EFFIGY MOUNDS

NATIONAL MONUMENT

Effigy Mounds

National Monument

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

National Park Service

United States Department of the Interior
Credit for illustration on front cover and divider pages:

National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center Commissioned Art Collection, artist Patrick Lee.
i 

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. Many of the mounds are known to be Indian burial mounds. They 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 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. It includes the construction of a multipurpose center that would become a focal point for mound research. Alternative C would emphasize the 

relationship between the natural and cultural resources of the monument, and would include increased 

formal education and outreach programs. 

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 from construction of trails. There would 

be no impacts to cultural resources or special status species as a result of this alternative. This alternative 

would not result in impairment of a key monument resources or unacceptable adverse impacts 

The impacts of implementing alternative B, the preferred alternative, would be beneficial for visitor 

experience and museum collections, and would result in short-term and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from building and trail construction. This 

alternative would not result in an adverse effect on archeological resources or museum collections. There 

would be a possible adverse impact to cultural landscapes from trail construction. Special status species 

would not likely be adversely affected. This alternative would not result in impairment of a key monument 

resource or unacceptable adverse impacts. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative C would be short-term and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from trail construction. This alternative 

would not result in an adverse effect on archeological resources, cultural landscapes, or museum 

collections. Special status species would not likely be adversely affected. Alternative C would not result in 

impairment of a key monument resources or unacceptable adverse impacts. 

This 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 

Please note that National Park Service practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of 

respondents, available for public review; see “How to Comment on this Plan” for further information. 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

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

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this 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, Cellar) 

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. 

Our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses, home phone numbers, and 

email addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request 

that we withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider 

withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. 

In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must 

demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable 

circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or 

officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. You 

should be aware that we may still be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the 

Freedom of Information Act. 
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 by specifying the 

wildlife, scenic, and other natural values of the 

area. The monument’s authorized boundary 

was expanded in 1961 and again in 2000 until 

it 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 for the monument 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 percent and added several cultural 

resources, including mounds and 

extensive natural areas. 

• Management of resources and visitor 

needs at the Sny Magill Unit are not 

adequately addressed in the previous 

general management plan. 

• The monument's previous general 

management plan is relatively silent on 

matters of interest to members of the 16 

affiliated American Indian tribes and on 

requirements of the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

1990 (NAGPRA). 

• Visitation has increased since the late 

1990s; this trend may continue during the 

life of the plan and needs to be addressed. 

This 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. Projects that have been approved 

and funded would be implemented. There 

would be no major changes to monument 

operations or visitor services other than those 

already in progress or approved. All cultural 

resources would continue to be maintained 

and preserved using current practices. 

Historic sites would be protected from 

degradation but not otherwise managed. The 

landscape would continue to be managed to 

represent the environment associated with the 

moundbuilding cultures. 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. 

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 no impacts to 

cultural resources or special status species as a 

result of this alternative. This alternative 

would not result in impairment of a key 

monument resource or unacceptable adverse 

impacts. 

ALTERNATIVE B – PREFERRED 

Alternative B would provide an enhanced 

visitor experience with increased 

understanding of the monument while 

protecting and preserving natural and cultural 

resources. There would be a multi-purpose 

center with a regional research facility at the 

monument and an expanded role for 

maintenance and interpretive staff to work in 

cooperation with resource management to 

develop innovative management techniques. 

The desired visitor experience would be to 

make personal connections to the 

monument’s tangible resources through 
iv

understanding of the significance of the (preEuropean contact) American Indian moundbuilding story and its relationship to the 

heritage of the region. 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. 

The proposed multi-purpose center is 

intended to become a focal point for mound 

research. This facility would be built to house 

the monument’s collections and archives, 

administrative offices, conference and 

education space, research space, and a library. 

This center would also promote education, 

maintenance, and protection activities that 

would support mound stewardship 

throughout the four-state region. 

Education and interpretation of the natural 

resources of the park would be expanded. 

Physical access to and interpretation of the 

mounds in Sny Magill would improve 

according to a site development plan to be 

prepared. 

Under the preferred alternative, the diversity 

of visitor trail experiences would be expanded 

from that currently offered at the monument. 

A trail development plan would explore 

potential options. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative B 

would be long-term beneficial impacts to 

visitor experience and museum collections 

because of enhanced interpretation and the 

new facility. There would be short-term and 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual 

resources from construction of the new 

centers and trails. Implementation of this 

alternative would not result in any adverse 

impacts on archeological resources. There 

would be a possible adverse impact to cultural 

landscapes from trail construction. Special 

status species would not likely be adversely 

affected. This alternative would not result in 

impairment of a key monument resource or 

unacceptable adverse impacts. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would emphasize the natural 

resource environment and its interconnectedness with cultural resources. It 

would also increase formal education and 

outreach programs. Natural viewsheds and 

soundscapes would be protected as much as 

feasible under this alternative. The 

inextricably linked cultural and natural 

resources would be managed to resemble the 

landscape associated with the moundbuilding 

era, providing a connection to the moundbuilding cultures and the environment that 

shaped their lives and beliefs. 

Education and interpretation of natural 

resources would be expanded in both the 

monument and the region. Programming 

would emphasize reaching a broader segment 

of the public, including improved 

accommodation of educational groups. The 

visitor experience in the Heritage Addition 

would be primarily self-directed resource 

observation by canoeing on the Yellow River, 

or by periodic special ranger-led hiking and 

canoe tours in a quiet, contemplative setting 

to preserve not only the mounds but also the 

sense of sacredness of their surroundings. 

The key impacts of implementing 

alternative C would be short-term and longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources 

from construction of trails. It would not result 

in an adverse effect on archeological resources 

or cultural landscapes. Special status species 

would not likely be adversely affected. There 

would be long-term beneficial impacts to 

visitor experience. This alternative would not 

result in impairment of a key monument 

resources or unacceptable adverse impacts. 

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. 
v 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 3

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 4

Introduction 4

Description of the Monument 4

Monument Units 5

Purpose of the Plan 6

Need for the Plan 6

The Next Steps 9

Implementation of the Plan 9

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 10

Monument Purpose and Significance 10

Primary Interpretive Themes 12

Special Mandates or Administrative Commitments 13

Servicewide Laws and Policies 13

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan 23

PLANNING ISSUES and CONCERNS 25

Introduction 25

Issues 25

IMPACT TOPICS – RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS 27

Cultural Resource Topics 27

Natural Resource Topics 28

Other Topics 30

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 31

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

INTRODUCTION 39

User Capacity 39

Legislated Boundary (Non-NPS Land) 43

Recommended Boundary Adjustments 44

Boundary Adjustments Considered but not Included in Recommendations 46

Management Zones and Alternatives 47

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 51

MANAGEMENT ZONES 52

DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 58

Formulation of the Alternatives 58

Elements Common To All Alternatives 58

Alternative A – No Action 59

Alternative B – Preferred 65

Alternative C 71

Estimated Costs 77

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 79
CONTENTS

vi

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED 

EVALUATION 82

MITIGATING MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 83

Cultural Resources 83

Natural Resources 84

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 86

SUMMARY TABLES 88

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 101

CULTURAL RESOURCE TOPICS 102

Formal Designation of Resources 102

Period of Significance 102

Archeology 103

History 104

Ethnographic Resources 106

Cultural Landscapes 107

Museum Collections 107

NATURAL RESOURCE TOPICS 109

Soils 109

Vegetation 110

Fish and Wildlife 111

Special Status Species 113

Viewsheds 115

VISITOR USE AND UNDERSTANDING 116

Visitor Experience 116

Visitor Use 117

Visitor Understanding 118

Visitor Safety and Access 118

Recreational Use of the Yellow River 118

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 120

Socioeconomic Benefits of the National Park Service 120

Economics in the Study Area 120

Visitor Spending in the Planning Area 121

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 123

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION 127

IMPACT ANALYSES 130

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Of 1966, as amended, and Impacts to 

Cultural Resources 130

NEPA Methodology for Assessing Impacts—Cultural Resources 131

Archeological Resources 133

Cultural Landscapes 139

Ethnographic Resources 141

Museum Collections 144

Natural Resources – General 147

Soils 147
Contents 

vii

Wild and Scenic Rivers 150

Vegetation 152

Fish and Wildlife 154

Special Status Species 157

Visual Resources/Viewsheds 160

Visitor Use and Experience 163

Socioeconomic Environment 171

Monument Operations and Facilities 174

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 178

Alternative A – No Action 179

Alternative B – Preferred 179

Alternative C 179

Climate Change 180

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 182

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 183

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 184

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 187

Public Involvement 187

Consultation with Other Agencies/ Officials and Organizations (To Date) 187

Future Compliance Requirements 189

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 191

Federal Agencies 191

U.S. Senators and Representatives 191

Iowa State Officials 191

Iowa State Agencies 191

Affiliated American Indian Tribes 191

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 192

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION SUMMARY 195

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

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 196

APPENDIX C: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE IOWA STATE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION 

OFFICER, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND AMERICAN INDIAN 

TRIBES 201

APPENDIX D: YELLOW RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ASSESSMENT 207

APPENDIX E: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN IN THE MONUMENT 219

SELECTED REFERENCES 220

INDEX 222
CONTENTS

viii

TABLES

 

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

Table 2: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 42

Table 3: Management Zones 53

Table 4: Estimated Costs of the Alternatives (in 2007 dollars) 79

Table 5: Environmentally Preferable Alternative 81

Table 6: Summary of Alternatives 88

Table 7: Summary of Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 93

Table 8: Soils 109

Table 9: Effigy Mounds Visits 117

Table 10: Visits and Spending by Visitor Segment, 2006 122

Table 11: Economic Effects of Visitor Spending by Sector, 2006 122

Table 12: Summary of Resource and Energy Impacts 180

Table 13: Future Resource Compliance Required for Implementation of Specific Actions 189

FIGURES 

 

Figure 1: The Region 7 

Figure 2: The VERP Process 40 

Figure 3: Recommended Boundary Adjustments map 49 

Figure 4: Alternative A Map 63 

Figure 5: Alternative B Map 69 

Figure 6: Alternative C Map 75 

Figure 7: Wild and Scenic River Map 217 


3 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This 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 “Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making” (Directors Order 12).

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, begins by describing 

the management zones that will be used to 

manage the national monument in the future. 

Zoning is used to articulate the desired 

resource and visitor experience conditions 

and the facilities that may be needed to 

support these desired conditions. This chapter 

then 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. The preferred alternative, 

alternative B, is presented. Mitigating 

measures proposed to minimize or eliminate 

the impacts of some proposed actions are 

described just before the discussion of future 

studies and/or implementation plans that will 

be needed. Evaluation of the environmentally 

preferable alternative is followed by summary 

tables of the alternative actions and the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

those alternative actions. The chapter 

concludes with a discussion of alternatives or 

actions that were dismissed from detailed 

evaluation. 

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

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

This 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. 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. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was 

legislatively authorized by Presidential 

Proclamation 2860 on October 25, 1949. The 

monument currently comprises a total of 

2,526 acres in northeastern Iowa. 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 monument map, figure 4). Land 

surrounding Effigy Mounds belongs to the 

USFWS, the State of Iowa, and private 

landowners. Land uses in the area include 

agriculture (farming 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 (DNR) 

manages small tracts of land and recreation 

sites near the monument. The Iowa DNR also 

manages the access road and boat ramp in the 

Sny Magill Unit. 

Climate 

The climate is typical of the upper Midwest 

United States with large annual and daily 

fluctuations. In the winter, snowfall averages 

about 32 inches with normal January low/high 

temperatures of 6/24 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), 

with 160 days below freezing. During the year 

46 percent of the days have sunshine with 

summer low/high temperatures in July of 

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 Sny Magill, to 

just over 1,000 feet in the western part of the 

Heritage Addition. Surface topography 

around Effigy Mounds is composed of 
Purpose of and Need for the Plan 

5 

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 

Heritage Addition are predominately uplands 

with steep bluffs and old open fields on the 

highest upland flat areas. Uplands above the 

900-foot elevation level comprise about 

50 percent of the monument area. The area of 

steep slopes rising from the floodplain up to 

the 900-foot level make up about 25 percent, 

while the remaining 25 percent of monument 

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 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 located in the 

North Unit. Trails allow visitors to view the 

mounds and scenic views on self-guided walks 

ranging from a few feet to 7 miles. Wayside 

exhibits along the trails provide interpretive 

messages. Ranger-guided 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 DNR 

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

the Marching Bear Group from the Iowa DNR 

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 5 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 percent. Most access to this unit currently 

requires crossing private land. Abandoned 

logging roads can be used as foot trails. There 

are five known mounds, three historic sites, 

the Yellow River, Dousman Creek, and an 

abundance of natural resources in this unit. 

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 in 

the unit. With over 100 mounds identified in 

the unit, Sny Magill contains 50 percent of all 

the mounds in the monument. It is also the 

highest concentration of mounds known in 

the region. A foot 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 here or even 

much indication that it is an NPS unit. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

6

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 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. Table 1 summarizes 

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. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed in future, more 

detailed planning efforts. All future plans will 

tier from the approved general management 

plan. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The current 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 percent and added several cultural 

resources, including mounds and 

extensive natural areas. 

• Management of resources and visitor 

needs at the Sny Magill Unit are not 

adequately addressed in the previous 

general management plan. 

• The monument's previous general 

management plan is relatively silent on 

matters of interest to members of the 16 

affiliated American Indian tribes and on 

requirements of the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

1990 (NAGPRA). 

• Visitation has been generally increasing 

since the late 1990s; this unanticipated 

trend may continue during the life of the 

plan and needs to be addressed. 
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

REGION

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / Nov. 07 / 394 / 20,022B

South

Unit

North

Unit

X-56

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

IOWA

Effigy Mounds

National Monument

Purpose of and Need for the Plan 

9 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After distribution of the 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 will 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 Service-wide 

priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and 

effort. The approval of a GMP 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. 

• American Indian tribes and the state 

historic preservation officer would be 

consulted. 

• As appropriate, NEPA documentation 

would be prepared prior to any action. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions would be addressed during the more 

detailed planning associated with strategic 

plans, implementation plans, etc. All future, 

more detailed plans will be based on the goals, 

future conditions, and appropriate types of 

activities established in the approved general 

management plan. 
10

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 

MONUMENT PURPOSE AND 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Monument Purpose 

Purpose statements are based on the national 

monument’s legislation and legislative history 

and NPS policies. The statement reaffirms the 

reasons for which the national monument was 

set aside as a unit of the national park system 

and provide the foundation for management 

and use. 

Effigy Mounds National Monument 

preserves outstanding representative 

examples of significant phases of 

prehistoric Indian moundbuilding 

cultures in the American Midwest; 

protects wildlife and natural values 

within the monument; and provides for 

scientific study and appreciation of its 

features for the benefit of this and 

future generations. 

Significance Statements and Associated 

Fundamental and Other Important 

Resources and Values 

Significance statements capture the 

importance of the national monument to the 

country’s natural and cultural heritage. 

Significance statements do not inventory 

national monument resources; rather, they 

describe the national monument’s 

distinctiveness and help to place the 

monument within its regional, national, and 

international contexts. Significance 

statements answer questions such as 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. The 

reasons for identifying fundamental and other 

important resources and values include 

management focus, specific direction, and 

continuity 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 pre-European contact 

peoples in this region. 

Fundamental Resources and Values 

• 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 been 

surveyed archeologically, some mounds 

have been discovered in that area. 

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. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

11 

Fundamental Resources and Values 

• 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 unglaciated topography associated 

with the Driftless Area reveals 500 million 

year old limestone bedrock. The exposed 

400-foot bluffs overlooking the 

Mississippi River contain rock shelters, 

which were important as habitation sites, 

and chert outcroppings, which 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 began the period 

of understanding and preserving of the rich 

Indian culture. 

Important Resources and Values 

• A road built in 1840 by the military that 

connected Fort Crawford, Wisconsin 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 question” 

and opened up the territories for United 

States expansion and settlement prior to 

the Mexican War. 

• The historic sites of the monument that 

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 

• 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 

affiliated tribes as a sacred landscape. 

Fundamental Resources and Values 

• The features of this ethnographic 

landscape listed previously as 

fundamental and important resources 

such as mounds and associated artifacts, 

native vegetation, and rivers. Some natural 

resources present in the monument, such 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

12

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. They are 

the groundwork that 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), 

religious expression (the mounds), 

economics (widespread trade networks), 

and horticulture, allowed these peoples to 

invest the time and labor necessary to 

build the mounds. 

• The notable erosional features of the 

Driftless (unglaciated) 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 

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, 

removing American Indian residents and 

displacing 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 the neutral zone. 

• 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 affiliated tribes will 

allow a more complete understanding of 

American Indian traditions, history, and 

stories related to the moundbuilding 

cultures. Only by combining these 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. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

13 

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 U.S. Government and 

immediately included in the monument. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

Development of this plan has proceeded 

within a complex legal framework. This 

section identifies what must be done at Effigy 

Mounds National Monument to comply with 

federal laws and policies of the National Park 

Service. Many management directives are 

specified in laws and policies guiding the 

National Park Service and are, therefore, 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) 

— to name only a few. In other words, a 

general management plan is not needed to 

decide, for instance, that it is appropriate to 

protect endangered species, control exotic 

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 have been temporarily deferred 

in the park because of funding or staffing 

limitations, the National Park Service will 

continue to strive to implement these 

requirements with or without a new general 

management plan. 

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. 

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, amend-
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

14

ments state that NPS management of park 

units should not “derogat[e]...the purposes 

and values for which these various areas have 

been established.” 

The National Park Service also has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in a 

guidance manual 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. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to combine the 

servicewide mandates and policies with the 

management actions and zoning described in 

an alternative. 

Table 1 shows some of the most pertinent 

service-wide mandates and policy topics 

related to planning and managing Effigy 

Mounds National Monument; across from 

each topic are the desired conditions the staff 

is striving to achieve for that topic and thus, 

the table is written in the present tense. The 

alternatives in this management plan address 

the desired future conditions that are not 

mandated by law and policy and must be 

determined through a planning process.
Foundation for Planning and Management 

15 

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

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Desired Conditions Sources 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried and 

their significance is determined and documented. 

Archeological sites are 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 office and the resulting artifacts, 

materials, and records are curated and conserved. 

Some archeological sites that can be adequately 

protected may be interpreted to the visitor. 

National Historic Preservation 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 Memorandum of Agreement 

among the National Park Service, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995); NPS 

Management Policies 2006; Director’s 

Order 28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline; Director’s Order 28A: 

Archeology; Executive Order 13007, 

“Indian Sacred Sites;” and the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

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 office, and as necessary with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

• When archeological resources are discovered, consult with associated American Indian tribes. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

16

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

(Continued) 

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; 

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement 

among the National Park Service, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers; 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 listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

17 

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

(Continued) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Continued)

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 (CLR) clearly identifies 

the landscape characteristics and associated 

features, values, and associations that make a 

landscape historically and culturally significant. The 

content of a CLR 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 

Memorandum of Agreement among the 

National Park Service, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers (1995); 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 NPS has or plans to acquire legal interest. 

• 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. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

18

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

(Continued) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Continued)

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 their 

access to and use 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 

19 

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

(Continued) 

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 offsite 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 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: INTRODUCTION

20

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

(Continued) 

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. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

21 

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

(Continued) 

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Continued) 

NATIVE VEGETATION AND ANIMALS 

Desired Conditions Sources 

The National Park Service will strive 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” 

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 

(4.9)

Where soundscapes have been degraded by unnatural sounds 

(noise) they will be restored to a natural condition wherever 

possible 

NPS Management Policies 2006 

(4.9)

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: INTRODUCTION

22

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

(Continued) 

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 park 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. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

23 

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 

(SSNHA). As one of the federally designated 

heritage areas in the nation, it is an affiliated 

area of the National Park Service—the 

National Park Service does not own or 

manage it but may provide some funding and 

technical support. Through the development 

of a network of sites, programs and events, 

SSNHA's mission is to interpret farm life, 

agribusiness, and rural communities—past 

and present. The mission of Silos & Smokestacks National 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. Silos & Smokestacks is a 

37-county region in northeastern Iowa 

covering over 20,000 square miles. Silos & 

Smokestacks is 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 in the process of 

being developed along the Mississippi River 

from Minnesota to Louisiana. Effigy Mounds 

National Monument 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 segment. 

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 

Service is proposing a visitor center to be built 

relatively near the Sny Magill Unit. There is a 

possibility that they would ask the National 

Park Service to become partners in this center. 

At the same time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is seeking designation of the Upper 

Mississippi National Fish and Wildlife Refuge 

as a designated 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. Effigy 

Mounds National Monument is within the 

boundaries of the Upper Mississippi National 

Fish and Wildlife Refuge. As such, the national 

monument would be subject to the same 

considerations as the wildlife refuge. 

However, as the national monument already 

works in concert with the USFWS to preserve 

its wetlands, the designation would not affect 

the way the national monument is managed.

Actions in this general management plan would 

not directly or indirectly affect designation 

under the convention.

An Indian mound-related center is being 

proposed near Muscoda, Wisconsin, 60 miles 

from the monument. Planning for this center 

is still in process and the eventual relationship 

with the National Park Service or this general 

management plan is unknown. The National 

Park Service would like to remain involved 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

24

with the desire to protect cultural resources in 

the region. 
25 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

INTRODUCTION 

The general public; NPS staff; representatives 

from other county, state, and federal agencies; 

and representatives from various 

organizations identified various issues and 

concerns during scoping (early information 

gathering) for this general management plan. 

An issue is defined as an opportunity, conflict, 

or problem regarding the use or management 

of public lands. Comments were solicited at 

public meetings, through planning 

newsletters, and on the NPS planning website 

(see “Chapter 6: Consultation and 

Coordination”). 

In general, visitors and others value the 

cultural and natural resources in the 

monument. The public values the wellpreserved Indian mounds, scenic views, 

beauty, and natural resources. In addition, 

respondents appreciate the recreational 

opportunities (hiking, birding, etc.) and 

participation in various programs and events 

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 — 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, outside 

the scope of the general management plan, or 

are better addressed in a lower-level park 

plan. Examples of items that were dismissed 

include management of invasive species 

(covered by ongoing programs), protection of 

Indian mounds (mandated by law and NPS 

policy), and the need to address inappropriate 

and illegal uses (covered by law and 

monument regulations). 

The following issues were identified by the 

public and NPS staff to be addressed in this 

plan. 

Information, Education, and Access Issues 

• need to improve and strengthen 

interpretive and educational programs 

• safety issue from railroad and road 

crossing for visitors to South Unit 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

26

• need to develop public access to Heritage 

Addition 

• address additional hiking trails and visitor 

facility development 

• accessibility needs to be improved 

• need for visitor information facility at Sny 

Magill 

• overcrowding in visitor center when 

school groups are present 

Cultural and Natural Resource 

Management Issues 

• resources in region need to be further 

researched, preserved, and interpreted 

• boundary fence near Marching Bear 

group is only 5 feet from mounds; the 

general management plan should look at 

how to protect viewshed and resources at 

Marching Bear group. 

• concerns about protecting key viewsheds 

seen from monument, mitigation of visual 

encroachments 

• concerns about current collections facility 

• need a Wild and Scenic River eligibility 

determination for the Yellow River 

Administrative Issues 

• staff and public safety—from Highway 76 

and radon levels in lower level of 

headquarters 

• no current plans for management of 

Heritage Addition and possible 

development 

• need to more fully address management of 

and possible development in the Sny 

Magill Unit, no current NPS presence 

• look at possible land protection and 

boundary additions 
27 

IMPACT TOPICS – RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE 

PLANNING PROCESS 

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 issues and 

concerns expressed by the public and other 

agencies early in the planning process (see 

previous section). Also included is a 

discussion of some impact topics that are 

commonly addressed, but that are not 

addressed in this plan for the reasons given. 

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 RESOURCE TOPICS 

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 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 Old Military Road 

and a cistern, are not affected by proposals in 

the plan so “Structures” as an impact topic 

was not considered further. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

28

NATURAL RESOURCE TOPICS 

Soils 

The soil in the area around Effigy Mounds 

originated from erosion of the limestone 

bedrock and was deposited by the wind or 

water in relatively recent times. 

Soil can be affected by development, 

ecological restoration, and visitor use. Because 

alternatives presented in this plan include 

actions that would affect soil resources, this 

topic is retained for further analysis. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Units of the national park system that contain 

one or more river segments listed in the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory 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 non-native 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. As one of the 

largest preserved natural areas in Iowa, the 

monument may act as refugia for sensitive or 

representative flora and fauna. 

Fish and wildlife concerns at the monument 

include preserving or restoring natural 

habitats and maintaining healthy populations. 

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, NEPA, and other 

regulations. One or more of the alternatives 

could affect special status species or their 

habitat so this topic is retained. 

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: 
Impact Topics – Resources and Values at Stake 

in the Planning Process 

29 

Federally Listed Species 

Higgins eye pearly mussel (E) 

Lampsilis higginsii

Iowa Pleistocene snail (E) 

Discus macclintocki 

Prairie bush clover (T)

Lespedeza leptostachya 

Western prairie fringed orchid (T) 

Platanthera praeclara

Northern monkshood (T)

Aconitum novaboracense 

Bald eagle * 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

E=Endangered, T=Threatened 

*This species was in the memorandum but has 

been subsequently delisted by the USFWS) 

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, TThreatened 

1. Higgins eye mussel (Lampsilis higginsii) 

F-E, IA-E 

2. Bald eagle (Halineetus leucocephalus) 

F-Delisted, IA-E 

3. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) FDelisted, 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 (i) IA-T 

19. Grass pickerel (Esox americanus) IA-T 

20. Central newt (Notophthalmus veridescens) 

IA-T 

21. Strange floater (Strophitus undulates) 

IA-T 

Iowa Species of Special Concern. 

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 

candidum) 

27. Summer grape (Vitis aestivalis) 

28. Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

volans) 

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. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

30

OTHER TOPICS 

Visitor Use and Experience (including 

public health and safety) 

The Organic Act of 1916 and NPS 

management policies require the National 

Park Service to provide opportunities for the 

enjoyment of a park unit's resources and 

values. This enjoyment comes from activities 

that are appropriate for each park unit. Scenic 

viewsheds and the ability to view the mounds 

up close are considered an important 

contributing factor to positive visitor 

experiences in this monument. Actions in one 

or more of the alternatives could affect visitor 

use and experience in the monument, so this 

topic is retained. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

National Environmental Policy Act 

requirements include an examination of social 

and economic impacts caused by federal 

actions. 

The economy of several nearby communities 

is 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

9.1.1.7). The objectives of sustainability are to 

design facilities to minimize adverse effects on 

natural and cultural values, reflect their 

environmental setting, and 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. 

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. The National Park Service adopted the 

concept of sustainable design as a guiding 

principle of facility planning and development 

(NPS Management Policies 9.1). The objectives 

of sustainability are to design facilities to 

minimize adverse effects on natural and 

cultural values, to reflect their environmental 

setting, and to require the least amount of 

non-renewable fuels/energy. 

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. 
Impact Topics – Resources and Values at Stake 

in the Planning Process 

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. At Effigy Mounds, no 

standing or intact historic buildings or 

structures remain. Therefore, they have been 

treated in this plan 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. 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 burning of fields or weeds. 

Should any of the action alternatives be 

selected, local air quality may be temporarily 

affected by construction-related activities. 

Hauling material and operating construction 

equipment would result in increased vehicle 

emissions in a localized area. Volatile organic 

compounds, nitrogen compounds, carbon 

monoxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions 

would be produced but generally disperse 

fairly quickly from the construction area. This 

degradation would last only as long as 

construction activities occurred and would 

most likely have a negligible to minor effect on 

local pollutant levels. Fugitive dust from 

construction could intermittently increase 

airborne particulate concentrations in the area 

near the project site, but the use of mitigation 

such as a dust abatement program would 

reduce potential adverse effects to a negligible 

level. 

In summary, if any action alternative is 

implemented, local air quality would receive 

short-term degradation from dust and 

emissions from construction equipment and 

vehicles. Regional air quality would not be 

more than negligibly affected and local air 

quality would not receive more than minor 

short-term adverse effects. There would be no 

long-term effects on air quality so it is 

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 have high proportions (70%-80% or 

more) of their base flow from ground water, 

providing important cold water characteristics 

of the streams. 

The Yellow River originates in southwestern 

Winneshiek County, Iowa, and flows through 

the monument for about 3.5 miles before 

joining the Mississippi River. The Yellow 

River drainage has nine major tributary 

streams. Four of these tributaries, including 

Dousman Creek, which enters the Yellow 

River inside the monument boundary, are 

coldwater trout streams (Weeks 2006). 

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). 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

32

For the Sny Magill Creek watershed, the 

majority of a water year's discharge occurs 

during intermittent high flow events. In most 

years, discharge is higher during the spring 

and summer and declines during the fall and 

winter. High flows during the spring snowmelt period and summer storms can cause 

sediment discharge from Sny Magill Creek. 

Sny Magill Creek is one of the more widely 

used streams for recreational trout fishing in 

Iowa. The stream bottom of Sny Magill and its 

tributaries is primarily rock and gravel with 

frequent riffle areas. Along the lower reach of 

the creek where the gradient is less steep, the 

stream bottom is generally silty. 

None of the alternatives described in this plan 

would affect water quality or quantity so this 

topic is dismissed from detailed analysis. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

The backwaters of the Mississippi River 

consist of sloughs, lakes, ponds, and adjacent 

wetlands. These areas have been altered by 

sedimentation that is rapidly filling in lakes 

and ponds and blocking channels. 

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 a 

tributary stream called 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 associated with active floodplains of 

the Yellow River and the west bank of the 

Mississippi River. Three wetlands are located 

in the Yellow River floodplain, and one 

wetland is isolated from the Mississippi River 

by a railroad embankment. 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 and about 1 foot deep (Weeks 

2006). 

The National Wetlands Inventory identifies 

three different types of wetlands in the 

monument: palustrine-forested, palustrineemergent, and lacustrine-unconsolidated 

bottom. These occur along the floodplain of 

the Yellow River and in most of the Sny Magill 

Unit. 

The lower 3 miles of the Yellow River are 

really backwaters of the Mississippi River. 

Water movement is sluggish and the level can 

fluctuate with changes in the flow of either the 

Yellow or Mississippi Rivers. 

The estimated 100-year and 500-year flood 

levels in and adjacent to the north and south 

units between river miles 639 and 636 

minimally affect the north and south units. 

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 at Sny Magill in alternative B. 

Until public access/development plans for 

these areas are prepared it is difficult to assess 

the impacts (if any) that might occur. The Sny 

Magill trail would most likely be of a porous 

material or a raised boardwalk and may result 

in a reduction of adverse impacts caused by 

maintenance and use of the existing trail. Full 

site-specific environmental impact analysis on 

wetlands and floodplains would be conducted 

with these plans and so these topics are 

dismissed from further analysis in this general 

management plan and deferred to the 

implementation plans. 
Impact Topics – Resources and Values at Stake 

in the Planning Process 

33 

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 congressional 

designations. There are no such designations 

in the monument and no areas that would be 

eligible for possible designation. Although 

NPS policy requires study of new additions to 

park land, the Heritage Addition is less than 

5,000 acres and contains evidence of human 

work in the form of logging effects and many 

miles of roads that would most likely make it 

ineligible. Therefore, this topic is dismissed 

from further analysis. 

Night Sky 

NPS policy requires the Park Service to 

preserve, to the extent possible, the natural 

lightscapes of parks and seek to minimize the 

intrusion of artificial light (light pollution) 

into the night scene (NPS Management 

Policies 2006). The clarity of night skies is 

important to visitor experience as well as 

being 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. 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). NPS personnel would work with 

neighbors on ways to decrease light pollution 

if a problem arises under any alternative. Any 

impacts on night skies from implementing the 

alternatives would be negligible at most. Given 

these considerations and the fact that the 

monument is open for day use only, the topic 

of night sky is dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Soundscapes 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.9) requires 

park managers to strive to preserve the natural 

soundscape of a park, which is defined as the 

lack of human-related sound and 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. 

Construction of the multi-purpose center in 

alternative B would have short-term adverse 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

34

impacts on the soundscape of the visitor 

center and maintenance area. However, this 

area is in a Development Zone, which allows 

the natural soundscape to be affected by 

human-caused noise. Some construction noise 

could travel outside the Development Zone 

and into adjacent zones where tolerance for 

human-caused sound is lower. This impact 

would diminish with distance and so would 

result in short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts. After construction, there 

could be more noise associated with use of the 

building, but the adverse impact of this use is 

expected to be negligible. 

Implementing alternative B could increase the 

number of visitors in the Heritage Addition 

and Sny Magill Unit, which would have shortterm and long-term negligible adverse impacts 

on soundscapes along the trails in those units. 

Alternatives A and C would not appreciably 

change the distribution or number of visitors 

or operations 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 

more than negligibly in the long-term, so this 

topic is dismissed from further analysis. 

Prime or Unique Farmlands 

In August 1980, the CEQ 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 or unique 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 (Caneek, 

Lawson, and Ion silt loams) are considered by 

the National Resource Conservation Service 

to be prime farmland only if drained and 

protected from flooding (NRCS 2005). These 

soil types are in the floodplain of the Yellow 

River 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 developed-area 

vernacular designs are not concerns in the 

rural area of the monument. Following NPS 

standard operating procedures, any new 

structures called for in an alternative would 

include rural design concepts, natural colors, 

and materials that do not detract from the 

environment. Given this mitigation, no further 

analysis of this topic is necessary. 

Indian Trust Lands 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources 

from a proposed action by Department of the 

Interior 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 
Impact Topics – Resources and Values at Stake 

in the Planning Process 

35 

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 low-income population or 

community. 

• Implementation of the preferred 

alternative would not result in any 

identified effect that would be specific 

to any minority or 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 ream do not anticipate the 

impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment to appreciably alter the 

physical and social structure of the 

nearby communities.



39 

INTRODUCTION 

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of Effigy Mounds National Monument are 

defined in the establishing legislation, the 

national monument’s purpose and 

significance statements, and the servicewide 

mandates and policies that were described 

earlier. Within these parameters, the National 

Park Service solicited input from the public, 

NPS staff, government agencies, tribal 

officials, and other organizations regarding 

issues and desired conditions for the national 

monument. Planning team members gathered 

information about existing visitor use and the 

condition of the monument’s facilities and 

resources. They considered which areas 

attract visitors, and which areas have sensitive 

resources. 

Using the above information the planning 

team developed a set of four management 

zones and three alternatives to reflect the 

range of ideas proposed by the monument 

staff and the public. 

This chapter describes the management zones 

and the alternatives for managing the national 

monument for the next 15 to 20 years. It 

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.") 

A discussion of user capacity and 

recommended boundary adjustments is 

included in this chapter. Also described are 

mitigating measures that would be used to 

lessen or avoid impacts, future studies that 

would be needed, and the environmentally 

preferable alternative. 

USER CAPACITY 

The General Authorities Act for the National 

Park Service, section 604, amended section 

12(b), requires that general management plans 

establish a user (carrying) capacity for a unit 

of the national park system, saying, among 

other things, that there must be “identification 

of an implementation commitment for visitor 

carrying capacity for all areas of the [national 

park system] unit....” In addition, there is also 

a requirement in NPS Management Policies

2006 that general management plans address 

the issue of user capacity. The use of the 

concept of user capacity in planning infrastructure and visitor management programs is 

expected to result in effective and efficient 

management. 

Visitor Experience and Resource 

Protection 

The National Park Service has developed a 

framework called Visitor Experience and 

Resource Protection (VERP) to address user 

capacities. The VERP process is used to derive 

meaningful qualitative user capacities and 

quantitative capacities, i.e., use limits, where 

they are deemed necessary. The process can 

be diagrammed as shown in figure 2. 

In the VERP framework, user capacity is 

defined as “The types and levels of visitor use 

that can be accommodated while sustaining 

the desired resource and social conditions 

that complement the purpose of the park units 

and their management objectives.” The VERP 

framework is an iterative, ongoing process 

that begins with the following steps: 

1. Prescribing the desired conditions of 

resources and visitor experiences for a 

given area (not by prescribing a maximum 

number of visitors). These conditions are 

based on the national monument’s 

purpose, significance, and fundamental 

resource values; 

2. Selecting measurable indicators, i.e., 

characteristics or conditions that reflect 

the status of national historic site 

resources and visitor conditions; 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40 

3. Setting quantifiable standards, against 

which the indicator is measured; 

4. Assessing existing conditions, thereby 

establishing a baseline for future 

measurements; 

5. Assessing whether or not a management 

action must be taken because existing 

conditions are determined to be close to 

violating standards, and then taking the 

action; 

6. Monitoring conditions to determine 

effectiveness of ongoing or new 

management actions; and 

7. Adapting by revising management 

strategies when indicated. 

These components provide a defensible 

process for taking informed action to manage 

elements of visitor use that may influence 

desired conditions in a park system unit.

Figure 2: The VERP Process 
Introduction 

41 

User Capacity at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument 

Currently, visitor use has had few adverse 

effects on the resources of Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. If visitor numbers 

increase, 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. Therefore, it is important for the 

National Park Service to be proactive in 

preventing problems that could result from 

visitors’ use of the site. 

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 facility development 

and visitation and the expected types of use 

would cause unacceptable impacts on the 

desired visitor experience or the resources. 

Desired Conditions 

The Effigy Mounds National Monument staff 

identified desired resource conditions and 

visitor experience opportunities for the four 

zones. Each zone of the monument would be 

managed to achieve different desired 

conditions. 

Indicators and Standards 

During development of this general 

management plan, indicators of resource 

conditions and visitor experience were 

identified, as well as standards for the 

indicators (Table 2). Indicators are 

measurable variables that can be used to track 

changes in conditions related to human 

activity. Standards are the minimum 

acceptable condition of the indicator. The 

following indicators and standards were 

developed for use in implementing a user 

capacity program. Modification of these 

indicators may occur if new knowledge is 

gained or visitor use patterns change 

drastically from projected patterns. Some 

indicators may also be monitored to 

implement the resources stewardship strategy 

being developed for the monument. 

Monitoring programs would be initiated to 

measure resource condition and the visitor 

experience. Such indicators would reflect the 

overall condition of the area and allow the 

measurement of effects on the monument’s 

biological, physical, and cultural resources 

and on the visitor experience. 

Most cultural resource monitoring programs 

measure changes in condition from some 

baseline. Unless otherwise stated, it is 

assumed that the baseline is the condition that 

the resource is in at the time this general 

management plan is approved. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

42 

Table 2: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 

Resource or Area Indicator Standard 

Visitor Center 

Capacity 

Number of visitors at one time Does not exceed facility capacity 

(currently about 75) for more than 

five minutes once per day 

Archeological 

Resources 

Human-caused degradation or 

human-caused increase in natural 

wear 

No evidence of human-caused 

degradation above baseline 

Deliberate vandalism to sites or 

mounds (e.g., pot hunting) 

No evidence of vandalism 

Yellow River, 

Dousman Creek, 

wetlands, ponds, and 

Sny Magill Creek 

Decline in water quality or quantity 

caused by human activity 

Impacts to riverside resources 

caused by recreational users on or 

along the Yellow River or Mississippi 

River 

Number of complaints received of 

conflicts or unsatisfactory 

experiences caused by use levels or 

different types of users 

No degradation from current 

conditions 

No degradation from current 

conditions, no social trailing or other 

impacts 

Not to exceed one per week (NPS 

staff would consult with the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources to 

establish remedial actions) 

Trails Tread width Does not increase more than 10% 

above the baseline average for each 

trail 

Tread depth Does not exceed an average depth 

of 2” or a maximum of 4” below 

surrounding terrain at any point 

Erosion No erosion of soil adjacent to trail

Unauthorized/social trails in 

discovery zone 

No unauthorized trails (new trails 

closed and rehabbed immediately) 

Cultural Landscapes Deliberate and unintentional 

vandalism or theft 

Extraordinary visible wear and tear 

or erosion 

No evidence of human cased 

degradation 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

American Indian access is difficult or 

site is inaccessible 

Use of site by American Indians is no 

longer desirable 

Retains appropriate access, 

individual ceremonial use remains 

unaffected 

Museum Collections Visible deterioration due to 

temperature or humidity 

Damage due to pests 

Deteriorating containers 

Overcrowding of shelves 

Loss of identifying labels 

Collections are housed in 

appropriate temperature and 

humidity conditions above the 500-

year floodplain and stored in 

museum quality storage containers 

or shelving 

No degradation of the objects is 

occurring 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

43 

Visitor Center Facility Capacity —

Currently, office space for monument 

employees is at maximum capacity. Safe 

maximum capacity of the visitor center 

theater is 58 persons. Monument staff 

members indicate that when there are 75 or 

more people in the visitor center, visitor 

experiences and the staff’s ability to function 

are adversely affected. Different changes to 

the interior configuration of the visitor center 

are proposed in the action alternatives of this 

plan. Therefore, it is impossible to set a facility 

capacity in this document. Once the approved 

plan is implemented, NPS staff will determine 

the practical capacity of the visitor center. If 

this number is exceeded, the quality of visitor 

experience would be expected to diminish 

and desired conditions would cease to be met. 

Actions would be taken to minimize the 

adverse effects of crowding. 

Archeological Resources — The condition of 

the mounds, rock shelters, and other 

archeological sites would be monitored 

regularly to determine if human presence is 

causing an adverse impact. 

Unsurfaced Trails — A baseline will be set as 

the conditions existing at the time this general 

management plan is approved or when new 

trails are built. Monitoring will determine if 

undue visitor use impacts are occurring. 

Indicators will be average trail width, depth 

(rutting), and erosion caused by construction 

and use of the trail. 

Recreational Use on Yellow River – 

Although boating (motorized and nonmotorized) use levels are currently quite low, 

this activity would be monitored for changes 

in levels and resource impacts. If unacceptable 

impacts were identified, NPS staff would 

establish remedial actions in cooperation with 

the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

User Impact Monitoring and Management 

Actions 

Monitoring would be carried out to evaluate 

resource conditions and visitor experiences to 

ensure that the national monument’s desired 

conditions would remain as prescribed. 

Through monitoring, NPS staff would 

determine if the indicators were viable and 

acceptable; if not, the indicators would be 

modified. The process of determining how 

much impact is too much is a dynamic one. 

Critical to the success of this process are 

identifying indicators and standards and 

adjusting the management strategies when 

monitoring indicates that conditions are 

nearing or exceeding the standard. If these 

user capacities were exceeded on a regular 

basis, NPS staff would take actions to restore 

conditions to acceptable levels. For example, 

the number of visitors to critical areas or 

buildings could be restricted or a ticketing 

system designed to spread out visitation could 

be instituted. This would be implemented 

through a strategy developed by monument 

staff subsequent to this general management 

plan. 

LEGISLATED BOUNDARY (NON-NPS 

LAND) 

Public Law 106-323 adjusted the monument’s 

boundary to include both the Heritage 

Addition and the Riverfront Tract. The 

Riverfront Tract comprises approximately 50 

acres of bottomland in a narrow strip between 

the Mississippi River and the monument’s 

North Unit boundary. The State of Iowa owns 

about 30 acres and the Canadian Pacific 

Railroad owns about 20 acres. Two 

archeological sites are located on this tract. 

These sites represent moundbuilder village 

habitation, an important aspect of the 

moundbuilding cultures not already included 

in the monument. The remains of an 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, so it will not be 

analyzed further in this document. 
Introduction 

44 

RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY 

ADJUSTMENTS 

Figure 3 is a map showing 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: 

1. to include and protect significant resources 

and values or to enhance opportunities for 

public enjoyment related to monument 

purpose 

2. to address operational and management 

issues 

3. to protect resources critical to fulfilling the 

monument’s purpose 

NPS 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 only be 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 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 NPS, others 

could better be protected through purchasing 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 

monument’s 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 30 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 this 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: a ridge-top 

location, direct access to a highway, and 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 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

45 

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. 

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 zoned to 

protect the natural setting of the mounds and

the ability of visitors to experience them in this 

setting. This area is included in the “discovery 

zone” in the preferred alternative and the

“backcountry zone” in alternative C. Desired 

resource conditions in the discovery zone 

include restoring “an approximate appearance 

of the landscape associated with the 

moundbuilding era” and, in the backcountry 

zone, management to “maintain a healthy and

natural-appearing landscape.” Under the 

preferred alternative, the monument would 

pursue abandonment of this county road, so that 

most of it would revert to monument ownership, 

and reuse the former road as a trail. Desired 

visitor conditions and experiences along this 

trail include a sense of solitude. If tract #2 is 

developed, which is a potential future use for the 

same reasons cited above, 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 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 logged 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. 

Logging upstream has the potential to increase 

surface run-off and sedimentation into 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 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46 

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. 

Reason for recommending this boundary 

adjustment: Adjusting the boundary to include 

this property would address operational and 

management issues. The preferred alternative in 

the GMP 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. To 

access the only parking at this unit, visitors must 

pass under a low railroad trestle, which means 

that visitors with high profiles vehicles or RVs 

often cannot access the Sny Magill unit at all. 

This situation cannot be improved without 

raising or removing the railroad overpass. While 

this GMP proposes to address this problem by 

acquiring land west of the tracks (tract #4) 

where parking could be developed for high 

profile vehicles, the railroad tracks also 

compromise visitor experience at Sny Magill -- a 

situation that cannot be remedied without a 

boundary expansion to include these tracks. The 

sound of the trains passing close to the resources 

compromises the desired condition for most of 

Sny Magill, which is a contemplative experience 

for visitors with primarily natural soundscapes. 

This property also needs to be in the boundary 

to afford continued access to the Sny Magill 

mounds. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

47 

It would not be feasible for the monument 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. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

The 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 monument’s purpose, significance, mandates, and 

legislation. 

Management zones are sets of desired 

conditions for resources and visitor 

experiences in different areas of the park. The 

management zones identify the range of 

appropriate resource conditions, visitor 

experiences, and facilities for the monument 

that fall within the scope of the purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. Four 

management zones have been identified for 

Effigy Mounds National Monument (see 

Table 3).

The alternatives in this general management 

plan are different approaches to overall park 

management and use. They respond to issues 

raised by the public, law and 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). The concept for each alternative gives 

planners the idea for what the alternative is 

going to look like. For example, perhaps one 

management prescription is called 

“backcountry and wilderness” and another 

prescription is called “frontcountry 

recreation.” An alternative whose concept is 

to keep most of the park in an undeveloped 

and natural/wild condition would have more 

of the “backcountry and wilderness” 

prescription than the “frontcountry 

recreation” prescription. Both prescriptions 

might also be larger or smaller and in different 

locations in different alternatives, depending 

on the overall concept for each alternative. 

This 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 accomplished with 

regard to cultural resource conditions, natural 

resource conditions, visitor use, and 

experience at Effigy Mounds. The actual 

configurations for each action alternative 

TRACT 4

TRACT 2

TRACT 1

TRACT 3

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

HERITAGE

ADDITION

RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY 

ADJUSTMENTS

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb. 09 • 394 • 20,024C

I O W A

W I S C O N S I N

Effigy Mounds

National Monument Boundary

Tract Proposal

76

76

X-56

NORTH

Sny Magill NOTE: Scale of Sny Magill area 

is larger than top map.

Introduction 

51 

were developed by overlaying the 

management zones (described later) on a map 

of the monument to achieve the intent of the 

alternative concepts. 

As noted previously in the "Guidance for 

Planning" section, the National Park Service 

would continue to follow existing agreements 

and servicewide mandates, laws, and policies 

regardless of the alternatives considered in 

this plan. To truly understand the implications 

of an alternative, it is important to interpret 

the actions proposed in an alternative in the 

context of the servicewide mandates and 

policies and the monument’s purpose and 

significance (Chapter 1), even though they are 

not repeated here. 

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. 

Using the CBA process, alternative B scored 

the highest for each of the four factors. 

Alternative B gives the National Park Service 

the greatest overall advantage for the factors 

listed above, thus providing the greatest value. 

It would provide the highest level of cultural 

resource management, natural resource 

conditions, visitor experience, and operational efficiency. Therefore, alternative B is 

the NPS preferred alternative.
52 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones define specific resource 

conditions and visitor experiences to be 

achieved and maintained in each particular 

area of the national monument under each of 

the action alternatives (i.e., for all of the 

alternatives except the no-action alternative). 

Each zone description includes the types of 

activities and facilities appropriate to support 

the desired conditions. 

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 were 

modified in response to public comments. 

The zoning schemes were developed as a 

result of this planning effort and, therefore, 

are not applied to the no-action alternative 

and map. 

The zones for Effigy Mounds National 

Monument are presented in the following 

table. Visitor experiences, resource 

conditions, appropriate activities, and 

facilities are described for each zone. 
Management Zones 

53 

Table 3: Management Zones 

BACKCOUNTRY 

ZONE 

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(red) 

PRESERVATION 

AND 

INTERPRETATION 

ZONE 

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT 

ZONE 

(brown) 

Purpose/ 

Emphasis 

Emphasis in this 

zone would be to 

protect the resources 

in their natural 

setting. 

The purpose of this 

zone is to place 

management 

emphasis on 

preservation of the 

resources while 

allowing visitor and 

administrative access 

on designated trails 

that would be 

carefully sited 

according to strict 

criteria. 

The purpose of this 

zone would be to 

provide visitor 

access and 

information on 

existing trails while 

preserving cultural 

and natural 

resources. 

Emphasis in this 

zone would be on 

facilities and 

programming for 

visitor services 

and monument 

operations. 

Desired 

resource 

conditions 

Indian mounds and 

other archeological 

sites are preserved in 

place in good 

condition. 

Indian mounds and 

other archeological 

sites are preserved in 

place in good 

condition. 

Indian mounds and 

other archeological 

sites are preserved 

in place in good 

condition. 

Vegetation on the 

primary mounds 

receives occasional 

mowing to make 

them more visible. 

Cultural 

resources, if 

present, are 

protected and 

monitored. 

This zone would be 

managed to 

maintain a healthy 

and naturalappearing landscape. 

The natural and 

cultural resources are 

managed to restore 

an approximate 

appearance of the 

landscape associated 

with the 

moundbuilding era. 

The natural and 

cultural resources 

are managed to 

restore an 

approximate 

appearance of the 

landscape 

associated with the 

moundbuilding era. 

This zone includes 

maintained 

landscapes that 

are intensively 

managed for 

visitor use and 

monument 

operations. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54 

BACKCOUNTRY 

ZONE 

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(red) 

PRESERVATION 

AND 

INTERPRETATION 

ZONE 

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT 

ZONE 

(brown) 

Desired 

resource 

conditions 

(continued) 

The environmental 

processes that 

sustained the 

landscape of the 

moundbuilders are 

maintained or 

restored using the 

best available 

scientific 

information. 

The environmental 

processes that 

sustained the 

landscape of the 

moundbuilders are 

maintained or 

restored using the 

best available 

scientific information. 

Natural resources 

are modified only 

when necessary to 

provide safe visitor 

access. 

Natural resources 

are modified 

when necessary 

for visitor use or 

monument 

operations. 

Restoration and 

maintenance of 

natural processes are 

supported by: 

1. Simulating 

natural fire 

regimes and 

other 

management 

tools. 

2. Monitoring of 

ecological 

communities 

and control of 

invasive plants 

and animals. 

3. Maintaining or 

creating 

viewsheds that 

are primarily 

natural with 

water, wetlands, 

and hardwood 

forests 

dominating. 

Restoration and 

maintenance of 

natural processes are 

supported by: 

1. Simulating 

natural fire 

regimes and 

other 

management 

tools. 

2. Monitoring of 

ecological 

communities 

and aggressive 

control of 

invasive plants 

and animals. 

3. Maintaining or 

creating 

viewsheds that 

follow the 

recommendation

s of the Cultural 

Landscape 

Report, or until 

that report is 

produced, that 

are primarily 

natural with 

water and 

hardwood 

forests 

dominating. 

Restoration and 

maintenance of 

natural processes 

are supported by: 

 

1. Simulating 

natural fire 

regimes and 

other 

management 

tools. 

2. Monitoring of 

ecological 

communities 

and aggressive 

control of 

invasive plants 

and animals. 

3. Maintaining or 

creating 

viewsheds that 

follow the 

recommendatio

ns of the 

Cultural 

Landscape 

Report, or until 

that report is 

produced, are 

primarily natural 

with water and 

hardwood 

forests 

dominating. 

Landscapes in this 

zone are typically 

heavily modified 

and maintained 

through groundskeeping (mowing, 

brush trimming, 

etc.) to create a 

more formal parklike appearance. 
Management Zones 

55 

BACKCOUNTRY 

ZONE 

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(red) 

PRESERVATION 

AND 

INTERPRETATION 

ZONE 

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT 

ZONE 

(brown) 

Desired 

visitor 

conditions 

and 

experience 

Direct public 

interaction with 

resources on the 

ground is rare, 

mostly when 

accompanied by 

park staff (e.g. 

occasional tours) or 

for permitted 

research access. 

Visitors have 

opportunities to 

understand the interconnectedness of the 

natural and human 

worlds. This would 

be accomplished via 

self-guided hikes 

through natural areas 

and to Indian 

mounds, and 

occasional rangerguided walks. 

Visitors experience 

an informed, 

contemplative 

glimpse into the 

past and have 

opportunities to 

connect with the 

meanings inherent 

in the resources. 

Visitors 

experience 

interpretive 

connections via 

multiple types of 

media and 

services. 

A limited amount of 

information on this 

zone would be 

provided in other 

places of the 

monument only on 

request. 

Most information on 

this zone is provided 

in other places of the 

monument. 

Visitors receive 

interpretation and 

information through 

self-guided or 

ranger-led walks 

and trailside exhibits 

along the primary 

trails. 

Visitors receive a 

high level of 

orientation and 

information in a 

facility presenting 

the latest 

information and 

outside exhibits. 

Visitors experience 

this zone by viewing 

it from watercraft on 

the Yellow River and 

viewpoints in other 

zones. Paddlers on 

the Yellow River 

would traverse this 

zone, but put-in and 

take-out areas would 

be outside of the 

monument. 

Appropriate 

resource-based 

recreational activities, 

such as hiking and 

wildlife viewing on 

marked trails, are 

available. There are 

opportunities for 

solitude, discovery, 

and adventure. 

Opportunities for 

appropriate 

resource-based 

activities such as 

self-guided or 

ranger-led walking 

tours and wildlife 

viewing on wellmarked and 

maintained trails. 

Visitor 

opportunities 

include viewing 

an orientation 

program, exhibit 

viewing, shopping 

in the bookstore, 

and attending 

ranger-led 

programs. 

Opportunities to 

explore this zone by 

foot would not be 

encouraged but 

would not be 

prohibited. There 

would be some 

resource 

management use. 

There would be very 

little visitor use off of 

the trails; use would 

be resource 

management 

activities. 

There would be very 

little visitor use off 

the primary trails; 

use would be 

resource 

management 

activities. 

Portions of some 

buildings would 

be for monument 

staff and not 

intended for the 

general visitor. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

BACKCOUNTRY 

ZONE 

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(red) 

PRESERVATION 

AND 

INTERPRETATION 

ZONE 

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT 

ZONE 

(brown) 

Desired 

visitor 

conditions 

and 

experience 

(continued) 

Encounters with 

monument staff or 

other visitors would 

be very rare. 

Monument staff may 

be available on the 

trails during heavy 

use periods. Visitors 

could expect a low to 

moderate level of 

encounters with 

other visitors along 

trails. 

Monument staff are 

available during 

heavy use periods. 

Visitors could expect 

a moderate level of 

encounters with 

other visitors along 

trails; this would 

increase to high 

during some 

weekends and the 

fall color season. 

Monument staff 

are readily 

available to 

provide 

orientation, 

information, and 

interpretation. 

Visitors could 

expect a high 

level of contact 

with other 

visitors. 

Special public 

events take place 

in this zone 

where these 

activities would 

not jeopardize the 

resources. 

Appropriate 

facilities 

There would be no 

permanent facilities 

or development in 

this zone. Some 

existing roads/trails 

would be used for 

administrative 

purposes or during 

emergencies. 

Carefully sited trails 

according to strict 

criteria (see 

description in Future 

Studies and 

Implementation Plans 

Needed section). 

Once trails are 

developed, they 

could only be 

rerouted slightly 

when necessary to 

protect resources. 

Appropriate facilities 

are the existing 

developed trails and 

supportive 

structures, such as 

bridges, 

boardwalks, 

benches, wayside 

exhibits, and 

recycling/waste 

receptacles. Minor 

re-routing of the 

existing trails might 

take place as 

necessary to protect 

resources or for 

visitor safety. 

Visitor center, 

research and 

educational 

facilities, 

administrative 

offices, 

maintenance 

facility, trailheads, 

primary indoor 

and outdoor 

interpretive 

exhibits, museum 

collections 

storage and 

management 

space, parking 

lot, surfaced 

trails, developed 

outdoor program 

area, fully 

accessible 

facilities. 
Management Zones 

57 

BACKCOUNTRY 

ZONE 

(green) 

DISCOVERY ZONE

(red) 

PRESERVATION 

AND 

INTERPRETATION 

ZONE 

(purple) 

DEVELOPMENT 

ZONE 

(brown) 

Appropriate 

facilities 

(continued) 

Trails would be 

maintained for safe 

visitor access and 

resource protection. 

They would be 

marked and designed 

to encourage visitors 

to stay on the trail. 

Trails would be 

maintained for safe 

visitor access. Trails 

would be 

maintained, soft or 

hard-surfaced, and 

designed to 

encourage visitors 

to stay on the trail. 

Hard-surfaced 

(i.e., sidewalks 

and boardwalks) 

and wellmaintained walks 

for safe and 

convenient visitor 

access. 

Note 1: the Riverfront property is within the monument’s legislated boundary but is not currently owned by the 

National Park Service. This property is zoned in both action alternatives with the understanding that zoning would not 

be in effect until the land was acquired by the National Park Service. The railroad right-of-way would be in the 

Developed Zone unless it is abandoned or acquired from the railroad. 

Note 2: the exact location of some monument boundaries is uncertain. The boundary, and therefore the shape of the 

corresponding zone(s), could change slightly when an approved boundary survey is completed. 
58 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

FORMULATION OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

The National Park Service prepares 

management alternatives to explore different 

approaches of managing the national 

monument. Each alternative must be in the 

bounds of laws, policies, and the monument’s 

purpose and significance. They also present 

different way to achieve the desired future 

conditions of the monument. 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and visitor uses, experiences, and 

opportunities should be at Effigy Mounds 

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-today and year-to-year management of the 

national monument, but full implementation 

could take many years. 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

Resource Management 

• The mounds would be preserved in place 

with only non-intrusive methods of 

archeological investigations. 

• Natural viewsheds and soundscapes 

would be maintained to the extent 

feasible. 

• Archeological survey and evaluations and 

a cultural landscape report would be 

completed for the entire monument. 

• Boating on the Yellow River and at Sny 

Magill would be monitored for use levels 

and resource impacts. 

• 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. 

• Depending on findings, recommendations 

would be made for potential national 

historic landmark status. 

• The resources of the monument would be 

managed for a landscape that emulates 

that which existed during the time of the 

moundbuilding era. The sensitive cultural 

and natural resources would be preserved 

or restored 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. 

• Limited archeological testing and 

evaluation excavations of cultural sites 

could be allowed to address unexpected 

threats to resources or for establishing 

baseline information such as dates of 

occupation, etc. 

• 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. 
Description of the Alternatives 

59 

• Ongoing ecosystem restoration efforts and 

nonnative species management would 

continue. 

• The monument staff would develop a 

resource stewardship strategy that 

includes an ecosystem restoration 

strategy, nonnative species management, 

and a fire management plan. 

• The monument staff would continue to 

provide technical assistance, when 

possible, to other agencies and 

organizations in preservations and 

management of mounds. 

Visitor Use 

• Safety messages would be prominent in 

communications to the public. 

• Interpretation would emphasize the 

sacred nature of the mounds and 

resources, and would consider the cultural 

resources (mounds) as symbols of the 

values, beliefs, and accomplishments of 

the moundbuilders. 

• The National Park Service would explore 

partnership possibilities with appropriate 

groups to offer interpretive canoe trips 

exploring traditional ways. 

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. 

• Unused logging roads would be restored 

to pre-disturbed conditions. 

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

Concept 

Current management strategies and trends 

would continue under the no-action 

alternative. Projects that have been approved 

and funded would be implemented. There 

would be no major changes to monument 

operations or visitor services other than those 

already in progress or approved. 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 landscape would continue to be 

managed to represent the environment 

associated with the moundbuilding cultures. 

The Heritage Addition would not have a longterm 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. 

Monument-wide 

• Ongoing ecosystem restoration efforts and 

nonnative species management would 

continue. 

• All mounds would continue to be 

preserved. 

• Trails and other facilities (benches, signs, 

etc.) would continue to be maintained. 

• New trail signs would be installed where 

needed. 

• Visitor center and maintenance facilities 

would remain where they are. 

• Archeological inventory/evaluation of the 

monument would be completed and 

national register nominations updated. 

Heritage Addition 

• A long-term use and access plan for the 

Heritage Addition would not be 

developed. 

• The natural viewshed from Eagle Rock 

would be preserved through continued 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

restoration efforts aimed at restoring the 

landscape the moundbuilders might have 

seen. 

• Visitors would be able to experience the 

landscape of the Heritage Addition from 

overlooks located 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 Yellow River. No 

facilities would be provided and take-out 

would be discouraged in the monument. 

Visitor Center and Maintenance Area 

• The visitor center complex would be 

maintained and media upgraded as 

needed. 

• Preparations would continue to convert 

former housing to administrative use. 

• Maintenance activities and functions 

would stay where they are while actively 

adapting to the changing needs of 

resource and facility requirements. 

• Accessible boardwalk to mounds located 

between the Yellow River and State 

Highway 76 would be completed. 

• 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. 

• Wetland habitat interpretive programs 

would be offered as accessible 

opportunities for all visitors. 

• Crowding of the visitor center would 

continue when school groups are present, 

especially during inclement weather. 

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 signs, facilities, and benches would 

be maintained or upgraded as needs 

change and funding allows. 

• 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. 

• Interpretation would emphasize the 

sacred nature of the mounds and 

resources and would consider cultural 

resources (mounds) as symbols of the 

values, beliefs, and accomplishments of 

the moundbuilders. 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 small maintenance storage site in this 

unit would be maintained. 

South Unit 

• The 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 
Description of the Alternatives 

61 

new trails (other than the approved 

Yellow River Bridge Trail); existing trails 

could be realigned for resource protection 

or improved visitor experience. 

• Yellow River Bridge Trail would be 

connected to existing Marching Bear Trail 

as funding allows. 

• 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. Interpretation would 

continue to emphasize the sacred nature 

of the mounds and resources. 

Sny Magill Unit 

• Sny Magill would be primarily managed 

for preservation of the mounds with 

limited amenities for visitor use. 

• The existing chipped trail would continue 

to be maintained. 

• 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. 

• Vegetation and tree removal for the 

preservation of the mounds and riverbank 

stabilization would continue. 

• 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. 

Legend

Monument Boundary

HERITAGE ADDITION

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

North

ALTERNATIVE A

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / Aug 08 / 394 / 20,024C

NOTE:

Monument boundaries shown on all maps may not be 

exact due to the lack of an approved survey.

Sny Magill NOTE: Scale of Sny Magill area 

is larger than top map.

Description of the Alternatives 

65 

 ALTERNATIVE B – PREFERRED 

Concept 

Alternative B would provide an enhanced 

visitor experience with increased 

understanding of the monument while 

protecting and preserving natural and cultural 

resources. 

The monument would serve as a catalyst for 

mound research and management in the 

region. To accomplish this, there would be a 

multi-purpose center with a regional research 

facility built at the monument. An expanded 

role for maintenance and interpretive staff to 

work in cooperation with resource 

management to develop innovative 

management techniques would be 

encouraged. The desired visitor experience 

would be to make personal connections to the 

monument’s tangible resources through 

understanding of the significance of the (preEuropean 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 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. 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. 

The proposed multi-purpose center is 

intended to become a focal point for mound 

research. It would be a place where scholars 

and researchers could meet and hold 

symposia. It would become a central location 

for students and scholars of moundbuilding. 

This facility would be built to house the 

monument’s collections and archives, 

research space, and a library for park service 

and visiting researchers. A primary goal of the 

center would be to promote education, 

maintenance, and protection activities that 

would support mound stewardship 

throughout the four-state region. 

The center would also include administrative 

offices to eliminate cramped conditions in the 

current offices, education space to reduce 

crowding in the visitor center, and conference 

space for various uses. 

Education and interpretation of the natural 

resources of the park would be expanded. 

Physical access to and interpretation of the 

mounds in Sny Magill and the South Unit 

would improve. Due to the sacred and fragile 

nature of the Sny Magill mounds, a universally 

accessible trail and appropriate signs would be 

constructed to discourage visitors from 

walking on the mounds according to a site 

development plan prepared for this unit. This 

would also increase accessibility for all visitors 

to the mound group during flood season and 

other times when the ground is soft. 

Under the preferred 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 Preservation and Discovery Zones, visitors 

to the Heritage Area would be able to 

experience a walk on marked trails through 

natural, undeveloped landscapes and view 

some mounds in a more un-manipulated 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. 

Using the direction provided in this general 

management plan, specific location of the 

trails would be identified in a subsequent trail 

development or public access plan. There are 

various alternatives that would provide visitor 

access to the northern part of the Heritage 

Addition beginning at the visitor center area 

and other points. The trail development plan 

would explore and analyze potential options 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

that require a minimum of new trail 

construction. 

Visitor experiences throughout the 

monument would be primarily self-guiding on 

developed trails in a quiet, contemplative 

setting to maintain an atmosphere of respect 

toward the sacred nature of the monument. 

Zoning 

This alternative concept is reflected in the 

proposed zoning by placing the primary 

visitor trails and mound groups into the 

Preservation and Interpretation Zone. The 

use of Discovery zoning allows for some new 

trails to provide access to the Heritage 

Addition and 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 

owned by the National Park Service. If this 

tract is acquired, it would be managed in the 

Preservation and Interpretation Zone. 

Heritage Addition 

To preserve cultural and natural resources, 

the following actions would be taken: 

• A “no wake” restriction on the segment of 

the Yellow River that flows through the 

monument would be pursued; passthrough canoeing on the river would be 

allowed, but take-out would be prohibited 

in the monument to protect riverside 

resources. 

• Wild and Scenic River designation for the 

Yellow River would be pursued since it 

has been found to be suitable. 

• The National Park Service would seek 

county relinquishment or abandonment 

of the county road to facilitate use as a 

trail and for monument management 

needs. 

The following actions would be taken to 

enhance visitor experience opportunities: 

• Public trails would be provided in the 

Heritage Addition using the existing 

county road and appropriate logging 

roads. As mentioned above, some new 

trails could be constructed when 

necessary according to a trail development 

plan (see the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” section). 

Trails would be for pedestrian or 

occasional NPS vehicle use—no horses or 

public vehicles. 

• Wayside and bulletin board placement 

would be minimized; locations would be 

selected to carefully reflect the 

contemplative setting desired. Primary 

themes would deal with natural history, 

the moundbuilding cultures, and local 

history. Safety messages will be 

prominent. 

• 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. 

• A “no wake” restriction on the segment of 

the Yellow River that flows through the 

monument would be pursued to enhance 

experience opportunities. 

• River and aquatic biology educational 

programming could be offered utilizing 

the Yellow River and wetlands. 

Visitor Center and Maintenance Area 

To preserve cultural and natural resources, 

the following actions would be taken: 

• The monument’s museum collections and 

archives would be moved to a storage 

facility in the multi-purpose center that 

meets NPS curatorial standards. 

The following actions would be taken to 

enhance visitor experience opportunities: 
Description of the Alternatives 

67 

• Exhibit, museum, and bookstore space in 

the visitor center would be reconfigured. 

• An accessible boardwalk to the mounds 

located between the Yellow River and 

Highway 76 would be completed from the 

existing boardwalk to the Yellow River. 

• The visitor center landscaped area would 

be more established; planter beds would 

be planted with native vegetation and 

would be used as a natural resource 

interpretive tool. 

• Wetland habitat interpretive programs 

would be offered as accessible 

opportunities for all visitors. 

• Depth of information and interpretation 

content in the visitor center would 

increase and new technology would be 

used as it becomes available. 

The following actions would be for 

monument operations: 

• The former park housing units would be 

removed and the multi-purpose center 

would be built at that location. 

• Most administrative offices would be 

moved from the visitor center into the 

multi-purpose center building. 

North Unit 

To preserve cultural and natural resources, 

*the following actions would be taken: 

• 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 mound at Fire Point would be 

restored to its original dimensions after 

the trail has been moved. All work would 

be done according to Advisory Council 

Regulations, NPS Management Policies,

NPS 28 (Cultural Resources Management 

Guideline), and the Secretary of the 

Interior Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation. All 

work would be done in consultation with 

the Iowa state historic preservation office. 

• Existing trails could undergo minor 

realignment for resource protection 

purposes. 

The following actions would be taken to 

enhance visitor experience opportunities: 

• The existing trail at Fire Point would be 

removed and a new accessible trail and 

overlook would be provided for visitor 

safety and accessibility. 

• A trail into the prairie that connects with 

the Hanging Rock Trail would be built. 

Natural resource-based interpretation 

concerning the moundbuilders and early 

historic period environment would be 

expanded using prairie vegetation areas. 

• Visitors would be provided opportunities 

to experience the influence of the natural 

world on the moundbuilders through 

personal services such as guided hikes and 

talks, and nonpersonal media (trailside 

exhibits, printed materials, etc.). 

South Unit 

The following actions would be taken to 

enhance visitor experience opportunities: 

• The Yellow River Bridge Trail would 

connect to the existing Marching Bear 

Trail to provide safe access to this unit. 

• Visitors would be provided opportunities 

to experience the influence of the natural 

world on the moundbuilders through 

interpretation and contemplation. 

• Interpretation of mound preservation and 

the related 19th century American Indian 

cultural experience would be enhanced by 

interpreting the military trail and cistern. 

• Directional and educational signs would 

be added or improved to foster an 

appreciation of the moundbuilders. 

• Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation from the visitor center and 

trailside exhibits and have opportunities 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68 

to appreciate the related natural and 

cultural environment. 

• Visitors would be primarily on their own 

on well-developed trails and have minimal 

contact with monument staff or other 

visitors. 

The following actions would be for 

monument operations: 

• The South Unit entrance road would be 

rebuilt to address safe access for NPS 

personnel and equipment. 

• No new trail or road development (other 

than Yellow River bridge trail and South 

Unit access road) would occur; existing 

trails could be realigned for resource 

protection. 

Sny Magill Unit 

To preserve cultural and natural resources, 

the following actions would be taken: 

• River banks would be stabilized from 

erosion and selected trees may be 

removed from the mound group and 

adjacent area. 

• Boating on the Mississippi River adjacent 

to this unit would be monitored for use 

levels and resource impacts. 

The following actions would be taken to 

enhance visitor experience opportunities: 

• A visitor contact station would be opened 

to provide an NPS presence for resource 

protection and visitor services according 

to a development plan for this unit. The 

National Park Service would explore 

possible cooperative partnerships with 

other agencies such as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to provide personal and 

nonpersonal visitor services. 

• An accessible trail would be built for 

improved visitor access according to a site 

development plan (see “Future Studies 

and Implementation Plans Needed” 

section). 

• The public would continue to have access 

to the boat ramp and the Mississippi River 

for recreational activities. 

• Depending on the time of year, visitors 

would receive formal and informal 

personal services at the visitor station such 

as NPS-conducted educational programs, 

conducted interpretive demonstrations, 

talks, walks, and contacts with rangers. 

• 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.
Legend

Monument Boundary

Zone

Development

Preservation and Interpretation

Discovery

Sny Magill

North

NOTE: Scale of Sny Magill area 

is larger than top map.

ALTERNATIVE B

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / Feb 09 / 394 / 20,025E

76

76

X-56

Description of the Alternatives 

71 

 ALTERNATIVE C 

Concept 

Alternative C would emphasize the natural 

resource environment and its interconnectedness with cultural resources. It would also 

increase formal education and outreach 

programs. 

Natural viewsheds and soundscapes would be 

protected as much as feasible under this 

alternative. The inextricably linked cultural 

and natural resources would be managed to 

resemble the landscape associated with the 

moundbuilding era. This natural setting would 

provide a connection to the moundbuilding 

cultures and the environment that shaped 

their lives and beliefs. 

Education and interpretation of natural 

resources would be expanded in the 

monument and the region under this 

alternative. Programming would emphasize 

reaching a broader segment of the public than 

in the other alternatives, including improved 

accommodation of educational groups. The 

preservation emphasis would continue as it is 

today in the North, South, and Sny Magill 

units. Additional trail development would 

only be allowed in certain areas of the 

monument when necessary for visitor safety 

or resource protection. The natural viewshed 

of the Heritage Addition, as seen from Eagle 

Rock, would be preserved. 

The visitor experience in the Heritage 

Addition would be primarily self-directed 

resource observation by canoeing on the 

Yellow River, or by participating in periodic 

special ranger-led hiking and canoe tours; this 

would preserve not only the resources but 

also the sense of sacredness of the area. 

Visitor experiences throughout the remainder 

of the monument would be primarily selfguiding on developed trails in a quiet, 

contemplative setting to maintain an 

atmosphere of respect toward the sacred 

nature of the monument. 

Zoning 

This alternative concept is reflected in the 

proposed zoning by placing almost one-half of 

the monument in the Back Country Zone. 

This would maintain the natural character of 

the Heritage Addition and part of the Sny 

Magill unit. Primary mound groups and major 

visitor trails in the North, South, and Sny 

Magill units would be in the Preservation and 

Interpretation Zone to protect resources 

while allowing visitor access. 

While the Riverfront Tract is in the 

monument’s authorized boundary, it is not 

owned by the National Park Service. If this 

tract is acquired, it would be managed in the 

Preservation and Interpretation Zone. 

Heritage Area 

To protect cultural and natural resources, the 

following actions would be taken: 

• A “no wake” restriction on the segment of 

the Yellow River that flows through the 

monument would be pursued to protect 

riparian resources. Pass-through canoeing 

on the river would be allowed, but takeouts would be prohibited to protect the 

riverbanks. 

• Wild and Scenic River designation for the 

Yellow River would be pursued since it 

has been found to be suitable. 

The following actions would enhance visitor 

experience opportunities: 

• Maintenance of old roads as trails would 

be limited to those that may be required to 

protect and preserve the resources and 

facilitate maintenance or for occasional 

tours. The remaining old roads would be 

rehabilitated (re-contoured and seeded). 

Trails would be for pedestrian or 

occasional NPS vehicle use—no horses or 

public motorized vehicles. 

• Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation about this unit in the 

monument’s visitor center and North and 

South units (trailside exhibits, overlooks, 

printed materials, etc.). 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 

• Public access would include pass-through 

canoeing and occasional tours. While selfguided exploration into the unit would be 

allowed on the administrative trails, it 

would not be promoted due to lack of 

access and NPS presence. 

Visitor Center and Maintenance Area 

The following actions would enhance visitor 

experience opportunities: 

• Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation through personal services, 

exhibits, and multi-media presentations in 

the reconfigured visitor center. 

• Frequent special events would take place 

that do not jeopardize the contemplative 

nature of the nearby resource zone. 

• The depth of information/interpretation 

content would increase and new 

technology would be utilized. 

• An accessible boardwalk to the mounds 

located between the Yellow River and 

Highway 76 would be completed from the 

existing Yellow River boardwalk. 

The following actions would be for 

monument operations: 

• Several administrative offices would be 

moved out of the visitor center into the 

former park houses and the space in the 

visitor center would be used for an 

expanded museum/exhibits area and/or 

bookstore. 

North Unit 

To preserve cultural and natural resources, 

the following actions would be taken: 

• The National Park Service would pursue 

acquisition of the Riverfront Tract in the 

legislated boundary to protect cultural 

resources on the tract and would evaluate 

the sites for national register or national 

landmark status. 

• Existing trails could be realigned for 

resource protection. 

The following actions would enhance visitor 

experience opportunities: 

• Expanded trails into the prairie that 

connect with the Hanging Rock Trail 

would be provided. 

• The monument staff would offer 

interpretive programs using the prairies 

and emphasizing the relationship of the 

landscape to the moundbuilders 

environment. 

• Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation through personal services 

such as guided hikes and nonpersonal 

media (trailside exhibits, printed 

materials, etc.). 

• Visitors would be primarily on their own 

on well-developed trails, but would have 

frequent contact with monument staff or 

other visitors. 

South Unit 

The following actions would enhance visitor 

experience opportunities: 

• Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation at the visitor center and 

trailside exhibits and have opportunities 

to appreciate the related natural and 

cultural environment. 

• Yellow River Bridge Trail would be 

connected to the existing Marching Bear 

trail. 

• Interpretation of mound preservation and 

the related 19th century American Indian 

cultural experience would be enhanced by 

interpreting the military trail and cistern. 

• Visitors would be primarily on their own 

with minimal contact with monument 

staff or other visitors. 

The following actions would be for 

monument operations: 

• There would be no new trails (other than 

the bridge trail and South Unit access 

road), but existing trails could be 

realigned for resource protection. 
Description of the Alternatives 

73 

Sny Magill Unit 

To preserve cultural and natural resources, 

the following actions would be taken: 

• The riverbank would continue to be 

restored and stabilized to protect mounds 

from eroding. 

The following actions would enhance visitor 

experience opportunities: 

• The public would continue to have 

recreational use of the boat ramp and the 

Mississippi River. 

• Existing wood-chip surfaced trail would 

be maintained. 

• Native prairie vegetation areas would be 

used to expand natural resource-based 

interpretation concerning the 

moundbuilders and early historic period 

environment. 

• Visitors would receive information and 

interpretation through nonpersonal media 

obtained in the main unit visitor center or 

by an on-site bulletin board and would 

have opportunities to appreciate the 

natural and cultural heritage of the 

moundbuilders. Informal interpretation 

would be available via roving rangers 

during heavy visitation periods. 

• Visitors would be primarily on their own 

in this unit during most of the year. 

Legend

Monument Boundary

Zone

Backcountry

Development

Preservation and Interpretation

North

ALTERNATIVE C

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / Feb 09 / 394 / 20,025D

76

76

X-56

Sny Magill NOTE: Scale of Sny Magill area 

is larger than top map.

Description of the Alternatives 

77 

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 purpose of cost 

estimates is to assist managers with setting 

priorities and to inform the public. For 

comparison purposes, the planning team 

estimated the cost to implement each of the 

alternatives (Table 4). 

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, and 

should not be used for budgeting and 

project planning. 

• The costs presented 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 

represent the total costs of projects. 

Potential cost sharing opportunities 

with partners could reduce the overall 

costs (only if partners and potential 

costs savings are identified in the 

plan.) 

The NPS Facility Planning Model was run to 

determine the space needs for a multi-purpose 

center and a Sny Magill visitor contact station 

in Alternative B. 

Associated Costs: Alternative A – No Action 

Costs associated with implementing this 

alternative are on-going operations (base 

funding) and those items that are already 

funded or approved. Funded projects include 

replacement of the visitor center LCD 

projector, a flammable storage cabinet, 

upgrading security of buildings and parking 

areas, construction of trails to mounds both 

just above the Yellow River and in the South 

Unit, and recovering the cost of collection 

operations. The total funding requested for 

these projects is $1,310,000 (as of March 

2008). 

In addition to the above costs, periodic 

increases in base funding would be required to 

cover inflation and 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. 

Associated Costs: Alternative B – Preferred 

Alternative 

Cost estimates for this alternative include 

reconfiguration of the visitor center and 

construction of a research/administrative 

center at the current park headquarters, a 

visitor contact station and trail in the Sny 

Magill Unit, a bridge over Dousman Creek, 

and new trails in the Heritage Addition. 

Funding needs for additional building 

maintenance and operations costs are also 

included in this alternative. 

Non-facility costs in this alternative would 

include restoration of the mound at Fire 

Point, implementation of landscape 

restoration, other cultural and natural 

resource management actions, and funding 

for enhanced interpretation programs and 

materials at the main visitor center and Sny 

Magill. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 

Nine additional permanent staff positions 

would be recommended to fully implement 

the preferred alternative. One or more of the 

following positions would be needed: 

administrative/budget specialist, cultural 

resource specialist (center director), 

interpreter, maintenance worker, and law 

enforcement ranger. This increase in staffing 

would be necessary to have staff available at 

the visitor center and Sny Magill every day the 

park is open, and to conduct needed 

administrative and resource management 

duties. Although the cost estimates were made 

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 not be staffed 7 days a 

week or would be unstaffed during one or two 

winter months (when visitation is lowest). 

Associated Costs: Alternative C 

Cost estimates for this alternative include 

construction of a vehicle bridge over 

Dousman Creek, reconfiguration of the visitor 

center, some new trails, and conversion of 

housing units to office space. Funding needs 

for additional building maintenance and 

operations costs are also included in this 

alternative. 

Non-facility costs in this alternative would 

include implementation of landscape 

restoration, other cultural and natural 

resource management actions, and funding 

for enhanced education and outreach 

programs. 

Five full-time equivalent staff positions would 

be recommended to fully implement this 

alternative. One or more of the following 

positions would be needed: cultural resource 

specialist, interpreter, maintenance worker, 

and law enforcement ranger. This staffing 

increase would be necessary to have staff 

available at the visitor center desk every day 

the park is open and to conduct needed 

administrative, maintenance, and resource 

management duties. Although the cost 

estimates were made using full-time NPS 

employees, some of the work could be done 

by volunteers or cooperating association 

employees. 
Description of the Alternatives 

79 

Table 4: Estimated Costs of the Alternatives (in 2007 dollars) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

Annual Operating 

Costs1

$1,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,300,000 

Staffing (FTE2) 17 26 22 

One Time Costs 

Facility Costs3 $ 1,100,000 $ 8,300,000 $ 2,500,000 

Non-Facility Costs4 $ 210,000 $ 320,000 $ 265,000 

Total One Time 

Costs 

$ 1,310,000 $ 8,620,000 $ 2,765,000 

(1) Annual operating costs (ONPS) 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 employees required to maintain the assets of the park at a good 

level, provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and other support staff. 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. 

(4) Non-facility 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. 

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 NEPA (Section 101(b)). 

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, 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

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) would reuse the 

former park housing for offices. Since reusing 

something is an environmentally superior 

form of recycling, alternatives A and C would 

attain more recycling than under alternative B 

and fully meet criterion 6. However, 

alternative A 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 the following national environmental 

policy criteria as well the other alternatives: 

• attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation 

• preserve important natural aspects and 

maintain an environment that supports 

diversity and variety of individual choice 

• achieve a balance between population and 

resource use 

Alternative B would greatly expand visitor use 

opportunities and scientific inquiry at Effigy 

Mounds through the new research center, 

new trails, and the Sny Magill visitor contact 

station, thus providing for a wide range of 

neutral 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. 

Only alternative B provides safe access to 

unique aesthetic and cultural experiences in 

the Heritage Area (relatively more secluded 

and offering quiet hiking experiences that 

support visitors’ abilities to experience a sense 

of sacredness that A and C do not support to 

the same extent). 

Alternative C would 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, and enhancement of the resource 

education program, which would lead to longterm protection of the resources by instilling a 

stewardship ethic in young people (criteria 2, 

3, and 4). The range of visitor experience 

opportunities would not be as great in this 

alternative. Alternative C would reuse the 

former park housing for offices. Since reusing 

something is an environmentally superior 

form of recycling, alternatives A and C would 

attain more recycling than alternative B and 

would fully meet criterion 6. 

After consideration of the alternatives in this 

general management plan, the 

environmentally preferable alternative is the 

same as the NPS preferred alternative 

(alternative B). This alternative would more 

fully satisfy all the national environmental 

criteria than either alternative A or C. 

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.
Description of the Alternatives 

81 

Table 5: Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Criterion Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C 

1 Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

2 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Partially meets criterion 

3 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

4 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

5 Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion Partially meets criterion 

6 Fully meets criterion Partially meets criterion Fully meets criterion 

Conclusion Environmentally Preferable 

Alternative 
82 

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM 

DETAILED EVALUATION 

Early on in the alternative development 

process, the planning team created three 

alternatives schemes that each had a different 

area of emphasis: research, education, and 

visitor experience. It was then realized that the 

National Park Service should not emphasize 

only one area of operations or programming 

at the possible expense of other important 

programs. 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 a third 

action alternative that resembled alternative B, 

but the proposed research center would be 

operated with partners in a facility away from 

the monument or at Sny Magill. After analysis 

of this alternative in the Choosing by 

Advantages (CBA) workshop, the planning 

team decided that the disadvantages of having 

the research center away from the main 

operational area of the monument were too 

great, so this alternative was dismissed from 

further consideration. 
83 

MITIGATING 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 mitigating 

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 

(NEPA), 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 could be 

considered to stay within the parameters of 

NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act 

compliance documents, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Section 404 permits, etc. The 

compliance-monitoring program would 

oversee these mitigating measures and would 

include reporting protocols. 

The following mitigating measures and best 

management practices could be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

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. Mitigating 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. 

• Conduct archeological site monitoring 

and routine protection. Conduct data 

recovery excavations at archeological sites 

threatened with destruction, where 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

84 

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 as 

well as 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. Mitigating 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, 

employ speed limits on unpaved roads, 

minimize vegetation clearing, and 

revegetate after construction. 

Soil 

• 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 

Mitigation 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 area of the national 

monument affected, and 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. 

Mitigation 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. 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

85 

• 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, restrictions on 

visitor activities, and park ranger patrols. 

• Implement a natural resource protection 

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 food-related items or rubbish, topsoil 

salvage, and revegetation. This could 

include specific construction monitoring 

by resource specialists as well as treatment 

and reporting procedures. 

Wetlands 

• Wetlands are delineated by qualified NPS 

staff or certified wetlands specialists and 

clearly marked before construction work. 

Perform construction activities 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 construction equipment not be left 

idling any longer than necessary. 

Scenic Resources 

Mitigating measures designed to minimize 

visual intrusions include the following: 

• Where appropriate, use facilities such as 

boardwalks 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. 

• Provide vegetative screening where 

appropriate to hide intrusions into the 

natural scene. 
86 

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 (NEPA, 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. An 

ethnographic landscape study and other 

studies that may be appropriate also need to 

be completed. Tribal representatives should 

be among the study team members for any 

ethnographic studies. 

2. An ethnographic overview and assessment 

is needed to identify traditionally associated 

peoples, review and summarize existing data 

on people and resources associated with the 

park, and identify data gaps. The overview and 

assessment also would determine the presence 

or absence of “traditional cultural properties,” 

which are ethnographic properties in or 

determined eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

3. A resource stewardship strategy (RSS) is 

now required for all park units. The RSS 

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 RSS 

guides preparation of implementation plans 

such as a vegetation management plan, 

cultural resource management plan, exotic 

species control plan, and a fire management 

plan. 

4. A public access/trail development plan with 

environmental assessment would be prepared 

for the Discovery Zone under the preferred 

alternative using the direction provided in this 

general management plan. 

The following limitations would constrain all 

trail development in this zone: (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 management 

and law enforcement. (2) New trails would be 

minimally impacting and limited to those 

necessary to provide safe access to view 

resources or 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 bridge across the Yellow River 

that would connect to the logging road 

system in the northern part of the 

Heritage Addition from the south. 

Visitors would reach the bridge from the 

visitor center area by using the existing 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

87 

trail (the tunnel under the highway and 

the existing bridge across the Yellow 

River) and the county road. 

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. 

5. Future management of the Sny Magill Unit 

under the preferred alternative would require 

a site development plan with environmental 

assessment to analyze and decide among the 

following: 

• appropriate designs and locations for a 

visitor contact facility on the adjacent 

property should it 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. 

6. A business plan for the monument would be 

developed following completion of the 

general management plan. 
88 

SUMMARY TABLES 

Table 6: Summary of Alternatives 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Concept

Current management strategies 

and trends would continue under 

the no-action alternative. Projects 

that have been fully approved 

would be implemented. There 

would be no major changes to 

monument operations or visitor 

services other than those already in 

progress or approved. 

Alternative B would provide an 

enhanced visitor experience with 

increased understanding of the 

monument while protecting and 

preserving natural and cultural 

resources. The monument would 

serve as a catalyst for mound 

research and management in the 

region. There would be a regional 

research center in the multi-purpose 

facility at the monument and an 

expanded role for monument staff to 

develop innovative mound 

management techniques. 

Alternative C would emphasize 

the natural resource 

environment and its 

interconnectedness with the 

cultural resources. Formal 

education, outreach, and 

interpretation programs would 

be expanded in the monument 

and the region. 

Heritage Addition

A long-term use and access plan 

for the Heritage Addition would 

not be prepared. 

No trails maintained for public use. 

Public trails would be provided by 

utilizing the existing county road and 

old logging roads according to an 

access development plan. 

Pursue acquisition or abandonment 

of the county road to facilitate use as 

a public trail and for monument 

management needs. 

Pursue acquisition or 

abandonment of the county 

road to use for monument 

management needs. 

Maintenance of old roads as 

trails would be limited to those 

that may be required to protect 

and preserve the resources and 

to facilitate maintenance or for 

occasional tours. The remaining 

old roads would be 

rehabilitated (re-contoured and 

seeded). 

A “no wake” restriction on the 

segment of the Yellow River that 

flows through the monument would 

be pursued. 

Wild and Scenic River designation for 

the Yellow River would be pursued 

since it has been found to be 

suitable. 

Same as alternative B

Public activities would include 

boating and infrequent special 

hikes. While self-guided 

exploration in this unit would not 

be prohibited, it would not be 

promoted. Visitors would be able 

to experience the landscape of the 

Addition from overlooks located in 

Appropriate activities in the unit 

would include quiet, low impact, 

resource-based activities such as 

hiking, canoeing, and wildlife 

viewing. These would be self-guiding 

except for special tours. 

Public activities and access 

would include pass-through 

canoeing and occasional special 

tours. While self-guided 

exploration into the unit would 

be allowed on the 

administrative trails, it would 

not be promoted due to lack of 
Summary Tables 

89 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

the North and South units, and 

through infrequent ranger 

conducted hikes or tours. 

access and NPS presence. 

Visitors can receive information 

and interpretation on this unit at 

the visitor center on request. 

Visitors would receive information 

and orientation at the visitor center 

before accessing the Heritage 

Addition. 

Same as alternative A

Visitor Center and Maintenance Area

Visitor center complex maintained 

and media upgraded as needed. 

The visitor center would be 

reconfigured as follows: former 

administrative space in the visitor 

center would be used for expanded 

exhibit space; security measures 

would be employed to provide better 

protection for sensitive objects on 

display; and the bookstore space 

would be reconfigured. The 

audiovisual program would be 

updated. 

The former administrative office 

space in the visitor center 

would be used for an expanded 

exhibits area and the bookstore 

space would be reconfigured. 

The audiovisual program would 

be updated. 

Curatorial items would continue to 

be stored in the lower level of the 

visitor center. 

The monument’s museum collections 

and archives would be moved to a 

storage facility in the multi-purpose 

center that meets curatorial 

standards. 

Same as alternative A

Maintenance activities and 

functions would stay where they 

are while actively adapting to the 

changing needs of resource and 

facility requirements. 

Maintenance activities and functions 

would stay where they are while 

actively adapting to the changing 

needs of resource and facility 

requirements. 

The former park housing units would 

be removed and the multi-purpose 

center would be built at that 

location. 

Same as alternative A

Preparations would continue to 

convert former housing to 

administrative use. 

Most administrative offices would be 

moved from the visitor center into 

the multi-purpose building. 

Preparations would continue to 

convert former housing to 

administrative use. 

An accessible boardwalk to 

mounds located between the 

Yellow River and State Highway 76 

would be completed. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

90 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Visitors would receive significant 

formal and informal personal 

services at the visitor center, 

including educational programs, 

information and orientation, 

demonstrations, and ranger-guided 

hikes. Nonpersonal services at the 

visitor center would include 

informational and interpretive 

brochures, museum, educational 

bookstore and wayside exhibits, 

bulletin boards and audiovisual 

media to facilitate self- and rangerguided tours. 

Same as alternative A plus formal 

group programming will be 

enhanced by greater availability of 

group meeting spaces in the multipurpose center. 

Same as alternative A plus 

additional museum exhibits, 

visitor services, and educational 

programs in the reconfigured 

visitor center. 

North Unit

This unit would continue to be 

managed to accommodate the 

most visitor use of any unit with 

continued emphasis on resource 

protection and preservation. 

Pursue acquisition of village sites 

along Riverfront Tract and evaluate 

National Register/National Landmark 

status for these sites. 

The mound at Fire Point would be 

restored to its original dimensions 

after the trail has been moved. 

Enhanced preservation of 

village sites (FTD and Red House 

Landing). 

Trails, signs, facilities, and benches 

would be maintained or upgraded 

as needs change and funding 

allows. 

The existing trail at Fire Point would 

be removed and a new accessible 

trail and overlook would be provided 

after restoration of the mound. A 

trail into the prairie would be built 

that connect with the Hanging Rock 

Trail. 

Same as alternative A.

Existing trails could be realigned for 

resource protection. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

No new development would occur 

in this unit. 

Same as alternative A Same as alternative A
Summary Tables 

91 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation through 

personal services such as guided 

hikes and nonpersonal media 

(trailside exhibits, printed materials 

etc.) and would have opportunities 

to appreciate the related cultural 

environment in a quiet 

contemplative setting. 

Same as alternative A plus

interpretive programs would be 

offered on the prairies and 

emphasizing the relationship of the 

landscape to the moundbuilders 

environment. 

Same as alternative B.

South Unit

Trails improved for visitor access 

and safety while preserving 

mounds by relocating trails away 

from mound sites and changing 

substrate from gravel to wood 

chip. No new trails (other than the 

approved Yellow River Bridge Trail), 

but existing trails could be 

realigned for resource protection or 

improved visitor experience. 

Same as alternative A plus the 

entrance road to this unit would be 

rehabilitated to address safe access 

for NPS personnel and equipment. 

Same as alternative A.

Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation primarily 

through nonpersonal media 

(trailside exhibits, printed materials 

etc.) and would have opportunities 

to appreciate the related cultural 

environment in a quiet 

contemplative setting. 

Same as alternative A plus

interpretation of mound preservation 

and the related 19th century 

American Indian cultural experience 

would be enhanced by utilizing the 

military trail and cistern. 

Same as alternative B.

Visitors would be primarily on their 

own on existing trails with minimal 

contact with monument staff or 

other visitors. 

Intermittent special hikes 

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. 

Interpretation would emphasize 

the sacred nature of the mounds 

and resource. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Sny Magill Unit

Sny Magill would be primarily 

managed for preservation of the 

mounds, not for visitor 

convenience. 

The following actions would occur 

according to a site plan to be 

prepared: 

An accessible trail would be built for 

visitor access and natural resource 

protection. 

A visitor contact station would be 

constructed on adjacent property if it 

is acquired from a willing seller. 

Same as alternative A.

Restoration and stabilization efforts 

would continue to protect mounds 

from erosion along riverbank and 

by removing select trees from the 

mound group and adjacent area. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

The existing low impact woodchipped trail would continue to be 

maintained. 

An accessible trail would be built for 

visitor access and natural resource 

protection according to a site plan to 

be prepared. 

Same as alternative A

Visitors would receive information 

and interpretation on this unit 

primarily through the main unit 

visitor center and would have 

opportunities to appreciate the 

related cultural environment in a 

quiet contemplate setting. 

Visitors would receive significant 

formal and informal personal services 

at the visitor station during high 

visitation periods – such as 

educational programs, conducted 

interpretive events, and contacts with 

roving rangers. Non-personal services 

at the unit would include outdoor 

interpretive exhibits. 

Same as alternative A plus 

informal interpretation would 

be available via roving rangers 

during heavy visitation periods. 

There would continue to be very 

limited NPS presence in this unit. 

Visitors would be primarily on their 

own on developed trails and would 

expect little to no contact with 

monument staff or other visitors 

during their visit. 

Visitors would be primarily on their 

own on a developed walk but have 

moderate contact with monument 

staff or other visitors. 

Visitors would be primarily on 

their own on well-developed 

trails but could expect some 

contact with monument staff or 

other visitors most of the year. 

Native prairie vegetation areas would 

be used to expand natural resource 

based interpretation concerning the 

moundbuilder and early historic 

period environments. 

Same as alternative B.

The public would continue to have 

recreational use of the boat ramp 

and the Mississippi River. 

Same as alternative A plus boating 

on the Mississippi River adjacent to 

this unit would be monitored for use 

levels and resource impacts. 

Same as alternative B.
Summary Tables 

93 

Table 7: Summary of Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – 

Preferred 

Alternative C 

Impacts on Cultural Resources 

Impacts on 

Archeological 

Resources 

Alternative A would not 

result in loss or significant

damage to archeological 

resources. Appropriate 

measures would be taken 

to identify any such 

resources and determine 

the best course of action to 

protect them. The overall 

impact of alternative A 

would not be adverse. 

There would be no 

impairment of this 

resource. 

Alternative B would not 

result in loss or significant 

damage to archeological 

resources. The overall 

impact of alternative B is 

not expected to be 

adverse. This alternative 

would not result in 

impairment of this 

resource. 

Same al alternative B. 

Impacts on 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

All identified ethnographic 

resources would be 

preserved and protected. 

American Indians would 

continue to be able to 

access and utilize these 

resources. The overall 

impact of alternative A 

would not be adverse. 

There would be no 

impairment of this 

resource. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Impacts on 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Alternative A would not 

result in loss or significant 

damage to a cultural 

(ethnographic) landscape. 

Although trails construction 

and actions taken to 

preserve the integrity of the 

mounds could result in 

some inadvertent impact, 

the overall effect of this 

alternative would not be 

adverse. There would be no 

impairment of this 

resource. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – 

Preferred 

Alternative C 

Impacts on 

Museum 

Collections 

Alternative A would 

continue a generally 

beneficial program of 

collections preservation. 

However, accessibility of 

the collection would remain 

limited. The impact on the 

collections would be long 

term and negligible. There 

would be no impairment of 

this resource. 

Alternative B would 

continue a generally 

beneficial program of 

collections preservation. 

Accessibility of the 

collection would be greatly 

expanded. The long-term 

impact on the collections 

would be negligible but 

the ability to utilize the 

collections by scholars 

would be long term, 

major, and beneficial. This 

alternative would not 

result in impairment of this 

resource. 

Alternative C would 

continue a generally 

beneficial program of 

collections preservation. 

Accessibility of the 

collection would continue 

to be limited. The impact 

on the collections would 

be long term and 

negligible. There would 

be no impairment of this 

resource. 

Impacts on Natural Resources 

Impacts on Soil 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. Because 

there would be no 

moderate or major adverse 

impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource 

as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

Alternative B 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. 

Because there would be 

no moderate or major 

adverse impacts, there 

would be no impairment 

of this resource as a result 

of implementing this 

alternative. 

Alternative C would have 

short-term minor adverse 

impacts and long-term 

minor adverse impacts to 

soil resources in the 

monument It would result 

in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Because there would be 

no moderate or major 

adverse impacts, there 

would be no impairment 

of this resource as a result 

of implementing this 

alternative. 

Impacts on 

Wild and 

Scenic Rivers 

Alternative A would have 

no effect on the Yellow 

River’s Wild and Scenic 

River values or suitability. 

Because this alternative 

would have no effect, there 

would be no projectrelated cumulative effects 

and no impairment of this 

resource. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 
Summary Tables 

95 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – 

Preferred 

Alternative C 

Impacts on 

Vegetation 

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. Because 

there would be no 

moderate or major adverse 

impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource 

as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

Implementing the 

preferred alternative 

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. 

Because there would be 

no moderate or major 

adverse impacts, there 

would be no impairment 

of this resource as a result 

of implementing this 

alternative. 

Implementing alternative 

C would have short-term 

and long-term minor 

adverse impacts to 

vegetation in the 

monument. It would 

result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Because there would be 

no moderate or major 

adverse impacts, there 

would be no impairment 

of this resource as a result 

of implementing this 

alternative. 

Impacts on Fish 

and 

Wildlife

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. 

Because there would be no 

moderate or major adverse 

impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource 

as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

96 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – 

Preferred 

Alternative C 

Impacts on 

Special Status 

Species 

If implemented, alternative 

A 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. 

No impairment of these 

species would result from 

implementing this 

alternative. 

If implemented, the 

preferred alternative may 

effect, 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. No 

impairment of these 

species would result from 

implementing this 

alternative. 

Same as alternative B 

Impacts on 

Visual 

Resources/ 

Viewsheds 

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. Implementing this 

alternative would not result 

in impairment of this 

resource. 

Implementing the 

preferred alternative 

would have short-term 

and long-term minor 

adverse impacts on visual 

resources in the 

monument. Cumulative 

effects would be minor 

and adverse. Implementing 

this alternative would not 

result in impairment of this 

resource. 

Alternative C would have 

a short-term and longterm minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on visual 

resources in the 

monument. Cumulative 

effects would be minor 

and adverse. 

Implementing this 

alternative would not 

result in impairment of 

this resource. 
Summary Tables 

97 

Alternative A – 

No Action 

Alternative B – 

Preferred 

Alternative C 

Other Impacts

Impacts on 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

The no-action alternative 

would result in the 

continuation of long-term 

minor to moderate adverse 

impacts and minor 

beneficial impacts to 

aspects of visitor use and 

experience but would not 

result in any new impacts. 

Because actions proposed 

in this alternative would 

have no new effects on 

visitor use and experience, 

there would be no projectrelated cumulative impacts. 

Implementing alternative B 

would result in moderate 

long-term beneficial 

impacts on the visitor 

experience. The overall 

cumulative impacts would 

be long-term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Implementing alternative 

C would result in minor 

to moderate long-term 

beneficial impacts on the 

visitor experience. The 

overall cumulative 

impacts would be longterm, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Impacts on the 

Socioeconomic 

Environment 

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. 

Implementing the 

preferred alternative 

would have short-term 

moderate and long-term 

moderate beneficial 

economic impacts in the 

region. The overall 

cumulative effects would 

be minor and beneficial. 

Implementing the 

alternative C would have 

a short-term and longterm minor beneficial 

economic impact in the 

region. The overall 

cumulative effects would 

be minor and beneficial. 

Impacts on 

Monument 

Operations and 

Facilities 

The no-action alternative, if 

implemented, would cause 

no new impacts on 

monument operations and 

facilities but result in the 

continuation of long-term 

minor adverse impacts. The 

overall cumulative effect 

would be minor and 

adverse. 

Implementing the 

preferred alternative 

would result in short-term 

moderate adverse impacts, 

long-term minor adverse 

impacts, and long-term 

minor beneficial impacts 

on monument operations 

and facilities. Cumulative 

effects would be neutral. 

Implementing alternative 

C would result in shortterm minor to moderate 

adverse impacts, longterm minor adverse 

impacts, and long-term 

minor beneficial impacts 

on monument operations 

and facilities. Cumulative 

effects would be minor 

and adverse. 



101 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

This chapter describes the existing 

environment at Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. Its purpose is to provide 

background information for analyzing the 

potential environmental effects that would be 

anticipated to occur from implementation of 

the alternatives. It is focused only on the park 

resources, uses, facilities, and socioeconomic 

characteristics that have the potential to be 

affected by one or more of the alternatives. 

Effigy Mounds National Monument was 

legislatively authorized by Presidential 

Proclamation 2860 on October 25, 1949. The 

monument currently comprises a total of 

2,526 acres in northeastern Iowa. 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 figure 1). 

North Unit 

The monument's headquarters, maintenance 

facility, and visitor center are located in the 

North Unit. Trails allow visitors to view the 

mounds and scenic views on self-guided walks 

ranging from a few feet to 7 miles. Wayside 

exhibits along the trails provide interpretive 

messages. Ranger-guided 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 DNR 

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

the Marching Bear Group from the Iowa DNR 

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 5 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 percent. Most access to this unit currently 

requires crossing private land. Abandoned 

logging roads can be used as foot trails. There 

are five known mounds, three historic sites, 

the Yellow River, Dousman Creek, and an 

abundance of natural resources in this unit. 

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 DNR 

maintains a boat ramp, parking area, and 

access road in the unit. With over 100 mounds 

identified in the unit, Sny Magill contains 

50 percent of the total mounds in the 

monument. It is also the highest concentration 

of mounds known in the region. A foot 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.
102 

CULTURAL RESOURCE TOPICS 

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—following inclusion of the Heritage 

Addition in the park and following further 

scientific research—has been submitted. 

A historic resources study describing the 

resources of the national monument was 

completed in 2003. It provided syntheses of 

site history, site archeology, made 

recommendations for future research, 

updated the National Register of Historic 

Places nomination form, and provided an 

exhaustive bibliography of site history and 

archeology. 

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. 

The Jefferson Davis Sawmill site partially 

within the monument boundary is listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places. Because 

of the nature of the remains, it is being treated 

in this plan as an archeological resource rather 

than as a historic structure. 

All mounds are also listed on the State of Iowa 

archeological sites inventory. 

Other resources, such as the remains of 

farmsteads, a schoolhouse, rock shelters, and 

Indian village sites are also known to be within 

the boundaries of the national monument but 

have not been inventoried or studied. 

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 1250 

AD, and the period of settlement/Indian 

removal (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. 
Cultural Resource Topics 

103

ARCHEOLOGY 

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. 

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. 

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 Paleo-Indians are 

virtually indistinguishable from similar items 

created later, so the relationship with the two 

point types or ancient soil is particularly 

important to the identification of their 

presence. These people made use of whatever 

plant and animal food they could harvest 

seasonally. They lived in small, probably 

family, groups and their total number would 

have been small. Despite their hunting skills, 

life would have been very difficult and the 

search for food, preparation of hides, and 

making of weapons would have been nearly all 

consuming. Some evidence of their existence 

has been identified in Allamakee and Clayton 

County, 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 Paleo-Indian period gave way 

to a variety of point types during the Archaic. 

With greater success in procuring food, the 

Archaic peoples were able to spend more time 

in a 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 - 1250 AD). 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. 

Archeological research indicates a time span 

of approximately 1,800 years of mound 

building. Generally speaking, this would have 

occurred 500 BC - 1250 AD 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 1250 AD the mound 

building stopped; whether as a result of 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

104

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. Largescale 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” (see 

Lenzendorf in the Selected References” 

section of this document.) 

HISTORY 

The first recognized European explorers of 

the area around Effigy Mounds were the 

French. Louis Joliet and Father Jacques 

Marquette reached the mouth of the 

Wisconsin River in 1673. Soon French fur 

trappers and traders were traveling up and 

down the Mississippi River trading with the 

Indians and establishing trading posts. The fur 

trade eventually grew into an important part 

of the international economy involving 

European fashion, conflict among European 

powers, delicate relationships between 

American Indian tribes and European and 

American traders, and a complex 

transportation network. 

The first documented settlement within the 

national monument was established in 1738 

when a French fur trader built a short-lived 

“fort” at the mouth of Sny Magill Creek. No 

research has been undertaken to determine 

what remains of the settlement. 

Following the Treaty of Paris in 1763 the 

French presence in North America ended. Fur 

trading along this stretch of the Mississippi 

centered at present day Prairie du Chien 

which functioned as a collection point for furs 

brought out of the region and then traded for 

goods brought in from Canada. Its strategic 

location just above the mouth of the 

Wisconsin River on a wide floodplain made it 

both ideal for commerce with the Indians and 

militarily significant. 

By some accounts, a large Indian village 

existed across the Mississippi River from 

Prairie du Chien where Indians from up and 

down the river came to trade their furs. Its 

likely location would have been the site of 

present day Marquette outside the national 

monument. Farther north, at the mouth of the 

Yellow River within Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, may have been the winter 

quarters of a number of fur traders. 

Archeological survey and testing would be 

necessary to verify whether anything remains 

of these quarters. A likely location would be 

the site of the Nezekaw Terrace, east of the 

visitor center. 

The ceding of Louisiana from the Spanish to 

the French and the subsequent Louisiana 

Purchase in 1803 opened Iowa to exploration 

and settlement. Shortly thereafter, changing 
Cultural Resource Topics 

105

fashion in Europe resulted in the collapse of 

the fur trade. As the era of the fur trade ended, 

the period of westward expansion and 

settlement began. 

Protection of American interests within the 

Louisiana Purchase, arrival of settlers, and the 

perceived need to enforce treaties with the 

Indians, resulted in construction of a 

protective military base of operations in the 

region. Fort Crawford, built in Prairie du 

Chien about 1816, abandoned 1826, rebuilt 

1829, and finally decommissioned in 1849, 

played a central role in the settlement of the 

region and, later, removal of the Indians. 

To provide wood for construction of the 

second Fort Crawford, a sawmill was built on 

the Yellow River in Iowa, now within the 

national monument. Popularly known as the 

“Jefferson Davis Sawmill” for the man who 

superintended the construction and later 

became President of the Confederacy, the mill 

also provided construction materials for the 

Yellow River Mission School (1834-40), 

before the mill was decommissioned. The 

remains of the mill are partially within the 

Heritage Addition of the monument but have 

not been thoroughly evaluated. 

Tensions between the Winnebago and Sioux 

increased during the 1830s. Fort Crawford 

proved too distant to provide a deterrent to 

the constant skirmishes, so a new fort farther 

west, Fort Atkinson, was constructed. A new 

military road from the river facilitated the 

fort’s construction and made communications 

between the forts possible. Then, as settlers 

moved into Iowa in ever larger numbers, 

conflict with the Indians increased. The 

Winnebago were forced onto a reservation 

farther west, and both forts became obsolete 

and were decommissioned in 1850. The 

military road, still visible, crosses through the 

south unit of the national monument. 

The last half of the 19th century saw the rise of 

interest in the Indian mounds that dotted the 

countryside of portions of Wisconsin, Iowa, 

Illinois, and Minnesota. Speculation about the 

mounds and their origins led to excavation of 

countless mounds and eventually to the first 

scientific research into their origins. This 

work coincided with the development of the 

discipline of archeology in America. 

Beginning with the work of Richard C. Taylor 

around 1838, scientific journals and popular 

articles reported on the systematic mapping 

and description of various mound groups. 

E.G. Squier and E.H. Davis published Ancient 

Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, describing 

their extensive study of mounds in the Upper 

Mississippi valley. Alfred J. Hill and Theodore 

H. Lewis formed the Northwestern 

Archeological Survey to identify and map as 

many of the mounds as they could. It was the 

same Theodore Lewis who first mapped many 

of the mounds within Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. 

Between 1900 and his death in 1951, Ellison 

Orr surveyed and excavated many mounds 

and archeological sites throughout 

northeastern Iowa. Although untrained, Mr. 

Orr was a keen observer and kept copious 

notes on what he found. Upon retirement and 

well into his 70s, Mr. Orr started a second 

career as a professional archeologist working 

for the Archeological Survey of the State of 

Iowa with funds from the Federal Emergency 

Relief Act and Works Progress Administration. His pioneering work resulted in a 

compilation of data still valuable today for 

understanding the mounds. Moreover, his 

collection of artifacts and manuscripts became 

the basis for the collections at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. It was largely as a result 

of his work that Effigy Mounds National 

Monument was created on October 25, 1949. 

As early as 1915 a movement to create a 

Mississippi River National Park along the 

Mississippi River, including what is today the 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, was 

begun. The park was seen as part of the larger 

movement to create parks for recreation and 

enjoyment by the people. Preservation of the 

mounds was only one facet, along with that of 

preservation of historic properties, scenery, 

and wildlife. The national park idea was 

significantly affected by the 1924 passage of 

the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge Act that established a refuge 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

106

of more than 200,000 acres along the river and 

a 1932 National Park Service evaluation that 

determined a national park along the river was 

not necessary. However, the National Park 

Service study did note the desirability of a 

national monument to protect a large sample 

of effigy mounds. The local interests quickly 

began to assemble properties, and over the 

next two decades put together what became 

the Effigy Mounds National Monument by 

Presidential Proclamation in 1949. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

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 specific resources 

within the national monument meet the 

definition. 

Effigy Mounds National Monument has a 

longstanding connection with a number of 

American Indian groups (see the list of 

affiliated 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) and the “Recommendations to 

NAGPRA Summary and NAGPRA Inventory, 

Effigy Mounds National Monument” 

(Henning 1998) the national monument has 

consulted with traditionally associated users 

to identify those objects considered to be 
Cultural Resource Topics 

107

sacred or of cultural patrimony and to identify 

proper disposition of those objects. Human 

remains and funerary objects have also been 

identified and removed from the collections 

so that a determination regarding their 

repatriation can be undertaken. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

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. 

Two landscapes have been formally defined. 

The northern landscape encompasses all of 

the North, South, and Heritage units of the 

national monument (NPS 2007a). The 

southern landscape encompasses the Sny 

Magill unit (NPS 2007b). Both are categorized 

as “historic site” for their association with an 

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 

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 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

108

excavations conducted within Effigy Mounds 

National Monument but are significant for 

comparison with collections gathered within 

the park 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 the interpretive 

program, 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 collection storage meets 

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.
109 

NATURAL RESOURCE TOPICS 

Effectively managing and interpreting the 

primary cultural resources for which the 

monument was established requires an 

understanding of the evolution of the physical 

landscape throughout the monument. 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 is found in Table 8. 

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 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

110

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. 

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 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 

RMP 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 pre-settlement 
Natural Resource Topics 

111

ecological remnants. The greatest potential for 

the existence of federally listed 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 

Negative 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 non-native 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. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

The Yellow River is listed in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory. Units of the National Park 

System that contain river segments listed in 

the Nationwide Rivers Inventory must 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. 

The inventory study that placed the river on 

the Nationwide Rivers Inventory found the 

Yellow River to be free flowing and possess 

the following Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values: Scenery, Recreation, Geology, 

Wildlife, History, and Culture. 

Included in this general management plan is 

an assessment to determine if the Yellow 

River is eligible and suitable for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

(Appendix D). The assessment covers the 

3.5-mile segment that is within the boundaries 

of the monument. 

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 USFWS 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 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

112

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 

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, pickerel, 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 
Natural Resource Topics 

113

likelihood of rattlesnakes once again 

colonizing secluded bluff tops. 

Mammals 

The Mississippi River, Yellow River, and 

adjacent wetlands provide the preferred 

habitat of many small mammals. Chipmunks, 

squirrels, beaver, muskrat, river otter, and 

mink occupy the quiet sloughs and river 

edges. Occasional sightings of gray fox 

(Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and coyote (Canis 

latrans) have been reported. Whitetail deer 

and red fox inhabit the floodplain and upland 

forests. Recently, an unnatural increase in 

population density of whitetail deer has been 

reported in the area. 

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 

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); MarquetteMcGregor 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 north-facing 

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. 

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 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

114

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 USFWS, 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 

RMP 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 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 
Natural Resource Topics 

115

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. 
116 

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 16 affiliated 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, disabled accessible, wetlands trail 

adjacent to the visitor center. For those with a 

little more time, rangers recommend the 

steep, 2-mile-long trail loop, 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. 

Special events and activities are available 

throughout the year and include special 

ranger-led programs, bird walks, living history 
Visitor Use and Understanding 

117

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 parkrelated 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-of-area 

visitors on a recurring basis. Approximately 

40% of visitation happens in the summer, with 

the majority of winter visitation occurring 

during the annual winter film festival. 

Subjectively, visitation patterns appear to be 

changing with the busiest month no longer 

being October, but occurring toward the end 

of summer. The monument does attract a 

number of international visitors as well. 

Prior to 2004, Sny Magill visitation was not 

recorded in annual statistics, which partially 

accounts for the jump in recreational 

visitation from 2004 forward (Table 9). 

Table 9: Effigy Mounds Visits 

Year Recreational 

Visits 

Visitor 

Center 

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

118

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 movie, and enjoy the exhibits. In 

addition to these interpretive experiences, 

visitors are also given orientation and 

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 self-sufficient. 

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. 

Because it is a navigable river, the State of 

Iowa has some management authority for the 

water and its use. 
Visitor Use and Understanding 

119

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. 

A place along the river near highway 76 has 

been used as an unauthorized canoe take-out 

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. Another 

consideration is that part of the take-out 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. 
120 

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 percent 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. The Assistant 

Secretary of the Interior for Parks and 

Wildlife, Lyle Laverty, has made it a priority 

for the NPS to entice America’s youth back 

into the parks (comments made to the Denver 

Service Center on November 29, 2007). 

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 in 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 percent in the past 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 percent in the past 15 years (1990-2005). 

The State of Iowa experienced an increase of 

6.8 percent 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 
Socioeconomic Environment 

121

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 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 percent in the 

past 15 years (1990-2005). The State of 

Wisconsin experienced an increase of 

12.8 percent in population over the same 

period. The average number of persons per 

square mile 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, ninety-three percent of visitors were on 

day trips and seven percent 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 each party of visitors spent in 

the vicinity). 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 tourismrelated 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

122 

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 
123 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

The staff is responsible for managing the 

cultural and natural resources on 2,526 acres 

of NPS land as well as 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 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument to 

provide interpretation and education, 

resource management, administration, facility 

management, and law enforcement at the four 

units. 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. Administrative staff 

keep everything running and track the budget. 

One less than full time law enforcement 

ranger provides needed law enforcement. 

Permanent and seasonal natural resource staff 

perfume resource restoration actions and well 

as conduct monitoring of sensitive resources. 

All units are open for day use only although 

not physically closed at night. There is 

currently one part-time commissioned law 

enforcement ranger on staff. 

In addition to the visitor center/ 

administration building, there are access 

roads, a maintenance facility, paved parking 

lot, boardwalks, soft-surfaced trails, former 

employee residences (now used as storage), 

and utilities that NPS staff are responsible for 

maintaining. 

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 also 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 NPS presence here or even 

much indication that it is an NPS unit. 

One operational concern is the presence of 

radon in the basement of the headquarters 

building. Radon is a naturally occurring gas 

that can increase humans’ risk of lung cancer 

at certain exposure levels. This gas has been 

measured at 8 picocuries/liter in a basement 

working area, well above the level of 4 or 

below that is considered safe for constant 

exposure. 



127 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires that environmental 

documents discuss the environmental impacts 

of a proposed federal action, feasible 

alternatives to that action, and any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided 

if a proposed action is implemented. In this 

case the proposed federal action would be 

adoption of a general management plan 

(GMP) for Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. The following portion of this 

document analyzes the environmental impacts 

of implementing the alternatives on cultural 

resources, natural resources, the visitor 

experience, the socioeconomic environment, 

and monument operations. The analysis is the 

basis for comparing the beneficial and adverse 

effects of implementing the alternatives. 

Because of the often general, conceptual 

nature of the actions described in the 

alternatives, 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 

subsequent to this general management plan, 

appropriate detailed environmental and 

cultural compliance documentation will be 

prepared in accord with NEPA and National 

Historic Preservation Act requirements. 

Impact analysis discussions are organized by 

impact topic and then by alternative under 

each impact topic. Each topic discussion 

begins with a description of the methods and 

assumptions used for analysis. 

Each impact topic discussion also describes 

cumulative impacts and presents a conclusion. 

At the end of this section there is a brief 

discussion of 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 

energy requirements and conservation 

potential. The impacts of each alternative are 

briefly summarized in table 6, at the end of 

“Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative.” 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are incremental 

impacts of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other action. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

other projects within and surrounding Effigy 

Mounds National Monument were identified. 

Projects were identified by discussions with 

the park, 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 are evaluated in conjunction 

with the impacts of each alternative to 

determine if they have any cumulative effects 

on a particular natural, cultural, or 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

128 

socioeconomic resource or visitor use. For 

those cumulative actions that are in the early 

planning stages, the qualitative evaluation of 

cumulative impacts was based on a general 

description of the project. 

Past Actions 

Designation of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument in 1949 and expansion of the 

monument in 1961 and 2000 set aside over 

2500 acres for protection of the Indian 

mounds, associated natural resources, and 

historic sites. Many mound groups outside the 

monument boundaries have been destroyed 

by agricultural practices and other types of 

land uses. 

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 multi-state 

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 and would 

offer Effigy Mounds National Monument as 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. Of particular concern is the 

possible change in land use on the private land 

adjoining the South Unit where mounds lie 

very close to the boundary. If implemented, a 

proposal to bring coal by train from Wyoming 

to regional power plants would add up to 27 

120-car trains per week on the tracks adjacent 

to the monument’s eastern boundary. 

A trend that has affected most units of the 

National Park Service in the past several years 

is the decrease in visitation. Of particular note 

is the apparent decrease in interest by the 

nation’s young people. The Assistant 

Secretary of the Interior for Parks and 

Wildlife, Lyle Laverty, has made it a priority 

for the NPS to reverse this trend and entice 

America’s youth back into the parks 

(comments made to the Denver Service 

Center on November 29, 2007). 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL 

MONUMENT RESOURCES AND 

UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

and other alternatives, NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (§1.4) requires analysis of 

potential effects to determine whether or not 

proposed actions would impair a park’s 

resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

park resources and values. NPS managers 

must always seek ways to avoid, or to 

minimize to the greatest degree practicable, 

adverse impacts on park resources and values. 

However, the laws do give the National Park 

Service the management discretion to allow 

impacts on park resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of the park, as long as the impact 

does not constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. Although Congress has 

given the National Park Service management 

discretion to allow certain impacts within a 

park, that discretion is limited by the statutory 

requirement that the National Park Service 

must leave resources and values unimpaired 
Introduction 

129

unless a particular law directly and specifically 

provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, 

in the professional judgment of a responsible 

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of 

monument resources or values, including the 

opportunities that otherwise would be present 

for the enjoyment of those resources or values 

(NPS Management Policies 2006). An impact 

on any park resource or value may, but does 

not necessarily, constitute impairment. An 

impact would be more likely to constitute 

impairment to the extent that it affects a 

resource or value whose conservation is: 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the park, or 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the park, or 

• identified in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents as being of 

significance. 

Impairment may result from visitor activities; 

NPS administrative activities; or activities 

undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, 

and others operating in the park. Impairment 

may also result from sources or activities 

outside the park. A determination on 

impairment is made in the “Environmental 

Consequences” section in the conclusion 

section for each required impact topic related 

to the park’s resources and values. 

An evaluation of impairment is not required 

for some impact topics, including visitor 

experience (unless the impact is resource 

based), NPS operations, or the socioeconomic 

environment. When it is determined that an 

action(s) would have a moderate to major 

adverse effect, a justification for 

nonimpairment is made. Impacts of only 

negligible or minor intensity would, by 

definition, not result in impairment. 

The National Park Service also considers 

whether a proposed action would cause an 

“unacceptable impact,” which Management 

Policies 2006 describes as “impacts that fall 

short of impairment, but are still not 

acceptable within a particular park’s 

environment.” 

Should there be an adverse effect on the 

park’s resources or values, the decision maker 

considers the severity, duration, and timing of 

the impact; the direct and indirect effects of 

the impact; and the cumulative effects of the 

impact in question. Criteria from section 

1.4.7.1 of Management Policies would be 

applied to all minor, moderate, and major 

impacts to determine if an impact is 

unacceptable. Decision makers considered 

these criteria from §1.4.7.1 and §8.2: Would 

any of the impacts individually or 

cumulatively: 

• be inconsistent with a park’s purposes or 

values, or impede the attainment of a 

park’s desired future conditions for 

natural and cultural resources as identified 

through the park’s planning process, or 

• create an unsafe or unhealthful 

environment for visitors or employees, or 

• diminish opportunities for current or 

future generations to enjoy, learn about, 

or be inspired by park resources or values, 

or 

• unreasonably interfere with 

- park programs or activities, or 

- an appropriate use, or 

- the atmosphere of peace and 

tranquility, or the natural soundscape 

maintained in wilderness and natural, 

historic, or commemorative locations 

within the park. 

- NPS concessioner or contractor 

operations or services. 
130 

IMPACT ANALYSES 

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and conclusions in this chapter primarily on 

the review of existing literature and studies, 

information provided by experts in the 

National Park Service, and other agencies and 

NPS staff insights and professional judgment. 

The team’s method of analyzing impacts is 

further explained below. It is important to 

remember that all the impacts have been 

assessed assuming mitigating measures would 

be implemented to minimize or avoid impacts. 

If mitigating measures described in the 

“Alternatives Including the Preferred 

Alternative” section were not applied, the 

potential for resource impacts and the 

magnitude of those impacts would increase. 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making presents an approach to identifying 

the duration (short or long term), type 

(adverse or beneficial), and intensity or 

magnitude (e.g., negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major) of the impact(s), and that approach 

has been used for all topics except cultural 

resources in this document. Direct and 

indirect effects caused by an action were 

considered in the analysis. Direct effects are 

caused by an action and occur at the same 

time and place as the action. Indirect effects 

are caused by the action and occur later in 

time or farther removed from the place, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. 

The impacts of the action alternatives describe 

the difference between implementing the noaction alternative and implementing the 

action alternatives. To understand a complete 

“picture” of the impacts of implementing any 

of the action alternatives, the reader must also 

take into consideration the impacts that 

would occur under the no-action alternative. 

SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 

1966, AS AMENDED, AND IMPACTS TO 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In this general management plan, impacts on 

cultural resources will be described according 

to the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation “Regulations for the Protection 

of Historic and Cultural Properties.” (36 CFR 

800 implementing Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 USC 470(f)) in addition to the analysis 

described above for NEPA (see Director’s 

Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making). 

Section 106 requires federal agency officials to 

take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties, and to 

afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to 

comment. 

Unlike analyses under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, under the Section 

106 process, an “effect” is defined as “an 

alteration to the characteristics of a historic 

property qualifying it for inclusion in or 

eligibility for the National Register “ (36 CFR 

800.16i). According to the criteria of “adverse 

effect” in the regulations (36 CFR 800.5 

(a)(1)), 

An adverse effect is found when an 

undertaking may alter, directly or 

indirectly, any of the characteristics of a 

historic property that qualify the property 

for inclusion in the National Register in a 

manner that would diminish the integrity 

of the property’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. 
Impact Analyses 

131

The regulations further specify that 

Consideration shall be given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic 

property, including those that may have 

been identified subsequent to the original 

evaluation of the property’s eligibility for 

the National Register. Adverse effects may 

include reasonably foreseeable effects 

caused by the undertaking that may occur 

later in time, be farther removed in 

distance, or be cumulative. 

The federal agency official consults with the 

state historic preservation officer and other 

consulting parties (possibly including the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) 

regarding measures to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to a historic property. 

These agreed-upon measures are 

memorialized in a memorandum of agreement 

that is signed by the agency, the state historic 

preservation officer, and other consulting 

parties. 

The Advisory Council regulations do not 

specify thresholds for effects and do not 

recognize adverse versus beneficial effects. 

Effects are determined relative to the 

character-defining features of the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed or 

eligible property—36 CFR 800 does not define 

what constitutes mitigation, but it provides a 

process for determining appropriate 

mitigation in consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer and other parties. 

Cultural resources, including historic 

properties, are nonrenewable. Adverse effects 

generally consume, diminish, or destroy the 

original historic materials or form, resulting in 

a loss of integrity of the property that can 

never be recovered. Therefore, although 

actions to mitigate the adverse effect may be 

carried out in compliance with Section 96, the 

effect on a historic property remains adverse. 

A determination of no adverse effect means 

there is an effect, but the effect would not 

meet the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 

800.5(b)). 

The impact analyses in this general 

management plan are for the purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. They are 

intended to assist the National Park Service 

with coordinating its compliance with this act 

and with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The 

National Park Service will comply with 

Section 106 in accordance with 36 CFR 800 as 

it continues land and resource planning and 

refines its management potions with 

alternatives analyses and specific proposals 

for individual properties. As is required under 

36 CFR 800, the National Park Service will 

consult with the Iowa state historic 

preservation officer and other consulting 

parties to determine areas of potential effects; 

to identify cultural resources and evaluate 

their National Register of Historic Places 

eligibility; to determine effects on historic 

properties; and to develop measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on 

historic properties. Measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects would be 

outlined in a memorandum of agreement (or 

programmatic agreement). A Section 106 

summary is included for each of the cultural 

resource topics discussed. 

NEPA METHODOLOGY FOR 

ASSESSING IMPACTS—CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

Potential impacts (direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects) are described in terms of 

type, context (are the effects site-specific, 

local, or regional), duration (are the effects 

short-term (less than one year), long-term 

(more than one year), or permanent) and 

intensity (is the degree or severity of effects 

negligible, minor, moderate, or major). 

Because definitions of intensity (negligible, 

minor, moderate, or major) vary by impact 

topic, intensity definitions are provided 

separately for each impact topic analyzed in 

this environmental impact statement. 

Cumulative Impacts: The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 

which implement the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), 

require assessment of cumulative impacts in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

132 

the decision-making process for federal 

projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as 

"the impact on the environment which results 

from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts 

are considered for all alternatives, including 

the no-action alternative. 

Cumulative impacts were determined by 

combining the impacts of the alternatives with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was 

necessary to identify other ongoing or 

reasonably foreseeable future projects at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument and, if 

applicable, the surrounding region. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources and §106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act: In this 

document impacts to cultural resources are 

described in terms of type, context, duration, 

and intensity, which is consistent with the 

regulations of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) that implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These 

impact analyses are intended, however, to 

comply with the requirements of both NEPA 

and §106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA). In accordance with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing §106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 

800, Protection of Historic Properties), 

impacts to 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 registereligible or national register-listed cultural 

resources; and (4) considering ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a 

determination of either adverse effect or no 

adverse effect must also be made for affected 

national register listed or national registereligible cultural resources. An adverse effect 

occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or 

indirectly, any characteristic of a cultural 

resource that qualifies it for inclusion in the 

national register, 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 the 

alternatives 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 National Park 

Service’s Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision 

Making (Director’s Order #12) 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 NEPA only. 

It does not suggest that the level of effect as 

defined by §106 is similarly reduced. Cultural 

resources are non-renewable 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 §106 may be 

mitigated, the effect remains adverse. 

A §106 summary is included in the impact 

analysis sections. The §106 summary is an 

assessment of the effect of the undertaking 

(implementation of the alternative) on 

National Register eligible or listed cultural 

resources only, based upon the criterion of 

effect and criteria of adverse effect found in 

the Advisory Council’s regulations. 
Impact Analyses 

133

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Impacts Common to all Alternatives 

Archeological resources could be affected by 

actions of the public and by actions taken by 

park staff to preserve, maintain, or interpret 

such resources. Wherever ground-disturbing 

activities are proposed, an archeologist would 

be consulted to determine the level of 

archeological evaluation necessary. If the area 

was previously inventoried and no such 

resources are likely to occur, additional 

archeological testing may be unnecessary. If 

there is any likelihood that such resources 

exist, archeological testing and/or excavation 

would be undertaken following appropriate 

consultation with the state historic preservation officer and associated American Indian 

tribes. 

The public is asked to stay on the trail system 

throughout the national monument and to 

stay off the mounds. However, visitors often 

feel the need to climb up on the mounds, 

whether to see them better or because they 

don’t understand the damage that can result. 

New areas of the national monument do not 

have trails, and visitors may unknowingly walk 

on unmarked mounds. This occasional 

activity can result in erosion of the mound 

which, if left unchecked, could result in major 

damage or even loss of the mound’s integrity. 

However, continued ranger patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education would 

discourage visitors from straying from marked 

trails, committing acts of vandalism, and 

causing inadvertent destruction of cultural 

remains; any adverse impacts would be 

expected to be minimal. 

Although rare, deliberate acts of excavation 

for artifacts—called “pothunting”—do occur. 

These activities result in damage to the 

mounds and possibly loss of archeological 

artifacts that are integral to an understanding 

of the mounds and the cultures that 

constructed them. 

Inadvertent, and often unavoidable, damage 

may also result during trail maintenance or 

rerouting, road repair preservation and 

maintenance of the mounds. Some of the 

mounds have trees growing on them. Large 

trees are left intact when damage from their 

removal would jeopardize the integrity of the 

mound. Saplings are removed. Occasionally a 

tree on a mound may die or be blown down. A 

dead tree is cut down at the base and left to 

deteriorate, trees that have been blown down 

are removed in a manner least damaging to the 

mound. However, both result in some damage 

to the mound. As roots decay, the soil 

collapses in upon itself and the mound loses 

integrity of shape, height, and archeological 

context. Where pothunting or a “blow-down” 

has occurred, maintenance staff fills the holes 

with “clean” fill material (free of cultural 

debris) and revegetates. These actions result 

in varying levels of loss of mound integrity, 

and impacts would be adverse. 

Because no systematic archeological inventory 

and evaluation of archeological sites has 

occurred within the national monument, 

impacts village sites and rock shelters, 

whether from natural forces or visitor actions 

are unknown. Vigilance by park staff appears 

to be effective in the most frequently visited 

areas of the national monument, but it is 

unknown what impacts may be occurring 

elsewhere. This general management plan 

recommends a complete archeological survey 

of the entire national monument. 

Historic archeological resources have not 

been inventoried within the national 

monument Aside from the Military Road and 

associated cistern, the ”Jefferson Davis 

Sawmill,” and a small portion of the Red 

House Landing, there are likely a number of 

historic farmsteads and roads of possible local 

significance. A possible fur trade camp may 

also exist. A portion of the Military Road is 

maintained by national monument staff and 

provides partial access to the South Unit. 

When archeological resources are identified, 

limited testing may be necessary to determine 

size, date of use, and national register 

eligibility. This would not result in loss of the 

site or adversely affect the qualities of the site 

that make it eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

134 

Under all alternatives, Effigy Mounds would 

seek funding to meet the Archeological 

Resources Protection Act requirement that all 

archeological resources be inventoried and 

evaluated for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Mounds and other 

known archeological sites would continue to 

be monitored by park staff to note any 

changes in condition and to take appropriate 

actions necessary for their continued 

preservation. All ground-disturbing activities 

would be preceded by archeological 

evaluation to determine the best method of 

identifying any archeological resources that 

may be present. 

All archeological materials and all original 

archives associated with the collections that 

are associated with Effigy Mounds National 

Monument would remain at the site. 

A complete archeological inventory of Effigy 

Mounds National Monument meeting Section 

110 standards (National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended) has not been 

undertaken. As a result, prior to actions 

proposed in this plan that affect areas of the 

national monument that have not been 

adequately inventoried, site specific 

archeological evaluations would be 

undertaken to ensure that archeological 

resources are not adversely affected. 

For the purposes of this document, all impacts 

to an archeological site (other than mounds) 

would have a long-term impact. 

Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of 

detection with neither adverse 

nor beneficial consequences. The 

determination of effect for §106 

would be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impact — disturbance 

of a site(s) results in little, if any, 

loss of integrity. The 

determination of effect for §106 

would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact — disturbance 

of a site(s) results in loss of 

integrity. The determination of 

effect for §106 would be adverse 

effect. A memorandum of 

agreement is executed among the 

National Park Service and 

applicable state or tribal historic 

preservation officer and, if 

necessary, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). 

Measures identified in the MOA 

to minimize or mitigate adverse 

impacts reduce the intensity of 

impact under NEPA from major 

to moderate. 

Major: Adverse impact — disturbance 

of a site(s) results in loss of 

integrity. The determination of 

effect for §106 would be adverse 

effect. Measures to minimize or 

mitigate adverse impacts cannot 

be agreed upon and the National 

Park Service and applicable state 

or tribal historic preservation 

officer and/or Advisory Council 

are unable to negotiate and 

execute a memorandum of 

agreement in accordance with 36 

CFR 800.6(b). 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A – 

No Action 

Specific actions in the no-action alternative 

that could require some level of archeological 

survey and evaluation work prior to 

implementation include the following: 

Trails Development: In areas of the national 

monument where new trails are necessary, 

pre-development archeological survey of the 

right-of-way would be undertaken to ensure 

there would be no effect on archeological sites 

or features. 

Development of old roads as trails: In the 

Heritage Area, a number of old roads would 

be developed as pedestrian and maintenance 

trails. All these roads would be evaluated to 

ensure they do not pass through or in some 

other way affect archeological resources. Few 

if any adverse effects would be anticipated. 
Impact Analyses 

135

Removal of old roads: In the Heritage Area, 

any roads not needed for pedestrian or 

maintenance use would be obliterated and 

reseeded. As with those used for trails, these 

roads would be evaluated to determine 

eligibility for inclusion in the national register 

and possible impact on any archeological 

resources or values present. The removal of 

roads determined to be eligible for the 

national register would result in adverse 

effects; for roads determined to be ineligible, 

there would be no effect. 

Installation of a new water and wastewater 

system at the visitor center: Prior to 

installation, a location free of archeological 

resources would be identified. This action 

should have no effect on archeological 

resources. 

Completion of the Yellow River mounds 

boardwalk: The route of the boardwalk would 

be surveyed for archeological resources. 

Should significant archeological resources be 

identified, other means of reaching the site 

would be evaluated to avoid any impact. 

Connection of the Yellow River Bridge trail with 

the Marching Bear trail: Archeological survey 

of the proposed route would be undertaken 

prior to trail construction. Should significant 

resources be identified, the trail route would 

be altered to avoid any effect on archeological 

resources. 

Mississippi Riverbank Stabilization: This 

project currently underway would continue as 

a means of providing some protection to the 

existing Sny Magill mounds. This work may 

result in damage to mounds near the 

riverbank. Appropriate archeological 

evaluation and possible excavation 

intervention would be implemented prior to 

any such work. Loss of any such mounds 

would be an adverse effect. 

Although potential impacts to archeological 

resources resulting from visitor, use, 

pothunting, and inadvertent damage could be 

adverse, the overall care and preservation of 

the national monument and the efforts of the 

staff to identify, protect, and preserve all 

cultural resources would result in an overall 

determination of no adverse effect. 

Development of trails, development of old 

roads as trails, removal of old roads not 

eligible for inclusion in the national register, 

installation of new water and wastewater 

systems at the visitor center, completion of the 

Yellow River Mounds boardwalk, and 

connection of the Yellow River Bridge trail to 

the Marching Bear trail should have no effect, 

if an archeological inventory identifies no 

archeological resources or if such resources 

are discovered and avoidance is feasible. 

Removal of old roads determined to be 

eligible for inclusion on the national register 

and Mississippi River stabilization that results 

in damage to mounds or other archeological 

resources would have adverse impacts under 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

The overall National Environmental Policy 

Act effect on the national monument’s 

cultural resources would be long-term, minor, 

and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects. The area around Effigy 

Mounds National Monument has been 

farmed for many generations. Although 

farming has likely resulted in the loss of many 

mounds, others have likely been saved due to 

the vigilance of the landowner and the 

mounds’ existence in areas of terrain too 

difficult to farm. Now, however, farmlands 

surrounding the national monument are being 

subdivided for home sites, and such resources 

are again being threatened. 

Farther afield, the States of Iowa and 

Wisconsin and the Ho Chunk Indian Nation 

of Wisconsin have established parks and 

preserves to protect mounds similar to those 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

Awareness of the importance of these 

archeological features is growing even as more 

and more of these features are lost to 

development and erosion outside these 

preserves. 

As described above, implementation of the 

no-action alternative would result in both 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

136 

adverse and no adverse effects to 

archeological resources, although the overall 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. The adverse and no adverse impacts of 

this alternative, in combination with the 

predominantly adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in an adverse effect 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Although potential impacts to 

archeological resources resulting from visitor 

use, pothunting, and inadvertent damage 

could be adverse, the overall care and 

preservation of the national monument, and 

the efforts of the staff to identify, protect, and 

preserve all cultural resources, would result in 

an overall determination of no adverse effect. 

The adverse effect of the no-action alternative 

would be a very small component of the 

adverse effect cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment. The overall National 

Environmental Policy Act effect on the 

national monument’s cultural resources 

would be long-term, minor, and beneficial. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Actions in Alternative B that could require 

some level of archeological evaluation work 

prior to implementation include: 

Trails Development: In areas of the national 

monument where new trails are necessary, 

pre-development archeological survey of the 

right-of-way would be undertaken to ensure 

there would be no effect on archeological sites 

or features. The same would be true for minor 

trail realignment. 

Development of old roads as trails: In the 

Heritage Area, a number of old roads would 

be developed as pedestrian and maintenance 

trails. All these roads would be evaluated to 

ensure they do not pass through or in some 

other way affect archeological resources. Few 

if any adverse effects would be anticipated. 

Removal of old roads: In the Heritage Area, 

any roads not needed for pedestrian or 

maintenance use would be obliterated and the 

land reseeded. As with those used for trails, 

these roads would be evaluated to determine 

eligibility for inclusion in the national registers 

and possible impact on any archeological 

resources or values present. The removal of 

roads determined to be eligible for the 

national register would result in adverse 

effects; for roads determined to be ineligible, 

there would be no effect. 

Installation of a new water and wastewater 

system at the visitor center: Prior to 

installation, a site free of archeological 

resources would be located. This action 

should have no effect on archeological 

resources. 

Completion of the boardwalk to the Yellow 

River mounds: As with new trail construction, 

the boardwalk could be designed to avoid 

archeological resources to result in a 

determination of no effect. 

Construction of an accessible overlook at Fire 

Point: Archeological evaluation prior to 

construction would ensure that no 

archeological features would be affected. 

There would be no effect on archeological 

resources at the site. 

South Unit entry road: The entry road would 

only be redesigned to provide safer access 

following evaluation of the development area 

by an archeologist. This should result in a 

determination of no effect. 

Installation of a visitor contact shelter at Sny 

Magill: Archeological evaluation of the 

location prior to construction would ensure 

that no archeological features would be 

affected. There would be no effect on 

archeological resources at the site. 

Construction of an Administration/ Research 

Center at headquarters in the North Unit: This 

facility would replace existing facilities in the 

maintenance area of the national monument 

headquarters. There would be no effect on 

archeological resources at the site. 
Impact Analyses 

137

Railroad trestle improvement at Sny Magill:

Raising and widening the railroad trestle at 

Sny Magill to allow better site access would 

require prior archeological evaluation to 

determine the likelihood of archeological 

resources present. If archeological resources 

are present, they could be adversely affected. 

Restoration of the Fire Point mound in the 

North Unit: Restoration to its original 

dimensions would require additional soil to 

recreate the original outline. Soil from outside 

the national monument, free of cultural debris 

would be used. The existing mound remnant 

would not be disturbed so this action would 

have an effect but not an adverse effect on the 

remaining mound structure. 

Construction of a trail at Sny Magill: This trail 

would encourage people to stay off the 

mounds. Walking on mounds is a particular 

problem at times when the existing trail is wet 

or occasionally submerged and the mounds 

form the only high areas available. A new trail 

or boardwalk would be constructed in this 

unit according to a site development plan. 

Prior to construction, an archeologist would 

evaluate the probability of archeological 

resources being damaged by construction and 

make a recommendation for realignment or 

mitigation excavation. Construction would 

constitute an effect but that effect would not 

be adverse. 

Red House Landing Acquisition: A portion of 

the historic Red House Landing, both an 

archeological site and a historic town, is 

within the national monument boundary. This 

alternative would acquire the portion 

currently outside the boundary for 

preservation. This action would have an effect 

on the Red House Landing site but that effect 

would not be adverse. 

Maintain a portion of the Military Road for 

South Unit Access: Continuing to maintain the 

Military Road as a trail and as maintenance 

access to the south unit would have an effect 

on the Military Road, but that effect is not 

expected to be adverse. 

Actions proposed above should have a no 

adverse effect determination under Section 

106 and a long-term minor, beneficial impact 

under the National Environmental Policy Act 

guidelines. 

Cumulative Effects. The area around Effigy 

Mounds National Monument has been 

farmed for many generations. Although 

farming has likely resulted in the loss of many 

mounds, others have likely been saved due to 

the vigilance of the landowner and the 

existence of the mounds on terrain too 

difficult to farm. Now, however, farmlands 

surrounding the national monument are being 

subdivided for homesites, and such resources 

are again being threatened. 

Farther afield, the States of Iowa and 

Wisconsin and the Ho Chunk Indian Nation 

of Wisconsin have established parks and 

preserves to protect mounds similar to those 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

Awareness of the importance of these 

archeological features is growing even as more 

and more of these features are lost to 

development and erosion outside these 

preserves. 

As described above, implementation of the 

preferred alternative could result in both 

adverse and no adverse effects to 

archeological resources, although the overall 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. The adverse and no adverse impacts of 

the alternative, in combination with the 

predominantly adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in an adverse effect 

cumulative impact. The adverse effects of the 

preferred alternative, however, would be a 

small component of the adverse effect 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion: No actions described in 

alternative B would result in loss or significant 

damage to archeological resources. 

Construction of a boardwalk at Sny Magill 

could encourage visitors to avoid walking on 

the mounds. If that were to happen, there 

could be a marked improvement in the 

preservation of the mounds. The overall 

impact of alternative B is not expected to be 

adverse under Section 106 of the National 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138 

Historic Preservation Act would be long-term 

minor and beneficial under the National 

Environmental Policy Act guidelines.. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

Actions in Alternative C that could require 

some level of archeological evaluation work 

prior to implementation include: 

Trails Development: In areas of the national 

monument where new trails or realignment of 

existing trails are necessary, pre-development 

archeological survey of the right-of-way 

would be undertaken to ensure there would 

be no effect on archeological sites or features. 

Development of old roads as trails: In the 

Heritage Area, a number of old roads would 

be developed as pedestrian and maintenance 

trails. All these roads would be evaluated to 

ensure they do not pass through or in some 

other way affect archeological resources. Few 

if any adverse effects would be anticipated. 

Removal of old roads: In the Heritage Area, 

any roads not needed for pedestrian or 

maintenance use would be evaluated for 

eligibility in the national register. If found to 

be ineligible, the roads would be obliterated 

and the land reseeded. If found to be eligible 

for the national register, the National Park 

Service would work with the state historic 

preservation office to preserve the roads or 

determine appropriate mitigation measures. 

As with those used for trails, these roads 

would be evaluated to determine possible 

impact on any other archeological resources 

present. No impact is expected to be adverse. 

Installation of a new water and wastewater 

system at the visitor center: Prior to 

installation, a site free of archeological 

resources would be located. This action 

should have no effect on archeological 

resources. 

South Unit entry road: The entry road would 

only be redesigned to provide safer access 

following evaluation of the development area 

by an archeologist. This should result in a 

determination of no effect. 

Acquisition of portions of FTD and Red House 

Landing: Acquisition and documentation of 

these properties would ensure their 

preservation into the future. Testing for 

documentation purposes, if necessary, could 

have an adverse effect on archeological 

resources. 

Actions proposed above should have a no 

adverse effect determination under Section 

106 and a long-term minor, beneficial impact 

under the National Environmental Policy Act 

guidelines. 

Cumulative Effects. The area around Effigy 

Mounds National Monument has been 

farmed for many generations. Although 

farming has likely resulted in the loss of many 

mounds, others have likely been saved due to 

the vigilance of the landowner and the 

existence of the mounds on terrain too 

difficult to farm. Now, however, farmlands 

surrounding the national monument are being 

subdivided for homesites, and such resources 

are again being threatened. 

Farther afield, the States of Iowa and 

Wisconsin and the Ho-Chunk Indian Nation 

of Wisconsin have established parks and 

preserves to protect mounds similar to those 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument. 

Awareness of the importance of these 

archeological features is growing even as more 

and more of these features are lost to 

development and erosion outside these 

preserves. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative C could result in both adverse and 

no adverse effects to archeological resources, 

although the overall determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. The adverse and 

no adverse impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with the predominantly adverse 

impacts of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in an 

adverse effect cumulative impact. The adverse 

effects of alternative C, however, would be a 

small component of the adverse effect 

cumulative impact. 
Impact Analyses 

139

Conclusion. No actions described in 

alternative C would result in loss or significant 

damage to archeological resources. The 

overall impact of alternative C is not expected 

be adverse. Any adverse effect of the preferred 

alternative would be a small component of the 

adverse effect cumulative impact under 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and would be long-term, 

minor, and beneficial under the National 

Environmental Policy Act guidelines. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

A Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) of 

Effigy Mounds National Monument for all 

but ethnographic landscapes has been 

completed and its results concurred in by the 

Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer. (A 

CLI is a computerized, evaluated inventory of 

all cultural landscapes within a park area. Its 

purpose is to identify cultural landscapes and 

to provide information on location, historical 

development, character-defining features, and 

management). 

Two landscapes were identified, the northern 

landscape encompassing the North, South, 

and Heritage units and the southern landscape 

encompassing the entire Sny Magill Unit. Both 

were designated “historic site” 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 studied and an official determination has 

not been made. Therefore, effects of the 

alternatives on such an undefined landscape 

have not been attempted. 

Definitions of Intensity Levels 

Negligible: Impact(s) is at the lowest levels of 

detection with neither adverse 

nor beneficial consequences. The 

determination of effect for §106 

would be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Adverse impact — alteration of a 

pattern(s) or feature(s) of the 

landscape would not diminish the 

overall integrity of the landscape. 

The determination of effect for 

§106 would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Adverse impact — alteration of a 

pattern(s) or feature(s) of the 

landscape would diminish the 

overall integrity of the landscape. 

The determination of effect for 

§106 would be adverse effect. A 

memorandum of agreement is 

executed among the National 

Park Service and applicable state 

or tribal historic preservation 

officer and, if necessary, the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.6(b). Measures 

identified in the MOA to 

minimize or mitigate adverse 

impacts reduce the intensity of 

impact under NEPA from major 

to moderate. 

Major: Adverse impact — alteration of a 

pattern(s) or feature(s) of the 

landscape would diminish the 

overall integrity of the landscape. 

The determination of effect for 

§106 would be adverse effect. 

Measures to minimize or mitigate 

adverse impacts cannot be agreed 

upon and the National Park 

Service and applicable state or 

tribal historic preservation officer 

and/or Advisory Council are 

unable to negotiate and execute a 

memorandum of agreement in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A – 

No-action 

Proposed in alternative A are trails 

development or realignment in the North and 

South units, some riverbank stabilization and 

some removal of trees and vegetation to 

protect mounds at Sny Magill. Careful design 

would ensure that the development and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140 

realignment of trails would minimally affect 

the scale and visual relationships among 

landscape features. In addition, the 

topography, vegetation, circulation features, 

and land use patterns of the monument would 

remain largely unaltered. No adverse effects 

would be anticipated. Ongoing riverbank 

stabilization and some tree removal 

undertaken to preserve mounds would 

continue at Sny Magill. There is some 

likelihood of damage to individual mounds 

associated with these activities but the overall 

effect would not be adverse. 

Cumulative Effects: No cultural landscapes 

outside the national monument have been 

identified although lands within Yellow River 

State Forest have similar qualities and may 

qualify. With the advent of European 

settlement, the mounds that had survived 

centuries with little change began to disappear 

as lands were leveled for farming and 

townsites. Forested areas were cut down and 

erosion damaged many mounds that had 

survived millennia. Mounds continue to be 

lost or damaged by development in the 

region—an adverse effect. Ina addition, rapid 

subdivision of farmlands around the national 

monument and active logging on adjacent 

private lands is resulting in the loss of similar 

wooded lands. The overall impact to cultural 

landscapes would be adverse. 

As described above, implementation of the 

no-action alternative would result in no 

adverse effects to cultural landscapes. The no 

adverse impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with the adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in an 

adverse effect cumulative impact. The noaction alternative would contribute to the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. No adverse effects to cultural 

landscapes under the no-action alternative 

would be anticipated. The no-action 

alternative would not contribute to the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment or unacceptable impacts. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B proposes removing nonnative 

plants and animals; using fire to manage the 

forest and meadow ecosystems; limiting 

development to existing, already developed 

locations and road corridors; developing 

trails, narrowing roads into trails, and 

removing roads; restoring a damaged mound 

at Fire Point; and acquiring land. Each of the 

actions, except trail construction, would help 

to restore the landscape to an earlier time and 

appearance. Trail construction with 

appropriate signs would help to keep visitors 

from walking in sensitive areas of the 

landscape providing protection for the 

mounds and native vegetation. Trail 

construction at Sny Magill has the potential to 

adversely affect the landscape depending 

upon the materials used to develop the trail. 

Cumulative Effects: No cultural landscapes 

outside the national monument have been 

identified although lands within Yellow River 

State Forest have similar qualities and may 

meet cultural landscape criteria. With the 

advent of European settlement, the mounds 

that had survived centuries with little change 

began to disappear as lands were leveled for 

farming and town sites. Forested areas were 

cut down and erosion damaged many mounds 

that had survived millennia. Mounds continue 

to be lost or damaged by development in the 

region—an adverse effect. In addition, rapid 

subdivision of farmlands around the national 

monument and active logging on adjacent 

private lands are resulting in the loss of similar 

wooded lands. The overall impact to cultural 

landscapes would be adverse. 

As described above, implementation of the 

preferred alternative could result in a possible 

adverse effect to a cultural landscape at Sny 

Magill. The impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with the adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in an 
Impact Analyses 

141

adverse effect cumulative impact. The 

preferred alternative could contribute to the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. A possible adverse effect to 

cultural landscapes under the preferred 

alternative would be anticipated. The 

preferred alternative would contribute to the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Because the possible impact at Sny Magill 

could be mitigated somewhat through design 

there would be no impairment or 

unacceptable impacts of the resource. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

Alternative C proposes developing trails, 

narrowing roads into trails, removing roads, 

restoring a damaged mound at Fire Point, 

acquiring land, and constructing a boardwalk 

to the mound group between the Yellow River 

and Highway 76. Each of these actions, except 

boardwalk construction, would help to 

restore the landscape to an earlier time and 

appearance. Boardwalk construction would 

help to keep visitors from walking in sensitive 

areas of the landscape providing protection 

for the mounds and other native vegetation. 

Actions proposed in Alternative C would have 

an effect on the cultural landscape, but that 

effect would not be adverse. 

Cumulative Effects: No cultural landscapes 

outside the national monument have been 

identified, although lands within Yellow River 

State Forest have similar qualities and may 

qualify. With the advent of European 

settlement, the mounds that had survived 

centuries with little change began to disappear 

as lands were leveled for farming and 

townsites. Forested areas were cut down, and 

erosion damaged many mounds that had 

survived millennia. Mounds continue to be 

lost or damaged by development in the 

region—an adverse effect. In addition, rapid 

subdivision of farmlands around the national 

monument and active logging on adjacent 

private lands is resulting in the loss of similar 

wooded lands, and impacts to cultural 

landscapes could be adverse. However, 

preservation of the ethnographic landscape 

within the national monument would not add 

to the overall cumulative loss of any such 

landscapes in the region. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative C would result in no adverse 

effects to cultural landscapes. The no adverse 

impacts of this alternative, in combination 

with the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in an adverse effect 

cumulative impact. Alternative C, however, 

would not contribute to the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. No adverse effect to cultural 

landscapes under alternative C would be 

anticipated. Alternative C would not 

contribute to the adverse cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment or unacceptable impacts. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Definitions of Intensity Levels 

Negligible: Impact(s) would be barely 

perceptible and would neither 

alter resource conditions, such as 

traditional access or site 

preservation, nor the relationship 

between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of 

practices and beliefs. 

Minor: Adverse impact — impact(s) 

would be slight but noticeable but 

would neither appreciably alter 

resource conditions, such as 

traditional access or site 

preservation, nor the relationship 

between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of 

practices and beliefs. 

Beneficial impact — would allow 

access to and/or accommodate a 

group’s traditional practices or 

beliefs. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 

Moderate: Adverse impact — impact(s) 

would be apparent and would 

alter resource conditions. 

Something would interfere with 

traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship 

between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s practices and 

beliefs, even though the group’s 

practices and beliefs would 

survive. 

Beneficial impact — would 

facilitate traditional access and/or 

accommodate a group’s practices 

or beliefs. 

Major: Adverse impact — impact(s) 

would alter resource conditions. 

Something would block or greatly 

affect traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship 

between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of 

practices and beliefs, to the extent 

that the survival of a group’s 

practices and/or beliefs would be 

jeopardized. 

Beneficial impact — would 

encourage traditional access 

and/or accommodate a group’s 

practices or beliefs. 

Actions in Alternative A that could affect 

Ethnographic Resources 

Preservation of mounds: The national 

monument staff would work to retain the 

form and appearance of the mounds. Actions 

would not affect access to the mounds or 

American Indian ability to practice traditional 

beliefs. This would result in a site-specific 

negligible long-term impact. 

Ecosystem restoration: The national 

monument staff would work toward 

restoration of the existing ecosystem by 

eliminating or minimizing the impact of nonnative species, encouraging the growth of 

native species, and implementing controlled 

burns. Access to the mounds would not be 

affected nor would the groups’ ability to 

practice their traditional beliefs. This would 

result in a site-specific, negligible, long-term 

impact. 

Maintenance of natural viewsheds and 

soundscapes: The national monument staff 

would work to preserve these important 

features of the site for all to enjoy. Access to 

the mounds would not be affected nor would 

the groups’ ability to practice their traditional 

beliefs. This would result in a site-specific 

negligible, long-term impact. 

Nomination of eligible cultural resources for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places: By nominating eligible cultural 

resources, the National Park Service 

emphasizes the importance of such resources 

and makes them a priority for preservation. 

Access to the mounds would not be affected 

nor would groups’ ability to practice their 

traditional beliefs. This would result in a sitespecific negligible, long-term 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. Access to the mounds would 

not be affected nor would groups’ ability to 

practice their traditional beliefs. This would 

result in a site-specific negligible, long-term 

impact. 

Actions proposed above should have an 

overall site specific, long-term, negligible, 

impact under the National Environmental 

Policy Act guidelines. 

Cumulative Effects: As lands have been 

developed in the Iowa, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin region, and mounds have been lost 

to development and farming activities or have 

become inaccessible as private property, 

access to sites of ethnographic significance to 

American Indians has diminished. Remaining 

are Effigy Mounds National Monument, state 

and local parks, and Indian reservations. This 

has greatly affected both American Indian 

access to tradition sites and their ability to 

practice traditional beliefs. Implementation of 

this alternative would not add to the overall 
Impact Analyses 

143

cumulative impact of the loss of access and 

inability to practice traditional beliefs within 

the region. 

Conclusion: No actions described in 

alternative A, the no action alternative, would 

result in loss of access or loss of the ability to 

practice traditional beliefs at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. The overall impact is 

negligible and would not contribute to the 

overall cumulative effect within the region. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment. 

Actions in Alternative B that could affect 

Ethnographic Resources 

Preservation of mounds: The national 

monument staff would work to retain the 

form and appearance of the mounds. Actions 

would not affect access to the mounds nor 

would they affect American Indian ability to 

practice traditional beliefs. This would result 

in a site-specific negligible long-term impact. 

Ecosystem restoration: The national 

monument staff would work toward 

restoration of the existing ecosystem by 

eliminating or minimizing the impact of 

nonnative species, encouraging the growth of 

native species, and implementing controlled 

burns. Access to the mounds would not be 

affected nor would groups’ ability to practice 

their traditional beliefs. This would result in a 

site-specific, negligible, long-term impact. 

Maintenance of natural viewsheds and 

soundscapes: The national monument staff 

would work to preserve these important 

features of the site for all to enjoy. Access to 

the mounds would not be affected nor would 

groups’ ability to practice their traditional 

beliefs. This would result in a site-specific 

negligible, long-term impact. 

Nomination of eligible cultural resources for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places: By nominating eligible cultural 

resources, the National Park Service 

emphasizes the importance of such resources 

and makes them a priority for preservation. 

Access to the mounds would not be affected 

nor would groups’ ability to practice their 

traditional beliefs. This would result in a sitespecific negligible, long-term 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. Access to the mounds would 

not be affected nor would groups’ ability to 

practice their traditional beliefs. This would 

result in a site-specific negligible, long-term 

impact. 

Actions proposed above should have an 

overall site specific, long-term, negligible, 

impact under the National Environmental 

Policy Act guidelines. 

Cumulative Effects: As lands have been 

developed in the Iowa, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin region, and mounds have been lost 

to development and farming activities or 

become inaccessible as private property, 

access to sites of ethnographic significance to 

American Indians has diminished. Remaining 

are Effigy Mounds National Monument, state 

and local parks, and Indian reservations. This 

has greatly affected both American Indian 

access to tradition sites and their ability to 

practice traditional beliefs. Implementation of 

this alternative would not add to the overall 

cumulative impact of the loss of access and 

inability to practice traditional beliefs within 

the region. 

Conclusion: No actions described in 

alternative B, the preferred alternative, would 

result in loss of access or loss of the ability to 

practice traditional beliefs at Effigy Mounds 

National Monument. The overall impact is 

negligible and would not contribute to the 

overall cumulative effect within the region. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

Actions in Alternative C that could affect 

Ethnographic Resources 

Preservation of mounds: The national 

monument staff would work to retain the 

form and appearance of the mounds. Actions 

would not affect access to the mounds nor 

would they affect American Indian ability to 

practice traditional beliefs. This would result 

in a site-specific negligible long-term impact. 

Ecosystem restoration: The national 

monument staff would work toward 

restoration of the existing ecosystem by 

eliminating or minimizing the impact of 

nonnative species, encouraging the growth of 

native species, and implementing controlled 

burns. Access to the mounds would not be 

affected nor would groups’ ability to practice 

their traditional beliefs. This would result in a 

site-specific, negligible, long-term impact. 

Maintenance of natural viewsheds and 

soundscapes: The national monument staff 

would work to preserve these important 

features of the site for all to enjoy. Access to 

the mounds would not be affected nor would 

groups’ ability to practice their traditional 

beliefs. This would result in a site-specific 

negligible, long-term impact. 

Nomination of eligible cultural resources for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places: By nominating eligible cultural 

resources, the National Park Service 

emphasizes the importance of such resources 

and makes them a priority for preservation. 

Access to the mounds would not be affected 

nor would groups’ ability to practice their 

traditional beliefs. This would result in a sitespecific negligible, long-term 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. Access to the mounds would 

not be affected nor would groups’ ability to 

practice their traditional beliefs. This would 

result in a site-specific negligible, long-term 

impact. 

Actions proposed above should have an 

overall site specific, long-term, negligible, 

impact under the National Environmental 

Policy Act guidelines. 

Cumulative Effects: As lands have been 

developed in the Iowa, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin region, and mounds have been lost 

to development and farming activities or 

become inaccessible as private property, 

access to sites of ethnographic significance to 

American Indians has diminished. Remaining 

are Effigy Mounds National Monument, state 

and local parks, and Indian reservations. This 

has greatly impacted both American Indian 

access to tradition sites and their ability to 

practice traditional beliefs. Implementation of 

this alternative would not add to the overall 

cumulative impact of the loss of access and 

inability to practice traditional beliefs within 

the region. 

Conclusion: No actions described in 

alternative C would result in loss of access or 

loss of the ability to practice traditional beliefs 

at Effigy Mounds National Monument. The 

overall impact is negligible and would not 

contribute to the overall cumulative effect 

within the region. 

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 
Impact Analyses 

145

collections used in this general management 

plan are defined as follows: 

• Negligible – The effect would be at the 

lowest level of detection: barely 

measurable, with no perceptible 

consequences, either adverse or 

beneficial, to museum collections. 

• Minor Adverse Effect: The actions 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. 

• Minor Beneficial Effect: The action 

would stabilize the current condition of 

the collection or its constituent 

components to minimize degradation. 

• Moderate Adverse Effect: The actions 

would affect the integrity of many items in 

the museum collection and diminish the 

usefulness of the collection for future 

research and interpretation. 

• Moderate Beneficial Effect: The actions 

would improve the condition of the 

collection or its constituent parts from the 

threat of degradation. 

• Major Adverse Effect: The actions would 

affect the integrity of most items in the 

museum collection and destroy the 

usefulness of the collection for future 

research and interpretation. 

• Major Beneficial Effect: The actions 

would secure the condition of the 

collection as a whole or its constituent 

components from the threat of further 

degradation. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative A – 

No-action 

In alternative A, collections would remain in 

the lower level of the visitor. Although 

minimally meeting NPS museum storage 

standards, 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. 

There would be a negligible impact on the 

museum 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. Collections at the 

University of Northern Iowa, the University 

of Wisconsin, the University of Iowa, the Iowa 

Historical Society, and the Wisconsin State 

Historical Society are extensive. The 

collections within the national monument 

make up a small but significant portion of the 

whole body of knowledge of the 

moundbuilder culture. Because they contain 

some of the earliest systematic work 

undertaken, they have a particular importance 

to the history of archeology. 

The national monument no longer undertakes 

research excavation into the mounds or other 

archeological resources. The collections 

would be expanded only through donation 

,through testing prior to development, or 

through excavations of sites inadvertently 

identified during construction work. This 

means that the collection is not expected to 

greatly increase in number of artifacts. The 

collection’s importance, then, lies in its 

comparative value, that is, its existence for 

comparison of artifacts from other sites as a 

means of understanding the development of 

mound culture. 

The no-action alternative would have no new 

impact on park or regional museum 

collections and therefore would not 

contribute to the effects of other actions 

occurring or proposed for such collections. 

There would be no impact on the usefulness 

of the collections for research purposes. 

Consequently, there would be no cumulative 

impacts to this topic under the no-action 

alternative. 

Conclusion. Items in the collections would 

continue to be stored and maintained, 

minimally meeting NPS museum storage 

standards. Items on display would continue to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 

be limited to those that are not affected by the 

substandard conditions of the exhibit cases. 

Accessibility to the collection would remain 

limited. There would be no long-term overall 

impact on the preservation and usefulness of 

the collections. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment or unacceptable impacts. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B proposes development of a 

multi-purpose center on the site of current 

houses in the maintenance complex in the 

North Unit. At this location, the collections 

would be in a state-of-the-art facility with 

appropriate space for visiting scholars and 

researchers to utilize the collections. The new 

facility would have no effect on the 

preservation of the collections of the national 

monument, but a moderate beneficial impact 

on the usefulness of the collections. 

Cumulative Effects: Other research facilities 

exist within the region for studying the 

archeological resources of the moundbuilders. 

However, this facility would allow scholars to 

study the artifacts in the collection as well as 

the historical records of early mound research 

pioneers. Where now the resources of the 

park are virtually inaccessible due to lack of 

staff and appropriate workspace, this new 

facility would allow the collection to be 

available for legitimate research. Development 

of this facility would add greatly to the overall 

ability of students and professional 

archeologists to study moundbuilder culture. 

Preservation of the national monument 

collections meets all NPS standards presently. 

This will not change once the collections have 

been moved to the new facility. The benefit 

will be to the study of the collections rather 

than the preservation of the collections. As a 

result, alternative B would have no new 

impact on park or regional museum 

collections and therefore would not 

contribute to the effects of other actions 

occurring or proposed for such collections. 

There would however, be a moderate 

beneficial impact on the usefulness of the 

collections for research purposes. The overall 

effect would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would continue to 

be a generally beneficial program of 

collections preservation. Accessibility of the 

collection would be greatly expanded. The 

impact on the preservation of the collections 

and their usefulness long term would be 

moderate and beneficial. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment or unacceptable impacts. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

In alternative C, the collection remains in its 

current location in the lower level of the 

visitor center. Although maintained to 

National Park Service standards, the facility 

does not have adequate workspace for 

curation or use of the collections by visiting 

scholars. This would not change in alternative 

C. There would be no impact on the 

collections from the decision to leave them in 

their current location. There would be no 

impact on a researcher’s ability to utilize the 

collection for research. 

Cumulative Effects: Alternative C would 

have no new impact on park or regional 

museum collections and therefore would not 

contribute to the effect of other actions 

occurring or proposed for such collections. 

There would be no impact on the usefulness 

of the collections for research purposes. 

Consequently, there would be no cumulative 

impacts to this topic under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would continue to 

be a generally beneficial program of 

collections preservation. Accessibility of the 

collection would continue to be limited. There 

would be no long-term impact on the 

preservation of the collections and their 

usefulness. 
Impact Analyses 

147

Because there would be no major adverse 

effects on this resource, there would be no 

impairment or unacceptable impacts. 

NATURAL RESOURCES – GENERAL 

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. Shortterm 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 boardwalk spur to the mound group south 

of the visitor center and 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. 

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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 

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 is prescribed in the no-action 

alternative. 

The no-action alternative would have a slight 

contribution to these effects, and when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on soil 

resources, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

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. 

Because there would be no moderate or major 

adverse impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource or unacceptable 

impacts as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B would result in a change in the 

level of development at the monument. The 

proposed multi-purpose center would be 

constructed where the housing units are now. 

Because this would be on previously disturbed 

ground, there would be no new impacts to soil 

resources as a result of this action. Mitigating 

measures and NPS standard operating 

procedures would be employed to reduce soil 

loss and other adverse effects during removal 

of the houses and construction of the center. 

An accessible trail would be constructed at 

Sny Magill according to a site development 

plan to 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 moving 

visitors off the ground and onto 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 soils. 

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 on old logging 

roads. A boardwalk spur from the existing 

boardwalk to the mound group south of the 

visitor center and a connecting trail from the 

bridge into the South Unit would be 

constructed. Impacts to soils 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 

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 
Impact Analyses 

149

topography was so rough that it prevented 

efficient agricultural or timber operations. 

These activities have adversely impacted soils 

to varying degrees by affecting characteristics 

such as compaction, displacement, erodibility, 

and nutrient content. 

Impacts on soils have also occurred in the 

national monument. Construction of service 

and public roads, structures, trails, and other 

developments in the monument have 

disturbed soils and have affected productivity 

of the land. Impacts from existing roads and 

developments in the monument would 

remain. Resource management activities such 

as prescribed burning affect soil by direct 

heating and increasing the potential for 

erosion after burning until revegetation 

occurs. Properly conducted prescribed burns 

would not be allowed to get hot enough to 

sterilize the soil. 

The preferred alternative would have a 

modest contribution to these effects and, 

when considered in combination with the 

above minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

soil resources, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortterm, minor, adverse impacts and long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts to soil resources in 

the monument. It would result in a minor, 

adverse, cumulative impact. Because there 

would be no moderate or major adverse 

impacts, there would be no impairment of this 

resource or unacceptable impacts as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

Minimal impacts on soil resources would be 

expected as a result of implementing 

alternative C. Actions would be to construct a 

boardwalk spur to the mound group south of 

the visitor center and a connecting trail from 

the bridge into the South Unit. Short-term 

impacts would be minor and adverse from 

disruption and possible loss of topsoil during 

construction. Long-term impacts from these 

trails would include soil compaction and 

possible erosion and are anticipated to be 

negligible and adverse. 

Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil 

resources 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. 

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 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. Prescribed burns would not be 

allowed to get hot enough to sterilize the soil. 

This alternative would have a slight 

contribution to these effects, and when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on soil 

resources, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. If implemented, alternative C 

would have short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts and long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts to soil resources in the monument. It 

would result in a minor, adverse cumulative 

impact. Because there would be no moderate 

or major adverse impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource or unacceptable 

impacts as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

150 

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 freeflowing 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. 

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 
Impact Analyses 

151

have no effect, there would be no projectrelated cumulative effects and no impairment 

of this resource. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Actions proposed in alternative B that could 

affect the Yellow River revolve around 

providing public access to the Heritage 

Addition. Alternatives considered in a future 

access plan for this unit may include building a 

pedestrian bridge to span the Yellow River or 

a trail along highway 76 from the visitor center 

parking lot. It was determined that the bridge 

option could affect the scenic value of the 

river, one of the outstandingly remarkable 

values. However, it is unknown exactly where 

this bridge would be and what the final design 

would look like, so an analysis of impacts is 

impossible. Specific environmental impact 

analysis would be conducted during 

development of the access plan. Building the 

bridge may be precluded if it were found to be 

in conflict with protecting Wild and Scenic 

River values. 

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 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 and no impairment of this resource. 

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. 

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 to determine if there would be any 

impacts to Wild and Scenic River values. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

152 

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 and no 

impairment of this resource. 

 

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 

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 

boardwalk spur to the mound group south of 

the visitor center and 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. Longterm 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 

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 
Impact Analyses 

153

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. 

The no-action alternative would have a slight 

contribution to these effects and, when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

vegetation, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

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. Because there would be no moderate 

or major adverse impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource or unacceptable 

impacts as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B would result in a change in the 

level of development at the monument that 

could affect vegetation. The proposed multipurpose center would be constructed where 

the housing units are now. Because this would 

be on previously disturbed ground, there 

would be no new impacts to vegetation as a 

result of this action. 

A trail or boardwalk would be constructed at 

Sny Magill 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 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 on old logging 

roads. A boardwalk spur from the existing 

boardwalk to the mound group south of the 

visitor center and 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. 

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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 

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 a modest 

contribution to these effects and, when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

vegetation, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Implementing the preferred 

alternative 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. Because there would be no 

moderate or major adverse impacts, there 

would be no impairment of this resource or 

unacceptable impacts as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

Alternative C would result in a small change in 

the level of development at the monument. 

This alternative would include construction of 

a boardwalk spur to the mound group south 

of the visitor center and a connecting trail 

from the bridge into the South Unit. Shortterm 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 

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. Over a 

century of fire suppression has also affected 

vegetation. These activities have adversely 

impacted native vegetation communities by 

disrupting natural plant succession, 

replacement with monotypic nonnative 

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 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 a modest 

contribution to these effects and, when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

vegetation, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would have short-term and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to vegetation in the 

monument. It would result in a minor, adverse 

cumulative impact. Because there would be no 

moderate or major adverse impacts, there 

would be no impairment of this resource or 

unacceptable impacts as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

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 
Impact Analyses 

155

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 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 boardwalk spur from the existing 

boardwalk to the mound group south of the 

visitor center and 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. 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 

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. 

Because there would be no moderate or major 

adverse impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource or unacceptable 

impacts as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Some small adverse impacts on habitat would 

be expected as a result of implementing the 

preferred alternative. The proposed multipurpose center would be constructed where 

the housing units are now. Short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to wildlife could occur 

because of the increased noise and human 

activity during demolition and construction. 

Because this would be in an area that offers 

little value as wildlife habitat, there would be 

no long-term impacts as a result of this action. 

A trail or boardwalk would be constructed at 

Sny Magill 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. 

Construction of visitor trails would also 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 boardwalk 

spur from the existing boardwalk to the 

mound group south of the visitor center and 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. 

Short-term impacts to wildlife would be 

minor and adverse during construction from 

the increased human presence and noise. 

Long-term impacts from these trails, such as 

disturbance from trail users, are anticipated to 

be negligible and adverse. 

Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife 

populations have been affected by human 

activities such as agricultural, commercial, and 

residential lands uses and the introduction of 

nonnative species. Quality habitat available for 

wildlife has been increasingly restricted and 

fragmented. Hunting and the extirpation of 

natural predators have adversely affected 

population structure and dynamics of game 

species. There have been direct and indirect, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts 

associated with these conditions. 

Establishment of the national monument and 

acquisition of the Heritage Addition have 

resulted in long-term beneficial impacts on 

wildlife by preserving these pieces of habitat 

and eliminating hunting. However, 

elimination of hunting is a reason being cited 

by locals for the recent unnatural increase in 

the white-tail deer population. This high 

density of deer is causing some resource 

damage. 

The spread of nonnative zebra mussels into 

the Mississippi River and its tributaries results 

in disruption of natural lake and river 

ecosystems. 

Alternative B would provide a small adverse 

contribution to these effects and, when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor to moderate adverse impacts, would 

result in a minor adverse cumulative impact to 

fish and wildlife resources. 

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 and 

adverse. Because there would be no moderate 

or major adverse impacts, there would be no 

impairment of this resource or unacceptable 

impacts as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Alternative C would result in a small change in 

the level of development at the monument. 

This alternative would also include 

construction of a boardwalk spur to the 

mound group south of the visitor center and a 

connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit. Impacts would include loss of 

habitat in the construction corridors—about 
Impact Analyses 

157

one acre total. Short-term impacts to wildlife 

would be minor and adverse during 

construction. Long-term impacts, 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 land 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 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 

disruption of natural lake and river 

ecosystems. 

Alternative C would have a slight adverse 

contribution 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 C 

would result in short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts to fish and wildlife. Cumulative 

effects would be minor and adverse. Because 

there would be no moderate or major adverse 

impacts, there would be no impairment of this 

resource or unacceptable impacts as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

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 measurable or perceptible 

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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

equates to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

or a “likely to adversely affect” 

determination. 

• Major — The action would result in a 

noticeable effect on the viability of a 

population or individuals of a species or 

designated critical habitat. Changes to the 

population or habitat would substantially 

deviate from natural variability and either 

threaten or help ensure the continued 

existence of the species in the park. A 

major adverse impact would be 

considered a “take” situation and would 

equate to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

“likely to adversely affect” determination. 

“Not likely to adversely affect” is the 

appropriate conclusion when effects on listed 

species are expected to be discountable, 

insignificant, or completely beneficial. 

Beneficial effects are contemporaneous 

positive effects 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. 

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. 
Impact Analyses 

159

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. No impairment of these 

species or unacceptable impacts would result 

from implementing this alternative. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Although there would be some 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. 

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. 

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. 

The impacts of other past, present, or 

foreseeable future actions are both beneficial 

and adverse, but the overall 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. No impairment of these 

species or unacceptable impacts would result 

from implementing this alternative. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

Although there would be some changes in the 

development footprint under this alternative, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

they would not occur in known habitat for the 

listed animal species. 

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 pearly mussel. 

Therefore, this alternative would not be likely 

to adversely affect the prairie bush clover and 

the Higgins eye pearly mussel. It would have 

no effect on the Iowa Pleistocene snail, 

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. 

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. 

The impacts of other past, present, or 

foreseeable future actions are both beneficial 

and adverse, but the overall cumulative 

impacts are considered moderate and adverse. 

Alternative C would have a slight contribution 

to these effects that would be 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. 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. No impairment 

of these species or unacceptable impacts 

would result from implementing this 

alternative. 

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 3 

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 
Impact Analyses 

161

point. The background is everything more 

than 5 miles from the observation point. 

Assessments of potential impacts on 

viewsheds were based on comparisons 

between the no-action alternative and the 

action alternatives. Short-term impacts would 

last less than one year; long-term impacts 

would occur for one year or more. The 

following intensity definitions were used. 

• Negligible — The action would not 

detract from existing natural views; 

proposed development in the foreground, 

middle ground, or background would be 

essentially unnoticeable. 

• Minor — The action would be noticeable 

to some observers but would not detract 

from natural views. There could be small 

changes to existing form, line, texture, or 

color in the background.

• Moderate — The action would be 

noticeable to most observers and may 

detract from natural views in a limited 

portion of a viewshed. There could be 

modest changes to existing form, line, 

texture, or color in the middle ground or 

background. 

• Major — The action would be 

immediately noticeable and would detract 

from the natural setting in most of a 

viewshed. It would result in large changes 

to existing form, line, texture, or color in 

the foreground, middle ground, or 

background, or portions of the natural 

viewscape would be obstructed. 

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 boardwalk spur to the mound group 

south of the visitor center and 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 boardwalk 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 non-development 

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 slight 

adverse contribution to these effects and, 

when considered in combination with the 

above minor adverse impacts on visual 

resources, would result in a minor adverse 

cumulative impact. 

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. Implementing this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

this resource. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B– 

the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B includes actions that would 

affect visual resources. Replacing the two park 

houses with the research/ administrative 

center would affect visual resources in the 

visitor center area by increasing the mass of 

structures. Two separate, relatively small 

structures would be replaced by one much 

larger structure. A design for the center has 

not been made, but would follow NPS design 

standards that emphasize using materials, 

colors, and design elements that blend in and 

do not detract from the natural scene. Because 

this would occur in a developed area and the 

mitigating measures listed in Chapter 2 would 

be used, impacts are anticipated to be longterm and adverse but minor. 

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 boardwalk 

spur from the existing boardwalk to the 

mound group south of the visitor center and 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 accessible trail and a visitor 

contact structure. The trail would be of a lowprofile design and most likely placed on top of 

the existing trail so the short-term and longterm impacts would be minor and adverse. 

The small visitor contact structure would be 

built on acquired land west of the unit and 

there would be long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts expected to viewsheds from the unit. 

Cumulative Effects. Natural viewsheds 

enjoyed from the monument have been 

adversely affected by commercial and 

industrial development across the Mississippi 

River in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where 

reflective surfaces (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 non-development 

that will become increasingly important as 

rural development continues to expand so 

they have a long-term beneficial effect. 

Alternative B would have a modest adverse 

contribution to these effects and, when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor, adverse impacts on visual resources, 

would result in a minor, adverse, cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Implementing the preferred 

alternative would have short-term and longterm, minor, adverse impacts on visual 

resources in the monument. Cumulative 

effects would be minor and adverse. 

Implementing this alternative would not result 

in impairment of this resource. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

There would be small impacts on visual 

resources of the monument under alternative 

C. 

An action proposed that would affect scenic 

views is the construction of a boardwalk spur 

to the mound group south of the visitor center 

and a connecting trail from the bridge into the 

South Unit. Impacts would be greatest during 

and immediately after construction as changes 
Impact Analyses 

163

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 boardwalk 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 non-development 

that will become increasingly important as 

rural development continues to expand so 

they have a long-term beneficial effect. 

Alternative C would have a slight adverse 

contribution to these effects and, when 

considered in combination with the above 

minor adverse impacts on visual resources, 

would result in a minor, adverse, cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative C, if implemented, 

would have short-term and long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on visual 

resources in the monument. Cumulative 

effects would be minor and adverse. 

Implementing this alternative would not result 

in impairment of this resource. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

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 

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. 

Additionally, visitor access in the visitor 

center area would be enhanced with the 

completion of an accessible boardwalk to the 

Yellow River mounds. 

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 their visit enhanced with 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. 

Sny Magill 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. 
Impact Analyses 

165

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 

multi-faceted interpretive opportunities and 

personal interactions, it could moderately 

affect their visit and subsequent desire to 

return again. 

NPS staff in the visitor center provide quality 

orientation and information to visitors. 

However, some visitors tour the national 

historic site 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 visitors would also receive the 

majority of their orientation and 

interpretation at the visitor center prior to 

visiting this unit. 

Interpretation and Education 

Existing formal and informal interpretation 

and resource education at the visitor center 

and on ranger-led activities in the various 

units would continue a moderate beneficial 

impact on visitors to the site. 

At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and Sny 

Magill Unit, the low level of interpretive 

staffing, unmarked and unmaintained trails, 

and the absence of access provide minimal 

opportunities for self-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. 

Visitation trends would likely increase in the 

long-term. This could result in congestion at 

parking and activity sites. Some visitors might 

experience a sense of crowding, especially 

during scheduled special events and when 

educational groups are visiting. Increased 

visitation and time spent at the national 

monument would result in short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts during events; long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts would result by 

development of increased or renewed public 

interest in the mounds and related American 

Indian culture. 

This alternative would not result in any new 

actions that would contribute to these effects 

and so would not have any cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Implementing the no-action 

alternative would result in the continuation of 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts 

and minor beneficial impacts to aspects of 

visitor use and experience but would not 

result in any new impacts. Because actions 

proposed in this alternative would have no 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

new effects on visitor use and experience, 

there would be no project-related cumulative 

impacts. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

The 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 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 vacated 

when administrative personnel move to 

offices in the new research center, providing 

additional space for modification of the 

exhibit, sales area, and visitor contact area. 

This would produce a moderately beneficial 

impact on visitor experience due to the 

reduction in crowding, especially from large 

educational groups, and enhanced visitor 

access to exhibits and interpretive personnel. 

Visitor experience would be further enhanced 

due to the greater depth of information and 

interpretive content afforded by the improved 

facilities and reconfigured exterior. Some 

short-term adverse impacts would occur to 

visitor experience during construction of the 

multi-purpose center. 

Expanded visitor access to the mound groups, 

notably the groups at Sny Magill 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 longterm beneficial impact on visitor experience 

and understanding. 

Visitors to the Heritage Addition would 

experience this area mainly on their own. 

Primary activities would include hiking, 

wildlife viewing, and canoeing, with 

occasional ranger-conducted activities. 

Visitors would receive the majority of 

orientation and initial interpretation at the 

visitor center, to avoid impacting the 

contemplative nature of the site. Visitor 

experiences at this unit would be moderately 

enhanced via the trails and improved 

information available at the visitor center, 

however, visitors may continue to experience 

minimal adverse impacts if they access the 

area without experiencing the visitor center 

first, due to lack of information. Educational 

experiences utilizing the Yellow River and 

adjacent wetlands would offer enhanced 

educational opportunities as well. 

Visitors to the North Unit would encounter 

greater opportunities to experience and 

understand the park resources through 

enhanced personal services including Ranger 

guided hikes and talks. Visitor experience 

would be further enhanced by extension and 

realignment of some trails, accompanied by 

appropriate upgrades and renovations of 

nonpersonal interpretive media. Visitor 

experiences at this unit would be 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. 
Impact Analyses 

167

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. 

Sny Magill 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 rangerguided 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, South, Heritage and Sny 

Magill units and providing a Visitor Contact 

Station at Sny Magill 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 

multi-faceted interpretive opportunities and 

personal interactions could still experience a 

minor negative 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 small visitor contact facilities at 

Sny Magill 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 Sny Magill 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 

moderately beneficial impact on visitor 

experience there. 

At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and Sny 

Magill, 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. 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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 

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 Sny Magill 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 highquality 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 not 

realize that Effigy Mounds is a national 

monument managed by the National Park 

Service. This could be partially offset by the 

information provided by local chambers of 

commerce, museums, and other attractions. 

Visitation trends would likely increase in the 

long-term. This could result in congestion at 

parking and activity sites. Some visitors might 

experience a sense of crowding, especially 

during scheduled special events and when 

educational groups are visiting. Increased 

visitation and time spent at the national 

monument would result in short-term minor 

adverse impacts during events; long-term 

moderate beneficial impacts would result by 

development of increased or renewed public 

interest in the mounds and related American 

Indian culture. 

Future development on private land at the 

national monument’s borders would 

adversely impact the scenic views as well as 

cause sound encroachment, adversely 

affecting visitor experience. 

When impacts discussed above are considered 

in combination with the 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 moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts on the visitor experience. The overall 

cumulative impacts would be long-term, 

minor, and beneficial; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be modest. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

Visitor Experience and Interaction with 

Resources 

Alternative C would emphasize the natural 

environment and it interconnectedness with 

cultural resources. Natural viewsheds and 

soundscapes would be protected as much as is 

feasible under this alternative. This alternative 

would emphasize increasing formal education 

and outreach programs. The primary 

emphasis on preservation would continue as it 

does today in the North, South, and Sny 

Magill units. The proposed zoning would 

place more of the monument in the Discovery 

Zone while primary visitor trails would be 

confined to the Visitor Trails Zone in the 

North, South, and Sny Magill units. The 

quality of visitor experience would continue 

to be enhanced by encouraging a quiet and 

contemplative exploration of the monument’s 

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 vacated 

when administrative personnel move to 
Impact Analyses 

169

offices in former park houses, providing some 

additional space for modification of the 

exhibits, sales area, and visitor contact area. 

This would produce a moderately beneficial 

impact on visitor experience due to the 

reduction in crowding, especially from large 

educational groups, and enhanced visitor 

access to exhibits and interpretive personnel. 

Visitor experience would be further enhanced 

by the greater depth of information and 

interpretive content afforded by the improved 

facilities and reconfigured exterior. 

Some extension and improvement of existing 

trails would encourage more visitors to 

explore more of resources in all units. 

Increased use of trails could somewhat reduce 

opportunities for quiet and contemplation, 

but would provide more opportunities for 

visitors to connect with the meanings inherent 

in monument resource’s. 

Visitors to the Heritage Addition would 

experience this area mainly on their own. 

Primary activities would include hiking, 

wildlife viewing, and pass-through canoeing, 

with no take-out allowed. 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 

slightly enhanced via the improved 

information and interpretation available at the 

improved visitor center and nonpersonal 

information available in other units, however, 

visitors may experience minor to moderate 

adverse impacts if they access the area without 

receiving adequate information, due to lack of 

nonpersonal and personal services. 

Visitors to the North Unit would encounter 

greater opportunities to experience and 

understand the park resources through 

enhanced personal services including rangerguided activities and an expanded trail system 

into the prairie that connects with the 

Hanging Rock Trail. 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 minor 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, including the connection of the 

Yellow River Bridge trail to the Marching Bear 

Trail. Upgrades and renovations of 

nonpersonal interpretive media would afford 

the opportunity to understand the influence 

that the natural world had on the 

moundbuilders. 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 to moderate 

detriment. 

Sny Magill would continue to be managed for 

resource preservation, with no appreciable 

increase in visitor access to the site. 

Recreational visitors to the Mississippi River 

would continue to be accommodated. 

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 understanding of the moundbuilders 

relationship with the natural environment 

would be enhanced by these modifications. 

During heavy visitation, roving interpretive 

rangers would provide a more personalized 

experience for visitors. The opportunity to 

experience mounds and the Mississippi River 

in this relatively primitive setting would 

continue to be an attraction for some visitors 

and a detriment for others. Visitors would 

experience a minor to moderate benefit with 

the advent of these changes and additions. 

 Opportunities would increase in all units for 

some types of experiences—from social 

interactions in developed areas to solitude in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 

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 a 

minor to 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 all the 

units, but primary orientation for the units 

would continue to take place at the visitor 

center. If visitors miss or forgo the 

opportunity to experience the visitor center’s 

multi-faceted interpretive opportunities and 

personal interactions, it could adversely affect 

their visit and subsequent desire to return. 

Some of this impact may be offset by the use 

of new technology to enhance the visitor’s 

experience in pre-trip planning and at the site. 

The NPS staff in the visitor center provides 

quality orientation and information to visitors. 

Continuation of this situation creates a 

moderate beneficial long-term impact on 

those visitors who do go to the center. Under 

this alternative, wayfinding signs would be 

maintained and installed where needed, which 

may allay some impact on the experience of 

visitors who do not enter the center. 

Interpretation and Education 

This alternative would create a moderately 

beneficial impact on interpretation and 

education programs at the monument. It 

would provide better use of existing facilities 

and a better level of access for visitors with 

disabilities, including some expansion of 

interpretation facilities, an increase in 

interpretive media, and a minimal expansion 

of the trail system. Expansion of interpretive 

media and personal services at all units would 

enhance opportunities for visitors to 

appreciate and understand the monument’s 

values while continuing to preserve cultural 

and natural resources. Space for educational 

groups would be provided in the vacated 

maintenance bay; this would provide 

moderate beneficial impacts to these groups. 

At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and Sny 

Magill, the enhanced nonpersonal interpretive 

media would expand opportunities for selfguided exploration and learning about key 

resources and stories at these units. In 

addition, an expansion of the resource 

education program in concert with increased 

facilities for students and groups would 

combine to result in a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact for many visitors and 

students. 

Removing some administrative offices from 

the visitor center would provide space for 

more exhibits interpreting additional topics 

needed by visitors to increase their 

understanding of monument’s themes and 

related stories. An attendant renovation of the 

visitor center and additional space for 

education and other groups would further 

enhance the visitor experience with reduced 

crowding and more access to personal 

services. Providing improved media and 

greater access to staff at the visitor center, 

along with occasional ranger-led activities out 

in the resource would have a moderate 

beneficial impact on visitor experience. 

Additional interpretive division employees 

would be needed to staff these units yearround in this alternative. 

Safety 

Safety information would continue to be 

available at the visitor center 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 highquality 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. Increased 
Impact Analyses 

171

visitation and time spent at the national 

monument would result in short-term minor 

adverse impacts during these events. 

Visitors would be primarily on their own in 

the South Unit and consequently may benefit 

from some additional safety guidance in the 

literature and from personal contacts. 

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 not 

realize that Effigy Mounds is a national 

monument managed by the National Park 

Service. This could be partially offset by the 

information provided by local chambers of 

commerce, museums, and other attractions. 

Visitation trends would likely increase in the 

long-term. This could result in congestion at 

parking and activity sites. Some visitors might 

experience a sense of crowding, especially 

during scheduled special events and when 

educational groups are visiting. Increased 

visitation and time spent at the national 

monument would result in short-term minor 

adverse impacts during events; long-term 

moderate beneficial impacts would result by 

development of increased or renewed public 

interest in the mounds and related American 

Indian culture. 

Future development at the national historic 

site’s borders would adversely impact the 

scenic views as well as cause sound 

encroachment. 

When impacts discussed above are considered 

in combination with the impacts of this 

alternative, the resulting cumulative effects on 

the visitor experience would be long term, 

minor to moderate, and beneficial. This 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would result in minor to moderate long-term 

beneficial impacts on the visitor experience. 

The overall cumulative impacts would be 

long-term, minor, and beneficial; however, 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

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 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 

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 or positive changes, and those 

considered adverse or negative. 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 boardwalk 

spur from the existing boardwalk to the 

mound group south of the visitor center and 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 

impact because of the materials that would be 

purchased locally and/or 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 $12.4 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 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 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. 
Impact Analyses 

173

Impacts from Implementing Alternative B – 

the Preferred Alternative 

Full implementation of this alternative would 

require the National Park Service to hire nine 

additional employees to handle the increased 

workload for administration, 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, the research/ 

administrative center and the Sny Magill 

visitor contact structure. This would 

constitute a short-term moderate beneficial 

economic impact. 

Implementing the preferred alternative is 

estimated to cost a total of $18.9 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 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 service-related 

businesses in the region rely to some degree 

on the inflow of tourist dollars, especially to 

restaurants and motels. Although tourism is 

not the most important driving factor in the 

regional economy, the nationwide downward 

trend in national park visitation may be 

adversely affecting tourism-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 contribute a 

modest beneficial increment to the above 

impacts of other 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 preferred 

alternative would have short-term and longterm, moderate, beneficial economic impacts 

in the region. The overall cumulative effects 

would be minor and beneficial. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

This alternative would have a small effect on 

the regional economy. Full implementation of 

this alternative would require the National 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 

Park Service to hire five additional employees 

to handle the increased workload for 

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 issued for 

two trail segments and the maintenance 

facility in the North Unit. This would result in 

a short-term minor beneficial economic 

impact. 

Implementing this alternative is estimated to 

cost a total of $10.7 million above the current 

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 and construction contracts. This 

would be a long-term, minor, 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 average length of time of a visit or length 

of stay in the region would not likely change 

under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects. The social and economic 

situation in Allamakee, Clayton, and Crawford 

counties is affected by a combination of many 

factors, including the presence of a unit of the 

National Park Service. Some of the $300 

million in federal spending in the three 

counties is generated by Effigy Mounds 

National Monument in the forms of employee 

wages and construction contracts, for 

example. The livelihoods of service-related 

businesses in the region rely to some degree 

on the inflow of tourist dollars, especially to 

restaurants and motels. Although tourism is 

not the 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 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 contribute a small 

beneficial amount to the impacts of other 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 alternative C 

would have a short-term and long-term 

minor, beneficial economic impact in the 

region. The overall cumulative effects would 

be minor and beneficial. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND 

FACILITIES 

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 
Impact Analyses 

175

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 effects would be detectable, 

but would be of a magnitude that would 

not have an appreciable effect on park 

operations. 

• Moderate —The effects 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 effects 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 neutral for 

others. 

Impacts of 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. 

Monument staff would continue to have to 

limit their time spent in the basement of the 

headquarters building to reduce their radon 

exposure. 

This alternative would create no new impacts 

but would result in the continuation of longterm minor adverse impacts to monument 

operations. 

Cumulative Effects. In general, NPS staff 

members are faced with increasing workloads 

as a result of new NPS initiatives, program 

mandates, and reporting requirements. 

Acquiring the Heritage Addition almost 

doubled the size of the national monument, 

subsequently increasing the management 

workload without any staffing increase. 

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. 

While this alternative would not contribute 

any new effects to the minor adverse effects of 

other past, present, or foreseeable future 

actions, it would allow the continuation of 

minor, adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative, if 

implemented, would cause no new impacts on 

monument operations and facilities but would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

result in continuation of long-term minor 

adverse impacts. Thus, the overall cumulative 

effect would be minor and adverse. 

Impacts from Alternative B – the Preferred 

Alternative 

Implementing this alternative would result in 

changes to NPS staffing, workloads, and 

facility maintenance. It would require six 

additional employees to handle the increased 

workload for law enforcement, interpretation, 

maintenance, and administration. 

In addition to ongoing tasks, facility 

management time would be required to 

coordinate and oversee removal of the houses, 

construction of the new research / 

administrative center, and remodeling the 

visitor center. This could cause a short-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impact. The 

increased square footage (up to 10,000 square 

feet) of facilities would create a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact on monument 

operations because of the increased cleaning 

and maintenance workload. 

Most of the administrative staff would be 

moved to offices in the new research center 

building. This move would most likely 

increase the amount of room available for staff 

and eliminate the current difficulties caused 

by crowds of visitors in the visitor center/ 

headquarters building. This would result in 

long-term minor beneficial impacts on the 

monument staff. 

The health concern of exposure to high levels 

of radon by staff working with the monument’s collections would be alleviated when 

collections are moved into the new building. 

This would be a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact to operations. 

Although no employees currently reside in the 

two houses, implementation of this alternative 

would remove the availability of NPS housing. 

Construction and maintenance of additional 

trails in the monument would add short- and 

long-term adverse impacts. But, since there 

would be few new trails (existing roads would 

be used wherever possible), this impact 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 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 

neutral. 

Conclusion. Implementing the preferred 

alternative would result in short-term, moderate, adverse impacts; long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts; and long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts to monument operations 

and facilities. Cumulative effects would be 

neutral. 

Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 

Implementing this alternative would result in 

some changes to NPS staffing, workloads, and 

facility maintenance. It would require two 
Impact Analyses 

177

additional employees to handle the increased 

workload for interpretation and law 

enforcement. 

Most of the administrative staff would be 

moved to offices in the former houses. This 

would most likely increase the amount of 

room available for staff, resulting in longterm, minor, beneficial impacts on the 

monument staff. No employees currently 

reside in the two houses; however, this action 

would remove the availability of NPS housing. 

In addition to ongoing tasks, facility management time would be required to coordinate 

and oversee remodeling the visitor center, and 

retrofitting the houses to become office space. 

This could cause a short-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impact. 

Monument staff would continue to have to 

limit their time spent in the basement of the 

headquarters building to reduce their radon 

exposure. 

Cumulative Effects. In general, NPS staffs are 

faced with increasing workloads because 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 long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts on monument 

operations and facilities. 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 modest 

beneficial and adverse effects to the minor 

adverse effects of other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions, resulting in 

cumulative effects that are minor and adverse. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would result in short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts; long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts. Cumulative effects would be 

minor and adverse.
178 

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS 

AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

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 costeffectively avoid all use of depletable 

resources in building and operating facilities. 

Because each of the action alternatives 

includes some level of construction, they both 

would impact natural or depletable resources 

and energy to some extent. Generally, the 

amount of resources and energy used in a 

building is related to its size. Other park assets 

that support visitor use and resource 

protection such as parking lots and trails also 

potentially use depletable resources to some 

extent, however the park’s practice is to use 

wood chips from felled trees (a renewable 

resource) for trails. Increases or decreases to 

trails would not impact depletable resource or 

energy use. Because there is no difference 

between the alternatives in the amount of 

parking developed, there would be no 

difference in this impact topic from parking. 

Therefore, only the change in the amount of 

square footage in buildings is used in this 

analysis to approximate the level of resource 

and energy use. 

Impairment: 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 impacts to this topic would not be 

realized within the monument, or perhaps 

even in the vicinity, park resources would not 

be impaired through impacts to depletable 

resources and energy requirements. 

For this analysis, the following thresholds 

were used to determine level of impact: 

Negligible—Implementation of the 

alternative would use a noticeably greater 

amount of depletable resources and energy 

(for an adverse negligible impact) or lower 

amount (for a beneficial negligible impact) 

than is currently being used at the monument, 

but these levels would represent very small 

increases or decreases. For the purposes of 

this analysis, the size of buildings is used as a 

proxy for the amount of resource and energy 

use. A change of less than 30% in the size of 

climate-controlled space over the term of this 

GMP would be considered a negligible 

impact. 

Minor—Implementation of the alternative 

would use slightly more depletable resources 

and energy (for an adverse minor impact) or 

slightly less (for a beneficial minor impact) 

than is currently being used at the monument. 

The level of change in use would be small, but 

higher than a negligible level of change. A 

change of 30% to 100% in the size of climatecontrolled space over the term of this GMP 

would be considered a minor impact. 

Moderate—Implementation of the alternative 

would use considerably more depletable 

resources and energy (for an adverse minor 

impact) or considerably less (for a beneficial 

minor impact) than is currently being used at 

the monument. The change in use level would 

be high. A change of 100% to 200% in the size 

of climate-controlled space over the term of 

this plan would be considered a moderate 

impact. 

Major—Implementation of the alternative 

would use significantly more depletable 

resources and energy (for an adverse minor 

impact) or significantly less (for a beneficial 

minor impact) than is currently being used at 

the monument. The change in use level would 

be very high (an increase of more than 200% 
Natural or Depletable Resources and 

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 

179

in the amount of climate-controlled space 

over the term of the GMP). 

Duration— All impacts to depletable, nonfuel resources are short-term, because, in each 

building project, resources would be used 

only one time (as part of the initial 

construction). 

However, fuel would be used not only in the 

initial construction effort, but also to 

continually heat and cool buildings. 

Therefore, all impacts to energy requirements 

are long term. 

Cumulative Impacts—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). Nevertheless, under the action 

alternatives, the rate of increase in energy use 

in buildings at the monument would be higher 

in some cases than in the commercial building 

sector as a whole. For this analysis, the level of 

impact is stated in comparison to the noaction alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

The only buildings at the park today are the 

visitor center (about 10,000 square feet), the 

newer maintenance building (about 3,500 

square feet), and the three former park houses 

(together, about 6,500 square feet). The total 

built area at the park is about 20,000 square 

feet. 

ALTERNATIVE B – PREFERRED 

The visitor center would be reconfigured, but 

space would not be added (still about 10,000 

square feet). The newer maintenance building 

would remain as is (still about 3,500 square 

feet). The three former park houses would be 

removed (minus 6,500 square feet) and, in the 

space they had occupied, a multi-purpose 

research center would be built (about 15,000 

square feet). The small visitor contact station 

(500 square feet indoors) that would be 

established at Sny Magill would be a 

temporary facility that could be removed 

during flood risk and used only during high 

visitation periods. Because it would not be 

climate-controlled year-round, energy use 

would be lower than for a permanent 

structure of comparable size. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

The visitor center would be reconfigured, but 

space would not be added (still about 10,000 

square feet). Although it would be converted 

to an education center, the newer 

maintenance building would remain the same 

size (still about 3,500 square feet). Similarly, 

the three former park houses would be 

converted to administrative use, but would 

remain the same size (together, still about 

6500 square feet). 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180 

Table 12: Summary of Resource and Energy Impacts

Square Feet of 

Built Space 

Resource use 

Impacts 

Energy use Impacts Summary of 

Impact level 

Alternative A 20,000 None (no new 

construction) 

None (no new energy 

use) 

None (baseline for 

comparison) 

Alternative B 30,000 (an 

additional 

10,0000) 

All new 

construction 

would use 

resources – 

minor adverse 

8,500 square feet of 

the new construction 

would be fully climatecontrolled (1,500 

would not be) – minor 

adverse 

Minor Adverse 

Alternative C 20,000 None (no new 

construction) 

None (no new energy 

use) 

None 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

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 turned the thermostat up 

higher than what our systems are 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 longterm 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. 
Natural or Depletable Resources and 

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 

181

Relevant Laws and Policies 

Executive Order 13423 - Issued on January 24, 

2007 by President George W. Bush, it requires 

federal agencies to “conduct their 

environmental, transportation, and energyrelated 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, the 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 

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 weatherproofing to existing buildings, employing solar 

panels to generate electricity, etc. New 

construction, such as the multi-purpose 

building in the preferred alternative, 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 human-caused climate 

change. 
182 

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. The roads and 

facilities would remain where they are in all 

alternatives. Cultural resources would 

continue to be protected through preservation 

maintenance. 

Alternative B 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. A possible 

exception to this is the proposed research 

center. This would be built in an already 

developed area, so would not result in a 

moderate or major adverse impact. Cultural 

resources would continue to be protected 

through active preservation maintenance. 

Alternative C would have some potential for 

unavoidable adverse impacts on natural and 

cultural resources because it has some new 

development. Development being proposed is 

of relatively low impact such as trails. Cultural 

resources would continue to be protected 

through preservation maintenance. 

In summary, none of the alternatives would 

result in any unavoidable moderate or major 

adverse impacts.
183

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 alternative B 

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 in this alternative 

would result in a loss of habitat and an 

irretrievable commitment of resources. This 

alternative includes no actions that could 

result in the loss of archeological resources. 

Implementing alternative C could result in the 

consumption of nonrenewable natural 

resources in the form of construction 

materials that would constitute an irreversible 

commitment of resources. This alternative 

includes no actions that could result in the 

loss of archeological resources.
184 

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 and/or 

the North Unit. 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

187 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The 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: public meetings and workshops, 

responses to newsletters, and comments 

submitted 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 public involvement process continues as 

review and comment on this Draft General 

Management Plan and 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 USFWS. 

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 DNR with 

requests for written concurrence with this 

determination. 

The National Park Service has committed to 

consult on future actions conducted under the 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

188 

framework described in this general 

management plan to ensure that such actions 

are not likely to adversely affect threatened or 

endangered species. 

Iowa State Historical 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 

1995 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 10 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 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 

• 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 
Public and Agency Involvement 

189

• 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 tribes will have an opportunity 

to review and comment on this draft plan. 

FUTURE COMPLIANCE 

REQUIREMENTS 

The specific undertakings of the preferred 

alternative are listed in table 13. The list shows 

the NPS determinations for additional 

consultations with the SHPO and the ACHP 

under the 1995 programmatic agreement on 

cultural resources and requirements for 

natural resources. 

Table 13: Future Resource Compliance Required for Implementation of Specific Actions 

 Action Compliance Requirement 

Visitor Center / Maintenance Area

Reconfigure VC interior No further SHPO or ACHP consultation necessary 

Remove 2 park housing units and construct an 

administrative/research center 

Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

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

Complete the boardwalk between the Yellow River and 

Highway 76 and connect into Heritage Unit 

Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

Plant native vegetation around VC No further consultation necessary 

North Unit

Acquire village sites along Riverfront Tract and evaluate 

NR/NL status 

Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

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

Minor trail re-alignments for resource protection or visitor 

safety/experience 

No further consultation necessary 

Construct trails onto prairie that connect to Hanging Rock 

Trail 

Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

Construct satellite maintenance facility Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

South Unit

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

Rehabilitate South Unit entrance road for safety No further consultation needed 

Minor trail re-alignments for resource protection or visitor 

safety/experience 

No further consultation needed 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

190 

 Action Compliance Requirement 

Install directional/educational signs No further consultation needed 

Heritage Area

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 and ACHP consultation needed 

Install waysides/signs No further consultation needed 

Construct bridge across Yellow River to connect north and 

south banks 

Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

Sny Magill Unit

Continue restoration/stabilization of Mississippi riverbank 

and select tree removal 

Further SHPO consultation needed 

Construct visitor access boardwalk Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

Acquire land at unit entrance No further consultation needed 

Install visitor contact station Further SHPO and ACHP consultation needed 

Install waysides/signs No further consultation needed 

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 
191

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 Chet Culver, Governor 

Mark Zieman, State Representative 

Chuck Gipp, State Representative 

Brian Schoenjahn, State Senator 

Mark Zieman, 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 

AFFILIATED AMERICAN INDIAN 

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 

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 
192

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

Denver Service Center 

Matthew Safford, Project Manager/Natural 

Resource Specialist – Responsible for 

project coordination, natural resources, 

socioeconomic, and monument 

operations sections of planning, affected 

environment, and impact analysis. 

Craig Cellar, Project Manager/Cultural 

 Resource Specialist – Responsible for

 cultural resources sections of planning,

 affected environment, and impact analysis.

Jan Harris, Chief, Planning Branch 3. 

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

Phyllis Ewing, Superintendent 

Kenneth Block, 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 

Anne Vawser, Cultural Resource Specialist 

Sändra Washington, Chief of Planning 

Publication Services 

Glenda Heronema, Visual Information 

Specialist, Denver Service Center 

Sherrie Keenan, Editor, Parsons Engineering 

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

195 

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. 
196 

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 

197 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

198 
Appendix B 

199
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

200 
201

APPENDIX C: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE IOWA STATE HISTORICAL

PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

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

202 
Appendix C 

203
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

204 
Appendix C 

205
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

206 
207 

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, 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

208 

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.” 

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 unglaciated “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 
Appendix D 

209

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 

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. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

210 

The bluffs, rising up to 300 feet above the river, dominate the view. The diversity of 

habitats (woods, riparian, bluffs), clear water, and opportunities for solitude where only 

natural sounds can be heard, as well as the unobstructed views free from evidence of 

human encroachment are components of this value. The hardwood forest turns into a 

myriad of colors every fall. These combined landscape elements of diverse landforms 

(topography), vegetation, water, seasonal variations of color, and lack of human 

intrusions along most of the river segment make this value significant in the region. 

Recreation: As one of the fastest falling rivers in the state of Iowa the opportunities for paddling 

(canoeing and kayaking) are outstanding. The high scenic quality and naturalness make 

sightseeing, wildlife observation, and photography significant recreational values in the 

river corridor. Visitors are attracted to the river from throughout the region of 

comparison and beyond. Motorized watercraft can be used up to 3 miles from the mouth 

depending on water levels. However this type of use is quite low. 

Geology: The river valley showcases the ability of water to erode and dissolve the limestone 

bedrock to create the rugged terrain of northeast Iowa. During the Ice Ages, the area 

known as the "Driftless Zone" was left unscathed by the advance and retreat of the 

continental ice sheets for a million years. Although the area was not directly affected by 

glaciers, their melt waters carved out the Mississippi River Valley. The river valleys at the 

base of the bluffs used to be much deeper than what exists today, having been filled in 

with glacial debris and sediments over the millennia. The oldest layer exposed at the 

monument is the Jordan sandstone that was laid down during the Cambrian period. This 

layer is seen along the base of the east facing bluffs and is an important aquifer for the 

area. There is approximately 500 feet of vertical relief from the water surface at the mouth 

of the Yellow River (600 ft. above sea level) to the highest point in the Heritage Addition. 

Limestone/dolomite bluffs rise up to 300 feet above the river. 

Fish: Fish species in the Yellow River probably include some or all of the 118 species known to 

occur in the Upper Mississippi River National Fish and Wildlife Refuge which is adjacent 

to the monument. A list provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the 

most common species are gizzard shad, common carp, emerald shiner, river shiner, 

bullhead minnow, and bluegill. An Iowa state species of concern, the pugnose minnow, 

has been found near the Yellow River in the Heritage Addition (Natural Resource 

Commission 1999). Both the brook trout and grass pickerel, state listed species, have been 

found in Dousman Creek, a tributary to the Yellow River, but not in the Yellow River. 

Native freshwater mussels are also found in Dousman Creek and the Mississippi River but 

no live specimens have been found in the Yellow River. The river is not considered a 

nationally or regionally important producer of resident fish species nor does it provide 

unique habitat for rare species. 

Wildlife: Most of the Yellow River corridor is in an area of the monument (the Heritage Addition) 

that is in or returning to a relatively natural condition. Thus, the river corridor provides 

exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife, including federal and state listed 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The Yellow River floodplain has been 

identified as one of 12 nesting sites and one of two multiple nesting sites of the 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 
Appendix D 

211

primarily to provide lumber and lime mortar for the construction of Fort Crawford across 

the Mississippi in Wisconsin. The sawmill has been determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. These resources are significant because they are 

reminders of how early nineteenth century American Indian treaties involved the military 

in resolving “the Indian question” 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 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

212 

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.” 

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 a 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 unglaciated or 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. 
Appendix D 

213

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. 

Until 2000, this social take-out was outside of the boundaries of the monument. Today, the bank 

of the river is inside of the boundary, but according to the most recent boundary survey paddlers 

must cross private land to the point where they access their vehicles. The social takeout area is 

causing damage to the river’s edge through erosion. It also presents a safety hazard both from 

boaters slipping as they exit their canoes in the soft, muddy bank and from their cars exiting the 

informal parking site onto a fast moving highway where it is difficult to see oncoming traffic. The 

GMP alternatives call for closing this take-out site and having paddlers go on downstream to the 

IDNR take-out. 

Status of land ownership. The entire segment of this assessment traverses shores and river 

bottoms which are owned by the National Park Service. As a navigable river, the water column 

itself is state-owned. Law enforcement on the river is subject to concurrent jurisdiction. There are 

no incompatible uses. 

Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, 

foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the system. The segment under 

consideration is within the boundary of a national monument which is managed to preserve 

examples of Indian mound-building cultures, protect wildlife and the natural values, and provide 

for scientific study and appreciation. Upstream from this segment, another 3.8 miles of Yellow 

River also flows through publicly owned land of the Yellow River State Forest. The Yellow is one 

of the fastest falling rivers in the state and is known for providing excellent fishing and canoeing 

opportunities. There are no recreational uses which would be foreclosed or curtailed due to 

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System and its inclusion would enhance the use of this 

river by visitors. 

A pedestrian bridge crosses the Yellow River near the eastern monument boundary. Just outside 

this boundary, about 500 feet downstream from the pedestrian bridge, a highway and a railroad 

bridge cross the river. These existing bridges have begun to erode the scenic value of the river. 

Any additional bridges across the river may further erode the remaining scenic value of the river. 

Therefore, impacts of the bridge to scenery, as well as to the other qualities that make the river 

eligible as a Wild and Scenic River. If a new bridge could not be built that would avoid these 

impacts, it would not be allowed. 

Designation of this segment of the Yellow River would enhance its scenic, recreational, 

geological, wildlife, and historic values and preserve its free-flowing nature. 

The extent to which administration would be shared with state and local agencies. This 

criterion does not apply to this situation because the segment of river under study is completely 

within the boundary of Effigy Mounds National Monument. It would be administered by the 

National Park Service. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

214 

Estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering the area if 

it is added to the National System. There would be no acquisition costs, since the segment under 

consideration flows through federal land managed by the National Park Service. There would be 

some administrative cost to the National Park Service to comply with section 7 of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act (reviews of proposed projects that may affect the river), but this is not expected 

to be significant. There are no anticipated water resource projects at this point that would be 

expected to have direct and adverse effects on the values of this segment of the Yellow River. 

Ability of the agency to manage and/or protect the river area or segment as a WSR, or other 

mechanisms (existing and potential) to protect identified values other than WSR designation

The National Park Service currently works collaboratively with the State of Iowa and others to 

protect the Yellow River. Management of the river, should it be designated, is within the 

capability of the current monument and regional NPS staff. While there are other mechanisms to 

protect the values (such as NRI listing and preservation management prescription of the zone 

surrounding the river in the General Management Plan), WSR designation would strengthen the 

level of protection. 

Historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected. Designation would not affect any 

existing or historic rights. No legal rights exist on the land surrounding this segment of the Yellow 

River that would irreparably harm the river’s values. The Federal government may acquire water 

rights under state law but these water rights would be junior to existing rights. 

Suitability Finding 

Based on the information and analysis above, the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River that 

traverses Effigy Mounds National Monument is suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic River System with the tentative classification of “Scenic.” Designation of this segment 

would provide long-term protection for the outstandingly remarkable river values identified in 

this assessment. 

This study will be forwarded through the Department of the Interior to Congress with a 

recommendation for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Final designation requires that 

Congress must pass, and the President must sign into law, a bill to authorize inclusion of a river 

into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Interim Management 

Until Congressional action occurs on the NPS recommendation for the segment to be included as 

a part of the National Wild and Scenic 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. 
Appendix D 

215

REFERENCES (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. 

Legend

Monument Boundary

Possible Wild & Scenic 

River Boundary

HERITAGE ADDITION

NORTH

UNIT

SOUTH

UNIT

 ADDITION

North

POSSIBLE WILD AND SCENIC

RIVER BOUNDARY

EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC / Jan. 08 / 394 / 20,027

Sny Magill NOTE: Scale of Sny Magill area 

is larger than map on top.

219 

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) 
220 

SELECTED 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. 
Selected References 

221

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 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. 
222 

INDEX 

alternative A, 3, 48, 59, 63, 77, 79, 80, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 134, 139, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148, 150, 152, 

153, 155, 158, 161, 164, 172, 175, 179, 180, 182, 183 

alternative B, 3, 4, 32, 33, 34, 48, 51, 65, 69, 77, 79, 80, 82, 88, 93, 94, 97, 136, 137, 140, 143, 146, 148, 

149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 159, 162, 166, 168, 173, 176, 179, 180, 182, 183 

alternative C, 48, 71, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 138, 139, 141, 144, 146, 149, 151, 152, 

154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 168, 171, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183 

American Indian, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 25, 27, 34, 42, 65, 67, 72, 84, 91, 93, 103, 104, 106, 107, 116, 

133, 139, 142, 143, 144, 163, 165, 167, 168, 171, 188, 189, 191, 195, 211 

American Indians, 10, 27, 34, 42, 84, 93, 106, 107, 139, 142, 143, 144, 188, 195 

archeology, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 67, 83, 102, 103, 104, 105, 145 

cultural resources, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 24, 41, 48, 51, 58, 59, 60, 65, 67, 71, 72, 80, 83, 84, 85, 88, 

102, 106, 109, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 142, 143, 144, 163, 166, 168, 180, 182, 184, 189 

Davis sawmill, 11, 12 

Dousman Creek, 5, 31, 32, 42, 77, 78, 101, 111, 210 

Eagle Rock, 5, 59, 71, 101, 115 

endangered species, 9, 13, 21, 84, 85, 157, 187, 188, 190, 210 

environmentally preferable, 3, 4, 39, 79, 80 

Fire Point, 5, 67, 77, 90, 101, 115, 116, 136, 137, 140, 141, 190 

floodplain, 4, 5, 20, 32, 34, 42, 101, 104, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 210, 211, 212 

general management plan (GMP), 4, 6, 9, 13, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 39, 41, 44, 48, 52, 58, 59, 65, 77, 

80, 86, 87, 111, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 145, 148, 150, 178, 179, 180, 187, 188, 208, 212, 213 

Hanging Rock, 5, 67, 72, 90, 101, 114, 169, 190 

Heritage Addition, i, iii, iv, 4, 5, 6, 10, 26, 32, 33, 34, 44, 59, 60, 65, 66, 71, 77, 86, 87, 88, 89, 101, 

102, 105, 110, 115, 148, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 

173, 175, 176, 177, 184, 195, 210 

infrastructure, 39, 48, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 174, 175, 176 

interpretation, 11, 18, 60, 61, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 77, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 116, 118, 123, 145, 164, 165, 

166, 167, 169, 170, 173, 174, 176, 177, 189 

landscape, 11, 17, 27, 58, 59, 60, 65, 71, 72, 77, 78, 85, 86, 88, 91, 93, 106, 107, 109, 115, 117, 139, 

140, 141, 147, 160, 162, 208, 210, 212 

Mississippi River, 4, 5, 11, 20, 23, 31, 32, 42, 44, 61, 68, 73, 92, 101, 104, 105, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 

115, 116, 117, 119, 128, 135, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 163, 169, 208, 210, 213, 220 

Mississippi River Trail, 23, 128 

moundbuilders, 12, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 67, 72, 73, 91, 146, 166, 169 
Index 

223

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 3, 9, 28, 30, 79, 83, 86, 127, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 

136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 188, 214. 

National Park Service, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 39, 41, 48, 51, 

58, 59, 67, 68, 72, 79, 82, 83, 84, 102, 106, 107, 110, 111, 118, 119, 120, 121, 128, 129, 130, 131, 

132, 134, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 146, 150, 151, 158, 159,•160, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 181, 

184, 187, 188, 191, 196, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 220, 221 

national park system, 4, 6, 10, 13, 28, 39, 48, 83, 128, 180 

natural resources, 3, 5, 11, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 48, 51, 58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 84, 85, 

88, 92, 101, 106, 123, 127, 128, 147, 152, 166, 170, 175, 181, 183, 184, 189, 192, 208 

no action, 79, 80, 143, 183 

North Unit, iii, 4, 5, 44, 60, 67, 72, 90, 101, 114, 115, 116, 123, 128, 136, 137, 146, 161, 162, 163, 164, 

166, 169, 174, 175, 184, 190 

orientation, 165, 167, 170 

parking, 5, 77, 85, 101, 115, 123, 151, 164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 178, 213 

preferred alternative, 3, 4, 35, 48, 51, 65, 78, 80, 86, 87, 95, 96, 97, 137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 149, 151, 

154, 156, 159, 162, 173, 176, 181, 187, 189 

Sny Magill, i, iii, iv, 4, 5, 6, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 42, 58, 59, 61, 65, 68, 71, 73, 77, 78, 80, 82, 87, 92, 101, 

104, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 120, 123, 128, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 148, 153, 156, 161, 

162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 179, 190, 221 

socioeconomic, 3, 30, 35, 101, 120, 127, 128, 129, 171, 172, 173, 174 

soils, 19, 27, 28, 34, 42, 84, 85, 94, 103, 109, 110, 113, 133, 137, 147, 148, 149 

South Unit, iii, 4, 101, 102, 116, 165, 167, 170 

traffic, 33, 118, 213 

trails, 5, 23, 25, 26, 32, 34, 42, 44, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 77, 78, 80, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 

101, 116, 117, 118, 123, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 

155, 156, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,•170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 182, 184, 190 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 31, 191 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4, 23, 28, 68, 113, 157, 158, 187, 190, 210 

user capacity, 22, 39, 41, 44 

visitor experience, 39, 41, 44, 97, 164, 168, 171 

U S. . DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MARCH 3, 1849

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 / DSC / D-59 Printed on recycled paper 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE