|
January 8, 2007
Senator Jeff Mullis
212 English Avenue
Chickamauga, GA 30707
Representative Barbara Massey-Reece
693 Massey Road
Menlo, GA 30731
Re: Impending destruction of
the economic value of Fort Attaway in Floyd County, Rome, Georgia by Georgia
Department of Transportation (GDOT) Project STP-017-3(45)
Dear Senator Mullis and Representative Reece:
This letter is our follow
up to several references made to you about Fort Attaway by Raymond Evans of
Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wright Gammon of Cedartown, Georgia. We know that
all of our time is valuable, so below we have tried to explain the threat to
Fort Attaway and the solution to this threat as efficiently as we possibly
can.
The above mentioned
GDOT Project will severely damage the majestic look of the military face and
the historic view shed of Fort Attaway for Civil War tourists as they first
enter Rome from the north on the Hwy 27/Summerville Road corridor. The GDOT
Project, potentially, will destroy many unknowns in this historic area, and
it will severely damage Fort Attaway’s valuable potential to add to Rome’s
tourism. The first impression for tourists, entering Rome from the north
following the Chickamauga Campaign Heritage Trail, will be Fort Attaway.
First impressions as you know are very important; help us to make the first
impression to Rome’s Civil War tourists a great one; for the tourism economy
of Rome, and for its ability to add to the tourism economy of Georgia.
The GDOT Project plans
are to build a new, visually and physically intrusive, railroad bridge over
Hwy 27 thirty feet south of the old bridge, and then by re-aligning 2,000
feet of track will needlessly destroy Fort Attaway’s military face, and the
many unknowns this historic property has yet to unveil. The new bridge
provides a wider span for the additional lanes according to the GDOT. There
is no reason this new bridge cannot be built in place today. Our goal is an
aesthetically pleasing, majestic first impression for Rome’s potential Civil
War tourists; meaning, the new bridge should look like it has not been
replaced since the Civil War. We think this would be an addition to Rome’s
tourism, a much wiser choice for the money, rather than the deletion to
Rome’s image as the GDOT has planned.
We would like to
provide to you a small portion of the evidence we have gathered over the
four and a half years we have been involved. Roll-in Construction, in 1983,
was a viable option for the above mentioned GDOT Project (Old Project
#F-017-3(36) or (45)). Roll-in Construction would eliminate the need to
realign the 2,000 feet of railroad track and its huge cost. Additionally,
the visual damage this new bridge will inflict on the value, and the
economic potential of Fort Attaway, as well as Rome’s Civil War tourism, and
their ability to tie to the Chickamauga Campaign Heritage Trail and
ultimately the Civil War tourism economy of Georgia. (Please refer to our
Timeline of GDOT Project Documents: Roll-in construction is discussed in the
3rd, 4th and 5th documents)
The GDOT presupposed 100
feet of Right-of-Way (R/W) for the railroad at the base of Fort Attaway
throughout the whole design of their project. They claimed to have done deed
research in their Section 106 Environmental Review however they incorrectly
used the presupposed 100 feet of railroad R/W throughout the entire
Project’s Environmental Review process. Our February 18, 2003 “Rebuttal to
AOE Addendum #2” was the first time we notified the GDOT of their error. Our
meeting with the GDOT, DNR-HPD, and FHWA at the GDOT Environment/Location
Office on September 15, 2003 was our second notification to the GDOT of
their error. Our meeting with GDOT R/W, Pam Digsby, at our house on
September 16, 2003 was our third notice to the GDOT of their error.
We have had our deeds
professionally researched. This research clearly shows, from 1890 until now,
there is 50 feet of R/W for the railroad west of the Summerville Road and 25
feet of R/W for the railroad east of the Summerville Road. On August 21,
2006 the GDOT admitted in court (in reply to our June 30, 2006 Injunction)
to the railroad R/W being only 50 feet. The location of the Summerville Road
in 1890 is yet to be determined, and this will result, in our opinion, the
railroad R/W actually being 25 feet in the Project’s area.
The 50ft R/W brings Fort
Attaway’s boundary into the Project’s “Area of Potential Effects” having
“Adverse Physical Effects” and since Federal funds are involved, this brings
in the Federal law of Section 4(f). Federal law states the Federal Highways
Administration must not approve any use of historic lands for transportation
projects. We have included the sources to where the Historic Preservation
Laws and Regulations can be found; this sheet of information can be found in
front of our Timeline of GDOT Project Documents.
We believe the saving of
Fort Attaway will be the catalyst for propelling the City of Rome’s
involvement, as Rome’s history has so much to offer to Georgia’s Civil War
tourism industry and economy. Labeled by Union General Jefferson C. Davis as
“the strongest fortified place I have seen in Dixie,” Rome’s fortifications,
rivers and foundries make it a very interesting part of Georgia’s Civil War
history. Its fortifications, at different times of the War, were built and
occupied by both Confederate and Union troops, and part of these Union
troops were the 44th US Colored Infantry making Black History
another facet to Rome’s tourism potential. To fully appreciate Fort
Attaway’s Earthwork Fortifications walking its grounds here at winter time
will give you the sole reason why my wife and I have fought so hard for so
long to save it.
Again, we realize all
too well how everyone’s time here is valuable, and so to conclude, the GDOT
Project will severely damage the majestic look of Fort Attaway’s military
face and add a visually intrusive bridge to the historic view shed. As shown
in 1983, Roll-in construction is a very viable option for the replacement of
the old bridge; this would leave Fort Attaway intact. Our goal is to present
an excellent first impression to Civil War tourists, as they come into Rome
from the north on the Chickamauga Campaign Heritage Trail, with Fort
Attaway’s majestic military face intact and a bridge that looks authentic to
the Civil War time period. Fort Attaway and Rome have great potential to add
to the value of Georgia’s tourism economy.
Senator Mullis and
Representative Reece, we appreciate your time and efforts, if we can be
further assistance to you please E-mail at
f_marlin@bellsouth.net or call our home at
706-234-0537 or our cell at 706-506-0237 anytime day or night.
Serving only my history, my heritage and my
heart,
Fort Attaway Preservation Society, Inc.
David M. Fowler, Jr.
Encl.
Cc. Bennett, John –
City Manager of Rome, Georgia
Callan, Robert M, Division Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration
Childers, Buddy – Georgia State Representative
Culpepper, John – City Manager of Chickamauga, GA; Chair GA Civil
War Commission
Dempsey, Katie – Georgia State Representative
Doss, David – GDOT Board Chairman
Evans, E. Raymond – River City Research Group
Gingrey, Phil – Congressman, 11th District of Georgia
Hodge, Al – President/CEO, Greater Rome Chamber of Commerce
Klima, Don – Director, Advisory Council of Historic Preservation
Matthews-Snyder, Janet – Keeper of the National Register of
Historic Preservation
Mayes, John – Chairman, Floyd County Commission
Noth, Pierre-Rene, Editorial Page Editor, Rome News Tribune
Perdue, Sonny – Governor of Georgia
Smith, Paul – Georgia State Representative (ret.)
Smith, Preston – Georgia State Senator
Thomason, James – Chief Counsel FHWA
Download the Microsoft Word version of the
Cover Letter to Senator Mullis
|
Historic
Preservation Laws and Regulations
Federal Law of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966,
Section 4(f) (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fregs.asp)
dictates how the Federal Highways Administration is to oversee the
handling of historic properties:
(a)
(i) The Administration may not approve the use of land from a
significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless a
determination is made that:
(i)
There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land
from the property; and
(ii)
The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the
property resulting from such use.
To avoid violating Section 4(f) the GDOT
is required to do an Environmental Review in accordance with the
Advisory Council of Historic Preservation’s
Section 106 Regulations (http://www.achp.gov/regs.html) of the
National Historic Preservation Act. One of the very first regulations in
the Section 106 process is:
“The agency official shall ensure that
the section 106 process is initiated early in the undertaking’s
planning, so that a broad range of alternatives may be considered during
the planning process for the undertaking.”
In our opinion, this among many, many
other regulations has been ignored, such as notifying the property
owners of the historical land. Neither the Fowler’s nor the Kim’s were
notified that Fort Attaway was part of their properties and was involved
in the GDOT Project.
In our opinion, even though the GDOT
made it look like they went through the motions of the Section 106
Environmental Review, their project has not changed. Their right-of-way
requirements have not changed and they are still planning to move the
railroad tracks onto the economically valuable, majestic looking
military face of Fort Attaway. Instead of considering the impacts to
Fort Attaway early in planning, evidence shows that the GDOT had their
project fully designed, were buying their required right-of-way, and, in
our opinion, in 2001 started to basically customize the boundary of Fort
Attaway to fit their project, and used their knowledge of the Section
106 Environmental Review Process to do it. GDOT E-mails written in 2001
prove that their project was planned before they ever considered Fort
Attaway and preserving it for the future in Georgia’s economy. |
|
Timeline of GDOT Project Documents |
|
Date |
Title/Brief Description |
|
February 6, 1890 |
Deed Researched by Walter Jenkins, Rome, GA
MRS. J.R. HARVEY EXTRIX OR R.D. HARVEY Dead TO
R.T. DORSEY, RECR OF R & D R.R. CO PT 204, 23rd & 3
Point(s) of Interest:
- "FOLLOWING IS A DISCRIPTION OF THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY, RECORDED AT DEED BOOK 00/277, DATED 2/6/1890: There was no
additional property conveyed to Decatur and Rome Railroad or Southern
Railroad other than the Original Right-of-way at Deed Book 00 page 277,
copy description is as follows:"
- "being a strip of land fifty (50) feet wide
to wit: Twenty Five (25) feet on each side of the center of the track of
Rome and Decatur Railroad...west of the Summerville road."
- The Fowler's land is along the Southern Railroad tracks on the west
side of the Summerville Road
|
|
June 23, 1891 |
Deed Researched by Walter Jenkins, Rome, GA
JERLIN T. SMITH TO R.T. DORSEY RECR OF THE ROME & DECATUR RAIL ROAD
RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH LL 204, 23/3
Point(s) of Interest:
- "on the east side of Summerville
road…through rocks, cuts and at such formation the right of ways shall
extend over on twenty five feet, 12 and 1/2 in each side from the center
of the tracks and wherever the present embankment of the road bed
embankment...ownership of the rock...first part shall have the right at
any and all time..."
|
|
November 1, 1983 |
GDOT Interdepartment Correspondence
To: Dewey Jones
From: Floyd E. Hardy
Subject: SOUTHERN RAILROAD BRIDGE
Point(s) of Interest:
- Bridge Roll-in construction is an option
- Bridge Roll-in construction is the cheapest
|
|
June 7, 1985 |
Letter
To: John Bennett,City Manager, City of Rome
Cc: Tony Dowd, Charles Lewis, Floyd Hardy
From: H.B. Cundiff, Chief Engineer Bridges, Southern Railway System
Subject: Rome, Georgia - Proposed reconstruction of U.S. 27 Underpass,
Milepost 2.3-K, Project F-017-3(36) Floyd County. FR-017-3(45) Floyd
Point(s) of Interest:
- "The plan sheets pertaining to the
alignment change of the Railroad and the required additional Railroad
right-of-way appear unchanged from those received in this office some
two (2) years ago."
- "The proximity of the automobile dealership's building and the
additional right-of-way requirements were clearly indicated and we are,
quite frankly, at a loss to understand why the City is just now
realizing that a problem exists."
- "Further, it was emphasized in mine of July 27, 1984 that Southern's
willingness to participate in the project cost is contingent upon the
granting of any additional Railroad right-of-way required
at not cost to Southern."
- "In view of the Railroad's obligation, under Georgia Law, to maintain
the new structure, I feel that our offer to contribute $75,000 is
fair... in reconstructing the underpass."
- "However, we are willing to entertain the idea of a roll-in operation.
This procedure will
require careful planning and coordination between the Railroad, the City
and the
Department of Transportation. To this end, a meeting has been scheduled
for
Thursday, June 20, 1985 at 1:30 pm..."
|
|
October 18, 1985 |
GDOT Interdeparment Correspondence
To: Floyd E. Hardy
From: Alton L. Dowd, Jr.
Subject: ROME, TWO PROJECTS
Point(s) of Interest:
- "We either need to build a wall or work it
out with the railroad to rebuild the bridge without a railroad detour."
- The District sent John Bennett the right-of-way deeds for the project
and they still show taking of the Volkswagen dealership.
- "I told John to just hold up on that until we get it straight with the
railroad."
|
|
April 30, 2001 |
E-mail
To: Darby Beach
From: Mark Grindstaff
Subject: STP-017-3 (45); Floyd County--PI#620590
Point(s) of Interest:
- "I need to write up a survey report for the
railroad and railroad bridge…I imagine SHPO will call them both
eligible…" (for the National Register of Historic Places)
- "Because of the nature of the project, there will be an adverse effect
to both resources since the bridge will be reconstructed and a portion
of the railroad will be relocated."
- "Since this puts us in a 4f situation, design will need to provide us
with an alternative(s) to minimize the effects to the resources or show
why the current proposed alignment will result in the least effect."
|
|
June 13, 2001 |
E-mail
To: Mark Grindstaff, GDOT
Cc: Eric Duff, GDOT
From: Dan Latham, Coosa Valley RDC
Subject: GDOT Project STP-017-3(45), Floyd County, P.I. #620590
Point(s) of Interest:
-"The Coosa Valley RDC has received, reviewed, and concurs with the
Section 106 Process Notification for the subject project."
- "There are reputed remains of Civil War earthworks on the hill
immediately south of the railroad and west of US 27. Historically known
as DeSoto Hill, it was the site of Fort Attaway. The works there played
a significant role during the assault and capture of Rome on May 17-18,
1864. If there are remains of earthworks in this area, they would be
some of the most historically significant in Rome."
|
|
June 19, 2001 |
E-mail A
To: Brent Story
Cc: Erica Jeter, Mark Grindstaff
From: Darby Beach
Subject: STP-017-3(45) Floyd
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Would you please send me two more copies
of the plans for STP-017-3(45) Floyd."
- "I have just learned that there is a Civil War resource near the
project that my archaeologist needs to look at the plans and this
resource."
- "I will probably have to do a Section 4(f) evaluation."
- "Any background information you have on why we are shifting the tracks
south would be immensely helpful."
|
|
June 19, 2001 |
E-mail B
To: Jonathon Chan, Darby Beach
Cc: David Norwood
From: Brent Story
Subject: FW: STP-017-3(45) Floyd
Point(s) of Interest:
- "…and to stage the construction of the new
railroad bridge with no disturbance in normal rail traffic. This is the
typical method of replacing a railroad bridge under traffic. We build
the new bridge and new rail while normal rail traffic remains on the
existing tracks and bridge"
|
|
May 14, 2002 |
E-mail A
To: Richard Cloues, DNR-HPD
Cc: Elizabeth Shirk, Serena Bellew, DNR-HPD
From: Mark Grindstaff, GDOT
Point(s) of Interest:
- GDOT blames loss of time on David Fowler,
Mark Grindstaff lies: he claims he was the one that said the Railroad
was built at the foot of Fort Attaway after the Civil War,
- but in fact it was David Fowler that informed the GDOT of this by
providing them the deed work and newspaper clippings
|
|
May 16, 2002 |
E-mail B
To: Mark Grindstaff
From: Richard Cloues
Subject: Re: Fort Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "This certainly changes the historical
relationship between the fort and the railroad."
|
|
May 29, 2002 |
E-mail C
To: Richard Cloues
From: Mark Grindstaff
Point(s) of Interest:
|
|
June 18, 2002 |
E-mail D
To: Mark Grindstaff, GDOT
From: Richard Cloues, DNR-HPD
Subject: RE: Fort Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "It is the consensus of the staff that the
fort should be considered eligible both an archaeological and a historic
structure associated with the defense of Rome during the Civil War. This
would make it significant under Criterion A and D and possibly C."
- "With regard to its integrity as a historic structure, although it is
overgrown and eroded, it is still intact enough to be identifiable as a
historic fortification, and it appears to be as intact as other small
Civil War fortifications that have been considered eligible or listed on
the National Register..."
- "Regarding boundaries...we're taking our cue from the National
Register bulletin on battlefields which directs that boundaries for
military sites should encompass an "appropriate" physical setting that
reflects the local geography and shows how the geography influenced the
siting of the fortification (on the edge of a hill, overlooking a
valley) and the events associated with it ("take the hill")."
- "With this in mind, and based on the information at hand, we believe
it would be
appropriate to extend the boundaries at least to the railroad on the
north and the
highway and/or quarry to the east"
|
|
July 8, 2002 |
E-mail
To: Jerry Hobbs, Gail D'Avino, Christa Wilkinson, GDOT
Cc: Rowe Bowen, GDOT
From: Mark Grindstaff, GDOT
Subject: STP-017-3 (45)/Floyd County/PI#620590 (Fort Attaway Project)
Point(s) of Interest:
- "The environmental studies were cleared a
while back, and SHPO originally concurred with our determination that
the project would have no adverse effect to the historic Fort."
- "Since Mr. Fowler's involvement in the project, however, SHPO has
asked us to reassess the location of our proposed historic boundary
around the fort."
- "Our proposed boundary was drawn around the intact features on the
upper portion of the fort's northern slope."
- "Mr. Fowler has argued that the boundary should be drawn all the way
down to the base of the northern slope to the railroad track that will
be relocated."
- "I was informed that SHPO now agrees with the boundary proposed by Mr.
Fowler..."
- "SHPO also explained that they would not agree with a No Adverse
Effect determination..."
- "They are also not totally convinced that DOT's preferred alignment
for the railroad is necessary and do not believe we have done enough
towards exploring possible
alternatives..."
|
|
July 8, 2002 |
E-mail
To: Mark Grindstaff
Cc: Denise Messick, Elizabeth Shirk, Kenneth Gibbs, Serena Bellew,
Steven Moffson, Sylvia Cleveland
From: Richard Cloues
Subject: Re: Fort Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "To recap: ...we believe that additional
land comprising the immediate historic setting of the fort also should
be included because of the integral relationship between the fort
structure and its location on the side of the hill overlooking the
valley."
- "Regarding the north and east boundaries, we believe that the north
boundary should extend to the railroad and the east boundaries should
extend to at least the top of the quarry."
- "We continue to encourage DOT to investigate alternatives that would
minimize or avoid encroachment on the historic fort"
|
|
August 13, 2002 |
Letter
To: Mr. Robert M. Callan
From: Don L. Klima
REF: Project STP-017-3(45) and Fort Attaway, Rome, Georgia
Point(s) of Interest:
- "…relocation of portions of the
Norfolk-Southern railway line closer to the Fort will adversely affect
this historic property. Mr. Fowler is concerned that the current
boundaries of the Fort do not encompass the entire site of Fort
Attaway."
- "...the current boundaries and how such boundaries have been a factor
in any determination of effect reached in accordance with the Council's
regulations in consultation with the Georgia State Historic Preservation
Officer." (SHPO)
|
|
August 28, 2002 |
E-mail A
To: Mark Grindstaff
Cc: Barry Brown, Elizabeth Shirk, Serena Bellew, Rowe Bowen
From: Richard Cloues
Subject: Ft. Attaway question
Point(s) of Interest:
- "It looks to me like the area in "front" of
the main fort will not be a major problem, but the steep slope in front
of the western most rifle pits is going to be cut into pretty
dramatically."
- "...but it looks to me like after the wall was constructed it might be
possible to "restore" as much as a third (and maybe more) of the
disturbed ground to its original profile behind the retaining wall,
thereby "restoring" some of the setting of the rifle pits, providing
additional buffer between the rifle pits and the railroad, and possibly
obscuring at least some of the view of the railroad from the rifle
pits."
- "If this is possible, we might be able in good conscience to work out
something with the boundary and 4(f). But those deep cuts as currently
proposed, I'm worried right now about the impacts to the rifle pits."
|
|
August 28, 2002 |
E-mail B
To: Brent Story, Mike Davidson
Cc: Jerry Hobbs, Mark Grindstaff
From: Rowe Bowen
Subject: FW: Ft. Attaway question
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Please see Richard Cloues' email below…It
looks like this may get (buy) us out of our "boundary" issue and Section
4(f)."
|
|
August 28, 2002 |
E-mail C
To: Rowe Bowen
Cc: Jerry Hobbs, Mark Grindstaff, Brent Story
From: Mike Davidson
Subject: RE: Ft. Attaway question
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Rowe, We will prepare some cross sections
showing the retaining wall and necessary construction limits and forward
them to you for your use in making a determination if this may be an
acceptable solution. We will also develop a cost estimate for the wall."
|
|
September 18, 2002 |
E-mail D
To: Mike Davidson
From: Mark Grindstaff
Subject: RE: Ft. Attaway question
Point(s) of Interest:
|
|
September 18, 2002 |
E-mail E
To: Mark Grindstaff
From: Mike Davidson
Subject: RE: Ft. Attaway question
Point(s) of Interest:
- "The wall is very expensive and doesn't
provide a lot of help in the way of reducing our construction limits."
|
|
October 3, 2002 |
E-mail A
To: Eric Duff; Jerry Hobbs, Gail D'Avino, Mark Grindstaff, Harvey
Keepler, Jonathon Cox, Mike Davidson, David Norwood
From: Christa Wilkinson
Subject: Mini-Team Meeting for STP-017-3(45) Floyd - Fort Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
|
|
October 3, 2002 |
E-mail B
To: Christa Wilkinson, Eric Duff, Jerry Hobbs, Gail D'Avino, Mark
Grindstaff, Harvey Keepler, Mike Davidson, David Norwood
From: Jonathon Cox
Subject: RE: Mini-Team Meeting for STP-017-3(45) Floyd - Fort Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Mark Grindstaff has discussed the Fort
Attaway boundary with Richard Cloues (SHPO). Richard has made it
apparent that he will concur with our original boundary (thus, avoiding
4(f)) - if we build this retaining wall."
- "Preliminary estimates say that this wall is approx. half-million
dollars (building it would roughly raise project cost by 10%). Thus, we
need to sit down and see if this is something that the Department would
like to do or not do."
|
|
October 3, 2002 |
E-mail C
To: Jonathon Cox, Christa Wilkinson, Eric Duff, Jerry Hobbs, Gail
D'Avino, Mark Grindstaff, Harvey Keepler, David Norwood
Cc: Brent Story, Bradley R. Ehrman
From: Mike Davidson
Subject: RE: Mini-Team Meeting for STP-017-3(45) Floyd - Fort Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
|
|
October 8, 2002 |
Meeting Minutes
In attendance: Brad Ehrman, David Norwood, Brent Story, Jennifer Giersch,
Jonathon Cox, Gail D'Avino, Eric Duff, Mark Grindstaff, Jerry Hobbs,
Harvey Keepler and Christa Wilkinson
Subject: Wall and 4(f)
Point(s) of Interest:
- "In attendance...Jennifer Giersch from
FHWA"
- "The purpose of the meeting was to determine how to proceed with the
project due to new restrictions placed by SHPO concerning Ft. Attaway's
boundary."
- "SHPO has agreed to the original boundary (smaller boundary that
includes only the earthwork structures) as long as we are willing to
build a retaining wall between the fort and the railroad."
- "Without the wall
- Construction limits would come really close to the fort's rifle pits;
however the rifle pits would not be disturbed.
- We would have a 4(F) impact because the fort's boundaries would be
extended to the railroad."
- "With the wall
- There would be a visual effect to the
fort."
- "Options:
- Build the wall with a no 4(F) and the
smaller boundary
- Don't build the wall and have 4(F)"
|
|
October 11, 2002 |
E-mail A
To: Tom Turner
Cc: Jerry Hobbs, Gail D'Avino, Christa Wilkinson, Jonathon Cox
From: Harvey Keepler
Subject: STP-017-3(45), Floyd County; Ft. Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "I believe that the majority of R/W has
been purchased with the exception of one parcel which the R/W Office has
begun condemnation proceedings on."
- "This particular property owner is really fighting acquisition and
claims, with help from the Civil War Commission, that the historic
boundary previously set for his property and approved by HPD, should be
enlarged."
- "We disagree with the enlarged boundary and have been arguing this
point with the property owner as well as the Historic Preservation
Division."
- "We request your guidance in this decision. Please review and let me
know in which direction you would prefer us to go."
|
|
October 31, 2002 |
E-mail B
To: Harvey Keepler
Cc: Jerry Hobbs, Gail D'Avino, Christa Wilkinson, Jonathon Cox
From: Tom Turner
Subject: RE: STP-017-3(45), Floyd County; Ft. Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Commissioner Barrett said that he did not
think that we should spend the $500,000 on a wall..."
|
|
October 31, 2002 |
E-mail C
To: Harvey Keepler, Eric Duff, Rowe Bowen, Mark Grindstaff
Cc: Jerry Hobbs, Gail D'Avino, Christa Wilkinson
From: Jonathon Cox
Subject: RE: STP-017-3(45), Floyd County: Ft. Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Mr. Harvey, Based on the email from Mr.
Turner, do we want Grindstaff to begin work on his thanks for the
boundary but we aren't doing the wall letter to SHPO?"
|
|
October 31, 2002 |
E-mail D
To: Jonathon Cox, Harvey Keepler, Eric Duff, Mark Grindstaff
Cc: Jerry Hobbs, Gail D'Avino, Christa Wilkinson
From: Rowe Bowen
Subject: RE: STP-017-3(45), Floyd County; Ft. Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- "I would like to wait and see what Lonice
Barrett comes back with first. It won't take Mark long to do his thing
once we have a final decision."
|
|
December 11, 2002 |
Fort Attaway site visit, Notes prepared by Richard Cloues
In attendance: Ray Luce, Richard Cloues, Harvey Keepler, Mark
Grindstaff, two designers, a couple of surveyors, Jennifer Giersch
Subject: retaining wall, protection of rifle pits
Point(s) of Interest:
- "After examining the site, we reiterated our concerns, in priority
order:
(1) Protection of the rifle pits from physical disturbance during
construction
(2) Protection of rifle pits after construction from erosion,
subsidence, etc.
(3) Retention of as much of the downslope setting of the rifle pits as
possible
(4) Preservation of the existing views of the fort from the valley
floor"
- "It would also likely require less disturbance of the ground between
the cut and the rifle pit because there would be no need to excavate a
construction trench and provide access for equipment and materials to
build the wall. GDOT also believes that a rock cut would be less
visually obtrusive than a concrete retaining wall."
- "GDOT also agreed to the following: To survey and photograph the front
edge fo the rifle pit to accurately locate this feature and to establish
a baseline to determine
if any physical damage is caused during and after construction."
- "P.S. Both Ray and I were even more impressed with the extent and
condition of
Fort Attaway than we thought we would be from he documentation.
Because the leaves were down, the fortification was much more visible,
and
may features were clearly apparent."
|
|
June 17, 2003 |
Letter
To: Dr. Tom McCulloch
From: Cailey Fowler
Subject: GDOT Project STP-017-3(45), Floyd County,
P.I. #620590 and HP#010514-001,
2003 Memorandum of Agreement - Missing stipulations in MOA and
conflicting dates
Point(s) of Interest:
- The GDOT has to provide proof that the
right-of-way is 100 ft. We have deed work
that proves the right-of-way is only 50 ft.
|
|
July 18, 2003 |
Letter
To: Mr. Robert M. Callan
From: J. Tom Coleman, Jr.
Subject: GDOT Project STP-017-3(45), Floyd County; P.I. No. 620590; HPD#
HP010514-001; Section 106 Compliance-FHWA, Erosion Control Environmental
Commitments
Point(s) of Interest:
- "It must be noted that, while these
measures are anticipated to have a long-term preservative application,
voluntary landowner preservation of fort Attaway and the adjacent slopes
outside the APE will ensure the preservation of the resource and may
ultimately determine success of the Department's commitments."
- The GDOT are relying on property owners to take care of the mess
after they are done showing how inadequate their mitigation for
preventing damage to Fort Attaway during and after the project is.
|
|
December 17, 2003 |
E-mail A
To: Pam Digsby
From: Daniel Roper
Subject: RE: STP-017-3(45) Floyd and "Fort Attaway"
Point(s) of Interest:
- "…with the Confederate "works" on DeSoto
Hill and the engagement that took place there on May 17, 1964. I have
offered to provide my sources to Mr. Grindstaff and to work with him to
prepare an thorough and accurate synopsis of this matter, but he has
dismissed my offer and asserts that the matter is all but concluded and
that all involved have "accepted" his report"
- "Mr. Grindstaff admitted to me yesterday that he did not have an open
mind in preparing his report ("I would agree with you," he wrote via
email, "that my narrative is biased and my agendas are obvious...")
Unfortunately, his bias is readily apparent and threatens to seriously
undermine DOT's credibility.
- If DOT offers to the public, and acts upon, a report prepared by a
historian who admits that he is biased, set out with an agenda, and in
the process produced a report that is highly misleading, we are going to
appear incompetent at best, and, at worst, like we are acting in bad
faith so that we can proceed with our project. Make no mistake, we will
lose this battle and
we deserve to do so if we rely upon Grindstaff's report."
|
|
|
"Moreover, there is a real threat that this will become a highly
publicized controversy..."
- "If we were RIGHT, I would not care if the newspaper cast aspersions
on us all day long. But we are WRONG and in the process we are going to
apear to be big, bad, sloppy, incompetent, biased DOT willing to craft
and rely upon inaccurate reports to justify moving forward with our
project. Make no mistake, we will lose this battle and we deserve to do
so if we rely upon Grindstaff's report."
- "I remain willing to cooperate with Grindstaff in this endeavor if he
will do so fairly and with an open mind to the truth."
- "As DOTs attorney, I want my client to be thorough and fair minded in
evaluating evidence and presenting information to the public. At this
point, however, we appear to be biased and negligent. Let's get this
straightened out before it turns into a real mess."
|
|
December 17, 2003 |
E-mail B
To: Terry McCollister
Cc: Mickie McJunkin, Don Brown
From: Pam Digsby
Subject: FW: STP-017-3(45) Floyd and "Fort Attaway"
Importance: High
Point(s) of Interest:
- Pam Digsby forwards Dan Roper's E-mail
warning that if the DOT uses Mark Grindstaff's report they will be
"WRONG, biased and negligent" to Terry McCollister, Mickie McJunkin and
Don Brown of the GDOT
|
|
December 18, 2003 |
E-mail C
To: Harvey Keepler, Ray Lerer, Terry McCollister, Tom Turner
Cc: Mickie McJunkin, Pam Digsby
From: Don Brown
Subject: FW: STP-017-3(45) Floyd and "Fort Attaway"
Importance: High
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Do we need to discuss?"
|
|
December 18, 2003 |
E-mail D
To: Mark Grindstaff
Cc: Rowe Bowen, Gail D'Avino
From: Harvey Keepler
Subject: RE: STP-017-3(45) Floyd and "Fort Attaway"
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Mark: What now?
|
|
December 19, 2003 |
E-mail
To: Harvey Keepler
Cc: Tom Turner, Terry McCollister, Ray Lerer, Mickie McJunkin, Pam
Digsby, DeWayne Comer
From: Don Brown
Subject: FW: "Fort Attaway"
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Harvey: I would recommend that Mark please
discontinue his direct communication with Dan concerning this issue, it
has turned personal and ugly."
- "I recommend that we discuss these issues with Dan to determine what
impact they have on the condemnations and also what action to take if
Dan is asked to testify against DOT regarding any legal challenge to the
Enviro Section 106."
|
|
December 29, 2003 |
E-mail
To: Richard Cloues
From: Mark Grindstaff
Subject: RE: Fort Attaway mitigation report (HP010514-001, PI 620590)
Point(s) of Interest:
- Mark Grindstaff's E-mail discussion of his
mitigation report on Fort Attaway only further shows how it does not
serve the Section 106 purpose of preserving the memory of Fort Attaway
and the Battle of Rome.
- "A few of them have accused me of being
biased and having an agenda…"
- "I really don't believe that the report pretends to have all the
answers regarding Fort Attaway's significance, location etc.
- "I never really make any claims of authority regarding the fort's
location, historic significance, or material integrity."
|
|
January 21, 2004 |
Letter
To: Robert Callan
From: Don Klima
REF: Project STP-017-3(45) and Fort Attaway, Rome, Georgia
Point(s) of Interest:
- "…with the drawing of the exact boundaries
of Fort Attaway in relation to lands to be used for the rail and road
improvements."
- "We agree with Mr. Fowler that accurate boundaries of the historic
property are necessary to fully implement the provisions of the MOA."
|
|
February 26, 2004 |
E-mail
To: Mark Grindstaff
Cc: Elizabeth Shirk, Ray Luce
From: Richard Cloues
Subject: Fort Attaway
Point(s) of Interest:
- Mark! "Nobody is trying to "blind-side"
you; if we were we wouldn't have asked for a meeting before sending out
a formal response to your report"
- "And nobody is questioning your credentials as a historian or implying
that your report wasn't worth the time or effort; indeed, several staff
here including myself continue to believe that you have produced a most
complex and thought-provoking report."
- "Ray raised three issues
- The first had to do with what Ray percieved as the
"tone" of your report--he thought the report was pretty aggressive in
going after local historians and their interpretations, and he raised a
red flag about this possibly fanning the flames rather than resolving
issues--or that in fanning the flames, the issues would be overlooked.
- The second was Ray's concern about the very real
possibility that third parties might seize upon the questions you raise
about the location of Fort Attaway and question the validity of DOT's
initial studies leading to considering the site eligible in the first
place, which could certainly
throw a monkey-wrench into the Section 106 process.
- The third was Ray's idea that, in light of the strongly
entrenched positions on the issues
surrounding Fort Attaway that various parties have taken, it might be in
DOT's interests
to have an "independent" historical review..."
- Again, all we wanted to do was to get together to talk about these
issues.
Just you and us, nobody else..."
|
|
March 9, 2004 |
E-mail
To: Mark Grindstaff
From: Richard Cloues
Subject: Fort Attaway historical report
Point(s) of Interest:
- "Following our review of these documents,
we requested a consultation with GDOT to discuss whether or not the
submitted report satisfies the stipulation of the MOA. At that meeting,
we noted concerns about the aggressive interpretive "tone" of the report
and apparent differences of opinion regarding the history, location and
significance of Fort Attaway, and we suggested that GDOT consider
retaining an outside historian to prepare a historical narrative."
- "We would also like to reiterate our opinion that Fort Attaway should
be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at
the local level of significance for its remaining physical features
associated with Civil War activities in and around Rome."
|
Home
Produced by:
Fort Attaway Preservation Society, Inc.
1202 Desoto Avenue, Rome, GA 30165 (706)234-0537
f_marlin@bellsouth.net
|