Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements to Two Intersections on SR 225 at SR 52 ALT and Spring Place Smyrna Road, and Phase II Testing of 9MU199 and 9MU201; Murray County, Georgia GDOT PI No. 631550, Project No. STP00-0151-01(005)

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) plans to improve the intersections of SR 225 at SR 52 ALT and Spring Place Smyrna Road in Murray County (Project No. STP00-0151- 01(005)/PI No. 631550). This resource report has been prepared for use in compliance with the Georgia Environmental Policy Act (GEPA). The project may require a permit per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, but areas of federal jurisdiction have not yet been determined. GDOT is considering two concepts for this undertaking along with variations of each. The concepts include: 1) signalization of the intersections or 2) roundabouts at the intersections. Variations to the concepts include road widening. The current preferred concept is roundabouts with no widening. The Environmental Survey Boundary (ESB) is large enough to incorporate all concept variations and serves as the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this project. The ESB along SR 225 begins approximately 2,700 feet south of Spring Place Smyrna Road and ends approximately 2,500 feet north of SR 52 ALT. The width of the ESB along SR 225 varies from 200 to 300 feet. The ESB along Spring Place Smyrna Road begin approximately 1,700 feet south of SR 225 and extends to the intersection with SR 225. The ESB width on Spring Place Smyrna Road is 200 feet. The ESB adjacent to SR 52 ALT begins approximately 2,200 feet west of SR 225 and ends about 2,400 feet east of SR 225. The width of the ESB on SR 52 ALT also varies from 200 to 300 feet.

The current undertaking (Project No. STP00-0151-01(005)/PI No. 631550) overlaps a separate GDOT project involving the replacement of the SR 52 ALT bridge over Town Branch River (PI No. 0007047). The bridge project is state funded and under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A Phase I Archaeological Survey of PI No. 0007047 was conducted by Siska Williams (2017). During the archaeological survey, Williams (2017) revisited five previously recorded sites (9MU106, 9MU154, 9MU200, 9MU201, 9MU202) and recorded four others (9MU199, 9MU203, 9MU204, and 9MU205). She recommended further testing to evaluate the eligibility of 9MU199 and 9MU201 for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Sites 9MU106, 9MU154, and 9MU200 are eligible and listed on the NRHP. Site 9MU202 was not fully delineated by Williams’ Phase I survey, and so its overall eligibility remains unknown, but as a result of her investigation was determined to lack significant data potential under Criterion D within the APE. Williams recorded sites 9MU204 and 9MU205 from local informant data, and later determined that they did not qualify as archaeological resources. Therefore, they were not evaluated for the NRHP by Williams. The prior Phase I survey for No. 0007047 was considered to have adequately covered portions of the 631550 ESB. There are four sites (9MU154, 9MU200, 9MU204, and 9MU205) recorded by Williams (2017) that occur within the ESB but were not revisited as a part of this survey, because there were no new survey areas at these sites. Because these sites are within the 631550 ESB, however, the previous recommendations for them are included in this report. Phase I Archaeological Survey was required in areas not previously covered by PI No. 0007047.

As a result of the 631550 ESB, nine previously unrecorded sites and three isolated finds were identified and six previously recorded sites (9MU106, 9MU195, 9MU199, 9MU201, 9MU202, and 9MU203) were revisited. Site 9MU106 is listed on the NRHP and avoidance is recommended. Site 9MU215 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. The eligibility of the remaining sites (9MU195, 9MU201, 9MU202, 9MU203, 9MU213, 9MU214, 9MU216, 9MU217, 9MU218, 9MU223, 9MU224, and 9MU225) is unknown. Sites 9MU201, 9MU202, 9MU203, 9MU213, 9MU214, 9MU216, 9MU224, and 9MU225 lack significant data potential within the ESB. However, since they extend outside the ESB, an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) boundary is recommended to protect unknown portions of the sites during construction. Additional testing is recommended for 9MU195, 9MU217, and 9MU223 if they cannot be avoided. These sites need further testing to establish their eligibility under all NRHP criteria and to establish their contribution to the Spring Place Historic District. As a part of Project No. STP00-0151-01(005)/PI No. 631550, New South Associates (NSA) completed the Phase II testing of 9MU199 and 9MU201. The NRHP eligibility of sites 9MU199 and 9MU201 remains unknown because they have not been entirely delineated. However, the Phase II testing indicates that the portions of these sites within the ESB lack significant data potential.

In addition, as a part of Project No. STP00-0151-01(005)/PI No. 631550, New South Associates (NSA) completed Phase II testing at 9MU199 and 9MU201. Survey and testing on lands owned by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) required a permit from that agency. A permit request and testing plan were submitted to GA DNR; the testing plan appears in Appendix A. The permit and plan were approved on March 8, 2017.