51 10 895 https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/06c45efc391ce9a611a94c8cf3ed2a91.jpg ba55e5467ad14f2387c277a4615ea7e0 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Height 3264 Width 2448 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Photograph of wedding henna, right forearm Subject The topic of the resource Wedding, Faribault Description An account of the resource Photograph of celebratory henna, done for women at the wedding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Sarah Goodman Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Religion Department, Carleton College Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/24/14 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Still Image Type The nature or genre of the resource .jpg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SCF_WeddingHennaRightForearm Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Faribault, MN henna masjid Wedding https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/7e03d88d4f765a139bc02a5565c7de70.jpg 4bb3ee62b0d41358320efe299053b4a4 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Height 3264 Width 2448 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Photograph of wedding henna, left forearm Subject The topic of the resource Wedding, Faribault Description An account of the resource Photograph of celebratory henna, done for women at the wedding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Sarah Goodman Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Religion Department, Carleton College Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/24/14 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Still Image Type The nature or genre of the resource .jpg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SCF_WeddingHennaLeftForearm Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Faribault, MN henna masjid Wedding https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/6d4bfd637347a72fe473b585d68c1c98.jpg e9289e2b590677fad61117bb220a23e3 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Height 3264 Width 2448 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Photograph of wedding henna, forearms Subject The topic of the resource Wedding, Faribault Description An account of the resource Photograph of celebratory henna, done for women at the wedding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Sarah Goodman Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Religion Department, Carleton College Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/24/14 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Still Image Type The nature or genre of the resource .jpg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SCF_WeddingHennaForearms Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Faribault, MN henna masjid Wedding https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/19db6eb04e8d35bf5e2cd3d8fe4b3788.jpg 247fdce1976ed588d325079caf3f1569 Omeka Image File The metadata element set that was included in the `files_images` table in previous versions of Omeka. These elements are common to all image files. Bit Depth 8 Channels 3 Height 3264 Width 2448 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Photograph of wedding henna, floral hand Subject The topic of the resource Wedding, Faribault Description An account of the resource Photograph of celebratory henna, done for women at the wedding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Sarah Goodman Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Religion Department, Carleton College Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/24/14 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Still Image Type The nature or genre of the resource .jpg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SCF_WeddingHennaHand Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Faribault, MN henna masjid Wedding https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/53e1faedf79f3705d7b913f06d772125.jpg 7c7af9ce11c88411912fe5e5896f9a0b Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data photo Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource First Nations Kitchen Subject The topic of the resource Native American Description An account of the resource A picture of traditional indigenous food from First Nations Kitchen at All Saints Episcopal Church in Minneapolis, MN. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived http://firstnationskitchen.org/ Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available First Nations Kitchen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource still image Type The nature or genre of the resource .jpg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Minneapolis, MN All Saints Episcopal Church First Nations Kitchen NARF Religious Syncretism https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/9e8fc1abf2b958f782bbd788ae12a454.jpg eddb82bd23eedbaef8144547c68143b0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pilot Knob Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Laura Levitt Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context ArvolLookingHorsePK.jpg Title A name given to the resource Chief Arvol Looking Horse at Pilot Knob Description An account of the resource Chief Arvol Looking Horse and others lead a pipe ceremony at Pilot Knob on October 3, 2009 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Pilot Knob Preservation Association Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Pilot Knob Preservation Association Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 10/3/2009 Type The nature or genre of the resource Still Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .jpg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bruce White Chief Arvol Looking Horse NARF pilot knob pipe ceremony https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/c8efb54ef157c742b788206c45795df5.jpg f690a0a14b5f7807bead305ee18abbdb Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pilot Knob Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Laura Levitt Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 1851TreatyPlaquePilotKnob.jpg Title A name given to the resource 1851 Traverse des Sioux Treaty Description An account of the resource The 1851 Traverse des Sioux Treaty ceded approximately 35 million acres of land in Minnesota and Iowa to the federal government. The treaty was signed on Pilot Knob and this plaque commemorates the signing. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource William Wilcoxen Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Minnesota Public Radio Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Minnesota Public Radio Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Copyright Minnesota Public Radio Type The nature or genre of the resource Still Image Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .jpg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota Indian treaty NARF pilot knob Sioux Traverse des Sioux Treaty https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/2925ecb419690145d7db9842f1da6b22.pdf 225838a9511acfc20c051c3e81a70946 PDF Text Text � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pilot Knob Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Laura Levitt Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MinnStarDevelopmentAppPK.pdf Title A name given to the resource MinnStar Application for the Development of Pilot Knob Description An account of the resource MinnStar Builder's application to the City of Mendota Heights to build a housing development on Pilot Knob Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Pilot Knob Preservation Association Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available City of Mendota Heights Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/5/2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota NARF pilot knob https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/22bee1ecf0b29e83d7196848b13b7809.pdf 66059776c6b1da00419830c1640b4d67 PDF Text Text NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties �The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Cover photographs: Many traditional cultural properties are used for practical purposes by those who value them. This sedge preserve in northern California, for example, is tended and harvested by Porno Indian basketmakers as a vital source of material for making their world famous baskets. The preserve was established at Lake Sonoma by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Richard Lerner) This bedrock mortar in central California plays an essential role in processing Black Oak acorns. (Theodoratus Cultural Research) �NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING AND DOCUMENTING TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES BY PATRICIA L. PARKER Cultural Anthropologist and Archeologist, American Indian Liaison Office National Park Service and THOMAS F. KING Senior Archeologist and Director of the Office of Program Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (formerly) Consultant, Archeology and Historic Preservation (currently) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER, HISTORY AND EDUCATION NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 1990; REVISED 1992; 1998 �TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Traditional Cultural Values in Preservation Planning 5 III. Identifying Traditional Cultural Properties Establishing the level of effort Contacting traditional communities and groups Fieldwork Reconciling Sources 6 6 7 8 9 IV. Determining Eligibility Step-by-Step Step One: Ensure that the entity under consideration is a property Step Two: Consider the property's integrity Step Three: Evaluate the property with reference to the National Register Criteria Step Four: Determine whether any of the National Register criteria considerations (36 CFR 60.4) make the property ineligible 11 11 12 12 V. Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties General Considerations Completing Registration Forms 19 19 22 VI. Conclusion 23 VII. Recommended Bibliography and Sources 24 VIII. Appendix I, A Definition of "Culture" 26 IX. Appendix II, Professional Qualifications: Ethnography 27 X. Appendix III, List of National Register Bulletins 28 14 �I. INTRODUCTION WHAT ARE TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES? The National Register of Historic Places contains a wide range of historic property types, reflecting the diversity of the nation's history and culture. Buildings, structures, and sites; groups of buildings, structures or sites forming historic districts; landscapes; and individual objects are all included in the Register if they meet the criteria specified in the National Register's Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4). Such properties reflect many kinds of significance in architecture, history, archeology, engineering, and culture. There are many definitions of the word "culture," but in the National Register programs the word is understood to mean the traditions, beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any community, be it an Indian tribe, a local ethnic group, or the people of the nation as a whole.1 One kind of cultural significance a property may possess, and that may make it eligible for inclusion in the Register, is traditional cultural signifi- cance. "Traditional" in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Examples of properties possessing such significance include: • a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; • a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its longterm residents; • an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices; • a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to gotoday, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and • a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity. A traditional cultural property, then, can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register 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. Various kinds of traditional cultural properties will be discussed, illustrated, and related specifically to the National Register Criteria later in this bulletin. 1 For a detailed definition, see Appendix I. Numerous African Americans left the South to migrate to the Midwest. The A.M.E. Church (on left) and District No. 1 School remain in Nicodemus Historic District in Nicodemus, Kansas, which was declared a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior in 1976. (Clayton B. Fraserfor the Historic American Buildings Survey) 1 �PURPOSE OF THIS BULLETIN Traditional cultural values are often central to the way a community or group defines itself, and maintaining such values is often vital to maintaining the group's sense of identity and self respect. Properties to which traditional cultural value is ascribed often take on this kind of vital significance, so that any damage to or infringement upon them is perceived to be deeply offensive to, and even destructive of, the group that values them. As a result, it is extremely important that traditional cultural properties be considered carefully in planning; hence it is important that such properties, when they are eligible for inclusion in the National Register, be nominated to the Register or otherwise identified in inventories for planning purposes. Traditional cultural properties are often hard to recognize. A traditional ceremonial location may look like merely a mountaintop, a lake, or a stretch of river; a culturally important neighborhood may look like any other aggregation of houses, and an area where culturally important economic or.artistic activities have been carried out may look like any other building, field of grass, or piece of forest in the area. As a result, such places may not necessarily come to light through the conduct of archeological, historical, or architectural surveys. The existence and significance of such locations often can be ascertained only through interviews with knowledgeable users of the area, or through other forms of ethnographic research. The subtlety with which the significance of such locations may be expressed makes it easy to ignore them; on the other hand it makes it difficult to distinguish between properties having real significance and those whose putative significance is spurious. As a result, clear guidelines for evaluation of such properties are needed. In the 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, the Secretary of the Interior, with the American Folklife Center, was directed to study means of: preserving and conserving the intangible elements of our cultural heritage such as arts, skills, folklife, and folkways... The German Village Historic District in Columbus, Ohio, reflects the ethnic heritage of 19th century German immigrants. The neighborhood includes many simple vernacular brick cottages with gable roofs. (Christopher Cline) and to recommend ways to: This bulletin has been developed as one aspect of the Service's response to the Cultural Conservation report and preserve, conserve/and encourage the Secretary's direction. It is inthe continuation of the diverse traditional prehistoric, historic, ethnic, tended to be an aid in determining and folk cultural traditions that un- whether properties thought or alleged derlie and are a living expression of to have traditional cultural signifiour American heritage. (NHPA 502; cance are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It is meant to assist 16 U.S.C. 470a note) Federal agencies, State Historic PresThe report that was prepared in re- ervation Officers (SHPOs), Certified sponse to 502, entitled Cultural Conser- Local Governments, Indian Tribes, vation, was submitted to the President and other historic preservation practiand Congress on June 1,1983, by the tioners who need to evaluate such Secretary of the Interior. The report properties when nominating them for recommended in general that tradiinclusion in the National Register or tional cultural resources, both those when considering their eligibility for that are associated with historic prop- the Register as part of the review proerties and those without specific prop- cess prescribed by the Advisory erty referents, be more systematically Council on Historic Preservation unaddressed in implementation of the der 106 of the National Historic PresNational Historic Preservation Act ervation Act. It is designed to suppleand other historic preservation aument other National Register guidthorities. In transmitting the report, ance, particularly How to Apply the Nathe Secretary directed the National tional Register Criteria for Evaluation Park Service to take several actions to and Guidelines for Completing National implement its recommendations. Register of Historic Places Forms. It Among other actions, the Service was should be used in conjunction with directed to prepare guidelines to asthese two Bulletins and other applisist in the documentation of intangcable guidance available from the Naible cultural resources, to coordinate tional Register, when applying the the incorporation of provisions for the National Register Criteria and preparconsideration of such resources into ing documentation to support nomiDepartmental planning documents nations or determinations that a and administrative manuals, and to given property is or is not eligible for encourage the identification and inclusion in the Register. documentation of such resources by This Bulletin is also responsive to States and Federal agencies. the American Indian Religious Free- �dom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, which requires the National Park Service, like other Federal agencies, to evaluate its policies and procedures with the aim of protecting the religious freedoms of Native Americans (Pub. L. 95341 2). Examination of the policies and procedures of the National Register suggests that while they are in no way intended to be so interpreted, they can be interpreted by Federal agencies and others in a manner that excludes historic properties of religious significance to Native Americans from eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. This in turn may exclude such properties from the protections afforded by 106, which may result in their destruction, infringing upon the rights of Native Americans to use them in the free exercise of their religions. To minimize the likelihood of such misinterpretation, this Bulletin gives special attention to properties of traditional cultural significance to Native American groups, and to discussing the place of religion in the attribution of such significance. The fact that this Bulletin gives special emphasis to Native American properties should not be taken to imply that only Native Americans ascribe traditional cultural value to historic properties, or that such ascription is common only to ethnic minority groups in general. Americans of every ethnic origin have properties to which they ascribe traditional cultural value, and if such properties meet the National Register criteria, they can and should be nominated for inclusion in the Register. This Bulletin does not address cultural resources that are purely "intangible"—i.e. those that have no property referents—except by exclusion. The Service is committed to ensuring that such resources are fully considered in planning and decision making by Federal agencies and others. Historic properties represent only some aspects of culture, and many other aspects, not necessarily reflected in properties as such, may be of vital importance in maintaining the integrity of a social group. However, the National Register is not the appropriate vehicle for recognizing cultural values that are purely intangible, nor is there legal authority to address them under 106 unless they are somehow related to a historic property. The National Register lists, and 106 requires review of effects on, tangible cultural resources—that is, historic properties. However, the attributes that give such properties significance, such as their association with historical events, often are intangible in nature. Such attributes cannot be ignored in evaluating and managing historic properties; properties and their intangible attributes of significance must be considered together. This Bulletin is meant to encourage its users to address the intangible cultural values that may make a property historic, and to do so in an evenhanded way that reflects solid research and not ethnocentric bias. Finally, no one should regard this Bulletin as the only appropriate source of guidance on its subject, or interpret it rigidly. Although traditional cultural properties have been listed and recognized as eligible for inclusion in the National Register since the Register's inception, it is only in recent years that organized attention has been given to them. This Bulletin represents the best guidance the Register can provide as of the late 1980s, and the examples listed in the bibliography include the best known at this time.2 It is to be expected that approaches to such properties will continue to evolve. This Bulletin also is meant to supplement, not substitute for, more specific guidelines, such as those used by the National Park Service with respect to units of the National Park System and those used by some other agencies, States, local governments, or Indian tribes with respect to their own lands and programs. 2 It is notable that most of these examples are unpublished manuscripts. The literature pertaining to the identification and evaluation of traditional cultural properties, to say nothing of their treatment, remains a thin one. These sandbars in the Rio Grande River are eligible for inclusion in the National Register because they have been used for generations by the people ofSandia Pueblo for rituals involving immersion in the river's waters. (Thomas F. King) �ETHNOGRAPHY, ETHNOHISTORY, ETHNOCENTRISM Three words beginning with "ethno" will be used repeatedly in this Bulletin, and may not be familiar to all readers. All three are derived from the Greek ethnos, meaning "nation;" and are widely used in the study of anthropology and related disciplines. Ethnography is the descriptive and analytic study of the culture of particular groups or communities. An ethnographer seeks to understand a community through interviews with its members and often through living in and observing it (a practice referred to as "participant observation"). Ethnohistory is the study of historical data, including but not necessarily limited to, documentary data pertaining to a group or community, using an ethnographic perspective. Ethnographic and ethnohistorical research are usually carried out by specialists in cultural anthropology, and by specialists in folklore and folklife, sociology, history, archeology and related disciplines with appropriate technical training.3 Ethnocentrism means viewing the world and the people in it only from the point of view of one's own culture and being unable to sympathize with the feelings, attitudes, and beliefs of someone who is a member of a different culture. It is particularly important to understand, and seek to avoid, ethnocentrism in the evaluation of traditional cultural properties. For ex3 For a detailed discussion of the qualifications that a practitioner of ethnography or ethnohistory should possess, see Appendix II. ample, Euroamerican society tends to emphasize "objective" observation of the physical world as the basis for making statements about that world. However, it may not be possible to use such observations as the major basis for evaluating a traditional cultural property. For example, there may be nothing observable to the outsider about a place regarded as sacred by a Native American group. Similarly, such a group's belief that its ancestors emerged from the earth at a specific location at the beginning of time may contradict Euroamerican science's belief that the group's ancestors migrated to North America from Siberia. These facts in no way diminish the significance of the locations in question in the eyes of those who value them; indeed they are irrelevant to their significance. It would be ethnocentric in the extreme to say that "whatever the Native American group says about this place, I can't see anything here so it is not significant" or "since I know these people's ancestors came from Siberia, the place where they think they emerged from the earth is of no significance." It is vital to evaluate properties thought to have traditional cultural significance from the standpoint of those who may ascribe such significance to them, whatever one's own perception of them, based on one's own cultural values, may be. This is not to say that a group's assertions about the significance of a place should not be questioned or subjected to critical analysis, but they should not be rejected based on the premise that the beliefs they reflect are inferior to one's own. EVALUATION, CONSIDERATION, AND PROTECTION One more point that should be remembered in evaluating traditional cultural properties—as in evaluating any other kind of properties—is that establishing that a property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register does not necessarily mean that the property must be protected from disturbance or damage. Establishing that a property is eligible means that it must be considered in planning Federal, federally assisted, and federally licensed undertakings, but it does not mean that such an undertaking cannot be allowed to damage or destroy it. Consultation must occur in accordance with the regulations of the Advisory Council (36 CFR Part 800) to identify, and if feasible adopt, measures to protect it, but if in the final analysis the public interest demands that the property be sacrificed to the needs of the project, there is nothing in the National Historic Preservation Act that prohibits this. This principle is especially important to recognize with respect to traditional cultural properties, because such properties may be valued by a relatively small segment of a community that, on the whole, favors a project that will damage or destroy it. The fact that the community as a whole may be willing to dispense with the property in order to achieve the goals of the project does not mean that the property is not significant, but the fact that it is significant does not mean that it cannot be disturbed, or that the project must be foregone. �II. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VALUES IN PRESERVATION PLANNING Traditional cultural properties, and the beliefs and institutions that give them significance, should be systematically addressed in programs of preservation planning and in the historic preservation components of land use plans. One very practical reason for this is to simplify the identification and evaluation of traditional cultural properties that may be threatened by construction and land use projects. Identifying and evaluating such properties can require detailed and extensive consultation, interview programs, and ethnographic fieldwork as discussed below. Having to conduct such activities may add considerably to the time and expense of compliance with 106, the National Environment Policy Act, and other authorities. Such costs can be reduced significantly, however, by early, proactive planning that identifies significant properties or areas likely to contain significant properties before specific projects are planned that may affect them, identifies parties likely to ascribe cultural value to such properties, and establishes routine systems for consultation with such parties. The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Preservation Planning empha- size the need for organized public participation in context development (48 FR 44717). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Guidelines The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning provide for Public Participation in Historic Pres- for the establishment of "historic contexts'7 as a basic step in any preservation planning process be it planning for the comprehensive survey of a community or planning a construction project. A historic context is an organization of available information about, among other things, the cultural history of the area to be investigated, that identifies "the broad patterns of development in an area that may be represented by historic properties" (48 FR 44717). The traditions and traditional lifeways of a planning area may represent such "broad patterns," so information about them should be used as a basis for historic context development. ervation Review (ACHP 1988) provide detailed recommendations regarding such participation. Based on these standards and guidelines, groups that may ascribe traditional cultural values to an area's historic properties should be contacted and asked to assist in organizing information on the area. Historic contexts should be considered that reflect the history and culture of such groups as the groups themselves understand them, as well as their history and culture as defined by Euroamerican scholarship, and processes for consultation with such groups should be integrated into routine planning and project review procedures. �III. IDENTIFYING TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES Some traditional cultural properties are well known to the residents of an area. The San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, for example, are extensively documented and widely recognized as places of extreme cultural importance to the Hopi, Navajo, and other American Indian people of the Southwest, and it requires little study to recognize that Honolulu's Chinatown is a place of cultural importance to the city's Asian community. Most traditional cultural properties, however, must be identified through systematic study, just as most other kinds of historic properties must be identified. This section of the Bulletin will discuss some factors to consider in identifying traditional cultural properties.4 ESTABLISHING THE LEVEL OF EFFORT Any comprehensive effort to identify historic properties in an area, be the area a community, a rural area, or the area that may be affected by a construction or land-use project, should include a reasonable effort to identify traditional cultural properties. What constitutes a "reasonable" effort depends in part on the likelihood that such properties may be present. The likelihood that such properties may be present can be reliably assessed only on the basis of background Honolulu's Chinatown reflects the cultural values and traditions of its inhabitants not knowledge of the area's history, ethonly in its architectural details but also in its organization of space and the activities nography, and contemporary society that go on there. (Ramona K. Mullahey) developed through preservation planning. As a general although not in4 For general guidelines for identification see the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification (48 FR 44720-23), Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (National Register of Historic Places bulletin) and Identification in Historic Preservation Review: a Decisionmaking Guide (ACHP/DOI1988). �variable rule, however, rural areas are more likely than urban areas to contain properties of traditional cultural importance to American Indian or other native American communities, while urban areas are more likely to contain properties of significance to ethnic and other traditional neighborhoods. Where identification is conducted as part of planning for a construction or land-use project, the appropriate level of effort depends in part on whether the project under consideration is the type of project that could affect traditional cultural properties. For example, as a rule the rehabilitation of historic buildings may have relatively little potential for effect on such properties. However, if a rehabilitation project may result in displacement of residents,"gentrification" of a neighborhood, or other sociocultural impacts, the possibility that the buildings to be rehabilitated, or the neighborhood in which they exist, may be ascribed traditional cultural value by their residents or others should be considered. Similarly, most day-to-day management activities of a land managing agency may have little potential for effect on traditional cultural properties, but if the management activity involves an area or a kind of resource that has high significance to a traditional group—for example, timber harvesting in an area where an Indian tribe's religious practitioners may continue to carry out traditional ceremonies—the potential for effect will be high. These general rules of thumb aside, the way to determine what constitutes a reasonable effort to identify traditional cultural properties is to consult those who may ascribe cultural significance to locations within the study area. The need for community participation in planning identification, as in other forms of preservation planning, cannot be over-emphasized. CONTACTING TRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES AND GROUPS An early step in any effort to identify historic properties is to consult with groups and individuals who have special knowledge about and in- terests in the history and culture of the area to be studied. In the case of traditional cultural properties, this means those individuals and groups who may ascribe traditional cultural significance to locations within the study area, and those who may have knowledge of such individuals and groups. Ideally, early planning will have identified these individuals and groups, and established how to consult with them. As a rule, however, the following steps are recommended: BACKGROUND RESEARCH An important first step in identifying such individuals and groups is to conduct background research into what is already recorded about the area's history, ethnography, sociology, and folklife. Published and unpublished source material on the historic and contemporary composition of the area's social and cultural groups should be consulted; such source material can often be found in the anthropology, sociology, or folklife libraries of local universities or other academic institutions. Professional and nonprofessional students of the area's social and cultural groups should also be consulted—for example, professional and avocational anthropologists and folklorists who have studied the area. The SHPO and any other official agency or organization that concerns itself with matters of traditional culture—for example, a State Folklorist or a State Native American Commission—should be contacted for recommendations about sources of information and about groups and individuals to consult. MAKING CONTACT Having reviewed available background data, the next step is to contact knowledgeable groups and individuals directly, particularly those groups that are native to the area or have resided there for a long time. Some such groups have official repre- Federal agencies and others have found a variety of ways to contact knowledgeable parties in order to identify and evaluate traditional cultural properties. Generally speaking, the detail and complexity of the methods employed depend on the nature and complexity of the properties under consideration and the effects the agency's management or other activities may have on them. For example: • The Black Hills National Forest designated a culturally sensitive engineer to work with local Indian tribes in establishing procedures by which the tribes could review Forest Service projects that might affect traditional cultural properties; • The Air Force sponsored a conference of local traditional cultural authorities to review plans for deployment of an intercontinental missile system in Wyoming, resulting in guidelines to ensure that effects on traditional cultural properties would be minimized. • The New Mexico Power Authority employed a professional cultural anthropologist to consult with Native American groups within the area to be affected by the Four Corners Power Project. • The Ventura County (California) Flood Control Agency consulted with local Native American groups designated by the State Native American Heritage Commission to determine how to handle human remains to be exhumed from a cemetery that had to be relocated to make way for a flood control project. • The Utah State Historic Preservation Officer entered into an agreement with the American Folklife Center to develop a comprehensive overview of the tangible and intangible historic resources of Grouse Creek, a traditional Mormon cowboy community. • The Forest Service contracted for a full-scale ethnographic study to determine the significance of the Helkau Historic District on California's Six Rivers National Forest. �sentatives—the tribal council of an Indian tribe, for example, or an urban neighborhood council. In other cases, leadership may be less officially defined, and establishing contact may be more complicated. The assistance of ethnographers, sociologists, folklorists, and others who may have conducted research in the area or otherwise worked with its social groups may be necessary in such cases, in order to design ways of contacting and consulting such groups in ways that are both effective and consistent with their systems of leadership and communication. It should be clearly recognized that expertise in traditional cultural values may not be found, or not found solely, among contemporary community leaders. In some cases, in fact, the current political leadership of a community or neighborhood may be hostile to or embarrassed about traditional matters. As a result, it may be necessary to seek out knowledgeable parties outside the community's official political structure. It is of course best to do this with the full knowledge and cooperation of the community's contemporary leaders; in most cases it is appropriate to ask such leaders to identify members of the community who are knowledgeable about traditional cultural matters, and use these parties as an initial network of consultants on the group's traditional values. If there is serious hostility between the group's contemporary leadership and its traditional experts, however, such cooperation may not be extended, and efforts to consult with traditional authorities may be actively opposed. Where this occurs, and it is necessary to proceed with the identification and evaluation of properties—for example, where such identification and evaluation are undertaken in connection with review of an undertaking under 106— careful negotiation and mediation may be necessary to overcome opposition and establish mutually acceptable ground rules for consultation. Again, the assistance of anthropologists or others with training and experience in work with the community, or with similar communities, may be necessary. FIELDWORK Fieldwork to identify properties of traditional cultural significance involves consultation with knowledge8 The Helkau Historic District, in the Six Rivers National Forest of California, is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with significant cultural practices of the Tolowa, Yorok, Karuk, and Hoopa Indian tribes of the area, who have used the district for generations to make medicine and communicate with spirits. (Theodoratus Cultural Research) able parties, coupled with field inspection and recordation of locations identified as significant by such parties. It is often appropriate and efficient to combine such fieldwork with surveys to identify other kinds of historic properties, for example archeological sites and properties of architectural significance. If combined fieldwork is conducted, however, the professional standards appropriate to each kind of fieldwork should be adhered to, and appropriate expertise in each relevant discipline should be represented on the study team. The kinds of expertise typically needed for a detailed ethnographic study of traditional cultural properties are outlined in Appendix II. Applicable research standards can be found in Systematic Fieldwork, Volume 2: Ethnographic Analysis and Data Management. (Werner and Schoepfle 1986) CULTURALLY SENSITIVE CONSULTATION Since knowledge of traditional cultural values may not be shared readily with outsiders, knowledgeable parties should be consulted in cultural contexts that are familiar and reasonable to them. It is important to understand the role that the information being solicited may play in the culture of those from whom it is being solicited, and the kinds of rules that may surround its transmittal. In some societies traditional information is regarded as powerful, even dangerous. It is often believed that such information should be transmitted only under particular circumstances or to particular kinds of people. In some cases information is regarded as a valued commodity for which payment is in order, in other cases offering payment may be offensive. Sometimes information may be regarded as a gift, whose acceptance obligates the receiver to reciprocate in some way, in some cases by carrying out the activity to which the information pertains. It may not always, or even often, be possible to arrange for information to be sought in precisely the way those being consulted might prefer, but when it is not, the interviewer should clearly understand that to some extent he or she is asking those interviewed to violate their cultural norms. The interviewer should try to keep such violations to a minimum, and should be patient with the reluctance that those interviewed may feel toward sharing information under conditions that are not fully appropriate from their point of view. Culturally sensitive consultation may require the use of languages other than English, the conduct of �community meetings in ways consistent with local traditional practice, and the conduct of studies by trained ethnographers, ethnohistorians, sociologists, or folklorists with the kinds of expertise outlined in Appendix II. Particularly where large projects or large land areas are involved, or where it is likely that particularly sensitive resources may be at issue, formal ethnographic studies should be carried out, by or under the supervision of a professionally qualified cultural anthropologist. FIELD INSPECTION AND RECORDATION It is usually important to take knowledgeable consultants into the field to inspect properties that they identify as significant. In some cases such properties may not be discernible as such to anyone but a knowledgeable member of the group that ascribes significance to them; in such cases it may be impossible even to find the relevant properties, or locate them accurately, without the aid of such parties. Even where a property is readily discernible as such to the outside observer, visiting the property may help a consultant recall information about it that he or she is unlikely to recall during interviews at a remote location, thus making for a richer and more complete record. Where the property in question has religious significance or supernatural connotations, it is particularly important to ensure that any visit is carried out in accordance with appropriate modes of behavior. In some cases, ritual purification is necessary before a property can be approached, or spirits must be propitiated along the way. Some groups forbid visits to such locations by menstruating women or by people of inappropriate ages. The taking of photographs or the use of electronic recording equipment may not be appropriate. Appropriate ways to approach the property should be discussed with knowledgeable consultants before undertaking a field visit. To the extent compatible with the cultural norms of the group involved, traditional cultural properties should be recorded on National Register of Historic Places forms or their equivalent.5 Where items normally included in a National Register nomination or request for a determination of eligibility cannot be included (for ex- ample, if it is culturally inappropriate to photograph the property), the reasons for not including the item should be explained. To the extent possible in the property's cultural context, other aspects of the documentation (for example, verbal descriptions of the property) should be enhanced to make up for the items not included. If making the location of a property known to the public would be culturally inappropriate, or compromise the integrity of the property or associated cultural values (for example, by encouraging tourists to intrude upon the conduct of traditional practices), the "Not for Publication" box on the National Register form should be checked; this indicates that the reproduction of locational information is prohibited, and that other information contained in the nomination will not be reproduced without the permission of the nominating authority. In the case of a request for a determination of eligibility in which a National Register form is not used, the fact that the information is not for publication should be clearly speci- fied in the documentation, so that the National Register can apply the same controls to this information as it would to restricted information in a nomination.6 RECONCILING SOURCES Sometimes an apparent conflict exists between documentary data on traditional cultural properties and the testimony of contemporary consultants. The most common kind of conflict occurs when ethnographic and ethnohistorical documents do not identify a given place as playing an important role in the tradition and culture of a group, while contemporary members of the group say the property does have such a role. More rarely, documentary sources may indicate that a property does have cultural significance while contemporary sources say it does not. In some cases, too, contemporary sources may disagree about the significance of a property. Much of the significance of traditional cultural properties can be learned only from testimony of the traditional people who value them, like this old man being interviewed in Truk. (Micronesia Institute) 5 For general instructions on the completion of National Register documentation, see How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Form. 6 Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides the legal authority to withhold National Register information from the public when release might "create a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction." For detailed guidelines concerning restricting access to information see the National Register bulletin entitled, Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic and Prehistoric Resources. �Where available documents fail to identify a property as culturally significant, but contemporary sources identify it as such, several points should be considered. (a)Ethnographic and ethnohistorical research has not been conducted uniformly in all parts of the nation; some areas are better documented than others simply because they have been the focus of more research. (b)Ethnographic and ethnohistorical documents reflect the research interests of those who prepared them; the fact that one does not identify a property as culturally important may reflect only the fact that the individual who prepared the report had research interests that did not require the identification of such properties. (c) Some kinds of traditional cultural properties are regarded by those who value them as the loci of supernatural or other power, or as having other attributes that make people reluctant to talk about them. Such properties are not likely to be recorded unless someone makes a very deliberate effort to do so, or unless those who value them have a special reason for revealing the information—for example, a perception that the property is in some kind of danger. Particularly because properties of traditional cultural significance are often kept secret, it is not uncommon for them to be "discovered" only when something threatens them—for example, when a change in land-use is proposed in their vicinity. The sudden revelation by representatives of a cultural group which may also have other economic or political interests in the proposed change can lead quickly to charges that the cultural significance of a property has been invented only to obstruct or otherwise influence those planning the change. This may be true, and the possibility that traditional cultural significance is attributed to a property only to advance other, unrelated interests should be carefully considered. However, it also may be that until the change was proposed, there simply was no reason for those who value the property to reveal its existence or the significance they ascribe to it. Where ethnographic, ethnohistorial, historical, or other sources identify a property as having cultural significance, but contemporary sources say that it lacks such significance, the interests of the contemporary sources should be carefully considered. Individuals who have economic interests in the potential development of an area may be strongly motivated to deny its cultural significance. More subtly, individuals who regard traditional practices and beliefs as backward and contrary to the 7 For excellent examples of studies designed in whole or in part to identify and evaluate traditional cultural properties based on both documentary sources and the testimony of consultants, see Bean and Vane 1978; Carroll 1983; Johnston and Budy 1983; Stoffle and Dobyns 1982,1983; Theodoratus 1979. 10 best contemporary interests of the group that once ascribed significance to a property may feel justified in saying that such significance has been lost, or was never ascribed to the property. On the other hand, of course, it may be that the documentary sources are wrong, or that the significance ascribed to the property when the documents were prepared has since been lost. Similar consideration must be taken into account in attempting to reconcile conflicting contemporary sources. Where one individual or group asserts that a property has traditional cultural significance, and another asserts that it does not or where there is disagreement about the nature or extent of a property's significance, the motives and values of the parties, and the cultural constraints operating on each, must be carefully analyzed. In general, the only reasonably reliable way to resolve conflict among sources is to review a wide enough range of documentary data, and to interview a wide enough range of authorities to minimize the likelihood either of inadvertent bias or of being deliberately misled. Authorities consulted in most cases should include both knowledgeable parties within the group that may attribute cultural value to a property and appropriate specialists in ethnography, sociology, history, and other relevant disciplines.7 �IV. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY: STEP BY STEP Whether a property is known in advance or found during an identification effort, it must be evaluated with reference to the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR Part 60) in order to determine whether it is eligible for inclusion in the Register. This section discusses the process of evaluation as a series of sequential steps. In real life of course, these steps are often collapsed into one another or taken together. STEP ONE: ENSURE THAT THE ENTITY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A PROPERTY Because the cultural practices or beliefs that give a traditional cultural property its significance are typically still observed in some form at the time the property is evaluated, it is sometimes perceived that the intangible practices or beliefs themselves, not the property, constitute the subject of evaluation. There is naturally a dynamic relationship between tangible and intangible traditional cultural resources, and the beliefs or practices associated with a traditional cultural property are of central importance in defining its significance. However, it should be clearly recognized at the outset that the National Register does not include intangible resources themselves. The entity evaluated must be a tangible property—that is, a district, site, building, structure, or object.8 The relationship between the property and the beliefs or practices associated with it should be carefully considered, however, since it is the beliefs and practices that may give the property its significance and make it eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Construction by human beings is a necessary attribute of buildings and structures, but districts, sites, and objects do not have to be the products of, or contain, the work of human beings in order to be classified as properties. For example, the National Register defines a "site" as "the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure."9 Thus a property may be defined as a "site" as long as it was the location of a significant event or activity, regardless of whether the event or activity left any evidence of its occurrence. A culturally significant natural landscape may be classified as a site, as may the specific location where significant traditional events, activities, or cultural observances have taken place. A natural object such as a tree or a rock outcrop may be an eligible object if it is associated with a significant tradition or use. A concentration, linkage, or continuity of such sites or objects, or of structures comprising a culturally significant entity, may be classified as a district. In considering the eligibility of a property that contains no observable evidence of human activity, however, the documentary or oral evidence for the association of the property with traditional events, activities or observances should be carefully weighed and assessed. The National Register discourages the nomination of natural features without sound documentation of their historical or cultural significance. STEP TWO: CONSIDER THE PROPERTY'S INTEGRITY In order to be eligible for inclusion in the Register, a property must have "integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association" (36 CFR Part 60). In the case of a traditional cultural property, there are two fundamental questions to ask about integrity. First, does the property have an integral relationship to traditional cultural practices or beliefs; and second, is the condition of the property such that the relevant relationships survive? INTEGRITY OF RELATIONSHIP Assessing the integrity of the relationship between a property and the beliefs or practices that may give it significance involves developing some understanding about how the group that holds the beliefs or carries out the practices is likely to view the property. If the property is known or likely to be regarded by a traditional cultural group as important in the retention or transmittal of a belief, or to the performance of a practice, the property can be taken to have an integral relationship with the belief or practice, and vice-versa. For example, imagine two groups living along the shores of a lake. Each group practices a form of baptism to mark an individual's acceptance into the group. Both carry out baptism in the lake. One group, however, holds that baptism is appropriate in any body of water that is available; the lake happens to be available, so it is used, but another lake, a river or creek, or a swimming pool would be just as acceptable. The second group regards baptism in this particular lake as essential to its acceptance of an individual as a member. Clearly the lake is integrally related to the second group's practice, but not to that of the first. 8 See How to Apply the National Register Cri- teria for Evaluation for discussion of property types. ) See How to Complete the National Register Form. 11 �INTEGRITY OF CONDITION Like any other kind of historic property, a property that once had traditional cultural significance can lose such significance through physical alteration of its location, setting, design, or materials. For example, an urban neighborhood whose structures, objects, and spaces reflect the historically rooted values of a traditional social group may lose its significance if these aspects of the neighborhood are substantially altered. In some cases a traditional cultural property can also lose its significance through alteration of its setting or environment. For example, a location used by an American Indian group for traditional spirit questing is unlikely to retain its significance for this purpose if it has come to be surrounded by housing tracts or shopping malls. A property may retain its traditional cultural significance even though it has been substantially modified, however. Cultural values are dynamic, and can sometimes accommodate a good deal of change. For example, the Karuk Indians of northwestern California continue to carry on world renewal rites, ancient ceremonies featuring elaborate dances, songs, and other ritual activities, along a stretch of the Klamath River that is now the site of a highway, a Forest Service Ranger Station, a number of residences, and a timber cutting operation. Specific locations important in aspects of the ceremony remain intact, and accommodation has been reached between the Karuk and other users of the land. The State Department of Transportation has even erected "Ritual Crossing" signs at locations where the Karuk religious practitioners cross the highway, and built shallow depressions into the roadway which are filled with sand in advance of the ceremony, so the feet of the practitioners need not be profaned by contact with man-made macadam. As this example shows, the integrity of a possible traditional cultural property must be considered with reference to the views of traditional practitioners; if its integrity has not been lost in their eyes, it probably has sufficient integrity to justify further evaluation. Some kinds of traditional cultural significance also may be retained regardless of how the surroundings of a 12 Cannonball Island, off Cape Alava on the coast of Washington State, is a traditional cultural property of importance to the Makah Indian people. It was used in the past, and is still used today, as a navigation marker for Makah fisherman, who established locations at sea by triangulation from this and other landmarks. It also was a lookout point for seal and whale hunters and for war parties, a burial site, and a kennel for dogs raised for their fur. (Makah Cultural and Research Center Archives) property may be changed. For example, the First African Baptist Church Cemetery in Philadelphia, rediscovered during archeological work in advance of highway construction in 1985, has considerable cultural significance for the congregation that traces descent from those interred in the Cemetery, and for Philadelphia's African American community in general, even though its graves had been buried under fill and modern construction for many decades. It should also be recalled that even if a property has lost integrity as a possible traditional cultural property, it may retain integrity with reference to some other aspect of significance. For example, a property whose cultural significance has been lost through disturbance may still retain archeological deposits of significance for their information content, and a neighborhood whose traditional residents no longer ascribe significance to it may contain buildings of architectural importance. STEP THREE: EVALUATE THE PROPERTY WITH REFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA Assuming the entity to be evaluated is a property, and that it retains integrity, it is next necessary to evaluate it against the four basic National Register Criteria set forth in the National Register regulations (36 CFR Part 60). If the property meets one or more of the criteria, it may be eligible; if it does not, it is not eligible.10 CRITERION (A): ASSOCIATION WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. The word "our" in this criterion may be taken to refer to the group to which the property may have traditional cultural significance, and the word "history" may be taken to include traditional oral history as well as recorded history. For example, Mt. Tonaachaw on Moen Island in Truk, Federated States of Micronesia, is in the National Register in part because of association with oral traditions about the establishment of Trukese society. "Events" can include specific moments in history of a series of events reflecting a broad pattern or theme. 10 For general guidelines, see How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. �For example, the ongoing participation of an ethnic or social group in an area's history, reflected in a neighborhood's buildings, streetscapes, or patterns of social activity, constitutes such a series of events. The association of a property with significant events, and its existence at the time the events took place, must be documented through accepted means of historical research. The means of research normally employed with respect to traditional cultural properties include ethnographic, ethnohistorical, and folklore studies, as well as historical and archeological research. Sometimes, however, the actual time a traditional event took place may be ambiguous; in such cases it may be impossible, and to some extent irrelevant, to demonstrate with certainty that the property in question existed at the time the traditional event occurred. For example, events recounted in the traditions of Native American groups may have occurred in a time before the creation of the world as we know it, or at least before the creation of people. It would be fruitless to try to demonstrate, using the techniques of history and science, that a given location did or did not objectively exist in a time whose own existence cannot be demonstrated scientifically. Such a demonstration is unnecessary for purposes of eligibility determination; as long as the tradition itself is rooted in the history of the group, and associates the property with traditional events, the association can be accepted. a Cahuilla Indian demigod who figures importantly in the tribe's traditions and is said to occupy an obsidian cave high in the canyon. CRITERION (C)(2): REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORK OF A MASTER. CRITERION (O(l): 11 EMBODIMENT OF THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. A property identified in tradition or suggested by scholarship to be the work of a traditional master builder or artisan may be regarded as the work of a master, even though the precise identity of the master may not be known. This subcriterion applies to properties that have been constructed, or contain constructed entities—that is, buildings, structures, or built objects. For example, a neighborhood that has traditionally been occupied by a particular ethnic group may display particular housing styles, gardens, street furniture or ornamentation distinctive of the group. Honolulu's Chinatown, for example, embodies the distinctive cultural values of the City's Asian community in its architecture, landscaping, signage, and ornamentation. CRITERION (C)(3): POSSESSION OF HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES. A property made up of or containing art work valued by a group for traditional cultural reasons, for example a petroglyph or pictograph site venerated by an Indian group, or a building whose decorative elements reflect a local ethnic groups distinctive modes of expression, may be viewed as having high artistic value from the standpoint of the group. 11 Note: Criterion (C) is not subdivided into subcriteria (1), (2), etc. in 36 CFR Part 60.4. The subdivision given here is only for the convenience of the reader. CRITERION (B): ASSOCIATION WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. Again, the word "our" can be interpreted with reference to the people who are thought to regard the property as traditionally important. The word "persons" can be taken to refer both to persons whose tangible, human existence in the past can be inferred on the basis of historical, ethnographic, or other research, and to "persons" such as gods and demigods who feature in the traditions of a group. For example, Tahquitz Canyon in southern California is included in the National Register in part because of its association with Tahquitz, In Trukese tradition, the Tonaachaw Historic District was the location to which Sowukachaw, founder of the Trukese society, came and established his meetinghouse at the beginning of Trukese history. The mountain, in what is now the Federated States of Micronesia, is a powerful landmark in the traditions of the area. (Lawrence E. Aten) 13 �CRITERION (C)(4): REPRESENTATIVE OF A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS MAY LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. A property may be regarded as representative of a significant and distinguishable entity, even though it lacks individual distinction, if it represents or is an integral part of a larger entity of traditional cultural importance. The larger entity may, and usually does, possess both tangible and intangible components. For example, certain locations along the Russian River in California are highly valued by the Porno Indians, and have been for centuries, as sources of high quality sedge roots needed in the construction of the Pomo's world famous basketry. Although the sedge fields themselves are virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding landscape, and certainly indistinguishable by the untrained observer from other sedge fields that produce lower quality roots, they are representative of, and vital to, the larger entity of Porno basketmaking. Similarly, some deeply venerated landmarks in Micronesia are natural features, such as rock outcrops and groves of trees; these are indistinguishable visually (at least to the outside observer) from other rocks and trees, but they figure importantly in chants embodying traditional sailing directions and lessons about traditional history. As individual objects they lack distinction, but the larger entity of which they are a part—Micronesian navigational and historical tradition—is of prime importance in the area's history. CRITERION (D): HISTORY OF YIELDING, OR POTENTIAL TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY. Properties that have traditional cultural significance often have already yielded, or have the potential to yield, important information through ethnographic, archeological, sociological, folkloric, or other stud14 I Many traditional cultural properties look like very little on the ground. The small protuberance in the center of this photo, known to residents of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State as Goose Egg Hill, is regarded by the Yakima Indians of the area as the heart of a goddess who was torn apart by jealous compatriots. They scattered her pieces across the landscape, creating a whole complex of culturally significant landforms. (Thomas F. King) ies. For example, ethnographic and ethnohistorical studies of Kaho'olawe Island in Hawai'i, conducted in order to clarify its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register, have provided important insights into Hawai'ian traditions and culture and into the history of twentieth century efforts to revitalize traditional Hawai'ian culture. Similarly, many traditional American Indian village sites are also archeological sites, whose study can provide important information about the history and prehistory of the group that lived there. Generally speaking, however, a traditional cultural property's history of yielding, or potential to yield, information, if relevant to its significance at all, is secondary to its association with the traditional history and culture of the group that ascribes significance to it. STEP 4: DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS (36 CFR 60.4) MAKE THE PROPERTY INELIGIBLE Generally speaking, a property is not eligible for inclusion in the Register if it represents a class of properties to which one or more of the six "criteria considerations" listed in 36 CFR 60.4 applies, and is not part of a district that is eligible. In applying the criteria considerations, it is important to be sensitive to the cultural values involved, and to avoid ethnocentric bias, as discussed below. CONSIDERATION A: OWNERSHIP BY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION OR USE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. A "religious property," according to National Register guidelines, requires additional justification (for nomination) because of the necessity to avoid any appearance of judgement by government about the merit of any religion or belief."12 Conversely, it is necessary to be careful not to allow a similar judgement to serve as the basis for determining a property to be ineligible for inclusion in the Register. Application of this criteria consideration to traditional cultural properties is fraught with the potential for ethnocentrism and discrimination. In many traditional societies, including most American Indian societies, the clear distinction made by Euroamerican society between religion and the rest of culture does not exist. As a result, properties that have traditional cultural significance are regularly discussed by those who value them in terms that have religious connotations. Inyan Karan Mountain, for example, a National Register property in the Black Hills of South Dakota, is sig- 12 How to Complete the National Register Form. �nificant in part because it is the abode of spirits in the traditions of the Lakota and Cheyenne. Some traditional cultural properties are used for purposes that are definable as religious in Euroamerican terms, and this use is intrinsic to their cultural significance. Kootenai Falls on the Kootenai River in Idaho, part of the National Register-eligible Kootenai Falls Cultural Resource District, has been used for centuries as a vision questing site by the Kootenai tribe. The Helkau Historic District in northern California is a place where traditional religious practitioners go to make medicine and commune with spirits, and Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk is an object of spiritual veneration. The fact that such properties have religious connotations does not automatically make them ineligible for inclusion in the Register. Applying the "religious exclusion" without careful and sympathetic consideration to properties of significance to a traditional cultural group can result in discriminating against the group by effectively denying the legitimacy of its history and culture. The history of a Native American group, as conceived by its indigenous cultural authorities, is likely to reflect a kind of belief in supernatural beings and events that Euroamerican culture categorizes as religious, although the group involved, as is often the case with Native American groups, may not even have a word in its language for "religion." To exclude from the National Register a property of cultural and historical importance to such a group, because its significance tends to be expressed in terms that to the Euroamerican observer appear to be "religious" is ethnocentric in the extreme. In simplest terms, the fact that a property is used for religious purposes by a traditional group, such as seeking supernatural visions, collecting or preparing native medicines, or carrying out ceremonies, or is described by the group in terms that are classified by the outside observer as "religious" should not by itself be taken to make the property ineligible, since these activities may be expressions of traditional cultural beliefs and may be intrinsic to the continuation of traditional cultural practices. Similarly, the fact that the group that owns a property—for example, an American Indian tribe—describes it in religious terms, or constitutes a group of traditional religious practitioners, should not automatically be taken to exclude the property from inclusion in the Register. Criteria Consideration A was included in the Criteria for Evaluation in order to avoid allowing historical significance to be determined on the basis of religious doctrine, not in order to exclude arbitrarily any property having religious associations. National Register guidelines stress the fact that properties can be listed in or determined eligible for the Register for their association with religious history, or with persons significant in religion, if such significance has "scholarly, secular recognition."13 The integral relationship among traditional Native American culture, history, and religion is widely recognized in secular scholarship.14 Studies leading to the nomination of traditional cultural properties to the Register should have among their purposes the application of secular scholarship to the association of particular properties with broad patterns of traditional history and culture. The fact that traditional history and culture may be discussed in religious terms does not make it less historical or less significant to culture, nor does it make properties associated with traditional history and culture ineligible for inclusion in the National Register. CONSIDERATION B: RELOCATED PROPERTIES. Properties that have been moved from their historically important locations are not usually eligible for inclusion in the Register, because "the significance of (historic properties) is embodied in their locations and settings as well as in the (properties) themselves" and because "one basic purpose of the National Register is to encourage the preservation of historic properties as living parts of their communities."15 This consideration is relevant but rarely applied formally to traditional cultural properties; in most cases the property in question is a site or district which cannot be relocated in any event. Even where the property can be relocated, maintaining it on its original site is often crucial to maintaining its importance in traditional culture, and if it has been moved, most traditional authorities would regard its significance as lost. Where a property is intrinsically portable, however, moving it does not 13 How to Complete the National Register Form. 14 For example see U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1983; Michaelson 1986. 15 How to Complete the National Register Form. The fact that a property has religious connotations does not automatically disqualify it for inclusion in the National Register. This Shaker community in Massachusetts, for example, while religious in orientation, is included in the Register because it expresses the cultural values of the Shakers as a society. (Historic American Buildings Survey) 15 �Some traditional cultural properties may be moveable, like this traditional war canoe still in use in the Republic ifPalua. (Papua Historic Preservation Officer) destroy its significance, provided it remains "located in a historically appropriate setting."16 For example, a traditionally important canoe or other watercraft would continue to be eligible as long as it remained in the water or in an appropriate dry land context (e.g., a boathouse). A property may also retain its significance if it has been moved historically.17 For example, totem poles moved from one Northwest Coast village to another in early times by those who made or used them would not have lost their significance by virtue of the move. In some cases, actual or putative relocation even contributes to the significance of a property. The topmost peak of Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk, for example, is traditionally thought to have been brought from another island; the stories surrounding this magical relocation are parts of the mountains cultural significance. In some cases it may be possible to relocate a traditionally significant property and still retain its significance, provided the property's "historic and present orientation, immediate setting, and general environment" are carefully considered in planning and executing the move.18 At Lake Sonoma in California, for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers relocated a number of boulders contain16 ing petroglyphs having artistic, archeological, and traditional cultural significance to protect them from inundation. The work was done in consultation with members of the local Porno Indian tribe, and apparently did not destroy the significance of the boulders in the eyes of the tribe.19 CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES AND GRAVES. Birthplaces and graves of famous persons are not usually eligible for inclusion in the Register as such. If the birthplace or gravesite of a historical person is significant for reasons other than its association with that person, however, the property can of course be eligible.20 Thus in the case of a traditional cultural property, if someone's birth or burial within the property's boundaries was incidental to the larger traditional significance of the property, the fact that it occurred does not make the property ineligible. For example, in South Texas, the burial site of Don Pedrito Jaramillo, a well documented folk healer who practiced at the turn of the century, has for more than seventy years been a culturally significant site for the performance of traditional healing rituals by Mexican American folk healers. Here the cultural significance of the site as a center for healing is related to the intangible belief that Don Pedrito's spirit is stronger there than in other places, rather than to the fact of his burial there. On the other hand, it is possible for the birth or burial itself to have been ascribed such cultural importance that its association with the property contributes to its significance. Tahquitz Canyon in southern California, for example, is in a sense the traditional "birthplace" of the entire Cahuilla Indian people. Its status as such does not make it ineligible; on the contrary, it is intrinsic to its eligibility. Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk is according to some traditions the birth- 16 How to Complete the National Register Form. 17 How to Complete the National Register Form. 18 How to Complete the National Register Form. 19 The location to which a property is relocated, and the extent to which it retains its integrity after relocation, must be carefully considered in judging its continued eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. See How to Complete the National Register Form for general guidelines. 20 How to Complete the National Register Form. �place of the culture hero Souwooniiras, whose efforts to organize society among the islands of Truk Lagoon are the stuff of Trukese legend. The association of his birth with the mountain does not make the mountain ineligible; rather, it contributes to its eligibility. CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES. Cemeteries are not ordinarily eligible for inclusion in the Register unless they "derive (their) primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design values, or from association with historic events."21 Many traditional cultural properties contain cemeteries, however, whose presence contributes to their significance. Tahquitz Canyon, for example, whose major significance lies in its association with Cahuilla traditional history, contains a number of cemeteries that are the subjects of great concern to the Cahuilla people. The fact that they are present does not render the Canyon ineligible; on the contrary, as reflections of the long historical association between the Cahuilla and the Canyon, the cemeteries reflect and contribute to the Canyon's significance. Thus the fact that a traditional cultural property is or contains a cemetery should not automatically be taken to render it ineligible. struction in no way diminishes the island's eligibility. CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATION. Like other properties, those constructed to commemorate a traditional event or person cannot be found eligible for inclusion in the Register based on association with that event or person alone.23 The mere fact that commemoration is involved in the use or design of a property should not be taken to make the property ineligible, however. For example, traditional meetinghouses in the Republic of Palau, included in the National Register, are typically ornamented with "story boards" commemorating traditional events; these derive their design from traditional Palauan aesthetic values, and thus contribute to the cultural significance of the structures. They connect the structures with the traditional history of the islands, and in no way diminish their cultural, ethnographic, and architectural significance. CONSIDERATION G: SIGNIFICANCE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE PAST 50 YEARS. Properties that have achieved significance only within the 50 years preceding their evaluation are not eligible for inclusion in the Register unless "sufficient historical perspective exists to determine that the property is exceptionally important and will continue to retain that distinction in the future."24 This is an extremely important criteria consideration with respect to traditional cultural values. A significance ascribed to a property only in the past 50 years cannot be considered traditional. As an example, consider a mountain peak used by an Indian tribe for communication with the supernatural. If the peak has been used by members of the tribe for many years, or if it was used by members of the tribe in prehistory or early history, it may be eligible, but if its use has begun only within the past 50 years, it is probably not eligible. 21 How to Complete the National Register Form. 22 How to Complete the National Register Form. 23 How to Complete the National Register Form. 24 How to Complete the National Register Form. CONSIDERATION E: RECONSTRUCTION. A reconstructed property—that is, a new construction that ostensibly reproduces the exact form and detail of a property or portion of a property that has vanished, as it appeared at a specific period in time—is not normally eligible for inclusion in the Register unless it meets strict criteria.22 The fact that some reconstruction has occurred within the boundaries of a traditional cultural property, however, does not justify regarding the property as ineligible for inclusion in the Register. For example, individuals involved in the revitalization of traditional Hawaiian culture and religion have reconstructed certain religious structures on the island of Kaho'olawe; while the structures themselves might not be eligible for inclusion in the Register, their con- Several hundred persons visit this shrine to Don Pedrito Jaramillo, curandero (faith healer), yearly to seek his healing spirit. (Curtis Tunnell, Texas Historical Commission) 17 �Tahquitz Canyon, in southern California, is included in the National Register because of its association with the traditions of the Cahuilla Indians. The ancestors of the Cahuilla came into this world from a lower one at the beginning of time, and an evil spirit, named Tahquitz, is believed to live in the upper reaches of the canyon. (Thomas F. King) The fact that a property may have gone unused for a lengthy period of time, with use beginning again only recently, does not make the property ineligible for the Register. For example, assume that the Indian tribe referred to above used the mountain peak in prehistory for communication with the supernatural, but was forced to abandon such use when it was confined to a distant reservation, or when its members were converted to Christianity. Assume further that a revitalization of traditional religion has be- 18 gun in the last decade, and as a result the peak is again being used for vision quests similar to those carried out there in prehistory. The fact that the contemporary use of the peak has little continuous time depth does not make the peak ineligible; the peak's association with the traditional activity reflected in its contemporary use is what must be considered in determining eligibility. The length of time a property has been used for some kinds of traditional purposes may be difficult to es- tablish objectively. Many cultural uses may have left little or no physical evidence, and may not have been noted by ethnographers or early visitors to the area. Some such uses are explicitly kept from outsiders by members of the group ascribing significance to the property. Indirect evidence and inference must be weighed carefully, by or in consultation with trained ethnographers, ethnohistorians, and other specialists, and professional judgements made that represent one's best, goodfaith interpretation of the available data. �V. DOCUMENTING TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Generally speaking, documentation of a traditional cultural property, on a National Register nomination form or in eligibility documentation, should include a presentation of the results of interviews and observations that systematically describe the behavior, beliefs, and knowledge that are germane to understanding the property's cultural significance, and an organized analysis of these results. The data base from which the formal nomination or eligibility determination documents are derived should normally include appropriate tape recordings, photographs, field notes, and primary written records. Obtaining and presenting such documentation can present special challenges, however. First, those who ascribe significance to the property may be reluctant to allow its description to be committed to paper, or to be filed with a public agency that might release information about it to inappropriate people. Second, documentation necessarily involves addressing not only the physical characteristics of the property as perceived by an outside observer, but culturally significant aspects of the property that may be visible or knowable only to those in whose traditions it is significant. Third, boundaries are often difficult to define. Fourth, in part because of the difficulty involved in defining boundaries, it is important to address the setting of the property. THE PROBLEM OF CONFIDENTIALITY Particularly where a property has supernatural connotations in the minds of those who ascribe significance to it, or where it is used in ongoing cultural activities that are not readily shared with outsiders, it may be strongly desired that both the nature and the precise location of the property be kept secret. Such a desire on the part of those who value a property should of course be respected, but it presents considerable problems for the use of National Register data in planning. In simplest terms, one cannot protect a property if one does not know that it is there. The need to reveal information about something that one's cultural system demands be kept secret can present agonizing problems for traditional groups and individuals. It is one reason that information on traditional cultural properties is not readily shared with Federal agencies and others during the planning and environmental review of construction and land use projects. However concerned one may be about the impacts of such a project on a traditional cultural property, it may be extremely difficult to express these concerns to an outsider if one's cultural system provides no acceptable mechanism for doing so. These difficulties are sometimes hard for outsiders to understand, but they should not be underrated. In some cultures it is sincerely believed that sharing information inappropriately with outsiders will lead to death or severe injury to one's family or group. As noted above, information on historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, may be kept confidential under the authority of 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act.25 This may not always be enough to satisfy the concerns of those who value, but fear the results of releasing information on, traditional cultural properties. In some cases these concerns may make it necessary not to nominate such properties formally at all, or not to seek formal determinations of eligibility, but simply to maintain some kind of minimal data in planning files. For example, in planning deployment of the MX missile system in Wyoming, the Air Force became aware that the Lakota Indian tribe in the area had concerns about the project's impacts on traditional cultural properties, but was unwilling to identify and document the precise locations and significance of such properties. To resolve this problem, Air Force representatives met with the tribe's traditional cultural authorities and indicated where they wanted to construct the various facilities required by the deployment; the tribe's authorities indicated which of these locations were likely to present problems, without saying what the nature of the problems might be. The Air Force then designed the project to minimize use of such areas. In a narrow sense, obviously, the Air Force did not go through the process of evaluation recommended by this Bulletin; no specific properties were identified or evaluated to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. In a broader sense, however, the Air Force's approach represents excellent practice in the identification and treatment of traditional cultural prop25 For details regarding maintaining confidentiality, see Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic and Prehistoric Resources. 19 �erties. The Air Force consulted carefully and respectfully with those who ascribed traditional cultural significance to properties in the area, and sought to accommodate their concerns. The tribe responded favorably to this approach, and did not take undue advantage of it. Presumably, had the tribe expressed concern about such expansive or strategically located areas as to suggest that it was more interested in impeding the deployment than in protecting its valued properties the Air Force would have had to use a different approach. In summary: the need that often exists to keep the location and nature of a traditional cultural property secret can present intractable problems. These must be recognized and dealt with flexibly, with an understanding of the fact that the management problems they may present to Federal agencies or State Historic Preservation Officers may pale into insignificance when compared with the wrenching cultural conflicts they may present to those who value the properties. DOCUMENTING VISIBLE AND NON-VISIBLE CHARACTERISTICS Documentation of a traditional cultural property should present not only its contemporary physical appearance and, if known, its historical appearance, but also the way it is described in the relevant traditional belief or practice. For example, one of the important cultural locations on Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk is an area called "Neepisaram," which physically looks like nothing but a grassy slope near the top of the mountain. In tradition, however, it is seen as the ear of "kuus," a metaphorical octopus identified with the mountain, and as the home of "Saraw," a warrior spirit/barracuda. Obviously a nomination of "Neepisaram" would be incomplete and largely irrelevant to its significance if it identified it only as a grassy slope near the top of the mountain. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE Describing the period of significance for a traditional cultural property can be an intellectual challenge, particularly where the traditions of a Native American or Micronesian group are involved. In such cases 20 there are often two different kinds of "periods." One of these is the period in which, in tradition, the property gained its significance—the period during which the Cahuilla people emerged from the lower world through Tahquitz Canyon, or the period when civilization came to Truk through the magical arrival of the culture-bearer Sowukachaw on Mt. Tonaachaw. Such periods often have no fixed referent in time as it is ordinarily construed by Euroamerican scholarship.26 To the Cahuilla, their ancestors simply emerged from the lower world at the beginning of human life on earth, whenever that may have been. A Trukese traditional authority will typically say simply that Sowukachaw came to Truk "noomw noomw noomw" (long, long ago). It is usually fruitless, and of little or no relevance to the eligibility of the property involved for inclusion in the National Register, to try to relate this sort of traditional time to time as measured by Euroamerican history. Traditional "periods" should be defined in their own terms. If a traditional group says a property was created at the dawn of time, this should be reported in the nomination or eligibility documentation; for purposes of National Register eligibility there is no need to try to establish whether, according to Euroamerican scholarship or radiocarbon age determination, it really was created at the dawn of time. The second period that is often relevant to a traditional property is its period of use for traditional purposes. Although direct, physical evidence for such use at particular periods in the past may be rare in the case of properties used by native American groups, it is usually possible to fix a period of use, at least in part, in ordinary chronological time. Establishing the period of use often involves the weighing of indirect evidence and inference. Interviews with traditional cultural authorities are usually the main sources of data, sometimes, supplemented by the study of historical accounts or by archeological investigations. Based on such sources of data it should be possible at least to reach supportable inferences about whether generations before the present one have used a property for traditional 26 Except, perhaps, by some of the more esoteric subfields of cosmology and quantum mechanics. purposes, suggesting that it was used for such purposes more than fifty years ago. It is seldom possible to determined when the traditional use of property began, however—this tends to be lost, as it were, in the mists of antiquity. BOUNDARIES Defining the boundaries of a traditional cultural property can present considerable problems. In the case of the Helkau Historic District in northern California, for example, much of the significance of the property in the eyes of its traditional users is related to the fact that it is quiet, and that is presents extensive views of natural landscape without modern intrusions. These factors are crucial to the medicine making done by traditional religious practitioners in the district. If the boundaries of the district were defined on the basis of these factors, however, the district would take in a substantial portion of California's North coast Range. Practically speaking, the boundaries of a property like the Helkau District must be defined more narrowly, even though this may involve making some rather arbitrary decisions. In the case of the Helkau District, the boundary was finally drawn along topographic lines that included all the locations at which traditional practitioners carry out medicine-making and similar activities, the travel routes between such locations, and the immediate viewshed surround this complex of locations and routes. In defining boundaries, the traditional uses to which the property is put must be carefully considered. For example, where a property is used as the Helkau District is used, for contemplative purposes, viewsheds are important and must be considered in boundary definition. In an urban district significant for its association with a given social group, boundaries might be established where residence or use by the group ends, or where such residence or use is no longer reflected in the architecture or spatial organization of the neighborhood. Changes in boundaries through time should also be taken into consideration. For example, archeological evidence may indicate that a particular cultural practice occurred within particular boundaries in the past, but the practice today may occur within dif- �ferent boundaries perhaps larger, perhaps smaller, perhaps covering different areas. The fact that such changes have taken place, and the reasons they have taken place, if these can be ascertained, should be documented and considered in developing a rationale for the boundaries identified in the nomination or eligibility documentation. DESCRIBING THE SETTING The fact that the boundaries of a traditional cultural property may be drawn more narrowly than they would be if they included all significant viewsheds or lands on which noise might be intrusive on the practices that make the property significant does not mean that visual or auditory intrusions occurring outside the boundaries can be ignored. In the context of eligibility determination or nomination, such intrusions if severe enough may compromise the property's integrity. In planning subsequent to nomination or eligibility determination, the Advisory Council's regulations define "isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting" as an adverse effect "when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the National Register" (36 CFR 800.9(b)(2)). Similarly, the Council's regulations define as adverse effects "introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting" (36 CFR 800.9 To assist in determining whether a given activity outside the boundaries of a traditional cultural property may constitute an adverse effect, it is vital that the nomination form or eligibility documentation discuss those qualities of a property's visual, auditory, and atmospheric setting that contribute to its significance, including those qualities whose expression extends beyond the boundaries of the property as such into the surrounding environment. Individual structures can have traditional cultural significance, like this Yapese men's house, used by Yapese today in the conduct of deliberations on matters of cultural importance. (Yap State Historic Preservation Office) 21 �COMPLETING REGISTRATION FORMS The following discussion is organized with reference to the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (NPS 10-900), which must be used in nominating properties to the National Register. To the extent feasible, documentation supporting a request for a determination of eligibility should be organized with reference to, and if possible using, the Registration Form as well. Where the instructions given in the National Register bulletin entitled How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, are sufficient without further discussion, this is indicated. 1. Name of Property The name given a traditional cultural property by its traditional users should be entered as its historic name. Names, inventory reference numbers, and other designations ascribed to the property by others should be entered under other names/ site number. 2. Location Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, but note discussion of the problem of confidentiality above. 22 3. Classification 9. Major Bibliographical References Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Where oral 4. State/Federal Agency Certification Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. 5. National Park Service Certification To be completed by National Register. 6. Function or Use Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. 7. Description Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form as appli- cable. It may be appropriate to address both visible and non-visible aspects of the property here, as discussed under General Considerations above; alternatively, non-visible aspects of the property may be discussed in the statement of significance. sources have been employed, append a list of those consulted and identify the locations where field notes, audio or video tapes, or other records of interviews are housed, unless consultants have required that this information be kept confidential; if this is the case, it should be so indicated in the documentation. 10. Geographical Data Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form as appli- cable, but note the discussion of boundaries and setting under General Considerations above. If it is necessary to discuss the setting of the property in detail, this discussion should be appended as accompanying documentation and referenced in this section. 11. Form Prepared By 8. Statement of Significance Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, being care- Accompanying Documentation ful to address significance with sensitivity for the viewpoints of those who ascribe traditional cultural significance to the property. Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, except that if the group that ascribes cultural significance to the property objects to the inclusion of photographs, photographs need not be included. If photographs are not included, provide a statement explaining the reason for their exclusion. �VI. CONCLUSION The National Historic Preservation Act, in its introductory section, establishes that "the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people"27 (16U.S.C470(b)(2)). The cultural foundations of America's ethnic and social groups, be they Native American or historical immigrant, merit rec7 ognition and preservation, particularly where the properties that represent them can continue to function as living parts of the communities that ascribe cultural value to them. Many such properties have been included in the National Register, and many others have been formally determined eligible for inclusion, or regarded as such for purposes of review under 106 of the Act. Federal agencies, State Historic Preservation Officers, and others who are involved in the inclusion of such properties in the Register, or in their recognition as eligible for inclusion, have raised a number of important questions about how to distinguish between traditional cultural properties that are eligible for inclusion in the Register and those that are not. It is our hope that this Bulletin will help answer such questions. 16U.S.C. 470(b)(2). 23 �VII. RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES FEDERAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and National Park Service 1988 Identification of Historic Properties: a Decision making Guide for Managers. ACHP, Washington, DC. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1989 Public Participation in Section 106 Review: a Guide for Agency Officials. ACHP, Washington, DC. National Park Service 1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. 48 FR 44716-42. National Park Service 1988 The Section 110 Guidelines: Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities Under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 53 FR 4727-46. National Park Service National Register bulletins: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation How to Complete the National Register Registration Form Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic and Prehistoric Resources PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL MANUALS Bartis, P. 1979 Folklife and Fieldwork. American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 24 Langanese, L.L. and Celya Frank 1981 Lives: an Anthropological Approach to Biography. Navato. Chandler and Sharp, Inc. Stoffle, R.W., M.C. Jake, MJ. Evans and P.A. Bunte 1981 Establishing Native American Concerns in Social Impact Assessments. Social Impact Assessment 65/66:3-10, New York. Werner, O. and M. Schoepfle 1987 Systematic Fieldwork, Volumes I and II. Sage Publications. EXAMPLES Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia B. Vane (eds.) 1978 Persistence and Power: A Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and the Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line. Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia B. Vane (eds.) 1979 Native Americans of Western Riverside County, California and the Devers-Mira Loma 500 kV Transmission Line Route (Lamb Canyon-Mira Loma Section). Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia B. Vane (eds.) 1979 Allen-Warner Valley Energy System: Western Transmission System Ethnographic and Historical Resources. Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research Inc., Menlo Park, CA, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Bean, Lowell J., Sylvia B. Vane, Michael Lerch and Jackson Young 1981 Native American Places in the San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, for the USDA Forest Service, South Zone Contracting Office, Arcadia, CA (Contract No. 539JA9-0-212). Carroll, Charles H. 1982 An Ethnographic Investigation of Sites and Locations of Cultural Significance to the Navajo People to be Affected by PNM's Four Corners to Ambrosia to Pajarito 500 kV Transmission Project. Public Service Company of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Carroll, Charles H. 1983 The Ute Mountain Ethnographic Study. Public Service Company of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Carter, T. and C. Fleischhauer 1988 The Grouse Creek Cultural Survey: Integrating Folklife and Historic Preservation Field Research. American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Goldberg, S.K. and D.J. Theodoratus 1985 Cultural Resources of the Crane Valley Hydroelectric Project Area, Madera County, California. Volume I: Ethnographic, Historic, and Archaeological Overviews and Archaeological Survey. Report prepared by Info tec Research, Sonora CA, and Theodoratus Cultural Research, Fair Oaks, CA, for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. �Hufford M. 1986 One Space, Many Places: Folklife and Land Use in New Jersey's Pinelands National Reserve. American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC Johnston, James and Elizabeth Budy 1983 Lost Creek Canyon Native American Sites. National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Evaluation. Manuscript. USDA Forest Service, Lassen National Forest, CA. McCarthy, H. C. Blount, E. McKee and D.J. Theodoratus 1985 Ethnographic and Historic Survey for the Big Creek Expansion Project. Report prepared by Theodoratus Cultural Research, Fair Oaks, CA, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. National Park Service 1985 Promised Land on the Solomon: Black Settlement at Nicodemus, Kansas. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Stoffle, Richard W. and Henry E Dobyns (eds.) 1982 Nuvagantu. Nevada Indians Comment on the Intermountain Power Project, Utah Section. Intermountain-Adelanto Bipole 1 Transmission Line. Ethnographic (Native American) Resources. Report submitted by the Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin, Parkside, Kenosha, WI, to Applied Conservation Technology, Inc. Stoffle, Richard W. and Henry E. Dobyns (eds.) 1983 PauxantTuvip. Utah Indians Comment on the Intermountain Power Project, Utah Section. Intermountain-Adelanto Bipole I Transmission Line. Ethnographic (Native American) Resources. Report submitted by the Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin, Parkside, Kenosha, WI, to Applied Conservation Technology, Inc. Stoffle, Richard W., et al. 1984 Toyavita Piavuhuru Koroin: Ethnohistory and Native American Religious Concerns in the Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Maneuver Area. Report submitted by the Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin, Parkside, Kenosha, WI, to the National Park OTHER Service. Association on American Indian Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc./ Affairs Archaeological Consulting and 1988 American Indian Religious Research Services, Inc. Freedom. Special Supplement to 1984 Cultural Resources Overview of Indian Affairs, Number 116, New the Southern Sierra Nevada: An Ethnographic,Linguistic, Archaeologi- York, NY cal and Historical Study of the Sierra Loomis, O.H. National Forest, Sequoia National 1983 Cultural Conservation: the Forest, and Bakersfield District of the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Bureau of Land Management. Report United States. American Folklife to the U.S. Department of AgriculCenter, Library of Congress, ture, Forest Service, South Central Washington, DC Contracting Office, Bishop CA. Michaelson, Robert S. Theodoratus, D.J., CM. Blount, 1986 American Indian Religious A.L. Hurtado, P.N. Hawkes and Freedom Litigation: Promise and Peril. M.Ashman Journal of Law and Religion 3:471978 Balsam Meadow Cultural 76. Resource Study: Ethnology and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights History. Report prepared by 1983 Religion in the Constitution: Theodoratus Cultural Research, A Delicate Balance. Clearinghouse Fair Oaks, CA, for Southern Publication No. 80, U.S. CommisCalifornia Edison Company, sion on Civil Rights, Washington, Rosemead, CA. DC Theodoratus, D.J. et al. U.S. Department of the Interior 1979 Cultural Resources of the 1979 American Indian Religious Chimney Rock Section, GasquetFreedom Act: Federal Agencies Task Orleans Road, Six Rivers National Force Report. Washington, DC. Forest. Report prepared by Theodoratus Cultural Research, Walker, Deward E., Jr. Fair Oaks, CA, for USDA Forest 1987 Protection of American Indian Service. Sacred Geography: Toward a Functional Understanding of Indian Theodoratus, D.J. Religion Focusing on a Protective 1982 Ethnographic Cultural Resources Investigation of the Big Creek- Standard of Integrity. Paper preSpringville-Magunden and Big Creek- sented at the Workshop on Sacred Geography, Harvard Center for the Rector-Vestal-Magunden TransmisStudy of World Religions, May 5-6, sion Corridors. Report prepared by Cambridge, MA. Theodoratus Cultural Research, Fair Oaks, CA, for Southern White, D.R.M. (ed.) California Edison Company, 1982 Proceedings of the First National Rosemead, CA. Conference of the Task Force on Cultural Resource Management. Woods CM. Edison Electric Institute, Washing1982 APS/SDG&E Interconnection ton, DC. Project Native American Cultural Resources: Miguel to the Colorado River and Miguel to Mission Tap. Report prepared by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, CA, for San Diego Gas and Electric Company, San Diego, CA. York, Frederick F. 1981 An Ethnographic Survey of the Public Service Company of New Mexico's Proposed New Town Site and Its Environs. Human Environmental Resource Services Corporation, Anthropological Series Number 1, Albuquerque. 25 �VIII. APPENDIX I A DEFINITION OF "CULTURE" Early in this Bulletin a shorthand definition of the word "culture" is used. A longer and somewhat more complex definition is used in the National Park Service's internal cultural resource management guidelines (NPS-28). This definition is consistent 26 with that used in this Bulletin, and may be helpful to those who require further elucidation of the term. The definition reads as follows: "Culture (is) a system of behaviors, values, ideologies, and social arrangements. These features, in addition to tools and expressive elements such as graphic arts, help humans interpret their universe as well as deal with features of their environments, natural and social. Culture is learned, transmitted in a social context, and modifiable. Synonyms for culture include "lifeways," "customs," "traditions," "social practices," and "folkways." The terms "folk culture" and "folklife" might be used to describe aspects of the system that are unwritten, learned without formal instruction, and deal with expressive elements such as dance, song, music and graphic arts as well as storytelling." �IX. APPENDIX II PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: ETHNOGRAPHY When seeking assistance in the identification, evaluation, and management of traditional cultural properties, agencies should normally seek out specialists with ethnographic research training, typically including, but not necessarily limited to: I. Language skills: it is usually extremely important to talk in their own language with those who may ascribe value to traditional cultural properties. While ethnographic fieldwork can be done through interpreters, ability in the local language is always preferable. II. Interview skills, for example: • The ability to approach a potential informant in his or her own cultural environment, explain and if necessary defend one's research, conduct an interview and minimize disruption, elicit required information, and disengage from the interview in an appropriate manner so that further interviews are welcome; and • The ability to create and conduct those types of interviews that are appropriate to the study being carried out, ensuring that the questions asked are meaningful to those being interviewed, and that answers are correctly understood through the use of such techniques as translating and back-translating. Types of interviews normally carried out by ethnographers, one or more of which may be appropriate during evaluation and documentation of a traditional cultural property, include: • semi-structured interview on a broad topic; • semi-structured interview on a narrow topic; • structured interview on a well defined specific topic; open ended life history/life cycle interview; and • genealogical interview. III. Skill in making and accurately recording direct observations of human behavior, typically including: • The ability to observe and record individual and group behavior in such a way as to discern meaningful patterns; and • The ability to observe and record the physical environment in which behavior takes place, via photography, mapmaking, and written description. IV. Skill in recording, coding, and retrieving pertinent data derived from analysis of textural materials, archives, direct observation, and interviews. Proficiency in such skills is usually obtained through graduate and post-graduate training and supervised experience in cultural anthropology and related disciplines, such as folklore/folklife. 27 �X. APPENDIX III LIST OF NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS The Basics How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation * Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form * Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form Researching a Historic Property * Property Types Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties * Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places Technical Assistance Contribution of Moved Buildings to Historic Districts; Tax Treatments for Moved Buildings; and Use of Nomination Documentation in the Part I Certification Process Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties* Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning * How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nominations National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation * Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites The above publications may be obtained by writing to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Publications marked with an asterisk (*) are also available in electronic form on the World Wide Web at www.cr.nps.gov/nr, or send your request by e-mail to nr_reference@nps.gov. 28 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pilot Knob Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Laura Levitt Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NationalRegisterBulletin38.pdf Title A name given to the resource National Register Bulletin 38 Subject The topic of the resource . Description An account of the resource National Register Bulletin 38 or "Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties gives the guidelines for evaluating if a site can be put on the National Register of Historic Places based on its "traditional cultural significance." Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived National Park Service Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Publications Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant United States NARF National Register Traditional Cultural Property https://omeka-dev.carleton.edu/religionsmn/files/original/8f6964464d642efaf783c9be99dbe534.pdf 2d34399f204b997140a565a0ba2182e5 PDF Text Text Page No. 1 January 7, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 7, 2003 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7: 30 o' clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. OATH OF OFFICE The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mayor John J. Huber, who was elected on November 5, 2002 to a two - ear term of y office, to Councilmember Mary Jeanne Schneeman, who was reelected to a four - ear term of office, and to Councilmember Ultan y Duggan, who was elected to a four - ear term of office. y CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7: 45 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Huber, Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council, audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on December 17, 2002. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: Huber, Duggan CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 5, and 5, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for December, 2002. �Page No. 2 January 7, 2003 b. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -01, " CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION RESOLUTION," to add Mayor Huber to the list of authorized signatures at American Bank.. c. Approval of the appointment of Councilmember Schneeman as the Mendota Heights representative on the Gun Club Lake WMO. d. Approval to schedule the annual Board of Review for April 1, 2003 at 7: 00 p.m. e. Approval of the appointment of Teresa Ganglehoff to permanent status as half time Recreation Programmer, retroactive to December 26, 2002. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -02, " RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2003 CITY DEPOSITORIES OF FUNDS." g. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -03, " RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PLEDGED SECURITIES FOR 2003." h. Approval of the list of Rubbish Hauler licenses dated January 7, 2003. i. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated January 7, 2003. j. Approval of the List of Claims dated January 7, 2003 and totaling $99, 356. 82. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 OFF DUTY WORK POLICY Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief Piotraschke regarding the police department' s off duty work policy for police officers. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the city would be liable for the actions of a police officer in an off duty position. She also asked whether the officers will be able to schedule through the city and also take on assignments that are not scheduled. Administrator Lindberg responded that the policy would only cover officers who are working at the direction of the city for organizations like St. Thomas Academy, Beth Jacob Synagogue, etc. All extra �Page No. 3 January 7, 2003 duty assignments will be scheduled by the city. The city will pay the officers and bill the organizations. The officers will be covered by the city' s insurance policy except if the officers are working outside the city' s boundaries ( State Fair, etc.). The off duty policy does not extend the city' s liability. Chief Piotraschke informed Council that this issue has been around since May, 1998. It was the former chief' s opinion at the time that the city had as much of a standing liability under the current situation as it would if the city controlled the assignments. He did not believe the revision in the policy adds any liability to the city. Also, because the policy clearly defines the responsibilities for each of the jobs, the majority of the work would fall under extra duty. Officers will not be allowed to negotiate jobs by themselves except for work outside of the city' s service area —like the State Fair, but in those cases the officers would need approval from the Police Chief. The city is bound by the existing policy and actual labor contracts to schedule off duty work in as fair a manner as possible. Councilmember Duggan asked whether there is an extent of duties and limits of duties that an officer would perform and if so, if the officers are aware of them and if the organization they are doing policing for is aware of them. Chief Piotraschke responded that the assignments would be mandated by normal job descriptions. The policy only requires the officers to do what they would normally do as an on -duty officer. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to acknowledge receipt of the policy,on off duty assignments. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONCORD WAY STOP SIGN Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson in response to a request for a stop sign at Concord Way and Lockwood Drive. Mayor Huber noted that the staff recommendation is to deny the request. Councilmember Duggan stated that he is concerned about a tree that appears to be closer to the intersection than it should be, which is similar to the situation on Decorah. He asked staff to see if the tree should be moved or trimmed back as opposed to installing a stop sign. �Page No. 4 January 7, 2003 Councilmember Duggan moved to deny the request for stop sign. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 EMPLOYEE,RECOGNITION On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Huber presented plaques to the following city employees in recognition of their years of service and dedication to the community: Leonard Kanitz and Kathleen Swanson, 30 years; Jim Kilburg, 20 years; Nancy Bauer, Aaron Coates, James Perron, and Kevin Perron, 15 years; Linda Shipton, 10 years, and John Boland and Richard Burrows, 5 years. Although they were not in attendance, the following employees were also recognized: Mike Maczko, 20 years, Richard Gill, 15 years, John Ambrose and Tracy Wilcziek, 5 years. ACTING Mayor Mayor Huber moved that Councilmember Krebsbach be appointed to serve as the Acting Mayor during any absences of the Mayor in the year 2003. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the City Clerk regarding designation of an official city newspaper for 2003. Council also acknowledged letters of request from Lillie Suburban News ( Southwest Review) and Sun Newspapers. It was noted that the rates charged for legal publications in the Southwest Review are considerably lower than the Sun. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Southwest Review was the official newspaper for several years and the Sun has been the official newspaper for the past few years. She felt that it may be a time to change back to the Review. Councilmember Duggan informed Council that he as a small claim against the Sun Newspaper because of distribution, so he will abstain from the vote. Councilmember Vitelli moved that Lillie Suburban News ( Southwest Review) be appointed as the city' s official newspaper for 2003. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: Duggan �Page No. 5 January 7, 2003 NDC4 REPRESENTATIVE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding appointment of representatives to the NDC4. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to appoint Councilmember Duggan as the Council representative on the NDC4 and Mr. Mike Sokol as the citizen representative for two years terms through January, 2005. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 EAW PETITION/ Council acknowledged a memo and proposed resolution ordering CASE NO. 02 -50, CLARK an environmental assessment worksheet for a proposed multi family The housing development at the north end of Pilot Knob Road ( " Bluffs," Case No. 02 -50). Council also acknowledged the following communications: letter from the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community; " Oheyawahe or Pilot Knob Preliminary Summary of the Evidence: prepared by Bruce White and Alan Woolworth; letter from Thomas Casey to Dan Schleck; letter from the MAC; letter from Arvo Looking Horse; " Dakota and Ojibwe Land Cession Treaty Sites in Minnesota;" letter from Ann Larson, Lower Sioux Indian Community; letter from Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society; email from Tom Weaver; letter from Bruce Kessler, cochair of the Beth Jacob Cemetery Association; email from Leonard Oppenheimer; letter from Gemini Research; letter from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community; letter from the members of the Social Justice Committee of the Beth Jacob Congregation; letter from Christine Snyder and Stephen Landry; and, letter from Cheryl Fields. As a general statement, Mayor Huber stated that he is sure everyone on the Council has received a lot of information from various people along with many phone calls and they all appreciate it. He asked, however, that in the future all items where a concerned citizen has written information that they want to get to a Council member, the best way to do that is to bring the information to City Hall and let staff distribute it. Then everyone on Council knows that everyone received the information and that staff has the same information. There are times when Council members are gone, and city staff can track them down and get important information to them. Attorney Schleck added that people should understand that things that are delivered to individual Council members at home do not �Page No. 6 January 7, 2003 become part of the official city record. Only items that are submitted to City Hall become part of the city record. Councilmember Vitelli stated that if Council decides to move ahead with an EAW, Council must also define what they want it to focus on. That should include historical significance, wetland, air quality and noise. Attorney Schleck reviewed a letter he sent to Administrator Lindberg on December 27. He stated that the Environmental Quality Board is the state agency that is charged with overseeing this process and they put out good guidance information on how local governmental units are to treat these requests. An EAW is really a determination of the project' s environmental impacts and a comparative analysis of its economic and sociological effects. He gave Council an overview, stating that as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU), Council can decide what are the important items with respect to an individual project. The EAW must take into account local affects. The decision to be made tonight is whether Council deems that an EAW is required for this development on the Garron/Acacia site. There are two types of EAW processes. Some projects require mandatory EAWs and some are discretionary. The decision on whether to do an EAW is discretionary in this case and Council makes the determination if one is required. The purpose of the worksheet is to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is required. The EAW is a screening process to be used by RGUs so that not a large amount of effort, time and expense is spent on a project that may not need an EIS. If a project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, the RGU should require an EAW. The standard for whether there is the potential for significant effects is not clear cut. The RGU can decide on a case by case basis what warrants review and what does not. The RGU can look at social and economic impacts such as noise, green space preservation, infrastructure issues, traffic, parking, etc. The process does not simply anticipate Council look at contamination to the air, water and soil. It allows RGU' s to look at different things. There is little guidance to say whether an EAW should be done. He reviewed the items that the EQB suggested in its guidelines that may be considered. He stated that the law is written in less than rigid form to allow flexibility by the RGU. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Council could define the EAW down to one question or if it must respond to all 25 items in the worksheet. �Page No. 7 January 7, 2003 Attorney Schleck responded that of the list of items, to some extent Council must look at what of the items are important with respect to this project and what are the concerns with respect to the community, and that is a Council decision. It is part of the decision that the RGU can make and if, for example, there are certain aspects people feel are important to review and the RGU feels they are not, that is an appealable decision, and phases of the decision are appealable as well. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if what Mr. Schleck is saying is that if Council defines it down, the petitioners can appeal. Attorney Schleck stated that anyone can appeal but they must be able to show standing. Anyone who was one of the original petitioners would probably have standing. The EAW process is designed to be flexible for Council to determine what items are the best to be reviewed if Council chooses to review anything. Councilmember Duggan stated that it seems to him there was an indication there could be establishment of mitigating factors and/ or ways to mitigate or reduce impacts. Attorney Schleck responded that the mitigating factors as they relate to a project are things that should be reviewed as part of the EAW or as part of the decision on whether to require an EAW. The important thing with respect to the decision Council makes is that it is important for a Council to fully document and record why it is making its decision.. If mitigating factors are one of those items, that should come into it. Councilmember Krebsbach asked that if the EAW is done based on the proposal that is before Council but there is a modification to the proposal to create more scenic areas, at what point would a court find an accommodation in a proposal as meeting the worksheet. Attorney Schleck stated that the question is if there are changes to a project that address some of the concerns as they relate to the potential for significant environmental effects, to what extent does that change Council' s review process or its decision. Minnesota Rules 4410 state that if a decision is made to require an EAW, that decision stands for one year after it is made for any similar project proposed for that site. The need to redo an EAW would come down to a Council decision on whether one project is significantly different enough from another to require another EAW. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach about at what point there �Page No. 8 January 7, 2003 is a level of satisfaction, the end of the EAW process. He stated that the EAW process is designed to identify significant environmental impacts. The decision on whether to require mitigating measures is up to the RGU, and it is also up to the RGU to decides when the scope of the EAW process is complete. If Council chooses to do an EAW, Council also decides when it is complete. Council should be aware that in the EAW process, once it is drafted, it is published for 30 days and the city is to accept comments for 30 days and is required to respond to the comments. With respect to the cost of the study, there is no provision in the statute that requires a developer to pay for the EAW. A developer can volunteer to pay for that work with respect to the EAW. The EIS process requires a project proposer to pay for it. The cost of the EAW is the city' s unless the proposer decides to do it on his own. Mayor Huber asked if Council would like to entertain audience comments at this point. Mayor Huber stated that this is not a public hearing, but he believes many of the audience members would like to comment. He stated that this is not a public hearing but he invited them to speak on the matter with the guideline that they think of two or three things that they think are most important to be addressed. Councilmember Vitelli suggested that the people who come forward, do so to provide Council with new information or information, for example, as to why this might be a historic site, rather than just saying they think there should be an EAW. Many people have called him and eight of ten people could not offer a reason why an EAW should be done. One person did not even know where the site is. He asked the audience to try to add something to Council' s knowledge. Attorney Schleck stated that in determining whether to require an EAW, Council is to consider facts as opposed to opinion. It is important for people to state a fact and not an opinion. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she has reviewed the documents that have been provided and has made notes on them. She asked whether she should share them at this meeting. Attorney Schleck responded that the review of the information itself is what the EAW is for. Councilmember Duggan asked at what point Council determines whether a piece of information is anecdote or fact. �Page No. 9 January 7, 2003 Attorney Schleck responded that that is the key issue. There is no standard in case law on what a significant environmental effect is. The RGU is allowed to determine what is significant. Mr. Steve Golias, Deputy Mayor of Mendota, stated that he is present to represent the City of Mendota. He stated that Mendota has a joint powers agreement with Mendota Heights on waste water and he would hope that would be addressed in the EAW. Mendota has concerns over the size and scope of the project. He also asked that Mendota be allowed to be an active participant in the EAW, specifically concerning the waste water that would be coming into Mendota' s sanitary sewer. That water goes into the same system and pumping station that was designed for the 77 dwelling units in Mendota and this would add 154 units to that. That would have significant impact on Mendota. There will also be billing expenses. When the cities entered into the agreement, Mendota was of the understanding it would just be St. Peter' s Church and the immediate adjacent area coming into their system.. Mayor Huber stated that the City Council would still be the RGU, but there is another local government that wants to be involved in the process. They would be in the same role as others who bring up issues: Council would not be sharing the RGU responsibility. Attorney Schleck stated that there is no provision in the law for dual RGU. Council would make the determination on what weight to give Mendota' s comments. Ms. Olivia Herstein, 2370 Lexington Avenue, a member of the Beth Jacob Synagogue, stated that she was present to urge Council to order an EAW. She felt that the property has serious spirtual significance and significant historical value, and she asked for a thorough review of the archeological, historic and environmental importance of the site. As a Mendota Heights resident, she believes Pilot Knob is a historical gem and that this sacred space should be honored. Mr. Tom Casey, legal counsel for the Mendota Dakota Mdewakanton Community, stated that one of the Community' s missions is to promote and support the heritage of their community in Minnesota. They submitted the petition for EAW. He agreed with what Attorney Schleck said, but stated that even in his memo he said Council should order an EAW if the project may have a potential for significant environmental effects, but in fact the rule �Page No. 10 January 7, 2003 says that an EAW shall be ordered if a project may have a potential. That threshold is very low. All his clients need to do is to make a good faith attempt to submit evidence. They do not have to do an EAW in order to ask for an EAW. His clients submitted one inch thick material with the petition and have submitted new material since that time, including the 32 page memo from Bruce White. He asked that Mr. White be given the opportunity to review and summarize that information about the historical significance of the site. He stated that he is a PhD Anthropologist with a Master' s in history and has worked with the Minnesota Historical Society and has been a private consultant since that time. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that in the past that she had assumed that Mr. White was present in his own interest. She asked if he is here in his own interest or if he was retained by the Mendota Mdewakanton Community. Mr. White responded that he has been working with the Community to document its family history. He is not being employed by them to represent them in this issue. He is a consultant for them on other issues. He stated that he is employed by the Milacs Ojibwe and the National Park Service and a number of other agencies, but he is not representing them here. He is representing himself as a historian. He stated that his PhD is in Ethno History. He has worked with the Historical Society to do a study on the interpretation of Fort Snelling and that included Pilot Knob and other areas. Councilmember Krebsbach commented that Mr. White has been present at other meetings, and asked if he was retained to be present at those meetings. Mr. White responded that he was not paid by the Mendota Mdewakanton to come to the meetings. He is paid to work on other projects for them. He is a historian and historians work on things they believe in. Mayor Huber stated that Council wants to focus on the project site and its relationship to the area around it. Council needs to establish the concerns about this particular project and the boundaries it encompasses. Mr. White stated that he came here in December and also appeared at Planning Commission meetings in October and November and spoke about the importance of Pilot Knob. Pilot Knob is a very important historical place based on his experience and knowledge. That is why he prepared documents for the December meeting. He �Page No. 11 January 7, 2003 thought at that time, after attending the meeting, that the EAW was going ahead based on the comments of the City Attorney. As it turned out that was not the case. At the last meeting he presented material to Council and some important and valid questions were raised. The summary he presented for this evening' s agenda is a response to those questions. It is important to say why not only Pilot Knob as a whole is important but why this particular property is a part of Pilot Knob and why this particular property has significance and that is what this report tries to show. It is not exhaustive and he would not want to have Council say that since it has been done why is an EAW needed. At a minimum, what the evidence shows is that there is strong evidence that the proposed Garron/Acacia property does include areas of historical and cultural significance, including, he believes, the Treaty of 1851 site. It also shows that scenic and rural character of Pilot Knob has been protected over the years. This is an important site and he would hope Council would protect it. He believes the evidence shown in the summary and the letters the city received from the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office, the Shakopee Sioux, etc., point out the sacred importance of this site to the Dakota people and its historic importance. He believes this development would seriously damage this site, making its historical and scenic character disappear. He believes the report shows at a minimum that a thorough analysis of the site is necessary. When people talked about Pilot Knob, they used a number of different terms that indicated the importance of the area. It was called Pilot Bluff, Pilot Hill, and Pilot. Ridge as well as Pilot Knob. The Dakota called it the hill most visited. They were talking about the entire hill, not just the area within Acacia Cemetery. It is rare to find a historic site in which white people talk about sacred character of the place for the Indian people. In his experience in doing historical research there are claims sometimes of sacredness that are totally ignored in the historical record, but there are books and articles all saying this site is sacred to the Dakota people. They also talk about the burials there. A picture of Pilot Knob by Seth Eastman shows burial scaffolds there. Seth Eastman put Pilot Knob in almost every picture he did of Fort Snelling. It is rare to find historical documents that talk about the religious uses of places by the Indian people, but there are detailed descriptions of medicine dances on a plateau on Pilot Knob. He would say that it is very likely that was on the Garron property / cacia property. There is much discussion about the Treaty A of 1851 in the report. For years, people said the treaty was signed on the top of Pilot Knob. The research he has done indicates the treaty negotiation took place on a high plane on the slopes of Pilot Knob. The treaty of 1851 was one of two treaties signed by Dakota people in which they sold the remainder of their land in Minnesota —34 �Page No. 12 January 7, 2003 million acres. There was a preservation in the treaty for a reservation in western Minnesota, half of which was later taken away by the senate. At the last meeting Council raised a question of what effect development over the years has had on this property. The evidence shows that this area has not been developed ever. It has been used primarily for farm land up until the present time. Since before the government survey 160 years ago, this land has been used for farm land. It has been skirted and defined by railroads and roads, but the plat maps and aerial photos show that it has been protected as an island. T.H. 55 was expanded quite a bit in recent years, which cut into the north end of the property. There is some fill along the edge for the grade. He showed aerial photographs of the Garron/ Acacia site showing roads that are the descendents of the early trails and the earliest roads in the Mendota area. Highway 55 is the successor of the St. Croix Trail and later the Mendota/Hastings Road. Although the route has been changed along the Garron site, the photo shows the old trail, which is another historical remnant and explains the strange diagonal property line on the site. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the purpose this evening it to determine the facts. She asked Mr. White if he could give Council three facts that relate to this site. Mr. White responded that he gave Council 30 pages with more than _ three facts, but-in quick summary, he stated that: Pilot Knob is an entire hill, not just a knob on the top; it is a fact that this area is known to be sacred to the Dakota; he believes the Treaty of 1851 took place on the Garron site; and this site does not show a great deal of disturbance and has been preserved for more than 160 years. He summarized by saying that there is a lot of evidence from the state historical office that would agree with the conclusions he drew in the report. Councilmember Duggan stated that Mr. White' s submittal that was delivered to Council' s residences on Saturday puts into more sensible form the 35 exhibits that had previously been submitted. Mr. White stated that it includes those 35 exhibits and additional information he and others were able to fmd in the past 30 days. Councilmember Duggan stated that it puts into clearer form all the information that has been presented to Council. He stated that he would like a motion to include the material in the public record. �Page No. 13 January 7, 2003 Administrator Lindberg responded that the material was also delivered to City Hall, so it is part of the public record. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one fact Mr. White did not include as a fact was whether this site was a burial ground. Mr. White responded that he does not have archeological evidence that the Garron/ Acacia acre site was a burial ground but there is strong evidence that the entire bluff is a sacred place and a burial place. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council has a letter from the State Archeologist from the early 1990' s that it was not in fact a burial site nor is there any evidence of human remains there. Mr. White responded that he has no idea what property he was talking about. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that the reference was to the Garron site. Mr. White responded that the letter simply states that the State Archeologist has no evidence that there are burials on the site, and it is only talking about a portion of the site. He suggested that Council would want to get a more complete response to the whole site and not just one part of it. The site is a spiritual site even if there were no evidence of burials found on it. He stated that in preparing this he tried to sift through the evidence and not base the arguments on things where he could not corroborate what was said in the evidence. He did not include anecdotes in the report. He did not put things into the report just because he thought they would help his case — he put them in because he felt they were accurate. Councilmember Vitelli asked why the state historical society and other historical groups in the State of Minnesota have not been more aggressive at determining this site as a national historic site or why they haven' t purchased the land or developed an interpretive center there. Mr. White responded that the city has evidence from the State Historic Preservation Office in the letter from Britta Bloomberg. The letter discusses the questions being talked about here. It refers back to a study done for the Office in 1990 in which they dealt with a question of where on the bluff the Treaty of 1851 occurred. At that time, the contractor working for the preservation office suggested �Page No. 14 January 7, 2003 that the site should be nominated for the National Record of Historic Places, and it was likely lost in the shuffle. Many people are not aware of the importance of a place until it is endangered. Ms. Allisa Chester, a Minneapolis resident, stated that she remembers someone saying at a past meeting that when the Mendota Bridge was done upwards of 15 million tons of dirt was removed. There must have been an archeological study done. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that she had made the comment, and that 200 million square yards of dirt was removed from the bluff. She stated that she was sure the state could not have removed human remains without any acknowledgment. She stated that there has been a sale sign on this property for many years, and also there was significant earth moved when the interchange came in. She stated that she has been a steward of the bluff and was very concerned about the removal of that much soil. Councilmember Duggan stated that in 1922 the Masonic Order purchased Acacia and took off 20 feet of the top. He asked if anyone has approached the Masonic people to see if there is any record of what damage may have been done to grave sites if indeed there were any grave sites there. There have been three different times when this site has perhaps been impacted —the construction of the original bridge, reconstruction, and the changes made by the Masonic Order. Mr. Bob Brown, 1016 Douglas Road and Chairman of the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community, stated that as one of the leaders of the original petitioners, he is present to ask Council to give real consideration to doing an EAW. He stated that what has been submitted in information has barely scratched the surface. He stated on a personal note ( in response to the questions made to Mr. White) that for three years he did not get any pay for being the chairman. He gets a stipend now because the Community received a grant to bring back the Dakota language. He stated that he does what he does for the Community not for money but out of respect for his ancestors. He stated that the homes do not need to get in the ground right away and asked the City to spend the time to do the EAW. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she pursued the question to Dr. White because she feels it is important to know who is retained as a professional to make presentations and who is here as an interested citizen. It is important to know who is speaking as a professional and who is speaking from opinion. �Page No. 15 January 7, 2003 Mr. Golias stated that several times Dr. White talked about the Mendota Community and Mendota. He was talking about the Mendota Indian community and not the City of Mendota. Mr. Jim Anderson, 19626 Iva Street, Cedar, Minnesota, stated that he is the Cultural Chairman of the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community. He stated that he is here because his relatives were buried on Pilot Knob Hill and in the 1920' s a lot of his community' s relatives remains were dug up. He has researched hard to try to find where those relatives are. There is a graveyard on each side of where the road goes through and his relatives are buried in those cemeteries and his relatives were in the ground between those cemeteries. He has come here to ask for the EAW to be done so that the questions the Council and others are asking are answered. If the project is allowed to continue, it will perpetuate the cultural genocide of the Dakota people that has been going on for hundreds of years. He asked from his relatives' past and future that this small area that is left of a once great Dakota nation be protected for the future generations so the sins of the past are not repeated. Indians are the only people in this culture who must fight to protect the graves and the culture of its ancestors. Mr. Ray Fuhrman, MAC Director of Environment, stated that Executive Director Jeff Hamiel submitted a letter to the city. He could not be present tonight. He stated that this site is about 6, 000 feet from the runway and MAC believes residential development in that area is a concern. It is within the 65 DNL contour that is currently being used for mitigation in areas around the airport. There is significant concern over residential development on the site. Councilmember Duggan asked if the objections were as strenuous to the Augusta Shores development as they are to this development, and if not, why not. Mr. Fuhrman responded that he did not believe they were as strong. MAC had concerns but it was probably more of a consideration on MAC' s part that they did not move as aggressively with that. Mr. Hamiel has received some calls from the Augusta Shores area. MAC did submit some documentation to the city at that time but that discussion did not draw on so long. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the letter from Mr. Hamiel references that Minneapolis will be allowed to infill the same distance from the end of the runway. It seems that MAC has one standard for Mendota Heights and another for Minneapolis. �Page No. 16 January 7, 2003 Mr. Fuhrman responded that what MAC refers to as infill — the in Metropolitan Airport Guide Chapter there are different standards for infill development than for new development. If there is an established community with an open lot, that would be consistent with the guide chapter for infill development. He stated that he does not believe MAC is imposing different standards. In this particular case, it is new development. There has been new construction that has taken place in Richfield and Minneapolis with redevelopment that took place. The standard that applied to that dates back to 1998. Those properties would not be eligible for mitigation. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that in her opinion that is a different standard. To be consistent there should not be new construction in those cities in areas that are equidistant from the airport. MAC is not trying to remove residential properties in those cities. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Fuhrman is saying that the development that is being proposed does not fit the definition of infill, but there has been new construction that happened in Minneapolis and Richfield. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that someone can build a new home on a vacant lot within a developed area the same distance from the runway as the Garron site. They are asking Mendota Heights not to build a new house the same distance away. Mr. Fuhrman does not encourage a new home to go up in Minneapolis or Richfield, but the Aviation Guide Chapter says that if there is an open lot in a developed area, building one home within that area is compatible, versus building an entirely new neighborhood. There is also some inconsistency on the Garron/Acacia site between its zoning and the Comprehensive Guide. Ms. Amy Goebel, a St. Paul resident and member of Beth Jacob, stated that she has an undergraduate in history, she is an attorney and also a teacher. In her role as a teacher she works with children and being a teacher, she is aware that the issue of facts can be very tricky. The overriding fact is that this is a valuable site for a very long time to very many people. The site has historic significance because of the treaty. To her, that means it deserves a study to determine whether any development can be done. There are many stories in popular culture that are fictionalized. There is a community of �Page No. 17 January 7, 2003 people who live here who are Native Americans and it is important to her that they and their culture be valued. Mr. Shawn Fitzgerald, from Lakeville, stated that the Highland Pilot Cemetery in Lakeville has suffered many changes over the years. It was a Catholic Cemetery, and unbaptized babies were buried outside the cemetery, in areas surrounding it, and the entire area was sacred ground. Today no one knows where those babies' graves are. They are probably no longer left, but it is a spiritual area out of respect for one' s ancestors. Councilmember Duggan stated that he is in favor of requiring an EAW for the reasons in the documentation from MAC, concern about impervious surface; the traffic in the area, noise from traffic, noise from the airport and the historicity of the site. Mendota Heights has not done much about the history of the community in any form. Council knows that the site has been for sale for a long time. There is enough information available for Council to direct an EAW. The danger is that if the EAW comes back saying to go ahead and do a development, the Native American community may have lost more. Council has asked how much of the site needs to be dedicated to history. How much do the Native American community need for a commemorative site. Setting aside the entire site is unreasonable. He wondered how many people have visited this site in 2000, and suggested that it was perhaps ten people. If there have been 100 visitors in the last ten years, he questioned why there have not been more people if the land has such cultural and historic significance. He stated that he is in favor of three to five acres being set aside as a cultural and historic area. The city also needs to look at what it has done to maintain the history. Mendota Heights is proud of its history, but little has been done about it. The city has never done one thing to acknowledge these sites. Working with the state, the native American community, the MAC, etc., he thinks Council could cover the issues in the next thirty days. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he feels an EAW should be done but Council needs to address who is going to do the EAW. Mr. Clark will initiate the work and fill out the form. He felt that to be sure this is a fording of fact, the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community must be asked to participate. If they do not contribute to the EAW, it will be empty. There is a lot of work to be done if Council is to make the correct decision. If both entities work on the EAW, the question is who will consolidate the information. In fairness to the developer and those who do the EAW, Council should work up a list of issues. He suggested that those issues include: �Page No. 18 January 7, 2003 cultural history; historical significance in general; sanitary sewer, noise from the question of what additional noise is created in addition to the highway and airport; air quality reduction because of the airport and highway and the number of units; drainage that will be caused to go down the hill to the Mississippi. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the EAW will provide the city with a process for new insights and appreciation for different perspectives. Complete compilation of data is essential, but Council must have the facts. Council must know if there will be significant environmental effects or not. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the biggest question to her that would be a reason for an EAW is the historic significance. The question about whether this is really a burial site and if there are human remains there must be answered. Acacia Cemetery should be able to provide some information in that regard and also about the area identified as Acacia that is not part of the cemetery. The study must include historical significance, an answer to the question of burial sites, and impact on the views and vistas. She recommended that there be some recognized historical compilation so that this process includes some other recognized scholars or organization working with the Mdewakanton community on that material. Mr. Anderson responded that he would like to make sure that all the Dakota communities be involved. Mayor Huber stated that he thinks an EAW needs to be done. He stated that there is a consensus, and there have been comments about areas that Council members want to address. He asked Attorney Schleck if there should be a resolution that has findings on why Council is going forward or list the issues Council wants to be addressed. Attorney Schleck responded that there is a model resolution in the agenda packet that covers the action that is required for tonight, which is simply that an EAW required. Council is making an affirmative decision that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. It is not necessary to scope the EAW tonight, and he suggested that there should input from a consultant in this area and also from the developer. Mayor Huber stated that he is interested that when Council leaves tonight, they will have at least talked about how the structure will be created. �Page No. 19 January 7, 2003 Attorney Schleck suggested adopting the proposed resolution and at the next meeting, staff can submit a timeline and plan on how to complete the project. Administrator Lindberg stated that she has had discussions with Mr. Clark, but there is no timeline on how long it will take to complete an EAW. It is in the interest of the developer to move this along, and he indicated he would be willing to generate much of the information for the city. Responding to a question about what would happen if the development proposal is withdrawn, she stated that the city does not have an ordinance in place to require a developer to pay for an EAW. If Mr. Clark withdraws the project, there is no project on which to do an EAW. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what happens to the question of whether Council wants the cost to be shared by the Mendota Mdewakanton if the applicant withdraws. Councilmember Duggan responded that the recommendation from Councilmember Vitelli was that the Mendota Mdewakanton participate in the process, but not that they pay for it. Attorney Schleck stated that the city has been designated as the RGU and it is responsible for completing the EAW Minnesota administrative rules say that the project proposer is required to submit all information necessary to complete the EAW. There is no requirement in statute that a proposer pay the entire cost. Council has the ability in the future to pass an ordinance to say that a developer is required to pay the cost for an EAW process. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -04, A RESOLUTION ORDERING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS " THE BLUFFS," IN THE VICINITY OF THE NORTH END OF PILOT KNOB ROAD, PLANNING CASE #02 -50." . Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 10: 15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10: 22 p.m. CASE NO. 02 -50, RON CLARK Council acknowledged a memo from Administrative Assistant Hollister regarding continued discussion on an application from Ron �Page No. 20 January 7, 2003 Clark Construction and Design for rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit for PUD and variance for " The Bluffs" proposed development. Mr. Clark and Mr. John Uban were present for the discussion. City Attorney Schieck stated that this application has been discussed at several meetings. Now that Council had decided an EAW is required, the reading of the statutes and rules place prohibitions on governmental approvals during the process. The prohibition prohibits a governmental unit from making any final decision as it relates to the project. The law is not very clear as to what final is. The EQB says things like preliminary plat approvals are final decisions and they recommend they not be made. The law does not prevent a governmental unit from giving a conditional approval. Conditional approval is also not defined in the statute but the EQB gives guidelines on what types of reservations a RGU should keep on whether or not to give a conditional approval. It basically comes down to a reservation of rights of the community to say that if a conditional approval is given it would not prevent a RGU from making changes or denying a project in the future depending on the outcome of the EAW. Mr. Uban showed overheads of the development area. He stated that he has been here before to review this project and submitted a letter containing additional information. He stated that he would like to review the latest booklet he has prepared to share some of the comparisons in the logic of the plat. The first plan received a number of comments that drove the developer to make quite a few changes in the plan. Those comments related to hard surface coverage of up to 60% of the site, many more units and a barracks look. The density and hard surface have been reduced, and.the number of buildings and variations of buildings have been changed. Council did not want the developer to perpetuate outdoor activities, so the swimming pool was removed. A commemorative site area was added, and the plan also was revised to 157 units and reduced to about 44% hard surface coverage with curvilinear streets. One of the things Council asked him to test was the setbacks for a normal R 3 project. In an R - zone, there is no conditional that controls hard 3 surface coverage. He looked at the development and placed in red the typical R - setbacks and found that this would not work under 3 those types of setbacks. Based on that observation that the plan was more preferred did not address those types of setbacks, he applied the setbacks and rearranged the buildings. He found that created a more regimented layout. When there is a setback for all front yards and sideyards, there is a more regimented pattern. That was not the l �Page No. 21 January 7, 2003 original direction Council gave Mr. Clark to have a curvilinear system. He found that 150 units can be placed on the site using R 3 and he would not have to deal with hard surface. He then used that number of units and went back to the PUD and hoped hard surface would come back to about 40 %. There are ponds to treat the water, so the water quality leaving the site will be controlled. The setbacks on the perimeter were increased, one of the classic units was eliminated as well as six of the verandas. A number of the street features were kept in place, and the regional trail system. The development anticipates improving Pilot Knob and putting in a colonnade of trees. Two commemorative sites were also provided. At the suggestion of the Park Commission, he provided an overlook that uses the edge along the highway to get the grand view. A retaining wall was created to provide another commemorative site. There are also several other spots for incidental outdoor activities. He stated that he tried to meet all of the criteria he thought Council was looking for and reduced the number of units to 150. He also looked at how he could reduce them more, bearing in mind that he has to keep the project feasible. The developer has agreed to pay the park fee and also build the retaining wall and other things. If he were to take out eight more units, the level of landscaping and his ability to build commemorative sites would be severely restricted. There is a site along Acacia Boulevard that is city property and Mr. Clark anticipates buying that from the city. Not buying the city property would be a way to save money to compensate for the lost eight units. He does not think that would be to the benefit of the city. The plan with 150 units he thinks gives the best aesthetics and the best layout and financial assistance to all the units plus purchasing the city property. Because it had been mentioned there already was a commemorative site on Acacia Cemetery, he went and looked. There is a stone commemorating the panorama of the hill that was done by the Daughters of the American Revolution in the 1920s. The developer proposes two other sites that form a family of sites, one on top and two on the sides. He showed the layout of the one plateau with a commemorative plaque. It is a gathering place where people can look out over the river valley and it is attached to the regional trail system. The other overlook also has a grand view out towards St. Peter' s in the other direction. He has tried to address all of the issues Council raised. Some of them he just cannot do. There has been a request for an EAW, and the developer will provide the data on the preliminary issues, like utilities. Only the city can address some of the issues like the sewer running to Mendota. The developer is dependent on others with respect to the historical and cultural issues. That needs to come from other entities. Issues like that are not usually solved very well in an EAW. He felt the he is �Page No. 22 January 7, 2003 eventually going to look at who is going to buy a portion of the property to do what historical and cultural reference needs to take place on the property. He stated that Mr. Clark is requesting conditional approval on his project. He thinks this is the best possible plan and understands that the EAW may say more land is needed to make this more commemorative. Subject to that, he believes this is the best plan, and he asked for conditional approval based on the outcome of the EAW process. Councilmember Dugan stated that in light of the confusion as to one part of the land being B -1 and one part R -3 and a different comprehensive plan designation, more of a concern is what the impervious surface is of the plan that is now being proposed. Mr. Uban responded that the first plan had about 60% impervious surface and the next plan was for 157 units and 44% impervious surface. This plan has 40% hard surface coverage. Councilmember Duggan stated that one of the comments on December 3 was that the plan be as close as possible to 30% impervious surface. Mr. Uban responded that to get to that point, there would need to be a 25% reduction in the number of units. That is not feasible. Council has told the developer they do not want outdoor activities, like ballfields, just a trail, and the trail plus two overlooks have been provided. The issue is water quality, and a good ponding system will be in place. The only reason for reducing the impervious surface is because it is a PUD, but R - development would not require them to 3 do anything. Councilmember Duggan stated that in the proposed there is about 40% hard surface and that is 60% more than what the PUD ordinance calls for. On this plan, with the landscaping that is indicated, it could be reduced to 142 units. Mr. Uban responded that if Council wishes Mr. Clark to pursue that plan, which is R - he will do so. He stated that he tried to create an 3, interesting area by turning the structures and creating a variety of building sizes. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the commemorative site is in the same relationship to the trail as the last plan. �Page No. 23 January 7, 2003 Mr. Ubanxesponded that the regional trail is down below and the development' s trail is level with the commemorative area, and that will be part of the regional trail system. Mr. Casey stated that on behalf of the Mdewakanton Community, he is asking Council. not to grant conditional approval. The EQB guidelines day that conditional approval is a distortion of the intended process. He did not see a good reason for conditional approval. He and the city attorney disagree on the point that by giving conditional approval, Council is in reality approving the project. That limits the latitude the city has to change the project in the future. He felt that is a conservative interpretation of the law and suggested Council adopt that interpretation. Every decision has an environmental component. He asked Council to be conservative and not grant conditional approval. He stated that he has not had a chance to review this proposal or comment on it. After the EAW, his clients will have adequate opportunity to review the project with respect to the historical sites. He stated that the Mendota Dakota filed a notice of intervention and asked that no action be taken. Mr. Ron Clark stated that he has never known of a city to work with a developer in an application and go forward with an EAW without having a conditional approval. When he came before Council on November 5, he got a favorable nod to go ahead and has invested 65, 000 since then responding to city comments. For him to invest more money, commit to the future expenditures and start getting in the EAW process without conditional approvals doesn' t make sense. Every city in the metro area has granted conditional approvals. At least Councils then know that if the outcome of the EAW is all right, they have a project. That is the way he has always known the process to work. Councilmember Duggan stated that he thought at the last meeting a decision was made to hold it over to some other time. Mayor Huber stated that his opinion is that Council passed a resolution ordering the EAW and mulled that decision over carefully. In his opinion, as part of the resolution, Council has decided based on testimony that this project has the potential for significant environmental effects. That is what the resolution says and he takes that seriously. He stated that he understands that at the December 17 meeting there was discussion with respect to the 60 day rule. When Council ordered the EAW, that froze the clock on the 60 day rule. In his mind, Council has made a fording that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects and the process also �Page No. 24 January 7, 2003 sets out that the review process must be extended while the EAW process goes on. He would not be comfortable giving any additional approvals over what the previous Council gave on December 3. He is not willing to further engage the city in the approval process when he does not know what the review process will bring out. Councilmember Schneeman stated that her experience with an EAW process in Nevis, Minnesota, is that she was told that while the EAW was going forth, they could not make any promises. She thought that was state law. Attorney Schleck responded that no final decision can be made by a RGU while the EAW process is taking place. The question is what is a final decision. It is not clear whether preliminary plat approval is a final decision. The EQB feels that it is. That is also the case with preliminary zoning approvals. The EQB believes those decisions can not be made while the EAW is taking place. He did not understand what additional rights the proposed resolution before Council would convey. The resolution that was passed on December 3 conveys the same things that are requested tonight. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he comes down on the side of not supporting conditional approval because there is the likelihood there are significant historical and cultural questions on the site. He is bothered by the fact that Council does not have a plan for the EAW, and just adopted a resolution. Even if Mr. Clark comes back with an EAW, the Council needs to bite the bullet eventually for this site and will have to pay for a consultant to listen to the input of the Native American community and the developer. In his opinion, Council should do that whether or not there is a development. Council needs to figure out what to do with the site. He feels it is reasonably likely that Council will find issue with the historical and cultural impacts on the site. He stated that if he were the developer, he would walk away. He stated that it is unfortunate because he thinks this is the best residential development proposal Council will ever see for this site. By the next meeting there better be a plan on what to do in the EAW. He stated that he is still open to this development if the EAW says there are not issues. He is not concerned about the air noise. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council will be reviewing the EAW plan at the next meeting. Perhaps the developer would come back to the meeting a month from now. Mayor Huber stated that he agrees with Councilmember Vitelli from the standpoint that the process must keep moving forward. Staff �Page No. 25 January 7, 2003 needs to do a time line. This is a very complex thing that the city is going to try to prepare. He cautioned Mr. Clark that his concern about giving conditional approval is based on the fact that Council needs to find out what comes out of the EAW. Until the EAW is completed, he would have a hard time telling Mr. Clark that Council will be giving him an answer in 30 days. Until Council starts to see what information comes back, it is difficult to tell Mr. Clark with any level of certainty as to when Council could give him some approvals or what kinds of mitigation needs to be looked at. Mr. Uban suggested that a compromise would be to keep this moving and everyone work together. He felt that in the end, the land that is most impacted by the historical character is the Garron site. He asked for conditional approval on the Acacia site but not on the Garron site. That is possibly the area where he will anticipate changes. That would allow Mr. Clark to continue working with the city and developing the information the city needs for the EAW. Mayor Huber responded that he cannot say that he is more concerned about the Garron site than the Acacia site. In his opinion, this project as presented to Council is one piece of property. He could not say okay to one half and not the other. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Acacia site was proposed to make the Garron site feasible economically. To pull off the Garron site now would be a totally different issue. She was not ready to approve the depth of the resolution, stating that given the history of the development that has come before Council for this site. Council has tried very hard to protect the bluff and gave concept approval on December 3 that did not have the weight of a preliminary plat or zoning but gives Mr. Clark an idea of where Council stands. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the purpose of doing an EAW is to give Council the information to work with. She felt badly that one was not done a long time ago, and stated that she does not think Council can give Mr. Clark a response at this time. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if it is really that the site is of historical significance, that is beyond the city and is a totally different issue. Councilmember Duggan stated that by at least keeping the possibility open to conditional approval similar to December 3, Mr. Clark has the chance to come back in a month and see what has been �Page No. 26 January 7, 2003 accomplished on the EAW and decide whether to continue. He stated that he would not like Mr. Clark to walk away thinking this is lost. He further stated that Mr. Clark is probably the best developer Council has seen to work with on this site. Mr. Clark stated that he is looking for approval beyond the step that was taken on December 3. Councilmember Duggan responded that it is a risk for everyone and that he would like to see Mr. Clark have the chance to stay involved for at least another month. Mayor Huber stated that there is a proposal before Council that Council is in the process of reviewing. The EAW extends the review process but Council is simply in the process of reviewing the proposal. Everyone knows how the land is zoned and how it is designated in the comprehensive plan, and everyone knows what that means to the land owner with respect to his expectation to develop it with residential units. He stated that he would be uncomfortable with giving an approval while the city is in the middle of the review process. He stated that he understands the EAW extends the process for a longer time than the developer is comfortable with, but all actions Council has taken to this point have been appropriate and within Council' s rights and at the root, Council must do what the law says it must do. To do anything more at this point is inappropriate. The clock is frozen on the proposal and Council really does not have to take any particular action on the planning application this evening. Councilmember Duggan asked Attorney Schleck for options. He asked whether Council can let the resolution sit and not vote on it, and what happens to it then. Attorney Schleck responded that if Council does not act on the proposed resolution, it can be brought back by a Councilmember for consideration at a later time or it simply dies. Councilmember Duggan stated that Mr. Clark can come back at a future meeting with a request for the same resolution. SWAN DRIVE NAME CHANGE Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson in response to a request from Mr. Jerry Nelson, 894 Wagon Wheel Trail, for a street name change for the portion. of Swan Drive from Wagon Wheel Trail to Cheri Lane. Mr. Nelson was present for the discussion. �Page No. 27 January 7, 2003 Mr. Nelson stated that Swan Drive starts at Wagon Wheel and goes along his property line and then stops. It starts again a distance away. There are always people getting lost looking for Swan Drive. Recently, an ambulance drove back and forth flashing its lights and the driver could not find the house he was looking for. Several minutes later the police came to show him where the house was. Mayor Huber stated that Council should get input from the people who live in the area before changing the name. He recommended that staff canvass the people who border on Swan Drive and send them a letter telling them Council is considering changing the name and ask them for feedback and suggestions for names. Further discussion was tabled to the first meeting in February. REICH DRIVEWAY Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson in response to a complaint from Dr. Charles Reich about his driveway, which he had resurfaced in conjunction with the Ivy Falls street reconstruction project. Council also acknowledged a letter from Dr. Reich, 1292 Sylvandale Road, and a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). Dr. Reich reviewed his letter and the driveway situation, which he stated began in the summer of 2000 when the street was reconstructed. He stated that he had his driveway replaced by the contractor who did the street project. His driveway developed some large cracks and he contacted the city engineer and the contractor and told them if nothing was done it would just get worse. Valley Paving told him the preferred to come back the next spring. Dr. Reich appeared at the October, 2000 hearing on the project and recommended that the contractor not be paid for the work until the situation was resolved. He stated that there were many requests similar to his and he understood that the city would take care of their concerns. Following the meeting he received a letter from Valley saying that roots caused the problem and they would come out in the spring and cut the roots and seal the creaks. They did that in the spring. After last winter, the cracks opened up again and now big holes are starting to appear. He asked Valley to come back and they said they would come last summer but did not. He was considering litigation and decided to send his December 5, 2002 letter to the city administrator. He met with her and she suggested he appear before Council In the meantime, the city' s insurance adjuster came out and asked if he would consider getting estimates on cutting out the cracks in the asphalt and filling the hole thing in. He did not like that solution but agreed to do it. He then called several contractors �Page No. 28 January 7, 2003 but no one has come to look at it. He stated he is present this evening because he is not happy with the job that was done and is looking for restitution. He has paid two years of the assessment and thinks it is fair for the city to forgive the remainder of the driveway assessment and he will have the driveway replaced. Mayor Huber responded that he understands Dr. Reich is having a difficult time getting the work done and Council is aware that an offer was made to split the cost between the LMCIT, Dr. Reich and the contractor. He asked Dr. Reich if he is aware of the recommendation from LMCIT. Dr. Reich responded that he is, but wants the driveway replaced and not just patched. Administrator Lindberg stated that the LMCIT proposal was to fill the cracks and then put a layer of seal coat on top. Public Works Director Danielson stated that he did not discuss the plan with the adjustor, but believes he was talking about removing the tree toots and cracks and then putting a layer over the top. Dr. Reich stated that he is not interested in that solution. He has seen enough driveways to know what that looks like. It will be a \. patchwork quilt and he is not sure the seams won' t open again. Councilmember Duggan stated that he thinks the city should go to Valley Paving and tell them they did not do an adequate job and must redo it at their expense. The city should bring its weight on the contractor to get him to do it. He stated that he suspects that Dr. Reich would not want Valley to come back and do it unless it is supervised by the city. Dr. Reich stated that the only reason he is here is because his contract is with the city. His issue is not with the city, it is with Valley Paving. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would support splitting the cost three ways for a patch. When a resident does not opt for an entirely new driveway, there will be patches. He stated that he lives on Sylvandale also and would not ask the city to do an entirely new driveway but would support a patch that fixes the problem. City Attorney Schleck stated that he reviewed the language in the driveway replacement agreement that was signed by everyone whose �Page No. 29 January 7, 2003 driveways were replaced to identify the important provisions in the contract. There is a provision that says that the property owner would indemnify the city and its contractor as that relates to the project except for the negligent or willful act of the city or any of its officers. The LMCIT adjustor said he did not find any willful act. Dr. Reich responded that his wife watched them do the driveway and did not seem any aggregate put in. Councihnember Krebsbach asked Dr. Reich if he is saying that he will withdraw the complaint if the city does not impose the remainder of the assessment. Dr. Reich responded that there are huge cracks running across the driveway within two months after it was done. He contracted for a new driveway, and the new cracks start as far away from the tree as they could get. He stated that the remainder of the driveway assessment is about $3, 500. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there is any precedent. Attorney Schleck responded that there is nothing that would prevent the Council from adjusting the assessment. Mayor Huber stated that there is nothing that would keep Council from establishing a precedent based on Dr. Reich' s decision on whether to sue. Councilmember Schneeman stated that it seems that is what Dr. Reich should do based on the city attorney' s comments. Attorney Schleck stated that if there is a point where it appears that the matter would go to a law suit, he would recommend Council retire to closed session. Council should even go to closed session if there is a threat of a lawsuit, and if there is to be any more discussion, perhaps it should occur in closed session. If Council prefers to agree with Dr. Reich' s request tonight, he would not suggest closed session, but if Council preference is to do anything else, he recommended calling for a closed session either this evening or two weeks from tonight. Mayor Huber responded that his feeling is that no decision will be made tonight. If Dr. Reich has talked to the contractor already without any response, nothing will happen in two weeks. He suggested a closed session after the January 21 meeting. �Page No. 30 January 7, 2003 Mayor Huber moved to schedule a closed session for discussion on the issue on January 21 after the regular Council meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber directed staff to contact Dr. Reich after the closed session. JOINT WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding a request from the Airport Relations Commission for a workshop with Council to discuss the Rogers Lake neighborhood and issues with the MAC. Councilmember Vitelli asked what the objective the ARC hopes to achieve. Administrator Lindberg responded that the commission would like to opportunity for Council to hear from representatives from Rogers Lakeside East on their issues with MAC. It would be an educational process on new information that Mr. Guy Heide has acquired. Councilmember Vitelli stated that this item was discussed at an emergency ARC meeting that he did not attend. He did not see how Council can satisfy the Rogers Lake group' s desires. Council made a decision late last year that Council should not get in the middle of the dispute. The only think the group can be asking for to have a workshop on the issue is to get Council involved. Administrator Lindberg responded that in her memo she outlined a motion by Commissioner Roszak that the city eventually send a letter to MAC but before Council would agree to do that, Council would need to be given more information. Councilmember Vitelli asked if Council is going to be asked to be the judge and jury on the issue. Before Council can endorse a memo, it needs to address the issue with enough thoroughness, and he does not think Council should do that. Administrator Lindberg stated that the city did send a letter to MAC but the Rogers Lake group are looking for an additional letter asking the MAC to review the net material Mr. Heide has presented. �Page No. 31 January 7, 2003 Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would be willing to take the j time and listen to the information but does not know what Council would do with it. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her guess is that the ARC wants a workshop because they do not want to be at a regular Council meeting. She stated that she met with MAC representative Bert McKasy and MAC legal counsel along with Mr. Heide and Mr. Mike Kosel. The apparent affect of the workshop would be to pass on information to Council. When Council holds a workshop, it is generally to give a commission more direction. If the ARC has information and they think it is valid, it should be passed on to Mr. McKasy. She did not know if Council is in a position to judge the validity of the information. Councilmember Duggan stated that it would be appropriate for he and Mayor Huber to have a copy of the minutes of the meeting at which Mr. Heide appeared before Council so that they have a better ability to deal with the matter. Administrator Lindberg stated that another option would be fore Council to attend the February ARC meeting and ask Mr. Kosel and Mr. Heide to attend and make the presentation. Senator Metzen and Representative Pugh will be at the meeting also. Mayor Huber stated that there are several options: attend the ARC meeting, meet in workshop, or present the information at a Council meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that another option is to forward the information to Council and Council will pass it on to the MAC. MAC is the real audience for the information. Administrator Lindberg stated that the ARC' s concern is that a letter be sent on behalf of the city. The ARC feel that would have to come directly from Council. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council has already engaged the Rogers Lake group with MAC. This would just be a continuation of that discussion. Council opened the discussion with MAC on Rogers Lake and they can continue that discussion. Attorney Schleck stated that he does not know that Council can say this is valid information. There has been no investigation by the city. For the city to act as a conduit for the information is fine but he feels �Page No. 32 January 7, 2003 the group is asking Council to take the position that the information is valid. \ Administrator Lindberg responded that the Rogers Lake group is looking at something stronger than Council did in December. They are looking for the city to say this is strong evidence. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the city does not have the expertise to make that determination. She further stated that she does not have a problem with hearing the information. Mayor Huber asked whether the information should be presented to the Council. He felt that the best way to do that would be to have Councilmembers Krebsbach and Vitelli review it and report back to Council on what they think the best action to take would be, or perhaps he and the Council members should attend the ARC meeting. He did not want the ARC to think Council is not interested in meeting with them in a workshop, and stated that he would be willing to attend the ARC meeting along with any Council members who wish to attend. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that a workshop is usually broad based, not to resolve a particular issue. The best way to deal with this is to place the issue on the ARC agenda and any Council members can attend the meeting. City Attorney Schleck stated that he does not think the city should be giving an opinion on the veracity of the information. Attending the ARC meeting and hearing the discussion is fine. Mayor Huber agreed, stating that Council will attend the meeting and listen to the presentation but will not make any decision. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is attending this evening' s ARC meeting and will recommend to them that Mr. Heide and Mr. Kosel meet with MAC again and let them know what they found. There may be a simple explanation from MAC, and a meeting with MAC and the Rogers Lake group will keep the channel of communications open. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed and stated that she would go with them to the meeting with MAC. �Page No. 33 January 7, 2003 TEAM BUILDING WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding a proposed off site City Council goal setting/team building workshop. It was the consensus that a workshop be conducted on February 25 and that Dennis Cheesebrow be retained to facilitate the session. Administrator Lindberg stated that it has been suggested to her that the workshop be conducted off site, and she has contacted Mendakota Country Club and DARTS in West St. Paul for meeting room space. Dodge Nature Center also has facilities. She stated that she will bring some proposals on location back to Council. Council directed Administrator Lindberg to also check on availability of a room at the Northern Dakota County Service Center. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Schneeman stated that she saw several children playing on city ponds today and was very concerned because of the poor ice conditions. She asked parents to please keep their children off of the ponds. Mayor Huber announced that there are openings on various city advisory commissions and any interested residents should submit a letter of interest by February 15. i Council briefly discussed the Police Chief recruitment and selection process. Administrator Lindberg stated that she will prepare a tentative process for Council consideration at the next meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 12: 14 a.m. Ka een M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: John J. May er � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pilot Knob Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Laura Levitt Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Mendota Heights City Council Meeting 01-07-2003.pdf Title A name given to the resource Mendota Heights City Council Meeting Minutes 01-07-2003 Description An account of the resource Historian Bruce White presents information about Pilot Knob to the Mendota Heights City Council in hopes of convincing them to order an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the site. The council discusses this information and other information pertaining to Pilot Knob. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource City of Mendota Heights Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived City of Mendota Heights Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available City of Mendota Heights Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1/7/2003 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Mendota Heights NARF pilot knob