Archaeological Assessment of the Electric Cooperative Training Center Project Tract, Monroe County, Georgia

Brockington made an on-site assessment of the APE based on topography, setting, previous regional surveys, and nearby resources, to determine the potential for the project tract to produce as-yet unidentified archaeological resources, or for the undertaking to have an effect on those not yet identified resources that could be outside of the project tract. Given that the project tract has already been subject to some ground disturbance, as well as previous archaeological surveys, Brockington considered the APE to have a low probability of containing archaeological resources. The wooded and relatively undisturbed portions of the tract were considered to be the most likely locations for extant NRHP-eligible resources. Based on those sites that have been identified near the project area, anticipated site types included short-term prehistoric camps and historic farmsteads.

The proposed GTC ECTC project area has been considerably disturbed by modem construction, development, and use of the area. The eastern portion of the project tract has been disturbed by parking lot, storage, sewer, and road development. Figures 2 and 3 show general views of the area east of Ray Hartley Road. Vegetation in this area consists of manicured grass and weeds. Figure 3 also shows the distribution of sandy fill next to an unnamed paved access road. The portion of the project tract between Ray Hartley Road and the current GTC ECTC facility extends across existing transmission line corridors with good surface visibility (Figure 4) and narrow wooded areas consisting of mixed hardwood and pine trees (Figure 5). The southwestern portion of the project tract consisted mainly of the current GTC ECTC facility (complex of buildings, parking lots, utility lines, drainage features, and substation training area. This development was surrounded by a dirt and gravel berm (Figure 6), which descended into drainage features or low west areas on either side. The northwest portion of the tract was partially open and partially wooded (Figure 7). This area contained eroded soils and utility disturbance.

During the field investigations, Brockington investigated the APE through a combination of shovel testing and pedestrian survey (surface inspection). These methods are consistent with the State of Georgia professional standards (Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists [GCPA] 2014), comply with the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR part 800, and were carried out by personnel qualified under 36 CFR part 61. Field methods consisted of the hand excavation of five 30-cm wide shovel tests placed judgmentally along the proposed sewer line extension corridor on the east side of the property and one 30-cm wide shovel test in the western portion of the property (Figure 8). All soil from shovel tests was screened through one-quarter-inch mesh hardware cloth for the recovery of archaeological materials. Areas with more than 50 percent surface visibility were visually inspected for cultural materials and features. Shovel tests and visual inspections were not conducted in inaccessible areas. These locations were within restricted areas where building construction and other disturbances have already occurred.

The USDA has mapped four soils types within the project APE (USDA 2006). Figure 9 shows the distribution of these soils and Table 3 summarizes relevant soil data. Figure 10 shows the typical soils encountered during field investigations. A typical soil profile for all soil types contains an A Horizon of sandy clay loam from the surface to about 10 to 15 centimeters below surface (cmbs), underlain by a Bt Horizon of sandy clay or clay. While soils we encountered during this investigation were somewhat similar to those mapped by the USDA, many areas were highly disturbed and contained mottled soils: introduced 7.5YR8/l white sand fill from the surface to 3 cmbs, over truncated 2.5YR5/6 red sandy clay subsoil (Bt Horizon) mottled with 2.5YR5/4 reddish brown sandy clay and 10R5/8 red clay from 3 to 15 cmbs (see Figure 10, top). Shovel tests that contained deeper more intact soils exhibited an A or Ap Horizon of SYRS/4 reddish brown sandy loam from the surface to about 15 cmbs, over a Bt Horizon of2.5YR5/6 red sandy clay from 15 to 25 cmbs (see Figure 10, bottom).

No archaeological resources were identified as a result of this investigation. Given the degree of prior disturbance, as well as the results of previous archaeological surveys that did not identify any cultural resources in these locations, it is unlikely that NRHP-eligible archaeological resources are extant in these areas.

Brockington also revisited the recorded locations of Sites 9M0441 and 9M0444. These sites were recorded by Southeastern Archeological Associates, Inc. during their cultural resources surveys of two tracts for the proposed Oglethorpe Power Corporation Training Center (Smith and Wood 1989). Due to modem development and use of the area, both site vicinities have been considerably disturbed. Neither site was relocated during this investigation.

The previously recorded location of Site 9M0441 is situated in an open transmission line corridor east of the current GTC ECTC facility and west of Ray Hartley Road (see Figure 4). The area is considerably eroded with good surface visibility. Nearby vegetation consists of grasses, weeds, and briars; surface visibility is good (greater than 60 percent). The area was visually surveyed for cultural material; however, no remnants of the site were identified. The site may have been completely destroyed due to erosion or transmission line maintenance activities in the vicinity in the recent past. Site 9M0441 was previously recommended ineligible for the NRHP (Smith and Wood 1989); therefore, Brockington recommends that no further management of the previously recorded site location is warranted.

The previously recorded location of Site 9M0444 is situated south of Russell Road and north of the current GTC ECTC facility. The area has been disturbed by modem development including a parking lot, utilities, and drainage features; no remnants of the site were identified. The site may have been completely destroyed during the construction of the current GTC ECTC facility. It is also possible that a portion of the site remains buried underneath the parking lot between Russell Road and the GTC ECTC facility. Site 9M0444 was previously recommended ineligible for the NRHP (Smith and Wood 1989); therefore, Brockington recommends that no further management of the previously recorded site location is warranted. A view of the previously recorded location of Site 9M0444 is shown in Figure 11.

In summary, Brockington identified no new archaeological resources within the proposed GTC ECTC project area. We recommend that the proposed project be allowed to proceed, and that no further cultural resource management of the project area is necessary. If any as-yet undiscovered sites remain within the project area, given the intensive coverage of the various Phase I surveys that have taken place within the APE, these potential resources would likely be small (<30m) and/or disturbed artifact scatters, representing temporary or ephemeral use of the landscape that would likely be ineligible for the NRHP.