Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Waterline Corridor Indian Creek Water Supply Reservoir Carroll County, Georgia

During December 2017, R.S. Webb & Associates conducted a cultural resources literature review and a Phase I cultural resources field survey of the proposed Indian Creek water supply reservoir waterline corridor in Carroll County, Georgia. The study corridor is approximately 14.8 kilometers (km) (9.2 miles) in length and will link the proposed Indian Creek water supply reservoir with the Little Tallapoosa River. On cross-country sections, the study corridor will be 18 m (60 feet) wide; where the corridor parallels existing roads, all disturbance will be confined to existing, disturbed road rights-of-way. A Phase I cultural resources survey was necessary for this project due to Clean Water Act permitting, which requires compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Under the NHPA, a cultural resources survey is conducted to determine if archeological resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be affected by a proposed undertaking. Cultural resources within the project area were assessed for significance using the NRHP eligibility criteria set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.4. In addition, the cultural resources survey was conducted following guidelines set by the Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists (GCPA) (2014) and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior (Federal Register 1983).

Methodology Literature and Records Search: Official files and maps of the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF), University of Georgia in Athens (UGA) were examined, followed by a review of the pertinent site forms and the Laboratory of Archaeology manuscript/report files. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) files were reviewed online and Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Geographical Information System (GNAHRGIS) was used to confirm the presence or absence of state-recognized historic resources in the study vicinity. Historic maps were examined online at alabamamaps.ua.edu/, dot.ga.gov/DS/Maps, and historicaerials.com. The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. 1983) was consulted for the locations of Civil War-era military actions or associated features. Historic aerial photographs were accessed through the Digital Library of Georgia and at historicaerials.com.

Field Survey: The project archeologist surveyed cross-county sections of the project corridor using surface and subsurface techniques to search for archeological sites and historic above-ground resources. Along these sections, survey shovel tests were excavated at 30-m intervals along a single transect following the route of the proposed waterline. Exposed surfaces within the project corridor were inspected for artifacts and surface features. Subsurface techniques included the excavation of 30-centimeter (cm)-diameter screened shovel tests to sterile subsoil. Shovel test profiles were inspected and soil data recorded. Shovel tests were not excavated along sections of the project corridor that fall within existing, disturbed road rights-of-way. Likewise no shovel tests were excavated in areas exhibiting slopes greater than 15 percent, or in drainage ways.

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct impacts was set at the project area boundaries. Due to the nature of the proposed underground utility, the APE for indirect impacts was also set at the project area boundaries.

Results and Recommendations Literature Review: Two cultural resources listed in the NRHP are located within 1.6 km of the project area. The Bowdon Historic District is located approximately 525 m east of the corridor at its closest point, and the McDaniel-Huie Place is located approximately 850 m east of the project area. Carroll County historic structures survey files and the GNAHRGIS database indicate 115 historic resources located within 1.6 km of the project area, most of which are within the Bowdon Historic District. Three recorded resources are located adjacent to the proposed waterline corridor (GNAHRGIS Nos. 206524, 207723 and 207724). The closest of these, New Hope Cemetery (GNAHRGIS No. 207724), is located on a tract of land that is adjacent to the project corridor; however, the closest visible graves are about 50 m from the project corridor. Review of maps/data from the GASF reveals that there are 26 previously recorded archeological sites located within 1.6 km of the project area. The closest site to the study tract is 9CL392, a Woodland/Mississippian lithic and ceramic scatter located approximately 200 m north of the project area (Webb et al. 2012).

Archeological Field Survey: Two historic isolated artifact finds were recorded during the current survey (Table I). Due to the low artifact density/diversity and the lack of contextual clarity and depositional integrity, both isolated finds are recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion (d) (archeology). These resources warrant no additional work. Architectural/Historic Resources Survey: No historic structures or resources are located within the project APE for direct or indirect impacts; however, the New Hope Cemetery (GNAHRGIS No. 207724) property abuts the project corridor to the southwest (Table I). A 15-m-wide swale buffers the southernmost observed graves from the waterline corridor. Given that more than 75 percent of the graves were interred after 1967, it appears unlikely that New Hope Cemetery is eligible for the NRHP. Beyond physical avoidance, no additional work is recommended for this cemetery.

Three 20th-century structures, GNAHRGIS No. 206524, GNAHRGIS No. 207723 and Structure No. 1, are located within 10 m of the project corridor (Table I). GNAHRGIS No. 207723 appears to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion (c) (architecture), while GNAHRGIS No. 206524 and Structure No. 1 do not appear to meet any NRHP eligibility criteria. Because these resources are not within the project APE, no additional work is recommended for these properties.