Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Dog River Reservoir Expansion Project, Douglas County, Georgia

Between January 15 and May 18, 2018, R.S. Webb & Associates conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey of the proposed Dog River Reservoir expansion project (818 acres) in Douglas County, Georgia. Due to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clean Water Act permitting, compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Public Law 89-665; 80 STAT.915; 16 U.S.C. 470) is required. The study was conducted for R.J. Wood and Company on behalf of the Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority to locate and identify cultural resources within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess resource significance based on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria [36 CFR Part 60.4]. Due to the nature of the reservoir expansion project, the project APE for direct impacts was set at the project area boundaries and the APE for indirect impacts was set at 50 m beyond the project area limits.

Results; Literature Review: The literature review indicates there are no NRHP-listed historic properties located within or near the project area. There are no recorded historic resources in or near the project area. Previous surveys for the Dog River Reservoir recorded seven archeological sites that are within or have portions within the current study area. Archeological Field Survey: The current field survey recorded 12 new archeological sites and revisited seven previously recorded sites (Table I). Prehistoric components were present at 11 of the 19 sites present within the project area, consisting of three lithic/ceramic scatters and eight lithic scatters. No prehistoric diagnostic artifacts were recovered; however, the residual or plain ceramics recovered are generally datable to the Woodland or Mississippian period. Historic components were reported at 10 of the 19 archeological sites, and include six 19th to early 20th-century house sites, two 20th-century liquor stills, one 20th-century dam, and the concrete pylons/waterwheel ruins of an early 20th-century hydro-power system. Historic Resources Survey: One historic structure, HS-1, a 20th-century house, was recorded within the project area (Table I). No historic resources are present within the APE for indirect impacts. Viewshed: Beyond the 50-m APE for indirect impacts, the viewshed is rural/wooded with limited late 20th to early 21st-century development. One cemetery, Giles Cemetery, is the only historic resource located in the project viewshed. This property is located on a heavily wooded ridge 60 to 70 m from the proposed project area. Recommendations; Archeological Resources Recommended Ineligible for the NRHP: Archeological sites 9DO35, 9DO109, 9DO111-9DO115, 9DO229-9DO232 and 9DO234-9DO240 are recommended ineligible for the NRHP (Table I). The justification for these recommendations is that the archeological deposits exhibited at these sites retain little or no contextual clarity due to low artifact density/diversity, and/or lack of depositional integrity due to historic disturbances (e.g., cultivation, clearing, dirt road construction, conservation terracing, and/or erosion). These resources are not likely to hold important information on prehistoric or historic settlement/use of the Dog River drainage basin. Archeological Resource with an Unknown NRHP Eligibility Status: A definitive recommendation about site 9DO233’s eligibility status under Criterion (d) could not be made at the survey level due to the fact that a portion of the site extends beyond the project area to the south and/or west. However, portions of the site within the project area have been severely disturbed and do not retain archeological deposits that would contribute to NRHP eligibility under Criterion (d). Historic Resource Recommended Ineligible for the NRHP: Historic Structure 1 (HS-1) is recommended ineligible for the NRHP (Table I). The justification for this recommendation is that the exterior and interior of the house have been significantly altered and no longer retain architectural integrity specific to a particular house type/style; nor is the structure reflective of broad patterns in local or state history. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that the house was associated with historically significant persons or events.