Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Proposed 126 Acre Villages of Ellenwood Development Tract, Clayton County, Georgia

Background: In December 2005, R.S. Webb & Associates (RSWA) conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey of the proposed 126-acre Villages of Ellenwood Development Tract in Clayton County, Georgia. The project was conducted in compliance with Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, to meet the conditions of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The assessment was conducted to locate and identify cultural resources within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE), and to assess resource significance based on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria [36CFR Part 60.4]. The 126-acre [51 hectares (ha)] project area is located in the northeastern corner of the Clayton County, near the juncture of Clayton, DeKalb and Henry Counties. The project area is bounded to the west by Williamson Road and is divided by Grant Road. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) was defined as the project tract boundary. This was based on the location of existing structures, current vegetation, and the topography of the area.

Methodology: Literature Review: At the Georgia Archaeological Site Files located at the University of Georgia in Athens (UGA), the official files and maps were examined, followed by a review of the pertinent site forms and the Laboratory of Archeology manuscrip.t/report files. At the Georgia Department ofNatural Resources, Historic Preservation Division (HPD) in Atlanta, pertinent compliance document files, official maps, and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)/pending files were reviewed, as well as Clayton County historic structures survey files. Historic maps, early aerial photographs, and relevant land lottery plats were examined at the Georgia Department of Archives and History in Morrow and the UGA Science Library (Athens). The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. 1983) and The Campaign for Atlanta (Scaife 1993) were also consulted . Archeological Survey: This was an intensive field survey, designed to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources within the APE of the study area, and to assess their significance based on NRHP criteria. The field team surveyed the project area along transects spaced not more than 30 meters (m) apart, using surface and subsurface techniques to search for cultural resources. Exposed surfaces within the project area were inspected for artifacts and surface features. Subsurface techniques included the excavation of 30 by 30 centimeter (em) screened shovel tests until sterile subsoil was encountered. The shovel test profiles were inspected and recorded. Shovel tests were excavated at intervals no greater than 30m apart. The boundaries of Site 9CN 180 was delineated by shovel tests excavated at 15 m intervals. Architectural Survey: Architectural field survey consisted of a vehicular reconnaissance of the areas within the project APE to locate and identify potentially historic (over 50 years old) architectural resources.

Results: Literature Review: A review of Site Files indicate that no previously recorded archeological sites are located within or directly adjacent to the project area. Eight archeological sites (9DA56, 9DA 125, 9DA126, 9DA147, 9DA267, 9DA418, 9DA419, and 9DA428) are located within 1.0 km of the project. The files at HPD found that no NRHP listed properties are located within, directly adjacent to, or within 1.0 mile of the project area. Two previously recorded historic properties are located within 1.0 kmofthe proposed project. Resource CL- 1 is 122m (400ft) north of the project area, and resource HY -I, in Henry County is located 610 m (2000 ft) east of the project tract. Resource CL-1 was recommended ineligible for the NRHP. No survey form or NRHP recommendation could be found for historic structure HY -1. The structures are outside the APE of the proposed project. The proposed undertaking will result in no effect to these resources. Review of the Official Militmy Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. 1983) indicates that no major Civil War engagements occurred in or near the project area. The 1940 and 1952 GDOT maps were examined. The 1940 map indicates that three structures are located within the project area and two others are located within I ,000 feet. The 1952 map shows four structures within the project area and six others within I ,000 feet. Cultural Resources Field Survey: The field survey resulted in the identification of one archeological resource, Site 9CNI80. This site is a sparse Early Woodland artifact scatter recommended not eligible for the NRHP.

NRHP Recommendations: Applying NRHP eligibility criteria in 36 CFR Part 60.4, Site 9CN 180 is recommended ineligible for the NRHP. The justification for this recommendation is that the archeological deposit exhibits little or no contextual clarity due to low artifact density/diversity, and/or historic disturbances, most often related to historic cultivation, logging, and erosion. This resource is not likely to yield additional important information on prehistoric/historic activities. No additional work is recommended for this archeological resource.

Project Effects and Management Recommendations: The proposed undertaking will have no adverse effect on archeological or architectural properties eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP. Cultural resources clearance is recommended for the Villages of Ellenwood development project.