Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Effigy Mounds National Monument Clayton County and Allamakee County, Iowa

Effigy Mounds National Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation 2860 on October 25, 1949, to protect significant prehistoric earthen mounds found in northeast Iowa. Subsequent legislation expanded the purpose and significance by specifying the wildlife, scenic, and other natural values of the area. The mounds are in a variety of forms, including effigy (animal-shaped), linear, conical, and compound (a combination of conical and linear elements). The monument contains about 200 mound sites, of which 31 are in the form of bear and bird effigies. The monument’s authorized boundary was expanded in 1961 and again in 2000; it now encompasses a total of 2,526 acres in the North, South, and Sny Magill units, and the Heritage Addition.

The national monument’s last general management plan was completed in 1990 with an amendment completed in 1999. Since 1999, the 1,045-acre Heritage Addition was added to the national monument thereby increasing the land base by approximately 70%. The national monument faces new resource and management challenges as a result of this and other changes. This Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement will provide the direction for these new lands.

During the development of the general management plan, the National Park Service took a close look at past construction activities and practices in the park, particularly those with the potential to harm the archeological resources the park was created to protect. To ensure the protection of the resources, the National Park Service has spent a significant amount of time in the past three years reassessing the proper role, function, and form of development in a landscape dominated by the mounds. As a result, the National Park Service revised the draft general management plan and released it for public comment in fall 2011.

This Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement presents and analyzes three alternative future directions for the management and use of Effigy Mounds National Monument. Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which describes current management of the monument. It serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. Alternative B is the National Park Service preferred alternative and is also the environmentally preferable alternative. In alternative B, a large portion of the monument would be zoned as backcountry and a virtual research center would be created to collect and share information on mound research and preservation. In alternative C, more of the monument would be placed in a “discovery zone” that would allow for more visitor amenities, while a research center would be developed outside of the monument. Alternatives B and C would improve access to the South Unit by connecting the Yellow River bridge and trail to the trails in the South Unit.

The potential environmental impacts of all alternatives have been identified and assessed. The key impacts of implementing alternative A, the no-action alternative, would be no new impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources. There would be no impacts to special status species as a result of this alternative. There would be negligible to moderate, adverse impacts to some cultural resources (including museum collections), but these impacts would be confined to localized areas and would often be offset by beneficial impacts. The mounds would not be adversely affected by any of the alternatives.

The impacts of implementing alternative B, would be beneficial for visitor experience and museum collections, and would result in short-term, minor, adverse impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from building and trail construction. There would be negligible to moderate, adverse impacts to some cultural resources, but these impacts would be confined to localized areas and would often be offset by beneficial impacts. Special status species would not likely be adversely affected. The key impacts of implementing alternative C would be similar to those of implementing alternative B. Special status species would not likely be adversely affected.

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

i

SUMMARY

Effigy Mounds National Monument was some fairly significant changes to the established by presidential proclamation on alternatives that reduce the amount of October 25, 1949, to protect significant development in the alternatives. As a result prehistoric earthen mounds found in of the changes to the alternatives, a Revised northeast Iowa. Subsequent legislation Draft General Management Plan / expanded the purpose and significance to Environmental Impact Statement was include the wildlife, scenic, and other released for public review in August 2011. natural values of the area. The monument’s authorized boundary was expanded in 1961 This Final General Management Plan / and again in 2000; the monument now Environmental Impact Statement presents encompasses a total of 2,526 acres in the three alternatives for future management of North Unit, South Unit, Sny Magill Unit, Effigy Mounds National Monument. and the Heritage Addition.

Since the completion of the 1990 general management plan and the 1999 ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION amendment, several conditions have Current management strategies and trends changed or emerged that prompt the need would continue under the no-action for a new plan: alternative. There would be no major

changes to monument operations or visitor . The 1,045-acre Heritage Addition services. All cultural sites would continue to expanded the monument’s land be maintained and preserved using current base by approximately 70% and practices. The mounds would continue to added several cultural resources, be protected and preserved. Management including mounds and extensive treatments would vary according to the natural areas. cover and condition of individual mounds. . Management of resources and visitor needs at the Sny Magill Unit Historic sites would be protected from are not adequately addressed in the degradation but not otherwise managed. previous general management plan. The museum collections and archives would continue to be stored in the visitor This document is the Final General center basement, which does not meet NPS Management Plan / Environmental Impact museum collections standards. Statement (GMP) for Effigy Mounds National Monument. During the The Heritage Addition would not have a development of this general management long-term plan in place. The North, South, plan, the National Park Service (NPS) took and Sny Magill units would continue to be a close look at past construction activities managed as they are currently. and practices in the park, particularly those with the potential to harm the archeological Key Impacts of Implementing resources the park was created to protect. To ensure the protection of the resources, Alternative A the National Park Service has spent a There would be no new impacts of significant amount of time reassessing the implementing alternative A to soils, proper role, function, and form of vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources. development in a landscape dominated by There would be negligible to moderate, the mounds. As a result, there have been ii Summary long-term, adverse impacts as well as long- variety of trail types in a quiet, term, beneficial impacts to cultural contemplative setting to maintain an resources. Moderate, adverse impacts atmosphere of respect toward the sacred would be confined to localized areas. The nature of the monument. mounds would not be adversely affected. Under this alternative, the diversity of visitor trail experiences would be expanded from that currently offered at the ALTERNATIVE B—NPS monument. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Consistent with the resource conditions Alternative B would provide enhanced and visitor experiences defined in the natural and cultural resource protection, backcountry zone, visitors to some areas of opportunities for increased understanding the monument would be able to experience of the monument, and expanded a walk on marked trails through natural, opportunities for visitors to experience undeveloped landscapes and view some relative quiet and solitude. Due to the mounds in a more natural state (with only sensitivity and irreplaceable nature of the some woody materials removed for mounds and cultural landscape, the preservation purposes). National Park Service will accomplish these goals with the minimum amount of Providing access to mounds that are in development. different conditions would allow an expansion of existing interpretive The landscape and visitor facilities would opportunities and an increased support a contemplative atmosphere with understanding of the monument’s opportunities for visitors to spend time fundamental resources. A trail connecting reflecting on the lives and legacy of the the Yellow River Bridge and North Unit 1 moundbuilders and the sacred nature of trails to the South Unit trails would be the site today. Education and interpretation developed in consultation with the Iowa of the natural resources of the park would state historic preservation officer, Office of be expanded. the State Archaeologist, and traditionally associated American Indian tribes.2 The natural setting created by preserving or restoring landscapes would provide a Those portions of the monument’s museum connection between the moundbuilding collections and archives that are in long- cultures and the environment that shaped term storage and not on display in the their lives and beliefs. This would be visitor center are inaccessible to the public, especially enhanced through the extensive including researchers; these would either be backcountry zone under this alternative. (1) moved out of the basement of the visitor Visitor experiences throughout the monu- center to a more secure location outside of ment would be primarily self-guided on a the monument where they will receive better care while remaining accessible to legitimate researchers; or (2) the current 1. As used in this document, the term moundbuilder is facility would be improved and staffing intended to broadly apply to the prehistoric American Indian groups who constructed mounds for burial and ceremonial purposes in the Upper Mississippi River Valley. Moundbuilding activities spanned approximately 1,800 years beginning around 500 BC during the Late Archaic Period, and continued through the subsequent Woodland 2. In this document, consulting American Indian tribes are Period to AD 1250. Effigy mounds are associated with Late referred to as traditionally associated due to their Woodland Period moundbuilders. Used in this broad traditional association with the lands now recognized as context, the moundbuilders are not necessarily a distinct Effigy Mounds National Monument. This term is not to be cultural group or do not represent continuous occupation confused with culturally affiliated, as defined by the Native of the area by a particular ancestral people. American Graves Repatriation Act. iii SUMMARY would be increased to more closely meet experience the monument and increase NPS museum collections standards. their understanding of the moundbuilders while protecting and preserving natural and cultural resources. A major component of Zoning this alternative would be the establishment of a mound research center in leased space In this alternative, the majority of the near the monument to collect and share monument would be in the backcountry scholarly information, maintenance zone. The area around the visitor center methods, and preservation techniques. would be zoned as development and the Those portions of the monument’s museum most heavily visited trails and mound collections and archives that are in long- groups would be located in the discovery term storage and not on display in the zone. visitor center are inaccessible to the public,

including researchers; therefore, they While the Riverfront Tract is in the monu- would be moved out of the basement of the ment’s authorized boundary, it is not visitor center to a more secure location currently owned by the National Park within the research center. The collections Service. If this tract were acquired, it would would remain accessible to legitimate be managed in the backcountry zone. researchers.

Key Impacts of Implementing As a means of enhancing the visitor Alternative B experience, public access to various units of the monument would be improved in this The key impacts of implementing alternative. More of the monument would alternative B, would be short-term, minor, be in the discovery zone, allowing for more adverse impacts and long-term, negligible, visitor amenities. adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from building The landscape and visitor facilities would and trail construction. Effects would be provide opportunities for the public to beneficial for museum collections because learn about the lives and legacy of the they would be stored in a location that fully moundbuilders and the sacred nature of the meets or more closely meets NPS museum site today. The natural setting created by collections standards. preserving or restoring landscapes would provide a connection between the mound- Alternative B also would result in negligible building cultures and the environment that to moderate, adverse impacts to other shaped the moundbuilders lives and beliefs. cultural resources, but these would be confined to localized areas and would often Visitor experiences throughout the monu- be offset by beneficial impacts. The mounds ment would be on developed trails that would not be adversely affected. Special would allow visitors to learn about the status species would most likely not be mounds and their makers. Because more of adversely affected. There would be minor, the monument would be in the discovery long-term, beneficial impacts on the visitor zone in this alternative, visitors would be experience and the socioeconomic likely to encounter other visitors or park environment. staff during their visit.

Key Impacts of Implementing ALTERNATIVE C Alternative C

Alternative C would provide enhanced and The key impacts of implementing expanded opportunities for visitors to alternative C would be the same as the impacts of implementing alternative B. iv Summary

Zoning monument while protecting cultural and natural resources. The area around the In this alternative, most of the North and visitor center would be zoned as South units would be placed in the development. discovery zone, which allows for more visitor amenities (developed trails, benches, While the Riverfront Tract is in the monu- etc.). The Heritage Addition would be ment’s authorized boundary, it is not zoned backcountry, which allows for less currently owned by the National Park developed public trails to provide some Service. If this tract were acquired, it would access to this area and to other areas of the be managed in the backcountry zone.

v

vi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 3 INTRODUCTION 4 Purpose of the Plan 4 Need for the Plan 5 The Next Steps 5 Implementation of the Plan 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT 6 Climate 6 Geography 6 Monument Units 7 FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 10 Monument Purpose and Significance 10 Primary Interpretive Themes 12 Special Mandates or Administrative Commitments 13 Servicewide Laws and Policies 13 Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan 19 PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 21 Introduction 21 Issues 21 IMPACT TOPICS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL 23 Cultural Resources 23 Natural Resources 24 Other Topics 25 IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 27 Historic Buildings and Structures 27 Air Quality 27 Water Quality and Quantity 27 Wetlands and Floodplains 28 Geology 28 Wilderness 29 Night Sky 29 Soundscapes 29 Prime or Unique Farmlands 30 Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment 30 Indian Trust Lands 30 Environmental Justice 30

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE INTRODUCTION 35 USER CAPACITY 36 Overview 36 Resource and Visitor Experience Indicators and Standards 38 Long-term Monitoring 40 PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEGISLATED BOUNDARY (NON-NPS LAND) 43 Recommended Boundary Adjustments 43 vii CONTENTS

Boundary Adjustments Considered but not Included in Recommendations 46 DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES 49 MANAGEMENT ZONES 51 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 54 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C) 55 Resource Management 55 Visitor Use 55 Monument Management 56 ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION 57 Concept 57 Zoning 57 Monumentwide 57 Heritage Addition 57 Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area (in the North Unit) 57 North Unit 58 South Unit 58 Sny Magill Unit 58 ELEMENTS COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES (ALTERNATIVES B AND C) 63 Heritage Addition 63 Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, and Maintenance Area 63 North Unit 64 South Unit 64 Sny Magill Unit 64 Future Acquisitions 64 ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 66 Concept 66 Heritage Addition 66 Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, Maintenance Area (Development Zone in the North Unit) 66 North Unit 67 South Unit 67 Sny Magill Unit 68 Virtual Research Center 68 ALTERNATIVE C 71 Concept 71 Heritage Addition 71 Visitor Center, Administrative Offices, Maintenance Area (Development Zone in the North Unit) 71 North Unit 71 South Unit 72 Sny Magill Unit 72 Research Center 73 ESTIMATED COSTS 77 Alternative A (No Action) 77 Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 77 Alternative C 78 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 80 ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION 82 MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 84 Cultural Resources 84 Natural Resources 85 FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 88 viii Contents

SUMMARY TABLES 90

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT CULTURAL RESOURCES 103 Background 103 Archeological Resources 104 Ethnographic Resources 105 Cultural Landscapes 106 Museum Collections 107 NATURAL RESOURCES 109 Soils 109 Wild and Scenic Rivers 110 Vegetation 110 Fish and Wildlife 111 Special Status Species 113 Viewsheds 116 VISITOR USE AND UNDERSTANDING 118 Visitor Experience 118 Visitor Understanding 120 Visitor Safety and Access 120 Recreational Use of the Yellow River 121 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 122 Socioeconomic Benefits of the National Park Service 122 Economics in the Study Area 122 Visitor Spending in The Planning Area 123 MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 125

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION 129 Terms and Assumptions 129 Cumulative Impacts 130 CULTURAL RESOURCES 132 Types of Cultural Resources 132 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Methodology 132 Archeological Resources 133 Cultural Landscapes 138 Ethnographic Resources 142 Museum Collections 145 NATURAL RESOURCES 149 Introduction 149 Soils 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers 152 Vegetation 154 Fish and Wildlife 157 Special Status Species 160 Visual Resources/Viewsheds 163 VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 166 Methodology 166 Impacts from Implementing Alternative A 167 Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 169 Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 171

ix CONTENTS

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 175 Methodology 175 Impacts from Implementing Alternative A 176 Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 176 Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 177 MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 180 Methodology 180 Impacts From Implementing Alternative A 180 Impacts from Implementing Alternative B 181 Impacts from Implementing Alternative C 182 NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 183 Introduction 183 Alternative B 183 Alternative C 184 CLIMATE CHANGE 185 Background 185 Relevant Laws and Policies 185 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 187 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 188 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 189

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 193 Public Involvement and Response to Comments 193 Consultation with Other Agencies/Officials and Organizations (To Date) 219 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 221 PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 223

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION SUMMARY 227 APPENDIX B: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 229 APPENDIX C: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 239 APPENDIX D: YELLOW RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ASSESSMENT 261 APPENDIX E: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN IN THE MONUMENT 271 APPENDIX F: KNOWN, PROBABLE, AND POSSIBLE MOUND LOCATIONS IN DEVELOPED AREA 273 REFERENCES 277 INDEX 279

x Contents

TABLES

Table 1. Laws, Mandates, and Policies Pertaining to Effigy Mounds National Monument 15 Table 2: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 41 Table 3. Management Zones 51 Table 4. Estimated Costs of the Alternatives (in 2010 Dollars) 79 Table 5. Environmentally Preferable Alternative 81 Table 6. Summary of Alternatives 90 Table 7. Summary of Key Impacts 96 Table 8. Soils 109 Table 9. Effigy Mounds Visitation Figures 119 Table 10. Visits and Spending by Visitor Segment, 2006 124 Table 11. Economic Effects of Visitor Spending by Sector, 2006 124 Table 12. Response to Comments 195

FIGURES

Figure 1. Region 8 Figure 2. Effigy Mounds National Monument 9 Figure 3. User Capacity Framework 37 Figure 4. Recommended Boundary Adjustments 48 Figure 5. Alternative A 61 Figure 6. Alternative B 69 Figure 7. Alternative C 75

xi

xii

2

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

This Final General Management Plan / section is followed by the estimated costs Environmental Impact Statement (GMP) is associated with each of the alternatives. organized in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) The next sections include the evaluation of implementing regulations for the National the environmentally preferable alternative, Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NPS a discussion of alternatives or actions that Program Standards for Park Planning, and were dismissed from detailed evaluation, Director’s Order 12: Conservation mitigative measures proposed to minimize Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, or eliminate the impacts of some proposed and Decision-making. actions, and future studies and implementation plans that will be needed. Chapter 1: Introduction sets the framework for the entire document. It The chapter ends with summary tables of describes why the plan is being prepared the alternative actions and the and what needs it must address. It gives environmental consequences of guidance for the alternatives that are being implementing those alternative actions. considered based on the national monument’s legislated purpose, the Chapter 3: Affected Environment significance of its resources, special describes those areas and resources that mandates and policies, and fundamental would be affected by implementing actions and other important resources and values. in the various alternatives—cultural resources, natural resources, visitor use The chapter also details the planning and experience, socioeconomic opportunities and issues that were raised environment, and monument operations. during public scoping meetings and initial planning team efforts; the alternatives in Chapter 4: Environmental the next chapter address these issues and Consequences analyzes the impacts of concerns to varying degrees. This chapter implementing the alternatives on topics concludes with a statement of the scope of described in the “Affected Environment” the environmental impact analysis— chapter. Methods used for assessing the specifically what impact topics were or impacts in terms of intensity, type, and were not analyzed in detail. duration are outlined in the chapter.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Chapter 5: Consultation and Preferred Alternative, describes the user Coordination describes the history of capacity framework, recommended public and agency coordination during the boundary adjustments, and the planning effort and a response to management zones that would be used to comments; it also lists agencies and manage the national monument in the organizations that will be receiving copies future. This chapter also describes three of the document. This chapter also alternative ways of addressing the issues includes a list of preparers. and maintaining the monument’s purpose and significance. One alternative consists The Appendixes present supporting of continuation of current management information for the document and the wild and trends in the monument (alternative A, and scenic river assessment, followed by the no-action alternative). Alternatives B References, and an Index. and C are the “action” alternatives. This

3

INTRODUCTION

This document is the Final General this general management plan are as Management Plan / Environmental Impact follows: Statement, which replaces the Revised Draft General Management Plan / Environmental . Confirm the purpose, significance, Impact Statement for Effigy Mounds and fundamental resources and National Monument released in August values of Effigy Mounds National 2011. Monument. . Clearly define the resource This Final General Management Plan / conditions and visitor uses and Environmental Impact Statement presents experiences to be achieved in the and analyzes three alternative future national monument. Provide a directions for the management and use of framework for managers to use Effigy Mounds National Monument. when making decisions about how Alternative B is the NPS preferred to best protect resources, how to alternative and is also the environmentally provide quality visitor uses and preferable alternative. The potential experiences, how to manage visitor environmental impacts of all alternatives use, and what kinds of facilities are have been identified and assessed. needed and appropriate in or near the monument. General management plans are intended to be long-term documents that establish and . Ensure that this framework for articulate a management philosophy and decision making has been framework for decision making and developed in consultation with problem solving in the parks. This general interested stakeholders and management plan is intended to provide adopted by NPS leadership after guidance for the next 15 to 20 years. adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of Actions directed by general management alternative courses of action. plans or in subsequent implementation plans are accomplished over time. Budget Legislation establishing the National Park restrictions, requirements for additional Service and governing park management data or regulatory compliance, and provides the fundamental direction for the competing national park system priorities administration of Effigy Mounds National prevent immediate implementation of Monument (and other units and programs many actions. Major or especially costly of the national park system). This general actions could be implemented 10 or more management plan builds on these laws, years into the future. NPS policies, and legislation that established the monument to provide a vision for the future.

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The “Servicewide Laws and Policies” section calls the reader’s attention to topics The approved general management plan that are important to understanding the will be the basic document for managing management direction at the national Effigy Mounds National Monument for monument. This section presents a the next 15 to 20 years. The purposes of summary of the topics and conditions to which management is striving, including 4 Introduction more detail on the law or policy directing funds, time, and effort. The approval of a management actions. The alternatives in general management plan does not this general management plan address the guarantee that funding and staffing needed desired future conditions that are not to implement the plan would be mandated by law and policy, and which forthcoming. Full implementation of the must be determined through a planning plan could be many years in the future. process. Implementation of the approved plan could also be affected by other factors. NEED FOR THE PLAN Once the general management plan is approved, additional feasibility studies and The existing general management plan for more detailed planning and environmental Effigy Mounds National Monument does documentation would be completed, as not provide adequate management appropriate, before any proposed actions guidance in several key areas. Since the would be carried out. Examples include the completion of the 1990 general following: management plan for the monument and the 1999 amendment, several conditions . Appropriate permits would be changed or emerged that prompt the need obtained before implementing for a new plan: actions that would impact

wetlands. . The 1,045-acre Heritage Addition expanded the monument’s land . Appropriate federal and state base by approximately 70% and agencies would be consulted added several cultural resources, concerning actions that could including mounds and extensive affect threatened and endangered natural areas. species. . Management of resources and . Traditionally associated American visitor needs at the Sny Magill Unit Indian tribes, Office of the State are not adequately addressed in the Archaeologist, and the Iowa state previous general management plan. historic preservation officer would be consulted.

. As appropriate, NEPA THE NEXT STEPS documentation would be prepared prior to any action. After distribution of the Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, there will be a 30-day no action The general management plan does not period after which the NPS planning team describe how particular programs or will prepare a record of decision, which projects should be prioritized or may be signed by the regional director. implemented. Those decisions would be With the signing of the record of decision addressed during the more detailed and its publication in the Federal Register, planning associated with strategic plans, the plan can be implemented. implementation plans, etc. All future, more detailed plans would be based on the goals, future conditions, and appropriate types of IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN activities established in the approved general management plan. The implementation of the approved plan, no matter which alternative, would depend on future NPS funding levels and servicewide priorities, and on partnership

5

DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT

Effigy Mounds National Monument was authorized by Presidential Proclamation CLIMATE 2860 on October 25, 1949. The monument The climate is typical of the Upper currently comprises 2,526 acres in Midwest United States with large annual northeastern Iowa in two counties: and daily fluctuations. In the winter, Allamakee and Clayton. It is divided into snowfall averages about 32 inches. The four units for the purposes of this normal January low/high temperatures are management plan: North Unit, South Unit, 6/24 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with 160 days Heritage Addition, and Sny Magill Unit of the year below freezing. Summer (see region and park maps). Land low/high temperatures in July are 61/83°F. surrounding Effigy Mounds National The average length of the growing season is Monument is managed by the U.S. Fish 140 days with an average annual and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State of precipitation of 32 inches. The Mississippi Iowa, and private landowners. Land uses in River has a moderating effect on the the area include agriculture (farming, climate in the valley that reduces the timber cutting, and livestock grazing), rural variance of temperature extremes. This development, resources management, allows plants that are adapted to warmer recreation, and transportation. conditions to exist farther north than their

normal range. 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 GEOGRAPHY Mississippi River bank and island area is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Effigy Mounds National Monument is Service as the Upper Mississippi River located on the bluffs and floodplain of the National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, a 261- Mississippi River. Elevation of the mile-long preserve that extends from monument varies from about 615 feet Wabasha, Minnesota, to Rock Island, above sea level at the Sny Magill Unit to Illinois. Yellow River State Forest lies just over 1,000 feet in the western part of adjacent to the Heritage Addition. Between the Heritage Addition. Surface topography the currently developed monument units around the monument is composed of and the Sny Magill Unit is Pikes Peak State abruptly rising bluffs, deep valleys, and Park, which preserves several effigy relatively flat ridge tops. In some places the mounds and bluff tops much like those of bluffs rise 300 feet above the Mississippi the monument. The Iowa Department of River. The North and South units and the Natural Resources (IDNR) manages small Heritage Addition are predominantly tracts of land and recreation sites near the uplands with steep bluffs and old open monument. The Iowa Department of fields on the highest upland flat areas. Natural Resources also manages the access Uplands above the 900-foot level comprise road and boat ramp in the Sny Magill Unit. about 50% of the monument area. The area of steep slopes rising from the floodplain up to the 900-foot level make up about 25% of monument lands, while the remaining 25% of the lands consist of

6 Description of the Monument floodplains, water impoundments, and Department of Natural Resources day use waterways (NPS 1999). area. It is a 4-mile round-trip hike to the Marching Bear Group from the day use The monument lies in a geologically unique area. area of erosional topography drained by an intricate system of rivers and streams. A major concern is that visitors must cross Erosional forces have cut through a plain railroad tracks and a busy highway to leaving high divides and precipitous bluffs access the South Unit from the day use above adjacent waterways. Although area. Another concern is that the southern geologic deposits from earlier Ice Age property boundary fence is only about events have been found, the last glacial 20 feet from the nearest mound and period did not cover the area that is now incompatible uses could occur on the the northeast corner of Iowa, so this adjacent private property. eroded landform is commonly referred to as the Driftless Area. Generally speaking, the Driftless Area contains both the Heritage Addition Paleozoic Plateau and the Silurian This 1,045-acre unit was added in 2000, Escarpment, which is a landform transition increasing the monument’s land base by between the Paleozoic Plateau and the approximately 70%. Most access to this glaciated land to the west in Iowa. unit currently requires crossing private

land. There are five known mounds, five

prehistoric stone quarries, four historic MONUMENT UNITS sites, the Yellow River, Dousman Creek, and an abundance of natural resources in North Unit this unit. There are also abandoned logging roads that could be used as foot trails. This The monument's headquarters, unit is not advertised and is not shown on maintenance facility, and visitor center are the current monument brochure. in the North Unit. Trails in this unit allow visitors to view the mounds and scenic views on self-guided walks of varying Sny Magill Unit distances (longest trail is 7 miles round This small 141-acre unit is located in the trip). Wayside exhibits along the trails floodplain on the west bank of the provide interpretive messages. Ranger- Mississippi River about 10 miles south of guided interpretive tours are available on a the headquarters/visitor center. The Iowa seasonal basis. Little Bear Mound (one of Department of Natural Resources the monument’s finest examples of the maintains a boat ramp, parking area, and effigy style), Great Bear Mound (the largest access road into the unit. With over effigy mound in the monument), and many 100 mounds, the Sny Magill Unit contains other mound groups are in the North Unit. 50% of all mounds in the monument. It In addition, spectacular views of the also has the highest concentration of Mississippi River Valley are available from mounds known in the region. A trail leads Eagle Rock, Fire Point, Third Scenic View, from the access road to mounds in the and Hanging Rock. northern end of the unit. This unit is not

advertised and not shown on the South Unit monument brochure. There are no visitor services or NPS presence in this unit; there The South Unit contains the renowned is not much indication that it is a national Marching Bear Group of mounds. Access park system unit. to the South Unit is by foot from the Iowa

7

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

make decisions that preserve the resources MONUMENT PURPOSE and values necessary to accomplish the AND SIGNIFICANCE national monument’s purpose. Fundamental resources and values are Monument Purpose critical in fulfilling the monument’s purpose and maintaining its significance. Purpose statements are based on the Other important resources and values are national monument’s legislation and otherwise important to park planning and legislative history and NPS policies. The management. Identifying fundamental and statement reaffirms the reasons for which other important resources and values helps the national monument was set aside as a to focus management on the features most unit of the national park system and important in the monument. provide the foundation for management and use. Significance 1. The national monument contains nationally significant Effigy Mounds National Monument archeological resources comprising one of preserves outstanding representative the largest concentrations of burial examples of significant phases of mounds in the United States, including prehistoric Indian moundbuilding some of the finest and best preserved cultures in the American Midwest; examples of effigy mounds in their original protects wildlife and natural values forms. These cultural features provide an within the monument; and provides for insight into the social, spiritual, and scientific study and appreciation of its ceremonial life of peoples in this region features for the benefit of this and future prior to European contact. generations. Fundamental Resources and Values— These resources include the primary Significance Statements and archeological sites in all units of the Associated Fundamental and Other monument, including all their features Important Resources and Values such as mounds, rock shelters, habitation sites, rock art, and associated Significance statements capture the artifacts, representing 1,800 years of the importance of the national monument to moundbuilding culture. While the the country’s natural and cultural heritage. Heritage Addition has not yet had a Significance statements do not inventory systematic archeological inventory national monument resources; rather, they completed, some mounds have been describe the national monument’s discovered in that area. The resources distinctiveness and help to place the of that area are included as fundamental monument within its regional, national, resources. and international contexts. Significance statements answer questions: Why are Significance 2. The natural and cultural Effigy Mounds National Monument’s resources of the monument are intricately resources distinctive? What do they connected—the moundbuilding cultures contribute to the natural/cultural heritage? were the result of the dynamic interface of Defining the significance and associated people and their environment. The native fundamental resources helps managers vegetation communities associated with 10 Foundation for Planning and Management the moundbuilding era were the result of culture. Conversely, early scientific the topography and climate found in the research conducted in the monument geologically unique Driftless Area of the during the late 1800s began the period of Upper Midwest. This environment understanding and preserving of the rich produced microhabitats that support Indian culture. extensive flora and fauna diversity. This diversity attracted and sustained Important Resources and Values— generations of American Indians. The monument includes a road built in 1840 by the military that connected Fort Fundamental Resources and Values— Crawford, Wisconsin Territory, with The monument contains habitat for an Fort Atkinson, Iowa, and a historic assemblage of plants found nowhere archeological site—the Jefferson Davis else in Iowa and rare in the region. This sawmill—that supported the building of habitat includes both the transition Fort Crawford. These are some of the zone of several vegetation communities reminders of how early 19th-century found in the eastern hardwood and American Indian treaties involved the prairie ecosystems and microclimates military in resolving “the Indian produced by north-facing slopes and problem” and opened up the territories the influence of the river valley. for United States expansion and settlement prior to the Mexican War. Habitat, including wetlands, for almost 300 species of birds, including nesting Additional historic sites within the habitat for the red-shouldered hawk (a monument document early American state listed species) and habitat for use of the land for homesteading; several other federal- and state listed agriculture; and economic, consumptive animal and plant species, including bald purposes, such as clamming, logging, eagles, peregrine falcons, Higgins eye and quarrying. These sites are tangible pearlymussel, purple fringed orchid, connections to the early western and jeweled shooting star. expansion of America.

Important Resources and Values— Significance 4. The monument preserves The Yellow River is listed in the and protects physical evidence of the Nationwide Rivers Inventory and cultural landscape, which documents the possesses outstandingly remarkable early and continuing scientific interest in values. the mounds and moundbuilding cultures. The monument’s cultural resources and The topography associated with the collections document the full breadth of Driftless Area reveals 500-million-year- archeological investigations in the old limestone bedrock. monument, from early mound documentation and exploration to modern The exposed 400-foot bluffs methods of archeological investigation that overlooking the Mississippi River incorporate a variety of techniques and feature American Indian rock art sites, native perspectives. rock shelters that were important as habitation sites, and chert outcroppings Fundamental Resources and Values— that were locally important for making The monument’s collections include tools and weapons. original documents, photographic collections, and artifact collections that Significance 3. The monument contains both document the important historic resources that represent European contributions of Ellison Orr and others American settlement of the area and the to the early development of the science displacement of historic American Indian of field archeology relating to the 11 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

moundbuilding cultures and support inhabitants to maintain a balance future scientific study and with the natural environment. interpretation of paleontology, natural These cultural systems of social history, geology, history, and ethnology. organization (required to harness the labor to build the mounds), Significance 5. The monument is spiritual expression (the mounds), identified by present-day members of the economics (widespread trade monument’s traditionally associated tribes networks), and horticulture and as a sacred landscape. early agriculture, allowed these peoples to invest the time and labor Fundamental Resources and Values— necessary to build the mounds. The individual resources of the . The notable erosional features of monument listed previously as the Driftless Area set the fundamental and important resources— framework for a unique assemblage mounds and associated artifacts, native of prairie and forest, wetlands and vegetation, and rivers—collectively upland, and warm and cool form a cultural landscape. Tribes and environments that are home to NPS staff are pursuing a designation highly diverse communities of that would acknowledge the entire plants and animals. This provides national monument as a traditional an opportunity to study the cultural property. Some natural intricate connection between the resources present in the monument, moundbuilding people and the such as medicinal and ceremonial dynamic continuum of the natural plants, are also culturally important, world that had a profound impact contributing to the importance of the on the evolution of a complex area to modern American Indian tribes. American Indian culture.

. The design and extent of ancient mound construction reveals not PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES only the cultural sophistication and foresight of generations of Primary interpretive themes are the key moundbuilders, but also illustrates stories, concepts, and ideas of a park that the special value they placed in the NPS staff use for educating visitors their shared community beliefs and about the monument and for inspiring in these sacred places. visitors to care for and about the resources.

With these themes, visitors can form With European and American expansion, intellectual and emotional connections forces swept over the Effigy Mounds area, with monument resources and removed the American Indian residents experiences. Subsequent interpretive and displaced their culture. Ironically, the planning may elaborate on these primary monument, as a sacred site, includes themes. Based on the park’s purpose, remnants of these cultural conflicts and the significance, and primary resources, the forces of “nation- building” revealed by the following interpretive themes have been old military road that connected Fort developed: Crawford to Fort Atkinson, the Jefferson

Davis sawmill site, the nearby Winnebago . Effigy Mounds National mission school, and a portion of the Monument preserves earthen Neutral Ground (a “buffer zone” mounds that are a manifestation of established by the U.S. Government to a sophisticated moundbuilding control American Indian movement and culture composed of several activity). cultural systems that allowed the

12 Foundation for Planning and Management

. The monument’s cultural resources SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES and collections document the full breadth of archeological Many management directives are specified investigations in the monument, in laws and policies guiding the National from early mound documentation Park Service and, therefore, are not subject and exploration, to modern to alternative approaches. For example, methods of archeological there are laws and policies about managing investigation that incorporates a environmental quality (such as the Clean variety of techniques and native Air Act; the Endangered Species Act; and perspectives. The monument Executive Order 11990, “Protection of continues to serve as a springboard Wetlands”); laws governing the for the progression of American preservation of cultural resources [such as archeology—from a simple National Historic Preservation Act fascination with “curiosities” to a (NHPA) and Native American Graves scientific methodology that today Protection and Repatriation Act incorporates the sacred nature of (NAGPRA)]; and laws about providing American Indian archeological public services (such as Americans with sites. Disabilities Act). In other words, a general . Combining a focus on less invasive management plan is not needed to decide, archeological methods with for instance, that it is appropriate to continued consultation with protect endangered species, protect traditionally associated tribes archeological sites, conserve artifacts, or allows a better understanding of provide for handicap access. Laws and American Indian traditions, policies have already decided those and history, and stories related to the many other things. Although attaining moundbuilding cultures. Only by some of the conditions set forth in these combining earlier methods of laws and policies may be temporarily archeology, other less invasive deferred in a park because of funding or methods of today, and the oral staffing limitations, the National Park traditions and histories of the Service would continue to strive to native peoples can we develop a implement these requirements whether or deeper understanding of and not a park has a current general spiritual connection with the past. management plan.

Some of these laws and executive orders are applicable solely or primarily to units of SPECIAL MANDATES OR the national park system. These include the ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS NPS Organic Act of 1916 that established the National Park Service; General Public Law 106-323 allowed for additional Authorities Act of 1970; act of March 27, lands (50-acre Riverfront Tract) to be 1978, relating to management of the purchased from willing sellers and adjusted national park system; and National Parks the monument boundary to include these Omnibus Management Act (1998). Other lands. While the Riverfront Tract is in the laws and executive orders have much legislated monument boundary, it remains broader application, such as the in ownership of the Iowa Department of Endangered Species Act, the National Natural Resources and the Canadian Historic Preservation Act, and Executive Pacific Railroad. Should this land become Order 11990. available, it may be purchased by the federal government and immediately The NPS Organic Act (16 United States included in the monument. Code (USC)1) provides the fundamental

13 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND management direction for all units of the which these various areas have been national park system: established.”

[P]romote and regulate the use of the The National Park Service also has Federal areas known as national parks, established policies for all units under its monuments, and reservations…by such stewardship. These are identified and means and measure as conform to the explained in a guidance manual titled NPS fundamental purpose of said parks, Management Policies 2006. The action monuments and reservations, which alternatives (alternatives B and C) purpose is to conserve the scenery and the considered in this document incorporate natural and historic objects and the wild and comply with the provisions of these life therein and to provide for the mandates and policies. enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, section unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 5(d)(1) requires that consideration be given generations. by all federal agencies to potential national wild, scenic, and recreational river areas, The NPS General Authorities Act (16 USC and all river basin and project plan reports 1a-1, et seq.) affirms that while all national submitted to the Congress shall consider park system units remain “distinct in and discuss any such potentials. character,” they are “united through their interrelated purposes and resources into Table 1 shows some of the most pertinent one national park system as cumulative servicewide mandates and policies related expressions of a single national heritage.” to planning and management goals at The act makes it clear that the NPS Organic Effigy Mounds National Monument. Act and other protective mandates apply Because these goals are discussed in terms equally to all units of the national park of “desired conditions,” the table is written system. Further, amendments state that in the present tense. The alternatives in this NPS management of park units should not management plan address the desired “derogat[e] . . . the purposes and values for future conditions that are not mandated by law and policy and must be determined through a planning process.

14

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND generally compatible with the monument’s The Upper Mississippi National Wildlife management alternatives. and Fish Refuge is designated as a Ramsar Convention wildlife refuge. The Ramsar The Mississippi River Trail is a long-distance Convention on Wetlands is an intergovern- bicycle and pedestrian trail being developed mental treaty that provides the framework along the Mississippi River from Minnesota for national action and international to Louisiana. The National Park Service cooperation for the conservation and wise supports this effort and proposes that the use of wetlands and their resources. It was monument become a destination point along adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 the trail. However, bicycles are not allowed and came into force in 1975. It is the only on monument trails, so the river trail must be global environmental treaty that deals with a routed outside the monument. The particular ecosystem. monument may provide bicycle racks at trailheads to accommodate this visitor Because the national monument staff already group. works in concert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to preserve wetlands, the The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages Ramsar Convention designation does not the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and affect the way the national monument is Fish Refuge located on the Mississippi River managed. next to the monument. Monument staff review refuge planning documents for The National Park Service would endeavor potential management conflicts, and the to remain involved with local and regional refuge staff review NPS documents. The U.S. efforts to protect, manage, and interpret Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a burial mounds and other cultural resources visitor center to be built relatively near the in the region. Sny Magill Unit.

20

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS

The planning team also received many INTRODUCTION interesting ideas and suggestions for future management of the monument. Many The general public; NPS staff; representatives respondents felt that the National Park from other county, state, and federal agencies; Service is doing a good job and want the and representatives from various organiza- monument to stay the way it is now with tions identified issues and concerns during no further development. Others would like scoping (early information gathering) for this to see more American Indian involvement. general management plan. An issue is defined Commenters also said the National Park as an opportunity, conflict, or problem Service should continue or enhance its regarding the use or management of public efforts to preserve cultural and natural lands. Comments were solicited at public resources. Some think the National Park meetings, through planning newsletters, and Service should expand the visitor on the NPS planning website (see “Chapter 5: opportunities available at the monument Consultation and Coordination”). Planning and provide more trails, activities, or other issues and concerns can change over time or visitor amenities. have been addressed during the development of the plan. Additional issues were raised in Comments received during scoping response the Effigy Mounds Revised Draft demonstrated there is much that the public General Management Plan / Environmental likes about the national monument— Impact Statement, responses to these including its management, use, and comments are provided in “Chapter 5: facilities. The issues and concerns Consultation and Coordination.” generally involve determining the

appropriate visitor use, types, and levels of In general, visitors and others value the cul- facilities and activities while protecting the tural and natural resources in the monument. primary resources. The GMP alternatives They value the well-preserved burial mounds, provide strategies for addressing the issues scenic views, beauty, and natural resources. In within the context of the monument’s addition, respondents appreciate the purpose, significance, and special recreational opportunities (hiking, birding, mandates. etc.) and participation in the various programs and events that are offered at the monument.

The issue receiving the most comments was ISSUES the need to improve/strengthen interpretive and education programs at the monument and During public scoping for the planning in nearby communities (outreach). Concerns process, many possible issues were over the limited funding and workforce were proposed by the public and agency expressed. The preservation of natural personnel. Some of these were not resources was identified as an important issue. addressed in the plan because they are Many people felt the National Park Service covered by law and policy, are outside the should partner with other local agencies and scope of the general management plan, or organizations to manage resources in a are better addressed in a site-specific plan. regional context. The following issues were identified by the public and NPS staff during the early phases of this planning effort.

21 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

Information, Education, and be further researched, preserved, Access Issues and interpreted. . The boundary fence near . Public access to the Heritage Addition Marching Bear group is too close is limited. The Yellow River runs to the mounds (approximately 20 through the Heritage Addition feet) to protect the resource and effectively splitting the area into two provide for a quality visitor segments. Access to the southern experience; the general portion of the Heritage Addition management plan needs to requires crossing private land. Access consider how to protect both to the northern portion is limited by a resources and the viewshed at the lack of parking or safe vehicle pullouts Marching Bear group. from Highway 76. . There are concerns about . Orientation, wayfinding, facilities, and protecting key viewsheds seen opportunities for hiking in the from the monument; there is a monument are lacking and do not need to mitigate visual meet visitor needs. encroachments. . The monument’s difficult terrain and . The current facility that houses the extensive archeological resources monument collections does not mean that providing universal access meet NPS museum collections to all resources is difficult or nearly standards for preservation or impossible. operational needs. . Visitors to the Sny Magill Unit do not . There is a need for a wild and receive orientation materials or scenic river eligibility contact with park staff. As a result, determination for the Yellow visitors are discouraged from visiting River. this area.

. The visitor center is overcrowded when school groups are present. The Administrative Issues visitor center space is too small to meet the needs of the visitors and . There is a need to more fully interpretive staff. address management of and possible development in the Sny Magill Unit; there is a need for a Cultural and Natural stronger NPS presence there. Resource Management Issues . Decisions on appropriate levels of access and development need to be . Additional resources related to the made for the Heritage Addition. moundbuilders in the region need to

22

IMPACT TOPICS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL

An important part of planning is seeking to these resources; consequently, this topic is understand the consequences of making retained for detailed analysis. one decision over another. To this end, NPS general management plans are Cultural Landscapes, either historic or typically accompanied by environmental ethnographic, that are distinctive features impact statements. Environmental impact of the human-built environment or natural statements identify the anticipated impacts environment, or both, and that represent of possible actions on resources and on aspects of a way of life of a people, group, park visitors and neighbors. Impacts are or family. One or more of the alternatives organized by topic, such as “impacts on the could affect this resource, so this topic is visitor experience” or “impacts on retained for detailed analysis. vegetation and soils.” Impact topics serve to focus the environmental analysis and to Museum Collections consist of objects or ensure the relevance of impact evaluation. records that relate to site history, setting, and occupation. One or more of the The impact topics identified for this general alternatives could affect this resource, so management plan are outlined in this this topic is retained for detailed analysis. section; they were identified based on federal laws and other legal requirements, Ethnographic Resources are those CEQ guidelines, NPS management policies, resources that are associated with a staff subject-matter expertise, and the people’s cultural system or way of life. They issues and concerns expressed by the public include technology, sites, structures, and other agencies early in the planning material features, and natural resources. process (see previous section). Because access to and use of ethnographic resources is a topic of interest to American Impact topics, simply defined, are the Indians, this topic is retained for detailed resource categories that could be affected analysis. by the actions of the alternatives of the plan. The impact topics discussed below were Note: The mounds can be classified as derived from the issues identified during structures, archeological and ethnographic scoping and the potential for impacts. resources, and/or components of the cultural landscape at Effigy Mounds National Monument. Of the 210 structures within the monument that are listed on the CULTURAL RESOURCES NPS List of Classified Structures, 208 are mounds. In this document, impacts to the Cultural resource topics to be considered mounds would be considered under are of five overlapping types. They include “Archeological Resources.” Two historic the following: structures, the Military Road and a cistern,

are not affected by proposals in the plan so Archeological Resources consist of “structures” as an impact topic was not artifacts, objects, or sites that evidence past considered further. human habitation or occupation over time. One or more of the alternatives could affect

23 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

adverse effects these species could cause to NATURAL RESOURCES native plants.

Soils Alternatives presented in this plan could affect native and invasive nonnative The soil in the area around Effigy Mounds vegetation, so this topic is retained for originated from erosion of the limestone detailed analysis. bedrock and was deposited by the wind or water in relatively recent times. Fish and Wildlife Soil can be affected by development, ecological restoration, and visitor use. Effigy Mounds National Monument is Because alternatives presented in this plan home to an unusual diversity of fish, birds, include actions that would affect soil and wildlife due to its location and habitat. resources, this topic is retained for further As one of the largest preserved natural areas analysis. in Iowa, the monument may serve as a refuge for sensitive or representative flora and fauna. Wild and Scenic Rivers Fish and wildlife concerns at the monument Units of the national park system that include preserving or restoring natural contain one or more river segments listed in habitats and maintaining healthy the Nationwide Rivers Inventory would populations of fauna. Alternatives comply with section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and presented in this general management plan Scenic Rivers Act, which instructs each could potentially affect fish or wildlife federal agency to assess whether those species or important habitat, so this topic is rivers or segments are suitable for inclusion retained for analysis. in the national wild and scenic rivers system. Special Status Species A segment of the Yellow River within the monument is listed on the Nationwide Analysis of the potential impacts on special Rivers Inventory, so this topic is retained for status species (federal or state endangered, further analysis. Included in this general threatened, or candidate species; or species management plan is a study to determine if of concern) is required by the Endangered the Yellow River is eligible and suitable for Species Act, NPS management policies, the inclusion in the national wild and scenic National Environmental Policy Act, and rivers system (appendix D) other regulations. One or more of the alternatives could affect special status species or their habitat so this topic is Vegetation retained.

The transition zone of several vegetation communities found in the eastern Viewsheds hardwood and prairie ecosystems and microclimates produced by north-facing Unobstructed natural views are becoming slopes and the influence of the river valley scarcer throughout the United States. They provide habitat for an assemblage of plants are especially important at the monument found nowhere else in Iowa and rare in the because they contribute to a sense of region. timelessness—an important quality of the Effigy Mounds experience. As expressed There is a concern about the spread of through comments received during public nonnative plants in the monument and the scoping, natural views are valued by the 24 Impact Topics Discussed in Detail public. Because of the importance of of the action alternatives, so this topic is natural viewsheds, this topic is retained. retained for analysis.

Natural or Depletable Resources OTHER TOPICS Requirements and Conservation Potential Visitor Use and Experience Consideration of these topics is required by The Organic Act of 1916 and NPS 40 CFR 1502.16. The National Park Service management policies require the National adopted the concept of sustainable design Park Service to provide opportunities for as a guiding principle of facility planning the enjoyment of a park unit's resources and development (NPS Management and values. This enjoyment comes from Policies 2006, 9.1). The objectives of activities that are appropriate for each park sustainability are to design facilities to unit. Scenic viewsheds and the ability to minimize adverse effects on natural and view the mounds up close are considered cultural values and to require the least an important contributing factor to positive amount of nonrenewable resources and visitor experiences in this monument. energy. Actions in one or more of the alternatives could affect visitor use and experience in Through sustainable design concepts, best the monument, so this topic is retained. management practices, and other resource management principles, all the alternatives Socioeconomic Environment analyzed in this document would contribute to conserving natural resources. National Environmental Policy Act Analysis of this topic has been combined requirements include an analysis of social with the following topic and placed at the and economic impacts caused by federal end of the Environmental Consequences actions. chapter.

The economies of several nearby Energy Requirements communities are affected by the and Conservation Potential monument. Changes to the way Effigy Mounds is managed or operated resulting One or more of the action alternatives from implementing one or more of the could result in new facilities with inherent alternatives in this plan could influence the energy needs. In all alternatives, new socioeconomic environment of nearby facilities would be designed with long-term communities; consequently, this topic is sustainability in mind. Nevertheless, action retained for analysis. alternatives that call for additional structures could result in an increased Monument Operations energy need. Analysis of this topic has been and Facilities combined with the previous topic at the end of the “Environmental Consequences” Topics could include staffing, maintenance, chapter. facilities, ability to enforce park regulations and protect park values, employee and Climate Change visitor health and safety, or administrative access. Climate change refers to a suite of changes occurring in Earth’s atmospheric, Changes in monument operation needs hydrologic, and oceanic systems. could occur as a result of implementing any Documented changes, including increased 25 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND global air and ocean temperatures, cumulative level of greenhouse gases or widespread melting of snow and ice, and other climate change factors (e.g. carbon rising global average sea level, provide footprint) when viewed nationwide. evidence that the climate system is Potential management actions could change warming. Any of the action alternatives at the monument’s contribution to climate Effigy Mounds National Monument would, change factors. This topic is discussed in of course, have very little effect on the chapter 4.

26

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

exhaust is the most common pollutant in HISTORIC BUILDINGS the region and is heaviest around roads and AND STRUCTURES highways, railroad tracks, and agricultural operations. Airborne particulates (e.g., dust Historic buildings and structures are those and smoke) are generated from that are important to local, regional, or construction, agricultural operations, and national history and that are either listed in the burning of fields or weeds. or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. No standing or Construction-related activities could occur intact historic buildings remain at Effigy with the implementation of an action Mounds National Monument. Although alternative and local air quality may be the mounds could be considered temporarily affected by this activity. structures, in this analysis they have been However, there would be no long-term treated as archeological resources. effects on air quality so it was dismissed as an impact topic in this document. Military Road is also being described and treated as an archeological resource, although several sections have been maintained for park trail and maintenance WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY use. The houses near the maintenance building have been determined ineligible Groundwater at the monument is found in for the national register. Therefore, there the Jordan-Prairie du Chien bedrock would be no impact on historic buildings interval and is typically called the Jordan or structures and this topic has been Aquifer. Local streams receive high dismissed from further analysis. proportions (70%–80% or more) of their base flow from groundwater, which provides important cold water characteristics of the streams. AIR QUALITY The Yellow River originates in south- The Clean Air Act states that managers eastern Winneshiek County, Iowa, and have an affirmative responsibility to flows through the monument about protect park air quality from adverse air 3.5 miles before joining the Mississippi pollution impacts. The monument is a River. A portion of the Yellow River, Class II airshed according to guidelines in including the segment that runs through the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. the monument, is currently listed on Iowa’s Under Class II, modest increases in air impaired waters list for high levels of fecal pollution are allowed beyond baseline coliform bacteria (Weeks 2006). Dousman levels for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, Creek, a cold water trout stream, enters the nitrogen, and nitrogen dioxide, provided Yellow River inside the monument that the national ambient air quality boundary. standards, established by the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA), are not Sny Magill Creek is one of the more widely exceeded. used streams for recreational trout fishing in Iowa. The stream bottom is primarily There are no major air pollution sources rock and gravel with frequent riffle areas. within or near the monument. Engine 27 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

In most years, discharge in the Sny Magill flow velocity of the Yellow River and Sny watershed is high during the spring and Magill Creek (NPS 1999). On the Yellow summer and declines during the fall and River, the backup occurs for about 3 miles winter. High flows during the spring upstream from its mouth. snowmelt period and summer storms can cause sediment discharge from Sny Magill The only actions proposed in the Creek. alternatives that could affect wetlands or floodplains are the construction of trails None of the alternatives described in this through the Heritage Addition and in the plan would affect water quality or quantity Sny Magill Unit in alternatives B and C. so this topic is dismissed from detailed Until public access / development plans for analysis. these areas are prepared, it is difficult to assess the impacts (if any) that might occur. Full site-specific environmental impact analyses on wetlands and floodplains WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS would be conducted with the development of these plans, so wetlands and floodplains Within Effigy Mounds National are dismissed from further analysis in this Monument, the Yellow River wetlands are general management plan and deferred to made up of the slow-moving river and the the implementation plans. adjacent floodplain, several small shallow ponds, and Dousman Creek. These wetlands total about 650 acres and contain habitat for many resident and migratory GEOLOGY birds The monument lies in a geologically unique The North and South units of Effigy area of erosional topography drained by an Mounds National Monument contain four intricate system of rivers and streams. ponds or ponded wetlands totaling Erosional forces have cut through a plain approximately 65 acres; these are leaving high divides and precipitous bluffs associated with active floodplains of the above adjacent waterways. Although Yellow River and the west bank of the geologic deposits from earlier Ice Age Mississippi River. events have been found, the last glacial period did not cover the area that is now These ponds are located within the 100- the northeast corner of Iowa, so this year floodplain (NPS 1999). Founders eroded landform is commonly referred to Pond is the largest, with a surface area of 40 as the Driftless Area. Generally speaking acres and average depth of 3 feet. The the Driftless Area contains both the smallest pond is about 3 acres with a depth Paleozoic Plateau and the Silurian of 1 foot (Weeks 2006). Escarpment, which is a landform transition between the Paleozoic Plateau and the The entire Sny Magill Unit is within the glaciated land to the west in Iowa. 100-year and 500-year floodplains (Weeks 2006). Periodic and seasonal flooding is None of the alternatives described in this common, causing complete or partial document include actions that would inundation of the Sny Magill Unit for short disturb or destroy rock outcroppings or periods, usually in the spring. other geologic formations. Because there would be no potential to affect the geology The Yellow River and Sny Magill drainages of the monument or region, this topic is are influenced by the Mississippi River dismissed from further analysis. during high flows, when the Mississippi River backs into these drainages, reducing 28 Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration

WILDERNESS day use only, the topic of night sky is dismissed from further consideration. Wilderness areas are established through congressional designation. There are no areas in the monument with such SOUNDSCAPES designation and it is unlikely that areas would be eligible for possible designation. NPS Management Policies 2006 requires Although the current management park managers to strive to preserve the planning process was undertaken in large natural soundscape of a park, which is part because of the acquisition of the defined as the lack of human-related sound 1,045-acre Heritage Addition, an and the prevalence of natural sounds. Due assessment of the size, configuration ,and to the primarily undeveloped nature of condition of the area makes it impractical Effigy Mounds National Monument, to be managed as wilderness. Therefore, natural sounds predominate throughout this topic is dismissed from further most of the units. These sounds are analysis. associated with physical and biological

resources such as the sounds of wind

through the trees, flowing water, or birds. NIGHT SKY Impacts on the monument’s soundscapes NPS policy requires the park service to occur from activities outside the preserve, to the extent possible, the natural monument. These activities include traffic lightscapes of parks and seek to minimize on Highway 76 and trains on the tracks the intrusion of artificial light (light that run alongside the monument’s eastern pollution) into the night scene (NPS boundary and adjacent to the Sny Magill Management Policies 2006). The clarity of Unit. The planning team has learned there night skies is important to visitor would be a substantial increase in the experience and is also ecologically number of coal trains running alongside important. Artificial light sources, both the monument—up to 27 additional trains within and outside the monument, have per week. Another source of noise is the potential to diminish the clarity of night motorized boat traffic on the Yellow River skies. and Mississippi River.

The rural setting of the monument Most noise created within monument currently provides for relatively dark lands occurs in the visitor center / nights. Following NPS policy, existing maintenance area. However, this area is outdoor lighting that is found to be zoned as development, which allows more contributing to nighttime light pollution noise than other zones. Increased would be replaced with fixtures that do not visitation, which could occur with the contribute to light pollution. In addition, improved access, could increase the any new outdoor lighting installed as a human-caused noise, but this increase is result of implementing any of the expected to be slight. alternatives in this document would be the minimum necessary for safety or security The alternatives would not appreciably and of a design that prevents stray light change the distribution or number of from spreading upwards into the sky (best visitors or activities in a given area and so lighting practices). Monument personnel would not affect natural soundscapes. would work with neighbors to decrease Implementing any of the alternatives light pollution if a problem arises under would not alter the monument’s natural any alternative. Given these considerations soundscape except on a temporary basis, and the fact that the monument is open for 29 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND so this topic is dismissed from further INDIAN TRUST LANDS analysis. Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources from a proposed action by PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS Department of the Interior (USDI) agencies be explicitly addressed in In August 1980, the Council on environmental documents. No lands Environmental Quality directed that within Effigy Mounds National Monument federal agencies must assess the effects of are held in trust by the Secretary of the their actions on farmland soil classified by Interior solely for the benefit of American the U.S. Department of Agriculture Indians due to their status as American Natural Resources Conservation Service Indians. However, recognized tribes (NRCS) as prime or unique. Prime having any implied or explicit rights to use farmland is defined as soil that particularly lands or resources on the monument produces general crops such as common would continue to have these rights foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique honored in accordance with law and NPS farmland produces specialty crops such as policy. This topic is dismissed from further fruits, vegetables, and nuts. analysis.

Three of the soil units found within the boundaries of Effigy Mounds National Monument (Caneek, Lawson, and Ion silt ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE loams) are considered by the National Resource Conservation Service to be prime Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions farmland only if drained and protected to Address Environmental Justice in from flooding (NRCS 2005). These soil Minority Populations and Low-Income types are in the floodplain of the Yellow Populations,” requires all federal agencies River, are subject to regular flooding, and to incorporate environmental justice into are not planned for development, so no their missions by identifying and prime or unique farmlands would be addressing disproportionately high or affected by any actions proposed in this adverse human health or environmental plan. This topic is dismissed from further effects of their programs and policies on consideration. minorities and low-income populations and communities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental justice is the URBAN QUALITY AND DESIGN

OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT fair treatment and meaningful Consideration of this topic is required by involvement of all people, regardless of 40 CFR 1502.16. Urban areas and race, color, national origin, or income, developed-area vernacular designs are not with respect to the development, concerns in the rural area of the implementation, and enforcement of monument. Following NPS standard environmental laws, regulations, and operating procedures, any new structures policies. Fair treatment means that no called for in an alternative would include group of people, including a racial, ethnic, rural design concepts, natural colors, and or socioeconomic group, should bear a materials that do not detract from the disproportionate share of the negative environment. Given this mitigation, no environmental consequences resulting further analysis of this topic is necessary. from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution

30 Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration

of federal, state, local, and tribal . The impacts associated with programs and policies. implementation of the preferred alternative would not dispropor- The goal of “fair treatment” is not to shift tionately affect any minority or risks among populations, but to identify low-income population or potential disproportionately high and community. adverse effects and identify alternatives . Implementation of the preferred that may mitigate these impacts. alternative would not result in any identified effect that would be Clayton and Allamakee counties contain specific to any minority or low- both minority and low-income income community. populations; however, environmental . The impacts to the socioeconomic justice is dismissed as an impact topic for environment resulting from the following reasons: implementation of any of the

action alternatives would be . The monument staff and planning beneficial. In addition, the team actively solicited public monument staff and planning team participation as part of the do not anticipate the impacts on planning process and gave equal the socioeconomic environment to consideration to all input from appreciably alter the physical and persons regardless of age, race, social structure of the nearby income status, or other communities. socioeconomic or demographic factors. None of the alternatives described in this . Implementation of the preferred document include actions that would alternative would not result in any impact minority populations and low- identifiable adverse human health income populations. Because there would effects. Therefore, there would be be no potential to affect minority no direct or indirect adverse effects populations and low-income populations, on any minority or low-income this topic is dismissed from further population or community. analysis.

31

32

34

INTRODUCTION

As noted earlier in this document, user In addition, there is a discussion of capacity and proposed boundary alternatives and actions considered but adjustments must be addressed in a general dismissed, the identification of the management plan. Therefore, this chapter environmentally preferred alternative, opens with these two topics, and then the information on the costs associated with elements of the management alternatives each of the alternatives, mitigative are discussed. measures, and future studies and implementation plans needed. Management alternatives generally consist of three elements: (1) management zones The chapter also includes tables that that help define levels of activities and summarize the key differences among the development for various areas of a park or alternatives and the key differences in the monument; (2) actions that are common to impacts that are expected from more than one alternative; and (3) the implementing each alternative. (The specific actions proposed in each summary of impacts table is based on the alternative. Thus, this chapter includes a analysis in “Chapter 4: Environmental discussion of management zones, actions Consequences.”) common to all of the alternatives, and actions common to alternatives B and C, as well as a description of each alternative.

35

USER CAPACITY

OVERVIEW of visitor use that would be accommodated while sustaining the quality of park General management plans for national resources and visitor experiences park system units are required by law to consistent with the purposes of the park. identify and address implementation In addition to these important directives, commitments for user capacity, also this plan includes indicators and standards known as carrying capacity. The National for Effigy Mounds National Monument. Park Service defines user capacity as the Indicators and standards are measureable types and levels of visitor use that can be variables that would be monitored to track accommodated while sustaining the quality changes in resource conditions and visitor of park resources and visitor experiences experiences. The indicators and standards consistent with the purposes of the park. help the National Park Service ensure that Managing user capacity in national parks is desired conditions are being attained, inherently complex and depends not only supporting the fulfillment of the park’s on the number of visitors, but also on legislative and policy mandates. The where the visitors go, what they do, and the general management plan also identifies “footprints” they leave behind. In the types of management actions that managing for user capacity, the park staff would be taken to achieve desired and partners rely on a variety of conditions and related legislative and management tools and strategies rather policy mandates. than relying solely on regulating the number of people in a park area. In Table 2 includes the indicators, standards, addition, the ever-changing nature of and potential future management strategies visitor use in parks requires a deliberate that would be implemented as a result of and adaptive approach to user capacity this planning effort. The planning team management. considered many potential issues and related indicators that would identify The foundations for making user capacity impacts of concern, but those described decisions in this general management plan below were considered the most are the purpose, significance, special significant, given the importance and mandates, and management zones vulnerability of the resource or visitor associated with the park. The purpose, experience affected by visitor use. The significance, and special mandates define planning team also reviewed the why the park was established and identify experiences of other parks with similar the most important resources, values, and issues to help identify meaningful visitor opportunities that would be indicators. Standards that represent the protected and provided. The management minimum acceptable condition for each zones in each action alternative describe indicator were then assigned, taking into the desired resource conditions and visitor consideration the qualitative descriptions experiences, including appropriate types of of the desired conditions, data on existing activities and general use levels, for conditions, relevant research studies, staff different locations throughout the park. As management experience, and scoping on part of the National Park Service public preferences. commitment to implement user capacity, the park staff would abide by these directives for guiding the types and levels 36 User Capacity

User capacity decision making is a form of to measure important changes in resource adaptive management (see figure 3) in that and social conditions. it is an iterative process in which management decisions are continuously Information on the NPS monitoring informed and improved. Indicators are efforts, related visitor use management monitored, and adjustments are made as actions, and any changes to the indicators appropriate. As monitoring of conditions and standards would be available to the continues, managers may decide to modify public. or add indicators if better ways are found

FIGURE 3. USER CAPACITY FRAMEWORK

37

RESOURCE AND VISITOR indicators, visitor opportunities and EXPERIENCE INDICATORS AND related experiences in the park are already STANDARDS being monitored, and the indicators listed in table 2 would help the park staff track Currently, visitor use has had few adverse these specific issues more systematically to effects on the resources of Effigy Mounds ensure that desired conditions are being National Monument. If visitor numbers achieved. were to increase above the highs seen in the early 1990s, it is expected that the Disturbance to the Mounds and potential for adverse effects on natural and Other Archeological Resources cultural resources would also increase. A large number of visitors at one time could Visitor use impacts on cultural resources also affect the visitor experience and result include wear on historic structures and in resource damage. unintentional disturbances and vandalism to the mounds, archeological resources, For the life of this plan, visitation would be and historic structures. Cultural resources controlled by the number and quality of are nonrenewable, so impacts, especially facilities, by management actions, and by those resulting from disrespectful cooperative local efforts and initiatives. behavior, must be minimized to the extent NPS staff would monitor resources and possible. The park staff are already using visitor use and judge whether the standards internal guidelines to monitor cultural are being exceeded in any area. It is not resources. The indicator for visitor use likely that the expected levels of visitation impacts to cultural resources is based on and types of use would cause severe this existing monitoring protocol. impacts on the desired visitor experience Management efforts would be focused on or the resources. maintaining the integrity and current condition of all sites, and the standard The priority resource and visitor would be that visitor use impacts would experience indicators for Effigy Mounds not change the current condition level. National Monument are associated with Ideally, all sites would be maintained to at the following issues: least “good” condition. To ensure that this standard is maintained, visitor education . Disturbance to the mounds and and enforcement of park regulations other archeological resources would be continued, and closure of . Visitor created trails particularly vulnerable areas would be . Visitor caused considered. Other possibilities include degradation/widening of the developing new opportunities for active or designated trail system passive interpretation of sites, including education about staying on trails and not . Overflow parking in paved areas walking on the mounds. Opportunities for due to crowding at the visitor site stewardship programs with volunteers center parking area (parking on and other organization could also help grass would not be tolerated) with education about and preservation of cultural resources. If necessary, additional The condition of park resources are signs and barriers could be erected to already being monitored and managed in better protect resources. various ways, but the indicators listed in table 2 would help the park staff track specific influences to these resources as a result of visitor use. Similar to the resource 38 User Capacity

Degradation or Widening of the impacts to both natural and cultural Designated Trail System and Visitor resources. Although the proliferation of Created Trails visitor created trails is not currently a problem at Effigy Mounds National Currently, hiking trails provide access to Monument, future expansion of informal several areas with concentrations of trails was still considered a high priority preserved mounds. Visitors can also issue given the related impacts of experience a unique variety of habitats, vegetation loss, soil erosion, fragmentation including upland forest, prairie, and of wildlife habitats, and disturbance to rare wetlands. For those wanting a more in- flora, fauna, and archeological sites depth experience, the monument offers 14 (Marion 2008). The indicator for visitor miles of challenging hiking trails that created trails is based on a modified crisscross the monument. The monument’s version of a trail condition classification trail system is an important resource for system developed by Jeff Marion of the facilitating visitor experience and directing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Marion visitor use, thereby protecting resources. 2008). Because the mounds are the park’s Currently, the majority of the designated primary resource, there is no tolerance for trails are in good condition with only visitor created trails in these areas. In less minimal incidences of widening and sensitive areas of the monument, the erosion as a result of visitor use. Although standard was less stringent, but would still degrading trail conditions is not currently be aimed at minimizing the growth of an issue at the monument, it was identified informal trails, with no more than a 5% as an important indicator because impacts increase above the 2010 baseline. Some of to trails can affect both resources as well as the existing management activities the the quality of the visitor experience. Trail National Park Service has been employing widening was identified as the most likely in relation to this issue include educating impact of concern at the monument. The visitors to stay on trails and clearly marking indicator for this issue involves tracking designated trails. Further, the National the incidences of visitor created problem Park Service has placed barriers and areas (excessive widening) along segments actively restored visitor created trails to of the trail system. The standard would minimize their continued use. Roving vary depending on the zone, with the most patrols and other education and conservative threshold in the backcountry enforcement techniques have also been zone to provide the highest level of used. Other actions considered include resource protection. If designated trails increased enforcement or presence of exceed standards, park staff would rangers or volunteers, area closures, and consider more substantial trail reduced use levels. maintenance. Increased visitor education about staying on trails and park regulations Overflow Parking in the Grass due would also be used as a tool for to Crowding at the Visitor Center maintaining standards. Other management Parking Area actions considered include trail realignment or reconstruction, installing Parking in the grass near the visitor center temporary or permanent signs, area has been a commonplace practice over the closures, and reductions in group size or years when the visitor center parking lot use levels where appropriate. reached its capacity. However, recent

studies and geophysical investigations have In addition to assessing conditions of revealed that there are existing mounds designated trails, park staff is concerned and mound remnants in some of these about visitors leaving designated trails areas. Although overflow parking usually during their hikes, causing potential occurs only during peak seasons or special 39 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE events, increased restrictions on the considerably depending on how close locations for overflow parking would be existing conditions are to the standards. If established based on this new data. Once the existing conditions are far from these new restrictions are in place, both exceeding the standard, the rigor of protection rangers and interpretive rangers monitoring might be less than if the would be tasked with monitoring any existing conditions are close to or trending violations of unauthorized parking. There towards the standard. would be no tolerance for parking in the grassy areas to ensure that mound Initial monitoring of the indicators would remnants are not further impacted by this determine if the indicators are accurately activity. There would be a low tolerance measuring the conditions of concern and if for parking in unauthorized paved areas the standards truly represent the minimally (no more than four per year). Possible acceptable condition of the indicator. Park management actions include additional staff might decide to modify the indicators signage and education about peak times, or standards and revise the monitoring education about mound remnants and program if better ways are found to their preservation, better demarcation for measure changes caused by visitor use. parking, access by shuttle, and increased Most of these types of changes should be enforcement. made within the first several years of initiating monitoring. After this initial testing period, adjustments would be less likely to occur. Finally, if use levels and LONG-TERM MONITORING patterns change appreciably, the park staff might need to identify new indicators to The park staff would continue monitoring ensure that desired conditions are achieved use levels and patterns throughout the and maintained. This iterative learning and park. In addition, the park staff would refining process, a form of adaptive monitor these user capacity indicators. The management, is a strength of the NPS user rigor of monitoring the indicators (e.g., capacity management program. frequency of monitoring cycles, amount of geographic area monitored) may vary

40

PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEGISLATED BOUNDARY (NON-NPS LAND)

Public Law 106-323 adjusted the statutorily defined criteria; and (3) monument’s boundary to include both the revisions to include adjacent real property Heritage Addition and the Riverfront acquired by donation, purchased with Tract. The Riverfront Tract comprises donated funds, transferred from any other approximately 50 acres of bottomland in a federal agency, or obtained by exchange. narrow strip between the Mississippi River and the monument’s North Unit boundary Otherwise, the boundary of a national park (see North Unit maps). The state of Iowa may be modified only when authorized by owns about 30 acres and the Canadian law. Section 3.5 of the NPS Management Pacific Railroad owns about 20 acres of this Policies 2006 states that the National Park tract. Two archeological sites are located Service may recommend potential on the tract. These sites represent boundary adjustments for one or more of moundbuilder village habitation, an the following reasons: important aspect of the moundbuilding cultures that is not already included in the . to include and protect significant monument. The remains of a historic resources and values or to enhance settlement are included at Red House opportunities for public enjoyment Landing. related to monument purpose . to address operational and While the Riverfront Tract is in the management issues legislated monument boundary, it currently remains in ownership of the Iowa . to protect resources critical to Department of Natural Resources and the fulfilling the monument’s purpose Canadian Pacific Railroad. Authorization to acquire this tract is included in existing National Park Service policies further legislation and may occur as soon as there instruct that any recommendations to is a willing seller; therefore, it will not be expand a park unit’s boundaries be analyzed further in this document. preceded by a determination that the added lands would be (1) feasible to administer considering size, configuration, ownership, cost, and other factors; and (2) RECOMMENDED that other alternatives for management and BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS resources protection are not adequate.

Figure 4 shows the location of the property During the course of the planning process, tracts described below. several land parcels were identified as potential additions to Effigy Mounds As part of the planning process, the National Monument under alternatives B National Park Service must identify and and C. The following is a review of the evaluate boundary adjustments that may be policy criteria for boundary adjustments as necessary or desirable to carry out the applied to these properties. However, any purposes of the national monument. The acquisition would be only from willing Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of sellers. 1965 provides for boundary adjustments that fall into three categories: (1) technical Before any of these boundary adjustments revisions; (2) minor revisions based on are made, an approved survey of the 43 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE monument’s boundaries needs to be for three reasons: (1) it has a ridge-top completed. It is the goal of the National location; (2) there is direct access to a Park Service to acquire needed lands or highway; and (3) there is a lack of zoning interests in lands through cooperative prohibitions. Development of this type negotiation processes with willing sellers. would risk harm to the Marching Bear Some of the lands described here would Mound Group. best be protected through ownership by the National Park Service; others could Determination that this tract meets better be protected through the purchase boundary change criteria. Tract 1 would of interests in the land, such as easements, be feasible to administer because it is small or through other agreements. The best in size and it borders the monument. mechanism of protection would be Additionally, there are no structures on determined in conversation with willing this property to maintain and no known sellers and is not discussed here. Some presence of hazardous materials. Because adjustments of the monument’s boundary of the risk of development if this tract would require legislative authorization remains unprotected and in private from Congress. ownership, alternatives to including this tract in the monument’s boundary would not be adequate for management and Tract 1 resource protection.

This tract is adjacent to the part of the South Unit, which preserves the Marching Tract 2 Bear Mound Group. It is an approximately 20-acre parcel of agricultural land Tract 2 is an approximately 120-acre parcel currently in row crops and hay rotation. mostly on the sides and top of a bluff over the Yellow River. The tract consists of a Reason for recommending this mixture of open pasture, fields, and steep boundary adjustment. Inclusion of this wooded slopes and has been used for tract in the monument’s boundary is farming and logging. In a narrow area necessary in order to protect significant between wetlands and bluffs on the west resources and values and to enhance side of Founders Pond, a county road opportunities for public enjoyment related weaves in and out of the current park to monument purpose. boundary and tract 2.3

Tract 1 lies within approximately 20 feet of Reason for recommending this the Marching Bear Mound Group. boundary adjustment. Including this tract Development of this tract would threaten in the boundary is necessary in order to this fundamental park resource. protect significant resources and values Residential development of farming land is and to enhance opportunities for public a recent trend in the area. In 2006, enjoyment related to monument purpose. Allamakee County, where the park visitor center is located, issued 1.7 building The adjacent part of the monument is permits per 10 square miles—a rate more included in the backcountry zone in than 50% higher than that of neighboring alternatives B and C where cultural rural counties. Park employees have resources are preserved in place in good observed that much of this development is condition and natural resources are for second homes or vacation homes managed to be preserved or be restored to concentrated at the edges of public lands. Tract 1 is one mile south of the Allamakee County line on a piece of land that would be attractive for this type of development 3. Throughout this document, this road is referred to as “county road.” 44 Proposed Changes to Legislated Boundary (Non-NPS Lands) an approximate appearance of the Reason for recommending this landscape associated with the boundary adjustment. Including this tract moundbuilding era. Under alternatives B in the boundary is necessary in order to and C, the monument would pursue hiking protect significant resources and values access, county relinquishment, or and to enhance opportunities for public abandonment of the county road. enjoyment related to monument purpose. The part of the monument adjacent to this If tract 2 is developed, which is a potential tract is zoned to protect the natural setting future use for the same reasons cited in the of the mounds and the ability of visitors to discussion of tract 1, it would be difficult experience them in this setting. If tract 3 for the park to achieve these desired continues to be used for commercial conditions in the adjoining, narrow part of forestry and/or is developed, it would be the monument. difficult for the park to achieve desired conditions in the adjacent part of the Determination that this tract meets monument. Without this tract in the boundary adjustment criteria. This tract monument’s boundary, it would also be would be feasible to administer because it challenging to prevent degradation in the is adjacent to and, in places, almost quality of Dousman Creek, which is a completely surrounded by the monument. tributary to the Yellow River and a rare Roughly 80 acres of this tract are native trout stream. Commercial forestry surrounded on three sides by the activities upstream have the potential to monument, while the remainder of the increase surface runoff and sedimentation tract adjoins the park on two sides. There in the stream. are no structures on this property and no known hazardous substances. Other Determination that this tract meets alternatives for management and resource boundary adjustment criteria. This tract protection are not adequate for two would be feasible to administer because it reasons: (1) this tract is attractive for is almost completely surrounded by the possible future development; and, (2) monument. It consists of an approximately without this tract in the boundary, the 80-acre section surrounded on three sides monument would not be able to reuse the by the monument and an adjoining entire county road as trail. Instead, it approximately 40-acre section that is also would be necessary to accommodate surrounded by the monument on three visitor access by constructing a new section sides. Additionally, there are no structures of trail to bypass the county road through on this property and no known hazardous this tract. New trail construction in this substances. Other alternatives for area would entail not only substantial cost, management and resource protection are but also likely impacts to the wetlands. not adequate for three reasons: (1) much of this tract is attractive for possible future development; (2) continued use of this Tract 3 tract for logging would risk harm both to visitor experience and to Dousman Creek; Tract 3 includes approximately 120 acres and, (3) without this tract in the boundary, of land south and west of the monument. the monument would not be able to reuse The tract consists mostly of steep wooded the entire county road as trail. Instead, it slopes punctuated by the valley formed by would be necessary to accommodate Dousman Creek and is mostly used for visitor access by constructing a new section production forestry (logging). A county of trail to bypass the county road through road weaves in and out of the current park this tract. New trail construction in this boundary and this tract. area would entail not only substantial cost, but also likely impacts to the wetlands.

45 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Tract 4 tract has begun to spill over onto it (for example, it has been used as a storage and This tract is an approximately 30-acre tract staging area for the quarry). To provide an just west of the railroad corridor between appropriate, safe setting for the visitor the western border of the Sny Magill Unit contact station and trail to the Sny Magill and Highway X56. This field is used for mounds, it is necessary to include a tract agricultural purposes, but most of it is large enough to separate the experience of seasonally flooded, which results in visitors from this type of industrial activity. reduced crop yields.

Reason for recommending this BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS boundary adjustment. Adjusting the boundary to include this property would CONSIDERED BUT NOT INCLUDED address operational and management IN RECOMMENDATIONS issues. Alternatives B and C in the general management plan envision this property to Railroad Corridor house a small visitor contact station and possibly parking for visitors in high profile Adjusting the boundary to include the vehicles that cannot currently access the railroad corridor that forms the western Sny Magill Unit given the low overhead edge of the Sny Magill Unit would enhance railroad underpass. Because trail access opportunities for public enjoyment related from this visitor station to the mounds at to park purposes. Currently, the sound of Sny Magill would be provided, including the trains passing close to the resources this tract in the boundary would also compromises the desired condition for enhance opportunities for public most of the Sny Magill Unit, which is a enjoyment related to park purpose. contemplative experience for visitors with primarily natural soundscapes. Determination that this tract meets boundary change criteria. This property It would not be feasible for the National is absent of structures. There are no known Park Service to manage this corridor in its hazardous substances on the property nor boundaries while it is still actively used by are there any known cultural resources; the railroad. However, should the this makes it appropriate for consideration Canadian Pacific Railroad decide to move for new development. This property would this portion of their tracks away from the be in the development zone if included in monument, this corridor would be recom- the boundary and it would be feasible to mended for inclusion in the boundary. In manage as such. There are no other the event that this railroad corridor adequate alternatives for management and becomes available for other purposes and resource protection. A visitor contact is sold privately, a particularly problematic station cannot be built within the existing situation could result in which it would be boundary because the low railroad trestle impossible to access the Sny Magill would not allow for passage of mounds by road without crossing private construction equipment. Additionally, the property. Therefore, under a change in Sny Magill Unit is at a lower elevation than ownership scenario, excluding this tract 4 and is entirely within the floodplain, corridor from the monument’s boundary another factor, which would make would not be an adequate alternative for construction of a visitor contact station management and resource protection. within the existing boundary problematic. Tract 4 is at risk for development for industrial use. A quarrying operation directly across Highway X56 from this

46 Proposed Changes to Legislated Boundary (Non-NPS Lands)

Other Tracts have allowed the monument to protect significant resources and values, enhance Five other privately held tracts that meet opportunities for public enjoyment, and the criteria for boundary adjustments were better address operational and also considered for addition to the management issues, these tracts are not monument as part of this planning effort, recommended for inclusion out of respect but are not included here. While including for concerns expressed by the landowners. these five tracts in the boundary would

47

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The primary building blocks for creating a conflicts by aiming to achieve different framework for consistent and defensible desired conditions for resources and management for a national park system visitor experience in different areas of the unit are the management zones and the park and by specifying which facilities and alternatives. All are developed within the management actions would be appropriate scope of the unit’s purpose, significance, in each area. fundamental resources and values, mandates, and legislation. The management alternatives in this general management plan represent Management zones define specific different approaches to overall monument resource conditions and visitor management and use. They respond to experiences to be achieved and maintained issues raised by public, law, policy in each particular area of Effigy Mounds considerations, and analysis performed by National Monument. Each zone the planning team. Each of the alternatives description includes the types of activities has an overall management concept and a and facilities appropriate to support the description of how different areas of the desired conditions. Because the zoning monument would be managed schemes were developed as a result of this (management zones). planning effort, they are not applied to the no-action alternative (alternative A). Three In formulating the alternatives, the management zones have been identified management zones were placed in for Effigy Mounds National Monument— different locations or configurations on a backcountry zone, discovery zone, and map of the park according to the overall development zone. intent (concept) of each of the alternatives. The management zones were presented to One of the challenges in managing the public in Effigy Mounds GMP resources at Effigy Mounds National Newsletter #3 and the Draft Effigy Mounds Monument is that preserving the varied General Management Plan / Environmental fundamental resources requires potentially Impact Statement. In response to internal conflicting methods. For example, to and external comments, the alternatives preserve the integrity of a mound, it is were modified and presented in the Revised often necessary to remove trees growing in Draft General Management Plan / or adjacent to the mound because if these Environmental Impact Statement. trees were to fall down their roots would pull up the soil, damaging the mound and This Final General Management Plan / exposing buried mound material. Environmental Impact Statement presents However, given the density of mounds in three alternatives, including the NPS the monument, if all mounds were to be preferred alternative, for future protected by tree removal, there would be management of Effigy Mounds National a noticeable decrease in tree cover, which Monument. Alternative A, the no-action could compromise habitat for rare plants alternative, presents a continuation of and birds as well as diminish the overall existing management direction and is natural setting of the mounds. included as a baseline for comparing the consequences of implementing each action The management zones for this plan are alternative. The action alternatives are designed to address these inherent alternative B and alternative C. These 49 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE action alternatives present different ways or experiences should be achieved. Thus, to manage resources and visitor use and the alternatives do not include many details improve facilities and infrastructure at the on resource or visitor use management. national monument. These alternatives More detailed plans or studies would be embody the range of what the public and required before most conditions proposed the National Park Service want to see in the alternatives could be achieved. The accomplished with regard to cultural implementation of any alternative also resource conditions, natural resource depends on future funding and conditions, and visitor use and experience environmental compliance. An approved at Effigy Mounds National Monument. plan does not guarantee that funding to implement it would be forthcoming. The The alternatives focus on what resource general management plan establishes a conditions and visitor uses, experiences, strategy that would guide day-to-day and and opportunities should be at Effigy year-to-year management of the national Mounds National Monument rather than monument, but full implementation could on details of how these conditions and uses take many years.

50

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The development and identification of a also contribute to factor 3. They also would preferred alternative involves evaluating result in a reduction of aging assets (three the alternatives with the use of an objective housing units), which would contribute to analysis process called “choosing by factor 4. advantages” or “CBA.” Through this process, the planning team identified and However, in alternative B, the majority of compared the relative advantages of each the North and South units would be in the alternative according to a set of factors. backcountry zone, while in alternative C, The advantages of each alternative were the majority of the North and South units compared for each of the following CBA would be in the discovery zone. Because of factors: this difference, Alternative B has a slightly higher score for factor 2. Because the trails Factor 1—Improve Cultural Resource would be slightly less developed in the Management backcountry zone and signs and waysides would be more restricted, alternative B, Factor 2—Improve Natural Resource with its larger backcountry area, would be Conditions slightly better at improving the natural resource conditions. Implementing the Factor 3—Improve Information, features of the backcountry zone on larger Education, and Access (Visitor portions of the monument would also Experience) improve the protection of the cultural landscape, adding slightly to factor 1. Trail Factor 4—Improve operational efficiency development and maintenance in the and effectiveness backcountry zone would be minimal, adding to factor 4. The relationships between the advantages and costs of each alternative were Therefore, using the CBA process, compared to determine which would alternative B was identified as the preferred provide the greatest overall benefits for the alternative. most reasonable cost. In consultation with traditionally Alternatives B and C are similar in a associated tribes after the selection of the number of areas. They both include a preferred alternative, it was noted that research center (a virtual center in alternative C may have a greater alternative B and an off-site center in contribution to factor 3 as a result of the alternative C), which would contribute to inclusion of a physical research center, the factors 1 and 3. It was determined after the proximity of the museum collections, and CBA workshop that the research center the zoning that would allow for more would be virtual in alternative B and off- access and interaction. While these are site in alternative C; however, this important points that were not part of the difference does not change the CBA workshop, they do not change the contributions to factors 1 and 3. They both overall selection of the preferred include the addition of a small contact alternative. center at the Sny Magill Unit, which would

54

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

The following actions would be geophysical investigations of implemented regardless of which mounds and limited archeological alternative is approved. The actions testing of nonmound areas of described here should be considered in cultural sites. addition to the actions described . While natural resources and specifically for each alternative. processes would be preserved or restored to the extent possible, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT they could be managed when necessary to restore landscapes or . The mounds would be preserved in preserve fundamental cultural place. resources. . Archeological survey and . Ongoing ecosystem restoration evaluations and a cultural efforts and nonnative species landscape report would be management would continue. completed for the entire . The monument staff would monument. complete a resource stewardship . National Register of Historic strategy that includes an ecosystem Places nomination forms would be restoration strategy, nonnative updated to include descriptions of species management, and a fire all eligible (contributing) resources management plan. not presently described and to . Riverbanks in the Sny Magill Unit incorporate new scientific would be stabilized from erosion information. and selected trees may be removed . When feasible, the resources of the from the mound group and monument would be managed for a adjacent area. landscape that emulates that which existed during the time of the moundbuilding era to be identified VISITOR USE in the cultural landscape report. The sensitive cultural and natural . Safety messages would be resources would be preserved prominent in communications to using the natural processes that the public. sustained the moundbuilders and . Interpretation would emphasize protected their heritage through the sacred nature of the mounds time, combined with the and resources, and would consider appropriate management practices the cultural resources (mounds) as to conserve them for the future. symbols of the values, beliefs, and . Cooperative management accomplishments of the strategies with stakeholders for moundbuilders. resource protection and . The National Park Service would preservation would be developed. explore partnership possibilities . Archeological evaluations of sites with appropriate groups to offer could include noninvasive interpretive canoe trips. 55 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

. Frequent special events would take . The recently remodeled former place in developed areas. park housing units would continue . Wetland habitat interpretive to be used as office space for park programs would be offered as employees. accessible opportunities for all . If new information reveals that visitors. repairing or replacing existing infrastructure in the headquarters area would cause harm to archeological resources, the MONUMENT MANAGEMENT National Park Service would investigate ways to repair or . An approved boundary survey replace that infrastructure in a would be completed to resolve land nonintrusive manner, or would issues. consider relocating facilities. . Treatment of unused logging roads . If new information reveals that would be dictated by the repairing or replacing existing completed cultural landscape infrastructure in the headquarters report. area would cause harm to . Maintenance facilities and archeological resources, the functions would stay where they National Park Service would are while actively adapting to the investigate ways to repair or changing needs of resource and replace that infrastructure in a facility requirements. nonintrusive manner, or would consider relocating facilities (see . Radon, which has been found in appendix F). the basement of the headquarters building, would be mitigated.

56

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION

CONCEPT HERITAGE ADDITION

Current management strategies and trends . Visitors would be able to would continue under the no-action experience the landscape of the alternative. There would be no major Heritage Addition from overlooks changes to monument operations or visitor in the North and South units and services. All cultural sites would continue through infrequent ranger-led to be maintained and preserved using hikes or tours. current practices. The mounds would . Visitors would receive information continue to be protected and preserved. and interpretation through Management treatments would vary nonpersonal media at the visitor according to the cover and condition of center (exhibits, printed materials, individual mounds. Historic sites would be etc.) and would have opportunities protected from degradation, but not to appreciate the related cultural otherwise managed. The Heritage Addition environment in a quiet would not have a long-term plan in place. contemplative setting. The North, South, and Sny Magill units . Public access would include would continue to be managed as they are canoeing and infrequent ranger-led currently. hikes.

. Motorized and nonmotorized boating would be allowed on the ZONING Yellow River. No facilities would be provided and take-out would be There would be no zoning in this prohibited in the monument. alternative. Management direction from the previous general management plan and other planning would remain in effect. VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA MONUMENTWIDE (IN THE NORTH UNIT)

. Existing trails and other facilities . The visitor center complex would (benches, signs, etc.) would be maintained and media upgraded continue to be maintained. as needed. . The long-range interpretation plan . Frequent special events would take would be completed and would place in developed areas. include placement information for . Visitors would continue to receive new trail interpretive and formal and informal services at the directional signs. visitor center; these would include educational programs, information and orientation, demonstrations, and hikes. . Crowding of the visitor center would continue when school

57 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

groups are present, especially SOUTH UNIT during inclement weather. . The monument’s museum . This unit would be managed to collections and archives (items not support a low level of visitor use on display in the visitor center) while maintaining the primitive would remain in the basement of setting. the visitor center. . Trails would be improved for visitor access and safety while preserving mounds by relocating trails away from mound sites and NORTH UNIT changing substrate from gravel to wood chip. The only new trail . This unit would continue to be would connect the Yellow River managed to accommodate the most bridge to the South Unit trails; visitor use of any unit with existing trails could be realigned continued emphasis on resource for resource protection or protection and preservation. improved visitor experience. . Trails would continue to be . Trail signs would be upgraded; this maintained or improved for visitor would include a wayside at the access and safety while preserving Marching Bear Group. mounds by relocating trails away . Visitors would receive information from mound sites. and interpretation primarily . Visitors would receive information through nonpersonal media and interpretation through (trailside exhibits, printed personal services such as hikes and materials, etc.) and have nonpersonal media (trailside opportunities to appreciate the exhibits, printed materials, etc.) related cultural environment in a and would have opportunities to quiet contemplative setting. appreciate the related cultural . Visitors would be primarily on environment in a quiet their own on existing trails with contemplative setting. minimal contact with monument . Frequent ranger-led hikes or tours staff or other visitors. Occasional connecting the tangible resources special hikes connecting the of the moundbuilders and natural tangible resources of the features of the monument would moundbuilders and natural take place only in areas that do not features of the monument would jeopardize those resources. take place. . The National Park Service would not actively seek to acquire the Riverfront Tract, which is already within the authorized boundary, SNY MAGILL UNIT unless its cultural resources are endangered in some way or the . This unit would be primarily property is put up for sale. managed for preservation of the mounds with limited amenities for visitor use. The parking area and wood-chipped trail would continue to be maintained. There would be no other development under this alternative.

58 Alternative A– No Action

. Visitors would receive information . Visitors would be provided and interpretation on this unit at opportunities to experience the the main unit visitor center, and influence of the natural world on would have opportunities to the moundbuilders through appreciate the related cultural interpretation and personal environment in a quiet contemplation. contemplative setting. . The public would continue to have . There would continue to be very access to this unit for recreational limited NPS presence in this unit activities in appropriate areas. due to lack of available staff.

59 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60

62

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

To understand alternatives B and C, the interpretation) would be actions described here should be minimized; locations would be considered in addition to those actions selected to carefully reflect the described in the section entitled “Elements contemplative setting desired. Common to all the Alternatives Placement of signs would be (Alternatives, A, B, and C)” and the actions guided by the long-range specific to each of the action alternatives. interpretation plan (see the “Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed” section). HERITAGE ADDITION . Treatment of unused logging roads would be dictated by the . Wild and scenic river designation completed cultural landscape for the Yellow River would be report (see the “Future Studies and pursued. Implementation Plans Needed” . The National Park Service would section). work with Allamakee County to . The specific location of trails in the authorize hiking on the county Heritage Addition would be road. identified in a subsequent trail . Leave No Trace principles would development / public access plan be emphasized, including trash (see the “Future Studies and removal. Implementation Plans Needed” section). The access plan would . Appropriate activities allowed in explore and analyze potential the unit would include quiet, low options that require a minimum of impact, resource-based activities new trail construction. such as hiking, canoeing, and

wildlife viewing.

. Visitors would receive information and orientation at the visitor center VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE before accessing the Heritage OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA Addition. Development Zone in the North . Ranger-led hikes would occur Unit occasionally in this unit. . River and aquatic biology . Exhibit, museum, and bookstore educational programming could be space in the visitor center would be offered utilizing the Yellow River reconfigured. and wetlands. . Depth of information and . Pass-through canoeing on the interpretation content in the visitor Yellow River would be allowed, but center would increase and new take-out would be prohibited in technology would be used as it the monument to protect riverside becomes available. resources. . Wayside and directional sign placement (for orientation and/or 63 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

NORTH UNIT preservation officer, Office of the State Archaeologist, and . There would be no development of traditionally associated American new facilities in the North Unit. Indian tribes. . The National Park Service would pursue acquisition of the Riverfront Tract in the legislated SNY MAGILL UNIT boundary from a willing seller to protect cultural resources on the . The public would continue to have tract and would evaluate the sites access to this unit for approved for national register or national recreational activities. Boating on landmark status. the Mississippi River adjacent to . If possible without compromising and within this unit would be resource integrity, the existing trail monitored for use levels and at Fire Point would be moved for resource impacts. visitor safety and resource . The National Park Service would preservation. The mound at Fire explore possible cooperative Point would be stabilized after the partnerships with other agencies trail is moved. All work would be such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife done according to Advisory Service to provide visitor services. Council Regulations (36 CFR Part 800), NPS Management Policies . If land between the highway and 2006, NPS 28: Cultural Resources the railroad tracks is acquired from Management Guideline, and The a willing seller, a visitor contact Secretary of the Interior’s Standards station would be developed to and Guidelines for Archeology and provide an NPS presence for Historic Preservation. All work resource protection and visitor would be done in consultation with services. the Iowa state historic preservation . A site development plan would be officer and traditionally associated developed to evaluate options for American Indian tribes. location and design of the visitor contact station, access trail, and trail surface improvements (see “Future Studies and SOUTH UNIT Implementation Plans Needed” section). . Interpretation of mound

preservation and the related 19th

century American Indian cultural experience would be enhanced by FUTURE ACQUISITIONS interpreting the military trail and cistern. . The National Park Service would . The Yellow River Bridge Trail pursue acquisition of the tracts would be connected to the existing identified “Figure 4: Marching Bear Trail. The exact Recommended Boundary location of the trail would be Adjustments” from a willing seller. determined through careful site . If tract 1 is acquired it would be planning (see the “Future Studies zoned discovery. and Implementation Plans . If tracts 2 and 3 are acquired, they Needed” section). In consultation would be zoned backcountry. with the Iowa state historic 64 Elements Common to Both Action Alternatives (Alternatives B and C)

. If tract 4 is acquired it would be National Park Service. If this tract zoned backcountry. is acquired, it would be managed in . While the Riverfront Tract is in the the backcountry zone. monument’s authorized boundary, it is not currently owned by the

65

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Under this alternative, the diversity of CONCEPT visitor trail experiences would be expanded from that currently offered at Alternative B would provide enhanced the monument. Presently, visitors walk on natural and cultural resource protection, trails to view mounds that have had the opportunities for increased understanding covering vegetation manicured so that the of the monument, and expanded mounds are clearly visible. Consistent with opportunities for visitors to experience the resource conditions and visitor relative quiet and solitude. Due to the experiences defined in the backcountry sensitivity and irreplaceable nature of the zone, visitors to some areas of the mounds and cultural landscape, the monument would be able to experience a National Park Service would accomplish walk on marked trails through natural, these goals with the minimum amount of undeveloped landscapes and view some development. mounds in a more natural state (with only

some woody materials removed for The desired visitor experience would be preservation purposes). Providing access to for visitors to make personal connections mounds that are in different conditions to the monument’s tangible resources would allow an expansion of existing through understanding of the significance interpretive opportunities and an increased of the (pre-European contact) American understanding of the monument’s Indian moundbuilding story and its fundamental resources. relationship to the heritage of the region.

The landscape and visitor facilities would support a contemplative atmosphere with opportunities for the public to spend time HERITAGE ADDITION reflecting on the lives and legacy of the moundbuilders and the sacred nature of The Heritage Addition would be zoned for the site today. Education and backcountry. See “Figure 6. Alternative B.” interpretation of the natural resources of the park would be expanded.

The natural setting created by preserving VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE or restoring landscapes would provide a OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA connection between the moundbuilding (DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE cultures and the environment that shaped NORTH UNIT) their lives and beliefs. This would be especially enhanced through the extensive This area would be managed as part of the backcountry zone under this alternative. development zone. See “Figure 6. Alternative B.” Visitor experiences throughout the monu- ment would be primarily self-guided on a Additional elements include the following: variety of trail types in a quiet, contemplative setting to maintain an . Those portions of the monument’s atmosphere of respect toward the sacred museum collections and archives nature of the monument. that are in long-term storage and not on display in the visitor center are very inaccessible to the public,

66 Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative)

including researchers; they would designed to enhance resource protection either be (1) moved out of the and offer visitors opportunities for solitude basement of the visitor center to a and thoughtful reflection. See “Figure 6. safer, more secure location outside Alternative B.” of the monument where they would receive better care yet Elements associated with the North Unit remain accessible to legitimate include the following: researchers; or, (2) the current facility would be improved and . Existing trails could undergo minor staffing would be increased to realignment for resource more closely meet NPS museum protection purposes in the collections standards. The National backcountry zone and for visitor Park Service would be willing to experience in the discovery zone. cooperate with local universities, . The width of some existing trails museums, nonprofit organizations, and roads within the backcountry or government agencies to store and discovery zones would be the museum collections and reduced according to the archives closer to Effigy Mounds management zone descriptions. National Monument, in accordance with NPS museum . Visitors would be provided collections standards. Due to opportunities to reflect on the concerns raised by traditionally influence of the natural world on associated tribes and other the moundbuilders in a primarily stakeholders, it may be preferable quiet contemplative setting. There to keep the collections at Effigy would be limited personal services Mounds National Monument. If such as guided hikes and talks. On- the collections are moved, the NPS site information would be limited Midwest Regional Office, chief of in the backcountry zone. Museum Collections and Records . Interpretive waysides and signs would oversee the move and serve would be primarily sited in the as a technical advisor. All options discovery zone. Some interpretive would be carefully considered in waysides and signs may be carefully consultation with the state historic sited in the backcountry zone to preservation officer, Office of the provide essential information but State Archaeologist, and not detract from the natural and traditionally associated tribes. contemplative setting. Wayside and sign placement would be determined in the long-range interpretation plan. NORTH UNIT . Maintenance access to the The area immediately north of the visitor northernmost portion of the center, including the major trail and access monument would be nonvehicular road, would be placed in the discovery and the northern maintenance road zone. The area included in the discovery would be abandoned. zone is designed to connect the interpretive information available at the visitor center with the on-the-ground SOUTH UNIT resources.

In alternative B, the majority of the South The remainder of the North Unit would be Unit is zoned for backcountry. An area placed in the backcountry zone, which is 67 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE immediately south of Highway 76 would be . Existing trails could be realigned placed in the discovery zone. See “Figure 6. for resource preservation purposes Alternative B.” in the backcountry zone and for visitor experience purposes in the The backcountry zoning is designed to discovery zone. enhance resource protection and offer visitors opportunities for solitude and thoughtful reflection. The area that is zoned discovery is designed to connect the SNY MAGILL UNIT interpretive information available at the visitor center with the on-the-ground In alternative B, the majority of the Sny resources. Magill Unit is zoned for backcountry. A small portion of the unit that contains an Elements associated with the South Unit improved trail is zoned for discovery. See include the following: “Figure 6. Alternative B.”

. Visitors would be provided Elements associated with the Sny Magill opportunities to experience the Unit include the following: influence of the natural world on the moundbuilders through . Depending upon the time of year, interpretation and contemplation visitors would receive formal and and would receive information informal personal services at the primarily from the visitor center contact station such as NPS- and limited wayside exhibits. conducted educational programs; conducted interpretive . Directional signs would be added demonstrations, talks, and walks; as needed to assist visitors. and additional contact with . Interpretive waysides and signs rangers. would be primarily sited in the . Access to the Sny Magill Unit discovery zone. Some interpretive would be improved from current waysides and signs may be carefully conditions under this alternative. A sited in the backcountry zone to trail would be built from the provide essential information but parking area only to the first not to detract from the natural and mounds encountered (a distance of contemplative setting. Wayside and approximately 412 yards). sign placement would be determined in the long-range interpretation plan. . In this alternative, the majority of VIRTUAL RESEARCH CENTER the existing trails would be in the backcountry zone. In alternative B, a virtual research center would be developed to serve as an online . The width of some existing trails portal for information exchange on mound and roads within the backcountry research and management in the region. and discovery zones would be The virtual research center would be reduced according to the developed and managed by monument management zone descriptions. staff, in partnership with tribal . Visitors would be primarily on governments, other land management their own in the backcountry zone agencies, and academic institutions. and have minimal contact with monument staff or other visitors.

68

70

ALTERNATIVE C

CONCEPT VISITOR CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, AND MAINTENANCE AREA Alternative C would provide enhanced and (DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE expanded opportunities for visitors to NORTH UNIT) experience the monument and increase their understanding of the moundbuilders This area would be managed as part of the while protecting and preserving natural development zone. See “Figure 7. and cultural resources. Alternative C.”

The desired visitor experience would be Additional elements include the following: for visitors to make personal connections to the monument’s tangible resources . Those portions of the monument’s through understanding of the significance museum collections and archives of the (pre-European contact) American that are in long-term storage and Indian moundbuilding story and its not on display in the visitor center relationship to the heritage of the region. are very inaccessible to the public, As a means of enhancing the visitor including researchers; they would experience, public access to various units be moved out of the basement of of the monument would be improved in the visitor center to the new this alternative. research center located outside of

the monument in a neighboring The landscape and visitor facilities would town (within approximately 10 provide opportunities for the public to miles of the monument learn about the lives and legacy of the headquarters). This new location moundbuilders and the sacred nature of would meet NPS museum the site today. The natural setting created collections standards and provide a by preserving or restoring landscapes safer, more secure location, yet would provide a connection between the provide access for legitimate moundbuilding cultures and the researchers. The NPS Midwest environment that shaped the Regional Office, chief of Museum moundbuilders lives and beliefs. collections and Records would

oversee the move and serve as a Visitor experiences throughout the monu- technical advisor. ment would be on developed trails that allow visitors to learn about the mounds and their makers. Because more of the monument would be in the discovery zone NORTH UNIT in this alternative, visitors would be likely to encounter other visitors or park staff In alternative C, almost the entire North during their visit. Unit is zoned as discovery. The discovery zoning is designed to provide improved access to the resources in the North Unit. HERITAGE ADDITION This zoning also allows for more on-site interpretation and directional signs. See The Heritage Addition would be zoned as “Figure 7. Alternative C.” backcountry, see “Figure 7. Alternative C.”

71 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Additional elements include the following: determined in the long range interpretation plan. . Existing trails could undergo minor . Visitors would be primarily on realignment for resource their own on well-developed trails, protection purposes. but are likely to have some contact . The width of some existing trails with monument staff or other and roads within the discovery visitors. zone would be reduced according . The width of some existing trails to the management zone and roads within the backcountry description. and discovery zones would be . Visitors would have opportunities reduced according to the to experience the influence of the management zone descriptions. natural world of the . In this alternative, the majority of moundbuilders through personal the existing trails would be located services such as guided hikes and in the discovery zone. talks, and nonpersonal media (trailside exhibits, printed . Existing trails could be realigned materials, etc.). for resource preservation purposes in the backcountry zone and for visitor experience purposes in the discovery zone. SOUTH UNIT

In alternative C, the majority of the South Unit would be in the discovery zone. The SNY MAGILL UNIT discovery zoning is designed to provide improved access to the resources in the In alternative C, the majority of the Sny South Unit. This zoning also allows for Magill Unit is zoned for backcountry. A more on-site interpretation and directional portion of the unit that contains an signs. See “Figure 7. Alternative C.” improved trail is zoned discovery. See “Figure 7. Alternative C.” Additional elements include the following: Elements include the following: . Visitors would be provided opportunities to experience the . The existing trail (approximately influence of the natural world on (885 yards) would be improved to the moundbuilders through provide for better visitor access interpretation and contemplation. and natural resource management Visitors would receive information according to a site development from the visitor center and wayside plan to be prepared. exhibits. . Depending on the time of year, . Directional signs would be added visitors would receive formal and as needed to assist visitors. informal personal services at the visitor contact station such as NPS- . Interpretive waysides and signs conducted educational programs; would be primarily sited in the interpretive demonstrations, talks, discovery zone. Some interpretive and walks; and additional contacts waysides and signs may be carefully with rangers. sited in the backcountry zone so as not to detract from the natural and contemplative setting. Wayside and sign placement would be 72 Alternative C

RESEARCH CENTER The monument would also seek out partnership opportunities to lease space In alternative C, a research center would be from other agencies that are developing developed outside of the monument in a compatible facilities in the nearby area. neighboring town. In addition to its primary use as a research center, the The primary goal of the center would be to facility would also house the monument’s promote education, preservation, and museum collections and archives. The maintenance activities that would support facility would have an office for the center mound stewardship throughout the four- director, a small research space, and a state region. As a result of this research library for National Park Service and capacity, there would be an expanded role visiting researchers. for maintenance and interpretation staff to work in cooperation with resource The research center would be located in a managers in employing innovative leased building within approximately management techniques and interpretive 10 miles of the monument headquarters. programming.

73 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74

76

ESTIMATED COSTS

Cost estimates in general management The NPS Facility Planning Curatorial plans are required by the National Parks Space Model was consulted and research and Recreation Act of 1978 and are on comparable facilities was conducted to requested by Congress for budget control determine the space needs for a research purposes. center in alternative C. The NPS facility planning model was also run to determine The implementation of the approved plan, the space needs for a Sny Magill visitor no matter which alternative, would depend contact station in alternatives B and C. on future NPS funding levels and servicewide priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and effort. The approval of a general management plan does not ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) guarantee that funding and staffing needed Costs associated with implementing this to implement the plan would be alternative include both on-going forthcoming. Full implementation of the operations funding (base funding) and plan could be many years in the future. those items that are already funded or

approved. Funded projects include The following assumptions apply to costs construction of a trail to the South Unit presented in this plan: and actions addressing deferred

maintenance. . These cost figures are broad

estimates based on the costs of In addition to the above costs, periodic construction, supplies, and increases in base funding would be employee salaries; they should not required to cover inflation and to remain at be used for budgeting and project the current level of monument operations. planning. The current staffing level cannot be . The costs presented here have been reduced if the monument is to continue to developed using industry standards be open 362 days a year. to the extent available. . Actual costs would be determined at a later date, considering the ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED design of facilities, identification of ALTERNATIVE) detailed resource protection needs and changing visitor expectations. Cost estimates for this alternative include . Potential costs for land protection reconfiguration of the visitor center, a tools (easements, acquisitions, etc.) visitor contact station and trail in the Sny to implement the boundary Magill Unit, a trail connecting the North adjustment proposals in this and South units, and new trails in the general management plan are not Heritage Addition. Improvements to the included in these estimates. museum exhibits and collections storage . The cost estimates presented here are also included. Funding needs for represent the total costs of projects. building maintenance and operations costs It is possible that cost sharing are also included in this alternative. opportunities with partners could reduce overall costs.

77 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Nonfacility costs in this alternative would Heritage Addition. Improvements to the include stabilization of the mound at Fire museum exhibits are also included. Point, implementation of landscape Funding needs for additional building restoration, other cultural and natural maintenance, operations, and the leasing of resource management actions, additional a research center facility in a nearby town plans and studies, and funding for are also included in this alternative. enhanced interpretation programs and materials at the main visitor center and at Nonfacility costs in this alternative would the Sny Magill Unit. include stabilization of the mound at Fire Point, implementation of landscape Five and a half additional permanent staff restoration, other cultural and natural positions would be recommended to fully resource management actions, additional implement alternative B. The following plans and studies, and funding for positions would be needed: museum tech, enhanced interpretation programs and two seasonal interpreters, two seasonal materials at the main visitor center and the maintenance workers, law enforcement Sny Magill Unit. ranger, and a seasonal cultural resource specialist. This increase in staffing would Seven and a half additional permanent staff be necessary to have staff available at the positions would be recommended to fully visitor center and seasonally at the Sny implement the alternative C. The following Magill Unit; to operate the virtual resource positions would be needed: cultural center; and to conduct needed resource specialist/research center administrative, resource management, and director, museum tech, two seasonal protection functions. The increase in interpreters, maintenance worker, two staffing is also due to the inclusion of the seasonal maintenance workers, law Heritage Addition within Effigy Mounds enforcement ranger, seasonal cultural National Monument. The Heritage resource specialist, and an IT tech. This Addition approximately doubled the total increase in staffing would be necessary to acreage of the monument, yet static base have staff available at the research center, funding has resulted in little to no increase visitor center, and seasonally at the Sny in staffing. Magill Unit; to operate the research center; and to conduct needed administrative and Although the cost estimates were based on resource management duties. The increase using full-time NPS employees, some of the in staffing is also due to the inclusion of the work could be done by volunteers or Heritage Addition within Effigy Mounds cooperating association employees. If it National Monument. The Heritage were not possible to fill the eight positions, Addition approximately doubled the total then the Sny Magill Unit would be staffed acreage of the monument, yet static base only a few days a week or would be staffed funding has resulted in little to no increase only when visitation is high. in staffing.

Although the cost estimates were based on using full-time NPS employees, some of the ALTERNATIVE C work could be done by volunteers or cooperating association employees. If it Cost estimates for this alternative include were not possible to fill the nine positions, reconfiguration of the visitor center, then the Sny Magill Unit would be staffed construction of a visitor contact station only a few days a week or would be staffed and longer trail in the Sny Magill Unit, a only when visitation is high. trail connecting the North and South units, and development of trails and access in the

78

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

The National Park Service is required to Alternative A (no action) lacks the range of identify the environmentally preferable diversity and individual choices found in alternative in its environmental impact the other alternatives. It also does not analysis documents for public review and provide as much resource protection and comment. The National Park Service, in beneficial management as the other accordance with USDI policies contained alternatives—more resource impacts in the department manual 516 DM 4.10 would be expected with increasing visitor and NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions, use levels in this alternative. Thus, the no- defines the environmentally preferable action alternative would not meet criteria alternative (or alternatives) as the 3, 4, and 5 as well the other alternatives. alternative that best promotes the national environmental policy expressed in section Alternative B would expand visitor use 101(b) of the National Environmental opportunities and improve research and Policy Act. management of mounds through the new virtual research center, new trails, and the Section 101 states that it is the continuing Sny Magill visitor contact station, thus responsibility of the federal government to providing for a wide range of negligible and beneficial uses of the environment 1. fulfill the responsibilities of each (meeting criteria 3 and 5). This alternative generation as trustee of the environ- would also meet criteria 2 and 4 through its ment for succeeding generations; continued protection of the undeveloped areas of the national monument and the 2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, emphasis on preserving entire landscapes. productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; Alternative C would also provide a high 3. attain the widest range of beneficial level of resource protection (meeting uses of the environment without criteria 3 and 4). This alternative would degradation, risk to health or safety, or continue protection of the undeveloped other undesirable and unintended areas of the national monument. consequences; Alternative C would strengthen scientific 4. preserve important historic, cultural, inquiry at Effigy Mounds National and natural aspects of national Monument. This alternative would also heritage, and maintain, wherever expand visitor use opportunities through possible, an environment which the addition of new trails and the Sny supports diversity, and variety of Magill visitor contact station, thus individual choices; providing for a wide range of beneficial uses of the environment (meeting criteria 3 5. achieve a balance between population and 5). The range of visitor experience and resource use that would permit opportunities would also be improved high standards of living and a wide under this alternative. However, while sharing of life’s amenities; and alternative C would allow more 6. enhance the quality of renewable manipulation of land (by placing more resources and approach the maximum acreage in the discovery zone), thus attainable recycling of depletable improving visitor opportunities, this resources. zoning would not allow the degree of protection that alternative B allows.

80

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION

Early on in the alternative development and to discourage pothunting (the illegal process, the planning team created three removal of archeological materials). The alternatives schemes that each had a proposed visitor contact station in different area of emphasis: research, alternatives B and C would meet this need, education, and visitor experience. It was yet be modest in size and would include, at then realized that the National Park Service most, small, simple exhibits. should not emphasize only one area of operations or programming at the possible Several individual actions were also expense of other important programs, as dismissed from further consideration, such this would result in an inability to meet as building a boardwalk to the mounds in project objectives and resolve need. The the Sny Magill Unit, because these types of National Park Service should be doing all actions could have too great an these in every alternative. Therefore, these environmental impact. Although a alternatives were dropped from further boardwalk would have allowed year-round consideration. access to the mounds and reduced damage to natural resources, it was felt that such a The planning team also considered structure would allow excessive impacts to alternatives that would facilitate more cultural landscapes to occur. Another efficient maintenance of the monument. action considered was the construction of Because these alternatives would have a small maintenance storage facility in the required the construction of more roads, North Unit to keep equipment and maintenance facilities, or both, in areas supplies nearer to where they are used dense with fundamental resources most often. However, archeological (mounds), the team decided that greater resources and rare plants were recently maintenance efficiency, however desirable discovered in the proposed location, so on one hand, would have too great an this action was dismissed. environmental impact. Another action was the construction of a The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service small parking area for visitors who would considered constructing a visitor center for hike into the northern part of the Heritage the Upper Mississippi River National Addition. This was dismissed because of Wildlife and Fish Refuge about 2 miles public safety reasons. north of the Sny Magill Unit. The National Park Service at one time contemplated Another action was the reconstruction of asking the Fish and Wildlife Service if they the access road into the South Unit used by would consider a joint facility operated by visitors to access this unit. This was both agencies that would, in part, satisfy dismissed because the completion of the the need for an NPS presence at the Sny trail from the visitor center would make Magill Unit. This idea was later dismissed (hiking) access provided by this road no because the center’s location would be too longer necessary and reconstruction could far away from the Sny Magill Unit. In order cause too great of an impact on the to provide for resource protection and to environment. improve the visitor experience at that unit, the visitor contact station must be close to The planning team considered tearing the resource. Staff should be immediately down the two former park housing units available to direct visitors to stay on trails and constructing a multipurpose research 82 Alternatives and Actions Considered But Dismissed from Further Evaluation center / administrative facility in the The multipurpose research center would previously developed footprint. During the have also provided a place for groups of development of the general management visitors to gather; this need can now be met plan, the park housing units were with the vacated office space in the visitor remodeled to provide office space for the center. Recent evidence indicated that the Heartland Exotic Pest Management Team. development of new facility (multipurpose The team has since been moved to another research center) would have resulted in too location and the offices are now being used great of an environmental impact. by monument staff. The addition of these Development of the multipurpose research offices addressed the monument’s need for center on the lands to be purchased at the additional office space. entrance of the Sny Magill Unit was also considered. However, these lands The need for expanded research, which experience regular flooding and the scale was previously considered in a new of the development was determined to be multipurpose research center to be technically infeasible at this site. developed at the monument, was Furthermore, the lack of security addressed in alternative B by adding a associated with this remote site would be virtual research center and in alternative C insufficient for the protection of the by including an off-site research center. museum collection archives.

83

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Congress charged the National Park Service with managing the lands under its CULTURAL RESOURCES stewardship “in such manner and by such The National Park Service would preserve means as will leave them unimpaired for and protect, to the greatest extent possible, the enjoyment of future generations” (NPS resources that provide evidence of the Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the human occupation of Effigy Mounds National Park Service routinely evaluates National Monument. Mitigative measures and implements mitigation whenever intended to reduce or eliminate adverse conditions occur that could adversely effects to cultural resources could include affect the sustainability of national park the following: system resources.

. To ensure that implementation of the Continue to develop inventories action alternatives protects unimpaired for and oversee research about natural and cultural resources and the archeological, historical, and quality of the visitor experience, a ethnographic resources to better consistent set of mitigative measures would understand and manage the be applied to actions proposed in this plan. resources. Continue to manage The National Park Service would prepare cultural resources and collections appropriate environmental review (i.e., following federal regulations and those required by the National NPS guidelines. Environmental Policy Act, the National . Subject projects to site-specific Historic Preservation Act, and other planning and compliance. Make relevant legislation) for these future efforts to avoid adverse impacts actions. As part of the environmental through adherence to the Secretary review, the National Park Service would of the Interior’s Standards for avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse Archeology and Historic impacts when practicable. The Preservation, the Secretary of the implementation of a compliance- Interior’s Guidelines for monitoring program would include Preserving, Rehabilitating, reporting protocols to ensure activities stay Restoring, and Reconstructing within the parameters of NEPA and NHPA Historic Buildings, and the compliance documents, U.S. Army Corps Secretary of the Interior’s of Engineers section 404 permits, and so Standards for the Treatment of forth. The compliance-monitoring Historic Properties with Guidelines program would oversee these mitigative for the Treatment of Cultural measures and would include reporting Landscapes. Make use of screening protocols. and/or sensitive design that would be compatible with historic The following mitigative measures and best resources. If adverse impacts could management practices could be not be avoided, mitigate these implemented to avoid or minimize impacts through a consultation potential impacts from the implementation process with all interested parties. of the alternatives. These measures would . Inventory all unsurveyed areas in apply to all alternatives and were the park for archeological, considered as part of the alternatives in the historical, and ethnographic analyses of environmental impacts. 84 Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives

resources as well as cultural and NATURAL RESOURCES ethnographic landscapes. . Document cultural and The National Park Service would preserve ethnographic landscapes in the and protect, to the greatest extent possible, park and identify treatments. the natural resources of Effigy Mounds National Monument. Mitigative measures . Conduct archeological site intended to reduce or eliminate adverse monitoring and routine protection. effects to natural resources could include Conduct data recovery excavations the following: at archeological sites threatened with destruction, where protection or site avoidance during design and Air Quality construction is infeasible. . . Avoid, if not possible mitigate, Implement a dust abatement impacts on ethnographic resources. program. Standard dust abatement Mitigation would include measures could include the continuing to provide access to following elements: water or traditional use and spiritual areas otherwise stabilize soil, cover haul and screening new development trucks, enforce speed limits on from traditional use areas. unpaved roads, minimize vegetation clearing, and revegetate . Continue ongoing consultations after construction. with traditionally associated

American Indian tribes. Protect sensitive traditional use areas to the Soils extent feasible. . Design facilities to avoid known or . Build new facilities on soil suitable suspected archeological resources. for development. Minimize soil erosion by limiting the time that . If previously unknown cultural soil is left exposed and by applying resources are discovered during other erosion control measures project work, all work in the area such as erosion matting, silt would cease until the site can be fencing, and sedimentation basins evaluated by a qualified person and in construction areas to reduce appropriate action can be erosion, surface scouring, and implemented. discharge to water bodies. Once . Encourage visitors through the work is completed, revegetate park’s interpretive programs to construction areas with native respect and leave undisturbed any plants in a timely period. inadvertently encountered archeological resources and to respect and leave undisturbed any Threatened and Endangered offerings placed by American Species and Species of Concern Indians. . Strictly adhere to NPS museum Mitigative actions would occur during collections standards and normal park operations as well as before, guidelines on the display and care during, and after construction to minimize of artifacts. This would include immediate and long-term impacts on rare, artifacts used in exhibits in the threatened, and endangered species. These visitor center. actions would vary by specific project and by area of the national monument affected; additional mitigation would be added 85 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE depending on the specific action and . Develop revegetation plans for the location. Many of the measures listed disturbed area and require the use above for vegetation and wildlife would of native species. Revegetation also benefit rare, threatened, and plans should specify seed/plant endangered species by helping to preserve source, seed/plant mixes, soil habitat. preparation, and so forth. Salvaged vegetation should be used to the Mitigative actions specific to rare, extent possible. threatened, and endangered species would include the following: Water Resources . Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, and endangered . To prevent water pollution during species as warranted. construction, use best management practices such as erosion control . Locate and design facilities and measures, minimized discharge to actions to avoid adverse effects on water bodies, and regular rare, threatened, and endangered inspection of construction species. If avoidance is infeasible, equipment for leaks of petroleum minimize and compensate for and other chemicals. Minimize the adverse effects on rare, threatened, use of heavy equipment in a and endangered species as waterway. appropriate and in consultation with the appropriate resource . Build a runoff filtration system to agencies. Conduct work outside of minimize water pollution from critical periods for the specific larger parking areas. species. . Develop and implement Wildlife restoration and/or monitoring plans as warranted. Plans should . Employ techniques where include methods for necessary to reduce impacts on implementation, performance wildlife, including visitor education standards, monitoring criteria, and programs and restrictions on adaptive management techniques. visitor and park management . Implement measures to reduce activities. adverse effects of nonnative plants . Implement a natural resource and wildlife on rare, threatened, preservation program. Standard and endangered species. measures would include construction scheduling, biological Vegetation monitoring, erosion and sediment control, use of fencing or other means to protect sensitive . Monitor areas used by visitors (e.g., resources adjacent to construction, trails) for signs of native vegetation removal of all food-related items or disturbance. Use public education, rubbish, topsoil salvage, and revegetation of disturbed areas revegetation. These measures with native plants, erosion control could include specific construction measures, and barriers to control monitoring by resource specialists potential impacts on plants from as well as the development and trail erosion or social trailing. monitoring of treatment and reporting procedures. 86 Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives

Wetlands Scenic Resources

. Wetlands are delineated by Mitigative measures designed to minimize qualified NPS staff or certified visual intrusions include the following: wetlands specialists and clearly marked before construction work. . Where appropriate, use facilities Construction activities are such as trails and fences to route performed in a cautious manner to visitors away from sensitive natural prevent damage caused by and cultural resources, while still equipment, erosion, siltation, and permitting access to important so forth. viewpoints. . Design, site, and construct facilities to avoid or minimize adverse Natural Soundscapes effects on natural and cultural resources and visual intrusion into . Noise impacts from construction the natural and cultural landscape would be minimized by making use in compliance with federal law, of quieter technology, scheduling NPS policy, and associate interpretive programs around management planning documents. construction, locating stationary noise sources as far from sensitive . Provide vegetative screening where uses as possible, and requiring that appropriate to hide intrusions into construction equipment not be left the natural scene. idling any longer than necessary.

87

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED

After completion and approval of a general 3. A public access / trail development management plan for the national plan with environmental assessment monument, other more detailed studies (or other appropriate level of and plans would be needed before specific compliance) under alternatives B and actions could be implemented. As C, using the direction provided in this required, additional environmental general management plan. The trail compliance (National Environmental plan would focus on the Heritage Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Addition, but would also address new Act, and other relevant laws and policies), trail connections from the visitor and public involvement would be center to the Heritage Addition and conducted. South Unit trail system (Yellow River Bridge to South Unit trails). Additional studies would include, but would not be limited to, the following: During the course of developing this general management plan, two options for 1. A cultural landscape report is needed providing safe access to the northern part on the entire monument. This is a of the Heritage Addition using trails monument priority. Update the beginning from the visitor center area were cultural landscape inventory to discussed: determine whether an ethnographic landscape exists at the national monu- . Building a trail on the northern side ment, determine the boundary of such of the Yellow River, between the a landscape, and identify resources. river and Highway 76, which would enter the northern part of the Heritage Addition from the east

2. A resource stewardship strategy would side on an existing logging road. expand the desired natural and cultural Visitors would reach the start of resource conditions from this general this trail at the visitor center area by management plan, describes the crossing through the tunnel under current condition of the resources, and the highway and continuing into identifies the difference between the Heritage Addition. current and desired conditions. Comprehensive strategies to achieve . Building a very small parking area and maintain the desired resource in the Heritage Addition along conditions are developed that identify highway 76 from which visitors specific monitoring indicators and could directly access trails in the targets. The resource stewardship northern part of the Heritage strategy guides preparation of Addition. This option was removed implementation plans such as a from consideration because of vegetation management plan, cultural safety issues associated with the resource management plan, nonnative parking lot access road intersection species control plan, or a fire with highway 76. management plan. There may also be other options for visitor access to the northern part of the Heritage Addition. The access plan and environmental assessment would 88 Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed

analyze other potential options as well 5. The long-range interpretation plan for as the two options listed above. the monument would be finalized and would include placement information 4. Under the alternatives B and C, future for new trail interpretive and management of the Sny Magill Unit directional signs. would require a site development plan with environmental assessment (or 6. A long-term mound maintenance plan other appropriate level of compliance) would be developed to guide the future to analyze and decide on the following: care and treatment of vegetation on or near the mounds. . appropriate designs and locations for a visitor contact facility on adjacent property should such property be acquired . the alignment and design of an access trail from the visitor contact station to the mounds . alternative surfaces and locations of a trail to facilitate access to and interpretation of the mounds without causing adverse impacts . appropriate staffing levels to provide adequate visitor services and protect resources

89

102

CULTURAL RESOURCES

A historic resource study describing the BACKGROUND cultural resources of the national monument was completed in 2003. It The National Park Service is charged with provided syntheses of site history, site the stewardship of many of the nation’s archeology, prepared an updated historical most important natural and cultural significance section of the nomination resources and is responsible for preserving form, made recommendations for future these resources for the enjoyment of research, and provided an exhaustive present and future generations. The bibliography of site history and archeology. cultural resources of Effigy Mounds An archeological overview and assessment National Monument are defined as the was completed in 2004 (NPS 2004). material evidence of past human activities.

Among these are archeological resources, Currently, 206 mounds or mound groups cultural landscapes, ethnographic are listed on the NPS List of Classified resources, historic buildings and Structures. Two historic resources (Old structures, and museum collections and Military Road in the South Unit, and a archives. cistern near Old Military Road) are also

listed. All are listed as being either of By their nature, cultural resources are finite national significance in their own right or and nonrenewable; as a result, national as contributing to the national significance monument management activities and of Effigy Mounds National Monument. All policies must reflect awareness of their known mound sites are also listed on the irreplaceable character. Therefore, NPS NPS Archeological Sites Management cultural resource management involves Information System (ASMIS) and Iowa Site research, evaluation, documentation, and Inventory and Iowa State File. registration of national monument resources, along with the establishment of The Jefferson Davis Sawmill site, partially priorities to ensure that these resources are within the monument boundary, has not appropriately preserved, protected, and been fully investigated but has been interpreted to the public. determined eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places. Formal Designation of Resources Other resources, such as the remains of The National Register of Historic Places is farmsteads, rock shelters, prehistoric stone the nation’s official list of cultural quarries, and village sites are also known to properties worthy of preservation. Effigy be within the boundaries of the national Mounds National Monument was declared monument. Some of these have been a national monument in 1949 and listed in recorded, but a systematic inventory of all the national register in 1966. The resources in the park has not yet been documentation for the national register completed. was submitted in 1976 and an update of section 8 (significance) of the Period of Significance nomination—following the inclusion of the Heritage Addition in the monument and Although Effigy Mounds National the following further scientific research— Monument evidences occupation going has been prepared. back 2,500 years or more, two periods of

103 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT significance based on extant resources of of their presence. These people made use designated national significance are of whatever plant and animal food they evident: the period of mound building could harvest seasonally. They lived in from approximately 500 BC to AD 1250, small, probably family, groups and their and the period of settlement / Indian total number would have been small. removal (roughly 1800 to 1849). As Despite their hunting skills, life would have additional research is completed on other been very difficult and the search for food, types of archeological resources within the preparation of hides, and making of national monument, the period of weapons would have been nearly all significance could be expanded to consuming. Some evidence of their encompass a greater period of time. existence has been identified in Allamakee and Clayton counties, but none has been found within the national monument.

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Approximately, 9,000 years ago, the way of life of the Paleo-Indians changed. The Effigy Mounds National Monument climate continued to become warmer and contains important archeological resources drier. The period from 7000 to 500 BC is representative of human use over time, as referred to as the Archaic Period. The well as ongoing American Indian use. The inhabitants had a much less harsh climate area was used primarily by ancient, in which to hunt, fish, and gather nuts and historic, and contemporary American berries. The tools made and used by these Indian peoples, although some remains of peoples became more varied and distinct. historic European Americans are also The two types of points indicative of the present. Paleo-Indian period gave way to a variety

of point types during the Archaic. With Archeologists generally believe the first greater success in procuring food, the Iowans were probably Paleo-Indians, Archaic peoples were able to spend more (10,000 to 7000 BC). Paleo-Indians are time in a semisedentary, communal credited with crossing the Bering Land culture. By the end of the Archaic Period, Bridge toward the end of the last Ice Age the first mounds associated with burials and peopling the Americas. They were were built, reflecting the growth of the migratory hunters and are associated often population and, with it, the free time to with large extinct megafauna such as develop more complex belief systems and mammoth and mastodon. The origin items for trade. stories of many American Indian tribes differ from this theory. Following, and perhaps growing out of, the

Archaic Period, were the Woodland Period Associated with the Paleo-Indians are cultures (500 BC to AD 1250). The several diagnostic flaked stone spear Woodland peoples were much more points, known as “Clovis” and “Folsom,” sedentary than the cultures that preceded that distinguish the Paleo-Indian period. them, reflecting an agricultural lifestyle Most of what we know about the Paleo- that made larger permanent or seasonal Indians is based on items that came from village units possible and allowed them to soil known to be more than 9,000 years old stay in one place longer. 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 104 Cultural Resources

Sophisticated pottery made preservation sites, rock shelters, quarries, town sites, and cooking of foods more practical. mills, farmsteads, schools, and other Indeed, pottery typology joins point types human-made features as required by as tools archeologists use to identify section 110 of the National Historic differences through time, and through Preservation Act. regions. Trade of goods and increased communication with other village units Effigy Mounds National Monument today allowed a flourishing of the culture, encompasses 2,526 acres with more than traditions, and belief systems. Early on, the 200 mounds, 31 of which are the namesake mounds constructed were simple conical effigy mounds. In the North and South burial mounds, evolving into compound units of the national monument alone, and linear mounds and culminating in the 18 rock shelters and several possible village great effigy mounds of the late Woodland sites have been identified, but not Period. extensively studied. These have great potential for understanding the lifeways of Archeological research indicates a time the people who built the mounds. span of approximately 1,800 years of mound building. Generally speaking, this For a more in-depth discussion of the would have occurred 500 BC to AD 1250, archeology of Effigy Mounds National spanning the period from the late Archaic Monument, the reader is referred to “A to the late Woodland periods. The Guide to Effigy Mounds National increasing complexity of the mounds, the Monument” by Dennis Lenzendorf. manner of burials, and the inclusion of exotic burial items attest to the growing sophistication of the Woodland peoples. Effigy Mounds National Monument ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES contains examples of both Archaic and Woodland period mounds. Introduction

Somewhere around AD 1250, the Ethnographic resources are variations of moundbuilding stopped; whether this natural resources and standard cultural resulted from pressures caused by resource types. They are subsistence and expanding populations, warfare among ceremonial locales and sites, structures, groups of villages, or migration from objects, and rural and urban landscapes outside is not fully understood. However, assigned cultural significance by traditional the Woodland peoples seem to have been users. The decision to call resources replaced by people referred to as “Oneota” “ethnographic” depends on whether and representative of the influence of the associated peoples perceive them as Mississippian cultures farther south. traditionally meaningful to their identity as Large-scale agriculture and large villages a group and the survival of their lifeways. necessitated a movement out of the forests Some such resources may be designated by and into large open areas. It was likely a other terms and cross-listed in other NPS time of cultural ferment with continued inventories. Sites defined as archeological trade interaction, population growth, and for preservation purposes, for example, are warfare. ethnographic if traditional religious practitioners consider them significant Although numerous surveys have been sources of spiritual power. Members of undertaken within Effigy Mounds associated groups may also ascribe National Monument since the monument meaning to properties in park collections was first discovered, the national perceived as sacred or as items of cultural monument still lacks a complete identity and heritage. Groups also assign archeological inventory of mounds, villages 105 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT their own cultural meanings to natural Among the resources that are considered landscapes and localities. ethnographic are the mounds; the American Indian archeological and historic The traditional management distinction artifacts within the national monument between natural and cultural resources collections; and the landscape of the may be inapplicable where ethnographic national monument, including the animals resources are concerned. When natural and birds that inhabit it. It is likely that the resources acquire meaning according to landscape qualifies as an ethnographic the different cultural constructs of a landscape; however, additional evaluation particular group, they become of the landscape and its associations with ethnographic and thus cultural resources contemporary American Indians is as well. necessary before that determination can be made. One particular type of ethnographic resource is a traditional cultural property In accordance with the Native American which is an ethnographic resource in or Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, eligible for inclusion in the National the national monument is consulting with Register of Historic Places. Traditionally tribes to determine the cultural affiliation associated tribes and National Park Service of human remains and funerary objects staff are working together to nominate the held in the museum collection at the entire land area of Effigy Mounds National monument. A NAGPRA action plan is Monument as a traditional cultural needed for the monument to cover property. instances of the inadvertent discovery of American Indian human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of Resources of the Monument cultural patrimony.

Effigy Mounds National Monument has a long-standing connection with a number of American Indian groups (see the list of CULTURAL LANDSCAPES traditionally associated tribes under “Agencies and Organizations Receiving a Introduction Copy of this Document” in Chapter 5). In particular, the Ho-Chunk Nation of A cultural landscape is often expressed in Wisconsin claims a close affinity to the site. the ways that land is organized and divided, and through such factors as The national monument represents a point settlement patterning, land use, circulation, of connection with the spiritual world of and built environment. The character of a the ancestors and a place of great spiritual cultural landscape is defined by physical power. It has been visited continuously by attributes such as roads, structures, and American Indians for hundreds of years. vegetation patterns, and by cultural American Indians come to the site attributes such as values and traditions. individually and in groups. They come to learn about their ancestors as described in Cultural landscapes are shaped by a variety interpretive talks and exhibits in the visitor of factors, including land use and land center by NPS staff. They come in groups management, political and legal systems, to tell and reflect upon their history and to and technology and economics. As such, relate their stories. They come to honor they constitute a living record of an area’s their ancestors and commune with them. past—a visual chronicle of its history. Some may come for spiritual guidance as in Cultural landscapes are not static; modern a vision quest. and natural forces are continually

106 Cultural Resources reshaping them, posing a significant survived the millennia. Mounds continue preservation challenge. to be lost or damaged by development in the region. As mounds are damaged or Cultural landscapes can be broken into destroyed, the mounds at the national four broad categories: (1) historic sites— monument become more important to those that are significant for their preserve. association with a historic event, activity, or person; (2) historic designed landscapes—those that were consciously designed or laid out according to design MUSEUM COLLECTIONS principles or in a recognized style or tradition; (3) historic vernacular Introduction landscapes—those that evolved over time as a result of use or development and that Museum collections are prehistoric and reflect endemic traditions, beliefs, customs, historic objects, artifacts, works of art, or values; and, (4) ethnographic archival documents, and natural history landscapes—those that are related to specimens valuable for the information particular places or areas that they provide about processes, events, and contemporary peoples link to their interactions among people and the traditional way of life and cultural heritage. environment.

Resources at the Monument Resources at the Monument

Two landscapes have been formally The museum collections support the defined. The northern landscape interpretive themes of the national encompasses all of the North Unit, South monument and assist in research and Unit, and Heritage Addition of the national resource management programs. monument (NPS 2007a). The southern Approximately 34,800 items are in the landscape encompasses the Sny Magill collection; 29,500 of which are catalogued Unit (NPS 2007b). Both are categorized as and approximately 5,300 remain to be “historic site” for their association with a catalogued at the time of this writing. The historic event, activity, or person. objects are overwhelmingly cultural in nature and categorized into archeological, The entire landscape at Effigy Mounds ethnological, and historical collections. National Monument may also fall into the The national monument collections also ethnographic landscape category. It is include natural history categories on linked to contemporary American Indians biology, paleontology, and geology and associated closely with their cultural associated with the origins of the national heritage, belief systems, and way of life. monument and its native flora and fauna. However, additional evaluation of the landscape and its associations with The museum cultural collections and contemporary American Indians needs to archives consist of artifacts, field notes, and be undertaken to determine whether this is manuscripts. Much of the collection was the case. gathered by Ellison Orr (a central figure in the creation of a national park in Iowa and With the advent of European settlement, establishment of Effigy Mounds National the mounds that had survived centuries Monument), and donated to the National with little change began to disappear as Park Service. Some pieces of the collection lands were leveled for farming or town are not directly related to excavations sites. Forested areas were cut down and conducted within Effigy Mounds National erosion damaged many mounds that had Monument, but are significant for 107 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT comparison with collections gathered museum collections. In 2012, the facility within the monument and elsewhere. Data was found to be 75% compliant with NPS gathered through excavations and surveys museum collections standards. The conducted since the national monument majority of the deficiencies could be was established are housed within the addressed with increased staffing. Many of visitor center. the remaining deficiencies could be addressed with facility improvements. Collections are used for exhibits, However, due to basement location of the illustration of ideas and concepts in storage it would be difficult to ever fully interpretive programs, research to meet NPS museum collections standards. understand the site’s early inhabitants and Nonetheless, the location is above the 500- environment, and for comparison with year floodplain of the Yellow and other similar collections elsewhere. Mississippi rivers. Artifacts are contained in metal storage cabinets. Archives are kept Museum collections are stored in the in file cabinets and on bookshelves. Maps basement of the visitor center, which does and drawings are kept in map files. not meet NPS standards for storage of

108

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

duckweed, arrowhead, bulrush, cattail, and WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS wild rice populate the quiet backwaters and ponds of the monument. When The Yellow River is listed in the present, filamentous and plankton algae Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The study are bioindicators that identify areas that placed the river in the Nationwide polluted with excessive nutrients. Rivers Inventory found the Yellow River to be free flowing and to possess the The monument was created from the following outstandingly remarkable values: acquisition of private land that had been scenery, recreation, geology, wildlife, farmed and logged, altering the native history, and culture. vegetation mosaic. After 50 years of NPS

protection, maturing stands of trembling As part of this general management plan, and big-toothed aspen mark where the the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River woods had been cleared. Sugar maple and within the boundaries of the national basswood are now replacing the aspen. monument was determined to be eligible Sumac is found in the forest-prairie and suitable for inclusion in National Wild ecotone. and Scenic Rivers System (see appendix D for assessment). The Heritage Addition still appears to be

heavily forested, but most of the

merchantable timber was removed prior to VEGETATION acquisition by the National Park Service, causing forest succession to be set back. Vegetation on the wooded hills consists of a mix of hardwoods such as oak, maple, The Sny Magill Unit is in a floodplain and hickory, and basswood. The white oak is inundated annually by spring floods. The grows on ridge tops in drier sites, and it vegetation in this unit is dominated by was heavily used by farmers and silver maple, elm, and green ash. Swamp landowners to construct barns, houses, white oak is well represented in this unit. wagons, and boats. Red oak trees grow on slopes with moist soil and can reach Microhabitats impressive sizes. Black oaks grow along the bluff edge while chinquapin oak can be The combination of topography, longitude, found among the limestone outcroppings. latitude, and climate of northeast Iowa has Interspersed throughout the area are a produced unique microhabitats that variety of less common species, including support island populations of flora and ironwood, blue beech, and eastern red fauna. These microenvironments include cedar. Many shrubs grow in the uplands, north-facing algific talus slopes and “goat including hazelnut, gray dogwood, and prairies.’ prickly ash.

Algific talus slopes are usually found on Indian grass, big bluestem, switchgrass, and north-facing slopes. They are cold air seeps little bluestem are predominate grass connected to crevices in the limestone species of the tallgrass prairie at Effigy bedrock, which are connected to Mounds National Monument. Compass underground caverns. The movement of plant, butterfly weed, blazing star, cold air exiting the slope through the goldenrods, asters, and purple and grey- crevices creates a colder, moister headed coneflower add color to the open environment down slope of the vent. This grasslands. seepage of cold air creates microhabitat for

groups of relict ice age plant communities. Various species of pondweed along with water milfoil, elodea, watershield, 110 Natural Resources

These plant communities are remains of Monument. If these nonnative species plant populations that are associated with continue to multiply, they would more northern climates. As the glaciers outcompete and replace native species that advanced during the last ice age, plant have existed in this location for thousands communities that were adapted to of years. If allowed to multiply unchecked, northern climates moved south. With the aggressive nonnative species may warming of the climate and the retreat of eventually supplant native vegetation and the glaciers, the plants environmentally replace it with a nonnative monoculture adapted to the cold climate moved north that does not supply adequate food or also. The modifying effect of the cold air cover for local fauna. seeps creates an artificially induced microclimate that maintains remnants of NPS units that have nonnative species the prehistoric ice age plant communities problems develop an integrated pest (NPS 2000). Cold air seeps do exist in the management program to identify and monument, but it is not known if these are locate infestations of nonnative species, true algific talus slopes or if the associated determine their impact on the resource, flora and fauna species occur here. and develop strategies that would prevent, eliminate, or control the occurrence of Goat prairies are small prairie remnants undesirable species. 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 FISH AND WILDLIFE select the drought tolerant native grasses over woody vegetation, giving the prairie Fish species a competitive advantage. Fish are found in the Mississippi River, Locating, identifying, and monitoring of all Yellow River, Sny Magill Creek, and many special microhabitats are important for of the smaller streams and creeks in the maintaining and protecting the pre- monument. A list provided by the U.S. Fish settlement ecological remnants. The and Wildlife Service contains 118 species greatest potential for the existence of of fish known to occur in the Upper federal listed threatened and endangered Mississippi River National Fish and (T&E) species occurs in these areas. At Wildlife Refuge adjacent to the monument. present, the status of federal listed The most common species are gizzard threatened or endangered species shad, common carp, emerald shiner, river associated with these areas is unknown and shiner, bullhead minnow, and bluegill the need for survey of these areas is (USFWS 1991). There are reports of native important. trout in Dousman Creek. The fish species sampled in Sny Magill Creek have remained relatively constant through the Nonnative Vegetation years and are typical of Iowa cold water streams. Based on survey results, Sny Adverse effects to native populations occur Magill creek is dominated by a single from disruption and displacement by species, the fantail darter (Etheostoma aggressive, nonnative species that have a flabellare). In 2001, the first occurrence of competitive advantage or do not have slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), a cold natural controls. Asiatic honeysuckle, water fish that is intolerant of environ- buckthorn, garlic mustard, multiflora rose, mental degradation, was noted in Sny and purple loosestrife are nonnative Magill Creek (North Carolina State species that have been identified in and University 2001). Recreational fishing is around Effigy Mounds National 111 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT allowed in the monument, governed by Colonies of great blue heron, great egrets, state regulations. and double crested cormorants nest in colonial nest sites, or rookeries, in trees on the river islands. The rookeries are active Aquatic Invertebrates in the spring when young fledgling birds are fed by their parents. Unionid mussels (freshwater clams) may be among the most endangered group of The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) animals in North American waters. potentially occurs statewide and is listed as Unionid populations are declining due to a breeding and wintering in Allamakee and number of factors relating to habitat Clayton counties. During the winter, this alteration and human interference. In species feeds on fish in the open water Iowa, the decline is from habitat loss, areas created by dam tailwaters, the warm siltation, pollution, and loss of larval host water effluents of power plants and species (NPS 2000). The increased spread municipal and industrial discharges, or in of nonnative species present in the power plant cooling ponds. The more Mississippi River (i.e., the zebra mussel), severe the winter, the greater the ice have placed additional stress on fragile coverage and the more concentrated the populations, causing the loss of unionid eagles become. They roost at night in species in many regions. Unionid mussels groups in large trees adjacent to the river in are present in the Yellow River and areas protected from the harsh winter Johnson’s Slough (adjacent to the Sny elements. They perch in large shoreline Magill Unit). trees to rest or look for fish to feed on. The

bald eagle was federal listed as threatened, Birds but was delisted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2007 due to population Almost 300 species of birds are known to recovery. nest or migrate through Effigy Mounds National Monument. The monument is on Wild turkeys were once thought to be the Mississippi Flyway, one of the major extirpated from the area but are now bird migration routes on the continent. common in the monument. Peregrine Each spring and fall, neotropical birds use falcons and red-shouldered hawks are also the forested bluffs along the Mississippi seen in the monument (see “Special Status Flyway for feeding and resting stopovers. Species”). Migrating raptors use the thermals rising from the bluffs on their biannual flight to Amphibians and from nesting and wintering sites along the Mississippi Flyway. The abundant wetlands in Effigy Mounds National Monument are habitat for Wetlands in the monument provide habitat numerous species of amphibians, including for many resident and migratory birds. In bullfrogs; American toads; and leopard, spring and fall, wood ducks, mallards, green, western chorus, spring peepers, and Canada geese, and an occasional osprey are gray tree frogs. found feeding and resting in Founder’s Pond. Canada geese, mallards, blue-winged teals, wood ducks, ruddy ducks, and swans Reptiles are seen on or along the Mississippi River. Prothonotary and cerulean warblers The limestone bluffs unique to inhabit the floodplain forest along the northeastern Iowa are home to a variety of sloughs. reptiles. The black rat snake is the largest and most commonly seen snake in the monument. The brown, northern redbelly, 112 Natural Resources eastern garter, and prairie ringneck snakes terrain may provide the right combination are common, but, due to their small size, of habitat and seclusion to encourage these are difficult to find. The five-lined skink is species to re-inhabit the region. the only lizard common to the monument. Several species of turtles inhabit the Nonnative Species lowlands and marshy areas of the monument, including the painted turtle, The zebra mussel is a fast-spreading map turtle, Blanding’s turtle, and soft-shell species that was inadvertently introduced turtles. Snapping turtles, reaching lengths to this continent from Asia. They are of 15 inches and weighing 40 pounds or established in the Great Lakes and have more, inhabit the Mississippi River and been found in the Mississippi River. Their often take short forays inland. presence disrupts lake and river

ecosystems and clogs industrial equipment. Historically, the timber rattlesnake has It may be only a matter of time before the been found in the region, although Mississippi River and its tributaries are documented sightings have not taken place severely affected by this quick-spreading for many years. With the recent addition of species. 1,045 acres to the monument, the protection of suitable habitat for the timber rattlesnake is more likely. This, combined with the efforts to return the monument to SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES a more prairie ecosystem, increases the likelihood of rattlesnakes once again A list of federally threatened, endangered colonizing secluded bluff tops. and candidate species for the Effigy Mounds National Monument general management plan was prepared by the U.S. Mammals Fish and Wildlife Service and forwarded to the National Park Service in a The Mississippi River, Yellow River, and memorandum dated January 13, 2005 adjacent wetlands provide the preferred (appendix B). The list was rechecked habitat of many small mammals. March 19, 2012. The following species may Chipmunks, squirrels, beaver, muskrat, occur in the vicinity of the monument: river otter, and mink occupy the quiet sloughs and river edges. Occasional Federal Listed Species sightings of gray fox (Urocyon (E=Endangered, T=Threatened) cinereoargenteus) and coyote (Canis latrans) have been reported. Whitetail deer 1. Higgins eye pearlymussel (E) and red fox inhabit the floodplain and Lampsilis higginsii upland forests. Recently, an unnatural 2. Iowa Pleistocene snail (E) increase in population density of whitetail Discus macclintocki deer has been reported in the area. 3. Prairie bush clover (T) Lespedeza leptostachya Until the mid-1800s, northeast Iowa sup- ported a small elk population. Elk 4. Western prairie fringed orchid (T) disappeared from the region following Platanthera praeclara European settlement. Likewise, the timber 5. Northern monkshood (T) wolf was extirpated from the region by the Aconitum novaboracense 1930s. Isolated reports of wolves, black 6. Bald eagle* bear, and mountain lions have increased Haliaeetus leucocephalus steadily over the past 10 years. Although it * The bald eagle was in the memorandum, but has is suspected these sightings constitute the been subsequently delisted by the U.S. Fish and wanderings of young males, the rugged Wildlife Service.

113 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

State Listed Species. Information on state 19. Grass pickerel IA-T listed species was obtained from the Iowa (Esox americanus) Department of Natural Resources (IDNR 20. Central newt IA-T 2005), was cross-referenced with species (Notophthalmus veridescens) known to occur in the monument, and rechecked on March 19, 2012, to generate 21. Strange floater IA-T the list below. (F-Federal, IA-Iowa; E- (Strophitus undulates) Endangered, T-Threatened) Iowa Species of Special Concern

1. Higgins eye pearlymussel F-E, IA-E 1. Hawthorn (Lampsilis higginsii) (Crataegus pruinosa)

2. Bald eagle F-Delisted, IA-E (Halineetus 2. Purple coneflower leucocephalus) (Echinacea purpurea)

3. Peregrine falcon F-Delisted, IA-E 3. Prairie dock (Falco peregrinus) (Silphium terebinthinaceum)

4. Gray wolf F-Delisted 4. Rough bedstraw (Canis lupus) (Galium asprellum)

5. Red-shouldered hawk IA-E 5. Small white lady’s slipper (Buteo lineatus) (Cypripedium candidum)

6. Bluff Veritigo IA-E (Veritigo 6. Summer grape merimecensis) (Vitis aestivalis)

7. Spectaclecase IA-E 7. Southern flying squirrel (Cumberlandia monodonta) (Glaucomys volans)

8. Slough sandshell IA-E 8. Great Plains ladies’-tresses (Lampsilis teres teres) (Spiranthes magnicamporum)

9. Yellow sandshell IA-E 9. Spotted coralroot (Lampsilis teres anodontoides) (Corallorrhiza maculate)

10. Purple cliff break IA-E 10. Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) (Pellaea atropurpurea) 11. Yellow-eyed grass IA-E Animals (Xyris torta) The Higgins eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis 12. Leathery grapefern IA-T higginsii) is listed as endangered for the (Botrychium multifidum) Mississippi River north of Lock and Dam 13. Jeweled shooting star IA-T 20, which includes Allamakee and Clayton (Dodecatheon amethystinum) counties, Iowa. This species prefers sand/ 14. Creeping juniper IA-T gravel substrates with a swift current and is (Juniperus horizontalis) most often found in the main channel border or an open, flowing side channel. 15. Wild lupine IA-T While there is no designated critical (Lupinus perennis) habitat, the Higgins Eye Recovery Team 16. Purple fringed orchid IA-T has designated habitats essential to the (Platanthera psycodes) recovery of the species. These areas 17. Slender ladies’-tresses IA-T (Spiranthes include Allamakee County, Iowa (river lacera) IA-T miles 655.8-658.4 Right); Harper’s Slough 18. Southern bog lemming IA-T area, Allamakee County, Iowa (river mile (Synaptomys cooperi) 639-641.4R); Marquette-McGregor area, Clayton County, Iowa (river mile 634-636);

114 Natural Resources

McMillan Island area, Clayton County, The northern monkshood (Aconitum Iowa (river mile 616.4-6 19.1R). novaboracense) is listed as threatened in The endangered Iowa Pleistocene snail Allamakee and Clayton counties. It (Discus macclintocki) is found on north- occupies north-facing, cold-seeping slopes facing slopes of the Driftless Area in in the Driftless Area of northeast Iowa and Clayton County. It occupies algific talus one slope along the Iowa River. There is no slopes at the outlet of underground ice critical habitat designated for this species. caves along limestone bluffs within a narrow regime of soil moisture and temperature. This snail is a relic of State Listed Species preglacial times; it was once widespread, Information on state listed species that may but is now known only from a cave in occur in the monument was provided by Bixby State Preserve, approximately 20 the Iowa Department of Natural miles southwest of the Sny Magill Unit. Resources. The monument’s resource The snail’s survival in a nonglaciated specialist compiled a list of state listed Driftless Area within the boundaries of the species found in the monument (appendix last four glaciations is so unique that the E). species was first described, and had long been known only, as a fossil. The existence of this snail depends on its requirement for State Endangered Species a “fossil” climate at the mouth of the cave where temperature and humidity are Red-shouldered hawks are fairly common relatively constant. Although the snail has in the monument and are most often seen not been found on the monument specific soaring above the riverside bluffs. Their habitat conditions may exist in the area. preferred breeding habitat is riparian forests and wooded swamps. Nests are Plants built in coniferous trees 20 to 60 feet tall and are re-used several years in a row. Red- shouldered hawks are more able to tolerate The prairie bush clover (Lespedeza human disturbance if there are mature leptostachya) is listed as threatened and trees and a high canopy available (Ehrlich, considered to potentially occur statewide Dobkin, and Wheye 1988). The Yellow in Iowa, including Allamakee and Clayton River floodplain has been identified as one counties. It occupies dry to mesic prairies of 12 nesting sites and one of two multiple with gravelly soil. There is no critical nesting sites of the red-shouldered hawk in habitat designated for this species. This the state (NPS 2000). species should be searched for whenever prairie remnants are encountered. The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrine) has

an extensive natural distribution and is The western prairie fringed orchid found on all continents except Antarctica. (Platanthera praeclara) is listed as The American peregrine falcon breeds in threatened and considered to potentially Mexico, the United States, and Canada. occur statewide in Iowa, including Peregrines lay their eggs in “scrapes” in the Allamakee and Clayton counties. It soft earth on the floor of ledges and small, occupies wet to mesic grassland habitats. shallow caves located high on cliff walls There is no critical habitat designated for (USFWS 2012). They prefer open land or this species. According to the U.S. Fish and open forests for foraging. Wildlife Service, this species should be searched for whenever wet prairie Peregrine falcons were endemic to the area remnants are encountered. with the last nesting pair reported in 1965

about 20 miles north of the monument. In 1998 and 1999, nineteen peregrines were 115 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT released at Effigy Mounds National the Yellow River in the Heritage Addition Monument by the Raptor Resource Center (IDNR 2005). 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 VIEWSHEDS River and have them imprint on the Overlooks such as Fire Point and Eagle limestone bluffs overlooking the river. It is Rock provide the visitor with dramatic hoped that some of the birds would return views of the Mississippi River Valley with to the cliffs to set up territories and nest its braided channels, wooded islands, and among the ancient sites along the river. steep bluffs. As seen from bluff top

viewpoints, the panorama of the Heritage The bluff vertigo is a land snail that Addition appears to be a seamless inhabits forested limestone or dolomite extension of the cultural and natural cliffs and outcrops. Common plant landscape represented within the associations for this species in Iowa are monument. scattered conifers, yew, and deciduous trees such as maples (NatureServe 2005). The bluffs of the Mississippi River extend

downstream (south) as far as the eye can State Threatened Species see. Hawks soar above the wooded islands in the river’s channel, and crows populate Jeweled shooting star is a flowering plant the bluff tops. In autumn, the forest of the primrose family. In the monument, it presents a vivid display of color. is found in three locations on limestone outcrops near bluff tops and moist cliff Signs of the modern age are few, consisting faces (IDNR 2005). of a road, a bend of the railroad track, some farmland, and a few silos in the The slender ladies-tresses (Spiranthes distance. lacera), a native orchid, was recently discovered in the North Unit. Flowers are A procession of conical mounds lines a trail tiny, less than 1/4 inch, white with a green back into the woods looking west from the throat, and are arranged in a large spiral Mississippi River. Little Bear Mound and around the flowering stalk. The number of companion Great Bear Mound are a short spirals can vary greatly. It is found on distance from the river, and beyond that sandy soils in dry meadows or sunny are more mounds of the conical and linear clearings in woods. In the monument, it style. Visitors are able to contemplate these has been found on restored fields. The mounds in a primitive setting, without extent of this plant in the monument is distractions of roads, parking lots, or other currently unknown. intrusions often encountered at archaeological sites accessible to the public. State Species of Special Concern A concern is the viewshed from the The pugnose minnow (Notropis emiliea) is overlooks in the North Unit looking to the about 2 inches long and feeds on aquatic east. The view across the river is of Prairie invertebrates. It is found in northern du Chien, Wisconsin. Although mitigated Mississippi River basins, usually in somewhat by distance, reflective surfaces lowlands in clear to turbid, sluggish, often such as metal roofs can detract from the weedy waters of lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, quality of the view under certain light swamps, and streams of all sizes conditions. (NatureServe 2005). It has been found near

116 Natural Resources

A regional pattern of development that traditional farmlands and wooded lands evolved during the past decade indicates surrounding the monument. The influence that there are probable future land use of these factors is only expected to increase pressures on Effigy Mounds National during the upcoming years, resulting in Monument from outside its boundaries. increasing impacts to natural viewsheds. Residential expansion is impacting the

117

VISITOR USE AND UNDERSTANDING

people seem to locate the visitor center VISITOR EXPERIENCE with little trouble, wayfinding signs outside the monument are few in number and in Effigy Mounds National Monument some cases placed in nonstandard areas. provides an opportunity for monument visitors to explore the remnants of a past Visitors are encouraged to begin their culture that constructed hundreds of exploration of Effigy Mounds National sacred earthen mounds, some in the shape Monument at the visitor center, where they of birds and bears. This window to the past can receive orientation and wayfinding also provides a modern link with 12 information along with a schedule of traditionally associated American Indian special events and opportunities. They can tribes that consider this place to have also purchase interpretive material and significant meanings. The monument books from the cooperating association protects and preserves over 200 intact bookstore, and view exhibits and a film mounds and their surrounding cultural and about the monument’s resources. After natural landscapes and provides an exploring the visitor center, many visitors uncrowded atmosphere that enhances proceed on the short trail to the three visitors’ opportunity to understand and accessible burial mounds behind the visitor connect with these distinctive resources. It center and from there, to the main North continues to be a challenge for monument Unit trail. Automobile access to the interior staff to facilitate protection of of the monument is not permitted. archeological resources while providing opportunities for visitors to discover and The visitor center and support offices are connect with the historic human presence. currently fairly crowded some times of the

year, which has some impact on visitors Visitors to Effigy Mounds National receiving appropriate orientation and Monument can enjoy self-guided tours or interpretation. Some of the current join a ranger for a walk, talk, or historical interpretive media and orientation demonstration. Hiking trails provide information does not adequately address access to several areas with concentrations the diversity of park themes and visitors. of preserved mounds. Visitors can also experience a unique variety of habitats, For those wanting a more in-depth experi- including upland forest, prairie, and ence, the monument offers 14 miles of wetlands. The views of the Mississippi challenging hiking trails that crisscross the River are scenic and provide visitors an monument. Many visitors take advantage opportunity to understand the complex of the short, universally accessible, web of protected areas adjacent to the wetlands trail adjacent to the visitor center. national monument. Birding is becoming For those with a little more time, rangers particularly popular due to the diverse recommend the steep, 2-mile-long-loop habitats encompassed by Effigy Mounds. trail, which leads to several burial and

effigy mounds adjacent to Fire Point. The The visitor center is open June to Labor North Unit also offers a 7-mile-long trail Day from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. every day; providing access to more cultural and and, during other times of the year, scenic areas. Longer hikes are available in weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and the more secluded South Unit, known for weekends 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The its Marching Bear Group and outstanding monument is closed Thanksgiving, prairie habitats. Christmas, and New Year’s days. Although 118

Visitor Use and Understanding

Other trails in the monument are, for the Approximately 3.5 miles of the river flow most part, uneven and primitive due to the through monument lands before joining nature of the site. the Mississippi River near the monument headquarters. The Yellow River is a backwater for the Mississippi here and is quite sluggish for the last 3.5 miles. RECREATIONAL USE Upstream of the monument, the river flows OF THE YELLOW RIVER quite fast for Iowa and, therefore, is attractive to paddlers. The National Park Service recognizes there is historic and current recreational use on An area along the river near Iowa 76 has the Yellow River inside and outside the been used as an unauthorized canoe take- monument boundaries. This use includes out for many years. Safety concerns about fishing, canoe and kayak paddling, and the steep banks and vehicles moving into motor boating. The use of motorboats is and out of the highway have prompted the associated with fishing and is estimated by National Park Service to close this take-out the monument staff to be quite low. area. Also, part of the take-out area is on private land where the National Park No hunting is allowed in the monument Service has no authority to make any and fishing is governed by state improvements. Paddlers have access to regulations. Because it is a navigable river, public put-in and take-out points upstream the State of Iowa has some management of the monument and at a site on the authority for the water and its use. Mississippi River just below the mouth of the Yellow River.

121

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE Allamakee County, Iowa NATIONAL PARK SERVICE The headquarters, visitor center, and most . National parks generate more than of the monument are located in Allamakee $4 in value to the public for every County. Waukon, Harpers Ferry, and other tax dollar invested. small, rural communities form the . Nationwide, the national parks population base of this county. The U.S. support $13.3 billion of local Census Bureau estimates that the county’s private-sector economic activity population was 14,709 in 2005. The and 267,000 private-sector jobs. population increased by 6.1% in the . National parks attract businesses preceding 15 years (1990–2005). The state and individuals to the local area, of Iowa experienced an increase of 6.8% in resulting in economic growth in population over the same period. The areas near parks that is an average average number of persons per square mile of 1% per year greater than in the county was 23 in 2000, while the statewide rates over the past three statewide average was 52. decades. The median household income in . The social benefits of national Allamakee County in 2010 was $46,623 parks are many and extend well while the median for Iowa was $47,961. beyond economic values (Hardner The per capita income in 2010 was $21,349 and McKenney 2006). while the figure for the state was $24,883. According to the 2000 employment figures A trend that has affected most units of the provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Park Service in the past several economy of Allamakee County is based on years is a decrease in visitation. Of manufacturing; education, health and particular note is the apparent decrease in social services; agriculture (including interest by the nation’s young people. forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining); and retail trades.

Federal spending from all sources in ECONOMICS IN THE STUDY AREA Allamakee County totaled $77.416 million in 2004. For the purposes of this document, the study area (area of consideration) for socioeconomic analysis is Clayton and Clayton County, Iowa Allamakee counties, Iowa, and Crawford County, Wisconsin. Although all the The Sny Magill Unit and most of the South monument units are in Iowa, the City of Unit are located in this county along with Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, is socially and Marquette, McGregor, and other economically linked to the monument communities. The U.S. Census Bureau because of its proximity and availability of indicates that the county’s population was visitor services (e.g., restaurants, hotels, 18,337 in 2005. The population decreased and auto service stations). by 3.8% in the preceding 15 years (1990– 2005). The State of Iowa experienced an increase of 6.8% in population over the 122 Socioeconomic Environment same period. The average number of VISITOR SPENDING IN persons per square mile in the county was THE PLANNING AREA 24 in 2000, while the statewide average was 52. Effigy Mounds National Monument hosted 91,175 recreation visits in 2006, the The median household income in this latest year of complete data. According to a county in 2010 was $45,873 while the visitor study conducted by the National median for Iowa was $47,961. The per Park Service in 2005, 93% of visitors were capita income in 2010 was $22,303 while on day trips and 7% were on overnight the figure for the state was $24,883. Based trips staying in motels or bed and breakfast on the 2000 employment figures, the facilities, or camping in the area. economy of Clayton County is centered around manufacturing; education, health, The results of the visitor study were used and social services; agriculture (including with the NPS money generation model to forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining); and calculate the level of economic effect retail trades (U.S. Census Bureau). visitor spending has in the area. For analysis, the total recreation visits were Federal spending from all sources in converted to 36,470 party days in the local Clayton County totaled $108.715 million in area (party days = number of days spent in 2004. the vicinity by a party of visitors). On average, visitors spent $60 per party per Crawford County, Wisconsin day in the study area. Total visitor spending was $2.18 million dollars in 2006 The City of Prairie du Chien (population (table 10). This includes spending in sales, 6,018) and several smaller towns lie within income, and jobs in businesses selling this county. The U.S. Census Bureau goods and services directly to park visitors. indicates that the county’s population was 17,134 in 2005. The population increased The direct effects of the $2.18 million spent by 7.6% in the preceding 15 years (1990– by visitors to the national monument were 2005). The State of Wisconsin experienced $1.59 million in sales, $564,000 in personal an increase of 12.8% in population over the income (wages and salaries), $875,000 same period. The average number of million in value added, and 39 jobs persons per square mile in Crawford supported. Large direct effects were County in 2000 was 30, while the $445,000 in food and drinking places, Wisconsin statewide average was 99. $312,000 in retail trade and $68,000 in the hotel sector. As visitor spending circulates The median household income in the through the local economy, an additional county in 2010 was $39,486 while the $480,000 in sales, $161,000 in personal median for Wisconsin was $49,001. The income, $295,000 in value added, and six per capita income in 2010 was $26,334 jobs were created in secondary effects while the figure for the state was $25,458. (table 11). According to U.S. Census Bureau employment figures, Crawford County is The total effects figures shown in table 10 economically based in manufacturing; are the sum of the following: education, health, and social services; retail trades; and a combination of agriculture, . direct effects accrued largely to forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. tourism-related business in the area . indirect effects accrued to a Federal spending from all sources in broader set of economic sectors Crawford County totaled $97.996 million that serve these tourism businesses in 2004. 123

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES

The staff of Effigy Mounds National needed law enforcement. Permanent and Monument is responsible for managing the seasonal natural resource staff perform cultural and natural resources on resource restoration actions and conduct 2,526 acres of national park system land monitoring of sensitive resources. and accommodating about 80,000 visitors each year. The base funding was All units are open for day use only, approximately $1.2 million in fiscal year although not physically closed at night. 2010. At one time, the monument collected entrance fees during the summer months, In addition to the visitor center and office but no longer does. buildings, NPS staff members are responsible for maintaining access roads, a There are 17 full-time-equivalent maintenance facility, paved parking lot, employees (FTEs) at Effigy Mounds trails, former employee residences that National Monument, who provide have been converted to office space, and interpretation and education, resource utilities. management, administration, facility management, and law enforcement at the The greatest outdoor maintenance four units. This does not mean that there workload is around the visitor center and are 17 employees, as FTE is not a in the North Unit where the largest measurement of the number of people but proportion of visitation occurs. Work in is a measurement of “equivalency”—two the North Unit requires transporting part-time employees could equal one FTE. equipment and supplies from the Seasonal employees, cooperating maintenance yard located near the visitor association employees, and volunteers center. There are two maintenance access assist the permanent staff in some of these roads in the North Unit that facilitate the duties. movement of personnel and equipment closer to the trail where work is done. Monument staff provide interpretation and education programs centered around The Sny Magill Unit is more than 10 miles the visitor center and major trails in the away from the maintenance yard, so crews North Unit. The visitor center is staffed at must travel to do work at this unit. A fence all times the monument is open (362 days a and footpath need occasional year). Interpreters conduct visitor maintenance. Stabilization of the riverbank programs such as talks or guided walks as and protective maintenance of the mounds well as roving interpretation on the major is ongoing. Iowa Department of Natural trails during the primary visitor season. Resources maintains the access road, The administrative staff keeps everything parking area, and boat ramp in this unit. running and tracks the budget. One part- There are no visitor services or regular time law enforcement ranger provides NPS presence at this unit.

125

126

128

INTRODUCTION

The National Environmental Policy Act uses of the environment and the requires that environmental documents maintenance and enhancement of long- include discussion of the environmental term productivity, and the energy impacts of a proposed federal action, requirements and conservation potential. feasible alternatives to that action, and any The impacts of each alternative are briefly adverse environmental effects that could summarized in table 7, at the end of not be avoided if a proposed action should “Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the be implemented. In this case, the proposed Preferred Alternative.” federal action is implementation of the Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for Effigy Mounds National Monument. This chapter TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS contains the analysis of the environmental Each impact topic includes a discussion of impacts on cultural resources, natural impacts, including the context, intensity, resources, visitor experience, social and duration, and type of impact. Intensity of economic environment, and national impact describes the degree, level, or monument operations, and that would strength of an impact as negligible, minor, result from the actions of each of the three moderate, or major. Because definitions of alternatives. The analysis is the basis for intensity vary by resource topic, separate comparing the beneficial and adverse intensity definitions are provided for each effects that would be caused by topic. Contexts for impacts are described as implementing each alternative. local (confined to a localized area),

monumentwide (occurring throughout the Because the actions described in the monument or in multiple locations within alternatives are general and conceptual, the the monument), or regional. Duration of impacts of these actions are analyzed in impact considers whether the impact general qualitative terms. Thus, this would occur over the short term, long environmental impact statement should be term, or (in the case of cultural resources) considered a programmatic analysis. If and permanent. Unless otherwise noted, short- when site-specific developments or other term impacts are those that, within a short actions are proposed for implementation period of time—generally one year or after the final general management plan is less—would no longer be detectable published and approved, appropriate because the resource or value would return detailed environmental and cultural to its predisturbance condition or compliance documentation would be appearance. Long-term impacts refer to a prepared in accordance with the change in a resource or value that are requirements of the National expected to persist for more than one year. Environmental Policy Act and the National Permanent impacts to cultural resources Historic Preservation Act. are irreparable. The type of impact refers to

whether the impact on the resource or Each alternative discussion also describes value would be beneficial or adverse. cumulative effects and presents a conclusion. At the end of the impact The impact analyses for the action section, there is a brief discussion of the alternatives (alternatives B and C) describe unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible the difference between implementing and irretrievable commitments of alternative A (no-action alternative) and resources, the relationship of short-term 129 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES implementing the action alternatives. In cumulative actions that were in the early other words, to understand the planning stages, the qualitative evaluation consequences of any action alternative, the of cumulative impacts was based on a reader must also consider what would general description of the project. happen if current management practices were to continue. Past Actions

Many mound groups outside the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS monument boundaries have been destroyed by agricultural practices and CEQ regulations also require assessment of other types of land uses. Designation of cumulative impacts in the decision-making Effigy Mounds National Monument in process for federal projects. Cumulative 1949 and expansion of the monument in impacts result from the incremental impact 1961 and 2000 set aside over 2,500 acres for of an action when added to other past, protection of the burial mounds, associated present, and reasonably foreseeable future natural resources, and historic sites. In actions, regardless of who undertakes such addition, during the early development of other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative the monument’s infrastructure, impacts can result from individually minor construction may have damaged deposits but collectively important actions taking containing archeological materials. place over time. However, it should be noted that even though upper levels of deposit may have Cumulative impacts are considered for all been damaged, there still may be alternatives. To determine potential undisturbed deposits beneath the cumulative impacts, other projects within construction zone. and surrounding Effigy Mounds National Monument were identified. Projects were identified by discussions with the Present Actions monument, federal land managers, and Rural residential development has been representatives of county and town slowly increasing in Clayton and Allamakee governments. Potential projects identified counties in Iowa. In some cases, large farms as cumulative actions included any are being subdivided and sold as planning or development activity currently “ranchettes.” This is occurring near the being implemented, or that would be monument’s north boundary along implemented in the reasonably foreseeable Highway 76. Natural viewsheds have been future. The CEQ regulations do not require affected by commercial and industrial bureaus to catalogue or exhaustively list development across the Mississippi River and analyze all individual past actions. in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where Other actions were considered in the reflective surfaces (e.g., roofs) detract from analysis only if they are relevant and useful the view. Rock and gravel mining because they have a significant cause-and- operations also are affecting views from the effect relationship with the direct and North Unit and the approach to the Sny indirect effects of the proposed Magill Unit. alternatives.

The Mississippi River Trail is a multistate These actions were evaluated in effort to create a continuous bike and hike conjunction with the impacts of each trail along the length of the Mississippi alternative to determine if they would have River from Wisconsin to Louisiana. The any cumulative effects on a particular National Park Service supports this effort; natural, cultural, or socioeconomic Effigy Mounds National Monument could resource or visitor use. For those 130 Introduction be a destination point. However, bicycles this agricultural use would continue to be are not allowed on monument trails. replaced with residential development and subdivisions. This assumption is based on current land development trends in the Future Actions area around the monument. Of particular concern is the possible change in land use Although the current agricultural land use on the private land adjoining the on most property adjacent to the monument. monument is compatible with the monument’s goals, it can be assumed that

131

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under the advisory council’s regulations, TYPES OF CULTURAL RESOURCES an adverse effect occurs whenever an action alters, directly or indirectly, any Cultural resources typically include characteristic of a cultural resource that archeological resources, cultural landscapes, qualifies it for inclusion in the National prehistoric and historic structures, Register of Historic Places, e.g., ethnographic resources, and museum diminishing the integrity (or the extent to collections. This analysis focuses on four of which a resource retains its historic these types of cultural resources and appearance) of its location, design, setting, specifically those listed in or eligible for materials, workmanship, feeling, or listing in the National Register of Historic association. Adverse effects also include Places. Structures are not included in the reasonably foreseeable effects caused by analysis because there are no structures alternative actions that would occur later in within the monument that are eligible for time, be further removed in distance, or be listing in the national register. For the cumulative (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of purpose of this analysis, mounds, historic Adverse Effects). A determination of no roads, historic cistern, and sawmill adverse effect means there is an effect, but remnants are considered archeological the effect would not diminish the resources, not structures. characteristics of the cultural resource that

qualify it for inclusion in the national

register. SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT CEQ regulations and NPS Director’s Order METHODOLOGY 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making call In this management plan, impact analysis for a discussion of mitigation, as well as an also must comply with the requirements of analysis of how effective the mitigation section 106 of the National Historic would be in reducing the intensity of a Preservation Act. In accordance with potential impact, e.g., reducing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation intensity of an impact from major to regulations implementing section 106 of moderate or minor. Any resultant the National Historic Preservation Act (36 reduction in intensity of impact due to CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Proper- mitigation, however, is an estimate of the ties), impacts on cultural resources were effectiveness of mitigation under the also identified and evaluated by (1) National Environmental Policy Act only. It determining the area of potential effects; does not suggest that the level of effect as (2) identifying cultural resources present in defined by section 106 is similarly reduced. the area of potential effects that are either Cultural resources are nonrenewable listed in or eligible to be listed in the resources, and adverse effects generally National Register of Historic Places; (3) consume, diminish, or destroy the original applying the criteria of adverse effect to historic materials or form, resulting in a affected national register-eligible or loss in the integrity of the resource that can national register-listed cultural resources; never be recovered. Therefore, although and (4) considering ways to avoid, actions determined to have an adverse minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. effect under section 106 may be mitigated, the effect remains adverse.

132 Cultural Resources

A section 106 summary is included in the Impacts Common to All impact analysis sections for cultural Alternatives resources following the conclusions of each cultural resource impact topic. The Archeological Inventories. The surveys section 106 summary is an assessment of and research necessary to determine the the effect of the undertaking eligibility of archeological resources for (implementation of the alternative) based listing in the National Register of Historic upon the criterion of effect and criteria of Places are a prerequisite for understanding adverse effect found in the advisory the resource’s significance, as well as the council regulations. basis of informed decision making in the future regarding how such resources should be managed. Completion of such ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES surveys and research would result in a parkwide, long-term, beneficial impact. Archeological resources are addressed in this section because many of the proposed Ground Disturbance. Ground disturbance actions in the alternatives could affect activities under this impact topic include these resources. The impacts on actions that would result in damage to archeological resources in the action archeological resources that reduces or alternatives (alternatives B and C) were destroys resource integrity of evaluated by comparing projected changes characteristics making the resources resulting from the action alternatives to the eligible for listing in the national register. no-action alternative. These activities could include visitor- related activities such as foot traffic and pothunting, as well as more construction- Intensity Thresholds related activities like trail development or realignment, alteration of existing roads, The thresholds to determine the level of facility construction, riverbank impact on archeological resources are stabilization, and mound maintenance. defined as follows: Visitor Use / Foot Traffic—The public Negligible—Impact is at the lowest level of would continue to be asked to stay on the detection with neither adverse nor trail systems throughout the national beneficial consequences. Impacts would be monument and to stay off the mounds. measurable, but with no perceptible However, some visitors would continue to consequences. For the purpose of section climb up the mounds, or may climb on 106, the determination of effect would be them because of wet ground conditions in no adverse effect. areas adjacent to mounds. New areas of the national monument do not have trails, and Minor—Disturbance of a site results in visitors might unknowingly walk on little, if any, loss of integrity. The unmarked mounds. This occasional determination of effect for section 106 activity could result in erosion of the would be no adverse effect. mound that, if left unchecked, could result in damage or even loss of a mound’s Moderate—Site is disturbed, but not integrity. The monument’s policy of ranger obliterated. The determination of effect for patrols and emphasis on visitor education section 106 would be adverse effect. would continue to discourage visitors from straying from marked trails, committing Major—Site is obliterated. The acts of vandalism, and causing inadvertent determination of effect for section 106 destruction of cultural remains. Adverse would be adverse effect.

133 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES impacts would be local, minor to moderate, These activities would result in damage to and permanent. the mounds and possibly loss of archeological artifacts that would be Mississippi River Bank Stabilization—Each integral to an understanding of the mounds alternative would continue the current and the cultures that constructed them. practice of stabilizing segments of the This type of damage could create local, Mississippi River banks to protect the Sny permanent, and minor to moderate, Magill mounds. Exposed deposits could be negative impacts. Damage from pothunting documented and covered with a protective would be dealt with similarly to mound material (e.g., filter fabric) prior to adding maintenance. clean fill and/or riprap to stabilize the banks. Stabilizing the riverbanks would Dead and blown-down trees would result decrease or eliminate bank erosion that in local, permanent, minor to moderate could threaten archeological deposits. This adverse impacts. Stabilizing disturbed sites would result in a local, long-term, with clean fill and revegetating the sites beneficial impact. would reduce the intensities of these adverse effects because the mounds would Mound Maintenance—A cultural landscape retain their shape and appearance and report would be prepared in the near because stabilization would deter erosion. future to prescribe specific recommendations for mound Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, maintenance, and what follows is based on archeological resources in the region have what the National Park Service’s best been damaged due to ground disturbance assumptions are for what that report may associated with agriculture, residential recommend. development, and logging. Pothunting has also resulted in the loss of archeological Some of the mounds would continue to resources, alteration of artifact have trees growing on them. Large trees distribution, and a reduction of contextual would be left intact when damage from evidence. In addition, during the early their removal would jeopardize the development of the monument’s integrity of the mound. Saplings would infrastructure, construction resulted in continue to be removed. Trees on mounds damage to surface deposits containing would continue to occasionally die or be archeological materials. Adverse impacts blown down. A dead tree would continue resulting from these past actions have been to be cut down at the base and left to moderate to major and permanent. deteriorate. Trees that are blown down would continue to be removed in a manner As described above, impacts common to all least damaging to the mound. However, alternatives would result in permanent both would continue to result in some minor to moderate, localized, adverse damage to the mound. As roots decay, the impacts. These impacts, in combination soil would continue to collapse in upon with the impacts of other past, present, and itself and archeological deposits in the reasonably foreseeable future actions, mound could lose integrity of shape and would result in a permanent, moderate, height. In either case, maintenance staff adverse, cumulative effect. However, many would continue to fill holes with clean fill potential adverse impacts of the material (free of cultural materials) and alternatives would be confined to small, revegetate the site under the supervision of localized areas or would be somewhat qualified cultural resource specialists. offset by beneficial impacts.

Pothunting—Although rare, deliberate acts The adverse effects associated with the of excavation for artifacts (called impacts common to all alternatives would pothunting) could continue to occur. 134 Cultural Resources be a small component of the adverse archeological survey of the proposed cumulative impact. realignment would be undertaken to ensure significant archeological sites or Conclusions. In each alternative, visitor use features would be avoided. (including pothunting), bank stabilization along the Mississippi River, and Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, maintenance of the mounds would have archeological resources in the region have permanent, local, minor to moderate, been damaged due to ground disturbance adverse impacts to archeological resources. associated with agriculture, residential These impacts could be reduced to development, and logging. Pothunting has negligible to minor through avoidance, also resulted in the loss of archeological mitigation, and construction design. A resources, alteration of artifact complete inventory of the monument and distribution, and a reduction of contextual continued preservation of the mounds and evidence. In addition, during the early their contents would have a long-term, development of the monument’s beneficial impact on archeological infrastructure, construction resulted in resources throughout the monument. damage to surface deposits containing archeological materials. Adverse impacts Section 106 Summary. After applying the resulting from these actions have been Advisory Council on Historic moderate to major and permanent. Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse As described above, impacts associated Effects), the National Park Service with the implementation of alternative A concludes that the actions common to all would result in permanent, minor to alternatives would have no adverse effect on moderate, adverse impacts. These minor to archeological resources. moderate adverse effects, in combination with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, Impacts from Implementing would result in a permanent, moderate, Alternative A adverse cumulative effect. But, most adverse impacts would be confined to There are specific actions relating to trail small, localized areas or would be maintenance and realignment in alternative somewhat offset by beneficial, impacts. A that could require some level of The adverse effects associated with archeological inventory and evaluation implementation of alternative A would be a work. Trail maintenance and realignment small component of the adverse cumulative would be guided by a cultural landscape impact. report and recommendations currently under development, a future public access/ Conclusion. Trail maintenance would trail development plan, and a long-range occur in previously disturbed areas. Trails interpretation plan. would be realigned to avoid significant archeological resources. These actions Ground Disturbance. Existing trails would could lead to local, negligible to minor, continue to be maintained. Maintenance adverse impacts that would be permanent. activities would be confined to already disturbed areas. The potential for negative Section 106 Summary. After applying the impacts to archeological resources would Advisory Council on Historic be long-term, negligible, and localized. Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Some existing trails might be relocated for Effects), the National Park Service resource protection and visitor enjoyment. concludes that the impacts resulting from Prior to relocating trails, a predevelopment 135 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES actions in alternative A would have no construction, provisions outlined in the adverse effect on archeological resources. Native American Graves Protection and Consultations with the state historic Repatriation Act would be followed. preservation officer and consulting tribes would occur to develop mitigation Alternatives B and C would propose strategies. several ground disturbing actions involving existing and new trails as well as the removal of roads. These projects would Impacts from Implementing include Alternative B or Alternative C . Yellow River bridge new trail As they pertain to archeological resources, connection to South Unit trail alternatives B and C are the same except system for one difference—under alternative B, the existing trail in the Sny Magill Unit . Heritage Addition Development of would be improved from the parking lot to Old Roads as Trails/Trails the first set of mounds, and under Development alternative C, the entire trail would be . Heritage Addition New Trail upgraded. Construction

. Fire Point and Other North Unit There are specific actions under both Trail Realignments alternatives relating to trail development, construction, and land that could require . South Unit Trail Realignments some level of archeological inventory and . Sny Magill Unit Trail Construction evaluation work. Trail development would . Removal of Old Roads also be guided by the cultural landscape report and recommendations currently under development. Trail routes would be surveyed for archeological resources prior to trail Ground Disturbance. Ground disturbing construction. This would include the actions that could require some level of portion of the Sny Magill trail from the archeological evaluation work prior to parking lot to the first set of mounds under implementation include the following: alternative B and the entire length of the current trail under alternative C. Trails and Trail Development/Removal—Prior to the placement of any associated wayside construction, the trail routes would be exhibits and signs would be designed to designed to avoid known archeological avoid impacting archeological resources or resources. If during construction, would be located in areas that would previously unknown archeological minimize negative impacts to resources. resources were discovered, all work in the Any adverse impacts would be minor, immediate vicinity of the discovery would local, and permanent. be halted until the resources could be identified and documented by a Prior to any road obliteration, roads would professional archeologist; if the resources be evaluated for any association with could not be preserved in situ, an significant archeological resources. appropriate mitigation strategy would be Although the roadbeds are disturbed areas, developed in consultation with the state there would be a potential for significant historic preservation officer and associated subsurface deposits to remain intact American Indian tribes. In the unlikely beneath or adjacent to the disturbed areas. event that human remains, funerary Archeological surveying or monitoring objects, sacred objects, or objects of would be carried out during ground cultural patrimony are discovered during disturbing activities to ensure intact 136 Cultural Resources deposits were avoided to the greatest listing in the National Register of Historic extent possible. These actions would result Places. Identifying and evaluating these in negligible to minor, localized, adverse resources would inform monument staff impacts that would be permanent. regarding the best manner to manage and protect these resources. In addition, park Trails systems within the monument would rangers would also have jurisdiction to encourage visitors to stay on established protect these resources under federal paths. This would reduce foot traffic preservation laws. These actions would damage to mounds and other archeological result in local, long-term, beneficial effects. resources, thus resulting in a long-term, monumentwide, beneficial impact. Cumulative Effects. Over the years, archeological resources in the region have Infrastructure Construction—Alternatives B been damaged due to ground disturbance and C would propose constructing a visitor associated with agriculture, residential contact station at the Sny Magill Unit. This development, and logging. Pothunting has would improve the monument’s also resulted in the loss of archeological infrastructure and enhance visitor services. resources, alteration of artifact Prior to the construction project, the distribution, and a reduction of contextual construction site would be surveyed and evidence. In addition, during the early assessed for significant archeological development of the monument’s deposits. infrastructure, construction resulted in damage to surface deposits containing To the extent possible, the proposed archeological materials. Adverse impacts construction would be located and resulting from these actions have been designed to avoid archeological deposits. moderate to major and permanent. This would result in adverse impacts that would be negligible to minor, localized, As described above, impacts associated and permanent. with the implementation of alternatives B and C would result in permanent, Stabilization of Fire Point Mound in the negligible to minor, adverse impacts. These North Unit—Stabilizing and restoring the negligible to minor adverse effects, in mound’s original dimensions would combination with the impacts of other require additional soil to recreate the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable previous mound outline. Soil from outside future actions, would result in a permanent the national monument, free of cultural moderate adverse cumulative effect. materials, would be used. The existing However, most adverse impacts would be mound deposits would not be disturbed. confined to small, localized areas or would All stabilization work would be conducted be somewhat offset by beneficial impacts. and documented by a qualified The adverse effects associated with professional archeologist. Stabilizing the implementation of alternative B or C would mound would prevent further erosion and be a small component of the adverse restore the mound’s appearance, resulting cumulative impact. in a local, long-term, beneficial impact. Conclusion. The ground disturbing Land Acquisition. Alternatives B and C activities, trail work, and construction would call for acquiring the Riverfront proposed under alternatives B and C Tract located within the monument’s would occur in areas that would avoid authorized boundary from willing sellers. adverse impacts to cultural resources to the After acquiring this tract, the monument greatest extent possible. This would result would inventory any archeological in localized, negligible to minor, resources on the properties and determine permanent, adverse impacts to if any meet the significance criteria for 137 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES archeological resources, or no impacts at An ethnographic landscape may exist that all. is connected to contemporary American Indians. However, such a landscape has Acquiring the Riverfront Tract and not been formally studied and an official evaluating it for national register-eligible determination has not been made. archeological resources would give park Therefore, effects of the alternatives on managers a baseline for managing these such an undefined landscape have not been resources. Rangers would also have attempted. jurisdiction to protect these resources under federal preservation laws. These For purposes of analyzing potential actions would result in long-term, local, impacts, the thresholds of change for the beneficial impacts to archeological intensity of an impact to cultural resources. landscapes used in this general management plan are defined as follows: Section 106 Summary. Most impacts under alternative B and alternative C could Negligible—Impact would be at the lowest be mitigated. After applying the Advisory levels of detection—barely perceptible or Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria measurable. The determination of effect of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, for section 106 would be no adverse effect. Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National Park Service concludes that the impacts Minor—Impacts would be perceptible and common to alternatives B and C would measurable, but would be localized and have no adverse effect on archeological confined to a single character defining resources. Consultations with the state pattern or feature. The determination of historic preservation officer and consulting effect for section 106 would be no adverse tribes would occur to develop mitigation effect. strategies. Moderate—Impacts to a character defining pattern(s) or feature(s) would not diminish the integrity of the landscape’s CULTURAL LANDSCAPES location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The A cultural landscape inventory of Effigy determination of effect for section 106 Mounds National Monument for all but would be adverse effect. ethnographic landscapes has been completed and its results concurred by the Major—Impacts would result in Iowa state historic preservation officer. substantial and highly noticeable changes (The inventory is a computerized, to character defining pattern(s) or evaluated inventory of all cultural feature(s), diminishing the integrity of the landscapes within the national park system landscape’s location, design, setting, unit. Its purpose is to identify cultural materials, workmanship, feeling, or landscapes and to provide information on association. The determination of effect for location, historical development, section 106 purposes would be adverse character-defining features, and effect. management). Two landscapes were identified: (1) Yellow River Cultural The location and design of actions Landscape, encompassing the North and proposed under the alternatives would be South Units and the Heritage Addition; guided by the recommendations made in and (2) Sny Magill Cultural Landscape, an upcoming cultural landscape report. encompassing the entire Sny Magill Unit. The report would make recommendations Both were designated historic sites for their for preserving character-defining features connection to an event, activity, or person. of the cultural landscapes. These 138 Cultural Resources recommendations should minimize or would create a visual intrusion to the reduce adverse effects. Treatment of the landscape. This would create a long-term, cultural landscapes would also be informed minor, adverse impact to the landscape, by the public access / trail development but would be localized to the riverbanks. plan and long-range interpretive plan. This impact would be offset by the long- term, beneficial effect of stabilizing bank erosion, which threatens the landscape Impacts Common to All integrity. Alternatives Cumulative Effects. With the arrival of Several actions proposed in all of the European settlement, the mounds that had alternatives could potentially impact one survived centuries with little change began or both of the identified cultural to disappear as lands were leveled for landscapes. These potential impacts farms and towns. Forested areas were cut include the following: down and erosion damaged many mounds that had survived millennia. Agriculture, Ground Disturbance. The following development, and logging continue today actions could result in ground disturbance. and would also occur in the future. Development has damaged mounds, Visitor Foot Traffic and Pothunting—Foot altered historic land use and circulation traffic on the mounds and pothunting patterns, and has changed the spatial excavations could lead to erosion that relationship between landscape features could compromise the integrity of the and patterns, resulting in long-term mounds. Ranger patrols, signage, and moderate to major adverse impacts to improved trail systems would reduce the cultural landscapes. incidence of these activities, and any adverse impacts would be local, negligible In addition, natural viewsheds have been to minor, and permanent. affected by commercial and industrial development across the Mississippi River Mound Maintenance—A cultural landscape in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where report would be prepared in the near reflective surfaces (e.g., roofs) detract from future to prescribe specific the view. Rock and gravel mining recommendations for mound operations are affecting views from the maintenance, and what follows is based on approach to the Sny Magill Unit. Impacts what the National Park Serivce’s best to cultural landscapes are adverse, assumptions are for what that report might moderate, and long term. recommend. As described above, impacts common to all The mounds associated with both alternatives would result in negligible to identified cultural landscapes are minor, long-term, adverse impacts and character-defining features. Removal of long-term, beneficial impacts. These trees and trees that have blown down impacts, in combination with the impacts could damage the mounds in localized of other past, present, and reasonably areas. However, stabilization techniques foreseeable future actions, would result in (e.g., using clean fill to stabilize disturbed a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative areas) would restore mound appearances. effect. However, many of the proposed Maintaining mound appearances would actions would restore and protect the result in a long-term, beneficial impact to cultural landscapes; therefore, the adverse the cultural landscapes of the monument. effects associated with the impacts Mississippi River Bank Stabilization— common to all alternatives would be a Materials used to stabilize banks along the small component of the adverse cumulative Mississippi River in the Sny Magill Unit impact. 139 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion. Visitor foot traffic and Impacts from Implementing pothunting could result in the loss of Alternative B or Alternative C integrity of landscape character-defining features, such as the mounds. However, Regarding cultural landscapes, alternatives ranger patrols and visitor stewardship B and C are the same except for two education would minimize these activities, differences: (1) under alternative B, the resulting in a permanent, negligible to existing trail in the Sny Magill Unit would minor, localized, adverse impact. be improved from the parking lot to the first set of mounds and under alternative C, Most maintenance and stabilization the entire trail would be upgraded; and (2) activities common to all alternatives would the short maintenance access road in the have long-term, beneficial impacts because North Unit would be abandoned and these would be designed to protect and allowed to overgrow and return to nature preserve landscape character-defining in alternative B, but not under alternative features. C. This would result in beneficial impacts to cultural landscape as the intrusive road Applying stabilization materials to portions goes away. The following analysis pertains of Mississippi River banks would have a to both alternatives for all impacts except long-term, moderately negative impact, those relating to the Sny Magill trail. which would be restricted to a small portion of the landscape. These impacts, in There are specific actions relating to trails part, would be offset by the long-term, development, construction, and land beneficial effect of stabilizing the acquisitions under alternatives B and C riverbanks. that could impact cultural landscape defining features. Section 106 Summary. While most of the actions common to all the alternatives Ground Disturbance. The following would have beneficial or minor to minor actions could result in ground disturbance: adverse impacts to landscape features, applying stabilization materials along Trail and Road Development or Removal— Mississippi River banks would have a long- Alternatives B and C would propose term, moderate, adverse effect. After several ground disturbing actions involving applying the Advisory Council on Historic trails and roads. These projects would Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects include (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National Park Service . Yellow River bridge new trail concludes that the actions common to all connection to South Unit trail system alternatives would have an adverse effect on . Heritage Addition Development of cultural landscapes. Consultations with the Old Roads as Trails / Trail state historic officer and consulting tribes Development would occur to develop mitigation strategies. . Heritage Addition New Trail Construction Impacts from Implementing . Fire Point Trail Realignments Alternative A . Sny Magill Trail Construction . Removal of Old Roads There would be no additional impact to cultural landscapes associated with To the extent possible, placement of trails alternative A. and any associated wayside exhibits and signs would be designed to avoid impacting

140 Cultural Resources character-defining features in the cultural Stabilization of Fire Point Mound in the landscapes. This would result in negligible North Unit—Stabilizing and restoring the to minor, adverse impacts that would be mound’s original dimensions would localized. require additional soil to re-create the mound’s previous outline. Soil from Converting old roads to trails and outside the national monument, free of removing roads would lessen or eliminate cultural materials, would be used. their footprint on the landscapes, which Stabilizing the mound would prevent would assist in returning the landscape to further erosion. Restoring the mound their moundbuilding era appearance. This appearance and preventing further erosion would result in long-term, beneficial would result in a local, long-term, impacts in numerous locations throughout beneficial impact to the landscape. the monument. Land Acquisition—Alternative B and New trails constructed in the Heritage alternative C call for the acquisition of the Addition, South Unit, and a realignment at Riverfront Tract located within the Fire Point Mound would be located to monument’s authorized boundary from have minimal impacts to character defining willing sellers. After acquiring this tract, the features of the landscapes. Signs and monument would determine if the tract waysides associated with these trails also meets national register significance criteria would be located to minimize impacts to as components of the cultural landscapes. landscape features. Upgrading the current Identifying and evaluating these resources trail at the Sny Magill Unit to a low-profile would inform monument staff on the best trail designed to provide accessibility manner to manage and protect these during wet periods could introduce visual resources. In addition, park rangers would intrusions, which could result in local, also have jurisdiction to protect these negligible to minor, adverse impacts to the resources under federal preservation laws. landscape. These actions would result in local, long- term, beneficial effects. Under alternative B, the upgraded trail would extend only to the first (most Ecosystem Restoration—Alternative B and southern) set of mounds. The remainder of C would propose removing nonnative current trail would remain unimproved. plants and animals and using fire to Under alternative C, the entire trail would manage the forest and meadow be upgraded. The upgraded portion(s) of ecosystems. These actions would be the trail would encourage people to stay off designed to restore the landscapes to their the mounds. This would reduce damage to moundbuilding era conditions. Restoring the mounds, which would have a long- the ecosystems within the monument term, beneficial effect. would have a long-term, beneficial impact throughout much of the monument. Careful design would ensure that the construction or improvement of trails and Cumulative Effects. With the arrival of the installation of wayside exhibits and European settlement, the mounds that had signs would minimally affect the scale and survived centuries with little change began visual relationships among landscape to disappear as lands were leveled for features or circulation patterns and farms and towns. Forested areas were cut features. In addition, the topography, down and erosion damaged many mounds native vegetation patterns, and land use that had survived millennia. Agriculture, patterns would remain unaltered. Any development, and logging continue today adverse impacts would be long-term and and would also occur in the future. range in intensity from negligible to minor. Development has damaged mounds and altered historic land use and circulation 141 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES patterns and the spatial relationship result in long-term, beneficial impacts between landscape features and patterns, throughout much of the monument. resulting in long-term moderate to major adverse impacts to cultural landscapes. Overall, implementing alternative B or C would result in a long-term, In addition, natural viewsheds have been monumentwide, beneficial impact and a affected by commercial and industrial long-term, monumentwide, negligible to development across the Mississippi River minor, adverse impact on the monument’s in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where cultural landscapes, which could be reflective surfaces (e.g., roofs) detract from lessened through avoidance, mitigation, or the view. Rock and gravel mining design. operations also are affecting views from the approach to the Sny Magill Unit. Impacts Section 106 Summary. While many of the to cultural landscapes are adverse, actions proposed for alternatives B and C moderate and long term. would have beneficial or minor to moderate adverse impacts to landscape As described above, impacts associated features, adding built features in the with the implementation of alternatives B Heritage Addition and Sny Magill Unit and C would result in negligible to minor, could result in minor to moderate negative long-term, adverse impacts and long-term, impacts. These could be lessened through beneficial impacts. These impacts, in proper placement and design. After combination with the impacts of other applying the Advisory Council on Historic past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects future actions, would result in a long-term (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse moderate adverse cumulative effect. Effects), the National Park Service However, many of the proposed actions concludes that the actions associated with would restore and protect the cultural alternatives B and C would have no adverse landscapes. Therefore, the adverse effects effect on cultural landscape resources. associated with the impacts common to all Consultations with the state historic alternatives would be a small component of preservation officer and consulting tribes the adverse cumulative impact. would occur to develop mitigation strategies. Conclusion. Trail work and roadwork would be confined to previously disturbed areas or designed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to landscape character- ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES defining features to the greatest extent Ethnographic resources are basic possible. These ground disturbing activities expressions of human culture and the basis could have negligible to minor, long-term, for continuity of cultural systems. A localized impacts to the cultural cultural system encompasses both the landscapes, or no impacts at all. Improved tangible and the intangible. It includes trail and road designs that encourage traditional arts and native languages, visitor to stay off the mounds would result religious beliefs, and subsistence activities. in a long-term, beneficial impact Some of these traditions are supported by throughout much of the monument. ethnographic resources—special places in Acquiring the Riverfront Tract, stabilizing the natural world, structures with historic Fire Point Mound, and restoring associations, and natural materials. landscapes would afford greater federal Management of ethnographic resources protection over new lands as well as acknowledges that culturally diverse protect and perpetuate character-defining groups have their own ways of viewing the landscape features. These actions would

142 Cultural Resources world and a right to maintain their Impacts Common to All traditions. Alternatives

For purposes of analyzing potential Actions relating to ethnographic resources impacts, the thresholds of change for the would be the same for the no-action intensity of an impact to ethnographic alternative and the two action alternatives. resources used in this general management Following are the components of plan are defined as follows: ethnographic resources that were analyzed in this document. Negligible—Impacts would be at the lowest levels of detection and barely Preservation of Mounds. The monument perceptible. Impacts would neither alter staff would work to retain the form and resource conditions, such as traditional appearance of the mounds. This would access or site preservation, nor alter the preserve the integrity of ethnographic relationship between the resource and the resources within the monument. These associated group’s body of practices and actions would not affect access to the beliefs. For purposes of section 106, the mounds or American Indian ability to determination of effect would be no practice traditional beliefs. The result adverse effect. would be a site-specific monumentwide, long-term, beneficial impact. Minor—Impacts would be slight but noticeable and would neither appreciably Ecosystem Restoration. The monument alter resource conditions, such as staff would work to restore the existing traditional access or site preservation, nor ecosystem by eliminating or minimizing the alter the relationship between the resource impact of nonnative species, encouraging and the associated group’s body of beliefs the growth of native species, and and practices. For purposes of section 106, implementing controlled burns. Most of the determination of effect would be no these activities would not affect access to adverse effect. the mounds or American Indian groups’ ability to practice their traditional beliefs. Moderate—Impacts would be apparent Thus, these actions would result in a site- and would alter resource conditions or specific monumentwide, long-term, interfere with traditional access, site beneficial impact. However, access could preservation, or the relationship between be limited for a short period (possible the resource and the associated group’s affecting the ability of a group to practice beliefs and practices, even though the traditional beliefs) during prescribed group’s practices and beliefs would burns. This would result in a short-term, survive. For purposes of section 106, the minor, adverse impact to ethnographic determination of effect would be adverse resources during the recovery of burned effect. areas.

Major—Impacts would alter resource Maintenance of Natural Viewsheds and conditions. Proposed actions would block Soundscapes. The national monument or greatly affect traditional access, site staff would work to preserve viewsheds preservation, or the relationship between and soundscapes by protecting or restoring the resource and the associated group’s the landscapes and managing ambient body of beliefs and practices to the extent sound levels. Access to the mounds would that the survival of a group’s beliefs or not be affected nor would American Indian practices could be jeopardized. For groups’ ability to practice their traditional purposes of section 106, the determination beliefs. Preserving these important features of effect would be adverse effect.

143 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would result in a monumentwide, long- the alternatives would be localized, short- term, beneficial impact. term, and offset by beneficial impacts. Therefore, the adverse effects associated Nomination of Eligible Cultural with the impacts common to all Resources for Inclusion in the National alternatives would be a very small Register of Historic Places. The surveys component of the adverse cumulative and research necessary to determine the impact. eligibility of a resource for listing in the national register are a prerequisite for Conclusion. Most actions described in the better understanding the resource’s actions common to all alternatives would significance, as well as the basis of not result in loss of access or loss of the informed decision making in the future ability to practice tribal traditional beliefs regarding how the resource should be at Effigy Mounds National Monument. managed. This would result in a However, prescribed burns could monumentwide, long-term, beneficial temporarily limit access and the ability to impact. carry out traditional practices. These minor, adverse impacts would be local and Interpretation of Resources in a Manner short term. Sensitive to the Sacred Nature of the Site. The national monument staff would The overall impact of actions common to interpret the site to help visitors all the alternatives would be long-term, understand the connections between beneficial impacts on ethnographic American Indians and Effigy Mounds. For resources and would not contribute to the example, programs explaining overall adverse cumulative effect within the contemporary tribal interpretation and region. association with the mounds could be developed with input and concurrence Section 106 Summary. Each of the actions from consulting tribes. This would result in common to alternatives A, B, and C would a monumentwide, long-term, beneficial have long-term, beneficial effects on impact. ethnographic resources. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Cumulative Effects. In the past, criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part agriculture, development, and logging have 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the damaged or destroyed numerous National Park Service concludes that the ethnographic resources throughout the impacts common to all alternatives would region or have limited tribal access to the have a no adverse effect on ethnographic resources that remain. These trends resources. continue in the present and are expected to continue in the future. These have led to permanent, major, adverse impacts to Impacts from Implementing ethnographic resources throughout the Alternative A region. See section titled “Impacts Common to All As described above, impacts common to all Alternatives.” alternatives would result in minor, short- term, adverse impacts and long-term, Impacts from Implementing beneficial impacts. These impacts, in Alternative B or Alternative C combination with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable See section titled “Impacts Common to All future actions, would result in a long-term, Alternatives.” moderate, adverse cumulative effect. However, many of the adverse impacts of 144 Cultural Resources

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Impacts from Implementing Alternative A Museum collections (prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, In alternative A, collections would remain archival documents, manuscripts, and in the lower level of the visitor center. This natural history specimens) are generally area does not meet NPS museum ineligible for inclusion in the National collections standards. The national Register of Historic Places. As such, section monument does not have a curator and 106 determinations of effect are not often cannot accommodate visiting provided. However, such collections may researchers. Because museum display be threatened by fire, theft, vandalism, conditions are outdated, only items not natural disasters, and careless acts. The affected by a lack of light and temperature preservation of museum collections is an controls can be exhibited in the visitor ongoing process of preventive center. Maintaining the museum conservation, supplemented by collections under current conditions in the conservation treatment when necessary. visitor center would result in a long-term, The primary goal is preservation of minor to moderate, adverse effect because artifacts in as stable condition as possible storage conditions do not meet NPS to prevent damage and to minimize museum collections standards. Current deterioration. For purposes of analyzing storage conditions would continue to have potential impacts, the thresholds of change a long-term, moderate, adverse effect on for the intensity of an impact to museum the staff’s and visiting researchers’ ability collections used in this general to inspect and study the collections locally management plan are defined as follows: at the visitor center.

Negligible—Impact is at the lowest levels Cumulative Effects. Numerous museums of detection, barely measurable with no with archeological and archival collections perceptible consequences. exist throughout the upper Midwest as a result of excavations by universities, Minor—Impact(s) would affect the historical societies, and individuals over integrity of few items in the museum the last approximately 150 years. The collection but would not degrade the collections within the national monument usefulness of the collection for future make up a small but significant portion of research and interpretation. the whole body of knowledge of the moundbuilder culture. Because they Moderate—Impact(s) would affect the contain some of the earliest systematic integrity of many items in the museum archeological work undertaken, they have collection and diminish the usefulness of a particular importance to the history of the collection for future research and archeology. The preservation and study of interpretation. these materials has greatly expanded our understanding of the moundbuilders, Major—Impact(s) would affect the which has resulted in a long-term, regional, integrity of most items in the museum beneficial effect. collection and destroy the usefulness of the collection for future research and As described above, impacts associated interpretation. with the implementation of alternative A would result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to museum collections. These impacts, in combination with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,

145 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would result in a long-term, minor to Service (in consultation with the state moderate adverse, cumulative effect. The historic preservation officer, Office of the adverse effects associated with State Archaeologist, and traditionally implementation of alternative A would be a associated tribes) would evaluate regional substantial component of the adverse options for the storage of the collections cumulative impact. (including partnerships) and improvements to the existing facility and Conclusion. Items in the collections would an increase in staffing to determine what is continue to be stored and maintained in best for the long-term care of the facilities that does not meet NPS museum collections. collections standards. Items on display would continue to be limited to those that In alternative B, moving the collection to a are not affected by the substandard facility that fully meets NPS museum conditions of the exhibit cases. Access to collections standards or improving the the collection would remain limited. existing facility to more closely meet NPS Overall, the no-action alternative would museum collections standards would have minor to moderate, long-term, afford better climate control, storage adverse impacts due to inadequate storage conditions, and security than the current conditions and the absence of research facility. Both facilities would also have a space. staff member dedicated to the collections, which would enhance protection and accountability of the collections. Enhanced Impacts from Implementing storage and a dedicated staff member Alternative B would result in a long-term, local, beneficial impact to the collections. Alternative B calls for establishing a virtual, web-based research center to be Cumulative Effects. Numerous museums maintained by park staff. The virtual with archeological and archival collections center, in time, would have electronic data exist throughout the Upper Midwest as a on objects in the collection (e.g., catalog result of excavations by universities, data and scanned images) that could be historical societies, and individuals over easily shared locally, nationally, or even the last approximately 150 years. The internationally. The virtual research center collections within the national monument would be a long-term, moderate to major make up a small but significant portion of benefit because it would promote the the whole body of knowledge of the research of museum objects and moundbuilding culture. Because the information sharing about moundbuilders. collections contain some of the earliest The virtual center would have the potential systematic archeological work undertaken, to reach a geographically dispersed they have particular importance to the audience via the Internet. history of archeology. The preservation and study of these materials has greatly Alternative B would call for relocating expanded our understanding of the nonexhibit museum objects and archives to moundbuilders, resulting in a long-term, an off-site facility that fully meets NPS regional, beneficial effect. museum management standards or to improve the existing facility and staffing to As described above, impacts associated more closely meet NPS museum with the implementation of alternative B collections standards. Due to concerns would result in long-term beneficial raised by traditionally associated tribes and impacts to museum collections. These other stakeholders, it may be preferable to impacts, in combination with the impacts keep the collections at Effigy Mounds of other past, present, and reasonably National Monument. The National Park foreseeable future actions, would result in 146 Cultural Resources a long-term, beneficial impact. The which would enhance protection and beneficial effects associated with accountability of the collections. Enhanced implementation of alternative B would be a storage and a dedicated staff member substantial component of the beneficial would result in a long-term, local, cumulative impact. beneficial impact to the collections.

Conclusion. In alternatives B, the Under alternative C, the facility would be a collections would be housed in a facility leased property within 10 miles of the park. that fully meets or more closely meets NPS Under both alternatives, moving the museum collections standards. The collection to a facility that fully meets NPS alternative would allow greater museum collections standards would accessibility to the collections than afford better climate control and storage currently available under alternative A. The conditions than the park’s visitor center impact to the preservation of the basement. Both facilities would also have a collections and their usefulness in the long staff member dedicated to the collections, term would be moderate to major and which would enhance protection and beneficial, locally, regionally, and possibly accountability of the collections. Enhanced nationally or internationally. storage and a dedicated staff member would result in a long-term, local, beneficial impact to the collections. Impacts from Implementing Alternative C Cumulative Effects. Numerous museums with archeological and archival collections Alternative C calls for establishing a exist throughout the Upper Midwest as a physical research center on leased property result of excavations by universities, within 10 miles of the park. The physical historical societies, and individuals over research center would have space where the last approximately 150 years. The researchers could personally examine collections within the national monument objects. The physical research center make up a small but significant portion of would be a long-term, moderate to major the whole body of knowledge of the benefit because it would promote the moundbuilding culture. Because they research of museum objects and contain some of the earliest systematic information sharing about moundbuilders. archeological work undertaken, they have The physical center would have more of a particular importance to the history of local or regional impact. archeology. The preservation and study of these materials has greatly expanded our Both alternative B and C call for relocating understanding of the moundbuilders, nonexhibit museum objects and archives to resulting in a long-term, regional, an off-site facility that fully meets NPS beneficial effect. museum management standards. The alternatives differ in the location of the As described above, impacts associated facility. Under alternative B, the facility has with the implementation of alternative C yet to be determined. Under alternative C, would result in long-term beneficial the facility would be a leased property impacts to museum collections. These within 10 miles of the park. Under both impacts, in combination with the impacts alternatives, moving the collection to a of other past, present, and reasonably facility that fully meets NPS museum foreseeable future actions, would result in collections standards would afford better a long-term, beneficial impact. The climate control and storage conditions beneficial effects associated with than the park’s visitor center basement. implementation of alternative C would be a Both facilities would also have a staff substantial component of the beneficial member dedicated to the collections, cumulative impact. 147 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion. In alternative C, the impact to the preservation of the collections would be housed in a facility collections and their usefulness in the long that fully meets NPS museum collections term would be moderate to major and standards. The alternative would allow beneficial, locally, regionally, and possibly greater accessibility to the collections than nationally or internationally. currently available under alternative A. The

148

NATURAL RESOURCES

Negligible—The impact on soils would be INTRODUCTION slight and largely unnoticeable. Any effects on productivity or erosion potential would Analysis of natural resources was based on not be measurable. research, knowledge of monument resources, and the best professional Minor—An action would change a soil’s judgment of planners, biologists, profile in a relatively small area, but it hydrologists, and botanists who have would not appreciably increase the experience with similar types of projects. potential for erosion of additional soil. Information on natural resources was gathered from several sources, including Moderate—An action would result in a the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and site- change in quantity or alteration of the specific resource inventories for wetlands, topsoil, overall biological productivity, or water quality, wildlife, fisheries, and the potential for erosion to remove small vegetation. As appropriate, additional quantities of additional soil. Changes to sources of data are identified under each localized ecological processes would be of topic heading. limited extent.

Where possible, map locations of sensitive Major—An action would result in a change resources were compared with the in the potential for erosion to remove large locations of proposed developments and quantities of additional soil or in altera- modifications. Predictions about short- tions to topsoil and overall biological pro- term and long-term site impacts were ductivity in a relatively large area. Key based on previous experience with visitor ecological processes would be altered and and facilities development impacts on landscape-level changes would be natural resources. expected.

The definitions below assume that mitigation would be implemented. For this Impacts from Implementing document, the planning team qualitatively Alternative A evaluated the impact intensity for natural resources using specific methodology and A continuation of minimal impacts on soil threshold definitions. resources would be expected as a result of implementing alternative A. There would be no new construction or new ground SOILS disturbing actions under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would have no effect on soil resources. Predictions about site impacts were based on knowledge of impact on soils from development of visitor and operations Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil facilities under similar circumstances. resources that have occurred or would Short-term impacts are those expected to occur include agricultural and residential last one year or less while long-term development on adjacent lands and impacts would last longer than one year. construction of infrastructure such as The following categories were used to utility lines and roadways. evaluate the potential impacts on soils:

149 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Farming, grazing, quarrying, and logging disturbance and possible loss by wind and have occurred historically around and in water erosion during construction. By the units of the monument before it was keeping visitors on the trail, impacts to established. The only place this did not soft, wet soil would be alleviated, so long- occur was where the topography was so term impacts to soils would be beneficial rough that it prevented efficient and negligible. The proposed visitor agricultural or timber operations. These contact station would be built on disturbed activities have adversely impacted the soils ground on acquired land and would have to varying degrees by affecting compaction, no new effect on monument soils. displacement, erodibility, and nutrient content. Actions proposed in this alternative also include construction of visitor trails in the Impacts on soils have also occurred in the Heritage Addition and South Unit. Some national monument. Construction of existing logging roads would be converted service and public roads, structures, trails, to trails according to a public access/ trail and other developments in the monument development plan. have disturbed soils and affected productivity of the land. Impacts from Impacts to soils from the actions described existing roads and developments in the above would include removal or monument would remain. Resource displacement of topsoil during management activities such as prescribed construction and changes to erosion burning affect soil by direct heating and potential. These short-term impacts would increasing the potential for erosion after be minor and adverse. Long-term impacts burning until revegetation occurs. from these actions would include ongoing Prescribed burns would not be allowed to soil compaction and possible erosion, and get hot enough to sterilize the soil. Impacts are anticipated to be negligible to minor from existing roads and developments in and adverse. the monument would remain as no removal of these developments is Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil prescribed in the no-action alternative. resources that have occurred or would occur include agricultural and residential Because this alternative would have no new development on adjacent lands and effect on soils, there would be no project- construction of infrastructure such as related cumulative effect. utility lines and roadways.

Conclusion. If implemented, alternative A Farming, grazing, quarrying, and logging would have no impacts to soil resources in have occurred historically around and in the monument. There would be no project- the units of the monument before it was related cumulative effect. established. The only place this did not occur was where the topography was so rough that it prevented efficient Impacts from Implementing agricultural or timber operations. These Alternative B activities have adversely impacted soils to varying degrees by affecting characteristics A portion of the trail at Sny Magill would such as compaction, displacement, be improved according to a site erodibility, and nutrient content. development plan that would be prepared after completion of this general Impacts on soils have also occurred in the management plan. This trail would most national monument. Construction of likely be on or near the alignment of the service and public roads, structures, trails, existing trail, so short-term adverse and other developments in the monument impacts would be negligible, caused by soil have disturbed soils and have affected 150 Natural Resources productivity of the land. Impacts from converted to trails according to a public existing roads and developments in the access / trail development plan. monument would remain. Resource management activities such as prescribed Impacts to soils from the actions described burning affect soil by direct heating and would include removal or displacement of increasing the potential for erosion after topsoil during construction and changes to burning until revegetation occurs. Properly erosion potential. These short-term conducted prescribed burns would not be impacts would be minor and adverse. allowed to get hot enough to sterilize the Long-term impacts from these trails would soil. include soil compaction and possible erosion, and are anticipated to be Alternative B would have negligible to negligible to minor and adverse. minor adverse impacts to soil resources and, when considered in combination with Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting soil the above minor adverse impacts on soil resources that have occurred or would resources, would result in a minor adverse occur include agricultural and residential cumulative impact. Alternative B would development on adjacent lands and have a small contribution to these effects. construction of infrastructure such as utility lines and roadways. Conclusion. Alternative B would have short-term, minor, adverse impacts and Farming, grazing, quarrying, and logging long-term, negligible to minor, adverse have occurred historically around and in impacts to soil resources in the monument. the units of the monument before it was It would result in a minor, adverse, established. The only place this did not cumulative impact. occur was where the topography was so rough that it prevented efficient agricultural or timber operations. These Impacts from Implementing activities have adversely impacted soils to Alternative C varying degrees by affecting characteristics such as compaction, displacement, The trail would be improved at Sny Magill erodibility, and nutrient content. according to a site development plan that would be prepared after completion of this Impacts on soils have also occurred in the general management plan. This trail would national monument. Construction of most likely be on or near the alignment of service and public roads, structures, trails, the existing trail but longer than in and other developments in the monument alternative B. Short-term adverse impacts have disturbed soils and have affected would be negligible, caused by soil productivity of the land. Impacts from disturbance and possible loss by wind and existing roads and developments in the water erosion during construction. By monument would remain. Resource confining visitors to the trail, impacts to management activities such as prescribed soft, wet soil would be alleviated, so long- burning affect soil by direct heating and term impacts to soils would be beneficial increasing the potential for erosion after and negligible. The proposed visitor burning until revegetation occurs. Properly contact station would be built on disturbed conducted prescribed burns would not be ground on acquired land and would have allowed to get hot enough to sterilize the no new effect on monument soils. soil.

Actions proposed in this alternative also Alternative C would have negligible to include construction of visitor trails in the minor adverse impacts to soil resources Heritage Addition and the South Unit. and, when considered in combination with Some existing logging roads would be the above minor adverse impacts on soil 151 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES resources, would result in a minor adverse Minor—Impacts would be detectable and cumulative impact. Alternative C would affect a limited area that meets wild and have a small contribution to these effects. scenic river suitability.

Conclusion. Alternative C would have Moderate—Impacts would be sufficient to short-term, minor, adverse impacts and cause a change in the wild and scenic river long-term, negligible to minor, adverse values and they would be readily apparent. impacts to soil resources in the monument. It would result in a minor adverse Major—Impacts would substantially alter cumulative impact. the wild and scenic river values, eliminating the characteristics that meet the criteria for consideration as wilderness.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Type of Impact. Impacts were classified as adverse if they would adversely affect wild Included in this general management plan and scenic river values or integrity. is the assessment to determine if the Conversely, impacts were classified as Yellow River is eligible and suitable for beneficial if they would enhance wild and inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic scenic river values or integrity. Rivers System (appendix D). The National

Park Service has found that the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River that flows Impacts from Implementing through the monument is suitable and is Alternative A recommending it for designation as a national wild and scenic river. Therefore, Alternative A would not cause any changes the river must be managed to prevent any to current situations affecting the wild and change to the characteristics that make it scenic river suitability characteristics of the suitable for wild and scenic river Yellow River. Existing conditions and designation. The National Park Service influences on the outstandingly remarkable compared the management actions for values identified for the river would each alternative with the criteria identified continue as they are now. in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and associated NPS policies to determine if the There would be no new development or river’s free-flowing character or identified change in existing development in the river outstandingly remarkable values would be corridor under this alternative; therefore, affected. there would be no effect.

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, would last less than 1 year following imple- residential development, and commercial mentation of an action. A long-term impact land uses in the Yellow River watershed would last longer than 1 year after have removed water, disrupted natural implementing the action. runoff, disturbed natural precipitation percolation, and adversely affected water Intensity of Impact. The intensity or quality. The river is listed on Iowa’s magnitude of impacts on wild and scenic impaired waters list for high levels of fecal river values have been described as coliform bacteria, possibly from upstream negligible, minor, moderate, or major. concentrated animal feeding operations.

Negligible—Impacts would have no Three bridges have been built over the discernible effect on wild and scenic river Yellow River near its mouth—one values. pedestrian bridge in the monument and a highway bridge and railroad bridge outside 152 Natural Resources the monument. The National Park Service Three bridges have been built over the currently has no control or jurisdiction river near its mouth—a pedestrian bridge over the Yellow River outside the in the monument, and a highway bridge monument. If the river were to be and a railroad bridge outside the designated, the National Park Service monument. The National Park Service would review project proposals to currently has no control or jurisdiction determine if there would be any impacts to over the Yellow River outside the Wild and Scenic River values. monument. If the river were to be designated, the National Park Service These actions have resulted in minor would review project proposals according adverse impacts on the Yellow River. This to section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers alternative would not contribute to these Act to determine if there would be any impacts and therefore would have no impacts to wild and scenic river values. project-related cumulative effects. These actions have resulted in minor Conclusion. Alternative A would have no adverse impacts on the Yellow River. This effect on the Yellow River’s wild and alternative would not contribute to these scenic river values. Because this alternative impacts and therefore would have no would have no effect, there would be no project-related cumulative effects. project-related cumulative effects. Conclusion. Alternative B would have no effect on the Yellow River’s wild and Impacts from Implementing scenic rivers values and suitability. Because Alternative B this alternative would have no effect, there would be no project-related cumulative This alternative would not result in any effects. changes to current situations affecting the wild and scenic rivers suitability characteristics of the Yellow River. Impacts from Implementing Existing conditions and influences on the Alternative C outstandingly remarkable values identified for the river would continue as they are This alternative would not result in any now. changes to current situations affecting the wild and scenic rivers suitability There would be no other development or characteristics of the Yellow River. change in existing development in the Existing conditions and influences on the Yellow River corridor under this outstandingly remarkable values identified alternative. Therefore, there would be no for the river would continue as they are effect on wild and scenic rivers values. now.

Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, There would be no new development or residential development, and commercial change in existing development in the river land uses in the Yellow River watershed corridor under this alternative; therefore, have removed water, disrupted natural there would be no effect. runoff, disturbed natural precipitation percolation, and adversely affected water Cumulative Effects. Agriculture, quality. The river is listed on Iowa’s residential development, and commercial impaired waters list for high levels of fecal land uses in the Yellow River watershed coliform bacteria, possibly from upstream, have removed water, disrupted natural contained animal feeding operations. runoff, disturbed natural precipitation percolation, and adversely affected water quality. The river is listed on Iowa’s 153 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES impaired waters list for high levels of fecal Minor—An action would not necessarily coliform bacteria, possibly from upstream, decrease or increase the area’s overall contained animal feeding operations. biological productivity. An action would affect the abundance or distribution of Three bridges have been built over the individuals in a localized area but would river near its mouth—a pedestrian bridge not affect the viability of local or regional in the monument, and a highway bridge populations or communities. and railroad bridge outside the monument. The National Park Service currently has no Moderate—An action would result in a control or jurisdiction over the Yellow change in overall biological productivity in River outside the monument. If the river a small area. An action would affect a local were to be designated, the National Park population sufficiently to cause a change in Service would review project proposals abundance or distribution, but it would not according to section 7 of the Wild and affect the viability of the regional popula- Scenic Rivers Act to determine if there tion or communities. Changes to ecological would be any impacts to wild and scenic processes would be of limited extent. rivers values. Major—An action would result in overall These actions have resulted in minor disruption of biological productivity in a adverse impacts on the Yellow River. This relatively large area. An action would affect alternative would not contribute to these a regional or local population of a species impacts and therefore would have no sufficiently to cause a change in abundance project-related cumulative effects. or in distribution to the extent that the population or communities would not be Conclusion. Alternative C would have no likely to return to its/their former level effect on the Yellow River’s wild and (adverse), or would return to a sustainable scenic rivers suitability. Because this level (beneficial). Key ecological processes alternative would have no effect, there would be altered. would be no project-related cumulative effects. Impacts from Implementing

Alternative A VEGETATION A continuation of minimal impacts on vegetation would be expected as a result of Impacts were assessed qualitatively. Infor- implementing alternative A. There would mation was gleaned from general be no new construction but existing documents such as the monument’s impacts from park development and use resource management plan, and results of would continue. These actions include site-specific surveys. Predictions about trails park roads, vegetation manipulation impacts were based on previous experience on the major mound groups, and riverbank with development impacts on natural stabilization. resources. Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting Negligible—The impact on vegetation vegetation that have occurred or would (individuals and/or communities) would be occur include agricultural and residential at such a low intensity that it would not be development on adjacent lands and measurable. The abundance or distribution construction of infrastructure such as of individuals would be only slightly utility lines and roadways. affected. Ecological processes and biological productivity would not be affected. 154 Natural Resources

Farming, ranching, and logging have A portion of the existing trail at Sny Magill occurred historically around and in the would be improved according to a site units of the monument before it was development plan to be prepared. established. The only place this did not Construction of the trail would result in occur was where the topography was so the loss of vegetation, but since the trail rough it prevented efficient agricultural or would be short and most likely be on the timber operations. Much of the native alignment of the existing trail, short-term forest in the area has been cut down for and long-term adverse impacts would be lumber or to clear land for planting crops. negligible. A small visitor contact station More than a century of fire suppression would be built on disturbed ground on has also affected vegetation. These acquired land and would have no new activities adversely impacted native effect on monument vegetation. vegetation communities by disrupting natural plant succession, replacing native Under this alternative, the short vegetation with monotypic nonnative maintenance access road in the north part plants (crops), and introducing noxious of the North Unit would be abandoned weeds that outcompete native vegetation and allowed to rehabilitate naturally. This for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients. would be a beneficial impact as native Impacts on vegetation also occurred in the vegetation repopulates the former road. national monument. Construction of service and public roads, structures, trails, Actions proposed in this alternative also and other developments in the monument include construction of visitor trails in the removed vegetation. Impacts from existing Heritage Addition and the South Unit. roads and developments in the monument Trails would be established primarily on would remain. Resource management old logging roads according to a public activities, such as prescribed burning, access / trail development plan. A attempt to restore natural vegetative connecting trail from the bridge into the succession and increase plant diversity. South Unit would be constructed. Impacts would include loss of vegetation in the Alternative A would involve a continuation construction corridors—about one acre of negligible and minor adverse impacts total. Short-term impacts would be minor and, when considered in combination with and adverse. Long-term impacts from the above minor to moderate adverse these trails are anticipated to be negligible impacts on vegetation, would result in a and adverse and include a permanent loss minor adverse cumulative impact. The no- of a small amount of vegetation and action alternative would have a slight potential increase in the spread of exotic contribution to these effects. plants.

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting would result in a continuation of negligible vegetation that have occurred or would and minor, adverse impacts to vegetation occur include agricultural and residential in the monument. It would result in a development on adjacent lands and the minor adverse cumulative impact. construction of infrastructure such as utility lines and roadways.

Farming, ranching, and logging have Impacts from Implementing occurred historically around and in the Alternative B units of the monument before it was established. The only place this did not Alternative B would result in small changes occur was where the topography was so in the level of development at the rough that it prevented efficient monument that could affect vegetation. agricultural or timber operations. Much of 155 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the native forest in the area has been cut The trail at Sny Magill would be improved down at one time or another for lumber or according to a site development plan to be to clear land for planting crops. More than prepared. Construction of the trail would a century of fire suppression has also result in the loss of vegetation, but since affected the current vegetation this would most likely be on the alignment communities. These activities have of the existing trail, short-term and long- adversely impacted native vegetation term adverse impacts would be negligible. communities by disrupting natural plant A small visitor contact station would be succession, replacing native vegetation built on disturbed ground on acquired land with unnatural monotypic plants (crops), and would have no new effect on and introducing noxious weeds that out- monument vegetation. compete native vegetation for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients. Actions proposed in this alternative also include construction of visitor trails in the Impacts on vegetation have also occurred Heritage Addition and the South Unit. An in the national monument. Construction of access trail to get visitors and monument service and public roads, structures, trails, operations into the Heritage Addition and other developments in the monument would be constructed according to a public have removed vegetation. Impacts from access/ trail development plan. Additional existing roads and developments in the trails would be established primarily on old monument would remain. Resource logging roads. A connecting trail from the management activities, such as prescribed bridge into the South Unit would be burning, attempt to restore natural constructed. Impacts would include loss of vegetative succession and increase plant vegetation in the construction corridors— diversity. about one acre total. Short-term impacts would be minor and adverse. Long-term Alternative B would have short-term and impacts from these trails are anticipated to long-term, minor, adverse impacts and a be negligible and adverse and include a long-term beneficial impact. When slight permanent loss of vegetation and considered in combination with the above possible increase in the spread of exotic minor to moderate, adverse impacts on plants. vegetation, alternative B would result in a minor to moderate, adverse, cumulative Cumulative Effects. Actions affecting impact. Alternative B would have a modest vegetation that have occurred or would contribution to these effects. occur include agricultural and residential development on adjacent lands and the Conclusion. Implementing alternative B construction of infrastructure such as would have short-term and long-term, utility lines and roadways. minor, adverse impacts and a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to vegetation Farming, ranching, and logging have in the monument. It would result in a occurred historically around and in the minor to moderate adverse cumulative units of the monument before it was impact. established. The only place this did not occur was where the topography was so rough that it prevented efficient Impacts from Implementing agricultural or timber operations. Much of Alternative C the native forest in the area has been cut down at one time or another for lumber or Alternative C would result in small changes to clear land for planting crops. More than in the level of development at the a century of fire suppression has also monument that could affect vegetation. affected vegetation. These activities have adversely impacted native vegetation 156 Natural Resources communities by disrupting natural plant Short-term impacts are those expected to succession, replacing native vegetation last during construction and for one year with unnatural monotypic plants (crops), or less—allowing for vegetation recovery and introducing noxious weeds that out- and for wildlife to become accustomed to compete native vegetation for sunlight, the new structure. Long-term impacts moisture, and nutrients. would be those that last longer than one year. Impacts on vegetation have also occurred in the national monument. Construction of Negligible—The impact would not be service and public roads, structures, trails, measurable on individuals, and the local and other developments in the monument populations would not be affected. have removed vegetation. Impacts from existing roads and developments in the Minor—An action would affect the monument would remain. Resource abundance or distribution of individuals in management activities, such as prescribed a localized area but would not affect the burning, attempt to restore natural viability of local or regional populations. vegetative succession and increase plant diversity. Moderate—An action would affect a local population sufficiently to cause a minor Alternative C would have short-term and change in abundance or distribution but long-term, minor, adverse impacts. When would not affect the viability of the considered in combination with the above regional population. minor to moderate, adverse impacts on vegetation, alternative C would result in a Major—An action would affect a regional minor to moderate adverse cumulative or local population of a species sufficiently impact. Alternative C would have a modest to cause a change in abundance or in contribution to these effects. distribution to the extent that the population would not be likely to return to Conclusion. Implementing alternative C its former level (adverse), or would return would have short-term, minor, adverse to a sustainable level (beneficial). impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts to vegetation in the monument. It Impacts from Implementing would result in a minor, adverse cumulative impact. Alternative A

There would be no changes in management of fish, wildlife, or habitat in FISH AND WILDLIFE the monument.

Impacts on fish and wildlife are closely There may be a continuation of long-term related to impacts on habitat. The analysis negligible, adverse impacts from fear and considered whether actions would be avoidance reactions to human use of the likely to displace some or all individuals of trails. a species in the monument or would result in loss or creation of habitat conditions Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife needed for the viability of local or regional populations have been affected by human populations. Impacts associated with fish activities such as agricultural, commercial, and wildlife might include any change in and residential land uses and the habitat quality or quantity, food supply, introduction of nonnative species. There protective cover, or distribution or have been minor to moderate adverse abundance of species. impacts in the form of habitat loss or disruption associated with these activities. 157 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Establishment of the national monument Trails would be established on old logging and acquisition of the Heritage Addition roads in the Heritage Addition. A resulted in long-term beneficial impacts on connecting trail from the bridge into the wildlife by preserving these pieces of South Unit would be constructed. habitat and eliminating hunting. However, elimination of hunting is a reason being Impacts of these actions would include loss cited by locals for the recent unnatural of habitat in the construction corridors— increase in the white tail deer population. about one acre total. Short-term impacts to This high density of deer is causing some wildlife would be minor and adverse resource damage. during construction from the increased human presence and noise. Long-term Spread of nonnative zebra mussels into the impacts from this development, such as Mississippi River and its tributaries results disturbance from trail users, are in adverse effects from the disruption of anticipated to be negligible and adverse. natural lake and river ecosystems. Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife The no-action alternative would contribute populations have been affected by human a slight adverse increment to these effects activities such as agricultural, commercial, and, when considered in combination with and residential lands uses and the the above minor to moderate adverse introduction of nonnative species. Quality impacts on fish and wildlife, would result habitat available for wildlife has been in a minor, adverse cumulative impact to increasingly restricted and fragmented. fish and wildlife resources. Hunting and the extirpation of natural predators have adversely affected Conclusion. Implementing alternative A population structure and dynamics of would result in a continuation of negligible game species. There have been direct and adverse impacts to fish and wildlife in the indirect, minor to moderate, adverse monument. It would result in a minor impacts associated with these conditions. adverse cumulative impact. Establishment of the national monument and acquisition of the Heritage Addition Impacts from Implementing have resulted in long-term beneficial Alternative B impacts on wildlife by preserving these pieces of habitat and eliminating hunting. Some small changes to available habitat However, elimination of hunting is a would be expected as a result of reason being cited by locals for the recent implementing alternative B. unnatural increase in the white-tail deer population. This high density of deer is A short trail at Sny Magill would be causing some resource damage. constructed according to a site development plan that would be prepared The spread of nonnative zebra mussels into for this unit. Short-term minor adverse the Mississippi River and its tributaries impacts in the form of wildlife fear and results in adverse effects from disruption of avoidance reactions would occur during natural lake and river ecosystems. the construction phase. Long-term adverse impacts would be negligible because the Alternative B would result in short-term, trail would most likely be built near the minor, adverse impacts and long-term, existing trail and would be low enough that negligible, adverse impacts. When animals would have no trouble crossing it. considered in combination with the above The visitor contact station would be built minor to moderate adverse impacts, on disturbed ground on acquired land and alternative B would result in a minor to have no effect on habitat in the monument. moderate, adverse cumulative impact to 158 Natural Resources fish and wildlife resources. Alternative B Cumulative Effects. Regional wildlife would provide a small adverse populations have been affected by human contribution to these effects. activities such as agricultural, commercial, and residential lands uses and the Conclusion. Implementing the alternative introduction of nonnative species. Quality B would result in short-term minor adverse habitat available for wildlife has been impacts and long-term negligible adverse increasingly restricted and fragmented. impacts to fish and wildlife. Cumulative Hunting and the extirpation of natural effects would be minor to moderate and predators have adversely affected adverse. population structure and dynamics of game species. There have been direct and indirect, minor to moderate, adverse Impacts of Implementing impacts associated with these conditions. Alternative C Establishment of the national monument Some small changes to available habitat and acquisition of the Heritage Addition would be expected as a result of have resulted in long-term beneficial implementing alternative C. impacts on wildlife by preserving these pieces of habitat and eliminating hunting. A trail would be constructed at Sny Magill However, elimination of hunting is a or the existing trail would be improved reason being cited by locals for the recent according to a site development plan that unnatural increase in the white-tail deer would be prepared for this unit. Short- population. This high density of deer is term, minor, adverse impacts in the form of causing some resource damage. wildlife fear and avoidance reactions would occur during the construction The spread of nonnative zebra mussels into phase. Long-term adverse impacts would the Mississippi River and its tributaries be negligible because the trail would most results in adverse effects from the likely be built near the existing trail and disruption of natural lake and river would be low enough that animals would ecosystems. have no trouble crossing it. The visitor contact station would be built on disturbed Alternative C would result in short-term, ground on acquired land and have no minor, adverse impacts and long-term, effect on habitat in the monument. negligible, adverse impacts. When considered in combination with the above Construction of visitor trails would also minor to moderate, adverse impacts, occur in the Heritage Addition and the alternative C would result in a minor to South Unit. Trails would be established on moderate, adverse cumulative impact to old logging roads in the Heritage Addition. fish and wildlife resources. Alternative C A connecting trail from the bridge into the would provide a small adverse South Unit would be constructed. contribution to these effects.

Impacts of these actions would include loss Conclusion. Implementing alternative C of habitat in the construction corridors— would result in short-term, minor, adverse about one acre total in addition to the one- impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse acre parking area. Short-term impacts to impacts to fish and wildlife. Cumulative wildlife would be minor and adverse effects would be minor to moderate and during construction from the increased adverse. human presence and noise. Long-term impacts from this development, such as disturbance from trail users, are anticipated to be negligible and adverse. 159 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES species in the park. This impact intensity equates to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Through coordination with the U.S. Fish “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” and Wildlife Service and the Iowa or a “likely to adversely affect” Department of Natural Resources, listed determination. species were identified that may be located in or near the monument. Information on Major—The action would result in a each species, including their preferred noticeable effect on the viability of a habitat, prey, and foraging areas was population or individuals of a species or gathered. Park staff then collected more designated critical habitat. Changes to the specific information such as the absence or population or habitat would substantially presence of each species within the deviate from natural variability and either monument boundaries. Short-term threaten or help ensure the continued impacts would last one year or less; long- existence of the species in the park. A term impacts would occur for more than major adverse impact would be considered one year. For special status species, the a “take” situation and would equate to a following impact intensities were used. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “likely to These definitions are consistent with the adversely affect” determination. language used to determine effects on threatened and endangered species under “Not likely to adversely affect” is the section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species are expected to be No effect—The action would have no discountable, insignificant, or completely effect on the special status species or beneficial. Beneficial effects would be critical habitat. wholly beneficial without any adverse effects to the species. Insignificant effects Negligible—The action could result in a relate to the size of the impact and should change to a population or individuals of a never reach the scale where take occurs. species or designated critical habitat, but Discountable effects are those extremely the change would be so small that it would unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, not be of any consequence and would be a person would not (1) be able to within natural variability. This impact meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate intensity equates to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife insignificant effects; or (2) expect Service “may affect, not likely to adversely discountable effects to occur. affect” determination. Short-term impacts are those expected to Minor—The action could result in a last during construction and typically up to change to a population or individuals of a one year—allowing for vegetation recovery species or designated critical habitat. The and for wildlife to become accustomed to change would be measurable, but would be the new structure. Long-term impacts small and localized. This impact intensity would last longer than one year. equates to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” Impacts from Implementing determination. Alternative A Moderate—The action could result in a detectable change to a population or This alternative would continue current individuals of a species or designated management of the national monument critical habitat. Changes to the population with no changes in wildlife or habitat or habitat might deviate from natural management. The existing trails do not variability but the changes would not occur in habitat that is known to be used by threaten the continued existence of the any of the special status species. 160 Natural Resources

Therefore, there would be no effect on the Conclusion. The no-action alternative federal listed Higgins eye pearlymussel, would have no effect on the federal listed Iowa Pleistocene snail, prairie bush clover, Higgins eye pearlymussel, Iowa Pleistocene western prairie fringed orchid, northern snail, prairie bush clover, western prairie monkshood, or state listed species. fringed orchid, northern monkshood, or state listed species. There would be no Cumulative Effects. Habitat loss or project-related cumulative effects on disruption is the most common reason for federal listed or other special status a terrestrial species to become threatened species. or endangered. Loss or fragmentation of habitat has occurred in the region as a result of commercial and residential Impacts from Implementing development, road construction, and Alternative B agriculture. Incremental development continues to adversely affect the Although there would be some slight abundance and diversity of wildlife by changes in the development footprint changing the capacity of habitats to under this alternative, they would not provide necessary food, shelter, and occur in known habitat for any of the listed reproduction sites. Wildlife is slowly animal species. As part of standard becoming more restricted by current land mitigating measures, a complete clearance uses, increasing development, and human of project areas would be conducted by activity, causing individuals and qualified personnel prior to any construc- populations to either adapt or move. This tion to ensure that no special status species trend is anticipated to continue. would be harmed. The Iowa Pleistocene snail has such stringent habitat criteria that it is especially This alternative recommends designation susceptible to habitat disturbance. of the Yellow River as a national wild and Although the snail has not been found on scenic river. This designation would the monument, specific habitat conditions protect and preserve its free-flowing exist for its survival and these are now nature and habitat qualities in perpetuity, protected by the National Park Service. resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to aquatic special status species such as the General threats in the Driftless Area Higgins eye pearlymussel. include the spraying of 2,4,5-T, a defoliant. This spraying is being done to convert Therefore, this alternative may affect, but is forest and brush land into pasture for not likely to adversely affect, the federal livestock grazing. Necessary habitat listed Higgins eye pearlymussel, Iowa components for some species may be Pleistocene snail, prairie bush clover, removed. western prairie fringed orchid, northern monkshood, or state listed species. Establishment of the national monument and acquisition of the Heritage Addition Cumulative Effects. Habitat loss or resulted in long-term beneficial impacts on disruption is the most common reason for plants and animals by preserving these a terrestrial species to become threatened pieces of habitat. or endangered. Loss or fragmentation of habitat has occurred in the region as a Because this alternative would not result of commercial and residential contribute to the impacts of other past, development, road construction, and present, or foreseeable future actions, agriculture. Incremental development there would be no project-related continues to adversely affect the cumulative impacts on federal listed or abundance and diversity of wildlife by other special status species. changing the capacity of habitats to 161 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES provide necessary food, shelter, and under this alternative, they would not reproduction sites. Wildlife is slowly occur in known habitat for any of the listed becoming more restricted by current land animal species. As part of standard uses, increasing development, and human mitigating measures, a complete clearance activity, causing individuals and of project areas would be conducted by populations to either adapt or move. This qualified personnel prior to any construc- trend is anticipated to continue. tion to ensure that no special status species would be harmed. General threats in the Driftless Area include the spraying of 2,4,5-T, a defoliant. This alternative recommends designation This spraying is being done to convert of the Yellow River as a national wild and forest and brush land into pasture for scenic river. This designation would livestock grazing. Necessary habitat protect and preserve its free-flowing components for some species may be nature and habitat qualities in perpetuity, removed by this practice. resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to aquatic special status species such as the The Iowa Pleistocene snail has such Higgins eye pearlymussel. stringent habitat criteria that it is especially susceptible to habitat disturbance. Therefore, this alternative may affect, but is Although the snail has not been found on not likely to adversely affect, the federal the monument, specific habitat conditions listed Higgins eye pearlymussel, Iowa exist for its survival and these are now Pleistocene snail, prairie bush clover, protected by the National Park Service. western prairie fringed orchid, northern monkshood, or state listed species. The impacts of other past, present, or foreseeable future actions are both Cumulative Effects. Habitat loss or beneficial and adverse, but the cumulative disruption is the most common reason for impacts are considered moderate and a terrestrial species to become threatened adverse. Alternative B would have a slight or endangered. Loss or fragmentation of contribution to these effects that is both habitat has occurred in the region as a adverse and beneficial and, when result of commercial and residential considered in combination with the actions development, road construction, and listed above, would result in a minor, agriculture. Incremental development adverse, cumulative impact on special continues to adversely affect the status species. abundance and diversity of wildlife by changing the capacity of habitats to Conclusion. If implemented, alternative B provide necessary food, shelter, and may affect, but is not likely to adversely reproduction sites. Wildlife is slowly affect, the federal listed Higgins eye becoming more restricted by current land pearlymussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, uses, increasing development, and human prairie bush clover, western prairie fringed activity, causing individuals and orchid, northern monkshood, or state populations to either adapt or move. This listed species. There would be minor, trend is anticipated to continue. adverse, cumulative effects on federal listed or other special status species. General threats in the Driftless Area include the spraying of 2,4,5-T, a defoliant. This spraying is being done to convert Impacts from Implementing forest and brush land into pasture for Alternative C livestock. Necessary habitat components for some species may be removed by this Although there would be some slight practice. changes in the development footprint 162 Natural Resources

The Iowa Pleistocene snail has such to the first horizon/line of sight (e.g., a stringent habitat criteria that it is especially ridge top) or a line 2 miles away, whichever susceptible to habitat disturbance. is closer. The middle ground is defined as Although the snail has not been found on that part of the viewshed 2 to 5 miles from the monument, specific habitat conditions the observation point. The background is exist for its survival and these are now everything more than 5 miles from the protected by the National Park Service. observation point.

The impacts of other past, present, or fore- Assessments of potential impacts on seeable future actions are both beneficial viewsheds were based on comparisons and adverse, but the cumulative impacts between the no-action alternative and the are considered moderate and adverse. action alternatives. Short-term impacts Alternative C would have a slight would last less than one year; long-term contribution to these effects that is both impacts would occur for one year or more. adverse and beneficial and, when The following intensity definitions were considered in combination with the actions used. listed above, would result in a minor, adverse, cumulative impact on special Negligible—The action would not detract status species. from existing natural views; proposed development in the foreground, middle Conclusion. If implemented, alternative C ground, or background would be may affect, but is not likely to adversely essentially unnoticeable. affect, the federal listed Higgins eye pearlymussel, Iowa Pleistocene snail, Minor—The action would be noticeable to prairie bush clover, western prairie fringed some observers but would not detract from orchid, northern monkshood, or state natural views. There could be small listed species. There would be minor, changes to existing form, line, texture, or adverse, cumulative effects on federal color in the background. listed or other special status species. Moderate—The action would be noticeable to most observers and may detract from natural views in a limited VISUAL RESOURCES/VIEWSHEDS portion of a viewshed. There could be modest changes to existing form, line, The impact intensity of a development on a texture, or color in the middle ground or viewshed depends on the type of develop- background. ment, its location, and what mitigation is applied. For example, a development in the Major—The action would be immediately foreground of a viewshed has a much noticeable and would detract from the larger impact than the same development natural setting in most of a viewshed. It located 2 or more miles away. Mitigation would result in large changes to existing could involve unobtrusive design or colors. form, line, texture, or color in the All three factors are evaluated together to foreground, middle ground, or determine the level of impact a proposed background, or portions of the natural development would have. viewscape would be obstructed.

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 163 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts from Implementing Construction of visitor trails would occur Alternative A in the Heritage Addition and the South Unit. Trails would be established on old Under alternative A, there would be no logging roads in the Heritage Addition. A impacts on visual resources of the connecting trail from the bridge into the monument. South Unit would be constructed. Impacts would be greatest during and immediately Cumulative Effects. Natural viewsheds after construction of these trails as changes enjoyed from the monument have been occur to the line, form, and texture of the adversely affected by commercial and natural landscape. Once vegetation industrial development across the regrows around the trails, these impacts Mississippi River in Prairie du Chien, would become less noticeable. Short-term Wisconsin, where reflective surfaces (e.g., impacts to viewsheds would be minor and roofs) detract from the view. Rock and adverse while long-term impacts would be gravel mining operations also affect views negligible and adverse because no more from the North Unit and the approach to than one new trail could be seen from any the Sny Magill Unit. These actions have observation point. resulted in long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts. At the Sny Magill Unit, new development would include an improved trail and a The agricultural practice of clearing off visitor contact structure. The trail would be trees and brush from ridgetops to plant most likely placed on top of the existing crops also affects viewsheds, but this may trail so the short-term and long-term approximate the look of natural prairies impacts would be negligible and adverse. and meadows that once occurred in the The small visitor contact structure would area and so may have no effect. be built on acquired land west of the unit and there would be long-term, negligible, Establishment of the monument, Yellow adverse impacts expected to viewsheds River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State from the unit. Park has served to create havens of nondevelopment that could become Cumulative Effects. Natural viewsheds increasingly important as rural enjoyed from the monument have been development continues to expand so they adversely affected by commercial and have a long-term beneficial effect. industrial development across the Mississippi River in Prairie du Chien, Because this alternative would have no Wisconsin, where reflective surfaces (e.g., effect on visual resources or viewsheds, roofs) detract from the view. Rock and there would be no project-related gravel mining operations also affect views cumulative effect. from the North Unit and the approach to the Sny Magill Unit. These actions have Conclusion. The no-action alternative, if resulted in long-term minor to moderate implemented, would have no impact on adverse impacts. visual resources in the monument. There would be no project-related cumulative The agricultural practice of clearing off effect. trees and brush from ridge tops to plant crops also affects viewsheds, but this may approximate the look of natural prairies Impacts from Implementing and meadows that once occurred in the Alternative B area and so may have no measurable effect.

Alternative B includes actions that would Establishment of the monument, Yellow affect visual resources. River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State 164 Natural Resources

Park has served to create havens of most likely built on top of the existing trail undeveloped areas that could become so the short-term and long-term impacts increasingly important as rural would be minor and adverse. The small development continues to expand so they visitor contact structure would be built on have a long-term beneficial effect. acquired land west of the unit and there would be long-term, negligible, adverse Alternative B would have short-term and impacts expected to viewsheds from the long-term, minor, adverse impacts. When unit. considered in combination with the above minor, adverse impacts on visual resources, Cumulative Effects. Natural viewsheds the alternative B would result in a minor, enjoyed from the monument have been adverse, cumulative impact. Alternative B adversely affected by commercial and would have a modest adverse contribution industrial development across the to these effects. Mississippi River in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where reflective surfaces (e.g., Conclusion. Implementing alternative B roofs) detract from the view. Rock and would have short-term and long-term, gravel mining operations also affect views negligible to minor, adverse impacts on from the North Unit and the approach to visual resources in the monument. the Sny Magill Unit. These actions have Cumulative effects would be minor and resulted in long-term minor to moderate adverse. adverse impacts.

The agricultural practice of clearing off Impacts from Implementing trees and brush from ridge tops to plant Alternative C crops also affects viewsheds, but this may approximate the look of natural prairies Alternative C includes actions that would and meadows that once occurred in the affect visual resources. area and so may have no measurable effect.

Construction of visitor trails would occur Establishment of the monument, Yellow in the Heritage Addition and the South River State Forest, and Pikes Peak State Unit. An access trail to get visitors and Park has served to create havens of monument operations into the Heritage undeveloped areas that could become Addition would be constructed. Additional increasingly important as rural trails would be established on old logging development continues to expand so they roads. A connecting trail from the bridge have a long-term beneficial effect. into the South Unit would be constructed. Impacts would be greatest during and Alternative C would have short-term and immediately after construction of these long-term, minor, adverse impacts. When trails as changes occur to the line, form, considered in combination with the above and texture of the natural landscape. Once minor, adverse impacts on visual resources, vegetation regrows around the trails, these this alternative would result in a minor, impacts would become less noticeable. adverse, cumulative impact. Alternative C Short-term impacts to viewsheds would be would provide a modest adverse minor and adverse while long-term contribution to this impact. impacts would be negligible and adverse because no more than one new trail could Conclusion. Implementing alternative C be seen from any observation point. would have short-term and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on At the Sny Magill Unit, new development visual resources in the monument. would include an improved trail and a Cumulative effects would be minor and visitor contact structure. The trail would be adverse. 165

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

METHODOLOGY Intensity of Impact

This impact analysis considers various Impacts were evaluated comparatively aspects of visitor use and experience at between alternatives, using the no-action Effigy Mounds National Monument, alternative as a baseline for comparison including visitors’ ability to experience the with each action alternative: park’s primary resources and their natural and cultural settings (including vistas, Negligible—Visitors would likely be natural sounds and smells, and wildlife); unaware of any effects associated with overall visitor access to the park; the implementation of the alternative. freedom to experience the resources at one’s own pace, visitor safety (both actual Minor—Changes in visitor use and/or and perceived); opportunities for experience would be slight but detectable, recreational activities; and opportunities would affect few visitors, and would not for people with disabilities. The analysis is appreciably limit or enhance experiences based on how visitor use and experiences identified as fundamental to the park’s would change with the way management purpose and significance. prescriptions were applied in the alternatives. The analysis is primarily Moderate—Some characteristics of visitor qualitative rather than quantitative due to use and/or experience would change, and the conceptual nature of the alternatives. many visitors would likely be aware of the effects associated with implementation of Impacts on visitor use and experience were the alternative; some changes to determined considering the best available experiences identified as fundamental to information regarding visitor use and the park’s purpose and significance would experience. be apparent.

Consultation with American Indian groups Major—Multiple characteristics of visitor has revealed that these groups are experience would change, including concerned not only about the preservation experiences identified as fundamental to of cultural resources and properties, but the park’s purpose and significance; most also about the need to interpret the visitors would be aware of the effects sacredness of the area from an American associated with implementation of the Indian perspective. alternative.

For analysis purposes, impact duration, intensities, and types for visitor experience Type of Impact impact topics have been defined as follows: Adverse impacts are those that most

visitors would perceive as undesirable. Duration of Impact Beneficial impacts are those that most visitors would perceive as desirable. 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.

166 Visitor Use and Experience

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING The opportunity to experience a quiet ALTERNATIVE A contemplative setting in the South Unit would continue to be valuable to many Visitor Experience and Interaction visitors, although others may find the lack with Resources of personal services to be a minor detriment.

Continuation of current management The Sny Magill Unit would continue to be strategies and trends with no substantial managed primarily for resource change in visitor opportunities, services, preservation and not for visitor and facilities would extend currently convenience. The opportunity to identified impacts on the visitor experience the mounds in this relatively experience. primitive setting, with few park-provided

amenities, would continue to be an The current visitor center and adjacent attraction for some visitors and a detriment parking area would be maintained and for others. subsequent noise and activity may continue to adversely impact visitor Opportunities are offered at all units for experience in the developed area. many types of experiences—from social Crowding in the visitor center due to interactions in developed areas to solitude intermittent heavy visitation and in natural settings and from brief visits in educational groups, especially in inclement visitor contact stations to extended visits weather, would continue to adversely exploring the grounds and trails. impact some visitors to the area and its Continuing to have this diversity of resources. As the visitor center is the opportunities available would result in an primary venue for visitors to receive on-going, moderate, long-term benefit to significant personal and nonpersonal visitors seeking experiences that meet interpretive services, this would likely individual needs to fit time constraints, affect other aspects of their visit as well. levels of interest, educational level, or

physical ability. Visitors to the Heritage Addition would experience this area mainly on their own with occasional ranger-led activities and Orientation and Information canoeing being the primary activities to interact with the resources. Some visitors Continuation of current practices would to this area may experience minor adverse provide visitors the opportunity to visit impacts if they attempt to explore this area these units, but primary orientation for all without obtaining adequate wayfinding the units would continue to take place at and interpretive information at the visitor the visitor center. If visitors miss or forgo center or from a ranger prior to their visit. the opportunity to experience the visitor center’s multifaceted interpretive Visitors to the North Unit would continue opportunities and personal interactions, it to find access to personal interpretive could moderately affect their visit and services and nonpersonal services, mainly subsequent desire to return again. at the visitor center, and interpretive wayside exhibits. However, some lack of NPS staff in the visitor center provides access to personal services may degrade quality orientation and information to the visitor experience by causing visitor visitors. However, some visitors tour the frustration over being unable to get monument without going to the visitor adequate information and interpretation center. Continuation of this situation they need. creates a moderate beneficial long-term impact on those visitors who do go to the 167 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES center and a minor to moderate adverse the trail would not have access to high- impact on visitors who do not go to the quality landscapes and the section of this center. The impact is considered adverse unit that best reflects the moundbuilding because they do not receive the important culture. interpretation and orientation to fully appreciate the monument. Under this alternative, wayfinding signs would be Cumulative Effects maintained and installed where needed, The lack of wayfinding guidance for which may allay some potential adverse visitors approaching the park from the east impact on visitor experience. has and would continue to confuse some

visitors. Local chambers of commerce, Visitors to the South Unit would receive museums, and other attractions offer some the majority of their information and visitor information and interpretation interpretation through nonpersonal media related to Effigy Mounds National including wayside exhibits and Monument. publications. Sny Magill Unit visitors would also receive the majority of their Visitation trends would likely increase in orientation and interpretation at the visitor the long-term. This could result in center prior to visiting this unit. congestion at parking and activity sites.

Some visitors might experience a sense of Interpretation and Education crowding, especially during scheduled special events and when educational Existing formal and informal interpretation groups are visiting. Increased visitation and and resource education at the visitor center time spent at the national monument and on ranger-led activities in the various would result in short-term, minor, adverse units would continue a moderate beneficial impacts during events; long-term, impact on visitors to the site. moderate, beneficial impacts would result by development of increased or renewed At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and public interest in the mounds and related Sny Magill Unit, the low level of American Indian culture. interpretive staffing, unmarked and unmaintained trails, and the absence of This alternative would not result in any access provide minimal opportunities for new actions that would contribute to these self-guided exploration and learning about effects and so would not have any key resources and stories at these units. cumulative effects. Continuation of these conditions would result in a long-term minor adverse impact on visitors to these units. Conclusion

Implementing the no-action alternative Safety would result in the continuation of long- term minor to moderate adverse impacts Safety information would continue to be and minor beneficial impacts to aspects of available at the visitor center and on trail visitor use and experience but would not signs. Lack of potable water and public result in any new impacts. Because actions restrooms may continue to present safety proposed in this alternative would have no issues to visitors in the isolated units. South new effects on visitor use and experience, Unit trail access in the current location there would be no project-related adjacent to the highway would continue to cumulative impacts. place visitors who choose to use these trails at risk of an automobile/pedestrian collision. Visitors who choose not to walk 168 Visitor Use and Experience

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING improved information available at the ALTERNATIVE B visitor center, however, visitors may continue to experience minimal adverse Visitor Experience and Interaction impacts if they access the area without with Resources experiencing the visitor center first, due to lack of information. Educational experiences utilizing the Yellow River and This alternative emphasizes enhanced adjacent wetlands would offer enhanced visitor experience with greater educational opportunities as well. understanding and protection of the area’s Visitors to the North Unit would cultural and natural resources. encounter greater opportunities to

experience and understand the park The visitor center and parking area would resources through enhanced personal remain at their current location. The services including ranger-guided hikes and interior of the visitor center would be talks. Visitor experience would be further reconfigured to take advantage of the extra enhanced by extension and realignment of space created by moving administrative some trails, accompanied by appropriate personnel to offices in the former housing upgrades and renovations of nonpersonal units. This move is providing additional interpretive media. Visitor experiences at space for modification of the exhibit, sales this unit would be moderately enhanced area, and visitor contact area. The result via the expanded information and would be a minor beneficial impact on interpretation available at the improved visitor experience due to the reduction in visitor center, however Visitors may crowding and enhanced visitor access to continue to experience minimal adverse exhibits and interpretive personnel. Visitor impacts if they access the area without experience would be further enhanced due experiencing the visitor center first. to the greater depth of information and Visitors to the South Unit would continue interpretive content afforded by the to receive the majority of their information improved facilities and reconfigured and interpretation through nonpersonal exterior. Some short-term, adverse impacts media including wayside exhibits and would occur to visitor experience during publications. Visitor experience would be remodeling construction. moderately enhanced by extension and

realignment of some trails, upgrades and The proposed trail at the Sny Magill Unit renovations of nonpersonal interpretive would be shorter than the existing trail and media, and the opportunity to understand so would reduce visitors’ ability to see and the influence that the natural world had on appreciate the whole mound group. This the moundbuilders. Additionally, visitors would create a minor, long-term, adverse would be better able to explore and impact on visitor experience and understand the 19th century American understanding. Indian culture. The opportunity to

experience a quiet contemplative setting Visitors to the Heritage Addition would would continue to be valuable to many experience this area mainly on their own. visitors, although some may find the lack of Primary activities would include hiking, personal services to be a minor detriment. wildlife viewing, and canoeing, with occasional ranger-conducted activities. The Sny Magill Unit would continue to be Visitors would receive the majority of managed for resource preservation, orientation and initial interpretation at the however interpretation of the site would visitor center, to avoid impacting the expand. Visitor use would continue to be contemplative nature of the site. Visitor somewhat limited and resources would be experiences at this unit would be monitored to protect them from visitor moderately enhanced via the trails and impacts. A visitor contact station would be 169 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES established near the unit and visitors would renovated visitor center. The central benefit from increased personal services, location of the visitor center would provide including ranger-guided walks and opportunity for visitors who arrive at the demonstrations. Some nonpersonal center before visiting other units to acquire services like wayside exhibits and the information needed to decide what expanded publications would be created type of visit they would enjoy and which and distributed, but these services would zone(s) would accommodate them the be introduced so as not to impact the best. The visitor contact facility at the Sny scene. Visitor experience would receive a Magill Unit would provide specific unit minor, beneficial impact from these information and orient visitors to the site changes and additions. and the other units. This combination of renovated visitor facilities would result in a Opportunities would increase in all units moderate, long-term, beneficial impact for for many types of experiences—from social visitors who utilized the contact center interactions in developed areas to solitude prior to exploring the other units. in natural settings and from brief visits in visitor contact stations to extended visits exploring the grounds and trails. An Interpretation and Education expanded diversity of opportunities Enhanced formal and informal available would result in an on-going interpretation and resource education at moderate long-term benefit to visitors the visitor center, at the visitor contact seeking experiences that meet individual station in Sny Magill, and on ranger-led needs to fit time constraints, levels of activities in the various units would create a interest, educational level, or physical minor, beneficial impact on visitors to the ability. site. The reduction in crowding at the

reconfigured main visitor center and Orientation and Information enhanced visitor access to exhibits and interpretive personnel would produce a The expansion of nonpersonal interpretive minor, beneficial impact on visitor media in the North, South, Heritage and experience there. Sny Magill units and providing a visitor contact station at the Sny Magill Unit At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and would improve orientation and Sny Magill Unit, the higher level of interpretive opportunities for visitors, interpretive staffing, new trails, and the especially those who do not experience a enhanced nonpersonal interpretive media primary orientation at the visitor center. would expand opportunities for self- Visitors who miss or forgo the opportunity guided exploration and learning about key to experience the visitor center’s resources and stories at these units. An multifaceted interpretive opportunities and expansion of the resource education personal interactions could still experience program in concert with the new research a minor, adverse impact during their visit, center would greatly benefit visitors, but the overall experience for the majority students, and researchers. These changes of park visitors would show minor to would result in a long-term, major, moderate improvement. Some of this beneficial impact on most visitors and their impact may also be offset by the use of new experience here. technology to enhance the visitor’s experience in pre-trip planning and at the Two additional interpretive division site. employees would be needed to staff these units year-round in this alternative. Under this alternative, primary orientation for the monuments would be at the 170 Visitor Use and Experience

Safety adversely impact the scenic views as well as cause sound encroachment, adversely Safety information would continue to be affecting visitor experience. available at the visitor center, at the new visitor contact station in the Sny Magill When the beneficial and adverse impacts Unit and from renovated orientation and discussed above are considered in information signs in all of the park’s units. combination with the moderate beneficial Lack of potable water and public impacts of this alternative, the resulting restrooms would continue to present safety cumulative effects on the visitor experience issues to visitors at the isolated units. would be long term, moderate, and beneficial. This alternative’s contribution Some visitors might still experience a sense to these effects would be modest. of crowding, especially during scheduled special events and when there is a Conclusion concentration of school children in that area. Increases in visitation and time spent Implementing alternative B would result in at the national monument would result in several minor, long-term, beneficial short-term, minor, adverse impacts during impacts and a long-term minor adverse these events. effect on the visitor experience. The overall

cumulative impacts would be long-term, Cumulative Effects minor, and beneficial, and this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be Some lack of wayfinding guidance for modest. visitors approaching the park from the east may confuse some visitors. The number of state and county parks and forests in the IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING region may cause some visitors to be unaware that Effigy Mounds is a national ALTERNATIVE C monument managed by the National Park Service. This could be partially offset by Visitor Experience and the information provided by local Interaction with Resources chambers of commerce, museums, and other attractions. This alternative emphasizes enhanced visitor experience with greater Visitation trends would likely increase in understanding and protection of the area’s the long-term. This could result in cultural and natural resources. The congestion at parking and activity sites. construction of a regional research center Some visitors might experience a sense of would solidify the monument’s pivotal role crowding, especially during scheduled in mound research and management, special events and when educational greatly enhancing the interpretive groups are visiting. Increased visitation and division’s ability to work more effectively time spent at the national monument with other divisions in revealing resource would result in short-term minor adverse meanings and creating expanded impacts during events; long-term moderate opportunities for superior visitor beneficial impacts would result by experiences. development of increased or renewed public interest in the mounds and related The visitor center and parking area would American Indian culture. remain at their current location. The interior of the visitor center would be Future development on private land at the reconfigured to take advantage of the extra national monument’s borders would space created by moving the administrative 171 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES personnel to offices in the former housing Visitors to the North Unit would units. This move is providing additional encounter greater opportunities to space for modification of the exhibit, sales experience and understand the park area, and visitor contact area. The result resources through enhanced personal would produce a minor, beneficial impact services including ranger-guided hikes and on visitor experience due to the reduction talks. Visitor experience would be further in crowding and the enhanced visitor enhanced by extension and realignment of access to exhibits and interpretive some trails, accompanied by appropriate personnel. Visitor experience would be upgrades and renovations of nonpersonal further enhanced due to the greater depth interpretive media. Visitor experiences at of information and interpretive content this unit would be enhanced via the afforded by the improved facilities and expanded information and interpretation reconfigured exterior. Some short-term available at the improved visitor center, adverse impacts would occur to visitor however visitors may continue to experience during remodeling experience minimal adverse impacts if they construction. access the area without experiencing the visitor center first. Expanded visitor access to the mound groups, notably the groups at the Sny Visitors to the South Unit would continue Magill Unit, with enhanced accessibility, to receive the majority of their information would contribute to a greater diversity of and interpretation through nonpersonal visitor experience and greater insight into media including wayside exhibits and the natural and cultural resources publications. Visitor experience would be preserved in the monument. The quality of moderately enhanced by extension and visitor experience would continue to be realignment of some trails, upgrades and enhanced by encouraging a quiet and renovations of nonpersonal interpretive contemplative exploration of the media, and the opportunity to understand monument’s resources. Combined, this the influence that the natural world had on would create a major long-term beneficial the moundbuilders. Additionally, visitors impact on visitor experience and would be better able to explore and understanding. understand the 19th century American Indian culture. The opportunity to Visitors to the Heritage Addition would experience a quiet contemplative setting experience this area mainly on their own. would continue to be valuable to many Primary activities would include hiking, visitors, although some may find the lack of wildlife viewing, and canoeing, with personal services to be a minor detriment. occasional ranger-conducted activities. Visitors would receive the majority of The Sny Magill Unit would continue to be orientation and initial interpretation at the managed for resource preservation, visitor center, to avoid impacting the however visitor access to and contemplative nature of the site. Visitor interpretation of the site would expand. experiences at this unit would be Visitor use would continue to be somewhat moderately enhanced via the trails and limited and resources would be monitored improved information available at the to protect them from visitor impacts. A visitor center, however, visitors may visitor contact station would be established continue to experience minimal adverse and visitors would benefit from increased impacts if they access the area without personal services, including ranger-guided experiencing the visitor center first, due to walks and demonstrations. Some lack of information. Educational nonpersonal services like wayside exhibits experiences utilizing the Yellow River and and expanded publications would be adjacent wetlands would offer enhanced created and distributed, but these services educational opportunities as well. would be introduced so as not to impact 172 Visitor Use and Experience the scene. Visitor experience would be unit information and orient visitors to the moderately enhanced by these changes and site, the off-site visitor center, and the additions. other units. This combination of renovated visitor facilities would create a moderate Opportunities would increase in all units long-term beneficial impact for visitors for many types of experiences—from social who utilized these two contact centers interactions in developed areas to solitude prior to exploring the other units. in natural settings and from brief visits in visitor contact stations to extended visits exploring the grounds and trails. An Interpretation and Education expanded diversity of opportunities Enhanced formal and informal available would result in an on-going interpretation and resource education at moderate long-term benefit to visitors the visitor center, at the visitor contact seeking experiences that meet individual station in the Sny Magill Unit, and on needs to fit time constraints, levels of ranger-led activities in the various units interest, educational level, or physical would create a moderate to major ability. beneficial impact on visitors to the site. The

reduction in crowding at the primary Orientation and Information visitor center and enhanced visitor access to exhibits and interpretive personnel The expansion of nonpersonal interpretive would produce a minor beneficial impact media in the North Unit, South Unit, on visitor experience there. Heritage Addition, and Sny Magill Unit and providing a visitor contact station at At the Heritage Addition, South Unit, and the Sny Magill Unit would improve Sny Magill Unit, the higher level of orientation and interpretive opportunities interpretive staffing, upgraded and re- for visitors, especially those who do not routed trails and viewing platforms, and experience a primary orientation at the the enhanced nonpersonal interpretive visitor center. Visitors who miss or forgo media would expand opportunities for the opportunity to experience the visitor self-guided exploration and learning about center’s multifaceted interpretive key resources and stories at these units. opportunities and personal interactions These changes would result in a long-term could still experience a minor, adverse minor beneficial impact on most visitors impact during their visit, but the overall and their experience here. experience for the majority of park visitors would show a minor improvement. The Two additional interpretive division use of new technology would enhance the employees would be needed to staff these visitor’s experience in pre-trip planning units year-round in this alternative. and at the site.

Under this alternative, primary orientation Safety for the monument would be at the Safety information would continue to be renovated visitor center. The central available at the visitor center, at the new location of the visitor center would provide visitor contact station in the Sny Magill opportunity for visitors who arrive at the Unit and from renovated orientation and center before visiting other units to acquire information signs in all of the park’s units. the information needed to decide what Lack of potable water and public type of visit they would enjoy and which restrooms would continue to present safety zone(s) would accommodate them the issues to visitors at the isolated units. best. The small visitor contact facility at the Some visitors might still experience a sense Sny Magill Unit would provide specific of crowding, especially during scheduled 173 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES special events and when there is a impacts during events; long-term moderate concentration of school children in that beneficial impacts would result by area. Increases in visitation and time spent development of increased or renewed at the national monument would result in public interest in the mounds and related short-term, minor, adverse impacts during American Indian culture. these events. Future development on private land at the national monument’s borders would Cumulative Effects adversely impact the scenic views as well as cause sound encroachment, adversely Some lack of wayfinding guidance for affecting visitor experience. visitors approaching the park from the east may confuse some visitors. The number of When the beneficial and adverse impacts state and county parks and forests in the discussed above are considered in region may cause some visitors to be combination with the moderate beneficial unaware that Effigy Mounds is a national impacts of this alternative, the resulting monument managed by the National Park cumulative effects on the visitor experience Service. This could be partially offset by would be long term, moderate, and the information provided by local beneficial. This alternative’s contribution chambers of commerce, museums, and to these effects would be modest. other attractions.

Visitation trends would likely increase in Conclusion the long-term. This could result in congestion at parking and activity sites. Implementing alternative C would result in Some visitors might experience a sense of minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on the crowding, especially during scheduled visitor experience. The overall cumulative special events and when educational impacts would be long-term, minor, and groups are visiting. Increased visitation and beneficial and this alternative’s time spent at the national monument contribution to these effects would be would result in short-term minor adverse modest.

174

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

socioeconomic conditions on a local scale METHODOLOGY in the affected area.

The National Park Service applied logic, Major—The effects on socioeconomic experience, and professional judgment to conditions would be readily apparent. analyze the impacts on the social and Measurable changes in social or economic economic situation resulting from each conditions at the county level occur. The alternative. Economic data, historic visitor impact is severely adverse or exceptionally use data, expected future visitor use, and beneficial in the affected area. future developments of the national monument were all considered in identifying, discussing, and evaluating Type of Impact expected impacts. National Park Service policy calls for the effects of the alternatives to be Duration of Impact characterized as being beneficial, adverse, or indeterminate in nature. With respect to In general, short-term impacts are economic and social effects, few standards temporary in duration and typically are or clear definitions exist as to what transitional effects associated with constitutes beneficial changes, and what implementation of an action (e.g., related constitutes adverse changes. For example, to construction activities) and are less than rising unemployment is generally 1 year. In contrast, long-term impacts perceived as adverse, while increases in job extend beyond 1 year (e.g., operational opportunities and average per capita activities) or have a permanent effect on personal income are regarded as beneficial. the socioeconomic environment. In many instances, however, changes

viewed as favorable by some members of a Intensity of Impact community are seen as unfavorable by others. For example, the impact of growth Assessments of potential socioeconomic on housing markets and values may be seen impacts were based on comparisons as favorable by construction contractors between the no-action alternative and each and many homeowners, but adverse by of the action alternatives. renters and by local government officials and community groups concerned with Negligible—The effects on socioeconomic affordability. Consequently, some of the conditions would be below or at the level social and economic impacts of the of detection. alternatives are described in such a manner as to allow the individual reader to Minor—The effects on socioeconomic determine whether they would be conditions would be slight but detectable, beneficial or adverse (impact is and only affect a small portion of the indeterminate with respect to “type”). 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 175 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING receive from their visit; and (2) the values ALTERNATIVE A capitalized in land near the recreation area. Economic studies have shown that the The no-action alternative would have a value of land can increase with the number slight effect on the regional economy. A of outdoor recreation opportunities and connecting trail from the bridge into the the proximity to outdoor recreation space South Unit would be constructed under (Clawson and Knetsch 1966). Therefore, this alternative. This would be a short- the continued presence of Effigy Mounds term, negligible to minor, beneficial National Monument provides an economic impact because of the materials important benefit to the people and that would be purchased locally and property values in the vicinity. because of possible construction contracts. The no-action alternative would contribute a slight beneficial amount to the above Implementing this alternative would impacts of past, present, and future actions continue the input of federal dollars into on socioeconomic conditions and, when the region in the forms of employee wages considered in combination with other and the purchase of supplies and materials. actions, would result in a minor beneficial This is estimated to be $20.9 million over cumulative impact. the next 20 years. Conclusion The average length of time of a visit or length of stay in the region would not likely Implementing the no-action alternative change. Visitors would continue to visit the would have a short-term, negligible to national monument in the same manner minor, beneficial economic impact in the and experience the same social conditions. region. The overall cumulative effects would be minor and beneficial. Cumulative Effects

The social and economic situation in Alla- IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING makee, Clayton, and Crawford counties is ALTERNATIVE B affected by a combination of many factors, including the presence of a unit of the Full implementation of this alternative National Park Service. Some of the $300 would require the National Park Service to million in federal spending in the three hire five and a half additional employees to counties is generated by Effigy Mounds handle the increased workload for cultural National Monument, such as in the forms resources, law enforcement, interpretation, of employee wages and construction and maintenance. Additional employment contracts. The livelihoods of service- would bring in more wages and an related businesses in the region rely to increased demand for housing, utilities, some degree on the inflow of tourist services, and goods, resulting in a long- dollars, especially to restaurants and term, minor benefit for the local economy. motels. Although tourism is not the most important driving factor in the regional Construction contracts might be let for economy, the nationwide downward trend several trail segments and the Sny Magill in national park visitation may be adversely visitor contact structure. This would result affecting tourism-dependent businesses on in a short-term, minor, beneficial economic a negligible level. impact.

The total direct economic value of public recreation areas also includes two sets of values: (1) the user benefit that people 176 Socioeconomic Environment

Implementing the alternative B is estimated dollars, especially to restaurants and to cost a total of $8.3 million above the motels. Although tourism is not the most current level of spending over the next important driving factor in the regional 20 years. Most of this total would equate to economy, the nationwide downward trend an increase in the input of federal dollars in national park visitation may be adversely into the region in the forms of employee affecting tourism-dependent businesses on wages and the purchase of supplies, a negligible level. materials, and construction contracts. This would be a long-term, minor to moderate, The total direct economic value of public beneficial impact. recreation areas also includes two sets of values: (1) the user benefit that people If all the boundary adjustments receive from their visit; and (2) the values recommended in this plan were to take capitalized in land near the recreation area. place, Allamakee County could lose about Economic studies have shown that the $3,225 in annual property taxes and value of private land can increase with the Clayton County could lose about $1,250 in number of outdoor recreation annual property taxes. The U.S. opportunities and the proximity to Government sometimes makes payments outdoor recreation space (Clawson and in lieu of taxes to local counties to Knetsch 1966). Therefore, the continued reimburse them for land acquired by the presence of Effigy Mounds National federal government from private Monument provides an important benefit ownership. The impact from this action to to the people and property values in the the local economy is expected to be long- vicinity. term, negligible, and adverse. Alternative B would have short-term and The number of visitors and average length long-term, moderate, beneficial economic of visit could increase due to the additional impacts. When added to the above impacts experience opportunities in the Heritage of other past, present, and future actions Addition and Sny Magill Unit. Local on socioeconomic conditions, this businesses that rely on the tourist trade alternative would result in a minor, would receive a long-term minor benefit. beneficial cumulative impact. Alternative B For example, if visitation to the monument would contribute a modest beneficial were to increase by 10%, about $240,000 increment to this impact. would be added to the local economy through direct and indirect visitor spending each year. Conclusion

Implementing the alternative B would have Cumulative Effects short-term and long-term, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the region. The social and economic situation in Alla- The overall cumulative effects would be makee, Clayton, and Crawford counties is minor and beneficial. 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 IMPACTS FROM counties is generated by Effigy Mounds IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE C National Monument in the forms of employee wages and construction Full implementation of this alternative contracts for example. The livelihoods of would require the National Park Service to service-related businesses in the region rely hire eight and a half additional employees to some degree on the inflow of tourist to handle the increased workload for 177 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES cultural resources, law enforcement, IT, through direct and indirect visitor natural resources, interpretation, and spending each year. maintenance. Additional employment would bring in more wages and an increased demand for housing, utilities, Cumulative Effects services, and goods, resulting in a long- The social and economic situation in Alla- term, minor benefit for the local economy. makee, Clayton, and Crawford counties is

affected by a combination of many factors, Construction contracts would be let for including the presence of a unit of the several trail segments and the Sny Magill National Park Service. Some of the $300 visitor contact structure. This would result million in federal spending in the three in a short-term, minor, beneficial economic counties is generated by Effigy Mounds impact. With the National Park Service National Monument in the forms of leasing space for the research center, a employee wages and construction long-term, minor, economic benefit would contracts for example. The livelihoods of result from the additional input of federal service-related businesses in the region rely dollars into the economy. to some degree on the inflow of tourist

dollars, especially to restaurants and Implementing alternative B is estimated to motels. Although tourism is not the most cost a total of $11.2 million above the important driving factor in the regional current level of spending over the next economy, the nationwide downward trend 20 years. Most of this total would equate to in national park visitation may be adversely an increase in the input of federal dollars affecting tourism-dependent businesses on into the region in the forms of employee a negligible level. wages and the purchase of supplies, materials, and construction contracts. This The total direct economic value of public would be a long-term, minor to moderate, recreation areas also includes two sets of beneficial impact. values: (1) the user benefit that people

receive from their visit and (2) the values If all the boundary adjustments capitalized in land near the recreation area. recommended in this plan were to take Economic studies have shown that the place, Allamakee County could lose about value of private land can increase with the $3,225 in annual property taxes and number of outdoor recreation Clayton County could lose about $1,250 in opportunities and the proximity to annual property taxes. The U.S. outdoor recreation space (Clawson and Government sometimes makes payments Knetsch 1966). Therefore, the continued in lieu of taxes to local counties to presence of Effigy Mounds National reimburse them for land acquired by the Monument provides an important benefit federal government from private to the people and property values in the ownership. The impact from this action to vicinity. the local economy is expected to be long- term, negligible, and adverse. Alternative C would have short-term and

long-term, moderate, beneficial economic The number of visitors and average length impacts. When added to the above impacts of visit could increase due to the additional of other past, present, and future actions experience opportunities in the Heritage on socioeconomic conditions, alternative Addition and Sny Magill Unit. Local C would result in a minor, beneficial, businesses that rely on the tourist trade cumulative impact. Alternative C would would receive a long-term minor benefit. contribute a modest beneficial increment For example, if visitation to the monument to this cumulative impact. were to increase by 10%, about $240,000 would be added to the local economy 178 Socioeconomic Environment

Conclusion

Implementing alternative C would have short-term and long-term, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the region. The overall cumulative effects would be minor and beneficial.

179

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES

noticeable to staff and the public and be METHODOLOGY markedly different from existing operations. The analysis was conducted in terms of how monument operations and facilities might vary under the different Type of Impact management alternatives. The analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative because Beneficial impacts would improve NPS of the conceptual nature of the alternatives. operations and/or facilities. Adverse Consequently professional judgment was impacts would negatively affect NPS used to reach reasonable conclusions as to operations and/or facilities and could the intensity, duration, and type of hinder the staff’s ability to provide potential impact. The impact analysis adequate services and facilities to visitors evaluated the effects of the alternatives on and employees. Some impacts could be staffing, infrastructure, visitor facilities, beneficial for some operations or facilities and services. and adverse or negligible for others.

Duration of Impact IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING Short-term impacts would be less than ALTERNATIVE A 2 years since most planning, design, and construction is generally completed within Under the no-action alternative, 2 years. Long-term impacts would extend management and operations of Effigy beyond 2 years. Mounds National Monument would continue as they are now. The Heritage Intensity of Impact Addition would continue to be managed on a day-to-day basis without the guidance of a comprehensive long-range plan. Negligible—Park operations would not be affected or the effect would be at or below Crowding in the visitor center during visits the lower levels of detection, and would from large groups would continue to not have an appreciable effect on park hinder staff work at those times. Staffing operations. levels, particularly in cultural and natural

resources management, would continue to Minor—The effect would be detectable, be inadequate for current and future but would be of a magnitude that would workloads. Office space and working not have an appreciable effect on park conditions in the headquarters / visitor operations. center building would become cramped if

any additional staff were hired, reducing Moderate—The effect would be readily productivity and efficiency. apparent and would result in a substantial change in park operations in a manner All maintenance facilities would remain at noticeable to staff and the public. their current location in the monument.

Operations staff would continue to shuttle Major—The effect would be readily equipment back and forth to the North apparent and would result in a substantial Unit, causing wear on equipment and loss change in park operations in a manner of efficiency. 180 Monument Operations and Facilities

This alternative would create no new IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING impacts but would result in the ALTERNATIVE B continuation of long-term minor adverse impacts to monument operations. Implementing alternative B would result in changes to NPS staffing, workloads, and Cumulative Effects facility maintenance. It would require five and a half additional employees to handle In general, NPS staff members are faced the increased workload for cultural with increasing workloads as a result of resources, natural resources, law new NPS initiatives, program mandates, enforcement, interpretation, and and reporting requirements. Acquiring the maintenance. Heritage Addition almost doubled the size of the national monument, subsequently In addition to ongoing tasks, facility increasing the management workload management personnel would be required without any staffing increase, a minor to coordinate and oversee construction of adverse effect. the Sny Magill contact station, the remodeling of the visitor center, and trail Past and ongoing projects have had work. This could cause short-term, minor, impacts on monument operations and adverse impacts on operations. Since there facilities such as construction and would be few new trails (existing roads maintenance of trails, fences, roads, and would be used wherever possible), the other monument infrastructure. Aging impact of additional trail maintenance is facilities (e.g., trails, pavement, etc.) and expected to be minor. utilities would continue to be repaired or replaced as needed when funds become Under this alternative, the short access available. Eventually, more sustainable and road in the northernmost part of the efficient facilities and utility systems would monument would be no longer available to replace aging systems, resulting in minor to maintenance staff. This would cause moderate, beneficial impacts over the long- additional workload as maintenance term. personnel and equipment would have to be walked in a longer distance. This would This alternative would not contribute any result in short and long-term impacts that new effects to the minor adverse effects are minor and adverse. and minor to moderate beneficial effects of other past, present, or foreseeable future Cumulative Effects actions, so there would be no project- related cumulative effects. In general, NPS staff members are faced with increasing workloads as a result of Conclusion new NPS initiatives, program mandates, and reporting requirements. Acquiring the The no-action alternative, if implemented, Heritage Addition almost doubled the size would cause no new impacts on monument of the national monument, consequently operations and facilities. Thus, there would increasing the management workload. be no project-related cumulative effects. 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.

181 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Aging facilities (e.g., trails, pavement, etc.) It is unknown at this time how the require- and utilities would continue to be repaired ment for more coordination between the or replaced as needed when funds become maintenance and resource management available. Eventually, more sustainable and staff would affect operational efficiency. efficient facilities and utility systems would replace aging systems, resulting in minor to moderate, beneficial impacts over the long Cumulative Effects term. In general, NPS staff members are faced

with increasing workloads as a result of Alternative B would contribute substantial new NPS initiatives, program mandates, beneficial and adverse effects to the minor and reporting requirements. Acquiring the adverse effects of other past, present, and Heritage Addition almost doubled the size foreseeable future actions. However, the of the national monument, consequently beneficial effects would outweigh the increasing the management workload. adverse effects, resulting in cumulative Static base funding levels preclude hiring effects that are negligible. additional staff to alleviate the workload.

Past and ongoing projects have had Conclusion impacts on monument operations and facilities such as construction and Implementing the alternative B would maintenance of trails, fences, roads and result in short-term and long-term, minor, other monument infrastructure. adverse impacts to monument operations and facilities. Cumulative effects would be Aging facilities (e.g. trails, pavement, etc.) negligible. 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 IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING replace aging systems, resulting in minor to ALTERNATIVE C moderate, beneficial impacts over the long term. Implementing this alternative would result in changes to NPS staffing, workloads, and Alternative C would contribute substantial facility maintenance. It would require eight beneficial and adverse effects to the minor and a half additional employees to handle adverse effects of other past, present, and the increased workload for cultural foreseeable future actions. However, the resources, natural resources, law beneficial effects would outweigh the enforcement, interpretation, IT, and adverse effects, resulting in cumulative maintenance. effects that are negligible.

In addition to ongoing tasks, facility management personnel would be required Conclusion to coordinate and oversee construction of the Sny Magill contact station, the Implementing alternative C would result in remodeling of the visitor center, and trail short-term and long-term, minor, adverse work. This could cause short-term, minor, impacts to monument operations and adverse impacts on operations. Since there facilities. Cumulative effects would be would be few new trails (existing roads negligible. would be used wherever possible), the impact of additional trail maintenance is expected to be minor.

182

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

Unlike most other impact topics, impacts to INTRODUCTION depletable resources and energy would not be realized within Effigy Mounds National Whenever feasible, the National Park Monument. Rather, these impacts would be Service strives to maximize the use of felt at the point of extraction (at mining renewable resources and energy and sites, for example), in communities where therefore minimize the use of depletable manufactured products and energy are resources. However, it is not possible with produced, and in those areas through today’s technologies to cost-effectively which resources and fuel are transported. avoid all use of depletable resources in Impacts from use of depletable resources building and operating facilities. According and energy are also felt globally through to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy climate change. Information Administration, between 1986 and 1992, energy used in commercial Because each of the action alternatives buildings in this country grew by about includes some level of construction, they 20% or 3%–4% a year. While energy both would impact natural or depletable efficiency has increased in recent years, the resources and energy to some extent. In all demand for energy has increased at a higher alternatives, best management practices rate, so that the amount of energy used in would be employed and new facilities the United States continues to climb every would be designed with long-term year. Any of the action alternatives at Effigy sustainability in mind. Assets that support Mounds would, of course, add very little to visitor use and resource protection, such as the cumulative increase in energy use in the parking lots, trails, and monument roads, commercial building sector when viewed also potentially use depletable resources to nationwide (in 1992, there were nearly 70 some extent. The monument staff’s practice billion square feet of commercial buildings is to use wood chips from felled trees (a in the United States). renewable resource) for trails, so increases

or decreases in the number of trails would The National Park Service has adopted the not impact depletable resource or energy concept of sustainable design as a guiding use. Generally, buildings require the largest principle of facility planning and amount of resources and energy used in a development (NPS Management Policies park this size. The energy need relates to 2006, section 9.1.1.7). The objectives of the building’s size. Therefore, the change in sustainability are to design facilities to the amount of square footage in buildings is minimize adverse effects on natural and used in this analysis to determine the cultural values, to reflect their relative level of resource and energy use by environmental setting, and to maintain and the monument. encourage biodiversity; to operate and maintain facilities to promote their sustainability; and to illustrate and promote conservation principles and practices ALTERNATIVE B through sustainable design and ecologically sensitive use. Essentially, sustainability is The visitor center would be reconfigured, the concept of living within the but space would not be added—the facility environment with the least impact on the would remain at about 10,000 square feet. environment. The newer maintenance building would 183 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES remain as is (about 3,500 square feet). The under this alternative would not be a park visitor contact station (a maximum of 2,600 development but would be leased space in a square feet indoors) that would be local community. It is unknown where or established at the Sny the Magill Unit how this would be accomplished. If this would be a designed to minimize energy leased space was in an existing building, use. there would be no or negligible new effect on depletable resources or energy use in the Overall, these actions, guided by the latest region. If this space were in a new structure sustainable design principles, would have a (built for the General Services negligible impact on energy needs in the Administration or a private entity), there region. would be both a one-time commitment of natural or depletable resources for construction and a long-term energy requirement for operation. The energy ALTERNATIVE C needed to light, heat, and cool the estimated 2,700-square-foot building would As in alternative B, the visitor center would vary according to the design and whether be reconfigured, but space would not be the National Park Service was the only added (so it would remain at about 10,000 tenant. However, NPS policy requires a square feet). The newer maintenance new building to be designed and built with building would remain as is (about 3,500 sustainability in mind, which would reduce square feet). The visitor contact station (a the overall energy need. maximum of 2,600 square feet indoors) that would be established at the Sny the Magill Overall, these actions, guided by the latest Unit would be a designed to minimize sustainable design principles, would have a energy use. negligible impact on energy needs in the

region. The research center (which includes storage for museum collections) proposed

184

CLIMATE CHANGE

changes that can be attributed to climate BACKGROUND change, the impacts to Effigy Mounds National Monument have not been Related to the energy discussion is climate specifically determined and the actual change, the human-cause change to global implications within the lifespan of this climate patterns. Climate change is perhaps general management plan are unknown. the most far-reaching and irreversible While it is well accepted that climate threat the national park system has ever change is occurring, it is unknown as to the faced (NPCA 2007). Climate change in this rate and severity of impacts at the parks. context refers to a suite of changes Climate change is a long-term occurring in Earth’s atmospheric, phenomenon, and the likelihood that hydrologic, and oceanic systems. These significant effects would be seen during the changes, including increased global air and life of this general management plan (15–20 ocean temperatures, widespread melting of years) is unknown at this time; however, snow and ice, and rising global average sea acceleration of climate change impacts level, provide unequivocal evidence that could have a more immediate effect on the climate system is warming. While the park resources and values. warming trend, commonly referred to as global warming, is discernible over the entire past century and a half, recent decades have exhibited an accelerated RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES warming rate with 11 of the last 12 years ranking among the 12 warmest years on Executive Order 13423—Issued on January record. Most of the observed temperature 24, 2007, by President George W. Bush, this increase can be attributed to human executive order requires federal agencies activities that contribute heat trapping to “conduct their environmental, gases to the atmosphere. These transportation, and energy-related “greenhouse gases”—particularly carbon activities under the law in support of their dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels— respective missions in an environmentally, cause Earth’s atmosphere to act like a economically, and fiscally sound, blanket and trap the sun’s heat. While the integrated, continuously improving, insulating effect (or greenhouse effect) of efficient, and sustainable manner.” It our atmosphere is important to living includes requirements for the reduction of systems, the rapid increase in greenhouse greenhouse gases and implementation of gases since the middle of the 19th century other energy and water conservation has cased temperatures to increase at a rate measures. The order requires agencies to faster than natural systems can adapted to. reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3% annually through the end of fiscal year While climate change is a global 2015, or 30% by the end of fiscal year 2015, phenomenon, it manifests itself differently relative to the baseline of the agency’s in different places. One of the most energy use in fiscal year 2003. dramatic effects of global warming is the impact on extreme weather events. A DOI Secretarial Order 3226—Issued on disrupted climate could affect natural and January 19, 2001, this order ensures that cultural resources, and is likely to interfere climate change impacts are taken into with public use and enjoyment of the account in connection with departmental parks. Although many places in the world planning and decision making. have already observed and recorded 185 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

NPS Management Policies 2006, section Any of the action alternatives at Effigy 4.7.2 states that “Parks containing Mounds would, of course, have very little significant natural resources will gather effect on the cumulative level of and maintain baseline climatological data greenhouse gases or other climate change for reference.” The policies also state that factors (e.g. carbon footprint) when viewed “The Service will use all available nationwide. However, there are several authorities to protect park resources and management directions that could occur values from potentially harmful that would reduce the monument’s activities . . . NPS managers must always contribution to climate change. Examples seek ways to avoid, or minimize to the of these include replacing the monument’s greatest degree possible, adverse impacts current fleet of vehicles and motorized on park resources and values.” equipment with more fuel-efficient models, adding insulation and weather- Section 9.1.1.6 of NPS Management Policies proofing to existing buildings, employing 2006 discusses sustainable energy design, solar panels to generate electricity, etc. requiring any facility development to New developments, such as the contact include improvements in energy efficiency station at Sny Magill, would be constructed and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with energy efficiency (i.e. sustainability) in for both the building envelope and the mind. As part of a National Park Service- mechanical systems that support the wide initiative, the public would receive facility. Additionally, projects that include educational messages about reducing our visitor centers or major visitor services impact on the climate. These programs and facilities must incorporate Leadership in others would be implemented under any of Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) the alternatives and contribute towards the standards to achieve a silver rating. global effort to reduce human-caused climate change. 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.

186

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined Alternatives B and C would have the here as moderate to major impacts that highest potential for some unavoidable cannot be fully mitigated or avoided. adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources because it has the most In alternative A, there would be little development. However, most of the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts development being proposed is relatively because there would be no major new “low key” such as trails and small facilities development occurring in previously with only small areas of potential effect. undeveloped areas. Some existing Cultural resources would continue to be conditions have resulted in unavoidable protected through active preservation adverse impacts. The current roads and maintenance. monument facilities may have been built on top of mounds. Cultural resources In summary, none of the alternatives would would continue to be protected through result in any unavoidable moderate or preservation maintenance. major adverse impacts.

187

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Implementing alternative A could result in Actions taken to implement alternatives B the consumption of some nonrenewable or C could result in the consumption of natural resources in the form of nonrenewable natural resources in the construction materials that would form of construction materials and fuels constitute an irretrievable commitment of that would constitute an irreversible resources. This potential loss would be commitment of resources. The new very small when compared with the other facilities would result in a loss of habitat alternatives. This alternative includes no and an irretrievable commitment of actions that could result in the loss of resources. None of the alternatives archeological resources. includes actions that could result in the loss of archeological resources.

188

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The primary purpose of Effigy Mounds Under alternatives B and C, there would be National Monument is to preserve and a slight increase in the monument’s interpret the distinct cultural resource of disturbed area footprint as new trails or ancient burial mounds and associated structures are constructed in the Heritage natural resources. Under all action Addition, the North Unit, and Sny Magill. alternatives, the majority of the monument This change is so small (1 to 3 acres) that it would be in the discovery zone that does would not result in a substantial loss of not allow development. The National Park long-term productivity. Natural resource Service would continue to manage this management actions would continue or be zone under all alternatives to maintain enhanced in all alternatives to increase natural ecological processes and native biological diversity and, therefore, increase biological communities. long-term productivity.

189

190

192

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

This section addresses the public Impact Statement has been revised to comments received on the Revised Draft address the comments. These changes are General Management Plan / Environmental identified in the NPS responses. No Impact Statement for Effigy Mounds response was given to comments that National Monument. The public comment simply expressed preference for an period began with the publication of a alternative or any actions within the notice of availability of the draft document alternatives. All page number citations in in the Federal Register on September 2, the responses refer to the draft document. 2011. The draft document was sent to all agencies and organizations on the planning As defined in the Handbook to Director’s team’s mailing list and was posted on the Order 12: Conservation Planning, Internet (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/). Environmental Impact Analysis, and The 60-day comment period ended Decision-making (NPS 2001), comments November 4, 2011. are considered substantive when they

Comments were received (1) via direct (a) question, with reasonable basis, the input into the Planning, Environment, and accuracy of information in the Public Comment (PEPC) system online by environmental impact statement the respondent, (2) via email, (3) via a letter, or (4) by recording of the four public (b) question, with reasonable basis, the scoping meetings held on September 20 adequacy of environmental analysis (Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and (c) present reasonable alternatives other Marquette, Iowa) and September 21 than those presented in the (Marquette, Iowa, and McGregor, Iowa), environmental impact statement 2011. The planning team reviewed and (d) cause changes or revisions in the considered all comments in preparing the proposal Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 1503. The comments allow the PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND National Park Service and other interested RESPONSE TO COMMENTS parties to review and assess the opinions of other agencies, organizations, and Public meetings and newsletters were used individuals about the alternatives and their to keep the public informed and involved potential impacts. in the planning process for Effigy Mounds National Monument. A mailing list was This section begins with a summary of the compiled that consisted of members of public involvement opportunities for the governmental agencies, organizations, plan. Next, all of the written comments on businesses, legislators, local governments, the draft plan are reproduced, and and interested citizens. responses are provided to substantive comments. Many nonsubstantive The notice of intent to prepare an environ- comments are also addressed in this mental impact statement was published in section if the comment addressed the Federal Register on June 6, 2005. This controversial or sensitive topic matter. was followed by the first newsletter that Where appropriate, the text in this Final introduced the planning effort and invited General Management Plan / Environmental the public to participate in scoping 193 CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS, AND CONSULTANTS

(information gathering). Public meetings members of the public attended that held during November 2005 in McGregor, meeting and provided comments that were Iowa, and Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, mostly focused on protection of resources were attended by 25 people. In addition, 31 and boundary issues. written comments were received by the planning team. The planning team arranged and conducted four public open houses on the A second newsletter summarizing the Revised Draft General Management Plan / results of the public scoping effort was sent Environmental Impact Statement from in early 2006. September 20 through September 21, 2011. These meetings were held in Prairie du The preliminary alternative concepts for Chien, Wisconsin; McGregor, Iowa; and at managing the monument were delivered in the Effigy Mounds National Monument a third newsletter that was distributed in Visitor Center. The meetings were November 2006. Public meetings on the attended by approximately 14 members of preliminary alternatives were held in the public. Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and McGregor, Iowa. A total of 12 people Eleven separate written comments were attended the two meetings and 24 written received during the comment period, comments were received. There was some including letters and email comments. discussion on the details of the alternatives Additionally, one comment was provided in the written and oral comments received verbally at the public meeting, which is at the meetings. transcribed below. They are reproduced on the following pages along with NPS NPS representatives also met with responses to substantive comments. Those representatives of city and county correspondences came from five different governments, and state agencies several states (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, times throughout the process. and Wyoming). State, federal, nongovernmental organizations or firms, The Draft General Management Plan for and tribes that shared their comments Effigy Mounds National Monument was include the U.S. Environmental Protection made available for public review and Agency, State Historic Preservation Office, comment in April 2009. A public meeting Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, White to receive comments on the draft plan was Pine Group of the Sierra Club, Mississippi held at the Effigy Mounds visitor center on Valley Archaeology Center, and Logan the evening of May 19, 2009. Eight Museum of Anthropology.

194

3. The safety of maintenance personnel in the North Unit should be of prime 3. The National Park Service believes that the safety issues associated with the transport importance. Facilities off EMNM premises should be explored. of equipment in or to the North Unit are surmountable. In the future, if the park needs to lease space (outside of Effigy Mounds National Monument) to store equipment the In previous GMP planning sessions it was stated if it is IN the GMP it still may not action would not need to be authorized in the general management plan. Therefore, happen; by the same token if it is NOT in the GMP it will NOT happen. The options this action is outside the scope of this plan. of Alt. C are preferred.

In both viable alternatives the adverse effects are equal. 4. In Alternative C there is 4. The National Park Service may consider changes to the names of the various units at more and safer access to particularly the South Unit and the Heritage Addition any time. Such changes should take place with input from traditionally associated tribes (which, in my opinion should be renamed the Twin Bears Unit) and it keeps the and the public. At this point in the General Management Planning process such museum collection close. Alt. C also creates more economic and cultural benefits. opportunities for input from the tribes and the public are only minimally available. Therefore Alternative C is the preferred alternative. Only cultural resources and items related to and affecting American Indians was analyzed by us in the short time available.

Again, we will reiterate, most American Indians want the least amount of public access to what we consider Traditional Cultural Property possible.

Thank you for your consideration.

196 Respectfully submitted, Patt Murphy

Re: Effigy Mounds Revised General Management Plan Comments Some housekeeping:

5. Page 7 Lines 47 thru 49 5. The suggested comments were made to the document. Need to reword- Jan. does not have 160 days

5. Page 8 Line 17 A better phraseology, instead of "ranging in distance" replace it with "of varying distances".

5. Page 14 Line 58 I have seen it referred to as "the Indian problem". I haven't seen it referred to as a "question".

5. Page 15 Line 38 The preferred word would be "spiritual'' rather than religious. Line99 Replace "more complete" with "better". We do not have a "complete" understanding but we are getting a "better" understanding all the time.

5. Page 58 Line 70 Visitor Use Replace Native American with American Indian.

5. Page 122 Line 19 thru 22 The sentence "Paleo-Indians are credited with crossing the Bering Land Bridge toward the end of the last Ice Age and peopling the Americas" is an arbitrary and irrelevant statement discounted by a good share of American Indians and should he stricken.

Page 123 Line 26 6. The Sauk and Mesquaki (speaking Algonquian, not Siouan language) are not 6. The text has been removed from the Final General Management Plan. Oneota. They should be stricken and the Missouria added.

Page 160 Line 92 Replace word "regional" tribes with "consulting" tribes.

Page 185 Line 18 Page 187 Line 99 7. To our knowledge "canoeing" was not, is not, nor has it been mentioned to be, 7. Canoeing the Yellow River through Effigy Mounds National Monument is an activity

197 included in monument activities. that is compatible with park purposes and values and is authorized by the Superintendent’s Compendium. There is no authorized put-in or take-out location in the park boundary. Our Comments on the Revised General Management Plan: Alt B referred to as the PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE throughout - not necessary

Page iv Line 82 thru 91 8. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska is highly critical of removing the mound 8. See response to comment number 1 above. associated collection away from the Monument. For researchers studying mounds in Iowa and Wisconsin it would be unreasonable to travel to Lincoln, Nebraska to access this data. If a research facility locally is out of the question, than an upgrade of curation conditions in its present location with the relocation of the break-room facilities would afford much needed room.

Page v Line 14 If it is going to be stored, let it be stored at Effigy Mounds. Line 31-32 "key monument resources." should be kept at the monument Line 75 thru 82 9. A adverse effect for Alt. C is; visitors would be likely to encounter other visitors or 9. Although there is the possibility that visitors will be more dispersed under alternative park staff during their visit. Just the opposite would be true - with more park C, implementing alternative C would still result in an overall impact that is beneficial opened up, the visitors would be less concentrated, therefore less encounters. and long-term because of additional visitor opportunities. No change to the document

has been made in response to this comment. Page 14 Line 97 thru 100 10. The tribes consider Effigy Mounds as "Traditional Cultural Property". We have 10. The planning team confirmed that the nomination of Effigy Mounds National been assured it has been and will be considered a TCP until the final determination Monument as a Traditional Cultural Property is underway. The text included in of the application. We have been assured the paperwork is in the process of being Significance 6, Fundamental Resources and Values has been updated to include a prepared by Effigy Mounds staff at this time. reference to the nomination of Effigy Mounds as a Traditional Cultural Property.

Page 18 Lower box "Examples ... " second bullet, end of third line Add after " .. Preservation Officer" and associated American Indian tribes. Fourth bullet DELETE Fifth bullet 11. It is unclear what would be "appropriate" to trigger consultation on a new 11. The term “appropriate” was removed from the text of the Revised Draft General development or modification of existing developments nor what these Management Plan. developments consist of: Any undertaking that would trigger Sec. 106 would require consultation.

Page 32 Geology 12. We understand the railroad has broached the subject of removing some of the 12. Geology was dismissed as an impact topic because none of the actions proposed overhanging ledges that could possibly fall on the tracks. If that possibility exists, or by the NPS would affect it. The railroad can only work on the hillside within their right- is perceived to exist by the railroad, the subject should be addressed in the GMP. of-way. If the railroad would like to work outside their right-of-way on NPS lands,

198 permission from the NPS would be required and appropriate compliance would be Page 34 Line 86 thru 1 & 2 of the following page necessary. No change to the document has been made in response to this comment. It should be pointed out that none of the alternatives would have an adverse effect or if there is an adverse effect in an alternative, it should be enumerated.

Page 55 Desired Resource Conditions 13. "Development Zone". It is not a matter of “if”, there ARE cultural resources 13. The commenter is correct; known cultural resources in the Development Zone. The there. text on page 55 was updated.

Page 57 14. This is not an objective analysis in my view. In all alternatives cultural and natural 14. Text was added to the Revised Draft General Management Plan on page 57 that resources are supposed to be managed to the highest standards. It is only attributed includes this perspective raised by the commenter. to alternative B, the PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. An objective analysis of C would recognize that adding a research center nearby and keeping the collections close would be a long term beneficial aspect for Factor 3 that B does not provide. Opening more of the Monument to visitors with better access would also be a long term beneficial effect for Factor 3 in Alt C that B does not provide. As noted in the plan the short term negative aspects of either alternative would be about the same.

Page 59 Line 17 thru 20 15. Explore the possibility of leasing buildings to house maintenance equipment 15. See response to comment 3 above.

used in the North Unit from landowners adjacent to the park. Employee safety should be a prime requisite.

Page 85 Lines 34 thru 3& 16. " ... visitors would be likely to encounter other visitors or staff ... " Just the 16. See response to comment 9 above. opposite would be true. There would be more area for visitors to explore thereby spreading visitors out and making it more secluded. The PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE is the one to crowd more visitors together because it will reduce the North Unit to some extent and a shortened trail in Sny Magill.

Page 107 Alt C last paragraph See page 85 above

Page 108 All of Alt B at top of page would be attainable in Alt C. As stated earlier in the plan, vegetation management as well as other aspects are to be handled on an administrative level. A virtual research center would not be necessary in Alt C - it would have the actual center.

Page 117 OTHER: Visitor Use and Experience Alt C

199 17. Adding the South Unit and Sny Magill to the discovery zone would add "major, 17. Placing the Discovery Zone on portions of these units would allow for higher long term beneficial impact” to visitors experience. maintenance levels on the existing trails. Since these units are open to the public now, it is believed the resulting beneficial impact would be minor, as stated. No change to OTHER: Socioeconomic Environment Alt. C the document has been made in response to this comment. 18. Were there to be a research center added in the on site [sic] or in the vicinity it would create a major, long term beneficial impact on the region. 18. As stated in the GMP, it is most likely that the NPS would lease space in an existing building for the research center. While this would be a minor to moderate beneficial Page 154 Line 60 thru 67 impact, as envisioned it would not be major as defined in the GMP. No change to the We have been assured Effigy Mounds has been and will be considered a document has been made in response to this comment. "Traditional Cultural Property" as defined by ACHP and that the paperwork is in the process of being prepared by Effigy Mounds staff.

Page 157 Line 68 thru 72 19. There are cultural resources near this entrance. There is the possibility this 19. The General Management Plan has been revised to no longer include the construction could result in long term, major adverse impact. realignment of the South Unit access road entry area (in Alternatives B and C). As the commenter notes, the proposed realignment would potentially impact cultural Page 159 ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES resources. It should be added: will be considered a "Traditional Cultural Property" as defined by ACHP and that the paperwork is in the process of being prepared by Effigy Mounds staff.

Page 163

Tract #2 This land is essential to maintain the monument land south of the Yellow River. The county road currently crosses private lands which makes resource protection of an isolated bird mound difficult. In the past vehicles involved in logging operations have damaged mounds in the area above the county road and jeopardized preservation of the isolated bird mound along the county road. Erosion of soil into Founder's Pond has also resulted in degradation of this critical body of water that is used by many migratory birds including osprey, bald eagles and many species of waterfowl. Red shouldered [sic] hawks have been documented to nest in this remote tract of land south of the Yellow River, as well as Kentucky warblers and Acadian flycatchers. The westernmost parcel of Tract #2 is especially critical to preservation of the view shed from several overlooks in the monument. The area may be susceptible to future development of housing overlooking some of the most important areas of solitude in the monument. Little can be done to remove traffic sounds along the highway corridor that bisects the North and South Units of the monument but there is an opportunity to maintain solitude in areas to the south and west.

Tract # 3 This tract is important to complete the county road access without crossing private

205 land. Current land use practices include logging and in some areas grazing. Both of these practices have a detrimental effect on the quality of Dousman Creek. Dousman Creek currently is being degraded by these practices and represent a valuable aquatic resource that should be better protected. The land along the stream includes habitat for several rare plants, amphibians and reptiles. Dousman Creek could be a benchmark to use to identify aquatic insects in trout streams for habitat improvement across northeast Iowa, southeast Minnesota and southwest Wisconsin.

The County Road When the monument was established, it was felt that the issue of this road that runs through the South Unit would be dealt with at a later date as it was not critical to the establishment of the monument in 1949. Over 50 years later, county road remains an issue in the monument. 3. It is time to preserve the land adjacent to the 3. The National Park Service is not able to make these changes without the cooperation road and turn control of the road over to the park service. The county road would of County officials. The National Park Service will continue to work closely with the provide for an enhancement of the overall protection of cultural and natural County on all matters related to this road. resources and interpretation of the monument. It would provide an outstanding opportunity for visitor enjoyment of the solitude, wildlife and beauty along the Yellow River.

Tract #4 Sny Magill 4. Sny Magill contains half of the mounds preserved in the monument. It contains 4. Sny Magill: If the land is acquired and the proposed contact station is approved, then

one of the greatest concentrations of prehistoric mounds known. The location site-specific environmental analysis and site planning would be conducted to determine presents special issues for access by the public. The work of clearing trees and the best location for a contact station and small parking area. vegetation and the current trail is a tremendous improvement to preserve the mound group as well as provide access.

I believe acquiring the Tract #4 Sny Magill Tract can be a step in the right direction to provide better access and parking. The tract however is mostly in the flood plain and I question filling in the land for parking or visitor contact station. Possibly along highway 76 where the land is higher would be more suitable for parking and a contact station. What is currently lacking at the Sny Magill site is the presence of National Park Service personnel. How to accomplish this goal is going to be difficult. A contact station could have vault toilets which would be less expensive to maintain. During the summer and fall, it is important that the park service have a presence at the location. If a parking area could be provided on a corner of Tract # 4 patrols and informal as well as occasional formal presentations need to be scheduled. Lack of staffing could result in increased vandalism and incompatible activity. Stabilization of banks along Johnson Slough should occur with the best available technology that does not distract from the natural landscape.

Boundary Adjustments considered but not included in Recommendations

206 5. The Riverfront Tract is currently under the control of the State of Iowa (not 5. If the Riverfront Tract were to become available the National Park Service would be including the railroad right of way). There are at least two and possibly three interested in acquiring the land at which point the National Park Service would assume archeological sites that should be managed by the National Park Service. It is within management responsibility of the archeological sites. the legislated boundaries of the monument and should be preserved in the monument.

6. Several other tracts were not included in the general management plan out of 6. Some tracts were dropped from further consideration for the reasons stated and the respect for concerns expressed by the landowners. I understand that current fact that they do not contain resources that are fundamental to the monument’s landowners have concerns about mentioning their property in a general purpose (e.g. views). These parcels could be re-considered during a future Boundary management plan. However land ownership changes occur over time. No land will Study or Land Protection Plan. be acquired unless from willing sellers. I am concerned that the park service's future goals are being compromised by not addressing long range boundary adjustments.

Heritage Addition I support the county turning over the county road to the National Park Service. 7. In terms of parking, I believe a parking area along highway 76 should have room 7. The parking area located along highway 76 (proposed in the Revised Draft GMP) has for 6-8 vehicles and a walking trail to the north side of the Heritage Addition. been removed from the Final GMP due to safety concerns. After the completion of the 8. Trails could be developed along an existing corridor at the north side of the GMP, the monument will undergo a public access plan / trail development plan that floodplain that runs along the base of the ridge. Another trail could use an existing largely focuses on the Heritage Addition. In this document, the monument would look logging road to the bear mounds. The ridge beyond the mounds is very fragile and at trail connections from the visitor center parking lot to trails in the Heritage Addition. studies would need to be conducted to determine if access would have adverse 8. The General Management Plan directs the Park to undergo a public access plan / trail

effects on the vegetation. development plan that largely focuses on the Heritage Addition. This plan would be 9. A major project needs to be implemented to restore the vegetation along the initiated after the General Management Plan is finalized. Yellow River north bank. The floodplain presently consists of monoculture stands of 9. Specific projects such as this are outside the scope of a general management plan. reed canary grass, an invasive species which is leading to a decrease in diversity of This type of action would be proposed as part of a future vegetation management plants and wildlife. plan. No change to the document was made in response to this comment.

South Unit

10. The access road going into South Unit needs to be improved to provide for 10. Due to resource concerns, the realignment of the access road to the South Unit is safety along highway 76. The entry is presently too steep in the initial 50 yards. A no longer proposed in any of the alternatives. The National Park Service is interested in possible mound along the access road needs to be preserved. alternatives to provide for maintenance access that might occur off of National Park Service lands. If access can be provided elsewhere, the Park is interested in re- Complete the New Trail connecting the South Unit mounds with the county road vegetating much of the road to provide for trail access only. If this were to take place within compliance of all regulations. appropriate compliance would be conducted. Minimal signage is needed to maintain the experience of exploring the mounds without distracting from the natural setting. Research on best practices for long term mound preservation should continue. Open areas that contain prairie and Rattlesnake Knob should continue to be managed with periodic burns. Visitors need to be educated about staying on the designated trails or open areas

207 around the mounds.

North Unit The overlook at Fire point reconstruction will need to be conducted to better preserve the mounds at Fire point while also providing access to the views of the river and the South Unit. Two areas that the North Unit Trail that should be investigated for possible relocation include the section adjacent to private property just north of the Third Scenic View and along the north boundary where the trail runs adjacent to private property.

The Monument's Museum Collection and Archives 11. The museum collection and archives has been a major concern for many years. 11. Space is not the issue driving the potential move of the collection. Therefore an The general management plan preferred alternative is to move the collection to a addition to the existing visitor center is not considered in the GMP. The basement of site in a nearby town. I would prefer that the present visitor center be expanded to the visitor center does not meet NPS museum collections standards. The intent of include additional space in the rear of the present building. This addition and moving the collection is to provide better protection and security. However, alternative restructuring of present space could provide additional space for interpretive B was revised in response to this comment and several similar comments to consider displays on the visitor level and the lower level would house an expanded area for the option of keeping the collections at the monument with investments in staffing the museum collection, the archives and space for researchers and an office for a and the facility, among other relocation options. cultural resource specialist. Moving the collection offsite is an alternative if more secure space cannot be provided at the monument. This I believe should not be the preferred alternative.

Dedicating a staff member to this offsite collection and archive site would be acceptable if funding for personnel was not an issue. Having a staff member stationed at the offsite location would be an inefficient use of needed personnel onsite. 12. If no other alternative is acceptable, moving the collection to a nearby 12. The text in Alternative B of the Final General Management Plan has been revised to location in Marquette, McGregor or Prairie du Chien would be preferable to moving reflect the interest of the National Park Service in cooperating with a local university, the collection to the Midwest Archeological Center. I think a location for the museum, nonprofit organization, or government agency to store the museum collections on site that provides security and accessibility to researchers is critical. collections and archives closer to Effigy Mounds National Park. The new facility would need to meet NPS museum collections standards. Virtual Research Center Mounds Maintenance

13. If it has not been developed, a mounds maintenance plan needs to be 13. With over 200 mounds in the monument, this may not be feasible. However, this developed with each mound having its own management plan. This plan would type of action could be proposed as part a long-term mound maintenance plan. include the data recording the condition of each mound; the abiotic and biotic factors affecting the long term management; the type of vegetation on the mound and how this vegetation will be managed would be documented for each mound. The database will include all historic data on the mound (various studies have been done but these studies and databases need to be organized into one database of information). This information would be readily available to researchers, resource managers, interpretive rangers and maintenance staff that work directly with

208 vegetation management and mound preservation. This database would track vegetation patterns in areas adjacent to mounds as well provide long term monitoring and management. Research on mounds throughout the country and a clearinghouse of data on mounds of the Midwest would be included in the virtual research center. The center, located at the monument, would interface with archeological research facilities, federal, tribal, state, county and local government agencies, and land managers. Information on legal requirements and management options of preservation of mounds and archeological sites on private property would be available to landowners. This would be critical to preserve the many sites located on private lands. I believe this outreach function would be valuable in educating the public and provide stewardship of our diminishing archeological heritage.

Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment

14. I have a concern about the designation although I realize at this point the 14. The purpose of National Wild and Scenic River designation is to preserve a river’s process is being studied. If the purpose of this designation is promoting the Yellow free-flowing character and its outstandingly remarkable values, which for the Yellow River as a nationally recognized recreational river, I believe there are several areas River are scenery, geology, wildlife, history, and recreation. The suitability study that need to be considered. The river flows through 3.5 miles of the monument, analyzed the segment that is within NPS jurisdiction. Segments upstream of the however upriver another 3.8 flows through state owned land. Is this state owned monument are also listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory and could be studied by section or other sections upstream being considered? The social takeout along 76 the state. If this study occurs, the NPS could cooperate and offer technical assistance. It would be closed mostly due to a very narrow strip of private land between the is true that a new bridge across the river would probably not be allowed because it

My very first memory of Effigy Mounds National Monument was when I was probably six years old my brother & I were taken on a hike with our Aunt Marcella McGowan. Aunt Marc was a school teacher and a nature lover who would point out & identify all the woodland flowers and plants along the Fire Point Trail.

Later at age 16 my same brother & I would get summer jobs at the park with the Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC) working with the maintenance department on the trail system.

In 1979 I would be employed as a seasonal laborer & continue seasonal employment for a total of 19 years. I held a variety of positions including Park Ranger, wildland firefighter and radon mitigation advisor.

I love Effigy Mounds National Monument! It is a part of who I'm and my years spent there have contributed to the way I see life in general. I'm a preservationist, tree- hugger and very proud of it.

With that said, now begins my formal comments on your GMP.

210 1. Over the last several years as I would drive by the park, visit and walk the trails it 1. Between 2000 and 2010, some developments were constructed without proper sickened me to see all the development, i.e. plastic flooring boardwalks, bridge National Environmental Policy Act and section 106 compliance. The National Park across the Yellow River & all the green lumber products, the cutting of maintenance Service has consulted and would continue to consult with the state historic roads, the Quonset hut type structure built in the prairie area of the north unit. And preservation officer and traditionally associated tribes in order to meet our legal the huge stock pile of building materials vehicles and tools overflowing from the obligations to the greatest degree possible. When the Midwest Regional Office of the maintenance building. I simply thought that the National Park Service had lost its National Park Service became aware of actions completed without proper compliance, way, as many local folks had also thought. all construction was halted. Several of the developments were subsequently removed including the boardwalk loop segment in the South Unit and the Quonset hut type However when the news broke that all this junk and the damage to the resources structure. The National Park Service has evaluated the past construction projects and were the result of a couple federal employees conspiring to circumvent federal and trends at the park and attempts to chart a new course with much less development state law to build their own little empire with taxpayers dollars I was outraged! recommended in the revised General Management Plan.

"MY PARK" was violated by these people? What would Ellison Orr and his cadre of Additional proposed construction actions have been removed from the Revised Draft old timers, The Mississippi River Valley National Park Association, all the former General Management Plan including a small proposed parking area in the Heritage Effigy Mounds employees and all the school children that had listened over the Addition and the realignment of the South Unit access road. The GMP has also been years to the park's mission statement think? revised to include some trail and road standards in response to this and other similar comments. The trail standards specify desired widths, surface (wood chips, etc.), and These actions were worse and longer lasting then public urination in a cathedral! I character for each of the management zones. The road standards also include the will not rest until these employees are held accountable by the U.S. Government's desired level of use for each of the management zones. judicial system and a jury of their peers.

With that said I don't believe the NPS "gets it". The document that I received is 252

pages and weighs approximately 2.5 lbs... Was this really necessary? I believe it demonstrates a federal bureaucracy out of control. The mission of Effigy Mounds National Monument "IS TO PROTECT SIGNIFICANT PREHISTORIC EARTH MOUNDS FOUND IN NORTHEAST IOWA …………….. WILDLIFE, SCENIC AND OTHER NATURAL VALUES OF THE AREA".

That is a pretty simple statement. It is preservation as the core element. Status coup, not a bunch of wasteful development.

Here is what I humbly propose. Dismantle and remove all the boardwalks, the Yellow River Bridge and all the "green lumber". To repeat, the park needs to preserve the landscape of the prehistoric Indians who constructed the mounds. What I see is a pile of obtrusive building materials. That wetland area reminds me of a cattle shoot at a livestock yard not a natural ecosystem. I might suggest you read a short article I had published in the Iowa Ornithologist's Union periodical, Iowa Bird Life, Vol. L No. 3, September, 1980. It has to do with my monitoring of a then State Endangered Species, the Red-Shouldered Hawk nest located near the Yellow River highway bridge construction site that year. I cannot believe any hawk would now nest above that "cattle shoot".

211 2. The absolutely worst abomination of the natural world near the Visitor's Center is 2. The National Park Service can consider removal of this and other minor that manufactured wooden deck from the walking bridge to the impacted Three developments outside the framework of the General Management Plan. Mounds Area. When I was leading Ranger guided interpretative walks you would lead your group across the bridge and into the woods and stop at the Three Mounds. Then you would let these folks momentarily settle into the woodland scene. Songbirds singing, a breeze rustling through the tree canopy. You were now in an almost prehistoric setting and could begin your talk. Now all I see is a very shoddy built suburban home deck. I cannot believe that pile of ##@@# is still let to stand there. I would be ashamed & embarrassed quite frankly to be associated with that.

3. Your lengthy document speaks of pedestrian access to the South Unit. Just a 3. The National Park Service did not remove the Yellow River Bridge and the boardwalk couple simple suggestions if you feel you have to make improvements to what has connecting the bridge to the visitor center and does not propose to remove these in worked just fine for 60 years. Take that Yellow River Bridge which was illegally built the GMP, partly due to the expense of removal (thereby making a poorly considered and incorporate it into a bridge over Highway #76 similar to what you see in urban and expensive action even more wasteful) and partly because they facilitate the areas over Interstate highways. It could be engineered and done. 4. Your document connection of the visitor center to the South Unit trail system far more inexpensively also speaks of moving the collections to a remote location. I also have a somewhat than other alternatives at this point. simple resolution to that. The current maintenance building could be retrofitted into a collection storage & study site. There never was any need or justification for a 4. Space is not the issue driving the potential move of the collection. The basement of building like that in such a small park. Relocate that department back into the "old the visitor center only minimally meets NPS museum collections standards. maintenance building". Move the Resource Manager's operation to the basement of the Visitor Center were the collections are now located. Sell off allot of the The cost of retrofitting an existing building (designed for a very different use) in the

understand that future projects to be conducted at Effigy Mounds National Historic Monument under this plan will be federal undertakings for your agency and will need to comply with Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and with the National Environmental Protection Act. We have reviewed this document. Provided below are our general comments.

1. We are aware that this draft has been in development for quite some time and that at its point of publication and distribution would not contain descriptions of situations and anticipated corrective actions that have been in discussion within the last 6 to 9 months.

1. 2. We did note that this document does not discuss recently disclosed projects 1. Between 2000 and 2010, some developments were constructed without proper and activities that did not follow proper protocol and procedures for National Environmental Policy Act and section 106 compliance. The National Park implementation in compliance with applicable federal regulations and laws.( see in Service has consulted and would continue to consult with the state historic particular pages 100-103) preservation officer and tribes in order to meet our legal obligations to the greatest degree possible. Several of the developments were subsequently removed including the 1. 3. We note that the document does not include any statements about corrective boardwalk loop segment in the South Unit and the Quonset hut type structure. Other measures that are under consideration and discussion in regard to recently disclosed developments would require additional consultation with the state historic preservation projects and activities that did not follow proper protocol and procedures for office and tribes as well. implementation in compliance with applicable federal regulations and laws. (see in

214 particular pages 100 - 103)

2. 4. We note that a number of trail locations on the maps are not updated and that a number of trail segments associated with the recently disclosed activities have 2. The maps in the Final General Management Plan have been updated to reflect been removed and no longer exist (see in particular Figure 13 which includes existing trails. segments of trails which have been removed after recently concluded consultation). We think that the maps included in the final document should be updated to reflect the current trails at the facility.

3. 5. We note that this document does not discuss any of the wetland issues and 3. As stated in the general management plan: “The only actions proposed in the impacts to the waters of the United States that the recently disclosed activities may alternatives that could affect wetlands or floodplains are the construction of trails have had. We recommend that these should be addressed as well as the process on through the Heritage Addition and in the Sny Magill Unit in alternatives B and C. Until how future impacts will be considered and evaluated under the National Park public access/ development plans for these areas are prepared, it is difficult to assess Service protocols and procedures in consultation with the other appropriate the impacts (if any) that might occur. Full site-specific environmental impact analyses agencies such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Iowa on wetlands and floodplains would be conducted with the development of these plans, Department of Natural Resources. so wetlands and floodplains are dismissed from further analysis in this general management plan and deferred to the implementation plans.” 4. 6.Per recent consultation with the tribes on this proposed draft, we have noted that the tribal representatives have concerns about the concept of a proposed 4. This is not the understanding of the National Park Service based on comments "Research Center." submitted and from consultation with traditionally associated tribes.

5. 7. Page 43, Overflow Parking. In our opinion, no overflow event vehicle parking 5. The general management plan has been revised so that overflow parking on grassy

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

Survey: We both agree completely with plans to complete the archaeological survey of the entire property, and LiDAR would be an especially helpful vehicle for mapping mounds and many other management tasks and potential enhancements (e.g., evaluating viewsheds).

216 3. Ecosystem restoration: Joe points out that we can’t really “restore” ecosystems 3. The intent is to restore/maintain a prairie ecosystem where feasible, especially to what they once were, and there really aren’t plans to recreate the original prairie around the major mound groups. This could involve selective woody species removal, or savanna/parkland vegetation there, in what is now a fairly heavily wooded area. removal and prevention of exotic species and noxious weeds, and replanting with Modest measures such as selective tree removal are the most appropriate, but they native seed. No change is necessary. won’t restore the original ecosystem. Education about precontact ecosystems and how they were maintained is valuable, however, and practical.

Quiet/low impact visitation: This is an excellent approach to keep up, and Alternative B (rather than C) seems to fit this model well. (People could be directed to nearby Wyalusing or other parks with camping facilities.) Alternative C seems as though it would change the character of the place quite a bit.

4. FTD village site: Joe suggests incorporating the FTD village site into the 4. After the completion of the general management plan, Effigy Mounds National interpretive model, since right now no appropriate village/habitation site is linked to Monument will begin a long-range interpretive plan. The long-range interpretive plan the mounds, meaning that the whole story isn’t being told. would be a good opportunity to consider expanding the interpretation to include the village site and other regional mound sites. 4. Linking to other regional sites: Joe suggests linking EMNM to other important mound groups and village sites in the region such as Fish Farm Mounds State Preserve, Wyalusing State Park, and Yellow River State Forest to increase the visitor experience and fully integrate EMNM into the tourist potential of the region.

Signage: Signage on the mounds/mound area should be kept to a minimum as it

currently is, since interpretive material can be provided in other ways that are easier to maintain and less intrusive on the landscape.

5. Visitors center and collections: Joe wonders whether there is potential for 5. Space is not the issue driving the potential move of the collection. The basement of enlarging the existing visitor’s center to cover projected use. 6.The whole issue of the visitor center does not meet NPS collections standards. This cannot be solved by the taking the collections offsite is problematic (many logistical and management addition of more space. Therefore, enlarging the visitor center was not considered in headaches), and a “virtual” research center as proposed in Alternative B would this plan. presumably mean an extensive commitment to digitization and web access that could be expensive and difficult in different ways from those associated with a place An addition to the existing visitor center to accommodate additional uses is not people can visit. Also, as the collections are not completely catalogued, continuing considered in the general management plan because it would have too great an with that process should be part of the plan. This collections-related portion of the environmental impact. A recent study revealed (through ground penetrating LIDAR plan, for either Alternatives B or C, could use some fleshing out, as the implications imagery) many mounds in and around the visitor center area that were not previously are significant. known.

7. Visitor use/numbers and parking: There’s information on numbers of visitors 6. The digitization of the collections would be handled by the new cultural resource in recent years, but we didn’t see anything on projected numbers for the future, and museum technology staff proposed in the alternative and/or by existing NPS staff with the proposed alternatives. For example, would the proposed enhancements at the Midwest Archeological Center; as a result the additional costs would be modest. increase the number of visitors, and if so, would that increase impacts and logistical The costs associated with the virtual research center (included in alternative B) would problems? Parking at the visitors center is already mentioned as a problem, and include Web access. Both alternatives B and C call for additional cultural resource staff increased enforcement for violations or increased education on busy times might that would be responsible for cataloging the remainder of the collection. Additionally,

217 discourage visitors without really solving the problem of too little parking space for given the concerns raised in this comment and many similar comments the National the people who want to visit (and who should be encouraged to do so). Park Service has changed alternative B to allow for possibility keeping the nonexhibit collections and archives at the monument with an investment in staffing and the Page numbers: As a minor point, I would encourage you to put page numbers on facility. the figure pages if you’re going to refer to them by page number in the text (e.g., 7. The additional visitor opportunities in the preferred alternative could possibly result on page 47). in an increase in total number of annual visitors. However, this is very difficult to quantify because of unknowns such as the economic situation, the price of gasoline, We also want you to know that we very much appreciate all the effort that is going and future funding for the National Park Service that would also affect the number of into this planning process as well as the current management of the facility. visitors.

Regards, Kathy

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS, AND CONSULTANTS 218

Public and Agency Involvement

Preservation in January 2005, inviting their CONSULTATION WITH OTHER participation in the planning process AGENCIES/OFFICIALS AND (appendix C). ORGANIZATIONS (TO DATE) A copy of the revised draft general U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, management plan was sent to the Iowa Section 7 Consultation state historic preservation officer. Comments from the Iowa state historic During preparation of this document, NPS preservation officer were received and staff coordinated informally with the addressed. A copy of this internal draft of USFWS field office for this area in Rock the Final General Management Island, Illinois. The list of threatened and Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was endangered species (appendix E) was sent to the Office of the State Archaeologist compiled using information received from and the Iowa state historic preservation the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and officer. rechecked March 19, 2012.

In accordance with section 7 of the American Indian Tribes Endangered Species Act and relevant The National Park Service recognizes that regulations at 50 CFR Part 402, the indigenous peoples may have traditional National Park Service determined that interests and rights in lands now under implementing the preferred alternative in NPS management. Related American this general management plan is not likely Indian concerns are sought through to result in adverse effects to listed species consultations. The need for government- and so would not require formal to-government American Indian consultation. A copy of this management consultations stems from the historic plan was sent to the USFWS field office power of Congress to make treaties with and the Iowa Department of Natural American Indian tribes as sovereign Resources. nations. Consultations with American

Indians are required by various federal The National Park Service has committed laws, executive orders, regulations, and to consult on future actions conducted policies. They are needed, for example, to under the framework described in this comply with section 106 of the National general management plan to ensure that Historic Preservation Act. Implementing such actions are not likely to adversely regulations of the Council on affect threatened or endangered species. Environmental Quality for National

Environmental Policy Act also call for Iowa State Historic Preservation American Indian consultations. Officer, Section 106 Consultation Letters were sent to the following Agencies that have direct or indirect American Indian groups to invite their jurisdiction over historic properties are participation in several steps of the required by section 106 of the National planning process (see appendix C for a Historic Preservation Act to take into sample of the letter that was sent to all account the effect of any undertaking on tribes): properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. To . Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of meet the requirements of 36 CFR 800, the South Dakota National Park Service sent letters to the . Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Iowa state historic preservation officer, (formerly the Wisconsin and the Advisory Council on Historic Winnebago Tribe) 219 CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION, PREPARERS, AND CONSULTANTS

. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and . Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Nebraska; . Upper Sioux Community, . Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Minnesota . Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, . Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Oklahoma . Lower Sioux Indian Community in The tribes were briefed on the scope of the the State of Minnesota planning project and the preliminary . Prairie Island Indian Community in alternatives by newsletter and follow-up the State of Minnesota telephone calls soliciting comments. Some tribal representatives commented that . Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi existing treaty rights should continue to be in Iowa protected and that interpretation in the . Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in park should include the American Indian Kansas and Nebraska viewpoint. Conversations have been ongoing throughout the planning process . Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma to inform the tribes about the progress of . Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska the plan and identify how and to what (formerly the Santee Sioux Tribe of extent they would like to be involved. The the Santee Reservation of traditionally associated American Indian Nebraska) tribes were given an opportunity to review . Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux and comment on the Revised Draft General Community of Minnesota Management Plan prior to the public release. The tribes were provided an . Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the electronic copy of the document and Lake Traverse Reservation, South consultation meetings were held on June Dakota (formerly the Sisseton- 30, 2011, and June 13, 2012. Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation

220

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT

FEDERAL AGENCIES IOWA STATE AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation U.S. Department of the Interior Iowa Department of Natural Resources National Park Service Iowa Department of Transportation Fish and Wildlife Service Yellow River State Forest U.S. Department of Agriculture Pike’s Peak State Park Natural Resources Conservation Service TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES U.S. SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES Ho Chunk Nation of Wisconsin (formerly Honorable Charles Grassley, U.S. Senator the Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe) Honorable Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Honorable Bruce Braley, U.S. Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Representative Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Honorable Tom Latham, U.S. Oklahoma Representative Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Prairie Island Indian Community in the IOWA STATE OFFICIALS State of Minnesota Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa The Honorable Terry Branstad, Governor Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas Roger Thomas, State Representative and Nebraska Patti Ruff, State Representative Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma Brian Schoenjahn, State Senator Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Mary Jo Wilhelm, State Senator Community of Minnesota Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

221

222

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

DENVER SERVICE CENTER experience sections of planning, affected environment, and impact Nell Blodgett, GIS Lead—Responsible for analysis. document maps.

Kerri Cahill, Visitor Use Management Team Lead—Responsible for EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL development and review of user MONUMENT capacity section. Kenneth Block, Former Chief Ranger Craig Cellar, Former Project Manager/ Phyllis Ewing, Former Superintendent Former Cultural Resource Specialist Sharon Greener, Administrative Assistant (now retired)—Responsible for project coordination, cultural resources James Nepstad, Superintendent sections of planning, affected Rodney Rovang, Natural Resources environment, and impact analysis. Manager Jan Harris, Chief, Planning Branch 3(now Thomas Sinclair, Chief of Maintenance retired) Responsible for document Jessica Salesman, Biological Science review. Technician Cynthia Nelson, Chief, Planning Branch, Friday Wiles, Administrative Officer Responsible for document review. Leslie Petersen, Cultural Resource Specialist—Responsible for cultural MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE resources sections of planning, affected Michael Evans, Ethnographer/Acting environment, and impact analysis. Superintendent Ericka Pilcher, Visitor Use Resource Ruth Heikkinen, Planning and Compliance Specialist—Responsible for Division Chief—Quality review and development of user capacity section. contributor to sections. Kate Randall, Project Manager/Landscape Anne Vawser, Cultural Resource Specialist Architect—Responsible for project coordination and document Sändra Washington, Former Chief of production. Planning; Assistant Regional Director for Planning, Construction, Matthew Safford, Natural Resource Communications, and Legislation Specialist/Former Project Manager— Responsible for natural resources, socioeconomic, and monument PUBLICATION SERVICES operations sections of planning, affected environment, and impact Jim Corbett, Visual Information Services analysis. Supervisor, Denver Service Center Brenda Todd, Cultural Resource Glenda Heronema, Former Visual Specialist—Responsible for cultural Information Specialist, Denver Service resources section of planning. Center (now retired) June McMillen, Writer/Editor, Denver Service Center (now retired) HARPERS FERRY CENTER Richard Jones, Interpretive Planner— Responsible for visitor use and

223 CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

OTHER Don Weeks, NPS Water Resources Division Patt Murphy, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

224

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.

227

228

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

230 Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Iowa Department of Natural Resources

231 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

232 Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Iowa Department of Natural Resources

233 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

234 Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Iowa Department of Natural Resources

235 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

236 Appendix B: Letters To and From the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Iowa Department of Natural Resources

237 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

238

APPENDIX C: LETTERS TO AND FROM THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES

239 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

240 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

241 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

242

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

244 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

245 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

246 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

247 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

248 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

249 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

250 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

251 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

252 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

253 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

254 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

255 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

256 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

257 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

258 Appendix C: Letters to and from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and American Indian Tribes

259 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

260

APPENDIX D: YELLOW RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ASSESSMENT

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility and Suitability Assessment Yellow River, Iowa

River Segment under Assessment The segment of the Yellow River within the boundary of Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, approximately 3.5 miles in length (map attached).

Purpose of Assessment This report documents an assessment to determine if the Yellow River is eligible and suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Jurisdiction The Yellow River is deemed “navigable” by the state of Iowa, so the water surface and water column are controlled by the state. River shores and bottom within the monument are property of the U.S. Government managed by the National Park Service. The river is managed under concurrent jurisdiction.

Legal and Policy Basis for Assessment This assessment conforms with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542); “National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of River Areas,” which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 173 on September 7, 1982; and, “The Wild and Scenic River Study Process,” a technical report prepared for the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, dated December 1999.

Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act) states

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

"Free-flowing" means that a river or segment of river is existing or flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration.

Section 5(d)(1) of the act states that,

“In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall consider and discuss any such potentials. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river areas within the United States shall be

261 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential alternative uses of the water and related land resources involved.”

The assessment also conforms with NPS Management Policies 2006 (§4.3.4), which says

“Parks containing one or more river segments listed in the NPS National [Nationwide] Rivers Inventory… will comply with section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which instructs each federal agency to assess whether those rivers or segments are suitable for inclusion in the system. The assessments and any resulting management requirements may be incorporated into a park’s general management plan.”

Maintained by the National Park Service, the National Rivers Inventory (NRI) was compiled, in part, to fulfill the mandate of Section 5(d)(1) that federal agencies consider impacts on potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in all agency planning. This inventory, originally completed in 1982 and updated in 1993, seeks to identify such rivers based on the Act’s basic eligibility criteria. Under a Presidential Directive issued in 1979, each federal agency, as part of its normal planning and environmental review processes, is required to take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to rivers in the NRI.

Thirty-five miles of the Yellow River, starting at Highway 60 near Myron, Iowa, and ending with the 3.5 mile segment through the boundary of Effigy Mounds National Monument to the Mississippi River, are listed on the NRI with six outstandingly remarkable values. The last mile, which at the time of the NRI listing was the only part of the river that flowed through the monument since its boundary had not yet been expanded, has been potentially classified as “scenic,” but the first 34 miles have not been classified.

General Description of the Yellow River The Yellow River flows for about 50 miles from its headwaters near Ossian, Iowa, before emptying into the Mississippi River near the monument headquarters. The Yellow is one of the fastest falling rivers in the state and provides excellent fishing and canoeing opportunities (NRI 1993). Camping and hiking opportunities exist along certain reaches.

The Yellow River watershed is located in northeastern Iowa’s “Driftless Area.” This 154,666-acre (62,640-ha) watershed has diverse topographic and natural resource features, along with a variety of resource-related problems similar to those found throughout the watersheds of most tributary streams feeding into the Upper Mississippi River. Situated within a karst region, approximately 90% of the Yellow River’s flow comes from groundwater. The watershed is a diverse, mostly agricultural landscape of incised valleys and rolling uplands. Significant natural habitat exists in the watershed, particularly within its lower reaches where Effigy Mounds National Monument is located. Due to the rugged topography and drainage pattern of this portion of the Driftless Area, small rural communities are situated almost exclusively along the outer fringe of the Yellow River watershed (NPS 2003).

The lower 3 miles of the Yellow River can act as a backwater of the Mississippi River. Water movement in this reach is sluggish and the level can fluctuate with changes in the flow of either the Yellow or Mississippi rivers.

The state of Iowa manages use on the river surface, including boating and fishing. No hunting is allowed in the monument. The river bottom and shores in Effigy Mounds National Monument are owned by the U.S. Government and managed by the National Park Service. Recreational uses on the river include infrequent motorboating (only near the mouth of the river), canoeing/kayaking, and fishing from shore or boat. 262 Appendix D: Yellow River Wild And Scenic River Assessment

Results of a limited 1982 study of water quality in the Yellow River showed good water quality. However, in more recent years, there have been fish kills related to the discharge of waste from a meat processing plant near Postville (a few miles upstream from where NRI-listed segment of the river begins). In 2006, a lawsuit challenging this discharge resulted in a settlement forcing a reduction. Additional water quality concerns include a portion of the Yellow River running through Effigy Mounds National Monument which is currently listed on Iowa’s impaired waters list for high levels of fecal coliform bacteria and sedimentation due to agricultural runoff.

General Description of Effigy Mounds National Monument Effigy Mounds National Monument was created in 1949. The purpose of the monument is to preserve outstanding representative examples of significant phases of Indian mound-building cultures in the American Midwest; protect wildlife and the natural values within the monument; and provide for scientific study and appreciation of its features – for the benefit of this and future generations.

ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT

Eligibility Criteria

According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a river or river segment must be free-flowing and possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values to be eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Following criteria established in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and guidelines in “The Wild and Scenic River Study Process,” a technical paper of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, the study team determined whether the inventory segment was 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 free- flowing 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 free- flowing in its entirety.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values. In order to be assessed as outstandingly remarkable, a river- related 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.

263 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

Scenery: Forested bluffs, limestone cliffs, and the occasional waterfall can be seen from the river. The bluffs, rising up to 300 feet above the river, dominate the view. The diversity of habitats (woods, riparian, bluffs), clear water, and opportunities for solitude where only natural sounds can be heard, as well as the unobstructed views free from evidence of human encroachment are components of this value. The hardwood forest turns into a myriad of colors every fall. These combined landscape elements of diverse landforms (topography), vegetation, water, seasonal variations of color, and lack of human intrusions along most of the river segment make this value significant in the region.

Recreation: As one of the fastest falling rivers in the state of Iowa the opportunities for paddling (canoeing and kayaking) are outstanding. The high scenic quality and naturalness make sightseeing, wildlife observation, and photography significant recreational values in the river corridor. Visitors are attracted to the river from throughout the region of comparison and beyond. Motorized watercraft can be used up to 3 miles from the mouth depending on water levels. However this type of use is quite low.

Geology: The river valley showcases the ability of water to erode and dissolve the limestone bedrock to create the rugged terrain of northeast Iowa. During the Ice Ages, the area known as the "Driftless Zone" was left unscathed by the advance and retreat of the continental ice sheets for a million years. Although the area was not directly affected by glaciers, their melt waters carved out the Mississippi River Valley. The river valleys at the base of the bluffs used to be much deeper than what exists today, having been filled in with glacial debris and sediments over the millennia. The oldest layer exposed at the monument is the Jordan sandstone that was laid down during the Cambrian period. This layer is seen along the base of the east facing bluffs and is an important aquifer for the area. There is approximately 500 feet of vertical relief from the water surface at the mouth of the Yellow River (600 ft. above sea level) to the highest point in the Heritage Addition. Limestone/dolomite bluffs rise up to 300 feet above the river.

Fish: Fish species in the Yellow River probably include some or all of the 118 species known to occur in the Upper Mississippi River National Fish and Wildlife Refuge which is adjacent to the monument. A list provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the most common species are gizzard shad, common carp, emerald shiner, river shiner, bullhead minnow, and bluegill. An Iowa state species of concern, the pugnose minnow, has been found near the Yellow River in the Heritage Addition (Natural Resource Commission 1999). Both the brook trout and grass pickerel, state listed species, have been found in Dousman Creek, a tributary to the Yellow River, but not in the Yellow River. Native freshwater mussels are also found in Dousman Creek and the Mississippi River but no live specimens have been found in the Yellow River. The river is not considered a nationally or regionally important producer of resident fish species nor does it provide unique habitat for rare species.

Wildlife: Most of the Yellow River corridor is in an area of the monument (the Heritage Addition) that is in or returning to a relatively natural condition. Thus, the river corridor provides exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife, including federal and state listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The Yellow River floodplain has been identified as one of 12 nesting sites and one of two multiple nesting sites of the red-shouldered hawk (a state listed endangered species) in Iowa. The river corridor also serves as a wildlife travel corridor because it connects two protected areas – Effigy Mounds National Monument and Yellow River State Forest. These wildlife and wildlife habitat values are increasingly rare in the region due to expanding development.

Historic: On the shores of the Yellow River are the ruins of a historic military sawmill, operated at one time by Jefferson Davis, and a lime quarry. The sawmill and quarry were established 264

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

Eligibility Finding and Tentative Classification

Based on the information above, the segment of the Yellow River being assessed is free of impoundments and possesses five outstandingly remarkable values. Therefore, the National Park Service determines that the Yellow River is eligible for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. The study team determined that the appropriate tentative classification for the entire segment is “Scenic.”

SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

A typical boundary for a river study area is one-quarter mile (1,320 feet, 403 meters) from the river’s ordinary high water line on both sides of the river up to a maximum of 320 acres per river mile according to the Act. The tentative boundary for the potential Yellow River W&SR would be defined by channel, ordinary high water mark or high bench, and may include terrestrial landscape areas necessary to protect the identified Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the boundaries of Effigy Mounds National Monument (a map illustrating one possible boundary based on the floodplain is attached). The final boundary would be established in a river management plan prepared after designation.

Suitability Criteria

In addition to the outstandingly remarkable values listed previously, the following factors (outlined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) were analyzed for the Yellow River in determining whether or not the river segment is suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System: the characteristics which do or do not make the area worthy addition to the system; current status of landownership and use in the area; reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the system; the extent to which administration would be shared with state and local agencies; the estimated cost of acquisition and administration; the ability of the National Park Service to manage the segment as a WSR and other potential protection mechanisms other than WSR status; and, any historical or existing rights which could be adversely affected. These criteria are addressed below as they apply to the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River.

Characteristics that make the area a worthy addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. The segment identified in this assessment is in the “Driftless Area” of northeastern Iowa, western Wisconsin, southeast Minnesota, and the northwestern corner of Illinois. There are no other designated segments of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System within the Driftless Area.

Existing water developments and rights held on the river are associated with livestock, crops, and domestic use. These uses and rights occur upstream of the monument and would not be affected by Wild and Scenic River designation as they would be senior to any rights acquired through designation. No action taken in the general management plan or the recommendation of this assessment can establish an appropriation or Federal reserve water right. An act of Congress designating a Wild and Scenic River may or may not establish a Federal reserve water right. If Congress creates a reserved right, the National Park Service and the state of Iowa may establish minimum instream flows necessary to meet the purposes of the designation.

The Yellow River corridor provides opportunities for recreational activities such as hiking, bird- watching, 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 266 Appendix D: Yellow River Wild And Scenic River Assessment 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.

267 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

Estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering the area if it is added to the National System. There would be no acquisition costs, since the segment under consideration flows through federal land managed by the National Park Service. There would be some administrative cost to the National Park Service to comply with section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (reviews of proposed projects that may affect the river), but this is not expected to be significant. There are no anticipated water resource projects at this point that would be expected to have direct and adverse effects on the values of this segment of the Yellow River.

Ability of the agency to manage and/or protect the river area or segment as a WSR, or other mechanisms (existing and potential) to protect identified values other than WSR designation The National Park Service currently works collaboratively with the State of Iowa and others to protect the Yellow River. Management of the river, should it be designated, is within the capability of the current monument and regional NPS staff. While there are other mechanisms to protect the values (such as NRI listing and preservation management prescription of the zone surrounding the river in the General Management Plan), WSR designation would strengthen the level of protection.

Historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected. Designation would not affect any existing or historic rights. No legal rights exist on the land surrounding this segment of the Yellow River that would irreparably harm the river’s values. The Federal government may acquire water rights under state law but these water rights would be junior to existing rights.

Suitability Finding

Based on the information and analysis above, the 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River that traverses Effigy Mounds National Monument is suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System with the tentative classification of “Scenic.” Designation of this segment would provide long-term protection for the outstandingly remarkable river values identified in this assessment.

This study will be forwarded through the Department of the Interior to Congress with a recommendation for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Final designation requires that Congress must pass, and the President must sign into law, a bill to authorize inclusion of a river into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Interim Management

Until Congressional action occurs on the NPS recommendation for the segment to be included as a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, it would be managed to protect the free- flowing 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.

268 Appendix D: Yellow River Wild And Scenic River Assessment

References to the Wild and Scenic River Study

Iowa State Code 1999 Chapter 77, Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species. Iowa Natural Resources Commission.

National Park Service 2003 “The Yellow River Initiative: A partnership for resource sustainability” by John H. Sowl in Natural Resource Year in Review – 2003. Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C. 2005 Nationwide Rivers Inventory. NPS National Center for Recreation and Conservation – Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, accessed at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri. 2006 Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, Water Resources Foundation Report. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/350. Don Weeks, Water Resources Division, Lakewood, Colorado.

269

APPENDIX E: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES KNOWN IN THE MONUMENT

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

1. Higgins eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) F-Endangered, IA-E 2. Bald eagle (Halineetus leucocephalus) F-Delisted, IA-E 3. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines) F-Delisted, IA-E 4. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) F-Delisted 5. Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) IA-E 6. Bluff veritigo (Veritigo merimecensis) IA-E 7. Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) IA-E 8. Slough sandshell (Lampsilis teres teres) IA-E 9. Yellow sandshell (Lampsilis teres anodontoides) IA-E 10. Purple cliff break (Pellaea atropurpurea) IA-E 11. Yellow-eyed grass (Xyris torta) IA-E 12. Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum) IA-T 13. Jeweled shooting star (Dodecatheon amethystinum) IA-T 14. Creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) IA-T 15. Wild lupine (Lupinus perennis) IA-T 16. Purple fringed orchid (Platanthera psycodes) IA-T 17. Slender ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes lacera) IA-T 18. Southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi) IA-T 19. Grass pickerel (Esox americanus) IA-T 20. Central newt (Notophthalmus veridescens) IA-T 21. Strange floater (Strophitus undulates) IA-T 22. Hawthorn (Crataegus pruinosa) IA 23. Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea) IA 24. Prairie dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum) IA 25. Rough bedstraw (Galium asprellum) IA 26. Small white lady’s slipper (Cypripedium candidrum) IA 27. Summer grape (Vitis aestivalis) IA 28. Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) IA 29. Great Plains ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes magnicamporum) IA 30. Spotted coralroot (Corallorrhiza maculate) IA 31. Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) IA

271 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

272

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

See map on the following page.

273

274

276

REFERENCES

Birmingham, Robert A., and Leslie E. Eisenberg 2000 Indian Mounds of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Clawson, Marion, and Jack Knetsch 1966 Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Hardner, Jared, and Bruce McKenney 2006 The U.S. National Park System: An Economic Asset at Risk. Prepared for the National Parks Conservation Association, Washington, D.C.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) 2002 Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species. Natural Resource Commission. Des Moines, Iowa.

Lenzendorf, Dennis 2000 A Guide to Effigy Mounds National Monument. Eastern National, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.

Logan, Wilfred D. 1956 A History of Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Mahan, Bruce E. 2000 Old Fort Crawford and the Frontier. Howe Printing Company, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin (originally published in 1926 by the State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa).

Mallam, R. Clark 1976 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Ferguson Tract, Allamakee County, Iowa. Luther College Archaeological Research Center, Decorah, Iowa.

Marion, Jeffrey L. 2008 Development and Application of Trail and Campsite Monitoring Protocols in Support of Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Decision-making at Isle au Haut, Acadia National Park. USDI, U.S. Geological Survey, Final Research Rpt., Virginia Tech Field Station, Blacksburg, Virginia.

National Park Service (NPS) 2007a “Cultural Landscape Inventory, Yellow River, Effigy Mounds National Monument.” Midwest Region, Omaha, Nebraska. 2007b “Cultural Landscape Inventory, Sny Magill, Effigy Mounds National Monument.” Midwest Region, Omaha, Nebraska. 2006 Management Policies 2006. Washington, DC. 2006b “Money Generation Model 2.” Public Use Statistics Office, Denver, Colorado.

277 APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX

2005 Effigy Mounds National Monument Visitor Study. Prepared by Yen Le, Mark Morgan, and Steven J. Hollenhorst. Social Science Program, Visitor Services Project Report 159. 2004 Effigy Mounds National Monument Archeological Overview and Assessment. Prepared by David W. Benn and Scott Stadler of Bear Creek Archeology, Inc., Cresco, Iowa for the NPS Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 2003 Figures on the Landscape: Effigy Mounds National Monument Historic Resource Study. Prepared for the National Park Service by HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Seattle, Washington. 2000 Resource Management Plan. Effigy Mounds National Monument, Harpers Ferry, Iowa. 1999 Effigy Mounds National Monument, General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment. Harpers Ferry, Iowa. 1985 Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors. Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, San Francisco, California.

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2005 “Tabular data: Prime and other Important Farmlands, Clayton County, Iowa.” Clayton County Office, Elkader, Iowa.

North Carolina State University 2001 Sny Magill Section 319, National Monitoring Program Project. North Carolina State University Water Quality Group. Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/ programs/extension/wqg/04rept319/ indexframe.html.

Sanchini, Paula 1999 Assessment of Wetland Habitats Near Ponds at Effigy Mounds National Monument. Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The Office of the State Archaeologist at The University of Iowa 2001 Effigy Mounds National Monument Cultural Affiliation Report. Prepared by W. Green, L. Zimmerman, R. Lillie, D. Makes Strong Move, and D. Sly-Terpstra for the National Park Service, Midwest Support Office, Research Papers 26(3), 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau 2005 State and County Quick Facts. Accessed online at http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1991 Fishes, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Winona, Minnesota. 2012 Endangered Species Program. Continually updated. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

Weeks, Don P. 2006 Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, Water Resources Foundation Report. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/350. NPS Water Resources Division, Denver, Colorado.

278

INDEX

A N American Indian, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, 30, North Unit, ii, 6, 7, 43, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 64, 66, 71, 85, 90, 104, 106, 107, 118, 136, 71, 82, 93, 94, 107, 116, 118, 125, 130, 136, 138, 143, 144, 166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 137, 141, 164, 165, 167, 169, 172, 173, 180, 219, 220, 227, 265 189

D O Dousman Creek, 7, 27, 28, 45, 111, 264 Orientation, 22, 167, 170, 173

E P Eagle Rock, 7, 116 parking, 7, 22, 46, 52, 58, 68, 86, 95, 116, 125, endangered species, 5, 13, 18, 85, 86, 160, 136, 140, 167, 168, 169, 171, 174, 183, 267 219, 264 S F Sny Magill Unit, ii, 5, 6, 7, 20, 22, 28, 29, 46, Fire Point, 7, 64, 78, 93, 96, 116, 118, 136, 55, 58, 64, 68, 72, 77, 78, 82, 89, 94, 95, 137, 140, 141, 142 107, 110, 112, 115, 119, 122, 125, 130, 136, floodplain, 6, 7, 17, 18, 28, 30, 46, 108, 109, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 164, 165, 167, 168, 110, 112, 113, 115, 264, 265, 266 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178 South Unit, ii, 6, 7, 44, 58, 64, 67, 68, 72, 77, H 94, 103, 107, 118, 120, 122, 136, 150, 151, 155, 156, 159, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, Hanging Rock, 7, 116 172, 173, 176 Heritage Addition, ii, v, 5, 6, 7, 10, 22, 28, 43, 57, 63, 66, 71, 77, 78, 88, 90, 91, 92, 103, T 107, 110, 116, 136, 138, 140, 141, 142, 150, 151, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 164, 165, 167, traffic, 29, 120, 133, 137, 139, 140, 267 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 177, 178, 180, 181, trails, iii, iv, 7, 20, 27, 45, 46, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 182, 189, 227, 264 67, 68, 72, 77, 78, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 116, 118, 119, 120, 130, 133, I 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 150, 151, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 164, 165, 168, 169, infrastructure, 50, 130, 134, 135, 137, 149, 176, 178, 265 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 180, 181, 182 interpretation, iii, 12, 16, 52, 57, 58, 59, 63, 66, Y 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 118, 120, 125, 135, 144, 145, 167, 168, 169, Yellow River Wild and Scenic River Assessment, 170, 172, 173, 176, 178, 181, 182, 220 261

J Jefferson Davis Sawmill, 11, 12, 103

279

280

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

EFMO 394/119437A February 2013