Back to top

Section 106 Review TCNS ID 181819 Proposed 300-Foot Tall Guyed-Type Telecommunications Structure (320-Foot Overall Height Including Appurtenances)

Author(s)
Report Number
13339
Abstract

Environmental Corporation of America (ECA) has completed an Archaeological Assessment for the federal undertaking at the subject site. The proposed undertaking would include a proposed 100-foot by 100-foot (30-meter by 30-meter) lease area that would include a 320-foot overall height guyed-type telecommunications structure and associated ground-level support equipment.

The facility would be accessible by a proposed approximate 450-foot long by 30-foot wide (137-meter by 9-meter) access/utility easement and would include three proposed guy-wire easements measuring 230-foot long by 50-foot wide (70-meter by 15-meter). The proposed facility would be located off Highway 27, Coleman, Clay County, Georgia.

This archaeological assessment was conducted in order to ascertain whether the proposed undertaking, on the project site, might directly or indirectly affect cultural resources, if any such resources exist. During our database research, we identified thirty previously recorded archaeological sites  and nine archaeological surveys within our standard 1-mile archaeological surveys are located within the APE for direct effects. Archaeological survey 4438 is within the APE for direct effects. This archaeological survey was conducted as an option for a highway bypass around Suttons Corner. When archaeological survey 4438 was conducted, no archaeological sites were identified within our APE for direct effects. Additionally, during the course of the field survey portion of this archaeological assessment, no cultural resources were encountered throughout the APE for direct effects.

ECA believes that the proposed undertaking would have no effect on any historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, for archaeological cultural resources, we recommend no further consultation under Section 106 Review of the National Historic Preservation Act for this proposed undertaking.