQ regulations do not require 

bureaus to catalogue or exhaustively list 

and analyze all individual past actions. 

Other actions were considered in the 

analysis only if they are relevant and useful 

because they have a significant cause-andeffect relationship with the direct and 

indirect effects of the proposed 

alternatives. 

These actions were evaluated in 

conjunction with the impacts of each 

alternative to determine if they would have 

any cumulative effects on a particular 

natural, cultural, or socioeconomic 

resource or visitor use. For those 

cumulative actions that were in the early 

planning stages, the qualitative evaluation 

of cumulative impacts was based on a 

general description of the project. 

Past Actions 

Many mound groups outside the 

monument boundaries have been 

destroyed by agricultural practices and 

other types of land uses. Designation of 

Effigy Mounds National Monument in 

1949 and expansion of the monument in 

1961 and 2000 set aside over 2,500 acres for 

protection of the burial mounds, associated 

natural resources, and historic sites. In 

addition, during the early development of 

the monument’s infrastructure, 

construction may have damaged deposits 

containing archeological materials. 

However, it should be noted that even 

though upper levels of deposit may have 

been damaged, there still may be 

undisturbed deposits beneath the 

construction zone. 

Present Actions 

Rural residential development has been 

slowly increasing in Clayton and Allamakee 

counties in Iowa. In some cases, large farms 

are being subdivided and sold as 

“ranchettes.” This is occurring near the 

monument’s north boundary along 

Highway 76. Natural viewsheds have been 

affected by commercial and industrial 

development across the Mississippi River 

in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where 

reflective surfaces (e.g., roofs) detract from 

the view. Rock and gravel mining 

operations also are affecting views from the 

North Unit and the approach to the Sny 

Magill Unit. 

The Mississippi River Trail is a multistate 

effort to create a continuous bike and hike 

trail along the length of the Mississippi 

River from Wisconsin to Louisiana. The 

National Park Service supports this effort; 

Effigy Mounds National Monument could 
Introduction 

131 

be a destination point. However, bicycles 

are not allowed on monument trails. 

Future Actions 

Although the current agricultural land use 

on most property adjacent to the 

monument is compatible with the 

monument’s goals, it can be assumed that 

this agricultural use would continue to be 

replaced with residential development and 

subdivisions. This assumption is based on 

current land development trends in the 

area around the monument. Of particular 

concern is the possible change in land use 

on the private land adjoining the 

monument. 
132 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

TYPES OF CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources typically include 

archeological resources, cultural landscapes, 

prehistoric and historic structures, 

ethnographic resources, and museum 

collections. This analysis focuses on four of 

these types of cultural resources and 

specifically those listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. Structures are not included in the 

analysis because there are no structures 

within the monument that are eligible for 

listing in the national register. For the 

purpose of this analysis, mounds, historic 

roads, historic cistern, and sawmill 

remnants are considered archeological 

resources, not structures. 

SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 

METHODOLOGY 

In this management plan, impact analysis 

also must comply with the requirements of 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. In accordance with 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (36 

CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties), impacts on cultural resources were 

also identified and evaluated by (1) 

determining the area of potential effects; 

(2) identifying cultural resources present in 

the area of potential effects that are either 

listed in or eligible to be listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places; (3) 

applying the criteria of adverse effect to 

affected national register-eligible or 

national register-listed cultural resources; 

and (4) considering ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the advisory council’s regulations, 

an adverse effect occurs whenever an action 

alters, directly or indirectly, any 

characteristic of a cultural resource that 

qualifies it for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places, e.g., 

diminishing the integrity (or the extent to 

which a resource retains its historic 

appearance) of its location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects also include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by 

alternative actions that would occur later in 

time, be further removed in distance, or be 

cumulative (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of 

Adverse Effects). A determination of no 

adverse effect means there is an effect, but 

the effect would not diminish the 

characteristics of the cultural resource that 

qualify it for inclusion in the national 

register. 

CEQ regulations and NPS Director’s Order 

12: Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision-making call 

for a discussion of mitigation, as well as an 

analysis of how effective the mitigation 

would be in reducing the intensity of a 

potential impact, e.g., reducing the 

intensity of an impact from major to 

moderate or minor. Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under the 

National Environmental Policy Act only. It 

does not suggest that the level of effect as 

defined by 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, although 

actions determined to have an adverse 

effect under section 106 may be mitigated, 

the effect remains adverse. 
Cultural Resources 

133 

A section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections for cultural 

resources following the conclusions of 

each cultural resource impact topic. The 

section 106 summary is an assessment of 

the effect of the undertaking 

(implementation of the alternative) based 

upon the criterion of effect and criteria of 

adverse effect found in the advisory 

council regulations. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Archeological resources are addressed in 

this section because many of the proposed 

actions in the alternatives could affect 

these resources. The impacts on 

archeological resources in the action 

alternatives (alternatives B and C) were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from the action alternatives to the 

no-action alternative. 

Intensity Thresholds 

The thresholds to determine the level of 

impact on archeological resources are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible—Impact is at the lowest level of 

detection with neither adverse nor 

beneficial consequences. Impacts would be 

measurable, but with no perceptible 

consequences. For the purpose of section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

no adverse effect. 

Minor—Disturbance of a site results in 

little, if any, loss of integrity. The 

determination of effect for section 106 

would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate—Site is disturbed, but not 

obliterated. The determination of effect for 

section 106 would be adverse effect. 

Major—Site is obliterated. The 

determination of effect for section 106 

would be adverse effect. 

Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives 

Archeological Inventories. The surveys 

and research necessary to determine the 

eligibility of archeological resources for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places are a prerequisite for understanding 

the resource’s significance, as well as the 

basis of informed decision making in the 

future regarding how such resources 

should be managed. Completion of such 

surveys and research would result in a 

parkwide, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Ground Disturbance. Ground disturbance

activities under this impact topic include 

actions that would result in damage to 

archeological resources that reduces or 

destroys resource integrity of 

characteristics making the resources 

eligible for listing in the national register. 

These activities could include visitorrelated activities such as foot traffic and 

pothunting, as well as more constructionrelated activities like trail development or 

realignment, alteration of existing roads, 

facility construction, riverbank 

stabilization, and mound maintenance. 

Visitor Use / Foot Traffic—The public 

would continue to be asked to stay on the 

trail systems throughout the national 

monument and to stay off the mounds. 

However, some visitors would continue to 

climb up the mounds, or may climb on 

them because of wet ground conditions in 

areas adjacent to mounds. New areas of the 

national monument do not have trails, and 

visitors might unknowingly walk on 

unmarked mounds. This occasional 

activity could result in erosion of the 

mound that, if left unchecked, could result 

in damage or even loss of a mound’s 

integrity. The monument’s policy of ranger 

patrols and emphasis on visitor education 

would continue to discourage visitors from 

straying from marked trails, committing 

acts of vandalism, and causing inadvertent 

destruction of cultural remains. Adverse 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

134 

impacts would be local, minor to moderate, 

and permanent. 

Mississippi River Bank Stabilization—Each 

alternative would continue the current 

practice of stabilizing segments of the 

Mississippi River banks to protect the Sny 

Magill mounds. Exposed deposits could be 

documented and covered with a protective 

material (e.g., filter fabric) prior to adding 

clean fill and/or riprap to stabilize the 

banks. Stabilizing the riverbanks would 

decrease or eliminate bank erosion that 

could threaten archeological deposits. This 

would result in a local, long-term, 

beneficial impact. 

Mound Maintenance—A cultural landscape 

report would be prepared in the near 

future to prescribe specific 

recommendations for mound 

maintenance, and what follows is based on 

what the National Park Service’s best 

assumptions are for what that report may 

recommend. 

Some of the mounds would continue to 

have trees growing on them. Large trees 

would be left intact when damage from 

their removal would jeopardize the 

integrity of the mound. Saplings would 

continue to be removed. Trees on mounds 

would continue to occasionally die or be 

blown down. A dead tree would continue 

to be cut down at the base and left to 

deteriorate. Trees that are blown down 

would continue to be removed in a manner 

least damaging to the mound. However, 

both would continue to result in some 

damage to the mound. As roots decay, the 

soil would continue to collapse in upon 

itself and archeological deposits in the 

mound could lose integrity of shape and 

height. In either case, maintenance staff 

would continue to fill holes with clean fill 

material (free of cultural materials) and 

revegetate the site under the supervision of 

qualified cultural resource specialists. 

Pothunting—Although rare, deliberate acts 

of excavation for artifacts (called 

pothunting) could continue to occur. 

These activities would result in damage to 

the mounds and possibly loss of 

archeological artifacts that would be 

integral to an understanding of the mounds 

and the cultures that constructed them. 

This type of damage could create local, 

permanent, and minor to moderate, 

negative impacts. Damage from pothunting 

would be dealt with similarly to mound 

maintenance. 

Dead and blown-down trees would result 

in local, permanent, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. Stabilizing disturbed sites 

with clean fill and revegetating the sites 

would reduce the intensities of these 

adverse effects because the mounds would 

retain their shape and appearance and 

because stabilization would deter erosion. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, 

archeological resources in the region have 

been damaged due to ground disturbance 

associated with agriculture, residential 

development, and logging. Pothunting has 

also resulted in the loss of archeological 

resources, alteration of artifact 

distribution, and a reduction of contextual 

evidence. In addition, during the early 

development of the monument’s 

infrastructure, construction resulted in 

damage to surface deposits containing 

archeological materials. Adverse impacts 

resulting from these past actions have been 

moderate to major and permanent. 

As described above, impacts common to all 

alternatives would result in permanent 

minor to moderate, localized, adverse 

impacts. These impacts, in combination 

with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would result in a permanent, moderate, 

adverse, cumulative effect. However, many 

potential adverse impacts of the 

alternatives would be confined to small, 

localized areas or would be somewhat 

offset by beneficial impacts. 

The adverse effects associated with the 

impacts common to all alternatives would 
Cultural Resources 

135 

be a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusions. In each alternative, visitor use 

(including pothunting), bank stabilization 

along the Mississippi River, and 

maintenance of the mounds would have 

permanent, local, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts to archeological resources. 

These impacts could be reduced to 

negligible to minor through avoidance, 

mitigation, and construction design. A 

complete inventory of the monument and 

continued preservation of the mounds and 

their contents would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact on archeological 

resources throughout the monument. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service 

concludes that the actions common to all 

alternatives would have no adverse effect on 

archeological resources. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

There are specific actions relating to trail 

maintenance and realignment in alternative 

A that could require some level of 

archeological inventory and evaluation 

work. Trail maintenance and realignment 

would be guided by a cultural landscape 

report and recommendations currently 

under development, a future public access/ 

trail development plan, and a long-range 

interpretation plan. 

Ground Disturbance. Existing trails would 

continue to be maintained. Maintenance 

activities would be confined to already 

disturbed areas. The potential for negative 

impacts to archeological resources would 

be long-term, negligible, and localized. 

Some existing trails might be relocated for 

resource protection and visitor enjoyment. 

Prior to relocating trails, a predevelopment 

archeological survey of the proposed 

realignment would be undertaken to 

ensure significant archeological sites or 

features would be avoided. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, 

archeological resources in the region have 

been damaged due to ground disturbance 

associated with agriculture, residential 

development, and logging. Pothunting has 

also resulted in the loss of archeological 

resources, alteration of artifact 

distribution, and a reduction of contextual 

evidence. In addition, during the early 

development of the monument’s 

infrastructure, construction resulted in 

damage to surface deposits containing 

archeological materials. Adverse impacts 

resulting from these actions have been 

moderate to major and permanent. 

As described above, impacts associated 

with the implementation of alternative A 

would result in permanent, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts. These minor to 

moderate adverse effects, in combination 

with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would result in a permanent, moderate, 

adverse cumulative effect. But, most 

adverse impacts would be confined to 

small, localized areas or would be 

somewhat offset by beneficial, impacts. 

The adverse effects associated with 

implementation of alternative A would be a 

small component of the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Trail maintenance would 

occur in previously disturbed areas. Trails 

would be realigned to avoid significant 

archeological resources. These actions 

could lead to local, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts that would be permanent. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service 

concludes that the impacts resulting from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

136 

actions in alternative A would have no

adverse effect on archeological resources. 

Consultations with the state historic 

preservation officer and consulting tribes 

would occur to develop mitigation 

strategies. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B or Alternative C 

As they pertain to archeological resources, 

alternatives B and C are the same except 

for one difference—under alternative B, 

the existing trail in the Sny Magill Unit 

would be improved from the parking lot to 

the first set of mounds, and under 

alternative C, the entire trail would be 

upgraded. 

There are specific actions under both 

alternatives relating to trail development, 

construction, and land that could require 

some level of archeological inventory and 

evaluation work. Trail development would 

also be guided by the cultural landscape 

report and recommendations currently 

under development. 

Ground Disturbance. Ground disturbing 

actions that could require some level of 

archeological evaluation work prior to 

implementation include the following: 

Trail Development/Removal—Prior to 

construction, the trail routes would be 

designed to avoid known archeological 

resources. If during construction, 

previously unknown archeological 

resources were discovered, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery would 

be halted until the resources could be 

identified and documented by a 

professional archeologist; if the resources 

could not be preserved in situ, an 

appropriate mitigation strategy would be 

developed in consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer and associated 

American Indian tribes. In the unlikely 

event that human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of 

cultural patrimony are discovered during 

construction, provisions outlined in the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act would be followed. 

Alternatives B and C would propose 

several ground disturbing actions involving 

existing and new trails as well as the 

removal of roads. These projects would 

include 

 Yellow River bridge new trail 

connection to South Unit trail 

system 

 Heritage Addition Development of 

Old Roads as Trails/Trails 

Development 

 Heritage Addition New Trail 

Construction 

 Fire Point and Other North Unit 

Trail Realignments 

 South Unit Trail Realignments 

 Sny Magill Unit Trail Construction 

 Removal of Old Roads 

Trail routes would be surveyed for 

archeological resources prior to trail 

construction. This would include the 

portion of the Sny Magill trail from the 

parking lot to the first set of mounds under 

alternative B and the entire length of the 

current trail under alternative C. Trails and 

the placement of any associated wayside 

exhibits and signs would be designed to 

avoid impacting archeological resources or 

would be located in areas that would 

minimize negative impacts to resources. 

Any adverse impacts would be minor, 

local, and permanent. 

Prior to any road obliteration, roads would 

be evaluated for any association with 

significant archeological resources. 

Although the roadbeds are disturbed areas, 

there would be a potential for significant 

subsurface deposits to remain intact 

beneath or adjacent to the disturbed areas. 

Archeological surveying or monitoring 

would be carried out during ground 

disturbing activities to ensure intact 
Cultural Resources 

137 

deposits were avoided to the greatest 

extent possible. These actions would result 

in negligible to minor, localized, adverse 

impacts that would be permanent. 

Trails systems within the monument would 

encourage visitors to stay on established 

paths. This would reduce foot traffic 

damage to mounds and other archeological 

resources, thus resulting in a long-term, 

monumentwide, beneficial impact. 

Infrastructure Construction—Alternatives B 

and C would propose constructing a visitor 

contact station at the Sny Magill Unit. This 

would improve the monument’s 

infrastructure and enhance visitor services. 

Prior to the construction project, the 

construction site would be surveyed and 

assessed for significant archeological 

deposits. 

To the extent possible, the proposed 

construction would be located and 

designed to avoid archeological deposits. 

This would result in adverse impacts that 

would be negligible to minor, localized, 

and permanent. 

Stabilization of Fire Point Mound in the 

North Unit—Stabilizing and restoring the 

mound’s original dimensions would 

require additional soil to recreate the 

previous mound outline. Soil from outside 

the national monument, free of cultural 

materials, would be used. The existing 

mound deposits would not be disturbed. 

All stabilization work would be conducted 

and documented by a qualified 

professional archeologist. Stabilizing the 

mound would prevent further erosion and 

restore the mound’s appearance, resulting 

in a local, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Land Acquisition. Alternatives B and C 

would call for acquiring the Riverfront 

Tract located within the monument’s 

authorized boundary from willing sellers. 

After acquiring this tract, the monument 

would inventory any archeological 

resources on the properties and determine 

if any meet the significance criteria for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. Identifying and evaluating these 

resources would inform monument staff 

regarding the best manner to manage and 

protect these resources. In addition, park 

rangers would also have jurisdiction to 

protect these resources under federal 

preservation laws. These actions would 

result in local, long-term, beneficial effects. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, 

archeological resources in the region have 

been damaged due to ground disturbance 

associated with agriculture, residential 

development, and logging. Pothunting has 

also resulted in the loss of archeological 

resources, alteration of artifact 

distribution, and a reduction of contextual 

evidence. In addition, during the early 

development of the monument’s 

infrastructure, construction resulted in 

damage to surface deposits containing 

archeological materials. Adverse impacts 

resulting from these actions have been 

moderate to major and permanent. 

As described above, impacts associated 

with the implementation of alternatives B 

and C would result in permanent, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts. These 

negligible to minor adverse effects, in 

combination with the impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a permanent 

moderate adverse cumulative effect. 

However, most adverse impacts would be 

confined to small, localized areas or would 

be somewhat offset by beneficial impacts. 

The adverse effects associated with 

implementation of alternative B or C would 

be a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. The ground disturbing 

activities, trail work, and construction 

proposed under alternatives B and C 

would occur in areas that would avoid 

adverse impacts to cultural resources to the 

greatest extent possible. This would result 

in localized, negligible to minor, 

permanent, adverse impacts to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138 

archeological resources, or no impacts at 

all. 

Acquiring the Riverfront Tract and 

evaluating it for national register-eligible 

archeological resources would give park 

managers a baseline for managing these 

resources. Rangers would also have 

jurisdiction to protect these resources 

under federal preservation laws. These 

actions would result in long-term, local, 

beneficial impacts to archeological 

resources. 

Section 106 Summary. Most impacts 

under alternative B and alternative C could 

be mitigated. After applying the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria 

of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that the impacts 

common to alternatives B and C would 

have no adverse effect on archeological 

resources. Consultations with the state 

historic preservation officer and consulting 

tribes would occur to develop mitigation 

strategies. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

A cultural landscape inventory of Effigy 

Mounds National Monument for all but 

ethnographic landscapes has been 

completed and its results concurred by the 

Iowa state historic preservation officer. 

(The inventory is a computerized, 

evaluated inventory of all cultural 

landscapes within the national park system 

unit. Its purpose is to identify cultural 

landscapes and to provide information on 

location, historical development, 

character-defining features, and 

management). Two landscapes were 

identified: (1) Yellow River Cultural 

Landscape, encompassing the North and 

South Units and the Heritage Addition; 

and (2) Sny Magill Cultural Landscape, 

encompassing the entire Sny Magill Unit. 

Both were designated historic sites for their 

connection to an event, activity, or person. 

An ethnographic landscape may exist that 

is connected to contemporary American 

Indians. However, such a landscape has 

not been formally studied and an official 

determination has not been made. 

Therefore, effects of the alternatives on 

such an undefined landscape have not been 

attempted. 

For purposes of analyzing potential 

impacts, the thresholds of change for the 

intensity of an impact to cultural 

landscapes used in this general 

management plan are defined as follows: 

Negligible—Impact would be at the lowest 

levels of detection—barely perceptible or 

measurable. The determination of effect 

for section 106 would be no adverse effect. 

Minor—Impacts would be perceptible and 

measurable, but would be localized and 

confined to a single character defining 

pattern or feature. The determination of 

effect for section 106 would be no adverse 

effect. 

Moderate—Impacts to a character 

defining pattern(s) or feature(s) would not 

diminish the integrity of the landscape’s 

location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. The 

determination of effect for section 106 

would be adverse effect. 

Major—Impacts would result in 

substantial and highly noticeable changes 

to character defining pattern(s) or 

feature(s), diminishing the integrity of the 

landscape’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. The determination of effect for 

section 106 purposes would be adverse 

effect. 

The location and design of actions 

proposed under the alternatives would be 

guided by the recommendations made in 

an upcoming cultural landscape report. 

The report would make recommendations 

for preserving character-defining features 

of the cultural landscapes. These 
Cultural Resources 

139 

recommendations should minimize or 

reduce adverse effects. Treatment of the 

cultural landscapes would also be informed 

by the public access / trail development 

plan and long-range interpretive plan. 

Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives 

Several actions proposed in all of the 

alternatives could potentially impact one 

or both of the identified cultural 

landscapes. These potential impacts 

include the following: 

Ground Disturbance. The following 

actions could result in ground disturbance. 

Visitor Foot Traffic and Pothunting—Foot 

traffic on the mounds and pothunting 

excavations could lead to erosion that 

could compromise the integrity of the 

mounds. Ranger patrols, signage, and 

improved trail systems would reduce the 

incidence of these activities, and any 

adverse impacts would be local, negligible 

to minor, and permanent. 

Mound Maintenance—A cultural landscape 

report would be prepared in the near 

future to prescribe specific 

recommendations for mound 

maintenance, and what follows is based on 

what the National Park Serivce’s best 

assumptions are for what that report might 

recommend. 

The mounds associated with both 

identified cultural landscapes are 

character-defining features. Removal of 

trees and trees that have blown down 

could damage the mounds in localized 

areas. However, stabilization techniques 

(e.g., using clean fill to stabilize disturbed 

areas) would restore mound appearances. 

Maintaining mound appearances would 

result in a long-term, beneficial impact to 

the cultural landscapes of the monument. 

Mississippi River Bank Stabilization—

Materials used to stabilize banks along the 

Mississippi River in the Sny Magill Unit 

would create a visual intrusion to the 

landscape. This would create a long-term, 

minor, adverse impact to the landscape, 

but would be localized to the riverbanks. 

This impact would be offset by the longterm, beneficial effect of stabilizing bank 

erosion, which threatens the landscape 

integrity. 

Cumulative Effects. With the arrival of 

European settlement, the mounds that had 

survived centuries with little change began 

to disappear as lands were leveled for 

farms and towns. Forested areas were cut 

down and erosion damaged many mounds 

that had survived millennia. Agriculture, 

development, and logging continue today 

and would also occur in the future. 

Development has damaged mounds, 

altered historic land use and circulation 

patterns, and has changed the spatial 

relationship between landscape features 

and patterns, resulting in long-term 

moderate to major adverse impacts to 

cultural landscapes. 

In addition, natural viewsheds have been 

affected by commercial and industrial 

development across the Mississippi River 

in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where 

reflective surfaces (e.g., roofs) detract from 

the view. Rock and gravel mining 

operations are affecting views from the 

approach to the Sny Magill Unit. Impacts 

to cultural landscapes are adverse, 

moderate, and long term. 

As described above, impacts common to all 

alternatives would result in negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse impacts and 

long-term, beneficial impacts. These 

impacts, in combination with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

effect. However, many of the proposed 

actions would restore and protect the 

cultural landscapes; therefore, the adverse 

effects associated with the impacts 

common to all alternatives would be a 

small component of the adverse cumulative 

impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140 

Conclusion. Visitor foot traffic and 

pothunting could result in the loss of 

integrity of landscape character-defining 

features, such as the mounds. However, 

ranger patrols and visitor stewardship 

education would minimize these activities, 

resulting in a permanent, negligible to 

minor, localized, adverse impact. 

Most maintenance and stabilization 

activities common to all alternatives would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts because 

these would be designed to protect and 

preserve landscape character-defining 

features. 

Applying stabilization materials to portions 

of Mississippi River banks would have a 

long-term, moderately negative impact, 

which would be restricted to a small 

portion of the landscape. These impacts, in 

part, would be offset by the long-term, 

beneficial effect of stabilizing the 

riverbanks. 

Section 106 Summary. While most of the 

actions common to all the alternatives 

would have beneficial or minor to minor 

adverse impacts to landscape features, 

applying stabilization materials along 

Mississippi River banks would have a longterm, moderate, adverse effect. After 

applying the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service 

concludes that the actions common to all 

alternatives would have an adverse effect on 

cultural landscapes. Consultations with the 

state historic officer and consulting tribes 

would occur to develop mitigation 

strategies. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

There would be no additional impact to 

cultural landscapes associated with 

alternative A. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B or Alternative C 

Regarding cultural landscapes, alternatives 

B and C are the same except for two 

differences: (1) under alternative B, the 

existing trail in the Sny Magill Unit would 

be improved from the parking lot to the 

first set of mounds and under alternative C, 

the entire trail would be upgraded; and (2) 

the short maintenance access road in the 

North Unit would be abandoned and 

allowed to overgrow and return to nature 

in alternative B, but not under alternative 

C. This would result in beneficial impacts 

to cultural landscape as the intrusive road 

goes away. The following analysis pertains 

to both alternatives for all impacts except 

those relating to the Sny Magill trail. 

There are specific actions relating to trails 

development, construction, and land 

acquisitions under alternatives B and C 

that could impact cultural landscape 

defining features. 

Ground Disturbance. The following 

actions could result in ground disturbance: 

Trail and Road Development or Removal—

Alternatives B and C would propose 

several ground disturbing actions involving 

trails and roads. These projects would 

include 

 Yellow River bridge new trail 

connection to South Unit trail system 

 Heritage Addition Development of 

Old Roads as Trails / Trail 

Development 

 Heritage Addition New Trail 

Construction 

 Fire Point Trail Realignments 

 Sny Magill Trail Construction 

 Removal of Old Roads

To the extent possible, placement of trails 

and any associated wayside exhibits and 

signs would be designed to avoid impacting 
Cultural Resources 

141 

character-defining features in the cultural 

landscapes. This would result in negligible 

to minor, adverse impacts that would be 

localized. 

Converting old roads to trails and 

removing roads would lessen or eliminate 

their footprint on the landscapes, which 

would assist in returning the landscape to 

their moundbuilding era appearance. This 

would result in long-term, beneficial 

impacts in numerous locations throughout 

the monument. 

New trails constructed in the Heritage 

Addition, South Unit, and a realignment at 

Fire Point Mound would be located to 

have minimal impacts to character defining 

features of the landscapes. Signs and 

waysides associated with these trails also 

would be located to minimize impacts to 

landscape features. Upgrading the current 

trail at the Sny Magill Unit to a low-profile 

trail designed to provide accessibility 

during wet periods could introduce visual 

intrusions, which could result in local, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts to the 

landscape. 

Under alternative B, the upgraded trail 

would extend only to the first (most 

southern) set of mounds. The remainder of 

current trail would remain unimproved. 

Under alternative C, the entire trail would 

be upgraded. The upgraded portion(s) of 

the trail would encourage people to stay off 

the mounds. This would reduce damage to 

the mounds, which would have a longterm, beneficial effect. 

Careful design would ensure that the 

construction or improvement of trails and 

the installation of wayside exhibits and 

signs would minimally affect the scale and 

visual relationships among landscape 

features or circulation patterns and 

features. In addition, the topography, 

native vegetation patterns, and land use 

patterns would remain unaltered. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and 

range in intensity from negligible to minor. 

Stabilization of Fire Point Mound in the 

North Unit—Stabilizing and restoring the 

mound’s original dimensions would 

require additional soil to re-create the 

mound’s previous outline. Soil from 

outside the national monument, free of 

cultural materials, would be used. 

Stabilizing the mound would prevent 

further erosion. Restoring the mound 

appearance and preventing further erosion 

would result in a local, long-term, 

beneficial impact to the landscape. 

Land Acquisition—Alternative B and 

alternative C call for the acquisition of the 

Riverfront Tract located within the 

monument’s authorized boundary from 

willing sellers. After acquiring this tract, the 

monument would determine if the tract 

meets national register significance criteria 

as components of the cultural landscapes. 

Identifying and evaluating these resources 

would inform monument staff on the best 

manner to manage and protect these 

resources. In addition, park rangers would 

also have jurisdiction to protect these 

resources under federal preservation laws. 

These actions would result in local, longterm, beneficial effects. 

Ecosystem Restoration—Alternative B and 

C would propose removing nonnative 

plants and animals and using fire to 

manage the forest and meadow 

ecosystems. These actions would be 

designed to restore the landscapes to their 

moundbuilding era conditions. Restoring 

the ecosystems within the monument 

would have a long-term, beneficial impact 

throughout much of the monument. 

Cumulative Effects. With the arrival of 

European settlement, the mounds that had 

survived centuries with little change began 

to disappear as lands were leveled for 

farms and towns. Forested areas were cut 

down and erosion damaged many mounds 

that had survived millennia. Agriculture, 

development, and logging continue today 

and would also occur in the future. 

Development has damaged mounds and 

altered historic land use and circulation 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 

patterns and the spatial relationship 

between landscape features and patterns, 

resulting in long-term moderate to major 

adverse impacts to cultural landscapes. 

In addition, natural viewsheds have been 

affected by commercial and industrial 

development across the Mississippi River 

in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where 

reflective surfaces (e.g., roofs) detract from 

the view. Rock and gravel mining 

operations also are affecting views from the 

approach to the Sny Magill Unit. Impacts 

to cultural landscapes are adverse, 

moderate and long term. 

As described above, impacts associated 

with the implementation of alternatives B 

and C would result in negligible to minor, 

long-term, adverse impacts and long-term, 

beneficial impacts. These impacts, in 

combination with the impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term 

moderate adverse cumulative effect. 

However, many of the proposed actions 

would restore and protect the cultural 

landscapes. Therefore, the adverse effects 

associated with the impacts common to all 

alternatives would be a small component of 

the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Trail work and roadwork 

would be confined to previously disturbed 

areas or designed to avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts to landscape characterdefining features to the greatest extent 

possible. These ground disturbing activities 

could have negligible to minor, long-term, 

localized impacts to the cultural 

landscapes, or no impacts at all. Improved 

trail and road designs that encourage 

visitor to stay off the mounds would result 

in a long-term, beneficial impact 

throughout much of the monument. 

Acquiring the Riverfront Tract, stabilizing 

Fire Point Mound, and restoring 

landscapes would afford greater federal 

protection over new lands as well as 

protect and perpetuate character-defining 

landscape features. These actions would 

result in long-term, beneficial impacts 

throughout much of the monument. 

Overall, implementing alternative B or C 

would result in a long-term, 

monumentwide, beneficial impact and a 

long-term, monumentwide, negligible to 

minor, adverse impact on the monument’s 

cultural landscapes, which could be 

lessened through avoidance, mitigation, or 

design. 

Section 106 Summary. While many of the 

actions proposed for alternatives B and C 

would have beneficial or minor to 

moderate adverse impacts to landscape 

features, adding built features in the 

Heritage Addition and Sny Magill Unit 

could result in minor to moderate negative 

impacts. These could be lessened through 

proper placement and design. After 

applying the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service 

concludes that the actions associated with 

alternatives B and C would have no adverse 

effect on cultural landscape resources. 

Consultations with the state historic 

preservation officer and consulting tribes 

would occur to develop mitigation 

strategies. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Ethnographic resources are basic 

expressions of human culture and the basis 

for continuity of cultural systems. A 

cultural system encompasses both the 

tangible and the intangible. It includes 

traditional arts and native languages, 

religious beliefs, and subsistence activities. 

Some of these traditions are supported by 

ethnographic resources—special places in 

the natural world, structures with historic 

associations, and natural materials. 

Management of ethnographic resources 

acknowledges that culturally diverse 

groups have their own ways of viewing the 
Cultural Resources 

143 

world and a right to maintain their 

traditions. 

For purposes of analyzing potential 

impacts, the thresholds of change for the 

intensity of an impact to ethnographic 

resources used in this general management 

plan are defined as follows: 

Negligible—Impacts would be at the 

lowest levels of detection and barely 

perceptible. Impacts would neither alter 

resource conditions, such as traditional 

access or site preservation, nor alter the 

relationship between the resource and the 

associated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs. For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor—Impacts would be slight but 

noticeable and would neither appreciably 

alter resource conditions, such as 

traditional access or site preservation, nor 

alter the relationship between the resource 

and the associated group’s body of beliefs 

and practices. For purposes of section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Moderate—Impacts would be apparent 

and would alter resource conditions or 

interfere with traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship between 

the resource and the associated group’s 

beliefs and practices, even though the 

group’s practices and beliefs would 

survive. For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. 

Major—Impacts would alter resource 

conditions. Proposed actions would block 

or greatly affect traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship between 

the resource and the associated group’s 

body of beliefs and practices to the extent 

that the survival of a group’s beliefs or 

practices could be jeopardized. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination 

of effect would be adverse effect. 

Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives 

Actions relating to ethnographic resources 

would be the same for the no-action 

alternative and the two action alternatives. 

Following are the components of 

ethnographic resources that were analyzed 

in this document. 

Preservation of Mounds. The monument 

staff would work to retain the form and 

appearance of the mounds. This would 

preserve the integrity of ethnographic 

resources within the monument. These 

actions would not affect access to the 

mounds or American Indian ability to 

practice traditional beliefs. The result 

would be a site-specific monumentwide, 

long-term, beneficial impact. 

Ecosystem Restoration. The monument 

staff would work to restore the existing 

ecosystem by eliminating or minimizing the 

impact of nonnative species, encouraging 

the growth of native species, and 

implementing controlled burns. Most of 

these activities would not affect access to 

the mounds or American Indian groups’ 

ability to practice their traditional beliefs. 

Thus, these actions would result in a sitespecific monumentwide, long-term, 

beneficial impact. However, access could 

be limited for a short period (possible 

affecting the ability of a group to practice 

traditional beliefs) during prescribed 

burns. This would result in a short-term, 

minor, adverse impact to ethnographic 

resources during the recovery of burned 

areas. 

Maintenance of Natural Viewsheds and 

Soundscapes. The national monument 

staff would work to preserve viewsheds 

and soundscapes by protecting or restoring 

the landscapes and managing ambient 

sound levels. Access to the mounds would 

not be affected nor would American Indian 

groups’ ability to practice their traditional 

beliefs. Preserving these important features 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

would result in a monumentwide, longterm, beneficial impact. 

Nomination of Eligible Cultural 

Resources for Inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places. The surveys 

and research necessary to determine the 

eligibility of a resource for listing in the 

national register are a prerequisite for 

better understanding the resource’s 

significance, as well as the basis of 

informed decision making in the future 

regarding how the resource should be 

managed. This would result in a 

monumentwide, long-term, beneficial 

impact. 

Interpretation of Resources in a Manner 

Sensitive to the Sacred Nature of the 

Site. The national monument staff would 

interpret the site to help visitors 

understand the connections between 

American Indians and Effigy Mounds. For 

example, programs explaining 

contemporary tribal interpretation and 

association with the mounds could be 

developed with input and concurrence 

from consulting tribes. This would result in 

a monumentwide, long-term, beneficial 

impact. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past, 

agriculture, development, and logging have 

damaged or destroyed numerous 

ethnographic resources throughout the 

region or have limited tribal access to the 

resources that remain. These trends 

continue in the present and are expected to 

continue in the future. These have led to 

permanent, major, adverse impacts to 

ethnographic resources throughout the 

region. 

As described above, impacts common to all 

alternatives would result in minor, shortterm, adverse impacts and long-term, 

beneficial impacts. These impacts, in 

combination with the impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative effect. 

However, many of the adverse impacts of 

the alternatives would be localized, shortterm, and offset by beneficial impacts. 

Therefore, the adverse effects associated 

with the impacts common to all 

alternatives would be a very small 

component of the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Most actions described in the 

actions common to all alternatives would 

not result in loss of access or loss of the 

ability to practice tribal traditional beliefs 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

However, prescribed burns could 

temporarily limit access and the ability to 

carry out traditional practices. These 

minor, adverse impacts would be local and 

short term. 

The overall impact of actions common to 

all the alternatives would be long-term, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic 

resources and would not contribute to the 

overall adverse cumulative effect within the 

region. 

Section 106 Summary. Each of the actions 

common to alternatives A, B, and C would 

have long-term, beneficial effects on 

ethnographic resources. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the 

National Park Service concludes that the 

impacts common to all alternatives would 

have a no adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

See section titled “Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives.” 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B or Alternative C 

See section titled “Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives.” 
Cultural Resources 

145 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Museum collections (prehistoric and 

historic objects, artifacts, works of art, 

archival documents, manuscripts, and 

natural history specimens) are generally 

ineligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places. As such, section 

106 determinations of effect are not 

provided. However, such collections may 

be threatened by fire, theft, vandalism, 

natural disasters, and careless acts. The 

preservation of museum collections is an 

ongoing process of preventive 

conservation, supplemented by 

conservation treatment when necessary. 

The primary goal is preservation of 

artifacts in as stable condition as possible 

to prevent damage and to minimize 

deterioration. For purposes of analyzing 

potential impacts, the thresholds of change 

for the intensity of an impact to museum 

collections used in this general 

management plan are defined as follows: 

Negligible—Impact is at the lowest levels 

of detection, barely measurable with no 

perceptible consequences. 

Minor—Impact(s) would affect the 

integrity of few items in the museum 

collection but would not degrade the 

usefulness of the collection for future 

research and interpretation. 

Moderate—Impact(s) would affect the 

integrity of many items in the museum 

collection and diminish the usefulness of 

the collection for future research and 

interpretation. 

Major—Impact(s) would affect the 

integrity of most items in the museum 

collection and destroy the usefulness of the 

collection for future research and 

interpretation. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

In alternative A, collections would remain 

in the lower level of the visitor center. This 

area does not meet NPS museum 

collections standards. The national 

monument does not have a curator and 

often cannot accommodate visiting 

researchers. Because museum display 

conditions are outdated, only items not 

affected by a lack of light and temperature 

controls can be exhibited in the visitor 

center. Maintaining the museum 

collections under current conditions in the 

visitor center would result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse effect because 

storage conditions do not meet NPS 

museum collections standards. Current 

storage conditions would continue to have 

a long-term, moderate, adverse effect on 

the staff’s and visiting researchers’ ability 

to inspect and study the collections locally 

at the visitor center. 

Cumulative Effects. Numerous museums 

with archeological and archival collections 

exist throughout the upper Midwest as a 

result of excavations by universities, 

historical societies, and individuals over 

the last approximately 150 years. The 

collections within the national monument 

make up a small but significant portion of 

the whole body of knowledge of the 

moundbuilder culture. Because they 

contain some of the earliest systematic 

archeological work undertaken, they have 

a particular importance to the history of 

archeology. The preservation and study of 

these materials has greatly expanded our 

understanding of the moundbuilders, 

which has resulted in a long-term, regional, 

beneficial effect. 

As described above, impacts associated 

with the implementation of alternative A 

would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts to museum 

collections. These impacts, in combination 

with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 

would result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse, cumulative effect. The 

adverse effects associated with 

implementation of alternative A would be a 

substantial component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Items in the collections would 

continue to be stored and maintained in 

facilities that does not meet NPS museum 

collections standards. Items on display 

would continue to be limited to those that 

are not affected by the substandard 

conditions of the exhibit cases. Access to 

the collection would remain limited. 

Overall, the no-action alternative would 

have minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts due to inadequate storage 

conditions and the absence of research 

space. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B 

Alternative B calls for establishing a virtual, 

web-based research center to be 

maintained by park staff. The virtual 

center, in time, would have electronic data 

on objects in the collection (e.g., catalog 

data and scanned images) that could be 

easily shared locally, nationally, or even 

internationally. The virtual research center 

would be a long-term, moderate to major 

benefit because it would promote the 

research of museum objects and 

information sharing about moundbuilders. 

The virtual center would have the potential 

to reach a geographically dispersed 

audience via the Internet. 

Alternative B would call for relocating 

nonexhibit museum objects and archives to 

an off-site facility that fully meets NPS 

museum management standards or to 

improve the existing facility and staffing to 

more closely meet NPS museum 

collections standards. Due to concerns 

raised by traditionally associated tribes and 

other stakeholders, it may be preferable to 

keep the collections at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. The National Park 

Service (in consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer, Office of the 

State Archaeologist, and traditionally 

associated tribes) would evaluate regional 

options for the storage of the collections 

(including partnerships) and 

improvements to the existing facility and 

an increase in staffing to determine what is 

best for the long-term care of the 

collections. 

In alternative B, moving the collection to a 

facility that fully meets NPS museum 

collections standards or improving the 

existing facility to more closely meet NPS 

museum collections standards would 

afford better climate control, storage 

conditions, and security than the current 

facility. Both facilities would also have a 

staff member dedicated to the collections, 

which would enhance protection and 

accountability of the collections. Enhanced 

storage and a dedicated staff member 

would result in a long-term, local, 

beneficial impact to the collections. 

Cumulative Effects. Numerous museums 

with archeological and archival collections 

exist throughout the Upper Midwest as a 

result of excavations by universities, 

historical societies, and individuals over 

the last approximately 150 years. The 

collections within the national monument 

make up a small but significant portion of 

the whole body of knowledge of the 

moundbuilding culture. Because the 

collections contain some of the earliest 

systematic archeological work undertaken, 

they have particular importance to the 

history of archeology. The preservation 

and study of these materials has greatly 

expanded our understanding of the 

moundbuilders, resulting in a long-term, 

regional, beneficial effect. 

As described above, impacts associated 

with the implementation of alternative B 

would result in long-term beneficial 

impacts to museum collections. These 

impacts, in combination with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 
Cultural Resources 

147 

a long-term, beneficial impact. The 

beneficial effects associated with 

implementation of alternative B would be a 

substantial component of the beneficial 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. In alternatives B, the 

collections would be housed in a facility 

that fully meets or more closely meets NPS 

museum collections standards. The 

alternative would allow greater 

accessibility to the collections than 

currently available under alternative A. The 

impact to the preservation of the 

collections and their usefulness in the long 

term would be moderate to major and 

beneficial, locally, regionally, and possibly 

nationally or internationally. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative C 

Alternative C calls for establishing a 

physical research center on leased property 

within 10 miles of the park. The physical 

research center would have space where 

researchers could personally examine 

objects. The physical research center 

would be a long-term, moderate to major 

benefit because it would promote the 

research of museum objects and 

information sharing about moundbuilders. 

The physical center would have more of a 

local or regional impact. 

Both alternative B and C call for relocating 

nonexhibit museum objects and archives to 

an off-site facility that fully meets NPS 

museum management standards. The 

alternatives differ in the location of the 

facility. Under alternative B, the facility has 

yet to be determined. Under alternative C, 

the facility would be a leased property 

within 10 miles of the park. Under both 

alternatives, moving the collection to a 

facility that fully meets NPS museum 

collections standards would afford better 

climate control and storage conditions 

than the park’s visitor center basement. 

Both facilities would also have a staff 

member dedicated to the collections, 

which would enhance protection and 

accountability of the collections. Enhanced 

storage and a dedicated staff member 

would result in a long-term, local, 

beneficial impact to the collections. 

Under alternative C, the facility would be a 

leased property within 10 miles of the park. 

Under both alternatives, moving the 

collection to a facility that fully meets NPS 

museum collections standards would 

afford better climate control and storage 

conditions than the park’s visitor center 

basement. Both facilities would also have a 

staff member dedicated to the collections, 

which would enhance protection and 

accountability of the collections. Enhanced 

storage and a dedicated staff member 

would result in a long-term, local, 

beneficial impact to the collections. 

Cumulative Effects. Numerous museums 

with archeological and archival collections 

exist throughout the Upper Midwest as a 

result of excavations by universities, 

historical societies, and individuals over 

the last approximately 150 years. The 

collections within the national monument 

make up a small but significant portion of 

the whole body of knowledge of the 

moundbuilding culture. Because they 

contain some of the earliest systematic 

archeological work undertaken, they have 

particular importance to the history of 

archeology. The preservation and study of 

these materials has greatly expanded our 

understanding of the moundbuilders, 

resulting in a long-term, regional, 

beneficial effect. 

As described above, impacts associated 

with the implementation of alternative C 

would result in long-term beneficial 

impacts to museum collections. These 

impacts, in combination with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

a long-term, beneficial impact. The 

beneficial effects associated with 

implementation of alternative C would be a 

substantial component of the beneficial 

cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 

Conclusion. In alternative C, the 

collections would be housed in a facility 

that fully meets NPS museum collections 

standards. The alternative would allow 

greater accessibility to the collections than 

currently available under alternative A. The 

impact to the preservation of the 

collections and their usefulness in the long 

term would be moderate to major and 

beneficial, locally, regionally, and possibly 

nationally or internationally.
149 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

Analysis of natural resources was based on 

research, knowledge of monument 

resources, and the best professional 

judgment of planners, biologists, 

hydrologists, and botanists who have 

experience with similar types of projects. 

Information on natural resources was 

gathered from several sources, including 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and sitespecific resource inventories for wetlands, 

water quality, wildlife, fisheries, and 

vegetation. As appropriate, additional 

sources of data are identified under each 

topic heading. 

Where possible, map locations of sensitive 

resources were compared with the 

locations of proposed developments and 

modifications. Predictions about shortterm and long-term site impacts were 

based on previous experience with visitor 

and facilities development impacts on 

natural resources. 

The definitions below assume that 

mitigation would be implemented. For this 

document, the planning team qualitatively 

evaluated the impact intensity for natural 

resources using specific methodology and 

threshold definitions. 

SOILS 

Predictions about site impacts were based 

on knowledge of impact on soils from 

development of visitor and operations 

facilities under similar circumstances. 

Short-term impacts are those expected to 

last one year or less while long-term 

impacts would last longer than one year. 

The following categories were used to 

evaluate the potential impacts on soils: 

Negligible—The impact on soils would be 

slight and largely unnoticeable. Any effects 

on productivity or erosion potential would 

not be measurable. 

Minor—An action would change a soil’s 

profile in a relatively small area, but it 

would not appreciably increase the 

potential for erosion of additional soil. 

Moderate—An action would result in a 

change in quantity or alteration of the 

topsoil, overall biological productivity, or 

the potential for erosion to remove small 

quantities of additional soil. Changes to 

localized ecological processes would be of 

limited extent. 

Major—An action would result in a change 

in the potential for erosion to remove large 

quantities of additional soil or in alterations to topsoil and overall biological productivity in a relatively large area. Key 

ecological processes would be altered and 

landscape-level changes would be 

expected. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

A continuation of minimal impacts on soil 

resources would be expected as a result of 

implementing alternative A. There would 

be no new construction or new ground 

disturbing actions under this alternative. 

Therefore, this alternative would have no 

effect on soil resources. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil 

resources that have occurred or would 

occur include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and 

construction of infrastructure such as 

utility lines and roadways. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

150 

Farming, grazing, quarrying, and logging 

have occurred historically around and in 

the units of the monument before it was 

established. The only place this did not 

occur was where the topography was so 

rough that it prevented efficient 

agricultural or timber operations. These 

activities have adversely impacted the soils 

to varying degrees by affecting compaction, 

displacement, erodibility, and nutrient 

content. 

Impacts on soils have also occurred in the 

national monument. Construction of 

service and public roads, structures, trails, 

and other developments in the monument 

have disturbed soils and affected 

productivity of the land. Impacts from 

existing roads and developments in the 

monument would remain. Resource 

management activities such as prescribed 

burning affect soil by direct heating and 

increasing the potential for erosion after 

burning until revegetation occurs. 

Prescribed burns would not be allowed to 

get hot enough to sterilize the soil. Impacts 

from existing roads and developments in 

the monument would remain as no 

removal of these developments is 

prescribed in the no-action alternative. 

Because this alternative would have no new 

effect on soils, there would be no projectrelated cumulative effect. 

Conclusion. If implemented, alternative A 

would have no impacts to soil resources in 

the monument. There would be no projectrelated cumulative effect. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B 

A portion of the trail at Sny Magill would 

be improved according to a site 

development plan that would be prepared 

after completion of this general 

management plan. This trail would most 

likely be on or near the alignment of the 

existing trail, so short-term adverse 

impacts would be negligible, caused by soil 

disturbance and possible loss by wind and 

water erosion during construction. By 

keeping visitors on the trail, impacts to 

soft, wet soil would be alleviated, so longterm impacts to soils would be beneficial 

and negligible. The proposed visitor 

contact station would be built on disturbed 

ground on acquired land and would have 

no new effect on monument soils. 

Actions proposed in this alternative also 

include construction of visitor trails in the 

Heritage Addition and South Unit. Some 

existing logging roads would be converted 

to trails according to a public access/ trail 

development plan. 

Impacts to soils from the actions described 

above would include removal or 

displacement of topsoil during 

construction and changes to erosion 

potential. These short-term impacts would 

be minor and adverse. Long-term impacts 

from these actions would include ongoing 

soil compaction and possible erosion, and 

are anticipated to be negligible to minor 

and adverse. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil 

resources that have occurred or would 

occur include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and 

construction of infrastructure such as 

utility lines and roadways. 

Farming, grazing, quarrying, and logging 

have occurred historically around and in 

the units of the monument before it was 

established. The only place this did not 

occur was where the topography was so 

rough that it prevented efficient 

agricultural or timber operations. These 

activities have adversely impacted soils to 

varying degrees by affecting characteristics 

such as compaction, displacement, 

erodibility, and nutrient content. 

Impacts on soils have also occurred in the 

national monument. Construction of 

service and public roads, structures, trails, 

and other developments in the monument 

have disturbed soils and have affected 
Natural Resources 

151 

productivity of the land. Impacts from 

existing roads and developments in the 

monument would remain. Resource 

management activities such as prescribed 

burning affect soil by direct heating and 

increasing the potential for erosion after 

burning until revegetation occurs. Properly 

conducted prescribed burns would not be 

allowed to get hot enough to sterilize the 

soil. 

Alternative B would have negligible to 

minor adverse impacts to soil resources 

and, when considered in combination with 

the above minor adverse impacts on soil 

resources, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. Alternative B would 

have a small contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have 

short-term, minor, adverse impacts and 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts to soil resources in the monument. 

It would result in a minor, adverse, 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative C 

The trail would be improved at Sny Magill 

according to a site development plan that 

would be prepared after completion of this 

general management plan. This trail would 

most likely be on or near the alignment of 

the existing trail but longer than in 

alternative B. Short-term adverse impacts 

would be negligible, caused by soil 

disturbance and possible loss by wind and 

water erosion during construction. By 

confining visitors to the trail, impacts to 

soft, wet soil would be alleviated, so longterm impacts to soils would be beneficial 

and negligible. The proposed visitor 

contact station would be built on disturbed 

ground on acquired land and would have 

no new effect on monument soils. 

Actions proposed in this alternative also 

include construction of visitor trails in the 

Heritage Addition and the South Unit. 

Some existing logging roads would be 

converted to trails according to a public 

access / trail development plan. 

Impacts to soils from the actions described 

would include removal or displacement of 

topsoil during construction and changes to 

erosion potential. These short-term 

impacts would be minor and adverse. 

Long-term impacts from these trails would 

include soil compaction and possible 

erosion, and are anticipated to be 

negligible to minor and adverse. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil 

resources that have occurred or would 

occur include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and 

construction of infrastructure such as 

utility lines and roadways. 

Farming, grazing, quarrying, and logging 

have occurred historically around and in 

the units of the monument before it was 

established. The only place this did not 

occur was where the topography was so 

rough that it prevented efficient 

agricultural or timber operations. These 

activities have adversely impacted soils to 

varying degrees by affecting characteristics 

such as compaction, displacement, 

erodibility, and nutrient content. 

Impacts on soils have also occurred in the 

national monument. Construction of 

service and public roads, structures, trails, 

and other developments in the monument 

have disturbed soils and have affected 

productivity of the land. Impacts from 

existing roads and developments in the 

monument would remain. Resource 

management activities such as prescribed 

burning affect soil by direct heating and 

increasing the potential for erosion after 

burning until revegetation occurs. Properly 

conducted prescribed burns would not be 

allowed to get hot enough to sterilize the 

soil. 

Alternative C would have negligible to 

minor adverse impacts to soil resources 

and, when considered in combination with 

the above minor adverse impacts on soil 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

152 

resources, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. Alternative C would 

have a small contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have 

short-term, minor, adverse impacts and 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts to soil resources in the monument. 

It would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

Included in this general management plan 

is the assessment to determine if the 

Yellow River is eligible and suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (appendix D). The National 

Park Service has found that the 3.5-mile 

segment of the Yellow River that flows 

through the monument is suitable and is 

recommending it for designation as a 

national wild and scenic river. Therefore, 

the river must be managed to prevent any 

change to the characteristics that make it 

suitable for wild and scenic river 

designation. The National Park Service 

compared the management actions for 

each alternative with the criteria identified 

in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and 

associated NPS policies to determine if the 

river’s free-flowing character or identified 

outstandingly remarkable values would be 

affected. 

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact 

would last less than 1 year following implementation of an action. A long-term impact 

would last longer than 1 year after 

implementing the action. 

Intensity of Impact. The intensity or 

magnitude of impacts on wild and scenic 

river values have been described as 

negligible, minor, moderate, or major. 

Negligible—Impacts would have no 

discernible effect on wild and scenic river 

values. 

Minor—Impacts would be detectable and 

affect a limited area that meets wild and 

scenic river suitability. 

Moderate—Impacts would be sufficient to 

cause a change in the wild and scenic river 

values and they would be readily apparent. 

Major—Impacts would substantially alter 

the wild and scenic river values, eliminating 

the characteristics that meet the criteria for 

consideration as wilderness. 

Type of Impact. Impacts were classified as 

adverse if they would adversely affect wild 

and scenic river values or integrity. 

Conversely, impacts were classified as 

beneficial if they would enhance wild and 

scenic river values or integrity. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would not cause any changes 

to current situations affecting the wild and 

scenic river suitability characteristics of the 

Yellow River. Existing conditions and 

influences on the outstandingly remarkable 

values identified for the river would 

continue as they are now. 

There would be no new development or 

change in existing development in the river 

corridor under this alternative; therefore, 

there would be no effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, 

residential development, and commercial 

land uses in the Yellow River watershed 

have removed water, disrupted natural 

runoff, disturbed natural precipitation 

percolation, and adversely affected water 

quality. The river is listed on Iowa’s 

impaired waters list for high levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria, possibly from upstream 

concentrated animal feeding operations. 

Three bridges have been built over the 

Yellow River near its mouth—one 

pedestrian bridge in the monument and a 

highway bridge and railroad bridge outside 
Natural Resources 

153 

the monument. The National Park Service 

currently has no control or jurisdiction 

over the Yellow River outside the 

monument. If the river were to be 

designated, the National Park Service 

would review project proposals to 

determine if there would be any impacts to 

Wild and Scenic River values. 

These actions have resulted in minor 

adverse impacts on the Yellow River. This 

alternative would not contribute to these 

impacts and therefore would have no 

project-related cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have no 

effect on the Yellow River’s wild and 

scenic river values. Because this alternative 

would have no effect, there would be no 

project-related cumulative effects. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B 

This alternative would not result in any 

changes to current situations affecting the 

wild and scenic rivers suitability 

characteristics of the Yellow River. 

Existing conditions and influences on the 

outstandingly remarkable values identified 

for the river would continue as they are 

now. 

There would be no other development or 

change in existing development in the 

Yellow River corridor under this 

alternative. Therefore, there would be no 

effect on wild and scenic rivers values. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, 

residential development, and commercial 

land uses in the Yellow River watershed 

have removed water, disrupted natural 

runoff, disturbed natural precipitation 

percolation, and adversely affected water 

quality. The river is listed on Iowa’s 

impaired waters list for high levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria, possibly from upstream, 

contained animal feeding operations. 

Three bridges have been built over the 

river near its mouth—a pedestrian bridge 

in the monument, and a highway bridge 

and a railroad bridge outside the 

monument. The National Park Service 

currently has no control or jurisdiction 

over the Yellow River outside the 

monument. If the river were to be 

designated, the National Park Service 

would review project proposals according 

to section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act to determine if there would be any 

impacts to wild and scenic river values. 

These actions have resulted in minor 

adverse impacts on the Yellow River. This 

alternative would not contribute to these 

impacts and therefore would have no 

project-related cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have no 

effect on the Yellow River’s wild and 

scenic rivers values and suitability. Because 

this alternative would have no effect, there 

would be no project-related cumulative 

effects. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative C 

This alternative would not result in any 

changes to current situations affecting the 

wild and scenic rivers suitability 

characteristics of the Yellow River. 

Existing conditions and influences on the 

outstandingly remarkable values identified 

for the river would continue as they are 

now. 

There would be no new development or 

change in existing development in the river 

corridor under this alternative; therefore, 

there would be no effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, 

residential development, and commercial 

land uses in the Yellow River watershed 

have removed water, disrupted natural 

runoff, disturbed natural precipitation 

percolation, and adversely affected water 

quality. The river is listed on Iowa’s 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 

impaired waters list for high levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria, possibly from upstream, 

contained animal feeding operations. 

Three bridges have been built over the 

river near its mouth—a pedestrian bridge 

in the monument, and a highway bridge 

and railroad bridge outside the monument. 

The National Park Service currently has no 

control or jurisdiction over the Yellow 

River outside the monument. If the river 

were to be designated, the National Park 

Service would review project proposals 

according to section 7 of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act to determine if there 

would be any impacts to wild and scenic 

rivers values. 

These actions have resulted in minor 

adverse impacts on the Yellow River. This 

alternative would not contribute to these 

impacts and therefore would have no 

project-related cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have no 

effect on the Yellow River’s wild and 

scenic rivers suitability. Because this 

alternative would have no effect, there 

would be no project-related cumulative 

effects. 

VEGETATION 

Impacts were assessed qualitatively. Information was gleaned from general 

documents such as the monument’s 

resource management plan, and results of 

site-specific surveys. Predictions about 

impacts were based on previous experience 

with development impacts on natural 

resources. 

Negligible—The impact on vegetation 

(individuals and/or communities) would be 

at such a low intensity that it would not be 

measurable. The abundance or distribution 

of individuals would be only slightly 

affected. Ecological processes and 

biological productivity would not be 

affected. 

Minor—An action would not necessarily 

decrease or increase the area’s overall 

biological productivity. An action would 

affect the abundance or distribution of 

individuals in a localized area but would 

not affect the viability of local or regional 

populations or communities. 

Moderate—An action would result in a 

change in overall biological productivity in 

a small area. An action would affect a local 

population sufficiently to cause a change in 

abundance or distribution, but it would not 

affect the viability of the regional population or communities. Changes to ecological 

processes would be of limited extent. 

Major—An action would result in overall 

disruption of biological productivity in a 

relatively large area. An action would affect 

a regional or local population of a species 

sufficiently to cause a change in abundance 

or in distribution to the extent that the 

population or communities would not be 

likely to return to its/their former level 

(adverse), or would return to a sustainable 

level (beneficial). Key ecological processes 

would be altered. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

A continuation of minimal impacts on 

vegetation would be expected as a result of 

implementing alternative A. There would 

be no new construction but existing 

impacts from park development and use 

would continue. These actions include 

trails park roads, vegetation manipulation 

on the major mound groups, and riverbank 

stabilization. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting 

vegetation that have occurred or would 

occur include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and 

construction of infrastructure such as 

utility lines and roadways. 
Natural Resources 

155 

Farming, ranching, and logging have 

occurred historically around and in the 

units of the monument before it was 

established. The only place this did not 

occur was where the topography was so 

rough it prevented efficient agricultural or 

timber operations. Much of the native 

forest in the area has been cut down for 

lumber or to clear land for planting crops. 

More than a century of fire suppression 

has also affected vegetation. These 

activities adversely impacted native 

vegetation communities by disrupting 

natural plant succession, replacing native 

vegetation with monotypic nonnative 

plants (crops), and introducing noxious 

weeds that outcompete native vegetation 

for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients. 

Impacts on vegetation also occurred in the 

national monument. Construction of 

service and public roads, structures, trails, 

and other developments in the monument 

removed vegetation. Impacts from existing 

roads and developments in the monument 

would remain. Resource management 

activities, such as prescribed burning, 

attempt to restore natural vegetative 

succession and increase plant diversity. 

Alternative A would involve a continuation 

of negligible and minor adverse impacts 

and, when considered in combination with 

the above minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on vegetation, would result in a 

minor adverse cumulative impact. The noaction alternative would have a slight 

contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A 

would result in a continuation of negligible 

and minor, adverse impacts to vegetation 

in the monument. It would result in a 

minor adverse cumulative impact. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would result in small changes 

in the level of development at the 

monument that could affect vegetation. 

A portion of the existing trail at Sny Magill 

would be improved according to a site 

development plan to be prepared. 

Construction of the trail would result in 

the loss of vegetation, but since the trail 

would be short and most likely be on the 

alignment of the existing trail, short-term 

and long-term adverse impacts would be 

negligible. A small visitor contact station 

would be built on disturbed ground on 

acquired land and would have no new 

effect on monument vegetation. 

Under this alternative, the short 

maintenance access road in the north part 

of the North Unit would be abandoned 

and allowed to rehabilitate naturally. This 

would be a beneficial impact as native 

vegetation repopulates the former road. 

Actions proposed in this alternative also 

include construction of visitor trails in the 

Heritage Addition and the South Unit. 

Trails would be established primarily on 

old logging roads according to a public 

access / trail development plan. A 

connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit would be constructed. Impacts 

would include loss of vegetation in the 

construction corridors—about one acre 

total. Short-term impacts would be minor 

and adverse. Long-term impacts from 

these trails are anticipated to be negligible 

and adverse and include a permanent loss 

of a small amount of vegetation and 

potential increase in the spread of exotic 

plants. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting 

vegetation that have occurred or would 

occur include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and the 

construction of infrastructure such as 

utility lines and roadways. 

Farming, ranching, and logging have 

occurred historically around and in the 

units of the monument before it was 

established. The only place this did not 

occur was where the topography was so 

rough that it prevented efficient 

agricultural or timber operations. Much of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

the native forest in the area has been cut 

down at one time or another for lumber or 

to clear land for planting crops. More than 

a century of fire suppression has also 

affected the current vegetation 

communities. These activities have 

adversely impacted native vegetation 

communities by disrupting natural plant 

succession, replacing native vegetation 

with unnatural monotypic plants (crops), 

and introducing noxious weeds that outcompete native vegetation for sunlight, 

moisture, and nutrients. 

Impacts on vegetation have also occurred 

in the national monument. Construction of 

service and public roads, structures, trails, 

and other developments in the monument 

have removed vegetation. Impacts from 

existing roads and developments in the 

monument would remain. Resource 

management activities, such as prescribed 

burning, attempt to restore natural 

vegetative succession and increase plant 

diversity. 

Alternative B would have short-term and 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts and a 

long-term beneficial impact. When 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

vegetation, alternative B would result in a 

minor to moderate, adverse, cumulative 

impact. Alternative B would have a modest 

contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative B 

would have short-term and long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts and a long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impact to vegetation 

in the monument. It would result in a 

minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would result in small changes 

in the level of development at the 

monument that could affect vegetation. 

The trail at Sny Magill would be improved 

according to a site development plan to be 

prepared. Construction of the trail would 

result in the loss of vegetation, but since 

this would most likely be on the alignment 

of the existing trail, short-term and longterm adverse impacts would be negligible. 

A small visitor contact station would be 

built on disturbed ground on acquired land 

and would have no new effect on 

monument vegetation. 

Actions proposed in this alternative also 

include construction of visitor trails in the 

Heritage Addition and the South Unit. An 

access trail to get visitors and monument 

operations into the Heritage Addition 

would be constructed according to a public 

access/ trail development plan. Additional 

trails would be established primarily on old 

logging roads. A connecting trail from the 

bridge into the South Unit would be 

constructed. Impacts would include loss of 

vegetation in the construction corridors—

about one acre total. Short-term impacts 

would be minor and adverse. Long-term 

impacts from these trails are anticipated to 

be negligible and adverse and include a 

slight permanent loss of vegetation and 

possible increase in the spread of exotic 

plants. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting 

vegetation that have occurred or would 

occur include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and the 

construction of infrastructure such as 

utility lines and roadways. 

Farming, ranching, and logging have 

occurred historically around and in the 

units of the monument before it was 

established. The only place this did not 

occur was where the topography was so 

rough that it prevented efficient 

agricultural or timber operations. Much of 

the native forest in the area has been cut 

down at one time or another for lumber or 

to clear land for planting crops. More than 

a century of fire suppression has also 

affected vegetation. These activities have 

adversely impacted native vegetation 
Natural Resources 

157 

communities by disrupting natural plant 

succession, replacing native vegetation 

with unnatural monotypic plants (crops), 

and introducing noxious weeds that outcompete native vegetation for sunlight, 

moisture, and nutrients. 

Impacts on vegetation have also occurred 

in the national monument. Construction of 

service and public roads, structures, trails, 

and other developments in the monument 

have removed vegetation. Impacts from 

existing roads and developments in the 

monument would remain. Resource 

management activities, such as prescribed 

burning, attempt to restore natural 

vegetative succession and increase plant 

diversity. 

Alternative C would have short-term and 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts. When 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

vegetation, alternative C would result in a 

minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impact. Alternative C would have a modest 

contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would have short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts to vegetation in the monument. It 

would result in a minor, adverse 

cumulative impact. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Impacts on fish and wildlife are closely 

related to impacts on habitat. The analysis 

considered whether actions would be 

likely to displace some or all individuals of 

a species in the monument or would result 

in loss or creation of habitat conditions 

needed for the viability of local or regional 

populations. Impacts associated with fish 

and wildlife might include any change in 

habitat quality or quantity, food supply, 

protective cover, or distribution or 

abundance of species. 

Short-term impacts are those expected to 

last during construction and for one year 

or less—allowing for vegetation recovery 

and for wildlife to become accustomed to 

the new structure. Long-term impacts 

would be those that last longer than one 

year. 

Negligible—The impact would not be 

measurable on individuals, and the local 

populations would not be affected. 

Minor—An action would affect the 

abundance or distribution of individuals in 

a localized area but would not affect the 

viability of local or regional populations. 

Moderate—An action would affect a local 

population sufficiently to cause a minor 

change in abundance or distribution but 

would not affect the viability of the 

regional population. 

Major—An action would affect a regional 

or local population of a species sufficiently 

to cause a change in abundance or in 

distribution to the extent that the 

population would not be likely to return to 

its former level (adverse), or would return 

to a sustainable level (beneficial). 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

There would be no changes in 

management of fish, wildlife, or habitat in 

the monument. 

There may be a continuation of long-term 

negligible, adverse impacts from fear and 

avoidance reactions to human use of the 

trails. 

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife 

populations have been affected by human 

activities such as agricultural, commercial, 

and residential land uses and the 

introduction of nonnative species. There 

have been minor to moderate adverse 

impacts in the form of habitat loss or 

disruption associated with these activities. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

Establishment of the national monument 

and acquisition of the Heritage Addition 

resulted in long-term beneficial impacts on 

wildlife by preserving these pieces of 

habitat and eliminating hunting. However, 

elimination of hunting is a reason being 

cited by locals for the recent unnatural 

increase in the white tail deer population. 

This high density of deer is causing some 

resource damage. 

Spread of nonnative zebra mussels into the 

Mississippi River and its tributaries results 

in adverse effects from the disruption of 

natural lake and river ecosystems. 

The no-action alternative would contribute 

a slight adverse increment to these effects 

and, when considered in combination with 

the above minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on fish and wildlife, would result 

in a minor, adverse cumulative impact to 

fish and wildlife resources. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A 

would result in a continuation of negligible 

adverse impacts to fish and wildlife in the 

monument. It would result in a minor 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B 

Some small changes to available habitat 

would be expected as a result of 

implementing alternative B. 

A short trail at Sny Magill would be 

constructed according to a site 

development plan that would be prepared 

for this unit. Short-term minor adverse 

impacts in the form of wildlife fear and 

avoidance reactions would occur during 

the construction phase. Long-term adverse 

impacts would be negligible because the 

trail would most likely be built near the 

existing trail and would be low enough that 

animals would have no trouble crossing it. 

The visitor contact station would be built 

on disturbed ground on acquired land and 

have no effect on habitat in the monument. 

Trails would be established on old logging 

roads in the Heritage Addition. A 

connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit would be constructed. 

Impacts of these actions would include loss 

of habitat in the construction corridors—

about one acre total. Short-term impacts to 

wildlife would be minor and adverse 

during construction from the increased 

human presence and noise. Long-term 

impacts from this development, such as 

disturbance from trail users, are 

anticipated to be negligible and adverse. 

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife 

populations have been affected by human 

activities such as agricultural, commercial, 

and residential lands uses and the 

introduction of nonnative species. Quality 

habitat available for wildlife has been 

increasingly restricted and fragmented. 

Hunting and the extirpation of natural 

predators have adversely affected 

population structure and dynamics of 

game species. There have been direct and 

indirect, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts associated with these conditions. 

Establishment of the national monument 

and acquisition of the Heritage Addition 

have resulted in long-term beneficial 

impacts on wildlife by preserving these 

pieces of habitat and eliminating hunting. 

However, elimination of hunting is a 

reason being cited by locals for the recent 

unnatural increase in the white-tail deer 

population. This high density of deer is 

causing some resource damage. 

The spread of nonnative zebra mussels into 

the Mississippi River and its tributaries 

results in adverse effects from disruption of 

natural lake and river ecosystems. 

Alternative B would result in short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts and long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts. When 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate adverse impacts, 

alternative B would result in a minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact to 
Natural Resources 

159 

fish and wildlife resources. Alternative B 

would provide a small adverse 

contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing the alternative 

B would result in short-term minor adverse 

impacts and long-term negligible adverse 

impacts to fish and wildlife. Cumulative 

effects would be minor to moderate and 

adverse. 

Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative C 

Some small changes to available habitat 

would be expected as a result of 

implementing alternative C. 

A trail would be constructed at Sny Magill 

or the existing trail would be improved 

according to a site development plan that 

would be prepared for this unit. Shortterm, minor, adverse impacts in the form of 

wildlife fear and avoidance reactions 

would occur during the construction 

phase. Long-term adverse impacts would 

be negligible because the trail would most 

likely be built near the existing trail and 

would be low enough that animals would 

have no trouble crossing it. The visitor 

contact station would be built on disturbed 

ground on acquired land and have no 

effect on habitat in the monument. 

Construction of visitor trails would also 

occur in the Heritage Addition and the 

South Unit. Trails would be established on 

old logging roads in the Heritage Addition. 

A connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit would be constructed. 

Impacts of these actions would include loss 

of habitat in the construction corridors—

about one acre total in addition to the oneacre parking area. Short-term impacts to 

wildlife would be minor and adverse 

during construction from the increased 

human presence and noise. Long-term 

impacts from this development, such as 

disturbance from trail users, are 

anticipated to be negligible and adverse. 

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife 

populations have been affected by human 

activities such as agricultural, commercial, 

and residential lands uses and the 

introduction of nonnative species. Quality 

habitat available for wildlife has been 

increasingly restricted and fragmented. 

Hunting and the extirpation of natural 

predators have adversely affected 

population structure and dynamics of 

game species. There have been direct and 

indirect, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts associated with these conditions. 

Establishment of the national monument 

and acquisition of the Heritage Addition 

have resulted in long-term beneficial 

impacts on wildlife by preserving these 

pieces of habitat and eliminating hunting. 

However, elimination of hunting is a 

reason being cited by locals for the recent 

unnatural increase in the white-tail deer 

population. This high density of deer is 

causing some resource damage. 

The spread of nonnative zebra mussels into 

the Mississippi River and its tributaries 

results in adverse effects from the 

disruption of natural lake and river 

ecosystems. 

Alternative C would result in short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts and long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts. When 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts, 

alternative C would result in a minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact to 

fish and wildlife resources. Alternative C 

would provide a small adverse 

contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would result in short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts to fish and wildlife. Cumulative 

effects would be minor to moderate and 

adverse. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Through coordination with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources, listed 

species were identified that may be located 

in or near the monument. Information on 

each species, including their preferred 

habitat, prey, and foraging areas was 

gathered. Park staff then collected more 

specific information such as the absence or 

presence of each species within the 

monument boundaries. Short-term 

impacts would last one year or less; longterm impacts would occur for more than 

one year. For special status species, the 

following impact intensities were used. 

These definitions are consistent with the 

language used to determine effects on 

threatened and endangered species under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

No effect—The action would have no 

effect on the special status species or 

critical habitat. 

Negligible—The action could result in a 

change to a population or individuals of a 

species or designated critical habitat, but 

the change would be so small that it would 

not be of any consequence and would be 

within natural variability. This impact 

intensity equates to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” determination. 

Minor—The action could result in a 

change to a population or individuals of a 

species or designated critical habitat. The 

change would be measurable, but would be 

small and localized. This impact intensity 

equates to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

determination. 

Moderate—The action could result in a 

detectable change to a population or 

individuals of a species or designated 

critical habitat. Changes to the population 

or habitat might deviate from natural 

variability but the changes would not 

threaten the continued existence of the 

species in the park. This impact intensity 

equates to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

or a “likely to adversely affect” 

determination. 

Major—The action would result in a 

noticeable effect on the viability of a 

population or individuals of a species or 

designated critical habitat. Changes to the 

population or habitat would substantially 

deviate from natural variability and either 

threaten or help ensure the continued 

existence of the species in the park. A 

major adverse impact would be considered 

a “take” situation and would equate to a 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “likely to 

adversely affect” determination. 

“Not likely to adversely affect” is the 

appropriate conclusion when effects on 

listed species are expected to be 

discountable, insignificant, or completely 

beneficial. Beneficial effects would be 

wholly beneficial without any adverse 

effects to the species. Insignificant effects 

relate to the size of the impact and should 

never reach the scale where take occurs. 

Discountable effects are those extremely 

unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, 

a person would not (1) be able to 

meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate 

insignificant effects; or (2) expect 

discountable effects to occur. 

Short-term impacts are those expected to 

last during construction and typically up to 

one year—allowing for vegetation recovery 

and for wildlife to become accustomed to 

the new structure. Long-term impacts 

would last longer than one year. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

This alternative would continue current 

management of the national monument 

with no changes in wildlife or habitat 

management. The existing trails do not 

occur in habitat that is known to be used by 

any of the special status species. 
Natural Resources 

161 

Therefore, there would be no effect on the 

federal listed Higgins eye pearlymussel, 

Iowa Pleistocene snail, prairie bush clover, 

western prairie fringed orchid, northern 

monkshood, or state listed species. 

Cumulative Effects. Habitat loss or 

disruption is the most common reason for 

a terrestrial species to become threatened 

or endangered. Loss or fragmentation of 

habitat has occurred in the region as a 

result of commercial and residential 

development, road construction, and 

agriculture. Incremental development 

continues to adversely affect the 

abundance and diversity of wildlife by 

changing the capacity of habitats to 

provide necessary food, shelter, and 

reproduction sites. Wildlife is slowly 

becoming more restricted by current land 

uses, increasing development, and human 

activity, causing individuals and 

populations to either adapt or move. This 

trend is anticipated to continue. 

The Iowa Pleistocene snail has such 

stringent habitat criteria that it is especially 

susceptible to habitat disturbance. 

Although the snail has not been found on 

the monument, specific habitat conditions 

exist for its survival and these are now 

protected by the National Park Service. 

General threats in the Driftless Area 

include the spraying of 2,4,5-T, a defoliant. 

This spraying is being done to convert 

forest and brush land into pasture for 

livestock grazing. Necessary habitat 

components for some species may be 

removed. 

Establishment of the national monument 

and acquisition of the Heritage Addition 

resulted in long-term beneficial impacts on 

plants and animals by preserving these 

pieces of habitat. 

Because this alternative would not 

contribute to the impacts of other past, 

present, or foreseeable future actions, 

there would be no project-related 

cumulative impacts on federal listed or 

other special status species. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would have no effect on the federal listed 

Higgins eye pearlymussel, Iowa Pleistocene 

snail, prairie bush clover, western prairie 

fringed orchid, northern monkshood, or 

state listed species. There would be no 

project-related cumulative effects on 

federal listed or other special status 

species. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B 

Although there would be some slight 

changes in the development footprint 

under this alternative, they would not 

occur in known habitat for any of the listed 

animal species. As part of standard 

mitigating measures, a complete clearance 

of project areas would be conducted by 

qualified personnel prior to any construction to ensure that no special status species 

would be harmed. 

This alternative recommends designation 

of the Yellow River as a national wild and 

scenic river. This designation would 

protect and preserve its free-flowing 

nature and habitat qualities in perpetuity, 

resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to 

aquatic special status species such as the 

Higgins eye pearlymussel. 

Therefore, this alternative may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect, the federal 

listed Higgins eye pearlymussel, Iowa 

Pleistocene snail, prairie bush clover, 

western prairie fringed orchid, northern 

monkshood, or state listed species. 

Cumulative Effects. Habitat loss or 

disruption is the most common reason for 

a terrestrial species to become threatened 

or endangered. Loss or fragmentation of 

habitat has occurred in the region as a 

result of commercial and residential 

development, road construction, and 

agriculture. Incremental development 

continues to adversely affect the 

abundance and diversity of wildlife by 

changing the capacity of habitats to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 

provide necessary food, shelter, and 

reproduction sites. Wildlife is slowly 

becoming more restricted by current land 

uses, increasing development, and human 

activity, causing individuals and 

populations to either adapt or move. This 

trend is anticipated to continue. 

General threats in the Driftless Area 

include the spraying of 2,4,5-T, a defoliant. 

This spraying is being done to convert 

forest and brush land into pasture for 

livestock grazing. Necessary habitat 

components for some species may be 

removed by this practice. 

The Iowa Pleistocene snail has such 

stringent habitat criteria that it is especially 

susceptible to habitat disturbance. 

Although the snail has not been found on 

the monument, specific habitat conditions 

exist for its survival and these are now 

protected by the National Park Service. 

The impacts of other past, present, or 

foreseeable future actions are both 

beneficial and adverse, but the cumulative 

impacts are considered moderate and 

adverse. Alternative B would have a slight 

contribution to these effects that is both 

adverse and beneficial and, when 

considered in combination with the actions 

listed above, would result in a minor, 

adverse, cumulative impact on special 

status species. 

Conclusion. If implemented, alternative B 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, the federal listed Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, western prairie fringed 

orchid, northern monkshood, or state 

listed species. There would be minor, 

adverse, cumulative effects on federal 

listed or other special status species. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative C 

Although there would be some slight 

changes in the development footprint 

under this alternative, they would not 

occur in known habitat for any of the listed 

animal species. As part of standard 

mitigating measures, a complete clearance 

of project areas would be conducted by 

qualified personnel prior to any construction to ensure that no special status species 

would be harmed. 

This alternative recommends designation 

of the Yellow River as a national wild and 

scenic river. This designation would 

protect and preserve its free-flowing 

nature and habitat qualities in perpetuity, 

resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to 

aquatic special status species such as the 

Higgins eye pearlymussel. 

Therefore, this alternative may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect, the federal 

listed Higgins eye pearlymussel, Iowa 

Pleistocene snail, prairie bush clover, 

western prairie fringed orchid, northern 

monkshood, or state listed species. 

Cumulative Effects. Habitat loss or 

disruption is the most common reason for 

a terrestrial species to become threatened 

or endangered. Loss or fragmentation of 

habitat has occurred in the region as a 

result of commercial and residential 

development, road construction, and 

agriculture. Incremental development 

continues to adversely affect the 

abundance and diversity of wildlife by 

changing the capacity of habitats to 

provide necessary food, shelter, and 

reproduction sites. Wildlife is slowly 

becoming more restricted by current land 

uses, increasing development, and human 

activity, causing individuals and 

populations to either adapt or move. This 

trend is anticipated to continue. 

General threats in the Driftless Area 

include the spraying of 2,4,5-T, a defoliant. 

This spraying is being done to convert 

forest and brush land into pasture for 

livestock. Necessary habitat components 

for some species may be removed by this 

practice. 
Natural Resources 

163 

The Iowa Pleistocene snail has such 

stringent habitat criteria that it is especially 

susceptible to habitat disturbance. 

Although the snail has not been found on 

the monument, specific habitat conditions 

exist for its survival and these are now 

protected by the National Park Service. 

The impacts of other past, present, or foreseeable future actions are both beneficial 

and adverse, but the cumulative impacts 

are considered moderate and adverse. 

Alternative C would have a slight 

contribution to these effects that is both 

adverse and beneficial and, when 

considered in combination with the actions 

listed above, would result in a minor, 

adverse, cumulative impact on special 

status species. 

Conclusion. If implemented, alternative C 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, the federal listed Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, western prairie fringed 

orchid, northern monkshood, or state 

listed species. There would be minor, 

adverse, cumulative effects on federal 

listed or other special status species. 

VISUAL RESOURCES/VIEWSHEDS 

The impact intensity of a development on a 

viewshed depends on the type of development, its location, and what mitigation is 

applied. For example, a development in the 

foreground of a viewshed has a much 

larger impact than the same development 

located 2 or more miles away. Mitigation 

could involve unobtrusive design or colors. 

All three factors are evaluated together to 

determine the level of impact a proposed 

development would have. 

For the purposes of this analysis, a 

viewshed is defined as the landscape seen 

from key observation points identified in 

the “Affected Environment” chapter of this 

plan. The foreground is defined as that part 

of the viewshed from the observation point 

to the first horizon/line of sight (e.g., a 

ridge top) or a line 2 miles away, whichever 

is closer. The middle ground is defined as 

that part of the viewshed 2 to 5 miles from 

the observation point. The background is 

everything more than 5 miles from the 

observation point. 

Assessments of potential impacts on 

viewsheds were based on comparisons 

between the no-action alternative and the 

action alternatives. Short-term impacts 

would last less than one year; long-term 

impacts would occur for one year or more. 

The following intensity definitions were 

used. 

Negligible—The action would not detract 

from existing natural views; proposed 

development in the foreground, middle 

ground, or background would be 

essentially unnoticeable. 

Minor—The action would be noticeable to 

some observers but would not detract from 

natural views. There could be small 

changes to existing form, line, texture, or 

color in the background. 

Moderate—The action would be 

noticeable to most observers and may 

detract from natural views in a limited 

portion of a viewshed. There could be 

modest changes to existing form, line, 

texture, or color in the middle ground or 

background. 

Major—The action would be immediately 

noticeable and would detract from the 

natural setting in most of a viewshed. It 

would result in large changes to existing 

form, line, texture, or color in the 

foreground, middle ground, or 

background, or portions of the natural 

viewscape would be obstructed. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, there would be no 

impacts on visual resources of the 

monument. 

Cumulative Effects. Natural viewsheds 

enjoyed from the monument have been 

adversely affected by commercial and 

industrial development across the 

Mississippi River in Prairie du Chien, 

Wisconsin, where reflective surfaces (e.g., 

roofs) detract from the view. Rock and 

gravel mining operations also affect views 

from the North Unit and the approach to 

the Sny Magill Unit. These actions have 

resulted in long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

The agricultural practice of clearing off 

trees and brush from ridgetops to plant 

crops also affects viewsheds, but this may 

approximate the look of natural prairies 

and meadows that once occurred in the 

area and so may have no effect. 

Establishment of the monument, Yellow 

River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State 

Park has served to create havens of 

nondevelopment that could become 

increasingly important as rural 

development continues to expand so they 

have a long-term beneficial effect. 

Because this alternative would have no 

effect on visual resources or viewsheds, 

there would be no project-related 

cumulative effect. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative, if 

implemented, would have no impact on 

visual resources in the monument. There 

would be no project-related cumulative 

effect. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B 

Alternative B includes actions that would 

affect visual resources. 

Construction of visitor trails would occur 

in the Heritage Addition and the South 

Unit. Trails would be established on old 

logging roads in the Heritage Addition. A 

connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit would be constructed. Impacts 

would be greatest during and immediately 

after construction of these trails as changes 

occur to the line, form, and texture of the 

natural landscape. Once vegetation 

regrows around the trails, these impacts 

would become less noticeable. Short-term 

impacts to viewsheds would be minor and 

adverse while long-term impacts would be 

negligible and adverse because no more 

than one new trail could be seen from any 

observation point. 

At the Sny Magill Unit, new development 

would include an improved trail and a 

visitor contact structure. The trail would be 

most likely placed on top of the existing 

trail so the short-term and long-term 

impacts would be negligible and adverse. 

The small visitor contact structure would 

be built on acquired land west of the unit 

and there would be long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts expected to viewsheds 

from the unit. 

Cumulative Effects. Natural viewsheds 

enjoyed from the monument have been 

adversely affected by commercial and 

industrial development across the 

Mississippi River in Prairie du Chien, 

Wisconsin, where reflective surfaces (e.g., 

roofs) detract from the view. Rock and 

gravel mining operations also affect views 

from the North Unit and the approach to 

the Sny Magill Unit. These actions have 

resulted in long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

The agricultural practice of clearing off 

trees and brush from ridge tops to plant 

crops also affects viewsheds, but this may 

approximate the look of natural prairies 

and meadows that once occurred in the 

area and so may have no measurable effect. 

Establishment of the monument, Yellow 

River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State 
Natural Resources 

165 

Park has served to create havens of 

undeveloped areas that could become 

increasingly important as rural 

development continues to expand so they 

have a long-term beneficial effect. 

Alternative B would have short-term and 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts. When 

considered in combination with the above 

minor, adverse impacts on visual resources, 

the alternative B would result in a minor, 

adverse, cumulative impact. Alternative B 

would have a modest adverse contribution 

to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative B 

would have short-term and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

visual resources in the monument. 

Cumulative effects would be minor and 

adverse. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative C 

Alternative C includes actions that would 

affect visual resources. 

Construction of visitor trails would occur 

in the Heritage Addition and the South 

Unit. An access trail to get visitors and 

monument operations into the Heritage 

Addition would be constructed. Additional 

trails would be established on old logging 

roads. A connecting trail from the bridge 

into the South Unit would be constructed. 

Impacts would be greatest during and 

immediately after construction of these 

trails as changes occur to the line, form, 

and texture of the natural landscape. Once 

vegetation regrows around the trails, these 

impacts would become less noticeable. 

Short-term impacts to viewsheds would be 

minor and adverse while long-term 

impacts would be negligible and adverse 

because no more than one new trail could 

be seen from any observation point. 

At the Sny Magill Unit, new development 

would include an improved trail and a 

visitor contact structure. The trail would be 

most likely built on top of the existing trail 

so the short-term and long-term impacts 

would be minor and adverse. The small 

visitor contact structure would be built on 

acquired land west of the unit and there 

would be long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts expected to viewsheds from the 

unit. 

Cumulative Effects. Natural viewsheds 

enjoyed from the monument have been 

adversely affected by commercial and 

industrial development across the 

Mississippi River in Prairie du Chien, 

Wisconsin, where reflective surfaces (e.g., 

roofs) detract from the view. Rock and 

gravel mining operations also affect views 

from the North Unit and the approach to 

the Sny Magill Unit. These actions have 

resulted in long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

The agricultural practice of clearing off 

trees and brush from ridge tops to plant 

crops also affects viewsheds, but this may 

approximate the look of natural prairies 

and meadows that once occurred in the 

area and so may have no measurable effect. 

Establishment of the monument, Yellow 

River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State 

Park has served to create havens of 

undeveloped areas that could become 

increasingly important as rural 

development continues to expand so they 

have a long-term beneficial effect. 

Alternative C would have short-term and 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts. When 

considered in combination with the above 

minor, adverse impacts on visual resources, 

this alternative would result in a minor, 

adverse, cumulative impact. Alternative C 

would provide a modest adverse 

contribution to this impact. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would have short-term and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

visual resources in the monument. 

Cumulative effects would be minor and 

adverse.
166 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

METHODOLOGY 

This impact analysis considers various 

aspects of visitor use and experience at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, 

including visitors’ ability to experience the 

park’s primary resources and their natural 

and cultural settings (including vistas, 

natural sounds and smells, and wildlife); 

overall visitor access to the park; the 

freedom to experience the resources at 

one’s own pace, visitor safety (both actual 

and perceived); opportunities for 

recreational activities; and opportunities 

for people with disabilities. The analysis is 

based on how visitor use and experiences 

would change with the way management 

prescriptions were applied in the 

alternatives. The analysis is primarily 

qualitative rather than quantitative due to 

the conceptual nature of the alternatives. 

Impacts on visitor use and experience were 

determined considering the best available 

information regarding visitor use and 

experience. 

Consultation with American Indian groups 

has revealed that these groups are 

concerned not only about the preservation 

of cultural resources and properties, but 

also about the need to interpret the 

sacredness of the area from an American 

Indian perspective. 

For analysis purposes, impact duration, 

intensities, and types for visitor experience 

impact topics have been defined as follows: 

Duration of Impact 

A short-term impact would affect only one 

season’s use by visitors. A long-term 

impact would last more than 1 year and 

would be more permanent in nature. 

Intensity of Impact 

Impacts were evaluated comparatively 

between alternatives, using the no-action 

alternative as a baseline for comparison 

with each action alternative: 

Negligible—Visitors would likely be 

unaware of any effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative. 

Minor—Changes in visitor use and/or 

experience would be slight but detectable, 

would affect few visitors, and would not 

appreciably limit or enhance experiences 

identified as fundamental to the park’s 

purpose and significance. 

Moderate—Some characteristics of visitor 

use and/or experience would change, and 

many visitors would likely be aware of the 

effects associated with implementation of 

the alternative; some changes to 

experiences identified as fundamental to 

the park’s purpose and significance would 

be apparent. 

Major—Multiple characteristics of visitor 

experience would change, including 

experiences identified as fundamental to 

the park’s purpose and significance; most 

visitors would be aware of the effects 

associated with implementation of the 

alternative. 

Type of Impact 

Adverse impacts are those that most 

visitors would perceive as undesirable. 

Beneficial impacts are those that most 

visitors would perceive as desirable. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

167 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Visitor Experience and Interaction 

with Resources 

Continuation of current management 

strategies and trends with no substantial 

change in visitor opportunities, services, 

and facilities would extend currently 

identified impacts on the visitor 

experience. 

The current visitor center and adjacent 

parking area would be maintained and 

subsequent noise and activity may 

continue to adversely impact visitor 

experience in the developed area. 

Crowding in the visitor center due to 

intermittent heavy visitation and 

educational groups, especially in inclement 

weather, would continue to adversely 

impact some visitors to the area and its 

resources. As the visitor center is the 

primary venue for visitors to receive 

significant personal and nonpersonal 

interpretive services, this would likely 

affect other aspects of their visit as well. 

Visitors to the Heritage Addition would 

experience this area mainly on their own 

with occasional ranger-led activities and 

canoeing being the primary activities to 

interact with the resources. Some visitors 

to this area may experience minor adverse 

impacts if they attempt to explore this area 

without obtaining adequate wayfinding 

and interpretive information at the visitor 

center or from a ranger prior to their visit. 

Visitors to the North Unit would continue 

to find access to personal interpretive 

services and nonpersonal services, mainly 

at the visitor center, and interpretive 

wayside exhibits. However, some lack of 

access to personal services may degrade 

the visitor experience by causing visitor 

frustration over being unable to get 

adequate information and interpretation 

they need. 

The opportunity to experience a quiet 

contemplative setting in the South Unit 

would continue to be valuable to many 

visitors, although others may find the lack 

of personal services to be a minor 

detriment. 

The Sny Magill Unit would continue to be 

managed primarily for resource 

preservation and not for visitor 

convenience. The opportunity to 

experience the mounds in this relatively 

primitive setting, with few park-provided 

amenities, would continue to be an 

attraction for some visitors and a detriment 

for others. 

Opportunities are offered at all units for 

many types of experiences—from social 

interactions in developed areas to solitude 

in natural settings and from brief visits in 

visitor contact stations to extended visits 

exploring the grounds and trails. 

Continuing to have this diversity of 

opportunities available would result in an 

on-going, moderate, long-term benefit to 

visitors seeking experiences that meet 

individual needs to fit time constraints, 

levels of interest, educational level, or 

physical ability. 

Orientation and Information 

Continuation of current practices would 

provide visitors the opportunity to visit 

these units, but primary orientation for all 

the units would continue to take place at 

the visitor center. If visitors miss or forgo 

the opportunity to experience the visitor 

center’s multifaceted interpretive 

opportunities and personal interactions, it 

could moderately affect their visit and 

subsequent desire to return again. 

NPS staff in the visitor center provides 

quality orientation and information to 

visitors. However, some visitors tour the 

monument without going to the visitor 

center. Continuation of this situation 

creates a moderate beneficial long-term 

impact on those visitors who do go to the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 

center and a minor to moderate adverse 

impact on visitors who do not go to the 

center. The impact is considered adverse 

because they do not receive the important 

interpretation and orientation to fully 

appreciate the monument. Under this 

alternative, wayfinding signs would be 

maintained and installed where needed, 

which may allay some potential adverse 

impact on visitor experience. 

Visitors to the South Unit would receive 

the majority of their information and 

interpretation through nonpersonal media 

including wayside exhibits and 

publications. Sny Magill Unit visitors 

would also receive the majority of their 

orientation and interpretation at the visitor 

center prior to visiting this unit. 

Interpretation and Education 

Existing formal and informal interpretation 

and resource education at the visitor center 

and on ranger-led activities in the various 

units would continue a moderate beneficial 

impact on visitors to the site. 

At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and 

Sny Magill Unit, the low level of 

interpretive staffing, unmarked and 

unmaintained trails, and the absence of 

access provide minimal opportunities for 

self-guided exploration and learning about 

key resources and stories at these units. 

Continuation of these conditions would 

result in a long-term minor adverse impact 

on visitors to these units. 

Safety 

Safety information would continue to be 

available at the visitor center and on trail 

signs. Lack of potable water and public 

restrooms may continue to present safety 

issues to visitors in the isolated units. South 

Unit trail access in the current location 

adjacent to the highway would continue to 

place visitors who choose to use these trails 

at risk of an automobile/pedestrian 

collision. Visitors who choose not to walk 

the trail would not have access to highquality landscapes and the section of this 

unit that best reflects the moundbuilding 

culture. 

Cumulative Effects 

The lack of wayfinding guidance for 

visitors approaching the park from the east 

has and would continue to confuse some 

visitors. Local chambers of commerce, 

museums, and other attractions offer some 

visitor information and interpretation 

related to Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. 

Visitation trends would likely increase in 

the long-term. This could result in 

congestion at parking and activity sites. 

Some visitors might experience a sense of 

crowding, especially during scheduled 

special events and when educational 

groups are visiting. Increased visitation and 

time spent at the national monument 

would result in short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts during events; long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts would result 

by development of increased or renewed 

public interest in the mounds and related 

American Indian culture. 

This alternative would not result in any 

new actions that would contribute to these 

effects and so would not have any 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

Implementing the no-action alternative 

would result in the continuation of longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts 

and minor beneficial impacts to aspects of 

visitor use and experience but would not 

result in any new impacts. Because actions 

proposed in this alternative would have no 

new effects on visitor use and experience, 

there would be no project-related 

cumulative impacts. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

169 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Visitor Experience and Interaction 

with Resources 

This alternative emphasizes enhanced 

visitor experience with greater 

understanding and protection of the area’s 

cultural and natural resources. 

The visitor center and parking area would 

remain at their current location. The 

interior of the visitor center would be 

reconfigured to take advantage of the extra 

space created by moving administrative 

personnel to offices in the former housing 

units. This move is providing additional 

space for modification of the exhibit, sales 

area, and visitor contact area. The result 

would be a minor beneficial impact on 

visitor experience due to the reduction in 

crowding and enhanced visitor access to 

exhibits and interpretive personnel. Visitor 

experience would be further enhanced due 

to the greater depth of information and 

interpretive content afforded by the 

improved facilities and reconfigured 

exterior. Some short-term, adverse impacts 

would occur to visitor experience during 

remodeling construction. 

The proposed trail at the Sny Magill Unit 

would be shorter than the existing trail and 

so would reduce visitors’ ability to see and 

appreciate the whole mound group. This 

would create a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact on visitor experience and 

understanding. 

Visitors to the Heritage Addition would 

experience this area mainly on their own. 

Primary activities would include hiking, 

wildlife viewing, and canoeing, with 

occasional ranger-conducted activities. 

Visitors would receive the majority of 

orientation and initial interpretation at the 

visitor center, to avoid impacting the 

contemplative nature of the site. Visitor 

experiences at this unit would be 

moderately enhanced via the trails and 

improved information available at the 

visitor center, however, visitors may 

continue to experience minimal adverse 

impacts if they access the area without 

experiencing the visitor center first, due to 

lack of information. Educational 

experiences utilizing the Yellow River and 

adjacent wetlands would offer enhanced 

educational opportunities as well. 

Visitors to the North Unit would 

encounter greater opportunities to 

experience and understand the park 

resources through enhanced personal 

services including ranger-guided hikes and 

talks. Visitor experience would be further 

enhanced by extension and realignment of 

some trails, accompanied by appropriate 

upgrades and renovations of nonpersonal 

interpretive media. Visitor experiences at 

this unit would be moderately enhanced 

via the expanded information and 

interpretation available at the improved 

visitor center, however Visitors may 

continue to experience minimal adverse 

impacts if they access the area without 

experiencing the visitor center first. 

Visitors to the South Unit would continue 

to receive the majority of their information 

and interpretation through nonpersonal 

media including wayside exhibits and 

publications. Visitor experience would be 

moderately enhanced by extension and 

realignment of some trails, upgrades and 

renovations of nonpersonal interpretive 

media, and the opportunity to understand 

the influence that the natural world had on 

the moundbuilders. Additionally, visitors 

would be better able to explore and 

understand the 19th century American 

Indian culture. The opportunity to 

experience a quiet contemplative setting 

would continue to be valuable to many 

visitors, although some may find the lack of 

personal services to be a minor detriment. 

The Sny Magill Unit would continue to be 

managed for resource preservation, 

however interpretation of the site would 

expand. Visitor use would continue to be 

somewhat limited and resources would be 

monitored to protect them from visitor 

impacts. A visitor contact station would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 

established near the unit and visitors would 

benefit from increased personal services, 

including ranger-guided walks and 

demonstrations. Some nonpersonal 

services like wayside exhibits and 

expanded publications would be created 

and distributed, but these services would 

be introduced so as not to impact the 

scene. Visitor experience would receive a 

minor, beneficial impact from these 

changes and additions. 

Opportunities would increase in all units 

for many types of experiences—from social 

interactions in developed areas to solitude 

in natural settings and from brief visits in 

visitor contact stations to extended visits 

exploring the grounds and trails. An 

expanded diversity of opportunities 

available would result in an on-going 

moderate long-term benefit to visitors 

seeking experiences that meet individual 

needs to fit time constraints, levels of 

interest, educational level, or physical 

ability. 

Orientation and Information 

The expansion of nonpersonal interpretive 

media in the North, South, Heritage and 

Sny Magill units and providing a visitor 

contact station at the Sny Magill Unit 

would improve orientation and 

interpretive opportunities for visitors, 

especially those who do not experience a 

primary orientation at the visitor center. 

Visitors who miss or forgo the opportunity 

to experience the visitor center’s 

multifaceted interpretive opportunities and 

personal interactions could still experience 

a minor, adverse impact during their visit, 

but the overall experience for the majority 

of park visitors would show minor to 

moderate improvement. Some of this 

impact may also be offset by the use of new 

technology to enhance the visitor’s 

experience in pre-trip planning and at the 

site. 

Under this alternative, primary orientation 

for the monuments would be at the 

renovated visitor center. The central 

location of the visitor center would provide 

opportunity for visitors who arrive at the 

center before visiting other units to acquire 

the information needed to decide what 

type of visit they would enjoy and which 

zone(s) would accommodate them the 

best. The visitor contact facility at the Sny 

Magill Unit would provide specific unit 

information and orient visitors to the site 

and the other units. This combination of 

renovated visitor facilities would result in a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact for 

visitors who utilized the contact center 

prior to exploring the other units. 

Interpretation and Education 

Enhanced formal and informal 

interpretation and resource education at 

the visitor center, at the visitor contact 

station in Sny Magill, and on ranger-led 

activities in the various units would create a 

minor, beneficial impact on visitors to the 

site. The reduction in crowding at the 

reconfigured main visitor center and 

enhanced visitor access to exhibits and 

interpretive personnel would produce a 

minor, beneficial impact on visitor 

experience there. 

At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and 

Sny Magill Unit, the higher level of 

interpretive staffing, new trails, and the 

enhanced nonpersonal interpretive media 

would expand opportunities for selfguided exploration and learning about key 

resources and stories at these units. An 

expansion of the resource education 

program in concert with the new research 

center would greatly benefit visitors, 

students, and researchers. These changes 

would result in a long-term, major, 

beneficial impact on most visitors and their 

experience here. 

Two additional interpretive division 

employees would be needed to staff these 

units year-round in this alternative. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

171 

Safety 

Safety information would continue to be 

available at the visitor center, at the new 

visitor contact station in the Sny Magill 

Unit and from renovated orientation and 

information signs in all of the park’s units. 

Lack of potable water and public 

restrooms would continue to present safety 

issues to visitors at the isolated units. 

Some visitors might still experience a sense 

of crowding, especially during scheduled 

special events and when there is a 

concentration of school children in that 

area. Increases in visitation and time spent 

at the national monument would result in 

short-term, minor, adverse impacts during 

these events. 

Cumulative Effects 

Some lack of wayfinding guidance for 

visitors approaching the park from the east 

may confuse some visitors. The number of 

state and county parks and forests in the 

region may cause some visitors to be 

unaware that Effigy Mounds is a national 

monument managed by the National Park 

Service. This could be partially offset by 

the information provided by local 

chambers of commerce, museums, and 

other attractions. 

Visitation trends would likely increase in 

the long-term. This could result in 

congestion at parking and activity sites. 

Some visitors might experience a sense of 

crowding, especially during scheduled 

special events and when educational 

groups are visiting. Increased visitation and 

time spent at the national monument 

would result in short-term minor adverse 

impacts during events; long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts would result by 

development of increased or renewed 

public interest in the mounds and related 

American Indian culture. 

Future development on private land at the 

national monument’s borders would 

adversely impact the scenic views as well as 

cause sound encroachment, adversely 

affecting visitor experience. 

When the beneficial and adverse impacts 

discussed above are considered in 

combination with the moderate beneficial 

impacts of this alternative, the resulting 

cumulative effects on the visitor experience 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. This alternative’s contribution 

to these effects would be modest. 

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative B would result in 

several minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts and a long-term minor adverse 

effect on the visitor experience. The overall 

cumulative impacts would be long-term, 

minor, and beneficial, and this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be 

modest. 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Visitor Experience and 

Interaction with Resources 

This alternative emphasizes enhanced 

visitor experience with greater 

understanding and protection of the area’s 

cultural and natural resources. The 

construction of a regional research center 

would solidify the monument’s pivotal role 

in mound research and management, 

greatly enhancing the interpretive 

division’s ability to work more effectively 

with other divisions in revealing resource 

meanings and creating expanded 

opportunities for superior visitor 

experiences. 

The visitor center and parking area would 

remain at their current location. The 

interior of the visitor center would be 

reconfigured to take advantage of the extra 

space created by moving the administrative 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 

personnel to offices in the former housing 

units. This move is providing additional 

space for modification of the exhibit, sales 

area, and visitor contact area. The result 

would produce a minor, beneficial impact 

on visitor experience due to the reduction 

in crowding and the enhanced visitor 

access to exhibits and interpretive 

personnel. Visitor experience would be 

further enhanced due to the greater depth 

of information and interpretive content 

afforded by the improved facilities and 

reconfigured exterior. Some short-term 

adverse impacts would occur to visitor 

experience during remodeling 

construction. 

Expanded visitor access to the mound 

groups, notably the groups at the Sny 

Magill Unit, with enhanced accessibility, 

would contribute to a greater diversity of 

visitor experience and greater insight into 

the natural and cultural resources 

preserved in the monument. The quality of 

visitor experience would continue to be 

enhanced by encouraging a quiet and 

contemplative exploration of the 

monument’s resources. Combined, this 

would create a major long-term beneficial 

impact on visitor experience and 

understanding. 

Visitors to the Heritage Addition would 

experience this area mainly on their own. 

Primary activities would include hiking, 

wildlife viewing, and canoeing, with 

occasional ranger-conducted activities. 

Visitors would receive the majority of 

orientation and initial interpretation at the 

visitor center, to avoid impacting the 

contemplative nature of the site. Visitor 

experiences at this unit would be 

moderately enhanced via the trails and 

improved information available at the 

visitor center, however, visitors may 

continue to experience minimal adverse 

impacts if they access the area without 

experiencing the visitor center first, due to 

lack of information. Educational 

experiences utilizing the Yellow River and 

adjacent wetlands would offer enhanced 

educational opportunities as well. 

Visitors to the North Unit would 

encounter greater opportunities to 

experience and understand the park 

resources through enhanced personal 

services including ranger-guided hikes and 

talks. Visitor experience would be further 

enhanced by extension and realignment of 

some trails, accompanied by appropriate 

upgrades and renovations of nonpersonal 

interpretive media. Visitor experiences at 

this unit would be enhanced via the 

expanded information and interpretation 

available at the improved visitor center, 

however visitors may continue to 

experience minimal adverse impacts if they 

access the area without experiencing the 

visitor center first. 

Visitors to the South Unit would continue 

to receive the majority of their information 

and interpretation through nonpersonal 

media including wayside exhibits and 

publications. Visitor experience would be 

moderately enhanced by extension and 

realignment of some trails, upgrades and 

renovations of nonpersonal interpretive 

media, and the opportunity to understand 

the influence that the natural world had on 

the moundbuilders. Additionally, visitors 

would be better able to explore and 

understand the 19th century American 

Indian culture. The opportunity to 

experience a quiet contemplative setting 

would continue to be valuable to many 

visitors, although some may find the lack of 

personal services to be a minor detriment. 

The Sny Magill Unit would continue to be 

managed for resource preservation, 

however visitor access to and 

interpretation of the site would expand. 

Visitor use would continue to be somewhat 

limited and resources would be monitored 

to protect them from visitor impacts. A 

visitor contact station would be established 

and visitors would benefit from increased 

personal services, including ranger-guided 

walks and demonstrations. Some 

nonpersonal services like wayside exhibits 

and expanded publications would be 

created and distributed, but these services 

would be introduced so as not to impact 
Visitor Use and Experience 

173 

the scene. Visitor experience would be 

moderately enhanced by these changes and 

additions. 

Opportunities would increase in all units 

for many types of experiences—from social 

interactions in developed areas to solitude 

in natural settings and from brief visits in 

visitor contact stations to extended visits 

exploring the grounds and trails. An 

expanded diversity of opportunities 

available would result in an on-going 

moderate long-term benefit to visitors 

seeking experiences that meet individual 

needs to fit time constraints, levels of 

interest, educational level, or physical 

ability. 

Orientation and Information 

The expansion of nonpersonal interpretive 

media in the North Unit, South Unit, 

Heritage Addition, and Sny Magill Unit 

and providing a visitor contact station at 

the Sny Magill Unit would improve 

orientation and interpretive opportunities 

for visitors, especially those who do not 

experience a primary orientation at the 

visitor center. Visitors who miss or forgo 

the opportunity to experience the visitor 

center’s multifaceted interpretive 

opportunities and personal interactions 

could still experience a minor, adverse 

impact during their visit, but the overall 

experience for the majority of park visitors 

would show a minor improvement. The 

use of new technology would enhance the 

visitor’s experience in pre-trip planning 

and at the site. 

Under this alternative, primary orientation 

for the monument would be at the 

renovated visitor center. The central 

location of the visitor center would provide 

opportunity for visitors who arrive at the 

center before visiting other units to acquire 

the information needed to decide what 

type of visit they would enjoy and which 

zone(s) would accommodate them the 

best. The small visitor contact facility at the 

Sny Magill Unit would provide specific 

unit information and orient visitors to the 

site, the off-site visitor center, and the 

other units. This combination of renovated 

visitor facilities would create a moderate 

long-term beneficial impact for visitors 

who utilized these two contact centers 

prior to exploring the other units. 

Interpretation and Education 

Enhanced formal and informal 

interpretation and resource education at 

the visitor center, at the visitor contact 

station in the Sny Magill Unit, and on 

ranger-led activities in the various units 

would create a moderate to major 

beneficial impact on visitors to the site. The 

reduction in crowding at the primary 

visitor center and enhanced visitor access 

to exhibits and interpretive personnel 

would produce a minor beneficial impact 

on visitor experience there. 

At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and 

Sny Magill Unit, the higher level of 

interpretive staffing, upgraded and rerouted trails and viewing platforms, and 

the enhanced nonpersonal interpretive 

media would expand opportunities for 

self-guided exploration and learning about 

key resources and stories at these units. 

These changes would result in a long-term 

minor beneficial impact on most visitors 

and their experience here. 

Two additional interpretive division 

employees would be needed to staff these 

units year-round in this alternative. 

Safety 

Safety information would continue to be 

available at the visitor center, at the new 

visitor contact station in the Sny Magill 

Unit and from renovated orientation and 

information signs in all of the park’s units. 

Lack of potable water and public 

restrooms would continue to present safety 

issues to visitors at the isolated units. 

Some visitors might still experience a sense 

of crowding, especially during scheduled 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 

special events and when there is a 

concentration of school children in that 

area. Increases in visitation and time spent 

at the national monument would result in 

short-term, minor, adverse impacts during 

these events. 

Cumulative Effects 

Some lack of wayfinding guidance for 

visitors approaching the park from the east 

may confuse some visitors. The number of 

state and county parks and forests in the 

region may cause some visitors to be 

unaware that Effigy Mounds is a national 

monument managed by the National Park 

Service. This could be partially offset by 

the information provided by local 

chambers of commerce, museums, and 

other attractions. 

Visitation trends would likely increase in 

the long-term. This could result in 

congestion at parking and activity sites. 

Some visitors might experience a sense of 

crowding, especially during scheduled 

special events and when educational 

groups are visiting. Increased visitation and 

time spent at the national monument 

would result in short-term minor adverse 

impacts during events; long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts would result by 

development of increased or renewed 

public interest in the mounds and related 

American Indian culture. 

Future development on private land at the 

national monument’s borders would 

adversely impact the scenic views as well as 

cause sound encroachment, adversely 

affecting visitor experience. 

When the beneficial and adverse impacts 

discussed above are considered in 

combination with the moderate beneficial 

impacts of this alternative, the resulting 

cumulative effects on the visitor experience 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. This alternative’s contribution 

to these effects would be modest. 

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative C would result in 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on the 

visitor experience. The overall cumulative 

impacts would be long-term, minor, and 

beneficial and this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be 

modest.
175 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

METHODOLOGY 

The National Park Service applied logic, 

experience, and professional judgment to 

analyze the impacts on the social and 

economic situation resulting from each 

alternative. Economic data, historic visitor 

use data, expected future visitor use, and 

future developments of the national 

monument were all considered in 

identifying, discussing, and evaluating 

expected impacts. 

Duration of Impact 

In general, short-term impacts are 

temporary in duration and typically are 

transitional effects associated with 

implementation of an action (e.g., related 

to construction activities) and are less than 

1 year. In contrast, long-term impacts 

extend beyond 1 year (e.g., operational 

activities) or have a permanent effect on 

the socioeconomic environment. 

Intensity of Impact 

Assessments of potential socioeconomic 

impacts were based on comparisons 

between the no-action alternative and each 

of the action alternatives. 

Negligible—The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions would be below or at the level 

of detection. 

Minor—The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions would be slight but detectable, 

and only affect a small portion of the 

surrounding population. The impact would 

be considered slight and not detectable 

outside the affected area. 

Moderate—The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent. Any 

effects would result in changes to 

socioeconomic conditions on a local scale 

in the affected area. 

Major—The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent. 

Measurable changes in social or economic 

conditions at the county level occur. The 

impact is severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial in the affected area. 

Type of Impact 

National Park Service policy calls for the 

effects of the alternatives to be 

characterized as being beneficial, adverse, 

or indeterminate in nature. With respect to 

economic and social effects, few standards 

or clear definitions exist as to what 

constitutes beneficial changes, and what 

constitutes adverse changes. For example, 

rising unemployment is generally 

perceived as adverse, while increases in job 

opportunities and average per capita 

personal income are regarded as beneficial. 

In many instances, however, changes 

viewed as favorable by some members of a 

community are seen as unfavorable by 

others. For example, the impact of growth 

on housing markets and values may be seen 

as favorable by construction contractors 

and many homeowners, but adverse by 

renters and by local government officials 

and community groups concerned with 

affordability. Consequently, some of the 

social and economic impacts of the 

alternatives are described in such a manner 

as to allow the individual reader to 

determine whether they would be 

beneficial or adverse (impact is 

indeterminate with respect to “type”). 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A 

The no-action alternative would have a 

slight effect on the regional economy. A 

connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit would be constructed under 

this alternative. This would be a shortterm, negligible to minor, beneficial 

economic impact because of the materials 

that would be purchased locally and 

because of possible construction contracts. 

Implementing this alternative would 

continue the input of federal dollars into 

the region in the forms of employee wages 

and the purchase of supplies and materials. 

This is estimated to be $20.9 million over 

the next 20 years. 

The average length of time of a visit or 

length of stay in the region would not likely 

change. Visitors would continue to visit the 

national monument in the same manner 

and experience the same social conditions. 

Cumulative Effects 

The social and economic situation in Allamakee, Clayton, and Crawford counties is 

affected by a combination of many factors, 

including the presence of a unit of the 

National Park Service. Some of the $300 

million in federal spending in the three 

counties is generated by Effigy Mounds 

National Monument, such as in the forms 

of employee wages and construction 

contracts. The livelihoods of servicerelated businesses in the region rely to 

some degree on the inflow of tourist 

dollars, especially to restaurants and 

motels. Although tourism is not the most 

important driving factor in the regional 

economy, the nationwide downward trend 

in national park visitation may be adversely 

affecting tourism-dependent businesses on 

a negligible level. 

The total direct economic value of public 

recreation areas also includes two sets of 

values: (1) the user benefit that people 

receive from their visit; and (2) the values 

capitalized in land near the recreation area. 

Economic studies have shown that the 

value of land can increase with the number 

of outdoor recreation opportunities and 

the proximity to outdoor recreation space 

(Clawson and Knetsch 1966). Therefore, 

the continued presence of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument provides an 

important benefit to the people and 

property values in the vicinity. 

The no-action alternative would contribute 

a slight beneficial amount to the above 

impacts of past, present, and future actions 

on socioeconomic conditions and, when 

considered in combination with other 

actions, would result in a minor beneficial 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Implementing the no-action alternative 

would have a short-term, negligible to 

minor, beneficial economic impact in the 

region. The overall cumulative effects 

would be minor and beneficial. 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Full implementation of this alternative 

would require the National Park Service to 

hire five and a half additional employees to 

handle the increased workload for cultural 

resources, law enforcement, interpretation, 

and maintenance. Additional employment 

would bring in more wages and an 

increased demand for housing, utilities, 

services, and goods, resulting in a longterm, minor benefit for the local economy. 

Construction contracts might be let for 

several trail segments and the Sny Magill 

visitor contact structure. This would result 

in a short-term, minor, beneficial economic 

impact. 
Socioeconomic Environment 

177 

Implementing the alternative B is estimated 

to cost a total of $8.3 million above the 

current level of spending over the next 

20 years. Most of this total would equate to 

an increase in the input of federal dollars 

into the region in the forms of employee 

wages and the purchase of supplies, 

materials, and construction contracts. This 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impact. 

If all the boundary adjustments 

recommended in this plan were to take 

place, Allamakee County could lose about 

$3,225 in annual property taxes and 

Clayton County could lose about $1,250 in 

annual property taxes. The U.S. 

Government sometimes makes payments 

in lieu of taxes to local counties to 

reimburse them for land acquired by the 

federal government from private 

ownership. The impact from this action to 

the local economy is expected to be longterm, negligible, and adverse. 

The number of visitors and average length 

of visit could increase due to the additional 

experience opportunities in the Heritage 

Addition and Sny Magill Unit. Local 

businesses that rely on the tourist trade 

would receive a long-term minor benefit. 

For example, if visitation to the monument 

were to increase by 10%, about $240,000 

would be added to the local economy 

through direct and indirect visitor 

spending each year. 

Cumulative Effects 

The social and economic situation in Allamakee, Clayton, and Crawford counties is 

affected by a combination of many factors, 

including the presence of a unit of the 

National Park Service. Some of the $300 

million in federal spending in the three 

counties is generated by Effigy Mounds 

National Monument in the forms of 

employee wages and construction 

contracts for example. The livelihoods of 

service-related businesses in the region rely 

to some degree on the inflow of tourist 

dollars, especially to restaurants and 

motels. Although tourism is not the most 

important driving factor in the regional 

economy, the nationwide downward trend 

in national park visitation may be adversely 

affecting tourism-dependent businesses on 

a negligible level. 

The total direct economic value of public 

recreation areas also includes two sets of 

values: (1) the user benefit that people 

receive from their visit; and (2) the values 

capitalized in land near the recreation area. 

Economic studies have shown that the 

value of private land can increase with the 

number of outdoor recreation 

opportunities and the proximity to 

outdoor recreation space (Clawson and 

Knetsch 1966). Therefore, the continued 

presence of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument provides an important benefit 

to the people and property values in the 

vicinity. 

Alternative B would have short-term and 

long-term, moderate, beneficial economic 

impacts. When added to the above impacts 

of other past, present, and future actions 

on socioeconomic conditions, this 

alternative would result in a minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact. Alternative B 

would contribute a modest beneficial 

increment to this impact. 

Conclusion 

Implementing the alternative B would have 

short-term and long-term, minor, 

beneficial economic impacts in the region. 

The overall cumulative effects would be 

minor and beneficial. 

IMPACTS FROM 

IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE C 

Full implementation of this alternative 

would require the National Park Service to 

hire eight and a half additional employees 

to handle the increased workload for 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178 

cultural resources, law enforcement, IT, 

natural resources, interpretation, and 

maintenance. Additional employment 

would bring in more wages and an 

increased demand for housing, utilities, 

services, and goods, resulting in a longterm, minor benefit for the local economy. 

Construction contracts would be let for 

several trail segments and the Sny Magill 

visitor contact structure. This would result 

in a short-term, minor, beneficial economic 

impact. With the National Park Service 

leasing space for the research center, a 

long-term, minor, economic benefit would 

result from the additional input of federal 

dollars into the economy. 

Implementing alternative B is estimated to 

cost a total of $11.2 million above the 

current level of spending over the next 

20 years. Most of this total would equate to 

an increase in the input of federal dollars 

into the region in the forms of employee 

wages and the purchase of supplies, 

materials, and construction contracts. This 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impact. 

If all the boundary adjustments 

recommended in this plan were to take 

place, Allamakee County could lose about 

$3,225 in annual property taxes and 

Clayton County could lose about $1,250 in 

annual property taxes. The U.S. 

Government sometimes makes payments 

in lieu of taxes to local counties to 

reimburse them for land acquired by the 

federal government from private 

ownership. The impact from this action to 

the local economy is expected to be longterm, negligible, and adverse. 

The number of visitors and average length 

of visit could increase due to the additional 

experience opportunities in the Heritage 

Addition and Sny Magill Unit. Local 

businesses that rely on the tourist trade 

would receive a long-term minor benefit. 

For example, if visitation to the monument 

were to increase by 10%, about $240,000 

would be added to the local economy 

through direct and indirect visitor 

spending each year. 

Cumulative Effects 

The social and economic situation in Allamakee, Clayton, and Crawford counties is 

affected by a combination of many factors, 

including the presence of a unit of the 

National Park Service. Some of the $300 

million in federal spending in the three 

counties is generated by Effigy Mounds 

National Monument in the forms of 

employee wages and construction 

contracts for example. The livelihoods of 

service-related businesses in the region rely 

to some degree on the inflow of tourist 

dollars, especially to restaurants and 

motels. Although tourism is not the most 

important driving factor in the regional 

economy, the nationwide downward trend 

in national park visitation may be adversely 

affecting tourism-dependent businesses on 

a negligible level. 

The total direct economic value of public 

recreation areas also includes two sets of 

values: (1) the user benefit that people 

receive from their visit and (2) the values 

capitalized in land near the recreation area. 

Economic studies have shown that the 

value of private land can increase with the 

number of outdoor recreation 

opportunities and the proximity to 

outdoor recreation space (Clawson and 

Knetsch 1966). Therefore, the continued 

presence of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument provides an important benefit 

to the people and property values in the 

vicinity. 

Alternative C would have short-term and 

long-term, moderate, beneficial economic 

impacts. When added to the above impacts 

of other past, present, and future actions 

on socioeconomic conditions, alternative 

C would result in a minor, beneficial, 

cumulative impact. Alternative C would 

contribute a modest beneficial increment 

to this cumulative impact. 
Socioeconomic Environment 

179 

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative C would have 

short-term and long-term, minor, 

beneficial economic impacts in the region. 

The overall cumulative effects would be 

minor and beneficial.
180 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

METHODOLOGY 

The analysis was conducted in terms of 

how monument operations and facilities 

might vary under the different 

management alternatives. The analysis is 

qualitative rather than quantitative because 

of the conceptual nature of the alternatives. 

Consequently professional judgment was 

used to reach reasonable conclusions as to 

the intensity, duration, and type of 

potential impact. The impact analysis 

evaluated the effects of the alternatives on 

staffing, infrastructure, visitor facilities, 

and services. 

Duration of Impact 

Short-term impacts would be less than 

2 years since most planning, design, and 

construction is generally completed within 

2 years. Long-term impacts would extend 

beyond 2 years. 

Intensity of Impact 

Negligible—Park operations would not be 

affected or the effect would be at or below 

the lower levels of detection, and would 

not have an appreciable effect on park 

operations. 

Minor—The effect would be detectable, 

but would be of a magnitude that would 

not have an appreciable effect on park 

operations. 

Moderate—The effect would be readily 

apparent and would result in a substantial 

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 

change in park operations in a manner 

noticeable to staff and the public and be 

markedly different from existing 

operations. 

Type of Impact 

Beneficial impacts would improve NPS 

operations and/or facilities. Adverse 

impacts would negatively affect NPS 

operations and/or facilities and could 

hinder the staff’s ability to provide 

adequate services and facilities to visitors 

and employees. Some impacts could be 

beneficial for some operations or facilities 

and adverse or negligible for others. 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Under the no-action alternative, 

management and operations of Effigy 

Mounds National Monument would 

continue as they are now. The Heritage 

Addition would continue to be managed 

on a day-to-day basis without the guidance 

of a comprehensive long-range plan. 

Crowding in the visitor center during visits 

from large groups would continue to 

hinder staff work at those times. Staffing 

levels, particularly in cultural and natural 

resources management, would continue to 

be inadequate for current and future 

workloads. Office space and working 

conditions in the headquarters / visitor 

center building would become cramped if 

any additional staff were hired, reducing 

productivity and efficiency. 

All maintenance facilities would remain at 

their current location in the monument. 

Operations staff would continue to shuttle 

equipment back and forth to the North 

Unit, causing wear on equipment and loss 

of efficiency. 
Monument Operations and Facilities 

181 

This alternative would create no new 

impacts but would result in the 

continuation of long-term minor adverse 

impacts to monument operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

In general, NPS staff members are faced 

with increasing workloads as a result of 

new NPS initiatives, program mandates, 

and reporting requirements. Acquiring the 

Heritage Addition almost doubled the size 

of the national monument, subsequently 

increasing the management workload 

without any staffing increase, a minor 

adverse effect. 

Past and ongoing projects have had 

impacts on monument operations and 

facilities such as construction and 

maintenance of trails, fences, roads, and 

other monument infrastructure. Aging 

facilities (e.g., trails, pavement, etc.) and 

utilities would continue to be repaired or 

replaced as needed when funds become 

available. Eventually, more sustainable and 

efficient facilities and utility systems would 

replace aging systems, resulting in minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts over the longterm. 

This alternative would not contribute any 

new effects to the minor adverse effects 

and minor to moderate beneficial effects of 

other past, present, or foreseeable future 

actions, so there would be no projectrelated cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

The no-action alternative, if implemented, 

would cause no new impacts on monument 

operations and facilities. Thus, there would 

be no project-related cumulative effects. 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Implementing alternative B would result in 

changes to NPS staffing, workloads, and 

facility maintenance. It would require five 

and a half additional employees to handle 

the increased workload for cultural 

resources, natural resources, law 

enforcement, interpretation, and 

maintenance. 

In addition to ongoing tasks, facility 

management personnel would be required 

to coordinate and oversee construction of 

the Sny Magill contact station, the 

remodeling of the visitor center, and trail 

work. This could cause short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on operations. Since there 

would be few new trails (existing roads 

would be used wherever possible), the 

impact of additional trail maintenance is 

expected to be minor. 

Under this alternative, the short access 

road in the northernmost part of the 

monument would be no longer available to 

maintenance staff. This would cause 

additional workload as maintenance 

personnel and equipment would have to be 

walked in a longer distance. This would 

result in short and long-term impacts that 

are minor and adverse. 

Cumulative Effects 

In general, NPS staff members are faced 

with increasing workloads as a result of 

new NPS initiatives, program mandates, 

and reporting requirements. Acquiring the 

Heritage Addition almost doubled the size 

of the national monument, consequently 

increasing the management workload. 

Static base funding levels preclude hiring 

additional staff to alleviate the workload. 

Past and ongoing projects have had 

impacts on monument operations and 

facilities such as construction and 

maintenance of trails, fences, roads and 

other monument infrastructure. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182 

Aging facilities (e.g., trails, pavement, etc.) 

and utilities would continue to be repaired 

or replaced as needed when funds become 

available. Eventually, more sustainable and 

efficient facilities and utility systems would 

replace aging systems, resulting in minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts over the long 

term. 

Alternative B would contribute substantial 

beneficial and adverse effects to the minor 

adverse effects of other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions. However, the 

beneficial effects would outweigh the 

adverse effects, resulting in cumulative 

effects that are negligible. 

Conclusion 

Implementing the alternative B would 

result in short-term and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to monument operations 

and facilities. Cumulative effects would be 

negligible. 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Implementing this alternative would result 

in changes to NPS staffing, workloads, and 

facility maintenance. It would require eight 

and a half additional employees to handle 

the increased workload for cultural 

resources, natural resources, law 

enforcement, interpretation, IT, and 

maintenance. 

In addition to ongoing tasks, facility 

management personnel would be required 

to coordinate and oversee construction of 

the Sny Magill contact station, the 

remodeling of the visitor center, and trail 

work. This could cause short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on operations. Since there 

would be few new trails (existing roads 

would be used wherever possible), the 

impact of additional trail maintenance is 

expected to be minor. 

It is unknown at this time how the requirement for more coordination between the 

maintenance and resource management 

staff would affect operational efficiency. 

Cumulative Effects 

In general, NPS staff members are faced 

with increasing workloads as a result of 

new NPS initiatives, program mandates, 

and reporting requirements. Acquiring the 

Heritage Addition almost doubled the size 

of the national monument, consequently 

increasing the management workload. 

Static base funding levels preclude hiring 

additional staff to alleviate the workload. 

Past and ongoing projects have had 

impacts on monument operations and 

facilities such as construction and 

maintenance of trails, fences, roads and 

other monument infrastructure. 

Aging facilities (e.g. trails, pavement, etc.) 

and utilities would continue to be repaired 

or replaced as needed when funds become 

available. Eventually, more sustainable and 

efficient facilities and utility systems would 

replace aging systems, resulting in minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts over the long 

term. 

Alternative C would contribute substantial 

beneficial and adverse effects to the minor 

adverse effects of other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions. However, the 

beneficial effects would outweigh the 

adverse effects, resulting in cumulative 

effects that are negligible. 

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative C would result in 

short-term and long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts to monument operations and 

facilities. Cumulative effects would be 

negligible. 
183 

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES AND ENERGY 

REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

INTRODUCTION 

Whenever feasible, the National Park 

Service strives to maximize the use of 

renewable resources and energy and 

therefore minimize the use of depletable 

resources. However, it is not possible with 

today’s technologies to cost-effectively 

avoid all use of depletable resources in 

building and operating facilities. According 

to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy 

Information Administration, between 1986 

and 1992, energy used in commercial 

buildings in this country grew by about 

20% or 3%–4% a year. While energy 

efficiency has increased in recent years, the 

demand for energy has increased at a higher 

rate, so that the amount of energy used in 

the United States continues to climb every 

year. Any of the action alternatives at Effigy 

Mounds would, of course, add very little to 

the cumulative increase in energy use in the 

commercial building sector when viewed 

nationwide (in 1992, there were nearly 70 

billion square feet of commercial buildings 

in the United States). 

The National Park Service has adopted the 

concept of sustainable design as a guiding 

principle of facility planning and 

development (NPS Management Policies 

2006, section 9.1.1.7). The objectives of 

sustainability are to design facilities to 

minimize adverse effects on natural and 

cultural values, to reflect their 

environmental setting, and to maintain and 

encourage biodiversity; to operate and 

maintain facilities to promote their 

sustainability; and to illustrate and promote 

conservation principles and practices 

through sustainable design and ecologically 

sensitive use. Essentially, sustainability is 

the concept of living within the 

environment with the least impact on the 

environment. 

Unlike most other impact topics, impacts to 

depletable resources and energy would not 

be realized within Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. Rather, these impacts would be 

felt at the point of extraction (at mining 

sites, for example), in communities where 

manufactured products and energy are 

produced, and in those areas through 

which resources and fuel are transported. 

Impacts from use of depletable resources 

and energy are also felt globally through 

climate change. 

Because each of the action alternatives 

includes some level of construction, they 

both would impact natural or depletable 

resources and energy to some extent. In all 

alternatives, best management practices 

would be employed and new facilities 

would be designed with long-term 

sustainability in mind. Assets that support 

visitor use and resource protection, such as 

parking lots, trails, and monument roads, 

also potentially use depletable resources to 

some extent. The monument staff’s practice 

is to use wood chips from felled trees (a 

renewable resource) for trails, so increases 

or decreases in the number of trails would 

not impact depletable resource or energy 

use. Generally, buildings require the largest 

amount of resources and energy used in a 

park this size. The energy need relates to 

the building’s size. Therefore, the change in 

the amount of square footage in buildings is 

used in this analysis to determine the 

relative level of resource and energy use by 

the monument. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

The visitor center would be reconfigured, 

but space would not be added—the facility 

would remain at about 10,000 square feet. 

The newer maintenance building would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

184 

remain as is (about 3,500 square feet). The 

visitor contact station (a maximum of 2,600 

square feet indoors) that would be 

established at the Sny the Magill Unit 

would be a designed to minimize energy 

use. 

Overall, these actions, guided by the latest 

sustainable design principles, would have a 

negligible impact on energy needs in the 

region. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

As in alternative B, the visitor center would 

be reconfigured, but space would not be 

added (so it would remain at about 10,000 

square feet). The newer maintenance 

building would remain as is (about 3,500 

square feet). The visitor contact station (a 

maximum of 2,600 square feet indoors) that 

would be established at the Sny the Magill 

Unit would be a designed to minimize 

energy use. 

The research center (which includes 

storage for museum collections) proposed 

under this alternative would not be a park 

development but would be leased space in a 

local community. It is unknown where or 

how this would be accomplished. If this 

leased space was in an existing building, 

there would be no or negligible new effect 

on depletable resources or energy use in the 

region. If this space were in a new structure 

(built for the General Services 

Administration or a private entity), there 

would be both a one-time commitment of 

natural or depletable resources for 

construction and a long-term energy 

requirement for operation. The energy 

needed to light, heat, and cool the 

estimated 2,700-square-foot building would 

vary according to the design and whether 

the National Park Service was the only 

tenant. However, NPS policy requires a 

new building to be designed and built with 

sustainability in mind, which would reduce 

the overall energy need. 

Overall, these actions, guided by the latest 

sustainable design principles, would have a 

negligible impact on energy needs in the 

region.
185 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

BACKGROUND 

Related to the energy discussion is climate 

change, the human-cause change to global 

climate patterns. Climate change is perhaps 

the most far-reaching and irreversible 

threat the national park system has ever 

faced (NPCA 2007). Climate change in this 

context refers to a suite of changes 

occurring in Earth’s atmospheric, 

hydrologic, and oceanic systems. These 

changes, including increased global air and 

ocean temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global average sea 

level, provide unequivocal evidence that 

the climate system is warming. While the 

warming trend, commonly referred to as 

global warming, is discernible over the 

entire past century and a half, recent 

decades have exhibited an accelerated 

warming rate with 11 of the last 12 years 

ranking among the 12 warmest years on 

record. Most of the observed temperature 

increase can be attributed to human 

activities that contribute heat trapping 

gases to the atmosphere. These 

“greenhouse gases”—particularly carbon 

dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels—

cause Earth’s atmosphere to act like a 

blanket and trap the sun’s heat. While the 

insulating effect (or greenhouse effect) of 

our atmosphere is important to living 

systems, the rapid increase in greenhouse 

gases since the middle of the 19th century 

has cased temperatures to increase at a rate 

faster than natural systems can adapted to. 

While climate change is a global 

phenomenon, it manifests itself differently 

in different places. One of the most 

dramatic effects of global warming is the 

impact on extreme weather events. A 

disrupted climate could affect natural and 

cultural resources, and is likely to interfere 

with public use and enjoyment of the 

parks. Although many places in the world 

have already observed and recorded 

changes that can be attributed to climate 

change, the impacts to Effigy Mounds 

National Monument have not been 

specifically determined and the actual 

implications within the lifespan of this 

general management plan are unknown. 

While it is well accepted that climate 

change is occurring, it is unknown as to the 

rate and severity of impacts at the parks. 

Climate change is a long-term 

phenomenon, and the likelihood that 

significant effects would be seen during the 

life of this general management plan (15–20 

years) is unknown at this time; however, 

acceleration of climate change impacts 

could have a more immediate effect on 

park resources and values. 

RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES 

Executive Order 13423—Issued on January 

24, 2007, by President George W. Bush, this 

executive order requires federal agencies 

to “conduct their environmental, 

transportation, and energy-related 

activities under the law in support of their 

respective missions in an environmentally, 

economically, and fiscally sound, 

integrated, continuously improving, 

efficient, and sustainable manner.” It 

includes requirements for the reduction of 

greenhouse gases and implementation of 

other energy and water conservation 

measures. The order requires agencies to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3% 

annually through the end of fiscal year 

2015, or 30% by the end of fiscal year 2015, 

relative to the baseline of the agency’s 

energy use in fiscal year 2003. 

DOI Secretarial Order 3226—Issued on 

January 19, 2001, this order ensures that 

climate change impacts are taken into 

account in connection with departmental 

planning and decision making. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

186 

NPS Management Policies 2006, section 

4.7.2 states that “Parks containing 

significant natural resources will gather 

and maintain baseline climatological data 

for reference.” The policies also state that 

“The Service will use all available 

authorities to protect park resources and 

values from potentially harmful 

activities . . . NPS managers must always 

seek ways to avoid, or minimize to the 

greatest degree possible, adverse impacts 

on park resources and values.” 

Section 9.1.1.6 of NPS Management Policies 

2006 discusses sustainable energy design, 

requiring any facility development to 

include improvements in energy efficiency 

and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 

for both the building envelope and the 

mechanical systems that support the 

facility. Additionally, projects that include 

visitor centers or major visitor services 

facilities must incorporate Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 

standards to achieve a silver rating. 

Section 9.1.7 of NPS Management Policies 

2006 requires the National Park Service to 

interpret for the public the overall resource 

protection benefits from the efficient use 

of energy, and to actively educate and 

motivate park personnel and visitors to use 

sustainable practices in conserving energy. 

Any of the action alternatives at Effigy 

Mounds would, of course, have very little 

effect on the cumulative level of 

greenhouse gases or other climate change 

factors (e.g. carbon footprint) when viewed 

nationwide. However, there are several 

management directions that could occur 

that would reduce the monument’s 

contribution to climate change. Examples 

of these include replacing the monument’s 

current fleet of vehicles and motorized 

equipment with more fuel-efficient 

models, adding insulation and weatherproofing to existing buildings, employing 

solar panels to generate electricity, etc. 

New developments, such as the contact 

station at Sny Magill, would be constructed 

with energy efficiency (i.e. sustainability) in 

mind. As part of a National Park Servicewide initiative, the public would receive 

educational messages about reducing our 

impact on the climate. These programs and 

others would be implemented under any of 

the alternatives and contribute towards the 

global effort to reduce human-caused 

climate change. 
187 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined 

here as moderate to major impacts that 

cannot be fully mitigated or avoided. 

In alternative A, there would be little 

potential for unavoidable adverse impacts 

because there would be no major new 

development occurring in previously 

undeveloped areas. Some existing 

conditions have resulted in unavoidable 

adverse impacts. The current roads and 

monument facilities may have been built 

on top of mounds. Cultural resources 

would continue to be protected through 

preservation maintenance. 

Alternatives B and C would have the 

highest potential for some unavoidable 

adverse impacts on natural and cultural 

resources because it has the most 

development. However, most of the 

development being proposed is relatively 

“low key” such as trails and small facilities 

with only small areas of potential effect. 

Cultural resources would continue to be 

protected through active preservation 

maintenance. 

In summary, none of the alternatives would 

result in any unavoidable moderate or 

major adverse impacts.
188 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Implementing alternative A could result in 

the consumption of some nonrenewable 

natural resources in the form of 

construction materials that would 

constitute an irretrievable commitment of 

resources. This potential loss would be 

very small when compared with the other 

alternatives. This alternative includes no 

actions that could result in the loss of 

archeological resources. 

Actions taken to implement alternatives B 

or C could result in the consumption of 

nonrenewable natural resources in the 

form of construction materials and fuels 

that would constitute an irreversible 

commitment of resources. The new 

facilities would result in a loss of habitat 

and an irretrievable commitment of 

resources. None of the alternatives 

includes actions that could result in the 

loss of archeological resources.
189 

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The primary purpose of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument is to preserve and 

interpret the distinct cultural resource of 

ancient burial mounds and associated 

natural resources. Under all action 

alternatives, the majority of the monument 

would be in the discovery zone that does 

not allow development. The National Park 

Service would continue to manage this 

zone under all alternatives to maintain 

natural ecological processes and native 

biological communities. 

Under alternatives B and C, there would be 

a slight increase in the monument’s 

disturbed area footprint as new trails or 

structures are constructed in the Heritage 

Addition, the North Unit, and Sny Magill. 

This change is so small (1 to 3 acres) that it 

would not result in a substantial loss of 

long-term productivity. Natural resource 

management actions would continue or be 

enhanced in all alternatives to increase 

biological diversity and, therefore, increase 

long-term productivity.
190 
Consultation & Coordination, 

Preparers and Consultants 5

View of Mississippi River from Fire Point
192 
193 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

This section addresses the public 

comments received on the Revised Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. The public comment 

period began with the publication of a 

notice of availability of the draft document 

in the Federal Register on September 2, 

2011. The draft document was sent to all 

agencies and organizations on the planning 

team’s mailing list and was posted on the 

Internet (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/). 

The 60-day comment period ended 

November 4, 2011. 

Comments were received (1) via direct 

input into the Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment (PEPC) system online by 

the respondent, (2) via email, (3) via a 

letter, or (4) by recording of the four public 

scoping meetings held on September 20 

(Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and 

Marquette, Iowa) and September 21 

(Marquette, Iowa, and McGregor, Iowa), 

2011. The planning team reviewed and 

considered all comments in preparing the 

Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR 1503. The comments allow the 

National Park Service and other interested 

parties to review and assess the opinions of 

other agencies, organizations, and 

individuals about the alternatives and their 

potential impacts. 

This section begins with a summary of the 

public involvement opportunities for the 

plan. Next, all of the written comments on 

the draft plan are reproduced, and 

responses are provided to substantive 

comments. Many nonsubstantive 

comments are also addressed in this 

section if the comment addressed 

controversial or sensitive topic matter. 

Where appropriate, the text in this Final 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement has been revised to 

address the comments. These changes are 

identified in the NPS responses. No 

response was given to comments that 

simply expressed preference for an 

alternative or any actions within the 

alternatives. All page number citations in 

the responses refer to the draft document. 

As defined in the Handbook to Director’s 

Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making (NPS 2001), comments 

are considered substantive when they 

(a) question, with reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information in the 

environmental impact statement 

(b) question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of environmental analysis 

(c) present reasonable alternatives other 

than those presented in the 

environmental impact statement 

(d) cause changes or revisions in the 

proposal 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used 

to keep the public informed and involved 

in the planning process for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. A mailing list was 

compiled that consisted of members of 

governmental agencies, organizations, 

businesses, legislators, local governments, 

and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in 

the Federal Register on June 6, 2005. This 

was followed by the first newsletter that 

introduced the planning effort and invited 

the public to participate in scoping 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS, AND CONSULTANTS

194 

(information gathering). Public meetings 

held during November 2005 in McGregor, 

Iowa, and Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, 

were attended by 25 people. In addition, 31 

written comments were received by the 

planning team. 

A second newsletter summarizing the 

results of the public scoping effort was sent 

in early 2006. 

The preliminary alternative concepts for 

managing the monument were delivered in 

a third newsletter that was distributed in 

November 2006. Public meetings on the 

preliminary alternatives were held in 

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and 

McGregor, Iowa. A total of 12 people 

attended the two meetings and 24 written 

comments were received. There was some 

discussion on the details of the alternatives 

in the written and oral comments received 

at the meetings. 

NPS representatives also met with 

representatives of city and county 

governments, and state agencies several 

times throughout the process. 

The Draft General Management Plan for 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was 

made available for public review and 

comment in April 2009. A public meeting 

to receive comments on the draft plan was 

held at the Effigy Mounds visitor center on 

the evening of May 19, 2009. Eight 

members of the public attended that 

meeting and provided comments that were 

mostly focused on protection of resources 

and boundary issues. 

The planning team arranged and 

conducted four public open houses on the 

Revised Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement from 

September 20 through September 21, 2011. 

These meetings were held in Prairie du 

Chien, Wisconsin; McGregor, Iowa; and at 

the Effigy Mounds National Monument 

Visitor Center. The meetings were 

attended by approximately 14 members of 

the public. 

Eleven separate written comments were 

received during the comment period, 

including letters and email comments. 

Additionally, one comment was provided 

verbally at the public meeting, which is 

transcribed below. They are reproduced 

on the following pages along with NPS 

responses to substantive comments. Those 

correspondences came from five different 

states (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming). State, federal, 

nongovernmental organizations or firms, 

and tribes that shared their comments 

include the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, State Historic Preservation Office, 

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, White 

Pine Group of the Sierra Club, Mississippi 

Valley Archaeology Center, and Logan 

Museum of Anthropology.
195 

TABLE 12. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Comment #1 —Submitted by Patt Murphy, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska (Comments on earlier version of document culturally associated tribes) 

COMMENT RESPONSE

Dear Mr. Nepstad: We are prefacing our comments with a statement. We, as Indian People, would prefer the least amount of exposure for the Mounds to the general population and the least amount of disturbance as possible. As that was not presented as an alternative, these are our views. 1. As to the museum collection, our position is the artifacts from Effigy Mounds should be kept at least within the vicinity of the Mounds. With the reduction in personnel at the Visitor Center, (moving the administrative offices to houses) the break room and perhaps more of the basement could be dedicated to the collection until more permanent arrangements are made. 2. A possibility that has not been explored or at least not included in the GMP is a research center on the land the park hopes to acquire at Sny Magill for a contact base. That would be an economical as well as a cultural research and protection benefit to Effigy Mounds. In our opinion the Revised General Management Plan is extremely biased. One or two mentions that Alternative B is the NPS "preferred alternative" would be enough; to have it on nearly every page is overkill. Without this bias throughout, probably the preferred alternative for most people would be C. It has more and better exposure of the mounds and facilities. It keeps the museum collection nearby. This would attract more visitors and researchers to the Monument; both a cultural and economic benefit. In the GMP narrative it is stated the present location of the collection meets NPS minimum standards. It also lists one of the reasons for moving the collection to Lincoln is it does not meet NPS standards, it can't be both ways. In general the entire GMP does not make a fair comparison between Alternative B and Alternative C. Point for point the general public would more than likely choose C. A good share of the comparisons only point out the attributes of B and the negatives of C. Not a fair comparison. 

1. The text of the GMP does not specifically direct the NPS to mcollections and archives to the Midwest Archeological ConservNE in Alt. B. The intent of Alt. B is to improve the long-term cato more fully meet NPS museum collections standards. Alternatresponse to this comment and other similar comments, to allow keeping the collection at the monument with investments in stcuratorial staff) and the facility. Because it would be difficult to museum collections standards because of the basement locatioalternative B also allows for the option of moving it off-site to NPS museum collections standards with dedicated curatorial stto become available in the surrounding area, the NPS would copartnership opportunity. All options would be considered in cohistoric preservation officer, Office of the State Archaeologist, associated tribes. Space is not the issue driving the potential move of the collectivisitor center does not meet NPS museum collections standards

cannot be solved by the addition of more space. Therefore, thiconsidered in this plan. 

2. Building the research center on the proposed addition to Snand was added to the actions considered but dismissed. The fathe area is so low that the team did not believe that it would bbuilding without major earthwork and impacts to the floodplaiand the lack of security associated with a remote location. 
196

3. The safety of maintenance personnel in the North Unit should be of prime importance. Facilities off EMNM premises should be explored. In previous GMP planning sessions it was stated if it is IN the GMP it still may not happen; by the same token if it is NOT in the GMP it will NOT happen. The options of Alt. C are preferred. In both viable alternatives the adverse effects are equal. 4. In Alternative C there is more and safer access to particularly the South Unit and the Heritage Addition (which, in my opinion should be renamed the Twin Bears Unit) and it keeps the museum collection close. Alt. C also creates more economic and cultural benefits. Therefore Alternative C is the preferred alternative. Only cultural resources and items related to and affecting American Indians was analyzed by us in the short time available. Again, we will reiterate, most American Indians want the least amount of public access to what we consider Traditional Cultural Property possible. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Patt Murphy Re: Effigy Mounds Revised General Management Plan Comments Some housekeeping: 5. Page 7 Lines 47 thru 49 Need to reword- Jan. does not have 160 days 5. Page 8 Line 17 A better phraseology, instead of "ranging in distance" replace it with "of varying distances". 5. Page 14 Line 58 I have seen it referred to as "the Indian problem". I haven't seen it referred to as a "question". 5. Page 15 Line 38 The preferred word would be "spiritual'' rather than religious. Line99 Replace "more complete" with "better". We do not have a "complete" understanding but we are getting a "better" understanding all the time. 

3. The National Park Service believes that the safety issues assoof equipment in or to the North Unit are surmountable. In the to lease space (outside of Effigy Mounds National Monument) action would not need to be authorized in the general managethis action is outside the scope of this plan. 4. The National Park Service may consider changes to the nameany time. Such changes should take place with input from tradand the public. At this point in the General Management Plannopportunities for input from the tribes and the public are only 5. The suggested comments were made to the document. 
197 

5. Page 58 Line 70 Visitor Use Replace Native American with American Indian. 5. Page 122 Line 19 thru 22 The sentence "Paleo-Indians are credited with crossing the Bering Land Bridge toward the end of the last Ice Age and peopling the Americas" is an arbitrary and irrelevant statement discounted by a good share of American Indians and should he stricken. Page 123 Line 26 6. The Sauk and Mesquaki (speaking Algonquian, not Siouan language) are not Oneota. They should be stricken and the Missouria added. Page 160 Line 92 Replace word "regional" tribes with "consulting" tribes. Page 185 Line 18 Page 187 Line 99 7. To our knowledge "canoeing" was not, is not, nor has it been mentioned to be, included in monument activities. Our Comments on the Revised General Management Plan: Alt B referred to as the PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE throughout - not necessary Page iv Line 82 thru 91 8. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska is highly critical of removing the mound associated collection away from the Monument. For researchers studying mounds in Iowa and Wisconsin it would be unreasonable to travel to Lincoln, Nebraska to access this data. If a research facility locally is out of the question, than an upgrade of curation conditions in its present location with the relocation of the break-room facilities would afford much needed room. Page v Line 14 If it is going to be stored, let it be stored at Effigy Mounds. Line 31-32 "key monument resources." should be kept at the monument Line 75 thru 82 9. A adverse effect for Alt. C is; visitors would be likely to encounter other visitors or park staff during their visit. Just the opposite would be true - with more park opened up, the visitors would be less concentrated, therefore less encounters. 

6. The text has been removed from the Final General Managem7. Canoeing the Yellow River through Effigy Mounds National that is compatible with park purposes and values and is authorSuperintendent’s Compendium. There is no authorized put-in othe park boundary. 8. See response to comment number 1 above. 9. Although there is the possibility that visitors will be more disC, implementing alternative C would still result in an overall imand long-term because of additional visitor opportunities. No c
198

Page 14 Line 97 thru 100 10. The tribes consider Effigy Mounds as "Traditional Cultural Property". We have been assured it has been and will be considered a TCP until the final determination of the application. We have been assured the paperwork is in the process of being prepared by Effigy Mounds staff at this time. Page 18 Lower box "Examples ... " second bullet, end of third line Add after " .. Preservation Officer" and associated American Indian tribes. Fourth bullet DELETE Fifth bullet 11. It is unclear what would be "appropriate" to trigger consultation on a new development or modification of existing developments nor what these developments consist of: Any undertaking that would trigger Sec. 106 would require consultation. Page 32 Geology 12. We understand the railroad has broached the subject of removing some of the overhanging ledges that could possibly fall on the tracks. If that possibility exists, or is perceived to exist by the railroad, the subject should be addressed in the GMP. Page 34 Line 86 thru 1 & 2 of the following page It should be pointed out that none of the alternatives would have an adverse effect or if there is an adverse effect in an alternative, it should be enumerated. Page 55 Desired Resource Conditions 13. "Development Zone". It is not a matter of “if”, there ARE cultural resources there. Page 57 14. This is not an objective analysis in my view. In all alternatives cultural and natural resources are supposed to be managed to the highest standards. It is only attributed to alternative B, the PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. An objective analysis of C would recognize that adding a research center nearby and keeping the collections close would be a long term beneficial aspect for Factor 3 that B does not provide. Opening more of the Monument to visitors with better access would also be a long term beneficial effect for Factor 3 in Alt C that B does not provide. As noted in the plan the short term negative aspects of either alternative would be about the same. Page 59 Line 17 thru 20 15. Explore the possibility of leasing buildings to house maintenance equipment 

has been made in response to this comment. 10. The planning team confirmed that the nomination of Effigy Monument as a Traditional Cultural Property is underway. The Significance 6, Fundamental Resources and Values has been upreference to the nomination of Effigy Mounds as a Traditional 11. The term “appropriate” was removed from the text of the Management Plan. 12. Geology was dismissed as an impact topic because none of by the NPS would affect it. The railroad can only work on the hof-way. If the railroad would like to work outside their right-ofpermission from the NPS would be required and appropriate conecessary. No change to the document has been made in respo13. The commenter is correct; known cultural resources in the text on page 55 was updated. 14. Text was added to the Revised Draft General Management includes this perspective raised by the commenter. 15. See response to comment 3 above. 
199 

used in the North Unit from landowners adjacent to the park. Employee safety should be a prime requisite. Page 85 Lines 34 thru 3& 16. " ... visitors would be likely to encounter other visitors or staff ... " Just the opposite would be true. There would be more area for visitors to explore thereby spreading visitors out and making it more secluded. The PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE is the one to crowd more visitors together because it will reduce the North Unit to some extent and a shortened trail in Sny Magill. Page 107 Alt C last paragraph See page 85 above Page 108 All of Alt B at top of page would be attainable in Alt C. As stated earlier in the plan, vegetation management as well as other aspects are to be handled on an administrative level. A virtual research center would not be necessary in Alt C - it would have the actual center. Page 117 OTHER: Visitor Use and Experience Alt C 17. Adding the South Unit and Sny Magill to the discovery zone would add "major, long term beneficial impact” to visitors experience. OTHER: Socioeconomic Environment Alt. C 18. Were there to be a research center added in the on site [sic] or in the vicinity it would create a major, long term beneficial impact on the region. Page 154 Line 60 thru 67 We have been assured Effigy Mounds has been and will be considered a "Traditional Cultural Property" as defined by ACHP and that the paperwork is in the process of being prepared by Effigy Mounds staff. Page 157 Line 68 thru 72 19. There are cultural resources near this entrance. There is the possibility this construction could result in long term, major adverse impact. Page 159 ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES It should be added: will be considered a "Traditional Cultural Property" as defined by ACHP and that the paperwork is in the process of being prepared by Effigy Mounds staff. Page 163 

16. See response to comment 9 above. 17. Placing the Discovery Zone on portions of these units woulmaintenance levels on the existing trails. Since these units are oit is believed the resulting beneficial impact would be minor, as the document has been made in response to this comment. 18. As stated in the GMP, it is most likely that the NPS would lebuilding for the research center. While this would be a minor timpact, as envisioned it would not be major as defined in the Gdocument has been made in response to this comment. 19. The General Management Plan has been revised to no longrealignment of the South Unit access road entry area (in Alterncommenter notes, the proposed realignment would potentially resources. 
200

20. Moving the collection to Lincoln, Neb. (Alternative B, the preferred alternative) would have a long term, adverse effect to tribes and researchers and to the economics of the local area around Effigy Mounds. Page 171 Line 62 The extension of the trail through this section would result in visitors staying on the prepared path thereby creating a beneficial effect for cultural resources whereas Alt. B with the shorter path would create an adverse effect. The majority of visitors will stay on designated trails and obey signage. Natural curiosity would induce visitors to wander on past the end of a short path to see what was there, thereby jeopardizing cultural resources. Page 185 Line IS Page 187 Line 99 21. To our knowledge "canoeing" was not, is not, nor had it been mentioned to be, included in monument activities. Page 192 Line 73 22. If the ninth employee is the collections curator, then the ninth employee would be in Lincoln, NE thereby depriving the Mounds area of economic benefit or Alt B requires another employee. Page 210 South Unit second line 23. Unless this is entirely on the highway right-of-way, there are cultural resources near enough that this DOES REQUIRE further consultation. 

20. As mentioned in the response to comment number one abdocument will be updated to allow for opportunities to move tand archives to a facility in the area that is interested in partnePark Service and that meets NPS museum collections standards collections at the monument. Given the small number of reseapark receives, the relocation of the collection to another site wnoticeable effect on the economics of the local area, but would increased protection of the collection. The National Park Service recognizes that the relocation of musaffect or diminish the cultural connection that many tribal memitems, particularly if the collections are moved to distant storagthe GMP, the present storage of collections in the park visitor cadequately meet NPS museum collections standards. Under altwould be protected and managed in a facility that fully meets standards off-site or retained at the monument with investmenfacility to more closely meet NPS museum collections standardsthe collections in reasonable proximity to their place of origin wby the National Park Service in planning for the long-term care options would be considered in consultation with the state histOffice of the State Archaeologist, and traditionally associated t21. See response to comment 7 above. 22. This text was revised to reflect lower staffing levels in the RManagement Plan. 23. See response to comment 18 above. 

COMMENT #2—Submitted by William Green, Logan Museum of Anthropology

COMMENT RESPONSE

1. A couple of notes about the Archeological Resources and Ethnographic Resources sections, pp. 122-124. It is incorrect to say that "the Oneota culture fractured into the tribes known as Sauk, Fox, Ioway, Oto, Winnebago, and other linguistically similar groups." The Sauk and Fox (Meskwaki) are not linguistically similar to the other three groups, nor are they descended from the Oneota. Also, 

1. The text of the General Management Plan on page 123 has reference to the Oneota culture fracturing has been removed. 
201 

Oneota was not a unitary culture that "fractured" into smaller groups —it was a very large and long-lived tradition or grouping of many different populations, some of whom became recognized as tribes in the post-contact era. 2. On page 124, the paragraph about NAGPRA would benefit from reference to the 2001 EFMO Cultural Affiliation study that I coauthored. I don't understand why that study, which was solicited and accepted by NPS as part of its NAGPRA efforts, is not cited in the Draft GMP. I can email a pdf of the report if access to has become difficult. If NPS NAGPRA policy or practice at EFMO departs from the conclusions or recommendations in the cultural affiliation report, or if NAGPRA rules have required new procedures, the GMP should discuss those points. Perhaps the difference between the NAGPRA term "culturally affiliated" and the term "culturally associated" (used in the Draft GMP) also should be explained. 3. Other suggestions: at the top of page 16, insert "traditions and" before "histories" -- this will help recognize both oral tradition and oral history as ways of understanding the past. On page 123, insert "by" before "Section 110." I endorse the recommendations to upgrade collections care and to maximize archaeological resource protection, balanced with appropriate interpretation and access. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

2. The text of the General Management Plan has been updated a reference to the 2001 Effigy Mounds Cultural Affiliation Studpages 250-251 have also been revised to include this study. An differences between culturally affiliated and traditionally associthe document. 3. The text of the GMP was also revised on pages 16 and 123 

COMMENT #3—Submitted by Charles Winterwood, White Pine Group of the Sierra Club 

COMMENT RESPONSE

The White Pine Group of the Sierra Club prefers Alternative B or C The White Pine Group of the Sierra Club has hiked the Heritage Addition to Effigy Mounds several times both before and after it became part of the monument. 1. We would like maintained trails and access for the public to the Heritage addition. 

1. The General Management Plan directs the monument to unplan / trail development plan that largely focuses on Heritage Abe initiated after the General Management Plan is finalized. 

COMMENT #4—Submitted by Doug Herron 

COMMENT RESPONSE

1. I favor plan "A", especially since it does not include rebuilding the jeep trail access road to the south unit. Rebuilding this road would further degrade an otherwise exceptionally beautiful wood land ravine. (The 1960's rebuild was devastating enough.) This road is more than adequate to transport maintenance personell [sic] and equipment to the south unit. 

1. If the commenter is referring to the trail connecting the YelloSouth Unit trail system, the route of the trail will be determined process. Regardless of the route selected, access would be limiThe existing access road/trail to the South Unit is a component The road is used by maintenance personnel transporting landscother options for transporting this equipment are made availabboundary, the park would be interested in closing this road to 
202

In regard to future programs, I hope (and pray) I never again witness another chainsaw rampage such as the 1990s decimation of trees from the Marching Bear Group to the Mississippi River. I feel "less is best" and plan "A" comes closest to this ideal. 

The General Management Plan is no longer recommending the entry area (in Alternatives B and C) of the South Unit access ro

COMMENT #5—Submitted by Ronald F. Hammerschmidt, Ph.D.Environmental Protection Agency 

COMMENT RESPONSE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Effigy Mounds National Monument GMP. Our review is provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4231, Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508, and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The DEIS was assigned the CEQ number 20110281. The GMP/DEIS discusses and analyzes the environmental impacts of the no-action alternative and two action alternatives. The preferred alternative, "Alternative B," delivers general information about how the park intends to operate in the future with emphasis placed on protecting its cultural resources and making those resources available to research groups and visitors with minor, short-term adverse impacts and beneficial cumulative impacts. Based on the level of impacts analyzed and conveyed in the DEIS the EPA has rated the DEIS for this project "LO" or Lack of Objections. A copy of EPA's rating descriptions is provided as an enclosure to this letter (enclosure 1). The National Park Service may wish to tier future NEPA documents from this DEIS and to enable that potential future utilization, EPA offers a few observations and recommendations as follows: 1. North Unit: Water Treatment Facility: (on page 150, Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences under Construction Activities). There is only one mention in the DEIS of this facility with no explanation to its purpose. We recommend removing this project from the DEIS and submitting a separate EIS or EA for the public to review. 2. Heritage Unit: 2. a. Proposed Parking Lot on CR 76: We recommend performing an EA before implementing any construction. This will ensure proper considerations are given to water quality impacts, considering its proximity to the wetlands and the Yellow River. The Yellow River is listed as an impaired stream according to the IDNR (see enclosure 2). 3. b. Dousman Creek: Coordinate with the NRCS and state farm agencies to ensure "Prime or Unique Farmland" and "Farmland of Statewide Importance" has been 

1. The reference to the North Unit water treatment facility has action is not included in the alternatives nor is it included in the should not be included in the General Management Plan. 2. The proposed parking lot on CR 76 has been removed from concerns. 3. Dousman Creek Prime and Unique Farmlands: the GMP incluthe NRCS on Prime and Unique farmlands and states that the t
203 

dealt with appropriately. Using Web Soil Survey, a tool sanctioned by the USDA, the EPA has determined a significant portion of the area was designated Unique or Prime. The data gathered and used in the DEIS is from the NASIS list of 2005 and may be outdated. However, much of this land also falls within flood plains designated by FEMA thus may need to be reevaluated by the Iowa State Soil Scientist (see enclosure 3). 4. 3. Sny McGill Unit: a. Develop a separate EA for the proposed Contact Center. b. Coordinate with the Iowa State Soil Scientist at NRCS to determine whether or not the "Prime Farmland" located in the proposed Contact Center construction site is indeed "Prime." Consider publishing this exchange of information in the appendix (see enclosure 4). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding this project and your DEIS. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Joe Summerlin at (913) 551-7029. Sincerely, Ronald F. Hammerschmidt, Ph.D. Director Environmental Services Division 

are prime farmland only if drained and protected from floodingare located in the floodplain of the Yellow River and so are subThis and the fact that the GMP does not propose any developmexisting land use on these soils led to the dismissal of this topic 4. Sny Magill (b and c): If the land is acquired and the proposed approved, then site-specific environmental analysis would be cof Prime or Unique Farmlands would be addressed through conState Soil Scientist and/or NRCS. 

COMMENT #6—Submitted by John Hausman

COMMENT RESPONSE

"What proposals or aspects do you like/dislike about the alternatives in this Revised Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement?" The proposals of Alt-B best address the current concerns and least invasive improvements to the monument. "Do you have any suggestions for improving the preferred alternative in this RDGMP/EIS? If so, what are they?" 1. Personally, I am most concerned with water quality in the Yellow River, Dousman Creek and wetland preservation. Much, if not most of the water issues are affected by out of the park boundaries activities. Agriculture, urban areas, and commercial developments need to be included in planning options. Perhaps some special watershed incentives could be offered to landowners in addition to what is already available. 

1. As noted, water quality is affected by activities outside of MThis would become even more important if the Yellow River wWild and Scenic River as recommended in the GMP. Incentives effective tool to protect water quality in a watershed. The NPS state and county agencies to encourage the use of water proteother tools to preserve water quality and quantity in the area. Ndocument have been made in response to this comment. 
204

COMMENT #7—Submitted by Dennis Lenzendorf

COMMENT RESPONSE

Relationship of other Planning Efforts to the GMP page 24 1. "The monument is located within the Silos & Smokestacks National Heritage Area. As one of the federally designated heritage areas in the nation, it is an affiliated area of the national park system-The National Park Service does not own or manage the heritage area, but may provide some funding and technical support".The monument is one of the 390 plus sites operated by the National Park Service. I understand the idea of a partnership to promote the agricultural heritage of Iowa, but it needs to be clear that the monument is a federal park to preserve prehistoric Indian mounds; the monument is not an affiliated heritage area. In the section of User capacity 2. Degradation or Widening of the Designated Trail SystemSome trails in the South Unit and the county road are at this time roads for access of maintenance vehicles. I don't see this as a conflict in these areas as long as vehicle travel is restricted to necessary maintenance, occasional ranger patrols and resource protection. In the North Unit most trails are narrower and occur in fragile archeological areas. Widening for maintenance vehicles should be more tightly controlled. An area of concern is the switchbacks on the Fire Point Trail that has been an area of degradation due to shortcutting in the past. Proposed Changes to Legislated BoundaryTract #1 I fully support inclusion of Tract # 1 to protect the integrity of the Marching Bear Group and the visitor experience in the South Unit. The fence and gate protect the bird mound within 20 feet of the fence at this time, but the experience of solitude can be affected by field work being done on the adjacent land. Future land use changes such as a private housing development would greatly diminish the experience of visiting the site. Noise of vehicles, lawn mowers, loud music and dogs barking could be what visitors take away from the site in the future. The parcel would help to preserve the "sacred geography" around the Marching Bear Group. The 20 acre parcel could become an interpretation area to give visitors an appreciation of early historic vegetation and the story of the Military Road in early Iowa. It is imperative that this parcel be included in future monument boundary changes. 

1. The discussion of the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritag“Relationship to Other Planning Efforts to This General Managsection describes the involvement of the park with the nationapurpose of the park is discussed in the “Foundation for Plannin2. The GMP has been revised to include some trail and road stathis and other similar comments. The trail standards specify des(wood chips, etc.), and character for each of the management standards also include the desired level of use for each of the m
205 

Tract #2 This land is essential to maintain the monument land south of the Yellow River. The county road currently crosses private lands which makes resource protection of an isolated bird mound difficult. In the past vehicles involved in logging operations have damaged mounds in the area above the county road and jeopardized preservation of the isolated bird mound along the county road. Erosion of soil into Founder's Pond has also resulted in degradation of this critical body of water that is used by many migratory birds including osprey, bald eagles and many species of waterfowl. Red shouldered [sic] hawks have been documented to nest in this remote tract of land south of the Yellow River, as well as Kentucky warblers and Acadian flycatchers. The westernmost parcel of Tract #2 is especially critical to preservation of the view shed from several overlooks in the monument. The area may be susceptible to future development of housing overlooking some of the most important areas of solitude in the monument. Little can be done to remove traffic sounds along the highway corridor that bisects the North and South Units of the monument but there is an opportunity to maintain solitude in areas to the south and west. Tract # 3 This tract is important to complete the county road access without crossing private land. Current land use practices include logging and in some areas grazing. Both of these practices have a detrimental effect on the quality of Dousman Creek. Dousman Creek currently is being degraded by these practices and represent a valuable aquatic resource that should be better protected. The land along the stream includes habitat for several rare plants, amphibians and reptiles. Dousman Creek could be a benchmark to use to identify aquatic insects in trout streams for habitat improvement across northeast Iowa, southeast Minnesota and southwest Wisconsin. The County Road When the monument was established, it was felt that the issue of this road that runs through the South Unit would be dealt with at a later date as it was not critical to the establishment of the monument in 1949. Over 50 years later, county road remains an issue in the monument. 3. It is time to preserve the land adjacent to the road and turn control of the road over to the park service. The county road would provide for an enhancement of the overall protection of cultural and natural resources and interpretation of the monument. It would provide an outstanding opportunity for visitor enjoyment of the solitude, wildlife and beauty along the Yellow River. Tract #4 Sny Magill 4. Sny Magill contains half of the mounds preserved in the monument. It contains 

3. The National Park Service is not able to make these changes of County officials. The National Park Service will continue to wCounty on all matters related to this road. 4. Sny Magill: If the land is acquired and the proposed contact 
206

one of the greatest concentrations of prehistoric mounds known. The location presents special issues for access by the public. The work of clearing trees and vegetation and the current trail is a tremendous improvement to preserve the mound group as well as provide access. I believe acquiring the Tract #4 Sny Magill Tract can be a step in the right direction to provide better access and parking. The tract however is mostly in the flood plain and I question filling in the land for parking or visitor contact station. Possibly along highway 76 where the land is higher would be more suitable for parking and a contact station. What is currently lacking at the Sny Magill site is the presence of National Park Service personnel. How to accomplish this goal is going to be difficult. A contact station could have vault toilets which would be less expensive to maintain. During the summer and fall, it is important that the park service have a presence at the location. If a parking area could be provided on a corner of Tract # 4 patrols and informal as well as occasional formal presentations need to be scheduled. Lack of staffing could result in increased vandalism and incompatible activity. Stabilization of banks along Johnson Slough should occur with the best available technology that does not distract from the natural landscape. Boundary Adjustments considered but not included in Recommendations5. The Riverfront Tract is currently under the control of the State of Iowa (not including the railroad right of way). There are at least two and possibly three archeological sites that should be managed by the National Park Service. It is within the legislated boundaries of the monument and should be preserved in the monument. 6. Several other tracts were not included in the general management plan out of respect for concerns expressed by the landowners. I understand that current landowners have concerns about mentioning their property in a general management plan. However land ownership changes occur over time. No land will be acquired unless from willing sellers. I am concerned that the park service's future goals are being compromised by not addressing long range boundary adjustments.Heritage Addition I support the county turning over the county road to the National Park Service. 7. In terms of parking, I believe a parking area along highway 76 should have room for 6-8 vehicles and a walking trail to the north side of the Heritage Addition. 8. Trails could be developed along an existing corridor at the north side of the floodplain that runs along the base of the ridge. Another trail could use an existing logging road to the bear mounds. The ridge beyond the mounds is very fragile and studies would need to be conducted to determine if access would have adverse 

site-specific environmental analysis and site planning would be the best location for a contact station and small parking area. 5. If the Riverfront Tract were to become available the Nationainterested in acquiring the land at which point the National Parmanagement responsibility of the archeological sites. 6. Some tracts were dropped from further consideration for thfact that they do not contain resources that are fundamental to purpose (e.g. views). These parcels could be re-considered duriStudy or Land Protection Plan. 7. The parking area located along highway 76 (proposed in the been removed from the Final GMP due to safety concerns. AfteGMP, the monument will undergo a public access plan / trail dlargely focuses on the Heritage Addition. In this document, the at trail connections from the visitor center parking lot to trails i8. The General Management Plan directs the Park to undergo a 
207 

effects on the vegetation. 9. A major project needs to be implemented to restore the vegetation along the Yellow River north bank. The floodplain presently consists of monoculture stands of reed canary grass, an invasive species which is leading to a decrease in diversity of plants and wildlife. South Unit 10. The access road going into South Unit needs to be improved to provide for safety along highway 76. The entry is presently too steep in the initial 50 yards. A possible mound along the access road needs to be preserved. Complete the New Trail connecting the South Unit mounds with the county road within compliance of all regulations. Minimal signage is needed to maintain the experience of exploring the mounds without distracting from the natural setting. Research on best practices for long term mound preservation should continue. Open areas that contain prairie and Rattlesnake Knob should continue to be managed with periodic burns. Visitors need to be educated about staying on the designated trails or open areas around the mounds. North Unit The overlook at Fire point reconstruction will need to be conducted to better preserve the mounds at Fire point while also providing access to the views of the river and the South Unit. Two areas that the North Unit Trail that should be investigated for possible relocation include the section adjacent to private property just north of the Third Scenic View and along the north boundary where the trail runs adjacent to private property. The Monument's Museum Collection and Archives 11. The museum collection and archives has been a major concern for many years. The general management plan preferred alternative is to move the collection to a site in a nearby town. I would prefer that the present visitor center be expanded to include additional space in the rear of the present building. This addition and restructuring of present space could provide additional space for interpretive displays on the visitor level and the lower level would house an expanded area for the museum collection, the archives and space for researchers and an office for a cultural resource specialist. Moving the collection offsite is an alternative if more secure space cannot be provided at the monument. This I believe should not be the preferred alternative. 

development plan that largely focuses on the Heritage Additioninitiated after the General Management Plan is finalized. 9. Specific projects such as this are outside the scope of a geneThis type of action would be proposed as part of a future vegeplan. No change to the document was made in response to thi10. Due to resource concerns, the realignment of the access rono longer proposed in any of the alternatives. The National Paralternatives to provide for maintenance access that might occuService lands. If access can be provided elsewhere, the Park is ivegetating much of the road to provide for trail access only. If appropriate compliance would be conducted. 11. Space is not the issue driving the potential move of the coladdition to the existing visitor center is not considered in the Gthe visitor center does not meet NPS museum collections standmoving the collection is to provide better protection and securB was revised in response to this comment and several similar cthe option of keeping the collections at the monument with inand the facility, among other relocation options. 
208

Dedicating a staff member to this offsite collection and archive site would be acceptable if funding for personnel was not an issue. Having a staff member stationed at the offsite location would be an inefficient use of needed personnel onsite. 12. If no other alternative is acceptable, moving the collection to a nearby location in Marquette, McGregor or Prairie du Chien would be preferable to moving the collection to the Midwest Archeological Center. I think a location for the collections on site that provides security and accessibility to researchers is critical. Virtual Research Center Mounds Maintenance 13. If it has not been developed, a mounds maintenance plan needs to be developed with each mound having its own management plan. This plan would include the data recording the condition of each mound; the abiotic and biotic factors affecting the long term management; the type of vegetation on the mound and how this vegetation will be managed would be documented for each mound. The database will include all historic data on the mound (various studies have been done but these studies and databases need to be organized into one database of information). This information would be readily available to researchers, resource managers, interpretive rangers and maintenance staff that work directly with vegetation management and mound preservation. This database would track vegetation patterns in areas adjacent to mounds as well provide long term monitoring and management. Research on mounds throughout the country and a clearinghouse of data on mounds of the Midwest would be included in the virtual research center. The center, located at the monument, would interface with archeological research facilities, federal, tribal, state, county and local government agencies, and land managers. Information on legal requirements and management options of preservation of mounds and archeological sites on private property would be available to landowners. This would be critical to preserve the many sites located on private lands. I believe this outreach function would be valuable in educating the public and provide stewardship of our diminishing archeological heritage. Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment 14. I have a concern about the designation although I realize at this point the process is being studied. If the purpose of this designation is promoting the Yellow River as a nationally recognized recreational river, I believe there are several areas that need to be considered. The river flows through 3.5 miles of the monument, however upriver another 3.8 flows through state owned land. Is this state owned section or other sections upstream being considered? The social takeout along 76 would be closed mostly due to a very narrow strip of private land between the 

12. The text in Alternative B of the Final General Management 

reflect the interest of the National Park Service in cooperating wmuseum, nonprofit organization, or government agency to stocollections and archives closer to Effigy Mounds National Park. need to meet NPS museum collections standards. 

13. With over 200 mounds in the monument, this may not be type of action could be proposed as part a long-term mound m14. The purpose of National Wild and Scenic River designation free-flowing character and its outstandingly remarkable valuesRiver are scenery, geology, wildlife, history, and recreation. The analyzed the segment that is within NPS jurisdiction. Segments monument are also listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory anthe state. If this study occurs, the NPS could cooperate and offis true that a new bridge across the river would probably not b
209 

Heritage Addition and the highway right of way. Has there been any discussion of acquiring this property and upgrading the landing. Also the area below the highway 76 bridge would be closed due to safety considerations. Access out of the river would require going out into the Mississippi River and taking out on the landing of the State of Iowa. The other concern is this would restrict any bridge from crossing the river at the west end of the heritage Addition, near the Jefferson Davis Sawmill site. I think this river crossing would be important to connect the North Heritage Addition with the county road on the south side of the Yellow River. Would the benefit of designation outweigh the restrictions that would be placed on the river access and crossings? Also with anticipated increased river use, whether or not restriction on takeouts would be enacted, more activity will occur. How will this increased river activity fit in with the goal of providing outstanding hiking along either side of the Yellow River? Would the increased river activity jeopardize the visitor experience along the trails adjacent to the river? Some increased activity would be acceptable but the sounds of groups passing through this section on a regular basis will distract from others experience. With exceptions and comments, I support the alternative B as outlined in the draft GMP. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Effigy Mounds National Monument Draft General Management Plan. 

would adversely affect the scenic values. The GMP is not proporiver below the highway 76 bridge. The NPS does not anticipatnumber of boaters on the river because of designation. The prowould enhance the experience of riverside hikers by reducing tmotorboats on the river. 

COMMENT #8—Submitted by Timothy Mason

COMMENT RESPONSE

Dear Superintendent James A. Nepstad, Thank you for inviting me to comment on this GMP proposal. Similar to your document I would like to put forth an introduction. My introduction, 

for the record. I was born and raised just a couple miles south of the original South Unit boundary of your park in the little river village of Marquette. Our parents instilled upon us a very strong environmental ethic. They were outdoor folks, hunting & fishing. But much more then that they actively taught us the web of life in all we did. Not simply to take but to help nourish the natural world we live in. We were raised with boats of every description to ply the Mississippi River. Handmade houseboat, flat-bottoms, duck boats, etc. We were "riverat" kids, and we roamed the nearby wooded hills, creeks & swamps at will. 
210

My very first memory of Effigy Mounds National Monument was when I was probably six years old my brother & I were taken on a hike with our Aunt Marcella McGowan. Aunt Marc was a school teacher and a nature lover who would point out & identify all the woodland flowers and plants along the Fire Point Trail. Later at age 16 my same brother & I would get summer jobs at the park with the Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC) working with the maintenance department on the trail system. In 1979 I would be employed as a seasonal laborer & continue seasonal employment for a total of 19 years. I held a variety of positions including Park Ranger, wildland firefighter and radon mitigation advisor. I love Effigy Mounds National Monument! It is a part of who I'm and my years spent there have contributed to the way I see life in general. I'm a preservationist, treehugger and very proud of it. With that said, now begins my formal comments on your GMP. 1. Over the last several years as I would drive by the park, visit and walk the trails it sickened me to see all the development, i.e. plastic flooring boardwalks, bridge across the Yellow River & all the green lumber products, the cutting of maintenance roads, the Quonset hut type structure built in the prairie area of the north unit. And the huge stock pile of building materials vehicles and tools overflowing from the maintenance building. I simply thought that the National Park Service had lost its way, as many local folks had also thought. However when the news broke that all this junk and the damage to the resources were the result of a couple federal employees conspiring to circumvent federal and state law to build their own little empire with taxpayers dollars I was outraged! "MY PARK" was violated by these people? What would Ellison Orr and his cadre of old timers, The Mississippi River Valley National Park Association, all the former Effigy Mounds employees and all the school children that had listened over the years to the park's mission statement think? These actions were worse and longer lasting then public urination in a cathedral! I will not rest until these employees are held accountable by the U.S. Government's judicial system and a jury of their peers. With that said I don't believe the NPS "gets it". The document that I received is 252 

1. Between 2000 and 2010, some developments were construNational Environmental Policy Act and section 106 complianceService has consulted and would continue to consult with the spreservation officer and traditionally associated tribes in order tobligations to the greatest degree possible. When the Midwest 

National Park Service became aware of actions completed withall construction was halted. Several of the developments were including the boardwalk loop segment in the South Unit and thstructure. The National Park Service has evaluated the past contrends at the park and attempts to chart a new course with murecommended in the revised General Management Plan. Additional proposed construction actions have been removed fGeneral Management Plan including a small proposed parking Addition and the realignment of the South Unit access road. Threvised to include some trail and road standards in response to comments. The trail standards specify desired widths, surface (character for each of the management zones. The road standa

desired level of use for each of the management zones. 
211 

pages and weighs approximately 2.5 lbs... Was this really necessary? I believe it demonstrates a federal bureaucracy out of control. The mission of Effigy Mounds National Monument "IS TO PROTECT SIGNIFICANT PREHISTORIC EARTH MOUNDS FOUND IN NORTHEAST IOWA ................. WILDLIFE, SCENIC AND OTHER NATURAL VALUES OF THE AREA". That is a pretty simple statement. It is preservation as the core element. Status coup, not a bunch of wasteful development. Here is what I humbly propose. Dismantle and remove all the boardwalks, the Yellow River Bridge and all the "green lumber". To repeat, the park needs to preserve the landscape of the prehistoric Indians who constructed the mounds. What I see is a pile of obtrusive building materials. That wetland area reminds me of a cattle shoot at a livestock yard not a natural ecosystem. I might suggest you read a short article I had published in the Iowa Ornithologist's Union periodical, Iowa Bird Life, Vol. L No. 3, September, 1980. It has to do with my monitoring of a then State Endangered Species, the Red-Shouldered Hawk nest located near the Yellow River highway bridge construction site that year. I cannot believe any hawk would now nest above that "cattle shoot". 2. The absolutely worst abomination of the natural world near the Visitor's Center is that manufactured wooden deck from the walking bridge to the impacted Three Mounds Area. When I was leading Ranger guided interpretative walks you would lead your group across the bridge and into the woods and stop at the Three Mounds. Then you would let these folks momentarily settle into the woodland scene. Songbirds singing, a breeze rustling through the tree canopy. You were now in an almost prehistoric setting and could begin your talk. Now all I see is a very shoddy built suburban home deck. I cannot believe that pile of ##@@# is still let to stand there. I would be ashamed & embarrassed quite frankly to be associated with that. 3. Your lengthy document speaks of pedestrian access to the South Unit. Just a couple simple suggestions if you feel you have to make improvements to what has worked just fine for 60 years. Take that Yellow River Bridge which was illegally built and incorporate it into a bridge over Highway #76 similar to what you see in urban areas over Interstate highways. It could be engineered and done. 4. Your document also speaks of moving the collections to a remote location. I also have a somewhat simple resolution to that. The current maintenance building could be retrofitted into a collection storage & study site. There never was any need or justification for a building like that in such a small park. Relocate that department back into the "old maintenance building". Move the Resource Manager's operation to the basement of the Visitor Center were the collections are now located. Sell off allot of the 

2. The National Park Service can consider removal of this and odevelopments outside the framework of the General Managem3. The National Park Service did not remove the Yellow River Bconnecting the bridge to the visitor center and does not propothe GMP, partly due to the expense of removal (thereby makinand expensive action even more wasteful) and partly because tconnection of the visitor center to the South Unit trail system fthan other alternatives at this point. 4. Space is not the issue driving the potential move of the collethe visitor center only minimally meets NPS museum collections The cost of retrofitting an existing building (designed for a very 
212

machinery and tools that caused the illegal impacts to begin with. Build a privacy wall/ fence around the maintenance compound. That area on the NW corner of the terrace looks more like a sloppy construction company's yard then the entrance to a National Park Service area. 5. I might add in all of your Draft GMP, unless I missed it, I don't see a discussion on costs of your alternative plans. Our culture, our nation, our government is transcending into a different era. Taxpayers in general are no longer tolerating wasteful spending, we our broke and it's not gonna change. I say clean up the park and protect and preserve it. In closing Sir, I and others vow to volunteer to physically remove and clean up the site of Effigy Mounds National Monument; all you have to do is ask. A hardcopy of this letter is in the U.S. Mail to your office. Sincerely, Timothy Mason 

park to meet NPS museum collections standards would be cost the cost of leasing conforming space in a nearby community. 5. An analysis of costs is included in Chapter 2. 

COMMENT #9—Submitted by Bill Howe (comment transcribed by NPS staff at public meeting) 

COMMENT RESPONSE

p. 25 -USFWS mentality of non-cooperating should not exist, should work together. p. 26 -Last bullet parking is a real issue/hazard b/c of highway no matter what you. p. 27 -Do not need Wild and Scenic layer of bureaucracy. p. 31 -Last paragraph discharge from Sny Magill –The park does not need to consider discharge impacts because there is nothing the park can do to prevent it. 1. p. 32 -It would be nice to use the historic names of places in the park.  -Commenter is not worried about commercial forestry. 2. p. 50 -The view of the quarry may become an issue in the future be aware of future quarry development on the hillside to the south of Sny Magill. p. 76 -High water at Sny Magill can have an impact. 3. p. 85 -Consider the development of the new research center located adjacent to park in the building owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. p. 87 -10 miles may as well be 100- should be closer. p. 95 -The NPS should coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reduce costs. p. 100 -USFWS center no longer viable, could have been a good opportunity to share a facility. 

1. The National Park Service may consider using historic place nof the park in the future. Consideration of historic place names the long-range interpretive plan. 2. Views from the mounds would be unaffected by the quarry proposed for acquisition is meant to support visitation to the mserve as a scenic viewpoint. 3. The National Park Service would consider this and other partthe area. 
213 

p. 105 -Use trees and natural materials to route visitors rather than fences. 4. p. 110 -Canoe take out: commercial interests should work to utilize it, consider low profile dockage (floats). p. 111 -good idea for archives etc to be in new facility- can’t change some viewsheds and soundscapes 5. -document doesn’t mention St. Paul district of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, only the Rock Island District. USFWS also should mention Twin Cities District. 6. P. 153 -Cumulative effects- doesn’t mention time frame. p. 155 -Use riprap @Sny Magill  -Water treatment facility- new techniques chemicals and sunlight p. 157 -Don’t remove all roads- “You’ll need them someday” can’t get rid of footprint 7. p. 158-Why do national register determination after purchase p. 167 -Do not need Wild and Scenic River designation, don’t need another agency to do what we’re already doing p. 174-Not enough room to talk about invasive species 8. p. 175-Special status species section not complete 9. p. 192-The cumulative effects of tourism should include visitors to Guttenberg and Lansing about 26000 to 27000 visitors per year. 10. p. 207-threathened and Endangered Species should be updated with complete list. 

4. Currently the Superintendent’s Compendium prohibits canoin the Monument. 5. There is no reference to USACE Districts in the document. Hnot proposing construction in a waterway, no formal consultatnecessary. 6. Cumulative effects take into account all past, present, and foactions. This typically means since the park unit was established futures, which is typically 15-20 years out. 7. The National Park Service does not generally prepare nationafor lands that they do not own. 8. The species listed in this section were rechecked and appropmade. This list only includes special status species that are knowMounds National Monument. 9. There is not enough information to say how this is related to if there are any trends that should be noted. 10. The planning team received a list of threatened, endangerefrom the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Monument staff compaknown to occur in the monument and this was used in the EISon March 19, 2012. 

COMMENT #10—Submitted by Phyllis Lentz

COMMENT RESPONSE

You have done a terrific job of explaining all about Effigy Mounds. Sincerely, Phyllis Lentz COMMENT #11—Submitted by Douglas W. Jones, Review and Compliance Program Manager and Archaeologist, State HisOffice, State Historical Society of Iowa

COMMENT RESPONSE

Dear Ms. Randall, Thank you for providing our office with the above referenced document. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this document. We 
214

understand that future projects to be conducted at Effigy Mounds National Historic Monument under this plan will be federal undertakings for your agency and will need to comply with Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and with the National Environmental Protection Act. We have reviewed this document. Provided below are our general comments. 1. We are aware that this draft has been in development for quite some time and that at its point of publication and distribution would not contain descriptions of situations and anticipated corrective actions that have been in discussion within the 

last 6 to 9 months. 

1. 2. We did note that this document does not discuss recently disclosed projects and activities that did not follow proper protocol and procedures for implementation in compliance with applicable federal regulations and laws.( see in particular pages 100-103) 1. 3. We note that the document does not include any statements about corrective measures that are under consideration and discussion in regard to recently disclosed projects and activities that did not follow proper protocol and procedures for implementation in compliance with applicable federal regulations and laws. (see in particular pages 100 - 103) 2. 4. We note that a number of trail locations on the maps are not updated and that a number of trail segments associated with the recently disclosed activities have been removed and no longer exist (see in particular Figure 13 which includes segments of trails which have been removed after recently concluded consultation). We think that the maps included in the final document should be updated to reflect the current trails at the facility. 3. 5. We note that this document does not discuss any of the wetland issues and impacts to the waters of the United States that the recently disclosed activities may have had. We recommend that these should be addressed as well as the process on how future impacts will be considered and evaluated under the National Park Service protocols and procedures in consultation with the other appropriate agencies such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 4. 6.Per recent consultation with the tribes on this proposed draft, we have noted that the tribal representatives have concerns about the concept of a proposed "Research Center." 5. 7. Page 43, Overflow Parking. In our opinion, no overflow event vehicle parking 

1. Between 2000 and 2010, some developments were construNational Environmental Policy Act and section 106 complianceService has consulted and would continue to consult with the spreservation officer and tribes in order to meet our legal obligadegree possible. Several of the developments were subsequentboardwalk loop segment in the South Unit and the Quonset hudevelopments would require additional consultation with the soffice and tribes as well. 2. The maps in the Final General Management Plan have been 

existing trails. 

3. As stated in the general management plan: “The only actionalternatives that could affect wetlands or floodplains are the cothrough the Heritage Addition and in the Sny Magill Unit in altpublic access/ development plans for these areas are prepared, the impacts (if any) that might occur. Full site-specific environmon wetlands and floodplains would be conducted with the devso wetlands and floodplains are dismissed from further analysis management plan and deferred to the implementation plans.” 4. This is not the understanding of the National Park Service basubmitted and from consultation with traditionally associated t5. The general management plan has been revised so that over
215 

should ever be allowed on identified sensitive areas. Per recent consultations, we understand that the National Park Service also agrees with this although this document does not capture this fact. It also does not address the change of interpretation regarding areas around the visitor center once thought to no longer contain significant cultural resources. Based on recent research, these areas still appear to contain significant cultural resources and should be considered to be sensitive areas. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this document. We look forward to further consulting with your agency on the development of this document and in consulting with your agency on the future projects and activities at Effigy Mounds National Historic Monument. Please reference the Review and Compliance Number provided above in all future submitted correspondence to our office for this project. Should you have any questions please contact me at (515) 281-4358. Sincerely, Douglas W. Jones, Review and Compliance Program Manager and Archaeologist, State Historic Preservation Office State Historical Society of Iowa 

areas would no longer be tolerated. This change is reflected in of chapter 2. 

COMMENT #12—Submitted by Katherine Stevenson, Projects Director, Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center

COMMENT RESPONSE

Jim, Here are some comments on the draft management plan. After receiving your last e-mail I put November 18 on my calendar as the deadline, and now I just saw that you requested them “before” that date, so I apologize for them coming in today instead and hope they are still viable. With busy fall schedules, it’s the best we could do. Joe Tiffany read through the draft and gave me some comments, and I’ve done my best to meld them together with mine. 1. Cover: Joe suggests a different illustration because the current one doesn’t seem to be a realistic depiction of an activity that would occur in that way, or in that location (which appears to be next to a large Middle Woodland mound). Are the people burying someone next to a mound? Or is this the start of building an adjacent mound? Why are there so few people? Etc. 2. Terminology: Joe and I are both concerned about the use of the term “moundbuilders” or “the moundbuilders” as though it represents a culture or a 

1. The cover and divider pages have been redesigned using imaNational Monument. 2. A footnote explaining the term “moundbuilder” has been aGeneral Management Plan on where the first mention of “mou
216

people, since the practice of building earthen mounds as a form of cultural expression spans a wide range of cultures and time periods. Page 162, for example, refers to “the mound-builder culture,” but there isn’t any such entity. Page 47 refers to a “moundbuilder village habitation,” which again doesn’t quite work as a descriptive term. Also, there are the leftover connotations from the earlier use of “moundbuilder” to mean a long-dead race separate from current Native peoples. Other educational information in the interpretive center etc. does a good job of explaining how mound construction fit into the sequence of evolving cultural patterns in the region, but using the “moundbuilder” term loses much of that nuance and meaning. This could be fixed with some minor phrasing changes. For example, could the regional cultures that built mounds be mentioned briefly by name early on? (Currently that doesn’t happen until page 122.) That would provide context for referring to the cultures associated with the mounds by names other than “the moundbuilders.” Survey: We both agree completely with plans to complete the archaeological 

survey of the entire property, and LiDAR would be an especially helpful vehicle for mapping mounds and many other management tasks and potential enhancements (e.g., evaluating viewsheds). 

3. Ecosystem restoration: Joe points out that we can’t really “restore” ecosystems 

to what they once were, and there really aren’t plans to recreate the original prairie 

or savanna/parkland vegetation there, in what is now a fairly heavily wooded area. Modest measures such as selective tree removal are the most appropriate, but they won’t restore the original ecosystem. Education about precontact ecosystems and how they were maintained is valuable, however, and practical. Quiet/low impact visitation: This is an excellent approach to keep up, and Alternative B (rather than C) seems to fit this model well. (People could be directed to nearby Wyalusing or other parks with camping facilities.) Alternative C seems as though it would change the character of the place quite a bit. 

4. FTD village site: Joe suggests incorporating the FTD village site into the interpretive model, since right now no appropriate village/habitation site is linked to the mounds, meaning that the whole story isn’t being told. 4. Linking to other regional sites: Joe suggests linking EMNM to other important mound groups and village sites in the region such as Fish Farm Mounds State Preserve, Wyalusing State Park, and Yellow River State Forest to increase the visitor experience and fully integrate EMNM into the tourist potential of the region. Signage: Signage on the mounds/mound area should be kept to a minimum as it 

the text. 

3. The intent is to restore/maintain a prairie ecosystem where faround the major mound groups. This could involve selective wremoval and prevention of exotic species and noxious weeds, anative seed. No change is necessary. 4. After the completion of the general management plan, EffigMonument will begin a long-range interpretive plan. The long-would be a good opportunity to consider expanding the interpvillage site and other regional mound sites. 
217 

currently is, since interpretive material can be provided in other ways that are easier to maintain and less intrusive on the landscape. 5. Visitors center and collections: Joe wonders whether there is potential for enlarging the existing visitor’s center to cover projected use. 6.The whole issue of taking the collections offsite is problematic (many logistical and management headaches), and a “virtual” research center as proposed in Alternative B would presumably mean an extensive commitment to digitization and web access that could be expensive and difficult in different ways from those associated with a place people can visit. Also, as the collections are not completely catalogued, continuing with that process should be part of the plan. This collections-related portion of the plan, for either Alternatives B or C, could use some fleshing out, as the implications are significant. 7. Visitor use/numbers and parking: There’s information on numbers of visitors 

in recent years, but we didn’t see anything on projected numbers for the future, with the proposed alternatives. For example, would the proposed enhancements increase the number of visitors, and if so, would that increase impacts and logistical problems? Parking at the visitors center is already mentioned as a problem, and increased enforcement for violations or increased education on busy times might discourage visitors without really solving the problem of too little parking space for the people who want to visit (and who should be encouraged to do so). Page numbers: As a minor point, I would encourage you to put page numbers on the figure pages if you’re going to refer to them by page number in the text (e.g., on page 47). We also want you to know that we very much appreciate all the effort that is going into this planning process as well as the current management of the facility. Regards, Kathy 

5. Space is not the issue driving the potential move of the collethe visitor center does not meet NPS collections standards. This addition of more space. Therefore, enlarging the visitor center this plan. An addition to the existing visitor center to accommodate addiconsidered in the general management plan because it would environmental impact. A recent study revealed (through grounimagery) many mounds in and around the visitor center area thknown. 6. The digitization of the collections would be handled by the nand museum technology staff proposed in the alternative and/at the Midwest Archeological Center; as a result the additional The costs associated with the virtual research center (included include Web access. Both alternatives B and C call for additionthat would be responsible for cataloging the remainder of the given the concerns raised in this comment and many similar coPark Service has changed alternative B to allow for possibility kcollections and archives at the monument with an investment ifacility. 7. The additional visitor opportunities in the preferred alternatiin an increase in total number of annual visitors. However, this quantify because of unknowns such as the economic situation, and future funding for the National Park Service that would alsvisitors. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS, AND CONSULTANTS

218 
Public and Agency Involvement 

219 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER 

AGENCIES/OFFICIALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS (TO DATE) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Section 7 Consultation 

During preparation of this document, NPS 

staff coordinated informally with the 

USFWS field office for this area in Rock 

Island, Illinois. The list of threatened and 

endangered species (appendix E) was 

compiled using information received from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

rechecked March 19, 2012. 

In accordance with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and relevant 

regulations at 50 CFR Part 402, the 

National Park Service determined that 

implementing the preferred alternative in 

this general management plan is not likely 

to result in adverse effects to listed species 

and so would not require formal 

consultation. A copy of this management 

plan was sent to the USFWS field office 

and the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources. 

The National Park Service has committed 

to consult on future actions conducted 

under the framework described in this 

general management plan to ensure that 

such actions are not likely to adversely 

affect threatened or endangered species. 

Iowa State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Section 106 Consultation 

Agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act to take into 

account the effect of any undertaking on 

properties eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. To 

meet the requirements of 36 CFR 800, the 

National Park Service sent letters to the 

Iowa state historic preservation officer, 

and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation in January 2005, inviting their 

participation in the planning process 

(appendix C). 

A copy of the revised draft general 

management plan was sent to the Iowa 

state historic preservation officer. 

Comments from the Iowa state historic 

preservation officer were received and 

addressed. A copy of this internal draft of 

the Final General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was 

sent to the Office of the State Archaeologist 

and the Iowa state historic preservation 

officer. 

American Indian Tribes 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

indigenous peoples may have traditional 

interests and rights in lands now under 

NPS management. Related American 

Indian concerns are sought through 

consultations. The need for governmentto-government American Indian 

consultations stems from the historic 

power of Congress to make treaties with 

American Indian tribes as sovereign 

nations. Consultations with American 

Indians are required by various federal 

laws, executive orders, regulations, and 

policies. They are needed, for example, to 

comply with section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Implementing 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for National 

Environmental Policy Act also call for 

American Indian consultations. 

Letters were sent to the following 

American Indian groups to invite their 

participation in several steps of the 

planning process (see appendix C for a 

sample of the letter that was sent to all 

tribes): 

 Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of 

South Dakota 

 Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin 

(formerly the Wisconsin 

Winnebago Tribe) 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS, AND CONSULTANTS

220 

 Iowa Tribe of Kansas and 

Nebraska; 

 Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

 Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, 

Oklahoma 

 Lower Sioux Indian Community in 

the State of Minnesota 

 Prairie Island Indian Community in 

the State of Minnesota 

 Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi 

in Iowa 

 Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in 

Kansas and Nebraska 

 Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma 

 Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska 

(formerly the Santee Sioux Tribe of 

the Santee Reservation of 

Nebraska) 

 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community of Minnesota 

 Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the 

Lake Traverse Reservation, South 

Dakota (formerly the SissetonWahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake 

Traverse Reservation 

 Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota 

 Upper Sioux Community, 

Minnesota 

 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 

The tribes were briefed on the scope of the 

planning project and the preliminary 

alternatives by newsletter and follow-up 

telephone calls soliciting comments. Some 

tribal representatives commented that 

existing treaty rights should continue to be 

protected and that interpretation in the 

park should include the American Indian 

viewpoint. Conversations have been 

ongoing throughout the planning process 

to inform the tribes about the progress of 

the plan and identify how and to what 

extent they would like to be involved. The 

traditionally associated American Indian 

tribes were given an opportunity to review 

and comment on the Revised Draft General 

Management Plan prior to the public 

release. The tribes were provided an 

electronic copy of the document and 

consultation meetings were held on June 

30, 2011, and June 13, 2012.
221 

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS 

DOCUMENT 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

U.S. SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES 

Honorable Charles Grassley, U.S. Senator 

Honorable Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator 

Honorable Bruce Braley, U.S. 

Representative 

Honorable Tom Latham, U.S. 

Representative 

IOWA STATE OFFICIALS 

The Honorable Terry Branstad, Governor 

Roger Thomas, State Representative 

Patti Ruff, State Representative 

Brian Schoenjahn, State Senator 

Mary Jo Wilhelm, State Senator 

IOWA STATE AGENCIES 

Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer 

Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs 

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa Department of Transportation 

Yellow River State Forest 

Pike’s Peak State Park 

TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED 

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 

Ho Chunk Nation of Wisconsin (formerly 

the Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe) 

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, 

Oklahoma 

Lower Sioux Indian Community in the 

State of Minnesota 

Prairie Island Indian Community in the 

State of Minnesota 

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa 

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas 

and Nebraska 

Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community of Minnesota 

Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
222 
223 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

Nell Blodgett, GIS Lead—Responsible for 

document maps. 

Kerri Cahill, Visitor Use Management 

Team Lead—Responsible for 

development and review of user 

capacity section. 

Craig Cellar, Former Project Manager/ 

Former Cultural Resource Specialist 

(now retired)—Responsible for project 

coordination, cultural resources 

sections of planning, affected 

environment, and impact analysis. 

Jan Harris, Chief, Planning Branch 3(now 

retired) Responsible for document 

review. 

Cynthia Nelson, Chief, Planning Branch, 

Responsible for document review. 

Leslie Petersen, Cultural Resource 

Specialist—Responsible for cultural 

resources sections of planning, affected 

environment, and impact analysis. 

Ericka Pilcher, Visitor Use Resource 

Specialist—Responsible for 

development of user capacity section. 

Kate Randall, Project Manager/Landscape 

Architect—Responsible for project 

coordination and document 

production. 

Matthew Safford, Natural Resource 

Specialist/Former Project Manager—

Responsible for natural resources, 

socioeconomic, and monument 

operations sections of planning, 

affected environment, and impact 

analysis. 

Brenda Todd, Cultural Resource 

Specialist—Responsible for cultural 

resources section of planning. 

HARPERS FERRY CENTER

Richard Jones, Interpretive Planner—

Responsible for visitor use and 

experience sections of planning, 

affected environment, and impact 

analysis. 

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL 

MONUMENT 

Kenneth Block, Former Chief Ranger 

Phyllis Ewing, Former Superintendent 

Sharon Greener, Administrative Assistant 

James Nepstad, Superintendent 

Rodney Rovang, Natural Resources 

Manager 

Thomas Sinclair, Chief of Maintenance 

Jessica Salesman, Biological Science 

Technician 

Friday Wiles, Administrative Officer 

MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE 

Michael Evans, Ethnographer/Acting 

Superintendent 

Ruth Heikkinen, Planning and Compliance 

Division Chief—Quality review and 

contributor to sections. 

Anne Vawser, Cultural Resource Specialist 

Sändra Washington, Former Chief of 

Planning; Assistant Regional Director 

for Planning, Construction, 

Communications, and Legislation 

PUBLICATION SERVICES

Jim Corbett, Visual Information Services 

Supervisor, Denver Service Center 

Glenda Heronema, Former Visual 

Information Specialist, Denver Service 

Center (now retired) 

June McMillen, Writer/Editor, Denver 

Service Center (now retired) 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

224 

OTHER

Patt Murphy, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and 

Nebraska 

Don Weeks, NPS Water Resources 

Division 
Appendixes, 

References, and Index

Monarch on Butterfly Weed

227 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION SUMMARY 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa — 

- Presidential Proclamation No. 2860, Oct. 25, 1949, 64th Statutes at Large, 81st Congress, 

2d Session, 64 part 2:A371 

- Public Law 87-44, May 27, 1961, 75 Stat. 88 

- Public Law 106–323, Oct. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 1289 

Presidential Proclamation 2860 established Effigy Mounds National Monument because of “... 

earth mounds in the northeastern part of the State of Iowa known as the Effigy Mounds are of 

great scientific interest because of the variety of their forms, which include animal effigy, bird 

effigy, conical, and linear types, illustrative of a significant phase of the mound-building culture of 

the prehistoric American Indians.” 

The proclamation also included this statement: “Warning is hereby expressly given to all 

unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this 

monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof.” 

Public Law 87-44 added 272 acres of land to the monument, “. . . for the purposes of preserving 

certain prehistoric Indian mounds and protecting existing wildlife and other natural values . . .” 

Public Law 106-323 allowed for additional lands (Ferguson/Kistler Tract and the Riverfront 

Tract) to be purchased from willing sellers and adjusted the monument boundary to include these 

lands. The Ferguson/Kistler Tract is now called the Heritage Addition.
228 
229 

APPENDIX B: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE AND IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

12795 W. ALAMEDA PARKWAY 

P.O. BOX 25287 

DENVER, COLORADO 80225-0287 

In reply refer to: 

EFMO (85825) 

December 29, 2004 

Supervisor 

Rock Island Ecological Services Field Office 

4469 48th Avenue Court 

Rock Island, IL 61201 

The National Park Service is starting development of a General Management Plan for Effigy 

Mounds National Monument located in Allamakee and Clayton counties, Iowa (map 

attached). 

This long-term, comprehensive plan will define overall management goals and objectives, 

identify resources that need protection and prescribe general management actions at the 

Monument for the next 15-20 years. Specific resources or areas are managed under separate, 

lower level plans based on the General Management Plan. 

As the Project Manager for this federal action, I am requesting a current list of federally-listed 

or any other special status species that might occur in the vicinity of Effigy Mounds, and 

designated critical habitat, if any, for such species. 

This letter also serves as a record that the National Park Service is initiating consultation with 

your agency pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and National Park 

Service Management Policies. 

I appreciate your attention to this inquiry and look forward to working with your office 

throughout this planning effort. Please send any responses to: 

Matthew Safford 

National Park Service (DSC-P) 

12795 W. Alameda Parkway 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225-0287 

Phone: (303) 969-2898 

Email: <matthew_safford@nps.gov> 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Safford 

Planning Project Manager 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

230 

ffeceived DSC-P 

JAN 1 9 l005 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Rock Island Field Office 

4469 481

h Avenue Court 

Rock Island, Illinois 61201 

Phone' (309) 793-5800 FIDe (309) 793-5804 

l"J REPLY RE~ER 

w 

FWS/RIFO 

January 13, 2005 

Mr. Mathew Safford 

Narionai Park Service 

Denver Service Center 

12795 W. Alameda Parkway 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 

Dear Mr. Safford: 

This is in response to your letter of December 29, 2004, regarding the development of a 

General Management Plan for Effigy Mounds National Monument in Allamakee and Clayton 

Counties, Iowa. 

To facilitate compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

Federal agencies are required to obtain from the Fish and Wildlife Service information 

concerning any species, listed or proposed to be listed, which may be present in the area of a 

proposed action. Therefore, we are furnishing you the following list of species which may be 

present in Allamakee and Clayton Counties, Iowa: 

f'!as~iflcation Common Name (Scientific !'<i!I!l~ Habitat 

Threatened Bald eagle Breeding and wintering 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Threatened Prairie bush-clover Dry to mesic prairies 

(Lespedeza leptostachva) 

Threatened Western prairie fringed orchid Wet grassland 

(Platanthera praeclara) habitats 

Threatened Nortl1ern monkshood North-facing slopes 

(Aconitwn novaboracense) 
Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

231 

\b. Marsha Cory 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Higgins' eye pearly mussel 

(Lamisilis higginsii) 

Iowa pleistocene snail 

(Disc/Is macclimocki) 

2 

Mississippi River 

Algitlc talus slopes 

The threatened bald eagle (Haliaeellls leucoceplwlus) potentially occurs statewide and is listed 

as breeding and wintering in Allamakee and Clayton Counties. During the winter, this species 

feeds on fish in the open water areas created by dam tail waters, the \\1arm water effluents of 

power plants and municipal and industrial discharges, or in power plant cooling ponds. The 

more severe the winter, the greater the ice coverage and the more concentrated the eagles 

become. They roost at night in group_;; in large trees adjacent to the river in areJs that are 

protected from the harsh winter elements. They perch in large shoreline trees to rest or feed 

on fish. There is no critical habitat designated for this species. The eagle may not be 

harassed, harmed, or disturbed when present nor may nest trees be cleared. 

The prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya) is listed as threatened and considered to 

potentially occur statewide in Iowa, including Allamakee and Clayton Counties. It occupies 

dry to mesic prairies with gravelly soil. There is no critical habitat designated for this species. 

Federal regulations prohibit any commercial activity involving this species or the destruction, 

malicious damage, or removal of this species from Federal land or any other lands in knowing 

violation of State law or regulation, including State criminal trespass law. This species should 

be searched for whenever prairie remnants are encountered. 

The western prairie fringed orchid (Plmamhera praeclara) is listed as threatened and 

considered to potentially occur statewide in Iowa, including Allamakee and Clayton Counties. 

It occupies wet to mesic grassland habitats. There is no critical habitat designated for this 

species. Federal regulations prohibit any commercial activity involving this species or the 

destruction, malicious damage, or removal of this species from Federal land or any other lands 

in knowing violation of State law or regulation, including State criminal trespass law. This 

species should be searched for whenever wet prairie remnants are encountered. 

The northern monkshood (Aconitumnovahoracense) is listed as threatened in Allarnakee and 

Clayton Counties. It occupies north-facing slopes in the drittless area of northeast Iowa and 

one slope along the Iowa River. There is no critical habitat designated for this species. Federal 

regulations prohibit any commercial activity involving this species or the destruction, malicious 

damage, or removal of this species from Federal land or any other lands in knowing violation 

of State law or regulation, including State criminal trespass law. 

The Higgins eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsii) is listed as endangered for the Mississippi 

River north of Lock and Dam 20 which includes Allamakec and Clayton Counties, Iowa. This 

species prefers sand/gravel substrates with a swift current and is most often found in the main 

channel border or an open, !lowing side channel. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

232 

Ms. Marsha Cory 3 

While there is no designated critical habitat, the Higgins eye Recovery Team has designated 

habitats essential to the recovery of the species. These areas include Allamakee County, Iowa 

(river miles 655.8-658.4R); Harper's Slough area, Allamakee County, Iowa (river mile 639-

641.4R); Marquette-McGregor area, Clayton County, Iowa (river mile 634-636); McMillan 

Island area, Clayton County, Iowa (riv·er mile 616.4-619.1R); Cordova, Rock Island County, 

Illinois (river mile 503-SOS.SL); and Sylvan Slough, Rock Island, Illinois (river mile 485.5-

486L). 

The endangered Ion-a pleistocene snail (Discus macclimocki) is found on north-facing slopes 

of the driftless area in Clayton County. It occupies algific (cold-producing) talus slopes at the 

outlet of underground ice caves along limestone hluffs \Vi thin a narrow regime of soil moisture 

and temperature. There is no critical habitat designated. It must not be harmed, harassed, or 

disrurbc:d. 

These comments provide technical assistance only and do not constitute a report of the 

Secretary of the Interior on a project within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, do not fulfill the requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, nor do they represent the review comments of the U.S. Department of the Interior 

on any forthcoming environmental statement. 

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Kristen Lundh of my staff at 

(309) 793-5800 ext. 215. 

S:'.O!Tice U~cr~'.Kristcn'.Technical Assistance 

Sectlun7.2fJ04.!ull.a\"\llJm~kcc + Ka!i<lllal Pari; Sc:r,J..:e l !2-05 

4' 

Ric1ard C. Nelsl~~ 

Field Supervisor 
Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Iowa Department of Natural Resources

233 

,~ ~; ~ 

Fields of Opportunities 

THOMAS J. VlLSACK, GOVERNOR 

SALLY J. PEDERSON, LT. GOVERNOR 

January 24, 2005 

Mr. Mathew Safford 

National Park Service (DSC-P) 

12795 West Alameda Parkway 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225-0287 

Received OSC-P 

JAN Z 7 2005 

STATE OF IOWA 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFFREY R. VONK, DIRECTOR 

RE: Request for a list of records for state-listed or special status species within Effigy Mounds 

National Monument consisting of the North Unit, the South Unit and Sny McGill 

Dear Mr. Safford: 

Per your request, please find enclosed a diskette containing our computer records for Iowa listed 

endangered, threatened and special concern species as per your request. Please note that we 

have included those records that were mapped within all of T96N R3W, T95N R3W and within 

Section 23 T94N R3W. 

If you have any questions about this letter or if you require further information, please contact me 

at (515) 281-8967. 

KEITH L. DOHRMANN, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST 

POLICY AND COORDINATION SECTION 

CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISION 

Attachment: Diskette with ArcView files for the data requested 

Mapped area 

FILE COPY: Keith L. Dohrmann 

05-3382L.doc 

WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING I 502 EAST 9th STREET I DES MOINES, IOWA 50319 

515-281-5918 TDD 515-242-5967 FAX 515-281-6794 www.iowadnr.com 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

234 

United tates Department of the Interior 

I REf>L.V REFER TO' 

DIS (DSC-P) 

EFMO g·g25 

Kelly Poole 

NATIONAL PARK ERVICE 

Eftlgy Mound 1 nliona.l ~o num ell t 

151 HWY76 

Harper · Ferry. Iowa 52146 

Environmental Review for Natural Resources 

Conservation and Recreation Division 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

502 E 9th St. 

Des Moines, lA 50319-0034 

Reference: Effigy Mounds National Monument General Management Plan 

Dear Ms. Poole, 

March 27, 2012 

The National Park Service (NPS) is continuing to prepare a General Management Plan for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. We first contacted your office in 2005 to initiate informal consultation on the 

proposed plan by requesting a current list of state listed or special status species that may inhabit the 

monument. The National Park Service is required to maintain an up-to-date management plan for all units 

in the national park system. The purpose of this plan is to ensure the park has a clearly defined direction for 

resource protection and visitor use. General management plans will be reviewed and revised as necessary to 

keep them current. It is anticipated that such reviews will be needed every 10 to 15 years. 

Based on the list provided by your office and professional judgment on what species would be affected by 

the proposed actions, we are addressing potential impacts to state listed species. 

To date, three newsletters, a Draft General Management Plan, and a Revised Draft General Management 

Plan have gone out to the public. Four public meetings were held in Iowa and Wisconsin following the 

publication of the Revised Draft General Management Plan. Comments were received from the public and 

from two government agencies, three nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions, and one 

American Indian tribe. Most comments were focused on concerns related to the future location of the 

museum archives and storage, access to the Heritage Addition, and past development and actions of the 

National Park Service. All of these comments were taken into consideration and appropriate changes to the 

document have been made. 

An internal draft of the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement is provided for 

your review and concurrence on the plan's effect on liste-d spe<:ies (see pages 113-11 6 and l 9-162). Please 

provide a ' ritten response no later than Ma ' 25, 2012. Thank you in ad ance for your consideration of this 

GMP/EIS. If you have any questions or require additional infonnation please contact me at (563) 873-

3491 , extension 10 I, or Ms. Kate Randall (Project Manager) at (303) 969-223 7. 

Sincerely, 

()~--

James A. ep tad 

Superintendent 
Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Iowa Department of Natural Resources

235 

''""1•. Kill>' [DNA]" <Kallr.'""l•@~r.Hno. ... gtN> 

06128/201210:40 AM 

From: Poole, Kelly [DNR] 

Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11 :10 AM 

To: 'kate.randall@nps.gov' 

To ''kate_randall@nps.gov" <kate_randall@nps.gov> 

ee 

bee 

Subject FW: Effigy Mounds National Monument General 

Management Plans 

Subject: Effigy Mounds National Monument General Management Plans 

Kate, 

As we discussed by phone, the NPS staff coordinated with DN R staff duri rg the updating of the 

management plan. Thereto re the DNR does not have any additional comments to internal draft of the 

Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Regards, Kelly 

Kelly Poole 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Land and Waters Bureau 

502 E 9' Street I Des Moines, lA 50319 

Ph. 515.281.8967 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

236 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REF'E R TQ 

DIS (DSC-P) 

EFMO 85825 

Richard elson 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife eJVice 

Rock Island Field Office 

151147111 A enue 

Moline, fL 61265 

NATI NAL PARK ERVJ E 

Elligy Mound s National Monument 

151 HWY76 

Harpers Ferry, !own 52146 

Reference: Effigy Mounds ational Monument General Management Plan 

Dear Mr. elson. 

March27. 20 12 

The ational Park SeJVice (NPS) is continuing to prepare a General Management Plan for Effigy Mounds 

ational Monument. We first contacted your office in 2005 to in.itiate infonnal consultation on the proposed 

plan by requesting a current list of federally listed and candidate species: designated critical habitat; and other 

species or habitats of concern that may inl1abit the monument. The ational Park Service is required to maintain 

an up-to-date management plan for all units in the national park system. The purpose of this plan is to ensure the 

pa rk has a clearly defined direction for resource protection and visitor use. General management plans will be 

reviewed and revised as necessaJY to keep them current. it is anticipated that such reviews wi U be needed every 

10 to 15 years. 

Based on the list provided by your office and professional j udgment on what species would be affected by the 

proposed actions, even though no adverse impacts are anticipated we are addressing potential impacts to Higgins 

eye pearly mussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, prairie bush-dover, western prairie fringed orchid, and northern 

monkshood. 

To date, three newsletters. a Draf/ General Managemenr Plan, and a l?evised Draft General Afanagemenr Plan 

have gone out to the public. Four public meetings were held in Iowa and Wisconsin following the publication of 

tl1e Revised Draft General ,\1anagement Plan. Comments were received fro m the public and from two 

government agencies, three nougovcnunental organizations and educational institutions. and one American 

Indian tribe. Most comments were focused on conce rns related to the future location of the museum archives and 

storage, access to the Heritage Addition. and past development and actions of the ational Park SeJVice. All of 

tl1ese comments were taken into considerdtion and appropriate changes to the document have been made. 

An intcmal draft of t11e Final General Management Plan I 1:-tll'ironmenta/ Impact Statement is provided for your 

review and concurrence with the plan's impact on listed species (see pages I 13-11 5 and 159-1 62). Please 

provide a wriuen response no later than May 25. 20 12. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this 

GMP/EIS. lf you have any questions or rc.quirc additional infonnation, please contact me at (563) 873-3491, 

extension 101, or Ms. Kate Randall (Project Manager) at (303) 969-2237. 

Sincerely, 

James A. epstad 

Supcrintcndcr1t 
Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Iowa Department of Natural Resources

237 

United States Department of the Interior 

I.N REPLY !C£ftR 

T'FWS/RlFO 

Mr. James A. Nepstad 

National Park Service 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Rock Island field Office 

1511 471

h Avenue 

Moline, Illinois 61265 

Phone: (309) 757-5800 Fax: (309) 757-5807 

April23, 2012 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

15 1 Hwy 76 

Harpers Ferry, Iowa 52146 

Dear Mr. Nepstad: 

u.s. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 

This is in response to your letter and con·esponding Final General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for Effigy Mounds National Monument received March 27, 

20 12. In your letter you requested our concu!Tence that the management procedures within the 

updated General Management Plan are not likely to adversely affect the I-Iiggins eye 

pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii), Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus macclimocki), northern 

monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense), prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya), and 

western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera preaclara). 

In the current plan, three alternatives have been evaluated. Under Alternative A, there would 

be no changes to the current management plan within the park and no new environmemal 

impacts are expected. Under this alternative you determined that there would be no effect to 

listed species. Under Alternative B, a large portion of the monument would be zoned as 

backcountry and a virtual research center would be created to collect and share information on 

mound research and preservation. Alternative B is the National Park Service preferred 

alternative. Under Alternative C, more of the monument would be placed in a "discovery 

zone" that would allow for more visitor amenities while a research center would be developed 

outside of the monument. Under Alternatives B and C, there would be some c:banges to the 

development footprint of the park. These two alternatives would allow better access to the 

South Unit by connecting the Yellow River Bridge and trail to the trails of the South Unit, and 

designate the Yellow River as a national wild and scenic river. You determined that adoption 

of either Alternative B or C would be not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species. 

Currently there are no known occurrences of the Iowa Pleistocene snail or northern monkshood 

within the park boundary although suitable habitat may occur. The Higgins eye pearlymussel 

is found in the Mississippi River outside the park boundary. There are no known occurrences 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

238 

Mr. James A. epstad 2 

of the western prairie fri nged orchid or prairie bush clover within the park boundary. Under 

Alternatives B and C you state that any construction in previously undeveloped areas of the 

park would require a complete clearance by qualified pers01mel to ensure that no special status 

species (including federally threatened and endangered species) would be harmed. 

Based on the above information we concur that adoption of the Effigy Mounds ational 

Monument General Management Plan is not likely to adversely affect the Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, northern monkshood, prairie bush clover, and western 

prairie fringed orchid. 

These comments are provided as technical assistance in accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). 

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Kristen Lundh of my staff at 

(309) 757-5800, extension 215. 

Field Supervisor 

S:\O!Ttce Users\Kristcn\Tcchnical Assistance\Scction 7\20 12\Conc:urrenc:e\i'IPS Effigy Mounds General Management Plan.doc 
239 

APPENDIX C: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION, AND AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 

United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

IN I.EPl.Y UH1t ro. 

Dl8(EFMO) 

June 15, 2005 

Ms. Anita Walker, SHPO 

State Historical Society oflowa 

Capitol Complex · 

East 6• and Locust Street 

Des Moines, Iowa 50319 

Dear Ms. Walker: 

Ellie Mounds National Moaumenl 

1~ 1 Hwy. 76 

Harpers FelT)'. lo- 52146-7~19 

Reference: Effigy Mounds National Monument, General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Subject: Initiation of Section 106 Compliance 

Over the next several years, the National Park Service will be preparing a combined 

general management plan and environmental impact statement for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument in Allamakee and Clayton counties, Iowa, a property listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The general management plan portion will guide 

monument operations and resource management for the next fifteen to twenty years. The 

environmental impact statement portion will provide an overall decision-making 

framework for long-term management direction. Important issues and concerns facing 

national monument staff will be identified through public scoping along with a 

reasonable range of management alternatives. These will be analyzed in the 

environmental impact statement for each alternative's potential environmental 

consequences on both cultural and natural resources. 

In accordance with the consultation process outlined in the Advisory Council Regulations 

at 36 CFR 800, and the 1995 Programmatic Agreement among the National Conference 

of State Historic Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Park Service, your expertise and involvement in the planning process 

are requested. 

The planning team will be multi-disciplinary with cultural and natural resources 

specialists. Other team members will be identified later. Funding for FY 2005 is 

minimal so the bulk of the data gathering wiU ocaJr in FY 2006, beginning October 1• of 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

240 

this year, when the full team expects to visit the national monument. Any issues, 

concerns, or information you might wish to pass along at this time would be most 

appreciated. · 

Should you or any member ofyour staff desire to participate as a full member ofthe 

planning team, please let me know. Regardless, of the level of participation you choose, 

we will keep you informed about our progress throughout the planning effort, including 

the schedule of any public meetings. The draft general management plan/environmental 

impact statement will be sent to you for review and comment. 

We look forward to your involvement and believe that your participation in the planning 

effort for Effigy Mounds National Monument will result in better resources management. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have any questions or require 

additional information, please contact me at (563) 873-3491 or Mr. Matthew Safford 

(Project Manager) at (303) 969-2898. 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

241 

; . 

United States Department of the 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

lN R.EPL Y R.EPER TO: 

October 25 , 2005 

Dl8(EE'MO) 

Mr . Leonard Wabasha 

Effigy Mounds Na1ional Monument 

lSI Hwy. 76 

Ba~rs Ferry, Iowa 52 146-7519 

NAGPRA Representative 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

2330 Sioux Trail, NW 

Prior Lake, MN 55372 

Dear Mr. Wabasha: 

Interior 

f/tf GOPY 

The National Park Service has recently initiated the planning 

process for the development of a General Management Plan (GMP) 

f or Effigy Mounds National Monument in Allamakee and Clayton 

counties, Iowa . 

The process of developing a GMP follows a series of prescribed 

steps and will take approximat e ly t hree to five years to 

complete . The process i s deliberative and intended to bui ld 

consensus among the many participants, assure logic and 

consistency in plan proposals, and provide for rational 

decision- making . The GMP project planning team will 

comprehensively analyze the national monument 's cultural and 

na tural resources, adjace nt land uses, and interpretive themes . 

It wi ll also examine the national monument 's r ole in the context 

of the larger community, r egion, and National Park system as 

well as visitor use . This analysis will provide a framework to 

guide resour ces management . Public involvement from all 

constituenc ies will be sought throughout the course of the 

planning process. 

The planning team and I invite your participation in this 

p l anning effort . Si nce the national monument is a very special 

place t o so many people it is crucial for us to listen, 

understand, and consider your views throughout the planning 

process. 

There are several ways that you may participate : 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

242 

1 . As a full team member - attending all planning sessions at 

the national monument. Either you or someone you delegate 

would attend all planning meetings to craf t management 

profiles, alternative concepts, alternatives development, 

and to attend public meetings. This would occur 5- 8 times 

during the project . 

2 . As a participant reviewer - receiving for review and 

comment specific products prepared by the team. Rather 

than attending the planning session, you or your delegate 

would be sent specific products to keep you aware of the 

actions of the plan and for your review and comment . 

3 . As a reviewer of the draft and final plans - this would 

entail your review and comment only at the draft and final 

plan stages, similar to the general public . 

4 . Or, you may delegate your participation to another person 

whom you trust to represent your tribal interests. In the 

past this has generally been a representative of another 

tribe with similar interests f or whom the travel is not 

such a burden . In this instance, you would still be 

provided with draft and final plans for your review and 

comment . 

Planning will begin with public meetings on November 14 & 15. 

Public meetings will seek the comment of tribes, the general 

public, and other concerned agencies, organizations and 

government entities. You will be receiving a newsletter 

concerning these public meetings in the near future . 

In the meantime, should you have questi ons about the process or 

your participation, please do not hesitate to call me. My 

number is (563) 873-34 91 . 

We hope that you decide to help us with the planning process for 

Effigy Mounds National Monument . Your participa tion wil l help 

us to better understand the needs of your people and to better 

protect and sensitively interpret the site to visitors. I look 

forward to working with you in the upcoming months on this very 

important and challenging project . 

Phyllis Ewing 

Superi ntendent 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

243 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

244 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

March 31, 2011 

I;I42(EFMO) 

xD18 

Ms. Louise Brodnitz 

filE COPV 

United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Effigy Mounds National Monwnent 

151 HWY76 

Harpers Ferry, Iowa 52146 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Penn Ave. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Dear Ms Brodnitz. 

I would like to invite you and/or your staff to attend an introductory meeting here at the park 

on June 29-30, 2011. Representatives from the State Historic Preservation Office, Office of the 

State Archeologist, and members of the culturally affiliated tribes have been invited as well. 

My intent is to have the meeting be very focused, with specific agenda items that will be 

shared (along with as much support documentation as possible) with everyone well in advance 

of the meeting. I believe consultation is meaningful only if all participants feel they are free not 

only to speak, but to choose what we speak about. So even though I may prepare and distribute 

the first draft agenda soon, I hope you'll also suggest topics that you feel should be added to 

the agenda and discussed at this meeting. The first draft agenda will simply serve as a way to 

get that discussion started. 

I would also like to make sure you know about a multi-park planning effort that is getting 

underway at this time - the Exotic Plant Management Plan. Effigy Mounds National Monument 

and 14 other National Park Service units in the region are initiating the development of a plan 

to guide the identification, containment, and control of invasive exotic plants within the 

monument. We're still at a very early stage in the development of this plan. It hasn't been 

drafted yet, so there's nothing to show you, but that also means that advice you give us now 

can be very influential. You are free to send us your comments on this important planning 

effort at any rime while it is under development, but if you would like to have your comments 

considered prior to the development of the draft plan, it would be best to get us those 

comments by the end of April. You can learn more about this planning effort at 

http://tinyurl.com/4au9mky. Disregard what it says about a March 1 deadline for scoping 

comments. This is a matter that is open for consultation throughout the planning effort. 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

245 

Finally, I would like to provide you with an opportunity to preview the Revised Draft General 

Management Plan (GMP) for Effigy Mounds National Monument. We hope to release this 

very important plan to the public sometime this summer, but there is a brief window of 

opportunity for you to see it between now and when it is scheduled to go to the printers. Since 

it hasn't been printed, I can't send you a hardcopy yet, but an electronic version is on the 

enclosed CD. We will send you hardcopies of this draft plan once it is officially released, and 

you will be able to comment on it for several months following that release. The intent of this 

early preview is to catch any big problems that might exist before we send this docum£nt to the 

printers. We don't need an exhaustive review of it at this time, but if there are big problems 

with the plan from your perspective, I would like to get them fixed prior to the printing. If you 

are interested in participating in this preview, provide us with your comments by April 

29, 2011. Note that this version has not been authorized for public distribution, so please 

do not distribute your copies any further than you need to. I anticipate having a discussion 

of the General Management Plan at our June meeting, so this also provides you with a little 

extra time to get up to speed with its contents. 

I would be pleased if you could attend this meeting in June. In light of recent park history. and 

in the spirit of openness, I thought it would be good to start off with all parties present for at 

least some of the initial discussions. 

Thank you for considering your attendance. If there is anything that you need from me, please 

do not hesitate to get in touch. All of my contact information is below. 

~ James A. Nepstad 

Superintendent 

EffigY Mounds National Monument 

151 HWY 76 

Harpers Ferry, IA 52146 

563-873-3491 xlOI (voice) 

800-886-0270 (secure fax) 

jim_oepstad@nps.gov (e-mail) 

Enclosure 

cc: 

Jerome Thompson, Interim State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historical Society of 

Iowa 

John Doershuk, State Archaeologist, Office of the State Archaeologist 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

246 

filE CJ~j i 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY R.EFeR TO: 

March 31, 2011 

H4~(EFMO) 

xD18 

Mr. Jerome Thompson 

State Historic Preservation Office 

600 East Locust Street 

Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0290 

Dear Mr Thompson: 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

lSI HWY 76 

Harpers Ferry, Iowa 52146 

I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me earlier this month. Now that I'm somewhat 

sr.ttled in, I would like to start making some progress on some important matters. 

I would like to invite you and/or your staff to attend an introductory meeting here at the park 

on June 29-30, 2011 . Representatives from the Office of the State Archeologist, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and members of the culturally affiliated tribes have been 

invited as well. My intent is to have the meeting be very focused, with specific agenda items 

that will be shared (along with as much support documentation as possible) with everyone well 

in advance of the meeting. I believe consultation is meaningful only if all participants feel they 

are free not only to speak, but to choose what we speak about. So even though I may prepare 

and distribute the first draft agenda soon, I hope you'll also suggest topics that you feel should 

be added to the agenda and discussed at this meeting. The first draft agenda will simply serve 

as a way to get that discussion started. 

I would also like to make sure you know about a multi-park planning effort that is getting 

underway at this time - the Exotic Plant Management Plan. Effigy Mounds National Monument 

and 14 other National Park Service units in the region are initiating the development of a plan 

to guide the identification, containment, and control of invasive exotic plants within the 

monument. We're still at a very early stage in the development of this plan. It hasn't been 

drafted yet, so there's nothing to show you, but that also means that advice you give us now 

can be very influential. You are free to send us your comments on this important planning 

effort at any time while it is under development, but if you would like to have your comments 

considered prior to the development of the draft plan, it would be best to get us those 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

247 

comments by the end of April. You can learn more about this planning effort at 

http://tinyurl.com/4au9mk.y. Disregard what it says about a March 1 deadline for scoping 

comments. This is a matter that is open for consultation throughout the planning effort. 

Finally, as I mentioned when I was in Des Moines, I would like to provide you with an 

opportunity to preview the Revised Draft General Management Plan (GMP) for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. We hope to release this very important plan to the public sometime this 

summer, but there is a brief window of opportunity for you to see it between now and when it 

is scheduled to go to the printers. Since it hasn't been printed, I can't send you a hardcopy yet, 

but an electronic version is on the enclosed CD. We will send you hardcopies of this draft plan 

once it is officially released, and you will be able to comment on it for several months 

following that release. The intent of this early preview is to catch any big problems that might 

exist before we send this document to the printers. We don't need an exhaustive review of it at 

this time, but if there are big problems with the plan from your perspective, I would like to get 

them fixed prior to the printing. If you are interested in participating in this preview, 

provide us with your comments by Aprll29, 2011. Note that this version bas not been 

authorized for public distribution, so please do not distribute your copies any further than 

you need to. I anticipate having a discussion of the General Management Plan at our June 

meeting, so this also provides you with a little extra time to get up to speed with its contents. 

I would be pleased if you could attend tills meeting. If that's not possible, though, please keep 

in mind that I am always willing to travel to see you as well. But in light of recent park 

history, and in the spirit of openness, I thought it would be good to start off with all parties 

present for at least some of the initial discussions. 

Thank you for considering your attendance. lf there is anything that you need from me, please 

do not hesitate to get in touch. All of my contact information is below. 

James ~ A. Nepstad 

Superintendent 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

151 HWY 76 

Harpers Ferry, IA 52146 

563-873-3491 xlOI (voice) 

800-886-0270 (secure fax) 

jim_ nepstad@nps.gov (e-mail) 

Eudusw~;: 

cc: 

John Doershuk, State Archaeologist, Office of the State Archaeologist 

Louise Brodnitz, Historic Preservation Specialist, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

248 

NOTE: This letter was sent to representatives from 

the 12 culturally associated American Indian Tribes FilE COPY .. 

• 

United States Department of the Interior 

-.. 

IN RE.PL Y Rl!FER TO: 

March 31,2011 

@ 42(EFMO) 

xD18 

Chairman Stanley Crooks 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

lSI HWY76 

Harpers Ferry, Iowa 52146 

Shakopee Mdewak.anton Sioux Community of Minnesota 

2330 Sioux Trail NW 

Prior Lake, MN 55372 

Dear Mr. Crooks: 

My name is Jim Nepstad, and I have recently arrived in northeast Iowa tv st:rvc:: a~ the new 

superintendent of Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

I'm honored to be working here, and I want you to know that I am personally committed to 

responsible and respectful stewardship of this place. I am also very committed to maintaining 

an atmosphere of frequent and open consultation - not only concerning proposed undertakings 

in the park, but about any topic that you might feel is of importance to you or the people you 

serve. 

I would like to personally invite you or a representative to attend an introductory meeting here 

at the park on June 29-30, 2011. Representatives from. the State Historic Preservation Office, 

the Office of the State Archeologist, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation may be 

present at times as well. My intent is to have the meeting be very focused, with specific agenda 

items that will be shared (along with as m.uch support documentation as possible) with 

everyone well in advance of the meeting. I believe consultation is meaningful only if all 

participants feel they are free not only to speak, but to choose what we speak about. So even 

though I may prepare and distribute the first draft agenda soon, I hope you'll also suggest 

topics that you feel should be added to the agenda and discussed at this meeting. The first draft 

agenda w~l simply serve as a way to get that discussion started. 

I would also like to let you know about a multi-park planning effort that is getting underway at 

this time - the Exotic Plant Management Plan. Effigy Mounds National Monument and 14 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

249 

other National Park Service units in the region are initiating the development of a plan to guide 

the identification, containment, and control of invasive exotic plants within the monument. 

We're still at a very early stage in the development of this plan. It hasn't been drafted yet, so 

there's nothing to show you, but that also means that advice you give us now can be very 

influential. You are free to send us your comments on this important planning effort at any 

time while it is under development, but if you would like to have your comments considered 

prior to the development of d1e draft plan, it would be best to get us those comments by the 

end of April. You can learn more about this planning effort at http://tinvurl.com/4au9mky. 

Disregard what it says about a March 1 deadline for seeping comments. This is a matter that is 

open for consultation throughout the planning effort. 

Finally, I would like to provide you wiili an opportunity to preview fue Revised Draft General 

Management Plan (GMP) for Effigy Mounds National Monument. We hope to release this 

very important plan to the public sometime this summer, but there is a brief window of 

opportunity for you to see it between now and when it is scheduled to go to the printers. 

Since it hasn't been printed, I can't send you a hardcopy yet, but an electronic version is on the 

enclosed CD. We will send you hardcopies of this draft plan once it is officially released, and 

you will be able to comment on it for several months following mat release. The intent of this 

early preview is to catch any big problems fuat might exist before we send this document to the 

printers. We don't need an exhaustive review of it at iliis time, but if there are big problems 

wifu the plan from your perspective, I would like to get fuem fixed prior to the printing. If you 

are interested in participating in this preview, provide us with your comments by April 

29, 2011. Note that this version has not been authorized for public distribution, so please 

do not distribute your copies any further than you need to. I anticipate having a discussion 

of the General Management Plan at our June meeting, so this also provides you wifu a little 

extra time to get up to speed with its contents. 

I hope you will find that I am interested in the issues that are important to you. I am eager to 

learn, and I don't want to work here for too long before I have an opportunity to listen to what 

you have to say. If you or a representative are able to attend this consultation on June 29-30, 

please contact me at 563-873-3491, extension 101 or email me at jim_ nepstad@nps.gov and I 

will have my staff provide you wifu details on how you may be reimbursed for certain 

expenses. 

I would be honored if you could attend this meeting. If iliat' s not possible, though, please 

consider this: with a little coordination I am perfectly willing to travel to see you as welL In 

the spirit of openness, I think it is best if the tribes continue the tradition of coming here for 

consultation on matters of importance to all affiliated tribes. But since one of the objectives for 

iliis meeting is also to provide an opportunity for introductions and to get to know each oilier, I 

want you to know fuat I am willing to come to a location of your choosing if you feel there 

might be some value in such a visit. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

250 

Thank you for considering your attendance. If there is anything that you need from me, please 

do not hesitate to get in touch. A II of my contact information is below. I hope to meet you 

soon! 

~ Superintendent 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

151 HWY76 

Harpers Ferry, lA 52146 

563-873-3491 xlOl (voice) 

800-886-0270 (secure fax) 

jim_nepstad@nps.gov (e-mail) 

Enclosure 

cc: 

Glynn Crooks, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux CollUnunity of Minnesota 

Leonard Wabasha, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota 

Chairman: 

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin 

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota 

Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota 

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma 

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa 

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska 

Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma 

Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

251 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPI. Y REFER TO: 

August 26, 20 11 

D18 EFMO 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Effigy Mounds Nalional Monumenl 

15 1 HWY 76 

Harpers Fe rry, Iowa 52 146 

Mr. Jerome Thompson, Interim SHPO 

State Historical Society oflowa 

600 East Locust Street 

Des Moines, IA 503 19-0209 

Dear Mr. Thompson, 

Since 2005, the National Park Service has been preparing a combined General Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for Effigy Mounds National Monument in 

Allamakee and Clayton counties, Iowa, a property listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. This plan will guide monument operations and resource management for the next fifteen 

to twenty years and provide a framework for managers to use in making decisions about how 

best to protect park resources, what Levels and types of uses are appropriate, what facilities 

should be developed or removed, and how people should access the park. Important issues and 

concerns facing national monument staff have been identified through public scoping, and in 

May 2009 a Draft GMP/EIS was prepared. 

This document replaces that Draft GMP/ElS. The revisions to the document are a result of an 

evaluation of past construction activities and practices in the park, particularly those with the 

potential to harm the archeological resources. To ensure the protection of the resources, the 

National Park Service has spent a significant amount of time in the past two years reassessing 

the proper role, function, and form of development in a landscape dominated by the mounds. As 

a result, the alternatives now propose far less development than the May 2009 version, and some 

delays were introduced into the planning effort. 

In accordance with the consultation process outlined in the Advisory Council Regulations 

at 36 CFR 800, and the 2008 Programmatic Agreement among the National Conference 

of State Historic Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Park Service, your expertise and continued involvement in the planning process 

are requested. 

We are very interested in your views on this important new draft document, and believe that 

your participation in the planning effort for Effigy Mounds National Monument will result in 

better management of the park's resources. If you are interested in scheduling a meeting to 

discuss the plan, 1 would be happy to travel to Des Moines. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

252 

Your comments may be mailed to: 

National Park Service 

Denver Service Center- Planning 

Kate Randall, Project Manager 

12795 W. Alameda Parkway 

PO Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225-0287 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this Revised Draft GMP/EIS. If you have any 

questions or require additional information, please contact me at (563) 873-3491, extension l 01 

or Ms. Kate Randall (Project Manager) at (303) 969-2237. 

Sincerely, 

James A. Nepstad 

Superintendent 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

253 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

Dl8 (DSC-P) 

EFMO 85825 

August 31,2011 

Mr. Anthony Reider 

President, Executive Committee 

Flandreau Santee Sioux 

P.O. Box283 

Flandreau, SD 57028 

Dear Mr. Reider, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Effigy Mmmds National Monument 

151 HWY76 

Harpers Ferry, Iowa 52146 

NOTE: This letter was sent to representatives from 12 

traditionally associated American Indian tribes. 

Since 2005, the National Park Service has been preparing a combined General Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for Effigy Mounds National Monument in 

Allamakee and Clayton counties, Iowa, a property with which your tribe is associated. This plan 

will guide monument operations and resource management for the next fifteen to twenty years 

and provide a framework for managers to use in making decisions about how best to protect park 

resources, what levels and types of uses are appropriate, what facilities should be developed or 

removed, and how people should access the park. Important issues and concerns facing national 

monument staff have been identified through public scoping, and in May 2009 a Draft GMP/EIS 

was prepared. 

This docutnent replaces that Draft G1v'IP/EIS. The rev1s1ons to the docutnent are a result of an 

evaluation of past construction activities and practices in the park, particularly those with the 

potential to harm the archeological resources. To ensure the protection ofthe resources, the 

National Park Service has spent a significant amount of time in the past two years reassessing 

the proper role, function, and form of development in a landscape dominated by the mounds. As 

a result, the alternatives now propose far less development than the May 2009 version, and some 

delays were introduced into the planning effort. 

We would like to continue the consultation process that has been on-going since the beginning of 

this planning effort. Your views and expertise, and those of your employees and representatives, 

are requested. 

We are very interested in your comments on this important new draft document, and believe that 

your participation in the planning effort for Effigy Mounds National Monument will result in 

better management ofthe park's resources. We will be scheduling a meeting with tribal leaders 

and representatives before the end ofthis calendar year to consult on this matter. 

Although the public comment period for the Revised Draft GMP/EIS ends November 4, we will 

obviously accept your comments up until the document is once again modified for a final internal 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

254 
Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

255 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

Dl8 (DSC-P) 

EFMO 85825 

March 27, 2012 

Jon Greendeer- Chairperson 

Ho-Chunk Nation 

W9814 Airport Rd. 

Black River Falls, WI 54615 

Dear Chairperson Greendeer, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Effigy Mmmds National Monument 

151 HWY76 

Harpers Ferry, Iowa 52146 

Note: This letter was sent to representatives from 12 traditionally associated 

American Indian tribes. 

Since 2005, the National Park Service has been preparing a combined general management plan and 

environmental impact statement (GMP/EIS) for Effigy Mounds National Monument in Allamakee and 

Clayton Counties, Iowa, a property with which your tribe is associated. This plan will guide monument 

operations and resource management for the next 15 to 20 years and provide a framework for managers 

to use in making decisions about how best to protect park resources, what levels and types of uses are 

appropriate, what facilities should be developed or removed, and how people should access the park. 

This document has gone through many changes over the years, but we believe it is now close to being 

finalized. You may recall that we last met to discuss the Revised Draft Effigy Mounds National 

}vfonument General }vfanagement Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement in late June 2011, prior to it 

being released to the public for review. As a result of our meeting, and based on the feedback we received 

from you, changes were made to the document before it was released to the public in the falL Additional 

changes have been made as a result of the public review. Before we consider this document to be final, 

we would like to consult with you one last time after you have had a chance to review it 

Your views and expertise, and those of your employees and representatives, are requested. After you have 

had a chance to read this GMP/EIS and give it some thought, we would like to schedule a meeting with 

you and/or your representatives to hear your views about changes that may be necessary before the 

document becomes finaL 

We are very interested in your thoughts on this important new document, and believe that your 

participation in the planning effort for Effigy Mounds National Monument will result in better 

management ofthe park's resources. We are hoping that we will be able to schedule a meeting during the 

month of May to consult on this matter. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

256 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this GMPIEIS. If you have any que tions or require 

additional information, please contact me at (563) 873-3491, extension 101, or Ms. Kate Randall (Project 

Manager) at (303) 969-2237. 

Sincerely, 

James A. epstad 

Superintendent 
Appendix C:

the Advis

 Letters to and 

ory Council On 

257 

d from the Iowa 

 Historic Preser

State Historic P

vation, and Am

reservation Of

erican Indian T

ficer, 

ribes 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN R.EPl..V REFER TO: 

Dl 8 (DSC-P) 

EFMO 85825 

Mr. Jolm Doershuk 

State Archaeologist 

Office of the tate Archaeologist 

700 Clinton Street Building 

Iowa City, Iowa 52242 

NATI NAL PARK ERVICE 

Efl'igy Mound s: National numcnt 

151 HWY76 

Harpers Ferry, !own 52146 

Reference: Effigy Mounds National Monument General Management Plan 

Dear Mr. Doershuk, 

March 27, 2012 

Enclosed is a copy of the Effigy Mounds ational Monumen t intemal draft of the Final General 

Management Plan I Environme111al impact Stateme111 for your review and wri tten concurrence. The plan 

consists of three altematives, including a "no action" altemative. Altemative B, the PS preferred 

altcmativc, focuses heavily on protecting the cultural resources oftl1c park while providing some additional 

opportunities for visitors. Altemative C focuses more on visi tor experience. 

To date, three newsletters, a Draft General Management Plan, and a Revised Draft General Managemenl 

Plan have gone out to the public. Four public meetings were held in Iowa and Wisconsin following the 

publication of the Revised Draft General Management Plan. Com 1ents were receiYed from the public and 

from two govemment agencies, three nongovenunental organizations and educational institutions, and one 

American Indian tribe. Most comments were focused on concems related to the future location of the 

muscum archives and storage, access to the Heritage Addition, and past development and actions of the 

ational Park Service. All of these comments were taken into consideration and appropriate changes to the 

document have been mad c. 

An intemal draft of the Final General Management Plan I Environmental impact Sratement is provided for 

your review and concurrence on the detenuination of effects found on pages 129-147. Please provide a 

' ritten response no later than May 25, 2012. If you have any questions or require additional infonnation, 

please contact me at (563) 873-3491 , extension 101. I am also happy to travel to your office to discuss the 

plan one fina l time. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this GMP/ETS. 

Sincerely, 

James A. epstad 

Superintendent 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

258 

•Doer.INk. John F" 

<john-doe,.INk@LiO'Mt.edu> 

06127/2012 04:26 PM 

Kate Taylor Randall, LEED AP 

Landscape Architect/Planner 

National Park Service 

Denver Service Center 

12795 W.Aiameda Pkwy. 

P .0. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80228 

To .. Kate_Randall@ nps.gov .. <Kate_Randall@nps. gov> 

cc 

bee 

Subject RE: Recommendations on Final GMP from June 13 

T ribaVSHPOIOSA consukation 

I formally concur with the minutes of the June 13/14, 2012 consultation meeting held to discuss with 

NPS, tribal representatives, Iowa SH PO, and my office the final G MP for Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. The minutes accurately reflect the specific issues and wording that need adjustment in the 

final published version of the plan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

John F. Doershuk, Ph.D. 

State Archaeologist 

University of I ow a 

700 CLSB 

Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1030 

319·384-0751 

http://www.uiowa.edu/~osabndex.html 
Appendix C:

the Advis

 Letters to and 

ory Council On 

259 

d from the Iowa 

 Historic Preser

State Historic P

vation, and Am

reservation Of

erican Indian T

ficer, 

ribes

United States Department of the Interior 

1 REPl.Y REFER TO: 

DIS (DSC-P) 

EFMO 85825 

Mr. Douglas Jones 

Iowa State Historic Preservation Office 

600 E. Locust 

Des Moines, Iowa 503 I 9 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Efl"igy Mound s National Monument 

151 HWY76 

Harpers Ferry. !own 52146 

Reference: Effigy Mounds National Monument General Management Plan, 

R&C: I 1070308 7 

Dear Mr. Jones, 

March 27, 20I2 

Enclosed is a copy of the Effigy Mounds ational Monument intcmal draft of the Final General 

Management Plan I Environmental Impact Statemenl for your review and written concurrence under th e 

requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Programmatic Agreement among the ational 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

ational Park Service. 

The plan con ists of three alternatives, including a " no action" altemative. Altemative B, the PS preferred 

alternative, focuses heavily on protecting the cultural resources oftl1e park while providing some additional 

opportunil'ies for visitors. Altemative C focuses more on visi tor experience. 

We received your comments on the Revised Draft General Managemenl Plan I Environmenial !mpac/ 

Statemenl and have worked to make appropriate changes to the document in response to yonr comments or 

to provide a response as to wh)· a suggested change was not made (see "Chapter 5: Consultation and 

Coordination,' pages 211-213). We hope that the changes we have made to t11c document arc satisfactory 

and that your office can provide us with written concurrence on the determination of effects ( 129- 147). 

An internal draft of the Final General Managemenl Plan I Environmental lmpacl Statemenl is provided for 

your review and concurrence on the detennination of effects found on pages 129-147. Please provide a 

written response no later than May 25, 20 12. lf you have any questions, 1 would enjoy the opportunity to 

meet with you and your staff in Des Moines to discuss this plan one final time. Please do not hesi tate to call 

me at (563) 873-3491 , extension 10 l. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this GMP/EIS. 

Sincerely, 

James A. epstad 

Superintendent 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

260 

CUlTURAL •, '. 1 < ! : . " ·,t,rl\1 t~ 

STATE 

HlSTOfUCAL. 

I

SOCJI:Tiof owA· 

JuuJ\1': T'IJOfl(P.StJC:: 

An>.1iJh1RAF>R 

.\1Arll!i<W! lJdRE 

\ll\JJXiSrft.Af(>R 

!100 F. L<Xt'SI 

Drs l'vJ(,P-<FS, loWA 

~.()319 

{515)2131-:'111 

(515) ~42-6498 

June 27, 2012 

Jim 1'--fepstad, Superintendent 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

151 HWY 76 

Harpers Ferry, IA 52146 

Dear Jim: 

I want to formally concur with the minutes of our June ] 3 and 14tb meeting on revie\v of 

the general management p!an. They accmately reflect our discussions and identify 

specific points in the plan that need to be adjusted befOre it is finaL 

Sincerely, 

-~)~~-j'7"l'A-f.4::~r::.:;;~k.'~·t;t:t4-&- ·- '~-- -·- !' 1$"ome L Thompson "i 

to/dministralor/SHPO 

cc: Doug Jones, State Historic Preservation Office 

.Tohil Doershuk, St<Jte Archfleo.tng1st 

Kme Randall, 1'h.tional Park Scr;1ce, Denver Service Center 
261 

APPENDIX D: YELLOW RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ASSESSMENT 

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility and Suitability Assessment 

Yellow River, Iowa 

River Segment under Assessment 

The segment of the Yellow River within the boundary of Effigy Mounds National Monument, 

Iowa, approximately 3.5 miles in length (map attached). 

Purpose of Assessment 

This report documents an assessment to determine if the Yellow River is eligible and suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Jurisdiction

The Yellow River is deemed “navigable” by the state of Iowa, so the water surface and water 

column are controlled by the state. River shores and bottom within the monument are property 

of the U.S. Government managed by the National Park Service. The river is managed under 

concurrent jurisdiction. 

Legal and Policy Basis for Assessment 

This assessment conforms with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542); “National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and 

Management of River Areas,” which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 173 on 

September 7, 1982; and, “The Wild and Scenic River Study Process,” a technical report prepared 

for the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, dated December 1999. 

Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act) states 

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the 

Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, 

shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate 

environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations.” 

"Free-flowing" means that a river or segment of river is existing or flowing in a natural condition 

without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the 

waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at 

the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system shall not 

automatically bar its consideration. 

Section 5(d)(1) of the act states that, 

“In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, 

consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national wild, 

scenic and recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to 

the Congress shall consider and discuss any such potentials. The Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigations to determine 

which additional wild, scenic and recreational river areas within the United States shall be 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

262 

evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential alternative uses of the 

water and related land resources involved.” 

The assessment also conforms with NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.3.4), which says 

“Parks containing one or more river segments listed in the NPS National [Nationwide] 

Rivers Inventory... will comply with section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 

which instructs each federal agency to assess whether those rivers or segments are suitable 

for inclusion in the system. The assessments and any resulting management requirements 

may be incorporated into a park’s general management plan.” 

Maintained by the National Park Service, the National Rivers Inventory (NRI) was compiled, in 

part, to fulfill the mandate of Section 5(d)(1) that federal agencies consider impacts on potential 

Wild and Scenic Rivers in all agency planning. This inventory, originally completed in 1982 and 

updated in 1993, seeks to identify such rivers based on the Act’s basic eligibility criteria. Under a 

Presidential Directive issued in 1979, each federal agency, as part of its normal planning and 

environmental review processes, is required to take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to 

rivers in the NRI. 

Thirty-five miles of the Yellow River, starting at Highway 60 near Myron, Iowa, and ending with 

the 3.5 mile segment through the boundary of Effigy Mounds National Monument to the 

Mississippi River, are listed on the NRI with six outstandingly remarkable values. The last mile, 

which at the time of the NRI listing was the only part of the river that flowed through the 

monument since its boundary had not yet been expanded, has been potentially classified as 

“scenic,” but the first 34 miles have not been classified. 

General Description of the Yellow River 

The Yellow River flows for about 50 miles from its headwaters near Ossian, Iowa, before 

emptying into the Mississippi River near the monument headquarters. The Yellow is one of the 

fastest falling rivers in the state and provides excellent fishing and canoeing opportunities (NRI 

1993). Camping and hiking opportunities exist along certain reaches. 

The Yellow River watershed is located in northeastern Iowa’s “Driftless Area.” This 154,666-acre 

(62,640-ha) watershed has diverse topographic and natural resource features, along with a variety 

of resource-related problems similar to those found throughout the watersheds of most tributary 

streams feeding into the Upper Mississippi River. Situated within a karst region, approximately 

90% of the Yellow River’s flow comes from groundwater. The watershed is a diverse, mostly 

agricultural landscape of incised valleys and rolling uplands. Significant natural habitat exists in 

the watershed, particularly within its lower reaches where Effigy Mounds National Monument is 

located. Due to the rugged topography and drainage pattern of this portion of the Driftless Area, 

small rural communities are situated almost exclusively along the outer fringe of the Yellow River 

watershed (NPS 2003). 

The lower 3 miles of the Yellow River can act as a backwater of the Mississippi River. Water 

movement in this reach is sluggish and the level can fluctuate with changes in the flow of either 

the Yellow or Mississippi rivers. 

The state of Iowa manages use on the river surface, including boating and fishing. No hunting is 

allowed in the monument. The river bottom and shores in Effigy Mounds National Monument 

are owned by the U.S. Government and managed by the National Park Service. Recreational uses 

on the river include infrequent motorboating (only near the mouth of the river), 

canoeing/kayaking, and fishing from shore or boat. 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild And Scenic River Assessment

263 

Results of a limited 1982 study of water quality in the Yellow River showed good water quality. 

However, in more recent years, there have been fish kills related to the discharge of waste from a 

meat processing plant near Postville (a few miles upstream from where NRI-listed segment of the 

river begins). In 2006, a lawsuit challenging this discharge resulted in a settlement forcing a 

reduction. Additional water quality concerns include a portion of the Yellow River running 

through Effigy Mounds National Monument which is currently listed on Iowa’s impaired waters 

list for high levels of fecal coliform bacteria and sedimentation due to agricultural runoff. 

General Description of Effigy Mounds National Monument 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was created in 1949. The purpose of the monument is to 

preserve outstanding representative examples of significant phases of Indian mound-building 

cultures in the American Midwest; protect wildlife and the natural values within the monument; 

and provide for scientific study and appreciation of its features – for the benefit of this and future 

generations. 

ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 

Eligibility Criteria 

According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a river or river segment must be free-flowing and 

possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values to be eligible for inclusion into the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Following criteria established in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and guidelines in “The Wild and 

Scenic River Study Process,” a technical paper of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Coordinating Council, the study team determined whether the inventory segment was freeflowing and possessed any outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). The values considered were 

scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural. 

The listing of the Yellow River in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory indicates that the river is freeflowing and possesses the following outstandingly remarkable values: Scenery, Recreation, 

Geology, Wildlife, History, and Cultural. The following assessment considers the 3.5-mile 

segment within the current boundaries of the monument. 

Free-Flowing Determination. Within Effigy Mounds National Monument, the Yellow River 

flows in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other 

modification of the waterway. Thus, the river segment under analysis is determined to be freeflowing in its entirety. 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values. In order to be assessed as outstandingly remarkable, a riverrelated value must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is significant when compared to 

other rivers on a regional scale defined in the study. All values being considered must be directly 

related to the river. Only one such value is needed for eligibility. 

The region of comparison for each of the values is the Driftless Area of northeastern Iowa. 

A review of existing studies and other information from a variety of sources, and professional 

judgment by members of the study team were the basis for the following analysis of possible 

ORVs. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

264 

Scenery: Forested bluffs, limestone cliffs, and the occasional waterfall can be seen from the river. 

The bluffs, rising up to 300 feet above the river, dominate the view. The diversity of habitats 

(woods, riparian, bluffs), clear water, and opportunities for solitude where only natural sounds 

can be heard, as well as the unobstructed views free from evidence of human encroachment are 

components of this value. The hardwood forest turns into a myriad of colors every fall. These 

combined landscape elements of diverse landforms (topography), vegetation, water, seasonal 

variations of color, and lack of human intrusions along most of the river segment make this value 

significant in the region. 

Recreation: As one of the fastest falling rivers in the state of Iowa the opportunities for paddling 

(canoeing and kayaking) are outstanding. The high scenic quality and naturalness make 

sightseeing, wildlife observation, and photography significant recreational values in the river 

corridor. Visitors are attracted to the river from throughout the region of comparison and 

beyond. Motorized watercraft can be used up to 3 miles from the mouth depending on water 

levels. However this type of use is quite low. 

Geology: The river valley showcases the ability of water to erode and dissolve the limestone 

bedrock to create the rugged terrain of northeast Iowa. During the Ice Ages, the area known as 

the "Driftless Zone" was left unscathed by the advance and retreat of the continental ice sheets 

for a million years. Although the area was not directly affected by glaciers, their melt waters 

carved out the Mississippi River Valley. The river valleys at the base of the bluffs used to be much 

deeper than what exists today, having been filled in with glacial debris and sediments over the 

millennia. The oldest layer exposed at the monument is the Jordan sandstone that was laid down 

during the Cambrian period. This layer is seen along the base of the east facing bluffs and is an 

important aquifer for the area. There is approximately 500 feet of vertical relief from the water 

surface at the mouth of the Yellow River (600 ft. above sea level) to the highest point in the 

Heritage Addition. Limestone/dolomite bluffs rise up to 300 feet above the river. 

Fish: Fish species in the Yellow River probably include some or all of the 118 species known to 

occur in the Upper Mississippi River National Fish and Wildlife Refuge which is adjacent to the 

monument. A list provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the most common 

species are gizzard shad, common carp, emerald shiner, river shiner, bullhead minnow, and 

bluegill. An Iowa state species of concern, the pugnose minnow, has been found near the Yellow 

River in the Heritage Addition (Natural Resource Commission 1999). Both the brook trout and 

grass pickerel, state listed species, have been found in Dousman Creek, a tributary to the Yellow 

River, but not in the Yellow River. Native freshwater mussels are also found in Dousman Creek 

and the Mississippi River but no live specimens have been found in the Yellow River. The river is 

not considered a nationally or regionally important producer of resident fish species nor does it 

provide unique habitat for rare species. 

Wildlife: Most of the Yellow River corridor is in an area of the monument (the Heritage 

Addition) that is in or returning to a relatively natural condition. Thus, the river corridor provides 

exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife, including federal and state listed threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. The Yellow River floodplain has been identified as one of 12 

nesting sites and one of two multiple nesting sites of the red-shouldered hawk (a state listed 

endangered species) in Iowa. The river corridor also serves as a wildlife travel corridor because it 

connects two protected areas – Effigy Mounds National Monument and Yellow River State 

Forest. These wildlife and wildlife habitat values are increasingly rare in the region due to 

expanding development. 

Historic: On the shores of the Yellow River are the ruins of a historic military sawmill, operated 

at one time by Jefferson Davis, and a lime quarry. The sawmill and quarry were established 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild And Scenic River Assessment

265 

primarily to provide lumber and lime mortar for the construction of Fort Crawford across the 

Mississippi in Wisconsin. The sawmill has been determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. These resources are significant because they are reminders of how 

early nineteenth century American Indian treaties involved the military in resolving “the Indian 

problem” and opened up the territories for United States expansion and settlement prior to the 

Mexican War. 

Cultural: Effigy Mounds National Monument contains one of the largest concentrations of 

burial mounds in the United States including some of the finest and best preserved examples of 

effigy mounds in their original forms. A number of the mounds that once existed in the Yellow 

River floodplain and open field areas were destroyed by early farming activities prior to 

establishment of the national monument. While the native cultures that created the mounds 

certainly used the Yellow River, the mounds are not directly river related. A habitation site (now 

called the FTD site) was discovered near the Yellow River’s mouth. 

The information presented above was compared to criteria established by the Interagency Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council to make the determinations shown in the following table. 

Value Outstandingly Remarkable?

Scenery Yes 

Recreation Yes 

Geology Yes 

Fish No 

Wildlife Yes 

History Yes 

Cultural No. Not in river study corridor 

Segment Classification 

Each segment of a river recommended for designation must be classified as either wild, scenic, or 

recreational according to the following definitions from the act: 

(1) Wild river areas—Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and 

generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shoreline essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

(2) Scenic river areas—Those rivers or sections or rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible 

in places by roads. 

(3) Recreational river areas—Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road 

or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

266 

Eligibility Finding and Tentative Classification 

Based on the information above, the segment of the Yellow River being assessed is free of 

impoundments and possesses five outstandingly remarkable values. Therefore, the National Park 

Service determines that the Yellow River is eligible for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic 

River System. The study team determined that the appropriate tentative classification for the 

entire segment is “Scenic.” 

SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 

A typical boundary for a river study area is one-quarter mile (1,320 feet, 403 meters) from the 

river’s ordinary high water line on both sides of the river up to a maximum of 320 acres per river 

mile according to the Act. The tentative boundary for the potential Yellow River W&SR would be 

defined by channel, ordinary high water mark or high bench, and may include terrestrial 

landscape areas necessary to protect the identified Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the 

boundaries of Effigy Mounds National Monument (a map illustrating one possible boundary 

based on the floodplain is attached). The final boundary would be established in a river 

management plan prepared after designation. 

Suitability Criteria 

In addition to the outstandingly remarkable values listed previously, the following factors 

(outlined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) were analyzed for the Yellow River in determining 

whether or not the river segment is suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System: the 

characteristics which do or do not make the area worthy addition to the system; current status of 

landownership and use in the area; reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water 

that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the system; the 

extent to which administration would be shared with state and local agencies; the estimated cost 

of acquisition and administration; the ability of the National Park Service to manage the segment 

as a WSR and other potential protection mechanisms other than WSR status; and, any historical 

or existing rights which could be adversely affected. These criteria are addressed below as they 

apply to the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River. 

Characteristics that make the area a worthy addition to the National Wild and Scenic River 

System. The segment identified in this assessment is in the “Driftless Area” of northeastern Iowa, 

western Wisconsin, southeast Minnesota, and the northwestern corner of Illinois. There are no 

other designated segments of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System within the Driftless 

Area. 

Existing water developments and rights held on the river are associated with livestock, crops, and 

domestic use. These uses and rights occur upstream of the monument and would not be affected 

by Wild and Scenic River designation as they would be senior to any rights acquired through 

designation. No action taken in the general management plan or the recommendation of this 

assessment can establish an appropriation or Federal reserve water right. An act of Congress 

designating a Wild and Scenic River may or may not establish a Federal reserve water right. If 

Congress creates a reserved right, the National Park Service and the state of Iowa may establish 

minimum instream flows necessary to meet the purposes of the designation. 

The Yellow River corridor provides opportunities for recreational activities such as hiking, birdwatching, photography, nature study, and access to cultural sites. There are no good numbers for 

recreation use in the river area because of its remoteness. Effigy Mounds National Monument 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild And Scenic River Assessment

267 

receives almost 90,000 visitors each year. The use of motorboats is not prohibited but their use is 

limited by natural barriers to the first 3 miles or so from the Mississippi River. 

Developed or semi-developed river access points are provided upstream of the monument on 

state forest land and at an IDNR site on the Mississippi River near the mouth of the Yellow River. 

To avoid the last mile of paddling before the IDNR takeout, some paddlers have been exiting the 

river at a small spot on the northern bank of the river where a “social” (unauthorized and not 

formally developed) landing spot near Highway 76. Exiting the river at this social landing saves 

about 20 minutes of paddling to the developed day use take-out area on the Mississippi River. 

Until 2000, this social take-out was outside of the boundaries of the monument. Today, the bank 

of the river is inside of the boundary, but according to the most recent boundary survey paddlers 

must cross private land to the point where they access their vehicles. The social takeout area is 

causing damage to the river’s edge through erosion. It also presents a safety hazard both from 

boaters slipping as they exit their canoes in the soft, muddy bank and from their cars exiting the 

informal parking site onto a fast moving highway where it is difficult to see oncoming traffic. The 

GMP alternatives call for closing this take-out site and having paddlers go on downstream to the 

IDNR take-out. 

Status of land ownership. The entire segment of this assessment traverses shores and river 

bottoms which are owned by the National Park Service. As a navigable river, the water column 

itself is state-owned. Law enforcement on the river is subject to concurrent jurisdiction. There are 

no incompatible uses. 

Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, 

foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the system. The segment under 

consideration is within the boundary of a national monument which is managed to preserve 

examples of Indian mound-building cultures, protect wildlife and the natural values, and provide 

for scientific study and appreciation. Upstream from this segment, another 3.8 miles of Yellow 

River also flows through publicly owned land of the Yellow River State Forest. The Yellow is one 

of the fastest falling rivers in the state and is known for providing excellent fishing and canoeing 

opportunities. There are no recreational uses which would be foreclosed or curtailed due to 

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System and its inclusion would enhance the use of this 

river by visitors. 

A pedestrian bridge crosses the Yellow River near the eastern monument boundary. Just outside 

this boundary, about 500 feet downstream from the pedestrian bridge, a highway and a railroad 

bridge cross the river. These existing bridges have begun to erode the scenic value of the river. 

Any additional bridges across the river may further erode the remaining scenic value of the river. 

Therefore, impacts of the bridge to scenery, as well as to the other qualities that make the river 

eligible as a Wild and Scenic River. If a new bridge could not be built that would avoid these 

impacts, it would not be allowed. 

Designation of this segment of the Yellow River would enhance its scenic, recreational, 

geological, wildlife, and historic values and preserve its free-flowing nature. 

The extent to which administration would be shared with state and local agencies. This 

criterion does not apply to this situation because the segment of river under study is completely 

within the boundary of Effigy Mounds National Monument. It would be administered by the 

National Park Service. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

268 

Estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering the area if 

it is added to the National System. There would be no acquisition costs, since the segment under 

consideration flows through federal land managed by the National Park Service. There would be 

some administrative cost to the National Park Service to comply with section 7 of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act (reviews of proposed projects that may affect the river), but this is not expected 

to be significant. There are no anticipated water resource projects at this point that would be 

expected to have direct and adverse effects on the values of this segment of the Yellow River. 

Ability of the agency to manage and/or protect the river area or segment as a WSR, or other 

mechanisms (existing and potential) to protect identified values other than WSR designation

The National Park Service currently works collaboratively with the State of Iowa and others to 

protect the Yellow River. Management of the river, should it be designated, is within the 

capability of the current monument and regional NPS staff. While there are other mechanisms to 

protect the values (such as NRI listing and preservation management prescription of the zone 

surrounding the river in the General Management Plan), WSR designation would strengthen the 

level of protection. 

Historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected. Designation would not affect any 

existing or historic rights. No legal rights exist on the land surrounding this segment of the Yellow 

River that would irreparably harm the river’s values. The Federal government may acquire water 

rights under state law but these water rights would be junior to existing rights. 

Suitability Finding 

Based on the information and analysis above, the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River that 

traverses Effigy Mounds National Monument is suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic River System with the tentative classification of “Scenic.” Designation of this segment 

would provide long-term protection for the outstandingly remarkable river values identified in 

this assessment. 

This study will be forwarded through the Department of the Interior to Congress with a 

recommendation for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Final designation requires that 

Congress must pass, and the President must sign into law, a bill to authorize inclusion of a river 

into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Interim Management 

Until Congressional action occurs on the NPS recommendation for the segment to be included as 

a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, it would be managed to protect the freeflowing characteristics, tentative classification, and outstandingly remarkable values. 

Environmental impact analysis (e.g., NEPA documentation) for future actions proposed in the 

river corridor would address potential impacts, and mitigation or alternatives would be applied to 

avoid adverse impacts to these values and characteristics. 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild And Scenic River Assessment

269 

References to the Wild and Scenic River Study 

Iowa State Code 

1999 Chapter 77, Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species. Iowa Natural 

Resources Commission. 

National Park Service 

2003 “The Yellow River Initiative: A partnership for resource sustainability” by John H. 

Sowl in Natural Resource Year in Review – 2003. Natural Resources Division, 

Washington, D.C. 

2005 Nationwide Rivers Inventory. NPS National Center for Recreation and 

Conservation – Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, accessed at 

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri. 

2006 Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, Water Resources Foundation Report. 

Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/350. Don Weeks, Water Resources 

Division, Lakewood, Colorado. 
HERITAGE ADDITION

Founders 

Pond

Yellow River

Smokey Hol ol w Road

NOTES: 

*The park is in the process of completing a 

boundary survey. The boundary shown on 

this map is for illustrative purposes only.

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

IOWA

WISCONSIN

Mississi p

p i R i v e r

Pleasant Ridge Road

Co un ty Ro ad (Restricted Use)

Dousman C reek

76

Possible Wild and 

Scenic River Boundary

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Legend

Public Road

County Road

State Boundary

Possible Wild & Scenic River Boundary

Waterbody

National Monument Boundary

Non-NPS Land within Park Boundary

0 0.5 1

Miles

DSC/March 2012

Entrance Road

Sn y Magill Creek

Johnsons Slo ugh

X56

SNY MAGILL UNIT

0 0.25 0.5

Miles
271 

APPENDIX E: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN IN THE MONUMENT 

F-Federal; IA- Iowa; E-Endangered; T-Threatened 

1. Higgins eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) F-Endangered, IA-E 

2. Bald eagle (Halineetus leucocephalus) F-Delisted, IA-E 

3. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines) F-Delisted, IA-E 

4. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) F-Delisted 

5. Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) IA-E 

6. Bluff veritigo (Veritigo merimecensis) IA-E 

7. Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) IA-E 

8. Slough sandshell (Lampsilis teres teres) IA-E 

9. Yellow sandshell (Lampsilis teres anodontoides) IA-E 

10. Purple cliff break (Pellaea atropurpurea) IA-E 

11. Yellow-eyed grass (Xyris torta) IA-E 

12. Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum) IA-T 

13. Jeweled shooting star (Dodecatheon amethystinum) IA-T 

14. Creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) IA-T 

15. Wild lupine (Lupinus perennis) IA-T 

16. Purple fringed orchid (Platanthera psycodes) IA-T 

17. Slender ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes lacera) IA-T 

18. Southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi) IA-T 

19. Grass pickerel (Esox americanus) IA-T 

20. Central newt (Notophthalmus veridescens) IA-T 

21. Strange floater (Strophitus undulates) IA-T 

22. Hawthorn (Crataegus pruinosa) IA 

23. Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea) IA 

24. Prairie dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum) IA 

25. Rough bedstraw (Galium asprellum) IA 

26. Small white lady’s slipper (Cypripedium candidrum) IA 

27. Summer grape (Vitis aestivalis) IA 

28. Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) IA 

29. Great Plains ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes magnicamporum) IA 

30. Spotted coralroot (Corallorrhiza maculate) IA 

31. Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) IA 

 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

272 
273 

APPENDIX F: KNOWN, PROBABLE, AND POSSIBLE 

MOUND LOCATIONS IN DEVELOPED AREA 

See map on the following page. 

 
274 
FILE: efmo/ProjectFolders/2012/MndsDevelopedArea

Produced by Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service June 2012

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Known, probable, and possible mound locations in developed area

Effigy Mounds National Monument

Iowa

± 0 25 50

Meters

Ñ Fire hydrant

!( Flag pole

" Sign

£ Well house

Utilities from 1992 map

Utilities from 1988 map

Utilities from 1964 map

Utilities from 1963 map

Utilities from 1951 map

Linear Features from Geophysics

Buried utility line

Fence

Gravel road

XY

XY

XY

XY

Leach field

Old road

Reinforced concrete sidewalk

Existing Trail (2001 GPS)

Extant and Possible Mounds

Source

Historic Aerial

Field Observation 2008

Extant

Lewis RADAR Aerial

RADAR

Field Observation 2010

Magnetometer or Resistance

VC
276 
277 

REFERENCES 

Birmingham, Robert A., and Leslie E. Eisenberg 

2000 Indian Mounds of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 

Clawson, Marion, and Jack Knetsch 

1966 Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Hardner, Jared, and Bruce McKenney 

2006 The U.S. National Park System: An Economic Asset at Risk. Prepared for the National 

Parks Conservation Association, Washington, D.C. 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) 

2002 Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species. Natural Resource 

Commission. Des Moines, Iowa. 

Lenzendorf, Dennis 

2000 A Guide to Effigy Mounds National Monument. Eastern National, Fort Washington, 

Pennsylvania. 

Logan, Wilfred D. 

1956 A History of Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service. 

Mahan, Bruce E. 

2000 Old Fort Crawford and the Frontier. Howe Printing Company, Prairie du Chien, 

Wisconsin (originally published in 1926 by the State Historical Society of Iowa, 

Iowa City, Iowa). 

Mallam, R. Clark 

1976 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Ferguson Tract, Allamakee County, Iowa. Luther 

College Archaeological Research Center, Decorah, Iowa. 

Marion, Jeffrey L. 

2008 Development and Application of Trail and Campsite Monitoring Protocols in 

Support of Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Decision-making at Isle au 

Haut, Acadia National Park. USDI, U.S. Geological Survey, Final Research Rpt., 

Virginia Tech Field Station, Blacksburg, Virginia. 

National Park Service (NPS) 

2007a “Cultural Landscape Inventory, Yellow River, Effigy Mounds National 

Monument.” Midwest Region, Omaha, Nebraska. 

2007b “Cultural Landscape Inventory, Sny Magill, Effigy Mounds National Monument.” 

Midwest Region, Omaha, Nebraska. 

2006 Management Policies 2006. Washington, DC. 

2006b “Money Generation Model 2.” Public Use Statistics Office, Denver, Colorado. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

278 

2005 Effigy Mounds National Monument Visitor Study. Prepared by Yen Le, Mark 

Morgan, and Steven J. Hollenhorst. Social Science Program, Visitor Services Project 

Report 159. 

2004 Effigy Mounds National Monument Archeological Overview and Assessment. 

Prepared by David W. Benn and Scott Stadler of Bear Creek Archeology, Inc., 

Cresco, Iowa for the NPS Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

2003 Figures on the Landscape: Effigy Mounds National Monument Historic Resource 

Study. Prepared for the National Park Service by HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Seattle, 

Washington. 

2000 Resource Management Plan. Effigy Mounds National Monument, Harpers Ferry, 

Iowa. 

1999 Effigy Mounds National Monument, General Management Plan Amendment and 

Environmental Assessment. Harpers Ferry, Iowa. 

1985 Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors. Rivers, Trails 

and Conservation Assistance Program, San Francisco, California. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2005 “Tabular data: Prime and other Important Farmlands, Clayton County, Iowa.” 

Clayton County Office, Elkader, Iowa. 

North Carolina State University 

2001 Sny Magill Section 319, National Monitoring Program Project. North Carolina State 

University Water Quality Group. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/ programs/extension/wqg/04rept319/ indexframe.html. 

Sanchini, Paula 

1999 Assessment of Wetland Habitats Near Ponds at Effigy Mounds National Monument.

Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 

The Office of the State Archaeologist at The University of Iowa 

2001 Effigy Mounds National Monument Cultural Affiliation Report. Prepared by W. 

Green, L. Zimmerman, R. Lillie, D. Makes Strong Move, and D. Sly-Terpstra for the 

National Park Service, Midwest Support Office, Research Papers 26(3), 2001. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

2005 State and County Quick Facts. Accessed online at http:// 

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

1991 Fishes, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Winona, 

Minnesota. 

2012 Endangered Species Program. Continually updated. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

Weeks, Don P. 

2006 Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, Water Resources Foundation Report. 

Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/350. NPS Water Resources Division, 

Denver, Colorado.
279 

INDEX 

A

American Indian, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, 30, 

64, 66, 71, 85, 90, 104, 106, 107, 118, 136, 

138, 143, 144, 166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 

219, 220, 227, 265 

D

Dousman Creek, 7, 27, 28, 45, 111, 264 

E

Eagle Rock, 7, 116 

endangered species, 5, 13, 18, 85, 86, 160, 

219, 264 

F

Fire Point, 7, 64, 78, 93, 96, 116, 118, 136, 

137, 140, 141, 142 

floodplain, 6, 7, 17, 18, 28, 30, 46, 108, 109, 

110, 112, 113, 115, 264, 265, 266 

H

Hanging Rock, 7, 116 

Heritage Addition, ii, v, 5, 6, 7, 10, 22, 28, 43, 

57, 63, 66, 71, 77, 78, 88, 90, 91, 92, 103, 

107, 110, 116, 136, 138, 140, 141, 142, 150, 

151, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 164, 165, 167, 

168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 177, 178, 180, 181, 

182, 189, 227, 264 

I

infrastructure, 50, 130, 134, 135, 137, 149, 

150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 180, 181, 182 

interpretation, iii, 12, 16, 52, 57, 58, 59, 63, 66, 

67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 

118, 120, 125, 135, 144, 145, 167, 168, 169, 

170, 172, 173, 176, 178, 181, 182, 220 

J

Jefferson Davis Sawmill, 11, 12, 103 

N

North Unit, ii, 6, 7, 43, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 

71, 82, 93, 94, 107, 116, 118, 125, 130, 136, 

137, 141, 164, 165, 167, 169, 172, 173, 180, 

189 

O

Orientation, 22, 167, 170, 173 

P

parking, 7, 22, 46, 52, 58, 68, 86, 95, 116, 125, 

136, 140, 167, 168, 169, 171, 174, 183, 267 

S

Sny Magill Unit, ii, 5, 6, 7, 20, 22, 28, 29, 46, 

55, 58, 64, 68, 72, 77, 78, 82, 89, 94, 95, 

107, 110, 112, 115, 119, 122, 125, 130, 136, 

138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 164, 165, 167, 168, 

169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178 

South Unit, ii, 6, 7, 44, 58, 64, 67, 68, 72, 77, 

94, 103, 107, 118, 120, 122, 136, 150, 151, 

155, 156, 159, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 

172, 173, 176 

T

traffic, 29, 120, 133, 137, 139, 140, 267 

trails, iii, iv, 7, 20, 27, 45, 46, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 

67, 68, 72, 77, 78, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 

94, 95, 96, 116, 118, 119, 120, 130, 133, 

135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 150, 151, 

155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 164, 165, 168, 169, 

176, 178, 265 

Y

Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment, 

261 
280 
 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests 

of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

EFMO 394/119437A February 2013
National Park Service • U.S. Department of the Interior 

Effigy Mounds National Monument