EFFIGY MOUNDS

NATIONAL MONUMENT

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Effigy Mounds

National Monument

Revised Draft General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement

August 2011

i 

Revised Draft 

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 earth 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. 

This document is a Revised Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, which replaces the 

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for Effigy Mounds National Monument 

released in May 2009. Since that time, the National Park Service has taken 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 two years 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, and some delays were introduced into the planning effort. Given the magnitude of certain changes, 

the National Park Service is seeking public comments on this revised document.

This Revised Draft 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’s preferred alternative 

and also the environmentally preferable alternative. In this alternative, 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. All 

of the alternatives 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 short-term and long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources primarily from the construction of trails. 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 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, the preferred alternative, 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 would be confined to 

localized areas and would often be offset by beneficial impacts. There would be a possible adverse impact to 

cultural landscapes from trail, parking area, and contact station construction; however, these impacts would be 

mitigated through site design. Special status species would not likely be adversely affected. Alternative B would 

not result in impairment of key monument resources. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative C would be similar to those of implementing alternative B. There 

would be a possible adverse impact to cultural landscapes from trail, parking area, and contact station 

construction, which would be mitigated through site design. Special status species would not likely be adversely 

affected. 

This Revised Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed to other 

agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. The public comment period 

for this document will last for 60 days. Readers are encouraged to submit comments on this draft plan at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov. You may also send written comments to Superintendent, Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, 151 HWY 76, Harpers Ferry IA 52146. 

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

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this Revised Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

(GMP/EIS) are welcome and will be accepted during the 60-day public review and comment 

period. During the comment period, comments may be submitted using several methods as noted 

below. 

Online: at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/efmo 

Mail: Effigy Mounds National Monument General Management Plan 

National Park Service (DSC–P, K. Randall) 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver CO 80225 

or 

Superintendent 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

151 HWY 76 

Harpers Ferry IA 52146 

Hand deliver: at public meetings to be announced in the media following the release of this plan. 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can 

ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, 

we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 
iii 

SUMMARY 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was 

established by presidential proclamation on 

October 25, 1949, to protect significant 

prehistoric earth 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 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 a Revised Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, which replaces the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for Effigy Mounds National 

Monument released in May 2009. Since that 

time, the National Park Service has taken 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 two 

years 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, and some delays were 

introduced into the planning effort. Given 

the magnitude of certain changes, the 

National Park Service is seeking public 

comments on this revised document. 

This Revised Draft 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 minimally meets NPS 

museum 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 under different strategies. A virtual 

research center would be developed to serve 

as an on-line 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 trail connecting the Yellow River bridge 

and North unit trails to the South Unit trails 

would continue to be developed. The park is 

currently in the planning stage for this trail 
SUMMARY 

iv 

and the exact location of the trail will be 

determined in consultation with the Iowa 

State Historic Preservation Officer and 

culturally associated American Indian tribes. 

Key Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A 

The key impacts of implementing alternative 

A, the no-action alternative, would be shortterm and long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and 

visual resources. There would be negligible 

to moderate, long-term, adverse impacts as 

well as long-term, beneficial impacts to 

cultural resources. Moderate, adverse 

impacts would be confined to localized 

areas. The mounds would not be adversely 

affected. 

ALTERNATIVE B — THE 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. 

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 

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-guiding 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. 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 and 

culturally associated American Indian tribes. 

Those portions of the monument’s museum 

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

center are very inaccessible to the public, 

including researchers; these would be 

moved out of the basement of the visitor 

center to a safer, more secure location 

outside of the monument where they will 

receive better care while remaining 

accessible to legitimate researchers. 

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 
Summary 

v 

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, the preferred alternative, 

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 an off-site location that fully meets 

NPS museum management 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. There would 

be a possible adverse impact to cultural 

landscapes from trail, parking area, and 

contact station construction. The mounds 

would not be adversely affected. Special 

status species may, but would most likely 

not, be adversely affected. There would be 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on the 

visitor experience and the socioeconomic 

environment. This alternative would not 

result in impairment of key monument 

resources. 

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 very inaccessible to the public, 

including researchers; therefore, they would 

be moved out of the basement of the visitor 

center to a safer, 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. 

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 lessdeveloped 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. 
SUMMARY 

vi 

Key Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative C 

The key impacts of implementing 

alternative C would be the same as the 

impacts of implementing alternative B. 
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 7

Climate 7

Geography 7

Monument Units 8

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 13

Monument Purpose and Significance 13

Primary Interpretive Themes 15

Special Mandates or Administrative Commitments 16

Servicewide Laws and Policies 16

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan 24

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 26

Introduction 26

Issues 26

IMPACT TOPICS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL 28

Cultural Resources 28

Natural Resources 28

Other Topics 29

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 31

Historic Buildings and Structures 31

Air Quality 31

Water Quality and Quantity 31

Wetlands and Floodplains 32

Geology 32

Wilderness 32

Night Sky 33

Soundscapes 33

Prime or Unique Farmlands 33

Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment 34

Indian Trust Lands 34

Environmental Justice 34

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

INTRODUCTION 39

USER CAPACITY 40

Overview 40

RESOURCE AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS 42

Long-term Monitoring 44

PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEGISLATED BOUNDARY (NON-NPS LAND) 47

Recommended Boundary Adjustments 47

Boundary Adjustments Considered but not Included in Recommendations 50
CONTENTS 

viii 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES 53

MANAGEMENT ZONES 55

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 57

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C) 58

Resource Management 58

Visitor Use 58

Monument Management 59

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 60

Concept 60

Zoning 60

Monumentwide 60

Heritage Addition 60

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area 60

North Unit 61

South Unit 61

Sny Magill Unit 61

ELEMENTS COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES B AND C) 71

Heritage Addition 71

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area 72

North Unit 72

South Unit 72

Sny Magill Unit 72

ALTERNATIVE B (THE NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 74

Concept 74

Zoning 74

Heritage Addition 74

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area 74

North Unit 75

South Unit 75

Sny Magill Unit 76

Virtual Research Center 76

ALTERNATIVE C 85

Concept 85

Zoning 85

Heritage Addition 85

Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area 85

North Unit 86

South Unit 86

Sny Magill Unit 86

Research Center 87

ESTIMATED COSTS 95

Alternative A (No Action) 95

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 95

Alternative C 96

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 98

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION 100

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 102

Cultural Resources 102

Natural Resources 103

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 106
Contents 

ix 

SUMMARY TABLES 108

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 121

Background 121

Archeological Resources 122

Ethnographic Resources 123

Cultural Landscapes 124

Museum Collections 125

NATURAL RESOURCES 126

Soils 126

Wild and Scenic Rivers 127

Vegetation 127

Fish and Wildlife 128

Special Status Species 130

Viewsheds 133

VISITOR USE AND UNDERSTANDING 134

Visitor Experience 134

Visitor Understanding 136

Visitor Safety and Access 136

Recreational Use of the Yellow River 136

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 138

Socioeconomic Benefits of the National Park Service 138

Economics in the Study Area 138

Visitor Spending in The Planning Area 139

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 141

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 145

Terms and Assumptions 145

Cumulative Impacts 146

CULTURAL RESOURCES 148

Types of Cultural Resources 148

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Methodology 148

Archeological Resources 149

Cultural Landscapes 154

Ethnographic Resources 159

Museum Collections 161

NATURAL RESOURCES 164

Introduction 164

Soils 164

Wild and Scenic Rivers 167

Vegetation 169

Fish and Wildlife 172

Special Status Species 175

Visual Resources/Viewsheds 178

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 182

Methodology 182

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 182

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 184

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 187
CONTENTS 

x 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 191

Methodology 191

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 191

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 192

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 193

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 195

Methodology 195

Impacts From Implementing Alternative A (No Action) 195

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 196

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 197

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION 

POTENTIAL 198

Introduction 198

Alternatives B and C (the Action Alternatives) 198

CLIMATE CHANGE 200

Background 200

Relevant Laws and Policies 200

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 202

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 203

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

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 204

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 207

Public Involvement 207

Consultation with Other Agencies/ Officials and Organizations (To Date) 207

Future Compliance Requirements 209

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 211

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 212

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION SUMMARY 215

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

OF NATURAL RESOURCES 216

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

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 221

APPENDIX D: YELLOW RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ASSESSMENT 235

APPENDIX E: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN IN THE MONUMENT 245

APPENDIX F: DETERMINATION OF IMPAIRMENT 246

REFERENCES 250

INDEX 252
Contents 

xi 

Tables 

Table 1. Laws, Mandates, and Policies Pertaining to Effigy Mounds National Monument 18

Table 2: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 45

Table 3. Management Zones 55

Table 4. Estimated Costs of the Alternatives (in 2010 dollars) 97

Table 5. Environmentally Preferable Alternative 99

Table 6. Summary of Alternatives 108

Table 7. Summary of Key Impacts 114

Table 8. Soils 126

Table 9. Effigy Mounds Visitation Figures 135

Table 10. Visits and Spending by Visitor Segment, 2006 140

Table 11. Economic Effects of Visitor Spending by Sector, 2006 140

Figures 

Figure 1. The Region 9

Figure 2. Effigy Mounds National Monument 11

Figure 3: User Capacity Framework 41

Figure 4. Recommended Boundary Adjustments 51

Figure 5. Heritage Addition, Alternative A (No Action) 63

Figure 6. North Unit, Alternative A (No Action) 65

Figure 7. South Unit, Alternative A (No Action) 67

Figure 8. Sny Magill Unit, Alternative A (No Action) 69

Figure 9. Heritage Addition, Alternatives B and C 77

Figure 10. North Unit, Alternative B 79

Figure 11. South Unit, Alternative B 81

Figure 12. Sny Magill Unit, Alternative B 83

Figure 13. North Unit, Alternative C 89

Figure 14. South Unit, Alternative C 91

Figure 15. Sny Magill Unit, Alternative C 93

Figure 16. Possible Wild and Scenic River Boundary 243



3 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Revised Draft General Management 

Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement is 

organized in accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the National Park 

Service’s Program Standards for Park 

Planning, and Directors 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 will 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: The 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 the 

intensity, type, and duration of impacts are 

outlined in the chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and 

Coordination describes the history of 

public and agency coordination during the 

planning effort and any future compliance 

requirements; 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 a Revised Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, which replaces the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for Effigy Mounds National 

Monument released in May 2009. Since that 

time, the National Park Service has taken 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 two 

years 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, and some delays were 

introduced into the planning effort. Given 

the magnitude of certain changes, the 

National Park Service is seeking public 

comments on this revised document.

This Revised Draft 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 National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative and 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 the 

National Park Service (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, 

National Park Service (NPS) policies, and 
Introduction 

5 

the 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 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 

(GMP) for Effigy Mounds 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 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. 

• Visitation patterns have changed since 

the last general management plan was 

developed. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After distribution of the Revised Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, there will be a 60-day 

public review and comment period after 

which the NPS planning team will evaluate 

comments from other federal agencies, 

tribes, organizations, businesses, and 

individuals regarding the draft plan and will 

incorporate appropriate changes into the 

Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. The final 

plan will include letters from governmental 

agencies, any substantive comments on the 

draft document, and NPS responses to those 

comments. Following distribution of the 

Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement and a 30-

day no-action period, a record of decision 

approving a final plan may be signed by the 

NPS regional director. The record of 

decision documents the National Park 

Service selection of an alternative for 

implementation. 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, will 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 will 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. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

6 

• American Indian tribes and the state 

historic preservation officer would be 

consulted. 

• As appropriate, National Environmental Policy Act 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 will be based on the goals, 

future conditions, and appropriate types of 

activities established in the approved general 

management plan.
7 

DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was 

authorized by Presidential Proclamation 

2860 on October 25, 1949. The monument 

currently comprises a total of 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 the Sny Magill Unit 

(see Region and Park maps). Land 

surrounding Effigy Mounds is managed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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 

midwestern 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 

predominately 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 

floodplains, water impoundments, and 

waterways (National Park Service 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 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

8 

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 land form 

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-guiding 

walks of varying distances (longest trail is 

7 miles). 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 south 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 

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 the mounds 

in the monument. It also has the highest 

concentration of mounds known in the 

region. A trail leads from the access road to 

the 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 even much indication that it is an 

NPS 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

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

HERITAGE

ADDITION

FIGURE 2: PARK

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 2011 • 394 • 20,024D

I O W A

W I S C O N S I N

Effigy Mounds

National Monument Boundary

76

76

X-56

Sny Magill Unit

0

0

1 Mile

1 Kilometers

North

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

13 

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 help to focus 

management on the features that are most 

important in the monument. 

Significance 1. The national monument 

contains nationally significant archeological 

resources comprising one of the largest 

concentrations of Indian 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 preEuropean contact peoples in this region. 

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, 

represent 1800 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 the 

moundbuilding era was 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. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

14 

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 

pearly mussel, 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 EuroAmerican 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 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 

culturally associated tribes as a sacred 

landscape. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

15 

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. 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 will 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 Ft. 

Crawford to Ft. 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). 

• 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 culturally associated 

tribes allows a better understanding of 

American Indian traditions, history, 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

16 

and stories related to the 

moundbuilding cultures. Only by 

combining earlier methods of 

archeology, other less invasive 

methods of today, and the oral 

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 (the 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. (The Riverfront Tract is 

identified on the North Unit maps: figure 10 

on page 79 and figure 13 on page 89.) 

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 the National 

Historic Preservation Act and the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act); and laws about providing 

public services (such as the 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 will 

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 1916 

Organic Act that created the National Park 

Service; the General Authorities Act of 1970; 

the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the 

management of the national park system; 

and the 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 that address the 

protection of wetlands. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 USC 1) provides 

the fundamental 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 National Park System 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 system. Further, amendments 

state that NPS management of park units 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

17 

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 entitled 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. 
18 

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 

culturally 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; the 

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 will 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 and the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer. 

• Protect all archeological resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; if 

disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with the Iowa State Historic 

Preservation Officer, culturally associated American Indian tribes, and, as necessary, with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. 

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

• In advance of any new development, or modification of existing developments, consult with the Iowa 

State Historic Preservation Officer and culturally associated American Indian tribes as appropriate. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

19 

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (continued)

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 

Guidelines; and the 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. 

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. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

20 

• Update the current cultural landscapes inventory to determine whether or not an “ethnographic 

landscape” exists, determine its boundaries, and 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, The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, NPS Management Policies 

2006; Director’s Order 24: 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 

21 

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 a 

condition as possible, except where special considerations are 

allowable under policy. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

When soil excavation is an unavoidable part of an approved 

facility development project, the National Park Service will 

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. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

22 

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Continued)

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 will be affected, the National Park Service 

• prepares and approves a statement of findings in accordance 

with Director’s Order 77-2 

• 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) 

Director’s Order 77-2: Floodplain 

Management, NPS Management 

Policies 2006

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 exotic plant and animal species, including 

eradication, will 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” 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

23 

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Continued)

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 will be preserved to the 

greatest extent possible. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Where soundscapes have been degraded by unnatural sounds 

(noise) they will 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. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

24 

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 will 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 

NPS Programs, Facilities, 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 experiencerelated 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 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

25 

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 

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 Fish and 

Wildlife 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 

Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 

visitor center to be built relatively near the 

Sny Magill Unit. 

The Upper Mississippi National Fish and 

Wildlife 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 designation does not affect the way 

the national monument is managed. 

The National Park Service will endeavor to 

remain involved with local and regional 

efforts to protect, manage, and interpret 

burial mounds and other cultural resources 

in the region.
26 

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) and 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 6: 

Consultation and Coordination”). 

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

monument. They value the well-preserved 

Indian 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 work 

force 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. 

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. 
Planning Issues and Concerns 

27 

• 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 

mound builders 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 look at 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 only minimally 

meets NPS museum 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. 
28 

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, 

Council on Environmental Quality (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 

National Park Service’s “List of Classified 

Structures,” 208 are mounds. In this 

document, impacts to the mounds will 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. 

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. 
Impact Topics Discussed in Detail 

29 

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 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 

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, candidate, 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 

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. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

30 

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 

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. 
31 

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. 

The 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 will 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, 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 

ground water, which provides important 

cold water characteristics of the streams. 

The Yellow River originates in southeastern 

Winneshiek County, Iowa, and flows 

through the monument for 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 coldwater 

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. 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 snow-melt 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 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

32 

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 (National Park Service 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 (National Park Service 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 sitespecific 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 land form 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 land form 

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. Since there would be 

no potential to affect the geology of the 

monument or region, this topic is dismissed 

from further analysis. 

WILDERNESS 

Wilderness areas are established through 

congressional designation. There are no 

areas in the monument with such 

designation and there are no areas that 

would be eligible for possible designation. 

Although NPS policy requires the study of 

new additions to a park unit for wilderness 

eligibility, the Heritage Addition is less than 

5,000 acres in size and contains evidence of 

human activity that includes the remnants of 

logging operations and many miles of roads 

that would most likely make it ineligible. 

Therefore, this topic is dismissed from 

further analysis. 
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 

33 

NIGHT SKY 

National Park Service 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 

National Park Service Management Policies 

2006 requires park managers to strive to 

preserve the natural soundscape of a park, 

which is defined as the lack of humanrelated 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 will 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, 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 

United States Department of Agriculture's 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 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 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

34 

in the floodplain of the Yellow River and 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 developedarea 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 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, “General 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 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 lowincome population or community. 

• Implementation of the preferred 

alternative would not result in any 

identified effect that would be specific 
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 

35 

to any minority or low-income 

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. 



39 

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. Then the 

elements of the management alternatives are 

discussed. 

Management alternatives generally consist 

of three elements: management zones that 

help define levels of activities and 

development for various areas of a park or 

monument, actions that are common to 

more than one alternative, and 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.")
40 

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’s 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 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 
User Capacity 

41 

Figure 3. User Capacity Framework 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

42 

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. 

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 will monitor resources and visitor use 

and judge whether or not 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 

• Degradation / widening of the 

designated trail system 

• Overflow parking in the grass due to 

crowding at the visitor center parking 

area 

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 

will 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. 

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 
User Capacity 

43 

variety of habitats, including upland forest, 

prairie, and wetlands. For those wanting a 

more in-depth 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 visitors’ experiences and directing 

their 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 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 will 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 are 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-creased trails is based 

on a modified version of a trail condition 

classification system developed by Jeff Marion 

of the United States Geological Survey 

(Marion 2008). Since 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 (to be evaluated this summer). 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 informal 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 new 

technology 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 events, increased 

restrictions on the locations for overflow 

parking will be established based on this new 

data. Once these new restrictions are in place, 

both protection rangers and interpretive 

rangers will be tasked with monitoring any 

violations of unauthorized parking. There will 

be a low tolerance for violations (no more 

than 4 per year) to ensure that mound 

remnants are not further impacted by this 

activity. Possible management actions include 

additional signage and education about peak 

times, education about mound remnants and 

their preservation, better demarcation for 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

44 

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) might 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. 
45 

Table 2: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 

General Visitor 

Impact Topic 

Indicator Standard Potential Manageme

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 

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

• Develop site stewardship pr

volunteers and organization

• Partner with other historic p

friends groups to create awarcheological and historic siarcheology programs. 

• Mitigate/take corrective acti

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 class 0 or above trails on switchback areas or on identified archeological sites 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 (to be inventoried / monitored when snow melts) 

• Increase in visitor education 

and park regulations. 

• Place border logs or other b

trails at the junction with in

• Restore visitor created trails 

trailhead signs explaining thasking visitors to remain on 

• Enhance marking of the off

improve adjacent designate

• Increase enforcement or pr

volunteers. 

• Area closures • Reduce use levels 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

46 

General Visitor 

Impact Topic 

Indicator Standard Potential Manageme

Condition of Designated Trail System 

Number of incidences that the trail has expanded 1-3 feet wider than adjacent, more typical, sections of the trail per mile 

By Zone Development Zone: No more than 15 incidences per mile Discovery Zone: No more than 10 incidences per mile Backcountry Zone: No more than 5 incidences per mile (Standards will be reevaluated once the snow melts and trails can be inventoried / monitored) 

• Consider more substantial t• Increase in visitor education 

trails and park regulations 

• Enhance marking of the off

further improve designated 

• Consider trail realignment a

reconstruction 

• Install temporary or perman• Area closures • Reduce group sizes and/or 

Crowding at Visitor Center Parking Lot 

Number of days with vehicles parked in unauthorized areas per year 

No more than 4 days per year. • Trip planning/ education ab

additional signage 

• Education about new findin

remnants in grassy areas of is important to stay in desig

• Better demarcation (e.g., sig

education) of area closures 

• Access by shuttle • Increased enforcement • Protection and interpretive r

tasked with collecting data in unauthorized areas. 

*Trail Classification System

Class 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 
47 

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 

(see figures 10 and 13). 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: 

figure 10 on page 79 and figure 13 on page 

89.) 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 on page 51 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 

monument’s boundaries needs to be 

completed. It is the goal of the National Park 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

48 

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 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 

which would be attractive for this type of 

development for three reasons: it has a 

ridge-top location, there is direct access to a 

highway, and 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 #2.1

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 

an approximate appearance of the landscape 

associated with the moundbuilding era. 

Under alternatives B and C, the monument 

would pursue abandonment of the county 

road, so that most of it would revert to 

monument ownership, and reuse the former 

road as a trail. 

 

1 Throughout this document, this road will be 

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

49 

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 very 

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 

eighty 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: first, this tract 

is attractive for possible future development; 

and, second, 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 run-off 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: first, much of 

this tract is attractive for possible future 

development; second, continued use of this 

tract for logging would risk harm both to 

visitor experience and to Dousman Creek; 

and, third, 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 #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. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

50 

Reason for recommending this boundary 

adjustment. Adjusting the boundary to 

include this property would address 

operational and management issues. The 

preferred alternative in the general 

management plan envisions 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 will 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). In order 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 of large enough size 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 which 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. 

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.
TRACT 4

TRACT 2

TRACT 1

TRACT 3

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

HERITAGE

ADDITION

FIGURE 4: RECOMMENDED 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 2011 • 394 • 20,024E

I O W A

W I S C O N S I N

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL 

MONUMENT BOUNDARY

TRACT PROPOSAL

Sny Magill Unit

76

X-56

76

North 0

0

1 Mile

1 Kilometer

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

53 

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—the backcountry zone, 

discovery zone, and the 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, in order 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 and were modified in response to 

internal and external comments. 

This Revised Draft General Management 

Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement

presents three alternatives, including the 

National Park Service’s 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 (the 

preferred alternative) and alternative C. 

These 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 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

54 

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 will be forthcoming. The 

general management plan establishes a 

strategy that will guide day-to-day and yearto-year management of the national 

monument, but full implementation could 

take many years.
55 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Table 3. Management Zones 

BACKCOUNTRY ZONE

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(red) 

DEVELOPMENT ZONE

(brown) 

Purpose / Emphasis In this zone, the emphasis 

would be on the protection 

of resources in a natural 

setting. 

There would be a minimum 

of development and the 

visitor experience would be 

one of quiet and solitude. 

Maintenance activities would 

occur primarily to further 

resource preservation, while 

accommodating visitor 

experience as appropriate. 

In this zone, the emphasis 

would be on enhancing 

visitor access and 

understanding of the 

mounds, while still 

maintaining a natural setting. 

There would be some 

development designed to 

enhance understanding, such 

as interpretive waysides and 

signs. Ranger-led activities 

would occur here, and 

visitors would be likely to see 

others in this zone. 

Maintenance activities in this 

zone would occur primarily 

to enhance visitor experience 

as much as possible, while 

preserving resources. 

The emphasis of this zone 

would be to provide the 

facilities and amenities 

necessary for visitor services 

and monument operations. 

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 Indian mounds and other 

cultural resources would be 

preserved in place in good 

condition according to the 

Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards. 

Indian mounds and other 

cultural resources would be 

preserved in place in good 

condition according to the 

Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards. 

Where near trails, some 

mounds could be mowed or 

otherwise maintained to 

differentiate them from 

surrounding vegetation to 

increase visitors’ ability to see 

and understand the mounds 

and their setting. 

If present in this zone, 

cultural resources would be 

protected and monitored 

according to the Secretary of 

Interior’s Standards. 

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. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

56 

BACKCOUNTRY ZONE

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(red) 

DEVELOPMENT ZONE

(brown) 

Desired Visitor Experience

This zone would be 

experienced primarily by 

hiking or paddling through 

on self-guiding or ranger-led 

trips. 

On-site Information and 

interpretation would be 

limited within the zone. 

The visitor experience would 

be relatively quiet and 

contemplative. Encounters 

with other visitors and 

monument staff would be 

rare. 

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. 

This zone would be 

experienced primarily by 

hiking or paddling through 

on self-guiding or ranger-led 

trips. 

On-site Information and 

interpretation would be 

available at many sites in this 

zone. 

Encounters with other visitors 

and monument staff would 

be expected in this zone. 

A moderate time 

commitment and physical 

ability would be necessary to 

experience this zone. 

This zone would offer the 

primary orientation to the 

park. Information and 

interpretation would be 

offered in an indoor setting. 

Special events for large 

crowds could be 

accommodated here. Many 

encounters with other 

visitors and monument staff 

would be expected. 

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 Simple, minimally developed 

foot trails, small rustic 

benches, and limited, 

unobtrusive informational 

signs would be allowed in 

this zone. 

If possible without disturbing 

resources, some centrally 

located trails may be 

designed to accommodate 

occasional use by small park 

vehicles but the majority of 

trails would be designed for 

pedestrian use only. 

There would be no additional 

raised boardwalk trails. 

Foot trails, benches, 

interpretive waysides, and 

amenities such as trash/ 

recycling receptacles would 

be allowed in this zone. 

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 those 

with mobility impairments. 

There would be no additional 

raised boardwalk trails. 

This zone would have the 

visitor center, research and 

educational facilities, 

administrative offices, 

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. 
57 

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 offsite 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 off site 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 there, 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 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.
58 

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 non-invasive geophysical 

investigations of mounds and limited 

archeological testing of non-mound 

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 

• 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 in consultation 

with the Iowa State Historic 

Preservation Officer and culturallyassociated American Indian tribes. 

• 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 exploring 

traditional ways. 
Elements Common to All of the Alternative 

59 

• 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. 

• New water system and wastewater 

treatment facilities would be installed 

as needed for adequate public and 

employee health and fire protection. 

• 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.
60 

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 under different strategies. 

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 rangerconducted 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 discouraged 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 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. 
Alternative A – No Action 

61 

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. There would 

be no new 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. 

• 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 

recreational use of the boat ramp and 

the adjacent Mississippi River. 

D o u s m an C r e e k

0

0 1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

FIGURE 5: HERITAGE ADDITIONAlternative A (No Action)EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENTUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICEDSC / April 2011 

Monument Boundary

C o u n t y R o a d

76

Creek

76

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

Land Inside Boundary

- not currently under

 NPS ownership

Backcountry Zone

Discovery Zone

Developed Zone

FIGURE 6: NORTH UNIT

Alternative A (No Action)

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

Smokey Hollow Road

Fire Point

Third Scenic

View

Twin

Views

Maintenance Road

Visitor

Center

Complex

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

New Trail 

(exact location TBD)

North

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

Cou nty Road

76

New Trail 

(exact location TBD)

FIGURE 7: SOUTH UNIT

Alternative A (No Action)

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

South Unit

Road Entrance

COMPOUND

MOUND GROUP

MARCHING

BEAR GROUP

YELLOW RIVER

MOUND GROUP

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

E n t r a n c e R o a d

X-56

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

FIGURE 8: SNY MAGILL UNIT

Alternative A (No Action)

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

71 

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 seek 

county relinquishment or 

abandonment of the county road to 

facilitate use of the road as a trail and 

for monument management needs. 

• A small parking area would be 

provided for visitors to access trails. 

The need for and/or specific location 

of the parking area would be 

determined as part of the public 

access/trail development plan. 

• 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-conducted 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. 

• Public trails would be provided in the 

Heritage Addition using the existing 

county road and appropriate logging 

roads. Some new trails could be 

constructed when necessary according 

to a public access/trail development 

plan (see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). Trails would be for pedestrian 

or occasional NPS vehicle use—no 

horses, bikes, or public vehicles would 

be allowed. 

• 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 or 

public access plan for both the Sny 

Magill Unit and Heritage Addition 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. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

72 

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. 

• 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 

a safer, more secure location outside of 

the monument where they will receive 

better care while remaining accessible 

to 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 

• 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 

culturally 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 South Unit entrance road would 

be rebuilt to create safe access for NPS 

personnel and equipment. All work 

would be done in accordance with 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 

culturally associated American Indian 

tribes. 

SNY MAGILL UNIT 

• The public would continue to have 

access to the boat ramp and the 

Mississippi River for 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. 

• A visitor contact station would be 

opened on newly acquired land 

between the highway and the railroad 

tracks to provide an NPS presence for 
Elements Common to Both Action Alternatives (Alternatives B and C) 

73 

resource protection and visitor 

services. 

• A site development plan would be 

developed to evaluate options for 

location and design of the visitor 

contact station and the trail (see 

“Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section). 

• Acquisition of land west of the railroad 

tracks from a willing seller would be 

pursued for viewshed protection and 

location of the visitor contact station. 

• The specific location of trails in the Sny 

Magill Unit would be identified in a 

subsequent trail development or public 

access plan for both the Sny Magill 

Unit and the Heritage Addition. The 

access plan would explore and analyze 

potential options that require a 

minimum of new trail construction. 
74 

ALTERNATIVE B (THE 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. 

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-guiding 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. 

ZONING 

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. 

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. 

HERITAGE ADDITION 

The Heritage Addition would be zoned 

primarily for backcountry. A small 

development zone would be located along 

Highway 76 in the northern part of the 

Heritage Addition to provide a small visitor 

parking area and a trailhead. See “Figure 9. 

Heritage Addition, Alternatives B and 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 10. North 

Unit, Alternative B.” 
Alternative B (The NPS Preferred Alternative) 

75 

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 

a safer, more secure location outside of 

the monument where they will receive 

better care yet remain accessible to 

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 

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 10. 

North Unit, 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. 

• 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 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. 

SOUTH UNIT 

In alternative B, the majority of the South 

Unit is zoned for backcountry. An area 

immediately south of Highway 76 would be 

placed in the discovery zone. See “Figure 11. 

South Unit, 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. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

76 

• In this alternative the majority of the 

existing trails would be in the 

backcountry zone. 

• 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 12. Sny Magill Unit, 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 NPS-conducted 

educational programs; conducted 

interpretive demonstrations, talks, and 

walks; and additional contacts 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 on-line 

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 management 

agencies and academic institutions. 
D o u s m an C r e e k

0

0 1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

FIGURE 9: HERITAGE ADDITIONAlternative B & CEFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENTUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICEDSC / April 2011

Monument BoundaryCreekBackcountry ZoneDiscovery ZoneDeveloped Zone

C o u n t y R o a d C o u n t y R o a d

76

NOTE: The location of trails in the Heritage Addition will be determined in a future public access and trail development plan

76

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

Land Inside Boundary

- not currently under

 NPS ownership

Backcountry Zone

Discovery Zone

Developed Zone

Smokey Hollow Road

Fire Point Trail

- relocated

 and overlook

 rehabilitated

Fire Point 

Mound

- stabilized

Third Scenic

View

Twin

Views

Maintenance Road

GREAT BEAR

MOUND GROUP

LITTLE BEAR

MOUND GROUP

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

Maintenance Road

Riverfront 

Tract

New Trail 

(exact location TBD)

FIGURE 10: NORTH UNIT

Alternative B

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

North

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

Cou nty RoadCou nty Road

New Trail 

(exact location TBD)

76

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

Backcountry Zone

Discovery Zone

Developed Zone

Upgrade

South Unit

Road Entrance

COMPOUND

MOUND GROUP

MARCHING

BEAR GROUP

YELLOW RIVER

MOUND GROUP

FIGURE 11: SOUTH UNIT

Alternative B

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

E n t r a n c e R o a d

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

Proposed future visitor

contact station should property 

become available for acquisition

Backcountry Zone

Discovery Zone

Developed Zone

X-56

Improve Trail

FIGURE 12: SNY MAGILL UNIT

Alternative B

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

85 

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. 

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 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. 

HERITAGE ADDITION 

The Heritage Addition would be primarily 

zoned as backcountry. A small development 

zone would be located along Highway 76 in 

the northern part of the Heritage Addition 

to provide a small visitor parking area and a 

trailhead. See “Figure 9. Heritage Addition, 

Alternatives B and 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 13. North 

Unit, 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 will meet NPS museum 

management standards and provide a 

safer, more secure location, yet provide 

access for legitimate researchers. The 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

86 

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 13. North Unit, Alternative C.” 

Additional elements include the following: 

• Existing trails could undergo minor 

realignment for resource protection 

purposes. 

• 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 14. South Unit, 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. 

• 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 15. Sny Magill Unit, 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 NPS-conducted 

educational programs; interpretive 

demonstrations, talks, and walks; and 

additional contacts with rangers. 
Alternative C 

87 

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.

76

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

Land Inside Boundary

- not currently under

 NPS ownership

Backcountry Zone

Discovery Zone

Developed Zone

Smokey Hollow Road

Fire Point Trail

- relocated

 and overlook

 rehabilitated

Fire Point 

Mound

- stabilized

Third Scenic

View

Twin

Views

Maintenance Road

GREAT BEAR

MOUND GROUP

LITTLE BEAR

MOUND GROUP

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

Maintenance Road

Riverfront 

Tract

New Trail 

(exact location TBD)

FIGURE 13: NORTH UNIT

Alternative C

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

North

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

Cou nty RoadCou nty Road

Upgrade

South Unit

Road Entrance

New Trail (exact 

location TBD)

76

FIGURE 14: SOUTH UNIT

Alternative C

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

Backcountry Zone

Discovery Zone

Developed Zone

COMPOUND

MOUND GROUP

MARCHING

BEAR GROUP

YELLOW RIVER

MOUND GROUP

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer

North

E n t r a n c e R o a d

Monument Boundary

Creek

Trail

Proposed future visitor

contact station should property 

become available for acquisition

Backcountry Zone

Discovery Zone

Developed Zone

X-56

Improve Trail

FIGURE 15: SNY MAGILL UNIT

Alternative C

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / April 2011

95 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates in general management plans 

are required by the 1978 Parks and 

Recreation Act and are requested by 

Congress for budget control purposes. 

The implementation of the approved plan, 

no matter which alternative, will 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 will 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 will 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 (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 trail access and new trails in the 

Heritage Addition. Funding needs for 

building maintenance and operations costs 

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 at the Sny Magill 

Unit. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

96 

Five and a half additional permanent staff 

positions would be recommended to fully 

implement the preferred alternative. The 

following positions would be needed: 

cultural resource specialist/virtual research 

center director, museum tech, two seasonal 

interpreters, two seasonal maintenance 

workers, law enforcement ranger, and a 

seasonal biotech worker (controlled burns, 

etc). 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 needs 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. 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. 

Eight 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 biotech 

worker (controlled burns, etc.), 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 needs 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 

97 

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

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

Annual Operating Costs1 $952,400 $1,296,580 $1,497,990

Staffing (FTE2) 17 22.5 25.5 

One Time Costs

Facility Costs3$ 795,000 $3,394,560 $3,455,060

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

Total One Time Costs $ 895,000 $3,644,560 $3,705,060

(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 (FTE) 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. 
98 

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 Park Service, in accordance 

with the Department of the Interior policies 

contained in the Department Manual 516 

DM 4.10 and the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s Forty 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 will 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 no-action 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. 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. 

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 
Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

99 

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 
100 

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 (USFWS) 

considered constructing a visitor center for 

the Upper Mississippi Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge about two 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 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 would have too great an 

environmental impact. Although a 

boardwalk would have allowed year-round 

access to the mounds, 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. 

The planning team considered tearing down 

the two former park housing units and 

constructing a multipurpose research 

center/administrative facility in the 

previously developed footprint. During the 

development of the Effigy Mounds 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 multi-purpose research 

center would have also provided a place for 

groups of visitors to gather; this need can 
Alternatives and Actions Considered But Dismissed from Further Evaluation 

101 

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.
102 

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 

compliance-monitoring program would 

include reporting protocols to ensure 

activities stay within the parameters of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

National Historic Preservation Act 

compliance documents, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Section 404 permits, etc. 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 resources as well as 

cultural and ethnographic landscapes. 

• Document cultural and ethnographic 

landscapes in the park and identify 

treatments. 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

103 

• 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 or 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 

culturally associated American Indian 

people. Protect sensitive traditional use 

areas to the extent feasible. 

• Wherever possible, locate projects and 

facilities in previously disturbed or 

existing developed areas. Design 

facilities to avoid known or suspected 

archeological resources. 

• If previously unknown cultural 

resources are discovered during 

project work, all work in the area will 

cease until the site can be evaluated by 

a qualified person and appropriate 

treatment 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 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 

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. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

104 

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, etc. 

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, the use 

of fencing or other means to protect 

sensitive resources adjacent to 

construction, the removal of all foodrelated 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. 

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, etc. 

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 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

105 

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. 
106 

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 that 

covers 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 is now 

required for all park units. This strategy 

expands 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, exotic species 

control plan, or a fire management plan. 

3. A public access/trail development plan 

with environmental assessment would be 

prepared for the Heritage Addition under 

alternative B (the preferred alternative) and 

alternative C, using the direction provided in 

this general management plan. 

The following limitations would constrain 

trail development: (1) where logging roads 

exist, no new trail would be built; instead, 

trail development would be focused on 

minimally improving the surface of existing 

roads to facilitate their use both as trails and 

as administrative roads for necessary park 

operations such as resource and visitor 

protection; (2) new trails would be 

minimally impacting and limited to those 

necessary to provide safe access to view 

resources or to tie into an existing trail or 

logging road network. 

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 (for 

3-4 cars) in the development zone area 

of the Heritage Addition along highway 

76 from which visitors could directly 

access trails in the northern part of the 

Heritage Addition. 

There may also be other options for visitor 

access to the northern part of the Heritage 

Addition that would begin at points other 

than the visitor center area. The access plan 

and environmental assessment would 

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 to analyze and 

decide on the following: 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

107 

• appropriate designs and locations for a 

visitor contact facility on adjacent 

property should such property be 

acquired, 

• alternative surfaces and locations of a 

trail to facilitate access to and 

interpretation of the mounds without 

causing adverse impacts, and 

• appropriate staffing levels to provide 

adequate visitor services and protect 

resources. 

5. A business plan for the monument would 

be developed following completion of the 

general management plan. 

6. The long range interpretation plan for 

the monument would be finalized and would 

include placement information for new trail 

interpretive and directional signs. 
108 

SUMMARY TABLES 

Table 6. Summary of Alternatives 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

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 under different strategies. 

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. 

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 selfguiding 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 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. 
Summary Tables 

109 

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 on-line 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 National Park Service 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 

110 

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 rangerconducted hikes or tours. 

The Heritage Addition would be 

primarily zoned as backcountry. A 

small development zone would be 

located along Highway 76 in the 

northern part of the Heritage Addition 

to provide a small visitor parking area 

and a trailhead. 

The Heritage Addition would be 

primarily zoned as backcountry. A 

small development zone would be 

located along Highway 76 in the 

northern part of the Heritage Addition 

to provide a small visitor parking area 

and a trailhead. 

Public trails would be provided in the 

Heritage Addition using the existing 

county road and appropriate logging 

roads. Some new trails could be 

constructed when necessary according 

to a public access/trail development 

plan (see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). Trails would be for pedestrian 

or occasional NPS vehicle 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 when necessary according 

to a public access/trail development 

plan (see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). Trails would be for pedestrian 

or occasional NPS vehicle 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 for both the Sny 

Magill Unit and Heritage Addition 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 for both the Sny 

Magill Unit and Heritage Addition 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 take-out 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.
Summary Tables 

111 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

The National Park Service would seek 

county relinquishment or 

abandonment of the county road to 

facilitate use of the road as a trail and 

for monument management needs. 

The National Park Service would seek 

county relinquishment or 

abandonment of the county road to 

facilitate use of the road as a trail and 

for monument management needs. 

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 could undergo minor 

realignment for resource protection 

purposes. 

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 

and 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. 

The 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 be moved to a 

storage facility outside of the 

monument that meets NPS museum 

management 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. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

112 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Exhibit, museum, and bookstore space 

in the visitor center would be 

reconfigured. 

Exhibit, museum, and bookstore space 

in the visitor center would be 

reconfigured. 

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. 

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 South Unit Road would remain 

as it is. 

The South Unit entrance road would 

be rebuilt to address safe access for 

NPS personnel and equipment. 

The South Unit entrance road would 

be rebuilt to address safe access for 

NPS personnel and equipment. 

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. 

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. 

A visitor contact station would be 

opened on newly acquired land 

between the highway and the railroad 

tracks to provide an NPS presence for 

resource protection and visitor 

services. 

A visitor contact station would be 

opened on newly acquired land 

between the highway and the railroad 

tracks to provide an NPS presence for 

resource protection and visitor 

services. 
Summary Tables 

113 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

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. 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 a site 

development plan to be prepared. 

The public would continue to have 

recreational use of the boat ramp 

and the adjacent Mississippi River. 

The public would continue to have 

access to the boat ramp and the 

Mississippi River for recreational 

activities. 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 the boat ramp and the 

Mississippi River for 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 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 

and the trail (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 

and the trail (see “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 

Acquisition of land west of the 

railroad tracks from a willing seller 

would be pursued for viewshed 

protection and location of the visitor 

contact station. 

Acquisition of land west of the 

railroad tracks from a willing seller 

would be pursued for viewshed 

protection and location of the visitor 

contact station. 

The specific location of trails in the Sny 

Magill Unit would be identified in a 

subsequent trail development or 

public access plan for both the Sny 

Magill Unit and Heritage Addition. The 

access plan would explore and analyze 

potential options that require a 

minimum of new trail construction. 

The specific location of trails in the Sny 

Magill Unit would be identified in a 

subsequent trail development or 

public access plan for both the Sny 

Magill Unit and Heritage Addition. The 

access plan would explore and analyze 

potential options that require a 

minimum of new trail construction. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

114 

Table 7. Summary of Key Impacts 

Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative C

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological 

Resources 

Trail development, 

construction, 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 longterm, beneficial impact on 

archeological resources 

throughout the monument. 

Combined with regional 

trends of agriculture, 

development, logging, and 

pothunting, there would be 

a permanent, long-term, 

moderate, adverse, 

cumulative effect on 

regional resources; the 

monument’s role in this 

impact would be minor. 

Potential impacts would 

have a Sec. 106 adverse 

effect on archeological 

resources; consultations 

with the state historic 

preservation officer and 

consulting tribes would 

occur to develop mitigation 

strategies. 

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 permanent. 

Cumulative effects 

and Section 106 

impact assessment 

would be the same as 

those identified in the 

“Actions Common to 

All Alternatives” 

section. 

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. 

Cumulative effects and Section 106 impact 

assessment would be the same as those 

indentified in the “Actions Common to All 

Alternatives” section. 
Summary Tables 

115 

Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative C

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Trail, maintenance, and 

construction activities would 

have long-term, negligible 

to moderate, 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 portions of 

the Mississippi River’s banks 

would have a long-term, 

moderately negative impact, 

but this impact would be 

restricted to a small portion 

of the landscape. 

Stabilization of the 

riverbank would have a 

long-term beneficial effect 

to the riverbanks and 

protect nearby cultural 

resources. 

Maintaining the mounds’ 

appearance would result in 

a long-term, beneficial 

impact throughout much of 

the monument because the 

landscapes’ integrity would 

be retained or restored. 

There would be no 

additional impacts to 

cultural landscapes 

beyond those 

indentified as 

common to all 

alternatives. 

Trail and road 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 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 tracts of land, stabilizing the Fire 

Point Mound, and restoring the landscapes 

would afford greater federal protection over 

new lands as well as perpetuate characterdefining landscape features. These actions 

would result in long-term, beneficial impacts 

throughout much of the monument. 

The parking area in the Heritage Addition 

and a contact station near the Sny Magill 

Unit would add new structures to the 

landscape. These additions would be 

designed to avoid or minimize damage to 

landscape character-defining features. 

Construction of these facilities would result 

in long-term, local, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts. 

Combined with regional 

trends of agriculture, 

development, and logging, 

the actions in all of the 

alternatives would result in 

a long-term regional, 

moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact; 

however, the contribution 

of these actions would be 

minor. 

Potential impacts would 

have a Sec. 106 adverse 

effect on landscape 

features; consultations with 

the state historic 

preservation office and 

consulting tribes would 

occur to develop mitigation 

strategies. 

Cumulative effects 

and Section 106 

impact assessment 

would be the same as 

“Actions Common to 

All Alternatives.” 

Cumulative effects and Section 106 impact 

assessment would be the same as those 

identified in the “Actions Common to All 

Alternatives” section. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

116 

Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative C

Ethnographic 

Resources 

The overall impact of 

actions that are common to 

all the alternatives would be 

long term and beneficial on 

ethno-graphic 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. 

These minor, long-term 

adverse impacts and longterm beneficial impacts, in 

combination with the 

impacts of other regional 

actions, would result in a 

long-term, moderate 

adverse cumulative effect; 

the monument’s role would 

be a very small component 

of the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Potential impacts would 

have a Sec 106 no adverse 

effect on ethnographic 

resources. 

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 

minimally acceptable 

storage conditions 

and the absence of 

research space. 

The collections would 

continue to provide a 

minor, but important, 

beneficial cumulative 

contribution to 

regional museum 

collections. 

Alternatives B and C would result in housing 

the collections in a facility that fully meets 

NPS museum standards. Both alternatives 

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. 

NATURAL RESOURCES

Soils This alternative would 

have short-term 

minor and long-term 

negligible, adverse 

impacts on soils. 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts and 

long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse 

impacts to soil 

There would be 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts and 

long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse 

impacts to soil 
Summary Tables 

117 

Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative C

There would be a 

minor, adverse 

cumulative impact. 

resources in the 

monument. 

There would be a 

minor, adverse 

cumulative impact. 

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 

short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts and 

long-term, negligible, 

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 

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. 

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 

federally listed 

Higgins eye pearly 

mussel, 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 

federally listed or 

other special status 

species. 

This alternative may 

affect, but is not 

likely to adversely 

affect, the federally 

listed Higgins eye 

pearly mussel, Iowa 

Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, 

western prairie 

fringed orchid, 

northern 

monkshood, or statelisted species. 

There would be 

minor, adverse, 

cumulative effects on 

federally listed or 

other special status 

species. 

This alternative may 

affect, but is not 

likely to adversely 

affect, the federally 

listed Higgins eye 

pearly mussel, Iowa 

Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, 

western prairie 

fringed orchid, 

northern 

monkshood, or statelisted species. 

There would be 

minor, adverse, 

cumulative effects on 

federally listed or 

other special status 

species. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

118 

Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

Alternative A

No Action 

Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative C

Viewsheds There would be 

short-term, minor 

adverse impacts and 

a long-term, 

negligible, adverse 

impact on visual 

resources in the 

monument. 

Cumulative effects 

would be minor and 

adverse. 

There would be 

short-term and longterm, minor, adverse 

impacts on visual 

resources in the 

monument. 

Cumulative effects 

would be minor and 

adverse. 

There would be 

short-term and longterm, 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 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. 

There would be no 

project-related 

cumulative impacts. 

Implementing 

alternative B would 

result in several longterm, 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 

short-term, negligible 

to minor, beneficial 

economic impacts in 

the region. 

Overall cumulative 

effects would be 

minor and beneficial. 

There would be 

short-term and longterm, minor, 

beneficial economic 

impacts in the 

region. 

Overall cumulative 

effects would be 

minor and beneficial. 

There would be 

short-term and longterm, minor, 

beneficial economic 

impacts in the 

region. 

Overall cumulative 

effects would be 

minor and beneficial. 

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 longterm, minor, adverse 

impacts to 

monument 

operations and 

facilities. 

Cumulative effects 

would be negligible. 

There would be 

short-term and longterm, minor, adverse 

impacts to 

monument 

operations and 

facilities. 

Cumulative effects 

would be negligible. 


121 

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, 208 mounds or mound groups are 

listed on the NPS List of Classified 

Structures. Two historic resources (the Old 

Military Road, in the South Unit, and a 

cistern near the 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 State 

Inventory. 

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. 

All mounds are also listed on the state of 

Iowa archeological sites inventory. 

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 

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 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

122 

(roughly 1800-1849). 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 EuroAmericans are also present. 

Archeologists generally believe the first 

Iowans were probably Paleo-Indians, 

(10,000 - 7,000 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 Paleo-Indians 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 PaleoIndians 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 7,000 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 

people became more varied and distinct. The 

two types of points indicative of the PaleoIndian 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 

semi-sedentary, 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, were the Woodland Period cultures 

(500 BC – 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. 

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 

the 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 
Cultural Resources 

123 

have occurred 500 BC – 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 mound 

building stopped; whether this resulted from 

pressures caused by expanding populations, 

warfare among groups of villages, or 

migration from outside is not fully 

understood. But 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. Over time, the Oneota 

culture fractured into the tribes known as 

Sauk, Fox, Ioway, Oto, Winnebago, and 

other linguistically similar groups. 

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 manmade features as 

required Section 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended. 

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 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. This designation has not 

been officially made, although it is likely that 

Effigy Mounds National Monument or 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

124 

specific resources within the national 

monument meet the definition. 

Resources of the Monument 

Effigy Mounds National Monument has a 

longstanding connection with a number of 

American Indian groups (see the list of 

culturally 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 singly 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 

(NAGPRA) the national monument has 

consulted with culturally associated tribes to 

determine the cultural affiliation of human 

remains and funerary objects held in the 

museum collection at the monument. The 

human remains and funerary objects have 

also been identified and removed from the 

collections and repatriated. 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 the 

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; however, modern 

and natural forces are continually reshaping 

them, posing a significant preservation 

challenge. 

Cultural landscapes can be broken into four 

broad categories: historic sites—those that 

are significant for their association with a 

historic event, activity, or person; historic 

designed landscapes—those that were 

consciously designed or laid out according 

to design principles or in a recognized style 

or tradition; 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 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 
Cultural Resources 

125 

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 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 would need 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 Effigy Mounds National 

Monument become more and 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 

national monument’s interpretive themes 

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 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 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 lower 

level of the visitor center. This location is 

above the 500-year floodplain of the Yellow 

and Mississippi rivers. Temperature and 

humidity variations are monitored. Artifacts 

are contained in metal storage cabinets. 

Archives are kept in file cabinets and on 

bookshelves. Maps and drawings are kept in 

map files. 

Although the storage facilities meet 

minimum NPS standards, the space does not 

function well in several ways. There is little 

room to spread out maps and documents or 

to work on the collection. Visiting 

researchers cannot be accommodated due to 

the lack of space and the fact that the 

national monument does not have a 

dedicated curator to assist them.
126 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The varied topography at Effigy Mounds 

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 to 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 
Natural Resources 

127 

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 grey headed 

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. 

Micro Habitats 

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. 

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 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

128 

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 federally listed 

threatened and endangered (T&E) species 

occurs in these areas. At present, the status 

of federally listed T&E 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, exotic 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 

exotic species continue to multiply, they will 

out-compete 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 an exotic monoculture that does not 

supply adequate food or cover for local 

fauna. 

National Park Service units that have exotic 

species problems develop an integrated pest 

management program to identify and locate 

infestations of exotic species, determine 

their impact on the resource, and develop 

strategies that will 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 coldwater 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 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 exotic species present in 

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

have placed additional stress on fragile 

populations, causing the loss of unionid 
Natural Resources 

129 

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 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. On or along the Mississippi River are 

seen Canada geese, mallards, blue-winged 

teals, wood ducks, ruddy ducks, and swans. 

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 very 

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 federally listed as 

threatened but was delisted by the 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 redshouldered hawks are also seen in the monument (see discussion on Special Status 

Species below). 

Amphibians 

The abundant wetlands in Effigy Mounds 

National Monument are habitat for 

numerous species of amphibians, including 

bullfrogs, American toads, 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, 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 

monument's efforts to return more prairie 

ecosystem, increases the likelihood of 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

130 

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. 

Up 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 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 (USFWS) and forwarded to 

the National Park Service in a memorandum 

dated January 13, 2005. The following 

species may occur in the vicinity of the 

monument: 

E=Endangered, T=Threatened 

Federally Listed Species. 

1. Higgins eye pearly mussel (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. 

State Listed Species. Information on state 

listed species was obtained from the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources (IDNR 

2005) and was cross-referenced with species 

known to occur in the monument to 

generate the list below. 

F-Federal, IA-Iowa; 

E-Endangered, T-Threatened 

1. Higgins eye mussel 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) 
Natural Resources 

131 

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) 

Information on federally listed species was 

provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in a letter dated January 13, 2005 

(appendix B). 

Animals 

The Higgins eye pearly mussel (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); 

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 pre-glacial 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. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

132 

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 reused several years in a row. Red-shouldered 

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 Endangered Species webpage). 

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, a total of 19 peregrines were 

released at Effigy Mounds by the Raptor 

Resource Center of Bluffton, Iowa. The 

falcons were released from boxes placed at 

Hanging Rock. The intent was to release 

captive-bred 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 will 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 

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

green throat, and are arranged in a large 
Natural Resources 

133 

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 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. 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. The 

visitor is able to contemplate these mounds 

in a primitive setting, without the 

distractions of roads, parking lots, or the 

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. 

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. 
134 

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 culturally 

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 the visitor’s opportunity to 

understand and connect with these 

distinctive resources. It continues to be a 

challenge for the monument staff to facilitate 

protection of the archeological resources 

while providing opportunities for visitors to 

discover and connect with the historic 

human presence here. 

Visitors to Effigy Mounds can enjoy selfguided 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 Effigy 

Mounds. Birding is becoming particularly 

popular due to the diverse habitats 

encompassed by Effigy Mounds. 

The monument’s visitor center is open June 

to Labor Day from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

every day, and weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 

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

4:30 p.m. during the rest of the year. The 

monument is closed for Thanksgiving, 

Christmas, and New Years Day. Entrance 

fees, which permit day use only, are charged. 

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 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 

135 

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 peruse some 

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 U.S. 

Highway 18 or via Iowa state highway 76, 

which is a segment of The Great River Road. 

Visitor Use 

Effigy Mounds 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 – 

4 hour drive, some of whom bring out-ofarea 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 from 2004 forward (table 9). 

Table 9. Effigy Mounds Visitation Figures 

Year Recreational 

Visits 

Visitor 

Center 

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

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 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

136 

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 are successful in facilitating visitor 

understanding. However, an expansion 

and/or re-organization 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 pre-visit 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. 

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. 
Visitor Use and Understanding 

137 

Because it is a navigable river, the state of 

Iowa has some management authority for 

the water and its use. 

Approximately 3 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 miles. Upstream 

of the monument, the river flows quite fast 

for Iowa and, therefore, is attractive to 

paddlers. 

An area along the river near highway 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. 
138 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

• National parks generate more than 

4 dollars 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 privatesector 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 state-wide 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 1999 was $33,947 while the 

median for Iowa was $39,469. The per capita 

income in 1999 was $16,599 while the figure 

for the state was $19,674. 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 $77,416,000 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 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 1999 was $34,068 while the 

median for Iowa was $39,469. The per capita 

income in 1999 was $16,930 while the figure 

for the state was $19,674. Based on the 2000 
Socioeconomic Environment 

139 

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 $108,715,000 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 1999 was $34,135 while the median for 

Wisconsin was $43,791. The per capita income in 1999 was $16,833 while the figure 

for the state was $21,271. 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 $97,996,000 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 Effigy Mounds visitors 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, and 

• Induced effects that are the impacts of 

household expenditures from the 

income earned in a directly or 

indirectly affected industry.
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

140 

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 & Fees $ 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 
141 

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 90,000 visitors each 

year. The monument’s base funding was 

$844,000 in fiscal year 2006. The monument 

charges an entrance fee during the summer 

months and fee collections have averaged 

$22,815 in the last three years. Most of this 

money (85%) can be used by the monument 

to provide visitor services. 

There are 17 full-time-equivalent employees 

(FTE) 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 part-time 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/ 

administration building, NPS staff 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 

often requires transporting equipment and 

supplies from the maintenance yard located 

near the visitor center. 

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 foot path 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.



145 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (40 CFR 1500-1508) 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 

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, the 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 will 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 long-term 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, short-term 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 pre-disturbance 

condition or appearance. Long-term impacts 

refer to a change in a resource or value that 

is 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 (the “no-action” alternative) 

and implementing the action alternatives. In 

other words, to understand the 

consequences of any action alternative, the 

reader must also consider what would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

146 

happen if current management practices 

were to continue. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

(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 a period of 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-and-effect 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 Indian 

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 

(roofs, etc.) 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 be a 

destination point. However, bicycles are not 

allowed on monument trails. 

Future Actions 

While the current agricultural land use on 

most property adjacent to the monument is 

not incompatible with the monument’s 

goals, it can be assumed that this use will 

continue to be replaced with residential 

development and subdivisions. This 
Introduction 

147 

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. 
148 

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 that are 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 eligible for 

listing in the national register. For the 

purpose of this analysis, mounds, historic 

roads, a historic cistern, and remnants of a 

sawmill 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 (NHPA). In accordance 

with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s 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 

farther 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 the NPS Director’s 

Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making

also 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. 

A Section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections for cultural 
Cultural Resources 

149 

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’s 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 visitor-related activities such as foot 

traffic and pothunting (the illegal removal of 

archeological materials), as well as more 

construction-related 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 feel the need to 

climb up on 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 

impacts would be local, minor to moderate, 

and permanent. 

Pothunting—Although rare, deliberate acts 

of excavation for artifacts (called pothunting) could continue to occur. These 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

150 

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 major, negative impacts. 

Construction Activities—Each of the 

alternatives calls for construction of 

• A trail connecting the Yellow River 

Bridge Trail with the Marching Bear 

Trail 

• A water treatment facility in the 

development zone of the North Unit 

Prior to construction, the trail routes would 

be designed to avoid known archeological 

resources. Similarly, the water treatment 

facility would be placed 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 were discovered during 

construction, provisions outlined in the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001) of 1990 

would be followed. Any adverse effects 

resulting from the disturbance of 

archeological resources would be local, 

minor to moderate, permanent, and adverse. 

Mississippi River Bank Stabilization—Each 

alternative would continue the current 

practice of stabilizing segments of the 

Mississippi River 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 river banks would decrease or 

eliminate bank erosion that could threaten 

archeological deposits. This would result in a 

local, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Mound Maintenance—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 were 

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. 

Damage from pothunting would be dealt 

with similarly. 

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. 

Military Road Maintenance—Under each 

alternative, the monument would continue 

to maintain portions of the Military Road as 

a trail and for maintenance access to the 

South Unit. Maintenance activities would be 

confined to previous disturbed areas and 

would be expected to have local, negligible, 

adverse impacts or no impacts at all. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years 

archeological resources in the region have 
Cultural Resources 

151 

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 has 

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 be 

a small component of the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusions. In each alternative, visitor use 

(including pothunting), trail development, 

the construction of a water/wastewater 

treatment facility, bank stabilization along 

the Mississippi River, and maintenance of 

the mounds and the Military Road 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 an adverse effect on archeological 

resources. Consultations with the state 

historic officer and consulting tribes would 

occur to develop mitigation strategies. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

There are specific actions relating to trail 

maintenance and realignment in the noaction alternative 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 pre-development 

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. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

152 

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 actions in alternative 

A would have an adverse effect on 

archeological resources. Consultations with 

the state historic officer and consulting 

tribes would occur to develop mitigation 

strategies. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) 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; 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 and Road Development/Removal—The 

preferred alternative would propose several 

ground-disturbing actions involving existing 

and new trails as well as the development, 

new construction, and removal of roads. 

These projects would include 

• 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 Trails Realignments 

• Sny Magill Unit Trail Construction 

• Removal of Old Roads 

• Reconstruction of South Unit Entry 

Road 

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 construction, 

redevelopment, or 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. 
Cultural Resources 

153 

Archeological surveying or monitoring 

would be carried out during grounddisturbing activities to ensure intact 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—The preferred 

alternative and alternative C would propose 

constructing several facilities that would 

improve the monument’s infrastructure and 

enhance visitor services. These include 

• Construction of a small parking area 

within the development zone in the 

Heritage Addition 

• Installation of a visitor contact station 

at the Sny Magill Unit 

Prior to each 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 the Fire Point Mound in the 

North Unit—Stabilizing and restoring the 

mound’s original dimensions would require 

additional soil to re-create 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. The preferred alternative 

and alternative 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, 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 B or C would 

be a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

154 

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 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 (the preferred alternative) and 

alternative C could be mitigated. However,

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 an adverse 

effect on archeological resources. 

Consultations with the state historic office 

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 an 

NPS unit. Its purpose is to identify cultural 

landscapes and to provide information on 

location, historical development, characterdefining features, and management). Two 

landscapes were identified: the Yellow River 

Cultural Landscape encompassing the North 

and South Units and the Heritage Addition; 

and the 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 will 
Cultural Resources 

155 

make recommendations for preserving 

character-defining features of the cultural 

landscapes. These recommendations should 

minimize or reduce adverse effects to 

landscape character-defining features. 

Treatment of the cultural landscapes would 

also be informed by the public access / trail 

development plan and long-ranged 

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. 

Trail Realignments and Construction—Trails 

would be realigned or constructed 

(including the trail connecting the Yellow 

River Trail and Marching Bear Trail) in each 

alternative. The trails would be located to 

minimize negative visual impacts to the 

cultural landscape to the greatest extent 

possible. These actions would result in longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts 

localized to the associated cultural 

landscape. 

Improvements to the trail system 

(realignments, construction, changes in signs 

and waysides) within the monument units 

would encourage visitors to stay on trails, 

minimizing foot traffic on the mounds. This 

would result in a long-term, beneficial effect 

that would help preserve the landscape’s 

integrity throughout much of the 

monument. 

Military Road Maintenance—Maintaining 

the Military Road (a feature of the 

landscape) would perpetuate this feature 

and would result in a local, long-term, 

beneficial impact on the cultural landscape. 

Mound Maintenance—The mounds 

associated with both indentified 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 the mounds’ 

appearance. Maintaining the mounds’ 

appearance 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 to moderate, adverse impact to the 

landscape, but would be localized to the 

river banks. This impact would be offset by 

the long-term, beneficial effect of stabilizing 

bank erosion, which threatens the 

landscape’s integrity. 

Water Treatment Facility Construction—

Construction of the water treatment facility 

could result in a visual intrusion to the 

landscape. However it would be confined to 

the development zone where other buildings 

and structure already exist. Therefore, the 

new facility would result in a negligible, 

adverse impact to the Yellow River Cultural 

Landscape. 

Cumulative Effects. With the advent 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 will 

also occur in the future. Development has 

damaged mounds, altered historic land use 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

156 

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 (roofs, etc.) 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. 

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 longterm, 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. 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. 

Construction, trail work, and roadwork 

would have long-term, negligible to minor, 

localized, adverse impacts or no impacts at 

all because these actions would take place in 

previously disturbed areas or would be 

located to avoid impacting landscape 

features to the greatest extent possible. 

However, applying stabilization materials to 

portions of the Mississippi River’s 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 longterm, beneficial effect of stabilizing the river 

banks. 

Section 106 Summary. While most the 

actions common to all the alternatives would 

have beneficial or minor to minor adverse 

impacts to landscape features, applying 

stabilization materials along the Mississippi 

River’s banks would have a long-term, 

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 

(No action) 

There would be no additional impacts to 

cultural landscapes beyond those indentified 

as common to all alternatives. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) or Alternative C 

Regarding cultural landscapes, 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; under alternative C, the entire 

trail would be upgraded. 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 
Cultural Resources 

157 

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—

The preferred alternative would propose 

several ground-disturbing actions involving 

trails and roads. These projects would 

include 

• Heritage Addition Development of Old 

Roads as Trails /Trails Development 

• Heritage Addition New Trail 

Construction 

• Fire Point Trail Realignments 

• Sny Magill Trail Construction

• Removal of Old Roads

• Reconstruction of South Unit Entry 

To the extent possible, placement of trails 

and any associated wayside exhibits and 

signs would be designed to avoid impacting 

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 

mound-building era appearance. This would 

result in long-term, beneficial impacts in 

numerous locations throughout the 

monument. 

New trails constructed in the Heritage 

Addition and 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 and surfaced to provide 

universal accessibility during dry 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 long-term, 

beneficial effect. 

Finally, reconstructing the South Unit access 

road would not significantly alter the road’s 

current footprint in the landscape. This 

would result in negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts or no impacts at all. 

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. 

Infrastructure Construction—Alternative B 

(the preferred alternative) and alternative C 

would propose constructing several facilities 

that would improve the monument’s infrastructure and enhance visitor services. These 

include 

• Construction of a small parking area 

within the development zone of the 

Heritage Addition 

• Installation of a visitor contact station 

at the Sny Magill Unit. 

Constructing a 1-acre, unpaved parking area 

in the Heritage Addition and a small contact 

center in the Sny Magill Unit would 

introduce built structures to the cultural 

landscapes. However, they would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

158 

confined to a very small portion of the 

landscapes and would minimally affect the 

density, scale, and visual relationship among 

landscape features and patterns. These 

actions would result in long-term, local, 

minor, negative impacts to the landscapes. 

Stabilization of the 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’s appearance and 

preventing further erosion would result in a 

local, long-term, beneficial impact to the 

landscape. 

Land Acquisition—Alternative B (the 

preferred alternative) 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, long-term, 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 mound-building era 

conditions. Restoring the ecosystems within 

the monument would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact throughout much of the 

monument. 

Cumulative Effects. With the advent 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 will also occur in the future. 

Development has damaged mounds and 

altered historic land use and circulation 

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 (roofs, etc.) 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. 

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, longterm, 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, 
Cultural Resources 

159 

beneficial impact throughout much of the 

monument. 

Acquiring the Riverfront Tract, stabilizing 

the Fire Point Mound, and restoring the 

landscapes would afford greater federal 

protection over new lands as well as protect 

and perpetuate character-defining landscape 

features. These actions would result in longterm, beneficial impacts throughout much of 

the monument. 

Adding a small parking area in the Heritage 

Addition and a contact station in the Sny 

Magill Unit would add a new structure to the 

landscape. These additions would be 

designed to avoid or minimize damage to 

landscape character-defining features. This 

would result in long-term, local, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts. 

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 an adverse effect on cultural landscape 

resources. Consultations with the state 

historic 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 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, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

160 

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 site-specific 

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 would 

result in a monumentwide, long-term, 

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, longterm, adverse impacts and long-term, 
Cultural Resources 

161 

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. But 

many of the adverse impacts of the 

alternatives would be localized, short-term, 

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 

to moderate, 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’s 

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 

(No Action) 

See the “Impacts Common To All 

Alternatives” section. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) or Alternative C 

See the “Impacts Common To All 

Alternatives” section. 

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. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

162 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A 

(No Action) 

In alternative A, collections would remain in 

the lower level of the visitor center. This area 

minimally meets NPS museum storage 

standards and there is little space for 

collections research. The national 

monument does not have a curator and 

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 minimally 

meet NPS museum 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 mound-builder 

culture. Because they contain some of the 

earliest systematic 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 mound builders, 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, would 

result in a long-term, 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 minimally meet NPS museum 

storage 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 minimally acceptable storage 

conditions and the absence of research 

space. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) or Alternative C 

Alternative B calls for establishing a virtual, 

web-based research center to be maintained 

by park staff. Alternative C would establish a 

physical research center in leased property 

within 10 miles of the park. 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 physical research center 

would have space where researchers could 

personally examine objects. Either 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. A physical 

center would tend to have more of a local or 

regional impact, while the virtual center 

would have the potential to reach a 

geographically dispersed audience via the 

Internet. 

Both alternative B and C call for relocating 

non-exhibit 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, 
Cultural Resources 

163 

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 

management 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 mound-builder 

culture. Because they contain some of the 

earliest systematic 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 mound builders, 

resulting in a long-term, regional, beneficial 

effect. 

As described above, impacts associated with 

the implementation of alternative B or 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 B or C would be a substantial 

component of the beneficial cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. In both alternatives B and C, 

the collections would be housed in a facility 

that fully meets NPS museum management 

standards. Both alternatives 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.
164 

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 

USFWS and site-specific 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 short-term 

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 — No Action 

Minimal impacts on soil resources would be 

expected as a result of implementing alternative A. Actions include construction of a 

connecting trail from the existing bridge into 

the South Unit. Short-term impacts (during 

construction) would be minor and adverse 

from disruption and possible loss of topsoil. 

Long-term impacts from these trails are 

anticipated to be negligible and adverse. 

Existing adverse impacts to soils under the 

trails such as compaction and erosion would 

continue. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil 

resources that have occurred or will occur 

include agricultural and residential development on adjacent lands and construction of 

infrastructure such as utility lines and 

roadways. 
Natural Resources 

165 

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. 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. 

When considered in combination with the 

above minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on soil resources, the negligible and minor 

adverse impacts of this alternative would 

result in a minor adverse cumulative impact. 

The no-action alternative would have a 

slight contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. If implemented, alternative A 

would have short-term minor adverse 

impacts and long-term negligible adverse 

impacts to soil resources in the monument. 

It would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

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 long-term 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 visitor access/ trail 

development plan. A small parking area and 

trailhead (approximately one acre of 

disturbance) would be constructed off the 

highway in the north of the Heritage 

Addition. The entrance road to the South 

Unit would be reconstructed and a trail 

connecting the Yellow River bridge to the 

existing South Unit trails would be 

constructed. 

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 will occur 

include agricultural and residential development on adjacent lands and 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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

166 

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 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. The preferred alternative 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 long-term 

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 visitor access/ trail 

development plan. A small parking area and 

trailhead (approximately one acre of 

disturbance) would be constructed off the 

highway in the north of the Heritage 

Addition. The entrance road to the South 

Unit would be reconstructed and a trail 

connecting the Yellow River bridge to the 

existing South Unit trails would be 

constructed. 

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 will occur 

include agricultural and residential development on adjacent lands and 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. 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 
Natural Resources 

167 

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 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 

discernable 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 

(No Action) 

The no-action alternative 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. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

168 

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 

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 projectrelated cumulative effects. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) 

This alternative would not result in 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 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 River 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—one 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 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. The preferred alternative 

would have no effect on the Yellow River’s 

Wild and Scenic River 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 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. 
Natural Resources 

169 

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 contained animal feeding 

operations. 

Three bridges have been built over the river 

near its mouth—one 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 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 C would have no 

effect on the Yellow River’s Wild and Scenic 

River 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 (No Action) 

Minimal impacts on vegetation would be 

expected as a result of implementing alternative A. Actions would be to construct a 

connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit. Construction of 1 mile of trails 

would cause a loss of about 1 acre of 

vegetation. Short-term impacts (during 

construction and until revegetation occurs) 

would be minor and adverse. Long-term 

impacts from these trails are anticipated to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

170 

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 

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 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 

out-compete 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 have 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 no-action alternative 

would have a slight contribution to these 

effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A 

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. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B would result in small changes 

in the level of development at the monument 

that could affect vegetation. 

A small parking area and trailhead would be 

constructed off the highway in the north of 

the Heritage Addition. This would result in 

the loss of vegetation from about one acre, 

resulting in a long-term, minor adverse 

impact. 

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 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. Trails 

would be established primarily on old 

logging roads according to a visitor 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 will occur 

include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and the 
Natural Resources 

171 

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 communities by disrupting 

natural plant succession, replacing native 

vegetation with unnatural monotypic plants 

(crops), and introducing noxious weeds that 

out-compete 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. 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 the preferred 

alternative would have short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 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. 

A small parking area and trailhead would be 

constructed off the highway in the north of 

the Heritage Addition. This would result in 

the loss of about one acre of vegetation, 

resulting in a long-term, minor adverse 

impact. 

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 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. 

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 visitor 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 will occur 

include agricultural and residential 

development on adjacent lands and the 

construction of infrastructure such as utility 

lines and roadways. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

172 

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 communities by disrupting 

natural plant succession, replacing native 

vegetation with unnatural monotypic plants 

(crops), and introducing noxious weeds that 

out-compete 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 (No Action) 

There would be no changes in management 

of fish, wildlife, or habitat in the monument. 

A connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit would be constructed. Impacts 

would include loss of habitat in the 

construction corridors—about 1 acre total. 
Natural Resources 

173 

Short-term impacts to wildlife would be 

minor and adverse during construction from 

the increased human presence and noise 

resulting in displacement of individuals. 

Long-term impacts are anticipated to be 

negligible and adverse 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. 

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 have short-term minor adverse 

impacts and long-term negligible adverse 

impacts to fish and wildlife in the 

monument. It would result in a minor 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Some small changes to available habitat 

would be expected as a result of 

implementing the preferred alternative. 

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. 

A small parking area and trailhead would be 

constructed off the highway in the north of 

the Heritage Addition resulting in the 

disturbance of about one acre. 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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

174 

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 fish 

and wildlife resources. Alternative B would 

provide a small adverse contribution to these 

effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing the preferred 

alternative 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. Short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts in the form of 

wildlife fear and avoidance reactions would 

occur during the construction phase. Longterm 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. 

A small parking area and trailhead would be 

constructed off the highway in the north of 

the Heritage Addition resulting in 

disturbance of about one acre. 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 
Natural Resources 

175 

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. 

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; long-term 

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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

176 

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 (No Action) 

This alternative would continue current 

management of the national monument with 

no changes in wildlife or habitat 

management. 

The trail construction proposed in this 

alternative would not occur in habitat that is 

known to be used by any of the special status 

species. As part of standard mitigation, 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. 

Therefore, there would be no effect on the 

federally listed Higgins eye pearly mussel, 

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 federally listed or other special 

status species. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would have no effect on the federally listed 

Higgins eye pearly mussel, 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 

federally listed or other special status 

species. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Although there would be some slight 

changes in the development footprint under 
Natural Resources 

177 

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 

pearly mussel. 

Therefore, this alternative may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect, the federally 

listed Higgins eye pearly mussel, 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 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, the preferred 

alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect, the federally listed Higgins 

eye pearly mussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, 

prairie bush clover, western prairie fringed 

orchid, northern monkshood, or state-listed 

species. There would be minor, adverse, 

cumulative effects on federally 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 

pearly mussel. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

178 

Therefore, this alternative may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect, the federally 

listed Higgins eye pearly mussel, 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. 

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 federally listed Higgins eye pearly 

mussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, prairie bush 

clover, western prairie fringed orchid, 

northern monkshood, or state-listed species. 

There would be minor, adverse, cumulative 

effects on federally 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 
Natural Resources 

179 

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. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be minimal impacts on visual resources of 

the monument. The only action proposed 

that would affect scenic views is the 

construction of a connecting trail from the 

bridge into the South Unit. Impacts would 

be greatest during and immediately after 

construction as changes occur to the line, 

form, and texture of the natural hillsides. 

Once vegetation regrows around the trail, 

these impacts would become less noticeable. 

Short-term impacts to the viewshed seen 

from near the visitor center or the trail 

would be minor and adverse while long-term 

impacts would be negligible and adverse. 

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 (roofs, 

etc.) 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 will become increasingly 

important as rural development continues to 

expand so they have a long-term beneficial 

effect. 

The no-action alternative would have a 

short-term, minor, adverse impact. When 

considered in combination with the above 

minor adverse impacts on visual resources, 

the no-action alternative would result in a 

minor, adverse ,cumulative impact. The noaction alternative would contribute only 

slightly to these effects. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative, if 

implemented, would have a short-term, 

minor, adverse impact and a long-term, 

negligible, adverse impact on visual 

resources in the monument. Cumulative 

effects would be minor and adverse. 

Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

180 

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 (roofs, 

etc.) 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 effect. 

Establishment of the monument, Yellow 

River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State Park 

has served to create havens of undeveloped 

areas that will become increasingly 

important as rural development continues to 

expand so they have a long-term beneficial 

effect. 

The preferred alternative would have shortterm and long-term, minor, adverse impacts. 

When considered in combination with the 

above minor, adverse impacts on visual 

resources, the preferred alternative would 

result in a minor, adverse, cumulative 

impact. Alternative B would have a modest 

adverse contribution to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing the preferred 

alternative would have short-term and longterm, 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 longterm, 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, 
Natural Resources 

181 

Wisconsin, where reflective surfaces (roofs, 

etc.) 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 effect. 

Establishment of the monument, Yellow 

River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State Park 

has served to create havens of undeveloped 

areas that will 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. 
182 

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. 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Visitor Experience and Interaction with 

Resources 

Continuation of current management 

strategies and trends with no substantial 

change in visitor opportunities, services, and 
Visitor Use and Experience 

183 

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 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 

historic site. 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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

184 

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-guiding 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 high-quality 

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 shortterm, 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. 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

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 
Visitor Use and Experience 

185 

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 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. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

186 

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. Visitor’s 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, longterm, 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 self-guided 

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. 

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. Modified trail 

access would no longer place visitors who 

choose to access high-quality landscapes 

that best reflect the mound culture, at risk of 

an automobile/pedestrian collision. 

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 
Visitor Use and Experience 

187 

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 shortterm 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 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 and above the Yellow River, 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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

188 

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 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. 

Visitor’s 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. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

189 

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 re-routed 

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. Modified trail 

access would no longer place visitors who 

choose to access high-quality landscapes 

that best reflect the mound culture, at risk of 

an automobile/pedestrian collision. 

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 shortterm 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. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

190 

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.
191 

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”). 

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

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 short-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial economic 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

192 

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 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 tourismdependant 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 (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

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, 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 

long-term, 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. 

Implementing the preferred alternative is 

estimated to cost a total of $10.5 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 
Socioeconomic Environment 

193 

$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 

long-term, 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 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-dependant 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. 

The preferred alternative would have shortterm 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. The preferred 

alternative would contribute a modest 

beneficial increment to this impact. 

Conclusion 

Implementing the preferred alternative 

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 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 

long-term, 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 longterm, minor, economic benefit would result 

from the additional input of federal dollars 

into the economy. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

194 

Implementing the preferred alternative is 

estimated to cost a total of $14.6 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 

long-term, 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 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-dependant 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. 

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.
195 

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 (NO ACTION) 

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. 

This alternative would create no new 

impacts but would result in the continuation 

of long-term minor adverse impacts to 

monument operations. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

196 

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 long-term. 

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 project-related 

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 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

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. 

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 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 preferred alternative 

would result in short-term and long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts to monument 

operations and facilities. Cumulative effects 

would be negligible. 
Monument Operations and Facilities 

197 

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 

operatons. 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. 
198 

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 US 

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 US 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 US). 

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 

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

visitor contact station (a maximum of 2,600 

square feet indoors) that would be 
Natural or Depletable Resources and Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 

199 

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 or not 

the 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. 
200 

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 discernable 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 mid 19th century has cased 

temperatures to increase at a rate faster than 

our 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 will 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. 

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 
Climate Change 

201 

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 LEED (Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design) 

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 weather-proofing 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 Service-wide 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 humancaused climate change. 
202 

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.
203 

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.
204 

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 Indian 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.
Consultation

and Coordination,

Preparers

and Consultants

CHAPTER 5

207 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The Revised Draft General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for 

Effigy Mounds National Monument

represents input from National Park Service 

staff, other agencies and groups, and the 

public. Consultation and coordination 

among the agencies and the public were 

vitally important throughout the planning 

process. The public had several avenues and 

opportunities in which to participate during 

the development of the plan: at public 

meetings and workshops, by responding to 

newsletters and the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, and by submitting comments via 

the NPS planning website and regular mail. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

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 (information 

gathering). Public meetings held during 

November 2005 in McGregor, Iowa, and 

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, were attended 

by 25 people. In addition, a total of 31 

written comments were received by the 

planning team. 

A second newsletter summarizing the results 

of the public scoping effort was sent out 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. 

National Park Service 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 public involvement process continues as 

review and comment on this Revised Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement are welcomed. 

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 B) was 

compiled using information received from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

208 

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 will not 

require formal consultation. A copy of this 

draft management plan will be sent to the 

USFWS field office and the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources with 

requests for written concurrence with this 

determination. 

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 (NHPA) of 1966, 

as amended (16 USC 270, et seq.), 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 (SHPO) 

and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation in January 2005, inviting their 

participation in the planning process 

(appendix C). 

Under the terms of stipulation VI.E of the 

2008 Programmatic Agreement among the 

National Park Service, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers, the National Park Service, 

in consultation with the SHPO [state 

historic preservation office], will make a 

determination about which are 

programmatic exclusions under IV.A 

and B, and all other undertakings, 

potential effects on those resources to 

seek review and comment under 36 

CFR 800.4-6 during the plan review 

process. 

Table 12 shows the NPS determinations for 

additional consultations with the SHPO and 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) under the agreement. 

A copy of this revised draft general 

management plan will be sent to the Iowa 

SHPO and the ACHP with a request for 

written concurrence with the 

determinations of effect made in this plan. 

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 government-to-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 NHPA. 

Implementing regulations of the CEQ for 

NEPA 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) 

• Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; 

• Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

• Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, 

Oklahoma 
Public and Agency Involvement 

209 

• 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 Sisseton-Wahpeton 

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 culturally associated 

American Indian tribes were given an 

opportunity to review and comment on this 

plan. 

FUTURE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 

The specific undertakings of the preferred 

alternative are listed in table 12. The list 

shows the NPS determinations for 

additional consultations with the SHPO and 

the ACHP under the 2008 programmatic 

agreement on cultural resources and 

requirements for natural resources. Review 

of all these actions would be conducted 

utilizing a team of multi-discipline cultural 

resource specialists prior to project 

implementation. 

Table 12. Future Resource Compliance Required for Implementation of Specific Actions 

Action Compliance Requirement 

Visitor Center / Maintenance Area (in North Unit) 

Reconfigure VC interior No further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation 

necessary 

Remove 2 park housing units and construct an 

administrative/research center 

Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Move collections from VC to admin/research center No further consultation necessary 

Plant native vegetation around VC Full compliance review 

North Unit 

Acquire village sites along Riverfront Tract and evaluate 

NR/NL status 

Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

210 

Action Compliance Requirement 

Restore mound at Fire Point and reroute trail Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Minor trail re-alignments for resource protection or visitor 

safety/experience 

No further consultation necessary 

South Unit 

Connect Yellow River Bridge to Marching Bear Trail Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Rehabilitate South Unit entrance road for safety Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Minor trail re-alignments for resource protection or visitor 

safety/experience 

No further consultation needed 

Install directional/educational signs Full compliance review 

Heritage Addition 

Pursue acquisition or abandonment of County Road for 

National Monument use 

No further consultation needed 

Install trail system using combination of old roads and new 

trail 

Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Install waysides/signs Full compliance review 

Construct bridge across Yellow River to connect north and 

south banks 

Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Sny Magill Unit 

Continue restoration/stabilization of Mississippi riverbank and 

select tree removal 

Further SHPO consultation needed 

Construct access trail Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Acquire land at unit entrance No further consultation needed 

Install visitor contact station Further SHPO, tribal, and ACHP consultation needed 

Install waysides/signs Full compliance review 

NATURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE (throughout monument) 

For any of the actions listed above that would result in 

construction or other disturbing activity in actual or potential 

habitat for federal or state listed threatened or endangered 

species 

Further consultation needed with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in compliance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and with the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources 

For any of the actions listed above that would result in 

construction or other disturbing activity in a waterway 

Further consultation needed with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act 
211 

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 Chester Culver, Governor 

Roger Thomas, State Representative 

John Beard, 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 

CULTURALLY 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 
212 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

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—

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. 

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 

James Nepstad, Superintendent 

Phyllis Ewing, Former Superintendent 

Kenneth Block, Former Chief Ranger 

Sharon Greener, Administrative Assistant 

Rodney Rovang, Natural Resources 

Manager 

Thomas Sinclair, Chief of Maintenance 

Friday Wiles, Administrative Officer 

MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE 

Ruth Heikkinen, Outdoor Recreation 

Planner and regional planning liaison—

Responsible for wild and scenic river 

assessment, cost estimates, and 

boundary adjustment 

recommendations. 

Michael Evans, Ethnographer/Acting 

Superintendent 

Anne Vawser, Cultural Resource Specialist 

Sändra Washington, Former Chief of 

Planning; Assistant Regional 

Director for Planning, Construction, 

Communications, and Legislation 

PUBLICATION SERVICES 

Glenda Heronema, Former Visual 

Information Specialist, Denver 

Service Center (now retired) 

June McMillen, Writer/Editor, Denver 

Service Center 

OTHER 

Don Weeks, NPS Water Resources 

Patt Murphy, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and 

Nebraska 
Appendixes,

References,

and Index

215 

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.
216 

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

and Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

217 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

218 
Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

219 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

220 
221 

APPENDIX C: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION, AND AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

222 
Appendix C: Letters To and From the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

223 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

224 
Appendix C: Letters To and From the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

225 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

226 
Appendix C: Letters To and From the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

227 

 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

228 
Appendix C: Letters To and From the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes 

229 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

230 
231 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

232 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment 

233 

235 

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 

evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential alternative uses of the 

water and related land resources involved.” 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

236 

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 three 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. 

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 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment 

237 

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 or not the inventory segment was 

free-flowing 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. 

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 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

238 

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 redshouldered 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 

primarily to provide lumber and lime mortar for the construction of Fort Crawford across 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment 

239 

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 

Indian 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. 

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.” 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

240 

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 

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. 
Appendix D: Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment 

241 

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. 

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. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

242 

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 River System, it will 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. 

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

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

 ADDITION

0

0

1/4 Mile

1/4 Kilometer Sny Magill Unit

North

FIGURE 16: POSSIBLE WILD 

AND SCENIC RIVER BOUNDARY

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / Feb 2011 / 394 / 20,027

Legend

Monument Boundary

Possible Wild & Scenic 

River Boundary

0

0

1 Mile

1 Kilometers

North

245 

APPENDIX E: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN IN THE MONUMENT 

F-Federal; IA- Iowa; E-Endangered; T-Threatened 

1. Higgins eye mussel (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) 

23. Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea) 

24. Prairie dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum) 

25. Rough bedstraw (Galium asprellum) 

26. Small white lady’s slipper (Cypripedium candidrum) 

27. Summer grape (Vitis aestivalis) 

28. Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) 
246 

APPENDIX F: DETERMINATION OF IMPAIRMENT 

A determination of impairment is made for each of the resource impact topics carried forward 

and analyzed in the environmental impact statement for the preferred alternative. The description 

of monument significance in chapter 1 was used as a basis for determining if a resource is: 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of the monument, or 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of 

the monument, or 

• identified in the monument’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents as being of significance. 

Impairment findings are not necessary for visitor experience, socioeconomics, environmental 

justice, land use, and monument operations, etc., because impairment findings relate to 

monument resources and values. These impact topics are not generally considered to be 

monument resources or values according to the Organic Act, and cannot be impaired the same 

way that an action could impair monument resources and values. 

CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS 

Archeological Resources 

The monument was established expressly for preserving archeological resources relating to 

mound-building activities. Therefore, archeological resources are critical to fulfill the purposes 

for which the monument was established and are key to the cultural integrity of the monument. 

Although some resources may have been damaged during the early development of the 

monument, currently most of these resources remain intact. 

Trail development, road work, construction, and mound maintenance proposed under actions 

common to all alternatives, including the preferred alternative, could have adverse impacts to 

these resources; these impacts could be reduced to negligible to minor through avoidance, 

mitigation, and site design. In addition, the impacts would be limited to localized areas within the 

monument. Several of the impacts, such a mound maintenance and trail construction, would have 

beneficial effects on resources because they would stabilize the mounds and reduce foot traffic on 

the mounds. The actions proposed under the preferred alternative would not result in 

impairment because most adverse impacts would be avoided or reduced through avoidance, 

mitigation, and site design. 

Cultural Landscapes 

The two known cultural landscapes (Yellow River Cultural Landscape and Sny Magill Cultural 

Landscape) are fundamental resources that directly support the monument’s purpose and 

significance. Their integrity has been slightly compromised by construction in the monument. 

However, the proposed actions to restore the landscapes to their mound-building-era appearance 

proposed under alternative B would restore much of this lost integrity. The National Park Service 

would implement resource management policies that preserve the natural resource values and 

culturally significant character-defining patterns and features of landscapes that are listed in or 

determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 
Appendix F: Determination of Impairment 

247 

Trail and road work, construction, and mound maintenance proposed under alternative B or 

actions common to all alternatives could have minor adverse impacts to the cultural landscapes. 

However, this would not result in impairment because the intensities of these impacts could be 

eliminated or greatly reduced through mitigation and site design. 

Ethnographic Resources 

The monument contains ethnographic resources (mounds, land, trees, landscape, etc.) that 

continue to have traditional importance to tribes with cultural affiliation to the monument. 

Ethnographic resources are necessary to fulfill the purposes for which the monument was 

established and are key to the cultural integrity of the monument. 

The activities proposed in common to all alternatives would not affect tribal access to the 

monument or limit their ability to conduct traditional practices. Most actions proposed under the 

preferred alternative—restoration of the ecosystem, maintenance of viewsheds and soundscapes, 

sensitive interpretation of the mounds, etc.—would result in beneficial effects to ethnographic 

resources. Some resource management activities could result in minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts. There would be no impairment of ethnographic resources because the proposed actions 

would benefit the resources or would only be localized, short-term adverse impacts that would be 

reversible. 

Museum Collections 

The monument’s collections include original documents, photographs, and artifact collections 

that document the important contributions of early investigations and support ongoing studies in 

paleontology, natural history, geology, history, and ethnography. The monument’s archives and 

museum collections are necessary to fulfill the purposes for which the monument was established 

and are a fundamental, or key, resource. 

Construction of a state-of-the-art research center proposed under the preferred alternative 

would benefit the museum collections because they would be housed in better storage conditions 

and researchers and monument staff would have more space to research and study the 

collections. There would be no impairment because the new facility would afford greater 

protection and accessibility to the collections. 

NATURAL RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS 

Soils 

Because soils are not identified as fundamental or other important resources and there would be 

no moderate or major adverse impacts, there would be no impairment of this resource as a result 

of implementing alternative B, the preferred alternative. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

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. 

The Yellow River is also an important resource for the purposes of the general management plan. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 

248 

Because the preferred alternative contains no actions that would have an adverse effect on the 

values that make the Yellow River suitable for designation, there would be no impairment of this 

resource. 

Vegetation, Fish, and Wildlife 

The native plant and animal communities associated with the moundbuilding era were a result of 

the topography and climate found in the geologically rare Driftless Area of the Upper Midwest. 

This environment produced habitats and microhabitats created by north-facing slopes and the 

influence of the river valley that support extensive flora and fauna diversity. The monument 

contains an assemblage of plants found nowhere else in Iowa as well as diverse wildlife and fish 

populations. Native biotic communities are fundamental resources that directly support the 

monument’s purpose and significance. 

Alternative B would result in a small change in the level of development at the monument that 

could affect vegetation, fish, and wildlife as follows. A small parking area and trailhead would be 

constructed off the highway in the north of the Heritage Addition. This would result in the loss of 

vegetation and potential wildlife habitat of about one acre, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts. An improved trail would be constructed at the Sny Magill Unit and other trails would be 

constructed in the South Unit. Construction of the trails could result in the loss of vegetation and 

habitat, but because this would involve a small area (about 1⁄2 acre each), the adverse impacts 

would be both short-term and long-term, but negligible. A small visitor contact station would be 

built on disturbed ground on acquired land and would have no new effect on the monument’s 

vegetation, fish, or wildlife. 

The preferred alternative would have short-term, minor, adverse impacts and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to vegetation, and short-term, minor, adverse impacts and long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. These impacts would not be at the level that would comprise 

impairment of the monument’s vegetation, fish, or wildlife. 

Special Status Species 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified a number of federal threatened, 

endangered, or species of concern that warrants the inclusion of this topic in this General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. Some species on this list were dismissed 

from detailed analysis because they do not exist in the monument or would not be affected by any 

proposed actions. The monument does provide habitat for several state and federally listed 

species including red-shouldered hawks, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, Higgins-eye pearly 

mussels, purple fringed orchids, and jeweled shooting stars. Viable populations of special status 

species are key to the natural integrity of the monument. 

Construction and other actions proposed under the preferred alternative would not occur in 

known habitat for any of the listed animal species. Areas proposed for construction would be 

cleared by a qualified biologist to mitigate potential impacts to listed plant species. The preferred 

alternative would have only beneficial impacts to aquatic species because of additional protective 

measures and possible Wild and Scenic River designation. Therefore, the preferred alternative 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, federally listed species and would not result in 

impairment of these species. 
Appendix F: Determination of Impairment 

249 

Visual Resources/Viewsheds 

Because visual resources/viewsheds are not identified as fundamental or other important 

resources and there would be no moderate or major adverse impacts, there would be no 

impairment of these resources as a result of implementing alternative B, the preferred alternative. 

SUMMARY 

As described above and in the environmental impact statement, adverse impacts anticipated as a 

result of implementing the preferred alternative would not rise to levels that would constitute 

impairment of a resource or value whose conservation is necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the monument, key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or 

identified as significant in the monument’s general management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 
250 

REFERENCES 

Birmingham, Robert A., and Leslie E. Eisenberg 

2000 Indian Mounds of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 

Census Bureau 

2005 State and County Quick Facts. Accessed online at http:// 

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. 

Clawson, Marion, and Jack Knetsch 

1966 Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

1991 Fishes, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Winona, 

Minnesota. 

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 

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.
References 

251 

National Park Service 

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. 

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. 

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. 
252 

INDEX 

American Indian, 6, 13, 14, 15, 18, 26, 28, 34, 72, 74, 85, 103, 108, 122, 124, 125, 134, 150, 154, 160, 

182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 208, 209, 215, 239 

Dousman Creek, 8, 31, 32, 49, 128, 238 

Eagle Rock, 8, 133 

endangered species, 5, 16, 23, 103, 104, 175, 207, 208, 210, 238 

Fire Point, 8, 72, 95, 96, 111, 115, 133, 134, 152, 153, 157, 158, 159, 210 

floodplain, 7, 8, 22, 32, 34, 50, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 238, 239, 240 

Hanging Rock, 8, 132 

Heritage Addition, 5, 7, 8, 13, 26, 32, 47, 60, 63, 71, 73, 74, 77, 85, 95, 96, 106, 108, 109, 110, 113, 

115, 121, 124, 127, 133, 152, 153, 154, 157, 159, 165, 166, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 183, 

184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 204, 210, 215, 238, 248 

infrastructure, 53, 146, 151, 153, 164, 165, 166, 170, 171, 195, 196, 197 

interpretation, 14, 20, 56, 60, 61, 71, 72, 74, 75, 86, 87, 95, 96, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 134, 136, 

141, 151, 160, 161, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192, 193, 196, 197, 209, 247 

Jefferson Davis Sawmill, 14, 15, 121 

North Unit, 7, 8, 47, 60, 61, 65, 72, 74, 75, 79, 85, 86, 89, 100, 111, 124, 132, 133, 134, 141, 146, 150, 

152, 153, 156, 158, 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 188, 195, 204, 209 

Orientation, 27, 183, 186, 188 

parking, 8, 26, 50, 56, 61, 71, 74, 76, 85, 104, 110, 112, 113, 115, 133, 141, 152, 153, 156, 157, 159, 

165, 166, 170, 171, 173, 174, 183, 184, 187, 189, 198, 241, 248 

Sny Magill Unit, 5, 7, 8, 25, 27, 32, 33, 49, 50, 58, 61, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 83, 86, 93, 95, 96, 100, 106, 

110, 112, 113, 125, 127, 129, 131, 135, 138, 141, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 179, 

180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 194, 210, 248 

South Unit, 7, 8, 48, 61, 67, 72, 75, 81, 86, 91, 95, 112, 121, 124, 134, 136, 138, 150, 152, 157, 164, 

165, 166, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 179, 180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 210, 248 

traffic, 33, 136, 149, 153, 155, 156, 241, 246 

trails, 8, 25, 31, 48, 49, 50, 60, 61, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 86, 95, 96, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 

112, 113, 114, 115, 133, 134, 135, 136, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 165, 

166, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 184, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 193, 210, 239, 246, 

248 
 

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. 

NPS June 2011 / Printed on recycled paper. NPS D59A / August 2011 / Printed on recycled paper
EFFIGY MOUNDS

NATIONAL MONUMENT

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior