Footers 4 feet deep were sunk into a mound for a boardwalk. Since this photo was taken, the footers were cut even with the mound top./NPS
Ancestral burial grounds and ceremonial mounds at Effigy Mounds National Monument in Iowa considered sacred by a dozen Native American tribes were desecrated by National Park Service managers who "clearly knew what they were doing was against the law" during a decade-long campaign of building boardwalks and trails across the monument grounds, according to a voluminous investigation.
Though news of the actual damage to archaeological sites in the national monument surfaced in 2010, details of the just-unearthed investigation point to a longstanding disregard or ignorance of state and federal laws created to protect this country's archaeological resources.
Phyllis Ewing, who as the monument's superintendent was ultimately responsible for the work, was transferred to a position in the regional office not long after the desecration came to light. Earlier this year she was fired, a move she reportedly is challenging. Tom Sinclair, the monument's maintenance chief under Superintendent Ewing who was its de facto cultural resources compliance officer, also is no longer with the National Park Service.
Working to right the Park Service's image with area residents and members of the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma, the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, the Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community in the state of Minnesota, the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the state of Minnesota, the Prairie island Indian Community in the state of Minnesota, the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska, and the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma is Jim Nepstad, who was appointed superintendent at the monument in 2011.
"Even before I got to the park we acknowledged to people that we had some bad things happen at Effigy Mounds and that a lot of it was the result of poor or non-existent communication, whether that was with the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) or the tribes or with the general public, even amongst the staff of the park. That was going to be the one thing that I was going to work on," Superintendent Nepstad said Saturday during a phone call. "By being open and transparent, I think, admitting to what happened, not trying to blindly defend it, I think we've been able to make quite a bit of progress."
The matter resurfaced Saturday when documents obtained by Friends of Effigy Mounds and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility through a Freedom of Information Act request were made public. Key was the 703-page investigative report compiled by National Park Service Special Agent David Barland-Liles that traced problems back to 2001.
Tim Mason, a seasonal ranger at Effigy Mounds for 19 years and currently head of Friends of Effigy Mounds, had worked to bring attention to the matter for years. In 2010 he asked the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General to look into the matter, only to be told "the issues raised would be better addressed by the National Park Service."
On Saturday during a telephone call he said he couldn't understand why the National Park Service allowed the illegal acts at the monument to go on for so many years.
"That is the most perplexing question of the whole malfeasance," he said, charging that Superintendent Ewing and Chief Sinclair were focused on "empire building" through the projects. "They were left to run wild for years and years."
National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis had no comment on the matter, his spokesperson said Monday.
While Special Agent Barland-Liles didn't file a formal report, according to PEER, he did present it to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where a decision was made not to prosecute either Ms. Ewing or Mr. Sinclair, said Superintendent Nepstad.
The agent's investigation, built on interviews with monument and regional office staff, memorandums, personnel documents, and budget documents, provided a paper trail leading to Ms. Ewing and Mr. Sinclair. That trail indicated that park staff failed to conduct the required archaeological assessments and consultations with state and tribal officials before proceeding with the projects. In some cases, the documents show, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act was done after the fact.
In one interview, the associate regional director for cultural resources in the Park Service's Midwest Region Office told the special agent that, "We've tried to understand how a park could behave so badly...Wherever they had a chance to screw up, they did." The official, whose name was redacted from the document, added that the various projects "destroyed" the park and that it would take decades to repair the actual damage as well as the Park Service's reputation.
The Midwest Region's cultural resources specialist told Special Agent Barland-Liles that, "Effigy Mounds went to the extreme and did whatever they wanted to do. ... There was clear intent to circumvent the law by people who are at a high enough level to know better. I can't explain why they did what they did but they clearly knew what they were doing was against the law."
Effigy Mounds National Monument was established in 1949 specifically to protect and preserve more than 200 Native American mound sites along the Mississippi River, some of which date back almost 2,000 years. Among the mounds are "31 effigy mounds in the shapes of birds and bears. These mounds are examples of a signifiant phase of mound-building culture, commemorating the passing of loved ones and the sacred beliefs of these ancient peoples," Park Service manuals note.
During Superintendent Ewing's tenure, an estimated $3 million worth of boardwalks, trails, and other infrastructures were built without the required archaeological assessments, the investigation shows. In some cases, boardwalks were built over a road more than 100 years old that dated to the Mississippi steamboat era and along and over mounds; landscape contractors used mechanical augers to dig holes near the visitor center atop potential archaeological sites before surveys were done, and; had, against regional directives, buried Native American remains unconnected with tribes associated with Effigy Mounds into the monument's Three Mounds.
In the wake of the construction in 2007 of a shop building, one of the monument's rangers asked Chief Ranger Kenneth Block if the requisite archaeological assessments had been done.
"As I think you had suspected, the building was simply put up with no thought to get ARPA (Archaeological Resources Protection Act) approval BEFORE construction," the chief ranger replied in a letter.
An October 2009 letter from then-Regional Director Ernie Quintana to Superintendent Ewing questioned her approach to projects that could disturb archaeological resources. A site evaluation by an associate regional director "determined that there were several major violations of the NHPA from 2001 through 2007," wrote the regional director. "Specifically, the (evaluation) found the park did not follow the compliance procedures of NEPA or Section 106 of the NHPA in building new trails, replacing trail bridges, building a maintenance structure, and constructing an interpretive exhibit. These violations were exacerbated by the fact that they had major, adverse impacts to cultural landscapes and a strong likelihood of having adverse impacts to aboriginal American Indian structures that the park was established to protect."
A Park Service memorandum following a meeting with tribal representatives in November of that year noted that the tribes "were fairly angry about the boardwalks, and one (representative) even asked why ancient cemeteries should be treated as places to walk your dog. A tribal representative who participated in some (General Management Plan) sessions said they did not like the boardwalks but they had been told that NPS considered them necessary. Several tribal representatives felt that damage has been done and their views would not be considered."
Superintendent Ewing, in her interview with Special Agent Barland-Liles, said she didn't realize proper compliance steps weren't being taken until the on-site evaluation by the associate regional director in 2009. Although records obtained by the special agent showed the superintendent had received some training on Section 106 requirements, she told him, "I really didn't know all these rules" required of superintendents and that she left compliance matters to Chief Sinclair.
In his interview with the special agent, Mr. Sinclair said he could not recall ever officially being designated as the monument's cultural resources compliance officer, and that he wasn't aware of all the procedures that needed to be followed when projects might impact archaeological sites. When asked what advice he would give to the U.S. Attorney's Office on the matter, he responded, "Have mercy."
A hole was dug into a burial mound at the monument to "repatriate" remains from Native Americans despite their lack of ties to the site/PEER
Among the documents that surfaced with the investigation was an archaeological damage assessment made by a cultural resources management specialist from Buffalo National River. In it that specialist, Dr. Caven Clark, noted damage 2010 from construction of a boardwalk into the the Nazekaw Tenace area of the monument along the Yellow River. The path of the construction, which involved placement of 216 4-foot-deep holes dug for footers, went across the top of a mound, Dr. Clark noted. In a related memo from March 2011, Special Agent Barland-Liles recounted an interview he had with the historic preservation officer for the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma who told him she couldn't understand why the park would build a boardwalk into the Nazekaw Tenace area, saying it was "just wrong."
"Why would they think we would want that there," said the tribal officer, whose name was redacted from the report.
In January 2010, Mr. Quintana, who retired in 2011, wrote Park Service Director Jon Jarvis to inform him that the staff at Effigy Mounds "has been seriously at odds with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act, and National Park Service policies pertaining to conservation planning and decisionmaking."
While Superintendent Ewing lost her authority under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act over such projects, Regional Director Quintana told the investigator he didn't fire her because he didn't think she had any "devious desire to do something wrong."
From his viewpoint, Superintendent Nepstad said what occurred at Effigy Mounds will be a lasting lesson for the Park Service.
"The actions themselves that led to all of this were unfortunate. I don't think the agency is trying to hide that," he said. "Everybody is disappointed with what happened at Effigy Mounds, and quite frankly it really, truly, and I say this with utter sincerity, it is going to be used, the case history surrounding the activities at Effigy Mounds, are going to be used as a teaching tool all across the National Park Service. The agency in all likelihood will be putting a blue ribbon team together to exhaustively go over what happened here. And what were the root causes, where were the contributing factors, what were the lessons learned that we can teach anybody that works for the National Park Service, whether it's at the park or region or Washington office level to prevent this kind of a thing from ever happening again anywhere."
Although impressed with Superintendent Nepstad -- "He's really wearing a white cowboy hat. He's one of the good guys." -- Mr. Mason said that regaining the Park Service's reputation at the monument will be a challenge.
"I was really proud of being a ranger and my role there. This has really stained, put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths," said Mr. Mason, who added that the friends group wants the National Park Service's Washington office to "fast-track allocations from D.C. directly to the regional office, this calendar year, for no other purpose to remove all the illegally constructed boardwalks and decks. Clean that park up."
Comments
Regarding the question of political influence: I have the impression that wasn't a big factor here. Maybe it was and I just missed it somewhere but what I took from reading the articles about this and skimming through some of the interview notes of the investigating agent is that this superintendent was just flat out incompetent and had no business being in the position. That of course begs the question of why she was put in the position? The first place I'd look to answer that question is who is she related to or who was she buddies with long ago who smoothed her path to the position.
This probably happend because accomplishing some big project does a lot more for ones career in managment than simply maintaining a park in as good or better a condition than when you arrived. And that is a shame. Sometimes you have to know when to leave something alone. They want to be able to put on that resume "i implement this" or "oversaw that."
Because this is the government it does a lot more for your career to keep your bosses and coworkers happy than to keep the visitor (the customer)happy and the resources protected. In fact I've found that too often in order to really do the job you have to up set some bosses and coworkers. Situations where the boss and coworkers are only happy if the mission is being accomplished to the highest possible standard are rare at least in my field. I have an impression that high standards are met more often in law enforcement.
I've worked under some really cunning and conniving empire building superintendents. I would not trust them as far as I could throw them but none of them were as dumb as the one in this case at Effigy Mounds. Normally they tend to be intelligent -duplicitus devious, and decietful yes, but intelligent. What spelled her doom was just how wanton it was. Most of the routine wrong doing has some element of plausable dinability or depends of matters of interpretation. Ordering structures build on ancient indian mounds has no shade of gray. Even the NPS could not look the other way after a while. And I'm sure the prospect of having the tribes angry at them made it unsustainable for her.
Kurt, are these boardwalks in the "Compound Mound Group" in the South Unit?
A concern I have is that the National Park Service, of late, is selecting individuals with very little experience into Superintendencies. In the last several months, the NPS has selected several individuals with less than 10 years of service, not just in the NPS but in any land management agency. The common theme I have noticed is that all got their start in the Comptrollers office in Washington. My concern is that they may have the budget process down, but where is their experience in any of the operational aspects of NPS? No, or very little, evidence of experience in natural and cultural resource management, maintenance, interpretation or protection. My concern is that they don't even know what they don't know about the legal requirements placed on the agency in these operational areas. I am afraid that with these inexperienced managers we are going to see more issues like these at Effigy Mounds.
Well, Old Ranger, in the case we are talking about, Effigy Mounds, that bit about the Comptrollers Office "in the past several months" doesn't seem connected. This assignment to Effigy happened in the 1990's. This person, according to the investigation interviews, came up through interpretation and then to collections management. She says she was put on a fast track to promotion to superintendent in the 1990s. In one year she went from one park as collections, to curator at another, to acting superintendent at that newer park (both history parks and both with potential archaelogical resources everywhere). She was then assigned the following year (ie: year two) as regular superintendent, was then transfered to a park in the MWR again as superintendent, and only a year or so later, became Effigy Mounds superintendent. So, she had had career experience in cultural resources management, albeit in records management and protection. She claims not o have had 106 background, but plainly that is not true from her interview because she fined a railroad company for dumping materials on her park as a historic resource violation. She acknowledges that when her compliance officer-cultural resource officer took another job, she was grateful to be able to use the lapse money in her other divisions which were short of funding, and could not get funding restored from the Region. (OMB will not allow you to get a park base increase for an activity that was zeroed out because of funding attrition, it is one of the real horrors of today's NPS funding problems -- but what it says about this superintendent is that she did not know the first thing about how to get money in the NPS. Or, makes it look as if she does not understand, so to add blame to the Region for failing. Yet, obviously, had she wanted to she had an open position of cultural resource manager in a cultural resource park and could have filled it with a competent professional.
In short Old Ranger, it seems this superintendent had had two previous superintendencies under her belt. The Regional Director in his interview says he was alarmed when he learned there management team had fallen apart, another major sign of disfunction. I am not trying to absolve the Regional Director who seems to have had several such blowouts, and the Regional Director was quickly replaced. The interviewer seems to imply he was invited to leave.
But Old Ranger, it does not seem in this case that what we are talking about someone from the Comptrollers Office, even if that office is a den of iniquity (shudder).
Textbook Peter Principle.
I hope that the NPS learns to include the public in their decision making process as is required by the National Environmental Protection Act. I also hope that the public as well as NPS employees are made aware of the NPS Inspector General's Office and are encouraged to file complaints about anything that seems suspicious at the NPS. I hope the public and the NPS emplyees learn to question NPS authority and if their questions aren't properly answered to file FOIA requests and Inspector General complaints. I hope that the public and the NPS employees used the FOIA to learn more about whatever concerns them regarding the NPS. I hope the NPS managment is humbled by this event and learns to not be above the Law and to understand that they are public servants and not our masters.
Dear Whippering1:wouldn't you agree that it is pretty clear from the record that those lessons WERE learned by the park service, and documented several years ago?
That long before a legal case could be constructed, the superintendent was removed and replaced by someone skilled in cultural resource compliance?
That a year later the Regional Director was gone, never to work for the NPS again?
That the most damning reports, the ones everyone since including the media have relied on and were quoting from were written 3 YEARS AGO, and by National Park Investigators?
That plainly the park service management is repulsed by the behavior?
That the investigator documented that the superintendent HAD been given the training to fully prepare her to manage this properly?
That the NPS had given her the Programatic Agreement on historic preservation that clearly outlines all the steps she shoukd have taken?And, had she taken these steps, the destruction would not have occurred?
That the whistleblower-chief ranger admitted to the investigators that he had not pushed hard enough, and regretted he had not pushed harder, as his PRIMARY regret?
The superintendent's interview says she was unable to perform properly because she was too busy with restoration of Native American burial site materials. That seems lame. She also says she did not fill her vacant cultural resources staff/environmental compliance slot because she did not have the money, and (foolishly) chose to distribute the money to other divisions that were hurting. This seems lame too, but if you believe she was right and the higher-ups are to blame for this for that reason, then all of us taxpayers and voters are partly to blame, too. Right?
Instead, the whole park service is horrified that anyone could ignore so much clear direction. From the reaction, the failure to do the historic preservation review at Effigy Mounds is the exception to the other parks, not the rule.
So Whippering1, what is undone that that you are saying needs to change?
Perhaps, for one thing you may suggest, the central offices have not centralized everything and taken over running every park.
Historically, that approach has been opposed because central control would be less responsive, less creative. But that way might assure that not much would ever happen unless totally approves by higher authority first.
or, you might suggest we could spend they money to restore the huge number of professional jobs in the central offices that have been stripped away. Those professionals used to be there and had the time and authority and travel bus budget to Check Up on the parks. But, not any more. Travel budget to check up is gone. So are many people. I heard the other day only 3 historians are left in all of Alaska for the NPS, a premier historic preservation agency.
Are we taxpayers prepared to accept any responsibility for the congress we elect ?
AND SO: The laws are pretty clear. The superintendent was trained. The Washington Office acted and within two years both managers in the position of responsibility were out of their jobs, the investigation done and the report written. By 2010 the NPS explained to the Media and the interested entities outside the park what had happen.
The only thing new we have learned now is the superintendent has actually been fired from the isolated job she was put in while the investigations unfolded, and that the US Atty would not take the case. (Probably, because the prosecution new the jury would not convict if you claim your supervisor never spent they money you needed.
So Whippering1, what symptomatic problems exist that need your solutions? Do you really think what happened here is because "NPS management" thinks they are "above the law and are your masters"?? I don't see how removing the superintendent and removing the Regional Director shows that NPS management thinks they are above the law. The report certainly makes it sound like this outrage is the reason the Regional Director is gone a year after he notified his boss of what the park staff did. If they felt they are not public servants, wouldn't the NPS management make no changes at all? Why would they do the media statements? Why would they have changed staff communication and training as the report says they did? Are these signs of lack of humility? Or are you saying that human failure never happens anywhere except in the park service and proves that everybody thinks they are your masters and not public servants? What are you saying?
Or, could we be dealing with one bad actor, and not an organizational breakdown ?
d-2. I never indicated that I believed that this was a case of ignorance or that the Comptroller was involved in this. I was simply indicating my concern that we may in the future see more examples of resource degredation/damage/destruction due to lack of expeience on managers parts, due to current hiring trends. Nothing more was intended by my comment.