Back to top

Section 106 Review TCNS ID 196127 Proposed 320-Foot Tall Self-Supporting Lattice Telecommunications Structure (Overall Height Including Appurtenances) AT&T Site GSL00604 (FA# 14634909) 1108 Douglas Hwy Hazlehurst, Jeff Davis County, Georgia ECA Project No

Report Number
13945
Year of Publication
2020
County
Abstract

Environmental Corporation of America’s (ECA) client, AT&T Mobility, LLC is proposing to construct a telecommunications facility as described in the following FCC Form 620, New Tower (NT) Submission Packet. ECA understands that AT&T Mobility, LLC plans to construct a 320-foot overall height self-supporting lattice telecommunications structure within a 100-foot by 100-foot (30m by 30m) lease area. The proposed lease area would be accessible by a proposed approximate 125-foot long by 30-foot wide (38m by 9m) access/utility easement. ECA has identified and evaluated Historic Properties, if any, within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for visual and direct effects as directed in Section VI.D.1 and 2 of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, effective on March 7, 2005. We have found no Historic Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within either APE. Based on our review of the files at the Georgia Historic Preservation Office (GA HPD), we identified no NRHP-eligible Historic Properties within the ¾-mile APE for visual effects. Based on the site visit, historic aerial photographs, and topographic maps, ECA understands that the parent tract is an agricultural property, classified broadly as a farm, with existent standing structures more than fifty years in age. As such, ECA evaluated the farm for NRHP eligibility. The house on the parcel consists of a front gable bungalow, and dates to 1938 according to publicly accessible information. A front porch supported by four posts, hipped roof portion, rear shed porch, and small carport extend from the house. The house is clad in white vinyl siding within black shutters, topped by a galvanized metal roof, with a red brick chimney. The windows are double hung, with PVC faux muntin overlaid in four-over-four and six-over-six patterns. The subject property is further developed with a small cottage with a shed roof porch, cinder block barn/shed, two metal silos, shelters for the keeping of livestock (goats), two prefabricated sheds / car ports on concrete slabs, chain metal and electric fencing, and a pool surrounded by wooden decking. A human made pond, approximately 0.75-acre in size, is located south of the house. 

The parcel was subdivided in 1998 and a small ranch house was developed east of the farmhouse in 1999. The surrounding parcel remains in active use for agricultural cultivation. Please see the enclosed photographic documentation of the standing structures on the parcel.  While the farmhouse appears to date to circa 1938, most existent outbuildings appear to date to after 1969. As such, no clear period of significance emerges when evaluating the farm. Comparing 1969 to 1993 aerial images of the parcel, prior to 1969 numerous outbuildings were concentrated along the field access road west of the house (near the existing barn). These outbuildings have largely been demolished. The barn/shed was constructed before 1969, with additions made since that time. The small cottage dates to approximately twenty years ago, constructed by the property owner for fishing and now unused. Several outbuildings appear to have been constructed recently, notably the prefabricated sheds/carports, which date to 2015. No clear historic “landscape of work” is apparent in the organization of outdoor spaces on the parcel. Notably, the presumed historic path of travel from the road to the front door, through the house, and out to the work areas of the yard was disrupted by the installation of the pool. Much of the historic setting of the farm has been lost due to demolition of historic outbuildings, subdivision and adjacent ranch house construction, and the domestic additions of carports and pool/decking. As such, the property does not represent an intact early twentieth century farmstead and does not retain adequate integrity as a farm to relay significant historical information. No information was uncovered to suggest the property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history or directly associated with/reflective of one or more of the five historic time periods/themes in Georgia’s agricultural context, either through commodities, practices, land use, or production methods (Criterion A). No information was uncovered to suggest the farm is associated with the lives of significant persons, including farmers, ranchers or agriculturalists (Criterion B), or is likely to yield information important in history or prehistory (Criterion D). Additionally, as described above, the existing farm buildings do not appear to constitute significant, distinctive, or representative examples of either formal or vernacular agricultural in dwellings and/or outbuildings to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion C. As such, it is the opinion of ECA that the farm and associated outbuildings are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

An Archaeological Assessment was conducted within the APE for direct effects. During our database research, we found no previously identified archaeological sites and three archaeological surveys (2469, 3211, 10804) within our standard 1-mile background research radius. Although 2469 and 3211 are outside the APE for direct effects, survey 10804 encompasses the APE for direct effects. However, survey 10804 and ECA’s survey did not identify any cultural materials within the APE for direct effects. Based on our findings, we recommend no further consultation under Section 106 Review of the National Historic Preservation Act for this proposed undertaking. Based on this documentation, prepared in accordance with the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement effective March 7, 2005, ECA believes that this proposed facility would have no effect on any Historic Properties identified in accordance with the NPA. Therefore, we recommend a finding of "No Effect" for the proposed undertaking.