Draft EIS Main Page
Draft EIS Cover Letter
Bureau of Mines Website

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
In cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Disposition of Bureau of Mines Property,
Twin Cities Research Center Main Campus
Hennepin County, Minnesota

Mississippi National River and Recreation Area

SUMMARY

The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) has been designated by Congress to lead the public planning process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to address the disposition of the federal property known as the Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center Main Campus (Center). Congress closed the Center in 1995. The Center is located on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River and is within the boundaries of the MNRRA, a unit of the national park system. The proposed action is to dispose of the Center.

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) will consider and identify alternatives and the impacts of such alternatives regarding the disposition of the Center. The analysis process will consider the guidelines of the MNRRA’s Comprehensive Management Plan and the laws and rules that are applied to the geographic area of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.

Maintenance, upkeep, and the day-to-day management of the Center is the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Center consists of approximately 27 acres of land near the intersection of State Highways (SH) 62 and 55 in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The original intent of the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) was to erect a new storage facility for cores drilled by private companies in their assessments of mineral deposits, primarily in the northcentral part of the country. The storage facility was erected in 1949, and by 1959, construction efforts at the Center were complete. The Center eventually employed up to 200 people and included 11 buildings. The buildings, some of which are of a historic character, are in various stages of disrepair and are mostly vacant.

There are three historic districts and a national historic landmark that overlap in the area of the Center. These include the Fort Snelling National Historic District (designated in October 1966 and expanded in 1970) and Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark (designated in December 1960 and updated in 1978), Old Fort Snelling State Historic District (designated in 1971), and the U.S. Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Research Center Historic District (determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by consensus determination with the Minnesota state historic preservation office in 1996). As part of the EIS planning process, the National Park Service is leading the consultation process under section SUMMARY ii 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to determine what effects, if any, disposition of the Center may have on historic and cultural resources.

Notable site features at the Center include the historic Camp Coldwater Spring and the associated springhouse and reservoir located near the heart of the site. Camp Coldwater was the location of the historic camp of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Leavenworth and a contingent of 200 soldiers who settled in the area to survey and begin construction of historic Fort Snelling in 1820. The clear-running spring became a source for clean drinking water and was the reason for choosing that site. Today, the spring is held to be culturally important to some American Indians, spiritual, environmental, and other interested groups and individuals who regularly visit the site. Continued access to and preservation of the Camp Coldwater Spring area, and the spring itself, is one of the public issues associated with the Center property and its potential disposition.

Purpose and Need

The proposed action is to dispose of the Center in accordance with authority provided by Congress in legislation addressing the closure of the Center. This authority is contained, in part, in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law (Pub. L.) No. 104-134 (1996), which provides the Secretary of the Interior with authority to convey the Center directly to a university or government entity as the Secretary deems appropriate. The Secretary’s overall authority for disposition of the Center under this draft EIS, however, should not be construed as being limited to Pub. L. No. 104-134, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996. The proposed action is needed because the Center permanently closed after Congress abolished the USBM by enacting the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I, dated January 26, 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-99, 110 Stat. 26) (Thomas 2005). This authority terminated funding for the USBM.

Public Review and Comment

The National Park Service published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on January 28, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 4148). The notice of intent included a request that all interested persons, organizations, and agencies submit comments and suggestions on issues, concerns, and future uses of the Center that should be addressed in the draft EIS. The notice of intent also requested suggestions on alternatives for the draft EIS, and announced the project Web site at: http://www.nps.gov/miss/bom.

The National Park Service distributed news releases on January 31, 2005, and March 28, 2005, and a scoping newsletter was distributed on March 11, 2005. The outreach provided background on the planning process; the dates, locations, and times of the public scoping meetings; and included an opportunity to provide comment to the planning process. Legal notices announcing the start of the public scoping meetings were printed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune on March 21, 2005. The National Park Service held four public scoping meetings on March 30 and 31, 2005, which were held in an open house format. Comments received during the initial public scoping Summary period were taken into consideration in development of alternatives, issues, and concerns to
be addressed in the EIS. A complete public scoping report is included as appendix D of this draft EIS.

The National Park Service invites public comments and written proposals from university and government entities on this draft EIS. Comments will be accepted via U.S. Mail, fax, e-mail, or at the upcoming public meetings. Comments can be mailed to:

National Park Service
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
111 Kellogg Blvd East, Suite 105
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

telephone: 651.290.4160
fax: 651.290.3214
or send via e-mail to: miss_bomcomments@nps.gov

Additional information on the EIS planning process for disposition of the Center, including information about commenting and upcoming public meetings, can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nps.gov/miss/bom.

Alternatives

The National Park Service developed alternatives for disposition of the Center by considering comments received during the public scoping period and meetings, the purpose and need for the proposed action, and considering the requirements of NEPA. The no-action alternative, which means 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, is analyzed in the draft EIS as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations. The no-action alternative serves as a baseline against which the impacts of the other action alternatives are assessed. Additionally, the CEQ NEPA regulations state that agencies shall “identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference” (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14[e]). The National Park Service has not chosen a preferred alternative in this draft EIS. Although the National Park Service was designated by Congress to lead the planning process for the disposition of the Center, the National Park Service has not developed a preference on which alternative should be selected, or whether the Center property should leave the federal government. The National Park Service intends to review the information developed and comments and proposals submitted in response to the draft EIS in identifying a preferred alternative for the final EIS (NPS 2005).

In addition to the no-action alternative, this draft EIS analyzes environmental impacts from three action alternatives. These include: (1) transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity without conditions, (2) transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions, and (3) modification of the Center property prior to transfer or retention (either with or without conditions on the transfer).

The three action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS by applying three land-use scenarios to each. The land-use scenarios demonstrate a range of potential land uses that could be implemented by a recipient. The three land-use scenarios that apply to each of the three action alternatives are: (1) open space / park, (2) interpretive / nature / history center, and (3) training center / office park. The three land-use scenarios were developed by considering comments received during the public scoping meetings and during the public scoping period. They reflect reasonable probable future uses by a recipient of the Center based on input received from scoping and public input.

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. The environmental consequences section of this draft EIS (chapter 4) summarizes the potential environmental impacts from disposition of the Center under the four alternatives. Impacts under each alternative were assessed by applying the three land-use scenarios to each of the three action alternatives and analyzing the impacts on the environment. Potential impacts of the various alternatives range from major beneficial impacts to major negative impacts on various resource categories, or “impact topics.” A table summarizing the impacts analysis is located at the end of chapter 4 of the draft EIS. In addition, a cumulative impact analysis was conducted, as required by CEQ NEPA regulations. Cumulative impacts were assessed by identifying past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area of the Center that, when combined with the potential impacts from disposition of the Center, could have a cumulative effect on the environment. The cumulative impact analysis is presented in chapter 4 of the draft EIS. A summary of potential cumulative impacts is presented in table form at the end of chapter 4 of the draft EIS.

Top