Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 440 Acres for the Proposed Blalock Hydroelectric Project

166 Pages·2015·6.42 MB·English

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of
440 Acres for the Proposed Blalock
Hydroelectric Project
Spartanburg County, South Carolina
FERC No. 14338
December 2015

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of
440 Acres for the Proposed Blalock
Hydroelectric Project
Spartanburg County, South Carolina
FERC No. 14338
December 2015
Prepared for:
Kleinschmidt Associates
and
The Spartanburg Water System
Prepared By:
Jana J. Futch, Archaeologist
Sheldon Owens, Historian
and
Patricia Stallings, Senior Historian
Atlanta • Charleston • Elizabethtown • Jackson • Savannah
ii
Management Summary
The Spartanburg Water System (SWS) is in the pro- and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations
cess of applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory (COSCAPA et al. 2013) and included shoreline
Commission (FERC) for a new license to operate reconnaissance and intensive Phase I shovel testing
the proposed Blalock Hydroelectric Project (Proj- at 30-meter (m) intervals. The architectural APE
ect) located at an existing dam on the Pacolet River consisted of the archaeological APE in addition to a
in Spartanburg County. Because the Project will be 0.25-mile area surrounding the Lake Blalock Dam,
licensed by the FERC, it is subject to environmental which encompasses the potential visual effects of
review under Section 106 of the National Historic construction activities at the dam. The architec-
Preservation Act (NHPA), which states that any fed- tural survey included a pedestrian inspection and
eral undertaking take into consideration potential ef- photographic documentation of all above-ground
fects to “historic properties,” defined by 36 CFR Part resources within the APE.
800 as cultural resources that are listed in or eligible A review of previously recorded cultural re-
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places sources information revealed that 29 previously
(NRHP). Section 106 allows for a process of identifi- recorded archaeological sites are located within the
cation of historic places and an evaluation of whether archaeological APE. Of those 29, 16 are known to be
historic properties may be adversely affected by the submerged beneath Lake Blalock. The remaining 13
proposed undertaking (in this case, the issuance of were revisited during this survey. Of these 13 sites,
a license to operate a new hydroelectric facility and only one is eligible for the NRHP (38SP283), and it
any anticipated Project-related effects). Lake Blalock is nearly entirely submerged. There are also three
is currently owned and managed by SWS. previously recorded historic architectural resources
In anticipation of the proposed project, the that have been identified within the architectural
SWS contracted with Brockington and Associates, APE; none are recommended eligible for the NRHP.
Inc. (Brockington) to develop a Cultural Resources During the survey, Brockington recorded eight
Study Plan for Lake Blalock (Fletcher and Stallings newly identified archaeological sites (38SP415,
2015). This Plan included background on the Proj- 38SP416, 38SP417, 38SP418, 38SP419, 38SP420,
ect and the proposed methodology for identifying 38SP421, and 38SP422), two isolated finds (Isolates
and evaluating cultural resources for the NRHP. The 1 and 2), one landscape (Sandy Ford Road Rural
Plan was approved by the South Carolina State His- Historic Landscape), and four historic architectural
toric Preservation Office (SHPO) in April 2015. resources (Resources 1-4) (Table MS1). One archaeo-
For this project, archaeological survey was con- logical site, 38SP419, includes aboveground portions
ducted within an Area of Potential Effects (APE) of a stone dam. For this reason, it was also evalu-
defined in the Study Plan. This included 440 non- ated as a historic architectural resource (Resource 5).
inundated acres along the shoreline of Lake Blalock Brockington also revisited 13 previously recorded ar-
within a 720-ft above mean sea level (amsl) con- chaeological sites (38SP31, 38SP32, 38SP33, 38SP34,
tour line, representing the proposed FERC Project 38SP38, 38SP283, 38SP290, 38SP291, 38SP292,
Boundary, as well as within an 80-acre recreation 38SP293, 38SP299, 38SP362, and 38SP363) and three
area on the west side of the lake that also falls within previously recorded historic architectural resources
the Project Boundary. Archaeological survey was (744, 745 and 746) during this survey. Of the eight
also performed on areas where land-disturbing newly recorded sites, three are eligible for the NRHP
activities (laydown yards, access roads, transmis- (38SP416, 38SP419, and 38SP420) and one is consid-
sion tap corridor, etc.) are proposed, including ered unassessed (38SP422).
property near the potential generating facility. Areas Site 38SP416 is a twentieth-century house site
downstream of the dam witnessed previous heavy with two standing ancillary buildings (two barns -
disturbance during the construction of the existing Resources 2 and 3), a well, and an artifact scatter.
facility and were not intensively surveyed. Archaeo- This property is associated with the Elder family,
logical survey followed South Carolina Standards and Larry Elder, a lake warden at Lake Blalock, has
iii
provided historic background information about the at least five irregularly shaped rock piles that are
site. It is likely that data from 38SP416, in combina- located near the apex of the landform. In the past,
tion with the site’s oral history and historic research, this hill would have overlooked the confluence of
can add to our understanding of twentieth-century Buck Creek and the Pacolet River. All shovel tests
rural life in Spartanburg County. We recommend near the piles were negative for cultural material,
that 38SP416 is eligible for the NRHP under Crite- but metal detector survey identified a plowshare
rion D. just below the surface between two of the piles. This
Site 38SP419/Resource 5 is a historic dry stacked artifact suggests that the rock piles may be associ-
stone dam located at shoals on Casey’s Creek, which ated with historic field clearing piles. However, this
is associated with the Humphries and Epton Saw does not preclude the possibility that the rock piles
Mill. This mill is depicted on 1869 and 1887 maps are prehistoric, potentially burials, and were used
of Spartanburg County, and is recorded on the 1870 opportunistically in the historic period. The rock
Federal non-population industrial and manufactur- piles must be excavated in order to determine their
ing census. The census information is detailed and purpose and cultural affiliation. As the origin of the
includes the mill’s horsepower, how much its single rock piles cannot be determined at this time, Site
worker was paid, the capital invested in it, and how 38SP422 is technically unassessed.
much wood it processed per day. The central portion We recommend the remaining four archaeologi-
of the dam has been removed to allow water flow, cal sites (38SP415, 38SP417, 38SP418, and 38SP421),
but preserved portions of the dam are extant on the two isolated finds (Isolates 1 and 2), single rural
north and south sides of the creek. Shovel tests near historic landscape, and four historic architectural re-
the dam were negative, and metal detector survey sources (Resources 1-4) not eligible for the NRHP. No
within the APE did not recover any historic materi- further management of these resources is warranted.
al. However, soils here are intact and relatively deep, The three newly recorded eligible sites (38SP416,
and subsurface features associated with the dam and 38SP419/Resource 5, and 38SP420), the unassessed
mill may be extant. This site is a rare example of a site (38SP422), and the previously recorded eligible
nineteenth-century saw mill. It has known owners site (38SP283) are located within the Project Bound-
who can be further researched, and excavation of the ary but not in areas anticipated to be affected by
site may reveal more information about how the mill Project construction or operation. However, any
was constructed and the type of technology it used. effects will be verified once the Project’s plans are fi-
We recommend this site eligible under Criterion A nalized, and the long-term management of the sites
for its association with lumber and milling indus- will be addressed in a Historic Properties Manage-
tries of Spartanburg County, and under Criterion D ment Plan.
for its potential to contain significant data important
to understanding these historic industries.
Site 38SP420 is a moderate density prehistoric
and historic artifact scatter on the west side of Buck
Creek. Artifacts from the historic component of the
site date to the late eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
tury. Artifacts from the prehistoric component date
to the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods, though
Mississippian materials may also be present. The site’s
subsurface deposits are intact, and extend to 60 cen-
timeters (cm) below surface. It is likely that 38SP420
can provide significant data concerning the prehis-
toric era in Spartanburg County and is recommended
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D.
Site 38SP422 is a group of rock piles on what
is now an island in Lake Blalock. The site contains
iv
Table MS1. Newly identified resources within the project area and architectural APE.
Resource Type Resource ID Description Recommendation
Archaeological 38SP415 20th-Century road, spring, and stacked stone wall Ineligible
Archaeological 38SP416 20th-Century tenant house and farm Eligible
Archaeological 38SP417 20th-Century tenant house Ineligible
Archaeological 38SP418 20th-Century tenant house Ineligible
Archaeological 38SP419/Resource 5 19th-Century saw mill Eligible
Late Archaic/Early Woodland ceramic and lithic
Archaeological 38SP420 Eligible
scatter and 19th-20-Century artifact scatter
Archaeological 38SP421 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter Ineligible
Archaeological 38SP422 Undetermined rock piles Unassessed
Archaeological Isolate 1 Unknown Prehistoric biface Ineligible
Archaeological Isolate 2 Unknown Prehistoric flake Ineligible
Sandy Ford Road Rural 20th-Century Rural Historic Landscape (district
Landscape Ineligible
Historic Landscape with four archaeological sites and other features)
Architectural Resource 1 20th-Century train trestle Ineligible
Architectural Resource 2 20th-Century barn Ineligible
Architectural Resource 3 20th-Century barn Ineligible
Architectural Resource 4 20th-Century bridge piers Ineligible
v
vi
Table of Contents
Management Summary .............................................................................................................iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ix
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................xiv
1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Scope of Project ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Proposed Area of Potential Effect .................................................................................5
2.0 Methods of Investigation .....................................................................................................7
2.1 Archival Research ..........................................................................................................7
2.2 Archaeological Survey ...................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Areas Not Investigated for Archaeology ...............................................................8
2.3 Historic Architectural Survey .........................................................................................9
2.4 Assessing NRHP Eligibility ............................................................................................12
2.5 Evaluation of Tenant Farms ...........................................................................................15
3.0 Environmental Context ........................................................................................................21
3.1 Environmental Overview ................................................................................................21
3.1.1 Modern Environment ............................................................................................21
3.1.2 Past Environment .................................................................................................26
4.0 Cultural Overview ................................................................................................................29
4.1 Pre-Contact Era (10000 BC - AD 1540) .........................................................................29
4.1.1 Lithic Stage (~10000 - 8000 BC) ..........................................................................29
4.1.2 Archaic Stage (7500 - 1500 BC) ...........................................................................30
4.1.3 Woodland Stage (1500 BC - AD 900) ...................................................................31
4.1.4 Mississippian Stage (AD 900 - 1540)....................................................................32
4.2 Contact Era (1540-1663) ...............................................................................................33
4.3 Post-Contact Era (AD 1663-present) .............................................................................34
4.3.1 Colonial Period (1663-1782) .................................................................................34
4.3.2 Antebellum (1782-1865) .......................................................................................35
4.3.3 Postbellum (1865-1903) .......................................................................................36
4.3.4 Progressive Era (1903-Present) ............................................................................38
4.4 Project Tract History ......................................................................................................39
5.0 Results of Background Research ........................................................................................49
5.1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources .....................................................................49
5.2 Previous Cultural Resource Investigations ....................................................................54
vii
Table of Contents
(continued)
6.0 Results of Archaeological Survey ........................................................................................57
6.1 Sandy Ford Road Rural Historic Landscape .................................................................62
6.2 38SP415 ........................................................................................................................67
6.3 38SP416 – The Elder Site ..............................................................................................71
6.4 38SP417 ........................................................................................................................77
6.5 38SP418 ........................................................................................................................82
6.6 38SP419 ........................................................................................................................86
6.7 38SP420 ........................................................................................................................94
6.8 38SP421 ........................................................................................................................103
6.9 38SP422 ........................................................................................................................105
7.0 Results of Architectural Survey ...........................................................................................111
7.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................111
7.2 Discussion of Built Environment in the Project Area .....................................................111
7.3 Previously Recorded Resources ...................................................................................112
7.4 Newly Recorded Resources ..........................................................................................113
7.4.1 Resource 1, CSX rail line bridge across the Pacolet River ...................................113
7.4.2 Resource 2, Barn 1 at 1925 Sandy Ford Road .....................................................114
7.4.3 Resource 3, Barn 2 at 1925 Sandy Ford Road .....................................................116
7.4.4 Resource 4, Old Bridge Piers and Gaging Station at Peachtree Road
Pacolet River Crossing .........................................................................................118
7.4.5 Resource 5, Ruins of Drystone Mill Dam on Casey’s Creek .................................120
8.0 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................123
8.1 Historic Properties Management Plan Development ....................................................124
References Cited .......................................................................................................................125
Appendix A - Artifact Catalog
viii