ML20128C769
| ML20128C769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1985 |
| From: | Foster D GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128C773 | List: |
| References | |
| GN-599, NUDOCS 8505280404 | |
| Download: ML20128C769 (36) | |
Text
n 2 Georgia Power Company '
[I 4 t,;g ' ', e
'I Route 2. Box 299A 4
,Waynesboro. Georgia 30830 -
?
Te!ephone 404 554-9361. Ext. 3360 i
l
' 404 7244114. Ext,3360 h)
~
MY 'S iggy Georgia Power D. O. Foster '.
70%,
V dent and Project UON SEQg Vogt!e Project May 8,1985 iDirector of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation File:
X7T02.6
. Attention: Ms.'Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Log: GN-599
. Licensing Branch 14 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555
.NRC' DOCKET NUMBERS 50-424 AND 50-425 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBERS CPPR-108 AND CPPR-109 V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 Premininary Case. Report and MW3randum of Agreement for Francis Plantation Dear Mr. Dentoni My letter _of March 5,1985, provided correspondence between Georgia Power Company and the State Historic Preservation Officer for Georgia concerning the possible adverse effects of constructing a transmission line across that property which is 1%ted on the National Register of Historic. Places. As discussed with your. staff on March 29, 1985, a determination -of adverse effect had been made by Georgia. Power Company in consultation with the SHP0.. Submitted with this letter is the -Preliminary Case Report pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b). This report has been developed in ' consultation with.the SHP0. Also sub-mitted is a Memorandum of-Agreement providing for the mitigation:
of the adverse effects of the proposed undertaking. This Memorandum of Agreement has been signed by both Georgia Power. Company and the
-SHP0.
Construction activities on the transmission line which would affect
- the Francis Plantation are being delayed pending the completion of
~
your review and the review of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
We request that this review be completed as soon as possible and
.will be available.to provide you with any additional information necessary. We believe that the attached material demonstrates the efforts of both Georgia Power Company and the SHP0 to arrive at a course of action which provides the most feasible and reasonable alternative for this undertaking.
-If you have any questions concerning the enclosed infonnation, please contact us.
Yours v t ul,
g Q*
d..
f D. O. Foster 8505280404 850508 PDR ADOCK 05000424 i y,.
{
A PDR N-(U
p-
-I D'irector of Nuclear Reacto'r Regulation May 8,1985
-Page Two
)
i DOF:js Enclosure cc:
M. A. Miller R. A. Thomas
-J.'A. Bailey
-L. T. Gucwa G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire G. Bockhold,-Jr.
L. ~ Fowl e r_
. C. A. Stangler E.'A. Lyon
1 Preliminary Case Report
. Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Effect of Transmission Line on National Register Property This Preliminary Case Report is submitted in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13 to provide infomation for the Council to evaluate the significance of effects to the Francis Plantation, a property listed in the National Register of Historic
- Places. These effects are the result of the construction and operation of a transmission line being built in association with the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant which is licensed for construction by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This re listed in 36 CFR 800.13(b) port provides information to address those items This report provides documentation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4 and explains wly the Criteria of Adverse Effect apply in
- accordance with 36 CFR 800.3.
Description of Agency Involvement With Proposed Undertaking The NRC issued Construction Pemit Numbers CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 to Georgia Power Company on June 28, 1974. These construction semits were issued with,
~
among others, conditions to require consultation wit 1 the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concerning the impacts on historical and archaeological resources due to the construction and operation of transmission lines. These Construction Permits were issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Activities involved in the conttruction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission system
- are included in the scope of NRC's responsibilities for environmental assessment and evaluation.
Status of Project in the Agencies Approval Pmcess On March 29, 1985 Georgia Power Company notified the NRC that a detemination had been made that the undertaking would result in an adverse effect on the Francis Plantation and that, in consultation with the Georgia State Historic i
Preservation Officer, the infomation required by 36 CFR 800.13(b) would be developed and submitted.
No construction activities have been conducted which would disturb the cultural. property. The NRC will not approve the proposed undertaking until the Preliminary Case Report has been reviewed and a Memorandum of Agreement
. between NRC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer for Georgia, and Georgia Power Company has been signed.
Status of National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Process The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FES) related to the construction of the VEGP was issued in March 1974.
The NRC issued for comment the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DES) related to operation of the VEGP in October 1984. The NRC received comments on the DES and issued an FES related to the operation of the VEGP in March 1985. Attachment 1 is a letter from the Georgia SWO providing comments on the DES. The FES related to the operation of the VEGP addresses the undertaking and provides that a deteminstion of effect will be made in accordance with 36 CFR 800 in consultation nith the SHPO.
i 2
Description of the Pmposed Undertaking The pmposed undertaking is the construction of a 500 kV transmission line across the southern edge of the Francis Plantation property located in
- Washington County, Georgia. Attachment 2 is a plan sheet for the transmission
'line'in the vicinity of the Francis Plantation. demonstrates.the relationship of the pmposed 500 kV line to three existing transmission lines and the structures on the Francis Plantation. The proposed undertaking involves construction of a 500.kV transmission line parallel to and on the north side of the three existing transmission lines.
The proposed undertaking will' effect a small domestic structure located on the right-of-way, require
~ cutting and/or trinating of trees on the right-of-way, and placement of towers
. either on or adjacent to the plantation property in order to support the
~ transmission line.
Description of the National Register Property Affected The Francis Plantation was listed in the National Register for Historic Places in 1975.
Appendix A contains the description of the property from the National Register, the nomination fonn, and material submitted to support the nomination of the property.
Appendix B contains photographs of the Francis Plantation including aerial photographs, the main house, out buildings, and the domestic structure involved in the pmposed undertaking.
As can bee seen from the photographs in Appendix B, the Francis Plantation is located in an agricultural area with cultivation being conducted on all sides of the historical property. The plantation is uninhabited and the structures have received little or no attention over the past several years. Three existing transmission lines border the National Register property to the-south.- These transnrission lines were present at the time that the property was listed on the National Register.
Why Criteria of Adverse Effect Apply The Process The route of the proposed transmission line was chosen initially in order that it could be constructed parallel to the three existing transmission lines.
The initial pmposal involved siting the towers for the transmission line on the Francis Plantation property as shown on Attachment 3.
This would require the relocation of one domestic structure from its present location to another i
location on the Plantation property. The initial proposal would have included a
t' archaeological investigations on the property in the vicinity of the structure to be relocated, prior to relocation.
The SHP0 reviewed the initial proposal and concurred with the proposed archaeological program (see Attachment 4). The SHP0 requested additional infonnation in order to determine whether the proposal would have an adverse i
effect on the property due to relocation of the domestic structure and due to
. visual intrusion.
f
3 During the review of the undertaking by Georgia Power Company and the Georgia SHPO, several alternatives were evaluated as described below. These included alternative locations for the towers as well as alternative routes (see Attachments 5 and 6).
Based on revisions to the pmposal, the adverse effect due to relocation of the domestic structure has been avoided. By relocating a tower and by installing a taller tower than the original proposal, it will not be necessary to relocate the structure and it will be possible to preserve trees around the domestic structure.
Visual Intrusion 36 CFR 800.3(b) provides that an adverse effect to National Register pmperties may occur under conditions which include the... " Introduction of r
visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the l
property or alter its setting." In the opinion of the Georgia SHP0, the construction of the 500 kV transmission line would introduce a visual element which would alter the setting of the property.
Georgia Power Company concurs that this is an adverse effect to the Francis Plantation even though the i
incremental effect is deemed to be small since there are three existing transmission lines which are visible from the property.
It has been concluded by the SHP0 that the activity will result in an adverse effect but that the proposed mitigative actions constitute the most appropriate actions (see ).
The photographs in Appendix B demonstrate how the presence of dense vegetation on the Francis Plantation property will shield the tower from view when standing in the vicinity of the main plantation house. Photographs 2, 8, and 12 were taken from the back of the main plantation house looking toward the location of the tower. As can be seen from these photographs, the dense vegetation will provide partial shielding during the winter and should provide almost total shielding during the sumer. The photographs in Appendix B were taken in January,1985. Also, photographs 4,14, and 18 demonstrate the density of the vegetation in closer proximity to the proposed tower location.
Written Views of State Historic Preservation Officer, Attachments 5 and 7 are letters from the State Historical Preservation Officer to Georgia Power Company concerning the Francis Plantation. These letters indicate the following views of the SHP0:
1.
Relocation of the structure located on the proposed right-of-way and visual intrusion would constitute adverse effects to the National property.
2.
The alternative elected for the undertaking which would leave the domestic structure in place represents the most feasible and reasonable alternative.
3.
Alternative routes which would completely avoid the property would still constitute a visual' impact and thus an adverse effect.
4.
The alternative chosen minimizes the adverse effects of the proposed undertaking as much as possible.
l:
4 i~
The view of the SHP0 that the mitigative actions proposed by Alternative IV of represent the most feasible and reasonable alternative are.
further confimed by the signed Memorandum of Agreement submitted concurrent with this Preliminary Case. Report.
l Views of Other Federal, State and Local Agencies There are no Federal,' State or local agencies or groups other than the State Historic Preservation Officer that have submitted their conenents or views concerning the proposed undertaking.
Description and Analysis of Alternatives Which Would Avoid Adverse Effects Structure Relocation
. Attachments 8 and 9 provide alternative tower locations which would avoid having to relocate the structure. Attachment 10 provides alternative routes which would avoid the property and thus not require relocating the structure.
It has been determined that the alternative routes shown on Attachment 10 would still result in visual intrusion (see Attachment 7).
' 1 presents an alternative route which would avoid having to relocate the structure as well as avoid visual intrusion. This alternative is discussed below.
i Visual Intrusion 1 demonstrates the only available alternative to completely avoid visual intrusion. This alternative would require siting the transmission line f
-in such a manner that _neither the towers nor the conductor would be visible from the property. As shown on Attachment 11, this would require routing the line in a manner which would provide topographic shielding and would require approximately 1.5 additional miles of transmission line. This alternative l
would also require routing the line through wetlands. This alternative was rejected.
Description and Analysis of Alternatives Which Would Mitigate Adverse Effects
.Three alternatives were considered which would mitigate the adverse effects of relocation of the structure and visual intrusion (see Attachment 6). These are demonstrated on Attachments 8, 9, and 10. Alternative III of Attachment 6 considered alternative routes to the north of the property and to the south of the property. While these routes would avoid having to relocate the structure they would still constitute visual intrusion. The route south of the existing transmission lines was undesirable in that it would require crossing the three existing lines in two places resulting in potentially serious effects on maintaining reliablity in addition to being approximately $700,000.00 more than alternative IV. The route north of the property would avoid having to cross the existing transmission lines but would still result in visual intrusion and would cost approximately $500,000.00 more than alternative IV.
c 4
,,, _ -, _ _.-_.,w-_.-,,.,
_ _. _.. _.. ~,,.
5 Alternative V of Attatchment 6 would avoid relocating the structure and would use a shorter tower than alternative IV.'
However, alternative V would require an additional tower to be sited in close proxmity to the main plantation house and would interfere with the property owners irrigation system.
Alternative IV of Attachment 6 was chosen as that alternative which mitigates the adverse effects. This alternative avoids having to relocate the structure and minimizes visual intrusion.
Estimate of Cost I
The cost of the Alternative IV has been estimated as $253,500.00.' The cost of Alternative III which would provide a route south of the property has been 4
estimated as $920,000.00 while the cost of Alternative III which would provide a route north of the property is $775,000.00. The cost of the _ alternative demonstrated on Attachment 11 which would completely avoid visual intrusion has been estimated as $2,525,000.00.
All of these costs would be non-federal money.
.T T
1 t
i J
t i
J
)
i
m
'O 4
Jcpartutcut of piatural pesources p.p PARKS AND HISTORIC SITES DIVISION h,,',m%
,e HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION i*W @t 270 WASMNOTON STREET. S W ATLANTA, GEORt1JA 30334
,(). /
(4043656-2840 J. Leonard Ledbetter 31CRXRMMMEXX May 14, 1985 MMMMiwndid DIRECTOR
.-Mr.-Ray E. Gentry Georgia Power Company 260 Peachtree Street Post Office Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 RE:
Francis Plantation Preliminary Case Report / Memorandum of Agreement Plant Vogtle Transmission Line Washington County, Georgia IIP 84-09-14-016
Dear Mr. Gentry:
The IIistoric Preservation Section has reviewed the Memorandum of Agreement and Preliminary Case Report for Francis Plantation.
Attached is-the signed MOA.
We suggest that the section in the PCR concerning ~ Views of Other Federal. State and Local Agencies (page 4) be modified.
Rather than saying that no other agencies would have views on the undertaking, it would be more appropriate to say that no comments have been received from other agencies.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact Joe McCannon, Environmental Review Coordinator, at (404) 656-2840.
Sincerely, M
Elizfbeth A. L n, Chie IIistoric Preservation Section l.
EAL:jmk cc:
Elinor G. Adensam Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ron Anzalone Advisory Council on flistoric Preservation AN EQUAL EwLOYMENf'AFF*8'Maftv5 ACTCN EMPLOYER
MEMORANDUM 0F AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a Construction Pemit for the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) and it's associated transmission lines to Georgia Power Company as agent for itself, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton Georgia; and, WHEREAS, the NRC in consultations with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHP0) for Georgia and Georgia Power Company has determined that the construction of one of these associated transmission lines would adversely effect the Francis Plantation, a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places by visually intruding upon the historical setting of this property and by relocating a structure located on this property;
- and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) (36 C.F.R. Part 800) the AHCP, the NRC, the SHP0 for Georgia, and Georgia Power Company have consulted and reviewed the feasible and reasonable alternatives for avoiding or mitigating these adverse effects.
N0W THEREFORE:
It is mutually agreed that implementation of the planning and operational strategy identified as " Alternative IV" in a letter dated February 18, 1985, from Georgia Power Company to the SHP0 for Georgia, under the stipulations detailed hereinafter, constitutes the most feasible and reasonable alternative for the mitigation of adverse effects to the Francis Plantation associated with the construction, operation and normal maintenance of the subject transmission line.
STIPULATIONS:
(1) Georgia Power Company will take the following actions to mitigate the adverse effects to the Francis Plantation due to the construction of the transmission line:
(A) Georgia Power Company will construct the transmission tower in the location described as Alternative IV to avoid the requirement of moving the don'estic structure now located in the proposed transmission line right-of-way.
(B) Georgia Power Company will inform the land owner that relocation of the domestic structure now located in the transmission line corridor will not be required.
(C) Georgia Power Company will construct the transmission line tower (height 152') at the site as located in the description of Alternative IV.
w
-p.
.Q (D) ~ Georgia Power Company will top and trim by hand trees located in the proposed right-of-way in the area of the domestic structure to maintain a 25-foot conductor clearance, remove debris, and conduct in the same manner necessary side trimming of trees along the northern boundary of.the transmission line corridor.
-(2) Georgia Power Company will continue to utilize h' nd trimming a
and removal operations for the purposes of the normal maintenance of the subject transmission line corridor.
(3) Georgia Power Company will report annually to the SHP0 for Georgia, regarding the implementation and continuation of these stipulations.
Advisory. Council on H1storic Preservation Date Nuclear Regulatory Commission Date by:
$bO G. l9Rr State toric Preservatiori Kfficer for Georgia
/ Date' by: -
zabeth A. Lyon, D uty SHPO Y ?,N$$
Georgia Poser Company
/ Date
~
by:
D.. O. Foster Vice President and Project General Manager
-Vogtle Project
7--,,
D s,
y e+ $
1 D
0 APPENDIX A 6
mee
GEORGIA 119 2.aeory host and side Doric portico, ist. and watssa coOMW WAsHmGToM CouMW 2nd ecory fWont center entrances, each with transom and sidelights; 3 bay front 2nd. story Chickamauga. CORDON. LEE HOUSE. 217 Davisboro vicinity. FRANCl3 PLANTATION,*
balcony; original dwelling en'arged by addition ' Cove Rd.. c. 1840-1847. Brick, coursed stone SE of'Davisboro on SR 2189, c.1858. Frame.
of front 2.seory section with portico.1842; foundation: 2 stories L. shaped. Ist. and 2nd. clapboarding brick piers; I story, L. shaped; kiechen attached,1888; carriage house and seory front center entrances, each with transom hipped, gabled, and shed roof sections; interior wellhouse. Fine esemple of Greek Revival and sidelights. 2nd. story balcony with chin. chimneys; front center entrance with paneled adapeed to city lot. Resedence of Mrs. Peter oiserie balustrade; 2. story Donc front portico double dooas, transom and sidelights; simple Heard, a member of the " Nancy Harts " a and side porch added.1900; numerous out.
entrance porch; interior details intact, rear ell 3; male military unit organised to protect buildings Greek Revival and Neo-Classical with kitchen added; outbuildings. Greek LaGrange froen the Union Army. Nvese; ne, Revival elements. Built with slave labor for Revival. Rare example of ansebellum plantation eccesssWe se the pesWir.
plantation owner James Gordon; home of his with intact outbuddings. One of few area pro, grandson, U.S. Congressman Gordon Lee; perties to escape destruction during Sherman's La Grange. STRICKLAND HOUSE, NW of La headquarters of Union Maj. Gen. William 1864 march to the sea. Mvese.
Grange on Glenn Rd 1858. Frame, clapboard. Rosecrans before 1863 Battle of Chickamauga.
ing; i 1/2 stories, rectangular, sabled roof, es.
Mvese.
Witats couMW terior end chimneys, fWont center entrance Genked on each side by a window; tenant Kensington vicinity.
LAME HOUSE.
house; family cemetery; ressored.1970's. Built 1855-1859. Frame, board and-batten siding. Danburg. ANDERSON HOUSE. G A. 44 1865-1870. Frame, clapboarding. Gush siding m
arm hehkk4 brick basement; I In mones, &. ; go.
eens of Wilson and Teresa Strickland. Mwese.
bied roof, 2 interior chimneye; fWont and rear on ponico facade: 2 In stones, rectangular.
center entrances, each with transom and gabled roof sections, inserior chimneys, front La Grange vecinity. LIBERTY HILL. NW of La sidelights; front and rest porches with lat.
conser tst. and 2nd-seory entrances; Asti. width Grange on Liberty Hill Rd., c.1836. Frame, ticework; 2 front gables each with bay window pedimated modined Done entrance ponico with balustrade, bracketed saves, and lat.
clephearding, fWont Aush siding; 2 stones, flanked by small front entrance porch,
., gabled roof, estenor end chim.
bracketed nooiding over each wiendow; carved ticework fascia; several outbuildings. Combines nays, front insil. width 2.esory tetraseyte portico; neanteipieces; possible archeological potential int *r' sting Greek Revival and Victonen ele.
Ikont center lei. and 2nd story entrances, each in uneaposed catbuilding sites, especially slave mnts. Last d senes of 4 area houses, built ilhas.
with transom and sadelights; 3. bay front 2nd.
cabins. Good area example of Gothic Revival trating style developent d a master buddw.
Pnym.
senry balcony, rear lean.to; ongenal intenor dwelling, design of which may have been based woodwork; restored. Greek Revival. Surviving on desagns by Alexander Jackson Downing; Danburg vicinity. Wil'LIS GALE.5TENNETT
. esemple of an antebetImm piantation house.
basilt by Richard A. Lane, prominent area HOUSE. N of Danburg off GA 79 on SR 1445.
I*"""'
1850-1860. Frame. weatherboarding, front West Point vicinity. LONG CANE HISTORIC Gush siding: 2 mones, rectangular. Sabled roof.
DISTRICT. N of West Point on U.S. 29 WALToN CouMTY front center lat. and 2nd. story entrances, full.
width 2. story hesastyle entrance portico,2nd.
1829-II50's. Agricultural / residential district of S primarily vernacular frame,1 I/2-2 I/2. story KILGORE MILL COVERED BRIDGE AND seory balcony at entrance; kitchen addition.
dwellings; including the Greene.Ridgeway MILL SITE. Aefemece-m 8 enow Connay Greek Revival. First of 4 area houses, built house, the John Hill house, the Long Cane 1850-1870, which illustrate stylistic develop.
Go d Hope vicinity. CASULON PLANTA
- ment probably attnbutable to the influence of a Methodist Church and the Long Cane Bapust TION, E d Good Hope oMA 186, c.1820's-single master builder. Pnvese.
Church. Vernacular Greek Revival. Original Isetde fanniand developed into poet otAce and Frue, clapboarding; 2 stones, rectangular, standing seam happed roof, esterior end chim. Tignall vicinity.
PHARR.CALLAWAY.
noys, front center doisble.dcor entrance with SETHNESS HOUSE,N of Tignall on GA 2193, sidelights and fan motif in transom, recessed 2 c.1820. Frame, weatherboarding. horizontal story full. width hennetyle portico; fine intenor flush siding under porch; 2 stones, modified Twsooscounty smoldings and manteis; barn, wellhouse, tool.
rectangle, hipped roof, interior chimneys, front house and slave quarters at tear; restoration in center entrance with transom and sidelights.
Flempetrick vicinity. MYRICK'S MILL. NE of progress. Greek Revival. Esample of antebol. fnsil. width I-story shed entrance porch; rear Fleapaanck on SR 378, c.1840. Frasne, clap.
lum plantation comples; residen'ce in late 19th corner wings; 2 c.1820 structures moved here baasding; 2 t/2 stories raised on pilings, rectan.
C. of James Stoddard Boynton, Civil War and joined to form dwelling,1860. Good ver.
galar, gabled roof, main entrance in I. story general, president of state senate, and governor nacular example of combination and redesign side wing; adjacent concrete. sided millrace; of G A. Museum. County: Mass.
of esisting structures; constructed for John engmal interior fittings; minor alterations. Ver.
Wynn, prosperous local planser, as a wedding necular. One of the state's few remaining rela.
gift for his daughter. Nese.
Hvely unaltered antebellum mills; onginally wans COUNTY served Gen. Smith Parham Myrick's plantation.
Washington vicinity. KETTLE CREEE BAT.
pw,,
Waycross. WAYCROSS HISTORIC Dis.
TLEFIELD (WAR HILL),9 mi. SW of TRICT, Roughly bounded by plant Ave., Wil.
Washington off Tyrone Rd.,1779. Wooded site liams. Lee. Chandler, and Stephens Sts.,
of engagement between 800 North and South 18stoss couwTv 1870's-1890,s. Residential disanct of about 250 Carolina Tones and 400 Georgia Patriots. Feb.
frame, cispboarded, i 1/2-21/2 story gabled 14, 1779, in which Patnots led successful sur.
anson vicinity. AUCNUMPKEE CREEK dweihnss; notable are the Blackshear house prise attack on loyalist invaders. One of few ED BRIDGE,10 mi. SE of Thomasson with pierced fasc porch, the shingled Thorn.
Patriot victories claimed in GA; thwarted 19 on Allen Rd.,1898, J. W. Herring, een residence with elaborate chimneys, the Bntish attempts to conquer South through Tory
. Frame, vertical siding; Town lattice Livingssone residence with unusual jig. sawn
'R'8s of 120'9" single span,17'8" wide, stone porch. and the W. W. Beach house. Esamples P'en; ongmal shingle roof replaced by sheet of Queen Anne. Eastlake, Stick Style, Bunga.
metal; stdl in use. The only covered bridge stdl loid and Neo. Classical Revival. Earliest
- 88 on a pubhc road in middle G A. County.
planned residential neighborhood in redroad center of Waycross; retains 19th C. character.
Multiple publiciprevese.
f ].3 e9
'e d'M b i
M/
- Fcr,10 300 UNITED STATE 5 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
- (.y p,v. 6.m NATIONAL PARK SERYtCE Cecr @
8 C OUN T Y r' N ATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PL ACES Washinnten INVENTORY - NOMIN ATION FORM FoR NP5 USE ONLY EN TR Y O A TE (Type all entries - complcte applicabic scctions)
~
- 11. NAME C OuwoN t Francis' Plantation AN O/On NisTOneCi l2. LOCATION s T R E E T AN C' Nuuo Eng Cn. Ni chunv ?1 A9 CI T Y O n T O'n N CONGH EsslON AL OtsT RIC Ts
_hetueen nacinhnrn nna nnernu 10th - Robert G. Stephens. Jr.
STATE CODE COUNTyt CODE Georgia 13 Washincton 303 l3. CLASSIFICATION N
CATEGORY to OWNF R5 HIP STATUS (check one)
TO THE PUBLIC Z
Z Oistries O evildia, O Public Public Acevisition:
O ocev,;.4 Yes:
_O E " 'd*
g $;,,
g 3,,,,,,,,
g p,;,,,,
g i,p,,,,,e
@ Unoccupied O obi.e.
O Be'h O Beias considered O Preservation work O Va'es'ric'ed b
In progress O Ne onRsEN T UCE '(Check one or biere na Arpropriete)
U El Agricultveel O C *veramea' O Park O Treaspereeeson O co.. ears IE O co--ereies O ladve'<iel O Peivate Residence O o'her (speeltri p.
O Educeeleast O Mili' err O Religious O Eaverieia-en, O Mvieva O Sciea,ilie m
l4.~ OWNER OF PRDPERTY
'%%O
+ = *
- A
-c a
g '
o*NEn*s N au ts O 5 Mr. Wilev C.
W Evnna. TTT m
N sinEE T.NO NuweEni 0
0 W
E N
W Csiv On ToWNr STATES goor Bartow Georcin 11 l5.^ LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION u.- $ -
- w. 4
- re
^<
r^
Coun TNOusE. nE Gis Ta < O r OE EOs. E TCi n
gu o Washincton County Courthouse m
[j sTnEETaNONuweEn N
g n
1 h
CIT T On TOWNS STATE CODE
=,
Sandersville Georgia 13 l6 (tEP,RESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS s
- '. r.
w-TITLE Or suRWEY:
Rz N
Nnno x
.n Cats Or suavEva O Federal O 5'e'.
O covner O Lecol l
l E
D EPOst T O R Y FON suR vEY RECORQst Z
s C
sTNEE T AND NuMoER O
Z Ce T v On TOWN:
ST a T Es CODE h
O M
I s
m l7. DESCRIPTION (Chich ons)
O Emeslisa, 50 C;od O Fair O Deverio,eeed O Ruin, O Unenposed conomon ccnock ones O Al'ered 60 un.ie,ed ccheck one)
O u..ed tii) o,i,in.: si e DESCRISE TH E PR ES EN T AN D ORICIN AL (if known) PHV $lC AL APP E A R A NCE boro and Bartow, Georgia.The Francis Plantation was built in east Washi
/
between Davis -
/'
house, fifteen outbuildings still exis't.In addition to the classical style plantation fifth room added on_the back left side.The main hous'e is basically boards and the' exterior has never been painted.The house is constructed of weather of mud and rock which are enclosed by some remaining ngs porch has been replaced in concrete in recent years, but the Greek portico The front entranceway is still supported by one square column, the second column falle to the side of the porch.
appear to be an early version of the Victorian style.The double front d n
port a high entablature over the trabeated doorway which has a FlorentineFram design etched in the glass. Pilasters a;1so define all corners of the house an mark the division between the front and back rooms on both sides of d m use m
The central hall is very wide and reputedly forty-five feet long with remnants of a center medallion on the ceiling.
~~
hall is identical to the one at the front entrance.The doorway at the end of the Z
the central hall have wide entablatures supported by pilasters and thThe four door u
ed doors in these rooms still show wood graining designs.
e panel-
-4 the front left. room was the formal parlor.
Facing the house, Slightly dog-eared entablatures x
four parlor windows.over the windows are complemented by the paneled square g
The original mantelpiece has a wide beaded frieze supported by beaded pilasters, but it has been moved to the living room of O
Mrs. Evans' Bartow Georgia home. (Mrs. Evans was born on the plantation)
-i The remaining three rooms off the central hall were used as bedrooms two rooms on the right side of the house,for the ladies
, the o
the parlor for the gentlemen.
and the room behind All of the bedrooms have slightly pedimented z
window entablatures and wood-grained mantel pieces with pilasters supp simple friezes with small mantel shelves.
two large closets, one on either side of the center fireplaceThe two back bedroo were early alterations if not part of the original construction.
, and these room of the house was used as a dining room and it also has two large closets))
The fifth with built in shelves.
The only addition to the main house since it was b
uilt is some electrical wiring which has caused the plaster to crack in ma laces.
Behind the dining room, a kitchen was added to the main house via a p
i orch and it consists of two rooms, one used for cooking and one used as a p
u torage room.
' M;.
s
-T he front door, and on both sides of the walkway and hou t
nd rectangles of English and American boxwoods.
a quares nce filled with any kind of flower imaginable, including hyacinths, daffodils o
nd camellias.
a nclosed by a picket fence atThe main house and gardens and closest outbuildings we e
that time.
house, pigeon houses, chicken house, two privies, a grap (continued)
, scunoernon
.m em egeauden. I
- rn.10-3003 UNITED STATES DEPA%TMENT OF THE INTERio2 STATE
- Afy 1969)
NATIONAL PARK SERYlCE g
g N ATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC P,L ACES
- u""
j INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM W shington
/
FoR NPS USE oNLY
-,/
(Continuation Sheet) l (Narmbe, all entries)
/
- 7. Description - page 2 i
arbor and a grove of fruit trees were also in the area surrounded by the picket fence. The 2-room original kitchen was once connected to the main house by a covered walkway. A churn, a hanging stick for sausage, and several barrels for grain are still in the old kitchen, as is a huge brick fireplace, the bricks of its hearth originally covering one quarter of the room from the front to the back wall.
The second room of the kitchen was used for storage and an old loom was recently found stored in the rafters.
Behind the kitchen is a small, unique pigeon house.with pigeon holes directly under the eaves of the roof. A chicken house and a three hole privy for the men used to be on either side of the pigeor house but they were torn down by destructive tenants some time after 1930.~
The ladies' privy, still standing, has four holes and plastered walls. The milk, well and commissary building is similar to a dog trot plan. The left side of the building was used for milking, the milk, being placed in the well to keep it cool, and the room on the right side was used as a commissary to distribute plar-tation products to the farm workers.
The log smoke house is constructed with dovetail corners and Mrs. Josey, an occupant of the farm from 1896 to c.1915, remem-bers seeing 100 hogs processed there at one time.
Outside of the original picket fence area are other outbuildings of the Francis Plantation, including four slave cabins, a corn crib, a gear and tool
~
shelter, a cotton gin building (now on property owned by a cousin and the gin is missing), and a cow and mule barn that has been moved from its original site.
A fire, c.1906, destroyed a carriage house, two cow stalls, two corn cribs, chicken house, vagon shelter, and a wind mill and water tank.
There was also a blacksmith shop that has since been torn down. The Georgia Power Company has placed power lines parallel to where these buildings once stood and this repre-sents the only intrusion on the plantation.
Down the dirt road in front of the plantation (Ga. Hwy. 2189), is the family cemetery where Cordall Francis is buried.
This beautiful stretch of road, i
lined by moss - covered oak trees, runs past the old Inman house, the home place of William B. Francis' second wife.
Williamson Swamp Creek, the original boundary of Cordall Francis' land, lies between the Francis Plantation and the
_ old Inman house.
a..
4
'. &t
- 1
.*B GP O 9 217 24 p--
.64
/ f. $1GNIFICANCE I vansto (chsch on> or Mars se Appropro1tz) i O Pre Celvmbleal O 14'h c a'ver O tais c nio,y O 20ih cen'ver O iseh c.never O 17th ceaiver a l'ih c neo r
/
^
setenFse onsciss cis Appurcaste andKnown) c.1858 sanns or stGNevec ANCE f
(Check One or More na Appropriate)
Aberiginal O Educerica O Prehistoric O Politicel O urb.n Planning O Engineering O Historic O Religion / Phi.
O other (Specifr)
Q ladvstry Q Invention ~
losophy M c Wy
@ Agriculture Q $clence
@ Architecture
@ Landscope
~
O A" Q $culpture A rc h i'* * '
O Sociel/Hvenen.
O ce==<*
O Li'ere'v'e O ca==valca'iaas si.,s.n
@ u m..,y O coas='i'a O The*'e' O uveic O T'easpa"a'i a S T AT Eh8EN T O F SIG Nt FIC AN C E The Francis Plantation has remained untouched by the 20th century and its great significance lies in this fact.
This plantation illustrates the way of life as it existed on an antebellum cotton plantation in the mid-19th century and it is unique to Georgia in its remarkable state of preser-z vation.
As far as the eye can see from the plantation structures there are o
no intrusions, and in all directions fields planted in cotton can still be seen because the descendants of Cordall Francis, (1765-1840) the original F
land owner, still farm the land.
This Southern tradition of the-land's supremacy along with the remote location of the plantation are the main u
reasons that the Francis Plantation has survived intact for over one hundred 3
years.
H Cordall N. Francis, the first known owner of the Francis Plantation land, was originally from Virginia.
m his first wife, is recorded in Greensville County, Virginia.His marriage to Let z
Francis must have moved to Georgia some time between 1796 and 1820 when he appears-in the Georgia Census of 1820 as the head of his family.
Cordall Francis also W
appears in the 1825 Tax Digest where his Washington County land, adjoining Williamson Swamp Creek, is recorded, as is some additional land in Henry w
County.
He died in 1840 leaving his son James C. Francis as his heir. James m
is known to have owned three plantations, a swamp plantation, a mill planta-tion, and a river plantation, but it is not clear if one of these is the present Francis Plantation.
lantation (originally a Francis Plantation) in Jefferson County and P
is where his son William Benjamin Francis (1842-1916) grew up.
James C.
F rancis died in 1843, leaving his one year old son William as heir to his lantations.
p Exactly when the present Francis Plantation was built is not a
ertain, but is is thought to have been built by William B. Francis about c
q l he time of his marriage to his first wife, c.1858.
P,
,J
- ived on the plantation from c.1858 until his death in 1916. William B. Francis i
l ime he served in the Georgia House of Representatives in a special session
],
During this t
IE!8-1889.
His daughter by his second wife, Mrs. Sudie Francis Josey is till alive and lives with her daughter Mrs. Wiley E. Evans, Sr. in Bartow, s
The 1860 Agricultural Census for Washington County, Georgia shows W. B.
Francis as the owner of 500 improved acres and 1200 unimproved acres.
percent of Georgia's farms were of 500 acres and over, placing the Francis Seven Plantation in the upper seven percent in size.
was the second ranked of 34 states (behind Virginia) with farms of 500 toOn a la (contiscd) t
[
,e j
Forsi 10 3003 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT oF THE INTERIOR sTATa Qily 1969)
NAT!oNAL PARK SERVICE Georeia
. NATIONAL REGISTER OF Hl5 TORIC PLACES
- u""
INVENTORY NOMlHATION FORM Washin ton (Continuation Sheet)
ENTR Y NUMBER DATE (Nu.Mor all entelee),
8.
Significance - page 2 1,000' acres.
In' terms of cotton production, Francis produced 50 bales of cotto (at 400' pounds a bale) in 1860.
Not all of his acreage was devoted to cotton u
(i.e. 1,350 bushels of Indian corn, peas, beans, sweet potatoes combined, five tons of hay)'but not mu'ch land could be spared for the growing of vegeta-bles because'of the low productivity of slave labor.
Slavery prevented signi-ficant technological progress.that could have raised productivity substantially Because Negroes were hard on equipment and needed constant supervision, the-general inefficiency of the slaves thwarted most attempts for improvement of agricultural methods.
As a result, agricultural methods necessary for slavery greatly depleted the soil.
W. B. Francis produced ten bales of cotton per acre in 1860, compared with 1.3 bales per acre produced in 1974 by his descendants (a good bale now being 5,50 pounds compared to 400 pounds in 1860).
Even with variables considered, this makes obvious the fact that Georgia's soil had worn out by that time.
The 1860 Agricultural Census also shows the value of W. B.
Francis' farm implements as $350, the median for Georgia cotton producers and another indication that Francis was sparing no money for extra tools to-culti-vate crops other than cotton.
On November 24,.1864, the 14th' and 20th Union Army corps lef t Milledgeville Georgia continuing their devastating march to the sea.
The 20th Army Corps, with General W. T. Sherman, took the direct road to Sandersville, while the 14th Army Corps moved parallel, both arriving in Sandersville on the 26th of November From there-the Corps marched to Tenille station Davisboro and Louisville, the 17th Army Corps following a parallel road south of the route taken by the 14th and 20th Army Corps.
between the parallel movements of Sherman's. troops.The Francis Plantation was caug 17th Army Corps passed in front of the Josey Church, originally on FrancisOn the 28th e
Plantation' property, but the plantation miraculously escaped destruction.
Sandersville had been completely sacked by the Yankees, and the Inman Place, the home of W. B. Francis' second wife and only two miles down the road from Francis Plantation, lost all of its surrounding outbuildings, crops, and is
((,
~
still treeless.
Francis Plantation, according to tradition, was spared because eneral Sherman was so taken by the resemblance of Eliza Mitchell Francis, h
Jilliam B. Francis' first wife, to Sherman's sister.
Sherman either ate lunch M
r spent the night at the Plantation, and the dining room table wh
)
It has not been possible to document this story but it serves as a
";}
ere he ate is resently in the home of Mrs. W. C. Evans, the granddaughter of William B.
Prancis.
ood explanation for the survival of the Francis Plantation when the surrounding a
rea underwent wholesale destruction.
a
-The preservation of Francis Plantation is of extreme importance, for not nly is the surrounding visual impact extremely close to the 19th century o
ppearance of Francis Plantation, but also because of its fifteen still extant a
utbuildings.
o f preservation as an authentic illustration of a past way of life.These thin o
GP O 9 217 24 G
/
/
.A oR BIDLIOGRA PHICAt. REFERENCES ook, Jody, personal inspection, November 5,1R74
. / vans Mrs. W.
C.,~Jr., personal recollections
[ enove,se, Eugene D., The Political Economy of Slavery.
York, 1965.
Pantheon Books, New Josey, Mrs..Sudie Francis Macgregor, Elizabeth Z., personal inspection, August 1974.
.[
Sherman, William T. " War is Hell!"
Savannah, 1974.
edited by Mills Lane, The Beehive Press, Walters, Joh'n B., Merchant of Terror-General Sherman and Total War. Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., New York, 1973.
[10. GEOGR APHICAL DATA L A TITUDE ANO t rtNG4TUDE COOROlH A TEs L a Ts TUDE A N C LON Go "80 E COOR DIN A TE s DErtNING A RECT ANGLE LOC A TING THE PRO *FRTY O
DEriNiNG7% u 7:N.O.N. O r A uO ER Tv CORNER La f f TU DE or LEss TH AN TrN ACRES L ON GI TU D E L ATlTUDE LON GI TU D E o.,.... m a.... see.na.
o.,,... u;n o... s...na,
- o.,,... u r no...
s.c.na.
o.,,... w n..
s...na.
ww 32
- 56' 31 -
82.
34 29-O NE 32* 56-31-82*
32-27-sE 32
- 55' 14 -
82*
32' 27-sw 32*
55' 14-82*
34*
29-AppROxiu A TE A CRE AGE Or NOuiN A TED PROpERTv' Approximately 1120 arree List ALL sT A TEs AND COUN TIES rOR PROPERTIES OVER L APPING ST A TE OR COUN TY w
BOUND A RIES STATE:
CODE COUNTY CODE f71 sT A TEt CODE COUNTY:
CODE STATE:
CODE CouN Tv, Z
COOE m
STATES CODE COUNTY:
CODE "4
[11. FORM PREPARED BY
- q
" * " " ^ " " ' ' ' '
Consulting Architectural Jody Cook. Intern. Historic Sites Survey (E. Macgroanr. Mi enri nni n
OR G ant Z A TION DATE d
Historic Preservation Section - Dent. Natural Resources November, 1974
~
s TREE T AND NUuB ER:
O 270 Washington Street, S.W., Room 703-C10 CITY OR TOnNr 2:
STATE Atlanta M
Georcia
[12.- STATE LIAISON OFFICER CERTIFICAllON 11 NATIONAL REGISTER VERIFICATION As the designated State Liaison Officer for the Na.
tional Historic Preservation ACt of 1966 (Public Law I hereby Certify that this property is included in the 89-665). I hereby nominate this property for inclusion Mi nal Registu.
In the National Register and Certify that it has been evaluated aCCording to the C*iteria and procedsres set I
- i G forth by the National Park ServeCe. The recommended
)<
levet of significance of this nomination is:
Dueeter, onlee of Arcticer.ar and nieseric Pr.eervation s
Na tional O state Local io i\\
l l
(
I 4
JACKSON O'NEAL I1M3 AmSt Title S_s - te Historic Preservation offici r Keeper of The National Regsater Date Late e U.s. GOVCRNulNT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973-729147/f 442 3.s I
r-
301
, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TiiE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOR NPS USE ONLY
/ NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES RECEIVED E
PROPERTY MAP FORM OATE ENTERED SEE INSTR U CTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NA TIONAL R E NAME TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- ENCLOSE WITH M AP HISTORIC Francis Plantation AND/OR COMMON
- LOCATION CITY. TOWN Sandersville I wclNIW CF COUNW Washington STATE Georgia E MAP REFERENCE SOURCE General Highway Map SCALE 1:1
^
1968
[6TREQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL MAPS
- 1. PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
- 2. NORTH ARROW
- 3. UTM REFERENCES t
W 9
I 4
' L
+
N I
/
5 I
h
/
.i
)
j\\*,y
-f y f *r=%
R W
I
~
r%..s\\
/
\\
- I,./
\\,
\\
4.
[
- nee-(
~
k)
'32.tD.94 f\\
...%..r.
l
\\
+
nr
. +...
(
+-
%.._...=,L
._ o c e.- _.s.
_t f,
\\
j'
(
x 1
N e,,e ~,,,
0 p\\
~'
\\
N[n.
4
.a
'o f
\\
s k
3 -)
/-
'.nr
,.9
' N-
- \\~
FRANCIS PLANTATION
~
.e4 tn 3
hS; bD z_
sz u's, -
m f "~,7 n r
\\
'N
.j%
.~
l ' q
.T.
' ~.q,2, 1
~
E [ A....- M *,,
o
'~
~ ~,_,'-.~, 5 m
\\
,c~<=
g h
w{
'g
'8" l
a-
... l,,,
K. r ~,,,jW:
~5 'tW.
3 fI n.
(
x r-
.,._p, ---,g.
f-6-
~"
\\., /'(
l s
.X,..
..,,./
v c.-e-h t
.f g
y
'7 di 4
r***.),
t
- v
'5;
~.,
~
g G.M. D. 92 i
\\l, c<'#
)
a.t '.
r
+
/
/.
s
. g,
/
/
nI I
e
- m, _
- i s *j.',,.,
a
,,e-1
- .~
o
.tr.
- ,.c.-
- e..
- t *,
.s n
, y, s
~.,
i
~
.s :. '. '.
Information and Statistics
..v l.*.N
O
- FRANCIS. PLANTATION (1860)
Washington County, Georgia by R.p ;.
Kenneth H. Thomas, Jr.
- v. W August 26, 1974 6.-'.
y,:
..: 4.
lt I
e s e A_
S e
'M
.y 6
.o 4
F o
. e D
3
%.g '
is
~.
.,.,g..
..y....,.t*h
, N
,f..
4,
- e
.e
(
- e*>
s t..
e e
.=
- g. a. ?.,,
t 3
e
.G f *.f
,e.
5 e
e 3
=
..'1.,,..
,/
e FRANCIS PLANTATION s
This site in.Washingtoit County, Georgia, very close to the Jefferson
-County line, was visited on. August 22, 1974, by Ken Thomas, Elizabeth Macgregor, and D. Thompson Agnew.
The Francis family has owned this plantation as long as they can recall, and it has just recently passed from Mrs. Sudie E. Francis Josey 'of Bartow, Georgia, to her only grandso'n. Her daughter, Mrs. Wiley C. Evans, Jr.,showed.
us around the plantation.
Since the death of Mrs. Josey's mother, circa 1936, the place has been occupied by tenant whites and " darkies." Mrs. Evans feels the whites were far the worse, as far as destruction goes. T5eplaceisingreatshapeconsidering now Dadiv it nas been treateo. Th re.are many holes in tne walls, mainly
,inside closets, damage also being done when it was wired for electricity.
.m'd p ~a CordalN.FrancislivedinWashingtonCounty, Georgia,.!asearlyas18YO' :...S and died there in 184 exists among family papers, a good thing since the Courthouse has been burned a nunber of~ times, including once by Sherman, who l's said to have spent the night at Francis Plantation. James
~
~
Cordal Francis (1807-1843) lived in Jefferson County, Georgia, just a few
~ miles away from Francis Plantation in 1830 and 1840, and he died in 1843.
His heir and son was William Benjamin Francis (1842-1916)., The latter is the s.
father of Mrs. Josey by his second wife, Mary Le,slie _(inmani nmcN1858_1935),
whom he married in 1885.
Without further research it is assumed that the place passed to W. B.
- Francis once he assumed his majority c. 1860.
He is known to have married en u '* b. ;
" older, woman". at the age of 16, c.1858, which might account for his assumption of the management of the plantation prior t.o at'taining his majority.
.; *[.
.a-
. 7
': s/
The plantation is remarkable in the fact that the main house and a great
. f majority:of "out buildings" still remain on the site, and most in their original location.
Here is an inventory, with comments provided by Mrs. Evans, Jr.:
-(l).The main house is in the four room central hall plan with the front lef t being the formal parlor, the front right being the birthplace i ens.nkls
,of Mrs. Evans (c.1917). The doors remain unpainted and with the original graining designs still extant. The rooms on the fant have closets with s'imilar doors. The only ceiling medallion is in the
~
center of the hall. The house is one story, raised some four feet on rock piers and mud enclosed by some remaining latticework.
Front porch replaced in cement in 20th century. Fan for the Dining Room / as are many other objects, is in storage.
Central Hall is reputedly 45 feet long.*
(2).The Cotton Gin building, whib is on property owned by a cousin, is across the roa'd.
It appears intact, although comments were made that the machinery may be gone.
lD kG.YeT Ci?P
- has lost its sh ngle shelter ropf recently, c.1972.
(3)
Gear House dS US o i icy s DKl '
f) nGw StLa (4) Mule' Barn -- was moved 'by Geo gia Power from ? but remains standing.
(5)
Cow Barn -- no longer present; burned.
'N (6)
Corn Crib -- moved by Georgia Power.
Other storage houses exist, not counted.
E ',
(7)
Pigeon House -- very nice; unique.
(8)
Kitchen -- one has been.added to t,he main house via a porch., The original Kitchen, once connected by a covered walk to the main house, exists close to the main house.
The other half of the original,
m Kitchen house was Mr. Gross's suite.
Mr. Gross was.a friend of W. B.
Francis, who once saved Francis' life
- and remained there till his
~ f ~
3 s,-
disth in 1911 at iga 75.
(9)_ Bel'1 -- recently stol6n; pole remains.
(10)
Well House -- similar to a Dog Trot. One side used as a commissary for distribution of plan'tation products to the hands and where canned foods were stored, the other side for milking, the milk being placed down in the Well to keep it cool. The Well was in the center and is I
40.
still there.
(11)
Out house'(Women's) -- a "J ie' seater,"
c\\Mor@hys The
.l*
Men's Outhouse was on the other side of the yard and is no longer extant.
.(12)
Smoke House -- once Mrs. Evans saw 75 hogs being done up there.
(13)
Liquor Still -- was " copper, stolen, ended up in Richmond County,
- r. dose l
and y almost ot arrested trying to claim it.
Never got it back.
(14)
Hoy Svalding Tuls and Ju:ea
- n:V genc, cl used fer cyrup.
0 Slave Cabins I our still rImain.00& d
.(15) f One ha who used to live in
'"'m&
1 hit mcdher &f%ni one still lives'-in Bartow.. She was a chambermaid (i.e., house s ave).
I t-1 Used to be lots more along the road leading from the place.
Thereoncewasagr(istm&
OC{5 C(b ill carby; site undetermined. The family Cemet ery and'a separate slave cemetery exist across the road and'down some
'N on her cousin's property.
~
(Y)(1EtJa.nS i
The,d / plantation originally _.ha1 2,300e.acr,e.s accordingl o J r, and perhaps t
b 100 slaves;fda.b Id
-these facts remain to be proved. The front yard was once 50 by
-- ~ - ?
50 squares of Boxwoods, both English and American, and many Evergreens, cpecies unknown.
Sherman is said to have stayed there and thought Mrs. W. B. Francis (the first wife) was similar to his' sister and gave orders not to burn this Pirntation, c. 1864.
(Undocumented myth at present.)
[
- -fd
- f. 0]r<** l uenc L,' her cia.nd.vdl!wr i-x, as g en e.
m
.,[.....
4
.j
./
-Family pa'pers in the originals in hands of Ms. Louise Stockton. Mr,s.
Evans, Jr. has xerox of many estate papers and well-documented history of
=.
Down the ro d leading to the main highway is the old Inman Place (the
' Bell Plac idfa.'los mu f1 rroundings due to Sherman and is now treeless and surrounded by cotton.
Most of the Josey-Evans property is a working Cotton Plantation today with other crops also being grown,-including soybeans.
e l
h' i
b.
s 8e S
F S.
3 g
I.
i.
k a
O M
~~~~
n e
O k
L
~.
(. ;,;.,,. <..
- STATISTICS Rp!ATING TO. COTTON _ PRODUCTION, SIAVERY AND THE ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH
't :
,.: - Francis Plantation:
1860 Washington County, Georgia 500 acres improved acres,-1200 acres unimproved:
total 1700 acres
- Other production: Va ue of Farm $14,000
[~'
Value of Farm Implement
$350 ll bh 4*
Cb b Obbb Livestock:
'7 Horses 4' Mules 4-5' Milch Cows 4 Working Oxen 26 Other Cattle lh f
f 175 Swine j gggg [
g g,j.l :
Value of Livestock:
$2,000 1
es Production:
(,)
Indian Corn 1200 bushels Ginned Cotton 50 bales (0 400 lbs, per bale)
Peas &~ Beans 40 bushels Sweet Potatoes 110 bushels
- Butter
^150 pounds
, l af.-
3 tons ii Value of Slaughtered animals:
$650 Slaves:
(1860) 29 (21 aged 10 and over and capable of being hands on plantation)
-Census:
(1860)
William B. Francis, age 18, Farmer.
alue of real estate $14,000 (see above)
Value of personal est. $22,000
(?)
7,
~
" married within the year"
-wife:. Elizabeth A., age 25
-no children-(Notes. He is said to have. built the house _c.'1856, probably after the death i
of his grandmother, Nancy Francis, who in 1848 lived near this proeprty and had 23 slaves and a 922-acre-farm and one four-wheel carriage.)
~ In the 1856 tax' digest for Washington County, Georgia, Mary A. Francis
'is shown as guardian for' William B. Francis, who was not yet 18.
At that time,
, they had las.d totalling 1675 acres, valued at $10,000, with 22 slaves.
a
7,
- c.?
(
M.,
8
'I
_ kSTATISTICS' y iPige-2 W.
7.fFamily Data-l Original land. owner: Cordal N.' Francis.-d. lE40 and buried on the groperty.
+. HisLson died only three yearsJlater~in 1843, James C.. Francis.- This left ycung
--William B. Francis-the direct male heir to their plantations _at the. age of 1..
William-B. Francis:
- b. 1842.d. 1916.-
' Married first Elizabeth A. Mitchell:
- b. 1832 d. 1884.
. Married second Leslie Inman, mother of.his children:
- b. 1858 d. 1935.
~.
How doesithe' Francis Plantation fit into the Ante-bellum South:.
Farm Size:-
State; 1.. l Georgia.had 53,897. farms over: three acres. h3.
e.-
l 2'. : Of these, 7% were of 500 -acres and over;- thus, W. B. Francis was in upper
~~
- 7% -in. size (3,594).
. County
{
[3. -Washington County had total of 697 farms over three acres.
- 4.'
- Of these,10% (72) were over 500 acre,s..
.g.
~
~
g r
5~-
The average size of a farm in Georgia, improved and unimproved, was 430 acres.-
(U.S. A. 4th) 22 6.-
Georgia was the number.one state'in 1860 of 34 states that had the most
' number of farms over 1,000 acres.(902), followed by Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, and Mississippi. Of the.second category farm, 500 to 1,000 acres, which this plantation fits', Georgia'was the second ranking state with ' (2,692) next to Virginia.
' ' Cotton Production:
- g.
_N
[ (1.; Georgia had 701,840 bales of ginned. cotton' in '1860 -(9 400 lbs.). (U.S. A. 4th) 7
- 2.,1 Washington County, Georgia, ranked 15 in number of bales. produced:
12,'421
~
2'
~
bales or l'.7% of State's cotton crop.. was not the best and ranked around 7
3.-jWashington County's production ratio N 3.
30th in production per square mile (with many variables:
soil, acres).
J n
f --
Production was better and plantations larger in Houston County and further
~$.
south in Doughtery County.
-O
',i E4. ~35% of State's cotton crop came from 15 counties, of wh'ich Washington was one.
js i
e
'5.
In Washington County there w'ere.62 plantations that produced as much or more cotton'than did Francis Plantation in 1859. With variables being
-4_
- i. EI considered, Francis' ratio-was.10 bales per acre; some planters were I O\\
~able to produce. 34 bales per acre or more. Francis ranked.37 in production.
7
[% not figured]
- s ck t
W-
/ Some parts o'f the South had originally been able to produce 1 bale per acre.
Obviously by this time, Georgia's soil had worn out.
Q<
.J
,c-t.
P :~ ~~ ' 'W
~
T. t,,. 'sy'ATISTICS
.f.
P292 3
.I
~
~~
Il
- [j.ic e) '
S1anery g
j 1
7 n
j
.l.
Francis was in the upper 15% of Georgia slaveowners in number of slaves owned.
I-J2.
He was in-the upper 16% of slavcowners in.his County, by number of slaves
,/
owned.
- 3. -The ratio of slaves to slaveowners, Statewide, was 11.25.
- 4. - The ratio of slaves to slaveowners in his County was 11.66.
~
- 5.
Georgia ranked second to Virginia in number of slaveholders, both in 1850
- and 1860, and in number of slaves. Ge,orgia had (41,084) slaveowners in
~
1860.~
>8 hjl[Accordingtothe1860 census,aplanterwasamanwhoowned20 slaves.
h%
- Francis
' was one of many people who owned more than 2'O slaves but still listed himself as a farmer.
4 t
- (
--e I
- 9S
- [P
- e e
9 e
f
.e.
N.
6 g
=
s g -.
4 9
6
-6 6
9 i
i s
e a
9 L.
s s
\\k 8
c-
~
$s 'g Tf I
N N
h s
i l
s 4
s l
kJ g
o O,
h k._ j)
, nth
.Q s
lk -
s
/
)'
/gl s
'l'
+
y
.f:t l9'
- (
+
J' l'
4.
,,,_. _. _ j. p
~ ~ ~..
\\fi,/ {
l-[
/
3x u
n
(/
z i. !! s s /
\\
l 'Lf *yg..
d.
.i 5 l., uf/ ~
9 fy 4v',..y'
%. J y
(w
- l,
-Qi tg
.,/
.4
\\.
j,,
\\
i
, L. A I
pgu 1
p
'l hfSQ ty
.h L
f+l;p~
/ ggg; i y,
., v
}p u
.QJW, a
s l
i x1.g %
ee
)/ l l'
feiv j
'7%64; pew,0(4-pyn4 3
app a ie e,
h
's.
y
,r
,;t m
8 pr.
br;
/
N i
j it
([k I
,4 K.,
N i
P x
\\
kN >- $3>
h,.,.,.) :.
//
A.
\\
+
( d.I gl l ff )g
,.- f g y j l
1
($.
,\\~~=
i f
{
f b
D
,b
- n['~ t u s s o
1 oK v
DQ' i
L FRANCIS PLANTATION
,O,UM} Sc /w ecA7.2
~
i y
fL(.f4*h(.yf i
t
.s
.,,(
W hq,oooWashingtonCounty
~
e
(
i County
\\,
Francis Plantation is located in east Washington
/
G orgia.
g 1-~'fgIs~5' tate Highway 2189, between Davisb'oro 'and Ba 3
m.
., 1 j
p otion.
?
,,j /
[
2
- - w,,,f>
i
.m g
Francis Plantation is a late ante-bellum plantat on
' ~ ~
2 i
1856, although the land has been in the Franc s is 1
Nscription.
The house is of the central hall plan and rema ngreens remain,i
. e cas bui tiges of the garden of boxwoods and everincluding
'l 78.
,,.:7 since Over fourteen original outbuildings exist,d its repla i
Some
,m t.
., p mny trees.
i sary, and a 3bcc hole privy.
,, :riginal kitchen an
...: dings, mule barn, dairy, comm s GvJ when he came of age i
The dwelling was built by Wil.liam B. Franc sHis father and d before him, i
old.
.e.\\. having died before he was or e year 1555.
i.'
\\
,,y 2.,
7 ificant in that it is
. Francis Plantation is sign The land had been in the same family sine h
Significance.
$ a::plete and virtua f the cotton t
l ty and represents the development o being a representation of the last lj eu. bellum era.
This house suffered the arrival of e.ening of the coun
.;ture over three generations, this they passed across this t
steeration of the Cotton Kingdom.
W.. William T. Sherman's forces in 1864 whenf living once featured there, i
- a.1tation, thus ending forever the style 'o ~C 11
,L-N)
.!q g
' ~ '
~
t
'l id The houie and. outbuildings have been unoccup e
)
^
hirty years i
They were occupied by tenants for some tVandalism has been i
Endangeredness.
"nce the last of the family died there in 1935.utense and The place f ar many years.
tures.
~
h passing month affords mld be restored without a tremendous amount o" cured in
~
e vandals more time to destroy.
1/
n>\\
~,
y,
- sr th.
i that is i
Francis Plantation is a typical cotton plantat on
's house is not I
'till a working plantation, even though the masterIn its co b llum South of l
Summary ~.
The area is still essentiallyOne can see plante f
Mcupied.
the scale of an above average planter.
- touched by the encroachments of the 20th Century.
hat it must f telds in all directions giving a setting similar to w
,4sj i
, ave been in ante-bellum days.
\\.
ID3
~
6 i,' corn:n=4 I.
"l l t
(
-U.. w c} uk. m e hr
.w rui u ~~,i 2 i,2
.h
~-4
/97/,
lw.o at k, D..
s
- s. s.
~~ ~vm.
- s. m y g.7 7-
VTundaI W ncts f. W [la figst-/W Z)
~
Coushis - (A)aslw k'~S b
5 1' g a.
n o./ 2 3 6
/\\ -
b M[,
8 asja % Aulou r B s
\\
q PoLU
- / [foiA f $'*)
l 3(pas 33 5fafcas 8 9' 6 /0, 9/
6/%M2 ON c
- Jbd
?
avedO' "' $4
. Grcant sock (Y.S
- 9. SS2 2 05 3 acrer I
A a5 Tanc[h TichNond G6 zy 7
u - ;~
htn. Ea nci ecu)G SCO auct 0 y_,,
'C C Lua.c L-9aAl>L he.c' Swnc15
g 11 5
18;l 19 ff 18
$8 lf It 4
20
~
Ibt2Y U
l
.. ly C e.m t.%* 'I hE~EEEL~
N % ':'. m ~' " - = = m m m a um
[gg) g 11
~
.o.
c h s.:u:,7
,g ii u.
I N
'll W3[
,', S #.^ f * ##
.,.cJens
-l[
g
- = - e--e.
ti is g
,,.:. m a,.
n.
llip. s
=;s.
//
vs.s et i tch e n sc.w e,,
ll
- 2,
.7 '! 'I Qg,w sti ' av!& c omatI S$1 M
l gl
- gg 1111c,'vw ',,
1 Il
"'~~~ ~
Laa *. a s. Eriff py, is N
3.,s 9, c fiossc
,lt 13, j,.g,!
l 12.
l L
ll
((
- g t,3 Kitchs a
,c,:Lx<.o.nease il..
7 g;
i, E Plg ti6 H*nSt gg
,gg LO
. f.ie n s Pv;vy gg
..t,,,,_
s, tyeaf H + = 5 c.
. c iv' t*,a II -
8 M
..theksu:lk H a35 il
- sia s e a b;.is
,g II
. 3 g... x : + <.k e. n
, II e,, n c rib ll
! 2. 0
- Wt". t*a A
'I g
11 L____
(..c...i ei:::
_ w 3.a sh lier il 9
i e, s c + tee l s h.4 11 ll
[' g 1-m%le B., n - e t.be ah 3 il q
gi
- . c.w si u gg gl S - c 6,1 = g e.
,g gi H a c e-
+W un ss ' na:c te.
Il ll i.:ui,
- n. i.ge r u:s+.
11
'l 4
Li -
51 si i
.it si Ab ll- ~ -- - - - - - - -. =.---
_ - -- :- :- = --S 3
nd %
gl:sms.., %,,p Gu.h S
e e
0 O
g-R Cu o k. 'n n. o n v
r.
6-
/
/
s
$g, i'
~
a s
a
..M o
,f.
(
/
/ /
{!
f(
//
w
/
1 L__ mij L@
1, h
- YM e.
l
/
/.
/
m 1
.1
-('
/
~y f
.i '
I.{
.b%Q
/
)
l
-/
. l,/3
~
r i
j J2
/h?
- b f
N
'y. '
(94 6]-
>,I >
w so i1 g/w[
NU f
J w
+
eli
=
I p
^
-s p W> t*
APPENDIX B
r
=..
APPENDIX B The following series of photographs were taken at Francis Plantation in January,1985.. Each photograph is numbered on the back.. An enlarged photograph index figure is provided. The numbers inside the circles on the index correspond to the numbers on the back of each photograph.
The arrow
. indicates the direction in which the photograph was taken.
Photograph Number Explanation 1
Taken fron south field, facing north toward south facade of main plantation house 2
Taken from back of main plantation house, looking southeast toward the location of the proposed tower.
Note: helicopter in upper left corner is at a height corresponding the top of the proposed tower.
3 Taken from east field, looking west toward old domestic structure (left) and another out building.
4 Taken within the historic property, looking southeast toward a old domestic structure and location of proposed tower.
5 Taken above east field, showing eastern edge of the historical property and old domestic structure (left) and existing transmission facilities (background).
6 General aerial taken above east field showing i
central domestic complex, Francis Plantation.
7 Taken within the historic property, looking southeast toward a old domestic structure and location of proposed tower.
Note: helicopter in upper left corner is at a height corresponding the top of the proposed tower.
L 8
Taken from back porch of main plantation house, l
looking southeast toward the location of the proposed tower. Note: helicopter in upper center is at a height corresponding the top of the proposed tower.
9 Looking northeast, showing Francis Plantation and 3 existing transmission lines.
10 Oblique veiw of a portion of east facade of main plantation house.
[
~.....
L 2
Photograph Number Explanation 11 Taken within historical property, looking northeast toward originally proposed area for old domestic structure relocation (just beyond large trees).
12 Taken from back of main plantation house, looking south at south field, existing 115 kV transmission Ifne structure (background) and 230 kV conductors (foreground).
13 General aerial view looking west toward Francis Plantation (center) with existing transmission lines to show typical ground cover. Note: that outbuildings pictured are not within the proposed right-of-way.
14 Taken within historical property, facing southeast at two out buildings.
15 Taken from south field facing north toward main plantation house and out buf1 dings.
16 Taken from east field, looking southwest toward Francis Plantation with the old domestic structure (foreground, left) and existing transmission facilities (background).
17 Looking northwest, oblique veiw of east facade of main plantation house and attached out building.
18 Facing southwest within the historical property showing two out buildings (foreground, not within proposed right-of-way) and an existing ).
230'kV transmission line structure (background 19 Taken from south field, facing north toward south facade of main plantation house.
dwpfp
0 O
e l
DOCU ENT PAGn L
PU; LED I
A O. eswaxm NO. OF PAGES REASON-O PAGE ILLEGIBLE:
O HARD COPY FILED AT:
PDR CF OTHER O BETTER COPY REQUESTED ON
/
/
. O PAGE TOO LARGE TO FILM.
O HARD COPV FILED AT:
PDR, h OTHER O FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO d.no.o e. m # rn g\\ oss g phow graF s.
h
l 1
l DOCU\\/1ENT 1.
PU _ LED Al\\ O.
-s- -
h NO. OF PAGES l
REASON-O PAGE ILLEGIBLE:
l O HARD COPY FILED AT:
PDR CF OTHER O BETTER COPY REQUESTED ON
/
/
. O PAGE 100 LARGE TO FILM.
h HARD COPV FILED AT:
PDR, h OTHER 506Seo M -o/
FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO.
Th nu -Oca
(
(
@ - DY, Y25 ATTACHitENT 1
[Cpartittciti of [Hiltr2t[ hsattrrts
[pp PAAMS AND HISTORIC SITES OfVISloN HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION gw 3 370 WASHNOToN STRitT, S W.
.****f ATLANTA. OEOAutA 30334
- /*'
(404) eS4-2840 J. Leonard Ledbetter h
COMMIS$1CNER December 10, 1984 onEcTon Ms. Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 RE: Draft Environmental Statement - Vogtle Plant Burke County, Georgia HP 84-11-19-003
Dear Ms. Adensam:
The Historic Preservation Section has reviewed the above referenced project.
A review process has been set up for compliance which is appro-priate and is working well.
We have no concern for this project so long as this system of survey, review and implementation of the Cultural Resource Management Plan is followed.
If we may answer questions concerning these comments, please contact Joe McCannon, Environmental Review Coordinator, at (404) 656-2840.
79,:'e Sincerely.
H Elisabe A. Lyon, Chief Historic Preservation Section EAL:jmk (pa.
c IgT2170131-841210 s
gDRADOCK05000 R
cf AN touAt SWPLOvWGNf/AFmmwafNS ACfiON EW8Lovte
ATTACHMENT 4 C}J2tritt1Ctti Of [2tiltr2tl PARKS AND HISTORIC SITES DIVISION HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION 270 WASHINGTON STHEET, s.W.
O
{
,a ATLANTA, GEORCIA 30334 4
4.,
dW (404) e56-2840.
J. Leonard Ledbetter M
g Sle10LX2tscetK R
COMMisslONER November 13, 1984
"""'"'**l6Ti3Nr c
-+ -
oiRecioR Hr. James J. Shive.
Georgia Power Company Land Department Post Office Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 RE: Plant Vogtle - CRM/Vogtle-Scherer Transmission Line Wadley-Wall. ace Dam Section Burke County, Georgia HP 84-09-14-016
Dear Mr. Shive:
The Historic Preservation Section has. reviewed the abovo referenced f,Y,,.'.G ': project!.l* - We iconcur with. your. opinion ' thai the. 25. properties i disctissed; s Y
~
fh
'sie ~ eligible '. for listing ' in-the-National /Regis ter < of, Historic ~. Places..*..*_.. !*.id Further, we concur with your treatment measures regarding archaeology for these properties as well as the one property already listed in the National Register.
However, we do have a concern for the visual impact to the Francis Plantation by this enlargement of the transmission lino.
In order to provide an opinion on this undertaking the following infor-mation and materials are requested:
1.
Photos of the transmission line from various locations on the Francis Plantation property keyed to a map.
2.
Description of the type and size of the poles to be used for the new transmission line.
3.
Photos of any structures to be removed from the right-of-way.
If we may answer questions about this letter, please contact Joe McCannon, Environmental Review Coordinator, at (404) 656-2840.
Sincerely, Elizab h A. Lyon, Chief Historic Preservation Section State Historic Preservation Officer
\\
EALajmk L
w rovat tue,m co.rn%ciremen
.'7.
[*
- f. /N' Y
(
ATTACHHENT S flepartment of )Tatural ]R,g, u ces I
PARKS AND HISTORIC SITES DMStoN HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION 270 WASHINGTON STREET. 8.W.
ATLANTA, GEOROIA 30334
.J
'? tf, (404) 656-2640 J. Leonard Ledbetter 1AND_ DEPT' EMMM COMMISSIONER December 31, 1984 oiRECTOR Mr. James J. Shive Georgia Power Company Post Office Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 RE:
CRM/Vogtle-Scherer Transmission Line, Wadley-Wallace Dam Section Washington County, Georgia HP 84-09-14-016
Dear Mr. Shive:
The Historic Preservation Section has reviewed the documentation you provided in your letter of November 30, 1984.
Based on the aerial photos and the elevation drawings of the proposed new transmission line and tower proposed -
on the north side of the existing Georgia Power right of way, it is our opinion this undertaking will have an adverse effect to the Francis Plantation for the following reasons:
1.
The removal and relocation of a structure /
outbuilding on the National Register property.
2.
The addition of a
larger transmission line and towers that will probably be highly visible from the main house.
In your most recent documentation, alternatives to minimize impacts were not discussed.
The following points should be considered:
1.
Rationale for the location of the new line and towers on the north side of the right-of-way.
Why couldn't this line be located on the south side away from the National Register property.?
AN EOUAL EMPLOYMENT /AFFIRMAffvE ACTION EMPLOYER L
A V
Mr. James J. Shive December 31, 1984 Page Two 2.
Could the towers be spaced further apart so that they couldn't be seen from the main house?
3 If the structure (feature I
in Resource Inventory) is to be relocated, where would it be placed?
We will also need additional photos (taken at eye level) of views of the existing power line as seen from the main house and yard.
Upon review of this material, the Ilistoric Preservation Section will be able to offer further comments on this project in order to assist Georgia Power in meeting their responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact Joe
- McCannon, Environmental Review Coordinator, at (11011) 656-2840.
Sincerely,
\\
W Elizab t A. Lyon, Chief Historic Preservation Section EAL:jmk e
V
-t a... o.orgia Pm.e, company
.4-seo reachiree street ATTACHMENT 6 Asiania. Georgia 303o3 Telephone 404 526-6526 Marling Address:
Post office Box 4545 Atlanta. Georgia 30302
~M-GeorgiaPower itesouhem edactnc systern ftonsed C.Mester Vice President-Land February 18, 1985 L
FILE NO. 10-38
SUBJECT:
PLANT VOGTLE PROJECT i
RE:- 'CRM/VOGTLE-SCHERER n
TRANSMISSION LINE FRANCIS PLANTATION
/
Dr. Elizabeth A. Lyon State Historic, Preservation Officer Georgia Department of Natural' Resources L
270 Washington Street, S. W., Room 704 Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Dear Dr. Lyon:
E We have carefully reviewed the comments and inquiries contained in your December 31, 1984, letter regarding the
' captioned project and National Register property.
Also, as you
.know, we met with members of your staff at Francis Plantation l1 %
.on January-18,.1985, in~ order to review your agency's concerns F ' 'f
.and information~we had compiled to that date in review of these t,i, matters..By this letter, we seek to address your commentn and p
inquiries, provide additional information generated out of our p
. review of your concerns',. and ' describe alternative plans which 9,
we have considered.
~
The materials which accompany this letter include photo--
graphs, taken on-site at Francis Plantation, of the proponed transmission line' corridor, the domestic structure now located within that corridor, other structures ' located on the property- -
but outside of the corridor, and a key map showing the locations from which, and the directions towards which, these photographs
't were taken.
Also included is a plan sheet to which we'will refer your. attention in this letter.
In your December 31, 1984, letter you stated that your agency's opinion was that the proposed project would present adverse effects to the Francis Plantation in that:
b e
l
,d-Dr. Elizabeth A. Lyon February 18, 1985 Page Two
- 1. '"The removal and relocation of.a structure /out-building on the National Register property." (and) 2.
"The' addition of a' larger transmission line and towers that will probably be highly visible from the main house."
Also, you recommended that th'e following points should be considered in addressing alternatives'to minimize these effects:
1.
" Rationale for the location of the new line and towers on the north side of the right-of-way.
Why couldn't this line be' located on the south side
^
away from the National' Register prope'ty?"
r 2.
"Could the towers be spaced further apart so that
_they couldn't be seen~from the main house?"
3.
"If the structure (feature I in Resource Inventory) is to be relocated, where would _it be placed?"
From these comments and inquiries, it is our understanding that the agency's concerns center upon the potential adverse effects from visual intrusion.and the relocation of the domestic.
structure now located in the proposed transmission line corridor.
, Hereinafter, we will identify the alternatives we have considered =,
~
and of those alternatives,.the one we believe is the most feasibic and reasonable.
towers) presently proposed corridor with short (using ALTERNATIVE I:
Actions:
1.
GPC would cause to be conducted, cultural resource studies as detailed in the Tentative' Resource Treatment Plan (1984: 16).
~
2.
The landowner would relocate domestic structure out of the line corridor to new site (as discussed with HPS staff 1/18/85 and shown on enclosed plan sheet).
~
- he 1984 Tentative Treatment Plan (p.16) reported that GPC T
would relocate this structure.
As a part of the negotiations with the landowner for the necessary casement, it was agreed that the landowner would relocate the structure, and GPC included the costs for such relocation as a part of the compen-sation to the owner for the easement.
9
'n Dr. Elizabeth A. Lyon
< February.18,;1985 Page Three -
'3.
GPC would clear line corridor as necessary (including minimal side-trimming).
4.
GPC would construct a line tower (height 127') on -
the site at which the domestic structure is currently '
located.
Comments:
- 1. ' Structure Relocation and' Corridor Clearing:
The.
structure would be relocated to a new site which GPC-believes is compatible with the historical setting
'of its.present location.- It would be necessary to' clear the entire corridor (including side-trimming along the. north side)," and site the tower at the location of the domestic structure.
2.
Visual Intrusion:. Lowering the tower height from 152' to 127' will significantly minimize visual intrusion, while siting the tower at the. location of the domestic structure (after it is relocated) should also serve to minimize. visual' intrusion'in that it will remain at least parti ~ ally screened by trees to the north, along the corridor boundary.
ALTERNATIVE II:
(using currently proposed line corridor with tall tower)
Actions:
l.
GPC would cause to be conducted, cultural resource studies as detailed in the Tentative Resource Treatment Plan (1984: pp. 15-18).
~
2.
The landowner wou1d relocate the domestic structure out of the 'line corridor to 'the new site (as discussed with HPS staff 1/18/85, and shown on
~ enclosed plan sheet).
3.
GPC would clear line corridor and construct line tower (height 152' above ground surface) at sito just beyond treeline along east side of plantation complex.
Comments :
1.
Structure Relocation and Corridor Clearing:
The trees 4
b _d
Dr. Elizabeth A. Lyon February-18, 1985 Page Four and the domestic structure now located in the corridor could present potential risks to the 500 KV conductor.
2.
Tower Siting:
The objective of this alternative is to site as few towers as possible in the direct vicinity of the plantation complex, so as to limit potential visual intrusion, In order to further Limit the. potential intrusion of the proposed tower, it has been sited east of the present treeline, which would act to partially screen'it from view.
The height (152') of the tower is required in order to maximize conductor span distances.
ALTERNATIVE III:
(alternative routes)
Locate alternative routes either south of the three existing transmission lines, or north of the plantation complex (see plan sheet).
Actions:
1.
Route South of Existing Lines:
This route would require crossing the 500 KV line over the existing three lines, at two points.
This would require changing two of the presently proposed towers from Tangent to Angle type towers, and the addition of two more Angle towers within the new route.' GPC estimates that the costs of right-of-way acquisition,
. materials, and construction to implement these changes would be approximately $919,657.00, as opposed-to a cost of approximately $253,473.00 for the present route.
Further, such an alternative would pose poten-tially serious effects to the three existing lines.
In order to cross the 500 KV line over the exinting
. lines, it would be necessary to de-energize all three lines during phases of 500 KV line construction.
- Also, future maintenance activities on the 500 KV line could <
require de.energization of the three existing. linen.
Lastly, in the event of damage to the 500 KV line, the three existing lines could be seriously and advernaly affected.
GPC believes that this would present nigni-ficant risks to the reliability of the vital servicon performed by the existing facilities.
2.
Route North of Plantation Complex:
The alternative route considered is shown on the enclosed plan sheet.
r
.a Dr. Elizabeth A. Lyon February 18*, 1985 Page Five
~
GPC estimates thht the costs of right-of-way acquisi-tion, materials, and construction for this route would be $774,023.00, as opposed to $253,473.00 for the present route.
Comments:
1.
Structure Relocati'on:
Would not b'e required.
2.
Visual Intrusion:. The alternative route south of the existing lines.would potentially increase visual intrusion, by the addition of more line towers.
The route north of the plantation complex would lessen, but not eliminate, vis6a1 intrusion.
ALTERNATIVE IV:
(using currently proposed corridor without relocation of structure)
Actions:
1.
GPC would inform landowner that relocation 'of the domestic structure is no. longer required, and request that he not relocate it.
2.
GPC would cut all trees in excess of' 30' in height now in the corridor (including side-trimming along north side of the corridor).
3.
GPC would construct line tower (height 152') at site located east of the present treeline along the east side of the plantation complex.
Comments:
1.
Structure Relocation and Corridor Clearinn:
Structurn relocation would not be required.
Selective cutting and side-trimming of trees would be conducted, in order to lessen risks to the conductor.
Potential.
risks from structure would be accepted by.GPC.
2.
Visual Intrusion:
The tower would be partially visible from the plantation complex, but partially screened by existing trees, 0
e 9.
r:
lD -: '. ' '.
~;
2.
Dr. Elizabeth.A. Lyon February 18, 1985 Page Six ALTERNATIVE V:
(using currently proposed corridor with two short towers)
Actions:
1.
Same as Alternative IV, Action 1.
2.
GPC would hand-cut' and remove only major trees' from the corridor, with minimal side-trimming along north side of corridor.
3.
GPC would construct one line tower (height 127') at the presently proposed, site (east of treeline), and mately 80' - 100' east of Francis Bridge Road (proxi-one additional tower (height 127') at a site ap see plan sheet)
Comments:
1.
Struct'ure Relocation and Corridor' Clearing:
Structure relocation would not be required.
Only majo'r trees would be removed, and minimal side-trimming conducted in order to limit risks to. conductor.
2.
Visual Intrusion:
Lowaring one tower height from 152' to 127' would' aignificantly minimize visuni intrusion.
The addition of one tower along Francis Bridge Road would also present minimal visual. intrusion, in 4
that trees currently surround the plantation,.and inasmuch as this tower would be somewhat downslope from the complex.
The second tower would be required if the 127' tower replaces the 152' tower on the site' east of the plantation complex, in order to provido adequate ground clearance for the conductor..llowever, the second tower would be in conflict with the propor-ty o+mer's existing irrigation system and agriculturn,1*
uses..
GPC has carefully considered the above-detailed alterna-
,, tives aimed at minimizing the potential adverse effects of thin project as outlined in your December 13, 1984, letter.
We L..
believe that Alternative IV is the most feasible and reasonablo of these alternatives, in that this attornative represents a minimization of impacts by avoiding moving the domestic structure and minimizing visual intrusion to the main plantation complex.
We
- hope that this information :and the supplementary
(.
L.
\\
s Dr. Elizabeth A. Lyon February 18, 1985 Page Seven
, materials which' accompany this letter will adequately address the concerns and inquiries made in your December 31, 1984, letter.
Further, we solicit your review and comment upon the alternatives detailed herein.
Our present plan is to amend the Tentative
-Resource Treatment Plan to reflect the implementation of Alterna-tive IV, after receipt of your comments regarding these matters.
That amendment, and the documentation necessary, will then be forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review and disposition. - We are available at your convenience for any discussions necessary.
We will need your comments as soon as possible.
We appreciate this opportunity to work.with you in the management of Georgia's nonrenewable cultural resources.
SinceIely,
&u J. d *h James J.. Shive Archaeologist JJSamcs
~
xc:
Mr. R. C. Xester Mr. J.
Lawrence Mr. W. L. Bowers Mr. W. C. McCart Mr. R. E. Gentry Mr. A. L. Lightsey "2
Mr. J. B. Neighbors Mr. J. E. McGuffey i
Mr. A. L. Smith, Jr.
Mr. H. J. Eubanks
,g Mr. H. H. Ezzard Mr. H. D. Brooks Mr. W. A. Jordan Mr. R. O. Holton 6
l 6
9 e
ATTACHMENT 7-pepartment of pintural %esour.ces PARKS AND HISTOR6C SITES DIVI IP' t,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECT C 1
qJ) m wasm oro stanut.sw.
m
- ==
NAR 211385 "
m J. Leonard Ledbetter sermex
. LAND Di!PT; o~ER March 15,'1985 M M MERK fe Mr. James J. Shive, Archaeologist
> Georgia Power Company
..,0 Post Office Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 RE:
Plant Vogtle Transmission Line'- Vogtle-Scherer Determination of Effect, Francis Plantation Washington County, Georgia HP 84-09-14-016 (Follow Up)
Dear Mr. Shive:
The Historic Preservation Section has roviewod the excellent documentation provided for this transmission lino project. - This material clearly describes each alternativo and analyzes effect to the Francis Plantation, a proporty listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
Our comments are based on this matorial in addition to obsor-vations from a site visit to the plantation on January 18, 1985.
We concur with your opinion that Alternative IV is c.
!'the most feasible and reasonable of the alternatives dis-f; cussed.
We believe all of these altornatives would havo y, e 1. an adverse effect on this National Register property.
6 :.
- However, we think that the altornative chosen appears to f". [- minimize the adverso offects as much. as possible.
Thereforo,
.y the documentation provided for our review should be combinod.
with other informational
- items, as outlined in CFR Part 800.13(b),
into a Preliminary Caso Report.
This matorial
{
and a Memorandum of Agreement, outlining stipulations to mitigate this adverso offect, should be developed and for~
warded to the Advisory Council on Historic Prosorvation l
for their review.
If we may be of further assistanco, plonso contact Joe
- McCannon, Environmental Review Coordinator, at (404) 656-2840.
Sincoroly,
' Y)
W Eliza th A. Lyon, Chief Historic Prosorvation Section EAL:,jmk
". - - - -** * **' 'N" * '"" ""*?'? " " *" "
_______ - __-_____-___ -_~
_