Jackson Free Press

Pre-historic Native American settlements are among the obstacles faced by any plan to inundate the wetlands along the Pearl River, including the already-controversial "Two Lakes" project. Pam Lieb, chief archeologist for the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, told the Jackson Free Press that any project to flood the Pearl River between Rankin and Hinds counties could inundate 19 sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Property—including Choctaw settlement and burial grounds.

"Four of those sites are multi-mound centers, meaning there's more than one (Indian) mound. This is a mound complex, and it indicates where a large settlement used to be," Lieb said. "There are burial mounds and platform mounds, and the information they could potentially contain could be extremely valuable."

The Rankin-Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control District, also called the levee board, is currently considering two different plans to flood the Pearl River and create new waterfront property. The Two Lakes plan, advocated by Jackson oilman John McGowan, entails damming the Pearl River beneath Interstate 20 and creating a 4,133-acre lake, which will impact 5,500 acres of wetlands and 3,400 acres of forest.

A second plan, a hybrid of McGowan's plan advocated by urban planner Andres Duany, of Washington, D.C.-based Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, will create a smaller 1,500-acre lake. Waggoner Engineering, which is advocating the smaller "Lower Lake" plan, could not provide an assessment of total territory that plan would affect.

Both plans are before the levee board, along with alternate plans such as the levees-only plan and a plan to "do nothing," or make no environmental changes and hope for the best.

Three of the plans, outside of the "do nothing" approach, are born of the community's growing concern over flood control in the area following a disastrous Pearl River flood in 1979, which inundated large portions of Hinds and Rankin counties and caused $200 million in damages.

The cost for handling these archaeological sites could be considerable, especially for four of the sites Lieb referenced. The state archeologist pointed out that the most significant sites likely contain prehistoric cemeteries, and will doubtless require some form of mitigation if the project to permanently inundate the mounds moves forward.

The area would require excavation, which some archaeologists project could cost $3 million or more—providing the Army Corps of Engineers can get permission from the Mississippi Band of Choctaws to excavate the burial areas.

David Kelly, who works in the cultural resources division of Baton Rouge environmental and cultural mitigation firm Coastal Environment Inc., said federal law requires developers who plan complete inundation to do a level of excavation at questionable sites to recover enough information to mitigate the loss of the area as a historical research spot.

"It doesn't mean you have to excavate the entire site, but you'll have to first figure out how big the site is, what kind of information it can provide, and then come up with a data recovery plan," said Kelly, adding that the Corps would have to approve the data recovery plan. "Doing data recovery at a mound site that's going to be completely inundated will require a substantial portion of the site, maybe 25 percent or more."

Kelly could offer no information beyond that because Coastal Environments Inc. could eventually be a contractor working with developers to move the Two Lakes or Lower Lake plan forward.

Kenneth Carlton, an archeologist for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, said the tribe is absolutely against excavating the Native American sites.

"We are quite opposed to it. We can't automatically stop it, but it's going to cost a lot of money. It will cost $3 million or $4 million, minimum, just from what I know of the place. It's definitely not going to be cheap," said Carlton, who based his assertions upon archeological surveys taken of the sites.

Lieb agreed that total mitigation "is impossibly expensive."

"People usually try to avoid Phase 3 total mitigation, because it's is so expensive nowadays. MDOT, for example, when building a road, will usually just avoid a problem site entirely. That's why you'll sometimes come across an unexplained curve in the road. Re-routing the whole road is actually cheaper than total mitigation," Lieb said.

Other issues, beyond the sites' historic value, could be a problem for developers. The Mississippi Department of Archives and History is fairly certain that bodies are buried at more than one site, which could prove a problem in Mississippi.

The state, like most others, has an unmarked burial law. In Mississippi, developers can't knowingly inundate burial areas without dealing with the remains. Project officers (likely the Army Corps of Engineers, since both lake plans require $133 million in federal money) will have to consult with Native American groups, who will have to sign off on a memorandum agreement between the federal agency and the state historic preservation office.

Lieb says the legal issues make both lake developments a lot more complicated than mere money can handle.

"It's a lot more in depth than that. Once you do the Phase 1 investigation to figure out what's there, the Corps of Engineers has a responsibility to make a good faith effort toward the cultural resources involved in the project. There are a lot of sites involved in this project, and a mound center is definitely involved; there are definitely cemeteries there, so they'll have to consult Native American communities throughout the project. But if the Native American communities reach no agreement, that will present a whole new problem."

Carlton said the tribe is "generally opposed" to either destructive analysis or removal of burial-ground remains, particularly where the mounds are concerned: "We're not going to let them bulldoze people," he said.

Nevertheless, some form of analysis of the remains may be necessary if developers and the Corps are to determine whether the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians have a dog in the fight. The remains, depending upon their age, may not even be associated with the Choctaw tribe, and could even predate the Choctaws by decades or even centuries.

Carlton called the affiliation debate "irrelevant."

"The bottom line is they have to consult with us, and we have to be involved in the process," Carlton said. "We're mandatory participants, whether or not they like it."

McGowan said he didn't think his lakes plan would impose on any burial sites.

"The Indians didn't tend to put their cemeteries inside the flood plain. They didn't build on it," he said.

When told that the Department of Archives had listed numerous projected burial sites affected by the Two Lakes plan, McGowan said: "Well, life goes on. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Previous Comments

ID

148378

Comment

This is hysterical in a pathetic sort of way. It doesn't sound like Adam took the Choctaws or MDAH by surprise with his questions. It seems improbable that the JFP has been the only media in town bringing this to the forefront, but then I ask myself, why am I surprised? Seems to me there are some asses that need kicking and heads that need rolling 'round here.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-02T18:03:52-06:00

ID

148381

Comment

Here's my question, Ronni. If flood "control" has been on hold all these years waiting for Two Lakes to occur in some form, why in hell haven't people been talking about this very, very serious wrinkle for a long time?!? You think the national environmental lawsuits are a roadblock. Jackson has got to grow up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-02T18:34:34-06:00

ID

148402

Comment

I'm just thankful for Jackson's sake that the JFP is the only bag of hot air that is opposed to this incredible project.

Author

QB

Date

2009-06-03T07:59:45-06:00

ID

148404

Comment

Making money off it Harry? Or perhaps you could encourage the other media to take a look, talk to the experts and report on what they learn?

Author

Pilgrim

Date

2009-06-03T08:32:35-06:00

ID

148406

Comment

Incredibly sensless project, that is. Good luck getting past the Indians, Cowboy McGowan.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-03T08:36:27-06:00

ID

148414

Comment

I'm just thankful for Jackson's sake that the JFP is the only bag of hot air that is opposed to this incredible project. You could have said the same about our position on Frank Melton four years ago. Or George Bush, for that matter. And I don't see the original post about "making money off it"—not sure what that means. But it is high time that other media join us in true reporting on this issue. And make this plan the "locally preferred" plan, and I think you'll find that people with a lot more money and pull than the JFP are opposed to it. They're going to keep us in court for years.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-03T09:31:54-06:00

ID

148423

Comment

Harry, I think you might be confusing "opposition" with reality check. As I have said before, if your only goal is to kill the two lakes project, I am pretty confident that sitting back saying nothing would be sufficient, because the current 13-year course is unlikely to get far on the Federal level. If we want some form of flood control in our lifetime, we need to follow the design and permitting process as it was intended, not as a game of political checkers.

Author

pjiv

Date

2009-06-03T10:58:40-06:00

ID

148425

Comment

Harry, twin lakes project is about McGowan making money, not flood control. If he is so concerned about flood control he would have given up, on this and been pushing something else a long time ago. If he wants to help Jackson, why not get people to invest in housing for all the low income people in Jackson, they need it more than rich people need a house on a lake, which is all his project is about.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-03T11:16:47-06:00

ID

148426

Comment

Sorry Donna. I'm wondering if Harry could be making money off of Two Lakes if it goes through.

Author

Pilgrim

Date

2009-06-03T11:21:12-06:00

ID

148430

Comment

Pilgrim: Best place to start is see who owns the land the residential lots will end up on. The people who designed Highland Colony Parkway started 25+ years ago buying land for the parkway.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-03T12:25:54-06:00

ID

148431

Comment

I have absolutely zero monetary or other interest in this project. I have never met Mr. McGowan. However, I am well versed in the 404 permitting process with the Corps. You are all correct in that the Corps is going to have to approve any project. If the levee board adopts the Two Lakes as its locally preferred plan, my understanding (and I believe this is spelled out more thoroughly in Adam Lynch's excellent article) is that the Corps would then study the issue before it grants any sort of approval. They will make sure the project's flood control features are viable and effective. I would also love to see something like Lake Austin, another man-made lake, and I believe Two Lakes is the plan that could give Jackson something like that. Levees only will just cut off any development of the river and leave Jackson without a potentially large economic boom. BubbaT - Sure, he could invest money in low income housing. There are plenty of federal and state programs which makes that business especially lucrative. And even though I disagree with you about the project's primary purpose, how is rebuilding the tax base in Jackson a bad thing? I know the JFP and its ardent supports are adamantly opposed to the idea of "gentrifying" an area, but like downtown Jackson, there are no low income residents to displace. Its wilderness; a floodplain.

Author

QB

Date

2009-06-03T13:10:48-06:00

ID

148432

Comment

Gentrification isn't the issue here, obviously. Viability is, however. A project can sound fabulous, but that doesn't mean it will work, or get through the process. What's frustrating is watching people sit on hold waiting for a project that is very unlikely to ever see the light of day. Meantime, we wait for the next flood, while we wait for Mr. McGowan to "cross the bridges" that block his vision when he comes to them. Mr. McGowan says the only way his plan has a chance is if the levee board decides it is the "locally preferred plan." That in itself should say something to you. The question is: Why would the levee board choose it as the locally preferred plan with the very obvious problems and roadblocks and expensive litigation and eminent domain (for development) and government control, etc., etc. I guess it's obvious why McGowan Working Partners is trying to stack the levee board by getting their mayors into office. There is likely no other shot at becoming "locally preferred."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-03T13:21:12-06:00

ID

148433

Comment

Several people run on the levees near I-55 and Fortification/High Street exits. These levees provide Jackson residents a tiny space of urban wilderness. Jackson might be better served with promoting the Corps levee plan and creating unique urban wilderness areas for its citizens. I worked on an archaeological dig located in Tupelo, MS where Hwy 6 (INST 278) was expanding. If we found bodies (we did not), according to the agreement MDOT made with the Chickasaw, 6ft of earth would have been added between the burials and the pavement. The key question is what harm will be done to the site(s)? Everyone involved might be OK with the area being flooded intact.

Author

E

Date

2009-06-03T14:02:23-06:00

ID

148435

Comment

Are the islands they are talking about building even going to be in city limits of Jackson? The city limits in the center of the Pearl River, right? They could build them and they be in Flowoods city limits and not in Jackson.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-03T14:51:01-06:00

ID

148439

Comment

E, I'm not convinced the City is best served by providing running space for the "several" people who run there. The Jackson metro area isn't exactly Manhattan. One could drive 10 miles in any direction and have plenty of urban wilderness (Natchez Trace, Reservoir area, etc). As far as the potential archaelogical issues, that is something that I am not qualified to comment intelligently about. Bubba, I really do not think ardent Jackson supporters like Leland Speed and Socrates Garrett would approve a plan that only provided for development opportunities in Rankin.

Author

QB

Date

2009-06-03T15:06:38-06:00

ID

148440

Comment

Harry- if you compare the map on the Two Lakes website with one of Jackson from MDOT it looks like most of the islands are going to be outside the city limits because they are on the east side of the river and the city limits is the center of the river. http://www.gomdot.com/divisions/intermodalplanning/Resources/Maps/pdf/CityMaps/Jackson.pdf http://www.twolakesms.com/Overview/solution.aspx

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-03T15:18:06-06:00

ID

148441

Comment

Not sure how you got "most" out of that. It looks like maybe 60/40 in favor of the Rankin side.

Author

QB

Date

2009-06-03T15:45:40-06:00

ID

148442

Comment

Hmm 60/40, 60 is more than 40. 60 is more. More = Most. Simple enough for you? I got some blocks and stuff my kids used when they we're little that I can use give you visuals. : )

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-03T15:53:36-06:00

ID

148443

Comment

Very true Fat Harry, I could get into my car and drive ten miles to trail run. However, that would not be "urban" at all. To be urban is to be in an urban area, like a city. Why drive when I could get on my feet to begin with? The joy of an urban wilderness is being in a less developed area while also being in a city. It encourages people to exercise, allows wildlife habitat, and makes the city more appealing. People can stay in the city, and that is really good for Jackson.

Author

E

Date

2009-06-03T16:04:35-06:00

ID

148445

Comment

Bubba, you and I both know that more /=/ most. You are just trying to throw out some more anti-Two Lakes spin without knowing anything about the project. Getting 50.1% of the vote is getting "more" of the vote. It is not getting "most" of the vote. Put away the blocks, consult a dictionary, and then rejoin the conversation. :)

Author

QB

Date

2009-06-03T17:12:05-06:00

ID

148446

Comment

Harry- You're an expert on it? How is the fact that most of the islands will be in Rankin county and not Jackson a spin? You agreed more of the islands will be in Rankin county, hmm there goes you increasing Jackson tax base. You're blocking out anything that is not in favor of Two Lakes. Your defending it so much does make wonder how much you have invested in it, even though you say you don't. I don't care if they build it or not. Just can't stand for people like McGowan to push a project as flood control when it's nothing but a way for him to make money,plain and simple, that's all it is, all it ever will be. If the levee plan was for sure, the best thing to control the Pearl and stop floods, would McGowan be behind it? Not likely cause he would make no money. Would you? most  /moʊst/ –adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar. 1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes. 2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful. 3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-03T18:10:56-06:00

ID

148447

Comment

Harry, with due respect, you haven't struck me as being an expert on this project. You come across as another Two-Lakes-no-matter-what guy. You just ignore the negatives about the project, and don't engage in a real conversation on it, and throw around moronic insults like: I'm just thankful for Jackson's sake that the JFP is the only bag of hot air that is opposed to this incredible project. That's not even good PR material. And I do believe that a good solid synonym of "most" is a majority -- which 50.1 qualifies as. You're parsing words, and not even doing a very good job of that. If you'd stop your accusations of people who are skeptical of the project, which just sound silly, and talk about specifics of the project, especially the ones that do NOT recommend it, you might win some votes. As it is, I suspect you're just helping strengthen the opposition.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-03T18:23:00-06:00

ID

148459

Comment

Here's my take on it. Jackson has a flood problem that needs to be addressed. That should be priority #1. If there are obstacles in the way, such as the possible native american sites, then they should be handled accordingly. This is not new to the world. Look at Rome in Italy. They have archaeological digs frequently during construction of buildings, subways, etc. Yes, it's expensive, but it's worth it and it's the right thing to do. In regards to the existing levees and their use for exercise, whatever gets developed should have adequate exercise options, including walking and biking trails. I would hope that any development, be it levees or lakes, would result in more outdoor opportunities, regardless. Concerning the islands in the river, I had always thought that of the water as "no man's land." If so, then any land built in the water could be up for grabs. Is that not correct? Also, with a project as big as Two Lakes, could not the dredging be coordinated to shift the channel one way or the other? Is the channel considered the center? If the city property does indeed terminate in the center, then this would allow for property acquisition possibly.

Author

chip

Date

2009-06-04T08:18:03-06:00

ID

148465

Comment

Only in the JFP fantasy world can more = most. I'm finished with the Two Lakes debate. That was fun. The process will play itself out regardless of how many posts we write on this forum.

Author

QB

Date

2009-06-04T08:51:30-06:00

ID

148467

Comment

Chip- I think the boundries stays with the original main channel that the boundries were set by. I do know on the Miss. River there are places where the main channel has changed course to the west leaving parts of Arkansas on the east side of the river. The stateline stayed with the original main couse that the boundries were set by. So I would assume the boundries of the cities would be the same if it's on a river or a body of water, it stays with the center of the main channel not matter what. The hunting clubs on the Miss. river have complaining for years about public access to their oxbow lakes for years. When the river is down to it's normal level you can't access them from the river with out having to drag a boat across land and it's illegal to fish in them and they can kick you out but when the river is up and you access them by boat from the river it's legal to fish them and there's nothing they can do about it. Maritime law is a very complicated thing.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-04T09:14:05-06:00

ID

148468

Comment

OK, Harry, this is getting silly. Are we really arguing about whether a pretty solid definition of "most" is "majority"? And that a pretty solid definition of majority is anything over 50%? You can simply Google to figure this out; I assure you this is not only in the, er, JFP fantasy world. And I didn't even have study statistics to know this one (but I did anyway). most   /moʊst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mohst] Show IPA –adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar. 1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes. 2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful. 3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent. In other words, when a candidate wins 51 percent of the vote, they won the "most" votes. They also won a majority. This is pretty basic. And, Bubba did not argue that more=most. That seems to be a red herring of your doing. What is that fallacy called when you put words in someone's mouth, and then try to slam them for something they didn't say? At any rate, this conversation is now going to get back on track. If you want to continue to argue that "most" cannot mean 51 percent, then go start a community forum and see who you can lure into it. I think Bubba and I have exhausted this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-04T09:27:54-06:00

ID

148470

Comment

That sounds right BubbaT. Once the borders are established, I'm sure they don't change (unless certain legislation permits). In regard to the islands, it does seem that Rankin County would gain more land in the Two Lakes proposal, according to their map. I'm intrigued to know why the plan has no islands in Hinds county near downtown, which is where most of the initial development would probably take place. Do you think the strategy is geared to benefit Jackson by not having to supply islands with expensive infrastructure while the new Jackson shore development could benefit from the nice backdrop that Flowood would provide on their islands?

Author

chip

Date

2009-06-04T09:30:24-06:00

ID

148471

Comment

Good post, Chip. We totally agree. And we are astounded that people have not had a real conversation about the burial grounds a decade ago. It is just one more thing that would hold up a "locally preferred" option -- and no plan should get that designation until this very serious problem is dealt with, or an alternative is chosen that will not affect the burial grounds. And we totally agree that *any* plan must include public green ways, bike trails, etc., and think that most Jacksonians, at least those under 40, would agree—and totally get that this is a huge part of economic development, and luring high-skilled workers to Jackson, in the 21st century. (This ain't the '60s, boys and girls, and the Ross Barnett vision, in every possible way, belongs in the '60s.) The problem is that many people do not give a damn about that kind of thing and make fun of you when you bring it up. Not to mention any concern about the environment, wetlands, etc. -- McGowan himself starts rolling his eyes and huffing about how they're low-quality wetlands. Personally, I'd like a second opinion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-04T09:31:32-06:00

ID

148482

Comment

I don't know much about laws concerning Native American burial gounds. But I do know a farmer in Ark. that can't farm a 100 acre field on his farm that he disked up a thigh bone on and they determined it was an old Native American village site. All he can do it cut the grass on it.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-04T12:11:57-06:00

ID

148483

Comment

He could get the artifacts collected, but that is much too expensive for the average man. On the other hand, if something valuable were found on his land, he may could be reimbursed and possibly even make a small profit, but that is less likely.

Author

chip

Date

2009-06-04T12:16:42-06:00

ID

148484

Comment

He can't even collect the artifacts. That's a big NO-No according to him

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-04T12:26:37-06:00

ID

148485

Comment

I know he can't personally, but if he wanted to use the land, he could go through the proper channels and hire someone to do it, but like I said, it's very, very expensive and time consuming. (This is starting to stray off topic a bit - my apologies.)

Author

chip

Date

2009-06-04T12:32:20-06:00

ID

148486

Comment

Gotcha, Not really off topic, the burial grounds are going to be an important part of any plan getting done. Any conversation about it is better than none. : )

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-04T12:40:36-06:00

ID

148488

Comment

Amen, Bubba. Talking about dealing with Native American artifacts is exactly what this thread is about. It's a conversation that is long overdue. One wonders if Two Lakes supporters just through no one would ever bring it up. Uh, the Choctaws seem ready on this one, though. And you can't blame them.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-04T12:48:48-06:00

ID

148489

Comment

Quick fact about Rome: There is a certain range of depth under the city that is rich with artifacts, so when the city was planning their new metro (subway) lines, they actually tunneled straight down (to minimize the amount of artifact finds) and are putting the tunnels deep below in order to avoid the "layer" of artifacts that rests below the city.

Author

chip

Date

2009-06-04T12:56:42-06:00

ID

148497

Comment

To the previous poster who suggested flohttp://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=hollywood,+ms+maps&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=qEIoSpbgDKHKtgfIw6GsAQ&t=h&ll=34.744689,-90.289367&spn=0.002213,0.003401&z=18&iwloc=A http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=hollywood,+ms+maps&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=qEIoSpbgDKHKtgfIw6GsAQ&t=h&ll=34.744689,-90.289367&spn=0.002213,0.003401&z=18&iwloc=Aoding the sites, inundating archaeological sites can destroy them entirely. Doing it properly involves a lot of work and maintenance. Here's a brief on site inundation on the National Park Service's website: http://www.nps.gov/archeology/PUBS/TECHBR/Tch1.htm and here: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/archaeology_bib.pdf As far as the farmer who can't use 100 acres due to the presence of one bone, it's most likely due to the presence of HUMAN remains, not specifically Native American remains. Most states have burial laws-you can look up Mississippi's on the AG's page. Plowing up grandma puts you at risk of being convicted of all sorts of things that fall under the "Public Morals and Decency Act". He is probably expected to have someone conduct a survey that will delineate the boundaries of the cemetery; something that would be required under state law if it is Native American or not as all human burials have certain protections under the law. That being said, cemeteries get destroyed all the time. Here's a link to a spot outside Hollywood in the Delta where the Clear Lake Cemetery was once located. It shows up on the 1939 quad, the 1942 soil survey and the 1955 quad map, but it's gone now. It was right in the middle of the frame, where the green field bulges toward Booth Road. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=hollywood,+ms+maps&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=qEIoSpbgDKHKtgfIw6GsAQ&t=h&ll=34.744689,-90.289367&spn=0.002213,0.003401&z=18&iwloc=A

Author

puggy j.jones

Date

2009-06-04T16:30:23-06:00

ID

148498

Comment

There are a lot of cemeteries in the Delta that have been plowed under by farmers and there's no trace left of them. Most were abandoned black cemeteries from the late l800's to the 1950's. We had one on the farm I last worked on, we had a buffer zone around it, no tractor or equipment inside unless you were cutting the grass in the cemetery.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-04T17:22:23-06:00

ID

148499

Comment

My last post makes it sound like farmers go around willy nilly disking up grave yards. Most of what I have heard about it was from other farmers,when they get rained out, they hang around farm supply stores and gossip ( worse than a bunch of old maids..lol) about each other. I do know I told one of the older farmers, who was wanting to cut back and rent out some of his land out, that another farmer was looking for land and he said "Hell No, I have 2 old cememteries on my place and he's already disked up 3 on land he's rented before, I'm not renting him a thing." Most of the time the cemeteries on the old farms were by the old black churches and have been abandoned for 50 or 60 years and probably the church buildings haven't been there for the same amount of time. They have been taken over by the fields because there was nothing marking the cemeteries, they just had wooden markers,that had rotten away before most of us were born,no longer on land maps,(like puggy said)and it took years before they were disked under completely, a foot this year, 5 yards next, 10 feet 5 years later, then they were gone and you would be lucky to find anybody alive that remembered where they were. Puggy, his land was definitely a Native America village from what he told me, not a burial ground. Buy a house on the historical record and see just what you can do and not do by law. They have get paint, shingles, wood, everything approved by the historical society and it take a long time. Sorry for the detour off topic

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-04T19:28:42-06:00

ID

148502

Comment

To get more on topic here, I guess that the main question is that if they knew that they needed to do these studies in order to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers, why haven't they done them yet? I'm assuming that they'll have to do an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) that will include studies of the possible environmental impacts as well as the archaeology and a myriad of other things. It's pretty standard procedure to start these things years in advance so that there won't be any costly surprises at the last minute. The page about the EIS for the Airport Parkway on the Federal Highway's website shows that they started doing feasibility studies in 1992 and had a scoping meeting in 1996. The link is here: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/casestudies/ms.asp It sounds like they may have done some archaeological survey for the Two Lakes project in order to know about these sites (if they weren't already known), but I haven't heard anything about other environmental studies. Are they incompetent or do they expect to somehow maneuver their way around these requirements without doing the work?

Author

puggy j.jones

Date

2009-06-04T22:00:54-06:00