Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Winder-Augusta Fiber Replacement Project

Between December 10, 2018 and March 6, 2020, Brockington and Associates, Inc. (Brockington) conducted a Phase I archaeological survey of the 137.1-mile (220.64-km) Winder-Augusta Fiber Optic Replacement Project corridor on behalf of Georgia Power Company (GPC). Most of this survey work took place within an existing transmission line right-of-way (ROW) that extends from Winder to Augusta through Barrow, Jackson, Clarke, Oglethorpe, Greene, Taliaferro, Warren, McDuffie, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Georgia. The proposed project would involve ground disturbance related to the replacement of the existing overhead fiber network in eastern Georgia with an underground fiber network. The Archaeological Survey Area consists of the entire 137.1-mile corridor. Our survey goal was to identify and evaluate all archaeological resources within this area that may be affected by the proposed development, so that potential effects to any resources identified could be evaluated. Our Scope of Work (SOW) did not include an architectural (historic resources) survey; however, we documented and assessed all structures within our Archaeological Survey Area.

Our survey was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 [as amended through 2016]) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation revised 36 CFR Part 800 Regulations. Brockington documented all archaeological resources located during this survey according to guidelines established by the Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists (2019) as well as other pertinent state and federal guidelines. Cultural resources identified during this investigation were evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) based on criteria set forth by 36 CFR Part 60.4. Supervising personnel for this survey meet or exceed the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in accordance with 36 CFR Part 61.

Our investigation consisted of four primary tasks: archival research, field investigation, laboratory analysis and curation, and report production. Archival research determined that 120 archaeological sites were previously recorded within one kilometer (km) of the Archaeological Survey Area. Most of these sites are situated well outside the Archaeological Survey Area. However, four sites (9GE1114; 9GE1115; 9GE1116; 9OG76) were previously recorded within our survey area, and an additional four (9OG73; 9OG74; 9OG75; 9RI442) were previously recorded directly adjacent to our survey area. We encountered archaeological materials at three of these sites (9GE1114; 9GE1115; 9GE1116). Although we thoroughly investigated the Archaeological Survey Area in the vicinity of the remaining five previously recorded archaeological site locations (9OG73; 9OG74; 9OG75; 9OG76; 9RI442), we did not observe or encounter any artifacts, features, or cultural materials. It is likely that these sites are no longer extant or do not extend into the present survey area.

Sites 9GE1114, 9GE1115, and 9GE1116 were previously recorded by Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. (SAS) during their cultural resources survey of the proposed Madison-Union Point Transmission Line (Braley 1985). Sites 9GE1114 and 9GE1116 are small, low-density prehistoric lithic scatters that have been considerably disturbed by modern construction and erosion. These sites were recommended ineligible for the NRHP. Site 9GE1116 was recorded as a dense lithic scatter associated with a Middle Archaic lithic workshop. SAS recommended the site eligible for the NRHP (Criterion D, Local Significance), as additional study could determine lithic reduction techniques and site function. The site was also documented by SAS in 2006 during their inspection of archaeological sites being preserved in place by the Georgia Transmission Corporation (GTC) (Jones and Gresham 2010). At that time, SAS recommended additional shovel testing to determine NRHP eligibility potential.

Archaeological field investigation consisted of systematic pedestrian surface inspection and 30-meter (m) interval shovel testing. We excavated a total of 7,487 shovel tests with 84 initial shovel tests yielding positive results. We delineated these finds with 10-m-interval shovel tests within the Archaeological Survey Area.

As a result of our investigations, we identified 49 new archaeological sites (9BW131; 9BW132; 9BW133; 9BW134; 9BW135; 9BW136; 9BW137; 9BW138; 9CA229; 9CA230; 9CA231; 9CA241; 9CB668; 9CB669; 9GE3727; 9GE3728; 9GE3730; 9GE3731; 9GE3732; 9GE3733; 9GE3734; 9GE3735; 9GE3736; 9MF945; 9MF946; 9OG601; 9OG602; 9OG603; 9OG604; 9OG605; 9OG606; 9OG607; 9OG608; 9OG609; 9OG610; 9TL28; 9TL29; 9TL30; 9TL31; 9TL32; 9TL33; 9TL34; 9TL35; 9WR87; 9WR88; 9WR89; 9WR90; 9WR91; 9WR92) and five isolated finds (Isolate 1; Isolate 2; Isolate 3; Isolate 4; Isolate 5) within the Archaeological Survey Area. Most of these sites are small, low-density, prehistoric and historic artifact scatters that have been disturbed by modern earth disturbing activities and erosion. Table i provides summary information for all archaeological resources documented during our investigation.

In total, we encountered 11 sites (9BW131; 9BW132; 9BW133; 9BW134; 9BW135; 9BW136; 9BW137; 9BW138; 9CA229; 9CA230; 9CA231) within the Winder-Athens Segment of the project and 41 sites within the Athens-Augusta Segment (9CA241; 9CB668; 9CB669; 9GE1114; 9GE1115; 9GE1116; 9GE3727; 9GE3728; 9GE3730; 9GE3731; 9GE3732; 9GE3733; 9GE3734; 9GE3735; 9GE3736; 9MF945; 9MF946; 9OG601; 9OG602; 9OG603; 9OG604; 9OG605; 9OG606; 9OG607; 9OG608; 9OG609; 9OG610; 9TL28; 9TL29; 9TL30; 9TL31; 9TL32; 9TL33; 9TL34; 9TL35; 9WR87; 9WR88; 9WR89; 9WR90; 9WR91; 9WR92). Within the Athens-Augusta Segment, we encountered one site (9CA241) in Phase 1, three previously recorded sites (9GE1114; 9GE1115; 9GE1116) and 17 new sites (9GE3730; 9GE3731; 9GE3732; 9GE3733; 9GE3734; 9GE3735; 9GE3736; 9OG601; 9OG602; 9OG603; 9OG604; 9OG605; 9OG606; 9OG607; 9OG608; 9OG609; 9OG610) in Phase 2, 16 sites (9GE3727; 9GE3728; 9TL28; 9TL29; 9TL30; 9TL31; 9TL32; 9TL33; 9TL34; 9TL35; 9WR87; 9WR88; 9WR89; 9WR90; 9WR91; 9WR92) sites in Phase 3, two archaeological sites (9MF945 and 9MF946) in Phase 4, one site (9CB668) in Phase 5, and one site (9CB669) in Phase 6.

While a historic resources (architectural) survey was not included in our SOW, Brockington field investigators did identify three historic resources within the study area. These resources were all deteriorated structures included within newly identified archaeological site boundaries (a barn at 9WR87 and a barn and a lean-to at 9WR90). All these resources are in poor condition due to abandonment and encroachment of vegetation. We recommend all three structures ineligible for the NRHP.

We recommend one site (9TL30), a small low-density unknown prehistoric lithic scatter, to be ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. We recommend that the eligibility of 49 sites (9BW131; 9BW132; 9BW133; 9BW134; 9BW135; 9BW136; 9BW137; 9BW138; 9CA229; 9CA230; 9CA231; 9CA241; 9CB668; 9CB669; 9GE1114; 9GE1116; 9GE3727; 9GE3728; 9GE3730; 9GE3731; 9GE3732; 9GE3733; 9GE3734; 9GE3735; 9GE3736; 9MF945; 9OG601; 9OG602; 9OG603; 9OG604; 9OG605; 9OG606; 9OG607; 9OG608; 9OG609; 9OG610; 9TL28; 9TL29; 9TL31; 9TL32; 9TL33; 9TL34; 9TL35; 9WR87; 9WR88; 9WR89; 9WR90; 9WR91; 9WR92) is unknown due to our archaeological survey restrictions within the GPC ROW. Since we did not fully delineate or assess these resources outside the current Archaeological Survey Area, we cannot make final NRHP eligibility recommendations. However, the overall disturbed nature of these sites within the survey area and the low density of artifacts suggests that the project portion of these resources have limited potential to further contribute to our understanding of the history of the project region. Therefore, we recommend that the project portion of these sites are noncontributing element to each site’s eligibility, and that no further management consideration of this portion of the sites are suggested.

We recommend two sites (9GE1115 and 9MF946) as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Site 9GE1115 is a large Early/Middle/Late Archaic artifact scatter and seasonal habitation area. In total, we collected 238 artifacts from 9GE1115, varying in depth from the surface to between 4 and 25 cmbs. The site is bound to the north and south by negative shovel tests and landscape features. However, the site likely extends further to the east and west outside the project corridor. We did not delineate the site outside this boundary; therefore, the exact dimensions of the site are unknown. While the site within the Archaeological Survey Area shows some signs of erosion, the high density of cultural material, the relatively high percentage of tools, and the presence of several diagnostic artifacts suggests that this portion of the resource has potential to contribute to our understanding of the history of Greene County. The site may contain additional cultural material and shallow features that could shed light on the Archaic period in the Georgia Piedmont. Therefore, we recommend that Site 9GE1115 is eligible under Criterion D.

Site 9MF946 is a large multicomponent site with a Middle Archaic lithic scatter and seasonal or short-term occupation area and a late eighteenth to early twentieth-century historic artifact scatter associated with early settlement of the region. In total, we collected 358 artifacts from 9MF946, varying in depth from the surface to between 10 and 30 cmbs. The site is bound to the east and west by negative shovel tests and landscape features. However, the site likely extends further to the north and south outside the project corridor. We did not delineate the site outside the study area; therefore, the exact dimensions of the site are unknown. While the site within the project corridor shows some signs of erosion and modern agricultural disturbance, the high density of cultural material, the relatively high percentage of prehistoric tools, and the presence of early historic materials in association with early settlement of the area suggests that both the prehistoric and historic components of this portion of the resource have potential to contribute to our understanding of the history of McDuffie County. The site may contain additional cultural material and shallow features that could shed light on the Middle Archaic period as well as the late eighteenth to early twentieth century in the Georgia Piedmont. Therefore, we recommend that Site 9MF946 is eligible under Criterion D.

In summary, we recommend that Winder- Augusta Fiber Optic Replacement Project may affect two NRHP-eligible archaeological resources (Sites 9GE1115 and 9MF946). If it is possible to design the project in a way that these resources will not be affected, then site avoidance is preferred. Since we only delineated these sites within the GPC ROW, the exact site dimensions are unknown. If GPC would like to reroute outside of the existing ROW, we recommend additional Phase I survey to determine if the sites continue into this area. For the fully delineated sites (which we were able to delineate within the ROW), we recommend a protective buffer of 50 ft (ft) (15 m). If GPC would like to bore underneath these sites, in order to protect any potential intact subsurface cultural materials and/or features, we recommend boring deeper than 75 centimeters (30 inches) below surface (cmbs).

However, if the development of the project cannot be designed to avoid or minimize changes to these sites, then appropriate documentation of the resources, developed in consultation with Georgia SHPO/HPD, should be undertaken. Possible actions to mitigate adverse effects may include mitigation of the sites through Phase III archaeological data recovery. Detailed Phase III data recovery treatment plans would be necessary to outline research questions and field procedures.