John Anfinson, historian with the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area or MNRRA, the branch of the National Park Service that recently completed the Environmental Impact Statement for the Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Campus property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, wants to make sure you understand that he did not write the historical sections of the EIS.

If a historian familiar with the history of the Minnesota region had written this portion of the EIS or the historical study included with the EIS, perhaps he or she would have done it more competently. In 2005 Anfinson had thought he might be involved with writing the historical portions of the EIS, but, in an email to me, he wrote:

Thanks for your thorough comments for the scoping process. I wanted to get back to you on something. I had told you that I would be writing the Affected Environment and Environmental Effects sections of the EIS. I talked to Kim [Berns] about this, and she let me know that the EIS contractor will be doing this. I told her that I wanted significant input to how these sections were handled and would be reviewing them carefully. I will be meeting with the historian who is going to write them and will let him know what I expect.

Shortly after that Anfinson gave me the name of Chris Baker as the particular historian with the government contractor E2M whom he had been informed would be writing those sections of the report. Baker is currently said to be an expert in land use and management and Pueblo and Southwestern U.S. history. While he is listed in the final EIS as one of its preparers and contributers, he is only one of many names listed in a one-and-a-half page list that also includes the name of John Anfinson (See FEIS, vol 1, pages 325-26).

In September 2006, after the release of the draft EIS for the property, Anfinson, in a conversation with me, defended the historical portions of the EIS, not because they were good or complete or accurate, but because whatever they lacked was unnecessary. He admitted that they were not very good, but asked the rhetorical question: “If they were any better would it make any difference?”

Subsequently, MNRRA fended off all changes to the historical portions of the EIS. The agency or a contractor working for it, responded to criticisms of the adequacy of historical information contained in the EIS, stating, for example on page 377 of the FEIS: “The information gathered for the EIS and Section 106 process is substantive enough.” The statement echoed that of Anfinson in 2006, which suggests that Anfinson himself may have been involved in the crafting of these responses, if not of the flawed historical narrative in the report.

Since the completion of the final EIS and the announcement of the decision by the National Park Service that the Bureau of Mines property will remain under the management of MNRRA, Anfinson has declined to respond to many requests for comment on the adequacy of the EIS. In December and January when I asked for explanations about how little the historical sections of the EIS had changed in the final EIS, despite many comments submitted in 2006, Anfinson declined the opportunity to respond at all.

Anfinson has indicated that he will answer the questions of some people, just not those of other historians. Recently he did respond to an email from an Coldwater supporter: “There has been much written on the web about us and this process that is simply untrue and misleading.  If you would like to talk about any of it, please call.” More recently, in an in-person  conversation with Anfinson, a member of a Coldwater preservation group reported to other members that the MNRRA historian said he did not write the history section of the final EIS “and thinks it’s inadequate. But he said that particular narrative is not necessary for the NPS to take care of the area. The NPS recognizes the importance of Coldwater and will treat it accordingly.”

This report is consistent with those made by Anfinson in the past. And the statement again raises questions about what purposes the historical sections of an EIS serve. An EIS is designed to provide a basis for decision-making. It is intended to show that the decisions reached by an agency are based on an adequate factual record of information.

In what sense can an inadequate record of historical information be said to be substantive enough for the decision the agency reaches? In the case of the Bureau of Mines property, the decision the agency was seeking to gather information about, had to do, in part, with the proper treatment of the historical and cultural resources present there. A key point that had been raised about those resources had to do with their historical and cultural importance to Native people, particularly the Dakota. The EIS said very little about the Native history of the site and rejected the conclusion of the Park Service’s own contractor that the site was a TCP or traditional cultural property for the Dakota or anyone else.

In what sense could this historical record be said to be “substantive enough” for decision-making by the Park Service? The fact that the Bureau of Mines site is important historically and culturally to the Dakota–as the site of creation for the people–is an important aspect of the site. Acknowledging and documenting this nature of the site is an important first step to dealing with the cultural and environmental nature of the Bureau of Mines property. Yet the agency that refuses to recognize the Dakota importance of the site has now been given the property. And agency officials believe that this refusal to recognize the Dakota importance of the site will have no effect on their management of the property.  In January Steven P. Johnson, another MNRRA official  stated

However, there are no environmental effects associated with the actual ownership; the eventual owner would have to agree to manage the property in terms of the selected alternative, especially if the government will go to some expense to prepare the property for that transfer.

What Johnson and other MNRRA officials fail to understand is that their own ownership of the property is the issue. Their ownership has the potential to have profound environmental effects.  Given that the agency has refused to accept the historic and cultural character of the property for Dakota people, how can MNRRA’s ownership–or the ownership of any other agency that does not accept the character of the site for the Dakota–be said to be a neutral effect on the property?

Although there were proposals for the property by specific Dakota tribal groups, it appears from the public record assembled by MNRRA, this was not an option the agency explored. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that because Dakota ownership of the property was not explored by MNRRA, the decision was made by the agency not to include the information about the importance of the site to the Dakota.

In his recent conversation with a Coldwater preservation supporter, Anfinson appears to have discussed the topic of Dakota ownership of the property. According to the report I received from the preservation group, Anfinson noted that the decision of the Park Service about who should get the BOM property was affected by the fact that the JoAnn Kyral, superintendent of MNRRA until 2006 did not want MNRRA to receive the property, while the current superintendent Paul Labovitz did. According to the report of the conversation with Anfinson this week:

Interestingly he also mentioned that the former superintendant didn’t want Coldwater, but the current one does. It makes sense to me as to why nothing happened for a long time in this process.the old superintendent didn’t want Coldwater in the NPS, and they didn’t know which tribe would take it without pissing off the other tribes, it left the Dept of the interior in an odd position.

The explanation appears to be an accurate interpretation of the change in approach of MNRRA toward the property. Coldwater supporters remember clearly that until 2006 the agency stated that it did not and, could not, manage the property for the long term. But the account also gives self-serving explanation for what occurred in the EIS process in relation to Dakota ownership of the property. It appears disingenuous to claim that the rejection of Dakota proposals for the property was based purely on the conclusion that giving the property to one Dakota group would “piss off” the others Dakota communities. Labovitz’s desire for the property appears to be the more significant factor in the decision-making and in giving the Dakota history and culture short shrift in the EIS.

Now, however, after the announcement of the decision to keep the property under MNRRA, John Anfinson would like people to know that the agency does know the history of the site and will “treat it accordingly.” The degree of confidence one has in MNRRA on this point will depend on how much one is willing to trust an agency which has refused to record or acknowledge in public the Native history and cultural meaning of the site. Second-hand reports of vaguely reassuring off-hand comments in private meetings are no real basis for confidence.

By George Spears

Fire represents power, strength, life, and sustainability. First Nation people have used this life source in their ceremonies as a way of connecting us to the creator. Our ancestors gathered around fires and discussed many important issues that effected their tribe, community, and family. This connection to fire still remains for the First Nation people of Turtle Island. First Nations United would like to invite you to participate in FIRE TALKS! This is a bi-weekly intertribal gathering to develop a dialog about reclaiming the sacred site known as “Coldwater Spring.” Bring your ideas, history, and knowledge of this sacred site. We all share a common bond as First Nation people to the land of our ancestors, and to the future generation. Let this bond unite us to reclaim this scared site for the Dakota Nation.

Location/Logistics: Coldwater Spring is south of Minnehaha Park in Minneapolis. From Hwy 55/Hiawatha, turn east (toward the Mississippi River) at 54th Street, take an immediate right (south) & follow the frontage road for a half mile past the pay parking meters, through the fence gates, & past the aqua brick building where you can park. This gathering is outside so please dress appropriate for the elements. A fire will be provided and some refreshments.

When: 1st & 3rd Sunday of every month starting February 7th 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm

Contact: George spears Chi-Noodin (612) 269 -5083

Gary Spears Migizi (952) 974-3257

Many Native people lived at Coldwater Spring in the 1820s and 1830s. They were important members of the community there. Here are their names: Marguerite Bonga, Marie-Marguerite Hamelin, Suzanne Grant, Sarah Marie Graham, Marie Finley, Marie Frances Boucher, and a woman named Stitt, whose first name is not known. The fact that they are not usually mentioned as Native inhabitants of the area around Fort Snelling during that period has to do with the fact that they were women and that they were often categorized by the ancestry and the ethnicity of their European-American husbands, fathers, or grandfathers, rather than that of their sisters, mothers or grandmothers. Yet their Native ancestry was a key factor in their history and the history of the place called Coldwater.

Coldwater Spring, located on the Bureau of Bureau of Mines Twin Cities campus property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is according to Dakota elder Gary Cavender,  the site of the Dakota “creation myth (or “Garden of Eden”) and the beginning of Indian existence on Earth.” He added: “Our underwater God “Unktehi” lives in the Spring.” Non-native Minnesotans have also claimed Coldwater Spring as  “the birthplace of Minnesota.” The Native and non-Native histories of  Coldwater Spring are drawn together by the story of the women who lived there.

Like much of the area around Fort Snelling in the 1830s, the Camp Coldwater settlement contained a rich mixture of whites and Indian people, intermarrying and living peacefully together. Writing in 1838, a missionary who was seeking to build a mission house and school on the Fort Snelling reservation said that some of the inhabitants of Camp Coldwater were former employees of the traders Benjamin F. Baker and Henry H. Sibley who had married Dakota and Ojibwe women. He wrote:

These men wished for & obtained leave from the commanding officers at different times to build houses for their families, on the reservation, & near the trading houses while they were out in the employ of the traders. Subsequently some of these men left the service of the traders . . . & became farmers & mechanics.

Living at Camp Coldwater, Mendota and other scattered areas, he noted, were now “some 4 or 500 souls, the children of whom, or at least most of them, speak Sioux, Chippewa, French & English.”

Information about the people of Coldwater and the locations where they lived is found in a map drawn by Lieutenant E.K. Smith, who was given the job in 1837 to draw a map giving the location of settlers living throughout the Fort Snelling military reservation. Although the map has been mentioned for many years as a resource for information about possible archaeological sites within the Coldwater area, only recently has the National Park Service acknowledged that the map could help guide further interpretation and archaeological study of the Bureau of Mines site.

On May 11, 2009, Paul Labovitz wrote a letter having to do with the draft Memorandum of Agreement for the treatment of the Bureau of Mines property during restoration of the property. The letter was sent out to members of the public with an interest in the property:

To help with your review, we have also included a brief overview of the historic preservation considerations for the Bureau of Mines Campus. The discussion of the Camp Coldwater Community is based upon our effort to rectify the 1837 Smith Map with the current landscape. Given changes to the landscape and problems with scale, we have to emphasize that map we have included is at best an approximation.

The map included with the letter made clear that MNRRA believes that the residences of Peter Quinn, Olver Cratte, Benjamin F. Baker, Jacob Falstrom (Jacob’s), Pierre Pepin (Papin), and Joseph Raiche (Le Rage) were located on or at the edge of the Bureau of Mines property, surrounding Coldwater Spring. Each of these individuals were connected to Indian families, and their households included members of Ojibwe and Dakota communities in Minnesota.

Benjamin Baker, the trader, had his trading post at the spring and built a stone house above it. Early records sometimes refer to the Coldwater area as “Baker’s.” Baker’s wife was the daughter of an English trader named Stitt–possibly the North West Company trader John Stitt–who married an Ojibwe woman from the Sandy Lake area, related to the chiefs Hole-in-the-Day and Strong Ground, both of whom came to Coldwater during the 1820s and 1830s. Her brother William Stitt worked for Baker. In 1836, Joseph Nicollet traveled through up the Mississippi River in Ojibwe country, along with William Stitt and his “kind, elderly mother,”  who Nicollet said was traveling on her own to Red Lake. In 1835 William Stitt had worked as interpretor for Major Jonathan Bean who surveyed the Sioux-Chippewa boundary line. Mrs. Baker died in December 1838 after the birth of her son Robert. Benjamin Baker himself died in St. Louis in 1839. His business interests were inherited by his colleague Kenneth McKenzie, who also had an Ojibwe mixed-blood wife, also a relation of the Chief Strong Ground.

Jacob Falstrom–“Jacob” on the map–was the first Swede to live in the Minnesota region (unless there were some Vikings here long before), having arrived as a fur trader. He was married to Marguerite Bonga, a woman of African-Canadian and Ojibwe ancestry. The Bonga family were involved in the fur trade of northern Minnesota starting in the late 1700s. One source states that Marguerite Bonga was the sister of the Mille Lacs chief, Rat’s Liver, also known as Rat’s Heart or  Wash-ash-ko-kowe, and had many relations at Mille Lacs. As noted below, in relation to another Coldwater resident, Marguerite may have been a sister in the Native sense, which could include the relationship of cousins. Wash-ash-ko-kowe came to the Fort Snelling area in the 1820s and 1830s. On June 24, 1832, Agent Taliaferro wrote:

The Rats Heart — with all his band of Chippeways of Rum River approac[h]ed my house with their Flag flying — with a Pipe. The Chief walked into my house & into my Bed Room with his Pipe — lit — & presented it to me — out of which I smoked of course & gave him, & his people 250 lbs of Tobacco.

Antoine Pepin (or Papin) whose house was located on the western edge of the Bureau of Mines property, was a blacksmith for the Indian agency run by Lawrence Taliaferro. His first wife was Cree or Ojibwe. When living at Coldwater Spring his wife was Marie-Marguerite Hamelin, probably Ojibwe mixed blood or Canadian Metis. Like the other blacksmiths connected to the Indian agency Pepin often made or repaired traps, spears, and other metal goods for Indians who came to Fort Snelling, including some who wintered over near the fort.  Pepin was also called upon to be an armourer, that is to repair guns and other weapons, although Taliaferro complained that he was not skilled at it. Because his work involved fulfilling obligations under various treaties, Pepin was sometimes knows as the “treaty smith.” In November 1835, Taliaferro wrote

A Papin called at the office to shew his hands which were very much burnt & swollen in makeing 100 Traps for the poorer Indians — and as he laboured in great pain — he requested to be excused from the duties of the shop for a few days. As his hands were evidently in a very bad state, and the Indians all of[f] on their winter hunt — except a few straglers — I consented to his request.

Le Rage, located next to Pepin, could be Joseph Reche or Raiche, spelled Raesh by Taliaferro. He was married to Suzanne Grant, the daughter of a well known North West Company fur trader in northern Minnesota, Peter Grant, and Margaret Ahdiksongab aka Marthe Ckear Sky, who may have come from an Ojibwe community in Minnesota. Joseph Raiche supplied wood to the agency and also raised livestock, just like Joseph Buisson, who lived to the north outside of the present-day Bureau of Mines property area. At one point Raich was also assistant to the blacksmith Antoine Pepin which may explain the proximity of their houses. In February 1836, Taliaferro stated that he “Rode out to Camp Cold Water to visit Joseph Reasch – striker for Treaty shop who I found very sick. Doctor Jarvis was with me to see him.”

Oliver Cratte, who lived just south of the spring, and was also a blacksmith for the Indian agency, was married, according to one genealogical source, to Sarah Marie Graham, the daughter of Duncan Graham fur trader Duncan Graham and Susanne “Istag iwin & Ha-za-ho-ta-win” Pennishon. The name given for Sarah Marie’s mother suggests a connection to the chief of one of the villages along the Minnesota River, known as Penition’s Village, although other sources state that she was connected to the family of Chief Wabasha.  Another individual shown on Smith’s map to the north of the present-day Bureau of Mines property, Bisson, or Joseph Buisson was married to another daughter of Duncan and Susanne Graham.

Writing about Oliver Cratte in February 1836 Agent Taliaferro stated:

Oliver Cratte — consulted — and agrees to serve the U States for 4 years as Treaty smith under certain conditions—to be agreed upon and forwarded for the approval of the Com of Indn affairs. He is an excellent armourer, & sm[i]th just such a man as will suit the Indians who are delighted.

Shortly after that Taliaferro stated:

Oliver Cratte takes charge of the shop on the 1st of April under the following agreement: Know all men by these presents that we Lawrence Taliaferro agent of the United States and Oliver Cratte — have enter[e]d into the fol[l]owing articles of agreement for the period of four years unless sooner revoked by the proper dept That is to say —The said Oliver Cratte does hereby agree to serve the United States Indian Dept at the agency at St Peters or elsewhere as Treaty Black smith and Armourer for the Sioux under the 11th art Treaty of July 15th 1830 — & binds himself firmly by these presents to furnish a good & comfortable shop with all nescessary[sic] tools for the same, and all Charcoal requisite to carry on the same shop and that it shall at no time be left without coal or suitable tools to perform the work for the Indians, and he binds himself to work for no other person or persons whatever (except in repairing fire arms for the officers of the United States when not otherwise employed for the benefit of the Indians.)

The fact that Pepin and Cratte were treaty smiths doing work for Indians coming to the fort meant that they would have received frequent visits from Indian people at Coldwater–including relatives of their wives and other people at Coldwater–though exact details of their interactions are not always available unless there was a mishap as when, in 1836, Taliaferro wrote: “Tuesday June 19th A Horse of O. Crate Treaty Smith shot in the shoulder & badly wounded by some Indian unknown with an arrow.”

Another resident who would have had frequent visits from Native visitors to Coldwater was Peter Quinn, whose house was located on the east side of the Bureau of Mines property. He was the Ojibwe interpreter for the Indian agency. His wife was mixed blood Ojibwe. One source says that her name was Mary L. Finnley or Finley and that she was a mixed blood of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe.  She was said to be the mother of their son William L. Quinn, born in 1828, who would later marry a Mdewakanton Dakota woman, Angelique Jeffery or Jeffries, in Mendota on November 20, 1849.  Peter Quinn’s second wife was another Ojibwe mixed-blood woman Louise Boucher, with whom he was married after leaving Coldwater Spring. Quinn was an interpreter for the Ojibwe Treaty of 1837, signed at Fort Snelling. The Ojibwe who came to negotiate that treaty stayed at Camp Coldwater perhaps close to Quinn’s home.  In August 1838, Hole-in-the Day and “3 or 4 of his most daring braves” stayed with  Peter Quinn, just before an attack on his delegation to the fort, as revenge for an attack by Hole-in-the-Day on a Dakota community earlier. The man killed had been mistaken for Hole-in-the-day, because he was wearing clothing borrowed from the chief when he stepped out of the door of Quinn’s house.

Just beyond the Bureau of Mines property to the northeast at a place on the Mississippi River lived Louis Massy or Massie and his wife Marie Frances Boucher, mixed-blood Ojibwe from the Lake Superior region. Her brother Pierre Boucher was described in government records as being related to Chief Buffalo of Lapointe and also the Chief Strong Ground mentioned above. The document states: “Strong Ground is a brother at least according to the Indian mode of estimating relationship, that is, he is a cousin.” Pierre and Marie Frances Boucher had relatives throughout the region. According to the same set of records,  Marie Frances Boucher had worked for many years at the Fort Snelling hospital, “and is much esteemed by those who are acquainted with her.” At the hospital she may have worked with her neighbor at another river landing to the south, Mary Anne Perry, wife of Abraham Perry, who was known as the midwife for the officer’s wives at Fort Snelling.

The stories of the women of Coldwater is only one facet of the Native history of the spring area. There is a lot more to tell later.

After years of denying the importance of Coldwater Spring to the Dakota, throughout the recently completed NEPA process for the Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Campus property, the Park Service now plans to use Dakota history at the site as a selling point, according to Paul Labovitz, Superintendent of MNRRA which carried out the NEPA process and is the new manager of the property. He stated in a recent press release:

“The public’s interest in this site throughout this process illustrates the great significance that the Dakota and so many others attach to this special place,” said Paul Labovitz, NPS superintendent for MNRRA. “We are excited to be the caretakers, and to work with many partners to tell all the stories associated with this place. There are many layers of history associated with this site, from the Dakota to European settlement to 20th century mining technology. This is a truly unique place in the Twin Cities.”

This statement can be found in a press release  at: http://www.nps.gov/miss/parkmgmt/upload/RODNewsRelease.pdf

The spring is the dwelling place of the undergods and is near the center of the Earth. The Spring is part of the cycle of life. The underground stream from the Spring to the Mississippi River must remain open to allow the Gods to enter the River through the passageway. The Spring is the site of our creation myth (or “Garden of Eden”) and the beginning of Indian existence on Earth. Our underwater God “Unktehi” lives in the Spring. These words were contained in an affidavit from Dakota elder and spiritual leader Rev. Gary Cavender for a lawsuit in 1998. Imagine that these words had been on the first page of the recently finalized Environmental Impact Statement for the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Campus property in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Their presence would not have guaranteed a different result from the process, but the context for interpreting  the decision to keep the Coldwater Spring in the hands of the Park Service would have been very different.

The National Park Service’s Record of Decision signed on January 15, 2010, to keep the Coldwater Spring/ Bureau of Mines property in the hands of the Park Service, is an invitation to the Dakota people,  Dakota communities, and those who support their rights, to sue the agency. It is hard to find a more blatant rejection of Dakota history, culture, and treaty rights than is contained in the final text of the Coldwater/Bureau of Mines EIS.

The National Park Service has decided to keep Coldwater in federal hands for the long term because it can and because it had put together documentation that predetermined the result. There’s no way to sugar coat it. In responses to comments submitted to correct the historical record it had assembled, the Park Service said that what it had was “substantive enough.” Substantive enough for what purpose? It is evident now that the EIS was substantive enough to provide a justification for keeping the property in federal hands at the expense of Dakota people.

Imagine that the decision about final ownership had taken into account the central importance of Coldwater, Taku Wakan Tip, and Bdote, for the Dakota people. Imagine that the text for the EIS, instead of including several pages about prehistoric peoples named by archaeologists–peoples which were acknowledged by the Park Service to have no demonstrated connection to Coldwater Spring–had contained that statement from Dakota elder Rev. Gary Cavender in 1998:

The Camp Coldwater spring is a sacred spring. Its flow should not be stopped or disturbed. If the flow is disturbed, it cannot be restored. Also, if its source is disturbed, that disturbs the whole cycle of the flow. The spring is the dwelling place of the undergods and is near the center of the Earth. The Spring is part of the cycle of life. The underground stream from the Spring to the Mississippi River must remain open to allow the Gods to enter the River through the passageway. The Spring is the site of our creation myth (or “Garden of Eden”) and the beginning of Indian existence on Earth. Our underwater God “Unktehi” lives in the Spring. The sacredness of the Spring is evident by the fact that it never freezes over, and it is always possible to see activity under the surface of the water.

Imagine that the text of the EIS had contained a discussion of the Treaty of 1805, through which Coldwater Spring has been under uinterrupted federal ownership since that day. Imagine that instead of stating that there were no federal trust obligations toward Indian tribes regarding Coldwater, the EIS had stated that in Article 3 of the treaty, the United States promised “on their part to permit the Sioux to pass, repass, hunt or make other uses of the said districts, as they have formerly done, without any other exception, but those specified in article first” in the area of the treaty, which included Coldwater Spring. Imagine that the EIS had acknowledged that this, like other treaty rights, was federal trust obligation.

Such information was inconvenient in the context of a self-serving, predetermined decision by the National Park Service to give Coldwater Spring to the agency itself.  Now that the decision has been announced, and in such a short time after the completion of the final EIS, the process through which this all happened has been greatly clarified and exposed. It will be recalled that in December 2008, an official in the Department of Interior announced the Preferred Alternative for Coldwater Spring, which was that the land be treated as open space or park land, with buildings removed and restored vegetation, and that it remain in federal hands to be managed by MNRRA.

In February 2009 an open house was held, announced as an opportunity to give input on the restoration plans for the property and to get information about the Preferred Alternative. However, at this meeting federal officials were not interested in hearing about the long-term ownership of the property, only about the removal of buildings and the restoration of vegetation. Some Dakota people did speak at the meeting and make their wishes known about the ownership of the property. After that a subsequent meeting on the schedule was cancelled.

Throughout this time Park Service officials stated that the time had not yet come when it would be appropriate to discuss the long term ownership of the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property. On April 7, 2009, Steven P. Johnson, an official with MNRRA explained that the time to comment on the long term ownership of the property would come after the final EIS was published:

Publication of the FEIS triggers a 30-day written comment period in which it will be appropriate for individuals and organizations to comment on the Department of the Interior’s preferred alternative for future management of the site. Autumn, you will want to resubmit your petition at that time. All comments received during that 30-day period will be forwarded to the Department of the Interior, which will evaluate the FEIS and the comments received before making a final decision. The Department of the Interior’s final decision will be announced in a document called a Record of Decision.

Little of this statement was accurate. The publication of the final EIS did not trigger a comment period. The Park Service did not seek comments. It is not likely any comments received were read. The final decision would be made regardless of any comments.  All it would take would be to make a few tweaks to the Record of Decision which was likely already drafted. It took less than four days to get the Midwest Regional Director of the Park Service to sign.

What is clear now is that the process should have been viewed in the following way:

1. Draft EIS for Coldwater is completed. Comments are sought.

2. Intense lobbying occurs within the Park Service over a period of two years to determine the disposition of the Bureau of Mines property. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service quarrel over which will get the property. Park Service wins. In December 2008 the Preferred Alternative is announced, including the decision for MNRRA to keep the property.

3. In February 2009, MNRRA has an open house and 30-day comment period on carrying out Preferred Alternative to clear and restore the property. People object to the decision to keep the property in federal hands, but they are told their comments are out of order.

4. In the spring and summer, the EIS for the property is revised to provide basis for Preferred Alternative and for keeping the property in federal hands. In fact it is likely that the EIS was in final form in 2008. No information that does not lead to the preferred result is included in the final EIS narrative and analysis.

5. Just before Christmas 2009 the final EIS is released. Nothing happens for thirty days, until January 11, 2010. Four days after that the decision already reached prior to December 2008 is announced as the final decision.

In retrospect Steven P. Johnson was correct in saying that last winter or spring was not the time to make statements about Dakota ownership of the property. But January 2010 was only the right time from the point of view of MNRRA which did not want to hear opinions on that score anyway. The right time to make a difference was actually in 2006, 2007, and 2008, when the decision was being made inside the Park Service. Only at that time could intense lobbying have altered the result.

The cynicism of this process may seem surprising to those who have not followed the actions of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area over the last ten years. MNRRA does not actually manage parks. Instead it is bureaucratic player which specializes in interacting with other agencies, sometimes telling them what they can and cannot do regarding changes to the historic or environmental character of their properties within the Mississippi corridor. The way it has managed the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines process has shown MNRRA’s expertise in bureaucratic game playing, but it has not demonstrated that MNRRA can be a positive force in the management and stewardship of property.

Now that MNRRA will be managing the 27-acres of the Coldwater property, can the agency change? Now that it will be in a position to interpret the history and cultural meaning of Coldwater Spring, will it change its practice of excluding historical and cultural  information when they decide that information does not contribute to MNRRA’s self-serving aims? Can MNRRA be a positive force rather than a negative one?

In what Dakota people, historians, and anthropologists have written over the years about Coldwater Spring they have made a case for Coldwater as a historic, cultural, and sacred place for Dakota people. The fact that the Park Service decided to ignore that record in their information-gathering and decision-making does not take away from the value of that record.

Ultimately the  the truth of that history and culture will have to be acknowledged. However, whether it provides a basis for Dakota people to lay claim to the place depends on Dakota tribal governments and their interest in making Coldwater an issue. Perhaps Dakota tribes are perfectly happy with the federal government managing sites of such importance to them. Perhaps they will be content that the Park Service views Dakota people on par with spiritualists and people out for a stroll, all of whom will receive equal access and equal consideration.

The only good outcome of this process is that the buildings and pollution will be cleared from the Bureau of Mines property at federal expense. In the meantime, the effort to get the land back for the Dakota can continue. A lawsuit may be nice, but continued lobbying is still important.

Finally, though this is not my final discussion of Coldwater Spring, I have a few words of advice for people who will deal with MNRRA in the future: Trust, but only if you verify.

Not wasting any time, less than four days after the end of the 30-day no-action period for the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines Property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, the National Park Service, through its Midwest Office Regional Director, Ernest Quintana, signed the Record of Decision, stating that the National Park Service would retain the Coldwater property, restore it, manage it as park or open space as a unit of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) . The full text of the Record of Decision is found below and the original version is online.

Detailed analysis is required of this document. A few things stand out. The document does mention that there was an ethnographic study on the issue of whether  Coldwater Spring was a place of traditional cultural importance (TCP) for Dakota people. It does not mention that the study supported Coldwater as a TCP, but it also does not mention that the Park Service had rejected the finding. On the other hand the Record of Decision does not refer to TCP status as an environmental aspect of the site that could be affected by the decision of the government about ownership.

Another interesting facet of the document is very short paragraph that has the appearance of being added at the last minute:

A key aspect of Fort Snelling’s history is the fort’s role as a center for meetings between the U.S. and the Dakota and Ojibwa who visited the post. Members of both tribes undoubtedly camped at and around spring.

For the Park Service to acknowledge finally this aspect of the site’s history is progress, but it hardly makes up for all the missing information in the EIS.

What follows is the full text of the Record of Decision, as scanned for this website from a non-textual pdf on the Park Service website. Corrections will be made later for any errors found due to scanning.

More analysis later.

[January 15, 2010]

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

RECORD OF DECISION

DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY,

TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Hennepin County, Minnesota

The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared this Record of Decision on the Disposition of Bureau of Mines Property, Twin Cities Research Center Main Campus, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Record of Decision includes a description of the background of the project, a statement of the decision made and basis for decision, descriptions of other alternatives considered, a description of the environmentally preferable alternative, statements on the impairment of park resources and values, an overview of measures to minimize environmental harm, and a summary of public and agency involvement in the decision-making process.

BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT

The Twin Cities Research Center (Center) property consists of 27.3 acres of land near the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers. The property has been in federal ownership since 1805 and was once part of the much larger Fort Snelling Military Reservation. The former U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) began managing the property in 1949 and eventually constructed 11 buildings and associated infrastructure on the site. The property is located within the boundaries of the Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), a unit of the National Park system.

The Center closed in 1996 after Congress abolished the USBM and the President signed the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act terminating funding for the USBM. Upon closing the Center, administration of the property remained with the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) under USBM closure legislation (Pub.L. No.104-134 [1996]).

In 2000, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) proposed to acquire the Center to protect the approach to runway 4-22 after that runway was to be extended to accommodate larger aircraft. The MAC withdrew its proposal in October 2001.

In 2002, the Department evaluated the cost to renovate the Center for use as a central campus for all Departmental agencies and operations in the Twin Cities area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through a local contractor, completed a space utilization study and associated master plan for needed improvements to the Center. After review of the plans, the Department determined the project was cost prohibitive and declined to move forward.

USBM closure legislation in 1996 provided the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to convey the Center to a university or government entity as the Secretary deems appropriate. In 2003, Congress included language and funding in the Department appropriations bill directing the NPS to lead the public planning process for disposition of the Center.

The NPS became the lead the agency in the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) process. In 2004, the USFWS entered into a memorandum of agreement with the NPS as a cooperating agency to complete an environmental impact statement for disposition of the Center.

The purpose and need for the environmental impact statement is to identify the action necessary to dispose of the Center in accordance with the authority provided by Congress in legislation addressing the closure of the Center and to assess the environmental impacts of that action and alternatives.

DECISION (SELECTED ACTION) AND BASIS FOR DECISION

The Department has selected Alternative D, Modification of Land, Structures, or Other Improvements by the Federal Government Prior to Conveyance or Retention of the Center, as the preferred alternative, as described in the (Final Environmental Impact State, Disposition of the Bureau of Mines Property, Twin Cities Research Center Main Campus issued in December 2009.

Under selected Alternative D, the Department would manage and bear the cost of modification for all or part of the land, structures, or other improvements prior to conveyance or retention of the Center. Following completion of the modifications, the Department would dispose of the Center property through a transfer to a university or nonfederal government entity without conditions, transfer to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions, or by retention by the federal government. The Department also selected one of three land use scenarios considered in the environmental impact statement. The Department selected the Open Space / Park scenario that will convert the Center property to open space and natural areas where the focus would be on restoration and use of the natural environment. This would be accomplished by removing some or all buildings, structures, and roadways. Nonnative plant species would be identified and removed. Native vegetation would be planted and the site naturalized to recreate the historic characteristics of an open oak savanna, prairie-type setting typical to this vicinity.

In evaluating the environmental impacts of alternative futures for the site, the focus was placed on future uses—and their environmental effects— and not on future owners. The three conceptual land use scenarios were developed to address a range of potential development options that may be feasible. It was not the purpose of the EIS to select a recipient but to inform the decision-maker about the impacts associated with the transfer, given that a variety of uses could result from a transfer to a non-federal recipient.

In establishing the process for determining the site’s future, Congress authorized potential transfer of the site to a university or government entity. During the public review of the Draft EIS, the NPS solicited written requests for proposals for future use of the Center property from universities and governmental entities. A broad list of potential recipients were contacted, and a request for proposals from all parties was included in the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the draft EIS. The adjacent landowners to the Center, including the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the Minnesota Historical Society and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, declined taking ownership of the property. Three federally-recognized tribes submitted separate requests that the property be retained in federal ownership and held in Trust for them.

Public comment received during the 60 day Draft EIS comment period strongly favored removal of the Center buildings and infrastructure and returning the property to a more natural condition. Each of the proposals for ownership from the three tribal governments contained requests that the Center buildings and infrastructure be removed at the federal government’s expense prior to transfer and the site restored to natural condition. Studies for the reuse of the Center structures determined that the removal of hazardous materials and abatement of hazardous conditions and necessary building rehabilitation were negative factors leading to the conclusion that reuse of most of the existing structures was not a viable option. The EIS process indicated the long term environmental impacts of Alternative D, with the Open Space / Park land use scenario had generally minor to moderate and beneficial impacts.

Public involvement in preparation of the EIS and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 process revealed that the Center property is a special place to many people. The four federally-recognized Dakota tribes in Minnesota—the Upper Sioux Indian Community, the Lower Sioux Indian Community, the Prairie Island Indian Community, and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community—declared Coldwater Spring and the surrounding area central to their history. The Lower Sioux Indian Community declared Coldwater Spring sacred under Executive Order 13007. Individual members of the Ojibwa and other tribes have also shown an interest in the spring.

A key aspect of Fort Snelling’s history is the fort’s role as a center for meetings between the U.S. and the Dakota and Ojibwa who visited the post. Members of both tribes undoubtedly camped at and around spring.

The property is also historically significant in American history and the history of Minnesota.  To many, Fort Snelling and the Camp Coldwater settlement that grew up around it are considered the birthplace of Minnesota. Coldwater Spring became the water supply for the Foil Snelling Upper Post from the late 1870s through early 20^th century. Because of the history that occurred there, the Center property falls within the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark and National Historic District and the Old Fort Snelling State Historic District. Although it gets less attention, the Center accomplished such nationally and internationally significant work that it has been determined eligible for the National Register as a Historic District (USBM Twin Cities Research Center Historic District), despite the fact that some portions are less than 50 years old.

Public comment during the EIS process showed that since the late 1990s, the spring and reservoir have become spiritually and environmentally significant to many individuals and groups. Some use the site for meditation and a source of inspiration. Many of these individuals and groups have also been active proponents of protecting the spring and reservoir by supporting and assuring the passage of legislation to protect the flow of water to and from the spring.

Public comment on the EIS and Section 106 processes revealed that while there is disagreement as to who should own the property, there is agreement that Coldwater Spring and the area around it need to be protected and that public access is essential. Other public comment received noted that the NPS is uniquely suited to manage the site since its mission is to protect and interpret America’s greatest places, providing access for all.

The Department, after consideration of the findings of the environmental impact statement, the review of responses received on the request for proposals for future use of the Center property, and the fact that the Center property is located within the MNRRA boundary, has determined that future management authority will be transferred to the National Park Service.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative A: No Action—Retention of the Center by the Federai Government

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, but not directed, to convey the Center. Accordingly, the Center could have been retained by the federal government. Under the no-action alternative, the conditions as they exist today would continue at the Center. Disposition of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity would not occur and the Center would continue in caretaker status under control of the federal government. Currently, the public has unrestricted access to the Center property, and under alternative A, this would not change. The buildings would continue to be vacant, except for occasional permitted special use. Maintenance would consist of lawn care, security patrols to ensure the buildings remain locked, inspecting the fence surrounding the site and repairing breaks, maintaining power and phone service for the existing alarm system, and boarding up broken windows. The USFWS is currently responsible for maintenance of the Center. The Center would remain available for future disposal or use by the federal government.

The no-action alternative does not preclude short-term minor repair or improvement activities that would be pail of routine maintenance of the Center. No plans currently exist, however, for improvement or renovation of the buildings. The no-action alternative would not include use of the buildings for anything other than short-term, special, permitted use. The no-action alternative was used to compare baseline conditions at the Center with potential impacts that could result from implementing Alternatives B, C and D.

Alternative B: Convey the Center without Conditions to a University or Nonfedera! Government Entity

Under alternative B, the Center would be conveyed to a university or nonfederal government entity with no conditions imposed on the future use of the Center or the land, except for those restrictions on use that currently exist for the property and arise out of applicable laws and regulations. Under alternative B, a recipient would have no restrictions on subsequent transfer or sale of the property. Therefore, any future owner under this alternative would be free to subsequently use, sell, or transfer the Center property to a private entity for use or development. Except for the restrictions on future use outlined in existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, the actual use or combination of uses of the Center would be determined by the recipient.

Alternative C: Convey the Center with Conditions to a University or Nonfederal Government Entity

Alternative C would be the transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity, however, transfer of the Center would be subject to conditions that would limit the recipient’s use of the property or create affirmative obligations to be carried out by the recipient. Examples of restrictions that could be placed on the transfer include building or redevelopment restrictions, restrictions on use of resources, or restrictions on operations or types of uses. Affirmative obligations that may be placed on the transfer include those that create a duty in the recipient to manage or maintain the Center or its resources in a specific way. For example, the federal government could convey with conditions designed to protect natural, historic, cultural resources, or with conditions designed to ensure compliance with various authorities that may apply to the recipient. These examples, however, do not limit the types or subject matter of conditions available for use by the federal government in the actual transfer of the Center. Preservation and protection of Center resources upon transfer could be accomplished by applying restrictions to the transfer agreement or by retaining title to a portion of the property. Methods by which restrictions on use of the Center might be imposed by the transfer agreement include the use of various types of defeasible estates, covenants, or easements, including conservation easements. The legislation that authorizes the disposal of the Center limits the transfer to either a nonfederal government entity or university. Therefore, the federal government would impose conditions on the transfer of the Center based on the types of recipients that could receive the property to reflect the proposed use of the properly.

CONCEPTUAL LAND USE SCENARIOS

Three conceptual land use scenarios were developed to address a range of potential land use development options that may be feasible under alternatives B, C, and D.

The environmental impacts of alternatives B, C, and D depend on how a future owner would use the Center, and on the activities associated with that use. However, neither the future owner nor the future use of the Center could be identified until after the EIS was completed. Therefore, the EIS analyzed the impacts of alternatives B, C, and D in terms of a reasonable range of potential uses of the Center by a future owner under three conceptual land-use scenarios. The conceptual land-use scenarios reflected potential uses of the Center suggested in public comments during the scoping process, and encompass a reasonable range of activities.

Open Space / Park

Under this conceptual scenario, the Center property would be converted to open space and natural areas where the focus would be on restoration and use of the natural environment. The Center property would become a park or be used as open space. This could be accomplished by removing some or all buiidings, structures, and roadways. Normative piant species could be identified and removed. Native vegetation could then be planted and the site naturalized to recreate the historic characteristics of an open oak savanna, prairie-type setting. This scenario is part of the Department’s preferred alternative.

Interpretive / Nature / History Center

Under this conceptual scenario, some portion of the Center would represent a natural environment, while development and structures would be used in conjunction with the natural environment for learning and interpretation. New structures could be built at the Center, and all or a portion of the existing structures could be demolished. New construction would be limited by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Most of the existing buildings at the Center have the potential for reuse; however, some are in better condition and more readily lend themselves to reuse. Most of the existing infrastructure is not reusable in its current condition; improvements would be required if reuse is desired.

Training Center / Office Park

Under this conceptual scenario, the focus of the Center would be the built environment and active reuse of the Center. Under this scenario uses could include the total reuse of existing structures, reuse of as few as one building, or all new construction. Most of the existing buildings at the Center have the potential for reuse; however, some are in better condition and more readily lend themselves to reuse. Most of the infrastructure is not reusable in its current condition; improvements would be required. New construction would be limited by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

The environmentally preferable alternative is defined as the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable alternative under section 101 is that alternative which causes the least environmental impact to the biological and physical environmental. It also means the environmentally preferable alternative may also be that alternative which best protects, preserves and enhances the historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Questions, 1981.)

The environmentally preferable alternative is Alternative D, Modification of Land, Structures, or Other Improvements by the Federal Government Prior to Conveyance or Retention of the Center, with the Open Space / Park scenario. This alternative best meets the range of national environmental policy goals as stated in NEPA’s Section 101. This alternative preserves, enhances and restores important historic, cultural and natural resources; maintains an environment that supports the diversity of public interests and special considerations for the Center property; improves the access for, safety of, and the cultural and aesthetic setting for Center property visitors and; improves the resource’s sustainability for future generations.

Alternative A, No Action and retention of the Center by the federal government established a baseline condition for the evaluation of other alternatives. Alternative A is the least environmentally preferable alternative as it does not adequately address the preservation, enhancement and restoration of important historic, cultural and natural resources.

Alternative B would result in the transfer of the Center property without conditions to a university or nonfederal government entity. Such a transfer would allow the future owner to subsequently use, sell or transfer the Center property to a private entity for use and development. The ability to control the preservation, enhancement and restoration as well as provide public access to a culturally and historically important place would be lost.

Alternative C would allow protections and conditions to be placed on the Center property prior to transfer to a university or nonfederal government entity. The ability to influence the preservation, enhancement and restoration and continued public access to a culturally and historically important property could be maintained.  Under such conditions, Alternative C would be more environmentally acceptable; however there would be a limit to the ability of the federal government to control actions taken by subsequent owners based upon the instruments needed to ensure preservation, enhancement and restoration. Those efforts could have been less than successful.

FINDINGS ON IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES AND VALUES

The Center property is located within the boundaries of the Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park system. The NPS may not allow the impairment of park resources and values unless directly and specifically provided for by the legislation or proclamation establishing the park. The prohibited impairment would occur when, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, the integrity of park resources or values would be harmed. Any effect on a resource or value could be an impairment, but impairment would be most likely if it would result in a major or severe adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park,
• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or
• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS  planning documents as being of significance (NPS Management Policies 2006, section 1.4.5)

This policy does not prohibit all impacts to park resources and values. The NPS has the discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, so long as the impacts do not constitute an impairment. Moreover, “an impact would be less likely to constitute an impairment if it is an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preseive or restore the integrity of park resources or values and it cannot be further mitigated” (NPS Management Policies 2006, section 1.4.5).

While the eleven buildings and related structures of the Center are contributing elements of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Center Historic District and the selected action calls for modification or removal of some or all of the structures, an analysis of the threshold impacts for context, intensity and duration indicate that the removal or modification of the buildings and structures is necessary to preserve, enhance and restore the integrity of the attendant cultural and natural resource values of Center property as outlined in the Final EIS.

After analyzing the environmental impacts described in the Final EIS for the disposition of the Center and public comments received, the NPS has determined that implementation of the  selected action alternative will not constitute an impairment to MNRRA resources and values

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM

Three historic districts and a national historic landmark overlap on the Center property. The NPS has coordinated and is completing the process to comply with Section 106 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The resulting Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will address the documentation and data collection for the removal or modification of some or all of the Center buildings and structures. Protection measures to avoid and mhiimize impacts to other cultural and historical resources such as Coldwater Spring and reservoir during restoration of the Center property under the selected action are also addressed in the MOA.

The NPS will adhere to all policies and applicable federal laws and regulations, recommended best management practices during removal or modification of the Center buildings and structures and during the subsequent land restoration to an open space / park. Additionally, state and local laws, regulations and policies that are directly applicable to NPS actions will be followed, especially if by doing so, it will result in outcomes appropriate to implementing the selected action in environmentally appropriate manner. Specific measures and actions to avoid and minimize the environmental impacts as identified in the Final EIS associated with implementing the selected action will addressed in a subsequent Center site development plan.

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The Final EIS incorporates the input and ideas presented by American Indian tribes, the public, the NPS, and other federal, state, and local governments. Consultation and coordination among the tribes, agencies, and the public were vitally important throughout the plarming process.

Public Meetings and Outreach

Public meetings and newsletters were used to keep the public informed and involved in the planning process for the park. A postal mailing list and an email notification list was compiled consisting of American Indian tribes, governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, legislators, local governments, and interested citizens.

EIS Scoping and Public Involvement

A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on January 28,2005 and on the MNRRA website. News releases, mailings and website notices were used to announce the public scoping meetings. Meetings were held on March 30 and 31,2005 and were attended by over 70 people and 107 comments were received during the public scoping period. A written report on the results of the public scoping  comments received was issued in July 2005.

Draft EIS and Public Involvement

Preparation for data collection, analysis and alternative formation to complete a draft EIS on the Center property began in April 2005. A consultant assisted the NPS in managing the workload and producing a draft document. A draft EIS was completed in July 2006 with a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2006. Public open house meetings on the draft EIS were held on September 24 and 25, 2006. Requests to extend the 30 day official comment period, set to expire on October 24, 2006, were made by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and other interested parties. The NPS notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the comment period would be extended 30 days through November 27, 2006. At the close of the official comment period, a total of 509 responses on the draft EIS were received via oral comments, written letters, email and through the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) internet-based system. Respondents provided comment on future management authorities, addressing impacts to cultural and historical resources, interpretation of the site’s history, and restoration of the site to more natural conditions, as well as pointing out factual errors and short-comings of the draft EIS. A comment analysis report was compiled in January 2007 which summarized and categorized all public comment received on the draft EIS.

Request for Proposals for Transfer of the Center Property

The Notice of Availability in the Federal Register for the draft EIS also solicited written proposals for the future use of die Center property. Public Law 104-134 addressed the disposition of Bureau of Mines properties across the United States and included provisions which would allow the transfer of the Center property to a state, local or tribal government or university entity. State, local and tribal governments and universities within the immediate Center region were notified by letter.

At the close of the comment period, six written proposals from qualified entities were received for the transfer of the Center property. Responding were the USFWS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Lower Sioux Indian Community, the Prairie Island Indian Community, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

Coordination with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes

Coordinating with interested federally-recognized American Indian tribes was an on-going effort throughout the EIS process. A total of 20 federally-recognized American Indian tribes have been contacted. The four recognized tribes in Minnesota, die Lower Sioux Indian Community, the Prairie Island Indian Community, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and the Upper Sioux Indian Community, have been the most active in expressing then interests in the Center property.

Ethnography

An ethnographic resources study was conducted at the Center to document tribal use and perceptions of the Center, and to assess whether Camp Coldwater Spring constituted a Traditional Cultural Property under NHPA section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f) or a sacred site under Executive Order 13007. The study consisted of consultation, archival research, and interviews. Consultation specific to this study was conducted with the four federally-recognized Dakota communities in Minnesota-Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and Upper Sioux Indian Community. In addition, other tribes that participated in the study included the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe and the White Earth Band of Chippewa. Twenty three individuals were interviewed for the study including 11 official federally-recognized tribal representatives, seven key cultural experts (six Dakota and one Ojibwe), and five others with knowledge of the history and past use of the Center.

Cultural Resources Consultation and Section 106

The NPS used comments received at or as a result of an open house held on February 23, 2009 to write a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The NPS then circulated the MOA to all the consulting parlies for their review and comment. The NPS provided comments from the public meeting and on the MOA to the Minnesota SHPO and met with the SUPO to discuss further revisions to the MOA. The final version of the MOA reflects this consultation process. The MOA incorporates the selected action that the Center property is retained by the federal government and managed by the NPS as a unit of the MNRRA.

Endangered or Threatened Species Consultation

In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the NPS contacted the USFWS by letter on April 21,2005 to initiate informal consultation. A response letter, dated June 8,2005, was received stating that: “…Because of the location and type of activity proposed, we concur with your determination that this project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.”

Wetlands and Floodplains Consultation

hi June 2005, wetlands on the Center site were delineated using the routine methodology described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). A panel of 18 technical experts in wetlands delineation conducted onsite field review of the delineation. In June 2005, the USACE responded to the NPS confirming the wetlands report performed at the Center site. However, nothing has been accomplished as yet in terms of consideration of impact mitigation to wetlands since the owner of the property was not determined until this time. Additional work may be necessary to prevent or mitigate impacts to the wetlands on the property, and that work will be accomplished within the site development plan.

Final EIS and Public Involvement

The Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 11,2009, and the 30-day no action period ended on January 11,2010. Public comment received during the no-action period were similar to those expressed during the review and comment period for the Draft EIS and those received during the open house meeting addressing Section 106 and the preferred alternative.

CONCLUSION

The Department has selected the preferred alternative, Alternative D, Modification of Land, Structures, or Other Improvements by the Federal Government Prior to Conveyance or Retention of the Center, with the land use scenario Open Space / Park, for the final disposition of the Center property, as described in the Final EIS. In addition, the Department has determined that the future management authority will be transferred to the National Park Service. The selected alternative represents the alternative that best meets national environmental policy goals (environmentally preferable), Department and NPS policy and management objectives, and balances the public interest in the Center property. The selected alternative will not result in the impairment of resources and values as defined by NPS policy.

Approved: [Signature] Ernest Quintana_Date: 1-15-2010

Ernest Quintana Regional Director, Midwest Region, National Park Service

Although the National Park Service’s final EIS for the Coldwater/Bureau of Mines property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, contains the statement that “no historical documentation of American Indian use of Camp Coldwater Spring has been found,” (repeated five times in the final EIS, beginning on page 72), there is actually ample evidence of the presence of Dakota, Ojibwe, and other Native people at Coldwater Spring. One example is a birch-bark scroll sent by Dakota leaders to invite their Ojibwe counterparts to meet with them to make peace at “Cold Spring” in the summer of 1820. The scroll is part of a detailed history of such diplomacy at Coldwater Spring.

Although it is not known if the original birch-bark message has survived, Henry Schoolcraft included an engraving based on it in his six-volume compendium Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States. According to Schoolcraft the original birch-bark message was left near the mouth of the Sauk River (in between present-day Minneapolis and St. Cloud), a place bordering Ojibwe country, where it was expected Ojibwe leaders would be able to find it. Schoolcraft, who visited the area with the expedition of Michigian territorial governor Lewis Cass, described this message and later took it back with him to Washington. After seeing the message, Schoolcraft and company continued on down the river to Coldwater Spring.

Inter-tribal diplomacy between Dakota and Ojibwe is one of the biggest untold stories of early Minnesota history, particularly as it relates to Coldwater Spring. In the years that following the events of 1820, Coldwater Spring was the habitual camping place of the Ojibwe who came to visit Fort Snelling, the Indian agency, and the nearby Dakota communities. Ojibwe and Dakota traded, danced, and participated in ceremonies there for many years. It is likely that the site was also used for this purpose prior to the arrival of the Americans. Dakota-Ojibwe diplomacy was recorded long before the creation of Fort Snelling. Although the Indian Agent Lawrence Taliaferro liked to take credit for the diplomacy, in many cases the impetus for it came from the Native leaders themselves, particularly those who had mixed Dakota-Ojibwe ancestry through intermarriage that had been going on for hundreds of years. For Native leaders Taliaferro provided an important intermediary to continue efforts their people had been carrying out for generations.

Agent Taliaferro’s first effort at diplomacy occurred at Coldwater Spring in the summer of 1820, when the military encampment switched from Cantonment New Hope to Coldwater Spring. Taliaferro arrived at St. Peters early that summer and may have encouraged the Dakota who sent the invitation to come to Coldwater Spring. In his journal Taliaferro did not record a narrative of what occurred that summer, but he did leave a record of presents given to Dakota leaders starting in June 1820.

The invitation sent by the Dakota leaders shows the extent to which they themselves were instrumental in bringing about the diplomacy. Along with the engraving in his multi-volume work, Schoolcraft gave a written explanation of what the figures on it meant.

The scroll containing this inscription . . . as obtained above St. Anthony’s Falls, on a public expedition. . . . It consisted of white birch bark, and the figures have been carefully drawn. Number 1 [at top left], denotes the flag of the union;–Number 2, the cantonment, then recently established at Cold Spring on the western side of the cliffs, above the influx of the St. Peters [Mdote or Bdote]. Number 4 [the figure holding the sword and wearing a hat] is the symbol of the commanding officer, (Colonel H. Leavenworth,) under whose authority a mission of peace had been sent into the Chippewa country. Number 1 is the symbol of Chakope, or the Six, the leading Sioux chief [wearing what looks like a round peace medal], under whose orders the party moved. Number 8 is the second chief called Wamade-tunka, or the Black Eagle. The symbol of his name is number 10 [that is, the figure on the far right at bottom, a black dog, which means this is a reference to the chief of Black Dog’s Village, the closest village on the Minnesota River above Fort Snelling]. He has 14 lodges. Captain Douglas, who had begun the study of this ‘bark-letter,’ as it was called thought this symbol denoted his descent from Chakope. Number 7 is a chief, subordinate to Chakope, with 13 lodges, and a bale of goods (Number 9), which was devoted, by the public, to the objects of the peace. The name of Number 6, whose wigwam is Number 5, with 13 subordinate lodges, was not given. The frame, or crossed poles of the entire 50 lodges composing this party, had been left standing on the high, open prairie on the west bank of the Mississippi above Sauk River, and immediately opposite the point of Hornblende Rocks, which results from the figure-alphabet being precisely the same in both [Dakota and Ojibwe].

As a result of this effort preliminary meetings occurred between the Dakota and Ojibwe at Coldwater Spring in the summer of 1820. Henry Schoolcraft noted on August 1, that “a treaty of peace was this day concluded in the presence of Governor Cass, Colonel Leavenworth, Mr. Tallifierro, the Indian agent at St. Peter’s, and a number of the officers of the garrison.” In his account Schoolcraft makes clear that the garrison of soldiers who had come to the area in the fall of 1819 and had spent the winter on the river bank at the mouth of the Minnesota had moved to Coldwater Spring in the the spring of 1820, to avoid floods. On July 31, 1820, James Duane Doty, future governor of Wisconsin Territory, who had accompanied the Cass expedition, noted in his own diary:

Early in the Spring [of 1820] Col. Leavenworth discovered the fountain of water where the troops now are, & to which they moved as soon as the ice would permit. It is a healthy situation, about 200 feet above the river, and the water gushing out of a lime stone rock is excellent. It is called “Camp Cold Water.”

Records of peace ceremonies between Dakota and Ojibwe, such as the one that occurred in 1820 at Coldwater Spring, abound in historical and ethnographic sources. The anthropologist Ruth Landes in her work on the Prairie Island Dakota (1968: 85-86), records a traditional account of a peace ceremony said to have occurred between the Dakota and Ojibwe or as she spells the name, the Ojibwa. The story says that the Dakota chief was named Shakopee and had a village in an area near the Ford Factory in St. Paul and near Minnehaha Falls in Minneapolis, a place that would have been close to Coldwater. But the story also says that the event took place at Shakopee, which may be the result of confusion in translation or in remembering the tradition. In fact the story recalls many ceremonies that occurred near Fort Snelling and at Coldwater.

The story told that an Ojibwa chief had sent word that “his people were coming to make peace with the Sioux.” The Dakota chief gathered all his villages to meet the Ojibwe. The people came from the east and west.

Some Ojibwa arrived in the advance of the chief; four came with their chief; next day the whole body of Ojibwa arrived and camped at a distance from the Sioux, totaling about 150 men, women, and children. The chief and his companions stayed with the Sioux until the other Ojibwa arrived; then the chief and his men returned to their people. The Ojibwa chief with some chosen men walked forward in a line parallel to the Sioux encampment. The Sioux chief likewise advanced to the Ojibwa. The Sioux lit his redstone pipe [carved starkly and decorated with dyed braids of porcupine quill and downy feathers] and handed it to the Ojibwa chief for a puff. The latter handed his pipe equally choice in style and finish, to the Sioux, inviting him to puff. Each man received back his own pipe after pointing that of the friendly enemy to the six directions. The Ojibwa chief gave his pipe to the Sioux guards facing his camp in a parallel line; and the Sioux chief reciprocated with the Ojibwa guards. Each chief, having returned to his own men, shook hands with the other, saying that they would never war against each other.

Afterwards there was a feast, dancing and other celebrations, lasting through the night. “Everyone was happy when peace was restored. Landes noted that even in 1935 the Dakota and Ojibwe still talked of being enemies, yet “these people made peace, probably as often as they made war.”

Frances Densmore, in her work Chippewa Music, published in 1910 and 1913 provided additional information of these kinds of peace events, from the Ojibwe point of view (Densmore 1973, 2: 126-29). An Ojibwe war leader whose name was the same as his tribe sang her a song that would be sung at a peace treaty between the Dakota and Ojibwe, an event “attended with much ceremony.” This song was sung by both tribes using the same melody but with different words. In it the members of each tribe would sing the praises of the leaders of the other tribe. The Ojibwe version praised Little Crow, Little Six, and Wabasha, in succession. The Dakota would have sung the same song praising Ojibwe leaders such as Hole in the Day and others. After the song the two groups would share a pipe ceremony, dances, and the exchange of presents, exactly the kinds of events that took place at Fort Snelling in the 1820s and 1830s

Many written documents record the interactions between the Dakota and Ojibwe at Coldwater Spring. It is also recorded in the Ojibwe oral tradition. Eddie Benton-Benai stated in his testimony at a hearing in 1999, relating to the Native American claim to the Coldwater area. At that hearing Benai stated, according to a rough transcript (Minnesota Department of Transportation 1999):

Through our oral traditions, our history, recent and older, we know that the falls which . . . came to be known as Minnehaha Falls, that there was a sacred place, . . . a neutral place for many nations to come, and that further geographically define the confluence of the three rivers, which is actually the two rivers, that that point likewise was a neutral place. And that somewhere between that point and the falls, there were sacred grounds that were mutually held to be a sacred place. And that the spring from which the sacred water should be drawn was not very far, and I’ve never heard any direction from which I could pinpoint, but there’s a spring near the [Midewiwin or medicine] lodge that all nations used to draw the sacred water for the ceremonies.

Now that’s in the words of our people of the [Midewiwin] lodge. And the people that are concerned or the people that are identified there are the Dakota, the Sac, the Fox, the Potawatomi, the Wahpeton Dakotas, the Mdewakanton Dakotas, the Meskwaki people as all having used and recognizing and mutually agreeing that that is forever a neutral place and forever a sacred place. That is confirmed in our oral history. And it is difficult even to estimate when the last sacred ceremony was held inter-tribally, but my grandfather who lived to be 108 died in 1942, and I will tell you this, that many times he re-told how we traveled, he and his family, he as a small boy traveled by foot, by horse, by canoe to this great place to where there would be these great religious spiritual events, and that they always camped between the falls and the sacred water place. Those are his words. . . .

Within my physical memory, visiting the Prairie Island Dakota Nation as early as the 1940s, there were still elders in that community in the 1940s who were still members of the Midewiwin Lodge along with the Winnebago of Wisconsin. And my memory serves me to say that there was a great dialogue among our people and those of the Prairie Island Community regarding the lodge, and that’s how we have always known this way of life and practice as the lodge, but meaning the Midewiwin Lodge as a system of belief. . . . The Honorable Amos Owens . . . is the last person of that community I ever heard talk about that mutually sacred place, meaning the falls and the spring from which sacred water is drawn, Coldwater.

The information presented here about the Native history of Coldwater Spring is only a sampling of a history ignored in the National Park Service Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines EIS. For the history that is included the final EIS relies on a 2002 study done for the Park Service which includes the following statement:

In a book published in 1835, Charles Joseph Latrobe stated that “lodges of the Sioux and the Chippewas encamped near the Reservation, or near the trading houses.” These would have been temporary visits, if only because the Dakota and the Chippewa were enemies unlikely to reside near one another except for brief visits to traders, the Indian Agency, or the fort.

The 1820 invitation by the Dakota for the Ojibwe to come make peace with them, along with all the other evidence not included in the final EIS, make clear the inaccuracy of this statement, and of the Park Service’s account of the Native connections to Coldwater Spring.