A National Park Service official in the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area has responded to critiques of the recent final EIS for the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property. The critiques which appeared on this website and which were announced on various listservs, stated that the Dakota perspective on Coldwater Spring had been ignored in the final EIS, based on such statements as: “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).

In response the Park Service official has stated that the Park Service did not ignore the Dakota perspective on Coldwater, because it met with Dakota tribal groups and other Native groups repeatedly and sought their opinions throughout the process. He provides a full record of those consultations and attempts at consultation.

It is not surprising that the Park Service wants to prove that it consulted with the tribes for legal and other CYOA reasons. But why does the official not mention what the agency learned as a result of those consultations? In fact, several Dakota tribes said that Coldwater Spring was a place of cultural and historical importance to the Dakota and that they wanted to obtain the property for the long-term. How did the Park Service respond? Did the statements of the tribes affect the conclusions reached by the Park Service?

It is also important to note that getting a Dakota perspective in the EIS is not just about listening to tribal governments. The Park Service has an obligation to gather information and the authenticity of information relating to the Dakota people is not determined exclusively by tribal governments. Information about Dakota beliefs and history comes from oral traditions, Native elders, and even written documents. Ignoring all of those resources to minimize the Dakota connection to Coldwater can not be remedied by giving a list of all the meetings, letters, and other contacts with tribal governments.

Consultation without representation is just cynical manipulation designed to arrive at a pre-determined result.

Email from Steven P. Johnson, January 14, 2010, to the Minnesota Indian Affairs listserv

Several comments have been posted to the listserve asserting that the National Park Service has ignored the Dakota perspective in considering the future of the former Bureau of Mines campus.  The fact is there has been considerable coordination with the federally recognized tribes.

While disagreement about conclusions is important to a healthy democracy, it is helpful to base those disagreements on the same set of facts.  For those who haven’t been closely involved in this issue, the Final EIS includes the record of our tribal coordination.  It is available at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=150&projectId=11443&documentID=30989

The National Park Service (NPS) has conducted extensive coordination with federally recognized tribes.  In addition to the correspondence and meetings cited below, NPS staff talked with representatives of various Dakota tribes throughout the process.  By federal law, the NPS is required to consult with federally-recognized tribes and their designed representatives.   The NPS will continue coordinating with the federally recognized tribes as long it is involved with the Bureau of Mines property.

I don’t want to use the listserve to engage in an argument with anyone, but I wanted you to know there are two sides to the story and the Dakota perspective has been considered throughout the process.

COORDINATION WITH FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES

Coordinating with interested federally recognized American Indian tribes has been on on-going effort throughout the EIS process.   The NPS contacted a total of 20 federally recognized American Indian tribes over the draft and final EIS processes and through the Section 106, National Historic Preservation, process.  The four recognized tribes in Minnesota (Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and Upper Sioux Indian Community) have been the most active in expressing their interests in the Center property, and the NPS has kept them informed at every stage of the review.  Early coordination regarding the EIS process is outlined below with additional coordination occurring during the Section 106 review process.  Copies of early coordination letters are included in Appendix E.

February 18, 2005. National Park Service mailed letters to the four federally recognized Dakota Tribes of Minnesota (Upper Sioux Indian Community, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Island Sioux Community and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community) as well as the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma inviting participation in the Center EIS planning process.

March 15, 2005. National Park Service delivered the scoping newsletter/comment card via telefax and U.S. Mail to 20 federally recognized Indian tribes.

April 6, 2005. National Park Service mailed letters to 11 federally recognized throughout Minnesota inviting participation in the Center EIS/Section 106 process.

April 11, 2005. National Park Service mailed letters to 16 federally recognized tribes inviting participation in the ethnographic study including TCP and sacred site analysis at the Center. Contacts included: Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Ho-Chunk Nation, Bois Forte Reservation, Fond du Lac Reservation, Grand Portage Reservation, Leech Lake Reservation, Mille Laces Band of Ojibwe, Red Lake Band of Chippewa, White Earth Reservation, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and Upper Sioux Indian Community.

April 26, 2005. National Park Service met with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council.

April 29, 2005. National Park Service met with members of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and participated in a site visit.

May 18, 2005. National Park Service mailed letters to federally recognized Sioux tribes outside Minnesota inviting participation in the Center EIS process including: Santee Sioux Tribe, Spirit Lake, Flandreau, and Crow Creek.

May 5, 2005. National Park Service hosted members of three federally recognized Dakota tribes and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council on a site visit.

August 2005. National Park Service met with chairman of the Upper Sioux Indian Community.

August 23, 2006.  Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS published in the Federal Register.

November 27, 2006.  Comment period on Draft EIS closed.  After this, the National Park Service was waiting for a decision from the Department of Interior concerning the preferred alternative.

September 8, 2008.  Department of Interior announces the preferred alternative.

December 3, 2008.  National Park Service sent a letter to 20 federally recognized tribes announcing that the Department of the Interior (DOI) had selected a preferred alternative for the property, which calls for removing the buildings and infrastructure and restoring the landscape to a condition that emphasizes its ecological and historical significance.

January 22, 2009. The NPS announced through letters to the Minnesota SHPO, tribal governments, interest groups and individuals on its mailing list an open house meeting on Monday February 23, 2009 from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the VA Hospital in Minneapolis. The meeting’s purpose was to collect public comment on reuse and restoration of the Center site under the selected, preferred alternative and its impacts on the Center’s historic properties.

February 11, 2009.  The NPS sent a letter to 20 federally recognized tribes.  The letter noted the two letters above, and the Superintendent stated that “The purpose of this letter to let you know that my staff and I are available to discuss with you any concerns you may have regarding the preferred alternative, the site’s restoration, and the site’s future use and management.”

February 23, 2009, Open House.  Federally recognized tribes were specifically invited to this open house.

[April ?, 2009. Announced second public open house for Bureau of Mines is cancelled.]

May 11 and 12, 2009, MNRRA sent the Draft MOA to 10 Dakota tribes and interested parties participating in the Section 106 process and requested their comments on it. MNRRA also offered to meet with the tribes to walk through the document. MNRRA followed up with phone calls to each tribe to reiterate its willingness to meet with them.

Once the Record of Decision is signed, the NPS will submit the final MOA to the 10 Dakota tribes and consulting parties for their signature.

Copies of coordination and consultation letters for cultural resources and Section 106 are included in Appendix H.

Steve Johnson
Chief of Resource Management
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
National Park Service
111 E. Kellogg Blvd., Suite 105
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-290-3030 x223
Fax: 651-290-3214
[email protected]

Thank you for taking time to discuss the Bureau of Mines project in Hennepin County. Minnesota. The property covers 27 acres along a bluff above the Mississippi River and includes 11 buildings and the Coldwater Spring and Reservoir. . . . Although well-known as a site associated with Fort Selling’s history, the spring had not been recognized for any separate American Indian historic significance or associations until the late 1990s, when protests began over a nearby highway project. . . . The question I called you about concerned the difference between the evidence needed to determine a site eligible for the National Register as a TCP or as a site of “religious and cultural significance” to an American Indian tribe.—letter of a MNRRA official to an official of the National Register of Historic Places, Feb. 27, 2009, discussing the possible status of Coldwater Spring as a Traditional Cultural Property or TCP.

For several years now the National Park Service has expressed its categorical rejection of the finding of its own expert that Coldwater Spring, which flows out of the ground on the Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Campus property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is a place of traditional cultural importance for the Dakota and other Native people. The Park Service in the 2006 draft EIS relating to the disposition of the property rejected TCP status for the property and the final EIS released in December 2009 does not change that. In the interim the Park Service had received a great deal of comment and new information which could have led to a change in the determination. But as stated in the final EIS in volume 1, on page 23, there was little change (annotations added for greater clarity):

In support of the EIS planning process, an ethnographic resources study was completed at the Center (Terrell et al. 2005) [which came to the conclusion that Coldwater Spring was eligible for the National Register as a TCP]. The primary focus of this study was to document tribal use and perceptions of this area, to assess whether Camp Coldwater Spring constitutes a TCP under NHPA section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f) or a sacred site under Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), and to identify any additional ethnographic resources present within the area of potential effect of the proposed action and alternatives being assessed in this EIS. A TCP is generally defined as a property that “is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King 1998).

After review of the study, the National Park Service has determined that [contrary to the conclusions of the Terrel, et. al.] Camp Coldwater Spring does not meet the criteria listed in the NRHP for designation as a TCP. However, Camp Coldwater Spring and Reservoir are culturally important to some Indian people for ritual and ceremonial reasons. The importance ascribed to this area, including the spring and reservoir and the subsequent need for protection, is addressed in the alternatives presented in this EIS. A copy of the draft ethnography report was also provided to the Indian tribes and interviewees that participated in the study by the National Park Service. The ethnographic resources study will be sent to the Minnesota SHPO as part of the section 106 process occurring concurrently with this EIS.

The two paragraphs present a remarkable lack of explanation. If one could talk with Park Service officials one might ask whether there really is a meaningful distinction to be made between a site that is “eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community,” and a site that is “culturally important to some Indian people for ritual and ceremonial reasons.”

Lacking in the final EIS was a detailed explanation of how the Park Service reached the conclusion that Coldwater Spring was not a TCP. In the fall of 2006 an analysis was written by an unnamed author working in the MNRRA office and distributed to a few members of the public. The memo contained many statements that were highly debatable. Further, it was not even included in the final EIS. As a result,  the TCP determination of the Park Service about Coldwater Spring continues to appear arbitrary and capricious.

The text of the final EIS report does not reveal the name of the author of that phantom memo from October 2006. But the name is disclosed in a four-page letter buried in an Appendix to the final EIS. The letter was written by the same individual to an official of the National Register of Historic Places almost a year ago, in February 2009. That letter does reveal some evolution in the thinking of Park Service officials, but it is not clear if this evolution is actually progress.

Having categorically rejected the analysis that Coldwater Spring was a TCP, and asking the Dakota to provide documentary proof that it is, the official appears to twist himself in knots over the idea that the site could be accepted as a “historic property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe,” or, one might say a HPRCSIT, simply based on the assertion of that fact by an Indian tribe. But in the course of the analysis the author manages to convince himself out of that idea, springing back to the Park Service’s original position.

The letter is a sad demonstration of bureaucratic hair-splitting and untenable requests that Indian people prove the veracity of their cultural heritage. But since it is in the public record as a subsidiary document to the final EIS (Appendix H, pages 145-148), the public needs to read it and make up its own mind. The text of the letter follows. I have added some discussion and links to helpful documents, especially when there are mistakes or inaccuracies in the text. Any other errors in the text may have resulted from the scanning process through which the fuzzy pdf found on the Park Service website was transformed into a digital text.

Further discussion of the letter will appear on this site in the days ahead.

Letter to written from an official in the National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, St. Paul office to an official in the National Register Office in Washington, D.C.

February 27, 2009
Turkiya Lowe
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
1849 C Street, NW (2280)
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Ms. Lowe,

Thank you for taking time to discuss the Bureau of Mines project in Hennepin County. Minnesota. The property covers 27 acres along a bluff above the Mississippi River arid includes 11 buildings and the Coldwater Spring and Reservoir. Since the Bureau of Mines closed in 1996, the property reverted to the Department of the Interior and has been abandoned. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, oversees day to day management, and the National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, is completing an Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) for potential disposition and treatment of the property. While the Draft EIS considered transfer of the property out of federal hands, the Department of the Interior has determined that the preferred alternative is to remove the 11 puddings, restore the land to a native landscape and return the property for management by the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. The exact treatment of the spring and reservoir will be resolved through consultation as we finalize the Section 106 process. [More on this in later installments.]

The Department of Interior and Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office have agreed that the Bureau of Mines campus is eligible for !he National Register of Historic places. Coldwater Spring and Reservoir are contributing elements to the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark (NHL) and Fort Snelling National Register of Historic places Historic District. [It is not, and never will be, a comfort to Dakota people that Coldwater Spring is eligible for the National Register because of its association with a military fort that was involved in the exile of their people from Minnesota. ]

The project has a number of politically and emotionally charged issues tied to it. One concerns Coldwater Spring and its historical significance for American Indians. Although well-known as a site associated with Fort Selling‘s history, the spring had not been recognized for any separate American Indian historic significance or associations until the late 1990s, when protests began over a nearby highway project. Protestors, including some American Indians, found Coldwater Spring on the abandoned Bureau of Mimes property, and it became a gathering place. Since that time the spring’s significance as a spiritual place for some American Indians and for various groups of non Indians has grown. [Extensive information about the use of the site as a meeting ground for Dakota and Ojibwe–trading, dancing, participating in ceremonies together–during the 19th century was submitted to the Park Service in 2006. Even at that time the Park Service knew that the Ojibwe treaty signers for the celebrated Ojibwe Treaty of 1837–which was the subject of the Minnesota v. Mille Lacs treaty rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999–camped at Coldwater Spring. None of this made it into the final EIS.]

I have enclosed a number of documents concerning the project. One CD contains the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the three cultural resources studies the NPS completed for the site. One is an ethnography that included a Traditional Cultural Property assessment, I have included a written copy of the analysis I wrote disagreeing with the study’s conclusion that Coldwater Spring qualified as a TCP. I added a CD of some PowerPoint images about the site’s history that might help put the site in context. Finally, 1 have enclosed the letter we recently sent to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation providing some background information regarding potential impacts to historic resources an the property under the preferred alternative. [The author appears to be taking credit for the so-called phantom memo, but was that memo an official analysis designed to support the EIS conclusion? Or was there another analysis that no one has seen? What was the process involved in the Park Service determination? Also, were the comments submitted to the Park Service for the draft EIS, which took issue with the record assembled by the Park Service, included with the submission to the National Register official?]

The question I called you about concerned the difference between the evidence needed to determine a site eligible for the National Register as a TCP or as a site of “religious and cultural significance” to an American Indian tribe. My question arose after reviewing the Advisory Council’s Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Process: A Handbook.” On page 19, point 3. the Handbook states:

Within the Section 106 process, the appropriate terminology for sites of importance to Indian tribes is “historic property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe.” Unlike the term TCP, this phrase appears in NHPA and the Section 106 regulations. It applies (strictly) to tribal sites, unlike the term TCP. Furthermore, Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA reminds agencies that historic properties religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes may be eligible for the National Register. Thus, it is not necessary to use the term TCP when considering whether a site with significance to a tribe is eligible for the National Register as part of the Section 106 process.

And on page 20. point 5, the Handbook says:

Is the federal agency required to verify a tribe’s determination of significance with archaeological or ethnographic evidence before making a National Register eligibility determination?

No. The agency is not required to verity a tribe’s determination that a historic property is of religious and cultural significance to the tribe, The ACHP regulations at 36 CFR 800.4(c)(1) state, in part, that “[t]he agency official shall acknowledge that Indian tribes . . . .possess special expertise in assessing the eligibility of historic properties; that may possess religious and cultural significance to them.” The National Register considers the information obtained from a tribe’s recognized expert to be a valid line of evidence in considering determinations of significance, For additional guidance on making eligibility determinations, the agency should consult with the staff of the National Register.

Given the above statements, it appeared that the simple assertion by a tribe that Coldwater Spring was National Register eligible or merited listing on the National Register required no documentation. After looking at the full context of 56 CFR 800.4(c)(l), I saw that it stated,

In consultation with the SHPO and any Indian tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified properties and guided by the Secretary’s standards and guidelines for evaluation, the agency official shall apply the National Register criteria (36 CFR part 63) to properties identified within the area of potential streets that have not been previously evaluated for National Register eligibility.

So, it appears we are required to gather and evaluate the available documentation before making a determination of eligibility. This is what we have done and will continue to do. [Wait a minute: What happened to acknowledgement of the “the special expertise” of Indian tribes “ in assessing the eligibility of historic properties.” That is found in the same regulations too.]

The NPS does not have a National Register determination of significance from any tribe, but we do have a letter from the four recognized Dakota tribes in Minnesota dated September 13, 2000, stating that “It is well established that for centuries, the entire area around Coldwater Springs and the meeting place of the Minnesota and Mississippi River have held very significant cultural and practical importance to the Dakota.” And we have an October 12, 2006, resolution from the Lower Sioux Indian Community stating the Coldwater Spring is a sacred site and that “the Lower Sioux Indian Community publicly declares that Coldwater Springs arid the land surrounding it is a usual and accustomed place for the exercise of fundamental religious, spiritual and cultural purposes.” The resolution asserted that the Lower Sioux Indian Community should get the Bureau of Mines property. A number of other tribes have made claims to the land as well, and some Dakota ate insisting that it go to all the Dakota or a number of bands of the Dakota. Again, the DOI has stated that its preferred alternative is to keep the land and have the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area manage it. [What is meant here by the reference to “a National Register determination of significance” from a tribe? Does he mean that a tribe would have to do their own TCP study? What if the tribe simply asserted the historic and cultural significance of the place, as they have done? Do they have to utter the magic words “traditional cultural property,” for it to be a “determination”?]

The confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers lies about one mile from Coldwater Spring and is recognized as a place of historic and cultural importance to the Dakota We do not, however, have specific documentation regarding Dakota use of the spring. As you will see from my comments on the TCP determination and the ethnographic study, we have good contextual background on why the spring might be historically significant but almost no evidence concerning the specific use or importance of this particular spring to the Dakota. In contrast, other significant Dakota sites in the Twin Cities area have historic names and stones associated with them that have been known for hundreds of years. [The spring is also directly adjacent to and has been argued by Dakota people to be an integral part of Taku Wakan Tipi, the dwelling place of the water spirit who manifests himself in springs. Europeans have generally assumed that Taku Wakan Tipi was simply hill, but, in the 19th century, no one bothered to ask the Dakota what the boundaries of it were. Do you suppose that the spring flowing out of a hill in which the water spirit was said to dwell, might be seen as a pathway for that spirit? That is what many Dakota say, but maybe it requires verification by a bureaucrat.]

The NPS is not adverse to the site being a TCP or one of National Register religious or cultural significance. The NPS already recognizes the spring as a sacred site to the Lower Sioux based on their resolution. The NPS also recognizes the need to work closely with the Dakota to address their concerns regarding the spring, regardless of the Section 106 and National Register issues. We have sent over 20 tribes letters asking for direct consultation and will be following up with telephone calls. Whether considered a site of religious and Cultural significance or a TCP, the NPS simply would like more documentation that shows that the Dakota used the spring historically and for what so we can better plan for future use and possible restoration of Coldwater Spring as a natural area. [The real question being asked here is for the Dakota to prove that they really believe what they say they believe. How does one go about proving that to anybody? Beyond that: What does it mean to manage Coldwater Spring as a “natural area,” and is that environmental approach compatible with Dakota beliefs about sacred and culturally important places? In the TCP study Dakota people said that the sacred area for Coldwater Spring included where the water came from, where it came out of the ground, and where it went into the Mississippi River. Coldwater as a TCP is not just about the where the spring comes to the surface, but includes a broad area.]

Thank you for taking time to discuss this complex project with me and your willingness to help us work through any National Register issues that arise. The NPS will continue to work with the Minnesota SHPO and the tribes to as we finalize the E!S and Section 106 processes. The attached documents do not adequately convey the complexity of the issues surrounding the Bureau of Mines Property, and I am available to answer any questions you might have. . . . [Unfortunately the author has not been available since the release of the final EIS to answer questions on this issue from members of the public.]

Sincerely.
John O. Anfinson
Historian

People are asking me what I would recommend doing to respond the National Park Service’s handling of the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines EIS process. As stated in the last few days, I believe that the Park Service has mishandled and manipulated the process to achieve rigged results that have harmed the public interest and the interests of Dakota people. The issues have to do with both short-term and long-term outcome of the process–what happens to Coldwater Spring in the short-term and who ends up owning Coldwater for the long haul. I will discuss these outcomes in more detail below.

However, the bottom line is that if you really want to be heard about the issue, especially if you believe that the Dakota interests in the property have been given little attention in this whole confusing process, the best thing is to write to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar (see how to contact him below), who ultimately will be responsible for making decisions about the outcome for Coldwater. It is important to tell him that the Coldwater EIS has been biased and has intentionally ignored the Dakota heritage found in the property. It is important to tell him that while short-term federal management and cleanup of the property may be reasonable, in the long term, the property should be returned to the Dakota. (When communicating with national officials who may not be familiar with all the details of the project, it is important to mention that EIS concerns the disposition of Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Research Center Campus, Hennepin County, Minnesota.)

It would also not hurt to write to President Obama, Kimberly Teehee (the president’s advisor on Indian issues), and Senators and members of Congress who represent Minnesota in Washington. While it would not hurt also to submit comments to MNRRA, the local branch of the Park Service, which has promised to submit comments along with the final EIS when it is sent to higher-ups in the Park Service and Department of Interior,  judging by past practice it may be more effective to communicate directly with the people in charge and the elected officials to whom they are accountable. Addresses and emails for communicating with the various officials are found at the end of this article.

Last March, long before the release of the final EIS for the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property, I wrote that continued federal ownership of the Coldwater Spring/Bureau of Mines property–on a short-term basis–was a reasonable outcome of the current Department of Interior environmental review process, one that many who disagreed on other issues might agree upon, even though they would not agree publicly. I said that the sticking points were about what should happen later.

That was written after an announcement by an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Lyle Laverty, in the waning days of the Bush administration, of the selection of Alternative D as the Preferred Alternative, including the cleaning up of the property and D[3] the subsequent ownership and management by the Park Service’s Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, MNRRA.

I stated: “The Park Service has put the cart before the horse yet again. . . . Having announced the decision in December about keeping the Coldwater property in federal hands and cleaning it up, the Park Service had its open house on February 23 to get comment on how to accomplish the cleanup.” A comment period in later winter was designed only to elicit comment on the cleanup, not on longterm ownership.  But many of those who wanted to comment had real reservations about continued federal ownership. How could they comment on cleanup by itself, in the abstract?

When Park Service officials were pressed they stated that this was not the time to express opinions about the ultimate ownership of Coldwater Spring. That time would come later. Once the final EIS was released there would be a 30-day comment period when people could express their views about the Preferred Alternative, that the land would be cleaned up and then turned over to the MNRRA to manage long term.

That turned out to contain several misstatements, as MNRRA officials now acknowledge. The current 30-day comment period is not a comment period, but rather a period of “no action.” And the final EIS does not actually state that the Preferred Alternative actually involves long term ownership or management of Coldwater by MNRRA. When Lyle Laverty, the Bush official  came out for Alternative D, he should have said nothing about long term ownership. “He was kind of putting the cart before the horse,” an official told me recently.

Instead, officials now say that the EIS is only about comparing environmental alternatives, not ownership options. So in saying that the Park Service now calls Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative, that still involves all of the options I mentioned a few days ago. Under Alternative D, once the property was cleaned up by the federal government, the alternatives are:

[1]. The property could be transferred to a university or nonfederal entity–including Indian tribes–without conditions.

[2]. The property could be transferred to a university or nonfederal entity–including Indian tribes–with conditions.

[3]. The property could be retained by the federal government, including being held as trust land for Indian tribes.

Although Laverty, the Bush official came out in favor of keeping the land in federal hands, other entirely different outcomes are possible, especially under a new administration. Thus, despite announcements in December 2008 and December 2009 about Coldwater becoming a public park, this is not assured under Alternative D. And there is still no assurance that the land will remain in federal ownership.

Steven P. Johnson of MNRRA went into more detail on these points in a recent statement:

The purpose of the EIS was not to decide who got the property, but what that property would look like. The Draft EIS was clear that it was the determination of the land-use scenarios that was the focus of the EIS. For instance, the Draft EIS, page iv, Summary states: “The environmental impacts of the alternatives 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 precisely until after the EIS process was completed.  .  .  .

Essentially, the Secretary has had the authority to dispose of the property to a qualified party as defined by legislation, Pub. L. No. 104-134 [1996]. (See page 6 of the Final EIS for more detail.) An EIS is designed to disclose the environmental effects associated with the disposal. To that end, the EIS does that in quite some detail. 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. Again, the impacts associated with that disposal has been disclosed.

It precisely on some of these points that there is disagreement. Considering that the Park Service has refused to acknowledge an important aspect of the property for the Dakota, then it may very well be that not all environmental effects associated with places of traditional cultural importance for Dakota people are dealt with in the final EIS. And for Dakota people, there may very well be “environmental effects associated with the actual ownership.” But this is how the Park Service has interpreted the framework under which it operates. And under that framework, now is the time to be heard on the ownership fof the property.

Despite the fact that there is no comment period now about the final EIS and that the final EIS does not actually specify a long term owner for the Coldwater property, this is the time to make your opinions known about who should get Coldwater and what they should do with it. A decision will be made very soon. Now is the time to be heard.

When will the decision about ownership be made? Officials say it will be part of the Record of Decision, the ROD, which can me issued at any time after Midnight, January 11, 2010.

How long will the comment period be after that decision? There will be no comment period. It is in the discretion of the federal government to pick any alternative for ownership compatible with the alternative determined to be the best one under the final EIS.

So in other words, any comments that members of the public wish to have to influence the decision about what happens to Coldwater Spring–whether it be held on to by MNRRA following cleanup or transferred to an Indian tribe, a governmental or non-governmental agency–are best directed at the people who will make the final decision about what happens to Coldwater, or the people those decision-makers work for. Their contact information is found below.

Also, in all of this talk about the EIS, there has not been time to talk about the Section 106 process, through which federal agencies are required to consider effects of their actions on cultural resources found on federal properties. A concurrent Section 106 process is taking place involving the Coldwater property, including consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in St. Paul. The SHPO will reconsider the question of the TCP status of Coldwater. If you have opinions about that status, you should also write to Britta Bloomberg the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer of Minnesota.

More on the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines issues, including the 106 process, next time.

Contact Information
Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-3100
E-Mail: [email protected]
Online contact form

Senator Al Franken
60 East Plato Blvd
Suite 220
Saint Paul, MN 55107
(651) 221-1016
Online contact form

Senator Amy Klobuchar
1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Main Line: 612-727-5220
Main Fax: 612-727-5223
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
Online contact form

Kimberly Teehee
Senior Policy Advisor on Native American Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
White House Comments: 202-456-1111
White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414
White House FAX: 202-456-2461
White House online contact form

Britta Bloomberg
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd. W.
St. Paul, MN 55102-1903
Phone: 651-259-3450
Fax: 651-282-2374
651-259-3466
Email: [email protected]

Superintendent Paul Labovitz
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
111 Kellogg Blvd East, Suite 105
St. Paul, MN 55101
Fax: 651-290-3214
Email: [email protected]
Online contact form

In the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property in Hennepin County Minnesota, the National Park Service has produced a rigged document, designed to achieve the result it wanted to achieve, and avoid the result it wanted to avoid. In the process the public interest has been subverted and the interests of Dakota people in the cultural and historical heritage of Minnesota—the place that bears the name the Dakota gave it—have been have been deliberately thwarted.

Federal environmental review processes are governed by NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. As it happens January 1 of this year was the 40th anniversary of NEPA. Just a few days ago President Barack Obama issued a proclamation to mark the anniversary. He stated:

Forty years ago, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law with overwhelming bipartisan support, ushering in a new era of environmental awareness and citizen participation in government. NEPA elevated the role of environmental considerations in proposed Federal agency actions, and it remains the cornerstone of our Nation’s modern environmental protections. On this anniversary, we celebrate this milestone in our Nation’s rich history of conservation, and we renew our commitment to preserve our environment for the next generation

NEPA governs the actions of agencies like the National Park Service. And in terms of NEPA, the environment is defined to include the historical and cultural aspects of the environment—the meanings of places like Coldwater to people such as the Dakota. NEPA states that aim of NEPA is to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice.”

An important aspect for consideration in a NEPA environmental review would be to determine if a federal property contained places of importance to people, and more specifically places defined under the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places as TCPs or traditional cultural properties. The definition of that term owes a lot to Thomas F. King, an archaeologist and noted expert in the field who co-authored National Register Bulletin 38, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.”

King has authored many books and articles on the topic of NEPA and other laws governing environmental review. Recently he wrote to President Obama applauding his proclamation on the 40th anniversary of NEPA, but at the same warning of ways in which the law has been undermined by the federal agencies it governs. He wrote:

I especially appreciate your call for executive branch agencies to promote public involvement and transparency in NEPA implementation. I fear, however, that in the last decade or so most federal agencies have forgotten how to make their decision making transparent, and moreover, forgotten why doing so is a good idea. It is all very well and good for the concerned public to be able to look through the transparent window and see what an agency is doing, but if that public is unable to do anything about it, it only produces frustration.

King’s comment applies well to the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines EIS process, one that has fostered the opposite of openness, particularly on the question of the importance of Coldwater for Dakota people.

Three years ago, commenting on the draft EIS for Coldwater, I questioned in detail the conclusion the Park Service had come to in relation to the spring, pointing out that it was based on faulty reasoning and incomplete information. I stated:

The Park Service’s stance does little to undercut the traditional cultural importance of Coldwater Spring, but it does do great damage to the Park Service itself. The Park Service’s arrogant assertions about Coldwater Spring have already had and will continue to have a profound and disproportionate effect on the federal government’s environmental review process relating to the disposal of the Bureau of Mines property. As a result it is unclear if the Park Service is capable of carrying out a fair and unbiased environmental review.

It is now clear that the Park Service was not capable capable of carrying out a fair and unbiased environmental review in relation to Coldwater Spring. The proof is in the final Environmental Impact Statement released on December 11, 2009.

Environmental reviews are dependent on the gathering of complete and accurate information. When information is inaccurate or incomplete it can bias the conclusions that result. In relation to Coldwater Spring it was important to gather full information on the all aspects of the environment of the property, including its cultural and historical features.

It is in this sense that the federal EIS process has subverted the public interest in having complete information about the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property, and the interest of Dakota people in having their heritage and connection to the place acknowledged.

Like the draft EIS, the final version interprets the history of the Fort Snelling area in general and Camp Coldwater in particular through the lens of European history. While detailed and extensive information—much of it easily available in the collections of the Minnesota Historical Society in St. Paul—on the activities of Native people, both Dakota and Ojibwe at the spring and the area around it, was submitted by members of the public in November 2006, none of this was incorporated into the final version.

This information supported the statements made by Dakota and Ojibwe people for the last ten years and longer about the historical and cultural importance of the place. However, in its record of responses to much of this information, the authors of the final EIS merely state: “Comment noted,” without any further effort to interpret the information.

The final EIS continues to rely on a cursory historical study completed in 2002, before the EIS was even contemplated:

A historical study completed in 2002 by Barbara J. Henning focused on the Center and also made a determination as to whether Camp Coldwater Spring is independently eligible for the NRHP. The author concluded that neither the spring nor associated features are independently eligible for the NRHP. However, she did conclude that Camp Coldwater Spring does contribute to the significance of the Fort Snelling National Historic District, the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark, and the Old Fort Snelling State Historic District.

Henning’s statement exemplifies a puzzling aspect of the NPS Coldwater/ BOM EIS process: Dakota tribes and communities were repeatedly assured that while the federal government would not recognize their own heritage, it would preserve Coldwater Spring because it was part of White, European-American heritage. But Henning’s conclusion was faulty, based on a brief study of secondary sources. In one of the most obvious errors, the study stated:

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.

But the evidence submitted in 2006 revealed an extensive written record of repeated interactions between Dakota and Ojibwe at Coldwater Spring, in which they met ceremonially, traded, and danced together. This information too supported to statements of Native people as recorded over the last ten years. But it was not acknowledged in the final EIS. As a result, in five separate places, the final report states: “no historical documentation of American Indian use of Camp Coldwater Spring has been found,” (first statement on page 72).

Besides ignoring the important written documents that support Native connections to Coldwater, the statement is  a clear and forthright admission of a shameful ethnocentric bias in the interpretation of what constitutes history and documentation. The Park Service discounts the importance of oral history and tradition for documenting the importance of culturally important places. The  FEIS states:

The studies completed for the EIS and Section 106 reviews located no ethnographic sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Oral traditions and histories collected during these investigations suggest that natural springs, like Coldwater Spring, are associated with ceremonies and deities of the Dakota Indian spiritual world. Coldwater Spring is currently used by some members of the federally recognized Dakota and Ojibwe communities, and other American Indians, as a source of water for ceremonies. Many American Indian communities have a traditional association with the area surrounding the spring.

Oral traditions and histories also state that Coldwater Spring itself is a place of traditional cultural importance. But this fact was simply not acknowledged in the various versions of the EIS. The Park Service also continues to reject the study by Michelle Terrell and her associates, the contractor for the Park Service, who found in a 2005 study that the site was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a traditional cultural property. Without even acknowledging the conclusion of that study the final EIS stated:

In support of the EIS planning process, an ethnographic resources study was completed at the Center (Terrell et al. 2005). The primary focus of this study was to document tribal use and perceptions of this area, to assess whether Camp Coldwater Spring constitutes a TCP under NHPA section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f) or a sacred site under Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), and to identify any additional ethnographic resources present within the area of potential effect of the proposed action and alternatives being assessed in this EIS. A TCP is generally defined as a property that “is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King 1998).

After review of the study, the National Park Service has determined [contrary to the conclusion of the Terrell study] that Camp Coldwater Spring does not meet the criteria listed in the NRHP for designation as a TCP. However, Camp Coldwater Spring and Reservoir are culturally important to some Indian people for ritual and ceremonial reasons. The importance ascribed to this area, including the spring and reservoir and the subsequent need for protection, is addressed in the alternatives presented in this EIS. A copy of the draft ethnography report was also provided to the Indian tribes and interviewees that participated in the study by the National Park Service. The ethnographic resources study will be sent to the Minnesota SHPO as part of the section 106 process occurring concurrently with this EIS.

The treatment of the TCP issue, the rejection of the Terrell report, the misplaced reliance on the Henning report, and the purposeful rejection of historical documentation on the historical use of Coldwater by Native people, are all evidence of the way in which the EIS process has been rigged and subverted by the National Park Service. As a result, the decisions that the Department of Interior is expected to make in the weeks ahead about the disposal of the property will not be grounded in complete and accurate information about the cultural and historical aspects of the environment of the Bureau of Mines property, though they may embrace the results the Park Service was seeking from the beginning.

More on this, and the 106 process mentioned in the quotation above from the FEIS, next time.

What is in the final environmental impact statement for the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property near Fort Snelling in Hennepin County, Minnesota? How does it provide a basis for the Department of Interior to select Preferred Alternative D [3], including the cleanup the property by the federal government and its retention in federal hands? And how does it deal with the issues about Coldwater Spring as a place of traditional cultural importance for Dakota people?

To know the answers to those questions—and the meaning of those answers—requires context and information. One of the problems of dealing with any bureaucracy which operates in an environment of controversy has to do with the flow of information. To understand how such agencies make their decisions requires access to hidden information, buried reports, and phantom memos. Every decision has a hidden history that has to be understood before you can begin to figure out the decision. Should you choose to try to learn this context, may the force be with you.

For ten years the Department of Interior, through the National Park Service and its Twin Cities entity, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), has been trying to extricate itself from Coldwater Spring and the problems associated with the ownership of 27 acres of controversial land and abandoned buildings. For supporters of the preservation of Coldwater Spring, including those who believe that it is a sacred and culturally important place for Dakota and other Native people, the process has been difficult to follow, in part because they have not been given all the information needed to understand it. The Park Service and MNRRA have managed information carefully, sometimes concealing it or giving it out only after the fact, after decisions were made.

The initiation of an environmental review process and the beginning of work on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2005, seemed to suggest a change in tone, the possibility of a real flow of information that would lead to a collaboration between supporters of preservation and a governmental agency seeking to do the best for an environmental, cultural, and historic resource. The release of the draft EIS (DEIS) in 2006 tempered enthusiasm a little bit. The DEIS provided a lot of information. But a great deal of the cultural and historic information was inaccurate and incomplete. And using the incomplete information the Park Service announced that it did not believe Dakota people and others who insisted on the importance of Coldwater Spring to Native people. In doing so, the Park Service rejected the finding of its own contracting experts who found that Coldwater Spring was a TCP, a traditional cultural property of importance to Dakota people.

During a 90-day comment period in the fall of 2006, many people submitted comments to correct the record compiled by the Park Service about the cultural nature of the property, on the theory that given the right information the agency would revise the EIS and the conclusions to which it came. Adequate knowledge about the historical and current importance of Coldwater Spring and the surrounding area is not just about correcting the historical record or assuring that competent history is done. It is also about assuring that the right decisions are made about Coldwater Spring.

Many supporters of Coldwater preservation are united in their belief about the environmental importance of the spring and beauty of the spring area. They can agree that the buildings should be removed, preferably at government expense, and the area restored environmentally. Under the DEIS issued in 2006, the best alternative to achieve that purpose was Alternative D. However Alternative D had several alternatives built into them. These alternatives were not numbered but to better understand them, they should probably have been. Under Alternative D, once the property was cleaned up by the federal government, the alternatives are:

[1]. The property would be transferred to a university or nonfederal entity—including Indian tribes—without conditions.

[2]. The property would be transferred to a university or nonfederal entity—including Indian tribes—with conditions.

[3]. The property would be retained by the federal government, including being held as trust land for Indian tribes.

It is important to know that supporters of Coldwater preservation did not all agree on who the ultimate owner of the property should be. Some wanted the property to be a public park. Others wanted Indian ownership. In 2006 several Dakota tribal entities asked for the federal government to transfer the property to them.

Was it a mere coincidence that, given the Dakota beliefs about the importance of the spring and the proposals from Dakota tribes to acquire the property, that the National Park Service rejected its own contractor’s documentation that the spring was a Traditional Cultural Property for Dakota people? The tenaciousness of the Park Service’s position on this point and the lack of explanation for it in the DEIS suggested instead that the Park Service simply did not want to give Dakota people any leverage in any negotiations about the ultimate fate of the Coldwater property. For the Park Service to acknowledge what Dakota people said about the spring and what its own experts said about the spring, and what many other people outside the federal government said about the spring would have given Dakota people, a moral and perhaps, legal claim to the spring that the Park Service simply did not want to recognize.

It was hard to figure out, from the DEIS, the Park Service’s own rationale for the decision it had reached about the TCP status of Coldwater. There was, of course, a phantom memo, that shed some light on the issue. Midway through the DEIS comment period a memo was written by an unnamed person in MNRRA, explaining some of it. The memo was issued to a few people at the time, though it was not a part of the DEIS, which meant that the rationale for the Park Service decision about the TCP status of Coldwater was not supported in the DEIS by any facts or reasoning. The memo is still preserved on the MNRRA website in pdf from, although it is hard to find.

Some of those who reviewed the DEIS did read the phantom memo and commented on it in their comments to the Park Service in November 2006. At that point, at the conclusion of the DEIS comment period, there was optimism that given more information, the Park Service would rethink its decision in revising the DEIS, something that has been expected to happen for the last three years.

Finally, after more than three years, on December 11, 2009, the Park Service released the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property. Although it had taken a long time, the Department of Interior seemed closer to a decision about what would happen to Coldwater Spring. A year earlier, in the waning days of the Bush administration, Lyle Laverty, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, had written several memos (one of them was another phantom memo, which has not yet been made public) stating that the department had identified the Preferred Alternative for the EIS process for Coldwater as Alternative D, which would include the cleaning up of the property and D[3] the subsequent ownership and management by MNRRA.

Subsequent to that finding there had been a further comment period and discussion of the process of restoration of the property, including an open house on February 23, 2009, at which Dakota people had described again the importance of the spring and the surrounding area to Dakota people. Subsequently, the Park Service drafted a Memorandum of Agreement to govern the restoration process for the spring area.

The announcement that Alternative D was the preferred alternative and that long-term ownership of the property would remain in the possession of the federal government was a signal of what to expect in the final EIS (FEIS). It would be expected that the FEIS would include the weighing of alternatives and evidence to show why the Preferred Alternative was preferred.

It was also expected that the Park Service would weigh in further on the question of the importance of the spring for Dakota people either changing its analysis to acknowledge new information or justifying further the Park Service insistence that that Coldwater Spring was not a TCP for the Dakota people.

Again the reason for expecting a more detailed analysis of the TCP question was not a simple matter of having a corrected historical record about Coldwater Spring, but was relevant to the question of the Preferred Alternative. If the Park Service was planning to reject proposals for the property by Dakota tribal groups and claims by the Dakota people about the importance of the property, one would expect some justification of that in the FEIS.

What is in the FEIS and how does it deal with the issues about Coldwater Spring as a Dakota place and how does it provide a basis for the Department of Interior to select Alternative D [3], including the cleanup the property by the federal government and its retention in federal hands?

More about that next time.

Contrary to what was reported a few days ago, the Park Service did not lose funding from the federal Stimulus Package passed by Congress earlier this year. Getting that money was only a possibility to begin with. It was never a sure thing. When the Stimulus Package passed Congress, the Park Service was one of many agencies that stood in line to get funding. It just happened that there were more projects seeking funding than there was money. So the Park Service could not get funding for the rehabilitation of the Bureau of Mines property from stimulus money. But this does not mean that it will take five years to get funding for the work.

Word also is that the Final EIS on the Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines property will be released late in the Summer. Officials were rushing to get it done in order to get the Stimulus funding. Now that this is no longer possible there is less of a hurry to finish.

More information later as it becomes available.