Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Northeast Emanuel Substation and Tap Transmission Line,. Emanuel and Burke Counties, Georgia: Addendum

A cultural resources survey of Oglethorpe Power Corporation's (OPC) proposed 6.1 km long Northeast Emanuel 46 kV Tran mission Line and 1.6 ha Northeast Emanuel 46/12 kV Substation was completed by Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc. (SAS) in March of 1992. Adam King conducted the archeology portion of the project and Dr. William Chapman conducted the description and evaluat-ion of the structures. The review of the report by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) dated June 12, 1992 listed two technical and substantive needs that had to be addressed and provided recommendations on eligibility that differed from that of SAS. The points of disagreement were:

1) SHPO recommended that structures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 be considered eligible, and structures 8 and 9 as not eligible; SAS recommended that none of the structures were eligible.

2) SHPO could not agree with SAS that archeological site 9Bk63 is eligible; it was implied that not enough information was supplied.

3) SHPO requested more information on Structure 3 to determine possible effects. The report was revised to include more information on Site 9Bk63 and to address the two technical/substantive comments. With the submittal of the revised report, OPC provided largescale blue-line aerial photo-maps of the area around Structure 3 and more photographs of the structure and its surrounding.

In their review of the revised report and the additional supplied information dated August 14, 1992, SHPO made the following points:

1) Detailed reasons for why Structures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are eligible were provided; upon reevaluation, it was determined that not enough information was available to make a determination on Structures 8 and 9.

2) Potential adverse effect on Structure 3 was recognized, but sufficient information still had not been supplied for SHPO to make a determination of effect. They requested more photographs, keyed to a map, of both the structure and its environment. 

3) No mention was made of site 9Bk63; we assume the additional information supplied was sufficient and that they now agreed that the site was eligible.

In an effort to clarify why there was such a wide divergence of professional opinion on the eligibility of this set of structures (between SAS consultant William Chapman and SHPO) and to learn what more information was needed to evaluate Structure 3, a meeting was held on September 3, 1992 between four members of the SHPO staff, OPC (Clay Doherty) and SAS (Thomas Gresham and William Chapman). SHPO reiterated their reasons for considering all structures eligible (they are recognizable to type) and provided guidance in two areas of assessment, the extent of modifications that would make a structure not eligible and the parameters of visual effect. In regard to documentation, they stated that many photographs showing various views of the structure and of the proposed undertaking from the structure are needed. Furthermore, they stated they could not read or interpret the recent and detailed photo-maps provided by OPC. Taking all SHPO comments into account, Principal Investigator Gresham returned to the project· area on September 9, 1992 to more fully photo-document the structures. In this addendum we assume, although do not necessarily accept, SHPO's arguments for eligibility for Structures 1-7, and logically extend the reasoning to include- Structures 8 and 9 as also eligible. The principal goal of this addendum is to provide an assessment of effect of the project on each structure. Thus, we are not presenting the eligibility arguments for the structures, nor are we repeating or adding many new photographs of the structures themselves, except as included in context shots. Each structure (except Structure 5 discussed below) is assumed eligible because it is representative of a type. The setting of each is not a factor in assessing eligibility, but is a factor in assessing effects.

One significant result of the September 9 return visit was that Structure 5, a double-pen, saddlebag tenant house in a fallow field, was being dismantled and had already lost its front porch, chimney, roof and most of the front siding. A neighbor (the occupant of Structure 8) stated that the house was being dismantled and would probably be completely down in a week or two. We conclude in this addendum that this structure is not eligible because it has lost many of the defining elements of its type. This circumstance dramatizes the loss of older structures, and also brings into question the appropriate means to protect such structures.