Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Maintenance Improvements along SR 19 from CS907 /Resthaven Avenue to CR 815/Windemere Circle in Bibb County, Georgia

On May 9-12, 2016, Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. (EPEI) conducted a Phase I archaeological survey for the proposed State Route (SR) 32 over 17 Mile River and Otter Creek bridge replacement project, in Coffee County, Georgia (Georgia Department of Transportation [GDOT] (P.I. Nos. 0011678 and 0011679; and HP No. 160323-003). The goal of the survey was to locate and evaluate archaeological resources within the area of potential effect (APE) of the proposed undertaking so that potential effects to identified cultural resources could be evaluated in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A 100 foot expanded survey corridor (ESC) was also surveyed beyond the APE limit as per GDOT guidelines for Phase I surveys. A portion of the survey area was within the boundary of the General Coffee State Park, and required a permit letter from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to perform archaeological work. The permit letter is presented in Appendix F of this report.

The project is located in Coffee County approximately 3 miles east of Douglas, Georgia, and consists of replacing two structurally deficient bridges on SR 32 over 17 Mile River (Structure ID # 069-0013-0) and Otter Creek (Structure ID# 069-0014-0). The project has a total length of approximately 1.16 miles. The bridges will be constructed on new alignment; therefore, no detours are required during construction. Additional right-of-way (ROW) and easements would be required, but limits have not been determined. Since this project is in the early conceptual study phase, proposed ROW widths are not yet known. Because these parameters have not been determined a survey area was provided by designers that would represent the maximum extent of construction. This area was used as the APE for the current Phase I survey.

Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, a search of the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF) and Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Geographic Information System (GNAHRGIS) online database was made for previously recorded sites within 1 kilometer (.62 mile) of the bridge survey area. There are 31 previously recorded archaeological sites located within 1 kilometer of the survey area. A table providing site type, cultural affiliation, and National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) recommendations for all previously recorded sites is in Chapter II of this report. All 31 of the sites have no information listed for NRHP recommendation on the

GASF site forms, and thus are considered as having unknown NRHP eligibility for the purposes of this investigation. Four of the 31 sites, 9CF1, 9CF7, 9CF11, and 9CF253, have portions that fall within the survey area for the current bridge replacement project. Detailed information from literature review and the results of the fieldwork at 9CF1, 9CF7, 9CF11, and 9CF253 are presented in Chapter IV of this report.

Two previously undocumented archaeological sites, 9CF323 and 9CF324, were identified during the Phase I survey. Sites 9CF323 and 9CF324 consist of the remnants of early twentieth century Phase I Archaeological Survey for SR 32 over 17 Mile River and bridges that were recommended ineligible for the NRHP. Four previously recorded archaeological sites, 9CF1, 9CF7, 9CF11, and 9CF253, were revisited during the current survey.

Sites 9CF11 and 9CF253 were both initially recorded as non-diagnostic lithic scatters with an unknown NRHP eligibility recommendation. The two sites were revisited and additional lithic artifacts were recovered in the ESC for the project, but no artifacts were recovered within the APE at either of the sites, and therefore the portions within the APE lack significant data potential.

Because these two sites could not be delineated beyond the survey area boundary, the overall

NRHP recommendation for 9CF11 and 9CF253 is unknown.

Sites 9CF1 and 9CF7 were originally recorded as expansive multi-component precontact lithic and ceramic scatters. No NRHP recommendation has been previously made for either site, so both sites are considered as previously having unknown eligibility. Revisits to 9CF1 and 9CF7 found fairly extensive deposits within the APE and ESC that could potentially produce additional significant data regarding the precontact settlement of the Satilla River basin. Site 9CF1 has produced a large number of diagnostic artifacts from the surface in the past, but has never had a systematic evaluation to determine if the site retains the potential to produce additional significant archaeological data. The overall NRHP eligibility recommendation is unknown since it cannot be fully evaluated beyond the survey area boundary. It is recommended that Phase II evaluative testing be performed to fully evaluate the data potential of the portion of 9CF1 in the APE if the site cannot be avoided.

Site 9CF7 has produced significant archaeological data during past excavations conducted north of the survey area. For this reason, and because possibly intact deposits were identified in the APE and ESC during the current survey, 9CF7 is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. It is recommended that 9CF7 be avoided. If that is not feasible, then Phase II evaluative testing should be conducted to evaluate the capacity of the deposits within the APE to produce additional significant archaeological data.

It is recommended that the deposits at 9CF1 (unknown) and 9CF7 (eligible) be avoided. If this is not a feasible option, then Phase II evaluative testing should be conducted to assess the deposits at 9CF1 and 9CF7 within the APE for the project. No further archaeological work is recommended for 9CF11, 9CF253, 9CF323, or 9CF324. If the project design should change to include areas not covered by the current survey, then additional Phase I archaeological survey would be necessary. It is recommended that an ESA be established along the APE boundary for the length of 9CF11 and 9CF253 within the survey area, due to the unknown eligibility recommendation, to protect the deposits in the ESC and potential deposits that may lie outside the survey area boundaries.