Could Native American Artifacts Impact the Heidi Drive Debate?

The proposed master plan for Bruce Vanicek's 14-lot subdivision on Vanderbilt Lane allegedly includes the potential destruction of three Native American sites deemed sensitive by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC.) 

For more than a year now, the Portsmouth Planning Board has reviewed Vanicek's plan to build on this property, focusing on the controversy surrounding the creation of an emergency access road as an extension of Heidi Drive. But documentation from the Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) demonstrates that even with planning board approval, Vanicek's development faces multiple obstacles.        

When Vanicek, owner of Rhode Island Nurseries, began the application process for the site in early 2009, he was directed to CRMC. CRMC has jurisdiction on the property because of its proximity to the Sakonnet River. 

As part of CRMC procedure, an inquiry was placed with the state commission to assess the plan's potential to damage historically important land.  In a letter dated September 9, 2009, RIHPHC states that there are "known Native American sites in the projected area" and that it is considered "eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places." 

According to Charlotte Taylor an archeologist at RIHPHC, permits are seldom issued without her organization's approval.   "Archaeological work done to fulfill a permitting requirement, such as a CRMC permit, is done under the review of the RIHPHC."

But would the material found on Vanicek's property prevent the commission from approving his development?  "The extent and possible significance of these sites has never been determined--this would require actual excavation," Taylor explained. 

Pierre Morenon, associate professor for the Anthropology Department at Rhode Island College, was one of the archeologists that surveyed the property back in 1986.  Morenon's research was part of a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  

"The Department of Agriculture wanted us to look at the surface of fields. Most of our surveys involve subsurface testing. With a more typical survey, you are poking holes in the ground. Typically we dig hundreds and hundreds of holes in a spot," Morenon said.

Morenon's team was only contracted to get a basic sense of what could be in the fields. "We found quite a few fields with material record sitting right on the surface, arrowheads, flakes, right under your feet. What a Phase 1 survey tells you is that there's something there. The survey results are only as good as the intensity of work that you put into it and if you're not allowed to do subsurface testing, then you can't draw conclusions about what's under the ground."

 Town planning board records indicate that Vanicek's property was discussed at eight of the board's 12 monthly meetings in 2009. Neither the historical commission, nor CRMC, meanwhile, have evidence of a survey. 

While Morenon understands the desire of property owners to develop land, he says it is best to look at archeological work as a legal clearing of the area.  "People don't want to have work done because they have other things in mind. From the owner's point of view, you don't want to discover there's a burial ground in the middle of your property because there are all kinds of limitations; there's state, federal, to say nothing of Native American issues," he said. 

The decision to hold off on the testing may not be wise economically, Morenon explained. 

"Before I go to the bank to take out loans, that I have to pay back, I want to make sure that I can develop the property.  To present the worst case scenario, what do you do when a bulldozer turns over some bones and you haven't made an effort to comply at all."  

The planning board will visit the subject of Vanicek's plan for this property again on Sept. 16.