Phase I Archeological Resources Survey Pilgrim Mill Raw Waterline Corridor City of Cumming, Forsyth County ARPA Permit No. DACW01-4-18-0439

Background

On January 26, 2018, Mr. Phil Quirk of R.S. Webb & Associates (RSWA) conducted a Phase I archeological resources survey of the 0.23-hectare (0.57-acre) Pilgrim Mill raw waterline easement on Lake Sydney Lanier at Bald Ridge Creek in Forsyth County, Georgia. The study corridor is approximately 230 meters (m) long and 14 m in width. This study was conducted on behalf of Civil Engineering Consultants, Inc. of Marietta, Georgia. The project area is located on United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) land associated with Lake Sydney Lanier. Under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (93 Stat. 721, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-11) and the regulations thereunder (32 CFR 229), an ARPA permit was obtained prior to conducting archeological work on lands owned or controlled by the Department of the Army (ARPA Permit No. DACW01-4-18-0439). The archeological resources survey was conducted to determine if resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be affected by the proposed waterline project. In addition, the archeological 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 at 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. At the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division (HPD) (Stockbridge), pertinent compliance document files, official maps, and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)/pending files were reviewed, as well as the Forsyth County historic structures survey, Identified Sites, and Centennial Farms records. Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Geographical Information System (GNAHRGIS) was used to confirm the presence or absence of state-recognized cultural resources in the project vicinity. At the State Archives and Surveyor General’s Office, the available (historic) maps of Forsyth County and relevant Land Lot plats were examined for the presence of trails, roads, structures, and cemeteries. Davis et al. (1983) and Scaife (1993) were consulted for the locations of Civil War-era military actions or associated features. Aerial photographs were accessed and reviewed through the Digital Library of Georgia and historicaerials.com.

Field Survey: The project archeologist surveyed the project corridor using surface and subsurface techniques to search for archeological resources. Exposed surfaces within the project area 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. Survey shovel tests were excavated at intervals no greater than 30 m along the approximate corridor centerline. The shovel test interval was reduced to 15 m within the possible boundaries of a previously recorded site. Given the nature of the waterline project, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was set at the project corridor boundaries.

Results

Literature Review: Review of maps/data from the GASF reveals that there are three previously recorded archeological sites located within 1.6 kilometers (km) (1.0 mile) of the project area. One site, 9FO24, a prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter, was recorded as being partially within the current project corridor (Table I). The site was originally recorded as FO-47 during the 1950-1951 survey prior to the construction of Buford Dam and the inundation of Lake Lanier (Caldwell 1953). The 9FO24 site form was not entered into the GASF and given an official state number until 1981 (GASF 1981). The site form on file for 9FO24 does not include any location map, and no map detailing the location as recorded by Caldwell in 1950-1951 is available. The site form indicates that scattered sherds and quartz artifacts were recovered “...on lower slopes overlooking the right side of Bald Ridge Creek immediately south of the bridge...” and that the site measures about 300 by 100 feet. The cultural affiliation is listed as unknown prehistoric and no NRHP recommendation is provided. The topographic map (and site form UTMs) on file at GASF shows 9FO24 to be primarily on a ridge end south of the project corridor, on the opposite side of a drainage. However, the northern site boundary extends across the drainage and abuts the project corridor.

A review of HPD records indicates that no properties listed in the NRHP are located within 1.6 km of the project corridor. Review of the original historic structure survey files at the HPD shows no historic resources (with potential archeological components) being recorded within or near the project corridor. Likewise, the GNAHRGIS database shows no historic resources located within or near the project corridor. No man-made structures or other features indicative of human occupation/use of the project corridor are indicated on the 1832 land lot plats for original Cherokee County. No Civil War-related military activity is known to have occurred in the study corridor, nor are any cemeteries recorded within or adjacent to the project corridor. Historic maps (1894-1964) and aerial photography (1951-1974) depict no structures in the project vicinity.

Archeological Field Survey: No archeological materials, deposits or features were sampled during shovel testing. The project corridor west of Bald Ridge Creek, where a portion of 9FO24 is depicted on the site form, was shovel tested at 15-m intervals. All five shovel tests excavated on this section of the corridor were negative, including areas within or adjacent to the recorded boundaries of 9FO24. The project corridor east of Bald Ridge Creek was surveyed at 30-m intervals; five shovel tests were placed in this area, all negative.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the current survey results, archeological site 9FO24 does not appear to extend into the proposed Pilgrim Mill waterline easement corridor. In fact, no archeological materials were observed or collected anywhere along the study corridor during the current study. On this basis, the proposed project will have no effect on NRHP-listed or eligible archeological resources. The northernmost limits of 9FO24 and the current state of this site are unknown, but field observations and topography suggest that this resource may have been located on a gently sloping landform south of the drainageway along the south side of the project corridor.

Given the current findings, no additional archeological work is recommended for the Pilgrim Mill waterline easement project.