Oglethorpe Power Corporation Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Facility Site Evaluations Prefeasibility Report: Historical/archeological Resources, Rich Mountain Alternative

This is a report of the methods and results of a cultural resources survey conducted by Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. (SAS), for Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC) detailing a reconnaissance level survey of the proposed Rich Mountain pumped storage hydroelectric facility. This survey is one of a number of environmental studies being conducted by OPC in preparation for licensing from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Three alternatives (Figure 1) are Under consideration and each proposed facility consists of two reservoirs adjacent to each other, connected by a power tunnel. This report provides comparative data for engineers and planners to judge potential impacts on archeological sites at this alternative. A reconnaissance survey, such as this one, is designed to discover the range and variation of archeological sites and historic structures. it is not intended to find or evaluate every site; this will be done in an intensive survey and in test excavations to be conducted when a preferred alternative is selected. Components of the pumped storage hydroelectric facility that were not surveyed include the power tunnel corridor, new road right-of-ways, construction staging areas, power house access, and transmission line right-of-ways. All of these components may impact cultural resources, and future studies should consider them in addition to the two proposed reservoirs. However, the concluding chapter included a brief assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources along proposed transmission line and water pipeline routes. The survey was conducted at the reconnaissance level, focusing on areas within each flood pool. Approximately 80% of the land to be inundated was surveyed archeologically. While the precise location and design of the proposed facility have not been finalized, the flood pool levels used for this study are 656 m for the upper reservoir and 384 m for the lower. The total area within the reservoirs is 193 ha. Fieldwork was conducted between April and July of 1986 at all three alternatives, primarily by field crews of four or six people working in two-person teams. Archeological sites were discovered in the field by visual inspection and, where there was no surface visibility, by shovel testing. When sites were discovered, field site forms containing all the data necessary for the Georgia Archeological Survey Site Form were completed, including sketch maps and photographs. Concurrent with the field work, archival research was conducted at the Special Collections of the University of Georgia Library, and the Georgia State Library. Materials at the Georgia Surveyor General's Department were also examined. County histories were perused and a few local informants were interviewed. old maps and data pertaining to early historic land use were of special interest. Artifacts were collected and brought to the SAS laboratory for analysis. A detailed lithic analysis for all prehistoric utilized stone was tailored to the specific material recovered on this project. Careful analysis of historic metal, glass, ceramics, and other historic artifactual materials was also done. only a few floral and faunal specimens were recovered, then identified. After the field work and laboratory analysis, evaluations were made of each site to determine eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Sites are determined ineligible if there is little artifactual material, or if the site context is disturbed and has little or no integrity. For most sites, there was not sufficient information to determine eligibility. Therefore, the eligibility determination is unknown and further work is recommended to determine eligibility. At this alternative, 46 archeological sites were recorded during this survey, none of which had been previously recorded. None of the sites located by this survey are recommended eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Nineteen sites are recommended ineligible for the Register, and, for the remaining 27, further work is necessary before eligibility can be determined. Further work on these sites ranges from archival research to more shovel testing and/or test excavation units to recover more artifactual material and further ascertain site size, components, and/or integrity.