To all Romans who are confused on our issues with the Georgia Department of Transportation
We agree that the congested strip of Hwy. 27 between Heritage Nissan and the North Fifth Avenue intersection needs to be widened, but in the process the GDOT are using approximately six million of our hard earned tax payer dollars
to destroy Rome's only Civil
War fort that was the site of the Battle of Rome
and to do an unnecessary move of a private company's (Norfolk Southern's) rail line.
There are very important issues to this project that the Rome's public needs to know about how the GDOT has handled this project.
Part of the Department
of Transportation Act adopted by Congress in 1966, Section 4(f) states
that transportation projects must avoid historic sites unless there is
"no feasible and prudent alternative" and requires "all possible
planning to minimize harm" to historic places. This unequivocal
"hands-off" directive has been invoked hundreds of times over the past
35 years to keep the nation's heritage from being bulldozed and
blacktopped. The GDOT have merely made it "look" like they have done
all possible planning to minimize harm, but they are still proceeding
with the same project that will destroy the northern military face of
Fort Attaway. "Section
4(f)" doesn't sound important -- but it is the strongest federal
preservation law on the books.
Not only are the GDOT
using approximately six million tax payer dollars to improve the
privately owned Norfolk Southern rail line, this state government
department is also assuming all
liability for future damage from falling debris onto passing cars (which
is approximately 60 incidences a year.)
The GDOT have done their own environmental evaluations however all of their decisions have sided for the progress of the project, not the welfare of Fort Attaway. The Environmental Study that is used by the GDOT is dated September 6, 2000, the coversheet is dated July 29, 2003, this coversheet date is used to clear conflictive issues with Fort Attaway whose birth date to the GDOT is July 31, 2001 when they were formally informed by the Coosa Valley Regional Development Center. The Fort Attaway Preservation Society is asking for an objective professional study to be done on the fort, with Fort Attaway a part of it. This September 6, 2000 Study does not include Fort Attaway.
Troubles with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
Fowler and Rickman family involvement
In early 2001, the Georgia Department of Transportation made very small offers to the Fowler and Rickman families to purchase a strip of land on the backside of their properties (that if they do not accept faced condemnation proceedings.) This strip of property is to be used for new railroad right-of-way in an unnecessary move of a 2,000 ft. portion of the private company Norfolk Southern's rail line that crosses Highway 27 at Heritage Nissan here in Rome, Georgia. On this property is Rome's only Civil War fort that was the site of an actual battle. The GDOT did not notify (and are required to do so) the Fowler's that the historic property was on the land that the GDOT intended to buy. Which is only the beginning of the many things the GDOT are required to do by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 when dealing with a historic property that is endangered by one of their projects that they have not done.
Inadequate Environmental Reviews
The project that threatens Fort Attaway is GDOT PROJECT STP-017-3 (45). The project is managed by the Georgia DOT however it is 80% federally funded. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Georgia DOT is required to conduct an exhaustive and complete environmental review of the area in question before the project planning, and report to the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) on how the project will affect the special property (the special property in this situation is Fort Attaway.) Federal Highways has to approve the Georgia DOT's environmental review before the federal funds will be released. According to the federal historic preservation laws of Section 4(f) it is illegal for federal funds to be used on a project that will destroy historic properties.
The GDOT have done their own environmental evaluations however their environmental evaluations have certainly not been exhaustive, complete, nor in chronological order, and all of their decisions have sided for the progress of their project and not the welfare of Fort Attaway. The Fort Attaway Preservation Society is asking for an objective professional study to be done on the fort before the GDOT project commences as required by law.
GDOT will not recognize that Fort Attaway extends to the railroad right-of-way
Fort Attaway's legal boundaries, as determined by the archeological firm Brockington and Associates, (Cued by the National Register Bulletin) were published in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution on July 1, 2002. Legal Boundary Description (Brockington and Associates were the firm that were used to put Rome's Fort Norton and Fort Stovall onto the National Register of Historical Places in 1998) Fort Attaway's legal boundary shows that Fort Attaway begins at the original railroad right-of-way. The railroad was built onto DeSoto Hill and so the fort and the railroad run into each other - there is no space between the two like the GDOT is trying to claim. D Chuber Evaluation of Fort Attaway Historian Mark Snell in his independent historical evaluation reached the same conclusion. M Snell Evaluation of Fort Attaway.
Daniel Roper, a prominent Rome attorney (who was scheduled to handle the GDOT condemnation of the Fowler's land), and a local historian, wrote an article in the North Georgia Journal with pictures of Desoto Hill & Fort Attaway taken from Hwy 27 just north of John Davenport. Looking directly south, these pictures were of the northern face of Desoto Hill (Fort Attaway's military face). The GDOT's boundary barely includes the upper most part of the fort's northern face (battle was from the north.) The GDOT have also stated that their project will have adverse physical and visual effects on Fort Attaway however they fail to mention that their project will destroy the important remains of its most important northern military face, and are still proceeding with their original project plans, which have not changed since the early '80's.
Wasting Tax Dollars
In the early nineties Norfolk Southern proposed to construct a new railroad bridge on the existing location and cover 50% of the cost. The GDOT declined their offer; now it is costing tax payers approximately 13 million dollars for the land acquisition needed for new right-of-way and construction of the new Norfolk Southern's railroad bridge and 2,000 feet of railroad that will be relocated for no apparent reason. Norfolk Southern are now free of the cost due to GDOT using tax payer dollars and condemnation of private property to build this new bridge and railroad just to give this new bridge and railroad, on new right-of-way, free of cost to Norfolk Southern. Our hard earned tax dollars are paying for an unnecessary move of a private company's railroad.
Even though the existing bridge is adequate by State standards, this relocation and destruction to Fort Attaway is occurring because the GDOT needlessly wants Norfolk Southern to build a new railroad bridge to replace their existing one. The GDOT has redone US Hwy 27 (Martha Berry Hwy) under this exact same railroad bridge and has misaligned US Hwy 27 (Martha Berry Hwy) aiming it at the railroad bridge's buttress. This misalignment has been created by the GDOT, and is dangerous and has been responsible for several accidents.
Inadequate Erosion Prevention Plan
The GDOT project involves Desoto Hill. Erosion on this Desoto hill is very apparent on all sides of it. The GDOT openly admitted that their erosion control plan is "inadequate". A cover letter carefully worded says, "It must be noted that, while these measure are anticipated to have a long-term 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." So basically its saying that if the LANDOWNER doesn't do something at their own expense it may ULTIMATELY DETERMINE the GDOT's plans SUCCESS. LANDOWNERS that have had their land "taken from them" SHOULD NOT have to do ANYTHING to insure the GDOT's success.
Inadequate Resource Identification and Inadequate Boundary
"Inadequate" is again a fitting description for Mark Grindstaff trading a retaining wall, costing $500,000 in his first trade for an "inadequate" (according to National Register) boundary, and he got Richard Clouse (the Deputy SHPO for the DNR-HPD) to concur with his "inadequate" boundaries in a trade for the wall. In an attempt to rectify his "inadequate" boundary, he offered to (buy) his way out of his "inadequate" boundary, by offering the DNR-HPD a cement retaining wall that would be placed at the foot of the very large dramatic cut that is presently in the plans for the Fort Attaway's northern face (military & most important face). The GDOT would try to avoid the Section 4(f) Federal Regulations with this retaining wall. The GDOT decided that the $500,000 retaining wall was too expensive, so, Mark Grindstaff in his second attempt at a trade, trades the cement retaining wall necessary for erosion control, for a steeper cut (almost straight up) with erosion control mats & grass "noted as a soil stabilizer that promotes permanent long-term vegetation growth" (this area they plan to cut has very little dirt so basically they will attempt to grow grass on rock for their erosion control methods). This "trading" gets Richard Clouse's attention and he now needs to actually visit Fort Attaway for the first time. Richard Clouse accompanied by Ray Luce, both Deputy State Historic Preservation Officers visit the site. Richard Clouse reports,
"Both Ray and I were even more impressed with the extent and condition of Fort Attaway than we thought we would be from the documentation. Because the leaves were down, the fortification was much more visible, and many features were clearly apparent."
Now the GDOT & Mark Grindstaff agree to "survey and photograph the front edge of the rifle pit to "ACCURATELY LOCATE THIS FEATURE" and establish a baseline to determine if any physical damage is caused during and after construction." How did GDOT work towards avoiding Fort Attaway early in planning as required buy the federal laws, apparently WITHOUT a survey to accurately locate this feature, and the "many features that were clearly apparent" if NOW they must survey to find their accurate location? Furthermore, HOW did they set a boundary around "many features that were clearly apparent", WITHOUT IT FIRST being "accurately" LOCATED? This is the Mark Grindstaff that says he "never makes any final conclusions regarding location of Fort Attaway". Same Mark Grindstaff that says he "never makes any final conclusions regarding military activity that took place there" Same Mark Grindstaff that says he "never makes any final conclusions regarding the material features on the hill." Same Mark Grindstaff that says he "repeatedly stated, I have made NO SUCH CLAIMS OF AUTHORITY . As a historian, I have an absolute right to disagree with you or anyone else regarding the history of Fort Attaway. It all boils down to you having your own interpretation, and me having mine." Same Mark Grindstaff that says" both in written accounts and in physical landscape of the area, suggest that Fort Attaway is not that significant either as good example of a Civil War fortification or as the site of a major battle" MARK GRINDSTAFF has INADEQUATE TRAINING in the area of National Register eligibility. He has INADEQUATE TRAINING in how to set a boundary according to the National Registry's guidelines, and INADEQUATE TRAINING in archeology.
Closing Statement
As a representatives of the Fort Attaway Preservation Society we are not going to engage in contradicting rhetoric. We will however say that in the attempt to fill out the required paperwork, information that cannot or will not stand on its own merit has been the main contributing factor to the manipulation of facts, of timelines, of time itself, the time of year, keeping quiet, speaking up, military records, city records, other historian's work, historic evidence, historic sites, interpretive signs, complicated historic laws, lack of communication, condemnation, developed trust, and the ability to control when and who gets this manipulated paperwork and from what angle this manipulated paperwork is delivered or received, just to name a few tactics that have in the past and will in the future be used to destroy everything from a historian's life long work to a historic treasure all in the name of filling out the required paperwork. We firmly believe that our past is in control of our future. If you do not learn from your past and keep it close that history forgotten will come back to haunt you and remind you by repeating itself. The land that we live on is rightfully ours and is historic, and we must defend our historic lands and the history it represents no matter what the cost, just as the 150 to 450 brave rebels 140 years ago did. We stand before GOD and Country and humbly say, you WILL NOT TAKE our RIGHTFUL HERITAGE as long as ONE REBEL REMAINS!!!
Produced by:
Fort Attaway Preservation Society, Inc.
1202 Desoto Avenue, Rome, GA 30165 (706)234-0537
f_marlin@bellsouth.net