Phase I Archaeological Survey for Proposed SR 135 Bridge Replacement, Jeff Davis and Montgomery Counties, Georgia

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. (EPEI), has conducted a Phase I archaeological survey under a contract with Reynolds Smith & Hills, Inc. (RS&H) for a proposed Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) bridge replacement over the Altamaha River along SR 135 in Jeff Davis and Montgomery counties, Georgia (Project No. CSBRG-0007-00[037], P.I. No. 0007037, HP No. 150626-002). The area of potential effect (APE) for the Phase I survey consisted of the extent of construction limits and required right-of-way (ROW) for three alternative concept designs that measured approximately 200 feet wide on either side of the existing bridge and extended from approximately 3,365 feet south of the river in Jeff Davis County and 2,700 feet north of the river in Montgomery County for a total length of approximately 6,065 feet (1.15 miles). The survey area for archaeological work included this APE as well as a 100-foot expanded survey corridor (ESC) for a total of approximately 55.7 acres. Following the Phase I survey an alignment that planned for the bridge to be reconstructed to the east of the existing SR 135 was eliminated. Instead, the identified preferred build option is to construct on the west side of the extant bridge with the result that only the existing ROW will be impacted to the west of the existing SR 135.

Prior to the archaeological survey, background research was conducted that included historic maps and aerial photographs at the University of Georgia (UGA) Map Library, the Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF), and Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Geographic Information System (GNARHGIS) database. Results of the research show that there are 13 previously identified archaeological resources within a 1-kilometer radius of the survey area, and that five previous investigations have been undertaken near the project APE. Communications also revealed a site recorded with the South Georgia State College (SGSC) that was not listed in the GASF. Of the 14 total previously identified resources, three are located within 60 meters of the survey area.

The objective of the archaeological survey was to locate archaeological resources potentially affected by the project and to evaluate them in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Fieldwork for the Phase I survey was conducted by EPEI between August 17 and 20, 2015. Following EPEI’s survey, an archaeological remote-sensing survey and diver investigation in the Altamaha River was performed by sub-consultant SEARCH between August 14 and 16, 2017. This aquatic investigation encompassed an APE measuring 500 feet to the east and west of the existing bridge (Appendix F). The work for these surveys resulted in the identification of two precontact Isolated Finds (IFs) (IF 1 and IF 2) and one new archaeological site (9JD132), as well as the re-identification of previously identified resources 9JD109, 9MY44, and 9MY30.

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of sites 9JD109 and 9MY44 site was previously considered unknown; portions of the sites encountered within the survey area did not exhibit significant potential for information, although site boundaries remain unknown outside of the project limits. As such, the NRHP eligibility of these two sites remains unknown, and it is recommended that both 9MY44 and 9JD109 be protected by the establishment of an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) with orange barrier fencing. Site 9MY30 had been previously recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP; the current work does not change that finding, and no additional archaeological work or protection is recommended.

Plans which date to the construction of the current bridge (GDOT 1950) provide the only information regarding the eight wooden pilings that comprise 9JD132; no artifacts were recovered during the Phase I shovel testing or underwater archaeological investigations, and the pilings themselves are in a severe state of decay with no surface structure. As such, the site does not contain the potential for significant information, and 9JD132 is recommended as not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No additional archaeological work is recommended at the site. IF 1 and IF 2 do not meet the definition of an archaeological site, and no additional archaeological work is recommended.